"Napoleonic Tactics"

[Kevin O'Beirne]

Civil War reenactors often toss around the term "Napoleonic tactics" to discuss the tactics used in the American Civil War. I must confess, I don't really know why "Napoleonic tactics" is a term so applied to the Civil War, and I also don't understand how American tactics of the 1860s could be described as Napoleonic.

First, fighting in battle lines of multiple ranks existed long, long before Napoleon.

Second, an even a casual reading of a simple Osprey book on one of Napoleon's battles--such as Waterloo (written about almost as much as Gettysburg)--will illustrate that the typical fighting tactics of Napoleon's armies were not in the typical two- or three-rank battle line; at least not the way they assaulted enemy positions.

British tactics of the day included fighting and advancing in long, linear formations. French tactics of 1815 or so usually involved advancing in short-fronted, densly packed formations--in certain ways, not totally unlike that used by Emory Upton in his famous assault on Doles's salient at Spotsylvania.

This was one reason why Napoleon lost so many men at Waterloo against the British positions: the English lines typically greatly overlapped the front of the attackers. Wellington's allied army--which was maybe only one-third British--was difficult to control because of the variety of tactics used by the various nationalities in it (British, Belgian, Hanoverians, and many others), some of who used tactics similar to Napoleon's.

So, why is the term "Napoleonic tactics" often applied when describing the American Civil War?

I freely admit I'm hardly an expert on this, and at best I'm "barely informed", so that's why this thread is in the Camp of Instruction folder: I'm hoping to learn something from these questions. :)

[TheFenian]

Re: "Napoleonic Tactics"

Kevin,

If I can remember what I read several years ago about the evolution of Napoleon's Tactics, the portions of the tactics that was really attributed to Napoleon was the use of numbers of skirmishers out in front of the attack columns and the more aggressive use of artillery as an offensive weapon. Sorry but I can't give you any specific citations at the moment as I am stuck at work in the hinterlands of Texas. Hope this at least helps.

Bill Eiff

[jarednichols]

Re: "Napoleonic Tactics"

This was one reason why Napoleon lost so many men at Waterloo against the British positions: the English lines typically greatly overlapped the front of the attackers. Wellington's allied army--which was maybe only one-third British--was difficult to control because of the variety of tactics used by the various nationalities in it (British, Belgian, Hanoverians, and many others), some of who used tactics similar to Napoleon's.
. :)

In light of reading the articles on "massing men" to mass your fires (in the concurrent discussion on the other thread) its interesting to note that the British fought utilizing two firing ranks in linear formation to defeat the "columns" of Napoleon. With the discussion on the "effectiveness" of rounds it is very suprising to note that Wellington was able to stop the sheer momentum of these column assaults since the smoothbores were highly inaccurate (the tumbling of rounds discussion). The difference has to be artillery or the ability to mass artillery on all three sides of the attacking column and not just the "tip of the spear" as it were and to cut at it from three sides.


....now it Lee has just used the Column on the 3rd day.....i wonder.......

[Rear Guard]

Re: "Napoleonic Tactics"

I thought I had read somewhere that Napoleon had authored a book on tactics during his day and that was a source for other books on tactics since. Anyone ever heard of such a manual?

[BrianHicks]

Re: "Napoleonic Tactics"

I thought I had read somewhere that Napoleon had authored a book on tactics during his day and that was a source for other books on tactics since. Anyone ever heard of such a manual?

While Napoleon wrote tracts on his tactics, it was a fellow named Jominy who really codified in writing what Napoleon had developed. Unfortunately, Jominy didn't live long enough to promote his writings, so it was left to another of his contemporaries, Clausewitz, who did live long enough to engage in lots of self promotion. By the way....Clausewitz borrowed heavily from Jominy's writings.

Concerning why US Civil War tactics are considered to be Napoleonic:

The manuals in use in the U.S. at the time, had been taken almost word for word from French Manuals, which were written under the direction of Napoleon III (Not the Napoleon of great battle of Waterloo).

Hardee's Manual and the French Manual are eerily similar.

So.... with Hardee's Manual being taught at West Point, and the fact that it was basically an English version of the French Manual coming out of Napoleon IIIs reign.... we have Napoleonic Tactics.

Well..... atleast that's the way I understand things..... and there are more learned men than I on here who might correct me, or provide other reasons as to why we called it 'Napoleonic Tactics'. ;)

[Ringgold]

Re: "Napoleonic Tactics"

Civil War reenactors often toss around the term "Napoleonic tactics" to discuss the tactics used in the American Civil War. I must confess, I don't really know why "Napoleonic tactics" is a term so applied to the Civil War, and I also don't understand how American tactics of the 1860s could be described as Napoleonic.

Well Kevin, the answer is quite simple; you are thinking of the wrong Napoleon! While the little fellow you are familiar with is most often the one modern folk bring to mind when that name is mentioned, the true Napoleon of "Napoleonic Tactics" is Napoleon III. Yes, the same fellow after whom the Light 12Pdr. Bronze Field-Gun Howitzer was nicknamed. Let me quote from a book that would answer your questions (and just about everything else) about why Napoleon's name is ever mentioned in regard to our American Civil War. The book is "The Bloody Crucible of Courage," by Brent Nosworthy, which is my "go-to book" when trying to understand the military thinking of the belligerents of the War of the Rebellion.

Here goes from page #646:

" . . . Unfortunately, in the late 1850s Napoleon III, with his return to traditional doctrine that emphasized the importance of bayonet charges at the expense of long-range aimed fire, confused matters and deflected many away from the more progressive trends. This doctrine, incidentally, was referred to as "Napoleonic Tactics," an unfortunate choice of terms which, though perfectly clear to those writing in 1859 - 60, succeeded in confusing generations of Civil War historians, who mistakenly cast aspersions on doctrine and practices of Louis Bonaparte's famous uncle instead."

So you see, even Mr. Nosworthy has to point-out the common confusion that the term generates amongst modern researchers. In order to fully understand the quote, you have to read the entire book. This is not an easy read due to the author's writing style and penchant for utilizing "$20 words" where more common parlance would suffice. However, once you fight your way from the dedication to the index, you will find that the Civil War battlefield is a far less confusing animal than it was before! It's well-worth the hours you will spend reading it!

Anyhow, there it is. It is not Nappy of Waterloo fame that the term refers to, but rather Napoleon III who was, at the time, busily changing the way the French fought after the astounding successes of their Zouaves and Chasseurs during the Crimean War and especially after the Italian War. Why do you think those two types of soldiers were so popular during the Rebellion? ;)

I hope this helps calm you puzzler.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: "Napoleonic Tactics"

Hallo!

Agreed...
Linear warfare may predate the Greek hoplites and phalanxes, but we were so enamoured of things "Napoleon III" until a five month campaign in 1870/71 by the new Germany changed that.
And we even went to Pickelhauben! ;) :) :)

Curt

[Rear Guard]

Re: "Napoleonic Tactics"

What a revelation! I always thought it was Napoleon of Waterloo fame and have told school kids the same......oops. I guess it just goes to show that the more you know, the more you find you don't know!

[neocelt]

Re: "Napoleonic Tactics"

Comrades,

Don't be so quick to dismiss the influence of Napoleon I on the antebellum U.S. Army. Our military establishment was suffering from a bad case of Francophilia from its very inception, and this trend continued through our Civil War. The USMA curriculum was designed around proposals authored by French officers, and that institution was re-vitalized after the War of 1812 as the result of a junket to France made by Sylvanus Thayer and William McRee. Both men attended the Ecole Polytechnique and the Military School of Engineering and Artillerists at Metz, and the US Military Academy was quite intentionally restructured in their image. Denis Hart Mahan had also been sent to France in the late 1820s, and his lectures on the "Art of War" were decidedly Jominian. That esteemed professor also chaired the Napoleon Club, a select group of cadets who dissected the campaigns of the Great Captain (no, not Napoleon III) in painstaking detail. Many future generals participated in this ad hoc "honors fraternity." By the 1850s, American martial Francophilia was a virtual article of faith. So while Napoleon III certainly made his own unique contribution to the legacy of "Napoleonic Tactics," the maxims of the art of war as so successfully practiced by Napoleon I were well entrenched in the American military psyche long before N III arrived on the scene.

Cheers,

[Michael Comer]

Re: "Napoleonic Tactics"

The French did do some linear tactics. The Ordre Mixte combined a battle line in the center flanked by columns on either end. It was rather effective since it provided greater firepower with the shock value of the column. Although the French line was three deep as opposed to the two the British used, it still gave them more firepower in the center of their formation.

One thing that strikes me as being very different between these tactics and those of the Civil War lies in the area of cavalry. Napoleonic armies used cavalry in mass with infantry support and they could be incredibly deadly to infantry units when moving. I'm sure it was easier to use cavalry in this role due to the smootbore flintlocks in use by the foot soldiers. Columns made it easier to move around the battlefield and also to form square when threatened by a large group of horsemen bearing down with the intent to cut you up. While there are similarities between the two wars in the way cavalry did recon and scouting, there are some huge differences in battlefield use of mounted troops. Relating to another thread on the subject of arms, this may very well be an area where the rifled musket did make a big difference on tactical changes.

[john duffer]

Re: "Napoleonic Tactics"

Mr. Comer

Like you I initially thought weapons were the reason we don't see the massed cavalry charges of European wars but then realized in the Franco Prussian War several deadlocked battles were decided by massed cavalry charges. Young Pat Craddock has done a great deal of study in this area and says it takes several generations of training and tradition for cav to ride down infantry in line facing them.

All

A few misc items - Napoleon I didn't create "tactics" at the manual level, the 1831 manual was a rewrite and modernization of the 1796. He created much in the field of "grand tactics" such as the corps system of a body of men large enough to act independently and defend itself until help arrived - the army moving dispersed and concentrating suddenly at an unexpected point. The ordre mixte Mr Comer mentions wasn't invented by Napoleon but he was a proponent of it's use. The decision between mass and firepower was an ongoing argument at this time and the ordre mixte a compromise. A major reason for the use by the French of attack columns was the since of security it gave to the conscript. French post Revolutionary armies were truly citizen armies as opposed to say the smaller but professional English army which could maintain discipline in a two rank liner formation and use their famous platoon firing to smash attack columns. Sorry for the long paragraph Kevin. :)

[H. L. Hanger]

Re: "Napoleonic Tactics"

Jomini was of Swiss origin and lived for 90 years from 1779 to 1869. I hope my life is that short!

J

[neocelt]

Re: "Napoleonic Tactics"

Mr. Comer

The ordre mixte Mr Comer mentions wasn't invented by Napoleon but he was a proponent of it's use. The decision between mass and firepower was an ongoing argument at this time and the ordre mixte a compromise.

John,

I'm very interested in reading more about the debate between the employment of mass vs. firepower (column vs. line)--when you say that this "was an ongoing argument at this time," what period are you referring to? I'm also interested in the development and implementation of the ordre mixte as a tactical compromise to this debate. Can you please cite some primary sources that would yield a better understanding of this debate as well as the development of the ordre mixte (preferably in English)?

Cheers,

[john duffer]

Re: "Napoleonic Tactics"

Nick

I'm talking about the late 1790s time period. I'm at work, bookless, and speaking from memory but I believe David Chandler's "The Campaigns Of Napoleon" has a good discussion on the ordre mixte. James Marshall-Cornwell's "Napoleon As Military Commander" has a section on how much Napoleon created new tactics versus what he inherited in place. I'll have to scan the bookcase for others.

[Michael Comer]

Re: "Napoleonic Tactics"

A fellow by the name of Count Guibert wrote Essai general de Tactique, (General Essay on Tactics) published in 1772. In this he introduced the Order Mixte. The idea was to be able to have the firepower of the three deep line combined with the column which would be useful for attacks against forest areas and fortified posts.

The argument about this type of formation within the French military went back to beginning of the 18th century. Ordre Mixte was a synthesis of l'ordre profond which was columnar and l'order mince which was linear.

So Napoleon was certainly building on established doctrine.

A couple of volumes you might be interested in is The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon by Gunther Rothenberg and With Musket, Cannon and Sword, Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies, by Brent Nosworthy. Swords Around a Throne is also very good but the author doesn't immediately come to mind.