
French army around 1796-1798.... Any hints on the general stats?
Superior/consripts unreformed infantry sound about right for the french line units?
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Blathergut, Slitherine Core
I look forward to seeing that argument. Everything I've read - Noseworthy et al - has held that the French reforms were introduced before the Revolution and the Regulars would be better at carrying them out than the national guards. I await with impatience.MikeHorah wrote:By the mid 1790s we rate all the French as reformed, but for the period up to 1795 we have modelled two blends or amalgams, of armies one based on the levee en masse with loads of conscripts some poor (but many superior) which we have labelled the "Armee du Nord" and is reformed and another the "Armies of the Centre and the Moselle which still contains some old regular line units (unreformed) and newer demi brigades (reformed). There is a suggestion that the army of the Moselle continued to use the old regulations for a time. Each list can import a division from the other.
Nafziger's Imperial Bayonets ( which does cover the earlier period) and Lynn's seminal "The bayonets of the Republic" have been my favourite texts. My main argument is that reform proceeded at an uneven pace and not uniformly and that the 1791 reglements had not been sucessful and the levee en masse forced the pace of change albeit unevenly.Sarmaticus wrote:I look forward to seeing that argument. Everything I've read - Noseworthy et al - has held that the French reforms were introduced before the Revolution and the Regulars would be better at carrying them out than the national guards. I await with impatience.MikeHorah wrote:By the mid 1790s we rate all the French as reformed, but for the period up to 1795 we have modelled two blends or amalgams, of armies one based on the levee en masse with loads of conscripts some poor (but many superior) which we have labelled the "Armee du Nord" and is reformed and another the "Armies of the Centre and the Moselle which still contains some old regular line units (unreformed) and newer demi brigades (reformed). There is a suggestion that the army of the Moselle continued to use the old regulations for a time. Each list can import a division from the other.
Thanks. I can see that I've, sub-consciously, been carrying over the Massed and Impulse categories from Volley & Bayonet and Age of Eagles, respectivelyMikeHorah wrote: Nafziger's Imperial Bayonets ( which does cover the earlier period) and Lynn's seminal "The bayonets of the Republic" have been my favourite texts. My main argument is that reform proceeded at an uneven pace and not uniformly and that the 1791 reglements had not been sucessful and the levee en masse forced the pace of change albeit unevenly.
1792-95 was a challenge to model as it is for France a period of transition. The debates over closed columns and open columns and line versus column did pre date the revolution but my reading is that the massive social change to the compostion of the French army and levee en masse forced the pace organically in that maintaining the cohesion of the lne in the advance proved too difficut for the mass of volunteers and so the open column ( column of divisions) became the preferred method of advance almost by default. Then there is the " clouds of skirmishers " issue alongside that. And there was much more to reforms for the French amy than just the tactical formations .Sarmaticus wrote:Thanks. I can see that I've, sub-consciously, been carrying over the Massed and Impulse categories from Volley & Bayonet and Age of Eagles, respectivelyMikeHorah wrote: Nafziger's Imperial Bayonets ( which does cover the earlier period) and Lynn's seminal "The bayonets of the Republic" have been my favourite texts. My main argument is that reform proceeded at an uneven pace and not uniformly and that the 1791 reglements had not been sucessful and the levee en masse forced the pace of change albeit unevenly.: In those rules they signify a tactical flexibility that depends in part on the use of columns but it isn't primarily a matter of a preference for attack column over line. I think the lists' classification of the later Austrians on the basis of their "sluggishness", when they favoured the column, led me astray. That's not necessarilly a criticism - consistency isn't as importance as pragmatism in a game; though I have to admit, it irks my tidy mind.
You have my permission to perform (as a commander) as badly as they did historically.Prussians look like they might be actually good but i dont see a auto lose rule for the 1806 list