Were Napoleon's Skirmishers Any Good?

In this video, Louee from Survive History discusses the role of French skirmishers with Duncan Miles of the 45eme Infanterie Regiment De Ligne. Although Napoleon's army used a lot of skirmishers, including dedicated voltigeur companies, they were armed with smoothbore muskets. This gave rifle-armed British troops a big advantage in terms of range and accuracy.

[@survivehistory]

If you enjoyed this Short, check out the full length episode and please consider supporting the channel at: ko-fi.com/survivehistory

[@tylerschoen5643]

By the way in 1812 the French fielded 600,000 troops and the British 48,000. The French had 13x the amount of troops. The French weren’t worried about special artisans rifles. They were busy sending 3 extra shots while a rifle reloaded

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

The British riflemen actually were issued two types of ammunition. Leather patched round balls with loose powder in flasks for accurate shooting, and premade paper cartridges containing both powder and ball when rate of fire was at a premium. So the greenjackets could easily equal the voltigeur's rate of fire if they needed to.

[@tylerschoen5643]

@@HaNsWiDjAjA not rifled but yes. Again not rifled and that’s the point of the short

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

@@tylerschoen5643 I am not really sure what you were trying to say.

[@tylerschoen5643]

@@HaNsWiDjAjA I’m saying they couldn’t keep up the same rate of fire while using rifles. That’s not how that works

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

@tylerschoen5643 Check out British Muzzleloader's in depth video on the Baker rifle's paper cartridge. He was able to fire 3 shots in one minute loading at a normal unhurried rate, the same rate of fire as a musket of the period. Versus 3 shots in two minutes when loading with patched ball and loose powder. Just because your muzzle loading gun has rifling doesnt mean that you have to use that feature every time. When you omit the patch then the ball goes down the barrel as easily as in a musket. The British fully understood this, and this issued their riflemen with two types of ammunition.

[@mr.randomyt1097]

Ive always found the french uniforms of the time so much more attractive

[@Briselance]

Aye. But the Green Jacket look so practical.

[@donjuanmckenzie4897]

Panache

[@AnEnemySpy456]

Very attractive target maybe. If I'm skirmishing in the woods, I'll take the dark green jacket.

[@brunomadeira8432]

@@AnEnemySpy456 The Portuguese Caçadores (Hunters) used a similar reasoning while fighting alongside the British Rifles in the Light Brigade but with a local adaptation, brown uniforms. But also with the Baker rifle.

[@michelebattaggia8685]

In reality I find the green jacket more elegant and more practical

[@Rynewulf]

French had many more skirmishers overall: as he said each group had its own voltiguers whereas as British rifles were rare and specialists. The French did have their own specialist light infantry*, the chasseurs. We only think the British rifles were more numerous because we're speaking English and only 1 chunk of that conflict, French battle behaviour had a lot more skirmishing *comment corrected: chasseurs did not typically have muskets

[@skvader4187]

Well, each British battalion had a light infantry company and there were regiments of light infantry, both armed with muskets. Not many people talk about these guys.

[@ivvan497]

Chasseurs were light infantry and were armed with muskets

[@Rynewulf]

@@skvader4187 huh, maybe I should check the battle orders on a major battle sometime that might help. I know the French had both foot chasseurs a pied and mounted chasseurs a cheval, the voltiguers, the legeres, (Ive been told some other mounted elites like carabiniers fought dismounted with muskets in skirmish too) and made sure there were both elite skirmishers and local unit skirmish detachments with at least some line infantry getting skirmish training. I've only ever heard of the British Rifles even from English sources

[@skvader4187]

@@Rynewulf From what I know, the brittish regiments were similar to french ones. Both sides having flank and center companies. Center companies were the fusiliers and the flank were grenadiers and light infantry. In the British army, the grenadiers had a completely white plume with shoulder wings, while the light infantry had a green plume (still using the red uniform with regimental facings). The only thing that was different was the size of the regiments, British regiments were larger than french ones think. You should look up Brandon F.'s video on the British light infantry during the american revolution.

[@Rynewulf]

@@skvader4187 oooh I know Brandon F's channel! I'm not sure Ive bumped into that video specifically I'll have to go have a look (I know he's talked at random before that 1700s British military in North America did make big use of light infantry)

[@leifewald5117]

Making a video on the 95th Rifles? Now that’s soldiering…

[@lordbertos8124]

Making a reference to Sharpe..........now thats soldiering

[@texasbob2528]

No, feeding false information to the enemy. That's soldiering

[@dogestranding5047]

Reddit-tier joke

[@82ismi]

Fun fact: the French had rifles as well, but not distributed to whole bataillons. Most armies had at least some men armed with rifles.

[@CraigTheScotsman]

… and every British regiment had a company of Light Infantry who were functionally the same as the Voltigeurs (smoothbore-equipped screening and skirmishing troops). There is something to say about the Light Division, never mind that by roughly 1812 it was expected that entire line regiments ought to be able to form for open-order skirmishing. In fact… basically every modern army at the time had smoothbore Skirmishers exactly like the Voltigeurs!

[@smyrnamarauder1328]

Thats it im downloading Napaleon total war!

[@Steven-jn2cw]

Huzzah!

[@Jaegerrants]

If only it wouldn't be second game of the engine, so many things still barely improved from the no mass cavalry of Empire.

[@pablodundas6851]

French POW general explains the arrangement and weaponry of its troops to British soldiers (1815, oil on canvas)

[@strength_by_forge]

My beloved regiments roots clearly show how far ahead of our time we were.

[@yeboy5158]

Were rifles significntly more expensive than smoothbores?

[@amemefan7485]

Very, as you have to make the barrel lining (the rifling) without modern manufacturing equipment as well as other factors I do not know enough about

[@thewheatness]

yes from the extra cost of specialized machining processes in pre-Fordian artisanal factories

[@aetius7139]

Very. Given line assembly production isnt yet a thing yet in early 18th century.

[@ssrbgangimaribotan6thofthe12]

It would have been hand crafted by artisans/blacksmith of that time period with specialized hand tools instead of machines. ​@@thewheatness

[@MarcoCaprini-do3dq]

More expensive and harder to produce. That's why widespread rifled firearms didn't appear until the mid 19th century.

[@thomasferron1493]

The French did in fact have units of riflemen. They were called carabiniers and were cavalrymen. They also employed dedicated skirmishers dressed in green called chasseurs when the French Army was the royal Army, who were recruited from border regions from woodsmen, game keepers, hunters etc. I'm not entirely certain they were armed with rifles though.

[@Jimbob7595]

Are you sure? I believe the carabiniers just carried short musket "carbines"

[@dukekevy6650]

They weren’t armed with Rifles, the only instances of the French Army ever having rifles were foreign regiments like nations that were within Napoleon’s Confederation of the Rhine. Napoleon didn’t like the idea of rifles, he thought they were slow and inefficient and he needed something that was going to he drastically quick, fast and could harass easily. Therefore, he followed up the idea of Voltiguers and also made up Light Infantry dedicated Regiments, like the 6e Legere.

[@thomasferron1493]

@@Jimbob7595 carbine is the English word for a short rifle, but it literally means rifle in French. I'm no expert so take my word with a grain of salt and if you find any better sources please let me know.

[@Subutai_Khan]

@@thomasferron1493 Carbines in those days are things like musketoons. It just referred to a firearm that was not fully musket size. It is only when rifles became universal that the term carbine evolved to just referring to rifles.

[@MadManchou]

​@@thomasferron1493"carabine" usually refers to short muskets/rifles in french as well as in english (the latter having directly taken the word from french) ; etymologically, it is the weapon of light horse. It is true that in modern days, the very poor firearms culture in France sees "carabine" be used interchangeably with "fusil", but that wouldn't have been the case in the early 1800s.

[@1daveyp]

I love it. The French had Voltigeurs, who were just like The Rifles...except they weren't really specialists and had shit kit.

[@2adamast]

Indeed the voltigeurs had even shorter muskets than the other line companies.

[@alexispommier2012]

For special skirmish company he should have talk about the Chasseur.

[@carrott36]

The British had plenty of musket-armed skirmishers too.

[@EzekielDeLaCroix]

From tests I've conducted, volume and rate of fire beats Riflemen in a straight up fight as attrition favors the ones who can throw more bullets down range. However, the British deployed their soldiers knowing full well they are the smallest army in Europe and ensure they don't go in a head to head fight. Regardless, British armies did have light infantry tactics akin to French skirmishing because the very few Rifle Regiments were specialized.

[@RandomAussie-dx9fj]

"Tests?"

[@thrifikionor7603]

@@RandomAussie-dx9fj He probably collected a bunch of homeless and gave them muskets and rifles

[@RandomAussie-dx9fj]

@@thrifikionor7603 Yeah sounds like the most likely thing

[@cmcapps1963]

​@@thrifikionor7603AND he gave us a sandwich and pack of cigs! Good times!

[@sirdiesalot2975]

"From my rigorous historical analysis of Napoleon Total War, I can confidently state..."

[@sethwarren8106]

The purpose of the two armies were very different. The British were defensive specialists so having rifles makes a lot of sense.

[@theprancingprussian]

Depending on the environment the french had an advantage since a solid pace of reload for a baker could be 50 - 70 seconds while the muskets and carbines used by voltagiers could reload in about 18 secpnds or less This ties into light infantry taking good notice of the environment, like luring voltagiers into a field with the baker sending the french skirmishes away would struggle to in a dense Forrest or against a garrisoned building in town

[@datcheesecakeboi6745]

Bakers werent for volley fire

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

The British riflemen actually were issued two types of ammunition. Leather patched round balls with loose powder in flasks for accurate shooting, and premade paper cartridges containing both powder and ball when rate of fire was at a premium. So the greenjackets could easily equal the voltigeur's rate of fire if they needed to.

[@theprancingprussian]

@@datcheesecakeboi6745 rifles don't need volley fire to get hits at 150 metres or further, volley fire was used in warfare since the 1650s and while not as common for the rifles it still was a good tool for harassing enemies outside practical musket volley range and if organised well could get the power of a 30 meter musket volley at 100 metres or more

[@theprancingprussian]

@@HaNsWiDjAjA in terms of paper cartridges they loaded slower than muskets, about a minute or a bit less rather than the 15-30 seconds for someone with a musket Patches further take this down to about 80 seconds Lead is soft but it is still physicaly obstructed and has to be bend through the teeth of the rifling with strenuous work or starter tools/mallets they were often given

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

@@theprancingprussian Loading the Baker with bare balls from a paper cartridge wouldnt be slower at all compared to a musket. There is no need to "bend" the lead through the teeth of the rifling, as the rifle balls were undersized. The Baker's bore were .625 caliber, while their bullets were "22 to the pound" or .596. Thus the windage was not all that different to the French Charleville muskets, which was of .69 caliber but fired a .65 caliber ball. And there was no need to use mallets with the Baker rifles even with patched balls. They were issued initially but later withdrawn after active service proved that they were superfluous.

[@VVeltanschauung187]

The 95th Rifles was indeed an elite regiment, with innovative equipment and tactics and extensive training. It was manned by veteran soldiers and officers who already distinguished themselves in standard light companies, and the results were in line with expectations. The green jackets regularly whipped the voltigeurs and all others enemy light infantry when matched in equal numbers.

[@donaldpratt2296]

Luckily for their enemies, there weren’t very many to make equal numbers.

[@georgeshelton6281]

This war was often compared to the battle for New Orleans, Louisiana.

[@bluewizzard8843]

Were the survival rate of fusiliers and other light infantry better compared to the line infantry?

[@michaeltaylor8835]

not good

[@Rusty_Gold85]

French word for light infantry is Voltiguer. A Fusilier is line infantry. Probably better odds as in line they were mostly killed by cannon shots . Mass muskets ,when getting close to each others ranks was still inaccurate at close range

[@marcmonnerat4850]

In French, the formation lighting outside the line are called _enfants perdus_ the lost kids, because the odds of survival were quite low.

[@AngelBP714]

Good as a block for more powerful units.

[@HmKayy]

Funny how no one ever talks about how air rifles were used in battle also... Lewis and Clark even carryed a pcp rifle

[@JayJet53]

The air rifle was used and abandoned due to logistical problems to outfit 1 regiment let alone a mobile army

[@frenchpartisan]

Of course theres the little bro who says first

[@astralax]

True maturity is not letting it bother you.

[@Bingbangboompowwham]

Could they fire three rounds a minute in any weather?

[@Ditlevstampe]

Were are all this places were you Can Play Old War

[@sanavkids4790]

He is wearing the 14e regiment d’infanterie officer dress

[@Vivi-xn9iz]

how do you know that it's the 14e ?

[@duncanmiles3229]

It is 45e

[@sanavkids4790]

Sorry my mistake

[@ubmcybercafe9639]

Uh it is 45e dress

[@saac0937]

Was there an upside to a smoothbore musket

[@bumpermanthesecond615]

Quicker reload time due to the barrel not being rifled

[@saac0937]

@bumpermanthesecond615 thank u. Is that it?

[@bumpermanthesecond615]

@@saac0937 that was pretty much it since they expect you to fire 3 rounds a minute in any weather

[@AlphaLeader42]

​@@bumpermanthesecond615Now that's soldiering

[@seanbissett-powell5916]

As well as the rate of fire advantage others have mentioned, muskets are easier to maintain, have less fiddly "extras" (patches, special tools) that could get dropped or lost, and didn't have the risk of a ball getting jammed in the barrel.

[@vatsmith8759]

Wouldn't the tassel on that bicorn hat drive you mad?

[@Стрэлок]

Blood and iron role-play in real life??!!?😂

[@mattgarey-hendricks1787]

YESSSSSS I WAS JUST THINKING THAT

[@Florida_frontiersman]

BLOOD AND IRON MENTIONEDD 🗣🗣🗣🗣WHAT THE HELL IS A GOOD GAME

[@sanavkids4790]

Yesssss finally soemone mention an underrated game

[@vapaus831]

Background music?

[@groozhy]

No idea which bands version, but it’s just La victoire est a nous

[@vapaus831]

@@groozhy 🙇‍♂️

[@evenriss]

Why are they speaking in english? 🤔

[@jonevansauthor]

Yes, turns out Napoleon was wrong about a lot of things. His rights to invade people. Fashion. Civilisation. Rifles vs muskets. Basically military strategy. If he could beat Wellington in a month of Sunday. Which is good because he ultimately lost and civilisation was saved from his horrors. It's ok, the French made it up to us with De Gaulle, a much more pleasant to deal with French leader. *coughs*

[@cattysplat]

Because the Germans were better? Or the Vikings? Or the Italians (Romans).

[@rubric-eo5yj]

how stupid of you to act like any one had moral superiority over any one in 19th and 20th century,everyone including the british committed atrocities of various degrees

[@wojciechgrodnicki6302]

Rifles were expensive. The French were incredibly cheap.

[@tylerschoen5643]

Do you understand how many more soldiers France had than any other single army? You are mad if you think it’s feasible to give them all rifles muskets in 1803

[@BashingBambi]

Yes but prone to surrender and being useless

[@TheFearsomePredator]

Useless comment

[@sirilluminarthevaliant2895]

British should have learned the adaptations the Americans used in their long rifles. Then they would of had true snipers

[@datcheesecakeboi6745]

The US didn't invent that

[@carbon4454]

The US didn't have those in the War of 1776, and the Brits had the best light infantry in the world before and definitely after it

[@charlesc.9012]

Not at that stage, and the United States really did not see the same scale of conflict as mainland Europe. Even in the civil war, the best rifles were Whitworth rifles imported from Britain.

[@WhoThisMonkey]

They all looked ridiculous, ceremonial dress to battle.

[@TheNEOverse]

Its what they did back then though. It made sense at the time.

[@WhoThisMonkey]

@@TheNEOverse This is precisely why I never cease to point out ridiculousness in the modern day. Future generations will look back at us with the same mirth.

[@TheNEOverse]

@@WhoThisMonkey That's beta shit. Fuck what they think of us, just live in the moment without shame. Fuck knows what the future people will even be like. I'm sure the past generations look at us with just as much mirth and incredulity.

[@agroulesupermarinespitfire4209]

Linear warfare meant that recognizability by your own officers was more important than camouflage, so brightly-coloured uniforms were actually sensible in most cases.

[@charlesc.9012]

There was too much powder smoke to make it a detriment. Because they fought in such close quarters, these uniforms were also designed to maximise the width of your shoulders and physical height, making your men look incredibly fit and dangerous to the enemy, and increase your own confidence. You also needed distinct and bright uniforms to avoid friendly fire, because advancing into smoke is incredibly confusing, and you don't want to get confused by whatever you bump into, because your unit will fly apart very quickly once doubt creeps in.

[@CertifiedBC]

FIRST

[@balls2jawls]

Rifles were also quite expensive, so maybe coming out of the revolution they didn’t think it was cost effective to get a whole bunch of them