>>61297 Hussars and Cuirassiers were all pretty badass.
I'm from the Holland and always thought we did nothing during the war but it turns out the Polish Lancers (re)trained a few units of Dutch hussars (or another type) to become lancers.
Interesting fact: Lancer horses were among the smallest horses during the Napoleonic wars.
>According to order issued on October 28th 1802 the horses for French cuirassiers and dragoons were to be >between 15 1/4 and 15 1/2 hands tall (154.3m-158.3 m). After war in 1805 the minimum height for horses were >relaxed, even for the cuirassiers. But when Prussian and Austrian horses were captured and new territories >annexed the requirements were heightened. In 1812 the height of horses was as follow: >- cuirassiers and carabiniers - . . . . 155 cm - 160 cm >- dragoons and artillery - . . . . . . . . .153 cm - 155 cm >- chasseurs and hussars - . . . . . . . . 149 cm - 153 cm >- lighthorse-lancers - . . . . . . . . . . . . .146 cm - 150 cm >- Polish uhlans - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 cm - 153 cm >- Polish Krakusi - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 cm - 142 cm (nicknamed by Napoleon "my Pygmy Cavalry")
>>62273 >>61936 >Artillery is more essential to cavalry than to infantry, because cavalry has no fire for its defence, but depends upon the sabre. It is to remedy this deficiency that recourse has been had to horse-artillery. Cavalry, there-fore, should never be without cannon, whether when attacking, rallying, or in position >Cavalry >should never be without cannon
>Lasalle marched to Stettin where he demanded its surrender in the early afternoon of 29 October. >The French general claimed the Lannes' entire corps of 30,000 men was present. In fact, the V Corps advance guard got no nearer than Löcknitz that day. >Lasalle's entire force consisted of 800 horsemen of the 5th and 7th Hussar Regiments plus two cannons.
>The elderly Prussian general entered negotiations and capitulated during the night of the 29th and 30th. >Romberg surrendered the Stettin fortress, 5,300 troops, and 281 guns.
>>65344 >>65370 In both cases, he wrote a letter to the commander of the defending forces demanding surrender. After a refusal, he sent another which made it seem as though he had 80,000 men at his back. The Prussians were so terrified they agreed to surrender, and it was only afterwards that they realized they had just given up their weapons to a tiny force of hussars.
>>65879 I think you are missing the point. Of course one unit can be the best.
Any army would lose without its line infantry, but theres no denying the 9e régiment d’infanterie légère (Which Napoleon call L'incomparables) where better than the Mary Sue regiments of barely trained conscripts.
Don't try and give shit pretentious answers 'le the masses of shit are more important than the elite regiments'. We know they are, but they aren't better units.
>We know that in any battle without superior line infantry you would almost always lose that battle, and the efforts of everyone involved would almost certainly be to waste because they make or break a battle >dude how cool are cavalry and elite regiments lmao they're totally the best
>>66120 Then name the line infantry unit you think could be considered the best you nonce. I named a unit of line infantry as one of the best units, and you just keep sparrowing on about how good line infantry in general are.
This isn't Napoleon total war, your units aren't just 'French Line Infantry'. Theres a huge disparity between the performances of individual units, and you are using this idea that without good line infantry everything else was worthless to hide the fact you can't name any exceptional units.
You're missing my point, I'm not trying to suggest any one unit of line infantry is amazing.
Suggesting any one unit was the best is redundant because they almost certainly won't have had a decisive part of a battle (which belongs to the lines), and if they did (for instance, cavalry) then it will be infinitely more due to tactics and the battle situation than the unit itself.
>>66349 >Suggesting any one unit was the best is redundant because they almost certainly won't have had a decisive part of a battle But I would argue that the 9eme Legere DID play a decisive role in the Battle of Marengo. I don't think you are right at all.
>>61605 >dragoons That's disgusting. I bet you're a coalition supporter. Even as a pole, it would be foolish to deny that the Imperial Guard Grenadiers were the best fighting force of the Napoleonic wars, if not of all time.
>>61297 >anything cavalry the Napoleonic Wars were the beginning of the end for offensive cavalry use. There's a funny and almost depressing bit from John Keegan's The Face of Battle that illustrates this at Waterloo: >No actual dash was made upon us. Now and then an individual more daring than the rest would ride up to the bayonets, wave his sword around and bully; but the mass held aloof, pulling up within five or six yards, as if, though afraid to go on, they were ashamed to retire. Our men soon discovered they had the best of it, and ever afterwards, when they heard the sound of cavalry approaching, appeared to consider the circumstance a welcome change from being cannonaded --Royal Engineer with the 79th >Macready, of the 30th, remembered that his men 'began to pity the useless perseverence of their assailants, and, as they advanced, would growl out, "here come those damned fools again"'. Confident in, even elated by their ability to outface the French squadrons (at Quatre Bras, after their second dispersal of a French charge, there had been 'a good deal of laughter and handshaking' in the 30th's square), the British infantry began to inflict on them heavy casualties whenever they were foolish enough or badly enough led to linger within range. >Saltoun, commanding the Guard's light companies, ordered them to fire at a group of French cavalrymen who then 'rode along the front of the 52nd with a view of turning their right flank, and were completed destroyed by the fire of that regiment.' >The 40th Regiment, alerted by an experienced sergeant who called out,'They are in armor. Fire at the horses,' brought down Cuirassiers in swathes. 'It was the most laughable sight to see these guards in their chimney armor - trying to run away, being able to make little progress and many of them being taken prisoner by those of our light companies who were out skirmishing.'
>>66349 >Reserves are for when the line infantry break down and holes need filling and tactical mistakes need correcting. You are not proving anything I'm saying wrong by bringing those up. Napoleon also used them as a mean to break through enemy formations at what he deemed the decisive moment. That's something that famously failed at Waterloo.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at email@example.com with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.