Best infantry from 1720-1820.

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

 

I wonder if you have ever heard something about Frederick the Great, the seven years war, the battles of Mollwitz, Hohenfriedberg, Leuthen etc. Prussian infantry was considered the best in the world between 1750 and 1800. Consequently the Continentals were drilled by Steuben in accordance with the Prussian field manual. It is true that the Prussians were beaten by Napoleon as was every big European nation which fought him between 1799 and 1815. But the Prussians also managed to beat Napoleon several times. The most painful event of this kind for Napoleon was for sure at Waterloo. A certain Wellington himself emphasised the decisive role the Prussians played in winning this battle by his famous quote that either night or the Prussians could save him. Who would dare to doubt an opinion coming from such a competent side. For people interested in the performance of Prussian and German troops of later times (1870/71) I recommend David Ascoli's great book "A Day of Battle"
 
I believe what Wellington was referring to was that if Blucher got there with his Prussians on time the battle could be saved, not necessarily the quality of Blucher's troops. There were some German cavalry, I think, that fought with great distinction in Wellington's campaigns. Try to read up on the campaigns in Mexico by Scott and Taylor for almost unbelievable accomplishments by infantry, field artillery and in the execution of amphibious warfare. The American officer corps was probably the best trained in the world in the 1840s.
 

To tell the whole story Napoleon surprised the allies and attacked Blücher who was missing one corps (Zieten's as far as I rememeber) and pushed him away at Ligny. This happened because Wellignton did not manage to concentrate in time and himself were nearly whipped at Quatre Bras. You won't find many armies of these time or of any time which got a beating like the Prussians at Ligny slipped away from the enemy's pursuit and during two nights and one day of march had restored morale and concentrated to attack Napoleon's right flank at Waterloo and saved the day for the allied forces. Btw a third of Wellignton's army at Waterloo was German another third was Dutch and only the remaining troops were British. For nearly unbelievable accomplishements of infantry, cavalry and atillery I again recommend the book "A day of battle" - you will learn about the best and the second best army of the 19th century here.
 
The best and second best of the 19th century, well, well. Better than the Army of Northern Virginia? Would be hard to prove. The European observers of the War Between the States were astonished at the ferocity of the fighting and willingness of the armies on both sides to keep fighting despite setbacks. Undoubtedly, some of those observers fought at Waterloo.
 
If I've understood flojo correctly, and he is referring to the Prussians of the Napoleonic era as the second best army of the 19th century, I would have to disagree. Like ren says, there is the Army of Northern Virginia to consider (among a number of american formations on both sides of the war), and the Prussians around 1864-1870 also bear very serious consideration. I would agree that Wellington was commenting more on the timing of the Prussian arrival at waterloo and thier stand at Ligny rather than the outright quality of their troops.
 
As an example of the sanguinary nature of the War Between the States and the willingness of the troops to continue to go into combat despite horrific casualty rates, look at the 13 month period between June, 1862 and July 1863;
June, 1862, The Seven Days-36000 total casualties
August, 1862, Second Manassas- 24000 total
September, 1862, Sharpsburg- 26000 total (23000 plus in one day)
December,1862-Fredricksburg-15000 total
May, 1863, Chancellorsville- 30000 total
July,1863, Gettysburg- 51000 plus
The Army of Northern Virginia took about half those casualties while having much smaller numbers than the Union Army yet Longstreet's Corps was ready to be detached and sent to the West in September,1863, where they played a major role in the Confederate victory at Chickamauga.
 
If you add up those casualties that were only in the major campaigns, that is more than 180000. The Army of Northern Virginia took about half of those casualties which would be about 90000. 90000 is more than Lee ever had in his army at one time with the most he ever had being around 70000. In other words his number of casualties in one year was more than 100% of his army. To boot, that casualty rate does not include his losses from sickness which were higher than his losses from battle. Also his casualty rate was higher among officers than enlisted men. Yet his army continued to fight and be very effective. Says a lot for the leadership and morale in his army.
 

Well - it is our luck that we did not have to discuss the period between 1820 and 1900 as it is off topic (and we would perhaps never come to a common opinion). But for the time under consideration I would judge the Prussian infantry the best in the world up to about 1770 to 1780. Their position was taken later (since about 1800 or a little bit earlier) by the French infantry which was at their height around 1805/1806. As Napoleon's guard could retain this high quality while the quality of the regular troops deteriorated I would vote for Napoleon's guard being the best until 1815.
 
Well Renrich, it appears from your posts that you pay great respect for the fighting capability of Confederate Army and especially for forces under Lee's command in American Civil War. While this is probably justified it does (as Flojo noticed) go beyond time frame considered in this thread (1720-1820) and for given period I agree with previous post - Napoleon's Imperial Guard and especially grenadiers of the Old Guard were the best.
 
Of course, youall are both correct. I apologise but we kind of drifted off into a little later times. The experience in the American Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 indicates to me that the British Infantry has to be rated highly as they were very effective in a set piece battle. Perhaps more effective than the the French or Hessians in America.
 
Last edited:

Renrich, I have to admit that at least half the fault for leaving the time window under consideration here is on my side.
I am no specialist in the war of American independence but weren't the Hessian troops highly rated? With respect to the British they got beaten twice (war of independence and 1812) and only won once (7 years war). So against the French it is a draw and against the Americans a clear loss. If you consider that the American troops in 1776 weren't trained to European standards and badly equipped that doesn't sound that impressive. In the battles in central Europe always a large number of troops from northern Germany fought together with British troops. With Ferdinand von Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel the commander of the British or better to say allied forces was as well German. Also there were a number of french victories like Hastenbeck, Bergen, Kloster Kampen. So I wouldn't necessarily judge the French troops of this time worse than the British.
 
By 1815 the continental infantry of France, England, Prussia and most of the other nations of Europe were pretty much similar. I think that the French and especially the Prussians had a much better understanding of how to train their infantry for a more flexible tactical outcome. The furnishing of a Prussian fusilier battalion with every line regiment solved some of the issues with screening units and field pieces and reinforcing skirmishers. The Prussians even went as far as training a third of all the men in the line battalions to fight as skirmishers. When the line infantry advanced it could send forward the third rank to fight as skirmishers. This gave some tactical flexibility to cover the line battalions with swarms of skirmishers putting out constant fire at targets of their choice. It wasn't for another century until the European armies used such open formations.
 
The British lost the wars against Americans I think more because they had practically an impossible task and because sometimes their leadership in the field was bad. I hate to admit it but it was seldom that a Continental could stand up to the British Regulars. The Continentals whipped the Hessians at least once I recall, at Princeton. During the war with the French, the Redcoats distinguished themselves at Quebec against the French and they won most of the battles during the War of 1812. The loss at New Orleans was a case of underestimating the enemy but the troops themselves were not lacking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Reissner monoplane from 1910
Replies
2
Views
1K
Gnomey
Best during the War Between the States
Replies
13
Views
4K
renrich
Sunken British Warship From American Revolution Found in Lake Ontario
Replies
13
Views
7K
mike siggins
M
Menu
Log in
Register