Hello to everyone here... trying to find out if infantry officers were walking or riding? During the marches and the at the battles, were they on foot, or riding? I'm more interested in the austrian army, but also the french troops.
During battle the answer is not so difficult - usually only the battalion commander was mounted, regimental commander and majors as well, the rest was dismounted, when travelling or on the march, officers tried to obtain mounts, as can be seen in memoires, so also a lieutenant could be mounted to a certain extend on a campaign, but he wouldn't use this in battle, there he would be with his unit as file closer.
Would you say that the reasoning behind this was tactical, financial, or just plain common sense? Being on horseback made you an obvious target for skirmishes, if you lost the horse in battle it was obviously difficult and expensive to replace, but operationally was there an advantage to being on foot in the battlefield?
Tactical common sense, dismounted subaltern officers were also common in the 7YW and earlier, mounted battalion commanders as well, the battalion commanders place was at the rear in the center of his battalion to be able to command - being on horse back he had a better view on his command, skirmishers as such - as tirailleurs de combat - non existent.
A battalion commander and more superior officers would have of course more than one horse.
The dismounted officer was of equal importance for the company, he was standing in rank and file, or file closer - by that supervising his company and here he didn't need to be mounted.
In the 7YW the mounted battalion commander wasn't of such key importance than later, there his battalion war part of a battle line, itself commanded by a mounted superior officer, the Prussian regimental commander in fact had to dismount before battle and lead the battalion from the front, the majors however remained mounted to be able to have a better supervision on the battalion.
Hello, welcome to the forum!
Just a quick request as forum moderator. Can you please alter your profile in the members area so that it lists your full name (rather than just your email address)?
Many thanks
Zack
Well, it would help to know how british infantry higher ranks travelled and moved in the battles... maybe it was the same situation in all the 18th Century armies? Sorry if my English is not the best, especially when it comes to military terms. Not my first language.
may be able to correct me on this, horses were preferred, but it all came down to availability and expense. Certainly during the Peninsular War (obviously outside your period) majors were meant to have horses, and Captains and Lieutenants tried to own them if they could afford them, but feeding was difficult, supplies were not always available, and of course the army needed them for transportation, so at times horses were requisitioned, or taken for use as cavalry remounts.
Very interesting and useful informations. Thanks to both of you. I have another question that's related to the Napoleonic Wars... something about prisoners of war. Should I write here, or open another subject? Sorry if I'm bothering you.
Definitely worth a fresh feed, simply so that more people will see the question, but please do fire away - this is precisely what I built the forum and website for!
Specifically for Austria, only the ‘staff rank’ officers - ie: majors and above - would be mounted. It is of course advantageous to mounted for controlling your men and viewing the situation, but it also makes you stand out as a target. French troops made a point of shooting mounted Austrian officers and at Marengo, this was a major contributor to the army breaking up at the end.
Thanks! About the officers being targets, I always thought that the guns they had at the time were not very precise... could you aim at someone from a distance?
Oh they were woefully inaccurate. The most commonly touted figure for a musket is that they were accurate at 80m, but beyond that you would be lucky to hit the person you aimed at. The use of Rifles (not adopted by the French) changed things a bit. Rifles were lethal at 300m, but we're very slow to reload (c. 2 shots a minutes, maybe three on a good day?), as the bullet had to be wrapped in leather to grip the rifling in the barrel, which made it hard to force down the barrel in a muzzle loaded weapon. The French philosophy was that in that time, musket carrying skirmishers could close the distance.
Very interesting... could somebody tell me if the Austrian army had muskets or rifles? Say... 1796, since I'm about to write something about the battle of Arcole?
The Austrian Freikorps included three Jaeger battalions - Tyrolean, German (d’Aspre) and Walloon (Le Loup). The first two at this time were rifle-armed, the Le Loup more likely to be a mix of rifles and carbines. It was only when the regular Jaeger battalions were formed in 1808 that they went to a standard two companies of rifles and four of carbines.
Arcole features a lot of Greenberg’s, but they were all armed with muskets, aside from the Sharpshooters, who used the Doppelstutz with one rifled and one smooth barrel. However, by this stage, the Austrians were throwing scratch and reserve battalions into the fight, so don’t think there were too many rifled barrels around.
During battle the answer is not so difficult - usually only the battalion commander was mounted, regimental commander and majors as well, the rest was dismounted, when travelling or on the march, officers tried to obtain mounts, as can be seen in memoires, so also a lieutenant could be mounted to a certain extend on a campaign, but he wouldn't use this in battle, there he would be with his unit as file closer.
Thank you! All clear now.
Would you say that the reasoning behind this was tactical, financial, or just plain common sense? Being on horseback made you an obvious target for skirmishes, if you lost the horse in battle it was obviously difficult and expensive to replace, but operationally was there an advantage to being on foot in the battlefield?
Tactical common sense, dismounted subaltern officers were also common in the 7YW and earlier, mounted battalion commanders as well, the battalion commanders place was at the rear in the center of his battalion to be able to command - being on horse back he had a better view on his command, skirmishers as such - as tirailleurs de combat - non existent.
A battalion commander and more superior officers would have of course more than one horse.
The dismounted officer was of equal importance for the company, he was standing in rank and file, or file closer - by that supervising his company and here he didn't need to be mounted.
In the 7YW the mounted battalion commander wasn't of such key importance than later, there his battalion war part of a battle line, itself commanded by a mounted superior officer, the Prussian regimental commander in fact had to dismount before battle and lead the battalion from the front, the majors however remained mounted to be able to have a better supervision on the battalion.
Hello, welcome to the forum! Just a quick request as forum moderator. Can you please alter your profile in the members area so that it lists your full name (rather than just your email address)? Many thanks Zack
Right, sorry. Will do.
No worries! I can only offer my thoughts on British infantry officer in answer to your question, which I suspect is not your main interest?
To the best of my knowledge, and
Very interesting and useful informations. Thanks to both of you. I have another question that's related to the Napoleonic Wars... something about prisoners of war. Should I write here, or open another subject? Sorry if I'm bothering you.
Please open new thread
Definitely worth a fresh feed, simply so that more people will see the question, but please do fire away - this is precisely what I built the forum and website for!
Hello and welcome to the board.
Specifically for Austria, only the ‘staff rank’ officers - ie: majors and above - would be mounted. It is of course advantageous to mounted for controlling your men and viewing the situation, but it also makes you stand out as a target. French troops made a point of shooting mounted Austrian officers and at Marengo, this was a major contributor to the army breaking up at the end.
Thanks! About the officers being targets, I always thought that the guns they had at the time were not very precise... could you aim at someone from a distance?
Yes rifled arms which were accurate at ranges of 2-300 metres were common to skirmishers of many Napoleonic armies
Oh they were woefully inaccurate. The most commonly touted figure for a musket is that they were accurate at 80m, but beyond that you would be lucky to hit the person you aimed at. The use of Rifles (not adopted by the French) changed things a bit. Rifles were lethal at 300m, but we're very slow to reload (c. 2 shots a minutes, maybe three on a good day?), as the bullet had to be wrapped in leather to grip the rifling in the barrel, which made it hard to force down the barrel in a muzzle loaded weapon. The French philosophy was that in that time, musket carrying skirmishers could close the distance.
Very interesting... could somebody tell me if the Austrian army had muskets or rifles? Say... 1796, since I'm about to write something about the battle of Arcole?
The Austrian Freikorps included three Jaeger battalions - Tyrolean, German (d’Aspre) and Walloon (Le Loup). The first two at this time were rifle-armed, the Le Loup more likely to be a mix of rifles and carbines. It was only when the regular Jaeger battalions were formed in 1808 that they went to a standard two companies of rifles and four of carbines.
Arcole features a lot of Greenberg’s, but they were all armed with muskets, aside from the Sharpshooters, who used the Doppelstutz with one rifled and one smooth barrel. However, by this stage, the Austrians were throwing scratch and reserve battalions into the fight, so don’t think there were too many rifled barrels around.
Glad I found this place. Thanks to you all!