Is everything pre-Napoleon really linear and limited?

[Chris Pringle]

OK, this derives from the "Wargaming Pet Hates" thread where I posted this:
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11131.msg147486.html#msg147486
which includes among my pet hates:

"Anything pre-Napoleon - essentially it's linear warfare, relatively limited tactical options, relatively few interesting decisions to make."

(I was also careful to include this caveat: "I don't mean to belittle anyone else's fun - it's all about personal preference, and if others love the games I hate, that's fine, I don't have to play them.")

But having made such a contentious statement, I had better try to justify it. Let me give a grossly generalized characterization of pre-Napoleonic warfare (PNW). With few exceptions, realistically the interesting decisions a PNW general has to make are limited to pre-battle ones:

- How do I deploy my line? (For it is almost invariably a line.)
- Should I have a second line and/or a reserve?
- Do I attack the enemy or wait for them?
- If I attack, do I go left-flanking, right-flanking, or general advance?

The decisions a PNW general can make during the battle are more limited:
- When/where to commit the second line / reserve?
- Er, that's it?

This is because the capabilities of the troops and the armies are so limited, in particular their mobility and firepower.

The mobility of most infantry formations is incredibly limited, even into the mid-18th century, because weapon technologies mostly oblige infantry to fight in unwieldy masses, which can't cope with difficult terrain, and because drill movements for quick formation changes haven't been invented. Artillery is virtually immobile.

Firepower is either very feeble or very short-ranged. The longer-ranged weapons are too few and not destructive enough to matter much.

Because both mobility and firepower are so limited, the distance to which units and armies can project their force is much less than the width of the armies. Thus, although linear deployments are not exactly one-dimensional - there are second and third lines and reserves - they are not truly two-dimensional either.

Whereas around Napoleon's time, several different developments come into play. Artillery becomes lighter and more mobile, while at the same time becoming more accurate and effective, and also more numerous. Sophisticated drill means formation changes become rapid enough to be performed closer to the enemy than before, and enable obstacles to be bypassed more easily. Transitions between line-column-square are all easily performed, giving commanders more options. Command and control becomes more sophisticated and professional, and the corps system is developed, in which fractions of the army become combined-arms mini-armies, each capable of performing independent yet coordinated missions.

All these factors contribute to give the battlefield much more depth and make it truly two-dimensional. The fact that armies can now project force across greater distances - either longer-ranged artillery, or more rapidly-moving forces of all arms - and that they can cope better with moving across or around difficult terrain makes for much more complex interactions across much larger areas than in linear PNW.

The consequence as far as I'm concerned is that the more complex interactions of the C19 and C20 mean there are far more decisions to be made in the course of a C19 or C20 wargame than in PNW, and that C19 onwards is therefore for me personally, relatively - and note I did say relatively - much more interesting and fun to wargame.

That's the gist of my argument in a fairly large nutshell. I mean no offence to anyone who disagrees, and I will be happy to be disabused of my ignorant and prejudiced notions. Actually, I hope that some PNW experts will open my eyes by pointing out numerous historical instances that undermine my argument. Please educate me!

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info

[fsn]

Two words - Lake Trasimene.

I sort of agree then really don't. The history of PNW is a mix of the bland and the boggling. Agreed that, for example an Imperial Roman legion basically just ground down it's enemies in attrition.

However, a Persian Archaemeniad army is full of interesting troops with varied capability and ways of fighting. To get the best out of them is an art.

Mongols though, are dead boring.

I would argue that elements of the ACW and the trench warfare of WWI are equally limited. "How long do I use the artillery?" "Do the infantry walk or run?" Even many of the blessed Napoleonic battles are just two lines of infantry shooting %&!£ out of each other.

[Maenoferren]

I suppose the French Indian wars had other tactics and more interesting troop types....not that I know that much about the period....In saying this I realise that the forces did at times line up to shoot each other 

[paulr]

Well said FSN

Chris, if I generalise enough the statements you make above can apply to any period

[getagrip]

As an outsider to the period it does look like lines of stuff shooting other lines of stuff.  The colours are nice though 

[cbr3d.com]

Battle of Gaugamela.

[irregularwars]

Yeah, bit if a silly stance really. Smells a of tunnel vision.

There are many periods where you have armies of relatively consistent forces facing off in two lines. You might highlight Classical Greece for example. Two lines of hoplites right?

Well, yes, if you have, say Argives, Athenians and allies against Spartans and their allies as at 1st Mantineia then it is. But what about the Theban innovations at Leuktra? What about warefare in Macedonia in the same period where you have heavy cavalry, swarming hillmen and a few hopiltes, brawling with Thracian tribesmen or hoplites from Chalkidike or the south. As soon as you move towards the periphery, the troops available, and therefore the strategies and tactics used, vary widely.

How can you say a combined arms Seleukid army (heavy cav, light cav, camels, nellies, chariots, phalanx and masses of national contingents) is all a bit same same. Or, as referenced by fsn and Fig.ht above, even Carthaginian and post-Philip's reforms Macedonian armies, strategies and tactices.

Or to move away from the Mediterranean and come forward somewhat in time, what about Glenmalure? or the Ford of the Biscuits? Or even Kinsale?  

[fsn]

The Anabasis is a myriad of different fighting styles.

[mollinary]

Is everyone here being ironic/sarcastic?  When I read Chris' post I automatically assumed he was referring to the 18th century, was I wrong?

Mollinary 

[cbr3d.com]

I wasn't trying to be sarcastic, if Chris did mean PNW as 18th century then sorry for my misunderstanding.

Having said that I am getting into 16th / 17th / 18th century Eastern European battle history at the moment (I backed the Wargamer.pl kickstarter 'The Deluge') and it is fascinating reading, rarely did armies just line up against one another and slug it out, the reason being that often the army types were so different in composition.  

One battle that springs to mind and in some ways is very reminiscent of Alexander's tactics at the Battle of Gaugamela was the tactics used by the king of Poland Jan Sobieski against Kara Mustafa at the Battle of Vienna in September 1683.  Here against far superior numbers Sobieski launched his massed Hussaria diagonally across the field through the enemy straight towards the encampment of Kara Mustafa, and just like Alexander before him just missed actually capturing / killing Darius so to did Sobieski just miss capturing / killing Kara Mustafa.  The result though was the same, a huge enemy army was defeated on the battlefield by well thought out and planned tactics by a much smaller force using anything but linear combat tactics.

[Subedai]

'...Mongols though, are dead boring...'

You said that just to provoke a reaction, didn't you...go on admit it. 

The very last thing you can about Mongols is that they are boring. They have everything;  speed of movement and thus concentration of mass at any given point and mobile artillery which they used to great effect, vis a vis the world's first creeping barrage used so successfully at the Battle of Mohi in 1241. Again, not only were Hungarians attacked frontally, Siban conducted a tactical outflanking manoeuvre on the left while Sube'etai went off for a strategic outflanking manoeuvre on the right. 

They would focus their attention at a certain point on the enemy line -not necessarily on the front line either, and then subject the area to a barrage of arrows from as many different directions as they were able.

Don't forget the greatest outflanking manoeuvre in history was conducted by the Mongols. In 1219, Chinggis Qan sent three of his sons to occupy the Kharizmian Shah frontally while he and the main army crossed a supposedly impassable desert (the Kizil-Kum) and appeared 400 miles behind the Khwarizmian rear!

Normally, modern military thinking is that the attacker should outnumber the defender by 3 to 1, Chinggis Qan was outnumbered 1 to 4 when he took on the Khwarizmians. 

Because both mobility and firepower are so limited, the distance to which units and armies can project their force is much less than the width of the armies. Thus, although linear deployments are not exactly one-dimensional - there are second and third lines and reserves - they are not truly two-dimensional either.

The Mongols projected their force up to 100 miles ahead of the main body in all directions and being an all cavalry arm they could concentrate extremely quickly. 

The battlefield of the Battle of River Sit in March 1238 -fought in thick snow I hasten to add- was anything but linear and approximately seven miles long. In those days for anyone but the Mongols it would have been uncontrollable but because of their draconian discipline and incomparable command structure it was hard but far from impossible.

These are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

[getagrip]

Psst...Subedai fancies Genghis, pass it on  

[FierceKitty]

Psst...Subedai fancies Genghis, pass it on  

Well, tomorrow is a traditional day for passing on the news to the object of one's desire. Send the Khan a new province as a Valentine.

[Luddite]

- How do I deploy my line? (For it is almost invariably a line.)
- Should I have a second line and/or a reserve?
- Do I attack the enemy or wait for them?
- If I attack, do I go left-flanking, right-flanking, or general advance?

The decisions a PNW general can make during the battle are more limited:
- When/where to commit the second line / reserve?
- Er, that's it?

Um.

Well...

When you boil it down, that applies to every period and every form of warfare since Megiddo surely?

[Upgraydd]

OK, this derives from the "Wargaming Pet Hates" thread where I posted this:
http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,11131.msg147486.html#msg147486
which includes among my pet hates:

"Anything pre-Napoleon - essentially it's linear warfare, relatively limited tactical options, relatively few interesting decisions to make."

(I was also careful to include this caveat: "I don't mean to belittle anyone else's fun - it's all about personal preference, and if others love the games I hate, that's fine, I don't have to play them.")

Hi Chris, this is really a really interesting post as this is my favourite period - late 17th to early 18th, and funnily enough I like it for all the reasons you've stated below that you dislike it. I really don't take your view personally and it's one of the great things about this hobby, there's something for everybody...maybe this period appeals to my OCD tendencies 

The period produces a lot of challenges, linear tactics are just being developed and armies are still not professional making moving large bodies of troops difficult. If you make a mistake it is difficult to recover and you need to commit reserves early. It really is about closing infantry quickly, trying to concentrate firepower and then charging in with Muskets while the cavalry do battle on the flanks. Some find this type of warfare boring but I enjoy the challenges it presents.

Artillery is still largely ineffective and needs to be deployed carefully & be protected by infantry or you will lose it but used correctly it can win a battle for you.

Having said all that there was a lot going on during the period, I recently fought a battle using 9 Years war French against Polish/Lithuanian of the same period, this was 2 very different armies using vary different tactics...Whole units of Winged Hussars crashing into neat French Musket lines was a thing of beauty.

The uniforms & especially tricorns during the period look great en masse and I enjoy painting them.

Cheers, Jez.