Waterloo tactics

[MacWage]

I was watching the Military Channel this moring while getting ready and they talked/showed the tactics Wellington used against Napolean "Bonie" Bonapart. Wshen he had his forces lie down behind the crest of the hill, it reminded me of the tactics Morgan used against the Brit Dragoons at Cowpen (in South Carolina) in 1780 (35 years before Waterloo). It was tried again at Guilford Courthouse a little bit later.

Is this the case of the Brit army seeing tactics that worked against them and adopting them?
Just curious what all y'all military historians/history buffs think.

[macwilkin]

Hmmm...but the key to Morgan's success at Cowpens was his use of the militia as skirmishers, who then broke ranks and ran behind a line of Maryland "Regulars" -- Wellington's army at Waterloo, for the most part, were well trained professionals.

I don't know -- I'll e-mail my military history professor (we studied Morgan and Cowpens in class) and get his take on it.

Cheers,

Todd

[Yaish]

The battles with Colonial forces may have had something to do with it, but probably only indirectly.

It seems more a case of classic military deception, the value of which was driven home during the American Revolution.

[macwilkin]

It seems more a case of classic military deception, the value of which was driven home during the American Revolution.

Well, this is somewhat debatable, to say the least. While the mythology of the Revolution has the "crafty" colonials hiding behind rocks and trees, while the "stupid redcoats" stood up and got shot, historian Don Higginbotham, in "George Washington & the American Military Tradition", discounts this time-honoured myth -- Washington wanted (and eventually got) an army with European style training and discipline that would not run and the first sign of a "lobsterback" -- Washington had seen British regulars in the French and Indian War and knew that the only way to beat the British Army was at their own game, a game that the militia (invincible in peace, invisible in war) couldn't play.

Regards,

Todd

[Yaish]

You're putting words in my mouth Cajunscott. I know the Colonial Army won because they were able to stand toe to toe with classical infantry tactics (well, that plus political and logistical considerations)

The American Revolution did feature several things that the set-piece battles of Continental Europe didnt though, which allowed for an increase in military deception.

European battles often took place on the same battlefields, time and time again, over terrain that the generals leading those battles knew intimately. America offered a whole new battleground that was vastly different, and unknown for the most part.

The lower population density also meant that local informers, guides, and spies were less prevalent than in Europe, and deliberate red herrings had a greater impact.

The terrain in America was also wilder, more heavily wooded, and in the area where the American Revolution took place was also more mountainous than most European battlefields. This reduced sight lines, gave hidden defiles, hidden and covered routes of march, and other considerations that allowed deception ops much greater success.

[macwilkin]

You're putting words in my mouth Cajunscot. I know the Colonial Army won because they were able to stand toe to toe with classical infantry tactics (well, that plus political and logistical considerations)

My apologies, sir -- I deal with this myth every semester in my history classes, and at the battlefield, especially when we discuss Civil War linear tactics.

T.

[Yaish]

No problem. I guess I'm touchy about the myth too, having heard it all the time as well (and seeing it in major motion pictures, TV shows, etc... as well).

Military history is just fascinating to me, but not just the simple tactics and outcomes of battles. I get really into the effects terrain, administration, logisitics, technological innovation, and other "secondary" considerations have on the battles (and the course of the wars).

For example, I find it very interesting that early firearms (handheld) didnt supplant bows or crossbows because they were more effective, but because of logistic and manpower issues.

A couple weeks can make a proficient musketeer, while it takes years to train proficient bowmen. Also, 100 rounds of musket ammunition takes up a large sack, where 100 arrows takes up a large barrel. It's amazing to think that the machine guns and battle rifles of today were invented because 500 years ago someone decided cheap and easy was better than accuracy and rapid fire.

[macwilkin]

It's amazing to think that the machine guns and battle rifles of today were invented because 500 years ago someone decided cheap and easy was better than accuracy and rapid fire.

Ironically, a smoothbore musket was designed for "rapid fire" (3 shots in a minute), but not for accuracy per se -- since your target was a line of men, all you really had to do was point and shoot -- a "human shotgun" when you put large number of troops in linear formations.

T.

[Yaish]

Even at three shots per minute though, archers were still about 3 to 4 times faster, with the same range and even better penetration at long distances.

I do truly love this forum, the skill sets and experiences of the members are amazing, and all us gents have chosen to wear kilts. I think we just might have what it takes to rule the world.

Who's with me?