So, I'm watching a tv movie bout Napolean on A and E and am getting real interested for the first time in that epoch.

I have two questions for history buffs; what's the most accessible, well told book that would chronicle Napolean for me to buy? And, I see this infantry go from Paris to Moscow in the days before trains; did they really walk all that distance? Were there wagon transports or some other means for part of it? I know the cavalry and Napolean would have rode (the incredible distance) but I just can't believe these guys walked all that way... Never did understand the energy put into imperialism.

Oh, one more question, I've heard people lump Napolean with Hitler but it looks to me like the bloodshed caused by napolean was largely warfare based (no pogroms or genocides); so when people lump him like that, it is because he was a megalomaniacal warmonger and not a sinister despot butcher, right?

Oooo.....there are literary thousands and thousands of books about Napoleon. :eek:
Might I suggest having a look in your local library....I bet you'll find whole shelves devoted to the man.

Originally posted by Antonius Block
And, I see this infantry go from Paris to Moscow in the days before trains; did they really walk all that distance? Were there wagon transports or some other means for part of it? I know the cavalry and Napolean would have rode (the incredible distance) but I just can't believe these guys walked all that way... Never did understand the energy put into imperialism.


Well, how did Alexander the Great get his army from Greece to India?
Or how did the Roman Legions travel from one end of their empire to the other?
Or how did the Crusaders get to the Holy Land? (those that didn't travel by sea that is)
And how did the armies of the American Civil War move about?
Even the German Infantry divisons of the Wehrmacht in WW2 walked to Moscow & Stalingrad (although they had the luxury of traveling by train to the Russian border first).

The people of the past were not a lazy as we are today. :lol:

Well, there were trains in use during the civil war. Alexander's bunch, I guess I thought of them as all riders, but I guess they must have walked a bit. Crusaders as you note had ships to fall back on and almost always at least half a horse to share.

With all that walking going on, no one the best tactics people had come up with in Napolean times appear to have been "line up and shoot at each other"...

I'd like to see reenactment of some of it being done -> I'd pay to join a group interested in walking out Alexander's route for instance.

Originally posted by Antonius Block
Well, there were trains in use during the civil war. Alexander's bunch, I guess I thought of them as all riders, but I guess they must have walked a bit. Crusaders as you note had ships to fall back on and almost always at least half a horse to share.
I very much doubt the chivalry shared horses with the commoners. :)
Trains are fine for internal mobility within your country. If you want to move forward, though, they are all but useless. One of the things the Confederates captured just prior to Gettyburg was a stock of union boots, IIRC, which they were very happy to get, as many troops were going barefoot due to boot wear! (again IIRC)
Modern armies have to walk too: most of the British troops in the Falklands walked from the San Carlos beachhead to Port Stanley. Often with rather large personal loads, too.

With all that walking going on, no one the best tactics people had come up with in Napolean times appear to have been "line up and shoot at each other"...
If that was the impression given of Napoleonic tactics by the A&E special...groan:rolleyes:. There's so much more to it than that. Typical TV I guess.

I'd like to see reenactment of some of it being done -> I'd pay to join a group interested in walking out Alexander's route for instance.
You'd have to pay me to do that! :)

Originally posted by Antonius Block
Well, there were trains in use during the civil war. Alexander's bunch, I guess I thought of them as all riders, but I guess they must have walked a bit. Crusaders as you note had ships to fall back on and almost always at least half a horse to share.

Almost every army in history (apart from the many different Horse Archer armies of the Asian steppes), has been an infantry army, with the mounted arm being a small minority.
Medieval feudal armies such as the Crusaders were no exception.
A few rich knights on horseback, and a larger mass of peasants and retainers on foot.


With all that walking going on, the best tactics people had come up with in Napolean times appear to have been "line up and shoot at each other"...

Well, muskets are very inaccurate at anything over about 100 paces/metres/yards, so the idea was to get as many as possible in a small area and fire mass volleys in the hope that at least some of them would hit something. This ment standing shoulder to shoulder, and "line up and shoot at each other".
In fact, 46 years after the end of the Napoleonic Wars, guess what tactics were used in the American Civil War....
....yep, "line up and shoot at each other". :D


I'd like to see reenactment of some of it being done -> I'd pay to join a group interested in walking out Alexander's route for instance.

Hmmm....might be a bit dangerous.
What was Persia is now days called Iran.....and Americans are not too popular there at the moment.... ;)

But trains were a big factor in the civil war. Near where I live, General Earley convinced the Union not to attack Lynchburg by loading and unloading the same train over and over, making it sound like more troops had arrived than actually had... and IIRC, the Union had a spy who was the quartermaster for the Confederates; when they needed beans he'd send boots, when they need boots he'd load the train up with ammo, when they requested ammo, they got butter, etc. etc.

Trains didn't exist at that time IIRC. At least it wasn't very developped.

@Kryten- oh, I'm sure if we dressed up as Hoplites they'd have a hoot about it in Iran...

@D'Artagnan- you're talking about Napolean, correct? No, trains were in existence starting 1804 but useless for much till about thirty years down the road... I learned train history from Sid Meier's Railroad Tycoon, incidentally also where I first learned just how far it is from the Russian border to Moscow. My feet were agonizingly damaged for weeks after walking from Times Square to Wall Street...

Originally posted by Antonius Block
But trains were a big factor in the civil war. <snip>
Yes, logistically, and for moving troops between theatres, and moving reserves up. But not for actually advancing into enemy territory (if you think lining up and shooting each other is dumb, what about "lets all get on a train and move forward along a fixed line" :))
Tactically they were of no use, and pretty much a non-event operationally. Strategically, that's a whole other matter.

Sure, I understand that. It's easy enough for the enemy to make sure you won't be able to ride the train into their territory. It just took a long, long time for the graphic arrow to get from Paris to Moscow on the tv show. A long way to think about deserting, too...

With all that walking going on, the best tactics people had come up with in Napolean times appear to have been "line up and shoot at each other"...
Linear tactics had been in use since the introduction of firearms. Muskets were inaccurate, so commanders used their units as giant shotguns, firing en masse in hopes of inflicting damage. However, the ill-equiped, poorly-trained but motivated citizen-soldiers of the French Revolution developed a new method of attack, the assault column. The idea was to break through enemy lines through sheer momentum, with emphasis on the bayonet. Once Napoleon came to power the assault column tactics were refined, and his better-trained troops could re-deploy from cloumn to line to square as needed.

Offensive Napoleonic tactics were based around the assault column. An attack on an enemy line was preoceeded by intensive, coordinated artillery fire. The column moved forward, screened by light infantry skirmishers who would pick off the officers and sergeants. By the time the column reached the opposing line, the enemy was disordered and could not resist the sheer magnitude of the assault. Once the enemy line was breached, cavalry would pour through the gaps, rolling up the enemy's line and routing it. This combined use of artillery, assault columns, light infantry, and cavalry was what really characterized Napoleonic warfare.

Thanks, Napoleon (sorry I keep spelling his name wrong). I'd be happy to hear your suggestions for further reading and what you make of the "napoleon as antichrist" question.

Originally posted by Antonius Block
Thanks, Napoleon (sorry I keep spelling his name wrong). I'd be happy to hear your suggestions for further reading and what you make of the "napoleon as antichrist" question.
Anything by Scott Bowden is great. STAY AWAY from most British authors, as most of them, even famous ones such as David Chandler, tend to smear the emperor's legacy with untruths and misinterpretations. Give me a little time and i'll come up with a list.

Originally posted by Antonius Block
I've heard people lump Napolean with Hitler

Well the common factors are that they were both:

* extraordinary self made individuals
* annhilated internal political opponents
* developed new tactics
* motivated fanatical armies
* used conscription
* more or less conquered Europe
* looked like dominating the world
* became over confident
* failed at sea
* came unstuck in Russia