The French Philosphy during the Napoleonic era

[[N]Von Thielmann]

I think there is a misconception about bayonet charges and melee. The bayonet charge was common. what was uncommon was that it hit home. Usually either the defender withdrew or routed or the attacker withdrew or routed to withering musket fire.

Melee was much more commen in town/village/building where the defender was less likely to give ground to a bayenet charge but also had less muskets concentrated on the attacker thus melee was more common in this instance.

I would like to add that Napoleon's combined arms doctrine was to enable the Line infantry to charge with bayonet. Artillery to soften up the opponent for the infantry to charge with bayonet, the cavalry to protect the infantry and to give confidence to the attack columns.

One of Ney's statements seem to characterize the French army of the Napoleonic era "In offensive warfare the French soldier has inexaustible resources;his active genius, and his bravery in storming, double his energy; and a french commander ought never to hesitate in marching against the enemy with the bayonet, if the ground is at all adapted to a charge in line with one or more battalions at a time. It is by attacking that the french soldier has become accustomed in warfare."

Prolonged fire fights were to be avoided if the troops are to attack; It would be better, therefore , after the first two ranks have fired, to charge boldly with the bayonet and by act of elan force the enemy to retreat.

sorces Armies of the Danube 1809 by Scott Bowden and The Glory Years 1805-1807 by Scott Bowden.

[[N]Sloop]

By this definition of French tactics it can be assumed that the advantages for the French should be attained in the maneuver prior to engagement. Once engaged a French commander should already have distinct advantages and opportunities for melee. Prolonged firefights would only be utilized in order to support the maneuvering process.

Now, how does this train of thought hold true in a battle with the French vs the Russian or Ottoman?

[[N]Von Thielmann]

With better utilized artillery and cavalry!

Battle of Eylau- 44,500 French vs 67,000 Russians. The French were hard pressed in there center to relieve the pressure a mass cavalry charge of 80 squadrons 10,500 men. If not for the timely arival of Lestoq's Prussians arrived and the battle ended up being a draw. The Russian withdrew.

Battle of Friedland- French used massed artillery in cannister range, Cavalry Protected the artillery and infantry from cavalry. Two marshals ordered a bayanet charge once the town of Friedland was burning. Initially 16,000 French vs 60,000 Russians. The French numbers increased throughout the day as more reinforcements arrived numbering around 80,000. 8,000 French casualties 20,000+ Russian Casualties.

Battle of Borodino- French outnumbered Guns outperformed the Russian Guns, French Cavalry supported and protected the guns and infantry, In one case Saxon garde du corps and the Zastrow cuirassairs took a redoubt, Infantry charged with the bayonet taking other redoubts. French casualties dependent on source range from 28000 to 35000. Russian casualties 60,000 +.