Army of Northern Virginia vs. La Grande Armee

Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia has one great advantage over the Le Grande Armee. And that’s it’s firepower. The effective range of both artillery and small arms fire exceeded that of the Napoleonic armies and the Hardee Tactics developed a system where on the field of battle, Civil War era soldiers actually advanced at a much faster pace than what Napoleon had.
This is tricky. The theoretical range of the small arms was considerably greater, but the range as actually used was about the same - ACW troops simply did not use their rifles as well as you can use a smoothbore musket, so the rifles didn't improve anything.

I've seen it noted by several authors that said the theoretical increased accuracy of rifled muskets was negated by the fact they were still using old powder, which threw up lots of smoke that essentially made en masse sharpshooting impossible after the first few volleys.
It depends on the situation. The smoke isn't that much of an issue if you have a force dispersed in skirmish line and firing deliberate aimed shots, unless the weather is very unusual, but it can quickly become a major problem if you have a force in a two-deep line firing as fast as possible - the difference is the amount of smoke generated per meter of front.
We do know that French troops in 1870-1 could achieve useful hit rates on targets several hundred yards away using black powder rifles, and indeed the only major war of 1854-71 which doesn't see long range infantry fire as a major focus is the Civil War.
 
Think of it this way... during the battle of Vimiero, the French attacks were engaged initially at ranges including about 100 yards (by the 1/50th) and about 200 yards (by the 1/50th, 2/9th and 2/97th). That latter is noted to be long range, for what it's worth.

But the latter is also beyond the average range of a Civil War firefight for the whole war.

Meanwhile, in the same battle, the British and Portugese cavalry under Col. Taylor (about 500 men overall) charged and broke up a rally square of French grenadiers.
 
Based on the operations in the Peninsula, and at Waterloo, I think the really big difference is going to simply be combined arms. The Square was the infantryman's very persuasive argument against cavalry (if you hold) but the reason why cavalry didn't simply disappear from the battlefield promptly upon the adoption of square formation as a "thing" is that the square has tradeoffs - some quite big ones. It reduces the firepower of a battalion by a factor of four (or six or eight) and is a much better target for artillery, and if the battalion discharges their weapons then they're vulnerable. (A square which discharges their weapons at the wrong time and is reloading is vulnerable.)
This latter is significant because of the training issue.


For example, if you have infantry supported by cavalry and artillery, and they're facing:

Unsupported infantry - the cavalry threatens to charge, forcing the infantry into square, and the artillery and infantry can then blast them to bits.
Unsupported artillery - the cavalry charges and takes the guns.
Unsupported cavalry - cavalry skirmish.
Infantry and artillery - the cavalry threatens to charge, forcing the infantry into square and the artillerymen to abandon their pieces (so they're not ridden down at the guns) and the guns can then be taken and spiked.

The presence of the cavalry means they can present a threat which alters the tactical balance.
 
Saphroneth, you are very astute but since I have taken the weak team........ Do you really think that a combat saber beats a revolver? I know a saber never runs out of ammo but a revolver has a little longer reach and can hit the horse or the rider. A thunderous revolver volley from steady men would certainly lessen the ranks of the French cavalry.
Are you saying that a smooth bore like the Brown Bess can be loaded faster, therefore have more fire power. I have shot smooth bore and at 100 yards you would be lucky to hit the side of a barn, where as a rifled musket at 100 yards would pretty much go where you aim.
 
Saphroneth, you are very astute but since I have taken the weak team........ Do you really think that a combat saber beats a revolver? I know a saber never runs out of ammo but a revolver has a little longer reach and can hit the horse or the rider. A thunderous revolver volley from steady men would certainly lessen the ranks of the French cavalry.
Yes, I do think that, and the reason is that saber-armed Union cavalry in 1864-5 dominated their revolver-armed Confederate opponents in mounted combat.

What you're describing is essentially the theory behind the caracole, and it's a very good theory so long as the opponent you're facing is unsteady and is unwilling to charge home boot to boot (or just is plain incapable of reaching you). It's good against enemy infantry who don't themselves have firearms.
Against cavalry that is willing to charge home it just means you're not holding a weapon capable of doing significant damage in the ensuing melee, because you've emptied the weapon.
Remember that a revolver is an inherently inaccurate weapon (short barrel, heavy recoil on a light weapon) and that shooting from horseback is inherently inaccurate. Combine the two and you've got a recipe for a lot of misses.


Historically starting in 1863-4 (Minty's brigade led the way) you had Confederate cavalrymen starting to complain about the superior Union cavalry - armed with the sabre. (They had carbines and revolvers, but not enough sabres to countercharge.)
 
Are you saying that a smooth bore like the Brown Bess can be loaded faster, therefore have more fire power. I have shot smooth bore and at 100 yards you would be lucky to hit the side of a barn, where as a rifled musket at 100 yards would pretty much go where you aim.
But you're someone who's actually trained to use a rifle. Civil War infantry had not, and it's interesting you mention the barn because as it happens we have an example of what happened when Union troops did just that:

5th Connecticut: “About a hundred yards away, the broad side of a barn proved to be too much of a temptation. The men fired a volley at the harmless foe. The men were sadly disappointed when they checked the results of their seemingly fearsome fire. Only four bullets [of forty] had found their way to the building, though it was 20 feet long and 15 feet wide. Of these, only a single bullet hole was within the height of a line of infantrymen.” Brent Nosworthy, The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the American Civil War (London: Constable, 2005), p. 145


Now, as it happens, the smoothbore musket is not as inaccurate as it's sometimes portrayed, or perhaps it would be more correct to say it's not as imprecise as it's often portrayed. If you mount a smoothbore musket on a rest and point it at a target a hundred yards away, the error is such that it will usually hit within about two feet of the point of aim.

What does this mean? It means that at 100 yards the smoothbore is at about the limit of what's called "point blank" range, while at 100 yards the rifled musket is pretty well certain to hit a man if you point at him.
So why didn't all Civil War battles involve every side firing about two shots per man and everyone falling over dead?

It's because very few men shoot to kill.
Even with the best sharpshooting training you can give with the rifle-musket, about one in sixteen shots hitting is the best rate you seem to be able to get (though sometimes it gets a bit better in specific engagements). The hit rate in the ACW and during studied Napoleonic engagements, on the other hand, is pretty much the same.


This is borne out by an exhaustive study done of regiment on regiment actions in the Civil War, in which it was found that there was no statistically significant effect given by the weapons carried by the contending regiments - but there was a statistically significant effect given by the temperature. (What this means is that if a Union and a Confederate regiment are facing one another and you want to know who is going to win, knowing the temperature is going to tell you more than knowing what weapons each side is carrying.)
 
Last edited:
Do you really think that a combat saber beats a revolver?
(...)
I have shot smooth bore and at 100 yards you would be lucky to hit the side of a barn,
Yes, it happened multiply times late in the war where union cavalry simply charged home with drawn sabers.
(and you forget that even in union armies revolvers where not universal... )

And the 2nd part. Then you are doing something wrong.

The danish army measured accuracy of firearms as the radius of a circle that hold half the shots
This is from a test in the late 1850ties.
rangeTaprifleMinieriflesmoothbore
125,5m15,7cm20,9 cm54,9 cm
188,3m24,6cm28,8 cm86,3 cm
251 m34 cm36,6 cm1,52 meter

So at 125meters a target 110cm tall simulating a close ordered shoulder to shoulder formation, would be hit with 50% or more of the shots from smooth-bores. (shots that go high or ow miss, but shots that go off sideways will still hit a line of infantry)
And if we make it 6 feet as was not uncommon, the results are even better.

This is what you can get if your cartridges are well made and made for accuracy.
(Some armies prioritized Rate of fire, so when looking at 18th century smooth-bores you will find examples of 4-5 rounds a minute, but way poorer range and accuracy)
Obviously this is what the gun and cartridge is able to do... the skill of the soldier and the chaos of battle have massive negative influence on the effectiveness in battle.
 
(Some armies prioritized Rate of fire, so when looking at 18th century smooth-bores you will find examples of 4-5 rounds a minute, but way poorer range and accuracy)
The British way of doing things was basically a long-reserved initial volley, a blast of high-ROF short-range fire, and then a bayonet charge to cause the dazed attackers to rout. It's interesting to compare this to Gettysburg, where fire was reserved until close range but then there was ~20 minutes of fire instead - when if anything you'd expect the supposedly more accurate weapons to either open fire at longer range or resolve things more quickly.
 
You guys are making it hard for me to counter your arguments. With all of your facts and knowledge! I am learning much from you all. If I can think of anything else that is not TOO stupid, I will post it. :smile coffee:
 
I think the last British cavalry charge was at Omdurman three decades after the Civil War. After that the battlefield, above ground, was too dangerous for horses.

Watch out, Will !

Mention the "last British Cavalry charge" and you open a real can of worms. Winston Churchill took part in the charge of the 21st Lancers at Omdurman in 1898, and many writers since have claimed this as "the last . . . " etc., but . . . . .

A patrol of the Central India Horse, attached to the Burma Frontier Force, charged Japanese positions at Tungu in central Burma in March 1942. This was not a planned action - the patrol bumped into the Japanese and initially thought that they had encountered friendly Chinese. The patrol commander, Captain Arthur Sandeman ordered the charge when the situation dawned on him, leading to his own death and that of nearly all of his patrol. This perhaps may not count as "the last British cavalry charge" as the CIH were acting as Mounted Infantry, and were armed accordingly.
There were several charges during the Great War with sword and lance, mainly on the Western Front, France and Belgium. Most took place during the war of movement in 1914 before the trench lines became established, though maybe the best known horsed charge of the war was that of the Australian Light Horse at Beersheba, Palestine, in October 1917. Again, these were really Mounted Infantrymen, and as they had given up their sabres they charged with drawn bayonets to hand.
Probably the last British charge involving proper cavalry charging with the sabre took place at Moreuil Wood on 30 March 1918. This involved C Squadron of Lord Strathcona's Horse under command of Captain Gordon Flowerdew. The brief action was successful, though at the cost of half of the squadron including Flowerdew who died after being shot through both thighs. He was awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross. I assess this small scale action as hugely important, as it prevented the Germans breaking the Allied line at the junction of the French and British armies. The French would have fallen back to protect Paris, and the Brits, already aware that their backs were to the wall, would have fallen back on the Channel ports long before the Doughboys were in France in numbers to save the day.
The Strathcona's still celebrate Moreuil annually as their Regimental Day. They are, of course, a Canadian regiment.

Indians, Australians, Canadians - thanks.
 
Many of the things discussed here have frequently been dismissed out of hand in discussions of civil war tactics when instances challenging the conventional wisdom have been referred to. Thanks to all hands above for a most fascinating discussion. I think some doors have been opened here that might shed more light on Civil War tactics.I

John
 
Watch out, Will !

Mention the "last British Cavalry charge" and you open a real can of worms. Winston Churchill took part in the charge of the 21st Lancers at Omdurman in 1898, and many writers since have claimed this as "the last . . . " etc., but . . . . .

A patrol of the Central India Horse, attached to the Burma Frontier Force, charged Japanese positions at Tungu in central Burma in March 1942. This was not a planned action - the patrol bumped into the Japanese and initially thought that they had encountered friendly Chinese. The patrol commander, Captain Arthur Sandeman ordered the charge when the situation dawned on him, leading to his own death and that of nearly all of his patrol. This perhaps may not count as "the last British cavalry charge" as the CIH were acting as Mounted Infantry, and were armed accordingly.
There were several charges during the Great War with sword and lance, mainly on the Western Front, France and Belgium. Most took place during the war of movement in 1914 before the trench lines became established, though maybe the best known horsed charge of the war was that of the Australian Light Horse at Beersheba, Palestine, in October 1917. Again, these were really Mounted Infantrymen, and as they had given up their sabres they charged with drawn bayonets to hand.
Probably the last British charge involving proper cavalry charging with the sabre took place at Moreuil Wood on 30 March 1918. This involved C Squadron of Lord Strathcona's Horse under command of Captain Gordon Flowerdew. The brief action was successful, though at the cost of half of the squadron including Flowerdew who died after being shot through both thighs. He was awarded a posthumous Victoria Cross. I assess this small scale action as hugely important, as it prevented the Germans breaking the Allied line at the junction of the French and British armies. The French would have fallen back to protect Paris, and the Brits, already aware that their backs were to the wall, would have fallen back on the Channel ports long before the Doughboys were in France in numbers to save the day.
The Strathcona's still celebrate Moreuil annually as their Regimental Day. They are, of course, a Canadian regiment.

Indians, Australians, Canadians - thanks.

Thank you for the reply. Opening cans of worms is my specialty. I am not offended by people teaching me things I don't know. There is too much history and so little time. Was Omdurman the last charge of British Lancers?
 
Mention the "last British Cavalry charge" and you open a real can of worms. Winston Churchill took part in the charge of the 21st Lancers at Omdurman in 1898, and many writers since have claimed this as "the last . . . " etc., but . . . . .
I happen to know that British cavalry in WW1 were trained to jump barbed wire, which helped them continue to charge.
If anyone's interested, it involved teaching a couple of soldiers per troop to jump posts, and then the rest to jump when they did; the leading soldiers just aimed their horses at the posts. Without doing that the horses didn't see the barbed wire as an obstacle that needed jumping.

Was Omdurman the last charge of British Lancers?
French's cavalry division charged during the relief of Kimberley. There was also a cavalry action at Ephey where the units drew lances before the action, and another unambiguous lance charge on 30 March 1918:


The 4th Hussars followed up and made contact with the French to the south, while the 5th and 16th Lancers reinforced the Canadian firing line. Fighting went on all day on 30 March and on one occasion a squadron of Lord Strathcona’s Horse, working its way round the north-east end of the wood, came upon a German infantry battalion that had left the cover of the trees and was attempting to press forward towards the Amiens road. There was no time to dismount or to draw rifles; the squadron commander ordered his bugler to blow ‘charge’, and the men lowered their lances and kicked their horses into a canter. The Germans had no time to form a firing line and were caught flat-footed. Many were killed by sword and lance thrusts and the rest disintegrated and fled back into the trees.11 The cavalry held the line until relieved by infantry in the small hours of 31 March. The Germans never did manage to advance beyond the woods, and this was as far as the ‘Kaiser’s offensive’ got in that part of the line.

Corrigan, Gordon. Mud, Blood and Poppycock: Britain and the Great War (Cassel Military) . Orion. Kindle Edition.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the reply. Opening cans of worms is my specialty. I am not offended by people teaching me things I don't know. There is too much history and so little time. Was Omdurman the last charge of British Lancers?

No.
5th Lancers charged Boers at Elandslaagte in October 1899. Unfortunately it wan't very gallant on the British part - most of the Boers were attempting to flee, and there were accusations that some were killed by the lance after surrendering.

There was a lance-on-lance engagement between 9th Lancers and German lancers at Moncel, France, on 7 September 1914. The CO of the 9th was badly wounded with gunshot, sabre and lance wounds. Again, there is a painting of the event by Richard Caton Woodville entitled Charge of the 9th Lancers. I'm inclined to think that this was the last British lance charge.
 
Not to take this conversation in too different a route or anything:

One thing I came across during my research for my book France Before Everything alternative history (which you can buy from Kindle), is that Napoleon actually sent out orders (I believe in 1809) that his line officers were actually to begin target practicing as he felt that the officers were at risk of losing touch with how their soldiers fired. I actually make it a point of having a French officer seen doing exactly that with one of my POV Russian characters accompanying him.

Not that this changes the outcome but this is indictive to how Napoleon viewed leadership compared to how many officers in the South were. Napoleon was all about merit and his officers being skilled and versitle. Compare this to many of the officers of the Civil War that only achieved their position through political means.

Doesn't mean that Napoleon's army were completely void of political pandering, such as the Polish Prince that he made a marshal to signal his alliance with Poland but the majority of his Marshal's only got their position because of their abilites.

If people are interested, I can sit down and write out a complete scenario of Le Grande Armee vs Army of Northern Virginia with the Chancellorsville Campaign being this setting.
 
One thing I came across during my research for my book France Before Everything alternative history (which you can buy from Kindle), is that Napoleon actually sent out orders (I believe in 1809) that his line officers were actually to begin target practicing as he felt that the officers were at risk of losing touch with how their soldiers fired. I actually make it a point of having a French officer seen doing exactly that with one of my POV Russian characters accompanying him.
That is very interesting, because I knew already that Europeans considered the American way of doing things to involve not enough care for the men on the part of the officers but I hadn't realized that the officers were required to take part in target practice.

It seems that that's just another difference with American armies, because in the ACW the armies usually didn't do target practice at all...
 
That is very interesting, because I knew already that Europeans considered the American way of doing things to involve not enough care for the men on the part of the officers but I hadn't realized that the officers were required to take part in target practice.

It seems that that's just another difference with American armies, because in the ACW the armies usually didn't do target practice at all...

Napoleon also had another reason behind everything he did in the military sense. His regime was literally in a fight for its very survival during almost the entirety of it. Few of his wars were declared by him, but by the European powers that wished to crush this upstart.

Everything he did militarily was to give him the most advantages he could have for this goal.
 
That is very interesting, because I knew already that Europeans considered the American way of doing things to involve not enough care for the men on the part of the officers but I hadn't realized that the officers were required to take part in target practice.

It seems that that's just another difference with American armies, because in the ACW the armies usually didn't do target practice at all...
In the 1850 and 60ties, Young Danish officers who first arrived with their unit was put to work as junior NCOs at first, to make sure they knew the job of the private soldiers and NCOs. Then when they proved they could instruct in basic drill, the manual of arms and marksmanship and similar, they started doing actual officer stuff and command.
(and it is the same today, you will not become a line officer without first doing at least some duty as a sergeant)

The German army in 1940 expected a captain to know the first name of all his men and to know a bit about their peacetime lives so he could actually sit down and talk with a soldier with issues...
 
Back
Top