Most "Napoleonic" battle?

[JackRabbitSmoke]

I'm looking for interesting battles and campaigns to wargame. My primary interest is the Napoleonic Wars, specifically the Peninsular War. I've found that as a period it has plenty of battles that are "easy" to wargame, and for me that's the gateway to learning more about the history.

So I'm looking for engagements that fit the following criteria:

• Open terrain
• Fairly linear formations, not too many fieldworks
• Without tons of reinforcements throughout the day
• Forces ranging from an under-strength Division to a Corps per side
• Combined arms (I know it's less common)

Which Civil War battles fit the bill? I asked over on TheMiniaturesPage and got some good suggestions about the 1864 Valley campaigns, but curious what other battles the "experts" here can think of.

Thanks!

 

[thomas aagaard]

During the civil war we basically never see anyone using Napoleonic tactics of combined arms.
I can't think of any good examples of combined arms where cavalry force infantry into square and then artillery shoot them to pieces...


If you are arguing that Napoleonic infantry tactics where linear at the battalion level then I simply don't agree.
Early and mid 18th century infantry tactics where linear.

But The core of the drill system in use during the civil war is the same Frence one from the late 18th century.
And the ability to change from column into line and back is a big change.

You use the column for (usually with two companies side by side) quick movements in the battalion column, screened by skirmishers, and sometimes driving home the attack in column. But otherwise deploying into line for the firefight.
Even the British had a battalion column for moving on the battlefield when not in combat.

So its more flexible then just "linear".

If you are talking about larger formations, then sure its linear, but then arguably so was wwii.

So Tactically the civil war is much closer to how the 7 year war was fought in Europe. (at least when talking the fights in open fields)
The infantry moving in line and taking the firefight at close range. With relative few skirmishers used unless the terrain force it.
The cavalry delegated to guard the flanks of the armies.

---
Now no question that plenty of units moved forward is what would be called a heavy skirmish line... but that was more a question of the terrain forcing it... together with individual battalions opening up the formations to make them less of a target. And not any serious tactical development that was implemented from the top.

 

[Cavalier]

@JackRabbitSmoke If you come up with one let me know. I've thought about that for more years than I would care to dwell on.

I would have considered maybe 3rd. Winchester for some cavalry vs. infantry action but still not combined arms that I'm aware of.

I agree with @thomas aagaard though. I think it more resembles the Seven Years War myself, but then I'm certainly no expert.

John

 

[Zack]

I'm curious if someone can tease out how combat in the Civil War resembles the Seven Years War. I'm not familiar enough with the Seven Years War and am curious about the comparison.

I'm probably wrong but I thought cavalry played a larger role in the Seven Years War on the battlefield than in the Civil War.

 

[Rhea Cole]

On an 8 1/2" X 11" map of the Western Theater the entire operating area of the Army of the Potomac & Army of Northern Virginia is literally the size of a postage stamp. Perhaps the problem you are having is due to the small size of the examples to choose from.

For example, the Battle of Tupelo checks off each of your criteria. One thing you can say about Mississippi is that it is flat. An interesting feature is an effective USCT combined arms batallion.

Wilder's brigade of mounted infantry armed with seven shot Spencer repeating rifles supported by Lilly's 3" rifles & 12 pound howitzers at Hoover's Gap is a fascinating small battle.

At Baton Rouge an out manned Union force prevailed with the assistance of indirect cannon fire from gunboats. A signalist in a church steeple used the Sherman / Porter signal code to direct the naval fire.

Once you cross the mountains there is a long list of battles that fit your criteria.

 

[Kurtlg]

I'm curious if someone can tease out how combat in the Civil War resembles the Seven Years War. I'm not familiar enough with the Seven Years War and am curious about the comparison.

I'm probably wrong but I thought cavalry played a larger role in the Seven Years War on the battlefield than in the Civil War.

It depends on the theater. The French and Indian War was part of the Seven Years War and I don't recall any cavalry outside of a mounted French force around Quebec.

 

[Zack]

Civil War Tactics in Perspective

This website makes the argument that the Civil War resembled 18th Century conflict, particularly of the Seven Years War.

Apparently the Prussian observer Julius Scheibert came to the same conclusion, saying watching Civil War armies in action was "like ghosts of days and ways of Frederick the Great."

A Prussian Observes the American Civil War

books.google.com

He considered the modern Prussian army far superior:

"Prussian tactics freed (officers) to use their own minds... Liberated battalion and even company commanders could be the heads of tactical units, their own, and make them fight as right-thinking officers saw fit and as well-trained troops best could. The flexible line at the forward edge resembles a chain, then with detachable links under independent guidance. At crisis they can dismember into smaller and even the smallest units without dysfunction... Our Prussian tactics thus gave our line officers energy, elasticity, and speed - to the entire army's benefit... Furthermore, diligent peacetime training provided our troops an abundance of formations, something to fit any circumstance... Lee, the first American to acknowledge this superiority, replied in the thick of Chancellorsville when I spoke with amazement at the bravery of Jackson's corps: 'Just give me Prussian formations and Prussian discipline along with it - you'd see things turn out differently here!'" (Scheibert 49)

 

[Piedone]

On an 8 1/2" X 11" map of the Western Theater the entire operating area of the Army of the Potomac & Army of Northern Virginia is literally the size of a postage stamp. Perhaps the problem you are having is due to the small size of the examples to choose from.

For example, the Battle of Tupelo checks off each of your criteria. One thing you can say about Mississippi is that it is flat. An interesting feature is an effective USCT combined arms batallion.

Wilder's brigade of mounted infantry armed with seven shot Spencer repeating rifles supported by Lilly's 3" rifles & 12 pound howitzers at Hoover's Gap is a fascinating small battle.

At Baton Rouge an out manned Union force prevailed with the assistance of indirect cannon fire from gunboats. A signalist in a church steeple used the Sherman / Porter signal code to direct the naval fire.

Once you cross the mountains there is a long list of battles that fit your criteria.

Didn´t the OP ask for open terrain? Maybe Mississippi is a bit too woody and at certain places (eg at Vicksburg) more rugged than one would think...

 

[Piedone]

He considered the modern Prussian army far superior:

"Prussian tactics freed (officers) to use their own minds... Liberated battalion and even company commanders could be the heads of tactical units, their own, and make them fight as right-thinking officers saw fit and as well-trained troops best could..."

In Ray´s "Shocktroops of the Confederacy" the sharpshooters are described as fighting exactly in that fashion -
if Ray is correct then this special (and somehow limited in size) troops could have been even somehow equal to and maybe even more modern than Prussian troops of the time...

 

[Pat Answer]

To the OP, Murfreesboro/Stones River checks most of the boxes especially the morning and early afternoon fighting of the first day (Dec 31, 1862) excepting of course 'combined arms'.

@Zack - Great website, that!

In the end, I think it's not really about the terrain but the drill, as @thomas aagaard points out. The undoubted courage, motivation, and individual initiative of our citizen-soldiery North and South on the whole would have been at a significant disadvantage against an entire army given "diligent peacetime training" to avail itself of "an abundance of formations" on the battlefield without confusion as we see time and again throughout the war. And Lee and others certainly knew this.

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

So I'm looking for engagements that fit the following criteria:

• Open terrain
• Fairly linear formations, not too many fieldworks
• Without tons of reinforcements throughout the day
• Forces ranging from an under-strength Division to a Corps per side
• Combined arms (I know it's less common)

Which Civil War battles fit the bill?

First Bull Run was mostly open farm fields, but Confederate reinforcements are a key factor.

Antietam was mostly farm fields, albeit rolling terrain. Effectively no cavalry though and reinforcements are a factor. You would need to simulate a portion of the battle, like Miller's Cornfield.

Perryville had rolling terrain but mostly farm fields. No cavalry. Size is right for men actually engaged.

Someone suggested Stones River. The battlefield had a lot of cedar glades and rocky outcroppings. You might simulate the opening attack on the Union right flank. Reinforcements are a factor - not in the traditional sense but rather due to the battle lines not activating simultaneously. Fighting started at one flank and slowly worked it's way to the other flank.

Pickett's Charge at Gettysburg was across open terrain and the only fieldworks were some fences on the Union lines. It's also roughly a corps vs corps fight in terms of size.

Third Winchester seems like a good choice for mixed arms, size, and mostly open terrain.