In the Napoleonic wars, why did the British soldiers not run at the enemy rather than walk and get shot at?

Question

In the Napoleonic wars, the English troops walked toward the enemy, taking all cannon fire, not faltering their stride. But why did they not run, and get too close to the cannons more quickly to have less casualties?

I suspect that it is to do with trying to draw the enemy out, by going slow and encouraging them onward with the casualties that were visible from the cannon fire.

Answer 1

To understand the tactic one has to understand the technical realities of Napoleonic era warfare.

Troops were generally armed with the musket, a smooth bore, muzzle loading weapon. This weapon was both inaccurate and short ranged. Further, it was difficult to reload except in a standing position.

The artillery of the day was also relatively short ranged and took even longer to reload and re-lay (a cannon moves a considerable distance when fired and has to be dragged back to positon and pointed in the right direction).

Both sorts of weapons created huge amounts of thick, eye stinging smoke which obscured the field within a few minutes absent a good breeze blowing.

Infantry tactics called for troops to advance to within range of the enemy, deliever a few volleys as rapidly as possible and then. before they were slaughtered by cannon fire, charge with the bayonet into the (hopefully) disrupted enemy lines.

The relatively slow advance to contact was required to maintain unit cohesion so as to be able to deliever the critical attacking volley fire with maximum effect.

The advance, while slower than flat out running, was still brisk and the advancing troops would rarely be subject to more than a few rounds of cannon fire if maneuvered intelligently. Artillery fire was simply not as rapid or destructive as modern artillery and well trained and disciplined troops could survive it.

Answer 2

The British Army method of front line action during the Napoleonic period [late 18th to early 19th century] meant having three [somtimes four] ranks of troops with muskets.

Because it would take about 20 seconds to reload a musket, three ranks of troops were usually used. The front rank would fire their muskets, the second rank take one pace forward between the ranks of the first and fire their muskets. Then the third rank and so on.

All of this was done to the beat of a drum and paced so as to allow each rank to reload and keep firing in a rhythmic fashion.

The usual battal line format for the British Army was the 'square' [form square] this took about 30 minutes to create and often there was insufficient time to do this, so the line ahead method was often used.

The Battle of Waterloo was fought by the British and their allies, the Germans and Dutch etc., using straight battle lines plus cavalry and cannon.

Casualties in the British lines were usually minimal. The British Army took careful aim at the enemy line[s] in front of them and tried not to waste shot. The method was slow and repetative, but it gave every soldier a chance to reload.

Fallen soldiers, wounded or dead, were simply stepped over and ignored. There was little field dressing at the time of Waterloo and the total death toll on both sides was huge.

We did not get real field ambulance[s] until the Crimea. However, the French did have some form of field ambulance with stretchers etc during the Napoleonic period.

Edit: nely - above is quite wrong suggesting that the British Army lived off the land. Any British soldier caught stealing food from civilians would be flogged. The matter was taken most seriously by the British Army.

The British Army at Waterloo - the final great battle of the Napoleonic period - relied heavily upon their own supply wagons. Supplies to the British Army in the field were usually managed by civilian wagon owners, either directly from UK or friendly locals.

The food supplied to the British Army was not all that good and usually consisted of beef bones and cerial in the form of oats etc.

One letter I have from Waterloo to someone in Norfolk spoke of ..."things are well, Gin is one penny a pint and tobacco four pence a pound..." These items would have been supplied from wagons brought into the field by their civilian owners.

Having read that and similar letters, I'm not sure that the average British soldier was ever really quite sober, not if gin was one penny per pint and his daily pay was about one shilling or 12 pence [old English].

The last surviving witness of Waterloo died in her late 90s in c1906. She had been a 5 year old with her mum and dad in their family wagon at or near the battle and had gone over the site a couple of days after.

Waterloo 1815.

Answer 3

The object was to arrive with as much massed musket fire as you could manage at about 100 yds from the enemy. To arrive in dribs and drabs without officers and NCOs (to rally and control fire) the shock affect of massed infantry was lost. Once the volley was fired bayonets would be fixed to again smash into the enemy's ranks. Brute kinetics at two levels and both needed mass not bits and pieces arriving at different times.

The sight of a well drilled fearless mass approaching you relentlessly would have definite psychological as well as kinetic effects as they neared your own lines.

Also bear in mind that there were other excellent non-British infantry forces like Napoleon's Garde who also put the fear of god up a force being attacked.

Answer 4

The weapons of the time were quite inaccurate. As a result, you needed to fire a lot of them at the enemy to be assured of hitting anyone. So, the infantry formed tight ranks, and all fired together. These close formations also required considerable practice and coordination amongst the troops. If they had started running, it would have been nearly impossible to maintain the coordination, and the other side would have fire volleys into their forces and caused a rout.

Most of the time the shooting wasn't really expected to kill the enemy outright, but demoralize them. Which ever side broke and ran first lost.

Answer 5

Right up until WWI, warfare between nations was based on the old code of chivalry. There were some commanders who preferred to be thought chivalrous and heroic regardless of the outcome of the battle. At the battle of the Somme, French troops were mowed down en masse as they attempted to climb out of the trenches. Those who declined to do so on the grounds that it was suicide were court-martialled by their commanders and later shot for cowardice.

A record exists from the Crimean War in which a British private was court martialled for kicking an enemy soldier who had fallen and dropped his weapon. Similar things still go on today as is clearly demonstrated by the US Marine who was formally charged with murder for shooting a badly wounded terrorist who was lying on the ground.

However, many historic battles were won when soldiers did not follow the rules of chivalry but resorted to the unexpected. Julius Caesar in his memoirs frequently refers to the fact that his armies won by "resorting to deceit and trickery."

In modern warfare, even though tactics have changed due to technology, it seems that the powerful nations of the world are still held to the medieval standards of chivalry while their enemies have no qualms about using whatever dirty tactics they believe will allow them to prevail.

Answer 6

That was the traditional way of fighting a war. Napoleon was so successful because he thought of new ways of fighting wars -- living off the land, interchangeable weapons, attacking the enemy from behind, etc. This worked well until other countries, such as England, Austria, etc, started using similar methods.

Answer 7

They tended to run when they got closer, if they ran all the way across a battlefield they would be too knackered to fight when they got to the enemy.

I doubt if they advanced with heads high though - despite what painting of the time may show (they had spin in those days too!). If you read some contemporary reports of, say, Pickett's Charge during the American Civil War they tell of the advancing Confederate troops walking as it they were heading into a rainstorm.

Answer 8

As General Picton said to Wellington at Waterloo,"They are coming at us in the same old way" to which Wellington replied "Then we shall meet them in the same old way".
That remark summed up the entire 5,000 years of past military attacks.
Large formations of infantry would quite literally walk through an enemy, The French Old guard used formations of up to 10,000 men in closed order march that would generally scatter the opposing troops (Such as at Borodino and Austerlitz).But at Waterloo it failed.
A large well drilled formation of infantry would be better controlled when advancing,with the rear ranks taking the position of the dead in the front,thus giving a continuous line of infantry opposing an enemy and giving an unbroken line of troops,no matter how many you shoot down one would always be replaced,an open order charge is haphazard ,uncontrolled and would break upon the enemy in an uninformed fasion.
It worked well when the enemy reacted in "The same old way" and would remain the standard attack formation for a further 100 years until the advent of BlitzKrieg in 1939.

Answer 9

Things that were done a long time ago in the past, well, why do we need to apologise - especially as the people they affected are long gone anyway! We need to focus on sorting out our current mess, rather than apologising for the things we did "wrong" in the past. Judging something as wrong based on a modern perspective is just silly - at the time it was acceptable, now we know better. Surely it is apology enough that we banned slavery when we came to our senses? As you say, they should apologise to the people of Iraq, to pensioners, to uni students, to police officers etc. rather than things done by a totally different government in a totally different time.

Answer 10

ther are some very good answers posted here!!! to add to them i would like to mention that it was also done to cause a pyschological effect on the opposing side by having a slow menacing army drifting towards towards them accompanied by the beating of drums working as a pulsating entity stopping for nothing or no-one to come to get them- this caused great fear in the other side as they panicked to reload- this effect has been used in many horror and suspense stories nowadays. it gave the upper hand to the british as once an enemy is overcome with fear and panic it tends to fall apart. one film that springs to mind is "terminator" remember the effect of watching it for the first time?