You have to remember that the French army of 1805 had only just finished up 10 years of near-continuous revolution. I would absolutely refer to them as battle-hardened by that point.
The Prussian army of 1815 was good. It had some quality generals like Gneisenau, but the fact remains it got a hiding at Ligny. It then helped defeat a patched up French army at Waterloo after most of the hard work had been done by the British. I honestly cannot envisage any army from the Napoleonic era better than the Grande Armee at its best.
But Ligny was very close shave for both sides. Also not all of the Prussian forces were used during that battle, and yes the battle of Waterloo was going on for several hours, but Plancenoit was one of the parts of the battlefields with highest casulty figures. And that was'nt even the entire Prussian army- VI corps havn't even arrived yet. I would say it's an awesome army. Specialy if you start collecting them and you start to realize how flexible their stucture is, having brigades as mini-corps, that have infantry, militia, skirmishers, artillery and small brigades of cavalry.
The Prussian army of 1815 also lost at Wavre on the 18th/19th Apart from a number of French Army's like the 1805 grand army i think the Wellingtons 1812, 1813, 1814 army would destroyed the 1815 Prussian army also would beaten the French army of the north 1815 with out the help of the Prussian
@@daniellastuart3145 Wavre is only a defeat of the Prussians in a tactical sense, but a strategical victory. The French had twice the numbers and yet the Prussian 17 000 soldiers pinned 33 000 French soldiers that could be used at Waterloo- that would mean 50% more French during the battle. So from a strategical point of view Wavre was a cruicial success.
The Prussian army was at Waterloo from 1pm onwards, while they didn’t do as much fighting as Wellingtons army, their presence drew away all French infantry reserves, which proved vital as this is why Neys charge was unsupported
The "British" had more foreign troops than British at Waterloo. The Prussians had defeated Napolean before at Leipzig and many other Battles (give and take). Many "defeats" were strategic retreats as per the Bernadotte doctrine. Hard to say which one was better. Clearly Wellington wasn't thinking too highly of the British elements of his troops. But otoh he wasn't thinking highly of anyone but himself one needs to wonder given a degree of pettiness of marketing himself after Waterloo.
In my opinion, the Russian army of 1799 was much better than the Russian army of 1812. Just look at its success against the French army in Italy and Switzerland. Suvorov massacred General Moreu, General MacDonald, and killed General Joubert. Extremely experienced, extremely aggressive and mobile, he has not lost a single battle. "What can you say of a general so resolute to a superhuman degree, and who would perish himself and let his army perish to the last man rather than retreat a single pace" - Moreu about Suvorov.
@@NapoleonicWargaming During this campaign, the Russian army wore different uniforms. Tsar Paul I in 1796 restored Prussian fashion in the army. Musketeers and Jaegers wore bicorn again, and all grenadiers wore mitre caps. Like the Pavlovian grenadiers in 1812. ;) th-cam.com/video/HBO9e78vM9k/w-d-xo.html The army of this period was perhaps the best in Russian history, and certainly no one could match Suvorov after that. But the best uniform is the one designed by Potemkin, worn in 1786-1796. ;)
@@davidcollins2648 This army has already had a long war with Turkey, several years of fighting with Sweden and two wars with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was an experienced and hardened army, ready for any sacrifice. Besides, Suvorov's army still had the mentality of the times of Catherine the Great, when initiative was rewarded and soldiers were made to believe in their own strength. In this respect they resembled French soldiers a little. Tsar Paul I and then Alexander I began to regress its development and restored the Prussian models from the times of Frederick the Great. In this system, the soldier was a de facto prisoner of the army. Anyway, in the Austrian army of the period 1798-1800 it was the same - that's why, for example, a large number of Polish deserters from the imperial army. Of course, Suvorov was the most important factor in this series of victories in 1799.
@@NapoleonicWargaming In general, if you want to know the campaign in 1799 better, I recommend the book "Eagles Over The Alps: Suvorov In Italy and Switzerland, 1799". You could even summarize this campaign in a movie because the topic is very interesting ... but unfortunately forgotten because of Napoleon's later victory at Marengo. It's a pity that the figures for the 1799 campaign are very expensive. Anyway, those in Potemkin uniforms are not cheap either. :(
Cracking discussion in this one. I think id generally agree with those top five,, though I'd make one change, I'd choose the 1813 Prussians rather than those in 1815. In that campaign you see the true birth of the Prussian army that lasts into the 20th century until its demise at the end of WWI. You see the relatively small professional army stand up to Napoleon, and not get completly stomped, the krumper system of reserves comes into its own allowing a quick mobilisation of a professional army long with the almost fanatical landwehr show its worth. But what really sways it for me is the 1813 army while having made huge reforms in its officer corps is still learning adapting and improving throughout the whole German campaign, it learns its lessions and reacts to them incredibly quickly which to me is a hjuge sign of a superior force.
Good choice with #1. The Prussian army was considered the best before defeated by the French (in part due to outdated strategies/ systems but in part due to dumb luck) and then reorganised itself from scratch to possible become the best again after having taken the lessons on board (lots of positive reforms that have been adopted by all kinds of modern armies to this day). Clausewitz is still core reading in many military academies today.
I meant more like "this faction is S tier, that one is B tier", etc. Factoring in their historical and/or Black Powder performance, commanders, uniforms, etc. Not something we'd normally see on the channel of course, but I had to ask, if only for the meme.
I love your vids! Interesting take on first and second place. Not sure I agree but I can see how you came to that conclusion; it’s very close between the two but I would have dropped the British a spot maybe two
You mention the Waterloo-era Brits as having heavy cavalry and infer that the Peninsula army of 1813 did not have but they had several brigades of heavies throughout the Peninsula campaign, notably at Salamanca in 1812 where Le Marchant's Brigade smashed a whole French Division in similar style to the Union Brigade's charge at Waterloo.
@@NapoleonicWargaming there was a Household Cavalry brigade at Vitoria as well. Not that they saw much action as that campaign and the one that followed to clear the French out of the Pyrennes and on into Southern France was largely infantry combat
Absolutely farcical #1 spot. Come on sonny Jim, how on gods green earth can you say the 1815 Prussian army was better than the grande armee at its peak? they literally the lost the only major battle they fought, which was against an over the hill Napoleon who had a largely conscript army. If they couldn’t beat this diminished French army of 1815, how the hell are they supposed to beat the French at their peak, who were able to beat every European army that came at them??? Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of the Prussian army and nation, and they 1815 Prussian army would go on to lay the foundation for the next 150 years, but they were not at the standard of the grande armee at their peak, utterly absurd statement and I will be writing a letter to someone!!!
The Prussians lost as many battles as they won versus the French and won some of the ones they "lost' (ie retreated) they inflicted more casulties on the French -- and some they won they inflicted less than they suffered. Winning battles was often just a matter of gaining the field not winning strategically.
Unexpected choice for number 1. You make some very fine points to put them in that place, however I think when compared to other army comparisons even in your top 5 list, they are the least experienced. For me the top sport go to Peninsula 1813 British have years of battle hardened experience. Effective use of tactics, light infantry and bravery. I don’t think British were half as good at Waterloo. French 1805 could also be top choice but I’m biased. Third will be French 1809. For same reasons you mentioned but I just feel those reasons deserve higher ranking. 4th Portuguese 1813. Pretty similar to the British during this period, experienced and deadly. Although don’t think we seen them on their own and only infantry really proved themselves elite. 5th I was thinking being unorthodox and go with the US. They did teach the Brits the power of light infantry after all and kick us out. But I think realistically let’s go with the Russians. Whether that’s because of their Cossacks, their unusual tactics of burning their own towns or their mighty artillery.
Me neither to honest. I just know they beat the peninsula veterans that were sent over to the US, which I thought is impressive as well as us needing to evolve our own British tactics to fight them. And when comparing to Austria who got left behind in technological warfare, or Prussia that was advanced but lacked battle experience (1 win out of 2?) The US in contrast had proven themselves in both aspects.
Id genuinely agree with the list but probably shift the 1805 French to the first place, Id also honestly add as a honorary mention Duchy of Warsaw army, sure their army was small and often integrated into Grabd Armee but you have really well credit Polosh fanatism for their country's survival as well as fanatisk fir Napoleon and their fearsome fighting spirit whuch they carried although history up to WW2
the Prussians are probably the greatest comeback story on the Napoleonic wars, but I don't know many armies that could've taken the beating at Borodino and retreated in good order like the Russians did.
That's a big question! Ask 10 people, you'll get 10 different answers! I'd say most popular is 28mm, due mainly to plastics, though the Warlord Epic range is also popular. Do you have a group you already play with? Do they have any Naps?
1815 Prussian army used science along with an angry nationalist sledgehammer. I agree if "best" is the most powerful criteria for power. If uniforms and style mean more then the 1805 Grande Arme was the bomb..Nobody had cooler uniforms for my money; Old guard grenadiers, Grenadier a Cheval, Carabiniers a cheval, Cuirassiers and Dragoons, mamelukes, Chasseur a cheval, Marins, Gendarmerie..yeah, lots of great looking units.
Nationalism was barely a thing at the time. Certainly in Prussia probably less so than in say France. France was almost the inventor of European Nationalism that Napoleon exported as far as I have been told.
I'm going to have to go with the Anglo-Allied of 1813 as my #1. Integrated, experienced, with an outstanding leader. Logistics sorted, backed up with the Royal Navy. #2 Austrians in 1809. Given the polyglot nature of the Empire, Archduke Charles made great improvements after Austerlitz, to a point when the inflicted the first major defeat on Napoleon at Aspern-Essling. #3 French in 1805. #4 Prussians in 1813. #5 Neapolitans because of the pretty uniforms.
The Austrians in 1809 suffered a complete defeat in the Polish campaign, in which they started with numerical superiority. The Italian campaign went just as badly. Were it not for the problems with the bridge, Aspern-Essling would have ended with the defeat of the Austrian army. Of course it was a much better army than in 1800 or 1805.
@@MarekKrassus53 The French army of 1809 was destroyed utterly in 1812. I notice you didn't pick me up on my #5. We praise the Prussians for the reforms, but ignore the advances the Austrian made. I reject your bridge point too. If Grouchy had marched to the sound of the guns, Napoleon would have won Waterloo. If Desaix had slept in, Napoleon would have lost Marengo. If Napoleon had scratched his ankle at Ratisbon he may have been killed. "What if's" don't count.
@@stewartnicolson9139 Of course, I take reforms into account... But I also remember that this war neither began nor ended at Essling, near Vienna. Earlier, we had a lost campaign in Bavaria, and at the same time, the campaign in Italy and Poland was lost. Look especially at the campaign in Poland. At the beginning of the war, the Duchy of Warsaw had 14,000 soldiers (often untrained and unarmed) + 2,000 Saxons, and Austria nearly 30,000. Archduke Ferdinand hoped for an easy victory. Austria only won 1-2 small battles. The Polish army withdrew, and then outmaneuvered the imperial army - it went on a counterattack and moved the military operations to the areas of the so-called of the "Austrian partition" that were liberated. The reforms of Archduke Charles, and the improvement of the morale of the Austrian and Hungarian population, changed so much ... that the war was not completely lost in Bavaria. There was no other catastrophe like the Battle of Ulm. Essling, on the other hand... This battle lasted two days, and despite the numerical superiority of the Austrians over the French (especially on the first day), they failed to destroy the enemy. Then, however, Archduke Charles missed the chance to cross the Danube elsewhere to destroy the French corps one-by-one (while Napoleon was sitting on the island of Lobau).
Campaign in 1805, a very bloody campaign in 1806 and 1807 (e.g. Eylau), and then a campaign in Spain. Napoleon was still losing people during these events and had to be simplified training and appointing younger recruits. The French in 1809 were not so much physically and mentally, and then it was only worse. Anyway, this is probably the assessment of Napoleon himself. I would have to look at the book about Wagram ...
Even as a fun, I don't get it. The Prussian army of 1815 is superior to the Grande Armée of 1805 and the British army of 1813? Didn't Ligny prove anything?
The GA of 1805 was a phenomenal Napoleonic army. The Prussians of 1815 were (imo) a great 19th century army. Ligny proved the Prussians could take a massive beating (while inflicting one) against one of the greatest generals of all time, and 2 days later be back on the offensive. The Brits of 1813 were good, but their opposition was C or D tier. Ultimately though, it's all just a bit of fun! 😆
I share your opinion. The Prussians lost the battle of lingy to arguably the worst French army that Napoleon fielded. There is an argument that the armee der nord was better than the Prussians since they beat them in the major solo engagement. Prussians were good and would go on to be the best for sure, but in this era they weren’t there yet. I still can’t comprehend how an army that lost the only solo battle it fought can be considered the best? surly the army that beat them should be considered better hahah
Mine would be the Prussians of 1815. Getting to waterloo in time to help finish off the French, as a wargamer I love all the different hodge podge of uniforms of such a newly formed army
Bavarian army of 1809. Even though they were trouncing my Austrians. But they repeatedly outmarched the Austrians and punched well above their weight in the early parts of the 1809 campaign.
@@NapoleonicWargaming I didn’t have much interest until you mentioned them in one of your videos since then I’ve been reading more about them in John Gill’s With the Eagles to Glory and the his 1809 series. Since then the Bavarians have become endearing to me so much so that I’m currently acquiring a Bavarian brigade to play against my Austrians. (I’ll loan them to my friend who plays French for games)
What regiment were those cavalry in the opening image? I think French hussars wearing the pelisse over their dolman but if not, I'd be very interested to know what they are.
Looks like the French 5th Hussars. White pelisses, blue trousers, blue dolman (though it's obscured by the pelisse). Elite company based on the colbacks. The general leading them is Lasalle, pipe and all.
He was one of the few marshals that could be trusted with an independent command, and was beloved by the army. Strategically he might not have had the chops of Davout, but he was unflinchingly brave, loyal and would not allow his men to suffer without suffering himself.
Just no. The land army could never ever match the royal navy. The pro propaganda on the red coats is everywhere. The same troops that fought in spain under wellington got there ass kick by armed citizens at new Orleans. That was a horrible loss of troops and leadership.
The British are very overrated when it comes to Napoleonic times. Especially when it comes to the war on the Iberian Peninsula. The British army was opposed by secondary French marshals and often poor quality troops (with minor exceptions). The best elements of the French army fought against the Austrians, Prussians and Russians. For Napoleon, Spain (after 1808) was a secondary theater of operations. Besides, the war on the other side of the Atlantic took a very different course. ;)
Was that the army that had a horrible retreat on the scale of napoleon's Russian retreat as the British and wellington retreated from burgos back to Portugal?
Generally, the "best army of the Napoleonic period" would not have such discredits as, for example, the battle of Albuera in 1811. Where one incomplete regiment of Polish lancers (quite ordinary) and a squadron of French hussars (900 men in total) massacred a brigade of British infantry and raged in the rear of the coalition army. And then they massacred an Anglo-Spanish cavalry counterattack. In addition, the British infantry shelled the Spanish infantry... which performed quite well in this battle (by Spanish standards). The British army was lucky that Napoleon had no time for them. However, in the earlier period, its quality was different. For example, the Battle of Maida (Italy) is a good victory. At the same time, the same army suffers a humiliating defeat during the invasion of Spanish Argentina. Against the Spanish army and a bunch of civilians.
The British army of 1813 could not have achieved what the French had done, the French army conquered every major power in Europe between 1805 and 1809, the British army took longer than that to just beat a second rate French army, whilst they had full local support from civilians and the entire Spanish and Portuguese army lol. It was essentially Britain Spain and Portugal vs a 30% of the French army, and it still took like 6 years to beat them, meanwhile the big dogs were out conquering Europe.
Nonsense, what about Ligny? Prussia was a minor player and fall guy as bad as Austria. Britain always had the best army but far too small to be a major player. France pretty much conquered Europe so theres also that. Dont forget Napoleon's success was helped by incompetent opponents, very common in war.
A battle in which they fought Napoleon to a narrow loss then came back again for another go in 2 days? The Army of the North certainly couldn't (and didn't!) do that
![True Size of Napoleon's Army - The Infantry [c. 1808] 3D DOCUMENTARY](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qR0sODDUT8U/mqdefault.jpg)
You have to remember that the French army of 1805 had only just finished up 10 years of near-continuous revolution. I would absolutely refer to them as battle-hardened by that point.
The Prussian army of 1815 was good. It had some quality generals like Gneisenau, but the fact remains it got a hiding at Ligny. It then helped defeat a patched up French army at Waterloo after most of the hard work had been done by the British. I honestly cannot envisage any army from the Napoleonic era better than the Grande Armee at its best.
But Ligny was very close shave for both sides. Also not all of the Prussian forces were used during that battle, and yes the battle of Waterloo was going on for several hours, but Plancenoit was one of the parts of the battlefields with highest casulty figures. And that was'nt even the entire Prussian army- VI corps havn't even arrived yet. I would say it's an awesome army. Specialy if you start collecting them and you start to realize how flexible their stucture is, having brigades as mini-corps, that have infantry, militia, skirmishers, artillery and small brigades of cavalry.
The Prussian army of 1815 also lost at Wavre on the 18th/19th Apart from a number of French Army's like the 1805 grand army i think the Wellingtons 1812, 1813, 1814 army would destroyed the 1815 Prussian army also would beaten the French army of the north 1815 with out the help of the Prussian
@@daniellastuart3145 Wavre is only a defeat of the Prussians in a tactical sense, but a strategical victory. The French had twice the numbers and yet the Prussian 17 000 soldiers pinned 33 000 French soldiers that could be used at Waterloo- that would mean 50% more French during the battle. So from a strategical point of view Wavre was a cruicial success.
The Prussian army was at Waterloo from 1pm onwards, while they didn’t do as much fighting as Wellingtons army, their presence drew away all French infantry reserves, which proved vital as this is why Neys charge was unsupported
The "British" had more foreign troops than British at Waterloo. The Prussians had defeated Napolean before at Leipzig and many other Battles (give and take). Many "defeats" were strategic retreats as per the Bernadotte doctrine. Hard to say which one was better. Clearly Wellington wasn't thinking too highly of the British elements of his troops. But otoh he wasn't thinking highly of anyone but himself one needs to wonder given a degree of pettiness of marketing himself after Waterloo.
That Plancenoit painting is one of very best Napoleonic paintings, despite the high quality of the body of options overall
Yeah I love that one too
In my opinion, the Russian army of 1799 was much better than the Russian army of 1812. Just look at its success against the French army in Italy and Switzerland.
Suvorov massacred General Moreu, General MacDonald, and killed General Joubert. Extremely experienced, extremely aggressive and mobile, he has not lost a single battle.
"What can you say of a general so resolute to a superhuman degree, and who would perish himself and let his army perish to the last man rather than retreat a single pace" - Moreu about Suvorov.
I don't know a huge amount about thr 1799 Russians, except Potemkin made some absolutely gorgeous uniforms for them, esp the grenadiers
@@NapoleonicWargaming During this campaign, the Russian army wore different uniforms. Tsar Paul I in 1796 restored Prussian fashion in the army. Musketeers and Jaegers wore bicorn again, and all grenadiers wore mitre caps. Like the Pavlovian grenadiers in 1812. ;)
th-cam.com/video/HBO9e78vM9k/w-d-xo.html
The army of this period was perhaps the best in Russian history, and certainly no one could match Suvorov after that.
But the best uniform is the one designed by Potemkin, worn in 1786-1796. ;)
That had more to do with Suvorov than the army itself. He was probably the greatest military genius of his time over Napoleon.
@@davidcollins2648 This army has already had a long war with Turkey, several years of fighting with Sweden and two wars with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was an experienced and hardened army, ready for any sacrifice. Besides, Suvorov's army still had the mentality of the times of Catherine the Great, when initiative was rewarded and soldiers were made to believe in their own strength. In this respect they resembled French soldiers a little.
Tsar Paul I and then Alexander I began to regress its development and restored the Prussian models from the times of Frederick the Great. In this system, the soldier was a de facto prisoner of the army. Anyway, in the Austrian army of the period 1798-1800 it was the same - that's why, for example, a large number of Polish deserters from the imperial army.
Of course, Suvorov was the most important factor in this series of victories in 1799.
@@NapoleonicWargaming In general, if you want to know the campaign in 1799 better, I recommend the book "Eagles Over The Alps: Suvorov In Italy and Switzerland, 1799". You could even summarize this campaign in a movie because the topic is very interesting ... but unfortunately forgotten because of Napoleon's later victory at Marengo.
It's a pity that the figures for the 1799 campaign are very expensive. Anyway, those in Potemkin uniforms are not cheap either. :(
Cracking discussion in this one.
I think id generally agree with those top five,, though I'd make one change, I'd choose the 1813 Prussians rather than those in 1815. In that campaign you see the true birth of the Prussian army that lasts into the 20th century until its demise at the end of WWI. You see the relatively small professional army stand up to Napoleon, and not get completly stomped, the krumper system of reserves comes into its own allowing a quick mobilisation of a professional army long with the almost fanatical landwehr show its worth. But what really sways it for me is the 1813 army while having made huge reforms in its officer corps is still learning adapting and improving throughout the whole German campaign, it learns its lessions and reacts to them incredibly quickly which to me is a hjuge sign of a superior force.
We LOVE every video you make Brother, cheers from Vancouver Canada!!
OK, you surprised me there. I assumed you'd go for the 1805 French. Not sure I'd agree with your #1 just on the scoreboard - played 2, lost 1?
My top Napoleonic army is the one Im painting or using in a game.
Haha, the best answer!
Good choice with #1. The Prussian army was considered the best before defeated by the French (in part due to outdated strategies/ systems but in part due to dumb luck) and then reorganised itself from scratch to possible become the best again after having taken the lessons on board (lots of positive reforms that have been adopted by all kinds of modern armies to this day). Clausewitz is still core reading in many military academies today.
Any thoughts on a potential "Napoleonic Armies Tier List" video?
I've already done 2! Top 5 deadliest armies, and top 5 surviviest armies!
I meant more like "this faction is S tier, that one is B tier", etc. Factoring in their historical and/or Black Powder performance, commanders, uniforms, etc.
Not something we'd normally see on the channel of course, but I had to ask, if only for the meme.
I love your vids! Interesting take on first and second place. Not sure I agree but I can see how you came to that conclusion; it’s very close between the two but I would have dropped the British a spot maybe two
Who would you have had in 3rd?
You mention the Waterloo-era Brits as having heavy cavalry and infer that the Peninsula army of 1813 did not have but they had several brigades of heavies throughout the Peninsula campaign, notably at Salamanca in 1812 where Le Marchant's Brigade smashed a whole French Division in similar style to the Union Brigade's charge at Waterloo.
Yeah that's absolutely true! I was thinking more the Household Cavalry, but that's a good catch!
@@NapoleonicWargaming there was a Household Cavalry brigade at Vitoria as well. Not that they saw much action as that campaign and the one that followed to clear the French out of the Pyrennes and on into Southern France was largely infantry combat
Absolutely farcical #1 spot. Come on sonny Jim, how on gods green earth can you say the 1815 Prussian army was better than the grande armee at its peak? they literally the lost the only major battle they fought, which was against an over the hill Napoleon who had a largely conscript army. If they couldn’t beat this diminished French army of 1815, how the hell are they supposed to beat the French at their peak, who were able to beat every European army that came at them??? Don’t get me wrong, I’m a fan of the Prussian army and nation, and they 1815 Prussian army would go on to lay the foundation for the next 150 years, but they were not at the standard of the grande armee at their peak, utterly absurd statement and I will be writing a letter to someone!!!
The Prussians lost as many battles as they won versus the French and won some of the ones they "lost' (ie retreated) they inflicted more casulties on the French -- and some they won they inflicted less than they suffered. Winning battles was often just a matter of gaining the field not winning strategically.
3:55 what do you think about Suvorov?
Unexpected choice for number 1.
You make some very fine points to put them in that place, however I think when compared to other army comparisons even in your top 5 list, they are the least experienced.
For me the top sport go to Peninsula 1813 British have years of battle hardened experience. Effective use of tactics, light infantry and bravery. I don’t think British were half as good at Waterloo.
French 1805 could also be top choice but I’m biased.
Third will be French 1809. For same reasons you mentioned but I just feel those reasons deserve higher ranking.
4th Portuguese 1813. Pretty similar to the British during this period, experienced and deadly. Although don’t think we seen them on their own and only infantry really proved themselves elite.
5th I was thinking being unorthodox and go with the US. They did teach the Brits the power of light infantry after all and kick us out. But I think realistically let’s go with the Russians. Whether that’s because of their Cossacks, their unusual tactics of burning their own towns or their mighty artillery.
Interesting addition of the Americans! I don't really know enough about them to agree or disagree (yet!)
Me neither to honest.
I just know they beat the peninsula veterans that were sent over to the US, which I thought is impressive as well as us needing to evolve our own British tactics to fight them.
And when comparing to Austria who got left behind in technological warfare, or Prussia that was advanced but lacked battle experience (1 win out of 2?) The US in contrast had proven themselves in both aspects.
Hey, where could i read more about the light infantry at Eckmuhl? Got me really interested.
Id genuinely agree with the list but probably shift the 1805 French to the first place, Id also honestly add as a honorary mention Duchy of Warsaw army, sure their army was small and often integrated into Grabd Armee but you have really well credit Polosh fanatism for their country's survival as well as fanatisk fir Napoleon and their fearsome fighting spirit whuch they carried although history up to WW2
the Prussians are probably the greatest comeback story on the Napoleonic wars, but I don't know many armies that could've taken the beating at Borodino and retreated in good order like the Russians did.
The Russians were largely Prussian led and trained according to Prussian doctrine.
Great channel. I'm looking at getting into Napoleonic wargaming. What's the best scale though or most popular? Tnx.
That's a big question! Ask 10 people, you'll get 10 different answers! I'd say most popular is 28mm, due mainly to plastics, though the Warlord Epic range is also popular. Do you have a group you already play with? Do they have any Naps?
French 1806... Single Corp, IIICorp under Davout took the whole Prussian army on... And won.
1815 Prussian army used science along with an angry nationalist sledgehammer. I agree if "best" is the most powerful criteria for power. If uniforms and style mean more then the 1805 Grande Arme was the bomb..Nobody had cooler uniforms for my money; Old guard grenadiers, Grenadier a Cheval, Carabiniers a cheval, Cuirassiers and Dragoons, mamelukes, Chasseur a cheval, Marins, Gendarmerie..yeah, lots of great looking units.
Nationalism was barely a thing at the time. Certainly in Prussia probably less so than in say France. France was almost the inventor of European Nationalism that Napoleon exported as far as I have been told.
I'm going to have to go with the Anglo-Allied of 1813 as my #1. Integrated, experienced, with an outstanding leader. Logistics sorted, backed up with the Royal Navy. #2 Austrians in 1809. Given the polyglot nature of the Empire, Archduke Charles made great improvements after Austerlitz, to a point when the inflicted the first major defeat on Napoleon at Aspern-Essling. #3 French in 1805. #4 Prussians in 1813. #5 Neapolitans because of the pretty uniforms.
The Austrians in 1809 suffered a complete defeat in the Polish campaign, in which they started with numerical superiority. The Italian campaign went just as badly. Were it not for the problems with the bridge, Aspern-Essling would have ended with the defeat of the Austrian army.
Of course it was a much better army than in 1800 or 1805.
@@MarekKrassus53 The French army of 1809 was destroyed utterly in 1812. I notice you didn't pick me up on my #5. We praise the Prussians for the reforms, but ignore the advances the Austrian made. I reject your bridge point too. If Grouchy had marched to the sound of the guns, Napoleon would have won Waterloo. If Desaix had slept in, Napoleon would have lost Marengo. If Napoleon had scratched his ankle at Ratisbon he may have been killed. "What if's" don't count.
@@stewartnicolson9139 Of course, I take reforms into account... But I also remember that this war neither began nor ended at Essling, near Vienna. Earlier, we had a lost campaign in Bavaria, and at the same time, the campaign in Italy and Poland was lost.
Look especially at the campaign in Poland. At the beginning of the war, the Duchy of Warsaw had 14,000 soldiers (often untrained and unarmed) + 2,000 Saxons, and Austria nearly 30,000. Archduke Ferdinand hoped for an easy victory.
Austria only won 1-2 small battles. The Polish army withdrew, and then outmaneuvered the imperial army - it went on a counterattack and moved the military operations to the areas of the so-called of the "Austrian partition" that were liberated.
The reforms of Archduke Charles, and the improvement of the morale of the Austrian and Hungarian population, changed so much ... that the war was not completely lost in Bavaria. There was no other catastrophe like the Battle of Ulm.
Essling, on the other hand... This battle lasted two days, and despite the numerical superiority of the Austrians over the French (especially on the first day), they failed to destroy the enemy. Then, however, Archduke Charles missed the chance to cross the Danube elsewhere to destroy the French corps one-by-one (while Napoleon was sitting on the island of Lobau).
Very interesting list there. Can we get an honourable mention for the British Navy? 1805 invasion of Enlgand would have succeeded without them.
My attempt to start Napoleonic war gaming went up in smoke (and rubber cement) now i’m trying to get back in
Oof. Good luck with it dude!
Why is the 1809 french army worse then the 1805 french army
Campaign in 1805, a very bloody campaign in 1806 and 1807 (e.g. Eylau), and then a campaign in Spain. Napoleon was still losing people during these events and had to be simplified training and appointing younger recruits. The French in 1809 were not so much physically and mentally, and then it was only worse.
Anyway, this is probably the assessment of Napoleon himself. I would have to look at the book about Wagram ...
Even as a fun, I don't get it. The Prussian army of 1815 is superior to the Grande Armée of 1805 and the British army of 1813? Didn't Ligny prove anything?
The GA of 1805 was a phenomenal Napoleonic army. The Prussians of 1815 were (imo) a great 19th century army. Ligny proved the Prussians could take a massive beating (while inflicting one) against one of the greatest generals of all time, and 2 days later be back on the offensive.
The Brits of 1813 were good, but their opposition was C or D tier.
Ultimately though, it's all just a bit of fun! 😆
I share your opinion. The Prussians lost the battle of lingy to arguably the worst French army that Napoleon fielded. There is an argument that the armee der nord was better than the Prussians since they beat them in the major solo engagement. Prussians were good and would go on to be the best for sure, but in this era they weren’t there yet. I still can’t comprehend how an army that lost the only solo battle it fought can be considered the best? surly the army that beat them should be considered better hahah
Agree on Prussia as #1. Wouldn’t raise a Prussian army myself though as they’re so grey and dull. Like my Napoleonic troops bright and colourful!
1000%! 🤣
Great!
Top 5 worst armies next?
@@SirHector1999 any army played by me! 🤣
Mine would be the Prussians of 1815. Getting to waterloo in time to help finish off the French, as a wargamer I love all the different hodge podge of uniforms of such a newly formed army
Bavarian army of 1809. Even though they were trouncing my Austrians. But they repeatedly outmarched the Austrians and punched well above their weight in the early parts of the 1809 campaign.
Tbh it's an army I really need to learn more about!
@@NapoleonicWargaming I didn’t have much interest until you mentioned them in one of your videos since then I’ve been reading more about them in John Gill’s With the Eagles to Glory and the his 1809 series. Since then the Bavarians have become endearing to me so much so that I’m currently acquiring a Bavarian brigade to play against my Austrians. (I’ll loan them to my friend who plays French for games)
What regiment were those cavalry in the opening image? I think French hussars wearing the pelisse over their dolman but if not, I'd be very interested to know what they are.
Looks like the French 5th Hussars. White pelisses, blue trousers, blue dolman (though it's obscured by the pelisse). Elite company based on the colbacks. The general leading them is Lasalle, pipe and all.
That's right, the 5th. Not seen that painting before and Lasalle is kind of the emplblem of the channel I couldn't leave it out!
Not the no.1 I was expecting! Interesting....
Go Prussia
Why do you speak so highly about marshal lannes?
He was one of the few marshals that could be trusted with an independent command, and was beloved by the army. Strategically he might not have had the chops of Davout, but he was unflinchingly brave, loyal and would not allow his men to suffer without suffering himself.
The British army of 1812-13 is THE best army bar none . It helped they had a competent commander as well . 😁
Just no. The land army could never ever match the royal navy. The pro propaganda on the red coats is everywhere. The same troops that fought in spain under wellington got there ass kick by armed citizens at new Orleans. That was a horrible loss of troops and leadership.
The British are very overrated when it comes to Napoleonic times. Especially when it comes to the war on the Iberian Peninsula.
The British army was opposed by secondary French marshals and often poor quality troops (with minor exceptions). The best elements of the French army fought against the Austrians, Prussians and Russians. For Napoleon, Spain (after 1808) was a secondary theater of operations.
Besides, the war on the other side of the Atlantic took a very different course. ;)
Was that the army that had a horrible retreat on the scale of napoleon's Russian retreat as the British and wellington retreated from burgos back to Portugal?
Generally, the "best army of the Napoleonic period" would not have such discredits as, for example, the battle of Albuera in 1811. Where one incomplete regiment of Polish lancers (quite ordinary) and a squadron of French hussars (900 men in total) massacred a brigade of British infantry and raged in the rear of the coalition army.
And then they massacred an Anglo-Spanish cavalry counterattack.
In addition, the British infantry shelled the Spanish infantry... which performed quite well in this battle (by Spanish standards).
The British army was lucky that Napoleon had no time for them.
However, in the earlier period, its quality was different. For example, the Battle of Maida (Italy) is a good victory. At the same time, the same army suffers a humiliating defeat during the invasion of Spanish Argentina. Against the Spanish army and a bunch of civilians.
The British army of 1813 could not have achieved what the French had done, the French army conquered every major power in Europe between 1805 and 1809, the British army took longer than that to just beat a second rate French army, whilst they had full local support from civilians and the entire Spanish and Portuguese army lol. It was essentially Britain Spain and Portugal vs a 30% of the French army, and it still took like 6 years to beat them, meanwhile the big dogs were out conquering Europe.
Nonsense, what about Ligny? Prussia was a minor player and fall guy as bad as Austria. Britain always had the best army but far too small to be a major player. France pretty much conquered Europe so theres also that. Dont forget Napoleon's success was helped by incompetent opponents, very common in war.
A battle in which they fought Napoleon to a narrow loss then came back again for another go in 2 days? The Army of the North certainly couldn't (and didn't!) do that