It's a three line formation - First rank fires, second rank fires while the first kneels. The third is usually to fill in gaps when men are killed or wounded, or as a final last volley against closing enemy formations. Many, many nations used all types of fromations way before any European nation.
@GeetarApprentice No, what defeated Napoleon was nature, being the great Russian winter in 1812 and the scorched earth tactics, passed on from Arthur Wellesley from experience during the peninsula campaign. From then on, he struggled to raise the Grand armee to it's peak again. Are you refering to the war of the sixth coalitian? Well, if you want to be precise and use "sources" - Napoleon and his allies were defeated by, Britain, Prussia, Russia, Austria, Sweden, portugal, Spain and a few others
@GeetarApprentice No one I know has ever said we invented line formations at all, infact, Japanese and Chinese armies fought in all kinds of formations when most of Europe and the rest of the world were barely coming out of the bronze age. I see your point, but I feel touchy when people try pick at someones history, especially when it aint us alone who written it.
@Sonnypjim09 Also, which battle is major is also subjective. If you ask any serious historian he'll laugh at the fact if you mention Waterloo as a major or even decisive battle. Why? Altought it seald the faith of Nappy, he was doomed a long time ago. He barely coped with prussin/anglo-allied army, which was just under 200,000, while more than 600,000 troops of the russian, austrian etc forces were near. And french at waterloo were just leftovers of past glorious wars, not a major power it was
@Napo89350 Also, we was not part of a French colony, we BOTH were decended from Frankish tribes in Europe and BOTH OUR royal families were related and fought over land and power, nothing more and thats why WE decided to cut all ties with what is now France. Then your side of the Royal family decided to split from us too. We BOTH were part of a western Europe power that fought Islam when Europe was split and divided. In th end all of humanity came from Africa, so what you say is infintismal.
@Sonnypjim09 Now, did that also include all the French Indian Wars in which British colonies had x10 bigger population than French did? See how subjective you can get? Also have in mind that altought in total number french had 5 times the size of the british forces in peninsular campaign, but still in each battle british had always significat numerical advantage, why? Cause French were trying to hold and occupy a vast country like spain. See how numbers can be less than truthful when you examin?
@Sonnypjim09 Usually the british with whom i Socilaze are well tought and educated. Not the ones who still belive the myth the british invented 2 deep line formations during napoleonics (was in all military books and used everywhere), and that they used it at any point or time during Waterloo. I have studied Napoleonic period alone for past 10 years and since all internet is anglophone usually found english written rubbish, but I dont find the people to be the same, just not well thought.
@Sonnypjim09 Once I read a mayor historical study concerning battles between england (britain) and france. Numbers totaled to roughly 50 percent each. No disrespect, but try not to read only british patriotic rubish (each country has its own), that study was done by a mix of American, English, Belgian, Polish and few other professors.
@GeetarApprentice Well, I'll put it simple as this - after France (Napoleon) was defeated by the allied force (All paid for by Britain I should add) the period that become known as Pax Britannia came into existence until around the Great war (WW1) Go read what it means. The French beat us many times, they had well trained and equiped soldiers - example - the French Imperial guard - who had never been defeated in single engagements until Waterloo. Also, any "serious" historian would know better.
@Sonnypjim09 Napoleon was defeted in 1814 during the german campaing, after that he had no more power, he was defeted then by combined Austrian, Prussian and Russian forces. Pax Brittania? Oh you mean the period when british took control of the most worlds colonies, killing, brutilizing and forcing people to work for them? I really have nothing to talk on this matter. Not a single source you mentioned was written by a nonanglophone or even a nonenglish. Oh, you havent mentioned a single source
@Sonnypjim09 Fyi Have lived and styed in most european countries for my age you might say even to many, one thing I encouter is people (including my country aswell) is a huge biase on how good they are (were) in any perspective. There must have been something good the british were doing when they formed an empire so vast I do not dispute that, but to claim you had the best army for most time or saying french sucked is what every patriotic biased person says. Nothing new.
@GeetarApprentice I did not say we won most or indeed more - which we did. England won around 57% of battles and around 68/70% of major battles against France. Considering France was larger in population, it's military forces nearly always bigger, I would say we have something to be patriotic about as a country in our military past - so I don't listen to any "rubbish" - especially what thi idiot Napo spouts forth. But I see your point about being open minded, something people can't be these days
@Sonnypjim09 And this all coming from a person who is filling the internet of hate posts and comments about ones religion. Yes, I do have something against usually british talking about british military history, and that is exaggerating (and that is not only common with the british but each nation). And it is not an IGNORANTS excuse, since I do study a scientific subject on the uni, and even history is scientific and based on facts so I do usually like facts and not someones words like yours.
@Sonnypjim09 I myself have been thought alot of patriotic and incorrect nacionalistic rubbish about my history which you quickly if you are open minded and willing to study find falls. So please do not try to mark me as someone who hates british since I give no reason to be someone who does. The only fact you have given in this coversation is that british had one 57% battles against french and 70% of major ones were by british, now where is the source to that? I have found no info to back it up.
Shut up we won more battles agaisnt you than the otherwise and that's THE FRENCH BLOOD who save two times England !!!!! And you are just a little colony of France poor little beef !
It's a three line formation - First rank fires, second rank fires while the first kneels. The third is usually to fill in gaps when men are killed or wounded, or as a final last volley against closing enemy formations. Many, many nations used all types of fromations way before any European nation.
I wish i was aware of this game when i was younger.
All the Cossacks and American Conquest newly released on Steam.
@GeetarApprentice No, what defeated Napoleon was nature, being the great Russian winter in 1812 and the scorched earth tactics, passed on from Arthur Wellesley from experience during the peninsula campaign.
From then on, he struggled to raise the Grand armee to it's peak again.
Are you refering to the war of the sixth coalitian?
Well, if you want to be precise and use "sources" - Napoleon and his allies were defeated by, Britain, Prussia, Russia, Austria, Sweden, portugal, Spain and a few others
@GeetarApprentice No one I know has ever said we invented line formations at all, infact, Japanese and Chinese armies fought in all kinds of formations when most of Europe and the rest of the world were barely coming out of the bronze age.
I see your point, but I feel touchy when people try pick at someones history, especially when it aint us alone who written it.
American Conquest Fight Back with the European Warfare mod.
@Sonnypjim09 Also, which battle is major is also subjective. If you ask any serious historian he'll laugh at the fact if you mention Waterloo as a major or even decisive battle. Why? Altought it seald the faith of Nappy, he was doomed a long time ago. He barely coped with prussin/anglo-allied army, which was just under 200,000, while more than 600,000 troops of the russian, austrian etc forces were near. And french at waterloo were just leftovers of past glorious wars, not a major power it was
Yes I know this problem but Britain also is concerned !
@Napo89350 You will be! =p
I've not yet played this game. Is there a particular reason why your first volley did little damage, yet the enemy's decimated your front line?
@Napo89350 Also, we was not part of a French colony, we BOTH were decended from Frankish tribes in Europe and BOTH OUR royal families were related and fought over land and power, nothing more and thats why WE decided to cut all ties with what is now France. Then your side of the Royal family decided to split from us too.
We BOTH were part of a western Europe power that fought Islam when Europe was split and divided.
In th end all of humanity came from Africa, so what you say is infintismal.
@Sonnypjim09 Now, did that also include all the French Indian Wars in which British colonies had x10 bigger population than French did? See how subjective you can get? Also have in mind that altought in total number french had 5 times the size of the british forces in peninsular campaign, but still in each battle british had always significat numerical advantage, why? Cause French were trying to hold and occupy a vast country like spain. See how numbers can be less than truthful when you examin?
Sorry for the english ! XD
@Sonnypjim09 Usually the british with whom i Socilaze are well tought and educated. Not the ones who still belive the myth the british invented 2 deep line formations during napoleonics (was in all military books and used everywhere), and that they used it at any point or time during Waterloo. I have studied Napoleonic period alone for past 10 years and since all internet is anglophone usually found english written rubbish, but I dont find the people to be the same, just not well thought.
@Sonnypjim09 Once I read a mayor historical study concerning battles between england (britain) and france. Numbers totaled to roughly 50 percent each. No disrespect, but try not to read only british patriotic rubish (each country has its own), that study was done by a mix of American, English, Belgian, Polish and few other professors.
@GeetarApprentice Well, I'll put it simple as this - after France (Napoleon) was defeated by the allied force (All paid for by Britain I should add) the period that become known as Pax Britannia came into existence until around the Great war (WW1)
Go read what it means.
The French beat us many times, they had well trained and equiped soldiers - example - the French Imperial guard - who had never been defeated in single engagements until Waterloo.
Also, any "serious" historian would know better.
Poor boy...
wat game is this?
@Sonnypjim09
Napoleon was defeted in 1814 during the german campaing, after that he had no more power, he was defeted then by combined Austrian, Prussian and Russian forces. Pax Brittania? Oh you mean the period when british took control of the most worlds colonies, killing, brutilizing and forcing people to work for them? I really have nothing to talk on this matter. Not a single source you mentioned was written by a nonanglophone or even a nonenglish. Oh, you havent mentioned a single source
tu est francais ?
the french are a best army for ever !!!!!
@Sonnypjim09 Fyi
Have lived and styed in most european countries for my age you might say even to many, one thing I encouter is people (including my country aswell) is a huge biase on how good they are (were) in any perspective. There must have been something good the british were doing when they formed an empire so vast I do not dispute that, but to claim you had the best army for most time or saying french sucked is what every patriotic biased person says. Nothing new.
lol !
@GeetarApprentice I did not say we won most or indeed more - which we did. England won around 57% of battles and around 68/70% of major battles against France. Considering France was larger in population, it's military forces nearly always bigger, I would say we have something to be patriotic about as a country in our military past - so I don't listen to any "rubbish" - especially what thi idiot Napo spouts forth.
But I see your point about being open minded, something people can't be these days
@Sonnypjim09 And this all coming from a person who is filling the internet of hate posts and comments about ones religion.
Yes, I do have something against usually british talking about british military history, and that is exaggerating (and that is not only common with the british but each nation). And it is not an IGNORANTS excuse, since I do study a scientific subject on the uni, and even history is scientific and based on facts so I do usually like facts and not someones words like yours.
l2spell then talk frenchie
@Sonnypjim09 I myself have been thought alot of patriotic and incorrect nacionalistic rubbish about my history which you quickly if you are open minded and willing to study find falls. So please do not try to mark me as someone who hates british since I give no reason to be someone who does. The only fact you have given in this coversation is that british had one 57% battles against french and 70% of major ones were by british, now where is the source to that? I have found no info to back it up.
american conquest xd
Shut up we won more battles agaisnt you than the otherwise and that's THE FRENCH BLOOD who save two times England !!!!! And you are just a little colony of France poor little beef !
English are so arrogant !