Why did 19th century soldiers take their backpacks into battle?

[Old_Scratch]

Ok, this may be something of a silly question, but I've always wondered about it. In many artistic depictions of early 19th century battles, like Napoleons soldiers, they always seem to have their backpacks on. Weather they are shooting, or bayonet charging, it doesn't matter. This seems counterproductive, why do they need all that stuff in the middle of a battle? It looks like they even have their bedroll with them. I mean, if they stenciled their gear like they're supposed to, it's not going to get misplaced if they leave it in a pile before the battle.

Example: The battle of Waterloo

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Watchman]

Because more often than not there probably wouldn't be an opportunity to go back to get your stuff from wherver it was left, after a battle ? Soldiers might well find themselves having to camp pretty much where their unit was at the end of the battle, marching long distances whether in pursuit or fleeing, and w/e.

[Old_Scratch]

Well, was there still a baggage train that could keep their stuff and move it along? Or was that no longer a feature of armies by this point? Sorry, I don't know much about the period. I mean, post Marian Roman soldiers carried a lot of stuff with them on the march, but they didn't bring it into battle with them.

[Watchman]

Of course there was the baggage train, but really, it was probably more convenient to move that forward as necessary than having tens if not hundreds of thousands of men walking back into the camp - more often than not it would be getting dark at the time - to try to find their kit...

It must also be remembered troops might end up moving quite long distances over the course of combat operations, marching to the battlefield, quite possibly advancing many kilometers, and finishing God only knows how far away from where they started the day. As the baggage train was wont to be rather slow moving, it's not really hard to see why the troops kept at least the basic essentials on their person.

[Lysimachos11]

Didn't soldier during WW2 carry most of their gear into combat as well? German forces in the 1941 campaigns are often seen fighting with their pots and pans strapped to their backs, they also often carried their zelt tent with them, and Soviet infantrymen carried their tents with them as well (or are they sleeping bags).

Anyway, when you're on the move you better have your stuff with you. I know from accounts of the Waterloo battle that many English units had to stay in the open skies the night before the battle, I bet they wished they had their tents and sleeping bags with them. When the battle started in the morning these Brits had to fight while being totally wet and cold from the damp night before.

[Old_Scratch]

Didn't soldier during WW2 carry most of their gear into combat as well?

Yeah, but warfare had changed by that point and became more mobile and less centralized. I think the concept of battle is more vague in modern warfare. It's not like in one day, or a few days, where the entire conflict is decided in one general area, like ancient battles. It's more of a continuous thing, I guess. It would make sense to keep your pack with you.

As for the 19th century, the convenience of having your bag though surely isn't greater that the encumbrance during battle, no? After the battle, provided that you won, I'm sure there will be plenty of bags and provisions you could take from the enemy baggage train without there being a need to bring your own. And if you lost you'd be able to run away faster.

[Watchman]

And then what, starve and freeze in the woods ? 'Sides, it's not like period soldiery even carried all that much kit; blanket for sleeping in, basic tools and utensils, some food and water (maybe), that kind of stuff. Not all that heavy and cumbersome, all the more so as most soldiery ought to have been pretty used to marching around with it.

Plus period logistics were kinda eh at best and prone of getting distrupted by enemy activity, bad roads and God knows what else. Having the troops relatively self-sufficient in the basics was a good insurance for at least lessening the generally ugly campaign attrition rate.

[Kagemusha]

You only have to look at the Waterloo campaign, in order to see how many battles it consisted off and how mobile the warfare actually was. I think it was only convenient logistically for the men to carry their own sleeping and cooking attire themselves. The baggage train had enough in moving food for men and horses, gunpowder,bullets and artillery munitions.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

I'm sure that after battles hundreds of people 'pilaged' the dead, so if you leave your kit in a 'pile' else were you might not find it the day after.

(obviously the baggage train was guarded)

[pannonian]

I'm sure that after battles hundreds of people 'pilaged' the dead, so if you leave your kit in a 'pile' else were you might not find it the day after.

(obviously the baggage train was guarded)

I can't imagine the baggage master being too pleased either to be asked to look after any personal belongings, rather than stuff which is to be centrally allocated. It's bad enough having to keep track of however many tons of supplies have to go out to each part of the army, without having to keep track of Smith's knapsack as well.

[saglam2000]

because it looks better than having no bag on.....also what everybody else said cause i dont have anything important to add

[C-Rob]

It would suck if your backpack was shot up and all your stuff was ruined- though i guess you'd be happy to be alive? Anyways, I agree with some people here- long distances marched from the train and also the shear logistics of getting every man his personal bag, just seems ridiculous.

[Shrapnel]

Soldiers throughout history carry their packs into battle, even to the present day, unless there is a secure location that they will be able to return to later then they will carry their packs into battle.

Falklands War:

[Old_Scratch]

Soldiers throughout history carry their packs into battle, even to the present day, unless there is a secure location that they will be able to return to later then they will carry their packs into battle.

Well, battles are different today. Looking at ancient battles though, knights, legionaries, and hoplites didn't bring all their stuff into battle. Why then by the 19th century, maybe earlier, did soldiers start charging with their back pack on?

[Watchman]

Do you have any idea how much larger armies started becoming already in the 18th century...?

[Spartacus the Irish]

Well, battles are different today. Looking at ancient battles though, knights, legionaries, and hoplites didn't bring all their stuff into battle. Why then by the 19th century, maybe earlier, did soldiers start charging with their back pack on?

Knights had pages, Roman Legionnaries had fortified camps, Hoplites didn't have stuff; fusileers would be expected to march to a battle, fight - often almost immediately, and then pursue the enemy if victorious or run, run away if defeated. Where therein might one safely leave their valuables and probably plunder in that scenario? And in the historical examples you gave, what would be the maximum number of men involved? A Legion was about 4-5000 men, Knights numbered in their hundreds, Hoplites in a few thousand. At Leipzig there were over 500,000 troops. That's a shagload of backpacks to store and return to each individual soldier; much better from an individual point of view to suffer the extra weight but not be parted from your possessions, which were often valuable or personal.

And you must remember you are basing this question upon art as a source. Art, especially Napoleonic, had many elements - accuracy was not one of them.

[roy34543]

Yep , Lots of armies today have soldiers bring chocolate onto the battlefield.

[Shrapnel]

Indeed, baggage trains would require far larger amounts of soldiers to guard them. Plus with the invention of tactics such as encircling and more small skirmishes a baggage train would prove unpractical.

[Watchman]

Looting the baggage train was a popular pasttime for cavalry units that got past the enemy battleline, back in the day. (And sometimes undisciplined troops vacating from the battlefield looted their own army's baggage...) Not a few times this meant their side lost the battle as they weren't doing their job of turning the enemy's flank, tho'...

However, there were also instances where the threat to the baggage prompted troops to leave their place in the line, and there was at least one instance in the Diadochi wars following the death of Alexander the Great where the captured baggage was used as a bargaining chip to get the soldiers turn over their king...

[dogukan]

Looting the baggage train was a popular pasttime for cavalry units that got past the enemy battleline, back in the day. (And sometimes undisciplined troops vacating from the battlefield looted their own army's baggage...) Not a few times this meant their side lost the battle as they weren't doing their job of turning the enemy's flank, tho'...

OH MY GOD...I'm a freaking materialist...and if I saw that happening, I'd simply single handedly slay the whole enemy army.