Does everyone agree that ETW infantry were better trained in most respects?

I know a little of Napoleonic times and have some books on the subject. One of the things that seems to
come up fairly regularly was that infantry in the frederican period (ETW) seem to be better trained and equiped in general. This in part beinjg due to the armies being smaller and much more professional? Also due
to colonels spending their own money fitting out regiments. A more aristocratic army if you will.
Infantry for instance in fredericks time were well trained enough to see off cavalry without needing square formations.

Certainly at the end of the napoleonic period the french infantry at waterloo were in most cases little more than green apart from selected veteran units like the old guard. Waterloo being the equivalent of the last stand of Berlin in ww2. Poor conscripts mixed with veteran troops.


The difference in this period seems to be tactics and numbers of troops, as armies swell to huge numbers.

I am curious to confirm what I have read with other readers of this forum?

I am trying to anticipate how napoleon total war infantry should fight....

I disagree. French army at Waterloo was above average, could be the NCOs and officiers were not at their best, I mean not comparable with the Grande Armée of the glory years 1805-1807, after the Boulogne camp, which was the perfect war machine.
At Jena and Auerstadt french units could perform various complex changes of formation during the same battle, not only at battalion level, but also at brigade and division level.

English army was very well trained, prussian army before Jena strictly drilled (again were the officiers a bit too dated).
Of course after big losses like during the Eylau or russian campaigns there was an huge setback for the training level but this is obvious: we know that before Lutzen a fair part of the cavalry men could barely change direction to thei horses.

Well, the Prussian Army was known for it's good organization and..balls of steel. Still, the French and British armies in the Nappie period weren't lower either. Of course, in the last years, Napoleon used alot of conscripts, most veterans were either dead or couldn't fight...

well prussia had freikorps which were not so well trained and napoleon also increased the army greatly so sometimes there were quiet a few unexperienced units in the army

I think it would depend on the particular time you are talking about. During peacetime and at the start of a war I would say that the pre-Revolutionary armies were better trained but during the Seven Years War bloodbath even the Prussian Army was well off of their game. Soon after the start of the French Revolution the French army was a mess but attained a level of expertese from 1805-1807 that easily equaled or supassed any 18th Century army. The problem for France was that it never again had a long period of peace after 1805 in which to make up losses and engage in extensive training. Recruits are relatively easy to replace but Cavalry, both men and horses, need much more training and the loss of experienced NCOs and Officers is difficult to replace.

Originally Posted by Sol Invictus

Soon after the start of the French Revolution the French army was a mess but attained a level of expertese from 1805-1807 that easily equaled or supassed any 18th Century army.

Napoleonic armies were also trained to do more than 18th century armies. For infantry, the difference was skirmish capability. For cavalry, the improvements were in the areas of command-control and flexibility. Artillery improvements were in both maneuverability and fire control areas. And, of course, army organization had evolved considerably. I think it's safe to say that any Napoleonic army would have handled its 18th century counterpart.

18th century infantry were so battered and brutalised that they had no initiative. Prussian light cavalry were primarily there to prevent desertion! The Napoleonic British army was exactly the same as it was during the mid 18th century, with soldiers recieving up to 1,000 lashes as defacto death sentences as punishment for infractions.

French revolutionary armies were volunteers, disipline increased later but was never as strick as the mid 18th century pattern.

In the 18th century soldiers were mercenaries. During the Revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic period France made use of mass-conscription mobilizing the entire nation for war. So yeah training and discipline dropped. But that depends on wich country and army we're talking about. The rest of Europe wasn't using mass-conscription until later in the 19th century with the rise of nation states.

Originally Posted by Razor

In the 18th century soldiers were mercenaries. During the Revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic period France made use of mass-conscription mobilizing the entire nation for war. So yeah training and discipline dropped. But that depends on wich country and army we're talking about. The rest of Europe wasn't using mass-conscription until later in the 19th century with the rise of nation states.

Do not confuse levy and conscription.

A levy mean lot of men will be integrated in an army in short notice, often without proper training (like the french did early in the revolution with the "levée en masse").

But conscription is just a way to recruit soldiers (much like how the militias selected their recruits, excepted a conscript would be required to serve like a regular rather than as a militian).
That doesn't mean the training is less efficient than the one of a professionnal, in fact it's exactly the same.