Napoleon's Chasseurs and his Voltigeurs

This is something I've always wondered about, were there any differences in the tactical usage between Chasseurs or Voltigeurs? I understand Voltigeurs were meant to hijack the horses of enemy cavalrymen, but that was just an idea never put into practice.

You ask about French pattern foot Chasseur and Voltigeur I suppose.

Generally differences between these soldiers were in their organization and predestination.

French pattern infantry battalions had several (9 and 6 from 1808) companies. Tactical battalion consisted of few Chasseur centre companies, and two elite companies.
First one was named as Grenadiers in Line regiments or Carabiniers in Legere regiments, the last one was Voltigeur company.
In Grenadier(Carabinier) companies serviced above 1,73 m tall, big, strong and experienced men good in bayonets fights.

In Voltigeur companies serviced mainly small, below 1,6 m short, but agile men, good as marksmen. They were predestinated to form skirmisher chain and fought in extended order in pairs which advanced or withdraw in front of their mother battalion.

They recognized terrain, made reconnaissance, screened and secured own troops, pressed, harassed and weaken enemy formations before own main force came and hit, and broke enemy.

Sometime for special purposes Voltigeurs companies, taken from several regiments, created provisional battalions. They formed bunch of skirmishers supporting Grenadiers provisional battalions or other infantry or were used for special duties e.g. first crossed river and captured river’s islands, bank or bridge-head, fought in the streets or in forests.

Chasseur it were common soldiers serviced in Legere Regiments (battalions) adequate to Fusilier companies in Line regiments. Chasseur as nominal legere (light) infantry were little bit better trained in fire fights and light infantry duties.

Nevertheless on battlefield Chasseur centre companies were formed in line or column and they normally fought as entire battalion formation. They also could fought as skirmishers, but it was not their predestination and not common case.

Napoleon also had Horse Chasseurs, but it was light cavalry and quite another story.

In practice there was little difference in the way the French employed their infantry. Chasseurs and Volitguers tended to be the first to be deployed as skirmishers, but in theory whole battalions would be deployed if necessary whether line or light. Other nations were the same the only real limitations were based upon the perceived reliability of the men involved weighed against the necessity of providing a screen.

One interesting oddity is that the French did seem to like to use their Legere Regiments as assault units for taking fortified positions. Not the sort of role one would traditionally expect for supposed light infantry, but then again if one looks at the history of the Wellingtons Army in the Peninsula he did exactly the same thing with the Light Division on several occassions and in much more extreme circumstances.

So, overall i would say that a name is just a name, which troops got used for what was largely a question of quality and availability.

Originally Posted by Didz

In practice there was little difference in the way the French employed their infantry.

Yes, but Voltigeurs were perceived and created as elite company, while Chasseur were common, centre companies. Volitgeur had little bit more specialized usage than Chasseur.

Originally Posted by Didz

One interesting oddity is that the French did seem to like to use their Legere Regiments as assault units for taking fortified positions. Not the sort of role one would traditionally expect for supposed light infantry, but then again if one looks at the history of the Wellingtons Army in the Peninsula he did exactly the same thing with the Light Division on several occassions and in much more extreme circumstances.

Hmm interesting to know in what and how many occasions British Light Division had much more extreme circumstances than French which stormed Russian redoubts at Borodino, Heilsberg or such battles as Aspern-Essling, Wagram, Eylau and many others.

I know few British assaults, but I can not name it as done in much more extreme circumstances than French did in their battles.

Originally Posted by Didz

So, overall i would say that a name is just a name, which troops got used for what was largely a question of quality and availability.

Hmm, name is just a name, but name also could suggested what kind of unit it was and what it probably could done or better say what was his theoretical tactical predestination. It somehow was not expected that Voltigeurs or Chasseurs fought with bayonets against Grenadiers. Horse Chasseur and Dragoons also could fought on foot even as skirmishers, but their quality and availablity were below than foot Chasseurs and Voltigeurs. In theory and many times in practice Voltigeur elite company had better skills than Chasseur company serviced in the same battalion.

Originally Posted by exNowy

Yes, but Voltigeurs were perceived and created as elite company, while Chasseur were common, centre companies. Volitgeur had little bit more specialized usage than Chasseur.

True, but then Legere Regiments considered themselves superior to Ligne Regiments anyway, so a chasseur would probably have considered himself superior to a fusilier. Even so, there are plenty of examples of both chasseurs and fusiliers being deployed as skirmishers when the need arose.

Originally Posted by exNowy

Hmm interesting to know in what and how many occasions British Light Division had much more extreme circumstances than French which stormed Russian redoubts at Borodino, Heilsberg or such battles as Aspern-Essling, Wagram, Eylau and many others.

Well I mentioned extreme in the context the these were full scale seiges where the light division were ordered to storm the breach, or scale the walls. As opposed to form the storming assault on a temporary battlefield fortification.

Originally Posted by exNowy

Hmm, name is just a name, but name also could suggested what kind of unit it was and what it probably could done or better say what was his theoretical tactical predestination. It somehow was not expected that Voltigeurs or Chasseurs fought with bayonets against Grenadiers. Horse Chasseur and Dragoons also could fought on foot even as skirmishers, but their quality and availablity were below than foot Chasseurs and Voltigeurs. In theory and many times in practice Voltigeur elite company had better skills than Chasseur company serviced in the same battalion.

Personally, I thiink thats putting far too much emphasis on a name. There is little evidence that theoretical tactical predestination played a major role in the way troops were used at micro-tactical level in battle. Skills especially in the French Army were very much personality focussed and the reason a man was promoted into the Voltigeur company could have as much to do with how popular he was in the battalion, or how brave he was, rather than just his marksmanship.

As I said there was a tendency to select light troops make assaults, but I suspect that had more to do with their mental agility and eliteism than their marksmanship.

Originally Posted by Didz

Well I mentioned extreme in the context the these were full scale seiges where the light division were ordered to storm the breach, or scale the walls. As opposed to form the storming assault on a temporary battlefield fortification.

Maybe I get wrong end of the stick with frase " in much more extreme circumstances".
But I remembered that French also stormed the breach, gates or scale the walls in several occasions e.g. Saragossa, Smolensk, Ratisbon etc. Then British light division did not do something special or something in much more extreme circumstances.

Originally Posted by Didz

Personally, I thiink thats putting far too much emphasis on a name. There is little evidence that theoretical tactical predestination played a major role in the way troops were used at micro-tactical level in battle. Skills especially in the French Army were very much personality focussed and the reason a man was promoted into the Voltigeur company could have as much to do with how popular he was in the battalion, or how brave he was, rather than just his marksmanship.

As I said there was a tendency to select light troops make assaults, but I suspect that had more to do with their mental agility and eliteism than their marksmanship

I don't think that name was only empty thing. It was not only theoretical tactical predestination.
French regulation required special features from men which coud servised in Voltigeur or Chasseur company.
It was not only marksmenship. Voltigurs should be short, agile, light, nimble, experienced men. Then they were little bit smaller targets, they could better find cover, could better moved, turned, advanced, withdraw etc. Therefore they were chose to special duties. In Chasseur companies serviced more common and taller men which were little bit better trained in shooting and ligth duties than Fusilier in line regiments. They were somehow "lighter men" than Fusiliers.

Therefore it was not only teoretical question that Voltigeurs serviced in elite company, usually placed on left flank of battalion, while Chasseurs were in centre companies.

All they could fought in skirmish chain, but their quality and availablity could be littl bit different. It could be small but enough to show that there serviced "different" men which had little bit different skills.

Originally Posted by ♔EmperorBatman999♔

This is something I've always wondered about, were there any differences in the tactical usage between Chasseurs or Voltigeurs? I understand Voltigeurs were meant to hijack the horses of enemy cavalrymen, but that was just an idea never put into practice.

Voltigeurs were not meant to highjack enemy horses, they were meant to ride pinion on allied horses. Getting a lift into battle as it were.

"Voltigeurs (lit. Vaulters) hold their name from their originally conceived role of cavalry-transported skirmishers: the voltigeurs were intended to jump onto the croup of cavalry horses in order to advance more quickly on the battlefield. This proved unworkable and they were trained to be elite skirmishers while retaining their original name. They formed an integral part of la Grande Armée's basic building blocks, the Line and Light infantry battalions."

There is at least one recorded battle memoir of voltigeurs doing the original conceived role, and the author says he saw them do it many times:

"The French had much the advantage of us in these petty warfares, for I have frequently seen their light troops mounted behind their dragoons, so that when they came to a favourable place to make an attack, these fellows dismounted quite fresh, and our light troops who had been always marching, had to oppose them; still we managed to beat them off."- Lt Col. Charles Stevens, 1878

From the Wiki entry.

Originally Posted by ♔EmperorBatman999♔

This is something I've always wondered about, were there any differences in the tactical usage between Chasseurs or Voltigeurs? I understand Voltigeurs were meant to hijack the horses of enemy cavalrymen, but that was just an idea never put into practice.

A French line infantry batallion had
-1 company of Grenadiers (elite : tall strong guys)
-4 companies of Fusiliers (non elite)
-1 company of Voltigeurs (elte : short agile guys)

A French ligh infantry batallion had
-1 company of Carabiniers(elite : tall strong guys)
-4 companies of Chasseurs (non elite)
-1 company of Voltigeurs (elte : short agile guys)

Note: at the beginning of the Napolenoic wars it was 9 companies

So voltigeurs existed both for line and light infantry, and were used as skirmishers

While the chasseurs are the bulk of the line infantry.

For comparison, a British bataillion had
1 company of Grenadier
8 "center companies" (regular infantry
1 company of light infantry

British companies were smaller than French ones.

It shows the ratio of elite was higher un French bataillin (2/6) than for the British (2/10)

Originally Posted by Steph

It shows the ratio of elite was higher un French bataillin (2/6) than for the British (2/10)

Agreed, but one needs to be careful about jumping to general conclusions based upon such a clunky comparison. Service in an elite company in either service was not necessarily a reflection of personal skill or courage, it could equally be based on personal influence and favouritism.

Likewise, whilst French elite companies might reflect the best that a battalion had to offer, that quality was constantly being reduced by the equally common habit of stripping battalions of their best men for elite battalions and the guard, which meant that what was left were the second-best men.

Finally, the overall performance and quality of the battalion obviously had a direct reflection in the quality of their elite companies. A line company from a veteran battalion might be far superior to an elite company from a battalion of raw conscripts.

It is also obvious from primary sources that none of the armies in the Napoleonic period restricted their skirmish line to men from their elite companies. The more general rule was that no more than one in three of the men in any unit should be assigned to the skirmish line, but where those men came from was less regulated. Skirmish companies were used when they were available, and until losses required further troop commitments, but ulitmately even Landwehr were assigned to skirmishing duty when the need arose.

Yes, I didn't say that the French were better or worse than the British, only that companies labelled elite had a higher ratio for the French

Service in an elite company in either service was not necessarily a reflection of personal skill or courage, it could equally be based on personal influence and favouritism.

I think it was less true in the French army, where promotion was based a lot more on merit than other counties.

Originally Posted by Steph

I think it was less true in the French army, where promotion was based a lot more on merit than other counties.

Not sure if that is strictly correct, influence clearly had a lot to do with promotion in the French Army. The biggest difference seems to have been that in the British Army the influence tended to be external to the battalion, whereas in the French it was internal with even the men getting involved in the selection of NCO's etc.

Then it's still promotion based on merit: who the men think would make a good NCO. But I think it was more based on skills (including charism with the soldiers) than wealth or political relation.
Note I don't say it was merit was the exclusive selection method, just that is was relatively more important for France

Yes, basically soldiers if asked would vote for their drinking buddies, or the guy that said he'd thump the living daylights of them if they didn't. Another common technique documented by Parquin was to constantly self-promote yourself with those just above you in rank and your colleagues so that they felt obliged to give you the next promotion that came along. What we today refer to as 'brown-nosing'.

With external influence if wasn't really necessary to work the local popularity system, but it did matter who you or your family knew, and who knew, who you and your family knew. So, lots of stuff like 'My father's uncle, once dated the horse of the Duke of Cambridge you know.' The only advantage of the latter would seem to be that NCO's got promoted on the grounds that they knew their job and could thus avoid the officers having to do any work.

The other common problem was that French officers were under constant pressure to be seen to be braver than their comrades in order to get the attention they needed for promotion, which led to some really stupid actions, both by individuals and whole units forced to follow them, and consequently high officer casualties. The British were less susceptible to this trait as is wasn't that important unless you didn't have a relative who's dated the Duke of Cambridges horse, in which case reckless bravery was the only way of gaining some influence e.g. Sharpe saving the Duke of Wellington life, or volunteering to lead a forlorn hope.

Such officers were generally hated by their men as documented in Mark Urban's book on the Rifles. They had a reputation for being reckless and getting their men killed, which was another reason why British soldiers tended to prefer privileged officers who didn't need to be so keen. Indeed Sharpes comment about bad officers getting shot in the back was probably based on fact, except that bad in the eyes of the men might not have been the same as incompetent.