What's wrong with French morale?

[Samittaja]

Its not a vicrory i was seeking.. i just wanted to point out common misconception about Waterloo british authors are usually spreading..

I didnt wanted to sound agressive, but ive been batling this misinformation way too many times in the past which makes me agitated sometimes..

Nah, we're ok. It was my mistake for commenting while not giving the other comments a proper look.

There is no recorded info about Old Guard losing a fight. Yet, If we look at entire Napoleonic War, at Marengo 1800, almost entire Consular Guard was wiped out by Austrian cavalry. Two battalions of Consular Guard Grenadiers (practically a predecessors of the Imperial Guard) covered the retreat, yet were surrounded by attacking Austrians and destroyed.. yet battle turned for Napoleon because at the last moment Desaix division arrived, counterattacked victorious Austrians and routed them completely..

Could it be that the Old Guard was simply not put into too many fights? I.e. they were as much a propaganda tool as a fighting unit? Of course, I have absolutely no information on the Old Guard combat history, and don't know proper sources to look at.

[Steph]

It is true that the Old Guard was usually preserved and not engaged until needed. But it doesn't change the fact that when involved, they did not break.

[William of Orange]

At Aspern-Essling the Old Guard covered the retreat; stood in 1-rank line for an hour against Austrian canister fire until the Austrian gunners lost morale and retreated from the casualties suffered; and turned a possibly catastrophic defeat into a virtual draw. Thanks to the efficiencies of Larrey's "Flying Ambulance", some phenomenal percentage of Old Guard casualties from that battle (40% maybe, I can't find the reference) were back with their unit within 2 weeks. Even more returned either to non-combat roles in the Guard, or had a "successful" amputation and returned to France as fit civilians.

[William of Orange]

To be fair, by Clausewitz records he did coment on how Napoleon's soldiers didn't cower at all under artillery fire that would have very easily routed any normal unit, even if well drilled
It's not by chance that Clausewitz talks about anihilating the enemy while Sun Tzu about routing them (or at least routing part of the unit)



Many of them were Fanatics of the Revolution and could end up having meteoric promotions in status and power should they be brave enough. Many Napoleon higher Officers and Marshals were surprisingly young and of commoner background.

Compare this to the Monarchy armies where even the best Officer would be stuck as a low ranking Officer forever and ever no matter how well he fought/strategized in case he wasn't a noble

Prussian army noticed this to be a cause in differencial of morale, and was forced to increased meritocracy of the army disresgarding the Nobility titles, this allowed renewed morale for the Prussian soldiers and Officers. Still required to swallow a good amount of pride.

Austrian Empire (HRE) failed to do this, and was defeated and dissolved.

One more factor - Larrey's ambulances volante - flying ambulances - using modified horse artillery limbers that rapidly evacuated wounded off of the battlefield mid-battle. The only Coalition soldier who got better medical treatment than a wounded French fusilier or trooper under the care of Larrey's corps was: Archduke Charles; and even that isn't definitive.

After Aspern-Essling, where the Old guard suffered 1200 casualties in an hour under canister fire from Austrian artillery at 100 yards, until the Austrian artillery retreated from excess casualties:
600 returned to their unit for active duty "within a short time"
254 (including 38 amputees) were sent back to France (typically this involved reassignment to non-combat duties: teamster, cook, etc.)
201 other non-fatal results
145 died from their wounds
--------
1200 total

Think on what it does for morale when half of casualties return to combat duty promptly, and 3/4 of the rest survive. The 1200 casualties were from 2840 effectives who were reported that morning as fit and present, so just over 42%.

[Patronus86]

1) The mythos surrounding Napoleon's Old Guard is almost just as bad as that which surrounded the supposedly invincible Spartans. Yes - the Old Guard was composed of highly experienced veterans who were very loyal to their Emperor. Certainly one of the best, if not the best, infantry units of their time. However, Napoleon rarely employed them in direct battle (and in fact was criticized at refusing to commit them in several key engagements). So this mentality that the Old Guard never broke is somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy - a unit that hardly fights stands a lesser chance of losing.

2) There is a lot of favoritism showed by history writers to the British - no doubt about that. That said, they were, in their own right, a very professional and competent army (especially under Wellington) and they were the only European army which was consistently able to either hold its own or outright defeat the French armies of the time. Waterloo was certainly a close battle, that easily could've swung either way, but it was preceded by a string of British land victories in Spain. And in both the French and Spanish campaigns, the British forces had large foreign contingents which were at times very unreliable. That the British armies prevailed with these foreign components intermingled with their armies deserves some credit.

3) Young and Middle Guard were feeder units for the Old Guard, and arguably only separated from the Old Guard by the slightest of degrees. That the British turned away this French charge (of Young & Middle Guard) is no less impressive than had they turned away the actual Old Guard...and given the firepower and position advantage that the British enjoyed at the final, pivotal moment of Waterloo, it is highly doubtful that the Old Guard would've brought French success to replace the failure and retreat of the Young & Middle Guard. The French infantry had largely spent themselves attacking British positions (such as Hougoumont & La Haye Sainte), and while the parts of the British & Dutch infantry had taken a beating from French artillery, their lines were largely intact and ready to receive French assault. The Old Guard might have been stubborn enough to reach the British lines, but to think that they could've marched uphill, sustaining a high casualty rate and punched through the British line is wishful thinking at its finest.

[William of Orange]

...

3) Young and Middle Guard were feeder units for the Old Guard, and arguably only separated from the Old Guard by the slightest of degrees. ...

Not true of either.

The Young Guard was raised from volunteer recruits who had paid for the right - in exchange for the expectation of being deployed into battle less frequently, with greater care, and only by Napoleon himself. Undoubtedly they were better led than line regiments; and possibly better trained and equipped (having supplied their own musket and kit as part of the commission paid for entry).

Entry into both the Old and Middle Guard Guard required service in 8 campaigns and commendations. The main distinction was that as Grenadiers there was a minimum height requirement for the Old Guard (6'0" IIRC), so the Middle Guard was composed of Chasseur regiments where smaller men were welcome.

[Patronus86]

Not true of either.

The Young Guard was raised from volunteer recruits who had paid for the right - in exchange for the expectation of being deployed into battle less frequently, with greater care, and only by Napoleon himself. Undoubtedly they were better led than line regiments; and possibly better trained and equipped (having supplied their own musket and kit as part of the commission paid for entry).

Entry into both the Old and Middle Guard Guard required service in 8 campaigns and commendations. The main distinction was that as Grenadiers there was a minimum height requirement for the Old Guard (6'0" IIRC), so the Middle Guard was composed of Chasseur regiments where smaller men were welcome.

Fine - a vast oversimplification on my part regarding the Young Guard.

My original point still stands - the Old Guard was very experienced, but so was the Middle Guard and so in fact were many other French units participating in Waterloo. We're toying with 'what-if' scenarios in a distant part of history, but to say that Napoleon's refusal to deploy the Old Guard was the deciding factor which lost Waterloo is, in itself, a grand oversimplification and speculation.

The Old Guard was certainly very competent, but they bled and fell to musket and cannon just as easily as any other soldier of the time.

We tend to over-hype and idolize certain historical figures and groups with passing time - these perceptions are more often than not quite divorced from reality.

[JaM]

Main problem at Waterloo was that Imperial Guard was already spent fighting holding actions around Placenoit, so for that last charge against Wellington, only 8 Battalions were available... Middle Guard battalions lead the charge, Old Guard Battalions were covering them.

[William of Orange]

Having now red your link, it goes into deeper detail of the event, and therefore I find it more believable. I shall concede defeat.

P.S. So, the Old Guard never lost a fight? Is that really true? It has the same feel of propaganda as many other similar claims.

P.S.S. Quite a detour of the original topic

At Aspern Essling the Old Guard advanced in skirmish order to within about 100 yards against two Austrian 12 pounder batteries to cover the French retreat. While suffering 1200 casualties or so over an hour the Guard forced the Austrian batteries to withdraw "due to excessive casualties". Of the Guard casualties roughly half were "soon" returned to active duty with their units [I'd read that as a couple of weeks - certainly before Wagram] while another 350 (including amputees) returned to France.

Larrey's "ambulances volantes" ensured that every French soldier received better medical care in the field than any but an Archduke in the Austrian army. That's really good for morale.

https://history.stackexchange.com/qu...an/10867#10867