Light Infantry vs Line Infantry

[Didz]

Obviously skirmishing was done in loose order and therefore relied upon experienced men who could function thusly without routing or deserting.

Exactly my point. Skirmishing is always done in loose order, therefore it is a nonesense to have units with the ability to skirmish who are not deployed in loose order, as it renders them useless.

In fact, historically the evolution was the other way round. Early warfare was always conducted in loose formation, not just because men were not trained to fight in close order but quite simply because men could not fight in close order using the early weapons available to them. They needed space around themselves to fight and so they fought in loose formations. The development of drills and weapons that enable men to fight in close formation was a technical evolution that included the Greek Phalanx and the Roman Legion as its most famous exponents.

You do not need to train a man to fight in a loose formation any warrior will do that naturally, you only need to train a man to fight as part of tight unified group.

[Nelson]

You do not need to train a man to fight in a loose formation any warrior will do that naturally, you only need to train a man to fight as part of tight unified group.

Too right, Didz. Even in the 18th century ranks and files in both columns and lines were more open than is commonly appreciated until the Prussians introduced a cadenced step. (which incidentally Frederick the Great considered a state secret). The new cadence made formations more compact which in turn made them handier to deploy and maneuver without needing to stop and dress so often as before. Until the “secret” was out no one could keep up with Prussian infantry.

[antisocialmunky]

I dunno Didz, that sounds more like hyperbole. You have to train the people how to fight right. Give just get anyone a sort and its pretty much a coin flip that that person will be totally ineffective and die.

It would be more appropriate if it was about drilling rather than all around training.

[Didz]

I dunno Didz, that sounds more like hyperbole. You have to train the people how to fight right. Give just get anyone a sort and its pretty much a coin flip that that person will be totally ineffective and die.

My point was that you do not need to train men to fight in loose order, they will do that naturally, all you need to do is teach them how to fight. Therefore, it should not be a technical innovation to enable your men to use loose formation and any unit with skirmishing ability should be deployed in loose formation by default.

As it stands I have skirmish units in the Maratha Army that are useless to me becuase they are depicted in close order and so take equal casualties to their close order opponents even though they have half the men.

It just another feature that worked before but now doesn't.

[MikeV]

My point was that you do not need to train men to fight in loose order, they will do that naturally, all you need to do is teach them how to fight. Therefore, it should not be a technical innovation to enable your men to use loose formation and any unit with skirmishing ability should be deployed in loose formation by default.

Well, the American Revolutionary army tried that, at first, with their militia. They were copying the tactics that seemed to work during the French and Indian Wars. However, collections of individuals shooting from behind trees and such were generally only useful for harassment, not for taking and holding a battlefield.

Also, fighting in such an "ungentlemanly" manner caused the British troops to take out their frustrations on the unarmed citizenry of the towns they occupied ...

Eventually, the Continentals brought in "Baron" von Steuben to train them in the European style. The rest, as they say, is history.

[A Very Super Market]

Not Napoleon. He had a professional army. He meant the revolutionaries in the beginning.

Also, your attitude towards the British is fairly demeaning, if not completely wrong. For one, the whole point of the British campaign was to only target revolutionaries, and not the largely ambivalent populace. Any officer that allowed their troops to ravage a town would have received hefty punishment for blatant disregard for the commander's intent.

[Didz]

Well, the American Revolutionary army tried that, at first, with their militia. They were copying the tactics that seemed to work during the French and Indian Wars. However, collections of individuals shooting from behind trees and such were generally only useful for harassment, not for taking and holding a battlefield.

That's exaclty what skirmishers are supposed to do, they are not intended to take and hold battlefields thats what the line infantry is for.

Eventually, the Continentals brought in "Baron" von Steuben to train them in the European style. The rest, as they say, is history.

And he taught them close order tactic's, not light infantry tactic's, in fact, the British did the reverse and taught some of their regiments to fight in open order as skirmishers to oppose the guys behind the tree's. The 60th Rifle Regiment which fought alongside the 95th in Spain and Europe was actually formed in America as a response to the snipers.

Also, your attitude towards the British is fairly demeaning, if not completely wrong. For one, the whole point of the British campaign was to only target revolutionaries, and not the largely ambivalent populace. Any officer that allowed their troops to ravage a town would have received hefty punishment for blatant disregard for the commander's intent.

Yes, I think that assessment was based upon the Mel Gibson version of the war as portrayed in the film 'Patriot', otherwise known as 'How to teach your children to become murderers.'

[Furious Mental]

'Um, that time period (which is after the ending of the campaign in this one) featured the "Levée en masse," which was the 1st large-scale compulsory conscripting of the Industrial Age. Napoleon's tactics focused on a combination of massed cannons, cavalry charges, and infantry columns breaking through the enemy line and convincing the survivors to leave the field ... bloody, but effective (at the time: imitating them later led to the horrific casualties of the ACW and WWI).
'

Yeah cheers but I don't need a lecture on Napoleonic tactics, especially from someone who thinks it was all about assault columns. The point is that soldiers instinctively spread out and protect themselves when they get shot at. They is why they had to be trained to stand shoulder to shoulder and fire in unison, which in any case even trained soldiers could not manage for extended periods of time.