Peninsular War: Why were British infantry so successful?

Why were the British redcoats so successful in the Peninsular war? There were many reasons, but amongst them was the way regiments were organised and the tactics they employed.

[redcoathistory]

Hi guys, I appreciate all comments. I do want to point out that this video is specificly looking at the the organisation and tactics of the British infantry battalion and how that helped them to be succesful. It is a not a three hour examination of the broader reasons why the allies were succesful in the war. I have other videos that cover all of the major engagements. Feel free to watch those before throwing around accusations of bias etc. Let's keep our comments focused and friendly please.

[luisferreira]

Great video! The British army was still reaping the benefits from Cromwell’s army almost 2 centuries after the civil war. They were a lot more professional than other countries armies back then, which enabled more complex tactics. They were also able to reform my own country’s army (Portugal) into a decent fighting force. My own ancestors fought with Wellington and were invited to his funeral. His funeral card is still kept as a heirloom. Cheers and may the friendship between our countries continue! With a lot of port wine on the side 😉

[bob___]

Maybe it's off-topic, but one big reason for British success in the Peninsular War was that Wellington understood the importance of what today is called logistics, and he didn't move unless he had the supplies to support his movements.

[LOCATIONREDACTED]

Red goes faster. Brilliant video, recommended to a few friends.

[jeffdworkin]

The rolling volley fire by sections was an important part of those infantry tactics by mitigating the slow reload time of the muskets of the era. This meant that the column would be under constant fire rather than large mass volleys by the whole battalion giving them time to advance further during that process.

[wasp]

Marshal Soult wrote of the British Army at Albuhera, ‘There is no beating these troops. They were completely beaten, the day was mine and they did not know it and would not run’.
And, that characterises the British soldier.

[expertstrategy]

The biggest misconception about French infantry tactics was that they always used columns as human battering rams. It was a hypothesis developed by Sir Charles Oman, whose first two volumes of the Peninsular War I have read. I think he had a misunderstanding of French tactics, thinking they use columns as offensive formations designed to break enemy lines. According to Imperial French military doctrines, the column was meant to be used as a means of rapid maneuver, since the line was unreliable on uneven terrain. This was developed in the French Revolutionary Wars, when the French army, composed of regulars, volunteers, and raw recruits were formed into columns as a faster way of organizing raw recruits and using them in battle. Of course, the column was preceded by a swarm of French skirmishers, and they harassed exposed enemy lines, killing the rank and file, demoralizing them. Then, the column was used as a battering ram, due to the inexperience of the French troops in complex formations. This tactic was implemented during the first few years of the war, but over time, as the French armies became more experienced, they were able to perform more complicated maneuvers. Remember, actual battle experience is a form of training on the job.

During the Napoleonic Wars, the column tactics changed a little bit. This time, the column would redeploy into line to commence musket duels when given the chance. When fighting against Wellington's troops, the French failed to deploy into line in the face of a line of British troops that suddenly emerged from behind a hilltop or ravine. In hindsight, it's easy to say the French were foolishly repeating the same tactics over and over again. However, the problem is that the French could not know if they were marching against either infantry or cavalry hiding behind a slope. The column was the safest option in the face of enemy cavalry, since they could form into square much more quickly.


I think it is a massive oversimplification to conclude the French triumphed across Europe primarily due to their column formations. You have to take into account that Napoleon's superior tactics and strategy were a huge factor. He used the Central or Indirect Approach that won him his greatest victories from 1805-1807. The Grande armee was far more flexible with up-to-date tactics and organization. His artillery was highly mobile and played a critical role in his battles, along with the French cavalry that, on some occasions, saved him from defeat, most notably at Eylau.

The Battles of Lutzen and Bautzen could have been far more decisive if Napoleon had a strong cavalry branch, a likelihood many historians have pointed out regarding those two battles. So, clearly, solely relying on poorly trained conscript infantry alone was not enough to win battles decisively. And, we have to point out that the Prussian army was better trained, having gone through a rigorous training program, and the Russians were veterans from the campaign of 1812. Their experience did not stop them from losing those battles.

The British were indeed superb soldiers, and when well led, they were ridiculously tough, especially on the defense. However, an army is only as good as its leader, regardless of training and experience. Prior to Wellington's rise, the British army performed poorly in many campaigns. There was the Flanders Campaign 1792-1795, again in 1799 that led to the Convention of Alkmaar, the 1793-1798 Haiti campaign, the invasion of Rio de la Plata 1806-1807, the Walcheren Campaign 1809, also the Alexandrian expedition of 1807. In the war of 1812, the British did win many battles against the Americans, they've also suffered many notable reversals in pitched engagements, such as New Orleans and Plattsburgh. The British army during the final stages of the war was heavily reinforced by Peninsular War veterans. Many of which had participated in New Orleans and were led by Wellington's brother-in-law.

Napoleon led a poorly equipped, ill-disciplined army in Italy in 1796, and won a great string of victories over the more experienced and better trained Austrian and Sardinian armies. In 1814, Napoleon again repeated his success with a small army of young recruits and a nucleus of the Imperial Guard against veteran Allied armies led by reasonably capable commanders, like Schwarzenberg, Barclay, and Blucher, but he lost the war in the end when they took Paris.

There is one more thing. Napoleon's continental enemies have reorganized their armies by the time of the 6th Coalition War, typically copying the French model, therefore, it made them tougher opponents. That also means the Austrians, Prussian, and Russians have adopted aggressive skirmishing tactics and made heavier use of column formations. In the end though, Napoleon lost primarily because his enemies pursued a better strategy, not because of superior tactics. This was known as the Trachenberg plan that culminated at Leipzig. In 1814, despite the fact Napoleon had beaten their armies time and again, they won the war after taking Paris, and took advantage of the French people's strong desire for peace.

Here is an interesting website.

[pib]

The two-deep line was used for the first time, as little as I know, and intentionally, by General James Wolfe during the Battle on the Plains of Abraham (1759) near Québec as the consequence of which the British captured Canada.

[steveford]

VERY interesting. Wellington is a fascinating character, and yes, I admit, I love the Sharpe's books. What's fun is the historical note at the end of each of his novels. He introduced me to MANY amazing writers. In fact I found one bio, shucks, can't remember her name, written in the 30s or 40s, in my local used bookstore. Turned out to be a first edition.
HAD to look it up: Wellington' by Elizabeth Longford. Excellent book.

[Jimdixon]

I’ve recently discovered your podcasts and am working my way through them. The Isandlwana episode was excellent and the episode about black soldiers in the British army was really interesting as was the series on the Anglo Sikh Wars, which is a subject I didn’t know much about before. Keep up the good work!!

[britishmuzzleloaders]

A topic right up my alley! Great assessment, Chris! Upon examination, the whole "3 rounds a minute", rapid firing qualities attributed to the Infantry more often than not, was second to, as you mentioned, the delivery of only one or two well timed volleys followed by an immediate charge. Steadiness and timing were the secret, not Formula One musketry.... 😀

[andrewcombe]

“I don’t know what effect these men will have on the enemy but by God they frighten me”. Wellington on his own troops in 1810.

[sanjivjhangiani]

Remember also that the British Army was, at this period, an all-volunteer and professional army (at least in the Peninsula; militia units defended the British Isles). This meant that the "thin red line" was a high-quality line and not easy for Napoleon's conscripts to overcome.

[BlameThande]

That was very impressive to pack so much into such a short video without oversimplifying too much, you've earned a subscription.

[SFJPMoonGames]

Raw discipline and training plus logistics, logistics is the most underrated element to military success in history and especially YouTube.

[bugvswindshield]

Love Sharpes ! Movies! Just watched them all earlier this year, hence I'm now delving into this stuff.
Thanks a TON! !!!!

[misterspaceman]

Two Sargeants to a company seemed low until I realized that "fire and maneuver" was still over a century away. A lot less delegation needed in line formation I suppose!

[antonrudenham]

I did my army training at Shorncliffe near Folkestone in the mid 80's, the Light regiments or rifle regiments were raised and trained there by Sir John Moore after his own experience in the American war against highly motivated and skilled American riflemen.
Sir John later lost his life during the retreat to Corunna.
Over the far end of the barracks immense sports field just by a Martello tower was a large sandpit/quarry, you could wander around there and pick up old rifle balls, rifle balls can be recognised by the striations caused by the rifling in the barrel while musket balls remain unblemished, this led me to believe that the sandpit had been used as 'butts' during rifleman range training.
I was fascinated by this direct connection with the past and believe it played a part in prompting my lifelong interest in military history.

[andygeorgeparkinson]

Excellent briefing summary on a major element in the success of the British and Portuguese troops in the Peninsula War

[MAMDAVEM]

A direct line relative of mine was a sergeant in the 3rd Battalion the First foot (Royal Scots) and fought in the Pennisular wars and at Waterloo. Very interesting to hear about the tactics he and his men would have employed.