The French Army in XVIII Century
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc.
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22454
Printed Date: 28-Apr-2024 at 04:37
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: The French Army in XVIII Century
Posted By: Jubelu
Subject: The French Army in XVIII Century
Date Posted: 10-Nov-2007 at 23:18
|
It is such a gross dissapointment to see French performance during the Seven Years War. Maurice de Saxe was perhaps the only best French general in XVIII century. In my opinion, the backwardness of French Army as compared to Britain was because of the political problems originated from Louis XIV's reign. Through some researches, the French expenditures under the reign of Louis XV for military was actually more expensive than any fields. Yet, there were some sort of barriage which this almagam could not work. In terms of training, French infantry received less hours than British ones. This, methinks, is understandable. France needed a large land constant force to accomodate Eurpoean political problems, while Great Britain, isolated from mainland, had more time in training her own infantry armies. I really need more ideas upon the topic, please enlight with some thoughts. Methinks, the culmination of French military performance was Battle of Fontenoys. Here are some pictures of French infantrymen during the French-Indian War and Seven Years War:    The uniform was very simple, as compared to British troops:  The only good troops which participated during the Queen Ann's War and Seven Years War was the "Gardes Francaises":  As we can see, their uniforms were actually more ornate than ordinary infantymen |
Replies:
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 01:22
Just my opinion, but I think this is indeed if not the main reason, one of the main reasons. The army seemed to stagnate even though there were some talented officers, such as the aforementioned marshal de Saxe.
One problem could have been the influence of the nobility on the army, could be the result of the policies of Louis XIV, (after the Fronde he would want to keep the nobles under control; give them titles, keep them in the capital under watch etc.) incompetent officers recieving promotion and competent enlisted men/sergeants never getting promoted because of low birth. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
Posted By: Jubelu
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 02:51
|
A very good reason there, Justinian Do you think the political structure of France also hindered her from military success |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 12:23
I blame the Duke of Marlborough. Up to him the French army was considered the best, most powerful in Europe.  BTW Napoleon Bonaparte was an XVIII century General 
The French army suffered from parsimonious War Ministers until Belle-Isle who brought in some much needed reforms. Marshal De Broglie was one of the better French commanders and is responsible for carrying through many of Belle-Isle's reforms such as a permanent Brigade structure and the creation of formal Divisions [which later evolved into the Corps structure of the post Revolutionary Army]. The French did win several battles during the Seven Years War and their overall performance was not that bad. French weakness was more from lacklustre Generalship and political interference in operations.
I don't think the complexity of the uniform had anything to do with the performance of the soldier. France had many good quality regiments that fought bravely and were well led. The Gardes never fought in the Seven years War. |
Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 12:53
Only barely ... 1796. |
Posted By: Tancrède
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 13:51
Montcalm ? Villars ? except the seven years war, French army won all its wars between 1715 and 1789. War of Polish succession War of Austrian succession ( against Austrian Dutch and British) War of independance (USA)
In fact during the 18th century French army (contrary to navy  ) was much more powerful than British army.
British army always needed coalitions to win because it was too small compared to French army In Europe British were defeated (Fontenoy Rocoux Lauffeld Hastenbeck) In colonies there were very few french troops an they were outnumbered by British, however they won several times and the fight was hard. ex Braddock expedition Carillon some of greatest military disasters of British army. But it's true Louis XV was a bad king, he didn't care about colonis contrary to British politics. Britain had the best navy of the world, french navy was crappy, During Distant colony wars it was very important Another thing during the seven years war French weren't very enthusiats to help their ancien ennemy (Austrians) and France wasn't in danger to be invaded contrary to all previously wars since one century . Nevertheless French army was (with Russian and Prussian) the most powerful of the world in 18th century |
Posted By: Jubelu
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 16:09
|
I don't think the statement which considered French army as the most powerful in the world is actually true. First, uniform indeed played an important role in warfare of 18th century. French common colour was not blue until the Revolution, but White. This, as their Austria ally, caused trouble since dense white smoke from muskeets could hinder the view of soldiers toward their comrades. British troops were actually better than France in terms of uniform since Red was the best colour to identify within a nebulous area. I agree that French army still had some best performance in the Seven Years War. But this was not enough. The major problem in French Army, as far as I can excogitate, was financial problems. It seems that she could hardly resolve this difficulty successful as her British counterpart did. We could see there was a tumultous period where Louis XV played his Minister musical chairs (Change from one to another continuously at a frightening pace). Battle of Dettingen for example, was one of the most dissapointed defeat. Again, the Britain brilliantly got their victory, which became a sort of incarnation to the One Hundred Years Wars 400 years ago. The Independence War was won not mainly by French troops, but by the enormous efforts of Continental Army (BTW, I love the Revolutionary Uniforms, guys, look even better than the Gardes Francaises) |
Posted By: Jubelu
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 16:12
| The British Army was not a large one. But they were much more well-trained and disciplined, just as the fearful Prussian Grenadiers. I could see only a weakness: lack of experience. |
Posted By: Tancrède
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 17:03
British weren't alone at Dettingen, there were also Austrian Hanoverian. At that time (1743) french weren't offically in the war, Louis XV declared war in 1744, so one year after. The campaign 1744 1748 was very successful french defeated austrian british dutch hanovrian armies at Fontenoy Rocoux Lauffeld After many successful sieges (24 according to wiki) Austrian netherlands were eventually invaded and Also Maaestrich capital of united province. After these defeats British left flanders.
Maybe but Yorktown was a great Franco american victory.
I don't think unforms were so important. 
|
Posted By: Tancrède
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 17:12
according to this link British suffered much more casulaties than French and indian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War French side 3,900 regulars 7,900 militia 2,200 natives (1759) total 14 000 French casualties 3,000 killed, wounded or captured British side 50,000 regulars and militia (1759) British casualties 10,040 killed, wounded or captured |
Posted By: Tancrède
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 17:34
Despite of the disappointment of Seven years' war French army is generally considered as the most powerful of Europe between Rocroy (1643) and Waterloo (1815) |
Posted By: Jubelu
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:07
|
As I said to many of my companions, Wikipedia should not be cited arbitraily. I shall never believe in their figures until they give me a good source. The fact here is that after the French and Indian War, France lost her Canada, which was very daunting to the national economic. French army was unable to lock Hannover and Prussia as well as Britain. The fact that people call French Army strong was actually number of men rather than equipments and trains. As compared to a British infantry, a French infantry only received 5-7 days, while this number in British army was nearly 1 month. The same issue could be applied to Prussian Army. But I really do not dare to compare France to Prussia, since it is a bit unfair for Louis XV to Frederick the Great. The figure above about French casualties is also dull. Since the total number of French troops in America was smaller than Great Britain. |
Posted By: Jubelu
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:16
|
The saddest thing is that France lost her initial ally: Prussia. As we can see in Battle of Villinghausen, things turned up side down |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:31
yes ok, but who of the major powers was worse? Russia had Suvorov, and was undefeated in the 7YW. Prussia, well they had Frederick and are genereally not considdered the worst...Austria? Austria did very well on many occasions against Prussians, they also won against Ottomans but they are still better than French. that leaves us with Britian and France, and Britain won more engagements than France, so that leaves France on the bottom.
this is one-dimensional. France was only sucessfull as long as there was Prussia. after prussia left the war by separate peace and Saxony joined Austria, the French were beaten back, so they asked Prussia to re-enter the war. without Prussian intervention France would have lost the Austrian sucession war. ------------- |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:31
What are you talking about? Prussia's contribution to Villinghausen was 5 squadrons of Prussian Hussars! |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:37
Suvorov was only a Colonel during the Seven Years War and had no influence on Russian operations. Do you seriously base an army's performance purely on the number of engagements won?! |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:40
Tell that to the 6 British Regiments that fought at Minden. |
Posted By: Jubelu
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:41
|
quote: this is one-dimensional. France was only sucessfull as long as there
was Prussia. after prussia left the war by separate peace and Saxony
joined Austria, the French were beaten back, so they asked Prussia to
re-enter the war. without Prussian intervention France would have lost
the Austrian sucession war. That is it, that is what I am talking about. The war won not by the mighty France, but Prussia. As I said, when Prussian ceded side to Great Britain in the Seven Years War, France was bitten up as a tiger paper. The illusion that France was the most powerful mainpower was shattered right after the financial crisis of Louis XIV's reign. Not until Napoleon I enthroned did France enjoy her military peak. |
Posted By: Jubelu
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:43
|
Do you seriously base an army's performance purely on the number of engagements won?! No, as in Warburg, outnumbered France still lost. It was generalship and equipment. Do not deride uniform, since French uniform looked really outmoded in the Seven Years War, so did their muskeets and training. |
Posted By: Jubelu
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:46
|
If you need more concrete evidence to the disintegration of French military, then review their case at Liegnitz or Rossbach. Austria, in some senses, still better than France |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 18:48
Suvorov was heavily influenced by the commanders that fought int he 7YW and i considder him part of the tiem period we talk about. well, not on the numbers of engagements won, but if two armies fight each others, i reckon that the force winning the most engagements is the best. ------------- |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 23:21
The French never fought at Leignitz and Rossbach was more a case of poor Generalship on the part of the Imperial and French armies than a disintegration of the French military. Some French units fought well at Rossbach, but there's not a lot you can do when you are caught in column of march by a fully deployed enemy. It's a bit like saying the Roman army was rubbish because they lost at Trasimene. |
Posted By: Jubelu
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 23:55
| Then how do you explain the case of Warburg? |
Posted By: Jubelu
Date Posted: 11-Nov-2007 at 23:57
|
Quote: well, not on the numbers of engagements won, but if two armies fight
each others, i reckon that the force winning the most engagements is
the best. Well, this is particularly applicable for XVIII century warfare. Prussia won a lot engagements, so did Britain. Spain and France became obsolete force in Europe and were merely paper tiger. |
Posted By: Jubelu
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 00:02
|
Allied army: 30,500 French, 10,500 Kreis in 49/14 Bns, 40/41 Sqns, 36/12 Field guns, approx 120 Battalion guns. Charles de Rohan, Prince Soubise, Marshal of France AC (for French troops), Prinz von Sachsen-Hildburghausen, Prince of the Empire AC (for Kreis troops, may command and rally French cavalry) Franco-Kreis 1st Cavalry Column, Ex = 6
Franco-Kreis 2nd Cavalry Column, Ex = 3
Franco-Kreis Main Infantry Columns, Lt Genl de Chevert CC Right Column, Ex = 7 Advance Guard
Body of Right Column
Right-Centre Column, Ex = 8
Centre Column, Ex = 4
Left-Centre Column, Ex = nil
Left Column, Ex = 4 Advance Guard
Body of left Column
Saint Germain’s Detached Wing, Lt Genl Saint Germain DC, Ex = 7 First Line
Second Line
Flank Guard
Generaleutnant Loudon’s Austrian Light Column, GL Loudon DC, Ex = 2
|
Posted By: Tancrède
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 06:09
Prussia left the war in 1745. French conquered lonely Austrian netherlands and invaded United provinces between 1745 1748, in the same time they fought against British in India and North America Austrian Dutch and British even asked russian to help them, but after th fall of Berg op Zoom it was too late for them. |
Posted By: Tancrède
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 06:23
You speak about what war ? Spanish weren't bad. they won war of jenkins' against Britain With French they defeated Austrian in Italia during Polish succession War. |
Posted By: Tancrède
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 06:42
France was maybe not so poweful than during the reign of Louis XIV but it remained the most powerful european state and the most populous. Before Napoleon I during revolutionnary wars 1792 1797 despite of France was in civil war, French defeated almost all european countries on 4 differents fronts (Flanders Rhine Italia Pyrenees). Even Romans never won against so many enemies in same time |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 19:13
the Prussians in one battle also caught the Russians in marching column and the Russians won. ------------- |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 19:15
after Dettingen France had to call upon Prussia again or face another siege of France. in the peace terms France had to return the Austrian Netherlands and Savoy (Austrian ally) made some gains. you can never claim this was a French victory. ------------- |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 20:10
Remind me, which one's that? |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 20:12
What's to explain? It's curious you've not mentioned Minden yet. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 20:15
Groß-Jägersdorf. OK, the Prussian force was rather small but there was a chance they could suceed. ------------- |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 20:43
Oh, you mean the battle where the Russans outnumbered the Prussians 2:1 [5:1 in artillery]. Where the Pussian attack fell into confusion, especially at Norkitteln, where Prussian battalions fired at each other and the Prussians became convinced they were attacking an enemy behind field fortifications?....Yeah , Okay. Nice try.  |
Posted By: Jubelu
Date Posted: 12-Nov-2007 at 23:23
|
So what is about Minden, about ignominious French defeat, just as Warburg? Nice try. Each army has its own weakness, the Prussian army might fall into that confusion, but above all, they were still the most formidable land force as the most formidable British Navy. They already had their own Leignitz and Rossbach, and then Freiburg, Burkersdorf. About the Russian, I admit their formidable strength and brilliant commanders such as Stepan Fedorovich Apraksin and Pyotr Semyonovich Saltykov. Their achievement in Kay, Kunersdorf is undeniable. |
Posted By: Tancrède
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2007 at 08:45
After Dettingen (1743) France officially declared war to Austrian British, So France began really Austrian succession war in 1744
Later campaigns The last three campaigns of the war in the Netherlands were illustrated by the now fully developed genius of Marshal Saxe. After Fontenoy the French carried all before them. The withdrawal of most of the British to aid in suppressing the ’Forty-Five rebellion at home left their allies in a helpless position. In 1746 the Dutch and the Austrians were driven back towards the line of the Meuse, and most of the important fortresses were taken by the French. The Battle of Roucoux (or Raucourt) near Liège, fought on 11 October between the allies under Prince Charles of Lorraine and the French under Saxe, resulted in a victory for the latter. Holland itself was now in danger, and when in April 1747 Saxe's army, which had now conquered the Austrian Netherlands up to the Meuse, turned its attention to the United Provinces. The old fortresses on the frontier offered but slight resistance. The Prince of Orange and the Duke of Cumberland underwent a severe defeat at Lauffeld (Lawfeld, also called Val) on 2 July 1747, and Saxe, after his victory, promptly and secretly despatched a corps under Marshal Lowendahl (1700–1755) to besiege Bergen op Zoom. On 18 September Bergen op Zoom was stormed by the French, and in the last year of the war Maastricht, attacked by the entire forces of Saxe and Lowendahl, surrendered on 7 May 1748. A large Russian army arrived to join the allies, but too late to be of use. The quarrel of Russia and Sweden had been settled by the Peace of Åbo in 1743, and in 1746 Russia had allied herself with Austria. Eventually a large army marched from Moscow to the Rhine, an event which was not without military significance, and in a manner preluded the great invasions of 1813–1814 and 1815. The general Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen) was signed on 18 October 1748. It was a French victory that left the gateway to the Dutch Republic open to invasion and the Dutch at the mercy of the French. The allied retreat allowed Saxe to send a detachment of 30,000 north across the lowlands quickly capturing the city of Bergen-op-Zoom to finish that year's campaign season. At the opening of the Spring campaign season of 1748, the French invested Maastricht and, after a brief siege the city fell on May 7. The city's siege started the peace process in April that ended the war in October 1748 with the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle. Maurice de Saxe's long series of victorious campaigns, sieges and battles in the lowlands ensured France's position as the dominant land power in the peace negotiations during which the sound of Saxe's siege guns could be heard pounding away at the city of Maastricht. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Austrian_Succession http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fontenoy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lauffeld |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 13-Nov-2007 at 18:51
so where is the problem? the actual numbers of Prussians that won Rossbach were even smaller than the Prussian force at Groß-Jägersdorf. Lehwaldt had the same chances than Seydlitz to win the battle. ------------- |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2007 at 12:40
Still counts!
 |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2007 at 12:49
Just for entertainment, here are the Results of the Seven Years War for the Prussian Army: Lobositz 1756 Prussian Win Prague 1757 Prussian Win Kolin 1757 Prussian Defeat Gross Jaegersdorf 1757 Prussian Defeat Rossbach 1757 Prussian Win Breslau 1757 Prussian Defeat Leuthen 1757 Prussian Win Olmutz 1758 Prussian Defeat Zorndorf 1758 Draw Hochkirch 1758 Prussian Defeat Kay 1759 Prussian Defeat Kunersdorf 1759 Prussian Defeat Maxen 1759 Prussian Defeat Landeshut 1760 Prussian Defeat Leignitz 1760 Prussian Win Torgau 1760 Prussian Win Bukersdorf 1762 Prussian Win Freiburg 1762 Prussian Win By your logic, having lost more engagements than they won, the Prussian Army performed poorly. |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2007 at 12:50
We can quibble over numbers, but the odds were about the same. Lehwaldt was clearly not Frederick.
 |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2007 at 19:05
you've forgotten the battles of the Austrian war of sucession. it was basically the same army and the same commanders. ------------- |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 14-Nov-2007 at 21:56
No I haven't. Jubelu was disappointed at the performance of the French Army during the Seven Years War in his initial post. |
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 16-Nov-2007 at 02:32
I am not really acquainted with the political structure of france at this time so I am not real sure. With that under consideration I would say yes it did. If the nobles had not been so influential in the army (if they had been like the junkers of prussia I would have called it a positive) I think it would have been better. I think we see a good example with the advent of the revolution and Napoleon. Obviously the new tactics etc. played a huge role there, but you see how much better an army can be when its officer corps is promoted on talent and ability versus social standing and birth.
The problem with France at this time is the nobles have not been sufficiently put under control. They rebelled under Louis XI and they had rebelled under Louis XIV. It was either make them high ranking officers and distract them with titles and keep them at court or risk them raising private armies and civil wars.
I would say that is a result of Frances' political structure. Hence the affirmative to your question.
Hope that answers your question.  ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann
|
Posted By: Jubelu
Date Posted: 17-Nov-2007 at 03:18
|
The fact was also more exacerbated since the shift of power from nobels and monarchy into bourgeoise. On the eve of the Revolution, the Monarchy was deeply in debt and had no ability to pay off. Totally different from Great Britain, France had no strong banking system at all. Perhaps this was the reason why Alexander Hamilton chose to drive US diplomacy toward Great Britain rather than France. The structural army under Louis XV showed no real changes as well as innovation as seen in Prussia. It grew in an old-fashioned manner and deficit its own advantages. Until the end of Louis XV's reign, the only strong characteristic of this army was lavishness. I ought to say that there were not many differences between French Army of XVIII century and French Army on the eve of 1870. |
Posted By: Joinville
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2007 at 13:44
And you base this on?
The same army that fought in 1870 beat up the Austrians in Italy in the 1860's. And the Russians at Sebastopol in the 1850's.
And supposedly this is then the self-same army that Napoleon used to fight his campaigns with.
You have already stated that unlike the Prussian armies, which reformed themselves, the French army didn't and suffered from it. And still this army fought the entire Napoleonic wars, where one of the conclusions was that the Prussian 18th c. model initially failed to adapt to the new ways of the French army, and paid for it. Which becomes positively weird, in view of your assertion that the French army was pretty much unchanged between the 18th c. and 1870?
Methinks you've stopped being consistent in your assesment of the French.
So either you think the French army was actually amazingly good in the 18th c., or I would think you have just given away a huge bias against the French army for some reason? Which would it be?
You might as well claim that the British army of the 18th c. was pretty much the same as the one the Zulus chewed up at Isandlwhana in 1879. ------------- One must not insult the future. |
Posted By: Challenger2
Date Posted: 27-Nov-2007 at 17:48
Well....in many ways it was. But that's something for another time and another thread!  |