Civil War or Napoleonic Wars

[Skipper]

It is the truth, conscripts meant the other nations had superior numbers so British training was far more disciplined. You can Google it if you still don't believe me.

[Duuring]

The British weren't the only ones to use voluntarily enlistment and the level of training had little to do with being conscripted or not.

[Skipper]

The British were the only nation out of the coalition's and France to use volunteers, and the army started out small. No size does not effect discipline, but if you read "Britain against Napoleon, the organization of victory" it will describe Britain's policies in parliament at the time and how government did not want a large army as it would give power to the monarchy who were a constitution, so the army was kept relatively small though it did expand greatly by the end of the war, and heavy discipline was introduced to compete with French numbers, quality over quantity. Yes all nations had heavy discipline but the redcoats the most, it was said they could withstand 3 more volleys then the French, I was told this when I visited Waterloo.

And to clarify the naval book reading:
Britain's naval officers traditionally started their seagoing careers as midshipmen (probationary officers) aged 12 to 14 years old. As a result, they were poorly educated in all matters not relating to the sea but had an excellent practical knowledge of sailing, gunnery, winds, and tides. Although promotion depended largely on patronage and seniority, men of real talent were able to rise to the top on merit. British commanders were under orders to fight aggressively at all times - Admiral John Byng was shot for failing to do so in 1757. In France the system was quite different. Senior naval commanders were often army officers who had exchanged fighting on land for a life at sea. Those who sought a naval officers career from youth received a formal education far superior to their British counterparts, but gained much less practical experience. This meant they were far less superior when it came to actual engagements.

[Duuring]

The Dutch used both volunteers and conscripts in 1815. So you're wrong there.

The reason Britain kept its army small was because it was expensive as hell to keep one. Discipline level amongst the British was no better or worse then among other armies. Their training was better, simply because Britian had the money and time (and willingness) to spend on training.

[Skipper]

Firstly the Dutch were not a major coalition nation, they spent half their time as the Batavian Republic and they used conscription alongside volunteering, cancelling that point. The British army was small because the original priority was the navy, parliament were wary of a large army in case the monarch (head of the British army at the time) became too powerful. Yes Britain did have the time and willingness to train better troops through use of heavy discipline, and because their army was so small. Wellington introduced the new training and disciplinary regime due to his aristocratic beliefs and the fact that discipline had a good history in Britain starting with the new model army. When marching to Waterloo, any man who was just a bit out of line would receive a beating, very different to the French army where it was slightly more lax. This resulted in Britain's infantry becoming the most formidable on the battlefield at the time.

[Duuring]

You are just claiming stuff left right and centre, with no proof what-so-ever.

Wellington didn't introduce shit. Moore and the Duke of York did. You talk as if Wellingtons campaign is all about Waterloo and just say what you think that happened.

Like it or not, the Netherlands were part of the 7th Coalition. And effectively of the 6th too.
The Batavian Republic never had conscription. The Kingdom of Holland never had conscription. The United Kingdom of the Netherlands (that's the name of the country during the Waterloo period you apparantly know so much about) had conscription, but conscripts and volunteers received the exact same training.

[Skipper]

My proof is the books I mentioned and the fact I went to Waterloo and was told this information.

Wellington introduced the original beliefs that peninsula discipline should improve which was then brought up in parliament. This was in the peninsula not the hundred days. No I do not think Wellington' s campaigns were only the hundred days, I am simply using facts that I know and I was told about when I went to Waterloo, so it would make more sense to refer to it.

The Netherlands were only in the final coalitions, which is when they gained conscription.Yes they received the same training as their volunteers, we are talking about British army policies being different. Besides they were still not a major coalition nation the serving the Anglo-Dutch army.

All my points are built on facts and have told you three sources if proof to your 0. Also you are moving further and further away from my original point that British infantry training and discipline gave them the best line infantry in the world at the time. Fact.

[Duuring]

The problem with the Waterloo guides is that these guys just follow a script. They are, in no way, experts on the period or even on Waterloo. It's actually a very common joke amongst re-enactors to ask the most silly questions imaginable to guides, as they always think they have an answer. Saying 'Someone told me!' is not a source.

my original point that British infantry training and discipline gave them the best line infantry in the world at the time. Fact.

Your point was that the British infantry was superior due to the fact they didn't use conscription, and that's not true, by the same fact that they were not the only ones that used voluntary enlistment. If we stay at the subject of Waterloo, Pictons division was hit hard by the French and simply overtaken - They could simply not hold the French advance. Several regiments broke, getting Picton killed. They were only saved by the attack of the cavalry, which then in turn got itself killed. But that's for another time. Back to your latest point - Of course better training makes them higher quality.

You also claimed the British had the best skirmishers, while it's very commonly accepted that the French were the best light infantrymen of Europa.

[Skipper]

Firstly that is a lie, I stated Britain had the best line infantry because they did not use conscription meaning they had to use more discipline and training to counter the French numbers. Perhaps you had a misinterpretation but I did not state that the reason was conscription, without the follow on the two points are not related, conscription simply explained why Britain had to adapt to gain the best troops. And it is true, Britain was the only major coalition nation in the war to not use conscription.

Next, I did not say British line infantry was invincible making the comment about Pictons men worthless, the 2e Corp de Erlon were a larger force than the 92nd and other regiments that were tasked with holding the French back until the Scott's Grey's could get them. They were being used to delay the French for the cavalry not being saved by the cavalry.

The cavalry was then killed by the French lancers leading to Neys cavalry charge, nothing to do with British infantry.

I have to agree with your point about the French light infantry.

Green jackets however, though they may be melodramatised, are thought to be the best rifles which was the point I was trying to put out.

You said my point about training was my newest point, actually that was my first point. What I was trying to say was Britain had the best line infantry because in order to counter conscription they were the best trained and had the most discipline.

[Duuring]

More training wasn't a counter of conscription. Less training was a result of conscription. And the lack of funds and most importantly - time. France was war for years and it simply needed soldiers. Two weeks training was enough, the rest would be learned at the front - and it worked pretty well.

You seem to have a very tunneled and lacking knowledge of Waterloo.

, the 2e Corp de Erlon were a larger force than the 92nd and other regiments

While d'Erlon Corps was bigger, it was also packed a lot tighter and not all units were deployed against the centre (Some units going to the Allied left, to Papelotte). It held the roughly the same ground as Kempt's, Pack's and Bylandt's. Bylandt's brigade was Dutch-Belgian, by the way, making 1/3 of the force not British. In the fire-fight that occurred, it became very clear that the French were winning and the lines came closer and closer, which led to disarray and retreat among the allied lines.

holding the French back until the Scott's Grey's could get them. They were being used to delay the French for the cavalry not being saved by the cavalry.

Every letter and report I've ever read counters that. It was never in the plan. In fact, it surprised the Allied command so much that they had to deploy the cavalry right away, with very limited spacing. This meant the cavalry had to trot its way into the French ranks, and even riding over part of the 92nd Highlanders in the process.

The cavarly assault was done by THREE brigades, for a total of NINE regiments. Not one regiment. If you had read a single article or a single text about the attack, you would know that. The attack was done by the Household brigade (four regiments), Union brigade (three) and Van Merlen's 2nd Light brigade (two regiments). All these brigades had around between 1.200 and 1.000 men. Van Merlen never made it to the actual attack as he stopped his brigade to provide a reserve, which the British turned out to desperately need due to turning a rescue mission into a undisciplined carnage.

Green jackets however, though they may be melodramatised, are thought to be the best rifles which was the point I was trying to put out.

Besides the fact that the 95th consisted of only three batallions and was just a very small part of the British army, you make the statement, which means the burden of proof lies with you.

[Skipper]

I never stated there was only a single regiment. And history is written by the victor, most of the British books on the matter state they were trying to hold off the erlon in the hope the cavalry could get to them but apparently I am wrong.

Anyway I am hoping our discussion on my original point is at a close? As we have gone off topic.

The thing about the green jackets, firstly the 95th were not the only green jackets, secondly I stated it was possibly melodramatic.

And in British parliament conscription was countered with better troops. As previously stated, according to Britain against Napoleon the organization of victory, Pitt and the house of lords had a choice whether to choose between conscription themselves and risk radical action involving the monarchy which, just after the French revolution, was not an ideal move. Or they could try to find a way to beat French lines. Wellington complained that his men were "the scum of the earth" at the start of the peninsula and the policy of advanced training regimes were put in place due to the aristocratic governance over the armed forces.

[Duuring]

Well, let me put it like this; If it was part of the plan, Wellington sure did a very lousy job of preparing it.

If you know it was more then one regiment, why did you name only one?

[Archduke Sven]

Conscription doesnt have shit to do with discipline, volunteers may be more motivated but the training and discipline they receive is the same.

Also what is this that the British+ Allies used discipline to defeat French numbers? Look at the battles and you'll realise the French had the same number or less troops than the Brits.

Ex. Salamanca, Toulouse, Talavera, Vittoria and Albuera

Even then they had terrible difficulties fighting the very worst French troops (excluding 1808). Took them 6 years to boot the French out of Spain with the best soldiers they had-

Furthermore, i'm sure you've heard instances of the supreme British discipline. Like the Horse Guards selling their horses for liquor

[Skipper]

Because I did not know the names of the others.

[Skipper]

Conscription doesnt have shit to do with discipline, volunteers may be more motivated but the training and discipline they receive is the same.

Also what is this that the British+ Allies used discipline to defeat French numbers? Look at the battles and you'll realise the French had the same number or less troops than the Brits.

Ex. Salamanca, Toulouse, Talavera, Vittoria and Albuera

Even then they had terrible difficulties fighting the very worst French troops (excluding 1808). Took them 6 years to boot the French out of Spain with the best soldiers they had-

Furthermore, i'm sure you've heard instances of the supreme British discipline. Like the Horse Guards selling their horses for liquor

You are grasping the wrong end of my point too, read my paragraph on British policy and it should link conscription to discipline and training. Note that I am not comparing training in most armies conscripted and voluntary, I am simply saying because Britain could not conscript and was outnumbered, it used advanced training and discipline to make up for it. Nothing to do with volunteer-conscript differences, just the way the British government at the time acted. And yes in battles there were around equal numbers but overall the French had more, they were just fighting on multiple fronts. Next comes the point that the biggest killer of the British army in the peninsula was disease, according to a website I was reading earlier, one year 30000 men died of disease and something around 5000 died in battle. This would have slowed British advance, there is also the fact that the peninsula had a lot of sieges disregarding strategy and often skill of open infantry. In the battles, it did not all come down to skill in regiments. I can't speak too much about it as I don't have one hundred per cent knowledge on the matter but I think the time taken to defeat the French was down to a number of benefactors piled together, as is in every conflict.