Attack a Prest is literally a "Pressed Attack", one that seeks shock action at bayonet point quickly rather than having a prolonged Prussian style firefight first.
"Dutch tactics" (from William III's tactics) involved a rolling fire by platoons (an early version of fire and movement) in the advance followed by (in British practice) a forming up to deliver a single volley and close range and a bayonet charge. Of course, in the defence (as practiced on the Peninsula), the platoon fire was prettymuch done away with. Unfortunately for most, these were some of the hardest tactics to master, and so were only really used by the British, who had time to train their troops far more thoroughly than the continental powers.
In fact, the British later (by the time of the Peninsula War) prettymuch dropped the platoon firing.
Wouldn't it depend on the situation rather than a formal change in doctrine? The British Prime time was after 1809, when assaulting French columns were not as steady under fire as the professional armies of earlier decades. For the British that gave an increasing number of sutuations where the attacker started wavering after the first volley, which again produced an opportunity for a very rewarding counterattack.
Absolutely, it should be remembered linear tactics hung around in some armies (i.e. Imperial Germany) for any century, with refinement. The ACW was largely fought as a linear war, being almost pre-Napoleonic (remember, Lee's great assault on day 3 of Gettysburg was made in a linear fashion). In fact, IMHO, prettymuch everything before May 1864 in that war was pre-Napoleonic (in fact, there are flashes of pre-Marlborough tactics in the very early war), then in May 64 (Spotsylvannia Court House etc.) we have a brief interlude of Napoleonic tactics, followed by everything settling down into siege warfare of a type the Black Prince would recognise.
Interesting observation.
This is not an innovation of Napoleon, put it rather goes back to de Saxe's day as an attempted counter to Prussian tactics. Of course prior to this the column was a non-entity on the battlefield as a closed square formation hadn't been invented (by Frederick), and columns couldn't defend against cavalry prior to this point.
More to the point, some of the great "battering ram" columns were used in 1778, and found wanting, resulting in the Mixed Order of Guibert, who should really take credit for "Napoleonic" impulse warfare.
I don't think many see napoleon as an inventor. On the contrary he implemented the ideas of otheres and combined them with great synergy effcet - IMHO the true genius lies here rather than being the first to get the idea.
In fact the Prussians focused a lot more on firepower than the British, who focused on shock a lot more. The Prussians were trained to stay static and keep firing, resulting in some spectacular firefights. The British OTOH tended to deliver only the crushing first volley or so (for the reasons of smoke, clean barrels, proper levelling etc., the first volley is several times more effective than subsequent ones), then initiate a melee.
If comparing a 1805 Prussian unit to a 1812 British you certainly would see a marked difference, but not so much between two 1805 units, or if the 1806 Prussian army had been continued into 1812. After the 1806-7 war the Prussians started almost from scratch, building on French ways, but supplementing with much else, not at least Scharnhorst and Gneiseanu's ingenious staff system.
This backbone was why under the 1st Republic Regiments were converted into demi-brigades, with a Battalion of the old Royal Army (le Blancs) and the ca 3 of the new levies (le Bleus). It is a fairly effective way of stimulating the development of poor troops. The British tended to be a little more precious with their regular army, and there was strong opposition to any such integration (right up until the 1860's).
Agree, but a professional army, apart from being so precious, probably also preserves itself better. The soldiers simply have the experience to survive in the field and the training to march much further than most recruits. The French losses from marching units in 1813 are horrendous. The retreat from Leipzig to Hanau in October 1813, which did not involve major battles, acvtually cost more casualties pr. day than the 1812 campaign.
Perhaps a more telling indictator would be the actions of the other British Armies, aside from the Peninsula Army? We British tend to ignore everything that isn't Wellington, but the earlier Dutch campaigns see a much more "linear" army than the Peninsula (I'd argue one very much like the Prussians) getting their butts handed too them.
Exactly, my guess is that the Prussian and Austrian professional armies from pre 1805 would have ended up much like the British, if they through their defeats had not been forced to adopt doctrines more suitable for inexperienced troops.
BTW: Have a look at the orbat for the Anglo-Russian Army of Holland in 1799 and tell me if you see anything "un-British":
http://home.wanadoo.nl/g.vanuythoven/Anglo-Russian OOB 18-09-1799.htm
I'm not quite sure what you mean, but light troops appear absent and the artillery very centralised.
Has to be said, I haven't played any wargames in a fairly long time. Lack of time and opponents, although I've a long standing interest in the subject (as a subaltern I had a lot of negative comments along the "he reads too much" on my OJARs, usually accompanied by enquiries on whether I'd be happier in the artillery, my username is an indicator of my old regiment).
That is pretty much my situation too (although I actually changed to artillery 6 months into my service, have been there since, but in passive reserve now). Concerning wargames - job, wife, kids, house, dog, cat etc. take their toll, and I believe it is years since I've played one last time (but I still have the figures - 5000 of them
). I especially loved the few campaigns I was in, we had a decent set of (homemade) rules representing the challenges of moving large masses of men and horses around and keeping them dry, fed and happy. The biggest problem was to keep the players happy, as the sides rarely showed up at the battlefield (i.e. where they met) with matched forces. We tried to game the battles with figures on a table, but when a player realise he is outnumbered 4 to 1 and will stay so for the rest of the weekend the enthusiasm often was limited.
If you ever drop by Copenhagen we must have a game
Regards
Steffen Redbeard