What Napoleon could do

Napoleon was by education a reasonably "technical" person but there was very little in the terms of the new military technology in his army. What can realistically be done to make things noticeably different?

"Realistically" means something that was invented/introduced in OTL within a couple decades after Nappy's reign or things that had been introduced slightly later but did not require technology seriously different from one available in Napoleonic times.

"Noticeably different" - giving a clear advantage over the opponents. Preferably something that would not be easy to pick up immediately (just due to an absence of the technical information).

Some of the candidates:

1. Paixians naval gun capable of shooting big caliber bombs on flat trajectory - in OTL developed in 1822–1823 in France and introduced in the French Navy in 1830's. The main calibers 80 and 30 pounds (bombs). In the 1840's similar guns were adopted in the British, Russian and American navies. The 1st naval battle (there were earlier deployments on a lesser scale) test at Sinop (1853) proved to be quite effective. With few "bombing cannons" (out of a total of approximately 700) the Russians sunk and burned practically the whole Ottoman squadron and destroyed the coastal batteries. Explosion of a bomb in a side of a wooden ship was producing a hole approximately 1 sq. meter so at the distance of 500 - 100 meters a ship could be sunk with 20 - 25 hits. Explosion inside the ship would be causing serious fires. Quite different from the protracted naval duels lasting for many hours. Could Trafalgar be different with enough such guns being available on the French side?

2. The percussion cap for muskets - in OTL introduced in 1820's as a substitution to the flintlock ignition system. Even the first models were less prone to the misfiring (especially in a wet weather) than the flintlocks and the existing flintlock muskets had been easily converted. As I understand, the rate of fire was at least somewhat improved.

3. 12 pounder "Napoleon" field howitzer (wrong "Napoleon" :)). Seems to be very popular and effective and, being a smoothbore, well within the technological level of Napoleon's time. They had been lighter that 12 pounders of the "System of Year XI" (1,227 vs 1,530 pounds) and could fire solid shot, shell, canister or grapeshot (in Napoleonic army only howitzers were firing shells). Effective range was up to 1,619 yards while the same of the Napoleonic 8 pounders was approximately 900 meters.

4. Steamships. Robert Fulton was working in France between 1797 and 1804 (and designed the 1st working screw-propelled submarine) and his 1st paddle-propelled steamboat was built in 1806. What if he continued working in France and built a screw-propelled steamboat? The timing is post-Trafalgar but what if it moved couple years back? How/if even few steam ships (even paddle-driven) armed with the Paixians naval guns change a naval situation? The Brits still have a LOT of ships but wouldn't they be quite vulnerable? (Assuming that it would take Brits at least couple years to pick up with the trend).
 
Didn't Fulton actually contact Napoleon, who thought the invention was useless?

I suspect that this is more or less a legend. It seems that his steamboat design was developed when he was in Britain an absence of interest was due to the fact that Britain already dominated the seas with the conventional fleet. Then, of course, it should be remembered that his OTL project was a paddle-propelled ship which would be rather vulnerable to the enemy's fire (IIRC, in OTL the paddle-based warships had been relatively small, good for an individual action with a lot of maneuvering). However, even such a ship armed with a few Paixians naval guns could become dangerous for a conventional sail ship of the line because it could cause serious damage from a big distance while being almost invulnerable.

Of course, there is an open question about a practical ability of the French industry of that period to produce a considerable number of the steam engines and other necessary equipment because obviously just a couple of steamships would make no difference. Ditto for ability to produce a considerable number of the Paixians guns (OTOH, in OTL even the ships of the line had very few of the 80/60-pounders: they were quite heavy and usually installed on the lower desks).
 
3. 12 pounder "Napoleon" field howitzer (wrong "Napoleon" :)). Seems to be very popular and effective and, being a smoothbore, well within the technological level of Napoleon's time. They had been lighter that 12 pounders of the "System of Year XI" (1,227 vs 1,530 pounds) and could fire solid shot, shell, canister or grapeshot (in Napoleonic army only howitzers were firing shells). Effective range was up to 1,619 yards while the same of the Napoleonic 8 pounders was approximately 900 meters.

The range is not really that important - Napoleonic artillery fired within line of sight, which would rarely be further than a kilometer or so. In order to fire without line of sight, you need the doctrinal change of using forward observers and some form of communication, which could be either optical or regular telegraph.

Which brings me to the next part - possible inventions to use.

1. Telegraph. Historically the Prussian army created a telegraph corps in 1830.

2. Mass-produced rifles. Rifling is tedious, but it is possible.

3. Minie balls. OTL invented 1847, but the concept is within Napoleonic era technology.
 
The range is not really that important - Napoleonic artillery fired within line of sight, which would rarely be further than a kilometer or so. In order to fire without line of sight, you need the doctrinal change of using forward observers and some form of communication, which could be either optical or regular telegraph.

Which brings me to the next part - possible inventions to use.

1. Telegraph. Historically the Prussian army created a telegraph corps in 1830.

2. Mass-produced rifles. Rifling is tedious, but it is possible.

3. Minie balls. OTL invented 1847, but the concept is within Napoleonic era technology.

The problem with all of these is essentially the same though: scale and ease of production and supply. Napoleonic France wasn't tapping into some large, mechanized arms industry and manufacturing structured society to equip their armies: they depended on a combination of supplies from allied states, leftovers from the pre-Revolutionary period, a jury-rigged system of workshops, and a handful of more specialized armories: all of which were being pressed to capacity. The lag-time loses of adopting a new system weren't something the constantly expanding and campaigning army could realistically afford even if the shift over on that scale could be done smoothly and the technical skills and equipment properly dispersed. France needs an extended breather to not get caught in transition.
 
The problem with all of these is essentially the same though: scale and ease of production and supply. Napoleonic France wasn't tapping into some large, mechanized arms industry and manufacturing structured society to equip their armies: they depended on a combination of supplies from allied states, leftovers from the pre-Revolutionary period, a jury-rigged system of workshops, and a handful of more specialized armories: all of which were being pressed to capacity. The lag-time loses of adopting a new system weren't something the constantly expanding and campaigning army could realistically afford even if the shift over on that scale could be done smoothly and the technical skills and equipment properly dispersed. France needs an extended breather to not get caught in transition.
From 1809 onward, if the invasion of Russia is postponed the French could have somewhat of a breather -- inadequate due to the Peninsular War, but still the ability to test out things like the Minie ball or a telegraph corps.
 
The range is not really that important - Napoleonic artillery fired within line of sight, which would rarely be further than a kilometer or so. In order to fire without line of sight, you need the doctrinal change of using forward observers and some form of communication, which could be either optical or regular telegraph.

Or, perhaps a balloon corps? In the American civil war, IIRC, forward observers had already developed, but I could see balloons being used much more than OTL as spotting points. Bring up a bag of stones, write coordinates on a piece of cloth, tie cloth around stone, drop to artillery crew.

The problem with all of these is essentially the same though: scale and ease of production and supply. Napoleonic France wasn't tapping into some large, mechanized arms industry and manufacturing structured society to equip their armies: they depended on a combination of supplies from allied states, leftovers from the pre-Revolutionary period, a jury-rigged system of workshops, and a handful of more specialized armories: all of which were being pressed to capacity. The lag-time loses of adopting a new system weren't something the constantly expanding and campaigning army could realistically afford even if the shift over on that scale could be done smoothly and the technical skills and equipment properly dispersed. France needs an extended breather to not get caught in transition.

Especially considering that Nappy was known to take a quantity over quality approach to skirmishers, who would be seeing the first benefit from rifles etc.

Would submarines be a possibility? Sneak one into a hostile harbor via a disguised privateer, let it blow up a ship of the line?
 
Or, perhaps a balloon corps? In the American civil war, IIRC, forward observers had already developed, but I could see balloons being used much more than OTL as spotting points. Bring up a bag of stones, write coordinates on a piece of cloth, tie cloth around stone, drop to artillery crew.

Especially considering that Nappy was known to take a quantity over quality approach to skirmishers, who would be seeing the first benefit from rifles etc.

Would submarines be a possibility? Sneak one into a hostile harbor via a disguised privateer, let it blow up a ship of the line?

Balloons are really only possible when the front is static - in a siege such as Paris 1871 or Petersburg 1864 or the locked ww1 front - it takes too much time to raise and bring a balloon down, and you need it to be fixed to a single point (or it will fly away with the wind). Telegraph lines is possible from the balloon the the ground and the other way around. Long-range howitzers, telegraphs and balloons and forward observers could be a part of the Napoleonic siege train, I suppose.

Submarines are hard in this era - as shown by the CSS Hunley, it is hard to actually damage an enemy vessel without damaging the submarine too.
 
The range is not really that important - Napoleonic artillery fired within line of sight, which would rarely be further than a kilometer or so. In order to fire without line of sight, you need the doctrinal change of using forward observers and some form of communication, which could be either optical or regular telegraph.

Agree about the range. However, having a high-quality "universal" gun capable of firing all types of the projectiles would be useful. Not sure if this one provided a higher rate of fire.

Which brings me to the next part - possible inventions to use.

1. Telegraph. Historically the Prussian army created a telegraph corps in 1830.

Optical (semaphore) telegraph was invented in the late XVIII (and in France used since 1803) so technologically it was available. But AFAIK it was rather static: relied on the lines of relay towers. For whatever Wiki is worth: "Napoleon Bonaparte saw the military advantage in being able to transmit information between locations, and carried a portable semaphore with his headquarters. This allowed him to coordinate forces and logistics over longer distances than any other army of his time. However, because stations had to be within sight of each other, and because the efficient operation of the network required well trained and disciplined operators, the costs of administration and wages were a continuous source of financial difficulties." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_telegraph#Other_systems

Taking into an account the routine communications problems in the Napoleonic armies it is probably safe to assume that usage of that system was quite limited (what if there are no conveniently located hills? etc.).

2. Mass-produced rifles. Rifling is tedious, but it is possible.

I thought about it but here are couple considerations:

(a) This would be a costly project taking into an account that you are talking about producing few hundred thousands rifles. Not sure how and if the French industry would be able to accomplish this within a short interval without cutting all other developments.
(b) The 1st rifles had been muzzle-loaded and IIRC provided a lower rate of fire than the standard muskets. Taking into an account specifics of the contemporary tactics, the longer range was not as critical as the rate of fire so it would be OK to have a small number of the rifles distributed between the best shooters (IIRC, something of the kind had been done in the contemporary armies). Mass of the troops would be fine with a percussion cup muskets.


3. Minie balls. OTL invented 1847, but the concept is within Napoleonic era technology.

But wasn't it strictly for the rifles?
 
Balloons are really only possible when the front is static

Not necessarily. The French Aerostatic Corps had been created in 1794 and balloon (the 1st balloon company) had been used for reconnaissance and battle-time reporting at the battle of Fleurus. The next year 2nd balloon company participated in the battle of Mainz and next year conducted observations at Stuttgart, Rastatt and Donauwörth. In 1796 the 1st company participated in the Battle of Würzburg where it was captured. "In 1798, the company joined the Napoleonic Campaign in Egypt. On arrival, they decided to initially leave the ballooning equipment on their ship. This was destroyed in the Battle of the Nile, and the company was assigned to other duties." In 1799, the Directory passed an act disbanding the balloon corps.

Probably it is safe to say that effectiveness of the balloons was limited but OTOH Jourdan, who was quite skeptical after Fleurus, eventually warmed up to the idea.

Communications with the ground had been done by dropping the notes.
 
Or, perhaps a balloon corps? In the American civil war, IIRC, forward observers had already developed, but I could see balloons being used much more than OTL as spotting points. Bring up a bag of stones, write coordinates on a piece of cloth, tie cloth around stone, drop to artillery crew.

You described method of communications quite correctly. French Aerostatic Corps existed between 1794 and 1799. You can find details in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Aerostatic_Corps

Especially considering that Nappy was known to take a quantity over quality approach to skirmishers, who would be seeing the first benefit from rifles etc.

" The few rifled muskets issued in French service were withdrawn in 1807, not surprising in an army based on quick training and mass formations. "
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_rifle_napoleonic.html

Nappy opted for the speed of fire and the range of 100 yards was OK by him.

Would submarines be a possibility? Sneak one into a hostile harbor via a disguised privateer, let it blow up a ship of the line?

Fulton's submarine was provided with hand-cranked screw propeller, which obviously put considerable restrictions on its practicality. It was carrying a single mine (bomb). While in Britain he designed his second submarine with the better capacities (it was something of a sail boat with submerging capacities) but nobody was interested and he completely abandoned the idea. Interesting enough, his 1st submarine had (a primitive) snorkel, something that was not installed on the real subs until WWII.
 
Last edited:
Especially considering that Nappy was known to take a quantity over quality approach to skirmishers, who would be seeing the first benefit from rifles ect.?

Would submarines be a possibility? Sneak one into a hostile harbor via a disguised privateer, let it blow up a ship of the line?

Proper French units, I imagine, with the Guard likely being given first claim as their role as a reserve force would mean you're going to be mitigating some of the risk of battlefield damages/loses and slower growth in numbers in general would help supply keep up with demand.
 
Proper French units, I imagine, with the Guard likely being given first claim as their role as a reserve force would mean you're going to be mitigating some of the risk of battlefield damages/loses and slower growth in numbers in general would help supply keep up with demand.

The Guards being usually held in a reserve, advantages of them having rifles are not quite clear. At that time they were usually given to the Jager-style units/skirmishers acting ahead of the main formations (and better trained in shooting than the rest of the troops).

As I understand, for Napoleon a general volume of fire (infantry and artillery) was more important than precision or even range.
 
If not rifles and Minie bullets, I think Nessler style balls (like a regular musket ball but with a flat and hollow base) could be adopted with relative ease; you would basically just need the molds for casting and extend the infantry's range by 50-100%. However, taking advantage of this kind of capability (and those of minie muskets) requires a good level of marksmanship training, which will only become possible during periods of relative peace. If Napoleon just sat on Continental Europe after 1807, then perhaps he would have the spare ammunition to let his troops practice firing at marks, until they became comparable to the British in their musketry.
 
If not rifles and Minie bullets, I think Nessler style balls (like a regular musket ball but with a flat and hollow base) could be adopted with relative ease; you would basically just need the molds for casting and extend the infantry's range by 50-100%. However, taking advantage of this kind of capability (and those of minie muskets) requires a good level of marksmanship training, which will only become possible during periods of relative peace. If Napoleon just sat on Continental Europe after 1807, then perhaps he would have the spare ammunition to let his troops practice firing at marks, until they became comparable to the British in their musketry.

There were significant differences in the French and British army. Nappy had a huge army which was getting into action with almost minimal training (soldier had to know how to fire and to have some target practice). Absence of precision was compensated by a volume of a musket and artillery fire. Range was not too important for the existing tactics. Rate of fire was.

The Brits had a small professional army which was engaged from time to time and which they had time and money to train in a precision shooting.
 
There were significant differences in the French and British army. Nappy had a huge army which was getting into action with almost minimal training (soldier had to know how to fire and to have some target practice). Absence of precision was compensated by a volume of a musket and artillery fire. Range was not too important for the existing tactics. Rate of fire was.

The Brits had a small professional army which was engaged from time to time and which they had time and money to train in a precision shooting.
You must be thinking of the Prussians; they stressed rate of fire more than anything, able to reach 5 a minute in some conditions, compared to 2 give-or-take in the French case.

When they had the opportunity, like at the camps of the Channel coast, the French did train their men in marksmanship; moreover, their tactical system for the infantry stressed the role of aimed fire, with men being deployed in open order and able to pick their own shots. It was difficult to reach the skill of British professionals when the army was constantly bleeding veterans on active campaigning all over Europe, but improved marksmanship and accurate firepower absolutely had a place in French armies. The British focus on volley fire was kind of a dead end, tactically; aimed fire in skirmish chains and bayonet assaults in column were the way of the future, and it was the French that pointed Europe on that path.
 
You must be thinking of the Prussians; they stressed rate of fire more than anything, able to reach 5 a minute in some conditions, compared to 2 give-or-take in the French case.

When they had the opportunity, like at the camps of the Channel coast, the French did train their men in marksmanship; moreover, their tactical system for the infantry stressed the role of aimed fire, with men being deployed in open order and able to pick their own shots. It was difficult to reach the skill of British professionals when the army was constantly bleeding veterans on active campaigning all over Europe, but improved marksmanship and accurate firepower absolutely had a place in French armies. The British focus on volley fire was kind of a dead end, tactically; aimed fire in skirmish chains and bayonet assaults in column were the way of the future, and it was the French that pointed Europe on that path.
No, I’m not mixing French with the Prussians and while there was of course some training in target practice, this was not the main goal. By the reasons you just listed copying the Brits was not a purpose either. While the tactics of the mixed skirmish chains and columns was pioneered by the French, it was a commonplace during the Revolutionary wars with Napoleonic warfare putting more and more stress on general volume of fire and later on the attacking by the big masses. IIRC Nappy abolished whatever rifles were already there.
 
No, I’m not mixing French with the Prussians and while there was of course some training in target practice, this was not the main goal. By the reasons you just listed copying the Brits was not a purpose either. While the tactics of the mixed skirmish chains and columns was pioneered by the French, it was a commonplace during the Revolutionary wars with Napoleonic warfare putting more and more stress on general volume of fire and later on the attacking by the big masses. IIRC Nappy abolished whatever rifles were already there.
No; armies began the wars with a focus on volume of fire by infantry, and moved away from it and towards more aimed fire as they came to adopt open formations for fire and massed formations for shock action. Also, Napoleon retained the rifles they had in the hands of officers and NCOs in the light companies, even if he didn't raise new formations armed with rifles. If there would be time for the men to train, things like the Nessler bullet would be very useful for Napoleonic French tactics.
 
No; armies began the wars with a focus on volume of fire by infantry, and moved away from it and towards more aimed fire as they came to adopt open formations for fire and massed formations for shock action.

Not quite correct picture. The tendency did start during the Revolutionary Wars just because the bulk of the French armies were ill-trained volunteers. By the Napoleonic times the bulk of the foot was line infantry acting in the battalion formations (not forming a single line as in XVIII). When closing with the enemy the battalions would either attack in a column or spread into a linear formation, usually 3 ranks deep. In Prussia and Austria the 3rd rankers were extensivelly used as skirmishers and often were detached from their companies. Until 1807 in Russia all jager regiments were formed on 2 ranks. In October 1813, to compensate for the heavy losses, Napoleon issued an order " ... Emperor orders the entire infantry of the army to form up in 2 ranks instead of 3, in that his Majesty regarded that the fire and the bayonet of the 3rd rank useless." Needless to say that the linear infantry was firing by the salvos.
1planche.jpg



nafziger2.jpg


Also, Napoleon retained the rifles they had in the hands of officers and NCOs in the light companies, even if he didn't raise new formations armed with rifles. If there would be time for the men to train, things like the Nessler bullet would be very useful for Napoleonic French tactics.

As for Nappy and the rifles see, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_weaponry_and_warfare#Firearms I did not find any reference to the rifles being used in his army but would be interested to see a link or quotation confirming what you wrote. However, even within framework of what you are saying, the rifles (if existed) were too few to play any significant role in his warfare. This pattern was not unique:
In Russia between 1803 and 1812 the factories in Toula (Tula) issued 20,000 rifles but in June 1808 the rifle was withdrawn and used only by NCOs and 12 marksmen in each jager company.
In Austria the jägers in the 1st and 2nd rank were armed with short muskets, while those in 3rd rank with rifles. The NCOs also carried rifles.
In Prussia (after reform) the jager battalions (2 or 3 of them) had rifles including the hunting rifles.

BTW, I was asking about Napoleon within the OTL/close to OTL framework, not in a seriously different history but even in OTL he was not fighting the major wars without an interruption so his rejection of the rifles was not done out of a desperation.
 
Last edited:
The Guards being usually held in a reserve, advantages of them having rifles are not quite clear. At that time they were usually given to the Jager-style units/skirmishers acting ahead of the main formations (and better trained in shooting than the rest of the troops).

As I understand, for Napoleon a general volume of fire (infantry and artillery) was more important than precision or even range.

I was thinking more from a political and logistical dimension, as since the rifle resources are limited and need a better underlying logistics system I'd imagine there would be cautious minds pushing them towards the more stable/secure units. As for how they'd be used, I can't say I'm sure.
 
Top