Waldersee On The French Army

Add a subpage to this text

Read the help page for usage.

 

This work was published in instalments in four issues of The Volunteer Journal for 1861 (Nos. 42, 44, 46 and 62). The final instalment appeared with the following editorial footnote: “The conclusion of this paper has been unavoidably delayed.” The delays in publication were presumably due to Engels’ delay in supplying the translations of passages from Waldersee’s book, and his comments on them, and because he was busy writing another article for The Volunteer Journal, “A Military Criticism of the Newton Review”. p. 508

[The Volunteer Journal, for Lancashire and Cheshire, No. 42, June 22, 1861]

A short time ago there was published, in Berlin, a book on “The French Army on the Drill-ground and in the Field,” which created a great sensation, and rapidly passed through several editions. Although the author merely calls himself “an old officer,” it is no mystery that the book is written by General Count Waldersee, late Minister of War in Prussia. He is a man of very high standing in the Prussian army, where he has particularly distinguished himself by revolutionising the old pedantic system of teaching the soldier skirmishing, patrolling, outpost, and light infantry duty generally. His new method, to which we may revert on some other occasion, is now introduced in that army. It is remarkable for doing away with all pedantry of forms, and exclusively appealing to the intellectual resources of the soldier in the performance of a duty which can only be carried out well by the intelligent and harmonious co-operation of a number of men.

An officer who lays so much stress on the intellectual training of every individual soldier, very naturally took great interest, at all times, in the French army, as the one which is most famous for the individual military intelligence of its men; and we need not, therefore, be astonished if we find that he has made that army the especial object of his studies, and that he has many friends and acquaintances in its ranks, from whom he can obtain valuable information. After the successes of the French against one of the best and bravest European armies, in the Italian campaign of 1859, it became a question of European interest to what circumstances such extraordinary and unvaried victories were owing; and in the above publication General Waldersee gives what he considers to be an elucidation of the subject.

The following is taken from an account of the general character of the French army: —

It partakes of all the good qualities, but also of all the faults and weaknesses, of the French character. Animated by a genuine warlike spirit, it is full of combativeness, thirst for action and for glory, brave and plucky, as it has shown at all times, and more recently on the battle-fields of Algeria, the Crimea, and Italy. Everywhere there have been occasions on which both officers and soldiers— particularly among the picked troops—have performed wonders of bravery; and the performances of the French soldiers generally, in these campaigns, are worthy of the highest respect.

Of great bodily and mental mobility—which, however, is often enough increased to a continuous restlessness—the French soldier is indefatigable and persevering in battle, as well as in hard work of all kinds.

Self-confident in the highest degree, full of ambition and vanity, every individual soldier has but one desire—to march upon the enemy. He knows no difficulties; he goes by the old French proverb, “If the thing is possible, it is as good as done; if it is impossible, it will be done somehow.” Without much reflection—often, indeed, very inconsiderately—he advances, convinced there are no difficulties he cannot overcome. Thus, with the dash and impetuosity inherent to his nation, he always presses for the attack, in which is his chief strength. Besides this, the French soldier is intelligent, handy, particularly adapted for individual fighting, and accustomed to act on his own responsibility. He is inventive and clever in embarrassing situations; he has a peculiar knack of making himself comfortable in a bivouac; of improving bridges, &c, under fire; of putting, at a moment’s notice, houses and villages into a defensible state, and of defending them afterwards with the greatest tenacity.

War is the life-element of an army. The French Government very wisely consider war as the normal state of the troops, and, therefore, at all times and under all circumstances treat them with the same strictness and severity as if actually on a campaign. The regiments are concentrated in camp as frequently as possible, and besides are made to change garrisons constantly, so as not to allow any peace habits to grow up among them. In the same spirit, the drill of the men is exclusively adapted for the purposes of war, and nothing whatever is done for purposes of parade. No corps is ever judged from its style of marching past, and it is, therefore, rather surprising to foreign officers to see French battalions march past—even before the Emperor—with a slovenly gait, in undulating front lines, the men stepping with different feet, and marching at ease with sloped arms.

But the picture has its dark as well as its bright side. All these good military qualities which urge on the French soldier to advance impetuously, show their brilliant effects only so long as you allow him to advance. The sentiment individuel, which is at the root of all his qualifications for attack, has its great disadvantages too. The soldier, being principally busied with himself, goes along with the mass as long as it advances successfully; but if this mass be forcibly, and, perhaps, unexpectedly, made to retire, its cohesion, the connection of every individual with his comrade, is soon severed, and the more so as, in such a case, the careless tactical training of the troops—of which, more hereafter—renders all steadiness impossible, and leads to confusion and utter dissolution.

Add to this that the French are naturally given to envy, and, with all their national levity in critical moments, are apt to be suspicious of others. The French soldier follows his officers eagerly and willingly into battle, but only so long as these officers are in front of him, and literally lead him on. This is what the soldiers expect, and when advancing under fire they express it by shouting, “Epaulettes to the front!” Thus field officers and generals have generally to march to the charge in front of their troops—the very place, certainly, for a general—and this explains the excessive losses the French always have had in officers. But if a retreat becomes inevitable, confidence in the officers will soon disappear, and, in extreme cases, make room for open disobedience. From these causes, a retreat, energetically forced upon a French army, has always been disastrous to it, and will ever be so.

General Waldersee might have added a great deal more on the facility with which the confidence of the French soldier in his officers melts away under adverse circumstances. The confidence of the men in their immediate superiors, even after repeated unsuccess, is the best standard of discipline. Measured by this, the French are not much better than totally undisciplined levies. It is a matter of course for them that they never can be beaten except by “treachery”; and whenever they lost a battle and had to retreat more than a few hundred yards—whenever the enemy surprised them by an unexpected move, they regularly raised the cry, “We are betrayed!” So much is this part and parcel of the national character, that Napoleon, in his memoirs (written long after the fact, at St. Helena), could impute, by insinuation, some kind of treacherous action to most of his generals; and that French historians—military and otherwise—could amplify these insinuations into the most wonderful romances. As the nation of the generals, so does the soldier think of his regimental and company officers. A few hard knocks, and discipline is completely at an end; and thus it is that, of all armies, the French have made the most disastrous retreats.

[The Volunteer Journal, for Lancashire and Cheshire, No. 44, July 6, 1861]

Of the mode of recruiting the soldiers and officers, Waldersee gives the following account: —

The French soldier is recruited by drawing lots among the young men of the country; but every man has the right of paying a sum fixed by Government for a substitute. This sum flows into a fund administered by the Government, from which the substitute receives a small sum as bounty on enlisting, and the remainder on the expiration of his term, the interest being paid to him during his time of service. The sum owing to him may, however, be partially or totally forfeited by crime or bad conduct. Thus the Government have the selection of substitutes entirely in their own hands, and are in the habit of enlisting, as much as possible, men only who have already served one term of seven years, and who have proved themselves reliable and well conducted. A great many old soldiers are thus secured to the army, and from them most of the non-commissioned officers are selected. The term of service is seven years; of this time, however, the greater portion of the men are but four or five years actually with the colours, spending the remainder on furlough.

The non-commissioned officers are selected with great care and tested with great regard by the officers. They are mostly distinguished, not only by an excellent character and a perfect knowledge of the details of their duty, but also by intelligence, independence, a fine soldier-like bearing, and a certain dignity, especially in their relations with the privates, over whom they know very well how to maintain the great authority which the regulations have given them. As every non-commissioned officer is eligible for a commission, they manage to keep the privates at a respectful distance, while, on the other hand, they use every effort to distinguish themselves and give a good example to their subordinates.

At present the majority of the non-commissioned officers consist of substitutes. A few only are made corporals and sergeants during their first term of service, and among them, particularly those young men who, having had a good education, and finding themselves excluded by the great throng of candidates from the military schools, enlist voluntarily in the army in order to try for a commission. Such young men very soon advance to the position of non-commissioned officers, and on passing the practical military examination prescribed for sergeants before they can be made sub-lieutenants, very often receive a commission after having served from two to four years.

The generality of officers promoted from the ranks receive their commissions after from 9 to 12, and often after from 15 to 20 years only. Of 170 such officers, taken at random, 16 received commissions after from 2 to 4, 62 after 5 to 8, 62 after 9 to 12, and 30 after from 13 to 20 years’ service. The first 16 belonged to the class of educated young men; the 62 who received commissions after from 5 to 8 years, were promoted for distinction before the enemy. Thus, in time of peace, promotion from the ranks, even in France, is slow work.

The officers recruit themselves partly from the ranks, as stated above, and partly (in times of peace principally), from the military schools, where the young men have to attend for two years, after which, on passing a severe examination, they at once receive commissions. These two classes of officers keep at a great distance from each other; the pupils of the military colleges and the educated men promoted from the ranks, looking down with disrespect upon the old sublieutenants and lieutenants who gained their epaulettes by long service; the officers, even of the same battalion, form anything but that compact body which they do in almost every other army. Yet those men who were raised from the comparatively less educated portion of the ranks (and who now, after the heavy losses in the Crimea and Italy, form the greater portion of the subalterns), are very useful in their way. Though very often positively ignorant, and sometimes rough, and scarcely above the sergeant in character or manners, they are generally clever within their sphere of action, perfectly at home in their duty, conscientious, strict, and punctual; they know exceedingly well how to treat the soldier, how to take care of him, how to stimulate him by their example, both in garrison life and under fire. Besides this, they at present mostly possess a good deal of experience in camp life, marching and fighting.

On the whole, the French officer is intelligent and eager for war; he knows what he is about, and—especially under fire—he knows how to act on his own responsibility, and how to excite the men by the example of his own bravery. Add to this—for the majority of them — a good deal of campaigning and fighting experience, and we must say that they are possessed of qualities which place them very high in their profession.

Promotion is given either by seniority or by selection. In peace, two by seniority to one by selection; in war, the reverse. But selection is generally limited to the educated class of officers, while the mass of those raised from the ranks are promoted by seniority only, and thus attain their captaincy at a rather advanced age. This is about the highest step they ever reach, and they are generally quite satisfied to be able to retire on a captain’s pension.

Thus it happens that in the French army you see a good many subalterns of from 30 to 40, and a good many captains approaching 50; while among field-officers and generals there are a great many comparatively young men. This is no doubt a great advantage; and the continued wars in Africa, the Crimea, and Italy, having considerably quickened promotion, have brought still more young men into high commands.

To show the proportion in which promotion to the higher grades is dealt out to the two classes of officers, the following statement of officers killed and wounded, or employed in high commands in Italy, will be read with interest: — From the military schools: 34 generals, 25 colonels commanding regiments, 28 other field-officers, 24 captains, 33 lieutenants and sub-lieutenants. From the ranks: 3 generals, no colonels commanding, 8 field-officers, 66 captains, 95 subalterns.

The generals proceed less from the staff and the scientific or select corps than from the generality of the field-officers. They therefore are mostly wanting in military instruction of a higher order; a few among them only have les vues larges. Badly up in strategy, they are rather clumsy in handling large bodies of troops, and therefore much in want of superior orders or scientific assistance; so that very often in the field, as on the drill-ground, they receive a regular programme of the movements to be gone through for engaging in action. On the other hand, they are full of common sense, and ready at inventing expedients; they know the practical part of their duty, are zealous, ambitious, and devoted to the service. Their habit of acting independently gives them the necessary vigour under fire. They know no difficulties; act at once on every emergency, without awaiting or sending for orders; are not afraid of responsibility; and, brave like every Frenchman, they always personally lead on their troops.

Most of them have fought in Algeria, the Crimea, and Italy, and, therefore, are in possession of a valuable store of warlike experience. Of the generals engaged in Italy in 1859 there were twenty-eight old Africans, eighteen of whom had also fought in the Crimea. One general alone (Partouneau) made his first campaign in Italy.

This continued fighting has endowed the French army with a younger body of generals than any other army can boast of. To keep this up in time of peace, lieutenant-generals retire on half-pay at 65, and major-generals at 60 years of age.

In short, the French generals must be regarded as comparatively young and bodily active, intelligent, energetic, experienced in war and well adapted for it, though but a few have, so far, shown themselves unusually clever and well acquainted with the handling of large bodies of troops, and though neither the Crimean nor the Italian war have developed any extraordinary military genius.

[The Volunteer Journal, for Lancashire and Cheshire, No. 46, July 20, 1861]

Passing to the drill-practice of the French, our author says: —

The recruit, boorish and clumsy as he is when joining his regiment, nevertheless often enough, before a fortnight is over, and before even he may have received his full equipment, stands sentry with the dignity and authority of an old trooper, and very soon becomes formed by the careful individual training which he is made to go through. Though company and battalion drill leave very much to be desired, every individual soldier is carefully trained to gymnastic and bayonet exercise, fencing with the small sword, and long running at double-quick time.... On the drill-ground the infantry is generally without steadiness, loose, and therefore rather slow; but on a march it is exceedingly quick, and broken to long marches, great portions of which are made at the double; which pace is very often used in action, and to no mean advantage. These are the performances by which the excellence of a body of troops is judged in France; it is never judged by its drill, much less by mere marching past. The fact is, the French cannot march past in good order, because they are defective in that drill in detail which, after all, is necessary to every good body of troops.

Talking about drill, our author gives the following anecdote of

Napoleon I: —

Napoleon was well aware of the drawbacks inherent to this loose system of drill, and did his best to redress it. Under his iron rod, precision of drill was adhered to as much as it was possible with Frenchmen—though he himself was no very good drill-master. One day, at Schönbrunn, in 1809, he had the idea of drilling himself a battalion of his guards; to make them faire la théorie, as the French call it. He drew his sword, and gave the word; but after having ordered a few movements, he got his men into such utter confusion that he called out, putting his sword back into the scabbard, “The devil take your theory! Set that mess right again.” (Que le diable emporte votre f théorie! Redressez cette cochonnerie!)

About the “Turcos,” the native Algerian troops, we find the following remarkable statement: —

According to reports received from French officers, the Turcos above all disliked an engagement with the Austrian Rifles. Whenever they met them, they not only refused to advance, but threw themselves down, and, like the camels of the desert, could not be induced either by threats or by blows, to rise to the attack.

On the drill-ground of an infantry regiment—

Recruit-drill is gone through in a very pedantic manner, but still very superficially; little attention is paid to the bearing of the individual men, and thus, the regulations are carried out (in company and battalion-drill) in a positively slovenly manner. Very little care is taken that the men stand properly at attention, that the dressing is good, the line well closed up, or even that the men step out with the same foot. It appears to be sufficient that the men be there, and arrive together, somehow or other. An army accustomed to such a loose system of drill will certainly not show to any great extent the disadvantages it entails, so long as it continues to advance. Still, this system must exercise a very bad influence on discipline and order in action; and whenever a retreat under fire becomes inevitable, it may bring on the most serious consequences. This is the reason why the attempt at a retreat in good order has so often proved dangerous to the French, and why a retreat forced upon them by a solid, well-schooled army will always prove disastrous to them.

After disposing of the drill, General Waldersee gives an epitome of Marshal Bugeaud’s principles of fighting (the same which we have in great part translated in preceding numbers of the Volunteer Journal, under the heading, “On the moral elements in fighting”). With these principles he fully coincides, attempting at the same time to prove—and not without success—that most of them are old practical rules, to be found already in the instructions of Frederick the Great. We pass over this, as well as over a lengthy strategical criticism of the campaign in Italy in 1859 (in which not less than eighteen distinct blunders of General Gyulay are shown up), in order to come to the observations on the mode of fighting of the French in that campaign.

The most essential principles of this method are:

1. To act on the offensive whenever this is in any way possible.

2. To treat protracted firing with contempt, and to pass as soon as ever possible to a charge with the bayonet, at the double.

This being once known, it has been very generally concluded that the French always and everywhere, with a complete disregard of all tactical forms, had rushed upon the Austrians, and that they had always instantly, and without further ado, run them down or driven them away.

But the history of the campaign is there to prove that this was far from being the case. On the contrary, it shows:

1. That the French certainly did in most cases, not always, attack their opponents impetuously in double quick time, but that scarcely ever did they conquer them at the first charge. Not only were they generally unsuccessful in this, but in most cases they were defeated with loss in several repeated attacks, so that during action they retreated nearly as often as they advanced.

2. That often enough they charged without firing, but, once repelled, they were obliged to carry on the engagement by firing, which firing lasted for some time, though interrupted by repeated bayonet charges. At Magenta and Solferino such firing engagements lasted several hours.

The author now gives, from reports received both from French and Austrian officers, an account of the tactical formations applied by the French during the Italian campaign, by extracts from which we shall conclude this article.

[The Volunteer Journal, for Lancashire and Cheshire, No. 62, November 8, 1861]

Our author, after describing the general character and principles of fighting of the French army, proceeds to give an account of the tactical formations employed by them in the Italian campaign of 1859.

A French army division is composed of two brigades, the first of which has a battalion of chasseurs, and two regiments (of three battalions each) of the line, while the second has only two regiments (or six battalions) of the line. Each battalion has six companies.

In the line of battle, the first brigade forms the first line, the battalions being formed in columns at half distance with full deploying intervals between them, and covered by a line of skirmishers. The second brigade stands in second line, 250 yards to the rear, the battalions equally in columns at half distance, but with only half deploying intervals between them; they are generally placed behind one of the wings of the first line.

The formation of column generally adopted in the Italian war was what the French call column of divisions—two companies with them being called a division. The six companies are ranged two in front, two at half-distance behind them, and again two companies at half-distance behind the second pair of companies. This column may either be formed on the two centre companies or on the two extreme companies of either wing. With the Guards, who were all picked men, it was always formed on the two centre companies, and thereby (same as in the English double column on the two centre sub-divisions) the time both for forming column and for deployment was abridged by one-half; but with the line it was generally formed on the two right companies. The reason was, that by this method the “grenadier” company (No. 1) was placed in the front of the column, while the light or “voltigeur” company (No. 6) came to the rear. Thus these two companies, consisting of picked men, formed, so to speak, a framework in which the less reliable four “centre companies” were encompassed; and, moreover, in case the two rear companies were ordered to extend as skirmishers, the light company was one of them, while the grenadier company, in the front line, remained together unless the whole battalion had to extend.

For an army fighting chiefly, not in line, but by a combination of skirmishes and columns, this formation offers great advantages. One-third of the men (the two front companies) are always in a position to make use of their fire-arms, while at the same time deployment is simple and can be got through very quickly. The great distance between the component parts of the column (half company distance or about 40 yards) tends very much to reduce the ravages which artillery makes in closer columns; and when it is borne in mind that, as a rule, two companies were extended, so that the whole column consisted of two companies in front, and two at 40 yards behind them, it is seen that this formation approaches the line as much as possible; the two rear companies acting rather as a reserve or second line to the two front ones than as that bodily support which is generally supposed to be given by the rear men to the front line in continental columns of attack. Moreover, although deployments into line did now and then occur in the Italian campaign, the ground in Lombardy is such that fighting in line is positively impossible. In these small fields, intersected by hedges, ditches, and stone walls, and covered, besides the corn, with mulberry trees connected one with another by vine branches; in a country where the lanes, running between high walls, are so narrow that two carts can scarcely pass each other—in such a country all regular formations often cease so soon as troops advance to close with the enemy. The only thing necessary is to have plenty of skirmishers in front, and to dash with the compact masses on to the most important points. Now, for such a purpose, there could be no better formation than that selected by the French. One-third of the battalion skirmishing—no supports, the column at 100 yards to the rear being support enough—the whole advancing rapidly, the skirmishers, when near enough, clearing the front of the battalion and hovering on its wings; the first line giving a volley and charging; the second, 40 yards to the rear, following as a reserve and keeping as much order as the ground will allow. We must admit that this method seems very well adapted for all purposes of attack in such ground, and will keep the men as much as possible together, and under the control of their officers.

Wherever the ground was open enough to admit of regular movements, the attack was carried out in this way—the skirmishers engaged the enemy until the order was given for the column to advance; the supports—if supports there were — forming on the flanks of the line of skirmishers, and extending themselves to the front of either wing, in order to envelop and give cross-fire to an advancing enemy; when the column came up to the line of skirmishers, the latter crowded in the intervals of battalions, advancing in a line with the head of the column; at twenty yards from the enemy the head of the column fired a volley and charged. When the ground was very thickly covered, as many as three or four companies of a battalion were extended, and cases are reported (at Magenta, the Turcos) where whole battalions extended as skirmishers.

Against an Austrian bayonet attack, a method similar to that prescribed by the British regulations for street firing (battalion drill, section 62) was sometimes employed. The leading companies of the column gave a volley, faced outwards, and filed to the rear, where they re-formed; the succeeding companies did the same, until, after the rear companies had fired their volley and cleared the front, the whole battalion charged the enemy.

In decisive moments, the soldiers were ordered to deposit their knapsacks on the ground, but to provide themselves with some bread and all the ammunition they contained, which they stored away about their persons as best they could. This is the origin of the fable, “That the Zouaves carried their cartridges habitually in their breeches’ pockets.”

At Magenta, the Zouaves and the 1st Grenadier Guards deployed for a time, and fired by files and by ranks; at Solferino, too, the division of Voltigeurs of the Guards (twelve battalions) deployed in a single line before going into action, but when actually engaged, they seem to have been in the usual column. As both these deployments were made under the immediate command and in the presence of Louis Napoleon, there can scarcely be any doubt that he ordered them from some recollection of English line manoeuvres; but in both cases the predilection of the French officers for their own national mode of fighting and the nature of the ground, appear to have prevailed as soon as the real tug of war came on.

In the attack of a village, several columns, preceded by thick swarms of skirmishers, were launched; the weaker column, destined to attack the front of the position, was held back to the last, while stronger columns turned the flanks of the village. The troops who took the place at once occupied and fortified it, while the reserves pursued the enemy. To defend a village, the French trusted more to the reserves behind it or on its flanks than to a strong garrison in the houses themselves.

With this abstract of the tactical formations of the French army of Italy in 1859, we take leave of Count Waldersee’s work.

Although England is far less rough ground for fighting than Lombardy, still her numerous fences, ditches, clusters of trees, and coppices, combined with the undulating nature of the ground, and the deep wooded ravines cut into it, make her a far rougher battle-field than the large uninterrupted plains of Northern France, Belgium, and Germany. If ever a French army should attempt a descent on English soil, there can be little doubt that the formations of its infantry would be very similar to those employed in Italy; and that is the reason why we think these formations not without interest to English volunteers.