Historical runequest. Napoleonic era?

[Magistus]

While not set in the Napoleonic era, I have thought about using the Alternate History as written by Greg Keyes in his The Age of Unreason series.

The story spans the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century. The author makes use of pseudosciences (scientific alchemy instead of our physics) that were popular at the time: using affinity and aether, for example. Some historical characters appear: Isaac Newton, Louis XIV of France, Benjamin Franklin, Peter the Great of Russia and Blackbeard have important roles in various volumes. Action moves between England and France, later involving Russia, Austria and the American Colonies.

 

[Grrrr]

A point to note: The biggest cause of death was not being killed on the battlefield, but from disease due to poor sanitation.

I do not dispute that point for a moment. I've been told the same by several knowledgable history types*. But: was that because BP weapons did not inflict much trauma? My understanding (superficial at best) is that actually BP shot inflicted horrific wounds but:

a) accuracy was awful
b) tactics were comical
c) hygiene was just so bad that it was always going to lead to more deaths


There is another fascinating statistic from a more recent war. During the Gulf War of the early 90s a US Marine was less likely to die than during peacetime as the small number of battlefield fatalities were outweighed by the number who would have died in drink-driving related deaths back home!


Grrrr




*or several OTHER knowledgable history types, since this is probably the point where Wolverine reveals that he's in fact an internationla authority on blackpowder ballistics!

 

[Wolverine]

But: was that because BP weapons did not inflict much trauma? My understanding (superficial at best) is that actually BP shot inflicted horrific wounds but...

Oh yes, they could maim and kill. But only at close quarters.

a) accuracy was awfu

The musket had an effective range of 30 yards. Beyond that, it was pretty much useless. It's accuracy was poor at best, and the velocity of the bullet leaving the barrel was slow compared to the rifle. The rifle revolutionised the battlefield. It had an effective range of 200 yards, and the rifled barrel increased the velocity of the shot incredibly. The draw back to the rifle was it slower to load than a musket, and there were never a significant number of Riflemen on the battlefield to make a difference. It was simply grit and determination that won the day.

Tactics were comical

Actually, the tactics were quite sound for the day. From today's standards they appear comical. You've got to remember that weapons of the period were not as effective. That includes cannon. The tactics, however, were very sound. The French Column was practically unstoppable, and relied on the enemy loosing morale and breaking ground, allowing the column to smash through the lines. Forming a square to against cavalry would stop men from being cut down in the open field, a line against cannon would reduce casualties. It's all common sense.

hygiene was just so bad that it was always going to lead to more deaths

That's true.

 

[Grrrr]

Actually, the tactics were quite sound for the day.quote]

I disagree massively with that. However we are drifting woefully off-topic so I'll say why I disagree and try to let you have your say in return without responding.

Line vs Cannon. Yep then reduces the number of second rank casualties (coz there is no second rank)

But why line up to get shot at?

Your very brief descriptions all make sense from the mindset of lets all line up and exchange shots until someone runs away. And I was going to go through one at a time and say why I disagree with them. But its the ethos I think was rubbish. Looking at that maybe you are right after all.

Tactics not comical.

Strategy comical.


Grrrr

 

[Blackyinkin]

Hi All,

I think what many people forget is that being struck with a very sharp piece of metal (sword, axe, arrow) actually does hurt a bloody lot and causes terrible injuries, so the damage listed for primitive firearms is actually comparable to these weapons. Modern high velocity weapons actually cause very different types of wounds, with small entry holes and large exit wounds, aswell as causing massive blood loss, they also kill by shock.

Simon

 

[Utgardloki]

According to my history professor in College, the pre-Napoleon tactics included well-ordered lines and bright-colored coats so that the officers could keep track of where their men were. This was especially important because, in many cases, if the officer could not keep track of his men, his men would be gone, far far away from the battlefield.

This started to change with the American Revolution and the French revolutionary and Napoleanic Wars, as troops were motivated by nationalist feeling and did not need such strict control.

This could be one reason why the French were able to smash through their enemies, until they got to Russia, by which time their enemies were able to adapt to changing circumstances and field modernized armies.

But then, I am far from an expert on Napoleanic military history. There does seem to be quite a paradigm shift going on in this period, and a guy with a printing press could potentially be as powerful as another guy with 10,000 men under his command, because it was no longer enough to provide 10,000 muskets -- you also had to have men willing to fight.

From an RPG standpoint, that means that a PC is very likely to be employed either finding and shutting down that guy with the printing press, or else keeping that guy with the printing press from being shut down. This also provides a major role for characters with skills in language, written composition, and propaganda techniques.

 

[Puck]

The musket had an effective range of 30 yards. Beyond that, it was pretty much useless. It's accuracy was poor at best, and the velocity of the bullet leaving the barrel was slow compared to the rifle. The rifle revolutionized the battlefield. It had an effective range of 200 yards, and the rifled barrel increased the velocity of the shot incredibly. The draw back to the rifle was it slower to load than a musket, and there were never a significant number of Riflemen on the battlefield to make a difference. It was simply grit and determination that won the day.

I think where this would play out in role-playing as well as reality is that muskets and rifles would be totally different weapons. Muskets could reload many time faster (I think it was about 3 or 4, Cornwell has Sharpe shooting 5 times a minute but he cheated) than the rifle, which could be loaded about once per minute. The rifles were stunningly accurate though. Scouts and heroes in fiction as well as reality seemed to use the rifle due to its accuracy(Hawkeye, Sharpe, Daniel Morgan). Regulars using muskets were never even taught to aim as their guns were so inaccurate. They counted on speed in reloading and the bayonet, and of course discipline.

In reality it was hard to win battles with just rifleman though. Washington hated the propaganda about hiding behind rocks and trees and constantly dreamed about having proper troops that could follow strict orders, load fast, and use bayonets. (Rifles were very good at picking off enemy officers though).

The Pre-Napoleonic era does seem like an Eden for role-playing though. Particularly in the New world. You have a great clash of cultures: French and English vying for the fur trade. Their conflict for the Ohio valley drawing in the Iroquois, Huron and other tribes. Pirates plying the high seas. The slave trade was in full swing. Lots of great adventure stories too: Last of the Mohecans, Northwest Passage, Robert Louis Stevenson has a bunch but really ties the setting together with Master of Balantrae.

 

[CruelDespot]

On the Wolverine vs Grrr side topic of Napoleonic tactics, I side with Wolverine. I don't think it is too far off topic, since it is still germaine to Napoleonic era roleplaying.

It might seem silly to line up and march around in formation, but consider trying to control a crowd of 10,000+ people with only your voice: no radios, no P.A. system.

If you have an army that are all fighting as individuals and small groups, how are they going to know what you want them to do? How are you even going to know where they are to send them a message?

Also, if a big army is dispersed, they can't mass firepower anywhere. An army in formation can concentrate more people together in a small area and charge with bayonets after firing a volley. Widely dispersed skirmishers will not be able to resist.

The Napoleonic armies would send out groups of skirmishers to harrass the enemy formations as they closed in on each other, but the skirmishers would not stray too far and would rejoin the lines before the main forces reached each other.

 

[havercake lad]

.

This started to change with the American Revolution and the French revolutionary and Napoleanic Wars, as troops were motivated by nationalist feeling and did not need such strict control.

This could be one reason why the French were able to smash through their enemies, until they got to Russia, by which time their enemies were able to adapt to changing circumstances and field modernized armies.

But then, I am far from an expert on Napoleanic military history. There does seem to be quite a paradigm shift going on in this period, and a guy with a printing press could potentially be as powerful as another guy with 10,000 men under his command, because it was no longer enough to provide 10,000 muskets -- you also had to have men willing to fight.

Literacy wasn't too well developed amongst the core manpower of the European armies. John Bull Patriotism/ Love of the Czar was still hower a sufficent motivator for good moral.
Current historic opinion is that the Revolutionary fervour still needed a solid cadre of the old Royal army... discipline and training being worth a great deal more that citizen soldiers.
France's success against its opponents was partly due to the revolution eventually creating the right conditions for the development of a National war economy where the nation was geared up to providing men and materials for a near total war effort.
That said Britain had an excellent spy network and Napoleon was usually a superb propagandist.
No one would end up a public hero for assinations in this period. Such activities provoked the strongest reactions against their perputrators.
348

 

[havercake lad]

Re power of the press ~
The French army coined the term 'to lie like a bulletin' ( Napoleon even tried announcing Trafalgar as a victory ).
Also the supposed effectiveness of literature in the form of political rhetoric, Nationalist poetry etc was accessed somewhat subjectivly by the politicans and writers who were writing and reading it.
348

 

[Magistus]

http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/columns/52pickup10.html

 

[zozotroll]

Another big problem with dispersed formations is cavalry. Skirmishers always had to keep an eye on cover, Friendly line infantry and supporting cavalry. If they got caught to far from help they got destroyed. Rate of fire was just to low to keep them off, you needed massed bayonets and no gaps in the square. A mob of individuals just could not pull that off.

 

[Da Boss]

I found these novels most enjoyable and think it would make a good roleplaying game in the period (with the element of Dragons).

http://www.temeraire.org/wiki/Main_Page

 

[Nickbergquist]

I would also suggest picking up GURPS Age of Napoleon, as it provides a detailed look at how to run the era in a role playing game, and the book (like most all GURPS setting books) is pretty system-neutral.

http://www.warehouse23.com/item.html?id=SJG6539