Page 1 of 2

poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:15 am
by bahdahbum
Nassau provided around 10 % of Wellington's army at Waterloo . Most were conscripts but the officiers seem to have been good . But :

Triumph of the nations : pg 139 they are considered poor drilled when fighting in an allied Dutch-Belgian division and pg142 , when fighting in the reserve corps 1815 they are considered Average Drilled ...any explanation ...

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:39 am
by donm
From what I have read about them at Waterloo, they where considered the best of the Dutch - Belgian troops there.

I would have certainly had them as Average - Drilled.

Don

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 10:46 am
by bahdahbum
Well, as a matter of a fact they are GERMANS :D but part of the dutch-belgian corps . Now nassau fought perhaps well but entrenched at Papelotte and Hougoumont ...But they were the guys that helped the 7th belgian line regiment at quatre-bras

And reread your history ... Dutch-Belgian's were not that bad . Especially the 7th line belgian regiment that fought at quatre-bras and waterloo .

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:39 pm
by MikeHorah
bahdahbum wrote:Nassau provided around 10 % of Wellington's army at Waterloo . Most were conscripts but the officiers seem to have been good . But :

Triumph of the nations : pg 139 they are considered poor drilled when fighting in an allied Dutch-Belgian division and pg142 , when fighting in the reserve corps 1815 they are considered Average Drilled ...any explanation ...
I seem to recall ( hang done this list a long time ago!)that I was trying to reflect the variable experience of the Nassauers at Quatres Bras and at Waterloo. My reading is that the Nassau troops in Belgium were not generally of the quality thay had been when serving under Napoleon and opted for poor drilled
( officers) rather than average conscript (or even poor conscript) as a better assessment , though you could do one or the other I suppose. But you could haver between a lot of the pairings of elan and training across all the lists and never really come down on one side or the other! For wargames we make fine precise distinctions that seldom exist in the real world . But too much leaving it to all to players would rather weaken the list concept and smacks of indecision.

The Dutch Belgian units that fought at Quatres Bras were practically out of ammunition at Waterloo ( see Osprey 98. v Pivka) The Anglo Netherlands list is primarily a Waterloo focused list. One reason, when the Reserve Corps was formed which was after that, I made the Orange Nassauers average drilled is that the ammo positon would have been righted plus they now had some hot experience under their belts and they were the better of the Nassauers and they had lower casualties as a percentage than the other DB units they served alongside.

You could justify one small unit of average drilled for a historical refight of Quatres Bras. The staggered arrival of units and the scale of the battle makes it a non standard game in many ways.

Of course you can always field your extra Nassau figures ( over the 4 minimum bases) as average drilled or average conscript Dutch Belgians ( up to 22 bases) .So see it as part of the overall maxima of average drilled types . I may have too myself as I have far too many Nassau figures for the FOG(N) lists as I have been Btn based for the last 15 years plus! Plus fewer Dutch Belgians as such proportionately. :D :(

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 5:38 pm
by hazelbark
I think poor drilled are actually a very cost effective troop type.

I think it is the Russian list in the rule book a 6 base poor drilled with an artillery attachment is a powerful creature.

People I think worry about that word "poor" too much.

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 5:56 pm
by david53
hazelbark wrote:I think poor drilled are actually a very cost effective troop type.

I think it is the Russian list in the rule book a 6 base poor drilled with an artillery attachment is a powerful creature.

People I think worry about that word "poor" too much.

I agree poor is'nt that bad if they are still drilled, not sure poor conscripts as good :D

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 6:11 pm
by shadowdragon
david53 wrote:not sure poor conscripts as good :D
Hey! Leave my Neapolitan troops out of this. :lol:

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 4:29 pm
by david53
shadowdragon wrote:
david53 wrote:not sure poor conscripts as good :D
Hey! Leave my Neapolitan troops out of this. :lol:
You can roll out your Poor Guard Cavalry :lol: :lol: :lol:

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:35 pm
by edb1815
MikeHorah wrote:
bahdahbum wrote:Nassau provided around 10 % of Wellington's army at Waterloo . Most were conscripts but the officiers seem to have been good . But :

Triumph of the nations : pg 139 they are considered poor drilled when fighting in an allied Dutch-Belgian division and pg142 , when fighting in the reserve corps 1815 they are considered Average Drilled ...any explanation ...
I seem to recall ( hang done this list a long time ago!)that I was trying to reflect the variable experience of the Nassauers at Quatres Bras and at Waterloo. My reading is that the Nassau troops in Belgium were not generally of the quality thay had been when serving under Napoleon and opted for poor drilled
( officers) rather than average conscript (or even poor conscript) as a better assessment , though you could do one or the other I suppose. But you could haver between a lot of the pairings of elan and training across all the lists and never really come down on one side or the other! For wargames we make fine precise distinctions that seldom exist in the real world . But too much leaving it to all to players would rather weaken the list concept and smacks of indecision.

The Dutch Belgian units that fought at Quatres Bras were practically out of ammunition at Waterloo ( see Osprey 98. v Pivka) The Anglo Netherlands list is primarily a Waterloo focused list. One reason, when the Reserve Corps was formed which was after that, I made the Orange Nassauers average drilled is that the ammo positon would have been righted plus they now had some hot experience under their belts and they were the better of the Nassauers and they had lower casualties as a percentage than the other DB units they served alongside.

You could justify one small unit of average drilled for a historical refight of Quatres Bras. The staggered arrival of units and the scale of the battle makes it a non standard game in many ways.

Of course you can always field your extra Nassau figures ( over the 4 minimum bases) as average drilled or average conscript Dutch Belgians ( up to 22 bases) .So see it as part of the overall maxima of average drilled types . I may have too myself as I have far too many Nassau figures for the FOG(N) lists as I have been Btn based for the last 15 years plus! Plus fewer Dutch Belgians as such proportionately. :D :(
I see your points here but I have a couple of questions. (also Quatres Bras is a better battle to game than Waterloo!!)
Looking at Saxe-Weimars brigade in the 2nd DB division, shouldn't the maximum for the Nassaurs be 6 minium? 3000+ for the 2nd Nassau Rgt and the Orange-Nassau together. Or would you count the Orange-Nassau as a unit of DB line? Also wasn't the 2nd Nassau considered light infantry? (taking that from v. Pivka's Osprey as well).

Thanks

Eric

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 10:31 pm
by shadowdragon
david53 wrote:
shadowdragon wrote:
david53 wrote:not sure poor conscripts as good :D
Hey! Leave my Neapolitan troops out of this. :lol:
You can roll out your Poor Guard Cavalry :lol: :lol: :lol:
Nothing "poor" about them. All "average drilled"! 8)

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 9:27 am
by terrys
Looking at Saxe-Weimars brigade in the 2nd DB division, shouldn't the maximum for the Nassaurs be 6 minium? 3000+ for the 2nd Nassau Rgt and the Orange-Nassau together. Or would you count the Orange-Nassau as a unit of DB line? Also wasn't the 2nd Nassau considered light infantry? (taking that from v. Pivka's Osprey as well).
The 2nd Nassau regiment had an attachment of Nassau Jagers, and that's permitted in the list. I can't find any evidence that the regiment was 'Light'.
Certainly in an historical battle the 2nd regiment should probably be a large unit (2500 men). In the battle the 1st regmient was detatched to the left wing, so would probably have been under a different corp commander. You'd probably therefore have the Nassau troops in 2 different corps structures with the 1st regiment small, and the 2nd regiment large, with a rifle attachment.

As far as quality goes, there's nothing wrong with Poor/Drilled. They fire perfectly well, and only suffer slightly if they get into combat. They are also a liitle worse off when taking a CT, and are almost impossible to rally if they break. Given that the were only recently fight FOR Napoleon, I don't think it's unreasonable to make them poor.
For this type of army, poor/drilled is much better than average/conscripts.

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Thu Jun 28, 2012 5:30 pm
by edb1815
Thanks - I got the "light" reference from "Wellington's Dutch Allies 1815" by Ronald Pawley (Osprey). Not exactly a primary source. If I am correct they did detach some companies to skirmish in the Hougemont woods at Waterloo. Of course this may just be the light companies and doesn't mean that the regiment qualifies as light infantry.

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:07 pm
by spearsup
When I bought ToN, I thought ... poor french 1809, poor french 1812, and even poor french 1815 ...

French lists minimum requires so much conscripts ... I agree that quality of french army decline from 1805/1808 period to 1809/1812 and then to 1813/1814 ... but I was very surprised by the rating of french troops during those periods ... and also surprised compared to other nations ratings

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Tue Jul 03, 2012 6:42 pm
by bahdahbum
poor french 1809, poor french 1812, and even poor french 1815
Might I suggest you only use a Guard corps , more to the point only OLG GUARD units :twisted:

Honnestly what did you expect a only superior veteran army facing only poor conscript armies . Napoleon's victories had more to do with " less blunders" on his side than on his oppenent's side . The soldiers where often +/- the same with the exception of some veteran units ; In 1809 some french veteran units were still in Spain . In 1814 the french infantry is quite good . Even the french " militia" or Garde Nationale can be rated average . So what do you complain of !

Poor units can give a trash to average units . It is not FOGAM nor FOGR . In a fight I had an average unit beating a superior unit quite easely ...the luck of dice perhaps but it is much more balanced than FOGAM and FOGR

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:42 am
by terrys
When I bought ToN, I thought ... poor french 1809, poor french 1812, and even poor french 1815 ...
If you consider conscripts to be 'poor' then you are correct ..... However, the French also get veteran line infantry which isn't available to a lot of other nations. It's the mix of Veterans and conscripts that gives an advantage to the French.
The ratioe of conscript(min)/veterans(max) for various years (in the Infantry Corps D'Armee) are as follows:
1809......10/16
1812......12/12
1813s.....20/4
1813a.....16/8
1814......16/8
1815.......6/12
and.....
1805......0/12
It's the overall mix of troops that gives the French their strength. Being able to offset the cost of veterans with some cheaper conscripts is quite an advantage. Of course it's more of a struggle to do that in 1813-1814.

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 8:34 am
by MikeHorah
spearsup wrote:When I bought ToN, I thought ... poor french 1809, poor french 1812, and even poor french 1815 ...

French lists minimum requires so much conscripts ... I agree that quality of french army decline from 1805/1808 period to 1809/1812 and then to 1813/1814 ... but I was very surprised by the rating of french troops during those periods ... and also surprised compared to other nations ratings
To understand 1813 and our very bleak view I recommend Scott Bowden's the Grande Armee 1813. It has a wealth of data and analysis and verbatim reprts from French commanders. It is said he has the largest collection of documentation of this era outside France ( or some such thing) . The key to the comparison is the impact of 1812 which bore much more heavily on France and its allies (but not Prussia and Austria in 1812) than on any other nation.

But then if our lists ended up clustering around average drilled all the time there would be litte point in having more than few generic lists.

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:05 pm
by richafricanus
The one thing I don't like about poor drilled vs avg conscript is that the poor can't give rear support to my superior Russian grenadiers.

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 1:11 am
by hazelbark
bahdahbum wrote: Honnestly what did you expect a only superior veteran army facing only poor conscript armies . Napoleon's victories had more to do with " less blunders" on his side than on his oppenent's side . The soldiers where often +/- the same with the exception of some veteran units ; In 1809 some french veteran units were still in Spain .
The french main Corps of 1805-7 and probably large parts of the 1809 army were decisively better units battalion for battalion against their foes. You can call it elan. But they were better trained and better led that the coalition forces. I'm not talking the Corps leaders, but the small scale they just were prepared for the modern combat that was upon them. This is partly demonstrated in game terms of reformed v unreformed.

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:26 am
by spearsup
richafricanus wrote:The one thing I don't like about poor drilled vs avg conscript is that the poor can't give rear support to my superior Russian grenadiers.
poor drilled can't give support to superior troops ?

Re: poor Nassauers 1815

Posted: Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:45 am
by LeslieMitchell
spearsup wrote:
richafricanus wrote:The one thing I don't like about poor drilled vs avg conscript is that the poor can't give rear support to my superior Russian grenadiers.
poor drilled can't give support to superior troops ?

I believe so