The Battlefield : Concealements

[zu Pferd]

  'Extensive woods and forests were not common on battlefields for much the same reason
as generals avoided fighting in cities, but copses, orchards, olive groves and even small woods
were not infrequent, having much of the same effect as other rough ground:

checking the momentum of attacking troops and giving cover to the defenders.

cavalry and artillery were at great disadvantage in such conditions,

which were best handled by light infantry who were used to act independently.
Fighting could soon slide into indecisive skirmishing if the attacking force lacked the momentum
to press home, and if the defenders failed to counter-attack.
Occasionally a general would rest the flank of his army on a wood, as Wellington did at Quatre Bras
and Villars at Malplaquet in 1709.
At Waterloo Wellington fought in front of the Forest of Soignes, and it has long been debated
whether this would have seriously impeded his retreat in the event of a defeat.....

Many battles were fought over cultivated ground and in summer the tall crops (higher then modern
varieties) could sometime impede the passage of the troops.
Sargent Anton, of the 42nd Highlanders, remembers that at Quatre Bras:

              The stalks of rye, like reeds that grow on the margin of some swamp, opposed our advance;
the tops were up to our bonnets, as we strode and groped our way through as fast as we could.
By the time we reached a field of clover on the other side we ere much straggled; however we
united in line as fast as time and our speedy advance would permit.

Such grain could also conceal the presence of hostile troops, even cavalry on occasions--
leading to disastrous surprises, while it provided good cover for skirmishers.
In late summer, crops or even dry grass could pose another menace if it caught fire,
ignited by shells, burning wadding from artillery...such a grass fire would cause disorder
among even the best disciplined troops...

Hedges could also conceal troops, and if well maintained might be a serious obstacle to
passage of the infantry and cavalry alike. Even a slight straggling hedge or low stone wall
was a psychological barrier, checking an advance and encouraging an even more determined
defense...one Highlander is emphatic in describing the reluctance of men in kilts to push
their way through thorns !

Rivers and streams were quite common and often a major effect in shaping the course of the battle.
One of the worst positions an army could find itself in was with a river immediately to its rear
and a stream cutting a right angles to its front. (the Russians at Friedland)  Crossing a river  in
the face of an army posed great risks (the French at Aspern-Essling)
Here and at Wagram, Charles did not attempt to defend the actual river line, but let part of the
French army across and then tried to destroy it before it could be reinforced or withdrawn.
Most commentators agreed in preferring this method over a passive linear defense of the
riverbank..( Wellington, the crossing of the Douro at Oporto in 1809 and the Bidassoa in 1813)

Streams on the actual field of battle could also have a significant effect.
At Ligny the Prussian position appeared very strong: a winding, marshy stream run along the foot
of the valley passing through number of villages. But there were disadvantages: as Wellington
pointed out, the Prussian reserves on the slopes  behind the villages were exposed to French
observation and artillery fire; even more seriously the stream was an obstacle to movement
in either direction and this enabled Napoleon to contain Thielmann's corps on the Prussian left
for much of the day with only a few thousand men...Smoke and the carpet of the dead  and wounded
which littered the field also were features created by the battle itself...'we were enveloped by|thick smoke
we every instant expecting through the smoke to see the enemy appearing under our noses, the
smoke was literally so thick that we could not see ten yards off (Waterloo) But this cannot be
regarded as typical. Waterloo was an unusually small battlefield with a high density of soldiers and
particularly intense fighting. Evidently there was little or no wind , and both Hougoumont and La Haye Sainte
caught fire adding to the murk...in and around contested villages such as Schonefeld at Leipzig.

And there is no doubt that when battalions of infantry became locked in an indecisive firefight they would
soon surround themselves with a dense cloud of smoke through which they could scarcely see the target
and which greatly contributed to the stunned daze they often sunk.... '

from Rory Muir   Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon

[[NBC]Friant]

Interesting reading...
We used to have massive discussions over at NBC during our campaigns about why specific features and locations on a particular battlefields became areas where most of the action was fought.
Gunner would always argue that, why fight over a village etc., when you could go round it, and I would argue that, that was the way it was... From reading many books on the subject there were always locations on the field of battle that were hotly contested...
I see his point now, he was thinking logically, and I was thinking more historically...
Really neither of us is wrong I suppose...
Given time the defender is always going to pick ground that will give him an advantage, and when we played our campaigns most of the battles just happened with not a lot of thought about the terrain. Gunner would try to match the terrain with what was on the campaign map...
We tried to use a points system on battlefield, giving the attacking side objectives, and the defending side areas to defend, obviously these became focal points for fighting...
I would argue that any sheltered terrain on a battlefield is very important to the common soldier, probably more so in Napoleonic times, due to the nature of the weaponry, ie the cannon ball, the mounted cavalry etc., any wounded soldier with an ounce of will would have tried dragging themselves to some form of shelter to avoid the stray musket ball, cannon ball, probing bayonet and trampling cavalry?? I would imagine it wouldn't be long before these 'shelters' filled with wounded and they themselves would have become focal points for defending the wounded?
The beauty of the HW map editor is that a map can be built very, very quickly, but a quick map does not always produce a good battle, I think when building maps more time should be taken over building it, thinking about the style of warfare to be fought on it. Certain features ie, thick forests will make it difficult for the ai to perform properly, especially in central locations on the battlefield etc.
Wellington's ridge line at Waterloo is a prime example of good ground for the defender, and hats off to the French here for producing a near victory against this terrain...
Borodino for example, when there were no natural features to defend, they built the great redoubt and fleches, these in turn became massive focal points for action...
Stalingrad, not in the same era i know, but after all the lessons of warfare throughout history this battle was fought over the worst possible terrain for warfare at the time... These battlefield hot spots just seem to naturally develop around something?
 

'Extensive woods and forests were not common on battlefields for much the same reason
as generals avoided fighting in cities, but copses, orchards, olive groves and even small woods
were not infrequent, having much of the same effect as other rough ground:

Just some things to be considered when map building I suppose...

[Gunner24]

Interesting topic.  Some of this must have been about exactly WHERE it was possible to deploy 10,000s of troops AND have a chance to keep some control over them......with no radios etc etc..........and most important of all, the defended position was blocking the road to somewhere considered vital, and that block could not be just "anywhere" at random, but normally very carefully selected by one side or the other.

Some chat about that over at nbc here -
http://napbc.freeforums.org/hw-ap-information-topic-t6497.html

Gunner would always argue that, why fight over a village etc., when you could go round it, and I would argue that, that was the way it was... From reading many books on the subject there were always locations on the field of battle that were hotly contested...
I see his point now, he was thinking logically, and I was thinking more historically...
Really neither of us is wrong I suppose...

I like it when two people can discuss a subject, with two different views, and both be right !.