hello Mr Cornwell. I have read your Sharpe series with great admiration, but something has been niggerling at me from reading it. If the french column never worked against the British then why did the marshals continue to use it? Why not revert to line and pound the British that way? It seems the logical solution? And also, why didn't the french generals ask for rifles, even a coupple of regiments with them would help? thank you for your time. Chris
Even Napoleon understood that for a column to work against a well-disciplined line then you first had to soften the line with artillery. He blamed his marshals for not doing that. The French stuck with the line because it had worked remarkably well against other armies, and because it was a fairly easy way to take a mass of not-very-well-trained troops into an attack. Remember they are relying on conscript armies, basically a mass of young civilians forced to serve whether they want to or not, while Britain has a 'volunteer' army of long-term professionals. But the French aren't fools. By Waterloo they are trying two variations - the first is to massively increase the number of skirmishers (who will help to soften the line) and they attempted to move into line themselves once they were close to engagement - so d'Erlon's Corps advanced in column (because that was the quickest way to move a mass of men over a considerable distance) and then they tried to deploy into a line - unfortunately for them they were hit by heavy cavalry just as they began to unfold, and that was the end of that.