[A F]

Har postat detta på några andra listor, därav språkvalet. Synpunkter är av stort intresse.
__

   Napoleonic urban combat. Consider this

• Does folks agree that this seem to be the normal pattern of Napoleonic urban combat? In cases such as Aspern, Gross-Görtchen and Plancenoit the "main street bum rush" seem to have been the way to go when you attacked a village. You charged down the main street and somehow flushed out whoever was trying to defend the houses along the street. Once broken through the dispersed defenders would pull out to avoid being captured and would soon rally somewhere nearby. As standing around cheering in a village street meant you where setting yourself up as a artillery target, the attackers themselves soon dispersed. This is almost a mechanical law. A good defender blocked the main street and held a few companies ready to counter-rush down  it, but that was about it.

• Troops dispersed among buildings do not seem to have suffered much from artillery. Nor do they seem to have been able to use fire to stop the next main street bum rush comming to town before it entered it. Still one dispersed, probably in order to survive. But why did one not bring in guns to beef up ones' defense? I can not think of a lot of cases where you read about batteries emplaced among buildings.

• Villages/buildings only seem to have been hard to assault if they where walled. The Grainary at Essen has no windows,  Hugoumount was surrounded by a high wall and so on. This makes perfect sense. You can't get to the other guy. Can it on the other hand be that fighting in accessible places without good streets to rush down (The Great Garden in Dresten, Spanish village mazes) inevitably bogged down into endless cowboy & indian-exercises because there was no way to get things moving?