Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I understand that not all IG have lasrifles or use modern tactics. For those that are still at a Napoleonic level of warfare, how do they fare when facing enemies such as Eldar or Tau, as surely they'll be blown to bits? Do the Munitorum just let them get on with things and get massacred due to the expendable nature of guardsmen, or would they actually train and equip them for war in the 41st millennium, as PDF or tithed regiments?

Well, some regiments only use outdated technology because they might come from a planet that has been cut off from Imperial supply for millennia. Most of the time, if the munitorium can arm guard Regiments properly, they will.
Most of the time when facing more technologically advanced races, the guard take heavy losses regardless, but will usually outnumber the foe several times over.
Humans are not so stupid that they will continue to use clearly bad tactics, even the most ruthless and old school commander wants to win battles, so if a tactic clearly doesnt work, they will try to adapt.

Well, maybe. In certain cases, a world's honor is at stake, and since their great-great-grandfathers defeated a Chaos Cult army using the musket-line and bayonet-charge tactics then, by the Throne, it's good enough for today's soldiers to use!

Humans *are* clearly so stupid that they will continue using out-dated tactics and inferior equipment, precisely because they believe in things like honor and pride and martial tradition. This is why some of them still ride giant birds or horses or dogs or whatever into battle against tanks.

Ah, but the have explosive tipped lances, which clearly catches them up to the 41st millenium.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I would assume that if a commander is that dumb his men just frag him.

It's stated in the IG 5th ed codex that some Regiments are raised with only muskets and some only with spears. In these cases, they're probably just going to end up being cannon fodder to distract enemy forces.

Harriticus wrote:It's stated in the IG 5th ed codex that some Regiments are raised with only muskets and some only with spears. In these cases, they're probably just going to end up being cannon fodder to distract enemy forces.

The minority though. The Imperium aren't stupid, military equipment would be a priority when a world is assimilated into the Imperium.
It's like sleeping on a matress when you move into a new house - doable, but you need the right equipment really.

In my opinion its rediculous to fight a modern battle on line. People learn from history. Fighting on line might be good against tyranids that only have claw and fang to kill you with, but against eldar or tau or csm its utterly pointless and complete suicide. As we say in the marines fire without movement is pointless and movement without fire is suicide

No doubt it is suicide to fight a line battle against Eldar, or in fact any other army in the 41st millenium, but if a PDF regiment is on a planet which was essentially at a level of technology similar to the 18th century here on Earth, that's probably all they'd know. So I guess if they were tithed they'd either be trained and equipped suitably, or be used as cannon fodder. Despite the latter option being downright foolish, many IG commanders are of this mentality (like Chenkov). As a PDF, I suspect their out of date tactics would lead them to be killed to a man even faster than other PDFs. However, which of the two possibilities is more likely to occur?

I take it as the Space Marines dresses up like sore thumbs idiot tactics are okay. Seriously that should not work at all running around in blue suits on a battlefield. I have only seen incompetence at the level the Ultramarines in the movie displayed once, they started arguing right infront of my position (which was behind a tall fence in a forest). Was five shots, and five kills for me. Was paintball of course.

But SM have reinforced ceramite, so they dont really have to worry a whole lot (unless against strong firepower)

I think tactics with IG regiments varies depending on the environment and the paticular regiment. Catachans in a jungle will use stealth tactics, but when they fight in a no-man's land, they're out of their comfort zone.

Also, IIRC, the only IG regiment I remember using Napoleonic tactics were Mordians... Isn't trench warfare the most widely used tactic for Guard?

Mordians and Praetorians are well known ones, but even they have lasguns. With the size of the Imperium, especially considering there are worlds with only savages on them, there are bound to be armies similar to those of the Napoleonic era.

While it may be true that there are barbaric and even medieval era worlds in the Imeprium - most of them don't even see war in the entire time of their existence as a part of the Imperium. However, if Munitorium thinks that one of this particular worlds is in danger from Ork invasion they train PDF solder of that world to use Lasguns.

"Modern Tactics" doesnt mix well with 40k where going up to your opponent and wacking a giant stick over his head is one of the best tactics there is


No one knows what "Air Superiority" means


That said you do have a wide spectrum of IG regiments. From Nordic Beserkers and Remus "Gladiators", to the elite Terrax Guard and airborne Elysian

kenshin620 wrote:
That said you do have a wide spectrum of IG regiments. From Nordic Beserkers and Remus "Gladiators", to the elite Terrax Guard and airborne Elysian

And you have a wide spectrum of imperial worlds, from stone age to forgeworlds.
Who says the "napoleonic era" regiments aren't sent to a "medieval era" world ?
Who says figthing like a phalanx wouldn't work against barbarians barely equipped with stone axes?

Its all about the right place.

I'd never really considered that 1hadhq. Even so, it's been argued that Alexander the Great could have beaten Wellington simply because line fighting was pretty slow and inefficient. However, the likely hood of there being a Napoleonic IG force is small, and more so is that of them being deployed against more primitive foes. I can see them being decimated by Tau and other such foes. Perhaps I'm deviating slightly off topic here, but how would a cannon fare against a carnifex/ Rhino/ Power armour. Likewise for musket fire.

Brother Thomas wrote:In my opinion its rediculous to fight a modern battle on line. People learn from history. Fighting on line might be good against tyranids that only have claw and fang to kill you with, but against eldar or tau or csm its utterly pointless and complete suicide. As we say in the marines fire without movement is pointless and movement without fire is suicide

Yes and no. The IG gunline is a hell of a thing.

I like to use the Leman Russ as an example. The Leman Russ features large flat side panels, which are extremely vulnerable to flanking shots. By modern standards, thats a huge flaw. But the Leman Russ is fielded in incredible numbers over concentrated areas, such that anyone able to get a flanking shot is also exposed to fire from other Leman Russ behind, beside and infront of them.

Similarly, digging into a gunline might seem ridiculous by todays standards, but anyone able to fire on that gunline also exposes themselves to tremendous amounts of return fire.

While the Imperium doesn't just throw away men, it must be remembered that a trained and equipped guardsmen is one of the cheapest and most expendable resources in the galaxy. If it takes forty or fifty [u]million[/i] casualties to wipe out a small Tau outpost, those are lives well spent.

Thing is you have to consider the psychological aspects as well as the martial ones when discussing fighting in close formation. The great advantages of standing in a close formation is that you know you've got a chap to your left and one to your right and that there are more behind and then behind them. You're not on your own. Adding in the nasty gribblies of the 41st millenium, I'd not want to be on my tod. Safety in numbers, by having them fighting right next to you, will keep you fighting on - you don't abandon your mates. You might be told you're fighting for your Emperor, or for the Imperium, or for this planet, or for your regiment, but it's your mates you really fight for.

Banzaimash wrote:I'd never really considered that 1hadhq. Even so, it's been argued that Alexander the Great could have beaten Wellington simply because line fighting was pretty slow and inefficient.

I don't think you have a good understanding of Napoleonic warfare or the reasons it was practiced. "Slow and inefficient" is hardly an apt description. It was, where it was practiced and with the technology used, the most dangerous and efficient method of warfare that had been developed up to that time.

The ability to raise massive regimens of troops with only a few weeks of training, equip them with ranged weaponry that ALSO acted as a fairly decent spear, and sustain a fairly constant rate of fire was devastating and unprecedented.

Even their brightly colored uniforms and loud instrumentation was a calculated trade-off. Yes their troops lost camoflage ability, but they gained increased formation movement speed and the ability to actually command a battle.

Camoflage is all good and dandy, but is really only important during the opening moments of skirmeshes, not during pitched battles. And when a gun can't reliably hit a target at 10 feet; when you only have trumpets, drums, and runners to command your troops (which means you need line of site and visual cues to be able to tell what is going on); the guy who can control his troops the best and the longest is going to win.

All those fancy uniforms and hats, big flags, and musical instruments were there to allow a commander to do just that. And it was a devastating combination in the open fields of Europe.

As for Alexander the Great...he used phalanx formations backed by cavalry. His troops were even more slow moving and locked into formation than Napoleonic armies. If anything he stands as a perfect example of how ability to command and hold formation trumps freedom of movement and ability to hide.

As for how this works in 40k...not well. Accurate, rapid firing weapons like las guns do not benefit from line formations. Armies with radar and radio (vox) do not benefit from fancy uniforms.

The Moradians and their like are one of the harder things in 40k for me to find justification for beyond 'humans being hidebound and dumb'.

In comparison colorful SM make perfect sense to me. They are a psychological terror weapon, and living, breathing propaganda. They WANT to be highly visible, as it greatly spreads their effective impact against their most commonly encountered opponent, i.e. other humans. Why kill one man from the shadows when they can kill that man, AND send the other 50 men who see them running in terror at seeing (what they believe to be) literal angels of death from a vengeful god reaping amongst them?

@riplikash: Very informative post, I actually didn't know any of that.

The trouble with imperial guard tactics is that they are fighting with a very different mindset to us. Guardsmen are about as cheap and easy to find as bullets are to us. What does it matter if you spent 1000 bullets, if the target is dead, the mission is complete and you have a million more?

I think you all forget the reason why things dont go down the way they do in our world is scale.

Also IG regiements=/=PDF.

Yes PDF probebly have some weird gear from planet to planet. But the trademak of the IG is the lasgun. If you dont have a lasgun, you are not an IG.

I Also doubt the imperium would even bother sending napoleon style IG regiments on any front. It's just pointless and bad for moral.

I think it's likley that many PDFs are roughly at a napoleonic level of tactics, but also very unlikely that such troops would be inducted into the Imperial Guard without adding new weapons.

Imperial Guardsmen are a little bit like gravel: they cost nearly nothing, but can be expensive to transport.

The Munitorum doesn't care how many PDF die because they like muskets and sabres. They care very much about how many regiments they need to ship across deep space.

Let me start with the one thing that isn't represented well enough in 40K: The munitorum. The organization which re-supplies the IG after the first batch of equipment/ammo/fuel is used up. The ones for the basic stuff. Like food....
They do their best to standardize everything the IG uses and equip those not meeting the standards.
This could be a lasgun, but sometimes its a lasgun additionally to the 'archaic' equipment the unit already has.
A 'feral' human is still a human that may learn to use a lasgun.
To stop the use of cavalry charges for example could cause bigger problems than to teach a stone age human a lasgun isn't a club...usually.
Because pride and tradition are also motivations for 'primitive tactics' . Like fielding cavalry when industrial worlds spawn new chimeras all day long, in their hundreds and thousands.

Banzaimash wrote:I can see them being decimated by Tau and other such foes. Perhaps I'm deviating slightly off topic here, but how would a cannon fare against a carnifex/ Rhino/ Power armour. Likewise for musket fire.

The pointy sticks still do fine against threats of the 40th millenium if the fluff isn't a lie...
But yes, cannons and muskets aren't useful against technologically superiour opponents.
The galaxy is a big place and most planets aren't threathened by xenos or the minions of chaos regularly.
Worlds may prosper without strangers visiting them for millenia.

mayfist wrote:

Yes PDF probebly have some weird gear from planet to planet. But the trademak of the IG is the lasgun. If you dont have a lasgun, you are not an IG.

I Also doubt the imperium would even bother sending napoleon style IG regiments on any front. It's just pointless and bad for moral.

Looking at the models and examples found in Guard codices, napoleonic style seem ok if a lasgun replaces the 'primitive' gun. CCW are somehow there, thanks to the fantasy part of 40k. Bayonet charges.... are found in codex IG... So its a main-weapon swap.
Codex IG 3rd ed provided a few styles for Guard to get inspired from. In 5th , only the commonly known are kept.

riplikash wrote:
As for how this works in 40k...not well. Accurate, rapid firing weapons like las guns do not benefit from line formations. Armies with radar and radio (vox) do not benefit from fancy uniforms.

The Mordians and their like are one of the harder things in 40k for me to find justification for beyond 'humans being hidebound and dumb'.

Line formations are fine against rebellious populaces....
The Mordians IMO have a theme of highly disciplined troops, great fire discipline and taking orders without messing them up ( re roll ? ).
The speciality, closed ranks providing precise firing in a dense urban environment could break most uprisals. So a rather "Garrison duty"
Regiment to keep things in check . Maybe one of the boring jobs which never win you a place in the spotlight ( until your fortress is the last barrier to stop a threat ) . Its our creativity that gets them to hold the line, a line but not typically a outdated line formation.

Aren't the 'primitive' tactics also the fault of GW's pictures?
How many times had GW lined up models in pretty outdated formations and put even those with great range too close ?
Filled a Codex IG with charging the enemy, napoleonic style. Had IG with an officer corps, that is a copy of the napoleonic era?
Too many things are not as 'modern' as one would expect. Personal armor for example. Look at some of the officers. All this adds up to an image of IG stuck between the ages. With IG , you have access to "air-cav" and real Cavalry , at once in the same army.

riplikash wrote:The Moradians and their like are one of the harder things in 40k for me to find justification for beyond 'humans being hidebound and dumb'.

Well...

riplikash wrote:In comparison colorful SM make perfect sense to me. They are a psychological terror weapon, and living, breathing propaganda. They WANT to be highly visible, as it greatly spreads their effective impact against their most commonly encountered opponent, i.e. other humans. Why kill one man from the shadows when they can kill that man, AND send the other 50 men who see them running in terror at seeing (what they believe to be) literal angels of death from a vengeful god reaping amongst them?

Same thing for the Mordian Iron Guard. When the Mordian Iron Guard takes on the forces of renegade/seperatist worlds their uniforms advertise two things;

1. We don't care if you see us, we're going to kick you in the balls no matter what you do. Be amazed and stunned by the full glory and magnificence of our brilliantly attired regiments coming to wage war on you. Emperor grant you messy buggers mercy, for we shall not!*
2. If the renegades have heard of the Iron Guard then they'll be scared already. To an extent like the Death Korp, the Mordian Iron Guard has a hard time running away. They stand their ground, soak up enemy fire, accept their losses and fight on, because to break and run will just mean they will die tired and who'd run with the baleful gaze of the Sarn't-Major glaring at them, ready to shoot the first man who takes a step back.

There is also the factor that people are forgetting that the Mordian Iron Guard are based off of Imperial armies c1820/30-c1900 so they fight in the same way because the regiments & armies they're based off used those tactics in their era. If all Guard regiments fought using contemporary tactics & strategies all Guard regiments would be like Cadians & that would be so damned boring!

*Check contemporary accounts of Napoleon's army lining up opposite Wellington's line at the valley of Mont-St.-Jean (or Battle of Waterloo if you will). From the ones I've read the parade ground display of Napoleon's troops was a breathtaking spectacle, an army of around 100,000 men, fully bedecked in its finery going to war. Now multiply that to a regiment with twice the number of men Napoleon had in his army and imagine the effect on the enemy, a stolid wall of faces indifferent to death, marching to the sounds of pipes and drums, banners fluttering above their ranks, ground trembling from the thunder of boots pounding down, down, down, down.

riplikash wrote:

Banzaimash wrote:I'd never really considered that 1hadhq. Even so, it's been argued that Alexander the Great could have beaten Wellington simply because line fighting was pretty slow and inefficient.

I don't think you have a good understanding of Napoleonic warfare or the reasons it was practiced. "Slow and inefficient" is hardly an apt description. It was, where it was practiced and with the technology used, the most dangerous and efficient method of warfare that had been developed up to that time.

The ability to raise massive regimens of troops with only a few weeks of training, equip them with ranged weaponry that ALSO acted as a fairly decent spear, and sustain a fairly constant rate of fire was devastating and unprecedented.

Even their brightly colored uniforms and loud instrumentation was a calculated trade-off. Yes their troops lost camoflage ability, but they gained increased formation movement speed and the ability to actually command a battle.

Camoflage is all good and dandy, but is really only important during the opening moments of skirmeshes, not during pitched battles. And when a gun can't reliably hit a target at 10 feet; when you only have trumpets, drums, and runners to command your troops (which means you need line of site and visual cues to be able to tell what is going on); the guy who can control his troops the best and the longest is going to win.

All those fancy uniforms and hats, big flags, and musical instruments were there to allow a commander to do just that. And it was a devastating combination in the open fields of Europe.

As for Alexander the Great...he used phalanx formations backed by cavalry. His troops were even more slow moving and locked into formation than Napoleonic armies. If anything he stands as a perfect example of how ability to command and hold formation trumps freedom of movement and ability to hide.

As for how this works in 40k...not well. Accurate, rapid firing weapons like las guns do not benefit from line formations. Armies with radar and radio (vox) do not benefit from fancy uniforms.

The Moradians and their like are one of the harder things in 40k for me to find justification for beyond 'humans being hidebound and dumb'.

In comparison colorful SM make perfect sense to me. They are a psychological terror weapon, and living, breathing propaganda. They WANT to be highly visible, as it greatly spreads their effective impact against their most commonly encountered opponent, i.e. other humans. Why kill one man from the shadows when they can kill that man, AND send the other 50 men who see them running in terror at seeing (what they believe to be) literal angels of death from a vengeful god reaping amongst them?

To quote Black's 'The Battle of Waterloo, A New History', "Alongside the relative infrequency of hand-to-hand fighting, the accuracy of muskets and indeed, of most musketeers was limited, which led to the deployment at close range. In 1985, the historian Arthur Ferrill discussed how the Macedonian leader Alexander the Great, popularly regarded as the greatest general in antiquity, could have beaten the British at Waterloo in A.D 1815, an argument that was an ironic commentary on the apparent timelessness of conflict between the two periods. Ferrill conceded that the classical world lacked firearms, but he argued that the effectiveness of the latter in 1815 was not a quantum leap greater than those of the projectile weapons of the classical period, namely arrows, spears and slings."

Make of it what you will, but the experts seem to believe that the Napoleonic war machine wasn't all too efficient. It was line fighting, the method by which, in it's simplest form, two armies lined up and shot each other until one side broke or was destroyed. The quality of troops was measured quite simply on their discipline and ability to reload quickly. The volume of fire was therefore more important than the accuracy, and for these volleys of fire to be effective, the troops were needed to be close to their target. Therefore, you can see from my basic understanding of Napoleonic warfare, I comprehend that camouflage plays no part in it, and in fact could even be seen to have some negative effects. Firstly, in the smoke generated by muskets, it would be easy to mistake your own troops for enemies if they all looked similar. Secondly, for force commanders looking toward their forces, the ability to distinguish their troops would be necessary for them to actually be able to command them. Both are mentioned in your response I have merely elaborated upon them with my understanding. I just don't see how camouflage has come into the equation at all; camouflage only really began being used in a widespread manner by the British in India (Khaki), much after the Napoleonic wars. Perhaps your being befuddled and confused my good (wo)man.

Banzaimash wrote:
To quote Black's 'The Battle of Waterloo, A New History', "Alongside the relative infrequency of hand-to-hand fighting, the accuracy of muskets and indeed, of most musketeers was limited, which led to the deployment at close range. In 1985, the historian Arthur Ferrill discussed how the Macedonian leader Alexander the Great, popularly regarded as the greatest general in antiquity, could have beaten the British at Waterloo in A.D 1815, an argument that was an ironic commentary on the apparent timelessness of conflict between the two periods. Ferrill conceded that the classical world lacked firearms, but he argued that the effectiveness of the latter in 1815 was not a quantum leap greater than those of the projectile weapons of the classical period, namely arrows, spears and slings."

Make of it what you will, but the experts seem to believe that the Napoleonic war machine wasn't all too efficient. It was line fighting, the method by which, in it's simplest form, two armies lined up and shot each other until one side broke or was destroyed. The quality of troops was measured quite simply on their discipline and ability to reload quickly. The volume of fire was therefore more important than the accuracy, and for these volleys of fire to be effective, the troops were needed to be close to their target. Therefore, you can see from my basic understanding of Napoleonic warfare, I comprehend that camouflage plays no part in it, and in fact could even be seen to have some negative effects. Firstly, in the smoke generated by muskets, it would be easy to mistake your own troops for enemies if they all looked similar. Secondly, for force commanders looking toward their forces, the ability to distinguish their troops would be necessary for them to actually be able to command them. Both are mentioned in your response I have merely elaborated upon them with my understanding. I just don't see how camouflage has come into the equation at all; camouflage only really began being used in a widespread manner by the British in India (Khaki), much after the Napoleonic wars. Perhaps your being befuddled and confused my good (wo)man.

While I get what the historian is saying, I think it only applies to a limited scope, e.g. the killing power of a single unit, and overlooks the big picture.

The power of the Napoleonic war machine went much deeper than their ability to win a single battle. It is true that a unit of well trained archers could combat a line formation on relatively equal terms, and that the ability of line formations to project force wasn't significantly greater than that of ranged infantry of previous eras.

But it takes years to train up an archer. The British had a popular saying, "If you want a great bowman, start with his grandfather." In comparison you could train up a unit of line infantry in as little as two weeks.

The quantum leap of the musket wasn't in killing power, it was in the ability to raise large armies of solders in weeks who had comparable killing power to armies of warriors that took years of training.

The importance of the bayonet should also not be underestimated. Where classical ranged infantry had no defense against cavalry, line infantry could form an effective and deadly spear wall.

I have to say though, even though I would agree that many ancient armies could effectively combat a napoleanic one, I am skeptical that a macedonian greek army under Alexander could. He favored phalanx formations and light cavalry, exactly the sort of warfare Napoleonic armies excelled at.

Also, boiling Napoleonic tactics down to "two armies lined up and shot each other until one side broke or was destroyed" is to grossly underestimate the advances in command 'technology' that had occurred since the time of Alexander. In most ancient battles command was limited to pre-battle plans, the occasional runner, leading from the front. During the time of Napoleon numerous other methods of dispatching orders had been developed. From the use of instrumentation at the unit level to high level signaling systems, armies in the Napoleonic age had many more command options than available to them than their classical counterparts.

Finally, in regards to camouflage, I wasn't necessarily responding to you in particular. Usually when people discuss the 'inefficiencies' of Napoleonic warfare they are in part making reference to the predominance of pageantry and brightly colored uniforms, in the mistaken assumption that they were 'just for show', and had no military value. There had also been some discussion of how Space Marine's brightly colored armor was a drawback, so I was addressing the fact that being highly visible is actually a benefit for certain types of warfare (in this case, line warfare and terror warfare).

In conclusion, while from a certain perspective it is true that Napoleonic warfare was "inefficient and slow", I think leaving it at that is to ignore the vast advances in military technology that produced it. It is true that no single aspect of it was significantly beyond what could be achieved in a single battle in ancient times. But all the different technologies combined, both in battle and outside of it, to produce an efficient and dangerous 'war factory'. In a way it was the industrial revolution of war. While the 'craftsmen' warriors of previous generations may have been able to compete on an individual basis, they would not have been able to compete on a grand scale.

I don't think I shared this sentiment yet, but I just love primitive guardsmen. It's really one of the neat things about IG. They cover all styles of warfare from tribal gang fights to world war 2 tench warfare.

Some of these tactics don't work well when fighting some enemies. Like trying to go tech warfare when fighting the tau. The thing is some work rather well. Like going tribal guerrilla warfare when fighting the tau. It's up to the Munitorum to make sure that the right units are sent to fight the right battles.

nomotog wrote:I don't think I shared this sentiment yet, but I just love primitive guardsmen. It's really one of the neat things about IG. They cover all styles of warfare from tribal gang fights to world war 2 tench warfare.

Some of these tactics don't work well when fighting some enemies. Like trying to go tech warfare when fighting the tau. The thing is some work rather well. Like going tribal guerrilla warfare when fighting the tau. It's up to the Munitorum to make sure that the right units are sent to fight the right battles.

QFT.
Its all about having the right troops at the right war zone at the right time and used the right way

fighting in a line can work against certain foes, especially when everyone has a semi-automatic weapon.

Orks and Nids come to mind as a good enemy to use this against. You can maximize your firepower for the width of your line and so blanket the area.

riplikash wrote:The importance of the bayonet should also not be underestimated. Where classical ranged infantry had no defense against cavalry, line infantry could form an effective and deadly spear wall

While I agree with the rest of your post, I feel I should mention that the efficacy of the bayonet was due almost entirely to the inferior nature of Napoleonic cavalry. Against lance armed heavy horse of the earlier periods a bayonet or square formation would have been drastically less effective.

Kaldor wrote:

riplikash wrote:The importance of the bayonet should also not be underestimated. Where classical ranged infantry had no defense against cavalry, line infantry could form an effective and deadly spear wall

While I agree with the rest of your post, I feel I should mention that the efficacy of the bayonet was due almost entirely to the inferior nature of Napoleonic cavalry. Against lance armed heavy horse of the earlier periods a bayonet or square formation would have been drastically less effective.

That's true, but again, I think it is misleading to call Napoleonic cavalry "inferior". Most Napoleonic cavalry was light cavalry, swift and well suited for cutting through light infantry. While heavy lance cavalry may have been more effective against braced bayonets, it would also be far less effective at accomplishing Napoleonic cavalries primary duty, e.g. flanking light infantry and cutting them to ribbons.

Napoleonic armies didn't suddenly lose access to all previous periods methods of warfare. Heavy, armored lance cavalry just lost its use on the battle field. In an era of artillery and massed light infantry, heavily armored cavalry was too easy lose, too slow, and not really that effective when it got where it was going, being all overkill force in the initial strike, but lacking staying power.