"French Regimental command" Topic

Would someone please enlighten us to the functon of the French Regiment commander. I would assume that the commands to battalions would come from the Brigade commander. If so where does this put the Regiment commander(s)?
It seems to me that the regiment command would be more administrative than tactical. I don't know, I've not been studying tactics of the era in great depth. I've recently taken up playing tacticaly,and I see the wealth of knowledge in this forum in such matters.
Thank you in advance…
John B

Assuming you are referring to an infantry Colonel, you are right, it's mostly an admin position. Except when: A. he's serving as brigade commander, or B. he's serving as senior battalion commander. Both occurred, the former more frequently.

Do you have a citation for this?

I would have to disagree with your assessment of a French infantry regimental commander. He was also the tactical commander of his regiment, and if his unit was 'split' as sometimes happened when the regiments became larger and one or more battalions could have served in another theater, in which case the major would command the other 'echelon' of the regiment. The regimental major was senior to any of the chefs de bataillon.

The only way I could see the regimental commander being the brigade commander is that the brigade only consisted of one regiment, which did happen from time to time in the Grande Armee. It could also happen as the generals of brigade that were assigned to a corps could be used for special missions, as Davout employed his in 1805-1807 from time to time. I have never come across a situation where the senior chef de bataillon was the regimental commander or vice versa.

So, in summary, the billet of regimental commander was both a tactical and administrative billet and was not 'mostly an admin position.'

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin, check the OB's for the Peninsula. You will often see a Colonel commanding a brigade. And brigades that consist of single regiments.

Yes, that was one of the options that I listed if I'm not mistaken. I also mentioned that some brigades consisted of only one regiment. In that case, the brigade and regiment are synonymous.

It has nothing to do with the regimental commander being a 'mostly' administrative posting.

Sincerely,
Kevin

I know that Davout's 1812 corps had numerous brigades that were single Regiments of 5 battalions…I guess another question to ask is Who commanded the Brigade if more than one regiment constituted the Brigade?

The generals of brigade who were assigned to the respective corps.

In 1811 and 1812 'majors en 2nd' commanded the second half of the large regiments. The colonel commanded the first two or three battalions, the 'major en 2nd' the last two. In effect there were 'two' regiments. The general de brigade then commanded these 'two' regiments.

In my research on this issue, I found that most of the 'majors en 2nd' were promoted during the June 1812 reviews, prior to entering Russia.

The major (major en 1er} was in command of the depot. As the depot units were sent into the field, one will find majors commanding units composed of depot companies.

Another rank, 'colonel en 2nd', was created to command provisional units.

Steve

…so,brigade commander handed orders to each regiment commander? And in turn the regiment commander ordered battalions, right? Excepting what was stated about the larger multi battalion regiments,of course.
John B

Generally speaking, that's correct. There are more than enough accounts of regimental commanders leading their regiments in combat. Lejeune refers to the 84th and 92d Ligne being commanded by their regimental commanders in the fight at Graz in 1809. Napoleon's Finest has accounts of regimental commanders doing what they were supposed to do with the regiments they commanded in III Corps from 1805-1807.

All of the brigades in III Corps were commanded by generals of brigade. Their casualty rates were quite high. Of the 8 original brigade commanders, 6 of them were killed in action, mortally wounded, or disabled by wounds during the period.

…Thanks for the info. I'm trying to figure out what command levels I need for tactical level. It seems to me that a brigade commander would give certain orders to each battalion if a brigade was composed of two regiments. This of course would possibly be bybassing the regiment command to a degree…

Normally a brigade commander would not, unless he was assigned, as could have happened in Spain, he had battalions from different regiments and no interim commander between he and the battalion. It is easier as a commander to give instructions to a fewer number of subordinates. So, if brigade commander has two regiments in his brigade, he only has to tell two people, instead of, say, six, for the number of battalion commanders he has. And, as the brigade had no administrative ability or responsibilities, it really makes it a lot easier.

The Brigade commander would normally direct/give commands to a directing or regulating battalion of the brigade, and all the battalions would conform to its moveents, rather than messages being sent to each regiment.

Kind of, 'I'll tell George what to do, and the rest of you follow him'.

Just seeing the number of Légion d'Honneur crosses and other honours bestowed upon Colonels, it seems doubtful theirs was a mostly administrative task.
The Lt.Col. commanded in their absence, not while they were around to lead their men.
To this day, the rank and appointment of "colonel chef de corps" is one of the most prestigious in the French army.

Musketier,

Sorry, no Lt.Col. during the 1er empire. Senior chef d'bat perhaps.

Steve

The major was senior to the chef d'bataillon.

The major was generally not with the regiment in the field. I recall the 'unfortunant' Marbot commanding the 23e in Russia as a chef d'esc.

AS I recall, Marbot was the regiment's major or the major en second. In that capacity, he commanded the regiment in Russia as the regimental commander couldn't make the campaign.

In 1811 Napoleon ordered that majors en second be named/promoted to accompany the regiments in the field as a second in command. If the regiment was split, the major would then command the second part of the regiment as a provisional command.

It should also be noted that the Young Guard regiments were commanded by majors as were the provisional regiments of Oudinot's Grenadiers, termed regiments d'elite, in 1806. Each of these regiments had two 6-company battalions.

Per the Quintin's book of colonels Marbot was never a major (1er or 2e):

Chef d'escadron 4.vi.1809
Colonel 15.xi.1812

The majors en 2e purpose was, as stated earlier, to command the last two battalions of large regiments in the field. It was not "a provisional command". As an added bonus, the major en 2e could take over the command of a regiment if the colonel was incapacitated. Presumably, the senior chef de bat would then command the last two battalions.

I was, of course, talking about the line. The rank you mention for the guard is major commandant.

The majors en second also commanded part of the regiment if the regiment was deployed separately. That would be a provisional command, as would one that was separated into two units if serving together.

If Marbot was not officially nominated as a major, or confirmed in that rank, he was still commanded the regiment in the CO's absence, which was the job of the major en second or the major if he wasn't at the depot.

You are overlooking the actual situation that occurred more often than not after the invasions of Spain. There is a difference in what was supposed to occur and what did in practice. Many regiments were separated between Spain and other theaters, in which case one of the majors would command the other element of the regiment.

From Dictionnaire de la Grande armée – Alain Pigeard

Major en second
L'ordonnance du 17 mars 1788 reconnaissait encore le grade de ces officiers mais celle du 1er janvier 1791 les abolit. Il faut attendre la circulaire du 6 fructidor an XII (24 août 1804) pour que soient créés les postes de colonels et de majors en second, afin de commander les corps provisoires dont on peut ordonner la formation (Quillet, t. 1, p. 51). Les majors en second réapparaissent ensuite en vertu des décrets des 9 mars et 23 avril 1811 ; il en est créé une vingtaine attachés aux bataillons de guerre pour l'infanterie et une dizaine pour la cavalerie (J.M. 1811/1, p. 232). Vers la fin de l'année 1811, l'Empereur juge utile de ne plus nommer que des majors en second et supprime les colonels en second. Alors que les majors demeurent dans les dépôts, les majors en second ont l'habitude d'accompagner à la Grande Armée la portion active de leur régiment.

I also looked in Quintin, can you find the reference for Marbot being major en second I will amend my records if this happended.
The 23e colonel retired 8 august so there was no official colonel till Marbots appointment 15 novembre.

Kev,

1) "The majors en second also commanded part of the regiment if the regiment was deployed separately. That would be a provisional command, as would one that was separated into two units if serving together."

"I think hairs are being split here to no purpose." The implementing legislation is quite clear. Read it.

2) "If Marbot was not officially nominated as a major, or confirmed in that rank, he was still commanded the regiment in the CO's absence, which was the job of the major en second or the major if he wasn't at the depot." Come on, give us a break! Marbot either was or was not a major. He was NOT according to the Quintins, the list of promotions in the 3 vol French edition of his memoires, as well as on his officer ‘control' for the 23e (I have a microfilm copy of the archive document). This horse is DEAD.
3) "You are overlooking the actual situation that occurred more often than not after the invasions of Spain. There is a difference in what was supposed to occur and what did in practice. Many regiments were separated between Spain and other theaters, in which case one of the majors would command the other element of the regiment."

I, of course, am not "overlooking the actual situation that occurred". Spain, as in so many other ways, was an aberration in this regard. It was full of ‘ad hoc', provisional, units. 1813 would be another similar situation. Again, the major's function, in the French army, was to command the depot. They were not with the regiment in the field, until the resurrection of the old royal army rank of major en 2e. It was still the function of the major en 1er to command the depot.

Circumstances, both in Spain and in the grande armee of 1813, did cause majors en 1er to take the field provisionally as provisional commanders of provisional units. As pointed out earlier, the colonel en 2e was a cadre of ‘regimental commanders' set up for the purpose of commanding provisional regiments. I believe this rank was also resurrected so that majors (en 1er) could remain with their depots.

Note: The guard rank should have a hyphen – major-commandant.

NB: Col Antoine Valentin La Nougarede-Lagarde (14.xi.1767 – 8.iii.1853), the colonel of the 23e, was present during the 1812 campaign. He was "admis a prendre sa retraite" on 8.viii.1812 and returned to France. He was promoted a colonel on 15.xi.1808. He did not reach the rank of general. His health had been poor for a number of years prior to 1812.

I don't think anyone else is interested in this discussion.

Steve

Marbot refers to himself as the senior chef d'escadron and he was specifically assigned to the 23d Chasseurs to command the regiment as the CO was too ill with gout. Therefore, he held the billet of second in command, or what a major would hold, though apparently he wasn't assigned the rank. And he was promoted from senior chef d'escadron to colonel, which is in effect skipping a rank and merely confirming what his billet actually was in Russia.

Gentlemen, Please post a chain of command. I think that would help everybody (especially Me!) I'm not too familiar with the french terms,totally.
Thanks.
John B

Kev,

You are right! I forgot about the French rank of ‘should have been major'. All persons promoted from ‘chef de bat' or ‘chef d'esc', without being promoted to major first, held this rank. NOT!

Kev, I think if you review the Quintin ‘colonels' book you will find that most colonels did NOT hold the rank of major [en 1er]. Most ‘majors en 2e', however, were promoted to colonel, as were most ‘colonels en 2e'. The normal ‘career path' in the French army of the Nap Era would be from ‘chef de bat'/'chef d'esc' to colonel (or its equivalent). Major [en 1er] was often a pre-retirement job, for older or injured ‘chefs de bat'/'chefs de esc'. Their experience was needed to train the recruits.

Marbot " was specifically assigned to the 23d Chasseurs to command the regiment as the CO was too ill with gout." Well, that is Marbot's story anyway. Do you have any other source supporting Marbot's statement? Marbot was truly a legend in his own mind. <;^}

Steve

Steve you 'should have been comedian' LOL, sorry Kevin but it was funny

Salut à tous,

for the ligne, one need not add anything to the excellente explanantion of "Steven H Smith"

One can give even another exemple from the chasseurs à cheval, it is for the 6e chasseurs, from the Henckens – a senior chef d'escadron had some hope after filling the vacancy of the colonel to have this promotion …. but it went to a young officier of the état-major. there is no discussion of the major.

also, the situation for Cent Jours is not so clear. there were senior chefs d'escadron promoted major under the 1ère restauration, who would then continue to serve as chef d'escadron (so one sees the break between the rang of the person and the rang of the function, as was also seen under the ancien régime). look for this most in the low-number régiments that were given royal names. it is interesting, because there were rumors about these becoming a new Garde, while the real Garde was sent away from Paris

lastly, after Cent Jours, the lieutenant colonel was put back into operation, and the "major" was then purely a function, actually to be filled by a chef d'escadron. also, the promotions of the Cent Jours were taken away, and the personal records changed.

So the personal records can be a little difficult for 1814-1816 in these rangs !

but for 1800-1813, there is no question not perfectly answered by the messages already posted

--------------------

for the garde, one becomes curious about the "major-commandant".

one should say that there many sortes of majors in the garde, but who is this one ?

A a chef de bataillon (de la Garde), ayant le rang du major (his own rang, in the registres of the armée) – is this him (in effect it is common to give the name "commandant" for a chef de bataillon, but it is not usually official, unless he is commandant of a place or a formation) ?

B or is this the correct name for a major (de la Garde), commandant d'un régiment de la Jeune Garde ?

C if not, please explain to me which major we have, and from which décrets that he is found (if you know this from your memoirey)

Thank you !

- un ami

In Quintin lists majors of the garde eg. page 922+ also for example the Grenadiers à pied we have

Colonel-général
Colonel commandant
Colonel en second
Major (–commandant ?)

Marbot's Etats de Service from

Mémoires du général Bon de Marbot, vol 3, p [423]ff:

link

Maison militaire de S. M. L'Empereur from the Almanach impérial of 1812, p 85ff:

link

This lists all of the guard officers with their rank from early 1812.

That's OK Graf-no harm done.

I think the point of the exercise though is that Marbot held the billet of major of the regiment whether or not he held the title. He was the de facto second in command of the regeiment and became its actual commander. We're once again dealing in semantics to a certain degree.

Regarding the title of a major in the Imperial Guard, I do think that using 'major' instead of 'major-commandant' is acceptable. We don't need to be overly pendantic.

Sincerely,
Kevin

"I think the point of the exercise though is that Marbot held the billet of major of the regiment whether or not he held the title."
The ‘billet' of major was with the depot, not with the regiment in the field!

"He was the de facto second in command of the regiment …."
There wasn't any ‘second in command' in French line regiments of the period.

"We're once again dealing in semantics to a certain degree."
Indeed, Marbot was NEVER a major in any unit. A major was the depot commander.

"Regarding the title of a major in the Imperial Guard, I do think that using 'major' instead of 'major-commandant' is acceptable. We don't need to be overly pendantic."
If by ‘overly pendantic (sic)' you mean accurate, I disagree. Again, look at the legislation – is it ‘major' or ‘major-commandant'? ‘Pedantic' has nothing to do with it – it is either accurate or not, nez pas?

Those for 1807-14 looks good!…

(Perry 28mm)

Amicalement
Armand

That's a really nice sprue.

Yes you can quote all the ranks and all the roles, but they did not all coexist at once or in isolation.

Assuming is what the OP did or does believe, and the modern military hype that 'admin' takes precedence over service.

Colonels were and will forever be the moral, tactical and actual leaders in battle, when they are present.

The rank of Major was reintroduced (emphasis on the re-) by Napoleon to distinctly serve the role of Chief of Admin at the depot/ caserne of the regiment, while its Colonel was in service duty. As stated he outranked any C-d-Bon etc.

He was strongly in charge of all features, not least conscript training, uniforms and equipment, discipline and deserters, and more training at all levels of command. Napoleons insistence that active and vigorous individuals held this post is driven home in much correspondence (from 1803~).

He did not see it as a sinecure for an aging and withering individual. (Contrary to other nations habits).

Similarly, with enlarged (4+5 war battalions) regiments the ranks of '-en-second' were created to fill the widening void- both in administrative but of all on campaign command. Again not least because of the 'composite' nature of the Iberian campaigns corps and division of regiments across several theatres.

'-Commandant' is a word attachment, meaning very clearly that an officer is acting in a higher capacity and has authority. It is endemic throughout bureaucratic history and government departments. I don't see why it cause such anguish in these cases. While it is usually temporary, it can also 'stick' with a certain role or situation, usually with a suitable 'stipend' adjustment and privileges to go with it.

La Garde Impériale, as always, is an exception to nomenclature and roles, even in French. Napoleon overloaded his Garde with commanders.

Regards d

@armand

Nice, inadvertent, thread necro.

X-ref to: English equivalents of French Ranks