"Figure scale vs ground scale" Topic

Bill the noce thing about GC is that the stands on the magnetic bases can be placed to suit the eye. As I said previously the firing and combat values are decided by the formation the brigade is in, its pictuesque placement on the base isnt critical. If players like their brigades in a more linear style, no problem check this…
picture

This is a low angle shot of the way I space the stands on a magnetic base, strangely it alters the look towards what you like and looks linear like this..
picture

It really doesnt matter too much, the most important thing is that my system allows the players to choose how to depict their troops rather than being confined to how I like mine. There is nowt better than options and choice it appeals to a wider audience then.

No not so silly Ken, I would have thought that it was no different to the interval between companies when the battalion would be deployed in line? But maybe someone out there has easy accesss to the 1791 regs and can give us an authoritative answer.
Mike.

Official spacing between various ‘units' in a formation…. I would think that depends on the terrain, we wargame on billiard tables with terrain placed here and there. Real battlefields are cluttered with all kinds of stuff that units would have to traverse or go round. Having been all over Europe and visited many battlefields, from what I have seen when larger formations move they would need to have quite a bit of space around the constituent parts of the formation. For looks in 6mm I've chosen the battalion as the constituent part of a brigade higher formation, others may choose different.

One of the most maligned common terrain features is a hedge, they are treated as perhaps a bit of cover but gamers move their units over them with perhaps a small reduction in move distance sometimes they are ignored. I live in the wilds of Warwickshire and the hedges in all the fields round here are pretty well impenetrable. Likewise those I've seen pretty well everywhere in Europe. a 200yd ancient hedge would be a serious obstacle in any period. Hillsides with small rocky outcrops, gorse really steep bits would be a nightmare to move units up and down. quickly and in any sort of order. So what the drill books say about dressing and gaps probably went out of the window the day the troops left the drill square. The most important thing in a wargame is that the players like the look of their game.

I have a document on that and there seems to be four variations, re:

1. Division (full) interval, eg, interval = width of division,
2. Half division interval,
3. Section interval, and
4. Closed, or column of attack, which was 3 paces

The depth of a three rank line was 1.95 meters to include file closers. A pace was .65 meters and the frontage of a soldier 27 in.

Do the math. Perhaps this will further iluminate the point that while the formation might be in column, it may visually resemble a linear deployment.

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

Thanks Bill

That is the point I was hoping to get to, (didn't have 'official' intervals, only guesses). All formations except square would look linear from a distance. The falacy of line being long and thin while column is narrow and deep is a misconception put on us by the fact that it is impossible to rank up our figures in anything close to what the reality was. That is why when Inkbiz finally gets his 1:500 guys out I plan to get 2 btns of them with one in ling and one in column of divisions just to show what they really looked like!! (his figs will be properly proportioned so they will rank up correctly).

Ken

I do not know the answer, but presumably a battalion would often break down into companies to do various kinds of manoeuvres such as formation changes and passage of narrow defiles.

Ken:
Yeah, at full intervals a battalion column would be as long as it would be wide if deployed into line. With closed colums, a battalion would be no more than 25-30 yards deep AT MOST.

Most rules simply subsume [V&B or Grande Armee] or ignore [AOE] the depth of stands issue, as there is little that can be done about it.

As for the distances between companies, there wouldn't be any. As casualties were taken, the SOP was to close on the colors. For battalions, the spaces depended the tactical needs of the moment. For the French, the SOP was ten yards, but if there were artillery pieces or terrain issues, more space would be provided. And as an asside, the norm for artillery supporting infantry was to place the guns in the gaps 5-10 yards AHEAD of the infantry.

Sorry Ken, I misunderstood the question there – ditto what Bill said above really but the interval; full, half, etc. was a company width and not a division`s width, which is 2 companies.
Again, have a look at:
voltigeurs.populus.org/rub/7
for depictions of the full, half interval and close column.
Mike.

No, actually I am correct, but you are not wrong. I checked this with Nafziger, Zhmodikov and a couple of other sources, but the just of it is that per 1808 decree, when the battalion was in column of divisions, the division was the baseline interval, when in column of companies the interval was based on the company (called peleton by Napoleon). The illustration you cite is a Young Guard bn of four companies in column of companies. See image:

picture

This is most respects is an unresolvable issue, In AOE the frontage of the stands is dead accurate, but the depth is one inch, appropriate to other games such as NB and proper for the basing scheme I wanted to uses. However, at a scale of 1 in = 120 yards the depth of the base is too deep for closed column, yet too shallow for a column of divisions at full interval.

Regardless, and back to my original point, when you see the "linear" battlefield portrayed by Adam, LeJeune and others, is it really linear or do we see multiple columnns at full interval, as well as a closed column or two. Given the first photo of an actual formation in combat I know of comes from the FPW, these paintings are all we have to go on and I lean towards them being correct as they do seem consistent accross several artists.

Thus games like AOE and NB tend to duplicate the same linear appearance of these paintings so far as the M – 1 A1 eyeball is concerned, though the painting itself might actually portray columns in full interval.

Make sense now?

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

Bill, thank you Sir, I`m right and wrong at the same time!
Maybe could you direct me to the relevant text, or quote me those two gentlemen on the division interval.

Agreed, the depth "issue-thing" is practically unresolvable, but I don`t think that its quite an insurmountable barrier to gaming the period on a tactical level.

The battlefield was always essentially "linear" in that drill is based on forming a line and all columns are in fact made by successions of lines; be they in companies or divisions of a battalion.
But we have a weeny mental blindspot perhaps of not being able to see the lines for the columns!

Regards,

Mike.

The lines in columns certainly is a possibility, but that is not what is shown in the Wagram painting--there is a looong line with no repeats behind.

And the base depth is no more an issue than the frontage Bill speaks of. BOTH were flexible, and depended on a number of things. While the stand depth in AOE is too great for closed columns and too shallow for full intervals, like the frontage, the depth can be 'averaged'. The TYPICAL intervals in march and attack columns was quarter or half intervals, which would fit the 120" depth of an AOE stand.

Oh, and the purpose of the 'interval' was to determine what kind of spacing a column had for deploying forward or to the flank. Each deployment option was dictated by the size of the intervals between companies, and of course, was based on the frontage of the column, whether a company, division or even wing front.

Hence, to know what kind of deployment could be accomplished, an officer needed to know the formation, column of companies, divisions etc. and what intervals were used.

In a grand tactical game such as AoE, the base depths are not as major an issue as they are in a tactical game. The formations that AoE do not depict very well are close columns that consisted of brigades or even divisions formed on the frontage of a battalion, like those used at Waterloo or Borodino for example. In these cases the depth will be far too deep. When representing a line or double line of battalions, the depth of the base actually serves to represent the spacings that would have normally existed in real life.

In a brigade level game, the only full distance columns that need to be considered are those in which the entire brigade formed in a single open column of companies with the intention of forming to a flank. In these cases it is important to recognise whether the formation is left, or right in front, as this would have a massive influence on the speed of deployment.

captain snort mentions a column which is nearly forgotten now and is often ignored in period paintings , napoleonic movies or gaming, and thats the open column of peletons/companies.

It was the established infantry maneuver formation at the beginning of the napoleonic wars , the Allies until 1806 and the British until 1815 did use it nearly exclusively.

Even the French 1791 reglement puts the focus on this kind of column, the column of division is not mentioned at all and the similar colonne d´attaque is mentioned only in a side note, all line evolutions are regulated as wheelings with all variations of open columns, either of peletons or sections.

This column was as deep as the intended line was wide and was usually formed on brigade/division level.
The Allies at Austerlitz and Jena and Wellington at Salamanca and Vitoria did maneuver in this formations.

A simple and elegant, but perhaps not visual pleasing , way to reflect such a formation in smaller level tactical gaming, would be to use line stands as columns.
move the line sideways and you have an open column, might sounds odd at first, but wheeling into line or back in column did indeed require not more than 15 or 30 seconds, and the spacing of line/column was indeed the same.
In column the muskets would still face to one flank, but from the standpoint of tactical gameplay this would be an easy way to reflect if the formation did have the left or right in front.
Left or right in front was a key tactical problem and did actually define the maneuvers on the field.
An open column with the right in front would approach the field from the left and do a parallel march to the right flank before wheeling into line.
the formation can not form line in marching direction, but thats the essential drawback of linear tactics actually.
Still these formations could maneuver incredible quick for oblique attacks and flanking moves like old Fritz at Leuthen or Packenham at Salamanca.
just making parallel moves with line stands at column movement rates would be an easy way to reflect this.

wow, this thread has a popularity all of its own. For me, 1mm = 1yard is perfect. We call out every range in yards, not mm, or cm or inches. For example a range of 83cm would be called 830yards.

very simple.

CI wrote:
captain snort mentions a column which is nearly forgotten now and is often ignored in period paintings , napoleonic movies or gaming, and thats the open column of peletons/companies.

CI:
An open column is the same as a column at full intervals, regardless of whether it had a one company, two, or even three company frontage.

Threads in Napoleonics always tend to end up discussing files and columns and spacing and footprints and the space taken up by a bloke with his musket. Yet in wargaming at Division and Corps level and depicting such using model figures it doesn't have much worthwhile bearing on what happens on the tabletop. This is especially so when rules like my GC and Bills AoE both use the difference in D10's to decide combats. The huge difference between the possible scores can mean glorious victory or ignominious defeat with one cast of the dice.

wargame rules at this level have to be abstract in many areas, to then use minute detail to justify what is essentially an abstraction is oil and water. Terrain is mostly ignored in these types of discussions as if it wasn't an issue, when moving troops over all kinds of obstacles, spinney's of trees, walls, hedges tiny awkward water courses, hills, rocky outcrops, gorse fields, buildings, wet land, bogs and so on and so on, is far more of an issue than parade ground spacing's. Having good rules that portray terrain properly and in a worthwhile way and its effects is always well behind what Nafziger says about how long a pace was …..

MichaelCollinsHimself,

Various places but Nafziger, George F, A Guide to Napoleonic Warfare: Maneuvers of the Battery, Battalion and Brigade during the First Empire as Found in Contemprary Regulations, 1st Ed, privately published, West Chester, 1995, p 27.

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.com

Imperial Bayonets – G. Nafziger – brilliant book. well worth it for any Napoleonic enthusiast.

scotsman,
the column discussed in the last postings is the column of divisions with a 2 peleton/company frontage.
column discussions usually focus on the famous bataillon colonne d´attaque or colonne par division, both were double peleton columns which did usually maneuver as close column, or at not more than half distance.

cpt snort has actually mentioned the most prominent column in the first half of the napoleonic wars which was prominently used in all armies except the french, who did rarely use it, thats the open column of single peletons at full distance, which was used on the field usually not as a bataillon column, but as a brigade or division sized column.

Jomini in 1820 still describes the bataillon column as the "small" column, because even the french did have the habit to stack their bataillon columns into brigade or division columns for grand tactical maneuvers.

I don´t know who has brought up the term "interval", the term used in all period regulations I know is usually "distance", the term interval should be used to describe the spacing between formations on a parallel line.

CI:
Well, I wasn't suggesting that the term Interval was right or others wrong, only that they meant the same thing. The British used the term 'intervals', which is why I used it, but 'distance' works too. [Actually Bill G. brought it up.] I know the French, Russians and others used different terms, sometimes even translated into "Intervals" by authors.

The terms, whether distance or intervals, refer to a distribution of troops IN a column formation, not the column formation itself.

A company column, a battalion column, a brigade column, a bataillon colonne d´attaque or colonne par division ALL could be at formed at quarter distance, half distance, full distance or open column or closed. I can give you examples of all those at any of those distances. It all depended on the terrain, combat intentions, and the enemy fire.

The reason 'interval' is used to describe the spacing between columns is because it was a term used to describe the spacing between formations, whether in line or column. It was still the spacing between companies, battalions, brigades etc. And if you'll notice, a company column at half intervals is a formation in parallel lines.

And Hammer:

whether a company or a brigade, as in your GC or AOE, the 'footprint' the unit has is determined by the formations used which is determined by the deployments, which in the end are determined by the space a bloke takes up with his musket. That is why the 1792 French Regulations and Hardee's light infantry manual both start with "the space a bloke takes up with his musket, before moving on to battalions and brigades. It may be abstracted at your game level, but it still is what the abstraction is based on, or better be.

Captain Iglo,

I use the same system of "lines" moving sideways to represent open columns of companies, and it works very well indeed.

Although the British were the most linear of the later Napoleonic armies, they did not exclusively deploy from a parallel approach from open columns. There are famous examples of this manouvre at Salamanca and Toulouse, but these were genuine flank marches. If the columns were approaching the enemy head on, they usually closed up the intervals and then filed the companies into position. There is an excellent example of this happening at the Battle of Albuera with Stewart's division. At Waterloo also, all deployments were made on the head with some of the units actually forming up with the columns "centre in front" to speed up any deployment. This would apply to most battles.

Hammer:

As in figure basing, the seemingly essential details incorporated in any set of rules will be coloured by the individual's preferences. I would consider that anyone who thought that drill manoeuvres and frontage were beyond the scope of Grand Tactical rules did not really have a proper grasp of the period battles. Much in a Napoleonic battle was pre-planned, and brigade formations chosen to achieve the goal. Look at Pakenham at Salamanca as an example. His final deployment was envisiged while the commanders were 2.5 miles from their destination, and his men were formed for exactly for this purpose. Subsequent deployment in any other direction would have been difficult.

Scotsman,

stating that everything was possible with columns is correct, but explains not very much.
The purpose of all columns in the napoleonic era was still to form a line, either as the main purpose or at least as a necessary tactical option.
There were only two column formations in which this was practiced on the field.

one was the the open column at full distance in which all maneuver elements did wheel to a flank, the other was the masse which did form the line by file marching, in period language this second manner was called "deploying".

Wheelings were ideally practiced with sections or peletons at the most, there was no need to use double peleton columns of divisions.

deployments from masse were ideally practiced with double peleton columns.

wheelings could be practiced with columns of unlimited size, even the whole army could theoretically move in a single column.

deploying by file marching from masse was practicable only on bataillon level, longer lines did require moving into a line of columns at deployment distance before deploying.

If we analyze the french bataillon column by divisions from these basics , then its quite clear that this formation was meant to deploy from masse and not to wheel into line.

So before deploying into line it was in masse.
for movement it could use masse or closed column, which was actually a column at quarter distance, over rough terrain closed column might have been preferable.
because square was formed from column at half distance, maneuvering in column at half distance was actually a good idea, the column could still close ranks into masse easily for deploying and did already have the right distance to move into square.
There was no reason to move it at full distance, a column par division a distance entiere must have been quite a rarity on the field.

because of the square option half distance must have been quite popular.
For larger scale maneuvering in stacked columns of brigades or army divisions quarter distance closed column should have been preferable because of compactness.

if we ignore the square option, distances/intervals did actually play no real role for double columns, to deploy in line they had to close into masse anyway.
for those formations which were laid out for wheeling into line, keeping full distance was indeed essential, but these formations did usually have no double peleton frontage.

HammerWargames
''Threads in Napoleonics always tend to end up discussing files and columns and spacing and footprints and the space taken up by a bloke with his musket. Yet in wargaming at Division and Corps level and depicting such using model figures it doesn't have much worthwhile bearing on what happens……….''

Surely that's only true if you really are playing one base to one division, like in 'In the Grand Manner' or something.

Otherwise, if you have bases representing a battalion or parts of a battalion, then it's very relevent. One could could argue that having a commander who understands the effects of battlion formations and intervals and spacing, or choosing to not bother himself with such questions, replicates the exact difference between Wellington and Bonaparte at Waterloo.

If you're interested in it, you'll want to play it.

Oh No!
I thought this thread was about to peter out…
I'm losing the will to live here!

Cacky- good to see you back. Just kidding.
ITGM- 1:20 figure scale isn't it?

Hammer:

Actually, Packenham had his division in that formation, formed inverted for the better part of a week, with the intention of deploying to the left. Marmont and Wellington played tag and 'who can get the advantage' marching parallel to one anther from quite a while. But it is true, the formation the division held dictated what it could do and how fast it could do it, which required forethought and anticipating tactical needs.

TheScotsman,

I agree that Pakenham, and indeed the whole Allied army, had moved in this formation for the best part of a week, but the formation was not inverted in any way. It was right in front, with all the units in standard order of precedence within the brigades.

Captain Snort
''I agree that Pakenham, and indeed the whole Allied army, had moved in this formation for the best part of a week, but the formation was not inverted in any way. It was right in front, with all the units in standard order of precedence within the brigades.''

Toulouse with Beresfords 'corps' rounding the hill in column and then stopping and turning to face up the hill in the line so-formed is a good example but I don't know if we can dismiss them as 'flank marches'. Packenhams march was a right-left re-deployemnt but his actual attack was straight-ahead until he became visible and did his sidling manoeuvre. Some similar manoeuvres were done at Sorouren if I remember right.

SteveJ
Good to see you're still here. A Contributor! You going all establishment on us?:-)

Pakenham moved with all his brigades in column right in front, with the intention of "crossing the T" of the French position. Once in position each company quarter wheeled to the left and were in line instantly. A classic outflanking manoeuvre.

Captn Iglo wrote:
Stating that everything was possible with columns is correct, but explains not very much.
The purpose of all columns in the napoleonic era was still to form a line, either as the main purpose or at least as a necessary tactical option.
There were only two column formations in which this was practiced on the field.

one was the the open column at full distance in which all maneuver elements did wheel to a flank, the other was the masse which did form the line by file marching, in period language this second manner was called "deploying".

CI:
I am not sure where you get this idea. Here is two examples of troops that did not seem to agree with your assessment.

At Albuera, Sherer (2/34th) in the last regiment of the division's column , states that Stewart's entire division

"…formed in open column of companies at half distance, and moved in rapid double quick to the scene of action. I remember well, as we moved down in column, shot and shell flew over in quick succession ; we sustained little injury from either… all was hurry and struggle."

The closed to quarter distance to deploy into line. Where are your open columns [at full distances] or 'masse' ?

Here is another example from Alexander Zhamodikov's "Tactics of th Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars" page 18, vol. II:

"The term "Attack column" meant a column with the distances between itsuccesive parts qual to a half-frontage of a platoon, while the the term "closed column" mean a cloumn with the distances between its successive parts equal to three paces only, so a column might formally be either an 'attack' or a 'closed' column, but not both at the same time." Alexander finishes the paragraph by saying "The Russians had adopted the French system, but the use of the terms was probably still vague in 1812-14."

So a closed column is NOT a column at quarter distances. It was difficult to form lines from a closed column, which I am assuming is what you mean by mass. Forming line from columns in 'quarter distance' was a common practice.

CI wrote:
There was no reason to move it at full distance, a column par division a distance entiere must have been quite a rarity o the field.

CI: It was done, none the less. Here are the orders for the the Russain 6th Corps at Krasnoi [11/17/1812]: [Alexander's book, page 18, vol. II again]

"Under cover of the advance-guard, the 6th Corps… forms
columns of platoons at full intervals, [then] forms line and from the line immediately forms regimental attack columns (at quarter intervals) and marches forward…"

I can provide a whole raft of similar examples.

So, where are the half intervals and masse/closed columns?

Military men formed columns at a variety of interval distances for a variety of instances.

Captain Snort wrote:
I agree that Pakenham, and indeed the whole Allied army, had moved in this formation for the best part of a week, but the formation was not inverted in any way. It was right in front, with all the units in standard order of precedence within the brigades.

CN:
If you will look at a diagram of Packenham's march, IF the columns had been formed right in front, when the order came to face front, the column would have faced right. If they had done that, the order of precedence would have been 'inverted' or backwards. This would have put them with their backs to the enemy and the colonel in the back of the line, but all the officers in front of the line.

They faced left, [a form of inversion, opposite of the typical 'right in front' formation]. Because they were formed left in front, so when they faced front, it was to their left and the order was preserved, officers were behind the line, not in front of it.

It was purposeful.

TheScotsman,

In contemporary military terminology Pakenham's men were formed right in front.

Here is how Wallace's Brigade Major describes it:
"The division was soon under arms, and moved off rapidly in open column right in front, the 45th regiment leading…at last, having finally outflanked the French left, the whole formed line."

Right in front described which part of the line led the column. In a British battalion, a column right in front would be led by the grenadier company. If the column was formed by a whole brigade, it would be led by the grenadiers of the right battalion, which in this case was the 45th. There is absolutely no doubt that Pakenham was right in front at Salamanca, as the whole army had been during the parallel march.

A soldier of the 51st describes part of the parallel march thus:
"The enemy then broke into divisions of companies and marched off to their left. We also broke into open column of companies right in front and marched with the enemy on our pivot flank."

The French also used similar terminology. Marmont describes the march of his army as being:
"Gauche en tete, par peleton, a distance entiere: les deux lignes pouvaient etre formees en un instant par a droite en bataille."

So to sum up, columns formed right in front had the pivot flank on their left, columns formed left in front had the pivot flank on their right. There was no inversion of battalions or brigades at Salamanca, and indeed it was purposeful.

TheScotsman,

A further thought on your post:

I am not sure why you mention the positioning of the officers. In a column formed either left in front or right in front, the individual companies would be formed, and have their officers, in the same manner, it would be their numerical order front to rear that would be different. The only time that the officers would end up in front of the company is if, by some error, they had ended up "rear rank in front", which is a completely different matter.

How the hell did this get back on the home page?

I think we have officially lost the original topic.

Scotsman,
A column marching straight ahead with the right in front will form line to the left if you look in the marching direction, if it forms line to the right, the leading right flank company will become the left flank company and the rear rank the front rank.
Cptn Snort is very likely right.

thanks for the nice examples in response to my posting.

Basically I think that one has to establish a rule before discussing the exceptions, otherwise napoleonic tactics become a colourful flowerpot of all kinds of things, and virtually noone gets access to a highly fascinating topic, which is actually easy to grasp when the basic rules are understood.

The orders for Krasnoj obviously show an example for the doubling of columns, not more.
the fact that the Russians had to form a line for the transition from single peleton to double peleton attack column has something to do with the basic composition of the russian attack column.
its still a quite instructive example, before the transition the column on bataillon level was an open column about 25 m wide and 150 m deep, afterwards it was 50 m wide and less than 30 m deep.

Zhamodikow might be wrong, or at least draws misleading conclusions.
He states that the russian attack column was a quarter distance column and not a closed column.
This might have been regulated so, but the attack column was actually not defined by its distance.
The russian attack column was like the prussian Angriffskolonne or the french colonne d´attacque a double peleton column with 8 peletons of four companies(in the french case 8), it was laid out to deploy on the center by peletons.
These columns were called attack columns simply because they were not columns of divisions.
a division was two neighbouring peletons in a line beside each other.
An 8 peleton bataillon could not deploy on the center division by divisions for simple reasons of math,it had to deploy by peletons, and because of this, even with a two peleton frontage, the two peletons of a division were actually behind each other when in column, not besides like in a real column of divisions.
The term attack column was simply used because these columns were columns with a division frontage, but no real columns of divisions.
With these formations distance was no issue, they were meant to deploy from close distance by file marching.
they could maneuver at all distances, but for forming into line by deploying they had to close ranks.

The difference between masse, closed column and quarter distance is indeed an intersting topic in itsself.
The Austrians in 1807,1847 and 1862 did redefine the difference between masse and close column three times.
The Prussians in their 1812 reglement did just have the column at(full) distance and the closed column.

for those who chose to deploy(file march), distance did play no role, deployments were made at close distance, ideally from masse or at least close column.
technically file marching could even be made from full distance columns, but why do this? such a manner would have been much more complicated and the peletons had to be moved forward into line any way.
the perfect way to do this was to close ranks and then deploy. all regulations did regulate it this way.

I do indeed have problems with the Albuera example.

If the whole division was in a single open column of companies at half distance it would have been impossible to form a line by wheeling.
By closing into quarter distance there was still no option to wheel into line.
for "deploying" in the period meaning of the word(which is file/flank marching) a division in a single column of companies at quarter distance would still have been about 800 meters deep, no chance to deploy to the front from such a formation.

The way to do it would have been to seperate the single grand column in seperate bataillon columns, move these at the deployment points all along the line.
Then ideally each bataillon column would have closed and deployed with companies, alternatively(the widely regulated practice) the bataillon column would have doubled into columns of divisions(in the british regs grand divisions),closed and then deployed.

One of the conclusions I came to a long time ago has to do strictly with figure ratios IE 1:1 vs say 20:1. If you are playing one figure represents one man then I think anything but near, true ground scale looks ridiculous. You can forget the average height of a man, in so and so age and just use figure height equals six feet/ two yard. So for example a 6MM miniature would have a ground scale of 6MM equals 6ft or 6MM= 2Rd's. A 28MM equals 1IN= 2Rd's. I know this is simple stuff but I'm trying to be clear.
Once the ratio is higher then the scale or height of the miniature to ground distance is a matter or personal aesthetics or taste.

Captn Iglo wrote:
I do indeed have problems with the Albuera example.

If the whole division was in a single open column of companies at half distance it would have been impossible to form a line by wheeling.
By closing into quarter distance there was still no option to wheel into line.
for "deploying" in the period meaning of the word(which is file/flank marching) a division in a single column of companies at quarter distance would still have been about 800 meters deep, no chance to deploy to the front from such a formation.

Captain Iglo:
Well, you can say it, but the fact of the matter is that Stewart's division DID march out at half distance [Every account concurs] and did close to quarter distance to deploy--Which I might add was the common distance for deploying into line for the British. I can explain further, or provide further examples if you are interested.

Captains Iglo and Snort:

We seem to be talking at cross-terms here. I do agree that the regiments of each brigade were in procession order, with the senior regiment leading each brigade, so that when they faced LEFT, they would be formed in line with the senior regiment on the right.

What I am talking about what 'side' they are prepared to form on. They either had to have the column ready to form front on the left or on the right. They couldn't simply face any direction they wanted and keep formation. They couldn't have the back rank in front. That is a form of inversion. This problem occurs in several times during the Napoleonic wars. Even at Albuera. The 66th had to counter march [basically turn around] in forming line because of this problem.

The typical formation for a column was to face to the right to form line. To face to the left required forming with the left corner of the entire column being the front corner of the line.

Lots of technical needs in moving a large body of men efficiently.

Captain Iglo:

I'm trying to make this less of a single huge/lengthy post.

Iglo wrote:
So to sum up, columns formed right in front had the pivot flank on their left, columns formed left in front had the pivot flank on their right. There was no inversion of battalions or brigades at Salamanca, and indeed it was purposeful.

Captn:

Okay, semantics comes into play here, but in principle, I was saying the same thing you were. The typical formation was to 'form on the left' so that the 'front' would be to the right. Forming on the left would require the senior regiment to be in the rear if the brigade column was to form line with it on the right.

One of the problems is to know when others are using the period definitions or not-- "Inversion" comes several flavors and not all are mistakes or even bad. And of course, they differed between countries. Inversion referred to both getting a formation formed up backwards/ out of the SOP alignment AND a unit forming backwards from the typical alignement.

Dunas gives a good outline of inversion in his regulations.
So I agree with your assessment. I was pointing out that it was contrary to the typical array in that they were prepared to form to the left of the column. If you look at most battle, like Talavera for instance, the columns came into line and formed to their right.

Captain Snort:
I am not sure why you mention the positioning of the officers. In a column formed either left in front or right in front, the individual companies would be formed, and have their officers, in the same manner, it would be their numerical order front to rear that would be different. The only time that the officers would end up in front of the company is if, by some error, they had ended up "rear rank in front", which is a completely different matter.

CS: Exactly what would happen if they were ordered to face opposite the direction they were prepared to front to. In Iglo's terms, a column formed on the right asked to face fight would end up exactly as you describe.

I agree with all of the above -nothing to add..just wanna be part of this magnificent post

The Scotsman wrote:
"Exactly what would happen if they were ordered to face opposite the direction they were prepared to front to. In Iglo's terms, a column formed on the right asked to face fight would end up exactly as you describe."

If Pakenhams column had to be formed into line facing right instantly, the officers and sergeants would still remain in the rear rank. The companies would quarter wheel right into line pivoting on the right flank of each company. This would result in the whole brigade being inverted right to left, because all the companies would be in the wrong position. This was acceptable in an emergency, but not recommended, as any further manoeuvres would likely end in chaos. The rear rank would not end up in front. The most common cause of the rear rank ending up in front was if a battalion about faced in an emergency by having each soldier turn in place to face the rear. If the about face to the rear was to be permanent, the battalion would have to countermarch to correct the order and facing of the companies.

Scotsman,
I didn´t say that units with the right in front had the pivot flank on the left, I actually can not say where the British infantry in 1812 did have their pivot flank for wheelings, peletons theoretically could wheel backwards or forwards with the pivot on the left or right.
And I actually do not know if there was an inversion or not.

but if,as you wrote the intention was to form to the left, and if as Cptn Snort wrote, the formation was right in front, then everything was correct.

I understand right in front like the prussian/austrian "rechts aufmarschiert", this means the right flank company leading the column.
If we look along the marching direction of such a column and the column marches away from us, wheeling into line will make the line face left, if the line faces right then the right flank company is suddenly the left flank company.

I still cannot see how Stewart´s division could deploy from a single column at quarter distance. Its technically nearly impossible even on the paradeground.

The rules and regs address this problem actually in the chapter on the line, I´m trying to provide a link.

Here´s the link to the chapter in the rules and regulations were deployments with larger bodies of troops are discussed.

link

The regs state that occasionally up to 3 bataillons can deploy as a whole (quite bold in my opinion), but with good reason the recommended practice is to do it with single bataillons which have to be deployed in mass out of the grand column and doubling of peletons is recommended before deploying finally from closed bataillon column in line.

Endlessly debating Nappy formations has little to do with the question asked , or am I missing something?

Is the obvious solution (to the orginal question) to simply use rule sets that have everything in metres, yards, miles, whatever, just real units? Then you can pick the figure & ground scale yourself. There is one type of game that I play that I use at least three different ground scales and two figure scales (not all at once) depending on the situation that I'm trying to recreate.

Mike

Every once in a while a thread reaches a point where it should be just taken outside and shot.
We've reached that point…

Steve,

You're probably correct… the original question and thought behind it are completely lost by people arguing about formations which has nothing to do with his original question.

Nuke it… that's why I don't participate in the Napoleonic Boards. They're too bogged down in stuff that really doesn't matter. It's just a game, not a way of life.

I/S

Bill

I had been thinking that TMP was a good place to discuss the philosophy behind rules, along with the historical details on which they are based. I can understand people debating these issues and offering a considered opinion, but to just barge in and attempt to end a thread with purely negative comments is beyond my comprehension. There is always the option to ignore a thread that you are tired of isn't there?

True Scale wrote:

"Why don't rule writers provide their rationale for selecting specific ground scale?

For example "15mm" figures are ~1/120th (1mm = 14.3cm), but what is the scale for "2.5cm = 120 yards"? This works out to 1mm = 1.5m / 1.37 yards, or…~10 times the figure scale. That is a whooping 1/1200th!

Have I got that wrong?

Cheers
Greg"

Just so the fanatics and the "easily offended", who have taken this thread into areas completely away from True Scale's question understand, here is his original post with his original question about "rules writers ground scale intentions/justifications"… I/S