Trokoshea | 20 Dec 2007 7:11 p.m. PST |
Hi, For the year 1812, would anyone have an idea of the organisation and command of the prussian troops NOT involved in the russian campaign? I know it's a tough one but I feel one of you is up to the task. ;-) Thanks in advance, Eric |
Oliver Schmidt | 21 Dec 2007 2:31 a.m. PST |
From 1808 onwards, the whole Prussian army was (already in peace time) organised in six mixed "brigades" (in fact: divisions) of infantry and cavalry. In addition, there were three "artillery brigades" (= artillery regiments), one for every two of these six "brigades". And of course, there were the pioneers, and garrison units (of soldiers who had become unfit for field service, but who still could perform guard duties in fortresses) and invalides. To form the Prussian Auxiliary Corps, some battalions and squadrons from every regiment (except the guards and cuirassiers) were mobilised and combined in new provisional regiments. Those parts of the units which were not mobilised, stayed home with their respective brigades. Their strength and distribution to garrisons and fortresses can be found in "Das Preußische Heer der Befreiunsgkriege", pp. 563-567, 585-589. |
Oliver Schmidt | 21 Dec 2007 4:04 a.m. PST |
You can find the allocation of the regiments to the six brigades between 1808 and early 1813 here (PDF file in German, have a look on pages 2 and 3). Just ignore the numbers, which were not part of the regimental names, and are partly even wrong for the hussars above Nr. 4. The regiments were always refered to by their provincial names only (e.g. "2. Schlesisches Infanterie-Regiment") |
Trokoshea | 21 Dec 2007 4:27 a.m. PST |
Danke Oliver, Aber, welche PDF? |
Oliver Schmidt | 21 Dec 2007 12:14 p.m. PST |
Sorry, I forgot to attach: PDF link But in the meantime I found an even better list, without errors concerning the numbering of hussar regiments: link The 2. Brandenburgisches Husaren-Regiment deserted in 1809 with its commander, Major von Schill, and was annihilated by Dutch and Danish forces in Stralsund. In its place, in 1809 a 3rd Ulanen-Regiment was raised, later (in 1810 I believe) namend Brandenburgisches Ulanen-Regiment. |
Trokoshea | 21 Dec 2007 7:22 p.m. PST |
Wunderbar! Fielen dank! And if I can be of some help myself, don't hesitate. :) |
McLaddie | 24 Dec 2007 2:47 p.m. PST |
Concerning the Prussian OOBs: Does anyone know the maneuver unit below the Prussian brigade organization. Did the 'brigade' battalions into discrete commands below the brigade level? As Prussian brigades were 5000+ troops with 8 or more battalions, were battalion independent, or were Prussian brigades still the 'maneuver unit' as were brigades in other armies? |
summerfield | 29 Dec 2007 10:52 a.m. PST |
Dear Scotsman I am not quite sure what you are meaning here. Infantry were in Regiments of three battalions. These would act in concert as "Brigades". Two would be Musketeers and one Fusiliers (light infantry). This would apply to IR1-12 plus Guard zu Fuss. The III Bn of Reserve Infantry Regiments could be designated as light infantry. There are a number of occyrences when a whole regiment was deployed in open order even Landwehr. The Prussian Brigade should be considered as a Division with the Infantry Regiments as Brigades in wargames terms. This gives the flexibility that was inherent in their design. It was a very advanced organisation that is still to be seen in many modern armies. Stephen |
hos459 | 29 Dec 2007 5:53 p.m. PST |
If you read through the Prussian 1812 regulations (part is online on napoleonseries) the Division effectively fought as each of the 3 lines. So in practical terms, the manouver unit below the 'Brigade' is each of the lines. Presumably (biut not explicitly stated from memory) with a regt commander controlling each line. Daryl |
McLaddie | 30 Dec 2007 10:22 a.m. PST |
Stephen and Daryl: Thanks. That's what I needed to know. I have been looking at some of the Prussian OOBs for 1813 and 1814, and couldn't see any clear organization within the Brigade, particularly when several were filled with odds and ends of regiments and landwehr
|
Oliver Schmidt | 30 Dec 2007 2:27 p.m. PST |
See some info concerning the development of the brigade structure from 1808 to 1815 here: link |
McLaddie | 31 Dec 2007 1:52 p.m. PST |
Thanks Oliver, that helps. Just out of curiosity, what is a "Normal Battalion" in the Prussian OOB? It is nice to know that something was normal about the Prussians. Also, they had eight gun batteries, right? |
summerfield | 31 Dec 2007 2:13 p.m. PST |
Dear Scotsman Yes the artillery was based upon 6 guns and 2 howitzers. The 12-pdr battery was the exception. The Normal Bn was a training battalion formed in 1811 to teach the new drill. It was formed by drafts from all the Regiments. In 1813, it became part of the 2nd Garde zu Fuss Regt. Each line was normally a Regiment and was commanded by Regimental commander. It gave great flexibility. In terms of wargamming this gives a "divisional" commander and 1 or 2 brigade commanders. Each brigade commander for two infantry regiments (line, reserve or Landwehr). The "divisional" commander for the cavalry and artillery plus Landwehr. The mix and match nature makes this very useful for specific tasks. It was ahead of its time. Currently finishing a book on the Prussian infantry so thank you for pointing out what people are looking for. You could contact me off-line if you wish. Can be contacted through Napoleon-Series. Stephen |
hos459 | 31 Dec 2007 5:22 p.m. PST |
Stephen if you are writing a book on the infantry could I ask you to re-consider the line that "each line was normally a regiment", as I believe this to be very confusing for anyone looking at both the historical examples, but also the 1812 regulations theory. In the theory, the typical Division deployed as 2-3-2 (Bn's per line), so how do you resolve this with a 'regiment per line'??? I've looked, and struggled to find an example of regiment per line. While no where specifically stated I would think a regiment commander would be assigned to a 'line', and presumably the line containing mostly his own battalions, but rarely exclusivly so. Daryl |
summerfield | 31 Dec 2007 6:45 p.m. PST |
Dear Daryl Without siting there with pen and paper it is difficult in words. For example The Brigade consists of 1st IR (2 Musketeer + 1 Fusilier) = First Line 2nd IR (2 Musketeer + 1 Fusilier) = Second Line Light Cavalry (2 Sq) [Deployed on the wings or in reserve] Foot Battery [Deployed in two half batteries] Because the First Line has the senior regiment, the commander is senior to the other battalions. The line of command for the infantry is Brigade Commander ("Divisional") IR Commander (Brigade) RIR The Cavalry and Artillery are directly under the command of Brigade Commander. When Landwehr was attached as well. Now it is upon seniority that this would work and upon supports. Fusiliers in skirmish order would be subordinate to those designated to screen. Therefore the 1st IR commander could have under his command two Fusilier Bns to screen him directly in front of his two musketeer Bns with the 2nd IR in the second line as reserve. The cavalry and artillery would be under the command of the Brigade commander. I am not sure I am explaining this well. Better if drawn out. F F F F F F F F MM MM MM MM MM MM MM MM Please reply if I am getting somewhere. Stephen |
hos459 | 31 Dec 2007 7:20 p.m. PST |
We seem to be starting from 2 different points – would I be right in saying that layout you are starting with is NOT taken from the 1812 instructions? As I have it
.. Advanced Guard: Fus/2nd Regt Fus/1st Regt 1st (Main) Line: 2/2nd Regt 1/2nd Regt 1/1st Regt 2nd (Reserve) Line: 1/1st Regt Gren Bn. My assumption (again, nowhere specificaly stated in the regulations I can find) would be that a Regt Commander would control a 'line' each, and I can think of 3 variations of who controls what that could be justified in one way or another. Your layout gives equal numbers of battalions in each of the Main and reserve lines, yet the regulations spend a great deal of time talking about the 'normal' situation being an uneven number in these lines, and how to adapt to different numbers (uneven) of battalions in the brigade from 'normal', and hardly even discuses the situation of an even number. So, I would think that if you are writing a book attempting to explain such things, that by talking about an even number as in your example you will cause massive confusion when people go from your specific (and somewhat isolated) example, to historical (and for that matter theoretical) examples. All the best Daryl |
summerfield | 31 Dec 2007 7:44 p.m. PST |
Dear Daryl I take your point. My explanation was upon a wargamers view and trying to simplify to make it work. In the case you have above you have given the Brigade in Attack formation. The Advance Guard would be under the Fus/IR1 commander The 1st Line under I/IR1 commander (according to the diagram rather than II/IR1 in the centre). 2nd line under the Grenadier commander. This is working off seniority. The command of the whole brigade would be under the Brigade ("Divisional") commander. This also comes from the understanding of the regulations of Frederick the Great that would likely be more familiar to officers. I am still trying to work this through. It should also be remembered that many of the Brigades in 1813 had infantry brigades under assigned staff officers. The articulation is interesting when dealing with the stacked brigade. I have not attempted to explain the combined arms system in this Volume. This is for a later volumes. It is all about space and whether it can be adequately addressed. Stephen |
hos459 | 31 Dec 2007 8:04 p.m. PST |
Hi Stephen, In the 1812 regulations the same layout applies to all the formations (advance, bayonet attack), anti-cavalry etc) the difference basically being in the battalion formation, and the positioning of supporting arms (cavalry/artillery). Do you realy mean the 1st (Main) Line would be under the I/1stIR Commander (ie the Battalion commander), or under the Commander of the 1st infantry regiment? I have some understanding of Fredericks writings but am not sure what your refering to in terms of this. The examples given in the regulations place the senior battalion on the right, as would be expected, but that doesn't in nay way imply that battalion commander commands the line (even in Fredericks day). I would think the regt commanders would each be assigned a line. I think what you've done (converting to a convenient 'square' organisation) actually would cause confusion rather than remove it. I can see where it could come from. The push in many circles for a 'Grand tactical' set of rules where the smallest manouver element becomes the brigade, or regiment, leaves us often with the question of how to represent a historical deployment using regiment 'blocks'. In the case of the Prussian 1812 regulations I believe the answer is we simply cannot, since the regiments are effectively broken up, and battalions assigned to lines (effectively I suppose you could say the regiment is the administrative grouping, and the line the tactical). This is often the case, and something simply lost in that approach to rules design (IMHO). My personal belief is that the typical 'gamer' is far more capable of (and 9 times out of ten craves for) a detailed explanation that they can then look at historical examples and say 'oh, I see', and it is far easier to 'step back' to a game design abstraction once the historical details are established. All the best Daryl |
summerfield | 31 Dec 2007 8:22 p.m. PST |
Dear Daryl I will have to sit down again and look at this again. Thank you for your comments. The Plans from the 1812 Regliment (a poor photocopy alas) show the I/IR1 in the centre of the Brigade (centre of the 1st line flanked by the two IR2 musketeer bns. This being a diamond formation as you indicated of 2 Fus -3 CO-2 CO. In the Bayonet attack the Fusiliers are retired to the 2nd Rank. The problems with the Regulations of 1812 were the Brigade structure changed in the period but the fundamental parts of this did not. There were only 2 squadrons of cavalry rather than the 12 squadrons and only one foot battery. The Grenadier Battalion was replaced by Landwehr. Remember the lines could be reversed. The senior battalion would seem to take the centre. You would then need to go through the Regimental histories to find examples of attacks and my impression is that they are as I have poorly attempted to describe. As you realise I am trying to sort through the German text as I speak. It is rather unclear as it is assumed. Stephen |
hos459 | 31 Dec 2007 8:39 p.m. PST |
Hi Stephen, sorry, your correct, typo in my diagram. 1st Line should be 1st (Main) Line: 2/2nd Regt 1/2nd Regt 2/1st Regt The regulation diagram doesn't state which regiment the battalions are from as you say, I've added the above to my notes from a semi-educated guess. This I base on the regulations statement that the 1st Bn of the senior Battalion is in the Reserve (on the left of the Grenadiers). This (to me) leaves the 1st line as (Right to left, in descending seniority) The remaining battalion of the senior regiment (I designate 2/1stIR). The senior battalion of the junior regt (1/2 regt) The junior battalion of the junior regt (2/2 regt). Somewhere I have notes on the deployment as 3 regiments (ie including the Landwehr), I'll see if I can find them. Daryl |
summerfield | 31 Dec 2007 8:54 p.m. PST |
Dear Daryl It is getting a little clearer but as you say still not as clear cut as it should be. I would still contend that the I/IR1 would be in the centre of the 1st line. This gives the senior infantry commander the most control. Also thank you for pointing out the arrangement to me. I had nievely taken it as the Regiments in different lines rather than the core of the lines being the senior IR flanked by the IR2. This makes sense. The senior regiment would be the most experienced and so could form line flanked by IR2 in column etc. Also the formation works turned through 90 and 180 degrees. I had not considered that. Now I need to go through and look at attacks by Prussian Brigades. As noted the Brigades that the 1812 Regliment did not exist in 1813. The premise for them did. Each line was 150 paces from the next. HmmmMMM. I am starting to understand better but as you have stated the command needs to be considered. Stephen |
hos459 | 31 Dec 2007 8:59 p.m. PST |
OK, here is a collection of various notes and extracts of conversations mostly from the Napoleonseries: Instruction given by Blücher on 8 June 1815, and printed in von Conrady's "Leben und Wirken des Generals
Carl von Grolmann", (Berlin 1895), vol. 2, p. 289 ff. Tranlated in English by Peter Hofschröer in his "1815 The Waterloo Campaign", vol. 1, p. 66 f.: "The formation of a brigade has already been fixed in the drill regulation, and its effectivenes has been confirmed by the experiences of the last war; but as the brigades now consist of 9 battalions, the following formation will be fixed as the rule: two light battalions four battalions 1 light battalion 2 line battalions one 6pounder battery two squadrons" There then follow some details concerning cavalry, artillery, light battalions of Landwehr regiments and regimental waggons.
Also: In 1815 the 1812 instructions had to be modified in practice: § no brigades had cavalry (though several brigades did have cavalry temporarly assigned at times). § the intent was for all brigades to have three regiments and as far as possible that each brigade possess an old line regiment, a new line regiment (13-24 formed from the reserve regiments and 25+ from various sources) and one landwehr regiment. Obviously with 16 brigades in Blucher's army alone, there would not be enough line regiments, so the shortfall was made up with landwehr. At the start of 1815 each landwehr battalion was trained as a musketeer battalion. Prior to the campaign one battalion from each regiment was appointed to act as the fusilier battalion for that regiment. § No grenadier battalions as they have all been grouped into two grenadier regiments and clumped in with the Guard. Also: the Prussian brigade by 1815 had some almost "modern" elements to it. While each brigade had three regiments, and each regiment was capable of taking on a task of its own, the battalions within the regiment were as often as not employed outside of the regiment. The apparent ideal structure had the brigade led by 2 fusilier battalions, with the remainder of the brigade (7 battalions for most brigades) in three lines. The lines were not necessarily composed of a single regiment. In fact it seems that this was intentionally not done. It seems that each line was directed by a regimental commander and that the fusilier battalions in the lead were directed by the senior battalion commander. Flank guards could also be detached, for which a regimental commander was useful as a guard comander. There are only a few cases where you can clearly see Prussian brigades in this style – Bulow's advance to Plancenoit and Tippelskirch's advance at Ligny are probably the best. Adkin's OOB is useful to see which units were detached as flank guards at Waterloo and Peter's descriptions of the various battles give some insight into who commanded various lines at various times. Also: From Napoleonseries archives I THINK talking about PH's books: P259 describes Steinmetz organising his 1st Brigade as: First Line. Commander Maj von Blutcher – Fuslier battalions 12tn and 24th Regiments, 3rd and 4th companies Silesian Schutzen. Second Line. Commander Col von Hoffmann. 4 musketeer battalions (two each) of 12th and 24th Regiments. Third Line. Commander Maj von Hulsen. All three battalions of 1st Westphalian Landwehr. P274 describes a similar organisation for Tippelskirch's 5th brigade as: 1st Line. Commander Maj von Witzleben. Fusiliers 25th Regiment and Fusiliers 2nd Regiment. 2nd Line. Commander Major von Robell. 1st and 2nd battalions 25th Regiment plus 1st and 2nd battalions 5th Westphalian Landwehr. (Interestingly Robell was commander of the 5th Westphalian Landwehr so he was taking two regular battaions from a different regiment under command). 3rd Line. Commander Maj von Cardell. 1st and 2nd battalions 2nd Regiment. So, here we see 2 differing examples, around a common theme. Hope these are of some interest/help. Daryl |
hos459 | 31 Dec 2007 9:06 p.m. PST |
Stephen you mention "I would still contend that the I/IR1 would be in the centre of the 1st line. " The 1812 instructions specificaly state: "Two battalions form the second Battle Line or reserve, namely the Grenadier battalion and the first battalion of the oldest infantry regiment." The diagram then shows the Grenadiers on the right. So, seniority within the Brigade basically runs from the rear right, through the brigade, to front left. This is logical, and facilitates deployment from a line of march where the regiments are able to march as an entity, yet quickly and logically deploy into line of battle. The whole formation is incredibly practical. Daryl |
summerfield | 31 Dec 2007 9:26 p.m. PST |
Dear Daryl Thank you for that. That clears up the command then Skirmishes by Fus/IR1 The First Line commanded by the IR2 Oberst The Second Line by the IR1 Oberst -- Fus/IR2 – Fus/IR1 II/IR2 – II/IR1 – I/IR2 -- I/IR1 – Grenadiers Does that make more sense. There is a vertical symmetry and the senior Bn of each line is always on the right. So when we have Landwehr and no Grenadiers. ----- Fus/IR2 – Fus/IR1 --- II/IR2 – II/IR1 – I/IR2 III/LWIR – II/LWIR – I/LWIR – I/IR1 I think that is what we are implying. Or is it. ---- Fus/IR2 – Fus/IR1---- III/LWIR – II/LWIR -II/IR2 – II/IR1 – I/IR2 ---- I/LWIR – I/IR1 Stephen |
hos459 | 31 Dec 2007 9:35 p.m. PST |
My thoughts at a guess would be your second, but I haven't been able to find an example with the theoretical 3 full strength Regts with no 'extra's such as a composite Bn of Jager coys. |
hos459 | 31 Dec 2007 9:51 p.m. PST |
Stephen looking again, one of the Landwehr Battalions was designated the 'fusilier', so I would guess. Fus/Ldw
.Fus/IR2 2/Ldw
.1/Lde
.2/IR2
.1/IR2. Fus/IR1
.II/IR1
.I/IR1 |
summerfield | 31 Dec 2007 10:03 p.m. PST |
Dear Daryl Yes I would agree. It means Landwehr, IR2 and IR1 in column. Now Jager coys would be attached to the fusiliers. I think we are getting there. It does mean that the left flank is rather inexperienced. Based upon the examples that you gave above. ---- Fus/IR24 – Fus/IR12---- -II/LWIR – II/IR25 – I/LWIR – I/IR25 -- III/LWIR – II/LWIR – I/LWIR First Line. Commander Maj von Blucher Fus/IR24, 3rd and 4th companies Silesian Schutzen. Second Line. Commander Col von Hoffmann (?) Third Line. Commander Maj von Hulsen (1st Westphalian Landwehr) -rifle coy- Fus/IR25 – Fus/IR12-rifle coy- -II/LWIR – II/IR12 – I/LWIR – I/IR12 -- II/IR2 – I/IR2 1st Line. Commander Maj von Witzleben (Fus/IR25) as commander of Fus/IR2 was a Captain 2nd Line. Commander Major von Robell of LWIR (probably the senior major) 3rd Line. Commander Maj von Cardell of IR2 So this leaves the commander of IR25 Interesting that it is not the senior battalion but the seniority of the officer that dictates the command. Thanks Stephen |
summerfield | 31 Dec 2007 10:12 p.m. PST |
Sorry the first example should have been ---- Fus/IR24 – Fus/IR12---- -II/IR12 – II/IR25 – I/IR12 – I/IR25 -- III/LWIR – II/LWIR – I/LWIR I would expect that you would want the most experienced skirmishes at the front. ---- Fus/IR2 – Fus/IR1 ---- II/LWIR – II/IR2 – I/LWIR – I/IR2 -- III/LWIR – II/IR1 – I/IR1 -- The arrangement of the battalions would be seniority of the battalion and not the seniority of the commander. I think we are getting there??? Stephen |
Oliver Schmidt | 01 Jan 2008 3:08 a.m. PST |
Scotsman, as Stephen has altready pointed out, "normal" in the "Normal-Bataillon" has to be understood as "setting the norm". NCOs and Soldiers from every infantry regiment of the army where sent to this battalion for the duration of one year, after which they returnd to their units, so that with their experiences drill and service within the whole army could be standardized. There was a "Normal-Escadron" as well, for the same purpose and also created in 1811. It was composed of a company of dragoons and one of hussars, an attaced to the Garde du Corps. In 1812 these companies were augmented to two squadrons, and in 1813 incorporated into the light guard cavalry regiment. |
McLaddie | 02 Jan 2008 11:19 p.m. PST |
Stephen and Oliver: Thank you for the information. The Prussians seem to have had to create an army after 1812 'on the fly', so to speak. It also appears that the lines |
McLaddie | 02 Jan 2008 11:31 p.m. PST |
Sorry, the batteries in by keyboard decided to go
Stephen and Oliver: Thank you for the information. The Prussians seem to have had to create an army after 1812 'on the fly', so to speak. It also appears that the lines were generally formed on the right with the senior numbered guard, grenadier, regular and then landwehr regiments/battalions. I am sure there were exceptions, just as there were in all armies, but that was the typical deployment for the British, French, Jena-era Prussians and Russians. The seniority in the Austrian army was so mixed between proprietor, senior officer and regiment, I am not clear on what the actual SOP was. I have found far more examples of the French forming on the right rather than the center, though the regulating battalion could be either. Stephen, if you are writing a book about the Prussians, I would be interested in the origins of their brigade tactical configuration. Obviously, even though we are translating German into English, it was more than just using the word 'brigade' for 'division.' |
summerfield | 03 Jan 2008 6:07 a.m. PST |
Dear Scotsman Please contact me off line if you want to look at a draft. Comments are always very welcome. The flexibility of the Prussian Army was very modern in aspects. It permitted the mixing of experience. It allowed Landwehr to operate in support of regular battalions. One of the original options were to add the Landwehr Bn as a IV Bn. This was rejected for many reasons. Part of Volume IV that I have roughed out. I have been writing the book for 15 years and it was decided to split it into 4 parts. The Brigade concept is easier shown in diagrams. Thanks to the discussion, I now understand this???? The following is referring to infantry only of the brigade. This is what I have written in the book. Comments welcom. Alas could not post the pictures. BRIGADE STRUCTURE One of the main lessons of the Jena Campaign was the failure of the co-ordination of brigades and divisions due to the inexperience of command officers. The 1812 Regulations outlined a standard combined arms attack where the infantry was formed into three lines about 150 paces apart with the cavalry and artillery posted in the rear. The first line of two Fusilier Battalions was to neutralise the opposing skirmishers and harass the enemy's formed infantry. The infantry main body was to fix the enemy infantry in place, allowing the artillery to position itself in order to open fire at close range. Once sufficient damage has been done the cavalry would swing out to sweep the enemy from the field. In a bayonet attack, the fusilier battalions would take station to left and right of the third line. 1809-12 Brigade First Line (Major of Füs/IR1) Second Line (Oberst of IR2) Third Line (Oberst of IR1) BRIGADE STRUCTURE Over the period the 1812 Regulations had to be modified with the change in Brigade structure. The following assumes a nine battalion Brigade made up of an IR, a RIR and a LWIR each of three battalions; a 6-pdr foot battery and two squadrons of cavalry that approximates the organization used during the war of liberation. The brigade was normally deployed in three lines for most occurrences with the deployed in half in reserve supported on each wing or ported by the cavalry. Examples are given below based upon historical deployments with the senior battalion on the right of each line. Please note, the Jäger companies would be attached to the fusilier battalions and the RIR became IR13-24 in 1815. 1813-14 Brigade First Line (Major of Füs/IR) Second Line (Oberst of LWIR) Third Line (Oberst of IR) First Line (Major of Füs/IR) Second Line (Oberst of IR) Third Line (Oberst of LWIR) First Line (Major of Füs/IR) Second Line (Oberst of IR) Third Line (Oberst of LWIR) The Prussian brigade structure was "modern" in concept where in addition to the regiments taking on a task of their own, "combat groups" called lines were formed from different regiments. This had the advantage of spreading the experience throughout the whole brigade. The first line would be commanded by the senior major of the Fusilier Bn (normally from the IR), the second line by the junior regimental commander (i.e. IR2, RIR or LWIR) and the third line by the senior regimental commander (i.e. IR1). Sometimes regimental LWIR commander would command regular infantry battalions due to his seniority. Flank guards could also be detached under a regimental commander. Stephen |
JeffsaysHi | 03 Jan 2008 6:11 p.m. PST |
The origin of the structure has been suggested as the King, including this text from Geerts translation of the 1813 Brigade instructions on his website "The Prussian brigade-disposition – in its origin a product of the deep insight of his majesty the King in the changed tactics of the latest conduct of war – had laid down the format of the tactics in a system." Part of the reason for the Prussian 'Brigade' was the intention of the Prussians to still have an army post 1806 but the imposition by Napoleon of a far smaller force. Thus the intended Divisions got shrinked to Brigades. There are some notes in one of Hoefshroers 1815 books on the extended Brigade structure as it came out in practice with the inclusion of a landwher regiment. The second line, or reserve, would normally be the more experienced, the first line soaked up the casualties. I hadn't heard of separate commanders for the 1st and 2nd Treffen, I thought it functioned as a whole with the regs suggesting they followed a set pattern and would not have required them, but this is not something I have especially studied. Stephen, I have an original copy of the 1812 regs, may be I could scan some plates and provide better copy if you need them, but as you can see by the plates on the web they are rarely found in good condition now. The plates for 1812 Brigade, digitally enhanced are at picture picture picture jeffl at blueyonder dot co dot uk should reach me. |
Trokoshea | 03 Jan 2008 9:51 p.m. PST |
If we go back to my initial question
prussian orbat for 1812 troops not commited in Russia: - Anyone would know if a formal command structure (with known GeneralLeutnant and Oberst names) was in place? - As I understand what's been written earlier, troops were devided by regions-provinces. Do we know for instance the name of each Brigade commanders (W. & E. Prussian, Silesian, Brandenburger, etc)? |
summerfield | 04 Jan 2008 2:12 a.m. PST |
Dear Sir Sorry I thought Oliver had answered your question. This is an extract from the book I am writing. 27e Division (Prussian Corps) of 10e Corps: Commander General of Infantry von Grawert (replaced by GL von Yorck on 13 August 1812.) Chief of Staff GL von Massenbach Deputy Chief of Staff GM von Kleist 1st (Oberst von Below) Brigade: 1st Combined IR (Major von Söholm I) [61 officers/2006 men]. II/Fus/IR1 (1st East Prussian) and I/IR3 (2nd East Prussian). 2nd Combined IR (Major von Söholm II) [65/2091]. I/IR4 (3rd East Prussian) and I/Fus/IR5 (4th East Prussian). 7th Fusilier battalion [17/559] The Füs/IR3 (2nd East Prussian) 2nd (OberstLt von Horn) Brigade: 3rd Combined IR (Major von Steinmetz) [58/1910] II/Fus/IR2 (1st Pomeranian) and I/IR10 (Colberg): 4th Combined IR (Major von Zielinsky) [60/1971] I-II/Fus/IR9 (Leib IR): 3rd (Oberst von Raumer) Brigade: 5th Combined IR (Major von Schmalensee) [60/2019] I/IR6 (1st West Prussian), I/Fus/IR7 (2nd West Prussian). 6th Combined IR (Major von Carnall) [61/2047] II/IR11 (1st Silesian) and I/Fus/IR12 (2nd Silesian): East Prussian Jäger battalion [18/464] Corps Cavalry (GL von Massenbach) 26e Light Cavalry (Oberst von Hunerbein) Brigade 1st Combined Dragoons (Major von Treskow) [23/574] I-II/4th (2nd West Prussian) Dragoons, II/IV/3rd (Lithuanian) Dragoons 2nd Combined Dragoons (OberstLt von Jürgass) [24/586] I/III/2nd (1st West Prussian) Dragoons and I/III/5th (Brandenburg) Dragoons Combined Ulan Regiment (Oberst von Werder) [11/228] III-IV/1st (West Prussian) Uhlans and III-IV/2nd (Silesian) Uhlans. In June 1812, the Combined Ulan Regiment was attached to the 16e Brigade, 2e Light Cavalry Brigade, 2e Cavalry Corps. 27e Light Cavalry (Oberst von Jeanneret) Brigade 1st Combined Hussars (Major von Cosel) [26/614] III-IV/1st (1st Leib) Hussars, II-III/2nd (2nd Leib) Hussars 2nd Combined Hussars (Oberst von Gzarnowski later Oberst von Ziethen) [20/565] III-IV/5th (Brandenburg) Hussars, I-II/6th (Pomeranian) Hussars. [In June 1812, the 2nd Combined Hussars was attached to the 15th Brigade, 1e Light Cavalry Division of the 1e Cavalry Corps.] 3rd Combined Hussars (Major von Eicke) [21/504] III-IV/4th (1st Silesian) Hussars, I-II/6th (2nd Silesian) Hussars Artillery: [Batteries had 6x 6-pdr & 2x 7-pdr how except the 12-pdr battery] 3rd (Silesian) 12-pdr half Battery [3x 12-pdr & 2x 10-pdr How: 3/106], 1st – 3rd (East Prussian) Horse Artillery batteries [13/439] 1st – 3rd (East Prussian) and 6th (Brandenburg) 6-pdr Foot Batteries [16/564] 1st – 5th Artillery Park Columns [6/452] 1st – 2nd Bridging Companies [2/6] East Prussian Pioneer Company [6/248] Stephen |
summerfield | 04 Jan 2008 2:18 a.m. PST |
Dear Sir Here is the Remaining units in Prussia. East Prussian Brigade (GM von Stutterheim) Infantry: 1st East Prussian Grenadier Bn, IR1 (1st East Prussian), IR3 (2nd East Prussian), Cavalry: 2nd (East Prussian) Cuirassier, 3rd (Lithuanian) Dragoons, 1st (1st Leib) Hussars. West Prussian Brigade (Absent) Infantry: 2nd East Prussian Grenadier Bn, IR4 (4th East Prussian), IR5 (5th East Prussian), Cavalry: 2nd (West Prussian) Dragoons, 2nd (2nd Leib) Hussars, 1st (West Prussian) Uhlans Pomeranian Brigade (Oberst von Bülow) Infantry: Pomeranian Grenadier Bn, IR2 (1st Pomeranian), IR10 (Colberg), Cavalry: 1st (Königen (Queens)) Dragoons, 5th (Brandenburg) Dragoons, 5th (Pomeranian) Hussars Brandenburg Brigade (GL Graf Tauentzien) Guard Infantry: IR8 (Garde zu Fuss), Normal Infantry Bn, Garde Jäger Bn, Leib Grenadier Bn Guard Cavalry: 3rd (Garde du Corps) Cuirassier, Guard Uhlan , Normal Cavalry Sq Cavalry: 3rd (1st Brandenburg) Hussars, 3rd (Brandenburg) Uhlans]. Lower Silesian Brigade (GM von Kleist) Infantry: West Prussian Grenadier Bn, IR6 (1st West Prussian), IR7 (2nd West Prussian), East Prussian Jäger Bn, Cavalry: 2nd (West Prussian) Dragoons, 6th (Neumark) Dragoons, 6th (2nd Silesian) Hussars Upper Silesian Brigade (Oberst Graf Gösen) Infantry: Silesian Grenadier Bn, IR11 (1st Silesian), IR12 (2nd Silesian), Silesian Schützen Bn, Cavalry: 1st (Silesian) Cuirassier, 4th (1st Silesian) Hussars, 2nd (Silesian) Uhlans Stephen |
summerfield | 04 Jan 2008 2:27 a.m. PST |
Dear Jeff I have sent you an e-mail. Thank you for your kind offer. Stephen |
kiwipeterh | 04 Jan 2008 3:51 a.m. PST |
Hello Stephen Just in case it may be of use
your post on the Prussian troops left n Prussia contains: "West Prussian Brigade (Absent) Infantry: 2nd East Prussian Grenadier Bn, IR4 (4th East Prussian), IR5 (5th East Prussian), Cavalry: 2nd (West Prussian) Dragoons, 2nd (2nd Leib) Hussars, 1st (West Prussian) Uhlans" I believe that this has incorrect designations of IR4 as the 4th East Prussian (should be 3rd East Prussian) & IR5 as the 5th East Prussian (should be 4th East Prussian). This little edit may be of some assistance in correcting something, or it may just show me up as some sort wise guy! 8O) BTW, I'm looking forward to your books on the Prussians. Any hints as to when and what? Best regards Peter H. |
summerfield | 04 Jan 2008 4:12 a.m. PST |
Dear Peter Thank you for spotting the typos. Yes you are correct. Would you like to see a draft. Other eyes are always helpful. As you know I have been trying to pull this together for many years. I am submitting volume one into Partizan Press in a month or so. The main part has been sorting out illustrations and tidying up. I wrote it 5 years ago and going back to it after publishing three books has made me look at it critically. Is that Peter Hofshroer? Stephen Summerfield |
kiwipeterh | 04 Jan 2008 4:45 a.m. PST |
Hello Stephen For better or worse I am not Peter Hofshroer, rather Peter Haldezos aka kiwipeterh (because I live in NZ) aka von Peter himself (see web.mac.com/nataliendpeter for an explanation of this). So sadly I am not the fellow writer that you thought I maybe was! 8O) I am aware that you have been working on these books for several years though. They have been referred to when you have come to my rescue before with information on the Prussians. FWIW, consider one copy of your book(s) sold. Caliver Books have all my details and are well used to extracting money from me!! 8O)) If you would consider it to be benficial & if you still wish me to I would be very happy to read through a draft as another set of (Joe public) eyes. If not, then that is fine too. Time may be of the essence if you are submitting it in a month or so though. Best regards Peter Haldezos |