"Cossack Pulk allowable battlefield formations..." Topic
33 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile Article
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Defiant | 10 Aug 2008 10:37 p.m. PST |
Hey all, Got another great question for you all, is relates to Cossacks and their use on a battlefield. As we all know Russian players love nothing more than to run around will little Cossack Pulks annoying the French players and rightly so, however, the use of these pulks on a battlefield and their formations allowable is a question that has popped up in our group more than once over the years. As we all know, Regular cavalry formed into Lines of two ranks per squadron etc which went together with other squadrons to form lines and columns. With Cossacks I am not so sure they can form up as such and should not be allowed to form line at all, but column and skirmish order not a problem. I know all about the Cossack swarm attacks etc but as for forming a line of two ranks for a Pulk as would a Regular regiment I have grave doubts especially likened to Heavy cavalry who were known to ride boot to boot to maintain order. I was going to design rules for Cossack Pulks as such: - No "Line" formation whatsoever (single rank of figures) - Column is fine as long as width of Column (figures) does not exceed 1.5x depth of Column (figures). Or
- Cossack Pulks are in a perpetual skirmish formation which is twice the figure base width of formed Regular cavalry with no formation restrictions as such. Any ideas ?
Or better yet, does anyone have any information on Cossack regulations (if you can have such a thing for Irregular cavalry) ? |
Oliver Schmidt | 10 Aug 2008 11:10 p.m. PST |
Some useful info may be found here: link (links at the bottom of each page lead to the next part). |
quidveritas | 10 Aug 2008 11:24 p.m. PST |
Cossack regulations is an oxymoron. In the context of a set piece battle, Cossacks were of little value and spent most of their time being scarce. I think it would be fair to say that Cossacks were not interested in a fair fight, or any fight where the odds were not decidedly in their favor. They really did not like getting shot at and unlike the regular troops, they made no apologies for bugging out on short notice. They did indeed fight from time to time but only in the context of attacking stragglers, rear guards, supply columns or even isolated enemy units (3rd Guard Lancers were wiped out by cossacks). When they took on regular troops, they only did so from a position of great advantage and/or with very superior numbers. Please note, I'm not saying they couldn't fight. I'm saying they picked their spots very carefully. If you want to give cossacks a formation, a "mob" might not be a bad way to characterize them. That mob could bunch up or spread out as the situation dictated. I would not allow them to attack formed troops frontally unless they vastly out numbered them (certainly more than 3:1 and maybe 10:1). If fired upon by artillery the cossacks would probably head for the nearest shelter and remain there until the artillery was withdrawn. mjc |
Defiant | 10 Aug 2008 11:32 p.m. PST |
Oliver, that is an awesome site, thank you for that. mjc, your comments are pretty much what is the same discussion as we speak about in our group. I am inclined to place cossacks on skirmish bases only to deter players from trying to use them against formed enemy cavalry. Knowing their men would be at a distinct disadvantage would make them shy away from enemy formed cavalry. However, if the enemy cavalry is disordered and undormed my rules states that such cavalry is unformed ina "clump" which would be similar to that of a cossack "mob" and thus give the cossacks much more gusto to charge them
does that sound about right to you guys ? Shane |
chasseur a cheval | 11 Aug 2008 1:16 a.m. PST |
Shane, Do you read Russian ? If not, try looking for Mir and Romanov. These were two rear guard actions by Platov (covering Bagration) in the opening days of the 1812 campaign. Cossacks fighting in line. Also fighting outnumbered, and doing a nice job on the Poles. If you dont like those examples, we have Sysoev-3 commanding a Cossack advanced guard before Mogliev that runs into Davout's advance guard south of the city. Cossacks in line. They take out the 3rd chasseurs à cheval, capturing an escadron and the régimental commander and chase the refugees, along with a bataillon of the 85e ligne back to the city gates, where they find a second support battalion and artillery. I do not think that the "Iron Marshal" was too pleased with Bordesoulles, his advanced guard commander, and he even forbade letters to be received from the captives. Moving on, we have Platov and Uvarov going around the French left at Borodino, driving in Eugène's flank guards and charging his horse and some infantry. Also in line at least in part. I can keep this up a while, if you need more examples, but these I know are available in English (Paul Britten Austin's trilogy, Nafziger, etc.) if you want to read more. I dont know where the idea that Cossacks could not form line comes from. They were completely capable of doing so if the situation required it. It was the ability to ALSO fight in loose formation, and to fake attacks and then retreat to trap an enemey, to forage instead of being supplied, to ride every day with little rest for the horses, and so on, that made them especially dangerous, especially in "petit guerre" operations. |
Defiant | 11 Aug 2008 1:24 a.m. PST |
Chasseur, This is exactly what I am asking for, proof from someone who can tell me they did fight in line. Currently in my rules they can and are based as such just like any other regular cavalry formation. However, the question does pop up from time to time and I must admit I do tend to feel they did not fight in line but if you say they did and did it easily as you have stated and backed up then I am happy with that. I know all the situations you wrote about with regards to the Cossack actions and delved deeply into the action of Mir in the opening days of the 1812 campaign but little is written about their actual formation from an individual Pulk situation but if you have the proof they did form Line then I am happy with that and take this information back to the group. Thanks again for the data. Shane |
rdjktjrfdj | 11 Aug 2008 1:45 a.m. PST |
We've had a similar discussion once, perhaps it may be of use to you TMP link |
Defiant | 11 Aug 2008 2:12 a.m. PST |
thanks guys so far, I just found this and like what he is saying : "These organised bandits are wily. They do not like infantry fire very much they detest artillery, but when they are three to one they become impudent." - Schwarzenberg, Austrian commander at 3 to 1 odds in their favour I think this is the key. Under these odds they are inclined to shy away, at or over these odds they will go for gold
so to speak. mjc also sated this earlier on this thread, I am beginning to see some light here but still a little sceptical of the ability to form 2 rank deep line as a formed formation, sorry chasseur, I need more proof. Shane |
Stavka | 11 Aug 2008 2:22 a.m. PST |
Perhaps not all Cossacks were the same? We tend to lump them together as at troop type with a broad brush, but I wonder whether research may show that there may have been some regiments which were capable of "forming up" as well as those more "irregular" units which were not. |
Defiant | 11 Aug 2008 2:52 a.m. PST |
aye Stavka, thought about that also. I feel the Guard Cossacks completely able to form Regular formations while most Cossacks might not. Was thinking some Don Cossack regiments that began to formalise their dress (uniform) etc might have had commanders who tried to make their pulks semi-regular
so might have also tried to make them more regular with regards to formations also dunno? Shane |
aecurtis | 11 Aug 2008 8:20 a.m. PST |
I'd just reiterate whayt I argued on the other thread: that disciplined skirmish formations were not regularixed until late in the c.19th; Nikola and Malcolm provided the documentation for the later regulations. You don't see this earlier in the century. Oliver's citation of Prokesch is fascinating. I especially like: "However, does the Russian army lack regular light horse? What would be the gains of turning Cossacks into such an arm? They would provide the Russian army with something it does not need, and deprive it from something that is irreplaceable. The light horse, which can hold its own against the light horse of all other European armies, would be augmented above necessity: the Cossacks however, which are a unique asset of the Russian army, would be lost." And: "When marching, or in battle, a rear guard of 15 to 20 horse, under a strict but valued NCO, is indispensable. If this measure is not taken, a third of the whole troop will disperse in stragglers for a thousand reasons." But also: "The statement that these troops cannot be used in regular formations is fairly common, and much speak for this. The way of doing battle is for the Cossacks the dispersed formation; the close formation is less natural to him. But one makes a mistake if he concludes from this that there are no cases in which they would have to be used in closed column, in which role it will serve well." And: "The Cossack fears horsemen of no nation, except the Turks. For the Polish lancers he has admiration, because these were capable to fight in closed, as well as in open order, and because he had to cope with them almost all the time during the latest war." I would not argue that the Guard Cossacks could not be conventionally drilled. Indeed, from Prokesch again: "The Cossacks of the Guard, and the Uhlans of Tschougoniev, proved to which efficient light horse the Cossack can regulated to. One cannot doubt about his ability for this." Good stuff. Allen |
nvrsaynvr | 11 Aug 2008 8:38 a.m. PST |
Conscripted peasants formed the Russian Army throughout the period, whereas only in the early years at least the men who filled most other armies did so by choice (i.e. they had viable alternatives). Cossacks, on the other hand, were free men, and organized by thier chiefs rather than Tsarist bureaucracy. They were irregular in that they were unregulated (even then they had prescribed uniforms which they supplied themselves), but it might be better to think of them more like Prussian volunteer regiments rather than, say, the Prussian militia. Certainly there are many examples of them clashing with regular cavalary, and Napoleonic cavalry was often ineffective against infantry anyway. BTW "pulk" has two meanings: a Scottish word for a mud hole, and a German transliteration of the Russian word for "regiment". NSN |
chasseur a cheval | 11 Aug 2008 8:41 a.m. PST |
The "Uhlans of Tschougoniev" were cossacks the day before the name changed. :-) Actually, moving regular cossack formations over to the line was not uncommon. Nafziger's softbound "The Imperial Russian Army" Vol 2 in English covers several examples. It was a social class change (cossack class to soldier class), a contractual change (cossack privledges and land grants to soldier pay and benefits), not really so much of a tactical change to move from "regular cossack" to "army uhlan" I would agree with the "regular" vs. "irregular" distinction. But this would include Teptyars, Stavropol Baptized Kalmyks, Bug Cossacks, etc. in addition to the Don regiments. There was also perhaps discretion in the training given to the regimental commander. Sysoev-3 seems to have been more of a "drill master" than other commanders, for example. At Mir, and other times, it was the "bait" regiment(s) that were most often formed. It was indeed Sysoev-3 as bait at Mir. I would not propose it was the normal or typical to form the cossacks, merely that it was possible. I would say Allen's quote gives a good balanced view. |
Frederick | 11 Aug 2008 10:56 a.m. PST |
Stavka has it exactly right – Cossacks were not all created equal – there were, after all, five major Cossack hosts (Don, Terek, Kuban, Ukrainian and Siberian) and numerous sub-divisions – while it is clear that some Cossacks are capable of fighting in line of battle, others are not – for our last Napoleanic campaign, we had Cossacks for recce but did not include them in any formal battles Great site – speaking as a lineal descendent of the Ukrainian cossacks, when you want an officer who is more educated than the average Cossack you set the bar pretty low |
chasseur a cheval | 11 Aug 2008 11:01 a.m. PST |
NSN is, as always, precise. transliterating for English
. singular : полк/polk, genitive полка/polka prepositional : о полке/o polke, в полку/v polku plural : полки/polki, genitive полков/polkov |
summerfield | 11 Aug 2008 12:51 p.m. PST |
Dear All The cossack polk had 5 sotnias of about 100 kazaks. At full strength 500 kazaks but . During the war they were often down to less than 200 kazaks. The favourite attack against close order was the swarm attack. Otherwise it was picking off the stragglers. There are a number of examples of ambushes. Cossacks should be involved in reargardes and advantgardes rather upon the main battlefield. Their use as flank guards was also common. The Garde Cossacks should be classed more as regular cavalry having regular officers. Also there should be differences between true cossacks, Opolchenie Cossacks (these are regular militia cavalry), Bashkirs, Tartars and Khirghiz. They would exhibit different tactics. S. Summerfield (2005) Cossack Hurrah, Partizan Press S. Summerfield (2007) The Brazen Cross, Partizan Press |
nvrsaynvr | 11 Aug 2008 12:56 p.m. PST |
Well, maybe he is. Pulk is a German word, presumably a cognate of the Russian or Polish (pu³k), and I believe the German "regiment" is borrowed from French. Nonetheless distinguishing Cossack units when the Russian called them all regiments is an affectation that hinders understanding. |
Oliver Schmidt | 11 Aug 2008 1:08 p.m. PST |
An unimportant remark: "Pulk" is not an original German word, but has been stolen by us from Polish or Russian. link |
summerfield | 11 Aug 2008 2:48 p.m. PST |
The Russians referred to the Cossacks as Polks and not Regiments. The Germans adopted the Pulk from the Poles. Remember that East Prussia, Posen and much of West Prussia is now in Poland. The acquisitions after the Particians of Poland was a problem to the Prussian Army. Stephen |
Defiant | 11 Aug 2008 7:02 p.m. PST |
G'day guys, Thanks for all the info, really appreciated, however, I still am no closer to making a desicion as to which way the average cossack should be based. A – Formed in two ranks represented by a base size of close order but also allow them to skirmish at skirmish order (double base size) or B – ONLY in skirmish order which is double close order basing size
Currently we use option A but I am inclined to switch to option – B god help me ;-p Shane |
aecurtis | 11 Aug 2008 7:26 p.m. PST |
Yes, we seem to have forgotten that! Based on the various observers' descriptions, I would suggest that at least some--perhaps all uniformed regiments and opolchenie?--be allowed "A"; but also that some--at least Bashkirs, Kalmycks and the like--be restricted to "B". And yes, that's still fence-sitting, to a degree. But there's a rationale behind it. Allen |
Defiant | 11 Aug 2008 7:58 p.m. PST |
Allen, thank you mate, I feel similar to you. For me I am aiming towards this : Cossack Guard – A (no skirmish order) don Cossacks 1812 – B don cossacks 1813-14 – A & B (depending on if regulated with uniformes)* Other Cosssacks 1812-14 – B * I feel those don cossacks which began to wear uniforms were pulks that the commanders were trying to regulate so were possibly formed more regular with formations found in the regular army but still able to skirmish as usual. (trying to identify those pulks might be hard so I might have to do it as a percentage of pulks which increases) how does that sound ? |
Irish Eyes Are Smiling | 11 Aug 2008 9:33 p.m. PST |
Shane, There are a number of sources which describe the Cossack actions during the 1807 and 1812 campaigns. The Cossacks, other than the Guard did not fight in line as per European cavalry. At the same time, they fought in a formation, that was in effect a fluid line, referred to as the "lava" formation. This formation was used effectively, not against a single Polish lancer squadron or regiment but in a number of situations against entire brigades and/or divisions of French and Polish cavalry. Mir and Romanov were only 2 examples cited in this thread. Simakovo was fought between Mir and Romanov, and similar to Mir involved quite a few Cossack regiments facing, at a minimum, an entire brigade of Polish lancers. Certainly after Turno's Polish lancer brigade ran into trouble at Simakovo, Dziemanowski's Polish cavalry became engaged in the same scrum. Romanov was the third consecutive (of a number) of almost pure cavalry actions in 1812 with Turno and Dziemanowski's cavalry brigades rushing to the rescue of Tyskiwiecz's Polish cavalry. The cossacks, on each of the 3 occasions cited, were supported by a small number of horse artillery guns, and in the case of the 3rd engagement, a regiment of jagers was also dispatched to help the Cossacks secure their retreat across the Vousva River (if required). Mir was a case of the Polish walking into the Cossacks without realizing the strength and tenacity of Russian "so called irregular cavalry". Simakovo was a trap which worked primarily because the French were strung out on the march and the Polish cavalry had been egged on by Napoleon's harsh words to counter their grumbling (food and pay in arrears). Romanov was more appropriately a delaying action which the Cossacks excelled at – as others have noted against enemy cavalry. I would recommend that you consider another approach – that being that Cossacks (I refer primarily to Bug and Don) operate as line cavalry, albeit with less effectiveness than most European battle cavalry. Just don't handicap the Cossacks as the stereotyped marauding hordes of irregulars with bows and arrows. The Don and Bug Cossacks were not, for the most part, that irregular. They were uniformed and very effective on horseback. Their fault (and strength) was drawn from the culture of the Cossacks and their independence from the Russian army – their cooperation was by choice and respect for both the Czar and the holy land. Certainly the Kalmuks, Bashkirs etc. were what many (including myself) would stereotype as truly irregular and operating without formation. Against infantry and secured positions – the Cossacks, including the Don and Bug, would veer off and avoid frontal fighting. |
Defiant | 11 Aug 2008 10:13 p.m. PST |
so basically you think what I posted would be fairly accurate then : A – Formed in two ranks represented by a base size of close order but also allow them to skirmish at skirmish order (double base size) or B – ONLY in skirmish order which is double close order basing size
Cossack Guard – A (no skirmish order) don Cossacks 1812 – B don cossacks 1813-14 – A & B (depending on if regulated with uniformes)* Other Cosssacks 1812-14 – B
This seem ok to you ?
|
Steven H Smith | 12 Aug 2008 1:06 a.m. PST |
|
Defiant | 12 Aug 2008 1:08 a.m. PST |
c'mon Steve
you can expand on that one a little more |
chasseur a cheval | 12 Aug 2008 9:03 a.m. PST |
Shane, Not trying to "convince" you, but
. Cossacks were militarized border police, a nation/ethnic group (actually several)/social class of them. They rode horses from early childhood. The had all sorts of odd formations, fake attacks, attacks through unexpected terrain, etc. The regular cossacks also served in several wars prior to 1812, some in Europe. Exactly why would you think that the COULD NOT form two lines of horses ? Would it really be IMPOSSIBLE for them to figure this out ? To make it "NOT ALLOWED" in a game's rules ? Could they come up with a unique, perhaps better method of fighting ? Yes, it has been described. But why would that PRECLUDE them from ever forming a line. While on the subject
. Let's consider the charging of good-morale experienced formed-in-square or closed-column infantry, often supported by artillery. Was this likely to work, ever ? (Not in our games it doesn't) If it was a fool's errand, why should we think less of cossacks since they didn't do it much or at all ? The "mob" idea is a stereotype, likely one from the era. THe cossacks foraged for food and fodder, and although unpaid were allowed to keep loot. It was to some extent a general "terror" concept, while keeping the greatest tactical mobility. Blame the Russian government for making this deal as their terms of service, or for using such troops in "civilized" Europe. Indeed the concept was developed to wear down the Turk and Persian (and earlier Khanate) border commands and reduce the proceeds from owning these provinces. It was likely a little rough on the Prussians or the French. Maybe try learning a little Russian if you have the time? It is a real eye-opener to see how mangled stuff gets as it makes its way into modern secondary/tertiary English books. |
Irish Eyes Are Smiling | 12 Aug 2008 10:01 a.m. PST |
I agree wholeheartedly with chasseur a cheval. The stereotype and preconceived notion that Cossacks were anything but organized is a false understanding of their various roles in and out of combat. Cossack cavalry did charge, and regularly against enemy cavalry. If the assertion by secondary and tertiary English books is the baseline, then perhaps reading English translations of Russian narratives would help somewhat. As an example, please reference "The Cavalry Maiden" if you have a copy handy. IIRC, she describes her own personal observation of one of the Cossack regiments, which if I also recall correctly, she was encouraged to join because of her equestrian skills. The book does not give a lot of detail on the Cossacks, but brief eye witness accounts from Russian primary sources do exist which will be far better in denoting the Cossack's uniformity and Russian opinions of them. A number of Russian sources have been translated, such as Alexander Mikaberidze's "The Czar's General" on Yermolov, Davydov, Zwenguitzow's research (into French), etc. Each of these include passages describing Russian interaction with Cossacks that I found enlightening. If you do not have immediate access to some of the Russian sources, I will type one or more up and post them so you can see for yourself that the Cossacks were anything but barbaric irregular hordes. Respectfully, Machine |
Defiant | 12 Aug 2008 3:19 p.m. PST |
chasseur, You are missing what I have said, if you re-read my last post I put forth the idea that certain cossack regiments would be able to form line as already inferred by others previously. I am trying to come to a conclusion here so that I can accurately portray cossacks on the field in my rules and think that I have done that after listening to everyone, no need to try to brow beat me with CAPITAL letters into agreeing with what you perceive is me blindly disregarding the truth. I would not have asked the question if I did not want an accurate answer and there are a few who, like me are unsure just how to portray cossacks with basing sizes for war games purposes. Do you war game ? and if so how do you portray them ? Shane |
chasseur a cheval | 12 Aug 2008 6:50 p.m. PST |
Shane, Sorry about the caps. I dont know how to make BOLD text. It wasn't beating on you, I was trying to stress the words that I thought were a poor choice for describing/limiting cossack units in a rules set. We play that all Don, including opolchenie) cossack formations, "named" opolchenie units, the Guard units, all Ural, all Bug, all Chuguev, Baptised Stavropol Kalmyks (aka "Kalmyk Cossacks", all Teptyar, the 2 senior Bashkir regiments
. in short all the units called to regular service by Borodino
. all can form line and charge, as if hussars of equal experience/moral/unit size. Realize that these units might have less experience, moral, or size compared to the usual formations of hussars. But the rules governing their formation and attack in line are the same. All the other more later levies, including the opolchenie horse that were not raised by a specific noble and fielded under their name, can also form line, but at a movement cost penalty. The can also charge in line, but at a moral/melee disadvantage. The opolchenie cannot, of course, do cossack fake retreats and similar evolutions and have generally brittle moral. We play with orders given, like in Kriegspeil. If a command is given to one of these units by other than by a prince or member of the Romanov family or an appointed cossack/bashkir/opolchenie/etc. leader, there is a greater chance of the order not being followed. |
Defiant | 12 Aug 2008 7:09 p.m. PST |
no worries mate, I like your idea of the fake retreat, I read about this in 1812-13 as a tactic to entice the French into pursuing, I am inclined to adpat a rule for this which could trap French/Allied cavalry who are stupid enough to fall for it into chasing the cossacks into a waiting Regular/Cossack formation further back, out of sight and able to hit their flank or rear as they pass. I might work on this, thank you for the insight ! Shane |
Defiant | 13 Aug 2008 6:36 a.m. PST |
Thank you Oliver, I have now read this entire link and found a passage which has now pretty much answered my question satisfactorily. Quoted : >>>>Acting against horse is a real feast for the Cossack. One can notice the joy in his eyes as soon as the outposts report the approach of horse. He has all trust that he will be able to push them back in the short or the long term, when not able to defeat them in the first charge. The opinion of the enemy is of course also in this case the most reliable. All Frenchmen admit that it was the irregular cavalry which formed the biggest problem for their own horse. "What should one do with these horse?", they say: "If one wants to capture them, they escape; if one wants some rest, one is not able to drive them away; if one forms a close formation, it is being surrounded; if one extends its own line to the same length of theirs, they concentrate before one realises it, and break through; if one throws them back a hundred times, they still will return, and our horses will be destroyed by this".<<<< |
rabbit | 20 Aug 2008 6:39 a.m. PST |
Chaps, in order to avoid an another "Un Ami" scenario, I append a short guide to HTML codes, which should allow us to emphasise our text without resorting to capital letters and getting accused of shouting. The website we use appears to use html. This means if we start a new paragraph, it inserts the code for a new paragraph. However, unless you know the codes, you cannot write in bold, italics or underline text. HTML works by reading groups of codes, these are simple and if typed into your text can enhance the appearance. Each code comes as a pair, you need (I think) both start and end codes to change a block of text. Codes generally use the chevron characters; <, at the start of the code and; >, at the end. The start code has a letter or word which identifies the code, this is preceded in the "turn off" portion of the code by a slash; / bold can be achieved by < b >text< /b > italic can be achieved by < i >text< /i > underline can be achieved by < u >text< /u > In order for you to "see" the coding I have had to insert spaces between the chevrons and the coding letters, you will need to remove these spaces for the codes to work. Simply adding extra codes at the start and finish of a block of text or even a single word or letter will change the appearance of that letter. Multiple codes may be used, so a block of text can be bold underlined and in italic. There is a guide on the FAQ page of this site. Anyway, back to the point, I would allow both formations, for some units and restrict other units to just one
to be declared at the start of a game or campaign. Those troop that were in "line" would still not be as good as conventional cavalry in a stand up fight, as evidenced above, but if either type get the chance to pursue a routing or retreating enemy, the butcher's bill would be immense. rabbit
|
|