"French Grenadier Company - Right Flank" Topic

hi guys,

I have seen information that details the early French practice of placing the Grenadier company on the right flank of a column when in battle to the right of the Fusilier companies regardless of whether there were two or one fusilier companies (column of divisions or column of companies). Does anyone know if this was standard or an adhoc situation thing? and if so when was it dropped?

Regards,
Shane

According to Empire V rules:
"… The authors have done extensive research in the European archives since the first editions of Empire and have discovered that the references to this tactic become scarece after 1809 and disappear entirely after 1812. This would indicate to us that as the quality of the line infantry deteriorated, the ability to deploy grenadiers to the flank ceased to be an option."

I hope its okay to quote this here. Maybe some of the more "researched" than me will shed some more light but this works for me.

Shane -> ask Michael tomorrow night. I know this is something he would have a bit of knowledge on. See you then.

Regards, David
wardepot.blogspot.com
milsims.blogspot.com

Hi Shane
This is one of those myths that occurred due to Empire rules, according to what I have found. I asked repeatedly for examples of this from numerous people on the Empire board who felt that this was a valid formation but with no satisfactory response. My take is that it might have happened but not often enough to include it as a viable tactic. If you think about the implication of this formation when attacking. That when the colume is close enough to deploy it will have the grenadiers right turn 90 degrees (presenting a flank to the enemy) and marching out to the right far enough so that the rest of the column could deploy. The only way this makes any sense is that column is formed on the right of the battalion i.e. grenadiers. Then the column can deploy to the left.

I think this came about from a misinterpretation of the 1791 regulations, basically stating that the grenadiers will be on the right of the column. There was an Almark book out in the 70s, I think, which had an illustration of this "formation". I am sure it was a misreading. I can not find any accounts where this is detailed.

So no I don't buy this formation!

William

thx guys,

I too am dubious of this formation as well, it seems to me as you said, a misrepresentation of the stated regulations. I know as everyone else does that it clearly stated the Grenadiers were to be placed on the right of the formation but with columns I feel they meant, the right hand forward company of the column of divisions, not placed outside of the column like an appendage. But I am known to be wrong before, I hope someone can enlighten me as to the validity of this or not.

Regards,
Shane

There is a related issue that I am curious about, namely where the flank companies normally deployed in a column of divisions. I have seen diagrams reproduced in modern works that show them in the rear ranks, not the fornt ranks. The website, "Napoleon, His Armies and Enemies" does this, for example:

link

What was the common practice? Were both locations used?

Rick

G'Day Shane,

I can assure you that it never happened. I brought this up to the forum a year or two ago…

But it was possible for a battalion en colonne to former un bataillon de trois sur deux rangs.

This is when the third rank files out and forms to the left of the column. You shall find this in la reglement du 1788, Instructions du 1793, Instructions du 1797, Neys Instructions of 1805, and the Instructions of 1809.

Best Regards,
Art

Florida Tory,

The confusion results from the difference between (what I will call for clarity) a Column of Companies and an Assault Column. Both had a frontage of two companies, so that's the confusing bit. The CoC had the rightmost companies (as seen in line) in front, so the column deployed into line to the left, so:

1G
32
V4

V4321G (in line)

The AC (a later development) had the middle two companies in front, and the rear companies deployed to either side, so:

32
41
VG

Note that these are the later 6 coy bns, and earlier bns had 8 coys.

That's actually a really good page, btw – thanks for the link!

Hi Shane,

I think this is probably related to the change from 9 companies to 6 companies, and, it seems, at the same time the grenadier company was less often likely to operate as other than a fusilier platoon with a fancy hat.

The place of the Grenadiers in the 1791 Regulations implies their use as a covering force to allow the column to manouvre freely. It does not though mention taking this role right up to direct combat. There is mention, (though I admit I can't remember if it was the campaign regulations or not) that if the Grenadiers were detached this role was taken by the piquet platoon.
This however relates to battalions and not how Brigades or Divisions would operate in battle, where in the earlier periods it seems to be often found the Grenadiers operated converged.

Hi guys,

Jeff, aye, this is what I suspected as well, because the 9 company format was an odd number the Grenadier Company sat on the right flank of the Battalion column for whatever reason, support, extra firepower or whatever. But I still cannot come to turns with its use on a tabletop if Scott got it wrong in his understanding of the regulations and thus produced a totally unrealistic (never used) formation for war gaming.

No offence aimed at Scott but I truly do not think this formation is historically correct and probably will not allow its use if it is indeed fictitious.

Shane

Maybe it meant a column of companies, with the old 9-co. battn, lined up like this:

G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Or possibly like this:
1G
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

Either way the column would deploy into line to the left of the Grenadiers.

What CATenWold shows as a column of companies looks to me like a column of divisions.

G'Day Gents,

In all probability what Scot found was a planche dated from 1774 or earlier (unless it came from l'Ordonnance du 1789 that was never used in the French Army) that demonstrated a grand manoeuvres pour les manoeuvre de principes (in layman terms it means a great body of troops that manoeuvre as one body) for a mi-colonne…quart-colonne…double-colonne…de le premier bataillon d'un regiment de deux bataillons dans l'Ordonnance pour une colonne d'attaque.

Initially these massive mi-colonnes were used by the French so that a great body of troops would be "en bataille sans deployer" (a method for battalions to be formed in column so as to extend its frontage for musketry)…but it didn't work except for "action columns".

The premier bataillon would be formed en colonne with the grenadier peloton positioned on the right of the jumelle (right battalion) …and the deuxieme bataillon would be formed en colonne with the grenadier peloton formed on the left side of the jumelle (left battalion).

L'Ordonnance de Manoeuvres pour 1791, when issued in France, fixed the deployed orders as the sole order of battle. It did not permit the colonne d'attaque (column doubled on the center of each battalion) or to be formed in a grand body of troops when manoeuvring. It was only used according to the general principle of grand manoeuvres in partial combats. This was applicable only to the attack on isolated positions, on a village, on a wood, on a small entrenchment, soutien/support for a chain of skirmishers (intended for assembling or rallying troops before and during actions). Of course we mustn't forget that the colonne d'attaque was to be used as described by Meunier and Vern for the 1805-1806 French Military system (to charge obliquely…) as well.

The colonne d'attaque was a column for action, unlike the colonne par division orignially. In the Reglement du 1791, the second line had the battalions either in colonne d'attaque or colonne de peloton. The colonne par division was not used as a column for action, until after the Imperial Decree of 18 February 1808 in the second line.

When the 1st ligne de bataille had given a certain quanity of fire; or that the impression has been premeditatedly made by the tirailleurs or riflemen in front, to cover the movement of the 2nd ligne de bataille which was a fresh corps. This 2nd ligne de bataille would form colonne d'attaque, so that it would be able to charge with the bayonet, or deploy immediately after the 1st Ligne de Bataille retreated through the 2nd Ligne de Bataille.

Best Regards,
Art

"What CATenWold shows as a column of companies looks to me like a column of divisions."

Oops! It was after midnight …

Yes, I was talking about a "Column of Divisions" not a "Column of Companies".

Another interesting bit (very rarely gamed!) is that the column of divisions could be inverted to deploy to the right, which could both give you further deployment options and possibly throw off the enemy. Like so:

V4
32
1G

Doing little things like forcing players to structure their columns correctly and then deploy into line in the right direction (instead of "just wherever it fits") add an enormous amount of realism to the game.

Thank you for the info Art, I know Scott frequents this forum from time to time, hopefully he can enlighten us as to how he put this formation into his system and why.

Regards,
Shane

Thanks Art
I have been saying for years that the formation mentioned by Shane was bogus. But oh well such are our wargaming myths.
William

Please excuse my ignorance on that matter – but

according to my impression the attacking column of 1791 – was formed so that the two center companies or pelotons where ready to fire while the column deployed into line, to give them fire cover – in case of need.

It seems to an amateur like me, that the attacking column was formed from a line – or that the attacking column could deploy into line to commence a fire fight – in case of need.

The next question is – why do the French then form divisional columns?
From what basice formation are they formed and into what formation can they change?

What makes the attacking column of 1791 so nice is – that it deploys from the center – which is very quick and simple.

Divisional columns seem to either have to deploy to the right – or to the left – more time and more difficult to align columns – permitting them deployment space.

The advantage of what you've called Divisional Column is that it can be formed without first forming line, as you state the column on the centre must be.

Picture a regiment, marching off a road onto an open field and having to form columns before assaulting an enemy.

The road column can conduct an evolution to column of section, then double to by peleton, then double to by division.

It is basically able to increase/decrease frontage at will. Very useful when you may not eb 100% sure of the terrain or tactical situation ahead.

To form the column on the centre the battalion must first form line, then ploy back on the centre into column. This takes space (in particular frontage).

There are other implications of each, but thats the start of it.

Daryl

In case they do this – what peloton numbers would be in the front and what would be behind them, let's say the coumn is formed to the right the 1st section of 1st peloton leading, then doubling and then?

for the section is would be "easy" the second section would form at the left to the first to create a company / peloton width, but then?

would the first peloton stay fixed and the second after doubling sections would move to the left or right – to create a divisional frontage?

How would the other comanies / peltons follow up?

And how should this column ever be able to deploy into line, when in need??

I have been looking through Meunier (Nafziger reprint) – Treatise on the Regulations of the French Infantry. Page 10 mentions forming column of attack formed by two or even four battalions where each battalion is separated by a gap equivalent to the frontage of a section "which will be filled from the front to the rear by four sections of grenadiers".

This segment relates to the 9 company battalion so it may be one shred of evidence for the semi-independent use of the grenadier company.

However 4 battalions in column of attack with the gaps filled by the grenadiers is probably a reserve or assembly formation as it is hardly likely for this mass to move with any cohesion.

With the switch to 6 companies (decree of February 1808) there would be an interesting problem of how to manoeuvre when the voltigeur company was deployed ahead of the column. (5 companies do not readily fit a structure of divisions). Interestingly Article 7 of the decree (appendix to Nafziger reprint) states that the batallion will march or act by divisions when all 6 companies are present but will act by peleton (company) when the voltigeurs and grenadiers are absent.
I do not assume this is intended as a mathmatically precise "and" here – I would take this to mean if one of these or both were detached.

Out of interest is there a version of Meunier in original French anywhere on the web?

The main difference in deployment of the column on the centre as opposed to columnn formed on either right or left flank is that the column on the centre (the attack column) can only deploy to either side of of the lead companies.

Using the example from CATenWold
32
41
VG

Deployment requires 3&2 to halt or slow down whilst 1&G move out on the right and 4&V to the left. (described like opening a set of drawers in cabinet -a tiroir)

Using the column on the flank (example below is "Right in Front")
1G
32
V4
deployment could be on the front division with 3&2 then V&4 moving to the left or deployment could be on the other divisions. If V&4 is designated as the "base" then 1&G and 3&2 take ground to their right.

The big difference is therefore that the column by the flan is more flexible in its deployment which could be beneficial if the terrain was broken whereas the column on the centre is more limited and could have its deployment compromised.

Maybe not too big a problem for a single battalion but if you have a column based on 4 regiments (12 battalions) then it matters. This may explain why there was a debate over the merits of the differnt type of columns amongst the French tacticians.

I too have always wondered where the grenadier company goes in the 9 company battalion (I know on the right in line, but what about the various columns?), then what about the period with grenadiers, 7 fusiliers and a voltigeur when the voltigeurs deploy as skirmishers.
Phil

thanks for all the explanations, but Meunier – as far as I am aware – was a theoretical treatise how to "improve" the existing regulations.

As for the greandier company at the 9 company battalion, the drill regulations don't show them at the column of attack, I think it was a usual practise to form ad hoch grenadier formations as reserve or elite battalions.

to be perfectly honest I don't think they were with the battalions much anyway, they were brigaded together with Oudinot etc during campaigns from 1805 – 1809 and by then the company make-up had changed to 6 companies…

Shane

OK -Mike the Mug

According to your explanations we have follwoing possibility, a battalion forming a column of dividional frontage to the right 1791 regs

2- -1
4- -3
6- -5
8- -7

now this column could deploy to the left forming a line again.

In case to the left

8- -7
6- -5
4- -3
2- -1

so that column could deply to the right to form a line.

A column to the center makes no sense there it gets complicated to shuffle the companies around.

Those colums would make – in my view only sense – when one forms them from appoaching colums, which would usually be colums of sections and or company frontage. In case they are open colums (as they must be when as e.g. being a column of sections, the forming up should be quite straightforward.

As to the 1808 formation – one has just to substitude the comapnies, so a column from the right (deployable to the left, in case I get this right) would have at the right the grenadier company and at its left the 1st fusilier company or peloton, a column formed from the left has then at the left the Voltigeurs and the 4th fusilier company.

In case any elite companies are detached, it wouldn't matter, you would end in an asymetrical column – but why should this be a problem?

Have a look at this site – diagrams of the 1791 Reglements

link

Figures (planches) XI, XXVI and XXVII give you an idea of forming columns from line.

Note that whether the batallion is right or left in front it is not to be assumed that deployment only takes place on the head of the column. Any division or peleton (company) can be selected as the "base" and the others deploy so as to form line in the correct order on the base.

XXVII is particularly interesting as the "base" is the second division of the 4th battalion. You can estimate how long it takes to complete this ployment by how far the furthestmost division has to march.

You can also imaging forming the column with the first division of the first battalion – basically the column forms in the lower right corner of the page. Similarly form the column on the last division of the 8th battalion and the column will occupy the upper left corner of the page.

If you are wargaming at battalion level and you want to use formations and evolutions of the period then the bases need to be able to allow you to make these formations (no doubt with some compromises).

Mike, thx for the link, I appreciate it a great deal. Helps me greatly.

Shane

Mike the Mug

Thank you for the link, it explains a lot, but this is pure linear tactics where columns are there to be deployed into lines – and vice versa.

As far as I understand – this was not necessarily the case later on.

Are there plates showing how like divisional columns are formed from columns with a front of pelotons?
Also I ask myelf, why not keep such a column of peloton width – which is called battalion column (or is the wrong?)

As to form ad hoc elite battalions – no they were not all brigaded with Oudinot, they were formed as to the wishes of the commanding corps or divisional commander, again and again and again, and in 1805 – 1807 the 9 company structure was reatined, more odd 1 voltiguer, 7 fusiler and 1 grenadier company, only in the decline of the French Army the 6 company structure was introduced.

link

Von Winterfeldt

PLATE 16 (XVI) figure 2 does show a column of peleton (company)forming column of division. It is not brilliantly clear but that is what is shows. This is for a column right or left in front though – nothing forming column by the centre.

I have not found any evidence of forming column on the centre except for when the battalion starts in line. The main idea of the column by the centre seems to be that it allows the line to move forwards and deploy closer to the enemy as an alternative to a simple advance in line.

As for the grenadier companies resulting in non-symetric column of division I am not sure. Some plates show these (small grenade symbol), some descriptions are in the reglements so the drill is there for when the grenadiers are present (even though it looks like they were often detached into united battalions). I suspect it may have been problematic to form square with an odd number of peletons but it may be the case that the grenadiers operated as extensions to the square having sufficient experience and morale to do this.

I have seen this in paintings such as the Pyramids, it shows what seems to be a Grenadier company extended in line on the flank of a square, always thought that was unusual…