"ACW Assault Columns?" Topic
58 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 remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic American Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleThe modeler himself shows how he paints Guilford Courthouse in 40mm scale.
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.
Pages: 1 2
donlowry | 02 Jan 2019 6:41 p.m. PST |
A brigade in double line is neither in a line nor a column, it is in a double line. I got the idea that our military heritage was from the British from the fact that the country was formed from British colonies and our militias were formed along British lines. Note that US regiments had 10 companies, not 6. But it's true that West Point taught French ideas (even the French language). So, OK, I stand somewhat corrected on that point. |
Trajanus | 03 Jan 2019 8:21 a.m. PST |
Don, A little more "correction" :o) The very first US Army Drill Book, known as the "Blue Book" was in French. Not that the contents were French, it was just that Von Steuben didn't speak enough English to write it any other way and the Continental Army was a bit short on German speakers! A couple of people translated the 1791 French Regulations into English after the War but it wasn't until the War of 1812 that Winfield Scott turned the 1810 translation of Amelot DeLacroix into something used by the Army. This was subsequently reworked using the 1803 translation by John McDonald, published in London, becoming the 1815 Regulations. These in turn were updated by further French improvements in 1825. Eventually, following yet more French developments, Scott produced the three volume "Infantry Tactics, or rules for the Exercise and Manoeuvres of the United States Infantry" in 1835. This became a bit stale over time and after the Mexican War and the gradual rise of the Rifled Musket, Hardee's "Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics" replaced Scott's work in 1855 though it retained the influences of the previous work. Finally, in 1862 came Casey who took the French regulations of 1831 and 1845 and sprinkled them over Scott's 1835 work to produce the official 1862 US Drill. Of course lots of other people had a shot at manuals over the years and pre Civil War ideas were further influenced by French Chasseur and Zouave drill/tactics but for the most part these were considered a might too fancy for mass teaching of citizen armies. |
donlowry | 03 Jan 2019 9:38 a.m. PST |
OK. But I still point out that US regiments (battalions) had 10 companies a la Britain, no 6 a la France. |
Trajanus | 03 Jan 2019 11:09 a.m. PST |
Don, That's true. But somewhere in that pile of post Napoleonic French regulations, I am sure that they went to a 10 company organisation as well. I'd love to tell you which one but out of respect and trying not to BS I'll be dammed if I can recall which one! :o) Besides, in the Napoleonic period the tactical deployment of British Battalions was really 9 companies not 10 as the Light Company was permanently taken out for the Brigade Skirmish screen when the shooting started. It still counted on the Mess Strength of its parent unit but in combat they would manoeuvre and change formation without it. So it was a kinda 9.5 company organisation! ;0) |
donlowry | 04 Jan 2019 10:14 a.m. PST |
Well, I know next to nothing about French practice after Napoleon, so I bow to the better informed. |
MDavout | 04 Jan 2019 10:42 a.m. PST |
Trajanus is correct. I am a reenactor with Les Grenadier du 57e and the 7th Missouri. I have always been very interested in drill. When I got into CW reenacting there was alot of discussion about which drill (Hardee's or Casey's) was one doing. So, I did a side by side comparison of the two. They are for all intents and purposes identical- right down to the wording of each paragraph. Casey added four additional paragraphs to the end and that it. In my Napoleonic Unit, we use Le Reglement du 1791. For the Ecole to Battalion, it virtually identical for Casey's and Scotts. |
cplcampisi | 04 Jan 2019 8:01 p.m. PST |
MDavout -- I too am a reenactor, and I've also been amazed by the amount of arguing that goes on about which manual they're using, when they're almost identical. I've read Hardee's 1855, the 1861 Infantry Tactics, Casey's, but also some earlier ones, Scott's 1830 Abstract (which I think is actually from 1824), and Scott's 1835. A lot of the information is the same across all of these, and is often copied word for word. Interestingly, I was helping someone translate an 1830 *Mexican* Army manual, and found some passages were word-for-word translations of Scott's 1830 manual. I suspect that they had both copied from some other third source. |
Trajanus | 05 Jan 2019 6:30 a.m. PST |
Yeah, well it's not quite read one, read them all, but if it was the modern music industry there certainly would be litigation flying around the place! :o) |
Pages: 1 2
|