"The point of regimental colours?" Topic

Something I've never quite understood about regimental colours.

Most regiments had only one set of colours, but many also sent several battalions on campaign.

If colours were supposed to serve as a rallying point, what did the second, third battalions etc rally on? They didn't have any colours, so either junior battalions were harder to rally, or colours served no helpful military purpose.

What am I missing here?

The other battalions carried flags of varying descriptions. These provided the rally point and reference for the units to dress off etc, without providing a potential trophy to the enemy.

Daryl

Most units had more than one set of colours – as an example, in the Austrian army, you had the Leibfahne or Colonel's colour which was the classical white flag with the Blessed Virgin Mary on one side and the two-headed Hapsburg Eagle on the other, but also three Ordinaires, which were yellow flags with the Hapsburg Eagle on both sides, carried by the other battalions

Every British battalion had two colors as did the Prussian battalions up to 1806/07 (IIRC). US battalions carried two colors as well.

Jim

Well all Prussian Btns carried colors (2?) and All Austrian Btns also. Not converged Grenadier Btns of course! I believe Russian and French btns had colors also , so who is left to not have Btn colors?? Were not British Btn/Regt single btn units operating with colors?? I think there is little evidence of SYW btns not having colors (excluding ad hoc Gren or lt btns)! Most of the smaller allied states who IF they had multiple btn regts, also have colors for each btn! Maybe this is more a later (Nap) situation!

Simply because they were called 'regimental' colours didn't necessarily mean they only had one set per regiment.

In many armies they were issued directly to btns but in others they were allotted to Btns from the regimental collection.

On a tangential point, the point assumes that a Regiment => multiple Battalions, but IIRC in the ECW period a Battalion => Multiple regiments. Am I right on this point, and if so, was it ever the case in the Napoleonic period?

Standards did more than just give you a point to rally on. They gave the battalions to dress the troops on.

Other reason for flags: being a symbol of the regiment and of the country or king, they represented an object of loyalty and helped give men a sense of wider purpose independant of their commander.

In particular, the regimental battle honours written on them were reminders of past achievements for the present soldiers to live up to.

"If colours were supposed to serve as a rallying point, what did the second, third battalions etc rally on?"

Can't speak to other armies, but I'll have a go for British ones during the F&I period and AWI. All British battalions (not just the regimental level) had colours (with the exception perhaps of the 80th during the F&I War). If a regiment had more than one battalion, it also had more than one colonel (the overall was called the colonel commandant). The colonel's paid for the colours out of their own pocket, and thus they owned them.

The F&I period saw some large battalions, with their colonels deploy to N. America, making it more likely the colours went. In the AWI period there is conflicting documentation on whether the colours were carried all the time, so your assumption that the colours were used as a rallying point, or to keep the men aligned, is probably false.

"They didn't have any colours, so either junior battalions were harder to rally, or colours served no helpful military purpose."

Regimental colours took on a different importance in the 19th century than they perhaps held in the 18th century. Thus we often are viewing their worth through that prism. But that said, they were important enough for units surrendering to smuggle them out at Yorktown, so they were held in some esteem. They just probably weren't placed on the field as we often think, or perhaps in the manner in which we often display them in a wargame unit.

The then British manuals called for a colour party (guards) to be formed around the colours from extra men and NCOs. Yet, there is no documentation that this was actually done during the Rev War, or to my off the top memory, in the F&I War. Note that Braddock's two regiments split their colours, leaving some behind with Dunbar, while others went forward with Braddock. I believe there is a mention that during the battle they separated the colours during the fighting to try to sort out the men under fire, which didn't work out too well.

Note too that it is widely believed that the amalgamated Guards battalions during the AWI did not bring any colours at all with them, though they had copious amounts back home (each company had its own King's Colour).

Also, I am not really sure how they would help the troops align, though I used to think that. To do so, they would have to be in the front rank, thus exposing them to easy capture if the forces closed, or exposing the men carrying them to get shot. You can hardly carry a large 6x6 foot flag, and fight off an attacker. Trust me, I have carried them before, and they are awkward at best, and require two hands to hold. Further, the ensigns carrying the colours were often young officers, teenagers, who hardly had any great martial prowess.

You raise a good point, and one historians are not too sure about, as their use (or non-use) seemed to be all over the place. In the end, their use may have been left up to the officer commanding the battalion in the field. I recall that the 23rd was commanded by a senior captain for much of the southern campaign.

Still, they look good in a wargame unit. :-)

As astutely noted above, the colours did have a strong emotional connection with the troops and their loss carried a strong negative message to all concerned, especially the Officer commanding – I was reading an account of the English Civil War where a Roundhead trooper managed to recover a company colour that had been lost, and the company commander was more worried about the loss of his colour than of the thirty plus of his soldiers

It was considered a disgrace to lose the unit's colors and soldiers went to extremes to protect them. The devotion showed the unit's colors could be amazing.

They were used as rally points and could be seen above the smoke, noise, and mess during combat and if there were not enough men left to defend them properly, the colors might either not be carried in the field or sent to the rear during a lull in the fighting.

Sincerely,
K

"Not converged Grenadier Btns of course!"

Austrian grenadier btns apparently did carry colours, usually the Liebfahrne from the most senior regt and the Ordinarfhne from the other…which begs the question as to whether the 1st btn of many regts ever got to carry the Liebfarhne?

Also, I am not really sure how they would help the troops align, though I used to think that. To do so, they would have to be in the front rank, thus exposing them to easy capture if the forces closed, or exposing the men carrying them to get shot. You can hardly carry a large 6x6 foot flag, and fight off an attacker. Trust me, I have carried them before, and they are awkward at best, and require two hands to hold. Further, the ensigns carrying the colours were often young officers, teenagers, who hardly had any great martial prowess.

Remember that this was not an age of fisticuffs or even constant bayonet fights. The standard bearer couldn't fight, which was the point. He was not the Goliath of the unit, the Champion that would do battle with the enemy. No, every soldier had a responsibility to protect the flag.

In that moment when two lines are about to hit, when all of soldiers in both units were trying to decide if they should personally stand or fall back/flee, they'd have the standard to watch to see what the front and center of the formation was doing.

I imagine that if, in those moments of crisis, a young ensign let that standard drop so low that it could not be seen by all, that elements of the unit would see that as enough of a sign to break.

The French in the latter part of the Nap Wars had one regimental colour and the other battalions carried fanions. These were much simpler (in theory). This gave a point to rally on, but lacked the status of a colour. It meant, from a cynical viewpoint, that if the French lost a four bn regt, they could claim that only one colour was lost. If it was the same number of bns from many other nations, 8 colours would be lost. Propaganda really.

During the ECW regiments were brigaded into 'battles' – the old medieval term for a section of an army – but the term 'battalion' was synonomous at the time. Basically battalion means small battle or something similar derived from the earlier term.

Also it was common for each company to carry a flag during the ECW, not the regiment as a whole – though they may have had one of those as well.

<<I recall that the 23rd was commanded by a senior captain for much of the southern campaign.>>

Apthorpe, IIRC; I think the 33rd was commanded by a captain as well. And of course Sgt Lamb famously carried one of the 23rd's colours at Camden; his location (in the centre of the right wing) suggests to me that the colours were divided between the two wings of the battalion.

Colours must have had some use in alignment, or the Prussians wouldn't have bothered equipping some NCOs of grenadier battalions, which didn't have colours, with extra-long half-pikes (Kurzgewehr) to replace them – Frederick the Great wasn't known for spending on unnecessary equipment.

My understanding is that colours (or their stand-ins)didn't actually have to be in the front rank for the officer or NCO at the end of each rank to see whether the line was still straight or not: If you saw both colours clearly, your end was either drawing ahead or falling behind.

Interestingly, it seems that in the French service the colours were not normally bunched together, but carried in the middle of the two centre platoons. This extra distance nbetween them would have made them even more useful as alignment markers. They would converge on the centre of the formation when the battalion was due to charge – thereby rather giving its intention away?

The problem for the British was that they had their peace time drills/formations, and then what they actually used in battle, which was quite a bit different. Same true in F&I and AWI.

For the colours to be useful in dressing, they would need to be in the front rank, where the officers stood, to dress the front of their company/platoon on. I know that is what I have done, as colours behind me are not particularly useful, and I have commanded upwards of 200+ men in a single formation.

The F&I period is hard to tell, as there were really only two open field/European type battles, well three, if you count the British battalions hurled at the outer works at Ti.

The AWI period saw a lot of open formations, loose files, companies fighting all over the place, as there often was no neat line battalion battle. You have to read "Long, Bloody, and Obstinant" for more on that.

I like SMs thoughts of assigning one to each wing (Grand Division, IIRC), as that would make some sense, though I'd have to look into that more.

No evidence that colours were used for formation change or dressing in the British or Prussian armies. The manuals show it's NCO's as mark the position points.

Good point though: how many gamers are guilty of putting their colours in the front rank? Don't forget that the French used small guide flags too.

Color were brought forward during intense fighting to boost morale and rally troops in Russian Imperial army. Loosing colors in battle was a disgraceful act- usually units that had that misfortune were disbanded. Regiments had a "white" standard and several "color" battalion standards- as I recall..

The colours were the point of reference for dressing the line of battle (ie multiple battalions). Colours could also converged to act for an entire line the way a single one does for a battalion.

Also, when you halted the battalion to dress it was either to a flank, or on the centre in which case the reference point is the colour.

In many armies in various periods each company also carried a small flag for dressing and rallying.

"No evidence that colours were used for formation change or dressing in the British or Prussian armies. The manuals show it's NCO's as mark the position points."

While I think this is generally true for the British in the 18th century, it was part of the manuals that officers commanded their companies from the opposite flank from the colours. For instance, if a company was drawn up on the left of the colours, the officer would stand in the front of the company, to the left. If right of the colours, he would command from the right of the company. This would allow him to look down the front of his company and to the colours. I have no idea if they did this in battle, or what they did if they didn't have colours on the line though.

Of course, lots of ink and paper were used to detail drum calls too, and we generally know they weren't used either, as who could hear them in the heat of a battle?

Historygamer has phrased what I meant, only in a much better way.

Without wishing to derail te thread though, how do we know that drum calls weren't used? I'm the first one to believe in the stupidity of large organisations, but it usually stops when it leads to waste of money that the man at the top has other uses for. So if they kept paying for drums and drummers, those must have had some use. I should think that the deep roll of several drums played in unison would carry rather further than the human voice (modern drums are usually pitched noticeably higher). Also, with platoon fire and disciplined ranks, perhaps we have to picture black powder battles as less of a pandemonium than modern ones?

Musketier
''So if they kept paying for drums and drummers, those must have had some use''

If the British at Waterloo could hear them in the French columns, then the French in those columns certainly could. The problem for attacking French was generally the other way around: because they worried so much about enthusing their conscript troops, they so encouraged noise: the noise of drums, shouts, chants etc that the troops often couldn't hear their officers' orders.

As an old drummer (well, perhaps former is a better term), I can assure you that drums had a place, just not signalling maneuvers or orders in the heat of battle, or at least not real well.

First, look at Wolfe's instructions to young officers. He says musicians should be dismissed and use to help with the wounded. I'm too lazy look up the page number, but it is in there.

Also, Houlding touches on this subject as well, and talks about the men did not even try to stay in step, but were more concerned about keeping their ranks straight.

Each company had a drummer, but these were often massed, most likely into the Grand Division formations. Massed drums were mentioned in McGuire's work as the Grenadier battalions moved into the attack. As much psychological as anything. Perhaps a nice beat to march to, but not to relay orders.

The overall theory was that the commander of the battalion would take place in the center of the line, surrounded by the colour party, and some drummers. He would give orders, and his drummers would take up the beat of said order. The other drummers or officers would listen for said beats, and take it up as well, thus relaying the order. My thoughts are -- right. Good luck with that.

First off, drum signals would be beating all over the place. Was that the colonel's drummers, or the battalion next to us? What happens if the division drummers keep playing and the colour reserve drummers switch signals? Never hear it.

Having attended 36 years of re-enactments, I can tell you the noise is often deafening, and there is no way you could hear drums over large vollies and artillery. I attended the 1988 Gettysburg re-enactment as a spectator, and I couldn't hear myself think. It was unbelievable, and minus the shot and shell, flying bullets, screams of wounded, etc. That was about 10,000 men and 100 guns.

So, how did they do it? According to Houlding, and other accounts, the firing sequences were told off prior to the battle – left to right, right to left, etc. After the initial firings, everyone fired at their own pace, as there is no way you would wait for the guy next to you to fire if they lagged. The effect was still the same – some portion was always loaded. This is why in rules there are often bonuses for the opening volley – that and a clean musket.

Also, having given orders myself to large bodies of men in re-enactments, while I love the musicians, I often want to strangle them, as the play on and on, making it hard for me to give any commands that anyone can hear.

The officers commanding companies, divisons, grand divisions, would have to pay attention not only to their own men, but look toward the commanding officer, or get sent messengers, on what to do next. Keep firing, advance, retreat, etc. Thus in part the high rate of casualties from officers leading from the front. This is well documented in many battles, including Bunker Hill, which comes to mind. Senior officers also often led from the front as well. Wolfe took command of a grenadier battalion and got shot. Clinton rode onto the field at Monmouth to give orders, much to the annoyance of his men. Washington took direct control of a brigade and chased some British lights off during the NY battles, and at Princeton.

Maintaining command and control of a battalion once engaged is hard. It is hard in a battle reenactment and no one is really shooting at you either. Being mounted helps, but it also increases your chances of getting shot, since the men often aimed high.

Read Babit's wonderful work on Guilford on how the battalions fragmented in their attack into companies, platoons, sections, squads, and what happened to some of the commanding officers.

Remember too, that at Yorktown, a British drummer mounted the works to beat a parley, but no one heard him, and an officer with a white flag had to go out and get everyone's attention.

That said, drummers were there. I just question their worth, other than to give a beat to march to.

Spring's book on the British army in the American Revolutionary War, WITH ZEAL AND WITH BAYONETS ONLY (2008), argues that the British more often than not did *not* take colours into the field, or at least not into *combat*.

He adds that he found no evidence that battalions ever formed 'colour reserves' in action, despite what the '1764 Regulations' prescribed.

Spring also talks about the role of British drummers and musicians in combat.

link