"Roads in Napoleonic era" Topic

I am making up some terrain in 6mm.

So far as roads are concerned, should I make these up as brown (dirt tracks) or grey (cobbles/metalled roads)? I would have thought that by the early 1800s, there should be at least stoned main roads.

Any suggestions would be appreciated.

Roman roads would exist, I would think, but that is all I would be able to guess at. Others will pop in.

link

In the XVII century in France, roads were made first laying slabs of stone in two layers 5-6m wide. Those would then be covered with larger road metal, making the road about 30cm thick. It would then be covered by 15cm of smaller road metal.
from the middle of the road inclination was 1/24 to 1/36.

In Austria roads were made in 4 layers, in sum 55 to 75cm thick. The lowest was a layer of gravel of 10cm, then a layer of flat stones 20-25cm, then road metal 15-20cm, and finally a layer of gravel or sand 10 to 15cm. Those roads were 7,5m wide.

More important main roads of small inclination or short boulevards in cities were constructed by first laying a layer of sand and covering it with stone slabs. The slabs were bordered with stone blocks.

Afterwards appear roads of engineer Tresaguet. The first layer was of large and well secured rocks, 15 to 20cm thick, and then covered by 10cm of road metal the size of walnut. Such roads were 5,6m wide and were called chaussee.

At the time of Napoleon's ascent, France had 50 000km of roads, but they were mostly in very bad condition. After his Italian campaign, from 1800 to 1805, he initiated the construction several roads, including Strada del Sempione, the road from Brigue to Domodossola, the road across the Mont Cenis pass. And, of course, the roads in Dalmatia.

When you refer to road metal, is that what we would refer to today as gravel? Perhaps more coarse, but crushed stone nonetheless?
Thanks,
Phil

Many thanks for the replies.

A metalled road is indeed crushed stone, so perhaps, for main roads, I should protray these in grey with minor roads/tracks in brown.

Presumably, the further east in Europe one would go, the fewer the main metalled roads.

Reading accounts of the Polish and Russian campaigns Alan is correct the road quality is drastically reduced.

Great thread!
Thanks to all who posted.
Tom

I have been pondering the same question for about a week now and
trying to find info on the roads back in the Nap era, so this is
a great help thanks for asking the Q Alan. Good timing.

Regards
James

That's just plain interesting – good stuff.

Doug

Can I add that PWs (Spanish & Austrian in particular) were used to build roads in metropolitan France.

Waste not, want not.

Something to remember!

With the horseless carriage, minor dirt roads have two ruts and grass growing in the middle.

With wagons pulled by horses, the ruts for the wheels are still there (and might be narrow ruts) but the center of the road is trampled by the hooves of the horses and is bare. The road is pretty much all dirt.

Here's a typical road of the era:
picture
picture
picture

Not cobbles as such, more like cube shape bricks on their sides.

Interesting pictures 4th.

Where were they taken? It looks like somewhere in Mittleres Europa

Northern France. Google "Belgium pave" and you get lots such.

The interesting thing is that's what a good road looked like in 1815 and look how wide it is. About one cart. It was a "good" road because it wasn't a river of ruts and axle deep mud 50 yards wide.

Dang it 1968billsfan I think that makes sense, I am currently working on some roads for my terrain and I put a few grassy center strips in them just because they look cool. My terrain is mainly for ancients and medievals though, so probably wrong! Funny, I never thought of it and always thought that old grave or dirt roads with grass in middle looked ancient and "quaint". Thanks for the perspective. Also, 4th Cuirassier, thanks for the pictures. I have seen some photos of the roman road around Bouvines France (a battle that I am working on recreating the terrain for) and it looks a lot like the roads you have photographed. I may have to come up with a 15mm brick stone pattern for some of my road boards.

Allen

4th Cuirassier 30 Jul 2010 7:03 a.m. PST wrote:

"Here's a typical road of the era:
picture
picture
picture

Not cobbles as such, more like cube shape bricks on their sides"

Very impressive road and pictures, imagine how much work and money it must have taken to build it. To keep those pieces of stone in place, they must have a foot or so gravel base. It looks like the road is in the middle of no-where- did it connect some important things back then?

I like to go on tours of old historical houses and one thing that always tickles me is when the tour guide gushes about how well they built houses in the "old days"- they built them to "last 300 years". My comment is always that any house build 300 years ago that didn't last 300 years would be gone by now, and it wouldn't be available as part of their data pool. In Maryland(USA) there are a lot of old houses, but if you go into the basement you find 6-7 layers of different types of basement walls. They places have rotted or burned down numerous times and been rebuilt. Most houses were built with wood on the ground or close enough for termites to eat them down within 20 years. That was okay because it was cheap to build and because the high-intensity labor fields wore out (tobaco) they changed the dwelling location around the farm numerious times. Anyway, the majority of dirt and poor roads would not have come down to us to be seen today, they would have been slowly improved or abandoned.

Roman road technology wasn't significantly improved on until about 1850 IIRC, so it would not surprise me if important roads built until then copied the approach.

As some of those roads lasted over a thousand years in use, they must have been exceptionally well made.

In fact I heard it once said that the Romans clearly had little grasp of economics, because they over-built stuff. Bridges, roads and aqueducts lasted for 2,000 years instead of about 50, and cost accordingly. It meant the costs were visited on one generation, but the benefits enjoyed by the next 80, who got them for nothing!

There is a reference in Hoffy's book on Siborn to his casting individual pavé blocks in lead to make the main chaussée past La Haye Sainte. So this type of road would appear to have been the type that made up the axis of the Waterloo position. It is of course all tarmac now.

Those Paris-Roubaix (France) and Tour of Flanders (Belgium) roads are used in historically important cycling races and kept good care of. Every year some cobblestone sections are renovated.

Paris – Roubaix is a good example of a cycling race finding it harder and harder to find cobblestone roads as more and more are paved with concrete. The course turns and twists so much looking for cobblestones that the start was moved from Paris to Compiègne, 60 km nearer to Roubaix. There is a group of people whose aim is to preserve the cobblestone roads for the race: link

What was the average width of metaled roads in Germany-Saxony during the Napoleonic Wars, etc? Paths were common. Were they usually only wide enough for a single cart or were they often wider but unpaved? Any detail would be appreciated.

When a BAT marched, I know that room was supposed to be reserved for messengers to pass by on horse. What were the common number of files that a road march column would form in? I am assuming 8 if possible and 4 when required.

Was it common on larger metaled roads for two BATs to march side by side in the same direction. Having seen the pictures above my guess would be no or at least with fewer files in their frontage?

It would seem to me that sunken roads (including metaled) which were common, would often result in the lateral off road marching space being more irregular. If so, would this not create even more delays if a large force were to attempt to march along a sunken road.

I've read that one of the things that set aside the French is that they made greater use of the secondary roads in regions. Generally allowing them to quickly concentrate a greater force. I often have read, especially regarding the French, of difficulties with getting heavy guns and/or the BAT wagons down roads. Though I know the French had superior cartography, I assume this is in regard to the less well mapped local side roads that were single track and could hold up a formation due to small ravines, unlevel and washed out stretches.

What would the state of principal roads have been in the Netherlands before the arrival of the French? Given the proverbial Dutch powers of municipal co-operation, one might expect at least good principal roads- or were all their resources concentrated on waterways?

Some roads had ditches at the side, helpful if marching on the road but creating something of an obstacle to troops and anything wheeled crossing the road.

For large bodies of troops on the march the effective width of the road is going to be determined by the various bottlenecks or chokepoints on the road. These may be bridges, defiles, passes and the entrances to towns. Troops may benefit from cross-county tracks but there is no advantage if these come back to the same point. Remember that the pioneers at the head of the column were intended to deal with obstacles.

Baring's translation of the 1872 Kriegsspiel provides some useful information on the length of road space required for different formations. He also cites Lewal – Conference sur la Marche d'un Corps d'Armee published in 1870 link

"of 100 roads in Germany 5 are 16.4 feet broad, 9 are 19.7 ft, 28 are 23ft, 7 are 24 ft, 35 are 26.35 ft, 11 are 29.53 ft, 13 are 32.81 ft and 1 is 39.37 ft wide. The front occupied by Cavalry in fours is 24 feet."

Very helpful, Thanks!

Page 63 of Lewal gives the original information in metres plus the frontages of columns by peleton, section and fractions of sections.

Also consider the depth of the road column at the halt with all the intervals kept between the different companies and between battalions. Then consider this on the march, KS suggests a minimum elongation of 33% and Lewal suggest nearer 66%.

I think that people should really check quite closing into the following considerations when figuring how a march column goes into a column (by full, half or close intervals) or into a line. A march column really really spreads out long compared to these other formations. The problem is that that our wargame stands (say the basic basing is for a line with two ranks of figures (or even one) is set up to have maybe 1 figure file which would contain 20 or 50 or 100 or 500 men. In depth (e.g. the actual depth of the ranks) to scale, should be only a few mm deep. Opps. Because lines of battle didn't butt up against one another front-to-back, we get away with this for lines of battle. BUT even though march columns were really spread out lengthwise in reality, the huge representational error in the depth of the stands is STILL huge in representing a march column. So if your rules require a march column to have its rear stands march to its changed formation of a line….. it will take way too long.

For most of the scales that I plan, a tactical column is way shorter than what I can represent with my figures. The march column of figures/stands is 3-4 X longer (in error) than that.

I suggest that people work out the numbers with their ground scale and the historical length of these column formations. If you have a 6 stand battalion, you might find that the column length should be 1 or stands deep. A march column might be 2-3 stands deep. Run the math.

1968, I agree to some extent about the issue of base depths which is why I favour the "old School" single rank of figures over that of two or even three ranks.

Not so sure though about the analysis when it comes to the frontage in line and depth in road column. At the start of the march (ie without any elongation) a column on the road should still have the depth equivalent to the frontage of deployed battalion. Lewal comments on this on page 61 recommending marching by the flank or by subdivisions at full distance. He also argues against the close column as this is a much more fatiguing style of march where the troops will be too close to their neighbours with ensuing disruption "a-coup". Being in close column will be a hot, dusty and fatiguing experience for the troops. In the Empire period marching by peleton or by section was seen as a punishment.

Forming close columns would normally be seen as a transition formation (assembly) between road column and line of battle. The table on pages 34 and 35 shows the frontages "en-bataille", marching by the flank and in close column. Yes close column is much shorter but Lewal argues this is impractical. Further when considering the widths of roads, effective width when allowing one third for overtaking and use by officers etc. there are few roads wide enough to accommodate a half section (needing 9 metres) so that in practise the column by squad (esquad) needing 5 metres or column by the flank (page 63)is the most practical.

For cavalry the march by fours is recommended. Note the depth of road column of a cavalry regiment on p66, there is no benefit being in close column.

Where the road is wider than 7 metres this allows vehicles to move in pairs.

In wargame terms I allow roads to be used at road rate for infantry at full distance but not within the reach of enemy forces. As I wargame at 6mm I have separate stands one figure wide and the same depth as the deployed frontage for formations in road march approaching the battlefield. At some point these may be ordered to deploy into line of battle or to assemble off the road representing troops in close column at which point the narrow bases are replaced with deployed bases.
For cavalry in assembly I remove bases for close column to a ratio of one base for every four when deployed.

The artillery and corps ammunition columns take up plenty of road space. Ground scale is 1:10000 so this allows for operational level games.

..But so often on the tabletop I see a single rank of figures that have one or two man-widths between them. That looks more like a skirmish line than a 3 rank formation with files touching elbows with one another. Once that becomes embedded in people's "bottom of the seat feeling about how troops should behave" so many rules that are silly for Napoleonics become acceptable. So its okay for a line to have a +/- 60 degree fire zone. It's okay for the two stand battalion to fire 8 -10 stand widths away. Why can't formed units just march right through one another? I find that two ranks of figures is an okay compromise between the one rank and three ranks of figures.

Mike, I'm indebted to you. That's a great resource and your discussion has helped me unravel quite a bit. Many thanks! Given a bit more time I be back with questions.

Roads in napoleonic times were either made from latex and very expensive or from cheap cuttings of felt

on the march infantry would march at the sides of the road, the road was usually reserved for waggons, artillery, the closer to the enemy the more tactical a march would be conducted.

I remember reading a comment by a British officer in the Vimereo campaign about French marching practice. His unit had surprised a French column on the march and described them as resembling an Irish funeral procession because they seemed totally disorganized but they rapidly regained formation when they spotted the Brits. He discovered that this was because nominated men marched in 'marker' positions and the rest took the easiest route they could find but were able to rapidly reform on the 'markers'. He thought this an excellent practice to speed up the march but also that it would be unthinkable to attempt it with British troops.
I can't remember the book off hand but will try to look it up tonight after work.

would be great in case you find the source and quote

My first post !
I Found this paragraph Captain de Jugar you may feel its similar and I have lifted it off WWW.napolun.com on French Infantry .It makes you wonder did other Armees or Nations do the same ? Are we biased with modern movie images ?
The infantry performed some extraordinary marches, for example in 1805 and in 1808 during the pursuit of the fleeing British troops. Chlapowski writes: "The arrival of the first French infantry division [to Poland], belonging to Davout's Corps, made a strange impression on me. A dozen or so of us rode out to meet it, and about a mile outside the city we saw fields completely covered with individual soldiers, in greatcoats of every color, carrying their muskets with the butts in the air and picking dry paths through the fields to avoid the knee-deep mud on the road. Right outside the city [Posen], by the windmills, there was a beating of drums, and they all came running to form ranks and in the blinking of an eye they had taken off their greatcoats, straightened their bicornes on their heads and become the most regular armies. They then marched at a lively pace into the city with bands playing. They halted in the market square, stacked their weapons and took out little brushes to wipe the mud from their shoes and began fooling around as if they had only been marching for a mile, not the 150 miles they had just completed. I stared in amazement at these boisterous infantrymen, so far undefeated. They might as well have been going to a dance.
You can imagine 600-800 men would take days to arrive as a Btn on the roads pictured above if staying withing the confines of

That is similar to the Spanish report I remember. I still haven't tracked down where I saw it – I read so many books.
I do recall that the British officer recording the event stated quite explicitly that it would be quite impossible to allow British troops to march in the same manner. So that suggest the British didn't do the same. Also, Black Bob Crawford of the Light Division was infamous for making his men march straight through the deepest puddles and I recall reading something about Picton of the 3rd division trying to stop men "cutting corners" on the march.