"Relief of and "passing through" of Battalions?" Topic

usually armies deployed infantry in two lines, that the second could support and relieve the other. But in my reading, that second line is 150yards plus back to avoid musket/cannon balls. It doesn't seem that they ever had the training or desire to relieve their fellows in the first line as they got beat up in the manner of Roman Maniples. Seems that the front line battalions fought until they broke, then second line battalions would step up. Does this agree with your reading?

So assuming that relief under fire wasn't practiced, I don't see battalions "passing thru" one another except as a maneuver when not under fire or even threatened by the enemy. Anyone have examples of battalions doing otherwise? And how did they pass through one another when they did? Assume open order/files and then one walked through the stationary battalion?

I can't speak for all 19th century armies, but the method for relieving the front line in the American Civil War consisted of each company in the front line "breaking files" to the rear while the companies in the rear broke files forward. This would result in the front companies being in column of fours marching to the rear and the second line companies in column marching forward. Once the second line got into position they would go "by company into line" and the line would be reestablished. it takes about two minutes to get the whole thing done, depending on the distance to be covered.

Interestingly, it is pretty similar to the Roman mandibles.

HC in which period..All history I have read says the British esp had 2 ranks closed up!! To avoid casualties from cannons they generally lay down…

Passing through lines was really running around the flanks if retreating, if advancing I don't think they really did it--Unless the battalion in front got wiped out..

Passage of lines is in all the manuals of the period I've looked at but it's hard to find a battlefield example of it happening. I'm a few hundred miles from my reference collection but I can't off hand think of a single time it was done "by the book" while under fire/observation of the enemy. Very dangerous given the temporary disorder it must create.

ACW again, but at the battle of Corinth there was a brief meeting of officers. The shot-up first line lay down and the supports advanced over them.

I've also read cases when this wasn't arranged as well and both lines became disorganized. Sounds like a dieroll to me, influenced by training and/or leadership.

At Culp's Hill the Union defenders rotated front line and supports several times to replenish ammo. Being entrenched and having a reverse slope for supports made this easier.

In the AWI at Cowpens Pickens' militia passed through the supporting Continentals without a hitch, so it could be done. Of course, the standard AWI formation was a lot looser than typical Napoleonic formations.

According to the West Point Atlas, Lannes executed a flawless passage of lines at Jena.

And it was noted in the West Point Atlas because it was probably quite unusual to actually pull such a maneuver off on the battlefield without problems.

There were several methods to achiveve a passage of lines,
but the easiest was to adopt a checkerboard array in which units would pass through in the intervals – much like the way in which maniples did on a smaller scale in Roman armies.
The "training" would have existed in all armies, but it could be a risky manoeuvre if done too close to the enemy.
I read about one Austrian example of a passage of lines… but it`s "gone" for the moment :P …but there was a passage of lines between Kempt`s British infantry and the heavy cavalry at Waterloo.

It was drilled and practiced by everyone in the 18th Century, and they were very good at it on the parade ground at least! It goes without saying that rougher terrain, weather, smoke, combat and stuff could certainly cause difficulties, because it did for other formations and manuevers as well! But just because there is little mention of it does not mean it did not occur with some regularity! It is possible that it was common enough a move to not merit mention unless things came apart seriously. I do not know for sure how often this move was actully made and maybe in action commanders were sometimes reluctant to court disaster by trying passage of lines!

Years ago in our local rules we allowed it, but both units checked morale and any failure caused disorder for both units! The better trained and veteran you were the less likely you were to fail in the 1st place, but if you were low quality or already disordered, then the odds of a successful passage of lines became tricky!

difficult to do under fire, but certainly expected to be done.

However, for Napoleonics, there wasn't the expectation of a stand up firefight requiring this to be done under fire – it would have been totally against the things which made the period different – rapid movement and devolving of command initative down the army scale.

what you would expect in a Napoleonic battle, was the first batallion to make the first attack, then the second batallion would exploit that attack, while the first recovered a bit – or the first held the first attack, then was reliveved by the second, if defending.

the standard formation for this, was first batallion deployed (line) and second held in resreve (some form of column) ready to move as required. plenty of space around said second batallion for the companies to move around.

in theory, anyway.

I've done breaking files several times with re-enactment units. It is not something you want to do in the face of an enemy unit. No mater how much we drilled at it the retiring unit always ended up confused as to how to get back into line facing the correct direction. This maneuver is best used to pass infantry through artillery in battery. For the rest of this comment I'll assume we are talking of passing infantry through infantry.

From what I've read the cases of having the front unit lay down and the second line pass over them was far more the case if lines were advancing. In retiring lines I don't believe there is an easy way. Look at what happen in the sunken road at Antietam, when the Johnnies tried to pull one unit on of line.

If a commander plans on having lines retire, he can deploy the supporting lines accordingly (as at Cowpens ). I think if you read through accounts of were retiring of lines was tried you'll find that it failed more than it worked. When it did work, usually it was poorer trained troops passing through better trained. At Culloden the French troops did stand while the retreating clans passed through them, so yes it can happen. But I wouldn't want to be in that position.

In our games we usually don't permit passage of lines though other units – the players must figure out how to support one line with another. When it is forced to happen (unit is retreating through another) then all types of checks have to be made.

Not to get too off the center of this thread, but I have a related gaming question. Through the 18th and early 19th century it was the standard practice to have two lines.

Does anyone have pointers to rules sets that, through whatever mechanism, make it such that you *need* to set up your battles on the tabletop this way?

One more thought. This happened not only in infantry formations but also cav formations. Pointers welcomed.

yes, it was standard practice to have a second line to act as a local reserve in the 18th and 19th century.

standard practice and common sense.

cavalry especially, as the last to commit a reserve usually won

My rules have information on this but it should never be a rule that you always need to do so, because each commander was able to make adjustments to their nations` systems to fit the military circumstances.

more at:

link

regards,

mike.

The SYW era Prussians had passage of lines in their drill book. If you can envision the battalion divided into four equal grand divisions, the two center divisions would somehow (I don't have the book in front of me to describe how it was done) would effectively turn about, march to the rear, and then peel off to the left and right, creating a gap of two grand divisions in the line. The second battalion would then form a column of grand divisions and march through the gap and then deploy into line in the usual manner. Finally, the original front battalion, now in the second line, would reform its four grand divisions into a single line of divisions.

"Does anyone have pointers to rules sets that, through whatever mechanism, make it such that you *need* to set up your battles on the tabletop this way?"

The Marlburian rules "Twilight of the Sun-King" resolve all combat with morale checks. Any unit without rear support has a minus 1. Other rules may give a bonus for rear support. The minus results in troops being deployed in two lines as much as possible.

nice description fritz

Since battle accounts regularly describe sending a second line, or a reinforcement unit up to replace the first, I am inclined to think that the way it was done was so common and ordinary, that writers did not mention it, presuming the reader would know.

Actually, passage of lines was a common practice during the Napoleonic period and after. Marchant's cavalry passed through Packham's Division at Salamanca. Lannes praised Suchet's brigades for doing it in parade fashion at Jena.

I am leery of rules that give +1 modifiers to the front line simply because there is a supporting line two to three hundred yards behind them. "Support" was there for other reasons than to be a morale boast to the front line. I haven't read anything that suggests that the second line was there to make the first line feel better, but it could I suppose.

What I have read is that "Support" had a technical, tactical meaning. Units designated as Support had specific tactical roles to play. What I have read/seen in battlefield accounts show supports doing one of three things:

1. Replacing the front line by a passage of lines. Difficult when the front line is engaged. Jena, Hougton and Zaya's at Albuera, attempted by the French at Albuera
2. Holding the line if the first line gives way. Quartre Bras, Aspern-Essling, Talavera
3. Moving out to protect the flanks of the front line. Albuera Colburne and Abercrombie, both sides at Jena, Auerstadt, Austerlitz, Eylau.

You see all three of these roles carried out by the Confederate I Corps during the 2nd day at Gettysburg where both divisions had two brigades up, and two behind in support. None of the Confederate soldiers mention feeling 'supported' because there was a brigade behind theirs.

Bill

I agree with Bill about the doubtful pactice of giving support bonuses to units in games, rather there should be negative modifiers for exposed/threatened flanks.
Besides if players keep their commands together the result should be fewer modifying factors/calculations in the course of a game; which should lead to faster game play! Anyhow, that`s my view on it!

My impression is that in the Napoleonic era, the direct passage of lines (by this I mean a unit passing through a unit that is formed in line) was avoided by some tactics and brigade formation. A checkerboard arrangement of battalions would make it unnecessary since units could move up or back into the holes. Keeping rear units in a column formation would allow them to pass thu gaps in a line. Typically artillery might be placed between battalions and also there was typically at least a section gap between battalions. (4-6 companies/battalion, a section is a half company.)

There is some discussion of the passage of lines in/l'

link An extract is:

" Usually the interval between battalion-columns was such that they had space to deploy from columns into lines. According to the regulations the minimum distance between battalions formed in lines was 15.6 m or just the distance of company (platoon). The small intervals were essential if the troops planned to move even a short distance without causing disorder.

Look up the description or battle account of the Union Iron Brigade at the Battle of South Mountain in September 1862, before Antietem, to see how it was done in the ACW. Truly amazing stuff.

I agree with Bill about the doubtful pactice of giving support bonuses to units in games, rather there should be negative modifiers for exposed/threatened flanks.

I agree with Bill too! Exposed flanks should be exploited by your opponent but not punished by the rules.

Idontbelieveit- The Napoleonic set Shako encourages support on both flanks and also to the rear, if that's relevant for you.

In regard to the topic at large, it sounds to me like something that is very much going to depend on the circumstances. I've certainly read accounts where this sort of thing has seemed to be done without much fuss at all, but then maybe that was down to the opposing side being just as disorganised and incapable of exploiting it. Then of course there are the occasions when the reverse happens.

Leigh

Passing through lines is esay, unless you are being shot at. There should be no penalty for passing if not in combat. It should not be allowed if the front unit is in combat.

rather than not allowed, I'd say attempting it offers an opportunity charge to the 'other party' you are in combat range with

- if they are able to take advantage of the temporary disorder you are in whilst passing your lines, then they should do so, but its equally likely in a prolonged (18C style) firefight that they are just as beaten up, and will match you during the lull which it provides.
Passing lines in a combat zone should be an act of despiration.

Manflesh – Shako's flank and rear support modifiers, along with the positive encouragement to shooting as often as possible at maximum range, are two of the reasons why I won't play Shako for Napoleonics – they do pretty well for 18th C though, with the long wide pairs of lines standing and shooting at each other all day until one breaks.

Sounds to me like you need to break the time period down into managable parts of the 18c. To include Marlborough with AWI with Napoloeon may be a bit much not to mentione the ACE. This has the potential though of a great series of conversations if broken down as such. IMHO

VR

Chris Parker

The Prussian guidance for operating a division size grouping had 3 lines of infantry; a light infantry line, a fire combat line, and a reserve/assault line in column.
Clearly they were meant to pass 'through' each other in combat as a normal operation – otherwise this general instruction to the army would have been utter nonsense.

And yet – all the older rules I seem to remeber playing in days gone by you would get severly battered trying to play like that as results for front lines were normally win/rout and penalties for being 'caught' behind a retreating unit so severe it was best avoided.

Perhaps the recognition that a most common result of a combat was disorganisation and a most common ending was limping away largely unimpeded, so that if you had a second line reducing width by forming columns enabled a passage of lines as a common occurence.

For example Waterloo – the Nederlanders are in the first line against D'Erlon, they are still around at the end of the battle, yet Pictons troops had become the first line before the cavalry came along and became the 3rd first line of the combat – no-one mentions passage of line; but something akin to that must have been going on there it would seem.

Going backward to earlier 18thC, command control and hence tactics were less sophisticated, and here there are found a greater tendency to a greater number of lines. So I would suggest this points to passage of lines being a most fundamental basic and relatively easy function of the battlefield & also an even greater tendency for comabt result between two equal units to be mutual disorganisation.
Otherwise why so many lines in early warfare?

When rules appear to reward players who use period tactics it can be said the rules are well designed – though I cant say I have ever had the wit to design a set myself that were actually playable. (so plaudits to those that have)

nice thread.

The problem in putting these idea onto the tabletop seems to be the complexity it adds to the movement rules.

I think I prefer the idea of abstracting it so the can recycle/reenforce your front line without any measuring. In other words you are allowd to do the whole thing as one big monuver, tested at the brigade level, rather than trying to monuver individual battalions.

I say nice thread too, not knowing what to do I had a Ldw regt scatter to let a dragoon regt through, so besides inf through inf mixed order must also be accoplished

I agree with Blucher. Abstract is the best we can do as these are games with toy soldiers. The way I treat it in my Tricorne period games is as follows. Scale is 25/40mm. If two units begin with 3" of one another the rear one may pass through the front unit as long as neither unit is in disorder and the front unit does not perform any action that turn. If both of these rules aren't met then both units become disorganized as the rear unit passes through.

This system works well in my Medieval game as well. It is of course an abstraction and not really based on any hard core reading or examples that I can find. It does however make it difficult but not impossible to do so.

VR

Chris Parker

Yes thats the sort of thing I had in mind.

Also, In terms of incentive, perhaps we should look at break points within commands. Moving a battered unit to the rear, before it breaks, would prevent your command breaking/opponent getting the VP's.

And one more thing .. MichaelCollinsHimself pointed out the checkerboard formation. If passage of lines was so easy why would they bother with this? I suppose it would make you less of a target for artillery but Im sure the primary purpose was line relief. My limited reading has suggested that this was not the norm though and could only be used by decent troops.

I think the second line in column was partly to make the replacement easier, and partly to enable it to be in position to exploit / react more swiftly as the action progressed.

if you were expecting to do a line replacement under fire, both lines would be in line (if you see what I mean) to minimise the forming in and out in the face of the enemy.

Its very risky though, I think – and if I were Colonel, I would be waiting until a lull in my area before attempting it – it screams out 'opportunity charge', to me.

A relief or passage of lines is basically a coordinated change of formation. IMHO, it should be treated as such. It was no more dangerous to do than changing from column to line etc.

Bill

I always go back to Casey's infantry tactics. These were based on the French ordannances of 1831 and 1845 and I don't see a giant change in the mechancics of moving blocks of troops in the period. If you read through Casey you will see that they were trained in thousands of situations, and the all involved some variation of moving from column into line and vice versa. Passing through a line in front was just another variation and nothing special that would even have to be mentioned in memoirs. "Hello, it got light this morning" doesn't get recorded either. In part II, "the Evolutions of a Brigade" there is Article XV:
cf: link

706. The general, wishing to execute the passage of lines, will send an order to the commander of the second line to place it in the position it ought to occupy.

707. The battalions of this line will form double columns, closed in mass, and so disposed that the centre of each mass may be opposite to the middle of the interval to the right or left of the corresponding battalion of the first line, according to the order given by the general.

708. The second line being thus disposed, the general will send an order to the commander of this line, to execute the passage of lines, and give notice thereof to the commander of the first line.

709. The chief of the second line will immediately command:

1. Pass the line in front. 2. Battalions, forward.

710. These commands having been repeated, each chief of battalion will command: Guide centre.

711. The commander of the line will then add:

3. MARCH (or double quick—MARCH).

712. At this, briskly repeated, the second line will advance; each battalion will direct itself upon the middle of the corresponding interval in the first line.

713. At the approach of the second line, each chief of battalion in the first will cause the right and left companies of his battalion to be ployed, as in mass, behind the contiguous companies, in time not to arrest the movement of the battalions of the second line.

714. The battalions of the second line will thus pass the first; and when they shall have cleared it, the commander of the second will designate the directing battalion. This battalion will take the guide to the right, and the subordinate battalion will take the guide on the side next to the directing battalion.

715. The battalions having arrived at the given position, the commander of the line will cause them to halt and to deploy, or they may deploy on the march, so as to finish their deployment at the required place of halting.

716. As soon as the second line has passed the first, the chiefs of battalion of the latter will cause the right and left companies of their respective battalions to return into line. They will then ploy their respective battalions, either in simple or double column, as the general may direct, and take their proper positions in rear of the corresponding battalions of the second line.

REMARKS ON THE DISPOSITION OF THE ARTILLERY IN THE PASSAGE OF LINES.

717. If the second line passes the first for the purpose of relieving the latter, the battery will take a favorable position to cover the movement and fire with the greatest rapidity, without changing its position while the movement is being executed.

718. If the first line is passed for the purpose of an offensive movement, the battery will take a position in advance of the line, and cover the movements of the troops.

Bascially, the battalions in the first line always have a larger than company seperation between each other. Each 1st line battlion moves its end company back and then behind the next-to-the-end company (1 behind 2 and 10 behind 9) and the divison-wide 2nd line battalion in column marches through the hole and deploys. Not a giant problem.

Another ACW method is to "snake" each company to the rear in place and march in individual company columns of 4 to the rear. It involves doubling up to 4 ranks and then marching to the flank, where the company wheels to the rear. (There's some scrambling to make room for the pivoting space because of butting companies seehttp://www.6thtx.org/Maneuver_012004.htm) "John the Greater" refers to this in a post above.

"And one more thing .. MichaelCollinsHimself pointed out the checkerboard formation. If passage of lines was so easy why would they bother with this? I suppose it would make you less of a target for artillery but Im sure the primary purpose was line relief. My limited reading has suggested that this was not the norm though and could only be used by decent troops."

That is right i think Blucher. Duke Eugene von Wurttemburg said that checkerboard order was infrequently used because it was difficult to maintain proper intervals between battalions during an advance in this formation.

"Der Alter Fritz" mentions a 7YW method of the front line making a hole in the center of the line to allow a column from behind to march through and become the new front. I found another reference from a French Napoleonic era manual that details this. It is from "A treatise upon the regulations fo the french infantry", by General de brigade Meunier as translated by Captian G NMacGregor, and published in the GF Nafzinger collection.

Meunier sort of prirated and republished Dedon's earlier work from a different region of France. "…he was one of the frew French officers,, who worte exclusively on military theory,,,,tactical theory.. This work was written as a proposal for formal revisions… and was "sanctioned by experience"". He also was suggesting the move from 8 to 6 companies that was later adopted.

The method used (for going forward or backwards) is for the line being passed through to make its gap in the center of its formation rather than enlarging the gap between two abbuting battalions in line. I guess an advantage of this is that it doesn't require two different battalions to syncrhonize their actions to create the gap. A quote from Meuvier is "The passage of lines is one of the most useful movements in war…," which implies it was not a strange occurance.

In our wargaming (in my opinion), most rules don't give much motivation for this, because we don't keep track of ammunition, disorder and fatigue except in 1 or 2 gross increments. (ROUT,or DISORDER). Units blaze away at each other for hours without penalty if their die rolls keep up. Losses are taken as permanent percentage disappearances of part of the unit. I wonder if there should be recoverable ammo/organziation/fatigue "losses" that would make shuffling in fresh units (and regrouping/resting recovery of worn units) a part of the wargaming protocal. I've seen a little of this in house rules where calvary is not allowed to do multiple successive charges, but not much elsewhere. Is it worth the book keeping?

Re modifiers, perhaps it depends how abstract and/or fiddly you want your games to be. Armies do appear to have formed up in two or three lines as a matter of standard practice, but how often do you see that on a games table unless there is an incentive for players to do it?

Few players would do it of the rules say that a second line would be carried away by a retreating friendly unit, or where passage of lines were simply not permitted or too dangerous to do.

So you can design detailed rules for passage of lines with disorder tests, opportunity charge tests and actually move the figures around, all to achieve something that seems to have happened fairly routinely.

Or you can give a "+1" bonus that limits the degradation of a front-line uint for having steady rear support. This might not be to simply reflect a nice cosy feeling for the front-rankers, but rather symbolise a passage of lines as having taken place wherever necessary to relieve pressure on them. Our little lead men may not have moved, but might a morale bonus be seen as a reasonable abstraction of such small-scale movement?

Of course the "+1" might not be enough, and morale might still fail – perhaps because the unit was too hard-pressed to be able to make the maneuvre, or was caught mid-change, of just badly disordered by the passage. Pick your abstraction!

Just my 2d.

Clive

Billsfan: Carnage and Glory Computer rules will supply you with all the motivations for handling troops as your historical counterparts did by keeping track of all those variables for you painlessly. Take it from a former skeptic :)

To me the question has always been "why did they do it if it didn't work". From reading i can see 3 main reasons:

1. makes forward units more comfortable as flanks are protected (so very useful at ends-of-lines or where there rae gaps)

2. replacing forward units who are tired, morale wavering
etc

3. if forward units flee, there is still a line of resistance.

IMO most rules overdo the disorder/disorganisation/morale loss that come about from 2 and 3, and under-reward the benefit of 1. To make people actually use 2 lines in agame you need something like:

1. Rules make average troops equal to above average morale with a 2nd line,

2.Single move to swap them (not disordered unless under fire) and

3. 2nd line not auto-disordered if the 1st line retires (as opposed to routs) through it (so long as it doesn't move)

With these changes I think people would use 2nd lines by choice