"Success with 1806 Prussians" Topic

I am toying with the plan of raising 1806 Prussians in 6mm for large corps and army level battles. I already have a small contingent to use alongside my Russians in 1807.

What success does anyone have using Prussians of that era? The urban myth seems to be that they are doomed to failure but surely that cannot be the case every time.

Actually I think the Prussian army of 1806 is a fine army.
On the plus side it has almost as many light troops as the French, a very large artillery park (although spread around too much) and top-rate cavalry. The real problem is in command and control which is not really surprising as many if not most of the Generals were in their 70s and Mollendorff was, I think, 84 years old. If I could even get on a horse when I'm 84 I'll be delighted.

So to really reflect this army you have to inflict on wargaming players a frustrating and irritating series of checks and balances which, if done properly, will ensure that the Prussians lose. And that is hard for anybody to game.

historical performance and wargame performance are not related, unless the rules deliberately set out to knobble or supercharge one side.

look at the way cavalry was used, for example.

optimal actual tactic – massed by divisions and used to smash through a point of the field ( referably weakend by earlier attacks and massed batteries).

optimal wargame tactic – distributed in small regiments at every point on the field to force every enemy into square in the face of equally spaced guns.

so a good set of N rules will give major command issues to otherwise excellent prussian infantry with superior cavalry and heavier guns – fix your plan at deployment and try not to fiddle with it too much.
a bad set will rate the prussians themselves as poorer quality troops to ensure that they are onto a loser and let you micro manage everything like every other army lets you do.

In individual battles and engagements I have won with the 1806 Prussians. However, in large campaigns, NO. As we set-up and played the campaign, the French had too many command and organizational strengths, i.e…central command with single purpose, better flow of orders, heavy cavalry was in divisions under central command as opposed to being dispersed and assigned to infantry commands.

In short, the French could and did coordinate their campaign strategy while the Prussians fought divided. But at the unit level the Prussians fought as well if not better than many French units, especially as it related to the heavy cavalry and hussars.

It turned out to be lots of fun and not as "lopsided" as the "real" 1806. In the next campaign, when the Russians showed up things went very bad for the French and the campaign ended in a "bloody draw".

I love the 1806 Prussian army -- love the bicornes, love the cavalry. But most Napoleonic rules show little respect for the army. We know that large numbers of Prussians were defeated by lesser number of French under command of Davout at Auerstadt -- and other examples go on and on -- so rule sets often place major limitations on the Prussians to account for this. (I have found other engagements -- smaller-- where Prussians did well and you can point to Eylau) Join the crowd as it continues the decades long analysis of why the 1806 Prussians failed. In my group, I am compelled to fight the Prussians in SYW style (lines, no columns) which makes it impossible (under our rules) to be a true attacker. Don't know that it is accurate, but takes the fun out of the game.

Dig a little deeper, and some rules like GdB give all the Prussians Musketeers "line" status with the Grenadiers & Jaegers as "Veterans", and their guard regiments as "elites" or "guard" status. I think this is a fair treatment as they haven't seen combat for quite a few years. There week point is most of their commanders are rated below average. Fighting a division vs division game, the Prussian have a chance of defeating the French, using linear tactics.

On a positive point my 1806 Prussian army is probably the best looking Army of the period. Check mine out on Paul's Blog

link

VonBlucher -- very attractive. I have mostly Elite figures. Gorgeous figures and wonderful uniforms. The flags are great too. So, as you say, best looking army of the period.

What was the difference between an 1806 Prussian army and an 1809 British army?

@Malcolm… besides the colors of the uniforms and no shakos?

Leadership from top to bottom and more experience in actual combat. Oh, and the British seemed to have won more too:-)

Seriously though, my understanding is that they both used linear tactics and their manual of arms was the same. There is a gaming prejudice that lines don't work against columns in combat. Tell this to the French who were consistently shot up trying to assault a British line while the French were in column ;-)

On a Petite Guerre level (did I spell this correctly), very little difference and the Prussians were extremely effective. On the army level, this is where things broke down a bit. The cavalry of the Prussians was fantastic too.
Artillery well lead and effective; just spread out too much as mentioned earlier. Once the Prussians came into the Corps system, things improved dramatically. But this was after the 1808 reforms….

An argument might be made that maybe the Prussian system might have worked perfectly well on a small scale like the British, but that when trying to create the necessary masses of manpower required for continental warfare, the divisional system was no longer viable.

Wellington made it work for a moderate sized force at Waterloo that walked forward 25 miles and back 10 and then didn't much move on the day.

Maybe 1806 Prussians could have won Waterloo in the British positions, given a competent or better overall commander (ie no Kings and things)

The Prussian Army had not fought since 1795. It was rusty and had not recovered from the Seven Years War where Frederick chose his country rather than his army. The army had been mobilised for about a year and was at the end of its supplies, tired and either fought or demobilised.
Stephen

Agree with all of the above.

Division for Division, the Prussians are stronger than the French by a mile.

Fighting battles on a larger scale – the Prussians become almost like islands of isolated Divisions. It requires a fair bit of skill to play the French properly and make use of their organisational advantages.

The most frustrating aspect of playing the Prussians is having some of the best cavalry in Europe rendered grand-tactically ineffective by being too closely tied to Divisional control.

The simple expedient of having a separate Prussian cavalry Corps in 1806 may have made all the difference in the world. Had that happened, the effects on history for the next 200 years may have been extreme to say the least.

Lots of good comments here. The 1806 Campaign is fascinating for the what-ifs that exist in it. Without restating the excellent arguments made above I'd point out that even though the 1806 Prussians were abysmally commanded at Jena, the rank and file still fought hard for 8 hours before they were finally routed from the field. At Auerstadt, solidly thrashed though they were, the Prussians still managed to inflict north of 30% casualties on the brilliantly led finest Corp in the finest Army of the period.

These facts support the thinking that the rank and file, the battalions and regiments, squadrons and batteries all fought well but were let down atrociously by poor strategic and tactical command at division level and above.

In wargaming terms, as someone has already suggested, up to division level the 1806 Prussians should fight well albeit with some tactical limitations BUT will likely present this solid performance in the wrong place at the wrong time due to poor higher command. There are several good rules sets that reflect this.

It should be noted that the Prussians performed very well in the rearguard actions commended by Yorck and Scharnhorst. The Prussian Jager defeated the French pursuers regularly.
Stephen

For those interested, a very well written article by Hofschröer on Von Yorck's rear guard action at Altenzaun, 26th October 1806. This works for a more tactical rule set as roughly a division or less per side.

link

Another key thing about 1806 is terrain. The Prussian did not use it to advantage at Jena, giving up vital ground without a fight they allowed the French to deploy without disturbing them. At Auerstedt the ground funnels an attacker and any advantage of numbers is reduced. If the Prussians had fought, competently, on ground of their choosing the final outcome might still have been defeat but nothing like so badly.

VonBluch… Gorgeous painting, sir! Some of the best I've seen posted.

R. Mark Davies posted an excellent article in Wargames Illustrated years ago on the refight of Auerstaedt utilizing GdB rules. They forced the same restrictions on the game that the Prussians themselves had imposed on their units. Somethings like the forming up after coming off a road march before moving up into combat, and enforced attack orders by Blucher at the start of the battle, and others besides these examples.

Anyway the game as the real battle had the divisions pretty much attacking unsupported and piece meal. The French still won, but it was still a close call on their part, and pretty much followed what actually happened at the battle.

If you can find this article, its worth the read.
Wargames Illustrated #158 – November 2000

Also Inkbiz & Esquire – Thanks for your comments on my troops.

Yes, you've got some great stuff there at your blog, VonBlucher. Difficult to beat well done 15mm's IMHO.

People should not be allowed to post photos or provide links to 15mm Napoleonics here anymore ! :)

Bottom Dollar,
Thanks, the Blog is a friends, Paul's "Paulalba" on TMP.

I'm just trying to do justice to the beautifully sculpted AB figures.

Herr von Blucher, I am looking at doing the cavalry brigade in Grawert's division and need figures for Holtzendorff and Henkel. Not sure I need to get the staff set since I don't need all those generals. So a question on an AB figure that you used in several of your photos. There is a mounted officer in overcoat with sword arm raised mixed in with the von Beeren Kurassiers and in a couple of staff groups, what figure is that?
thx

If you like 1806 Prussians, but are concerned about having the field tilted against them in Napoleonic gaming, then you might think about shifting to the Revolutionary Period, where Ancien Regime-type forces were in the field and more viable (Suvorov Russians, Austrians, etc).

@bkm4175,
The figure in question is a conversion of Brunswick from the AB Jena Prussian staff group. I added a Prussian Cuirassier Officers sword hand to the figure. Actually a pretty easy conversion to do on your own.

I also moved him to a brigade command stand, for one of my Cuirassier Brigades. All part of my rebasing project, which is why you see him for a second time on Paul's blog.

nsolomon99,

"There are several good rules sets that reflect this"

Please, I would like to know about those rules.

I think 1806 Prussian army was a very good one. Superb Cavalry, Jägers and Schuetzen; very good Infantry and average but numerous Artillery.
The dark side: poor commanders, poor staff work, poor command and control organization.
Linear system or linear tactics were not the problem. And 1806 Prussian army was not a SYW army. Just compare battles and orders of battle.

1806 Prussian Infantry fire discipline in line formation was superb too. It was lethal in frontal firefights.
A good rules set must cover this.

VonBlucher,

I think that your painted 18mm figures are terrible and you should send them to me right away so you can save yourself from embarassment. ;-) Just kidding, those are beautiful figures and I'm still waiting to see another manufacturer other than Elite Miniatures produce some 1806 Prussians in 28mm.

@ von Blucher, thanks for the feed back. Any special way to remove the hands, or just a straight amputation and superglue.
Any recommendations on good single officer figures that may be good to use for Holtzendorff and Henkel?

BTW, what became of the poor Cuirassier officer (aka Herr Oberst Stumpie)who gave up his hand fur Gott und der Konig?

Ruchel,

Are we sure that the frontal fire of 1806 Prussians was superb? I'm just wondering if it is a feeling or a 'hope' and is there documented evidence? Trust me, I feel that the Prussian fire was better than the French but I'd like to be able to back that claim up with some historical evidence.

Both of my prefered rules (FoG-N and Lasalle) treat the Prussians of 1806 as a 'LINEAR' (Lasalle) or 'UNREFORMED (FoG-N) army which goes someway to 'hobble' it. That said, if you understand the constraints place on your army you can play to it's strengths and minimise it's weakness it is still capable of obtaining a Victory. It comes down to you as the 'Commander' to deal with it.
FWIW I have an 18mm (AB Miniatures) 1806 Prussian Army and it's no baby seal.

@Ruchel,
GdB rules reflect the command control aspects and that's were their issues are. Troops are rated line, veteran, Elite, and Guard. I've adjusted the Prussian mounted troops to superior mounts, which adds to the melee factor.

@bkim4175,
I cut the Cuirassier at below the gauntlet and Brunswick below the cuff. The Officer resided in my parts box, but I decided to use his head and bicorne on a bearheaded Dragoon.

@18th Century Guy,
Thanks on the figures. If someone would have come out with great looking 28mm figures (Perry) before AB released these, my army would probably be in 28mm instead. I'm happy to have moved back to 15/18mm in the 90's though.

18th Century Guy,

Two examples at Auerstaedt. Brent Nosworthy: "With Musket, Cannon and Sword". P. 191-192.

Also, at Eylau, the firefights against the french regiments (Davout III Corps) around Birch Wood.

Sure, there are other examples. Maybe in Peter Hofschröer's books.

I think GdB rules are very good, but I do not like 1:20 scale units.

Thanks for your answers.

@Ruchel,
"I think GdB rules are very good, but I do not like 1:20 scale units."

There are plenty of people out there that play them at a scale other than 20 to 1.

@bkim4175,
I missed part of your question, Not really, none of the other Officers with the exception of the officers in the staff group.

Volley fire was bad for all nations due to be packed in dense ranks, aiming or pointing was not possible.
However the Prussians had more felxible fire fight tactics than just firing vollies, such as skirmishers with a rifled musket and volunteers to back those up, in case they did not suffice.
They had light infantry battalions and a superb Jäger unit, all in all a good army, let down badly by their leaders.
The uniforms I find very atractive representing a transition of old to new style.

Hello Alan!

Two great choices 6mm and 1806 Prussians. I hope your using Baccus figures as their 1806 line is amazing. In 2006 we fought the entire 1806 campaign from an historical view point. If you do this reasonably faithfully the Prussians should be doomed. After the twin battles they rarely have enough troops to stand up to the French. We enjoy playing games where one side is clearly the underdog. We had a lot of fun playing the campaign and are eager to do it again someday. You could have seen the complete campaign on our former website for the Napoleonic Miniatures Wargame Society of Toronto but that's down now. Were working on a new site under the Miniatures Brigade title (our new name). Hopefully the old stuff will be carried over when were up and running.

Anyway if your not happy playing one sided battles your only chance is to play what if games. Which can be a lot of fun as well.

Best regards,

Glenn

Sorry the name is not plural it's Miniature Brigade.
When up and running you can connect using the search/link
noted below. Should have the basics up sometime in March.

miniaturebrigade.com

Best regards,

Glenn

Ruchel,

I really like the 1:20 ratio as I like to get things more at a tactical level. I think that's where the Prussians have a chance of standing up to the French. But if there are grand-tactical or higher level games that work then I might give them a look.

What I've been SLOWLY doing is painting up my 1806 Prussians and mounting them for Republic to Empire by Barry Hilton. My thought after reviewing the rules again was to give the Prussians the 'Shooters are Guard, Veteran or British in line' option. From what I've seen most of the Prussian battalions would have around 36 figures at most while many of the French battalions would have 40+ figures and since fire combat is done by the combat group (4 figures per group) you can see that the French would have an advantage there. Otherwise I'm not seeing much else I would change but I'll have to look over the Morale section again just to be sure.

18th Century guy,
A Prussian Infantry brigade has 2 light 6lbs per battalion as battalion guns, plus a 12lb battery. So a division has 20 light 6lb battalion guns, a 6lb horse battery, 2-12lb foot batteries, 4 musketeer regiments, 2 grenadier battalions, and 2 cuirassier regiments. That's allot of firepower within a standard division.

That's very kind of you, VB.

RMD,
You're welcome as it is a fine article, I just wish I could of attended the game.

It was definitely one of the best wargames I've ever been involved in. I just wish I had some photos of it. :o(

As you say, it was the command and control issues, allied to the piecemeal arrival of formations and the funnelling effect of the terrain that mainly did for the Prussians in our game, even though the players had the benefit of hindsight.

The only scenario restriction I placed on the Prussians was to have Bluecher (with the huge Queen's Dragoon Regiment and half a Hussar regiment) on Assault orders from the outset. This was mainly because, with the benefit of hindsight, a player would most likely hold Bluecher back until an infantry brigade came up and then launch a combined-arms attack, resulting in a very short game!

R Mark Davies & Von Blucher,
I absolutely loved the article in Wargames Illustrated that you guys are discussing. The special rules and background info was fantastic. I root it out and re-read it from time to time. With hindsight, it was one of the two things that got me hooked on Napoleonics.
The other was a certain series of books by Bernard Cornwall….

Well, I use the "old" 1:50/1:60 ratio. A good set of rules must cover the pros and cons of every army. For example, 1806 Prussians: good training and discipline, murderous firepower in line (they were trained mainly for it), good light Infantry, excellent Cavalry, average Artillery with many guns, awful command and control capabilities, difficult changes of orders, difficult co-ordinated movements and combined-arms attacks,…

And I think most napoleonic rules do not attend the capabilities of line formation.
I have not found a good set of rules yet.

TelesticWarrior & R Mark Davies,
I had started a 1806 Prussian Army when they were first released by AB, RMD's Auerstadt refight article pushed my to the GdB rules. As a result I purchased the rules, but because of work and family comitments, i walked away from Naps for a number of years. I only returned a short time after the release of GdB Deluxe and picked up the new set and started rebasing and painting again. My Prussian were originally based for Chef de Battalion, which are based in elements of 2 figures wide by 3 deep.

VonBlucher,

Talk to me about GdB Deluxe. How does it work? I had GdB and wasn't that impressed. I thought it had too much to it to make the game fun. But I understand that everyone's idea of 'fun' is different. I've been looking at R2E so I can have the 1:20 ratio I prefer.

Also, thanks for the mention on the extra firepower the Prussians would/should have if the battalion guns are included. R2E handles them in a 'unique' way so I'll have to really get a handle on it so I understand the impact better.

18th Century Guy,
I never played the 1st edition rules, but I find the Deluxe addition my cup of tea. I know that a few changes were made for each edition, put I'm not sure what they were. After playing many Nap rule systems in the past. I find the rules, give great feel for a Naps battle. The command control, skirmishing, the ability to apply National characteristics that are subtle but make sense. No overpowering artillery, and musketry. The rules reward you fir using proper tactics, And than there's the dreaded double 6's……!!

Trust me not one rule system is perfect for everyone. Everyone has the own view on what they want from a set of rules, I do play some LaSalle on occasion for a quicker game, But my first choice will always be GdB.

I know a few guys that play R2E and love them, I haven't tried them, but I'm sure one day I'll be talked into giving them a spin.

One option some use in GdB is adding 4 figures to the musketry fire and not place the battalion guns on the table. I myself would rather field them. You can always group all the battalion guns from a brigade together to form another battery also.

As the site mentioned by VonBlucher has exceeded its daily hits and is offline, here is an alternative link for the article by Hofschröer on Von Yorck's rear guard action at Altenzaun, 26th October 1806.

There is also The Prusso-Saxon Army at Jena 14th October 1806 by Peter Hofschröer.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Soldiers

I have a question regarding the use of the 'battalion guns'. I've just read through the articles and nowhere do I find the battalion guns listed out and Mr. Hofschroer states that the Prussians really didn't use them as battalion guns as they were used in the SYW.

So any thoughts on the numbers of artillery pieces listed for each command group. Are those numbers including or excluding the battalion/infantry guns? Were those guns directly attached to the battalions or were they formed together as batteries at a higher level (brigade maybe)?

I'm just trying to get my thoughts around these guns, where they were and how they were really used versus what the printed doctrine might say. Thanks.

I think the 4pd ‘grenade pieces' are the battalion guns – grouped into batteries.

Hofschröer says "The use of battalion guns was on the decline by 1806. The Prussian fusiliers did not bring theirs on campaign with them and both the Prussians and the Saxons formed ad hoc batteries of battalion guns."

Druzhina
Illustrations of Soldiers

Druzina & 18th Century Guy,
4lb grenade pieces were Saxon pieces,

The Fusiliers had 3lber's which they left behind.

Hofschoder says about the decline, because in 1806 those light 6lber's formed up as the reserve batteries that could be doled out back to the battalions. Look on the link below.

link

Scroll down to the wartime strength of a Prussian Battalion in 1806. Each battalion had 1 artillery NCO and 17 gunners, which would wear the uniform of their regiment and man the 2 battalion guns.

So your option is to use these light 6lber's with the batalion as batalion guns or create an reserve battery of lt 6lber's on top of the 12lb brigade battery.

Some Divisional Generals also pulled the Grenadier battalions from the brigades and placed them under their direct command, as a Division reserve.

VonBlucher,

Thanks, I had already read that section and that is where my question came from. I don't see the battalion guns called out but each battalion did allocate people to man them. So the question is did the guns stay with the regiment/battalion or were they used in an adhoc way? Or could either be true and it as decided by each Divisional commander while on the field?

I'm just trying to have some documentation/evidence to back up any gaming decisions I would make.

18th Century Guy,
The decision was most likely by the division commander or even the Brigade commander. This probably differed depending on the how progressive the commander was. I'm sure the more progressive one would group them into a "reserve battery" and the not so progressive would leave them with the battalions. I've seen it gamed both ways. For those that don't actually show them in GdB, they add 4 figures to their musketry fire. The one thing you have to understand though is the battalion guns would move forward in an attack. In GdB if the Prussians lose the melee, the guns were lost.

Evidense wise no one seems to mention exactly what was done as you read about battalion guns and than a mention of the 6lb reserve batteries, which were just the battalion guns grouped together.

If Dr. Summerfield picks up on this, he mostly likely have some more info than I have on this.

I base my battalion guns at the same width as normal, but not as deep and I use only 2 gunners (instead of 4) painted in the units facing colors.