"Russian Battalion Columns 1811-1814" Topic

I've seen online that during this time the Russian infantry battalions were comprised of four companies, each consisting of two platoons. I also read that the elite company stationed a platoon on each flank of the battalion when in line.

Did they form columns by company or by platoon?

It seems like the only column that could form the line above would be much like the French column of attack: formed on the two center platoons, wich the left-hand platoons in the column moving out to the left and the right-hand platoons moving to the right.

Am I understanding their MO correctly?

They did both.
Mostly by company
Platoon when terrain was difficult or attack in/to or out/of a village.
They are also said to have formed a double line when the 3 rd rank was completely empted for skirmishing ( IE 4 ranks like the British double line used in attacking in Penn and Waterloo) There will be others "chiming" in who have a much better knowledge base than I – the Russians are a new interest for me and I have just begun. Most of my reference is from the Osprey warrior series book on Russian inf

If I may "chime" a little. OK – maybe alot. Possibly too much. But the question needs some context for an answer. I am sorry to write so much.

We will consider the Army units of the Russians for 1811 and later (some differences apply earlier). The Guard is a very little different also, but generally very similar.

The basic elements for tactical evolutions for the Russians were the "batal'on"/battalion and the "vzvod"/platoon. The "rot"/company was an administrative unit. This organization and the evolutions themselves are really similar to the French use of "bataillon" and "peloton" for tactical evolutions, and the "compagnie" as an administrative unit.

For the Russians, there are 8x "vzvod" in "active" battalions : the 1st Shef's battalion and the 3rd Commander's battalion.
For the Combined Grenadier battalions formed from the Grenadier companies of a division's 2nd Replacement battalions, for these 2nd Replacement battalions themselves, for the 4th Reserve battalion, etc. – in short, for all battalions composed of 3 companies – there were 6x "vzvod".

For an Infantry regiment as an example (others were the same, with slightly different names of the various parts), the regiment was composed as follows:
1st Shef's battalion
-- 1st Grenadier company : composed of a Grenadier platoon and a Strelkov (or Marksmen) platoon
-- 1st Musketeer company : composed of 2 Musketeer platoons
-- 2nd Musketeer company : composed of 2 Musketeer platoons
-- 3rd Musketeer company : composed of 2 Musketeer platoons
3rd Commander's battalion
-- 3rd Grenadier company : composed of a Grenadier platoon and a Strelkov or Marksmen platoon
-- 7th Musketeer company : composed of 2 Musketeer platoons
-- 8th Musketeer company : composed of 2 Musketeer platoons
-- 9th Musketeer company : composed of 2 Musketeer platoons
2nd Replacement battalion (not used with the "active" battalions)
-- 4th Musketeer company : composed of 2 Musketeer platoons
-- 5th Musketeer company : composed of 2 Musketeer platoons
-- 6th Musketeer company : composed of 2 Musketeer platoons
2nd Grenadier company : composed of a Grenadier platoon and a Strelkov platoon (used in a Combined Grenadier battalion, in the field with the infantry division that included the example regiment)
4th Reserve battalion (inended to be used to move new soldiers from the divisonal recruiting depot to the regiment, actually often used overwise, but separate from the example regiment)
-- 1st Recruit company : composed of 2 Recruit platoons
-- 2nd Recruit company : composed of 2 Recruit platoons
-- 3rd Recruit company : composed of 2 Recruit platoons

For a 1st Shef's battalion as an example, the platoons deployed as follows :
Strel/1Gren – junior/1Mus – junior/2Mus – junior/3Mus – senior/3Mus – senior/2Mus – senior/1Mus – Gren/1Gren
One would also refer to them by "vzvod"/platoon, as follows:
8th – 7th – 6th – 5th – 4th – 3rd – 2nd – 1st
So that, for example, the junior platoon of the 3rd Musketeer company would be the 5th platoon of the formed battalion.

For Combined Grenadier battalions, recall that they are the Grenadier companies of the 2nd Replacement battalions of 3 regiments of the same division. Each will include 2 grenadier companies from Infantry regiments (a "senior" and a "junior" regiment according to Army regimental senioity) and 1 grenadier company from a Jäger regiment. They are thus composed as follows :
-- 2nd Grenadier company of the Jäger regiment : composed of a Grenadier platoon and a Strelkov platoon
-- 2nd Grenadier company of the Senior Infantry regiment : composed of a Grenadier platoon and a Strelkov platoon
-- 2nd Grenadier company of the Junior Infantry regiment : composed of a Grenadier platoon and a Strelkov platoon
They will deploy as follow :
Strel/Jag – Strel/SenInf – Strel/JunInf – Gren/JunInf – Gren/SenInf – Gren/Jag
One would also refer to them by "vzvod"/platoon, as follows:
6th – 5th – 4th – 3rd – 2nd – 1st

Now, finally, we can get to columns.

I would say that the Russians would often use a column on platoon frontage – either by the right (the 1st vzvod leading) or by the left (the 8th or last vzvod leading). This would be ~22 files. They could also form on a 1/2-platoon frontage for passing obstacles. They even had a rather neat "march by the flank" conversion to a column of three's.

The had a column formed on the center two platoons (called a "divizion", as did the French), which if by the right would be:
5th – 4th
6th – 3rd
7th – 2nd
8th – 1st
Naturally, if formed by the left it would be the mirror image. This would be quite similar to a French "colonne d'attaque", and I think it was the most commonly used formation on divizion frontage for action near the enemy (note that the "elite" platoons can urge the others forward). It saw wide usage at Borodino, for example.
Interestingly, the Shef (usually a general officer) formed with the Gren/1Gren = 1st platoon, but there was a major who would form with the senior/3Mus = 4th platoon.
You could also think of this as looking like as a column of companies in inverse order:
3rd Muskt company
2nd Muskt company
1st Muskt company
1st Gren company
But, as soon as they begin an evolution, the movement is by platoons. And if such a column is formed by the left, the supposed companies have their platoons in the wrong order, and so don't even look like a correct column of companies.
So, really, the formation and evolutions are by platoon.

They also had this one, also, again shown by the right:
2nd – 1st
4th – 3rd
6th – 5th
8th – 7th
This is like a French "colonne par division" and seems to have been more for ease of movement (the "elite" platoons positioned to help regulate the movement). It can quicky form, or be formed from, a column on platoon frontage.

They also had this odd one, shown again by the right (it is not a mistake : the right-most platoon when deployed ends up leading the left side of the column) :
1st – 8th
2nd – 7th
3rd – 6th
4th – 5th
This had the "elites" in advance. I do get the impression it was not much used, and may have been a parade formation. The evolutions with this column look sharp and snappy, but are very time consuming – like a drill team exhibition. Or maybe it was a "one-way-mission" column (form it once, use it once).

I have heard these books in English are well thought of on Russian tactics, drill and tactical evolutions :
George Nafziger. Imperial Bayonets. link
Alexander & Yurii Zhmodikov. Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars. home.fuse.net/nafziger/CAT.HTM
I have never seen these books – YMMV.
If you know 18th/19th century Russian, I can suggest some other sources for further reading.

All of these columns could form line. However, by the period in question it is not too clear how often they actually did this.
Many know the supposed Suvorov comment "The bullet is a fool, but the bayonet is a fine fellow," Kutuzov is said to have echoed the sentiment : "Grenadiers and Musketeers – bayonets! Jägers shooting!"
Whether or not the quotes (and translations) are perfectly accurate, there is some truth in the sentiment. Despite lots of practiced evolutions (some quite involved), the Russians of 1812-1814 often tended to use the formed troops for shock, delivered from a column – and the jäger for shooting, delivered as skirmishers.

The Russian fielded 1 jäger for every 2 "heavy" infantrymen – a high ratio. For Russian use of skirmishers, see TMP link .

Fantastic Seroga!

A couple of questions-

If I read you aright the usual formation for a column in the field was by divisions (by the right or left). Is the Grenadier company at the back or the front in this?

Would the Egers in the Combined Grenadier Bn wear the usual Eger uniform (black belts etc) or infantry gear?

I vaguely recall hearing that the infantry tended to deploy in shallower formations after the carnage of Borodino. Any idea about these? I guess it could be forming each platoon in two ranks rather than three (so a column would be 8 deep instead of 12) and perhaps as a result of losses rather than a deliberate change in tactics??

Thanks, Timbo!
I am trying to help. But the posts get so long that I fear I am not helping.

A Grenadier company in the standard 4-company battalion is composed of a Grenadier platoon and a Strelkov (Marksmen) platoon. In a formed battalion, the Grenadiers are the 1st platoon and the Strelkov are the 8th platoon. These are located in different places depending on the type of column (I gave three examples, all shown formed by the right).

Jäger differences, and indeed all uniform distinctives, are unchanged when a Combined Grenadier battalion is formed. Uniforms had no changes. No flag was used, but a "flag group" is still formed (to protect the commander?). All the Grendier company drummers and fifers/flutists are included in the battery of "tactical musicians" for the battalion.

I don't know of any 2-rank depleted formations being used by Russians in 1811-1814, but it was a standard thing in most armies to do this. So it is possible that they did it sometimes also.

More specific to Russians, perhaps, is that after Borodino the problem of depleted regiments was handled differently. In each badly depleted brigade (note : 2 heavy brigades & 1 jäger brigade per divison, 2 regiments per brigade, 2 "active" battalions per regiment), the junior regiments made good the losses in the senior regiments, and then sent their cadres back to the regimental depots to refit and take in replacements.

Similarly, and this was mostly in early 1813, for a depleted regiment, the 3rd Commander's battalion replenished the 1st Shef's battalion and then sent the cadre back – leaving a good strength 1st Shef's battalion in the field.

I think these consolidation methods reflect the (1811-1814) Russian emphasis on using formed infantry in shock attacks delivered in column. The adoption of 2-ranks when depleted would be more useful if the intent was to typically deploy and engage in fire combat – and for fire combat the Russians typically employed their many jäger, used as skirmishers.

Seroga,

Amazing information, thank you!

Question: when the Russians deployed from a column of platoons, did each platoon wheel into line (making the battalion change face by 90 degrees) or did each platoon march obliquely into line with the leading platoon (keeping the battalion facing the same direction), or could they do either?

Rich

Rich,

In theory, both evolutions were taught. Also with other than 90 degree change of facing. All rather like an exhibition drill team. Amazing evolutions.

In practice, I think the oblique march deploying without change of facing was far more common (this was also the typical evolution for the French).

In general, the change of face evolutions look really rather complicated and use quite a bit of time/space. I, personal opinion, would not try them with Army Musketeer battalions in/near contact with the enemy.

Instead, I think the typical thing was to march up another battalion column into the correct/needed direction and then deploy them. The higher formations (regiment of 2 battalions, brigade of 4 battalions, division with 8 heavy battalions) typically used a checkerboard or flank-refused array of battalions.

And remember, deploying the heavy infantry was really not the key thing for 1811-1814 anyway. The heavy infantry evolutions you really hear about alot (in reports, memoirs, etc.) :
1. column (on 2 platoon frontage) to square, when cavalry threatened, and back again to column (on 2 platoon frontage).
2. column (on 2 platoon frontage) to column (on platoon frontage), to pass an obstacle, and back again.

I have gotten the notion that infantry were deployed less and less often as the wars ground on. Do you suppose in the case of the Russian this was a new ideal (shock) or just the force of circumstances (less well-drilled conscripts)?

I get the impression from your posts that the Jager were trained and used somewhat differently, is that so? I had previously thought that all Russian infantry were treated the same when formed in close order.

The tradition of heavy formed infantry delivering bayonet charges dates to Suvarov and earlier. I suppose that Austerlitz was an eye-opener about the problems of using lots of deployed lines. By Eylau, there was in use a kind of "ordre mixte" : some heavy battalions deployed backed by some in columns. Also, many units had combat experience from the various wars not even counting against the French (Sweden, Turkey, Persia, Poland) – the Army was constantly getting new "lessons learned".
For sure the Jäger were expanded greatly through the period : 20 smaller-sized Army regiments in early 1805 to 57 regular-size Army regiments in 1813.
Russian training of conscripts was pretty consistent. It needed to be – the serfs were not at all worldly or educated and had been reared in a rather primitive agarian lifestyle. Given this caliber of recruit, and the huge distances for mobilization, there was really no effective way to rush the Army conscripts, and mostly they were not rushed. The opolchenie (voluntary militia) formations (mostly raised in settled places such as the cities and towns of the Moscow and Saint-Petersburg regions) filled the "rush" requirements in 1812.
On balance, I will go for "a better idea", more than "force of circumstance" to explain the Russian tactical approach in 1811-1814. But this is just an opinion.

Sure, jäger could form. And then they would act just like heavy infantry. And the heavy infantry was trained to skirmish (either to cover themselves with detached skirmishers, or as a unit). But, a special, intended rôle of the jäger was to act as skirmisers.
As Kutuzov is reputed to have said : "Grenadiers and Musketeers – bayonets! Jägers shooting!"

Thanks, so much! I understand them so much better now. I'm writing house rules for club so I want to get it as close to history as possible.

Thank you for your kind words! I am really happy to help if ever I can.

Seroga,

Be interested in anything you might have from 1792 through 1800?

Chris

We play "late period" (1811-1814), so I really have not looked at this carefully. So, please excuse me if I am incomplete. I will try to avoid being incorrect.

If I remember correctly, the only campaigns in the period 1792-1800 are:
-- 1794 Partition of Poland
-- 1799-1801 War of the Second Coalition
Are you playing the 1794 campaign/occupation? There was an action at Praga (Vistula river defenses opposite Warsaw), but not too much more. Am I missing something that makes the period of 1792-1798 more game-able? I apologize if I am missing something.

I will confine my response to 1796-1801, and look at 1792-1796 later if you want. I will leave out the special situations : isolated regiments, the Guard, the Life-Grenadier regiment.

From November 1796 (Paul's reign), we have:
-- Grenadier Regiments = 2 battalions, each battlaion of 1 Flank-Grenadier (could also be translated as "Wing-Grenadier") & 5 Grenadier companies, each company of 2 platoons
-- Musketeer Regiments = 2 battalions, each battlaion of 1 Grenadier & 5 Musketeer companies, each company of 2 platoons
-- Jäger Battalions, each battalion of 5 Jäger companies, but increased to 2 battalion regiments in January 1798, but these with smaller company sizes of only 64 jäger each (increased to a more normal company size in 1802).

The regiments took the field with both battalions, however the 2 Flank-Grenadier companies of Grenadier regiments and the 2 Grenadier companies of Musketeer regiments were stripped out and paired up to form 4 company (8 platoon) Combined Grenadier battalions in each division or inspectorate. Thus the parent battalions, without these stripped out companies, were formed with 10x vzvod or platoons.

I looked through the manual of 1796 (reprinted also 1797 with more instructions) and found that the only columns shown (with the usual variations of being closed up, or with spaces between sub-elements) were on the frontage of a platoon. I found nothing about columns formed on the frontage of a divizion (2 platoons – the size of a company).

However, I did see evolutions based on deployed divisons : instead of the battalion deploying as a single (firing) line of 10 platoons, there are evolutions based on a checkerboard array of deployed divisions (such 3 up & 2 back or 2 up & 3 back). This checkerboard array is really not 100% different from a column formed on a division frontage. It has a little more fire capability than a column formed on division frontage. It is less of a target for enemy artillery firing roundshot (fewer ranks to be penetrated). It had less "as is" resistance to formed heavy cavalry, but would take about the same time to form square (actually a rectangle for the parent battalions, as there are 10 platoons). Of course, you could order the "back" divisions to go in either on a flank or directly behind an "up" division delivering a shock attack.
This checkerboard array may also have served to better utilize (and protect) the substantial regimental artillery (often three pieces per heavy infantry battalion, preferably 2x 6-lb gun and 1x 12-lb unicorn) compared to forming on division frontage.

The official tactics under Paul were very much based on controlled firing – they have a rather "Prussian" feeling or tone. The prior manual (1763, under Catherine) had a greater variety of columns (including ones on division frontage). Suvarov (and his leading officers) did not hesitate to use the older evolutions, or make new ones.
For example, for a bayonet attack at the battle of the Adda River in April 1799, Suvorov formed Bagration's 2 battalions of Jägers on two-company frontage (recall the tiny companies) and Lomonosov's Combined grenadiers on division (2-platoon) frontage. This would look something like:

JS –- JS / JS –- JS

JC – JC / GP – GP
JC – JC / GP – GP
JC – JC / GP – GP
JC – JC / GP – GP
(JS = jäger skirmishing, screening the advance, JC = formed Jäger company, GP = formed Grenadier platoon)
BTW – the Jäger were later granted the honorific of permission to use the "Grenadier March" for parades, as they had performed so well, even as if grenadiers.

I hope this helps.

Seroga,

Thanks for the information! I'm currently researching the 1799 Suvorov campaign so this'll come in handy. I haven't delved into the details entirely yet of the typical Russian battalion's composition during that time. Figured I see if you might have knowledge readily available for me to cross check against? Now that you mention it the 1794 Polish partition sounds interesting as a period to possibly someday wargame as well! As to earlier period wargaming. I'm personally finding it to be a more interesting and challenging period with the ever continuously evolving armies. Holds my interest longer. Cheers,

Chris

Per the Shtat of 5 January 1798 (O.S.) PSZ No. 18308

combatant ranks of a Jäger battalion (composed of 5 Jäger companies)
officers
- 1x lieutenant colonel (1st battalion) or 1x major (2nd battalion)
- 1x sub-lieutenant adjudant
- 4x captain
- 1x staff-captain
- 5x lieutenant
- 5x sub-lieutenant
NCO's
- 5x sergeant-major
- 20x corporal
jäger
- 320x soldiers
musicians
- 1x hornist-corporal (1st battalion only)
- 10x hornist

combatant ranks of a Grenadier or Musketeer battalion (after stripping the Flank company, composed of 5 Grenadier or Musketeer companies)
officers
- 1x general-major shef (1st battalion) or 1x colonel (2nd battalion)
- 1x sub-lieutenant adjudant
- 1x lieutenant colonel (1st battalion) or 2x major (2nd battalion)
- 3x captain (1st battalion) or 2x captain (2nd battalion)
- 2x staff-captain (1st battalion) or 3x staff-captain (2nd battalion)
- 5x lieutenant
- 5x sub-lieutenant
- 5x ensign
NCO's
- 5x sergeant-major
- 5x officer candidate
- 40x corporal
grenadiers or musketeers
- 5x sapper
- 690x soldiers
musicians
- 7x regimental band (1st battalion only : 2x clarinet, 2x horn, 1x oboe, 1x bassoon, 1x flute – all corporals)
- 1x drummer-corporal (1st battalion) or 1x lead drummer (2nd battalion)
- 15x drummer

combatant ranks of a Combined Grenadier battalion (composed of 4 flank companies stripped from 2 regiments in the same division)
- 2x major
- 2x captain
- 2x staff-captain
- 4x lieutenant
- 8x sub-lieutenant
NCO's
- 4x sergeant-major
- 32x corporal
grenadiers
- 4x sapper
- 552x soldiers
musicians
- 12x drummer
- 8x fifer/flutist

thank you.

Seroga,
Your knowledge appears outstanding. My diorama (www.borodino1812.co.uk) represents the fletches during the second French attack. French line infantry occupy the northern fletch and were about to be attacked by a Russian column when the Wurttemberg and French light horse attack; the Russians had then formed square before Russian Cuirassiers drove them back. The scene is set at this moment, with the Russians about to resume their advance. I was intending to depict them in the format ‘turkish' square mentioned in Nafziger's book, as being most appropriate.
It appears that a battalion would have a ‘core' of about 570 privates & NCOs full strength. Many of the Fletche regiments had been in action already, especially two days earlier, so less than 500 men would be available that day. Split over 4 companies / 8 platoons would give a company wide frontage of 21 men, and a column width of 42 persons.
Full column depth on the left side would be would be
21+21+21
11+11+11
11+11+11
11+11+11
11+11+11
21+21+21
And mirror image to the right,
My 25mm scale battalion is about 120 privates & NCOs ie 1:4 ratio, but a proper proportioning would give just a column frontage of 10 men – too little. Thus I am proposing to use a representation with a 16 column frontage, with the left side now being:
8+8+8
3+3+3
3+3+3
8+8+8
Any comments?

Thank you for your kind words! But, my "knowledge" is mostly (all?) just reading in Russian and French languages.

For your diorama, before I go look for the strengths and formations, let me understand how much of the battlespace you are depicting.

Before the battle, there were 2 regiments (4 battalions) of Jäger from the 27th division out in front of the flèches. In the flèches were 3 Combined Grenadier battalions from the 2nd Combined Grenadier divison. Just behind the fflèches were 8 more battalions of the 2nd Combined Grenadier divison. Backing them up were the 4 heavy regiments (8 battalions) of the 27th division. There was also a Don Cossack artillery company somewhere, plus the artillery in the flèches. The 4th Cavalry corps was rather near at hand further to the rear, and its Novorossiiskiy Dragoons and Akhtyrskiy Hussars had been in action near the flèches.

Are you looking to include all of these, or are you "zooming in" to the action nearest the flèches? If so, how near ? Do you have a list of battalions that you are including? I assume that you are not "zooming out" enough to include the approaching reinforcements (Cuirassiers, Guard infantry, 3rd Infantry Division, etc.), is this correct?

Also, what is a "turkish" square as used by Russians? I am sorry, but I have never read anything by Mr. Nafziger.

P.S. – Russian accounts typically call yours the "3rd attack" on the flèches (confused the heck out of me at first).

Maybe this is what you wanted ?

2nd Combined Grenadier division
> not much engaged at Shevardino
> 3 battalions in the flèches (unknown which 3), 8 formed in a line behind them
> each battalion of 3 grenadier companies (6 platoons), strength reported as only as a total has been averaged for 10 battalions
> 8 formed battalions were in battalion columns on the front of a divizion (2 platoons, about 38 files)
> these 6-platoon battalions will form "square" in the shape of rectangle : two faces of about 38 files, two faces of about 17 files
1st Combined Grenadier brigade
-- 1st Combined Grenadier battalion of the 7th Infantry division (23/347)
-- 2nd Combined Grenadier battalion of the 7th Infantry division (23/347)
-- 1st Combined Grenadier battalion of the 24th Infantry division (23/347)
-- 2nd Combined Grenadier battalion of the 24th Infantry division (23/347)
2nd Combined Grenadier brigade
-- 1st Combined Grenadier battalion of the 2nd Grenadier division (23/347)
-- 2nd Combined Grenadier battalion of the 2nd Grenadier division (23/347)
-- 1st Combined Grenadier battalion of the 12th Infantry division (23/347)
-- 2nd Combined Grenadier battalion of the 12th Infantry division (23/347)
-- 2nd Combined Grenadier battalion of the 26th Infantry division (9/351 – had been guarding the convoy of the 2nd Western army)
-- 1st Combined Grenadier battalion of the 27th Infantry division (23/347)
-- 2nd Combined Grenadier battalion of the 27th Infantry division (23/347)
1st Don Cossack Horse Artillery company : 6x 6lber guns and 6x 1/4-pud unicorns (exact location unknown – I would assume 1/2 on each side of the flèches)

27th Infantry division
> had been heavily engaged at Shevardino
> heavy infantry positioned in reserve behind the 2nd Combined Grenadier division
> each battalion of 4 companies (8 platoons), strengths reported only for each regiment and averaged for each battalion
> 8 heavy infantry battalions formed in columns (unknown which type, but I would assume on divizion frontage)
> 4 jäger battalions initially sent out as skirmishers, some may have fallen back and formed on the flanks of the flèches when pressed, others scattered and sniped from wherever they could
1st (Heavy) brigade
-- Odesskiy Infantry regiment : 1st and 3rd battalions, each (19/306) – each about 26 files on division frontage
-- Tarnopol'skiy Infantry regiment : 1st and 3rd battalions, each (23/339) – each about 28 files on division frontage
2nd (Heavy) brigade
-- Vilenskiy Infantry regiment : 1st and 3rd battalions, each (23/505) – each about 42 files on division frontage
-- Simbirskiy Infantry regiment : 1st and 3rd battalions, each (21/450) – each about 37 files on division frontage
3rd (Jäger) brigade
-- 49th Jäger regiment : 1st and 3rd battalions, each (14/305)
-- 50th Jäger regiment : 1st and 3rd battalions, each (17/333)

Errata : correction to prior post : "> these 6-platoon battalions will form "square" in the shape of rectangle : two faces of about 38 files, two faces of about 19 files"

Seroga,
The action I am depicting is the whole fletches area and part of the woods to the south: some 1200 figures:
Debris French infantry from first attack on southern fletche
Debris French infantry from first attack on jaegers in forest
Debris and survivors Combined Grenadier division
French infantry from latest attack on northern fletche
Portuguese infantry from latest attack on southern fletche
Wurttemberg infantry edge southern fletch
Wurttemberg and French light horse being repulsed by Duka's cuirassiers
Some French lancers, Novorossiiskiy Dragoons and Akhtyrskiy Hussars
Russian Cuirassiers attacking
27th division regiment, after defending against cavalry, resuming attacking!

George Nafziger's book, ‘Russian Army 1800-1815' talks of a new type of column introduced in 1811 that allowed a quick transfer from column to ‘square. 4th & 5th platoons at the front, 1st & 8th at rear, in line; the second and third companies on the right divided into half, forming one behind the other. Ditto the left. In effect a column of 18 lines with a hollow centre.

Hi Seroga,

Are those Russian regimental/battalion strengths for Borordino that you are showing above??!?!??

If so

1- Coool!
2- Can you tell us which source they are from? (Pleeeease!!)

TMP = tell me please?-)

Here is a good OOB in, including some strength reports, in English (but, I am not sure about his allocation of 2nd Grenadier companies to the Combined Grenadier battalions in each Infantry division) :
link
Mr. Gingerich's sources for these strength numbers are, as he shows,
-- Beskrovnyi, Liubomir G., and G.P. Meshcheriakov, eds. Borodino 1812-1962: Dokumenty, Pis'ma, Vospominaniya. Moscow: Sovetskaya Rossiya, 1962.
link
-- Glavnoye Upravleniye General'nago Shtaba. Otechestvennaya Boyna 1812 Goda. Vol. 17. St. Petersburg, 1911.
dlib.rsl.ru/viewer/01003959802
See also T.XVI : dlib.rsl.ru/viewer/01003959803

@borodino1812

I bought Mr. Nafziger's book. I have never seen this "column formed behind the center of the battalion" before. I can't find it on the internet (except from Mr. Nafziger). I reviewed Mr. Nafziger's sources. None are in Russian, but some are translations of works I know in Russian. I suspect that he got this (and the following diagram of another square that is identified as being like the British) from Zweguintov's L'Armée Russe. That was a great work, especially during the soviet era when archive access was so limited. But it did suffer from that limited access.

This kind of column/square is not, as far as I can find, in the regulations of 1763, the (hated) 1796, the 1811 (which was rather abbreviated), the 1816 (taken to be best for 1812-1814 practice) or 1826 (which were rather the opposite of abbreviated). It is not identified by either A. Zmodikov or I. Ulyanov – two highly regarded current researchers. Indeed, they recently concurred on a Russian forum that the majority/typical formation used at Borodino was battalions in column on the frontage of a division (2 platoons) formed on the center – i.e. like a French colonne d'attaque.

The column/square given by Mr. Nafziger may be an echo of Suvarov's "6-ranked column". This was his own invention in 1778, and was indeed used against the Turks. This column was also used for quite some time afterward – Bagration and Kutuzov would have known how it was formed. It was never offically added to any regulation. The problem is that Suvarov's writings on this topic – on any topic – were notoriously strange and rather unclear (it seems to have been a personality trait). Historians offer different explanatiosn of how the "6-ranked column" really looked. Suvarov's officers would have learned the formation firsthand, and could have been still using something like it in 1812.

Suvarov's original intention was, however, to devise a formation that could assault a position while being swarmed by Turkish light horse. It was formed once for such an assault. It was not really a kind of essentially immobile square for defense against cavalry.

The description of the evolution given by Mr. Nafziger is a little hard to follow. It starts "the first company closed up so that the gap between the 4th and 5th sections disappeared". I think he is saying the 4th and 5th platoon moved laterally toward each other to close some space. How they did this movement, and why there was some space between them – this I don't understand. Anyway, after this, the column's divisions must close up or open up vertical/longitudunal spacing to distance needed to "insert" 3 ranks on the flanks, then the "inner" half-platoons of the middle divisions can take a few steps forward, face, flank march to their intended position and face again.

But this evolution really takes no less time than forming a regular square with each face composed of 2 platoons facing outward – about 20 seconds in both cases. Indeed, if cavalry threatens very unexpectedly, a divizion column can just stop and start shooting, with only six fewer files of shooters on the side faces compared to Mr. Nafziger's column/square.

So, while Mr. Nafziger's column/square may indeed have been used, I would look for some more confirmation before basing a wonderful and very large diorama on it. This is just my opinion, please do not think that I "know" what is correct.

Seroga,
Another comprehensive answer, thank you. Yes, looks like I will need to revert to a normal column.

Dear Seroga,

If I may add my two cents in regards to the column that was ployed in this manner.

1st – 8th
2nd – 7th
3rd – 6th
4th – 5th

The Russian column that is depicted here is not one used for a parade formation, but like every column it has an intended purpose in combat. Of course in some cases a column may never leave l'ordonnance d'exercice in lieu of being used in l'ordonnance de tactique, but this particular column was very useful and had an deliberate role which only by per happenstance had the two elite pelotons for the Russians leading.

What was important was that it was able to deploy and form on the first rank facing the enemy, or be used to counter cavalry.

Like the colonne d'attaque it was designed as a double column so as to be able to separate in two columns and when necessary to be able to form both an open and closed square. When forming an open square; unlike the colonne d'attaque, it would have six ranks facing the threatening cavalry, whereas the Russian colonne d'attaque would only have three ranks facing the enemy when hit in the rear.

If there were detached tirallieurs protecting the colonne de retraite, they were expected to form square on their own or in the various methods that a grenadier peloton would separate to form with its parent battalion when forming square.

The column found in the Russian ordonnnance is from the French ordonnance de 1776, and was called a Colonne de Retraite, and was formed when a battalion in line was retreating in bounds, as well as for countering cavalry while retreating. This column was first used in l'ordonnance de 1755, and was formed by plesions which made it too complicated and massive to manoeuvre in embarrassing terrain.

The colonne de retraite was formed while a battalion was in line facing the enemy like a colonne d'attaque, but unlike the colonne d'attaque when finally formed it was in reverse order.

The execution for the battalion to ploy in retreat, began by retreating by both wings on their flank, with each peloton following the movement of either the eighth or first flanking pelotons. The seventh peloton, sixth peloton, and the fifth peloton followed the eighth peloton, while the second peloton, third peloton, and the fourth peloton followed the first peloton.

The new position to form the colonne de retraite was marked prior to execution of the movement, and each peloton then took its own position facing away or in the new direction of march, yet behind the original position of the fourth and fifth pelotons while the battalion was in bataille.

The colonne de retraite was practical for defiles and passage of lines when retreating. The colonne de retraite could execute the following means of musketry when retreating:

Feu en retraite
Feu de chaussie par pelotons en retraite
Feu de troisieme ranq

But the fire of a retreating battalion was no more practical than the fire executed from a battalion advancing; therefore if the distance was not far for the battalion to re-deploy, it would not execute any fire, since it would retard the battalions movement, the battalion would only execute musketry if the bound was of considerable distance.

It was later discovered for the French that the best means of fire was to have the third rank protect the rear of the colonne de retraite, or have the grenadier peloton or light peloton screen the battalion so as to retire in good order and in a more prompt manner.

According to Colins; we find this application of employment of the chasseurs, and grenadiers en tirailleurs the most common method for screening both attacks and retreats.

Finally according to Colins once more; although l'ordonnance de 1791 makes no mention of the colonne d'attaque (meaning proper use of, other than the role of a colonne de manoeuvre) or colonne de retraite, we find that it was maintained in l'ordonnance de tactique.

In the Russian battalion only 12 men are called out of the third rank to become tirailleurs or 96 tiraillieurs per battalion. The Russians could also call upon the eighth peloton which were chasseurs. As for the peloton of grenadiers, they were called upon to be positioned in the front of a column and also serve as a reserve, this dual system of imitation of the French and Prussian system was not a happy one.

Normally a document with a plate or planche would at least give the name of the column…but hardly ever why it was formed. therefore may I ask what your source is…and why there is no name for the column in the diagram?

If you would like to have me send you a drawing of the three phases of the colonne d'retraite…here is my email address:

lasalle@comcast.net

Very Respectfully
Art

Dear Seroga and Gerald,

Again if I may add my two cents worth…

Now that I am home…I cannot for the life of me find Georges book…and it may be a misunderstanding of what George is describing…or perhaps its George that has badly translated his work of a Russian colonne d'attaque forming an open square…

But it is defiantly a colonne d'attaque that is being described and it was in the Russian repertoire.

One of the major roles for a colonne d'attaque was to form square while it was operating en bataillon isole…

For the Russians there are two types of squares…open and closed…the closed square was formed exactly like the French while the open square when formed from a colonne d'attaque had the 2e and 7e pelotons in demi pelotons on the flanks, with all sides of the square in six ranks, with the exception of the interior…or rear side, that has the 1st and 8th peloton, which is three ranks deep.

It is for this reason that the colonne de retraite was better suited for the Russians while retreating than the colonne d'attaque.

Please remember …just because it is in the regulations or not in the regulations…does not mean that is was used…or not used…

Every country that has a military ordonnance has two types of sub category ordonnance: l'ordonnance d'exercice (trained on) and l'ordonnance de tactique (actually used in combat).

L'ordonnance de 1791 was never anything more than l'ordonnance d'exercice and never became l'ordonnance de tactique. It wasn't until 1803-1805 that the French had an ordonnance d'exercice that was also l'ordonnance de tactique.

Therefore just because a column cannot be found in the Russian regulations does not mean it did not exist…

As an example neither the colonne de retraite nor colonne d'attaque (meaning proper use of, other than the role of a colonne de manoeuvre) are found in the Reglement de 1791…but was found in l'ordonnance de tactique…

I hope this helps.

Very Respectfully
Art

I am trying to help. But the posts get so long that I fear I am not helping.

@ Seroga, you must remember that most of us cannot read either Russian or French. Translating technical material into, or from, a language that is not your first language is never easy and you must know that there will be some who will mock when you make what they perceive to be mistakes in "their language". I am not convinced that I have a grasp of English as good as your Russian or French although it is my first language.

I seek knowledge, from any source. Information on the Russian Army of this period is sadly lacking in the West; there are published Orders of Battle, once taken as Gospel, that are clearly wrong, units mentioned as being at one battle that a few days before or later were at another many miles away. Two sources that support each other add weight to the value of each, while two that contradict may still both be correct in parts, it is up to the student to decipher which is really the case.

If your knowledge / information is laid before the world, it can be used to challenge or support what we think we already know; as your information appears to be of an earlier generation, in my opinion, the likelihood is that it is better than what we already have.

If we do not understand your words, this is more our fault than yours; you at least can read the primary source which if laid before me would be so alien that I could not hope to decipher it.

Please keep this stuff coming; I am sure there are those of us who, if we do not understand you, will ask for clarification and I only ask that you bear with us in our ignorance.

rabbit

Dear M. Pendragon,

I am deeply honored and thankful that you took the time and effort to offer such an interesting and helpful reply. Althogh I knew that the Russians relied heavily on the French for their set of evolutions, it had never occurred to me to make the comparison that you provided. I am very deeply appreciative!

I would translate the Russian name for this formation as a "column of divisions formed to the rear". I find it only formed as closed (French : serré).

Of course, you are perfectly correct in your assessment! I find it illustrated and evolutions employing it described in the "Описаниа чертежа военных пехотных эволюции" (Illustrated description of infantry military evolutions) – and the application of the evolution is exactly as you described (now that I look closely at it).

See especially illustrations No.No. 143-147 in the 1826 printing, under the heading "Войско стоявшее в боевом порядке в переправы переходит за оную устроясь из средины фронт на зад в дивизионную густую колонну."
See books.reenactor.ru/?bookid=1038
This work should be identical to the "School of the Battalion" first published as the third section of the 1816 "Воинский устав о пехотной службе" (Military school for infantry service). Most authors take this as reflective of Russian practice for 1810-1815.

Again, many thanks!

@rabbit

Thank you for the encourgement!

I am afraid I do not answer well and usefully, and even thought at first I was muzzled or stifled for giving the wrong (or wrong kind of) answers.

Also, I don't know much about secondary or modern sources. I do not, for example, have a single Osprey book, I am forced to admit it.

Dear Seroga,

I wonder if you have read in l'ordonnance Russe of a colonne d'ailes…it was used to support the flanks of an army en bataille…

In the French Army it was recommended in 1783 by Turpin that the colonne d'aile was not to be more than twelve files.

Very Respectfully
Art

Dear Seroga

Is illustrations No. 237 the same as a French colonne vuide?

It sure looks like one…

Very Respectfully
Art

Dear M. Pendragon,

Thank you again for your participation!

Please let me confirm my understanding of the (French) "colonne d'aile" ….

It is a column formed on the extreme right [or, left] of a deployed force to provide a mobile support. Such a column is formed on the left / "la gauche en tête" [or, on the right / "la droite en tête" if sent to the left wing] and at à distance sufficient to permit a simultaneous evolution of it sub-componets to obtain a change of facing to "faire face" to an enemy.

For example, if we were to form a full battalion to act as a "colonne d'aile à la droite", we would ploy as a column of half-platoons formed on the left at a distance of a half-platoon ("colonne par demi-peloton la gauche en tête à distance d'un demi-peloton") – or, for the later bataillon du ligne de 6 pelotons, looking like this:

½Volt
---
½Volt
---
½4eFus
---
½4eFus
---
½3eFus
---
½3eFus
---
½2eFus
---
½2eFus
---
½1eFus
---
½1eFus
---
½Gren
---
½Gren

Do I understand at all correctly?

Interestingly, this type of column figured in Napoléon's retrospective thoughts on tactics, as dictated on Sainte-Hélène. If one reads from page 522 here : link – several examples are given, including the conversion of colonnes d'aisle to a sort of square poised on the extreme flanks of a deployed force. A note: Napoéon has made a series of new difinitions, so that for the purpose of his text, a "peloton" is 1/18th of a battalion.

For the Russians, there are two key problems : (i) there was no "School of the Regiment" or 'of Brigade" (and even the "School of the Battalion" was not published until 1816), and (ii) Russian memorialists were typically even less descriptive of tactics than the French. I see the Russians more as "consumers" of tactical infantry concepts developed in France or Prussia than originators, especially with regard to lager formations. So, it is hard to see a uniquely Russian application of a particular evolution or formations of Regiment or Brigade size.

The configuration implied by a French colonne d'aile could have been achieved, but the report would only be something like "2 battalions deployed with two battalions in column on thier flanks", giving little visibility to the actual formations and intended evolutions. Further, this type of array seems to me rather uncommon in the Russian service. Instead, more common in the early period is a 1st ligne deployed, with a 2nd line rather close to the rear either deployed or in columns by Platoon or Division (two platoons), with Regiments having their battalions in both lignes. A 3rd ligne of reserves, in columns, would usually be present.

In the later period, this really seems to have been further simplified and perhaps stereotyped : a Infantry Division arrayed with 4 battalions of Jägers in open order to the front and flanks, a 1st line of 4 battlaions of the one Heavy Brigade in battalion columns by division, 2nd ligne with the 4 battlaions of the other Heavy Brigade aslo in battalion columns by division. And these columns formed on the center, as with the French colonne d'attaque, seems to have been preferred.

That said, maneuvering in columns by Half-Platoon was clearly represented in the Russian tactical doctrine. And Half-Platoons were indeed about 12 files and amounted to 1/16th of a battalion. This sub-unit was commanded by an officer and a senior under-officer (sergeant or officer-aspirant) and 3 file-closers (junior under-officers or vice under-officers, i.e. corporals and lance corporals). Columns of Half-Platoons are illustrated usually at the distance of a Half-Platoon, indicating to me an intention to use such columns as a sort of intermediate or preliminary stage, able to easily perfom several evolutions – e.g. to act such as a French colonne d'aile.

Equally, the Russians formed similar columns of "Detachments" typically 1/4 of a Platoon and specifically 4-6 files. This column was a typical march formation as it was the width of typical Russian roads, but may have been employed more broadly.

There was also a conversion, similar to one envisioned by Napoléon, that formed two small squares on the flanks of a deployed battalion using 4 Half-Platoons each. See Illustration No. 310 in the work linked above.

===========================

"Is illustration No. 237 the same as a French colonne vuide? " – Yes, it exactly so appears to me.

But look also at Illustration No. 236. This seems to be an evolution to invert the order of the Platoons, but I do not perfectly understand the movements. Are we to see this as an evolution where the 2nd through 7th Platoons split, face outward, flank march to the side of the original column, face gain (now making two columns of Half-Platoons) and then move to their re-ordered position and then face/flank-march/face to re-form the column? If so, it is interesting because while a tad slow, it uses really no extra space. Do you know of this from among the French or Prussian evolutions?

Dear Seroga, apologies for not thanking you earlier for the Borodino numbers, I've been away from the internet for a while. Many thanks!

Dear Seroga

You are quite correct that the colonne d'ailes was used to provide un appui mobile or mobile support for a deployed force. From 1803 to 1805 at the camp de Boulogne, the French Army rehearsed this maneuvered of taking a position on the flank of the enemy line, with an evolution of a change of front towards the enemy, but it was executed with a colonne d'attaque separee en deux demi-bataillons, with each demi-bataillons en colonne par demi-pelotons (half-platoon) in lieu of a bataillon en demi-peloton.

If necessary the second demi-bataillon would prolongate the front of first demi-bataillon. The maneuver was always executed by a small body d'eclaireurs a cheval under the command of a superior officer.

Je vous félicite…for finding Napoléon's correspondence on tactics when he was on Sainte-Hélène, in regards to the colonne d'aile. It was this very book that convinced me to continue my research and finally able to validate that the colonne d'aile was used in both l'ordonnance d'exercice at the camp de Boulogne and in l'ordonnance de tactique for the campaign of 1805.

As for the colonne vuide; originally it was a defensive evolution when retiring from a lost battle. In the French ordonnance d'exercice it was possible to form from a single battalion, two or four battalions, and even with a large body of troops such as MacDonald's Corps at Wagram on the offensive as a counter measure for cavalry. Even the British had their version of a colonne vuide for a large body of troops, therefore they must have also had their own version of a colonne vuide for a single battalion.

The colonne d'attaque could form a colonne vuide by a separation of the demi-bataillons into two colonnes, the grenadier peloton would also separate into demi-pelotons with one centered at the tete (head) of the two demi-bataillons, while the second demi-peloton was centered between the two demi-bataillons at la gueue (tail).

It was also possible to have a division frontage with no demi-peloton securing the rear of the colonne vuide, in just the same manner as in the Russian planche.

Since the Prussians do not have any action columns in their ordonnance like the Russian and French until 1812, such an execution of an evolution for a Prussian column would have been for the sole purpose of changing la tete de la colonne, such as to have a column formed on the left/la gauche en tete to form on the right/la droite en tete, or vise-versa.

Quite often contemporary readers today when reading of an account of a body of troops advancing or retreating in open square, in their minds eye, they see an open square advancing that was formed from line in lieu of a colonne vuide (which is also called une carre vide in French military terminology). We must also consider that some of these accounts were referring to a colonne de retraite when forced to halt and form square.

A battalion formed as a colonne vuide is not an offensive tool (action column), therefore, to become a colonne d'action (action column), it would have to re-form en colonne serree (close column), en colonne par division serree or colonne d'attaque.

Consequently the "two conflicting stories" of the guard at Waterloo assaulting in open square or column is only conflicting to modern readers, since a colonne vuide is in fact une carre vide.

Very Respectfully
Art

see also Davout's instructions about moving a square, there the "sides" would not move in files – but in subdivisions -

S'il est besoin de faire marcher en carré, les deux faces qui forment les flancs du carré rompront par sections ou sub-division en arrière à droite ou à gauche et ne devront jamais marcher par le flanc ..

page 60 0f the captures correspondance of Davout

Dear Hans – Karl

Good to hear from you again my old friend!

Perhaps I was not clear enough in my explanation of a colonne vuide when I posted the following:

"Quite often contemporary readers today when reading of an account of a body of troops advancing or retreating in open square, in their minds eye, they see an open square advancing that was formed from line in lieu of a colonne vuide (which is also called une carre vide in French military terminology)"

I should have explained it better to assure that there was no misunderstanding in this fashion:

…most readers envision a square manoeuvring with the two flanks of the square, solidly formed while marching par le flanc…

That is exactly what the instructions on page 60 says not to do…

"…et ne devront jamais marcher par le flanc…"

In the Russian book "1812 Patriotic War of 1812" which contains captured documents, I suppose in one sense, we must be very grateful that Morand had a falling out with Davout. Otherwise Morand may not have had such an opportunity to send Davout all the instructional documents that he did.

It must be remembered that Morand is now detached from his duties within the Corps, because in 1810, Morand was appointed governor general of the Hanseatic Cities as part of the Army of Germany, this was due to him having trouble with Davout, he even made the request to Napoleon to have him transferred, but Napoleon refused and did not transfer him, but let him have an appointment hoping that Morand would feel differently later…and if he didn't…he would still be under Davout should war break out.

We find that Davout once more thanks Morand on 3 November 1811, for sending addition instructions, this time sur la formation des reserves et les manoeuvres des carres, which he then supplies to Friant, Gudin, Dessaix et Compans.

In the regulations for the British, American (- as for the Russians I shall not assume without further research) it clearly states that a bataillon isole is permitted to displace a short distance in an open square. Of which in each of these countries, there is no question that this provision can be found in their l'ordonnance d'exercice and l'ordonnance de tactique.

There are three manners in which a bataillon isole may manoeuvre:

1…the square marches to front, rear, right or left, by any one face (similar to a colonne vuide)

2…the square marches by the right front angle, in the direction of its diagonal

3…the square marches by the angular march of the square which may be made in any other direction to the right or left.

For the British and Americans, the second and third manner of movement, were considered even more difficult in its execution than the first manner of movement.

But the French they had no open square for a bataillon isole in the Reglement de 1791, therefore there was no need to have instructions for a care de bataillon/battalion square (vide/open) to manoeuvre with.

But l'ordonnance de 1791 was never anything more than l'ordonnance d'exercice and never became l'ordonnance de tactique, consequently we find that in 1792 provisions for instructions were adopted, allowing a bataillon isole to form an open square.

The provisions of instructions that Morand sent, are for instructions sur la formation des reserves et les manoeuvres des carres for a regiment that now has five battalions.

The instructions you are referring to; does not define whether it is for a battaillon isole, or regiment en colonne that is marching in a square formed of several battalions (but this instruction is valid for both, which are considered colonne vuides as well, just as a colonne d'action is synomymous for a colonne serree or colonne d'attaque).

Nevertheless with this said, I believe that the point of this instruction on page 60, was intended for a great body of troops, and I also feel that the planche III validates this in the instructions of le marche en carres on page 60.

Very Respectfully
Art

In 1807
Au mois de décembre, Napoléon vint passer l'inspection du 2e corps (…)
L'Empereur a vu les troupes le 10 et le 11. Il a bourré à plusieurs reprises et quelquefois sans motif les généraux de division, il a toujours été bon avec des soldats.(…)
(…) est de juger l'instruction des chefs de bataillon (…)
L'Empereur n'ordonne que des manœuvres d'une application immédiate à la guerre. Il a fait former une division de trois régiments sur trois lignes, il a ordonné à la première ligne de former le carré perpendiculairement en avant de sa droite, à la seconde perpendiculairement en avant de son centre, à la troisième perpendiculairement en avant de sa gauche. Les trois carrés se sont trouvés en échiquier ; ils étaient sur trois rangs comme ceux d'Egypte. L'Empereur fait à chaque instant des commandements précis, exprimant clairement sa volonté, mais qui ne sont pas dans l'ordonnance. Il exige cependant que les généraux de divisions les répètent sans les traduire ni les commenter ; de là méprises continuelles de la part de chefs de bataillons qui, ne comprennent pas ces commandements, ne peuvent donner le commandement de détail nécessaire pour le faire exécuter. (…)

Girod de l'Ain, Maurice : Vie Militaire du Général Foy, Paris 1900, pages 62 – 63

Quick translation:
'He ordered a division of three regiments form in three lines: the first line to form square perpendicular forward of its right, the second perpendicular forward of its centre, and the third one perpendicular forward of its left. The three squares were located en échiquier; they were in three ranks as those of Egypt.'

Some questions:
1. If I understand the description correctly, each line was a single square? Of multiple battalions?

2. If the three lines were en échiquier why did the second line need to advance?

- Allan

If the three lines were en échiquier why did the second line need to advance?

My understaning is that there were two methods of forming a checkerboard arrangement. The one, we as gamers seem to prefer, is one where the two lines are formed level, with the rear rank covering the intervals between those in the front rank. I think gamers like this, because it's easier to close the gaps, by simply advancing the unit into the opening in front.

The other arrangement, would be where the units would form in two lines, but every other unit in each line would advance forward of it's neighbor, basically in echelon. So, effectively, there would be one back, one forward, one back, one forward, etc. The second line units would be in direct support of those in the front rank. The intervals [between columns] were left open, to facilitate the passage of artillery and cavalry. The intervals were important as they also permitted the columns to deploy easily to line without conflicting with their neighboring units.

npm

Dear Allen et Nigel

Let me thank you both for your contribution to this thread, you both have posted some rather thought-provoking questions.

In Hans – Karl's posting, which was written by Foy; it must be remembered that both Foy and Messina were of the Old School, who were partisans of Guibert and not of Mesnil-Durand, nevertheless both cable of adapting to l'ordonnance de tactique used by the French.

On quite a few occasions we find that Foy articulates his admiration for how the Reglement de 1791 was written as l'ordonnance d'exercice, and how it was actually applied in general principles or only portions in l'ordonnance de tactique.

What Foy is describing is called a "Carre d'Eqypte" (no that is the correct French military term). One of the differences in Carre d'Eqypte and that of the Reglement d'execrcice, is that le Carre d'Eqypte is formed in three ranks in lieu of six ranks. An explanation for the two can be found in the Manuel d'infanterie, la Quinzieme Lecon, Manoeuvres non prevues par l'ordonnance (Carre d'Egypte).

It is for that reason we find Foy emphasizing that…"Les trois carrés se sont trouvés en échiquier; ils étaient sur trois rangs comme ceux d'Egypte"…

No other army formed squares as large as the French except the Russians, and I am certain that Mr. Seroga would be more than capable of confirming this one way or another, with all his expertise.

I am certain he would also be able to validate whether or not the Russians formed one or possibly two large squares at Krasne (Krasnoie, Krasnoye) in August 1812. The Russian General Neverovski with a force of 10-16 infantry battalions, 4 squadrons of Harkov Dragoons, 3-4 Cossack regiments and 8-12 heavy guns, were attacked by overwhelming numbers of French, Polish and German cavalry under Marshal Murat.

General Neverovski formed his force in one large square, while other sources mention two squares, and slowly retreated. According to the Russians "40 attacks" of Murat's cavalry were repulsed, while a Polish historian Marian Kukiel gives "30 charges" as being repulsed. Whichever is the case, the colonne vuide (or colonne vuide) repulsed Murats cavalry charges each time successfully, and both Napoleon and Marshal Ney criticized Murat for his tactics.

–I bring this up since this is a thread on Russian columns, and does pertain to the current topic.

Returning back to the Foy's description of Napoleon's visit and what all this means:

In l'ordonnance de 1791, one of the first corrections we find within is how a column of 2 to 4 battalions form a joint square, but not an individual battalion square. In Part V, no. 608 it explains how a single battalion may counter cavalry in a close column, but this had its inconveniences because there was nowhere for the cadre of the battalion to find shelter within.

The theory behind the French forming square from two to four battalions was based upon the Prussian principle that a grand body on the battle line did not have to form single open squares, but joint open squares. The French realized that for isolated battalions in 1792, the French Reglement de 1791 had to be altered, and it was resolved in 1792.

We also see that Foy gives a perfect example of how parts of l'ordonnance d'exercice and l'ordonnance de tactique become one and the same…"…L'Empereur n'ordonne que des manœuvres d'une application immédiate à la guerre…"

As for the two question that were asked by Allen:

1. If I understand the description correctly, each line was a single square? Of multiple battalions?

2. If the three lines were en échiquier why did the second line need to advance?

The first answer is that each ligne is formed with a single square en Carre d'Egypte, or multiples battalions. Therefore there are only three Carre d'Egpte total.

As for the second question, the answer lies in the Formation Du Carre Dans Les Evolutions de Ligne

1…the regiment on the first line of battle forms le carre on the right of the line of battle, direction perpendicular. First each battalion in line forms colonne par divisions, at platoon distance, then marches toward the farthest right bataillon of the regiment…

2…the regiment on the second line of battle forms le carre on the center bataillon of the regiment, direction perpendicular

3…the regiment on the third line of battle forms le carre on the left of the line of battle, direction perpendicular. First each battalion in line forms colonne par divisions, at platoon distance, then marches toward the farthest left bataillon of the regiment…

Of course there is always an option, in lieu of forming a carre par regiment, to form carre par bataillon on a line of battle , direction perpendicular.

I hope this helps…

Very Respectfully
Art

I see it differently.

First Napoléon establish a line of battle, consisting of 3 regiments, each of 2 battalions – I assume (1807) – so, we have two battalions in each line – deployed in line – or column, I don't know.
The chefs de bataillon are at a loss how to form square from this position as Napoléon ordered.

The intention, in my view, was that each battalion did from one square (otherwise why chequerboard?).

There the first line had to form to the center, the second to the front and the third to the left – automatically a chequerboard formation should have happened.

Ils s'exécutent en ployant en colonnéià demi-distance,
•uneligne de bataille. L'officier commandant voulant
faire exécuter ce carré sur la droite dé la ligne, commande

It was not a square by a division, nor a square by regiment, but squares by battalion.

Here a square of 6 rangs – made of 4 battalions

Gallica has a diagram of the carré d'Egypte in Bardin's 4th edition from 1813 of the Manuel d'infanterie ou Résumé de tous les règlements décrets usages renseignements concernant l'infanterie dans lequel se trouve.

It sits between pages 54 and 55 on the second "NP" page (if viewing online) or view 132 if the pdf has been downloaded.

link

Here from the MdI as Ralpher kindly pointed out

page 52

8o. — Carrés perpendiculaires. ( Fig. 4 , 5 et 6 ).
Ils s'exécutent en ployant en colonnéià demi-distance,
•uneligne de bataille. L'officier commandant voulant
faire exécuter ce carré sur la droite dé la ligne, commande
: carré perpendiculaire à la ligne, sur la division
de droite, formez le carré. ( Fig. 4 )•
A ce commandement répété , s'il est nécessaire, ligne se ploie d'après les principes ordinaires, excepté
qu'il n'est point conservé d'intervalle entre les bataillons,
et que la dernière division se dirige de manièreà
serrer tout à fait contre l'avant-derhière; ellefait ensuite
demi-tour , et les divisions intérieures rompent alorsà
-.gaucheet à droite.
On rompt le carré par les moyens ordinaires pour
reformer la ligne par le déploiement.
81 -—-Deuxième exemple. ( Fig. S)-.
Carré perpendiculaire à la ligne.—Sur la subdivision
de gauche, formez le carré. v ' ,
Ce carré s'exécute en. ployant le bataillon par peloton
en colonne à demi distance, la droite en tête. Le
deuxième peloton seplace à demi-distance, plus l'épaisseur
de trois rangs ; le dernier peloton serre sans distance.
On rompt le carré et l'on reforjmela,ligne, par tf"
corarnaiideraensanalogues à ceux ci-dessus.

seemingly only the "Egyptiens" would have known the wishes to the Emperor or those of the first division in the year 13

MANOEUVRNEOSNPREVUEPSARL'ORDONWANCE/
1 76. —"Carrés d'Egypte. ( Voy. pli 8. ) •>'• •
Cescarrés diffèrent principalement de ceuxiprescrits
par le règlement d'exercice , en ce qu'ils ne se forment
-quesur,.troishommes de hauteur (2) , ctpeuvents'exécuterparbataillons,
formésen'pelotons ou divisions; ils
sontde forme parallélogramme, c'est-à-dire oblbngue ;
onlesfait exécuter d'une manièreparallèle ( V. n°. 77 )
ouperpendiculaire ( VyxP.80 ),-c'est-à-dire, que l'axe
oucapitale( F. fig.3et 6 )que formela colonne avant de;
«'ouvrirpour vider son centre, -règnedanséemêmesens
quel'ancienalignement delà troupe, oubien, que (pour formerle carré perpendiculaire ),cet axe coupé à angle droitl'ancienne ligne de bataille. Ce premier genre de

I have to admit I don't comprehend what is meant with perpendiculaire – so far I had the view that parallel – meant the long side of the square to the front (or the sides) – otherwise – perpendiculaire – the short side to the front.

and here a direct link to the carré d'Egypte – thanks to Ralpher

link

link

link

maybe it is working now

Dear Hans – Karl et Mr. Ralph

One day one of you must teach me how to paste on this forum. I find it a brilliant tool…

But If you read this portion it is simple to see that there are only three squares total.

…"Il a fait former une division de trois régiments sur trois lignes"…

"il a ordonné à la première ligne de former le carré perpendiculairement en avant de sa droite"

"la seconde perpendiculairement en avant de son centre"

"la troisième perpendiculairement en avant de sa gauche"

"Les trois carrés se sont trouvés en échiquier"

Therefore Hans – Karl…if your statement is correct:

"First Napoléon establish a line of battle, consisting of 3 regiments, each of 2 battalions – I assume (1807)"

Your math is off to have a total of six squares formed…but that cant be…for Foy mentions three squares, so if he were to mean three squares per ligne…that would give a total of nine squares.

But he only means three squares total for all three Regiments, hence each Regiment forms one square and not three.

Again let me thank you both for the excellent diagrams of the Carres d' Egypte

Very Respectfully
Art

Dear Monsieur Seroga,

I am sorry not to get back to your observation until now.

"But look also at Illustration No. 236. This seems to be an evolution to invert the order of the Platoons"

I have to admit most emphatically, it is a fantastic find!

The evolution cannot be used on a colonne serree/close column, and of little use to a colonne de route. But I see great potential for a colonne de route which has just become a colonne de manoeuvre, to find it must re-position the peloton which is leading…from right leading to left leading or from left leading to right leading.

I have never read of this evolution in any French military sources, when studying their military science, but I know very little if truth be told, and it is not a difficult evolution to execute for troops with instruction.

As to whether this would only be found in l'ordonnance d'exercice or added to l'ordonnance de tactique I do not know, but I am very glad you brought it to my attention. I shall always be on the lookout for it now.

Very Respectfully
Art

Yes – I simply ignored the text stating three squares, but that all makes no sense to me –
en échiquier – means checkerboard fashion – right?
How can you do this with one square in each line, one to the right, the other to the centre the other to the left, would give -

en échelon?

Also – who is responsible for the formation, certainly not the chef de bataillon, it should be the colonel, and as Foy puts up, the chefs de bataillon are those who are blamed, it all gives no sense to me.

And again, why to chose such a complicated formation? Only to be able to blame the chefs de bataillon?