"Chain of command in WSS" Topic

In the latest post of my blog I'm trying to understand the 18th century chain of command.
link

What was the role of those lieutnant generals and major generals ?

Why some single brigades seem to be commanded by two generals, while other single generals are in command of several brigades ?

Maybe somebody could explain which general comanded what on the left wing cavalry at Hochstadt (picture below), and why there where three of them to share command, while prince von Hannover commanded his wing alone ?

I invite you all to discussion.

Saw this on your Yahoo Group posting so I will answer here, cut and paste, and also answer there. In this period of history there was no permanent or formal organizational structure above that of the regiment. Everything was ad hoc. Depending upon the mission and nature of the ad hoc formation formed, as well as the politics involved (because certain personalities deserved command status regardless), officers were assigned.

In the diagram above, the individuals you have questions on could either be deputies or joint commanders of the formation in question. As but one example, Schullenburg's infantry at Malplaquet seemed to have brigade commanders, line commanders and nationality based commanders. In this latter case you might find three Danish battalions in the first line, three more in the second right behind, and three more in the third line right behind those in the second. These battalion commanders reported to a brigade commander who reported to a line commander. The battalions also reported to a national commander who supervised the 9 Danish battalions in three ranks to insure they moved forward in support as needed.

It makes no sense to the modern soldier, but it seems to work. The big thing is to simply understand that our modern concept of organization and command simply does not apply.

Warmest regards,

/// BILL ///

Wilbur E Gray
Colonel, US Army (Ret)
AOE, PSS, HMGS WFG+

ageofeagles.com

"The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." Thucydides

The presentation reminds me of 19th C. schematics for Frederick the Great's orders of battle (reprinted, among other places, in Dorn/Engelmann), where there would be several major-generals commanding brigades under each lieutenenant-general commanding the wing or column.

It may then be a case of retrofitting that template to a period where it is less applicable, or for which the data were incomplete? I suspect the latter, since in the second line, the right wing cavalry don't seem to have a commander – Unless that's a typesetting error (not uncommon either in older sources) and it's in fact Frhr. v. Erffa commanding the right wing, Stauffenberg the left, and Durlach the infantry centre with Waldt as his deputy?

However, nationality as referred to by Col. Bill may be playing a role in your Höchstädt example as well: In the first line, Palffy as an Austrian LtGen appears to be commanding Prussian cavalry, so has Natzmer as the Prussian MjGen under him. Ditto for Anhalt-Dessau (Pr) with Thürheim (Au?) , and Schulenburg (Pr?) with Wustromirski (Saxon).

Thank guys for replies.

Colonell Bill – your suggestion, that command in WSS was rather coincidencal, and depended largerly on generals or aristocrats present is very interesting. Maybe it would be even good factor to complicate the scenario: "You got more senior generals than needed and you must give them all independent commands, thus interrupting logical chain of command. And don't forget that they must be assigned according to nationality, and that imperial or royal generals must take "the post of honour" on the right wing !"

Musketier – I also know the diagrams from SYW, and I think that they are similar to this because both books were written in the end of 19th century. It's also possible, that some gaps reflect lack of data. Also, if one takes a closer look at some battle, he could find, that commanders cited as most active and influential aren't those listed as "senior commanders", so maybe real chain of command looked different than OOBs in books, as they were reconstructed using some documents dating to period before the battle. The most obvious examples are SYW OOBs showing armies "in camp" before the battle.

In one of his posts, Vlad Gromoboy showed a theortical composition of Russian army:
link
It's command structure is very clear, and major generals serve as subordinates to lieutnant generals.
So maybe it was an ideal, but reality on the battlefield forced another solutions – just like this at Hochstadt.

Hello guys.

Christian, a friendly chap at yahoo group, show me this link:
link

I've read the chapters about command and I became enlightened !

Now the matter is obvious to me:
Only lieutenants generals were considered independent commanders, and major generals' duty was to assist them only.
In the battle, to make control of the troops more effective, major general could be provided with command of portion of the troops that remainded under ltn-general control.

I think, that now I would be able to understand the Hochstadt OOB:

On the left wing, lt gen Palffy commanded first line of cavalry, with mjr general Natzmer as subordinate.
The second line was commanded by lt gen. Stauffenberg.

In the center there were four independent commands of infantry. In the first line, the contingents of Prussia nad Saxony had to be commanded by their own lt generals – Anhalt Dessau and Shulenburg, each one with help of his own mjr general – Thurheim (a Reichs general, because part of this line was composed of Reichs troops) and Wostromisrki – a Saxon mjr general, as this command was purely Saxon.

Secon line of infantry was again divded in two commands, each one under control of its own lt general, both from Reichsarmee. One of these lt. generals, Erffa had a subordinate mjr general (Waltd) as described in the book, while second had to cope with his task alone.

On the right wing of cavalry, prince von Hannover, probably because of lack of suitable generals had co controll all regiments alone (with the help of his adiutants only).

Sounds resonable ?

Maciek,

I think that is at least one legitimate part of the equation, but there are still other considerations. It might help if I illustrate the point drawing off multiple spreadsheets from my good bud Iain Stanford's in depth research on the battle of Malplaquet. Drawing off sources such as Anna Beek, the Theatrum, Dumont and Marburg, he produced an Excel workbook of not less than 8 separate spreadsheets.

1. Social Status. For the Allies, LTG Prince d'Auvergne commands a cavalry formation of 30 sqns in 7 bdes. Two of those bdes are commanded by their brigadiers, one by a MG, the rest by LTGs. For example, BG Waleff's Bde has one regiment (Dopf Dragoons) of 4 sqns, yet still lists MG St Laurent as commander. On the other hand, BG La Hausen's Bde has two regiments of two sqns each (Hesse-Homburg, Saxe-Heilburg Horse), and this rates LTG Athlone as commander with MG Prince de Wurttemburg assisting? On the other hand BG Wittenhorst gets to command his 3 sqn bde (Athlone Horse, Frieseland Garde du Korps) by his lonesome.

My feeling here is that when a national contingent shows up to fight, even if its a small principality with only 2 sqns of dragoons and 1 regt of foot in the entire army, the monarch with son in tow may well show up with them. Given their royal status they probably hold the rank of LTG in their little country, so you have to give them something to do.

2. Horizontal Command. We tend to think of command structure as a vertical hierarchy, but this doesn't seem to have always been the case in the Age of Reason. At Malplaquet Schulenburg's infantry deployed in three lines. The first was commanded by Feldzugmeister Wakerbath assisted by Feldmarschalleutnant Harrach (makes sense, the 1st line was the largest), the second line by LTG Friesheim, the third by LTG Bettendorf. Brigadier Schwartzel's Danish brigade of 6 battalions was part of this force, with 2 bns in the first line (Liv Garde, 1/Fynske), 2 in the second line (Oldenburg, 2/Prinz Karl) and 2 in the third line (1/Prinz Karl, 2/Sjaelland), each contingent one behind the other. I think this was done to facilitate the rearward lines moving up to support the lads in front , but the reality is that BG Schwartzel actually reported to three different commanders simultaneously.

I think your observation is correct in this case, but as the examples above show, this is an era which really lacked any sort of formal command doctrine, so that concept should be totally erased from our heads when looking at how battles were fought.

Warmest regards,

/// BILL ///

Wilbur E Gray
Colonel, US Army (Ret)
AOE, PSS, HMGS WFG+

ageofeagles.com

"The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools." Thucydides