"Brunswick infantry organisation 1815?" Topic

Hello. The Black Brunswickers were the very first wargame figures I ever bought, painted and played with. The contrast of the sober black uniforms amongst the typically gaudy Napoleonic unifroms was just so striking. Those 1st generation 15mm Minifigs figures are long gone but I'm thinking of putting together the Brunswickers of Waterloo again, 15mm Old Glory. Am I right in assuming that the Brunswick infantry were organised into 4 company battalions?
Thanks

Yes, 4 companies per battalion; 2 each of muskets and rifle-armed jager in the case of the avant-garde battalion, otherwise all companies the same – no "flank" company distinctions.

Like all Nations using a 4 company organisation (Prussians, Russians, Hanoverians, French Imperial Guard etc), they actually operated tactically as 8 half companies, therefore a column of divisions, or column of attack was two half companies wide ( ie the equivalent of a single company).

I would always model such organisations as 8 tactical elements.

Rod

Thanks! Would they have operated in two or three ranks in line?

Three.

In the Exercir-Reglement für die Herzoglich Braunschweigische Infanterie. published in Braunschweig 1815 (no month given: January ? December ?), the following info is found:

The battalion consisted of four Kompagnien. Each company was divided in four (!) Züge (platoons). The companies were formed in two ranks.

Each Zug (maximum strength 18 files) was divided in – usually 3 – Sections of between 4 and 6 files, only if the Zug had 12 files or less, it was to be divided in two sections only.

The tactical column was formed with the frontage of a Zug or of two Züge. Squares were hollow, except if the battalion was already in closed column.

This 1815 regulation doesn't mention the formaton of the attack column.

Oliver Schmidt, you're completely right!

You can download the Reglement on our homepage: leibbataillon.de/quellen.htm

The Brunswickers operated just TWO ranks in line! (§46)

Damn, that *is* news to me – live and learn….

Dr. Mabuse, great Site !

And I wasn't aware of the 1813 regulation.

Interestingly, in 1813, the company consisted of two Pelotons only (p. 42), each of four sections.

Did the Brunswick infantry in the end of 1813 had 8 companies per battalion ? (p. 44: every company forms a "Division" – p. 60, 72 etc.: eight "Divisionen" are mentioned)

Do you know when exactly there was the change structure ?

It is my understanding that the Brunswick infantry were a mixed lot in terms of the influence on regulations. Historically they had been closely tied to Prussia and so when new battalions were raised in 1813 as the duchy was liberated, they would almost certainly have been set up using current Prussian practices. This would be 4 companies each in two zugen for a total of 8 tactical elements.

When the Duke and his staff came home from the Peninsula they would have been indoctrinated with the British tactics as employed by Wellington. The 1815 regulations impose certain changes on the Prussian organization in order to utilize British tactics.

While the Prussian defence against cavalry was close column, the British was open square from column at quarter distance. In a four company battalion this would be best achieved by columns of half companies with each half company operating in two sections. Such a column would be almost identical to a British column of the day (which would usually have 9 companies instead of 8 half-companies) but the formation of square would be identical.

I suspect that the division into 4 zugen per company (total 16 in the battalion) was simply terminology. I have not studied this manual yet, though I will as best I can with my out of practice German. I suspect that the standard column was a column of half companies or double zugen and that each zugen operated in two sections for the purpose of forming square. I also will not be surprised to see the recommended action column being a column at quarter distance formed on the right.

If I am correct, then the Brunswick contingent would have operated very much like a Peninsular division of two brigades.

The Züge(Platoons) were a practically used subunit, e.g. for building a square.

Right, there were two brigades in 1815: The light infantry brigade (Leibbataillon and three light battalions) and the line infantry brigade (three line battalions), all other units (Avantgarde, cavalry and artillery) weren't put in brigades.

I'm a bit in a hurry, I'll write more soon (esp.about the reglements 1813-15)…

Olfermann, in his introduction to the 1813 regulation (on the back of the title page) states that this 1813 drill regulation should be the temporary basis for the drill, so that it would be the same with the drill of the Brunswick regiment which was still in England.

But maybe he was misinformed …

It requires more careful reading of the 1813 and 1815. I am afraid that I will not be able to read with sufficient control of the language of the day to see subtleties.

I think an earlier post has provided the evidence of the British overlay of tactics – that the square shall be open, not closed column. This would require each element of the column to function in 4 sections in order to create a four rank deep square.

It will be interesting to study the 1815 to see if column frontages are allowed on both company and half company, and if so which is preferred. I do suspect the emphasis is on half company (analagous to the Prussian zuge colonne, and to the British column of companies) I also expect an emphasis on column at quarter distance. Each element of the column would therefore by of 2 zugen. If each Zuge operated in 2 sections, then each element of the column would have the requisite four sections to enable forming open square in the the way that the Duke and his staff had observed for years in the Peninsula.

Fighting in two ranks is not a clear indication of British tactics. The Prussian infantry formed in three, but then the third rank of each zugen often split in two and formed on each flank. On that basis you can argue the Prussian infantry was in two ranks much of the time.

My understanding is that all AA infantry in the 1815 campaign were 2-rank infantry. No exceptions.

Wellington certainly issued a General Order (April? 1815) referring to two ranks. Rod MacArthur will know, which will save me looking it up ;-)

I have a recollection that at least one Allied contingent fought in three ranks.

- Allan

That is my recollection of Rod's conclusion as well. As noted earlier in the thread, we do not know if the 1815 Regulation was published before the campaign and adhered to in the campaign, or if it was published afterwards and contains the benefit of experience.

I am quite curious to know if the Brunswicker tactics in the Waterloo campaign were British or Prussian. Can people point to first hand accounts clearly describing the nature of the formation used against cavalry. I am inclined to think that what I have read indicates open squares, not closed columns, but I would like to see input from those more expert on the contingent and with access to original data.

Allan wrote:

Wellington certainly issued a General Order (April? 1815) referring to two ranks.

Allan,

I don't think that Wellington issued any such general order. The Prince of Orange issued an order in April 1815 that the Netherlands troops should form 2 deep.

I believe that the only troops in Wellington's army that possibly formed 3 deep were Kruse's Nassau contingent.

Then I may be mistaken. Then again, perhaps the Prince of Orange was prompted?

The Nassau troops forming in three ranks rings a bell.

- Allan

Allan,

Perhaps the Prince was prompted. I have never seen any written evidence that he received instructions from Wellington and assume that he was influenced by his time in the Peninsula, but who knows?

The Nassau contingent under Kruse had been in the North German Corps in Luxemburg until late May and was a very recent addition to Wellington's army. I think that the Prince's order would have only applied to the Nassau units embodied within the Netherlands divisions.

There had been some thought to creating a Nassau division, but I think this was quashed on two fronts: that it would disrupt the exisiting Netherlands divisions and that Kruse's contingent was not going to interface well with the other Nassau units (presumably in part because they would be employing somewhat different drill).

David wrote:

The Nassau contingent under Kruse had been in the North German Corps in Luxemburg until late May and was a very recent addition to Wellington's army. I think that the Prince's order would have only applied to the Nassau units embodied within the Netherlands divisions.

That is my understanding as well.

I have actually never found any order from Wellington, whether in the Peninsula or Waterloo campaigns ordering infantry to operate in 2 ranks. Having said that there is plenty of evidence in memoirs that they did.

There is an often quoted General Order of Wellington's (I think friom 1809, but do not have the exact words to hand) to the effect that the normal order of the army shall be in two lines. Many have interpreted this as meaning two ranks, but lines and ranks have quite different meanings. The instruction for the army to operate in 2 lines means with half the battalions arrayed in a front line and half in a second line (ie a sensible 50% of reserves).

Rod

The one existing order from Wellington referring to 2 deep line is that written at Lavos in August 1808, applicable to the three brigades present at the time. The order is for "two deep" and not two lines. Two deep is only used when referring to the depth of a battalion when formed in line, not for the number of seperate lines.

The actual wording of Wellington's General Order of 3 August 1808 is:

The order of battle of the army is to be two deep, and as follows, beginning with the right:-
Major-General Ferguson's Brigade
Brigadier-General Catlin Crauford's ditto
Brigadier-General Fane's ditto, on the left

In the context Wellington is clearly referring to his higher level structure and to the array of battalions within the overall army context. If he had meant form in two ranks he would have said so.

Soldiers (and I was one for 30 years) use precise language to describe what they mean (because terminological confusion can lead to casualties – like the modern injunction to never say "repeat" on a military radio, because it means "fire again at the last target" to the gunners, which is why soldiers who want clarification ask "say again"). "Order of battle" does not mean "ranks" to any British Army soldier, whether in the Napoleonic era or now.

Nevertheless, many memoirs do make it clear that the British Army under Wellington did operate in two ranks, after all they fought in two ranks at Quebec in 1759 and also during the American War of Independence. I suspect it already the practice by 1808, so there was no need to reiterate any requirement to do so. The fact that the 1792 regulations specified 3 ranks was simply ignored by the army in the field, because they felt they knew better.

Rod

I am quite curious to know if the Brunswicker tactics in the Waterloo campaign were British or Prussian. Can people point to first hand accounts clearly describing the nature of the formation used against cavalry. I am inclined to think that what I have read indicates open squares, not closed columns, but I would like to see input from those more expert on the contingent and with access to original data.

Both, in the 1813 and the 1815 reglement the Brunswick infantry used open squares against cavalry. In the 1813 reglement four ranks deep, in the 1815 reglement 2 ranks deep.
During the battle of waterloo Wellington stayed a long time inside the Brunswick squares. So did the brunswick and parts of the british artillery when they were attacked by frech cavalry.

The reglements of the brunswick infantry 1813-15:
The 1813 reglement was introduced just after Olferman started to raise a new Brunswick army in November 1813. Olferman chose the drill of the british light infantry, because he was used to it (although a born Brunswicker, he was in british service from 1795 – 1813; as soldier, NCO and officer in the 97th Rgt. of foot – the "Queen's Own Germans" and from 1810 in the Brunswick regiment in spain). It was just provisorily/temporary.

In 1814 the duke himself changed the reglement, because many old officers were just used to the old prussian reglement (of 1788) or the french reglement (from the westphalian times). So he himself created a new regelement (a variant of the prussian 1788 reglement) and himself educated this to his officers.

In 1815 (17 april), after the regiment british service returned from spain, the duke introduced a completely new reglement, which was a mixture of the prussian reglement of 1812 and the british "rules and regulations" of 1792. In some respects he took over parts from the prussian light infantry reglement of 1788, e.g. the two rank order and battalions of 16 Züge (platoons), some things he created himself, e.g. the suqares (just two ranks deep).
[source: Kortzfleisch: Geschichte des Braunschweigischen Infanterieregiments 92 und seiner Stammtruppen, vol.II. Braunschweig 1898. pp.11-12, p.20 & pp.45-46.]

If/how far the new reglement was used in Waterloo is an interesting question. It was intorduced when the corps marched to Belgium. Some accounts are suggestive of the older reglements being used.

I think you may have settled the question about timing of the introdiction of the 1815 regulation, and that it should have been in use for the Waterloo campaign.

The one area that I question is that you suggest the Brusnwick infantry formed square in two ranks. I think this needs to be revisited. If you are correct that would be intriguing, and would open up several lines of inquiry. I am fairly certain that the 1815 squares would have been in four ranks. Can you point to the evidence that leads you to your conclusion? I am quite interested in this point.

The 1815 reglement says definitively that brunswick squares are two ranks deep (§127ff.), squares may be four Züge long on each side or (§128-2 "forming square from open column") three Züge wide and five Züge long (so it isn't square but a rectangle) – that was because the open column was just one Zug wide and so the first and last three Züge could easily form the square's "tête" and "queue", while the even Züge turn left and the odd turn right to form the sides.
When standing in line the four central Züge (no. 7-10) stay where they are and all other Züge (à 4) build the square behind them.

Kortzfleisch writes, that these square were an invention of the duke.

I have two sources of eye wittnesses (members of the brunswick corps in 1815) who write about the squares:
1. Wilhelm von Frankenberg (Capitain 3rd Light Battalion) writes in his memoirs (published by his son in 1859, on p.67) of "viergliedirge Quarrées, deren beide vorderen Glieder bei jedem Cavallerieangriff mit gefälltem Bajonett auf den Knien lagen" ("four ranks deep squares, in which the both front ranks were kneeling down with any cavalry attack with bayonet at the ready").

2. Carl Rudolf Lindwurm (Lieutenant 2nd Line Battalion) writes in his diary that at Quatre Bras his battalion built "a kind of square" together with the 3rd line battalion which was "four men high", it streched across the road and the sides were formed by farmhouses. Because he especially emphasizes the four ranks, it seemed to be unfamiliar to him.

So there may have been a discrepancy between the 1815 reglement and waht happened on the battlefield.

That is really interesting! The primary accounts you offer both indicate that four ranks squares were used in the field, but the quote from the regulation indicates 4 zugen in length per face. Since each company had 4 zugen and their were four companies, that would seem to imply a 2 rank deep formation.

I do have a suggestion for where to dig next. Your reference from the regulation (128-2) refers to forming square from open column. Hardly anyone used open column on the battlefield by this period. Open column was useful for moved a battalion that would form in line to the flank. It also refers to forming square from line by wheeling back from the centre zugen. Both of these manouvers make sense from those starting positions. Is there any sort of text about the types of columns, perhaps indicating when open or a lesser interval should be used. And, if there is a section about hald or quarter distanc columns, does it provide guidance on the nature of the square to be formed?

128-2 also seems to imply a column of 4 zugen width which would be 4 lines deep. This would be very similar to the Prussian angriffekolonne. The Prussian experience was that it was more effective to form close colun against cavalry.

We might be able to gain new insights into both British and Prussian tactics through study of the Brunswick regulations.

Rod wrote:

Soldiers (and I was one for 30 years) use precise language to describe what they mean (because terminological confusion can lead to casualties – like the modern injunction to never say "repeat" on a military radio, because it means "fire again at the last target" to the gunners, which is why soldiers who want clarification ask "say again"). "Order of battle" does not mean "ranks" to any British Army soldier, whether in the Napoleonic era or now.

Rod,

I agree to an extent, but the phrase "two deep" only had one meaning in the Napoleonic British army, and that was the depth of files. I could provide dozens of examples of this term being used, and not one refers to the number of seperate lines one behind the other. When reference is made to the amount of lines the army was to form into, the term used was "lines". Wellington could have been referring to a single line of battalions formed 2 deep as an order of battle.

If Wellington was referring to the number of lines, then his terminology was imprecise.

For confirmation of two ranks the Order by General Beresford to the Portuguese army is likely highly relevant.
Particularly as the Prince of Orange seems to have followed his example.

Beresfords regulations for the Portuguese were a direct translation of Dundas, except for a page on the grenadiers acting as skimishers.
His General Orders likewise, are unlikely to have been his own imagining I think.

This order was quite explicit that troops passed as fit for service would operate in two ranks whilst in the presence of the enemy.
In garrison or not fit for service they would be in 3.

Off hand I cannot find the exact passage but I have posted it before.

I think from two of Wellingtons side kicks issuing near identical orders on this it would be more than reasonable to assume this as SOP for the British and closely associated allies

Did the Leib Battalion operate as Light Infantry or did was it is some way a Guard Battalion with increased moral and melee ability?

Bob,

You might want to start this as a new thread? Lots of people simply don't look at old threads and instead just look at what's new on the main page.