"March attack pose - why?" Topic

My wife was looking at the figures I've been painting recently – march attack French in greatcoat. She asked me why they carried the musket that way, in the crook of their arms.

Aside from "because that's how they did it" I had no answer.

Anyone care to enlighten me (and her)?

Because having the bayonets sticking straight up is the safest way to carry them when the men are packed together in formation?

Makes perfect sense, especially for the men in the second rank.

VT
As a lapsed reenactor I can say that carrying the firelock at the " support" position is much easier than trudging along at shoulder. We would switch out from shoulder to support or to "carry" or to the trail . At support (march attack pose on the figs) the lock nests comfortably in the elbow bend. And the weight seems to balance nicely.

Bc

Thanks, bcminiatures. I should have said she wondered why not carry it on the shoulder….

The reason is to discourage the men from giving fire prematurely. Individual fire from muskets was seen as a waste of time, and considering that the first fire, after being loaded prior to the stress of battle, would be the most effective, it was essential to deliver it in a controlled volley at the right time.

Having the troops carry the musket in the March Attack would subconsciously discourage 'the awkward squad' from deliberately or negligently giving fire early, yet was sufficient of an 'alert' position to be able to bring the men to a 'present' quickly and in unison.

Whilst on the way to battle, the more relaxed 'Route March' is appropriate, I believe that 'March Attack' would be the pose that most formations spent most of their time in when on the actual battlefield.

Right, knew about holding fire, just couldn't explain why support arms over shoulder arms.

I have to admit that I am getting a bit sick of painting March Attack poses – even if there are no hassles with undercuts and so forth. The trouble with most manufacturers (and most that I like as well) is that their advancing and attacking poses are often very wooden and looking. Perhaps a more natural look is easier to sculpt in March Attack. My opinion of course.

Because it makes basing them easier

It's easier to line them up without the second rank's muskets poking the first rank in the back.

because that is how they did it.. rather heavy and rather clumsy muskets,often loaded needing to be carried relatively long distances with out exhausting the person carrying it..what gets on my goat is the plethora of methods in carrying them "march attack(a term I think invented by minifigs) when all people in all units would carry the said musket in the exact , prescribed in drill, way. and not be all looking in many different directions and chatting with their chums.I can't imagine any troops of the period with a modicum of drill opening fire before ordered. Soldiers of the time were discouraged, often violently, from thinking for themselves.

Another funny thing about the marching and chatting poses: its damn near an impossibilty while wearing a neck stock.

I can't imagine any troops of the period with a modicum of drill opening fire before ordered

Well then perhaps you need to do some reading. May I suggest Brent Nosworthy and Paddy Griffith. With the 'popularisation' of armies after the French Revolution all sorts of wierd freethinking nostrums had taken hold…

I would imagine in 1813 – when I'm painting these guys for – discipline wasn't what it used to be.

"Because it makes basing them easier"

You said it, but not a valid answer for the missus.

it is very hard to carry a musket just shouldered arms over hours, you need variation to relax your muscles, l'arm au bras is a good one for that.
The disadvantage – in case you want to do anything with the musket, like loading – or shoting or whatever, you have to revert to shoulder arms, there this is the classic pose for start doing anything with the musekt.

Historex were using that expression before Minifigs were even though of.

As has been noted, carrying a ten pound musket and bayonet for long periods will get very tiring. the ACW drill has three main positions (Shoulder Arms, Right Shoulder Shift Arms, and Support Arms (attack march)) plus trail arms and arms at will to allow the men to shift the musket around and rest their muscles. I'm not that familiar with the Napoleonic manuals of arms, but I'd assume they had different positions like that, too. Not sure why we mostly see the 'attack amrch' in figures, but it does look impressive. And I do like it better than the leveled bayonets 'assault' pose that was so common for many years.

in French? well Minfigs seemed to have borrowed it, translated , quite early on..

it makes painting them a lot easier as well

The French expression is, IIRC, Marche d'Assault, which was translated in the Historex catalogue as March Attack, or possibly Attack March…… I don't know , it was all so long ago…….

In addition to the explanations and comments above, I've read that the variation of the stance/pose in which BOTH arms are folded (rather than what I think is typical in figures, the musket supported by the left arm while the right hangs downwards) also offered some protection for the torso itself, with the arms taking musket balls rather than the body. No doubt a by-product of the more practical reasons.

Interesting, have not heard of that before – plausible though, even if only subconsciously….

I've seen figures in march attack with both arms folded.
I know AB does some with both arms folded, and I think the new early Prussian kickstarter also. I'm unsure who else produces any though.

Would they actually have carried them with fixed bayonets though, as almost all manufacturers show? Surely bayonets were not fixed as it delayed loading.

Would they actually have carried them with fixed bayonets though, as almost all manufacturers show? Surely bayonets were not fixed as it delayed loading.

They would if they thought contact with the enemy was imminent. Most armies stressed the use of the bayonet over firing. Suvarov said "The bullet's an idiot, the bayonet's a fine chap," and the Russians proved they believed this by not issuing scabards – the bayonet lived on the end of the musket (I'm pretty sure this practice continued into WW2).

The "vanilla" R&F of the centre companies almost certainly did – I believe the post-1808 Prussian Army did away with the bayonet scabbard and carried them permanently fixed.

Looking at, say, the Perry and AB/Eureka ranges (seemingly the gold standard for Napoleonics in 28mm and 18mm), the marching positions do seem to often be more relaxed than I suspect they would be in battle – at least on the last few yards of the approach to the enemy line. Nevertheless, it is nice to see plenty of variations in kit, leg movement (many men would lose step on rough ground, casualties etc), and head position – forget the neck stocks, all but the strictest martinets allowed the men to get rid of them.

Quite a few of the marching 2nd gen Minifigs were in a 'both arms folded' pose: sometimes with with two hands supporting the musket but occasionally with the right arm just bent across the body. I think in general they are very well-posed figures. They look like they are heading into battle. Unfortunately, the current range is not as good, with all the figures in a vigorous, arm-swinging march that might look alright on a parade ground but seems unlikely on the battlefield,

In ACW drill "Support Arms" (attack march) had the variation "Rest" where the right hand would reach over and grasp the musket by the small of the stock thus having both arms folded across the body.

As for having the bayonet fixed slowing down loading… I don't know. By some tiny bit maybe, but certainly nothing very significant. Far better to only get off a round in 22 seconds instead of 20 than to be caught by a charging foe without your bayonet fixed!

Fixed bayonets were the standard on Napoleonic battle fields, also – in the Napoleonic time, the emphasize was going away from fast loading but to hitting.

Neck stocks were worn of course, even and expcially in civil life and therefore they belonged to the etiquette of this time, only in camp, when doing fatigues neck stocks may be removed and soldiers could take off their coat and waist coat.

The dress code then was total different than of todays where people getting away with wearing underwear in public.

I'm not sure where this this 'Hard Leather' necks stocks in the field and in battle myth has come from…In the British service, at least, they were introduced in the 1802 regs, the ones that also mentioned pigtails! How may pigtails do you see on contemporary paintings of Waterloo?

My theory is that since the hard leather examples are those that have survived better, this is what people now think were worn all the time instead of for Garrison Parades. I expect cloth or soft leather were used for marching and fighting.

An analogy is today's use of gloss leather black leggings by Royal Navy Gunnery Officers on ceremonial duties, nowadays to denote the Officer in Charge of the parade. They are worn by perhaps 2% of the Officer Corps, 2% of the time! But the bloody things are indestructible, so will baffle 23rd Century archeologists!

The US Regulars and Marines were still (supposed to) wear neck stocks in the ACW. But keep in mind that the stocks were not just to keep the mens' heads straight or to keep up with fashion. They were neck armor! The fancy shakos and bearskins? Head armor! The epaulets? Shoulder armor! All those things were designed to protect an infantryman from saber blows from cavalry. Over time they evolved into decorative things, but their original purpose was as body armor.

Didn't know that! Logical I 'spose….