"Is The First Battalion Superior in French Regiments?" Topic

I tend to see the first batt. of a French regiment is rated higher in some OOB's.

Would the first batt. be considered steadier due to senior leadership wandering about around the Eagle? More experienced NCO's and junior officers?

Or was this all hokey?

Even Empire V, which has at least 37.4 grades of morale, does not differentiate the 1st and 2nd battalions. They are just .. FRENCH!!!

I've never heard of it being particulary better. You might that the first and second battalions tend to be the ones doing most of the fighting and there fore have more experience. That would be a case by case situation though. I'd be inclined to say as they serve together three battalions of the same regiment will all have a similar level of professionalism.

I suspect that much would depend on training, experience, leadership and motivation.

Newly raised battalions, such as the 5th battalions of some regiments raised for the 1812 Russian campaign or the 4th battalions sent to Spain or serving in the 1809 Austrian campaign, would probably not be as "good" as the other battalions.

On the other hand, the 4th battalions in Spain would, after gaining experience, possibly be as good as any other unit.

Overall, I do not think that the 1st battalions were generally better than any others, although some may have been.

Jurgen

The lower numbered battalions were commonly pulled from the training depot in certain campaigns:

3rd Battalions in 1809
4th Battalions when initially sent to Spain
5th Battalions in 1812

And those would be commonly rated lower because they had little combat experience but the 1st & 2nd battalions should be equal up in most all cases.

Cheers,

The Bandit

My sources concur with Bandit!

The 6th battalions used in 1812 campaign were newly raised and thus raw conscripts. They maybe rated even lower than the 5th Btns.

MG

To make a generalization that covers 25 years of war is rather complicated. The reasons that the 1st battalion of a French regiment might be 'better' than the rest are:

1. They are always the first formed with new regiments and the one that the regimental commander either commands along with the regiment, or stays with on the battlefield because,

2. The 1st battalion was usually the regulating battalion for the regiment and/or brigade. You want your best, most experienced battalion in that position. The traditional 'Post of honor.'

3. When combining battalions because of campaign losses, the 1st battalion would never be disbanded and dispersed to other battalions.

4. The most experienced officers were often in or moved to the 1st battalion for all of the above reasons.

5. When the 1794-5 amalgemation occurred, the experienced regular line infantry battalion was deemed the 1st battalion in the demi-brigade, the conscripts the 2nd and 3rd. So the new French army started with the 1st being the most experienced.

The reasons the 1st battalion might not be better than the rest of the battalions to any degree are:

1. Casualties. A reduction in experienced soldiers, particularly after 1809 and into 1814.
2. And an increase in experienced, well-trained soldiers,
such as the Grand Armee of 1805-6
3. The loss of experienced officers. For instance, the French loss rate for officers was 50% higher than the British in the Pennisula.
4. The Revolutionary emphasis on 'equality' did influence army operations, so having one line battalion 'better' as another was downplayed at times, including abolishing any reference to 'post of honor', while retaining the that mechanism for movement.

So, it all depends on the time period and the units. In general, the French did view the first battalion as a 'lead' battalion [in the regulations] and at least marginally better.

Thanks for that McLaddie. Interesting points.

Macladdie, afaik the earlier embrigadement indeed combined one old regular battalion with two newer raised battalions but in the first amalgation all companies of the three battalions involved were shuffled so that there was no direct lineage from old regular batt to one of the new battalions

Duc:
Well, there was an attempt to do that, though I *think* the first amalgation was by combining new and old battalions, and only later did they go beyond that compromise solution to combining the regular companies with the new sans-culotte companies, as you say. When I say 'attempt', I mean that it wasn't a short transition, nor a consistant reorganization according to the military edicts handed down.

Some commanders did follow them, and some didn't, and who the companies were all 'shuffled' to remained rather haphazard and up to the CinCs discretion. Some of the reasons for this were that commanders wanted to retain wholly reliable battalions, avoid the confrontations that did occur between the old regimentals and the sans-culottes, along with shuffling the best sans-culottes with the best regulars, often into the 1st battalion of the demi-brigade. And what was reported as happening to the Committees wasn't necessarily what was actually occurring.

And yes, often this was in direct defiance to the way the Committee for Public Safety and ministries had dictated. When the Robspierre's group was ousted in 1794, this also provided a 'window' of opportunity to circumvent the letter of the amalgation laws.

Even so, the 'old battalions', now with some large percentage of new recruits worked very hard to keep their identities. They continued to fly the regimental flags and keep the regimental history intact well into 1797, again against the military edicts and the issuance of new demi-brigade flags… It is one reason that French units, even after the change back to regiments, could still identify their 'origins' in the Old pre-revolutionary army--regardless of how convoluted or down-right fantasy that military lineage actually was.

Each army, with their constant influx of new CinCs and recruits often spent little time on issues like completely reorganizing the infantry in the middle of a war… But it was done all the same.

I just read a great book on the subject of the creation of the revolutionary French army from 1792 to 1800, a translation of a French historian, but I loaned it to someone and danged if I can remember the author or title exactly. I'll post the information when I get it.

One of the things that really surprised me was the recruiting records show that around 40 to 50% of the recruits were 5 feet English or shorter.

This may help (or complicate matters when it comes to Demi-Brigades.)

link

The British pulled the best of their second battalions to augment their first, I can't see why other armies didn't do the same. The cream always rise to the top, In this case the senior battalion.

Paul :)

Dibble:
Yes, thank you for that. The article gives a good example of what I was saying about the regimental lineage:

1er Regiment d'Infanterie de Ligne.
Regimental History

1569: Created in Picardie
1585: Regiment de Picardie
1785: Regiment Colonel-General
1791: 1er Regiment d'Infanterie
1794: 1er demi-brigade de Bataille(formed from the following battalions)

1er Bataillon, 1er Regiment d'Infanterie
1er Bataillon Volontaires La butte des moulins de Paris 3e Bataillon Volontaires du Loiret

1796: 1er demi-brigade d'Infanterie de Ligne (formed from)

131e demi-brigade de Bataille
(1er Bat, 71e Regt d'Inf, 17e Bat Vol des Reserve and 8e Bat Vol de Paris)

1803: 1er Regiment d'Infanterie de Ligne

Bill

McLaddie
Thanks for the info. Of course I'm interested in the mentioned book. It's always nice to read about the practice against the (in this case) accepted french law how to amalgame the battalions.
I think we mean the same thing with the first amalgamation; in 1793 a lwas was passed but only to combine one old with 2 new battalions (which I call embrigadement). The 1794 law gave afaik the specific method to shuffle the companies within battalions.

The 5th battalions stayed as depot units in 1812. The 6th battalions in I Corps were newly formed in 1811 but with good cadres from the other battalions.
Although originally they had only six fusilier companies- between formation and marching off to Russia, there was further cross posting within the regiments, and some if not all of these 6th battlaions had formed elite companies by the beginning of the invasion.
This was done with typical Davout style efficiency and attention to detail, and I doubt there was much difference in quality between the 6th battalions and the others by the time they marched off.

Finally, that book:

Bertaud, Jean-Paul The Army of the French Revolution: From citizen-soldier to Instrument of Power Translated by R.R. Palmer Princeton University Press, 1988 1st French publication in 1979

ISBN 0-691-o5537-8

thanks for the book title, will try to locate it

G'Day Bill

Please correct me if I am wrong when I recapitulate a few of your observations:

Right…I understand that you are doing a generalization that covers 25 years of war…And these are just generalized reasons why the 1st battalion might be 'better' than all other battalions in the same Regiment:

"The 1st battalion was usually the regulating battalion for the regiment and/or brigade. You want your best, most experienced battalion in that position. The traditional 'Post of honor."

"The most experienced officers were often in or moved to the 1st battalion for all of the above reasons"

- So it is safe to assume that the second most senior officer was with the 2nd battalion to the left of the 1st battalion…and if there was a third battalion is commanded by the least senior officer and to the far left.

"When the 1794-5 amalgemation occurred, the experienced regular line infantry battalion was deemed the 1st battalion in the demi-brigade, the conscripts the 2nd and 3rd. So the new French army started with the 1st being the most experienced."

-If I understand you correctly…again this is means that in the demi-brigade the 1st battalion which was the regular line battalion was positioned on the right side -or post of honor.

With the 2nd battalion to the left of the 1st battalion…and if I understand correctly you also mean that the third battalion was commanded by the least senior officer and to the far left.

"The Revolutionary emphasis on 'equality' did influence army operations, so having one line battalion 'better' as another was downplayed at times, including abolishing any reference to 'post of honor', while retaining the that mechanism for movement."

By this you mean that the senior Chef de battalion commanded on the right side of the demi-brigade or regiment…who commanded the 1st battalion.

"So, it all depends on the time period and the units. In general, the French did view the first battalion as a 'lead' battalion [in the regulations] and at least marginally better."

Therefore generally speaking, the French viewed the first battalion as a 'lead' battalion…or in other words the regulating battalion?

Best Regards
Art

Art:

From what I understand, the first battalion would be the 'lead' battalion as a default. For instance, at Austerlitz, in Suchet division's the brigades each had three regiments, each with two battalions in this configuration left to right:

First line: 40 , 34, 30
Second line: 88, 64, 61

In each case, the first battalion of the 30th and the first battalion of the 61st was on the far right, and the same fo the other regiments. The brigades were leading from the right.

generally, the lower the regimental number, the more experience it was 'assumed' to have for organizational purposes. The 1791 regulations mention this, as do later treatises. The senior regimental battalion chef would be in the first battalion. While the 'post of honor' and all the associations with nobility were dropped after 1791, the need for an SOP in a battle array continued.

The leger in this period seems to have been held as one step above the line because in each division during the battle, the legere brigade was stationed on the right of the line, ist battalion on the far right. For instance, the 17th Legere was stationed on the far right of the 30th.

However, I also know the French were more than willing to designate a guide or regulating battalion in other parts of the line as needed, most often the center when desired, as was the practice in other armies… Leith's Division at Salamanca for instance.

There were other configurations of battalions too. As the flanks were seen as the most vulnerable, the first-ranked battalion would be on the right flank, the second-ranked on the left. This was often seen as more important than having the most senior battalion leading.

So, generally speaking, the first battalion of a regiment was seen as the most experienced, most reliable. And in a brigade, would be chosen as the lead in whatever place the guide was needed, so in Suchet's division, if the regulating battalion was to be in the center of the line, then the fist battalion of the 30th and 64th would be the most likely candidates.

Best Regards,
Bill

I have some difficulties with that, at the first amalgamation – according to the length of service the captains were placed at their company, so the most senior captain would command the 1st company, the 2nd most senior capitain the 2nd company and so on.

However the first battalion did not received the most senior eight captains of the new demi brigade, but the

1,13,4,16,7,19,10,22 – those captains made the first battalion.

For me more or less an even mix of senority.

In a demi brigade the second battalion got also the more or less general colour pattern to carry, while that of the first and third were more indiviual to make a destinction of that demi brigade.

This worked well as long as you had a 3 battalion structure.

Maybe misunderstood that all – my main source is :

piece justicatives üage 217 of

Historique de 148e Régiment d'Infanterie, Paris 1901

Available on google books.

VW:
The Revolutionary French made a real effort to:

1. Reduce or eliminate all military procedures having any 'aristocratic' influences.

2. A good portion of their experienced officers left, so there was an effort to spread what officer experience there was, while that supported effort #1. However, the senior captain did go to the first battalion. The British did the same kind of thing. The second senior captain in the regiment went to the second battalion, etc. However, the seniority of battalion, regiment and brigade, even division, was based on the commander's seniority, if at all. From what I gather, the Regimental number was used to determine that in the French army. Of course, during the Revolution, the names and numbers of the regiments and demi-brigades could be changed several times…

3. There was an effort in the amalgamation to amalgamate…
So, two republican and inexperienced battalions were brigaded with a regular army battalion, and there was even an attempt to completely mix the two groups. When and if the demi-brigade had that mix of battalions, the regular troops were in the 2nd battalion, carrying the 'national standard', and the two 'sans-colettes' battalions carried the demi-brigade's individual flag.

Slowly, as the radical Jacobins were dispatched and the wars continued to provide troops with ample experience, by 1796 the regulation procedures that we are talking about were being reestablished for uniformity sake, as well as more practical variations were installed. One of them was to have a senior battalion.

The French army endured a radical make-over socially, culturally, and in military practices during the first five years of the revolution. It wasn't until Napoleon took over that the reestablishment was completed and the army returned to a regimental organization.

Again, I can recommend the book:

Bertaud, Jean-Paul The Army of the French Revolution: From citizen-soldier to Instrument of Power Translated by R.R. Palmer Princeton University Press, 1988 1st French publication in 1979

ISBN 0-691-o5537-8

McLaddie has it. I do feel humble on the research front.

I read Brertaud already – of equal interest

Scott : The Response of the Royal Army to the French Revolution

G'Day Dear Members of the forum…Bill, Hans-Karl, et Robert….

It is quite common and perhaps normal to attempt to think that the French ordonnance mirrored that of the Prussian and British ordonnances due to le Reglement de 1791.

But as I shall explain…it is incorrect to do so…

From at least 1774 and through the entire Napoleonic era the la plus ancien chef de bataillon never commanded the 1er bataillon.

Even l'anciennete de corps (senior regiment) was done away with when demi-brigades and regiments were given numerical numbers. The position of the regiment by numerical sequence was a practical means of using the general principles to form the body of troops in a set order, and it had nothing to do with the general principle of l'anciennete de corps.

We find that with l'instructiond de 1774 (11 Juin) the position of the chef de Corps was as followed: the Lieutenant-Colonel commanded the second bataillon and the Major commanded the first battalion.

With l'ordonnance de 1776 the Regiment was a tactical organization. Whereas in L' Ordonnance de 1788 and l'ordonnance de 1 Aout 1791, the Regiment were both "constitutive and administrative".

Likewise in l'Ordonnance de 1776 the Chef de Bataillons were suspended but we find that Segur states that in fact there were Chef de Bataillons for each bataillon. The Lieutenant-Colonel en Seconde commanded le premier battalion and the Lieutenant-Colonel en Premier commanded the second battalion.

With l'Ordonnance de 1791 (1 Janvier) the Lieutenant-Colonel en premier was the Chef de Bataillon of the second battalion and the Lieutenant-Colonel en second was the Chef de Bataillon of the premier bataillon.

Since the l'Ordonnance de 1791 (1 Aout) was never used other than as l'Ordonnance d'exercise, it never became l'ordre tactique…and there was never a treatise on the l'anciennete de chef de bataillon. Bill you must have read the treatise for another Reglement.

With that said we know that Le Reglement was taught to all young officers for its general principles.

If we examine the Tableau d' Ordonnance de Composition which displays a change in the effective number of soldiers, number of sub-elements of a battalion, or number of battalions per regiment…the following years are mentioned: …1776, 1784, 1788, 1791(1 Janvier), 1793, 1794, 1798, 1799…

You shall notice that 1791 (1 Aout) is not listed as an alteration for l'Ordonnance de 1776, l'Ordonnance de 1788, nor the l'Ordonnance de 1791 (1 janvier)…this is because it was never used as an ordre tactique at any time.

With the decret de 12 Aout 1793 the youngest chef de bataillon commanded the premier bataillon, the the senior chef commanded the second bataillon, and the second ancient chef de bataillon commanded the 3rd bataillon.

Nevertheless is must also be remembered that at the end l'an quatre 10 Brumaire (1795), this brought about an end to the advancement of Chief battalions which depended first on their soldiers, who elected them in the first and third bataillons. The Chief de Bataillons were then selected from the grade of Captain.

If we re-examine Bills example, we will find that the regiments are in position due to their numerical sequence.

This formation was called un dispositive de la division par brigade avec brigade en ligne. The 17eme legere has the mission of being the "Flanking Bridage"…this mission would find the 17eme legre possibly formed en colonne d'attaque…en demi- bataillon supporting tirailleurs.

I hope this helps
Best Regards
Art

Art:

Thank you for your comments. The Revolutionary period and through the Napoleonic period often saw a great deal of change, as you point out with the 1791 such as the example you give:

Nevertheless is must also be remembered that at the end l'an quatre 10 Brumaire (1795), this brought about an end to the advancement of Chief battalions which depended first on their soldiers, who elected them in the first and third bataillons. The Chief de Bataillons were then selected from the grade of Captain.

I obviously didn't make myself as clear as I could have. Let me try again.

It is quite common and perhaps normal to attempt to think that the French ordonnance mirrored that of the Prussian and British ordonnances due to le Reglement de 1791.

Actually, I was basing my comments on what transpired later, because as you point out, ordonnances due to le Reglement de 1791 was superseded in many ways during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic eras.

The position of the regiment by numerical sequence was a practical means of using the general principles to form the body of troops in a set order, and it had nothing to do with the general principle of l'anciennete de corps.

Which I acknowledged, the change being designed to distance the army from the l'anciennete de corps and the taint of aristocracy. Even in this effort, the French practices did at times ‘mirror' the rest of the European armies, because the methods worked.

For instance, the British ordered their battalions in a brigade by number in the same manner as the French, and those two armies did share some of the variations on that practice. There were other ‘rationales' behind that than just practical numbering.

This also applies to who commanded the battalions. You write:

From at least 1774 and through the entire Napoleonic era the la plus ancien chef de bataillon never commanded the 1er bataillon

From 1774 until the Napoleonic era, we have:

We find that with l'instructiond de 1774 (11 Juin) the position of the chef de Corps was as followed: the Lieutenant-Colonel commanded the second bataillon and the Major commanded the first battalion.

To…

With l'Ordonnance de 1791 (1 Janvier) the Lieutenant-Colonel en premier was the Chef de Bataillon of the second battalion and the Lieutenant-Colonel en second was the Chef de Bataillon of the premier bataillon.

You mention the Tableau d' Ordonnance de Composition as evidence that the 1791 Regulations never followed in forming the regimental composition. I certainly agree with that.

You will find in the years of the Tableau that there was always one less Lt. Colonel than the number of battalions in the regiment, regardless of how large the regiment grew: e.g. three Lieutenant-Colonels for a four battalion regiment. The reason for this is that the colonel of the regiment was expected to be the administrative head of the regiment, as you note, but also the commander of the first battalion on the battlefield. This is an old tradition, one practiced by most all armies of the time. Thus the least experience ‘chef de bataillon', regardless of whether it was a major in earlier times, or the least experienced Lt. Colonel was under the direct command of the colonel.

This is also true for the British and other armies, when the colonel of the regiment was in the field. This came in very ‘handy' when a French regiment's battalions were scattered over the Empire.

That doesn't change what you have explained, nor what I was putting forth, though I hope I am clearer now…

I tend to find explaining the colonel, lt. colonel, chef de bataillon, chef de brigade positions and ranks difficult, particularly when they switch around as ranks and positions as they do. We still have the most experienced officer commanding the 1st battalion in much the same fashion as l'anciennete de corps for different reasons and at times, different ranks. But of course, I am not saying this arrangement enjoyed a consistent implementation throughout the Revolution and into the Empire.

So when I said "The senior regimental battalion chef would be in the first battalion", I was speaking of the Revolutionary period of course, where the next rank/position was chef de brigade, and the practice of the 'colonel/demi-brigade commander' to act as a colonel of a regiment had in the past, and would in the future. If I got that wrong, thank you for correcting my error.

Since the l'Ordonnance de 1791 (1 Aout) was never used other than as l'Ordonnance d'exercise, it never became l'ordre tactique…and there was never a treatise on the l'anciennete de chef de bataillon. Bill you must have read the treatise for another Reglement.

I don't doubt that was the case, but I never said the 1791 regs were. I never suggested it was… at least I don't think so. I simply pointed out the difference between the l'Ordonnace de 1791 [signed by the King] and it's ordering of battalions and regiments by seniority to the numbering that came shortly after the king's execution. I Which you did also:

Even l'anciennete de corps (senior regiment) was done away with when demi-brigades and regiments were given numerical numbers.

However, what I have read that French officers in the field such as Duhesme and Augereau complained about the Regléments, having French troops trained "in the Prussian style" during the Revolutionary Wars, so parts were used in the "lordre tactique" found there. [Etling, Swords around the Throne, pp 351-354]

If we re-examine Bills example, we will find that the regiments are in position due to their numerical sequence. This formation was called un dispositive de la division par brigade avec brigade en ligne. The 17eme legere has the mission of being the "Flanking Bridage"…this mission would find the 17eme legre possibly formed en colonne d'attaque…en demi- bataillon supporting tirailleurs.

Yes, every division in the French Army at Austerlitz in "dispositive de la division par brigade avec brigade en ligne" had the Divisional Legere brigade on the right flank, regardless of it's relative number to the Ligne regiments. Being on the far right of a long line of battalions is hardly the most efficient location for the Legere if they meant to support tirailleurs across the entire divisional front.

They were there because they were seen as ‘elite' and the right flank was deemed important. You see the same deference to elite units at Jena a year later. Suchet's division leads with the 17eme legre/1st brigade in the first line, but the composite elite battalion consisting of the division's carabinier and grenadier companies is on the far right flank of the line. Even with the French adherence to numbers in battle array, we still find the French placing special emphasis on the traditional place of honor on the right. The practical benefit is that commanders had an ostensibly experienced unit guarding the vulnerable flank and in a common position to be the steering wheel for the line, the guiding or regulating unit. Did it always work that way? No, but that is the nature of an SOP in any age.

You see this principle played out at all levels of the French army. At Corunna in 1809, Soult formed his army's battle line with his three divisions thus, left to right:

Mermet Merle Delaborde

Merle was designated Soult's 1st Division, Mermet his 2nd division. Delaborde commanded the 1st Division from Junot's Corps, and was given to Soult to continue the pursuit of Moore. Delaborde is on the right because 1. he was the most experienced and senior divisional commander of the three, and 2. the only one to have ever had an independent battle command [at Roliça two years earlier].

In most cases, one can decipher why a particular battle array is the way it is by knowing this French ‘nod' to such precedence as well as their adherence to the numerical ordering and respect for ‘elite' units or officer seniority at the moment. In an army that fought for such distinctions and glory, it isn't surprising that non-revolutionary practices should creep back in, particularly if they were practical.

As the wars raged on and more and more regiments were added to the army, the lower numbered regiments were, very reasonably, seen as the more experienced… one more reason to have the numerical order like the British [for much the same reason], even though the French had abandoned ‘senior regiments' decades past. The Russians and Austrians to some extent formed their battlelines by regimental and battalion numbers… In the Austrians' case, they started numbering their regiments long before they used the numbers as a method for ordering them on the battlefield.

I hope I've made myself clearer.
Best Regards, Bill

G'Day Bill

Not every division at Austerlitz or at any time in the French Army was formed en le dispositive de la division par brigade avec brigade en ligne.

I only bring this up because…while I had some down time in Afghanistan…and I even had internet…I was able to read the comments on the VLB forum in regards to how a division would form their brigades…and whether brigades should be in a single line or a double line.

Quite a few mentioned that Jomini had the answer to their question…unfortunately his point and purpose were not directed towards the system nor general principles of the Napoleonic era…let alone the right ordonnance.

I had made two planches/plates of each formation to post on that forum…but I never got the time to actually post them…let me know and I will send them to you…

The French Divisions had two means not one…one was en dispositive de la division par brigade avec brigade en ligne, and the other was en dispositive de la division par brigades accolees. Each dispositive had its pros and cons…and in the end it depended upon the Commander and upon the general circumstance of the mission…

During the early revolutionary period, there were only three reglements used: 1776, 1788, and 1791(1 Janvier)…if Duhesme and Augereau complained about the Reglément and of having French troops trained "in the Prussian style"…which ones were they referring to ;-)

In any case…even though all three were used…none of them were established as the principle reglement for l'ordre tactique in the early period of the war…"On peut dire avec verite que, sur la fin de 1793, les armees francaises n'avaient que de l'infantanterie legere. On ne manoeuvrait nullement en ligne; il n'y avait alors point ou peu de bataillons embrigade, meme oeux des aciens regiments savaient a peine l'ecole de bataillon, et il aurait ete difficile de faire manoeuvre au meme commandement quatre bataillons reunis."

With that said…you are right in that the aciens regiments lost many experienced officers and men…which some even joined the volontaires…more money for one…

In the early stages of the war, the one colonne that they were all capable of manoeuvring was in the colonne par bataillon…and some Generals who described them in this colonne presented it as merely a mob….

As more and more bataillons became trained…we find that the French Military started to use the tactical system from l'ordonnance de 1776 to create the new French system called l'Ordre Francaise (also known as, l'Ordre Perpendiculaire).

Thus they started to veer away for what you consider the French practices that at times ‘mirror' the rest of the European armies, because the methods worked.

But you see…for the French it did not work…and it is for that reason they created l'Ordre Perpendiculaire.

Bill I went back to each of the reglements, and each reglement has a colonel and chief de bataillon…perhaps you are confused with l'Ordonnance de 1791 (1 Janvier) where the Lieutenant-Colonel en premier was also the acting Major.

Again I shall state that I have not done enough research on the British to see if you are using them as your source…but le Tableau d' Ordonnance de Composition does not show any regiment that has one less chef de bataillon than the number of battalions in the regiment, regardless of how large the regiment grew…

I do not have much in English…but I can offer this as validation…in the Imperial Decree of 18 February 1808 we find:

ARTICLE ONE – Our regiments of the line infantry and light infantry, shall be composed of a general staff and 5 bataillons. The first four bataillons shall be known as bataillon de guerre. And the fifth shall be the bataillon de depot.

ARTICLE TWO – Each bataillon de guerre, commanded by a chef de bataillon, having under his orders an adjutant-major and two adjutants sous-officers, shall be formed of six companies, including one of grenadiers, one of voltigeurs and four of fusiliers. They shall be of equal strength.

ARTICLE THREE – Each bataillon de depot shall be formed with four compagnie. The Regimental Major shall always be attached to this bataillon. A Captain, designated by the Minister of War, upon the presentation of the three candidates by the colonel, shall command the depot bataillon under the orders of the Major….

ARTICLE FOUR – (gives the staff for the regiment of 4 bataillon de guerre)

(4.1) – 1 Colonel, 1 Major, 4 chef de bataillons, 5 Adjutants…

As you can plainly see, all 4 war bataillons de guerre have a chef de bataille and the bataille de depot is commanded by a Captain under the orders of the Regimental Major and the Colonel is not a chef de bataillon.

There was a reason for this…

When the French army had 4 bataillons in a Regiment, Napoleon instructed General Clarke to post instructions that all regiments will now have a Major en Second.

The Colonel would command the first and second battalions and the Major en Second would command the third and fourth bataillons. If the Colonel was wounded or killed, an officer who was not a Chef de bataillon would take charge until the Major en Second showed up to command.

When the regiments went to five battalions, the Colonel commanded the first, second, and third batalions, and the Major en Second commanded the fourth and fifth bataillons.

Another reason the Colonel did not command the first bataillon is because the Bataillon de direction was not the first or right battalion while en bataille…since you state it is that way in the British Army…

When the regiment was en bataille the center bataillon was the bataillon de direction…it is for that reason the plus ancient de grade (chef de bataillon) commanded the second bataillon…that is also where the regimental colours were normally positioned…otherwise the bataillon de direction was determined by the formation being used or manoeuvres to be performed on the field of battle.

But the bataillon de direction was not found with the first bataillon due to it being the position de honour which was commanded by the most experienced chef de bataillon.

As for Mermet…Merle…and Delaborde…the Officers you mentioned and their reason for being from left to right…I see nothing to support your claim that they were positions of honour.

But what it does show…and it actually validates that the 1st regiment did not have to be commanded by the plus ancient (which you claim the French and British did)…

Merle commanded the first division and was the youngest on the Tableau..

Delaborde commaned the second division and was senior of the two other commanders on the Tabeau…

Mermet commanded the third division and was second in seniority on the Tableau for the three commanders…

Looks to me like they followed the same general principles as did the chef de bataillons in regards to what bataillons they commanded.

As for the 17 legere and elite bataillons…you mention that being on the far right of a long line of battalions is hardly the most efficient location for the Legere if they meant to support tirailleurs across the entire divisional front.

Actually it is the best position…it is even in accordance with the French military system…it permitted the legere or eltie bataillon to form en tirailleurs sur la Ligne d'approche.

It also permitted the legere bataillon or eltie bataillon (or bataillons) to become the appui mobile or to form a brigade de flanc…which could consist of one to four bataillons on either flank of the division or brigade.

We also find yet another role that does not put them on the position of honour…that role is of an elite bataillon en soutenir…when the division was en dispositive de la division par brigade avec brigade en ligne…ou en dispositive de la division par brigades accolees. They would form between two brigades en potence…ou en réserve…

So your telling me you never read of them fulfilling their roles…that they were always on the right because it was their position of honour ;-)

Right I have a Battalion to attend to…to command…or maybe they command me…one can never tell here ;-)

I shall be out and about for awhile…hopefully for a few days only…

Best Regards
Art

Art wrote:

Not every division at Austerlitz or at any time in the French Army was formed en le dispositive de la division par brigade avec brigade en ligne.

Art:
I didn't say that. I said that every division that was in that formation had the Legere brigade on the right flank. Of course, not all of the divisions at Austerlitz or any battle were all disposed that way.

Bill I went back to each of the reglements, and each reglement has a colonel and chief de bataillon…

I only went back as far as you did and mentioned how those two terms, colonel and chef de brigade were interchanged. My main point had to do with the Tableau after 1791.

Actually it is the best position…it is even in accordance with the French military system…it permitted the legere or eltie bataillon to form en tirailleurs sur la Ligne d'approche.

It also permitted the legere bataillon or eltie bataillon (or bataillons) to become the appui mobile or to form a brigade de flanc…which could consist of one to four bataillons on either flank of the division or brigade.

We also find yet another role that does not put them on the position of honour…that role is of an elite bataillon en soutenir…when the division was en dispositive de la division par brigade avec brigade en ligne…ou en dispositive de la division par brigades accolees. They would form between two brigades en potence…ou en réserve…

Yes, we see them used for a number of things, all placing them in different positions. I mentioned the brigade of the 17th Legere being the first line in Sachet's divisional formation at Jena. And of course, if held in reserve, out of the battleline, it wouldn't be on the right.

However, a line of approach is not a battle line. And the only time you see the Legere brigade on the left flank of a battle line is if that division is on the far left of the army--protecting that flank. Otherwise, they were just as you find them at Austerlitz. If you have examples otherwise, I'd be interested.

So your telling me you never read of them fulfilling their roles…that they were always on the right because it was their position of honour ;-)

No, that isn't what I was telling you. What I said was that there continued to be a 'position of honor' in practice, for practical reasons, if not with the same 'aristiocratic' gravitas found in the pre-revolutionary armies. And when the battleline was formed with the Lights in that battleline, they were formed on the right, as were the grenadiers, as were elite companies etc. And if the intention was to have the light infantry from the Legere battalions cover the entire front [it wasn't as you point out], I said it was a poor position to do that from. The battleline had two flanks, so why wouldn't the battleline have legere battalions on both if the Legere was on the right to provide flank protection, even in column? Because that wasn't the main point of that disposition.

At Albuera, Girard asked Soult for the honor of having his division lead the V Corps advance instead of Gazan's. One reason Girard asked for that 'honor', was that Gazan's division held all the Legere battalions, who would normally be expected to lead the approach and thus form on the right of the battleline, once formed. Even practical reasons for the legere leading the approach march could be waved for reasons of 'honor.'

Best Regards,

Bill