"French Fusilier Pom Poms" Topic

What colors were French Fusilier pom poms prior to the
six company battalion organization?

v/r

Joe

Lots of variation by regiment but, as to standard pompom colors ….

From : TMP link

Before 1808, the next prior specification of the pompoms was in 1786. And this was for a regiment of two battalions each of 5 compagnies.
However, it is interesting because of the assignment of colors :

1er bataillon :
compagnie de grenadiers : écarlate
1re fusiliers : bleu de roi
2e fusilers : aurore
3e fusilers : violette
4e fusilers : cramoisie

2e bataillon :
compagnie de chasseurs : verte
1re fusiliers : bleue de roi avec centre blanc
2e fusiliers : aurore avec centre blanc
3e fusiliers : violette avec centre blanc
4e fusiliers : cramoisie avec centre blanc

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

With the battalion organization changed in 1791 to 1 compagnies of grenadiers + 8 compagnies of fusiliers (and noting that the same colors were used in the same order 1808-1810), the de facto "standard" was, as follows (but no new regulation or specification was issued):
grenadiers/carabiniers : rouge
1re fusiliers : bleu de roi
2e fusilers : aurore
3e fusilers : violette
4e fusilers : cramoisie
5e fusiliers : bleue de roi avec centre blanc
6e fusiliers : aurore avec centre blanc
7e fusiliers : violette avec centre blanc
8e fusiliers : cramoisie avec centre blanc

When ligne regiments formed more or less ad hoc chasseur compagnies (1792 to 1804), it is no surprise to see them assign green as the distinctive (as this was correct per the prior regulations). When we see the creation of voltiguers, establishing officially the former compagnies of chasseurs, their distinctive is given as jaune – yellow, but the pompom is not officially specified, and so various choice of green, yellow and even green+yellow were most common.

Since there had been no direction since 1786, and since the whole world had changed (as well as bataillon organization), and since pompom and similar decorations were to some extent in the province of the colonel, there was great variation. Common local choices : chasseurs in légère regiments all with green pompoms (their "correct" color per 1786 regulations), all fusiliers in ligne regiments all with blue, the same with white center and a company number, tricolor designs (especially in ex- Garde nationale bataillions), etc., etc., etc.

Lastly, anyone attached to the état-major of a regiment (and this to include the chefs de bataillon) should have had a white pompom – "should" of course, does not mean "did".

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

Specificification of the pompoms in February 1808:
grenadiers/carabiniers : rouge
1re fusiliers/chasseurs : bleu de roi – the dark blue of the uniform coats
2e fusiliers/chasseurs : aurore
3e fusiliers/chasseurs : violette
4e fusiliers/chasseurs : cramoisie – crimson, a dark, slightly puplish red
voltiguers : jaune – yellow

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

Specificification of the pompoms in November 1810:
grenadiers/carabiniers : rouge – a pure medium red, maybe a bit toward scarlet/orange red, but not like a crimson/purple red
1re fusiliers/chasseurs : vert fonce – dark green, like French dragoon/chasseur à cheval uniform coats
2e fusiliers/chasseurs : bleu céleste – literally sky blue, but rather darker than we might think of today
3e fusiliers/chasseurs : aurore –- literaly the color of the dawning sun, a light golden yellow with touches of orange and pink
4e fusiliers/chasseurs : violette : literally violet, rather a dark purple
voltiguers : jaune – yellow, rather a pure yellow without any orange, perhaps a bit pale by modern standards

- Sasha

He beat me to it.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Sasha,

Thank you very much.

v/r

Joe

Great post Sasha. One thing I have wondered about, after many years of painting company pompons and trying to somehow fit them on bases so that they looked correct both in line and column (a desparate and lost cause), is whether troops actually was depoyed this way on the battlefield at all??
I have read many times that the companies were to some extent administrative, and on the battlefield "divisions" were made of equal size regardless of company strength, so that maneuvering would be done smoothly. If this is the case, then the colour of pompons should be mixed on the battlefield!!

Perhaps I should start with generic colours – blue for fusilliers and green for chasseurs :-)

Sparta,
You are correct : compagnies were administrative and pelotons were tactical and indeed equalized across the battalion. Two pelotons formed a "division", the next higher tactical unit.

For the early 9-company battalions, the grenadiers might equalize with the other battalion of the regiment (the was the 1791 regulation way to do it). For the 6-company battalions, the grenadiers equalized with the other companies in the normal way, and men fighting with the grenadiers were called grenadiers-postiches, and had preference for permanent transfer (with higher pay). So, indeed, some mixing of company pompoms would be seen in the formed pelotons.

But, depending on the number of figures representing a battalion, and your own idea of how you like them to look, the mixing of "wrong" pompoms in a peloton might be ignorable. Also, your idea of all blue fusiliers and all green chasseurs is not only historical, but also reflects a unique custom in the French army of granting the colonel wide choice in these details.

No matter what the pompoms, if your basing and figure count are such that you can tell that a battalion is composed of pelotons, these should indeed be carefully equalized.

For comparison, other than the grenadier company (of 2 platoons), the Russians (who also had equalized platoons as their tactical unit) had all the center companies of a battalion with the same pompoms, even though there was indeed distinction by company for the forage caps worn when not in combat formation. They did equalize elite platoons only with each other, not with center platoons. If the elite platoons were in this way smaller than the center platoons, they formed with the same number of files, but with "voids" in the third rank.

- Sasha

Dear Sasha – that is interesting indeed, and I was not aware of that after reading Napoleonic litterature for 25 years – wonderfull information. The forming of tactical units with the french elite companies post 1808 has always seemed a bit strange to me – good explanations has been scarce – it even perpetuated the grenadiers to the right myth of the old Empire rules!!
Great post – chapeau!!

Sparta,

Arthur Pendragon * might drop in and give more and better and more perfectly correct detail, but until then ….

French (also Russians) did give the grenadiers the place of honor, the rightmost position. This was most easily seen when the battalion was deployed (in line of battle, for firing) by/on (it is "par" in French and "на"/"na" in Russian) the right (the "usual" way).
In this you will see, from behind (or from the own-side view) for a French battalion of 6 pelotons :
V- 4-3-2-1-G
where v=peloton de voltiguers, # = number of the peloton de fusiliers/chasseurs, and g – peloton de grenadiers/carabiniers.

For the Russians' typical 4-company battalion, deployed on the right:
8S-7-6-5-4-3-2-1G
where s=strelki (sharpshooters) platoon, # = number of the musketeer/fusilier/jäger platoon, and g – grenadier platoon.
The difference between administrative company and tactical platoon is very clear (it is equally clear for French guard formations with 4-company battalions that formed as 8 pelotons):
The grenadier company = 1G+8S tactical platoons (the elites)
senior center company = 2+7 tactical platoons
middle center company = 3+6 tactical platoons
junior center company = 4+5 tactical platoons
(The Russian companies were numbered by type across the regiment – so, for example, the 2nd battalion had the 4th, 5th and 6th musketeer/fusilier/jäger companies and the 2nd grenadier company).

Now if you deployed by/on the left, the grenadiers would be on the left.
And, if you ployed in various columns (on the frontage of a section or a peloton or a division …. by/on the left or by/on the right) the grenadiers might be in different places.

French "colonne de attaque", formed on the right:
3-2
4-1
V-G

Russian version (very, very common for heavy infantry 1812-1815):
5-4
6-3
7-2
8S-1G
In the old spelling, this is "войско изъ дивизiонной колонны устроенной изъ средины" / "voysko iz divizionnoy kolonny ustroennoy iz srediny" – which translates like "(the) troops in column of divisions formed on the center (division)".

Well, can you tell that I play skirmish-level?
:-)

I love this tactical stuff, as well as biographical research as far as possible into the names of the lower ranking officers and sometimes the men. The grand view of the great generals, les maréchaux or the various emperors does not intrigue me nearly as much as the experience of the men of the battalions and platoons.

- Sasha

* "Art" is really great on this stuff and includes at least some English in his posts …. as is Jacob Samek, a Czech colleague and re-enactor who sometimes can be found on various French-language fora. The discussions among various modern historians and re-enactors at reenactor.ru are also great, but mostly only in Russian …. which can be pretty funny sometimes when they are discussing the French!

Sparta,

You and me both!

It wasn't until I went through Nafziger's book Imperial Bayonets about 1001 times (due to having Attention Deficit Disorder don't you know – :) ) that it sunk in that it really didn't matter how many companies a battalion had when it deployed for battle (of course it does but I'm just making a point in support of your epiphany).

It was more a question of filling the required files and having equal numbers of pelotons.. 1/4 companies or half-company elements (for those large battalions such as the British.

As Sasha points out the critical element in the battle line was always the 'division' whether small "d" for the pairing of platoons or large "D" for the grouping of 2 companies. The common denominator is always two or equal parts in the manipulation of a unit of maneuver.

You mentioned Empire. I always found it odd that this basic organizing (and maneuver) principle never found its way into Chef de Battalion which Bowden created after being influenced by Nafziger and others.

I wonder, are there any rules that attempt to reflect this?

Cheers!
Beeker

Great info again thx Sasha. One thing I has also wondered about is whether there was really any great difference in tactical ability of units that formed in 6 or 8 peletons. Some rules gives advantage to colonne de division for the french compared to colonne de peleton. I sometimes question whether the small diffence in musket really did matter?

Sparta,
" I sometimes question whether the small diffence in musket really did matter?"
I assume you mean firing while actually still ployed in a column on a frontage of peloton/platoon vs. on a frontage of 2 peloton/platoons, not after converting to some form of square or deploying any of the men into a line for firing or into open order. And I further assume that you mean firing to the front.

If these assumptions match your case, then in the strictest sense, for platoons of equal size, 2 platoons will indeed have more fire than 1. However …. as far as I know such a firing was *never* intended from either formation. I am sure it happened from time to time, by mistake or because the movement of the column was unexpectedly stopped in a very unfortunate place due to an unexpected terrain feature. But, subject to correction by those who know tactics better than I do, I believe that the whole idea of these columns was to move and not to fire at all.

Now, if we want to talk about using the column to then deploy in whole or part, the question is quite open and subject to the circumstances.

For example, an attack column (frontage of a division) could halt facing an enemy line, have its center division commence firing and its other divisions deploy faster then a column on platoon frontage. So, in this case the volume of fire in X minutes would be greater precisely because of the difference between the two columns.

On the other hand, going narrower, if you image a column on section frontage (1/2 of a platoon) moving to flank an enemy line, then wheeling the sections into an enfilading line of fire, this narrower column will put more fire in X minutes onto the target than if it had been a column on platoon frontage.

In both cases, to the extent that the enemy returned fire, they might be prone to target those firing on them, meaning fewer casualties in the parts of the approaching battalion that is still moving, thus less disruption to those evolutions. In a game of sufficiently tactical "grain", the combination of more firing in X minutes plus more protection to the moving parts of the battalion as it completes deploying should/could be significant. But it is a question of the utility of a chosen type of column to a particular circumstance, not a general "+1 for division columns".

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

Now, on the question of 6 vs. 8 platoons ….
Everything else being equal (training, experience, morale, fatigue, weapons, ammunition, etc.), there are two dimensions to the question, I think : the number of files per platoon and the number of officers and nco's to control the formation.

For a Russian platoon, at absolute maximum "war-surge" over-complement, there might be 25 files. But even the drill manuals only showed full-strength as 24 files. This platoon would have had 2 officers and 8 nco's or lance-corporals acting as nco's. Indeed, the whole reason for the lance-corporal (ефрейтор/yefreytor/gefreiter) designation was to make sure that there was a full complement of file closers, even if the actual nco's were elsewhere (with the banner group, out skirmishing, sick or wounded, arranging billeting, etc.). So, we have 1 officer for 12 files plus 1 nco for 3 files.

Sidenote : the Russians also had some 6-platoon battalions : combined grenadier battalions, 2nd replacement battalions taking the field without their grenadier companies and 4th recruit battalions. Opolchenie (militia) from the major cities (Moscow, Petersburg) formed – to the extent they had learned tactics – in 8-platoons. I would have to see if all opolchenie did the same. But the size of each platoon, by the time it reached the "front" and the size of the leadership cadre was the usual size.

For the French guard, their 8-peloton organization was 20 files at full strength and had 2 officers and 6 or 7 nco's. So 1 officer for 10 files and 1 nco for about 3 files.

For the French 8-pelotons (early) of fusiliers or chasseurs, there were 34 files per peloton, with 3 officers and 13 nco's. So 1 officer for 11 files and 1 nco for less than 3 files.

For the French ligne in 6-peloton (later) battalions, the peloton was larger, 40 files at full strength with 3 officers and 13 nco's. So 1 officer for over 13 files but still 1 nco for about 3 files. And so we see a key issue for the French after 1807 : they were short of company-grade officers and to a lesser extent nco's, one of the reasons for change in organization of 18 february 1808.

So these four (Russian, French guard and early and late French ligne) had about the same spans of control, especially for nco's. The officers had the smallest span of control (i.e. there were relatively more officers) in the French guard – but the difference (10, 11, 12, or 13 files per officer) is not so great at to be immediately identified as a substantive difference, at least in my opinion.

I do not know the organization of other nations' battalions from memory. But if the span of control for the leadership cadre was about the same, then I don't see any real difference between the use of 6 or 8 sub-divisions of the battalion. Since there was also the section or half-platoon, any system which used 6-platoon battalions also had 12 maneuver elements, so the mere increase from 6 to 8, on its own, could not have made any real difference. While on Ste.Hélène, Napoléon proposed going even smaller – dividing the battalion into 18 pelotons (with no further division into sections).

- Sasha