"French battalion quality variations within regiments" Topic

Hi all,
I've been trying to look for this but cannot find anything specific so wondered if you could help.

Did the quality of battalions within a french regiment vary? Or would the battalions within the regiment be broadly of the same quality?
Many thanks,
Andy

My impression was that battalions of regiments that served together were more or less similar quality – that probably did not apply when they were separated, e.g when a battalion was left in garrison or as a depot

I have a book in the library at home that might answer this

Early in the period older regiments had a first battalion made up with regulars from the old army and additional battalions were 'new' recruits.

Depot battalions (4th Battalions) were another story. These were the scrapings that were sent to Spain in 1808 and also forwarded after disaster in Russia. These were the personnel that the colonel chose to leave behind and the recruits they were training.

they wouldn't vary that much in the earlier days of the Empire, but after 1807 – yes – for more detail see Terry Crowdy : Incomperable

And you see how a once splendid regiment goes downhill during the wars

Many thanks for the responses.

I appreciate that in the pre empire days experienced old regime battalions were mixed with the newer formations. And that possibly up to 1809 the over all quality of French infantry was good (may be excluding some in the peninsular). Also that battalions from one regiment that were dispersed across more than one theatre would not necessarily be the same the same quality.

But from say, 1812 the quality of infantry available to the French started to diminish.

So when looking at OOBs post 1812 (and possibly including 1812), where brigades were made up of multiple regiments, would the battalions in a regiment vary in quality eg veterans concentrated in to one battalion or would the whole quality of the regiment degrade as veterans were lost and raw recruits joined the ranks?

Many thanks,
Andy

From what I understand, certainly in Spain, French practice was to maintain the combat strengths of the 1st and 2nd battalions by taking men from the third battalion [and/or fourth, when present]. The third [fourth] battalion cadres would ultimately be sent back to the depot in France, or wherever, and once back to full strength would be brought back to the field, where it might fight for a period, until it became necessary to allocate it's manpower to the diminished 1st and 2nd battalions. In this way, the 1st and 2nd battalions maintained a high proportion of veterans [at least they would be trained].

In 1812, in Russia, within Davout's I Corp d'Armee, the brigades were composed of single regiments, battalions 1 through 4 had six companies, including elites, whilst the fifth battalion was composed of the regiments sixth battalion [the fifth being in France as the primary depot]. The sixth field battalion had only four fusilier/chasseur companies. Effectively this formed a field depot battalion, which presumably was used to make replacements to the war battalions to maintain their relative strengths as campaign attrition took hold.

In 1813, in Germany, regiments tended to field three to four war battalions. I would imagine that the same practice from Spain would be seen here. So a regiment might have four battalions, but use that manpower to field only two or three battalions, on the battlefield.

Depot battalions (4th Battalions) were another story. These were the scrapings that were sent to Spain in 1808 and also forwarded after disaster in Russia. These were the personnel that the colonel chose to leave behind and the recruits they were training.

I don't think this is a fair assessment. I'm sure in some cases the colonel would leave the malcontents back in the depot, but I'm also sure that a lot of the guys left behind were those who were best at training new recruits. Most of the manpower of these battalions would have been new recruits, who would be the usual mixture of good and bad. So they probably weren't as good as the "field" battalions, but only because those battalions would have had more experience. I don't think this qualifies the 4th battalions for the category of "scrapings."

"The sixth field battalion had only four fusilier/chasseur companies. Effectively this formed a field depot battalion, which presumably was used to make replacements to the war battalions to maintain their relative strengths as campaign attrition took hold."

Respectfully, please, I must disagree.

First, let us note that regiments of 6 battalions were rather a "special case", and seen only in the older French regiments in Davout's corps :
7e légère, 13e légère & 15e légère
12e de ligne, 17e de ligne, 21 de ligne, 25e de ligne, 30e de ligne, 33e de ligne, 48e de ligne, 57e de ligne, 61e de ligne, 85e de ligne, 108 de ligne & 111 de ligne

The structure or even defintion of the "régiment" was rather novel here : each régiment formed a brigade commanded by a général de brigade. Further, the régiment itself could be broken down into two pieces – 3 battalions led by the colonel and 2 battalions led by the major en 2e (a special rank/function created especially for the large regiments being sent to Russia). The orgnizing decrees especially noted that all five (numbered 1er, 2e, 3e, 4e & 6e) of these were to be "bataillons de guerre" and that inexperienced men should be spread evenly among them.

Certainly the 6e bataillons were of 6 compagnies, and of generally equal strength to the more senior battalions. I give two examples, but I could provide many others.

13e légère (1ere brigade de la 1ere division d'infanterie) – janvier 1812
général de brigade baron Dalton, colonel du Bousquet d'Argence, major en 2e Faury
1e bataillon – chef de bataillon Hannaud – 779 officiers et hommes
2e bataillon- chef de bataillon Crincourt – 718 officiers et hommes
3e bataillon – chef de bataillon Mondet – 745 officiers et hommes
4e bataillon – chef de bataillon Wasronval – 723 officiers et hommes
6e bataillon – chef de bataillon Dandalle – 725 officiers et hommes
cie d'artillerie – lieutenant Mauduit – 97 officiers et hommes – 4 canons de 3-lvr
major Baume, capitaine quartier-maître trésorier Leroux
5e bataillon – dépôt à Ostende

33e de ligne (2e brigade de la 2e division d'infanterie) – avril 1812
général de brigade comte Van Dedem, colonel baron Ponchelon, major en 2e Maire
1e bataillon – chef de bataillon Tondut – 800 officiers et hommes
2e bataillon- chef de bataillon Nadeau – 774 officiers et hommes
3e bataillon – chef de bataillon Demarle – 797 officiers et hommes
4e bataillon – chef de bataillon Ottenin – 731 officiers et hommes
6e bataillon – chef de bataillon Yvert – 746 officiers et hommes
cie d'artillerie – lieutenant Villain – 93 officiers et hommes – 4 canons de 3-lvr
major Mathieu, capitaine quartier-maître trésorier Poncet
5e bataillon – dépôt à Mayence

Sidenote : One can see that the battalions were not too far off the mark of 840 men (all ranks) which would be their full wartime establshments. For comparison, full-strength Russian battalions were quite smaller at some 700 men (all ranks – after correcting for functions that were included in Russian companies but existed at the regiment level of command for the French). The Russian battalions were similarly, in some cases more, near to full-strength at the start of the campaign.

Lastly, the organizational decrees did specify that the French 6e bataillons were to be raised without selecting men for compagnies d'élite – i.e., all six companies of fusiliers/chasseurs. However, it appears that each regiment did request the ability to form the two usual elite companies when they were ready to do so. See the discussion and sources here : link . This two-step process was fairly common throughout the period for the French when forming new battalions, so it is not too surprising to see it here also.

- Sasha

Sasha
Thank you for the elaboration and correction.
I had been under the misunderstanding that the sixth battalion, because they did not have elite companies, were of only four companies. That lead me to understand that they were similar in organization and therefore purpose to the regimental depot battalions.
Clearly as the decree stated they were all to be war battalions, and that they were formed of sixth companies, that was not the case.
Thanks again