"French Combined Battalions in Spain 1808-14" Topic

After a few weeks campaigning we are at a point where Casualties, attrition have reduced some Battalions to half strength. Did the French break up Battalions to maintain certain Battalions at full strength. Was this done? was it within regiments? Brigades? I take it the senior, Eagle carrying 1st Battalion would take off the 2nd and 3rd Battalion.

Generally they seem to have consolidated battalions within regiments. If this left surplus cadres(as the men died off faster than the cadres), these might be sent back home to form the basis of new battalions. This seems to have been quite a well established process for the French. On the invasion of Russia in 1812 they sent surplus cadres back home from Moscow.

By Vitoria in 1813, many (most?) French regiments were down to a single, quite large, battalion. Of course the process of sending cadres back to help rebuild the army after Russia was a factor here.

On the other hand I haven't read of any formal composite battalions, though it may well have happened informally (e.g. amongst groups of 4th battalions that tended to occur in the rear areas). The exception being regiments du marche – which sometimes never got as far as their intended destination to be distributed amongst parent regiments.

I can't help you on battalion numbers, but what you suggest makes sense.

Thanks for that. likewise not read much on this practice unlike the British that had Battalions made of 2 single Battalion. Must be a point where casualties impact on the combat effectiveness of a unit.

During the invasion of Russia, XI CORPS under Augereau lists as part of the 30th Division:
Brigade: Breissand
6th Provisional Demi-brigade (1/0) (61/2,760) consisting of
The 4th battalion 16th Légère Regiment (21/646)
4/2lst Légère Regiment (14/721)
4/28th Légère Regiment (16/779)
Along with a "Provisional Battalion" consisting of
1 Company of 5/28th Line Regiment (2/148)
2 Companies 5/43rd Line Regiment (3/240)
1 Company 5/65th Line Regiment (4/226).

Now my reading of XI Corps was that it was the rag-tagandbobtail elements of the Army, including quality troops like the Neapolitans and Penal battalions along with smaller elements with no other obvious home like the Wurzburg contingent. We can assume from this that the French at least would combine small units to make a more useful formation

I assume that this campaign is set in the real world, Prussia, Austria, Russia, Spain France 1814? And a lot will depend upon whether the French are "winning" or getting a bit of a pasting. It will also depend upon whether a country is "friendly"? how close are they to the depots, will there be reinforcements?

Are the Governors of the local towns stirring up the populace against the French, (Spain) or are they seen as Liberators / defenders (Poland/Lithuania / France 1814).
The question for me would be, should the commanders seek to maintain "useful" sized units, better for the wargamer, or would the commander seek to maintain the esprit de Corps associated with the Battalion or the Regiment, perhaps more realistic. There is also the consideration of unit Morale, normally, at the start of the battle, the unit is at full strength and is at its normal morale level. If you are playing a campaign, then you may have to consider what Pierre and Jean-Paul think about what happened to their comrades? Would it be better to "accidentally" injure themselves, to slink off into the night?

Having read Quarrie's Napoleon's Campaigns, the description he gives of the French losses in Spain through desertion, sickness and guerrilla action are immense, while the losses, especially in terms of Horseflesh suffered by the Grande Armee as it entered Russia in 1812, due to lack of suitable fodder and Murat's Cavalry being kept in the saddle almost continuously are scary. It is also clear that on the retreat, only those units that maintained morale survived, those that broke up into smaller groups were picked off by the Cossacks or the local populace. Hence the so called "sacred" squadrons of Officers, the troopers having become dismounted or lost.

History tells of the number of failed invasions where the population has risen up; if you need to take a guard to go behind a bush, or a squadron of cavalry needs to accompany a messenger, things are probably not looking good. If the population feeds your troops, gives them shelter and is generally not trying to sew your eyelids together, you may keep morale high.

Once a unit on either side reaches or approaches XX% casualties, to be determined by the umpire, I would suggest that there is a chance that the unit will just evaporate, troops will wander off, join brigands, or just go home. The factors that affect this will be the basic morale of the troops, Guards will be less likely to evaporate than Militia. Troops who have won an easy victory will be less likely than those who have had a good kicking. However, winning is not the only measure, a win against a smaller foe, which would be expected, where the allies suffered proportionately higher casualties would not necessarily be an advantage. Are the units far from home, are they fighting to rid their country of an invader, do they really want to be there?

Is the phrase Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité, on their lips or are they fed up with fighting to make some Dude rich?
I look forward to reading what you decide.

I understand the factors that contribute to losses and most can be found throughout history. The composition of xi Corps does suggest that Battalions were formed from combined companies. As regard to Command and control who as in charge and did they march to a designated Eagle. Agree that a player would elect to have a full strength unit rather than send it back to Depot for a new Battalion to be formed around. This is real v Gaming but I would like to be reasonably accurate. Cheers Rabbit and MGreen

Ifyou look at the reorganization of the French Army in Spain, July 6, 1813, you do see the 3rd and 6th divisions in the "Centre" with single bns. of 900-1,200+ men. You also see the 4th division of the "Right Wing" showing the same phenomenon, but not most of French infantry in Spain.

Looking at the numbers I suspect the reason for the large bns. is the lack of officers. Looking at the 95e RdL it has a single bn. with 20 officers and 1,172 men whereas the 64e RdL has 2 bns. with a total 42 officers and 1,461 men. This repeats in most of the large single bn. reg'ts. The Eagle is still going to be carried by whoever was carrying it before, if the 1ere bn. was in Spain. The Grenadier Coy. is going to be made up of all the remaining Grenadiers, the same for the Voltigeurs, and Fusiliers.

A quick re-look at my order of battle for Vitoria in June 1813 confirms that most French regiments in all three armies consisted of a single battalion. One (58 Ligne) was nearly 1,400 strong at the end of May, the last date we have a firm strength for it.

Lack of officers was certainly an issue here – as so many had been sent home to help rebuild the army.

The British did not have such an aggressive cycle of recycling cadres and topping up with new recruits. Also regiments tended to field single battalions – hence the need to form multi-regiment provisional battalions.

You might allow a stream of replacements to top up unit strengths in a long campaign. That would be perfectly realistic for most campaigns.

Lack of officers was certainly an issue here – as so many had been sent home to help rebuild the army.

Or shot by British riflemen!

some great insights here, did not imagine a single French Battalion of 1400 men, certainly more combat effective than removing it from the Orbat. Thank you.