"Staff officers - " Topic

Hi all,

Anyone fancy sketching out in brief the kind of staff work that would have been required by an army in the field in this period?

I assume the following would be the key components:

--helping the commander to plan his operations (what was feasible, what not), for example by making sure he had up to date maps and information on the theatre of operations and enemy;
--planning the detail of marches;
--transmitting the general's orders to each formation commander immediately below him in the chain of command (and to any detachment commanders);
--arranging camps;
--arranging logistics (delivery of rations and ammunition, etc.)

Is that about it?

And is the reason the French (and later the Prussians) are held up as the masters of staff work in this period because they made this 'service' professional (i.e., officers were appointed to this branch of service as a permanent speciality, or at least for extended periods), while other nations continued to appoint officers to staff duties on an ad hoc basis?

And is there a decent chapter or article on FRW/Napoleonic staff work that anyone might recommend to me (not interested in whole studies, thanks, as I haven't the time)?

Many thanks for any assistance!
Redcoat

google

Vache : Napoleon at Work

otherwise in case you can read French there are some good chapters in Lechartiers work available

You might find this helpful

link

Both the French and Russians had quite similar and well-developed staff systems – with duties somewhat broader and certainly more specific than your list. For a starting point to investigate each, with focus on the later part of the era ….

For the Russians, the best strting place would be their regulations PSZRI №. 24.975 "Establishment for the management of Higher Military Formations of the Army" / "Учрежденіи для управленія Большой Действующей Армiи" / "Uchrezhedenii dlya upravleniya Bol'shoy Deystvuyushchey Armii" [try saying that three times fast]
link
(It is in Russian)

For the French, I would go with the 1813 edition of the baron Thiébault's, "General manual for the service of army divisional and general headquarters" / "Manuel général du service des états-majors généraux et divisionnaires dans les Armées"
link
(it is in French)
Regarding the earlier, 1803 edition – this really reflects revolutionary practise as a development from the ancien régime. For example, it does not even mention "corps" commands as semi-permanent entities. The names of various offices and functions did change under the Empire, so that the earlier work can be somewhat confusing when looking at Empire-era staff if you do not already know these changes.

Both these basic works are a little dry, but you really can't get started very much in studying staff work until you have these basics. I assume the Prussians, British, etc. had similar foundation regulations.

The headquarters interfaced with various army and non-army organizations for supplies, mapping, construction of lines of communications, finance/treasury, law/police, postal service / courriers, recruit movement and training, relations with various levels of civil government, allied formations, local populations, etc., etc., etc. It would probably help alot to investigate the structure and function of the relevant institutions for these in each nation (and there was quite some variation between nations) to put staff work into context. However, that would be very very dry.

As to the permanace of assignments ….
For the French and the Russians, the positions on staffs as aide de camp were *not* part of a permanent staff career.
The positions on staffs as junior officer under the chief of staff was for the French typically more or less permanet after the rank of captain (except for staff assignments of specialists such as engineers and artillery officers, which were not permanent).
For the Russians, there was a whole separate service, His Imperial Majesty's Suite for Quartermaster Affairs, which had staff, topographic and supply functions (the French put supply functions in a civilian intendence which was not even part of the Ministry of War, and topographic functions in a sub-division of the corps fof engineers).
Some Russian staff functions (such as "officer of daily service") were almost always temprorary. Also temporary, like the French, were the engineer and artillery assignments, and the (non-army) lines-of-communications engineers (the French had a civilain ministry for bridges and roads, but it did not have representation on French army staffs).
In both French and Russian service the position of chief of staff was usually not a permaent career, but could be in some cases (most famously, the prince Berthier for the French, as major-général chef d'état-major général de la Grande armée).

This all gets very very detailed rather quickly. I could go on and on, but absent a specific question, I could not guess how it would effect a game or rules set. So ask for the details of interest and I will try to answer.

- Sasha

I always think it is good sign of any army when folk ask what the staff officers actually do. It means things are getting sorted, without those in charge of the battle having to worry about the minutiae. Everything just seems "to happen".

If you want to know what is the function of the staff, it is instructive to study occasions when they have been noticeably lacking. 1815 in all three Armies?

Messages that are cryptic, untimed and not duplicated. Units that are completely forgotten. Units that march backwards and forwards and achieve nothing. Lines of march that collide, such that more distant columns must pass through other stationary ones….you get the idea. It is to prevent chaos…..