"WAS - Passage of Lines- Primary Sources That Discuss This?" Topic

As I understand it battle in this period involved sending in brigades and then relieving exhausted formations from the reserves. This suggests some mechanism of moving troops back and forth.

In many game systems interpenetration of units is at best disruptive. This seems odd if the system of the day relied upon moving units forward and back. Further, it sounds like leaving gaps between brigades in a checkerboard fashion was phased out so they did function as contiguous lines.

Do we have any primary sources that describe the process of relieving tired formations, and then comment on whther this "disrupted" the fresh soldiers in any way? I'd like to work on a rule set for battles in this period and this seems like a pretty critical concept to nail down.

B.

VERY good question, I had this question about the WSS, in which the entire brigade was suppossedly deployed in 1 line, with another brigade behind "supporting" also in 1 line. Later in the century my understanding is that the brigades themselves actually deployed in 2 lines, thereby being "self supporting", but how the support actually occurred if one section of the first line fell back or was penetrated is unknown to me and is not in Chandler's Warfare in the Age of Malrborough and I can't yet afford Nosworthy's Anatomy of Victory yet! :( Does anyone know if this info is in that book?

I looked through Nosworthy (thanks St. Anselm's College library!) and the movement to and fro is not described. De Saxe doesn't discuss it explicitly. It's odd because it seems like a fundamental process. Anyway, we'll see who has come across details!

B.

It's one of those army practices that everyone seems to have taken for granted, so little was written about it. The French after-action report for Auerstedt merely mentions "The passage of lines was performed flawlessly".

There are several ways in which the manoeuvre could have ben executed obviously, but I don't have any definite evidence of which one(s) were used in practice.

On the wargames table, interpenetration as you say is usually penalised, especially for the mid-18th C. One of the few sets I know of that expressly allows for it for the WSS is "Twilight of the Sun King".

Later than what you want, but possibly of interest: PDF link (see last few pages).

… or the second part of this page: link

My own perspective, having been a soldier and civil war reenactor is that as war gamers we over complicate this. This problem is as old as the Romans who had to refresh their lines while in contact. Any body of organized trained troops would have been able to do this.

There are many ways to conduct a passage of lines. Some are more elegant than others but all get the general job done. So, even militia could have done this with their rudimentary training.

With regard to gaming, I believe that the ability to conduct the passage is tied mostly to what state of deteriorization, and therefore command, the front line is in. It's not so much about know how as it is about the state of command in a unit. Routing troops would always be disruptive if they plowed through your ranks but organization in and u engaged unit is quickly re-achieved while morale is not.

I'm sure we all collectively have read a LOT of military history. I don't recall any examples where passing of lines was cited as a contributing factor to either the victory or defeat.

I've struggled to locate specific examples, too. It's apparent it happened often enough but descriptions are harder to find.

Have to agree with Odin's Warrior on this. I doubt it was as big an issue as wargames make them out to be.

I've seen some diagrams in a Prussian drill manual that depicts two platoons marching either forwards or to the rear, and thus creating an opening in the battalion line. Then the front battalion basically turns about and marches through the opening. After they clear the line, the platoons march back into the opening to close the gap. Envision the platoons like a door swinging on its hinges.

Another interesting question that this thread creates: can anyone think of any actual instances where routing infantry were able to run through a battalion standing behind them (noting that there would be an interval between battalions). If a horse can't be compelled to charge through a solid line of infantry then why would we expect men to be able to run through a line of leveled bayonets?

Do we overstate the ability of routing troops to break through supporting infantry in our wargame rules? Methinks that perhaps we do. I think that routers would seek to find an opening between the flanks of battalions located in the second line of battle. Sort of like water flowing towards the path of least resistance.

As Odin and Bandolier say, it seems to have happened without much fuss or bother. If it was difficult, reserve lines would not have been 'the standard'.

I've probably tried just about every mechanism going but the one I've settled on is this (BTW, this rule was written for a card based move sequencer, so ignore the word 'card'):

INTERPENETRATION

All units may voluntarily interpenetrate each other once on a move card. Units may not end a movement intermixed with another unit. If the manoeuvre can be completed with a single move at normal rate the interpenetration can be achieved without penalty.

If movement at normal rate would leave the units intermixed one unit must make extra movement (the absolute minimum required) for the units to clear each other; the unit making extra movement is thrown into disorder.

Routers (moving directly away from the enemy in their first move of rout) always interpenetrate friends in their path. On subsequent moves, routers may swerve to pass around friends through gaps at least 4" wide within one moves reach; if a sufficient gap is not within reach they will not swerve at all and pass through any friends in their path. Routers always add sufficient move distance to clear friendly units. Routers always disorder any friends they pass through.

Hi DAF,

I know the thing with horses, but human beings know that the guys behind are friends and will, in all likelihood (there will be exceptions), let them pass through. The line behind would move bayonets out of the way, not shoot, etc. There would be some disorder, but I'm sure the process would be over quickly.

Also, and here's a thing we don't normally do properly (given the lack of depth on a games table to do it), the lines were often a good distance apart, usually hundreds of yards apart (I seem to remember 700 yards was common,?) – the idea being that the second line would not be affected by fire received by the first line.

Perhaps, when one unit withdrew, the unit to support it would, given the ample gap, step forward to replace it and the two units would simply pass each other in the zone between, perhaps with the withdrawing unit moving somewhat obliquely or splitting up to get out of the supporting units line of advance.

Some later Drill Manuals dealing with Passage Of Lines:

p. 59 under Second Lines
link

p. 145
link

DAF,
I think more of this is about psychology than mechanics. If you're routing, most likely you are seeking safety. The degree of safety required depends upon the immediacy of the threat to you and the effort required to reach it.

You will do whatever provides the best level of security in the timeframe you have to secure it.

I think there are two parts. The biggest tactical impact will be on those in line with the routing unit not supporting units as this leaves flanks unsecured. It's very unnerving to see the enemy move in beside you while you have to contend with your front. For the supporting unit, I think impacts to these would be reflected in Brigade morale rules where supporting units get unnerved by the collective routing of units visible from their support position.

These are interesting questions making me wonder if we focus too much on the effects of fire power and not enough on human behavior.

Odins Warrior, I agree with your comments about routing, but what about units that are still in order but are wavering or fatigued. Would there be instances where they are withdrawn and the supporting unit assumes there position in the first line? I think DAFs comments address that. I am trying to imagine though the circumstances where that can be executed without the enemy slaughtering you.
Regarding flanking units morale, I am wondering how likely it is to be able to really actually see what is going on with your adjacent flanking units through the smoke and noise. When in line formation a battalion is VERY long. I would almost have to think enemy units would have to be actually rolling up your flank before it was noticed, and then of course it is too late.

"I'm sure we all collectively have read a LOT of military history. I don't recall any examples where passing of lines was cited as a contributing factor to either the victory or defeat."
Not quite the same thing but I have an example of British troops breaking when being ordered to take a few paces to the rear to allow the deployment of artillery. It happened at the the gates of Hoorn after a night march in 1799 and the regiments in question were the 23rd & 55th foot who are said to have made off like a flock of sheep Fortunately for those involved there was no actual combat in the offing else it could have had pretty serious results.