"Brigade formation at Borodin question" Topic

I MEANT BORODINO!!!

[URL=http://s1080.photobucket.com/user/forwardmarchstudios/media/morand_division_borodino_zps0tlzjg4f.jpg.html]

Hi all,

The pic above is from
link

I was wondering if anyone has any information or opinion/thoughts on why Morand deployed in this manner, how the situation affected his decision, etc. Just looking it over without further knowledge/context, it seems like it would be strong against cavalry attacks on the flanks. Roughly guessing it looks like he's got about 4000 men deployed across roughly 600 yards in the picture above. Is that about right? Taking a look at the position of the division at the battle it seems like cavalry probably was the reason he had such a formation, but does anyone know for sure? I'm trying to figure out how mixed order units like this were supposed to function- were they the sum of the parts or where they more (or less, like MacDonald at Wagram) than the sum of their parts?

Maximize Firepower and retain Flexibility would be my answer.

Did the arty move forward with the division? Perhaps by prolong/wheeled up?

Uh-oh, my topics got the bug :(

EDIT: Never mind, it fixed itself! Reply counter is back on…

It isn't all that unique as formations go, particularly for the French. Even so, at Borodino there were Russian deployments that looked very similar.

Is that a correct drawing, I was under the impression that Morand commanded 5 battalion strong regiments?

Yes should be 5 bn rgt/ brigades.strange.

As McLaddie notes, this deployment is fairly straightforward. There has been discussion about whether the regimental guns in Davout's corps actually made it to Borodino, but those could be the guns you see represented here. Where is the drawing from?

a little reading impaired this morning. Napolun doesn't have an attribution…I don't know that I would take the drawing literally.

I noticed that myself when I looked over the OOB on the same website. It is odd.. I wonder where the image came from?

From memory – Could the image be from Nafziger's, Imperial Bayonets, or alternatively from Chandler's, Campaigns of Napoleon?

Imperial Bayonetts, page 171 – hardcover

About regimental guns or not – compare this formation to those of Austerlitz, similar placing of artillery as well.

I used my 3mm figs to recreate this formation. This was edifying as my basing system allows me to copy this exact formation perfectly. However, it occurred to me that one would be hard pressed to see such a formation in a war game because no rules that I'm aware of would grant a benefit to this style of division set up as opposed to a more slipshod one. This is obviously an extremely purposeful formation, so there must be concrete reasons that it was picked. The first thing you notice is that it is bilaterally equal both in troop numbers, artillery and formation.

It is also different from the positions specified on Napoluns own map of the battle, which shows 15 columns set up in three rows. Probably they are just showing the approximate positions on that website, which is understandable at their level of representation.

I think this is a pretty important question. If rules aren't encouraging you to use proper historic formations then isn't there some sort of inherent weakness in them? And for that matter, if you then state that you could just, with the magic wand of a rules-writer, declare that the players must set-up in historic formations, isn't this like tossing up our hands and declaring that we simply do not know, and that this is a topic that require more research before we can actually say anything about it?

Looks like this is set up so the outside battalions could form square easily, plus if their squares are facing in the same direction they wouldn't fire into each other. They could also form front to the flank quickly.

Looks like a good formation that d'Erlon could have used at Waterloo, minus the guns, perfect for an 8-battalion division.

Correct, many rules do not address the factors necessary that would drive a player to a specific formation of his brigade or Division.
This has been discussed many times in TMP and comes down to play-ability and "must finish" within time limits of 4 hrs for the rule set complexity.
If you play the likes of Empire III/V, Legacy of Glory, Battle for Empires, in the Grand Manner or Carnage of Glory etc..LVL rules, yes will begin to see the value of the formation and to the situations which the division/brigade finds itself into.
But you need 8 hrs to multiple days for a game and many games to acquire the skill level to begin to appreciate that fact. Many folks do not want to make the commitment/investment, especially if they are not putting the time in for the Troop collection to do such a game!

MG

Is it possible that Nafziger shows only eight battalions because he has attempted to level the numbers of men within individual battalions?
The average battalion strength in the army was approximately 350 men by early September. That would equate to about 5,250 men in the division. If you then level that strength across eight battalions, the individual battalion strength would be closer to 625 men.
Redistribution of strength within field regiments was commonplace in Spain, and given the attrition of the Russian campaign, it seems possible that this happened amongst the regiments there also. The cadres of the the [third], fourth and fifth battalions could either be sent back to France to rebuild or, given the distances involved in this campaign, kept in the field to replace officer and NCO losses in battle.

marshallGreg- interesting, considered thought on the issue. There are a lot of considerations that only really appear when one starts loading special rules and such. Unfortunately not every nuance can be captured elegantly.

Ligniere- very, very interesting that idea! I'm not doing Borodino at the moment, but it's something to keep in mind for any campaign I suppose. A 350 man battalion would only have a frontage of 60m or something like that.

Ligniere, I honestly wouldn't read too much into that illustration.

I wondered this too Ligniere. Does anyone have any evidence either way that French battalions were being merged by the time of Borodino? It would seem sensible to do so but that's no guarantee of anything…

Iirc the Russians were using merged Bns by Malojaroslavets if not earlier

I am not aware that units of Morand divisions merged.

Here for example a French line regiment still operating on 5 battalions

14 septembre 1812 – L'armée française campe sous les murs de Moscou. La situation de ce jour porte au 25° :
Colonel Dunesme ;
1° bataillon : commandant Lalande, à l'effectif de 38 officiers et 287 hommes
2° bataillon : commandant Gidoux, à l'effectif de 8 officiers et 243 hommes
3° bataillon : commandant Galand, à l'effectif de 8 officiers et 312 hommes
4° bataillon : commandant Paquet, à l'effectif de 16 officiers et 355 hommes
6° bataillon : commandant Laboute, à l'effectif de 11 officiers et 354 hommes

Part of the first line being deployed in line, was not that unusual – French second line in columns also seemingly a trusted formation.

Supporting guns in between the battalions – also a usual tactic.

At least for those formation in Central Europe.

Note – on all those drawings the distance between first and second line is not in scale – it was about 100 toises, about 200 meter

Hi von winterfeldt,

I'm asking out of ignorance here, but could for example Dunesmes brigade be mustered in 5 battalions but actually be deployed on the battlefield in 2 or 3?

I ask because this was standard in previous eras. For example ECW Royalists had brigades composed of as many as a dozen regiments mostly each a couple of hundred strong. These were mustered by regiment, as Dunesmes, but fought in 3 battalions.

@Timbo W

No I don't think so, at Borodino I am not aware that French regiments already amalgamated their battlions to reduce their numbers in the regiments.

@vw
Is that, perhaps, a typo of the number of officers in the 1st battalion.
Typical numbers would have been 18 to 20 or so.
Even if you consider the regimental staff being included in the number it seems too high.

I was trying to be polite to the original source, and I guess what I said was too PC. Here's an earlier discussion with Sasha on Davout's corps at Borodino.

TMP link

@jeffreyw3
Thanks for that link – fairly definitive related to non-consolidation of those battalions, based on Sasha's info.
Sasha's exit from this forum has been a great loss.
However, common sense suggests that the resilience in action of a 600 man battalion has to be greater than one at 350 men. In drawn out campaigns, such as the Peninsular war, there were numerous unit consolidations. It is surprising that this didn't also occur during the Russian campaign.

Very interesting. So at Borodino we have divisions of 2000 on 300 meter brigade frontages. Id be curious to see what the result would be if I created a deployment map to scale using this information. I have a feeling that the result would look much different from other deployment maps I've seen. Also, this would be one very good argument against brigade bases.

Tomorrow I'll have some time- I'll break out my terrain mat and 3mm figs and see whats what. For some reason Im guessing that there woll be a lot more open space on the battlefield than I've seen in Borodino games before. Nice that my 60 fig battalions will now be 5:1 instead of 10:1…

A couple of points… First, I do not think the original illustration is meant to do anything more than show Morand's division with one regiment in line, and two supporting regiments in column on either side. I do not believe it was originally intended to show exact positions or that it's accurate enough to draw anything more than vague distances from it. I don't know where you would find the information to create a drawing such as that, in any case. Even coming up with anything other than guesstimates for unit strengths is impossible.

Secondly, I hope nobody is trying to argue that a game depicting a Napoleonic battle with brigade-sized counters or stands has any more verisimilitude than checkers with pictures of Alexander and Napoleon on the pieces. Great to show off your painting; great way to spend a couple hours with a friend, but attempting to learn something about the period..? Nah.

Finally, as far as the degree of open space, I have yet to see any picture of a Borodino-based miniatures game that remotely resembles the terrain and deployments. They may represent incredible amounts of work and skill; they may be glorious to look at and play (especially the 28mm variety), but again--enjoy, just don't take it too far. And so far as I've seen, most people are very happy with the simplifications they have to make to play (witness the various TMP polls and discussions about "realism" and "simulation."

I applaud what you're doing with micro scales, forwardmarch, because it's great to see something out there that much more closely resembles what was there. Napoleonic battles progressed as they did for very straightforward, commen sense reasons, and formations and unit sizes and command limitations and formation limitations all contributed greatly.

Very interesting all, many thanks jeff and von W and likewise missing Sasha!!

Secondly, I hope nobody is trying to argue that a game depicting a Napoleonic battle with brigade-sized counters or stands has any more verisimilitude than checkers with pictures of Alexander and Napoleon on the pieces. Great to show off your painting; great way to spend a couple hours with a friend, but attempting to learn something about the period..? Nah.

So, @90% of the game designers providing rules for our hobby are blowing smoke up our pant legs when they say players can learn something from the period playing their rules? You do know what you are concluding about the claims and efforts of a vast majority of past and present miniature game designers…and wargamers.

Finally, as far as the degree of open space, I have yet to see any picture of a Borodino-based miniatures game that remotely resembles the terrain and deployments. They may represent incredible amounts of work and skill; they may be glorious to look at and play (especially the 28mm variety), but again--enjoy, just don't take it too far. And so far as I've seen, most people are very happy with the simplifications they have to make to play (witness the various TMP polls and discussions about "realism" and "simulation.)

? IF most people are happy with those simplifications, why it the heck do thread questions…like this one…keep coming up?

I can understand if you feel the game designers are failing in what they say they are attempting, but those are very sweeping assessments that don't seem to match the evidence on the TMP pages.