"Ordre profond in the Seven years war" Topic

I came across a reference to this whilst researching army lists for the Best Allies 18th century wargames rules.

So Ordre profond, a column of attack at double depth (6 ranks), done at double time and without the use of firing. Was this used prior to the Seven years war or indeed by other nations.

And whilst we are in period. The French were apparently also using skirmishing infantry in European warfare (Seven years war). Anyone else?

Interesting question and I am sure others will chime in soon.

The term seems appropriate for the tasks given to converged grenadier units or grenadier battalions in battle.

Add Austrian Grenzer to that list.

Cheers,

I found this discussion on the role of Grenzer

TMP link

Good find.

You will need to wade through that thread and pick out SWY related posts.

If you are acquainted with Kronoskaf.com do search the Battles section and read the Austrian OB for their engagements. These would include a small number of battalions (see Kolin and Hochkirch).

Prussia had a battalion of jagers. They later raised Friekorps. These were supposed to be light infantry but Frederick seems to have used them as low grade cannon fodder.

Posted on this earlier, but it seems to have disappeared. Bug strike?
Anyway, my two pennorth: British Highlanders, Hanoverian Legion Brittanique, French Fischer's Legion etc all involved in "Petit Guerre" in SYW, which was really what we might describe as "skirmish warfare". Highlanders were particulatly proficient in it apparently.
"Ordre Profond" might have been useful in certain tactical situations, such as attacking fortified positions. The mass of men would have a degree of momentum which might have been lacking with a three deep line. I don't have any historical examples to quote, it just seems to be a possible use of such a formation.
Of course, if we go back 2000 years, it was pretty standard for Greeks and Romans.

Both the Russians and Austrians used Pandours as skirmishing infantry and as mentioned above the Prussians and other German states had Jagers. I did at one time fancy doing skirmish for SYW with Friekorps, Hussars and Jagers for the Prussians against Cossacks and Austrian Hussars and Pandours. Just as much mileage for skirmishes whilst foraging as the Americas. Have a look at Von Trenk in this period lots of small actions involving him and his raggedy crw of pandours.

Indeed it was Kronoskaf that started this for me. From the bit on tactics for the French line infantry, Ordre profond:

"For an attack on an enemy infantry position (assaulting a redoubt, a position inside a village, breakthrough an infantry line) infantry formed in 6 ranks deep column and charged at double pace at the point of the bayonet without firing. The instruction of February 17 1753, specified that for service during campaign: "One will put battalions in 3 ranks for firing exercise, and one will never make them fire when in 6 ranks deep." An initial and rather complex method to form a 6 ranks deep column had first been introduced by the regulation of 1754, a new simplified manoeuvre was applied from 1755 on. "

I can see it now 5 years from now. New 7yw rules. French columns smashing into British lines ;)

Hopefully a lot sooner than that. 3 to 6 months to publication.

I gather that some of the French commanders wanted to issue the men with pikes (since they were not firing their muskets, a long spear would be better).

But the way I see this working under Best Allies is a double deep line with a faster move rate but no firing. And double its losses to artillery fire.

Russians left the pandours facing the Turks. None went to the Prussian front, fast as I can see.

Most sources say that the Atholl Brigade at Colloden doubled their three rank line into a six rank line, as they moved forward and were compressed against the enclosure wall.

Guibert's Essai en Tactique suggests the use of a six deep line as an anti-cavalry defence.

Rod

Indeed

"Guibert felt that the most important aspect of contemporary warfare was firepower. To this end, he soundly rejected l'ordre profund in favour of l'ordre mince. A line would offer far more firepower than a column. Guibert favoured the three deep line, rejecting further ranks as a waste of firepower."

"Despite his advocacy of firepower, Guibert noted that certain situations that require use of the column. He identified five of these. The first was a formation in column to resist charging cavalry. "

"The fifth use of the column was for attack."

Now we know that the armies of Revolutionary France adopted the column of attack (Ordre profond). Now thats in the war of the First Coalition, for which I will also be doing army lists. The big question is, were these attack columns used in the Seven years war, or at that stage were they just theories?

I have found this blog which seems to be saying that during the SYW, ordre profond was being discussed as a formation but not used by the French

link

Although perhaps the Russians were using attack columns?

Read Quimby's Background of Napoleonic Warfare for starters. It is very much based on Colin's writings. That is what I used back in 1970 in writing my rules.

Then look at the detailed maps in the German General Staff studies and those created for the Duffy books.

Infantry deployed in line to fight, just as they did in most actions of the Napoleonic era.

A note on Russian Pandours. The regiments were not light troops, but guarded the holy cities from which they took their regimental names.

Great. So what are your conclusions on the formations of the SYW? Anyone using column of attack?

I would definitely say no to columns of attack in the SYW. The only exception would possibly be when they assaulted breaches in fortifications.

The Prussians (I think) developed a 'column of waiting' where troops could be kept in reserve in a handy formation but deployed into line for the attack.

The point made by Gunfreak above would be a true horror.

And that is the point, were columns of attack used in SYW? From what I have read so far, it seems that the Russians used them. The idea would be to restrict formations to those nations that used them (trying to keep it historical of course) and that there are disadvantages to being in column as well as advantages.

I went to the wargames show at St Helens yesterday and met some gamers who played SYW and they suggested that the Austrians could have used a formation like that. They would have found it useful against Turkish cavalry.

I also think that Anatomy of Victory would be a good read and am trying to get my hands on a copy.

I'm fairly sure I read somewhere that Rochambeau was chosen to lead the Expedition Particuliere to America as a result of winning a "wargame" among the forces earmarked to invade England in 1778. The invasion force comprised almost entirely infantry and dragoons and one side adopted "firepower" tactics and the other "bayonet" tactics (I'm guessing l'ordre profonde). I'm not 100% sure, but I think Rochambeau was on the firepower side given the nature of his instructions to the corps assigned to the EP.

Perhaps someone else can confirm?

I strongly second afore fellas saying that you should better drop the idea of "columns of attack" being used during the SYW by whatever army. I certainly did a lot of reading and study here, and never came across a single mention. Be sure here. I'd be very interested for any evidence someone could quote.
The French fought in line – as a general rule – all through the war. Now, you have to be aware that all those armies of the 7YW really could cope with the odds of nature – i.e. if space did not allow for the deployment in line, they simply created a formation matching the given space. That said, we do see French infantry attacking with somewhat more condensed formations at 1757 Hastenbeck, and possibly also at 1760 Korbach. I've been at both places and the space found here is simply too small to see brigades formed in line advancing into the attack. No way. They must have advanced in columns of deployed battalions, or some other more massed formation. The Austrians did the same at Moys 1757, or at Hochkirch 1758 and possibly also at Maxen 1759. At Minden 1759, the French had the flank battalions of their infantry wings deployed in column – but not for the attack – really more for maneuver.

Cheers,
Christian

P.S.
As Tricorne recommended, you may want to have a read of Quimby's "Background of Napoleonic Warfare". A most tedious read, it is. I'd rather recommend a learning of German and the reading the so much better stuff found on the subject in this language. Not Quimby! I have the book. Its a terrible read!

Seems to me it depended on the General. The French generals were not the best at co-operating with each other! De Saxe seems to have employed a version of this order in the WAS.

Christian
Some of us are just tedious types!
See you in Berlin this fall
Ken

PS I really liked Quimby, at least in 1970!

:-)
Ken,
If I would consider some of that gang tedious, I wouldn't join you on all these lengthy walks across empty country side miles away form the next place to get a drink.
Concerning Quimby, I thought the book is quite good, but if he could have condensed his thoughts to about 50% length, it would have been much better.
It might be, it felt to me so because I'm no native English speaker.

Cheers,
Christian
crogges7ywarmies.blogspot.de

Found a copy of "Background of Napoleonic Warfare" online

link

and am going through it. It covers a lot of the ground which I have already picked up on from other different sources. However it is interesting to see the arguments for Ordre Profond already being put forward after the WSS. Personally I cannot see how anyone would take the idea of pike armed, shock columns of infantry seriously as they had just been defeated but it is interesting to see them put forward. And we know that the column did come into use again in Napoleons time. So its just a question of when it resurfaces.

OK now we have a couple of occasions of attack columns being used (p91) Rossbach and (p92) Klostercamp. But I am rapidly coming to the veiw that column of attack was a very rare thing in the SYW.

Interesting though the increased use of skirmishers being mentioned in the war of Austrian succession.

I think the columns at Rossbach were in fact 'columns of march' and not attack columns. Can't comment on Klostercamp.

From Rossbach

"The French in particular formed one or two columns of attack and, peculiar to the French army, rushed forward with their bayonets rather than advanced in order with regular fire."