"Battlefield Orders - How much ink spilled?" Topic

I'm mostly interested in the Prussians in transition and French during the Grande Armee period 1806-07.

On the march, with route planning and provisioning, clearly written orders would be required.

But on the battlefield it seems orders would be simpler. What was the common practice when sending an order by a messenger? Examples of what I mean by 'simpler' are drawn from the ether:

While still deploying on the battlefield…
"His grace suggests that you deploy from the left along the high ground north of Monkstown and hold there until further word is received. Take care to be aware of any movement by the enemy in the wood to your right." etc.

During the battle…
"His grace strongly desires that upon the ceasing of the the cannonade you will advance upon the enemy infantry before you and keep him well occupied. If he gives way immediately you may occupy his position and take up a defensive position as you see fit and send out scouts to the wood on your left." etc.

Was the common practice still to use written orders?

I realize that in many situations even a corps leader would potentially have time to personally ride among his various formations and give his orders personally. And I assume a brigade commander would usually be in a position to visually direct his entire force and send known messengers with verbal commands if he didn't go himself. But what about situations where a messenger must be sent?

Was there a custom that an order was less certain unless received in written form? Would it then depend upon whether the messenger was known and trusted by the receiving party? Or had sufficient rank or prestige?

Often someone of sufficient rank or prestige would be sent to handle a situation that was beyond the immediate view or reach of a CinC. Would this leader have orders in hand vesting him with command or would he be apprised of his commander's intentions and act accordingly?

How much ink was getting spilled on the battlefield?

I guess the argument that stopped the use of written orders needs repeating
George Jeffry tried to get around the problem by having the players first read and understand the details of napoleonic tactics, yet few wanted to enroll in graduate level coursework in order to be able to play the game using written orders.
We are not issuing orders to human beings, that is, those metal or plastic figures on the table who cannot read nor understand the orders. Tha real aus iences a re three, a ll real humans, the opposing player, ones own side and the umpire, necessary to resolve the disputed language. It is as simple as the Bakaclava classic "which hill?"
Indeed as the figures muzt be manipulated by a real human hand, they do not have the capability of independent action unlike the real thing, elaborate glossaries and artificial intelligencies must be esta lished to prove to the opposing player that say a particular set of lead can rearrange itself into what is defined by the rules as such and so formation
Without these definitions of formations, movement distances, combat results, morale hecks, etc, the written orders collapse into meaningless words
Real orders are written in human language that only may be understood by other humans, add to this the wargamer opponent who will dispute the vagaries of the language
again, which hill

Interesting question, but I would have as much doubt about misunderstanding verbal as written orders. The C of the LB at Balaclava had as much to do with David Hemmings pointing to the wrong valley, as to Raglan's orders or Airey's calligraphy skills………..?

I wonder how much depended on the seniority of the messenger, to give a direct order himself, rather than "Beg your Grace to be so good as to etc". Boney's messengers seemed to have that edge…acting in Loco Imperatoris

We are not issuing orders to human beings, that is, those metal or plastic figures on the table who cannot read nor understand the orders. Indeed as the figures muzt be manipulated by a real human hand, they do not have the capability of independent action unlike the real thing, elaborate glossaries and artificial intelligencies must be esta lished to prove to the opposing player that say a particular set of lead can rearrange itself into what is defined by the rules as such and so formation

I think it's usually even simpler than that. In most cases it's the same player who issues the orders and then moves his own units. He's not going to "misinterpret" his own orders. More likely, if the game imposes some sort of delay or artificial confusion, he's going to find a way around it, so that he can do what he wants to do at that moment, whether it was the original intent of his orders or not.

Garth
The point is that if the player writes "do X" but means "do Y, or something not quite X" and his opponent tries to make him stick to the meaning that he didnt really mean, then we need that thick set of definitions or an umpire. In the real world of flesh and blood, the commanders would say, of course we will interpret the orders in a certain way because that is our world view, they make a certain sense.But gamers, even those with a military background, that is, living in todays world and not a previius one, are not going to interpret those orders in the same way as the originals did or didnt
And remember that the real flesh and blood do not roll dice for morale checks nor consult combat results charts, indeed, they carry their rules, their tactics, their i terlretations as they are more than plastic or lead.

Ask any player of tournament games why they do not use written orders of the historical kind, the kind advocated by those who want to have real looking orders, instead of the orders used in the games, which are forced upon the players because of the figurez

I think the question is whether orders on the battlefield were written or verbal. If Jena, Aspern-Essling and Austerlitz are any measure, in both cases initial orders were written down by both Napoleon and the Allies/Austrians/Prussians, but all battlefield orders after that were verbal. I'm not saying that orders couldn't be or weren't ever written, but in most cases, writing out orders, unless containing a great deal of detail, weren't necessary. The night before Wagram, Archduke Charles wanted to change the initial orders he had previously had written out because of changes the French made, but realized that there wasn't enough time to do it, so didn't.

Verbal commands were faster, easier and generally required few words. Even when Wellington delivered his change of orders to Packenham at Salamanca in person, it was really only two sentences.

Besides, paper and ink were expensive…

G'Day Christopher,

This is what the Austrians wrote in 1813:

"Lorsqu'on met des troupes en marche, on se propse l'un des objets suivants":

1. "De les rassember en corps d'armée;"

2. "De joindre l'ennemi; et de suivre ses mouvements en colonne;"

3. "De se déployer en bataille sur le front;"

4. "De se dépoyer en bataille sur le flanc;"

5. "De marcher en bataille de front;"

6. "De marcher en bataille de flanc;"

7. "De faire des changements de front;"

8. "De pousuivre l'enemi;"

9. "De battre en retraite;"

"Ces neuf objets différents, qu'on peur avoir a remplir tour-a-tour, suivant les vicissitudes de la fortune et les chances de la guerre, exigent chacun, pour la facilité des mouvements et la sureté des troups, des disposition et des ordres de marches particulier, que nous allons indiquer sommairement. Nous nous contenterons d'abord d'en fair l'application a un seul corps d'armée."

1. order of battle for the corps
2. Engage the enemy; and follow their movements in column;
3. Formation of line to the front
4. Formation of line, on a flank
5. March of the line in Front
6. Movements of a line, on the flank
7. General changes of Position of a line;
8. Pursuit of the enemy.
9. General movements of retreat

These are the nine orders of march, that a corps may receive on the battlefield or while in "simple march" prior to entering into "war march".

Etudes Sur Le Combat / par le Colonel Ardant du Picq (pp291):

( Colonel du Picq can be downloaded from Google in English )

Information a division commander, brigade commander, demi-brigade commander, would need to inform his sub-commanders in a "war circle", prior to manœuvre:

Pour un régiment, d'un bataillon, il est intéressant de connaître:

"La disposition prise pour attendre l'ennemi, ou l'ordre de marche pour se porter dans sa direction:

Ce que devient cette disposition ou cet ordre de marche sous l'influence isolée ou simultanée des accidents du terrain et de l'approche du danger;

Si cet ordre change, s'il est maintenu à mesure que l'on approche davantage;

Ce qu'il deviant quand on arrive dans la région du canon, dans la région des balles;

A quel instant, a quelle distance, telle disposition, spontanée chez la troupe ou commandée par le chef, est prise avant d'agir, afin d'agir soir par le feu, soit par la charge, soit par les deux combinée, soit par les deux a la fois;

Comment s'est engage, s'est fait le feu;comment ajustaient les soldats ( tant de coup de canon, tant de balles tirées, tant d'ennemis a bas, quell reneignement plus instructif quand on a pu le prendre immediatement sur le terrain ).

Comment s'est fait la charge, a quelle distance l'ennemi a fui devant elle, a quelle elle s'est arrêtée ou repliée devant le feu, ou devant la contenance, on devant tel ou tel mouvement de l'ennemi; ce qu'elle a coute; ce qui a pu etre Remarque de toutes ces memes choses chez l'ennemi, avant, pendant, apres…"

Best Regards
Art

Whether verbal or written, real orders were addressed not to plastic and lead but to flesh and blood. Lead and plastic cannot do anything on their own. of necessity requiring their actions done by real humans. And as the metal and material cannot do nor understand anything, the whole question of proper verbal or written orders becomes irrelevant
My point is no matter how the orders in the real world were given, the figures require "orders" that are unreal

My point is no matter how the orders in the real world were given, the figures require "orders" that are unreal.

Rick:

Three points:

1. A simulation or wargame is by definition 'not real' and everything on the table is 'unreal'. Totally artificial, so saying that the figures require 'unreal' orders is pretty obvious.

2. As the orders Art provided show, the lower level officers, brigade and lower, had very few decisions to make other than to follow orders or not, so having the figures on the table do the same is a decent model of the real.

3. I think the OP was simply asking about real world orders, not game representations of anything.

The point is that if the player writes "do X" but means "do Y, or something not quite X" and his opponent tries to make him stick to the meaning that he didnt really mean, then we need that thick set of definitions or an umpire….
And remember that the real flesh and blood do not roll dice for morale checks nor consult combat results charts,

Well yeah, but real flesh and blood armies don't get to read their enemy's orders and demand that the enemy does what he wrote.

I don't understand why we'd want to attempt to replicate this real-historical thing like writing orders… only to have to apply it in a totally unrealistic way, such as letting both players see them.

Actual hand written battlefield orders survive from Wellington at Waterloo and Lord Raglan at Balaklava, so I would infer from that that it was indeed common for high level commanders to issue orders in writing. The originals are written in pencil which makes sense as its much more convenient than pen and ink bottle, especially when mounted.

Here are links to the two examples cited above:

link

link

Ney's dispatch for 18 June 1815

Written with cheap iron-gall ink on paper.

link

Best Regards
Art

Mcladdie
1 it may be obvious to you and i but i dont think it is obvious to art or garth.
2 the issue has always been at brigade level and above, yet in petit tactical games where the players issue those written orders to prove their units can do x, we run into these problems, even though in the real world the battalions would be following a tactical drill set, usually not in the knowledge base of joe wargamer
3 i think the original post Was about using historical written orders in the game otherwise why bring it up??

art and garth
are you seriously attempting to use histo.rical written or verbal orders in the game?
Really??

art and garth
are you seriously attempting to use histo.rical written or verbal orders in the game?
Really??

I haven't played a game with written orders in 15+ years. I never thought they worked. And I don't see why people would think that they're more "historical."

Verbal orders? Sure, pretty much every game I play has some equivalent of that, if one player turns to the other and says, "Wait for me to do X, then you do Y."

Historical Verbal orders as in "Form Square" or "Charge"
"wait for me to do x" to your partner is very close to Historical, But "wait for me cause I havent completed this phase of the turn" aint

Mcladdie
Re your simulations/games are "unreal" quip
I agree
I just wish the hobby wasnt so involved at least part of it, in endless and pointless bickering over uniforms, TO&E, armor penetration, morale classifications and which blue is the right blue.
I come from the Paddy Griffiths, John Elting school that posits if the battlefield isnt empty or at least partly empty, that the terrain isnt what you think it is and the Osprey and Funcken painting guides are good for the parade ground

G'Day Rich

I was responding to Christopher…about historical orders only…at what point did I mention anything about a wargame…?

If there is any bickering on this thread…it is only you…making faults accusations…

Best Regards
Art

Mcladdie

1. it may be obvious to you and i but i don't think it is obvious to art or garth.

Rick:
I wouldn't know what they find obvious or not.

2. the issue has always been at brigade level and above, yet in petit tactical games where the players issue those written orders to prove their units can do x, we run into these problems, even though in the real world the battalions would be following a tactical drill set, usually not in the knowledge base of joe wargamer.

I agree that orders written [or given every turn] at or below the brigade level isn't how it was done. And yes, the pertinent questions are for Division commands and above.

3. I think the original post Was about using historical written orders in the game otherwise why bring it up??

I can't say other than what the OP post actually says. It seemed a simple historical question. Those kinds of questions are asked frequently on the boards.

Those are great examples of written orders. I will comment that:

1. Wellington's style of writing orders to everyone was part of what was called 'unique' on the site.

2. The actual order written to Lucan was delivered long before Nolan's dash.

3. The order written by Ney to Lobau was before the battle commenced and more of a situational description.

So, I still hold that commanders more often than not simply issued verbal orders, depending on the time and staff during a battle. Written orders were very common for initial orders for the day of battle.

And my comment about paper and ink being expensive was a semi-joke. It was more expensive then than it is now, but the real issue was who was carrying the necessary ink/pencil and paper--and how much?

I don't understand why we'd want to attempt to replicate this real-historical thing like writing orders… only to have to apply it in a totally unrealistic way, such as letting both players see them.

Garth:

That is a great point. We don't have to let the opponents see the orders. It is about how the orders are applied.

G'Day Bill,

I was originally going to post that Ney wrote in pencil…but I couldn't help myself…

Because his orders to d'Erlon was in pencil and not cheap iron-gall ink…but he didn't have an eraser…because he still had to cross out an action when using pencil… ;-)

So the issue of ink, pencils, and the cost of erasers…is one for Napseries to go crazy on ;-)

As for verbal orders…a "War Circle" is always verbal…

Best Regards
Art

Art: To change the subject slightly, thanks very much for posting the above dispatch of Marshal Ney!! Being the "fan boy" of his that I am I really enjoyed it. I can only regret however, that it is not hanging on a wall in my house. Thanks, John Miller

Mcladdie
Re your simulations/games are "unreal" quip

I agree
I just wish the hobby wasnt so involved at least part of it, in endless and pointless bickering over uniforms, TO&E, armor penetration, morale classifications and which blue is the right blue.

I come from the Paddy Griffiths, John Elting school that posits if the battlefield isnt empty or at least partly empty, that the terrain isnt what you think it is and the Osprey and Funcken painting guides are good for the parade ground

Rick:
I tend to be in your camp too. I do find it sort of bipolar when gamers will spend a lot of time and energy researching and discussing button or plume colors even when they are just one uniform among many, let alone all the effort to get the 'right' terrain and OOBs, but then blow off any discussion about how all those uniformed men operated on the battlefield because 'it is just a game.'

I think it may be that uniform colors or OOB counts are fairly simple specifics compared to the complexities of actual battle.

Having said that, it is 'to each his own' enjoyment in the hobby. I don't begrudge anyone their interests. I like to get the uniforms right if I can.

The problem I see with 'realism' and playing wargames is that many gamers [and designers] aren't clear on how or where The Real can and can't be meaningfully represented in a wargame / simulation. It is often said that wargaming is all "make-believe" and pretend not understanding that simulations can't function without pretending--acting as if they were real-- at some level for ANY simulation.

I say wargame/simulation because if a wargame is an effort to model anything of actual war, the design is attempting to simulate *something*. That is a technical statement, not philosophy or my opinion. Because it is, there are technical ways to do that… developed over the last half century.

Mcladdie
I agree
The games, as I see th are for fun and unless well contrlled and defined, which most are not, are poor tools to teach history or things military, or even economics or politics. And yet the strident and partisan voices abound about everything from uniforms on up. An example of this was the warfare bethween J Dunnigan and Avalon Hill several decades ago and the continuing combat between companies, such as the re emergence of the 28mm figure so a certain company can compete/attack another using 15mm.
You have read the unbelievable claims to ease of play and realism for many overly complex and highly unrealistjc games. But this is nothing new.