"Size of Azov regiment at Austerlitz" Topic

Easy enough to find out they had 3 battalions at the battle. But what about the actual number?
Either for the 3 battalions combined or per battalion.

Scott Bowden's Napoleon and Austerlitz pg 501 lists 3 battalions and only 591 present and under arms. To compare Galicia Musketeers lists 3 battalions and 1,564 though that is the largestthe rest of the division is more close to Azov's numbers.

Wow, that is a tiny regiment, really too small to use for gaming purposes.

Gunfreak
Not sure this comment makes any sense for gaming purposes "Wow, that is a tiny regiment, really too small to use for gaming purposes".
You do realize the Russian by Austerlitz had been on campaign for a while and many force marches.
What I am saying is at the closure of Ulm, as they approached to support in Oct/Nov, they were most likely closer to or over a 1564 strength regiment. So why would you not paint up three battalions and use only one battalion for the Austerlitz game?

curious
MG

But was the 3 battalions combined at austerlitz?
My comment was based on that most napoleonic rules at 1:20, unit that fall below 20 figures are usually quite ineffective. And at some 10 figures per battalion(as these would be) they'd be totally useless

Small units in BP, or combine as one standard size regiment. BP involves a degree of bath-tubbing so I could live with that.

But I agree. Our rules struggle at that size. For example, cavalry would normally fight by squadron I believe – in game terms 5 or 6 figures. So I believe a degree of fudge factor works

Marc

The @ 1:20 unit at 30 figs ( 591 effective s per your quote)would be best run as 1 battalion. Yes, I believe Most armies combined depleted units in to one and would function as one larger battalion.
You as the GM can decide how it should be addressed, per the rules you will use, yes?

Most gamers here would keep it simple and use 1 actual battalion to represent this unit.
I am off base here guys?

MG

Not at all Greg. It is a conundrum us gamers face, with our troops fixed to bases – how to account for reality. For example, my French are 36 figures – ostensibly for 720 men. But in real life, how many battalions would be at full strength. Same with Austrians – another thread is discussing how big they were. It in real life, they don't seem to have beaten the French very often. So we're they big? In most rules that could make them very effective – unlike, perhaps, actuality.

The Azovskiy Musketeer regiment fielded 3 battalions and 996 all ranks at Auterlitz.

1805, Austerlitz: Napoleon and the Destruction of the Third Coalition
Robert Goetz
Greenhill Books, 2005
page 349

regimental history :
Царю и отечеству походная и боевая служба 45-го пехотного Азовского е. и. вел. князя Бориса Владимировича полка : Рассказы из истории полка
Патлачев Федор Дементьевич (кап., 1853-?)
Киев : тип. Штаба Киевск. воен. окр., 1893
page 66
dlib.rsl.ru/01003633882

The regulations called for consolidation of battalions with less than 12 ranks per platoon – 864 rankers for 3 battalions. So while they may have combined battlaions at Austerlitz (for whihc I could not find any indications with a quick look), they were in no way required to do so by regulations.

Immediately after the battle, they reported losses of 18 officers, 44 nco's and 429 other ranks. Although generally 25% of these were lightly wounded or strayed and could be expected to shortly return to the ranks
link

I have no idea what Scott Bowden may have seen or quoted (and have not read his book). However, it may be that he is looking at the report from immediately *after* the battle.

Absent consolidation, the regiment would have formed as 1 grenadier and 2 musketeer batallions, each of 8 platoons. The musketeer battalions initially thought that they had lost all their 4 flags, but under-officer (corporal) Starichkov of one of the banner groups, although heavily wounded and taken prisoner, crawled away from the battlefield with one of the flags, helped by another wounded prisoner, ranker Chayk of the Butyrskiy Musketeers. Both received the "Thanks of the Emperor" and a medal. Chayk was promoted to under-officer and Starichkov granted captain's pay for life. He stayed with the regiment for that long life, dying in the regimental hospital in 1848 at age 70 or so.
See the regimental history, page 205

The Azovskets were supposed to awarded Saint George banners per an order of late 1805, for the performance earlier in the campaign that had reduced their numbers substantially. When it became understood that they had lost 4 colored obr. 1798 flags at Austerlitz, the award of Saint George banners was cancelled. Actually, one of these (or lat least enogh pieces of one to be recognized) was saved by Starichkov and Chayk, so the French only thought they had caputred 3. For excellence in the Swedish war, the Azovskiy Musketeers were granted 4 obr. 1803 flags in late 1809.
link

The officer in command of the regiment at the start of the battle was their "shef", general-major Aleksey Abramovich Selekhov. Upon baron Wimpfen's capture, general-major Selekhov took command of the reserve brigade of the 3rd column (Podolskiy and Azovskiy Musketeers) until he, too, was wounded and captured.
The commander of the regiment lieutenant-colonel Otto Vladimirovich Shtakelberg had been wounded earlier in the campaign and apparently did not rejoin until after Austerlitz.
By the end of the battle, the regiment was commanded by major Vasily Andreyevich Ustyantsev

@Le Breton: answers like yours are the reason so many of us keep coming back to TMP. Great scholarship, thank you.

Yes, thanks, Le Breton.

While I have your attention, was it the grenadier battalion that had the white inspection flag and two musketeer battalions with two coloured flags?
I knew this sevral years ago last time i did 1805 russians.

@Le Breton

Great information, thanks a lot

Gee, guys …. no need for thanks.
If I can answer a question, it makes me feel better when I ask for help with my questions later. You know – "all for one, one for all" and like that.

===============

Grenadier battalion fields the "white" and a "colored" flag.
2 musketeer battalions each fielded 2 "colored" flags
6 flags total for a regiment.

For the Azovskiy Musketeers at Austerlitz ….

The flag poles (and other woodwork such as drumsticks) were straw colored for the Azovskiy Musketeers.

Le Breton,

Do please explain again about the regulations requiring weak battalions to combine. I think you may have tossed a diamond in my direction. Were these same regulations in force in 1813-14, when Russian battalion strengths fell to 300 or below?

Yes – a Russian platoon in wartime was supposed to have 12-24 files. In theory, at full wartime strength you might have more files, but the regulation (the "school") says and shows that you only form 24 max. And if you had less than about 18 files, you seemed to get a degree of "emergency" repsonse to get you replacements (for 1813/1814 : opolchenie militia that agreed to serve in the real Army, liberated/escaped prisoners, volunteers from ethnic/social groups who could legally do this, etc.). You were "good to go" if you fielded 18-24 files.

The consolidation, for the Army, in 1810 and later was pretty well codified and supposed to be ….
--- the 1st and 3rd battalions (the two "active" battalions) of the same regiment comsolidated.
--- if you still have below 12 files per platoon (288 rankers in a battalion), you consolidated the junior regiment into the senior regiment of the same brigade
--- cadres went to the interior to pick up new soldiers
--- this was not automatic, and seems to have been subject to Army-level command
--- for the detached 2nd ("replacement") battalions serving without their grenadiers, so with 6 platoons of center companies, the consolidation was with the similar battalion of the same (parent) brigade – this effected mostly the 1st Separate corps in 1812
--- for the combined grenadier battalions (6 platoon battalions of grenadiers and strelki from 2nd battalions) – these were just sent into the 2 active battalions as replacements in late 1812

I get the impression that process of consolidation was less sytemized before the 1810 "state" (which did away with grenadier battalions in musketeer/infantry regiments), the 1811 infantry "school", the 1811 "order on recruit depots of the 1st line", and the early 1812 "order on the management of large bodies of troops", the latter a sort of general staff manual.

And you need to be very careful with ordres of battle for 1813/1814.
I did just check one of these consolidations for 20/21 Jägers.
The order of battle was showing a really small number of 21 Jäger fielded as a battalion. But in the regimental history, it was clear that (i) in early 1813 a cadre had been sent to the interior to reform, (ii) the remainder of 21 Jäger were placed under command of 20 Jäger but were still being reported as 21 Jäger, (iii) months later 30-odd officers and the surviving other ranks were actually transferred to 20 Jäger (and the separate reporting stopped), and (iv) reformed batallions of 21 Jäger arrived to the front.

This does not mean that small batallion were impossible, especially on a temporary basis. But if you see them, it is good to double/triple check to make sure you are not just seeing an artefact of reporting, when there had in fact been a consolidation.

For those who play tactical ….
--- you always fielded all the under-officers : there were senior rankers designated as vice-under-officers or gefreiters (German) – if you were missing real under-officers for *any* reason, these were employed to make up the numbers (no pay or uniform differences – but were considered first in line for promotion)
--- you equalized the elite platoons (grenadiers and strelki) and the 4 center platoons daily and separately – if this caused inequality, then you left "voids" in the third rank
--- you would actively equalize the two active battalions whenever local regimental command noticed a difference and so ordered
--- as far as I can tell, absent equalization you still fielded both battalions on a fixed equal frontage of equal files per platoon (per last equalization), and left 3rd rank voids where needed (this is not explicit in the 1811 regulations, but it seems to be so implied, as front and 2nd rank losses in battle are met by 3rd rank stepping up and "voids" are what you use for inequality)

Fascinating stuff Le Breton, So effectively the minimum size of an infantry battalion was 288 and the two field battalions, after 1810 should always be the same size. Presumably this applied at Borodino, is there any indication of which Bns were consolidated there?

288 *rankers* minimum for an 8 platoon battalion.
216 *rankers* minimum for a 6 platoon battalion (combined grenadier, 2nd replacement battalions sent to the front)

Batallion should be the same size.
Or should at least have the same frontage (with more 3rd rank voids in one vs. the other).
That's a "should" …. can't swear that they did it. It sounds reasonable, but I was not there and no one was making videos.
:-)
And it is hard to find from strength returns and reports, as the company was the admin unit (not tactical) and they did not move rankers from the rolls of one to another very often.

Equalizing platoons was a regular start-of-the-day morning activity – assumedly every morning.

At Borodino, I know of none that had yet been consolidated.
Shortly afterwards, the consolidations began.

Ah great Le Breton, I forgot that they'd just reinforced the infantry with militia recruits just before Borodino, so presumably the battalions were above the magic 288.

There is certainly something wrong when a player thinks that 591 men is too small to represent.

"It is a conundrum us gamers face, with our troops fixed to bases – how to account for reality."

Those problems (figure ratios & accounting for reality) seem to fade away when you switch from figure ratios to base ratios. As do a lot of other problems.

It's too snall to represent in 3 battalions. And a single battalion combined battalion is tactically different from 3.

Hello Gunfreak!

I just think that if your rules can't properly reflect the impact of 591 men in 3 battalions of 200 men or one battalion of 591 men then something is seriously wrong. My experience tells me that very often one of the major causes is the design of rules that are based in figure ratios.

During the Napoleonic wars it was not uncommon to see battalions below 300 men. Do your rules write these off as well?

Best regards,

Glenn

300 men is 15. Very weak but does work.
The rules reflect the effect of a single battalion of 591 perfectly well. But 200 man battalions are quite useless (as they where in real life) the point is that a single battalion is not the same tactically as 3 or 2 battalion. You can't pin and flank the enemy with a single battalion.

Hello Gunfreak!

I don't think a 200 man battalion was useless. They were certainly challenged in certain situations. If used wisely they could be very effective. If your rules automatically render them useless then I would see that as a shortcoming of the rules.

Your last sentence clearly indicates that 3, 200 man battalions could pin and flank a single battalion. Is that not an advantage?

Your entire problem seems to revolve around the structure of your rules, not real life situations. The more figures you have the better your battalion is. That simply does not reflect reality. Bigger is not always better.

All figure based games just make me howl. One in particular stands out. At the start of the game the GM told the Prussians that their Grenadier battalions were useless because they were smaller then their line battalions. All the other players had no problem agreeing with that. Do you think that anyone on a Napoleonic battlefield would agree with that?

The real problem is so many Napoleonic rules are based on figure ratios that everybody just accepts all the shortcomings as a conundrum.

Toss your rules out and look for a set that uses base ratios not figure ratios. Certainly not perfect, but generally so much better.

Best regards,

Glenn

You make a lot of assumptions about the rules. The fact is these rules represent Napoleonic warfare much better than the more generic types.
Apperantly 200 man battalions weren't very effective. Hence why russians combined them when they got that small. British battalions to were seen as combat inn effective at that point.

The French had a similar system: 12 files per platoon x 6 platoons = 216 men was considered a minimum number for an effective battalion.
As an aside, the French designated any formation of two or more platoons as a battalion, so two full strength platoons totalling 280 men would be regarded as a functioning battalion.

Firstly, don't rely on Bowden's figures for the Allies, his 'numerous regimental histories in the Russian Archives, Saint Petersburg' cannot be trusted.

Secondly, in Kutuzov's report on 1806/02/08 (02/20) (M. I. Kutuzov. :: Sbornik dokumentov i materialov, t. 1., s. 362-364), he listed the following numbers for Azov Regiment:
Staff Officers/Ober-Officers/Junior Officers or NCOs/Musicians/Privates/noncombatants
1805/10/01 (10/13): 7/53/120/55/1871/141
1806/02/08 (02/20): 7/54/60/24/669/132 (it did include the officers who were killed or missing)
Remained in Austrian Hospitals: 0/0/11/3/169/2
Killed or Missing: 2/14/60/31/1194/9

Thirdly, according to the POWs list provided by the French (Imperator 14, s. 12-15. RGVIA. F.26. On. 1/152. D.314. L. 266-275), for Azov:
Staff Officers/Ober-Officers/Soldiers
Captured at Austerlitz: 2/14/461
Hollabrunn: 0/2/341

So, I can safely say that Azov Regiment did have 1200-1800 men at Austerlitz.

Wu Tian

Hello Gunfreak!

Yes indeed I do make a lot of assumptions, but their primarily based on your comments.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean with your reference to "generic types". I do understand that your convinced that your rules represent Napoleonic warfare better. I'm not.

There are a lot of good and practical reasons to consolidate small battalions. None of them have anything to do with wargame rules.

Best regards,

Glenn

As noted above, I know nothing of Scott Bowden or his book.
But "numerous regimental histories in the Russian Archives, Saint Petersburg" is a very funky citation ….and in addition to funkiness, the military archives are in Moscow, and the regimental history for the Azovskiy was published as a book (not a manuscript in an archive) which I linked above.

Ah le breton, from 1812 settler descend?
Shal you be the reincarnation or reapparition of that most helpful and knowledgable Russian fellow?

If you are in Moscow I 'd love to meet you…

More like Mayflower descendant and very "waspy" – the "Le Breton" is because I lived there for some years of my childhood.

"Reincarnated" ? Is that allowed here ?

Not Moscow. For my sins, I am now condemned to live on the "Adriatic Riviera" in Croatia …. which is more like Königsberg with sun (and 40 C temp.) than the Côte d'Azur.

Many would envy this condemnation. Any gamers there?