"Working out frontage of battalion in line" Topic

I am surprised at the 70 cm width in the Russian army, how did they dress? It should be elbow to elbow, there that helped to maintain closed ranks.

While manoeuvring a close dressing is helpfull for the soldiers, it may impede action when firing and maybe they looseded formation a bit.

Yeah, 70 cm is about my current width standing (not at attention), so I'm even more confused by 22" (56 cm), even with the ranks being filled with skinny kids. And then with someone from the rank behind me putting his musket between me and the next guy and firing…

I've seen the detailed French drill and steps for reloading, so I can see how all this could go on in very close proximity to five other guys, but…

Finally, with all of the above, I believe keeping proper distances had to be important because the drill, ploying and deploying was dependent on it. If vzvod A is 1/3 longer than vzvod B, somebody's wheel isn't going to go well.

true, also a commander would know what amount of space he needed in case he wanted to have 5 battalions in line, on each day – or close to battle – the tactical subunits were equalized so you have identical width.
In case there is 22 inches in the regulation they must have had good reasons to write it.

I did the math on this some time back for a series of computer wargames I work on. Came out to 540 men for 3 rank lines and 360 for 2 rank lines for a 100 meter frontage.

I am sure that this number will vary from nationality to nationality.

Right so on the "gaps" mentioned earlier. This was real life .. not Hollywood where the men all rush at each other and clash together ;)

The golden number of 180 men per rank was what I settled on.

School of the Recruit 1811
Part 1. Paragraph 1.
Первую часть щколы рекрутской обучать всега по одиночкѣ, эстьли же нужда заставитъ, обучать двухъ и трехх рекрутъ пазомъ, (по недостатку обучающихъ унтеръ-офицеровъ и ефрейтеровъ или по причинѣ великаго числа рекрутъ) то становить оныхъ въ одину шеренгу такъ, чтобы одинъ отъ другаго стоялъ на аршин, при семъ быть рекрутамъ бесъ ружей.
The first part of the recruiting school is taught one-on-one, but if the need is such, you will be forced to train two and three recruits in a line (for the lack of corporal and lance-corporal instructors, or because of the great number of recruits), then they should be arrayed in one rank so that one stands one arshin from another; this should begin with recruits without muskets.

The Plate at Plan XII, showing pacing, is scaled and the distance allowed for the width per man is one arshin

So, in English measure we have French at 23.5 inches and Russians at 28 inches. Possible reasons :
--- Russians, lacking urbanization, were likely meaurably taller/bigger than French people (French heights had *declined* in the past 50-100 years)
--- the French conscripted by lottery, the Russians selected for size, healthiness, etc. to make up the quota from any landholder's serfs
--- the Russian carry position with the lock of the musket in the crook of the arm seems to extend a elbow laterally more than the cognate French position …. so maybe that would make the elbow-to-elbow touch (firing position also looks wider, I think)
--- I think the second rank was positioned and firing differently comparing Russian to French (I need to look at this in more detail or ask at reenactor.ru)
--- one or the other or both did not follow their regulations
--- Russian platoons were quite smaller than French pelotons (24 files vs. 40), also battalions (192 files of rankers vs. 240) – at full wartime strength, late period : but with more space per man, the battalion frontages were about the same

I don't think anyone posted this yet …..

French later period, full war-time strength

43 files of rankers and corporals per peloton de fusiliers ou chasseurs
1 file with the capitaine and 1er sergent dit "de replacement"
=======
44 files x 4 = 176 files

42 files of rankers and corporals per peloton de voltiguers or grenadiers/carabiniers
1 file with the capitaine and 1er sergent dit "de replacement"
======
43 files x 2 = 86 files

the far left file of the battalion (dit "de encadrement") with the 2e sergent and a caporal de voliguers
3 files of the garde de l'aigle ou garde d'enseigne
======
4 files

lateral space between the pelotons of a bataillon : none
total number of files : 266 files

allowance per file : 22 French inches = 23.5 English inches = 60 cm

frontage of the battalion = 160 m = 175 English yards
the lateral space between battalions = frontage of a peloton = 26.5 m = 29 English yards
posting the battalion's 4 sapeurs to the right of the battalion partilly fills this space, it does not increase it.

other metrics :
--- distance clear between the back of a leading ranker (or the back of his backpack if so eqipped) and the chest of a following ranker : 1 French pied (foot) in 1791, but taken later as 33 cm (slightly longer) = 13 English inches by 1813
--- length of a French pace = 2 French pieds (feet) = 25.6 English inches = 65 cm
--- rates of march : pas ordinaire 76 paces/minute, pas de route 90 paces/minute, pass acceleré 100paces/minute, pas de charge 120 paces/minute, pas de course 200+ paces/minute

Just received my copy of Imperial Bayonets – looks really interesting, so thank you tho those who recommended it to me!

First page I turned to when flicking through had this info (pg18):

Austrian: unknown width per man. 2 pace (49.8") interval between ranks

British: 22" width per man. 1 pace interval between ranks.

French: 26" width per man. 13" between ranks.

Prussian: Unknown width per man. 26" between ranks.

Russian: 27" width per man. 14" between ranks

Another interesting table on pg38 about battalion line length for full theoretical strengths:

Austrian 1807 – 684-762' (228-254 yards/ 208.5m)

British 1792 – 640' (213.33 yards/ 195.07m)

French 1791 – 560' (186.66 yards / 170.68m)
French 1808 – 480' (160 yards / 146.3m)

Prussian 1792 – 360' (120 yards / 109.73m)
Prussian 1799 – 316' (105.33 yards / 96.13m)
Prussian 1808 – 344' (114.66 yards / 104.84m)

Russian 1802 – 368' (122.66 yards / 112.16m)

Saxon 1792 – 376' (125.33 yards / 114.6m)
Saxon 1810 – 368' (122.66 yards / 112.16m)

Looking at the plates of the Russian regulations of 1811 – the pose of the soldiers seemed to be almost exactly as for the French.
About Nafziger, one has to be carefull, like for the French manouevering he is basing his figures on a porject for improved regulations and not at the actual ones.

Agreed with von W -- Nafziger is a great compiler of information, but do cross check and validate.

Here is a 1817 translation of de Vernon's 1805 two volume Treatise written for training French officers in the Imperial Polytechnique and military schools. The texts were vetted by a panel of Marshals. Measurements in ( ) are British measurements. French inches were longer than British.

de Vernon p. 90

36. To establish the relations between the troops and the ground that they are to occupy either for manoeuvre, battle, or camps, it is first requisite to determine in linear measures the dimensions of the orders taken by the troops in these different circumstances; and then having the horizontal projection of the ground, we may make our dispositions upon it.
To calculate in meters the dimensions of the orders of battle of infantry and cavalry, we must first know the mean horizontal projections in line of the foot soldier and horseman. These dimensions have been established by tacticians approximatively from experience, and are a mean data sufficiently exact for our purposes.
A foot soldier in line occupies a front equal to 55 centimeters (nearly 2 feet), and a depth in file of 33 centimeters (13 inches): the front of 55 centimeters may appear too much, as in the Regulations only 18 ½ inches (19¾ inches) are allowed; but as many military writers have fixed it at 2 feet (2 1/7 feet), we think that this is the true mean dimension.
The front of the horseman in line = 120 centimeters, or a little less than 4 feet (4 feet Eng.); his depth in the file = 250 centimeters ( 8 feet 3 inches Eng.)

Le Breton:

total number of files : 266 files

allowance per file : 22 French inches = 23.5 English inches = 60 cm

frontage of the battalion = 160 m = 175 English yards

If you use Nafziger's spacing for French (26") it would come out as 192 yards (176m).

If you use de Vernon's 55cm per file you get 160 yards (146.3m)

That is a fairly large discrepancy – ranges from 160 yards to 192 yards (146m – 176m).

How big a battalion would this be? If the battalion has 266 files, then in 3 ranks that is 798 men. Then you have all the officers and drummers etc behind the line as well. If we used the 10% extra rule of thumb then that would make the battalion size 878 men. Would that be in the right ballpark?

Out of interest, using the numbers I quoted from Nafziger, he makes the length of the battalion in line for a full theoretical strength battalion as 480' (160 yards/146m). Working from there, using his 26" per man, that means he is looking at around 220 files in such a battalion, not the 266 that Le Breton comes too – however, if we use the 55cm per man mentioned by de Vernon, then it would come to 266 files!

Anyway, using 26" means 660 men in line in the three ranks. If you add on the 10% for the other members of the battalion, you are looking at a battalion of roughly 726 men.

What I am finding odd is that there can be so much discrepancy. Why does Nafzinger use different regulations to those some of the others of you are using? Has he a reason for preferring one source over another? Was it a mistake? Why does he mention 26" spacing per file for French in 1808, when the quote from de Vernon mentions 55cm (21.6")?

Is it time to give a Gallic shrug and give up?!? :)

As I see don't trust Nafziger blindly, I have to find out in original French documentation about their width.
So, just more research needed, which will take a bit of time.

I have done some more reading of Nafzinger, and have found out some more information of the spacing for the French. While the Reglement of 1791 had the spacing as 26", other sources Nafzinger says had it at 22" (55.88cm), so same a British. Nafzinger uses this 22" when he goes on to examine battalion line lengths in more detail.

Below is a rough summary of what I have read so far.

BATTALIONS SIZES

France 1800-1808

Battalion made up of 1xgrenadier, 8xfusilier, but grenadier often stripped off. So Nafzinger does his calculations based upon 8 companies (pelotons). Each peloton had 114 men.

Each Fusilier peloton = 38 files frontage. Therefore full strength peloton has width of 69.99', so 70' (23.3yards/21.336m)

So length without colour party = 560' (186.66yards/170.688m). Colour party probably add another 5 ½' (1.67m) = roughly 172m

France 1808 – 1815

Every peloton had 140 men, six pelotons to battalion. Three ranks, but if peloton falls beneath 12 files, then go to two ranks – so when battalion falls below 198 men it goes to two ranks. As well as going to six pelotons, there was a reduction of the number of muskets (privates and corporals in the battalion), from 896 to 774. So each peloton had 129 muskets and a total of 140 men.

Each Peloton has 44 files, so width of 80.66' (26.88yards/24.58m).

Therefore, battalion length = 484' (161yards/147.5m) + colour party 5 ½'/1.67m = roughly 150m. This is for a battalion all ranks of 840 men.

British

Officers and NCO's per company: 1 captain, 2 lieutenants, 1 ensign, 1 paymaster sergeant, 3 sergeants, 3 corporals, 1 drummer, and 1 fifer. While it seems that the intention was to have approximately 100 privates, in reality the average battalion in the field had a around 500-700, so a battalion with a strength of 660, would give 54 privates per company and a company strength of 66 (12 officers, NCO's and musicians, not including the paymaster sergeant). .

Company organised in 4 sections, each with minimum 5 files, so a minimum frontage for the company of 20 files. If such a minimum company organised in three ranks it would need 6 officers and NCOs and 54 men, and if in two ranks it would need a minimum of 6 officers and NCO's and 34 men.

So, the 660 battalion would have 27 files, plus two additional for the officers at each end of the company, so a total of 29 files. At 22" that gives a company width of 53' (17.7yards/16.15m).

So battalion width would be 531.6' (177.2 yards/162.03m). Add a colour party, 4 men wide, which adds another 7.3' (2.2m). So in total around 164-165m.

Not appreciable different from the French pre 1808 width of 560' (186.66yards/170.688m), and only slightly longer than the 1808-1815 width (484' (161yards/147.5m).

CAVALRY

Also have posted below a summary of some of Nafzinger's calculations about cavalry squadron line widths:

French:

Nafzinger uses as his base the Ordonnance provisoire sur l'exercice et les manoeuvres de la cavalerie. This stated that generally the width of 12 files was 10m. Heavy Cavalry squadrons would occupy 37-38m, Dragoons 36-37m and chasseurs/hussars 35-36m. This is for a squadron of around 100 horses, which Nafziger says works out to 48 files (so 96 troopers and around 4 officers behind/ahead of line I would presume). So that works out at 0.77 meters per file (30.3").

He goes on to say that the average French squadron from 1805-1809 was about 166 troopers (presumably a total squadron size of 170). So this works out as 83 files. That makes this sized squadron have a width of 63-64m/208-209' (approx 70 yards).

British:

Looking at the British, Nafziger says the average squadron size was around 100 files per squadron (so presumably just over 200 in total, including the officers not in the line – he later states that the maximum men per squadron was 250). He says this gives them a theoretical width of 300 feet/91m, as he states the regulation calls for 1 yard per file (so slightly larger than the space described per file in the Ordonnance). Out of interest, if the French squadron above used this yard per file, it would come out at 75-76m, rather than the 63-64 based on the Ordonnance.

He goes on to say that the gap between British squadrons in line was equal to one third of their actual front (100'/30m), making a British regiment of 4 squadrons 1500' wide (500 yards/457m). In the Ordonnance, however, it is stated that for French cavalry there should be a 10m gap between each squadron. Thus for a four squadron average French Cavalry regiment the total length in line would be 284m (932'/311 yards). If the French squadron was the same size as the British one (i.e. 100 files) it would have a width of 338m.

This difference in space between squadrons for the French and British makes a big difference – the British for 100 files comes out at 30m per squadron gap, while for the French it is 10m. Couple that with the smaller French file width and the final length of the regiment (presuming 100 files for each squadron) comes out at the British: 457m, the French: 338m. I suppose, being narrower, the French were quicker to move from column to a line in front than the British, as the squadrons had less distance to travel (French column to line 1.7-1.9 minutes according to Nafzinger, whilst British took 2.3 – 31 minutes). However, in a line on line cavalry engagement, it would seem that the British would have the advantage, as they can wrap their flanks around the French. Perhaps I am missing something here.

As I initially noted, Nafziger's book is a good place to start, but you cannot take him as gospel. The information about the French cavalry has led you to conclude that a French horse and rider (plus distance between horses) are 0.77m wide, which is just a little bit wider than a regulation Russian infantry file.

"I have to find out in original French documentation about their width."

How the French managed to make such a muddle of such simple questions as the width of a file and the length of a pace I do not know.

Réglement concernant l'exercice et les manœuvres de l'infanterie du 1er août 1791
Titre II. – École du Soldat – 1ere Partie

1ere Leçon : Position du soldat
"on les placera [les soldats] alors sur un rang, à un pas de distance l'un de l'autre"

Which would be all well and good, if there was clear consensus on what a "pas" or "pace" was.

From the same document :
3e Leçon : Principes du pas
"La longueur du pas ordinaire sera de deux pieds, à compter d'un talon à l'autre"

The ancient French "pied" ("foot") measured 1.066 English feet = 12.792 English inches = 32.492 cm = 0.325 m
The French military "pas" ("pace") was supposed to be 2 pieds = 2.132 English feet = 25.584 English inches = 69.983 cm = 0.650 m

So, if one rounds up from 25.584 English inches, on might say that the lateral distance allowed a soldier formed in line was "26 English inches".

However, the pace for marching does not seem to have been taken as the same pace for measuring the width of a file!

Guibert agreed with the 24 pouces for the width of file.

From Guibert's "Essai général de tactique" (1773)
"Il faut compter que chaque soldat, quand il est sous les armes, occupe deux pieds dans son plus grand daimètre, c'est à-dire à le prendre d'un coude à l'autre….
Ce calcul n'est cependant » pas tout-à-fait exact, car il dépend de l'espèce d' hommes ; et dans le fait, il est rare qu'un soldat occupe plus de 18, 2o et au plus 22 pouces de diamètre; mais la tactique n'exige que des calculs approximatifs, et d'ailleurs, en comptant à raison de deux pieds par soldat, on lui donne l'espace suffisant pour se mouvoir et manier ses armes avec liberté."

But Guibert goes on to say the a marching pace of 24 pouces is too great ….
"La measure de toute espèce de pas, soit ordinaire, doublé ou triplé, sera de 18 à 20 pouces; à deux pieds il est trop grand, trop peu cnforme à la petite espèce de nos soldats, et trop sujet par là à faire flotter et ouvrier le bataillon"
See : link

The Bardin dictionary goes on for several pages in discussion of the various measurements understood as one "pas" or "pace" – see volume 7, pages 4305 et. seq.. Guibert's 18-20 pouces, the common 22 pouces, the 24 pouces of the régiement, and various instances when the "pace" was defined to be up to as much a 36 pouces. He concludes that the French military ended up with the length of the "pas" or "pace" inconsistent between various corps!

And the general definition of a "pace" in French was indeed only 22 pouces (not 2 pieds = 24 pouces)
See, for example : link

So if you wanted to say that the "pace" which was the width of a file was a common French walking pace, then the width of the file would be 22 French inches.

With this inconsistency as to the understading of a "pace", the width of a file was directly regulated several times, but with no consistency either :
An order of 16 brumaire an XII allowed 18.5 pouces for a file (19.71 English inches).
This was revised per decree of 11 octobre 1809 to be 510 mm (20.08 English inches).
In the Règlement provisoire pour le service des troupes en campagne (1813), the figure was 19 pouces (20.25 English inches).
Several individual commanders seems to have had there own ideas of the measurement!
See : link

Bardin in his dictionary says it was really not less than 20 pouces (21.32 English inches) (volume 4 page 2320)

So, if we roundup from Bardin, we get the width of a file as 22 English inches

Heaven is where the police are British, the cooks are French ….

"France 1808 – 1815 …. Each Peloton has 44 files"

Note exactly.

Note, for all six pelotons, 1 file per peloton (the right-most) would be:
le commandant de la compagnie dans le 1er rang et le 1er sergent dit "de replacement" dans le 3e rang.
If the captain was put out of action, this 1st sergent would step up take his place.

The grenadiers/carabiniers would have detached 4 grenadiers/carabiniers and perhaps a caporal to be spaeurs. The would get 1-2 nice big voltiguers as postich.
They would field 43 files : 42 files of muskets and a command file.

The fusiliers/chasseurs would filed 44 files : 43 files of muskets and a command file.

The volitguers would lose one more man to act as a ordonnance.
The would field 44 files : 42 files of muskets and a command file on the right plus the "file d'encadrement":
le 2e segent de voltiguers dans le 1er rang et un caporal de voltiguers dans le 3e rang
If this 2nd sergeant was put out action, this corporal would step up to take his place.

So the battalion would have 266 files including the color party, not 267.
There would 256 files of muskets, 6 command files, 3 files for the color party and the "file d'encadrement" on the far left flank of the battalion.

As I initially noted, Nafziger's book is a good place to start, but you cannot take him as gospel. The information about the French cavalry has led you to conclude that a French horse and rider (plus distance between horses) are 0.77m wide, which is just a little bit wider than a regulation Russian infantry file. grin

According to Nafziger, the Ordonnance states that a horse should be considered to have a width of one third its length, and assigns them a width of 1m. What is confusing is that Nafziger then goes on to say the Ordonnance says a peloton of 12 files would, in fact, occupy 9-10m, and a squadron of heavy cavalry would have a width of 37-38m, dragoons 36-37, and chasseurs/hussars 35-36. Nafziger says these figures were for a squadron with a strength of around 100 men and horses, and it is the dragoon width that he bases his other calculations on, using the 100 strong squadron in 48 files.

A paragraph or two later on he also has a table where he puts the width of 12 files at 10', but if figured that must be a typo error.

So would it be better to use the 1 yard per file of the British system for the French cavalry, or use the Ordonnance 1m per horse instead, or something else entirely?

………
So, if we roundup from Bardin, we get the width of a file as 22 English inches

Thanks for all that information Le Breton. So, in this regard it seems safe that Naziger's 22" per file in French battalion is close enough to what is safe to assume, given all the confusion there seems to be in the area?

So the battalion would have 266 files including the color party, not 267.
There would 256 files of muskets, 6 command files, 3 files for the color party and the "file d'encadrement" on the far left flank of the battalion.

Thanks again for the explanation! So if there are 266 files, and each file is 22", then we have a line length of 488' / 163 yards / 149m.

Also, presumably with this French battalion of 266 files (840 all ranks strong in total), if they lost men they would try and maintain the frontage? So they would be feeding men from the 3rd rank forward to maintain the 266 files. Would that be correct?

So with 256 files of muskets in the third rank, they could take up to 256 musket casualties before that 3rd rank was fully depleted. Given that, once a battalion went below around 580-590 men the amount of files would have to shrink, even if they pushed forward the third rank.

Did they start shrinking the files before the 3rd rank was depleted fully?

What about the British? Did they shrink their width and close the gaps as they took casualties, or did they become a thinner line by pushing men from the second rank into the first rank until, theoretically, they were just 1 rank deep?

Presumably, for both the British and French, keeping companies/pelotons to roughly even numbers was important when maneuvering, so at least at the start of an engagement an under strength battalion must have equalized the companies in some manner, either shrinking the amount of files in each, or keeping the files to the maximum possible by depleting the rearmost rank. My guess it would be a combination of the two, but I was wondering if there was any received wisdom on what they actually did in practice?

The answer to how the British dealt with casualties has been given in a previous post – they closed to the centre to fill up the gaps.

Don't trust anything Nafziger says about British organisation or the minimum company front having to be made up of four sections each with a frontage of 5 men because it's nonsense.

The answer to how the British dealt with casualties has been given in a previous post – they closed to the centre to fill up the gaps.

Thanks. So they just shrunk as they received casualties. Must have made maneuvering more complicated as that process continued I would have thought – the various companies would have different file lengths to them after a while.

"So, in this regard it seems safe that Naziger's 22" per file in French battalion is close enough to what is safe to assume, given all the confusion there seems to be in the area?"

I think so. My opinion. The French mostly stressed the elbow-to-elbow idea ("le accoudrement"), despite Guibert's comment that it was too tight.

"French battalion of 266 files (840 all ranks strong in total), if they lost men they would try and maintain the frontage?"

Yes, on the day of battle for sure. Likely longer. I think the number of files to field per battalion was a divisional decision taken based on how many men the battalions had on average. So they might have gone with, for example, 250 files for some time if every battalion was a little understrength and no replacements were expected soon. And yes, the would do this by creating voids in the 3rd rank for the weaker battalions.

The "stepping up" would be during the day of battle.
The battalions would later re-equalize the pelotons of whch they were composed, by height. Equalizing the pelotons within a battalion could be done as often as daily. The determination of how many files to field per battalion (with voids in the 3rd rank for some battalions) would be less often – say every 5 days or so. There may have been some equalizing between battalions when needed (in 1812, often all the battalions in a French brigade were of the same regiment).

"Did they start shrinking the files before the 3rd rank was depleted fully?"
I think not during a day of battle. Also, I do not know of any French battalions that took over 1/3 casualities and stayed formed in line ready to lose more men. Russians might do that kind of thing, but not so much the French.

By the way, the late period Russians did it exactly as described above. And one of the reasons that I think the French did it this way is that the Russians copied the French a lot for this type of thing. The Russian brigades were of two different regiments, but paired by type. After sufficient losses, battalions would combine, then the regiments.

Thanks Le Breton, that information is great! I have learned so much in this thread, so thank you to everyone who has done their best to educate me!

Iorwerth,

You are too kind. Thank *you* for the interesting questions.

I love Imperial Bayonets (actually anything by George Nafziger). I think I have worn out 2 or 3 copies each of IB and his work on the invasion of Russia.
But this stuff is dense dense dense in detail and virtually impossible to summarize without losing some of the content.

Note that I have marked some items as "I think" or "My opinion". If you have French, I have linked the original stuff like the 1791 regulations, the 1813 Infantry Manual, some commentaries like Guibert's, etc., etc. Please do not take my opinion as "facts". If you read through the material and form your opinioins, they will likely be closer to accurate than mine (fresh eyes on the question).

And if you don't have French, just start anyway (it is mostly just English with very bad spelling)
:-)

A treatise on the Science of War and Fortification composed of the use of the Imperial Polytechnic School and Military schools. 1805

Vol. I Chapter VI Page 90

A foot soldier in line occupies a front equal to 55 centimetres (nearly 2 feet), and a depth in file o f 33 centimeters (13 inches): The front of 44 centimetres may appear too much, as in the regulations only 18 ½ inches (19 ¾ inches) are allowed; but as many military writers have fixed it at 2 feet (2 1/7 feet), we think that this is the true mean dimension.*

*The front occupied by a foot sholdier is calculated by tacticians who have written in English, at two feet; this even number is sufficiently near the truth for all practical purposes, and is very convenient in calculations.
Translator

To determine the front of a battalion in line, there are three prerequisites, viz: 1st, the number or strength of the battalion; 2nd , the number of men in the depth or files of the line; 3rd, the space occupied in front by the soldier. Then by dividing the number of men by the number of ranks, and multiplying the quotient by the factor 55 centimeters (2 feet), we find the extent of the battalion; adding however this latter number multiplied by the number of platoons. To find the depth of the habitual order of battle, we must remember that the distance from rank to rank is 33 centimeters (13 inches); making for the distance from the front to the rear rank 165 centimeters (5 ½ feet), or 315 centimeters (10 ½ feet) to the rank of the file closers inclusive.

I reposted the first paragraph to include the footnote by the American translator 1817 who was putting English measurements in ( ) throughout.

Obviously, contemporary military [And the student officers studying from de Vernon's treatise] were at least as interested in calculating unit fronts etc. as wargamers.

So I included de Vernon's explanation.

I think it's clear that there were different opinions on the space that a foot soldier occupied. The major issue was to make it uniform for the army in question.

Guibert was writing about what HE thought should be done. It is not clear whether his view of the space a soldier occupied was his or the French army's at the time. From Guibert is also writing a generation [20 years] before the Revolutionary wars, so calculation could well have changed, and changed again with all the reordering of French military into 1805. Add in the various armies' differing measurements, and I can see why there would be a range of opinions on the space a soldier *should* occupy.

There exists an order from Davout in 1811:

Manière de commencer cette instruction, en même temps que celle du soldat.
Pour commencer cette instruction en même temps que celle des soldats et sans y nuire, on formera seulement quatre cadres de bataillon par le moyen de 96 hommes
Ces soldats seront pris sur tout le régiment dans le nombre des plus anciens et des plus adroits, afin que connaissant l'exercice depuis plusieurs années, on puisse se dispenser de s'attacher à leur instruction particulière.
Chaque section aura huit mètres d'étendue (12 pas), les deux sections représenteront le front d'un peloton de 99 hommes sur trois rangs.
L'étendue de chaque bataillon sera de 99 mètres (152 pas 6 p. 8 l.), qui est à peu près celle d'un bataillon de 650 hommes.
L'intervale entre les bataillons, sera de 15 mètres 2/3 (24 pas), ainsi les quatre bataillons auront, étant en bataille 443 mètres (666 pas 5 1/2), de l'extrémité droite à l'extrémité gauche.

Otechestvennaya voyna 1812 goda. Otd. 2. Bumagi, otbityye u protivnika,(Papers taken from the enemy) SPB., 1903, vol. 1, p. 115.
link

So, a French battalion of 650 men (all ranks) should have a frontage of 99 metres (152 pas 6 pounce 8 ligne) in three ranks.

So, a French battalion of 650 men (all ranks) should have a frontage of 99 metres (152 pas 6 pounce 8 ligne) in three ranks.

That appear to be @18 inches per man.

It is interesting that Davout felt the need to establish that for his troops. At the same time, he also had Morand write up instructions for skirmish actions for the line troops.

It looks like the Otechestvennaya voyna contains the captured instructions from Davout's Corps.

When comparing regulations, you need to be aware of different ways of measuring apparently similar things.

The distance between ranks in close order for instance is shown in the British Regulations as one pace (30 inches) and in the French Regulations as 13 inches. However the British measured this from the front of the foot of one man to the front of the foot of the man in the rank behind. The French measured this from the rear of the pack of one man to the chest of the man behind.

When you realise this, the distance between ranks is actually very similar.

As far as Russian Regulations are concerned George Nafziger says he used a post Napoleonic version because he could not find a contemporary one. Of course since Imperial Bayonets was first published, copies of all of the Napoleonic Russian regulations have emerged. I would take Alexander Zmodikov's books on Russian Regulations as definitive. I know they are based on actual Russian Regulations, since Alexander very kindly sent me photocopies of the original regulations.

Rod

It looks like the Otechestvennaya voyna contains the captured instructions from Davout's Corps.

You're right. The documents were captured at Krasnoi/Krasny along with Davout's baton.

Besides, since Davout refered to a peloton with 99 rank and file, I think 0.5m or 20 inches are more reasonable, about 10 percent were not in the three ranks.

"Guibert was writing about what HE thought should be done. It is not clear whether his view of the space a soldier occupied was his or the French army's at the time. "

Agreed. But it is the same amount in the 1791 Regulations and that was unchanged in the 1813 Infantry Manual.
But I also linked several regulations, circulars and orders of individual commanders that allowed less.
Clearly, there was not a consensus.
I took Bardin's retrosepctive comment (20 pouces = 21.32 English inches) as likely a good summary or average or single point estimate – but it is only my judgement.

"It looks like the Otechestvennaya voyna contains the captured instructions from Davout's Corps."
It does.

So, a French battalion of 650 men (all ranks) should have a frontage of 99 metres (152 pas 6 pounce 8 ligne) in three ranks.

Wouldn't that show that in this case the French were not thinning out their third rank to keep the frontage up to the 266 flies of the full sized 880 all ranks battalion? Instead they were just keeping three full ranks and having a narrower battalion frontage?

I think this works out at around 21" per man.

i.e.

Battalion strength minus battalion officers/NCOs/Drummers etc: 650-112 = 538.

538 muskets divided into three ranks = 179.3 files

Add 10 ranks for 6 files officers, 3 files colour party, and 1 for the file d'encadrement officers = 189.3 files

Multiply by 21 for width in inches = 3975.3"

Divide by 12 to get width in feet = 331.27'

331' = 100.889m

Key is the amount of non-muskets you subtract from the all ranks battalion strength at the beginning. I used 112 based on Le Breton's information that a battalion of 880 in three ranks had 256 files of muskets. So 256x3 = 768. Subtract this from the all ranks 880, and you get the 112 non muskets in the battalion.

Another assumption I made was that the amount of officers/NCOs/Drummers etc were kept at the same amount as you would find in a battalion of 880, even if the amount of muskets in the battalion were reduced.

I am not at all sure that the French did thin ranks down to ensure a frontage of 266 files per battalion. Where does this idea come from?

The French 1791 regulations state that the pelaton will form 3 ranks unless the number of files is reduced to 12 men (i.e. a company strength of 36 men) when it will form 2 ranks.

It is possible that the ranks would be thinned during a battle due to casualties, but I would want to see some eyewitness testimony showing that this is what actually happened in French battalions.

As stated previously, the British appear to have closed to the centre or sometimes one flank to fill the gaps caused by casualties. Occasionally, the casualties were so heavy that intervals appeared.

Edward Blakeney, 2/7th Fusileers at Albuera:

"The men behaved most gloriously never losing their ranks, and closing to the centre as casualties occurred"

Moyle Sherer, 2/34th Regiment at Albuera:

"A constant feeling to the centre of the line, and the gradual diminution of our front, more truly spoke the havoc of death."

Charles Leslie, 29th Regiment at Albuera:

"Our line at length became so reduced that it resembled a chain of skirmishers in extended order, while, from the necessity of closing in towards the colours, and the numbers fast diminishing, our right flank became still further exposed."

Benjamin Hobhouse, 1/57th at Albuera:

"At this time our poor fellows dropped around us in every direction…Though alone, our fire never slackened, nor were the men the least disheartened. Though by closing to the right we appeared to be no more than a company."

Edward Close, 2/48th at Albuera:

"In less time than I can write it, although we were literally cut to pieces, we stood on the hill like extended light infantry, many of the intervals filled up by the Spanish sharpshooters."

Robert Blakeney, Browne's Flank Battalion at Barossa:

"Nearly 200 of our men and more than half the officers went down by this first volley…We now stood in extended order, the battalion was checked. In closing to the centre and endeavouring to form a second efficient line, upwards of 50 more men and some officers were levelled with the earth; and all the exertions of Colonel Brown could not form a third line."

Harry Ross Lewin, 1/32nd Regiment at Salamanca:

"Our men came down to the charging position, and commenced firing from that level, at the same time keeping touch to their right, so that gaps opened by the enemy's fire were instantly filled up."

Heavy casualties would lead to unequal companies and a degree of disorganisation, as a considerable break in the action would be needed to re-organise the battalion properly. James Anton of the 42nd Highland Regiment wrote about Quatre Bras describing the chaos. His account is interesting because it shows that not all things were done by the book in action and particularly in relation to this thread because it mentions the problems caused by unequal companies (unequal due to casualties) as mentioned by Lorwerth above. When attacked by lancers, he says that:

We instantly formed a rallying square; no time for particulars; every man's piece was loaded, and our enemies approached at full charge; the feet of the horses seemed to tear up the ground.

After this, the battalion attempted to sort itself out:

An attempt was now made to form us in line; for we stood mixed in one irregular mass – grenadier, light, and battalion companies – a noisy group; such is the inevitable consequence of a rapid succession of commanders. Our covering sergeants were called out on purpose that each company might form on the right of its sergeant; an excellent plan had it been adopted, but a cry arose that another charge of cavalry was approaching and this plan was abandoned.

Eventually a line was formed "on the left of the grenadiers". The cavalry again returned and square was formed:

Our last file had got into square, and into its proper place, so far as unequal companies could form square.

He described the battalion at the end of the battle:

Afternoon was far spent, and we were resting in line, without having equalised the companies, for this would have been extremely dangerous in so exposed a position.

Girod de l'Ain, who was an officer in the 9e Légère wrote at that battle of Medellin :
Mon régiment fut immédiatement formé en ordre de la bataille, sur deux rangs, au lieu de trois, pour donner plus d'étendue à notre ligne.
p. 131

Une exception ( ) signalée par le capitaine Chapuis du 85e de ligne (division Durutte):
"… Il [le colonel Masson] fit former au 85e un seul carré sur deux rangs, sa faiblesse numérique s'étant opposé à ce qu'il fût sur trois."
Les Carnets de la Campagne – n°4; p.47

Le 13 octobre 1813, les régiments français sont très amoindris car ils combattent et marchent sans cesse depuis l'été (aoüt). Ne peut-on y voir une façon de maintenir le front (la longueur) des régiments, divisions… malgré ces effectifs réduits?
A cette époque la supériorité numérique des alliés devient énorme (voir à Leipzig 3 jours plus tard).

Lettre de Napoléon à Murat :
« J'ai pris hier un ordre du jour pour ordonner que toute mon infanterie fut placée sur deux rangs ; mettez-le sur-le-champ à exécution ; je ne veux plus qu'on soit sur trois rangs : le feu du troisième rang, la baïonnette du troisième rang sont insignifiants…Quand on se placera en colonnes par division, chaque bataillon se trouvera former une colonne de six rangs outre les trois rangs de serre-files. Cela est plus que suffisant, et cela a le grand avantage qu'un bataillon de 500 hommes paraîtra à l'ennemi être de 750 hommes. »

My understanding was that French "stepped up" *during* a battle. I thoguht that the was the main reason for 3 ranks :
"On peut donc regarder comme certain, qu'en général les hommes placés au troisième rang n'ajoutent rien à la puissance du feu del'infanterie, et que leur seule utilité dans ce poste, est de pouvoir remplacer immédiatement les hommes des deux premiers rangs qui sont mis hors de combat. Cet avantage est réellement le seul que procure la formation sur trois rangs, car pour la plus grande solidité qui en résulte, pour la plus grande confiance qu'elle inspire au soldat, ce n'est évidemment qu'une illusion. …. Le remplacement immédiat des hommes des deux premiers rangs qui sont mis hors de combat, est utile assurément; mais si l'on fait attention que dans la plupart des rencontres, un bataillon ne perd pas plus d'une vingtaine d'hommes tués ou blessés …. on reconnaîtra qu'il est bien superflu de consacrer à cet unique service, le tiers des combattans véritables"
link
page 403-404

I think it is clear that the French did not (could not) always keep the 256 files of muskets of a full stregth battalion. And that they would be formed in three ranks after substantial losses (or otherwise not a full stength) in some lesser number of files down to as few as 72 files of muskets (6x 12 files per peloton), at which time they would form in 2 ranks.

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

A full strength tactical (*not* administrative) 2e battalion, under the assumptions (i) that the sapeurs are collected for the regiment's tête de colonne, and (ii) that none of the musiciens are detailed to move the wounded:

	2e bataillon de guerre : chef de bataillon
		hors rang
		--- capitaine adjudant-major, 2x adujdant sous-officier, 2x sergent guide-général, voltigeur ordonnance
		--- tiré de la compagnie d'artillerie régimentaire : 5x soldat du train d'équipages
		    [caisson de cartouches d'infanterie, caisson du pain]
		--- batterie : 10x tambour, 2x cornet **
		--- ambulance : aide-chirurgien, chirurgien sous-aide
		--- femmes de troupe : vivandière, 3x blanchisseuse
		compagnie de carabiniers : capitaine de 1ere classe
		--- lieutenant, sous-lieutenant, 4x sergent, 8x corporal, 117x carabinier, 1 carabinier postich
		1ere compagnie de chasseurs : capitaine de 1ere classe
		--- lieutenant, sous-lieutenant, sergent-major, 3x sergent, 8x corporal, 121x chasseur
		2e compagnie de chassuers : capitaine de 3e classe
		--- lieutenant, sous-lieutenant, sergent-major, 3x sergent, 8x corporal, 121x chasseur
		--- garde d'enseigne blanc : sergent-major de carabiniers port-enseigne, 2x sergent de chasseurs, 6x caporal-fourrier
		3e compagne de chasseurs : capitaine de 3e classe
		--- lieutenant, sous-lieutenant, sergent-major, 3x sergent, 8x corporal, 121x chasseur
		4e compagnie de chasseurs : capitaine de 2e classe
		--- lieutenant, sous-lieutenant, sergent-major, 3x sergent, 8x corporal, 121x chasseur
		compagnie de voltigeurs : capitaine de 2e classe
		--- lieutenant, sous-lieutenant, sergent-major, 4x sergent, caporal d'encadrement, 7x corporal, 119x voltigeur
** jusqu'à la moitié de la batterie peut être affectée à la 
    réapprovisionnement des munitions

Total for everyone is 851 persons. Not counting the soldats du train (administratively part of the compagnie d'artillerie régimentaire), femmes de troupe (administratively non-existentent, although given "patentes" and Id badges by the dépôt du régiment) and the medicins (administratively part of infirmary of the regiment, physically located at the dépôt) gives you 840 all ranks. Of these, 768 are "muskets" (soldats and caporaux firing) in 256 files.

The 6 captains, and 6 first sergeants make files on the right of their pelotons. The 2nd sergeant of voltiguers and the caporal d'encadrement make a file on the far left of the bataillon. There are 3 files with the enseigne. These 10 files (23 men) of "non-muskets" would be filled, with lower ranking men if needed.

There are 5 file closers remaining per peloton (30 men). They go as a sort of 4th rank 2 steps behind the 3rd rank. There might be gaps among these 5 due to losses, or they might be augmented to 6 by use of senior soldats as caporaux-potische (creating a void in the third rank of one file per peloton). If you needed 3 caporaux-potisches, you would lose a file muskets.

The chef de bataillon, the adjudants, the guides-généraux, the batterie (18 men) form to the rear of the file closers. Except for the guides and the batterie of tambours and fifres, these men were administratively part of the état-majoe du régiment. While the battery might be understrength, the ther positions would be filled with lower ranking men.

The ordonnance of the chef de bataillon was running over to the colonel or some such errand (1 man)

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

"a French battalion of 650 men (all ranks) should have a frontage of 99 metres"

A 650 man battalion would be short of full strength by 190 men. Even if the losses were proportional between muskets and non-muskets, the formation would take almost all difference from muskets. Let's say a reduction of 62 files of muskets vs. full strength, leaving the bataillon with 194 files.

I would make that (along with Bardin) 194 x 20 pouces = 345 English feet = 105 m

I am aware that the French did occasionally form 2 ranks deep, and of the theoretical stepping up of the third rank to replace casualties, but my doubt is still what actually happened in action. When a French battalion formed for action 3 ranks deep, are there any eyewitness accounts that explain what happened when casualties occurred?

The reason that I am sceptical about some sort of organised stepping up, is because Dundas used this as a reason for infantry to form 3 deep rather than 2 deep. He states this in the British 1792 regulations and also goes on to say that if formed 2 deep, the line would end up in a single rank when casualties were sustained.

In no service is the fire and consistency of the third rank given up; it serves to fill up the vacancies made in the others in action, without it the battalion would soon be in a single rank

During this era, the British invariably fought 2 ranks deep, not because of low battalion strength, but tactical choice, therefore, as most of my research has been focused on British infantry tactics, I cannot find any instances of the third rank stepping up to fill gaps during a battle.

Reading British eyewitness accounts of what actually happened in action when formed 2 deep, it is obvious that the whole formation closed up to fill gaps, although this was not covered by the regulations, and they did not end up in the single rank that Dundas had feared.

Are we sure that 3 deep lines actually maintained their frontage by filling gaps from the rear ranks during a battle, or would the men be more inclined to crowd together as casualties occurred subsequently contracting the frontage?

This order of the Duke of York's from July 1794 may cast an interesting perspective, albeit at 15 year's distance from Wellington's arrival in the Peninsula. Prince Frederick was an advocate of Dundas's system, and Dundas at that time was a brigade commander (cavalry) with York's army.

"Sunday, Head Quarters Rosendal,
27th July 1794.

British Orders.

His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief orders
the formations of the battalions of infantry of the army
under his command to be in three ranks, but with the
following regulations, which are at all times to be ob-
served : —

When the battalion forms for action, the third rank
is instantly to be formed into two divisions, and two
ranks, each under the command of an officer.

When the army or corps to which the battalion be-
longs is in two lines, those divisions will form on the
rear of the centre of each wing of their battalions at
the distance of fifty paces.

When there is no second line, the two divisions
joined together, a captain is appointed to the command
of them ; and being then in one body, it forms a re-
serve each to its own battalion, at 200 paces in the rear
of the centre ; in this manner these divisions form a
reserve or second line, which may be used either in
lengthening the first line by being carried to either
flank, or as a corps-de-reserve to strengthen any point
may be necessary."

(Memoir of General Graham : with notices of the campaigns in which he was engaged from 1779 to 1801, 1862)

Are we sure that 3 deep lines actually maintained their frontage by filling gaps from the rear ranks during a battle, or would the men be more inclined to crowd together as casualties occurred subsequently contracting the frontage?

Major:
I have read accounts of that in passing, but I will have to look, however mechanically, if the first and second ranks are taking most of the casualties, filling in even if shrinking to the middle would require 'filling in' or some method of evening out or you would have the third rank much longer than the first and then second in simply moving to the center.

Major:

Considering that NCOs in the rear of the lines, for both British and French were called "File-closers", I would think that filling in the gaps from rear ranks during battle would happen.

I did remember this:

From John Spencer Cooper in his Rough Notes of Seven Campaigns quoted in Fletcher's Voices from the Peninsula. P. 113

"Having arrived at the foot of the hill, we [Myer's Fusilier Brigade] began to climb its slope with panting breath, while the roll and thunder of furious battle increased. Under the tremendous fire of the enemy our thin line staggers, men are knocked about like skittles; but not a step backward is taken. Here our Colonel and all the field-officers of the Brigade fell killed or wounded, but no confusion ensued. The orders were, "Close up;" "Close in;" "Fire away;" "forward." This was done. We are close to the enemy's columns; they break and rush down the other side of the hill in the greatest mob-like confusion."

So, it would seem that battalions would do both, filling in the line from the rear and closing in. Whether one of the purposes was to 'maintain' the frontage, I don't know. I can see it as an established mechanism to promote maintaining the front, but during an advance such as Myer's brigade, I doubt whether that was a concern that could realistically be addressed by officers--or surviving NCOs.

Major:

You may have this, but the United Service 1850 series on the question of 3 vs 2 ranks says this in Part I:

In moments when the falling killed and wounded make a significant deficit in the front--when the physical and mental organism of the soldier are strained to the uttermost cord, the preservation of the tactical order of the Troops, is the imperious necessity of the moment. To effect this a close unbroken front must be preserved;…Here then the Third Rank furnishes the surest and speediest means to supply the place of the killed and wounded in the two first Ranks, by falling in of the men of the Third Rank.

The "maintaining of the tactical order" suggests that includes the original front of the unit.

@Le Breton

A 650 man battalion would be short of full strength by 190 men. Even if the losses were proportional between muskets and non-muskets, the formation would take almost all difference from muskets. Let's say a reduction of 62 files of muskets vs. full strength, leaving the bataillon with 194 files.

I would make that ( along with Bardin ) 194 x 20 pouces = 345 English feet = 105 m

Supposing your 62 files lost was correct, wouldn't the frontage be 374' ( 114m ) ?

i.e.
266 ( full strength number of files ) – 62 ( files lost for under strength ) = 204 files in total.
204 x 22" = 4488"
4488"/12 = 374'

i.e. when you subtract the 62 files from the 256 musket files of a a full strength battalion, you still need to add the 10 files of officers, colours etc, which means, in effect, the 62 files is subtracted from the 266 total files of a full strength battalion. This leaves 204 files and not 194 files.

Looking online, a site I found puts 20 pouces as the equivalent of 21.13" English inches ( link )

Doing the same calculations with that 21.13" per file comes up with a frontage of 359' ( 109m ) .

The fact that my figures are disagreeing with yours suggests I am probably missing something!

Also, if a battalion starts the battle under strength, and keeps to three ranks, wouldn't they make sure to have all 10 files of officers/NCOs and keep all the file closers, by taking men from the third rank? So, presuming that these categories of men come to 72 for a full strength battalion, an under strength battalion would also have these 72 non-muskets?

Presuming that is correct a battalion of 650 would have 578 muskets ( 650-72 ) , which in three ranks amounts to 192-193 files. Call it 193. Then add the 10 files of officers, colours etc, and you get 203 files, which at 22" a man would give a frontage of 372' ( 113m ) . Or if using 20 pouces ( 21.13" ) it would have a frontage of 357' ( 109m ) .

I realize there is very little difference in the frontages discussed, but want to understand how you arrived at your particular figures.

"Doing the same calculations with that 21.13" per file comes up with a frontage of 359' (109m).
The fact that my figures are disagreeing with yours suggests I am probably missing something!"

No, no, no …. you're right, I am wring (and did forget the 10 non-musket files) …. it is 109 m.
I am sorry for my mistake.

" wouldn't they make sure to have all 10 files of officers/NCOs and keep all the file closers, by taking men from the third rank? "
All 10 files of "non-muskets" : for sure, yes, filled (and these would be filled by file closers).

How many file closers at a minimum? I am not sure for French (it is 6 for Russian platoons, by the way). If they replaced missing file closers they would come from the caporaux among the muskets (creating voids in the third rank). There was a pre-revolution tradtion of the caporal-postiche : senior soldiers, in line for the next corporalcies to become vacant, similar to a Russian yefeytor. If they maintained that tradtion, they cold also be used replacement file closers. But I do not know if they did or not.

Although I do not know of any regulation or standard practise for the minimum number of file closers per peloton,as a practical matter I wuld think four would be needed – but they could have easily required 5, and the standard number per the reglement (at full strength) was 6. Same for the Russians, who thoguht that you shoul dnever have less than 6, even if the pletoon was understrength.

"I realize there is very little difference in the frontages discussed, but want to understand how you arrived at your particular figures."
Of course. I understand and agree. I am happy to go through these details – I play skirmish and think getting to the almost "re-enactment level" of detail makes the era come alive. Let's face it, everyone knows who won at Austerlitz. But do we really know how they won?

Thanks Le Breton. Good to know I wasn't missing something!

I did some calculations on other battalion sizes, using the 21.13" pounces. The Battalions i did where the sizes that General de Brigade use, and the numbers in brackets after the battalion size are the figure numbers that GdB use. I know that when the battalions got below a certain level they may well have gone to two ranks, but these are all based on three ranks.

Using the 20 french pouces (21.13"), calculation is battalion size minus 72, divide by three (ranks), add 10 (additional 10 files), multiply be 21.13 (width per file), divide by 12 (to get distance in feet).

1000 (50) = 319 files = 562' (187 yards/ 171m)

960 (48) = 306 files = 539' (180 yards/164m)

880 (44) = 279 files = 491' (164 yards/150m)

840 (42) = 266 files = 468' (156 yards/143m)

800 (40) = 253 files = 445' (148 yards/136m)

720 (36) = 226 files = 393' (131 yards/ 120m)

640 (32) = 199 files = 350' (117 yards/ 107m)

600 (30) = 186 files = 328' (109 yards/100m)

480 (24) = 146 files = 257' (86 yards/78m)

A question about the British battalions. For a full strength battalion how many non-muskets out of all ranks would there be?

I have been thinking the number would be around 120 (10 officers per company), but think there would probably be more.

By non-muskets I am talking about the officers, NCO's, musicians etc that would take to the field when the battalion was deployed into battle.

Hi there

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Considering that NCOs in the rear of the lines, for both British and French were called "File-closers", I would think that filling in the gaps from rear ranks during battle would happen.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Interesting that the term 'file-closer' is used, ie the common translation used for the same position in classical-era pike phalanxes.

I guess some well educated person used the same name when writing up their 'modern' manuals.

Regards

David F Brown

Well the thing to remember is that the standard Battalion width would also be about the normal expected effective range of fire for Muskets.

I used the Flames of War small bases for my 15mm Napoleonic's with six figures per base and 24 for a Battalion. So a normal Battalion would be four stands and larger Battalions (900 or more men) would be five stands.

So that would be the range of shooting muskets as well (four stands).

This does mean that shooting with muskets is not going to happen until units are around 4.0 inches from each other.

The British did not have a "one-size-fits-all" standard infantry battalion. Instead, at any given time a particular battalion had an established strength geared to its envisioned use (e.g. home, strategic reserve, colonial garrison, or active field service). For most of the Napoleonic era there were five different sizes for line battalions: 400, 600, 800, 1,000, or 1,200 other ranks (privates and corporals). The number of non-commissioned officers in a battalion varied with its establishment, but line battalions were always divided into ten companies. Battalions intended for active campaigning were usually on the 1,000 or 1,200 establishments. Naturally, few battalions ever had that high a strength at any given moment in one place. For full details, I refer you once again to Rod MacArthur's excellent blog, which contains an article about the British system of battalion establishments.

I hadn't clocked that in Rod MacArthur's figures the British battalion numbers were just the rank and file, so thanks for the reminder. Looking at his table 4, the actual average size in the peninsular varied from 512 to 714 rank and file for normal line battalions.

His Table 6, dealing with the French in various campaigns, show that that, from 1808, the French had on average smaller line battalions – Aspen and Wagram 573, Leipzig 444, Before Borodino 392, and in Waterloo campaign 470 (where the British had an average 649 according to the table).

Would these French averages be rank and file, like the British figures, or would these numbers include the non-muskets as well?

Also, these French averages are well below the 840 man battalion required for the 266 files. Would they still be deploying three ranks deep? Apart from the figures for the Aspen and Wagram, all the average sizes are below 500 strong battalions.

MacArthur states:

In 1808 established battalion sizes were reduced to 840 and in the 1809 campaign the French fielded battalions close to the 600 man optimum.

If the 600 man was optimum, do we know the number of ranks they operated in at this size? Was it still three ranks, just in less files than the 840 man battalion, or would they have deployed partially, or wholly, in two ranks to maintain the file length of an 840 man battalion?

As stated above, there was no requirement for a French battalion to maintain a frontage of 266 files per battalion.

The French regulations state that the peloton (for simplicity, the peloton is similar to a company with 6 pelotons per battalion post 1808) will form 3 ranks unless the number of files is reduced to 12 men (i.e. a peloton / company strength of 36 men) when it will form 2 ranks.

The French normally formed their battalions in 3 ranks, but von Winterfeldt has noted some exceptions above when they were ordered to form 2 ranks deep.

Concur with Major Snort's post immediately above.

--------------------------

How about some Russians ?

3rd Commander's Battalion, Infantry regiment, late period.
Assumes full war-time strength, that the Cheif of the regiment is present with the 1st B attalion, that the musicians of the regimental band are formed with the 1st Battalion (not assigned to tend the wounded)

1st (Tactical) Platoon (Grenadier Platoon of the 3rd Grenadier Company)
25 files : 24 files of Marksmen (total 72), Senior Captain + Corporal
file closers : Quartermaster Corporal, Corporal, 3x Lance-Coproral, Sergeant-Major
to the rear : Sub-Lieutenant

2nd (Tactical) Platoon (2nd Platoon of the 7th Musketeer Company)
25 files : 24 files of Musketeers (total 72), Lieutenant + Corporal
file closers : Officer Candidate, Corporal, 3x Lance-Coproral, Master-at-Arms
to the rear : Ensign

3rd (Tactical) Platoon (1st Platoon of the 7th Musketeer Company)
25 files : 24 files of Musketeers (total 72), Staff-Captain + Corporal
file closers : Quartermaster Corporal, Corporal, 3x Lance-Coproral, Sergeant-Major
to the rear : Sub-Lieutenant

4th (Tactical) Platoon (2nd Platoon of the 8th Musketeer Company)
26 files : Ensign + Corporal, 24 files of Musketeers (total 72), Lieutenant+Corproal
file closers : Officer Candidate, 4x Lance Corporal, Master-at-Arms
to the rear : none

Banner Group
Colonel Regimental Commander (mounted) *
7 files : 2 files Musketeers, Corporal + Corporal, Banner Officer Candidate (with flag) + Banner Officer Candidate (with flag), Corporal + Corporal. 1 file Musketeers, 1 file Grenadiers
Major (mounted) **, Sub-Lieutenant Battalion Adjudant (mounted) **

5th (Tactical) Platoon (1st Platoon of the 8th Musketeer Company)
25 files : 24 files of Musketeers (total 72), Captain+Corporal
file closers : Banner Officer Candidate, Quartermaster Corporal, Corporal, 2x Lance-Coproral, Sergeant-Major
to the rear : Sub-Lieutenant

6th (Tactical) Platoon (2nd Platoon of the 9th Musketeer Company)
25 files : 24 files of Musketeers (total 72), Lieutenant + Corporal
file closers : Officer Candidate, 2x Corporal, 2x Lance Corporal, Master-at-Arms
to the rear : Ensign

7th (Tactical) Platoon (1st Platoon of the 9th Musketeer Company)
25 files : 24 files of Musketeers (total 72), Captain + Corporal
file closers : Banner Officer Candidate, Quartermaster Corporal, Corporal, 2x Lance Corporal, Sergeant-Major
to the rear : Sub-Lieutenant

8th (Tactical) Platoon (Marksman Platoon of the 3rd Grenadier Company)
26 files : Lieutenant + Corporal, 24 files of Marksmen (total 72), Ensign + Corporal
file closers : Officer Candidate, 4x Lance Corporal, Master-at-Arms
to the rear : none

Out-of-the-ranks
Medical : Battalion Doctor, Medical Assistant, 4x Barber, 4x Medical Orderly
Battery : Battalion Drummer, 12x Drummer, 2x Fife **
Specialists : Battalion Clerk, Warden, 4x Carpenter, 4x Apprentice Stockmaker, 2x Apprentice Gunsmiths, 2x Blacksmith
Train : Lance-Corporal, 12x Driver, 16x Commissary Manager, 26x Officer's Servant, 44x ("youngest") Musketeer
[2x Officer's Shay, 5x Officer's Pack Horse, 16x Canteen Cart, 4x Ambulance Wagon, 4x Provision Wagon, 4x Ammunition Wagon]

* formed in front of the Banner Group
** formed either behind the Banner Group or to the right of the Grenadier Platoon

209 files total – at 27 English inches each = 143 m
192 files of "muskets"
17 files of "non-muskets"

Using what I have gathered from the posts on this thread, I have worked out some frontages for different sized battalions for the Russians (thanks Le Breton for all that info!) and for the British, to go along with the French I did earlier. As per normal I have probably got some things wrong, so please point out any mistakes I have made!

RUSSIAN

Not sure if the 3 musketeer files and the grenadier file in banner group would be counted as muskets or not, but below I have included them as muskets – doesn't really affect anything in the long term.

1st – 3rd , 5th – 7th = 81 men – 72 muskets, 9 non-muskets. = 24+ 1 files

4th & 8th = 82 men – 72 muskets, 10 non-muskets = 24 + 2 files

Banner = 20 men – 12 muskets, 8 non-muskets (muskets are the 3 files musketeers and 1 file grenadiers) = 4+3 files. Doesn't include the Colonel Regimental Commander in front of banner group.

A total of 588 muskets and 82 non-muskets = 670 all ranks (+1 if include the Regimental Colonel). A total of 196 musket files and 13 non-musket files = 209 total files.

So calculation is total battalion size minus 82. Divide by three for three ranks. Add 13 for the non-musket files. Multiply number by 27 for inches, divide by 12 for frontage in feet.

I have done calculations for battalion sizes above 670 as well, though don't know if the Russians actually fielded larger battalions.

1000 = 319 files = 718' (239 yards / 219m)

960 = 306 files = 689' (230 yards / 210m)

880 = 279 files = 628' (209 yards / 191m)

800 = 252 files = 567' (189 yards / 173m)

720 = 226 files = 509' (170 yards / 155m)

670 = 209 files = 470' (157 yards / 143m)

640 = 199 files = 448' (149 yards / 137m)

600 = 186 files = 419' (140 yards / 128m)

480 = 146 files = 329' (110 yards / 100m)

BRITISH

For working out British battalion frontages I have gone with MacArthur's statement that British battalion strengths were given in rank and file, so don't include the officers, NCO's etc. So to work out frontage I needed to arrive at the amount of non-musket files in a battalion in line. I used Imperial Bayonets to work this out.

Imperial Bayonets, page 59, shows a British company in line. For a company in two ranks it shows 2 officer/NCO files, one at the end of each edge section. So each company has 2 additional non-musket files – on the left-hand side of the leftmost section is an ensign and sergeant, and on the right-hand side of the rightmost section is the captain and sergeant. That makes 20 additional files for a battalion. In addition, the colour party need to be added. I believe a British colour party has 6 men, so 3 files (may be wrong here). So, in total, 23 files to add to the musket files.

Calculation for frontage is, therefore, battalion stated strength, divided by two for the two ranks, = the musket files. Add the 23 additional files. Multiply by 22 and then divide by 12 to get the frontage of the battalion in feet.

1000 = 523 files = 959' (320 yards / 292m)

960 = 503 files = 922' (307 yards / 281m)

880 = 463 files = 849' (283 yards / 259m)

800 = 423 files = 776' (259 yards / 237m)

720 = 383 files = 702' (234 yards / 214m)

660 = 353 files = 647' (216 yards / 197m)

640 = 343 files = 629' (210 yards / 192m)

600 = 323 files = 592' (197 yards / 180m)

480 = 263 files = 482' (161 yards / 147m)

It obviously makes a large difference if British Battalion strengths are give in rank and file strength or in all ranks strength. Like I said, I have gone with MacArthur's statement that the strengths of British Battalions were give as rank and file strength. Does anyone know if that is correct or not?

EDIT: It occurred to me that it could be the case that where French Battalion strengths are mentioned it was the rank and file strength being mentioned, and not all ranks strength that I have been presuming it meant. Does anyone know which it would be?