"Working out frontage of battalion in line" Topic

@ Iorwerth

It sounds correct. A lot of the confusion over numbers at Waterloo stems from British musters not counting the officers (while French casualty returns typically enumerated only the officers), so a bit of interpolation is called for when working out either total British numbers or total French casualties.

What is quite amusing about all this is that I started out with and am still fond of Bruce Quarrie rules in the 1970s. He stipulated (over 40 years ago now) that a British battalion at the start of a campaign would be 20 figures (at 33 men per figure in two ranks of 16.5 men). At 24" frontage per man, this works out 11 yards per figure, or 220 yards. You got 216. Seems good to me.

If the French battalion strength indicated rank and file strength, rather than all ranks strength, then get the following:

1000 (50) = 343 files = 604' (201 yards/ 184m)

960 (48) = 330 files = 581' (194 yards/177m)

880 (44) = 303 files = 534' (178 yards/163m)

840 (42) = 290 files = 511' (170 yards/156m)

800 (40) = 277 files = 488' (163 yards/149m)

720 (36) = 250 files = 440' (147 yards/ 134m)

640 (32) =223 files = 393' (131 yards/ 120m)

600 (30) = 210 files = 370' (123 yards/113m)

480 (24) = 170 files = 300' (100 yards/91m)

Calculation for above is battalion stated strength divide by three, add 10 for officer/NCO files etc, multiply by 21.13 (20 pouces), divide by 12.

It makes a big difference when reading historical battalion strength reports as to whether it is rank and file strength or all ranks strength being reported. I presume there is a standard way of reading such strength reports for the French?

Nafziger's diagram of a British company is only correct if the company formed on its own.

When it formed as part of a battalion the ensign and covering sergeant on the left of each company fell back into the supernumerary rank. One additional officer and covering sergeant were posted on the left flank of the battalion.

So you need to add 11 files for the officers and covering sergeants if 10 companies were present in line and three for the colour party making a total of 14.

It was definitely British practice to report battalion strengths in terms of "other ranks" (privates and corporals) present and fit for duty. This was because sergeants in line battalions were not issued muskets, and could not be considered as part of the battalion's firepower. Sometimes in unofficial documents such as memoirs or private letters you encounter statements about a battalion as numbering so many bayonets, which meant the same thing as "other ranks." The practice carried over to light infantry and rifle battalions, even though the sergeants of these units did carry muskets or rifles.

To see examples of actual British monthly strength returns go to the website of The Napoleon Series. On their home page scan down to the section titled Military. You will find a link called "British Army Individual Unit Strengths, 1808-1815." Dr. Andrew Bamford compiled these in the form of spreadsheets from original records in the British National Archives.

napoleon-series.org

Thanks to both of you. I really appreciate the feedback. I will re-work the British with the correct frontages in a bit and post them up.

That napoleon-series site has so much information it is hard to know where to start!

What about French reported strengths? Are they all ranks, or rank or file (other ranks)? It makes a big difference if you were trying to figure out what the reported strength actually mean in terms of frontage, firepower etc.

Thanks to Major Snort's pointing out my previous error, I have re-done the British calculations.

New calculation for frontage is, therefore, battalion stated strength, divided by two for the two ranks, = the musket files. Add the 14 additional files (not my previous 23). Multiply by 22 and then divide by 12 to get the frontage of the battalion in feet.

1000 = 514 files = 942' (314 yards / 287m)

960 = 494 files = 906' (302 yards / 276m)

880 = 454 files = 832' (277 yards / 254m)

800 = 414 files = 759' (253 yards / 231m)

720 = 374 files = 686' (229 yards / 209m)

660 = 344 files = 631' (210 yards / 192m)

640 = 334 files = 612' (204 yards / 187m)

600 = 314 files = 576' (192 yards / 176m)

480 = 254 files = 466' (155 yards / 142m)

"though don't know if the Russians actually fielded larger battalions"

Their regulations did not extend to more than 24 files per platoon.
I have found no indication that they exceeded this, but they could have.

A full strength wartime battalion would actually have 44 "extra" men.
There were also specially constructed "thousand man" battalions for special purposes.

But I do not think they expected to actually filed more than I showed above

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

As a footnote to my prior post, in cases where only two men are called out for a flank file (example : "Lieutenant + Corporal"), the 1st and 3rd ranks are occupied, the 2nd is void.

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

French reported officers and other ranks ("hommes") separately in these categories : present under arms, hospital or sick-call, detached, missing, prisoners total
The "total" thus would be the payroll total.
A local report from a regiment would give each battalion, the regimental artillery company and the regimental headquarters. So, for example, the chefs de bataillon would be counted in the état-major, not with their bataillons.
Few local reports have found their way into print or digitalization. So mustly the finest detail you can expect to see if by regiment, with anotation of the number of battalions present. This would have been taken from divisional and reports used not only for operational purposes but also for supply, manning, treasury, etc.
Putting all the "hommes" together presents a small issue : sergents and fouriers are included as "hommes", but only soldats and caporaux would be countable as muskets.
The problem of knowing what you are reading comes from secondary sources, as you do not always know what they are counting from the original reports (or copying from prior secondary sources).

Almost exactly the same for Russians, except more categories :
field-grade officers (major through colonel)
company-grade offciers
NCO's
rankers
combat musicians (drummers, fifers, waldhornists in some jäger regiments)
non-combattants (medical, craftsmen, drivers, etc.)

A general present with the regiment to which he was the Cheif was typicaly not counted, but often noted by name. Technically, he was part of the "generalitet", not a member of his regiment. Oddly, a colonel who was a Cheif *was* accounted to the regiment.
Only rankers counted as muskets, and not all of them (lance coprorals acted as file closers and commisary managers were not even armed)

Thanks again Le Breton. So when reading secondary accounts it is pretty difficult, if not vaguely impossible,to know what quoted French battalion strengths actually refer to, re rank and file or all ranks, unless you can find/have access to primary sources (highly unlikely in my case!).

In terms of war-gaming, I would presume that the easiest thing is take battalion sizes as rank and file and not all ranks when trying to recreate historic engagements/battles and only having access to secondary sources.

For example, in a game like General de Brigade, when they refer to a a French battalion or a British one as both being, say, 600 strong (30 figures at a ratio of 1:20), they are really talking about muskets. They do give advice about creating your own scenarios and dividing reported battalion strengths in the engagement/battle by 20 to get the number of figures per battalion.

So taking figures as rank and file seems an easy rule of thumb, but if the French reported strengths are all ranks, then would lead to the French being stronger than in reality.

Back onto the full strength battalions, just to make sure I am correct, while in the field most battalions were not at full strength, a full strength battalion would be:

French 1808+ = 840 all rank (851 if include non-combatants).

Russian = 665(81 all ranks for each of the 8 platoons, plus banner group of 17). There is another 39 for the out-of-ranks, not including the train.

British = 1000 muskets rank and file (10 companies of 100 privates+corporals) + rest of the other ranks? Rarely, if ever this size in the field?

Do these seem correct?

What about the Prussians and Austrians re files in a full strength battalion, and the size of a full strength line battalion? Does anyone know what these were?

French 1808+ = 840 all rank (851 if include non-combatants).

Yes, for a 2e bataillon de guerre of a regiment with 4 bataillons de guerre total, full war-time strength, 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.

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

For a 3rd Commander's battalion at full war-time strength, assuming (i) that the Chief of the regiment is present with the 1st Battalion, and (ii) that the musicians of the regimental band are formed with the 1st Battalion (not assigned to tend the wounded)

Russian = 665 (81 all ranks for each of the 8 platoons, plus banner group of 17). There is another 39 for the out-of-ranks, not including the train.

Almost perfect ….

81 all ranks for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th tactical platoons
82 all ranks for the 4th and 8th tactical platoons
21 all ranks for the banner group and the 3 mounted command offciers
39 all ranks for out-of-ranks other than train : medical, battery of drummers/fifes, specialsts/craftsmen
99 all ranks train, including 44 "young solders" held out of the ranks

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

Remember, these are tacticial organizations.
As most of the administrative organization was based on the company and the regiment (for both nations) some of the above would not be recorded in the "battalion" headcounts.
Example : the French chef de bataillon would not be on his battalion's role, but would be carried in the état-major of the regiment.
Example : the Russian specialists/craftsmen would not be on the battalion's role, but would be carried in a collected category of "non-combattants" for the regiment.

I am reading Imperial Bayonets once again, so I might say something more about that table. Unfortunately, Mr. Nafziger's figures about the French and the Russians were not right. He took the drill formation as the real combat formation.

In Règlement 1791,

on les placera alors sur un rang, à un pas de distance l'un de l'autre

However, this was used in drilling unarmed recruits.

The full translation:

The first division of the soldier's drill will comprehend what is to be taught to the soldier before arms are put into his hands. The movement of the right arm, is of great importance, while the soldier keeps his position.
The recruits must be placed in a single rank without arms, at the distance of one pace from each other.

Clearly, it has NOTHING to do with the combat formation. For the Russians, it was the same, they just change 'pas' to 'arshin'.

Both the French and the Russians did not set a width per man in their regulations (but some French instructions did set it as 18 pouces or 0.5 m). They just said when the soldiers were in a line, they should stand 'elbow to elbow'.

When the recruits learned how to march in line, the real intervals were set, just 'elbow to elbow'.
Règlement 1791, École de Soldat, 195:

L'Instructeur les placera lur un rang coude à coude, & tera ensuite les commandemens suivans

The English translation (American edition), Rules and Regulations for the Field Exercise and Manoeuvres of the French Infantry, Issued August 1, 1791, p. 51

The instructer will place theip in one rank, elbow to elbow, and shall command,

Воинский устав о пехотной службе (Military Regulations on the Infantry Service), 1811, p. 64:

§ 181. Приступая къ обученію рекрушъ фроншомъ; становишь сперва отъ пяти десяти человѣкъ въ одну шеренгу, шакъ чтобъ они чувствовали другъ друга локтемъ. Обучающему командовать.

Zhmodikov has said this clearly in his "Наука побеждать". Тактика русской армии в эпоху наполеоновских войн(The Science of Victory, Tactics of the Russian army in the era of Napoleonic Wars), p. 31.

"Clearly, it has NOTHING to do with the combat formation"

Well, one sure could read it that way.

But that first unarmed lesson is the only place I can find in regulations (either country) where an explicit distance is mentioned. By contrast, "until the elbows touch" rather depends on various factors. and cannot be used as a generalized metric (which was what we were seeking, as far as I understood).

For the French, there is lots of discussion about how much frontage should be allowed per soldier. I listed and linked several. I settled on 20 pouces mostly because Bardin, looking retrospectively, seemed to imply that this was likely typical. It as only an opinion.

For the Russians, I found no real discussion of the topic, but the arshin seemed to be used as the standard allowance not only in the instruction for the first (unarmed) training, but also in the plates where a scale was given. Seeing no reason to select any other metric, I proposed that one. Again, it is only an opinion.