"British battalion/ company schematic?" Topic

Hi all – I've got the French, Russians, and Prussians done. Not I'm looking for a schematic for the two-rank British company and half-comapny. I have plenty of examples of how the companies stood in line, but what I really need to see is how the soldiers and NCOs were arranged in the companies. Thanks!

Mark Adkin's "The Waterloo Companion" has some good schematics.

link

Rod

Also look at Osprey's 'British Napoleonic Infantry Tactics 1792 – 1815' by Philip Haythornthwaite.

Oddly enough one to avoid on this is Nafziger's 'Imperial Bayonets', where these schematics are frequently and oddly based around 6-company British battalions that didn't exist.

Well here is ;

Imperial Bayonets (which is generally regarded as the definitive work, but may have this wrong)

Adkin which is superb but has few small errors in a massive text

Haythornthwaite's old book Weapons and Tactics. His Osprey Book has all the original diagrams from 19th C plates also and is inexpensive and invaluable.

Incidentally note how we all stick to two ranks by putting the drummers and pioneers in the front rank, because we want to show them off. I added a scattered third rank to my Coldtream Guards for the drummers, surgeon and pioneers, but they are invisible as a result.

It may be wrong, but it looks right! The diagrams make the ranks behind look dense, but remember they are individuals. The blocks in the two ranks are whole companies of 50-100 men.

As long as grenadiers to the right and King's Colour the same, to the right of regt colour (and in the front rank) we cannot complain

A note on the diagrams posted by Deadhead. The first one, showing only a single company, is probably for when there is just one company present. Notice the ensign and sergeant on the left end of the company. Compare that with the battalion diagrams which show the officer and sergeant only on the right end of the companies (except for the last one on the left of the battalion).

It was the same way in ACW infantry. The captain and his first sergeant were on the right of the company, but when the battalion was in line, there was just a corporal on the left and he was butted up to the captain of the next company to the left. Any time there was not another company on the left, the second sergeant would post himself on the left of the front rank, but if another company was there, the sergeant would fall back to the rank of file closers. I suspect it was the same for Napoleonic British.

Note also that some British (the 95th) and the K.G.L. were organized in only 6 companies at Waterloo.

Interesting – some minor conflicts of information but I can work with this. The drummers positions are interesting. The Prussians centralized their drummers behind Zug #5.; I wonder if the difference isn't due to the greater frontage of the British unit? I also wander if the other diagrams aren't leaving out the engineers and band/drum line. I may go ahead and create something similar for the French and other armies. I have a color guard model, but I think it's clear that there needs to be a battalion HQ model of some sort.

I'm also beginning to think that the Napolun diagram understates the number of French supernumaries; but I've seen other diagrams which confirmed that. So I'm not quite sure now. It seems logical to have the drummers behind the compaies, not in the line. That way the central band and drum line could send an order from the colonel which would be heard on the flanks by those drummers, who would start playing directly behind the more distant companies.

Something I hadn't noticed from the Adkin diagram before is that 60% of the Supernumerary Officers were casualties but "only" 46% of the Front Rank Officers were.

Off the cuff, you might expect it to be the other way around.

It's also worth noting that there were absolutely no gaps at all between the companies, subdivisions, sections and colour party of a British battalion when formed in line (perhaps the same for other nations as well?).

This is important if you are trying to get the correct look when the company or subdivision-sized bases are arranged next to each other. On the thread about Prussian Zugs, there are distinct gaps visible between the companies in the graphic that is shown.

Exactly what I was trying to say, but you put it better! "The correct look"

The impression must have been of a very long, densely packed pair of lines. But if you looked carefully there were the odd figures in a third rank, if not even a fourth.

So if you have maybe two dozen figures to represent several hundred in two lines…..where do you stick the drummers, pioneers, sergeants, officers etc? If behind, as is correct and I did for the Guards, it looks all wrong. Almost more like a column!

I fear what we are saying is the diagrams above are of no use if trying to achieve a scale effect in an infantry unit (in 28mm anyway).

Huh.

These are the models I'm using.

So what you guys are saying is that these are administrative formations or something along those lines? Or possibly a march column formation.

It's not that hard to fix it, I just want to get it right. I am seeing some diagrams now that show a solid deployment. But that said, if the companies were basically solid lines there isn't much difference between the nations. I'll put up a few new models in a little bit…

Ok, what about this. Full Prussian company of two zugs in line formation.

The drummers in a Prussian battalion were collected in a single line behind the fifth zug, and I'm using a separate model to show them. I'm going to go back and work on the French really quick and maybe put together a proper HQ and band.

Actually, the companies were almost exactly the same in every nation. That's both cool and annoying. There were very few differences.

forwardmarch, these are good pics for the French – albeit a 4 company battalion. They show the drummers behind the second peleton.

voltigeurs.populus.org/rub/5

voltigeurs.populus.org/rub/6

It's very unlikely that there would be any gaps between companies or platoons /zugs. When a line of battle moves forward it is impossible to ensure that all the men are marching on exactly parallel lines. There would inevitably be some 'drift'. Since the worst thing that could happen would be large gaps appearing in the lines (making it more vulnerable to cavalry) the officers and NCOs would work to keep the men together. This would almost always mean any deliberate gaps in the line would be squeezed out as the men 'dressed' on each other.

plural is Züge, Zugs is non existent – a bit effort would be appreciated from a non English native speaker – in case you cannot handle it then use platoon – plural, a wild guess from my side would be plätoon.

Here we go.

An entire French regiment with correct deployment distances. The drummers are withdrawn behind the companies in each battalion (there are 12 drummers per battalion, two from each company).

The regimental band has 24 members.
Each battalion commander is talking to some friends who stopped by to say hi. So is the regimental commander.

There are eight sappers standing behind the regimental band, ready to go cut down some doors when needed.

What do we think of this?

This is really weird.

Has the bug confused the other topic about Zugs with this, which is about how a British Company was set out?

and, to be honest I always thought a Zug was a train. I seem to remember from 1971 on that kids Europe ticket thing that a Schnellzug was an express train

Pls invest in Imperial Bayonets by Nafziger
link
It addresses all your questions and worth having in one's Napoleonic Library!!!!

Well, it addresses all your questions if they're about six-company British battalions. If they're about the ten-company battalions (or nine-company battalions, the lights having been converged) the British army normally operated, it's a lot less helpful.

But Imperial Bayonets is brilliant at documenting tactical ie battlefield manoeuvres for almost every country in the Napoleonic Wars. If you want to know how a Prussian column formed into line or how French cavalry turned to refuse a flank…..massive reference book for any wargamer.

I only hope I am not infringing too many copyrights by posting such page scans, but I like to think that is the best way to advertise the quality of the books used!

In my humble opinion "Imperial Bayonets" is excellent on information, but not so good on analysis. It talks about the "concertina effect" of battalions in column of route lengthening, when all of the drill manuals specifically warned against any such lengthening. It ignores the British 120 pace per minute speed, therefore draws wrong conclusions. George says he could not find Napoleonic Russian regulations, so used their 1831 ones, however a couple of years after I bought Imperial Bayonets I was sent photocopies of all of the Napoleonic Russian regulations by Alexander Zhmodikov.

In summary, Imperial Bayonets is useful, but needs to be read with caution.

Rod

@ Rod

I agree. I was particularly sceptical of some of his stuff about formation change times, notably the idea that it took a British column 3.9 minutes to deploy from column to line but a Prussian one only took 1.1 minutes. Some of his conclusions have not been sense-checked as rigorously against outcomes as others. If you look at how many battles the British lost and at how many the Prussians lost, you would draw the opposite inference about tactical dexterity. I found myself looking in vain for a reconciliation of capabilities on paper to capabilities in practice.

Other sections, where he looks at actual versus theoretical musket accuracy, are far better. So he's a useful purchase but yes, caution needed.

Love to read expert analysis like this. Thanks. If only this sort of info could somehow be preserved and not submerged by the topic title.

In summary, Imperial Bayonets is useful, but needs to be read with caution.

I second that, too many mistakes on the Prussian Army for example, on the French as well, like insisting that they manoeuvered at the pas de charge, etc.

It was quite Revolutionary when it was published but time has moved on.

Well, I can personally attest to the fact that the 'concertina effect' with a march column stretching out and then compressing again when it halts is a real phenomenon and VERY difficult to eliminate no matter what the manuals might say :)

This might be of some interest as well. The British companies are based on the diagram above.

I might add, that *4* of those French brigades you see pictured here only cost me $25.00 USD to print up at an online 3D printing hub. It's the future of wargaming.

ScottWashburn said:

Well, I can personally attest to the fact that the 'concertina effect' with a march column stretching out and then compressing again when it halts is a real phenomenon and VERY difficult to eliminate no matter what the manuals might say :)

Are you talking about trained soldiers or re-enactors? When I joined the British Army my Basic Training lasted 6 weeks, and I probably did more drill, to a higher standard, during that than in the rest of my Army career, and far more than any re-enactor could achieve in a lifetime. Napoleonic soldiers did much more drill than their modern counterparts, so their standards would have been far higher than ours.

I suppose my point is that Imperial Bayonets speaks as though lengthening a column is inevitable, whereas the manuals specifically warn against it.

Rod

Are you talking about marching in parade or in a road march? A road march always has stragglers, and it always stretches out. After fifteen miles (let alone 30, which wasn't unheard of in this period), in heat, carrying weight, various differences between men will begin to tell (height more than anything). I don't buy the argument that the marches were done to music and therefore this didn't happen. Would anybody seriously contend that during the march into Russia columns didn't drag out? I was in the military for 5 years, did plenty of marching both in bootcamp and afterwards, and I can tell you: a column marching more than a few miles is going to start stretching out.

In a column of route, formed by facing a line to the flank, the column will necessarily stretch, as the frontage allowed in line is insufficient when marching "at ease", i.e. without keeping in step. That is why the ACW manuals (Hardee, for example), have the files double up to form a column of fours when marching by the flank. Add to that the normal stretching by not attending to dressing, and after a mile the column may even be at double distance. Columns stretching when marching at ease is a phenomenon which can also be observed when trained soldiers are involved. On parade, marching in step, intervals should be maintained without problems, as long as the parade ground is firm and even.

infantry did not march on roads, but at the side of it, they opened up anyway when doing a usual march, see pas de route in the French regulations.

this is of course in stark contrast to battle field formations, where keeping distances was vital to be able to perform manouevres. At an open column each sub unit had to keep the distance, even better, the worse your troops, just move in a closed column.

Rod wrote:

"Are you talking about trained soldiers or re-enactors? When I joined the British Army my Basic Training lasted 6 weeks, and I probably did more drill, to a higher standard, during that than in the rest of my Army career, and far more than any re-enactor could achieve in a lifetime."

This is getting a bit off topic, but I'm afraid I can't just let that pass :)

While you are probably correct about your average reenactment unit, there are a few exceptions. My unit, the Mifflin Guard, was VERY well drilled. Probably as well or better than the majority of the real Civil War soldiers. Over the years we developed a cadre of officers and NCOs (they are really the only ones who matter for battalion drill, a private in the ranks can learn all the fundamentals of his job in a weekend) who knew the drill backwards and forwards. We had gone through Casey's School of the Battalion and could do EVERY SINGLE ONE of the maneuvers in it and do them well. I'd stack our drill abilities up against anyone. Obviously I'm talking about real maneuvers, not 'march in six directions, spinning your rifle over your head', show off stuff. :)

@ Scott

Did you have 700 men in your reenactor battalion though? :-)

I've had 400 on occasion. That's actually slightly larger than an average Union regiment in 1863 :) Back when I was just a sergeant, I was part of a 700 man battalion. That was a sight to see!

Scott,

I don't disagree that your private soldiers might be able to learn the basics of drill in a weekend, but when you drill for several hours every day the rhythms, pace and timing become totally instinctive. Once soldiers have completed such intensive basic training they will invariably be marched wherever they go, every day, for the rest of their Army service, and so never forget it.

Your re-enactor officers and NCOs may know their drill, but can they really say that they instinctively always take a 30 inch pace and always instinctively march at exaclly 120 paces per minute (or whatever the ACW equivalents were). That is what trained soldiers do. You say that it is only the officers and NCOs matter for battalion drill, but if they cannot rely on their men to keep perfect timing then they will be constantly correcting them, which is why the battalion may well end up stretching out and contracting as you describe.

You say that your re-enactor unit was better trained than the majority of ACW soldiers. I don't doubt that, but ACW soldiers are not exactly renowned for high standard drill. 18th Century and Napoleonic soldiers did far more drill, to much higher standards, every day.

That is why a trained Napoleonic battalion could be relied upon to keep the correct distances and not stretch out to greater than its frontage. And that is why Imperial Bayonets suggesting that it was normal for Napoleonic Columns of Route to go through cycles of stretching out then contracting, causing a concertina effect, is flawed.

Rod

Okay, I'll concede that we were not as consistent with the length of our pace and the number of paces per minute as an 18th Century unit would be :) I was speaking more of the end result of ploying into column and deploying back into line in all the nearly infinite variation with which those things could be done.

But I am curious about a Napoleonic 'column of route'. What exactly was that? In the ACW it would be what we call 'marching by the flank'. The two rank line turns to the right or left. It then 'doubles' which simultaneously creates files of four men and eliminated half of the files so that there is a bit of room to allow the men to march.

How did the Napoleonic troops do it? With a three rank line, if they turned to the right or left and did not 'double' then the chest of each man would literally be touching the knapsack of the man in front of them. It is NOT physically possible to march for any distance in such close proximity. Inevitably there would be a stretching out of the column if they tried to do it that way. You're saying they did not. So how did they do it?

link

Not sure if this helps any…seems to address the points under discussion

Musketballs- interesting website- kind of a lot of information. I'll take a beter look at it later.

My take on all of this drill stuff generally. As a game designer and owner/designer of a figure range, I can't help but look at this stuff and ask 1) can I turn these drill manuals into a fun rule, and 2) if I can't make a fun rule, can I abbreviate the historic instance that gives rise to it so that it doesn't interrupt the fun? My customers are loving the company-level figures, so there is a demand for games at this level of representation. But there needs to be a modern take on the subject. I know some people working on it, and I hope to write some rules at the ultra-tactical level myself one day; but it's got to be fun. That's really the critical thing.

a difficult subject – it is a matter of language, how to asses non English drill regulation – in case you don't speak any other language.

Hablo Español también. ¿Porque es importante?

Scott,

As shown on my website (kindly posted by Musketballs above), Napoleonic troops formed from line to column by wheeling backwards sections of the line, not by turning the whole line to the right or left as modern troops would do. That is because the distance between files of 22 inches would not permit such tight front to back distances between soldiers for any significant march distance, when the normal march pace was 30 inches.

In regards to frequency of drill I always like the quote by Captain Elezar Blaze in his "Life in Napoleon's Army" page 152:

The military exercise is a very diverting thing. After a man has performed it for 20, 30 years, he must still continue to go through it every day whilst he is in the service. When he does not know it, he must learn it; this is a matter of course; when he does know it, he must instruct others; that is just; and when the whole Regiment manoeuvres cleverly, it must still be performed to show its cleverness. Thus the exercise must be incessantly performed.

Next to the exercise and the parade this theory must be chased amongst the agreeable of the profession [?]. That theory consists of an examination, held daily by an officer, who asks you questions relating to some part of the "Instructions for the Soldier, the Platoon or the Battalion". By dint of reading and repeating this theory, you at last learn it, and know it as thoroughly as the inventor.

In this case, possessing certain patronage, you might be exempted from the periodic examination, but from the parade, from the exercise, you must pay in person. These occupy four of five hours a day, so you may easily calculate how many well spent hours during thirty years service.

Rod

On the same subject, Henry Clinton (quoted by Glover) on the Hanoverian troops under his command:

'In order to close an interval, the soldiers are accustomed to face & march in file, this invariably occasions a loss of the alignment, and generally increases the evil it is intended to remedy. If troops should be required to march for any distance upon an alignment, it should be done by being thrown into column by wheeling backwards, but ordinary intervals arising from a loss of distance, are to be re-ordered by the sidestep…'

When talking about columns of route in this era, it should be pointed out the British infantry in the Peninsular War marched by "Sections of Threes" by General Order from Wellington. That is a frontage of three men, so the minimum frontage for such a column was not four men. This was ordered due to the narrow roads in Spain and Portugal and is mentioned in many memoirs.

It is interesting to see Wellington commenting on this in a memorandum after the war 1826:

The infantry, therefore, marched by sections of threes, and we found this front so convenient and it lengthened out so little that we continued the practice even when the communications of the country were broader.

So if they were going to march in a column of route three men wide, Every three files would wheel into column? And if they wanted six men wide, every six files would wheel? How did they manage that? Did some officer walk down the line counting files and tell every 6 file group it had to wheel? Or were the files numbered somehow so that the 1st, 7th, 13th, 19th, etc. files would automatically know they were where the next group began? Having dealt with the practicalities of this sort of drill for 35 years, I do tend to get obsessed with the details :)

Scott wrote

So if they were going to march in a column of route three men wide, Every three files would wheel into column? And if they wanted six men wide, every six files would wheel? How did they manage that? Did some officer walk down the line counting files and tell every 6 file group it had to wheel?

Scott,

That is correct. In the Peninsular War, the regiments would be told off into subdivisions, sections and sections of threes every morning. They would wheel by threes into the column of route. The march would begin with all the men in cadence and with sloped arms until the command "March at ease" was given. Prior to a halt, the order "Attention" was given and the men would again march in step with sloped arms.