"French Converged Grenadier Battalions?" Topic

Anyone know which campaigns/battles the French fielded converged grenadier battalions? I seem to recall this was done more in the early period than the late.

Marengo, perhaps? I don't think they did it much; more an Austrian thing.

Probably the most famous of the converged units link

Certainly combined units in the Peninsular – Vimiero & Albuera to name just two battles.

Oudinot had a whole division of grenadiers for the 1807 campaign (and maybe earlier).

I don't know about 'converged' units, since that is not a recognized military term, but the French did field provisional units, such as Oudinot's command in 1803-1805, 1806, and 1809.

The unit was the most famous or the French provisional units and was initially formed for the invasion of England. It was intended to be a 'junior version of the Guard' and in 1803-1806 was composed of the grenadier/carabinier and voltigeur companies pf regiments who were still organizing, training, or on garrison duty.

The division was disbanded after Austerlitz.

The unit was 'resurrected' in November 1806 and was composed of the elite companies of the 3d battalions of regiments not in Poland and East Prussia. It fought at the siege of Danzig, Savary's victory at Ostrolenka, and in Lannes' advance guard fight at Friedland.

When the Young Guard was activated, in December 1808 the division was once again disbanded and the individual companies were sent back to their parent units.

These commands were known as either the Grenadiers de la Reserve or Grenadiers Oudinot and both were considered elite units.

In 1809 a three-division organization, known as Divisions Oudinot was organized for the campaign in Germany and Austria. This was not an elite units and was assigned the Tirailleurs Corses and the Tirailleurs du Po so the organization would have veteran units.

Provisional cavalry units, both light and heavy were formed when needed, especially for Spain. Two of the provisional cuirassier units sent to Spain would become the famous 13th Cuirassier Regiment that served in Suchet's Army of Aragon.

Converged refers to stripping the grenadier company from a number of battalions, and putting them together to form an all-grenadier battalion.

I was under the impression it was more of an ad-hoc thing anyway, done for specific missions, like taking a town.

That's a great deal of information from Nafziger, P of E., and a handy "quick reference", Brechtel198. There are often passing mentions of Oudinot's Grenadiers, but I'd never taken on board, as it were, just how large this unit could be. Good Luck.

The reason I'm asking is because I'm making some paper Napoleonic figures to use with Command & Colors and the game calls for "French Grenadier" units and I was wondering about the appropriate uniforms. It sounds like for the periods involved, they ought to be wearing bearskins rather than shakos.

In 1805, Massena's army in Italy had an 8-battalion division of grenadiers under Partouneaux (source Schneid).

Amazingly enough, on this I stand in agreement with Kevin Kiley.

No, guys: LINES converge; lines in geometry, lines on the map and on the ground (like paths or rivers; even metaphors or abstracts like lines of thought. If I thought long enough, i might even use the verb transitively: to converge something. A procession perhaps, or a convoy.

But the essential point is that this means two or more lines fusing together at some point along their length. Nothing to do with simply placing two separate things together.

For this, a perfectly god word exists already: to combine. By the way, this the word used by the actual military: think of a Combined Task Force or Combined Operations.

'Converged'?. No. Some wargamer who'd never used the before must have thought it sounded posh.

Many of you will doubtless groan, but such debasing of words really gets on my nerves. To irritate a few more readers, before the rant ends, think of what you're actually saying when you answer a courtesy with 'I'm good'. Are you really claiming to be a good person? How much does it cost you to say you're well, and maintain clarity?

Thanks to anyone who has read this far. By the way, Scott, I know that detaching and combining (see?) Grenadiers was done by during the Revolutionary period and in Iberia, but I'm unaware of the Grande Armee doing this. And remember that 'Oudinot's Grenadiers were stripped not from field Battalions in his Corps, but from Flank Companies at their regimental depots. They weren't all Grenadiers, either.

A crusty middle-aged Brit, signing off …

erm, are you sure that converge is only ever used for lines link ?

BTW, since the French term is 'grenadiers reunis', then surely 'massed' or 'united' would be better translations?

And also, the military doesn't use 'Combined' for that: a Combined Task Force would be a force consisting of two or more national contingents, 'Joint' for two or more different branches. If using 'combined' in the older sense (as in combined operations/arms) then it means using cavalry/tanks and infantry together).

All-in-all, I wouldn't worry about using converged if you think it sounds better.

Oh, and to answer Scott's real question, I would agree that considering the years in question, when grenadier battalions were formed most of them probably would have worn bearskins and not shakos.

There were two battalions of Grenadiers Reunis at Albuera, comprised of eleven companies from 45th, 63rd and 95th Ligne and 4th Poles. 1033 in total with 372 casualties.

Oman uses the term Reunis, Dempsey seems to prefer 'combined' in his book on Albuera, and I am sure I have seen others use 'converged' when talking about amalgamated British battalions. I personally think convergence makes perfect sense as it implies a coming together of something at a certain point which may either continue in that state or diverge, but I've not lost a lot of sleep over it.

>>seem to recall this<<
is like describing the colour of a horse…

Sematics aside, they existed (as did LIGHT battalions) because of in-situ requirements; designed by the Army commander; and ad-hoc 'developments' on campaign.

Thus there is no right or wrong answer- they existed in several forms, rarely permanently, and wore a mass of uniforms not at all related to 'elitism', but what the army wore at the time.

So from early revolution to mid-Empire they are possible and probable. Every games army?, probably not.
Ref specific details above and prior threads for elucidation.
*Reunis being the french term used, why not?
I know convergence occurs when a bikini is tied, yet I hardly seem to notice it.
regards dave

Well. I'm also a French national. and Reunir is a pretty straight translation of To Combine. Believe me, the French and their language are far too precise to tolerate using Converger for the action of picking up two things and placing them together.

So Oman is doing no more than quoting the French Order of Battle. Fair enough, but i really prefer thing to made plain for the benefit of all.

Whirlwind, I think your dictionary link echoes my point to the letter. and specifically used the example of a path I'm sure we are all in 100% agreement with Mike ExtraCrispy's description of what is under discussion; my point is that since these have not been drawn closer (by say, a line of march …) but been placed together by an executive, they cannot be said to have (or have been) converged. In straight English, they've been combined. And if this measure is later undone by reverse process, they won't diverge (nor please God, be diverged). They'll get separated. But maybe these subunits will diverge when they break camp and take different routes at a road junction.

Whirlwind, you're right that Combined now has a NATO meaning of multinational, and it was the only logical choice once Joint had become NATO English for multi-Service. My previous job was as a analyst working daily with UK MoD, and I had ample opportunity to reel at the violence inflicted on the language by defence doctrine (Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles, anyone? Was anybody thinking of living n one?) But no-one then ever tried to give Converge a new meaning different from its sense of convergence, or drawing closer to the point of … combining or joining.

Ney, being late for the Battle of Jena, detached grenadiers and voltigeurs and force marched them to the battlefield.

To create semi permanent elite battalions, like those of grenadiers was quite common in the French Army in the French Revolutionary Wars and later.

Another one would be the eclaireurs and later the Voltigeurs of course

In Gazan's and Dupont's divisions at Durnstein (1805) each had a bn. of elites combined from Grenadier and Carabinier coys.

Semantics aside, I think there are two actual ways the French organized converged grenadier battalions: First was by stripping the elites from their battalions present on the same battlefield. These were usually assigned specific tasks and lasted for only short periods of time. For my 1:20 games I'd actually strip the grenadiers from the line battalions used in the game, this is an option you could allow your players to decide upon if the rules are sufficiently granular to give the grenadiers an advantage and the donating battalions a disadvantage.
The second group were formed for the duration of a campaign, usually under Oudinot and drew their troops from battalions not deployed. These battalions were actually 1/2 voltiguers and I believe with a little research you can actually find the OB for the division including the parent battalion for each company (mostly familiar with 1809 with this regard). For wargaming purposes I would paint these as permanent troops, after all they lasted longer than the Lithuanian Tartars and I'm sure people have painted those. I believe a typical battalion would have two voltiguer and two grenadier companies but it's been a while since I read up on it.

The Nafziger collection provides the breakdown for Oudon't Division for 1805, and for the 1806-07 campaigns. It lists the regiments that provided the Voltigeur and Grenadier companies and under which of the converged regiments they were in. For the 1806 there were 5 regiments in 2 brigades at the start. Each Regiment had 2 Bns:
1st Bde- GB Ruffin
1st Rgt- 13th & 58th Line
2nd Rgt- 8th & 9th Line
3rd Rgt- 2nd & 3rd Legere

2nd Bde- GB Conroux
4th Rgt- 28th & 31st Legere
5th Rgt- 12th & 15th Legere

What I would like to see is the company make up battalions. Based on the reported troop numbers listed in Nafziger's OOBs there had to be 4-6 companies per battalion. To do this would require stripping the depots of all the recruits qualified as replacements for the 2 field battalions.

Have to say, I never came across the term 'converged' until I joined this site. Kept schtum and continued to use 'combined' but seeing as how that cat is out of the bag I am the crusty, middle-aged Brit French national. Which if anything ever sounded converged….

Never mind con/divergence, have I now been bisected? Or cloned? Cheers, forty-twa.

bkim4175

What I would like to see is the company make up battalions. Based on the reported troop numbers listed in Nafziger's OOBs…

Don't.
Reverse engineering of incorrect data gets you that.
As I've cited in other thread (using 'Situations' reports, Nafzigers numbers are abstract and incorrect several ways- they amalgamate totals that weren't battle ready, or present; or they are hypothetical numbers (regulation) not facts. And he frequently fails to name all generals involved, thereby distorting any analysis.

Sure pick a format and use them, just don't claim a 'holy grail' of results.

Semantics are just that. Call them converged, combined or whatever. Modern military terms only help those who dont know any different. Doesn't make those terms applicable or correct to this period.

Murvihill expanded the summary I wrote.

On campaign units were as depicted short term units. Just like the Arcole, Elchingen and Landshut etc., at sieges, elites were often drawn upon for the coup de grace assault force. And equally these forces were often 'legere'- not a grenadier in sight, so this also is a misnomer*.

Outside campaign, several instances occur or more long term groups. Oudinot is but one 'infamous' commander named active General.

That these corps included a proportion of legere regiments is based on the manpower available. The first in 1805 campaign had more carabiners than grenadiers, and even more voltigeurs.

Outside campaign deployment- troops were drawn as entire companies from the specific regiments. Recruits nor conscripts were not in early years 'stripped from depots'.

Active battalions, in garrison, not 'depots', far from campaign country, had their elite companies 'detached'.

This is seen time and again throughout Napoleonic period campaigns. 1809 brought the greatest change as the 'Grande Armée' had turned into a grande dame instead after 3 years of campaigning in Eastern Europe.

The first corps raised was unique- in that it was assembled and trained (the purpose of the 'camps') assembled slowly from 1802 and put this training into action as the 'avant garde' under Lannes and Murat in 1805.
(The one exception that arose was the 15e legere in Davout Corps- whose elites had already been detached from his command).

Note that N. ordered that these detachments were not to lose their regimental identities. Each battalion was formed with companies from a single regiment- 3 grenadier or carabiner, 3 voltigeur.
He appointed all officers, and had one senior of each regiment alternate command- a Colonel from one regiment, others Chef de Battalions, in a mixed unit Etat-major.

*The corps of 'United Grenadiers of the Reserve' was I believe a deliberate publicity tactic employed by N. for it's rich internal and political reasons.

regards
d

What may be of use is to perhaps look at the regulations and see what the thinking was.

For example in "Règlement provisoire sur le service de l'infanterie en campagne du 5 avril 1792", in Titre III (page 8 it notes);
"1 Les corps destinés à servir en campagne seront mis en brigades à leur arrivée au camp
2 Toutes les brigades seront composées de deux régimens ou de six bataillons
…
7 Lorsque les brigades seront formées les compagnies de grenadiers de chaque brigade se réuniront en bataillon qui sera commandé par un officier supérieur choisi par le général.
8 Ces bataillons seront destinés à servir hors de ligne quand ils ne seront pas détachés Les compagnies de grenadiers camperont à leur place ordinaire »

A free translation
« 1 Each unit will be placed in brigades upon arrival at camp.
2 All brigades will be composed of two regiments or six battalions.
…
7 When the brigades are formed, the companies of grenadiers of each brigade will be combined in a battalion, which will be commanded by a senior officer chosen by the General.
8 These battalions will be intended to serve out of the line of battle. When they are not detached [from the brigade]. The grenadier companies will camp in their ordinary place."

I have not seen any similar mention concerning Voltigeurs, although at this time there is no clear Voltigeur company.

In Napoleon's instructions to form Voltigeur companies in 1804 it does not make mention of combined battalions or similar. However in Napoleon's instructions on the six company organisation in 1808 note;
"…
ART. 6. – En bataille, la compagnie des grenadiers tiendra la droite du bataillon, celle des voltigeurs la gauche.
ART. 7. – Quand les six compagnies seront présentes au bataillon, on défilera et l'on agira toujours par division. Quand les grenadiers et voltigeurs seront absents du bataillon, on manœuvrera et défilera toujours par peloton. Deux compagnies formeront une division; chaque compagnie formera un peloton ; chaque demi-compagnie, une section. »

Which loosely translated is;
"…
Article 6. – In battle, the company of grenadiers will hold the right of the line of the battalion, that of the voltigeurs the left.
Article 7. – When all six companies are present with the battalion, it will travel (march) and manoeuvre by divisions. When the grenadiers and voltigeurs are absent from the battalion, it will always manoeuvre and travel (march) by platoon. Two companies will form a division; each company will form a platoon; each half-company, a section…."

It seems that it is almost taken as given the Grenadier and Voltigeur are operating separately from the Fusiliers.

also look at the plates of the drill regulations, almost always only 8 pelotons and not 9

Just out of curiosity, did the British ever do this?
I know they had 'battalions of detachments'.

I believe the battalions of detachments were formed from regiments that had suffered too much attrition to fill out their place in the line. Rather than send the remainder home, they were merged. So, whatever left not elites.

!Inside wellington's Peninsular Army 1808-1814", chapter by Robert Burnham entitled " Filling the Ranks: How Wellington Kept His Units Up to Strength" covers the issue of detachments and provisional battalions very well.

There were 2 battalions of detachments made up from men left behind after their regiments were evacuated from Corunna.

1st battalion had a mix of officers & men from 3rd, 2oth, 28th, 32nd, 38th, 42nd, 2/43rd, 50th, 52nd, 79th, 91st, 92nd & 95th foot.

2nd battalion had a mix of officers & men from 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 32nd, 36th, 42nd, 50th, 71st & 82nd foot.

The battalions took part in the Oporto & Talavera campaigns.
After Talavera, and on arrival in Lisbon those soldiers who did not have a regiment serving in the Peninsular were sent home. The battalions were not officially disbanded until they reached England.

The provisional battalions – normal practice for the army in the Peninsular was to send home those regiments that could not maintain their strength with drafts from home, to recruit and bring them up to strength. If a regiment had only 1 battalion serving in country, when it fell below strength, it would be replaced in country by a battalion from the same regiment from home. Wellington disliked this because it took experienced men away, and replaced them with inexperienced troops who could not stand the rigours of campaigning.

In June 1811 Wellington took the radical step of forming the 1st Provisional battalion from the 3rd, 29th, 2/31st, 57th & 2/66th regiments. They served together until 7 August 1811 when 1/3rd & 1/57th received enough replacements to become separate battalions again.

In late 1812 three more provisional battalions were formed from six severely under strength battalions – 2nd, 2/24th, 2/30th, 2/44th, 2/53rd & 2/58th. They were chosen not only due too how few men they had, but also because they had few men available as replacements.

None of these battalions could be thought of as elite.

The French had such 'converged' Grenadier battalions at Jena, and during several years in the Peninsula. Many of such battalions were called 'grenadiers' but also included Voltigeurs and Legere 'grenadier equivalent, the carabinier.

This was true of Oudinot's command.

Laretenue 'I am WITH the crusty, middle-aged Brit French national.'

damne' 'eyboard

Didn't he make up light infantry battalion from the light companies of the different regiments?

@vW,

Yes – Wellington did that in I believe in almost "every" brigade (off the top of head without access to my books at the moment) – joining the light companies of the battalions to the attached rifle company.

WRT von Winterveldt

also look at the plates of the drill regulations, almost always only 8 pelotons and not 9

Note – when single battalions are depicted, it is often 10 ten platoons. It appears the depiction in the plates is intended to reflect the 1st battalion with the combined grenadier platoons of the regiment as a single division. With the advent of the three battalion regiment in the 1790s then this would not work. So the grouping into grenadier battalions seems to make more sense.

Regards
Scott

During the 1793 campaign the British Guards fielded both converged Grenadier and Light companies.

The French defined a battalion as a minimum of two companies/platoons, hence the two grenadier companies/platoons per regiment would technically form a battalion without having to combine with those from another regiment.

@Prince of Essling but only, I believe, when action was imminent. The light companies otherwise remained an integral part of their battalions.

@42flanker, yes that is what the General Order of 4 May 1809 says…..

"The light infantry companies belonging to, and the riflemen attached to each brigade of infantry, are to be formed together, on the left of the brigade, under the command of a Field officer or Captain of light infantry of the brigade, and to be fixed upon by the Officer who commands it. Upon all occasions, in which the brigade may be formed in line, or in column, when the brigade shall be formed for the purpose of opposing an enemy, the light infantry companies and riflemen will be of course in front, flanks, or rear, according to the circumstances of the ground, and the nature of the operation to be performed. On all other occasions, the light infantry companies are to be considered as attached to their battalions, with which they are to be quartered or encamped, and solely under the command of the Commanding Officer of the battalion to which they belong."

Once again, far away from the OPs request, the technical and tactical minutae is largely irrelevant.

I'll stick with my 'vanity' troops since they were operationally in constant use during the campaign, if not the big day,
Thread drift par excellence… d

I forgot to add here, Scott, your mis-translation that wasn't picked up by the French speakers:

ART. 6. – En bataille, …

Which loosely translated is;
"…
Article 6. – In battle, the company of grenadiers

Fraid not. It is 'In line'…. and can be extrapolated whether a battalion, brigade, or division.

Isn't at all relevant as the grenadiers ALWAYS formed up in parade on the right. Whether to do so in combat is a decision made by the current formation and circumstances, but like I stated above, "far away from the OPs request, the technical and tactical minutae is largely irrelevant" -comparing organisational with sub-unit tactical needs/ niceties.

I'm guessing in combined units, they were smart enough to use nominal seniority of regimental number to sort that out. No grenadier was better than any other, except perhaps la Tour d'Auvergne..;-)

Best not let errors linger.
d

I agree in this context it would be

in line

1806- Bataille d'auerstädt. -Source- Gnl Gudin- Report to Davout (passed to EMG) Correspondence #186 Naumbourg 17 Oct.

"Arriving at the village of Hassenhausen, the advance of the 1er Chasseur à Cheval regiment met the enemy and joined the 25eme regiment de ligne. General Gauthier then formed this regiment in square, and barely this maneuver was undertaken than a battery of 6 enemy pieces placed in front of the village, began a very lively fire; and who would have made us suffer infinitely if General Gauthier had not had them outfanked by two companies of grenadiers and one of voltigeurs, under the direction of his aide-de-camp Captain Lagoublaye.

This charge was at the same time supported by a detachment of the chasseur regiment commanded by Captain Hullot, and by the fire of our artillery established on the flanks of the 25eme" [squares I presume].

cheers d

Yes, the loose translation does not carry the correct nuance. However, the incorrect use of "en bataille" as "Line" is also incorrect. Because of the contextual usage of "Line" in British military terminology of the time and use of "Ligne" in French terminology.

A strict contextual translation to ensure an English language reader would be "in battle order" or similar. Namely, the formation intended for combat purposes. Not simply a generalised arrangement of a linear formation. Which not what it is intended to convey in the manuals of the day.

Making this mistake is apparently what led Oman to his error in assuming the use of columns. There is a lecture of his where he explains this misunderstanding. Following feedback from his books and in particular on Maida.

In a yahoo groups forum the demi-brigade formation was discussed:

- Right battalion in column of peletons – left in front
- Centre battalion en bataille
- Left battalion in column of peletons – right in front

Grenadier peletons (x3) in a half-battalion:

- in reserve plugging the "demi-brigade colonne vuide"
- en potence on either flank
- in column behind the centre battalion

For a larger point of view you might consider "En Bataille" as to opposite as being En Ordre de Colonne (in order of column) > PASSER DE L'ORDRE EN COLONNE A I' ORDRE EN BATAILLE. which in turn lead to the notion of deployment, and how your bodies of troops will operate if some sub elements are detached.. and the method used to detach those sub elements (see the thread about tirailleurs)
---
like noted before, You have the "Grenadiers Réunis" or "Grenadiers D' Arras" (Oudinot) that operated as battalions up to 1809.
---
Stoppage, you put light on the interesting part : for what mission(s)/purpose(s) are the Grenadiers detached for ? mobile support on the flank of line of battle , same for artillery batteries, en soutien (direct support), en reserve in the rear of the LoB, others tasks ? used for service des tirailleurs, etc.
I wonder if there is a specific study/article somewhere treating Grenadiers for the various Divisional systems (1791 -1792-1800 -1805 – 1806- 1808- 1812 – 1813) ?

best regards

Given the specific context, translation etc. nothing else is relevant.
He said "Which loosely translated is;~" and was wrong.
What else it means isn't relevant, or transferable, in the context offered.
But I don't really care about the minutae of regulatory dislocation as rules are bad enough already, we hardly need more of it!

Good day Dave,

No problem with the "context offered" ie. Art 6, and the fact that is about the Battalion being in line, on three ranks .. in deployed order (en ordre déployé) i do agree with you & HK ! ; )

i used the terms "For a larger point of view" in relation with Scott message from april 16th and the precisions he added to the discussion .. so getting a bit away from just the narrow context of Art 6 …
en bataille / en bataille, en ordre déployé / en bataille, par bataillons en masse / en bataille, sans deployer, etc.

see Meunier for example about "en bataille, en ordre déployé" vs "en bataille, par bataillons en masse"

link

best regards

I don't agree SHaT 1984. The translation appears to be correct in some contexts, although apparently not in this one. Having an understanding of what else it means can be helpful to those who don't have a command of French military expressions en francais.

I understand…