"First light infantry reglement?" Topic

As I am looking for the use of light infantry formations in the late 18th century (see other post) I came across a 1796 light infantry manual of the Batavian Republic. For "normal"infantry formations etc, the light infantry manual refers to the 1796 Batavian line infantry manual but for the light infantry aspect this manual was used. The Batavian light infantry was different from the French as they had 1 third armed with carbines ("buks" in Dutch).
Is this the first manual for light infantry or are there earlier ones?

Didn't the Austrians have a Grenzer manual in the 1740's?

the jäger commander, John Ewald's Abhandlung Uber den kleinen Krieg, (Translated as 'Treatise on Partisan Warfare') published in 1785, would be an ealy source, togther with the updated version by Francis Rothenburg,"Regulations for the Exercise of Riflemen and Light Infantry and their Conduct in the Field.' 1798

There can be a rather fuzzy distinction between light infantry and semi-bandit irregulars and frontiersmen! Unwritten traditions of irregular light infantry warfare became formalized at some point but that varied from country to country. Manuals on light infantry "forest warfare" were written by British officers during the French and Indian War in the 1750-60's.

If you are talking about official regulations instead of private publications, then There were two Prussian regulations, one by Frederick in 1754 IIRC and then the Schutzen and Fusilier regulations 1788 Reglement fur die Konighlich Preussischen leichte Infantrerie.

The Russians had Jager regulations in 1787 written by Kutuzov, though I believe that there were earlier Russian publications.

What makes your question difficult is that many of the works were 'adopted' by the various military were:

1. Written and published privately first, including Rothenburg's and Dundas's regulations and John Ewald's was never accepted by a nation as 'regulation', though his work and many others were used 'unofficially.' For instance, there is Scharnhorst's Military Field Pocket Book written in 1793. In Section IX, Chapter II, he describes the conduct of detachments including infantry skirmishers. Yet, buried in Chapter V, unannounced is this:

§. 151. Conduct of Infantry when opposed to Infantry.

The more you engage the enemy, while you are advancing,…, the more you lessen the advantage he would otherwise have of being able to fire more frequently than you. 4) If the enemy has artillery and you have not, or if his troops are covered—advance rapidly, and fire only now and then for the purpose of keeping the attention of your men occupied. Small detached parties and skirmishers should be advanced in front, who will fire at 400 paces distance to induce the enemy to fire in return, and will endeavor to make him continue his fire; unless this is done, you will most probably be routed by the more powerful fire of the enemy, when you approach within a short distance of him.

2.The Military back then was far more provincial, with the distance between a military author and private author almost non-existant.

3. There were a lot of these books written. For instance, two Frenchmen, de la Croix in 1752 and de Grandmaison in 1756 wrote about the 'little war'. Frederick used the latter in training his officers. Scharnhorst said in 1811 that little had changed in light infantry methods since Croix and Grandmaison's books. Prussian officer Valentini wrote in 1799 about Der Kleine Krieg.

4.But even that doesn't really address the fact that books were written about skirmishing long before the 1780s:

The Captains Handbook of Henry Barrett published in 1562 and Ward, Robert; Animadversions of Warre, London, 1639 Both describe "skirmishing" where the skirmishers deploy by spread-out files of two for 'fire by file' or 'Forlorn hope fire' , where the first man fires and the second doesn't fire until the first man is loaded again. The same practices as Napoleonic times.

OR Watts, William, The Swedish Intelligencer, Compleat: all 4 parts; with the Discipline, London, 1634, Part 3 p.9:

Tilly full well knowing of a troublesome passage they were to have through the bushes and dust at the foresaid towne of Scholcka, thither sent he some lighter troopes to disturbe them. These vant-curriers besides the skirmishing with which they entertained them did by setting fire to certaine traines of gun powder purposely scattered on the ground seeke by some smoke thereof to blinde and trouble…

One 1709 French treatise on light infantry/little war tactics states:

"When advancing towards the enemy, one has to detach men from the infantry to try to supress men and horses of the enemy artillery".

Sound familiar? There were lots of manuals, treatises and books on light infantry tactics in Europe beginning in the 1500s. You know, when printed books because more available…

Brownand:
…("buks" in Dutch)…

Actually "buks"is a 'Germanism', from the German: "Büchse".
The correct Dutch word was/is: "bus".

DrsRob,
the reglement talks about "bux" and "Buks" is a correct Dutch word

McLaddie and others,
thanks for all the info.

I was indeed talking about an official regulation, in this case of the newly formed Batavian Republic.
The line reglement is dated february 25 1796,the light reglement has just "1796" but as it refers to the line reglement I suppose it is of the same time or somewhat later.

As McLaddie posted

Reglement für die Königlich Preußische Leichte Infanterie, Berlin, Decker, 1788

In case the Dutch, as you described had a carbine, and you speak of Buks, would that implement that it had a rifled barrel?

Only one third of the men plus sergeant-major, sergeants, 4 corporals and the musicians (halvemaanblazers and waldhornisten-don't know the English words) had according to the reglement a "bux" (also called small "buxen"). The other two third of the men and corporals had rifled muskets (or long "buxen").
In an article in the militaire spectator of 1891 about the defence of Holland in 1799 is mentioned that 1/3rd had a rifled "buks" and 2/3rd a rifled musket (geweer).

About loading is stated that the bullet has to be hammered into the barrel.
Mentioned also in the reglement is that the formation is in two rows.

According to "De uniformen van de Nederlandsche Zee- en Landmacht …."the 2nd and 4th jagerbattalion changed from the buksen and jagermuskets to normal infantrymuskets on april 4th 1804. As the 4 jager battalions were changed into 2 regiments of light infantry in 1805 it is stated that the elite companies plus the sergeants of the other companies were armed with "buksen" (21 october 1805)

very interesting, thanks, so quite a huge amount of rifles and rifled muskets, so how many light infantry regiments did the Durch then have.

4 independent jager battalions (each of 6 comp and a battalion total of 609 off and men) were raised in 1796 by combining various light troops of the former Dutch Republic (eg Jager- and light battalions of Van Bijlandt, Jagers von Heydte)
These stayed on this strenght until 1805 when the 4 battalions were grouped into 2 regiments each of 2 battalions; each battalion of one elite (karbinier)company and 4 normal companies.
The strength mentioned is of course the paper strength, mostly they were understrength.

Only one third of the men plus sergeant-major, sergeants, 4 corporals and the musicians (halvemaanblazers and waldhornisten-don't know the English words) had according to the reglement a "bux" (also called small "buxen"). The other two third of the men and corporals had rifled muskets (or long "buxen").
In an article in the militaire spectator of 1891 about the defence of Holland in 1799 is mentioned that 1/3rd had a rifled "buks" and 2/3rd a rifled musket (geweer).

About loading is stated that the bullet has to be hammered into the barrel.
Mentioned also in thr reglement is that the formation is in two rows.

Of course as regiments were understrength also the amount of rifles were a problem. I think that the jagers were in practice also using normal muskets

"halvemaanblazers and waldhornisten"

-types of bugler

'crescent blower' (lit. 'half-moon'), signalling with a brass horn shaped as it sounds.

'hunting hornist' (lit. 'woods horn') ditto with the looped 'French' hunting horn.

Brownand:
the reglement talks about "bux" and "Buks" is a correct Dutch word

Today it has become accepted as such. and indeed the word was regularly used in regulations as well.
However, the old rampart guns were called: 'walbus', and not: 'walbuks'.

yes and totally irrelevant as I am talking about the 1796 reglement in which only the older spelling bux or buxen for buks is used.

The line reglement is dated february 25 1796,the light reglement has just "1796" but as it refers to the line reglement I suppose it is of the same time or somewhat later.

Brownand:

I don't have access to this reglement. Are you saying that the light infantry instructions were part of the line reglement, or seen as an extension?

@Brownand

Thanks again, did they continue to carry those arms in the Napoleonic wars as well?

Do you plan to publish those instructions or cite at least some passages of them?

The light reglement is a seperate reglement and an expansion of the line specific for the light infantry.

von winterfeldt, the reglement can be downloaded at delpher.nl
it is called
"Reglement van de byzondere exercitie der corpsen ligte infanterie of jagers"

link

hartelijk bedankt!

graag gedaan

@Brownand
Whether buks or bux is irrelevant; that's just spelling variation. But 'buks' is a word distinct from 'bus'.
I quote J.P. Puype in Armamentaria 16, p. 132:

Bus […] In de toenmalige teksten wordt ook vaak van 'buks' gesproken, welke term niet anders dan als een vernederlandsing van het Duitse Büchse kan worden gezien.

Since the military stopped using the word, 'buks' has completely replaced 'bus', even in the Van Dale.

Sorry but you you are a little bit of a whiner in this matter.

The reglement calls is a bux or buxen (plural), in modern dutch buks (or buksen)
Koolemans-Beijnen in Militaire Spectator of 1891 (article about the 1799 invasion) calls the armament of the jagers: buks.

"De uniformen van de nederlandse Zee- en landmacht…" (1900) calls the new 1798 model jagerrifle a "jagerbuks M1798"

It is irrelevant if it is a germanisme imho and I will stop with this.

I agree it's a side note. We'll leave it at this.

Actually I got side-tracked from where I wanted to go with my original remark. The use of a German loan word in these regulations might be indication of more borrowing. Were the Dutch regulations based on German ones? The Prussian regulations for the fusilier bataillons of 1788 for instance?

Look into civilian hunting, did the Dutch have buxen, then most likely they got the word from there.
What I found more interesting are the rifled carbines, unheard of so far from my side other then the Prussian Army, the Brits called such a thing – Baker Rifle.

Also, I'm curious about the rifle muskets. Full length? Rifled? I see here hammering down the ball, while you also note some with standard muskets. I hadn't realized long rifles were a thing in Europe as the Pennsylvania/Kentucky rifle was in America.

They were not. The Dutch certainly used a short rifle, similar in length to the British Baker.

@von Winterfeldt
The Dutch had their own word: "bus". The adoption of a German word suggests influence. But one would have to proof when the German word first appeared in Dutch and for the purpose of this subject that would be superfluous.
After that we would still have to compare regulations and we can just as well do that first.

on a rifled carbine, due to the fact that the grooves were not as deeply cut on a rifle, you wouldn't used a patch and ball, you would load from a cartridge.

It wasn't a long rifle but longer than a rifle – the classical Jäger rifle, also an a rifled carbine, due to the fact that it had a round barrel end a bayonet could be fixed.

The Prussian Scharfschützengewehr was such a rifled carbine, it had front and back sides, the rear sight could be adjusted for 150 and 300 paces.

I wrote a chapter for a Helion book about the Prussian Light Infantry of 1806.

Out of a total length of 1.21 m the barrel length was 0.822 m, the bayonet blade was 34 cm, giving a length of about 1.55 m. The calibre was 18.5 mm and by that a bit smaller than the usual infantry musket

Originally there were no side arms for a Jäger rifle, which was about 100 – 108 cm total length and later they were converted in that way, that their traditional side arm, the Hirschfänger, could be fixed at the side of the barrel, the barrel was octagon.

There is no specification given in the reglement about the guns themselves.
According to the reglement (article 1) the jagerbux had a hartsvanger (hirschfänger) with a spring attached to the hilt to use as a bayonet. The "getrokken geweer" (rifled musket) had a bayonet.
Both are called a bux for the loading procedure which in fact is the same for both. (reglement 2nd afdeling article 11 page 14). It is mentioned that a small hammer is used when using live shot to hammer the bullet in to the barrel (at least I think this is the correct interpretation)

Yes – usually you would use a hammer (of wood) to put the patched ball into the barrel.
The Prussian Scharfschützengewehr had also a more robust lock and not hair triggers like some Jäger rifles had.