"Firing Line Painting- Adjutant-major mounted?" Topic

Hello everyone,

I found this great picture last night during some research. Shown are French grenadiers in a firing line with what looks to be a mounted officer. I was interested because the officer seems to be wearing his epaulet on the right side as would be worn by an adjutant-major. I know according to regulations they were not mounted, but if one looks at casualties for battles, they are usually at least one to two wounded and or killed per battle per regiment. What is the group's opinion on mounted or not mounted?

I will show a few documents to back up my point. One comes from the 26e Legere prior to the 1809 campaign. The document is on the left. As you can see below there are six horses for the three adjutant-majors! This is dated 1 Jan 1809 so not on campaign, but I can imagine being mounted would allow for better control of the wing of the battalion that the officer is in command. However, all 16 captains also have a horse.

Second, comes the memoirs of adjutant-major Alexandre COUDREUX of the 15e Legere in 1809. From a letter dated on 19 Feb 1809 " I have just been interrupted by the arrival of the general of the division: we all set off on horseback to go and reconnoiter the defiles of Hof and Kupferberg;" (Coudreux,1908, p.145) Next he recounts the early battles of April 1809, " My horse was killed between my legs, my saber scabbard was cut in half by a piece of grape-shot, I received a small contusion in my left thigh, and I am slightly injured in my right hand; my clothes have holes in five different places" (Coudreux,1908, p.148). The last letter before the battle of Wagram, "P.-S. – It is precisely the beautiful Coquette that I lost in the Regensburg affair. It is a real mourning for me; this beast was worth its weight in gold! I told you by my last that I had bought another horse, which is beautiful, but not worth much; I have just bought another one from Colonel Brunet (1), from the 24 chasseurs à cheval, who lost an arm in the affair in front of Ebersdorf and who is returning to France. Our job as adjudant – major is very difficult in the countryside; I am completely in the opinion of my colonel and therefore still on my feet" (Coudreux, 1908, p.151)

His letters can be read here on google books link

Interesting question – as I recall in the 1808 regs the only mounted officer in a battalion was the Chef de Bataillon but I think the regimental Adjudant-Chef (rank of captain) was mounted

Hard to discount people's accounts – you could see how the Adjudant-Major having a horse would help with command/control

Frederick,

Thank you for the response. I always was confused why someone who was responsible for a wing of the battalion was not mounted. One would imagine during the heat of the battle and all the noises, hearing the orders from the Chef would be impossible and only the drummers would be heard.

Looking at the records for before 19 April 1809, at least half of the Adjutant-majors were Lieuts in the 4th Division regiments.

I am looking at the REGULATIONS CONCERNING THE EXERCISE AND MANEUVERS OF INFANTRY, For the 13. Line Regiment in google books. Found here link As far as I can tell this is for the 9 company battalion and not the later 6 company battalion.

Places of Senior Officers, Adjudans Majors, and Adjudans.

"The Colonel and the two Lieutenants – colo. they will be on horseback; the Adjudans – majors and Adjudans will be on foot. The Colonel will be placed thirty paces behind the row of file- closers, opposite the center of the interval between the two battalions of his regiment; Each Lieutenant – colonel twenty paces behind the row of the Giles greenhouse of his battalion, opposite the flag line; The Adjutant – major of each battalion, eight paces behind the row of greenhouse tiles of his battalion, opposite the center of the right half battalion;"

Excellent painting and documentation. I envy your abilities…

>>""Each Lieutenant – colonel twenty paces behind the row of the Giles greenhouse of his battalion, … behind the row of greenhouse tiles of his …"<<

Michael I earnestly suggest that you stop trying to translate material that does not require translation.
That sentence above makes no sense in English, at all. It is garbage.

I'm also amazed that, when you have the specific information in your hand proving a situation to exist, you continue to 'seek the alternate truth' by referring to other documents as if they hold some value.

'Regulations' about drill are not immutable laws of physics- like, don't swim in a raging river; don't walk on lava etc.

Human Laws like 'don't drink and drive; don't speed above the stated limit', like drill 'regulations' of history, are merely taken as guidance to be used or ignored at the whim of those who purport to create, manage or deny them.

Just as now, the world evolved and is dynamic in human terms, as it was 200-1000-10,000 years ago. Apart from carvings, very little is 'locked in stone'…
all the best, respectfully
dave

Dave,

I appreciate your comment. I forgot to change the word greenhouse to file closer in the second sentence like I did the first one. That is why I always try to link the books. I do not speak French, so I need to use a translator, but my understanding of the written text is getting better.

I ask the question because my knowledge of French regulations are limited. I know the basics, but what I am good at is finding names of men who served. So yes Coudreux memoirs are pretty concrete evidence they were mounted, but I like to have other opinions.

My goal is to share my findings and then learn from others who have more knowledge than myself. If it was up to me I would share everything I have, but it seems it isn't the most interesting topics for all members here.

Michael

According to regulations, only the chef de bataillon was mounted in battle – aside form the chef de brigade or colonel.

About mounted officers, when you read memoires you will find out that whenever possible officers tried to get mounted, regardless of what rank, so they could travel mounted and ride around, this is different for the battle field however.

the left wing of a battalion was commanded by the Adjudant sous officier who wasn't mounted either.

However your citation gives room for speculation that they may have been different in practice.

From Napoleon's Finest page 4 a letter from Marshal Davout on 10 November 1805 describing the merits of the 108e ligne in the combat of Mariazell.

"Adjutant-major Higonet, a young man with a great future, while on his horse, rode into the ranks of the enemy, forcing the Colonel and Major of the [Austrian Regiment] Colloredo to lay down their arms."

thanks again for that piece of information, will be pasted and copied.

BTW…
>>the officer seems to be wearing his epaulet on the right side

Perhaps your ideas/ desires run away with you?
I've enlarged the pic as much as I can, and given there is no view of his left shoulder, any reason he could not simply be a Colonel?

He has wide lace on the saddle-cloth; high cavalry boots etc.
regards d

Dave,

You are correct he could be a Colonel! I don't think my ideas run away with me as I provided two primary sources for adjutant-majors being mounted. I might be incorrect about the painting, but it does seem from at least two soldiers who served in the 3rd Corps they were mounted for the 15e Legere(Coudreux) and 108e Ligne(Higonet).

This is an adj. major from the Guard, but as he ranks as a chef de battalion in the line, this might be a bad example!

Michael.
I wasn't disagreeing with the quotations, just the painting.

However, I'd caution against the line-guard rank escalation matter as well. Adj.Major was a properly planned administrative position in regimental hierarchy using the 'best' talented young junior offiers (usually)- your man is a captain or lieutenant who holds the 'post-rank' of Adj.Major. He is not actually 'Major'.
cheers d

In a strange twist of the "life imitating art" paradigm, I'd already remodelled [before this thread came about] a mounted officer to become an Adj.Major for my 'new' 10eme Legere.

Any idea who that may have been in 1805 Micahel- I have no regimental lists at all? He will have the honour of being the 2nd Battalion commander and Colonel Pouzet is being dismounted with the first.

cheers d
_

I would say he either died or retired due wounds after all the heavy fighting the 10e Legere did from 1805-1807. I will check my 1809 rolls and check service records of the men I have saved from the regiment.

Did you want the officer 2YB records?

Dave,

You have three choices from below. Chabaud or Chabot according to Martinien was wounded at Austerlitz. Delhaye became aide de camp 25 Brumaire an 12.

Superb information Michael, certainly not youngsters!
My thanks, d

Dave,

Looking at the 3e Ligne, at the end of the 1809 campaign, almost every single officer who was born before 1770 retired due to wounds or long service. So many experienced officers were lost for all the regiments of the 4th Division, including the 10e Legere.

And now you've shown cause/ effect for the lowering of 'standards' of the broader 'army' of France (grande or otherwise)…

Very true.

I know the losses were horrendous in 1812, but a large portion of those men, at least officers, were not the veterans of 1805-1809. For example, of the 47 wounded soldiers from the 1e Batallion of the 57e Ligne, 2 died of wounds and were scratched off the rolls, and 45 retired due to wounds and/or long service prior to 1810! Yes, some of these men were conscripts from the classes of 1806-1809, but at least half were from an 12 and below. These are only the casualties from the first battle of the campaign, with three battles left that the 57e Ligne still had to fight in 1809!

A lot were already ruined in 1807 – and then a lot of first class units were sent to Spain, to be ruined there as well.

Thank you for the response. I always was confused why someone who was responsible for a wing of the battalion was not mounted. One would imagine during the heat of the battle and all the noises, hearing the orders from the Chef would be impossible and only the drummers would be heard.

Keep in mind that when the Chef gave an order, it was repeated down the line by ever officer, so that in the heat of battle and all the noises, orders could still be heard. Not perfect, but drums could signal some things, but they did not cover that many different orders.

McLaddie,

Thank you! One can imagine command and control could easily deteriorate with just a few officer casualties.

…but drums could signal some things, but they did not cover that many different orders.

How many different drum 'calls' were there?

I would suggest that there were more than just a 'few' and that they most certainly did cover many different 'orders', maneuvers, and activities, on and off the battlefield.

Perhaps the following might be of some use:

Memoires d'un Vieux Deserteur:

link

Manuel de Musique Militaire:

link

Les Campagnes d'un Musicien d'Etat-Major Pendant la Republique et l'Empire 1791-1810:

link

I did giggle at 'greenhouse tiles', which presumably is because 'serre files' looks a bit like 'verre tiles'…

Not perfect, but drums could signal some things, but they did not cover that many different orders.

Indeed – for the French infantry very limited – see the instructions for the drummers in battle at the manuel de sours officiers, also the dictionnaire should cover it.

Still the adjudant sous officier commanding the left half of a battalion was only an NCO and I guess not mounted.

4th Cuirassiers,

I miss one word in google translate, and it all goes to hell! Most of the time when I put stuff translated on here, I have to change a few words, but as you can see sometimes I miss them!

I agree that it would be very difficult to replace a chef de bataillon on the spot without loosing a great deal of control.

There are quite a few reasons for a chain of command in a unit, be it company, battalion, regiment, brigade, division, corps, or army.

One of the most evident is to be able to immediately replace casualties in combat. If a commander is killed or wounded, the next senior man steps up and there are myriad examples of this happening in military history.

How well it is done depends on the level of training in a unit and how cohesive that unit is. Good units can certainly do it, new or inexperienced units not so much-unless their commanders have trained them well with an established chain of command.

…only an NCO…

Really? Is that meant to be a slight?

It is more difficult to develop good, solid NCOs than it is good officers.

'That bulwark of civilization, the no-nonsense NCO…'-John Elting, Swords Around a Throne, 29. 👍

see the instructions for the drummers in battle at the manuel de sours officiers, also the dictionnaire should cover it.

Do you not tend to get upset when people refer to a publication and either don't list the full name or the reference in the first place?

Perhaps you could, for the forum as a whole, list the complete titles of the two publications that you listed and the author, if any.

The first is easy to find, though you did not list the full title or the page number to find what you are referring to, but the second is not helpful at all as there were many dictionaries of the period… 😒

Possible dictionaire,

Dictionnaire de l'armée de terre by Etienne Alexandre Bardin. Includes all volumes.
link

Another manual for all soldiers, Manuel d'infanterie ou resume de tous les reglemens decrets usages, renseignemens concernant l'infanterie, which Terry Crowdy's book Napoleon's Infantry Handbook, goes in great detail about and is very enjoyable to read.
link

The third great work by Bardin: the Mémorial de l'officier d'infanterie.

First Published in 1809, and brought up to date in 1813:

link

link

It is useful, because it gives all the relevant regulations with their complete text, but also with a lot of annotations and cross-references. And there is a huge index at the end of volume 2.

Thanks very much fellows.

Greenhouse tiles raised a laugh for me. I try to augment my schoolboy French with Google translate in researching the French 2nd Armoured Division. Their 12th Cuirassiers comes up as "12th leatherworkers" every time.

Military French differs from 'regular' French in some aspects and the use of words and terms.

'Fraise', for example, can be either strawberries or cut and sharpened logs used in fortifications.