"Columns and Maneuver" Topic

Looking at Baron von Steuben's drill manual [dover edition] it seems like he had battalions changing formation by platoons, not divisions. Instead of 4 divisions, it looks like 8 platoons / half divisions in the formation changes.

Is this correct? Did AWI units, British and American usually use an 8-sub unit system of evolutions to change formation?

I thought that it was 4 divisions.

Thanks for any info.

I'd have to look at von Steuben again, it's been a while (though I do play the General' aide and translater in the new Valley Forge NPS movie – LoL).

The 1764 Manual, used by the British – and many American units early on in the war – is different.

To my way of thinking, the divisions were more combat elements than maneuver elements. The basic building block of the 8 company line battalion was the company – broken down into two platoons.

According to the Saratoga National Battlefield Park Historian, the British battalions generally moved on a four man front when in column. This formation was called moving by files. They could also move by Indian files too, in a single line, if needed.

It would be predetermined, by the order of march – how the battalion would deploy into line – either building the line from right to left, or center out (left, right, left right, etc.), with the proper distance between companies when forming.

HG, there you go with that '64 Drill again… a curse upon it and upon Pickering's, too.

You can do either, as the tactical situation permits, as far as the Blue Book is concerned.

The smaller frontage of a platoon is better to manage in close terrain.

Any chance the new NPS movie is on YouTube somewhere?

Eric

"Form fours
Right turn
How do we spend the money we earn.."

A time-honoured British military tradition.

"You'll get your pay,
On the Devil's day,
'an not a moment sooner!"
:)

A line forming a four man column, to the right or left, is easily done if the line is in two ranks. If in three ranks the only way I can imagine it (can't find my copy of the '64 manual at the mo.), is every four files makes a left or right wheel.

Although by 1776 the British are marching and manovering per Howe's Light Infantry discipline. All formed two deep with intervals between files of two, four or ten feet.

G'Day Stalkey and Co,

That is correct, displaying of columns and to form columns are executed by platoons. A battalion may wheel by division or platoon.

Baron von Steuben's drill manual was based upon the French Reglement de 1776 and influenced from the Reglement provisoire de 1792

"To my way of thinking, the divisions were more combat elements than maneuver elements. The basic building block of the 8 company line battalion was the company – broken down into two platoons."

If I may, this is not quite right…

Best Regards
Art

Hey Art. I'm much more familiar with the 1764 Manual Exercise used by the British troops. Would love to hear your thoughts.

Baron von Steuben's drill manual was based upon the French Reglement de 1776 and influenced from the Reglement provisoire de 1792

As von Steuben's drill manual was first published in 1779, how could it be influenced by the Reglement provisoire de 1792?

It was subsequently republished in 1794 to include an appendix which contained the United States Militia Act of 1792.

'circumstances…obliged me to deviate from the Principles adopted in the European armies…Young as We are, We have already our Prejudices as the most ancient Nations…the prepossession in favor of the British service, has obliged me to comply with many Things, which are against my principles.'
Von Steuben to Franklin from the Pennsylvania Archives, as noted in Robert Wright's The Continental Army, 141.

'Steuben's genius led him to develop a new system rather than to modify an existing one. He simplified the British manual of arms and slowed its prescribed tempo to improve execution…Steuben drew on many precedents, including Prussian, English, and American practices. Foreign officers recognized the uniqueness of the mixture and noted its efficiency.'-Wright, Continental Army, 141.

'When composing his lessons for the model company, he could have relied entirely on an established military manual, picking it as the standard for the army. He could have translated the official Prussian regulations into English, for he knew these by heart. But he did neither. He created his own system, based on his experience, but one stripped of every nonessential movement, every element that did not have a practical purpose. There was no sense, with time in such short supply, in teaching the men things that they would never use and didn't need to know.'-Paul Lockhart, The Drillmaster of Valley Forge, 105.

It then appears that von Steuben introduced his own drill system based on his experience and knowledge of the different drill systems of the European powers creating a new system of drill for the Continental Army.

Kevin,

yes you are quite right….paint me stupid…

How many point shall we give you…+1

I should have written 1778 and not 1792.

I can show you how Steuben was influenced by the two regulations I have mentioned…

Are you ready to show in detail how the reglement 1776 and 1778 are not related to Steuben's manual?

Let's examine the manuals shall we…

OK…lets start with the regalement de 1776…what part was not taken from it…or do I need to do another category A. and category B.

I can show you how Steuben was influenced by the two regulations I have mentioned…

Being 'based' on a regulation is far different from being 'influenced' by one.

As has been shown, Steuben wrote an entirely new manual, taking/being influenced by British, Prussian, and undoubtedly French infantry regulations. Did he 'base' his new manual on the French antecedents? The available evidence doesn't support it. Was he influenced by the French manuals? I have no doubt. However, the French manuals were not the only ones that 'influenced' his new manual.

Based…or…influenced…

Give me five principles in Steuben's manual not found in the reglement de 1776

Since you are continually beating this horse, I suggest that you do the comparison.

Have you actually read von Steuben's drill regulations?

The point still is, that von Steuben, as shown, wrote a new drill regulation.

And the question you put is somewhat self-serving as most drill manuals have something in common. That does not mean that one is 'based' on the other, but it most certainly can mean that one has been influenced by the other. Again, there is quite a difference.

A similar situation happened on the forums before. There were arguments, ad nauseum, years ago regarding artillery, where one idea was that the Gribeauval System was 'based' (or copied, take your pick) on the Austrian Liechtenstein System. And that is inaccurate. The Liechtenstein System influenced the Gribeauval System, as did the Prussian artillery of the mid-1740s as well as the French Valliere System. And the point is that the Gribeauval artillery system was an entirely new artillery system, not a mere copy.

The von Steuben drill regulations were new, and not a mere copy of someone else's. And that has been demonstrated whether or not you accept it.

Des Deploimens des colonnes serrees
Colonne la gauche en tete
Colonne la droite en tete
Passage de l'obstacle en marchant en retraite
Passage du defile en retraite par pelotons
Feu en retraite

your turn…demonstrate with 6 examples…then I will give more as well…

Why are you bringing up the subject of artillery…has anyone mentioned artillery once in this thread ;-)

you have read the French regulations to validate your point?

Alright…do you want me to help you?

you can use…Art 4. column crossing a plain liable to be attacked by cavalry…now you only owe me 5 examples

Comparing the subjects covered in each regulation does not sufficiently cover or demonstrate that one was taken from the other. The Ordinance of 1776 was the product of or was greatly influenced by the Baron de Pirch, who ‘was a Prussian officer who had entered the French service.' (Robert Quimby, The Background of Napoleonic Warfare, 201). He was the officer responsible for the Ordinance of 1776.

The Ordinance can be found here:

file:///C:/Users/Owner/Desktop/Arty%20Dictionary/Ordonnance_du_Roi_pour_r%C3%A9gler_l_exercice%20de%20l'infanterie%20du%201er%20juin%201776.pdf

The Ordinance was more Prussian, than French, and I have found no evidence that von Steuben, or de Steuben as he was known in the Continental Army, used it for his drill regulations much less had a copy. As it was a new regulation, it may not have been promulgated enough for foreign officers to get a copy of it. And de Steuben's purpose in his new drill regulations was to simplify the drill, starting with the manual of arms, which is why his system was new and not based on or taken from the French Ordnance of 1776. In point of fact, de Steuben was influenced by Guibert's Essai de tactique of which he did have a copy.

Comparing the Ordinance of 1776 with the Blue Book on face value it is quite easy to see that one did not come from the other, except perhaps in some of the subject titles. The Blue Book is just over 150 pages long; the Ordinance of 1776 is 368 pages, over twice as long. The Blue Book as 25 chapters each with subsequent ‘articles' as subdivisions of the chapters; The Ordinance has 15 Titres, each having subsequent articles and are longer than those in the Blue Book.

Matching one regulation to the other does not accomplish anything of value as the source for each regulation is different. Pirch's Ordinance of 1776 is Prussian in origin while Guibert's is not and the latter is the major influence for de Steuben's work.

Perhaps the following might help you:

‘Prussian influence upon the French Army took two directions. The first was the revolution by Guibert. He seized upon the experiments of Frederick's peacetime camps and, applying the tactics there outlined to the French divisional system, initiated the tactical revolution which eventually triumphed in the French Army. The method of deployment was Frederick's; the rest was Guibert's.' (Quimby, Background, 200).

‘The second form of Prussian influence was in the direction of imitation rather than adaptation. It consisted of attempts to transfer Prussian methods of drill and of discipline to the French Army with the purpose of achieving the same precision. Out of these, under the influence of a Baron de Pirch, there emerged a major aberration from the main line of development of French tactics.' (Quimby, Background, 201).

‘The Ordinance of 1776…in so far as evolutions were concerned, however, it was strictly in conformity with Pirch's principles. This disposes of the claim of various nineteenth-century writers that it was the work of Guibert. No contemporary document confirms such an assumption, and since the ordinance departs extensively from the ideas of the Essai general, it is hardly possible to accept the idea of Guibert collaborating in a work which conformed to Pirch's principles.(Quimby, Background, 205).

‘It would seem, then, that the Ordinance of 1776 was open to two general criticisms. First was the excessive formalism resulting from the strict adherence to Pirch's principles and leading to over-complicated maneuvers. This was true of Pirch's system of deployment as compared with Guibert's. No good reason existed for compelling the platoons ahead of the platoon of deployment to use the slower square movements. The reason given, that the column need not cross the line of deployment, could usually be met by placing the line of deployment some paces to the rear. The column could then deploy with its head no nearer to the enemy.'

‘The second general criticism was the excessive reliance upon the ordre mince. Pirch's triumph meant the triumph of the partisans of that order and exacerbated the dispute between the advocates of the two orders. It was not until 1791 that a new ordinance representing the middle position of Guibert was adopted. It permitted both orders without going to the extremes of either. All in all, it must be said that the adoption of Pirch's tactics represented a deflection from the general line of French tactical development.'(Quimby, Background, 208-209).

From Paul Lockhart's The Drillmaster of Valley Forge: The Baron de Steuben and the Making of the American Army. This clearly establishes the link between Guibert's Essai de tactique and de Steuben's work:

‘A brilliant French tactician, the Comte de Guibert, proposed a much improved method in the early 1770s. In Guibert's system, individual subunits arranged in a column would simply face to the right or left without wheeling, and march obliquely, one behind the other, in order to make the line. The method was far more efficient and faster than wheeling, and more flexible…'-193.

‘An army trained in Guibert's method of deployment could also-with relatively little training-change formation during battle as required, and not just into lines or marching columns. It could form assault columns, called ‘columns closed in mass,' which were broader and shallower than marching columns but deeper than lines of battle, useful for short-range, rapid bayonet charges. Guibert's system retained the firepower of traditional linear tactics while allowing a tactical flexibility that went beyond the capabilities of the Prussian army at its height. Guibert's ideas were radical; even the French army rejected them initially, and did not adopt any of them until 1791. Yet in 1779, Steuben adopted these very same ideas for the Continental Army.'-194

Note 42, page 313: ‘Guibert's book, Essai General de tactique (Paris 1772), was perhaps the most important book on tactical theory to appear in the eighteenth century. Among other things, it advocated a much simplified ‘manual exercise' as Steuben did. The Baron, in fact, owned a copy, as well as copies of books by most of Guibert's rivals-Mesnil-Durand, Puysegur, and Folard.'

Why are you bringing up the subject of artillery…

I guess you missed the analogy being put, ie the difference between 'being based on' and 'being influenced by'…

Great you have both regulations

you are turning this tread into another waffling session just like the thread "Light Infantry & smoothbore accuracy L C18th & E.C19th", between you and Bill…-that would have been a better analogy

You have waffled on about everything that didn't matter ;-)

Still waiting for 5 examples…just give me 5 principles…

Show me you understand the two manuals…instead of parroting someone else

Sorry, but you're wrong and your idea of 'five examples' is ridiculous.

I gave you the information, whether or not you agree with it. Von Steuben did not use the Ordinance of 1776, but Guibert. He did not want to, nor did he believe it necessary, to turn the Continental Army into ersatz Prussians.

You're running in circles as you usually do, merely trying to confuse instead of helping to enlighten. You're just up to your old tricks again and accomplishing little, if anything.

I used to think that you were very good on drill systems of the period, but you have certainly disabused me of that idea.

So do you have a copy of Guibert's regulations to validate your comments…what were theses regulations called?

And to think that I am trying to confuse everyone instead of helping them…I know let's help Stalkey and Co with his initial question:

"It seems like he had battalions changing formation by platoons, not divisions."

Kevin can you help him out on his question?

Would you be kind enough to clear up a few questions about Guibert and Steuben…

The columns displaying by platoons and not by divisions, whereas a battalion may wheel by division or platoon, is this a principle that belongs to Guibert…

But Guibert was against an eight faction battalion, with that said did he advocate two or three ranks?

Is Guibert's column which is formed on the centre, is it formed in the same manner as Steuben's column?

(To make this clear and to not confuse anyone, we are not referring to the column formed on the centre that is found in le reglement de 1791)…

Does Guibert advocate a march in line with an execution of fire while advancing as Steuben does?

Who advocates a column executing a fire while advancing?

I really don't expect you to answer these questions…that would be ludicrous

you have a good day

Thanks very much for proving my point.

G'Day Gents,

Historygamer: you are partially correct when you said that a division was used for the execution for fire.

DIVISIONS of a battalion are several platoons into which a regiment or battalion is divided, either in marching or firing; each of which is commanded by an officer. Although division is generally understood to express a portion of a body of troops by companies or platoons, yet it is always applied to whatever part of a body of troops at that time compose the front of a column; for extending in mass, the division is also designated as the base for all deployment into line. Of firing; firing advancing is executed by divisions which is the tactics of order, disposition, evolution, and movement.

With the march of columns; wheeling in open column of division is permitted, but a close column of divisions is not permitted with a change of position and direction of march, whereas it is permitted with a close column of platoons. It is not until 1807 that the Austrians developed a more efficient way to perform both a change of position and of direction in the march for a close column

We find that in Steuben's Regulations; that a column displays either on the parallelogram route as a close column executing en tiroir, or open column using the hypotenuse route.

An open column refers to a march in column at entire distance, and Steuben's close column is not an action column.

All military aggregation formations are found in four groups:

1) Administrative formation
2) Formation indispensable to a Mass
3) Mass (collective body of troops)
4) Tactical formation

1) Administrative formation:
Battalion
Company
Brigade
Squad
Regiment
Platoon-Section

2) Formation indispensable to a Mass (collective body of troops):
Battle Line
Battalion
Company
Brigade
Regiment
Division
Half of a Regiment or employed on detachment
Regimental Staff

3) Mass (collective body of troops):
Battalion
Militia
Company
Brigade
Regiment
Half of a Regiment or employed on detachment
Skirmishers-soldiers/riflemen

4) Tactical formation:
Wing
Battle Line
Battalion
Army
Corps
Half of a Regiment or employed on detachment
Division
File
Platoon-Section
Skirmisher-soldier/rifleman

a. sub category – Indispensable to a tactical mass under certain circumstances, which then makes it a tactical formation.

O- Company: (example) detached from battalion, grenadier company, light company, scouts, etc.

b. Tactical Units of a Battalion (fractured):

O- Battalion consisting of more than one hundred and sixty files, Regiment forms 2 Battalions in 16 fractured platoons

c. Tactical unit for subdivisions (fractured):

O- Wing-division
O- Platoon

Hope this helps

Best Regards
Art

G'Day Gents,

Has anyone seen the drill for the militias of the provinces of Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut and Rhode Island which were instructed in the tactics of the Norfolk militia of 1759.

The Norfolk tactics was the drill of the old training of bands and in them, one finds for the last time the manual cf the halberd and pike.

I have the plans and discipline of 1759…just wondering what sections were used, because the Plates are very good.

Perhaps this is the wrong topic board to as this question.

Best Regards
Art