"Russian and French Columns" Topic

Napoleon's decree of 18th February 1808:

link

The part relevant to this is Article 7.

There's an obvious logic to it: if the battalion has an elite company (or two) missing, it can't form three complete divisions to manoeuvre by.

Thanks to 'Musketballs'
Maybe discuss.
Should the rules always be taken as fact?

Most, if not all armies at the time had a drill for dividing up their battalions into 'equal parts'. Companies were more of an admin entity with platoons being the basic building-block for fighting formations. Certainly in the British Army of the time, on the morning of battle, the adjutant was responsible for splitting the battalion into equal sized platoons to compensate for casualties, absences etc. Theoretically therefore, the absence of a company would not prevent the adoption of a formation albeit on a smaller frontage.

The rules are a model that attempts to simulate history but can never totally match it. When it comes to attempting to do that with miniatures where a single figure represents more than one individual combatant it becomes even more difficult as that figure cannot be subdivided between multiple lines the way the men represented by that figure might be. What we are left with is a need to mount the figures for use in the best way to allow for building the usual fighting formations while still facilitating their use on the table top. Short of mounting each figure on its own base which obviously gives you the most options as to how to arrange them into formations while greatly complicating there use, it follows that mounting them in such a way to make possible the usual combat formations is the most logical thing to do. Empire does this by generally mounting one company per stand except where company sizes are less than 120 in which case one stand of two or three figures may represent two companies.

As to whether there should be different formations for a unit without elite companies, my admittedly limited knowledge indicates that the basic line companies (or the pelotons that formed those companies if you prefer) in French infantry units functioned in the same formations with or without their attendant elite companies. With respect to the light company that's easy to understand since their primary function was skirmishing meaning they would be deployed in front of the main body rather than with it whenever performing that function. The grenadier company was either to the rear of the line companies or deployed to the right of the front line companies – their absence or presence did not require the line companies to change their relative position and manner of maneuver and I'm guessing that for these non-elite companies keeping it simple would be of great benefit. I believe that's what they did.

Basic combat formations were line and column. Going from line to column and the reverse presents no challenges since the elite companies formed the ends of the line (grenadiers to the right, voltigeurs to the left) and the rear of the column. Thus the line companies made the same maneuver changing formations regardless of the presence of the elite companies. The same can be said for changing from road column to attack column and back.

The only common formation that would require adjustment with the absence of the elite companies would be the square where typically each corner was formed by one of the elite pelotons. But with four sides and four line companies, I don't think they would have too much trouble adapting.

Man this continual cringing over rules
>> Empire does this by generally mounting one company per stand except <<

Yes except; hard rule then except… best look at these as 'guides, and if you dont like the result, ignore them.
Rules can be used for any form and number of model soldier bases, regardless- just use your brain.

It is irrelevant to a 'battalion' if some parts are missing- men were detached/ hors de combat/ hospital etc. all the time. Sub-units were not equal (as cited above).

As for elites- Grenadiers didn't even form in the square in pre-Consular times- they often hung off a corner in line. There were '9' companies!

As to why regulations advised the formation to avoid, column of divsions/ attack were 'mixed' pelotons, which seems unduly harsh on the administrative abilities of the officers- or was it simply as an expedient in 'speed' of re-deployment for any occasion?

Either way, gamers can choose to ignore them. If what one battalion does in a corner is deemed 'wrong', what does it matter to the other 15-20 units on the table?

cheers d

Ok point taken.

Maybe forget battalion on battalion match ups and go for attack front frontage against defensive front frontage. The bigger picture. Anyway that's my own new rule.

Exactly Richard!
Doesn't matter if a battery sits between two battalions- they are not a liability, but an enhancement to defensive fire- greatly disuading* a close assault by all but the hardiest of enemy.

*Of course this again depends on a balancing act- does the actual hits, or morale of being under [close] fire matter?
I'm more for the latter- given roundshot/ball the effect is less noticeable; given cannister it can be a show stopper.

It appears the Russians employed licornes as versatile shotguns- massive cannister effects, but contributed shell or shot at longer ranges also (read Yermelev).

As to which column formation infantry may be in- simplified it comes down to march; peloton (company) or attack (wider).
The first -always on roads/ tracks; the second optional cross country narrow frontage, not for fighting either; lastly either option- manoeuvre or close to assault in denser frontage.

The subunits matter not at all… hope I've helped (???)
cheers dave ;-)

Cheers Dave