"Luis XIV's Dragons on foot: 3 ranks vs 4 ranks. HELP" Topic

Dear all
here again with a problem. I am going to represents the 30 Squadrons of French Dragoons at the Battle of Turin in 1706 that fought on foot (this is sure 100%);

They had reduced numbers, due to the losses suffered in the previous siege of 3 months, were these units were largely used and due to the fact that around 8-10% of men reamined behind to keep horses safe.

All the TMP topic agree on the fact that
1) French dragoons were the commonest between these units in Europe to fight on foot (as opposed to England for instance)
2) They fought like normal Infantry units
3) hence they had and fought with bayonets.

Till here all ok
The problem is if they fought on 4 ranks as French Infantry of the epoch or on 3 ranks.

Here the representation of a squadron in the 2 different arrays:

My doubt arises from the fact that a squadron had around less than 100 men, so even 3 squadrons (1 regiment) had around less than 300 men and to array them in 4 ranks would have meant 70 men per rank while an infantry battalion could array a much wider front.

Do you have any idea/documents/ to help me to solve it?

sorry my mistake on the XIX Century board

I don't think the number of ranks was quite as rigid as wargamers think. There are instances of 3 ranks being used when the unit(s) needed to cover a particular front or to appear stronger than they were.

Sadly I can't give you a reference to those events, I tend to pick up stuff as I read and retain it but very rarely remember where it came from.

@Gildas I think you are right about the possibility of extending the front.
Let's see other comments.
thanks

IMHO it doesent really matter for most wargamers since of you dont do all units 1:1 your unitdepth will be to big in ratio to its front

Manpower shortages were often taken from the ranks, not the files, so reducing the unit to three ranks would be the logical outcome of campaign attrition

Dragoons of the WSS period were used to patrol the area around the main army body. Ride ahead to control key transit passages, disrupt enemy scouting, block enemy probes, secure food and sup[plies, act as a gendarmerie force on occasion, and then act as fill in formations on the battle line while not mounted. That how we use them in our campaign and tabletop battles. But most of the time they stood behind or within their main army cavalry lines and joined in the success or defeat just like the normal cavalry regiments.

For dismounted battlefield formations, their depth of ranks would, as mentioned be strongly based on the frontage required to cover. So three or four ranks becomes a secondary issue. Having looked at many battles which entrenchments were present, the formations behind these entrenchments rarely needed to be formed in standard rank depth. Rank depth could drop to a single rank on occasion simply because the officers only had to control the men to remain behind the earthen position. Having ranks just kept the firepower rate up with "rank rotation" movement. Kneeling soldiers cannot fire behind a wall, soldiers standing behind others cannot fire, so why stand still or remain kneeling when the unit can just extend frontage for all to perform (fire). Soldiers defending fortress walls never formed several ranks…. only took one rank to control the fortress wall plus massively reduce the losses from enemy artillery fire during a siege.

Turin 1706 is one of those battles…. French entrenched so the French infantry and dragoons followed typical custom and "thinned" the ranks to three or less on occasion or frontage coverage. Only at point of the actual enemy assault would a French battalion maybe form the additional rank, but why? Three ranks would hold as well as four or five ranks… with better firepower.

Lastly, the dismount training for French dragoons…..totally at the whim of the colonel. Dragoons want to move about quickly…. raiding, looting, ride to and dismount for the win. I doubt they even marched or fought in the classical French four-five rank formations of the period. A "looser" less depth rank formation would perform the job or task for the dragoons apart from actual skirmishing. This would carry over to defending a linear entrenchment position as reading up on the French battalion formation manual on the day of day isn't in the cards or Dragoon regiment colonel's mind.

Wargamerabbit is right; French dragoons are mentioned as 'skirmishing' more often than other nations. He may also be right in that it was because of their role as scouting cavalry that made them behave in that way.

Allied dragoons did plenty of the same tasks as you describe but it doesn't seem to have encouraged their deployment on foot as often as the French. Any thoughts on why ?

Having said that there are battles where they were dismounted in a more 'formal' role and I was assuming (possibly incorrectly) that it was that role the OP was referring to.

Thanks all!
I think you convinced me :-). As told, I am only interested in the Battle of Turin that I am trying to reproduce at 1:1 ratio, at least the part of the Battle that took place around the castle of Lucento (still existing even though in between factories).
I agree with the usual tasks of Dragoons, but that day (6th September 1706) 30 French Dragoons squadrons dismounted and fought around and in the Castle of Lucento.
I visited it (I live in Turin!) and I've gotten somehow an idea how it went that day.
So I reproduced this map, based on the real status of the Castle today and on original maps dating back to 1750 (plus a second hand book concerning the castle);
the result is:

where you can easly see the actual position/array of the Dragoons that day that fought inside the buildings surronding the castle, together with French Infantry

link

Considering your precious and appreciated comments, I think I will "turn" my papersoldiers from 4 ranks to 3 ranks deep, in a quite easy way (they are not glued but simply held by a magnet) and it will the object of next topic on my blog and I will add here some pictures of the "turning".

Paperbattles…there's plenty of maps from the 1706 siege here: link
From the collection of George III (UK)

WOW WOW WOW thanks a lot bobm1959… really very interesting… I will have a very deep look at them!
GRAZIE!

…and this site might prove useful:
spanishsuccession.nl

thanks.. this I knew.. also have a look on kronoskaf. For the site I took care of the Piedmontese Army (Infantry and Cavalry) and the Spanish Dragoons

as said:
4 ranks formation (ratio 1:1 – 35 cm)

vs
3 ranks formation

53 cm wide