"Close order columns" Topic

Based mostly on research I did twenty plus years ago and therefore no longer have the references for there is a table below for when armies first started to use close order columns and thus to approach the enemy in column. This being the ‘new' way replacing open columns which had no fighting value and thus units formed line at ~ 1000 yards from the enemy [so off table in wargames terms].
Does anyone have any sources that would disagree with this list, if so please let me know.

Army Date adopting close columns
French pre 1805
Austrian 1808/9
Prussian ~ 1810 definitely pre 1812
Russian ~ 1810 definitely pre 1812
Saxony 1810
Poland 1807
Minor German States ~ 1807
Britain Never
Portugal Never
Spain Never

I have always taken "close" or "open" formation in English to refer to the lateral separation (in width) of men : men deployed in a line of battle are in close order, men out skirmishing are in open order. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I think the question is about the use of "closed" columns, i.e. columns with little or no vertical separation (in depth) between the ranks or the sub-elements. If "yes" …..

For Russians : before 1805

The Russians had closed battalion columns on "half-division" (i.e. 2 platoons) frontage formed on the left or right flank, as a battle formation as well as for movement by 1763, although this may have been thought of as a formation mostly for use against cavalry. However, use against infantry was not unknown (example : Rumyantsev at Colberg in 1761).
See : Пехотной строевой уставъ 1763 г.
link

Kutuzov seems to still be in line with this concept 20 years later, but now envisages columns on the frontage of a division, half-division, platoon and 4-files, and formation on the right, center or left.
See: Примечания о пехотной службе вообще и о егерской особенно 1786 г.
link

Bt 1797, all of the variations are being taught, including closed, half-distance and full distance spacing – and no longer associated with actions against cavalry …. which was good since Suvarov was using various columns quite happily against all kinds of opponents.
See : Воинский устав о полевой пехотной службе 1797 г.
prlib.ru/item/324779
For a short overview on Suvarov, see Lubomir Grigorievich Beskrovny's "Тактика Суворова: исторический очерк"
link

As standard battle formations for shock combat, Kutuzov orders most formed units into closed or half-distance columns on division frontage (still 2 platoons – the idea of a "division" had changed) formed on the center. The half-distance column on division frontage formed on the center is the same as the French colonne d'attaque.
See : Документы штаба М.И. Кутузова 1805-1806 гг.
books.reenactor.ru/?bookid=4405

By 1805-1806, there were a general, broad discussion among Russian officers of use the above columns and more complex columns in various situations. These were summarized by Lieutenant-Colonel of the General Staff Alexander Illych Khatov in a "General Essay on Tactics"
see : Общий опыт Тактики: Содежащая в себѣ началную тактику 1807 г.
link

Michman, Many thanks for this. Yes I am talking about what you called closed columns so if I could read Russian this would all be invaluable. Since I can't I'll rely on you, so it appears we need to allow the Russians to use columns from 1805 onwards.

Austrians: according to David Hollins, closed columns are included in the 1769 Regulations (Austrian Grenadiers and Infantry 1788-1816, Osprey).

According to R. Goetz (Austerlitz), Austrians and Russians used columns at Austerlitz (infantry units, not the large formations called 'Columns')

British (and Portuguese): according to Philip Haythornthwaite, they used 'close columns' (British Napoleonic Infantry Tactics, Osprey).

Spanish: they used a translation from the 1791 French Regulations that included columns, so…
If you want to know whether columns were actually used (in battle) you should look for Spanish primary and secondary sources.

Full distance Columns are ones where the distance between successive sub-units (eg companies) was the same as their frontage.

Columns could also be formed at half distance, quarter distance or close. A close column only has one pace between successive companies.

In the early 18th century everyone used full distance columns but during the 7 Years War, the Prussians adopted their "secret weapon" of operating in close columns and forming lines by deploying on their front by "en tiroir" drills.

By the late 18th century everyone else copied them and both the French 1791 Regulations and British 1792 Regulations contained drills for Half Distance, Quarter Distance and Close Columns. The normal British Formation was Quarter Distance Columns (so 2 rank companies could form 4 rank squares) whilst the French preferred half distance columns (so 3 rank lines formed 3 rank squares), both within 20 seconds.

Close columns could only form solid squares, which were less mobile.

There are articles on my website giving more details:

link

link

Rod

Thanks guys, so much for my old research.

@Rod
I have notes somewhere suggesting that one of the disadvantages of close columns was that it couldn't successfully wheel left or right.
Any thoughts?

What was the rationale for columns initially being so far apart to begin with – or prior to the 7yw like described above, is it known? To be harder for artillery to decimate?

And what of artillery against closed columns, how did they fare?

Closed columns are described in 18th Century tactical treatises and regulations like the French 1769 regs. That doesn't mean they were widely employed though. However, the French blue and red debates of the same time-period often discussed the use of closed columns.

I have notes somewhere suggesting that one of the disadvantages of close columns was that it couldn't successfully wheel left or right.

Hi Allan: If that was true, is that a situation for the 18th Century armies, or for the formation in general? I would think that if closed columns couldn't wheel/maneuver, that would make them rather problematic on the battlefield, and wouldn't help explain their expanded use during the Napoleonic period.

maybe it is meant that they could not wheel like open coumns, like in the procession approach you would wheel and entire front line from open column into a line of battle?

French closed columns had two methods to change the direction. The offcial one from the 1791 regulation:

changement de direction en masse (éc. d. bat. nos. 244 ff.)

The other one, from the Schauenbourg instruction, applied the principles of a change of direction of an open column to the closed column:

link

thanks to Jakub S. of course for those animations.

change of direction is eventually more difficult / takes more time when the formation is cologne serrée because executed "de pied ferme" not in movement. Archiduke Charles did found a new method circa 1809 to change direction in closed column, iirc.

best regards

It's interesting how a lot of the assumptions we held in the 70s:
- the French used columns, the rest used line
- most others changed to column but the Brits held out (because they were better at shooting
- only the French and British were any good at skirmishing

etc etc, are all gradually being overturned, particularly as people have gained access to other documents, in German, Russian etc.

It is interesting in game terms, because if we suddenly allow Austrians, Russians and others to skirmish well, attack in closed columns etc, do we risk no longer accurately reflecting the battles of the period, where innovative French battlefield tactics did play a role in their early victories?

Cheers,
John

i am certainly no expert in tabletop napoleonic wargaming but in my time getting acquainted with rules it seems correct me if i am wrong that there are rules that are simulating historical battles and rules that are for tournament play and more designed for ahistorical gameplay, just pick a team, they all have a balance of pros and cons – ? yes?

i was asking above regarding the history of column formations and why they were further apart to begin with – before the innovation of closed columns, but it got lost in the posts – i am still asking this question

but apart from that, what rules best reflect these historical disadvantages would you say? Empire?

Is this also why it was suggested in some old wargamig book i forget which that the 18th century (pre-napoleonic) is the best for wargaming? where i gather the the armies were all fairly similar, unlike in the napoleonic period which saw alot of transformation over its span?

the assumptions in the 70ties were based on available sources in English, but the discussions went on, foremost already in Empires, Eagles and Lions were those sources were soon prooved to be too oversimplistic, due to digitalisation of books and international platforms new material came up and was in part even translated into English, that all enhanced our understanding of Napoleonic Warfare.

How have we got this far without referencing the 'moving pivot'.

Just finished reading Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars by Alexander and Yurii Zhmodikov they explained a closed column was sub units closer and in a emergency basically could turn out the outer lines or files into a quick square.

I was asking above regarding the history of column formations and why they were further apart to begin with – before the innovation of closed columns, but it got lost in the posts – I am still asking this question.

GeorgB: I am not sure why you believe that close order columns were only used after @1805 and that the British never used them. The British 1792 references battalions in open and closed columns as do the rest of the military treatises and regulations of the European nations at least as early as the 1750s for flintlock-armed infantry.

If it is a question of whether they were used on the Revolutionary and Napoleonic battlefield. Yes, they were. Pick any battle and you will see them referenced. For instance, at Albuera, the 33rd Foot of Colbert's brigade is in closed column. The columns at either end of Harvey's Brigade were in close columns.

Open columns were easier to move, but all the nations used closed columns when they felt closed columns were appropriate.

@Georg Buechner
1) What was the rationale for columns initially being so far apart to begin with – or prior to the 7yw like described above, is it known? To be harder for artillery to decimate?

2) And what of artillery against closed columns, how did they fare?

1) At some point and it now looks like before the SYW the way to get from column to line was to wheel left by division. If the divisions weren't at open spacing you didn't form line. Since you formed column by wheelign divisions from line oyu got open column by default, so apply KISS and don't close up.

2) At while back I did some ballistic maths using Excel for cannon balls from 3-12 pounds out ot 1,000 metres. I had an equation for drag on spheres so I could be a bit more accurate than the basics.
Conclusions a) the difference in weight is near meaningless to trajectory b) There is very little 'dead zone' where your ball flies over troops heads even at 1,000 metres.

Now I might have got my maths completely wrong, but what this suggest is that the answer to your question is non, a battalion in 4 divisions in any sort of column will take 4x casualties of a battalion in line. So now we go back to 'In the 70's we made a lot of assumptions based on limited anglophilic research' and 'competition rules are not about historical wargaming' and depending on our outlook and purpose we move on, or not.

@ Ertzherzog Johann

Did innovative battlefield tactics play a part in Napoleon's victories or was it almost entirely Grand Tactical maneuver using the Corps system. If French battlefield tactics weren't innovative the answer has to be no. In my opinion the tactical advantage the French had [if they had one] was that their formations remained fixed, and were used to operating together.

PS, there are people above clearly using some sort of insert or quote function. If one of you would like to explain it I'd appreciate that.

@Mark

PS, there are people above clearly using some sort of insert or quote function. If one of you would like to explain it I'd appreciate that.

Type the following before your insertion (without any spaces between the characters):
< q >

Type the following after your insertion (without any spaces between the characters):
< / q >

Did innovative battlefield tactics play a part in Napoleon's victories or was it almost entirely Grand Tactical maneuver using the Corps system.

As there is no question mark behind that sentence you answered your non-question.
I would name it divisional system developing into the corps system instead of only "Corps system", but thats miniscule. The French Revolution and the flight of the nobility, followed by almost constant state of war gave rise to highly professional seasoned officers. And Napoleon was good in operational warfare.

Boney was not inovative for Grand Tactics, but very much so on the operational art of war – till 1809. When the forces outgrew his system he failed – as shown from 1812 onwards.

Army Corps did already exist in 1796 – see Moreaus army in 1796 – or maybe even earlier.

Boney tailored his army corps system to suit his operational art of war.

As for Grand Tactics, it was ordre profond against ordre mince, for more on that please read – so yes before the Allies did not take on the ordre profond – there was a difference in Grand tactics (not so much in minor tatcis)

Renard, available in French and German

link

Wasn't the idea of the army corps (re-)*invented by a French marshal (Mortaigne?) in the WotSS era?

* A Roman legion was a constructive corps IMHO.