Dispatches
Letters to the Editor
by the readers
 |
Letters on: Prussians; Quality Thoughts; WWII Battedress; Tirailleurs Corses; Secomer reviews; Record Straight; British Columns and Russian grenadiers; Well Done and Can You Help With me Prussians? Dear Sir, Congratulations on the expanded format of issue 10, making room for yet more articles. Can any of your readers help me out with some `uniforminfo'. I am trying to build up a 6mm Prussian Army for the 1815 campaign but I can't find any information in any of my sources on the 28th and 29th infantry regiments in the 2nd and 3rd brigades of the 1st Corps. Also I need information Freiwillian Jager companies and squadrons attached to some infantry and cavalry regements. During combat did they fight along side their regiment or were they used as skirmishers. Any information would be very much appreciated. Letter to Editor Responses (FE12) Quality Thoughts in General Dear Mr Watkins, Although I have been buying First Empire at shows since issue one, this is the first time I've written in. I suppose this might have been prompted by the new plush finish but it is more likely down to the outstanding contents of issue 10 and a build up of comments from previous issues. So, in the spirit of reader feedback, here are some thoughts. The general idea of a specialist magazine such as yours is a good one and as a devotee it is always good to read anything of quality on the Napoleonic period, or indeed the related horse and musket era. Where I disagree with editorial policy is on the lack of pictures, which not only serve to inspire me to greater heights in painting standards but which also convey a lot of the atmosphere for the period concerned. What is the essence of Napoleonics if not the uniforms, colour and glory? The same reasons ACW gamers insist on Zouaves, Lancers and Sharpshooter units instead of boring blue and grey. I fully understand your stance on this matter, but would personally prefer some photography of the best figures and some quality uniform plates. I accept the general observation on specialist magazines concentrating on obscure and often irrelevant details. It is for this reason that I am dissuaded from reading Napoleonic Notes & Queries, the Napoleonic Association journals. They tend to encourage such esoterica and offer me little as a result. This is not to say I won't thoroughly enjoy pieces on little known combats or tactical nuances, it is just when the subject matter gets down to bayonet fixings or gaiter buttons we have problems. Nevertheless, it is all to easy to lapse into such articles and it is a mark of First Empires editorial strength that they are weeded out. Another magazine that partly avoids this by discussing broad topics or revising old theories is Empires, Eagles & Lions. I don't rate the magazine as highly as some as it tends to be irregular, a little scholarly and sterile, but the discussions of the various elements of Napoleonic history using recent research and a fresh viewpoint make for fascinating reading. This trend is all the more surprising when there must be plenty of relatively mainstream areas that are not accessible (out of print usually or confined to learned journals) or subjects that have received scant coverage thus far. For instance, I think of the Egyptian Campaigns that are finally getting some column inches, Wellington in India (nothing much apart from Weller) and, most useful of all for the gamer, articles on command, combat in woods, line vs column, cavalry vs infantry and the state of play on the role of the French infantry - all skirmishes or not? I believe all these have been covered in the past, but where do we read about it now? My Napoleonic library is not a small one, but these areas are sparsely covered. If you are rightly considering articles geared to beginners, this sort of coverage might be worked in to give the more experienced reader some value (and no little controversy as a result I'm sure). So, turning it around, I think you strike a good balance of orders of battle, history and figures but what about some wider topics that would perhaps generate some interesting feedback? Personally, in addition to the history mentioned above, I would like to see more figure reviews, in-depth coverage of new rule sets, perhaps discussion on rule systems and a continuation of the excellent articles in the earlier issues hinting at whether any of the rules currently available are historical (I believe they all fall way short in one way or another) and recreate the workings of a Napoleonic battle any better than Charles Grant or Don Featherstone did. Or is the understandable truth that a larger proportion of gamers simply want to get their beautiful figures and terrain out on the table and have at it, with scant regard for history? I feel there is more in this than the hobby would readily acknowledge. Having been away from figure gaming for a few years, little had changed when I came back. Sure, Wargames Development are out there and there is the occasional glimmer of hope, but there has been no quantum leap in systems for ten, fifteen and in some respects twenty years. But don't get me wrong, I'm not sniping, I'm simply keen to push things on and bring the subject into the nineties. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than positive people like yourself going out and doing something constructive. Whether it be a magazine, an article, a set of rules, a painting tip, an idea for a combat system or even a letter (a good one line suggestion can be worth far more than pages of space filling articles) almost everyone has something to contribute. I have enjoyed the Games Workshop debates and have some sympathy with the response this issue. GW are an impressive outfit and have cracked captive marketing in a big way. It is no use the "affected" hobbies (figures, boardgaming, postal gaming, non-GW roleplay) whining when a ready supply of recruits from the GW empire doesn't appear to bolster their falling numbers. Most won't come across and the few that do will only materialise if there is something special on offer. At the moment, I am not sure there is to much to tempt them, which is why local clubs, the burgeoning and generally excellent show circuit, high profile magazines in WH Smiths and a solid beginners policy is vital. If this is the latter with your magazine I think it a considered move and one likely to bring rewards. I also hope the new National Association has someone competent on this, or we could be attending shows full of geriatric gamers. On the subject of American rulesets with big price tags, glossy covers, lots of pictures and even boxes, it strikes me as sad that a substantial number of buyers seem to be mistaking this approach as a great step forward in gaming. I have nothing against improving the standards of presentation; virtually all of the UK companies could learn a lot from the likes of the Empire boys. I grant you that the rules are far more appealing on the shelf and if you can stomach the price you will feel good about buying them, but when you analyse the content, there is very little new or worthwhile. Paying £ 12-£ 22 for one new rules concept (eg. attack waves) is a bit steep. In many cases, the rules are actually very poor. Is this a case of the Emperors New Clothes? On gaming with a grid, mentioned in the letter column, there is a set of rules by CJ Lane (I would be happy to provide details to the writer) [Ed. See review in issue 3 First Empire] which is specially geared to a hex grid and has some strong ideas as well as some pretty odd ones, although it is no more idiosyncratic than most self published efforts. It also features a sequel play (sic) over which we shall draw a veil. At this stage, grid systems probably have as many problems as benefits but they could easily be moved on and, more importantly, the grid needn't be all that obvious - perhaps it could be merged into the scenery, many of us seem to use a grid anyway in the form of terrain squares. My view is that gridded games can solve a lot of perennial problems of miniature gaming (overlaps, movement and range measurement, "nudging" figures, the miraculous halt of troops 5mm outside of rifle range and so on) but then as a boardgamer of long standing, this may be a biased view point. The figure pictures are a good idea for those that can't get to shows or see samples, but I feel they need to be sharper and the figures fill out the boxes a little bit more. I thought the Austerlitz PBM review was the weakest part of the issue. It told us hardly anything about the game and why the reviewer liked it. More important, it didn't mention the costs of playing which I suspect are horrendous. Could we have more analysis and in depth features on such things? These items are of interest but not so much if you have a go and do the investigation yourself. The Russian pronunciation piece was inspired and very useful - could we have the same again for the French please? Even the French speakers of my acquaintance have trouble with Grouchy, Murat, Soult, Bernadotte and Lefebvre-Desnouettes, let alone the average gamer. So having gone on at length, I suppose I'd better bring to a close. If I have it within me, I'd be willing to contribute occasional reviews of boardgames, figures, scenery, rules, computer rules, magazines, books or pretty much anything that will fit. On disk of course. Please let me know if I can help. Many thanks for a great magazine and I hope it carries on in such style. Editor. We have now installed a system that should eventually enable us to reproduce `in house' colour uniform plates (once I've learned how to use it!), so that should placate the colour starved masses! As for review material, always welcome, come one come all! WWII Battle Dress Dear Dave, Touched by Pat Connor's plea in First Empire 10 I recommend Humbrol Enamel matt 26 as a good colour for British Battledress in the 1939-40 period. I would remark that these early versions of battledress showed no buttons as all the pockets had flaps and the blouse had an overlap. Shades did vary and one had to be careful when drawing battledress from the QM that the top and bottom matched. The service dress (tunic, trousers and puttees) which some troops wore were slightly greener in colour, though still a very obvious khaki. Puttees were of a darker shade. For further details I would suggest that Pat gets hold of some of the postcards printed by Gale & Polden Ltd. The Wellington Press, Aldershot, Hants. or contacts the National Army Museum, Royal Hospital Road, Chelsea, London. SW3 4HT (071-730 0717) who also sell a range of cards which cover the period. A Corses Correction Dear Sir, Could you please publish the following corrections (FE10) in the next issue of First Empire. Gremlins appear to have entered my mind, and not only can I find no reference for the voltigeurs of the Tirailleurs Corses sporting a green crescent on their epaulets, nor can I think why I attributed this feature to them. Also it should be noted that the facing colour is also found on the lapels of the later uniform. The possibility of yellow crescents (on the Tirailleurs' uniform) however, remains, and should also include yellow shoulder straps on the epaulet. I would be obliged if you could print this and extend my apologies to anyone who has had to reach, cursing for the paint brush. I feel that I must comment on some of the points raised in the dispatches column and in some of the articles. First, I must take issue with John Cook over the 1791 Reglement. If we start excluding drill books, merely because they were issued prior to 1792, then we will be reduced to the ridiculous. If such a course were taken, we would be forced to exclude not merely the 1791 Reglement but also Dundas which was used (with modifications) well into the Nineteenth Century and last but not least; the 1769 Lacy Reglement. However, that being said, I entirely approve of relevant articles on the mid-eighteenth century (I refuse to call this period the Seven Years' War, my troops are painted up for the war of Austrian Succession). I suspect many others rejoice to hear that one of your readers is attempting to use the correct tactics with his British Napoleonic forces. It is good to note that someone out there is not just using uncritically Oman and Fortescue, but going out and doing some research. It is with a degree of confusion and exasperation that I read the article on pronunciation of Russian names. While this well intentioned attempt at dealing with the very real problem of wargamers' pronunciation of foreign names. I showed this article to my father who has lectured in Russian for many years, and after the incipient apoplexy had disappeared, he pronounced, and I am indebted to him for all information on this matter. Part of the problem may lie in the romanisation into French or German and the subsequent further mangling when printed in the Anschluss publication or in this August journal; which may explain the odd syllable which appears to have gone A.W.O.L. It is clear, however, that Ludmila Shatsillo has made a valiant attempt to convey the pronunciation to her interlocutor. The same can not be said for Ian Barstow's attempts to render this into a pronunciation guide. Finally to end on a more positive note I must congratulate the Editor on having recruited Jack Gill as a contributor, as I am enjoying his book on the Confederation of the Rhine troops in 1809. The "mugshots" of figures are helpful in deciding what to buy. But enough! I am away to attempt the masochistic solo scenario. Editor. With much trepidation I took issue on your behalf with the mighty Ludmila. I am assured in the most vicious terms possible, (Readers please note that you never mess with short Mothers of the Revolution!), that all is correct here. Ludmila being a student of Napoleonic Russian History is familiar with every Russian name that appears in that particular order of battle. Admittedly that if you follow the pronunciation guide you will have a pronounced Khazan accent, but Russian it is! Now if I can get Ludmila to release my ear on with the letters...ow! Letter to Editor Response (FE12) On Secomers Success Dear Dave, After reading your review in First Empire issue No 9 I wrote off to Secomer editions for "Auerstadt 1806" and "Hanau 1813". It was good of them to send them as 10FF is clearly the post and packing only for inside France. Auerstadt 1806 starts of with accounts of the Prussian court's drift towards war, the options open to both armies and their initial manouvres. I could have done at this point with a larger scale map of this exact area, rather than the map of all Prussia on page 50. There follows a detailed account of the battle, a discussion of the composition of both armies, the orders of battle and tables giving the distinctive colours of the units in both armies. The remaining maps are good and include four sketch maps from the Mussee de l'Armee's collection in Paris. These show the units of both sides at successive stages of battle. There are numerous illustrations, mainly again from the Musee de l'Armees, in black and white of uniforms. A number of I presume original coloured illustrations show various incidents from the battle. This will be a useful addition to my collection of books on Napoleonic warfare, but it was expensive. At the present rate of exchange and allowing for bank charges on a Eurocheque, it cost £ 11 for a 60 page booklet and it might have been £ 12 if I had paid the correct postage. If one has a good grounding in the basics of French, then what our needs to cope with tests of this complexity are a good dictionary, time and, especially perseverance. A lecturer in modern languages has recommended to me the Robert French dictionary which comes in a paper-back one way edition and is easily handled. Where a wargamer with reading, painting and playing gets time I don't know! A short spell, even half an hour, every day is better than an evenings struggle. I have found keeping a vocabulary notebook a problem. In earlier years I have covered sheets of paper with words I have never met again. On the other hand, building up vocabulary is a key task. One has to make a judgment on the probable usefulness of the word in the future. It helps considerably if one can recollect a word in context, e.g. Blucher advancing thro' "brouillard" and "brume" (sic) I should discourage family and friends from expecting to have an interpreter in you, simply because you have been seen poring over a French text. Understanding spoken French and speaking in French are different skills and although being able to read French gives you a good foundation, they have to be specifically practised. there is a question of cost effectiveness here. How often will you have to need the opportunity to listen to and speak French? But if you can read French reasonably fluently you have access when ever you want to a whole new culture and direct access to any more primary sources of our interest in the original language. I have found two useful sources of developing a general familiarity with French. La Vie Outre Manche is a bimonthly magazine available from 8 Skye Close, Maidstone at £ 13.80 a year. It has short articles with a vocabulary and longer articles with a parallel translation, as well as some vocabulary enhancing exercises. Authentik of 27 Westland Square, Dublin produce a more extensive bimonthly pack of learning material which individuals can use but which may, I think, be directed more towards schools and colleges. It costs more and requires long time commitment. Editor. May wee mon cherry, la premier tay Anglais, avec la plume de ma tante. Quite easy this Franglais once you get into it eh? Thanks for the mini-review and the French guide. I'm afraid that I'm still politically of the opinion that if we are in the EEC then its only fair that we all speak and write in English! After all 56 million Brits can't be wrong! We should never have given up the Empire ..... Seriously though, I have been looking into running some form of glossary. You, Duncan, sound like the man for the job. I have a distant recollection that sometime ago a guide to French military terms was published. In fact, rather than lay the onus all upon Duncan, lets throw it out to the readership. Send in your lists of useful French, German and Spanish miltary terms and phrases. These will be compiled and published at a future date. Help a poor `mono-lingual' translator today, otherwise my last attempt at translation `The geurillas put their muskets into the horse...' could change history as we now it! Putting the Record Straight Dear Sir, Having just begun my subscription to First Empire, I wanted to take a moment to respond to a question raised in past issues. In Issues No. 2 and No. 4, some letters were exchanged regarding the participation of the Saxon Zastrow Cuirassiers in the battle of Wagram. Based on the research I conducted for With Eagles of Glory: Napoleon and his German Allies in the 1809 Campaign (Greenhill Books 1992), It seems quite clear that the regiment spent the entire campaign in Saxony and was not present for Wagram or any other battle in the Danube valley. Paraphrased from Eagles, the following summarises my conclusions regarding the regiment's activities during the 1809 campaign. The saga of the Zastrow Cuirassiers is confusing. The regiment was evidently garrisoned in Danzig and assigned to General Ludwig Von Dyherrn's command in Poland in late 1808 or early 1809; it returned to Saxony in March/April 1809. Upon its return, the bulk of the regiment seems to have been in the area of Leipzig. Most of the troopers apparently languished around Leipzig without horses as a result of ill will and inefficiency, but one mounted squadron and a detachment served with Oberst Johann Von Thielmann (who commanded the Saxon home defence forces) through April and May. Another squadron (not under Thielmann's command) also remained mounted and ineffectually pursued Schill's raiders from Wittenberg in early May. Thus a large portion of the regiment seems to have been temporarily inactive from April through May, and it was June before all four squadrons were on the field. Summary of estimated dispositions: from late April till early May, one mounted squadron and one detachment with Thielmann, one mounted squadron around Leipzig, the remainder inactive (reorganising, troopers awaiting horses, horses awaiting troopers, generally a bureaucratic Saxon mare's nest); by late May two mounted squadrons with Thielmann, no other mounted elements available; by mid-June four mounted squadrons with Thielmann. Hoping these notes are helpful and looking forward to the next issue. Editor. Nice to print a letter from my kind of author. Weak at the knees I am, my hero! If you haven't bought Jack's excellent `With Eagles to Glory', get out there and do it now! The British Columns and Russian Grenadiers Dear Dave, Congratulations on the all new look all-singing, all-dancing First Empire, a giant leap forward and well worth every penny. I was delighted to see John Gill's excellent article on Raszyn, It still surprises me how many aspects of the 1809 campaign remain overlooked, at least in the English language. How about something on the fighting in north-west Germany next? John Cook's information on the Bavarian National Guard was fascinating, and very welcome as Osprey's book barely mentions them. Also in the letter, Mr. G. Palmer raises a thorny question, which I'd like to offer some opinions on. Personally I have never come across any mention of British troops attacking in column after the French manner. However, British commanders were certainly not ignorant of the benefits of column formations with regard to the mobility of the infantry on the battlefield. In his description of the allied deployment at Waterloo William Siborne makes several references to battalions being drawn up in open columns at deploying distances. This formation would appear to have been the standard British Battlefield column formation and consisted of each company drawn up in line one behind the other, usually with the Grenadier company leading. The distances between companies were enough so that if each were to make a leftwards wheel pivoting on the man at the end, the normal two deep line would result. as the editor rightly pointed out most British victories were won from a defensive posture, usually attacked head on by the French, Albuera and Fuentes de Onero being the best known exceptions. Excluding assaults on fortifications, when the British did attack it was either opportunist (Salamanca), a flanking manoeuvre (Vitoria) or a counter attack at the end of a hard slog (Albuera, Quatre Bras). At Quatre Bras the guards attacked through Bossau wood, emerging on Ney's left and forcing a French retreat, so doesn't warrant further mention in this context. The two most useful from Mr Palmer's point of view are probably Albuera and Salamanca. At the former, when Cole deployed his division he must have had the destruction of Colborne's Brigade uppermost in his mind. To protect his flanks troops were deployed in column on the end of the line, and further protection was added by the British Cavalry and horse artillery on the right rear of the division. At Salamanca, Pakenham's 3rd Division was in open columns, protected by cavalry, for it's march across the front of Thamiere's Division of the Armee de Portugal. When the leading companies reached the French left the order "left form" was given and the attack was delivered in line. From the ridge 5th and 4th Divisions attacked in line. Maucure's Division (5th Divisions target) had formed squares which made the British task easier. Mr. Palmer mentions the vulnerability of the line and indeed the 4th Division was in danger of being rolled up when it's left flank (Pack's Portuguese Brigade) was repulsed in an attack on the greater Arapil. Mr. Palmers problem would appear to be the perennial war game dilemma, a suitable scenario. Attacking in line across a table head on against a Napoleonic army is a recipe for disaster, such a tactic is possible in the days of Marlborough when infantry firepower is less due to a more lengthy loading drill. artillery is immobile by Napoleonic standards and moves more slowly. By the seven years war period, frontal attacks are to costly and most battles consist of one army manoeuvring to attack the enemy flank eg. Leuthen. By the way a battalion in line is not as half as vulnerable to cavalry as most rule sets imply. During the 18th century the forming of squares was generally restricted to units on the very end of the line, and then only if their supporting cavalry wing had been driven off. At Minden in 1759 6 British and 2 Hanoverian battalions formed in line easily repelled the attentions of over 60 squadrons of French cavalry. In wargame terms British armies should therefore be allowed columns of manoeuvre which would move at the speed of a column of attack and be allowed to redeploy speedily, but have the firepower of march columns. To be able to pursue when cavalry isn't available requires an assault on the historical inaccuracy on two points of most (if not all) rule sets. These are, that it is not allowed to split individual companies off from battalions (except light and sometimes Grenadiers) and also that line (as opposed to light) Infantry may not adopt skirmishing formations. John Gill's article in issue 10 confirms that both could and did occur, as further reading. One of the most popular paper sets. Richard Butler's "To the sound of the guns" gives skirmishes a normal move equal to that of routing infantry and further specifies that routers may not rally if any enemy are in charge range. The answer then must be to do as battalion commanders probably did and send out two or three companies to skirmish after a beaten foe. In the above rules a unit that fails to rally in three turns is dispersed and removed. The use of melee modifiers in favour of columns over line is another problem, and implies a crossing of bayonets which in reality was very rare. Most attacks were either stopped dead by volley fire demolishing the leading ranks and then driven off by a limited bayonet charge whilst the attackers were still reeling (heavy artillery fire could also break up assaults of course), or, if the defenders fire failed to break the enemy resolve the it was usually they who fled. The problem with the morale rules in many sets (not just Napoleonic) is that the casualties inflicted assume equal or greater importance than the cohesion of the troops in all situations. When a defender attempts to stop a charging enemy this is fair enough, yet if musketry fails to stop a morale charge there is no penalty on the firers and a melee results in which a column always has the advantage over line regardless of who is charging, a mechanism based on more ancient and renaissance experience I would suggest. As to columns moving faster than lines, I have never understood this; After all in theory the troops would move at the same pace regardless of formation. The big advantage of the column was it was less likely to fall into disorder (requiring a halt to dress ranks) over broken ground. The myth of turbo-charged French columns is a misunderstanding of the evidence. The French did not move faster than their foes, but their drill was more streamlined enabling them to carry out evolutions more rapidly, rather as Frederick's Prussians had been enabled fifty years before. Perhaps it would be an idea to have a unified movement rate, but with a variable percentage modifier (according to terrain). For lines to represent a breakdown of order, with a consequent move penalty for failure. Finally I have been enjoying Geert Von Uythoven's 1799 series, and have a query on the Russian army of the period. During the reign of, shall we say the unstable, Tsar Paul, the Russian Infantry were known by the names of their commanders. Assuming the well known facing colours of the 1805 period to have been the same during the Regiment's previous incarnations can anybody put names to identify with the familiar provincial titles, at least for those formations involved in the campaigns in Holland, Switzerland and Lombardy? Secondly given Paul's fixation with Frederick is it reasonable to assume that the combined Grenadier battalions were known by their commander's name, and if so can someone put names and make-up (ie what regiments involved) to those formations? Thirdly were Jager Regiments known by name or number at this time, and are the pre-1807 facings in Osprey MAA 185 correct for 1799? Finally can anyone put a name to the Hussars Regiment in Geert's orbat in issue 10.? Editor. I've no doubt that Geert will try to get back to you on this one. However, anyone else got the info required. On the subject of columns, I am of the opinion that the British, used correct 18th C. tactics and were the only nation of the time prepared to use, and capable of doing so. That is to say when necessary, the British would manoeuvre in column about the battlefield and then deploy into line. The French manoeuvred and attacked in column as they lacked the training and rigid discipline to do otherwise. The Germans and Russians initially did not have the required officers capable of timing such manoeuvres correctly and eventually were reduced to imitating the French Infantry methods. I appreciate that there is a lot more to it than this, but I am addressing this problem superficial in the wargaming context rather than the true historical, and space precludes further expansion. Let's have more opinions and comment. Letter to Editor Response (FE12)
Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #11 Back to First Empire List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1992 by First Empire. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com |