Dispatches
Letters to the Editor
by the readers
 |
Letters on: Prussians; In Touch; Sharpe; Film Pannings; Columns and Lines; Maida; Letter Response; FE Strengths; Nafziger Response; Waterloo Info Needed; Where to find them Prussians... Dear Sir, I refer to the letter from Mark Ashby published in "First Empire" no.11 and his questions on the Prussian Army of the Napoleonic Wars. May I suggest that Mr. Ashby refer to the following works:
2) "Prussian Line Infantry 1792-1815" 3) "Prussian Reserve, Militia & Irregular Troops 1806-1815" These are all published in the Osprey Men-at-Arms series and are easily available in bookshops and libraries throughout the world and particularly in Britain, and have been in print for the best part of ten years. Trust I have been of some assistance in this matter. More Prussians... Dear Sirs, Like the new format. Now, Mark Ashby's question in issue 11 re Prussian Infantry Regiments 28 and 29 (I Corps 1815). They were in fact two Berg Infantry Regiments incorporated into the Prussian Army in 1814-15. The Uniforms were generally white with red facings. I suggest Mark gets a copy of Osprey's Men at Arms book number 192 "Prussian Reserve, Militia and Irregular Troops 1806-15" in which he can find a coloured picture of a Berg Infantryman and the 1815 Regulation Uniform (the latter not worn during the 1815 Campaign). The White uniforms will stand out among the Prussian Blue on the battlefield. Please note I have read somewhere that these units still used French drill and battle formations. As to the Freiwillian Jagers these were usually young "well off" Volunteers who, to use a British saying "Purchased a set of Colours", and joined usually the better known more fashionable Regiments like the Life Hussars and Life and Colberg Infantry Regiments. Quite what they did in battle I don't know but many of them ended up dead or Landwehr Regiment Officers. Prussian Bergs.... Dear Sir, In First Empire No. 11 a request was made by Mark Ashby for information about the Prussian 28th and 29th infantry regiment. Part of this information can be found in Peter Hofschroers' "Prussian Reserve, Militia & Irregular Troops 1806-15", MAA no.192. However, this information is not very complete. So after searching a little bit longer I found the information asked for in an old volume of Military Modelling (May 1983). This volume contains an article, also from the capable hand of Peter Hofschr"er, about the Berg Troops in Prussian Service 1813-15. Knowing that many readers would be interested in this information they could have some difficulty in getting this volume I will try to give the most important information from this article. After the congress of Vienna three Napoleonic states disappeared: the kingdom of Westphalia and the Grand Duchies of Berg and Frankfurt. Part of Berg, which had formerly been Prussian returned directly to Prussian administration, whilst the remainder formed the "General Government". In March 1815, the Berg troops were mobilised and absorbed into the Prussian army as follows:-
2nd Berg Infantry Regiment became the 29th Infantry Regiment. The hussar regiment became the 11th Hussar Regiment with 1 squadron going to the 5th Uhlans. The foot battery became Foot Battery no.37. The 1/2 horse battery became Horse Battery no.20. Strength of the 28th and 29th Infantry Regiments 15th June 1815:
The uniforms of the Berg contingent were very mixed. Some of the old Berg uniforms were still worn in 1815, which is indicated by a plate from Knotel. Also some new Prussian uniforms had been issued (see MAA no. 192, plate H3). The men wearing the old Berg uniform had the Prussian markings added on their shako (the pompon, clasp and cockade). The facings were blue for the 28th, and red for the 29th. The grey trousers were Prussian. The greatcoat was worn "en bandolier". Berg was now part of the Prussian province of Westphalia, and the new uniform had pink facings. The shoulderstraps indicated the seniority of the regiment within the province and were yellow for the 28th, light blue for the 29th Regiment. I'm hoping to be of some help providing this information. Further there has been a question from Tim Franklin about the name of the Russian infantry regiments. Now here I think we have a serious problem. Let's have a brief look at history: In 1708 the Russian army counted about 50 regiments of line infantry, including 5 of grenadiers. Already this early most of them were known by the name of the province rather than that of their colonel. These names died out totally around 1730. However, on 20 August 1798 Tsar Paul Petrowitsch decreed that all regiments, with the exception of the Life Grenadiers, were known by the names of their commander in chief. In 1807 all regiments received again their old provincial titles. So here's our problem. For a period of about 9 years the regiments were known by the names of their commander. And on this moment I have no further information about the links between the regiments with the name of a commanding officer and regiments with a provincial title. Maybe some other reader can fill this gap? Prussians, British Lines and Religion(!) Dear Sir, In response to the inquiry about the 28th and 29th Prussian infantry regiments, I have done some delving and come up with the following. These troops were formed from Berg troops. They consisted of one grenadier battalion, and one infantry regiment of three battalions, the other consisted of two. By 1815, however, the grenadier battalion had become the first battalion of the 29th regiment. They were supposed to have the standard blue coatee with the appropriate pink facings, but this is largely irrelevant as possibly only the officers wore this rig. The other ranks seem to have worn old Berg uniform until after Waterloo (White habit-veste with sky blue collar, cuffs, lapels and turnbacks). M.A.A. 192 (Prussian Reserve, Militia & Irregular Troops 1806-15 by Peter Hofschroer), in which the details of provenance are to be found, contains a surprising plate (F2) of a Berg grenadier who has red cuffs and collar which is quite frankly odd. Yet it has been included just in case. Details of the numbers involved in the 1815 Campaign can be found in Bowden's "Armies at Waterloo", pages 161-2. It seems that I am not the only person to suffer from gremlins. In the article on the battle of Maida, as someone has no doubt told you, that the unit was surely the 42 Šme Ligne as the LegŠre numbers go on higher than 37. The Chasseur … Cheval regiment present at Maida would appear to be the ninth (see the article on the battle in "The Courier" Vol.1, No.6 May/June 1980). Incidentally it is perhaps worth noting that, at Maida, both sides fought in line. Mark Clayton appears to suggest that Presbyterianism was a comparatively recent development in Scotland. If this is the case, then he is labouring under a misconception. "The Kirk by law established" has been Presbyterian since 1560, despite efforts by the unfortunate house of Stuart to extend their control over it by means of Episcopalian government. (Ed. Eh! [Bemused grimmace]) Tim Franklin raised some interesting points in his letter. While I agree that artillery in the age of Marlborough was, with the exception of regimental pieces, more than a little immobile, the problem with musketry was one of technology (wooden ramrods) rather than one of lengthy drill. Frederick's infantry's advantage lay in their marching in step, and thus not having to make frequent stops for the purpose of dressing. The square seems to have been an arcane parade ground manoeuvre during this period, a known practise at this time was, when faced by hostile cavalry, to turn about the rear rank and let fly both ways. However, to move back to "Lobster" matters, I see that the matter of British columns refuses to go away. The formation certainly exists in "Dundas". Contemporary descriptions of battles are frequently vague if not downright misleading. Yet there is a mention of the 71st at Vitoria which suggests that this battalion attacked in column with skirmishers flung out (and you thought such things only happened in those lurid "Sharpe" novels). Anybody interested in the more conventional column versus line debate would be well advised to read chapter 3 of Paddy Griffith's "Forward into Battle 1981". By way of a coup de grace, it is reported that, at Maida in 1813, a French column defeated a British line by firepower. To turn now to the Russian army of the late eighteenth century, the converged grenadier battalions seem to have resembled the "Stehende Grenadier Bataillonen" of Frederick the Great. They seemed to consist of companies stripped from their parent battalions in their peace time garrisons. So they would not necessarily correspond to the regiments present in that particular theatre. Also there appears to be an absence of evidence as to what constituted such battalions (see "Tradition" No.8 out 1987). They appear to have worn the uniform of their original regiment, some of the details mentioned in the above article (Anybody got a spare No.4?) seem to suggest that the early Alexandrine (spare me the witticisms about poetry) inspection details were constant, but a plate from Viskovatov reproduced in Duffy's "Russia's Military Way to the West" ruled out this mirage. Put me in touch... Dear Dave, Repeated and loud congratulations on the ongoing success of First Empire. The production goes from strength to strength and long may it run! In issue 11 you carried an article entitled One's Own Army by Ralph Henderson which was totally brilliant in that it agreed with everything that I've ever said and done with 6mm Napoleonics. So impressed was I with Ralph's obvious good sense I've decided to write to him and tell him so. As I don't have his Brazilian address (H.M. Last Outpost Sao Paolo) I wonder if I could ask you to ship it off to him. With grateful regards, keep up the good work. Editor. If any reader whishes to correspond directly with another, please send your missive in a stamped envelope, to the First Empire address, (if to foreign parts please remember 18p gets you to Dover!), put your prospective penpals name on the front, and I will address it and post it on. Another Quality service from First Empire..... (Please note addresses are not given out over the phone... we are not a dating agency! There might be more money in it tho....) Vive La Sharpe! Dear Dave, Brilliant! That's the only word which can describe the Sharpe films recently televised on ITV. Although at first I must admit to being a little apprehensive as to what this dramatisation would do for one of my favourite novel heroes, my fears soon proved to be unfounded. With a talented cast, superb script and breath-taking locations, its only a pity two have been made but there is always the possibility that more maybe produced in future, I suppose. I believe the series succeeded in bringing the Napoleonic era to the attention of the masses, though. Merely days after its transmission a friend rushed out to purchase several of Bernard Cornwell's books and a cousin is currently reading those from my own collection indeed, he's even borrowed my prized First Empire back issues! What a great time then to bring out in softback the final novel, Sharpes Devil. Even as I write it is currently residing at number seven in the official book charts. Gino D'Achille's cover illustrations are truly a work of art and in my view would not look out of place on a calender. After all, this has proved highly successful with the Forgotten Realms series hasn't it! Finally, an idea for the magazine which may prove of interest to novices like myself would be the introduction of a new column discussing certain aspects of Napoleonic warfare each issue. Artillery equipment (including how guns would have been loaded and fired etc) and spiking apparatus to disable these cannon could be featured during one issue, for example. What do you think? P.S. I agree with the comments made by Mike Siggins concerning pictures and uniform plates being published in the mag. These would be useful for both painting and historical purposes and after all, isn't a picture supposed to say a thousand words?! (Ed. It also costs a thousand pounds!) Editor. My sources tell me that much haggling is taking place to raise funds to enable more of Sharpe. One can only hope! With regrard to newcomers, Peter Lawson in his Prime Your Pan series should cater to your needs over the coming months, talking of which ....... Prime Your Pan With What? Dear Sir, I'm not a Napoleonic authority and I don't wear Death's Head Insignia and my armchair hasn't got fleas, but I felt Peter Lawson's apathetic and defeatist article is one of the main reasons why the adaptation of historical books to film very rarely works. Yes, as a drama writer, I know that the budget is top of the list when it comes to what can or can't be done. I also know that for film producers the "thing" must look right, rather than "BE" right, even if they are wearing the wrong colour uniforms, misfires don't exist and those firing never miss. But I wonder if it's right to let things stand, to ignore facts for the sake of entertainment. Surely, the more we let things stay as they are, the more we just sit back and accept what we are given, just because it is exciting, the more likely it will always stay that way. I enjoyed watching the films and it made a refreshing change from the usual murder and American way of life dramas that plague our TV sets. But it seems rather a shame to spend ten million pounds on actors, locations and technical advisors etc, and still get things wrong. Perhaps they should have hired an advisor that wasn't so busy? And I don't think it would have been daunting for a viewer to be informed that the French didn't always wear blue and that their army was multinational, especially when we consider that we are constantly being told that television can be educational? I agree that it can, but, as in most war or historical films, the soldiers of one side (the losing side) are generally always portrayed as clumsy oafs, which must surely raise the question of how did such French "oafs" build an Empire? To end the discussion we only have to look at the way the Native American Indians were portrayed in westerns. Until recently they to were portrayed as oafs. As a child I remember arguing and fighting with friends because they didn't believe they were incredible horsemen and warriors and usually won a combat. It didn't happen in the "exciting" programmes on telly, those that had the "FLAVOUR" of the American West. So before we applaud the Napoleonic "FLAVOUR" of the Sharpe films, lets spare a few thoughts to where it might lead. Editor. Following the last line of thought, very probably to persecution of Frenchies everywhere and the collapse of the EEC Empire. As the saying goes "To the victor the spoils...." . Also the men in blue on horses were Polish, admittedly anyone without prior knowledge could not be expected to know this but its multinational! Further I believe we should applaud the "Flavour", `never mind the quality feel the width of the flavour'... kids, large and small, all around the U.K. spent a happy few hours drooling over the spectacle. That drool may turn into a dribble of new enthusiats, you never know. I think we should be grateful for whatever a COMMERCIAL T.V. station deigns to give us. We ain't getting none from nowhere else.... Column and Lines.... Dear Sir, Tim Franklin's letter in Issue 11's "Dispatches" raises some points on which I would like to comment.
Assuming each company had 60 men in two ranks it would have a width of about 25 yards and a depth of about 2 yards. There would have to be 25 yards between each company to allow them to wheel into line facing a flank; the front rank of the last company would therefore be about 240 yards behind the rear rank of the leading company. If the front company halted it would therefore take about 2.5 minutes before the rearmost company caught up with it, and even longer before the rearmost company could take up it's position, which would probably be at the left flank of the line. My point is that, while the battalion in "open column" of companies could swiftly form a line facing either flank it would take 4 to 5 minutes to form a line facing the direction of march. The French "column of attack" was a dense formation of closely packed men, not usually on a frontage of less than two companies or less than three companies deep (see diagram B). This formation, because it is dense, is likely to take heavy casualties if it receives fire. It could form square very quickly, but would probably take as long as a British battalion in open column of companies to form line facing the front, and longer to form line facing either flank. Ideally the movement rules should reflect these different advantages and disadvantages of the British "open" column and the French "close" column. While light companies and Grenadiers were often detached in Marlburian times, the French development of clouds of skirmishes meant that companies were rarely detached from their battalions on a permanent basis in Napoleonic times, not on the battlefield, anyway.
I don't agree with Tim that the advantage given to advancing columns over lines in most Napoleonic rules are intended to reflect a "crossing of bayonets". I think the point is that, as Tim suggests, a line has to stop an advancing column with it's fire or be broken by the sheer weight and mass of the advancing column if it doesn't! The "plus 1" on the morale of an advancing close column is to encourage French players to use this formation, in which they are likely to receive more casualties than if advancing in line, and thus encourage more realistic French tactics and formations, for example "l'ordre mixte". I entirely agree that the morale advantage for close columns should only apply when they are actually advancing, since they have no advantage when stationary! Tim can't understand why columns move faster than lines. If he had ever tried to move across a field in a line with 99 other men (as I have) he would! The problem is that, if the ranks of the formation are more than 60 men wide, the advancing men have to keep glancing to each side to make sure that they are not going faster or slower than their comrades, and the advance takes place at the speed of the slowest. On a parade ground or a level field this doesn't affect the speed of the formation very much. However a battlefield is littered with obstacles, streams, hedges, woods of all shapes and sizes, hillocks, houses, barns, ponds, etc. A line of 200 or 300 men wide moving across a battlefield will inevitably keep bumping into one of these natural obstacles and have to flow around them, probably breaking formation temporarily to do so. It is obstacles which, I suggest, makes lines move more slowly than columns. I'm sure they did, otherwise why didn't all commanders simply move in line most of the time? My own researches suggest that columns moved 50% faster than lines, i.e a ratio of 3 to 2 in favour of the column. This has the advantage of encouraging players to move in column until close to the enemy, which is realistic. If a Napoleonic infantry battalion in line was not vulnerable to cavalry attack from the front, as Tim suggests, then why bother to drill the men into forming squares? I suggest that the terrain and mist or rain frequently hid advancing cavalry from lines until the cavalry were almost upon the infantry, thus reducing the infantry's chance of preparing to meet the attack and increasing the unpleasant surprise! In Napoleonic literature there are many examples of good infantry battalions in line being broken by enemy cavalry, and correspondingly few examples of squares suffering the same fate! Artillery was the threat to squares. Letters to the Editor Response (FE14) Maida Answers and British Column.. Dear Sir, Having read Des Darkin's piece on the battle of Maida, I was sure that I had the answers to some of the questions posed at the end. Some of this information comes from Reynier's own report, dated July 5th 1806, which can be found in The Confidential Correspondence of Napoleon Bonaparte With His Brother Joseph Sometime King Of Spain (volume 1, pp 155-161) and the rest from more varied sources. I'll deal with the easy points first. Reynier says that the cavalry were a part of the 9th Chasseurs, 150 sabres in all. The artillery is a bit more tricky, but he mentions having deployed four pieces of light artillery in his centre, and I suppose these to have been 3pdr or 4pdr guns. I haven't read Fortescue's account of Maida recently, but I think he gives Reynier's artillery contingent as being a single horse battery, which would fit the facts reported by Reynier himself. Reynier says that the British had eight fieldpieces, but Fortescue (I think - I may be doing him an injustice) gives Stuart a total of eleven 4pdr guns, three to each numbered brigade, and two to Kempt's Advance Guard. However, I find this highly dubious, as the 4pdr gun had been withdrawn from service some years before. It seems more likely that they were 3pdr or 6pdr guns that were in service at that time. A quick search of the service records of the Royal Artillery shows that two batteries were present at the Maida, identified as those of Harris (6th company, 6th Battalion) and Buckner (6th company, 8th Battalion). Reynier says that he chose to leave his position and meet with the British because he was worried about the possibility of Calabrian banditti either attacking his rear or joining up with Stuart, whilst he himself could expect no reinforcements for at least twelve days. This being the case, an immediate attack on the British would find him at his strongest and them at their weakest. Reynier also gives a different order of battle, which I give here:
Peyri's Brigade: 4th Swiss & 12 companies of the Polish Infantry Regiment, 1,500 strong Digonnet's Brigade: 23rd Regt., 1,250 strong Franceshi's Brigade: 9th Chasseurs, 150 strong & 4 light guns. Of course, these figures are somewhat dubious, as Generals are not above lying in their dispatches, and the total strength allowed for by Reynier does seem a bit low. Note particularly Peyri's command. Nafziger gives the strength of the Polish Regiment (12 companies from the 2nd & 3rd Battalions) at Maida as 937, allowing for 563 Swiss, enough for one battalion, but a little thin for two. And indeed, Reynier refers to the Swiss throughout as being a battalion. As for the other regiments, I suspect that they each had two battalions present at the battle, in line with the practice of having one depot and two field battalions, though I must admit that I'm not too familiar with the pre-1808 organisations. With the figures Reynier gives this would allow for battalion strengths of around 600, which seems acceptable. I assume that "42nd Legere" is a typo, which needs no further comment. On the point of British infantry columns, I haven't had time recently to consult Dundas himself, but Park & Nafziger's useful study of the British Military says this: "As the soldiers mastered the company drill, they moved on to the more complex battalion formations and manoeuvres. They learned to form square and column. The columns were formed on any division, company, or any other division that was identified in the telling off process. However, the manual assumes that the basic column would be the column of companies." (Park & Nafziger, The British Military, p35) So, the British infantry certainly had the capability to form columns other than the simple column of companies. The question must be, did they do so? Jomini reports an interesting conversation with Wellington at the Congress of Verona (Art of War, pp350-1). Wellington admits that he formed the Hanoverian, Dutch-Belgian and Brunswick troops at Waterloo into battalion columns because he "could not depend upon them so well as the English". The implication is that he certainly could have formed the British/KGL units up into battalion columns, had he so desired, but the circumstances did not warrant it. Unfortunately, Jomini gives no description of the columns as used at Waterloo, so exactly what form they took, I do not know, though I suspect they were formed by company for the Hanoverian Landwehr and by division for the Hanoverian field battalions. As the KGL used what were essentially the same regulations as did the Hanoverians, I presume that they too would have been able to form column by division had they wanted to. All that is lacking is some evidence that they (or the British) ever did so. This all doesn't really get us far forwards, though. I do remember reading a book in the National Library which had quite a lot of information on the posting of troops in line of battle and related subjects, so I'll try and find it again and see what the author has to say on the topic of British columns. Getting it Right.. Dear Dave, I don't quite know what to say to be honest. I have just received First Empire No 11 and read the letter from a Mr Magnus Guild in Edinburgh, in which he attempts to "take issue" with me over something he thinks I said in the previous issue, rather than what I actually said. I though I'd better have another look at my letter in No 10, just to see if there was any ambiguity in it, and can find no possible explanation for his extraordinary interpretation. I really do recommend that he reads my letter properly - all of it this time. When he has done so, perhaps he would be so kind as to identify exactly where I have advocated that "we start excluding drill books", or any other evidence for that matter, "merely because they were issued before 1792". When he has done so, Mr Guild will find that I was not proposing the exclusion of 18th Century evidence, on the contrary! How he came to the conclusion that I was, is inexplicable. More importantly, in the context of Mr Guild's notes on the Tirailleurs Corses, the information he dismisses as apparently "a misinterpretation of scarce and confusing contemporary sources", namely the uniform depicted in Plate C2 Osprey MAA 146, Napoleon's Light Infantry, is nothing of the kind. It is the comparatively well known, and positively documented, (which the brown uniform does not appear to be), dress of the unit worn from its creation to at least mid 1808, and is a faithful copy of a figure in planche 68 (Infanterie Legere - Bataillon de Tirailleurs Corses, Drapeau 1805-1811) from the famous Le Plumet series of plates by Rigo which, together with the accompanying text, uses primary source material in the Archives du Service Historique de l'Armee at Vincennes and the Musee de l'Armee in Paris. To be fair, however, the Osprey gives no hint of the source, a frequent failing of those booklets. Comments such as Mr Guild's, nevertheless, can only be valid where they are substantiated by evidence, rather than "reasonable assumption". Rigo is quite clear "De sa creation au 15 mars 1808 le bataillon est habille de drap bleu distingue de vert" (From its creation to 15th March 1808 the battalion was dressed in blue cloth distiguished in green). The brown uniforms are based, it seems, on only 2 conflicting, and unsubstantiated, sources - L'Alphabet Militaire in the Carnavalet Museum and the Carl Collection. These both describe a brown uniform, but with green and red distinctives respectively, circa 1809. Whilst remaining open minded, Rigo is doubtful about this quoting the clothing returns of 15th March 1808 when the unit was still dressed in blue with green facings. Moving to the pronunciation of Russian names, I can only comment indirectly, as my knowledge of the language is not great. In my previous `incarnation', some 17 years ago now, I volunteered for what was called loan service, with the Sultan of Oman's Armed Forces. There were a number of reasons for this. In the first place I was due a posting anyway and there was a counter insurgency going on in Omans's southern province of Dhofar, which seemed more interesting than soldiering on the North German Plain. In the second, having already done a tour of duty in Northern Ireland, I thought that the possibility of being shot at in a warm and dry clime might be preferable. The real reason was that it entailed learning Arabic, the successful completion of the course attracting a financial award. So, in early 1976 I found myself at the Army School of Languages studying Arabic under 2 lecturers, one an Education Corps officer, the other a Jordanian. In due course I emerged qualified and on my way to foreign parts. On arrival at Seeb International Airport, near Muscat, which consisted principally of a shabby concrete building full of dead flies, I soon realised that the instructions to meet me had not been received by my unit, indeed, it transpired that they had never even heard of me, a situation familiar to anyone who has ever served in The Forces. Never mind, I knew where I had to report, I had taken the precaution of obtaining some Omani money from my local Nat West, that in itself something of an achievement, and I spoke the lingo. I hired the first cab in the rank outside, told the driver the address I wanted, threw my bags in the boot and off we went. It soon became apparent, however, that although I could make myself understood, I actually understood very little of what was being said to me, indeed, my taxi driver might as well have spoken, er, Russian. I later discovered that my lecturers had taught Arabic as it is spoken by educated North African Arabs, not Omani cab drivers, the difference being something like that between biblical English and broad Geordie, or English as it is spoken in, say, Edinburgh perhaps. Finishing in more serious vein, and returning to the subject of First Empire's content. Now that the magazine is no longer directed at the "Napoleonic Wargamer" alone and is advertised as "The International Magazine for the Napoleonic Enthusiast, Historian and Gamer", it seems to me that in order to live up to that claim, nothing pertinent to the period should be excluded, including, in case I have still not made myself clear, relevant 18th Century and, indeed, post Napoleonic 19th Century evidence. Despite an element of the readership which seems resistant to what has been described variously as the esoteric and scholarly, I cannot see how a magazine such as First Empire can fail to have an element of both these attributes. Indeed, I would have thought this essential if it is to be directed seriously at the first 2 groups. My personal view is that a really professionally produced Napoleonic magazine, along the lines of the legendary `Tradition' magazine, is long overdue and counting myself in the first and third groups, I look forward to reading more esoteric and scholarly material from the second. Editor. I am endeavouring to get more of the second and hopefully as time passes they will rise to a more prominent position within the magazine. First Empire, what it is, what will it be? Dear Sir, The magazine is obviously going from strength to strength and I gather from the letters page the contents debate still continues. If I can I would like to stick my oar in (again), I believe that things should generally remain Napoleonic. This is what the mag. is already sold as, so why people expect other periods to be catered for is puzzling. I believe that by "specialising" (for want of a better word) the way is opened for more diverse and interesting features. A publisher once told me that there is almost an irreconcilable difference "between an historical magazine and one that panders to the lower quality generally found in wargames articles." This is the "gamers fault for accepting badly written and researched articles and not whinging! Still, we gamers have better things to do, like wargame!" This statement indicates that both are valid, but I would say that if people put up with lesser articles they will ultimately degenerate into the "sheep herding" type, only in First Empire it would be donkeys in the Peninsula or something. On the other hand, comparisons with earlier periods would be beneficial, particularly the Seven Years War and the American War of Independence, which was not vastly different from the French Revolutionary Wars and saw significant developments in the use of light troops, for example. Anyway, I hope these views are of some help. Feel free to publish them if you wish, but I do not mind if you don't after the patronising letter sent in after my own was printed in issue 2. I've since had a disappointing experience with another Emperor's Press book "Poles and Saxons of the Napoleonic Wars" but I won't list my grievances. Perhaps I just expect too much for my £ 25 (perhaps its my own fault for not researching it myself). Also, as George Nafziger is a regular contributor to First Empire, it is probably best that those views remain unpublished? Captain Nafziger bites back.....A Response to Mr. Partridge I had hoped to maintain a professional silence in response to Mr. Partridge's unjustifiable criticisms of Lutzen and Bautzen (L&B). However, further correspondence obliges me to respond to his highly subjective comments and very personal attack. I will grant Mr.Partridge that the specifics he quoted from my work are based in truth, but this truth is a selective truth that magnifies a few minuscule and insignificant problems into something far beyond its real significance. Mr. Partridge's logic is, "He sneezed ipso facto he has bubonic plague." Mr.Partridge's principal criticisms seem to fall around my use of that language known as English. I beg to remind him that the English speaking population of England is a very small portion of the English speaking world and that my dialect is different than his. I'm sorry, but there is no one who can say that they have never uttered or written a sentence that had no grammatical errors in it or was unclear to the reader/listener. L&B hit the publisher as an 800 page manuscript. It had and still contains about 1.5 million words. That something slipped through its three editors is not surprising. L&B was principally drawn from German and French sources. I am quite sure some of the flavour of those languages slipped into L&B. As I said, no one is without sin. To make that point, allow me to quote from Mr. Partridge's review of L&B. "Individual sentences tend to be short, and paragraphs are often only a few lines long, all of which makes it very stilted and it reads much like a Janet and John book. As a consequence, actually completing it took me far longer than I expected, as I had to keep putting it down and either lie down in a dark room, or read a few pages of Paul Johnson's "Birth of the Modern", a book on the social, cultural and technological changes between 1815 and 1830 which should be on all our bookshelves as an antidote to those devotees of the pornography of violence whose interest in the Napoleonic period begins and ends with gold lace and cavalry charges, and also serves to remind us of how much a proto-fascist (in the strict sense of the word) Napoleon really was." Whew! That is truly a wonderful passage! The first sentence has 32 words, but Mr. Partridge out did himself with the second. It has 106 words and six "ands!" Clauswitz, the past master of run-on sentences, pales next to this one. The second sentence is also, grammatically speaking, missing four mandatory commas and ends in the forbidden verb. "Birth of the Modern" should be underlined, not in quotations, since it is the title of a book. It appears that Mr. Partridge should proof his own writing better, as "modern" is an adjective and the noun it modifies is obviously missing from the book's title. [Ed. Although I have left the underlining in this letter, it is not a style that I choose to use within the mag, it being somewhat untidy. The book in question is actually called "The Birth of The Modern"..........] I will admit that a computer grammar checker I have says I write at a 10th grade level and I work to keep it down to that level. It also says Mr. Partridge's writing is at the level of the third year of college. However, it also says Mr. Partridge's writing is harder to understand that an insurance policy. This computer analysis of Partridge's writing has been forwarded to Mr. Watkins for those who wish to see it. I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that I write "Janet and John" books, but I do try to keep the language where it is easy to read and understand. I'm writing to the general public, not insurance underwriters. Is that wrong? I find myself in a great quandary about Mr.Partridge. He says he read Napoleon's Invasion of Russia. If it was so bad, why did he return to the tainted well for another draught? Indeed, he took the second draught with cash in hand! If L&B was that bad, a reasonable person would have stopped reading it and in their review said something to the effect of "It was so bad that after 50-100 pages I was obliged to put it down." As Mr. Partridge commented on the 54 citations of "Napoleon" in the index, he obviously scrutinised the index. Strikes me he was unable to put it down. Sounds like either a pretty good book or a vendetta to me. This causes me to surmise his headaches were brought on by his squinting at it through a microscope for hours, not some inherent defect in the book. I am most struck by Mr. Partridge's use of the phrase "pornography of violence." Allow me paint a picture for you. Mr. Partridge bought L&B, he admits reading Napoleon's Invasion of Russia, he has been a customer of my OB business, and he produces his own series of pamphlets on Napoleonic battles and campaigns for wargamers. If someone calls this genre of writing pornographic, and he not only reads it, but writes it, is he not then calling himself a user and purveyor of pornography? I seriously doubt he intended to brand himself with this title, but he has. As a result, I can only believe Mr. Partridge has an ulterior motive for his negative comments about L&B. My personal opinion is that his comments are based solely on rivalry. As he produces a line of booklets that attempt to do what L&B does, I am compelled to suspect that he's simply been beaten to the market and is deep in his "sour grapes." By the way, I'm a veteran of the Vietnam war and served two tours there, including operations inside North Vietnam. I've had people try to kill me, but I was faster on the trigger. I think I have a better understanding of the horrors and pornography of war than most. Though I lack the qualifications a la fauteuil, I would argue that this gives me the qualifications to judge what is and is not pornographic about warfare. Editor. I have published the above response, because, as readers may remember, I did state that when Reader's Reviews were used the author/producer of the offending review matter, would be given the opportunity to reply in the subsequent issue. Waterloo Info Required.... Dear Sir, Many thanks for your swift response to my subscription, and request for back issues (What service, I thought such values were supposed to be dead?). I chanced upon First Empire at the World Wargame Championships at Derby, where incidentally, I would echo the comments of Pat Connor. What a revelation, no hunting through "The Great Patagonian Cocoa Wars" or "Revenge of the Great Orc Axe - wielder" to get at what I want. Terrific. Love the historical articles, and particularly the informed comment in dispatches. So revealing to have replies from the "names" of the hobby, which I had only ever seen on book covers. One area that does seem a little "weak" is on the mechanics of wargaming. With the exception of Empire, most of the rules I have read do not give much explanation or background, but get straight into the table bashing, with a sort of quasi-legalistic jargon. This may just be a reflection of what Pat said about presentation and professionalism, but I feel that it can ruin an otherwise excellent game. If I know something about the rationale of WHY my Elite Guards just threw a six and routed off-table, it would increase my enjoyment. Perhaps some rule-writers, both "professional" and amateur, could give us some articles explaining their mechanisms? My own area of interest is the 100 days campaign, and I am currently building up an Armee du Nord, Wellington and Bluchers forces, using 6mm. I am currently completing the Netherlanders, and I would be grateful if anyone has information on the Indian Brigade? There is an illustration in Mr Haythornthwaites' "Uniforms at Waterloo" but he doesn't make it clear which unit that belongs to. Any information would be helpful. Also, I am heartened by the international content, and I would be interested on Mr Van Uythovens' views on the campaign. Inevitably, I rely quite heavily on Siborne, but I know some people feel his account is slanted toward the British view. There is a dearth of information from Dutch or Prussian sources in comparison, but witness the rebuttal of Siborne over Bijlandts`(sic.) Brigade in Ospreys MAA 98. If Mr Van Uythovens, or indeed any modern day Prussians have access to material outside of that usually found in English, that may shed new light on the campaign, I for one would be more than happy to see it included. Article: Indian Brigade 1815 (FE13) Not being of great historical insight, I have forwarded my own modest contribution, on the practicalities of figure basing. I hope this may be of some help, and can only wish you the best of luck, and that the magazine goes from strength to strength. Editor: Over to Geert and anyone else who fancies a crack. So far we have avoided 1815, but maybe it is time for a look! David's basing article can be found on page 41. In the meantime, Indian Brigade info required! Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #12 Back to First Empire List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1993 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 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tim is absolutely right in pointing out that British infantry would,
in suitable terrain, manoeuvre in "open column" on a frontage of
one company, with enough space between each company to enable the
battalion to quickly form a line facing either flank (see diagram
A). This formation allows a battalion to quickly face a threat from
either flank, as Tim suggests. However there were often as many as
ten companies in a full strength British battalion, and in open column
formation the distance between the leading company and the last company
meant that it would take some time for the battalion to form a line
facing in the direction of the march.
Since the French
had six companies per battalion after the reforms of 1807-09 and the
British ten companies per battalion I suggest that one-sixth of a
French line battalion could be detached as skirmishers in Napoleonic
times and only one-tenth of a British battalion. This demonstrates
effectively the importance of the British and Portuguese light battalions!
I suggest that light battalions of both sides should be able to deploy
50% of surviving figures as skirmishers. The other 50% would have
to form a line which the skirmishers would either lead forward or
fall back on.