Dispatches
Letters to the Editor
from First Empire Readers
 |
Can you help put a face to a name...? Dear Sir, I'm wondering if your readers might be able to assist me. Having failed in my researches to discover the answer, I need to establish full first names of Generals I.Y. Prezbyzeswski (commander of the Third Allied Column at Austerlitz), A.H.E. Kruse, D.H. Chasse, H.G. Perponcher and J.A. Collaert (all at Waterloo). I would also like to find a source for a picture of these gener-als (ideally lithographs): Prezbyzeswski (c. 1805 id possible), Marcognet, Donzelot, Alten, Collaert, Orange, Milhaud, Clinton, Cooke, and Cole (c. 1815), Many Thanks for your assistance. The 134th Fanion... Dear Sirs, With reference to Stephen Ede-Borrett's request for further information on the 134th of the line 1814 in FE No. 17, Knötel's source is the famous Elberfeld Manuscript. I have a copy of this on film and can provide a print of the relevant plate. If readers are interested they are welcome to copies, the cost would be £ 2.00 including P&P (crossed postal orders only please). Peter Hofschröer, Postfach 1427, D-56 174 Vallendar, Germany Column and Line errata and mounted officers... Dear Dave, Enclosed are some amendments and errata in the context of my article on drill regulations. Also enclosed is a generalised reply to D. Drinkhall's question about mounted infantry officers. Initially though, the corrections to the article. The first is in No16, column 1 on page 14. Insert missing paragraph after '..deploy in that role', on line 22: Batty frequently alludes to columns but the type is not always described. He describes the crossing of the Nivelle thus, however, "allied columns descending from the fortified position in files to the banks of the river, and then forming columns in the most perfect order......the ford was wide enough to cross by platoons". It doesn't make a great deal of sense without this paragraph. How come nobody noticed! (Ed. Actually the paragraph was printed but some how got moved two paragraphs further down the page, how it got relocated is a bit of a mystery, even to me!) The second is in No17 page 6. Figure 11. Delete 'closed', insert 'close' to read "France: A close column d'attaque formed in double divisions". Not "A closed column...". The difference is explained in the text. The third is No17 page 6. My Figure 12 has reproduced with the sub-units much too far apart for a closed column. In the closed column the sub units were as closed up as possible, much nearer than the close column at approximately quarter distance shown. A significant point I think I should also have stressed, is that although a closed column allowed infantry movement in the face of cavalry, its very density reduced its ability to manoeuvre with the ease of a column open to one degree or another. This was one of the disadvantages of the closed column, which inhibited speedy and major shifts of direction in comparison and could also make it less easy to deploy or convert without opening its intervals, since the room for the sub-units to manoeuvre was simply not there. The fourth is also No17 page 12, after 'degree', line 24, delete 'is certainly true, which is patently obvious', insert 'which is certainly true, and patently obvious'. The complete paragraph should read: It has been accepted, primarily, it would seem, as a result of Peninsular analysis, that the column was only used tactically in the shock role which, apparently, was the only possible option open to it by virtue of its configuration. In other words it could not develop musketry to a useful degree which is certainly true, and patently obvious. Additionally, in the context of the Prussian Exerzir-Reglement 1812, Peter Hofschröer has pointed out to me that this did not replace the Reglement of 1788 but merely added to it. I admit that I had not grasped this and it does explain the apparent omission of the open square in the former. The Prussians continued to form open square as they had done under the Reglement of 1788. I hope this will prevent any future rule-smiths and table-top lawyers preventing some unfortunate from forming open square with his 1813-1815 Prussians on the grounds that "Cook said they couldn't". The fact is I incorrect-ly interpreted the absence of open squares in the Exezir-Regle-ment 1812, as evidence that they were no longer used. This does mean, however, that there is still no clear way of forming open square from angriffs colonne since the Reglement of 1788 does not recognise this formation and prescribes formation of open square from line. This may, on the face of it, appear an extremely limiting and dangerous practice although one has to remember that the Prussians did not expect their columns to operate in a tactical environment at this earlier period. If the Prussians did not form open square from angriffs colonne it explains the use of the closed square from this formation, a vital expedient for one which was expected to manoeuvre in a tactical environment where cavalry might be encountered, one which the Austrians in 1809 had already demonstrated was perfect-ly viable in the face of the mounted arm and one that Ney pre-ferred in such circumstances for its speed of conversion and simplicity compared with the open square. To summarise:
2. The Exezir-Reglement 1812 only added to the Reglement of 1788 and did not replace it. I am grateful to Peter for pointing this out. Finally, Mounted Infantry Officers D. Drinkhall asks about mounted infantry officers in Dispatches No17. Establishing this definitively by country would be a major research exercise, made doubly difficult as the tables of organi-sation and equipment are subject to change throughout the period. Nevertheless, in Continental armies during the earlier part of the period one frequently finds even the most junior officers mounted. This became less and less the case and generally speak-ing subsequent to the campaigns of 1805 to 1807, mounted infantry officers were only those of field rank, that is to say above the rank of captain, or equivalent, and below that of general. A regiment was usually commanded by a colonel or lieutenant colonel, although in cases where both these ranks were present, the latter might command the first battalion of the regiment. Battalions otherwise were usually commanded by a major or equivalent, companies by a captain. Multi-battalion regiments such as were normally found in Continental armies, did not exist in the British service. The following table shows a variety English ranks and some of their commonly encountered equivalents.
Table Notes: (1). The spelling of 'leutnant' thus is a modern German rendition. Older sources tend to show it in the original French spelling. Similarly Capitain becomes Capitän and Kapitän, the 'c' being replaced by 'k' in modern parlance. Modern authors also have a tendency to render ranks in something equating to their modern equivalents, or in their own tongue, presumably in an attempt to help the reader. (2). Oberstwachtmeister appears quite often in tables of organisation and equipment for some south German states. I am less confident where the Austrians are concerned and admit to not having a good source in this context. I'd appreciate some help here. Oberwachtmeister, as opposed to Oberstwachtmeister, is a senior non-commissioned rank. Southern German states tended to follow the Austrian fashion generally, probably a reflection of former Imperial associations. (3). Hauptmann and Hauptleute are the same, the former being the singular form, the latter the plural. Literally main, or principal, man and people respectively. (4). Saxon ranks seemed to otherwise conform to Prussian practice. I have no knowledge of Russian ranks except a late 19th Century German rendition (Stein) which shows them as Oberst, Oberstlieutenant, Major, Capitän, Lieutenant and Unterlieutenant respectively. Reply Letter to Editor: Bavaria (FE19) Russian Jägers... assistance needed... Dear Dave, I have been a subscriber of First Empire since issue #1 and I honestly believe it is the best publication of its kind avail-able. That aside, I have a few comments. I enjoy the articles on different battles and campaigns but I would like to see more on some of the North American campaigns. In addition a section with an emphasis on Naval actions of the period would be a welcome addition. More graphics and better maps with scales would benefit wargamers attempting to recreate the battles on the table top. Also can any of your readers help me with the following information? I have been unable to determine the Divisional Organisation of the Russian Jäger Regiments for 1807 and 1809 through 1811. The excellent book L'Esercito Russo 1805-1815 Fanteria published in Italy De Bello series #4 (similar to osprey) gives the Divisional Organisation for the Musketeer and Grenadier Regiments but only includes the Jägers in the 1812 and 1815 organisations. The Osprey # 185 The Russian Infantry by Philip Haythornthwaite also only gives the Jäger Divisional organisation for 1812. It appears by 1806 most of the old Inspections were abolished and replaced by conventional Divisions numbered 1-18. Each Division was made up of two Musketeer and one Jäger Brigade each of two regiments. Suggesting 4 to 6 regiments per Division including up to two Jäger regiments. A simple list or some help in pointing me toward an available source would be appreciated. Sincerely, Ed. Yes flattery certainly helps to get your letter printed, so can anyone help our colonial friend? While I'm here, writing in a letter that refers to anyone in terms less than cordial, even if I consider it to be humorous / justified gets it filed in the bin! So if you can't comply with that save yourself a stamp... A Letter to America (to Jack Gill) Dear Jack, I was rereading 'Eagles to Glory' again the other day, and I picked up on something which if possible I would like explained. It concerns page 71 and relates to Bavarian Infantry lines. You state that theoretically a battalion consisted of 4 companies of 180 men each, and that 36 men per company were designated as Schützen. You then go on to state that the Bavarian infantry line was of three ranks with 'the new 3rd rank being composed of schützen'. This, I think, means that we end up with a company deployed as 1st Rank 72 men, 2nd Rank 72 men, 3rd rank 36 men. Effectively 2 1/2 ranks deep. You state that this was intended to enable the rear rank to reload for the front ranks in order to maintain a regular fire. How did this work? The rear rank being outnumbered 4:1 in terms of muskets to reload, could this be practicable? How would a 2 1/2 rank line perform 3 rank manoeuvres? I know the British de-ployed in 2 and manoeuvred by a variant of 3, but how would a third 1/2 rank operate? I've just double checked on your book and at first I thought I had just wasted 5 minutes typing the above, I saw a glimmer of hope that in fact the schützen were increased to 1/3 of company strength, until I noted the phrase 'as previously mentioned'. Is there an error in the phrase 'the new 3rd rank being composed of schützen'? Or am I just being thick!? Help! And lo Jack speaketh unto me of Bavarian Schützen and the way was clear... Dear David, In response to your request for additional information on the Bavarian Schützen in 1809, allow me to provide the following supplement to Chapter 2 of With Eagles to Glory (especially pp. 66-72). During the period 1800-1811, the Bavarian infantry introduced a number of tactical and organisational reforms to keep pace with the evolving nature of combat. of particular interest for the 1809 campaign are (1) the change from three-rank to two-rank deployment after 1801, (2) the new infantry regulation and 'Armee-Formation' promulgated in 1804-05, and (3) several modifications hastily pressed upon the regimental commanders in March 1809 just as the war with Austria was about to begin. The extensive reforms of 1804-05 were part of King Max Joseph's larger effort to modernise his realm and reflected the liberalising spirit then prevailing in Munich. Covering unit structure, training, discipline and internal administration, they were largely the work of a special commission chaired by General- Leutnant Bernhard Erasmus Graf von Deroy and including as infan-try experts General-Major Carl Philipp Freiherr von Wrede and Oberst Heinrich Justus von Siebein. From the tactical standpoint, the addition of 20 Schützen to each infantry company and the issuance of practical guidelines for their employment were par-ticularly important features of the new regulation. Wrede, the author of the section on Schützen (Part 4: 'Of the Schützen and their Duties'), clearly outlined their intended missions: 'The essential function of the men especially selected to be Schützen is to perform the services of light troops with the line regiments, either alone or with the support of platoons detached from the battalion for skirmishing. They will therefore be employed in all advance and rear guards, in flank guards, in covering approach marches and withdrawals, in holding off enemy skirmishers, in reconnaissance patrols, and generally in all detachments outside the battalion that require special flexibility and good marksmanship'. 'Definitive rules cannot be provided because appropriate guidelines for conduct can only be determined by terrain and circumstances'. These new directives subdivided each company into four platoons of 20 files each for a company total of 80 files in two ranks, or about 160 soldiers. The 20 Schützen brought the company bayonet strength to some 180 men, but they were not included in the two ranks of fusiliers/grenadiers. Instead, when not engaged in skirmishing, they stood evenly spaced behind the second rank commanded by the company's senior sergeant. For skirmishing, the Schützen deployed in pairs by battalion (that is, 20 Schützen each from four companies for 80 Schützen total) under a hand picked junior officer (the 'Schützen - Offizier'). This well-regarded gentleman's orders were passed to the men via 22 horn signals. The Schützen were distinguished by green plumes, by the green cords of their powder horns and by their rifled weapons: muskets for those of the line regiments and carbines (Büchsen) for their counterparts in the light infantry battalions. In the drizzly grey days of March 1809, however, these arrange-ments were changed. That month, as the army was assembling in response to Napoleon's call to arms, a royal rescript increased the number of Schützen to 1/5 of each company's strength (ideally about 36 men) and reintroduced the three-rank line. The new third rank was to be composed of the Schützen supplemented by selected fusiliers/grenadiers; these latter were apparently known as 'Plänkler' (a generic term for skirmishers). At full strength, therefore, a company (still counting 180 bayonets) would have a frontage of about 60 soldiers. The Schützen stood on the 'wings' (Flügel) of the third rank and were supposed to educate the Plänkler in the art of skirmishing. The Plänkler, however, had no special uniform distinctions and were not provided with rifled firearms (even the true Schützen were not fully equipped with rifled weapons). It was hoped that the return to the three-rank configuration would facilitate repeated, devastating volleys of musketry (Massenfeuer) because the third rank could reload muskets for the first two. This idea may have been good, but the timing was somewhat less than perfect. Distributed just two or three weeks before the campaign opened, the new regulations occasioned considerable confusion as regimental officers strug-gled to train their men according to the new standards while marching to their assembly areas. Moreover, the regulations were incomplete and plagued by contradictions which local commanders had to resolve on their own. Siebein reported that the formation of squares was causing particular difficulties owing to the requirement to 'double up' (eindoublieren) platoons (creating squares that were six ranks deep on each side). Despite these difficulties, the Bavarian infantry performed well during the campaign, demonstrating considerable tactical skill in battles such as Abensberg (20 April) and Neumarkt (24 April). Sources: O. Bezzel, Geschichte des Bayerischen Heeres, vol. VI, 1933. Regimental histories, especially those of the 5th, 6th, 13th (later 11th) and 14th (later 13th) Line Regiments and the 5th Light Battalion Hope this is useful. Sincerely yours, Ed. This `Plänkler' now understands the situation, many thanks... Villa de Puerco anyone...? Dear Dave Would it be possible to include this letter in the Dispatches section of First Empire? I'm interested in any information concerning the Peninsular action between the British & their German allies and the French at VILLA DE PUERCO. 11th JULY, 1810. (This does not include the article contained in April's issue of Miniature Wargames magazine No 131, the source of which unfortunately appears to be mainly from the British point of view only) My interest is in the French point of view of this particular action and the regiment and people concerned. So I would welcome any information on the French infantry regiment: The 22me de Ligne, and, if possible, that of Captain Gouache. Anything to do with the above, sources, books to read, magazine articles etc, would be most welcome. It was nice to receive First Empire via the Napoleonic Associa-tion. The more organisations with the same interest that join together the better it'll be for all of us interested in the Napoleonic Period. I'm looking forward to the next issue of First Empire and sincerely hope it will soon go monthly. Yours Sincerely, Ed. Go monthly... where's me mogadon? Praise for Column & Lines... Dear Sirs, With reference to John Cook's most interesting article Columns and Other Things on the Same Lines, Part One of which appeared in FE No. 16 & 17, I would like to express my support for his point that: Regulations and tactics are frequently spoken of in the same breath as if they were one and the same. They are not. Virtually all of the writings on the subject produced in various journals over recent decades have missed that point. To illus-trate it somewhat more graphically than John, the basic foot drill with which my father marched into France in 1940 was the same as that used by his father when he marched into France in 1914, which was the same as that used by his father when he marched into France in 1870, which was the same as that used by his father when he marched into France in 1815 and in 1814, which was the same used by his father when he marched into France in 1792. However, it is likely that most of us would agree that the tactics used over that period had changed somewhat. Yours faithfully, And Of Sharpe... Dear Sir, First of all I would like to take this opportunity to thank Barry Taylor and everyone else who responded to my query (issue 15) about the Republican Calendar. The information which you all gave me was very much appreciated! Well, "Sharpe" has hit the small screen once again and I must say how much I'm enjoying the current dramas, especially as they are quite authentic to the original Cornwell books, which makes a change for televised period dramas, although perhaps Malcolm Craddock (the new executive producer who had no hand in the earlier "Rifles" and "Eagle" episodes) has had his say in how they should be made. Good for him! The acting was great, particularly Pete Postlethwaite as the crazed Sgt. Hakeswill and Philip Whitchurch (taking time off from Insp. Cato in "The Bill") as `Sweet William' Frederickson. I'll certainly be looking forwards to more of "Sharpe" in the future! Finally, issue 12 saw a small article on German generals involved in the 1813 campaign and how to pronounce their (often longwinded!) names. Can anybody do one similar but for the French as I - and no doubt many others - have great difficulty with them. However, here are some such names which as far as I can tell are correct:-
Berthier - Bert-iey Boucier - Boosh-iey Davout - Davoo Friant - Fri-orn Lannes - Lann Murat - Mur-ar Oudinot - Udi-nor Soult - Salt If anyone can add any more (or indeed correct the above, which may be inaccurate in some cases) then please send in an article as soon as possible to put people like myself out of our misery! Yours faithfully, Ed. My only concern with the Sharpe series is that we have reached 1813/4, which means only one more series to go! Hopefully Central T.V. can break away from the books and go back and fill in the missing years. Surely the potential is there for a very long running series? Could Sharpe become a long running series like Dallas (for want of a better example!)? Also we've got to keep Mr. Moore gainfully employed sleeping on barren mountains, because he loves it! Legacy of Glory Players wanted... Dear Dave, I am writing to ask a favour. Would it be possible to seek an opponent(s) through the pages of 'Dispatches'? The reason is that I have been playing Legacy of Glory for some time solo now and to date have found no-one at the local club really interested. They are more into DBA style gaming rather than historical simulation - ( I hate being Ming Dynasty Chinese versus 1st Century Romans!!!!!!!). (Ed. Don't we all?!) If anyone is interested they can contact me on 0291 - 628353 or write to me at 5 Grasmere Way, Chepstow, GWENT. NP6 5SS. I really enjoy the magazine, it goes from strength to strength. At last we in the UK have a decent magazine now! Best Regards Calling all Readers... Dear Readers, I would dearly like to start a Readers Research section. This would be where you send in anything that you can find out about a nominated topic, that hopefully will be of use to all, where there is a shortage of English language material. I intend to run a new topic every 3 issues if the idea catches on. So our first research project will be.... The Campaigns of 1814. Notice the plural in Campaigns. I want anything and everything we can find out about the final year of Empire. I look forward to hearing from you all. Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #18 Back to First Empire List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1998 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 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
