Letters on: Austerlitz O.Bs... Regimental Flags... Austrian Masses... Shako or Bearskin... An attempt to answer Hilary's letter in FE20.... Portuguese Organisation... Cavalry Ranks... Three Rank Firing... Defending High Show Costs... Magnus speaks... Books needed... Help on Horse Artillery in Action Hofschröer in Need...
Austerlitz O.Bs...
Dear Mr. Watkins:
In passing could you or your readership advise me where I might find an accurate order of battle down to battalion level /strengths for the armies involved at the battle of Austerlitz as I am attempting to put on this battle at my local wargames club in the new year and the sources I have access to give conflicting numbers etc., any information would be gratefully received.
Yours Sincerely,
John Cunningham
Caernarfon, Gwynedd.
Editor: The most accessable I can suggest is the Osprey Campaign series booklet Austerlitz, can any reader improve on this?
Regimental Flags...
Dear Dave
Could you please tell me where I could find information on regimental flags of the Napoleonic times, the problem is I only play wargames in 6mm. I am building a French army and they all have the tricolour (blue, white, red) they look nice but they need that little bit extra to finish them off.
I have been wargaming for about three years now but I only started Napoleonics about 12 months ago. I use Irregular miniatures 6mm.
Any information on regimental flags of all nations would be appreciated.
Yours Sincerely,
Kevin Wright
Sheffield
Editor: Osprey to the rescue again, I suggest you try their Flags of the Napoleonic Wars titles, which provide a considerable amount of useful information at a relatively accessabile cost.
Austrian Masses...
Dear Dave
Regarding Gary Wills' letter published in FE19 I thought I should write to c;arify a point made in my book 'Aspern & Wagram' in the Osprey Campaign series.
In this book I described the Austrian Battalion Mass formation as operating in open order, closing up when threatened by cavalry. To be more precise I should have described the formation as operating as a column of companies, each three ranks deep in close order. To aid movement each company was seperated by a gap of four or five yards. When the mass was approached by cavalry the first company would halt while the other five companies closed up forming a compact, solid body of men. In this formation, with those on the edge facing outwards, Austrian Infantry were able to successfully opppose French Cavalry attacks.
I hope this clarifies the point I was making, good illustrations of this formation can be found on pages 14 and 38 of the above mentioned book.
Yours Sincerely,
Ian Castle.
Shako or Bearskin...
Dear Dave
It is with considerable trepidation that I ask this question, since it is such a simple one. So simple in fact that nobody bothers to mention it.
What I wish to know is, did French Line Grenadiers & Light Infantry Carabiniers wear Bearskins or Shakos into battle? The evidence of contemporary battle scenes appears contradictory and indeed so are First Empire products; you advertise a Grenadier's version of your replica shako but earlier adverts for Eagle Six miniatures describe the figures with Bearskins as suitable for representing Grenadiers and Carabiniers.
In case the answer is dependent on where and when the units served, then I am interested in the Peninsular War period.
,center>Yours Sincerely,
R.P. Needle
Cambridge
Editor: Your last paragraph answers your question in effect. The 1812 regulations abolished various fripperys such as plumes, cords and bearskins. Hence our model represented an 1812 pattern shako modified with the addition of cords. However, elitist being what elitists are they clung to old traditions and distinctions that made them appear diffent from the inferior rabble of the centre companies. For example the elite company of a French dragoon regiment charged in 1814 still wearing their elite company bearskins. Unit commanders seemed to use any excuse to avoid enforcing spartan uniform regulations, a popular excuse, and one apparently acceptable to the Emperor, was that the old equipment was still servicable and would be replaced when it was no longer so. This of course meant that these 'illegal' items were repaired, modified, lavished with tender loving care, in fact anything that would keep them going. Thereby, elite companies hung on to their accesorries for many a year.
Of course non regulation uniform would remain in use where a unit was away for a long period of time. Some French units in the Peninsular since 1808 didn't receive newer pattern uniforms until 1814.
This is a diverse subject that I cannot do justice to in a few paragraphs, so if any one wants to expand on this please feel free to drop us a line.
An attempt to answer Hilary's letter in FE20....
Dear Dave,
The TV series "Sharpe" are screenplays based on the novels - each has to stand as an adventure on it's own. The potential of each book to become a series in it's own right is only matched in magnitude by the cost of creating the same - which nobody came forward with. Hence the current format, from a budget which cannot in any respect be called 'low' but is not one with which a Cecil B. de Mille epic can be shot... but... we waste nothing and shoot every possible scene. Continuity regarding actors is another problem - unlike British officers, they are not retained on the strength and go off to do other jobs, hence 'new' roles with 'different' names.
Nothing is ignored - I cannot say more without jeopardising my ability to give FE more 'exclusives' in the future. Equally nothing is rushed. There is no race towards Waterloo. Indeed there are a few surprises for Sharpe fans in the pipeline - but agian, we can't give too much away (watch this space!).
On the second aspect of Hilary's letter - I recall a similar problem over twenty five years ago. Compared with then the information and access to Napoleonic Military History today is tremendous - through such pursuits as living history, and the ever increasing TV and Film projects, I find more and more people regarding history as a hobby pursuit rather than a school subject to be forgotten about. I think if you open your eyes and look, there is a vast amount of information on all aspects available, and no longer confined as it was in 'my day' to relative introverts - the amount of printed material alone has trebled over the last few years, from new people not afraid to challenge accepted 'authorities'. I cannot comment on where anyone lives as regard access, but a good few years ago I felt pretty left out in Sheffield!
Backin Barracks
95th Regt.
Portuguese Organisation...
Dear Dave
I have been reding your magazine from the beginning, and I have yet to be disappointed. First Empire is without doubt a must for all enthusiasts who thirst for informed comment.
The Dispatches column, which brings together subscribers from around the world, is an excellent form of information exchange. It is to Dispatches I would appeal. Strange as it may seem, I am finding great difficulty in obtaining the correct organisation of a Portugeuse line infantry Regiment post Beresford reforms of 1809.
The sources that I studied, which include works from Haythornthwaite and Nafziger all seem to differ. A regiment obviously has two battalions but, as to the numbers of companies per battalion, five or seven would seem to be the choice. And as to flank companies, take your pick. Some of the information would point towards the Portugese line regiment as beind the tacticasl eliment and the battalion purely administrative. This would make the regiment the equivelent of a British battalion on the field of battle. Any comments?
Any clear information on this matter would be much appreciated as I can ill afford any more hair pulling tantrums.
Newport, Gwent
Editor: I have checked everything that I have and all are contradictory. However, on checking various Orders of Battle, I came to the conclusion that five is correct for both line and light. Each regiment having two battalions of five companies, the 1st battalion having a grenadier company and 4 "centre" companies and the 2nd battalion having the light company and 4 centre. After 1811 the light company was permanently detached. Theoretical battalion strength would appear to be 770 men or 154 per company - although the regimental strength was between 1,000 and 1,200. I have no evidence to hand to take a firm stand on this, but I would argue that as the army was being reorganised by the British and that no other nation used a 7 company formation and that British drill was to be used then 5 companies would appear logical. After all with the shortage of available allied man-power there would be no logic in creating an experimental force that had to integrate with established British practice. It may be safe to assume that the 7 company theory evolved from mistranslating or misunderstanding i.e. 5 companies per battalion and a grenadier and light could easily become 7 companies including grenadier and light per battalion. I also have a sneaking suspicion that the Portuguese Army prior to reform may have had a 7 company organisation, but I don't have anything on it! So if anyone knows different please put us out of our misery or recommend a suitable wig maker for Mr. Smith!
Cavalry Ranks...
Dear Sir, Can anybody help? How many men and (horses) deep was a cavalry line? After reading many books, I am still confused as whether it should be 2 men or 4 men deep?
M. Drinkhall.
Cleveland
Editor: The confusion probably arises from the various descriptions that mix regimental and squadron tactics. Basically a squadron deployed in line has two lines of troopers, a third line of Senior NCOs and junior officers, and a further fourth line of senior officers. The third and fourth lines are not continuos as the officers that fill the positions are deployed along the length of their particular company. Also their physical location i.e., fore of aft of the line would be dependant upon circumstance. We are still waiting for a good article on cavalry tactics so again if anyone feels the need feel free!
Three Rank Firing...
Dear Sir,
A brief comment on two articles in issue 20, both stemming from reenactment and study of a slightly earlier period but of pertinence to their content.
In the continuing series on tactical deployment, including Simon Vinogradoff's "King Volley", reference is made to the front rank kneeling when volleys are fired. However, the (French) "Ordonnance du Roi - 1775" stated that the practice of kneeling by the front rank, although specified in earlier Ordonnances, was no longer required "since it is no longer being done, anyway", i.e., it formalised cancelling something that already had been dropped in practice. From personal experience with battalion-size and larger bodies of line infantry, e.g., reenactments of the Rochambeau "March" and York town in the U.S., I can testify that kneeling is unnecessary provided both that full-scale muskets are used, and that the three ranks are chest-to-pack when firing. (The flash from the pan is far worse than the muzzle blast, which is why unauthentic flash guards are required today. The shorter barrels on less-than-accurate reproductions of course do not permit such firing.) Admittedly. kneeling looks great. but wonder if it really was done by French troops in the Napoleonic era. The command "Genoux - En terre !" did exist in '75 -- but only for an entire body to kneel (from "Present Arms") and remove hats when the Host was exposed at Mass in the field, which is not quite the same.
In the "Reader's Review" of "Napoleon's Irish Legions", your correspondent notes le Régiment Dillon saw action against British Redcoats at Fontenoy in '45. That is not a redundant description. as Dillon's were "redcoats" as well, with yellow facings ("foreign" regiments such as Dillon's and the DuexPonts generally did not wear white). Dillon's also fought valiantly against the British in the American Revolution as part of the Duc de Lazun's Legion of the Rochambeau Army. (Their regimentals, highly similar to those of H.M. 10th of Foot and other "lobster backs", led to several interesting contretemps in the field for reenactors on both sides !)
John Seitz
Crawley, West Sussex.
Defending High Show Costs...
In your article in the October/November issue of First Empire you wrote on the profits and costs of shows about rip offs and huge profits. You cover yourself by not naming names so I suppose you think all shows are a rip off for the traders and public.
It would be possible to fill many pages with an in depth reply but I am sure your readers do not buy your publication to suffer personal view points. I can of course only speak for our show the "Northern Militaire" which has just had its 20th year this year. We don't know Mr Watkins personally but as critic to write in a magazine we feel it would have been courtesy for him to talk to us and made himself known to us so that we could have given him the insight into a show the size of the "Northern Militaire" its organization and cost.
The Northern Militaire is done to make a profit, for all the work going into it. We have lost out from time to time hence the reason for moving around from time to time when the hall fees have been increased to the extent that it can no longer be passed on to the traders or we stood to lose money.
We are well aware the traders need to make a profit but the cost of advertising in magazines and newspapers had gone up by 30% over three years plus the hall. Our cost to regular trade attending as gone down 30%. The door fees have stayed at £2-50, plus £1 child and O.A.P. and family at a cheap rate plus kids free for the last 5 years. Lots of other incidentals printing, hire of tables, etc. have also gone up. Do you, Mr Watkins, expect us to continue to run a show just to lose money? Would your magazine do that?
When we started 20 years ago there were only four shows including the Model Engineering Exhibition in London. Do you know that then there were upwards of 25 military stands at that show, and as, at our, show queues of four and five hundred yards long to get in. Now there are no queues at any show plus less trade stands. From four shows there are now well over twenty. We can't expect traders nor public to travel to them all. If a trader have the right product and he knows he gets a good quality show and makes a profit he will go. The "Northern Militaire" is well advertised, if we did not maybe we could knock two or three pounds off the cost of a trade table but who would know about the show? If we didn't take out an Insurance against personal injury:- maybe knock another two or three pounds off a stand! Do you know the cost of insurance, Mr Watkins?
I could go on but I feel you get the drift of my letter and hope you give me the courtesy, to print it in order to let the traders and public minds at rest the "Northern Militaire" is not out to fleece them and make a huge profit and never has been.
The traders and public have had a good quality and well run show, and most know it and I don't think the traders would like to see it closed? I know the modellers and wargames wouldn't.
Incidently your small show you write about you don't have half the problems of a large show yet we will wait and see. Sometimes just to fly the flag and just to cover cost is all some traders want.
Incidently don't compare the small show of yours, with ours with 500 people through the door you don't know half the problems yet. (We get that in the first hour.)
To close with your remark that the revolution is coming prepare for new shows and fairs at new locations? Are you going back to school rooms I wonder? Mr Watkins, we were there 25 years ago and certainly will not go back to them nor will the traders. If they only expect to pay £10 per stand and 500 people through the door then I reserve my judgment and could have underestimated or misunderstood them.
Profits for us and traders are down more each year, a sign of the times this also applies to cars and T.V. sets. We modellers are not alone.
Co organiser Northern Militaire.
Editor. My word we do have a high opinion of ourselves don't we? I have no experience of Northern Militaire so how do you manage to turn my article into an attack on your show, unless of course the cap fits! I have never been there nor did I mention it! Of course you should run your show for profit, but I note as will every body else that you have reduced your trade stand prices by 30%. A 30% reduction and you still make a profit, I don't suppose you would consider that you have been overcharging in previous years then? Do I know the cost of insurance? Of course I do, anybody with any business acumen would have found a venue that included personal injury etc., cover in the cost of hiring the venue? We did. Did you? As regard show numbers, the FE show was for Napoleonic Interests, no DBA, no Fantasy, no WW2, no ACW, no SCIFI, just Napoleonic and a restricted number of traders. As for advertising costs increasing by 30% over the last few years, they certainly have not in the hooby press. I think you have lost the plot mate...
Magnus speaks...
Dear David,
First let's make it clear that I was approving of Messrs. Hansen and Watkins. And if anybody thinks my Latin is funny let me explain that I was exposed to Medieval Latin at an impressionable age.
To turn to the vexed matter of Russian ranks these seem to be broadly correct but for two oddities. The Oxford dictionary gives Quartermaster Sergeant for "Kaptenarmus", "Unterofitser" would seem a better rendering for Sergeant. I must admit to being surprised by `Bat.Kom-r', for the stump compound looked distinctly un-Napoleonic and more appropriate to the Civil War period (1918-21).
I heartily concur with the views expressed by Hilary Greer. Having recently experienced an eight-hour(one-way) train journey to attend the N.A. Peninsular Study Day. Those who were there will not be surprised that I preferred to stand rather than to sit. Incidentally, there two excellent lectures by Ian Fletcher and Jack Gill; Paul Chamberlain is to be commended for organising this event. Perhaps it might be a good idea to examine the nature of the readership. First, there is the professional; these can be divided into two types. There is the party who is paid for his historical writing or expertise. Then there are those who boast an Honours degree in History and some of those may even have a Ph.D.. Here the writer must confess to being an M.A.Hons. (Aberdeen, 1989). These people are prone to stick footnotes after their articles. Then we have the amateur, in the French (and best) sense of the word, the best translation would be enthusiast. And there is also the sort of amateur to whom the adjective rank is usually applied. This is not an academic journal, so the editor cannot be expected to please everybody.
While I am well aware that there is much excellent writing on the American Civil War, John Cook's comparison with the Napoleonic period is invidious; if only because of the increased literacy and willingness to commit their experiences to paper for posterity, the two being not synonymous. The assertion that British Historians are largely monoglot is palpably false. The claim that English-speaking historians therefore distort the truth is equally conducive to unseemly birth. One is tempted to quote the Duke of Wellington, on being addressed as Mr. Brown; "If you'll believe that you will believe anything."
Finally, let me suggest that anyone who submits something should have it read through by a (neutral) third party. I hope that many of the readers do so already, for not only are grammatical and syntactical errors spotted but offensive remarks can be expurgated or modified.
Magnus Guild
Editor. The study day was great fun, especially the night before! Apologies to Magnus and Jack Gill for my lager induced mickey taking!
Books needed...
Dear Dave,
I am still enjoying each new edition of "First Empire". Of particular interest in the last issue was the analysis of the room occupied by troops of the era. Luckily, my bases were always too big for my rules but a quick change of scale and they fit perfectly with what Simon said - a real piece of luck. Your subsequent astute observation added confidence to the thesis. I experimented myself and even with my well-rounded carcass found 18 inches adequate. Also of interest was the addition of the third rank fire which everyone assumes was impossible, these men existing for morale only. The main reason I write is that I am going to expand my library and wonder if you can recommend books on 1814, 1813, 1812 - but 1814 in particular - and indeed any really fine works with the sort of detail useful to a wargamer - detailed Orders of Battle, Maps, Narrative etc. on any battles or campaigns of the Wars. The early years are not well covered in contemporary literature. This may be a good idea for an article - not just reviews of new books but a bibliographical discussion and assessment of existing works by campaign. Perhaps writers with a special knowledge of specific campaigns could do this if they have the time. It would certainly be helpful to those without easy access to large bookshops or libraries in assessing what to send for or order from the library. I like Napoleon's Italian campaigns for example, but would not know what to order or place on a wants list. Well, it's a thought
I shall depart now. I am looking forward to the 1995 issues, and by the sound of your editorials good things are on the horizon. You also sound more enthusiastic than ever, so things must be looking up ! Looking forward to your wise words - after the hangover !
Grant Elliot
Perth
Help on Horse Artillery in Action Required...
Dear David,
I hope you and yours had a very enjoyable Christmas. I have a few questions which I hope you will include in Dispatches.
1. When a horse battery moved into firing position were the guns unlimbered facing away from the enemy and then turned round by the crew? Or, did the teams ride in a large circle and unlimber the guns facing the enemy? I have not been able to find a reference that tells which method was preferred. Perhaps either method was used depending on the terrain, situation, etc.?
2. Who held the horses? My meagre references do an excellent job of explaining the duties of the different members of the gun crews; however, in a horse battery all crew members were mounted. Did one of the riders from the limber team perform this function, or were the crews supplemented by other mounted soldiers, perhaps from a cavalry unit they supporting? In the French foot batteries it was standard practice to supplement the crews with infantrymen to help with the heavy work and fetch ammunition. Did this also apply to the horse batteries, and, if so, who supplied the men and horses? Where were the horses positioned while the battery was in action? Were they forward near the guns or back with the first line of caissons? One of your horse artillery experts, either British or French, must have the answers.
3. One of the Grand Armee's strongest points was its very effective cavalry screen, usually under the command of Marshall Murat. I am looking for any reference addressing the doctrine used in deploying this screen. How much lateral distance could be effectively screened by a regiment/brigade/division? Was it totally dependent on the road network? What kind of command and control mechanism was used? What was the smallest unit dispatched on a recce, squadron or regiment? How were sightings and other information reported to higher headquarters? (I know mounted messengers were used, but did the information have to pass through every level of command before reaching the Emperor?) What happened to the horse battery normally assigned to a light cavalry division while that division was screening forward of the army? I have excellent references on the tactical deployment of cavalry units, but the above questions always arise during a campaign game.
Any help with these inquiries would be greatly appreciated. it seems like the more one learns about this period, the more questions one has.
In Dispatches, Issue #19, Grant Elliot from Perth asked about the availability of good maps of Napoleonic battlefields. While posted in Berlin I was able to acquire excellent U.S. Army 1:50,00 scale topographical maps of most of the German battlefields. Perhaps one of your readers could undercover a source for B.A.O.R. or NATO maps. The only drawback to these maps is that urban sprawl has covered up many of the battlefield sites; however, they still are a good reference for gaming fictitious battles. Another source of excellent terrain maps for wargaming is Todd Kerschner's Wafare in the Age of Reason rule set.
All the best to the First Empire staff in the New Year.
Salem, Origon, USA
Dear Dave,
I am trying to locate the following manuscript sources for the Campaign of 1815 in the Low Countries and would be grateful for any assistance:
Diary of Dr. Jenks, Surgeon of 10th Royal Hussars
Manuscript notes by William, 20th Baron de Ros, on conversations with the Duke of Wellington, 1836-40
Papers of De Lacy Evans
Papers of Delancey
Anybody knowing of the whereabouts of any of the above is requested to contact Peter Hofschröer at:
Postfach, D-33379 Rietberg - Mastholte, Germany.
Peter Hofschröer
Back to Table of Contents -- First Empire #21
Back to First Empire List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1997 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