So, Pack Up Your Troubles...

I recently received, via the editor, a letter from a reader about the size of the French infantry pack. Based upon reproductions in use by re-enactors which were greater than 4" deep, he felt that this measurement was too small and, therefore, that my extrapolations in the context of file depth and rank distance might not be correct. The figure of 4" comes from the French 1809 Provisional Regulations which was footnoted in the earlier article on files and frontages (2). This states that "The pack of the French soldier is l8" Paris wide, 12" high and 4" thick". 12" Paris (un pied) is approximately 13" Imperial. Therefore 4" Paris equals 4" Imperial (I don't think a third of an Imperial inch is really an issue here).

The first issue of this item of equipment was in 1786. It is described by both Albert Rigondaud in numerous of his Le Pumet plates and also by Malibran.

"The pack is of hide with its hair, it is 487mm wide, 325mm high and 108mm thick It is equipped with three small straps and two slings of white hide". (3)

This served as the basis for the design of those that followed throughout the period and beyond. It will be noted that there is no mention of any means of securing a greatcoat or blanket to the top of the pack. The reason for this is that the greatcoat was not a general item of issue at this time. In 1798, however, the Modele 1786 pack was modified with two laces for this purpose.

This pack was replaced in October 1801 by the Modele 1801 (An X). This was slightly smaller and remained in service until 1818. The description is similar. "The pack is of hide with its hair. Its interior is 325mm deep, 460mm wide. The side pieces are 433mm by 108mm; the flap is 487mm wide, two side-fiaps 217mm by 95mm high at their centre. The cover and front piece are edged with leather. The pack is closed by three leather straps 203mm by 27mm; three tinned iron buckles; two shoulder straps of 705mm by 36mm." (4)

It will again be noted that no means are provided for securing the greatcoat. The reason for this is the same as already mentioned. On 25 April 1806, however, the greatcoat became an item of general issue and between approximately 1805 to 1806, the packs were modified with two leather straps to secure this item when not in use.

From approximately 1810 a single long central strap was added, which went completely round the pack over the top, including the greatcoat. The Modele 1812 (19 January 1812 reforms) included some interior re-design but extemally it appeared the same.

Michael Petard's late 20th Century analysis of this pack goes into minute details, including the type of stitching used, which differs in places. It reveals dimensions that are much the same as those given by Malibran. "Carried on the back it is of tawed hide. (5) It measures 33cm deep inside, 50cm wide, two sides 10.8cm by 43.3cm high; the flap is 48.7cm wide with a border of 105cm; two side-flaps are 27cm long by 9.4cm at their centre. The lining of the pack is linen cloth, equal to the depth and width of the pack there is a (vertical) pocket of 16.2cm on the inside of the the flap, edged with leather closed with laces of the same matenal; the flap and front of the pack are also edged with leather. The pack is closed by three 24.2cm by 2.7cm buffed straps; three tinned iron buckles. The buffed leather shoulder straps of 70.3cm by 3.3cm, on the front two wooden toggles with their buffed leather attachments to hold the shoulder straps." (6)

It is worth pointing out that implementation of the 1812 reforms did not really take effect until after the Russian campaign and most infantry remained equipped and dressed with the older pattems until 1813.

In any event, 1" = 25.4mm, therefore 108mm = 4.25" Imperial. I would say that 4" Imperial was good enough for our purposes. The evidence shows that the French infantry pack was a small item of equipment by modern standards. So were the men that carried them. My illustration after Petard accompanies this article.

Allied to the question of the depth of a pack was the next query concerning rank distance of the French and Austrians, the latter examined in FE25.(7) Because re-enactors reproduction packs appear to be deeper than 4", it was reasoned, logically enough, that French rank distance was actually greater than my extrapolated 26" heel to heel, and probably much the same as the Austrian which we know was 2.5 schuh or approximately 30". If one accepts 9" lmperial as a reasonable space in which an early 19th Century man might stand, whichever way you calculate rank distance, back to chest, pack to chest, or heel to heel, the Austrian rank distance was 4" more than the French.

Over the depth of a column of companies this makes an additional 4 feet but to get the real picture one also has to look at the intervals between sub-units, which will differ depending upon the frontage of sub-units which 4 will, in turn, vary according to the number men in them and whether the column is closed, half or full deploying intervals. This is much more important than a mere 48".

So, whilst one can examine the relative efficiency of different systems, which is what George Nafziger does so well in his recent book, this can only be theoretical because it is based on units at near full or full strength. To summarise, a full strength unit in column at deploying intervals would deploy more slowly than a half strength unit with an identical sub-unit structure, simply because the latter would have smaller deploying intervals between its sub-units, because its sub-unit frontages would be smaller, and, thus, less distance to march onto the new alignment.

Every cloud does indeed seem to have a silver lining. Well, not really because casualties eventually meant that the unit could not cover a practical frontage in three ranks, remember that use of the third rank had been largely abandoned for purposes of musketry, in which case two ranks could be adopted and frontages expanded to something more normal again, with corresponding intervals. The two rank line was by no means unique to the British, as the various regulations show.

So, we have the evidence of contemporary regulations, together with exarnination of surviving artifacts, which demonstrate that the French pack was not very big at all. Any reproduction item much in excess of 4" deep would not appear to be accurate. But then neither are the dimensions of the re-enactors themselves. Most are very large people compared with early l9th Century soldiers.

Notes

(1) Pack Up Your Troubles In Your Old Kit-Bag. George H. Powell. 1880-1951.

(2) Files and Frontages. First Empire 23. p22.

(3) Malibran, H. Guide a L'Usage des Artistes et des Costumiers Contentant la Description Des Uniformes de l'Armee Fran,cais de 1780 a 1848. pl86. Paris. n.d. (Facsimile, Le Voltigeur, Paris. 1983).

(4) Ibid. p203.

(5) Tawing is the process of converting skins into leather by treatment with alum and salt, rather than tannic acid as in tanning.

(6)Petard, M. L'homme de 1812 - Le Fusilier d'infanterie de Ligne. Gazette des Uniformes Nol9. p25. Paris. Mai 1974.

(7) Files and Frontages. op.cit. p22, Fig2. As You Were. First Empire 25. p8, Fig1.