This short article makes no attempt whatever to describe every available manoeuvre designed to change position or direction of march. These were numerous and intended to cater for every conceivable situation but although each regulation has it own uniqueness, the dominating theme is one of sameness. It is possible to say, categorically, that the moving pivot was not a Napoleonic innovation. It is evident that the moving pivot was available to both the Prussians, British and French throughout the entire period and before, and to the Austrians from at least 1806, probably earlier, although without sight of the 1769 regulations and 1794 instructions it is not possible to say for certain. The likelihood, in my view, is that the Austrians followed the trends elsewhere. The Russians, I regret, are a closed book as far as I am concerned but I would be surprised if they were significantly different.

Was forming a French innovation? In a word - No. It certainly seems that it appears first in the French Règlement 1791 in the context of changing the direction of a column on the march. On the other hand, the principle was well known by the late 18th Century and I suspect that it has its origins in the quick wheeling linear manoeuvre of the Prussian army of the 1750s. Forming in this context was essentially the same procedure used for wheeling a unit in line by its constituent sub-units, the difference being largely a matter of scale. That which was conducted by sub-units when wheeling a unit was conducted by files when wheeling a sub-unit.

Forming for the purpose of changing the direction of columns on the march was available to the French throughout the period, to the Austrians from 1806 and the Prussians from at least 1812. Forming in this context does not seem to appear in the British repertoire. At least I have not identified it. The Rules and Regulations 1792 was not significantly modified during the period because the British experience was quite different from that of France's Continental enemies. It is only in later Austrian and Prussian regulations, and perhaps the Russian, in other words those influenced by bitter experience at the hands of the French, that one finds the influence of French practice, and the change in emphasis from a linear to a columnar philosophy generally.

The factors that caused the Continental military establishments to change their doctrine, and introduce suitably modified regulations, were simply absent from the British experience. My caveat on the Russians remains as before but I would expect to find the French influence after approximately 1810 at least.

In general terms, the kind of operational manoeuvre warfare conducted by Napoleon, typified by the campaigns of 1805 and 1806, was not seen in the Peninsula. Although one could argue that the campaign of 1809 in which Sir John Moore was chased out of Spain was on that kind of scale, it was unsuccessful in that neither the British nor Spanish armies were destroyed and, therefore, the war could not be brought to the usual Napoleonic conclusion.

The Peninsula was attritional warfare in comparison, with many factors at work, many unique to that theatre, where the French were eventually defeated by an incremental effect on their capability over approximately a five year period. Although it is true that the British adapted tactically to circumstances, in the context of regulations there was no need to alter or modify what was a successful system. The record speaks for itself. Be that as it may, it is probably fortunate that British doctrine never had to find a response to classic Napoleonic manoeuvre warfare in its heyday.

Finally, and to return to the point, although other secondary and tertiary sources mention the moving pivot in the context of Guibert's theories, [62] none, that I am aware of, afford the practice the same degree of importance as does George Jeffrey. [63] There is no evidence to support the view that wheeling with a moving pivot was either invented by Guibert, unique to the French army or, therefore, a significant tactical factor on the Napoleonic battlefield. Although one can say the same about forming in general, changing direction of a column by forming does seem to appear first in the French repertoire. It is possible to conclude, therefore, that prior to similar manoeuvres being adopted elsewhere, there may have been circumstances where it might have given some tactical benefit to the French infantry. My own view is that in the general scheme of things it was probably a minor advantage, if at all.

Wheel Continued

Introduction
Life Before Cadence
Wheeling With a Stationary Pivot
Wheeling With a Moving Pivot
The Regulations: France
The Regulations: Prussia
The Regulations: Austria
The Regulations: Britain and KGL
Summary and Conclusions