Britain is certainly the easiest of the 5 major powers of the Napoleonic Wars when it comes to determining average strengths of military units in the field. The easy availability of many works on the British Army of the period, written in English, assists the researcher. Sir Charles Oman wrote extensively on the period, particularly his 7-volume History of the Peninsular War (HPW). In appendices to the 7 volumes, HPW contains actual field strengths at various intervals of British units in the field, taken from original records.
It is possible to determine what actual strengths of individual units were during any year of the period 1809-1814, as well as to mathematically compute average strengths for any part or all of the period. Oman's Wellington's Army (WA) gives the authorized strength for each infantry and cavalry regiment in the British Army. Orders of battle for Waterloo in 1815 are readily available. And yet errors have occurred in "Napoleonic Army Organization - Circa 1812" (NAO).
In 1812, there were 7 British Foot Guard battalions. The First Foot Guards had a battalion establishment of 1539 and the Second and Third Foot Guards of 1443. In 1812, 2 battalions were in the field and HPW reports their strengths at 954 and 961. Over the period 1809-1815 (including Waterloo), all 7 battalions were in the field, and their average strengths for the total period were 885, 976, 908, 967, 1003, 1016, and 1061.
NAO suggests organizing British Foot Guard battalions as 10 4-figure stands, reflecting, according to the 1:20 ratio, an average field strength of 800 or so. In view ot the fact that 1812 field strengths were in excess of 950, and that overall average field strengths were in excess of 950 for 5 of 7 battalions, the suggested wargame figure organization for British Foot Guard Battalions is 10 5-figure stands (plus the "bonus" command stand of 5 figures).
British cavalry regiments present a particular problem. The establishment for a cavalry regiment was 905, but the 1812 HPW figures show that most units were operating in the Peninsula with substantially reduced numbers. This was due to a number of factors, one of which was the proclivity to leave 1 squadron at home station to act as a "depot."
Another factor was unusually high attrition in horses and men, particularly horses, on extended Peninsular field service. In 1812, the following regiments were in the field: 5th Dragoon Guards (325), 3d Dragoons (399), 4th Dragoons (336), 11th Light Dragoons (391), 12th Light Dragoons (340), 14th Light Dragoons (347), and 16th Light Dragoons (273).
Averaging these figures and applying the 4 squadron organization and the 1:20 ratio gives British cavalry wargame units of heavy and light cavalry four 4-figure squadrons.
In NAO, British light cavalry is indeed organized with 4 figure squadrons, but heavy cavalry is organized in 6 figure squadrons, reflecting an average strength of 480 (127 more than the actual average in 1812). This over-organization is difficult to understand. The author has always assumed that some arbitrary factors were considered, such as a desire to avoid heavy cavalry squadrons of 4 figures; a desire to standardize with organization of cavalry squadrons of other countries, or some such.
An examination of the reported field strengths for the British heavy cavalry regiments who served in the field 1809-1815, indicates an average field strength of 435 (21 or 22 figures). This dilemma can be solved by using three 6-figure squadrons, or four 5-figure squadrons (plus 3 figure command stand) to represent a British heavy cavalry regiment; or by simply giving the British player those extra 45 troopers (2 or 3 figures), and leaving it as NAO suggests.
NAO ignores the Household Cavalry Regiments, probably because they were not in the field in 1812. Oman tells us in Vol. 6, HPW, that in January 1813, a composite brigade of two squadrons each of 1st Life Guards, 2d Life Guards, and Royal Horse Guards joined Wellington's army in the Peninsula. Oman reports no strengths for them in either Vol. 6 or 7. WA indicates an establishment for both Life Guard regiments of 416, and for the Horse Guards of 654.
Five-figure squadron stands for the Life Guards and 8- figure squadron stands for the Horse Guards would seem appropriate to represent these regiments in the field, but it should be recognized that this will reflect 100% of authorized strength.
NAO also omits the King's German Legion completely, and it is difficult to understand this as the KGL was was an integral part of the British Army and very definitely "in the field" in 1812. For those who are interested, we will examine its organization herein.
In 1812, both Light battalions and five line battalions were in the Peninsula, with reported strengths as follows: 1st Light Bn. (569), 2d Light Bn. (498), 1st Line Bn. (641), 2d Line Bn. (627), 4th Line Bn. (989), 5th Line Bn. (555), and 6th Line Bn. (1047).
It is suggested that these reported average field strengths support organizing the Light Bns. as is 5/60th Foot, and the Line Bns. as are British Line Bns. (i.e., ten 3-figure stands). Of KGL cavalry, the 1st Hussars are reported in 1812 at 399, so it is suggested that they may be organized as is British light cavalry (with perhaps a 4-figure command stand to reflect the slightly greater strength).
More CLS
Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. 1 #2
To Courier List of Issues
To MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1979 by The Courier Publishing Company.
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