SYW organisation above regimental level.

[cameronian]

Having read Duffy's Armies of MT/FtG, Showalter, Szabo, and every Blanford/Osprey I can get my hands on, I'm still no wiser in respect of commands larger than a regiment. Being a 19th century bod I am accustomed to Brigade, Divisional and Corps organisation, but for the life of me I can't seem to find out how the armies of the SYW were ordered. What was the normal field command, was it a brigade, what constituted a brigade, ditto the cavalry, what came above the brigade, a wing ... etc ... ? All help gratefully received.

Photos of FK's spiffing 6mm SYW armies, rebased for FOB2 will be posted over the weekend.

Apropos 6mm, I really agonised about selling my 10mm Pendraken 1866/1870 armies and replacing them with 6mm Baccus. Much as i like the 6mm figures I now have, I'm glad I went with 10mm (which is what FK seems to have done). The 6mm figures are really nice and look the biz on a good board but they're just too small and fiddly for every day use, also with my presbyopia, its virtually impossible to distinguish who is who. So, on sober reflection I still think 10mm is the way to, not too big, not too small, perfect in fact 

[Glorfindel]

My understanding is that the organisation of SYW armies was looser than later years
(with Battalions / Squadrons being allocated to a Brigade but with Brigades then
moved between higher commands as circumstances dictate).   So, we don't have the
fixed Divisions and Corps seen in later times.

Armies would march in the same formation they expected to fight.   When drawn up
for battle, we have a First Line (facing the enemy), Second Line (reserve) and sometimes
even a Third Line.   Each Line would normally comprise a Right Wing, Centre and Left Wing
In theory, a three by three grid (although terrain and army size and would have an influence
here).

Command structure will vary   On many occasions, there would be three major commands
(Left Wing, Centre and Right Wing), with each command including all Brigades in the First,
Second and Third Lines.   At other times, each of these nine commands would be allocated
to separate commanders (with clear implications for co-ordination !).


My suggestion would be to look at actual Orders of Battle, for example on the excellent
Kronoskaf site.

eg. the OOB for the Battle of Kolin :

http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=1757-06-18_-_Battle_of_Kolin

and Rossbach :

http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=1757-11-05_-_Battle_of_Rossbach


In addition to the above, there would also be independent commands, perhaps formations that
have recently arrived or light / irregular troops.   These might operate on the flanks beyond
either Wing.

I hope this helps a bit !   I should say that I am no great expert here - I have read some of the
books you have so would be interested to hear from others who have a different / better
understanding.


Phil

[FierceKitty]

It's probably important to bear in mind that SYW actions were relatively small by Napoleonic standards.

(Returns to wistfully staring at an empty postbox....)

[Westmarcher]

Forget Corps and Divisions. My understanding is that the introduction of the Corps structure with its own Staff, Divisions, integrated artillery, etc. (i.e., a self contained miniature army) was the great innovation of the later Napoleonic Wars. If you haven't read them yet, study the OOBs in Osprey's Campaign Series book, Rossbach & Leuthen 1757, Kolin 1757 and Zorndorf 1758 and you'll soon get the idea.  You will see that after Brigade level, brigades are grouped into higher formations which are called Wings, Columns or Lines. These were less permanent than the higher formations of the Napoleonic Wars and varied from battle to battle. When you increase your reading of the era (e.g., Savory) you will also see that during a campaign, infantry battalions and cavalry regiments were often grouped together for specific missions with its own designated commander. Whilst this was a very flexible system, it wasn't conducive to the establishment of an efficient staff system.

So, on sober reflection I still think 10mm is the way to, not too big, not too small, perfect in fact 

How could you have considered anyone else?    I like what Pete Berry has done with Baccus but, for me also, Pendraken 10mm is the way to go.     By way of reassurance, have a look at the following links plus previously posted photos by Leman, Kev, Bradpitre(?), etc.

http://honoursofwar.com/thread/339/syw-10mm

http://honoursofwar.com/thread/336/st-ulrich-10mm

Apologies to those who are not members of the Honours of War forum - try zooming in - HoW forum members can click on the photos (it's not a large forum so you've probably done so already  ).



 

[Chris Pringle]

Isn't it the case that SYW divisional organisations did not need to be permanent or to have staffs because at that level there was really nothing sophisticated to do? Divisions were simply that: a division of the line into convenient portions, in front of which our noble divisional commander either said "Stand fast, the Buffs!" or "At 'em, the Buffs!" as applicable.

As for brigades, I suggest these were more important off the field than on it, as an administrative body to sort out lines of march, who camps where, etc. But I could be wildly wrong as it's not my period and I'm shooting from the hip on this one.

I think it is Brent Nosworthy in "Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies"
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Tactics-Napoleon-His-Enemies/dp/0094772401/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1486126718&sr=1-1
who makes an interesting point about pre-revolutionary monarchical armies. He says these are expressing the direct will of the King, and field marshals allow their subordinates minimal freedom of action. Not that the linear warfare of the day allowed them much freedom anyway. (Ooh, can I grind that axe again?)
http://bloodybigbattles.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/airing-some-prejudices-on-one.html

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info

[Dragoon]

Hi Chris
There is a very good reason why the axe and the war games table are kept apart.
Frederick the Great won some battles and also lost quite a few which generally aren't mentioned when praising the old fellow. He did try some very successful flanking marches from one side of the field to the other so did Marlborough.
In general the battles were set out like a war game table and victory went to the general with the best plan. In other words they were won at the set up stage. if you were caught on the wrong foot you had to plug the deficit by moving troops to fill the gap.
Fredericks battles were using his good troops like a hammer. Marlborough had massive losses but he won battles. Napoleons genius was strategic on the battlefield he was much over rated. Davout however was a tactical genius.
The Chief of Staff was a battle winner in the Napoleonic wars so was intelligence gathering.
Before we write off 18th Century Generals as thugs in posh coats perhaps a battle study group would help, especialy if a horse and musket section can be set up on the forum covering from say 1740 to 1770 or even from 1680 to 1799.

SYW formations and structure was much like all European Armies 1809 apart from the French that is. At Austerlitz the Austrians and Russians formed groups called Columns. A column could be a brigade size, a division size or a corps size. An army would have a Left Wing, a Centre, a Right Wing and a Reserve. So I presume all the 18th Century was much the same.
I'll dip into what books I have to see if there is more than pretty pictures to them.

Mike L

[Chris Pringle]

Morning Mike,

In general the battles were set out like a war game table and victory went to the general with the best plan. In other words they were won at the set up stage.

Yes, that's part of my argument: that the interesting bit happens before we put the troops on the table.

At one point I did scan a lot of maps of SYW and WSS battlefields and in general they are much more linear than Napoleonic ones, which have more depth and fluidity /irregularity.

Before we write off 18th Century Generals as thugs in posh coats

I don't mean to belittle the individuals, only to suggest that their role was somewhat limited. As ever, I am open to correction. Perhaps some of the amazingly knowledgeable denizens of this Forum can adduce instances of divisional commanders showing initiative and executing interesting manoeuvres at a divisional level other than conforming to the line. Surely there must be some.

Chris