Historical Questions

[Rob]

1. When did the Russian army adopt the cadenced march for their infantry? The Prussians adopted it in the 1720s or 30s, with other Western Europeans adopting it in the early 1750's. I have a feeling the Russians were later than others perhaps as late as the 1790's but cannot prove it. Ive been trying to find the answer to this for a number of years and always drawn a blank.

2. In America the British adopted a 2 rank line and a more extended formation to deal with the rough terrain. The Hessians I think continued to use close order and a 3 rank line. What density formation and how many ranks were used by American continentals and militia? I cannot find a definitive answer. I suspect the continentals were the same as the Hessians.

3. Prussian, French, Austrian and Danish troops in the wars from the 1840's through to the 1870's. What density formation and how many ranks were used by each?

Thanks in advance, Rob 

[KTravlos]

3) Hmm that is a very broad question and there are differences between 1840 and 1870 as firepower tactics overtook shock tactics. A very very very very crude simplification would be that battalions tended to deploy in 3-4 divisions (2 companies each) those about 2-3 ranks deep with a massive skirmisher cloud in front.  Some divisions were in line and some in columns.  Different armies in different periods would deploy more or less skirmishers.

Austrian in 1864-1866 used two ranks per company (at least according to the notes in the 1859 rules). From the same source Prussians used three double ranks per company in 1861, probably as back at 1843. Danes used shock in 1848-1850, so probably 3 rank deep companies. They copied the Austrians in 1864. French in 1840s - 1850s probably use 2-3 ranks per company. 

[KTravlos]

1) Without being a historian if I was to hazard a guess I would say either during  the reign of Peter III, or in Catherine the Great. 1790s sounds really late.

[Hwiccee]

Rob,

1: The problem with the cadenced march is that there is very little information about it generally. It is for example not even really sure who introduced and when. Some say the Swedes had it first, at around the time of the GNW. One of the Prussians commanders in the WSS seems to have been experimenting with it. Then it seemed to be introduced to the rest of the Prussian army by 1740 but exactly when is not so sure. So in short we basically are not even really sure when it was first introduced and it is a similar story with when looking at others.

Personally I think that cadenced marching spread quickly to every one once introduced/noticed. This is likely to be in the years after 1740. I also think that you shouldn't think that this meant that any other army of this period could march anything like as well as the Prussians. The Prussians marching ability was based on much more than just cadenced marching and at this time they could out march anyone else, whether they were using cadenced marching themselves or not.

[vonlacy]

2. As for the American rebel army before winter of 1777/8 there was no uniform way of doing things. Many regiments were raised on short-term enlistments so the turn over of men was great. Americans could march in "Indian File" form line to the left or right anything else would likely cause confusion. Different regiments had their own step and intervals; men needed a strong drumbeat to march in cadence so silent approaches were impossible.
During the winter of 77/78 Friedrich von Stueben arrived at Valley Forge and instructed the American Army. He taught them to march in close platoon formation without the need for drum taps. The American cadence was slowed down to 75 steps per minute to cope with the uneven terrain and the step was set at 24'. He simplified the manual of arms and loading. The American Regiment discharged in two ranks. He also instructed the officers in how to lead and care for their men and also began to develop a NCO system as the American Army lacked an effective NCO arm.

Do not believe that the German Auxiliaries were Prussian automations, many were well lead and quickly adapted to American conditions, those who could not were used as garrison troops.

[vonlacy]

2. The American and British both fought in loose files as the terrain mitigated against close, shoulder to shoulder formations.

[Husaria]

Forgive any ignorance, but was cadenced marching 'marching in step' to keep a formation moving together in order ?

Before cadenced marching, how did Regiments/Battalions move on the battlefield ? Without the Unit moving all together in step, wouldn't it have been very difficult to move with any order ? That is, everyone would be stepping forward at different rates, with ranks behind bumping into those in front etc...

Just trying to imagine how battalions during, say, the WSS moving around the battlefield in long lines; it must have been pretty chaotic or am I exaggerating the challenge ?

Anyone's insights welcome !

[Hwiccee]

Basically they had big gaps between ranks and files to avoid bumping into each other. Not that this worked that well so they also long pauses while they reformed. This is why WSS armies moved a lot slower than later armies.

[Rob]

Forgive any ignorance, but was cadenced marching 'marching in step' to keep a formation moving together in order ?

Yes, but it also includes the cadenced manual of arms.

Before cadenced marching, how did Regiments/Battalions move on the battlefield ? Without the Unit moving all together in step, wouldn't it have been very difficult to move with any order ? That is, everyone would be stepping forward at different rates, with ranks behind bumping into those in front etc...

Just trying to imagine how battalions during, say, the WSS moving around the battlefield in long lines; it must have been pretty chaotic or am I exaggerating the challenge ?

Anyone's insights welcome !

Cadenced marching and the cadenced manual of arms were introduced because of the evolution in the ways armies fought.

Prior to this regular armies manoeuvred in files not ranks and the space each file/man occupied was 3-4 foot (order). Shooters required the space because of the matches in use which made close proximity dangerous. If moving into close combat or carrying out a 3 rank volley the files would double up by moving into the spaces to adopt close or closest order.

As the bayonet became more widespread the number of ranks in infantry formations diminished to 4 or 5 ranks. In English, Scots and Dutch armies it reduced to 3 ranks as they adopted platoon firing. The universal introduction of the firelock also allowed the files to close up to a point where the elbows lightly touch.

Manoeuvre was now quite difficult and when an army was readying for battle it would take many hours to form the battle lines. At Blenheim the Allies surprised the French and Bavarians but still took many hours to deploy allowing the French to scramble through their own deployment. When lines advanced there would purposely be large gaps between the ranks and they would frequently halt to re-order. This made manoeuvre clumsy and slow. When a line arrived at the point it was to fight it would take some time to close up into its compact ranks. To platoon fire the front rank would kneel and the rear rank would take a half step sideways to be able to fire between the men of the second rank. The line would be then "locked on" and ready to fire a volley. They could not then manoeuvre other than to charge.

The Prussians adopted the cadenced march and cadenced manual of arms in the 1720's and Frederick the Great inherited an infantry that was universally trained this way. It allowed the infantry to manoeuvre at a comparatively fast rate and also deploy and change formation much closer to the enemy than was previously possible. Brigades and army wings or lines could manoeuvre as single entities, battalions could advance and fire, and they could manoeuvre while in square. In short the difference in manoeuvrability compared to the older systems was enormous.

In the 1740's the Prussians fought the Austrians and the difference between the infantry was obviously massive and other nations quickly started to adopt the cadenced methodology with the universal adoption of it by all Western armies before the start of the 7 years war, other than by the Russians it seems.

Rob

[Rob]

2. The American and British both fought in loose files as the terrain mitigated against close, shoulder to shoulder formations.

Thanks for your reply on this. I am now clear the the US used a two rank deep formation.

You have suprised me with your claim about the loose files. The militia used open order in the woods and stood in close order when defending in the open as I understod it. Continentals again used a close order in the open was my understanding and this worked to their advantage sometimes against the looser files the British used in the open. That again was my understanding.

Are you saying the US continentals used loose files while in the open the same as the British? And are you saying the US continentals adopted open order in wood fighting like the militia?

Thanks  Rob

[Husaria]

Thanks Rob for the response to my queries; I learnt quite a lot from that.



As often with a detailed answer, it raises more questions though 

For example, going back much further in time, how difficult must it have been for big Pike blocks to have manoeuvred around the battlefield ? After all, did they have to be closely packed together to form a solid wall of pikes ? I recall a scene from the Oliver Stone film 'Alexander' (battle of Gaugemela ) and the Phalanx shuffling forward in-step, to the beat of a drum. Was that how they all kept together without chaotically breaking apart ?

Also, you mentioned something about square formations. Was this tactic/formation adopted during the WSS and, if so, should the ability to form square be reflected in any WSS rules ? I've wondered about that before, as I wasn't sure whether it was only a later tactical development.

Lots more questions, I'm afraid !

[vonlacy]

Thanks for your reply on this. I am now clear the the US used a two rank deep formation.

You have suprised me with your claim about the loose files. The militia used open order in the woods and stood in close order when defending in the open as I understod it. Continentals again used a close order in the open was my understanding and this worked to their advantage sometimes against the looser files the British used in the open. That again was my understanding.

Are you saying the US continentals used loose files while in the open the same as the British? And are you saying the US continentals adopted open order in wood fighting like the militia?

Thanks  Rob

In the British Army close order file was defined as the gap created when you place your hand on your hip and your elbow touches the man next to you. A loose file is when you raise your right arm and touch the left shoulder of the man next to you. Some German states may still have defined close order as the right shoulder brushing the shoulder of the man to their left. Remember also that the men of the Eighteenth century were physically smaller than men today.

The American Continental Regiments tried to mirror and adopt British tactics. Washington knew the revolution would fail if he could not defeat the British in the field.

In woods I would suggest all troops had to leave larger intervals between the files as the terrain would not allow platoons to march and fire in drillbook order.

Militia was often defeated in open ground, more by fear than by casualties. The British knew that a disciplined volley at long range would often cause the enemies morale to waver rather than cause too many casualties, especially if they faced militia. Militia stood best when they were given something to defend like a fence. Militia and Continentals had a tendancy to bunch towards the middle when they took casualties.

Close order firing was more efficient as it concentated fire on a narrower frontage however North America was not the rolling, clear meadows and plains of Europe.

Hope this is of help.

[Westmarcher]

For example, going back much further in time, how difficult must it have been for big Pike blocks to have manoeuvred around the battlefield ? After all, did they have to be closely packed together to form a solid wall of pikes ? I recall a scene from the Oliver Stone film 'Alexander' (battle of Gaugemela ) and the Phalanx shuffling forward in-step, to the beat of a drum. Was that how they all kept together without chaotically breaking apart ?

Also, you mentioned something about square formations. Was this tactic/formation adopted during the WSS and, if so, should the ability to form square be reflected in any WSS rules ? I've wondered about that before, as I wasn't sure whether it was only a later tactical development.

Lots more questions, I'm afraid !

Sorry, can't provide answers to all of the above, Husaria, but to keep the focus of this thread within the Firelocks to Maxims era, I've posted the following in the Ancients to Renaissance section which may go some way towards answering your questions. For example, as you will see, Square Formation existed before the WSS. Hope this helps. Cheers. 

http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,13145.0.html

[Hwiccee]

Cadenced marching and the cadenced manual of arms were introduced because of the evolution in the ways armies fought.

I think it was more the other way round - cadence allowed an evolution in tactics

Prior to this regular armies manoeuvred in files not ranks and the space each file/man occupied was 3-4 foot (order). Shooters required the space because of the matches in use which made close proximity dangerous. If moving into close combat or carrying out a 3 rank volley the files would double up by moving into the spaces to adopt close or closest order.

As the bayonet became more widespread the number of ranks in infantry formations diminished to 4 or 5 ranks. In English, Scots and Dutch armies it reduced to 3 ranks as they adopted platoon firing. The universal introduction of the firelock also allowed the files to close up to a point where the elbows lightly touch.

Until cadenced marching the usual space was still 3 or 4 foot per man.

Manoeuvre was now quite difficult and when an army was readying for battle it would take many hours to form the battle lines. At Blenheim the Allies surprised the French and Bavarians but still took many hours to deploy allowing the French to scramble through their own deployment. When lines advanced there would purposely be large gaps between the ranks and they would frequently halt to re-order. This made manoeuvre clumsy and slow. When a line arrived at the point it was to fight it would take some time to close up into its compact ranks. To platoon fire the front rank would kneel and the rear rank would take a half step sideways to be able to fire between the men of the second rank. The line would be then "locked on" and ready to fire a volley. They could not then manoeuvre other than to charge.

In the WSS units normally kept in order. When platoon firing the platoon that was going to fire would close up and 'lock on' to fire. Then once it had fired it would open up load until it was their turn to fire again.

In the 1740's the Prussians fought the Austrians and the difference between the infantry was obviously massive and other nations quickly started to adopt the cadenced methodology with the universal adoption of it by all Western armies before the start of the 7 years war, other than by the Russians it seems.

Presumably you have found the answer to the Russians using cadenced methodology since your first post? I have some information somewhere on the Russians but I haven't found it. Can you tell me what you found?

[Hwiccee]

For example, going back much further in time, how difficult must it have been for big Pike blocks to have manoeuvred around the battlefield ? After all, did they have to be closely packed together to form a solid wall of pikes ? I recall a scene from the Oliver Stone film 'Alexander' (battle of Gaugemela ) and the Phalanx shuffling forward in-step, to the beat of a drum. Was that how they all kept together without chaotically breaking apart ?

In classical times it is thought they had cadenced marching. This was 'lost' during the dark ages and only re-introduced at some time around the 1740's

Also, you mentioned something about square formations. Was this tactic/formation adopted during the WSS and, if so, should the ability to form square be reflected in any WSS rules ? I've wondered about that before, as I wasn't sure whether it was only a later tactical development.

They had square during the WSS and indeed before, but it was not as in Napoleonic times - it was not a usual battlefield formation. It was usually used when the army or a part of it was defeated and infantry without cavalry support, but threatened by enemy cavalry, are trying to retreat from the battlefield. It was not normally formed by a single battalion but usually was formed by all the available units in a single square. Therefore usually the units stayed in line but were arranged in a square/rectangle shape. So a typical scenario would be what happened at Almanza in 1707. The 'British' had been defeated and all the cavalry driven off but the Franco Spanish cavalry was disorganised. A group of 13 (or maybe 15) British/Dutch/Portuguese battalions still in some kind of shape then formed a large square to get off the battlefield while the enemy cavalry was distracted. If there had been say 3 or 30 then they would have formed into a square with 3 or 30 battalions in. In theory they could also form a single battalion into a square if that was all that was left but as far as I know this never happened.

In wargaming terms this usually means after the game is over for either the whole army or one part of it and so essentially it can be ignored.

There were a few occasions when squares were formed before the battle was over but they were very rare. I can think of two examples off hand and one of those is in the GNW. At Poltava the Russians formed 4 battalions into square at one end of their line, the more open one, before the fighting started, i.e. the units were deployed like this. This was because they were worried about the fearsome Swedish cavalry getting round this flank and causing mayhem. This square effective did this but also effectively did nothing in the battle. The other occasion was in Spain in 1710. At Villaviciosa the 'British' cavalry routed in the early stages of the battle, basically before it had started, and this lead to a lot of the 'British' infantry nearby also being carried away. But as the armies hadn't really started fighting units in the centre were able to form square (again 4 battalions - this time of Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch) to seal the open flank. Once again the units then effectively took no part in the battle but it happened in very unusual circumstances.

[Rob]

Thanks Rob for the response to my queries; I learnt quite a lot from that.



As often with a detailed answer, it raises more questions though 

For example, going back much further in time, how difficult must it have been for big Pike blocks to have manoeuvred around the battlefield ? After all, did they have to be closely packed together to form a solid wall of pikes ? I recall a scene from the Oliver Stone film 'Alexander' (battle of Gaugemela ) and the Phalanx shuffling forward in-step, to the beat of a drum. Was that how they all kept together without chaotically breaking apart ?

I would say they used a system based on files. What is documented is the spacing for each man is about 3 foot and each file had a file leader and file closer i.e. ancient NCOs. The advantage of acting in files is you do not have to stop to reorder, simply follow the man in front. The system breaks down when you need to act in ranks.

General academic thought is that the Greeks did not use cadence. The classical authors give a great deal of information about Greek and Roman methods. Unfortunately none say whether anyone use a cadenced step or not. To say it is so but proof has been lost in the mists of time is purely an opinion and should be viewed only as such. 

What clinches it for me is that ancient armies were in the main were farmers therefore amateur with very few professionals. Notable exceptions being the Spartans and Imperial Romans. To march in cadence needs a professional force and that wasn't achieved until Western Europe was able to have permanent standing armies. The Spanish came up with a perfectly workable system for pikes where no one was trained at all. New recruits simply were placed at the rear of the files and as wastage moved them nearer the front their experience and knowledge grew as well. If cadence were part of the ancient systems I also think Maurice would have used it as part of his reforms of the Dutch army in the early 17th century.

Also, you mentioned something about square formations. Was this tactic/formation adopted during the WSS and, if so, should the ability to form square be reflected in any WSS rules ? I've wondered about that before, as I wasn't sure whether it was only a later tactical development.

Lots more questions, I'm afraid !

Squares were used but were not needed as much and were relatively static so used as a last resort. The reason they were not needed as much was because generally the higher formations were clumsy to use and there was no opportunity for cavalry use in the centre of a battle. The exception to this is Blenheim where the allied cavalry did attack in the centre and Tallard's last reserve of 9 infantry battalions at least attempted to form square.

My opinion is that if charged by cavalry in a WSS battle infantry would not be able to react by forming square. They can form square but movement while in that formation would be severely limited.

Squares were of more use in the 7 Years War where Frederick often used them to reinforce the ends of his infantry lines and they could use cadenced marching to keep up with the lines.


Cheers Rob 

[Rob]

In the British Army close order file was defined as the gap created when you place your hand on your hip and your elbow touches the man next to you. A loose file is when you raise your right arm and touch the left shoulder of the man next to you. Some German states may still have defined close order as the right shoulder brushing the shoulder of the man to their left. Remember also that the men of the Eighteenth century were physically smaller than men today.

The American Continental Regiments tried to mirror and adopt British tactics. Washington knew the revolution would fail if he could not defeat the British in the field.

In woods I would suggest all troops had to leave larger intervals between the files as the terrain would not allow platoons to march and fire in drillbook order.

Militia was often defeated in open ground, more by fear than by casualties. The British knew that a disciplined volley at long range would often cause the enemies morale to waver rather than cause too many casualties, especially if they faced militia. Militia stood best when they were given something to defend like a fence. Militia and Continentals had a tendancy to bunch towards the middle when they took casualties.

Close order firing was more efficient as it concentated fire on a narrower frontage however North America was not the rolling, clear meadows and plains of Europe.

Hope this is of help.

Thanks   The regulations of 1764 define close order as having a 6" gap between files, giving a used space of between 18" and 2' per file. (The only British army people who regularly put their hands on their hip are royal marines I think ) In America it was normal for the British infantry to increase the gap between files to 18" or more. My question to you is did the Continental infantry while standing in defence use this increased gap or did they stick with the 6" gap?  

[Chad]

If you have Nosworthy's 'The Anatomy of Victory ', pages 136-139 are a useful read, covering  Cavalry Attacking Infantry.

Chad

[Rob]

I think it was more the other way round - cadence allowed an evolution in tactics

I would rethink this statement.   No one develops a methodology without there being a need. The clear need was that armies were now operating by ranks and having difficulties with manoeuvre.
The aspiration is mobility.
The goal is a drill method to allow greater mobility.
The solution is cadenced marching.

Until cadenced marching the usual space was still 3 or 4 foot per man.

There was a lot going on around this time. Replacement of bandoliers with cartridges. Socket bayonets replacing pikes. Adoption of firelocks replacing matchlocks. Cadenced marching has no influence on the width of files but does have a great influence on the depth of the files. The width of the files was decided by the Firelock and cartridge usage replacing loose powder and matches.

Orrery in his "Treatise of the Art of War" published in 1677 discussed the number of ranks and rate of fire. Based on his own experience he recommended fighting in four ranks. What he was saying was that troops with firelocks and cartridges in four ranks could fire as often as troops with bandoliers and matchlocks in six ranks. Given two units of the same size the unit in 4 ranks can have half as many men again in each rank compared with the unit in 6 ranks. It cannot of course fire all 4 ranks at once. This was solved by placing the unit into 3 ranks and dividing it into 4 firings.

Brigadier-General Douglass who fought in the William III's 9 Years War wrote a very detailed drill manual on drill and instructed that the men in each rank "were to stand shoulder to shoulder, but so as they can be master of their arms". This was published after 1714 so cannot be used to define any particular time close order was adopted. It does however show that it was adopted in the British army before they adopted cadenced marching which was in the 1740's.
My own opinion for what its is worth is that close order would be adopted as soon as troops started to use 3 ranks.   The French with their 5 and 4 rank depths would be later.

In the WSS units normally kept in order. When platoon firing the platoon that was going to fire would close up and 'lock on' to fire. Then once it had fired it would open up load until it was their turn to fire again.

No argument with this  

Presumably you have found the answer to the Russians using cadenced methodology since your first post? I have some information somewhere on the Russians but I haven't found it. Can you tell me what you found?

Ishh!
Nothing documentary, only theoretical which I know is dangerous.  

KTravlos thought Peter III or Catherine the great. I looked up Peter and found he swapped sides to Prussia in the 7 Years War. He was a keen military theorist with tables full of soldiers in his rooms. He was also keen admirer of all things Prussian and started to modernise the Russian army. He only lasted 6 months though so could not have taken anything through to conclusion. The Russians in the 7 Years War were so unmanoeuvrable that it looks like they did not use cadence but when later fighting the Turks in 1770 at the Battle of Kagul they went on the offensive in squares and won which seems to indicate they were by then using a cadenced march. The military people of note in Catherine's reign were Potemkin and Suvorov neither of whom seemed concerned about low level drill. So it looks like Peter started the ball rolling and it was taken up by individual commanders none of whom are known at this stage, but they were using the cadenced march by 1770 at the latest.  

So you see it is only my putting 2 and 2 together. Any further insights would be welcome.  

Cheers Rob  

[FierceKitty]

It's entertaining that the reliefs of the Khmer army at Angkor Wat show the troops marching in step - except the Thais, who aren't bothering. Sums up the best and the worst of my adopted host nation.