Historical Questions

[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.

[Rob]

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.

I think most reliefs show troops in step and has been used as an argument that the ancients did use cadenced marching. But they also tend to show horses in step as well so it is probably more to do with artistic interpretation. I am absolutely no expert, it would be interesting to hear from Druzhina on this.

As a matter of interest a friend of mine on an archaeological dig in the Ukraine and Crimea 10 years ago told me about relics from the same time period (depth) showing Neanderthals, Homo-Sapiens and a third type of hominid 8' tall and resembling australopithecus all living in the same area at the same time! The senior archaeologists in these digs have theories which they then try to prove with the evidence they find, and this discovery prompted one to start questioning the large size of some of the figures on ancient middle-east reliefs as not being perspective, but being a "giant" ruling caste!

Rob

[Westmarcher]

As a matter of interest a friend of mine on an archaeological dig ... 10 years ago told me about relics from the same time period (depth) showing ... Homo-Sapiens and a third type of hominid 8' tall and resembling australopithecus .. living in the same area at the same time!

Wait, wait! I know what this is. Is it ..........

[Rob]

That's silly, lets have something decent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25Qhbdijv5Y

[Hwiccee]

Rob,

I would rethink this statement.  Smiley 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.

I think we are in a chicken and egg situation here and I am not sure I understand exactly what you are getting at - the above seems to contradict the original comment. I would though agree with the above but also point out that armies had needed greater mobility for around 1000 years at this time, depending on when it stopped being used in the past.

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.

The problem is that Douglass manual is a strange one. No one is really sure when it  was written and various parts of it suggest different dates for it & contradict other possible dates for it. It is also very vague. I think a reasonable interpretation of  "were to stand shoulder to shoulder, but so as they can be master of their arms" is 'stand as close as possible but leaving a gap so that the soldiers can handle their weapons'. Fortunately we don't have to rely on him as contrary to his unofficial manual we have later official manuals which still have the gaps. Bland's and other manuals from the late 20's and 30's still have the gaps.

Quote from: Hwiccee on Yesterday at 10:13:45 PM
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.  Sad

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.  Smiley

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

Umm I am not convinced that attack in squares is an indication of using cadenced marching and if it is then we need a radical rethink. It was standard practice when fighting the Ottomans to do it in a kind of square - elongated rectangle really. Basically very like the way the Prussians often fought in the SYW. So 20 battalions in the 1st line, 20 in the 2nd and say 4 battalions at either end to potentially seal the formation into a big 'square' but only when a threat appears. This kind of thing was used by the Austrians in the Ottoman wars 1680 - 1720 and I suspect earlier than this. It is also what the Russians intended to use in their war of 1711 with the Ottomans. But as things worked out in 1711 they ended up using a single large square, i.e. with more or less equal sides, instead. This was essentially an accident and mainly used defensively but it was the start of this idea.

In the next Russian - Ottoman war of 1735 to 1739 the use of large squares, the whole army in say 3 squares, in attack was developed by an important but little known Russian commander called Munnich. This Munnich and Lacy (the father of the famous Austrian Lacy) won a series of victories with this system. This technique was perfected in the 1770's but was old by then.

I think the basic problem with the Russians in the SYW is there cavalry is not very good, at battles at least, and there isn't much of it. I don't think they would have moved much whether they had cadenced marching or not.

I would also have to go back to my original answer on this and say I would be surprised if the Russians were much behind the rest on using cadenced marching.

[FierceKitty]

Rob, as most of us here well know, horses not only can march in step, they even dance an equine can-can too. When future archaeologists excavate our armies (those that merely set a geiger counter clicking like a ghost in a Japanese horror movie, rather than being melted into lumbs of metal), they will have only one possible conclusion to be drawn from the poses of Pendraken horses.
Do you have a website or anything about those Goliath excavations? This sounds interesting.

[Rob]

I think we are in a chicken and egg situation here and I am not sure I understand exactly what you are getting at - the above seems to contradict the original comment. I would though agree with the above but also point out that armies had needed greater mobility for around 1000 years at this time, depending on when it stopped being used in the past.

Gordon Bennett  

The problem is that Douglass manual is a strange one. No one is really sure when it  was written and various parts of it suggest different dates for it & contradict other possible dates for it. It is also very vague. I think a reasonable interpretation of  "were to stand shoulder to shoulder, but so as they can be master of their arms" is 'stand as close as possible but leaving a gap so that the soldiers can handle their weapons'. Fortunately we don't have to rely on him as contrary to his unofficial manual we have later official manuals which still have the gaps. Bland's and other manuals from the late 20's and 30's still have the gaps.

The old trash the source tactic. I am afraid you just don't get it do you? I could counter with Humphrey Bland was rubbished by Brigadier General Richard Kane for missing out much of what was required and many glaring errors in his own 1730's publication. But I won't bother because the point is we have no set army regulations during the period up to 1728, Orrery and Douglass were not writing manuals they were writing about their own experience as a guide for young officers. We can take these accounts and interpret them as what was actually happening in their own time. They were both in the wars prior to 1700 and Douglass in the WSS and that is what they are describing. The books may have been published in later life but that is not really relevant as they are guides not manuals. At Dettingen an unamed officer after describing the effect of platoon fire goes on to say "What preserved us was keeping close order and advancing near the enemy ere we fir'd".

This being the case it seems to me patently obvious that that reducing the ranks to three will leave the line very vulnerable to attack so if there is no need to interchange ranks nothing is more natural than closing the files up to add solidity. Nothing needs to be written as this is a natural occurrence and to prevent it you would need an officer or NCO bawling out "watch yer spacing lads" or words to that effect.  

Umm I am not convinced that attack in squares is an indication of using cadenced marching and if it is then we need a radical rethink. It was standard practice when fighting the Ottomans to do it in a kind of square - elongated rectangle really. Basically very like the way the Prussians often fought in the SYW. So 20 battalions in the 1st line, 20 in the 2nd and say 4 battalions at either end to potentially seal the formation into a big 'square' but only when a threat appears. This kind of thing was used by the Austrians in the Ottoman wars 1680 - 1720 and I suspect earlier than this.......

I would also have to go back to my original answer on this and say I would be surprised if the Russians were much behind the rest on using cadenced marching.

I am afraid it's a matter of interpretation. If you are not convinced that is fine. I am not convinced, there is information missing, if you have it I would be pleased to know what it is.

The key word for me is "modernise", Peter after spending time with Frederick started to modernise the Russian Army. Something started to happen .... get it?

Read about the Battle of Kagul, it just reads more like the Battle of the Pyramids where the French went after the Mamelukes rather than the defensive army squares of yesteryear.

If you cant believe the Russians were behind the rest of Europe then it would probably be the only time in history they weren't, and guess what they didn't document it.  

Apologies if I sound exasperated, I just try to answer all posts and never say things I can't back up unless its my own opinion where I will clearly state the fact. If you can bring something useful to the discussion please do so. I really don't mind being wrong but you need to have proof or some convincing logic please.  

Rob

[Rob]

Rob, as most of us here well know, horses not only can march in step, they even dance an equine can-can too. When future archaeologists excavate our armies (those that merely set a geiger counter clicking like a ghost in a Japanese horror movie, rather than being melted into lumbs of metal), they will have only one possible conclusion to be drawn from the poses of Pendraken horses.

Ho Ho 

Do you have a website or anything about those Goliath excavations? This sounds interesting.

Its more complicated than that. These artefacts were discovered during an expedition that was researching a different subject. What was actually being researched was the first horse based civilisation based in the Ukraine and Crimea. The precursors of the Scythians. They invaded the Middle East and trashed the Uratians and others in that area. They apparently had towns and trade based on bartering. The British connection was financed through the British Museum but the plug was pulled when Gordon Brown reduced the grant. You might find a web-site on this but it has been a few years now.

Regarding the artefacts, they were brought back to Britain and now reside in a box in the British Museum waiting for the next expedition to research them. There was a presentation at Kings College before they went into storage but that is just about it.

Another worthless snippet.... The archaeologist that theorised the "giants" were possible a ruling cast, also thought that they were probably destroyed by the small humans at the time being able to ride the small horses and being more mobile than the giants that were restricted to chariots......Obvious when you think about it

Rob

[Ithoriel]

There were reports of one or more giants being discovered in Borjomi, Georgia about ten years ago.

Never saw a report from what I'd consider a reputable source though.

A lot of the reports of finds of skeletons 8 - 12 feet tall turn out to be in the 6' - 7' range. Giants to their contemporaries maybe but not outside the range of modern human height.

Being a sceptic I suspect hype to boost careers and/or tourism or else tall tales to sucker the gullible. There is a constant struggle to prove/disprove biblical truth after all.

Genesis 6:4 King James Version (KJV)

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

[Hwiccee]

Rob,


Umm well concerning your last post to me I am afraid I will have to leave this.

There is nothing like a reasoned, logical and polite debate and your post was certainly nothing like reasoned, logical or polite.

I am afraid that contrary to your post you rely totally on your opinions. You are of course entitled to your opinions but I am afraid I am not inclined to further waste my time answering your original question or trying to bring some reality to your opinions.

I hope that someone else will be able to help you.

[Rob]

Umm well concerning your last post to me I am afraid I will have to leave this.
There is nothing like a reasoned, logical and polite debate and your post was certainly nothing like reasoned, logical or polite.
I am afraid that contrary to your post you rely totally on your opinions. You are of course entitled to your opinions but I am afraid I am not inclined to further waste my time answering your original question or trying to bring some reality to your opinions.
I hope that someone else will be able to help you.

If you read the post fully you can see I am exasperated with comments such as I can't believe.... With nothing concrete or even logic to back it up. You seem to just waffle in a condescending way. If you read the post you will see I said exactly opposite to what you have just posted. I will reiterate: "I really don't mind being wrong but you need to have proof or some convincing logic please."

The comment you made "I think it was more the other way round - cadence allowed an evolution in tactics" is similar to saying ...once the computer was invented we could start to tackle the German Inigma codes. You fail to see that without the need the computer and cadenced marching would not have been created.

Your comments about the Russian commander called Munnich were interesting; perhaps he was one of the missing reformers. It warrants further research. I would ne interested in any thing else you have on this man such as where have you read about him.

This whole period is a turmoil of change which is largely lost in the tendency to look one dimensionally at history. We have matchlocks and their dangerous matches and bandoliers with loose powder being replaced with cartridges and firelocks. We have more centralisation of government and greater GDP giving rise to large tax hauls enabling large standing armies. We have progress in black powder with better corning and better industrialisation of its manufacture bringing down its price and increasing its quantity and quality. The larger armies started to put pressure on existing command methods and logistics. Movement of large armies demanded better infrastructure. All of these pressures had effects in there own way and sjould be considered.

I am an analyst and project manager by trade and as I get to the stage in life I have currently reached I become more crotchety and suffer fools less and less. So read the post, you'll even see I apologised for sounding exasperated.

Don't shy away, take up the challenge and if you have anything worthwhile lets hear it. I am not trying to insult you only to prod you to move the conversation along.

Cheers Rob