Historical Questions

[Chad]

The interesting part of this discussion is that no consideration has been given to whether or not cadenced marching was of benefit on the battlefield. Anyone who has walked across a field will know that it is full of lumps and bumps that disrupt a steady pace. I would suggest that the impact of uneven ground on a battalion deployed in line would have significant impact on the ability to maintain marching in cadence. This is probably the reason behind the need to dress ranks and re-establish both order in the formation and perhaps to re-commence cadenced marching.

If that was the case then battlefield speed of advances would probably be significantly less than achievable on the parade ground. As such does the use of cadenced marching have any significant impact on a wargame?

Chad

[Husaria]

Thanks to both Hwiccee and Rob for their answers and comments to my earlier questions; these have helped me understand more about the WSS and movement in ancient times.

Tim

[Hwiccee]

Chad,


I don't think that there is any doubt that cadenced marching was a massive benefit on the battlefield. Clearly it would still have problems but these were all smaller than those you had in non cadenced marching. It also meant that you could start doing more complicated manoeuvres, etc, than if you didn't use it. Fighting in line was still done at relatively slow pace if it was used or not. But cadenced marching was relatively quickly used by everyone once it was re-invented and was standard practice while close order fighting was used.

What it would do on a table is a bit more difficult to say and depends quite a bit on what the rules you use do.

[FierceKitty]

I allow my SYW Prussians a significant bonus in formation changing and in reforming from disorder.

[Chad]

Nick

Understand your point, but I was thinking more post deployment into line. I've never thought that there were many formation changes once lines of battle were formed. As to deployment, and I might be thinking more Napoleonic here, was there not a difference between the rate of movement for formation changes and general advances and did not the method of deployment also have bearing on how quickly changes could be achieved?

Chad

[Rob]

Thanks to both Hwiccee and Rob for their answers and comments to my earlier questions; these have helped me understand more about the WSS and movement in ancient times.

Tim

You are very welcome

Rob

[Rob]

The interesting part of this discussion is that no consideration has been given to whether or not cadenced marching was of benefit on the battlefield. Anyone who has walked across a field will know that it is full of lumps and bumps that disrupt a steady pace. I would suggest that the impact of uneven ground on a battalion deployed in line would have significant impact on the ability to maintain marching in cadence. This is probably the reason behind the need to dress ranks and re-establish both order in the formation and perhaps to re-commence cadenced marching.

If that was the case then battlefield speed of advances would probably be significantly less than achievable on the parade ground. As such does the use of cadenced marching have any significant impact on a wargame?

Hi Chad, it's difficult to keep a line and in step on a completely level parade ground let alone cross country. The Guards work very hard to get it right for the trooping of the colour each year and they never advance on more than a company front, so cross country with a battalion frontage must have been a nightmare.

Quantifying the difference before and after cadence marching from a 21st century perspective is probably impossible. One thing that would make the cadence step quicker is the closer proximity for each rank. When stopping to give fire they would be into action fairly quickly, whereas a non cadenced line with say 20 paces (?) between ranks would have to wait for the rear rank to come up 40 (?) paces before they could be ready.

I have read somewhere (I think it may be Hughs) that troops using the cadenced march would shorten the step from around 2' to 1' when near the enemy to help retain order.

From a wargame point of view lines probably move at similar speeds cross country. The pre cadence line will move significantly slower if it is also firing and it may not be able to move at all if there is a chance of it being caught by cavalry.

If your rules start each side formed up in battle lines then that's about it, but the real difference between the systems would be the forming of the battle lines themselves. Troops using a cadenced march could form much much quicker and also closer to the enemy.

I'll do another post to explain more. I need to nip out got an hour.

Rob

[Rob]

Using the Prussian as an example. Pre battle each battalion would be split into 4 equal divisions. The battalion would then march to battle in an "open column". An open column is where the 2nd-4th divisions in the column are at deploying distance. That is if the battalion halted each division could wheel to the left and the battalion would be in a line with no other adjustments.  Put another way if each division was 50 paces wide there would be a 50 pace gap between each division.

A brigade would march in a grand-column where all its battalions would form one behind each other in a single column, all at deploying distance in one big open column so that with a single order each battalion could form to the left into a line and instantly the brigade is in its battle line.

A superb example is the battle of Leuthen. The Prussians after fixing the Austrians with a feint marched around their left covered from view by hills and managed to deploy in line across the Austrian flank at about 5-600 paces distance.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Leuthen

Earlier armies cannot compete at this level of grand-tactics and could not have achieved this level of agility.

Rob

[Hwiccee]

Chad,


I think Rob has basically covered most of it and you are both right that the big advantage is before the battle lines are formed. So you get a lot more movement around the battlefield post cadenced marching than you got earlier. But of course there were also occasions even when the battle lines were formed when you did need to perform formation changes, etc.

I personally use a set of 2 level rules - one where a unit is a battalion and the other where a unit is a brigade. In the battalion one you are normally in effect in your battle line and so it has a relatively small impact. But in the brigade game you also do the pre battle phase and so it is important in that.

I would also say that another difference that has not been mentioned is that with cadenced marching (and other changes at the time) the units could definitely fight in what we think of as close order. This is a complicated subject but there is an argument that fighting in close order contributed to the increased rate of fire compared to earlier times.

[Chad]

Rob

Yes I know of the that form of deployment. As I said I was probably thinking more in Napoleonic terms, where battalions advancing in columns would be spaced at a distance that equated to their linear formation. They would deploy forward from the column into line using several different methods for each company to deploy into the line. I think both the speed of movement and the method produced differing results for different nations.

Chad

[Rob]

I thought I would sum up how far I have progressed from when I asked my original questions.

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.

There were quite a few replies to this question, and we tended to drift a little from the original question, which is fine. I have newly read "The Art of War in the Age of Napoleon" by Gunther E Rothenberg, and it surprisingly has something to say about this question. It makes clear that a lot of drill regulations post 7YW owed a great deal to the Prussian model with observers after the 7YW flocking each year to observe the Potsdam annual reviews. It states (under the "Imitators of Frederick" section of chapter 1) that as result of this admiration militarily of everything Prussian, Spain and Russia both introduced Prussian drill. Which seems to nail this question.

I am very grateful to Hwiccee and Chad for their input. 

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.

vonlacy input that the Americans used 2 ranks when in close order. This makes sense as Washington did serve in the British forces during the earlier wars against the French. It is also supported by the re-enactors on U-Tube. These fellows are generally pretty particular about accuracy.

The answer to the subsequent question about the Continentals using open order is found in "With Zeal and Bayonets Only" where there is a quote from General Burgoyne describing both militia and Continentals using open order in wood fighting. There is nothing to be found anywhere on them using the extended line as the British did so I assume they didn't.

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?

What I was after here was:
  a) The space an infantry occupied when in close order for Prussia, France, Austria and Denmark. If it changed during this period that would be nice to know too.
  b) Did each nation continue to use 3 ranks as the norm or had they changed to 2.

Many thanks to everyone that has contributed, if you have any more please don't be shy.

Cheers, Rob   

[Hwiccee]

It states (under the "Imitators of Frederick" section of chapter 1) that as result of this admiration militarily of everything Prussian, Spain and Russia both introduced Prussian drill. Which seems to nail this question.

This refers to Prussian style marching - i.e. the way to cadence march and not cadence marching itself - probably what we think of as goose stepping. If it meant cadenced marching then everyone imitated that, not just the Spanish/Russians.

[Leman]

This is how horse and musket players get their bolt counters fix.

[Chad]

Rob

Dawson's book on the French infantry in the Crimean War gives the following:

"Line and Light infantry formed in line in two ranks in times of peace and 3 in battle prior to 1852 and in two ranks thereafter. The Chasseurs,Zouaves and Tirailleurs Indigenes fought exclusively in two ranks in line.."

Chad

[Rob]

This refers to Prussian style marching - i.e. the way to cadence march and not cadence marching itself - probably what we think of as goose stepping. If it meant cadenced marching then everyone imitated that, not just the Spanish/Russians.

Sorry for not replying sooner, things are a bit manic at the moment.

Back to your reply. I really don't understand how you can say this. Have you read this book? Because you answer as though you have, but completely misrepresent what it is saying.

The chapter is part of a preamble to the 1790's showing the origin and evolution of armies the French would fight in the 1790's. It is trying to show how current drill methods came about preparing to show how the French then beat them.

For information although we are scrabbling about for evidence of when the Russians adopted cadence marching because of a lack of documentation, the introduction of the Goose Step to the Russian army is documented; during the 1796–1801 reign of Paul 1st. This was easily found on Wikipedia with a secondary reference taken from Haythornthwaite, Philip J. (1987). The Russian Army of the Napoleonic Wars: Infantry, 1799-1814. Osprey Publishing. p. 12.

Please, if you make any more statements back them up with a reference. I find your opinions very interesting but when we disagree we need to show some sort of source.


Cheers, Rob