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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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.
2. The American and British both fought in loose files as the terrain mitigated against close, shoulder to shoulder formations.
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 !
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.
Quote from: Husaria on 14 November 2015, 06:03:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Husaria on 14 November 2015, 06:03:40 PMBefore 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
Quote from: vonlacy on 14 November 2015, 03:35:27 PM
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
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 !
Quote from: Rob on 15 November 2015, 01:23:59 AM
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.
Quote from: Husaria on 15 November 2015, 10:38:42 AM
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 (http://www.pendrakenforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,13145.0.html)
QuoteCadenced 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
QuotePrior 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.
QuoteManoeuvre 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.
QuoteIn 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?
QuoteFor 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
QuoteAlso, 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.
Quote from: Husaria on 15 November 2015, 10:38:42 AM
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.
Quote from: Husaria on 15 November 2015, 10:38:42 AMAlso, 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 :)
Quote from: vonlacy on 15 November 2015, 12:20:20 PM
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 :D :D) 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? :)
If you have Nosworthy's 'The Anatomy of Victory ', pages 136-139 are a useful read, covering Cavalry Attacking Infantry.
Chad
Quote from: Hwiccee on 15 November 2015, 10:13:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Hwiccee on 15 November 2015, 10:13:45 PMUntil 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.
Quote from: Hwiccee on 15 November 2015, 10:13:45 PMIn 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 :)
Quote from: Hwiccee on 15 November 2015, 10:13:45 PMPresumably 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 :) :)
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.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 16 November 2015, 01:17:53 PM
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
Quote from: Rob on 16 November 2015, 01:37:22 PM
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 ..........
:)
That's silly, lets have something decent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25Qhbdijv5Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25Qhbdijv5Y)
Rob,
QuoteI 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.
QuoteBrigadier-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
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.
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.
Quote from: Hwiccee on 16 November 2015, 05:56:48 PM
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 =)
Quote from: Hwiccee on 16 November 2015, 05:56:48 PMThe 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. :-[
Quote from: Hwiccee on 16 November 2015, 05:56:48 PMUmm 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
Quote from: FierceKitty on 16 November 2015, 11:22:29 PM
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 :D ;D ;D
Quote from: FierceKitty on 16 November 2015, 11:22:29 PM
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 :o
:) Rob
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.
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.
Quote from: Hwiccee on 19 November 2015, 01:29:14 PM
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 :) :)
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
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
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.
I allow my SYW Prussians a significant bonus in formation changing and in reforming from disorder.
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
Quote from: Husaria on 19 November 2015, 08:27:34 PM
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
Quote from: Chad on 19 November 2015, 08:16:14 PMThe 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
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 (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
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.
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
I thought I would sum up how far I have progressed from when I asked my original questions.
Quote from: Rob on 31 October 2015, 03:34:18 PM
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. :)
Quote from: Rob on 31 October 2015, 03:34:18 PM2. 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.
Quote from: Rob on 31 October 2015, 03:34:18 PM3. 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 :) :)
QuoteIt 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.
This is how horse and musket players get their bolt counters fix.
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
Quote from: Hwiccee on 02 December 2015, 11:39:16 AM
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 :)
Quote from: Chad on 02 December 2015, 07:43:58 PM
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
Thanks Chad. I knew it happened but didnt know when. :)
Quote from: Rob on 06 December 2015, 12:26:47 PM
Back to your reply. I really don't understand how you can say this.
I guessed you wouldn't. I have tried to be polite but you don't seem to understand that so I have replied in your style this time - perhaps this might get through.
QuoteHave you read this book? Because you answer as though you have, but completely misrepresent what it is saying.
No I have not read this book and I know the author was a respected Napoleonic author. I am afraid only an idiot would rely on a Napoleonic specialist for this kind of information outside his period. But I strongly suspect that the problem here is not with the author but with your opinions and understanding of him.
You even say
Quoteit surprisingly has something to say about this question
! Yes it is and perhaps that should have prompted some thought? Have you ever actually thought about any of this & questioned what is being said. You have a knack of cherry picking information, try thinking about the whole picture.
Ok so to the point - I am only going on your opinion and 'understanding' of what he says . Either Rothenberg is totally wrong (which I think is very unlikely) or you have no idea what he is talking about. If Rothenberg is really saying that 'imitating' the Prussians means introducing cadenced marching then this is clearly wrong as everyone 'imitated' in this way & it makes no sense to single out some nations. Again with out looking at the work but Rothenberg is almost certainly talking about imitating Prussians style, fashions, etc. This was ONLY imitated by some nations - I don't know about the Spanish but the Russians certainly did. This is why there is no mention of cadenced marching, it is what 'admiration militarily of everything Prussian' means and hence my use of 'Prussian style marching'. Frankly I would have thought this was pretty obvious.
Quote
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.
OK my mistake. I was trying to keep it simple as you don't seem to have much knowledge of this era or of how to look into a subject like this.
I had also foolishly imagined that your language skills were sufficient to recognize the main point of an argument. I am afraid you often add 2 and 2 and come back with the answer green penguin!
QuotePlease, 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.
I am sorry I just don't have time to write a book for you or inclination to answer you in more detail.
As mentioned before (but seemingly not understood) I gave my opinion in my first reply to you, basically no one knows the answer on the available evidence we have at the moment. This is frankly obvious to anyone who does a basic study of this and again the clue is in the fact that reliable details about such a crucial advance are impossible to find. I think only a fool would imagine that if these kinds of details were known they wouldn't be in most/all books. The crux of the rest of my comments are that your posts are illogical and often rubbish or gibberish - usually because of this it is difficult to answer your ideas. Frankly I am afraid you have made up your mind and no amount of argument or evidence is going to change it & I am not inclined to try much. More thought and less opinion from you would be good - not cherry picking would be a good start. I only bother to answer as I wouldn't want others think that what you say is correct, this is exactly how a lot of the rubbish in wargaming/history gets to be 'what everyone knows'.
I suggest you do some reading, preferably of period material and if possible in a variety of languages.
I would further suggest you start with finding the exact date, name and other details of when the cadenced marching was first introduced/re-introduced in this era . The exact date if possible, the year if not. What the document was called and who was the author. Possible also the publisher/printer and other details but these are less important. Remember that non primary sources need to reference the primary source, many just give a date without any evidence/reference to back this up.
Once you have this you then have some chance of going from there to when others introduced it - i.e. you will have a start date to start searching from. Let us all know when you find this information.
Perhaps this discussion needs to be shunted to TMP.
Gentleman
Really not in the spirit of this forum!
Agreed !
Time out, chaps ! :-t :-t
Topic temporarily locked.