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

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 

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

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

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