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 !

Topic temporarily locked.