Two very minor comments on LAOK

[Rod MacArthur]

I have now read my Last Argument of Kings from cover to cover a couple of times. I have two tiny comments, neither of which affect the rules themselves but may be of interest to some people.

Page 22 mentions the British battalion organisation as 10 companies. In fact this was their administrative organisation, but in combat situations they were reorganised as platoons, with the grenadier company forming two platoons and the remainder of the battalion being reorganised into either 12 or 16 platoons, depending on battalion strength. In practice since most British battalions were of very low strengths during this era they normally formed as 2 grenadier platoons and 12 others. I appreciate that many may want to organise their battalions on standard numbers of 24 or whatever, but for those who would like the correct proportion of grenadiers I would suggest stands couild represent two platoons, therefore one stand of grenadiers and either 6 or 8 stands of other companies. After British battalions formed Light Companies in 1770, administrative and tactical organisation became virtually the same (tactical just equalised the companies)

Page 83 mentions the Prussian deployment on the head of their columns as "processional". This is incorrect.

Processional deployment was that in use at the start of the era, when all the battalions in a column formed a long procession which marched up the side (normally the left) of the battlefield then the leading battalion wheeled across the front, followed by all those to form the first line, once these had done so a similar process took place to form the second line etc. It was a very time consuming process.

An improvement on this was parallel deployment where the army advanced in several parallel columns (Marlborough used nine at Blenheim) and each line of battle was formed by a number of battalions from each column. Culloden is a classic example where Cumberland's 15 battalions advanced in 3 columns, each of 5 battalions, and the columns were two battalion widths apart. The leading battalions in each column wheeled to form the first line, followed by the second battalions in each column (therefore 6 battalions in that first line). Simultaneously the third battalions, followed by the fourth, wheeled to form the second line (also of six battalions), and also simultaneously the 5th battalions in each column wheeled to form a three battalion reserve as a third line.

The Prussian "Secret Weapon" of deploying on the head of a column was "Perpendicular Deployment". After the Seven Years War it was taken up by everyone else, and led to the use of short battlefield columns (close columns, quarter-distance columns and half distance columns), because there was no longer a need to be at full distance in order to deploy into line. These columns (Black Powder Attack Columns) were used to advance much closer to the enemy, but in the process gave much more scope for cavalry, and this led directly to the development of true Napoleonic tactics.

Rod

[CplJohn]

Rod,

From the author, both very correct and relevent points. Dont know how processional slipped through!

The organisation for British battalions is the simple option, but you are of course correct about the platoons.

Nice to see someone is reading it cover to cover and hope you enjoyed the rest!

Pete

[Rod MacArthur]

Hi Pete,

As I said, they are very minor comments, and neither detract from your outstanding supplement.

LAOK has certainly inspired me to consider pausing the expansion of my already considerable Napoleonic Armies in order to paint up a 1745 Jacobite Rebellion set-up.

Congratulations on LAOK.

Rod

[Invisible officer]

You are correct with the difference between logistic and tactical organisation of the British battalion.

But there is no British manual that stated half platoons of grenadiers on both flanks.
In fact these are normally away from the battalion, forming grenadier battalions. In SYW or AWI you hardly find a fight with the grenadiers present with the battalion.
Same in AWI with the light companies. The battalion commanders used to train the best center company men as skirmishers, keeping them away from the "Elite" companies, not wanting to lose them from battalion control. Often these skirmishers in normal line dress became more proficient than the official light company ones.

Later they kept the elite companies with the unit.
The 1807 manual have the Grenadiers in Line to the right and the light company to the left of the battalion line.
It says:
"The eight battalion companies will compose four grand divisions; -eight companies or platoons, -sixteen sub divisions, -thirty-two sections, when sufficiently strong to be so divided, otherwise twenty-four, for the purpose of march. -The battalion is also divided into right and left wings. -When the battalion is on a high establishment, each company will be divided into two platoons. When the ten companies are with the battalion, they may then, for
the purposes of firing or deploying, be divided into five grand division from right to left."
"The companies may be equalized in point of numbers, at all times when the battalion is formed for field movement"

Oh, another All claim Wellington's men to form in two ranks every time , but the 1807 manual states three as the usual way. The often cited general order by Wellington (3rd Aug. 1808 “The order of battle for the army is two rank, and as follows, ….”) might refer to the battalion ranks or the rank of battalions . The manual was reprinted in 1816 without change . Was horse guard soooo stupid post Waterloo??? Sources claiming a two rank order for a certain situation might even be taken as proof that three was normal. Nobody writes about the normal practice.

Sorry for being so nerdy But I love reading the old sources. That's why I love real oob lists but dislike the formal army lists of a point system. I don't care to lose a game with a small, but realistic army. Yery

[Rod MacArthur]

But there is no British manual that stated half platoons of grenadiers on both flanks.

I never said half-platoons, what I said was that in the British system the grenadier company divided into two platoons.

The standard British regulations for most of the 18th Century were the various editions of Humphrey Bland's "A Treatise of Military Discipline". My hard copy of that is a Ken Trotman reprint of the 1762 Ninth Edition and on page 79 it shows a battalion divided into 18 platoons, with a grenadier platoon on each flank and the 16 centre platoons in the middle.

I also have electronic copies (they are a free download from Google) of both the 1727 Second Edition and 1759 Eighth Edition of the same manual. The 1727 one has the same diagram on page 69 and the 1759 one has it on page 79.

Apart from these particular diagrams all of these manuals have several other sections showing the grenadiers split into two separate platoons, one to each flank, and even subdivided yet again into half platoons when the battalion formed square. All the manuals say that 16 centre platoons was the norm, but if the battalion was weak it should be divided into only 12 platoons (plus the two grenadier platoons, which were normally kept up more up to strength than the rest of the battalion). In fact almost all British battalions in this era numbered less than 500 men and often less than 400 men, so most were indeed weak.

Several secondary sources (such as David Chandler's "The Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough") also show this same battalion layout with grenadier platoons on the flanks.

I accept that on occasions converged grenadier battalions were formed. I am not really expert in the 18th Century (Napoleonics is may main interest) but have studied the British 18th Century manuals as a prelude to my more detailed study of Napoleonic ones (I own originals of most of the British Napoleonic Drill regulations and copies of the few I do not have originals of, plus copies of those for most other nations).

When I get around to building a 1745 Jacobite Rebellion set-up I will probably make my British battalions one (splitable) grenadier stand and 6 centre company stands (the latter including one command stand). I would intend using the same British battalions in any War of Austrian Succession set-up and Seven Years War set-up. If I need to create converged grenadier battalions for any particular scenario I would just detach them from their parent battalions, then group them together, as happened in real life.

Rod

[Rod MacArthur]

Well we are out of the 18th Century and into Napoleonics with this quote.

Later they kept the elite companies with the unit.

It is generally true that in the Napoleonic era the British did not form converged grenadier battalions (although they did form all of the grenadier and light battalions into flank battalions at Barrosa). All of the armies which Wellington commanded did however always form converged light battalions in accordance with his General Orders for the Peninsula and Waterloo campaigns reproduced below:

Extract from General Order issued at Coimbra on 4 May 1809
The light infantry companies belonging to, and the riflemen attached to each brigade of infantry, are to be formed together, on the left of the brigade, under the command of a Field Officer or Captain of light infantry of the brigade, to be fixed upon by the Officer who commands it. Upon all occasions, in which the brigade may be formed in line, or in column, when the brigade shall be formed for the purpose of opposing an enemy, the light infantry companies and riflemen will be of course in the front, flanks, or rear, according to the circumstances of the ground, and the nature of the operation to be performed. On all other occasions, the light infantry companies are to be considered as attached to their battalions, with which they are to be quartered or encamped, and solely under the command of the Commanding Officer of the battalion to which they belong.


Extract from General Order issued at Bruxells on 9 May 1815The light infantry companies belonging to each brigade of infantry, are to act together as a battalion of light infantry, under the command of a field officer or captain, to be selected for the occasion by the General Officer commanding the brigade, upon all occasions on which the brigade may be formed in line or column, whether for a march, or to oppose the enemy. On all other occasions, the light infantry companies are to be considered as attached to their battalions, with which they are to be quartered or encamped, and solely under the command of the commanding officer of the battalion to which they belong. The Commander of the Forces wishes that some of the light infantry battalions of each brigade should be practiced in the manoeuvres of the light infantry, and if possible in firing at a mark.

Hope this helps

Rod

[Invisible officer]

The half platoon was an error, I wrote half companies and changed to platoons forgetting to erase half.

The forming of light "battalions" from the napoleonic wars brigades light campanies was the norm. But they stayed with the brigade, so very close to the original unit, forming the screen for their own parent battalion and his 2-3 companion units.

In AWI they are detached to other commands, sometimes even away to another theatre of war. Same since SYW with the grenadiers. Typical example is Bunker Hill but most other battles are fought with sepearate Grenadiers too.

The Bland manual shows the use together with the battalion, just because the officer had to know how to use them in the rare case they are there. So they did in England for training, the detachement was a local affair overseas.

Chandler used Bland, so it's no wonder that he shows the same deployment. But if you have a look in the original OOB of the campaigns you find the Grenadier and Light "Elite" battalions formed. In SYW on the continent they did it like all the other major powers.

Bland also give no clue how to act with the many company officers absent. The companies 1-3 had no Captain, the Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel and Major doubled in this role. But they usually had to serve away from the company. The two colours of the regiment are carried by two ensigns, drawn from the companies. Others might be detached for service with loyalist units or simply not able to serve. So 5 or more officers would be absent from the companies. With detached, ill and dead we have the possibility of only one officer left.

The AWI British companies all had the same basic organization: 3 officers, 3 sergeants, 3 corporals, 2 drummers , and 47 - 56 privates. Both flank companies had two lieutenants rather than a lieutenant and an ensign. Three of the line companies lacked a captain since the field officers commanding them nominally were also captains. The grenadier company had two additional fifers, slots used for the regimental fife and drum majors. Three of the privates in every company were "contingent men," fictitious names carried on the regiment's rolls. Their pay was used as a special regimental fund for the care of widows and orphans.

The companies actual OR’s numbers in the field was much less. The 350 Grenadiers at Lexington / Concord came from 11 Battalions, that gives an average company strength of 31. Including Musicians, Sergeants and Corporals we are left with a maximum of 24 privates. Grenadier companies got replacements from the centre companies so they tended to be stronger!
At Guildford Court house the biggest battalion counted 322 men, the smallest 212. So we get 25 – 40 men per centre company. Compared to the above sample these unit strength are surprisingly high in a long campaign with many ill soldiers.

In the 1745/46 jacobite rebellion the government forces formed no grenadier battalions, so you are correct to have 1/10th Grenadiers in the line, formed on both sides of the battalion. In the Black powder Bonnie price Charles post you see my own, with grenadiers at the flanks.
At Prestonpans the three foot regiments detached men as artillery guard (ca 100 from Murray's) and a picquet of ca. 300. Total: Lee 291 Murray 580 and Lascelle 570, so most came from the two bigger units.

[Rod MacArthur]

Bland also give no clue how to act with the many company officers absent. The companies 1-3 had no Captain, the Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel and Major doubled in this role. But they usually had to serve away from the company. The two colours of the regiment are carried by two ensigns, drawn from the companies. Others might be detached for service with loyalist units or simply not able to serve. So 5 or more officers would be absent from the companies. With detached, ill and dead we have the possibility of only one officer left.

The solution for shortage of officers, then and now, was that the sergeants stepped up to that role (speaking as someone who spent 30 years in the British Army). Particularly in the 18th Century, a battalion formed in line just had to shoot and possibly march forward. It does not take an officer to ensure that the soldiers do that. Some British Regiments still celebrate battles where every officer was a casualty (not all dead, several wounded) and the sergeants take possession of the Regimental Colours for one day to remember that. The main role of a company officer was administration and training, which is why some nations (eg Prussians in the Napoleonic era) opted for double sized companies since this economised on officers and the sergeants could perfectly well handle platoons (half-companies) or even companies during a battle.

Rod

[Invisible officer]

Well, that's true. But most Sergeants lacked initiative in this time. You could trust them to get the men to load and fire, to stand in position but if you want a charge you needed an officer. It was a class society, you still find that problem in WW I. The public school officer with no experience had to lead.

In 1806 the Prussian Musketeer Battalion had 22 Officers for 4 companies with ca 752 OR The simple reason was a lack of noble officers. In the 1813/14 campaigns they had to rely on non noble emergency officers, post war most left the army. (Still so in WW I, they created the emergency Feldwebelleutnant, experienced NCO's not becoming officers for class reasons)

The British Battalion of the time had ca. 34 officers for ca. 1000 + men. At full complement of ca. 1200 (10 companies of 113 privates + 12 Sergeants / Corporals) they would be even more "economic" than the Prussians.

Neither British nor Prussian units reached the battlefield with full complement. 50% was good , mostly less.

[Rod MacArthur]

Well, that's true. But most Sergeants lacked initiative in this time. You could trust them to get the men to load and fire, to stand in position but if you want a charge you needed an officer. It was a class society, you still find that problem in WW I. The public school officer with no experience had to lead.

Well as far as the British Army is concerned, I do not believe that Sergeants were lacking in initiative at that time, or indeed at any time. Look at Sergeant Molloy of the 55th, stoutly defending Ruthven Barracks in 1745, and later commissioned for his actions.

In the Napoleonic Wars most officers came from middle class backgrounds. The sergeants of that era seem to have been very capable and some of them wrote excellent memoirs.

In the First World War, 95% of British Officers were not "Public School Boys" and a significant proportion were commissioned from the ranks.

Rod