Hello all,
This is my first post on the forum, but I started playing the Napoleonic games with HPS. I am sure this has been brought up before, but I have always wondered:
There are basically 3 movement formations used during this period:
1. Line
2. Movement Column
3. Attack Column
Only two forms are used in the game with Movement and Attack columns "merged". Attack columns were a significant formation used by all the armies (except the British) during this period. Was there any thought given to adding the Attack Column to the games?
Thank you,
Movement Formations
Re: Movement Formations
Non british infantry has a 25% melee bonus in column. Currently the column is both an attack and move formation.
- Christian Hecht
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2022 1:57 pm
- Location: Bouches-de-l’Elbe
- Contact:
Re: Movement Formations
Exactly, just imagine that it is the correct column for the situation.
Général Christian Hecht
Commandant en Chef de la Grande Armée
Comte et Chevalier de l'Empire
Napoleonic Wargame Club
Commandant en Chef de la Grande Armée
Comte et Chevalier de l'Empire
Napoleonic Wargame Club
Re: Movement Formations
Ahh, the wargames myth that Column of Divisions was an 'attack' column.
It was for moving around the battlefield or for waiting to be moved, that occasionally engaged in 'charges'. The idea was to change into line before contact if the enemy was looking 'solid' to engage in a firefight. If the enemy was not up for it, then they usually broke before the column reached them and once in the enemy's old position the advancing unit would form line to hold the taken ground. Yes, sometimes the column would be used to 'charge' in, but probably these instances are mentioned more in accounts of the time because they were not the norm and thus worth mentioning. Remember one of the Divisions of I Corp at Waterloo was deployed as a massive column of battalions in line to prevent the old Peninsular problem of getting hit with a volley when trying to change formation.
And as for the British not using them: well another myth I'm afraid - most units behind the ridge at Waterloo were in columns as it is just easier and thus more efficient moving troops in this formation, and also quicker to form square from - another reason to utilise it.
It was for moving around the battlefield or for waiting to be moved, that occasionally engaged in 'charges'. The idea was to change into line before contact if the enemy was looking 'solid' to engage in a firefight. If the enemy was not up for it, then they usually broke before the column reached them and once in the enemy's old position the advancing unit would form line to hold the taken ground. Yes, sometimes the column would be used to 'charge' in, but probably these instances are mentioned more in accounts of the time because they were not the norm and thus worth mentioning. Remember one of the Divisions of I Corp at Waterloo was deployed as a massive column of battalions in line to prevent the old Peninsular problem of getting hit with a volley when trying to change formation.
And as for the British not using them: well another myth I'm afraid - most units behind the ridge at Waterloo were in columns as it is just easier and thus more efficient moving troops in this formation, and also quicker to form square from - another reason to utilise it.
- Cédric Monget
- Posts: 165
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:56 pm
- Location: Bordeaux
Re: Movement Formations
Let's say that the notion of attack column is convenient to differentiate it from the march column (when the troops march on a road or path).
But yes you are absolutely right, the attack column is generally intended to deploy in line in contact with the enemy and itself is a fairly wide formation, hence the relevance, in my opinion, of putting it in disorder when it enters the woods, town, etc.
But yes you are absolutely right, the attack column is generally intended to deploy in line in contact with the enemy and itself is a fairly wide formation, hence the relevance, in my opinion, of putting it in disorder when it enters the woods, town, etc.
Re: Movement Formations
IainF:
Actually no, it is not a myth. Just one reference, James R Arnold: Napoleon Conquers Austria. Both the French/Allies and the Austrians repeatedly formed "attack columns". Yes, in theory, column for approach and then deploy into line to attack. The French were masters of that until their losses in officers and experienced soldiers became so heavy that they had to relay on conscripts with very little training. After 1809 they relied on attack columns and massed batteries. Yes, there were some units that still had a strong core of officers/NCOs allowing them to maneuver like the Grand Army, but they were a distinct minority. The Austrians used attack column's up until the war with Prussia in 1866, to their regret.
The British were the only ones to consistently use the line as a primary form of attack. Read any book on the war in Spain.
Lastly, your reference to Waterloo. Wellington kept is troops in columns because he did not trust his own Calvary to keep the French Calvary off their backs. You are correct about the French use of massive columns. How the British defeated the French at Waterloo was just about the same way they did it in Spain.
Actually no, it is not a myth. Just one reference, James R Arnold: Napoleon Conquers Austria. Both the French/Allies and the Austrians repeatedly formed "attack columns". Yes, in theory, column for approach and then deploy into line to attack. The French were masters of that until their losses in officers and experienced soldiers became so heavy that they had to relay on conscripts with very little training. After 1809 they relied on attack columns and massed batteries. Yes, there were some units that still had a strong core of officers/NCOs allowing them to maneuver like the Grand Army, but they were a distinct minority. The Austrians used attack column's up until the war with Prussia in 1866, to their regret.
The British were the only ones to consistently use the line as a primary form of attack. Read any book on the war in Spain.
Lastly, your reference to Waterloo. Wellington kept is troops in columns because he did not trust his own Calvary to keep the French Calvary off their backs. You are correct about the French use of massive columns. How the British defeated the French at Waterloo was just about the same way they did it in Spain.
- Verdun1916
- Posts: 279
- Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2022 8:42 am
- Location: Hässleholm, Sweden
Re: Movement Formations
What does the historical sources say on the subject? Are there any surviving military books, manuals or regulations dealing with these types of formations?
Would be an awesome subject to research!
Would be an awesome subject to research!
Re: Movement Formations
I am reading Chandler's great Campaigns of Napoleon now. If I come across any references, I will be happy to update everyone here. I know contemporary works are what is really needed, but Chandler must be working from either the source or the next step