View Full Version : .napoleonic military formations.
Well, just saw a somewhat old british movie (still, made in the '90) about the war from Spain. And of course, they argued against the column formed by the frech when advancing against them (the british always used the siple line as the backbone of their formation). Now, what do you think about the advantages and disadvantages of thee tactics?
For the revolutionary armies it was a logical choice since they consisted of mostly untrained men. The easiest option was to throw them against the enemy en masse. The British was trained soldiers so they could deploy their troops in formation which gave them the greatest fire power (which was IIRC double line and not single). The column formation was adopted and widely used by Napoleon because it fitted his idea of seeking and fighting "decisive battles".
Well here's my two cents... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif
France's heavy reliance on the use of attack columns was born out of the need for fast moving and simple formations in the years immediately following the French Revolution. The armies of Revolutionary France were decidedly amateurish and inexperienced compared to their European counterparts and the use of attack columns preceded by a swarms (literally) of skirmishers in very loose formation was one of the few tactics which the inexperienced Revolutionary armies could field effectively. By its very nature the attack column also affords an extra degree of 'comfort' and provides a much needed morale boost by providing average inexperienced soldier with comrades to his front, back and on both sides.
Attack columns also offer the quickest, most effective means for infantry to move about the battlefield while maintaining their offensive capability and overall flexibility, characteristics the offensive minded Napoleon valued greatly.
Attack Column - Flexible, fast moving tactical force with maximum offensive (charge/melee) capability and minimal firepower. The size of an attack column could vary; at Waterloo the Imperial Guard sent to assault the British center were foolishly deployed in unusually large and unwieldly divisional columns which, in the face of a long and extended line of muskets, was simply asking for trouble. Had the Guard been deployed in smaller columns (or any other tactical formation barring a square) the outcome might have been very different.
Line - Maximum firepower with the lowest degree of flexibility, speed and charge/melee capability. Comparatively speaking it is extremely easy to disrupt and break the cohesion of a unit in line formation. Simply marching in line (or worse, extended line) formation in the midst of battle (smoke, noise, etc.), let alone over uneven and broken ground, can quickly disrupt the line's cohesion and expose the unit to counterattack or cavalry charge. Considering the depth of a line formation rarely surpasses two or three ranks a tattered and morally shaken unit in this formation can easily be broken and cut to pieces. However when you want to put as much lead into an enemy unit as possible the British two rank line was THE formation to beat for that era.
Mixed Order - A marriage of the attack column and line formation which offered a respectable amount of firepower while maintaining flexibity and a strong offensive capability. Arguably the best of both worlds and a formation Napoleon favored and encouraged his generals to use. Unfortunately the value of this formation was either overlooked or lost completely on many of Napoleons generals in the battles of 1813-1815. One could make the argument that France's armies of the later Napoleonic period possessed far too many conscripts for this formation to be used as effectively as in previous campaigns but I don't think this is a valid argument, especially when you consider that The Grand Army that fought at Waterloo was laden with veteran troops and officers.
Attack columns can be effective against units in line formation provided artillery and skirmishers can sufficiently diminish the enemy's numbers before the attack columns make contact. If these conditions are not met the end result can prove to be disastrous for the attacking force.
Thank you both, I apreciate your opinions. I was thinking at the vulnerability of the column in front of canons, esspecially when close to them. On the other hand, they can easily form squares that can engage separatly.
Also don´t forget the anti cavalry characteristics of a collumn formation, since it is basicly a spearwall. A line formation is especially vulnerable for a charge, but provide better firepower against collums and is less likely to be torn up by artillary.
My opinion also, this is what I said when speaking of the possibility of forming squares. But I always thought that the danger of being hit by the artillery "is not acceptable". One blow and tens must have died.
Artillary was very effective against squares, the killing power came from the lead ball 'bouncing' over the battlefield. A popular tactic was pounding the formations with artillary (that was pretty accurate at that time), while moving the cavalry to the flanks(so forming a line was pure suicide). Then move in the infantry in line formation for pure gun power. The square formation could do nothing but retreat, or try a desperate charge at the infantry. It was like a game of chess http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Curiosity, do you visit the legiontotalwar forums? Something from your post made me think that you do.
No, but military history is a hobby of mine. Do you have a link of that site?
Yes, but you probably know it already, is the old TWC
TWC (http://www.legiontotalwar.com) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
Quote[/b] ]Thank you both, I apreciate your opinions. I was thinking at the vulnerability of the column in front of canons, esspecially when close to them. On the other hand, they can easily form squares that can engage separatly.
You're welcome Yes, as far as the mobile, tactical formations are concerned attack columns are particularly vulnerable to enemy artillery fire. But you should know there was a slower, more 'cavalry unfriendly' variant of the attack column known as the 'massed column'. The Austrians and possibly the Russians(?) were known to use this formation now and again. A massed column is simply a more densely packed (and slower moving) version of the attack column which could more readily discourage cavalry without losing mobility.
As far as I know the battle of Borodino bore witness to some of the worst carnage ever inflicted on columns by artillery. After the French took the three 'fleches' (mini-redoubts) in the center of the Russian line Kutusov committed the Russian Guards to hold the newly reformed Russian center on the slopes leading to the high ground just beyond them, thus anchoring the left flank of the Great Redoubt on the Russian right. Because the Guards were deployed in column formation on the slopes facing the rear of the fleches newly deployed French artillery was able to rip into them with relative ease. The Russian Guards stood and endured hours of bombardment despite the repeated pleas to Kutusov by General Docturov(?) to allow him to move them backwards and upwards onto higher ground. Kutusov's refusal led to such a butchering of the Russian Guards that General Docturov actually lost 'it' at one point and had to be physically restrained
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.