Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Mssrs.,

At the close of my training of a new cadet, we got into an interesting discussion of the use of column vs. line. In particular, the cadet raised the point that, although the game's mechanics clearly favor the use of columns for assaults, it was not particularly "historical." I saved our exchange and thought it might interest others.

The cadet's post was as follows (I've left out personally identifying matters):

That said (I hate that expression), the battle felt more like a WW II desert Blitzkrieg than my conception of Napoleonic warfare. I take your point about linear tactics and attacking without firing a shot, which I'm sure must have happened from time to time, but the amount of destruction and disruption within a 10-minute time frame, including follow-on cavalry charges, is a bit hard to swallow.

You probably know Scott Bowden's Napoleon and Austerlitz (1997). After discussing the usual notions about how combined arms tactics would cause the enemy to adopt disadvantageous formations in some detail, he writes (p. 41), "...the opposing side would find it difficult to maintain themselves against these combined arms tactics over a prolonged period of several hours." and "...rash charges by infantry against an unshaken opponent were an exception rather than the rule,..." and "In any charge, a combination of favorable factors would have to be present in order to tempt a Napoleonic officer into such action. The least of these would include a visible deterioration of the enemy troops that usually came after a quarter-to-half-hour of combat." [seems to contradict the above] He goes on to say that the elite units were the exception to using firepower to soften up the enemy.

And on p. 45 we read, "...the attack column was not intended for shock combat, but a formation designed for rapid movement around the battlefield, easily transformed into line for fire combat, or into square to fend off enemy horsemen."

And finally, on p. 42, he quotes Ney: "...a French commander ought never to hesitate in marching against the enemy with the bayonet, if the ground is at all adapted to a charge in line with one or more battalions at a time."

Here's my reply:

As to your observations, I’m very familiar with Scottie’s writings, owning several of his works including the one you quoted, and I even played his Empire miniatures rules for a few years. The first thing you most know about Mssr. Bowden is that his dictums must be taken with a large grain of salt. His comments are a good general statement, but you also have to adapt to the circumstances of a given scenario. In the scenario we played the French a) have an elite, converged grenadier division; b) and a finite amount of time to effectuate a breakthrough. There simply isn’t time to stage a deliberate attack, complete with a preliminary bombardment.

As to the use of the column formation, yes, it was originally conceived by French theoreticians following the 7 Years War and, as encapsulated in the Règlement du 1er août 1791, it was only meant “to facilitate a rapid approach march followed by deployment into line.” Lynn, John, The Bayonets of the Republic – Motivation and Tactics in the Army of Revolutionary France, 1791 – 94, p. 253 (Westview Press 1996). Once the lead began flying, however, the new officers of the French Revolutionary Army began to adopt the “closed column” (There were several varieties of “columns”) as the preferred formation for conducting an assault. Lynn, supra, p. 253 -257. “Shock assault in column emerged as the decisive element in offensive tactics by the Armée du Nord.” By 1793 the use of attack columns, coupled with l’arme blanche, became the standard attack formation of the French Army. This practice, in turn, was carried over to the Imperial armies of Napoleon (along with most of the other tactical innovations popularly credited to Le Tondu, but actually developed during the Revolutionary Wars).

Regards,

Paco

_________________
Maréchal M. Francisco Palomo
Prince d'Essling et Duc d'Abrantes
Commandant en Chef du 1er Corps d'Armée

Thanks for sharing this, Paco. These discussions, posted on our public forum, can prove educational for all. Hopefully this will spark a further discussion of specific Napoleonic tactics. I will defer to our other "more educated" officers for that input.

I do want to highlight a couple of points that you have made that I think are very good.

First, each officer must be very careful in his reading of history. I have found that relying on any single work, no matter how well rendered, is generally a mistake. Every historian that has ever penned his work onto paper is biased. No matter that they take every imaginable precaution to ensure that thier writings are factually based and objective. The human condition is such that we all live within our individual bodies, guiding our operation through life on the things that we perceive to be occuring around us. It is this isolated perception that induces the bias into everything we do. It is absolutely unavoidable. A good historian will compose his work based on facts, but you must always remember these "facts" are nothing more than events recorded by other human beings which necessarily, based on my foregoing comments, include their own personal bias. The only way to truly appreciate history, and to approximate the actual events that transpired, is to read every work written on the subject at hand and, with a deep understanding of human nature, carefully lay each over the other in your mind until the true picture of the event emerges. One should always be wary of the "one source" solution.

Second, when playing any of the fine games that we have in this club, or any other type of game for that matter, I would encourage each player to clearly see the sitution that lies before him. Discard any preconceptions you hold about how the game "must" be played to conform to your historical understanding. Take a look at the components that lie before you (i.e. forces, deployment, terrain, weather conditions, your opponent, etc.) and deicide how this particular situation "should" best be played to win. In this manner, you will get closer to the military leaders you are seeking to emulate. The games that we play are magnificent. I applaude the designers for their dilligent work and commitment to our hobby. Certainly we would all be in very sad straits without them, but none of these games will ever be historically "perfect". A close approximation that is enjoyble to play is the very best that can be achieved and is, of itself, a most notable accomplishment. I simply cannot give enough credit to our game designers and all others who are involved in the process that makes these games a reality. Open your minds as you play, see the situation that surrounds you, and act in the very best manner you can to turn it to your own victory, but above all, have fun.

OK, enough of the philosophy. I somehow seem to have managed to have created a post that did not include a personal jab at Napoleon I. Hmmm, I must be slipping. Need to work on that I suppose.

The Marechal is correct. Indeed at Borodino for example both sides virtually fought the whole battle in columns.

Also Colonel Jones I agree completely with your comments.

Salute!

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

Well one thing that is misleading is what a column really was. In our game we have a firepower factor that reduces the column based on the frontage of such. A column was actually six companies IN LINE! This was the standard type of column the FRENCH used. A column used by the Russians had a shorter frontage just because the companies IN THE T&OE tables was smaller than the French model.

However, at Borodino the Russians usually had larger battalians than the French because of the losses that La Grande Armee suffered.

A 350 man bn. at Borodino is not an uncommon item but at Austerlitz it is nonexistent.

I think that when I have instructed someone in the series I always remind them that the Column actually was a 2x3 set of companies in linear formation.

Now you could get an Austrian formation (Battalion masse) that had a narrow frontage and they changed into a "Square" easier. Such a formation justifies "they turned the head of the column" while the French and Prussian model for instance the column would not be "turned" or facing changed but it would be pushed back. More or less in a linear formation. 2 companies on the front and 3 deep.

The grenadier would at times shift to one of the flanks of the battalion to give more frontage, thus a 3x2 format.

In effect this kind of column actually fired with 1/2 of the usual firepower of a column while the Austrian Battalion masse was more like 1/8 or something to that effect.

How does this all translate:

1. The French army of the Rev period was conscripts or worse. To keep them in formation they used columns more than line. Maneuvering in line for a French Rev bn. would mean something like 60 percent chance that they would disorder for each hex. They and the Austrians of 1813 for instance (the average line soldier) could not execute the drill manual properly so the column was used throughout. Thus the players need to understand that these column attacks are actually quite historical and to try and force the players to "deploy properly, do the Napoleonic two step and fire in line and then do the cha cha cha into column and attack when your opponent is weak is not often how the French Rev soldiers operated. Which is why the Allied generals DID have problems with the French for so long.

2. The game shows over and over again that done correctly the column mentality can be bested. Even if you do not double stack your battalions of Prussian infantry (in Line) as Bill Peterson demonstrated to me on a couple of occasions, a practice that I now use myself. Other formats can be done - using the terrain properly, etc.

3. A good line defense can halt a column attack for a time. But combined arms defense is needed. You need to keep a small reserve IN COLUMN to counter the attack AND a cavalry reserve AND horse batteries at the ready to punish them after they are Disordered.

4. Terrain plays a HUGE part in all of this. In my Wavre game with Jeff Bardon my Prussian columns made good attacks but he was able to quickly counter their gains. Meanwhile, I could not use my cavalry. In this case I was sort of stuck as if I sat still Jeff was just going to wear them all down one battalion at a time. My plan was to see him concentrate a major force on my right flank and then get him where he was (I thought) weak. It didn't work (but I think that the scenario format is flawed - the French for instance knew that another Prussian corps was on its way to strike their left flank but an exit hex allows them to gather in more VPs - this influenced my attack as otherwise large numbers of French were going to exit the map) but it was bold plan that could have if done correctly. However, to Jeff's credit, he used the terrain better than myself. That and a few key routs I had ...

Bottom line: this is not the Seven Years War. I often hear this argued here that the game produces too many casualties (and the melee procedure is too bloody I agree) but all too often they are saying that the "toss the army at the defender as it works" method is making the game terribly unhistorical. I disagree. I have used that same mentality against Paco and he has beaten me as the defender. A look at his units AFTER the game showed that it was a close run thing but I am saying that even with the column attacks there is a way to counter them.

And honestly, attacking a fresh enemy is usually not a smart thing to do in our games. If done properly a fresh brigade should be able to hold its own for 40 mins. on its own with some support from a few squadrons well placed and artillery fire support. That is unless the attacker has three brigades or more to toss at him.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)