Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Salute,

As I signed up for the new tournament, I want to talk about this rule, included in "TOURNAMENT RULES - EMBEDDED MELEE DIVISION"

"Melée attacks against skirmishers (if numbering less than 100), wagons, and/or leaders may be conducted at any time during the turn."

Antony Barlow and me have agreed to add russian cossacks: we consider them as skirmishers.
We are looking at the facts as historically, cossacks never attacked formed units, they only harried stragglers and weak or routed units.
By this new rule, there are no more little cossacks squadrons blocking movements of formed infantry or cavalry units, and no more protecting unlimbered artillery.
There is one exception in our exception: Guard Cossacks. We consider them as normal cavalry.

I'd like that everybody think about it. We have to limit a little the exaggerated importance of the Cossacks on the battlefield, considering the historical facts, of course!

Vive l'Empereur!

_________________
Général de Brigade Christian Rizo

I agree with you. I think not including cossacks in that rule would deny its historical role in the battlefield.

_________________
Colonel Andreu Olmo

Salute,

In my view of this MOE Rule I will often count all such cavalry units that are deployed as companies from their parent unit the same as those companies deployed from an infantry battalion.

I find the essence of the rule to be applicable to any unit formed as and performing the role of a skirmisher.

What is written elsewhere here in the thread about Cossacks can be applied to all such units broken off of a parent formation.

I'm not suggesting this necessarily for this specific tournament, but those who use the MOE Rules should actively consider its application.

Drinks here Helga, for the thirsty officers gathering around and discussing a fine topic as this.

Regards

Gentlemen please insure you have entered the house rules division if you wish to use this rule. I do not agree with it for the following reasons:

1. Cossacks attacked formed units several time in the 1813 campaign although they were units on the march, fairly small and somewhat isolated.

2. Cossacks are already punished by the game engine and design by being very low quality and only receiving the charge bonus under certain limited conditions.

3. Having large numbers of Cossacks to use for disruption in rear areas and scouting during which times they often dispersed is historical so why would you want to limit them with a leash.

Both armies have their advantages. This rule would take away an advantage the Allies have.

_________________
Field Marshal Sir Edward Blackburn, 1st Duke of Aberdeen K.G.
85th (Buck's Light Volunteers) Regiment of Foot
16th British Brigade
7th Division
III (Peninsular) Corps
2nd Battalion, Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards

Salute!

I have no problem with using various 'skirmish-style' units as scouts, etc.

For me it comes down to the size of the units (no matter the type), which are being used for particular roles and actions upon the battle maps.

I consider that any 100+ (small) unit should not be acting like a modern day commando - whether infantry or cavalry.

I feel that players confuse the role of scouting with the unit type (skirmisher).

During the Napoleonic era I don't believe you will find such small detachments cavorting about a battle map - certainly not the large campaign maps.

It is the game engine design that gives the cavalry 'skirmisher' a directional facing that enables a small cavalry company the ability to halt the advance for example of a 2000 strength stack of infantry.

And when one reads of Cossacks performing missions behind enemy lines as it were, these were not single 100 man (or smaller) units, but regiments or brigades.

Helga, a glass for the Red Nemesis, that we may fill it.

Regards,

Christian really doesn't like Cossacks! , However, I listened to his arguments and I've found that our new rule (which considers them as skirmishers) does seem to make you use them in a different, perhaps more historical, way. You can still exert pressure with them by keeping at a distance but working your way around the flanks and threatening the enemy's rear, or dominating the road network, or other similarly irritating roles . All this ties up the enemy's light cavalry, as the cossacks can soon be made to descend on weaker units in a swarm, where the skirmisher exception to the embedded melee rule wouldn't have much effect due to the number of cossacks involved relative to the strength of the defenders.

But back to the MOE rules...

"Melée attacks against skirmishers (if numbering less than 100), wagons, and/or leaders may be conducted at any time during the turn."

I am a big advocate of the embedded melée rule in conjunction with 10 minute turns. However, my main criticism of the MOE rule is that I think the words 'if numbering less than 100' should be omitted, so that melée attacks against skirmishers of any number can be conducted at any time during the turn. This is how I always play it and it allows the attacker to sweep the enemy skirmish line out of the way and engage with the main battle line (we are simulating in a crude fashion the skirmishers in defence temporarily slowing the attack, inflicting some casualties and then withdrawing). Otherwise, skirmishers can still be used to prevent an attack on the main line of formed units in an unrealistic manner, making them far too dominant on the battlefield. This simple change maintains a better balance between attack and defence, in my humble opinion...

_________________

Todd they frequently travelled in Strike Groups and then split up into roving bands often devastating the country side.

_________________
Field Marshal Sir Edward Blackburn, 1st Duke of Aberdeen K.G.
85th (Buck's Light Volunteers) Regiment of Foot
16th British Brigade
7th Division
III (Peninsular) Corps
2nd Battalion, Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards

Salute!

Between sharing glasses of wine (and or beer) the Red Nemesis said:

Todd they frequently travelled in Strike Groups and then split up into roving bands often devastating the country side.

But what do you suppose the size of the roving band was, and the circumference of their devastating sweep?

Let us look at battle map sizes...

Take the Six Days scenario from Jena-Auerstadt, one of my favorites.
I would say that a single Sqdn/Co of Cossacks/Regular Cavalry/infantry skirmisher unit (strength of 50-100) would not be sweeping across a map of that size (estimated at 51 miles east-west, 39 miles north-south) all by themselves.

Particularly when this map area is filled with nearly 300,000 soldiers combined between the opposing armies.

I believe that a roving band would again be in the size range of a Regt, or a Brig.

I believe that we project what historically would happen onto the game engine and its simulation of reality.

50 - 100 men will not go on a modern day commando mission wrecking havoc in an area this size filled with two opposing armies of the strength listed above, simply because that unit is more than likely going to be destroyed upon discovery.

In reality, these units would not do so simply because they don't want to pursue a guaranteed 'death for the cause'.

However, the argument can be made that a Brig or Regt might go on a mission, while being mindful of the ability to safely withdraw in the face of danger.

Regards,

Gentlemen

For those of you who persist in undervaluing the role of Cossacks during the Napoleonic wars, I must protest most vigorously!

As an amateur military historian, I have been studying this issue for over twenty years. When I first joined the NWC in 2009, Anton Kosyanenko was valiantly defending the Cossack's historical record. It is now my turn to pick up this torch and try to set the record straight, yet again.

First, during the 1812 campaign, over 88 regiments of Don Cossacks were deployed with an average field strength of 350-400. Over 60 of these regiments were raised during the campaign. Why would the Tsar make arrangements to field over 32,000 "useless" light cavalry? The answer to this question and the many values of Cossack troops was certainly evident to all the Russian Army and Corps commanders from 1799-1815.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Primary Source material on this topic is not in the English language. One of the best descriptions about the role of Cossacks can be found in an 1824 article by an Austrian Cavalry Officer, Captain A. Prokesch. This 33 page article was translated from German into English. While it is no longer available on the internet, I would be pleased to provide anyone interested with an electronic copy.

In the meantime, the following internet article contains quotes from many noted historians about the strategic and battlefield prowess of Cossacks during the Napoleonic wars;
http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/cossacks.htm

I have included a few extracts from this article:

In 1812 at Mir the Cossacks scored another victory over Polish cavalry. Platov with eight Cossack regiments and two Don batteries deployed in the woods south of Mir. ... One brigade of the French [Polish] 4th Light Cavalry Division advanced on Mir with the 3rd Uhlans leading the way. Behind the 3rd were the 15th and 16th Uhlan Regiment. The 3rd Uhlans threw back Platov's advance posts and traversed the village at a gallop. The 3rd Uhlans attacked Sisoiev-III's Cossack Regiment but Platov's counterattacked with the bulk of his force. The Cossacks had struck Poles' front, flanks and rear nearly annihilating the 3rd Uhlans. General Turno brought up the 15th and 16th Uhlans and held Platov for a while before being thrown back.

In 1812 at Famonskoie the Cossacks ambushed and captured a whole detachment of the Red Lancers. General Colbert mounted his horse and set off with 2 squadrons in pursuit, but the Cossacks made off with their prisoners so quickly that all that could be seen were their hoof prints in the mud.

In 1812 at Ostrovno the French 16th Chasseur Regiment was attacked by Cossacks. The chasseurs delivered a volley at close range (30 paces) The Cossacks however closed with them and drove them back in disorder. Some Frenchmen fled into the ravine and some behind the squares of 53rd Line Infantry Regiment.

In 1813 at the Battle of Kulm the Cossacks captured French generals Haxo and Vandamme. Dominique-Joseph Vandamme was captured when while in the middle of a column of retreating French infantry a small band of Cossacks rode up seized him and his aide General Haxo and rode off before the surprised infantry could open fire.

In October 1813 near Kassel, three Cossack regiments destroyed the Hussar Regiment ‘Jerôme’ in such a way, that no man or horse managed to escape; a young guard detachment of 3,500 men strong, at Langengebode on the road to Hanau, was attacked by 800 Cossacks. They were pinned down until daybreak, when three Bavarian battalions arrived, taking prisoner the whole detachment.

"During Blücher’s retreat from Meaux to Soissons in March 1814, Colonel Nostitz attacked with 40 Cossacks a whole squadron of Vélites of the Guard on open terrain near the Bridge of Wailly. The Cossacks withstood the fire of the vélites, and then threw themselves upon them, and the whole squadron was defeated." (Prokesh - "Ueber den Kosaken ...")

I sincerely hope that before making any more pronouncements about Cossack effectiveness, NWC members will consult some reliable historical sources.

_________________

Gentlemen,
the only goal of our little change (to consider Cossacks squadrons as skirmishers to be able to melee them whenever we, especially I , want) is to avoid their defensive deployement as if they were simple skirmishers! Which is, I wish so, an unhistorical fact that everybody can agree. No way for us to forbid them any gallant deed!
And about the number restriction (skirmishers less than 100 men...), we don't apply it because it's not a question of number, it's a question of "unit style". They are not supposed to stop a formed unit. No matter how many they are, they have to retreat in front of a formed unit if they are meleed!

Cheers!

_________________
Général de Brigade Christian Rizo

That's exactly how I see it. Thanks Christian.

_________________

Guys,

1. No perosnal offence intended, but extended comment on the

is needed. Taking into account recent post about Osten-Sacken the matter of "facts" in among the nonrussian speaking historians is rather "liberal". Unless supported by a systemic review of battlefield examples on squadron level for the whole campaign all such hypothesis are simply jungling with quotes. I puprosedly did a similar thing based on detailed reviews of battles of Smolensk (all the 6 days from Krasnoi and Molevo Boloto to Valutina gora), Klyastitsy, Polotsk, Mir, prelude to Borodino and some actions in 1813. In short - nothing that would support such a house rule. Cossacks may have conmceeded the position without a fight of fought at a place. Depending on tactical and operational situation. There is a very distinct "unit style" about them, but it has nothing to do with such a rule. I will try to provide extended comments on this for the House rules section of the SON-2014, where such scenario would be present.

2. What it will lead to. With current stacking limitations one can mass up to 900 hore in a hex. Such a house rule will be used by players to either cut off individual cossacks units or continuously meleeing them without any restrictions causing unproportionally high loses. Both the “tricks” are already possible and with the rule applied they would be used to the full extent. This will lead either to unhistorically high losses of Cossacks in melees or to their complete abstention from any action whatsoever which is also quite unhistorical. As a whole, not only the game balance would be shifted, but even less historical behavior would be promoted.

3. That said I do like the rule applied to the unit type ”cavalry skirmisher”=halfsquadron of any cavalry. If You extend it with restriction for heavies to break down into skirms it would be even better.

_________________

I for one will take Anton as the final word. As Bill Cann stated the best sources on Cossacks are probably written in Russian. Thanks for the clarification Anton and please continue to provide additional information when you can.

_________________
Field Marshal Sir Edward Blackburn, 1st Duke of Aberdeen K.G.
85th (Buck's Light Volunteers) Regiment of Foot
16th British Brigade
7th Division
III (Peninsular) Corps
2nd Battalion, Coldstream Regiment of Foot Guards

Gentlemen,

Forgive my late reply to this topic which I find I need to add some perspective. As most have jumped on their high horse (or pony as the Cossack case may be!) and missed the whole point!

The point is a group of skirmishing cavalry! Not formed and supported cavalry groups!

I completely agree with Christian and Anthony's explanation and rule in regards to assuming any LIGHT CAVALRY unit of less than 100 can and should be considered under the skirmish rule. I in fact like the idea of removing the 100 limit in regard to any infantry skirmish unit as well, but that's another point lol.

I too have done extensive research and reading on the period and can assure everyone that this rule is not trying to belittle or reduce the 'manliness' and effect the Cossacks had in reality. However besides the Guard Cossacks, Cossacks were not battle field main units unless in large, grouped and supported numbers. When operating in even Regimental strength/groups they USUALLY avoided contact with FORMED/ORGANISED units - unless they had overwhelming numbers, caught the enemy by surprise or well supported by regular troops. This is a fact, the examples given by others above are also true facts, but are referring to large force/groups operating as such, NOT skirmishing.

This is NOT what Christain and Anthony are on about. They are on about the use of Cossacks (an all light cavalry)in skirmishing mode.

There is not a valid argument presented above not to put this rule in place for all such Light cavalry other than maybe to reduce it for Regular light cavalry to 50 troopers but would consider 100 Cossacks in the same 'skirmish' rule.

I might add that all historical accounts should be taken with a pinch of reality in regards to the sources used, especially when from only one aspect. I have found personal memoirs and multiple unsolicited accounts of similar situations, experiences and actions from a cross section of nationalities involved give a much better perspective and understanding of the actual realities of units, personalities and actions.

Light cavalry operating unsupported in troop size units or in understrength squadron of less than 100 do have an unhistorical and unfair advantage in relation to how they can stop large scale/force movement and movement in obstructed hexes within the game. They too operated as the Cossacks did and would not engage main force units! This is able to be countered as explained above but still does have a disproportionately unhistorical impact on the games. The more Cossack units you have able to roam in small groups the more disproportionate effect it has. The rule as suggested I feel handles the situation as best the game and players can cope with.

I really do consider Christian and Anthony's arguments and reasoning as being sensible, historical and practical in all regards on this matter. The counter arguments are not countering the SKIRMISHING LT CAV issue!



I fully support the interpretation and will use it in my future battles against all such situations when playing MOE and Embedded Melee type rules.