Brigade size

[dashing blade]

I've struggled with the size of an allied brigade on the table top, i've read that the Scots in dutch service were 6 Btns strong in 1702 and the Swiss 7. So how to scale down on the table. I've 16 allied Btns so 4 Brigades? or is that to neat. i persume some brigades would be under strength and that the Brigader could no doubt ask for reinforcements in the field which may stay for the duration?
any advice would be helpful as i want to field brigades with a least a nod to the period. thanks

[Marechal de France]

As a newbie to this period, but nonetheless an experienced wargamer, we at our club decided that a brigade should at least have 3 infantry battalions. We did this in relation to the number of brigadiers on the table and not to overextend that number, so command & control is limited.

[CoffinDodger]

Mr Blade and Monsieur le Maréchal,

I have 12 battalions in three brigades. A bit too neat as you say, but it works.

Jim

[j1mwallace]

I don't think brigades as such existed at the time chaps.

[dashing blade]

Hi Jim,
Intresting, Would a Brigadier have existed as a rank in this era?

[Churchill]

Ray.

[Rob Herrick]

Are those brigades, or just commands? My understanding is that most commands of the era were ad-hoc formations of whatever units the C-in-C (or the Council of War) decided to allocate to each general. Mostly scratch teams as it were.

[j1mwallace]

"brigades" were pretty much ad hoc formations made up for a particular campaign or battle. In the French army commands such as this could range from 4 to 10 or more battalions , whatever was needed for the job . 8-16 or more squadrons were also formed together. The army was usually split into about 7 constituent parts from memory.
The brigade ethic was very much in it's infancy.

[Rob Herrick]

Hi Jim,
Intresting, Would a Brigadier have existed as a rank in this era?

I believe it did, at least in the 1730s on for the French and the Spanish. It was an intermediary rank for men commanding brigades but who weren't Marechal de Camp. The Russians also used it during the Seven Years War.

The British didn't adopt the term until 1928 I believe. Brigades were commanded by Major Generals or Colonels (and sometimes by lieutenant colonels later in the 1700s) prior to that.

[barr7430]

Very interesting question actually. I would love to hear Iain1704 on the subject.

One thing is for sure, it is an an adopted convention in much of the writing relating to the period, certainly that written after the period. Thinking in terms of 'brigades' is very neat for a wargming mind it deals with:

1. Organization
2. Painting schedules
3. Table top commands
4. Dovetails into rule mechanics.

So the convention is extremely useful and my suggestion is that in our discussions we maintain it as a 'constant' otherwise questions relatiing to orbats, commands, officer rank etc will disappear into the realms of confusion.
Intrigued by the suggestions that British did not adopt the convention till 1928. Not disagreeing but it would make a lot of writing prior to that date a little suspect. How about descriptions of army command structures at major napoleonic battles? How could such a thing as the Light Division have existed without component brigades within it? What were a group of 4 battalions called and why did the word Brigadier exist?

Getting back to our period.. That would mean the Scots-Dutch ' Brigade' was not a contemporary term to the period?

Cheers

[Churchill]

Ray.

[Forlorn Hope]

As Rob said, the term "Brigadier" (as a rank) was not adopted by the British Army until 1928. Prior to that the term Brigadier-General was the correct term, from the reign of James II until 1922 (from 1922 until 1928 the title Colonel- Commandant was used).

Initially, the "rank" was actually an "appointment" bestowed by a Commanding General, usually on a Colonel or Lieutenant-Colonel, for a specific operation or possibly a campaign as a brevet "rank". This distinction appears to have died out sometime after the Crimean War(?) and the term "Brigadier-General" was more permanent in the campaigns up to and including the Great War, although the shorter salutation "Brigadier" was generally used.

Even today some armies use either term, even in Commonwealth Armies. In NATO there can be some embarrassments caused, especially where drink has been taken, as in some member armies the term "Brigadier" denotes a corporal.

With regard to brigade sizes, as has been said this was a bit of a movable feast depending on the job at hand. There were also more permanent formations as with the "Wild Geese" already mentioned. They did indeed form a brigade in the French Service from six down to eventually two(?) battalions. They also served, to varying degrees, in the Austrian, Prussian and Russian armies. The Anglo-Dutch Brigade was made up of English, Scots and Irish battalions from the late 1500s and varied in size from 8(?) battalions in 1688 down to 2(?) by the time of the Batavian Republic in the early 1800s, depending on the political situation.

Regards

[Churchill]

Ray.

[Rob Herrick]

Hi Rob & Tom,

You are both right and I misread the term "Brigadier" you are quite correct the term would have been Brigadier General or Major General at the time of Blenheim.

Eh, sorta. A Brigadier General was not a substantive rank; it was a temporary appointment and existed only as long as a particular colonel or lieutenant colonel was commanding a brigade. For example, both Rowe and Ferguson were still colonels substantively, but they were commanding more than just their own regiment and therefore addressed as Brigadier General by courtesy.

A British Brigadier General (pre 1922) would be addressed as a Brigadier General, but he wasn't really a general, wasn't paid as a general, and would stop being a Brigadier General as soon as he was no longer commanding more than his regiment.

Naturally, it's even weirder in the French Army. At least by the Seven Years War, Brigadier was less a rank and more a certificate that could be held by colonels, lieutenant colonels, or even captains. Whoever had the oldest warrant for a brigadier would command the brigade. However, the warrants were only issued for one arm, and the holder could not command mixed forces. The advantage is that skilled but poor lieutenant colonels could become brigadiers without having to purchase a regiment, which was rather expensive.

Even today, Brigadiers are senior field-grade officers, not junior generals (they wear colonel's rank insignia with an extra pip, not general's stars).

[Rob Herrick]

Barry, think of the Rifle Brigade. It's not really a brigade, is it? Similarly, the King's Royal Rifle Corps isn't a corps.

The term existed, but it didn't mean a permanent fighting formation the way it does today (or even by the Napoleonic period). Things were a good deal more ad-hoc, and Major General Barry could command three regiments as "Barry's Brigade" on 28 March, and then could have three different regiments as "Barry's Brigade" on 29 March, and then an entirely different command entirely on March 30!

Thinking in terms of 'brigades' is very neat for a wargming mind it deals with:

1. Organization
2. Painting schedules
3. Table top commands
4. Dovetails into rule mechanics.

So the convention is extremely useful and my suggestion is that in our discussions we maintain it as a 'constant' otherwise questions relatiing to orbats, commands, officer rank etc will disappear into the realms of confusion.

Honestly, I think in terms of regiments when painting, especially for the Lace Wars. All of the messy details are by regiment, after all. The generals sit in the corner of the box, and I don't even necessarily have the same figure command the same troops the next time I get them out of the box. Well, except the C-in-C, since I only have one of those! On the field, a brigade is pretty much whatever troops I decide to put into it. In my SYW collections, a "brigade" could be as large as 12 battalions!