You’re not being dense at all rcherk – we’ve all been deceived to some extent by modern writers who have frequently over-simplified what is meant by the term l'ordre mixte.rcherk wrote:Forgive me if I'm being a bit dense but why would l'ordre mixte be anything different than a regiment whose battalions are arrayed two in column, one in line and advancing as a whole at the rate of the slowest formation?
The ‘classic’ l'ordre mixte , as you describe – for a three battalion demi-brigade, originates from various French army instructions / standing orders of 1796-97 (often – erroneously – claimed as an innovation of Napoleon’s). However, throughout the Napoleonic Wars contemporary French writers seem to have used the term less rigorously to describe a wide variety of formations combining columns and lines, up to brigade and divisional level. For example a division arrayed in two lines – with the battalions of the first line exclusively arrayed in line and those of the second line entirely in column could still be referred to overall as “l'ordre mixte”. The term can also refer to many broad tactical practices for the period 1792-95 including the mixing of regular battalions (capable of executing line) and volunteer units (who could form up in loose columns at best). Paddy Griffith has described l'ordre mixte as “nothing more than an intellectual shorthand which attempts (but fails) to describe the flexible practice common to all French armies well before 1796” (The Art of War of Revolutionary France, page 219).
In the context of this discussion (RtoE for the early years of Revolutionary Wars) the issue (if it is an issue Barry
) is how these ‘mixed’ brigades of battalions, with each component battalion’s differing manoeuvre/formation capabilities and morale characteristics, might be modelled on the tabletop.
). The Napoleonic Anoraks will be queueing up to burn effigies of me and I may get barred from a few shows.. but what the hell...
