Light Infantry/Skirmishers

[armchairgeneral]

Hello Everyone

I am new to this forum and new to the Marlburian period. I am planning to field a British army so I have been avidly reading "Churchill"s posts on "Blenheim OBB" topic.

An initial observation is that there doesn't appear to be much if any use of light infantry or skirmishers? I am aware that commanded musketeers were used in TYW/ECW so did this tactic just fall into disuse with the more formalised warfare of the late C17 early C18?

Peter

[hwiccee]

Hi Peter,


I think that commanded musketeers in the TYW/ECW are not really light infantry/skirmishers. They are more like fire support for cavalry and fire support continued. Marlborough in particular was famous for supporting his cavalry with infantry in a similar manner to earlier commanded musketeers but none of these were 'skirmishers'.

Some armies did make limited use of real skirmishing infantry at this time but not the British. But the use of skirmishers was not extensive and it was only in the 1740's that they really started to be used.

If you really wanted some skirmishers for the British you would have to get an army from the Spanish campaign - the Spanish had some skirmishers although I don't believe they ever actually fought with the British.

I hope this helps,


Nick

[Churchill]

Hi Peter,

For the ECW & TYW your probably thinking about Forlorn Hopes, the thin line of musketeers in advance of the pike blocks and who would fall back to their parent units when threatened.
In this period firearms had advanced slightly from the matchlock to the flintlock musket.
Regiment formations changed as the Pike slowly disappeared as the main weapon to maximise use of musket fire.Musketeers became better trained until the regiment was formed into platoons so the regiment could keep up a rolling fire.With the matchlock musket slowly being replaced by the flintlock so was the plug bayonet which stopped the musketeer firing, replaced by the socket bayonet.
Western European warfare mainly came down to linear infantry formations marching across the battlefield and then halting when in musketry range when a firefight would commence until either one side broke due to casualties or a bayonet charge caused the enemy to flee.
Cavalry very rarely charged infantry frontally because of the volley fire and then the bayonet defence, and so would try and take the enemy cavalry out first before attacking the infantry in the flank or rear as the square formation was very rare for this period.
Artillery was positioned on the battlefield where it usually stayed put as the field guns were so heavy to move and artillery trains were manned by civilians and labourers even the artillery gunners were not that well trained.
Eastern armies may have used more skirmishers, but these would be archers rather than musketeers and of course horsearchers.
Light infantry regiments and skirmishers in the British army would not be used until the AWI of 1770's.
I hope this gives you a better picture of warfare in the late 17th and early 18th century.


Regards...........Ray.

[hwiccee]

Hi Ray,

While there is clearly some truth in your ideas there is also a lot that is probaby not as true. So I have added some comments below.

For the ECW & TYW your probably thinking about Forlorn Hopes, the thin line of musketeers in advance of the pike blocks and who would fall back to their parent units when threatened.

I am no expert on the ECW/TYW but as far as I know Forlorn Hope were detachments made to perform various dangerous and difficult tasks. This continued to happen in this period but was normally done by bodies of grenadiers. I think that the forlorn hope skirmisher idea, assuming it ever existed, belongs to the use of big pike blocks in before the ECW/TYW

In this period firearms had advanced slightly from the matchlock to the flintlock musket.

A flintlock musket was something like twice as good/effective as a matchlock musket. It was a big change.

Regiment formations changed as the Pike slowly disappeared as the main weapon to maximise use of musket fire.Musketeers became better trained until the regiment was formed into platoons so the regiment could keep up a rolling fire.

Units had nearly always used rolling fire but not always delivered by platoons. Also you didn't need to be better trained to do platoon fire. But because of changes in weoponry and better training ALL types of fire was a lot faster than earlier.

With the matchlock musket slowly being replaced by the flintlock so was the plug bayonet which stopped the musketeer firing, replaced by the socket bayonet.
Western European warfare mainly came down to linear infantry formations marching across the battlefield and then halting when in musketry range when a firefight would commence until either one side broke due to casualties or a bayonet charge caused the enemy to flee.

But wasn't this also what generally happened in the TYW/ECW?

Cavalry very rarely charged infantry frontally because of the volley fire and then the bayonet defence, and so would try and take the enemy cavalry out first before attacking the infantry in the flank or rear as the square formation was very rare for this period.

Again this is exactly the same as earlier in my view. Cavalry in both periods did take out infantry frontally. It was obviously better if they could get round the flank or combine a frontal attack with some flank support, etc. It may have been a little bit more difficult in this period than earlier but not by much. In both periods it was clearly the normal thing to drive off the other persons cavalry and then turn on the flank of the infantry.

Artillery was positioned on the battlefield where it usually stayed put as the field guns were so heavy to move and artillery trains were manned by civilians and labourers even the artillery gunners were not that well trained.
Eastern armies may have used more skirmishers, but these would be archers rather than musketeers and of course horsearchers.

The usual missle weapons of eastern armies for this period and earlier was pistols and carbine. Some bows were still around in both times but were not a dominate weapon in either periods.

Eastern armies frequently used tactics which later Western writers interprete as skirmishing. But in reality they were not much like what we think of as classic skirmishing tactics. They frequently used individualistic tactics but often in massed formations.

Light infantry regiments and skirmishers in the British army would not be used until the AWI of 1770's.

This is kind of true, although the British had informal units earlier, such as Fraser Chasseur's in the SYW. The problem is that until the AWI the British were always a tiny minority in the armies we usually call 'British'. So until the AWI British light infantry skirmishers were provided by the non British majority parts of the 'British' armies or by ad hoc/informal formations.

Personally I think that generally the whole idea of fielding a 'British' army in this period and any time up to the AWI is silly. The actually British units were always greatly outnumbered by the non British units in the armies. You should field an 'Allied' or 'Confederate' army.

I hope this gives you a better picture of warfare in the late 17th and early 18th century.

I also hope this and hope that my comments will get you thinking about this fascinating period.

[reiver rob]

Ray,
I must agree with Hwiccee on this one and will add the obvious in there were small units involved in the French Indian Wars which showed the potential for harassment by Light troops on the battlefield as being a major pain in the backside! Roger's Rangers, Goreham's, etc.

Although there were ad-hoc battalions of light companies during the AWI these troops should never be confused with the light companies from the Napoleonic period. They were never used as troops screening a battalion who then ran back into the parent battalion which is a frequently made mistake by players who are used to Napoleonic warfare. They were there to be used as either light troops for a specific role such as at Breed's Hill where they attacked along the beach or to be used as another battalion in the line.

I hope this adds to the picture.
Rob

[armchairgeneral]

Thanks for all the comments so far chaps. An interesting discussion.

Just to add to the mix, I am aware infantry in the Marlburian period for example, seemed quite capable of breaking ranks to attack buildings which to me is akin to a light infantry role possibly?

[hwiccee]

Peter,

'Ordinary' Marlburian infantry were certainly capable of attacking and defending villages and building. But I don't think that this is a classic 'light infantry' task to do, either generally or in this period. The classic role of light infantry is to basically shoot well and from a distance. Later on in history light infantry became an 'elite' force that was capable of doing most things. But during this time it was grenadiers that were generally given the difficult tasks. At this time 'light infantry' are generally of limited use on the battlefield and their main task is to harass the enemy when they are marching. Ambush isolated groups, capture or destroy supplies, etc, etc. In short they are something like guerilla fighters and not really the kind of troops you would normally use for 'elite' tasks, at least at this time.

I am not sure if I have this right but my guess is that you are looking for some 'different' units to give variety to your army - am I right? If I am then I would forget light infantry as you have a massive selection of other units to choose from. As I have mentioned the British always fought with various allies and these are a gold mine of unusual units to choose from. They will for example allow you to have almost any colour coat/facing combination you like. Similarly you will have a wide selection using any other criteria you can think of.

All the best,


Nick

[Churchill]

Hello all,

Hwiccee & Rob if you both read peter's question carefully, he was asking about Light Infantry and Skirmisher's during the period of Marlborough.
I didn't expect you two to dissect everything I typed.
Hwiccee by your own addmission your no expert on the ECW/TYW so explain to me what was a Forlorn Hope???
Grenadiers??? I was not aware of the existance of Grenadiers during the ECW/TYW period and clearly you haven't read my post correctly as I've said "the forlorn hope formation dates to the ECW/TYW period.

A flintlock musket was something like twice as good/effective as a matchlock musket. It was a big change.

No it wasn't as first the fusil were issued to the guards of the artillery train and this is where the name fusilier comes from.They were safer around barrels of gunpower because they didn't need a lighted match to fire.
Remember the Dutch and Danes had them when the British were still using the matchlock at the Boyne in 1690.By the time of Blenheim 1704 the infantry would have been armed with the flintlock musket and the socket bayonet.

Also you didn't need to be better trained to do platoon fire.

What Rubbish, of course you needed to be better trained.Infantry found it hard enough to march in a line formation on the battlefield let alone fire by platoon.

But because of changes in weoponry and better training ALL types of fire was a lot faster than earlier.

Contradiction there I think!!!
Thought you said "you didn't need to be better trained".

But wasn't this also what generally happened in the TYW/ECW?

No because in the ECW/TYW period they were in Pike blocks and not in linear formations.

Again this is exactly the same as earlier in my view. Cavalry in both periods did take out infantry frontally.

Please name me one Marlburian battle where cavalry charged steady infantry frontally.
Rowe's brigade at Blenheim were already being repulsed from the village due to heavy fire before the Gendarmerie charged them.
I know there were the odd unit during both the SYW and the French Indian Wars, but Peter was asking about Light Infantry and Skirmisher formations in general, so I answered with the Light Infantry regiments of the AWI.

Personally I think that generally the whole idea of fielding a 'British' army in this period and any time up to the AWI is silly. The actually British units were always greatly outnumbered by the non British units in the armies. You should field an 'Allied' or 'Confederate' army.

And now your being Silly, because you can say that of the British Army to the modern day.We've aways been part of larger armies.
We've either had allies or been allied to various countries.
I don't pretend to be a expert on warfare during this period or any other period of history.I'm just a member of this forum who has read alot about Blenheim and researched the British Regiments that took part.
Are you a expert Hwiccee, are you a expert Rob, I think not!!!

Kind Regards........Ray.

[reiver rob]

Ray,
We've obviously hit a raw nerve with you and I'm sure the intention wasn't there to do so.

Forlorn Hope weren't always armed with muskets. Quite often they were armed with anything they could get their hands on, clubs, pitchforks, etc and were sent in to attack buildings, trenches, etc and probably wouldn't come back. I believe the same term was used by the British in the Peninsular when they attcked the besieged towns.
Collins English Dictionary - Forlorn Hope "Hopeless enterprise, faint hope, a group of soldiers assigned to an extremely dangerous duty".

As Nick mentioned, the Swedes used commanded shot to support the cavalry in the TYW and Marlborough did use his infantry in a similar roll.

As far as I know there were no specific light infantry regiments during the AWI in the British Army. Each regiment had a company of light infantry which, as I mentioned before, were taken from their parent unit and placed in ad-hoc units for special duties. They should be thought of as another form of Grenadier in that they performed special tasks. They didn't stand out in front of their parent units and run back in when it suited them, that wasn't their job. The German troops present did however have Jagers which were specific light troops.

I think you'll find you brought up the subject of the AWI and not Nick. He originally answered the question which Peter asked.

I don't profess to be an expert just to pass on what I know and have read about.
Rob

[flick40]

Woah, woah! Gentlemen you can't fight in here, this is the War Room.

Seriously, there are no experts, just people with opinions. Even historians are only passing on their opinions based on their studies. None of us lived then so lets keep our opinions cordial.

My opinion, there weren't light troops in the sense like Napoleon during this period. No need to paint, field or wrte rules for them. In my opinion.

Cheers

[hwiccee]

Hi Ray,


Clearly I hit a raw nerve and I apologise if my previous post caused offence. This was certainly not my intention, I had intended to contribute to what I thought was your discussion

I read, as it looks like others did, your post as an invitation to discuss your point, especially as they seemed to have no bearing on the original post. But clearly I was wrong in this.

I am afraid I think that you are mistaken on many of the issues but to avoid any further offence I will not comment further on the issues raised.

All the best,


Nick

[Churchill]

Hi all,

Well said flick40 there are no experts, just people with opinions.
There are a few people that get on here that think they are experts, maybe they are owner's of time machines???
Maybe they've read a few book's or think they have honour degree's in military history or maybe because there part owner's of a figure manufacture this makes them experts.
Maybe the 40 years of wargaming experience I have has been for nothing???
Nick, I was only helping Peter a new member to the forum who is interested in the Marlburian period.I think my original post did paint a general picture of this period and explained to Peter that during the marlburian period no light infantry or skirmishers were used.
Generally assaults on buildings/fortresses and the like were carried out by grenadiers.You may think I am wrong on some issues, but then I too think you are wrong on some issues too the only differance is I don't come on and dissect your posts.

Kind Regards........Ray.

[reiver rob]

Ray,
No one has insulted you so try not to insult them. We've all been wargaming a very long time and we all have opinions. As Nick said no more will be said about this.

Rob

[armchairgeneral]

Thanks for all the replies gentlemen. Interesting reading. I am sorry if any ill feeling has been caused.

To be honest the lack of light infantry in the Marlburian period is part of its appeal for me. The opening exchanges between skirmishers in other periods often just seems to delay “getting stuck in” with your main fighting units I find. As an overall commander I am not sure how concerned you would be with their use anyway as this would be left to the discretion of individual unit or brigade commanders.

On another point raised, Marlborough’s army had many nationalities and it is not practical for most of us to collect the entire army unless in a small scale. Most nationalities generally fought together from what I can see so it is quite natural to want to collect one particular nation in 25/28mm.

[Churchill]

Hi Peter,

Firstly, No need for you to apologise for other members of this forum.
Your new to the period, interested in the Marlburian British force like myself and I'm only too willing to help in what I know on the BLB rules, uniforms, flag's for both the Colonel's and Regiment's of infantry and cavalry and even the calibre of the artillery used at Blenheim.
The British at Blenheim comes to 13 infantry regiments (14 battalions), 7 cavalry regiments (13 squadrons) and the erbprinz dragoons (4 squadrons) were attached to Major General Ross's brigade.
One thing I did mention about infantry tactic's of the time, but which you can't carry out using the BLB rules is the bayonet charge at least against steady infantry.
Only tribal infantry may charge enemy infantry this is to represent the highland charge and eastern tribemen.
This is a good rule and causes you to use the firefight tactic of the time.
Make your enemy infantry unstead or shaken first and then charge.
Cavalry don't have this problem and can charge anyone, but I would suggest not charging steady infantry frontally especially if they still have their first volley, are Guards or Elite or shoot at close range as this can be devastating in casualties to a squadron.
As you said Marlborough's army was made of many nationalities and even in 6mm would not be practical.In 25/28mm the British Force alone is a nice affordable size and would still fill a wargames table.
Saying that I do have a Waterloo Project on going and has been since 1997 and I'm doing every battalion of infantry, regiment of cavalry and artillery battery at a scale of 1 x 15mm figure to 50 real men.

Always glad to be of help........Ray.