Gaps between battalions and squadrons

[MNFS]

Hi There,

Does anyone know what the gaps were between battalions and squadrons during the NYW & WSS?

e.g.

Battalion.......Battalion.......Battalion

or

Squadron......Squadron.......Squadron

Many Thanks,

Mark

[Grenadier]

Mark,
Usual interval between battalions is the frontage of one battalion. See below.
From "Essay on the Art of War:..."
page 423
"During the reign of Louis XIII and the minority of Louis XIV, armies were placed in order of battle in two lines with an interval between one battalion and another, or one squadron and another, equal to the ground they occupied in front, for the facility of wheeling, or that one line, if necessary, might pass through the other..."

This is a subject that is rarely addressed or adhered to on the gaming table.

You can read the entire essay here:
http://books.google.de/books?id=Zi1FAAA ... &q&f=false

Brian

[Churchill]

Ray.

[MNFS]

Thanks for the feedback Ray & Brian.

Brian that essay is an excellent source.

Another question is that when the lines of foot were interpenetrating one another at Blenheim, was this done by battalions passing through gaps between battalions, or did battalions pass through another, by opening up gap in the companies or files passing by one another?

I'm trying to model this for some wargames rules that I'm working on.

Best,

Mark

[Churchill]

Ray.

[Grenadier]

Mark,
I personally believe the two lines of battalions would be lined up in checkerboard fashion with the second line about a battalion frontage behind the first. It makes sense, for as we know, it would be very disruptive for one battalion to pass through another. I'm not saying it never happened but I'm sure it was done only in emergencies. Remember, the troops in this period were not drilled to the point of performing what you describe.
Because of the battalion width spacing the second line would HAVE to be offset to cover the gaps, otherwise cavalry could easily 'shoot the gap' between the first line battalions and get in their rear so having these gaps covered by the second line battalions was imperative. Another benefit may be reduced casualties caused by bounce through and ricocheting artillery rounds. I don't recall having read conclusive evidence one way one the other on this issue and maps tend to show the two lines lined up behind one another, but if I were a general, I would certainly have adopted this set-up.
As I said before, the gaps are hardly ever simulated on the tabletop as most rules don't address it and most gamers don't know or care and are trying to cram as many units they can into the available table space, so battalions are lined up with flanks nearly touching with just enough space to differentiate one battalion from another.

Brian

[MNFS]

Thanks to you both again for the valuable input.

I guess having these gaps in Rowe's lines would allow the Hessians to fire at the Gendarmes!

I'm going to develop the rules to allow for this interpretation and others. The rules are from 1590 to the end of the great northern war and I'm going to make it very difficult for pike units of the earlier period to be able to bring up a 2nd line without having a chequerboard formation, but make it slightly easier for shot units to operate in line, but with risks to fail the manoeuvre so that if people try tactics that are too sophisticated they could come a cropper!

Best,

Mark

[Churchill]

Ray.

[MNFS]

I wonder if chequerboard formations were required to move lines through one another that far from the enemy or if the battalions in continuos line but in marching order (so not drawn up so close together) could interpenetrate through each other in another way.

Do you think this is possible or probable?

Best,

Mark

[Graf Bretlach]

I'm not convinced about such large gaps for the period 1680s onwards, I think the norm was 15-20 m/yrds, certainly early 18th c. regulations specify this, most of the time the battalion would just open up a couple of platoons and the other regiment would file through either way on a frontage of 3,4 or so files (again this is in regulations)

At Audenarde in 1708 Holsteins battalions replaced Lottums in the front line and this was done fairly close to the French line, however no one knows exactly how this was done, but it was done on a scale of nearly 40 battalions total so quite a feat. (see Lediard and other histories)

I do think earlier in the 17th c. checkerboard style was possibly done, however with battalions varying in strength by as much as 400 men what would you call a battalion frontage gap?

units of horse or foot moving from marching column to line and vice versa was a common maneuver that units would have been well practised in, obviously care would need to be taken when too close to the enemy, of course a line is just a marching column with everyone facing to the side.

interesting question though.

[MNFS]

Hi Graf Bretlach,

Many thanks for the input. This was closer to my understanding of how these formations worked on the battlefield at this time and it does correspond to the timing of the change to linear tactics. I suppose the real question for the commander was were to place the 2nd line. Close enough to support the first, but this could then be swept away if the first line broke and fled, or further away but possibly not close enough to replace the 1st line if it began to waver.

You can really begin to understand the genius of Marlborough and Eugene, knowing when to commit or hold back the reserves at critical junctures of the battle.

Best,

Mark

[Grenadier]

This is an interesting discussion. I read a little deeper into "The essay..." mentioned above. Here's a tid-bit on page 412:

"The old custom for orders of battle, and it is still used by many.."(remember this is written in 1761).."is to leave between each battalion or squadron, ranged on a plain, an interval equal to their front, in such a manner that those of the second line being placed opposite to the intervals of the first line, when they advance, they shall march into these intervals and so of two lines with intervals form one line intire.
Others only leave an interval of half the length of the front between one battalion or squadron and another; others only one third of the front; and, finally there are others who prefer a line intire." He then goes on about the pros and cons of each.

So, it seems, if the checkerboard formation was used for the initial order of battle it then meshed together upon advancing to form a solid line. It is unclear whether the author is referring to different national doctrines regarding set-up or an individual general's preference. Which to use would also greatly depend upon terrain, whether attacking or defending, etc.
I would think that some sort of interval (at least a column width) would be necessary to allow interpenetration and room for individual battalion maneuvering when advancing. If defending, it would not be required as your battalions are not maneuvering.

Brian

[MNFS]

Thank Grenadier, It really is very interesting and that's why I'm trying to model it correctly on the games table. I'm sure it was these nuances that made a huge difference in battles and thus should be represented in some way.

Best,

Mark