Swords VS Bayonets?

[Didz]

Well the French did exact this at the battle of Minden with the result that 2 lines of cavalry fled in panic. Furthermore you need only to kill the first rank of the cavalry. The horses behind would have real problems of continue the charge with a wall of horses going wild in front of them.

That's slightly different. I can accept that one volley might bring down the front rank of advancing cavalry and thus terminate their forward movement as the dead and dying horses would cause an obstacle to those behind. However, that wasn't the claim being made. The claim was that the squadron was wiped out.

Mike Loades proved by practical demonstration using the Household cavalry that horses will not tread deliberately on the dead or dying, any more than they are willing to run into solid objects. So, the idea that bringing down the front rank would stop a charge is perfectly plausible.

Incidentally, the French cavalry advance at Minden involved much more than one squadron and was in an earlier time period when infantry were supposed to panic and break when advance upon by cavalry. Everyone on the day assumed that the six battalions advancing on the French cavalry across an open field in line because of a stupidly worded order were doomed. The Marquis de Contades commanding the French forces commented bitterly, "I have seen what I never thought to be possible—a single line of infantry break through three lines of cavalry, ranked in order of battle, and tumble them to ruin!"

In fact, this was an over simplification and further confused by English historians and regimental braggard's who developed the Minden myth. In fact, the infantry advanced in two lines not a single line, and not all the French cavalry were thrown back in ruin. Many squadrons managed to penetrate through the first line and large sections of the first line panicked and bolted for the rear. It was the second line that held firm, not only blocking the escape of the fleeing men from the first line but firing indiscriminately into the pursuing cavalry. However, this was the beginning of the myth surrounding the invincibility of British volley fire which was to persist for the next century.

[Hazzard]

An image of the Carolean formation.

Yes, clearly the caroleans were knife-fighters, with rifle as a secondary weapon as an opening and situational weapon.
So why 1/3 pike then, when it means 1/3 less bullets in that single volley ?
part is anti cavalry, but the rest of europe used bayonets/bullets for that,
i can understand some pikes were welcome as cavalry defense when they were destined to attack tho,
but part i suspect is the longer reach of the pike giving an advantage over a wall of opposing bayonets in the critical 1st second clash

I think it was supposed to work like a mixed hoplite and pike phalanx as I've heard murmurings of happening. I expect the front ranks would be sword fighting with the enemy formation and the pikes covering them from afar. The two rear ranks of that formation would probably join the front two men in hand-to-hand, so those less mobile men at the back would stay out.
I also somehow have the idea that they were using blunderbusses, which would multiply their firepower at close range. I can't find anything about this online, but I'm sure I read it somewhere.
Here's some more articles about them for those who are interested:
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/sho...-Charles-XII-)
http://forum.naruto.viz.com/showthread.php?t=92479
http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forum...ad.php?t=96782

There's also a bit of contradictory information about the weaponry in those articles and others. I've heard the swords used by the Caroleans called rapiers in some places and long/broadswords in others. I've also found some inconsistencies about cavalry. I've seen cavalry being described as no firearms ever, 2 pistols for shooting in the charge, 2 pistols and a carbine for skirmishing and other combat, or only for chasing routing enemies.

Mike Loades proved by practical demonstration using the Household cavalry that horses will not tread deliberately on the dead or dying, any more than they are willing to run into solid objects. So, the idea that bringing down the front rank would stop a charge is perfectly plausible.

I've got nothing to confirm this, I must confess I got this from reading historical fiction, but I imagined that if you got a reasonably accurate volley into an organised formation of cavalry you could bring down the front ranks. This would form large obstacles the horses can't get over, so they would collapse, leading to the whole charge coming to a halt, except possibly at the sides.

[poa]

The cavalry did have pistols, an situational and secondary weapon, in one regulation i read the holsters for the cavalry had to be re-ordered
since they werent up to snuff
the people back then referred to their stinger as 'rapier', even the regulation of 1694 refer to the rapier
Charles XII " they shall fence when i command them.....and in the old way with rapier in their hand break through"
but when i look at it, it looks like a sturdy rapier, like a half-breed rapier/sword
(i uploaded the images because of the half-breed appearance)

[Didz]

An image of the Carolean formation.

To me this looks more like an anti-cavalry formation as the pikes would serve to prevent the cavalry reaching the front rank men. In an anti-infantry role it would be less effective as with only two ranks of pikes it would suffer from a lack of density and of course the loss of firepower would render the formation vulnerable to opposition totally equipped with muskets. It also terribly awkward for the men in the first four ranks, you can see how the pikemen are restricted by having to lean forward to allow the men behind to fire over their shoulders, and French studies showed that this led to a lot of self-inflicted injuries due to accidents during the loading and firing process. The rapiers make sense as in a formation that dense there would be no room to swing a sword, so a thrusting weapon would be much more useful. I did see a video of a Swedish re-enactment group demonstrating the six rank Swedish system and it was very claustrophobic with men having to lean over the shoulders of the men in front to point their muskets, and the front rank men kneeling and leaning forward to give the men kneeling behind the chance to point over their shoulders. The formation couldn;t load in that position so there was a complicated system for standing and opening files to allow men to reload, which didn't look very practical for battle use.

I've got nothing to confirm this, I must confess I got this from reading historical fiction, but I imagined that if you got a reasonably accurate volley into an organised formation of cavalry you could bring down the front ranks. This would form large obstacles the horses can't get over, so they would collapse, leading to the whole charge coming to a halt, except possibly at the sides.

To be honest you would not even have to do that much, though I'm sure it would be feasible at close range. You would have about six muskets pointed at each horseman in the front rank, and the hit percentage was about 33%, so at least two shots ought to hit every horse in the front rank. The trick was the timing, fire too early and you gave the cavalry time to recover and continue to advance, too late and you risked the injured horses careering into your own formation before they collapsed.

The cavalry did have pistols, an situational and secondary weapon, in one regulation I read the holsters for the cavalry had to be re-ordered
since they weren't up to snuff.

Cavalry tactic's were un-going another transition in the early 18th Century. During the early 17th Century the heavy use of pike formations had pretty much killed off the concept of cavalry shock action as used in Medieval armies and cavalry were basically mounted firepower, riding up to dense pike formations and firing into them. The French cavalry were still being trained to perform the caracole manoeuvre as late as 1750, Gustavus began the process of re-establishing cavalry shock tactic's and these gradually became more popular as the pike disappeared from the battlefield. However, cavalry still resorted to using their pistols and carbines when trying to provoke squares into firing too early.

And of course by the 19th century the wheel had gone full circle and the introduction of breech loading weapons and multi-shot pistols saw cavalrymen once more resorting to using guns in preference to swords.

[poa]

"The battalion was usually four men deep" - altho they did on occasion alter depth pending on circumstances,
one wonder tho why they would waste time with the two rear ranks firing a volley at 70 paces,
because even tho they would be able to catch up with the front ranks,
the two front ranks i presume would have to stop and dodge during the two rear ranks firing.

I found this when i was searching on the subject
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...wedish-Battles

[Didz]

"The battalion was usually four men deep" - altho they did on occasion alter depth pending on circumstances,
one wonder tho why they would waste time with the two rear ranks firing a volley at 70 paces,
because even tho they would be able to catch up with the front ranks,
the two front ranks i presume would have to stop and dodge during the two rear ranks firing.

The front rank would have had to halt and let the third and fourth rank fire over their shoulders, so the situation becomes even more pointless. Unless of course the intention was to shoot their comrades in the back.

Studies by the French in the mid-18th Century confirmed that the fire of the third rank and beyond contributed little if anything to the overall firepower of a battalion. The men were in such an awkward position that most of them fire high without even levelling their muskets properly, and the risk of injury to the men in front far outweighed any benefit gained. Thus, the French eventually banned the firing of muskets by anyone not in the first two ranks of a formation, instructing those in the third rank to pass their muskets forward for the men in the second rank to fire.

[poa]

That make perfect sense.
If i were to shape and outfit this battalion, and adhere to their wisdom/combat experience of 4 ranks being the optimal in most cases,
i would have the two front ranks with muskets&rapiers, the third with pikes&rapiers, and the fourth made up of grenadiers with grenades&rapiers.
The grenadiers would then have a meat-wall in front of them while lighting that unpredictable fuse,
and the grenade has to go in a parabolic trajectory anyway since speed is so slow,
so lines in front won't get in the way.
Sub-officers/NCO was always back in the battalion, to "encourage" those that wasnt encouraged by the General in front,
and grenadiers was in field as replacement recruited from NCO's because they would usually have proven their
worth in battle, making them better at handling grenades with an attitude

[Didz]

The main benefit of a four deep formation was resilience. Again Mike Loades tested this using a bunch of re-enactors pretending to be an Anglo-Saxon shield wall. He found that when put under threat the natural tendency of the men in the front rank of the formation was to try and avoid it, by pushing backwards into the men behind. In a two rank formation there was only one man blocking his escape and so it was quite easy for the front rank to flinch and create gaps in the formation. However, once you had a formation of four ranks it works a bit like a rugby scum, and the men in the front rank were forced to stand their ground and accept their fate. This meant that the formation did not fragment and the enemy could not break through it to spread disorder.

This seems to have been a recognised truth amongst officers and tacticians at the time, and 'for example' the Allied regiments at Waterloo all formed four ranks deep, to provide that added resilience to their position. Of course by the end of the battle that had been reduced to only a single rank for some regiments, but by then everyone was too tired to care.

[fullapa]

The front rank would have had to halt and let the third and fourth rank fire over their shoulders, so the situation becomes even more pointless. Unless of course the intention was to shoot their comrades in the back.

Are you talking about the Swedish battalion? In that case, I'd have to tell you that the two rear ranks didn't shoot over anyones back but simply filled within the gaps of the two front ranks and fired, after which the battalion resumed their march to the enemy lines and the two rear ranks fell back into their previous position. The two front ranks which hadn't yet fired did so afterwards. If you were not talking about this just ignore my post.

The pikes were an important factor to break opponents morale, mastering the physiological warfare was the key to victory and they usually ran rather than to fight tight pike formations. Also, it's worth to note that Swedish swords/rapiers were almost 10 cm longer than other western armies swords during the early 18th century, probably giving them a slight advantage against bayonets.

[Mjarr]

That's really interesting. I never realised that the Swedes were still using pikes in 1712. I've always imagined them as one of the pace setters for military tactic's.

Due to bad experience in Polish wars they considered pike is essential to infantry to deter cavalry. Of course one can assume pike vs cavalry in typical situation on average was pretty rare sight, but longer reach definitely is a good argument to avoid getting too close. Admittedly it too has the benefit in charge that presuming the other side doesn't flee before it, they can pigstick the first rankers from safe distance And in some ways one could say Carolean tactics were pace settlers, but only if one considers Sweden's situation. You could consider Prussian tactics and military manuals from Frederick the Great fairly similar conceptually; Armies were not going to go back down in size and the faster one can achieve decisive effect the less casualties one can anticipate, and of course to some degree nullify numerical superiority. Neither could afford prolonged wars of attrition and while one could say somewhat different approach of offensive shock of the Carolean army than firepower (if one generalises Gustav II Adolf's basic principles down to that - I am aware I am simply making very sharp generalisation for the sake of not dragging out this post to say what I believe has been said in the thread several times already) sounds backwards no matter how technical we can be about details, morale and psychology will remain the equal opportunity troll.

There's also a bit of contradictory information about the weaponry in those articles and others. I've heard the swords used by the Caroleans called rapiers in some places and long/broadswords in others. I've also found some inconsistencies about cavalry. I've seen cavalry being described as no firearms ever, 2 pistols for shooting in the charge, 2 pistols and a carbine for skirmishing and other combat, or only for chasing routing enemies.

Contradicting information is easily due differing regulations and tactics over time, or even simply odd choices to bolster discipline. I believe the first ban of pistols was in 1703\1704 (don't quote me too literally on that, I don't remember the source where I got this) and the reason could simply be nothing but means to instill more aggressive mentality and discipline. In similar vein the slow marching approach was eventually changed to quick pacing\even running for infantry tactics after the first volley was fired, so instead of first volley, march close, volley and hack on it was first volley, borderline run closer, second volley and repeat... until they simply adopted that the second volley was essentially fired as they were about to contact enemy quite literally on the move. Towards the end of the war I do have faint memory of reading somewhere that number of pikemen was reduced in battalions as well but outside individual regiment records and information it's hard to really speak anything but broad "maybe" here, and probably is not documented either.

Edit: As for the swords IIRC the standard was rapiers, but since they got plenty of war booty from some battles as well as had old stocks to empty I could imagine it varied a bit depending on time and place. Swedish cavalry still used wheellocks in early 1690s and were mostly replaced before the war.

(Someone with better memory and sources is free to correct of course as usual.)

This seems to have been a recognised truth amongst officers and tacticians at the time, and 'for example' the Allied regiments at Waterloo all formed four ranks deep, to provide that added resilience to their position. Of course by the end of the battle that had been reduced to only a single rank for some regiments, but by then everyone was too tired to care.

I would dare to say it has more to do with frontage than resilience. Some British units were deployed even in six ranks at Waterloo due lack of space IIRC.

[Didz]

Are you talking about the Swedish battalion? In that case, I'd have to tell you that the two rear ranks didn't shoot over anyones back but simply filled within the gaps of the two front ranks and fired, after which the battalion resumed their march to the enemy lines and the two rear ranks fell back into their previous position. The two front ranks which hadn't yet fired did so afterwards. If you were not talking about this just ignore my post.

The pikes were an important factor to break opponents morale, mastering the physiological warfare was the key to victory and they usually ran rather than to fight tight pike formations. Also, it's worth to note that Swedish swords/rapiers were almost 10 cm longer than other western armies swords during the early 18th century, probably giving them a slight advantage against bayonets.

Wow! in that case they must have been using a much looser formation than other nations of the period. The British for example only allowed 22" per man, and required everyone to be touching elbows consistently to maintain their formations. There was no possibility of that sort of major rank interdiction. Pikes were a useful weapon in the 17th Century before the advent of bayonets and improved musket locks and ramrods allowed defending infantry to fire perhaps fifteen full volleys into their formations before they got within jabbing range, after that they simply became a heavy liability and were only issued to troops who could not obtain muskets. Likewise sword length meant little if your opponent had a loaded musket.

[poa]

If the standard firing range was ~30 meter, and a sprinter makes 100 meters under 10 sec,
perhaps these guys were only 1/3 as fast as anyone running, so they too would need 10 sec to close to withing stabbing range.
I used to hunt with a bolt action and consider myself a fast shooter, i could get off 2 rounds with a bolt action in this time,
because i would reload during recoil, and used a cross scope for quick acquisition.
I think i would only get off a single round with these kind of rifles, -and then only ever if i already had a round on the ready,
there's no way i could reload with this procedure in 10 sec, let alone turn the rifle around to shoot

[fullapa]

Wow! in that case they must have been using a much looser formation than other nations of the period. The British for example only allowed 22" per man, and required everyone to be touching elbows consistently to maintain their formations. There was no possibility of that sort of major rank interdiction. Pikes were a useful weapon in the 17th Century before the advent of bayonets and improved musket locks and ramrods allowed defending infantry to fire perhaps fifteen full volleys into their formations before they got within jabbing range, after that they simply became a heavy liability and were only issued to troops who could not obtain muskets. Likewise sword length meant little if your opponent had a loaded musket.

Indeed they used loose formations (180 meters width), with good reasons. The Swedish army was outnumbered in every larger battle in the Great Northern War except for Helsingborg 1710 which had equal numbers on both sides, to match the length of the enemy lines they often had to either march in loose formations or 2 ranks only. Loose formations was handy in the sense that they didn't caught as much bullets prior to impact with melee weapons. However, later during the war they started to use the bayonet more as it then allowed the battalion to get even closer before firing the last salvo, while they now attacked in two ranks (initially 4 ranks but after the 2 rear ranks fired they didn't fall back in their previous position but instead resumed the attack in the two front ranks). Defending infantry did not have time to fire "fifteen full volleys" before impact, at least not in any effective range (where they would only be able to shoot 2 volleys). Swedish armies met the defending tactics which the Marlborough's armies used at the time, like the Danes (who were highly renowned in the SWoS) lost to this aggressive warfare. I think it's safe to say that musket fire was not as decisive as people might think, as the Swedish armies successfully used the same tactics through the whole war.
But the real key of success in the Swedish army was their cavalry, contrary to the rest of Europe (including Marlborough's army) the Swedes attacked "knee-behind-knee" as a regular principal while other cavalry formations in Europe attacked in the standard "knee-by-knee". "knee-behind-knee" served for an even more clustered cavalry formation with the results of better impacts.

[Didz]

I would dare to say it has more to do with frontage than resilience. Some British units were deployed even in six ranks at Waterloo due lack of space IIRC.

I think that would be a misunderstanding of basic tactical doctrine.

There was no obligation on regiments or brigades in the 18th Century to restrict their frontage to fit into the space available. In fact, quite the opposite the basic assumption during deployment was that one battalion would deploy on a fixed frontage and so the senior officers deployed on the basis that X battalions would cover Y yards. This meant that the depth of the formation would be varied to ensure the frontaqe remained constant, and as casualties were sustained and men skulked off, the depth of the formation was sacrificed to maintain the frontage. So, at Waterloo some battalions which had begun four ranks deep ended the day covering the same frontage with a single rank of men. If the space available to deploy the army was insufficient as suggested then the deployment would merely have been made in two lines rather than one, as indeed was the case in some area's of the field, hence the chequer board effect later in the day when brigades formed square.

It's a shame really that ETW has the drag and drop system for unit placement as it encourages players to think in terms of squeezing and stretching units to fit frontages. Whereas in the real world that sort of thing would result in absolute chaos, as the men would have no idea where their unit markers were, and formation changes would just not synchronize. A better system would have been to have every unit depicted as a deployment frame and then position the models within it, a bit like wargamers use movement trays on a tabletop game.

[Didz]

If the standard firing range was ~30 meter, and a sprinter makes 100 meters under 10 sec,
perhaps these guys were only 1/3 as fast as anyone running, so they too would need 10 sec to close to withing stabbing range.

Musket range at this period was 200 yards, it could actually hit at double that distance, but most battalions did not start firing until the enemy were within 200 paces of them. Which was quite short as most battlaions would be deployed on a frontage of at least 150 paces.

The regulation cadence for the 'pas de charge' was 120 paces per minute, so it would take at least 90 seconds for the enemy to close to the distance when a final rush was possible. Even then men in heavy military boots, gaiters, a thick woolen coat, a large heavy hat, carrying a 6lb musket or a huge heavy 12' pike, with a 60lb pack full of personal belongings do NOT sprint. At best there would be a lumbering jog towards the enemy, who would be pouring their fifteenth volley into you from less that a few feet away. If you survived, which is unlikely, you would find yourself pretty much alone faced by a solid wall of men with bayonets, and at least one rank pointing loaded muskets at your head.

As the French also found to their cost, that was actually the best that could happen. The worst was what the British excelled at, which was not firing at all, until they were within 50 paces. At that range, a musket pretty much can't miss, and every-man in the front rank of a French column had three muskets pointed in his direction. When the British opened fire it could be reasonably certain that every man in the front rank of a French formation would be hit, and they knew that.

So as they got closer and closer their advance got slower and slower, as the men in the front ranks began to baby-step or push backwards to try and preserve their lives for just a few more precious seconds. Men would begin firing without orders to try and unsettle the British troops, but having fired they then wanted to stop and reload. The men behind would begin shoving them forwards, there would be conflicts and arguments, their NCO's and Officers would begin hitting the men to keep them moving, others braver than most would run ahead and try to coax their men to follow them forward, and just when it looks like they might actually reach the British line, their would be the ominous flick of the British muskets to the shoulder, the half right turn which prepared the space for the rear ranks to present over the shoulders of the front rank men, and then the slaughter would begin.

[poa]

Standard practice at this time was the old "don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes"
In the Swedish regulations that seemed to be 70 paces, when the two rear ranks would fire their only volley.
There is no "15 volleys here", its 1 volley, possibly 2 volleys if they wasted their first at an ineffective range.
Or rather, there is "15 volleys" if both parties adhere to fire exchange,
but that is moot if one part dismiss the exchange altogether and just close in to H2H.
A professional walker makes 30 meters in 8 sec, guessing an average jogger perform similar,
i read a link when infantry was ordered to fire at cavalry at 30 meters,
any longer range would be ineffective, while any shorter would cause wounded horses to run into the square.

Once formed in square, the infantry would volley fire at approaching cavalry, either by file or by rank. In successful actions, the infantry would often withhold fire until the charging horses and men were some 30 metres from the square; the resulting casualties to the attackers would eventually form piles of dead and wounded horses and their riders which would obstruct further attacks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_square


Undisciplined or early fire by the infantry would be ineffective against the attacking cavalry and leave the foot soldiers with empty muskets. The cavalrymen could then approach to very short range while the infantry was reloading, where they could fire at the infantry with their pistols, slash at them with sabres or stab them with lances (if they were so equipped.)

This site dont give me a break, once anything was underlined or similar, it keeps underline,
but anyway, i see now that undisciplined soldiers could in fact fire at longer ranges than 30 meters,
but it was seen as a bad idea.

Musket range at this period was 200 yards, it could actually hit at double that distance

200yd = 182.88m

wow, didnt know those things were the fully equal to a modern 30.06 bolt action with a cross scope,
at a moving target i recommend against anything above 120 meters, with the bolt action precision bullets
and scope that is.
If you want to fire at anything above this range, with the intent to hit,
get a test bench, or lay down and find a position that you a very comfortable in,
take your time, and sort of feel the trigger off in your breathing so you dont miss-aim.

This setup, the bench, the rifle, the scope, the ammunition, is a good setup for 200 yards, stationary target.
just don't fire on command, fire when your breathing coincide with the aim on the target,
take your time.
REMINGTON 710 / 30.06 @ 200 YDS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfLw8cxZ_WM

[Didz]

I think what we are talking about on this thread is the 'Swedish Myth', which I suspect is about as accurate to what really happened as the 'English Myth' is to our history. The proof of the pudding of course is to find some primary evidence written by the people that fought against the Swedes, that they actually did this sort of thing in the real world rather than in the fantasy of their drill manuals.

I didn't bother watching the sniper video, because musketry at this period was not aimed at a specific target. It was purely point and fire, as the muskets did not even have sights. It's better to think of musketry as a sort of area fire, similar to a machine gun where you merely lay down a volume of shot into a given area on the understanding that some would hit. Volley fire was directed by the platoon officers, and NCO's and directed in a general direction. Most battalions would begin firing at about 200 paces distance and at two to three shots per minute could deliver fifteen volleys in the time it took an enemy battalion to close with it.

Not that volley fire was used for long during the 18th century, most of the more advanced nations were experimenting with more efficient fire control systems that guaranteed an almost constant hail of shot rather and single blasts.

[fullapa]

I think what we are talking about on this thread is the 'Swedish Myth', which I suspect is about as accurate to what really happened as the 'English Myth' is to our history. The proof of the pudding of course is to find some primary evidence written by the people that fought against the Swedes, that they actually did this sort of thing in the real world rather than in the fantasy of their drill manuals.

Can you expand on that? What is the Swedish myth and what is the English myth?

I didn't bother watching the sniper video, because musketry at this period was not aimed at a specific target. It was purely point and fire, as the muskets did not even have sights. It's better to think of musketry as a sort of area fire, similar to a machine gun where you merely lay down a volume of shot into a given area on the understanding that some would hit. Volley fire was directed by the platoon officers, and NCO's and directed in a general direction. Most battalions would begin firing at about 200 paces distance and at two to three shots per minute could deliver fifteen volleys in the time it took an enemy battalion to close with it.

200 paces is far from being an effective range, the only thing you do by firing at that distance is increasing the misfires for the more effective ranges.. The first salvo is always the best when the musket is loaded outside of combat, the soldiers can then calmly reload before action, while under combat they tend to be more careless with their reloading which increases misfires. A battalion could move, in fast speed, 150 meters per minute, with you logic, if the effective range is nothing above 70 meters or as some prefer 50 meters (usually if armies wanted to be decisive with musket fire, you didn't shoot above 70 meters), the English would most likely only get one salvo in, two if they were lucky, with all the misfires from careless reloading after firing repeatedly in combat, where as the Swedes "with their fresh reloads" would have 2 salvos guaranteed, one on 50 meters the other on 30 meters after which they would charge with cold steel and pikes.

Not that volley fire was used for long during the 18th century, most of the more advanced nations were experimenting with more efficient fire control systems that guaranteed an almost constant hail of shot rather and single blasts.

Like the Russians? They did this in the early 18th century just to counter the Swedish advance (having tried most things from Continental Europe), Poltava was their biggest win, yet, the win was achieved because of their numbers rather than their experimental [4,000 Swedes marched against 20,000+ Russians in the final battle].

Thing is, Swedish tactics were made, before all, to counter many of the western armies using the more defensive formation. It's pretty much proven successful since they also beat (apart from Russians) Saxons, Danes etc who were all defensive armies preferring the bullet from muskets rather than the cold steel charge. As I said, Danes had fought in Marlborough's armies in the Spanish War of Succession, they used the tactics, still their musket fire didn't stop Swedish battalions at neither Helsingborg 1710 or Gadebusch 1712 from reaching their ranks.

[poa]

history of war org speculate that 5-6 volleys might have been possible, albeit at 'the extreme range of the musket'
meaning you would point the musket upwards for a parabolic trajectory with a very slim chance, as to be for practical purposes useless.

Swedish infantry at this period was unusual in that it relied more on the sword than the musket. Swedish tactics emphasised the value of the attack on the charge. Muskets of the period might have been able to fire five or six volleys at incoming infantry, but most of them would be at extreme long range for the musket. The advancing Swedes might fire once during the charge, but would not stop to reload and fire again.

http://www.historyofwar.org/articles...fraustadt.html

[Mjarr]

I think that would be a misunderstanding of basic tactical doctrine.

There was no obligation on regiments or brigades in the 18th Century to restrict their frontage to fit into the space available. In fact, quite the opposite the basic assumption during deployment was that one battalion would deploy on a fixed frontage and so the senior officers deployed on the basis that X battalions would cover Y yards. This meant that the depth of the formation would be varied to ensure the frontaqe remained constant, and as casualties were sustained and men skulked off, the depth of the formation was sacrificed to maintain the frontage. So, at Waterloo some battalions which had begun four ranks deep ended the day covering the same frontage with a single rank of men. If the space available to deploy the army was insufficient as suggested then the deployment would merely have been made in two lines rather than one, as indeed was the case in some area's of the field, hence the chequer board effect later in the day when brigades formed square.

I do agree I did somehow managed to misread the original part of your post and in retrospect I really should have not written the post in a rush. That being said humans still tend to make more or less baffling decisions or errors - and I do not imply Waterloo as one, but just as “stating the obvious.”