Fight until the end or not?

[Fjodin]

While looking on this painting strange idea started to apper in my head Look at the 3 enemy lines at the up side of picture. Three lines each one consist of r rank companies.
Imagine that 2 armies in this 3 lines formations have battle. They move closer and then stands. First line (which consist on 3 rank companies) of each army make a volley. Both sides have casualties... And whats next. They make a charge or start to reload and fire again? And after charge or second voley 1 line falls, will the damaged line of other side stay on battlefield to be surrely killed by the second enemy line (which consist of FRESH 3 ranks!!!) or will it retreat and and makes second enemy line fight with your second line?

Sorry for poor english

[jo the greek]

think it more like the roman legion!!

[boerekovic]

Well, i think this is OUR decision. You are right, if we let them fire while charging we get more casualties, but maybe our charge will demoralize them. I hope my Enemy in ETW wont do such lines, as i wont know if my infantry will survive the attack.
(actually i want my enemy to do exactly so, so its a challenge)

On the Fight to the End issue:
I always let my Legions fight to the end in RTW, in Medieval it was nearly impossible as most of the Units fled when under 20 Men, and well see about that in ETW.

[Fjodin]

I always try to save my damaged units

But what in real life? Does the forst batalion line figt until the end (even if they destroyerd first enemy batalion line)?

[schoenkoenig]

No, the battalions in the first line would break and run towards the rear after taking casualties (usually between 5-15% casualties) There would generally be 25-75 yards between battalions, so there was plenty of room for units to run back through, or advance through a forward line.

[Alkarin]

No, the battalions in the first line would break and run towards the rear after taking casualties (usually between 5-15% casualties) There would generally be 25-75 yards between battalions, so there was plenty of room for units to run back through, or advance through a forward line.

my question is. when your running and you hit the 2nd line (that is advancing) why do they keep running? shouldn't they get back in line and give it another go? cowards

[Fjodin]

So after 1-st batalion line destroys enemy 1-st batalion line its retreat trought it's second and 3-rd line and make 2lines of each army make fight? Then the same with 3-d line? But how can batalion line move throught another line? The formation is to dense

[JaM]

actually battles seldomly looked like on that pictures - terrain was also important - most of time second and third lines were kept in reserve and were throwed into battle at the proper time. but tactics of early 18.century differed from tactics of late 18.century... linear warfare was replaced by maneuver and concentration of force.

[Fjodin]

I know. I am just wandering about linear tactics if the begining of 18 century. Will the 1-s batalion line fight after destruction of 1-s enemy batalion line, or it retreat through its reserve to be replaced by fresh 2-nd line to fight with enemy second line?

[schoenkoenig]

my question is. when your running and you hit the 2nd line (that is advancing) why do they keep running? shouldn't they get back in line and give it another go? cowards

Why do they keep running? Because they've seen their friends get killed, wounded, mangled, etc... Also, people felt little incentive to fight for monarchs whose policies tended to make the life of the average citizen miserable. Military service was seen as something of a course for all but the nobility.

But in terms of how it would work tactically... I imagine fleeing soldiers, or a battalion retreating in good order, would try to maneuver through the spaces between the second line units. Or, they'd just try and push their way through the units advancing. The latter happened quite a bit, which meant that reserve units had to stop and reorganize their ranks, although sometimes they fled too upon seeing their comrades in arms flee.

[p.jakub88]

============================================================================================================================

So, if the army consists of few line infantry unit ( company from ca. 100 to 120 men in XVIII and Napoleonic Era ), the first unit on the front will be shooting only - but only the first rank.

I saw a film Patriot ( ok, maybe not so historical... ), and the Red Couts opened fire at order from their line officer from below 100 m.

They killed only few American militia, but the militia was forced to rout.

After that, a very annoying cavalry commander attacked them from the rear with the whole cavalry regiment ( maybe 40 to 60 horse men ).

So, even in the 1777 the British army didn't use the fire by rank or platoon fire.

After few musket volleys - they charged with bayonets ( already fixed --> ring bayonet or socket? ) into the militia ranks.

At the same time, a British cannon battery was shooting at militia lines ( maybe 12lbs or 24lbs...).

So, summing up those factors, you will see that the militia was without chances to win...

============================================================================================================================

[p.jakub88]

=========================================================================================================================

Here you are the links which explains some military terms like:

---> company ( 60 to 110 men )

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kompania


---> battalion ( 300 to even 1000 men )

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalion


---> regiment ( from 200 to 2000 men )

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regiment

=========================================================================================================================

Of course, they will be a small difference between i.e France and Prussia and other major European powers.

The basic Empire: Total War unit, should be titled as a "company" ( French word -"compagnie" ).

So, no more than 120/140 men for line infantry units, but not less than 60.

=========================================================================================================================

The battalion consisted of few companies ( 3 or 4 companies ).

So, the regiment consisted of few battalions - according to the military history of XVIII and XIX century.

In general, the ETW land battle is an engagement between battalions or regiments in this case.

=========================================================================================================================

[Didz]

That's a very interesting painting isn't it.

I suppose the first thing to decide is what exactly one is looking at as its so easy to fool yourself into thinking your looking at something that equates to what your used to seeing as a Totalwar or Tabletop gamer. e.g. that each block of troops is a battalion etc.

Having said that they look too large to be companies and judging by the number of super-numaries standing behind each block I would say they look like tactical divisions (e.g. two platoons fighting as a single tactical unit) This would make sense given the firing systems used in this period.

This assessment also seems to be supported by a careful study of the uniforms, which show four blocks in similar uniforms standing together (e.g. eight battalion companies from the same regiment.). Presumably, the grenadier comanpies have been detached to form a seperate body as was usual in this period. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find that the grenadiers are leading that echeloned assault on the left of the painting, as it looks to me as though the uniforms of each of those blocks vary slightly.

The cavalry in the foreground look more like single squadrons.

Whats curious of course is the formation they are in, as no Totalwar gamer would place his troops in such a stupid formamtion. Two thirds of them would shoot their own friends in the back, and artillery fire would wreak havoc in such a deep formation.

To answer your specific question as the formations closed I would expect the leading divisions to exchange fire and then conduct a passage of lines if at some point it was determined that fresh troops were needed. The front line battalions would withdraw through the intervals in the second line, and then the second line would advance to replace them in the firing position.

The reason I say this is that looking at the painting it looks like the battalions are in 'line echequer' with each division covering the interval between the divisions ahead of it.

If the divisions were ranked one behind the other, and the uniforms were the same for the divisions of each rank, as in the French Column attack formation used in the later period then I would say that the most likely answer to your question would be that men from the second and third ranks would be fed forward to replace the casualties in the firing line. However, that is not likely to happen with different regiments involved and an exchequer formation pattern as it would cause too much confusion.

One thing that is puzzling me, is what the hell is going on in the background. It looks like some sort of battle is raging behind the formation with all that musket smoke.

Does anyone know what battle this depicts?

BTW: P.jakub88 a word of caution about the interpretation and definition of a company.

If you have read Nafziger you will know that there were two different structures involved in the division of a battalion.

There is the administrative structure, which determined how many officers and NCO's a battalion employed, how supplies and money were distributed within a battalion and how it recruited. This was based upon the company and many text books quote this structure because it explicitly appears in the administrative records of the battalion, and so has a paper trail which historians can latch onto.

There other and in this case the more important structure is its tactical organisation. This is the way the battalion was divided up when it went into battle, and that was dictated not by the niceities of the regimental account books, but by the necessities of the drills and tactic's it needed to perform.

The tactical structure of a battalion was not based upon the company, but upon the platoon (two completely seperate things, they only became subsumed into each other at a much later date.) Therefore, a soldier would be assigned to a company for his pay, equipment and food, but to a platoon for fighting.

The number of companies in a battalion may vary considerably from four to ten depending on the nation, the type of unit and whether it had detached companies for garrison duties etc. However, the number of platoons would always be fixed and was determined by the drill manual used by the battalion when maneouvring. Thus for example, a British battalion which had detached its flank companies only consisted of eight centre companies, but for tactical purposes it was still organised into ten platoons.

Likewise, when Napoleon reduced the number of companies in the Imperial Guard from eight to four in order to reduce the compliment of officers assigned to each regiment, it made no difference to the way the guard fought as each battalion was still divided in eight peleton's for tactical purposes.

This distinction between company and platoon needs to be remembered when reading some definitions and organisation structures in history books as they frequently quote the adminstrative structure of a battalion as though it had an impact on the battlefield.

In fact it was vitally important if the battalion was to perform all of the tactic's it was required to perform and to maintain a uniform frontage for each of its sub-divisions that all of the platoons existed and were of equal frontage, whereas the strength of its companies could vary considerably, depending on current recruitment and immediate sickness etc.

However, what I have yet to find is any description of how these platoons were maintained during battle. Logic would suggest that if one platoon took a lot of casualties some adjustment must have been made to shuffle men from the other platoons to keep the divisions balanced. But so far none of the written texts explain how that was accomplished and I suspect it was one of those little procedures that drill masters pass on to each other by word of mouth and never write down (a sort of trick of the trade, like how you keep the officer in the front of the company in the right position during the trooping of the colour)

[43rdFoot]

============================================================================================================================

So, if the army consists of few line infantry unit ( company from ca. 100 to 120 men in XVIII and Napoleonic Era ), the first unit on the front will be shooting only - but only the first rank.

I saw a film Patriot ( ok, maybe not so historical... ), and the Red Couts opened fire at order from their line officer from below 100 m.

They killed only few American militia, but the militia was forced to rout.

After that, a very annoying cavalry commander attacked them from the rear with the whole cavalry regiment ( maybe 40 to 60 horse men ).

So, even in the 1777 the British army didn't use the fire by rank or platoon fire.

After few musket volleys - they charged with bayonets ( already fixed --> ring bayonet or socket? ) into the militia ranks.

At the same time, a British cannon battery was shooting at militia lines ( maybe 12lbs or 24lbs...).

So, summing up those factors, you will see that the militia was without chances to win...

============================================================================================================================

Be careful about using movies as a historical source. The Patriot is total historically speaking; the battle scenes being especially dreadful. Literally nothing in those scenes is correct.

[Didz]

My favourite screen was the one where the the silver painted basketball was kicked into the line of British infantry and nearly took a poor extra's leg off.

[43rdFoot]

My favourite screen was the one where the the silver painted basketball was kicked into the line of British infantry and nearly took a poor extra's leg off.

I haven't seen that part. Now I need to! Do you remember which scene that was in?

[Didz]

I haven't seen that part. Now I need to! Do you remember which scene that was in?

Not off the top of my head, and believe me I never bothered buying the video.

Having said that I managed to find the scene on YouTube, though I was wrong it was actually an extra playing an American who was hit by the basketball. (see from about 5:10 onwards) I remember laughing out loud when I saw that at the cinema, in fact the whole film was a bit of joke in the UK.

It ranks along with a number of other cringe worthy scenes from period war movies, such as 'The Charge of the Scots Greys' from the film Waterloo. The extra's drafted from a Russian Army cavalry regiment were really getting into the role but just looked like a bunch of cossacks in red jackets (and I hate to mention it, but I think the horses were painted white)

There is just so much wrong with that movie, you could make another movie about it.

[43rdFoot]

Having said that I managed to find the scene on YouTube, though I was wrong it was actually an extra playing an American who was hit by the basketball.

I heard once about somebody who scaled up the size of the guns used by the British in the movie, and they would be something like 97 pounders. That movie is so bad it's almost good.


But it's not, it's just bad.