Austrian Drill Regulations and Formations

I've been experimenting with different spacings for ranks and files to see if I can make the unit formations more representative of the historical formations used.

I've been basing my experiments on the Dundas regulations used by the British, but having decided on the optimum settings for them I want to try and adjust these for the other factions.

For example, the British allowed 1 pace between ranks (30"), whereas the Austrian's allowed 2 paces (49.8") so their formation were deeper. However, Nafziger doesn't know how much space the Austrian's allowed per file.

Does anyone have a source that quotes the frontages of Austrian units?

Originally Posted by Didz

I've been experimenting with different spacings for ranks and files to see if I can make the unit formations more representative of the historical formations used.

I've been basing my experiments on the Dundas regulations used by the British, but having decided on the optimum settings for them I want to try and adjust these for the other factions.

For example, the British allowed 1 pace between ranks (30"), whereas the Austrian's allowed 2 paces (49.8") so their formation were deeper. However, Nafziger doesn't know how much space the Austrian's allowed per file.

Does anyone have a source that quotes the frontages of Austrian units?

The answer may lie within http://books.google.com/books?id=c-H...page&q&f=false which is the 1807 Regulations for Infantry but my German is not good enough to delve into this to find the answer.

Page 21 of Bowden's "Armies on the Danube 1809" says the 1807 regulations called for each company to be drawn up in 3 rank company formation at a distance of 2 feet between each rank and all soldiers to stand side by side so that elbows would touch.

There are various diagrams:

First - 6 company battalion deployed 2 companies wide by 3 deep with a measurement of 10 to 12 metres deep for the whole formation and a single company width of 28 to 30 metres.

Second - 6 company battalion, 1 company frontage in open order 20 to 25 metres deep, width of 28 to 30 metres.

Third - 6 company battalion, 1 company frontage in battalion mass 10 to 12 metres deep, width of 28 to 30 metres.

and all soldiers to stand side by side so that elbows would touch.

I think this was fairly universal by the 1760s. It is the same as the British 1764 regulations, anyway.

I've just scanned the link posted by the Prince of Essling (http://books.google.com/books?id=c-H6BceZ8oMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false ).

Unfortunatly it is very a very "administrative" tact. It tells you how a soldier shall behave in public, how he is supposed to greet his superiors, it also tells us about punishments, patrols and changing of the guard, equipment, payment, provision, treatment of packhorses, administrative leave. But my quick survey didn't bring forth any regulations for the battlefield. And judging from the table of contents, I' afraid I don't expect to find any. However, this is only tome 1 of 2 ( proof) - but I couldn't find tome II on google books.

It seems as if the good stuff is never available on google books *g* e.g.: 1, 2 (74 "plans", there is also a 1815-version of it)

Originally Posted by Kaunitz

I've just scanned the link posted by the Prince of Essling (http://books.google.com/books?id=c-H6BceZ8oMC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false ).

Unfortunatly it is very a very "administrative" tact. It tells you how a soldier shall behave in public, how he is supposed to greet his superiors, it also tells us about punishments, patrols and changing of the guard, equipment, payment, provision, treatment of packhorses, administrative leave. But my quick survey didn't bring forth any regulations for the battlefield. And judging from the table of contents, I' afraid I don't expect to find any. However, this is only tome 1 of 2 ( proof) - but I couldn't find tome II on google books.

It seems as if the good stuff is never available on google books *g* e.g.: 1, 2 (74 "plans", there is also a 1815-version of it)

@Kaunitz, Many thanks for your scan - unfortunately the equivalent cavalry diagrams http://books.google.com/books?id=eiF...page&q&f=false bit of the regulations on google has been catalogued as infantry so goodness knows what google has catalogued the infantry diagrams as - its definitely not cavalry!

Originally Posted by 43rdFoot

I think this was fairly universal by the 1760s. It is the same as the British 1764 regulations, anyway.

Like you I assume that the elbows touching rule would be pretty universal if only because its the most practical means of dressing ones formation. Indeed physical contact is still the standard method of dressing ranks and files in the modern army. However, according to Nafziger it didn't produce the same results for every nation.

For example the file spacing of a British Regiment is quoted as 22" (with elbows touching), whereas for France it is 26" and for Russia 27". So, assuming French and Russian soldiers were not bred to be wider than the British there must have been a reason for the differences in the regulations and how they were maintained in practice.

The only logical reason I can come up with by looking at the drill regulations in general is that both France and Russia carried their firelocks in the crock of their elbow on the march, whereas the British tended to carry theirs at full extension of the arm. So, I'm thinking that the crocked elbow might account for the slight increase in file spacing when their elbows were touching. Its only like 4" or 5" per man but over the frontage of a battalion it adds up. The other alternative would be that the French and Russian's deliberately crocked their elbow's when dressing ranks to get the wider spacing.

Rank intervals also varied considerably.

The British allowed a full pace (30") between ranks allowing them to march without using 'salden's waddle'. Nafziger says the Austrian's allow two paces between ranks (49.8") which seems really generous. However, the French only allowed 13", and the Russian's 14" which means they must have been using 'salden's waddle' throughout the Napoleonic period. Barbero actually claims that D'Erlon's Corps were deployed with only 12" between ranks and battalions for its assault at Waterloo, which explains why they could not form square when suddenly attacked by the British cavalry.

I suspect that Austrian file spacing must have been closer to the British than the French, but my only reason for saying that is that I've seen some period prints showing Austrian troops drilling that are carrying their firelocks with an extended arm like the British. Ironically, those same prints show formations with a rank interval that looks nothing like 49.8", in fact they are clearly using 'salden's waddle' which suggests an interval of 24" or less, so

Incidently, the price of the wider rank intervals was that the British (and perhaps the Austrians) had to halt and close ranks before they could begin firing. Whereas the French were able to fire without such preparation, and possibly even whilst moving.

Originally Posted by Prince of Essling

There are various diagrams:

First - 6 company battalion deployed 2 companies wide by 3 deep with a measurement of 10 to 12 metres deep for the whole formation and a single company width of 28 to 30 metres.

Second - 6 company battalion, 1 company frontage in open order 20 to 25 metres deep, width of 28 to 30 metres.

Third - 6 company battalion, 1 company frontage in battalion mass 10 to 12 metres deep, width of 28 to 30 metres.

Unfortunately, what we are missing from that information is the number of files, otherwise we might have been able to calculate the file spacing.

Likewise the depth measurements only work if one knows the intervals between company formations as well as the number of ranks. I suspect the difference between the mass and open column would have been the intervals between companies, similar to the French system.

Originally Posted by Didz

Unfortunately, what we are missing from that information is the number of files, otherwise we might have been able to calculate the file spacing.

Likewise the depth measurements only work if one knows the intervals between company formations as well as the number of ranks. I suspect the difference between the mass and open column would have been the intervals between companies, similar to the French system.

Nafziger "Imperial Bayonets" page 98 has part of the answer! (Missing some info on the distance between Zugs)

German organised company (160 men) 54 files, company length 114 feet
Hungarian organised company (180 men) 61 files company length 127 feet (should files total be 62 in the light of the information further down?)
Grenadier company (120 men) 38 files company length 85 feet

Page 97 says the companies were not evenly divided between Zugs and file numbers varied (page 98 details - all companies have 4 Zugs):

German organised company Middle Zug 14 files; Wing Zug 13 files
Hungarian organised company Middle Zug 16 files; Wing Zug 15 files
Grenadier company Middle Zug 10 files; Wing Zug 9 files

As to width of a man Nafziger suggests an average of 22 inches (page 98).
Page 105 says a German Zug was 24.75 feet wide. Based on this 4 Zugs equal 99 feet, and gap between Zugs is 5 feet.

The only logical reason I can come up with by looking at the drill regulations in general is that both France and Russia carried their firelocks in the crock of their elbow on the march, whereas the British tended to carry theirs at full extension of the arm. So, I'm thinking that the crocked elbow might account for the slight increase in file spacing when their elbows were touching. Its only like 4" or 5" per man but over the frontage of a battalion it adds up. The other alternative would be that the French and Russian's deliberately crocked their elbow's when dressing ranks to get the wider spacing.

Aye, I think this may be the source of the discrepancy.

Here is a Prussian soldier with a shouldered firelock:




As you can see, this soldier is carrying his firelock fairly high, with his elbow sticking straight out.

It contrasts greatly with the British drill, which stated: "...the left elbow not to be turned out from the body; the firelock to be carried on the left shoulder, as low down as can be admitted without constraint; the three last fingers under the butt; the fore finger and thumb before the swell the flat of the butt to be supported against the hip-bone, and to be pressed so that the firelock may be felt against the left side, and that it may stand before the hollow of the shoulder, not leaning toward the head nor from it; the barrel almost perpendicular."





I think this discrepancy would inevitably lead to a smaller space between the files for British marching units. Combine this with Dundas and the move towards more compactly arranged drill, and I don't think it would be a stretch to submit that other armies allotted more space because of differences in drill.

Exactly, we seem to be thinking along the same lines. So, logically speaking if the period prints show the Austrians carrying their firelocks with a straight arm then we could deduce that they probably also stood closer together.

Oh! well spotted I missed that table when I was looking though for the figures.

Thats interesting though because I had theorised that the Austrian file spacing would match the British due to the similar way they held their firelocks, and it seems that it does. The average file spacing across a whole company works out at 25" per file, but Nafzige suggests 22" was more likely within each zug, presumably because of the three intervals between the zugs were wider. I love it when things actually make sense.

Thanks for pointing that table out. I must admit I took Nafziger at his word when he said on page 22 that the Austrian and Prussian width per man was unknown. I should have kept looking anyway, as he actually gives a figure on the page you highlighted

I believe there was a rather interesting formation created by Archduke Charles that the Austrians adopted, combining an infantry square with a column. This was created by a battalion forming a marching column with the ranks on the side and back facing outwards, the idea being the battalion could march to its destination unimpeded by cavalry attacks. Unfortunately for the Austrians it proved almost impossible to maintain a proper cohesion while marching, and the dense, slow formation provided an ideal target for artillery.



Sadly due to the way formations are made and move in Napoleon and Empire it would be impossible to adopt this formation.

Originally Posted by calicheSCOT

I believe there was a rather interesting formation created by Archduke Charles that the Austrians adopted, combining an infantry square with a column. This was created by a battalion forming a marching column with the ranks on the side and back facing outwards, the idea being the battalion could march to its destination unimpeded by cavalry attacks. Unfortunately for the Austrians it proved almost impossible to maintain a proper cohesion while marching, and the dense, slow formation provided an ideal target for artillery.



Sadly due to the way formations are made and move in Napoleon and Empire it would be impossible to adopt this formation.

Not that I think one would actually want to.


It would have been nice if N:TW had incorporated programming which made some formations (i.e. column, line, mixed column) have various effects on morale or other factors. Maybe such a thing can one day be modded into the game.

Originally Posted by calicheSCOT

I believe there was a rather interesting formation created by Archduke Charles that the Austrians adopted, combining an infantry square with a column. This was created by a battalion forming a marching column with the ranks on the side and back facing outwards, the idea being the battalion could march to its destination unimpeded by cavalry attacks. Unfortunately for the Austrians it proved almost impossible to maintain a proper cohesion while marching, and the dense, slow formation provided an ideal target for artillery.



Sadly due to the way formations are made and move in Napoleon and Empire it would be impossible to adopt this formation.

Agreed - and it was called "Battalionsmasse". The Austrians did have a slightly less dense formation called the "Divisionsmasse" as well as a more normal square formation. (Nafziger "Imperial bayonets" pages 101 to 107).

Originally Posted by calicheSCOT

I believe there was a rather interesting formation created by Archduke Charles that the Austrians adopted, combining an infantry square with a column. This was created by a battalion forming a marching column with the ranks on the side and back facing outwards, the idea being the battalion could march to its destination unimpeded by cavalry attacks. Unfortunately for the Austrians it proved almost impossible to maintain a proper cohesion while marching, and the dense, slow formation provided an ideal target for artillery.

In the interests of avoiding ongoing confusion I would like to just point out that neither the Battalionmeass nor the Divisionmasse involved troops marching whilst facing outwards. This is quite simply impractical. The reason it provided a safer defence against cavalry was that it was a dense column formation which could halt and transform into a square much faster than a traditional column formation.

Best estimates suggest it would take an Austrian battalionmasse in movement formation just under one minute to prepare to receive cavalry once the order was given, (this involved closing ranks and absorbing the file closers into the main formation, before turning the outer flank files outwards) whereas it would take it almost two minutes to form a french style square.

The disadvantage was that it had a very limited frontage of one tactical division(four platoons/zug) and therefore could not present the same number of muskets to the enemy as a traditional square. It also presented a much denser target to enemy artillery. A full strength Battalionmasse when deployed to resist cavalry could only present 108 muskets to its front and rear and 36 to either flank (The actual amount would vary slightly between German and Hungarian regiments). Whereas an Austrian battalion formed in a French style egyptian square could present 216 muskets to its front and 108 to each flank. A difference in firepower of between 648 muskets and 288 (44%).

However, it was conceived when fighting the Turks who had a lot of cavalry but not a lot of mobile artillery, and therefore speed was consider more important than vulnerability to artillery fire at the time.

Very interesting thread this, I hope santa will get me "Imperial Bayonets" for christmas but until then detailed threads focused more on facts like these are very useful.

Originally Posted by MrT

Very interesting thread this, I hope santa will get me "Imperial Bayonets" for christmas but until then detailed threads focused more on facts like these are very useful.

Hope Santa is kind to you. It is definitely a book that you will want to dip in and out of as it is not an easy read in one go......

Originally Posted by Prince of Essling

Hope Santa is kind to you. It is definitely a book that you will want to dip in and out of as it is not an easy read in one go......

No problem for me really. I never read any book in one go I think, prefer to use them as handbooks, reference material or suchlike. From what I hear though this book takes a long time to get used to but if I get stuck I´ll ask one of you pros

Originally Posted by MrT

No problem for me really. I never read any book in one go I think, prefer to use them as handbooks, reference material or suchlike. From what I hear though this book takes a long time to get used to but if I get stuck I´ll ask one of you pros

Fair enough! Enjoy........

Originally Posted by MrT

No problem for me really. I never read any book in one go I think, prefer to use them as handbooks, reference material or suchlike. From what I hear though this book takes a long time to get used to but if I get stuck I´ll ask one of you pros

One of the problems I find with it, is that it takes a lot of effort to assimilate the information being given to the point where you understand whats being described, and I have to say that Nafziger doesn't always help as he is not always consistent.

For example: right at the start of the book he has a bit of rant and goes to great lengths to explain the difference between the adminstrative and tactical organisation of a regiment. He makes a big thing about the importance of being clear about the distinction between the two, and even has a dig at other historians who have failed to make such a distinction and consequently misunderstood how tactic's worked in the period.

Now I found that really interesting and it eventually made sense to me, though I'm still puzzled as to how it worked in a practical sense. However, Nafziger himself then seems to completely ignore the distinction for the rest of the book, quite happily quoting adminstrative organisation as though it was tactical and perpetuating the very misunderstandings that he complained about at the start.

The best I have managed to deduce is that in common with most writers of the period the word 'company' is used as general term for any sub-division of a regiment under command of a Captain, and was used to describe both the adminstrative sub-unit used for training and administration and the tactical unit used for drill and battle. However, the number of men in a 'company' would vary depending upon the context of its employment, and also over time during a campaign and battle due to casualties, sickness and detachments.

This is a great thread, hadn't read it until now, great for my modding research, I knew the French and Russians were close with their ranks, and British further, but I didn't know much about file spacing! Cheers, MB