British armies pre-Peninsular War: 2 ranks or 3

[General Slade]

Prior to the Peninsular War was the general practice for British battalions to form in two or three ranks?  I know in the American War of Independence they generally formed in two ranks but were they still doing this during the French Revolutionary Wars and the early Napoleonic period?

I know troops could use different formations according to circumstances but I am interested in what the normal practice was during the Flanders Campaign (1793-95), in India (1799 – 1805) , at Alexandria (1801) through until Maida in 1806 and Copenhagen in 1807.

[Whirlwind]

I believe that in all the instances you gave, 2-ranks were used; this thread on TMP dealt with the subject at some length: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=206933

[General Slade]

Thanks Whirlwind.  I hadn’t seen that TMP thread.  I will have a read.

[Mike Oliver]

First, let me say it is some time since I looked into this subject, so my memory may well be at fault. I believe the original British drill manual called for 3 ranks. However, there was an over-riding requirement that the frontage (of a company, I think) be of a certain length and that, if this was unachievable with three ranks, due to a shortage of men, the company was to form in two ranks. The Guards battalions were generally not in trouble over manpower and I have the recollection of reports that they did form in three ranks.

The Peninsular War thinned out the ranks of most of the battalions present (some units even falling below 400)  and so the tendency was for them to form in two ranks to preserve the frontage. I’m not sure if this is anecdotal or a fact but Wellington was aware that the effect of fire from a battalion in two ranks was sufficient and that the ability to resist enemy charges was not noticeably weakened, so 2 ranks became the rule. As a result, the troops gained confidence in the system and it continued.

The main reason for the success of the British in the Peninsular, at a tactical level, was the fact that they selected positions out of sight of the enemy (reverse slopes) and deployed a much more dense skirmish screen than the French (smaller intervals between paired skirmishers). When the French encountered the thicker British screen, they assumed it was the main line and, when this retired as they advanced, believed they had thrown the main British line back. When they came upon the silent battalions of the main line awaiting their arrival, there was a faltering. As they moved closer and their enemy “at long pistol shot” made ready, presented muskets and fired a devastating short range volley, frequently destroying the front rank of the advancing French, there was hesitation that was met with lowered bayonets, a loud “hurrah!” and several hundred red-coated men headed rapidly in their direction. This was frequently (but not always) sufficient to panic the French into a precipitate departure.

French drill manuals required the infantry to march in column to a position within musket range, deploy into three ranks and commence firing. On the main European continent, the sight of the French advance in great columns with fixed bayonets was often enough to break the enemy before firing was begun and so the habit of using cold steel at the front of a column to unsettle their foe became the preferred method, despite the drill books.

Finally, if brought to a halt by enemy fire, French infantry were expected to halt, deploy into line and participate in a musketry duel. Unfortunately for them, the British tactic of not firing until at very short range made this such a hazardous procedure and, for those that halted and stood, as the rear ranks moved out from behind their comrades at the front, they were met by a hail of volley fire from the British that they scuttled back into what cover their comrades provided. This is possibly where the myth of line superiority vs column was created.

I have said, more than once, that this is written from memory and is not offered as cold, hard fact. I shall re-visit my sources and try to obtain confirmation to let you have if I can.

Regards,

Mike Oliver

 

[General Slade]

Hi Mike,

I believe you are right about the drill manual specifying three ranks but judging from the discussion on TMP that Whirlwind linked to this seems invariably to have been superseded on campaign by general orders requiring troops to form in two ranks.  I haven’t been able to find any evidence of British troops going into battle in three ranks anytime after the American War of Independence. (In fact, I’m starting to think the last time the British formed in three ranks on the battlefield may have been during the Seven Years War)

If you are able to find any confirmation about the Guards battalions forming in three ranks that would be great. (I’m mainly interested because I mount my figures differently depending on whether they generally formed up in three ranks or two).

Best wishes

Stephen

[Not Connard Sage]

This a free ebook. A very dry, but worthwhile, read.

The Rules and Regulations for the Formations, Field Exercise, and Movement, of His Majesty’s Forces.

 

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[General Slade]

Thanks NCS,

I’ll have a read.  Might pour myself a stiff drink first.

[Mike Oliver]

Hi Stephen:

I would always take anything I read on TMP with a pinch of salt. The site is a navigational nightmare, is not well-run and opinion rather than history seems too prevalent. However, on the British army question, I can recall reading that a general order for two ranks was issued – possibly as a result of experiences in  the American War of Independence. So, perhaps my feeling that Wellington had a hand in framing the order is mistaken.

As far as the Guards are concerned, I’m going to check out Brent Nosworthy and George Nafziger to see what they have to say on the matter – they are both trustworthy sources and don’t worship Napoleon as a military god 🙂

Regards,

Mike

[General Slade]

Thanks Mike,

I’ve got Brent Nosworthy’s ‘Battle Tactics of Napoleon and his Enemies’ and I don’t remember there being anything in there (but it is a long time since I read it so I will take a look too).

Best wishes

Stephen

[Whirlwind]

I think that this is the order that Wellington gave: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yAU-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA50&lpg=PA50&dq=wellington%27s+order+to+form+in+two+deep+line+1808&source=bl&ots=tUGIPY333b&sig=5EewqIYKn6ZjG3NejzCzRrgKIpA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVgcixme3VAhWiKsAKHVidB4oQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=wellington%27s%20order%20to%20form%20in%20two%20deep%20line%201808&f=false

 

[General Slade]

Hi Whirlwind,

It’s interesting to see the original order.  I must admit when I first read it I assumed that when he said “The order of battle of the army is to be 2 deep,” I thought he was referring to the positioning of battalions relative to each other rather than the number of men in a file.  However, on reflection this doesn’t seem very likely .

The way the order is written makes me think that using two ranks rather than three was already common practice (though this could just be down to Wellington’s terse prose style).

[Mike Oliver]

Your first thoughts could be correct. Wellington preferred to fight a division formed in two lines – one brigade of three our four battalions in line behind another. At Albuera, for example, this enabled 2nd division to reform after the disastrous attack of the Vistular Lancers and 2e Hussards. A skirmish screen was usually placed ahead of the first line in extended order which often appeared to the French as the first line. The way the order is framed (“The order of battle of the ARMY [my capitals] is to be 2 deep”) doesn’t sound like he is referring to individual battalions and, if the practice was, indeed, commonplace (even standard), would battalions need such instructions?

Cheers,

Mike

[Whirlwind]

@ General Slade,

Yes.  I think that it is meant to mirror the style of the “Rules and Regulations…”.

I think that the suggestion that 2-ranks were only used to cover frontage by small British battalions is made by Nafziger, porting over continental practice where this is exactly why it was done – however it doesn’t really fit with the facts: at Vimiero, for example, most of the British battalions were very big; conversely, at Salamanca, the battalions of both sides averaged 550 or so.  In the original thread, people really struggled to find examples of the British using 3-deep line at all in the Napoleonic Wars.

 

 

[Mike Oliver]

I’ve now had the chance to re-check Nafziger and, as Whirlwind states, he gives the reasons for the British two-rank formation as those I mentioned earlier. It is interesting to note that he also says that Napoleon favoured the two-rank option because of the number of wounds caused by the third rank on the two in front of them – apparently mostly caused during reloading and firing by the third rank (even though third rank firing was not permitted by regulation).

Whirlwind is correct about the British battalion strengths at Vimeiro (many were at around 1,000) but I could find no reference as to the depth of their lines and so we are left with the same conundrum. I suspect there may have been the odd battalion whose diehard colonel favoured three ranks – personal preferences seem to have been acceptable in those days – but that the vast majority adopted two-rank lines. I have no other reason than “gut feel” for this, though. Sadly, many aspects of warfare at the time were “taken for granted” and so not mentioned in records. If it was “taken for granted” that battalions formed in two lines, it is doubtful that anyone would have thought it worth mentioning in the records of battles. So we remain in ignorance.

I’m starting a new thread on a related matter: to what extent did the activities of “camp buddies” affect the outcome of battles. Generally, in camp, a small group of maybe a dozen other ranks (including a non-com) would form a self-support group that shared camp chores (uniform repair, boot maintenance, cooking, foraging, etc.) and looked out for one another in combat. If anyone’s interested, look out for the post and let me have your thoughts.

Cheers,

Mike

 

[vtsaogames]

I own two of your books, Mike, Battle Studies in the Peninsula and Albuera. Very nice they are, too.

As to the 2 ranks vs. 3 ranks, don’t know about the early use vs. Bonaparte but Howe instituted two ranks at double distance (the equivalent of a single close order rank) in 1776 for use against Washington’s army. This was in response to the rugged American terrain and also because the rebels had no cavalry worthy of the name. Tarleton referred to this formation as “loose files” and blamed his defeat at Cowpens on it, rather than his headlong frontal attack.

It's never too late to have a happy childhood

[Mike Oliver]

My secret is out! But thank you for the kind words. I somehow thought the conditions in the AWI might have occasioned something like that but I don’t think it throws any particular new light on the discussion about 2 vs 3 ranks. Your comments on Tarleton are in line with what I’ve read about him.

Cheers,

Mike

[Whirlwind]

There is a primary source here for the British use of 2-deep line at Roliça: https://books.google.com.om/books?id=uiqZRrPgoLcC&pg=PA377&lpg=PA377&dq=2-deep+line+at+Rolica&source=bl&ots=wb655GuFbE&sig=yGj46ZZsZmkQZpHCcMdbEo-JvIc&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=2-deep%20line%20at%20Rolica&f=false

 

 

[vtsaogames]

I would note that Wellington, after experiencing French cavalry on open terrain at Quatre Bras, went to 4 ranks at Waterloo. I think this argues against the automatic +1 for 2 British ranks in firefights seen in many rules. I think the answer is more that a smaller volunteer army was better disciplined than mass conscript forces. Of course you can just go back to the +1 for British…

But then make sure that any sizeable force has lots of non-British troops, like Portuguese, Spanish or Dutch-Belgians…

It's never too late to have a happy childhood

[Whirlwind]

@vtsao games,

Yes agreed on all points.  I think the issue is that some rules seem to imagine that units needed the full firepower of a battalion to drive off the enemy; memoirs make it clear that troops of all nations could and did stop attacks with firepower in all kinds of formations (ncluding 4-deep lines, columns, squares).  No doubt the extra firepower came in handy for the British infantry at some points but it wasn’t a crucial requirement.

 

 

[Mike Oliver]

First, the Quatre Bras incident may well have been something Wellington devised on the spot for a particular situation – I haven’t looked into it but I know that there was very little allied cavalry support available and a four-deep line might have replicated the effect of a square, if the unit was under threat from French cavalry, without actually forming square.

Second, a line of British infantry would usually refrain from firing until the enemy was within close pistol shot, whereas other nations frequently opened fire at longer range – sometimes meaning they got off two relatively ineffectual volleys during an enemy’s approach whereas the  British would fire what is usually described as “one devastating volley” that brought down large numbers of French infantry thus ending their advance. Unlike their opponents, British infantry received considerable musketry training which made them more effective. This coupled rate of fire with instructions to aim low (at the legs of the enemy) so that recoil lifted the muzzles to around chest height. French infantry tended to aim for the upper body and so a large proportion of the projectiles went over the heads of the target. This is why I feel that +1 is a not unreasonable DRM for British infantry.

However, whilst not a drill manual requirement, French infantry would endeavour to advance to contact in column. In our rules If they manage to survive a volley fired by their enemy they should receive a DRM either in their morale throw (if any) to achieve contact and/or in their melee resolution.

Remember, rules are written to regulate the manoeuvring and combat of miniature figures on a table top with a view to achieve results that are similar to those of historical combat, not to give any particular advantage or disadvantage based on the rule-writer’s preconceptions.

[Truls Engebakken-Fjell]

I remember reading about Leipzig.  The French battalions around Mockern deployed in two ranks because of depleted battalions.  And this was seen as a bad thing from the French soldiers point of view.  While the British seem to take it as standard.

 

I also agree that the British professional army was one of the major keys to their success.

 

[Author]

Posts