The thread is still running with a lot of highly interesting contributions. Seemingly due to the unhappy construction of thread presentation, a lot of readers may not be aware of it, I cannot believe they lost interest.
Also the notification by bell or like or following is not working.
Here the link
https://www.thenapoleonicwars.net/forum/general-discussions/was-d-erlon-s-attack-in-line-formation
Mr. John Franklin povided a list of french accounts on TMP in 2011,
some of them are already available on line, but not all of them.
also there is the map from De Bas 1st edition ...
Comte d'Erlon
Donzelot – 2nd Div
d'Arsonval – 3rd Div (Staff officer)
Durutte – 4th Div
Gordon (Staff officer)
Fleuret – 55th
Schmitz – 13th
Gastinieau – 13th
Noguès
Lavoye 29th
Bruno 1st Cavalry Brigade
Dupuy 7th Hussards
Marbot 7th Hussards
Duthilt – 2nd Brigade
Canler – 28th
Veillard – 6th Artillery
Martin – 45th
Brüe de Garoutier
Chapuis 85th
Jacqmin 85th
Bosse – 95th
Bro – 4th Lanciers
Flotard – Ditto
Vernier –
Thanks, yes this is what Koontz is basing his hypothesis about, but the eye witnesses from the other side seem to disagree on this.
additional note about Jomini,
"(..) on serait tenté de croire que les quatre divisions de Ney ne formaient que quatre colonnes, du moins dans leur marche offensive, pour aller à l'attaque de la Haie-Sainte et de la ligne entre cette ferme et Papelote (..) plusieurs officiers que j'ai interrogés m 'ont assuré qu'en effet on avait été un instant formé en colonnes par divisions de deux brigades, les bataillons déployés les uns derrière les autres, à six pas de distance."
I- du moins dans leur marche offensive, II-pour aller à l'attaque
III- on avait été un instant formé en ...
Jomini, instead of providing comments / analysis of those three elements suggesting a temporary character to the formation, prefer to write about confusion between division (two pelotons) vs Division (two brigades ...
colonnes par divisions (two brigades) simply do not exist.
his diagram page 11 looks like "serré en masse par regiment" or a line of contiguous closed columns in English. Lol.
Hans-Karl, i just look at the technical aspect :
from the Journal de campagne du Ier Corps, du 12 au 18 juin 1815
"(..) Vers 11 heures L’Empereur vint reconnaître la position (..) il ordonna au Comte d’Erlon de faire ses dispositions pour attaquer l’ennemi par la gauche, de former à cet effet chacune de ses divisions en Colonne par Bataillon et de les faire marcher en échelon, en dirigeant celui de droite de manière à attaquer la gauche de l’ennemi vers Smohain, en ayant soin de masquer aussi longtemps qu’il serait possible le mouvement(..)"
---
"(..) Around 11 o'clock The Emperor came to recognize the position (..) he ordered the Count of Erlon to make his arrangements to attack the enemy from the left, to form each of his divisions in Column by Battalion for this purpose and to make them march in echelon, directing the one on the right so as to attack the enemy's left towards Smohain, taking care to mask the movement as long as possible (..) "
Hans-Karl, i just look at the technical aspect :
from the Journal de campagne du Ier Corps, du 12 au 18 juin 1815
"(..) Vers 11 heures L’Empereur vint reconnaître la position (..) il ordonna au Comte d’Erlon de faire ses dispositions pour attaquer l’ennemi par la gauche, de former à cet effet chacune de ses divisions en Colonne par Bataillon et de les faire marcher en échelon, en dirigeant celui de droite de manière à attaquer la gauche de l’ennemi vers Smohain, en ayant soin de masquer aussi longtemps qu’il serait possible le mouvement(..)"
---
"(..) Around 11 o'clock The Emperor came to recognize the position (..) he ordered the Count of Erlon to make his arrangements to attack the enemy from the left, to form each of his divisions in Column by Battalion for this purpose and to make them march in echelon, directing the one on the right so as to attack the enemy's left towards Smohain, taking care to mask the movement as long as possible (..) "
just to be clear, the ref. to Jomini was just about exploring colonne par bataillon vs Ney/D'Erlon formation. answering on the phone is perhaps not a good idea ! Back to the two opposite formations : Napoleon's order vs what was done. What are your though on that point ? do you think N. ordered the historical formation through verbal precisions ? or with an ADC or whatever ? i checked a number of elements on that with no result.
my own summary is that it seems to be a difference between what was ordered and what was executed. The final formation looking like a Manoeuvre de principes, similar in concept to the one used by Mc Donald but with a very different realization and perhaps a different purpose (less protection from cavalry). Each of the 4 infantry Divisions were used as a single body of troops, with the apparent intent to execute an infantry assault (shock not musketry fire), in line, against the enemy line of battle with the brigades in front, and eventually they were in the process to execute a rompement par l' arriere for the battalions in the brigades in the rear, when they were hit by the cavalry in a grand tactical unexpected way...
Hence my question on what was discussed in the morning between Reille, Ney, D ' Erlon, etc. i searched for more regimental histories with no specific results. most of the books being in paper version not in pdf in google books unfortunately. Perhaps Vox could help us on that point ?! hi steve !!! ; )
keeping everything that was decided and acted upon, the only problem i can see is perhaps some sort of command failure in the estimated amount of action needed from skirmishers and the duration of that action before giving commandens to execute the main assault itself ( a second preparatory action of 30-40 minutes with several waves of tirailleurs, to add effects to the massed batteries fire).
that said were are talking of managing actions from 13500 soldiers or so. and there were various intent modifications at top level before "action" ..
histical formation
-
colone par bataillon ?
I agree his analysis is very weak compared to Clausewitz, I usually find Jomini a waste of time to read
Thanks. I’d never use him as a bible, but I’ve found him useful to bring things into relief occasionally.
David, the comlents by Jomini must be read over the 3 pages > nuanced mean he is comparing what’s was done versus what should have been done .. my ow’ take is comparing between colonne par bataillon and the historical one On french sites Jomini is mainly quoted for negative comments, not analysis per se. Not shure to be cleear ... : )
"les colonnes françaises à Waterloo , surtout celles de leur aile droite, n'étaient pas de petites colonnes d'un bataillon, mais d'énormes masses beaucoup plus lourdes et plus profondes. - S'il faut s'en rapporter aux relations et aux plans publiés par les Prussiens, on serait tenté de croire que les quatre divisions de Ney ne formaient que quatre colonnes, du moins dans leur marche offensive, pour aller à l'attaque de la Haie-Sainte et de la ligne entre cette ferme et Papelote. Je n'ai point assisté à cette bataille, mais plusieurs officiers que j'ai interrogés m 'ont assuré qu'en effet on avait été un instant formé en colonnes par divisions de deux brigades, les bataillons déployés les uns derrière les autres, à six pas de distance."
Jomini, see pages 9-11, for a more "nuanced" comment on D' Erlon formation.
https://books.googleusercontent.com/books/content?req=AKW5QaeluPVOQ71jKk-_W7LWkg5-Y4A0TRtVJb86A8WS_CdaMIif8EgFzIdmB5cOdKv7rV3DPd5YR5ezuRSE8TlHvkFCGTeNzMTnyOk3UKEgl1IfTE73Lrrls5HxXjJmw30r5C0v9CeT79BSa5CZi4ZvIvbX3VigMaRupZEfP2n6O8SwkMp37IyK1sYSxtsZcbhEKrMuSGEnKVnb0V4rilD2WqlMq-4LTAZ_DgO6z4i84KhX_sLBCjb5T8vNo0vSo1aBgQScJP3JgT-hhwvLBfLlvpCd4GHq7rwJu6i0Sw9rX6s79mGROTY
Hello Hans-Karl, i give the definition of endivisionnement.
basically after 1808 decree, you can only detach tirailleurs as a whole peloton, in order to keep to the battalion a mass of 9 ranks in case you need you execute shock combat. if you detach them from the third rank you do not have the 9 ranks but 6 ranks, which is a simple ligne doublée par section and not a column for action.
if both Grenadiers and voltigeurs are detached, i think ou switch to colonne serrée par peloton (4 x 3 ranks= 12 ranks). etc.
ENDIVISIONNEMENT, SUbs. masC. (G, 6).
Mot qui a sa racine dans le mot DIVISION DE BATAILLON. Le général GIRARDIN s'en est servi, quoique pourtant il ne soit consacré
dans aucun document ministériel. Ce terme rend plus brièvement l'idée exprimée sous la forme que voici : Accouplement de PELOTONS d'un BATAILLON EN COLONNE qui se forment en DIVISION. Cette FORMATION, qui ne s'exécutait alors que DE PIED FERME et en COLONNE SERRÉE, est l' élément des DÉPLOIEMENTS. — Conformément à l'esprit du RÈGLEMENT DE 1791 (1er AOÛT), LeS COMPAGNIES DE GRENADIERS des BATAILLONS D'INFANTERIE FRANÇAISE DE LIGNE n'étaient pas susceptibles de former DIVISION avec une COMPAGNIE DE FUSILIERS, parce que, suivant le cas, elles manoeuvraient soit comme COMPAGNIE-PELOTON, soit comme COMPAGNIE-DIVISION; mais les variations perpétuelles de la COMPOSITION avaient altéré nécessairement ce principe; et une CIRCULAIRE DE 1816 (25 JANVIER) institua des règles différentes ; ce ne sont plus les memes COMPAGNIES qu'autrefois qui se forment en DIVISION, ce ne sont plus les mêmes CHEFS DE PELOTON qui deviennent CHEFS DE DIVISION ; ainsi une décision du MINISTRE met au néant des dispositions d'un règlement signé par Louis SEIZE , et la LÉGISLATION sur cette matière reste obscure et vague, comme on le voit dans LECOUTURIER (1825, A, au mot Division) : de là le vice que nous avons signalé à l'égard des Endivisionnements des VOLTIGEURS et des GRENADIERS. — Le vice de L' Endivisionnement adopté par L' ORDONNANCE DE 1851 (4 MARS) s'est fait sentir dans la GUERRE DE 1852. — MIRABEAU (1788, C) témoigne que, dans les usages de PARMÉE PRUSSIENNE, les DIVISIONS ne se formaient pas uniquement DE PIED FERME , mais elles s'endivisionnaient aussi en marchant; on avait exclu de notre tactique ce moyen de FORMATION. L'ORDONNANCE déjà citée DE 1851 (4 MARS) l' a utilement emprunté à la tactique prussienne. D'après les principes qu'elle formule, les DIVISIONS peuvent se former en marchant, et de la même manière que les PELOTONS.
Here are two home made plates showing D' Erlon's formations for his four Infantry Divisions, and what Napoleon asked with his 11H00 order, ie to attack in colonne par bataillon - column by battalion.
compare and contrast to two formations.. colonne par bataillon is shown with the 2 variants : with a peloton frontage and with a division frontage. what do you think ? how would you present those formations and their eventual variations ?
those plates do have a correct space representation for frontage, intervals and distances. the second plate include a scale for 1000 meters.
technical comments from those eyewitness can help.
Canler account is an example of that, imo.
One possible missing piece of information is the eventual meeting and discussion between Reille and D' Erlon on the morning about the British army and how to handle the attack (frontal vs maneuver). It seems Hamilton-Williams provided that ref. in his book about those potential elements : SHD/SHAT C 15/22 (Reille correspondence) and C 15/23 (Vandamme correspondence) ». to get those, one need to go to Chateau de Vincennes and search into those boxes, especially the C15/22 ! unless someone has already a copy of them ..?
Série C. Premier Empire : Cent-Jours (1815) [sous-série C 15].
- sous-série SHD/GR, 4M (historiques manuscrits de régiments)
- SHD/GR, C15, C16 : période des Cent-Jours, 1815
https://www.servicehistorique.sga.defense.gouv.fr/sites/default/files/notices_files/SHDGR_INV_C1954.pdf
There are some elements on that point in Houssaye page 311-312 note 1
is there anything more on this subject in Beckett's newest books for example or others ?
Reille comment : " "what's the point ? He wouldn't listen !" ..
Andrew,
I agree : most accounts are very similar, with just some words differing.
in the case of the 21e, the variation is about "inverted order" for the initial formation, second LINE, and the notation of "62 guns" for the massed batteries. the rest of the action is almost identical to others accounts.
i put the two pages because the text can't be copied-pasted easily ! just focus on the actions related to the 18th June ! (holes etc in the text when you copy-paste the text is somewhat melted > you need to "rewrite it closely & correctly" which is a pain in the ... donne that a lot for Bardin's definitions).
found two more for the 25e & the 21e, nothing special in the others regimental histories available in pdf. most of them being in paper.
(just checked gallica and googlebooks). for the 21e :
the double line, as I see it from the quote of Eric - could be that the brigades were some more than 6 paces apart, Koontz even puts forward the hypothesis that the divisional columns were really two columns of brigade each.
Andrew, ok thanks a lot for your help on french accounts ! no hurry ..
for the skirmishers / tirailleurs, it's another sub world in itself. i was more curious about the exact mission assigned to them than anything else. some accounts are telling us that no tirailleurs were detached from the unit.. you can see for example Davout's instructions in 1811 on that subject to get uniforms practices about skirmishing in his corps, etc. their goal is to provide feu ajusté or aimed fire.
you can have Tirailleurs en grandes bandes, a la debandade, from the 3rd rank, from the whole voltigeurs peloton, en compagnie-peloton or en compagnie-division, pre or post 1808 etc. and how their detachment might influence the battalion capabilities or not, on the front, on the flanks, de route, de combat, etc. a can of worms ! ; )
see Oliver's excellent site : there is a translation in english and german.
http://www.demi-brigade.org/tirdavfr.htm