1815 Brunswick Army List « Honour Forums

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Army Lists

1815 Brunswick Army List

(17 posts) (4 voices)

Started 1 year ago by Mycenius
Latest reply from Another_Grognard

Tags:

Mycenius
Member

Hi All,

Couple of quick questions please regarding the troop classification in the list on Page 121 of the rulebook for the Hundred Days period (with regard to the entire Brunswick Contingent rather than just the generic 'brigade' in the list):

1. Brunswick "Elite" Infantry
Is this the Lieb and the AvanteGarde Battalions, or just one or the other, or the entire Light Brigade (i.e. AvanteGarde, Lieb, and 3 Light Battalions)? I'm assuming the 3 Light Battalions are intended to be categorised with the 3 Line Infantry as Reliable/Amateur/SK2 but thought I'd better check?

2. Brunswick Light Cavalry
The list entry is presumably representative of the Hussar Regiment. I am speculating the Uhlan Squadron (which was very large and I intend to field as a small Regiment in Lasalle, as it's close to the 300 threshold*) would be rated Reliable/Experienced/Pursuit/Lance? I presume the Hussars are Valiant due to numbers of Veterans from the Peninsula and such, and have therefore assumed the Uhlans lacked equivalent veteran experience (except perhaps officers) so would be Reliable?

* While the Uhlans are just 232 strong approx (assuming all had horses prior to Quatre Bras), the Hussars well exceed the criteria for a 'Large' Regiment with 690 or so effectives (again assuming all have horses pre-QB). Whether you take 68 from Hussars for the Uhlans, or add the 2 together (getting 922 or so) either way you come out with a Large & a Small Cavalry Unit in Lasalle terms (i.e. a nominally 600+ and a 300 strong unit). Besides - who would field the Brunswickers without the Uhlans! And after all the Duke fell at their head leading a charge didn't he?! ;-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Another_Grognard
Member

In Lasalle, you have to accept some generalities regarding details. In regards to the Brunswick Brigade (page 121) you have to adjust to your liking. For the "Hundred Days", you can make the following generalities:

2 Infantry -> These could be any of the Line or Light battalions
1 Elite Inf. -> Most will probably use the Lieb-Battalion to represent this unit.
1 Light Cavalry -> Probably Hussars, but why not mix a stand or two of Lancers for looks ;-)
2 SK bases -> Avantgarde figures
1 Foot BTY -> Simple

Because of the circled "1" symbol, you are restricted to only one. But that is for only the AB list. A specific scenario can use as few or as many units as the scenario dictates.

One note about the 1815 Line and Light battalions. In reality, they were more similar than not. Granted, three were named "Light" and three were named "Line", but just like the French Line and Light (Leger) battalions, the distinction between the Brunswick Light and Line infantry was largely one of costume and tradition.

In regards to the Peninsula Brunswickers. If you want to field a Brunswick Brigade for say a British Peninsula support brigade, then you will quickly discover there are not enough historical units to fill out all five units (and two SK bases) in the Lasalle AB list. But nothing says you can substitute with similar units. After they were evacuated by the Royal Navy in 1809, the units were reformed into one infantry battalion (with jagers) and one cavalry detachment.

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

In Lasalle, you have to accept some generalities regarding details. In regards to the Brunswick Brigade (page 121) you have to adjust to your liking.

Hi AG - yep, as per my original post I realise the AB lists a generalised generic organisations, and the Brunswick one in-particular is an imaginary/mythical formation to represent a generalised sample or snapshot of the (1815) Brunswick army. :-)

One note about the 1815 Line and Light battalions. In reality, they were more similar than not. Granted, three were named "Light" and three were named "Line", but just like the French Line and Light (Leger) battalions, the distinction between the Brunswick Light and Line infantry was largely one of costume and tradition.

Yeah this was really the crux of my question - I am aware of as you say the lack of distinction between the 2 unit types in 1815 and the fact the majority of them were fairly raw recruits and very young. However there are some references that either say or imply the Light Battalions were nominally senior to the Line ones, and/or that the Light Battalions had actually had more training with regard to skirmishing and such - and hence whether that was enough to justify a distinction (although probably not)...

On a side note it does raise the question of the Line, and possibly Light, Btns perhaps being actually only SK1 not SK2 in 1815? Although that might be a bit harsh...

As per my original post my query is related to fielding the Brunswick Contingent for Historical Scenarios and such in 1815 - so I am mainly looking to confirm the classification for the Btns (Leib & AvanteGarde-Jager = Elite; 3 Light & 3 Line = Line), and how to classify the Uhlans as a separate unit, rather than being worried about modelling the actual AB generic 'list' Brigade. :-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Another_Grognard
Member

As per my original post my query is related to fielding the Brunswick Contingent for Historical Scenarios and such in 1815 - so I am mainly looking to confirm the classification for the Btns (Leib & AvanteGarde-Jager = Elite; 3 Light & 3 Line = Line), and how to classify the Uhlans as a separate unit, rather than being worried about modelling the actual AB generic 'list' Brigade. :-)

Mycenius, for "Hundred Days" I would agree with you and say the Leib and Avantegarde are Elite. As for the cavalry, well, there are a few ways to do this I think. Going with what the Lasalle rule book says, an arbitrary cavalry unit of four bases is about 300-500 troopers, while a six base cavalry unit is about 500-700. Using this, and depending on what sources you find most reliable for the 1815 Brunswickers, you can have the following for cavalry units:

1x Hussar with six bases
1x Uhlans (Lancers) with four bases. <- maybe three bases of Lancers, one of Hussars?

Again, depends on what sources you find most reliable; for the Hussars, sources seem to suggest a unit strength of about 680 to 730 (if memory serves me right). And for the Uhlans, a strength of 230 to 250 (again, if memory serves me right). But depending on the scenario, you can even split the large Hussar unit into two separate detachments giving you three cavalry units:

2x Hussar with four bases
1x Uhlans with four bases

Its all up to the scenario designer really. If three units would offset the scenario or make it better, then that should be kept in mind.

Now, how would you classify the quality of the cavalry? I would go with the following:

Hussars: Valiant/Experienced/Pursuit
Lancers: Reliable/Experienced/Pursuit/Lance

But that's just me. Some might feel that the quality isn't good enough, or maybe to good, but it all depends on the designer of the scenario.

Artillery Note:
Almost all my sources say that the Brunswick batteries had eight cannon, but the Lasalle rule book says six - three bases total. I would give the artillery eight cannon, unless they lost a couple ;-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

Cheers AG. Yes we are thinking along similar lines. All good stuff.

Re: Artillery - 8 'weapons' is the one thing sources universally agree on. I am modeling both batteries as 4 stands, as this is indisputable. What is in dispute is the type of ordnance, some sources say 8 x British 6pdr Guns, but all bar 1 are secondary & not compelling, a couple say 6 or 7 British 6pdr & 2 or 1 British 5.5" Howitzers. Others clearly show they had 6 x Ex-French/Westphalian 6pdr Guns & 2 x Ex-French/Westphalian 7pdr (5.7") Howitzers, yet others saying just 8 x Ex-French/Westphalian 6pdr Guns. It seems the only compelling argument for the 8 x British 6pdrs is in Bowden's work on the subject, otherwise the Ex-French guns & howitzers seem the correct answer. This latter supported by notable people like Stephen Summerfield, Stephen Maughan (who had it confirmed by the Brunswick museum curator), and (i believe) author Peter Hoefschroer...

However as a secondary source the Perry's have modeled the Brunswickers with British 6pdrs and while by no means definitive they are usually fairly trust-worthy and/or thorough in their research...

Posted 1 year ago #
Another_Grognard
Member

Mycenius, looks like you have been doing your homework :-)

Evidence suggests that the Brunswick artillery batteries, both foot and horse, were equipped with captured French and Westphalia cannon. Twelve 6lb cannon and four howitzers were purchased at the military auctions that took place after the battle of Leipzig. Now, what color did they paint their artillery? Good question. I have seen sources that suggest that the gun carriages were painted a light blue with black carriage fittings, but who knows, maybe they were left as is after their purchase.

In 1809, the artillery of Brunswick detachment would have most likely been painted in the same color scheme as the Austrian artillery because they were equipped with Austrian guns - Yellow ochre carriages with black carriage fittings.

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

Stephen Summerfield stated a while ago (based on his research for a publication he worked on) that the official Brunswick Artillery colour was Olive Green and implied the guns purchased at auction you mention above were probably that colour for 1814-1815 period...

Obviously as you state the common perception is they were light blue or possibly Prussian dark blue since they came c/- the Prussians.

Posted 1 year ago #
Another_Grognard
Member

I must confess, I painted my Brunswick Artillery a light-ish blue with black fittings, and it just looks acceptable or proper that way... to me ;-) However, I do have a set of cannon painted in Olive Green, and I can switch out the actual cannon if needed since the cannon themselves are removable.

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

This painting of the Brunswick Artillery (possibly the Horse Battery or perhaps the Foot Battery assisted by Hussars) attempting to save or defend guns overrun at Quatre Bras certainly suggests they were a dark colour (with light coloured wheels, and suggests a French style carriage) and doesn't indicate they were painted a 'Light-Blue' or similarly light shade... :-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Another_Grognard
Member

Mycenius, the painting above not withstanding - more about that later - I agree with you. Evidence does suggest that the Brunswick artillery batteries were equipped with French and Westphalia cannon bought at auction. As for their color, they were probably left as is, but if painted for upkeep reasons, there is a good chance they continued to use the same color as the original finish. Sure, they could have been repainted another color, but who knows. I just think light-ish blue with black fittings looks more "Brunswick". But the main reason was that I painted them a very long time ago (decades actually), and back then I heard once that they were light blue. But I also have cannon in Olive Drab (French Artillery Green) to supplement if needed ;-)

But getting back to paintings. Unlike photographs, paintings can be a double edge sword. Sure they are a good source of information, but artists tend to take liberties or make up details they don't know or can't remember (if a contemporary artist), which induce errors or incorrect information. This includes all sorts of artwork including drawings, etchings, sketches, paintings, etc.

Take the picture below. Not only are the cannon incorrect, but there are several other details that are incorrect. Regardless, it is still one of my favorite paintings.

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

Unlike photographs, paintings can be a double edge sword. Sure they are a good source of information, but artists tend to take liberties or make up details they don't know or can't remember (if a contemporary artist), which induce errors or incorrect information. This includes all sorts of artwork including drawings, etchings, sketches, paintings, etc.

Oh I agree totally - they are not overly reliable - unless you know the painter actually viewed the subject he/she painted (rather than doing it third-hand as most battle paintings were done). However in this case I was quoting that particular illustration simply because it's the only one I know of or have come across of the Brunswicker (Artillery) in the 100 Days... :-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

P.S. BTW - just for completeness here's the link to the older thread at TMP on this subject:
http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=64789

Posted 1 year ago #
Redmist1122
Member

Mycenius & Another_Grognard;
Questions about suggested Lancer basing. If I were to do a Hussar & Lancer mix in a Larger unit - would that unit still get the "+2 Lancers" bonus during combat under Cav vs Inf? I was going to do a 4 base Hussar w/2 base Lancer unit to represent the "Light Cav" unit in the AB.

Thanks.

P.

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

Hi P - that's one of the very reasons I dismissed the combined unit idea myself - and resolved its yet another reason to support modelling two units instead (in addition to the fact there are almost 700 Hussars plus the 230+ Uhlans so more manpower than 2 small units would model - i.e. enough for a large & a small unit)... :-)

So to answer your question I'd say no - if you go that way you are just having the Lancers there for looks - nothing else. Historically there are ~925 men in total IIRC (assuming all have horses) and the Uhlans are but 25% of the total (i.e. 1.5 bases of your merged large unit) - so I don't think you can justify giving them the Lance bonus on that basis... At least not without some horrible calculation about how many bases are fighting vs how many are Uhlans...

(e.g. if the less than half frontage covered applies - and the front that is covered is mostly the 2 Uhlan bases - do you then give them the +2 - my head hurts already?)

:-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Prinny
Member

Id have to say no as well to the lance bonus,

Russian Hussars also had lance's in the front rant, and they do not benifit from that bonus in the game.

Be great if they could though ;)

Posted 1 year ago #
Redmist1122
Member

I had to ask...Thanks. I believe I have enough figures for two seperate units.

P.

Posted 1 year ago #
Another_Grognard
Member

Mycenius & Another_Grognard;
Questions about suggested Lancer basing. If I were to do a Hussar & Lancer mix in a Larger unit - would that unit still get the "+2 Lancers" bonus during combat under Cav vs Inf? I was going to do a 4 base Hussar w/2 base Lancer unit to represent the "Light Cav" unit in the AB.

For a mixed unit, no, I would not give it the +2 Lancer bonus.

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.