Greetings. I am only just starting to learn about the Napoleonic period, so please pardon the unsophisticated nature of my question.
I was told that the Russians did not fight in line formation, but almost exclusively in a column formation. I'm interested in Lasalle (Kutuzov's Russians, in fact) but the fellow who said this was essentially criticizing the rules for allowing ahistorical doctrine.
Is there anything to his claim? It was entirely beyond my knowledge even to speak to it.
I am also interested in the answer from those who know the period better.
I know the earlier Russian list in Lasalle must use Linear tactics , so no charging columns at all , so quite the opposite to your mate's ramblings.
I think the Russsians deployed in line and column , perhaps he is talking about how they deployed in depth and took a lot of unneccesary casualties in certain battles , especially Boridino ?
I am all ears , I still have much to learn myself and I've been dabling in the period for a while now , a lot of what I read goes in one ear and out the other :(
Here is a good place to start.
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Russian_army.htm
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Russian_infantry.htm#russianinfantrytactics
The Russians definitely used Lines. They had been using them for a century. It's the standard defensive formation. At Friedland, for instance, the whole army was in Lines.
On the attack, it's less clear. I know that some Russian grenadiers attacked in columns at Eylau, for instance.
I'm not a real Russian-expert, myself, unfortunately.
Thanks, Keith, amazing links. I will read and try to absorb them.
Sam, thanks. My friend is knowledgeable but that does not mean he is always right. Reflecting on it, it seems his contention was that the Russians did not attack in Line formation; perhaps that fits with what you have said. I'll investigate it further.
Now there's a separate issue, which I raised with him but we didn't settle: supposing that he is correct, should the rules of the game force you to behave in that way? Some games are designed according to the principle that if you don't play the way the designer wants you to play, you are punished. To me, this can be very limiting. To him, if you're allowed to do something that was historically not done, the game is ahistorical. I can see both sides of this. If my position is taken to the extreme, a game might be played in a way completely unconnected to its subject matter. If his position is taken to the extreme, hypothesis and play are subjected to a tyranny of dreary historical facts.
So if Russians didn't attack in Lines and I choose to do so, am I the most brilliant Russian general or merely a knavish violator of historical decorum? And if we were talking about an Operation Barbarossa game, would I as the Russian be obligated to wastefully throw away my men's lives and mishandle my military assets, or would I be allowed to make actually smart decisions?
Well, in the space and time we're talking about with Lasalle - about 2 hours and about 1 kilometer - I think it's fair to say that you try any number of things and not have to claim that it's what all Russians did, all the time, anywhere, or even what's happening in the rest of a large battle.
Although, if you're playing the early-war Russians, then you're limited by the "Linear Tactics" rule - which forbids you from attacking in columns.
Requete
They defended in line with supporting units in column. Usually assaulted in column as they still held to Suvarov's doctrine of hitting the enemy with cold steel as quickly as possible.
Naturally enough, if you have wavering enemy close you don't have time to dally about with formations changes and would charge no matter what.
Requete wrote:
"So if Russians didn't attack in Lines and I choose to do so, am I the most brilliant Russian general or merely a knavish violator of historical decorum? And if we were talking about an Operation Barbarossa game, would I as the Russian be obligated to wastefully throw away my men's lives and mishandle my military assets, or would I be allowed to make actually smart decisions? "
You hit the nail on the head. This is a question I have about wargames in general and Napoleonics in particular. "Who is actually playing the game?" Is it me, a living, breathing person against another real opponent? Or am I impersonating a long-dead character against another imposter? I want to play a game as historically accurate as possible, but I want those soldiers on the table to be MY men, fighting for ME.
Don
You must log in to post.