Posts
.jfif)
When I started with this project, the first thing was to obtain a goof OoB: in the case of Blenheim we have many detailed lists of the units as well as their strength. As far as the organization is concerned, for the Anglo-Allied army the various corps arrangement is clear; for the French-Bavarian there are some minor differences between the various orders.
In the flood of articles and books on the battle I stuck with the more recent sources, namely the Osprey Campaign 141 “Blenheim 1704 – The Duke of Marlborough’s masterpiece”, by John Tincey, the various Falkner’s books on the subject (one for all Blenheim 1704 – Battle Story) and the very detailed OoB provided into the article on the battle published into the blogspot Obscure Battles.
My first idea was to refight the battle with Volley and Bayonet: once more, there are many OoB for this rule, namely the one provided by Andy Green in the original V&B website with the Malburian amendements, which can be found by the means of the Wayback Machine and the one done by Nicolas Lamberti and published on the French website G&P.
However, neither of the two fully satisfied me and accordingly I worked my version of the battle. First of all, I shall list the modifications to the standard rules I devised appropriate.
Period Rules
i) Interpenetration: all units may move through friendly artillery. Cavalry can move through friendly infantry provided they have the same facing. Infantry cannot interpenetrate friendly infantry and cavalry.
ii) All non-cadenced-march infantry counts as poorly drilled regulars and have no free face turn.
iii) All Artillery counts as poorly drilled and, thus, have no free face change, except the Artillery under direct control of DC Blood.
iv) French Artilley cannot move after unlimbering
v) All infantry stands have grenadiers/elites present.
vi) All French, Bavarian, Imperial and DC Ostfriese cavalry counts as "firearm cavalry".
vii) All non-firearm cavalry (DC Lumley and Wurtemberg-Neustadt) count as heavier against similar firearm cavalry.
viii) All mounted Dragoons may dismount. It takes 1 complete turn.
Next time, the Anglo-Allied Order of Battle and some pictures of the units.
2 comments:
Fabrizio one of the reasons I don't usually comment on projects that are well on the way is that I often don't know the rules they intend to use and so it can be difficult to comment. Also a lot of the following is essentially still under discussion and exactly how, or if, it should be recreated is undecided. So a lot of this post is basically problems about interpretations of this era and some kind of idea about them.
On your modifications to the rules, and bearing in mind I don't really know the rules, here are some comments. Also some notes from things in your other posts. I am afraid I don't really have time to explain everything fully but hopefully you can follow anything up.
i) Interpenetratation by all was common & relatively easy compared to other periods. This was because of the generally looser order used & numerous gaps, plus a process called 'doubling'.
ii) and v) Can't comment as I don't know the rules.
iii) and iv) On artillery the guns of the era were very heavy, 2 or 3 times that of the following period, and also lacking in supporting resources - horses, extra manpower, caisoons, etc. This meant all guns, even 3 or 4 pdprs, were immobile once unlimbered and indeed not even capable of pivoting without a great effort. In effect they were limited to firing in the line of fire of the position they were unlimbered in.
There were no 'battalion guns' or 'batteries' as gamers normally think of them. The standard field guns, 3 or 4 pdrs, tended to be scattered along the front lines and the medium/heavy guns, 5 pdrs or bigger, in loose 'clumps' of guns in a relativelt wide area. Basically the guns were placed in places where they should be able to shoot despite not being able to move or pivot. Typically on slight rises, utilising natural gaps in the line because of minor terrain features, etc.
There were exceptions to the above and this includes what Blood did. Unfortunately we have little idea about the details of what Blood did - the number of guns, the size of them and what they were doing before the move. The last is perhaps crucial as it would be relatively easy to move uncommited 'reserve' artiillery compared to guns that were already in action. In any case what is clear, and also probably indicated by the way what happened became 'famous', it was a a fairly unique 'special' event and not something 'everyday'.
vi and vii) This is a very old view of cavalry of this era. In the WSS there were 3 general tactics which might be called the German, Anglo Dutch and French tactics. The German tactics involved firing and low speed, trot, attacks but in good order/discipline. The Anglo Dutch tactics were at medium speed, fast trot, and average order/discipline. Finally the French charged at the gallop but with low order/discipline. The French could fire but from the primary sources it is clear this was very rare. In general these various tactics seem to be roughly as effective as each other & other factors such as unit quality, numbers, support, etc, were what was important.
All 3 of these tactics were dropped in the 1740's when what we think of as 'proper' cavalry tactics, charging at the gallop & in good order, came into wide spread use via the Swedish army of the GNW and Frederick's Prussians.
Following on from the 1st comment -
Platoon Fire: There is a lot of doubt about the effectiveness of platoon firing at this time. It may have been more effective later in the century but there is little reliable evidence of it being 'better' at this time. Exactly what impact it actually had is open to question and varies from none to perhaps improving morale of the users to some slight physical advantage (perhaps a +1% in gaming terms). Whatever effects it had at this time developments after this time made it a lot more effective or indeed effect at all. So basically is it was '+1' at this time it is going to be '+5' or something later on - it is difficult here to convey this as I don't know the rules.
Add to the above if you want platton firing to be good then there are other points to consider.
Why did it fail in the war of the 1690's when it was also used?
In the WSS all, as far as we know, of the units in the Anglo Dutch army also used platoon firing. Note we know about the larger other contingents (Prussia, Denmark, Hanover, etc) but not about the smaller states. Also units from the same armies but in the Imperial army didn't use it despite the next point. Finally the Prussians/Danes with the Imperial army were loan units from the Anglo Dutch army & so used it.
Many armies knew platoon firing, or could have, and didn't use it. So sources of the time say that platoon firing was invented/developed by the Swedes and/or the French. They didn't seem to use it at this time.The Austrian and the Russians knew how to do it but didn't use it against 'Western' opponents as they considered it ineffective against them. They used it against Ottomans and similar. It is likely that that Austrian allies that fought for them against the Ottomans also knew how to do it but didn't - this would be the Bavarians, Saxons, etc. Finally all armies used a firing system when firing from ramparts which is basically the same & was also relatively easy to learn.
So in effect if it is generally 'good' then there is little reason why more or less everyone shouldn't use it.
Pikes: The Dutch army offically kept pikes until 1707/08 when Marlborough asked them to remove them. The English may still have had pikes at Blenheim. We have no clear evidence of when the English stopped using pikes but the last ecord we have dates to 1706. It seems likely that they still had them at the beginning of 1704 but they had stopped being used in the field army by 1705. Unfortunately we don't know if the units at Blenheim had them or not.
Post a Comment