From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Frederik the Great's Army
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 15:57:34 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>


THIS IS A BIT LONG - BE WARNED.

> From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
>
> Don't know about this particular (pre-Napoleonic) period but I
> don't recall that the Prussians had Cuirassiers. Dragoons were
> ostensibly mounted infantry (they were armed with carbines) but
> were at the time of Napoleon used as heavy cavalry. From the war-
> game tables one can tell that they were fairly poor as infantry
> but were fairly good heavy cavalry.

Dragoons had dropped being "real" infantry by the start of the 1700's
in most armies, although they retained muskets until well after
Napoleon's time.  They were expected to be able to act as infantry,
however - standing guard, etc, and armies short on horses would
sometimes use large numbers dismounted (Napoleon had a brigade or two
in Spain for more than a year).  Of course, wearing boots and spurs
didn't help their secondary function one little bit :-).

The Prussians had a good number of Cuirassier Regts, at Leuthen there
were 11 Regts, totaling 53 Sqns, at Rossbach 5 Regts, 23 Sqns.

> Grenadiers were simply infantry chosen for their size. They were
> also more highly trained than the regular infantry of the line.
> As such they were used for shock effect and to shore up critical
> places.

Grenadiers were not particularly more trained than other troops - just
bigger and generally regarded as elite.  Grenadiers usually got more
pay and had higher status than the rest of the troops, so they fought
better as well.

> >Only 10 squadrons of dragoons swept
> >6 battle hardened Austrian infantry regiments into disappearance.  They took
> >66 unit flags and the Austrians lost 10,000 men wounded and killed.  This was
> >the battle of Hohenfriedberg in June 1745 after which Frederick II (the Great)>wrote his Hohenfriedberger March music.
>
>
> I wonder what point of development anti-cavalry tactics were at
> this point in time. Weren't infantry still armed with matchlocks
> and pikes? Perhaps bayonets had just come into vogue and the square
> hadn't been perfected yet. Or perhaps the Austrians were taken by
> surprise and didn't have time to form square.

no, infantry was no longer armed with matchlocks and pikes, they had
mostly disappeared by 1700.  Flintlocks plus ring bayonets were the
norm by the Seven Years War (1756 - 1763).  The standard infantry
defence against was the square, even at this early time period.
However no-one had invented suitable drills to enable large formations
(eg battalions of 400+) to form it quickly on the battlefield, so it
was rarely used.

The Austrian infantry in question had just been in a firefight with
Prussian infantry, and, although intact, was somewhat shaken.
Prussian infantry had a significantly higher rate of fire than anyone
else's, due to the adoption of iron ramrods, while the rest of the
world used wood.  The iron enabled the infantry to take less time
ensuring the ramrod was perfectly aligned with the barrel before
ramming, as it was more robust and didn't break as quickly.

This does, however, contrast with the 8 or 9 battalions of British and
Hanoverian infantry who took apart the cream of the French Cavalry at
Minden in 1759.  These troops (von Sporken's division - Waldegrave's
Brigade of 12th, 23rd, 37th Foot and Kingsley's Brig of 20th, 25th &
51st Foot, plus 1st & 2nd Bns Hanoverian Guards - the "optional" 9th
Hanoverian Bn I haven't identified) mistook an order (shades of the
Crimea) "When the time comes the advance is to be accompanied by the
beat of the drum" to mean "advance to the beat of the drum".  No-one
knows how this came about, but the effect was devastating:

The allied infantry advanced to within 500 yds of the French cavalry,
which formed the centre of their line, while under the fire of 66
guns.  12 Squadrons of Cavalry, the Carabiniers and Mousquetaires,
charged them, only to be blown away @ 30-40 yds by the fire of the
infantry in line formation.  A few managed to reach the infantry, and
penetrate the line, but were set upon from behind and despatched.  A
further 22 squadrons met the same fat soon after.  8 Bns of French
infantry threatened the right flank of the little formation, but 10
minutes firefight with the 12th and 27th saw them off.  A further 8
bns attacked the allies, but were driven off by the  20th, 25th and
51st.

A third French cavalry force, their last reserve, of 18 sqns now
attacked.  The allied C-in-C spotted them forming up, and moved some
artillery and infantry to support von Sporken.  The artillery caught
the French cav by surprise, and inflicted severe casualties and some
disorder.  Despite this the charge reached and penetrated the Allied
line, but was then defeated by musketry of the infantry in the new
supporting line, immediately to the rear, while the survivors of the
front line's third rank also turned about and fired into the backs of
the French Cav.

The allied commander (Prince Ferdinand) now ordered his small cavalry
reserve under Lord Sackville to complete the French rout.  Lord
Sackville had better things to do, however, and the allied cavalry did
nothing all day.

Thus the unauthorised advance of the allied infantry bought about the
defeat of 63 sqns of French cavalry, and won the battle.

As an interesting post-script, the regiments which fought on the
allied side in this battlee got to wear the "Minden Rose" as a battle
honour.  Some were on opposing sections of the front lines during WWI,
the Hanoverian regts being part of the Imperial German army of that
time.


> From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
>
> >From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
> >In article <Bz9Ez9.6Ix@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fr@compu.com (Fred Rump from home) writes:
> >
> >>One of my ancestors was a 'Feldjaeger' in the Royal Prussian Army ...
> >
> >This would be light calvalry, similar to the British "lancers". Literally it
> >means "field hunter".
>
>         Request for a small point of information....  Wasn't a feldjaeger
> a light *infantryman*, not a cavalryman?    I'd always associated "jaegers"
> with chaps having a distinct green element to their ensembles, edelweisse
> badges, and rifled (as opposed to smoothbore) firearms.  Sorta like the
> German equivalent of Napoleon's skermishers (voltageurs?), or the British
> "Rifle" regiments, perhaps?   (All those jolly, rustic hunters and innkeepers
> foresaking the Black Forest with its bears, wolves, boars, and deer for the
> thrills of a more dangerous, though cognate field of sport......(8-))

Not sure about "Feldjaeger", but "Jaeger" was certainly the title for
German light infantry in general, often armed with rifled muskets.
The number of such troops in all armies increased markedly during the
SYW, many "FreiKompanies" being formed on all sides, usually
containing a portion of light cavalry (Hussars, Light Dragoons, etc)
and some light infantry.  The Austrians were to blame for this - they
used large numbers of irregular infantry from their border with the
Ottoman Empire.  These Pandours (or Croats or Serbs, etc) were a real
pain in the posterier for Frederick, virtually beseiging him in camp
on more than one occaision.  At one point a group of 60 even attempted
to kidnap an Ambassador from the middle of the Prussian camp, failing
only because they took a servant instead!!  To counter the threat
Frederick was forced to raise similar troops, though he despised them,
and disbanded all of them after the war.

The regular Prussian light infantry consisted of 2 companies of
Jagers, which were expanded to a battalion in 1760, then wiped out by
Cossacks near Spandau in October of that year.

> From Neal Smith <sasrns@unx.sas.com>

> |> The dragoons were heavily armed calvalry. The uniform resembled the US
> |> revolutionary army uniform, but the boots come to mid-thigh and the hat is
> |> a two-cornered cocked hat with a plume.
> |>
>     The dragoons were still considered mounted infantry at this time and
> fought this way I would say at least 50% of the time.  They were not
> considered battlefield cavalry.  The battlefield cavalry was still called
> "cavalry" or "heavy horse" during this time period.

As above for the Dragoons.  "Horse" as a designation was obsolete by
the SYW, the British having converted their regiments of "Horse" into
"Dragoon Guards" in the 1740's.  The French still used the title
"Cavalry Regiment", in the English, but generaly referred to their cav
regts by title, eg "Maison du Roi", Royal Pologne, Royal-Cravattes,
etc.

Phew, that was a bit longer than intended - hope I didn't bore anyone
unduly :-)

Sources:   War monthly # 46 (especially for Minden)
           Uniforms of the Seven Years War (Blandford - highly
           recommended, has some good battle maps and orders of battle)
           Frederick the Great, a Military Life;  Christopher Duffy
           (more great maps & OOBs)
--
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz

Newsgroups: sci.military