Some basics about Kleiner Feldzug

So...erm, how does it work?

Frederick after the battle of Kolin (Carl Röchling retouched by kabinettskriege.blogspot.com)

So we have the map set for our campaign, and the armies are being marshalled. The scenario determines the starting positions of the Prussian and Austrian commands (call them armies, corps, or columns--terminology was a bit loose at this point). But while the approximate size of each force is known, and the starting position of most of the general officers, some details are still unknown, to be determined by the commanders in chief (CINCs) on each side.

While we wait for them to make these decisions, let's review the rules by which the campaign is governed. I won't post the whole ruleset here (they are part of the Might & Reason battle rules, which can be found for sale at the author's website), but let's go over some of the basics.

Victory

The most important question of any military campaign, and of any game--how do you win? As I mentioned in the first post, each army is seeking to occupy each other's supply sources (Dresden, Goerlitz, and Breslau for the Prussians; Pilsen and Bruenn for the Austrians). The Prussians also want to capture and hold Prague, the capital of Bohemia. And each seeks to defeat the other's armies in battle. If the Prussians manage to accumulate at least two more victory points than the Austrians do by then end of the campaign, they win. If the Austrians get more, or even if the Prussians are a head by only a single point, Austria has defeated the invader.

The Seat of War

The area of campaign constitutes most of the northern portion of the Austrian-controlled Kingdom of Bohemia, as well as parts of Saxony (conquered by Prussia the year before our campaign, in 1756) and Silesia (a part of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown lost by Austria to Prussia in 1742 in the treaty ending the First Silesian War). From these two conquered territories, emboldened Prussian armies make ready to plunge their knives into Austria, front and flank.

Each of the points on the map represents a town, a city, or a fortress. The points marked with a circle represent towns and cities without substantial or well maintained fortifications, while the diamonds represent fortified locations, whether a city or town or simply a fortress located at a strategic site. Three Prussian fortresses and two Austrian-controlled towns are marked as supply centers. Armies in the field will depend on those places to keep their men from starving and running out of munitions.

The lines connecting points follow the roads available for movement and mostly represent distances of 15 to 25 miles. Paths through more difficult terrain--especially the routes marked with small triangles, corresponding to mountain passes--represent shorter distances, as these defiles will take more time to negotiate. For the sake of simplicity, no other terrain is represented; assume that river crossings, dense forests, and poorer than normal roads are factored into the frequency of routes. The mountain passes will cause more attrition (explained later) to troops crossing them than other routes.

The campaign will last for five months of game time; it begins at the beginning of April and ends at the end of August. Each turn represents two weeks of activity.

Prussian grenadiers advancing at the battle of Leuthen (Carl Röchling)

Armies

Each army in the campaign, Prussian and Austrian, is represented in the game by several commands. Each consists of one or more general officers and a number of units. Each unit is roughly the size of an 18th century brigade, something like four battalions of infantry (perhaps with attendant light artillery), ten squadrons of cavalry, or several batteries of medium or heavy artillery.

Units possess varying numbers of strength points (SP), which represent the combat power of the formation--a combination of manpower, training and discipline, experience, and morale. A unit with solid esprit de corps but fewer men might still have a higher SP total than a larger unit of untrained recruits or militia of limited experience and training.

Units cannot move operationally by themselves. To move, they must be under the direction of an army commander. Each side has a number of these individuals, of varying skill and ability.Several commands may be present at a point. Troops may be left at a point by a departing general if he wishes to garrison it, but they will have to remain there until another commander arrives to take charge of them.

Frederick the Great addressing his generals before the battle of Leuthen (Drawing by Menzel)

Officers

These commanders mentioned above are rated for command ability, for personality (how aggressive they were), and whether they typically showed exceptional signs of valor in battle. Not all generals are cut out to be commanders, however. A general in charge of an army will need subordinates to command elements of his army in battle, and some of these subordinates were remarkable enough to be called out as individuals; other subordinates may appear at battle time but are generic enough they fade in the background at the level of the campaign. Each commander has a seniority level (the lower the number, the more senior), and whoever is most senior in a force if and when it comes to a battle must command.


Tomorrow:

Raids and Reconnaissance, Movement and Supply, and Battle and Siege

New Kleiner Feldzug campaign starting

With the help of the gamers in the Army of Central Maryland, I'm starting a new run at the 1757 campaign of Prussia against Austria (the "Kolin" campaign). You can read all about the historical events here on Wikipedia's page about the Third Silesian War.

Here's the map we'll be using:

Without giving anything away that the players won't know to start off with, the Prussians start with corps at Dresden, Freiberg, Zittau, and Landeshut.

The Austrian forces start at Prague, Karlsbad, Reichenberg, and Koeniggratz.

Each army is seeking to occupy each other's supply sources (Dresden, Goerlitz, and Breslau for the Prussians; Pilsen and Bruenn for the Austrians). The Prussians also want to capture and hold Prague, the capital of Bohemia. And each seeks to defeat the other's armies in battle.

More posts to come on the generals, the armies, the history, and of course the campaign!

Tomorrow to fresh woods and pastures new...

So, with time at home on my hands, I've been nosing around a couple of options for a new miniature wargaming project, mostly because (inconceivably, given all that I have to work with) I'm bored with my current projects. (Admittedly, if I actually enjoyed painting figures, I'd be happy as a sandboy; I guess I far prefer organizing and planning to painting and modeling.)

Of course, actual gaming is pretty hard to do right now in any case. I've heard of folks having some success playing games through the Tabletop Simulator module in Steam, but I haven't explored it yet.

Options I'm thinking about:

New Zealand Wars: I ordered some Empress Miniatures figures to see what they're like. From reading about the campaigns, these seem like they would be largely small battles with troops firing dispersed in the dense NZ terrain or British/colonist forces trying to capture Maori pa's (forts). Eureka also do some nice Maori and European figures.

Indian Mutiny: I got a few of Iron Duke's figures too. I wrote to them and pointed out that they have only one mounted leader for the Indian forces (the maharaj' on his elephant). They wrote back right away and said yes, sorry, they hadn't got around to it and probably won't for a while because of all the new lines they're starting. *gloomy face* Who *are* these people who can't stick to one thing and finish it properly before moving on? ROFLOL.

Wargames Foundry does have a good line with pretty of options, as does a company called (appropriately enough) Mutineer Miniatures; it will be interesting to see how they scale to each other. 

I do have some of the Dixon 15mm Mutiny figures, some of which I had painted up. They are handsome figures; the only problem IMO is that like many older UK ranges they have only one pose for a good many of their figures. Sikh, Highlander, Gurkha, mutineer in uniform, mutineer in civvies--all a single figure pose. Some of the Wargames Foundry packs are like that, but most have at least three poses. Whereas Iron Duke had 14 different sepoy packs, each of which has four different poses in it.

Earlier (or later) Indian Wars:  I find that from somewhere I acquired a small collection of Redoubt figures for their Wellington in India range--British troops, sepoys, and Maratha and other local opponents. I could probably field enough for a small battle, but more would be needed to really put on a game. Redoubt are still available, and they're not bad figures, but they are huge compared to other 28mm (they're probably 32mm) so one would have to make do with whatever is in that line. Perry and Wargames Foundry and Artizan Design also have figures for the Afghan wars, the Sikh wars, and various other Victorian entanglements.

Nine Years War/War of the League of Augsburg/Great Northern War: A string of late 17th/early 18th century wars that Warfare Miniatures sell some nice 28mms for and which Khurasson does nice figures in 15mm. The NYW and the WLA have some appeal for me because they're the last time the Dutch were a big power on the battlefield. :-) The NYW is the Irish and Scottish elements of the Glorious Revolution, which was very quick in England but not so quick in the other three kingdoms. Barry Hilton and the LoA folks have always done a good job of making this seem very appealing to do in 28mm. I have a collection of siege equipment in 15mm I bought to use as props for a semi-board/semi-miniature game I planned for a convention once but never carried out. I have some field army troops in 15/18mm but sadly only a small number and from a maker (Venexia) whose 17th century line has sunk without a trace.

Tudor/Valois/Hapsburg warfare: I'm a great fan of a series of books set in the mid-16th century, part of which touch on the warfare among England, France, Scotland, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Ottoman Empire. Khurasan make a couple of nice lines for this period in 15mm, and The Assault Group has some lovely figures in 28mm. Wargames Foundry has some appropriate bits too and Artizan.

Sub-Roman Britain: I re-read a set of novels recently that got me thinking again about this period. Both Gripping Beast and Footsore Miniatures make nice figures for this period, as do Artizan Design.

Roman urban conflict? While looking at the Footsore site, I was introduced to their Gangs of Rome line. While I'm not all that fascinated by gang-fighting games, I'm a sucker for diverse civilian figures and scenery bits, and the range of buildings they have for this game is just stunning. Again, Foundry has plenty of figures that would supplement those Footsore offers.

Things I'm just not going to look at: The Perry lines of Carlist Wars, samurai, or Korean figures. Footsore's Barons War line. Eureka's 28mm French Revolution line. Steel Fist's Italian Wars and samurai lines. Just not looking, nope, nope, nope. 

Currently neglected projects: Things I could get my head back into, if my head would cooperate, include 6mm, 15mm, and 28mm Napoleonics; 15mm and 28mm American Revolution; 6mm WSS and SYW; 28mm SYW small actions; 6mm and 28mm WWI; 28mm Anglo-Scottish war; various Triumph! armies; various 6mm late 19th century European armies; 15mm wars of the French Revolution; and 15mm WWII. 28mm French and Indian War. Wars of the Roses and other late 15th century European fighting. 28mm Scottish border reivers.

Rules

I'm quite happy, for larger battles of almost any of these periods, with the Carnage and Glory rules

Of course, at the end of the day, what one lacks most is a good set of rules for playing smaller actions, the sort that one instinctively wants to play with larger figures that take up a lot of table space and budget and so prevent you from acquiring them in gigantic heaps. I have yet to find a good set of rules for recreating what *I* would call skirmishes. Most that are available these days are simple and easy to learn but don't give the sense of recreating an actual battle any more than the average Hollywood movie does. They consist mostly of moving unformed mobs of figures back and forth and are won mostly by rolling dice better than your opponent, not by employing actual military tactics.

In my opinion, the best of a bad lot, ironically, are Black Powder, the latest in the long line of products from the brain of Warhammer designers Rick Priestly and Jervis Johnson. They're generic horse and musket rules, and they have their silly side, but they are simple to learn and to mod, they don't involve figure removal (a game mechanism I find wildly unrealistic), and they have broad distribution. They have earlier period cousins in Pike & Shotte and Hail Caesar. Pike & Shotte, ironically, do least well at handling the pike & shot period, as they had to be retrofitted for units that consisted of both pike and shot!

A Cold Wars Project: the Battle of Vitebsk

So, while Project 1777 is still on hiatus and the 1918 project (sadly) never really got off the ground, I have a new project underway. My friend Frater Ericus and I have gotten enthusiastic about the Napoleonic wargame rules Et Sans Resultat, a set for playing quite large battles (a corps or more per side). I recently hosted a replay of the 1805 Battle of Elchingen using the rules and, since that went fairly well, took the plunge and signed up to umpire a game of the Battle of Vitebsk, from the 1812 Russian campaign, at the HMGS Cold Wars game in March. The Sergeant and Mr Chips, other regular members of our group, enjoyed the game but are not a sold on the rules as we are, I think. Certainly we're the jamokes who are starting to build up armies of 6mm troops to do the whole Waterloo campaign with ESR!

In the meantime, this Cold Wars game: the scenario is drawn from ESR's first campaign book, Master of the World, which is made up of battles from the first portion of Napoleon's 1812 invasion of Russia. This features nine engagements of the campaign, gradually building up in size, from a small(ish) cavalry battle, a beginners' scenario for two players to the climactic class of armies at Borodino, an expert scenario for 15-25 players (!!)

I'm enthusiastic about doing this in 15mm mostly because I have a pile of 15mm Russians that I bought years ago to build the armies of 1813 and 1814 using the Age of Eagles rules. Our group has kind of lost interest in AOE, but the Russians have been biding their time in my paint pile since then, along with French that I picked up from the Notorious RJR when he sold his 1809 armies. Having these fellows sitting here and buying a whole bunch of new figures for this campaign seemed crazy. Yes, I may never be able to play the huge final battle at Borodino if I go with 15mm troops, but where am I going to get the people to play it even if I could? I don't have 15-25 friends! :-)

Vitebsk is a medium-sized scenario, rated intermediate and with commands for up to six players.

Notionally each player commands a "force". Generally speaking, this will be an infantry or cavalry corps, though early in the Napoleonic period the Allied armies didn't have the organization nous to set up integrated all-arms corps and threw things into huge divisions or just "columns" that might have a few regiments in them or half a dozen brigades.

In some scenarios, though, corps appear that are small enough that a single player can easily command several, or are large enough that they can be split up, with one player taking the commander's role and operating part of the force, while another player serves as his adjutant and operates the remainder.

The constituent elements of "forces" are called "formations", roughly equivalent to a division or a large brigade. Corps sometimes have assets--usually artillery, but including combat engineers (sometimes called sappers) or specialized light infantry detachments--that can be attached to specific formations or held together as a reserve under a separate formation commander (that's usually just the case with artillery).

If military organization goes a bit over your head, think of corps as "mini-armies"; they can operate on their own because they have a bit of everything: some infantry, some artillery, and some cavalry--along with the non-combat troops that never make it to wargames tables but make everything else work, like medical troops, supply troops, repair crews, clerks, liquor-sellers, and washerwomen.

Divisions and brigades are smaller groups of troops than corps. They still number in thousands, but they are usually just infantry or just cavalry, and they may not have any artillery permanently assigned to them, or any of those nifty support troops, so they aren't as able to operate on their own. If infantry on their own run into infantry and cavalry, they don't fight as well, and the same is true for cavalry who run into cavalry plus infantry. It's like playing rock-paper-scissors with someone but only being able to play rock, or only being able to play scissors. The other person knows all the tricks you can come up with and foil them, and you can only foil a few of his tricks. So corps that are composed of "all arms"--infantry, cavalry, and artillery--are better than single-arm formations, even if the corps is outnumbered.

The task ahead of me in the next three months or so is to put together a corps each of French infantry and cavalry and about the same for the Russians (slightly more infantry and slightly less cavalry). I have (almost) all the bases for the figures to go on and their storage boxes ready, so one way I'll be tracking progress is by filling up those bases and boxes.

The French

The French force is the advance guard of the Emperor Napoleon's Grand Army, commanded by the flamboyant Joachim Murat, Marshal of France and King of Naples. It consists of a corps of infantry under the Emperor's stepson, Viceroy of Italy Eugène de Beauharnais, and a corps of heavy cavalry under General Count Étienne de Nansouty. Here are (most of) the bases that need to be filled (I'm still missing bases for the army commanders--in this case Murat--and for the French artillery batteries).

On the left, the infantry corps: round bases for the corps commander and his two division commanders, 32 rectangular bases for the infantry battalions, and two larger rectangular bases for the divisions' Reformation Areas (RAs).

These last are markers that show where troops from a division are placed if they've routed. These troops are not permanently lost (yet...) but they're not functional, and the more troops of the division that end up at the RA, the less able to fight the division is. Troops can be rallied from the RA and sent back to the fight. But the more men have been routed, the more fatigue the division has likely taken, and fatigue is the real killer. The more fatigue that's taken, the likelier the entire division is to break, at which point it may be very difficult to get it back into the fight. And rallying routed troops doesn't restore fatigue; it jut gets tired men back into line. Some amount of fatigue can be restored to divisions by inspirational action by the leader; but those actions cause some of the routed troops to leave, so at some point it becomes a rapid downward spiral.

Having an RA model for each division is going to be an investment of time and expense, as the prescribed model for an RA is a wagon or caisson (to show it's the rear area). I'm toying with the idea of using command stands (bases with some foot officers and standards) on them as RAs, to avoid both the expense and the tabletop real estate that 2-4 wagons per corps are going to take up, plus the painting time that all those spoked wheels (ugh) and horses (UGH) are going to require.

On the right are the bases for the cavalry corps: again, round bases for the corps and two division commanders, 17 square bases for the cavalry squadron groups, and two oblong bases for the RAs. Also in this box are six oblong bases for the artillery limbers for the guns of the two corps; I'm hoping that I will also be able to fit in the bases for the unlimbered artillery batteries, which are square, each about half the size of a limber stand. Not all wargamers collect and paint limbers for their artillery: it's additional expense, it's more to paint, it's more to transport, and they're only useful on the table when the battery is moving and isn't deployed to fire, so who wants to go to more trouble for that? I like the idea of being able to show the guns are limbered up (most gamers just turn the guns backward, which looks silly to me), but if I start running short of time, that will be the second thing to go by the board (after the specialized RAs). As an alternative to painting the whole limber team (a small cart, several horses, and one or more riders), I might paint just one mounted artilleryman per battery, which can be placed with the guns when they're limbered.

My painting of wargames figures has improved a good deal since I started playing Napoleonic miniatures games in the 1970s. A good part of my current French forces date from that period, and I'm hoping I will have enough time to paint up new figures so that the old ones can be gracefully retired. Lots to do, though, and not that much time to spare, so here are the figures I have ready to go now, standing for the most part on the bases they will fill.

On the infantry side of the house, I have several elderly regiments of infanterie legere, the elite light infantry in their blue coats, blue breeches, and brightly decorated shakos. Also present are the duller but more numerous infanterie ligne or regular line infantry, with a smattering of green-clad troops (Legion Irlandais here, standing in for regiments of the dark-green-uniformed Provisional Croatian Line). These are led by a rather dowdy corps command stand (an ancient relic) and some (rather newer) divisional generals.




On the cavalry side we have an (older) light cavalry general and 4 squadron groups of chasseurs a cheval and cheveauleger-lanciers; next to them are 4 squadron groups of cuirassiers and another of lancers. To their right, sitting temporarily on the limber bases are the guns and crews of the Advanced Guard's artillery contingent, while towards the stage front is a nearly prehistoric depiction of Joachim Murat as an army/wing commander (an aide de camp stands by, while a trooper of the Gardes d'Honneur arrives with a message).


The Russians

Here we see the boxes for Russian troops. The Russians' army/wing commander, Lt. General Nikolay Alexeivitch Tuchkov I* is, like Marshal Murat, still without a base. The Russians, though, have almost all their batteries represented, as the things are huge (12 guns compared to the French 6- or 8-gun batteries) and can be represented with the large oblongs I already have for limbers, just turned sideways.

In the box on the left are the bases for the infantry corps of Lt. General Alexander Ivanovich Count Osterman-Tolstoy. He has two division commanders, one of whom commands eight battalions, two of elite grenadiers, the others of musketeers, or line troops, and one battery of artillery. The other division commander leads ten battalions of infantry (two of jaegers or light infantry, the others musketeers) and three batteries of artillery. Their batteries and limbers and their Reformation Areas are also present.

The keen observer will note here that the Russians still hadn't really gotten the "all arms" concept down yet. Their infantry corps are infantry and artillery, not even any cossacks or other light horse for scouting. This meant they couldn't go far from their cavalry corps (cavalry corps in the French army were just reserve formations, full of extra cavalry to finish off battles and lead pursuit of a beaten enemy), because they would still be stymied by an enemy that had a rounded combination of foot, horse, and guns. Russian corps might be able to play rock, scissors, or paper, but French corps had lizard and Spock up their sleeve as well.

In the righthand box are the bases of Maj. General Peter Graf von der Pahlen's cavalry corps, composed of dragoons and hussars, along with their single battery of horse artillery, RA markers, and officer bases. Next to them are bases for the single division of Tuchkov's own infantry corps that is in attendance, a mere eight battalions of musketeers. Once I can represent Tuchkov in his temporary role as army/wing commander, I won't be including his corps-commander base as well. He had to wear two hats in this battle, but he won't get two miniatures to represent him.

Here you can see the Russian figures I have already who can step right into their Vitebsk roles. Fewer than for the French, but all newer paint jobs, so I'll be using all of them. And, thankfully, covering all the commanders and troopers of the cavalry corps! Mounted men are a bother, as you have not only to paint the soldier but also his horse.

Thanks to a replaying of the Battle of Borodino many years ago, I have a large quantity of Russian cavalry painted. I did not attend (my friends The Waltons' Attorney and The Notorious RJR did), but I contributed what was then a corps of cavalry (a division of light cavalry and two divisions of dragoons). In ESR they should provide at least two cavalry corps! That's more than I will need for anything short of the battle of Borodino.

++++ Footnote on Numbering of Generals ++++

* The gentry of Central Europe, especially the Germans who formed a great part of not only the Austrian and Prussian but also the Russian officer corps had many sons--and many fathers, cousins, nephews, uncles, and so forth--many of who went into the military. Add in "cadet branches" of famous families, and one ended up with a lot of military officers of high rank with the same surname. This led to the practice of numbering them, much as one might number kings. This Tuchkov, Nikolay Alexeivitch, is Tuchkov I; his brother Sergey is Tuchkov II--he commanded the 2nd Reserve Corps in 1812; their brother Pavel Tuchkov is Tuchkov III--he commanded a brigade in II Corps and was wounded and captured at the Battle of Loubino. Their brother Alexander, who also reached general's rank in the Russian Army, served under his brother Nikolay as a brigade commander, and was killed at Borodino, goes down in history as Tuchkov IV. (Tuchkov I also died of wounds suffered at Borodino.) All of these brave fellows were the son of Aleksey Tuchkov, who served as lieutenant general of engineers under Catherine the Great and as a Russian senator, so no surprise that he had so many sons in the army or that they all rose high. Their family had emigrated to Russia from Prussia in the 13th century, but if I know anything about Russians, they were still considered "German" and somewhat looked down upon by "native" Russians.

Recreating Bound Brook: A Preview

Johann Ewald's map of the Bound Brook action (Wikimedia)

I'll be running my first re-creation of the Bound Brook action this weekend. The original engagement was almost literally a walk over for the British; I hope the ideas I've come up with make it more challenging and interesting for both sides while still retaining a sense of what the historic action was about.

To recap quickly, the Bound Brook garrison was an American post in advance of their main winter cantonments. It was being used to support New Jersey militia raids on the British lines and attacks on British foraging expeditions. The British assaulted it partly to destroy its usefulness as a forward operating base and perhaps partly in hopes of drawing the main American army, or a portion of it, into a general engagement.

The gradual escalation of the Forage War and the seeming intelligence domination of the battlefield by the Americans had left the British in the Jerseys, like Frederick the Great when operating in Austrian territory, completely in the dark as to enemy strengths and locations. To begin with, the vastly underestimated the forces they would face in small-war operations. When they sent a company, a battalion of American appeared. When they sent a battalion, it was attacked by a brigade. By the end of the winter, then, they were prone to employ overwhelming force in any operation, no matter how small. So this attack was planned to feature four converging columns totalling almost 4,000 men to attack an outpost that they expected to have only 1,000 men in it (in fact, by April 13th, the American garrison had shrunk to 500 men).

The assault force easily overran the post, though failure to coordinate the columns perfectly meant an uneasy start to the action for the initially unsupported jaegers. The failure of coordination also meant that the bulk of the Americans escaped, rather than being captured. The British then left the area before the American relief force, a division under MG Nathanael Greene, came up. It's not clear if that force was sent to contest the post with the British or just to reclaim it once they had departed; the British had brought neither guns nor engineers, so it is unlikely they planned to hold the position once captured.

The Area of Operations: The highlighteds areas are (New) Brunswick and Raritan Landing ("Old Bridge") in the SE, where British troops were based; Bound Brook in the center, just E of Bridgewater; and Baskeridge (or Basking Ridge), where Greene seems to have been posted. (Wikipedia)

I'm going to give the Americans a force stronger than what defended the post historically, and Greene will be waiting in the wings. I'll give the British access to the same forces that they had historically and let them plan their attack (I hope to even have some facsimiles of period maps). I'll then inflict some of the same uncertanties on both sides that attended (or could have attended) the historic event and see what result we get. Given the size of the forces (10-15 units per side: larger than our last game, a bit smaller than a "regular" C&G game), we may be over quickly and have time for a replay, or it may prove a full game.

Another view of the AO, with highlights, from a Hessian map of the theatre. (West Jersey History Project)

Lauzun's Legion: A Diversion

Hussar of Lauzun's legion (uniformology.com)

Someone on the Carnage & Glory mailing list was trying to confirm information about one of the French units that served in America during the Revolution. I was bored and so whipped up the following bit of research; I thought I'd share it here.

In 1778, Armand Louis de Gontaut, duc de Lauzun, was authorised by the Minister of Marine (who handled all French overseas colonies, including their defenses) to raise a corps of eight legions to supplement existing naval and military forces for combat around the world. ("Legion" in this sense was an eighteenth century term for formations that combined infantry, cavalry, and sometimes artillery, like mini-armies.) These Volontaires Étrangers de la Marine would be recruited not from French subjects but from foreigners (étrangers)--in this case mostly Germans, Irishmen, and Poles--a fairly common practice in the French military (the French army had many regiments composed at least notionally of non-French troops, including Germans, Swiss, Irish, Scots, and Swedes).

The notional establishment of each of these legions was to be eight companies: one grenadier (~100 men), one chasseur (~170), two fusilier (~170 each), one artillery (~170), two hussar (~170 men each), and one artificier/engineer.

The VEM corps also had a headquarters company (Compagnie Generale) of about 100 officers and hussars.

One legion was sent off to West Africa and then served in the Indian Ocean region and southeast India. Another served in the Caribbean. The 2me VEM was originally slated for an invasion of the UK. This invasion never took place, so the legion was thus available when the French government needed more troops, especially light, irregular troops to send to America.

Amalgamated with the corps' Compagnie Generale and the Volontaires Étrangers de Nassau (another foreign regiment that Lauzun had been given to command), the 2me VEM became known as the Volontaires Étrangers de Lauzun or the Légion de Lauzun.

A problem emerged when it came time to ship the Legion overseas; the Navy had not enough transport to carry the whole force. In consequence, many of the hussars' horses, some of the grenadiers, chasseurs, and artillerists, and all (!) of the fusiliers were left behind. It would appear that the fusiliers never joined the Legion in America and were instead engaged in operations in Europe.

The strength of the two hussar squadrons as shipped were 159 and 136 respectively, but they took with them only about 170 horses. They purchased more horses after arriving in America.

The grenadiers' strength in America (troops shipped plus drafts from *French* units) was at least 127 men; the chasseurs' was at least 111. The artillery had at least 110 men with four 4-pound guns.

I say "at least" because in addition to their drafts from other French units, the Legion seems to have recruited about 60 more men after they landed in America and before arriving at Yorktown. But these also seem to have been largely German POWs and deserters held by the Americans, and the unit suffered heavily from desertion (very possibly from these same men), so it's hard to know exactly what its strength was after these additions and subtractions.

In America the Legion was also joined by one hussar squadron from the 1me Volontaires Étrangers de la Marine and a detachment from the Regiment d'Infanterie Dillon (the commander of the Legion's cavalry was a Dillon, so the detachment of infantry from that regiment may or may not be a coincidence). It's not clear how large these attachments were, but between the addition of the 1me hussars and purchase of horses in America, the mounted strength of the Legion seems to have been 250 at this point and the strength of the two infantry companies about the same.

The Legion was engaged in two skirmishes while in America; one in New York and the more well known one in Virginia. Reading French accounts of these engagements and comparing them to American and British accounts is an entertaining endeavour, as well as a good exercise in comparing differing historical sources. :-) Let's just say that the French are never behindhand in describing their own valour.

References:

JD Glasco's Gentlemanly Wargaming includes this blogpost about the Legion, which give some detailed organizational notes, including both paer strength and actual troops carried from France and recruited in America. Most of what I report above is based on his research.

A reenactment group who portray the Legion have this webpage on its history.

The Journal of the American Revolution has this article on the Legion.

Uniformology has a brief history of the unit online, as well as descriptions of uniforms and a colour plate of one of the hussars.

This page lists the service of all French units during the war and mentions that Lauzun's unit was at Yorktown, as were the hussars of the 1me Legion, but that the 2me's fusiliers served instead in the Netherlands in 1782.

americanrevolution.org has Robert Selig's chatty but somewhat scattershot The Duc de Lauzun and His Legion

Although it doesn't contain all the details one might want, it's worth noting that the memoires of the Duc himself is available free on Googlebooks.

Project 1777 prequel: The Forage War in the Jerseys

Northern New Jersey in 1777 (Wikimedia Commons)

As I continue to prepare for my Carnage & Glory 1777 campaign, I've been playing out a few of the smaller skirmishes that took place in the winter and early spring of 1777, as the British tried to gather supplies in the Jerseys for their armies there and in New York.

Often these foraging parties came under attack by small bodies of Continental troops and larger forces of New Jersey Whig militia. Likewise, the Crown forces garrisons and their local patrols suffered repeated raids and shoot-and-run attacks by these same small rebel forces. These skirmishes escalated by the end of the winter to pitched battles, as the frustrated British commanders put larger and larger forces in the field in an attempt to catch and destroy the American raiders. These attempts almost always came to naught, however, as the Americans either melted back into the countryside or ambushed in turn the British detachments that were sent out to ambush them.

As in any insurgency, clear, factual accounts of engagements are hard to come by. Some of the American accounts of these fights are fairly hard to credit; time after time they claim few or no significant losses in encounters where British troops took heavy casualties. American unit records have largely been lost (or never existed in the irregular and chaotic early American army), and both official and unofficial communications are unreliable, as these were a regular channel for propaganda to the American population and rebel sympathizers back in Britain. So the only figures to go by are British ones, which show that the army took heavier losses in this "non-campaign campaign" than they did in the battles over New York the previous summer: over 900 men killed, wounded, or missing. Clearly, whatever the true story of the American losses, British forces were suffering badly.

Very ragged and hairy Crown Forces (historyworldsome.blogspot.com)

Some of this likely has to do with the difference between the conventional European military practices the British were accustomed to and the war they were fighting in America. With some exceptions, European armies went into winter quarters once the autumn campaigns were over and didn't come out again until spring.Troops spent their time in military garrisons or commandeered civilian lodgings where they had protection from the elements, regular meals, and time to recuperate from the stress of marching and combat. Being forced into constant action or reaction by rebel attacks wore down the morale, the health, and the readiness of troops expecting a quiet winter. The Hessians defeated at Trenton had been on a constant state of alert for weeks before the battle, and so were exhausted, mentally and physically, when the attack came (a fact often overlooked in the mist of American myths about drunken Christmas celebrations). And the reverses suffered by British and German arms in that winter campaign both heartened the Americans (who had lost battle after battle the previous summer and given up one the second-largest city in the colonies) and appalled and depressed the British and German forces (who found the Americans' transformation from military greenhorns to stalwart adversaries nothing short of astounding).

Thus the large part of British troops quartered in the Jerseys were continually deprived of rest, recuperation, and rations by the constant alarms and raids of the American militia. Eventually most of the outlying billets were brought in closer to the main army cantonments in New York and on Staten Island. Where the initial line of outposts and garrisons in New Jersey had stretched from Burlington (opposite what are today the northeast suburbs of Philadelphia) to Hackensack (on the Jersey shore of the Hudson opposite the captured Fort Washington), the Crown forces perimeter shrank back to a tiny area encompassing Elizabethtown, Amboy, and Brunswick; the result: overcrowding, disease, and further plummeting morale.

British dispositions before the battle of Trenton (Boston Public Library)

European armies were also much closer to their own supply bases. The British had to either import supplies across the Atlantic or find them in the Americas. The campaign in New York and New Jersey the previous year had resulted in very poor relations between the Crown forces and the country people, especially in New Jersey. Although New Jersey had a significant population of Loyalists, the Crown forces had done little to protect them from their Whig neighbours. Moreover, British and German forces had behaved in an wholly undisciplined manner, looting and destroying civilian property; particular damage was often visited on rebel houses, businesses, and public buildings (non-Anglican churches were favourite targets of pillage and arson), but Loyalist dwellings were not immune from attack.

Even as he retreated into the Watchung Mountains for the winter, General Washington issued orders to the militia and Continental forces to bring away from the low country any food, forage, or farm animals that might be of use to the British. Farmers alienated by plundering and other mistreatment over the previous summer and autumn might not have favoured the rebel army, but they had no incentive to run any risks to supply the British.

British and German troops in New York suffered less than their comrades in the Jerseys (Getty Images)

The Royal Navy could bring some supplies from Europe, both equipment like small arms, artillery, and tents, and raw materials like cloth for uniforms, hard-baked bread, and preserved meats and cheeses. And British Canada could supply grain and coal. But none of these sources could easily supply the mountains of straw, hay, oats, and grass that horses, the 18th century army's prime movers and troop carriers, needed for feed and bedding. Nor was it economical to ship large quantities of wood for fuel. So the Army had to send patrols out into the countryside to gather by force or purchase what small supplies still remained, as well as what food for humans and animals for traction could be easily found. These patrols were attacked, so escorts were arranged for them. The escorting forces were ambushed, so huge sweeps by brigade- or division-sized forces were organized; even these found themselves raided, assaulted, or continually sniped at from ambush.

The ensuing combats might engage forces numbering several score or several hundred on each side. Scottish Highlanders and Hessian and other German troops were often employed as seeming the most foreign and alarming to the locals, and these often took the brunt of this petite guerre or "little war". A regiment of Highlanders lost 70 men in early January; a German regiment 70 more a week later. In late January, a force of militia and Pennsylvania riflemen forded a waist-high river to outmaneuver a British column of greater numbers and, surprising them, chased them from the field, taking from them over 40 wagons and nearly 300 horses, cows, and sheep.

In what was probably the largest engagement of this so-called Forage War, a force of six battalions of British troops (one light infantry, one grenadier, and four line battalions) was ambushed by an American force of seven Continental regiments. The British, in a fighting retreat to Amboy that has been compared with the retreat from Lexington, lost 70 to 100 men killed, wounded, or missing to alleged American losses of 4 dead and 9 wounded.

Only after reading about these winter battles did I finally come to understand why, when General Lord Cornwallis set out to surround an American outpost at Bound Brook that was believed to hold 800 men, he assembled a force of 4,000 jaegers, grenadiers, Guardsmen, and light dragoons that planned converge from four directions on Benjamin Lincoln's tiny force. British commanders by the spring of 1777 were reacting like American colonels in post-Tet Vietnam; no one knew what was waiting "out there". Scouting was impossible; intelligence was unreliable; American officers knew British movements almost before they made them.

To learn more about the Forage War, check out this Wikipedia article or read David Hackett Fischer's excellent Washington's Crossing. The Forage War is also addressed in Mark V. Kwasny's Washington's Partisan War, 1775-1783.

For more information on British Army logistics during the war, this article by MAJ John A. Tokar and this piece by MAJ Eric A. McCoy are good introductions. For more in-depth examinations, read Chapter Four of Edward E. Curtis's The Organization of the British Army in the Revolution (online in its entirety here) or Arthur Bowler's Logistics and the Failure of the British Army in America, 1775-1783.

Next time: Some accounts of recreated Forage War battles.