Colin, I agree it was not the standard deployment, but it was used perhaps more frequently than a wargames myth would suggest. Order Mixte was used more often than not as an opening deployment formation and not something that could be adopted half way through an advance. It was used at Marengo and previous Italian campaign battles, Austerlitz, Jena, Friedland, Wagram and Borodino. By 1813 this formation was rarely used. I tend to agree with Nafziger that by 1813 the limitations of training meant that intricate regiment and battalion formations were abandoned in favour of an entire single brigade or division formation. DB

That rather illustrates the myth-making. L'ordre mixte was not a formation like line or square, but an expression and it is as slippery as trying to define "skirmishing". It wasn't used at Marengo or Wagram. At Marengo - I presume you are talking about the French right in the last phase - it was simply a case of congestion across difficult terrain and was mid-movement in fact. Bear in mind that (God knows why as the painting shows where it happened), most of the authors on the subject have thios stage of the action in entirely the wrong place. At Wagram, I assume you mean McD's formation, this was again a question of practicality as McD had to reverse off the wagram, turn through 90 degrees and then advance without interrupting too much of the Grande Batterie. In both cases, it is simply sensible to have the front rank in line for firepower and the second line is sorting itself out, but has iunsufficient room to deploy. So, how do you describe this? N goes for " a mixture of formations" and so, it has been read back as a new formation by later authors.

Dave B, Thanks for your reply but I have to disagree with you. The wargamers' "mixed order" of 3-4 battalions is only represented very sparsely in histories and memoirs of Napoleonic warfare. While it was used at the Taglimento and the Isonzo in 1797, I would argue that it was not used at Jena, Friedland or Wagram. Suchet's formation at Jena was on a divisional level and was, effectively, a large square; the mixed order formations claimed at Friedland were on a divisional or multi-divisional level (Ney deployed one division in line with one in column, while Victor's division was far from being mixed order); at Wagram, Macdonald used a sort of open square on a corps level with all of the battalions probably in columns. None of these match what we so often see in wargames.

Some interesting opinions above, personally I have always thought that it was slightly too easy for columns to charge home, and once they are in contact it is pretty much over for the line, so we have for a few years used an unofficial amendment (suggested in a thread similar to this one) where we take a +1 for each column within 5cm of the target, so 3 columns get you +3 and so on. As to how to deal with massed columns, it depends on whether you favour an aggressive (Engage orders) defence or a passive (Hold orders) one. If aggressive I would have your supporting line 10.5 cm behind the front line. That way the retreating unit will not burst through the support, and the support is within the 11cm charge range, and able to charge the unformed column(s) the following turn. If on Hold orders I would have the supporting line more than 11cms away, again the retreating unit will be able to flow round the supports, who will then get 3 rounds of fire at the enemy columns (1st round as they reform, 2nd round when they close to within charge reach and the 3rd round when they actually charge - remember that a massed formation can only charge at Line speed, so 11cm). That way the columns should hopefully have taken casualties in the 1st attack through firing and melee, then hopefully a good few more from the defensive fire, so the 10%s should be racking up. A supporting battery is always handy as well :D As for ordre mixte, hmm, Demont's Brigade of Caffarelli's Division attacked at Austerlitz with (from left to fight) 2/30th in column; 1/30th in line; battery; 2/17th in line; 1/17th in column. At Auerstadt, Bonnet's Brigade of Morand's Division headed the attack on the area of Hassenhausen Church by approaching in column then deploying with (left to right) 2/13th Legere in (closed) column and 1/13th Legere in line. {From Bowden's translation of 3rd Corp Journal - Colin, I know you aren't a fan of Bowden but he looks pretty safe on this bit} At Jena, units of Augerau's Corp also used it, from the report of the 14th Line as published in an old EEL article by a chap called John Koontz. I've taken out a couple of bracketed remarks he made but they don't alter the context at all. The regiment was sustained by the 44e; it received the order to climb the hill, which it did; the 2e battalion was formed in line, the 14er in closed column From the report of 105th Line The left flank of the regiment being in the air, and still fearing the cavalry, which had made an about-face at this point, the colonel ordered the second battalion to put itself in column (to facilitate forming square JEK), and had the first battalion continue to stand in line." What is clear from the context of all the early reports quoted by Bowden and Koontz is the reluctance of the French to attack formed lines of infantry whilst in column, and these the vaunted 1805-1807 veterans, presumably because they thought that if they did they would get hammered :!: They also tried very hard to maintain proper deployment distances between individual battalions and brigades, something that rarely happens with (some!) wargamers who will cram as many columns as possible as close together as possible and just trundle onwards :roll: :lol:

Sorry Rudolf, what's EEL? Is it still in print and is it more historical or gaming focused? I did try to join magweb some time ago, but this site seems to be defunct. It is not easy to get books and periodicals on the Napoleonic Wars here (New Zealand) - most historical interest seems focused on the two World Wars. How good is First Empire as a mag? Ants

EEL is Eagles, Empires and Lions (or maybe Empires, Eagles and Lions, I can never remember). Mag from the US, had various incarnations, but always good value imo. It has long since gone, but it was all on Magweb, pity that has also gone. I like First Empire, content can be a touch esoteric at times but always something that spikes the interest. If you are looking at back issues, I'm pretty sure most if not all are available on CD. Some decent game scenarios in the early ones, lots of uniform details, full series on the Neapolitans around no.16 etc. In fact it was a review of GdeB in FE by a chap called Dave Commerford that first got me interested in them - guy's got a lot to answer for :lol:

Rudorff, I accept that the French used a variety of battalion formations in battle, which often included a mixture of columns and lines. With the exception of Demont's brigade, none of those are the classic wargamer's "mixed order". They were regiments or brigades deploying individual battalions in a variety of formations to meet local tactical needs or threats. One could equally well argue that deploying a battalion in line with one in square to its flank was a particular tactical method. As for First Empire, its sometimes variable content can be off-putting but it does have some very useful content as you say. The series on the Neapolitans was utter drivel though, some of the worst content that they have ever had, as were a few of those early game scenarios;). Regards, Colin

DH/Colin, L'ordre mixte was not a formation like line or square, but an expression and it is as slippery as trying to define "skirmishing". I totally agree - it was a formation adopted, often more out of circumstance than deliberate design. Colin - yes, many of the mixte order formations did end up looking like squares, but that’s more a consequence of deploying two brigades in depth, the formation just ends up like a square! I believe the point is that such a formation was used - and I quite accept that it may well have occurred more through the impact of terrain. etc than deliberate deployment, and not the perfect order mixte diagram we've all seen in certain books/magazines. However I don't see that as a reason to prohibit its deployment on the wargames table. I suspect that we wargamers are able to use the ideal order mixte far more freely because our tables do not reflect the terrain constraints of most battlefields. Massed Columns: Well - I've had a few play tests of various mechanisms to "force" wargamers to not charge in massed columns too often, (a la Grand Manner). The last version of this for GdeB3, now sees the entire formations fate hang on the success or failure of the lead assault unit. The attacker chooses his lead unit and sends it in. (2 massed columns have no morale bonus but 3 massed columns have a +1. This benefit is not applicable to veterans or above.) Defenders firing receive a +1 for two columns or a big +2 for 3 or more column massed together and with the +1 for column = +3!! :twisted: (God help them if they are going up against the British!) Casualties are spread across the columns but the first casualty and any odd casualty must go on the lead assault unit. If the lead assault unit goes in then they all go in. :P But if it fails they all take the same adverse result!! :shock: DB

DB This rule looks good and it will be interesting to play this. I think this is the right approach. To my mind, at least, massed columns should behave more as a single unit than as several separate units. On a different topic but using, perhaps, similar logic will we see units use combined numbers for musketry? In battles such as Auerstadt it is mentioned that cavalry were drive off by musketry from squares. As things stand in GdB each square has such limited fire power that it would be lucky to drive off the Neapolitan cheerleaders regiment, let alone Prussian cavalry led by Blucher. The musketry probably inflicted few casualties, but obviously made an impression as to the morale and effectiveness of the unit. Looking forward to GdB III. When are we likely to see this? Ants

Hi David, Those modifications for columns look great and I am sure will make an interesting variation to the massed column assaults that I struggled with when playing the otherwise very good ITGM. Ceretainly will make commanders think very hard on whether to simply just set up and attempt to steamroll their opponent. Like the rest of the group I am also wondering when we may see GdBIII? In anticipation Carlo

Rudorff, We do indeed seem destined to take different views of things. I have no problem with people using mixed order in games; I have even used it myself on occasion. I just do not believe that it was a classic French tactical deployment in the way that many wargamers seem to believe. As to the Neapolitan articles, we filled an entire landfill site with the critical letters. Regards, Colin

The problem with this - as with much that has turned out to be mythology - is that somehow it was some French innovation, which created a supertactic, which swept all before it until the Allies copied it around 1807. It is just like skirmishing - remember all the "reaction" nonsense about that? We have had "grande bandes", dear old Gribeauval and his guns, staff systems etc. The interesting point with l'ordre mixte however is that no-one suggested the Allies "copied" it - yet in fact, theyw ere doing the same thing, albeit on a large component of the army basis. The front battleline was always meant to be in line, while the second battle line was in various formations - line, masses, columns etc. for speedy movement if there was a problem in the first line.