Did battalions of French reserve grenadiers throw out skirmishers?

[Ray Rivers]

To suggest grenadiers, the better trained and disciplined troops, weren't trained or capable of throwing out skirmishers if the tactical situation demanded is ludicrous.

Of course they could and would skirmish, and has been noted, historically its documented.

You're all falling into the wargamer mindest of certain troop types having rigid roles and abilities.

Nope.

Grenadiers could do probably anything that was demanded of them, including not only skirmishing but manning artillery.

I believe, however, it is far more likely that they would have attached voltigeurs or carabiniers to provide skirmish support.

[freerangeegg]

Don't forget that these 2 battalions were in reality the individual grenadier companies of the infantry units present, just detached from their parent battalions and consolidated into 2 'elite' battalions. They were intended to be used as shock troops. i suspect they were screened by voltigeurs from the parent units to allow the big guys to do what they were best at.

[Jemima Fawr]

Not always.  Elite Battalions were often formed from depot battalions that were still in France or were far-removed from their line/light brethren in the same army.  These were often then formed into distinct elite brigades and divisions.  They would not therefore have skirmisher support from other battalions in the brigade, because there weren't any 'other' battalions.

As mentioned above, elite battalions, even those named as 'Grenadier' were often filled with carabiner companies - i.e. the elite companies of light infantry regiments.  For example, in 1805 the 3rd, 4th & 5th 'Grenadier' Regiments were actually 50% carabiniers and 50% chasseurs from light infantry regiments.

I totally agree that elite battalions are far more fun when used to crush your enemies, see them run before you and hear the lamentations of their women.  However, it would be most irritating, not to mention rather silly, to have your grenadier division skirmished to death and be unable to respond in kind because a rules-lawyer said so.

[IronDuke596]

I agree with Waterproof  and others that in normal practice Grenadiers did not skirmish but could be called upon to do so in extreme cases. Just as there many cases of  grenadiers skirmishing (as has been pointed out by many here) there are many cases of cavalry breaking squares but these were all exceptions rather than the rule.

Dependent on your rule dynamics, I would suggest the norm is not to have grenadiers skirmishing. However, exceptions could be made as scenario dependent.

In contrast I recommend that if two or more grenadier or carbinier companies are grouped together that they awarded an advantage in an assault congruent to your rules.

I really enjoy your posts BTW. All the best to you.

[freerangeegg]

No arguments that Grenadier battalions could be formed from the battalions left in France, but I thought this was about Kellermans 2 Grenadier battalions at Vimiero which were composed of the detached Grenadier companies from the infantry battalions present.

[Jemima Fawr]

No arguments that Grenadier battalions could be formed from the battalions left in France, but I thought this was about Kellermans 2 Grenadier battalions at Vimiero which were composed of the detached Grenadier companies from the infantry battalions present.

Yes, absolutely.  Ditto the two such battalions at Fuentes de Onoro. 

[vtsaogames]

At Sorauren in 1813, the French divisions under Vandermaessen and Taupin advanced behind a skirmish screen of all the Voltigeur and Grenadier companies in their divisions. They drove in the Allied skirmishers. Backed by formed troops, they broke Campbell's and then Stubbs' Portuguese brigades. Ross' British brigade was in trouble when the French were flanked by Anson. The chaps facing Anson had come on with just Voltigeurs and were defeated the usual way. This was on a steep ridge rivalling that at Busaco. So says "The Spanish Ulcer".

For that matter, during the Seven Years War at Sanderhausen, the French grenadier companies operated as skirmishers. There was nothing in their contract said they had to fight in close order.

[Jemima Fawr]

I agree with Waterproof  and others that in normal practice Grenadiers did not skirmish but could be called upon to do so in extreme cases. Just as there many cases of  grenadiers skirmishing (as has been pointed out by many here) there are many cases of cavalry breaking squares but these were all exceptions rather than the rule.

I'm not sure I agree.  At Friedland in 1807 an entire grenadier brigade was the only formation in the Grande Armee to be deployed as 'Tirailleurs en grande bandes' during that battle.  There were plenty of light infantry regiments in the army who could have performed that task, but Oudinot's Reserve Grenadier Division (many of whom were carabiniers, as mentioned above) were ordered to flush the Russian Jagers out of Sortlack Wood.  Oudinot employed the best tactics to achieve his mission and his grenadiers/carabiniers clearly had the experience and training to act effectively as massed light infantry.

Was it unusual?  Fairly.  But was it outside of their abilities or training envelope?  Most certainly not.

I can't remember off the top of my head if the 'grenadier' brigade in question was one of those consisting entirely of carabiniers.  As mentioned above, just paint a few stands of skirmishing carabiniers, then they can do double-duty as normal lights or as 'grenadiers'.  Job jobbed.

Cheers, yes likewise.  Excellent discussion.

[Jemima Fawr]

At Sorauren in 1813, the French divisions under Vandermaessen and Taupin advanced behind a skirmish screen of all the Voltigeur and Grenadier companies in their divisions. They drove in the Allied skirmishers. Backed by formed troops, they broke Campbell's and then Stubbs' Portuguese brigades. Ross' British brigade was in trouble when the French were flanked by Anson. The chaps facing Anson had come on with just Voltigeurs and were defeated the usual way. This was on a steep ridge rivalling that at Busaco. So says "The Spanish Ulcer".

For that matter, during the Seven Years War at Sanderhausen, the French grenadier companies operated as skirmishers. There was nothing in their contract said they had to fight in close order.

Yes indeed.  The Austrian grenadiers at Kolin, also.

[DCRBrown]

Gentlemen,

Perhaps it's not a question of whether grenadiers should or should not skirmish.

Grenadiers could skirmish and were regularly used in this formation.

So, should gamers/commanders instead be faced with a tactical dilemma if they decide deploy Grenadiers as skirmishers, i.e. if the battalion keeps it's Grenadiers it keeps its current morale level or equivalent. However if the Grenadiers are despatched into skirmish then the battalion will suffer on losing its "backbone" and maybe drop a morale level.

Similarly if your elite combined grenadiers are thrown out into skirmish then they are no longer available for that crucial breakthrough attack or critical reserve deployment that may come later in the battle.

Or the other option is to treat Grenadiers as no different to any other troops, and as all troops could skirmish to some degree or other, then Grenadiers can do exactly the same regardless of their regimental title.

DB

[Harry Faversham]

My Frenchies have two Battalions of Line Grenadiers, no skimming off of their manpower for skirmishing is permitted. They call upon riff-raff of the line for their grasshopping.
When those lads are let loose my enemies know the jig's up, and I want 'em to see the sledgehammer coming!

[Jemima Fawr]

Gentlemen,

That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me... 

[Andrew_McGuire]

As mentioned above, elite battalions, even those named as 'Grenadier' were often filled with carabiner companies - i.e. the elite companies of light infantry regiments.  For example, in 1805 the 3rd, 4th & 5th 'Grenadier' Regiments were actually 50% carabiniers and 50% chasseurs from light infantry regiments.

Without wishing to complicate matters - let alone take issue with someone clearly more knowledgeable than myself - isn't the term 'light infantry regiment' something of a red herring in this context? My understanding is that, at least after the Revolutionary Wars period, these regiments were 'light' in name only, differing only in nomenclature and uniform from line regiments. Carabiniers were the equivalent of grenadiers, chasseurs of voltigeurs, non?

[Jemima Fawr]

Yes, the lines were certainly getting blurred, with light infantry regiments used in formed assault roles and line infantry being used as skirmishers.  I don't think they were fully homogenised, though they were certainly increasingly so and it was certainly hard to tell the difference after 1812.  The same thing could probably be said of the British Army, to be honest.

Line infantry Grenadiers, Fusiliers and Voltigeurs equate to Light Infantry Carabiniers, Chasseurs and Voltigeurs.  So Chasseurs are the centre companies of light infantry regiments, equating to Fusiliers.

[olicana]

Rules dynamic is an important question in any wargame - for that matter any rule set.

Virtually all Napoleonic units were capable of skirmishing, because any unit of men can be ordered to "Spread out, take your target as he comes". So, the question 'could they' is probably somewhat mute.

The question should be more aimed at the usual or more certain. Citing cases isn't actually that important if the cases are rare. I can cite cases of squares being broken by cavalry: Any rules that allow a probability against a fully formed square, except by scenario circumstances, should be dismissed on the grounds of sods law - that being if you allow it it will happen far more than it should.

This is always a problem when considering too many tactical options within the scope of a wargame. Virtually all troops (being human beings) are capable of almost anything and consequently a case can be cited for all of them. However, given that only one brain per side usually governs everything in a game, some arbitrary restrictions must surely apply to make the thing more historically 'usual' rather than 'less usual' - E.g. If you allow the whole of Wellington's Peninsular army to act as the light division, what point the light division?

This kind of thing is the bugbear of rule writers: Historical probability versus historical possibility.

I'm still torn, though perhaps more from a wargame point of view than historical.