Can 18th C infantry march backwards / backstep?

[olicana]

I know that such a step is practiced in the modern American army - I believe it is called the 18" back step, or something similar (memory) - but was anything similar practiced by AWS & SYW armies. I've looked through my Duffy and my Nosworthy but can't find any mention of it.

It all sounds a little far fetched to me. Imagining troops walking backwards, in close order, in a muddy field, over the bodies of the fallen, etc., - I can only imagine the whole thing falling into comic chaos.

But, I see it on war game tables everywhere, all the time; it's a very useful thing to be able to do in a game after all.

Question: Does the "Backwards, march!" order have any factual foundation?

Thanks.

[vtsaogames]

The prescribed drill for falling back is for every other battalion to about face and retire, then face the enemy again while the units left behind about face and retire.
Not what you asked, but it seems to make more sense.

[OSHIROmodels]

Having tried this ‘off field’ with the old ECW regiment I used be a member of I would say no 

It was easier to about face and march to wherever and then about face again.

[has.been]

When I was in the Sealed Knot (ECW re-enactment) we
did on occasion 'Retire facing the enemy'. It is slow &
we often had to 'have a care' for our fallen comrades,
but it was preferable to turning your backs on the enemy.

[warwell]

American Civil War drill had an option to march backward. The rear rank would hold onto the cross belt of the person in front of them to steady them.

When I was a reenactor, we usually only used that to move back a few steps. Any further and we would do as the other posters suggested and about face, march forward, then about face again.

[olicana]

This is pretty much what I expected, thanks.

What is possible isn't always achievable, especially in a muddy field. I will not allow back stepping when the enemy is close, but will allow back stepping, by an about face, march, about face when the enemy is distant.

[DCRBrown]

O,

I'm no drill expert but I've done this using the methods below:

a) Stepping back a short number of steps, say 3, halt then repeating this until the unit reached the desired point. This tended to be over very short distances.

b) One section would about face and retire, then the next section and so on. So, this would be done by company with larger battalion sized formations, I presume.

c) The entire unit about faced, marched back then completed another about face. (Much easier!)

DB

[olicana]

I think the point is that you couldn't do it backwards and facing the enemy if the enemy were close because in all likelihood the unit would fall into chaos and disorder.

You couldn't do it by about facing in close proximity to the enemy because turning your back would invite a charge into your rear.

In short, I think close proximity would almost certainly pin both units in place until one side got the upper hand in the firefight or charged - latterly most likely after getting the upper hand and causing the enemy to waver.

This was what I was thinking about when I originally posted. Back stepping when in close proximity to the enemy happens in war games all the time - perhaps it shouldn't be allowed.

[OSHIROmodels]

Not allowed or given a big penalty.

[DCRBrown]

O,

You couldn't do it by about facing in close proximity to the enemy because turning your back would invite a charge into your rear.

I think that is more wargame than reality, IMHO.

If I think of this manoeuvre in a wargame you're right, my first reaction when I see the enemy about face or step back (however awkwardly) is to say "Right! I'll charge them!"

In reality, with the confusion of battle, esp. in the black powder era the commander of the opposing force has to first see what's happening, which he may not. He then needs to comprehend what is actually happening and he then needs to issue the orders to charge in the short time available. That's certainly not guaranteed.

Most accounts don't speak of instant reaction charges but a slower more steady advance or retreat then followed by a reaction.

Perhaps the more pertinent issue is not that the enemy will charge you the instant you turn around but it's can you stop the "retreat" at the right place or right time or does it degenerate into a genuine retreat?

So maybe a quickie morale test or other quick command test to determine if this manoeuvre can be done safely when in close proximity to the enemy. A failure means you lose order or the retrograde movement disintegrates into a retreat!

DB

[dadlamassu]

There are many cases of forces back stepping in the periods when hand to hand fighting was the norm.  This could be due to fatigue or the fallen impeding close combat.  In such cases both sides stepped back reformed and made ready to go in again or stand their ground. 

There are also many more cases where the retrograde movement of one side continued and turned into a rout especially if enemy cavalry or hostile out flanking forces could be seen. 

Commanders would also be aware that the enemy moving backwards could be a trap.

So if recreating this in a wargame I would agree that once the movement starts a morale check is needed to stop it with a penalty (e.g. retreating -1 disordered -1 fatigued -1 etc) with a "pass" allowing the force to halt (disordered), a failure leads to the force turning round, backs to enemy and fleeing needing to be rallied as if routed.  Crucially the number and position of officers and more likely NCOs.  That is why the Second in Command and Sergeants were often posted at the rear and armed with spontoons!  Roman Optios carried clubs to keep troops in position.  Why? fighting is dangerous and any excuse to leave danger is a good one!

Depending on your rules you may allow a bonus if a sergeant figure is posted at the rear!

[Moriarty]

Retrograde steps are usually a prelude to rout, if I remember my Duffy correctly. So, I would say ‘no’ to back-stepping.

[Admiral Alder]

Depends on Figure Scale and Unit Scale - obviously they could march backwards. But if it's only a platoon going back for a couple of paces to steady the line, would that be sufficient to move a whole base representing a battalion by enough of a distance to factor into your game's ground scale (eg. 1" to 200 paces), otherwise I'd suggest that it's represented in most rules sets with either recoiling in melee or just the back and forth, ebb and flow of combat.