QUESTION CONCERNING TACTICS IN WARS OF SUCCESSION

Good Day everybody

I'd like to dive further into the fascinating argument of battle tactics. I'm no wargamer (actually, i tend not to play even the simplest battles) and i would like to improve the knowledge of how was tactical war in 1700.

I know much evolution had happened at the time (improving fire tactics, improved bayonet, up to the "harassing supply lines" tactic and the majestic use of movement made by Frederick the Great of it".

I would like to learn more. I've been studying "The age of warfare" of Marlborough and found it extremely interesting, so i was wondering if any help or suggestion regarding books could come from here. Specific interest is actually about the Russian army, but everything is welcome!

thanks

Luca

I'm not much help, I'm afraid. European warfare tactics for this period are something that I'm not too familiar with. I could provide some information on Osprey books for the Chinese armies, and a whole selection of books for the Zulu and C19th African tribal tactics. But the only books I know of concerning the Russians are the two that I mentioned in this post:

https://agema.darkbb.com/t879-new-book-peter-the-great-humbled-the-russo-ottoman-war-of-1711



Looking at the publishers website, I see that there's now some more books about the Russian army in our period (as well as books on other countries armies and navies in the 1600 and 1700s). All of the books are in English language. I've never read any, so can't give any recommendations and don't know anything about them other than what is shown on the internet.

https://www.helion.co.uk/browse-title-series-more/century-of-the-soldier-c-1618-1721/books-in-series.html

Osprey Publishing provide a large selection of military history books, if you didn't know?

https://ospreypublishing.com/store/military-history

One of the benefits of Osprey books is that the company has been in business since 1969 and a lot of the older books can be bought cheap, second hand on websites like eBay or Amazon. They also produce eBooks. The books tend to only give brief summaries on subject matter, however.

There is this older website about the War of Spanish Succession that does have a small section on tactics and the like http://www.spanishsuccession.nl/deployment.html Not much info but it is something.

Nexus06 wrote:Good Day everybody

I would like to learn more. I've been studying "The age of warfare" of Marlborough and found it extremely interesting, so i was wondering if any help or suggestion regarding books could come from here. Specific interest is actually about the Russian army, but everything is welcome!

thanks

Luca

Hi Luca,

Have you read "The Art of Warfare in the Age of Marlborough" by David Chandler (ISBN 0-946771-42-1)? I also like the two Duffy books on Siege Warfare.

You may feel these are a bit general and "Western" for Russia but you can think of much of it as what Peter the Great was trying to introduce into the Russian Army during our period. Even if many later Russian General did tend to give up on the crap quality of Russian muskets and the even worse marksmenship of their Serf Infantry and abandon fancy fire drills in favour of getting stuck in with cold steel!

Ref fighting Swedes in the open my advise is DON'T or only fight them after using the historic tactics of a) Making them march for a 1,000 miles partly in a Russian Winter which ruins their gun powder and many of their horses b) Having odds of at least 4 to 1 in your favour & c) Meeting their attack from behind earthworks and scores of cannon. Even then it was a bit too close and the Russians were helped by Charles being wounded.

Fights with Ottomans and Poles are a lot more even but while you have the edge in Infantry and Artillery try and avoid anything which looks like a fair Cavalry Fight.

Basically as a Russian its better to think stategic rather than tactical and aim to win wars rather than battles!

Hi Stuart

Concerning Swedes “they say your father was a great man, you must be what’s left”. I believe Sweden would have lost the GNW anyway, missing the resources to hold and mantain an empire and fighting against Russia, which is much more resourceful in terms of men. So loosing a Russian whas little deal, loosing a Swedish soldier was instead a big loss. I’m then not particularly worried about it.
I’ve read the art of war, which is more on “how to set up an army”. I’ve read the osprey concerning the wat of poltava, while unfortunately the books concerning the Russia. Infantry and fortification system are at the moment OOS.
But I was hoping to find something more in depth on the field battle. Surely the tactics are of a certain use, but the battle is different, but I was just curious. I agree that TGOK is more strategic than tactical.

Jason wrote:There is this older website about the War of Spanish Succession that does have a small section on tactics  and the like http://www.spanishsuccession.nl/deployment.html Not much info but it is something.

I like this website. Used for naming the troops and then regret, as I have 3 sheets of armies now and can’t come back

Thanks

Rozwi_Game10 wrote:I'm not much help, I'm afraid. European warfare tactics for this period are something that I'm not too familiar with. I could provide some information on Osprey books for the Chinese armies, and a whole selection of books for the Zulu and C19th African tribal tactics. But the only books I know of concerning the Russians are the two that I mentioned in this post:

https://agema.darkbb.com/t879-new-book-peter-the-great-humbled-the-russo-ottoman-war-of-1711



Looking at the publishers website, I see that there's now some more books about the Russian army in our period (as well as books on other countries armies and navies in the 1600 and 1700s). All of the books are in English language. I've never read any, so can't give any recommendations and don't know anything about them other than what is shown on the internet.

https://www.helion.co.uk/browse-title-series-more/century-of-the-soldier-c-1618-1721/books-in-series.html

Osprey Publishing provide a large selection of military history books, if you didn't know?

https://ospreypublishing.com/store/military-history

One of the benefits of Osprey books is that the company has been in business since 1969 and a lot of the older books can be bought cheap, second hand on websites like eBay or Amazon. They also produce eBooks. The books tend to only give brief summaries on subject matter, however.

Thanks Roy

Recently I bought both Russian Century of the Soldier books and they are useful reads, though I would have borrowed them from the library if I wasn't playing TGOK Russia though.  the one Rozwi refers to is the best for discussing how the units and arms of the Russian armed forces worked.  It does not really go into the tactics once on the field of battle but you can infer a lot from it.  Most of the bibliography cites Russian language sources though so not much further reading.

Peter The Great Humbled, in that series gives more understanding of Russian tactics and more specifically around the River Prut and what went wrong with the way the Russian's were approaching the campaign and battle.  Politics saved Peter and Russia a world of pain.  The bibliography refers to a book that might have what you're after, but I've not looked for it yet:

Nosworthy, B The Anatomy of Victory: Battle Tactics 1689-1763 (New York Hippocrene 1992)

Also Russia was moving from a quasi feudal force in the Streltsi towards a more western line infantry so the forces were a combination, not taking into account their allies in various campaigns e.g. Cossacks and Moldavians.  Worth reading up about the Streltsi, including their part in the revolution and how they attacked Peter's family when he was 10 to help put his brother Ivan as co Tsar on the throne.

The words from Stuart and others above are worth taking in. The River Prut was not very successful because Russia attacked and got surrounded.  Most successes Russia had throughout history was let them come, harass their supplies and let Mother Russia (or Nature) crush their health and will.  The way I see it is Moscow has been destroyed and rebuilt many times over the centuries and Russia has not succumbed because nations were fighting the people and the land in a rural economy and not capturing political power because Russia does not work that way.  Russian infantry were just as feared for their use of the bayonet as the British.

For a interesting account of the Poltava Campaign people (from a Swedish viewpoint) people may like to look at "The Battle of Poltava and the Birth of the Russian Empire" by Peter Englund (ISBN 0 575 05107 .

The Russian artillery arms was7 is a strong element of their army so it may be worth developing that side of the army as well,

On the River Prut campaign, Peters major problem was his allies in Wallacia & Moldavia, they had made promises to help & support give supplies etc. but when it came down ot the wire they left him in the lurch.

Digging in is a favoured Russian tactic, so maybe ahving entrenching stores attached to your armies on the march will help you a bit as well, disadvantage is if you fihgt an opponent who knows you regularly dig in, he will start to move to out flank your fieldworks which means a lot of hard work for nothing

I agree that the main strength of Peter the Great's Army (and most other Russian Armies before and after) was in its Artillery and in its ability to dig. I suspect its marked ability with the spade was down to its Infantry rank and file being 100% serfs who were much more used to a spade than a musket. But if Russian players want to represent the strength of the historic army in digging what about giving each regiment its own company of military sappers and miners? And having a battalion of engineers or two with each Army? Plus some wagon units loaded with the equipment needed and standing orders to fortify camps?

Interestingly unlike many armies which kept their Artillery seperate each Regiment of Peters Army seems to have included its own Regimental Artillery batteries. This is rather hard to create in game since they were mostly three pounders ie battalion guns but in large numbers. However as Russian gun carriages were very heavy and moved by horse rather than man handled plus these guns seem to have provided a great deal of Russian firepower by game theory would be class them as militazied field batteries or galloper batteries but as part of the regiment.

Lugging round all of the heavy metal and digging in may make your Army very seem very slow and lumbering. But consider that you likely foes include Ottomans, Swedes and Polish Horsemen. These are not nice polite trotters who are going to ride up and pop some Pistols at you from head on, rather they attack at speed and from any possible direction.

Like Peter in 1711 at danger exists that you can get trapped in your defences but this has got to be better than being ridden down on the march.

I completely agree with everything people have been saying but can't help but think part of the issue with digging in is the quality of the army and partly the quality and availability of the cavalry. The Streltsi were difficult to encourage change in as well as the rest of society. The typical Russian seemed to have more of an acceptance of their life, while the Streltsi seemed to be more active in protecting the Russian way of life.

If Russia can overcome these issues then they should have a better chance on the field of battle, and scouting to protect flanks on the march. I think the use of artillery was more due to putting low quality troops into fortifications so they weren't mobile and helped to keep the enemy units further away and increase the shooting range beyond the musket.

The OOB in "Peter the Great Humbled" above has 69 regimental 3 pdrs and 53 covering a variety (mainly bronze) of guns, mortars and howitzers when the army surrendered with 10-20 elsewhere. This does not sound like a heavy reliance on artillery to me. Different period I know but Napoleon's I Corps had 513 guns at Waterloo. Borodino Napoleon had 152 guns in his I Corps compared to 72 for Russia's primary (II) Corps. Then again perhaps it was more a case of the ideal compared to the actual?

Marshal Bombast wrote:I completely agree with everything people have been saying but can't help but think part of the issue with digging in is the quality of the army and partly the quality and availability of the cavalry.  The Streltsi were difficult to encourage change in as well as the rest of society.  The typical Russian seemed to have more of an acceptance of their life, while the Streltsi seemed to be more active in protecting the Russian way of life.

If Russia can overcome these issues then they should have a better chance on the field of battle, and scouting to protect flanks on the march. I think the use of artillery was more due to putting low quality troops into fortifications so they weren't mobile and helped to keep the enemy units further away and increase the shooting range beyond the musket.

The OOB in "Peter the Great Humbled" above has 69 regimental 3 pdrs and 53 covering a variety (mainly bronze) of guns, mortars and howitzers when the army surrendered with 10-20 elsewhere.  This does not sound like a heavy reliance on artillery to me.  Different period I know but Napoleon's I Corps had 513 guns at Waterloo.   Borodino Napoleon had 152 guns in his I Corps compared to 72 for Russia's primary (II) Corps.  Then again perhaps it was more a case of the ideal compared to the actual?

Clearly during the hundred years from our period to the Napoleonic Wars the size of armies in terms of total manpower and number of guns grew hugely.

So I think the best way to judge the reliance placed by an Army on artillery is by the number of guns per 1,000 men.

At Pruth in 1711 Peter had an estimated 40,000 men and 122 Guns a ratio of 3.05 guns per thousand men.

Compared to this at Blenheim in 1704 Malborough had 52,000 men and 60 guns ratio 1.15 against a Franco-Bavarian Army with 56,000 men and 90 guns ratio of 1.61.

Due to circumstances of Blenheim with Allied Army joined by crack Austrian foot/horse not slowed by Artillery this allied ratio may be low since at Raillies in 1706 Malborough had 62,000 foot and 120 guns ratio of 1.93

Poltava were Peter had 80,000 men and only 100 guns gives a low ratio of 1.25 but he was in pusuit/punishing cossacks mood in the heart of the Ukraine and faced with a mere 21,500 Swedes wth 4 guns ratio 0.18 he still dug in and used his guns to stop the Swedish attack.

I would argue that Narva a more long term planned Russian campaign were Peter had 60,000 men and 179 Guns for a ratio of 2.98 guns per thousand is with the Pruth a more typical Russian Army gun ratio.

Considering question of why some armies relied more on Artillery than others think major reasons are a) Some Generals like Peter, Dunn & Napoleon just like cannon more than others.........Charles of Sweden seems to have been basically against anything which slowed his Army down be that Cannon or Cavalry wearing armour b) Poor quality troops seem to need more Artillery support it is very noticeable that as the quality of the Prussian Army of the seven years war and the French Army of the Napoleonic Wars declined so the number of guns per 1,000 men went up sharply c) Terrain.........no one seems to have been able to deploy many guns in Spain and Switzerland for instance but on the flat wide open spaces of eastern Europe you finally get to the Artillery killing fields of Leipzig and Borodino.

Ref Borodino 120,000 Russians dig in with 640 Guns ratio 5.3 guns per 1,000. Clearly something in the Russian Military mind-set likes digging and likes artillery the more and bigger the better! Not sure if its in the game or not but Russian Armies without a field work or artillery in sight would seem to be "unhappy".


If we look at a Mid Napoleonic Wars battle ie Wagram (my favourite):

Napoleon had 189,000 men and 488 guns a ratio of 2.58 guns per thousand men.

Though it must be said the the French Guns in 1809 fired heavier shot a lot quicker and further than Peters guns.

Thanks for your help Stuart, I had not thought about gun ratios and I really need more time for background research. Next thinking about gun ratios and the effective size of an army as per The Miscellany.

There is also the war of the outposts to consider, the scouting & skirmishing/ raiding that was the day to day part of most conflicts, Battles were a rare happening although they could sometimes change the course of the war they were rarely decisive , the battle of annalation was the Holy Grail of army commanders.

Daily skimhishing between light troops was the main activity of the war, there the Russians have the Cossacks & other tribal troops to call upon.

J Flower wrote:There is also the war of the outposts to consider, the scouting & skirmishing/ raiding that was the day to day part of most conflicts, Battles were a rare happening although they could sometimes change the course of the war they were rarely decisive , the battle of annalation was the Holy Grail of army commanders.

Daily skimhishing between light troops was the main activity of the war, there the Russians have the Cossacks & other tribal troops to call upon.

Cheers Jason, now getting so many options to consider

The other major issue to consider is that in the GNW & WSS period sieges were much more common than battles. With many battles only happening because one Army attacked to break a siege such as Peters great defeat at Narva or was caused by a Army covering a key fortress.

100 years later battles were a lot more common common and a lot of sieges such as the French sieges after Jenna and Allied operations in France after Waterloo seem to be more in the nature of mopping up rather than a key part of the campaign.

If you add all the siege and fortress cannon Peter's Russians were probably in relative terms even more keen on Artillery and digging than later period Armies. Napoleonic siege trynes shrinking in relative terms both due to the less importance of sieges but also due to the increased power of Artillery which made the Napoleonic 12 pounder effectively daul use.