Slitherine

Arrived today

Great looking book, lots of eye candy, and as always well presented. Well worth the wait and the expense

Just off to work with my new book very cool chaps

i am waiting.... hope to have emperors and eagles next week

Got mine yesterday...too bad I sold my Revo French a long time ago....

Slightly surprised no Polish-Lithuanian Army.

Sarmaticus wrote:Slightly surprised no Polish-Lithuanian Army.

Well was there much in this time all but liek 2 the battles of the polish destruction of 1795 were like under 3,000 except for the city assaults. I could be wrong but it seemed more a serious of small action clashes.

hazelbark wrote:

Sarmaticus wrote:Slightly surprised no Polish-Lithuanian Army.

Well was there much in this time all but liek 2 the battles of the polish destruction of 1795 were like under 3,000 except for the city assaults. I could be wrong but it seemed more a serious of small action clashes.

Yes, the battles of the Kosciuszko Uprising were small but see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ziele%C5%84ce in the Russo-Polish War of 1792. Hofer's Tyroleans and Black George's Serbs get in on less. Btw events in Poland were probably responsible in no small part for the survival of the French Revolution (as they would be again in 1830).

Well I agree about those others not being needed. But Terry is known for his love affair with Serbians...

Also I think that got in to give the turks something to fight rather than proper armies.

Well I agree about those others not being needed. But Terry is known for his love affair with Serbians...

Also I think that got in to give the turks something to fight rather than proper armies.

The Serbians were a late addition - only added because they (once) fielded an army big enough to qualify as a FOGN 'corps'
I 'd like to try out the Serbs, but I don't have any where near enough figures - yet!
I think they'd be much more interesting than the Tyrolean revolt army.

We couldn't find a battle for the Polish-Lithuanian army that consisted of more than 6,000 men (Mostly conscipts and peasants.)
That would only come to about 100 pts plus commander(s). It stretches the realms of credibility to upscale that to a full 800pt army.
If anyone has evidence that they ever did field a credible force we'd be happy to revisit it.

The Poles field 15,500 at Zieleńce (18 June 1792).

Well there was the Brabant Revolution in 1787 and 1790...also forgotten...but on i can understand.

In E&E there is something I do not understand :

1807 Russians .
pg 116
It is stated that the lifeguard did not take part in this campaing but in june 1807, at the Battle of Friedland they got in the middle of the battle, in a savage melee under the always charismatic and not so present Constantine ( I said Charismatic not skilled ...)...

So if the list represents the army that took part at Eylau and Friedland am I missing something !

from http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/CGSC/CARL/n ... 807FAD.pdf

Reserves: formerly Grand-Duke Constantine
lst Division: Grand-Duke Constantine (absent)
Guard Jager Regiment (2) detached to Bagration
Guard Militia Battalion detached to Bagration
Infantry: Generallieutenant Mallutin
Brigade: Generalmajor Deperadovich II
Preobragenski Guard Regiment (3)(detached to Allenburg)
Semenovsky Guard Regiment (3)(1,200)(detached to
Docturov)
Velikaluka Musketeer Regiment (3)(1,200)(detached to
Bagration)
Pernau Musketeer Regiment (3)(900)(detached to
Bagration)
Brigade: Generalmajor Bachoutzki
Ismailov Guard Regiment (3)(1,200)(detached to
Docturov)
Guard Grenadier Regiment (3)(1,200)(detached to
Docturov)
Kexholm Musketeer Regiment (3)(1,200)(detached to
Bagration

And also for the Russians 1805-1807 no lancers but a lancer regiment ( big one , 10 squadrons ) took part at Eylau and Friedland . the Lithuanian Uhlan regiment .

At austerlitz 1805 the Uhlan Regiment Grand-Duke Konstantin [Nr. 3], 10 squadrons was present .

So why no uhlan for the russians !

bahdahbum wrote:In E&E there is something I do not understand :
1807 Russians .
So if the list represents the army that took part at Eylau and Friedland am I missing something !

The Russian Guard was not at Eylau, but was at Friedland. I don't remember if it was brought across the river. But it was certainly there in reserve. I thought this odd as well. But not critical.

I know they were not at Eylau but they fought at Friedland and at the end of the battle they were heavily engaged vs Ney's corps and Dupont's division , it seems in friedland itself or at least partially in Friedland . The russian guard was defeated and suffered heavy loses ( or so the french claim ) (The campaigns of Napoleon,D Chandler pg 579 )

It is not critical but now, if you were French and we would say , OK , they Old Guard was there, at Friedland , but not engaged - and that's true - so , you may not have it in your army list ...

A small division of guards and those Uhlan can be very usefull but more important and even the most important fact is ...they are colofull

Believe me, I hate to revive this issue, but in checkingout the "bit at the back"in E & E I noted that the confusion about how many BGs you must have in order to fied a legal cavalry division again reared it's ugly head. On the one hand, it clearly states that all divisions must have a minimum of 3 BGs. On the other hand, it has been ruled here on this forum that only 2 cavalry BGs will consititute a legal cavalry division. So, once again I have to ask, which is it, 2 or 3? Or does the 2 BG exemption only apply to ToN?

Kevin

I believe it is two cav BG plus 1 Horse Artillery (making three) is the minimum....but I can be wrong.

vsolfronk wrote:I believe it is two cav BG plus 1 Horse Artillery (making three) is the minimum....but I can be wrong.

Yes, I know that is what it says in E & E. But the authors previously have ruled on this forum that as few as 2 cavalry BGs, without any 3rd BG of any kind, constitute a legal cavalry division - a specific exception to the 3 BGs per division minimum rule that came out of ToN. This exception does not appear in the "bit at the back" of E & E, so I question whether or not the authors intended that it should have been there but somehow was left out or missed (an editorial mistake, in other words) or if the special cavalry division exception was meant to apply only to ToN (perhaps a source of future confusion, but a defensible position).

Kevin

I believe it is two cav BG plus 1 Horse Artillery (making three) is the minimum....but I can be wrong.

We rules that page 17 was correct - that the cavalry division must contain at least 2 cavalry units and up to 1 artillery unit. We found that there were some armies that couldn't field a cavalry division at all if the minimum was 3 - particularly if the choice was restricted (to shock, heavy, light or guards units). There were a lot of historical divisions that had only 1500-2000 men in them.

that the cavalry division must contain at least 2 cavalry units and up to 1 artillery unit

I am a bit lost . I suppose pg 17 is page 171 and that the absolute minimum for a cavalry division is 3 units . Either 2 cav brigades + 1 artillery or 3 cav brigades !

It will be very difficult for some nations ...

Or is it clearly : a minimum of 2 CAV units ! . The wording "up to" seems to give a choice , you take it or not .

Sorry English is not my mother language and I am not aware of all the subtilities of shaekespeare' language