Anglo-Portuguese 1809-10 another issue
Posted: Wed May 06, 2015 2:01 am
Hi guys
Any reason why the allies, particularly the Spanish, have a compulsory skirmisher attachment in the attachment's table? No skirmisher attachment is compulsory for any of the Spanish lists, particuulalry in the 1808-1809 list covering Talavera. The Anglo-Portuguese 1809-10 list seems based on Talavera where there were a large number of Spanish cazadore battalions, but the sources seem silent on any attachment of those cazadores to any line infantry formations. They were organised in separate divisions anyway from the rest of the Spanish infantry, and I have not read any mention that the Spanish line infantry had a skirmish capabilty.
It appears to be a mistake, perhaps a mimick of the British attachment table above, although it does seem somewhat deliberate, and the compulsory nature of the comment should be deleted.
Alastair Donald
Any reason why the allies, particularly the Spanish, have a compulsory skirmisher attachment in the attachment's table? No skirmisher attachment is compulsory for any of the Spanish lists, particuulalry in the 1808-1809 list covering Talavera. The Anglo-Portuguese 1809-10 list seems based on Talavera where there were a large number of Spanish cazadore battalions, but the sources seem silent on any attachment of those cazadores to any line infantry formations. They were organised in separate divisions anyway from the rest of the Spanish infantry, and I have not read any mention that the Spanish line infantry had a skirmish capabilty.
It appears to be a mistake, perhaps a mimick of the British attachment table above, although it does seem somewhat deliberate, and the compulsory nature of the comment should be deleted.
Alastair Donald