Observation on Late Russians in Absolute Emperor

 

Let’s start with my observations that a lot of gamers consider Russians as Yet Another French satellite in regards of arms and tactics. May be because of Barclay’s reforms and Regulations of 1811 which were, well quite Frenchy. However it has to be said, that Barclay apply what he founds as good, but he did not introduce French doctrine. Russians used new organisation for their own use, with their own experience of combat both with western powers, but with their own input from warfare in Finland and with musulman from Ottoman Empire.

Organisation

Usual Russian organisation was quite fluid, according to what battlefield and operations requires, especially when the army has been spread to army corps between allied armies in 1813. Usualy Russian Corps were formed of two infantry division. Each division has 12 battalions of +/- 700 men. And has its own battery brigade with heavy and 2 light batteries, each of  8 canons and 4 licornes.

Deployment and Formations

From the times or Rumyancev along with Suvorov and Kutuzov, the speed plays central factor in operations again enemy. This tactics still players major role in planning of the battle. In 1796 Kutuzov introduced new rules for skirmishers in his command, which can be summarised as „Jagers shoots, Musketeers and Grenadiers bayonet“. 

In 1946 Soldier’s Atlas diagram of deployment of the Russian division during late Napoleonics shown. It’s of course more or less by-the-book and actually situation can differ. Russian division has 6 regiments, 2 jagers, 4 infantry. Frontage of the division is 4 batalions in column of attack (frontage of 2 platoons). However first line is jager regiment in single chain of skirmishers. Obe battalion covers half of the frontage. Behind it is second jager regiment deployed in line, again one battalion covers half of the frontage. Third line is deployed as 4 battalions in attack column. 2 battalions are in reserve behind the attack column and another 2 battalions protects the flank or are in reserves as well. It’s quite deep formation. And probably has been used at Borodino from what I was able to read in English now. Please note that contrary to French and English sources, Russian commanders were no drunkards and dumb idiots. They knew they job, they will spread to linear disposition if terrain, honor, or situation requires and allows. In game terms I will suggest using „column formation“ more often to linear formation. It represents this deep disposition much better.

Speaking of Officers, with no unification on doctrine and no new regulation on battalion level and vast spaces of Mother Russia a lot of officers will develop their own style adopted from their teachers, possibility of training and of course if they have Military Journal available to them. Or spent their tour of duty with guard (that’s how the officers were trained of new ideas).

Artillery

As mentioned above each division has its own artillery brigade. It’s commander was attached to the staff of the battlefield commander who has overall command. Light batteries were usually formed in between battalions, heavy has been formed to „grand batteries“. But even that was fluid. Horse artillery usually formed reserve of the battlefield commander and were used when necessary to support infantry or cavalry. Doctrine as written by General Kutaisov requires commander to use antibattery fire on attack and counter infantry fire in defence.

Quality of Troops

There are several factors. In 1812 armies of Danube and Finland as seasoned, veterans of European Campaign seasoned, new units conscripts. 1813 all units seasoned. Grenadiers including Combined Grenadiers Veteran. Guard Veteran for 1812, 1813 and later as Elite.

Quality of Officers

If Picton has 5 there is no reason not to give 5 to Bagration, De Tolly and Kutuzov. De Tolly can have 4 not because of his quality but because he was not loved by the soldiers for the early 1812. However at Borodino 5. But of course all those three can be your avatars as CIC. So what others? In my point of view it depends what do you expect from Elan. For me it’s not only tactical or strategical prowes, but also his influence over his units as motivator, fatherly figure or as Daredevil the type of Lannes or Fournier-Sarloveze. Generally there is so few information about Russian commanders and most of them are based upon French sources, which are not the best. I would say Dochturov, Rayevskij, Eugen of Wurtemberg, Jermolov, Wittgenstein, Miloradovitch, Ilarion Vasilchikov, Osten-Sacken 4. Rest 3.

However this is always up to the discussion and actual gameplay. Do not forget, that Russian will probably field more corps then opponents – their corps has only two divisions of 6 regiments each. E.g. each corps has 24 batalion of  +/- 800 men bayonet strength. So work it accordingly to the Orbat, and rules.

National Rules

To be honest I do not like National Rules in most of the games, especialy most of them are based upon mythweaving then reality. I don’t understand the reason for the rules in the game. Some of them are clear – ignores of the hits corresponds with toughness of the troops and command limitations. Quality of artillery. Lack of initiative. Why Infantry cannot use Attack Column formation or do not have bonus to chargé eludes me, as this is the core of the Russian doctrine of speed and bayonet charges to disrupted enemy. Also I have to point out that Russians has one of the best horses and have almost unlimited amount of them, and recruits has a long training.

If you want more about Russians, please refer to Dominic Lieven Russia Against Napoleon, if you do not want to ready this heavy book, prof. Lieven has his lectures available online.