|
Post by marklemon on Apr 22, 2008 21:51:24 GMT -5
A question for the military tacticians out there: What nation's infantry tactics did the Mexican Army use in 1836? Were they patterned after the French, English, or Spanish? I ask this because of the odd detail I noted in the "Price of Freedom" film at the Imax. When the Mexican soldados were just about to advance, the officer gave them the command: "Armas en Frente (Arms in front)" after which the front rank dropped their pieces down from "shoulder arms" to what I recognized, from my knowledge of American Civil War tactics, as "Charge-bayonet." I thought this was odd (if it was indeed accurate) because in the American system, an infantry column or line of battle, would have, if any distance at all had to be traversed, been ordered to"right shoulder- shift," and only when the men had closed to very near their enemy, would they have been ordered to "Charge-bayonet." Any light you guys can shed on this matter is greatly appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 22, 2008 22:24:41 GMT -5
A question for the military tacticians out there: What nation's infantry tactics did the Mexican Army use in 1836? Were they patterned after the French, English, or Spanish? I ask this because of the odd detail I noted in the "Price of Freedom" film at the Imax. When the Mexican soldados were just about to advance, the officer gave them the command: "Armas en Frente (Arms in front)" after which the front rank dropped their pieces down from "shoulder arms" to what I recognized, from my knowledge of American Civil War tactics, as "Charge-bayonet." I thought this was odd (if it was indeed accurate) because in the American system, an infantry column or line of battle, would have, if any distance at all had to be traversed, been ordered to"right shoulder- shift," and only when the men had closed to very near their enemy, would they have been ordered to "Charge-bayonet." Any light you guys can shed on this matter is greatly appreciated. I don't recall the action in this movie specifically, but it sounds a bit like a Hollywood charge to me. The furthest I ever charged armes en frente in the military was a 100 hundred feet or so and it can be hazardous. Wolf is probably the guy to answer this one accurately and tactically.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 23, 2008 8:11:52 GMT -5
From my understanding, Santa Anna was completely enamored with Napoleon. One book I read (can't recall) stated that Santa Anna insisted the attacking columns involved in the final assault be formed to emulate Napoleon tactics and attacking style.
Of course, I really can't say if what I read was factual or speculative.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 23, 2008 10:27:34 GMT -5
Wolf is probably the guy to answer this one accurately and tactically. No, you all probably need to wait until Stuart returns. He's knows much more about Napoleonic Era Drill, than I do.
|
|
|
Post by elcolorado on Apr 23, 2008 11:22:00 GMT -5
What about Bill C. ? This sounds right up his alley as well.
Glenn
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 24, 2008 12:06:29 GMT -5
Wolf is probably the guy to answer this one accurately and tactically. No, you all probably need to wait until Stuart returns. He's knows much more about Napoleonic Era Drill, than I do. Hmm, Greg might be better still. According to Frank Thompson's book on the film they were using a Mexican Army drill book from 1830. I've not had sight of this one so can't comment on the detail, but in general the Mexican Army was largely patterned after the Spanish one for obvious reasons, but the Spanish Army was in turn very influenced by the French and some French stuff carried straight over. It sounds complicated but the point I'm making is that the Mexicans had their own uniforms, organisation and drill/tactical doctrines which were heavily influenced by European practice but which weren't slavishly copied from any one source. Just by way of example; French infantry regiments comprised four battalions each made up of four fusilier companies and two elite of preference companies. Mexican regiments had just one battalion of six fusilier companies and two preference companies.
|
|
|
Post by mustanggray on Apr 24, 2008 12:13:59 GMT -5
While I haven't looked at the original Mexican manual myself friends who have have told me it was VERY similar to Scott's.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Apr 24, 2008 12:40:39 GMT -5
You'll need to know Spanish, but here's a link to an 1844 Mexican edition of JH. Pinette's 1832 (and subsequent editions) manual on bayonet tactics, École du tirailleur, ou maniement de la baïonnette appliqué aux exercices et manoeuvres de l’infanterie: books.google.com/books?id=Fd3r2raDbNwC&pg=PA4&dq=%22escuela+del+tirador%22&as_brr=1#PPP9,M1 I don't know for sure, but this manual may well have been in use, in an earlier edition, in Mexico by 1835-36. I'm still looking for a general manual on infantry tactics that would have been in use in Mexico at that time.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 24, 2008 12:50:44 GMT -5
While I haven't looked at the original Mexican manual myself friends who have have told me it was VERY similar to Scott's. Quite possible, but then again Scott was in turn very heavily influenced by French manuals. So far as the tactical side of things go, as distinct from the manual of arms, drill books of this period tend to be rather light. They will for example describe in detail how to form column from line and vice versa, but rarely tell you when it should be done or in what circumstances - that was down to the discretion of the individual unit commander or brigade commander. Consequently a lot of custom and practice also crept in; an obvious case in point being the use of an unexplained formation called "guerillas" by Mexican troops, which seem to have been small groups of men - perhaps like the "chains" used by British skirmishers in the early part of the Napoleonic wars
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 24, 2008 13:31:37 GMT -5
I might be mistaken. I believe the heart of Mark's question wasn't who the Mexican bayoneteers in the movie were copying (the French, Spanish or Amercicans), but would the real Alamo attackers have charged "armas en frenta" for any great distance.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Apr 24, 2008 14:32:51 GMT -5
Without seeing the actual manual in use I can't answer that one definitively, but certainly the practice in the British Army was much as Mark describes - in principle at least. On being ordered to advance the firelock was first shouldered then brought to the port. Charging the bayonet, ie; levelling it, point forward, was only done in the final run into contact. The reason for this was quite simply that once the firelock is levelled its just that bit more difficult to maneouvre as a body, so you leave it until the last moment when you're going forward in a straight line.
Now going on from that, the purpose of levelling the firelock (and bayonet) is to intimidate the guys standing opposite and to suggest to them that running away really is an exciting option.
Not, obviously, the case at the Alamo, where the walls aren't exactly susceptible to this kind of intimidation. There simply isn't any point (literally) to levelling bayonets when attacking a wall, you might as well keep them on the shoulder or at best ported.
|
|
|
Post by marklemon on Apr 24, 2008 16:18:58 GMT -5
Stuart, That sounds logical. I have also spoken to many reenactors (American Civil War) who have told me that running with the weapon extended (charge bayonet) get tiresome very quickly, while running at "right shoulder-shift" can be done for long distances comparatively, and over broken terrain. Mark
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Apr 24, 2008 16:19:44 GMT -5
Not, obviously, the case at the Alamo, where the walls aren't exactly susceptible to this kind of intimidation. There simply isn't any point (literally) to levelling bayonets when attacking a wall, you might as well keep them on the shoulder or at best ported. The first rank in an attacking Mexican column/line has its weapons at the so-called "charge bayonet" position. When a man falls in the front, the man behind him subsequently levels his bayonet. And that initial advance is more than a shuffle than a US Civil War "at the double quick."
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Apr 24, 2008 16:32:46 GMT -5
Stuart, That sounds logical. I have also spoken to many reenactors (American Civil War) who have told me that running with the weapon extended (charge bayonet) get tiresome very quickly, while running at "right shoulder-shift" can be done for long distances comparatively, and over broken terrain. Mark I have been engaged in US Civil War historical interpretation since 1985 and I can assure you that any prolonged shoulder arms command---be it right shoulder shift, support arms, shoulder arms or even secure arms [via Hardee's Rifle and Light Infantry Tactics, 1855]---becomes extremely uncomfortable. "Trail arms," however is somewhat of an infantry-friendly command.
|
|
|
Post by billchemerka on Apr 24, 2008 16:52:34 GMT -5
While I haven't looked at the original Mexican manual myself friends who have have told me it was VERY similar to Scott's. Similar, to be sure. As were all infantry manuals. But not necessarily "very" similar. Scott's (actually Scott was the President of a Board of eight and his name was listed first on the vertical roster of names; hence: "Scott's") was submitted to James Barbour, Sec. of War, on Dec. 5, 1826, and if anything is familiar about it, it's the subtle evolution of Von Steuben's brilliantly simple 1778 drill. But Scott and company provided details that were quite micro-situational, such as his commands and responses for a battalion advancing in line and forced to halt with subsequent oblique movements for companies in the rear. Mexico City did not embrace such detail in its respective manual details as Washington City did.
|
|