A passage from Sharpe's Fury (Bernard Cornwell) states:
"He had six battalions that, between them, had four thousand men who marched on a wide front. Leval kept two battalions behind the four who advanced in columns of divisions. French battalions had only six companies, and a column of divisions was two companies broad and three deep."
So 4,000 men in 6 battalions is 666/667 men per battalion... French battalions had only six companies so that is a further 111/112 men per company.... a column of divisions was two companies broad and three deep so that's six companies per division? So 666 men per division?
My question is why bother splitting themselves into divisions? Was it just a more adaptable way to organize men rather than having to find their specific battalion? Instead of everyone running around trying to get in their specific spot they just group up with the closest 666?
Sorry if this has been asked I am just trying to understand. I love the Revolution/Napoleonic Wars.
I'm taking most of what I know on Napoleonic infantry combat from Rory Muir's Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon. Battalions and would split themselves in to companies by division for better coordination. The attacking while in column two companies abreast had a great many advantages. They would have their officers closer to everyone in the company and could more easily maneuver over more difficult terrain. By spiting the battalion up into 3 divisions and then assigning each to an officer you've effectively created 3 new formations of 2 with better command control over each compared to 1 formation of 6 or 6 formation of 1.