Unravelling Hoff.

Painting depicting the French cavalry during the retreat from Moscow in 1812. A far more realistic impression of how the cavalry of both armies looked in Poland.

I have tried to reconstruct the action at Hoff by attempting to draw a more detailed map of the area contested, following the troops dispositions given in the Russian sources. Allowing for the many changes that have taken place over the two hundred years since the campaign was fought, and the possibility of the original maps (shown above) being subject to various interpretations, then I must submit my own efforts as also being only speculative.

Map 1.
My own interpretation of the initial position taken by up by the Russian rear guard in front of Hoff. I have not included any Cossack formations owing to the details of their deployment on the battlefield being difficult to determine. It would also seem that the Russian sources available either dismiss them altogether or, after mentioning that Cossack units were with the rear guard, never give any details of what they actually did.

As can be seen from the above, the initial deployment of Barclay de Tolly’s rearguard had elements under the command of General Dorokhov pushed forward across the bridge, holding the ground around the village of Zinken (now Źolędnik). Although Danilevsky states that the 20^th Jager were in the second line, I think Karpov’s comments may be nearer to the truth when he says that the 20^th Jager, ‘...was at the village of Zinken, and two squadrons of the Izumsk Hussars and two pieces of horse artillery, comprised [Barclay’s] advanced units.’ This is important because Karpov does not say rearguard, but only the ‘advanced units’ of Barclay’s rearguard. It would be quite natural to attempt to slow the French advance, and by contesting the village of Zinken, and therefore possibly the only clear road available, also restrict their deployment. Karpov goes on to say that General Dorokhov, after being reinforced by another two squadrons of Hussars (no mention of which regiment) was forced to retreat, after a brief engagement, to Barclay’s main position.

The Russian rearguard position is variously given in the sources as follows: The Izumsk Hussars and the horse artillery battery (the two guns posted originally near Zinken village having presumably rejoined their parent unit) at the bridge; The Oliviopol Hussars, together with the (one battalion?) 20^th Jager Regiment and the Kostroma Musketeer Regiment, drawn up in a second line; The 1^st Jager Regiment was posted on high ground on the right flank, while the 3^rd Jager Regiment, with the (remaining battalions?) 20^th Jager Regiment in support, were stationed in woods on the left flank.

Map 2.
My own interpretation of the opposing forces at around 3.30 p.m. All sources state that Murat’s cavalry arrived first on the field. Also Soult’s light cavalry would have been in advance of the main body of the IV Corps.

The first French units to arrive on the field were possibly the light cavalry attached to Soult’s IV Corps, followed by the light cavalry under Murat, with Colbert’s Dragoons close behind. Since none of the Russian sources name any particular division, brigade or regiment, other than the fact that they were led by Murat, then it is worth considering the possibility that, having to haul artillery pieces into action, many of the dragoons would have been dismounted, their horses being used to double the teams on the cannon and limbers. Petre states that, ‘The French skirmishers, advancing about 3.00 p.m., against the Russian left were driven back.’[1] These “skirmishers” were, in all probability, dragoons, since this type of cavalry also fought on foot. Indeed, Petre even informs us that Napoleon himself thought it better to attack with the cavalry without waiting for Soult.[2] If this was indeed the case, then I consider that only “part” of Murat’s dragoons fought mounted, and the remaining dismounted troopers harassed the Russian position until the arrival of Soult’s infantry and d’Hautpoult’s cuirassiers.

We are now confronted with the problem of the deployment of the cavalry of the opposing armies. With deep snow covering the fields and meadows, and the possibility of a steep ravine dividing the forces at the commencement of this part of the action, then the normal formations for squadrons and regiments seem to be ruled out. Below are rough diagrams showing the “normal” formations of cavalry regiments when deployed for battle and in column of march.

My own interpretation of a cavalry squadron deployed in battle order. I have reduced the size of the squadron in terms of troop numbers to allow for attrition during the campaign, but have still given the actual squadron frontage of 48 meters at full strength.

As one can see from the above cavalry formation, a whole regiment of four squadrons would have occupied a frontage of over 200 meters, when the spacing’s between each squadron is taken into account. Even allowing for the road being fairly clear of snow, then the deployment such as the one shown herewith would have been almost impossible to achieve with deep snow covering the whole countryside. We do know that Murat’s handling of the cavalry at Hoff was criticised by Jomini in his work, Vie de Napoleon, where he states that the French cavalry brigades were passed in succession through the defile of a marshy brook, which exposed them to defeat in detail.[3] However, taking into account the argument given concerning “normal” cavalry deployment, then under the circumstances Murat probably had no other option?

My own re-construction of a cavalry trooper and his charger standing in 40 centimetres of snow (at Eylau it was reported to be a meter deep)

My own interpretation showing “part” of a cavalry squadron in column of four. The measurement given of 80 meters represents the whole length of a squadron when in column of four; this would mean that a regiment of four squadrons, when moving in such a formation, was strung-out over 400 meters from the head of the column to its rear.

If the cavalry was indeed restricted to moving through a defile on a single road, and then attempting to deploy onto something like a wider front, then it is small wonder that they were checked. However, let us say for the sake of argument that after the Russian’s under Dorokhov had retired from Zinken, and the French pushed forward their artillery to cover the bridge, forcing the Russian horse artillery to withdraw, the French (dragoon?) skirmishers kept the enemy occupied until Soult’s infantry arrived to take their place. Murat, realising that he had to try something, formed his light cavalry on the road and, supporting them with squadrons of dragoons who were still mounted, ordered a charge across the bridge, which could only be done in column of four. As the head of the column reached the other side it attempted to deploy but was counter attacked by the Olivipol Hussars and driven back across the bridge. The attacking Russian’s, in all probability also having to cross the bridge in column of fours were, in their turn, forced to retire, the bulk of the rearmost squadrons doubling back and causing confusion in the ranks of the Izumsk Hussars who were following behind (see above account by Karpov). After several more attempts (Karpov mentions “charges.”) the French rout the Russian Hussars (no mention of which regiment) and now Murat, allowing for the snow being trampled down considerably on both sides of the bridge, managed to form up his squadrons in something like battle order.

While the French cavalry attacks continued, Soult’s leading infantry regiments (Legrand’s division) began to arrive on the field. Once again, with everything off - road covered in deep snow, the main column of Soult’s corps must have been strung – out over a considerable distance. Also there must have been some delay in their arrival if we allow for the fact that d’Hautpoult’s cuirassier division was also coming up behind Murat’s advanced squadrons. It is very plausible to consider some of the infantry moving off the road and spreading out across the fields. By sending one or two companies off to the right and left of the road, then these could move slowly forward in line, treading down the snow and thus reducing the efforts of the main battalion formations following in their wake. If this was the case, then when d’Hautpoult’s cuirassiers finally broke the square(s) of the Kostroma Regiment (after being softened – up by French artillery and infantry fire?), the whole Russian position had already been compromised by being outflanked on both wings. The slightly exaggerated statements that the Kostroma and 1^st Jager regiments were practically annihilated, given in the Russian sources, and that the St Petersburg Dragoon Regiment was also badly cut – up, as Petre relates (quoting Wilson),[4]  can be dismissed, since the Kostroma and 1^st Jager must still have been at reasonable fighting strength because they fought at Eylau,* while the St Petersburg Dragoons were not even engaged at Hoff.[5]

My own interpretation of the positions of the opposing forces at about 4.00 p.m. Since the light began to fail at this time during early February, and not knowing exactly what the weather conditions were like, then, allowing for an overcast sky, visibility must have been quite poor, with wooded areas being particularly gloomy?

If we are to believe the Russian sources (Yermolov), with his troops falling back in some disorder, Barclay decided to form a new line of battle just in front of Hoff. This proved to be very disadvantageous as, with the village behind them, the Russian cavalry were forced to retire due to “superior enemy cavalry” attacking them and forcing them back through the narrow streets. Apparently the Russian infantry should have been deployed in the village and gardens instead of in line in front of them. This deployment meant that they had nowhere to go but to retreat through the village, “because of the deep snow on the plain.” (Yermolov) How they had managed to form a “line” in deep snow in front of the village in the first place, or how they had previously managed to manoeuvre when engaging the initial enemy advance over an extended area is never mentioned. The fact that the French infantry were also attempting to outflank the Russian position through virgin snow, and over undulating terrain, makes it very hard to fathom the real truth behind any of the vague descriptions as sighted in the sources for this battle.

 

The last phase of the battle involved Barclay regrouping at the rear of Hoff, where he was reinforced by 5 battalions of infantry under Dolgorukov, which had been ordered forward by Bennigsen from the main Russian position around Landsberg. Barclay himself, together with the 3^rd and 20^th Jager Regiments, went to his left wing, which was being attacked by the French, who were endeavouring to cut off the 1^st Jager Regiment (?), stationed in some woods, from their communications with Landsberg.[6]  If the troops needing support were the 1^st Jager, then, according to Danilevsky’s account these had been “virtually wiped out,” and if they had not been then they must have crossed completely over to the other wing of Barclay’s force because their original position was on the “right flank” not the left; or were the troops on this flank the Kostroma Regiment, which had also, supposedly, been “virtually annihilated”?

While Barclay was away from Hoff, Dolgorukov “faced superior forces,” and was about to retire when he was reinforced by two regiments of cuirassiers from the main army. But darkness had now descended over the battlefield, and Napoleon called off any further attacks.

My own interpretation of the last phase of the battle. It will be noted that there are two roads leading to Landsberg (as also shown on the Russian map). The road to the right of the map (East) was not used by the French, and it must be concluded that their columns were restricted to a single road.

The casualties given in the sources are, like everything else in this perplexing campaign, variously given as ranging from 3,000 to 10,000 killed and wounded. Soult (Archive History) gives the losses incurred by the Russians as 8,000, of whom 3,000 were killed, and 1,500 prisoners.[7] This would mean that a further 3,500 were wounded. If we believe what the sources tell us concerning the initial troop formations deployed in Barclay’s rear guard then, according to Soult, the whole lot would have been wiped out. Petre, quoting Hœpfner, gives 2,000 as the combined total of Russian casualties. This seems to be nearer the truth. Soult’s own losses for his IV Corps are given as 1,960; Lagrand’s division suffering 1,750, and his light cavalry 210. [8] No breakdown of killed or wounded is given, also no mention of the losses incurred by Murat’s cavalry formations, which, going into action first, must have suffered at least 500 – 600 casualties in killed and wounded, besides the loss of  several hundred horses. Therefore, given the lower figure for Russian losses, plus Soult’s and Murat’s combined casualties, then the field of battle must have been strewn with at least 3,000 – 4,000 killed and wounded, together with 600 –  800 dead or maimed horses – not such a little skirmish as it appears at first glance.*