"infantry squares attacking cavalry?" Topic

Now this question has arisen on another forum but I`d like to throw it open to the TMPer`s…

I think we`ve usually thought of the "square" as a defensive, anti-cavalry formation.
And in the past, in wargames at least, squares generally did not move.

"Open squares" I believe, were not the most manouvreable of formations and many references to "squares" adavncing against cavalry in the period were I think, in all probability, closed columns which could quickly be converted to "closed" or "solid squares".

Much of course depends on the scale of the game you prefer to play and the level of detail you think is appropriate to that level, but I wonder if you have rules for this; for different forms of "square" and movement rates for them…

Nafziger points to a couple of examples for 1813, in which squares are used in an "advance" but I`m not convinced there is evidence for "Open Squares" actually attacking cavalry.

Nafziger suggests that we have under-estimated the manoeuvrabilty of "squares".

But what do you think, and do in your rules?

Regards,

Mike.

Mike, there is an example of this at Borodino, I believe.
But just as one swallow doesn't make a summer, one bunch of crazy (& ultimately ineffective) Russian infantrymen doesn't make a valid battlefield tactic. In essence, I ignore the possibility.
In my games, only squares of veteran troops can move (s-l-o-w-l-y) & then with greater possibilty of breaking if charged. I don't do it often.
regards, donald

One of the myths that Napoleon rules have foster from the beginning is that Squares do not move. The first rules I played in the 19 (cough, cough) 70's this was a mainstay.

Unfortunately life and war is not so simple.

This discussion is about what is called the open square, not a column that is closed either by turning the center companies out or collapsing to the front (massed).

About 1690 when the new flintlock came to be adopted in mass by armies in Europe they realized that the basic unit the battalion could put out the same if not more firepower by reducing the ranks in a unit from 6 to 4 then to 3(1730). At the same time the French army then everyone else adopted the socket bayonet. This caused the pike to slowly be dropped until only sergeants use them to order the troops. With this combo the battalion had firepower and a way to keep cavalry off it.

It seems and I need to study this more that a 6 rank battalion just had to tell it's men to face back to the colors it order to provide a wall of pointy sticks that a horse would not run over. (note the Ancient Greeks felt that 8 was best but 6 ranks was the minimum to keep cavalry from running through the Phalanx) The battalion went from 75 yards wide to about 150 yards and 3 ranks. This showed a vulnerability to its flank. This caused the curtain (Line of battle) tactic to be created. Even so battalions had to move and they had to be able to keep cavalry off it. In order to get this line in to a formation that could face out and be able to reform the line they hollow square was developed. This was done by wheeling companies (right and left facing did not develop until the 1790's and was adopted by the French first). The formation could move generally back and forward was just a matter of face to the rear. The problem with the Square was that in order to turn it you had to wheel the companies and this open it up and allowed cavalry in. Good troops in the face of enemy cavalry just kept wheeling. (The Scots at Qutra Bras finished forming square with French cavalry in it!).
Now this was taken up to all formation with regimental, brigade and division squares used a lot (in the battle of Wargram MacDonald corp. attacked in a corp. sized square.) in the seven years war era when armies formed into two lines a battalion was used to be ready to close the end.

One of the gamers in our group tried to state that Infantry did not form square in the 1700 and the next game I brought in a magazine with a painting from 1700 where the incident of a battalion of grenadiers formed square at the end of the line of battle and used their fusils to beat off enemy cavalry saving the line and allow the battle to be won.

This was our only proof in our small gaming group that the square was used.

Then I bought Anatomy of Victory battle tactics of 1689 – 1763 by Brent Nosworthy.

Now a gamer in our group felt that Napoleon in 1813 noticed that a battalion in square advancing toward the enemy looked liked it was a big column. So Napoleon did this to make an attack look bigger.

In the 1740's a French command retreated in regimental squares for three days and beat off repeated attacks by enemy cavalry.

Division Squares advanced to the attack at the battle of the pyramids with battalion squares at the corners.
The rear guard in Russia was everything from a battalion to a division all-moving away as fast as they could trudge.

In the retreat from Spain two squares moving rapidly away from the British where attacked by British light cavalry, a discharge killed a trooper horse which died and fell on the French this allow the other troopers to jump in and break the square which fled to the other one. The second square surrendered.

Finally the Middle guard at Waterloo advanced to the final attack in squares where they oblique to left to line (which caused the right square to engage first.). Witness could tell days later where the line of battle was and that the formation of the Guard was squares by the bodies (witness who fought but pursuit the French wrote about the attack in columns.

So Squares moved. If they moved fast or had to change direction they lost order.

Hope this helps
Lord Ghee
Copy write Maintain by C.Clayton El Paso Texas.

According to Chandler, Davout initially found himself in fog at Auerstaedt, so he formed his troops in square and then continued to advance. So it could be done, it seems. I have often thought about how an open square could move. Presumably it could do so only perpendicularly to the direction in which any of its sides faced. The other faces would presumably then have to wheel to face the same way. If menaced by cavalry, the square would halt; the men in the sides would wheel 90 degrees outwards, and those in the rear would about turn, so you had a flankless formation once again. If the formation became in any way stressed or unformed, then the risk would presumably arise that in wheeling to resume square formation, you'd end up with something that wasn't a contiguous square any more and which could thus be broken into by cavalry.

What I do not quite get is why the retreating Guard at Waterloo formed square to cut through the mass of French fugitives. If this was an open square then I don't see how it would have been advantageous as a way of ploughing through a mob. If it was an Austrian-style mass, then it wasn't a square but a column, able to repel cavalry (but not do it very much harm owing to limited fire output) by having all the outermost men face outwards.

Infantry in just about every other battle in line attacked cav. Squares just made it easy. :)

oh the oblique left to line of the Gaurd was to a line of squares.

Lord Ghee

The Guard at Waterloo was in open square as witness by many accounts.

it moved thourgh the fugitives by killing thier fellow soliders with the bayonet there by motovating the other to move out of the way. They where in square to be ready to fight enemy Cav. as there where no french cav left.

Lord Ghee

In my system hollow squares move at 1/2 Line speed. Solid squares cannot move at all, while closed column move at Line speed.

If you read the details of the Guard attack at 7:30pm at Waterloo you will find they actually advanced in Square formation and routed Halkett's Brigade who panicked and ran in the darkness.

Regards,
Shane

Shane,
I agree that normally a hollow square`s movement would be about that but a bit odd for a column to go the same speed as a line – Why is that?
Mike.

The closed column is a solid mass of men whi have less leg room so to speak, they cannot stride out and thus limited to less forward motion. The Closed Column was devised to defend against cavalry so for the sacrifice of motion they were much more compact and thus stronger against on coming cavalry.

Empire does the same thing and reduces the forward motion of Closed Columns.

Regards,
Shane

Shane,
Well, maybe its done in Empire, but I think I need more convincing that it would make men stumble over one another…
I didn`t think that the intervals between the ranks were reduced, but that those between sub-units were.
Regards,
Mike.

We had squares able to move in 'Guard du Corps' back in 1979 playtesting with a 1981 release. They moved slowly on open ground and could not attack an enemy.

Several cases of moving squares including part of Napoleon's retreat after Waterloo.

Mike , It actually involves specific companies making a facing change prior to movement to advance and after the period of movement to assume the original facing.

In a large ratio 1:50 or greater this would not be evident in the stands. Though using a smaller ratio where companies make up one or stands then the facing change would be represented.

No stumbling over each other with a 'sideways walk'.

We even allowed Tactical Adjustment Moves which in essence was a unit doing the same manuever. A facing change a shoert move and then another facting change to assume the original facing. The distance allowed was based on how long actual US Amrmy units could perform such a manuever on the parade field back in 1978. (of course this was calculated with the time scale pre turn that was used .

I did not say they would stumble over one another, simply that closed column was a defensive formation not at all convenient for attacking in.

Regardless, we do reduce the movement of this formation.

Regards,
Shane

Shane,
I used the phrase "stumble over one another"… because I thought that is what you meant by saying that the men had "less leg room".
So you slow a closed columns` movement down because you classify it as a defensive formation?
But the Austrians used closed columns offensively against cavalry.

Rudy,
Yes, I`m aware that an open square needs to make… "a facing change prior to movement to advance and after the period of movement to assume the original facing."
And in moving the square becomes unformed, but I guess that most rules will not take this into account:-
1. Because of a larger figure scale as you point out and
2. Because of the time scale; in that the manoeuvre of sub-units my possibly only take a fraction of a turn to perform).
We were talking about "closed cloumns" and the "squares" made from them, and this is what can confuse the issue for those who simply see "a square" as an open square period -
at least we all differentiate between them in some manner!

Regards,

Mike.

Nice job, looks like what I'd imaging a HS-universe hovertank would look like. Amusingly, TMP member Ming is a big fan of Hammer's Slammers…

Bugs!

We even had the Austrian tactic of using 'battalion mass Squares' forced to move at a slower rate due to the close mass formation.

Based on the level of unit being simulated, the difference between open and close formations may or may not be applicable.

Regardless of the level, you need to make sure that all of the movement, formation morale asffects and combat mechanics work together. Compromises may have to be made in order to make operations work to your satisfaction.

Rudy and Shane,

If I`m wrong here, (and its been known to happen!) then its probably due to me filtering out a level of detail for my own rules.

This is indeed a question about formations of different intervals, but as I seem to have overlooked it, could you guys give me some reference to this happening in battle, or maybe if you have the relevant regulations to hand, you could let us know the cadence used when in closed columns – I`d be most grateful if you could clear this one up for me.

Regards,

Mike.

Mike do not worry. There are several posters on TMP that are very familiar with Napoleonic sources. I am sure they will be posting on the thread soon.

My Napoleonic book collection is no longer as handy as it used to be. Sorry.

Didn't a British division (either 3rd or 5th) retreat for some time/distance across an open plain in the face of French cavalry (El Bodon 1811, IIRC) during the Peninsula War?

Wargamers have been brainwashed into thinking that squares were only ever used against cavalry. In fact, they were a standard formation used by any isolated detachment (whether acting alone, or at some distance from it's parent force) to combat threats from more than one side and/or an enemy with greater mobility who could manoeuvre around them. It could just as easily be applied to guarding a baggage train from attacks by enemy infantry, for example.

The main problems with movement would be starting and stopping, or where one element/face of the square had to negotiate more difficult terrain than the others. Across reasonably level ground, movement would be fairly straightforward.

Hello Supercilius Maximus, a bit late I know.

The Light Divison withdrew back to the main British line across an open plain at Fuentes de Onoro (May 3 – 5, 1811) along with guns of the Royal Horse Artillery.

They were sent out from the main line to support the withdraw of another divison.

cheers

Edward

Hi Michael,

I have seen a few books showing squares advancing on Cavalry if not actually attacking the cavalry as already stated by others above. I truly believe it was done and probably more than we know. I also own Nafziger's book and agree with him even if my view is simply an opinion.

The problem we have as War Games Rules designers is that situations which make it to print or eyewitness accounts of situations that occur often are written because they stood out beyond the mundane and normal. Trying to understand what would be common practice and what would be rare reactions to circumstances and situations is the hard part as a result. Sifting normal from rare occurrences forces one to delve much deeper, however, just because a situation or response to s situation was rare enough to be written down by an eyewitness does not mean it should not be covered by War Games designers. As the designers we have to weigh up the situation and come to a conclusion that if it really happened we are obligated to include it into our systems even if allowing it to happen on a War Games table is in itself made rare.

I strongly suggest that "Open Square" advances on cavalry were only done by experienced and well led Infantry or in circumstances where an Attack against an enemy line warrants moving in squares due to the knowledge that enemy cavalry is indeed nearby. Look at the French Guard attacks at Waterloo at 7:30pm, they were actually made in Square and meet both criteria, experienced troops performing the manoeuvre and knowledge that enemy cavalry attacking them was a probable outcome. When the Guard attacked they did not have their own Cavalry supports so the attack had to be done in Square…

I was once in an Empire battle years ago where I was the Left Flank commander and faced with an enemy Cavalry Line that was very powerful. I had little cavalry support so what little I had was formed up behind my Infantry who were formed into Open Squares and advanced forward towards the enemy Cavalry. At the beginning of the battle I suggested to my commander (C-in-C) that I actually attack the enemy cavalry. At first he did not agree but when I explained how I would do it he changed his mind and all was set.

I carried out my orders in perfect order of checkerboard squares in two lines with the third being my cavalry (Light). The enemy commander (player) was totally bewildered at this and had no reply other than to try to charge and break my squares. My men in the first Line of squares were all Crack to Grenadiers in Class/Morale status (this I did on purpose). Each charge was met and repulsed until the enemy commander had to choice left but to retire from his own positions.

This allowed me to effectively block his cavalry and nullify its effect at the same time I could fan out my second line of Infantry to my right and roll up the enemy Infantry on the right. We won the battle and totally shocked the guys across the table. They had thought my flank would be nullified and be taken out of the equation due to the pinning from their cavalry line but I took the initiate and attacked them thereby winning the battle for our side. The never made that mistake again I might add.

What we do in our system is as follows, When a formation of Infantry desire to Attack or Advance against an enemy Infantry line but it is known that the enemy has Cavalry supports the Infantry can indeed perform their order in Square if desired. The problem with that of course if it is not the ideal formation if the enemy is both formed and has strong artillery supports; you would be mad to do so.

In another situation you might have an Infantry formation facing an enemy line of Cavalry, if this occurs and your desire is to Attack then I feel this also should be allowed to occur in Square if desired. I do however strongly recommend that if your Infantry formations do NOT have their own cavalry supports and therefore have to Attack or Advance against the enemy Cavalry, you should have deductions to the chance to Initiate or pass the Order roll in order to commence the Advance. Taking into account the fact that it is not a normal occurrence due to insufficient Cavalry support, the Infantry "Commanders" (C-in-C) would in all likelihood be reluctant to carry out such an order unless fully confident it would work.

Regards
Shane

oohh, and in my rules Open Squares move at Half the speed of Line for that troop type. so the better trained the troop formation the faster they can move in Square.

RNF,

Thanks, I was thinking of a different example, but yours is equally apposite.

Shane,

Well, the given reason for the Guards use of squares was as a precaution made in their advance in the event of meeting with allied cavalry, it was not a means to attack that cavalry.
I just have a suspicion here that it would not be possible for an open sqaure to actually advance to threaten cavalry without a very real possibility of the infantry becoming disordered and therefore losing cohesion in possible encounter with enemy cavalry.

Although we have all read of squares of various types manoeuvring across large distances with the threat of enemy cavalry generally present – the more natural thing that would have been done (I believe) would be for the commanding officers of the square to halt the battalion in order to recieve the cavalry – using the formation`s proper function, which was a defensive one.

Now when you say that "…the Infantry "Commanders" (C-in-C) would in all likelihood be reluctant to carry out such an order unless fully confident it would work."
This is really hitting it on the head and the problem is that we have too good a view as 1,000 foot generals and may be too confident of our success knowing what our opponents forces lack and are able to react, exploiting their weaknesses. Well that`s another can of wormy things and another thread maybe?

B.T.W, I couldn`t find anything that would determine a slower cadence when in close column as opposed to open ones – rather, only the changes of distance between ranks.

Regards,

Mike.

Michael,

Its not that the cadence would be slower at all, it is more so the Square would have to stop more frequently to dress ranks for fear of disorder. Thus, on a table top the square, for the turn would cover less distance than say a Column or a Line. This is how we depict it in our rules anyhow.

I am a true believer in differing movement rates between troop classes on a battlefield, it is a well known understanding that formations were constantly halted to dress ranks to stop creeping disorder as these formations moved. This problem compounds the lower the quality of training of the men thus the more frequent the stops thus the less distance covered in a certain time period (a turn). It has very little to do with cadence as most nations used a steady walk pace and a faster pace for manoeuvring etc…

Trying to move in square theoretically should be no different than any other formation if all men are facing the same way, however, officers fearing disorder in the face of a cavalry threat would be more inclined to halt the formation constantly to re-order ranks or receive a probable or perceived cavalry threat even if the closest enemy cavalry is a long way off. This does depend on the presence of enemy cavalry in the first place and if the troops were ordered into square the threat (perceived) threat must be relatively real.

Regards,
Shane

Ok Shane,

I see what you mean now, and I agree with you on different rates of movement for different classes – without them becoming disordered.
The interesting bit however would be when and where these units begin to affect one another in combat.
Moving in square prior to this may not be difficult but, it would become tricky from that point in time and a chance therefore that in attempting to manouevre something may go wrong.
Middle Guardsmen may not be too troubled by manouevre in open square but conscripts may be "jumpy" even in a close column (that may convert to a closed square).

My original point was that the term square is used too widely and/or because of this people are not very appreciative of the way units manouevred.

Actually I allow for lower class units to move at standard rates, but with a good chance they may become disordered.
I Just feel that the tendency was for units to become rather disorganised in an advance anyhow and rather than being able to control all their units at all times, this makes for less control for players in games.

Mike.

what you could do is this :

Allow lower class units to try to move at a quicker rate (thus the units officers are ignoring the possible disorder in the ranks). This becomes a choice of the player, does he move at a slower rate and maintain order ? or does he try to move at a standard rate (no stopping) and rish a good chance of disorder ?

We did this in our rules and it worked well, you took the risk to move faster (no stoping to dress ranks) thus enabling you to move at say Guard speeds (max) but running the highly probable risk of disorder which the enemy can take full advantage of if able too.

It makes for very interesting situations….

Regards,
Shane

Shane,

"….or does he try to move at a standard rate (no stopping) and rish a good chance of disorder ?…"

I`ve done this for my two lowest unit classes (who are normally subject to double the time to change formation and half the normal movement rate) how have you ruled upon this?

Mike.

Was reading about desaix campaign in upper egypt recently.

In one of their small battles a divsional square moved/charged and captured artillery. Quite incredible but im sure some order was lost and these were excellent troops.

we basically said that if you decide to try to move poorer troops at the max rate possible the chance of disorder increases the worse the troop type. thus :

Chance of Disorder :

B/E Class Crack troops : 5%
B Class Veteran Troops : 10%
C Class Regular Troops : 20%
D Class Conscript Troops : 40%
E Class Militia Troops : 60%

Once your unit(s) become disordered all normal rules apply to reforming them, as in; no formawrd movement possible until reformed etc – of course, the lower the troop quality the longer it takes to reform them and so on…

Regards,
Shane