"Breaking infantry squares" Topic

Hi chaps, I have just played a wargame using WRG Rules and my mate broke 3 of my Prussian Landwher squares(albeit with very good quality cavalry).Do you guys have any evidence that British infantry aside other countries infantry squares were perhaps broken a bit more regularly than the British press would have us beleve in the Napoleonic era, many thanks Terry.

cav beating square happened once that I know of, cant recall when, but can dig it out though if you need?

Steady squares were rarely broken, though unsteady ones were another story.

The KGL Dragoons broke a steady French square at Garcia Hernandez in 1812 on a fluke – a dead dragoon and his horse fell on a side of the square, making a gap. A second French battalion that witnessed the ensuing massacre became unsteady and was broken by another charge.

On the second day of Dresden, Austrian squares were holding off French cavalry in a pouring rain with bayonets alone, until a duty squadron of lancers came up close and broke a square. Those that saw this became unsteady and a rout ensued. That makes two steady squares broken I'm aware of between 1792 and 1815.

Just because a set of rules allows something to occur does not mean it happened frequently in reality.

I think the Russians may have had squares broken at Eylau.

They WERE Landwehr after all…
The dice indicate that they shook, and that the cavalry sensing the unsteadiness charged home.
For a historical look at how this happens, see the two charges of the Rohirrim cavalry at Helm's Deep and Pelennor fields in the movies. The Bad Guys flinched… I would rate Saruman's Uruk Hai as less than Landwehr, seeing as they were hatched from the earth for less than a week.

Seriously, though, the breaking of the FIRST square was the hard part. Once the other squares saw that being in a square was no guarantee of safety, imagine the effect that that had on their morale. Not good.

At Dresden the Saxon cuirassiers broke two Austrian squares as well. Of course the rain helped move the odds towards the cavalry.

French Lancers broke the Buffs square at Albuhera in 1809 I believe

The way I see it Cavalry will NOT break steady Infantry squares ever unless :

…due to a freak accident such as wounded horse ploughing into the face of a square, breaking up the ranks allowing other cavalrymen behind a gap to leap through.

…Heavy or Torrential rain stopping the Infantry from firing effectively or at all. Thus allowing the cavalry the chance to get in their faces but even this is pretty foolhardy to attempt for Cavalry, horses just do not like bayonets for some reason…

…square still forming and a gap still visible, even this is a rare thing.

…square is being pulverized by artillery causing gaps to occur thus the cavalry can get in.

However, if the Infantry is already Shaken for whatever reason they will not be steady. If the cavalry show determination the square might collapse before contact is made. Men begin to panic, turn, run and gaps appear, this is usually game over.

This is the way I do it :

1/ Cavalry declare intention to charge, success means they advance towards enemy square.

2/ Infantry square rolls a morale check against the charge. Good morale = steady. Failure means the Infantry could be either Shaken, Demorilized or even Rout. However, a formation already in square should have a good chance to stand, even Landwehr. There must be a chance they could run though.

3/ All firing com menses, Cavalry respond to the firing with a Morale check, this should be enough from deterring them from charging home in the mechanics providing conditions for firing are optimum. (no heavy rain etc).

4/ If cavalry do charge home a melee occurs on front face of square. This is usually a short Sharpe affair where very minimal casualties are inflicted by either side. The Infantry should be at a great advantage even for landwehr. If the Infantry is already Shaken this should be a good help for the cavalry to balance the chances back in their favour.

5/ Failure to charge home means cavalry come to a grinding halt or retreat.

Another thing, I read that conscripts were usually at their lowest Morale level during their first encounter against charging enemy cavalry. If they survived the contact without breaking they would have a better chance to stand from that point onwards in and further similar situation. If they broke the unit would find it very hard to stand again in the future, provided they were not all killed that is…

p.s. Lancers had a long weapon, this is correct, but it did not give them such a bonus as to be at an advantage against a wall of bayonets.

Regards,
Shane

Shane: I've been working on an idea where I would have the cavalry declare a charge, and such declaration (and movement half way towards the square) would trigger a morale check by the square. If they (square) pass, then the cavalry does not charge home. If they fail, they would either rout or become disordered. Then the cavalry could charge the routers or the disordered/shaken square. My sense is that cavalry would not charge a steady square, although they might try to bluff it into breaking up on their own.

-French Lancers broke the Buffs square at Albuhera in 1809 I believe-

Nope…the Buffs, the 2/48th and 2/66th were all caught in line. The fourth battalion of the brigade (2/31st) succeeded in forming square and survived.

Sauve, Thank you for refreshing my memory. I knew something bad happend but forgot they were in line

The Buffs didn't see the lancers until they were on top of them and didn't have time to form square, otherwise there wouldn't have been a problem.

Alte,

What you are proposing to do in your own games sounds perfect, there has to be pro's and con's for and against charging and the potential risks involved especially for the chargers. If they fail to charge home they become the target.

This is pretty much what happens in our games also. I purposely made the chance for Cavalry to charge formed squares very, very low. If they succeed they still have to endure any incoming defensive fire before contact is made. And endure means a Morale test to pass in order to continue to charge home.

We notice in our games contact very rarely occurs, but instead the Cavalry refuse to charge in the first place. The importance of this is that the player declaring to charge even if he fails to Charge MUST advance to within 150yds and halt of the enemy. This shows the intent to charge had occured but the commitment to do so fell away and the unit grinds to a halt right in front of the enemy.

The range might be still 150yds but it causes the charging player to weight up the pro's and con's of the probability of charging and the consequence of halting right in front of the enemy if it fails. The only real way to ensure a solid chance of charging is by placing an Officer of general rank with the chargers, his charge bonus might be just enough to get the chargers in. The down side of this is that the Officer then becomes a potential casualty and so on…

Regards,
Shane

In 40 years of Nappy gaming all the rulesets I have played have made Cavalry vs Square pretty much a complete waste of time, and we can all trot out the couple of known instances where cavalry actually managed to break square in the Napoleonic era becuase they were rarer than hens teeth.

BUT the problem I have always had with this is that in their day these guys (the cavalry) were not dummies, far from it, so WHY did they even bother charging if it was such a certainty that it would achieve nothing other than wreck the cavalry. Yet in every battle cavalry charge.

Its a bit like the Column vs Line argument, if the result was so obvious why did it happen.

I still feel that in many respects we are completely in the dark as to how really napoleonic era battlefield tactics worked.

What I would give to borrow the Tardis for one day….

Col. M,
You have read various instances of squares breaking; some were in disorder at the time of the charge, others were pounded with artillery fire, and others, their resolution to stand simply evaporated.

Landwehr or raw infantry (WRG) are brittle troops. Your opponent obviously timed his charges to take advantage of the accumulated factors (routing friends and possibly no general controlling).

Next time, diffuse the opportunity for cavalry by placing your squares on the other side of difficult ground or uphill of their charge.

Also, it helps to have small units of lancers in support of your deployment. At the moment he is busy, they can fall on his flank to stall his pursuit. This can give your troops to fire muskets on any elements not engaged in hand to hand.

Cheers,
Robert
18thcenturysojourn.blogspot.com

…"French Lancers broke the Buffs square at Albuhera in 1809 I believe-

Nope…the Buffs, the 2/48th and 2/66th were all caught in line. The fourth battalion of the brigade (2/31st) succeeded in forming square and survived"….

Its a wonder how they failed to see the Lancers coming – after all they had two years notice they were coming!

1811 not 1809 ! :o)

From my own reading squares of inexperienced or demoralised or poorly trained or exhausted or hard hit infantry were broken regularly. It was not a common thing but it wasn't a rare event either.

Cavalry actually trained to do this sort of thing and had developed tactical doctrines for attacking squares.

ALso remember that cavalry forcing infantry into square effectively pinned the square, and square was not a good formation if enemy infantry in line or artillery could be brought up.

There is an instance in the Penninsular where British troops in square croosed open ground to get to safety, while under heavy pressure from French Cavalry.

there ya go, the examples keep coming in…

I thought that the Prussians broke some French squares at the Katzbach. It was raining, visibility was terrible, and the conscript infantry got spooked by the sudden appearance of the enemy horse.

I always like the plight of the french Dragoons on foot during the 1805 campaign due to lack of horses etc. They received some basic infantry training including how impenetrable the square was. Of course when they received their mounts later they were told that they could break squares!

An excert that I read on the painting covering 'The Last Trophies' talks about the theme being the flags captured by the Cavalry in their famous mass charge at Waterloo.

Many squares were not only broken but the soldiers died in mass numbers in those positions. So the units were virtually destroyed,

RudyNelson wrote:

"Many squares were not only broken but the soldiers died in mass numbers in those positions. So the units were virtually destroyed"

Which units at Waterloo were virtually destroyed by being ridden down in square?

Rudy, sadly the breaking of many allied squares at Mont-St-Jean was purely a piece of French propaganda. One square was virtually destroyed, but that was not be cavalry but by firepower.

Romantic paintings aside, no allied squares were broken by the French cavalry at Waterloo. Fortune de Brack's participant account of the charges (he was an officer of the Red Lancers) is well worth reading on this. Correct that a number of squares suffered heavy casualties, (one, the 27th was indeed virtually destroyed) but this was from artillery and skirmisher fire- not sabres or lances.

British infantrymen are recorded by eye witnesses as laughing at the French cavalry, shouting 'here come those fools again!!' as they charged.

A few standards were captured- 69th Foot lost one at Quatre Bras, and at Waterloo itself one or two I think by the 5th KGL and a Hanoverian unit, but these troops had all been caught in line.

A couple of British and allied units MAY have fled from the cavalry charges before contact- some certainly did before the Imperial Guard infantry attack, But these retreats were temporary and the units rallied on the field and returned to the fight.

Back to battles where cavalry did break squares- some accounts of Borodino, French and Russian, say that the Carabiniers broke a square of the 19th Jagers. The casualties of that unit were heavy even by Borodino standards, indicating that something rather drastic had happened to it.

You can take a look at the painting and see the colour's captured. Most seem to be Allied units rather than British.
I knew about the unit destroyed by artillery fire. Most of my notes are in filing cabinets as it has been a long time since I researched napoleonics other than the War in Amrica front.

Colin sugests French propaganda. That may be so, maybe a French reader may like to comment.

I have a vague memory of British survivors welcoming the approach of French cavalry, because it meant that they had a break from the French artillery!

Squares were broken sufficiently often that Cavalry continued to charge squares during the era. Were they not, cavalry would not have persisted in charging squares.

At Austerlitz the Russian Guard Heavy Cavalry ran down a well formed square of a very high quality French battalion on Stary Vinorady.

At the Katzbach numerous French squares were ridden down by the Prussian line and LW cavalry because the wet prevented them from effective fire. At Dresden the Austrian infantry on the left simply recognized the futility of fighting off the French in the rain and surrendered. Russian squares and lines were run down by the overwhelming number of French Cavalry.

At Quatre Bras the French Cavalry broke into the 42nd's square and had they been supported there would have been a hell of a lot more death notificatoins posted on the village kirks.

To the best of my understanding no Anglo Allied square at Waterloo was broken by cavalry. On the other hand some squares suffered so horribly from the cavalry and artillery that the living simply wandered away leaving the dead to trace the outline of the square. And before I get attacked by the British I think that most of the British infantry joined other, more viable units of their own volition or with the encouragement of their officers.

What I don't understand is why we continue to revisit this topic.

Good gaming.

Bob Coggins

I remember playing WRG 'Napoleonics' rules as a youngster.

One of our serious players (i.e. not a youngster, actually read some books without pictures in them, etc), had a favourite tactic.

He would declare a charge on a square.

the square would then test for being charged.

If it passed, he would declare the charge a feint, and halt outside of effective fire distance (IIRC, cav were harder to hit than foot as they moved faster, so you had to be within 100 yds).

He kept doing this all day until either the square broke, or the guns got onto it.

IIRC, landwhere were 2 morale classes down, so a 50% chance of breaking.

Pure gamesmanship, but well within the rules.

Of course, those rules were of the 'open fire at 200 yds, as it's hits which count, so the more dice you roll the more hits you will inflict coming in' variety.

Rudy,

A painting is not a source of historical record; it is a piece of creative art! French first hand accounts, such as that of De Brack (he took part in the charges), clearly show that the cavalry charges were utterly without effect, other than wasting time and using up cavalrymen and horses that could have been far better used.

Please try to use real sources rather than fantasies.

Keraunos,

This is exactly what many Cavalry regiments would attempt in real situations, if the square began to show signs of panic the Cavalry would be in like a bolt of lightening, if not then they would wait at distance and try again.

You have to have a set of rules that can game mechanic this happening, I do this as do my friends in my own system all the time. It is hard to do and you really need to attempt it only on poorer quality soldiers but you can do it if you have the right conditions.

However, in our system you must declare you intention to feint charge the square first. The square still have to take a morale check to stand. If they do the Cavalry can halt, but if the square's morale sinks and the men become Shaken or worse it triggers a Control Test on the Cavalry regardless of their intention to feint. If they fail the control test they charge in!! Trick is to have a commander in personal charge of the cavalry who gives a large charge bonus or has poor command control…

Down side to this is that if the Infantry square holds you usually find your cavalry within musket range and shot at. If you attempt this trick too much your cavalry eventually gets shot up and their chance to keep charging decreases to nil…

What I don't understand is why we continue to revisit this topic.

Bob, if you did not like the question you would not have replied is such detail, observation not an insult implied here. People will keep asking the same questions and probably will never change. I for one prefer it not too, revisiting a question helps everyone eventually become much clearer of the facts.

Shane

Rastibon is right: the men of the time weren't stupid.

They didn't see a square and go, "gee, that's a steady square, I can't break that (unless I roll a 6)."

There are so many varibles in combat, let along attacking squares: terrain (Quatre Bras), weather (Dresden), morale etc etc.

It was understood by all and sundry at the time that:
a) the best chance infantry had against cavalry was in square and b) the best chance cavalry had against a square was to unsettle it first.

There are numerous examples (sic et alia) of squares being broken by cavalry, but that doesn't mean they were steady squares, or good or bad troops.

The Empress Dragoons rode down a couple of Prussian 'squares' for instance in a small action 1814 (place/time later when I have a book handy) how?

The squares were a rear guard doing an orderly retreat, as they moved off the front companies facing the cavalry (two squadrons) didn't hear the command and stayed put, the rest of the battalion marched off to the rear.

The cavalry thinks, 'oh, thanks very much" and one squadron charges and routs them. The second battalion sees whats happens, and goes 'oh, ', or words to that effect, and wavers, the second squadron, sees its chance, charges and rides them down.

Empress Dragoons 2, Prussians 0

It happened, I think lots, but doesn't always get in the big picture histories…

cheers

Phillip

Shane,

Broadly, yes. But ona 50% chance of breaking a square – without any risk to the cavalry whatsoever?

mmm, not so sure they modelled the mechanics properly there.

-At Austerlitz the Russian Guard Heavy Cavalry ran down a well formed square of a very high quality French battalion on Stary Vinorady.-

Assuming Bigarre's 1/4 Ligne is being referred to, the generally accepted account is that the 1/4 formed square and repulsed the first cav attack. It wasn't until the Russians brought up a Horse battery and blasted the square at close range that the Russian Guard cav broke in.

Just a few comments to add.

The third rank was usually the only rank to fire, since the other two would be busy keeping the hedge of baoyonets visible and unbroken. I believe that usually the third rank did not fire as keeping the threat was as important as knocking down a few horses. In rulesets, there might be an adjustment in morals for coming into contact based upon whether the square has shot off its muskets.

There must be a realistic chance of breaking a square or you would have to question why there was so much calvary. Maybe the sole function of calvary is to freeze units into square and allow your side to advance, shoot or cannonade?

By the American Civil War, forming square was only a memory and in drill books (almost). The longer range of the rifled musket was probably not a major reason as the American terrain was much more broken up into small parcels and the range didn't play as often. The major reason was likely the higher rate of effective fire using percussion caps, which didn't misfire/not fire as often as a flintlock. Maybe we can use this to calibrate our heads on the effectiveness of squares- by the Civil War the balance tipped to the line's firepower being able to counteract calvary.

Broadly, yes. But ona 50% chance of breaking a square – without any risk to the cavalry whatsoever?

Not sure what you are talking about there Keraunos, where did you get this 50% figure from and what are you refering it to ?

Shane

bigdennis &
uruk hai
''The Buffs didn't see the lancers until they were on top of them and didn't have time to form square, otherwise there wouldn't have been a problem.''
Has to be said, that in addition to being in line and attacked from the flank, a sudden downpour stopped them firing….

Bringing me to another point:

To beat a square, in addition to the other factors you lot have mentioned, you really need to get them to fire at you: preferably at long distance and inneffectually.

So, the tactics you see being employed by preying cavalry is to make a series of feints, hope the square fires at long distance, then charge. Hopefully you're playing a game that allows a square to fire.

Essentially, cavalry can't break steady infantry, as horses won't charge into an impenetrable object, like a wall, or a line of immovable infantry. It won't matter whether or not the infantry fire. However, the bayonets will give the infantry confidence, and will help them to stand firm. If the infantry waver, the horses will see gaps, they won't see a solid impenetrable, object, and will continue their charge. The infantry will see that the horses aren't stopping and will lose all confidence and are more likely to break.
At Garcia Hernandez a wounded horse created the gap, and created the necessary conditions for the rest to happen.

Chouan
''Essentially, cavalry can't break steady infantry, as horses won't charge into an impenetrable object, like a wall, or a line of immovable infantry.''

Well, not quite true. Horses can be persuaded to barge into flesh – or indeed to try for a leap. It's stepping on uneven surfaces (like bodies) that their delicate ankles make them shy away from.

Didn't stop Bonaparte trying it at Waterloo!

Chouan
''Essentially, cavalry can't break steady infantry, as horses won't charge into an impenetrable object, like a wall, or a line of immovable infantry.''

Not quite true. Horses can be persuaded to barge into flesh – or indeed to try for a leap. It's stepping on uneven surfaces (like bodies) that their delicate ankles make them shy away from.

Didn't stop Bonaparte trying it at Waterloo!

Colin, I do not like your attitude. I do not have time to debate with you about whose credicials are stronger. I just commented on a painting that I saw and even gave you credit for your opinion

"Colin sugests French propaganda. That may be so, maybe a French reader may like to comment."

So if a French reader agrees or disagrees with you that is up to them. Not challenging your propaganda comment supports your position on the topic.

The flags in the painting are hanging in Napoleon's tomb. It is hared to dedate that they were taken.

Strategy and Tactics magazine did a study asking their readers to help call the broken square project in the 1980's.

The list was over 50 lines long I will go to the library in the next couple of weeks and get the data.

Every battle had some broken squares and other units overrun.

Shane is right as that is generally the way cavalry fought. They would wait to pounce on the infantry.

More thoughts when I have time.

Lord Ghee

But, Cacadores, they'll only try to jump something that they think that they can clear, which is why horse refuse fences and stop. Horse can be persuaded to barge into flesh, but only slowly, rather like police horses do; infantry with bayonets will persuade the horse not to. They won't charge into flesh if it looks too solid, as they don't want to get hurt. They will, however, charge through a small gap if they can see a clear space beyond. Unsteady infantry will create that gap. Steady infantry will ensure that that gap isn't there. Even the best trained hunter won't go through a hedge; it will go though a gap in a hedge though, even if it only a small one.

Rudy,

I am not really concerned about what you think about my attitude. You commented:

"An excert that I read on the painting covering 'The Last Trophies' talks about the theme being the flags captured by the Cavalry in their famous mass charge at Waterloo.

Many squares were not only broken but the soldiers died in mass numbers in those positions. So the units were virtually destroyed,"

The painting was done in 1903 and has no relevance as an historical source, unlike the memoirs of a French officer who was there and involved in the charges. Your second paragraph is palpable nonsense.

Opinions are not the same as research.

There are a number of examples of cavalry charges breaking infantry squares during the napouleonic era and shortly thereafter. Often their were terrain or weather condistions which influenced the outcome.

During the First Carlist wars, several lance armed cavalry units broken several infantry squares. At this battle it was raining heavily and the infantry lost their ability to fire.

During the Creek War 1812-14, the Americans camped in open hollow squares. Several of these were broken by foot assaults (the Creeks had few horse and no formal cavalry).

This has been an issue for debate among gamers as to the likelihood, since I first began researching back in the 1970s. I remember one article in the Wargamer's Digest called 'Boken Squares' which listed a number of occassions in which it occured. Some were by Cavalry, some were by foot troops (like the Dervish) and others by artillery.

At Mont-Saint-Jean it is known that the following allied standards were taken:

5th KGL
8th KGL
Luneburg Landwehr

These flags were not taken during the mass charges, but apparently during the fighting around La Haye Sainte.

Some French sources claim that between 4 and 6 standards in total were taken and that some of these were recovered by the allies at Le Caillou. However, there is no hard evidence to support anything other than the 3 listed above. This hardly supports claims of squares being broken.

Much of the infantry that fought in 1813 to 1814 was poorly trained; this is also the period when there are the most reported cases of squares being broken by cavalry (I am excluding the fighting in Spain). There seems to be a direct correlation between troop training and solidity of squares, which seems obvious, but it is nice to see it apparently supported by data.

As to horses charging into solid lines, they will not; as Chouan stated, they will go through gaps, which they are less likely to find when facing well trained infantry.

I am ever so delighted to see the usual fate of topics on Napoleonics Discussion. Like clockwork, the degenreate into the usual ad hominem ing contests.

well John, you just jumped to head of the class ;-p

Now John just because Colin and I did not see eye to eye in the beginning,it does not mean that I cannot recoginize a quality research effort on his part.

I tend to look at data with a rose color set of glasses which focuses on a game mechanic design point of view which may not be the best by some who research with other goals in mind.

On another issue and not solely applying to this thread. Individual prespectives and jounals are good for skirmish and tactical level design. However designing mechanics for higher levels of simulation does require the use of fewer abolutes.

Having Congestive Heart Failure, has changed my intensity on the value of certain areas of debate. I have filed away the napoleonic research and have over the past decade focused on other era of history. The only way I would pull them out is if someone asked me to help with some army list development but I do not expect that to happen.

Colin and I may disagree and have a good debate in the future or we may support each other on some other posts. that is part of the benefit of sharing data on the TMP site.