"Breaking Squares" Topic

Re-reading Parquin's "Napoleon's Army," I came across the following passage from the Battle of Wagram:

"General Colbert was hit in the head by a bullet, and several officers and fifty or sixty chasseurs were killed or wounded. The 7th [chasseurs a cheval] had to turn back. Seeing this, Colonel Castex, instead of charging the square in front of him as he had been ordered to do, chose to lead the regiment, which was advancing at the trot, against the square which had just repelled the 7th Chasseurs with its fire. He herefore ordered the squadrons to incline to the right and charge.

"The square could not resist this new charge and was broken. To the left the 9th Hussars had overcome its square. Thus the brigade had taken two out of its three objectives in the face of artillery fire from the enemy . . ."

No doubt the infantry formations were actually Battalionsmasse or Divisionsmasse, rather than hollow squares, but the point is the same. Every time I read on this forum about how squares were invincible versus cavalry, I read an account of the opposite.

I think there may be a lot of incidents that never made it into the history books.

We have a lot of accounts of squares repelling cav -- and very good cav at that. Not so many where the cav breaks the squares.

Like most combats in the Napoleonic wars, the psychology of the troops probably had more to do with things than anything else.

mjc

Here's another example, again from Paquin's memoires:

"In the course of April, 1812, the army proceeded a third time to the relief of Ciudad-Rodrigo, which was once more besieged. Once more the British army withdrew. In the valley of the Mondego we caught up with the rear-guard which was formed by a Portuguese division. Major Denys, who had succeeded Monsieur de Verigny, suddenly fell upon these troops with the two hundred men of the escort. The weather favoured this attack against infantry for driving rain prevented them from firing. Their squares could not stand up to the charge. The disintegration of the first led to disorder in the others which wavered and broke when the troops who had formed them fled to the neighbouring woods."

Sure, the rain prevented the infantry from firing, but it would seem that 200 chasseurs a cheval overthrew an entire division in square.

Interesting that it was light cavalry that succeded against squares. Seems like their vim and vingour can be underrated.

The 16th Lancers broke Sikh squares at Aliwal, with heavy losses. Maybe Sikh squares don't count as proper squares to Napoleony buffs, but those Punjabi lads had been trained by Froggies and others, and they didn't muck about.

It does seem when one breaks, nearby ones run off.

Having seen this discussion for many, many years, I think I've finally figured out where it all goes south. We are fascinated by the question of whether cavalry chould overrun a square by charging into it and yet we never come up with any very clearcut examples or instructions or anything else. I think the simple reason is that it just didn't happen that way, and it never occurred to anyone back then to say so, because they knew horses and knew that wouldn't happen. Instead, squares got broken when someone panicked, or a breach was caused artillery, or a gap developed when the square tried to move, or an accident, or… So cavalry charged, and either the square stayed steady or it did not, but driving a horse into the ranks had nothing to do with it…

N,

Re:

but driving a horse into the ranks had nothing to do with it…

Well…… ;)

DB

Oh no! Not again!