"How good were the cavalry regiments at Waterloo" Topic

REf: How good were the French infantry facing Brits at Waterloo?

As per my post on the thread below, perhaps better to start new thread. How would you rate the various cavalry regiments at Waterloo IAW Lord Hill's a,b,c,d system.

cheers
Edward

I'll jump in and answer this (gotta love the Naps boards), but no doubt I'll be somewhat wrong… my understanding is that the French cavalry was still somewhat depleted in 1815 in both quality of men and horses, and was therefore, in general, out-classed by the allied horse.

TW.

Personally, I believe the French cavalry of 1815 to be good but their downfall was how they were led, or more to the point how they were forced to operate…

For the Anglo-Dutch I'll say KGL very professional, British Heavies and Lights over enthusiastic, hard to control in formations above sqn level but brave.

The Dutch/Beligans hard to judge, perhaps not given thier due by British authors and historians. Having been part of the French Empire before Waterloo they would of had a percentage of veterans and experience officers.

cheers
Edward

I'm sure it will turn out to be a shameless British slur on the honour of brave German lads, but I believe the Duke of Cumberland's Hussars weren't up to much.

Of the British light dragoons I think Wellington rated only the 12th under "Fred" Ponsonby.

Dutch Belgian light cavalry were not so reliable (D), but the Dutch/Belgian heavies fought well.

KGL id put at high quality (As or Bs), British light, Id put at Bs or Cs, depending on regiment.

British Heavies.. well mounted and brave, hard to put, obviously capable of besting the French, but not so well controlled. (Bs with special rule?)

Brunswick .. not sure about.

French, I imagine would run the whole gammut fom A to D, depending on which regiment it was.

I think the French cavalry were equal to any. It's the Battle of Waterloo specifically that shows a poor performance. But that is because they were improperly used.

Instead, look at the line cavalry at Quatre Bras. Both lancer regiments, and both chasseur regiments, performed memorable feats of arms. They were engaged and re-engaged many times during the battle, and were never bested.

The Guard cavalry were as good as any on any battlefield. Ney had completely rebuilt them during the Restoration to full strength on good horses of regulation color.

My opinion is that the French Guard, Carabiniers, Cuirassiers were the equal of the British Household and Union brigades. The two line dragoon regiments present were solid, and the same with the light cavalry. I would put French hussars up to British or KGL. They just never got a chance to prove it.

Plus the French command structure was greatly superior. The AA had no organization above brigade, unless you want to argue about the DB units, which could be called a division.

If the British had actually been retreating when Ney ordered up Milhaud and Kellerman, there would have been great slaughter that the AA cavalry could not, IMHO, have prevented.

The brigade, division and corps structure of the French is a real old canard in terms of comparisons of the armies in the 100 days. At Waterloo of course that multi-layer structure actuasly counted for little if anything.

Neither the divison nor the corps commanders sought to persuade Ney (especially after the failure of the first cavalry attack) that a proper all arms assault would be required to dislodge or even serious threaten the allied position.

All the accounts of the behaviour of the senior cavalry commanders shows them merely rallying groups (not regiments, brigades or divisions) and leading them back up the slopes to the aid of their fellows still fighting there, with no real grand tactical aim at all.

Ney gets far too much personal blame IMO for the failure of the French cavalty attacks at Waterloo. The day actually showed a systemic failure by pretty much the whole leadership of the French cavalry. I would discount the notion of any inherent superiorty in French cavalry command structure- it looks superficially convincing on an org chart- certainly didn't play out like that in real life.

Back closer to the issue of the troops themselves- here's a question.
Excitement and confusion in the ranks of which cavalry regiments led, according to one of their officers present, to their attacking without orders, and them suffering almost 50% casualties??

Clue- they were not part of the Union or Household Brigades.

Answers on a postcard….

I thought I read in Andrew Roberts book on Waterloo that the Chassuers a cheval de la Garde attacked without orders and the rest of the Guard Cavalry Division followed them.

cheers
Edward

ps: I'll give the 13th Light Dragoons a B+ for good service that day at Waterloo.

seneffe,

Respectfully disagree. The corps commanders had no authority over Ney, who was quite unreasonable by that time.

More fault goes to Napoleon, who let it all get out of hand.

Lefevre-Desouettes, as CO of the gd lt cav, can be faulted for charging without orders. He was frustrated at not being allowed to take part at Quatre Bras, but that's no excuse.

French cavalry performed superbly at Quatre Bras and Ligny. Pire's light cavalry division ranged over the battlefield inflicting heavy losses on allied infantry. Kellermann's unsupported attack on the British center with only one brigade of cuirassiers was superb. He pierced the allied center and if he had been supported it could have been decisive. Ney ordered him forward on his own, despite Kellermann's vehement protests.

The French cavalry overall was superior in both quality and organization to the allied cavalry as a whole. The Guard cavalry was superb. Their performance as the army's rear guard at Waterloo's ending was exemplary, the Grenadiers a Cheval leaving the battlefield in perfect order.

The French cavalry pursuit of the Anglo-Dutch army on 17 June was well-handled and aggressive, it was only slowed and stopped by the mud and weather. The British cavalry was roughly handled. Mercer's account is very enlightening on this subject as is Houssaye's 1815.

The French cavalry counterattack against the Union Brigade at Waterloo was skillfully handled. The British were hit in front and flank by cuirassiers and lancers, respectively, and for all intents and purposes destroyed.

Ney was the officer that launched the initial cavalry attacks at Waterloo without Napoleon's knowledge. When Napoleon saw what had happened, he remarked that it was an hour too early. Contrary to British accounts, General Delort stated that several British squares were broken and Brigadier Pilloy's letters of the battle recount him riding over and through allied squares (he was a cuirassier).

The command and control problem was that the commander of the Cavalry Reserve, Grouchy, was not present. It might have made a difference if he had been present and Ney ordered a charge. Grouchy being Grouchy, I don't see him allowing that to happen. That was the command and control problem. And that was Napoleon's fault, not the command and control structure within the Armee du Nord.

Sincerely,
K

No British squares were broken at Waterloo.

Cheers
Edward

That's the common British wisdom/party line on the subject, but according to French eyewitnesses who were participants in the charges, that isn't correct.

What probably happened is that squares were torn up and broken, but the survivors toughly reformed around surviving officers and NCOs and rallied on the unit's colors.

Sincerely,
K

27th comes to mind…

Then there were those six allied colors the French took…all by the French cavalry… ;-)

Sincerely,
K

13thLD,

There were two Guard cavalry divisions in 1815. One was light cavalry (chasseurs and lancers) and the other heavy cavalry (grenadiers and dragoons).

At Waterloo's ending when the French Guard cavalry formed the rear guard, they were in line with the Guard Lancer Regiment on the right, and the heavy cavalry on the left.

As the British cavalry came off the ridge in pursuit and approached the Guard horsemen the Guard lancers presented lances in preparation to charge.

The British cavalry veered to their right and attacked the Grenadiers a Cheval instead.

The Grenadiers fired their muskets from the halt, discarded them, drew sabres and charged.

There is more than one reason the Prussian took up the pursuit.

Sincerely,
K

Six allied colours or six British colours, which is it.
There is a difference between a British Square and a Allied Square.

The 27th (Inniskilling) Foot were not broken by French Cavalry but suffered heavy losses by French Artillery. One observer reported the dead lying in square where they fell.

Two division of Guard Cavalry, very well. However part of the Guard Cavalry charged without orders causing confusion to units around them. For a so-called elite force not very professional and displays a lack of leadership.

As far as the Grenadiers they still left the field to Anglo-Dutch Cavalry. I don't recall ever reading about a effective French Cavalry rearguard allowing the French Forces to reform and stand against the Prussian pursuit in the hours following the battle.

cheers
Edward

Contrary to British accounts, General Delort stated that several British squares were broken and Brigadier Pilloy's letters of the battle recount him riding over and through allied squares (he was a cuirassier).

Yes but that's rubbish.

Then there were those six allied colors the French took…all by the French cavalry…

which 6 colours were they then?

27th comes to mind…

why? what has the 27th got to do with cavalry charges?

'Yes but that's rubbish.'

Why? Only British or allied claims are valid? These two cavalrymen were there and were involved in the cavalry charges. Kellermann broke a Brunswick square at Quatre Bras on 16 June when he attacked the British center with Guiton's cuirassier brigade. I see no reason not to give credit to these Frenchmens' accounts of their actions at Waterloo. To merely state 'that's rubbish' is not suggestive of historical inquiry and merely taking a one-sided and perhaps an incorrect view of what actually happened.

As to colors taken, there was a color of the KGL taken and a captain of the Guard Chasseurs a Cheval took another color during the cavalry charges. The 69th Foot also lost their King's color at Quatre Bras, but that wasn't one of the six reportedly taken at Waterloo. The information is in Scott Bowden's Armies at Waterloo and it is also mentioned in John Elting's Swords Around A Throne. Brigadier Pilloy's letters can be found in the older La Sabretache.

Sincerely,
K

Lord Hill

"which 6 colours were they then?"

British 69th Ft. – Taken at Quatre Bras.
Rest at Waterloo:
5th & 8th K.G.L.
3/2nd Nassau
Hanoverian Luneburg Field Bn.
Not sure about the last, maybe another Netherlandish colour??

13thLD,

I would highly recommend reading Antoine de Brack's memoir, Cavalry Outpost Duties. He was an officer in the Guard Lancer Regiment and has left some very valuable insight into various actions of the period in his memoir. What the Guard cavalry did was stop the British cavalry and then withdrew in order. De Brack's memoir is one of the best of the period.

Sincerely,
K

So I guess those six colours were not taken from "broken" British squares. As for the 69th they were caught in line at Quatre Bras.

I think we can confidently state there were no British squares broken at Waterloo.

Thank you for the info Camcleod. Ref the 5th and 8th KGL I believe that they were caught in line by French Cavalry when they lost their colours. Once again not in square.

Can anybody state how the Luneburg Field and 3/2 Nassau lost their colours.

cheers
Edward

why? what has the 27th got to do with cavalry charges?

They were standing in square for a start, which you usually only do when faced with cavalry. As for all their casualties being suffered from artillery fire I would argue with that, I am sure they suffered severely from the cavalry attacks as well.

Shane

They were standing in square for a start, which you usually only do when faced with cavalry. As for all their casualties being suffered from artillery fire I would argue with that, I am sure they suffered severely from the cavalry attacks as well.

The 27th were not in square when they lost a lot of men in a short space of time. They were in column (so there can't have been any cavalry around). They suffered most of their casualties from the fire of French infantry who had, at that point, had taken possession of La Haye Saint.

Why? Only British or allied claims are valid? These two cavalrymen were there and were involved in the cavalry charges. Kellermann broke a Brunswick square at Quatre Bras on 16 June when he attacked the British center with Guiton's cuirassier brigade. I see no reason not to give credit to these Frenchmens' accounts of their actions at Waterloo. To merely state 'that's rubbish' is not suggestive of historical inquiry and merely taking a one-sided and perhaps an incorrect view of what actually happened.

Isn't that what you are doing in taking the views of 2 Frenchman as gospel?

'I think we can confidently state there were no British squares broken at Waterloo.'

With the traditional, nationalistic view, yes you can. However, with evidence from French participants eyewitness accounts, no you cannot unless you exhaustively research the subject which has not been done. Based on research and historic inquiry the subject remains open, therefore 'we' cannot 'condidently state' that no British squares were broken at Waterloo.

Sincerely,
K

Shane you are correct.

The allied line was being attacked by large numbers of French infantry in open order closely supported by artillery that was moved and emplaced sometimes as close as 100 yards to the allied line.

Reformed cavalry, cuirassiers in particular, supported this effort and allied infantry had to remain in square or were ridden down. This is when Ompteda's brigade was destroyed by French cuirassiers.

Kielmansegge's brigade was systematically being reduced in numbers by close range French artillery fire during this time also. This was also the time when Hougoumont was finally bypassed to the west and the main allied line was attacked.

If these tactics had been adopted earlier in the day Waterloo could have been a French victory. Wellington was in definite trouble and without the arrival of the Prussians he was done.

It should also be noted that the French were fighting Wellington's army outnumbered as approximately 16,000 French were employed to keep the Prussians off Napoleon's flank.

References are Siborne's history of Waterloo, Ropes book on the Waterloo campaign, and Houssaye's 1815.

Sincerely,
K

At Waterloo the 4 British battalions in Halkett's brigade were merged into 2 squares. They were easily the weakest British brigae with only the 30th having been in the Peninsula.
During the day both squares panicked and fled, though at different times and both later resumed their positions.

The square of the 30th/73rd stood its ground well but the square of the 33rd and 69th gave way under the cavalry attacks. Morris of the 73rd later wrote,
"The next square to us, was charged at the same time, and were unfortunately broken into and retired in confusion, followed by the curassiers; but the Life Guards coming up, the French in their turn, were obliged to retrogade, and the 33rd and 69th resumed their position, in square, on our right, and maintained it during the rest of the day."

Later in the day it was the turn of the square of the 30th and 73rd to give way. The continued heavy fire of the French artillery finally became too much to bear and the square crumbled into disorder, the disciplined ranks transformed in an instant into a panicking mob who turned tail and fled. Ensign Macready later left a vivid, and unusually candid, account of the crush of bodies trying to make good their escape from the relentless grape shot,
"While men and Officers were jammed together and carried along by the pressure from without, many of the latter, some cursing, others literally crying with rage and shame, were seizing the soldiers and calling on them to halt, while these admriable fellows, good-humouredly laughing at their excitement, were struggling to get out of the melee, or exclaiming "By God, I'll stop sir, but I'm off my legs."
The mob, however, stopped of its own accord and the two regiments soon returned to their position, an example of Wellington's maxim that "all soldiers run away, it is a matter of how quickly they return."
Macready also commented how, if the French cavalry had at that moment attacked them they would have been finished.

There are many (hundreds?) of candid British accounts from both Quatre Bras and Waterloo documenting their own failings in great detail. For this reason I believe very strongly that they are the ONLY incidents of British squares crumbling (and one of them, as above, was not from cavalry).
For this reason I believe the assertions of the two French officers above to be incorrect. But its always interesting and important to hear other versions. I was directing the word "rubbish" at the two French gentlemen not at you Kevin!

'Isn't that what you are doing in taking the views of 2 Frenchman as gospel?'

No, I'm not. It is contrary evidence to the traditional view that has been stated and restated since 18 June 1815. Again, we should look at this critically and examine it historically, not nationalistically. Excellent historians have stated the same thing, Ropes among them. But if there is contrary evidence it needs to be considered and French accounts, especially something from a cuirassier corporal who survived the charges (and he charged with two different regiments-I have the letters if you'd like them) it gives a different perspective on the action which should be considered and not dismissed merely because the participants are French.

Sincerely,
K

The 27th were not in square when they lost a lot of men in a short space of time. They were in column (so there can't have been any cavalry around). They suffered most of their casualties from the fire of French infantry who had, at that point, had taken possession of La Haye Saint.

Not so sure about that, the books I read clearly stated they suffered these casualties while in square…

Ian Fletcher's – Wellington's Reigments, for one springs to mind.

As far as I know the only source for the commonly held belief that the 27th were in square comes from Kinkaid's oft-quoted remark that after the battle it was possible to see the outline of the 27th's formation "where they lay dead in square" (or something along those lines, I don't have it to hand).
But another Rifleman – Kinkaid's superior, Beckwith – writes,
"[The 27th Foot] were placed in column , under the fire of several batteries, and there, without forming line or firing a shot in return, the bullets ploughed through their men until nearly two-thirds went down, and the survivors, as fearing their own nerves might give way, but resolved not to go back, pressed their head and shoulders inwards, forming a solid ring, and thus leaning together, and striving, as it were, to push all to the centre, moved round and round like men in a mill, apparently frantic with horror and excitement…"

The fate of the 27th Foot is part of the legend of Waterloo – most books on the battle describing how the Regiment was "wiped out" or "died in square". Although it is true that the 27th, in its exposed position, suffered more fatalities than any other unit (but not casualties), it is misleading to single out this regiment as being far worse off than many others, and the traditional descriptions of their total decimation are, when one looks at the casualty returns, a myth.
Even deducting 100 non-combatants from the nominal strength, the regiment would still have around 300 men unwounded by the end of the day. The diary of an officer from one of the absent companies states that they had been ordered to proceed as quick as possible as at Waterloo there were only "300 rank and file left"
Over the two days' fighting three British infantry Regiments – the 1st, 32nd, and 92nd – suffered worse percentage losses.

Far from lying dead in square, enough of the Regiment was still standing to take part in the general advance of Wellington's line at the end of day and, accompanied by the 40th Foot, took possession of La Haye Saint. Numerous accounts from the 32nd Foot speak of becoming mixed up with the 27th during the final advance.

So, once again, the American posters blindly love and worship all things French, (nice uniforms, it's the same with their 'classy' love of the SS) the British posters flatly refuse to believe anyone but the British won Waterloo, and Shane speaks sense throughout! I'm just waiting for Pictors to rock up and tell us the Americans actually won Waterloo!

Dear god, My time machine works! it's 2008, 2007, 2006, 2005, etc.

John

Alright Kevin lets say for arguements sake that a couple or more British Squares were broken? From what I have studied in period history usually when squares break the men flee in panic disrupting other squares and formations around them. How is it the the Anglo-Dutch line held? If French cavalry as you stated above were:

"The French cavalry overall was superior in both quality and organization to the allied cavalry as a whole"

How was it that they were not able to break the allied line or force it to retire? Perhaps it was the excellent performance of the Anglo-Dutch lights and the remains of the Heavies that countered the "superior" French cavalry. Or was it the superior performance of "broken" British-Dutch-German infantry that were able to reform squares.

cheers
Edward

Edward

'From what I have studied in period history usually when squares break the men flee in panic disrupting other squares and formations around them.'

That isn't always the case. Tough, well-led and commanded infantry could hold together until supports showed up. Or, they could reform later.

'How was it that they were not able to break the allied line or force it to retire?'

They were not properly supported in their attacks is the usual reason for the failure.

In case you didn't read what I stated already, what I said was that the infantry were probably able to reform around their colors, officers and surviving NCOs thus preserving their unit integrity. I posted that yesterday.

With the ever-all-consuming desire for 'new' information I would think Brigadier Pilloys letters, which have only been mentioned in one English language publication that I know of, would spark the interest of Waterloo enthusiasts. I guess I was wrong on that one.

Sincerely,
Kevin

'So, once again, the American posters blindly love and worship all things French, (nice uniforms, it's the same with their 'classy' love of the SS)'

In actuality, my first admired army for the period was the British. I came, over time, to admire the Grande Armee. I certainly don't 'blindly love and worship all things French' which is really a lousy thing to say.

I don't see any ''classy' love of the SS' either in the US. I certainly don't think of them as anything more than war criminals, thugs, and bullies. Comments like that have no place here and the accusation is inaccurate as well as ignorant.

I would respectfully ask that you remove your posting because it is insulting as well as ludicrous.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Kevin and I don't aways agree but lets keep it Napoleonic.

cheers
Edward

So Kevin am I correct in thinking that you don't believe that the allied cavalry help repulse the mass French cavalry charges.

Cheers
Edward

Edward,

No, not at all. The biggest problem, though, was the lack of combined arms support on the French side. And, as Napoleon remarked, the cavalry attacks were too early.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Its amazing that the squares thing comes up again and again. As Lord Hill's always well researched posts indicate- the actual British casualty figures just don't sustain the contention of broken squares.

Clearly there was at least one example of a British unit in square running at the approach of the French cavalry (to be saved incidentally by the same Lifeguards earlier destroyed by the French cavalry- good thing no one told them they'd been destroyed I say…), but not not squares physically broken apart with all the losses and dissolution that typically brought about.

The 27th did suffer very heavy casualties, but we know what they were, musket and roundshot wounds almost entirely. Likewise 5th KGL clearly wrecked as a fighting unit and casualties to match, with many more sword cuts and thrusts as you would expect. But of course the 5th were famously in line not square.

Of all Napoleonic battles, Waterloo has amongst the most copious and easily accessible primary documentary record available, yet these half informed pieces of what do look suspiciously like wishful thinking still crop up.

Both sides fought very well in general, with examples of panicked retreat (or lets call it rout) by both sides including British- not allied- troops, as Lord Hill has again itemised with detailed sourcing. So I don't understand why people still feel the need to try to gild the lily about the British squares amongst other things.
I think the proponents of the 'Waterloo alternate history project' do probably need to call it a day.

Red Lancer Antoine De Brack's account is indeed valauble, being very illuminating and honest. He does point out that the Guard cavalry, although it had been fighting all afternoon, completely blocked any British cavalry attempts to pursue at the end of the battle. He also however gives detailed accounts of the confusion in the ranks of the Guard cavalry leading to it attacking without orders, the failure of his Lancers to break any squares, and the severe casualties to his own unit caused by the poor shooting of the French Guard Artillery. Well worth a read.

The 27th did suffer very heavy casualties, but we know what they were, musket and roundshot wounds almost entirely.

Okie, could you tell me where you found this information on the break down of the proportion of injuries and death inflicted? I am interested. Also, remember, pistol, carbines etc come under the heading of small arms or musketry for casualty recording in my books.

Like I said, I do not think anyone can say honestly that the 27th lost all their casualties to artillery fire. They were positioned directly in the centre of the allied position and thus suffered from the brunt of the French attacks all day. This included artillery, light troops and cavalry attacks. They suffered these casualties from artillery and light troops earlier on and cavalry attacks later. I dare say that if any squares were broken then this one would have been top on the list. I am not declaring it was, merely that it was in a very vulnerable way by the time the cavalry attacked.

I have read that yes, they were exposed to artillery fire and musketry fire but they also were directly in the path of the French cavalry attacks, this means they would have been subjected to sabre slashes, lance thrusts, carbine and pistol fire and even the horses themselves, to say that the French cavalry had nothing to do with their dwindling numbers is ludicrous, they added to them.

People tend to think squares are somehow immune to cavalry attacks and that the men in the ranks are safe, this is false, veteran cavalry who encounter squares know that they have to try every method of breaking them they can because the squares are tough nuts to crack. The 27th were in square during the cavalry attacks and had to endure the full brunt of these attacks as did many other btlns and suffered for it.

And just to make myself clear, I am discussing this from the point of view of a normal debate, I have no hidden agenda or bias here. I never believed the British contention in their reports that no squares were broken, I have always felt that this was typical propaganda of the time to hide just how bad the day actually was.

p.s. I criticize the French just as much in the 1815 campaign, they made horrific mistakes and tried to hide things for national pride and this was not just from Napoleon's own mouth. Both sides attempted to cover up many things about that campaign.

Shane

Very interesting Shane I have started this as a new thread.

cheers
Edward

Shane, I'm sorry but so many of your assertions are based on statements which are just plain wrong.

They were positioned directly in the centre of the allied position and thus suffered from the brunt of the French attacks all day.

No they weren't – Lambert's brigade only entered the battle late in the day, around 3 o'clock at an earliest estimate. The extraordinary thing is how they took such massive casualties in such a SHORT time.
I have found not one single mention of the 27th fighting off cavalry in square. I have, however, found ample accounts of them getting absolutely peppered by French musket fire in their exposed position standing in column of companies once La Haye Sainte was lost (for example, see my quote above).
Furthermore, extensive research at the National Army Museum and PRO provides vast amounts of supplementry evidence. Virtually every wound is listed as "gunshot wound" (I have a list, for example, of the EXACT wound of ALL the officers… "Lt Thomas Craddock – shot through the nose" etc) whereas looking at similar documents for the 69th (the regiment chopped up by French cavalry at Quatre Bras) the number of "sabre wound to head and hands".."sabre wound to both shoulders" etc tells a gruesomely striking story.
I have not come across a single sabre wound for any member of the 27th.
I hope this is of interest.

Then there were those six allied colors the French took…all by the French cavalry… ;-)

Are these the ones that got left behind in the retreat? That was very careless wasn't it?! :-)

'Are these the ones that got left behind in the retreat? That was very careless wasn't it?! :-)'

Yes, quite so. Only the colours of the 69th and 2/3 Nassau seem to have been taken off the battlefields.

As for the fate of the Luneburg Field bn., they were also wrecked by the Prince of Orange – ordered to advance in line and cut to pieces by French cavalry.

Not sure when or where the 2/3rd Nassau lost their colours.

Yes, quite so. Only the colours of the 69th and 2/3 Nassau seem to have been taken off the battlefields.

Tricky to prove then if you left 4 of them behind. Would have thought a captured colour was quite a prized trophy and whoever had them would have made sure not to leave them lying about! :-)

A propos the French accounts on the breaking of British squares, it is worth remembering that several Hanoverian units were wearing red, and the writer may have confused them with British regiments.

According to KK/10thMarine above, Pilloy refers to "allied" squares and (depending on when he wrote his memoirs) Delort could easily be confusing similar events at Quatre Bras and Waterloo – a not uncommon phenomenon among old soldiers reminiscing.

from the french point of view in close combat against the
allied squares (all of em) the problem was most of the
regimental units sruggled through such a hail of musketery
and round shot ,not to mention canister that they invariably
never managed to charge home and break into any squares.ageed squares fell apart for a while …..but they
did re-form. Even the dreaded red lancer/polish combo were
so frustrated a few threw their 9 foot of ash and steel
against these bastions and rode away. the avaerage casuality
rate for the french armee blance was 50 pct, which gives
you an idea of just how effevtive these squares were.

now Quatre Bras is a different kettle of fish…..with
units virtually on top of each other in head high vegatation
the french cavalry ran riot……and squares were broken.

Genuinely interested – are there accounts of Hannovarian/Dutch/Belgian/Nassau/Brunswick squares being broken? (please no quoting Mercer, if I hear his crock again I'll scream)