"Lance against square." Topic

Dear forum members, when you play a wargame, did your lancers had an average point to rout the infantry squares?

I asked this because it seems that in Nap Era the lancers managed to destroy the corners of the infantry squares and in consecuence, then they manage to broke it.

It was impossible to made same thing to riders only with sabres.

Amicalement
Armand

For your reading pleasure:

TMP link

"It was impossible to made same thing to riders only with sabres."

Erm… no, sorry.

Allen

Many years ago a wise wargamer suggested that in an ideal Napoleonic game, cavalry would have about 5-10% chance of breaking a square.

However, the player commanding the cavalry should be told that he has an 80-90% chance of breaking that same square.

Whahahaha! MJS- love your comment!
Gee, I guess all those ulans have to be pretty deadly vs squares of infantry, or if one combines all the hussars with lances or send forward the cossacks those will be murder vs squares!
Mac's divisional square or those Leib-Guard Russians in reg squares were doing so poorly vs heavy cavalry- and those were not even those deadly ulans with lances.
Whatever we are smoking… err reading on this thread- I'd like to have some!!!

well said MJS

In my own rules there is a zero percent chance of cavalry breaking a square. And I like it that way. On the other hand, if the infantry are NOT in square, they have a zero percent chance of surviving!

Actually, cavalry charges in my rules are different than what you'd be used to. A regiment does not move up into contact, fight, and then either pursue or fallback. Cavalry will flow forward the entire distance of the charge and fight every infantry and artillery unit it touches – and then have to recall back to the starting point in order to do more.

The only things that halt a cavalry charge would be impassible terrain and opposing cavalry.

"Cavalry will flow forward the entire distance of the charge and fight every infantry and artillery unit it touches – and then have to recall back to the starting point in order to do more"

I very much like that idea.

Like a jo jo?

Like a yo-yo. Or a wave of water, crashing through everything and receding back whence it came.

This also prevents "Movement by charge" where cavalry end up charging through stuff to end up behind the opponent's army. If you want to get behind your opponent, you must MOVE there.

I'd love to expand on my comments. Cavalry have two roles in my game – to charge stuff, and to protect infantry/artillery from enemy cavalry. The protection part comes in when a player puts a couple of squadrons BETWEEN vunlerable infantry (moving in the open, for example), thereby putting a physical barrier in the way of an enemy cavalry charge. This validates the Austrian concept of attaching cavalry to a division, by the way.

In a charge, we mark where the cavalry start, move them the entire charge distance (move+2d6", assuming they don't hit cavalry or an obstacle) and then resolve combat against all of the infantry and artillery actually touched by the charge. Infantry in square survive. Infantry that aren't or can't form square are eliminated. Same for artillery, except it can be SUPPORTED – in this case if by an infantry square, then the cavalry just pass on by.

Here's a link if you're interested. I'm not selling anything and these rules are specifically for MY collection, but maybe you'll find it interesting (or not!)

link

The Napoleonic era tactics, to me, does include the Carlist wars in Spain. There are several cases of lance armed cavalry, the main weapon of the Spanish cavalry.

Lance armed cavalry combined with wet weather was a combination for infantry squares.

Lancers are lethal against unformed infantry, but against squares I would agree are not really much better than cavalry with pistols and sabres

Yes – sure they've got better reach, but that isn't going to make the horses any more keen about charging home…. I do agree about wet weather though – *then* the lance can become important, as you don't need to charge home as such – a slower approach can be made since you're not getting shot, and then that extra reach can be handy….

The problem even in wet weather is that the horse has to be prepared to approach the square and it's the horse that is going to get bayonetted, not the rider.

link

The section on 'Squares vs. Cavalry' has numerous examples of Squares standing and breaking vs. cavalry.

Was the lance ever thrown as a missile in the way that some ancient cavalry reputedly did?

Old Bear if you are going for an impetus charge against a square, I can see your point about the horses. The ability to get the horses up to a full gallop with impetus in the mud and rain was a problem as well.

However the most effective tactic in wet weather is to slow gallop to the square and 'fence' with the infantry. The longer reach of the lance and the infantry lack of manuever room to fence gave the cavalry a distict advantage.

Fred with some of the irregular forces, forces in Spain and India, lance would have been their main and in some cases only weapons. Could they have thrown them? Yes, but would that have been a widely used tactic rather than an isolated incidents.

Clay, from your link:

our own "Old People" rules for gamers with short attention spans and poor eyesight.

You MUST be able to market these! But not before I download this stuff please :o)

Rudy,

I'm wondering how effective 'fencing' with the infantry would be, mainly due to the frontage involved. If the lancer is head on then would the reach of the lance not be counteracted by the neck and head of the horse being exposed to bayonet thrusts? Equally, if side on, then the rear end of the horse would be unprotected.

I am somewhat convinced by the "fencing" idea; a few years ago, some of us (who at the time had access to horses), tried to recreate this scenario using sticks cut to the lengths of both lances and muskets with bayonets.

The experiment was slightly flawed as the horses were not battle trained, neither were the people, nobody was actually trying to kill anyone, and there were not enough of us to recreate the effect of neighbouring files of infantry. However, one thing became clear: the "lancers" did not have too many problems "sticking" the front rank of the square; they could then move on to the second rank, and so on. It certainly showed that, in the right conditions, lancers could unpick a square.

Colin

Then why didn't every cavalry unit have lances and do that? Well formed squares just did not break unless something very unusual happened.

I'm just dubious of any ruleset that allows cavalry to successfully charge a well-formed square that is not suffering from some other negative effect.

(And thanks for the complement on the rules!)

Then why didn't every cavalry unit have lances and do that? Well formed squares just did not break unless something very unusual happened.

Except that everyone's already been pretty clear that they are talking about unusual circumstances – specifically it being wet enough that nobody can get shots off…. Under ordinary circumstances you'd just get shot to pieces trying it, so your question's pretty much answered already….

Clay,

The "fencing" could only work when rain had rendered the infantry muskets incapable of firing; if they could fire, the cavalry would not get close enough to fence.

As to why not all cavalry had lances, using a lance was, and is, far more difficult than using a sword. Training lancers was a notoriously difficult task.

Colin

Okay, I was just wondering. A few months back the LOG group had been discussing all of the wonderful abilities of Davout's Corps at Auerstadt…and I commented that it should not become the 'de facto' example of what should happen in wargame.

Same thing here. The original post makes no mention of weather, by the way. Just lances vs. squares.

@Camcleod- very good link, thanks!
Unfortunately many cases in the text are not supported by any reference whatsoever…

The use of issuing lances to all troops was considered by many armies after the Napoleonic wars. The Spanish adopted lances for all but a few elite special units due to weapons cost as much as anything else.

Did not the british transfer some non-Lance units to create the Lancer units of the 1800s?

I have heard the words regimental tradition when it came to European armies adopting the lance for a majority of their units.

I think the wooded nature of the American frontier made lance armed troops less effective. IF the USA had been on the Great plains in the 1700s before the advent of the more effective rifles then we may have had lancers in the US army.

Training for lancer use? Yes lances were harder to use. Considering the amount of down time (non-campaign activity) between campaign. there would have been plenty of time to train troops in lance use.

[I'm wondering how effective 'fencing' with the infantry would be, mainly due to the frontage involved. ]

Not to mention that it doesn't make much sense, numerically. Presumably, even if the lancer could kill an infantryman with that one thrust, that's probably the last/only use of that lance. (In order to kill, he has to pierce, and once he pierces, he probably can't extract it from a falling man, from 10+ feet away, on horseback.)

So each lancer **might** be able to score one clean kill in this manner, and then **perhaps** go back to his own lines to get re-lanced.

How many lancers are in the army, vice how much enemy infantry? That doesn't sound like a decisive, battle-winning formula to me.

Finally: I thought Napoleon created the French lancer regiments after deciding that his *cavalry* was disadvantaged by not having an equivalent response to this weapon in the line regiments. (In other words, he was apparently not thinking in terms of its use against enemy foot, but rather against enemy horse.)

As you can see by a few examples below, lancers were used in the Latin Wars of Independence. In Argentina lancers dominated cavalry forces while i nthe rest of latin America the percentage of lancers drop to below 25%. The Royalist troops after 1814 were veterans of the Penisular War.

Two wxamples:
Jun 15th 1814 La Puerta II: Bove's Loyaist forces consisted on mainly Gaucho lancers and killed over 1,000 Creole Patriot troops.

Mate el Miel 1817 had 500 patriot lancers conduct a night attaack on 3,000 Royalist with arty support. the Royalist lost 900 troops.

A few examples of lancer troops in the Carlist wars which used Napoleonic tactics.

August 1834. VIANA. Zumalacárregui's 200 Carlist lancers then met and broke the veteran Cazadores de la Guardia Real. The lancers went on to overwhelm a battalion of the 19th Line 'Castilla' Regiment.

August 30 1836. BUJALERO. Cristinos Guard units (Coraceros Gde Cuirassiers Sqdn 100 men + 2 Provincial Guard Bns) vs Carlist Gomez expedition (2 Provisional Sqdns of 90 men each + ) . The Carlist cavalry defeats the Cristinos cavalry and the Cristinos infantry surrenders.

Mar 10 1837. Skirmishes near Bilbao. Cristinos (28 Bns + Lanceros and Cazadores of the Royal Guard + 1st & 2nd Line Cavalry Rgts). under Espartero left Bilbao with They encountered Carlists in field fortifications outside Bilbao, but Cavalry charges routed the Carlists.

August 26 1837. Battle of HERRERA. Carlist defeat an outnumbered Cristino force. Near the end of the battle all that remained of the Cristinos troops were two battalions and a 5th Light Cavalry Sqdn. The Carlist horse formed in two columns in order to attack the small force. The 5th delayed the Carlist but could not defeat the much larger force. Carlist lancers continued and charged the two battalions in squares numerous times before finally breaking them.

Apr 27 1838. Negri vs Espartero. Battle was fought in a down pour with powder too wet for use in the muskets or cannon. It gave an advantage to the lance armed cavalry. The Cristinos with a larger Cavalry force won. The Carlist foot formed square, but could not fire as its powder was soaked and the army surrendered en masse. Only Negri and the cavalry escaped.

Rudy,

I'm personally not convinced by references to the Carlist War. For my money there are not enough similarities to make it signicant. I may, of course, be wrong. :)

I couldn't care less about the Carlist wars. We're discussing lancers in the Napoleonic wars and what they did there. I'm just not convinced they were any better against squares than anything else and shouldn't get a bonus just because they have a lance.

Weather and disorder are different issues though.

Clay what about the use of Napoleonic tactic in both do you not understand? They were so example should be valid in my opinion but that is only my opinion.

I gave those examples because they were the easiest to pull from my articles on those wars.

In regards to napoleonic actions. A lot of comments are generalized into an action comment. 'The square was attacked.' It does not say whether it was a headlong rush or what.

Artwork even sketches from just after the war (some by Cpt Jones in 1817 who was present and others made later) about Waterloo campaign shows both french and British cavalry swerving to avoid a headlong plunge into the square.

Do we take these artworks even sketches by participants as faulty 'artistic license'. I prefer not but other researchers may.

In both a wargame and in an actual battle, why would the cavalry even bother to charge a battalion that was formed into square. As someone else said earlier in the thread, the act of forming square surrenders the initiative to the cavalry. It would be better for the cavalry commander to pose the threat to the infantry by his presence, and then have the horse artillery move closer and punish the square with round shot and cannister. Or work in tandem with the infantry. Then the cavalry would be free to do what it does best: neutralize the enemy's cavalry or force more infantry into squares.

Rudy,

Though I see your point and mostly agree with you about the ability of lancers breaking squares, I believe that some of your examples actually proves the oposite.

In Bujalero, for instance, the squares weren't actually broken, but when the infantry was left alone in the field and without a retreat, they surrendered. In the 1838 battle, happened the same: the Carlist infantry didn't break, but did surrender when there were no escape route.

There is another problem with the Carlist war examples: all cavalry, in both sides, was equiped with lances. Then when you mention that a Carlist lancers unit routed a Cristino one, the combat actually happened between two similarly equiped units, thus we can't deduce any superiority in weaponry, only in morale or skill.

By the way, as far as I know the majority of the Royalist troops fighting in the South America Wars of Independence were locally recruited units, not Peninsular veterans. There were some Peninsular units, to be sure (Soria regiment if memory doesn't fail me; and the Imperial Alejandro Regiment, formed by Spanish PoWs from the Joseph Napoleon Regiment that were captured by the Russians in the Retreat of the Grande Armee). But they were a distinct minority.

Regards
Antonio

Antonio, i was not clear as too what my exqamples were for and that is my problem. The Carlist Wars group were intended to show that the lance gained popularity among armies after the Napoleonic wars due tio their regarded effectiveness against infantry squares.

As you stated most battles involving Cavalry forces on both had a majority of lance armed cav on each side. The only lance vs square examples were intended to be Herrera, Viana and the April 27 1838 battle which was the one where rain made musketry ineffective.

In the latin Wars the Mate el Miel case was where nighttime and poor conditions made the infnatry in squares less effective against Lance and all cav. The La Puerto II case involving lancers decimating several squares.

In regards to Spanish Veterans some estimates have in 1815 10,000 veterans arriving in latin America to reinforce Royalist (Spanish and Loyalist (pro-Spain Creoles) forces. Others have it as high as 15,000 for that year. (Definations are mine as various sources use Loyalist and Royaliist terms interchangable. I find that Loyalist troops may have been more loyal to a specific Caudillo who was pro-Spanish. So if you use another definition, I apologize for the confusion.)

To me the latin American Wars of Independence is a napoleonic era conflict that is fascinating to study and great to wargame at the mid-level command as the number of troops in most battles are less than 10,000.

Rudy

From the examples of the Latin American Wars -totally agree that they were "napoleonic"-, the lessons in the lance vs square are, in my opinion, that poor infantry, in adverse conditions, was particularly vulnerable to enemy cavalry, specially if combined the use of lances, great elan and superior horsemanship (which was the case of Argentinian cavalry, at least). What I am not so sure is that those particular conditions can be observed in the European battlefields, where cavalry and infantry were more balanced in terms of training, experience and morale.

In any case, I must say that your insights are really interesting. Thanks a lot for posting them!

Antonio

I'm a results-oriented guy. While the details of lance vs. bayonet are interesting, I do not want to simulate it in my wargame where the infantry battalion and cavalry regiment are the basic units.

If in the Carlist wars every single square was wiped out every time lancers attacked it, I still wouldn't care. It's not the same war. I want to see results in the Napoleonic era. Not just that, but if I'm wargaming the 1809 campaign I want to see it there before putting it into my games.

Just because Davout's III corps could do amazing things in 1806 doesn't mean the French should be able to do it at Waterloo, for example.

Show me where lancers killed a square in the Napoleonic wars and the conditions involved, and we can make a rule to cover it. "Lancers +4 vs. square in the rain" does that!

Clay,

The problem for any cavalry attempting to take on a steady and confident square in dry conditions was that the infantry would kill them before they got close enough to cause damage to the infantry. It really did not matter which pointed or chopping weapon the cavalry were equipped with.

From my own research, it seems that virtually all squares that were broken by cavalry in dry weather in the Napoleonic period broke because they were unsteady or lacking in confidence or because something untoward happened.

I suspect the "Lancers +4 vs square in the rain" is about all that is required.

Colin

Blancmange,

The fencing works because all that the cavalry have to do is to either:

1. Make a small gap in the square

or

2. Cause enough damage to convince the infantry that they are going to lose. There is nothing quite like seeing your colleagues killed without being able to hit back to reduce morale.

Lancers were actually quite good at stabbing infantry with lances and retaining the lance for another go; it was part of their training.

Colin

Clay a good point about isolated incidences vs common practice for basis to design a mechanic. This is always a problem for the game designer. For people to focus on an isolated incidence, makes some seminars difficult as the time frame allowed does not give the designer nor the other party time to digest each side's position.

In my case back in 1979 we gave lancers a modesty +5 on a 100d dies roll when attacking infantry. That was 1:50/60 ratio. it becomes and even bigger discussion issue and hard to defen a specific position at the tactical (1:5/10 troop ratio) and skirmish warfare.

Colin's point about the lack of training or being unorganized/disrupte/ unsteady is valid. Some speculate that the cavalry charge broke or destroyed a number of squares (many Allied troops like Hanover). Anyone seen a description on how these squares were destroyed? But regardless it leads more validity to Colin's comment on training.

I just bought "The Waterloo Companion" by Mark Adkins. On page 356 he says of the cavalry charge "they failed to break a single square."

The breaking of squares at Waterloo is an area somewhat open to debate; some French sources claim that squares were broken but the evidence offered is dubious at best.

[Cause enough damage to convince the infantry that they are going to lose. There is nothing quite like seeing your colleagues killed without being able to hit back to reduce morale.]

We're talking about at least 100 infantry men on each side of a square, each armed with a musket. I feel certain that they were able to "hit back" against a horseman who had come to something near a full-stop, only about 15 feet away!

blancmange,

Not if it was raining, which was the situation being discussed where "fencing" with lances would come into its own.

Rain is fine, but you mentioned that this "fencing" was part of the Lancers' training.

Surely you're not arguing that fighting in the rain was an assumption built into their training?

"All right mes amis… Here's how we win! All we need now is a good downpour!"

No, I did not mention that fencing in the rain was part of their training. What I said was that they were trained to retrieve their lances after "sticking" infantrymen.

They were specifically trained to try to make sure that the lance did not go in so deeply that it could not be retrieved. Apparently, about 4-6" in was regarded as deep enough to kill and shallow enough for the lance to slide out of the wound as the victim fell. Indian Army lancer regiments under the British Empire received similar training.

How many Indian lancers fought in the Napoleonic wars?

Clay another only Napoleonic examples accepted? You must not have studied much about the continuity of the development of military doctrine between eras?

Besides, that was where Wellington got his start. A whole series of Conquest by the British in the Napoleonic era.

he may be referring to the Lance drills which remained similar for decades.

Rudy,

I think Clay is right in that it really is of no significance what happened before or after as to what happened in the Napoleonic Wars. It's like using examples from 1792 for something that happened in 1745. As far as I can tell the length of a lance was about 2.77 metres, against a musket with bayonet of about 2 metres. Allowing for the gripping position on the lance and the requirement to thrust out ahead of the horse, is there really that much additional length that will dominate an infantry square? I'm not sure there is.

Clay, the point is that lancer training in the British army(and, by extension, that of the Raj-era Indian army) was copied from that of the Napoleonic French.

The point being made to Blancmange was that it was perfectly possible for a well trained lancer to stick an infantry soldier and retain his lance.

Colin