"Infantry squares and cavalry" Topic

In the Napoleonic period infantry hsd to form square or have a very good chance of being ridden down by determined cavalry. Wellington, after one day of combat at Quatre Bras discarded the two rank line that had served him throughout the Peninsula and had his infantry form up four ranks deep at Waterloo to ward off cavalry. Even then square was formed whenever cavalry threatened. Yet during the Seven Years war infantry routinely saw cavalry off while formed in line. I wonder how this change came about in 40 years.

My ideas follow, but I also want to hear the thoughts of others. I figure one reason was the fierce discipline and training of the soldiers of the ancien regime made them more able to stand up to charging cavalry, more so than the conscripts of the Napoleonic wars. Except the British were in many ways the last army of the ancient regime, with fierce discipline and training, and they formed square as often as they could.

I think the continuing evolution of drill made square more easy to form, making it a real possibility on the battlefield instead of just parade drill. I also wonder if being told that this was THE formation to stop cavalry didn't eat away at the confidence of soldiers in line – after all, that must not have been THE formation to stop cavalry.

The increasing use of charging at the gallop by the Prussians may also have brought about a relative strengthening of horse vs. foot, though it is noted that the French cavalry of Napoleon often charged at a trot. I'd like to hear your views – and please, flame off.

I've often wondered that myself. The notion of the "professional" armies of the SYW vs. the masses of quasi trained soldiers is often given. I've also heard as you say that the perfection of the drill and reduction in number of cumbersome elements within the battalion helped make the square the formation of choice. Other reasons as well.

My opinion, which I can't back up with critical analysis in primary source materials is simply that in the SYW era the infantry believed that they should not fear cavalry to the front, whereas in the Napoleonic era they believed they should fear cavalry. Early results like Kellerman's charge at Marengo may have influenced them too.

It will be interesting to hear other opinions.

7yw armies tended to form up in continous fronts with cav protecting them, or anchored on terrrain.

Napoleonic units were expected to operate more loosely and become more exposed – the corp of division would attack, not the entire front, thus opening more flanks, and leaving more time in movement formations.

also, there were comparativley few cav in the peninsualr for wellington to worry about, and the terrain was a lot less condusive to what cavalry there was.

I would agree with Keraunos.

The idea of forming square specifically to oppose cavalry is a "wargamerism" – the square was used in any circumstances where a unit found itself attacked from several directions, and was commonly used by rearguards in the SYW (IIRC, some of the Allied infantry at Rossbach did so to hold up Frederick's army as their colleagues retreated from the field) and isolated units in many 18th Century battles – even the AWI where there were few cavalry.

On a more general level, SYW armies are relatively small compared to those of the Napoleonic period; mostly, they still formed up in the conventional style of cavalry on the wings and infantry in the centre. Thus, the cavalry would tend to fight each other primarily. However, there is also the problem that the infantry tended to form up in two lines with the "ends" sealed off by units formed in column (I believe Fred used grenadier battalions) and hence there are rarely any exposed flanks for the victorious cavalry to attack.

By contrast, the Napoleonic battlefield was much larger and more "fluid" in terms of where cavalry was positioned – not least because many infantry formations had light cavalry attached to them in order to provide support, threaten enemy infantry and ward off opposing cavalry.

The salient point, as Keraunos says, was the exposure of a flank. Generally speaking, cavalry did not attack infantry from the front unless the situation was desperate, or else they had either observed a weakness in the infantry, or identified them as low grade troops (eg militia – there are occasions where troops deliberately "dressed down" in order to fool their opponents). Even if the cavalry reached the infantry, all was not cut-and-dried – even infantry charged front and rear could still have one rank face about and fight back-to-back (eg 28th Foot at Alexandria).

Did the way in whhich cavalry were used provoke this change?

I,m not an expert on the earlier wars ( actually I,m not an expert on the Napoleonic wars! ) but I thought generally that cavalry in SYW etc rode up in a squadron and fired at the enemy before retiring to reload while a second squadron followed behind and did the same thing.They didnt generally seek to actually ride down infantry.
Did this tactic change as result of the proliferation of cavalry or possibly the abilty of unsteady and conscript troops to lose their nerve and break when threatened?

By the mid 1740s Prussian cavalry were charging at the gallop, sword in hand. I don't know how long it took for this to spread to other armies, but the pistol attack was passe by the Seven Years war in most armies.

I do think the fracturing of the battle line into smaller segments had a lot to do with it.

Yes, I know square was used during the SYW and earlier, but I think think comparative slowness of drill kept it from being used as much.

I do think it was the Napoleonic formation of choice against cavalry – note the whole center of Wellington's army going into a double line of squares when the cavalry attacked, and numerous other cases.

Vincent, all good points from you and I agree with Keraunos as well. Then again, just think of the amazing advance of the Anglo-Hanovarian foot at Minden – open flanks mind you, but the most superb discipline and what confidance – just shot anything in front of them to pieces, remarkable feat of arms.

Some very good points have been made above and as I know little about warfare in the 1700s I cannot really offer very much.

Perhaps the biggest change in warfare was that the majority of infantry in the Napoleonic era manoeuvred in column formation whilst in much closer proximity to the enemy than they had previously, forming line only when necessary. As these columns could form into square very rapidly, they were also fairly secure against cavalry. The option to stand and repulse cavalry in line was therefore perhaps no longer necessary.

The British were an exception to this rule, and although there are many instances of them manoeuvering in quarter distance columns in the presence of enemy cavalry in order to rapidly form square if necessary, there is no doubt that in general they still favoured deployment into line while still outside effective artillery range (1200-1500 paces).

In the Peninsula there were many occasions when British battalions stood in line to receive, and repulse, French cavalry.

At Fuentes de Onoro, the 51st Regiment, Chasseurs Britanniques and Brunswick Oels (and no doubt the Portuguese Brigade) all repulsed cavalry charges in line formation during the retreat of the 7th Division. The 42nd Regiment of the 1st Division also performed the same feat.

At Albuera, both the Fusilier Brigade and Harvey's Portuguese Brigade of the 4th Division repulsed French cavalry charges in line.

At El Bodon the 5th Regiment charged, and defeated, French cavalry while in line.

At Salamanca, the 5th and 45th Regiments of the 3rd Division repulsed a French cavalry charge directed against their flank by fire in line, by wheeling back a few companies.

Also at Salamanca, Hulse's brigade fought off a brigade of Boyer's dragoons by volleys from a line formation.

As far as I am aware, there are no examples in the Peninsula of a British or Portuguese line, attacked frontally, being ridden down by French cavalry and the suggestion that the British formed square as often as they could must be questioned.

It is also not correct that the British discarded the 2 deep line at Waterloo. The 4 deep line was used by three brigades (Adam, Maitland and Halkett) late in the day when it was anticipated that the French were launching a combined arms assault, other British and KGL brigades forming 2 deep to face infantry throughout the day. Maitland wrote:

"About 7 o'clock, the Duke of Wellington, aware of the enemy's preparations for a new attack, desired me to form the 1st Brigade of Guards in line 4 files deep, His Grace expecting that the French Cavalry would take part in the affair."

The purpose of the 4 deep line was to receive this combined assault and was not a new innovation, having been used as early as 1808, at Vimiero:

"We were then halted, and as the enemy appeared to have gone completely off, our men were allowed to stand at ease. While resting in this manner we suddenly observed a column of the enemy, which, it seems, had suddenly concealed in a village on the opposite heights, make a dash down as if they meant to attack us, while a body of cavalry at the same time appeared on our right flank, threatening to turn and attack us in that flank. We were instantly ordered to form four deep, which formation afforded the advantage of showing a front to meet the enemy in line, and at the same time of sufficient strength to resist cavalry."