"Broken squares at Waterloo" Topic

I'm confused with this paiting of Monsieur Andrieux.
If you used the zoom on the paiting you could see british infantry fighting against a mass of french Cavalry(Curasiers)like if it was a british broken line (?).
Near them, there are a piece of cannon.

link

From that painting had we concluded that there was a broken square?
They were not artillerymen for the uniforms.

Any help would be apreciated.

Amicalement
Armand

I'm not aware of any Allied squares being broken at Waterloo. That said, several battalions were ridden down while in line, attempting to relieve La Haye Sainte.

I would note the British/KGL/Hanoverian troops being defeated in this painting have white trousers, where the ones issued were grey.

Armand,

Kevin told me a few weeks ago that there is an after-action report from Waterloo by a Brigadier Pilloy that claims he ran into and broke a square of British infantry.

Regards,

Jonah

Thanks both of you.

It's a mistery to me seeing those british in middle of the Courassier charge.
Maybe a lost platoon?

Amicalement
Armand

Armand,

Brigadier Pilloy wrote some letters post-Waterloo in which he stated that the cuirassier regiment he was assigned to (5th or 9th-I cannot remember exactly which) charged against a British square and rode over and through the infantry of that square.

According to Henry Houssaye in his study on Waterloo several squares were broken on the ridge and he states that is from General Delort.

What probably happened is that some of the allied squares, including British, were quite possible broken by the repeated French cavalry charges and they collapsed under the constant pressure but then toughly reformed around their colors after the cavalry had retreated and themselves reformed.

The fact that the French Cavalry Reserve had no commander at Waterloo (Grouchy was the Cavalry Reserve commander but he was not present) had a lot to do with the cavalry charges not being supported properly especially with artillery. If that had happened the charges might have succeeded.

Napoleon was initially unaware at Ney's ordering the cavalry forward and apparently remarked that they were an hour too early. He did them order them supported, but the necessary artillery did not move forward in support along with more cavalry, which did.

It would seem to me that if Grouchy was present he would have told Ney to go %*$& in his hat as he was not the commander of the Cavalry Reserve. That not being the case, the cavalry was ordered forward by Ney, too early and without support.

Sincerely,
K

Kevin.

Many thanks for your comments.
Only one doubt. How Ney did managed to move even the Cavalry of the Imperial Guard on that stage of the battle?
It's suposed that these units were under direct order from the Emperor or at least one of the Generals of the Guard Cavalry. The Guard could received orders from other officers non Guardsmen?

Amicalement
Armand
PD. I owe you a mail. Hope to send it very soon.

Could those chaps be Hanovarians.. their uniformas look a little unusual.

Andrieux was painting it 37 years after the battle, which actually occurred 14 years before he was born anyway.

Bound to have been a bit of dramatic licence employed, and most likely a few inaccuracies (including the windmill in the thick of the fighting in the background, which just doesn't appear correct to me).

Artistic licence is what I was thinking as well.

YouTube link

Armand,

If I recall correctly, de Brack who was in the Guard Lancer Regiment, stated that they shouldn't have moved off to attack but were caught up in the general forward movement and excitement. I'll have to check that. I'll look forward to your email.

Sincerely,
K

It is only a painting! Paintings do not often represent historical events accurately.

To comment:

1. There is no definitive record of any Allied squares being broken at Waterloo; even if they had been, I doubt that anyone on the Allied side would have seen fit to besmirch the glory of the victory by mentioning it.

2. Some French combatants claim that squares were broken and that "English" standards were captured. Sadly for any attempt to prove this, the story is that these were the recaptured during the retreat/rout.

3. Allied units in line were ridden down during the battle, most notably just north of La Haye Sainte.

4. The Guard cavalry seem to have got caught up in the excitement of the moment and joined in the attacks almost of their own accord.

Monsieur Andrieux's Windmill is right up there with the white trousers and broken squares!

It's unfortunate that the Colours/Squares debate, which has raged down the centuries (well almost, it's not 2015 yet) has this unavoidable Nationalistic element in it.

Both sides having a "Well they would say that, wouldn't they" element involved.

Personally, taking the principal of cui bono, I would suggest that the French who had 'a bad day' would be more likely to try and salvage some military prowess by saying that Colours were taken and Squares broken, than the British would be in denying it happened when they were on the winning side!

Trajanus,

I tend to mostly agree with your last statement. My own suspicion is that it is most likely that no squares were broken.

If one believes every French account of "English" standards being taken by French cavalry at Waterloo, then quite a few squares must have been broken and I find it hard to believe that was the case. Of course, it is possible that a square was broken but I suspect we will never know.

Most paintings before [and after] the advent of photography are like the movies of today, history is something to be used, but not adhered too. Most military paintings, though certainly not all were not painted by anyone actually at the battles portrayed.

Most Napoleonic paintings have as much historical validity as Gibson's "The Patriot" for much the same reasons.

Bill

'Most Napoleonic paintings have as much historical validity as Gibson's "The Patriot" for much the same reasons.'

Well said.

"Only one doubt. How Ney did managed to move even the Cavalry of the Imperial Guard on that stage of the battle?
It's suposed that these units were under direct order from the Emperor or at least one of the Generals of the Guard Cavalry. The Guard could received orders from other officers non Guardsmen?"

Armand,

This is what historian Henry Houssaye wrote about that incident (click on the images to enlarge them):

picture
picture
picture (note 15 is also interesting)

Very interesting meu amigo Cuirassier!.

It's the first time I heard that Napoleon was planing the Cavalry atack with Ney.

Amicalement
Armand

In my point 4, I missed the word "light" when describing the Guard Cavalry. Guyot does, indeed, seem to have been placed at Ney's disposal but the lights just seem to have wanted to join in the fun.

It does seem that Napoleon planned on using a cavalry attack; however, it was probably not the attack that Ney actually carried out.

Houssaye is not a source that I can take too seriously; there are far too many errors and exaggerations in his work.

Armand,

The involvement of the Guard Light Cavalry was more due to its commander, Lefebvre-Desnouettes, than anyone else. He had been chomping at the bit to get involved at Quatre Bras, but Ney had orders to not use him.

So when Ney led forward the cavalry reserve at Waterloo, Lefebvre-Desnouttes was not to be denied again, and joined in without orders.

I don't know about the Guard Heavy Cavalry.

Best,

Bill

"The Guard cavalry seem to have got caught up in the excitement of the moment and joined in the attacks almost of their own accord."

LOL, yes, troops do not always move as their commanders intend, particularly when over eager subordinates do not wish to miss out on the glory.

I am always reminded of Benedecks surprise at Koeniggratz when he noticed that his entire right wing had decided to attack the Prussian Army on their own initiative, sucked in by the apparent success of a single brigade. Shame about the _other_ Prussian Army approaching from their right rear. Oops.

Quite so, and something those who criticise wargames rules that take control out of players' hands to some degree or another should bear in mind.

Military history quarterly had an article on the charge of the guard light cavalry. Their colonel was at the front of the unit he notice some general officers talking in a group so he moved up to talk to them. Now his unit he described as nervous, twitchy. As he moved up to the generals his colors moved up as they where dressing on him, the unit of course moved up to dress on the colors and off they went. Horses being the herd animal they are had seen many herd go over that hill and they would be inclined to join. He in order not to be standing there with out a unit he drew his saber and followed them. Now I guessing that the next unit that was dressing on his unit took off leaving a brigade commander standing there going who gave that order and if the 2nd brigade was behind the first then a divisional commander was standing there saying "what going on/".
The regimental commander wrote tis in the 1840's to a French paper that printed letters on actions, clearly there is a gold mine of information ( pictures also from papers) that is untapped to us in English.

Sorry I just moved and I have no ideal where that mag is now.

Clay

During the Seven years War, at Hastenbeck a brigade of French infantry followed Chevert's attack on the Allied left – without orders.

The Pilloy story still receives plenty of air time despite the facts noted below, as does Houssaye's account of the victory stolen from the French by treachery at Waterloo. Houssaye is well worth a read for comparative purposes BTW- it sets the bar for blind patriotic adoration- making contemp British historians look like Anglophobic revisionists.

In compensation though, Fortune de Brack's rather more objective account of the overexcitement and indiscipline of the French Guard cavalry at Waterloo, and its failure to break any squares is now though also more widely referenced.

Mostly though, it is the relatively very well documented Allied casualties that tell the story. No allied infantry unit at Waterloo, except those well identified as ridden down in line by French cavalry, suffered a significant proportion of sabre and lance wounds. Certainly not enough to have been broken in the sense that say, the French were broken by the KGL Dragoons at Garcia Hernandez in 1812.

We should not however forget that several allied (including British) battalions did flee from French cavalry before contact during the afternoon of Waterloo, although all the British at least were quickly rallied and were still fighting at the end of the day.

Which battalions fled?

I have read that the 33rd and 73rd broke and ran at Quatre Bras and both rallied once in cover.
But at Waterloo, which regiments?

I'm away from my reference right now, but the British Bns were either the 33rd/69th, or 30th/73rd who formed joint squares as they were so weak in numbers after QB. The event was described by a member of one of the units- maybe Morris, which would make it the 73rd, and was couched in the usual euphemistic langauge of temporary confusion leading to a withdrawal in some disorder. The author also recounted how they were saved by the Lifeguards coming up to drive off the French before they could catch the infantry. They then rallied and reformed to carry on fighting till the end of the day. All over in a few minutes but very close to disaster.
The others I've read an account of were Nassauers who wavered under artillery fire and ran as the French Cavalry was appoaching. Again rallied, by Constant-Rebeque IIRC.

Was there a whacking great windmill in the middle of the battlefield then? I had no idea. It comes as a real shock as 've been reading primary sources of the battle for 25 years.

But, seeing it in this painting it must be true.

I believe the reference for the British units falling back was during the advance and repulse of the Middle Guard at the end of the day, and not that they retired or were 'broken' during the cavalry charges. Seventeen year old Macready, a member of Halkett's brigade, describes the British as a 'mere mob'. The confusion lasted five or so minutes, before order was restored. Thankfully for the British the French had no immediate mounted troops with which to press the advantage they had gained, and the situation was stabilized by the arrival of Chasse's Dutch Belgian troops. The British retirement had been preempted by the confused withdrawal of the Nassauers on their left.

npm

Ligniere, I know the example you're referring to during the IG attack- it's the famous 'by God Sir I'd stop, but I'm off my feet!' moment.
The Lifeguards rescue episode I referred to above is different and earlier- during the cavalry charges, though it may have involved some of the same troops.

The reference to the British units being broken by cavalry at Waterloo can be found in "Recollections of Military Service" by Sergeant Thomas Morris of the 73rd Regiment:

"The next square to us, was unfortunately charged at the same time, and were broken into, and retired in confusion, followed by the cuirassiers; but the Life Guards coming up, the French in their turn, were obliged to retrograde, and the 33rd and 69th resumed their position in square, on our right, and maintained it during the rest of the day."

repeat – was there a windmill in the middle of the battlefield? seeing as we're using the painting as the basis for fact just wanted to check

The painting certainly shouldn't be viewed as an accurate portrayal of events.

Are you saying that Morris' account is also fantasy?

Sires, the British Guard was not which charges and routed the French Middle Guard atack, it seems it was the 52nd.

Remember this thread.
TMP link

Amicalement
Armand

Major Snort- Thankyou for the Morris quote- that is exactly the episode to which I was referring.

From Morris' description and the 33rd/69th losses on the 18th, (though heavy from fighting all day, they were certainly not destroyed) it would seem that the effect of the French cavalry 'breaking in' was not in this case the cataclysm we generally imagine it would be. Certainly the unit was fighting again quickly afterwards.

Also shows that the Household cavalry was still very much in action during the afternoon. When did Lifeguards Corporal Shaw go on his killing spree against the Cuirassiers- was it around this time or earlier?

I think Corporal Shaw was killed around the same time the Union Brigade was riding into D'Erlon….

Morris says they were broken into, retired, and were followed. That doesn't amount to saying their square was broken.

They could have been broken into by three or four riders and followed by a dozen more, which is a lot less apocalyptic than having a Garcia Hernandez experience.

Yes- quite so- it doesn't amount to them being 'broken' in the Garcia Hernandez (read wargames) sense at all. I originally suggested above that the unit retreated BEFORE contact. The actual quote from Morris does indicate the French cavalry did make some contact but evidently with no great impact.
Still, those Cuirassiers did do better than the French Lancers at Quatre Bras who broke into the 42nd easily enough, but never managed to break out again…

If you believe everything you read or see in pictures you got a problem.

You're right- the painting ref'd in the original post is indeed essentially fantasy for instance. The casualty figures of the units sometimes claimed as 'broken' don't lie though.

Casualty figures do sometimes lie;).

However, even accurate casualty figures do not prove what happened to a unit, merely that it lost a certain number of casualties.

I suspect that we will never "know" (in the academic sense) if any British squares were broken at Waterloo; I suspect that one or two may have had problems with random French cavalrymen breaking into them and causing a bit of chaos but I can see no evidence for any actually being broken.

Colin- no, there's much more to casualty figures than that. Dead vs wounded in unusual proportions; whether wounds were predominantly lance, sabre, musket ball or whatever, unusually high officer casualties, etc, all give very significant information on the the course of a battle and the actions of units within it. They can even help us interpret the real effectiveness of certain weapons. They can be a lot more valuable than official accounts or memoires.

But I definitely agree with your view that there's no evidence of any squares broken at Waterloo in the catastrphic sense that certainly wargamers often conceive it.

seneffe, they do indeed give significant information when as detailed as you describe but they do not prove or demonstrate what happened unless one knows exactly when in the battle particular casualties occured.

However, most armies did not keep such detailed records as to the types of casualties.

Colin- we'd perhaps better agree to disagree- at least in emphasis- I'm a great supporter. Casualty evaluation is a pretty standard military historiographical technique, and also has been much cited forensically in military boards of enquiry as evidence of conduct or circumstance.

Good relevant example is whether the 27th was broken by cavalry at Waterloo, as has sometimes been suggested. Almost all of its wounded had small arms or canister injuries, and almost none wounds from close combat weapons- hardly likely if it had been broken by a cavalry attack.

I also remember an article stating that most of the dead in Pire's Lancer brigade on the 16th came from a single company of one of the regiments, an indication to the author that something very bad had indeed befallen a small group of Lancers on the day.

Most armies did not keep records in quite the level of detail of the British in 1815- down to wound types, but almost all kept at least a basic D/W/M breakdown, and officer/OR casualties. There is a well known Russian Borodino example of the dead/wounded disparity between two Guards regiments indicating rather different battle experiences. I also believe that the Prussians even in 1806 tried to keep quite detailed casualty records.

I would certainly agree that casualty figures are most potent when compared with battle accounts- either to support or disprove stories, but even on their own can be very valuable. A unit ending the day with few dead/wounded (especially if officers/NCOs had lost disproportionally) but many men missing, is very consistent with having not stood in close proximity to the enemy for long (hence the low overall D/W), and having come under pressure but folded despite the efforts of its leadership (hence the many missing and the higher officer/NCO losses). To acknowledge your point, it won't on its own tell you on its own when they broke or if it happened more than once, but it will certainly help fix the morale rating for the refight:).

Obviously I'm not talking about the shameless fibs of the figures in a Grande Armee bulletin and suchlike propaganda- but figures derived from regimental order books and similar internal admin docs. Far from perfect true, but they can be the nearest thing to 'proof' we have.

seneffe

I'm always interested in casualty returns, I share your view, sometimes they are the only 'facts' that we know, earlier 18th C. is my interest, finding strength returns are very hard but often there are quite detailed dead/wounded lists.

They certainly tell a story, and sometimes contradict some of the battle descriptions.

Never heard the one about the French lancers at QB, any more details?