"Squares in the American Revolution period?" Topic

I'm cobbling together a set of simple American Revolution rules for my new 54mm Amer.Rev. project. I used to play Seven Years War years ago but don't for the life of me remember if squares were formed by units at this time to repel cavalry. I'm sure some of you are rolling your eyes so my flame suit's on. I'll go back and check Duffy tonight after work but I don't remember seeing anything on forming squares in his illustration of drill either. Any pearls would be a service.

Thanks!

Steve Miller
DFW Irregulars

SYW units were capable of the drill but it was rarely used in practice. It was much more common and easier to simply stay deployed in line and about face your third rank. With the linear nature of battles at this time this was sufficient.

AWI it would be even rarer (I would think) given the lack of large numbers of impact horse involved.

<<AWI it would be even rarer (I would think) given the lack of large numbers of impact horse involved.>>

Unfortunately, wargamers have convinced themselves that the square was only used against cavalry (largely due to it being more widely used on the more fluid battlefields of the Napoleonic era), and hence there is an assumption that it was not used on the formalised cavalry-infantry-cavalry battlefields of the 18th Century, and the cavalry-lite wars in colonial North America. A perusal of Duffy's book on the Prussian army should reveal that the double line of infantry was often "sealed" at each end by a grenadier battalion in column – effectively creating not a square as such, but a long, thin oblong.

In fact, the purpose of the square was to defend against attack from more than one direction regardless of the make-up of the enemy forces. Whilst it was not common in the AWI, I have come across about a dozen instances of a square being formed – mainly by Crown forces, but not exclusively – where a unit or units were being attacked from two or more directions (and often by a mix of mounted and dismounted units).

John Peebles, in his journal, refers to practising forming square during route marches.

If you go to this thread, and look at the links in my post of 16 March 2008, you will see several well-researched examples of the use of "all-round" formations during the AWI.

TMP link

Hope that helps.

Perhaps this is a bit off topic, however, following-up on what Supercilius Maximus said, during his American Revolutionary War campaign against the Iroquois Confederation, the American General Sullivan utilized a modified square formation when marching through hostile territory. His train and artillery marched in the center of the formation with infantry marching on all four sides. While his strong scouting screen discovered the two ambuscades that were attempted, the formation would have allowed the column to mount a strong defense regardless of the direction of the attack while at the same time protecting the supply train.

The formation that Sullivan adopted is less of a square and more of a mixed formation, similar to the formation Richard the Lionheated adopted in his march along the sea. I assume Sullivan's formation had compete units on each of the flanks, ahead and behind.

db

What Supercilius Maximus describes, while perfectly valid and accounted in the sources, is not technically a "square" in the accepted Napoleonic sense. It is more akin to the "brigade square" used by the British in particular in the Sudan.

It is neverrtheless interesting and important to note that the concept of all round defence was known and understood in the 18th century.

Couldn't be specific nowadays as I got this years ago, but some AWI Continentals were trained to form square and they actually did it once, but I don't now remember where it was or the circumstances. I don't think it was in response to a cavalry charge though. Could be the same situation taht Red Jacket is referring to.

Sullivan's formation is a classic one for a (relatively) regular force having to cross hostile territory and potentially outnumbered by highly mobile opponents prone to harass from all directions. Xenophon used it at times during the retreat of the '10,000' to the Black Sea. Such formation is abundantly discussed in Col. Callwell's 'Small Wars', the late 19th C. treatise about colonial warfare.

Since such situation was more likely to occur in North America than in Western Europe, it is indeed likely that experienced commanders there were more ready to adopt it than their colleagues familiar only with 'traditional' European warfare.

The basic differences with the 'Napoleonic' squares were that it was a *marching* formation that could quickly be converted into a defensive one, and that the whole force made a single 'square'.

I stand corrected.

<<What Supercilius Maximus describes, while perfectly valid and accounted in the sources, is not technically a "square" in the accepted Napoleonic sense. It is more akin to the "brigade square" used by the British in particular in the Sudan.>>

Which was precisely my point – among wargamers as a whole, the undestanding of the square as a formation has become defined entirely by their understanding of the Napoleonic era (and for many English-speaking wargamers, on one well-known battle). The same problems arise with newcomers to the AWI trying to get to grips with skirmishing – it happened, but not in the same way that it did in the Napoleonic era, and as a result people get confused as to how it worked in earlier conflicts.

A square, is a square, is a square; it was used by formations of varying size for all-round defence in many periods, not just one – the types of troops it is defending against is really a secondary issue. It is more important that wargamers generally, and rules-writers in particular, understand the availability of the formation to generals of the time, so that rules accurately reflect the period/conflict they are designed to represent.

A square, is a square, is a square; it was used by formations of varying size for all-round defence in many periods, not just one

I'm not sure that I agree entirely with that. The principle, that of all round defence, is certainly the same. The execution however, IMHO is quite different. The Napoleonic battalion square is a tactical manoeuvre. The much larger brigade square OTOH would for example, not have the troops on all faces facing outwards, but they would face in the direction of march.

But surely the brigade square is also a tactical formation? The only difference in your two examples is that one is on the march – Napoleonic battalion sqaures would also face in the same direction when moving. Once they were in contact with the enemy, both the battalion and brigade squares would be facing outwards on all four sides.

I'm not sure the square formed at Hanging Rock in 1780 would count as a brigade square. I'm not even sure there were enough troops to count as a battalion!

This was formed by a couple of companies of British Legion infantry and possibly some other loyalist stragglers, along with a light gun. What were the repelling? Davie's militia dragoons and a load of patriot militia on foot!

Squares: not common practice or necessary in most of the AWI but never say never!

cheers

But surely the brigade square is also a tactical formation?

Yes, I said tactical manoeuvre, not tactical formation. To me the difference is that a battalion square is formed by a um.. battalion, whereas the larger squares are formed by several battalions taking up positions relative to each other. In a battalion, the commander could order "form square!" and every company commander would know what to do. A brigade commander would however have to issue orders to each battalion to move to a particular position. There is no brigade level equivalent of "form square!". And if the large square being formed includes battalions from more than one brigade it gets even more complicated …

Many years ago back during the Bicentennial American Heritage ran a number of the veterans accounts that were collected for pension record in the 1820's.

One I remember was a veteran who talked about a skirmish out on the lines outside New York in the late war period – I think 1782. The account was very tactical and one got the feeling that this was the major combat that this veteran saw.

He was out with a light infantry company when they encountered a body of Loyalist Horse. They formed a square and the commander declined an offer to surrender with the statement " He preferred to manure the field with the Tory dead". The square then beat off the first attack – and actually captured one or two loyalists who were unhorsed just outside the square.

Once the Loyalist horse were driven off in disorder, the commander reformed the company in line, and opened what the veteran remembered as a "scattering fire" and advanced on the Loyalist Horse and drove them off.

I think that is one of the examples cited on RevList.

Well I am enlightened to have stumbled on this. Most rules set I have seen don't even address the square in the AWI.

Most rules set I have seen don't even address the square in the AWI.

Probably because it was not taught to Continental troops. The drill does not appear anywhere in von Steuben's manual and the militia certainly would not have known it.

That said, all round defense would have been natural and familiar to anyone on the frontier, so a small company under attack would have formed a hasty, "improvised square" without needing to think about it. This is not the formal, regulated battalion square of the 19th century though

With artillery being more dangerous than cavalry, I would expect to see few squares.

I'm going to include a square or reinforced line/masse as an emergency/hasty formation in response to cavalry or multiple units charging rather than a "standard" formation. It will require a morale test and cavalry will actually flow around it taking a casulity from fire on a roll of 4+. If they fail the being charged test, they are removed from the table (destroyed)and count toward army break level. It's pretty cut and dry but should work just fine since the army compositions will be pretty small to begin with. Thanks for all the input….I've learned a bunch from this discussion!!
Again…thanks!

Steve Miller
DFW Irregulars

<<Probably because it was not taught to Continental troops. The drill does not appear anywhere in von Steuben's manual and the militia certainly would not have known it.>>

I've been told by re-enactor friends in the US that Steuben deliberately left anti-cavalry tactics until last, because of the (extremely) limited threat from it in America, when compared to the European theatre, and lack of time prevented him returning to the subject. They also suggested that this may have contributed to Buford's blunder at Waxhaws, where he waited until the cavalry were at the same distance where one would usually open fire on infantry.

I may be mistaken, but I have a vague recollection that there might be something on forming a square in the Norfolk Discipline of 1759, in which case the militia of most Colonies/States would have at least known of it, even if they did not practice it (which I would agree they probably did rarely, if at all). An amalgam of that and the 1764 Manual of Arms was created by Timothy Pickering to train the New England Continentals and Militia in 1775.

The square used by Peeble's Grenadiers referenced by Supercilious was a single battalion square.

v/r

Joe