"British 4 rank line at waterloo" Topic

This seems to have been an innovation used by Wellington in the Waterloo campaign for likely the first time. Jac Weller mentions it in his still classic Wellington at Waterloo study. The formation allowed a speedy deployment into square. It occupied less space and sacreficed some firepower I would imagine.

it wasn't an amazing innovation it was an expedient move to shoe horn them all in

I think the 4 rank line was an expediency due to the density of troops on the battlefield. Was such a formation used at any time post Waterloo?

Four deep line had been used at Vimeiro in 1808 by the 29th regiment, but apart from that there is little evidence of its use prior to the 1815 campaign. The purpose was a compromise formation to face both cavalry and infantry at the same time, not a convenient formation from which to form square, nor a space saving measure.

British squares at Waterloo were formed from quarter distance columns, not 4 deep lines. 4 deep lines were used in the latter stages of the battle by some brigades, and at least 2 brigades formed them by splitting the squares halfway across the rear face and wheeling the sides up into line. This left the companies of these units in the wrong order with some split between both flanks, making further formation changes, apart from perhaps wheeling back into square, very difficult. Some Guards officers noted this, referring to their men as being "clubbed" or completely mixed up by the manouevre.

Other units used different methods to achieve the 4 deep line, so if it had been an innovation by Wellington, he certainly hadn't specified exactly how it should have been done.

The use of four-rank line was also used by the British during the Peninsula conflict.
General Foy in his analysis of the British army noted that they sometimes adopted four-ranks when receiving and making a charge, and if I remember correctly the 29th at Vimeiro adopted four-rank as defense against cavalry. So this wasn't apparently something exclusive to Waterloo/1815.

npm

Due to the absence of any mention of 4 deep in the Peninsular War in British eyewitness accounts (apart from the 29th example and another from Toulouse which was proposed, but not carried out, as a means for the passage of lines) I treat Foy's statement with some suspicion, unless he was commenting on what he witnessed at Waterloo, and not in the Peninsula.

The British mainly where in column of waiting. Orders to be prepared for French cavarly are remark in most accounts.

If infantry are becoming a threat you then go to cloumn of double companies?

4 deep was a remark on the lack of strenght of the battalions.
Battalion went to 2 deep lines to cover frontage that the Battalion was responible for.

Lord Ghee

Sounds to me like a hastily unrolled square. Old pivot would have blown a fuse.

Sounds to me like a hastily unrolled square. Old pivot would have blown a fuse.

That's spot on. One Guards captain commented on this irregular manoeuvre writing:

What would Dundas have said!!!

4 deep was a remark on the lack of strength of the battalions.

I don't understand this. Surely an understrength battalion in 4 ranks would cover an even narrower frontage?

Battalion went to 2 deep lines to cover frontage that the battalion was responsible for.

It is my understanding that the British were using 2 deep lines in the Peninsula and it was a recognised formation, not one imposed by being understrength.

it wasn't an amazing innovation it was an expedient move to shoe horn them all in

I don't think anyone is claiming it was 'amazing'?

I think we all need to remember that the 1815 army wasn't the Peninsular army, it had a fair leavening of inexperienced second battalions. Perhaps Lord W felt, towards the end of a trying day, this was the best formation to keep such Bn's cohesive…

Anyway, it worked…

(I don't think being second guessed by amateur tacticians 200 years later was top of the Duke's agenda at this point during a fairly busy day…)

could it have been done to give inexperienced troops more confidence and to more easily keep them in the ranks?

<<…..it had a fair leavening of inexperienced second battalions. >>

Even the nominally veteran units from the Peninsula were not what they were; after the Peninsula divisions arrived home in 1814, the regiments were much reduced as a matter of policy. On re-mobilisation in 1815, they had to take in recruits, volunteers from other regiments remaining at home, and drafts of militia (even the Guards had these last). There was a TMP thread last year where someone produced research from muster rolls of one of the hussar regiments showing the experienced men had almost all gone to be (partially) replaced by raw recruits.

Sparker , you lurch from strength to strength..

I think there is one Waterloo reference where a large battalion was operating as two wings in line and formed four deep by one wing taking position behind the other and closing up.

If you think it through the ability to present half a battalion of fire, have depth to hold off cavalry and to allow deployment back to a two rank line either to the left or right of the position (by moving the front wing or rear wing) produces a very effective formation for defence.

I believe part of Wellington's line defense was about being able to put the line in the right place – ie to ensure the head of any attacking column would face formed infantry in lines. Columns win by bypassing and outflanking lines.

MS,
You wrote

I treat Foy's statement with some suspicion, unless he was commenting on what he witnessed at Waterloo, and not in the Peninsula

I consider it a bit of a stretch to conclude that the British forces used the formation four-deep at Vimeiro in 1808 at the beginning of the conflict, and then drop the formation until 1815, where it was seen amongst numerous battalions.

Leslie's account of forming four-deep at Vimeiro implies that the formation was something they had encountered previously, or at least were prepared for:

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.

Then again at Waterloo, at the end of the wars, we find numerous accounts of battalions forming adopting four-deep.

Then we have the analysis by a French general, who was commanding artillery at Vimeiro in 1808, and a division of infantry in 1815 at Waterloo. He had fought throughout the Peninsula wars, and was present at Corunna, Bussaco, and Salamanca amongst others, who states:

The system of manoeuvres which they have adopted since the year 1798, is borrowed from the Prussians. The infantry, although on system formed three deep, like the other nations of Europe, is more frequently drawn up in two ranks; but when making or receiving a charge, it is frequently formed four deep. Sometimes it has made offensive movements, and even charged columns, when in open order. In retreat it stands firm, and commences its fire by volleys from the battalions, followed by a well-supported file-firing.

This is an analysis of British infantry throughout the wars of the period – he doesn't specifically say, 'and during 1815, it frequently formed four deep'.

What is clear is that Foy had the opportunity to observe the deployment of the British army on numerous occasions, and he wrote down what he'd seen in battle, just as Leslie did of his experience at Vimeiro in 1808.

Dundas or 'Old Pivot' prepared clear instructions on how to form [and unform] an open square in double depth line [he assumed it would be six ranks deep, not the four that would be employed in the field], both from line and column at quarter distance. Presumably the comments made at Waterloo 'what would Dundas have said!!!', refers more to their knowledge that guidelines were provided for the maneuver they had just made, and that, due to the pressures of combat, they had not followed them as prescribed.

npm

The Guard's four-deep formation was muddled, the companies mixed, compared to the other regiments there that also formed four ranks deep.

It is my understanding that one method of forming square from a two rank line was to fold back into four ranks before going to square. The British didn't form two-rank squares. So standing in four ranks placed the infantry one step closer to forming square.

Not sure what happened to the original post, but I'll try again!

Dundas didn't prepare clear instructions on how to form double depth square from line, only from column. Squares formed from line would be the same depth as the line the troops were in to begin with, either 2 or 3 deep, if the procedures in the regulations were followed.

The phrase "what would Dundas have said!!!" refers to the irregular movement not featured in any regulations and resultant muddled 4 deep formation used by the Guards (and Halkett)at Waterloo. Forming 4 deep or 6 deep was not featured in the 1792 regulations at all, apart from when a quarter distance column formed square.

Forming 4 deep was covered in the 1824 regulations, but the main purpose was not to close ranks and fight the enemy in a deeper formation, but to provide gaps between files (i.e. the 4 deep line was formed from 2 deep but occupied the same original frontage)to allow for flank marching without the inconvenience of moving in file, or for the passage of lines. This formation could be closed by shuffling to the centre, but this was not the method used to form 4 deep at Waterloo according to eyewitnesses.

Forming 4 deep square directly from line was also covered in the 1824 regulations, but hadn't been in previous regulations. This, and the formation of 4 deep line may be some of the items that Henry Torrens, in the introduction to the 1824 regs, claimed had been "partially adopted, without adherence to any general or fixed principle of formation; the result was a practice at once desultory and disunited".

Foy is an outsider making a generalised comment about an infantry he observed from a distance. British eyewitnesses tend to give particularly clear details about the formations used in action so it would appear unusual to me that there is so little evidence of the use of 4 deep line in the Peninsula if it was as common as Foy suggests. That is not to say that British infantry could not form 4 deep line in the Peninsula, if desired, by using whatever improvised method the battalion or brigade commander preferred, but as with previous discussions on 3 deep British lines, we need evidence, and until that evidence appears, I will continue to believe that the 4 deep line formation was generally not used prior to Waterloo.

MS,

we need evidence, and until that evidence appears, I will continue to believe that the 4 deep line formation was generally not used prior to Waterloo

Isn't that evidence provided by Leslie and Foy?

Allowing for passage of lines and temporarily adopting four ranks as identified and regulated within the 1824 regulations, is different to what Leslie experienced at Vimeiro and by other officers at Waterloo.

As Sparker commented above, the guys writing their memoires during and following their military experiences were not necessarily writing for our benefit, and subsequently what they do and do not record leave much to speculate upon.

Foy related that he saw the British adopt four rank deep, both defensively and offensively. Leslie stated that they adopted four rank to defend against a frontal infantry assault and the simultaneous threat of a flanking cavalry attack. I don't believe we should simply disregard these accounts merely because they don't appear to conform to the established view that the British always fought in two-ranks exclusively – four-rank squares and four-rank line also appeared on the battlefield.

npm

Leslie's account remains the only specific example of its use in the Peninsula as far as I am aware. Anton of the 42nd mentions that the formation was ordered, but not used at Toulouse, but from his account it is clear that this was to allow a passage of lines. That is not proof that the formation was in general use to my mind.

Four rank squares were standard, so that isn't the point I was making.