"Questions on the square vs infantry & cavalry" Topic

As a shadow topic from the line vs column thread, here is a question I did not find an answer on: Did infantry in square fight against line (or attack column for that matter) and if it did, how did the square fare?

In Black Powder, infantry forced into square by cavalry have to remain in square as long as the cavalry hangs on nearby – they cannot reform to fight in line even if attacked by infantry – and in the game squares are utterly hopeless against infantry in line or column (2 attacks vs 6) so it is a simple matter to overrun infantry defense if you have both infantry and cavalry to do it.

Is this accurate and a period tactic? I would imagine that either the square would reform to fight infantry or they coyld hold on a bit better because forcing infantry in column and then chargingm with infantry does not seem to be a prominent tactic – I did read about artillery being a potent force fagainst squares naturally.

Also, as I understand it, squares were used to prevent being flanked by the cavalry. But if charged by cavalry frontally, and the infantry's flanks are covered, why not just form a thicker line instead of a square? Would Only the flank battalions eould need to form square in a thick battleline like that?

Did infantry in square fight against line (or attack column for that matter) and if it did, how did the square fare?

If they had to and badly.

Is this accurate and a period tactic?

I don't think it happened as much as we talk but it happening but it did but yes. I'm not sure that it is right that BP *forbids* players from changing out of square into line in this scenario but I would agree with their intent that it was rare and risky to do so. It just becomes very circumstantial – how close are the cavalry that are hanging around? From the perspective of the battalion in square who is the most scary thing? Hard to deal with in war-games, big challenges from a design perspective.

Also, as I understand it, squares were used to prevent being flanked by the cavalry. But if charged by cavalry frontally, and the infantry's flanks are covered, why not just form a thicker line instead of a square? Would Only the flank battalions eould need to form square in a thick battleline like that?

Because in the Napoleonic Wars your flanks are likely not anchored well enough and your line is likely not wide enough. During the SYW your flanks would *always* be anchored so well disciplined infantry would just stand there and shoot the cavalry and thus the cavalry never charged into the front of a line. During the Napoleonic Wars fire discipline (on the whole) was less and the anchoring of flanks was less common so the tactic of using square for isolated battalions (i.e. those without very securely anchored flanks) to defend themselves against cavalry came into prominence.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Thanks for the input. This issue came to my mind when replaying Waterloo, and when a simulated Ney's charge happened but this time with infantry support, It felt a bit weird that battalions charged even in the middle of the line defending an incline had to deploy in square and remain there, to be routed by the infantry.

In the game squares do not withdraw, so they have staying power in tbat respect, but they rout just the same so it's very bad to be caught by infantry while in square.

During the SYW your flanks would *always* be anchored so well disciplined infantry would just stand there and shoot the cavalry and thus the cavalry never charged into the front of a line.

Certainly true for the better armies. Files were typically much closer than in the Nap' Wars with interlocking right elbow under next man's left armpit when shooting – very close formations. The spaces between battalions was typically only a few yards so the line would look almost continuous from one side of the army's infantry line to the other. If cavalry got behind them they would typically turn the rear rank to face them and present yet another wall of muzzles and bayonets.

The problem of course, was that these very long closely packed lines were not very manoeuvrable and tactical flexibility was lost. Napoleonic infantry battalions, being looser and not so fixed to their flanking support, were far more tactically 'mobile'. It was a trade off. Training levels of huge conscript armies (50,000 was a very big army in the SYW), condemned them to looser formations and this also compounded the issue. Square Vs cavalry was the default.

You also have to consider the reach of cavalry. In another thread on another forum I recently mentioned the speed of cavalry – Frederick the Great had his cavalry charge from 1200 yards out. It did the first third at the trot, a third at the gallop and a third flat out. It covered the ground in not more than about 2 minutes.

This speed of attack would force Napoleonic infantry into square when cavalry were near (1200 yards) and keep them in it, because infantry wouldn't be able to come out of to do something else, and get back into it, if the cavalry decided to charge. War games rules seldom allow cavalry their full potential movement, so this might be a mechanism by way of a trade off – I can't say because I've never played BP.

There is a description from Jena, 1806, of a Saxon grenadier bn. retiring against French cavalry. They formed square when threatened by the cavalry. When the cavalry were beaten off they formed column of platoons and marched away. They repeated this until they got away.

The main problem here (and it's not specific to BP) is that rules tend to make coordinating different arms too easy. The sort of closely knit cooperation we see on the gaming table – where battalions of infantry and regiments of cavalry from different commands operate with ease within each other's sphere of maneuver and simultaneously threaten a single unit – was actually an enormous rarity. In reality, infantry and cavalry formations would have different orders and missions, and they tended to operate in different tactical spheres. Cooperation, where it existed, was more often fortuitous and on the formation level, rather than that of individual units inter-mixing in an ad hoc fashion.

However, a simple way around this is too treat a line with anchored flanks as a square versus cavalry. These flanks would have to be anchored on terrain impassible to cavalry, or by infantry in squares or closed columns. This was a historical practice, and if perhaps a bit rare, certainly no more rare than the close cooperation between infantry and cavalry we see on the tabletop. By using a formation like this, you would be able to counter multiple threats much more easily – and it makes for a better game too, with more options available to the players.

Another option that some rules go with is to simply forbid an attack on the same facing of one unit by two different arms – so that a threat by cavalry usually means it has outflanked the line, and is more difficult to achieve. This is also a perfectly reasonable tabletop rule.

Cheers,

Christopher

I think you are asking about what happens if you have both a enemy cavalry plus enemy infantry "problem".
I will hope that Art Pendragon answers for the French.

For the Russians, especially 1811 and later ….

The standard "attack column" (2 platoon frontage, formed on the center platoons) was rather resistant to cavalry on its own, or could very quickly form a square (+/- 1 minute for a good regiment). Specifically, if the column closed up and the under-officers moved to sides, then you had 16 ranks on each side, the flanking files of which could face outward and fire. Conveniently, if the battalion had adopted the practise of putting the best shooters on the flanks of each platoon, the shooters on the side will be exactly these men plus the experienced under-officers. The rear of this formation is the two elite platoons, who just about-face to meet cavalry to the rear.

If the regular square is formed, then the side faces have 48 files each. Since there is lots of artillery around (you are Russian) to provide fire power and since you might want to counter-attack into the gun positions with the bayonet (yes, even against enemy cavalry), you might just as well stay in "attack column".

But if you want to get a bit more "fancy", and if you thought you had really drilled the men well, you could try some more fancy things.

For example, if you are in line blazing away at the enemy (which really should be the job of the jäger), and you see cavalry coming, you can do your own battalion-level "ordre mixte". The center 4 platoons keep blazing away and the 2 platoons on each flank make small squares, with the face of each sqaure a half-platoon (12 files). The most exposed troops in this will be, conveniently, your 2 elite platoons.

Or, agian from line you can form a sort of "rally-column" : the 2 center platoons keep firing, the next two platoons on each side face to the center and slant off to take their positions as if in an "attack column" and then the two elite platoons break ranks and hoof it into position on each side of the 6 other platoons, but facing outward to the side.Should take less than 30 seconds to do the evolution.

Too clever? Troops a little green? Then from line you can break into half battalions. One can stay in line or both can form half-battalion squares with each face a platoon (24 ranks). Nice thing here is that you can form the square with a point toward the enemy without losing any time.

If you are marching around in a column on platoon frontage, you can do what the French call a colonne vuide: Your 2 lead platoons form a front face (48 files), then your remaining 6 platoons split, sending a half-platoon to each side. The under-officers move to the side, giving you 28 ranks on each side, the flankers of which can turn outward and fire. You do have a gap in the rear face of the formation, but the conversion into and back out of this formation from/to a marching column on platoon frontage is almost instant.

I can keep going, as there are other variations. But really, in practise, late period Russians often did just leave the formed heavy infantry in attack columns. If the enemy cavalry comes in past their gunfire (and that of all the artillery nearby) and start chopping at the rankers, it is not likely that they are going to break or run or try to hide. They will melee with their bayonets, take and inflict casulaties and stay in place. If a lot of them become casualties, then you can move up another battalion and fight some more on top of their corpses. And the casulaties that can be saved will be treated, and the destroyed battalions will be rebuilt (there was a very well-enginereered system for all this). And for those that can't be saved, the regimental priest will send to their Souls to Heaven, as they have died for their Faith, their Motherland and their Emperor.

- Sasha

P.S. – Are you saying that troops in BP cannot do an evolution of line to/from square ? If yes, the rules are off. It was a common evolution (maybe a little slower than one would like, but absolutely a viable thing to do). I don't play BP, but this (and the evolutions described above …. and the French ones that I hope Art Pendragon will come by to discuss) should all be "possible", either actually on the table or by abstraction, in the rules.

Christopher,

The main problem here (and it's not specific to BP) is that rules tend to make coordinating different arms too easy. The sort of closely knit cooperation we see on the gaming table – where battalions of infantry and regiments of cavalry from different commands operate with ease within each other's sphere of maneuver and simultaneously threaten a single unit – was actually an enormous rarity.

YES.

Sasha,

Are you saying that troops in BP cannot do an evolution of line to/from square ?

Presuming cavalry are "present" it is forbidden I *think*, at least that is what the original poster was saying. I do not have a reference for BP handy.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Yes, once in square ( you can form it as an order or attempt it as a charge reaction) you cannot evolve back into line, as long ass the cavalry remains nearby. This will enable enemy infantry to charge the sequare with impunity on successive turns and the squares are doomed as they have no way out of the fight except by routing or being relieved by friendlies charging into the enemy infantry's flank.

Zelekendel,

So …. I keep feeding small Cossack formations at the French infantry and essentially pin them while I crank up a great giant artillery attack and a nice out-flanking infantry advance? Cool. Except for the fact that I really doubt that Cossack "feints" could "force" a formation choice on a French brigade or higher commander.

I think the BP designer read Scott Bowden's Austerlitz book too many times. What he is baking into the system is the way that the French infantry, especially in the north part of the battlefield, did a bunch of neat evolutions, but needed their cavalry to blow back the Allied horse which had compelled them into (some) squares. If I read Goetz's Austerlitz correctly, Bowden's description of the French evolutions are rather over-simplified, btw.

I would look at getting your group into some house rules, if possible. But, I really like the various formations and evolutions and how they worked and so like to see them not-too-much-abstracted in a game. I have been known to actually enjoy Chef de Bataillon.
:-)

- Sasha

Shako 2 has a form hasty line rule. You can form hasty line from column or square if you role your morale or lower.
There is a rule where cavalry and infantry cannot attack the same target but cavalry can support charge in defence of infantry that is charged.
Squares that are attacked by infantry roll their normal way, morale level, but if they loose are destroyed.

It is my experience that people here in Finland are very careful about the letter if the rules and quite opposed to changing them, but I have had a little luck with house rules, still.

It would seem to me that refusing to form a square against light cavalry or forming back into line or column even with cavalry nearby could be done as a morale roll. Similarly, if charged by infantry, a reaction roll to form line similar to forming square when charged by cavalry should be in order. I do not know if it is faster to form a line from square or the other way round, but certainly infantry charges are markedly slower!

This coupled with the ability to order a retreat on your own turn if csught in square should be enough.

I wanted to add that cavalry and infantry cannot attack the same unit frontally, it's one on one as a rule. The infantry charge is carried out after theg cavalry has forced the square and withdrawn (cavslry do not chRge home on good order squares).

In Shako 2 you can choose to stay in line and shoot the incoming cavalry or form hasty square; a morale roll with minus's depending on how close the cavalry start their charge.
Regular infantry is a 4 in melee.
Light cavalry is a 4 in melee.
If the infantry stays in line and shoots, the following applies.
Roll 4 target staggered minus 1 in the melee.
Roll 5 or 6 is a kill or 2 kills and a stagger, minus 2 in melee.
Thus the infantry has a 50% chance of getting at least plus 1 in the melee if it stands and shoots.
However if it looses the melee, it is destroyed.
Thus the saying goes " do you feel lucky?"

Agree with the posts above, that combined inf-cav attacks are too easy to achieve. That's one of the reasons I like Drums and Shakos Large Battles; units (battlions and cav regiments) attack one at a time. If the cavalry approach first, and force the infantry into square, the cavalry pull back. Then an infantry battalion approaches the square, the defenders have a chance, albeit small, to change to line before contact.

@Zel – Hyvää juhannusta! I'm in Helsinki, so if you're close by you could drop me a line if you like. I know the big club here (N&T) is heavily invested in BP, but I've always played with a smaller bunch of guys that use a variety of different rules. I'm heavily into the ACW at the moment, but will return to my first love of Napoleonics soon, and the other guys still play fairly often. christopher (at) tenwolde (dot) us

A lot of the problems you are having with BP (here, and in the line vs column thread) are just built into the style of game that BP wants to create, and which to be fair many people seem to be enjoying. I was looking forward to BP when it first came out too, but it turned out that it didn't fit for many of the same "basic math of the game" reasons you are bringing up. Ironically, I think it would work much better for the ACW, but I have other options for that period.

Cheers,

Christopher

@Tim – I recently bought D&S Large Battles (perhaps based on a recent thread by you?), and I have to day that the action/reaction mechanic is one of the most innovative and elegant game systems that I've seen in a while. Given my current focus on the ACW, I kept thinking "wow, this could be streamlined even further for a great ACW game", but I'm definitely tempted to give them a go.

Sasha
what you wrote is very interesting. Sort of questions many deep rooted ideas about Napoleonic warfare, repeated over and over like gospel, inherited from a few authors over the years. Many of these, as meritorious they are, never could read sources from other languages, left untouched(German and Russian).
My guess is you are Russian, and if in Moscow, I would love to have chats with you on all this, whenever I go there again, maybe spt.

JC,

Thank you for your kind comments. There is also the question of the increasing availibility of contemporary and archival materials – most notably after the end of the Soviet régime in the case of Russia, but also generally with the ever-increasing treasure trove of digitized materials. Once rare and hard to access works are now instantly available on-line, usually for free.

Although ethnically French, I am extremely, indeed inordinately, proud to be an American citizen, and a veteran of the US Navy. I live now mostly in Saint-Petersburg (my wife is Russian), and in Brittany when on vacation (holiday).

If you have occasion to come to Peter, please let me know. There is a great Georgian restaurant right around the corner from my home …. they still have access (somehow) to the real high-quality Georgian red wine and still make all the traditional dishes. I would be honored to host you.

Bien fort amicalement,
- Sasha

Yes, a lot of new material, need another life.

"ethnically French" is getting more and more controversial to pinpoint…

I will one day go to SPB; another very interesting chap there, 18th century fanatic…
will keep all this in mind, maybe late spt.
merci pour tout
jc

It really does amaze me how readily people who admit they don't know or play Black Powder are prepared to criticise it!

Lets put it into another context to get some perspective:

Those new Ford Granadas? Never driven one but boy are they clunky to drive!

Have you learnt more about the (imaginary) Ford Granada or the poster?

For the record, in BP, it is not 'easy' to order combined arms tactics, if you've done your research in putting together the orbats and command values. It would take 2 seperate command rolls to bring of such a combined arms action. Doable? Certainly! Easy? Not with my dice rolling skills!

As for small units of Cossacks being 'unrealistically' used to try to pin French Infantry in line – well recreating this 'unrealistic' tactic would soon result in lots of missing Cossack units, as the Squares get to issue up to 2 units of fire per face….Strikes me as quite realistic, actually….

I don't think it happened as much as we talk but it happening but it did but yes.

Good grief Bandit, was that 2 cheers for Black Powder!

Sparker,

I am sorry if it sounded like I was negative on BP. I was just trying to get at what was in the rules, how it plays, etc. – to try to make sure I was addressing the original questions correctly.

I could not possibly form any reasonable opinion about BP or any other rules unless I knew them well and had played them at least few times.

If the overall effect nets out fun, playable and historically viable results, I would make it 3 cheers for BP.

- Sasha

Indeed, there's the thing – Black Powder is quite a fun game and the command mechanism is smooth, fast and playable.

All the other rulesets I've taken a look at seem incredibly clunky and slow playing – but I've barely scratched the surface, I admit, and there are surely many gems about.

As said before, Black Powder easily accommodates rule changes and this is even suggested by the author – we have to remember that at its heart it's a generic ruleset of Horse & Musket based on an even more generic system (Warmaster, covering everything from Fantasy warfare to future battles (Future War Commander)) so clearly there's room to add detail where desired without cramping the gameplay, if you're clever and sparing about it!

Sparker,

I don't think it happened as much as we talk but it happening but it did but yes.

Wow did I bungle that statement when I edited it, it should have read more like:

"I don't think it [coordination of arms resulting in cavalry causing infantry to go square so that it could be hit by infantry & artillery] happened [historically] as much as we talk about it happening, but it did yes."

Well, uhm, my quoted comment was not meant to make any statement about Black Powder at all, good or bad.

Regarding your conclusion that:

It really does amaze me how readily people who admit they don't know or play Black Powder are prepared to criticise it!

Actually Sasha didn't just dig into BP without playing it, he commented on what the original poster (Zelekendel) said he was experiencing when playing Black Powder regularly which was:

Yes, once in square ( you can form it as an order or attempt it as a charge reaction) you cannot evolve back into line, as long ass the cavalry remains nearby. This will enable enemy infantry to charge the sequare with impunity on successive turns and the squares are doomed as they have no way out of the fight except by routing or being relieved by friendlies charging into the enemy infantry's flank.

Then Sasha said (essentially): If that is how the rules work they appear to be historically incorrect.

As for small units of Cossacks being 'unrealistically' used to try to pin French Infantry in line – well recreating this 'unrealistic' tactic would soon result in lots of missing Cossack units, as the Squares get to issue up to 2 units of fire per face….Strikes me as quite realistic, actually….

That sounds to more address game balance than to indicate if it is historically accurate or not.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Thanks gents, didn't mean to sound quite so heated!

I'm not going to quote chapter and verse, but as an amateur with more than a passing interest in the Napoleonic wars, probably much the same as you all, my gut feeling is that:

1. Infantry in square would be at a real disadvantage against other infantry, whether they be in line or column – less firepower, and perhaps the 'Oh !' factor of being caught in the 'wrong' formation or knowing/assuming that enemy cavalry were in the offing to turn them into mincemeat if things went wrong…

2. Yes I accept that deliberate joint all arms action to create such a scenario was difficult, even rare, and when it did occur it was probably more through luck than judgement…

The wargaming conundrum is to what extent do you want to limit the wargamers ability to achieve this goal? As observed above, with BP the game organiser can do the research and hardwork to adjust these 'settings' before the game. Through for example the orbat of brigade composition, Command Values and attributes, 'marauder' special rules, etc.

As an example I would give late war Prussians an ability to have a 'mixed' 'brigade', or abteilung, of all arms so that they are much more likely to achieve this with organic cavalry down to the brigade level…

Hmm, sounds like infantry that was charged by cavalry, forced into square with the cavalry withdrawing by default (without a combat being fought) if the square is unshaken and ordered, then the square cannot be charged by infantry in the same command phase.

Instead of the presence of cavalry blocking the square from forming back to line, they give a command penalty to units in square. Naturally this only applies if the cavalry is a threat eg. not in combat itself and not blocked by terrain or troops.

I shall add that to the "house rule".

This should make it suitably rare!

I hope you don't think I am an 'uneducated' critic of BP. The original question was a why question and I was trying to answer it without having played BP.

If anything my answer was pro-BP because I think, as a mechanism, it sounds quite fair. The rule writers, as far as I can see, have tried to build a 'historical balance of situation' into their rules.

I think that, in general, players want too much control over every unit at every moment in a game because they see the units as game counters rather than counters that represent real fallible officers and men, operating under military guidelines (which often make little sense to the modern eye), with something more than a game to lose.

Of course the problem, with every game, is that those who play it often start to use what seems like a perfectly reasonable rule when they started playing as a tool against the spirit of the game in order to win. Personally, I think that is more a flaw in human nature than a flaw in game design – it's probably why so few complex games (out of the millions invented) stand the test of time.

I only ever see rule sets as a toolbox to be changed and tinkered with to suit personal tastes, knowledge, and experience. It's probably why I like Piquet so much – it has the "toolbox" line at the beginning. Still, people will always want the perfect rules to suit everyone – dream on [grin].

The idea that cavalry could pin infantry in square, which could then be disposed of by supporting infantry has been around since I started Napoleonic gaming in the 1970s. I'm not sure how much basis this has in historical fact.

My sense is that squares and closed columns are largely interchangeable (indeed in later wars, and always in emergencies, squares were often formed from closed columns by turning the flank men outwards). It was quite difficult to pin infantry, especially well drilled infantry just by using lurking cavalry, as opposed to getting the cavalry into musket range – which isn't good for the cavalry.

One example illustrates the point I am trying to make – from Mike Robinson's account of Quatre Bras.

At one point the French cavalry charged Brunswick infantry, forced them into square, moved on, but eventually pulled back, but remained within sight of the Brunswickers. The French infantry advanced, and deployed into line. The Brunswickers had changed formation to column, but would not deploy into line because of the presence of French cavalry. They were therefore at a severe disadvantage. So what did they do? They fell back in good order. It was at this point that the Duke of Brunswick was hit.

SO: we clearly get that the threat of cavalry forces infantry into compact formations, even when not in the immediate vicinity – which could present opposing infantry with an opportunity if it deployed into line. But these compact formations weren't immobile (or vulnerable to immediate collapse, I would add), and could fall back if required.

In rule systems I would not make infantry squares more vulnerable to infantry attack than closed columns. I won't comment on BP though – as I've never played or even read them – and you have to look at a rule system as a whole.

The French vormed their squere first rank standing instead kneeling?artist liberty? greetings serge joe

Yes, thank you, Matthew, I thought as well that retreating and reforming would be preferable to getting caught in a bad formation.

Yes indeed the concept of cavalry pinning infantry in square has been around for at least 50 years and is generally false. Except for some poor or untrained infantry squares could and did move. Well trained troops in squares could even attack other infantry. Most reasonably trained units could change formation in a couple of minutes. Regardless, in the presence of the enemy units rarely changed formation for fear of being caught unprepared. Even so there was at least one recorded case of a KGL unit (I think) that blew away a French cavalry unit that attacked them while they were changing formation. Units don't always have to be in square to repel cavalry. Being in square just improves the odds.

Many "old school rules" are designed to encourage what I call "square dancing". The game starts off with most of the cavalry on some sort of witch hunt to track down any infantry on the table that is not in square. If they can catch them out of square it's gravy time. If they force them into square they become dog meat for their artillery or infantry that is following close behind. Although technically ideal, it was never practiced. Cavalry were never given any kind of search and square order. Rarely were the three arms ever able to coordinate such a feat and if they did it was more due to luck then planning. However, the design of a lot of "old school rules" clearly encourage this kind of thing to happen game, after game, after game.

Gentlemen,

what do you think about this article:
link

Also, in forming a hasty line, which would be the quicker: the closed column or the hollow square?

Furthermore, if we equate the attack column with the closed column, what is the performance difference against cavalry compared to the hollow square?

I'm writing up house rules as we speak.

The article certainly confirms my comments about moving squares and it blows away the concept that cavalry was able to pin them in place. It's a major game changer that is pretty much ignored in most "old school rule sets".

There are actual references to how long formation changes would take by different countries, but their pretty much under 5 minutes with some under 2. An actual table would be extensive and for basic game mechanics it's not worth the effort as most games are locked into 5-15 minute turns or longer.

Assuming the closed column changes to a square formation I don't think there is any difference.

Squares were moved by the sides forming columns facing front. This is the formation that was used by the Guards at Waterloo, though from the British point of view it looked like solid columns approaching them, thus their estimates of the French force is greater than it was.

It is the same with the great 'square' formed by McDonald at Wagram.

The General Neverovskiy, rather famously, successfully moved his division, the heavy infantry in square, over 30 km from Krasny to Smolensk in August 1812, while being attcked by 30-45 large cavalry charges. It would appear that there were two open squares, each of 4 battalions.

By the way, his division had just been raised and was not even fully joined with the 2nd Western Army. Napoléon called them invalids and raw recruits – not really true, not not exactly wrong either. Murat was reportedly apoplectic that he could not just wipe them off the face of the earth.

So squares, even large ones, could move not only tactically, but also operationally.

- Sasha

G'Day Gents

The general principles in any army state that a carre (square) is not used for an assault, nor is it used to march or manoeuvre long distances.

Yet it is correct that the Guard assaulted in carre (square) at Waterloo, in accordance to the general principles.

Best Regards ;-)
Art

PS: the article by Jean A. Lochet and George Nafziger on squares…some of you mentioned old school rules…well this is what I call old school misunderstanding of the general principles by modern authors.

In highly abstracted rules I think it is quite acceptable to have one, near immobile formation, call it "square", that represents a square or a column fully closed up, men facing outwards and ready to receive an attack. And another formation, call it a "column", which is the square or column opened out a little and men facing forwards, which is mobile. But you can switch from one to the other very quickly. There is, however, the chance that cavalry can catch the column by surprise. More important: if the cavalry keeps charging, then indeed it is quite difficult for the infantry to move.

As for the difference between a "proper", hollow square and the solid variety formed from a closed column, there are a few. The hollow square had more firepower to the flanks, but it was considered more fragile, especially if the men were only three deep. I think this is the reason why the Austrians preferred the solid square after their reforms, and the Prussians likewise adopted it as standard.

Sparker,

Just to fan the flames but certainly not having a pop at BP its re:

and Infantry in square would be at a real disadvantage against other infantry, whether they be in line or column –

Ok certainly vs. line I agree. But a square vs. a column – is there a significant difference? I'm not sure. A square was not as easily to deploy from for sure, but nonetheless a very solid and secure formation – more so than a column. (And even columns had issues deploying close up, as has been discussed previously.)

Also is there significant firepower difference between a square and say a column of companies? If the square stands what's an opposing column going to do, accepting the fact that it isn't going to crash into it?

IMHO perhaps squares are not at such a disadvantage in these situations as supposed by us wargamers?

DB

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect here. The French Guard in square attacked the allied position at Waterloo who were basically in lines. If a square could not defeat a line why would they ever adopt such a fatalist formation?

As has been stated some squares are basically columns and we know that columns can defeat lines and lines can defeat columns. There is no clear cut winner here. Every situation has to be examined in detail before you can even come close to sorting out the winners and losers.

Here's my draft for the formation house rules for Black Powder based on these discussions. Comments welcomed:

Formations

Line – move 8"
- If taking a move in non-open terrain, roll a d6: on a 6, the line is disordered and stops.
- A line that does not have its flanks anchored (cavalry base fits at the edge) on both sides becomes disordered if charged by cavalry, and will Rout on any Retire break results.

Attack Column move 12"

- Halved Close Combat attacks and 1 shooting attack.
- Full Close Combat attacks against BUAs and Shaken infantry in Line.
- No morale bonus.
- Remove shaken on 5+ at the start of turn.
- +1 Command Bonus (+2 for the French)
- +1 Combat Resolution Bonus against Cavalry
- +1 Combat Resolution Bonus against Line when charging.

Square – move 8"
- May be ordered as normal. Presence of enemy cavalry within 12" requires a morale test to reform to other formations – units with the Elite special rule may re-roll this.
- 2/3 attacks (4 for normal units) in Close Combat, 2 shooting attacks per flank.
- +1 morale save against cavalry
- +3 Combat Resolution Bonus against cavalry.

Closed Column move 12"

- Presence of enemy cavalry within 12" requires a morale test to reform to other formations – units with the Elite special rule may re-roll this
- Halved Close Combat attacks and 1 shooting attack per flank.
- +2 morale bonus against cavalry
- +2 Combat Resolution Bonus against cavalry.
- -1 extra morale penalty against artillery

Must Form Square
– Infantry units must attempt to form square or closed column (if it's currently in attack column) when contacted by cavalry units. Units with flanks anchored or in closed or attack column can choose not to form a square.

Units test their commander's command value to form square under cavalry attack, without modifiers for range, and apply the following modifiers to the roll:

-1 Shaken or Disordered
+1 for each move the Cavalry took to charge. Initiative moves do not count.
+1 for being in Attack Column
+1 for forming a solid column
+1 for having the Elite special rule

On a success, the square or solid column is formed and the cavalry charge is repulsed– but on double 1s the square is disordered and cavalry can charge home. If the order succeeds by 3 or more the square can deliver closing fire (if not a double 1). On a double 6 neither is the square formed under any circumstances and the unit is disordered.
On a failure, the unit stays in the formation it started in.

Hasty Line
Units in square or column may attempt to form a hasty line when charged by infantry. This requires a morale test with the following modifiers. On a roll of 6 the line is formed as disordered.
+1 Enemy unit approaching from further than 1 move away.
+1 Changing from Square to Line (?)
+1 Elite Special rule
-1 Shaken or Disordered

Charging and Closing Fire

Only one unit may charge a certain unit from the same frontage in a given turn, barring supporting charges.
Closing fire that delivers three hits forces the attacker to roll its Elite value or higher, or 5+ from being in an attack column / being cavalry. If failed, the attacker stops at 6" and the charge is failed. Note that the British roll 4 dice for closing fire and are thus very effective at stopping charges!

Disorder
Disordered units may retire (as per break test result) as an order. It is attempted with a -1 command penalty.

Dear Mr. Zelekendel

There is a slight misunderstanding, but it is not your fault, it is definitely something that falls under the old school of misunderstanding created by modern authors.

O There is no such formation called a closed column, is it close column

O An attack column is a close column

O I think you are referring to a solid square when you say closed column. An open square can march a short distance but may become disorganized, while a solid square cannot march at all.

What about lines that doubled because of cavalry; 2 ranks go to 4 ranks, and 3 ranks go to 6 ranks, why do they need to form square?

When a unit is in attack column or what is also called a close column goes to solid square it should be automatic.

Best Regards
Art

while a solid square cannot march at all.

Why not?

Wouldn't the flank files simply have to turn through 90 degrees, and the rear ranks about face, and off they go……

The Austrian battalion masse was, in my understanding, a pretty mobile formation – and wasn't that essentially a 'solid square' – a close column with the outer ranks and files turned out to face the enemy?

G'Day Nigel,

The "battalion masse" was but only one company wide (55 to 60 men) by 6 companies deep (total of 18 ranks), with the third rank of each company deployed into 2 lines on both rear flanks. The "battalion masse" could be maneuvered in open order or in closed order when beset by enemy cavalry.

When one closes the sub-units of a column to rank-distance, a mass is produced.

A close column, everyone is facing the same direction of march/manoeuvre.

A solid square, men are not all facing the same direction. The evolution required from close column to solid square takes less time than most formations, but they are two distinct formations.

In the Regiment de 1791 the only square that an isolated battalion can form is a solid square, and that left the cadre outside the formation, so they came up with a solution in 1792.

As I mentioned in my previous posting, a close column forming a solid square should be automatic, since it takes no time to form, but the actual solid square cannot move.

If a game turn is 10 to 15 minutes and you want the close column to form a solid square without adding rules that is fine…but at least understand they are two separate formations.

Best Regards
Art

I don't think moving from solid square to close column takes much more time/organisation that moving in a hollow square. In game terms pretty much the same thing I'd say.

But a solid square would not be able to move sideways at all easily. In principle a hollow square could.

G'Day Glenn,

I see you noticed my posting.

In my posting in regards to "line vs column question", I explained that the term of column was a broad term, this applies to a square as well.

Mesnil understood that there was a terrible confusion with the French military terms, and started to create a military dictionary. It was a great idea but when he started to define terms, he profited to change certain terms to suit the "System-Mesnil"…hence it was never caught on and never completed.

There was an Author who was insistent that MacDonalds Corps was formed in a square at Wagram, because that is what MacDonald himself called it. But when Hans-Karl and I called it a colonne vuide (vuide was modernized to vide which means empty), he refused to accept the term.

Both terms are correct…and many more to suit the formation.

The French have eight sub-categories for a carre tactique (square), even then it was confusing in that the names for the carres were indifferent within the sub-categories.

Both Russian and French formed squares that were composed of more than one battalion quite often. This is so that it was considered a defensive formation with "une action de feu", meaning that two sides of the carre could produce the same volume of musketry as a battalion deployed.

There are pages that the French have on the subject of the carre oblique, carre perpendiculaire, carre parrallelogramme, carre parallele, carre d'eqypte, carre vide verses the carre plein…ect…and the how and whys…

With all this said, how can the general principles in any army state that a carre (square) is not used for an assault, nor is it used to march or manoeuvre long distances. Yet it is correct that the Guard assaulted in carre (square) at Waterloo, in accordance to the general principles.

There are two such columns that are also called carres tactiques, one is the carre de retraite/colonne de retraite and the other is the colonne d'attaque formed on the center.

The Garde had 4 administrative companies, but when it was formed it was fractionated off into 8 pelotons. Because of this, it did not have to worry about the regles d'endivisionnement when formed in column. This means it could form a carre vide (open square) with pelotons and demi-pelotons.

When a colonne d'attaque deploys, it deploys in two manners; it deploys to form a line, or it deploys to form a colonne double.

Since each battalion has all 8 pelotons and are sub factions composed of either Chasseurs or Grenadiers, it shall not detach tirailleurs en compagnie-peloton, (from the third rank). But it shall detach tirailleurs en compagnie-division or an entire peloton which becomes a tactical compagnie.

When a colonne d'attaque deployes each demi-battalion with a distance of 25 paces or less, it is a column that may assault as a single close column but capable of forming an open square just as fast as a colonne par division serre en masse can form a solid square, except the cadre are now protected within. If there are only 7 pelotons in the colonne double, the 7eme peloton shall remain centered between the two colonne doubles prepared to separate into demi-pelotons to form the center of the carre, or separate into two demi-pelotons and fall behind each demi-colonne.

The problem with the colonne d'attaque was, if it becomes staggered, it was twice as difficult to deploy as a colonne par divisions.

When attempting to deploy a staggered colonne par division, all the cadre were used to deploy the colonne in one direction.

When attempting to deploy a staggered colonne d'attaque formed on the center, the cadre were divided and were attempting to deploy the colonne in two directions. There were times when only one wing could get deployed.

Best Regards
Art

Hello Art!

Of course I noticed your posting. As always I read everything you post with great interest. It's rather odd though, as it's probably been 15-20 years since we first talked about squares and it seems I still have something to learn.

Thanks for expanding on your comments.

Best regards,

Glenn