"Square failure" Topic

I believe we all appreciate the rarity of a square being overwhelmed by cavalry in any battles of the period.

However, as it took at least some time to form square, are there any records of units, in the midst of forming square, being defeated by their mounted enemies?

My rules have a dice throw probability as to whether the square will be formed in time ( harder for Class 1 & 2 units etc). I'm wondering if this needs a tweak or if it should exist at all.

Yes. At Quartre Bras. There were squares that were forming when they were hit… They didn't see the cavalry coming. That was one of the ways cavalry was effective…coming in fast, surprising the infantry… as the lancers did at Albuera.

Quatre Bras: The 42nd was caught by lancers. They drove off the attack but suffered losses, including the CO. The 69th was overrun by cuirassiers, losing their King's color and about 25% of the unit. Both units weren't in complete squares when hit.

A number of Dutch-Belgian units were ridden down though I don't know if they were trying to form square.

In 1813 ()Mockern or Lutzen- what was the battle where Marmont escaped enemy cavalry by hiding in a ditch?) the Brandenburg Kürassiere Regiment charged the 32e(?) Legere. The French tried to form square, but one battalion (1er?) was hit before the square was properly formed and was broken.

Unfortunately for the Brandenburg KR they continued into the second battalion, which was formed, and were thrown back, losing their standard in the process. The standard was quickly recaptured by a Freiwilligen Jäger attached to the regiment and returned.

I don't have my Nafziger 1813 trilogy here, mate, to confirm details. Hopefully Sasha, Oli Schmidt or Hans-Karl can give you more info.

Cheers.

Dal.

At Kulm in 1813 where the sudden arrival of Kleist's Prussians in the rear of Vandamme's Corps caused some French battalions to be overrun by his cavalry.

There have been a number of incidences where square were broken by cavalry charges. Sometimes the squares receiving a pre-assault bombardment weakened them so that the cavalry had a better chance.

In the first Carlist War one cavalry assault worked since the attack was in a rainy downpour. The Lance armed cavalry decimated the infantry which could not fire due to wet powder.

As mentioned the quality of the troops determined if a square would hold. In the painting of Napoleon holding his "Last Trophies' those banners came from squares defeated at Waterloo. Almost all were none British units.

There have been some magazine articles on Cavalry defeating Squares. I am pretty sure one was in "The Courier".

Nafziger's 'Napoleon at Dresden' mentions several Austrian squares either breaking or surrendering to French Cavalry because rain had soaked the muskets so much that they only miss fired. They were unable to defend themselves.

And there was this time at band camp in 1981 where we didn't make formation, and man we really got in trouble…

I LOVE TMP!

G'Day Gents,

In accordance to your question, the danger is in time and distance. How many minutes to a turn and what is the ground scale of your game design?

Best Regards
Art

Thanks for the examples: it's not a remote possibility you may be caught flagrante delicto.

Now the gaming mechanisms as Artepdn notes.

I believe that a KGL cavalry unit fighting in Spain broke a French square. One of the horses got shot and tumbled into the square and subsequently plowed opened enough space to allow more cavalry in.

Terry, you are referring to the combat of Garcia-Hernandez 23rd July 1812.
See link

And Marcel (in French) pages 170-173 link

Marcel's account describes the cavalry catching the 76th and 6th Leger somewhat unprepared whilst the 1st 69th fought off the cavalry by forming a dense column and the 2nd 69th formed square and drove the cavalry off by musket fire.

G'Day Mike…

Great Find!!

It is the first account I have read…"I have read" that an actual bataillon en masse / serre en masse formed en carre (with the exception of Brennier) by the French, and by an eye witness.

Neither the 76e nor the 6e leger in my opinion could have formed square…

Great Fine indeed.

Best Regards
Art

G'Day Mike…

Just read the link for the Battle of García Hernández…and what was thought to have happened…

"A second square farther up the hillside was soon charged. Shaken by the first square's disaster"…not quite…

"The second battalion of the 69th saw off the attacking cavalry by volley fire from its square"…well not quite…it's more complicated than that.

Best Regards
Art

G'Day Gents…

I must say…that I need to correct myself…paint me stupid…in this massive typo…I even managed to mix up regiments…sorry about that…

It is true that a wounded horse carrying a dead dragoon crashed into the square…creating a gap in the square.

The refuges of that battalion swarmed into the second square for safety…prior to the Dragoons arriving…causing that square to become disordered…and not fear…

The refuges from this action then attempted to seek shelter in the third square…but the commander gave orders to fire on both the refuges and Dragoons.

Thus the first square was broken by a horse…and the second square was broken by French refuges.

Once more sorry about the confusion

Best Regards
Art

RudyNelson

As mentioned the quality of the troops determined if a square would hold. In the painting of Napoleon holding his "Last Trophies' those banners came from squares defeated at Waterloo. Almost all were none British units.

You say that at Waterloo "almost all were none British units." Can you expand on that please!

An exception to the rule: The the 28th (North Gloucestershire) Regiment of Foot at Alexandria.

Paul :)

No…no one is going to expand upon it…

Please Leave

artpdn

No…no one is going to expand upon it…

Please Leave

Are you the mouthpiece for everyone? Are you going to make me "leave"? My post is to RudyNelson, not you! So don't be so rude.

Paul :)

Art, I think there is a problem with the sources as is often the case. The perceived wisdom from British accounts is that the wounded horse opened up the square. This conflicts with Marcel's account which has the first attacks being against somewhat disordered units

Oman Vol 5 pp477-480 gives the classic account based on KGL sources. There were certainly some battalions destroyed – of the 76th one officer was killed, 5 wounded and 16 captured from the 27 officers of the battalion. The 6th Leger lost 6 officers captured and 8 wounded.

Greetings

As far as I know, according to British sources, the three 'British' colours lost at Waterloo were from 5th KGL, 8th KGL, Luneberg Light battalion. 5th and 8th KGL lost one colour each while in line, not sure about the Lunebergers.

Note that the 69th Foot lost their King's colour at Quatre Bras (while trying to form square) and this was only recovered in 1909!

French claims appear to be that six colours were captured at Waterloo, although it is possible there is some duplication. These six include a 'Belgian' flag which is unidentified but could possibly have been an unofficial colour of some kind.

See link for a more in depth discussion.

The painting referred to was apparently painted in 1903 and should accordingly not be used as evidence.

Regards

Edward

G'Day Mike

I agree, this is what can happen when one does research and only reads one side of a story…which leads to never quite getting the situation, inference, and assumption correctly.

Best Regards
Art

Hello Ochoin!

As you can see it did happen. I think I recall a couple of others, but when and where escapes me at the moment. The point though it's an extremely rare occurrence if you compared all of the cavalry vs infantry encounters. My guess would be a very low percentage, maybe even below 1%. So if your looking at reviewing your dice roll you might want to consider this.

Also note that in almost every case surprise seems to be the key element. Properly trained units could form squares pretty quickly. So your review would also have to consider how does surprise, speed and training effect your dice rolls.

Best regards,

Glenn

Hi

I remember 'Michael Collins'? Posting on a similar thread concerning the breaking of squares and he gave a multitude of examples – at least 30 IIRC.

If we shy away from trying to represent more 'extreme' weather/conditions in our games then the ratio will be low, but if consider the impact of smoke clouds, overcast, low light, rain and snow (not all in the same day, mind) playing a part, then I think those conditions would support a much higher possibility of such occurrences.

Okay, so there was no eye witness to the fiasco at band camp in 1981…

"These six include a 'Belgian' flag"

One colour lost during the Waterloo Campaign was that of the 3rd bn./2nd Nassau. THis may be the 'Belgian' flag referred to. Exact circumstances of the capture are unknown. It still exists and may have been lost at Quatre Bras as it was eventually found with the 69th Ft. colour.

As I understand, the 5th KGL, 8th KGL & Luneberg Light battalion were all ordered forward at different times to reinforce La Haye Sainte. Seeing French Cavalry nearby they formed square, but were then ordered back into line and then were caught by the Cavalry. Some of this may be the Prince of Orange's fault.

Hi flipper,

Yes, I did find that there were distinctions to be made in many cases – weather was one of them, and whether the squares had been properly formed before being "broken" or rather before they were routed was another.

DaleWill- Were the Austrian units you mention actually in a square formation or were they in Battalion Masse?

Hone citation notes that the flags actually presented to Napoleon were from Dutch, Belgian and Hanover rather than British

Rudy

Whose citation ?
I've never come across any actual reports concerning Dutch, Belgian and Hanoverian captured flags.
Thanks for any info.

Cliff

@ Glenn

Thank you!!

I'm up for an esoteric discussion of Napoleonic military history as much as most but it would be nice to tie it to a discussion of wargames occasionally.

I'm not so much looking at squares breaking as the chance of failing to form before you're hit by cavalry.

I'd agree 1% for breaking a square (with provisos for morale, weather, troop quality & training) but what percentage might you give for a square failing to close in time?

That will vary with training, visibility, ground conditions, exhaustion, simultaneous threat from infantry or artillery……..

That just applies to those forming the square. Don't forget the "in time" factor may also depend on the speed of the attackers in closing…with most of the above factors again!

but what percentage might you give for a square failing to close in time

All the factors deadhead mentions would apply, but for most rules I think morale/training and distance would probably be the main factors. A morale penalty that increases depending on how far the cavalry are when the unit attempts to form square (ie the closer, the higher the penalty) is one way.

Or you could borrow from Clash of Arms excellent "La Bataille" series of boardgames. Basically troops have a chance to form square based on their morale level and the distance to the cavalry. In miniature terms, elite troops who spot the cavalry when they're > 1 charge move away can automatically form square, but may only have a 25% chance to do so if the cavalry are 1/4 of a move away. Militia may have a 10% chance of failing and becoming disordered in the former case and automatically rout in the latter.

Cheers.

Dal.

Time is the key factor then: thanks.

One thing most rules lack (mine at least) is how easy it was even for a regiment of cuirassiers to be invisible in a fold in the ground etc. I believe that's how the KGL were surprised near La Haye Sainte.

This can be factored in with a simple die roll, I think. 5-6 & they're out of sight if not out of charge range.

Hello ochoin!

Your welcome.

Now your into the real grit of the problem.

Almost nobody is invisible on a wargame table. The cavalry are prompted to charge because they can see the infantry are not in square. The infantry are not in square generally due to player oversight. Most rules cover a time frame of 5-15 minutes a turn. Infantry can form square in under 2 minutes. So to even consider this you probably have to have the cavalry being invisible at less then 2 minutes away! Otherwise the square can easily be formed, providing no other variables are in play.

Anyway, yes to keep things simple establish a charge distance and a dice roll to see if they can't be seen. I suspect that to conform with most rule systems they will have to be almost right on top of the infantry which will render the entire exercise extremely rare if not obsolete.

Most systems that I have seen conduct the test regardless of how far away the cavalry was. Clearly wrong but unless your playing with new players it rarely happens so it's generally not a big deal.

Best regards,

Glenn

why should infantry form square?

In case you formed it according in two or three battle lines?

Also you might have cavalry to counter attack.

Also you might have protected flanks

Cavalry just cannot roam around on a battle field like modern battle tanks, they themselves have to keep tactical formation, reserves, take in account the ground.

Also contrary to mythical believe, squares were vulnerable, there a lot of examples where cavalry was successfull, read 100 memoires and you will find plenty.

It is down to discipline, unit coherence and firepower again.

a closed coumn is more or less as good as an open square against cavalry

@ V.W.

I don't think modern armour can "roam around a battlefield" either but to the question.

In theory, I think you are correct in stating a closed column (or a masse) could be quite effective. The Austrian experience seems, to a degree, to bear you out.

So: why did the vast majority of tactical responses to cavalry attack on infantry result in the response of a square? If the column was superior & easier to form, it seems the tactical experts of the time might have come to your conclusion but clearly they didn't. I think a closed column was "less" rather than "more" to put it in your parlance.

"lots of examples"? I think we've just about covered all the examples of squares crumbling (above). Do you have copious other examples? Please cite them.

Guénard's 1867 Etude sur la formation en carré

link

ochoin – Do you know any more about the actions of Austrian Batallion Masse vs Cavalry? I have always thought that the masse was an effective (?) defense against cavalry, but never actually knew a good example of this except for one I read about from the 1809 battles. Were lancers more or less effective against a masse or a square formation. The many comments seem to indicate that they were, but for some less than exact reasons. It would seem that the square "breaking" was a combination of many factors as was indicated in a list of 29 square failures in another thread in Napoleonic Discussion. My main interest is rules governing square vs cavalry being applied equally to Masse vs cavalry. Interesting thread.

My only sources are Gill & Rothenburg. The 'Kaiserlichs' are my least favourite Napoleonic armies, I fear.

I'll dip into them & see what insights they offer.

Ochoin : re Closed column vs square. Im in agreement with your observations .

If closed column was much easier to form vs a change of formation to square why didn't they ? Why do we read again and again , on Infantry going to Square ?

Possibly the prominent reason was the desire to get shots into the cavalry.

more muskets can probably fire from Infantry in square firing volleys over kneeling colleagues across multiple faces of a square formation. Versus how many who could bring muskets to bear and fire out from a closed column ( or solid square for that matter)

If the infantry is deployed for defence then I would expect the infantry to be in line or wanting to form line again after the cavalry has gone so forming square makes sense.

However if the infantry is acting offensively, moving to another position, being French in making a perpendicular approach the I would suggest that close column (or a column of close columns) is better for putting back into movement once the cavalry attack has been beaten off.

"If closed column was much easier to form vs a change of formation to square why didn't they ? Why do we read again and again , on Infantry going to Square ?"

You don't read it all the time, lots of time they stayed in close column, it would apprear what the overall tactical situtation was – read for example :

Renard : Considerations Sur la Tactique de l'Infanterie en Europe, Paris 1857, page 92 onwards where this topic is well discussed.

Again, as in a lot of other threats about tactic the picture is distorted by ignoring non English literature und relying purely on English books on that subject.

Start with Renard

At VW

I could start with Renard but I doubt if non-English sources are the only sources of wisdom.

Start with Dundas.Much closer in time to the period we're discussing.

link

re VW – Agreed. ( sorry I'm predominantly English speaking – though I can swear a little bit in French )

I think its Nosworthy who references in the Peninsular campaign events where the French attempted closed column but in both cases they were ridden down.

Which I thought was quiet interesting.