"Why didn't WSS cavalry annihilate infantry??" Topic

I've recently started reading about the WSS and am interested in starting to game it. My past has been SYW and Napoleonic gaming. One of the aspects of early 1700s gaming that intrigues me is the much larger ratio of cavalry in the mix and the, alleged, much lesser use of the square formation for infantry. Although I have read accounts of large squares being formed in some situations, it does not seem to be a typical battalion formation like in later times. THAT being said, with so much horse on the field, why weren't these infantry units swept from the field? I understand that some cavalry did not charge hard and preferred to fire, but surely others did and should have been able to break through lines or get between units. What gives??? It makes sense that given the cost that cavalry units would decline if they weren't as effective on the field- as apparently happened as the century progressed. Why was the square needed later in the century? Why wasn't it needed as much earlier in the century?

In the 18th century the infantry formed up in long lines of units in line. Consequently there were no exposed flanks and so no need for squares.

Assuming a line was at most 4-5 men thick…a break through would seem too easy with those kinds of numbers of horse to me.

You have answered your own question, with that much cavalry on the field they kinda negated each other. It is no good charging infantry if the enemy cavalry then swept into your flank.

Also remember infantry now had socket bayonets, and flintlock muskets with metal ramrods. And the fact that apart from the Turks and some Hungarian units, Light cavalry as we know it later did not really exist on these battlefields.

Formed Infantry 3 to 6 ranks deep would drive off cavalry from the front, same as in the SYW and later. Cavalry could only charge frontally at already shaken or broken infantry, and as yet there was not the artillery to do this duty.

To see how cavalry was used at its best in the WSS study Ramilles.

John Keagan had some good insights on this in general in "The Face of Battle". He described a video of a police horse facing a modern mob.

It is very, very difficult to make a horse run at something that it perceives to be solid. Horses can be trained to do certain things, but completely overriding their hard wired behavior in a stressful situation can be tough.

Wasnt lying down also a valid tactic? puts the infantry out of reach of the guy on the horse with the sabre, and if he leans down to try hit his quarry he is rather more vulnerable to being pulled off his horse.

IIRC at one battle the Horse rode straight over a prone unit which simply stood up, about faced, and fired into their rear!

Thanks everyone. FreddBloggs, I'll take a look at Ramilles.
So… I understand everything everyone else is saying, but wanted to know why the later period is different. It seems like square order was used a lot in the later period. I guess if there were a lot more opposing cavalry, it would make sense that that would keep them in check. Also, if the infantry lines were not as strictly contiguous later, it makes sense that they were more vulnerable to horse. It's all very interesting to me, the balance.
It's also interesting to see the way lines were drawn up, often times a line of cav up front supported behind by lines of infantry.

daler240D,

Basically, in the early part of the 18th Century Infantry marched up to battlefields in full distance columns, then formed into lines at extreme artillery range, and stayed in that formation, with Cavalry on their flanks. This made it very difficult for opposing Cavalry to Attack the infantry.

From the middle of the Century, the Prussians developed moving on the battlefield with separate battalions at half distance, quarter distance or close columns, all of which using newly invented drills, could form line to their front relatively quickly, so they stayed in column for fast movement up to extreme musketry range.

This development led to much more fluid tactics, and all nations copied this. These battlefield columns were however vulnerable to cavalry, so they developed drills to form squares very quickly. The fluidity of the late 18th century and Napoleonic battlefield also gave much more opportunity for cavalry to operate anywhere, and not be confined to the flanks, as they were in early 18th century deployments.

Rod

As one of my riding instructors said years ago. "You cannot command what you do not understand."

It's the horses. Tactics are irrelevant to what the horse will and will not do. A horse contrary to the s of most war gamers will not purposely ride into an obstacle like Infantry well formed with bayonets. The rider KNOWS his fate if he does and will transmit signals of his fear to the horse. The Horse will not do it at all if he has no rider, and will seek to go around an obstacle.

This I saw clearly during my days of equestrian achievement. A horse will not step over a log laying on the ground. He will go around it in preference. The horse likes to have his feet on the ground all the time.

Way back in the days of Frossart in his writings on war he said that cavalry, which mean't heavily armed knights should never charge infantry till the latter had been well disordered, otherwise the cavalry would be wrecked. Keegan said the same thing in Face of Battle, and anyone who goes to a jumping event today will see the same thing. A horse can jump a fence or Oxer from standing right next to it. He doesn't need a running start. But they don't they'd rather go around it.

Doesn't matter what period or age it is in. The horse will not be suicidal for the rider. Therefore, if Infantry holds firm and does not break, (and the square is there only for the fearful infantry, not the cavalry) then the cavalry charge is doomed.

You can see this in equestrian events when a horse throws its rider and in panic and fear is racing around the ring. The handlers and riders simply stand in the way of the horse to break it's momentum and the horse obliging goes around them. They slowly narrow the circle, and with the fences and Oxers the horse has to make more and more turns and loses momentum. Eventually the horse slows and the the handlers touch the horse, put their hands on him as he passes by and this soothes them. They slow and are happy to be with their masters again. The horse is then led away to an exercise ring to cool down.

Wonderful beautiful creatures horses, but incredibly dumb, but loving and simple.

Oh yeah, the handlers and riders were not in formation nor had any weapons./

Otto

While there may be some historical incident where infantry went prone to avoid the reach of a cavalry unit….I'd say that would take a pretty special infantry unit to maintain anything approaching discipline and effectiveness. Would you want to have a horse run "over" you? Have you stood next to a horse? Of any size? Any guess as to the possible damage getting stepped on/kicked by a horse? Going prone, in a completely vulnerable position, sounds like an act of last second desperation rather than a planned tactical adjustment.

The reason for Infantry being behind cavalry is simple, after engaging cavalry takes longer and more space to re-organise themselves, this they did behind the shield of infantry.

It was often found that if infantry were prone, or supine, it was difficult to get them back on their feet, .

As said before, early in the period infantry formed in a single group with just two flanks, each covered by cavalry. Things got looser late in the Seven Years War and really opened up in the Napoleonic wars. As divisions and brigades operated independently, each unit had a pair of flanks that were open. I also suspect that as later infantry was drilled into forming square against cavalry this made them doubt their ability to hold off cavalry when in line.

Rod and Vtsaogames, I think that really clears it up for me. It was just hard for me to imagine that the battlefields in the WSS were that tight. This will be a very interesting period to game. I wish there were more rule sets dedicated to recreating/discussing this aspect. I'm getting ready to dive into Ga Pa now. Anyone have any guidance on this or house rules that they use for WSS with other rules. (I already have Might and Reason and the mod for that). Thanks for all the great responses everyone!!

The same reason ancient cavalry didn't annihilate infantry. Both had the potential. Both would fail if the infantry stood firm or was not shot up a bit first. Invariably, cavalry will win on a flank attack but often fail on a frontal assault.

Yes, it seems easier access to a unit flank in the later periods is the key difference that I'm hearing here compared to the WSS.

I find this passage interesting in Dundas' original PRINCIPLES OF MILITARY MOVEMENTS (1787), relating to infantry receiving an attack from cavalry.

Having begun by extolling the Prussian virtues of-
"Superior order, regularity, and weight of fire"-

and stating that:
"the old ideas of firmness, compactness, and mutual support, should be restored and held sacred; the formation in three ranks and at close files but without crowding, should be adhered to, as the fundamental order, on which the the battalion should at all times form and march…"

Dundas goes on to say:

"Fire alone certainly ought not to stop the progress of a determined cavalry, and it is hardly credible how few men and horses are at the instant brought to the ground, by the most steady and well directed fire; therefore it seems eligible in some situations to prepare openings, towards which the cavalry will naturally swerve, and through which perhaps the whole will find their way.

But undoubtedly, there is much danger in allowing the line to be pierced, or in altering a disposition at the instant of being threatened by cavalry: and therefore in line of battle, where the flanks of the army are covered, where the getting round them would be a considerable and critical operation, and where the uniform front is to be maintained, the attack of the cavalry is at any rate to be opposed by steadiness, supporting corps, and a heavy constant well directed fire of musketry and artillery—

Notwithstanding these, should a part of the enemy break through the line, it is an event that ought by all to be expected, but not without its remedy— When the troops are thus prepared, they will be the less surprised to see cavalry in their rear, who cannot long remain to advantage between the lines, under a fire in all directions (if the infantry are steady) and who also are liable to be attacked when in disorder by the supporting cavalry."

This last point indicates battalions or large bodies deployed in squares or echelon, enabling eahc to cover the flanks of its neighbours. This would be rendered possible using Prussian methods of manoeuvre.

While flank deployment of horse, and a double line of infantry in the center was common, one only has to look at Blenheim, Malplaquet, and to some extent Oudenarde, for exceptions. At Ramillies, almost all the cavalry was sent by both armies to one flank as this was the only dry and open ground. There are also battles in Spain and Italy that do not follow this pattern. The ground often dictated the battle plan and deployment. It was not formulaic.

The advent of the socket bayonet, flintlock mechanism and prepared cartridge gave the infantry firm protection from a frontal charge. In the WSS the transition to thinner lines was only beginning and units were very deep, often 4-6 ranks. This depth made them fairly resistant to frontal charges unless they were disorganized or poor troops. Infantry regiments were not very maneuverable and changing formations was nearly impossible once the battle began.

Horse, on the other hand, were primarily shock troops, much more maneuverable, and decidedly much faster in movement on the battlefield. They could look for opportunities to catch infantry on a flank, when they were shaken and disorganized, and when their line was disrupted. The infantry lines were not, by the way, monolithic walls, and irregularities of ground, retreating troops, and bad initial deployments often opened up opportunity for cavalry. The WSS is a great period for cavalry fans!

The reason horse was often placed on a flank, or in front of their infantry was a simple one. The infantry was too dense to transit without disorganization in both the infantry and horse. They could move through intervals in their line, but this was still difficult in combat. Cavalry was often also placed in a second line as a quick response force to any breakthrough of the infantry.

Cavalry's weakness was it was very brittle, could not hold ground, and only had a limited durability in battle. It could win battles, but the infantry was needed to take the ground. In the WSS cavalry was deadly in pursuit.

It should be noted that extensive use of squares in battle is pretty much a Napoleonic era occurrence. Large squares were used in later colonial wars where the natives lacked guns and efficient firepower, but these were more like moving zeribas.

Even in the Napoleonic wars squares only made sense where no artillery or infantry fire could affect them. The square is a very specialized and rare formation even in the period where it was most used! More have occured per battle in wargames than ever were used in history. More wargame rules and text have been written about squares, hasty squares, and formation drill than any officer of the period could have imagined.

As for a horse being too dumb to charge into a square, I would think that they would be too dumb to know the consequences of closing as well! Certainly they would not jump into a solid line, but they would certainly fall into one if hit, and if the line wavered even a bit…well…

Quite apart from the diminished firepower of the square, and it's relative immobility, not to mention the juicy target it offered to other arms, one might also consider that one benefit is that it gave no place for anyone to run, and made everyone in the square "braver" and more likely to stand against a cavalry charge simply because there was no exit door. This was very helpful given the abysmal infantry of the later Napoleonic wars, often quickly trained teenagers and displaced refugees of twenty years or more of war.

Chandler is a good source on WSS tactics, though a bit of a "homer". If you can get a copy of John Lynn's "Giant of the Grande Siècle" do so. The chapters on WSS tactics are the best written in English.

The only instance of which I am aware of infantry lying down to engage enemy cavalry occurred in the Seven Weeks War. A Prussian battalion went prone in the face of an Austrian Hussar regiment and proceeded to blow them out of their saddles. This was, of course, possible because of the breech-loading Zundernadelgewehr. Wouldn't have worked with muzzle-loaders.

I believe most important for an understanding of the difference between early and late 18th century cavalry tactics is to realize that all evolutions by early 18th c cav were executed much slower. Speedy violet charges were simply unknown, asside from possibly few rare exceptions. Horse spent most of the day on a battlefield moving at a walk or at a slow trot at best. Any faster pace was seen, at times, only at very close ranges to the enemy – 50 paces and less, when the latter had already decided to turn about and run away. Officers lacked the know-how and the men the required training to do any better. Special tactics to engage infantry were unknown. It was opposed the same way as when engaging cavalry – i.e. approach slowly, fire your pistols, and at the moment you see them giving way, draw your saber, put your horse into the galopp, and try to cut in – to express it al in a rather condensed way

Except, all Allied cavalry in the WSS was strictly shock and never fired prior to contact. French cavalry was a mixed bag varying by the wishes of their Colonel.

All speed on the battlefield was relative with cavalry moving and maneuvering faster and more flexibly than foot. I think you sell the training and skill of the officers and men too short. They had tactical doctrine and drill and practiced it very well. The speed of maneuver was not appreciably different than later periods, and cavalry often used a more measured pace in charging, until the final yards,right up to the Napoleonic era. To be sure, the flexibility of maneuver was more limited by the available drill than later doctrine, but WSS cavalry was pretty proficient.
The battlefield environment for cavalry was far less lethal as muskets were still new in design and fire doctrine, and artillery was not the Queen of the Battlefield it would become over the next 100 years.

Dido to what crogge1757 said. Cavalry in the WSS moved at a stately speed compared to the SYW. Maintaining formation was paramount for cav in the WSS just like infantry so formation changes, movement, and attacks were all done at much slower speeds. A charge could be done at the trot, maybe a canter but never at the speed found in the SYW or beyond.

The use of closed squares by British armies in colonial wars dates to the Zulu War. The reason: general orders issued by the high command were to treat Zulus tactically as cavalry; makes perfect sense: fast moving, highly manoeuvrable (no formations to maintain) shock troops.

Mobile open squares were used earlier, during the Ashanti War, but that was an attempt to overcome the danger of potentially being outflanked by an enemy rendered virtually invisible because of the density of the West African vegetation.