"Question on squares" Topic

I'm in the process of making my own rule set and would like some real historical context on squares. We all know the famous British squares repelling Neys multiple charges at Waterloo. But other than that how often where they used? Where most line infantry battalions capable of forming square? How long did it take to form square from line?

Always consider Closed Columns

They were used all the time, and all trained infantry could form them. Just took longer for poorly trained troops.
According to Jeffries ‘tactics and grand tactics of the Napoleonic wars', it took 2 to 5 minutes, depending on unit size and tactical doctrine. Roughly half the time that it took to form line from column of march. Whereas going from line into or out of column of attack is roughly twice as fast as forming square. Whether you want to model all those fine distinctions I don't know. The French system was certainly much faster than the Prussian.

Being in certain formations meaning tighter made it easier, some ( Russian at least) could be quickly formed turning out side companies even if half.

Respectfully, this question suggests that you might want to do a bit more reading and study of the period. It would certainly help the authenticity of your rules. 2 or 3 good books would help you get quickly across questions such as this. Waterloo was almost the last battle of the Napoleonic Wars, it wasn't the only one. The major campaigns were fought across central europe between France, Austria, Russia and Prussia. David Chandlers classic book "Campaigns of Napoleon" is a very comprehensive approach to the tactics (including squares), battles and history of the period. You could even just use the search tool here on this website to find hundreds of entries from exhaustive previous discussions around all aspects of squares and other common napoleonic tactics.

I still prefer the 7 Years War, where infantry were happy to face charging cavalry in line!
Napoleonic infantry were rubbish! Nah, nah ne nah nah!

Happy New Year!

Lt, Col. Hon Arthur Wesley/Wellesley's first two engagments in 1794-95 both involved his regiment the 33rd (1st West Riding)seeing off attacking cavalry, with the battalion either in line or column- and in the process of withdrawing.

At Quatre Bras, it seemed every allied battalion was in square through most of the battle. There was French cavalry swarming all through the lines, particularly in the early stages of the battle. Something I did not appreciate until I read Robinson's book on the battle.

As noted above, yes, squares were very commonly used. It was considered one of the core elements in infantry training.

The following books are highly recommended for rules designing. They should answer many of your questions, along with other questions you probably didn't know you had. The second title is mentioned above. The first one should be read cover to cover if at all possible.

The Background Of Napoleonic Warfare: The Theory Of Military Tactics In Eighteenth-Century France
Robert Quimby

Tactics and Grand Tactics of the Napoleonic Wars
George Jeffery and Ned Zuparko

Imperial Bayonets: Tactics of the Napoleonic Battery, Battalion and Brigade as Found in Contemporary Regulations
George Nafziger

In the Spring of 1813 Napoleon ordered that the new infantry regiments ONLY be trained to form column and square, with emphasis on expertise in the square. It was known that the enemy cavalry would be superior in numbers. Square formation was common and much needed.

You have a so called open square, an half open and a closed one, an closed square is almost nothing else than a closed column, so very easy to form.

All those types were still being used by the time of the American Civil War. My reenactment battalion could do them all :)

Russians and Austrians may also have been forming triangles as well as regular squares. there was also rally squares which were really lumps or tight groups formed after a square broke or there was no time to form a proper square (usually ended badly).

I did never encounter triangles in any regulation, not in the Austrian ones, the Austrians could use Divisionsmassen for square, Bataillonsmassen, half open and open.

Hard to see much advantage in a triangle. Far too easy to knock off the chaps at the apex of each angle. I would have thought a circle was a better prospect, once numbers were really reduced…but I can well imagine such would indeed usually end badly!

Following on from Herkybird's comment, why did infantry from the WSS and SYW use squares much less frequently than Napoleonic troops? Were they better trained, did they fight in lines on smaller battlefields which were more difficult to outflank? Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Indeed, there were continous lines of infantry, flanks proteced by infantry and cavalry and a frontal attack would be suicidal, in case they caught those lines however in the flank the result was a catastrophe for the infantry as by Hohenfriedberg were one Prussian dragoon regiment rode down 10,000 Austrians

Infantry units would only have to use squares if their flanks and/or rear were threatened. Trained infantry in line could easily defeat frontal attacks.
In this respect, most Napoleonic wargame rules are wrong.

About 1670 the plug Bayonet came in and infantry went from 2/3 shot 1/3 pike to all shot.

The formation were still 6 deep by the start of the WSS which allowed infantry to stand up to Calvary armed with swords and shot. (no reach and musketeers could out shoot carbines and pistols.)

The Austrians fighting the Turks in the late 1600 had a battle which they had enough infantry to post battalions across the field in a LINE between two rivers. the Turks attacked and were shot down. thus the line of battle formation came in. Europe took note. couple decades later around 1700 the French formed for a battle with their infantry on the wings Cavalry in the center and charged and broke some of the battalions in the line but a second line had been formed of infantry that did not fit in the first. The second line shot down the blown (tiered) Cavalry and the standard formation of 2 line of battle started. Europe took note.

By the WSS infantry was formed in 2 lines with Grenadiers typically on the ends to join the lines and form squares against flankers.

late 1600 the Fusil (flintlock) replaced the matchlock (slowly as regiment names show allowing the ranks to be reduce to three. this took twenty years or so. Early WSS and late WSS Battalions look very different. The WSS was a war of transitions

The Prussian in the 1740's introduce marching to move their Battalions quicker across the field while keeping order. The Battalion had more firepower than 50 years ago it was wider with less depth (6 ranks to 3) The Battalions of 1740 could deliver more than twice the firepower of the 1690 battalions after the first volley.

since a 3 rank formation could not stand off Cavalry. No mass or weight. Ancient Greek writers stated you need 6 to 8 ranks to stand up to Cavalry or the horse would just push through. They figure out how to form square from company to corp. The Austrians facing the Turks taught Europe how to do it quick.

squares could move and was really the starter formation of modern infantry (1400 CE on )

notice that during the WSS and the SYW there always seem to be rivers and villages for the infantry to anchor on.

This is a deep and fascinating subject and one reason that I play miniatures and wargames. The why of it

hope this helps

Green to answer your lead question look at

With Musket, Cannon And Sword: Battle Tactics Of Napoleon And His Enemies Hardcover – March 21, 1996
by Brent Nosworthy (Author)

The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon Paperback – February 22, 1981
by Gunther E. Rothenberg (Author)

Gunther is an easy read Nosworthy has a chapter on each armyon how they did things so reads like instructions.

The men of the past were smart and had many tools which to do their job with. Battles have a lot in common but no two are alike.

if you are just starting out on Napoleonic's

may I recommend

Napoleon's campaigns in miniature: A wargamers' guide to the Napoleonic Wars, 1796-1815 Paperback – January 1, 1985
by Bruce Quarrie (Author)

thanks for the list wtjcom

I have not read Quimby

George Nafziger Imperial Bayonets' is the cook book LOL

Ruchel "Infantry units would only have to use squares if their flanks and/or rear were threatened. Trained infantry in line could easily defeat frontal attacks.
In this respect, most Napoleonic wargame rules are wrong".

Then why did they form square when their flanks weren't threatened. Reading the thread on British skirmishers it appears from the link [https://archive.org/details/waterlooletterss00sibo/page/326/mode/2up?view=theater] that some British battalions started Waterloo in square.

according to my reading the British generally where in columns of waiting which is companies doubled up and from this you can form square in lees than a minute.

During the French First Corp attack the 42 and 43rd (44th?) were caught in this formation when Durette came up. The British with a 2 company front and the French with a battalion in line (head of the Brigade column (6 companies)
shatter them with 2 volleys.

which is why the British Guard when stood up and order to fire were seen to be in a 4 rank formation when facing the French Guard attack.

Your letter is interesting, it looks like the right of the line was started in Square.

which show that the British were well aware of the threat of Cavalry

This is an example of why rule writing is a challenge.

The Gents were smart and had many tools in their war chest.

some British battalions started Waterloo in square.

If their flanks and/or rear were not threatened there was no need to use squares. So that occurrence, if it really happened, was an absurdity.

From Crisis in the Snows, by James R. Arnold (p. 317):

"…It fell to Major-General Peter Kakhovsky's Polish Horse Regiment to spearhead this effort. The deep snow restricted the speed and maneuverability of the Russian cavalry. Consequently, the French did no fear a sudden charge against their flanks and Friant could afford to deploy his infantry in line. They used firepower alone to confront the approaching enemy horse. Kakhovsky's Polish troopers, along with their heavy brethren in the Little Russia Cuirassiers, valiantly conducted repeated charges but made little impression against the steady French infantry."

This is an illustrative example. It is a question of common sense: no threatened flanks/rear, no need to use squares.

Replying to an old thread always has the problem that it may not be read. However, time taken to form square is a particular "hobbyhorse" of mine, as exemplified by this article on my website, originally written 26 years ago.

link

Essentially, the trick to forming squares quickly is to be in the optimum formation beforehand. That is quarter distance column for the British (and their closest allies) forming four rank squares from two rank companies, and half distance columns for the French (and anyone else) forming three rank squares from three rank companies. Both took exactly the same time, no more than 20 seconds for a well trained battalion.

Rod

At Quatre Bras, it seemed every allied battalion was in square through most of the battle. There was French cavalry swarming all through the lines, particularly in the early stages of the battle. Something I did not appreciate until I read Robinson's book on the battle.

What really stood out for me with Robinson's book was just how often the units quickly formed a rally square, even the most inexperienced ones. Seems the infantry only failed to rapidly form a close enough resemblance to a square if the inexperienced troops panicked and ran, or if any troops were caught by surprise.

The surprise also came about surprisingly frequently because no one was quite sure whose troops were whose.

"Hey, anyone know if those cavalry over there in red are French or British? No? No one has a clue? Huh."

"I think those cavalry right over there are French, we should form square." "No, they're not, stay in line." "Umm, could we fire a cannonball near them just to see how they react?" "Oh hey, they are French and they're charging us now!"