Honour Forums

Discuss the Honour system.

1. Pickton
   Member

   After 39 years of study of Military History I am still concerned with a matter that bothered me back in 1971. There is a tendency in wargamers to bend the military reality to fit the rules (yes I have done it too!).

   Lets take the square. Who came up with the idea that a square could not move? Reading at the moment includes Mark Adkin: The Waterloo Companion, and he follows the same line as Barbero in his Waterloo Book in saying the Guard Chasseurs attacked the Allied line in square. Adkin also makes a valid point (with diagrams) that this formation is no harder to maintain than a full line when proceeding in a nominated forward direction. Consider that some of Wellingtons Allied Officers memoirs mention their units moving forward in square and we have food for thought.
   Finally, Before and after this period it was not unknown for British troops in India or Africa to move about in square

   Posted 2 years ago #

2. EagleSixFive
   Member

   The optional rule is in the book for moving whilst in square formation.

   Posted 2 years ago #

3. cam_millar
   Member

   We played moving squares in my last game. Gamers being gamers, the only time squares moved, it was toward enemy cavalry with the aim of making it harder for the cavalry to attack other troops or the square to be shot at.

   Drill allowed squares to move, but I doubt they advanced on enemy cavalry.

   Cam

   Posted 2 years ago #

4. Pickton
   Member

   I agree with you on the matter of cavalry. The question Adkin raises in my mind is why it would be harder to move about in square than line other than taking longer to cross linear obstacles.

   Square does appear to have been used for movement when infantry might be at risk of suddenly finding themselves confronted by cavalry and not as a mobile screen

   Posted 2 years ago #

5. vilcum
   Member

   <<;I agree with you on the matter of cavalry. The question Adkin raises in my mind is <<<;why it would be harder to move about in square than line other than taking longer to cross linear obstacles.

   Because it was not on the training books, linear tactics had been developing for two centuries at Napoleonic times, they has strict customs in each army about the positioning of each single soldier. Physical capabilities are not all that matters here: In that light a line making an about face should be the simplest of the movements, but reality shows us it was a most complicated affair as each company and row was predefined to occupy an exact position in the line.

   An advancing square .. What would be the advance facing? How would turning be done ?

   We can really do it in our tables with our single minded toy soldiers but officers at the time have to cope with real soldiers who only know what they were trained to do.

   <<Square does appear to have been used for movement when infantry might be at risk of <<suddenly finding themselves confronted by cavalry and not as a mobile screen

   I´m afraid you are confusing exception with rule. English lines fought at least once -in alejandria- with the two rows facing opposite enemies and that doesn´t mean that was easy or even posible to age standards.

   Surely imperial guards advanced in square at waterloo – I would even say those “squares” being technically hollow close-columns- , but that doesn´t mean that any unit could make an advance to the enemy in square

   Real squares –the four facing formation to defend against cavalry- doesn´t move tactically but to slowly reposition and withdraw from the threath. Any other “square” –as Mcdonalds square in wagram- is an ad-hoc formations to cope with a precise situation and that could not be formed in a hurry (i.e a reaction).

   We simply can not “discover” in 2010 the “perfect” Napoleonic formation and begin moving our squares freely about the table.

   Posted 2 years ago #

6. cam_millar
   Member

   The Osprey on British Infantry Tactics says British drill allowed squares to march by pivoting the faces then moving forward (see p17). It also provides an example, where the 5th and 77th formed a square at El Bodon in 1811 and marched 6 miles halting when necessary to repel cavalry attacks.

   But I suspect this was fairly rare.

   Personally, I am happy for the moving square rule to be in the optional rules section - and then ignored.

   Cam

   Posted 2 years ago #

7. MarkGrindlay
   Member

   Let us not make the old mistake of allowing an historic exception which becomes a tabletop norm.

   I have great fear whenever this subject comes up, of seeing players charging all over the table in square, because it is invulnerable to cavalry, has no exposed flanks, and moves perfectly adequately thanks to a couple of historic examples such as those cited above.

   Similarly with Austrians claiming that 'batallion masse' is perfect for exactly the same reasons, and using this as their attack column of choice just in case some horsemen turn up.

   For the scale of game we have here, its safer to just say squares can not move, have an optional rule at the players decretion if they think their game will benefit from it.

   I'd also be very interested in confirmation about the number of men in each rank and the file spacing for those Guard Chasseurs, and how far they intended on advancing. - not all things rectangular are a square, after all. (hi Pete)

   Posted 2 years ago #

8. Pickton
   Member

   As I said, the tail of Wargames history wagging the dog of real history. It doesn't seem to matter that we have eye witness statements of units moving forward in square, or art showing units moving in square. That the Chasseurs of the Guard attacked in square at Waterloo.
   I first came across the French Guard in Square notion back in the Seventies from Commandant Lachoques Book - Waterloo complete with a picture from his extensive collection collection. It was ignored then. There are contemporary pictures showing British Squares at Waterloo with the men all marching in the same direction and that German fellow who keeps insisting that everybody who did anything on the winning side at Waterloo was German, Peter Ho... (I can't recall his name at the moment) has accounts of troops going forward in square in his Ligny/Waterloo Books.

   Let me add that the rider about not moving about in front of cavalry was my observation (should have done that before if it wasn't clear). Another good reason for having horse artillery!

   Complex formation? No more than line. Remember most drills were done by companys.
   A formed square is also two lines and two marching columns in effect until it halts and faces out. How much more difficult is it than 'ordre mixte' in the French Army The column 'masse' capable of just facing outwards under cavalry threat is just a 'primitive' version of a moving square really.

   Really it's just us wanting to fit reality to those MDF/Plastic/Plywood/W.H.Y. bases.

   Hi Mark! :)

   Posted 2 years ago #

9. MarkGrindlay
   Member

   Hi Pete,

   Two questions you need address, I think.

   These advancing squares. Were they 6 men deep and closed files, or were they just rectangular in shape?

   If moving in square was so straightforward, why was it not commonly used in the attack?

   I absolutley agree this happened, there are plenty of examples - excluding Wagram, which was a rectangle, not a square, and excluding Egypt for similar reasons.

   My fear is - squares and Batallion Masse becoming the attack formation de-jour since it is invulnerable to cavalry and never has to make a formation change to change direction. - I have seen this too many times in other rules.

   Consider how Lasalle plays. In a compact and small game like this, everyone strives for combined localised arms. so whenever possible, we all try to get some cavalry in amongst our forces because we know that a gun + a cav stops most attacks, and a cav + foot is very hard to stop.

   This itself is a gamey mis representation of what happened. Big formations of cavalry, and massed guns were the successful strategy, not small localised parcelling out of such assets.

   If all square are rectangles, and move like any other formation, then they become the assumed attacking force because they defeat the likely counter attack.

   it is a can of worms. do we really need to open it if we recognise it as such? These are, after all, game rules not simulation rules.

   Posted 2 years ago #

10. blucher
    Member

    "Big formations of cavalry, and massed guns were the successful strategy, not small localised parcelling out of such assets."

    Isnt there some debate on the cavalry side of this argument? On the one hand the germans used smaller pockets of cavalry, and despite its quality, didnt seem to match the french is results.

    On the other hand there were some big follys with these napoleon style mass cavalry charges and their cost in resources was huge. Perhaps the cavalry corps was the tiger tank of the napoleonic wars.

    Posted 2 years ago #

11. Pickton
    Member

    Then again there are those that will argue that the column was not a method of attack for most armies but of movement. The French as an instance tried to deploy into line from column where possible. The same argument probably stands good for the Chasseurs attack at Waterloo. The advanced in square protecting the flank with the intent of deploying into line before attacking but were overtaken by events. I seem to remember a similar thing happening at Albuera where at least one unit on the flank of the second advancing British line went forward in square.

    The point I was trying to make is that the static (or nearly so) square may be more of a wargame concept. After all, caught in that formation by artillery or guns it is in a world of hurt.

    As a formation to attack with. I suspect it could be easier to deploy into line under fire than when in column, but then I have no personal experience :)

    Personally I found the Adkin book on Waterloo had a refreshing point of view on some topics. eg, His take on the Charge of the British Heavy Cavalry and it's effect is thought provoking.

    Then again it raises the point that cavalry mostly move far too fast in games
    and perhaps we are given far too much of a chance to get away with leaving it too late before reacting to the presence of cavalry
    For instance consider how much simpler life would be if there were no emergency moves when cavalry had come close enough to GET you in a normal move.

    As one historian put it. The problem is that all the modern historians are unavoidably infantrymen or ride vehicles.

    Posted 2 years ago #

12. Sam Mustafa
    Le Grand Fromage

    Actually, most wargames (including Lasalle) impose an artificially slow movement rate upon cavalry. They ought to be moving much greater distances, vis-a-vis infantry.

    Taking one of those typical 1:50 or 1:60 scale games of the 1980s or 1990s as an example... if a turn is about 15 minutes, and 1" equals about 50 yards... then a cavalry unit ought to be able to move two or three feet of table in a single turn, even at a slow "walk."

    Most games long ago decided that they had to artificially slow-down the cavalry, otherwise it wouldn't look or feel right.

    Posted 2 years ago #

13. Pickton
    Member

    I agree with that. Movement Scale vis figures is an old trap Sam.:) However, it is too easy for infantry to throw itself into squares in most wargames as soon as horse begins a charge.

    This does pose some questions.

    How does the infantry know the difference between advance and charge in the early stages when horse is still moving at the same speed?

    Would infantry move around in formations other than square knowing that cavalry are in charge reach and capable of charging?
    At Waterloo the Brtish take a battering from French artillery because they HAVE to form up well in advance of the arrival of French cavalry

    The big disaster with foot was for cavalry to get at them before they could form up defensively and most wargamers rules encourage us to 'chance it' with our models In the charge move. Thus we often get away with mathematically precise moves that cost the French columns dearly when attempted against British lines.

    BTW please don't take any of this topic as direct criticism of you or your rules Sam. This arises directly from the demonstrated 'gamesmanship' presented by users in the forum eg, Bionic squares.

    Posted 2 years ago #

14. Biggreenbugeyedmonster
    Member

    Nafziger's 'Imperial Bayonets' also gives some examples of infantry marching in square, so I wouldn't describe marching in square as an oddity or a historical exception.

    Posted 1 year ago #

15. Pickton
    Member

    I read messages saying Squares seldom moved about on battlefields, yet we have eye-witness accounts of just this thing being done. This is what I meant at the start of the thread when I said wargamers prefer to believe the rules reflect the reality they are accoustommed to.

    If we have accounts at the time saying the units advanced in square who are we to claim these people are wrong? When we see art showing such formations moving on the battlefield, who are we to decide the art is at fault?
    We know units could move in square and did so. The evidence is there. It isn't so hard to work through. Take The French Chasseurs of the Guard. Each unit attacked in Battalion strength so The front two companys stand fast. the two flanking companys turn to face the direction of advance and the rear company about faces. We are now ready to step off. A formation of two companys in line, two march columns and two more lines.
    I find it hard to believe the French who were capable of attacking in multiple orde mixte formations could not achieve this. They were after all advance onto ground where a previous cavalry attack had made inroads into the attacking formation.

    As to the training manuals... Well, Dundas stipulated a British three deep line in imitation of soon to be beaten Imperial Prussians, but this does not match the reality of the Peninsular with two deep lines, or Waterloo where two deep/ four deep lines.

    Waterloo is one good example of history by interpretation. How long was it accepted that the British won this battle virtually single-hand? The truth is it was very much an Allied victory.

    Posted 1 year ago #

16. buttridi
    Member

    So If all my guys in square are advancing in the same direction, how is it effectively any different than column of attack (except that it's deeper formation).

    Trained units can be in Column and have a better chance of forming into square when attacked. So---if you belive that this advancing square was used (and it seems like something only well trained troops would do) you can easily justify this under the rules as the ability of well trained troops changing formation into sqaure when attacked.

    Marching square = abstracted out as column formation.

    Posted 1 year ago #

17. MarkGrindlay
    Member

    Pete,

    You are describing a rectangle not a square.

    Squares are double depth, closely packed. They are harder to move because even if the flanks turn sideways, they are so closely packed in, they do not have room to step forward easily.

    Rectangles happen to have 4 sides.

    An easy Lasalle rule for a rectangle - it moves at the speed of a line moving sideways. it defends to its front as a line, and it does not have an exposed flank.
    Best formed by combining a full brigade into two pairs of parallel lines.

    If you want to give these sort of advantages to an actual formed square, however, you take a huge risk in game play.

    For the advatage of turning Lassale into a more accurate simulation set of rules, you run a lot of risks - I refer you to the threads already up here on maximising armies, avoiding 'poor' lists, and prodcing a 'more balanced' points system.

    How will such thinking adapt to a new rule allowing a mobile anti-cavalry infantry formations in a game with @ 12 units per side such as this?

    Posted 1 year ago #

18. Pickton
    Member

    Oh come now. Rectangles, Squares, Triangles and more. Troops can and have moved around in these formations throughout history. Dense squares were a British thing as far as I remember yet its even possible to argue the other way, when some experts argue that some 'columns en masse' were just columns when facing outwards. Really they have adopted a dense square.

    Isn't it more on target to say that the arbitary rule restricting squares from movement was a wargames device to counter exactly the effect you complain about - Wargamers Moving squares at cavalry. That and the introduction of the 'emergency' move that allows a square to be formed in the move the cavalry charge.

    In reality it was a disaster for most infantry regiments/battalions to be caught out of square in the open so a square was formed immediately units were aware of cavalry advancing on them.
    Just imagine how much simpler it becomes if it is to late to form square When cavalry initiate a charge. I know you are familiar with this situation in rules Mark, so it is hardly a new concept.

    Take this as the situation and having cavalry support to counter-charge becomes vital, as does artillery support on both sides.

    As a plus for La Salle it is worth noticing that the lists do allocate horse artillery to cavalry brigades, which is the popular and recommended method of opening up a square for a charge.

    Posted 1 year ago #

19. Grinner
    Member

    Don't forget that forming square in reaction to a charge requires a discipline test, so leaving that to the last minute can be a huge risk, especially if the unit in question is Amateur or you've got General Von Dummkopf with a vigor penalty in command of unit in question. Forming square as a reaction is by no means guaranteed, and if you take the risk of not forming square when cavalry is in a threatening position and instead wait for them to charge you, you run the same historical risk of not being able to form square quick enough and having your battalion run down by the horsemen and slaughtered.

    From what I've read of the tactics of the period, a well formed square is nigh on impregnable to cavalry attack, but this impregnability came at the cost of being a tightly packed, immobile target for the enemy artillery to batter away at. One simply couldn't get a horse to charge straight at a wall of bayonets, and from accounts the only way cavalry ever beat a unit in square was when the infantry broke ranks in the face of a cavalry charge or when the infantry was not able to fully form square before the cavalry hit them. And you have to remember that the square is not just a group of men adopting a squarish formation. To adopt square, the front rank kneels and puts the butts of their muskets to the ground to brace them against the charge. The second rank stands ready with bayonets thrust out over their shoulder, the third rank, when there was one, was ready to give a volley to advancing cavalry. To be truly in infantry square formation a unit absolutely cannot move. Now I suppose that a unit could adopt something like the a squarish formation for movement purposes, so that they would be better prepared to assume the proper Square formation in the face of charging cavalry, but alas I'm not well versed enough in unit drill to know if this was ever something they actually did. I would think that it would be dreadfully hard to coordinate such a formation's maneuvers. How would you get a marching square to turn, for instance, and maintain unit cohesion. From what I've read in this post and others it would seem as if marching squares were, if anything, an ad hoc arrangement performed on the fly by a few elite or very well trained units to specific situations. They seem to be the exception to the rule, not a standard practice. I think that pointing to a few instances of such a thing happening and asking for that to be included as a basic rule of a gaming system is inherently flawed. 99% of the time a unit in square would remain immobile, and thus I think it is more accurate to represent this in the rule set, rather than allowing for a square to march across the board, as this rare case would likely become the norm if it was allowed for in game.

    Posted 1 year ago #

20. Andrew
    Member

    Having read this thread several times I thought i would pitch in my two pence worth. while i dont like the idea of moving squares.
    here are my thoughts, while there are a few accounts of infantry moving in square, it is not in the drill books as an attack formation, it was regarded as a defence formation against the threat of cavalry.

    Put simply units moved in squares but they rarely attacked or advanced in such a formation unless threatened by cavalry. If they had it would have been standard practise and there would be many more accounts of such practise if it were the norm.

    looking at the british drill book and moving of squares - whilst a square at the start, when the faces pivot the unit would be vunerable to attack and would have to form square proper and stop moving if attacked by cavalry.

    I would therefore suggest that moving squares could be allowed to retire 1 BW in such formation without penalty, but if they advance they must then take 1 disr and a discipline test if attacked to form square again. If they fail the test then the unit is treated as a column target for the combat.

    Posted 1 year ago #

21. Pickton
    Member

    There we have the wargamer coming. You express a doubt about the movement of square then produce a rule to penalise it.

    For my part I point out again there are statements from people who were present on the battlefields that units moved in square. Whether we think it possible or not, they did it! Show you anti-move wargamer a picture of the time depicting a moving square and he will defend the 'reality' he has grown up in. The artist was using license. It was painting later.

    I have to wonder if any of our honourable gentlemen have done any formation drilling. Given a surprisingly small amount of practice, troops can work through surprising formation changes.
    Your note might have better read normal move forward, stationary to turn left or right. Pause to about face.
    With cavalry in close proximity and able to charge a square would not move, which makes a 'sneak up to cavalry' trick hard.

    Posted 1 year ago #

22. Biggreenbugeyedmonster
    Member

    Grinner wrote: "From what I've read in this post and others it would seem as if marching squares were, if anything, an ad hoc arrangement performed on the fly by a few elite or very well trained units to specific situations."

    Though the French IV Corps at Lutzen 1813 could hardly be described as "very well trained units"! And IIRC the British battalions at El Bodon were in their first action. Though of course I am happy to concede that the Imperial Guard at Waterloo and the Light Division at Fuentes d'Onoro were exceptionally well drilled units!

    The problem isn't that squares couldn't march. Say for a French square to move, the 1st and 4th peletons execute left/right turns and the rear peletons about face. Then the whole marches. OK - simple. Even a Marie-Louise should be able to get that! So it isn't rocket science that a square can move. But wheeling and other permutations are going to be interesting (scratches head). So yeah - a square can move forwards or back. But I'd suggest it couldn't do very much else.

    Posted 1 year ago #

23. MarkGrindlay
    Member

    Pete,

    Put your wargamer head back on, and propose a rule along the lines you are thinking.

    Then we can discuss on an equal footing.

    I am interested.

    Posted 1 year ago #

24. Andrew
    Member

    Pickton wrote:
    "There we have the wargamer coming. You express a doubt about the movement of square then produce a rule to penalise it."

    I actually stated that whilst it is known squares moved, it was a defensive formation in the drill books of the time, therefore suggested a penalisation for the fact that in order to move the formation forward as technically is not a true square whilst moving.

    and no penalty for a rearward move.

    thus an offering to try and appease you Pickton and the wargamers, however it does appear from every post you have made in this thread that you are not actually looking at the wargaming side of the equation, but are intent on one train of thought.

    Posted 1 year ago #

25. Pickton
    Member

    Appease? Not looking at the wargame side?
    This was an attempt to move people FROM one train of thought. However, here, tedious as it may be for some of us, is some proof that movement, fire and aggression using squares was not a freak of war.

    Taking Waterloo as the easiest for people to check.
    "On the orders of the Prince of Orange and accompanied by him, Major von Schkopp led the square against the French Cavalry. After receiving a well-aimed fire a French cavalry regiment withdrew. The square continued to advance, but came under a murderous canister and musket fire. That and the retreat of a square of Nassauers on our right flank, forced our square to withdraw, but only after Major von Schkopp had been wounded."
    - Major Muller of the Feldbataillon Bremen.

    An extract from the official report of the 1st Brigade KGL.
    "...Thus, the column changed direction towards Hougoumont, However as as there was enemy cavalry on the plateau on this side of Hougoumont, the battalions had to form squares. The rear squares moved to the left from the column, still advancing steadily against the plateau. The Brigade Commander [du Plat] was shot dead here. The 2nd Battalion was in front and marching straight towards Hougoumont, firing at a line of cavalry as it went. The enemy then retired because of this threat and the fire of the batteries that had moved up simultaneously. The square then moved close to Hougoumont and the enemy skirmishers in the orchard fired upon it. Our men had little choice but to rapidly assault the enemy in the ditches and seize the orchard."

    Consider the case of the 1st Line Battalion KGL in the same move (You will love this one!)

    "We then attacked the ridge in front of us (the original position of the centre of the right flank), where the enemy infantry had taken control of our artillery and drove them off in flight. A strong column of infantry with cavalry support attacked us and our artillery with determination. The enemy infantry closed up on our cannon and to about 30 to 40 paces from our square. At this moment Colonel Robertson, our commander fell badly wounded from his horse. The enemy fire was devastating. Fortunately we were then ordered to attack. We charged in square, threw back the enemy pell-mell and were charged by lancers while advancing. We drove off the cavalry with some losses..."
    - Major von Rettberg

    Perhaps now you see why I have doubts?

    Regards

    Posted 1 year ago #

26. MarkGrindlay
    Member

    "I absolutley agree this happened, there are plenty of examples "

    "Put your wargamer head back on, and propose a rule along the lines you are thinking"

    else, we are on the wrong boards.

    Posted 1 year ago #

27. Rupert of Hentzau
    Member

    I am with Mark on this one. Squares moved in some instances but.... so what as far as LaSalle is concerned. The author after vast play testing made them not move. So if you want to allow them to move, explain to us how you would have this work and how this would improve the game. The concept of cavalry pinning infantry in square was around a long time before wargamers and I think the current rules allow for this nicely.
    I feel that if you want to move, change formation and trust to your dice luck in forming an effective square when the cavalry arrive.

    Posted 1 year ago #

28. Pickton
    Member

    At least an hour or so typing raised the replies on moving squares from scare/unknown to moved in some instances.:)

    The comment "So what as far as LaSalle is concerned" is probably more telling. This seems to imply an acceptance that LaSalle is just a game that gives an appearance of reality and who cares if it is wrong. If that is the case then we don't really need to discuss anything but mechanisms in these forums. Troop lists will only be valid inasmuch as they suit the parameters of the game and so on.

    This being so then there will be infinite problems with 'rule-smiths' and super moves, but that's going to be alright because the rules ARE the reality.

    If the KGL leaping all over the plateau at Hougoumont in squares doesn't give food for thought. Well I could put a thousand examples up here and not put a dent in a firmly set mind. As I read it, the mail preceding it advances as pure justification that the rules author dropped movement for squares in order to make his mechanism work better.

    I rather hope that is not the case. I would prefer it if Sam had just done what the rest of us did and followed lazy British and American historians who relied too much on English sources of Wellington's time.

    Posted 1 year ago #

29. Nick the Lemming
    Member

    Pickton: Put up or shut up. What do you suggest in place of the current rules? Constant complaints about the current rules do nothing if you aren't going to suggest any alternatives.

    Posted 1 year ago #

30. Andrew
    Member

    Pickton: still you fail to come up with a solution, even when given the chance to suggest a solution, its time to put up an idea or drop it.

    We dont need more writings on the occasions that these things moved etc, we need a rule suggestion from you to discuss, or the whole thread is in the wrong place.

    Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.