This is probably a stupid question and I am probably missing something very fundamental, but why is square good against cavalry, particularly a hollow square? Why is a cavalry charge different against one side of a hollow square different from attacking a line?
Why wouldn't you be in the "shock" column formation for a more concentrate mass of soldiers to deal with a cavalry charge?
Thanks!
Its mainly the bristling bayonets that the horses refuse to get close to. They will shy away as you can get a horse to jump something they have a solid view of, but very very difficult to get a horse to jump something thats not "solid".
At least its something like that, i'm sure a horse expert will chime in.
cheers
Scruff has the gist of it. Square formation is more than just a bunch of guys standing around in a open square shape. The outermost rank of the square all kneels down, braces the buts of their muskets against the ground, and points all 55 inches of musket plus 17 inches of cold steel bayonet at the horses chest level. The second rank brandishes their rifles over the shoulders of the kneeling rank with bayonets attached, forming a wall of bayonets that horses refused to charge. Horses are by nature somewhat stupid animals, but they are not suicidal. They will not charge home against a well formed square, instead they'll ignore their rider and either rear up and halt right in front of the square or rush around either side, allowing the second and third ranks of the square to pick off the horses and riders with musket fire.
Actually, those are answers based on wargaming where we charge in straight lines at fixed base targets.
in reality, the real threat from cavlry was in nipping around onto the flank of any infantry formation.
Even when charging a square, the cavalry would turn and aim for the corner quite late in the charge.
A square removed that open flank.
It also closed the infantry up even more (it is very impoprtant to understand that squares were not just 4 lines facing in different directions, they closed up rank and file and usually added extra ranks of depth) which is where the solid wall and bristle of bayonets comes in, and it gave the infantry inside it no where to run away to - they could only run forward, where the danger is.
Troops became much more compact and thus much more under the eye of their commanding officers and sergents who could keep them steady. but the compactness also made them an ideal target for guns, as a single cannon ball would drive through many more ranks in such a deep formation
but primarily, the flanks were secured, so the cavalry had nothing to ride down.
hence the reason why they are common in these wars, but rare in the wars of 50 years earlier, despite essentially the same technology and drill.
Stereotypically, in the 18th century, the front line of troops advanced in a broad linear formation (a long line of regiments) with cavalry covering the flank, while in the Napoleonic period, divisions and brigades advanced at part of the battlefield, and in column, to enable rapid movement. This exposed the flank of many more columns, and hence the square and the closed column became more utilised to protect those flanks at short notice.
Also in this period the heavy cavalry were held in a central reserve, where they were potentially able to act against such advances (as with the British Heavy cavalry at Waterloo).
Waterloo aside though, most cav vs square fights come about during an encounter - with both sides being unaware of the other until quite late, rather than the charge against a fixed position such as that of the french cavalry against the british squares we all know.
I found the Courier (No. 73) a good article by Brent Nosworthy, origionally from his book (not so recent now) With Musket And Sword, Battle Tactics of Napoleon and His Enemies(ISBN 1-885119-27-5), on this topic of the square formation. Its a good overview of the development and evolution of this formation in linear warfare. Mentions some of the experimental formations. Like Ney in 1804 explored the idea of eight battalions in two lines, four per line. When threatened, they could form two diamond shaped formations by the first and second battalions wheel 45 degrees to form a "V", also the third and fourth battalions of the second line do the same making a second "V". There are some other more complicated formations mentioned, but if you can find the mag its a good read.
Brent Nosworthy also points out that infantry in Line formation can easily repulse cavalry attacks if charged from the front - probably better than squares. Which has occurred countless of times throughout Napoleonic history. However, the square has one main advantage, it doesn't have flanks to worry about.
Those line infantry must have extrme confidence in themselves to stand though. Most would run and die.
And the cavalry usually came up on them without room to target the flank or end of the line.
If the Cavalry had time, they would always aim at the end of the line, not the middle, and then turn in and run them down from the flank.
Those line infantry must have extreme confidence in themselves to stand though. Most would run and die.
Pre-Napoleonic infantry stood in line against cavalry charges as a matter of course. Since infantry formed up in line with regiments side by side forming a solid line of battle - there were no flanks to worry about. Disciplined infantry in the linear period were not especially afraid of cavalry.
But as infantry tactics became more flexible in the Napoleonic period (battalions could operate in different formations on different fronts rather than being rigidly lined up side by side), infantry no longer had their flanks automatically protected by a friendly unit. Hence square became a more common response to a cavalry threat.
Cam
Forming square also leaves gaps in the line for horses to pass through without jeopardizing the rear, thus encouraging horse and rider to take the path of least resistance.
Read accounts by cavalry men of the time and they do not seem as convinced as modern writers (none of whom fight on horseback for real)of the invincibility of squares. Nosworthy quotes a Prussian cavalry commander who taught his men to lean forward into the neck of the horse in a charge because he believed it was the men who 'chickened out' and they would be more likely to ride home if the could not see what was in front of them. Captain Nolan in his 1854 book on Cavalry Tactics also asserted that this was the cavalry's big secret. The blame for human failure being put on the poor horse.
Following Pictons point, I found this off TMP recently, which may be interesting (the translation is google's, so I include the original German in case someone cares to do a better job).
I think it gives a better idea of what the horsemen thought they could do against the 'invulnerable square' we have come to believe in in modern times.
http://www.demi-brigade.org/quistorp.htm
The Imperial Russian-German Legion By Barthold Quistorp
Cavalry attacks. (Note to page 96)
It's not that the closed Cavalry drives full gallop the horses in the bayonets , but close to it is a momentary halt, each rider ersieht quickly his advantage by an opponent seeking to wound , any little gap, a small disorder used also probably afraid of a trick for his horse not to intrude .
If this to several , the victory in most cases is decided , for it immediately follows the mass , and the horses take apart the limbs.
Whether such an attack will cost more or less people , depends on contingencies , including them , gives up to what distance their fire the infantry , cavalry on volleys make the most impression.
- A failed attack is usually not up to the bayonets , the reduced pace of advance, some people hold back their horses, it caused many members, and soon a swarm of confusion and finally , who turns backward.
Such attacks always cost a lot of people , because they must remain exposed to the fire anymore.
Kavallerieattacken. (Anmerkung zu Seite 96)
Es geschieht nicht, daß die geschlossene Kavallerie in vollem Jagen die Pferde in die Bajonette treibt, sondern dicht davor erfolgt ein augenblicklicher Halt; ein jeder Reiter ersieht rasch seinen Vortheil, indem er einen Gegner zu verwunden sucht, irgend eine kleine Lücke, eine kleine Unordnung benutzt, auch wohl einen Stich für sein Pferd nicht scheut, um einzudringen. Gelingt dieses Mehreren, so ist der Sieg in den meisten Fällen entschieden; denn es folgt sogleich die Masse, und die Pferde werfen die Glieder auseinander. Ob ein solcher Angriff mehr oder weniger Leute kostet, hängt von Zufälligkeiten ab, namentlich davon, auf welche Entfernung die Infanterie ihr Feuer abgiebt; Salven machen auf Kavallerie den meisten Eindruck. - Eine verfehlte Attacke geht gewöhnlich nicht bis an die Bajonette; das Tempo verkürzt sich vorher, einzelne Leute halten ihre Pferde zurück, es entstehen viele Glieder, bald Verwirrung und endlich ein Schwarm, der sich nach rückwärts wendet. Solche Angriffe kosten stets viele Leute, da sie dem Feuer länger ausgesetzt bleiben müssen.
as with all man vs man (incl horseman) combats in this period, it is essentailly a test of steadiness. he who blinks first is lost, as his opponent will exploit the moment.
I was reading about the battle of Medellin in 1809 last night. Cuesta formed his entire army in a single long line to attack the French. The Spanish infantry saw off French cavalry charges to their front. Unfortunately, the Spanish cavalry fled, exposing the open flanks of the Spanish infantry to the French cavalry.
So even poorly trained infantry in line could repel cavalry - the problem was when the flanks became exposed.
We do know from more ancient sources eg The Strategikon, predating gunpowder that horse were capable of breaking into formations by up to three ranks of Spear men much better equipped to cope with such rash exploits. So it is reasonable to assume that the contemporary writers were correct in saying that it was a correctly timed volley from the firearms of the ranks behind the front row of bayonets that drew the sting of the charge.
Captain Nolan in his 1854 book on Cavalry Tactics, was sure that a volley held too long would not save a square as dead horses would crash into the square. Delivered too late they would not have the desired deterrent effect on horse/rider. In a full charge he believed a square could be overrun, if the fire was drawn, but this is easy to plan off the battlefield.
Perhaps then the bayonets then are a deterrent ONCE THE CHARGE HAS BEEN BROKEN.
So then, did squares successfully stop cavalry without firing their muskets?
If you consider the doctrine for attacking a square, it may help.
cavalry form 'waves' - which (given we are on Lasalle, should be defined as each squadron following the other in close sucession - to most intents and purposes looking more like what we would call a column of squadrons by the time it was on to the square - think of spitfires peeling off and diving into the bombers one after the other from the original line (V) formation)
the first squadron would charge (at the corner if possible), attempting to draw the fire / volley of the target square.
If that vollety did not come, rather than pushing for the break through (trusting to a dead horse momentum, as Nolan has it), and as we would expect from art renditions, they would dotrinally veer off, again in the hope of drawing passing fire, and the next squadron, close behind them in terms of time if not physical distance, would repeat.
If the square's fire discipline failed, and a volley came, then the immediately following squadron would then charge home, knowing that the taget had emptied muskets.
equally, the square, if so desposed and confident enough, would fire one rank of the square (usually only one rank of a platoon) only, to inflict some damange without empting the bulk of its defences - but only if the officers were confident enough that the rest of the men would not also panic and fire as well.
which would explain both sides of this useful thread, I think - the squares didn't get broken very often (and usually with specific circumstances) because the cavalry usually didnt charge home to break them; but the cavalry themselves did think and expect to break through when they did charge home - once the muskets had been emptied.
and if a flank presented itself - then thats when they go home automatically
A nice idea of the problems presented by a square of infantry.
The cavalry second wave will be met by the volley of the second rank (if their nerve held)and everything has to take place in the twelve or fifteen second
s it takes to reload.
This is where it comes down to cavalry holding control and nerve. In the battle accounts there is a noticeable lack of such precise manoeuvre by squadrons when attacking infantry and in some cases cavalry commanders found themselves advancing alone. As I said before, we should not be so quick to blame the horse. Horse breeders have told me that an ordinary fence normally sufficent to hold horses in a field is no obstacle if they are motivated to go through it as a herd.
The square itself is an important thing as to security from flank attack. Infantry have seen off cavalry in other circumstances. The most famous for the British being Minden.
Perhaps, to understand the need for square we need to have the experience of a friend of mine who in his youth went on a protest rally and had the misfortune to get in the way of a police cavalry charge. While he conceded that horses do not like treading on humans, he had no desire to repeat the experience of being ridden down by an armed man on horseback ever again.
...the experience of a friend of mine who in his youth went on a protest rally and had the misfortune to get in the way of a police cavalry charge. While he conceded that horses do not like treading on humans, he had no desire to repeat the experience of being ridden down by an armed man on horseback ever again.
Good analogy.
Of course, if he and his mates were allowed to carry muskets with bayonets attached, do a few drills together and have been charged and held previously, he probably would not be that worried about a police cavalry charge.
He would rightly be worried though when he saw the police arrive with water cannons and rubber bullets!
Off topic, but it was fascinating as a boy to watch the evolution of protesters and police during huge protests during the Springbok Tour of NZ 30 years ago. By the end, the protesters and Police had turned into fairly well organised Roman cohorts - carrying big rectangular shields covering most of their body, with a helmet and, for the Police, long batons thrust between the shields. The wargamer in me mused what would have happened if NZ had mounted Police... I think the protestors would have scattered to a charge in the early days, but by the end they would not have blinked an eye unless caught in flank or rear.
What history suggests is that it is not firepower that holds off cavalry charges - it is discipline and covering flanks. The Romans could handle heavily armoured cavalry charges - and they often only had a short sword. But they knew they could rely on the man beside them.
Cam
Cam wrote: "What history suggests is that it is not firepower that holds off cavalry charges - it is discipline and covering flanks."
Even with exposed flanks, experienced troops with excellent espirit d'corps trumped even a cavalry charge into the flank. At Quatre Bras, French cavalry charged the rear of the 44th Foot. The battalion about-faced, waited for the order to fire and delivered a volley at close range. In contrast, the 69th Foot was scattered and lost their colour. The difference was that the 44th Foot were one of Wellington's "old Spanish infantry" regiments, whereas the 69th Foot was inexperienced.
Don't get too hung up on that particular instance at Waterloo - the cavalry had no idea that line was there when they came on top of it - they had no momentum, so it wasn't as much of a big deal as some other examples of infantry in line facing off cavalry.
The key point in that engagement, was that the cvavalry came up on the middle of the line, with a very small and already blown formation, so they simply had no opportunity or speed or time to go for the flank. Had the 69th not been well trained, it would have been a different story, but of course, they were.
Picton, they point about sucessive squadrons drawing fire was not that the next wave faced the next rank with loaded muskets - that was exactly what they sought to avoid. the waves were designed to either cause unsteadiness in the square, or to draw a full volley, so the follow up could charge home against empty muskets. - it was designed to test their morale, not their aim.
Its exactly the same principle as an infantry attack - if your target is not steady, they will lose fire discipline early, and then you have them. if they hold it long enough, the attacker's discipline breaks at the thought of what is coming, and the attack fails.
A giant game of chicken, with gunpowder.
Cam, you may be interested to recall an earlier instance in NZ history - the use of Massey's cossacks against unarmed protestors. that was the next step for the Police, once their long battons failed (Do you remember McPahil's long baton sketch?).
I met some of the organisers from back then, the police confided in them that they couldn't have controlled another two games, as the protestors got better with each event, and they had no new options available. I suspect the emergence of Patu squad may have been a factor in that opinion as well.
Not to labour the point to long. A cavalry charge against a square was a test of nerve, but the side which lost paid heavily. Where infantry had not been softened up the riders nerve usually broke first, having taken fire.
Infantry did not usually survive cavalry getting to flank or rear. That is why the British 28th Foot were so honoured for facing the rear rank about at Alexandria and standing.
What's with this recent fashion for "Ignore anything that happened at Waterloo?" I seem to keep hearing this same mantra from people.
There are examples of well trained and steady infantry seeing off cavalry charges without bothering to form square - one of the French Legere battalions at Austerlitz, the 9th I think, did it twice to Russian cavalry during the battle. It was the exception rather than the rule and only well trained and experienced troops could get away with it but it did occur.
The other side of the coin. If cavalry succeeded in riding down a square others often followed.
For Drsid and anyone else interested
See if you can reach this site. It may well answer many of your questions. Although some of the conclusions drawn would be considered controversial eg.,there is a rather dangerous looking way of forming square illustrated, the site is well worth a look for the sheer volume of information gathered and presented in one place.
http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com infantry_tactics_4.htm#infantrycombatsquares3
That's an interesting site. I liked that they had at least a short discussion of the difficulties of cavalry and artillery working together. From my point of view, it's always seemed like using artillery in conjunction with cavalry would have been really effective. I would imagine the sequence would go something like:
1. Cavalry moves up to threaten enemy infantry.
2. Enemy infantry forms square.
3. Horse artillery moves up and fires canister into the enemy square, doing terrible damage.
4. Cavalry charges the enemy square, breaking it.
But I haven't run across this sequence actually happening very often. I figure there must be some very good reasons why this wasn't done. It can't be that it simply didn't occur to them.
Was it really that hard to coordinate the two arms? Or was the artillery too vulnerable to enemy cavalry?
Once the battle got going coordinating anything was difficult. It is easy to forget this when we have no smoke from guns, a perfect elevated view, no distractions and the ability to make instant decisions without pressure.
Really, I suppose all wargames allow us to react way too fast to situations. because infantry in column had the training to form square in 30 seconds on a parade ground does no mean they would wait for that moment on a battlefield as a wargamer under no threat to his life and with a measuring stick in his hand always does.
Personally, I suspect that if the cavalry have got so close in a battle it is a real dance with death. Read about the cross roads at Quatre Braes.
I wonder how it would be if we had to follow orders written the move BEFORE we actually move the figures?
Before anyone jumps on me again. It's only a thought.
You must log in to post.