Printable View
Greetings Monestary,
While reading about the franco-russian war in 1812 as a preface to Empire TW, I found quite a few references to infantry forming into squares to counter cavalry charges. I quite curious to why this approach was used or more precisely why it was so effective?
Thank you for your time,
/KotR
If infantry was caught in a line formation the cavalry could easily get into the flank and rout the infantry. Being in a square meant no open flanks or rear. That way the soldiers felt more safe knowing they were covered, as soldiers could easily panic if spotting enemy cavalry near by.
It also meant attacking cavalry would always face some infantry with muskets ready to fire. The combination of musket fire and bayonets had a very good chance at keeping cavalry at a distance. There are a few cases of squares being broken though.
More information here http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napole...ycombatsquares
CBR
So if I understand this correctly, it was the type of cavalry in the period that enabled squares as effective - they had sabres not lances? Or would even lances be rejected? The article claims that the tight formation of the square meant that cavalry would always be locally outnumbered. This also required bayonets as the most important fighting weapon - but why didn't they use pikes instead? What made the square redundant - the use of better weaponry for the cavalry or better artillery?
/KotR
IIRC lance armed cavalry had a few successes against infantry but I don't really think it had an huge advantage as such. A lot of cavalry charges were repulsed by musket fire alone. It did not take many losses to cause a lot of disruption in the cavalry formation with loss of morale and will to keep going forward as a result.
I'd say there was difference in the capabilities of cavalry though as heavy cavalry of Medieval/Renaissance era seems to have been more willing to go in to fight it out with the infantry, but it might also have had something to do with less disruption from missile weapons.
For every pikemen there would be one less musket and since the musket+bayonet combo did an ok job at keeping cavalry away there was little point in using pikes. Especially as muskets were the primary weapon for infantry v infantry combat.
The square lost most of its importance with breechloading/magazine rifles as that gave the infantry a lot more firepower. But artillery also played a role in limiting the role of cavalry on the battlefield.
CBR
Thank you for these most insightful responses :bow:
/KotR
Spot on. Lancers were able to penetrate a square some of the time unsupported because their superior reach meant that they were not riding into a wall of bayonets.Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Lots of good reading on it here. If you scroll down a bit it also explains how cavalry could break into one. I seem to recall reading something that happened at Quatre Bras where the French cavalry broke into the square, but it was closed up behind them and they were forced to surrender.
The square formation were also used to be formed around artillery, to protect it from cavalry attacks, which could be pretty devastating. Also, tight and relatively compact formations such as squares had an effect on horses. Horses are reluctant to charge something they perceive as a compact obstacle and usually slow down, which effectively caused cavalry to lose some of its shock value...
A square formation then again was more vulnerable to ' bouncing' artillery and a line-formation. The rock paper scissor principle is very much there. Cavalry>line, line/artillery>square. Currently reading a great book, diary of a german soldier who fought in the russian campaigns, it blows my mind how incredibly cruel and indiscriminating Napoleon's tactics really were.
Russia is probably the worst example of that. Napoleon was much more careful with his men in the 'glory days' (ie 1804-1811)... with the exception of Spain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
What I mean is that Napoleon didn't quite bother with the destinction between civilians and soldiers, not that the french have ever been very childish about that but geez they sure liked to leave a bloody trail.
Title and author?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I assumed the main reason is that cavalry can trample one or two men, and ride beyond with most of their speed. But, they would lose their momentum against a square formation and be lost.
Also, the square formation was obsolete at the beginning of the American Civil War even before breach loaders appeared.
The square formation was used on several occasions during the ACW and AFAIK it was still in the 1866 infantry manual so it cannot have been completely obsolete.
CBR
The square wasn't used much if at all in ACW because the cavalry were fundamentally different. They were no longer shock troops, more mounted infantry or mounted raiders. They killed by pistol. shotgun and carbine not by sword. Also squares were very vunerable to artillery - the classic tactic in Napoleonic is to have a horse battery with your cavalry - infantry go into square, artillery shoots up square, cavalry break disorganised square. So the ACW with its widespread artillery would make square a dangerous formation to be in.
The last use of squares were in Colonial wars. The British made use of them in Zulu wars and the Sudan. Here the combination of firepower and protected flanks worked well against a poorly armed enemy which greatly outnumbered the European armies.
Being in the manual proves nothing. Can you think of a specific instance?Quote:
Originally Posted by CBR
Basically correct. There were plenty of cases where infantry faced cavalry without artillery present. I've not heard of square formation ever being used.Quote:
The square wasn't used much if at all in ACW because the cavalry were fundamentally different. They were no longer shock troops, more mounted infantry or mounted raiders. They killed by pistol. shotgun and carbine not by sword. Also squares were very vunerable to artillery - the classic tactic in Napoleonic is to have a horse battery with your cavalry - infantry go into square, artillery shoots up square, cavalry break disorganised square. So the ACW with its widespread artillery would make square a dangerous formation to be in.
Cavalry sabers were used a good deal, especially vs other cavalry, and pursuing routers. But, you are right that they did not act as shock troops. Cavalry would often charge infantry skirmishers, but almost never infantry in line formation.
Muskets in Napoleonic wars were pretty inaccurate at 100 yards. ACW rifles were effective at 200 yards. (max effective ranges are another discussion) This seems to me to be the main reason why cavalry could no longer shock infantry in line.
From this thread http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=134213
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I also know of a company of Colorado volunteers forming square against some Texan Lancers at Valverde, New Mexico.
I have not tried to find all the above mentioned incidents but have found a few of them.
CBR
Apoligies late reply. Don't have it here right now, but it wouldn't be of much use to you it was never translated to english.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian