Napoleonic warfare and "squares"

[Knight of the Rose]

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

[CBR]

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

[Knight of the Rose]

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

[CBR]

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

[Knight of the Rose]

Thank you for these most insightful responses

/KotR

[CountArach]

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.

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.

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.

[Sarmatian]

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...