From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Infantry in square
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 17:33:08 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>

> From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
> 
> >The square was perfected by the Romans. With the advent of guns, the
> >square became less useful as a defensive formation. Even if the enemy
> >missed you, he was likely to hit your opposite number in the back.
> >That's one reason the line tactic was developed, to reduce the depth
> >of the target for musket fire and to allow all muskets to be mass
> >fired at the same target.
> 
> By the time of Napoleon the Square had become the de facto way to 
> deal with cavalry. Apparently horses refused to charge presented 
> bayonets, and you couldn't outflank a square. 

There seems to have been a good deal of psychology involved with the 
contest between infantry and cavalry.  John Keegan (The Face of 
Battle) gives an interesting analysis.  Some of the factors are:

1. The infantry's confidence in themselves.  With a large number of 
heavy cavalry charging you, you need to KNOW that they are not going 
to do any damage.  Squares which flinched generally missed with their 
last volley, and got ridden down.

2. Fire control.  Holding fire too late could be just as bad as firing 
too early.  A properly timed volley would bring down horses and 
totally disorganise the attacking formation.  A late volley, on at 
least one occaision, resulted in a dead horse crashing into the 
square, creating the gap for the rest of the regiment (as happened 
with Bock's Dragoons of the KGL at Garcia Hernandez in 1812).  A 
volley fired too early, or by unsteady troops, would not cause 
sufficient damage to the cavalry.  There are accounts of French cav at 
Waterloo "lurking" 50 yards from a square, seemingly inviting a volley 
at this range so they could then charge while the infantry are 
reloading.

Remember also that the number of cavalry immediately opposite the face 
of a square would be very small - 150 infantry (1/4 a 600 man 
battalion), drawn up 4 deep at 2 foot per man only occupy some 75 
feet, while cavalry, 2 deep at 4-5 feet per man might have 30-40 
troopers over the same frontage.  Thus the number of his required to 
disorder the cav would be quite low - 4-6 in the front rank would be 
enough.

I have also read two accounts of Austrian Infantry at Dresden, Mesko's
Divison on the far left of the allied line.  In one account (the least 
reliable) the infantry formed square when confronted by French cav, 
and were asked to surrender, as their muskets wouldn't work in the 
rain.  The Austrian General is said to have replied that the cavalry 
couldn't charge in the mud either, so he wouldn't surrender.  At this 
point the cavalry revealed a number of guns lined up on the squares, 
and the infantry surrendered (apparently Napoleon had hitched every 
available animal to enable the guns to move in the mud).  In the 
second source the infantry were simply ridden down as they couldn't 
fire.  I don't rely on either of these stories, but my main source is 
shut up in the library today :-).

3. As you have pointed out, the cavalry were also in conflict with 
their horses.  There are accounts from Waterloo of French horses 
refusing to advance closer than 20 yds from one of the Foot Guards 
squares, and again of horses refusing to advance over the corpses of 
previous attacks.

> 
> Ney's Cuirassiers apparently came to grief at Waterloo against a 
> network of squares arranged in echelon. 

The echeloning was to protect the vulnerable corners of the squares.  
If you imagine that the infantry can only fire at right angles to each 
face of the square, then there is no fire able to be directed at large 
areas  at the corners.

     Musket fire
     ^^^^^^^^^      <-- No musket fire can bear on this area
     |||||||||              \|/
     ---------
    ||-------|| -->  
    ||Square || -->  Musket 
    ||       || -->  Fire
    ||-------|| -->
     ---------

> 
> The only type of cavalry capable of dealing with squares were Lan-
> cers, whose long reach allowed them to attack without running their
> horses onto bayonets.

No cavalry was able to effectively deal with steady squares.  Lances 
could certainly reach troops on the ground out of reach of sabres, but 
muskets outranged lances by a considerable margin.

Even late in the day after Waterloo French infantry in square were 
standing off British and Prussian cavalry without trouble.  

The Fench cav, earlier in the day, without artillery or infantry to 
shoot up the squares, were restricted to skirmishing with pistols and 
carbines from horseback, a totally ineffective procedure.

The way to prpoerly deal to a square was to bring up the horse 
artillery and let it have a few rounds of grape/cannister.  This would 
generally disorder and demorilise it enough for the cav to be able to 
ride it down.
-- 
Mike Campbell, Christchurch, New Zealand
mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz 

Newsgroups: sci.military