Line and Square - 18th/19th C

[RussG]

Hi all

I'm asking a question I've asked a number of times to various folks interested in military history and I've never got a fully satisfactory answer.

We know that the standard way to receive cavalry during Napoleonic times was to form square. In fact one of the ways to defeat infantry was to threaten them with cavalry until they formed square and then hammer them with artillery. When infantry did not manage to form square then they were ridden down.....as at Quatre Bras. And, at Waterloo, French infantry in column were smashed by the British heavy cavalry.

Go back though to the mid part of the 18th Century. Then there appears to have been far less square tactics against cavalry. Sure, the British line advancing against cavalry and then repulsing cavalry charges three times at Minden was an exception, but more or less we see line tactics against cavalry.

Why was line effective against cavalry in the 18th Century but considered near suicide in Napoleonic times? What was so different between about 50 years?

Best regards
Russ

[Lethal Lou]

Interesting question . . . will be curious to see the answers offered. FYI basic background on the square at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_square.

I'd speculate that there is more than one simple explanation for why the square was more or less successful against cavalry.

1. Rifle/Musket development was rapid between 1650-1850. Range improved dramaticly, as did reliability and reloading speed. All of these would have factored in favor of the infantry (whether in line or square).

2. Discipline improved. Rather than mad cavalry charges, there were deliberate attempts to attack the corner of a square or drive between two adjacent units in line (distinguished by their differing uniforms). While this was to the cavalry's advantage, likewise the rigorous discipline of Western Army's would help the infantry stand fast against an incoming charge. Note that they would have to stand and take it though, they didn't have all the options that the attacking cavalry did as far as placement of the thrust.

3. Towards the end of the period more advances in artillery/small arms would be in favor of both sides. Use of chain shot/grapeshot would smash cavalry charges or rip thru densely packed infantry formations. Once gattling guns came into play (US Civil War/Franco-Prussian War) horse cavalry was definately on it's way out as a means of attack.

4. Not sure when "the square" became doctrine for the British Army. That will probably answer some of your questions. Likewise when it officially stopped being doctrine.

5. Finally, just like there are different types of infantry (rifles, grenadiers, etc) there are different types of horse cavalry (hussars, dragoons, light horse, etc). Heavy horse charging light infantry would probably break the infantry unit regardless of formation whilst the reverse (light horse charging heavy prepared infantry) would likely fail to break the unit even if in an open formation (in other words - they'd still smash a file but not a line).

6. Weather. If it's damp, that'll affect powder/sparks and then it's all down to cold steel where the cavalry would have the advantage against anything but pikes.

Hope that give you a few starting points. Does anyone have a good link to British doctrine and when the square started/ended as such?

[Rudolph]

Interesting question . . . will be curious to see the answers offered. FYI basic background on the square at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_square.

I'd speculate that there is more than one simple explanation for why the square was more or less successful against cavalry.

1. Rifle/Musket development was rapid between 1650-1850. Range improved dramaticly, as did reliability and reloading speed. All of these would have factored in favor of the infantry (whether in line or square).

2. Discipline improved. Rather than mad cavalry charges, there were deliberate attempts to attack the corner of a square or drive between two adjacent units in line (distinguished by their differing uniforms). While this was to the cavalry's advantage, likewise the rigorous discipline of Western Army's would help the infantry stand fast against an incoming charge. Note that they would have to stand and take it though, they didn't have all the options that the attacking cavalry did as far as placement of the thrust.

3. Towards the end of the period more advances in artillery/small arms would be in favor of both sides. Use of chain shot/grapeshot would smash cavalry charges or rip thru densely packed infantry formations. Once gattling guns came into play (US Civil War/Franco-Prussian War) horse cavalry was definately on it's way out as a means of attack.

4. Not sure when "the square" became doctrine for the British Army. That will probably answer some of your questions. Likewise when it officially stopped being doctrine.

5. Finally, just like there are different types of infantry (rifles, grenadiers, etc) there are different types of horse cavalry (hussars, dragoons, light horse, etc). Heavy horse charging light infantry would probably break the infantry unit regardless of formation whilst the reverse (light horse charging heavy prepared infantry) would likely fail to break the unit even if in an open formation (in other words - they'd still smash a file but not a line).

6. Weather. If it's damp, that'll affect powder/sparks and then it's all down to cold steel where the cavalry would have the advantage against anything but pikes.

Hope that give you a few starting points. Does anyone have a good link to British doctrine and when the square started/ended as such?

I'd guess it stopped during the Boer War.

[tercio67]

The solid square formation of the Spanish tercio (a mix of pikemen and musketeers that mutualy supported each other) was made redundant by the Dutch trough the introduction of a new simple to operate and faster to load musket during the 80 year war of independance.
A new infantry formation was introduced by the Dutch; a line formation of only four ranks deep armed with muskets and without pikemen.
this allowed continuous musketfire and advance with a wide front. (The Spanish tercios presented a big target, 800 men 8 rows deep, and the square dissapeared temporarely from the battlefield.)
While on the move this formation could defend itself by forming a 'hedghog', a circular formation witch presented steel to all sides and allowed musket fire from its center.

The English took this a step further by introducing the line formation with only two ranks. This made sense because it resulted in more muskets in the front line and the introduction of the cartridge made it possible to load a musket in under 15 seconds.
A two rank formation has no depth for defence against cavalry, therefore the square formation was introduced again.

When muskets were replaced by rifles the square dissapeared again and was only used in colonial wars against an adversary that did not have the same modern weapons as the colonial powers.

Tercio67

[ChineseJunk]

This Battle of Waterloo clip shows British infantry squares facing off against French cavalry. I find it puzzling why neighbouring squares don't end up shooting one another.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCsXLCRR3NQ&feature=related

[Corrupt]

They were supposedly staggered so that they were beyond the effective range of the muskets (which is only about 150 yards or something if you're lucky) and they fired when french cav were in the way...that said I wouldnt be shocked if some of the casualties were from friendly fire