I kind of slipped this in at the end, but consider it a 'soft announcement' that I am also now on Utreon! RU-vid has been finicky lately as regards notifications and video promotion, to say the least, so if you want a more reliable way to find my content that may be a good answer for you. You can find my channel here: utreon.com/c/BrandonF I will post all the same videos there as here, of course. Following me on Facebook and Instagram are also good ways of making sure you know when new videos come out (look to the description for those links)
@@BrandonF I believe that in the book ‘Waterloo: The French Perspective’ (A marvellous work, check it out if you haven’t already) they detail that at least one British ‘square’ was actually in a triangular position, although it may not have been in that book that I read it, it might’ve been a different one.
Brandon you should do a video talking about what a British flag bearers purpose was during the American war of independence. Or a video on the pioneers
Brandon failed to mention the #1 enemy of infantry squares: Horse artillery. Here is how it works. The cavalry gallop menacingly around waving their sabres and whatnot just out of musket range of the square. Meanwhile, the horse artillery canter up, unlimber just outside of musket range and start firing canister. Goodby square. The square will inevitably break under the canister fire and then the cavalry charge in to finish it off.
Wait, if the cavalry is positioned out of the infantry square shots' range, shouldn't the cavalry also be unable to hit effective shots as well? Honest doubt.
@@HaNsWiDjAjA oh, right, artillery. For some reason, when I readed the words "cavalry" and "artillery" together, I thought you were talking about the dragoons.
The most affective way to disrupt an infantry formation without shields is with fire launched from a catapult. Hurling incendiary bombs from an elevated height accompanied with a shower of arrows would have been more affective at Waterloo than just an unsupported cavalry charge. This can be launched from a safe distance whilst the cavalry wait just out of reach of enemy musket fire. I think sometimes ancient warfare can be advantageous when dealing with an unarmored position. Perhaps the Romans would have been a better adversary against the English than the Napoleonic French. Marshal Ney was an amateur at best. Not bravest of the brave but dumbest of the dead.
Another interesting film I would recommend, is the Spanish film "Alatriste", released in 2008, it follows the story of a Spanish Tercio in the Netherlands, and it was at the end of the film does the Tercio fight the Battle of Rocroi. Although this was set in the seventeenth century, it's still interesting to see what a infantry square might have looked like, during the film, the Spanish square gets pommelled by artillery, there you could see cannonballs shooting through ranks, causing casualties, and even breaking some pikes. French cavalry charges the square, but were reinforced by French infantry equipped with pikes, for me this is an interesting depiction of combined arms, first, the artillery would pound the enemy with shot and shell, next the cavalry would try to break the formation with shock, finally, the infantry would follow up trying to rout the enemy. The infantry square evolved from the old pike and shot squares, so there were already measures and counter-measures for tacticians to implement by the time of the Napoleonic wars, yet I recommend watching "Alatriste", it's quite a good historical film.
I know of a rare case where a tercio was beaten by a frontal charge (!) of a small band of light cavalry (!!), because it happened not far from where I live, in what was back then the Principality of Transylvania, in a civil war. (I couldn't find any English sources for the battle itself) One of the claimants to the throne just started to lay siege to a town where the other claimant was residing. The attackers had the numerical advantage, which was further strengthened by most of the defender's infantry deserting before the encirclement of the town could have been completed. The defenders only had the citizen militia of the town, and some light cavalry. So, imagine what the attackers thought when, while preparing for the siege, the cavalry of the enemy leaves the safety of the city walls and starts heading towards them. They didn't consider them a serious threat, and never even dreamed of the defenders wanting a field battle, they thought they were skirmishing to slow down the encirclement of the city. So their musketeers went quite far forward from their pikemen, to exchange shots with the enemy skirmishers. The first volley, from a big distance, obviously didn't do much damage. To their surprise, the light cavalry didn't bother with firing back, and rushed the musketeers while they were reloading. They panicked as they in their overconfidence got lured away from their pikemen, so they started running back towards them, and the cavalry crashed into them at the moment before they could form up properly, so the pikemen couldn't deploy their pikes because of their own routing musketeers were just crashing into their lines. This caused a chaotic melee, which was made even worse by their own cavalry trying to rush to their aid but trampling down their own infantry in a hurry, which added to the chaos, and soon the whole army routed from a significantly lesser force which would have been less than a nuisance if prepared for properly. What also likely contributed, is that the besiegers had mercenaries as their infantry with their own general, and the claimant had his cavalry formed by his own vassals and local petty nobility which he led personally, so the communication between infantry and cavalry weren't really great, as the army had two generals working mostly independently form each other.
@@praevasc4299 This was also what happened at the battle of Turnhout, where the Dutch cuirassiers first routed the lighter Spanish cavalry, and then charged and routed the tercios as well.
I can add another incident where British cavalry (16th Lancers) broke an infantry square. Battle of Aliwal, First Anglo-Sikh War, 28 January 1846. They actually charged a Sikh infantry square and, taking heavy casualties, basically tent-pegged their way through. And then there's the 3rd Bombay Light Cavalry at The Battle of Khushab in 1857, breaking a Persian square. IIRC, the first horse into the square's flank basically fell dead on top of the Persian infantry. The next horse in was actually being ridden into the square by John Grant Malcolmson, who was attempting to extricate the regimental adjutant, Lieutenant Arthur Thomas Moore, the rider of the first horse who was trying to cut his way out on foot with a broken sword. He succeeded in getting Moore out, but also managed to leave a gap big enough for the rest of the regiment to break through. The following is an extract from Malcolmson's citation for the Victoria Cross (Moore also got one): "On 8 February 1857 at the Battle of Khushab, Persia, the adjutant of the regiment, Lieutenant Moore was probably the first in the attack, but his horse, on leaping into the square, fell dead, crushing his rider and breaking his sword. The adjutant extricated himself and tried with his broken sword to force his way through the enemy, but he would almost certainly have lost his life had not Lieutenant Malcolmson seen his plight, fought his way to his dismounted comrade and, giving him his stirrup, carried him to safety." As to forming square: there's a little Victorian-era variation on the theme. It's called "Form Rallying Square," and was simple in intent, but its execution depended very much on the NCOs and privates knowing their stuff. Quite simply, if an officer spotted cavalry that was too close to form a "proper" square, but far enough away for some kind of defensive formation to be made, he simply called out "Enemy Cavalry Approaching", pointing his sword in the direction the enemy horse was coming from. The regimental CO then called out "Form Rallying Square!" and the infantry basically formed circular lumps, with the front ranks kneeling as usual, around their officers. (In the Moreton Regiment, my old Victorian-era Queensland colonial volunteer militia reenactment unit, we joked that this also tended to show who the liked and popular officers were!) We did this against mounted Australian Light Horse at our old Colonial and WW1-era encampments at Fort Lytton, and in talking to the light horse guys afterwards, they said it was remarkably effective, as their horses did NOT want to be anywhere near our bayonets!
There's also an account of French lancers breaking a Russian square the weather played a major part in that it had been constantly raining which meant the Russians muskets would not fire . The French lancers attacked at walking pace and stabbed away with their lancers until they destroyed the entire square. Queensland militia has the red piping on there uniforms? I'm doing a nsw mounted rifles impression.
@@matthewcharles5867 No, that would have been Queensland Mounted Infantry, or the Queensland Teachers' Volunteer Corps. And the piping was maroon, not red.
IMO really you have two options to break a square. One was to use a combined arms approach. The second was what happened at Garcia during the peninsular war and hope the infantry fires too late. If that happens, you stand a reasonably good chance of having a horse actually pierce the square, which the rest of the cavalry squadron can follow up on.
An infantry circle would be annoying because it wouldn't be clear which targets were whose responsibility and the volley fire of muskets wouldn't be concentrated. A square also has an advantage in that if victorious, a side facing the enemy can advance as a unit or charge.
And then you also have the two sides to the left and right of the advancing party do a simple wheel, and you’re in a full line except for the rearmost division.
As odd as the concept is to us moderns watching this we can see why soldiers were taught in the 18th and early 19th Centuries that their best chance for survival on a European battlefield was to stick together and NOT spread apart. Stick together to mass your firepower and be able to quickly form that living fort that a square was. Of course, all that would change as the 19th Century wore on and weapons technology advanced. By the way, if I remember right during the Gettysburg Campaign the Confederate infantry formed square several times when threatened by Union cavalry, however the cavalry didn't attack. Which would tell you a square could also have a deterrent effect without a shot being fired. VERY informative video Brandon! Thanks!
@@Tareltonlives As far as I know the Gettysburg Campaign was the only time it was used. "Civil War Times" magazine had an article about it 25 or so years ago. I'm not aware of it being used during the Indian Wars in the West. When Nelson Miles' infantry were attacked by the Sioux post-Little Big Horn forming in a line and volley firing was enough to break the charge of Sitting Bull's braves, forming a square wasn't needed however I'm guessing those infantrymen were trained in doing so. I'm not a big expert on the Indian Wars but from what I've read the Plains Indians were more leery of engaging infantry than they were cavalry. The infantry's rifles could far outrange the cavalry's carbines. Infantry rifles took bayonets too, carbines didn't.
@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Good point. most of the tactics were about fighting from cover, using broken and rough terrain. I believe you're referring to Slim Buttes: the US troops used superior numbers and firepower, creating a long line of riflemen, with the cavalry dismounted and acting in reserve. Meanwhile, Miles had American Horse and his village massacred- Crazy Horse's rescue action was now useless and his strategy to pin the US troops against American Horse foiled.
@@Tareltonlives I'll admit I had to look that one up. Nelson Miles wasn't at Slim Buttes, he fought Sitting Bull at Cedar Creek on October 21st repulsing the attack, then pursued Sitting Bull 42 miles until the Sioux surrendered. It was a Captain Mills at Slim Buttes. It's been 40+ years since I read about Miles, so I didn't remember all the details.
I have an interesting story about cavalry and square formations. In May 26, 1880, during the War of the Pacific (also called Saltpeter War) the Chilean army (14000 men divided in 4 division plus one reserve, 37 cannons and 4 machineguns) faced the combined forces of Peru and Bolivia (11000 men divided in 9 divisions with no dedicated reserve, 16 cannons and 7 machineguns) in the Battle of the Peak of the alliance, in mount Intiorko near the city of Tacna. The Chilean artillery opened fire at 9 am and the infantry attacked at 10 am, fighting a literal uphill battle. The first division, fighting in the left flank, ran out of ammo around midday (Chilean cartridge boxes could carry 100 rounds but the soldiers were issued only 80 rounds each) and received the full counter attack of 2 Bolivian division and was forced to pull back. Fearing its destruction and the collapse of the left flank, the first division asked for a cavalry charge to gain time to regroup and resupply. The high command sent the cavalry regiment “Carabineers of Yungay” (380 men) to fetch ammo crates and take them to the infantry (at this point the entire line was running out of ammo) and at the same time the regiment “Horse Grenadiers” (400 men) was order to charge the Bolivian positions. This maneuver forced the Bolivian forces to form square to protect themselves from the charge, but also they had to disengage from the combat they were already in, allowing the Chilean first division to retreat, regroup, resupply and, with the help of the third division, counter attack the Bolivian forces. The battle ended, at 2.30 pm, as a Chilean victory, with 520 KIA and 1500 wounded (some historians think that at least a third of the wounded ended up dying in the next couple of days). The allied forces lost 2100 KIA and 2500 wounded and captured. The “Horse Grenadiers” lost 35 men KIA and 11 wounded. After the battle it was decided that each soldier should be able to carry 200 rounds and never enter combat with fewer than 150 rounds.
At Waterloo Neys ‘PTSD induced reckless charge’ was actually done to prevent the British centre from re-forming, by launching a cavalry charge the British were forced into squares, the plan then was the have infantry and horse artillery ascend the ridge and decimate the vulnerable squares at close range, while the cavalry kept them pinned in place. HOWEVER french reserves had to be hurriedly redirected to the right flank to face the Prussians at Plancenmois….meaning NO infantry was available to support the cavalry. Ney had to keep launching attacks to keep the British pinned buying time for french infantry, it never came and the opportunity was lost. This puts the anglocentric version of events in doubt, as it seems quite obvious Wellington was beaten if it weren’t for the Prussian support. Imagine if the young guard assaulted the squares and weren’t street fighting the Prussians…..Waterloo was an allied victory not British.
I feel like the British tend to exaggerate themselves when talking about their history. More so than other nations. Granted, they WERE the biggest Empire in all of Human History. That being said, the number of times I've heard brits say Churchill was a more important person historically than Alexander or Charlemagne is insane. And when there's conflicting evidence to something they'll usually take their own side. Or make absolute demons out of people they went to war with. Again, all nations do it... but I feel like the British do it a bit more than everyone else.
Imagine if Ney just full sent the guard then. Wellington would've been shattered but should would Napoleon's reserves... would have been a titan of a battle comparatively -- though probably the same fate none the less...
I love how I am keenly listening and nodding my head taking mental notes as if I would ever use an infantry square in the modern age (or even get the chance to command in a military situation at all)
I think I have an example of a square forming into a triangle for you! Mark Adkins’ ‘The Waterloo Companion’ shows the 2nd battalion, 3rd regiment of the French Guard Grenadiers form a square after the Guards’ attack was repulsed, under fire from the Allied artillery and infantry; the square retreated to Belle Alliance, but lost so many soldiers along the way that it had melted into a two-rank triangle by the end; they then broke into smaller units and escaped. So yeah, hardly the commander’s first choice, probably…
In the clip you can see the enemy racing around accomplishing nothing. During the battle, the British treated the cavalry charges as a welcomed respite from the much more deadly artillery barrages. As Bernard Cornwell accurately described, an 18th battle was much like a game of rock, scissors, paper. Infantry in square trumps cavalry, artillery trumps infantry in a square; and cavalry trumps infantry in line or broken infantry.
I witnessed a French cavalry squad catch up with some Brits before they were able to form square at Waterloo 2015. It was amazing, and absolutely terrifying, to watch. Then they began tapping the Brits on the bum with their swords.
If you'd like a great primary account from the Battle of Garcia Hernandez, this is a good next video to watch! ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ddfsn1OS5SI.html
Great video. Love the new thumbnail and the part transition image. The videos have really jumped up in quality since you got an editor or two. As for squares in general, I just wish NTW squares weren't the god tier defence against cavalry it currently is. Or even in some table top games as well.
Well its that way because it basically was, historically cavalry breaking a square was the extreme exception, not the rule. As was mentioned line infantry or arty was the answer to the square. IF the square had not been so effective vs cav, it would not have been used so much:)
*strolls down the street, spies a hottie* "Hey, girl, I know how to break an infantry square." "You mean you can ride a horse and wield a sword?" "Well... in THEORY."
The hollow square is described in the 12th century *Alexiad* of Byzantine Princess Anna Komnena - supposedly invented by her father Emperor Alexios, and used against Turkish cavalry. BTW, one of the issues in forming a circle would be the morale factor of having someone on each side of you protecting your flank. It's a natural tendency of any soldier to try to edge himself into a more protective position, which happened in the days of shields - each battle line would edge sideways as each soldier moved toward his unprotected side, trying to keep his shield more effectively between him and the enemy. I'm sure it would be even worse in a circular formation - everyone would feel horribly exposed (on both sides!) and you'd probably find the circle continually reducing in size as each man tried to edge backwards so he had people on each side. Just my thoughts . . .
19:30 I remember a really great scene of the "Uthred" books, a historical novel series about the viking invasion of England. There the Anglo Saxons army menage to break the Danish Vikings shieldwall when the main character named Uthred, fighting for the Anglo Saxons, came out of the line to challenge a rider who charged at him with his horse. Uthred then threw a spear at the horse wich got impaled and in shock, pain and panic crashed into the Danes line, slamming 5 or 6 men to the ground, kicking and thrashing at the others. The Anglo Saxons immedietly realise the chance, charge into the gap in a spearhead formation and devide the Danish force into two. The Danes loose their cohesion and coordination and eventually rout from the field. I found this fitting to your passage here about the gap in the french square formation. Sadly in the show adaptation of the books called "Last Kingdom" the Danish line gets smashed by one angry Uthred alone, necause the directors didnt wanna show the main character killing a poor horse. So Uthred just charges at the shields and smashes through, even though before that the Danes literally held firm against the entire Anglo Saxon charge. Totally ridiculous. xD But the show is decent. Can be watched. But the books are way better!
Your description of the first volley's importance caused me to reconsider a couple of things you mentioned in Part The First. First, the corner of the square is only a weak point after the first volley and may be stronger at the first volley if it is directly facing the front of the cavalry charge (even if only half the men on two sides of the square can incline enough to fire on the enemy, they will deliver the same weight of fire as a whole side across a shorter frontage). Second, the circle would rapidly dissipate weight of fire; if every man in a circular formation fires to his front, the weight of fire halves every time the range doubles.
This was so random, but while browsing the library at my university I came across an old US Army tactical manual from the start of the Civil War. Flipping through it I found a section that showed a method for attacking an infantry square I found curious. The cavalry would approach in 3 sections, I’ll call them troops but honestly I think it was smaller than that. But just as an example. Two troops formed a line abreast and the third troop was behind them. The formation approached one of the square’s corners as directly as possible at a gallop. Then the two troops in the front would split, charging down either slope from the point in opposite directions and the third troops would charge at top speed straight at the corner. I found it very curious. I’ve never read of any actual account where such a maneuver was actually used. I think the intent was for the two first troops to draw fire and attention after them, and the few men on the corner, (psychologically an unsafe place to be because you aren’t necessarily shoulder to shoulder and this feel exposed) would suddenly be surprised the third troops barreling down on them.
I have a question about the depiction of squares in "waterloo". All the squares are very close to each other and the cavalary is running around them and is exposed to the fire from all the squares. The question is how are the men from diffrent squares not shooting each other while aiming at the horses while they run circles around them?
@@frankniti4647 Thats my entire point, that its hard to hit accurately so not every shot will hit the cavalry, thus some strays will likely hit friendly forces
This talk was very useful. I've long known of infantry squares as a tactic to thwart cavalry, but this if the first time I've ever seen anyone delve into how they were actually used in any depth. Well done.
Your videos deserve far more views and recognition than they get. You put so much effort, research and good presentation into these videos, they are the very definition of 'undervalued'. Just know that I will be STAYING subscribed to your channel no matter what, and I can only hope that you gain steady and rising viewership and subscribers, and even just seeing that you have 1 thousand likes on a video with only 8K views tells me that you have a largely active and dedicated following already! Cheers, to your continued prosperity, Brandon!
18:35 Your Spanish pronunciation is quite good! I also have to point out that the French unit at Garcihernández was a rearguard left to protect the retreat of (what was left of) the French army after they had lost the far bigger battle of Los Arapiles against the Allied army (7 British and 1 Spanish divisions + 4 British, 3 Portuguese and 1 Spanish brigades) under Wellington.
I prefer your other style of ads, they actually made me watch some of your videos just because of them, and got me interested in the topic of the video just because I wanted to see the ad and ended up watching the whole video
Good chance I will return to them- I wanted to do an experiment with this one where I got the ad done very quickly, to see if that might improve retention. After I compare some figures I will decide which path is better.
One of the biggest issues with squares breaking was: if the first square broke, the remaining infantry from that square are going to start streaming away, looking for any possible refuge from the onrushing cavalry horde...such as the next friendly square. That meant the next square would suddenly have a bunch of panicked friendly infantrymen trying to claw their way through its own ranks to reach the seeming safety of the middle, which is exactly the sort of thing that disorders a square's ranks and opens gaps which the cavalry can the exploit. Almost the only way for the second square to avoid that was to fire on their own fleeing troops from the first square to keep them away - something that an officer might understandably hesitate to order or the infantrymen might hesitate to do even if the order is given. That's on top of the fact that the men in the second (and other) squares would likely have been shaken already just from the sight of the first square breaking.
Who would win? Well trained, valiant mounted warriors on lighting fast steeds, armed and armored with some of the best equipment available. Or A quadrilateral shape.
Fun fact: You also require well trained and disciplined troops on the polygons because untrained troops can easily break when seeing hundreds of horses charging at them.
Concentrated round shot on one square will blow holes three or four feet wide all the way through the ranks of a side, and even cause some casualties on the other side of the square.
And thats a canon round ball sent flying 100's of metres through the flesh and ranks and not exploding type that the velocity just keeps going . Howitzers could have exploding balls if closer by lobbing into the ranks or a Farm.
I know you have the whole English thing, and most English are pretty solid on being straight forward and matter of fact, but honestly. You have a serious sense of humor. That one little "...merede." nearly had me spit take my Dr. Pepper.
Thank for links to first sources I am a retired soldier and am also working on my masters degree in military history. I am always looking for first sources. In the US it is almost impossible.
Great video Brandon thank you. I may be able to recommend an interesting version of a infantry triangle shown in a polish movie "Pan Tadeusz". The movie is set in 1811-1812 and features a small skirmish between regular russian soldiers, using a hollow triangular formation on a smaller scale, and an irregular polish rebellion. The movie is easily accessible on youtube, even if just for the battle scene. :)
Woulndn't mounted grenadiers have been a good idea? Having some horsemen throw grenades into the infantry line would pretty much do the job of a wounded horse kicking around, it seems.
If they had modern grenades, it would be a great idea. But I think the grenades they had at the time were hard enough to use on foot, let alone light, throw, and avoid blowing yourself up with on horseback.
@@shorewall I just mean a few that can be shielded by the others until the last moment. It would be a dangerous job, but charging into a bayonet line is too. I'd even try packing a horse with fused black powder and jumping off 100 meters from the enemy. You can break your neck doing that, but still better than the bloody horror of a smash charge.
Grenadiers a cheval were literally one of the Napoleons guard cavalry units - perhaps even the most prestigious of the branch, with the tradition going back to 17th century. But, just like with foot grenadiers, they dropped the role their name would imply (its hard to say, if theres even a single clear example of them even being used in the manner of riding to the target, dispatching it by throwing grenades and riding away, or finishing them afterwards.) and assumed a role of opportunistic shock troops, better trained for the task than average. And their combat record seems to be quite good, especially if one has cuirassiers and carabineers in mind for comparison. (Id say, at least Austerlitz and Eylau could serve as a basis to read on their performance.)
When the Austrian Empire again joined the war against France for the who knows which time they needed to rase an army fast so didnt have time to train the men how to properly wheel in to a hollow square so to protect against cavalry they just compacted the lines one after the other in to a massive full square, this limited firepower and exposed to cannons but required no training.
There are additional reasons why a circle would not be as optimal as it seems. (1) All shots fired would spray in an arc, with minimal effect on an attacking line, whether cavalry or infantry. Cavalry might charge in line or column, but didn't charge in an arc. (2) The angle between each soldier could be enough for a cavalryman to slip in and create an exploitable gap. (3) No one was trained for a circle, nor was it worth to train anyone for it---except in rough terrain, when it probably came naturally.
Brandon, some insights gained from the hunt field on how horse charging works. In the main a trained horse jumps 12 feet from takeoff point to landing, say from about 4ft from the first soldier when moving at speed. If the depth of the square wall appears to be more than 8 feet the horse senses it cannot clear the obstacle and is unlikely to jump. If the horses approach is interrupted by an obstacle the rhythm of stride is lost and again there will be a refusal. Horses are very sensitive to the actions of other horses, if one or two refuse an obstacle then so will the rest. Similarly, if you can force one or two to attempt the jump then many others will commit as well. To beat a square, hope is too thin, hit it unhindered by obstacles and press close together so no-one can swerve away. Put your most committed horses and riders in the front line and press home. If the first charge fails, do not go in again!!!,
I have little knowledge of how battles were fought in Napoleonic times, so I had never even heard of an "infantry square" until watching Sharpe's Waterloo, where the Prince of Orange kept trying to battle cavalry charges with a line and Sharpe kept telling him to form squares. So when I saw this title I thought I'd watch and learn more about the concept.
2:58 Not only is more difficult, but also, a circle doesn't allow the formation to keep a straight line of shooting, which would lower the accuracy of the shots.
Going back to the English Civil War, and some of the "pike and shot" era that preceded it, we see the development and usefulness of pistols (and eventually, carbines) for cavalry in being able to "harass" and pick apart infantry squares, and this continued into the "classical/high age" of black powder, the long 18th century. It seems that "combined arms" of artillery and cavalry was the best bet against anti-cavalry formations, whether the old pike formations or the musket/bayonet squares discussed here. A square could be hammered to hell by artillery and then cavalry had the option to strafe them with pistol fire before charging in for the kill, or just simply skipping to the charge (especially if the cavalry in question weren't firearm-centric). Taking on a square without artillery support would have been a daunting job, but the square, despite what one hears in Sharpe, was not 100% cavalry proof. As a side note, the modus operandi for taking on cavalry was to aim for the horses. This is far less practical to portray in film, and certainly less palatable for the audience, but that's how it went down. Sorry for the long comment. Great and accurate video, as always.
Wat he said about waiting for the cavalry to get close before firing also applied historically to archers. Movies portray them as shooting mass volleys at the enemy as soon as they get remotely in range, but in reality, archers would generally save their fire until the enemy got closer. Arrows were valuable and in limited supply. Letting the enemy get close before you let loose wasn't just good for accuracy. The arrows fired at close range and a flat angle would hit the enemy much harder. In fact, medieval paintings overwhelmingly show archers firing at no angle, and from close range. But the same applies even centuries later in the Napoleonic wars. Not always wise to waste your ammo from a distance when you can save for a shock at close range.
In the 1990s, MILITARY HISTORY magazine - still in publication - advertised a series of beautiful, detailed, color paintings of historical war battles. Prints of the paintings were available for sale. One interesting print was a bird's eye view of attacking waves of Zulu tribal warriors against a British infantry square, circa 1879, which must have been the Battle of Isandlwana. The print shows the Zulu warriors breaking through the corner of the British square and starting to enter it. This signaled the end of the British force. Evidently, the weakest part of an infantry battle square was its corners. The same applied to traditional forts and castles and other battlements. To combat this weakness, sometimes large stone forts and castle walls had reinforcing small towers flanking the corner, providing deadly cross fire. But this was not possible on an infantry square.
What is the difference between artillery and horse artillery? The Royal Horse Artillery was, distinguished from the Field Artillery by (among other things) its speed: the need to keep pace with a cavalry charge was achieved initially by the Horse Artillery using lighter guns than the RFA, and later by their using proportionally more horses. Ideal for breaking infantry squares!
I have read in Cornwells book in Waterloo that on british regiment did form a triangle after losing quite a lot of men and thus not being able to form a square anymore.
Concentrated fire is much more effective from the straight lines of infantry that form the squares, whereas a circular formation would disperse the volleys the further they travel from their source.
The British 8th Army in WWII used a variation of the Infantry Square in North Africa called "Infantry Boxes." Using AT guns inside the box and along the sides made them formidable fortifications against German Panzers.
At the battle of San Gabriel (1847), Kearney formed his entire force into a single square, with his artillery and baggage in the center. His force was a combination of dismounted Dragoons, militiamen, marines, and sailors, some armed with only pikes. It was a ragtag force, and an unorthodox formation, but he prevailed.
Using artillery against squares is much harder than it sounds. They could be destroyed by enemy artillery, swamped by light infantry or captured by enemy horsemen. For example, the French artillery situated in La Haye Sainte were able to fire at the British infantry squares during Ney’s cavalry charge and had the potential to maul several of the British squares up front. However, they were soon rendered combat inoperable by members of the 95th and KGL rifles situated just near the sand bar on front of the house. The French crews simply couldn’t reload the guns properly whilst they were being shot at by these 2 rifle units.
In one word: Fires! Field Artillery obviously. But also, the New Model Army's tactic of the Cavalry riding up and discharging pistols, or Parthian mounted archers launching volley's of arrows against Pompey's troops at Carrhae.
Just out of curiousity I pulled out my copy of Baron von Steuben's drill manual for the US Army, and there's nothing in there about forming squares. Which didn't really surprise me. Aside from raids, scouting and screening cavalry wasn't a major player in the Revolutionary War, there were no mass cavalry formations here like they had in Europe so it wasn't a worry. No point in wasting training time teaching a formation the troops weren't likely to ever use.
@fiddysiks Ask away! There's lot's of comments here and honestly I don't wade through all of them myself before posting. (Some are better than others, don't ya know?)
You can still see the infantry square come to life to this day. The formation of trooping the colour resembles a hollow square at the beginning and when the less senior royals arrive, no.3 guard opens their rank and it looks like 2 half hollow squares
Most often infantry squares would be battalion sized (as regiments of the time often only had one battalion in combat they were the same size). 10 companies of 76 men each, arrayed with two companies on one side, two on the opposite side, and the adjoining sides being three companies each. 3+2+3+2 being the infantry 'square'. Four ranks a side with all four initially loaded (so sorry Brandon you're not quite right there), then subsequently /after/ the first volley, the front two grounded their muskets with bayonets angled up to point at the cavalry, so there were 38 per company able to shoot and 38 bayonets. Broken two ways.. panicked friendly infantry running at them and forcing their way in, breaking up the side they ran at. A cavalry horse killed too close which slid into the side and broke it up. In both cases the surviving cavalry made the most of the situation. They could also be broken by both cavalry and artillery being in sight. Unable to choose the formation to guard against a commander may choose the cavalry and form square, then presenting a massed target to the artillery. This then fires and disrupts the square and the cavalry then finish the job. It's one thing to say a war horse was trained to charge the enemy but that ignores the horse's survival instinct not to kill itself by running into a hedge of blades.
Overall a very good video, really enjoyed it! Shame though that you didn't mention the (rare) use of squares in the attack - I would have liked to hear your assessment of the Middle Guard's final attack at Waterloo, which was conducted (most likely!) in square or a very dense column formation. Also, some nations (such as post 1806-Prussians) apparently didn't use squares at all, preferring to "densify" their column formations whenever threatened by cavalry, drawing the companies closer together. Here again your assessment as to the effectiveness would be really welcome :)
There's always more to talk about, in the end! Though I didn't know that it might have been the case the Guard attacked in square, that would be interesting. I appreciate the kind words!
I mean look at napoleons battle against the mamluke he killed well over 2,000 enemy elite cavalry the mamlukes and only had around 20 to 60 casualties (depending on which source you look at) simply due to the effectiveness of the square formation in the the flat desert
If not artillery in games like total war I always use lancer Calvary to flank the sides of enemy troops and if that works 99% of the time it does the enemy ends up needing to cover its flanks allowing me to use the infantry to easily break them down by charging.
Also with a circle, if an attack comes from the direct west, you actually only have one soldier actually pointing direct west. Everyone else has to incline varying degrees to face the threat. whereas with a square then a whole face can be facing west.
Hello Brandon, just wanted to say, as a reenactor that i love your content. I believe that the suffering of a Corporal in a Infantry Square was just enormous, the things that these men passed through. My family is of noble origin (Portugal), we fought in the Battle of Alcácer Quibir agains the morrocans (1500's), Battle of Vimeiro and Roliça (1808), Bussaco and Waterloo. Resuming, i rlly like your content and the way you explain it (coming from a military family). Thank you.
I've long felt the fundamental mistake Crassus made at Carrhae was forming the entire army into one giant square rather then two mutually supporting squares that would be more maneuverable and with a dead zone in-between that Persian horsemen would be caught in a crossfire.
If the wall of a square breaks, then very likely there are enemy troops in the spot where the wall of the square was and the adjoining two walls can't just back up into that space ....and if enemy troops get into the square, the other walls of the square can't just turn around and deal with them because there is most likely still a threat to those walls from outside the square
I was waiting the whole video for him to mention just blowing a hole in the square with artillery and then sending cavalry into the gap. Clearly the easiest way to break an infantry square.
"How to Break an Infantry Square"? Easy... just call Fuzzy-Wuzzy, he'll set you right up. Just make sure you give a friendly shout-out to his missus and his kid.
I heard someone tell me that squares were the stupidest thing to ever do. His source? The battle of Carrhae. Apparently he got it into his head that if dragoons with carbines were to ride around you and shoot at you, you would be praying for a painless death. I don’t think I need to say more.
The squares stand widely apart yet support each other, horses hate bayonets, fire at the horses not the riders, stand shoulder to shoulder in disciplined ranks, drill, drill, drill. That is how the Brits won. The French were enthusiastic but not well trained. That is why their infantry fought en masse and their cavalry relied on the charge.
Yet, Roman warlord general, Crassus, encouraged by Caesar, invaded Parthia. The Parthians attacked with a much lighter force of only 10,000 light and unarmored horse archers and 1,000 heavily armored cataphracts. Crassus' mistake was to assume the traditional defensive square, meant to ward off enemy cavalry. The other tactic, less well known, was to extend the front line, forcing the enemy cavalry to thin its ranks apart. Crassus at first was going to extend the line on the advice of his senior officers but at the last moment went for the defensive square. Some historians believe the Roman Army used a defensive circle (orbis) instead of a square. Of course history recorded Crassus' decision as a catastrophic mistake. By assuming a square or circle, Crassus surrendered his tactical battlefield mobility and his options. The Parthians simply rode around the Romans all day, peppering them with arrows. The key to victory was that the Parthians came prepared with logistical resupplies of arrows. The Roman legionaries suffered in the heat from exhaustion, thirst, and increasing casualties. Finally their morale broke. So what is best? The square or extending the line? It would seem to depend on one's own army. If you outnumber the enemy as did Crassus, he should have extended the line. Conversely when you are outnumbered, extending the line should not be undertaken. Assume the square. From experience in the 1879 Ango-Zulu War, it appeared that the corners of an infantry square were its weakest, at the joint, if the enemy could assault the corner in great numbers. A color print being offered for sale in a military history magazine back in the 1990s depicts swarming Zulu warriors attacking a British infantry square and breaking through at that point then beginning to pour through. Of course, once the integrity of an infantry square was broken with enemy pouring inside to attack the defenders from within, all was lost.
I read somewhere that the SGM would pace behind, not the rank accepting the charge, but the opposite side. These soldiers had their backs to the action and to maintain morale the SGM would keep updating them to allay the feeling of uncertainty and fear.
