Cavalry versus Squares

[davidsharpe]

Hello Barry

This forum makes rules living.
Some wants to get rules precisions or explanations, other wants to know about AAR or new scenarios, discuss about historical battle events, and some wants to share their point of view and propose some house rules.

In the napoleonic miniatures market i was surprised by the great number of messages, AAR, blogs, rules presentation, addenda and house modifications about Lassale rules.
For newcomers it s very appealing to buy the Lassalle book.

It s not my cup of tea, but apparently it has a great success.

So, i think RTE, which is a revolutionary design with a great historical tactical simulation capacity, can benefit from all these exchanges.

Friendly yours Barry.

D

[davidsharpe]

Hello Bob

You are right when you say that early napoleonic period was different from the end at Waterloo.
In some ways it s another way of fighting a battle.

At Austerlitz cavalry was in masse facing enemy cavalry.
Infantry faced infantry.
Waterloo is a particular battle, very chaotic with some guerilla flavour sometimes with swarms of skirmishers appearing and hiding, cavalry squadrons rising suddenly from blind spot.
Each part of the battle was a different battle.
So, yes, the typical napoleonic battle is not Waterloo.

Historically "real" squares were immune to cavalry charges.
The destruction of the french 69e de ligne at Garcia Hernandez by Heavy KGL dragoons was exceptionnal.
At 4 bras, Halkett s 69th , 30th, 33th and 73th foot regiments were
not in square when they were caught by french cavalry.
Nor the 3rd , 48th and 66th from Colborne brigade at Albuera 1811, when Polish vistula lancers and 2e hussard wiped them out by flanking charge their lines.
The 31st, the last in the line, had time to form an oblong hasty square and survived.

But on a miniature table top, the gamers have a God s view, the real officers on smoky and noisy battlefield hadn t.
So it s impossible to recreate surprise cavalry attacks on deployed infantry.
Now it s a question of gaming philosophy or tastes.
Some prefer to have a maximum control over the threats and reactions to them, others needs more incertainty and suspense.

RTE is revolutionary because it simulates inertia and lack of complete control by it s excellent activation system, threat reaction system and orders obligations.
But, anyway , players have too much control of the threats seeing where are cavalry, and the invulnerability of square.

My gaming philosophy wants some suspense more.
Cavalry surprise attacks should be possible.
I am thinking about it.
I ll send some suggestions, soon.

Friendly yours, Bob

D

[Anonymous]

Dear Friends,

reading all this is very interesting with all its aspects on RtE and the historical side. I strongly agree with Toggy and D on the fact that Waterloo is NOT the typical Napoleonic Battle. It is a tendency of time to concentrate on only the last stages of a War. With Napoleonic its almost anytime Waterloo.

Waterloo:
For the attack of the cavalry under Ney's Orders at Waterloo you should take into account, that IF the Horse Batteries, who has been allocated with each of the Cavalry Corps involved, would have been at hand Ney would have taken them with him. BUT his Master "N" had them drawn away and placed them elsewhere, most of them with the Grand Battery. So there were nothing left to be taken forward to support the attacking cavalry, not even Infantry.

Military Doctrine of that Period defined a Square as THE defensive formation for Infantry to receive attacking cavalry. So all Nations did it that way. But there was also the knowledge how to face such a formation once it has taken shape.

Horse Artillery, attached to Cavalry Divisions/Corps, has to be used to soften up Squares before charging. So it was placed in the (Real Life) Rule Books of France, Prussia and Austria. And so it was adopted by most of the european countries afterwards.The reason why it didnt find its way into so many battles was a matter of space, availability and the fact that there was allways a reason why the batteries were not where they belonged.

RtE:
I have to say that I didnt play a single RtE game so far. But by reading Republic to Empire I came under the impression that this supporting role of horse artillery is easy to accomplish. Placing a Cavalry Brigade/Division under ADVANCE Order will stop it at Charge Reach of the closest enemy unit. Next turn they going automatical to DEFEND-Order. The supporting battery(s) deploys and reduces the facing enemy into rubble, softens it up with roundshot or even canister. Keeping them under chargethreat they, the enemy, will do as you like.
That is, for me, the only realistic way to overcome the "Square hunting cavalry"-Effect earlier described. By using cavalry, not in squadrons or as a mob to attack all that is in its way we can simulate strategic thoughts in games. We look far on the table but not over its edge.

By taking that into account battles were fought under the thought "What will be left for the next day?" With that in mind you leaving your God-like role on the table and think twice before doing something others may think to be foolish.

Sorry, it seems that I've lost track

Cheers

Günter

[barr7430]

No I don't think you have lost the track Gunter!

What struck me as very appropriate was the fact the German, Frenchman, Englishmen, Scotsman, New Zealander, American and many others are ALL discussing the wars of our forefathers in a very gentlemanly manner in cyberspace!

Vive Le Net!

[Qurchi Bashi]

One rule yourself and many people have probably missed is 'pull up from a charge' page 103. This allows charging cavalry who's target has managed to form square to attempt to pull up from the charge but as there is a minus 2 to this resolve test then only good quality troops will be able to do it so they don't have to charge to distruction.
Cheers
Dave

I was not familiar with that rule - as I said, I am new with the rules. That might satisfy me for the moment. I'll have to see how it plays. I wish I had known about it at the Borodino game, some of my Cuirassiers might have survived!

I'll keep watching for developments.

(Oh, and I'm another David - but I registered a different screen name since there seem to be a bunch here already.)

[flick40]

"What will be left for the next day?"

This very comment is what most every player in a war game throw out the window first. Only to be replaced by "There are no lead widows".

Joe

[Anonymous]

"What will be left for the next day?"

This very comment is what most every player in a war game throw out the window first. Only to be replaced by "There are no lead widows".

Joe

Yes Joe, thats true


Günter

[wkeyser]

I was not going to get into this as when I was doing my research the cavalry was interesting in that it was amazing what was done with the cavalry during the period. The depth of their ability is usually lost in most rules. But I enjoy these rules and love to tinker to make things fit my views of the period.

First squares are not invulnerable to cavalry, during our period some where between 20 to 30 “squares” where broken. From the well noted Garci Hernandez to a Russian Square where the infantry had piled their back packs in the middle of the square, it was run over by a Guard cavalry unit in 1814! Yes lots of accounts of who was in square and who got caught forming square, but there are enough examples of “formed” squares being broken to be able to say that cavalry could on very rare occasion break squares, and not just catching it before it formed or an animal falling dead onto the square.

If you look at the manuals of the period for cavalry and read the accounts of cavalry commanders you will see that there where various ways to attack squares, from regiments in squadron columns attacking corners to sending in some “skirmisher” to get the infantry to fire then charge in.

So squares could be broken.

As to cavalry impaling themselves on squares this is a little more problematic as many times these encounters could leave the cavalry ineffective for the rest of the battle, while on the other hand we have numerous accounts of cavalry just riding around or pulling back and quickly forming and ready for more shortly after

So cavalry did not just throw themselves on squares until they where combat ineffective.

So where does the reality lie. This would probably be that Cavalry is much more flexible then the rules are showing in their fight against infantry. However, in most encounters if the infantry formed they where pretty safe against cavalry if they where fresh and there was not a huge difference in quality or training. But how does cavalry act against squares, I think the problem lies in the Attack order, they are required to charge which really does not make much sense given the history of cavalrys use in the wars. You do have encounters like Waterloo and Eylau where they where formed up and run at the infantry line, however this was usually through a mistake (waterloo) or higher command reacting to a large threat (Eyalu).

I think the easiet way is to allow the cavalry much more flexibility in how to react, what I did in From Valmy to Waterloo was that the light cavalry could have a Maneuver Attack order. This allows the gamer to attempt to throw his cav at an opportunity but he must roll to see if the cavalry do indeed attack, this is based on quality of the cavalry and its combat situation. This means that the gamer does not have complete control and some times a chance he sees, will not be acted on. The hard part is the Heavy cavalry which was handled in a completely different way. First it was a higher level resource so an Army commander was usually the one who had command. They would be launched at an enemy usually under direct orders of a high level commander and usually with the army commander being aware. This will of course be based on how the cavalry was organized and deployed, both of these aspects critical to how the units fought on the battlefield.

David, as to Waterloo being a confusing battlefield I would say no more then any other and probably a lot less confusing than say large battles like Leipzig or the early battles that where often fought on really large battlefields with a very low density of troops.

David, as to Austerlitz I am not sure that you can say infantry against infantry, and Cavalry against Cavalry. Take a look at the fighting around Soult at the beginning of the battle.

In short with out really trying it on the table I think that two fixes which would be rather easy and not impact to much the rest of the rules.

First with an Attack order Light cavalry is not required to charge but must be at charge distance. The second would be to allow a much higher chance of Light cavalry to be able to pull up a charge, with heavy cav being a little easier then what it is now.

Also add some negative mods for Infantry to form square, for example casualties, if they fired earlier in the turn ie they would have smoke and it would be harder for them to see the threat. With these, then a badly shot up unit would be more likely to fail an attempt to form square.

The way I am changing the things I find problematic is to do it in such a way as to avoid to many new or added rules, rather modifiers, or changes to things like order requirements!

William

[Churchill]

Ray.

[wkeyser]

Hi Ray
I will dig up the list, the first time I saw it was in an old Strategy and Tactics magazine probably from the early 90s, the second time I saw it was I think in Empries Eagles and Lions.

It is one of those myths that we only think a square could be broken if it was caught before it was formed, however, in the 20+ years of combat it happened more then we think. In addition the various cav manuals and cav commanders mention the tactics to break a square.

Did not want to get into this on this level but will stand by my comments and dig up this.
William

[wkeyser]

Here are a few with just a quick google search. An Excellent article both about cav being stopped by squares and squares breaking. As you can see it is not that uncommon so it is not possible to say a square is invulnerable. I started to add up the number of squares broken and I was well of 25 so here you go a list and descriptions of the broken squares. As you can see some are formed and some are not, and a couple due to rain.
William

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infan ... st_cavalry

Cavalry is formed into two troops (one behind the other -or- in echelon formation)
The square fire on the leading troop, while the rear troop charge before the square
can reload their muskets. In 1809 at Wagram Colbert's so-called 'Infernal Brigade'
(9th Hussars, 7th and 20th Chasseurs), rushed against Austrian infantry formed
in two squares . The 7th Chasseurs was greeted with musket volley and fell back .
Colbert was seriously wounded . The 20th Chasseurs then advanced against the
square that had just repulsed the 7th Chasseurs.The French cavalrymen attacked
and broke the square. (The infantry had emptied their muskets and were in a vulnerable
position.) The other Austrian square was broken by the 9th Hussars .

In 1813 at Hanau, 8 French squares and 18 guns were routed by
20 squadrons of Bavarian cavalry. (See picture of Bavarian cavalryman below.)
In 1814 at the last stage of the Campaign of France , Allies' cavalry
with horse artillery broke 6 French squares and 16 guns (4.400 men)
at Fère Champenoise


Mockern 1813.
Two French squares were attacked by 2 squadrons of Brandenburg Hussars (308 men) .
The infantry fired but the salvo made little impression on the Prussians.They broke and
pursued the French who ran towards own artillery and thus masking their fire.

Battle of Nangis (1814), and 5 Russian squares broken by the French.
On perceiving the advance of the French, Gen.Pahlen sent off his artillery,
followed by four infantry regiments, 9 squadrons of cavalry, two Cossack
regiments and few guns. For more than an hour , the retreat was conducted in
good order . The infantry formed in squares kept up their fire, repulsing several
cavalry charges. But when the French dragoons put to flight the cavalry and
Cossacks, the Russian infantry fell apart.
Generals Wittgenstein and Auvray,who were also present in this combat, were
hurried away in the general rout. The Russians lost 2,114 killed and missing,
and 9 guns. The Revel and Seleguinsk Infantry Regiments suffered the most.
One general was cut down and taken prisoner by the French. (The French cavalry
was supported in these charges by Marshal Victor's infantry and Oudinot's
Young Guard.)
Battle of Montmirail (1814), and 4 Russian squares broken by the French.
Napoleon himself left Montmirail for Chateau Thierry , where General Horn ' s
24 squadrons were ordered to keep the French in check until Sacken's Russian
corps should have passed the Marne River. Mikhailovskii-Danilevskii writes ,
"All at once, the whole first line (12 squadrons) advanced to the attack.
The French cavalry waited till it came to the proper distance, and then routed it.
The fleeing squadrons threw the second line (12 squadrons) into disorder, and
galloped off pell-mell along with them in every direction over the plain.General
Heidenrich's infantry brigade, consisting of the regiments of Tambov and
Kostroma, happening to be at hand, immediately formed square, and kept the
enemy in check by a fire of musketry, but they were ultimately broken ;
the general was made prisoner, and 3 guns were taken."

[kiwipeterh]

I will dig up the list, the first time I saw it was in an old Strategy and Tactics magazine probably from the early 90s, the second time I saw it was I think in Empries Eagles and Lions.

The long departed Battle for Wargamers (at least I think that was the name!) also published a list of broken squares.

Salute
von Peter himself ... with more useless information!

[wkeyser]

Thanks Kiwi
I am always amazed at how strong some wargame myths are!

William

[Churchill]

Ray.

[wkeyser]

My point is not that it was a very very rare event, which I have admitted, but rather it did happen.

My response was to various comments that a formed square was invulnerable to cavalry, this is obviously false. That is all, not that it should be common occurrence in our games but that under certain situations it can and did happen.

William