Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Ok - I know we cant overwhelm John with too many things to change in the game but here is a topic that I would like to explore. Could some of you history buffs out there think this one over and give a response?

How many men SHOULD be the MINIMUM in order to form a square?

Yes, I know that four guys can form corners and face bayonets outward.

My thought is at least 100 men. Maybe 80 at the bare minimum.

Why? Because a square had two ranks normally. One group that was sitting with bayonet pointed outwards and another rank right behind.

Were their three rank squares?

Thus my thought is that you would have to have had at least 10 guys on one side in EACH rank thus 4 x 20 = 80.

Was that a good enough square to break a charge?

Perhaps 240 men and up? 60 men per side?

While I know that theory is interesting what is practical?

Lets chew on this one for a bit and perhaps in a later title I will suggest this as a new feature. (dont start the catcalls please - we only have so many things we can fix in a game)

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army

As far as I am aware there was no minium size for a square. According to Brent Nosworthy in 'Battle tactics of Napoleon and his enemies' skirmishers who were threatened by cavalry and who couldn't get back to their battalions in time would form a 'rallying square'. Here is a quote from that book: 'All the men within distance would run towards the officer or NCO who gave the order to rally. The first men to arrive would stand back to back, and then the successive groups would gradually grow layer by layer. <b>Rallying squares could be as small as the men from three or four files up to abour eighty infantrymen.</b> ... Under no circumstances were the men to fire, for if they were caught denuded of fire, the enemy cavalry could rush in and attack with sabre and lance.' He then gives examples of British infantry using this tactic and contrasting it to where the skirmishers only managed to form a line and were cut to bits.

It sounds more like it would resemble a circle more than a square but that is possibly a better shape anyway, as corners would be the weak points in a square, but the effect is the same, even if it did rely on the threat of firepower to back up the bayonet barrier.

Bill, I think the type of square you describe is the 'open square' and I'm pretty certain I've seen them pictured with 3 ranks - like that famous painting of the British squares at Waterloo. But there were also 'closed squares' which were more dense and formed from a column formation with men from the 3rd rank of each company running round to the sides and facing outwards - an innovation of Frederick the Great I believe.

As to whether the small rallying square would stop a charge, well that would I suppose depend on the relative size of the cavalry threat, but if it did really happen then those involved must have had some faith in it, although I would say that if the ratio between the size of the cavalry to the infantry in square was big enough then I would imagine that the formation would offer little benefit at all - and the infantrymen would most likely rout!

Interesting topic...

<font color="gold">Major Antony Barlow
CO, 2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps.
Guards: 4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards.</font id="gold">

I've read a similar source that referred to 'clustering' (or something along those lines). Scattered skirmishers or routed infantry huddled together in unformed groups with their weapons pointing outwards.

<font color="orange">Majoor Peter Robinson
Commander I Corps
[url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie"]Koninklijke Militaire Academie[/url] Adjutant
3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards</font id="orange">

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by SansSouci</i>
<br />I've read a similar source that referred to 'clustering' (or something along those lines). Scattered skirmishers or routed infantry huddled together in unformed groups with their weapons pointing outwards.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That's 'clumpen' an Austrian or Prussian tactic.

No minimum size. A formed unit in good order should be able to adopt a defensive formation.

<b>Général de Division Michael Cox</b>
<font size="4"><i>Principe <font size="1">della </font id="size1">Toscana</i></font id="size4">
Comte de Moselle

<i><font size="4">Armée du Rhin</font id="size4">
<font size="2">2e battallion, 1er Regiment de Chasseurs a Pied, Inf. de l'V. Gde.</i></font id="size2">


<font size="1"><u>In Regards to Skirmisher Flop by Melee Losers:</u>
<ul><li>Make it an optional rather than fixed rule (at the very least). </li>
<li>Skirmisher stack size relative to retreating formed unit should be a factor (whether in clear or covered terrain). </li>
<li>For skirmishers, (not leaders or wagons) covered terrain (swamp, building, city, town, forest, marsh, and perhaps orchard) should negate the overrun result.</li></font id="size1"> </ul>

Another good topic.

As I recall the Klumpen formation was also used by the French. In all cases it seems to have been a formation born of necessity for men deployed in open order surprised by enemy cavalry before they could fall back on their support or get to covered terrain.

I am not sure how effective this formation was, probably ok against cossacks or a squadron of cavalry, but I would not fancy my chances caught in the open with a regiment of cavalry cantering through.

I think that, for skirmishers, this is fairly well simulated by the failure to over-run on the basis of strength ratio between the cavalry and the skirmishers (is this BG series function retained in the Campaign engine?). If they are over-run, it may not mean that the klumpen type formation was ineffective against the cavalry but, that the skirmishers were unable to form in sufficient time before the cavalry arived.

To form a batallion square requires that the number of companies (and therefore platoons) necessary for the manoeuvre are present. The question then becomes how many men form an effective company.

At the start of the period, all armies formed up in three ranks, (even the British), until their strength dropped below a certain level, at which point the regulations allowed that they adopt a two rank formation. The British preference for a two rank formation was probably forced on them by understrength battalions rather than any tactical foresight.

The minimum strength for the French was 12 files per peloton, (2 pelotons / division; and assume 3 divisions / battalion). The British specified 5 files / section, (minimum of 3 sections / company; and typically 8 companies per battalion, assuming grenadier and light companies detached). This number of files was the basic, minimum number of files for the battalion to be able to manoeuvre effectively in accordance with the regulations. So, when the strength dropped, the battalion would form in two ranks, but the number of files required to conduct the manoeuvres would remain.

This gives minimum strengths of 148 for the French (12 x 2 x 2 3); and 240 for the British (5 x 2 x 3 x . The size of these squares would be about 50 feet square for the French and 60 feet square for the British. This assumes perfect 2-rank square whereas the regulations allowed for a variety of shapes and even different depths on the faces of the square, or a small reserve in the centre of the square. The point is, that these square formations seem, to me, to be of a reasonable size to resist a cavalry charge.

Below 150 men is the strength of a 'company sized' skirmisher deployment which should take its chances as a Klumpen type formation against cavalry. I would therefore suggest a minimum strength of 150 to 200 men to be able to form an effective square which is consistent with Bill's estimate of 100-240 men. [Right on the money Bill].

As an aside, for a closed square, (masse), formed from a column of 3 divisions, the front division faces forward, the rear division faces about, and three files of the centre division(s) face left and three to the right. Assuming that the battalion had dropped below the minimum number of files specified by the regulations and already been reduced by one rank, this would require only two files to face outward. The theroetical minimum strength of 2 files for each peloton, (4 men for a 2-rank formation) by 6 companies is 24 men. This formation would be about 8-10 feet square and probably fit into your bathroom. Even at 150 men, a 2-rank closed square from a 3 division battalion, would have a frontage of 50 feet and depth of 10-12 feet.

One way to avoid the presence of low strength units on the battlefield is to make them more brittle. Too often, even I suspect in Campaign games, units are fighting to the last man. Routed units are quickly rallied and, in my limited experience, fatigue in the Campaign game is recovered too easily allowing units to return to the fray within a very short time period as though nothing had happened. I recommend a reduction in the rate of fatigue recovery and an increase in fatigue incurred from melee to prevent this. In this way, once routing starts, an army will quickly fall apart, enabling a decisive victory without elevated casualty levels. The game will then become more one of manoeuvre to get to the point where a decisive blow can be made that will start the routing process.

Finally, I would like to see the movement of squares increased. There are several instances of this formation being used to manoeuvre on the battlefield and that the movement was not slower than that of a column. Perhaps a speed of 3 hexes in open terrain would be a reasonable compromise as the formation would be easily disordered by enemy fire at which point its movement would be reduced to the traditional 1 hex.

My thoughts on squares for what they are worth

Regards

Mark

It was actually a British source that I read - from the Peninsular War if my memory is correct. I guess it was probably standard procedure for open order troops to group together is threatened by cavalry?

I've seen talk of zocs around here and although I agree that infiltration zocing is questionable (although I do it) I feel very strongly that the general rule is a good one. Otherwise, as you say Mark, games turn into a slogging match fought to the last man. ZOCs on the other hand reward decisive and surprise tatics by enabling a general who has successfully outnumbered his opponent in a particular sector to make an impact in the brief period before enemy reinforcements arrive. In that sense ZOC losses shouldn't be considered as casualties - they also reflect captures and a loss of fighting effectiveness in a unit. It is hardly realistic that an isolated battalion confronted by a brigade of the enemy would just suffer a few casualties before running away, reforming and returning to the fray (in all likelihood to melee, rout etc. and another couple of times) - I know I'd be halfway down the road to Brussels. [;)]

<font color="orange">Majoor Peter Robinson
Commander I Corps
[url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie"]Koninklijke Militaire Academie[/url] Adjutant
3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards</font id="orange">

Peter

I think there was a lot of commonality in the regulations, with slight differences in the detail and, furthermore, deviation from the regulations through specific instructions issued at corps / division level. I took the reference for the French from Davout's instructions for skirmishers (as summarised in Nafziger's Imperial Bayonets), which equates the French rally (or quick) square to the Austrian klumpen.

I agree that there must be the capability to surround and eliminate (capture) by melee, an enemy formation. My preference is to do this by surrounding (isolating) and using ranged fire to rout the unit then capturing it 'for free'.

The reason for this is that I prefer not to have more than one battalion in a hex, so that there is room for each battalion to deploy into line, and I certainly prefer not to have multiple disordered battalions in a hex following a successful melee, as that should be an invitation to my opponent to counter-attack.

Because it takes a turn for isolation to become effective, this allows the surrounded enemy formation the opportunity to 'break-out', provided it is not already routed, in which case it is rightly doomed anyway - unless relieving forces can reach it in time.

But I agree entirely with your point that it should be allowable to use ZoCs to suuround and cut-off the retreat of a unit and that this is a key part of the aim of any manoeuvering to gain the advantage.

Regards

Mark

Answering some of Mark's ideas and my thought on the new Square minimum size I will advocate:

1. We talked about giving squares and extra hex of movement. 2 hexes. That is probably about as much as we could expect. I am not sure I can agree with you that the a square could move as fast as a Column. I also dont think I could sell John on that concept. One more hex will work though with disordered squares only moving 1 hex.

2. Minium size for a square will be 150 men. Slightly on the low end of the scale I gave but right in there with the idea that units under that level were not going to put up a great amount of bayonets.

3. We have discussed the idea of having units that suffer over a certain amount of casutalties to NOT rally at all. They would rout off of the board. However, I was against this as its really up to the players to manage this. We have read of accounts where units took horrific casualties and stood to the colors. I am not sure I want to mess around in this area yet. Probably best left to the players to agree on.

I wish I could figure out how to factor in the concept that a square that fired is going to put up less of a fight than one that hasnt fired. Wasnt the main thing about a square the fact that the horses didnt want to impale themselves on the bayonets? Or did the firepower have that much to do with the square hanging around.



Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army

Bill,
what about the idea of letting the units not only regain their fatigue, but their strength as well? Just like it's the case with the Panzer games?

I think it would be reasonable to let <u>some</u> of the soldiers, which (due to melee, charge, light wound etc.) lost contact with their unit, rejoin it after a couple of turns. Of course under the condition, that the unit doesn't move or fire.

<center>Maréchal T. Nowacki
<b>V KORPUS ARMII RENU</b>

Comte de Liege
Duc de la Moskova

Chasseurs a Cheval de la Vieille Garde</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
3. We have discussed the idea of having units that suffer over a certain amount of casutalties to NOT rally at all. They would rout off of the board. However, I was against this as its really up to the players to manage this. We have read of accounts where units took horrific casualties and stood to the colors. I am not sure I want to mess around in this area yet. Probably best left to the players to agree on.


That is particularly interesting. I don't know about play balance, but really good. Units at 20% (or 15% or 10%) rout and continue to move off board during the rout phase....

Wasnt the main thing about a square the fact that the horses didnt want to impale themselves on the bayonets? Or did the firepower have that much to do with the square hanging around.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That is particularly interesting. I don't know about play balance, but really good. Units at 20% (or 15% or 10%) rout and continue to move off board during the rout phase....

My understanding is that the horses are less afraid of the guns/bayonets just of the mass of men. ie 'there is no way I can go over that solid object in front of me, I better swerve. ' That is why even a small unit using <i>klumpen</i> <font size="1">(Thanks Mark</font id="size1"> could survive a charge. The charge simply flowed around the clusters of men, like water passing a rock in the stream. However, that begs the question why skirmishers can't form square/<i>klumpen</i>, and I am not going to bark up that tree...

<b>Général de Division Michael Cox</b>
<font size="4"><i>Principe <font size="1">della </font id="size1">Toscana</i></font id="size4">
Comte de Moselle

<i><font size="4">Armée du Rhin</font id="size4">
<font size="2">2e battallion, 1er Regiment de Chasseurs a Pied, Inf. de l'V. Gde.</i></font id="size2">


<font size="1"><u>In Regards to Skirmisher Flop by Melee Losers:</u>
<ul><li>Make it an optional rather than fixed rule (at the very least). </li>
<li>Skirmisher stack size relative to retreating formed unit should be a factor (whether in clear or covered terrain). </li>
<li>For skirmishers, (not leaders or wagons) covered terrain (swamp, building, city, town, forest, marsh, and perhaps orchard) should negate the overrun result.</li></font id="size1"> </ul>

Mike - yeah, since we dont even have an auto-square feature either! Allowing skirmishers to take evasive action into a klumpen would be getting the cart before the horse IMHO (sorry for the horse pun).

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>

1. We talked about giving squares and extra hex of movement. 2 hexes. That is probably about as much as we could expect. I am not sure I can agree with you that the a square could move as fast as a Column. I also dont think I could sell John on that concept. One more hex will work though with disordered squares only moving 1 hex.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree with your sentiment Bill. I was surprised to read a couple of accounts in Imperial Bayonets of squares moving at pace. One was a Saxon grenadier rear guard battalion covering the retreat from Jena/Auerstadt that outpaced the pursuing French columns, (though there is no indication about the order of the square and whether it would have reduced speed and stood if threatened by cavalry [:)]); the other was an account of Morand's division at the same battle, advancing in squares at the <i>pas de charge</i> (120 paces / minute). Now it could be a failing of memory on the part of the author of the memoires, but in any event, such incidents must have been pretty rare, (and in 1806 this was still Napoleon's best trained army, so may have been plausible, but I agree that should not make such movement available to all). A movement of 2-3 hexes seems a reasonable compromise and would allow simulation of the French army marching onto the field of Lutzen in square and being able to close with the enemy before they are completely blown to pieces [B)]


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
2. Minium size for a square will be 150 men. Slightly on the low end of the scale I gave but right in there with the idea that units under that level were not going to put up a great amount of bayonets.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sounds good to me.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
3. We have discussed the idea of having units that suffer over a certain amount of casutalties to NOT rally at all. They would rout off of the board. However, I was against this as its really up to the players to manage this. We have read of accounts where units took horrific casualties and stood to the colors. I am not sure I want to mess around in this area yet. Probably best left to the players to agree on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree with you Bill. Best not to tinker with this one. Maybe a compromise would be for high fatigue units or disordered units to have to take a morale check each time they moved towards the enemy or into a threat zone, failure causing them to either freeze, (no further movement that turn), or even rout. This would make players think twice about using those residual battalions as sacrificial units to plug holes in the line. There's certainly scope for some changes in this area.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
I wish I could figure out how to factor in the concept that a square that fired is going to put up less of a fight than one that hasnt fired. Wasnt the main thing about a square the fact that the horses didnt want to impale themselves on the bayonets? Or did the firepower have that much to do with the square hanging around.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have never considered this. My guess is that the wall of bayonets was more of a threat to the horses as they probably weren't all that clued up on the reload time of the Model 1760 musket [;)]

On the other hand, the riders were probanly more concerned with the muskets, knowing it was only the horse that would cop the bayonets.

As for the men in the square, I guess they felt more secure there, whether they had fired or not, particularly if they had seen a unit that had not formed square get cut up by the cavalry. Their main worry, I would have thought would have been the appearance of a horse battery.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mike Cox</i>
My understanding is that the horses are less afraid of the guns/bayonets just of the mass of men. ie 'there is no way I can go over that solid object in front of me, I better swerve. ' That is why even a small unit using klumpen (Thanks Mark could survive a charge. The charge simply flowed around the clusters of men, like water passing a rock in the stream. However, that begs the question why skirmishers can't form square/klumpen, and I am not going to bark up that tree...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Mike, I think you are right about the mass of men being the principal obstacle for the horses rather than their weapons. I doubt that the bayonets would make the prospect any more enticing to them though. With a smaller charge of a squadron, there would be capacity for the horses to swerve around a klumpen of skirmishers, however, with a regimental, brigade or divisional charge and less room for the horses to 'manoeuvre', I think that there would be less potential for the cavalry to avoid hitting the skirmishers and the Klumpen would be over-run. This is something that I think the game simulates quite well with the over-run facility when enough cavalry are committed to the charge.

Good topic for discussion

Regards

Mark