Squares
It is of course not disputed that there were times when more than one battalion formed a single square. I will not bore folk with a long list of examples to illustrate that.
But before addressing that it is as well to note Nafziger’s general comment in "Imperial Bayonets " under “Manoeuvring a Brigade” ( pp 133-152 ) which includes regiments of more than one Btn.
“ Despite the numbers of armchair generals [who us?
]and the significance of brigade manoeuvres they are the most poorly understood and least documented of all army operations Only two documents exist which contain any significant discussion of Napoleonic brigade tactics .”
These are both French by Ney and Baron Meunier on which he then draws.
Philip Haythornthwaite in “British Napoleonic Line Infantry tactics 1792-1815” makes reference to Dundas and his "Principles of Military Movement", a manual published in 1788 . Nafziger who is clearly aware of Dundas' work from his bibliography does not mention that work and would not seem to see it as significant enough but serves well enough to show that Brigade level manoeuvres practiced in the British army even if patchily and less well documented .
Philip’s work is an excellent and balanced digest, and part of a distinguished body of work, with some thoughtful summaries of the issues of British line versus French column, among other things and with some useful contemporary quotes. It has informed our thinking a lot re the British – but as ever two or more people may read the same text and come to quite different conclusions….
This suggests a need to be cautious and conservative about any assumptions we make for example about the nature and capability of squares formed by more than one Battalion. Of single battalion squares we know a great deal more and that may give us some clues.
Jac Weller in ” Wellington in the Peninsula “ ,drawing on Fortescue and Oman, describes the retreat of Crauford’s square at Fuentes de Onoro thus “ The Light Division retired at a carefully controlled speed and in perfect order. Its discipline courage confidence and physical fitness was remarkable ; total losses in a difficult retreat of over two miles were trifling.”
The retreat at El Boden was of course of PIctons’ bobtail division . The best succinct account I have is in Gate’s “ The Spanish Ulcer” . The advancing French cavalry under Montbrun found Picton’s Dvision in “ scattered encampments… dispersed all over the district and quire unprepared for action” .Luckily Montbrun was so surprised at what he saw he waited for infantry support ( in vain) and orders from Marmont before advancing.
Before the march in square of the 5th and 77th (referred to in Haythornthwaite) there was some “ bitter fighting” with interesting encounters between French cavalry and allied batteries and infantry along the El Boden ridge. Picton’s units are then described as streaming south west in considerable disorder . Despite which, the French are said to have been “ ….deterred by the coolness of their opponents….and contented themselves with shelling the retiring columns (sic) with their horse artillery.”
So without challenging the 6 miles in square story the division may not have been in square throughout – ie only so long as they felt threatened by the cavalry.
Picton’s divison at Fuentes d Onoro had 5,480 men in 11 Btns. Digby Smith in his data book says that at El Boden he had 6 British Btns with only about some 1,000 infantry all British . His remaining forces were about 500 KGL and Portuguese cavalry and 2 Portuguese batteries. He incurred some 140 casualties , the French slightly more but their data are not firm.
What conclusions might we draw just from these two examples of which there must surely be dozens if not hundreds over the course of the wars- in all theatres,
a) That the 5th and 77th while a brigade square would have been at battalion if that in strength so that tells us very little about brigade squares.
b) In neither case do we know how long it took to traverse 2 miles and 6 miles in square but given the circumstances it would not have been swift which Crauford’s movements indicate. Although squares as small as theses must have been might have been nippier!
c) Disorder as such would seem not to prevent the use of square although it is also possible that the disorder referred to at El Boden by Gates was after they ceased to be in square and had reformed into columns and come under artillery fire.
d) Steadiness is key.
e) Squares are primarily if not exclusively intended as a defensive posture against cavalry ( who knew?
)
In FoG(N) we make no distinction between a regiment with its individual battalions in square and a Bde or regimental square. There is no need .
But if we were to do so what might we assume a priori? We should not assume a full regimental square -in numbers of men not just units - would move more swiftly and more easily than a succession of separate battalion squares. More likely the reverse. It would take longer to form. To move , all ranks must face the same direction which requires a longer time for the transmission of orders . But we make no distinction.
For any square to move It must reface the men , move and then face back outwards if needed, or under threat. Individual Btn squares in a regiment need to move in a coordinated fashion especially to allow safe multiple fields of fire . That cannot be done at anything other than a "carefully controlled speed and in perfect order. “ So there may be little in it .
If there is case for change it is not to allow a disordered square to move at all except away from the enemy ( they are anyway if they have to move 3 MUs or more as a result of outcome Move .)
I can see no case whatsoever for allowing infantry in square to move faster and clearly not as fast as unreformed tactical.
