Square Formations

[Incendio]

The first time I found a square formation was in Empire Total War. Since then, I have read some books covering warfare in 17th-19th centuries. Recently I read in the book "The military experience in the age of reason" by Christopher Duffy, that square formations were unusual in 18th century, but most common in early 19th century, specifically during Napoleonic Wars. I always had the idea that a square formation was a defense against a cavalry charge. Further in 19th century, the only square formation I know that existed was in the Battle of Abu Klea (1885). Besides being a defense against a cavalry charge, square formations were used for other purposes? I am now remembering a painting depicting Isandlwana battle with a british square formation against zulu warriors:



But zulu army never used cavalry... Do you have more examples of square formations? Any contribution to this topic will be very welcome.

[Abdülmecid I]

Generally speaking, square formations were used to deprive the enemy of the advantage of encirclement. Of course, the more mobile cavalry units were more adept at surpassing your line and at attacking from behind, but this does not necessarily mean that squares were an excclusively anti-cavalry weapon*. Squares or at least formations that resembled squares, but their shape was more ambiguous due to the lack of professional drill, in comparison to Napoleonic regiments, have been exploited since the Antiquity. For example, to make a reference to another Total War game, schiltron was essentially the more primitive predecessor of the square formation and played a crucial role, when the Scottish pikemen defeated the English knights. The reason for the British tactics in Isandlwana was that the Zulu, despite the lack of mounted forces, had succeeded in flanking the imperial soldiers and launched massive charges from every direction, so the square was the only chance the British had to defend against their foes' superior numbers. Otherwise, they would have been easily decimated by the Zulus attacking from behind. The importance of square formations only declined with the introduction of repeating rifles and advanced artillery to the battlefield. As a result, squares were a perfect target for cannons, while the fact that their front was divided in four led to a dramatically reduced rate of frontal musket fire. However, under certain circumstances where the opponent is not a modernised army (e.g. during colonial wars or civil unrest) square formation has managed to maintain its significance. After all, the riot police can still be deployed in square formation, in order to protect a specific location or group of people (such as the Parliament or the government cabinet) against the infiltration attempts of the "irregular" mob.

[LaMuerte]

During the Era of Mobile Field Armies(1690's-1730's) the Austrian Habsburgs used to deploy their infantry regiments in square formation when facing the Ottomans.

The question of how to maximize these advantages against the Turks were intensely studied by Habsburg military men. In Salle Batagglie, Montecuccoli advised Austrian commanders to abandon the defensive methods used on western battlefields and adopt an agressive, tactically offensive mind-set. "If one has to do battle with the Turk," he wrote,

1.Pike battallions have to be extended frontally, more than ever been the case before, so that the enemy cannot easily enclose them with his half-moon order.
2.Cavalry is intermingled with the infantry behind and opposite the intervals so that the foe...would be exposed on both sides to the salvoes of musketry.
3.One should advance directly against the Turk with one's line of battle, and one should not expect him to attack because, not being well furnished with short range, defensive weapons, he does not readily involve himself in a melee or willingly collide with his adversary...Using the wings of his half-moon formation, it is also easy for him to approach and retire laterally.
4.One stations a certain number of batallions and squadrons along the flanks of the battle in order to guarantee security.

Prince Eugence would adopt and expand on this template in later years, systemizing fire control, introducing uniform regimental drill, placing greater emphasis on the speed of deployment for plains warfare, and adopting defensive formations to allow for small units greater flexibility across broken terrain.
The overarching goal of Austrian tactics in the south was to bring their greater firepower to bear while making provisions for the safety of flanks, which Turkish cavalry were expert at attacking. To account for Ottoman speed, Austrian commanders were to form their units in square formations not unlike those later used by colonial forces against indigenous armies in Africa. As Charles observed,

'The suppleness and rapidity of their horses permit their cavalry to profit from all openings in front or in flank and penetrate there. To give them no chance of doing it, one should form the infantry in square...and not put into lines anything save cavalry which is equally rapid as their cavalry...[Commanders should] form several squares, each one of two or three battalions strength at most. These squares constitute lines of battle as much in march as in position. One forms in the end some of these squares in checkerboard formation, and from it one derives the great benefit of being able to mutually defend and support each other.'

So great was the risk of Tuskish cavalry penetrating the flanks of these squares that Austrian units were to "camp and march always in squares", and when possible, protect these formations with chevaux de frise or so called Spanish Riders.

(source:The Grand Strategy of the Habsburg Empire,A.Wess Mitchell)

[Condottiere 40K]

Compared to circling the wagons and the Thin Red Line.

If your baggage train has wagons and carts, especially those specifically constructed and reinforced to support light cannon and protect from missile fire, then the issue of getting besieged and running out of supplies becomes less an issue, whereas the battlefield in general tend to be a fluid engagement, and after the cavalry breaks it teeth on the squares, whether pike, bayonet, musket, rifle, howitzer or machine gun packed, cavalry in this case being fast moving units, the defender can reform and advance.

The Swiss were pretty famous in turning a hedge hog into a bulldozer, whereas I suppose the Romans could manipulate their Legion into facing all sides, the Scots had shiltrons; presumably a shieldwall could readjust to covering flank and rear attacks.

It depends on range and fire power on both sides; if you outranged and outgunned your opponents, but were outnumbered, a rather logical formation. If you knew that your opponent won't outflank you, then the Thin Red Line, which maximizes fire power.

It's pretty clear that when the French infantry arrived in column, it would be time to rearrange in line, so I would suppose if you had to square up, you do it on the lee side of a hill.

[Morifea]

In Eric McGeer`s exellent book about byzantine Warfare in the time of Nikephoros II Phokas and John Tzimiskes (Sowing the Dragons Teeth) he references manuals of those times in which the Army heavely relies on Squares. Kinda makes sense during a time when the main Enemies are the Saracens.

Note the gaps in the lines, those were there to allow the cavalry to move out and in, while specialized troops were put on guard to protect those gaps.
Couldn`d find a better picture...

[Cyclops]

I recall one of our Portuguese posters posting images of colonial nob boxes (hollow pike squares with all sides faced outwards) so there have been examples of squares responding to different military needs. In the Portuguese colonial context light armed mobile opponents could be faced down by a noob box, give the pikemen had fiearm support and body armour to survive being surrounded.

In the Napoleonic context there's a revival of a strong cavalry doctrine with cuirrasiers and uhlans giving strong offensive options and response is required to preserve infantry formations. The classic square (as used by the Austrians against the cavalry-strong Ottomans) is one response, as is the central and eastern European laager tradition used by the tsars and the Hussites, and mobile field emplacements (chevaux-de-frise etc, essentially spiked barricades).

Napoleon famously tweaked the square into diamonds (to give overlapping fields of fire, and less chance of friendly fire) in his 1806 campaign against the deadly Prussian cavalry (which Frederick the Great had elevated into such a brilliant arm) and evaporated them at Jena/Auerstadt. Its hard to describe but there's an image here:

http://www.napoleonicwarfare.com/part3.html

http://www.napoleonicwarfare.com/images/73.jpg

The square is a largely immobile formation, hard to get men into and out of again. It takes skill to use it effectively and keep your army able to manoeuvre. Napoleon at Jena would be the best example of brilliant use of the tactic, there's also Waterloo. Wellington's shuffling of a mix of green and veteran units along the ridge at Waterloo, blocking them into squares, fanning them back out into lines, nudging them back from the ridge and then forwards again, is a masterclass in subtle and exact defensive operation and the placement and use of the square to near perfection.

The Archduke Charles had to reintroduce the square to the Austrian military repertoire in a hurry (he had only a few years between 1806 and 1808 before war broke out again in 1809). He took the regimental column (another innovation he adopted from the French) and simply turned the two side files and two rear ranks outward to give an oblong "infantry square" that functioned adequately at Aspern Essling and Wagram.

[hellheaven1987]

The square is a largely immobile formation, hard to get men into and out of again.

Not... necessary. In the case of gunpowder warfare the problem of square is it is a mediocre formation that does not allow maximum deployment of firepower, nor does it offers maximum mobility for a melee assault. Hence Gustavus pushed more linear formation during shooting phase in order to deploy full firepower while changing into column during assault, unlike the Terico which remained same square formation throughout all phase. It is arguable that this demand of changing formation rapidly under attack is the real reason of why modern drilling became important.

[Cyclops]

Not... necessary. In the case of gunpowder warfare the problem of square is it is a mediocre formation that does not allow maximum deployment of firepower, nor does it offers maximum mobility for a melee assault. Hence Gustavus pushed more linear formation during shooting phase in order to deploy full firepower while changing into column during assault, unlike the Terico which remained same square formation throughout all phase. It is arguable that this demand of changing formation rapidly under attack is the real reason of why modern drilling became important.

Have you confused a column (eg deep pike) formation (often depicted artistically as a square of men in solid formation, albeit one facing all the same way) with a square formation (a square of men facing outwards, often a hollow square)? There is an enormous difference, the chief one being the direction in which the men face.

Infantry square

Pike squares: essentially deep columns all facing forwards

The second image is by Urs Graf, who was a landsknecht and fought many battles so we can assume he knows what he is depicting: in the top left you see two pike formations moving to engage. they are deep columns facing forwards, sometimes colloquially called "squares", but not in square formation (ie they all face forwards, not outwards).

I doubt any unit ever advanced in square formation, that is with a quarter of the men facing forwards, half the men shuffling sideways and a quarter of the men marching backwards. It would be ludicrous on a perfectly flat parade ground and on a battlefield it would degenerate into chaos in seconds.

Nosworthy in his "Battle tactics of Napoleon" notes the difficulty of getting infantry to change formation smoothly in battle. One in a protective square the men (for example at Waterloo) were reluctant to leave their protective huddle despite the shot tearing lines of of their ranks, and its a testament to the British and Allied officers that they were able to quickly deploy into line for example to receive the Middle Guard assault up the ridge.

The Old Guard of course were the acme of experience, skill and elan: they were known in the heat of battle to redeploy their formation not by parade ground march and counter march, but simply by running to their positions to assume the new formation. Not even they could have marched in a square formation.