Horses attacking Squares

I finally identified a clear test of horse bahaviour when attacking infantry squares.

Alan Lawson performed similar tests to Mike Loades using hay bales and sacks to test the reaction of cavalry horses to a solid infantry formation in their path, and got exactly the same results.

The test is included in the programme Battlefield Detectives:Waterloo. Unfortunately, once again I can't find the clip on YouTube, but Larson confirmed that the vast majority of horses will not run into a solid wall of men, nor will they step on bodies under their feet.

Interesting, should try to find this. But wouldn´t napoleonic horses at least have some training that made them more capable of running into an infantry formation seeing as a few squares actually were broken?

Originally Posted by MrT

But wouldn´t napoleonic horses at least have some training that made them more capable of running into an infantry formation seeing as a few squares actually were broken?

No! As far as I can tell nobody throughout the entire history of the use of the horse in warfare has every considered it a good idea to teach their horse to commit suicide whilst they were on it.

The only training I have read about for French cavalry mounts was the usual 'desensitisation' training similar to that carried out on modern police and military horses today. During the Napoloenic Wars this was limited to firing a pistol close to their head just after giving them their feed.

The reason nobody seems to have considered it a good idea to teach horses to commit suicide would seem to be that no matter how much Universal Studio's might think the idea of horses trampling over lines of men might look cool in a film, in real battle its much more useful for the horses to stick with their natural instinct and avoid doing so, whilst trying to keep moving instead.

Had man thought that a battle mount that rams straight into things was useful then they problably would have chosen to ride bulls, or some other horned animal that naturally tries the headbutt its opponents when scared. But for a cavalryman what is actually important is that your mount avoids running into things, and instead constantly seeks a safe path through any friendly or enemy formation.

That makes sure you keep moving rather than getting stuck and easily killed, and also whether you are a medieval knight, an ancient charioteer or a Napoleonic cavalryman the best way to engage any enemy is as you hurtle past them, not by trying to reach them over the head of your horse or horses.


As for the incidents of Squares being broken, I've studied a number of such incidents and so far I've not found one where the square broke because a horse or horses rammed into it. The closest is the incident at Garcia Hernadez where the square of the French 6th Legere was broken by a charge of the KGL Dragoons.

However, in this incident the French brought about their own destruction in that they held their fire for too long and when they finally fired at the charging dragoons they brought down a number of the dragoons at very close range. Unfortunately, one mortally wounded horse, carrying a dead rider fell across the corner of the square as it tried to avoid it and crushed about 20 men as it thrashed and plunged in its death throes. The Frenchmen close to the dyng horse naturally tried to avoid being kicked by the dying horse and Captain Gleichen of the KGL rode his horse into the gap that resulted closely followed by his troopers.
The square broke up and most of the men surrendered.

A second square further up the hill witnessed the fate of the 6th Legere and were understandably nervous when another suqadron of KGL dragoons charged down upon them. On top of that the survivors from the first square were also running at them with the cavalry close on their heels. The combined pressure of hundreds of fugitives trying to fight their way into the second square and the shock of seeing their comrades overun resulted in the second square dispersing and running even before the dragoons reached it.

Other examples such as that of the square of the 28th Prussian Regiment as Gilly can easily be explained by errors of judgement on the part of the infantry officers.

Originally Posted by Didz

No! As far as I can tell nobody throughout the entire history of the use of the horse in warfare has every considered it a good idea to teach their horse to commit suicide whilst they were on it.

This statement is limited to 18-19th century, nothing to do with earlier periods. Just as this experiment you described has nothing to do warhorses in pre-industrial age.

Using untrained horses to prove anything is like taking a bunch of people give them rifles and then estimating average sniper accuracy in WW2. Horses run from anything unusual, they need extensive training to perform anything new on the other hand nothing is impossible if you put enough patience and efort into it- the real question is is it worth it? Some people even today, maybe rather for fun, train them to even crash into wall of men - once they understand it isnt inpenetrable obstacle theres no psychological problem anymore- for some examples I can find out account of battle of Hastings reenactment and of a rider intentionally trying it with his own horse.

They were trained and did charge even pikes (Ceresole 1544, Dreux 1562 as quite well documented examples in memoirs of more participants of this battles) on occasion and it could be exactly the other way round- suicide to stand to this in the open. Against determined armoured cavalry, especially with lances and well trained armoured horses the means of surviving is firepower combined with pikes and huge mass of men or entrenched position.

While they still wouldnt level tens of rows of pikemen to the ground in one charge, french gendarmes were particularly ferocious and in small groups would be able to force their way into pikes on occasion, going all the way out causing significant damage while inside.

All/most examples in this threat involve napoleonic cavalry - neither horses nor men match in training the effort put into training of at least rennaisance men at arms. The reason is obvious - numbers over quality, this trend already started in 16th century during french wars of religion where hordes of badly mounted and inferiorly equipped and trained pistoliers proved real match to lance armed gendarmes (very good example is battle of Coutras, 1587 and to the degree battle of Ivry, 1592) and eventually superceded them in what passed as heavy cavalry. (napoleonic cuirassiers was armoured much worse than any member of a lance which consisted of men at arms themselves, archers as medium cavalry and coustiliers which although being light cavalry were still quite extensively armoured)

Also example in post above is great example of infantry robbed of firepower vs cavalry - I personally think thas the key - with enough resolve and time there needs to be only single breakage through which horsemen can pass and whole formation can collapse, although admittedly odds against determined infantry are fully in their favour even in situation ideal for cavalry as history testifies. (Good example of what this can do is battle of Grandson- Louis de Chalons managed to leap into pikes on his well armoured charger with addition fe horsemen passing inside - in a matter of few minutes at most they killed 30 swiss and got into the middle of a pikesquare of 10000 men where they eventually died wrestling over a bernese flag - had they suceeded they wouldve maybe caused a collapse of whole formation, nevertheless they caused about 10 percent of casualties admitted by Swiss that day which is quite remarkable. Account of this is in letter of one of Swiss captains adressed to the council of Bern) Without firepower both sides are just staring at each other without much effect.

So in the end what you said is true for the era discussed but extrapolating it to use of all types of cavalry in all periods is too much Id say, especially in context of golden era of western european heavily armoured knightly cavalry of second half of 15th- first half of 16th century.

Lastly any problem of horses refusing to go into wall bayonets is rather secondary even for 18th-19th century cavalry. (maybe Im wrong not my area of interest) From my marginal reading about examples of cavalry vs infantry I doubt they ever really attacked frontally:

1. Firepower was the key, most charges ended with horsemen fleeing once they were shot at, they either pissed themselves without singicant casualties or because of murdering volley disordering formation completely if it ever existed.
2. Why ever attack bayonets from the front as first plan? (be it square or line) Lines couldnt go miles into length without intervals- few horsemen on the flanks would be enough to cause enough disruption in line to pave way for sucess of any men charging from the front afterwards if not breaking infantry outright.
3. Any bayonet charge had same limitations than cavalry charge. Who would throw himself willingly into steady line of densely packed men? It was suicide for a man just as for horse on the other hand training and good armour make their chances higher and infantryman surely has no bigger chance of causing damage than horseman.

Originally Posted by DochtorGajo

This statement is limited to 18-19th century, nothing to do with earlier periods. Just as this experiment you described has nothing to do warhorses in pre-industrial age.

I've looked into a the detail of a few of these incidents in the past and not found one which cannot be explained by another scenario.

The main problem being that the farther one goes back in history the less reliable are the resources on which one has to rely for accurate information. Most medieval battle reports for example were written by people years after the battle who were not even present, and in some cases historians cannot even agree where the battle was fought nevermind what happened at it.

Also as we all know from reading about battle like Waterloo, propaganda plays a huge part in the history making process after a battle, and just as in modern film making glorious charges and fast car chases are a must have component in any presentation.

The clue to the truth can usually be found in the letters and journals of the lower orders involved, who have no motivation to expand on the truth unless being paid to do so (as many were after Waterloo)

@Major The incident with the Mameluke officers horse is indicative of a number of similar incidents where the death of a horse in close proximity to a square has resulted in a gap being created which other nearby horses have naturally explioted. Likewise, your observation about fugitives creating gaps in formations by trying to force their way into them, which gaps are then explioted by the persuing cavalry is equally common.

Another point worth noting particularly when looking farther back in history is that the further one goes back the less solid formations were anyway, and in general terms, the less drilled and disciplined were the soldiers. Therefore, whilst horse behaviour has remained constant the nature of the target being attacked hasn't, and so the effect of cavalry attacks has varied through history depending on the tactic and formations used by the target forces. However, firepower is certainly not a major factor in defeating a cavalry attack, as there are numerous examples of cavalry being fended off without a shot being fired, and likewise there are several examples of successful cavalry attacks against enemies armed with relatively modern bolt action rifles and machine guns.

The infantry mass scared them? I thought it was the sight of the shiny, sharp bayonets.

Wow.....that's an awesome story,thanks for sharing that. Got any more? lol........

I see your point, Didz. Most books agree with you. One thing I just cannot get my head around though is how much the importance of the musket volley timing is stressed. If the horses won´t run into the square and suicide anyways then why is it so important to fire at the right instance? Sure, you will kill more and reduce the number of times the cavalry can try to charge again but if morale holds the cavalry still will not break through. Also from what I´ve read many times the defensive fire of battalions in squares killed very few cavalry. Could it be that either it was very beneficial to the squares morale, seeing many enemy fall boosts your confidence and greatly helps the square to remain firm? Or is it rather that maintaining morale and discipline within the square was so difficult that the volley should just minimize the chance of the cavalry getting close enough?

Originally Posted by MrT

I see your point, Didz. Most books agree with you. One thing I just cannot get my head around though is how much the importance of the musket volley timing is stressed. If the horses won´t run into the square and suicide anyways then why is it so important to fire at the right instance? Sure, you will kill more and reduce the number of times the cavalry can try to charge again but if morale holds the cavalry still will not break through. Also from what I´ve read many times the defensive fire of battalions in squares killed very few cavalry. Could it be that either it was very beneficial to the squares morale, seeing many enemy fall boosts your confidence and greatly helps the square to remain firm? Or is it rather that maintaining morale and discipline within the square was so difficult that the volley should just minimize the chance of the cavalry getting close enough?

It wasn't and isn't important.

Simple logic shows that horses will not run into solid groups of men. If musketry was an important factor then pre-musket cavalry defence formations like the pike stand and schiltrom wouldn't have worked.

In fact, musketry can be a a bad thing as in the case of the 6th Legere who would have been better off if they hadn't fired at all.

Defensive fire from squares was pretty ineffectual anyway. Only the two inside ranks of the square were able to fire (less than a third of the men involved e.g. A battalion of 600 men in square would have an average of 150 men per face, of which only 50 could fire)), and the process of reloading was extremely awkward as then men were jammed tightly together with hardly any room to swing their ramrods.

Most squares didn't bother to fire at all as it wasn't really necessary, however, at Waterloo the French cavalry were so determined to goad the allied squares into firing that they sent individuals forward to ride up to the squares and shoot their pistols into the ranks at point blank range. This caused many squares to appoint individual sharpshooters to try and pick these individuals off as they came forward. The KGL battlaions actually had sharpshooter detachments armed with baker rifles, and the French soon learned to leave those squares alone as riding up to them was pretty much suicide.

The French were very keen to goad the squares into firing at a range in excess of about 50 yards, mainly because it reduced the risk in approaching them for about 20-30 seconds meaning that they could ride up and fire their pistols or jab at them with their lances, but also because men trying to reload often panicked more easily and the process tended to disrupt the compaction of the square as men jostled for room to move.

Consequently, many accounts report that squares refused to fire no matter what provocation was offerred. They even refused to fire when the French dragged artillery forward and began firing canister into them, and several squares were badly mauled by close range artillery fire, but still held.

one reason it might be important is that a file of men, 3 deep with first 2 kneeling and last standing wuold be about 6 foot by 6 foot, eminently jumpable by most horses of reasonable size. im quite a good rider (iv ridden at national championships 3 times) but i'd back any panicked horse to jump that no matter what the rider was doing. also horses can be trained to stand on people laying down though they don't like doing it...

Squares were typically four to six ranks deep, not three, admittedly the intervals were compressed so that the first two ranks were kneeling, the second and fourth were pressed forward and crouched over the first two and the rear two were standing. So, overall the depth may not have been much more than six feet, indeed French rank intervals were normally only 12" anyway, so formations had very little real depth, but in a square the men would be pressed chest to back.

Whether a horse fully loaded with a battle equipped rider and campaign equipment would be able to jump such an obstical is less certain. I don't know enough about horses to give a judgement, another factor was the horse furniture and whether it would allow the horse the freedom to do so. Most cavalry of the time used things like curb chains to prevent horses from raising their heads and keep them under control, particularly to prevent them rearing up when panicked or frightened and toppling their riders. I only became aware of this because one historian published a note that British cavalry often failed to adjust or fit these curbing chains which was one reason he thought they tended to get out of control so easily. You might be able to tell me if that would inhibit the horses ability to jump.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I certainly can't recall reading of incidents when horses jumped over a significant obstical. The closest incident I can think of was that of the charge of the Scots Greys at Waterloo, in that incident we have a French account from Jacques Martin of the 45eme Ligne who suggests that the Scots Greys lept the hedge that bordered the Chemin Ohain to get amongst the French infantry caught below them in the sunken lane beyond. But a hedge is only a few feet high and the slope favoured the cavalry, with the road on the far side lower than the ground before it.

Generally speaking neither the horses nor the riders were trained and equipped as showjumpers in normal cavalry regiments, although I have read accounts of Wellington and other staff officers leaping their horses over the ranks of a square to avoid danger. Not without shouting ahead to order the men to crouch low first though.

P.S. Just out of curiousity why would someone train a horse to stand on someone?

I'm not suggesting its not possible, although I'm curious how you would do it, but I'm just really puzzled what application such behaviour would have.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I came across this video whilst looking for evidence of horses trampling on people, and thought it was interesting as it shows a horse with obvoius hostile intent attacking a man. The thing that I noticed was that this horse completely left to its own devices never deliberately tried to trample its victim, although it does sit on him once, and is obviously trying to line itself up to kick him with its hind legs.

i don't know why you would train a horse to stand on someone but from my experience you can train a horse to do pretty much anything, including walk on a glass floor over a drop and other things that from a horses perspective would seem suicidal. its all about trust in the rider. about the equipment carried on a horse it doesn't look to different to the kit used by modern riders and a correctly ridden horse should not stretch is neck over much anyway. an addendum to the weight of kit issue. i can't give you any straight facts on this only my opinion and experience. weight may not be over much of an issue, especially for the larger horses preffered by dragoons and heavy cav. i myself am 6 foot 6 and weigh in on the wrong side of 18 stone yet iv jumped that kind of height in the past. also whilst it would be possible to force a horse in a controlled environment to jump an obstacle the size mentioned earlier it would be much easier in a situation involving a charge where the horses by the time they near the enemy may well be nearing a stampede and will therefore jump almost anything to keep up with the other horses. iv seen a horse, an unbroken 3 year old, jump a 7 foot vertical post and rail stallion fence in a simular situation, and a vertical fence is much more difficult to jump than a graded one, as would be formed by infantry ranks.

Originally Posted by AUSSIE11

....also whilst it would be possible to force a horse in a controlled environment to jump an obstacle the size mentioned earlier it would be much easier in a situation involving a charge where the horses by the time they near the enemy may well be nearing a stampede and will therefore jump almost anything to keep up with the other horses.

Unfortunately, that’s another piece of nonsense perpetrated by the Universal Studio’s historical society. The vast majority of cavalry charges never even reached a gallop, let alone a stampede. The aim was to arrive at your destination in a single compact body, and allowing the men to gallop too early merely cause the formation to spread and lose unit cohesion.

The Charge of the Scots Greys which is immortalised in paintings of horses galloping at full stretch was almost certainly made at the Walk/Trot. The speed of advance was so slow that Ponsonby was able to send his ADC back to the ridge for infantry support and get a response from General Kempt before it was over.

Likewise the charge of the Household Brigade which is described in the English myth version of history as slamming into the French Cuirassiers at a full gallop scattering them in all directions, was probably made at the trot, simple because there was a sunken road between them that needed careful negotiation and the men were still reforming on the far side when first contact was made.

Mercer also mentions that the French massed cavalry attacks on the rigde around Hougoumont were made at a steady trot, the French cavalry having all the menace of men determined to make a serious point.

And General Lasalle, the famous French cavalry commander is famous for halting an attack on a Russian artillery battery when the regiment of chasseurs he was leading became over excited and began rushing the pace. He stopped the men within canister range of the Russian guns and proceeded to lecture them on the importance of keeping their mounts under control and their advance slow, whilst the Russians bombarded them with canister, and only when he was content that he had made his point did he allow them to advance again in a more orderly fashion.

One of the greatest criticisms of the British cavalry was that it did allow itself to get out of control during a charge, and Wellington was constantly complaining about the way it rushed at everything without considering the consequences and then rushed just as rapidly back again soon afterwards.

Originally Posted by Didz

And General Lasalle, the famous French cavalry commander is famous for halting an attack on a Russian artillery battery when the regiment of chasseurs he was leading became over excited and began rushing the pace. He stopped the men within canister range of the Russian guns and proceeded to lecture them on the importance of keeping their mounts under control and their advance slow, whilst the Russians bombarded them with canister, and only when he was content that he had made his point did he allow them to advance again in a more orderly fashion.

Here is a more accurate account:

Lasalle at the Battle of Golymin commanded the 5th & 7th Hussars. His command attacked a battery of Russian guns, and failed to complete the charge when within 20 paces. Apparently some officer shouted “Halt! Halt!”. Due to the confusion the troopers tried to obey, only for the supporting squadrons to crash into the front ranks, resulting in disorder, which the Russian gunners took full advantage of by firing cannister. Result Lasalle’s Hussars routing!

Using the Elite company of the 7th Hussars as a rallying point for his men, Lasalle moved his reformed regiments to face the guns again. To punish them, he had his command stand immobile in the guns’ killing zone. Lasalle put himself 10 paces in front of his men, and had 2 horses killed under him by cannonballs. His command remained in position until nightfall.

Originally Posted by Prince of Essling

Here is a more accurate account:

Lasalle at the Battle of Golymin commanded the 5th & 7th Hussars. His command attacked a battery of Russian guns, and failed to complete the charge when within 20 paces. Apparently some officer shouted “Halt! Halt!”. Due to the confusion the troopers tried to obey, only for the supporting squadrons to crash into the front ranks, resulting in disorder, which the Russian gunners took full advantage of by firing cannister. Result Lasalle’s Hussars routing!

Using the Elite company of the 7th Hussars as a rallying point for his men, Lasalle moved his reformed regiments to face the guns again. To punish them, he had his command stand immobile in the guns’ killing zone. Lasalle put himself 10 paces in front of his men, and had 2 horses killed under him by cannonballs. His command remained in position until nightfall.

It sounds so absurd Like a father punishing his child or something

Edit: A very mean father

Originally Posted by Prince of Essling

Here is a more accurate account:

Lasalle at the Battle of Golymin commanded the 5th & 7th Hussars. His command attacked a battery of Russian guns, and failed to complete the charge when within 20 paces. Apparently some officer shouted “Halt! Halt!”. Due to the confusion the troopers tried to obey, only for the supporting squadrons to crash into the front ranks, resulting in disorder, which the Russian gunners took full advantage of by firing cannister. Result Lasalle’s Hussars routing!

Using the Elite company of the 7th Hussars as a rallying point for his men, Lasalle moved his reformed regiments to face the guns again. To punish them, he had his command stand immobile in the guns’ killing zone. Lasalle put himself 10 paces in front of his men, and had 2 horses killed under him by cannonballs. His command remained in position until nightfall.

Thanks PofE, I've been trying to find that source for ages and could never remember where I'd read it or which battle it related too. I just remembered the jist of what happened.

Must admit 20 paces is damned close to try and call off an attack.

Very true, Didz. I remember reading that the regulations for the French stated that a controlled gallop should be initiated when within 100m but that the French were famous for delivering charges at the trot. Many french stated that the trot was the best pace for charging

Originally Posted by MrT

Very true, Didz. I remember reading that the regulations for the French stated that a controlled gallop should be initiated when within 100m but that the French were famous for delivering charges at the trot. Many french stated that the trot was the best pace for charging

Indeed. In fact the entire episode at Waterloo involving the Union Brigade, Household Brigade, Vandeleurs Brigade and Vivians Brigade plus Jaquinot's lancers seems to have been conducted at the walk/trot. There are isolated accounts of individual troops managing to get into a canter when attacking small pockets of French infantry, but the general description is one of herding French infantry slowly down the slope at a very slow pace. Certainly slow enough for messages to be sent back to the infantry on the ridge, and for those infantry to catch up and take groups of French infantry into custody.

In fact, Jaquinot's lancers probably made their attack at the walk. The best first hand account I've read describes how as the lancers advanced down the exterior of the French ridge they spread out into a wide line with the lance armed troopers in the first rank and that they then moved slowly across the face of the battlefield from right to left keeping boot to boot so that there were no gaps between them and driving the British dragoons ahead of them by short sharp stabs with the spear points. They were so close together than none of the dragoons could reach them with their sowrds and the whole thing became a struggle to get clear of the lance points.

One dragoon was later found dead on the field with over 20 lance wounds in his back from repeated jabs as he struggled to get clear.

It was only the late arrival of the 12th Light Dragoons of Vandeluers Brigade on the lancers exposed right flank that broke up this little party and caused the lancers to relieve the pressure on the fleeing dragoons, and once again this was no glorious flank attack delivered at the gallop.

We are told the the 12th Light Dragoons had come across the rearmost column of Marcognets Division still intact but badly shaken on the exterior slope of the Allied ridge and had succeeded in pushing it ahead of them down the slope until it eventually began to disperse and they were able to get in amongst the infantry. It was only when they emerge from the far side of this mass of fleeing Frenchmen that they they came across the lancers by which point they were both disorganised and very close. Siborne says they quickened their speed and acting almost perpendicular to the French lancers line dashed upon them and rolled up those who were immediately to their front, whilst the 16th Light Dragoons who had moved forward on their right charged them obliquely in their front. However, the likelihood that either of these attacks were delivered at a gallop is pretty remote given that the entire field was by then a mass of fleeing Frenchmen and British Dragoons.

Originally Posted by AUSSIE11

i take your point but when i said almost stampeded i was making a point, horses in that situation will in many ways be more panicked due to being restrained and do whatever they can to break loose still. Horses are passive creatures who will always use speed to escape when possible, and hencno matter how much desensitization they undertak horses will still panic and in many ways do even more seemingly stupid things.

Point taken but what you see in the recreations by Mike Loades and Andy Larsen is exactly that behaviour manifest in the opposite way. The horses perceiving their way ahead blocked by the wall of hay bales immediately seek to keep moving by veering to their right or left and putting pressure on their neighbours to make room for them, whilst the horses on the extreme flanks of the line seeing an obvious route forward along the sides of the square push forward and become the temporary herd leaders guiding the rest of the troop around the edges of the square.

In fact, of course this is the last thing the French cavalry wanted to happen at Waterloo and so we are told that most attacks stopped short of the squares themselves and fell back out of effective musketry range rather than passing through and around them like red indian's round a wagon train. (as depicted in the film)

Mercers states that only one French Cuirassier actually passed through the gap between the Brunswick Squares behind his battery, and he seems to have panicked trying to force his way through his comrades to get back down the slope and decided to desert and try and escape through the Allied lines. Passing through Mercers battery en-route without any attempt to do them any harm.

i take your point but when i said almost stampeded i was making a point, horses in that situation will in many ways be more panicked due to being restrained and do whatever they can to break loose still. Horses are passive creatures who will always use speed to escape when possible, and hencno matter how much desensitization they undertak horses will still panic and in many ways do even more seemingly stupid things. an interesting little fact is that donkeys and mules are the opposite and will attack when panicked... maybe they'd have been more effective in breaking squares

Regarding the importance of defensive fire of a square again, Didz. The prussains had a special charge, the schwarm attack which was designed to make the square fire to early at heavy cavalry and allow the light cavalry behind to swarm in and attack in melee before the square could reload. This, to me, implies that some contemporaries at least thought the defensive firing was important in some manner. Your points are probably still valid I just thought this was interesting.