Aninfantry square, also known as ahollow square orsquare formation, was amusket-era historicclose order formation used in combat byinfantry units, usually when threatened withcavalry attack.[1] To deploy its weapons effectively, a traditional infantry unit would generally form a line; but the line was vulnerable to more nimble cavalry, which could sweep around the end of the line, or burst through it, and then attack the undefended rear or simply sweep along the line attacking the individual footsoldierssuccessively. By arranging the unit so that there was no undefended rear or flank, an infantry commander could organise an effective defense against cavalry attack. With both the development of modernrepeating firearms and thedemise of cavalry in warfare, the square formation is considered obsolete and is effectively never used inmodern day warfare.
The formation was described byPlutarch[2] and used by theAncient Romans; it was developed from an earlier circular formation.[citation needed] In particular, a large infantry square was used by the Roman legions at theBattle of Carrhae againstParthia, whose armies contained a large proportion of cavalry. That is not to be confused with thetestudo formation, which also resembled a square, but was used for protection against ranged weapons such asarrows andjavelins.[3]
TheHan dynasty's mounted infantry forces used tactics effectively that involved highly mobile infantry square formations in conjunction withlight cavalry in their many engagements against the primarily cavalryXiongnu nomad armies in the 1st century AD. Infantry squares were used in the siege of the nomads' mountain settlements near theGobi region, where Han forces repelled nomadlancer attacks.[citation needed]
The Byzantine Empire in the 9th to the 11th centuries used highly sophisticated combined arms tactics, based around hollow infantry square formation. The infantry square, consisting of pikemen and archers, acted as a base of operations and refuge for cavalry by forming what was essentially a mobile fortified camp. Cavalry would ride out of the square through gaps in lines to exploit opportunities for attack and retreat the same way if the situation turned against it. The infantry square described byNikephoros Phokas consisted of 12,000 men, who were deployed in 1000-man taxiarchies, which were separated by intervals wide enough to admit a dozen cavalrymen riding abreast to enter or leave the square.[4]
The square was revived in the 14th century as theschiltron. It later appeared as thepike square ortercio during theThirty Years War, theEighty Years War and was widely used as well in theFrench Revolutionary Wars and theNapoleonic Wars.[5]
TheMysorean forces ofHyder Ali employed a square formation of four infantry divisions on 6 March 1771, while retreating during theMaratha–Mysore wars. The square proceeded for several miles, engaging in an artillery battle with the Marathas. A Maratha cannon struck atumbrel, which exploded, reacted with someMysorean rockets, one of them then fired and hit an ammunition box, causing an explosion. This led to the left division fleeing and disorganised the square, which was broken by cavalry charges. DuringTipu Sultan's wars with the Marathas, his infantry marched in four columns, surrounding the baggage and cavalry in the centre. While camped, the infantry and artillery faced outwards in square.[6]
.jpg)
As used in the Napoleonic Wars, the formation was constituted as a hollowsquare or sometimes arectangle, with each side composed of two or moreranks of soldiers armed with single-shotmuskets orrifles with fixedbayonets. Generally, abattalion, with about 500 to 1,000 men, was the smallest unit forming a square. Itscolours and commander were positioned in the centre, along with a reserve force to reinforce any side of the square that was weakened by attacks. A square of 500 men in four ranks, such as those formed by Wellington's army at theBattle of Waterloo, was a tight formation less than 20 m long on any side. Squares would be arranged in a checkerboard formation to minimise the risk of soldiers from one square accidentally shooting another. A tight checkerboard, with minimal gaps between the corners of adjacent squares, was effective in defence, minimising opposing cavalry's freedom of movement and allowing for some mutual support at the corners – the weakest points. But if redeployed in line to attack, the neighboring units would overlap and thus obstruct one another's line of advance and field of fire.
Once formed in square, the infantry wouldvolley fire at approaching cavalry, either byfile or byrank. In successful actions, the infantry would often withhold the volley until thecharging horses and men were about 30 m from the square; the resulting casualties to the attackers would eventually form piles of dead and wounded horses and their riders, which would obstruct further attacks.
Undisciplined or early fire by the infantry would be ineffective against the attacking cavalry and leave the foot soldiers with empty muskets. The cavalrymen could then approach to very short range while the infantry was reloading, where they could fire at the infantry with theirpistols, slash at them withsabres or stab them withlances, if they were so equipped.
Firing too late, with cavalry within 20 m, although more effective in hitting the targets, could result in a fatally wounded horse tumbling into the infantry ranks and creating a gap, thus permitting the surviving horsemen to enter the square and break it up from within.
It was vital for squares to stand firm in the face of a charge, but they were not static formations. In suitable terrain astute commanders could manoeuvre squares to mass fire and even trap cavalry, as the French managed against the Ottomans at theBattle of Mount Tabor (1799).
At theBattle of Waterloo (1815) the four-rank squares of the Allied forces withstood eleven cavalry charges. At Waterloo the attacking cavalry were not supported, whether byhorse artillery or infantry, but at theBattle of Lützen (1813), even with infantry and light artillery support, Allied cavalry charges failed to break green French troops. Similarly, impressive infantry efforts were seen at theBattle of Jena-Auerstedt (1806), theBattle of Pultusk (1806), theBattle of Fuentes de Oñoro (1811) and the FirstBattle of Krasnoi (August 14, 1812). If a square was broken, as happened at theBattle of Medina de Rioseco (1808), the infantry could suffer many casualties although brave and well-disciplined infantry could recover even from such a disaster.
Attacking cavalry would attempt to "break a square" by causing it to lose its cohesion, either bycharging to induce poorly disciplined infantry to flee before contact was made or by causing casualties through close-range combat (see above).
Cavalry charges were made in closely packed formations, and were often aimed at the corners of the square, the weakest points of the formation. Feints and false attacks would also be used to make the infantry "throw away their fire" by causing them to fire too early. However, if the infantrymen were well-disciplined and held their ground, the cavalryman's dream to "ride a square into red ruin" would not be realized, but such an event was the exception, rather than the rule, in the history of warfare.
The most effective way to break a square was not direct cavalry attack but the use ofartillery, particularly firingcanister shot, which could massacre the tightly packed infantry of the square. To be truly effective, such artillery fire had to be delivered at close range. A 20 m wide infantry square was a small and difficult target for field artillery firing from within or just in front of its own army's lines, typically at least 600 m away, a range at which most rounds could then be expected to miss. Thus, attackers would usually try to deployhorse artillery accompanying the cavalry. The presence of the cavalry would cause the infantry to form square, but the closely packed infantrymen would then become targets for the artillery since the cohesion of the square would break under their fire, making it much easier for the cavalry to press home the attack.
Combined attacks by infantry and cavalry would also have the same effect; the defending infantry unit would be placed in the difficult position of either forming square and being shot to pieces by the attacking infantry, which would usually be inline formation, or being ridden down by the cavalry if it decided to remain in line and trade volleys with the attacking infantry.
In addition, if the cavalry could catch an infantry unit before it formed square properly, the horsemen could usually inflict severe casualties or even destroy the unit completely. TheBattle of Quatre Bras (1815) saw several examples, with several British units being surprised at close range by French cavalry hidden by theterrain. Other circumstances that could lead to a successful cavalry attack included sudden rainstorms soaking the infantry'sgunpowder, effectively reducing their weapons to very shortpikes, or a mortally wounded horse in full gallop crashing into the square, opening a gap that could be exploited, as happened at theBattle of Garcia Hernandez, shortly after theBattle of Salamanca (1812).
The square continued in use into the late 19th century by European armies against irregular warriors in colonial actions, but it was different in form from the Napoleonic formation:
The new square was not simply infantry in static defence but a large, close-packed formation of some 1,000 to 1,500 men, capable of slow movement with ranks of infantry or cavalry forming the four sides and artillery, wheeled machine guns, transport carts, baggage animals and their handlers in the centre. Such a square could only survive where the enemy were without modern firearms.[7]
At theBattle of Custoza (1866), during theThird Italian War of Independence, Italianbersaglieri formed squares at Villafranca to defend themselves from charging Austrianuhlans.[citation needed]
The British infantry used square formations several times during the wars in India and Burma. During the Battle of Ramu on 16th May 1824, British Indian infantry had tried to form square against attacking Burmese cavalry but were overwhelmed as the sepoys became tangled up as they were on the move from a fighting retreat against infantry earlier. The square was incomplete when the Burmese horsemen rode in and the slaughter of the sepoys led the entire unit to be routed. Square formations in the Yangon Campaign in Lower Burma were generally more successful.[8]
On 7 February 1857, during theAnglo-Persian War, Indian cavalry successfully attacked and broke a Persian square in theBattle of Khushab. Only 20 of the 500 soldiers in the square escaped.[citation needed]
During theAnglo-Zulu War, after theBattle of Isandlwana in which Zulu warriors overwhelmed the British expeditionary force's poorly fortifiedlinear formation positioning, infantry squares were used in most major battles such as theBattle of Gingindlovu and the climacticBattle of Ulundi to counter their enemy's massed charges.[citation needed]
Rudyard Kipling's poem "Fuzzy-Wuzzy" refers to two battles in theMahdist War,Tamai in 1884 andAbu Klea in 1885, in which infantry squares were used by the British expeditionary force. In both battles the squares were partially broken, but British losses remained very low in comparison with the losses of the attacking Mahdists, who were largely armed with spears and swords.[citation needed]
In 1936, during theSecond Italo-Ethiopian War, the advancing Italians formed an infantry square to defend against a possible Ethiopian counterattack in theBattle of Shire, although no counterattack was ever launched.[9]
On March 19, 1836, while on the retreat from Goliad after the fall of theAlamo, Texan ColonelJames Fannin and his command of 300 men were intercepted by over 1,200 Mexican troops. The Texans formed square and repulsed three successive Mexican charges but surrendered the following day when their supplies ran low.
During theAmerican Civil War, the infantry square was used on only a few occasions, the most notable of which was the Thirty-Second Indiana Volunteer Infantry at theBattle of Rowlett's Station, December 17, 1861 againstTerry's Texas Rangers. A Colorado Volunteer company formed square when it was charged by lancers of the 5th Texas Mounted Rifles at theBattle of Valverde on February 21, 1862.[10]
On other occasions, such as atGettysburg and theBattle of Chickamauga, cavalry units feinted as if they were preparing to charge to force the advancing infantry to halt their advance and form a square.[10]
In 1867, one of the first battles of the10th Cavalry was theBattle of the Saline River, 25 miles northwest ofFort Hays,Kansas, in late August 1867.[11] Captain George Armes, Company F, 10th Cavalry, was following the trail of a party ofCheyenne who had killed a group ofUnion Pacific Railway surveyors. Tracking along theSaline River, he was surrounded by about 400 horse-mountedCheyenne warriors. Armes formed a defensive "hollow square" with the cavalry mounts in the middle. Seeking a better defensive position, Armes walked his command while he maintained the defensive square. After 8 hours of combat, 2,000 rounds of defensive fire, and 15 miles of movement, the Cheyenne disengaged and withdrew. Company F, without reinforcements, concluded 113 miles of movement during the 30-hour patrol and rode the final 10 miles back to Fort Hays with only one trooper killed in action. Armes later commented, "It is the greatest wonder in the world that my command escaped being massacred." Armes credited his officers for a "devotion to duty and coolness under fire."[11][12][13]
In 1869, during theParaguayan War inSouth America, theParaguayan defenders formed a square towards the end of theBattle of Acosta Ñu. The square was formed too late and so was broken by theBrazilian cavalry.
At theBattle of Nahrin in 1863, several thousandAfghan troops led by'Abd al-Rahman Khan annihilated a 40,000 strong Qataghani army through the use of the infantry square, which they adopted fromBritain.[14][15] 10,000 Qataghani troops were killed or wounded, while only a mere 21 Afghans were killed and 10 wounded.
The square fell out of use in the late 19th century with the advent of modernrepeating firearms, which made concentrated formations risky in the face of increased firepower, along with the parallel decline of horse cavalry.