A question–could War Elephants break a square?
Very different sitch.
Hell yes, but if they are annoyed or frightened they are as likely to break your infantry as the other guys. That’s why mahouts carried a spike and a mallet.
It’s very hard for cavalry to break a disciplined square. For one of the prime examples, look to the Battle of Fuentes de Onoro in 1811. The British Light Division marched to rescue (well, perhaps “relieve” is a better word) the 7th Infantry Division which became exposed to the French. After the 7th Division made it back to friendly lines, the Lights had to march back themselves, harassed by French cavalry the entire way. The Light Division’s action was really a testament to the quality of the British infantry of the time (and by all accounts the Light Division was among the best of them). They marched back to the British lines in columns for speed, and rapidly formed squares when the French would ride close. After surviving each cavalry wave, they would shake out into column again and cover a little more ground before having to do it all over again. Their casualties on the withdrawal were fantastically small; any other infantry caught in the open by cavalry would have been torn to pieces.
Yes, but they didn’t like facing pikes any more than horses, and disciplined spearmen could beat them, or better - drive them back onto their own lines. And by the age of gunpowder, they were unlikely to make it into battle alive.
I can’t find cites, but I recall that the Roman’s facing Hannibal simply moved the entire square out of the way of the elephant and shot at the drivers as they passed.
To clarify, a square was not a phalanx. Infantry were deployed in rows around the perimeter. The interior was mostly open. It’s also where the officers, munititions, camp gear, etc. would be found. For more info, see Wiki. Or any good history of the Napoleonic wars.
This tactic is attributed to Scipio Africanus at the Battle of Zama, which is actually one of the few times where Hannibal had a decent supply of elephants. He was very fond of them as a military asset, but was perennially short of them, especially in Italy.
Under the board’s new obscenity rules, I don’t think we’re allowed to talk about fylking – and svinfylking is right out.
John Keegan’s work has been mentioned in this thread. In his excellent The Face of Battle, he attempts to analyze cavalry vs infantry attacks using thought experiments, historical anecdotes, and letters and diaries of eyewitnesses. He specifically singles out the breaking of the square at Garcia Hernandez mentioned above:
He then goes on to determine that the harm cavalry inflicted on infantry was usually “military” rather than physical – forcing it to change, and occasionally lose, formation, more so than actual killing.
Keegan’s description of how a Napoleonic cavalry charge could succeed – by presenting a terrifying aspect that caused individual infantrymen to cower, breaking the formation – could have served as the model for that moment just before contact in LOTR:
I’ve read Keegan many times; when I saw that shiver along the line of orcs in the movie, I had to restrain myself from shouting “EXACTLY!” in the theater. 
Two questions :
-How could (as mentioned previously) a single dead horse break a square formation. It has to go through several rows of men, and even then, it’s not like it’s going to open a gap large enough for a whole battalion of cavalry. Is this anecdote reliable and/or believable?
-What about lancers? Given that their weapon had a longer reach than infantry bayonets, couldn’t they break a square in a frontal assault?
Horses are big and heavy, with a lot of momentum at full charge – a projectile horse carcase would easily be able to knock through five tightly-spaced ranks. And it doesn’t have to clear enough space for a whole battalion, either. As much as any other infantry manoeuvre, a square needs rigid discipline and control to function – a dead (or, worse, dying) horse in the middle of one side leaves a hole that can’t be closed up, leaving the soldiers on either side vulnerable, and less inclined to hold their ground. If even a few cavalry manage to break through that gap into the centre, threatening their unprotected rear, there’s a good chance they’ll panic and run.
A lancer still has a lot shorter reach than a musket ball, and he’s still riding a horse which, however well trained, is going to have a natural aversion to sharp pointy things.
that’s what I was thinking of.
My own thinking on the success of squares is that it really comes down to animal psychology.
-Yes the unit doesn’t have a rear, but cavalry charges were still plenty successful attacking soldiers from the front.
-Yes horses don’t like to run into things pointy, but then why even need squares just bayonet up.
Like the Battle of Zama, if social animals are in a herd charging, they will run at a mass solid object only to try and jump over or through it, but if given a choice animals will instinctively run for open ground. Forming squares makes all but the best trained cavalry run around units and without the punch of roaring in with a fast moving heavy animal and sabre a’ swinging they’ve lost the shock value that made them effective.
I heard that Romans liked to jab elephants in their groin so that they turned around and charged their own lines. I got that from the game show Time Commanders, which did have military historians on hand to tell us all about the tactics used during the actual battles.
At which point the mahout was supposed to take the mallet he carried and drive a spike through the elephant’s brain.
Hmmm. PETA would be sure to object.
Part of that problem is that up until the brown bess, you probably still had formations of pikemen, and the reach on a pike was longer than the reach of a lance.
Declan
plus, given the momentum of the horse and rider, even if the lance was longer than the pike, the horse and rider would still continue forward onto the pike.
Neat, the show didn’t go into that part at all
Re: triangle formations – the wedge? flying wedge? flying V?