rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - Form A Square ? Or Form A Circle ?

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:13 pm

I'm just going to throw this question out because I don't know.
Now would squares have ever a reason to move as a square in engagements? I'm assuming here that when the command to form square occurs well that's it the die is cast and everything is set. Everybody then for all intents and purposes is done "in cement". Now if they move then I think they don't move "in square" but rather in column or whatever and then "form square" again. I'd think there must be drill instruction sets to take care of this stuff. This is square business..... Wink

....

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:15 pm

Rich

A good example of what you are talking about was the Ulundi square. This formed at some considerable distance from the eventual battle site and marched 'in square'. When they reached the point of the battle, they simply turned outwards and were ready to fight. I might also mention that they made at least one change of direction, which would have been difficult to do in such a formation. I'm sure Mike Snook will have more on this.

KIS

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 1:29 am

Rich

In fact the late Victorian army it was relatively commonplace to move around in square when approaching a battlefield, or when the likelihood of an attack seemed high. Nor was it very difficult. Anybody who has done any foot drill will understand the principles by which a well trained body of troops can move around. An good infantry sergeant major can stand in the middle of a drill square without ever moving and get a body of men to move around like somebody showing a dog in an obedience trial at Crufts. To an outsider it can be a wonder to behold and seemingly impossible. But in truth it is not a wonder - just a function of training until human reactions to a given word of command become in effect the reactions of automatons.

When you break down what a square actually is, it is easier to understand how easily it might work. In truth it is actually four bodies of troops:

1. A number of companies marching at the front in line abreast, each company deployed in 2, 3, or 4 ranks; the number of files (the company's frontage) reducing in proportion to the number of ranks.
2. A number of companies on the left marching in a column of 2,3 or 4 men abreast.
3.Ditto on the right.
4. As per serial 1 at the back.

So, in short, not one formation - but 2 lines and 2 columns moving in close concert, each keeping their dressing by a directing flank - that is to say, if the directing flank is given as 'by the right', then every man has to keep level with the man to his right.

Moving slowly and avoiding broken ground and obstacles would both be important factors. And you would want to avoid entering close cover in order to avoid constricting your fields of fire. At the moment critique - when the enemy launched its attack - then naturally the order to halt would be given. At which point the companies on the left and right faces simply left or right turn through 90 degrees as appropriate and go from being columns to lines - a move which obviously faces them outwards. The line of compnaies at the rear face obviously turns about through 180 degrees.

You would also halt momentarily if you wanted to shift axis dramatically, say, through 90 degrees so that what was formerly the left face becomes the front face. But the pause is merely to allow the word to be passed so that everybody knew what was going on and there was no possibility of confusion setting in. The square could be moving again in a minute depending on the noise level. In passing - that's why you don't have talking in the ranks - so that the word of command can be heard. More subtle shifts of axis through angles of less than 90 degrees would be more typical and would be achieved gradually over distance.

You could aslo have looser less formal squares such as employed in 1873-74 in the tropical forest of Ashantiland - where companies are in effect in loose skirmish order but still within the overall context of a rough square shape - in the sense that some coys are on the left, some on the right, some front, some rear. Your baggage train and your medical assets, whatever the mode of transport, would obviously be in the centre.

An alternative in terms of the baggage is to 'go out' to fight, in which you leave your stores and transport in the care of a moderately strong guard force in a defensive position of your own choosing - the great risk being that the enemy might bypass your fighting square to attack the baggage. At Ulundi this was achieved with a strongly held wagon laager. At Abu Klea and Abu Kru Sir H. Stewart left his baggage in a 'zareba'. In the literal sense this was a thornbrush perimeter fence, but in the Camel Corps it was the practice also to use their camel saddles and items of stores to make a more solid protection against small arms fire. The biscuit box redoubt was also a common feature of the defence plan. The big problem for the camel corps was all those camels, which were always left behind at the zareba but were very vulnerable to small arms fire.

I hope that covers it?

As ever

Mike

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:56 pm

Keith/Mike..thanks for the informative overview... now I'll say if the Zulu had artillery seems to me Chelmsford would have had a "sticky wicket" to take care of if they formed squares... Cool