Cavalry Squadron

[d_Guy]

I posed this question on TMP but we have some knowledgable folks that don't often / never go there.

Does anyone have any idea when the term "squadron" came in to use (formally or informally) to describe two or more troops of horse and/or a subset of a regiment of horse?

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/squadron

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squadron_(army)

[fsn]

The origin of "squadron" is actualy Norse-English. In the late C9, King Ronald Fine-Mouth (known as such either because he was a telented speaker or a gifted osculator) was a keen naval tactician, and drilled his ships in a  number of formations - the wedge, the Raven's wings, and the ox-horns, but theorised that a strong defence could be had by forming his ships into a densely packed arrangement whereby they presented bows on to any enemy - somewhat akin to the kyklos of ancient Greece or the square much beloved by infantry in the age of the musket.

Anyway, Ronald's right hand man was a (probably) unfrocked monk from somewhere near the Romney Marshes, a character known as Pullus. This Pullus was an ill educated creature who spoke in an odd mix of his native Anglo-Saxon and Latin, with odd phrases in the King's good Norse thrown in. For whatever reason Ronald was quite fond of Pullus, who is described in The Fresian Saga as "bent like a bow, but arrow sharp in tongue" suggesting some deformation of the spine, but plain speaking. Anyway, Pullus used to watch the king's fleet from the safety of some high cliffs and so able to get a bird's eye view of the doings.

The story goes that the king tried all day to get his ships to manouver into the defensive square, but succeedly mainly in damaging his flagship by bashing it between two other ships. Eventually, though, the Norse managed the evolution, much to the delight of Pullus, who was seen dancing wildly on the cliff tops, bellowing to the king that he hand succeeded "is quad Ron, is quad Ron". From that day, a group of ships in fine formation became "isquadron".

Well, that's what Westmarcher told me.

 

[Techno]

  Hmmmmmm.

Cheers - Phil

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Where's the b*llsh*t button!

[d_Guy]

Mr. Lemmy thanks for the links. I had looked as the wilipedia one but had not delved into it deeply. Incidently I have it on good authority (Wikipedia) that a few members of this forum are wiki editors which is certainly a delight and challenge to us all.

The Oxford Dictionary I had not looked at and pursuing it a bit was helpful, so again, thanks.

I still don't know in what year a commander of a British cavalry regiment actually said something like, "Major, have your squadron take position on that low ridge to the west". I'm guessing maybe the 1750's but I could be easily off by a hundred years.

fsn, and by implication, Westie, thanks for your contribution also. Who's to say the word didn't come about that very way, certainly not me.
Unconstrained scholarship leads down many strange paths and the occasional dark alley. Probably an oversite. but due to the shift in vowel-consonant endings in the late Anglo-Saxon, you did not mention that Ronald Fine-Mouth may actually have been Ronald Fine-Mount, an appellation that may lead down some very dark alleys I'll wager.

[fsn]

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=squadron
The online etymology dictionary suggests mid 1500's.  From the Italian for "square".

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=etymology+squadron&start=10&spf=1496298498925
This 1770 dictionary defines squadron as "a body of horfe from 100 to 200 men".  Interestingly, it definse squadron (of ships) to be "a certain number, especially of men of war, or a troop" - which suggests that troop is a term used for ships, which is something I'be never heard before.  (Also spurcidial is "fpeaking fmuttily" - I shall be using that one.)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X5dDAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA179&lpg=PA179&dq=etymology+squadron&source=bl&ots=w7f7nIpsiY&sig=GfHbrt2EqfyJwmQj9jhkSlYNN2k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjltJX_hZzUAhWsDMAKHRCFC_w4FBDoAQgkMAE#v=onepage&q=etymology%20squadron&f=false

This 1838 defines squadron as "a body of men formed in a square ... Hence the vulgar term SQUAD". (My emphasis.)

http://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/dost/squadrant
Some examples here of squadron being used in Scots from the C16.

http://bcw-project.org/military/tactics
This website talks about Gustavus Adolphus having both infantry and cavalry in squadrons in the early C17, as a synonym for battallion. However, it's not a term I associate with the English Civil Wars of the mid C17 - where troop and company are the organisation units. However, I do associate it for cavalry with the WSS in the early C18 as the main tactical unit.

Not an expert in C16 warfare but it suggests to me that the Italian fashion for deploying in square got imported. The term originally meant a number of troops in a square, a formation rather than a unit, but seems to have found favour sometime in the latter half of the C17 as an organisational unit. Perhaps one of the many, many League of AusbErg fans could throw some more light on the matter? 

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Good finds FSN

[mollinary]

To complicate matters, the description I have most commonly seen for bodies of horse in the ECW, of about the size you mention (2-300), is division!  :-

Mollinary

[fsn]

... and people wonder why I love tanks!

Um .. d_Guy, is there a reason for your question or is it just something you were wondering about?

[d_Guy]

@Mollinary, Thanks for mentioning the "division", I had forgotten about its use. Contemporary 17th century military treatises and battle accounts use an array of terms for organization which, to me at least, is confusing.

@fsn, thanks for all the links. I have not explored them all yet, but your thumbnails are very useful for a quick overview and I will look at each with interest.

To your question why did I want to know, curiosity certainly, but succinctly as possible, these are principle drivers of that curiosity (both apply to wargaming):

One: Regimental command and control: in Britain after the Restoration many foot regiments were evolving toward having battalions as a subdivision (initially only two). When serving together in the field did the regimental commander have tactical control of both or were they expected to function independently? How were the battalions assembled with respect to the companies of the regiment? It seems at first to have been a fluid, non-permanent assignment.

In Britain did the horse follow the same trajectory, squadrons becoming the analogy of a foot battalions? Early in the 1640's every thing was centered on the troop which might be collected into divisions to work together tactically. quickly this evolved into the more permanent horse regiment. Soon after we see "double regiments" emerge. Is this the beginning of a squadron?

Two: Modeling command structure in rules: I use Baroque (mostly) because it's mechanisms work best for solo gaming and the way I think tactics were employed in the period. I have added a higher level of granularity to handle the odd collection of forces that I deal with on the Celtic Fringe (and this is an ever-evolving effort). As a solo player I can do what ever I want BUT I would like what I do to have some basis in reality.

I apologize to the forum for such a long post. If I belonged to a regularly meeting wargaming group I imagine all this would get sorted out in discussion time. For good or ill - this forum is my hobby home (and I've picked up lots of useful comment and criticism from the inmates )

[fsn]

What you write is very interesting. We baldly accept the terms "squadron", "troop", "regiment", but of the time you speak these terms were as yet ill defined, evolving. Armies changing from the great masses to the organised, regulated armies we know and love.

BTW, I wouldn't worry about long posts, everybody loves 'em. Westmarcher tells me that he really likes it when I post one of my shaggy dog stories, and that's why I take every opportunity to write them up.

[d_Guy]

Thanks fsn,
I pretty much read all the posts (when I don't miss them - a not infrequent occurance). I will confess that post FPW eludes me in many details and the vast number of new posts on BKC systems are hard for me to follow - like knowing some German and trying to follow a discussion in Dutch - you get bits and pieces.

I actually like tanks also but simply can't do it all, particularly sorting through the vast amount of detail available - known organization, month by month, right down to the rifle squad (section?) would be an unaccustomed luxury. 

I enjoy the stories also. I wonder, is Pullus pronounced Pullo?

[Leon]

...I wonder, is Pullus pronounced Pullo?

Possibly, as in Pullo M'Leg...

[OldenBUA]

Contemporary 17th century military treatises and battle accounts use an array of terms for organization which, to me at least, is confusing.

Same with weapons, clothing and other equipment. But what we tend to forget is that people used a different style. Always using the same term would be considered very, very boring and in bad taste. Why always use sword, when you can use rapier, sabre, blade, estoc, cutlass and so on?! What is meant (if it really matters) follows from the context. Only later ages (Victorians?) start this boring habit of trying to nail everything down to one use.

Alex