Cavalry Squadron

[Westmarcher]

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.

Absolutely true. Everything. In fact, that very incident was scheduled to be included in the TV series, Vikings, but, sadly, was deleted. 

[fsn]

Gentlemen of the Forum,

Our esteemed colleague Westmarcher has many fine qualities. He is a proper Gentleman, not like a "Gentleman of the Forum", which is entirely honourific and in many case quite undeserved*, he is knowledgable about those fancy, flunky wars that I don't really bother with much, and he has demonstrated his ability with the brush. He has shown wit and intelligence, as well as support for less fortunate members of the forum.

However, in his last post we have seen a new aspect of Friend Westmarcher - when put in an untenable position, he does not back down, does not slink away, but doubles down, brazens it out and advances with flags flying, pipes playing and kilt flapping in the breeze.

Bravo Sir! Well played. I would doff my hat to you, but I'm not wearing one.


*"A French officer will cut your throat if you tell him he is not a gentleman, but that does not make him one". - Wellington
"A forum member will spill you pint if you tell him he is not a gentleman, but that does not mean he can claim an attack bonus for irregular infantry" - FSN

[Hwiccee]

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.

I believe that the two battalions would act as 2 independent bodies on the battlefield. The regimental commander could be in direct command of one of these but many regimental commanders would not be with the unit. The regimental commanders often functioned as brigadiers/other commanders, staff officers and in other positions during a battle. Also of course some might not be present with the army, they could be just nominal heads of the unit or performing other tasks away from the army. So in practice most battalions were under the command of more junior officers.

As to the assignment of companies to battalions I think this would vary a lot and depending on the circumstances.

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?

I think squadrons are an exact analogy of a foot battalion. Both the 'Battalia' and 'Escuadra' are originally terms for ad hoc units that are tactically efficient divisions or collections of other units. Over time the definition of these changed (and sometimes the word used) and these became the more formal battalions of circa 500 infantry and squadrons of circa 150 cavalry.

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 am afraid I am not a fan of Baroque or its view on tactics so I am not 100% sure what you mean here. I think you mean that on the Celtic Fringe you have generally less cavalry around and in troops rather than squadrons/regiments/etc? If this is so I don't think this would have made much difference to the way they fought. Whatever the organisation of the units they would have formed into 'units' of around 150 men on the battlefield, certainly by the mid 17th century, but this might have been formally or informally.

[d_Guy]

As always, Hwiccee, thanks for bringing your knowledge to bare. Much appreciated.

I had used "Commander" since, as you have said the Colonel was often fulfilling another role (and sometimes the Lt. Col. as well). In many cases he wasn't present (but collecting full pay). The remaining most senior officer was the day-to-day regimental commander. Picking the arbitrary date of 1643, in a set piece battle, the regiment was the maneuver element. By 1680, the battalion seems to be the maneuver element. Since we often see the two battalions side-by-side (or in close proximity) I was curious if they still might initially maneuver together.
(Having the weight of a 1000 man regiment but the flexibility of two 500 man maneuver units).

We have discussed the use of Baroque before and concluded that it may be an imperfect tool (although it was designed for forming, usually equal, point value armies to give a balanced game). The emphasis of my comment should be that the mechanisms (prehapes unintentional in the design) work really well for solo play. I do a great deal of messing with the army lists - adding various subtypes and experimenting with different values and special characteristics. I find this often works toward giving a historic result (although prehapes for the wrong reasons )

I think you mean that on the Celtic Fringe you have generally less cavalry around and in troops rather than squadrons/regiments/etc? If this is so I don't think this would have made much difference to the way they fought. Whatever the organisation of the units they would have formed into 'units' of around 150 men on the battlefield, certainly by the mid 17th century, but this might have been formally or informally.

Yes I think my conception and understand matches yours (and yours extends much further forward in history then does mine). Much of the organization (particularly on what might be called the "rebel" side) was ad hoc and fluid. With certain exceptions, small groups of horse pretty much fighting the same way (although the government horse did attempt a caracole at Tippermuir and were driven off by a hail of rocks -IIRC). There was  also the use of lancers on both sides in both Scotland and Ireland to be considered.

Arguably, Benburb, Dunbar, The Boyne and Aughrim are Celtic Fringe battles as well and I'm probably attempting the impossible in using a single rules system. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail!

[Hwiccee]

As always, Hwiccee, thanks for bringing your knowledge to bare. Much appreciated.

Always happy to help 

I had used "Commander" since, as you have said the Colonel was often fulfilling another role (and sometimes the Lt. Col. as well). In many cases he wasn't present (but collecting full pay). The remaining most senior officer was the day-to-day regimental commander. Picking the arbitrary date of 1643, in a set piece battle, the regiment was the maneuver element. By 1680, the battalion seems to be the maneuver element. Since we often see the two battalions side-by-side (or in close proximity) I was curious if they still might initially maneuver together.
(Having the weight of a 1000 man regiment but the flexibility of two 500 man maneuver units).

Well actually it was not like this, they usually fought in 'battalia' of circa 500 men. So say a regiment was something like 1000 strong it would fight as 2 battalia and not a single block. The same unit after a few months of attrition and perhaps leaving some companies in a garrison might fight fight as a single 500 or so battalia. Later on and now perhaps only about 250 strong it would combine with one or more other regiments of a similar size to form a battalia on the battlefield. The Royalists were particularly liable to do this and many regiments were very small & many were combined to make a battalia.

By 1680 what had changed was the units were a standard size and attempts were made to keep them up to strength. You could have battalions of the same regiment next to each other and they could move together or more commonly as part of a larger group, a line or brigade or similarly. But they would be individual units within the line/brigade, as would the other battalions in the line/brigade which were not from the regiment, rather than in some way. connected

We have discussed the use of Baroque before and concluded that it may be an imperfect tool (although it was designed for forming, usually equal, point value armies to give a balanced game). The emphasis of my comment should be that the mechanisms (prehapes unintentional in the design) work really well for solo play. I do a great deal of messing with the army lists - adding various subtypes and experimenting with different values and special characteristics. I find this often works toward giving a historic result (although prehapes for the wrong reasons )

If you are happy with the rules then fine, no single set will ever suit everyone. I mentioned it mainly because it does mean I can't really answer some things as I don't know the rules well. See below.

Yes I think my conception and understand matches yours (and yours extends much further forward in history then does mine). Much of the organization (particularly on what might be called the "rebel" side) was ad hoc and fluid. With certain exceptions, small groups of horse pretty much fighting the same way (although the government horse did attempt a caracole at Tippermuir and were driven off by a hail of rocks -IIRC). There was  also the use of lancers on both sides in both Scotland and Ireland to be considered.

Arguably, Benburb, Dunbar, The Boyne and Aughrim are Celtic Fringe battles as well and I'm probably attempting the impossible in using a single rules system. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail!

And here is where my lack of knowledge of the rules has an effect, I really can't say much without knowing the rules. I would agree on the idea of the Celtic Fringe battles extending forward in time but of course with less 'fringe' and more 'mainstream' as time goes by. Arguably by the time of the Boyne/Aughrim the cavalry was superior to the 'average'. The Williamites were still using old fashioned ECW/TYW style tactics (typically Dutch or Swedish style tactics) while the Jacobites were using the arguably more advanced French style.

[mollinary]

The Williamites were still using old fashioned ECW/TYW style tactics (typically Dutch or Swedish style tactics) while the Jacobites were using the arguably more advanced French style.

Great post Nick. Could you elaborate on this final statement? Do you mean that Williamite Dutch regiments were still fighting six deep?  And what was so advanced about the French style vis a vis the others?  Cheers in advance.

Mollinary

[d_Guy]

Always happy to help 
...So say a regiment was something like 1000 strong it would fight as 2 battalia and not a single block.

I was really unclear on this point so thanks, in particular, for this. To model battles were large differences in unit sizes existed, I was having to break a large regiment into two battalions  anyway. Just felt constrained that they should be forced (until contact) to maneuver together. A concern I will now happily abandon. 

Cheers,
d_guy

[Hwiccee]

Great post Nick. Could you elaborate on this final statement? Do you mean that Williamite Dutch regiments were still fighting six deep?  And what was so advanced about the French style vis a vis the others?  Cheers in advance.

Mollinary

Thanks Andrew. No 6 deep had long gone, or at least as a 'normal' tactic. The tactics of the Williamite troops are a tricky subject but overall they were clearly inferior to the French cavalry at this time. They are probably using the trotting tactics of the Dutch/Swedish system as used in the ECW/later TYW. In any case whether the French cavalry were 'better' was because of the charging at the gallop tactics they developed in the later/post TYW period or just because they had better morale/experience/etc is more of a problem. But the Williamites also found the Jacobite cavalry, who used the same tactics, difficult to handle. This led to the change of tactics of the British/Dutch during the WSS.

So the French style was arguably 'more advanced' than that used by the 'Allies' in the 1680's - 90's and was only matched by them after 1700.


p.s. I look forward to seeing your game at the Joy of Six.

I was really unclear on this point so thanks, in particular, for this. To model battles were large differences in unit sizes existed, I was having to break a large regiment into two battalions  anyway. Just felt constrained that they should be forced (until contact) to maneuver together. A concern I will now happily abandon. 

Cheers,
d_guy

Glad to help

[mollinary]

Thanks Nick,

Look forward to seeing you there! It is not a big game, which is unusual for me. In fact in 6mm it fits on a 3ft by 2ft table, as opposed to the 6ft by 4ft used when I play it in 10mm.   Nevertheless the  scenario has produced a load of fun games over the last six months (most of which I have lost  ).

Andrew