Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Age of the Big Battalions => Topic started by: Charlie_ on March 02, 2019, 06:03:53 PM
-
So the Napoleonic era (and the horse and musket era as a whole) isn't one I'm particularly knowledgeable about.
But I do always enjoy looking at peoples wargames projects for any subject, so have picked up a basic understanding of the military workings of this era. I also am constantly barraged by new Napoleonic releases from the Perry Miniatures facebook page!
Anyway, something I've never quite understood are the different classifications of cavalry units.
So we have heavy cavalry, and light cavalry. Ok.
Looking at the Perry Miniatures range, they have a total of FOUR different plastic cavalry sets just for the French alone!
-Heavy cavalry (cuirassiers / carabiniers)
-Line dragoons
-Hussars
-Chasseurs a Cheval
So the last three are all types of light cavalry, right? How did they differ in terms of their equipment, role, and prestige?
As I understand it dragoons used to be 'mounted infantry' who dismounted to shoot, but am I right in saying by the Napoleonic era this wasn't really their role? And if so how did they differ from other light cavalry?
I understand Hussars are quite iconic and have cool uniforms - but were they actually any different to other light cavalry units on the battlefield?
And what on earth are Chasseurs a Cheval? Just 'boring' light cavalry?
And then... what about lancers? They were light cavalry too, right? Did the French use them, and should we be expecting another French cavalry plastic set from Perry Miniatures?
Did all these light cavalry units have the same scouting / skirmishing / raiding roles on campaign? What were their strengths and weaknesses comparatively on the battlefield?
Also, what's the difference between cuirassiers and carabiniers? What were heavy cavalry of other nations referred to as, and how did they differ?
And to extend it further.... What was the role of cavalry throughout the 18th century, and how did it differ to the Napoleonic era and the 19th century?
-
Simplifying:
Cuirassier and Carabiniers were heavy cavalry - breakthrough cavalry.
Dragons were line cavalry
and last two were light cavalry
Heavy cavalry was used to breakthrough maneuvers and light as harassing pursuit troops not really suitable to frontal attacks.
Dragoons were used either as light cavalry or as heavy cavalry -- they could do both but lacked cuirasses (they were armed like heavy cavalry with straight cavalry swords) and could dismount and fight as infantry with carabins (but they did it not so often apart from peninsular anti guerilla warfare)
and rode heavy rorses (this is main distinctive feature of heavy and light cavalry - horse size)
Lancers are late addition and served as line cavalry - so a little like dragoons but with lance instead of carabins (they lacked heavy cavalry straight sword but lance served similar function in attack). There weren't numerous and were introduced later in the wars but lances were used earlier by Polish, Austrian and Coassack units.
As to Hussars and Chasseurs they wara basically the same - but hussars were more fancy dressed and could have greater elan in theory. But functionally you shouldn't see difference on the table. Bonaparte bodyguards were Chasseurs and he often wore Chasseur uniform.
There was only 7 Hussars regiments in the french army and 30 Chasseur.
Generally in the battle heavy cavalry would fight in dedicated divisions.
Dragoons and light cavalry could be spread in each division.
-
There was only 7 Hussars regiments in the french army
Actually, there were twelve hussar regiments until 1812 with an additional three raised in 1813 : the 13th and 14th were short lived units which were essentially wiped out during the German campaign of 1813, their remnants being converged into a new and reorganised 14th in 1814. The third one was the Jérôme Napoléon hussars which were originally raised as a Westfalian unit (though the recruits were all native Frenchmen) before being taken into French service on January 1st 1814 and and renumbered the 13 hussars after what was left of the original 13th were absorbed into the 14th as stated above.
There were also 31 chasseurs à cheval regiments, not 30 : the 31st was raised in 1811 and originally served in Spain before sending its 4th and 5th squadrons to Germany in 1813 and its first three to Italy. The 'German' squadrons wore the regulation 1812 Bardin uniform while the ones serving in Italy were dressed as Polish ulhans and armed with lances.
I agree that dragoons were the Jacks of all trades in the French army : their main battlefield use was as substitute heavy cavalry, though they could also scout or provide escorts for convoys and baggage trains. As you say, they also proved very efficient contra-guerrilla fighters in Spain, where they gained a fierce reputation. Foot dragoons regiments did briefly exist in 1806-1807 due to a shortage of suitable mounts but the experience prove disastrous and the men were put back on horses as soon as the Prussian campaign ended.
-
Heavy cavalry ideally big men on big horses, main purpose the charge.
Light cavalry, scouting, raiding, pursuit, covering retreats, charging in a pinch, doing lots of work before any battle is fought.
Dragoons, jack of all trades, master of none. In the British army they were heavy cavalry.
-
Some very useful responses here :)
As can be seen, there is plenty of national variation. Russian hussars, for example, received lances for their front rank riders c.1812, but remained light cavalry.
Light cavalry was much rarer in western armies in the eighteenth century with the majority of cavalry being either horse (heavies) or dragoons. As the ninetenth century progressed, with the odd exception, western cavalry became increasingly generic.
-
Great responses, thanks guys.
So did the British not have 'heavy cavalry'? Were dragoons the heaviest they had?
I was aware that heavy cavalry used straight swords and light cavalry used sabres - hadn't noticed that dragoons had the straight swords too.
But I just noticed the Perry British dragoons have sabres, and are called 'light dragoons'. So... there were 'line' and 'light' dragoons? The Perry plastic Brit dragoons are the lighter sort, and they don't do a plastic set yet for the heaviest British cav, which would be 'line dragoons'? Man it does get confusing.
Did all cavalry have firearms as well as swords, and if so how often did they actually use them?
Were carabiniers just cursassiers with firearms? Did they function differently tactically?
Light cavalry was much rarer in western armies in the eighteenth century with the majority of cavalry being either horse (heavies) or dragoons. As the ninetenth century progressed, with the odd exception, western cavalry became increasingly generic.
Did they become more generic leaning towards heavy or light roles? Or just settled into a role between the two?
-
Here are a couple of introductory books to help you deal with the conusion :
https://ospreypublishing.com/napoleonic-heavy-cavalry-dragoon-tactics (https://ospreypublishing.com/napoleonic-heavy-cavalry-dragoon-tactics)
https://ospreypublishing.com/napoleonic-light-cavalry-tactics (https://ospreypublishing.com/napoleonic-light-cavalry-tactics)
Not the be-all and end-all of research on Napoleonic warfare but very serviceable primers all the same.
-
Great responses, thanks guys.
So did the British not have 'heavy cavalry'? Were dragoons the heaviest they had?
I was aware that heavy cavalry used straight swords and light cavalry used sabres - hadn't noticed that dragoons had the straight swords too.
But I just noticed the Perry British dragoons have sabres, and are called 'light dragoons'. So... there were 'line' and 'light' dragoons? The Perry plastic Brit dragoons are the lighter sort, and they don't do a plastic set yet for the heaviest British cav, which would be 'line dragoons'? Man it does get confusing.
Did all cavalry have firearms as well as swords, and if so how often did they actually use them?
Were carabiniers just cursassiers with firearms? Did they function differently tactically?
Did they become more generic leaning towards heavy or light roles? Or just settled into a role between the two?
Britain had no heavy cavalry. Dragoons were their heaviest. However, all British cavalry was mounted on larger horses and could charge on equal and better terms any French cavalry, except cuirassiers.
Dragoon straight swords were much different to cuirassier straight swords. Dragoon swords were shorter and broader and could be used for slashing as well as stabbing. Heavy cav swords were like long pointy needles and could not be used for slashing.
All cavalry had firearms, except lancers. Except when the firearms weren't issued. Which happened a lot with heavy cavalry.
Light dragoons = light cavalry. It's just that the Brits called everything a dragoon.
Carabiniers = cuirassiers, but had white uniforms.
-
Just to pick up on some errors in the last post, the Household cavalry were the UK’s heavy horse.
Lancers did have firearms, generally pistols, but lance-armed russian hussars, for example also had carbines, I understand.
Moving on, dragoon guards were former horse regiments rebranded to save money (dragoons were paid less), but by this era were indistinguishable from regiments labelled dragoons in UK
Light dragoons were light cavalry, but generally better mounted than their French counterparts. They proved perfectly capable of roughing up cuirassiers at Waterloo.
-
Great responses, thanks guys.
So did the British not have 'heavy cavalry'? Were dragoons the heaviest they had?
All regiments labelled Dragoons or Dragoon Guards, as well as the Lifeguards and Royal Horse Guards were British heavy cavalry (sometimes the Dragoons are described as medium, but their use was the same). As stated, they were big men on big horses with heavy swords, and at the charge would usually form close together in a compact block for greater impact. Britain didn't send any heavy cavalry to the Peninsular campaign, so this might be where the confusion arose.
All regiments labelled Light Dragoons or Hussars were British light cavalry. They were smaller men on smaller more nimble horses. Again, as stated they were arguably the hardest working units on campaign, being used for foraging, scouting, sending messages, guarding supply columns, etc.. In battle they formed in more open order and would be expected to deal with the enemy cavalry and basically be a threat on the flanks with their superior maneuverability.
I think all British cavalry for this period had carbines, although their use would be more common in skirmishes than large battles. Light cavalry could be expected to be broken in smaller operational units for detachment and might be called upon to dismount and defend a position or skirmish to defend themselves. In battle they would usually stay mounted. Fleeing enemy after a lost battle would be extremely vulnerable to cavalry of both types and many commanders kept a strong cavalry reserve to either slaughter a routing enemy, or to guard against the enemy's cavalry doing just that in the event of a defeat.
But all the above is probably a 'textbook' example of use. In practice, the roles of heavy and light cavalry were probably closer to each other as the necessities of campaigning demanded. If the enemy made a mistake and opened up an opportunity, they would both be in there to exploit it, as Janner illustrates with British Light Dragoons vs French Cuirassiers.
It's very difficult to pin down exactly who did what and what units were around, as there was a lot of change over the Napoleonic period, with regiments being raised and amalgamated and disbanded. Different nations sometimes used the same labels to describe slightly different types of cavalry, which was also confusing. Uniforms and equipment also changed quite a lot, so a cavalryman at Waterloo would look very different from one in the Egypt or Peninsular campaigns. For the most part, collectors tend to pick a campaign (or even a single battle) and collect/paint their dudes accordingly, rather than having a mismatch of soldiers from different periods (although, small irregularities are also accepted as inevitable sometimes, due to restrictions in ranges available).
-
Dragoon straight swords were much different to cuirassier straight swords. Dragoon swords were shorter and broader and could be used for slashing as well as stabbing. Heavy cav swords were like long pointy needles and could not be used for slashing.
Well
They had slight difference but they were similar. And Year IV swords were distributed to both Cuirassier and dragoon regiments (just with different scabbard)
But this is going in much more detail than thread author want to know at this moment in his Napoleonic endeavors :)
The function was very similar and you could both thrust and cut with both and they visually differed from light cavalry curved sabre suitable for cuts.
-
This is why I don’t do Napoleonics...
:D
lol
-
All regiments labelled Dragoons or Dragoon Guards, as well as the Lifeguards and Royal Horse Guards were British heavy cavalry (sometimes the Dragoons are described as medium, but their use was the same). As stated, they were big men on big horses with heavy swords, and at the charge would usually form close together in a compact block for greater impact. Britain didn't send any heavy cavalry to the Peninsular campaign, so this might be where the confusion arose.
The Household Cavalry and several regiments of both Dragoons and Dragoon Guards fought in the Peninsular War.
Here's a picture of the Life Guards standard.
(https://static.wixstatic.com/media/011289_ae7fa7b6c8074ee4a40c0e72a290a353.jpg/v1/fill/w_960,h_605,al_c,q_85/011289_ae7fa7b6c8074ee4a40c0e72a290a353.jpg)
-
The Household Cavalry and several regiments of both Dragoons and Dragoon Guards fought in the Peninsular War.
Huh … well colour me stupid, you're right! I wonder where I got that idea from then.
-
All cavalry had firearms, except lancers. Except when the firearms weren't issued.
French chevau-légers lanciers regiments actually had firearms : each trooper was issued with an An IX carbine and one An XIII pistol.
Carabiniers = cuirassiers, but had white uniforms.
The two French carabiniers regiments were the former Carabiniers du Roi and only started wearing metal armour in 1810 : Bonaparte ordered them to wear the brass-covered steel cuirass and combed helmet in December 1809, which is also when the white coat was introduced. Prior to that date, they had worn a dark blue habit à la française faced red and a black bearskin.
-
The focus on the differences between the kinds of cavalry is a bit less important than the differences in doctrine. The individual French cavalry regiments ebbed and flowed in quality over the 20+ years of war from the Revolution to 1815. But the French cavalry arm was certainly the best of any army in Europe. The French were the army that put the most effort and training into large scale cavalry maneuvers. So, while a single French regiment might not be as "good" as an Austrian regiment, a French cavalry division could coordinate better than those of other countries (not always, but usually). Some armies, like the Austrians, would break their excellent cavalry up into small forces at corps level, which kept them from having a useful army-level cavalry reserve. As the war went on, French cavalry became worse, especially after 1812 but that's because there was a shortage of good mounts after Russia. This lack of horses was a major factor in the 1813/1814 campaigns, not so much for the lack of heavy cavalry, but a lack of light cavalry to scout for the army.
-
Huh … well colour me stupid, you're right! I wonder where I got that idea from then.
Taken on the chin - well-done sir!
This is why I don’t do Napoleonics...
:D
lol
lol lol
... But the French cavalry arm was certainly the best of any army in Europe.
Arguably, but not certainly :D
-
Taken on the chin - well-done sir!
When you're wrong as much as I am, you have to embrace it to retain a measure of sanity.
-
While all British cavalry (save the Hussars) were dragoons of one sort or another, this does not mean they didn't have heavy cavalry. British Dragoons (and Dragoon Guards) were big men on big horses. The British Isles had some excellent horse farms. On most of the continent, various armies marched back and forth, buying, impressing or just stealing horseflesh from 1792 through 1815. A decade or so of this means the British had some of the best horses in Europe. So the titles weren't as important as men, horses and training.
The British dragoons could hit very hard. They did have a tendency to get out of control after a successful charge and become vulnerable to ruin at the hands of fresh enemy cavalry after their horses were jaded and their formations undone by pursuit. The most famous case of this is the Union Brigade at Waterloo but there are others in the Peninsula.
Wellington wanted to send one regiment back to Britain while keeping their horses after one snafu. He was talked down.
-
The tendency to bet out of control is over stated.
When compared to other nations, they were arguebly no more prone to over-extension than anyone else.
-
I've read "Galloping at Everything" and am not totally convinced. One thing: troops knew when KGL cavalry galloped back into camp it was time to sound the long roll. This indicates that they didn't know if British cavalry was being high-spirited or chased.
Haynthornwaite posited years back in an article in the Courier that the full out charge is what led to the control problem. It gave an incredible shock but then often led to pursuit. The French frequently charged at the trot, not such a heavy shock but easier to rein in.
-
I would guess that any nation whose cavalry officers consisted of the upper classes would struggle to impose firm military discipline, since these were people disinclined to taking orders. Post-Revolutionary France would obviously not have this issue, but the other monarchies might well do.
-
I've read "Galloping at Everything" and am not totally convinced. One thing: troops knew when KGL cavalry galloped back into camp it was time to sound the long roll. This indicates that they didn't know if British cavalry was being high-spirited or chased.
Haynthornwaite posited years back in an article in the Courier that the full out charge is what led to the control problem. It gave an incredible shock but then often led to pursuit. The French frequently charged at the trot, not such a heavy shock but easier to rein in.
Yet in The Waterloo Armies (2007), Haythornwaite wrote that the Union most likely charged at the trot at Waterloo and highlighted that eyewitnesses described that they walked through the enemy infantry.
Ian Fletcher presented an argument based on verifiable data, but continues to struggle against popular perceptions. What detractors consistantly fail to address is how Wellington could have ventured into Spain and pursue offensive operations into France without a competant cavalry arm.
The French armies in Spain had large numbers of mounted troops. Yet the British cavalry successfully provided intelligence, prevented the French from interfering with Allied movements, and countered their opposition in the battlefield. Without effective British cavalry to screen the Allied army’s movements from the French cavalry and protect his infantry in the field, Wellington’s operations would have been severely hampered - in effect, he would have been limited to defensive operations in Portugal.
The British infantry generally enjoy a strong reputation for their performance in Iberia, but the cavalry was integral to Wellington’s success.
-
Both could be correct though. The light cavalry largely providing the intelligence and screening could well have performed at least competently alongside the heavy cavalry going out of control in the large scale pitched battles on a regular basis.
-
That would work but for a lack of verifiable data to support it lol
British light and heavy dragoons were employed in a similar fashion, which is unsurprising as they used the same manual. The adage was ‘move as lights, fight as heavies’.
-
It can still be true that when doing the job of light cavalry they are competent but when it comes to a pitched battle they lose their heads. So evidence of Wellington being able to sustain an offensive in the Penninsular doesn’t preclude large bodies of British cavalry from charging at everything in the pitched battles. The two are not mutually exclusive.
-
An interesting perspective - how do you distinguish pitched battles from routine cavalry work?
The British cavalry successes at Sahagun and Benavente, for example, were arguably routine cavalry work rather than pitched battles. Either way, there was no loss of control - quite the contrary.
The challenge for fans of the charge at everything myth is that for the handful of examples of a loss of control are swamped by examples of British cavalry acting effectively.
-
Considering both those battles involved British light cavalry and the first was a 400 yard charge I wouldn't consider it evidence dispelling the British heavy cavalry charge at everything myth. Also both were pure cavalry engagements rather than a pitched battle involving other arms.
It is clear that the heavy cavalry at Waterloo lost control. Was this institutional or a problem with the commander? Uxbridge should obviously have organised a reserve rather than get involved in the charge. Did this hot headed action extend to other senior officers? Was any difference in application of doctrine due to the quality of senior British Cavalry officers? Did in fact the aggression of the cavalry lead to successes at the small scale but problems in controlling a division sized body? Or was it just one of those things?
-
As has been mentioned earlier, the employment of British light and heavy dragoons was not as distinct as in other European armies. Indeed, they were sometimes brigaded together, such as at Fuentes de Onoro. Considering them seperately can be, therefore, unsafe.
When it comes to Waterloo, there is no evidence of a loss of cohesion by 1st Life Guards and the Blues. Moreover, too many have assumed that the casualties the regiments of both the Household and Unions brigades suffered was during that one charge, rather than through the whole day of fighting. Contrary to the myth, both the Household and Union brigades continued to perform a valuable role, such as counter charging the French cavalry on numerous ocassions. For example, the records of the Inniskillings record a further five charges after they were allegedly ‘destroyed’ in the initial engagement.
As for a reserve, Ponsonby seemingly believed their target too large to reduce his frontage by forming a reserve, but chose to attack in echelon instead.
When you get into the weeds, the old stories do not always hold true.