Austrian light dragoons - were they all that light?

[frank xerox]

Daft question Lads; I was writing up unit strengths for March Attack rules and noticed they classed Austrian Napoleonic light dragoons as medium cavalry - "normal dragoons". Cant think of another rule set I've seen that rates them like that.

Never noticed it before, I think my eyes always corrected it for me; anyway given that there were only 4 (?) regiments of Dragoons proper in the Austrian army which seems a very small number were the Light Dragoons heavier than I think and used in the way other armies would use standard dragoon regiments?

A quick tour round google gives different opinions, including regular dragoons being regarded as heavy cavalry (they were occasionally brigaded with Kurassiers).
Anyway what do you guys think?

[tallyho]

I was under the impression that light dragoons were regular dragoons and Austrian dragoons were basically heavy battlefield cavalry

[frank xerox]

The more I think about it the more I think you're right - I always puzzled over the charges at Wagram and Aspern, why light cavalry were doing that. I'll go and do some reading but thinking of heavier cavalry while I'm doing it.

I'm having a light bulb moment after all these years - it might mean some rebasing of course...
Thanks!

[tom_aargau]

As a general rule, the German cavalry of the Austrian army was heavy (or medium) - i.e. cuirassiers. dragoons. Probably with the exception of the chevaulegers at the beginning but I would say during the Napoleonic wars they were similar to dragoons.
Hungarian cavalry - hussars - were the light cavalry.

[vtsaogames]

As a general rule, the German cavalry of the Austrian army was heavy (or medium) - i.e. cuirassiers. dragoons. Probably with the exception of the chevaulegers at the beginning but I would say during the Napoleonic wars they were similar to dragoons.
Hungarian cavalry - hussars - were the light cavalry.

That's helpful, thanks.

[Ray Rivers]

If you want to know the role of Napoleonic cavalry, just look at their sword.

If the sword is straight it is meant for thrusting and is used mainly as a shock weapon for battle. Cuirassiers and Dragoons carry straight swords and are considered to be shock and/or heavy cavalry. But I think shock is the most appropriate adjective.

If the sword is curved it is meant for slashing and is used in support of the army such as in reconnaissance, protecting flanks, supporting infantry vs infantry in battle, etc. Hussars carried this kind of weapon and those that did are referred to as light cavalry.

The exception to the rule (as there always is, especially during the Napoleonic Wars) are lancers. Lancers carry a curved blade and for this they are normally referred to as light cavalry. Because they also carried the lance, they were not only superb against infantry, but also against other cavalry. Still, they were in a supporting role, in the main, though they were often used with heavy cavalry for shock.

Having said all that... though the weapon carried underscores the purpose of it's owner, there are plenty of examples of charges of every sort.

[Charlie_]

The exception to the rule (as there always is, especially during the Napoleonic Wars) are lancers. Lancers carry a curved blade and for this they are normally referred to as light cavalry. Because they also carried the lance, they were not only superb against infantry, but also against other cavalry. Still, they were in a supporting role, in the main, though they were often used with heavy cavalry for shock.

I'm a complete beginner when it comes to Napoleonic warfare (and anything 'horse & musket'), and have made a thread in the past here asking about cavalry roles. What exactly were lancers' roles, and how common were they? I'd be interested in hearing more!

[Ray Rivers]

That's a great question!

Here is a terrific web site on the Napoleonic wars:

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/

And here is the page concerning cavalry tactics (a great read and there is a specific section on lancers):

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyka.atspace.com/cavalry_tactics.html

[jamesmanto]

I'm a complete beginner when it comes to Napoleonic warfare (and anything 'horse & musket'), and have made a thread in the past here asking about cavalry roles. What exactly were lancers' roles, and how common were they? I'd be interested in hearing more!

Lancers were generally light cavalry (used for recce, screening, flank guards, escort duties) but with a little more shock value from the lances.
In addition to the swords, the role of a unit was also determined by the horse. Light cavalry got smaller, faster, more nimble horses. Heavy regiments got bigger heavier horses.

Austrians and Prussians had Uhlan (because they wore the Polish style square topped helmet) regiments. Russians had regular uhlans and cossacks. French had some Polish Uhlan regiments and light lancers in crested helemts. The latter are the chaps sometimes brigaded with Cuirasiers to give them a scouting and screening capability. The British didn't adopt the lance until later in the century thanks to Indian influences.

Of course by the late 19th century just about all cavalry had lances for mounted action but trained to fight on foot like dragoons too.

[Ray Rivers]

Great point about the horses!

They were also, like all light cavalry, very good at chasing routed troops and slaughtering them.

I believe Napoleon once chatted about the importance of winning a battle. He felt that the actual numbers lost in the battle proper didn't matter so much. He was willing to take heavy losses, because if the enemy broke, the slaughter after the battle, in the pursuit, would overwhelming make up for the folks he had lost.

[vtsaogames]

To some extent, light cavalry horses were tired later in the campaign from work done scouting and such, while heavy cavalry horses walked along slowly with the main body and were rested when the battle started, at least in theory. Cavalry actiion tired horses and killed lots of them, even before battle losses.