The primary missions given the light cavalry were reconnaissance, screening,
advance guard, and pursuit missions. They could also be subdivided into smaller-sized
units for use as pickets and vedettes (mounted sentinels deployed forward of an outpost).
As British historian Sir Charles Oman describes, the hussars were, “Intended to be the
lightest of light cavalry, and were to find their proper sphere in raids and reconnaissance
rather than in pitched battles. Napoleon relied on his light cavalry to gain and maintain
contact with the enemy and to screen his movements. A successful screen would deny
the enemy valuable information with regard to the location, size, and composition of
Napoleon’s forces. The light cavalry was also employed as couriers and used to secure
the French lines of communication. Along with reconnaissance, however, one of the
most significant contributions the light cavalry made to Napoleon’s campaigns was in the
role of pursuit. Often it was the use of the light cavalry, pursuing a defeated and
retreating enemy, which proved decisive in completing the destruction of the enemy force.
Napoleon’s next category of cavalry was his medium cavalry, better known as
dragoons, of which he inherited twenty regiments. The dragoons were equipped with a
long straight sword (for thrusting), pistols, a dragoon musket (which was shorter than the
infantry models), and a bayonet. They typically wore brass helmets and tall boots,
which were unsuited for dismounted action. Because of their mobility and increased
firepower, as compared to other cavalry units, dragoons were used to seize key terrain for
the main body or employed on the flanks with security force missions, all of which are
examples of shaping operations using current doctrinal terms. Dragoons were also
employed as battle cavalry for charges and were used extensively as mounted
infantrymen in Spain. Napoleon found himself in the middle of an age-old debate of whether the
dragoons were mounted infantrymen or cavalrymen with increased firepower. During the
30-Year War, dragoons were primarily mounted infantrymen. As Sir Charles Oman
describes, “They were men with firearms who had been provided with horses in order
that they might move rapidly, not light cavalry furnished with a musket for skirmishing
purposes.” By the eighteenth century, however, dragoons became more like cavalry and less
like mounted infantry. For example, Frederick the Great employed his dragoons as
cavalry with carbines or muskets. Because of their speed of mobility and firepower,
Frederick’s dragoons were expected to seize ground when infantry units were
unavailable, and take charge of the skirmish line. Thus Frederick capitalized on the
cavalry trait of mobility to shore up a potential weak point on the battlefield.
As Napoleon considered the force structure of his military at a junction, he turned
the role of the dragoon back to that of mounted infantry. As such, he ordered the
replacement of the knee- high boots with gaiters to aid in dismounted operations.
Napoleon even went as far as planning to use dragoons as mounted infantrymen for his
cross-channel invasion of England.
During battle, Napoleon’s heavy cavalry was typically held in reserve to be
committed at the critical place and critical time to deliver the decisive blow against the
enemy. Thus, the cavalry’s commitment to the main battle proved decisive. Following
the main battle, light cavalry was used to pursue elements of the foe and complete total
destruction of the enemy’s force, which was habitually Napoleon’s objective. Therefore,
with sufficient and well-trained cavalry, Napoleon’s victories were decisive, as in the
Jena-Auerstadt Campaign of 1806; without it they were hollow, or at best Pyrrhic, as in
the Saxony campaign of 1813. Clausewitz summed up the value of the pursuit when he
stated, “Only the pursuit of the beaten enemy gives the fruits of victory.”
The final category of cavalry Napoleon inherited was the twenty- five regiments of
heavy cavalry.14 The heavy cavalry was broken down into two types, the cuirassiers and
the carabiniers a cheval. These were the big men on big horses who were held in reserve
exclusively for service in battle. Due to their large size and heavy armor, which
increased their protection and survivability, the heavy cavalry was Napoleon’s decisive
combat arm that could deliver a devastating blow upon enemy units when properly
employed. In context of current doctrine, the heavy cavalry would be kept almost
exclusively for decisive operations.
Typically heavy cavalry charges were used in conjunction with the artillery.
Following an artillery barrage, the heavy cavalry charged forward in mass in order to
penetrate enemy lines and exploit any tactical success. Napoleon also used his heavy
cavalry to counterattack any enemy cavalry assault.
In order to preserve the combat effectiveness of the heavy cavalry in battle, the
tasks of courier duty, screening, reconnaissance, and pursuit typically fell to lighter
cavalry units so that the heavy cavalry could be employed with maximum effectiveness at
the critical time in battle. Napoleon was even quoted as saying, “Under no consideration
shall cuirassiers be detailed as orderlies. This duty shall be done by lancers; even
generals shall use lancers. The service of communications, escort, sharpshooters, shall be
done by lancers.” The cuirassiers were also uniquely equipped. Their name derived from the metal
breastplate, cuirass, they wore. To further increase their survivability, Napoleon ordered
that a back plate be added to the cuirass as well as equipping these units with steel
helmets. The structural criteria for the breastplate was specified to be able to withstand
one shot “at long range.”16 While the cuirass did not necessarily prove effective against
musket fire at short range, it could withstand shots from pistols as well as attacks from
lances, sabers and bayonets. For offensive weapons the heavy cavalry troopers were
issued a longer straight sword for thrusting, two pistols, and either a musketoon or
carbine “so they could deal with small bodies of enemy infantry in villages or defiles.”17
The carabiniers a cheval were similarly equipped but did not wear armor, like the
cuirassiers until 1809. Originally known as the horse grenadiers, they were fitted with
carbines instead of pistols for the Danube Campaign of 1809. They did, however, have
the reputation of being hand picked and, therefore, the favored force, sometimes referred
to as royal pets. Needless to say they developed the attitudes to match.18
Although Napoleon’s heavy cavalry had the reputation of being well equipped
and provided for, they did have their drawbacks. With regard to cuirassiers, Napoleon
once stated, “One result of having men of large stature, is the necessity of large horses,
which doubles the expense and does not render the same service.” Because of the size
requirements for the horses, only large breeds were accepted into the regiments.
THE GOLDEN RULE: A frontal charge is always the least desirable form of attack and cavalry lone wolfing is seldom as rewarding as cavalry in numbers. Full frontal cavalry charges did happen during the Napoleonic wars, but, usually as either a last resort or in the confidence of victory. The results have always varied drastically. An example:QuoteMarshal Contades is reputed to have said bitterly after the battle: “I never thought to see a single line of infantry break through three lines of cavalry ranked in order of battle and tumble them to ruin.”
Minden: an iconic victory for the "Minden" Regiments who advanced to battle with white roses in their hats, plucked from the hedgerows, and repelled the attacks of French cavalry.
http://www.britishbattles.com/seven-years/minden.htm
My view is that there are so many factors (in real life battles) that can determine success or loss, that its impossible to factor them all into a game but for every scenario there are constantly differing outcomes. If your planning to do a full frontal charge then do it as a last act of an already won battle or a desperate attempt to save the battle from defeat, as any experienced infantry melee players will no doubt destroy your charge:QuoteIn conclusion, most cavalry vs. cavalry and cavalry vs. infantry interactions were probably decided before the two sides came into contact, but it is not improbable that at least some cavalry units were actually able to charge and come into contact with unbroken infantry. The greatest doubt lies in the who, the where, and the when--though it is clear that contact followed by hand-to-hand fighting between two unbroken lines was generally the exception among infantry-cavalry interactions, it is not an easy matter to decide how prevalent these exceptional cases were. I think nobody would disagree if I say that we still need a great deal more research before we can resolve that doubt. http://l-clausewitz.livejournal.com/141888.htmlQuoteHistorians such as John Keegan have shown that when correctly prepared against (such as by improvising fortifications) and, especially, by standing firm in face of the onslaught, cavalry charges often failed against infantry, with horses refusing to gallop into the dense mass of enemies[1], or the charging unit itself breaking up. However, when cavalry charges succeeded, it was usually due to the defending formation breaking up (often in fear) and scattering, to be hunted down by the enemy.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_%28warfare%29#cite_note-0
Napoleon saw that Murat would have to be cut free and ordered forward the
cavalry of the Guard. The guard cavalry smashed through everything, cutting a path for
Murat’s trapped cavalry to withdraw. The cost was heavy though. General Dahlmann,
Aide de Camp to Napoleon and previous commander of the Chasseurs of the Guard, was
killed. General Lepic, commander of the Guard Grenadiers, was wounded.45 Murat had
lost over 1,500 cavalry (either killed or wounded) in the assault. General D'Hautpoul,
who commanded the cuirassiers, was killed and General Grouchy was wounded.
Additionally, four regimental commanders were lost in what would become know as the
greatest cavalry charge of the Napoleonic wars.
http://www.jeux-histoire.fr/doc/MURPHY.pdf
Gomard lays it down as a principle, that
the most formidable antagonist an infantry
soldier can encounter is an infantry soldier;
that the bayonet is more formidable than
either the lance or the sabre. This assertion
may seem surprising, but trial will convince
any one of its truth, and of the consequent
fact that an infantry soldier who can parry
the attacks of a well-drilled infantry soldier
has nothing to fear from a cavalry soldier,
because simple variations of the parries
against infantry are perfectly effective against
the sabre and lance, e.g. the parries in high
tierce and high quarte.
The work of Gomard was translated by
the author of the present work about two
years ago, and taught by him to the noncommissioned
officers of the company of sappers
with which he was then on duty. The
non-commissioned officers soon became competent
to instruct the men, and the system
was in successful operation when the author
was relieved from duty with the company.
It will be proper to remark that any system
of fencing with the bayonet can, in service,
have its full and direct application
only when the men are isolated, or in very
open order; as, for instance, when employed
as skirmishers, in assaulting breaches, fieldworks,
or batteries, or when broken by cavalry,
etc. etc. When in the habitual formation,
as infantry of the line, the small interval
allowed each file, and the method of
action of masses, will prevent the possibility,
or necessity, of the employment of much
individual address; but even then, in the
shock of a charge, or when awaiting the attack
of cavalry, the men will surely be more
steady and composed, from the consciousness
of the fact that they can make good use of
their bayonets, and easily protect their persons
against everything but balls.
There is an instance on record of a French
grenadier, who, in the battle of Polotsk, defended
himself, with his bayonet, against the
simultaneous attack of eleven Russian grenadiers,
eight of whom he killed. In the battle
of Sanguessa, two soldiers of Abbe*'s division
defended themselves, with their bayonets,
against twenty-five Spanish cavalry, and,
after having inflicted several severe wounds,
rejoined their regiment without a scratch.
At that period there was little or no regular
instruction in the use of the bayonet.
The use of the arms is independent of the
use of the legs; the first is often sufficient to
reach the body of the adversary. There are
three methods of using the arms the thrust,
the lunge, the lunge-out.
Of these Uiree the thrust is the best, because,
since the hands retain their usual position
on the piece, the aim is more certain,
and the parry of a riposte easier; the thrust
should, therefore, be used whenever the disfance
of the antagonist will permit it.
The lunge reaches as far as the thrust with
the development; it is a very rapid and quite
sure blow far preferable to the lunge-out;
it, however, exposes the fencer to a quick
riposte, which would be difficult to parry,
especially on the outside.
The lunge-out reaches farther than either
of the preceding, but it throws the piece so
completely out of control, that it should only
be used against an antagonist who cannot
riposte, or is endeavoring to escape; it may
be used with advantage against the horse of
a cavalry soldier, to keep him at a distance.
Very nice thesis and information on it,
However what caught my eye was the psychological not physical, that was apparant throughout time. The Parthians required their cataphract infantry to smash the enemy infantry, they did not count on skill, instead they counted on the fact that there cavalry would unneerve the enemy enough that they would begin to rout thus smashing them, this diidnt work at Carrhae instead other tactics triumphed. Yet the same can be said for all battles, Ancient, Medieval and Napoleonic.
Whenever I'm playing a hussar I like to charge the enemy straightforward, like I'm just some newcomer who charges at people dead-on with his blade up, but then move sharply at the climax with a swing of the blade. Works almost every time even on skilled players (I'm sure this is common knowledge for good cav players)
Nice guide man :)