Napoleonic Cavalry charges

[Jagger2002]

Have you ever wondered why Napoleonic cavalry charges are sometimes devastating and at other times, achieve absolutely nothing?

The battle of Waterloo offers several examples. Ney's series of huge cavalry attacks against Wellingtons squares achieved absolutely nothing except heavy cavalry loss. Yet the much smaller charge of the Scots Greys and company were able to completely devastate an entire division and more of French infantry.

When I look at examples of successful cavalry charges, it seems surprise at close range is the key element for a successful cavalry charge. Without surprise, infantry has time to complete a square and is almost invulnerable to a cavalry charge. The square may suffer heavy loss to artillery or skirmishers but without rare luck, cavalry is not going to break the square.

Surprise can occur in a variety of instances. Snow or battlesmoke can reduce visibility and suddenly cavalry is upon unformed infantry in a matter of moments. Or a unit is completely focused on a firefight and doesn't notice cavalry maneuvering to their flank until it is too late. Other examples exist of attacking formations advancing when hidden cavalry suddenly emerges at close range from a hidden defile or from behind a ridge-some cover which kept them hidden until close charge range was achieved.

In all these cases, either the infantry doesn't have time to form square or suffers a panic as they realize they are in mortal danger with only a slight opportunity of forming square. And it happened more often than I initially realized. Every major battle I have looked closely at has examples of sucessful cavalry charges.

What is the danger zone for infantry. I think a lot depends on the experience of the infantry unit. A confident, well drilled unit may be able to form a square quicker than an inexperienced unit. An inexperienced unit may not be able to judge whether they have the time to form a square with enemy cavalry approaching from close range and simply panic. So if a cavarly unit suddenly appears out of the smoke at 200 yds, would even an experienced unit have time to form a square or would the sudden shock of mortal danger cause the unit simply to disintegrate????

Any comments on why and how Napoleonic cavalry was successful or not in battle?

[rich]

Well, you've already pointed out that cavalry was most effective when it could catch infantry by surprise, especially if the infantry were caught in flank/rear when already engaged to the front, or if they were in the middle of changing formation. Smoke from black powder firearms could often allow cavalry to get close before the infantry realized they were under threat.

The usual tactic was to use artillery to soften up the enemy infantry, then attack with infantry, keeping the cavalry in reserve safely out of range/sight of the enemy guns. Then, when the enemy infantry had suffered lots of casualties, was highly fatigued and their morale was shattered, this would be the optimal time to send in the cavalry to finish them off and pursue them once they rout.

Alternatively, use cavalry to threaten the enemy infantry into square and then blast the squares from just outside effective musket range with horse artillery. Infantry in column might also be brought up to assault the enemy infantry while the cavalry kept them pinned in squares. Basically, combined arms tactics work the best.

Of course a third (really the primary) use of light cavalry was to scout, skirmish with their enemy counterparts and get round the enemy flanks to cut off their supplies and lines of communication. Light cavalry might be used on the battlefield itself, but was generally too valuable to waste - better to keep them fresh ready to pursue the defeated enemy and turn a retreat into a complete rout. In contrast the role of heavy cavalry was to shatter the enemy line, preferably after it had been weakened sufficiently by artillery and infantry.

Wargamers often waste their cavalry, sending it against the enemy line too early, before it's been sufficiently weakened. At Waterloo, Ney thought that the enemy were in retreat and that the time was ripe to finish them off, but in fact they were just pulling back to a better position to avoid suffering unnecessary losses from the French artillery.

[sol_invictus]

Cavalry did seem to be tricky to use. It all depended on the timing and coordination; and this was difficult. The difference between a devastatingly effective charge and a devastating failure could be a matter of minutes. Of course terrain and weather played a big role as well as surprise and the steadiness of the infantry being charged. That's what I find so fascinating about the Napoleonic era, the tactical intricacies.

[Capt Cliff]

I think the problem was that unsupported cavalry charges failed while supported, i.e. with infantry or artillery helping, succeeded. Davout beat Blucher at Aurastadt (sp), Blucher thru his unsupported cavalry against the French squares and got beat. Ney got hosed the same way, but then Ney was not firing on all cylinders at Waterloo. The Brit charges worked at Waterloo because they fell on D'relon before his infantry could go into square, but the French cavalry counterattack took out the Brit cavalry, but the damage had been done.

[sol_invictus]

Agreed, it seems that the entire French army was off it's game at Waterloo. Besides for being well past his prime, Napoleon was sick and Ney just seems to have lost all emotional balance. Imagine if the French cavalry had been under the control of Murat and Davout had either been at Waterloo or commanding the pursuit of the Prussians. Of course, many French problems were certainly magnified by going up against a military master such as Wellington.

[Roads]

I don't think that surprise is the key factor for a sucessful cavalry charge, rather, as already suggested, it was the use of combined arms. Cavalry unsupported was largey ineffective, and the failure of Ney's charge at Waterloo had more to do with the lack of any infantry reserves at the time. (Other than the old guard of course.) The really sucessful cavalry charges had strong support from infantry and artillery - Murat at Eylau being a good example.

Cavalry was useless if disciplined infantry could get into square formation. But in for infantry in line or column cavalry was irresistable. The point was to use infantry and artillery to keep the enemy infantry from forming square.

As an aside, the failure of the Prussian cavalry at Auerstadt was hardly Blucher's fault.

[Le Tondu]

I believe the soft and muddy gound helped to greatly slow down Ney's cavalry "charge" at Waterloo. Add in having to go uphill just to get to get to the Allied line, don't think it was doomed from the very beginning?

[sol_invictus]

I agree that surprise was not one of the main criteria for whether a cavalry charge succeeded or not; but it certainly could be a factor. There is one example from Waterloo actually, where a Belgium unit I believe, received the order to form square but the order was countermaned. This allowed the French cavalry to approach the unit while still in line. Once the approaching danger was realized, it was to late. The unit was cut up very badly. No doubt, unsupported cavalry charges had a slim chance of success.

[Le Tondu]

Surely, we can all remember Marengo when the cocky Austrian Grenadiers (and the rest of the Austrian Armee) thought they had it "in the bag."

[Jagger2002]

If we are talking about cavalry vs infantry, I still believe surprise is probably the major factor in a successful cavalry charge against infantry.

It has been a few years, but I remember noting every case I could find of cavalry overrunning infantry in several different battles. In looking at the different examples, surprise was the most predominant common element. Surprise prevented infantry from forming square or caused a panic. Without surprise, infantry will form square. And only once in a blue moon will cavalry break a square.

Mixed attacks of cavalry, infantry and/or artillery can be very successful against infantry. But those types of mixed assaults are also rare. I think the rarity is due to the difficulty of effectively coordinating mixed formations of infantry, cavalry and horse artillery in close proximity to enemy forces. Artillery and infantry need clear lanes of fire. Once committed to a firefight, infantry is very difficult to maneuver and control. Cavalry needs open lanes of attack clear of friendly fire and troops to effectively charge or even threaten to charge. All this coordination makes a mixed assault very difficult to pull off in a chaotic, smoke filled battlefield against an enemy with their own intentions. I suspect the easiest combined assault involves cavalry and horse artillery of the same command. But how many cases do you find of even this type of attack occuring? How many squares of infantry are decimated by horse artillery and then finally overrun by a cavalry charge?

I would suggest looking very closely at several detailed battle accounts such as any of the numerous Waterloo accounts or Scotty Bowdens Austerlitz or Nafzingers Leipzip or whatever you can find. How many genuine cases of coordinated mixed attacks do you find? How often do you find infantry forced into square due to cavalry and then hit by artillery or infantry? Those types of attacks occured, but not often at all. And while looking at these cavalry vs infantry actions, note the circumstances of every case of infantry overrun by cavalry.

Now compare your numbers. How many cases do you find of infantry overrun by cavalry due to surprise vs the number overrun by cavalry due to mixed assaults? You might be surprised by the results.

[sol_invictus]

Agreed, just try to pull off a textbook Infantry/Cavalry/Artillery attack in Sid's Waterloo or Austerlitz game. This gives a good idea how difficult it is to maneuver and control such an assault, and it would be many times more difficult in a real battle.

I've read of several examples of Horse Artillery following Cavalry and being effective when used in combination, so again I agree, this was probably the most used tactic.

[Jagger2002]

One other point I forgot to mention.

Counterattacking cavalry vs advancing infantry seems to result in far more successful charges than charges against stationary defending infantry. It appears much easier to catch advancing infantry by surprise as well as disorganized.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

In Napoleonic battles infantry fire did most of the killing, however battles were not about killing, but about routing armies, most of the casualties in a defeated army were POWs and MIAs. In that regard, cavalry, as infantry when using bayonet, and to some extent artillery (especially cannon balls) were morale weapons, their mission to shock the enmy and rout it. In that regard, anything that helped to shcok the enemy was a bonus, and surprise was no doubt one of those things.

[Le Tondu]

Jagger2002,

The study that you are suggesting is more along the lines of a graduate degree thesis. One would have to examine each and every cavalry charge during the French Revolutionary Wars and the Napoleonic Era to get an answer that isn't fatally subjective. Surprise played a part in some of them for sure.

Iñaki Harrizabalagatar,

I agree with you when you say that it was more about routing the enemy as opposed to killing the enemy. That is a point that most game designers miss big time.

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: Le Tondu
I agree with you when you say that it was more about routing the enemy as opposed to killing the enemy. That is a point that most game designers miss big time.

This is captured quite well in MTW (in which morale plays a big part):

Once the enemy is weakened/threatened by flank attack by infantry charges, and starts to rout, one would send in the cavalry to cause panic and force the enemy to break and run, at which time the cavalry pursues the enemy, inflicting lots of casualties.

If I remember correctly, at Waterloo, Napoleon had to wait several hours before he wanted to attack the British, due to bad weather (and soggy ground). This gave the Prussians the badly needed time to come to Wellington's aid.

[Forward_March]

The problem is that eventually almost anything could happen. During the 1813 campaign, French cavalry were able to break a Prussian square. Mainly this was due to the fact that rain kept the Prussian muskets from firing.

On another occasion in the same year, Prussian infantry actually made a bayonet charge against some French Cavalry. This act was actually immortalised by some German artist...though I can't remember his name.

We could really be difficult to please us old grogs

[Le Tondu]

ORIGINAL: Forward_March

The problem is that eventually almost anything could happen. During the 1813 campaign, French cavalry were able to break a Prussian square. Mainly this was due to the fact that rain kept the Prussian muskets from firing.

On another occasion in the same year, Prussian infantry actually made a bayonet charge against some French Cavalry. This act was actually immortalised by some German artist...though I can't remember his name.

We could really be difficult to please us old grogs

I believe that much happened that simply wasn't recorded and if we were able to examine it all, I bet we'd find that it all happened more frequently than most imagine right now.

Infantry charging cavalry was part of the doctrine of the "cult of the bayonet" for the French in their Revolutionary Wars.

I were the commander of an infantry battalion and I saw a nearby regiment of blown cavalry retiring at the walk, I would send my troops against it, assuming that they could do it safe enough. For a game designer to simply say that infantry could never be allowed to do that , is ludicrous.

[Tim Coakley]

There are always extraordinary events in military history that get caught up in the "myth" of warfare.

I think inf charging cav and breaking squares falls into this. It did happen, but it was such an uncommon event that it sticks in the minds of the participants and gets recorded for posterity.

Great discussion...I am a cavalry kind of guy so I find this all very interesting.

Tim

[9thlegere]

Surprise is undoubtably a huge factor, even the best infantry in the world could be smashed by cavalry- See the charge of the Vistula lancers and 2nd Hussars at Albuera. British infantry caught in line just as a hail storm comes down, the result was arguably one of the most destrcutive cav charges of the war. As the first 3 btns of Colbornes brigade were caught in line they got broken but the furthest away battalion formed square and the charge pettered out. THe element of surprise was gone and so the charge ended.

However, one of the most famous and succesful cavalry attacks was Murats "charge" at Eylau. 10,000 vet French cav breaking through the russian lines to save Napoloeon from certain defeat. They did not so much surprise the Russians here but made excellent use of horse artillery and the much forgoten fact that most of the French cav was mounted on excellent, newly captured Prussian chargers.

Surprise was certainly useful for cav charges but not always necessary.

[Jagger2002]

Didn't Murats charge occur in heavy snowfall?

If so, I wonder how many Russian battalions had no idea what was going on until Murat's cavalry was on top of them.