Napoleonic Cavalry charges

[sol_invictus]

Everything I have read about Eylau has said that essentially the battle was fought in almost blizzard conditions. Just reading about that battle makes me cringe at the abject misery that the soldiers must have felt.

[Le Tondu]

Jagger2002,

Not all of the battle was in blizzard conditions, hence the sudden opportunity for the Russian Grande Battery to destroy Augereau's Corps when the snow stopped falling.

I do not believe that it was blizzard conditions during Murat's famous charge at all. The very reason that Napoleon ordered Murat to charge the Russian center was that he saw the gap between St. Hilaire and Augereau. He wouldn't order his Cavalry Reserve to suffer the same fate as Augereau's Corps. Not in a gazillion years.

Another reason that supports the lack blizzard conditions during the charge was that the Russians sent forward their own cavalry to counter the charging French. They had to have seen them coming to do that.

This charge happened after the destruction of Augereau's Corps when the snow stopped. It was the greatest cavalry charge ever made during the Napoleonic Era.

From "Napoleon's Campaign in Poland, 1806-1807" by F. Loraine Petre:

"On rode the cuirassiers through the first line of infantry where one battalion, striving to resist by force this line of steel-clad warriors, was riddon over by them. Though the second line they forced their way. It was only when they had reached the reserves, standing with their backs to the Anklappen woods, that the charge had expended its force, after passing over 2500 yards."

[sol_invictus]

Good to know Le Tondu; it's been so long since I had read about that battle I guess my memory was faulty.

[bstarr]

I read somewhere that a cavalry charge could be pressed home, even if the enemy was in a square, due to the fact that a horse's eyesight is so poor. This source said that the failure of a cavalry charge was caused by the disorganizion of the ranks during the charge and/or the riders' lack of determination. I can't recall the source, but this doesn't seem to be entirely correct to me. However, it would seem that either a horse's eyesight or the discipline of the horse (as opposed to that of the rider) if it could see the obstacle would be a major factor in any mounted charge. A horse will balk at an obstacle, and a mass of enemy, line, column, or square, would be seen as an obstacle.
bs

[DavidI]

bstarr,
You're right. That source, whoever he is, knows not of what he speaks. A horse can see well enough to see if it is about to run into a wall, or square for that matter. If a rider tries to force a horse to run into a wall the horse will determine if he thinks he can jump over the wall/square and if he thinks he can't he will come to an abrupt halt, more than likely trying to get rid of the ass-hole on his back that is trying to get him to run into a solid object! Go to any stables in your neck of the woods and ask the instructors if you can get a horse to gallop, or even to walk, into a wall. After the instructor stops laughing, he will tell you "No".
Even in the pregunpowder era heavy cavalry with long lances had a hard time trying to break a solid infantry line, if the defending infantry held their ground and had weapons that could reach or out reach the cavalry's weapons. Scenes like that in "Braveheart" where horses leap into pike formations simply didn't happen - looks cool in the movie though.
The odds of cavalry breaking a solid square is pretty remote. That it did happen a few times is celebrated on almost every occasion as "boy you don't see that everyday". As long as the infantry holds it's formation and aggressively plugs any holes the cavalry will be dissapointed.
That said I have heard of horses accidentally falling into the face or corner of a square (dead on their feet and their mommentum carying them into the square, or rearing and falling over) with spectacullar results. Sometimes the holes get plugged, on others the cavalry forced themselves into square and then it was a very bad day for the infantry indeed.
DavidI

[bstarr]

I discussed this topic with a friend of mine over the weekend. He's a professional cowboy (no, not a bullrider; this guy's the real thing) and a fellow military history buff. He said he has one particular horse that would run into a square, wall, or whatever, but that this is due to trust and literally years of working the same horse. And even then, this is the exception - the rest of his horses would attempt to deposit him on the ground in a heartbeat. He agreed that there would be no way that this could be the norm.

He also agreed that the horse's eyesight theory was bullsh_t. I wish I could remember that source. Sounds like the history channel, they're known for making it up as they go.
bs

ps. My friend made one comment during our drunken conversation that really struck me as profound. He said that contrary to how it is in the movies, the best horses are the dumb ones - a smart horse will throw you when it's had enough, a dumb one doesn't know when to quit.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

In fact, there are a lot of historical testimonies of horses actually smashing into the enemy solid line. You can guess how that could be achieved, training, the excitation of battle, animals (chargers) selected by their agresivity (or dumbness) like cows are selected by the milk production, but the historical testimonies are plenty enough to rest assure it was done regularly.

[Le Tondu]

I've ridden horses. The thought of rushing at an enemy square with all of their bayonets pointing at you as you crash into them does not seem all that attractive.

I guess that could qualify as an early example for the Darwin Awards? [;)]

[DavidI]

Inaki,

"In fact, there are a lot of historical testimonies of horses actually smashing into the enemy solid line"... Really?
Could you name a few?[&:]
DavidI

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

Yes, iconographic and testimonies that shows cavalry charging even pikemen squares, for Napoleonic period I remember at the battle of Borodino, Zastrow cuirassiers taking the Raevsky redoubt according to Löwerstein account "trampling everything under the hooves of their horses and throwing themselves infuriatedly on the Russian masses behind...where the rest of the infantry calmly awaited them with levelled bayonets"

[Le Tondu]

Ah, there might be a language thing regarding that quote. By "throwing," does that mean that the horses actually impaled themselves upon the bayonets? I don't believe that they did. Horses are very smart. (I know because I once had the privilege of owning one.) There are quite a few stories of where horses wouldn't even step onto a body (dead or alive) while on the ground.

My take of that quote is that the Zastrow Cuirassiers went after the Russian masses after they did what they did at the Raevsky Redoubt. It is a stretch to say that they impaled themselves upon the Russian bayonets.

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

I am not advocating that they "impaled themselves" only that they did charge home. Realities of combat would be very variable, some horses would refuse, some Russian soldiers would panick, or just shy of thrusting their bayonets in a collision with a powerful horse fast moving against him (that is many times overlooked in this kind of discussions, the phisical impact on the foot soldier would be massive). What I am saying is that phisical contact was made many times, and it was regarded as a normal feature of battle, the same with infantry charges (that many advocate also were just a matter of one side breaking before contact) Instructions and Regulations for cavalry taught methods to attack infantry squares (attacks to be made simultaneously against a face and at least one corner, and in waves 150 yards apart to allow the first wave to retreat without disoredering those following. They were expected to close with infantry, but also not to be engaged, but to quicly retreat after first impact. In earlier periods, when cavalry fought with sword and pistol, instructions regularly emphasize that pistols be shot into the teeth of the enemy, not earlier, so they were also expected to close with enemy cavalry moving in opposite direction and in close ranks, boot with boot, phisical contact was unavoidable. In fact, battle chargers were a dangerby themselves, they fought each other in battle (even with those om their own side, beingdifficult many times to control) and they bite or trampled infantry. I remember for instance Steven Runciman quoting the fear they inspire on unarmoured turkish infantry, as a bite in the chest could easily rip it open, instantly killing a man.
I have rode horses as well for many years, and on their character the only think I can say is that they are as varied as people, there are gentle animals, and there are son of a B...

[DavidI]

I would suggest that 9 out of 10 time where you hear about cavalry making contact with infantry, it's because the infantry flinched, or was disordered to start with. It's kinda like infantry to infantry melees, frequently shown in paintings and in the movies but very rare on the battlefield. Usually one side or the other would break before actual contact was made. Bayonet wounds were usually seen in someone's back, although some fierce bayonet fights occured when the side that would have broke had no place to go (fortifications, buildings, etc.). So again it's a morale thing. If the infantry waivers, the cavalry is encouraged. If the infantry stands, the cavalry is demoralized and is more likely to baulk or wheel away. If cavalry charges routinely, physically, collided with formed infantry then squares would have been broken by cavalry charges all the time, which is simply not the case.
DavidI

[Iñaki Harrizabalagatar]

I agree that charges were mainly a morale contest, but I don´t think close physical fight was that very rare, after all before fire weapons most battles were solved in close quarters fight. Even in WW2 bayonet fight was not that unusual in the Eastern Front or the Pacific.
"If cavalry charges routinely, physically, collided with formed infantry then squares would have been broken by cavalry charges all the time, which is simply not the case" but infantry was not always formed in square, most of the times it was formed in line, and there are numerous testimonies of infantry beaten by cavalry in line, in which soldiers were not only cut down by enemy sabres, but also trampled and runnig over by horses, even infantry massed in division columns 9-12 ranks deep were susceptible to cavalry attack, like Thomières division at Salamanca. Of course cavalry was more reluctant to close on infantry in formed squares, but I don´t think you can´t doubt cavalry fought infantry at close quarters many times.
To sum up, I am well aware, as i posted earlier, that most casualties in battle were produced by musket shots, and that charges, like guns, were more a morale factor, but I think there is no doubt close quarters fight was relatively frequent.

[DavidI]

Inaki,
True enough. Cavalry hitting a line head on is not all that different than hitting a square, but hitting it on the flank would have been a far different affair, altogether (with lots of sword/lance casualties). Infantry defense against cavalry depended on terrain, formation and above all steadiness. Keep your ranks, point your bayonets (2 or 3 ranks deep) at the enemy and you'll probably be OK. Break your ranks and your likely to have a sword come down on your skull, or a lance in your back.
I think we are pretty close in our thinking on this one.
DavidI

[ahauschild]

Actuly a line formations front is not the same as a square formations front. Line formations are 2 or 3 man deep, but when forming square line ussuly double up in the square, making the particular sides front 4 to 6 or more man deep. Also men where kept inside a square to deal with horses that broke through, while line formations did not have this type of devense once a rider broke through the line.

There is a differnst in facing 2 guys deep, or facing 4 to 6 guys, with guys waiting for you once you make it past them. Squares where not invunerable, but they did perform better then average against discuraging the push by cav. Line formations where to thin, and to spread out to defend against a charge, they may succed, and I say they may, in taking down the first horse, but by then they have several more hacking at them, and once the cav broke thorugh any part of the line, they just roll it up any way they want.

Similar with colums, the frontal attack against a column would be nasty for cav, but they ussualy just flowed around the front, and then engagnged guys in the side and rear, guys that where not even aware what was happening untill the horses where on top of them.

Sure some cav charges where turned back by line volley fire, but ussuly only becuase the ground favored the line, or because that particular cav unit had an offday and did ot wish to push the atttack. Against a cav charge, if you are prepared, you had one volley, at 100 or less yards against a relative small target. Sure you could hit the horse, but it has been acounted that many a horses took musket or bayonet hits and still performed well for the duration of the battle.

[malcolm_mccallum]

With regards to the manuals dictating that Cavalry would close with the enemy as the norm, I think they had no choice but to order that.

I mean, they couldn't very well put it into the Orders and Regulations that cavalry was to looks menacing and threaten to close with infantry. The plan has to be to close and, perhaps more importantly, the infantry have to believe that they intend to close.

It may well have been common knowledge that a well ordered square could hold the enemy off but I assure you that the infantry in those squares were never quite so confident when a wall of horseflesh was moving toward them at speed. If they knew that the cavalry had written orders to never charge them it would have made them that much more determined to hold against them.

[Waldo_slith]

A lancer rgt (with lancers in the front rank) could and did break squares. The lance can outreach the bayonet. Once gaps appear in a square's side the cav can force their horses into the gaps and break up the square.

Another tactic was to have horse arty unlimber and grapeshot into the square. The remants could then be overrun by cav.

wp

[Moltke71]

In another form a few years ago, somebody posted actual incidents of squares breaking. The summary went like this:

1. Most occured when squares were badly formed.
2. A few times, the momentum of a mortally wounded horse would carry it into the square, making a gap. Exceptional but it did happen.

[Rosen]

Hi all

Just had to put in my 2 cents about cavalry tactics. The swedes during Great nothern wars (Yes i am swedish) used wedges. Every squadron operated independently and were put forming an arrow with the troopers touchin eachother "knee behind knee". The swedes didnt use the caracole as many others did at this time, they always charged there enemy (thats true for infantry too but its another story), anyway there charge made a single section of the infantry formation (or cavalry) feel chosen to be the first to fall and often waver and break just because of that threat and eventually a wave of demoralization to follow in the whole unit. The swedes often just had to cut the units down from behind.

Now say you use the same tactic with a cavalry line noone would feel "chosen" and the steadiness would be better since everyone had to put up a fight...

The zastrow Cuirassiers mentioned in this thread experienced the same thing when chargin home on the Russians behind the redoubt, i am sure of it...

Sorry if my english is bad

NR