Page 1 of 1

Heavy vs. Light Cavalry

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:10 am
by GaryChildress
Knowing nothing about the Napoleonic period, what was the difference between light and heavy cavalry? Did they use different weapons? [&:]

Thanks.

RE: Heavy vs. Light Cavalry

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 12:59 am
by xriz
I think it was a combination of outfitting, horse size/breed and how they were used
 
Heavy Cavalry were still armored with Cuirass (brest plate) and were given bigger horses, think Clydesdales vs. Mustangs and used or expect to use lances and charge enemy formations when needed along with swords.
 
Light Cavalry were un armored and given the lighter horses so they could ride faster and were used mainly as scouting, they were proably not issued lances and not realy expected to charge enemy formations but to attack lightly defened rear troops with sword and maybe musket, in this game artillary or damaged infantry are the best targets.

RE: Heavy vs. Light Cavalry

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:23 am
by berthier
xriz is correct. The sole purpose of "heavy" cav was to break the enemy in battle. These cavalry were typically cuirassiers, heavy dragoons, etc. They were expensive to outfit and to maintain, took a long time to train but were devastating on the battlefield if used correctly. Light cav served multiple roles. They were used for scouting, skirmishing, screening the main armies movements from enemy observation, raiding, escort duties, pretty much everything. On the battlefield they were placed on the flanks in battle to watch the flanks, scout for enemy outflanking moves and to maintain contact with other formations. They could be used in the main battle line for pursuit of beaten formations or even thown in to charges - pretty much jack of all trades. Lancers are an interesting one. the French didn't have a lot (Russians had Cossacks who carried lances and Prussinas had Uhlans) and they were mainly used by them towards the end of the period. They had the famous polish lancers but also some line units which were present at Waterloo and did a lot of damage to the British cav who they counter charged once the British heavies had become "blown"...I could go on.....
daniel

RE: Heavy vs. Light Cavalry

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:36 am
by berthier
Ok so I will, in 1800 in France a cuirassier's horse cost 300F, a dragoon's 200F and light cav horses about 100F. In Austria to equip a cuirassier cost 3300crowns, a hussar 2800 and an infantryman 200. 

RE: Heavy vs. Light Cavalry

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 5:11 pm
by Capt. Harlock
ORIGINAL: xriz

Light Cavalry were un armored and given the lighter horses so they could ride faster and were used mainly as scouting, they were proably not issued lances and not realy expected to charge enemy formations but to attack lightly defened rear troops with sword and maybe musket, in this game artillary or damaged infantry are the best targets.

Mind you, it's best to charge artillery from the side rather than going down the throat of the guns -- think Charge of the Light Brigade. (Which was originally supposed to go down a neighboring valley and hit the Russian position from the side.)

RE: Heavy vs. Light Cavalry

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:49 pm
by Adam Parker
Light Cavalry:



Image

RE: Heavy vs. Light Cavalry

Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 6:57 pm
by GaryChildress
I take it they employed dwarfs and midgets then. [:D]

RE: Heavy vs. Light Cavalry

Posted: Mon Oct 27, 2008 8:23 am
by Gloo
And a fierce one for sure ! [:D]