Search Results for 'cuirassier'

[OotKust]

A consequential follow up, to the post I made recently on the French army about horses and their care:

OotKust wrote:

Reading through parts of ‘Alombert P. C., Colin J. : « La campagne de 1805 en Allemagne’

Lieven in his book cites a similar response to the loss of so many horses under the Tsars regime in 1813 as well, But first some background to the new ‘orders’.

In 1813–14 the Russian cavalry got its horses from a number of sources. The Field Army requisitioned or even occasionally bought a few horses in the countries through which it marched: its finest coup was to grab part of the King of Saxony’s stud. In the spring of 1813, however, Alexander ordered that no more cavalry horses were to be purchased abroad, since they were far cheaper in Russia. All cavalrymen in the Field Army whose horses were lost were to be sent back to Kologrivov to receive new mounts and help in the formation of reserve squadrons.[53]

A small number of the horses acquired in Russia came from the state’s own studs, both in the winter of 1812–13 and subsequently. These were fine animals but most were reserved for the Guards cuirassiers and dragoons.[54]

A far larger number of horses were bought by the regiments’ remount officers, in other words by the normal peacetime process. On their own, however, the remount officers could never have satisfied the hugely increased wartime demand. In addition, the price of horses went through the roof.55 In September 1812 Alexander sent the head of the internal security troops, Evgraf Komarovsky, to levy horses in lieu of recruits in the provinces of Volhynia and Podolia. He secured more than 10,000 cavalry horses – sufficient for fifty full-strength squadrons – from the two provinces.

As a result the scheme was extended to the whole empire, with Komarovsky in charge. In time he sent General Kologrivov a further 37,810 horses.
In addition, beginning in the winter of 1812–13, the governors bought 14,185 horses for Kologrivov’s cavalry. These huge numbers illustrate Russia’s wealth in horses, especially when one recalls that they do not include the great number of animals acquired for the army’s artillery and baggage trains.[56]

“In addition to acquiring new horses, the army made great efforts to preserve the ones it already had.
In December 1812 Kutuzov ordered cavalry commanders to ‘remove all ill, wounded or very thin horses from the cavalry and settle them in Chernigov province once communications with it reopen’.[57]

This policy of resting and rehabilitating horses in depots established behind the lines was to continue until the army reached Paris in 1814.
What percentage of horses was detached in this first wave is impossible to say but it was certainly considerable. The 2nd Cuirassier Division alone sent away 164 horses out of a total of well under 1,000 and there is no reason to think it was untypical.” [58]

*58 A. Grigorovich, Istoriia 13-go dragunskago voennago ordena general-fel’dmarshala Grafa Minikha polka, 2 vols., SPB, 1907 and 1912, vol. 2, pp. 32–3. Even in late October (OS) the five cuirassier regiments of this division had barely 1,000 other ranks present.

So despite appearances, and often over descriptive text about the abundance of Russian cavalry in battle naratives, they had an equally difficult position keeping regiments mounted.

Food for thought on all those full strength units we see!
cheers -d

[Whirlwind]

@Sane Max,

For your small army, to do it really quickly, I would ignore:

Hungarian Infantry, Hussars, Uhlans, Grenzers

And include:

‘German’ Infantry, Landwehr in greatcoats, Jaegers, Cuirassiers, Dragoons, Light Horse, Artillery

 

[Patrice]

Andrew Beasley wrote:

Maybe its a sign of age but going back to my youth

Going back to my youth, the Airfix Napoleonic British Hussars were much larger than the Airfix Napoleonic French Cuirassiers and it was the same company. 😉

Not Connard Sage wrote:

And don’t get me started on feckin’ “factions”.

Excellent! 😉

Some years ago I had to search the meaning of the word “posse”. It’s an educational hobby.

http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/

[willz]

Finished this cavalry regiment today Prussian Leibregiment 3rd cuirassiers.
I did not paint the eagles, cypher details and the sash on the crossbelts as less is more
when painting these figures.
Not sure if I am happy with the gloves, may repaint those bits.

[Tony S]

A gift of painted Cuirassiers from your children!  I’m going to mention this idea to mine…

Looks like a fun project.  Best of luck!  I’m currently trying to decide my next venture, as I’m almost finished my current one.

And I actually enjoy reading your annual summations of your year past.  Looking forward to it!

[OotKust]

Hi Norm

Well it’s your plan, so good luck. 😀
[ Edit- sorry if this comes across preachy or nasty- I’m just sorting factoids from fibroids so to speak… ]

We have local adherents to the NT rules as well, but I haven’t played them.

However “though 2 units are compulsory Cossack troops“, stymies my compliance quotient big time. As a troop type -25% of the force- impossible. Their presence was far less in this early era, but they were there at every battle.
Such mandatory factoring is a double abstract- not taking into account that campaign predation reduced many units strengths. Presence and ‘effective’ are not the same thing.

Secondly I would not class Grenzer as ‘Levy’- they were full time Border troops with classic partisan engagement skills; the ‘fit’ into the KuK being a political football anyway made worse when Anglicised by history. They lived an active defence lifestyle and were not weak-kneed townies called out from their bourgois militia to fight…

As to the Italians being worse, one could say they were. But when properly led, were just as effective as French. I don’t like the ‘factoring’ of troops by type much.

French and Austrian cuirassiers had armour, Russians of this period did not. It is the way they are handled/ shepherded than their ‘status’ that matters. They all thought they were better than the enemy…

As frequently pointed out, French were ‘massed’ and charged opportunely, whilst Austrians were used piecemeal except for major engagements before 1807. These ‘book armies’ lose such distinctions in their form.

I think you will want additional units to vary the play, otherwise you are doomed to chess-like submission.

cheers -d

[OotKust]

I read, with not a little bemusement… the latest “Jonas De Neef’s Napoleon Chronicles’ article at https://napoleonchronicles.wordpress.com/2023/11/22/recollections-on-the-battle-of-austerlitz-by-captain-ballue/

Given the rather poor composition and well intended but errored ‘facts’ of the day by the memoirist, I myself would not place any weight on it or have even exposed it as a ‘thing’ of value.

The composition is shown to be based on a redacted text, parts of the original. That he could see anything more than Suchets actions, and Claparedes, plus the cuirassiers as he describes the armor, is to me unlikely.

Could he have seen further, as busy as his Division was with Bagration or Grand-Duke Konstantines cavalry, I doubt it? Soults Corps was near 2-3 kilometres distant obliquely from Lannes.

Even the reference to Marshal Moncey is wrong, whose countenance N. was soothing with baubles, was not present in the campaign.

“But the enemy leaned against the hill and, without breaking up, managed to pass through a defile with great loss, as it was blasted by our artillery.”

May be a description of Bagrations withdrawl over the Rausnitz slope and out of sight. Did the French have the artillery duel all their own way? No!

Both a pair of Austrian reserve 12 pounder batterlies, plus Yermelev and his Russian Horse company, fixed Lannes Corps in place from any active pursuit late in the day from the high ground thus deployed. Only the working of the associated Kellermans light cavalry around the weakness of Bagrations right flank caused his retirement.
[ Edit ] That and his own observation that his left flank, or the ‘Centre’ as it is commonly reported, was withering away and before 4pm I think, retiring (the Russian BodyGuard -not Austrians) over the reverse slope on the way back to Austerlitz Castle. Thus once again, the Avant-Garde became a Rear Garde for the defeated armies of the Emperors…

Both Lannes and to an extent the ‘Reserve’ Heavy Cavalry Corps (Murat) were spent entities by then, almost.

de Neef wrote “Or, as many memorialists do, he might have gotten the sequence of events wrong. In Ballue’s case when he wrote this, the battle of Austerlitz took place 10 years ago (sic).” He meant ‘earlier’ I’m sure.

So a POW wrote his memoires, got  bit wrong, published somewhere? Hard to tell the truth from the rhetoric and heresay. It doesn’t seem personal as much as a memorial to the Empire. I wonder what he might have written about Spain and then 1813? But not a lot…

-d

[OotKust]

I am wondering if this is a ‘Foremost Range’ figure, and not the Hinchliffe stable? Anyone?? Bueller???

More pics here:-

http://IMG_6078_ c1980_ Cuirassier General_Special Command Figures 03-4_©dww 2022.

I ask because he isn’t listed/ shown in the great Hinchliffe Catalogue of 1974?? ish,,
-dave

[Hwiccee]

Whirlwind wrote:

 I am still thinking through the implication of Swedish brigades, Dutch-order cavalry and Harquebusiers possessing ‘Defensive Fire’ whilst musket-armed regiments and Dragoons don’t but hey, other people know much more about this period than me and happy to roll with this for the time being. It is more important to get the mechanics right and then calibrate to taste, anyway.

I thought you might be interested in why musket armed foot/dragoons don’t get this but the Swedish Brigades, Dutch Style cavalry and Harquebusiers do. The key thing here is the ‘do’s’ use a short high volume of fire as part of their tactics while the ‘don’t’ use a steady but low volume of fire.

So at the time for infantry the standard tactics for foot was for 1 rank of the 6 to 12 ranks to fire standing up and then pass through the unit to the rear. They would then reload and shuffled forward as the other ranks fired & themselves went to the back. So a steady low number of shots. This is usually called ‘counter march’ firing. When charged the units would perhaps get a few ranks firing, depending on how far away the charge was away when it started, how efficient they were, etc. So maybe 1 to 3 of the 6 to 12 ranks might fire.

Foot that have ‘defensive fire’ do things differently. They could fire like above but against charges they would fire a salvo/volley. So Swedish Brigades were in 6 ranks and they would close up to 3 ranks by using the gaps that normally allowed the fires to move to the back to reload to squeeze 6 ranks into 3 ranks. In 3 ranks the ranks would kneel/stoop/rearrange themselves so that all of them could fire. They would then do so in a, hopefully, devastating single firing by all the musketeers that would stop the charge dead. So a lot heavier fire and a ‘shock’ effect compared to ‘normal’ firing.

So ‘ordinary’ musket armed foot and dragoons do ‘counter marching’ and are just as effect as similar units with ‘defensive fire’ but they don’t have the ability to do that tactic if charged.

It was a similar story with the cavalry. Most of the cavalry of the time fired as part of a charge and counter charged if attacked. The exact details on how this was done varied but the following is perhaps a good example. So the ‘other’ cavalry would fire as part of the move forward in a charge or counter charge. Typically just the front rank of 3 or more ranks of cavalry would fire, more or less on the move, a pistol or maybe 2 as part of the charge. Dutch style cavalry and Harquebusiers didn’t do this. Instead they don’t counter charge, at least initially, and they are trying to use ‘mass firepower’ to stop the charge dead. So they would stand their ground and try to get more than one rank to fire by. In addition each soldier would fire his carbine and 2 or more pistols against the attackers. So hopefully more ranks would fire and each rank would fire more than in other types of tactics. Once again a substantially higher volume of fire compared to ‘normal’ which would, hopefully, stop the attack dead.

If the fire worked for the Dutch Style/Harquebusier what they did next varied. For the Dutch Style cavalry it would now be time for them to charge/counter charge the previous attackers who were now hopefully standing in disorder in front of them. The Harquebusiers were generally different as they were intend to be ‘support troop’ to other types, typically Cuirassiers. So in a perfect world they would never engage in close combat. If their fire stopped a charge there should, in theory, be a friendly Cuirassier or other unit nearby to deliver the final blow.

I hope that makes sense? So in short while most units of the time use firing as part of their combat techniques but these use short periods of high firepower.

Finally on your last comment on ‘calibrating to taste’ this is something you should certinly do generally and in this specific case. So for this if you think a standard musket armed or dragoon unit, or indeed any unit,in a particular battle ot scenario can do something like this then please give them ‘defensive fire’. They certainly could have learnt to do it but generally didn’t at this time.

[OotKust]

BTW-
Minifigs Horses- Adapting and Utilising. © dww 2021-23. All Rights Reserved.

See the full catalogue album by DaveW, on Flickr.

Important Note
For the illustrations I have teken myself rather than annotating all the pics the number of the scale ruler cutting mat nearest the horses head is the same as their ‘N’ number in catalogue-  N being for Napoleonic of course, not Horse!

Also note that the ‘A’ variant (for Alternative?) horse are not all the same pose type either. A very few are ‘reversed’ as to poses.

Part Two – Commanders, Other Officers and Regimental Officers and ADC’s.

I’m being cautious and not heading these as ‘Generals’ horses, as while that is one area of application, and perhaps singlely important in games, there are many other types of ‘officer’ abundant in the period who utilised identical or close looking equipment. Some are associated by type or by ‘regiment’.
This is where your own individual research comes into play.

While humans like to adopt the notion that once things are ‘made’ there is an unbroken continuum, this period shows us that nothing, not even cast in stone (or lead in this case) is ‘fixed’ forever.

While several of the most useful and popular officers horses are given earlier, we’ll touch here on a wider variety. However let’s start with the easiest first.

N 33 Napoleon’s Horse, a much gilded horse blanket and decoration that is useful for him (original seen in Musée d’ armée), but also other senior, meaning Marshals and ‘dignitaries’, or commanders-in-chief.

http://IMG_4908_ N33_H]

Yes I have an unused one left!

With a suitably dark crimson colouration (they were not scarlet) and a toning down of the fringes and lace, any commander-in-chief can use these to differentiate them from subordinate generals.

The fringes can be slightly filed down gently, or even ‘filled-in’ with modelling putty to a degree that makes them less ostentatious.

Now, looking at both the catalogue and range of horses, you will note that Minifigs, rather bizarrely I think, doesn’t specify many ‘Generals’ horses to use.

Yes they do make a ‘recommendation’ in the print catalogue, but who apart from me uses one?

Sure you can do your own research etc. but still strange that given the development of our hobby, so much is supplied ‘ready to go’ except identification of these important animals. So what to do?

Well thankfully we are covered.
So what do ‘plain generals’ use? Well it’s not exact as the French design but so close no-one will know- the classic N 6 British Officer Heavy Cavalry (Holster/Walking) and N 6A British Officer Heavy Cavalry (Holster/Standing)- see next photo below for N6A.

N 6A British Officer Heavy Cavalry (Holster/Walking)
[https://flic.kr/p/2kCVwFN]IMG_4910_N6_H.

It is a smaller horse blanket, classic two (double) tiered holster caps with lace.
Note that Minifigs didn’t make the ‘A’ variant an exact copy of the ‘N6′ per note above!

N 6A British Officer Heavy Cavalry (Holster/Standing) and N 12 Variant
[https://flic.kr/p/2kCRXBQ][/url]IMG_4905_N6A-N12_H.

While Minifigs recommends N 12 French Officer Dragoon/ Cuirassier/ Carabinier horse (see below) with triple tiered holster caps for ‘Generals’, this really only applies to a smaller proportion, and later period subset of them. Shown here with comparative N6A type.

So this N6/ 6A are the go-to horses for most French Generals, commanders, regimental officers and most of the ‘staff’ known as ‘Etat-Major’ across the structure of armies-

as Chiefs of Staff,
their assistants Adjutant-Commandants (renamed by Consul Bonaparte from Adjutant-General (a term that lead to much confusion apparently),
and their staff subordinate officers or ‘Adjoints’, and the various (unless depicting ‘corps’ type dress) supporting bodies and corps.

But like having a single figure to represent a lot of generals it does get tedious looking at them. So N 6A British Officer Heavy Cavalry (Holster/Standing) presents, as noted a standing horse suitable for the variety and need for ‘support’ officers.

The distinction between the two is the design of the horse blanket being longer and more pointed corners, with distinctive double row of lace not shown on the ‘N6′. Add corner lace embellishments depending upon your period of depiction.

Adjoints would come to be treated similarly to the ‘Aide-de-camp’ corps and use more of the N15/16 Cavalerie legere type of equipment by regulations*. [*Noting that regulations could and were completely disregarded where expense or distance became factors].

It is useful for mainly cavalry generals and the staff- the ‘Reserve’ made up of Cuirassier regiments; Dragoon brigades and Divisions; and the all important ‘corps’ of La Garde Imperiale, where every regiment was commanded by a General officer* (certainly from 1806), while some senior ranks of their cavalry regiments also used them. A rather mixed bag (more to follow on this). Again I prefer to show commanders in more static poses than galloping around the field!

To drive home the ‘differences’ you can choose to paint out or not paint the second layer/ line of lace depicted by the N6A to downgrade the effect.

Conversely this horse is useful also for trumpeters and officers of the Garde ‘Grenadiers’. Why? Because I believe they erred in their research when they recommend an associated horse, N 13 French Officer Empress Dragoon/Horse Grenadier.

http://IMG_4906_N13_H

This horse is similar to the N12 horse, but with curved triple tiered holster caps instead of angular.
Now, this is the correct horse type for Guard “Empress Dragoon” officers as specified after about 1807/08 (even though the regiment was raised (two squadrons only mounted) are an 1806 development), and according to period artwork were initially supplied with dark green coloured Grenadiers á Cheval twin holsters. Also the Gendarme de l’elite officers used them.

It was also used, in the Consular/ early-Empire for Guard Generals- this may be inferred from the Minifigs ‘Officers’ wording but I’m not sure.

It appears from 21stCentury research that many early/ copied illustrations confused ‘regimental’ and General officers, and thus manufacturers have done the same. While various ‘regimental’ equipment was used, and changed, Generals and ‘staff officers’ also used ‘some’ attributes of the regiments they commanded.

In the discussion around schabraques and holsters the Grenadiers á Cheval, and Gendarmes de l’elite (from 1804 in the Guard establishment but also as used by the ‘line’ corps)- for the former used the angular form, and the latter the round ones.

Whether this ‘cross-over’ occurred deliberately or accidentally as a matter of records made later I’m unsure. The former corps used gold and aurore distinctives; the latter silver and white.

(Both these will be addressed in the ‘Heavy Cavalry’ section later.

N 3 British Officer, Life Guard/Heavy Dragoon
http://IMG_4909_N3_H

Another horse useful for lower echelon generals and many regimental officers and ADCs is the N 3 British Officer, Life Guard/Heavy Dragoon. This was a particularly common form by the French during the Revolution and Consular periods, and possibly earlier. So keep these in mind!

Consisting of a standard horse blanket and single holsters, a demi-schabraque of partial sheepskin was applied over the holsters providing a waterproof cover to them.

You can paint them more or less fancy, or increase the sheepskin cover as a ‘demi-schabraque’ as they were noted by Rousselot, I think.

Another early era version is made in the form of a ‘troopers type’ N 5 British Heavy Cavalry (Holster), similar to the officers with N6/6A.

http://IMG_4914_N5_H

Plain horse blanket with single ‘old fashioned’ holster cover. In this case I’ve used one for my 1805 Cuirassiers (trompette 12eme Regiment) who utilised a vast array of extant stores and material inventory left over from the later Revolution and Consular periods. Or at least so we were led to believe before now. Clarification perhaps, in waiting… till 2024.

The core ‘12′ Cuirassier regiments under the Empire organised as army ‘Reserve’ divisions from 1803 integrated both men, stores and equipment from all their ‘Cavalry’ regiment predecessors while others converted to Dragoons, taking their ‘stores’ with them.
As items were replaced and revised under a more diligent Empire from 1804 onwards, so these regimental variations faded from view.

The horse equally fits in for regimental officers or ADCs to generals of all kinds and corps. ADCs were often just seconded ‘regimental’ officers on assignment, at first at least, and thus took their ‘regulation horses’ with them. While others were permanent and adopted the decorative ‘dress’ regulations that became the vogue.

Nevertheless a useful variant for most in this category. Notwithstanding touching on the heavy cavalry here, the next section deals with these more comprehensively.

Finally, to finish with another commanders ‘special’ as we started, the ultimate in wealth and decadence I guess is the tiger skin-
N 32 Murat or other Marshalls (sic).
While I have no use for a Murat, I’ve given my 30 yr old painted version to the officer commanding my Mamelukes compagnie.

http://IMG_4916 by DaveW, on Flickr

Thus- You really do need to examine photos of actual living tigers to get a reasonable painted ‘effect’ on this prancing pose.
http://N33 Mameluke Officer on Tiger skin

If any further clarification is required, please just ask.

---

[Chris Pringle]

The light / heavy distinction was very real. If I may, let me cite the Hungarian War of Independence – not a Napoleonic War but one fought with Napoleonic weapons and tactics by generals who had learned their trade as junior officers in the Napoleonic Wars. (One of the Austrian generals, Schlik, lost an eye to the [careless or drunken?] lance of an allied Cossack in 1813. Don’t know if that gives us any special insight into Cossacks’ tactics or effectiveness …) Anyway: when Hungary rebelled, all the Austrian army’s hussars ended up on the Hungarian side, leaving the Imperials with all the heavy cavalry, i.e., the cuirassiers and dragoons (plus a few uhlans and chevaulegers). When the two sides’ cavalry clashed in combat, the heavies generally had the better of it – definitely worth a +1 in melee. However, when the heavies were forced to perform all the scouting, picket, liaison etc duties for lack of light cavalry, their heavy horses carrying heavy men wore out very rapidly. Think Tiger tanks breaking down while the Shermans cruise on.

[General Slade]

Hi Guy,

I agree with everything in your last post.  I think the idea that dragoons are somehow different from other cavalry in the Napoleonic era is misguided.  How effective they are as battlefield cavalry really comes down to the size of the horses they are sitting on (and training obviously).  French dragoons were, according to the regulations, mounted on smaller horses than the cuirassiers and carabiniers, so it might be appropriate to make them somewhat less effective in a charge than the bigger boys.  But the notion that they should therefore sit and fire their muskets at the enemy is just silly.

I personally don’t have any problem with denoting some cavalry (such as French dragoons and Bavarian dragoons) as ‘medium’ cavalry and making them a bit more effective than light dragoons and hussars and a bit less effective than heavy dragoons, cuirassiers etc.  However, using the term ‘medium’ cavalry on certain forums will annoy the experts who will tell you there was no such thing.  And then you will find yourself caught up in the kind of Napoleonic debate you have wisely spent years avoiding.

 

[General Slade]

Hi Guy,

I haven’t seen the online discussion you are referencing but I agree with the general tenor of your post.  However, it might be worth taking a look at Philip Haythornthwaite’s Osprey, Napoleonic Heavy Cavalry and Dragoon Tactics because it includes some interesting stuff that I wasn’t aware of before reading it.  For example, he quotes from Jonathan Leach’s Rough Sketches of the Life of an Old Soldier, where Leach says that the French dragoons in the Peninsula were armed with muskets that were able to out range the “pop-gun” carbines of the British heavy and light dragoons, so when bodies of cavalry met at a distance in broken terrain the French would dismount and shoot at the British cavalry while remaining out of range of their return fire.  He goes on to say: “In the French army, one man was left in charge of three or four horses, out of reach of fire, whilst the dismounted dragoons or chasseurs became efficient light infantry, and acted as such if their infantry were not up.” However, Haythornthwaite does not suggest that this practice was widespread in other theatres or in other armies.  He also doesn’t suggest it was a tactic used on the battlefield during a general engagement.

Haythornthwaite also notes that even heavy cavalry engaged in skirmishing and quotes artillery officer Cavalié Mercer (Journal of the Waterloo Campaign) who wrote, ‘the cuirassiers led the second attack . . . sending up a cloud of skirmishers, who galled us terribly by a fire of carbines and pistols at scarcely 40 yards from our front.’

In his companion book, Napoleonic Light Cavalry Tactics, Haythornthwaite says there were instances where cavalry engaged in volley-firing from the saddle when being engaged by the enemy and cites one example where this was successful (French 20e Chasseurs a Cheval against Russian cavalry at Eylau – where the snow reduced the Russian charge to a walking pace) and where it was disastrous (French chasseurs and dragoons at Sahagun where they were swept away by the British 15th Hussars).  In the same book, the author also notes that during the retreat from Quatre Bras, the British 10th Dragoons dismounted its skirmishers, who were armed with the Baker rifle, to block the bridge over the river Thy and so discourage the French pursuit.

Having said all of this, the examples Haythornthwaite cites all seem to be exceptions to the rule and I am not sure that trying to incorporate them into a set of wargame rules would make any sense at anything above the skirmish level.

Best wishes

Stephen

 

 

[Guy Farrish]

I normally fight shy of Napoleonic discussions. Not because I have an aversion to the period on principle. I’ve been gaming the period off and on for fifty years. (sobering thought) and it remains one of my main interests.

No, the reason for my avoidance is the general, how shall we say, the enthusiastic combativeness of some of the proponents. Enthusiasm is a modern virtue but I retain a traditional British reserve regarding it to be honest – rather colonial. However, there is enthusiasm and unwarranted obsession. Many of the lines drawn in the blood sodden sand over various bits of uniform and accoutrement possibilities are to me pointless at best and jolly annoying distractions at worst.

However I have recently been lurking on a site which alerted me to something which is far from irrelevant to Napoleonic wargaming and has confused me no end.

Napoleonic cavalry, (particularly Dragoons). Not uniforms, horse colours, accoutrements, organisation but something rather more fundamental to turning an understanding of the period’s warfare into a game. What did they do? And how did they do it?

I’ve had a pretty clear idea in my head since the mid 1970s of what the various types of cavalry did in the period .

Heavy Cavalry – Cuirassiers, Carabiniers, (British Dragoons) – battlefield cavalry sometimes characterised as ‘shock’ cavalry but probably don’t try and smash fresh steady infantry or you’ll waste them.

Medium Cavalry – Dragoons, (British Dragoons depending) – cheaper, lower impact versions of the above but also able to do quite a lot of light cavalry work during the campaign as opposed to the battlefield phase of things.

Light Cavalry – Hussars, Chasseurs a Cheval, (British Light Dragoons) etc – eyes and ears of the army, protection against enemy scouts, petit guerre and occasionally useful on the flanks of battles.

Lancers, Uhlans – supermen on horseback who reincarnated the mediaeval knight, or more realistically one trick pony fashionistas who nobody knew what to do with most of the time. Take your pick.

Oh and for completeness I suppose – cossacks and their ilk. Scavenging bandits of little or no use except in terrorising everyone in a campaign, often their own supposed side as well as the enemy. Might look scary on a flank in a battle but give them a good shooting and they’re off to pick on someone smaller and weaker and preferably completely helpless.

But now I learn there is a seemingly strong swathe of online opinion that has Dragoons back to their seventeenth century roots, dismounting to blaze away in firefights with formed infantry, all sorts of cavalry performing fire combat evolutions from the saddle and in addition being used very much as later ACW cavalry to rush, seize and hold strong points and the fabled (I blame Sam Elliott in ‘Gettysburg’) good ground.

Dragoons and light cavalry did of course dismount and use their short muskets or carbines in the campaign context but rarely, and to little or no effect, in battlefield conditions in my reading. (I know about the foot dragoons in the Peninsula but that’s what happens when you eat your horses – it’s not a tactical option of choice).

But these imaginary evolutions are being used to write and implement rules in large games where lots of gamers are gaining the impression that this is accurate historical gaming and that worries me.

Have I been labouring under a huge misapprehension all these years? Did Napoleonic dragoons regularly ape Okey’s men at Sulby hedges? Did John Buford command the Prussian hussars at Waterloo to seize Plancenoit and hold the ‘best damn ground around’?

Any (polite-ish) answers please?

[OotKust]

The Light Cavalry

Easy one first. Let’s look at the light cav so necessary and popular among gamers.

Light Cavalry- N 14 French Chasseur/Hussar/Line Lancer (Charging) and N 14a French Chasseur/Hussar/Line Lancer (Standing).

The normal pose cited as charging, or galloping perhaps as best modelled is a long stride pose that does create a few concerns with basing models. However it is a useful and generic horse as described for troopers, elites and some variation of Revolutionary units. Also can be used for variety if making ‘mounted’ gunners for early/ nearly all French horse artillery.

While the ‘Standing’ model isn’t for every unit, they can be mixed in.
Where I need and use these are amongst the many generals and command elements that exist- not galloping around the games table but in need a quiet and reflective stop and view of other events.

So trumpeters, guards or guides get these horses. The sheepskin wasn’t all that widespread in pre-Napoleonic years, so other horses come into use as well.

A variation I indulge for ADC’s horses is the other shown- N9 British Light Dragoon (Charging) horse with rounded schabraque corners. (There is also the N9a British Light Dragoon (Walking) variant.

Not typical ‘Empire’ but certainly they were seen under French during the Revolution and Consular-1805 campaign. You can also cheat and paint the effect of a rolled/ folded up corner of normal schabraque which is often depicted in artistry.

The next model is N 15 French Guard Lancer/Scout Lancer (Cantering) and N 15a French Guard Lancer/Scout Lancer (Standing).

As cited these are directed as ‘Guard’ horses. However, many other units and corps also used the plain schabraque and in particular officers and NCOs, ADC’s and some entire units who had alternative sources of supply used them. (Home Guards/ militia and of course other European states (Baden etc).

Again the walking version is preferable for ADCs and command figures. While not a lot of officers would carry a portmanteau, it seems the sensible ones did carry them if they were likely to be separated from their supply lines or dinner table- and what self-respecting light cavalier wouldn’t be out marauding anyway?

Our third version are the actual officers horse N 16 French Officer Chasseur/Guard Lancer

http://IMG_4913_H

is the most ubiquitous and widely used horse for any light cavalry officer, often NCOs, ADCs and even generals with suitable added painted laces.
Even heavy cavalry generals are known to have used them pre-Empire. Thus these are certainly NOT just for ‘Guard’ troop types.

Our next addition, the ‘specialist’ horse furniture N 17 French Officer (Leopard Skin Type/Galloping) and N 17a French Officer (Leopard Skin Type/Standing) of wealthy and elite officers.

http://IMG_4911_H by

You will find these amongst all those other light cav types above- again and later into the Empire more used by commanding officers, ADCs to Corps commanders and Marshals, as well as elite company officers etc.
Even the odd cuirassier general/commander used them in the Rev-Consular and Empire periods! [Which is not a subtle way of saying you can give your figures a variation which was used in artwork we see!]

This brings to a close the most commonly seen tack, horse furniture as it is known, in the French and satellite armies.

---

[Heroy]

A vast and complex topic ….

The artillery arm of service saw continual development in technology, equipment, operations, supply, personnel and missions throughout its history. It was a huge expense, similar to a navy, and could not be changed very quickly. So, supposed “revolutions in artillery affairs” tended to be, in reality, longer term evolutions. Let us focus on the era 1800-1815. I will answer for the French and Russians. The Kingdom of Italy and Duchy of Warsaw were essentially “French” in artillery operations and late-era Prussians rather like the Russians. The British and Saxons might have been different, maybe even better – but in small numbers.

“artillery required educated personnel – more than the other two arms?”
Generally, the requirement for “education” was applied to the officers. Although some “practically trained” (i.e. without specialist academic training) officers could be found in 1800, France and Russia were in the process of converting to universal specialist training. For the French, this meant that (typically) university graduates took an entrance exam, and if accepted, passed as sous-lieutenants to a 2-year artillery or artillery/engineering school. After this they became lieutenants and commanded 2 pieces in an artillery company. The Russians were similar. After an entrance exam, there was a two to three year specialist military school, followed by an final exam. The candidate was then posted for typically 2 years as an officer aspirant in an artillery company, then promoted lieutenant in command of 2 pieces. And officers were expected to do some continuing professional study and perhaps publication in peacetime if they wanted preferred advancement.
A side note for Russians : by 1811, artillery officer ranks counted 1 step higher in pay, seniority and nobility. So an artillery captain was paid like an army major and acquired inheritable nobility – which is interesting since the Russians did take non-nobles into their military schools if they passed the entrance exams.
Other than literacy for senior NCO’s, education requirements for artillery other ranks were not too unusual, The Russians did have an artillery sergeants school. Size was important – as for grenadiers or cuirassiers. And as artillery offered higher pay, it was considered “elite” and took the best of the conscripts.

“Napoleon’s original background …. may have been the driver for other nations to keep equal pace.”
And his propensity to invade those other nations.

“one six pounder does exactly the same as any other six pounder”
Russians might agree, but note that three 6-lbers are better than 1. And the French did not always have universal “modern” 6-lbers but instead a mix of captured 3-lbers and older 4-lbers & 8-lbers.

“the organisational capability and training to do all of that competently.”
Generally, yes. However the French “system” was weakened by an inability to maintain their artillery as fully combat-effective over longer distances and longer campaigns – especially when operating in poorly developed areas or in poor weather. The Russians were weakened by their tendency to prepare/improve foot artillery positions before an engagement and then not move the pieces offensively. There are other national nuances, and – as noted at the start – evolution over time.

“actual deployment governed by those with an appreciation of artillery,”
The (operational) deployment of artillery was typically directed by division, corps and army commanders – each with an artillery staff of at least one officer to advise them. The (tactical) employment of the pieces was left to the artillery officers. Both the French and the Russians had a tendency to assign smaller pieces to stiffen formed infantry units, on the basis of 2 pieces per battalion (Russian) or regiment (French).

“keeping artillery in the field, moving and supplied, equal in all armies”
See above regarding the French. The Russians appear extremely good at this, even early in the era. Possible reasons :
— more and better horses from government stud farms vs. bought in for the campaign
— integration of the artillery train into the artillery company, not in a separated train company
— typically lighter pieces and less loading per horse for all vehicles
— full militarization of supply : the French had (mostly) removed contractor civilian drivers from the train by 1800 – but relied on contractors from points of supply to the armies in the field. By contrast, the Russians used army resources, supported a specialist arm of service (lines-of-communication engineers), to move all supplies
— The Russians had Cossacks and Native cavalry to protect their supply lines and to obtain supplies locally over a wide area

“Is morale amongst gunners ‘generally’ high”
Yes. And even higher for horse artillery. And higher still for guards horse artillery. Both French and Russian.

[OotKust]

As a kind of [delicately] “how we assumed that everyone did it…”

Russian Uniforms and Military Conventions

Despite the 170 years of  A.V. VISKOVATOV (1853)
TRANSLATED BY MARK CONRAD, 1998

ruling the information on Russian matters, by publishing publicly the actual Imperial Decrees etc., it seems that not everything went that way. (Reasoned elsewhere*).

Conrad gives two examples from above, since I needed the dragoon version-

1. 16 December 1815— In Dragoon regiments, trumpeters are to have grey horses, and other ranks — dark colors (116).
2. 16 December 1815— In Cuirassier regiments, trumpeters are to have grey horses, and other ranks — dark colors (51).

https://marksrussianmilitaryhistory.info/V11/V11.htm#d

The implication, being, that such greys were not commonplace, despite as revisionist folk point out- V. was in error in many places as he never checked reality, merely printed what he was given.

Of course it may be that, perhaps somewhat like the French, such a decree was ‘establishing’ a convention already under way.

*JGingerich discusses accuracy and highlights three names of modern authors who have minutely examined some of V. issues-

126. Leonov, Popov, & Kibovsky include a photograph of a relic hussar shako with lace…

The subject is not important, just the names. I’ve not followed up, and I don’t have a copy of JG actual pages about this either!
– – –

As I’ve raised ‘artillery’ elsewhere,

I picked up from academia.com an abstract entitled ”

Russian Field Artillery in the time of the Napoleonic Wars: Myths, Reality, Questions” – (The experience of historiographical inquiry) by Konstantin Igoshin.

The abstract makes for a compelling read, but I don’t have the paper.

Included is this commentary about ‘Araksheevs Model 1805’ origins.

In 1904, in an attempt to fill the gaps in the understanding of the history of the development of Russian ordnance, Colonel (and later Lieutenant-General) A. A. Nilus (1858-1941), an instructor at the Mikhailov Artillery Academy, would publish a continuation of Strukov􏰑s text in the form of a two-volume textbook on the History of the Physical Elements of the Artillery.12 A scholar with considerable personal experience, and the author of a series of academic treatises and inventions, Nilus was one of the leading early 20th Century specialists on Russian ordnance.
…

An interesting development in recent scholarship was a 2008 book by another amateur historian and model maker-collector, C. V. Voytsekhovich, entitled The Russian Field Artillery 1382-1917,31 and described by the publisher as a 􏰔short guide to the history of the development of Russian artillery systems􏰑. The book includes several illustrations and photographs of items in museum collections in Moscow, St Petersburg, Sofia, and Stockholm, as well as sketches and scale schematic diagrams, most of which were made by the author himself. The monograph contains a section dedicated to the artillery of the Napoleonic era.

The body of sources and literature cited in that section cannot be described as complete by any means:…

A study of the historiography, the body of published sources (including 19th Century periodical literature, statutory legislation, instruction manuals etc.), and archive material has revealed that perceptions of the organisation and equipment of Russian field artillery during the Napoleonic wars established in 20th Century and recent academic and popular-academic literature do not entirely correspond with reality.40 Indeed, it would be wrong to refer to these topics and this period as well-researched.

The historiographical tradition has created an artificial break in the reformation of the artillery, propagating the unsubstantiated view that 1805 marked the introduction and application of a new system of artillery weaponry. As a result, there is almost no evidence in academic circulation today regarding the development and implementation of the new technical decisions, or the creation of a standardised system of artillery equipment. Accounts of the structural changes of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries have been brushed aside, including evidence relating to an event of such crucial importance as the abolition of regimental artillery. The transformation and renaming of artillery subdivisions during the reform of the organisational structure in 1802-1811 (and earlier) has also received insufficient attention. Reliable production figures are lacking, and information on the rearmament of the Russian artillery is fragmentary. The theory of deploying the artillery as combat troops, the development of manuals and instructions is still only in the early stages of research. The same can be said for the state of knowledge on personnel training, with the exception of the officer corps, which has been considered in a range of studies.42

Source [42] is: 42 Krylov V. M., Kadetskie korpusa i rossiiskie kadety [The Cadet Corps and Russian Cadets] (St Petersburg, 1998); [The Officers of the Russian Army as Participants in the Battle of Borodino: a historical and sociological study] (Moscow, 2002) .

Seems would be an interesting read, being ‘ultra-modern’ as current period nomenclature goes…

-d

 

[Skip]

And my Cossacks

https://i.postimg.cc/Kzfk5VJz/20220824-161439.jpg

All in all Cossacks have 2 substitutions, my Tatar Uhlans are filling in for 2 Tatar Cossack regiments, but as said my Cossacks are well over numbers even discounting those 2.

My infantry and artillery are correct, one of my oldest cavalry regiments,  Seversk Chasseur are filling in for the Irkutsk Dragoons

But that’s about it, oh other than 2 regiments of Cuirassiers are actually Prussians and were useless there, did best conversion I could making great coats from their kollets

[OotKust]

With such a narrow front, it is difficult for the late arriving French Cuirassiers to be usefully employed.

Well yes, my first thoughts were “What a slug-fest!”.

Can’t say I’ve even heard/ read of the battle, but then 1812 is not my thing.
However I’m sure the game was a treat with a true panopoly of colour and excess! Well done…
regards davew (Auk)

[Robert Dunlop]

Thank you, Gary!

A French Cuirassier:

Robert

[OotKust]

I thought I’d posted on TWW my ‘history’ of wargaming French Army- the lack of an index for things like ‘Favourites’ etc. means less than efficient control I find.

So herewith, a bit of the mass d’armes that comes out a few times a year to collide with others of similar ilk.

The Dragoon Division- actually only four of the six regiments; those others being the single brigade of Cuirassiers actually completed- no the boxes are not sufficient to include all the commanders as well…

IMG_3570 3e Div Dragons storage 2019_sm by DaveW[/url], on Flickr

Details on the regiments involved are adjacent to this if you care to view.

Another, some of the infantry:

IMG_3322_2019 review- 3eme Division fusiliers ©dww 2023 by DaveW[/url], on Flickr

As I wrote in caption (theres more so please visit…) A general view of my 20 year old painted Minifigs, 8 line battalions comprising Legrands 3eme Division of 4th Corps d’Armée (Marshal Soult)- missing are the two elite legere battalions.

Just to reiterate my point about making 1:1 commands (as I have since the 80’s), regardless of what rules/ writers say/ expect, heres the 3eme Division leadership team (I suppose you’d call them today…):

IMG_4509_sm 3eme Division by DaveW[/url], on Flickr

Well, thats an update- the 60 odd figures on my painting table don’t count do they!?

regards-davew

[OotKust]

Thanks,

one of the many ‘revisions’ I made in my planning- escalating my ‘complete*’ brigade of heavies (ie 3 regiments only) into the full Division!

*As in completed in the 1990s and supposed to never be expanded- after all who ever fields a full Division of Cuirassiers and Carabiniers? Oh yeah, Napoleon… !
-d

[Heroy]

brigade de carabiniers à cheval
● général de brigade Joseph Piston
[fils d’un marchand, né à Lyon 1754, général de brigade 1793, commandant de la Légion d’honneur 1804, promu général de division après Austerlitz]
— 1er aide de camp : vacant
— lieutenant aide de camp François-Hippolyte Curial
[fils d’un avocat, né à Saint-Pierre d’Albigny en Savoie 1783, cousin du colonel Philibert Curial du 88e de ligne, lieutenant 1803]
— 1er régiment de carabiniers à cheval : colonel Antoine-Christophe Cochois (195 hommes)
— 2e régiment de carabiniers à cheval : colonel Pierre-Nicolas Morin (182 hommes)

brigade de cuirassiers
● général de brigade Armand Lebrun de Lahoussaye
[fils d’un officier supérieur des postes et relais de France, né à Paris 1786, général de brigade & commandanr de la Légion d’honneur 1804]
— capitaine 1er aide de camp Benoît-Jean-Elisabeth de Labarthe de la Courtète
[fils d’un seigneur, né à La Courtète en Occitanie 1776, capitaine 1801]
https://mdr.aude.fr/mdr_aude/index.php/docnumViewer/calculHierarchieDocNum/521960/504933:539147:541117:541118:521960/800/1280
— lieutenant aide de camp Jean-Charles-Marie Blanchard
[fils d’un avocat et juge, né à Loriol sud de Lyon 1775, frère cadet du chef d’escadron de la garde Amable Blanchard, lieutenant 1798, promu capitaine & fait membre de la Légion d’honneur après Austerlitz]
— 2e régiment de cuirassiers : colonel Jean-Frédéric Yvendorf (249 hommes)
— 9e régiment de cuirassiers : colonel Jean-Pierre Doumerc (250 hommes)

brigade de cuirassiers
● général de brigade Antoine-Louis Decrest de Saint-Germain
[fils d’un bourgeois, né à Paris 1761, officier de la Légion d’honneur 1804, général de brigade 1805]
— 1er aide de camp : vacant
— lieutenant aide de camp N_______ Dutreux
[né ~1779, lieutenant 1805]
— 3e régiment de cuirassiers : colonel Claude-Antoine Preval (279 hommes)
— 12e régiment de cuirassiers : colonel Jacques-Roland Belfort (232 hommes)

[Robert Dunlop]

This is a Prussian Kürassier:

Robert

[OotKust]

Fantastic!

Although I had recently read of ‘ capitaine 1er aide de camp Jean-Baptiste Thierry’ in a later context with the general, I could not place him for 1805.
Such a magnificent Etat-Major has been hidden for so long.
You know the Situations and Returns that I copied from Vincennes are barely readable because of the high numbers of regiments and data written on them, some in very small print.

I have already had completed for 20 years exactly half the fighting regiments of this fine Corps, having the First Carabiniers and the First Cuirassier Brigade (de Lahoussaye) yet to start from scratch now! Although the second brigade has not had a ‘proper’ commander in all that time until I finally ordained GBD Saint Germain in 2021. As I had no information on his ADCs, I used a generic officer from the 12eme and a trompette!

Thank you so much for adding to my knowledge and work load!

I salute you Sir!

[Heroy]

1ere division de grosse cavalerie – 1805

● général de division commandant Étienne-Marie-Antoine Champion de Nansouty
[fils d’un officier supérieur de cavalerie, né à Bordeaux 1769, général de division 1803, premier chambellan de l’Impératrice & commandant de la Légion d’honneur 1804, promu grand officier de la Légion d’honneur après Austerlitz]
— capitaine 1er aide de camp Jean-Baptiste Thierry
[né à Sedan 1768, capitaine 1800, fait membre de la Légion d’honneur après Austerlitz]
https://www.leonore.archives-nationales.culture.gouv.fr/ui/notice/356792
— sous-lieutenant du 12e cuirassiers officier d’ordonnance Pierre-Joseph-Armand Beuverand de Laloyère
[fils d’un ancien officier de dragons le comte de La Laloyère & neveu du général Nansouty, né à Dijon 1782, sous-lieutenant 1803, fait membre de la Légion d’honneur après Austerlitz]
https://www.leonore.archives-nationales.culture.gouv.fr/ui/notice/33665
https://gw.geneanet.org/pierfit?lang=fr&p=pierre+armand&n=de+beuverand+de+la+loyere&oc=4
— sous-lieutenant polonais officier d’ordonnance N_______ Wójcikowski

● adjudant-commandant chef d’état-major Jacques-Alexandre Pelissard
[né à Dole en Jura 1765, adjudant général chef de brigade 1796, officier de la Légion d’honneur 1804]
https://www.leonore.archives-nationales.culture.gouv.fr/ui/notice/288873
— adjudant-commandant sous-chef d’état-major Jacques-Gabriel-Victor Allain
[fils d’un marchand, né à Saumur 1773, adjudant général chef de brigade 1800, officier de la Légion d’honneur 1804, fait commandant de la Légion d’honneur après Austerlitz]
https://www.leonore.archives-nationales.culture.gouv.fr/ui/notice/3121
— capitaine adjoint d’état-major N_______ Bosc
— capitaine adjoint d’état-major Jean-Baptiste-Louis Thiébault
[fils d’un proprietaire, né à Villeneuve-sur-Yonne sud-est de Paris 1770, capitaine 1794]
https://www.leonore.archives-nationales.culture.gouv.fr/ui/notice/356526

● major commandant l’artillerie Henry-Marie Le Noury
[fils d’un seigneur, né à Cracouville en Normandie 1771, major 1803, membre de la Légion d’honneur 1804, promu officier de la Légion d’honneur & colonel d’artillerie après Austerlitz]
— capitaine en 2e adjoint d’artillerie Jean Pussot
[né à Besançon 1764, capitaine 1803]
https://memoirevive.besancon.fr/ark:/48565/mwdgckx5bpn4/832c701d-3a10-45dc-849a-92ed6324ed33
— capitaine adjoint du génie Hubert Rohault-Fleury
[fils d’un avocat au parlement de Paris, né à Paris 1777, capitaine 1801, membre de la Légion d’honneur 1804, passé sous les ordres du général Lannes à Austerlitz]
https://gw.geneanet.org/pierfit?lang=en&p=hubert&n=rohault+de+fleury&oc=1
— capitaine commandant la 4e compagnie du 2e régiment d’artillerie à cheval Antoine-François Esperou de Cabrié
[fils d’un seigneur, né à Labastide dans les Pyrénées 1766, capitaine 1794, membre de la Légion d’honneur 1804, promu chef d’escadron d’artillerie après Austerlitz]
https://www.leonore.archives-nationales.culture.gouv.fr/ui/notice/134498
— sous-lieutenant N_______ commandant la 4e compagnie du 2e bis bataillon du train d’artillerie
— demi-compagnie de 3 pièces : 2x 8-livre cannon & 1x obusier de 6 pouces du système Gribeauval, 85 chevaux de trait

● sous-inspecteur aux revues Gabriel de Sombs de Fajac
[né à Saverdun en Occitanie 1752, membre de la Légion d’honneur 1805]
— adjoint aux commissaires des guerres N_______
— payeur divisionaire N_______
— maréchal-de-logis chef vaguemestre N_______

● brigade de carabiniers à cheval : général de brigade Joseph Piston (Lyon 1754-1831), lieutenant aide de camp Curial
● 1ere brigade de cuirassiers : général de brigade Armand Lebrun de Lahoussaye (Paris 1786-1846), lieutenants aides de camp Blanchart & Labarthe
● 2e brigade de cuirassiers : général de brigade Antoine-Louis Decrest de Saint-Germain (Paris 1761-1835), lieutenant aide de camp Dutreux

[Magnus Guild]

While it would be dangerous to generalise from the case of one regiment. Heroy’s  account of the Yamburg regiment  is both both interesting and possibly more indicative of more general trends.  I must admit to rather liking the image of a unit in greatcoats(whether in full or cut-down form)and forage caps.  It might be a little difficult to source figures as I don’t seem to remember great number of greatcoated figures.  In 28mm plastic is a possibility but would in- volve rather a lot of work. If you insist on the dragoon helmets you could buy several greatcoated dragoon standard- bearers, which does seem to bring us full-circle back to our unit of cuirassier standard-bearers.  More importantly note the lack of  size of the Yamburg regiment( are your cavalry regiments overly large?) and the way this incompletely equipped unit was parked with a besieging force.

[Heroy]

1851 ….

1775 General-Lieutenant Freiherr Clapier de Colongue’s dragoons, formed from the dragoon commands of the Light Field cohorts in Siberia
1777 Siberia dragoons
1798 General-of-Cavalry Marquis du Houx de Vioménil’s dragoons
1799 General-Major Prince Odoyevsky’s dragoons
1800 General-Major Ziman’s dragoons
1801 Siberia dragoons
1812 Siberia uhlans
1851 disbanded, troopers sent into General-of-Cavalry Count Nikitin’s uhlans & the Novoarkhangelsk uhlans

1784 Orenburg dragoons, formed from the Orenburg and the Black Sea Field battalions
1798 General-Major Voyevodsky’s dragoons
1801 Orenburg dragoons
1812 Orenburg uhlans
1851 disbanded, troopers sent into Grand-Duke Karl-Ferdinand of Austria’s uhlans & Grand-Duke Leopold of Austria’s uhlans

1805 Zhitomir dragoons, formed from 1 squadron each of the Glukhov cuirassiers, the Tver dragoons, the Pereyaslavl dragoons and the Smolensk dragoons, and recruits
1812 Zhitomir uhlans
1815 Borisoglebsk uhlans
1844 Prince Alexander of Hess-Darmstadt’s uhlans
1851 disbanded, troopers sent into the Novomirgorod uhlans

1806 Serpukhov dragoons, formed from 2 squadrons of the Siberia dragoons and recruits
1812 Serpukhov uhlans
1845 Her Imperial Majesty Grand-Duchess Maria Mikhaylovna’s uhlans
1846 Her Imperial Majesty Grand-Duchess Yekaterina Mikhaylovna’s uhlans
1851 disbanded, troopers sent into the Yelisavetgrad uhlans

[Bandit]

Heroy wrote:

The Siberia, Orenburg, Serpukhov and Zhitomir regiments were disbanded in 1851, and thus lack published regimental histories.

In 1851 or 1815? (just clarifying).

Heroy wrote:

Did the Spanish unit in the Peninsula that wore captured French cuirasses also have lances ?

Don’t believe so, it was a Spanish dragoon regiment. There are different versions of this that I’ve read, the least believable is that they took the cuirasses from the French cuirassiers after defeating them in combat, however, the French don’t take enough losses to have provided nearly enough cuirasses. The more likely version I’ve also heard is that the French – not wanting to die of heat exhaustion – had the bulk of their cuirasses in the regimental baggage train and that store was captured and distributed amongst a portion of the Spanish dragoon regiment in question.

Heroy wrote:

Probably more than anyone cares to read, but ….

Not at all! Fantastic stuff.

[Heroy]

Did the Spanish unit in the Peninsula that wore captured French cuirasses also have lances ?

Marmont proposed cuirassier lanciers in a work published in 1845.
https://books.google.com/books?id=iTRFAAAAYAAJ

Silly Russians did cuirassier-uhlans in the 1830’s
https://repository.library.brown.edu/viewers/image/zoom/bdr:248240/

Silly Prussians did cuirassier-uhlans in the 1890’s
https://64.media.tumblr.com/91d4ceb599c429f8a1b909c14766cb26/tumblr_pcy6bip8qb1rtv2o1o1_1280.jpg

[Aethelflaeda was framed]

Read somewhere that French Cuirassiers, it was postulated, ought to have had a lance and that only a conservative traditional association with lances as a light cavalry weapon prevented it.  Don’t know how valid it was.

Mick Hayman
Margate and New Orleans

[Magnus Guild]

I enjoyed the story of the unit made up entirely of cuirassier standard bearers. Indeed, using dragoon standard bearers was how I imagined you would  do it.  As you will gather, I am interested in their appearance: are they still wearing their dragoon coats and helmets? And(more importantly) is there any contemporary evidence either documentary or pictorial to substantiate that appearance.  Just because somebody has been issued with a lance does not make them a lancer.  The grey overalls were normal campaign attire for all Russian cavalry regiments .  For the  record my  1813  uhlans( interestingly the Serpuchev, Tatar, and Chuguyev regiments), the first has ordinary tack, the others the Hungarian bridle and the Serpuchev, blue shabraques and kurtkas (not to mention czapkas) ‘liberated’ from Polish depots.  This an educated guess not substantiated by documentary evidence.  Welcome to the joys of doing 1813-4 Russians.

[OotKust]

Nice to see some other accounts in my 24 hour absence.

I’d avoided mentioning or comparing with ‘the French’ re-designation of various units, but apart from the obvious, new weapons, new tactics (ie more efficient scouting/screening…), changed uniforms; did they change horse sizes? Eh? Did they change manpower? Eh?

No it would be ridiculous to say a regiment changed everything, or else it wasn’t a ‘reassignment’ at all.

I believe such units would have been less as normally effective- making their use for wargamers that much more distasteful if of lower value.

Yes the issue of lances to the front rank of Russian hussars squadrons probably was effective given their greater control and numeric advantages post 1812. But everything has a ‘learning period’.

I’ve thrown rule ‘systems’ and manipulated OBs some shade for utilising French in Russia/ Europe without the cuirassier/ heavy brigades they were attached too. They were designated employed as the eyes, ears and protection for the heavy regiments, and as such should be mutually present. That doesn’t always fit with ‘systems’- instead of history being the guide for how they were employed.

The point made, where did Magnus get this in the first place?

cheers

[Heroy]

Probably more than anyone cares to read, but ….

Russian dragoons were “heavy cavalry” (тяжелая кавалерiя / tyazhelaya kavaleriya). The type was traditionally considered “ethnically” or “nationally” Russian. Army dragoon troopers’ horses were at least 151 cm tall at the withers (almost 14 hands) and cost 50 rubles. They were typically from state-owned studs in central and northern European Russia. Their saddlery was of the so-called “Hungarian” type adopted in 1786, somewhat similar to French light cavalry saddles. Normal conscription of serfs applied.

Uhlans were light cavalry (легкая кавалерiя / legkaya kavaleriya). The Russians traditionally considered uhlans to be an “ethnic” or “national” cavalry type of Poles, Tatars, Ukrainians and Cossacks. Army uhlan troopers’ horses were at least 142 cm (14 hands) tall and cost 40 rubles. Their stud farms were typically in southern European Russia and northern Ukraine, and included bloodlines from Native steppe horse breeds. Their saddlery was of the so-called “Hussar” type, somewhat similar to Cossack saddles. Typically these were recruited from non-serf populations by (more or less) volunteer enlistment.

The 5 initial Russian Army uhlan regiments :
— Lithuania, Polish & Tatar uhlans : recruited from (respectively) Orthodox Slavs, Catholic Slavs & Moslem Tatars of the former Polish-Lithuania Commonwealth
— Volhynia uhlans : recruited in north-west Ukraine
— Chuguev uhlans : recruited from Chuguev Cossack settlements just south-east of Kharkov

The conversion of 7 Army dragoon regiments to uhlans was ordered in December 1812. The choice of units to convert seem to have respected “ethnic” traditions to some extent.
— Yamburg dragoons : raised 1806 in north central Ukraine – called to north-west European Russia in 1811 with a recruit depot at Podgroshchi near Novgorod – served with the 1st Separate corps (defending the Russians’ north flank) in 1812
— Siberia & Orenburg dragoons : had been recruited locally in (respectively) central Siberia & south-west Siberia from independent Cossacks and used in small detachments on the eastern frontiers – called to west European Russia in 1811 with a recruit depot at Yelna near Smolensk – served as Reserve Cavalry with the 1st Western army in 1812
— Zhitomir & Serpukhov dragoons : raised in (respectively) 1805 in north central Ukraine & 1806 in south-east Ukraine – served with the 3rd Reserve Obervation army in north-west Ukraine in 1812
— Vladimir & Taganrog dragoons : had been recruited from among Cossacks locally and in south-east Ukraine for service in small detachments in the Caucasus – transferred to the Crimea in 1812

The idea of “dragoons with sticks” may stem from the fact that the units remained in the field on campaign while converting, some quite possibly getting lances before changing uniforms, horses or saddlery. However, the units previously deployed in Siberia and the Caucasus and any recruits in the Zhitomir, Serpukhov or Yamburg uhlans from Cossack families would have had some prior experience with the lance.

By August 1814 the “ethnic” character of the 12 uhlan regiments seems to have greatly diminished. They were then organized with 2 regiments per uhlan brigade, 2 brigades per uhlan division – and these three divisions each paired with a cuirassier division to form the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Reserve Cavalry corps. These 3 corps were based in European Russia in military settlement areas, which also served as their main recruiting territory.

Perhaps interestingly, the initial intended mission for the French Army lancer unts formed from 1811 by converting dragoons was also to combine with heavy cavalry : 1 regiment of lancers per heavy cavalry division of 4 regiments of cuirassiers or carabiniers à cheval.

[Patrice]

I heard (very long ago) that a guy in Paris had wanted to play Napoleonics with a unit of cuirassiers-lanciers in his army.

He said that he made a mistake when ordering the miniatures and ordered a whole unit of cuirassiers standard-bearers and that he had to use them somehow.

His friends were not convinced and thought he just wanted to take advantage of both tactical modifiers. It was with “Les Aigles“ ruleset I think.

(Ooops, off-topic, sorry) 😉

 

http://www.argad-bzh.fr/argad/en.html
https://www.anargader.net/

[OotKust]

Yes, and the previous major heading is “Cuirassiers [170]” that being a footnote marker.

The whole section is about their Cavalry. And lists the Regiments.

And the sentence prior to the one I quoted is about two cavalry regiments. A ‘change in tempo’ between sentences of a paragraph is not clear and if infantry is the subject, it should have been highlighted there.

So he needs to work on formatting and clarity a bit more- get to it Jonathan!

thanks d

[Heroy]

The Life-Guard Cossacks formed with the Chevalier Guards (Malyutin’s 2nd Column). There were only 6 other Cossack regiments at Austerlitz, all Don Cossack : none were with 4th Column nor the Headquarters.

These 6 regiments could be asked to loan an experienced NCO to accompany a headquarters staff officer. At full strength, there would have had a total of 30x старшiи урядникъ (starshii uryadnik / senior Cossack sergent) and 30x младшiи урядникъ (mladshii uryadnik / junior Cossack sergent). But the regiments were at about 1/2 strength at Austerlitz and may have resisting requests that took away scarce NCO’s.

As a major of HIM’s Suite for Quartermaster Affairs (and not from a family with more than 500 “souls” of serfs), von Toll would have been given the pay, allowances and social rank of a lieutenant colonel of army cuirassiers : 765 rubles/year pay (compare to 8 rubles/year for a ranker), 4 horses with tack and upkeep and 4x деньщикъ (den’shchik / non-combattant personal servant) paid for by the government.

A very typical arrangement of his “campaign household” would be 1 valet/batman/cook and 1 palfrenier (English maybe “wrangler” ? – higher status than “groom”, lower status than “stable-master” or “equerry”) taken from his family’s estates, plus 1 hired Cossack driver and 1 hired Cossack picquier (English – maybe “trailblazer” – he rode in front and acted as guide and bodyguard), with a two-horse light carriage or cart. These Cossacks would be retired or “un-affiliated” long-service rankers or sergeants, available to be recruited for such work in all major Russian cities. Only the picquier Cossack would accompny von Toll on the battlefied.

The picquier could legally wear his old uniform if honorably discharged or retired. Otherwise, the regulation uniform for a деньщикъ of HIM’s Suite for Quartermaster Affairs then was a dark green single-breasted cloth caftan (like Cossacks’) or coat (like soldiers’), with cloth covered buttons, lining and trim on the skirt and tails also dark-green; with black falling collar and round cuffs; a black kerchief; a gray-beige greatcoat without shoulder straps; white clothe pants; knee-high black boots with iron screw-in spurs if mounted; officer pattern hat with button and buttonhole loop of narrow galloon with a cockade of black tape.
But, in the field, the picquier might have worn anything.

For me, I would do the picquier as a retired урядникъ of the Don Ataman’s regiment : dark blue caftan and dark blue pants striped sky blue tucked into black boots without spurs, off-white cape with hood, black fleece cap but without cords or plume, gray hair and long gray moustaches, a red lance with red leather sling but without pennon, white “girdle” sash with a pistol, a yatagan stuck in the right boot, black leatherwork, german-silver metal work, sword “à la turque” with red leather swordknot, red leather nagaika hanging from the left wrist, saddlecloth dark blue piped sky blue.
And, I think he should have been decorated. So, on a St-George ribbon, the “other ranks” silver medal for distinction at Izmail in 1790.
https://www.etoretro.ru/data/media/5305/1364309006f7a.jpg
But I do 40mm, so these details can be attempted.

“hug the desperately distraught Emperor”
Maybe. Same age, had met before, but not known to be “close”. Alexander did have a romantic, emotional, somewhat irrational character – leading to religious extremism late in his life. If I were Russian, my emotions would have run high that day – but more toward anger against the Austrians.

[OB]

My latest SYW progress is now on my blog.  Artillery, Prinz von Preußen Cuirassiers and von Trümbach’s skirmishing.

If it is of interest here is the link.

https://youdonotknowthenorth.blogspot.com

OB
http://withob.blogspot.co.uk/

[OotKust]

Maybe a bit to ask for serious study, but apparently some discussion about ‘lancers’ attributes from gaming lore are recently on the table.

Now, I left the ‘later’ Napoleonics research a long time ago and my reading has faded. The question asked was “What proven incidents of lancers charging enemy heavy cavalry and winning combats exist?”

I know the general outline, but was unable go into specifics for my colleagues.

Lets rule out 1805 for Russian vs French Cuirassier- at Austerlitz the so named Konstantine Uhlans, in fact did not have lances issued to them. [Modern Russian research- any French lance wounds were likely caused by the flanking cossacks that charged alongside the main body].

cheers ~dave

[OotKust]

Well I can only apologise for the two months delays… life has certainly been throwing bricks, and then I have a limited attention span sometimes ;-?

So here are the full size pics of  ‘5’ models for you to examine. Sorry the ‘flash’ ones could possibly be redone now we have a lot more sunlight to use! Navigate left and right to see all round views.

Cuirassier General

IMG_6078_ c1980_ Cuirassier General_Special Command Figures 03-4_©dww 2022 .

Lasalle

IMG_6051_Hinchliffe Catalogue 1976_extr. .

Dragoon General

IMG_6083_ c1980_ Dragoon General_Special Command Figures 04-4_©dww 2022 .

and Napoleon

IMG_6073_ c1980_ Nap1_Special Command Figures 01-4_©dww 2022 .

Finally, a repeat of the slightly updated GDV Hulin model- a Minifigs ‘Garde Impériale’ General-Commandant of the Grenadiers.

[/url]IMG_6087_ c1980_ Grenadier á Pied Colonel Commandant- General_Special Command Figures_©dww 2022 .

by DaveW, on Flickr. Album: https://tinyurl.com/davew-Flickr-Collection

Trust these may help

davew