Cavalry in Europe after 1600's

[Inkie]

You asked about Fontenoy, I happen to know a fair deal about the course of the engagement. On the Allied side, I have it that the cavalry was essential to maintaining posture during retreat - with the Austrian cavalry detachment under the veteran Marshal Königsegg providing an admirable rear-guard for the retreating British and Dutch. On the French side, the heavy cavalry - especially the Maison du Roi - was one of the decisive factors in the crushing of the British infantry column, even if they did suffer heavy casualties in the process.

Oh wait, this is a thread about simple statistics? Maybe we can start a debate on the usefulness of cavalry between the Renaissance and Napoleonics?

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

You asked about Fontenoy, I happen to know a fair deal about the course of the engagement. On the Allied side, I have it that the cavalry was essential to maintaining posture during retreat - with the Austrian cavalry detachment under the veteran Marshal Königsegg providing an admirable rear-guard for the retreating British and Dutch. On the French side, the heavy cavalry - especially the Maison du Roi - was one of the decisive factors in the crushing of the British infantry column, even if they did suffer heavy casualties in the process.

Oh wait, this is a thread about simple statistics? Maybe we can start a debate on the usefulness of cavalry between the Renaissance and Napoleonics?

Any information on the cavalry is useful but me and Prince of Essling were discussing the make up of armies and their cavalry to infantry. Also in the renaissance cavalry wasn't all that decisive unless you live in the East (Central Europe to further East). Although France was a cavalry power in the 1500's and 1400's it seems they used it defensively or for flanking pikemen, examples: Fornovo and Marignano.
(If you guys want a map of these then I will provide).

Edit:



Fornovo
http://www.theartofbattle.com/battle...rnovo-1495.htm


And for Garigliano there was like some over 1,000 spanish and over 3,000 French cavalry.

[Domen123]

By "After 1600's" you mean after 17th century (so after year 1700) or after year 1600?

Most definitely - for example an infantry regiment (2 battalions) between 1650 & 1695 had between 1,800 & 2,000 men

I guess he was asking about 1700+ not about years before 1700.

[Radosław Sikora]

So I was just wondering what the cavalry to infantry ratio was in Europe.

Money, do you need info for field armies only? Or you need data for total forces?
Field armies had more cavalry, because usually significant parts of armies were garrisoned.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

Money, do you need info for field armies only? Or you need data for total forces?
Field armies had more cavalry, because usually significant parts of armies were garrisoned.

Both datas are helpful but I mostly meant in the field.

[Radosław Sikora]

Both datas are helpful but I mostly meant in the field.

There were battles which involved almost purely cavalry forces. For example the battle of Warsaw 1705. The Saxon-Polish-Lithuanian army was composed of only cavalry (roughly 6000 cavalrymen), while their opponent, the Swedish army, had some 2000 soldiers, including only a few tens infantrymen.

[Salem1]

There were battles which involved almost purely cavalry forces. For example the battle of Warsaw 1705. The Saxon-Polish-Lithuanian army was composed of only cavalry (roughly 6000 cavalrymen), while their opponent, the Swedish army, had some 2000 soldiers, including only a few tens infantrymen.

I went to wikipedia and checked this battle. It says that there were 3500 Saxon cuirassiers and 6000 Polish cavalrymen against 2000 Swedes of which 60 was infantry. Two questions:

1. Do you think the above numbers are true?
2. How could they win against 5 to 1 odds? what possible reason could there be? I just don't get it. It's not like at Narva, where the Russian army was actually trapped, blinded by a blizzard, abandoned by command, split up and taken out piecemeal etc. here it's just a field battle.

[Radosław Sikora]

I went to wikipedia and checked this battle. It says that there were 3500 Saxon cuirassiers and 6000 Polish cavalrymen against 2000 Swedes of which 60 was infantry. Two questions:

1. Do you think the above numbers are true?

They are quite correct, but as far as Polish-Lithuanian-Saxon army is concerned, they don't say about actual numbers of soldiers, but about its 'on paper' numbers.
The actual number of soldiers is in some Saxon source. I'll write about it later.

2. How could they win against 5 to 1 odds? what possible reason could there be? I just don't get it. It's not like at Narva, where the Russian army was actually trapped, blinded by a blizzard, abandoned by command, split up and taken out piecemeal etc. here it's just a field battle.

The actual disproportion of soldiers before the battle was 3 :1.
There was no coordination between particular commanders of P-L-S army, because they hated each other. And in fact, not all of them were interested in a true fight. So only some of them really fought, while another ones fled without any fight.

[Dave Strider]

All I know is, Cavalry in the 1800s was still quite effective. Before AND after Rifles were standardized.

Cavalry, no matter how easily killed by Musket balls, were still deadly against Infantry unless they formed square. The Napoleonic wars demonstrated this.

The Crimean War's likely most famous battle - Balaklava - is forever known for the Charge of the Light Brigade.

The American Civil War saw Cavalry used as powerful, mounted Infantry, used for holding positions with their rapidly-firing lever-action rifles.

And finally, for an example of later than *that*, one only has to look up Von Bredow's Death Ride at Mars-la-Tour.

[AUSSIE11]

charge of the light horse at bersheeba, another one if you want later... although the light horse weren't true cavalry...

[Domen123]

2. How could they win against 5 to 1 odds? what possible reason could there be?

I guess it was because Polish and Lithuanian commanders fought harder against each other than against the Swedes in this battle.

But surely Radoslaw can give you more details.