Napoleonic period cavalry

[Narakir]

This post is a try to solve my ignorance. What are the main differences and advantages/tactical role of the different cavalry corps in this period ? I just know that cuirassiers worked like heavy cavalry for front charge beacause they had an armour resistant to bullets. There is also hussards, Lanciers/Uhlans why two different type of light cavarly with equipement, why ? and the dragoons what was thier role ? isn't it better to a cavalry to charge than fire with guns in this period ? did they acted a way similar to ancient horse archers ? or did they charged firing at the ennemy before the clash ?

[blinkboy182]

Well, I don't know that much on Naponleonic cavalry. But a dragoon is basically a soldier who moves as cavalry, but fights as infantry.

[The White Knight]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=56373

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=59249

Are both previews of a highly historically correct Napoleonic mod for RTW: NTW2. The first discusses cavalry, the second general tactics.

I highly recommend taking a look at them, because the Lordz are true experts in Napoleonic warfare.

[King Henry V]

The three types of cavalry had different roles on the battlefield, and were used against other cavalry in a rock-paper-scissors way. Heavy cavalry such as cuirassiers carried the broad straight heavy swords which were used to hack and stab with great brutality. They were used as shock troops and lesser infantry would often quail in front of a heavy cavalry charge. Light cavalry would also be pulverised by them if the cuirassiers could get to grips with the former.
Hussars were generally the main component of the light cavalry. They were particularly valuable for reconnaissance, skirmishing, pursuing retreating enemies or screening the withdrawal of their own army. They wielded the curved light cavalry sabre, useful mainly for slicing.
Lancers were another, less common, type of cavalry. Their role was mainly to counter heavy cavalry, as their fast horses and long lances meant that they could spear the heavy cavalryy before they got within sword distance. They were also especially valuable in breaking infantry squares - the only formation that could withstand cavalry. However, against the faster Hussars, they were very vulnerable if their opponents managed to dodge the lance points and cut them down.

Dragoons formed a sort of medium between light and heavy cavalry and cavalry and infantry and were themselves divided into light and heavy dragoons. The heavy dragoons were not as heavily equipped as the cuirassiers, armed with the straight heavy cavalry sword and with a short musket called a carbine. This latter weapon was used mostly when the dragoons dismounted, however during the 17th century they were fired during a charge to cause disruption in the enemy line.
Light dragoons were similar to hussars, also armed with the sabre yet had the usual dragoon's carbine.

Hope this helps.

[vikrant]

is it true that oficers were always mounted
but what was the use of that

[Semper_Crecis]

Field Officers (Majors > Colonels) were generally mounted for the purposes of morale (more men can see you on a horese), mobility and a to get better perspective of events. Officers in command of larger formations were mounted for much the same reasons, however the provision of mobility is more essential in their and their gallopers (courier offices) cases. Offices lower down the rankings with the money may have been mounted (unless an envious colonel did not wish to be outdone) however as they did not have any extra command responsibilities their duties of morale and discipline were better carried out walking with their men.

[vikrant]

but what about enemy marks men {snipers}
the mounted officer could have been an easy target

[Last Roman]

but what about enemy marks men {snipers}
the mounted officer could have been an easy target

very true. But they were too few and too far to be easy targets. Also I'm not sure if Majors and Colonels would actually take action in battle.

[Semper_Crecis]

There were very few units in the Napoleonic period equipped with accurate weapons. The avarage effective range of a musket (That is to say, the distance at which aiming it at an individual target is effective) in the Napoleonic wars was around 30 yards with that of a British Baker Rifle around 200. Rifles were known to be used to snipe at enemy officers but there were far too few trained riflemen in the hosile environment of a Napoleonic battlefield to make it a regularly effective strategy. One must imagine the battlefield in a pall of smoke, the only indication of an enemy unit a dark smear and the snatched glimpse of a flag through the murk, and the difficulty this would present to a sniper.

[Mangalore]

but what about enemy marks men {snipers}
the mounted officer could have been an easy target

During the Napoleonic wars the casualties among officers were extremely high because of the idea of leading from the front. At least anything from colonel downwards sooner or latter was in the middle of things and indeed the preferred target of marksmen.

[Lee1026]

Besides, rifles back then were not that great.

[vizi]

Besides, rifles back then were not that great.

Well snipers were used by US forces and that was about it during that time. The snipers were mainly frontiersmen who had honed their skill with the rifle hunting in the mountian forests.

I don't think Europe had many if any snipers.

[King Henry V]

That was because battles in Europe were often more set-piece, lacking the close proximity that American battles tended to have. In Europe armies were seperated by cannon range, which was far greater than the range of even a Baker rifle. Apart from the British army, no other European army of the time fielded units of riflemen.
There are however, exceptions. Bernard Cornwell, in his book Sharpe's Havoc from the famous Sharpe series, writes an episode where his fictional rifleman Daniel Hagman kills a French officer at 700 paces. While this may sound incredible, in the Historical Note Cornwell says:
"Hagman's marksmanship at seven hundred paces sounds a little too good to be believed, but it is based on an actual event which occured the previous year during Sir John Moore's retreat to Corunna. Tom Plunkett ('an irrepressibley vulgar rifleman', Christopher Hibbert calls him in his book Corunna) fired the 'miracle shot' which killed the French General Colbert at around seven hundred yards. The shot, rightly, became famous among riflemen. I read in a recent publication that the extreme range of the Baker rifle was only three hundred yards, a fact that would have surprised the men in green who reckoned that distance to be middling."

[Narakir]

Things are clearer for me now, thanks.

[Last Roman]

Besides, rifles back then were not that great.

rifles (though obviously not as good as today) weren't all that bad. It was muskets that were horrible.

[Lee1026]

rifles (though obviously not as good as today) weren't all that bad. It was muskets that were horrible.

With the rifles, we are still talking about 200 yards here. A general could obviously be further away then that.

[Last Roman]

With the rifles, we are still talking about 200 yards here. A general could obviously be further away then that.

very true.

[vizi]

Why kill the general when you can kill the officers? The general is far away but if you take out the officers eventually that unit will become disorganised.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

With the rifles, we are still talking about 200 yards here. A general could obviously be further away then that.

In the American Revolution, a British officer invented a new rifle - shot 6-7 times per minute, had a longer range and would have affected the war greatly. He also had a chance to shoot General Washington. Neither, however, did what they were planned to do.

[Quintus Valerius]

http://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/index.html is a good site for Napoleonic stuff.

Dragoons had largely given up their dismounted role by the Napoleonic Wars, and were considered medium to heavy cavalry (the latter especially true in the British army, which had no armoured cavalry during the Napoleonic period). The difference between Hussars, Light Dragoons, Chasseurs a Cheval, et cetera was mostly confined to uniform. They generally performed the same functions of scouting, protecting the army's flanks, and so on, but were often also utilized as "battle cavalry".