Horse and musket question

[Fenton]

Perhaps the question for Wargamers is "At what level does this matter?"  Does it affect battle outcome, or only melee?  Isn't it all a bit, micro-scale?  Do better boots give infantry a move advantage?  Does an extra inch on a bayonet give them a plus one in combat?  Does a higher shako lead to more shots going over their heads?  What we do know is these men were not invulnerable , and they were not unstoppable. What would we be trying to create,if we gave Cuirassiers more pluses?  Resist the temptation to create supermen!

Mollinary

Very wise

[FierceKitty]

The Duffy book is The Military Experience in the Age of Reason; an absolute must-read for those interested in 18th century warfare in Europe. Though I'm amused to see the Napoleonics crowd hijacking the topic.  "Hats off, gentlemen. If he were still alive, we should not be here."

[WeeWars]

Hijacking the topic? Surely not.

[FierceKitty]

Ask any 18th century enthusiast, and you'll find a certain amount of irritation with the competition Napoleonics give us for players and headlines.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Or maybe some of us don't really do 18th Century, but do do Napoleonics and/or 19th century where the Curassiers were still used! 
Well, apart from AWI...

[Hussargeneral]

I game both Napoleonics and the Seven Years War. The question of the Cuirass is valid for both periods, British Heavy Horse didn't wear a Cuirass in either period, but, were not inferior to their opponents.

[fsn]

Ask any 18th century enthusiast, and you'll find a certain amount of irritation with the competition Napoleonics give us for players and headlines.

The original question asked about the Napoleonic Wars, which is why I've chipped in. That and becuase I have a fairly large number of books that I could consult for an informed view. I have a certain interest in the War of the Spanish Succession. I have read Duffy, and a number of other books on the C18, but find little of great interest, and surely that's OK? We all like what we like for whatever reasons we like it?

I don't know why an C18 would be irritated by the Napoleonic Wars. They flowed directly from the Revolutionary Wars of the ... C18. They are probably more popular becuase there is more material available, and because Airfix introduced their Waterloo range and not the Minden range. I certainly don't view C18 gamers (and let's be fair, that's quite a large reach) as superior, inferior or irritating. (Except the AWI. I hate the AWI. More myths than Bulfinch.)

I am puzzled by your comments Kitty.

[fsn]

Perhaps the question for Wargamers is "At what level does this matter?" 

For me the question is, "if the cuirass had no use why did they keep it?" There must have been sopme advantage to offset the disadvantages. Whether that effect is moral or physical is almost immaterial. Cuirassiers must have had some advantage, which I like to reflect in my rules. Similarly, I also give lancers a bonus against infantry, but punish them in a a cavalry melee.

However, I understand that not everyone likes that degree of fine tuning. 

[Hwiccee]

For me the question is, "if the cuirass had no use why did they keep it?"

I think the point is they didn't. In the 18th century the use of them dwindled to almost nothing. While in later times many 'cuirassiers' didn't actually wear cuirasses and there was only limited conversion of units to 'cuirassiers'.

I think the real question should be 'if the cuirass was so useful why didn't they keep it'?  Also perhaps 'why didn't they equip all/more units with it if it was so good'?

This is not to argue that 'cuirassiers' should not have combat advantages. Just that the vast bulk of the advantage these units had was because of higher morale, experience, esprit de corps, big/better men/horses.

[Hertsblue]

I also game both SYW and Napoleonics (and WSS too, as it happens). Each has a different flavour, different personalities and different tactics. I don't see any conflict between them.

Did the cuirass have any battlefield utility? Well, Napoleon certainly thought so - he equipped all "cavelerie" regiments with them fairly early on in his reign. He also insisted that his two regiments of Carabiniers adopt back and breastplates in 1810, primarily to cut down casualties. Whether they actually did is possibly a matter of perception. It's interesting that the cuirass soldiered on in Europe right up until the end of the nineteenth century, although this is probably more attributable to military conservatism than protective efficiency.    

[sunjester]

The proofing mark/dent from test ball could easily be made with a balpeen hammer.

"Easily"?  Remind me to get down my Second Empire cuirass to show you some time, you wouls really have to go some to touch it with a balpeen hammer.

[WeeWars]

If I may be allowed to add some Napoleonic observations without blunting my own 18th Century enthusiasm.

The French cuirass picked up from Waterloo by Sir Walter Scott and on display at his home, Abbotsford, is – if I recall correctly – shot through as if by a musket ball (or perhaps a piece of shrapnel).

The Eggmühl quote mentioned in the previous posts is from Marbot, as quoted on my 1809 Blog:

www.michaelscott.name/1809/1809blogpost103.htm

As he says, the fight settled a question that had long been debated, as to the necessity of double cuirasses. 18th Century enthusiasts (like me, for example) can decide for themselves how far back that debate went.

The question that was settled was that heavy cavalry equipped with double cuirasses were at a definite advantage when in the thick of fighting (not facing a hail of bullets) over cavalry armed only with front plates (or no armour). This was when "courage, tenacity and strength were well matched" but "defensive arms were unequal". This would have allowed French cuirassiers in the future to get stuck in, knowing that their generals, at least, were convinced they had an advantage – despite any lack of training.

For me, the wargames question would be:

Should cuirassiers armed with double cuirasses be at an advantage over other heavy cavalry after a first round of melee?

[toxicpixie]

Should cuirassiers armed with double cuirasses be at an advantage over other heavy cavalry after a first round of melee?

Given the time span involved in a typical wargames melee round, it's probably relevant immediately if it's relevant at all - cavalry formations would be "in the thick of it" immediately after contact, in seconds not minutes. Unless you've fine ground your rules to reflect seconds

(No great horse in the race, here! Although I subscribe more to the morale and elan boosting ability than the physical protection ability, I'm not totally convinced either way, for any of the period from the Sun King on up).

[WeeWars]

Given the time span involved in a typical wargames melee round, it's probably relevant immediately if it's relevant at all - cavalry formations would be "in the thick of it" immediately after contact, in seconds not minutes. Unless you've fine ground your rules to reflect seconds

For me, the advantage might come in a push back: Austrian cuirassiers (for example) being pushed back by French lose their heavy cavalry status.

[Last Hussar]

 

"Easily"?   Remind me to get down my Second Empire cuirass to show you some time, you wouls really have to go some to touch it with a balpeen hammer.

On a CHEAP cuirass you were trying to pass off as bulletproof....

To clarify I don't mean the force is coming from the balpeen - that just has the shape.  There is a hairy arsed smith hittig it with a 8 pound lump hammer