Horse and musket question

[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

[Jim Ando]

Hi

Horses aren't proofed and a cuirassier with out a horse is up s**t creek.

The cuirassier came into his own due to the impetus of his charge .

His cuirass probably helped in a melee.

Napoleonic Austrian cuirassiers suffered a bit due to them having armour on the front only.

Jim

[fsn]

Wot Jim said.

[Rob]

My 2 penneth:

When cavalry charge and counter-charge each other the result is either: one side breaks and runs, both sides stop before they contact, or both sides slow and enter each others ranks in a general melee. This for a modern man is as near to understanding the reality of cavalry verses cavalry combat as I am ever likly to get. Armour in these situations is to help one side have the confidence to charge to contact and I am sure it tipped the balance in a lot of combats.

What we are guilty of as wargamers I often think is not allowing for the fact that the horse has a mind and a will of its own as well as the rider and in these circumstances could gallop away without its riders consent, a sort of involuntary flinch by the cavalry. On the other hand the horse could and did fight (examples Marbot at Eylau, sgt Ewart at Waterloo) and I would think the sort of large psychopathic horses like the Saxon heavy cavalry seemed to have were probably pretty scary to your average grass loving conscripted mount. So the big aggressive horse with a big armoured man is quite likly to affect the confidence of the cavalry coming the other way.

In my opinion the armour was bullet proof but did not save the man from musketry as his horse would be hit. It did give him a morale boost because he knew it was bullet proof and in mellee would certainly be pistol proof. Its chief utility though is during the charge, to give the cuirrasseur that bit of extra confidence.

Cheers Rob 

[FierceKitty]

Duffy again, though people seem determined to ignore his testimony: cavalry almost always interpenetrated each other down the files, since, as the previous poster and my learned colleague has just pointed out, horses are bright enough to try to avoid slamming into each other. Few rules seem to allow for this pretty obvious "contact plus ten seconds" situation.

[FierceKitty]

Of course, the question everyone really wants an answer to is why on earth the lance didn't make a comeback for heavy cavalry combat. Grateful though I'd be for a bullet-proof breastplate, I'd rather be able to hit an enemy horseman at an extra three paces or so away, not to mention having a weapon which would have rewritten the drillbook for infantry defences against horse.

OK, that should provoke another twenty posts of so.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

Lack of horsemanship skill and time to train in use ?

[Hertsblue]

Duffy again, though people seem determined to ignore his testimony: cavalry almost always interpenetrated each other down the files, since, as the previous poster and my learned colleague has just pointed out, horses are bright enough to try to avoid slamming into each other. Few rules seem to allow for this pretty obvious "contact plus ten seconds" situation.

Duffy again (this time from The Army of Maria Theresa: "There is ample evidence to show that rival forces of cavalry seldom met in head-on collision. In the Prince de Ligne's (a Walloon general serving in the Austrian army) experience the onrushing lines halted as if on the drill field, turned aside and trailed each other on parallel courses for a couple of minutes, then broke off contact altogether. Actual hand-to-hand combat occurred only when a fleeing force was overtaken by the enemy, in which case the victors and vanquished rode alongside exchanging blows, with the worst riders attracting most of the punishment."

Of course, the question everyone really wants an answer to is why on earth the lance didn't make a comeback for heavy cavalry combat. Grateful though I'd be for a bullet-proof breastplate, I'd rather be able to hit an enemy horseman at an extra three paces or so away, not to mention having a weapon which would have rewritten the drillbook for infantry defences against horse.

Are you talking about the heavy knightly lance, which was couched, or the light, eastern lance which was used "underhand" (and frequently thrown in combat)? For the former, the training required would have been too long to ensure proficiency in conscripts: for the latter, Napoleon and his contemporaries did introduce lancers, but unarmoured and mounted on light horses.   

[FierceKitty]

That's why I mentioned heavy cavalry. Surely what could be learned in 1525 or 1683 could also have been learned in 1756? It's not as if this was the age of low-quality mass conscript armies yet.

[Hertsblue]

That's why I mentioned heavy cavalry. Surely what could be learned in 1525 or 1683 could also have been learned in 1756? It's not as if this was the age of low-quality mass conscript armies yet.

The heavy lancers of 1525 tended to be the nobility and thus armoured cap à pied. Many of their horses were also armoured. They fared badly against pistoliers in the French Wars of Religion. By 1683 I would suggest that most western heavy cavalry were armed with pistols, as being easier to operate and having a longer reach than the lance. True, it can be argued that Vienna was relieved by Polish lances, but they were fighting against similarly armed troops. At Kliszow in 1702 the Polish lancer cavalry, having pushed back the Swedish cavalry mainly by weight of numbers, were halted and then driven back by the Swedish infantry. This was probably the swan-song of the heavy lancer.

[FierceKitty]

I know. But I can't believe that sword-armed horse would have done any better.

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

sword-armed horse

Never seen a horse with arms.

Sorry. On a serious note the weapons on the man are secondary, it's the momentum of the horse that does the damage. Have faced 4 police horses in a controlled situation, cantering, and it's scary.

IanS

[Hertsblue]

Sorry. On a serious note the weapons on the man are secondary, it's the momentum of the horse that does the damage. Have faced 4 police horses in a controlled situation, cantering, and it's scary.

IanS

Ah, it's all coming out now, Ian! 

[FierceKitty]

My worst experience in a bit of a free-for-all with riding crops was charging frontally into four riders abreast (ok, it was just a pony club game, not a real melee) and getting stirrups entangled. Who needs a lance or a sabre?

[toxicpixie]

That Polo? Wasn't it supposed to be great practise for the cavalry melee!

[FierceKitty]

I've never been a good enough rider for polo.