There are old hussars and there are bold hussars but there are no old, bold hussars!
(https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13240611_1084828578248476_4658799299804924346_n.jpg?oh=2e8c1bce8471817d76dec78a39e3d222&oe=579B5DC7)
At last! Some real world data. Thanks!
What about the Chasseurs a Chevel?!?
Quote from: mad lemmey on 14 May 2016, 02:42:13 PM
What about the Chasseurs a Chevel?!?
Who?
Oh, you mean those without the qualifications to join one of the other arms of the cavalry ;)
And Lancers....
IanS
Quote from: ianrs54 on 14 May 2016, 03:09:08 PM
And Lancers....
IanS
We don't talk about the pig-stickers :)
Caribinaries are also somewhat absent!
Quote from: mad lemmey on 14 May 2016, 03:20:25 PM
Caribinaries are also somewhat absent!
Carabiners are just Cuirassiers who got a slightly fancier outfit.
Horse Grenadiers on the other hand are Cuirassiers who REALLY pissed off someone in the quartermasters office
Quote from: Ithoriel on 14 May 2016, 03:36:19 PM
Carabiners are just Cuirassiers who got a slightly fancier outfit.
Horse Grenadiers on the other hand are Cuirassiers who REALLY pissed off someone in the quartermasters office
Really?
I thought carabiniers retained their outfit when the cavalerie was converted to cuirassier
And the only difference between carabiniers and grenadiers are pay grade due to guard status and minor variations of facings - don't know why that would bother the quartermaster any
So based on this guide there appears to be no difference between French and British hussars. Is that a fair statement then?
AAaaaah wargamers...
The only ones who can turn a funny post into a discussion about battlefield roles and paygrades :D :D :D
Keep it up forum :-bd :-bd :-bd :-bd
Ah you miss the subtlety of the ironic humour
Ithoriel was referring to the 1812 uniform carabiniers as being fancy cuirasiers
whereas I like to believe such anathema was never issued and was referring to the earlier uniform which of course invalidated his next statement.
the appreciation of such humour requires knowledge of the subject matter :D
I do not believe one can post such a thing and not treat the subsequent responses as being in a similar vein. They amused me at least.
I still think the Horse Grenadiers must have pissed off someone in the commissary otherwise why did they miss out on the field hibachis issued to the other Heavy Cavalry, I guess they just had to roast their horse meat on a wooden stick ;)
Quote from: Zippee on 14 May 2016, 10:30:03 PM
Ah you miss the subtlety of the ironic humour
Ithoriel was referring to the 1812 uniform carabiniers as being fancy cuirasiers
whereas I like to believe such anathema was never issued and was referring to the earlier uniform which of course invalidated his next statement.
the appreciation of such humour requires knowledge of the subject matter :D
i don't believe i missed anything.
WHAT ABOUT LANCERS !!!!!
IanS
Quote from: d_Guy on 14 May 2016, 07:01:57 PM
So based on this guide there appears to be no difference between French and British hussars. Is that a fair statement then?
Weren't British LC still designated light dragoons, rather than hussars? Not one of my favourite periods, so I just raise the question.
Both, all started as Lt Dragoons, which evolved from the light squadrons of Dragoon regiments.
IanS
And were they officially described as light dragoons or as hussars by the war office?
Again both. Both had same role.
IanS
Did the Carabinaries wear bright yellow uniforms, and were they recruited from ex-coalminers in the Lille region?
Cheveux Legers. Were they something special, or the name for the lancers?
Quote from: RoyWilliamson on 15 May 2016, 12:33:06 PM
Cheveux Legers. Were they something special, or the name for the lancers?
Les Chevau-légers (from French cheval meaning horse and léger meaning light) - a generic name for several units of French, Austrian and German light and medium cavalry.
Lancers were "chevau-légers lanciers." The Red or Dutch Lancers, for example, being officially the 2e régiment de chevau-légers lanciers de la Garde Impériale.
Reading all these different names, duties and types makes me wonder if it wouldn't have been far easier to have just simplified things. Think of all the expense in the costs of different uniforms and equipment. The messing about with different training, recruiting issues and having the right unit for the job.
Now I know why I favour the infantry ;D
And don't collect French Napoleonics!
The Americans seemed to get it right when they scrapped the dragoons and mounted rifles and just went for cavalry, who in fact were dragoons.
Quote from: Leman on 15 May 2016, 11:10:36 AM
Did the Carabinaries wear bright yellow uniforms, and were they recruited from ex-coalminers in the Lille region?
Having very limited knowledge of the period, these were sent ahead of the army to sniff out enemy positions?
Quote from: RoyWilliamson on 15 May 2016, 06:02:23 PM
Reading all these different names, duties and types makes me wonder if it wouldn't have been far easier to have just simplified things. Think of all the expense in the costs of different uniforms and equipment. The messing about with different training, recruiting issues and having the right unit for the job.
Now I know why I favour the infantry ;D
And don't collect French Napoleonics!
You wouldn't be wrong, except for the morale effects of everyone being special and better, and having a dozen uniforms meaning you all get to be both smart and practical! Also, bit like (say) WW2 tanks where everyone thinks there's more battle fields than there are so builds several sets of different tank types till someone says "does it drive acceptably fast with an acceptable gun and acceptable, and actually work well enough to get to the battlefield and have to be trucked back off the start line for repair?" and just shifted to the T-34/Sherman-a-like.
Also, it would cut profit from British fabric/clothing manufacturers if the French stopped buying eleven sets of different cloth for uniforms from us.
Also redux, reminds me of this - http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm (http://7.62x54r.net/MosinID/MosinHumor.htm)
I would like to ask re the original post.
Why is this under humour, and not the section for historical accuracy?
I must have misposted :)
Quote from: Last Hussar on 24 May 2016, 11:30:41 PM
I would like to ask re the original post.
Why is this under humour, and not the section for historical accuracy?
Ever seen a French hussar trying to manoeuvre himself in those pants?