Odd question I know, but all references I find are for Dragoons (I am working on Dragoner is a Austrian German Language equivalent) or Cuirassiers.

Did they have any 'Cavalry', or is this covered by Dragoon?  If so what was the role of the Dragoon - Mounted infantry with the hard charging done by Cuirassier? Dismountable cavalry, or had they moved into the cavalry role.

Generally, in WSS there were two types of mounted troops: cavalry, who were descendants of noble horsemen (knights) and dragoons - formerly infantrymen riding to battle on horses.
Some of the cavalry wore cuirass and some not. Some did it periodically, e.g. British. All Austrian cavalry wore cuirasses, and was called "cuirassiers", but this was the cavalry of Habsburg empire.

Austrian dragoons can play both roles. They fought mounted as well as dismounted, but rarerly dismounted in the open field. Austrian commanders followed general the tendency to treat dragoons as inferior class of cavalry.
Hope this helps.

Let's not the hussars. Granted, they are not rated as quality horse, but, like Russia's cossacks, can be useful for recon, screening, harassment, pursuit and ,of course, plundering.

Grenadier

I didn't mention hussars, because they weren't considered "battle cavalry" in the period.

Cheers! I was on the right lines, but it was the Cuirassiers they had become.  (In contrast Wiki says in the 1740's all British Cavalry were reclassified as Dragoons - the pay was cheaper.  It's been going on longer than you think!)

Did the cuirassiers fire from horseback?.  Did they stop to fire before charging, as the french cavalry did, or did they follow the British example of straight charge?

From what I have absorbed, the Austrian cuirassiers operated in much the same way as the French, Bavarian and other "Catholic" armies, ie: trot ahead by squadrons to engage with pistols/carbines, retire and repeat as warranted and then a quick trot "charge" with the sword. The British, Dutch, Danish, Hanorvian and other German horse relyed upon the quick trot, knee to knee charge with sword. Pistols/carbines were for self defense and picket duty. Only the Swedes, and possibly the Russians(in response) used the gallop in the charge.

QuoteOnly the Swedes, and possibly the Russians(in response) used the gallop in the charge.

And Polish, as they always did.

Quotethe Austrian cuirassiers operated in much the same way as the French, Bavarian and other "Catholic" armies, ie: trot ahead by squadrons to engage with pistols/carbines, retire and repeat as warranted and then a quick trot "charge" with the sword.

I heard, that they adopted this technique during continous wars with Ottoman empire. Turks and Tartars had always numerical advantage, but their cavalry were vulnerable to small arms fire, so best tactic agains them was to halt their charge with carbine/pistol salvo, then to charge home with drawn swords.

BTW, this topic was discussed at Yahoo groops. It seems that cavalry traditionally regarded as using obsolete tactic, used cold steel charge (in fast trot, to retain cohesion) quite often. The best example is Gendarmerie charging several times at Blenheim, not to mention numerous efforts of ever victorious French cavalry during League of Augsburg war.

Righty-o Maciek! The cavalry tactics of this period may seem boring and uninspired compared to the 1740-1815 period, but cohesion and discipline were superb. Galloping in wild and routing your opponant usually resulted in your own cavalry disappearing for the remainder of the battle! The Swedish were prone to this. One way to reign in your cav was to go in a bit more casually, knee to knee like riot police. On the other hand, by being casual, the infantry had no real fear of cavalry attacks because they could easily unhorse a regiment with a volley or two as it trotted towards them. Square was only used if a battalion was cut off and surrounded.  Even during the SYW most battalions, when threatened by cavalry, simply about faced towards the threat and drove it off with musketry.

The problem we are having now is identifing who used only Charging, and who used Shooting and Charging.  Ordered a book - hopefully that will give some clues

If I remember correctly Dan Schorr's Northern Wars site suggests the Danes used the fire/charge sequence. Might have been pre-WSS however.

Chad

I would look towards Schor, Thomas Arnfelt(Ga Pa rules) and Nick Dorrell(Baccus Polemos GNW) and Chris Grice/Stu Gibson(Polemos WSS) as your sources, especially Arnfelt and Dorrell. In each set of rules the different horse and infantry styles are dipicted. Also, get the GaPa army list book Vol 1(GNW), with hopefully vol 2(WSS) in the works. Polemos GNW is also more comprehensive than the WSS set and many folks use it for both theatres. I believe Baccus also carries the uniform CD's.
Dan Schor's site has be down for a while now.

Quote from: Last Hussar on 17 January 2011, 01:14:01 AM
The problem we are having now is identifing who used only Charging, and who used Shooting and Charging.  Ordered a book - hopefully that will give some clues

I wouldn't bet for it 

Quote from: Chad on 17 January 2011, 01:02:00 PM
If I remember correctly Dan Schorr's Northern Wars site suggests the Danes used the fire/charge sequence. Might have been pre-WSS however.

At Wismar in 1711, they charged Swedes in full gallop.

Quote from: Grenadier on 16 January 2011, 10:21:59 PM
Galloping in wild and routing your opponant usually resulted in your own cavalry disappearing for the remainder of the battle! The Swedish were prone to this.

I think, that there is no matter of charging in gallop, but rather discipline and leadership. Swedish cavalry was real king of the battlefield in GNW. Their morale was uncomparable to anything you could find in Europe, probably due to their strong protestant faith. Their habit to simply charge everything in their front allowed them to win against unbelivable odds.

Quote from: maciek on 17 January 2011, 08:02:44 PM
Their habit to simply charge everything in their front allowed them to win against unbelivable odds.

Agreed, but once they charged and routed an enemy it was very difficult to stop them from the pursuit or attacking the next nearest enemy and then the next.
It is my opinion that the "unbeatable" quality of Swedish horse is exaggerated, much like the legendary SYW Prussians who out-march and out-shoot anyone. Yes, the Swedish horse, in the first half of the war, were very good, and like the rest of the army, very aggressive. These two qualities make them formidable, but remember, much of their opposition was some pretty poor and mediocre Russian, Saxon, Norwegian and Polish horse. In subsequent years the army wasn't so invincible. Lack of arms, high casualties, lack of cloth, leather and quality horses took some of the edge off the Swedes.
  I would rate much of the European "horse" as equal or better in quality to the Swedes, but certainly not equal in vigor or audacity.   

Quote from: Grenadier on 17 January 2011, 09:27:36 PM
I would rate much of the European "horse" as equal or better in quality to the Swedes, but certainly not equal in vigor or audacity.   

Indeed, a cavalry nation we were not.