"Infantry attacking cavalry" Topic

The following is prompted by a situation that occurred during a game this weekend.

I'm grateful for Joe Knight who provided me with the following examples:

· Infantry attack cavalry !
"Infantry charging cavalry was thing rarely attempted.
It demanded great resolution." ( – James Arnold )

There were several instances where the infantry actually executed bayonet charges against cavalry.

· – In 1811 at El Bodon, British 5th Regiment of Foot attacked French cavalry.

· – According to l'Houssaye, in 1814 at Craonne, two regiments of Russian infantry attacked French dragoons commanded by Grouchy. The boldness of the infantry were enough to drive back the dragoons on to the battery which they had just captured. Grouchy was wounded.

· – In 1809 at Aspern-Essling, "Instead of losing momentum by ordering a square, he [Saint-Hilaire] commanded the trusty 105th Line to face to the flank, told the drummers to beat the pas de charge, and advanced against the enemy horsemen. Infantry charging cavalry was thing rarely attempted. It demanded great resolution. … The 105th met the challenge and drove off the startled Austrian cuirassiers." (Arnold – "Napoleon Conquers Austria" p 70)

· – In May 1813 at Diehmen, Allies' cavalry attacked the square of French 52nd Line twice. The 52nd and 137th Line actually reformed into columns, and advanced at the "pas de charge" against the Russian cavalry. The cavalry faced with the startling and unusal situation, withdrew. (Nafziger – "Lutzen and Bautzen" p 201) Other sources mention the 53rd instead of 137th.

· – In 1812 at Borodino, the battalion columns of (Russian) Ismailovsk Lifeguard Infantry Regiment received French cuirassiers with volley and then attacked with bayonets. Officer Shimanski of this regiment doesn't mention the bayonet charge, he wrote that only some soldiers left the ranks and fired at the backs of the fleeing French. The Russian 'Pernau' Infantry Regiment repulsed cavalry attack and then itself charged the cavalry with bayonets. Unable to catch them some men in the front rank threw their musket with bayonets as javelins at the backs of the cavalrymen ! (Zhmodikov – "Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars" Vol. II)

· – In 1813 near Katzbach, French IV/34th Line "found a force of Prussian uhlans had charged into and captured the park of the French XI Corps. When only about one-sixth of their muskets would fire because of the day long rain the IV/34th Line charged, in a battalion mass, against the cavalry, drove it away, and recaptured the XI Corps park. They do not appear to have suffered any appreciable losses." (Nafziger – "Imperial Bayonets" p 42)

· – In 1814 at Vauchamps, two companies of the Prussian Silesian Schutzen (240 riflemen) found themselves with a single squadron of Polish Guard Lancers sitting on their line of escape from the disaster that was befalling on their brigade. The Schutzen formed a column and charged forward cutting their way through the enemy cavalry.

I'm looking for other examples where infantry closed on cavalry and drove them off.

Thoughts would be welcomed.

You have three more than I knew about.

The problem was, if the charging infantry became disorganized it was extremely vulnerable.

mjc

Question is, how to model it in the rules?

I think this was talked about in the last month here on TMP.

I can't find the subject but it was discussed.

?

Robert Henry

How to model it in the rules?

Well since it was such a strange event to happen, and the occassions where infantry charged cavalry and were cut down being the norm, I would suggest using rules as normal and if they are any good the instances above can be recreated with a few lucky dice rolls!

The only actualy new mechanic would be some sort of evade move for the cavalry to deny the infantry the fight at all.

Don't allow infantry to charge cavalry, unless you are refighting one of the above battles. And then make it a one-time-only event.

In the time I have played Napoleonics I have seen it a few times. From memory only once did the infantry rout the Cav, who were already disorderd. At least once the plan backfired and the infantry got malleted,the rest after a bit of fisticuffs the cavalry just bounced back with no clear winner.

Each time the combat modifiers were normal, but the infantry did not suffer disadvantage for fighting Cavalry. A friend who has been in a few riots against police horses (As an exercise I hasten to add) recalls that when the s charge it is quite terrifying, however to catch them wrong footed is another matter. Add big sharp pointy things with three or four infantry against each "static" horse and rider and the odds become a little more even.

"Don't allow infantry to charge cavalry, unless you are refighting one of the above battles. And then make it a one-time-only event" Does this mean that next time a Cavalry unit breaks one of my squares in battle I can object because it did not happen in the particular battle we are playing?

Would be fascinated to know in any of the examples above whether the cavalry were in good order and charged frontally on clear ground. I'd make an edjucated guess and say that in all those instances the cavalry were either disordered in some way, caught in the flank, and/or suprised by the infantry due to terrain or smoke.

See this thread:

link

especially for what really happened at Vauchamps.

If horses cannot be persuaded to charge home against a solid line of bayonets typically presented by a steady stationary infantry square, is the position any different if the solid line of bayonets is moving towards the horses? I would suggest the key issue would be the distance separating the infantry and cavalry when the latter realised they were the subject of an assault. If the distance was short, say 50 yards, I don't think the cavalry would have the time to manoeuvre and would be best withdrawn to a position from where they could exploit the normal advantages enjoyed by mounted versus dismounted troops.

I am surprised there are not more examples cited in unit histories. Perhaps it was more common than we may have previously thought.

- Allan

the occassions where infantry charged cavalry and were cut down being the norm

Can someone supply an equal number of references for this, please? From my limited reading the infantry who are recorded as being cut down are being attacked, rather than advancing on the cavalry at the time.

I think the answer is to ensure that infantry out of square fighting cavalry are at high risk. If the cavalry lose the battle (or bottle out before hand) they will simply retire in some degree of disorder. If the infantry lose, they are almost certain to be destroyed as a fighting force. So by all means allow the infantry to take the risk…

You may want to allow cavalry to 'evade' out of musketry range to prevent the 'safer' (although I suspect less realistic) tactic of advancing to within short range and loosing off a volley.

Why not make it a random event?

Thanks for the comments.

In our game the cavalry did not actually charge but walked up to something like 10ydrs of the cavalry and they failed their moral check.

The fear we had is that if you restrict the infantrys ability to advance on cavalry it could mean infantry are too easily pinned by cavalry.

In our games Charges are not automatic, they are rolled for by a base percentage chance which is modified by a table of modifiers.

We only allow Infantry to charge cavalry under certain circumstances :

– Enemy cavalry is shaken or worse
– Enemy cavalry is not facing (flank or rear)
– Own troops are formed
– Own troops are of good morale

If this criteria is met then the charge may be declared. However, the base chance is low to begin with, if the enemy is not facing there is a +10% but if the enemy is shaken or worse morale another bonus of +30% occurs.

So if the base rate is 5% then this could rise up another +40% not including officer bonuses, experience bonuses etc.

So, in our system the chance to charge enemy cavalry with bayonets is rare but if the situation is right the actual chance to charge could be 50/50

p.s. In our system, if you commit to a charge that fails (you roll over the % chance) then your troops are still advanced to within 150yds of the enemy and halt. You may issue small-arms fire but are deemed unformed for the rest of the turn. Basically this means that the intention to charge might have been there but the actual order did not eventuate. But the troops still advanced until it was seen futile to charge home (failed % roll).

When this happens the failed chargers are often placed in a vulnerable position forward of the rest of the line. This leaves them open for counter-action or worse. So declaring a charge is not something to take lightly, if you commit to a charge you better darn well know the odds of pulling it off are well in your favour.

Shane

If I were going to do this in a game, I would first distinguish

"inf advancing on cav"

from

"inf charging cav"

In the advancing scenario, the cav would have the option of withdrawing or sticking around. If they chose to stick around, go to charging.

Infantry charging cav could physically happen. The reason it wasn't common were the consequences if things went bad and the minimal benefit if the infantry won.

So . . . if the charging infantry win, limit or reduce the chances that the cavalry will suffer significant adverse results (routing or heavy casualties).

If the charging infantry lose, they take severe combat result (routed + heavy casualties). Officers leading from the front in this situation would be especially vulnerable.

My 2 cents!

mjc

Another thing that crops up, Lets say cav are engaged frontally. I know that really dosnt amount to much cos as soon as melee starts all the lines get smushed up and its all a bit swirly and wibbely wobbely, but hear me out.
Theyre fighting to the front and a battalion is stood 100 yards off with fixed bayonets and no opponents in sight.

Any historical instances of infantry fixing l'baionette and joining in the fray with a flanking charge?