"Gallopers & Trotters?" Topic

How did it come about that ECW came to be designated gallopers or trotters?

As I understand it, it had to do with their preferred tactical doctrine.

Trotters approached the target of their charge at a trot so that they could discharge their pistols at the target and thus hopefully disorder them, then they drew their sabers for the attack.

Gallopers eschewed firing their pistols. They therefor did not need the gentler gait needed to aim, nor the time to then draw their sabers. They simply attacked at speed with their "cold steel" and trusted that the impact of their charge would disrupt their targets.

-- Jeff

It's a modern invention, prpbably coined by Peter Berry in 'Forlorn Hope'. Civil War horse were…horse, they weren't defined by their tactics.

If you must, dashing Cavaliers with their long, flowing locks were gallopers, and dour, cautious (or just plain bad) early Parliamentarian horse were trotters.

I suppose you could call Hesselrig's lobsters 'trotters, until they see a cliff, when they become chargers' :)

Many (if not most) writers of the ECW make a great distinction between the different tactical ideas between Rupert's horse, that of the Earl of Bedford and that of Cromwell. The first charged at their enemies at a fast rate (as on a hunting field) using the impetus (another wargame term) and sword to drive the enemy back. The second tried to disrupt an attack by shooting the attackers down and then counter-charging the disorganised (wargame term four) enemy. The same authors show that this would not work as the charge was better. Therefore once the Parliamentary troops got their act together, they attacked at a "round trot" – usually linked to O.Cromwell, esq.

How to differentiate these three ideas? By giving them the term "trotter" or "galloper" and linking morale and combat factors to each.

As an aside, I think all three were possible for any horse.

The terms (I could be very wrong) seem to go back further than Mr Berry – certainly to the Brig. and maybe to Gardiner.

the answers above are quite good. I'd just add that charging at the trot with pistols isn't a bad tactic, but you need discipline and commitment to use the trotting pistol charge.

Let's remember that the trotters were the preferred tactic for many successful horse armies throughout this era, back to the French religious wars, the Dutch Revolt and the 30YW.

Also, charging at the trot continued to be used on an off thru the napoleonic wars and beyond. Heavy cav usually charged at the trot and didn't increase their speed until the last 30-50 yards. Formations were felt to be very important for success in cavalry charges, according to many authors.

The reason I ask is that it seems the English horse trained bands were taught a three-phased attack. Begin at the walk, go into the trot. The front rank fire pistols and at 25-30 yards the unit moves into the gallop.

TMP link

Since the cavalry on both sides would have learned this approach, why did some get named gallopers and some trotters?

Rich

I don't demand that people read me, but I do wish they'd give it a go occasionally. I know I'm a dreadful writer, but there is sometimes something useful in my dribblings if one can penetrate them.

Since the cavalry on both sides would have learned this approach, why did some get named gallopers and some trotters?

Because, as I implied in my earlier post, early Parliamentarian cavalry were reluctant to close. They preferred to caracole (or try to, they weren't very good at that either by most accounts), and wasted a lot of powder and ball attempting to kill the enemy with firepower rather than steel.

"The 'decayed serving-men and tapsters' of the early Parliamentary horse (and even some early Royalists too) used deeper 'Dutch' formations and tended to advance at the trot, relying on pistol fire."

also

"The 'Cuirassiers'…also used Dutch tactics: as Captain Rudd stated in 1663. the cuirassier 'is commonly to give the charge upon a trot, and seldom gallopeth…'"

Gush: Renaissance Armies 1480-1650 (Cambridge 1978). p 119

"the English horse trained bands"

Excuse me? The Trained Bands were Foot not mounted.

That is my understanding as well. I wonder if Rich would share where he has got his reference from?

I assumed that since Ward and Markham wrote as muster-masters and their job was to instruct English troops in how to use the tactics that were used on the continent, and they included cavalry tactics not just foot tactics, that at these musters were mounted troops as well. If I'm wrong, what else is new.

Rich

Hi all,

ECW horse are described in 3 categories in eg Forlorn Hope-

1- Trotters (F) formed 6 ranks deep, using pistols to caracole, eg Ramsey's wing at Edgehill (a smart move versus pike-blocks but probably not otherwise!)

2- Trotters – likely 3 ranks, classic Cromwell's Ironsides charging at the legendary 'good round trot'

3- Gallopers – 3 ranks, typically thought of as charging hell-for-leather eg Rupert at Edgehill – (warning- may contain poodles).

Number 1, the trotters (F) seems to me to be a viable category but one that was quickly outmoded,

Numbers 2 and 3, weellll, very tricksy to say exactly how trotty-gallopy any unit was at any particular time I reckon, and likely if the galloping was done it was in the very last tens of yards. So maybe a matter of personal preference how to do this in wargames. (I think its probably really a cunning mechanism to auto-disorder successful Royalist Cav!)

Meanwhile trained band horse..

They were there in 1637, the biggest groups in Norfolk (320 harquebusier ie standard horse, plus 80 Cuirassier) and Yorkshire (365 Cuirassier, 35 dragoons) down to the mighty cavalries of Merioneth, Cinq Ports and Cornwall with 15, 14 and 14 horse respectively! Some counties still had lancers. (All this and more to be found in a list reprinted in Osprey Elite 27 from SP 16/381/66).

You don't hear of TB horse much in the ECW, I expect they probably mostly joined up to the voluntary field armies or garrison units pretty swiftly or were commissioned as officers. However occasionally they appear eg. the Kent Trained Band horse were sent to help out Waller at the siege of Arundel (Laurence Spring's Waller's Army).

"They were there in 1637, the biggest groups in Norfolk (320 harquebusier ie standard horse, plus 80 Cuirassier) and Yorkshire (365 Cuirassier, 35 dragoons) down to the mighty cavalries of Merioneth, Cinq Ports and Cornwall with 15, 14 and 14 horse respectively! Some counties still had lancers. (All this and more to be found in a list reprinted in Osprey Elite 27 from SP 16/381/66)."

We all know that Ospreys can be dubious resources. Can you offer any primary source reference to support this?

"However occasionally they appear eg. the Kent Trained Band horse were sent to help out Waller at the siege of Arundel (Laurence Spring's Waller's Army)."

I have found a reference to Sussex trained band horse in connection with the Monmouth rebellion, but that is outside our period.
link

The only reference I can find to "Kent Trained Band horse" is possibly at the Siege of Basing in 1645
link
but again no reference to primary source material to back up the claim.

The English Civil War and revolution: a sourcebook By Keith Lindley:
Commission of Array for Worcester – 18th Year of Charles reign…
'to give warning to all the trained and freehold clergy bands within their constablewick both horse and foot…and give warning to the petty constables that you that neither you nor they nor any of the said trained band horse…'
p.101
Guy

"The English Civil War and revolution: a sourcebook By Keith Lindley:"

Now that's interesting. Any evidence of such troops being in a field army rather than just a local force?

Hello all just a quick note-

Mike the reference is there regarding the Osprey list of horse and foot TBs (SP = State Papers I should imagine). Remember this is 1637 though.

Yep that was me posting on the Kent TB horse at Basing ;-) I took both these snippets from Laurence Spring's Waller's Army, will check later and post refs, as LS is usually pretty damn good at referencing.

Lindley book sounds interesting – must track it down.

"Mike the reference is there regarding the Osprey list of horse and foot TBs (SP = State Papers I should imagine). Remember this is 1637 though."

Yes, John Tincey's book "Soldiers of the English Civil War, Volume 2" states:
"The last full muster of the trained bands before the Civil Wars" and goes on to say that the horse probably would have formed the troops of the Eastern Association.

Hi Mike yep thats the one, I'd imagine that the vast majority of TB horse went straight in to the voluntary regiments in most parts of the country.

Just dug out Waller's Army – the various bits of info on the Kent TB horse aren't individually referenced but the section on the Kent TBs as a whole is : National Archives SP 28/42, 28/122, 28/130, 28/178. Bodleian Tanner ms62, Calendar State Papers Domestic 1644 pp212-213, 1644-5 pp63-64, 407. Lords Journal vol vii p363, Commons Journal vol iii p139, Journal of Sir Samuel Luke. So I guess one could eiher delve into the archives or maybe contact Laurence Spring (Pike and Shot Society should be able to help) if you need more specific info.

On the TB horse in general I imagine that they only survived as TBs in areas that were well away from most of the 1st Civil War fighting. Kent as above, and Sussex had some TB horse as well, those are the only ones I'm aware of mentioned in the ECW but there's probably more info out there somewhere!

Guy, reading your post again and doing a swift bit of adding up ;-) makes this 1643 for Worcester TB horse, so they must be Royalist.

Does it give a date? I wonder if this is to bolster defences against Waller in May or to send to the siege of Gloucester in August. This of course blows my idea out of the water that TB horse only survived in 'peaceful' areas! Wonder if this regiment belonged to one of the Sandys?

I really will have to track down that book.

Timbo – I had this problem with regnal years
The document is signed on 'the first day of August in the 18th Year of the reign of our sovereign lord Charles…' (It is indeed a Royalist Commission of Array)and as Charles ascended the throne on 27th March 1625 his 18th year of reign began on 27 March 1642 – therefore I think it is a 1642 array document.
Guy
As none of this falls between 1 Jan and 25 March no adjustment required for Old Style/New Style dating (I think )

This being the case, trained band cavalry, it seems, were trained to advance at the trot, fire pistols, then go in with the gallop. I don't understand where gallopers and trotters come in.

Rich

Connard Sage:

Because, as I implied in my earlier post, early Parliamentarian cavalry were reluctant to close. They preferred to caracole (or try to, they weren't very good at that either by most accounts), and wasted a lot of powder and ball attempting to kill the enemy with firepower rather than steel.

Caracoling opposing cavalry had died out at the end of the 16th-century. I believe it was Ward who said if cavalry are in a good defensive position, charging horse at the gallop should be met with pistol fire. Evidently the Parliamentarian cavalry position was not defensive enough.

Rich

"This being the case, trained band cavalry, it seems, were trained to advance at the trot, fire pistols, then go in with the gallop. I don't understand where gallopers and trotters come in."

as well you shouldn't, since they are really wargaming terms. The horse were really regarded just as "horse" by both sides, not as different kinds in the sense of "Dragoons v. Horse" cavalry.

Tactically, the only real difference seems to be one unit is more committed to using the swords first and the pistol when in melee. The other side was committed to using the pistol first, on either the defense or offense, and then close or defend with the sword.

From what I've read, it really depended on the leader who commanded them, and it could alter if a troop, regimental or "wing" commander had a say, as at Edgehill where the two parliament wings used different tactics and the royalists a third tactic of Prince Ruperts.

In gaming terms, you may want to classify your horse by their commander, whoever he may be.

Just a thought.

"Caracoling opposing cavalry had died out at the end of the 16th-century. "

Rich, please stop making statements like this that are possibly open to dispute without providing some evidence (any evidence) to back it up.

Wargamers tend to take history at face value and will swallow anything if someone tells them often enough.

"I believe it was Ward who said if cavalry are in a good defensive position, charging horse at the gallop should be met with pistol fire."

So a caracole would be the most likely method of giving such pistol fire?

Ah, OK Guy, regnal years -doh! (must admit the old style/new style thing has caught me out more than once too!)

I suppose '42 is more sensible anyway.

This being the case, trained band cavalry, it seems, were trained to advance at the trot, fire pistols, then go in with the gallop.

For ECW horse I don't think there is any evidence from the battle accounts that this process was ever followed in practice even if it was in theory. Pistols were either discharged at a distance along with carbines by stationary horse of discharged point blank "into the teeth" by charging horse from what I can tell.

Rich, please stop making statements like this that are possibly open to dispute without providing some evidence (any evidence) to back it up.

Well Mike, let me see if I can't help you out a bit. As far as I know the last recorded cavalry vs cavalry attack using the caracole and firing pistols (called simply caracole) was at the battle of Ivry (1590). In the first quarter of the 17th-century two major studies of cavalry warfare were written. One was by Basta and the other by Wallhousen. Wallhousen's book challenged a number of assertions that Basta had made. This was the latest word on cavalry. According to Delbruck, neither authors even discussed the caracole. Twenty five years latter neither Ward nor Markham, in their trained band manuals describe how to perform a caracole. As far as I can tell, the use of the caracole as an ant-cavalry tactic was no longer practiced.

Now if you have proof to the contrary bring it on.

So a caracole would be the most likely method of giving such pistol fire?

Ward does not mention it: When the enemie shall charge you with one of his Troopes, doe not you rush forth to meete them, but if your ground be of advantage keepe it. Nor does he teach how to perform the caracole.

Rich

For ECW horse I don't think there is any evidence from the battle accounts that this process was ever followed in practice even if it was in theory.

Nor would I expect them to. I've yet to read a battle account that read "the cavalry started their attack at the walk then moved into a trot. At the end of the trot they fired their pistols and attacked at the gallop with swords." Generally they just say the cavalry attacked. It's up to the reader to know how an attacked was conducted.

The idea that what was practiced on the battlefield may not agree with theory fails to understand the relationship of theory and practice. Everything we do is preceded by an idea. "I want to paint a figure" is an idea. "I want to paint the sash orange," is an idea. Theory: "a set of principles (ideas) on which the practice of an activity is based." To train cavalry to perform an action together requires a theory they must all follow. Without the theory there is only confusion. Both Ward and Markham lay out a theory of how to conduct a cavalry charge. They learned that theory from watching how the Dutch conducted their cavalry charges. The fact they both agree increases the likelihood that what they saw was actually how the Dutch conducted their charges. The purpose of their writing was to instruct trained band cavalry in this process. Once learned, the process can be implemented on the battlefield.

Take your comment cavalry discharged their pistols at point blank range. It sounds like a contradiction to the teachings in the trained band manual. However, once you realize the initial firing was performed by the first rank only, you can see the subsequent ranks would be firing their pistols at point blank range. What seemed a discrepancy is actually not.

This does not preclude changes later in the war to the standard approach tactic. After all, that's what the Royalists cavalry did. But even that was preceded by a theory. Even if the theory was only in Rupert's head.

Rich

"Well Mike, let me see if I can't help you out a bit."

Thanks for that.

"Now if you have proof to the contrary bring it on."

No, at the moment I don't (maybe someone else does?). My concern was in the unsupported assertion. Admittedly it is "proof by omission" ("neither Ward nor Markham, in their trained band manuals describe how to perform a caracole.") but in the context that fits your argument.

I think the difficulty that I and others are having here is that your argument is based on training manuals which date from BEFORE the war. In which case they are describing military practice of the pre-ECW period. Just because it's described in a pre-war training manual doesn't mean that it was actually done that way in the war itself.

It is widely known that military training manuals describe the tactics of the LAST war, not the NEXT war. In the 1630s, no-one really expected the King to declare war on his own Parliament (not even the King), thus the civil war, by its very nature was "accidental". Since there was no standing army, both sides were forced to assemble what troops they could and throw into the fight with little or no training at first. These men were not professional soldiers. Yes, some of them may have had a little military "training" as militia at an annual muster, but that's about it. (I believe the annual musters were often little more than excuses for extended drinking sessions and any training was merely perfunctory).

Now if you were basing your discussion on a training manual from say 1644 or 1645, I might find it easier to accept. There is a world of difference between theory and practice (For example, just compare the British infantry training manuals from 1940 and 1944).

I've yet to read a battle account that read "the cavalry started their attack at the walk then moved into a trot. At the end of the trot they fired their pistols and attacked at the gallop with swords." Generally they just say the cavalry attacked. It's up to the reader to know how an attacked was conducted.

I suppose I shouldn't expect a man who has said he knows little about the ECW to know, however, I would hope he wouldn't then try and make ststement like this.

You really need to go and read some of the ECW accounts then, many certainly have more detail of how the attacks were conducted than just saying the cavalry attacked – Edgehill and Roundway Down (of which I've posted one account on a thread elsewhere) are a good place to start. There is a lot of stuff available through a simple Google of battle names. Try The Battlefields Trust for a start.

This does not preclude changes later in the war to the standard approach tactic. After all, that's what the Royalists cavalry did.

Neither side even started the war using the tactics you are on about (as far as I can see), to suggest they did is somewhat odd.

Now if you were basing your discussion on a training manual from say 1644 or 1645, I might find it easier to accept. There is a world of difference between theory and practice (For example, just compare the British infantry training manuals from 1940 and 1944).

I suspect the nearest you'll get is the 1644 reprint of Cruso's "Militarie Instructions for the Cavallrie" – as it was printed in Cambridge it may well have been used in the Eastern Association at least.

Actually we find caracoling pistoliers long after Ivry, a Venetian account of 1596 describes them, Polish sources dewscribe caracole on part of Swedes, Germans and French in the Livonian war of 1600-1609, a recently published source even mentions the caracole as used by some Swedish cavalry in 1621(!). Monteuccoli writing in the 1640's found it necessary to caution against the men using the caracole as well.

As a service to Rich, doing some of his research for him <g> I found the following quotes from John Vernon's "The Young Horseman" written in 1644. The quotes are in the Osprey on Naseby and are obviously not in their full context, however, Rich will like them I think :-)

… all the Troops are to be drawn into battalia, each being not above three deepe, likewise each troop must be at least a hundred paces distance behind each other for the better avoiding of disorder, for those troops that are to give the first charge being drawn up in battail as before, are to be at their close order, every left hand mans right knee must be close locked under his right hand mans left ham … In this order they are to advance towards the Enemy with an easie pace, firing their Carbines at a convenient distance … the troops are to charge the Enemy in full career, but in good order with their swords fastned with a Riband or the like to their wrists … still keeping in close order close locked …

… sodainly to divide your Troop in the middle: on [one] Flank from the other, and so the Enemie being in his full career, must either passe through and affect little, or else stopping sodainly disorder his own Troops, and the[r]eby give you a fit occasion to wheel both your Flanks inward, to charge him in the Reer.

Of course whether this was a reflection of current practice or making recommedations or a bit of both is hard to say.

Out of interest in creating a little more confusion try yaking a look at the history blog "Investigations of a Dog". Written by a historian whose Phd thesis was on the supply of horses to the NMA it critiques the concept of Cavalry attacks making contact at a gallop. Worth a look.

After that take a look at his review of the 1963 Ladybird book about Cromwell. I really didn't know that Cromwell had been kidnapped by a monkey as a baby. (Sorry for the thread hijack BTW)

while first-hand accounts are great resources, we can only ponder how accurate they are and what biases the persons had. So no matter what, a blend of common sense, deductive reasoning, first-hand experience of re-enactors, as well as accounts, are all going to be taken into account.

Ultimately, this question orients around how a game takes into account the history. Giving historical options to a senior commander, as well as a certain amount of initiative to troop and regiment commanders can help us make for some variety in our games. While there may not be a definitive answer, it all comes down to about three choices: a wild charge, an orderly charge at the trot, or shooting – offensive (caracole) or defensive (receiving charge at halt with pistols). Some cavalry may have used all three methods in their careers.

As long as we present some choices on the table, we're respecting history – and historical possibilities – as well as making for better games.

>While there may not be a definitive answer, it all comes down to about three choices: a wild charge, an orderly charge at the trot, or shooting – offensive (caracole) or defensive (receiving charge at halt with pistols). Some cavalry may have used all three methods in their careers.
>

But the set of rules must describe
1) the relative effectiveness of each combination of choices made by the opponents.

2) how much choice the player should have in deciding which method a particular unit will use in a given charge.

***

>sodainly to divide your Troop in the middle: on [one] Flank from the other,

And it would be nice to find a set of rules that has this level of detail, and an interesting way of determining if the evolution can be done in time.