"Lances given to Russian Hussars" Topic

Hi all,

I have read that Russian Hussars were given lances (for some reason) to their Hussar regiments during the Napoleonic period. My understanding is that only one squadron was provided these weapons and only the front rank of that squadron was so armed.

How true was this and at what period did this occur? Also, did other (non Cossack or Uhlans) Russian cavalry carry this weapon in a similar fashion?

You lads have been down this alley before; unfortunately, nvrsaynvr's link is dead:

TMP link

However, see Chuvak's post here:

TMP link

Allen

Thanks Allen,

I am still not convinced every squadron carried them (1st rank). I can't seem to find definitive information on this as yet.

Shane

Fred Vietmeyer allowed a squadron of Hussars with Lances in Column Line and Square. Good enough for me.

Well, it doesn't hurt, I suppose, to also cite the current online copy of Conrad's notes on Volume 11 of Viskotvatov; scroll down and see the notes for Plate 1514:

link

Anyone ever looked at Val'kovich's article "O vooruzhenii gusar pikami," in VIZh, 4/1988, to see how it compares with his "Zeughaus" article?

Allen

Bob

The Column, Line and Square organization for Russian hussars allows one lance-armed troop per squadron.

Rick

For all those that can't follow links……..

1514. Research by A. Valkovich ("Armeiskie Gusary 1812-1816: Novye Materialy", in Tseikhgauz No. 1 – 1991) modifies what Viskovatov has provided.

Firstly, the majority of hussar regiments received lances in April-May of 1812. Three regiments—the Belorussia and Oliviopol, with the Danube Army, and the Lubny, in the Crimea—were apparently armed with lances later. Only the first rank carried the lance—640 authorized for each regiment, or 64 for each squadron. Experience in training with the lance soon revealed that the carbine on the bandolier interfered with its handling, so the front ranks' carbines were sent to replacement squadrons. The order was also given that for hussars armed with lances, pelisses were either to be left with the wagon train or worn with arms in the sleeves; they were not to be worn loose like a cape. The lances were usually of the pattern for lancers, but with black shafts and no pennons. However, the Pavlograd and Izyum regiments appear to have ignored this, and had turquoise-white and red-blue pennons, respectively (Elberfeld manuscript – February, 1814). And once in October, 1812, the Akhtyrka Regiment put pennons on their lances to deceive the enemy into thinking they were Polish cavalry. These lances were also carried by hussar regiments during the 1815 march back to France.

npm

Hi all,

quick burst of arithmetic- 640 lances per Hussar regiment is about 1/3rd of the unit. Am I right here, or is there some complication with depot squadrons?

Rick,
CLS Organization shows 2 Companies (Troops) per Squadron. That means half the regiment is lancer armed. I did not remember that much.

Ligniere -- nice write up. How many troopers in a regiment or squadron so we can know the percentage of lancers. Thanks

Thank you Ligniere, that is good enough for me. Basically, Russian Hussars are effectively "Lancers" from 1812 to 1815 so in my system I will count them as such now.

Hello chaps, I'm feeling a bit dense on this, as I don't remember how many ranks the Hussars formed up in!

Paper organisation strength for the Hussars was 1,811 per regiment (Nafziger – tell me if its wrong again and I'll go get my crossing-out biro). These formed 10 squadrons, of which 8 were usually field squadrons and two as depot. So 640 would be more than 1/3 but less than 1/2.

Maybe they were issued for the field Sqns only, and just to troopers rather than officers, trumpeters etc? This should be around 1/2 if true. Alternatively I guess they could have been issued based on parade strength rather than paper strength?

I have the feeling that I'm being dozy here!

Most cavalry (no matter what formation) formed up in companies or troops in "two ranks" during the period. Austrians did form up in three ranks but this was very early.

Nafziger in Napoleon's Invasion of Russia makes the 1 squadron claim. Without footnotes, there's no way to know if it comes from elsewhere or it's just a mistake.

Nafziger's numbers seem to be pretty close to Zweguintzow's TOE, although he missed the fact that 12 privates per squadron were on foot. However Сергей Львов in Армейские Уланы России в 1812 г. gives a TOE for the lancer regiments in 1812. He has 128 men per squadron, and as Zweguintzow gives essentially the same organization for both hussars and lancers, it looks like 640 lances would equip the front rank.

Thank you SC, I knew I read it somewhere.

Cheers all,

I'm too used to ECW horse in ranks of three or six!

That's really interseting SC, 128 men per Sqn giving 1280 rather than 1811 per regiment, and fits rather nicely with 640 being half the regiment.

Shane/Bob and his dog,
I actually took the quote straight from the link that aecurtis had provided to Conrad's notes on Viskovatov – so I take no credit for the information, only for posting it for easier reference…….

npm

Nope, it's cited. Cited sources expressly NOT violations of copyright!

That is true, as long as you cite the reference so that readers can follow the source you are not violating any laws. You can even cite word for word verbatim as long as you give proper credit to the author by citing the reference to their work properly.

huh? why have you now attacked me? have I done now? Amazing, you ask a simple and valid question hoping to get some answers and you get jumped on for god knows what?

That'll teach me to visit the Napoleonic boards!

Allen

When did asking questions become a crime on TMP? I rather thought that was the point. Those of us who don't know stuff ask questions and those of us who do know stuff give answers. (They're quite often the wrong answers but we do our best and you can't hate someone for trying)

Acting offended? You wonder why?

nsn was tossed out because of his persistent insults against posters and flagrantly violating Bills rules on this forum. If you have an issue with this then take it up with Bill, not me.

As for asking the question, I am a member of this forum and as such, with the OK of Bill, have the right to ask whatever questions I like provided they are relevant. And if others wish to answer them or help out in any way they have the right to do so. Also, I did not ask the question 4 years ago, if I did I have totally forgotten but I did not find any reference here to any old posts in which I personally asked this question. I answered it once with what I knew and that was it!!

Are you now suddenly the forum police who gets to decide who and what can go on this forum???? Remind me to refer to you first before I decide to post here in future.

Interesting that your account is less than three weeks old and you are already making lots of friends here. It seems to me that you are either a disgruntled locked former account holder or an incensed friend of a locked account holder seeking retribution???

My advice to you is let it be and drop it and leave me alone. Stifle me if you dislike me so much. Persistence in this kind of thing only leads to more drama on here which I really do not care for.

You know I hate seeing people thrown off of TMP. It happens too often with people whose opinion I respect. Steve Smith, nsn, even Hoffy were great resources who were thrown off.

I clash fairly frequently with Kevin K, BUT I would hate to see him thrown off the lists because I value his opinion.

Yes, I've tried in the pass to be to peacemaker in some of these threads. the last time I did that I got 5 stifles, LOL. That was a fight between Shane and Steve Smith.

For the record Shane, I respect your views and always welcome your contributions.

This last week I've seriously considered asking Bill to freeze my account because of the pettiness I'm seeing. I do not want to add to the load.

I'm interested in answer to this question, I'm expanding my 1812 Russians and an looked at suitable figures for the Hussars. I'd like to have at least the correct portions with lances, even if the rules I use do not differentiate how cavalry are armed. There are a number of choices, one is does have a proportion of the non command figures with lances.

Elliott

@Staff Captain

You are correct in assuming that I didn't see the posts by nvrsaynvr. I wasn't aware that his posts had been removed or that his account has been locked. I can't comment on why this happened because I have no idea what he said.

However, I think you are rather presumptuous in saying that "we" have lost another contributor since you only appear to have joined TMP in the past couple of weeks.

Since you are new I will explain how things work again. People ask questions. If other people feel like answering them they do so. If for some reason they don't feel like sharing their knowledge (or lack of it) they can ignore the thread. It's a fairly straightforward system and I am sure you will get the hang of it eventually.

Shane:

Basically, Russian Hussars are effectively "Lancers" from 1812 to 1815 so in my system I will count them as such now

If the majority (8) of Hussar regiments were kitted out effectively as "lancers" by 1812 how many French or other observers/commentators of the period noted this?

I would suggest that if there was a sudden shift from hussars to lancers in 1812 and this had a real tactical significance – it would have resulted in some pretty major commentary from the French, etc.?

DB

If you are thinking in terms of wargames rules, there is also the question of how effective lance-armed hussar units would be. I'm guessing it takes more to make a lancer than handing a hussar a pointy stick and telling him to get on with it.

There is also the question of how lance-armed hussars were employed. Did they retain their traditional roles of scouting and pursuit or were they given lances to make them more effective on the battlefield?

Just a clarification because there may be some confusion here. There were only 11 regts. of hussars in 1812, so only 8 got the lance immediately, the remotely posted 3 sometime later. Remember there were probably as many Cossack regts. as lancer regts. in the rest of Europe combined, and most of those Polish.

Staff Captain,

Just stop being a jerk, will ya? Nobody is amused or impressed.

Shane – I ignore these "people" when they get like that. I treat their posts as blank white space. Life is too short.

As for lances, I've never read an indication that the hussars were actually trained in their use. But there seems to be a "fashion" in Russia for lances at that time.

In 1805 there were only three line lancer regiments in the Russian army. In 1812, there were 12. Add to that the addition of lances to the hussar regiments, and we can conclude that SOMEBODY in Russia really had a thing for lances. What difference that made is beyond me.

Bill

Thanks Bill, I will take your advice.

As for lances the reason I am interested is because in my system the initial shock of impact when charging (which could be as simple as both sides walking into each other) the side that is Lance armed will gain a slight advantage due to the length of the Lance compared to the other side sword armed. There are several factors which can gain or take away an advantage in my system. However, in the second round (if there is one) a lanced armed unit will have a slight disadvantage if halted or pushed backwards in the melee due to the cumbersome nature of this weapon.

So for me, knowing that the Russian Hussar regiments are so armed is very important for the mechanics of my system. The Lance will give them an initial advantage which may provide them with the means to push forward in a contest but if they are pushed backwards this weapon will really give them a distinct disadvantage in the ensuing melee. So I want to gather information on these regiments an ascertain which ones (if not all) used this weapon.

Shane

Second, the point was that Shane Devries has not done a lick of work sorting out this issue, but somehow we seem to have lost yet another contributor. Maybe Ligniere should feel a bit abashed about his enabling…

That's a bit dishonest, considering that you ("Staff Captain" AKA Peter A. Numi) and nvrsaynvr are one and the same.

This thread reads distinctly oddly now that the provocations from nvrsaynvr and his Staff Captain alter ego have been excised. It looks as if a bunch of Napoleonics enthusiasts are fighting among themselves over nothing. Now I know this is what we are famous for but perhaps in this instance it would be a good idea if Bill were to delete all the posts that don't relate to hussars and lances. That way if someone came here looking for information they might actually be able to find it.

As it stands I appear to be having an argument with Shane, which I most definitely wasn't, and Widowson appears to be calling Staff Captain a jerk for making a clarification.

hehe, I think your right

@SJDonovan

It is no solution, this board has lost so far almost all people who were competent about the Russian Army, I am sure, Chuvak, Steve Smith or un ami could have told us more about the performance of the Russian husars equipped with lances.

Either they were mobbed out due to personal attacks – or – have – for whatever reasons – locked accounts.

Those like me – who are interested in competent analysation – are left in a void of incompetence in this interesting topic.

@ von Winterfeldt

I wasn't really making a point about the quality of the information on offer, rather that the thread has become incoherent because so many posts have been deleted.

It is true that we do seem to have lost many of our experts in Russian Napoleonic matters. But then people aren't locked out of TMP because they are knowledgeable in their field. They get themselves locked out by failing to abide by the rules of the forum.

These are very clearly laid out and if people choose to break them then they can't expect to be allowed to continue to post.

I am not aware of anyone being "mobbed out" but if you feel that this has happened then I suggest you take up the matter with Bill, the Editor. And if you can present evidence of it I'll be happy to support you in calling for those responsible to be taken to task.

@SJDonovan

Just read the posts in which un ami did take part and how he was attacked.

Otherwise – anybody left who has an idea how those lancer husars did perform?

@ Von Winterfeldt

I've had a look over some of un ami's old posts and I assume that you are referring to these two threads:

TMP link

TMP link

To a disinterested observer it is quite hard to fathom what the argument is about or how it became so bitter so quickly. However, it appears that un ami had at least as many supporters as detractors and to argue that he was "mobbed out" seems to me to be taking a rather partial view.

it is not about suporters or detractos – partial view – from my side – most likely yes ;-))

There are still those around who read Russian. There are still those around who have collections of Russian source material. The problem, as this thread's degeneration so clearly shows, is that the consistent bad behavior exhibited by posters on the Napoleonics boards will drive helpful people away and turn them off--along with those who get themselves tossed out, of course.

As I said above: "That'll teach me to visit the Napoleonic boards!"

You lost un ami; you lost Chuvak; you lost a number of participants who *could* contribute positively, but chose to behave otherwise. Fortunately, you still have some on the Napoleonics boards who will peddle their books with every post!

Allen

aecurtis

I don't share your optimism – let's see if other than chaff comes up regarding those husar lancers.

The issue may not be chaff; it may be absence of evidence. Along the lines that others have expressed, I don't recall any account that would indicate that those Russian hussars issued lances used them to any significant advantage, or were necessarily trained to do so in the Napoleonic period. In all the accounts of cavalry actions in which Russian hussars took part after the issue of lances, I think you'd be hard pressed to find one that mentions lances at all! (In contrast, you can find an example or two of Polish uhlans pressing Russian hussars rather hard; what that says about issues such as relative training, or the effectiveness of a lance/saber mix, I would not care to speculate.)

The original question was: how many got them, and when? That's easy to answer. The question has now become: how effective were they? And that, I suspect, is much, much harder to address with documentary evidence.

Allen

The Napoleonic Fantasy Board

Well, it's time to bid you all adieu. I hope Bill will permit a swan song. If not, I'll post it on Frothers. Sure, I could keep switching memberships and using proxy servers if I had to, but to what point?

I originally joined TRP because I disliked the pecking order of another board, and welcomed the democratic free for all. But it looks like it got lost some where down the line. Instead of a marketplace of ideas, we have a leveling of ideas. Everyone has a say, and can say it as often as they like, and be as annoying as they like, and can't be told to shut up. The dross drives out the gold.

I tried to work with the moderation system. (I've actually read the rules;-). I was told "Steve ruins every thread he posts on" was fair commentary on his participation. Then I got dinged for protesting the "carpetbombing" of a thread by making a ¼ of the posts. Go figure. There's a guy here who does nothing but spout crude insults and veiled threats. I busted him. Armitrout wanted to know what rule was violated. I pointed out four. He disagreed that belittling someone's "manhood" was essentially homophobic. I stopped using the moderation system.

I have no wish to torment Devries, but I do expect him to be as accountable as the rest of us. If being curt ("your understanding is incorrect") offends, he can use Stifle!. If his self image won't allow him to do that, suck it up. If he doesn't want to tussle, I'll leave him alone. But don't squeal like a stuck pig, then run off to scuffle with Hollins. It is, in Steve's ineffable phrase, "diving". It ruins soccer, it ruins TMP, and while Bill is ultimately in charge, Shane's abuse of the moderation system was instrumental in getting Steve Smith exiled.

But that is only half of it. I'm not needed anymore. In the old days, it was very helpful to direct people to Conrad's magnificent home page. Nowadays, anyone with half a clue knows about it and goes there first. I think my last four Russian answers were for Widowson. Somehow he doesn't seem to be grateful. (I think "jerk" is a personal insult, but perhaps I am mistaken, as Donovan seems to think the rules are clear;-) I see Donovan is trying to help Widowson by pointing out Conrad's site. He will soon discover what I have come to realize. Widowson doesn't want the answer. He wants someone to tell him Murray is a fine source and he should paint his jaeger drummer collars black. I'm not unsympathetic. I have the L.G. Semyonovskoye composed of Anthony Barton minitures. They are wonderful, but when I was younger, I would have puttied in the missing bayonet scabbards…

TMP has become something of a private Idaho where the biggest faux pas is harshing someone's buzz as they hold forth on their pet nonsense of the moment…

And so I wish you all the best.
NSN

The sun seems to move
across the sky so slow.
It's us who's turning
…

This is the reason you and others now have locked accounts. You just can't help yourself, you need to insult others and destroy the amicable relationships here to feel better about yourself. That is a sign of much bigger problems with social interaction and people skills you may wish to get looked at. Insults, defamation, personal attacks, snide remarks, deplorable conduct and very negative attitudes is what got you kicked off of this forum, not me and my fighting back against you. You ruined a perfectly good thread, once again in which others (not just me) wanted to learn more.

Bill did not like your conduct and kicked you off, simple as that mate. He put the "complain" button there for a reason and I amongst many others use it for its intended purpose. Bill cannot patrol this huge forum all day every day so he relies on us to inform him of bad behavior. If you don't like it you should not have acted the way you have to get yourself kicked off.

You guys did much more harm than you did good and for that Bill got rid of you. Your conduct here was much more damaging than the contibutions you added here that added value for everyone else. Your insulting behavior is unbecoming of member and for that you were locked out. suck it up and think about being a better person in the future and you might be more successful in life. If you can't handle how people react to your insulting behavior then you might want to think about what you do and fix it.

suck it up and become a better person

I'm kind of curious about the rationale for giving lancers a minus after the first crash. After all, they all had swords too, if the lance was such a disadvantage why wouldn't they chuck it and draw sabers after the first crash? I'm not as well read on the gory details as most here, but the one book I did read on lancers indicated that they trained to fight swordsmen with their lances in close quarters. I suspect they're less prevalent because learning the lance would be in addition to the sword, not instead of, and the additional training would make them more expensive and slower to produce.

I was reading over the weekend about the attack of the Scot's Grey's at Waterloo, and the subsequent counterattack by Jacquinot's Lancers.
During the attack the LTC of the Grey's [James Hamilton], lost first his left, then his right arm – the latter due to a sword swing from a Lancer [presumably a second row lancer, who were not lance armed] – and was then ultimately shot dead.

In another area of the field, Hamilton's brigade commander, Ponsonby, was caught with his brigade major on blown horses, and the individual lancer forced both to dismount as his prisoners. Then several Grey's trooper headed for the lancer in an attempt to free their brigade commander – the lancer killed Ponsonby and his brigade major with two lance thrusts each to the body, before turning on the Grey's troopers and dispatching two of them, all with his lance.

From these sanguinary accounts it appears that both the lance and sword in the hands of experienced combatants were or could be exceptional weapons.

I am not convinced that the lance armed trooper would necessarily throw his lance away after the initial contact and then draw his saber – the lance was his primary weapon – if he was not in a position to wield it efficiently or effectively, he would probably have made every effort to disengage, giving the sword armed second rank the opportunity to engage.

npm

The most important point of the above account (Sgt Orban's own IIRC) is not the lance- it is that all the Greys, the would-be rescuers included, were on exhausted horses by this stage, if they were mounted at all.

In mounted individual combat, the condition of the horses is a much more significant factor than a lance or any other equipment- giving all the offensive and defensive choices to the man on the fresh mount.

Back to the original post- it certainly seems from contemp illustrations made in the theatres of war in 1813-14 that many Russian Hussars did carry the lance in the field- both Georg Adam and the anonymous Elbefeldt manuscript show them.

I'm kind of curious about the rationale for giving lancers a minus after the first crash.

You may have misunderstood me earlier. The negative only comes about "if" the Lancers are being pushed backwards after initial contact in an ongoing melee. The length of the weapon becomes an encumbrance because the enemy has already penetrated their ranks and is pushing them back. In this situation a sabre is much more effective because the strikes are not front on but more from side to side and swirling around. Also, trying to defend while being "pushed backwards" with a lance is very difficult compared to a sabre.

IIRC quite a lot of contemp cavalry officers felt that the lancer was at serious disadvantage once the charge had degenerated into close combat. I think de Brack recommended that if lancers did not break the enemy immediately they should always try to break off straight away, and a British officer (?Hay or Tomkinson) said of Lancers that they were most formidable 'at first onset' but once the combat was 'general' (ie a melee) then a Dragoon was 'worth two of them'.

I'm not sure I really recognise what's happening in the 'push back' scenario you describe. Horses- at least all the ones I've ever ridden- don't much care for going backwards, but they can and do turn around in a surprisingly tiny space when bidden to do so, jostling other horses aside.
I have never been in a cavalry charge or melee, but I have certainly been present a group of riders where this kind of movement has occurred- after its happened and everyone has recovered their composure you wonder how all the nags could have turned so quickly in such a tight space, as its absolutely counterintuitive that they could do so. Metal horses look so solid….
In a cavalry combat I think this is the few seconds when individual riders start to break apart their own formation- there's not actually much net backward movement of the whole mass at that point, but unit disintegration and retreat follows pretty inevitably, albeit often only temporarily as it may only lead to a brief gallop away from immediate danger with no heavy casualties or great loss of fighting spirit.
There are a couple of very clear illustrations of this happening in prints of the charge of the Heavy brigade in the Crimean war- which were I think inspired by a drawing made by an officer present.
Definitely agree with you that Lancers would be in more difficulty during these moments, even though there were several defensive guard positions for the lance in most manuals of arms.

Hi mate,

Yeah, in our cavalry contests we generally have two rounds of combat (provided one side is not routed in the first initial contact round). So in our system, if the Lancers win the first round (which given the advantage of the lance) they will advance against their enemy forcing them backwards for a second round of the contest which often seals the fate of the losing side. However, if the Lancers are actually defeated in the first initial contact round they in turn are pushed backwards which really means they have lost their forward momentum and thus their formation is broken up. Once this occurs the advantage of the lance is lost and the sabre wielding enemy gains an advantage in the second round of fighting.

Often, I have seen this occur and the lancer regiment is broken and routed. However, if the lancers win the initial contact round they keep their lance advantage and often crush their enemy during the second round sealing their fate…

For me Lancers are a two edged sword, great if you win the first round but bad if you lose it. I can see why some British commentators and eyewitnesses thought poorly of the Lancer regiments but other factors come into play here like, horse size, overall skill of the regiments involved, situation and many more. From my own reading the French cavalry regiments in Spain were generally overall of lower quality to the British and thus why they were often defeated in small contests. But I do not think this was so true in 1815 when the British met the lancers again, especially the guard lancers…

The whole premise for asking this question is as you can see, to get clarity on the use of lances in the Russian Hussar regiments because in my system the inclusion of the lance is often a deciding factor in our melees.

Quite so. Although as suggested above in a post above- there is no evidence I've seen to suggest that arming the Russian Hussars with lances created any difference to their effectiveness that Russian or French contemps ever felt worth noting.

I'm firmly convinced that in cavalry combat in the period- horses (their general and/or specific physical condition), training and good order are far more important than equipment factors. If the enemy has the advantage in these essential areas- a lance or a cuirass won't help you much. The latter items are marginally useful if you are on even terms in the above basics of mounted warfare- in fairness better than marginal if you, like Jacquinot's lancers attacking the exhausted and scattered Union Brigade, are in good order on fresh horses.

I don't think there was any deficit in overall quality of the French cavalry in the Peninsula- overall they had more battle experience than the regiments of the Grande Armee, and there were many crack regiments there- the 1st and 3rd Hussars, 5th and 10th Chasseurs and 15th Dragoons to name a few off the top of my head- who the British held in high regard. The critical commentary about the lance was in the context of the equally crack Vistula Legion whose 'first onset' was 'formidable', but whose weapons the British felt left them weak once the Dragoons got in amongst them. In these circumstances a Sqn of the British 4th Dragoons inflicted heavy casualties on the Vistula at Albuera just after the latter had famously wiped our Colborne's Brigade, although the Dragoons were then themselves then scattered by fresh (non-lancer) French cavalry.

Re the Guard Lancers, you'll find in De Brack (an officer of the Regiment in 1815), that they didn't actually fight any British cavalry. His account of the Guard Lancers at Waterloo is very interesting and rather frank- with their over excitement and indiscipline first leading them to attack without orders, then failing to break any British squares, and to cap it all suffering heavy losses from the badly directed support fire of their own GUARD artillery. Thats a lot of double ones….

All those posts are just based on opinions and specuations.

I would like to know :

Why did the Russians equip a large part of their husars with lances?

How efficient were those units?

With all those Russian specialists being gone or victimized – seemingly nobody has the expertise to come up with competent answers.