"Effectiveness of the cuirass in combat?" Topic

My question is the effectiveness of the cuirass on heavy cavalry.
The French had front and back cuirass, the Austrians just front, others none at all but were still called cuirassiers.

The rules I have played all rate cuirassiers the same as heavy cavalry.
I get that they are usually big men on large horses, but does the cuirass give a benefit that should be reflected in rule set?

I would say it depends on the scope and scale of the rules. In skirmish rules it might make a lot of sense. In tactical and up, I'd say no, between the parts of the rider that are not covered by the cuirass and the horse, there is more target than armor.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I give little penalty to opposite cavalry's charge. And to melee too, if double cuirasses presense.

I would give some advantage. Apparently the French trained to pass the Austrian cuirassiers and aim at their unprotected back. So they were aware of the difference and took it into account.

Prussians, Russians not just French and Austrians…small units in other countries eg Poland, Spain wore cuirasses. Not sure the breast plate was as important as the psychological benefit it conferred. It would turn a sword point thrust to the thorax, but that is it.

Quality of horses, a slight slope, touch of surprise as advantages and the Household Cavalry walked over the Cuirassiers in first French assault at Waterloo. The extra weight, reduced mobility…..If I was a wargamer I'd have them as heavies but not sure I would give any advantage because of the cuirasse itself. I hope the real experts do respond to this though…good question often raised.

Black Powder does not address the issue directly, you get to allocate between +1 to +3 for heavy cavalry depending on how effective they were in that campaign, of which being armoured is only one factor.

For example it was felt that French Cuirassiers in 1812, though they had the cuirass, were less effective because their horseflesh was on its last legs at the tail end of a failing LOC, and only get a +1, whereas, say, British Heavy Cav in 1815, unarmoured but superbly mounted, might get a +3.

It may be that Napoleon realised the morale value of putting a man in a Cuirass so that he feels invulnerable!

It all depends on the granularity of the rules, but if you are playing large scale games, and I hope you are :-) then I wouldn't bother too much with the difference…More important that the rules reflect their Elite status, which they demonstrated at Waterloo, returning to the charge again and again under hopeless circumstances.

TMP link

According to Bernard Cornwell, cuirasses are great for cooking horsemeat the next day.

really depends on what weapon you are using against them 9gag.com/gag/aD0Nwed

It may be that Napoleon realised the morale value of putting a man in a Cuirass so that he feels invulnerable!

I think he actually felt it offered substantial protection to the wearer. IIRC he put the carabiniers into cuirasses after they took heavy casualties in 1809. He thought the casualties were due to the lack of cuirass, whilst the carabiniers thought it was due to their courage and willingness to close with the enemy.

advocate: I did a search on Cuirassiers, and did not fin this thread, although I do recall reading something a year or so ago.
Thanks.

The actual cuirass was only one factor in the effectiveness of cuirassiers and this issue has been debated since the Napoleonic Wars with no real resolution. I'd say, do your research and do what you believe is best. You'll never get agreement or a definitive answer.

This is what I wrote for that first thread link that Advocate provided:

As for the cuirass making a physical difference in a battle, [I do agree it could well be a psychological advantage], I am sure it could protect the trooper. The British heavies at Balaclava complained about the Russian Dragoons' heavy overcoat with high collars and metal helmets blunting strikes and catching swords.

However, 'quantifying' that advantage is the tough part, both physical and psychological, as to whether it made 'enough' difference to include in a game system.

Actually, it isn't all about morale. Emri Bukhari, in his Napoleon's Cuirassiers and Carabiniers Men-at-Arms #64 notes on page five that Napoleon, concerned about the heavy losses among the carabiniers in 1809, issued them cuirasses too. On the same page, he notes that from 1804 to 1812, the French created five versions of the cuirass in an attempt to increase the protection it provided the trooper.

Starting before the Seven Years wars and continuing through the Crimean Wars, veteran cavalrymen and fencing masters were actually hired by cavalry regiments on campaign to train their troopers. A number of them wrote books. One of the most famous was A. Lonnergan, a cavalry officer during the SYW. He wrote:

The Fencer's Guide: Being a series of every branch required to compose a complete system of defense in four parts… with Particular lessons for the gentlemen of the Horse, Dragoons, Light Horse and Hussars, the whole being carefully collected from long experience and Speculation, is calculated to be a Vade Mecum for Gentlemen of the Army, Navy…etc. 301 pages Published by W. Griffin, 1771

In the last Part, Section VI, 4th Lesson, he gives instructions to specific cavalry: [Heavy]Cavalry, Dragoons, Light Cavalry, Hussars.

For the Cavalry, he writes in part:

P. 229-230

Therefore, if you be thus cuirassed or armored, you may with safety receive a stroke of a sword on any of these parts [helmet or cuirass], without attempting to make any other defense, and also make a strike or thrust at some other part of your adversary's horse or body, at the same time not so well guarded.

Similar instructions are repeated in any number of regulations and instructions during the period. Some of the English versions are:

A treatise on the new broad sword exercise, by W. Pepper, … The third edition with additions. London, 1798. 35 pp.

Rules and Regulations for the Sword Exercise of the Cavalry, 1796

McArthur, John, The army and navy gentleman's companion; or a new and complete treatise on the theory and practice of fencing. London, 1784. 207 pp.

Even Bukhari mentions this fencing 'theory' in his little Osprey book.

So, long before the Napoleonic wars, using the cuirass to deflect a strike, while striking the opponent, was common knowledge. I can provide more sources, during and after the Napoleonic wars, British and French with the same fencing advice for cuirass-wearing cavalry.

Second question:

Were there any regulations for size difference between a Cuirassier and Dragoon? Man and horse.

What I'm getting at here is if a Cuirassier is pretty much the same size as a Dragoon, what's the difference in combat except the cuirass?

Our groups rule set Shako 2, rates all Cuirassiers as a 6, with some exceptions of minor countries.
Dragoons are rated as a 5.

I understand that fitness and training are paramount in any regiment.
I remember reading that the tough 4th French Hussars could cross swords with any body of cavalry. Just as an example.

Dragoons are Medium Cavalry, Cuirassiers are heavy. So bigger horses and men. Also the entire Cuirassier Regiment is elite, whereas the Dragoons only have one elite company. So Dragoons were workaday drudges, sent off to Spain etc to do all kinds of cavalry work, whereas the Cuirassiers were part of the Army's strategic reserve, kept aside for battle winning shock missions…

At least that was the theory…In practice at least one Cuirassier regiment found itself in Spain, and in 1815 Dragoon Regiments found themselves serving side by side with Cuirassiers in the Heavy Cavarly Reserve…

Its been argued that in 1813 for example, after the debacle in Russia, the Dragoon Regiments pulled to Germany from Spain were the best mounted and trained Cavalry that Napoleon had….

Somewhere in Duffy's book on Frederick the Great's Army, there is a passage about an officer who marked at how Austrians took advantage of only a breastplate to "slash" at them as passing behind him. Apparently this was not the first consideration to change, as Marlborough himself reintroduced the cuirass (though under the coat.)

No amount of armor capable to be worn is going to stop a musket ball…period! Yes, there are exceptions given hitting this and that, glanced off and such, but if you fire a .735 cal. ball at about 1,000 ft/sec, it will go through the cuirass, your flesh out the other side, and into whoever else is right behind you.

So the cuirass was worn only for the purposes of melee, or within pistol range. However, just to throw another variable, heavy cavalry usually did carry a heavier sword. Perhaps rules have taken this into consideration…morphing the overall affect. In addition, if you are protected (or at least are convinced you are) you are going to be more aggressive.

Interesting question.

ilodic

Yes Cuirasses were proven (test fired) against by pistols rather than muskets…

Yes, for me this is a very interesting Napoleonic subject. I firmly believe that the cuirass was more of a psychological benefit than a physical and Napoleon was fully aware of this. However he also wanted to protect his very expensive Heavy Cavalry and the cuirass did provide physical protection from musket fire at long range. So for the wargamer, as I am, I would give the cuirassier no benefit in close combat but I would give them a benefit if fired on by infantry at long range. I would also give cuirassiers superior moral.

I can remember reading decades ago that unlike a lot of armies where the biggest recruits were funneled off to guard regiments, in France the biggest guys went to the heavy cavalry arm. Does anyone know anything about this?

So for the wargamer, as I am, I would give the cuirassier no benefit in close combat but I would give them a benefit if fired on by infantry at long range. I would also give cuirassiers superior moral.

TG:
The thread focus of the cuirass benefits seem to be whether it protected the cavalryman from musket fire.

As Ilodic points out, that wasn't the main purpose of the armor. It was protection in a cavalry vs cavalry fight, just as the helmet was. That is why the cuirass was tested against pistols but not muskets.

So, I see the only real benefit of a cuirass is close combat. There is little evidence that the cuirass was expected to protect the cavalryman from musket fire.

Well Mcladdie, my conclusions are the total opposite to yours, but that's why we can all have our opinions. The Cuirass did afford both physical and psychological protection against musket fire at long range. Its very small benefit in close combat, based on my research is cancelled out by the extra weight and lack of movability in combat. In my opinion.

Apparently this was not the first consideration to change, as Marlborough himself reintroduced the cuirass (though under the coat.)

He did, as did the Dutch Horse, but it was so detested and scorned by both nations' troopers that it was virtually never worn. Hall's book on the Dutch describes snap field inspections of the Dutch horse in which only a handful of the troopers even had their cuirasses on hand -- many men claiming to have lost them in the field!

Which is an interesting thought. When a cuirass is just added to a trooper's equipment, he showed little if any respect for it. When however it was a mark of a unit's elite status, it was always worn with great pride.

Ardant du Picq thought the main advantage of the cuirass was the confidence it gave the wearer in close combat. He thought this critical since he said most cavalry clashes saw one side flinch before contact. He wanted the cuirass widely worn by French cavalry – a tad retro in 1870.

Let's think about the psychology. As a Napoleonic cavalryman you can do little about canister or musket balls beyond closing with your opponent (unless in square of course) and your cuirasse will make little to no difference.

But what if two cavalry units are approaching to contact. Every Perry one piece casting shows them with the arm out straight and the wrist strangely rotated (thumb down, which looks bad in 28mm frankly, see their Chasseurs a Cheval of the Garde, but it is right).

Right, so coming at you is a lad your size, with a sword tip pointed straight at your vitals. If you are lucky, his sword slides off yours, you keep your thumb and right shoulder attached to you and pass each other. How much more confidence will you have if your thorax and upper abdo is protected? A cuirasse will turn a sword point, hence the ridged shape! I suspect the contact would rarely happen as the armoured chap is more likely to close. The rolled cloak is fine for the cut, but little use for the thrust…and that was what they aimed for.

Finally. Until you pick up a modern Household Cavalry full cuirasse you do not appreciate the weight. I expected it to be far heavier frankly! It is not like Middle Ages jousting stuff. Now I have no idea how a French model from 1815 compares of course….but, given a choice of carrying a slung musket or wearing that armour, I know which I would have chosen! What did a full front and back cuirasse weigh in those days??????

Well Mcladdie, my conclusions are the total opposite to yours, but that's why we can all have our opinions. The Cuirass did afford both physical and psychological protection against musket fire at long range. Its very small benefit in close combat, based on my research is cancelled out by the extra weight and lack of movability in combat. In my opinion.

Maybe the cuirass did, maybe it didn't protect them at long range. maybe the extra weight did cancel out any benefit in close combat, maybe it didn't. It may have provided a psychological benefit. That could also be said of a metal helmet, a grenadier's bearskin or

The issue here is what contemporaries said. Protection from Musket fire wasn't why they had cuirass-laden cavalry. All that metal for the psychological benefit against musket fire wasn't it either. It was for the physical and psychological benefit in close combat with other cavalry. You can agree or disagree, however, that isn't my opinion or yours, but the rationale of the contemporaries who ordered them, paid for them and wore them.

From what I understand, the cuirass could weight between 20 and 30 lbs depending on a number of factors.

Which is an interesting thought. When a cuirass is just added to a trooper's equipment, he showed little if any respect for it. When however it was a mark of a unit's elite status, it was always worn with great pride.

The same is true of any equipment that hasn't been given the proper introduction, with the benefits etc. And of course, were the 1705 cuirass the same as the 1805 in weight or ease of movement?

Bill

It seems a cuirass, model 1802, weighed 6.8 or 7.3 kilograms (two sizes )

link

Bearing in mind that a bag of swimming pool salt weighs 5kg, that's a lot of weight, over twice a Kevlar hemlet and Flak Jacket combined!

Regarding the effectiveness of the Cuirass in protecting against musketry, the Allied Army at Waterloo was instructed to fire at Cuirassier horses instead of the men.
I think that indeed at long range the cuirasse would have to offer some protection against a musket ball, but probably not at the close range at which those regiments in the King's Service preferred to give fire…

Interesting that the Saxon Cuirassier Regiments departing for Russia in 1812 left their cuirasses behind, probably wisely given the logistical constraints of that campaign…

Sparker:
Well, that is half the weight what I'd read' @16 pounds. Again, it might depend on the nation and year of the model cuirass.

Here is Wellington's opinion of the cuirass, definitely an infantryman's view:

The Croker Papers:

May 6th, 1826

The Duke of York, Duke of Wellington, Lord Huntly, and some others dined with me at the Admiralty.

Some discussion arose as to the value of cuirasses; whether the confidence they gave to the individual soldier counter-balanced their weight and other obvious disadvantages. The Duke of Wellington thought it might in single men or in small bodies, but in great masses, the confidence and spirit of the men arose from other considerations. One the whole he did not like the cuirass. Someone asked whether the French Cuirassiers had not come up very well at Waterloo? "Yes," he said, "and they went down very well too."… "Particularly your regiment [the 92nd], the Duke said, turning to Lord Huntly, "gave them a couple of volleys which brought them all to the ground, and there those that were not killed were so encumbered by their cuirasses and jackboots that they could not get up, but lay sprawling and kicking like so many turned turtles."

I think cuirasses got lighter over the years – an Ecw cuirass was heavier than a Napoleonic one, probably due to the difference & quality of the metal & production.

Apparently the cuirass was useful against not just sabers and (possibly) pistols, but lances, too. A. Mikaberidze relates in 'The Battle of Borodino' pgs 43 and 44:

'A Grenadier Company of the 16th Polish Division, led by Captain Jan Skryznecki (future general and leader of the 1831 uprising), distinguished itself as it fought off the Russian cavalry. As one participant described, the night was "[not] so dark we could not make out movement [but] dark enough to prevent us from seeing which arm [the Russian cavalry] was composed of." This was significant, for the French could not see the Russians wore cuirasses, causing General Nansouty to send the Red Lancers of Hamburg against them. As Thirion de Metz described: "This regiment flew to the attack, delivered its charge and fell on the enemy with felled lances aimed at the body. The Russian cavalry received the shock without budging and, in the same moment as the French lance-heads touched the enemy's chest, the regiment about faced and came back towards us as if it in turn had been charges."

Indeed, Nansouty's lancers proved no match for the heavily armed Russian cuirassiers and sought cover behind their own cuirassiers.'

Of course it is only one written instance, but it does raise the possibility that lancers would not attack cuirassiers because of the body armor. Interesting.

Mcladdie, you have quoted Wellington, well it appears that he certainly did not value the cuirass in combat ??
Interesting point from Kevin, 'Lancers were not effective against cuirassiers' makes sense to me.

Remember that regardless of the weight of the cuirass, the soldier wearing it was not walking, but was mounted on a horse and he also was a big fellow.

Fascinating discussion and many good points raised. It is clear that a cuirass would not be able to stop a musket ball given a direct hit, just as any WW2 helmet would not stop a direct hit from a rifle round. But I think that misses the point that there certainly is some benefit and protection to be had from these sorts of body armor. In addition to the spent musket ball or sword/lance point deflection, there are all manner of other debris/hazards flying around the battlefield for which the armor might protect its wearer. Relatively minor wounds can incapacitate a man in the short run and take him out of the action.
Back to the point of the question; when coupled with the size of the man and horse, the armor (I believe) would give him some advantage over his less protected counter-part.

TG wrote:

Mcladdie, you have quoted Wellington, well it appears that he certainly did not value the cuirass in combat ??

Yes, to point out that he did not value the cuirass as a protection against musket volleys. Which makes sense. The protection was for cavalry vs cavalry actions.

Kevin in Albuquerque:

I read the memiors of a Polish Lancer [his name escapes me, as do most Polish names except for the '-cki'] Anywho, in relating an action in the early part of the 1809 campaign, he says that a regiment of cuirassiers stood still and received an Austrian Uhlan charge. The Austrians were sent packing and apart from arm and leg lance wounds, the cuirassiers had no KIAs.

Snowshoe wrote:

Back to the point of the question; when coupled with the size of the man and horse, the armor (I believe) would give him some advantage over his less protected counter-part.

That was the point of the armor in the first place. The comment above about the French being told to go past the Austrian cuirassiers and attack from the back is a good example. Why would they suggest that when it gives the Austrian cuirassier, with only the front breastplate an uncontested shot as the French trooper going past him?
Because of the defensive advantage afforded the cuirass.

Of course it provided a psychological edge, but there were any number of less expensive ways of achieving that.

Bill

About the idea that the French cuirasses were bullet-proof. When the Dutch adopted cuirasses after Waterloo, they thought so too. When it was time to test the newly made ones, they wanted this test to include firing a bullet at the cuirass.
The manufacturer protested against this as he had not been told this beforehand. had he been, he would have made the cuirasses thicker and against a higher price. He also claimed that the French cuirasses were not bullet-proof either.

It depends on range and angle of the hit. Pistol, carbine, rifle or musket….or even canister/shrapnel? The stories of WWI soldiers saved by their paybook, bible or cigarette case surely reflects a nearly spent round (which could still leave you just as dead as one that goes straight through and continues another mile).

Does modern body armour stop a high velocity rifle round at close range? Maybe…….. is the answer. Not at all guaranteed, yet folk still wear them in some very hot and uncomfortable conditions.

When cuirasses were reintroduced the French proved them by firing a pistol bullet at them from some specified range.

Every cuirass was defeated by every bullet, so they increased the range until the cuirass defeated the bullet, and then declared that the spec.

The final range settled on was about 50 yards, i.e. well beyond the range anyone would shoot a pistol at you.

That they issued them anyway suggests, along with the other evidence, that while cuirasses had little to nil beneficial effect against musketry (bigger rounds still, fired from closer range), they were useful in some other way.

The protection offered against a sword blow seems unarguable, but here I tend to think of the Spitfire / Hurricane analogy. The Hurricane was noted for its ability to take a remarkable amount of punishment and still get its pilot back to the ground. So were you better off in a Hurricane than a Spitfire? No, you were better off in the Spitfire because it was less likely to get hit in the first place. Only if you assume you're going to get dinged is it beneficial to be in the Hurricane.

So to what extent did a cuirass protect you from blows you'd have dodged or parried had you not been wearing one? Why did the French have to take measures to stop troops from discarding them?

As someone said upthread, this question is probably not resolvable because more experienced debaters than us didn't resolve it satisfactorily 200 years ago.

I tend myself to the view that if Napoleon thought they were a good idea, then they were. Those nations that didn't bother with them probably did so because the penny-pinching faction in all defence ministries could point to the questionable uncertain benefits of the cuirass versus their definite and non-trivial cost.

So to what extent did a cuirass protect you from blows you'd have dodged or parried had you not been wearing one? Why did the French have to take measures to stop troops from discarding them?

For the same reason that troops discarded backpacks and blankets…they were heavy. That doesn't mean the backpacks didn't work or the blankets didn't keep them warm.

As someone said upthread, this question is probably not resolvable because more experienced debaters than us didn't resolve it satisfactorily 200 years ago.

It depends on what the question is. If the question is why the cuirass was created and used on the battlefield, there isn't any controversy. Whether it actually protected the wearer from musket and pistol fire, I suppose it is, though I haven't read contemporaries debating that question, other than agree with Wellington that the cuirass wasn't protection against small arms fire. However, all they had to do to resolve the question was to test the equipment.

The protection offered against a sword blow seems unarguable, but here I tend to think of the Spitfire / Hurricane analogy. The Hurricane was noted for its ability to take a remarkable amount of punishment and still get its pilot back to the ground. So were you better off in a Hurricane than a Spitfire? No, you were better off in the Spitfire because it was less likely to get hit in the first place. Only if you assume you're going to get dinged is it beneficial to be in the Hurricane.

Getting dinged is unavoidable in a sword fight. How badly is the concern. The tension between defensive and offensive capabilities has always been there. As you said,The protection offered against a sword blow seems unarguable. It is why heavy cavalrymen wore a helmet and some cuirass.

After the post war analysis of cavalry actions, the British army was so impressed by the French use of the Lance, it had half a dozen regiments armed with the lance and renamed as Lancers.

No regiments were equipped with cuirasses, or renamed as Cuirassiers.

Draw your own conclusions gentlemen…

After the post war analysis of cavalry actions, the British army was so impressed by the French use of the Lance, it had half a dozen regiments armed with the lance and renamed as Lancers.

No regiments were equipped with cuirasses, or renamed as Cuirassiers.

Draw your own conclusions gentlemen…

Sparker:
The British never had cuirassiers. As for Lancers. The French and Russians only added the lance after the beginning of the wars. The Prussians followed with a vengeance during 1813-1814 with their many Landwehr units, among their least trained cavalry… because it looked good. Much like like the Bearskin looked good on the Scots Greys. After all, the British instituted Hussars and light dragoons, rife regiments, light infantry regiments and a host of other reforms during the war. Over that twenty years they could have just as easily added lancers. No need to wait until there was no more fighting.

The British analysis of the combat effectiveness of lancers didn't impress them. It was their martial appearance after the war that was impressive. The Lance was also more of a weapon against infantry than other cavalry, which for the British would also have been a factor.

Unlike a cuirass, It required a great deal of training for man and horse to use a lance effectively in combat. Officers like Cocks, meeting French lancers in battle commented on how useless they were in a cavalry fight, most French lancers dropping them to fight with a sword. He mentions how many the would collect after a cavalry skirmish.

For the British, the argument against the cuirass had always been its weight per regiment when all military forces had to be shipped over seas. One reason the British were always cavalry and artillery poor on the ground. Another was that their cavalry had always done just fine without them in cavalry fights.

The use of the cuirass in the Russian, French, Austrian and Prussian armies actually increased during the Napoleonic wars, but nowhere as much as the lance. And the lance was thrown away by troopers just as often as the cuirass.

So, when did the British Household Cavalry adopt the Cuirass ?

I cannot remember the source but I do recall that some of the British Heavy Cavalry shipped to the continent during the Seven Years War adopted the Cuirass for their front rank men. I believe that one of the regimental museums has one or two on display as well.

Does anyone have any additional information?

v/r

Joe

Well Haythorntwaite (World Unforms and Battles 1815-1850) certainly shows 2nd Life guards wearing them 1827 and 1833. He also reminds us that 2nd Life Guards wore them on parade 1814. Household Cav Museum Horse Guard parade certainly tells of fed up officers going to considerable expense, then finding they were dropped with a tear. He says all Household Cav adopted cuirasse for 1821 coronation and wear them to this day of course…………

But this is all parade stuff let us recall.

"The Prussians followed with a vengeance during 1813-1814"

They had before that the Bosniaken, Tartaren Pulk and then Towarczys (15 squadrons)

"Russians only added the lance after the beginning of the wars"

No, actually.

Russian army hussar and light-horse were armed with lances since their inception before 1750. Cossacks and Ukrainian land militia were always armed with lances.

In the army and guard (i.e. not counting the Cossacks) there were 120 squadrons of lance-armed cavalry in 1801, 44% of all the army and guard cavalry.

I think the mis-impression that the Russians began using lances in the Napoleonic era arises from their beginning to use the name "uhlan" as a type of cavalry and uniforming these in the "Polish" style.

=============================

"The use of the cuirass in the Russian …. arm[y] actually increased during the Napoleonic wars"

Well, not exactly ….

The Russians first formed cuirassiers in 1732. They wore the breastplate-only type. There were 73 cuirassier squadrons in 1801, 27% of army and guard cavalry. At this point the actual cuirasses were withdrawn, per the decision of the new emperor Aleksandr.

Cuirasses, now with front and back plates, were re-introduced in early 1812 for 50 army and guard squadrons, increased to 72 squadrons at the end of the that year. Against a much larger military establishment, this was a lower ratio of cuirassiers than existed in 1801.

- Sasha

Russian army hussar and light-horse were armed with lances since their inception before 1750.

Sasha:
Never saw that. Have read that the Uhlans at Austerlitz did not have lances, and neither did the Hussars… So, did they or didn't they in 1805?

In the army and guard (i.e. not counting the Cossacks) there were 120 squadrons of lance-armed cavalry in 1801, 44% of all the army and guard cavalry.

News to me. Where did you find this? Zhmodikov's book on Russian tactics does state that there were 3 light [lancer]regiments before 1801, but I had assumed, not finding any reference to them elsewhere, that they were cossacks. Also I understand that when the Hussars did adopt the lance, it was only the first ranks that had them. True?

Cuirasses, now with front and back plates, were re-introduced in early 1812 for 50 army and guard squadrons, increased to 72 squadrons at the end of the that year. Against a much larger military establishment, this was a lower ratio of cuirassiers than existed in 1801.

Yes, but a substantial increase of the numbers of cuirassiers in raw numbers.

McLaddie:

Russians, like Poles, armed the front rank with lances.

I know tha the discussion was about regular army lancers. But, for Russia, the lance was primerily a weapon used by light horse units that were not "army" units, but instead a weapon for "free" peoples on Russia's borders who traded (para-)military service for land rights. As such, they drilled often and the difficulty of using the lance was not a barrier, while its low cost and ease of manufacture and local repair were real advantages.

In general, "national" (meaning any ethnic group or "nation" other than Russian) light cavalry contingents were lance armed. The Cossacks are the most famous, but there were also Ukrainian, Crimean Tatar, Lithanian Tatar, Lithuanian, Polish, Belarussian, Serbian, Wallach, Bulgar, Greek, Circassian and so on. The use of the lance in the Russian regular cavalry before 1814 is really driven by the integration of former "national" units into the regular army.

For hussars, they were finally and defintively transferred from "national" status to "regular army" status in 1796. Their establishments under Pavel and during the era of the Napoleonic wars did *not* include lances. But they had used them before, as did all national cavalry, and you can see hussars drawn from life with lances during Suvarov's campaign in Europe.
And from the 1805-1807 era :

The question that I can't answer is if every hussar regiment always had lances (outside of regulations) during the era 1796-1812
You can read about the prodcution and distribution of lances to hussars in preparation for the 1812 campaign from page 77 here :
PDF link
From this point we can be quite sure that all the regiments were using the lance. There is also a nice article with nice color illustrations and discuusion of lance pennants by the same author:
Валькович Александр Михайлович
"Армейские гусары 1812-1816" (Цейхгауз № 1)

For the light horse regiments there were, toward the end of Catherine's reign:
11 light horse regiments : Маріупольскій, Павлоградскій, Александрійскій, Херсонскій, Полтавскій, Острогожскій, Ахтырскій, Сумскій, Харьковскій, Изюмскій, Украинскій : of these, Pavel converted 6 to hussars, 1 to cuirassiers and disbanded 4
4 horse-jäger regiments : Переяславскій, Елисаветградскій, Кіевскій, Таврическій : of these, Pavel converted 1 to hussars and disbanded 3
These had been formed from various national forces from south Russia, but were "regular army" at this time.

At the same time, classed as "national" forces were, in addtion to the Cossacks :
- 1x Mozdok Command (Circassian, I think) – retained by Pavel, returned to "interna garrison" status under Aleksandr
- 3x Belarusian Standards – disbanded by Pavel
- 2x Tauric-Tatar Double-squadrons – returned to "internal garrison" status by Pavel, to be re-raised as later Crimean Tatar "national" regiments under Aleksandr
- 1x Greek Double-squadron – disbanded by Pavel

In 1797, Pavel raised new units, with lances, from recently acquired Polish terrirory. They were supposed to be directly classed as "regular army", even though they were raised by "nation" and actually were breifly listed as "national" troops at the beginning of Aleksandr's regin
- Polish Horse Regiment
- Tatar-Lithuanian Horse Regiment – split into Lithuanian Horse and Tatar Horse in 1803
Also in 1803, the Odessa hussar regiment was re-named as the Tsarevitch's Uhlans (an indication that hussars still generally were using lances)
In 1807 the Volhynia Horse regiment is raised (this is district of ethnic Polish-Lithuanians near L'vov in northwest Ukraine) and later all these 4 "Horse" regiments were re-named "uhlans".
In 1808 the Chuguev Cossack regiment (ethnic Ukrainians, more than ethnic Cossacks, if you want parse that ethnic difference) was re-named uhlans and taken into the regular army
In 1809 the Tsarevitch's Uhlans became the Guard Uhlans. Cool deal for them, eh?
In the yearrs 1811-1815 these formations essentially lost most of their prior "national" character and were augmented by new uhlan units created by converting dragoon regiments in 1814. but, this was not much more than re-naming until after the peace.

So, if you want to talk about "light horse with lances" then there was lots and lots of it with the Russians. If you wan to talk about pure "regular" army lancers, European-style, with no affiliation to "national" forces, then really that is a post-Napoleonic era kind of thing.

===========

"a substantial increase of the numbers of cuirassiers in raw numbers."

Well, the army units had retained the name "cuirassiers" 1801-1812 when they did not have armor. But yes, if you measure from 1811 to 1812, there is a huge increase in guys in cuirasses : from zero squadrons to 50 squadrons with front and back cuirasses.

My point was that prior to 1801, cuirasses (front plate only) were actually more widely used as a percent of the total force compared to 1812-1815, and that from 1813 the actual raw number finally regained the pre-Aleksandr level of 72 squadrons.

- Sasha

Interesting thread. I can't recall the source but remember reading Ney wanted to dtich the cuirass and go with reinforced epaulettes.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer since we saw a mix of opinions as to a cuirass's worth with some countries using them, others not. As was already pointed out the quality of horse mattered more.

Regardless cuirassiers and carabiniers are among my favorite looking cavalry units of all time.

In Memiors of a Polish Lancer Dezydery Chlapowski gives a number of descriptions of cavalry actions. Here is one from 1809 where a Carabiners brigade faces Austrian Uhlans. p. 60

"The cuirassier division arrived, with the brigade of Carabiniers at its head. The Emeror deployed it straight awasy, for he saw that the Austrian cavalry, in columns in front of Ratisbon, had begun to advance on us. Soon an Uhlan regiment in six squadrons trotted up to within 200 paces of the Carabiniers and launched a charge at full tilt. It reached their line but could not break it, as the second regiment of Carabiniers was right behind the first, and behind it the rest of the cuirassier division. I saw a great many Carabiniers with lance wounds, but a dozen or so Uhlans had also fallen."

So standing and not charging was a tactic too. It did provide boot-to-boot solidarity that a wild charge did not.

Chlapowski has a number of interesting things to say about the advantages of heavy horses vs light horses, the difference in attack methods of British, Austrian and French cavalry, among other insights.

Sasha:
Thank you for that very detailed explanation. It resolves my confusion over who had lances when in the Russian army.

McLaddie,

You are more than welcome. I should thank you for raising the question!

The Russian light horse is (i) really important to their military "system" and (ii) very very confusing, even if you have Russian.

I have *never* seen something like a complete discussion of the evolution of this arm of service in English. The best, and essentially all correct in what it reports, that I have seen is a booklet by Mr. Nafziger:
link

- Sasha