"Hanoverian Cavalry charging 7YW" Topic

It is quoted in English sources on the Hanoverian Army that their cavalry charged at the trot and preferred to use pistols in 1757-58 until they were taught by the Prussians Dragoons. Is that true?

Hanoverian Cavalry performed in the same manner as the British Cavalry under Marlborough. My understand is that they charged at the trot and then cantered a certain distance. It was impact with sword rather than firearms.

Thank you. Could this be just a justification from Ferdinand to get some Prussian Cavalry.

Thank you
Stephen

I just saw a reference to this in another thread on the performance of the "lesser" powers. It was stated that the widely held opinion was that the Hanoverian cavalry lacked aggressiveness and were taught a new, harder style of fighting by the Prussian 9th and 10th dragoons.

Yes but I am not sure that it is true and wonder whether it was the excuse to obtain Prussian Cavalry. I have only seen it in English sources. It is repeated in Kronostaf and Osprey without reference.

Another is that the Hanoverian Infantry formed and fought in 4 ranks. The British had abandoned that in c1705 under Marlborough. On parade the Hanoverians formed in 4 ranks. I think English authors have been confused. It just does not add up.

The Hanoverians had fought with the British from the 1680s.
Stephen

I'm inclined to agree with you, Stephen. Ranzau's (Hanoverian) cavalry certainly lacked no aggression at the Battle of Oudenarde (1708), steam rollering Biron's French and Swiss force, and nearly loosing the future King George II of England in their enthusiasm.

I think that it is a bit of a stretch to conclude that the Hanoverians fought in a less aggressive style, inferring that Ferdinand ordered them to fight this way, so that Ferdinand could get some Prussian cavalry.

Ferdinand requested more cavalry because he didn't have enough of it. This was before the large contingent of British cavalry arrived in Germany.

You might want to investigate the agreement that Ferdinand had with Frederick as a condition for his being loaned to the Allied Army. There might have been some promise by Frederick to provide additional troops if required.

Also, since Ferdinand was a Brunswicker, he could not order Hanoverians to fight in a certain style. This could only come from one of the Hanoverian generals. As army commander, Ferdinand could only order Hanoverian troops what and where to fight, rather than how to fight.

Dear Stephen,

Some details are found in Sichart's book below.
Its about as close as I could get to the subject concerning hard evidence for quotation

L. von Sichart, Geschichte der Königlich Hannoverschen Armee, Hannover 1870, vol II pp. 140 ff.
Link:
link

Here he quotes from the 1751 regulation, p. 143. It concerns the method of executing the choc at a muster. But that should equal what would have been expected from the horse in battle
The escadron closes in with "bruits de guerre" and at a distance of 50 or so paces, the officer commands "Marsch!", the shouting ceases, and with raised sabers and at a "strong trot" the escadron charges in. No mention of canter or galop. No mention of employing pistols here.

Some more bits online available in an extract from Schütz von Brandis, Übersicht der Geschichte der Hannoverschen Armee von 1617 bis 1866
Link:
link
Chose article – Die Truppen

In comparing the quality of the belligerent armies, he notes the French cavalry to have been found better trained, while the German horse was likely to fall into disorder when charging over longer distances. It seems, from 1758 on, the Allies saw much more training and drill during quarters or periods of rest, which must have certainly improved overall performance here – with or without the Prussians being around.

With regard to the afore mentioned "lack of aggressiveness", it is true that Ferdinand had a generally poor opinion of the quality of the Hanoverian officer corps in particular. His repeated complains can be found in their plenties. In particular he rejected their general lack of devotion to their duties, compared to the officers of the other armies. Most notably the Hessians. A poor escadron commander obviously won't make for brave performance.

I can also send you a rather interesting insight that comes from the correspondence of the landgrave of Hesse-Darmstadt with an unknown officer who must have served with the Allied army. He notes the British horse being of finest quality, led by very able officers in general. Next to none were the Hessian horse, because of their thorough experience and high quality officers. They were found to be the best in executing the choc and ensuing pursuit (Einhauen und Nachhauen).

To the Hanoverian horse he notes that they are without doubt among the best dressed and mounted men found among German armies in general, but, the officers being only second class. As he put it by using terms from the realm of the hunt: The pack is excellent, but the Jägers are lousy.

I will send it to you later tonight.

Cheers,
Christian
crogges7ywarmies.blogspot.de

Dear Christian
I am almost at first draft of the Hanoverian Army book. I have exhausted the information that I have available. I can send you a draft for comments in a few days. Comments and corrections are welcome.

Some of the comments that have come down to us in English about the Hanoverians are being clearer. There is a huge amount of politics and rivalry that English Authors have ignored treating them as all Germans.
Stephen

Dear Christian
I ahve put in dropbox the draft of the Hanoverian Army. Comments and corrections welcome.
Thank you
Stephen

Thanks Stephen,

I'll have a look at it.

This 'English opinion' might be slight red herring.

I think it originates post-war from Robert Hinde, the sometime Light Dragoon officer and author of one of the first English language works on light cavalry duties, and it focuses on their alleged slowness of movement and manoeuvre.

IIRC he also makes numerous criticisms elsewhere of the inadequate training and battlefield unhandiness of British heavy cavalry, in support of his general case for light cavalry as a category of regular troops. So I'm not sure the reference is just a xenophobic criticism. I think that the Hanoverian Horse Grenadiers are singled out among the rest of their cavalry, but there is no indication that this unit had a unique drill. It may have been that the English author saw the unit and chose it as the object of criticism.

I've never seen any indication that the Hanoverian cavalry was lacking in offensive spirit or hampered by especially outmoded tactics- there are numerous examples of their fierce aggression and striking success in SYW battles- Hastenbeck, Crefeld, Warburg (Erbprinz's flank), Johanisberg etc. This was a continuation of their excellent WAS record especially at Rocoux where they routed several French infantry and cavalry units, and at Lauffeldt.

I would rate the Hanoverian cavalry pretty highly.

Thank you for your comments. This is my opinion. The comments were political and point scoring by British and Prussian observers.
Stephen

Stephen, possibly, though the corresponding criticism of British heavy cavalry might make nationalistic/xenophobic point scoring a less likely explanation. I think the British author's comments WERE point scoring, but by an advocate of the relatively new concept of regular light cavalry vs more traditional heavy cavalry.

But I guess the main point is that, whatever the motivation, it doesn't amount to convincing proof of any failings in the Hanoverian cavalry.

I agree. Thank you for your comments.
Stephen