"Cavalry command coordination" Topic

I wa recently at Waterloo where I discovered a gem in the museum shop, namely "The dutch-Belgian cavalry at waterloo" by André Dellevoet. I have for some reason not seen it before. The quality is excellent both research and presentation wise.

One thing that I noticed, was the description of how the allied cavalry was put together ad hoc under Uxbridge, with no prober command structure – it is emphasized that this prevented good coordination beyond brigade level (which propably had less effect as the army was on the defensive). This lack of higher coordination amonst cavalry has been discussed before.

Do your wargame rules allow for a representation of this, and if so, how?

As far as the AA organization went, there WAS no organization above the brigade level, except for the DB cavalry, which was organized as a division of two (three?) brigades.

Considering how the AA cavalry was employed, they didn't really require any higher organization. It just meant that there were MANY units for Uxbridge to command.

As far as the AA organization went, there WAS no organization above the brigade level, except for the DB cavalry, which was organized as a division of two (three?) brigades.

Even if that is so, you have the Household and Union brigades charging at the same time at the same French infantry.

*Someone* had to coordinate their charge to some extent if they were going to avoid colliding on such a crampted frontage. They certainly weren't acting independently, nor were a number of brigades during Waterloo.

As this is starting at Waterloo I have checked on some details from the Waterloo Letters (including the Glover Unpublished ones).

Lord Greenock WL#7 mentions the intention to form Divisions but with the movements of the cavalry ordered on the 16th then this had not taken effect.
Greenock was ADC to Anglesey and was with him throughout the 18th "except when conveying his orders". These include taking orders to Vivian and Vandeleur to move to the right of La Haye Sainte in the afternoon.
Greenock also describes Anglesey communicating personally with the commander of the Belgian cavalry.

Thornhill (WL#8) describes taking verbal orders to the brigade commanders to act discretionally within certain constraints. This is correlated by Vandeleur (VL#51) who reports "an order arrived from Anglesey ….to engage the Enemy whenever they could do so with advantage without waiting for orders".
Thornhill also describes Anglesey had placed himself at the "torrent of attack". Thornhill was sent with orders for the Blues to advance as the charge of the Horseguards and Union Brigade took place.

Seymour (WL#9), another ADC to Anglesey, describes being sent to halt the Cumberland Hussars then returning and reporting the response to Anglesey. Seymour is then ordered to to deliver the message to the C/O of the Cumberland Hussars.
Seymour was later tasked to deliver the order to Vivian to move towards the centre.

Clark-Kennedy Royal Dragoons, Ponsonby's Brigade (WL#36). The Marquess of Anglesey came up at speed , Wheeled the Royals and Inniskillings into line and ordered them to charge, the Greys forming a second line in support.

As for Anglesey himself. WL#3 – On the morning of the 18th the Duke of Wellington said "The Prince of Orange requests the you will take charge of all his Cavalry". … "it is unfortunate that I should not have had the opportunity of making myself acquainted with any of his Officers or their Regiments".
On the 16th Anglesey first gallops to Quatre Bras, then hastens the march of the cavalry riding from Ninove. On the 17th he is "hands on " by positioning cavalry during the action at Genappe and ordering attacks.

WL#5 Anglesey – The charge against D'Erlon- "I observed very large masses of the Enemy…moving upon our left…..I immediately galloped to the Heavy Cavalry and ordered the Household Brigade to prepare to form line, passed on to Sir W Ponsonby's and having told him to wheel into line when the other Brigade did, I instantly returned to the Household Brigade and put the whole in motion".
Anglesey states later in the letter
"This forces from me the remark that I committed a great mistake in having myself led the attack. The carriere once begun, the leader is no better than any other man; whereas, if I had placed myself at the head of the 2nd line, there is no saying what great advantages might not have accrued from it".

It should be noted that Vandeleur's support for Ponsonby was very much on Vandeleur's initiative in line with his orders and freedom of action.

So I conclude that co-ordination is very much down to the senior commander at the point of action. Kellerman at Quatre Bras seems to have used a similar approach. ADC may be sent off with orders for other brigades (or divisions) but the senior commander will want to place himself with the commanders of the divisions that are yet to be committed and order these brigades how he wishes.

Another good justification for the French cavalry column (perpendicular approach) where the commander of the column can position himself to order the leading regiments to deploy into line and charge then ordering the following units to reinforce the attack or deploy as supports to allow the first regiments to rally.

The battle of Liebertwolkwitz (14th October 1813) sees the French using deep columns with Murat bringing up divisions from the rear to continue the fight whilst the allied cavalry arrived and attacked in a somewhat ad-hoc manner eventually pushing the French back. There is no indication of any exceptional co-ordination by the Allies in this.

How to reflect this in rules? I think the simplest way is to identify a cavalry commander for the army separate from the CinC and use a parallel orders system, activation or whatever when the cavalry commander is co-located with the cavalry Division commanders.

If you look at the placement of brigades on the field at Waterloo there does seem to be mutual support going on.
On the British left you find Vivian and Vandeleur, in the center you find Ponsonby and Somerset, with Collaert's three brigades behind them, and on the right [behind the infantry] you find Arentschildt, Dornberg and Grant. This gave Uxbridge four mounted elements that he could relatively easily coordinate. The three forward elements [two light and one heavy] could potentially call upon a brigade of Dutch-Belgian cavalry, in near direct support to their rear, should that have been necessary.

In wargame terms, the simplest way to represent control or lack of coordinated control, in my experience, is to 1. combine the cavalry commands under a single player, or 2. split them up between multiple players. In the first instance, you'll tend to see more coordination, and in the second, less coordination.

That pairing is pretty typical practice during the Napoleonic period, particularly with Wellington. wings with companies and battalions, wings with brigades, pairs of brigades in a division, two divisions per corps etc.

During the Waterloo Campaign you see that 'pairing' with the brigades and divisions, often one in support of the other.

But the issue as I see it is that some sort of overall control mechanisms eludes us in most wargames. During the Napoleonic wars we mainly see the french doing large coordinated cavalry attacks. In the above mentioned description of the DB cavalry, it was mentioned how they again and again found themselves tactically unnumberede because they were fighting as brigades. It is a thing we see in many forms through the wars. This lack of coordination is exceptionally difficult to represent with most rules.

Its all about the command and control.
As Nigel said. We can put constructs into place in wargames to represent the practice and ability of the period commanders, and/or we can consolidate or diveide commands among players. The latter seems often to have the same efect as the former.