"Cavalry in the Boer War and 1914" Topic

In 1900 during the relief of the siege of Kimberly, French's cavalry division rode through a gap in the Boer lines. While they suffered some losses from combat, the division rode most of their horses to death in a few days.

In 1914 Sordet's French cavalry Corps rapidly broke down their horses, becoming incapable of performing reconnaissance. They were reduced to falling back when pressed and warning the infantry nearby that their flank was turned. Also in 1914 the Austro-Hungarian chief of staff Conrad unleashed 10 divisions of cavalry on the Russians, to raid and scout. They achieved little of either but rode many horses to death and broke down the remainder so that little was achieved from the cavalry for the rest of the campaign, save one division that dismounted and plugged a gap in the infantry line.

Why did the cavalry mis-treat their horses, killing them or breaking them down? During the previous wars cavalry seems to have been able to at least stay in the field without destroying their horses. I suspect that by 1900 most everyone was used to a different pace of life. Few were alive who remembered the days before railroads and telegraphs, not to mention trucks, telephones and airplanes. They thought of horses rather like 4-legged cars and just forced them at speeds the animals could not maintain. It is also said they put too much gear on the animals. I think this is part and parcel of no longer realizing the limits of the animals.

Might have been scale. Think there was actually more cavalry in WWI then in the Napoleonic wars or any war up to then. The biggest problem of any cavalry was the shortage of remounts, this was such a problem that often cavalry spent more time walking to save horseflesh then riding.

Also the thousands of artillery guns and thousands of supply wagons needed by the armies used up millions of horses. The US during the first World War sent hundreds of thousands of mules and horses to their allies as replacements.

Never was a cavalry unit that didn't use up their horses. Infantry and artillery were even worse at using up horses. Remember horses were never designed to carry men or haul guns, just happened they were the right size to do the job for a short time before breaking down.

There is a distinction between horsemanship and horsemastership. The British and colonial mounted units in the South African War were often good horsemen but almost universally poor horsemasters. One of the reforms in the cavalry between 1902 and the outbreak of war in 1914 was rigorous emphasis in training on the welfare of the horses, such that even the Australians – who had been notorious in South Africa for the wastage rates among their mounts – suffered relatively few losses and low wastage through the Sinai and Palestine campaigns in which conditions were very onerous for horses and men alike.

I can't speak to the other European armies, but this would make an interesting study. For the stuff on the British army see recent books by Spencer Jones and by Tim Bowman and Mark Connelly. Steve Badsey may have something on it as well (can't remember and don't have it beside me).

It is not correct to say that Sordet's Cavalry Corps 'rapidly broke down their horses'. By the time the BEF cavalry met with Sordet's unit, the latter had been in the field seeing active service for several weeks. The cavalry divisions had mobilised, formed up into the corps, advanced into Belgium, engaged with German cavalry and Jaeger on several occasions (such as the action at Mont Saint André, which saw Sordet's Corps engage a German equivalent), fallen back to support Lanrezac's Fifth Army, then supported the right flank of the BEF at Mons before crossing over to support the BEF's left flank of Le Cateau. It was during the latter manoeuvre that Spears commented adversely on the condition of some of the French cavalry horses.

Sordet's men were exhausted but they continued to fall back in the general retreat to the Seine. The divisions then played an active and important role in the First Battle of the Marne, supporting Maunoury's Sixth Army north of Paris. It was during this period that Sordet was limoged, i.e. relieved of command by Joffre. In the entire campaign up to the Aisne, the BEF cavalry never covered anything like the distances covered by Sordet's unit. While there were some problems with some horses, the unit as a whole continued to function throughout. It is a testament to the horsemastership of the French cavalrymen.

The cavalry on all sides were pushed hard during the first weeks of the war. Their screening and reconnaissance roles were vital in what was believed/hoped by everyone would be the decisive period of a short war. Subsequently the cavalry became gap fillers once the First Battle of the Marne got underway. In our recent replay of this battle, we had five tables, each measuring 4'x8'. One and half tables were devoted purely to BEF, French and German cavalry, which fought each other in the growing gap between the German First and Second Armies. It made an impressive sight, acting as a reminder of the significant numbers of horsemen who played a key role in that battle (including Sordet's Corps as noted above).

Robert

Great discussion. So what of the early events in the East? This is another of the enormous gaps in our knowledge of the Great War, despite a century of writing and reflection.

I (think I) know that Ottoman cavalry units broke down to a greater or lesser extent by the second half of the Palestine campaign, c. 1917-18. Certainly after Third Gaza they seem to have been a remnant force.

Even today among the dude ranches and other tourist traps there seems to be a pretty severe lack of horsemastership in the American West.

There was an article in the paper earlier in the summer about how many of those dude ranches have had to start using draft horses because modern Americans are too heavy to ride lighter horses, but one of the ranchers mentioned that ever since they shifted to draft horses they no longer had to give the horses 7-8 months rest between tourist seasons. Seems to indicate a really poor handling of their horses to me.

Monk2002uk,

I just want to express my appreciation for all the posts you make on WW1 subjects, I enjoy reading your take on things. Your comments on Sordet's corp are fascinating as I had in the past read about how badly the French treated their horses. Nice to know they were that bad afterall.

I realize that Sordet's cavalry covered a lot of ground. But Seven Years War, Napoleonic and Union & Confederate cavalry seemed to be able to stay in the field for months and still be effective.

Perhaps in 1914 everyone was pushed too hard in an attempt to "win the war by Christmas". It is said German infantry were so exhausted by the Marne that they fell asleep during artillery barrages. The Allies must have been as tired.

By the way Robert, what rules did you use for the cavalry fight?

Sordet's cavalry were in action from the beginning of August until November 1914. Once winter set in, the campaigning 'season' was over for the horses at least. I can't speak to the Seven Years War nor Napoleonic wars from a cavalry perspective. I have studied the ACW cavalry a lot, given that the WW1 major powers studied the cavalry tactics from this period in some depth in the lead up to the war (General Sheridan was an observer of the German cavalry during the Franco-Prussian War). The ability of the French cavalry to sustain multiple operations throughout the Battles of the Frontier, the Marne and the Race to the Sea was significantly more impressive than the cavalry campaigns of the ACW.

I don't have any evidence from the histories of Sordet's and Conneau's cavalry corps, nor from Gazin or others overviews of the French cavalry that the cavalry broke down significantly at any point in the war or were not effective.

We used the Great War Spearhead rules. It was great fun, building on the game that we played in Christchurch several years before:

link

Robert

It is a bit unfair to say that French's divison 'rode through a gap in the Boer lines'. It was a quite brilliant flanking manouvere which was made possible by some excellent trickery and deception work – the Boers (over confident after their victory at Magersfontein) failed utter to spot the build up of several divisions and were completely fooled into the thinking the British would strike elsewhere – indeed, they even moved men to counter this.

French had to drive his cavalry division on through what is essentially semi-desert, hooking round the Boer defences and clearing the path for the slower-moving infantry divisions which followed. Speed was absolutely essential so the British could capture the drifts and prevent Cronje's army escaping. In some ways, it was rather like the paratroopers holding bridges for the XXX Corps in Operation Market Garden.

The horses obviously were driven to the absolute limit to keep up the pace, and it was not possible to adequately rest, feed or water them – but had French not driven his men on, Cronje would have flown the coop and everyone would have claimed the British were dunderheaded idiots etc etc.

A big issue was that British cavalry horses (as opposed to Boer ponies) could not live on the 'thin, reedy grass' of Southern Africa. There are some fascinating discussions on the topic in the 1903 Royal Commission into the Boer War, where issues about the weight of soldiers and kit are discussed, as well as care of the horses.

I just want to express my appreciation for all the posts you make on WW1 subjects, I enjoy reading your take on things.

+1. This is a period of historical, rather than wargaming, interest to me, but – rather like the Renaissance boards – this section of TMP boasts the occasional expert who makes regular visits well worth the effort.

Thank you, monk2002.

Thank you very much, SM.

Robert