"real value of cossacks in battle?" Topic

Guys,
I would like to know how much is the value in a true battle
Or just hit and run? greetings serge joe

In battle almost nothing at all – though they may disagree. Away from a battle, with the wounded and the scared then very high indeed. Like packs of dogs I guess. Should never be able to resist a group of mate wearing proper uniforms – unless of course their backs are turned…

Being hunters in general they were experts in the rear guard greetings serge joe

I've always thought of them as pretty good light cavalry.

In our *games* I use them to keep the opponent honest. Maneuvering on the flanks, keep them deep to counter enemy infantry that may have broken through, etc. On the battlefield if you look at the reaction they provoked at Borodino when Platov took a mass on a ride you can see what I mean.

Some gamers use them to soften up better enemy cavalry, but they weren't used that way so I try to keep them to historic uses.

Or give the equipment to regulas? greetings serge joe

In de strijd bijna helemaal niets – hoewel ze misschien niet mee eens. Weg van een gevecht, met de gewonden en de bange dan zeer hoog. Zoals verpakkingen van honden denk ik. Zou nooit in staat zijn om een ​​groep van stuurman dragen van de juiste uniformen weerstaan ​​- tenzij natuurlijk hun rug worden gedraaid … So why give them cannons? best to you all serge joe

One but last there were a few pulk at austerltz? best to you serge joe

I think they were one of those units where the threat they implied was greater than their actual value on battlefield. You couldn't afford to ignore them.

In de strijd bijna helemaal niets – hoewel ze misschien niet mee eens. Weg van een gevecht, met de gewonden en de bange dan zeer hoog. Zoals verpakkingen van honden denk ik. Zou nooit in staat zijn om een ​​groep van stuurman dragen van de juiste uniformen weerstaan ​​- tenzij natuurlijk hun rug worden gedraaid …

… in English please?

If they are actually on the table, I agree with Korvessa in that their implied threat is greater than their actual threat. That said, if you shepherd them properly, you may get a good chance to threaten an enemy's flank or rear, and enemy resources need to be diverted from the main action in order to deal with the threat. No none wants 1,000 light cav -- even if the are cossacks -- riding around the flank or rear of their army.

it would depend – in 1814 cossacks could even handle French cuirassiers, atherwise they did wear down cavalry by constant harrasment

I have no idea in wargames, but I have the impression that, in reality, they were the ultimate in light cavalry. On the battlefield, totally useless, but that was not their role.

Harassing enemy rear and supply lines, whilst dirt cheap to equip, ideal for pursuit in retreat, like skirmishers on horses, no need for their own supply lines…. as "self sufficient", able to exist on levels of food and forage and in extremes of weather that would have ruined any conventional European army.

They were the V Charlie of the early 19th Century. They too could never face the regular enemy with any hope of winning, but some how never went away. Unlike Victor Charlie, they did not make the mistake of blowing the whole thing in Tet……..

By the way. You have done it again Serge Joe. I still think there is more to you than you let us see, but you do start some really good topics (Grin, smirk….Armand does Smile…you are catching up with him)

The stupid remarks i do not write english that good i do not care anymore greetings serge joe

Why in English MajorB ? Youreally got me there…. Do you really understand just 1 language ?

Why in English MajorB ? Youreally got me there…. Do you really understand just 1 language ?

Well, apart from a mere soupcon of French, yes.

The stupid remarks i do not write english that good i do not care anymore greetings serge joe

If you are referring to me, I have no problem with your English, but I'm afraid I do not understand the bit I quoted above (from your post of 22 Nov 2014 9:31 a.m.), which I am guessing is in Dutch?

What do you mean by "a true battle"? I've just been reading Nafziger's Russian campaign – cossacks seem to have been good enough to make life difficult for French and Polish light cavalry.

In the fight almost nothing at all – even though they might not agree. Away from a fight, with the injured and the frightened than very high. Such as packs of dogs I think. Would never be able to have a group of mate wearing the correct uniforms resist-unless of course their backs are turned … So why give them cannons? best to you all serge joe
or at least that's what my computer translated it as.
Anyway the one thing I know is you can't have enough of them. I have 6 regular Cossack regiments and 1 1/2 batterys and want a few more.

Cossacks tangled with regulars on several occasions in the later wars and held their own. Why such the bum rap?

Cossacks are about scouting, raiding, and harassment -- not about stand up battles.

Very good vs. French/Allied light horse in "pure" cavalry engagements. Just looking at the opening of the 1812 campaign : Mir, Romanov and a village I forgot vs. Polish uhlans, Mogliev vs. French chasseurs (destroyed a squadron and captured the colonel, also forced a supporting infantry regiment to stop its march – Davout was not not not happy), kept the French horse off the retreating jδger detached from Neverovskiy during the rearguard action before Smolensk, rearguard action after Saltanovka allowing Bagration to move away without Davout knowing his route.

Why "Cossack artillery" ? Mostly because Cossacks liked having a gun or two around. They would put them on small boats, on sledges in snow (the French were quite troubled by these during the retreat – especially around Krasnoο – and they were most likely 3-lber unicorns "acquired" unofficially), as horse artilery, break light and short-barrelled pieces into pack loads and carry them to mountain posts in the Caucasus, etc., etc. They just liked it that way. Sometimes it was even useful, such as to fire at a blockhouse or loop-holed building. I think it was a tradition with them from fighting more "tribal" people for whom a little artillery was perhaps more harmful to morale than it was when fighting western Europeans.
Anyway, the Russians had plenty of tubes, so it was no big deal to let the Cossacks form a couple of formal companies of horse artillery.

Key element mentioned by Deadhead : Cossack and Native Calvary were raised on contracts or treaties (usually for freehold of land – otherwise unknown to non-noble Russians). The Russian government paid, in essence, *nothing* for these troops except letting them occupy dangerous border areas, where they were constantly getting "on-the-job" training.

Touched upon above, but worth re-inforcing, these units had superb strategic endurance. Each trooper should have had two horses with him, plus ammunition, spare weapons and tack, etc., etc. They sent individual replacements of men and horses alone or in small groups over practically unlimited distances. They sent invalids home the same way, or just lodged them wherever for payment.

Funny story to illustrate …. a Don Cossack had his second horse wounded in 1813 near Leipsig. His esaul, knowing that there were spares at their campsite, told him : "Koliya, go back and get a healthy horse." Koliya dutifully went home to the Don river valley, got another of his family's horses and re-joined his unit in France. His esaul said, "We thought you were dead, and sent word to your family with some wounded guys going home." Koliya responded, "Yeah, I met them. They are all home and doing well." The esaul said "You went all the way home? ….. And you only brought back 1 horse?". Answer – "Well, you said to go get one. Do you want me to go get a second one?"

This strategic endurance made them perfect for the deep raids used late 1812-1813 into the French rear areas (up to 100 km behind the French "front"). Usually paired for this with a small detachment of hussars, plus a militia-type "forresters" detachment or occassionally a few jδger.

Cossacks were often excellent small boat sailors and would be used in river crossings to man the first boats to cross.

In formed, fixed battles : some limited uses. OK to gain control of flanks (as at Borodino) or even infiltrate the enemy rear for scouting, preventing surprise enemy movements. Also OK to brush away skirmishers. Cossacks did also fight in "open order" dismounted with pistols and carbines in rough terrain…. so you could use them as a sort of extra-light mounted infantry.

- Sasha

I've seen them wallop Turks a few times, and they've got enough muskets to give Muscovites a hard time. Against Poles, they've really got to box clever; use waggon laager and pikemen to best effect, or they're dead.

I was under the impression that the Don cossacks had at least on 'official' horse artillery battery?

For the remainder, I agree with most of the above: I position them on the flanks as a threat that has to be dealt with by the enemies regular cavalry, but after positioning them, I don't pay attention to what actually happens to them (which seem to replicate Russian command attitudes).

However, 1813 and 1814 are more problematic: France lost so much in 1812 in terms of experienced cavalrymen as well as horse flesh that I feel cossacks should be able to take on raw (or equivalent grading) French light cavalry with every chance of at least holding their own.

It is, of course, great fun, if my flanking cossaks are ignored to see if I can get them to plunder the enemy camp ;)

Cossacks were used to counter the Ottoman`s light horse to good effect – and are probably under-rated in that regard.
So I think they were useful in this role at least.

I always thought they would be most useful in pursuit of a beaten army, but would probably have been deterred to a rear-guard of regular light cavalry.

"Formal" Cossack horse artillery units ….

…. 1797 – It was ordered to begin formation of horse artillery for the Don Cossacks with 24 3-pounder guns
…. 5 February 1798 – Two horse artillrey companies, organized as per the Army horse artillery, were ordered formed in the Don Cossack host
…. 19 July 1808 – Two horse artillery companies were established on the Caucasian Line from the Cossack people settled there
…. 19 August 1808 – Two horse artillrey companies were formed on the Siberian Line from the Cossack people settled there
…. July 1812 – An additional, temporary militia ("opochenie") horse-artillery half-company was raised among the Don Cossacks for wartime service (disbanded late October 1812 – see below)
…. 15 September 1813 – One more horse artillery company was added to the two existing in the Don host, to be raised from veteran artillerists in the settlement areas and members of their families
…. 1 March 1817 – It was ordered to form one horse artillery company for the Black Sea (or "Kuban") Cossack host and a horse artillery half-company for the Astrakhan Cossack regiment
…. 4 August 1818 – Cossack horse artillery companies were given numbers :
- for the Don Cossacks – the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd companies
- for the Caucasian Cossacks – the 4th and 5th companies
- for the Black Sea Cossacks – the 6th company
- for the Siberian Cossacks – the 7th and 8th companies
- for the Astrakhan Cossacks – the 9th half-company
…. ~1822 – The Astrakhan Cossacks' 9th half-company was expanded to a full company and two horse artillrey companies were formed for the Orenburg Cossack host – the 10th and 11th companies

The 1st Don Cossack Horse Artillery Company (voyskovoy starshina Pyotr Fyodorovich Tatsyn-4) served in 1812 as divisional artillery for the 2nd Combined Grenadier division (2nd Western army), including at Borodino.
The 2nd Don Cossack Horse Artillery Company (voyskovoy starshina Pyotr Vasilyevich Suvorov-2) served in 1812 with Ataman Platov's command (1st Western Army), including at Borodino.
The Don Cossack Horse Artillery Militia Half-Company (voyskovoy starshina Pyotr Fyodorovich Grekov-22) was brought to the main army in late October 1812 and then disbanded, the men and guns being used to rebuild the first two companies to full strength (the worst barrels being sent back to Bryansk for re-founding)
The 3rd Don Cossack Horse Artillery Company (lieutenant colonel Ivan Ivanovich Kirlichyov-1) was initially assigned to the reserve army under the command of the general prince Lobanov-Rostovskiy garrisoning Poland, where it also acted as a replacement depot for the two other companies. In early 1815 the 3rd Company, rebuilt to full strength with trained replacements, was ordered to join the main army and arrived in July 1815 as part of the Russian occupation forces in France.
The horse artillery companies on the Kavkaz and Siberian Lines remained in their settlement areas on the borders.

One might note the "strategic endurance" of the active companies – and the efforts made to have a continual flow of replacement men and material. This approach was typical of the Cossack forces as a whole.

Info in English :
link
link
Info in Russian :
wars175x.narod.ru/art_don.html
link
link
link

- Sasha

Rauchhaupt describes in his memoires several clashes in 1813 and 14 where cossacks did well – even against cuirassiers while another trooper in the wόrttemberg cavalry speaks with disdain about the cossacks in 1812, in my view it would depend in what campaign cossacks were used, in 1813 – in my opinion – usefull on the battle field

That is a funny story, Alexandre! Thanks for sharing it!

I'll bet Sasha can tell me this. My Tsar's coach from Westfalia needed an escort, so I got six Household, Guard whatever Cossacks from Foundry (My first ever order from them. Don't tell Perrys or Calpe! Nice mouldings, pity about the horses….)

Anyway. These Cossacks sound a bit more upmarket than the scurvy lot seen in War and Peace. But, did they very do anything? Were they the equivalent of Louis XVIII's Black musketeers (a future project)? They look great with those red jackets and blue britches, but were they any more than pretty?

Apologies. I am an 1815 obsessionalist who occasionally drifts into things like Saxon Garde du Corps…but rarely and it shows!

Deadhead,
The red coated fellows are the Life-Guard Cossacks. They were selected "best" men from their host – Chuguev and Don Cossacks at first, later with Black Sea and Ural Cossacks each contributing a sotniya (hundred). Also perhaps of interest, they got first class horses and equipment provided by the government and were trained to fight as formed cavalry as well as "Cossack-style". So, indeed, quite "up-market".

But ….
I think in immediate attendance on the (Russian) Emperor would be Cossacks from either His Majesty's Suite and/or the Emperor's own personal Cossacks from his empennage lands (property entailed to the imperial family, not the government). I have no idea how these might be dressed. Nicely, I should think. But otherwise I haven't a guess.
:-)

- Sasha

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

Great answer. I thought you would know. But now I have problem………where do I stick my Foundry Cossacks (no, don't say it) and who will replace them escorting Alexander I?

Can you comment on average sizes of Cossack units? My army is based on CLS, and they recommend 14 figures in a cossack unit, 280 men. But IIRC you said there were cossack units of 600+ troops recruited in the 1812 campaign?

Deadhead,

The Life-Guard Cossacks were a regular Guards light cavalry unit. Usually brigaded with the guards hussars. For example at Borodino, the "active" squadrons of these two regiments made up the 2nd brigade (under the adjudant general graf Orlov-Denisov) of the 1st reserve cavalry corps (Russian did not have tactical "divisions" in their cavalry corps – the only non-administrative use of the cavalry "division" was for the two cuirassier divisions).

The LG Cossacks could have been tasked to guard the Emperor, if he was with the Army. In general, however, less "important" units were tasked with security at Russian headquarters. At Leipsig, the Emperors were rather little/poorly "guarded" – leading to a close call where even Russian opolchenie could claim to have helped save their Emperor.

The HM Suite had rather plain dark green uniforms. Also officers' personal servants. And Aleksandr was not known for too much excess of uniforms. So maybe paint up the figures you have in some simple style based on dark green and call them "personal Cossacks"?

Murvihill

The basic Cossack or Native Cavalry unit was the polk (regiment) = 5x sotniya (hundred). Full strength all ranks was per establishment about 578 (some changes over the years, and one might add the officers' servants and a few extra over-complement "non-combattants" who tagged along for the chance of some share of captured stuff), but 450-500 in the field present-under-arms would be more typical.
Lower numbers (like 280 men) would be for a unit late in a campaign, after losses, etc.
Exceptions include the Ataman's Own Don Cossacks (double regiment) and the LG Cossacks (used typical guard light cavalry squadron organization). Some of the Cossack or Native militia (opolchenie) was also larger than typical. But I think the idea was that they would shrink to regular size by the time the actually travelled to the "front". This was pretty typical Russian practice when units had to go long distances and immediately enter combat (other examples are the doubling of the battalions marching from the Finnish corps to join the fight against the French, or the oversize "cohorts" of the Saint Petersburg militia that would be about full battalion size when they finally made it to the "front").

I don't know the details of army/force composition for CLS. Or potential reasons like "game balance" for cutting the number of Cossacks. But for early campaign full-size typical regiments, 280 seems low. Also, I have trouble with "14 figures". This is maybe just my being obsessive, but I would want the number to be divisible by 5 (X figures per sotniya) even if the base had the whole regiment. So, I think I would be looking at 20 figures per regiment, 4 per sotniya , plus command figures and so a strength of 400 rankers. An even number of figures per sotniya is nice, as a "command" of Cossacks was typically a half-sotniya (under the leadership of a junior officer and a uryadnik (Cossack NCO).
OK, will stop now, OCD is setting in.
:-)

- Sasha
(who also counts rivets on model airplanes)

Regarding CLS, they made the Russians smaller than they should be (400 man battalions for line infantry) because the research wasn't there when they designed the rules and because full-strength battalions would have made the Russians much tougher than other nationalities since their morale against fire was the equivalent of guard morale in other armies (according to the rules).
Another quirk of CLS is that all cavalry regiments had an extra troop as the command stand. Cossacks had 6 stands of 2 troopers plus a two-figure command stand. Again, the research wasn't there to put together an accurate cossack unit when CLS was written in the 1960's (supposedly the author would work on it during B-52 flights in the US Airforce).

We are talking about cossack representation on a miniatures battlefield, right?

Firstly, it seems that no Russian officer went anywhere without one, so I would keep some individual figures around just as escorts for various aesthetic purposes.

As for battle formations, you don't want to build all the cossack units in a Russian OB. There's just not enough use for them. But other posters are right: they have value as flank guards, rear guards, and vanguards. If you win a tactical victory on the tabletop, it certainly would be useful to have a few polks around to harry retreating enemy formations, turning tactical retreats into routs, etc.

And they prevent the enemy light cavalry from exploiting your exposed flanks without opposition. If you compare Russian to French, you'll find the Russians don't really have a counter to the bulk of French chasseur regiments. They counted on cossacks to fill those roles.

In our campaign system we use, the amount of light cavalry around contributes to your scout points – so its very hard to outscout the Russians .

At the end of a battle , we add up who has the most available fresh light cavalry. If its the winner – the losing army suffers additional penalties to casualties ( includes stragglers ) , so that less troops come back after the battle.

If its the loser who has more fresh light cavalry at battles end – they dont suffer the adverse attrition modifier.

So against the Russians its very hard to outnumber their cossacks , unless you have kept your light cavalry out of the fight.

Hello serge joe!

Being light cavalry they were never designed or intended to be main battle or heavy cavalry. The Russians considered them as auxiliary troops to be used as supplements to their light cavalry arm. You see them being used in large bodies for specific missions generally before or after a battle. They were also often attached to regular cavalry formations where they could be used to boost the fighting power of the Division.

Learning how to ride at a very young age and loyal to their regiments from birth they were excellent horsemen. Riding light swift horses and not encumbered by formal drills they were able to move entire regiments much faster then conventional cavalry. They could never be caught and could threaten the flanks or rear of the enemy better then anyone. Used properly they were a deadly weapon on any battlefield.

Napoleon realized their value and tried to raise/recruit a number of them for his forces, but never achieved any significant numbers.

Best regards,

Glenn

They were used to prevent information from flowing between different enemy units. (put in a dice roll for transmission of orders and on occasion the loss of key orders and even delivery to the enemy)

They were used for keeping the enemy from knowing very much about the new terrain that they might be moving into. (Opps, that planned 45 minute approach march is now stalled for an hour because there is a weed-overgrown canal where you thought it was an open meadow).

An officer might be interested in fine tuning the approach for an attack- but would have to go in blind, or risk being killing by a primitive savage with a spear.
(Units stall or lose some part of their morale due to unexpected officer loses)

They were used to force the enemy into using infantry to protect the line of communication and the ammunition train.
(A successful raid reduces the number of turns the artillery can fire. Artillery deploys late because it is closed up with its support cassions. Units have to be taken from the front to protect the line of communication)

They were used to kill off ?? the 5-10% ?? of troops/troopers who would get disconnected from their parent unit in an attack or retreat. (Put in extra straggler loses when going across rough ground)

They were used to cheaply deny "gasoline" (forage and grazing of supply horses and calvary units) to the enemy. (Add fatigue factors and reduce effectiveness factors to infantry (the bread wagons were late) and calvary (the horses were not grazed or groomed because using the local grass required a low grade scirmish with Cossacks)

And any broken unit would be harder to rally ("I'm heading for where any Cossack isn't going to find Me")

Commanders and generals now have to worry about their own mortality (might a group of 50 Cossacks slip through ravines and woods and suddenly jump on a general or emperor who is just going from one headquarters to another?)

And finally, any broken or disorganized calvary unit, without formed lines, could be successfully charged and even broken by a mass of lance armed troops who were trained for using broken terrain and dispersed enemy, who were used to fighting under controlled organized formations.

All of these are real, CAN be put into game mechanics and demonstrate the value of Cossack uits as something other than "5th rate battle calvary."

Deadhead,

"My Tsar's coach from Westfalia needed an escort, so I got six Household, Guard whatever Cossacks from Foundry"

I didn't like my "I suppose", "maybe personal Cossacks" answer. So I looked some more ….

I knew that until the reign of Paul ! that there had been a Cossack Convoy that served in Petersburg to guard the Empress or Emperor and her/his train when traveling about. This unit had been folded into the Life Guard Cossacks when they were formed. And by the reign of Alexander, this was really a "regular" guard cavalry unit, as discussed above.

However, when re-checking, I noticed that Paul had set up a replacement for the Cossack Convoy in Petersburg. He created a Life Ural Cossack hundred in 1798. He even gave them a flag – actually one in the process of being finished up for a guard infantry regiment (it was awarded in this unfinished state). This flag had a white cross on a raspberry background. See the bottom illustration here :

Apparently, for not any particularly good reason at all, Paul really liked and trusted the Ural Cossacks. Actually, they were rather economically poor and not as obedient to their contract/treaty with the Russians as the Don or even Kuban (Black Sea) Cossacks. But Paul was a tad eccentric.

The unit was not really a "guard" unit. And was not integrated very much into the Life Guard Cossacks (unlike the later Black Sea hundred). The officers and cossacks were chosen by the Ural ataman, approved by the Orenburg (military) governor (an ethnic Russian officer) and detached for ~2 years service in Petersburg under the command of a host starshina (Cossack major). Then they rotated home and were replaced by new guys. No special pay, not much increased social status.

Occasionally the unit was detached for some service (in whole or in part), typically guarding the Baltic coast or participating in amphibious expeditions. The Ural Cossacks, despite sharing the name of the mountains, were actually settled south from the town/city of Uralsk (modern Oral, in Kazakhstan) along the Ural river and near the Caspian sea and were mostly river pilots, ferrymen and fishermen. Otherwise, the unit served in Saint Petersburg. So "Cossack mariners/marines" of a sort (I await Kevin Kiley's outrage).

They were dressed during Alexander's reign as Ural Cossack regulars (see the Viskovatov) – blue uniforms trimmed raspberry. The differences :
- lower ranks at the collar and cuffs had two white buttonhole galons, and later white worsted epaulettes of the Guard uhlan model were added
- officers had silver embroidery on the model of the Life Guard Cossack regiment, and later silver epaulettes were added
- all ranks wore trousers without stripes on the side
(There were slightly different uniform details under Paul !.)

I am so happy to give a better answer!
:-)

- Sasha

Fantastic……..and just in time to save me much mistaken work!

Very many thanks