"Heavy versus light cavalry frontage" Topic

I'm aware that not all rule consider unit frontage but the set I use do.

One thing I have only just thought about, having taken up gaming 40-odd years ago, is the issue of relative frontage between heavy and light cavalry.

My rules say that light cavalry should occupy a wider frontage than heavy. The rationale is that light cavalry rode a bit strung out whereas heavy cavalry rode boot to boot.

Since the year dot I have taken this as read and based accordingly. Two points have just occurred to me though.

1/ Heavy cavalry horses were bigger, so wouldn't a line of big horses be wider than a line of smaller horses?

2/ Looking at horses in horse races or otherwise running in groups, they spread out laterally as they run. So during a charge wouldn't the line expand to whatever interval between horses the horses felt comfortable with?

The imnplication of 1/ is a wider frontage for heavy cavalry than light and the implication of 2/ is the same frontage.

What does the panel think? How do your rules treat this?

I've always followed the premise that heavy cavalry fought in closer formation.

In the case of the last fifty paces of a charge, the files may have opened up – but I think it's more likely that the line became staggered front to back, as some horses accelerated faster than others, this would result in the width of the formation remaining the same, whilst the depth increased somewhat.

The heavies were the battle cavalry, who relied on shock for effect – en muraille, or a wall of man and beast.
The lights could fight as battle cavalry, but their role was more one of skirmish and pursuit, in both those cases, the boot-to-boot formation was unnecessary.

The following is taken from 'Rules and Regulations for drill, sabre exercises, equitation, formation and field movement of cavalry' dated 1818. It's an American document, but in the preface it notes that 'The movements of the troop, squadron and regiments,….. are in general executed on predetermined and fixed points, conformably to the principles of the modern tactics of infantry and cavalry, as laid down in the latest European treatises.'

49. Distance of Files.
In the movements and formations it is necessary to vary the spaces between the files, but the close formation is generally used.
Close files is that where each mans boot top touches that of his neighbor, without crowding. At close files each horse occupies about 2 feet 8 inches.
Loose files is a space of four inches from boot top to boot top. Cavalry at loose files occupy about a yard for each file, and consequently the extent, in yards, of a troop, squadron or regiment at loose files, is equal to it's number of files.
Open files is a space between the files equal to the breadth of a horse; or it is that space left by the files after doubling behind the right files, when at close files.
Double open files is the distance of a horse's length between files.

So in my view, the heavies formed and typically fought in close order, whilst the lights would be in loose files, sometimes adopting open or even double open files, according to the role they were undertaking.

A horse is a horse of course of course. So frontage is the same for everyone when they bunch up to enter melee….

If you count intervals and manouever space, the difference most of the time is not sensitive enough for our games. In Kriegspiel 1824 they make no difference.
While at the end of a charge, if by chance there would be a contact, the lights one would get more space to slash instead of point sabers.

I don't think you are going to find any differences, either in maneuvering or in the charge. The size of horses over the course of the war varied quite a bit. There was more effort to have a unit contain horses of similar size than large and small for heavy and light. If you look at the British light cavalry, their horses tended to be as big as some of the French Dragoon and heavy cavalry units…by specification. The Russian horses, on the other hand had a large difference between heavy and light sized horses.

I think there is more argument for making each nation's cavalry frontage specific to the horse than a general light and heavy criteria, and that is still far too much attention to an issue not considered by the combatants.

Squadron lengths for both light and heavy cavalry were the same according to the regulations. It is interesting your comments upon the girth of the heavy horse.
Stephen

If contact was made, cav formations would break up into disordered melee anyway by passing through each other. Usually one side turns and runs well before actual swinging of sabres. I think in this case of contact the lights with a wider frontage would be passed through more easily, while the flanking troopers would swing in.

The poros nature of the first line is why, the second line was so important. It retained cohesion to contact the disordered enemy that came through the first.

@jcfrog
Excellent point about the difference in the use of the sabre/sword.
By necessity the heavies would tend to use the sharpened point of the weapon, hence the straightened form of the weapon, whereas the lights would use the sharpened blade of the weapon, hence the more curved form of the weapon.
In a hack looser files makes sense.

The denser the formation [close files] the more chance one or the other side would turn about prior to contact. The less dense the formation [loose files] the more chance the two sides could physically pass through one another, following a brief interchange of sword play [slashing motion to the side].

There is a story of a French Grenadier a Cheval at Austerlitz who was hit in the chest by the guard of an opponents sword [the point had missed him], the concussive effect left a bruise but no other wound. Anecdotally, the man never spoke again.

I see no reason for cavalry to be mounted any differently. I've watched light cavalry maneuver and they all look and act the same. Now if we were talking tribal armies or the ancients period, that would be a different story.

>The denser the formation [close files] the more chance one or the other side would turn about prior to contact.

Possibly, but if the other side remains steady the dense formation will disorder as horses will swerve or balk rather than strike another oncoming horse from the other side. Even if they don't swerve or balk, the crunch of horses is going to cause problems for the cohesion of the formation.

Charges are not always the full-fledged galloping affairs. Many of the charges never got much faster than trots. Plenty of opportunity to shake out before impact. I suspect it happened all the time. Heavies liked to slash as well.

>there is a story of a French Grenadier a Cheval at Austerlitz who was hit in the chest by the guard of an opponents sword [the point had missed him], the concussive effect left a bruise but no other wound. Anecdotally, the man never spoke again.

Where were the troopers on the flanks of these individuals of both formations when this pass-through occured? I suspect gaps between the files from swerves, balks and disparities in speed had already occurred.

Agreed with McLaddie and summerfield.

Squadron formations for both light and heavy cavalry were the same. There were some small differences among the regulations of different countries, but most of these applied to both light and heavy cavalry.

How light and heavy cavalry were used on campaign and on the battlefield is a different matter.

Fire & Steel from the 70's had heavies on the denser frontage which made it near impossible for even elite lights to take on even the worst quality heavies. I always felt it was out of whack since there are plenty of instances of lights outfighting heavies in the histories.

Charges are not always the full-fledged galloping affairs. Many of the charges never got much faster than trots. Plenty of opportunity to shake out before impact. I suspect it happened all the time. Heavies liked to slash as well.

French heavies and I think the Austrian heavies charged at the trot, feeling order was more important than speed. Even the Union Brigade at Waterloo walked into the French columns according to eye-witnesses. The wild gallop of painting and movie didn't happen.

There was a real debate about which was more effective, point or blade of a sword. The general consensus was that the point was far more lethal.

Battle cavalry in battle used battlefield tactics, which was close order unless skirmishing.

@Mike

Where were the troopers on the flanks of these individuals of both formations when this pass-through occurred?

Presumably the respective formations had become disordered, which lead to this individual being hit as his opponent was able to pass him at speed and contact with almost lethal force with a blunt object to his chest. I think this account was from Larrey's memoirs – but I could be wrong.

Just as an aside. Take a look at the movie "They Came to Cordura". Though the movie takes place during the Pershing expedition into Mexico, early in the film there is a wonderful aerial shot of an American cavalry unit maneuvering from road column into line and then charging. I don't know this, but it looks like a proper cavalry regiment doing the work and gives a great idea of cavalry maneuvers and frontages.

Well…whether it is historical or not, I tend to base my Heavy Cavalry on 40x50mm bases and light cavalry on 50x50mm bases. Not sure why – think it was originally because I did a regiment of light cav and glued them to the wrong bases and decided I liked the look. Some examples. Makes no practical difference on the wargame table.

British Light Dragoons
link
French Chasseurs, Lancers (50x50mm_ and Dragoons (40x50mm)
link
Saxon Guard du Corps
link

Napoleonic cavalry stands knee to knee. No difference between light and heavies here, except horse size.

@ Mick

Fire & Steel from the 70's had heavies on the denser frontage which made it near impossible for even elite lights to take on even the worst quality heavies. I always felt it was out of whack since there are plenty of instances of lights outfighting heavies in the histories.

Exactly. In the rules I use it is pretty much impossible for lights to defeat heavies, which seems flat out wrong.

@ Sho

Napoleonic cavalry stands knee to knee. No difference between light and heavies here, except horse size.

Well yes. This was my thinking. In which case, as heavy horse size would tend to be larger, they might occupy more rather than less ground.

I am sorely tempted to stick them all on the same size base.

>There was a real debate about which was more effective, point or blade of a sword. The general consensus was that the point was far more lethal.

Although when Br dragoons (IIRC heavy dragoons )in the Peninsula first encountered lancers, they were unimpressed by the lance. Their argument being that once past the point of the lance, the slash became more effective and the blow could be used in passing without fear of counter by the lancer. Point use was always only for the first contact. So yes, a consensus, but with plenty of reasons to break from the pattern if the situation required.

I prefer close order files for heavy (3 figures per stand) and open files for light (2 figures per stand), simply for ease of identification on the table.

Slightly justified by heavies for charging and lights for scouting and harassing…

Although when Br dragoons (IIRC heavy dragoons )in the Peninsula first encountered lancers, they were unimpressed by the lance. Their argument being that once past the point of the lance, the slash became more effective and the blow could be used in passing without fear of counter by the lancer. Point use was always only for the first contact. So yes, a consensus, but with plenty of reasons to break from the pattern if the situation required.

Isn't this comparing apples to oranges, straight sword to a lance? Once past the target, the lancer had real difficulty in swinging around to counter any further attacks. Cavalryman Cocks in the Peninsula said that lancers usually dropped their lances after then first pass through.

I have read in several places that if they had the time lancers would discard the lance before fighting other cavalry. The lance was for pigsticking earthpigs.(I dont know the proper Napoleonic derisive term cavalry had for Infantry so have to use a current one)

"I have read in several places that if they had the time lancers would discard the lance before fighting other cavalry."

Where did you read this??

Some regular lance armed formations would have the first rank equipped with the lance, whilst the second rank would have the sword.

Russians, including Cossack and Native irregular cavalry did *not* drop their lances.
Actually, the lances had knobs below the lance head to prevent them going in too deep or getting stuck. This made it much easier to retain the lance (and also led to the cases of an enemy having 10+ lance wounds and surviving).
If the lance were lost, the Cossack or Native cavalryman would have to pay for it, and a regular cavalryman (uhlan or hussar) might be fined for losing it without sufficient excuse.

- Sasha

Not saying the lance was better/worse but pointing out how the edge remained very important even with heavies with the straight swords. The point was at best just like a lance in how it was used, and suffered the same problems once contact occurred.

Which of course is one reason why I think most formations probably shook themselves into wider lines with space between riders either intentionally, or unintentionally. I have serious doubts that the knee to knee formation was held onto for either heavies or lights. It certainly never held once contact with firm mounted opposition occurred. Against fleeing foot, yeah sure.

chasseur: I haven't thought about that movie for years but now that you mention it, I remember seeing it when came out, (a long time ago), and being very impressed with that scene at the time. John Miller

I base mine like Outlaw Tor but the number of men per base does not impact the play it is just visual and I like the look.

I still have some of the old Airfix Waterloo cavalry where the British light cavalry dwarfed the French Heavy Cavalry. Still fond of them but the look is odd. So it led me to spread out the light cavalry and it looks much better.

Ligniere – That was my impression, too. I'm fairly sure that the Austrians did that in some of their units.

If the lance were lost, the Cossack or Native cavalryman would have to pay for it, and a regular cavalryman (uhlan or hussar) might be fined for losing it without sufficient excuse.

Dropping the lance and losing it are not necessarily the same thing…

I have common basing for all flavours of regular cavalry.

Here is a link to British cavalry regulations of the time, link