"2 on 1: Cav. and Inf. against inf." Topic

While most game rules allow for two units hitting one, whether battalion or brigade-sized, I have not found any accounts of a brigade or battalion being attacked by infantry and cavalry at the same time. Some examples of in succession, with obvious time interals, but no examples of cavalry and infantry hitting the same enemy formation at the same time, even at division level.

Has anyone run across accounts of such events?

Perhaps, it is not as much "attacked" as it is "engaged". For example, at Adrianopolis the Roman left flank was engaged with the Goth infantry/wagon laager (the surviving narrative is not very clear) when the Greuthungi cavalry appeared on its flank and charged. It's not clear if the cavalry actually engaged in melee with the Romans or if the Roman cavalry on that flank fled and then while part of the Goth horse pursued them, the rest engaged the Roman infantry, forcing them into tighter formations while the Goth infantry continued hostigating them.

Game rules, I think, try to represent situations like that rather than actual melees in which cavalry and infantry were involved in a single attack against the same unit/units.

The thing, in a game turn of 15-30 minutes, who can say it is at the same time. The actual close attack would not have to be lasting very long.

Good luck McLaddie

I've not found any such examples at a battalion level (in the pre 1850 black powder era) Maybe the obscure case with a unit being hit in both front and rear.

The N@W rules allow only one one one combats, I'm not sure if they chose the idea for its historicity or just to simplify mechanisms.

David F Brown

You have found the Achilles heel of most rules!?
Rules I own or played others have house rule put forth that only ONE can go in, when inf vs cav. Either the cav. go in or the infantry, not both at same target.
Probably the closest to that is the Scots Gray charge at Waterloo with the Highland infantry trying to charge in with them by running along side and or grabbing on to the horse bridles, assuming if the paintings are some what accurate.
You usually are on top of these. Has the magnificent McLaddie research library produced a gap?
Good luck and post what you find out.
MG

McLaddie, Luck would have it!

1807 at Eylau, 4000 Russian grenadier brigade assaulted the center in brigade column ( each battalion behind the other so there was significant depth to the formation, IIRC). The OG was sent forth to drive them back. In the process of pushing doing so, a Lt cav brigade of Hussars saw this, wheeled about, and charged into brigade mass's flank and some 4000 Russian grenadiers melted away. You might want to take a look at this battle real close.

MG

@jcfrog

in a game turn of 15-30 minutes, who can say it is at the same time. The actual close attack would not have to be lasting very long.

Precisely – the idea that multiple, attacks between different combat arms could or would be orchestrated and coordinated, at the same time, or within the span of minutes or seconds, is not how the concept should be approached.
However, the concept that attacks, from a mix of combat arms, could fall upon an opponent within a span of 15 or 30 minutes is obviously acceptable, even though those attacks were probably less than coordinated, and potentially more opportunistic in nature.
So, if your game system considers a game turn to reflect less than five minutes, then it's probably highly unlikely, and more accidental, if two different combat arms fall upon a single opponent during the same turn. But, if your game system considers a game turn to represent fifteen minutes or more, then it's probably highly likely, but still potentially accidental, that two different combat arms fall upon a single opponent during the same turn.
However, in the latter case, the apparent joint and coordinated attack is an abstraction – which, let's face it, nearly all game mechanics are.

Greg,

Apart from a piece of propaganda actually written by Napoléon himself, the action you mention is fairly hard to confidently describe in detail from original sources.

See : TMP link
Therein is also a link to a parallel discussion on the Napoleon-Series.

The thread, in addition to a reasonable amount of personal abuse, also includes:
- the way the story got written and published as propaganda by Napoléon
- a discussion of secondary sources' use of the propaganda as if it were a real report
- the most detailed eyewitness account, that of Jomini, who instead of speaking of some great achievement for the French, says only "The result was soon decided when general Bruyère's divison of light cavalry, detached by Murat, came and threw themselves on the left flank of the column that was already pressed from the front.The [Russian] column was pierced, part being sabered or turned back toward their line."
- Ralph Reinertsen stops in to describe what he and James Arnold made of the (lack of clear) sources, and discuss in some detail what details they could and could not pin down

- Sasha

Thanks for the responses. marshalGreg, The Eylau action is an interesting one as I can't find an account that has the Guard infantry battalion physically hitting the head of the Russian column, but simply stopping them cold by intimidation 'like the head of medusa.' The Guard infantry insists on going in with the bayonet rather than firing, but nowhere does it say they did. It is the cavalry that hits the column in flank and rear that *seems* to have done the damage.

However, IF both infantry and cavalry did hit the Russian column,formed for maneuver one battalion behind another, not combat--then there was a lot of flank to hit which could have avoided being mixed up with the bayonet attack in front. It might also be a reason the column stopped when faced with imminent combat.The British Cavalry charge at Waterloo is another 'fuzzy' example of cavalry/infantry combat. Who went where, when?

Those attacks could be said to have been 'coordinated'. Napoleon supposedly released both infantry and cavalry to hit the wandering Russian column. And the British cavalry did successfully get through the British infantry line to attack… so it was coordinated to some extent. Never read where the British infantry was ridden down in the process…

I am beginning to think that cavalry/infantry attacks on the same infantry forces simultaneously didn't happen, not because of coordination issues [if indeed they were needed at all when the cavalry often was a weapon of opportunity], but because of space and time issues. Friendly infantry didn't want to get in the way of charging cavalry, and cavalry wanted enough space to maneuver and reform.

That is all just an impression at this point. I have read through several cavalry books such as de Breck and different actions and I can't find any discussion of such mutual attacks suggested or clearly described. At this point, I don't think that eliminates the possibility.

I realize that any number of rules allowing for mutual cav/inf attacks on infantry represent twenty, thirty or more minutes of time. The question would be what those telescoped engagements represent or can represent. Hence my question. If it is true that infantry and cavalry didn't attack the same target simultaneously, then those combined attacks represent something different than if they did attack at the same time.

Marengo maybe? Desaix's leading demi brigade in front and Kellerman's cavalry in the near flank?

I think the issue is that when they did, it wasn't at battalion level and it wasn't entirely planned at the outset.

An opportunity simply appeared in front of the cavalry commander and they took it.

Certainly, cavalry manoeuvred to make these opportunities more likely but they didn't come off very often. Usually, the enemy retired to prevent it.

Most rules don't allow you to retire out of harms way.

There's macro combined arms and micro. The French practiced macro combined arms. The Austrians were more likely to commit by squadron which is typical war game mechanics. I think it's generally agreed that the French way was a more effective use of cavalry.

Light cavalry wasn't allowed in the infantry box. If could support the wings to make sure the column wasn't flanked, screen, scout, pursue, or serve as a reserve but it's function was to support the infantry and artillery in the infantry corps, not to be battle cavalry unless detached and grouped into it's own corps.

French cav corps charged en mass (Waterloo, etc.) because 10,000 troopers in a couple of heavy cavalry corps were much more effective in rupturing the enemy lines. Very similar to why Blitzkrieg works. You mass your tanks in a small portion of the line (usually at the angle produced by an infantry flanking movement) and you try and rupture their line, break into the rear, and cut their communications, and with any luck, force the enemy's backs to the sea.

Hi Bill,

"I realize that any number of rules allowing for mutual cav/inf attacks on infantry represent twenty, thirty or more minutes of time. The question would be what those telescoped engagements represent or can represent. Hence my question. If it is true that infantry and cavalry didn't attack the same target simultaneously, then those combined attacks represent something different than if they did attack at the same time."

I guess you`re thinking about this for your own game rules design? Which I believe is brigade level…

Like yourself, I wouldn't rule out a simultaneous assault by infantry and cavalry.
For those square v. infantry & cavalry situations, in my own rules I have broken down these types of combat up within my game turn which is a 4-minute simultaneous "go".

The cavalry`s orders and initiative will determine if they then charge the square, or perhaps pursue them if broken.

I assume that in your game the playing pieces being bigger, the decisions will be made higher up the chain of command ?

Regards,

Mike.

Yes the famous action of Dessaix and Kellerman sounds structurally very similar to the Eylau incident. Indeed the victim formation sounds quite similar (if the diagrams of the Marengo incident in Chandler are to be believed – a very big if!). Also similar to the formation used by D'Erlon's divisions at Waterloo, as it happens.

Of course at this distance it is impossible to know the exact sequence of events. But the pattern seems to be that the infantry is fixed by a frontal encounter with infantry, and then whacked by a surprise assault, typically from the front. Wargames rules should be able to cater for this kind of thing – but the cavalry intervention looks opportunistic.

Although rules may cater for 30mins of action, in charge combats there is often a sequence – i.e. it is clear whether events are sequential or simultaneous. Simultaneous assaults by troops not answering to the same tactical commander shouldn't be allowed – which usually means never cavalry and infantry at the same time.

"Simultaneous assaults by troops not answering to the same tactical commander shouldn't be allowed – which usually means never cavalry and infantry at the same time."

For discussion's sake, how about an Austrian Advance Guard force; some infantry, some jagers and some light cavalry, even some artillery, all under the same force commander. Example: 1809 Brigade: GM Wintzingerode:
3rd Jäger Battalion
Erzherzog Johann Infantry Regiment No. 35
Blankenstein Hussars No. 6
1 x 6-pounder battery (nonstandard: 6 x 6-pounders, one howitzer)

Be interesting to see if vW chimes in here.

Like yourself, I wouldn't rule out a simultaneous assault by infantry and cavalry.

Hey Mike:

I think the issue for me is the physics of the thing. Are we dealing with the arms deciding that one will go right, the other left in a 'simultaneous assault--or do they taking turns?
For instance, Colburne's brigade at Albuera was in the midst of an advance under fire, but some report the brigade being 'bounced' before the lancers hit them in flank. Very unclear.

For those square v. infantry & cavalry situations, in my own rules I have broken down these types of combat up within my game turn which is a 4-minute simultaneous "go".

Every situation I have read about has one and then the other attacking a square, not both at the same time. It is the size of the target compared to the area that cavalry needed and could fit into.

I assume that in your game the playing pieces being bigger, the decisions will be made higher up the chain of command?

Actually, for my rules, battalions are two to four stands in strength, depending on the ranks and typical size of the battalions. The battalions are simply markers determining the strength and formation of the brigade at any point rather than fighting units by themselves.

Of course at this distance it is impossible to know the exact sequence of events. But the pattern seems to be that the infantry is fixed by a frontal encounter with infantry, and then whacked by a surprise assault, typically from the front. Wargames rules should be able to cater for this kind of thing – but the cavalry intervention looks opportunistic.

MatthewG:

I agree that there is, among some common variations, one that has the infantry fixing the enemy with a 'frontal encounter' and the cavalry hitting them on the flank, but both hitting the front? Where? If the infantry is engaged with the enemy front, where do the cavalry assault?

That frontal encounter seems, at times, to simply be the presence of the infantry fixing the enemy, perhaps volley fire, rather than a close engagement.

As I said, that is what 'seems' to be the case. Whether one hits before the other, or leaves lasts isn't an issue with me, but rather where are they when both are in combat with the enemy infantry?

For discussion's sake, how about an Austrian Advance Guard force; some infantry, some jagers and some light cavalry, even some artillery, all under the same force commander. Example: 1809 Brigade: GM Wintzingerode:

Albuquerque Kevin:

Yes, obviously they could/would coordinate the Advance Guard brigade/division operations. I don't know of 1809 examples, but at Austerlitz, the Advance Guard that hit the French far right didn't have any simultaneous cavalry/infantry combats. Perhaps because of the terrain and built-up areas, the cavalry held back and did a lot of opportunity charging.

Bill,

Yes, in Colborne`s attack at Albuera there are quite a few actions and reactions going on between his brigade and the French infantry.
But given the weather conditions, the French cavalry brigade was acting independently of the leading French infantry division engaged with Colborne`s troops.

Question then; what`s the game time scale?

If our troops on table have "realistic" frontage and depth, then I see no problems. If they can physically engage on table, as result of independent orders from different cavalry and infantry players, then all will be OK.

Michael:

The scale is 75 yards to the inch, or one minute to the inch
[75 yards being the average distance that infantry traveled on the battlefield… and yes, I've checked that repeatedly.]
Cavalry traveled about 50% faster outside of the charge. I want to make time and distance a central concern for the players without small time increments. "Turns" are twenty minutes long. The rules will also allow for 100 and 150 yard scales too using the same principles.

However, I am attempting to portray the attlefield/tabletop through the rules as the Napoleonic officers conceptualized it. Like current military men, they had methods for analyzing the battlefield and such.

So there aren't movement or combat phases, but rather battlefield zones in which action flow from one to the other. And no, nothing like Empire or 'telescoping time' or cards dictating actions, though there will be cards involved in other ways.

If our troops on table have "realistic" frontage and depth, then I see no problems. If they can physically engage on table, as result of independent orders from different cavalry and infantry players, then all will be OK.

Sho Boki:

Yes, I think that is true--for the most part. The question would be how and when that decision of 'yes, I have room' was made--particularly for cavalry. Was the practice to leave lots of room for error, or did they just go in shoulder to horse shoulder?

How much chance was there for screw-ups. That is one thing I don't read about… infantry/cavalry mashups where confusion reigns and the attack fails. If that rarely happened, my *guess* would be that friendly cavalry and infantry kept their distance.

Of cource cavalry and infantry kept their distance.
And both of them must have clear path for charge.

Also cavalry may not engage directly, but going near with friendly infantry, cavalry may threat the flank of enemy's infantry and therefore lover the enemys morale for this charge.

But if players for cavalry and infantry give orders, wich result with mashups, then I lower attackers charge (and may be the morale against defensive salvo too).

I thinked one time about allowing cavalry to carry on supporting charges through gaps in friendly infantry line, simply reducing his charge power four times. But I dropped this idea as superabundant micromanaging.

I agree that there is, among some common variations, one that has the infantry fixing the enemy with a 'frontal encounter' and the cavalry hitting them on the flank, but both hitting the front? Where? If the infantry is engaged with the enemy front, where do the cavalry assault?

Sorry typed in a hurry, and I meant flank. In fact in the Waterloo case (d'Erlon) the usual interpretation is that the French were hit from the front, with the cavalry pushing through their own infantry and over the hedge – and "walking in".

What seems to be the case in all three situations (Eylau, Marengo, Waterloo) is that the victim infantry were using a deep column of battalions deployed in line one behind the other – no doubt with intervals. That may be how there was enough depth to give the cavalry a target. There may also be an element of hitting the rear as well.

Of course these deep formations are rarely seen on the tabletop, to the extent that you have ask whether it is worth designing rules that cater for them. Especially since they seem to be so vulnerable to a surprise cavalry assault.