ScottWashburn | 31 Jul 2015 4:11 a.m. PST |
Hussars are usually portrayed as elite formations. But was there any actual difference in mission or performance from the more work-a-day chasseurs a cheval? |
Gunfreak | 31 Jul 2015 4:39 a.m. PST |
Doesn't seem like it, some hussar and some chasseur regiments seems better then others (or at least we hear more about them) but their uniforms don't seem to play any part in it. |
Esquire | 31 Jul 2015 5:39 a.m. PST |
I have come to understood that for certain periods and for certain regiments, hussars had greater elan as a result of the fact that it was harder to get into a hussar regt than lowly chasseur regt. No specific quote or fact to support this, but I guess a general understanding from my reading. I can think of a couple of good books on French cav (forget the author and I am not at home) but those would be the best to check. I will do so tonight. |
matthewgreen | 31 Jul 2015 7:00 a.m. PST |
The difference is perhaps not unlike that between Ligne and Leger infantry regiments. No difference in doctrine but perhaps a difference in prestige. But some Chasseur regiments may have been prestigious and some hussars not. |
Brechtel198 | 31 Jul 2015 7:34 a.m. PST |
Both types of light cavalry had elite companies, so the portrayal of hussars as a group as elite troops is incorrect. The main difference between the two was that the hussars were more showily uniformed and the origins of the two were different. Hussars originated in Hungary/Austria and were copied throughout the major European armies. The French Chasseurs a cheval came out of the need for light troops, and were a relatively new arm, the first regular regiments being formed only in 1779. There were irregular chasseurs a cheval that served in the War of the Austrian Successin and the Seven Years' War, but they were the light cavalry that belonged to the various legions and free corps, not the regular French army. They became regulars around the same time that the first regular light infantry battalions, also termed chasseurs, were first formed in 1784 into twelve battalions and these would evolve into the senior light infantry regiments of the Grande Armee |
wrgmr1 | 31 Jul 2015 7:48 a.m. PST |
In gaming terms, no difference. I have read that some chasseur regiments were more professional than the hussars. |
janner | 31 Jul 2015 8:14 a.m. PST |
Rock solid response from Brechtel there I'm struggling hard to avoid dragging the thread in the Early Middle Ages to discuss the East Roman (Byzantine) origins of hussars (Serbian chonsarioi) though |
Flashman14 | 31 Jul 2015 8:38 a.m. PST |
Two things: 1) There were 12-14 Hussar regiments through the 1st Empire. Collectively they accumulated almost 20 battle honors between them. 2) There were just over 30 regiments of Chasseurs a Cheval throughout the same period. Cumulatively, they accumulated only 9 battle honors. Unless you can explain that difference, I think it's safe to say that Hussars have a better service record than the Chasseurs and deserve some status above them. link |
Frederick | 31 Jul 2015 9:21 a.m. PST |
I think that the difference in battle honours may have to do with what they were tasked with – the chasseurs a cheval did a ton of the yeoman work, like convoy escort, guarding lines of communication, etc – at which they were apparently very good |
Marshall Vorwarts | 31 Jul 2015 10:14 a.m. PST |
Cost the expense of a Hussar regiment was much more than a Chasseur regiment. Which is why there were less than half as many. |
forrester | 31 Jul 2015 10:56 a.m. PST |
Regarding battle honours, maybe it's due to the non-showy dragoons and chasseurs getting sent to Spain and Portugal? |
Delbruck | 31 Jul 2015 11:25 a.m. PST |
Weren't battle honors only given for battles that Napoleon was present? |
Gunfreak | 31 Jul 2015 12:23 p.m. PST |
Didn't some units get battle honours for Auerstedt? |
janner | 31 Jul 2015 12:26 p.m. PST |
There were just over 30 regiments of Chasseurs a Cheval throughout the same period. Cumulatively, they accumulated only 9 battle honors. A quick check shows the 11th with four – Jemmapes 1792, Austerlitz 1805, Wagram 1809, and La Moskowa 1812, 12th shared two of them, but 13th add Passewalk 1806, and Eylau 1807, 14th add another three, Dresden 1813, Champaubert 1814, and Montmirail 1814 and 15th add another three different battle honours, Verone 1799, Friedland 1807, and Alba-de-Tormes 1809. So if just four regiments can rack up twelve different battle honours, I question the validity of this claim. Edit, just checked 16th and they would add Jena 1806 to that list to reach lucky number thirteen |
Widowson | 31 Jul 2015 1:18 p.m. PST |
Not sure where this info comes from. No battle honors were awarded for pre-empire battles (Ulm, in 1805 is the first). No battle honors were given for battles where Napoleon was not present (like Auerstedt). All units present at battles where honors were distributed received the honors, so a unit did not even need to see combat, and could get the honor just by being there. Correct me if I'm wrong. |
Ligniere | 31 Jul 2015 1:21 p.m. PST |
I think the link focuses on a few regiments, including Hussars and Chasseurs – these are listed under 'best cavalry regiments' [which is subjective], so the list is definitely not comprehensive nor exhaustive. Not sure you go by the battle honors alone. There were no honors given to the line units fighting in Spain for their actions, so that skews the count considerably. In fact, scrolling further down the link, there is a more comprehensive count, which shows ten Hussar units accumulated 43 honors, and twelve Chasseur units accumulated 49 honors. |
Rod MacArthur | 31 Jul 2015 2:17 p.m. PST |
There is a factor of units which considered themselves as elite actually being so, due to the imperitive not to disgrace their history. This still applies today. Rod |
Brechtel198 | 31 Jul 2015 4:19 p.m. PST |
I've compiled the following information regarding battle honors in four of the main battles of the period for the regiments of chasseurs a cheval and hussars of the Grande Armee. The regiment had to be present to get the honor on the new 1812 model flag. There were none on the 1804 model flag. Austerlitz: 7 regiments of chasseurs a cheval; 6 regiments of hussars. Friedland: 6 regiments of chasseurs a cheval; 3 regiments of hussars. Essling: 7 regiments of chasseurs a cheval; 1 regiment of hussars. Wagram: 14 Regiments of chasseurs a cheval; 4 regiments of hussars. By this short list, compiled from the orders of battle for the actions indicated, demonstrates that the chasseurs a cheval accumulated 34 battle honors and the hussars 14 battle honors from the official listing. The Official List of Battle Honors, authorized by Napoleon in 1811: -Ulm -Austerlitz -Jena -Eylau -Friedland -Eckmuhl -Essling -Wagram I believe that Davout's regiments received the battle honor 'Jena' for Auerstadt. If regiments had a good colonel, the unit can be considered a good unit. That's an old axiom-good commander, good unit. |
janner | 01 Aug 2015 2:24 a.m. PST |
Not sure where this info comes from. From the most recent list of officially recognised battle honours held by each regiment. For example, 13e régiment de chasseurs à cheval carried the following relevant battle honours when disbanded in 1998: Austerlitz 1805 Pasewalk 1806 Eylau 1807 However, as Brechtel has gone on to demonstrate, even by limiting the list to those awarded by Napoleon for four major actions, the chasseurs à cheval come out well. That said, I'd also endorse his closing remark |
Supercilius Maximus | 01 Aug 2015 2:56 a.m. PST |
Sorry – just re-read the thread and my points had already been answered. |
von Winterfeldt | 01 Aug 2015 4:52 a.m. PST |
Pasewalk ? are you sure for Napolenic time according to my sources Ulm – Austelritz – Eylau – Friedland – Essling – Wagram |
janner | 01 Aug 2015 9:35 p.m. PST |
Yes, it was on 29 Oct 1806. 1st Hussars were also present, but do not carry the battle honour. |
von Winterfeldt | 01 Aug 2015 11:51 p.m. PST |
It was certainly no battle honour donated by Napoleon and wasn't on the flag on the eagle. |
janner | 02 Aug 2015 9:45 a.m. PST |
I didn't say it was, but then neither did Flashman's original post about using battle honours to measure service records. For reasons of accuracy it makes sense to use the most recent authorised list of such honours. Of course you can use only those authorised by Napoleon, but that would be a flawed measure of overall service – as has already been shown. |
Brechtel198 | 02 Aug 2015 11:35 a.m. PST |
But the authorized battle honors were the ones that would be on the flag attached to the regimental eagle. And those were not the only battles that units participated in or did well. For example, the 84th Ligne distinguished itself at Graz in 1809 and was awarded a plaque 'Un Contra Dix' that was attached to the regiment's eagle by decree of Napoleon. |
janner | 02 Aug 2015 9:27 p.m. PST |
Agreed, Brechtel, they are not the best measure. Moreover, as you touched upon earlier, unit performance can vary over time due to various influences, such as the quality of their leaders. |
hexblade | 03 Aug 2015 6:51 a.m. PST |
I wonder if while on the campaign there is much difference between lights and heavies (after while they are all ridding the same horses, replacement mounts are not likely high grade and most horses will deteriorate while on campaign)let alone any difference between chasseurs and hussars. Now some units are better then others, but this has nothing to do with the uniform and more to do with leadership and experience. my 2cents. |
matthewgreen | 04 Aug 2015 10:26 a.m. PST |
A couple of loose ends worth tying up: I think that the difference in battle honours may have to do with what they were tasked with – the chasseurs a cheval did a ton of the yeoman work, like convoy escort, guarding lines of communication, etc – at which they were apparently very good This boils down to much the same thing in wargames terms. If commanders reserved the hussars for battlefield tasks, it means that they thought they were more effective there. Having said which I'm not sure how true it was. Hussars did a lot of the yeoman work too. Regarding battle honours, maybe it's due to the non-showy dragoons and chasseurs getting sent to Spain and Portugal? My impression from reading OBs is that the hussars were pulling their full weight in the Peninsula. Indeed the reason why so few hussar regiments took part in the 1809 campaigns against Austria was that most of the rest were in Spain. Unlike the cuirassiers. |