"Spanish Dragoons light or heavy?" Topic

I'm looking to add some Spanish Dragoons to my British Peninsular army. For the purpose of the rules I'm using I need to class them as either light or heavy. What do folks think? I know to class their morale as poor.

Thanks

Spanish Dragoons were Line cavalry, rather than Light.
See:
link

Of possible interest?

"…Los dragones solían emplearse como caballería pesada, especialmente en la Península. El paisaje árido y duro que dominaba en gran parte de España producía un alto índice de desgaste, poco ordinario, en la caballería pesada francesa…."

"The Dragons used to be heavy cavalry, especially in the Peninsula. The arid and harsh landscape that dominated much of Spain produced a high attrition rate, bit naff in the French heavy cavalry…"
Oht.

See here
link

Also…
link

link

link

I'm painting this last unit…

Hope it's help you.

For translation you can used
translate.google.com/#es/en

Amicalement
Armand

All dragoons where line/heavy except for British light dragoons.(as far a i know )

FYI, Jose Maria Buenos categorizes them as light cavalry.

Rick

Hello,

In the Spanish army dragoons they were classified as light cavalry, as in other armies.

Another thing is that the French used their dragoons as line/heavy cavalry.

Greetings from Spain.

In the Spanish army dragoons they were classified as light cavalry, as in other armies.

In other armies dragoons were considered medium or heavy unless specifically identified as Light.

As far as I am aware the only Napoleonic army that had specifically Light Dragoons was the British.

Hello,

Dragons originally were light cavalry, sometimes treated as medium cavalry, and sometimes as heavy cavalry , but were originally light cavalry.

Greetings

Martinet refers to dragoons as "cavalerie légere":

And he is near contemporary. I think the expectation was that heavy cavalry would have bigger horses. I think the British mounted their dragoons on big horses (except the light dragoons), but other nations found horseflesh scarcer, so compromised.

I think the answer to the OP's question depends on what difference it makes. The horses were unlikely to match true heavy cavalry in size. But their functions are more likely to resemble heavy cavalry than light.

Originally they where mounted infantry.
As far as i know, dragoons in france, Russia, Austria or prussian where never classed as light.

They where referd to as either "cavalry" "line cavalry" or "heavy cavalry "

During the seven years war, you had hussars and "cavalry " cavalry was dragoons and cuirassiers.

@Quiles- with respect, dragoons were originally mounted infantry. Around 1700 they began to be considered as inferior line cavalry, in comparison to the " Horse", so I think the OP's idea of giving them low morale is right. The Spanish cavalry generally were pretty weak in Napoleonic times, poorly mounted and not particularly well trained. If the rules OP is using only allow choice of light/heavy cavalry I would go for heavy, but probably have house rule making them slower/ less manouverability, less effective in combat and, as already said, with poor morale.

Hello again,

I am responding to this:

I'm looking to add some Spanish Dragoons to my British Peninsular army. For the purpose of the rules I'm using I need to class them as either light or heavy. What do folks think? I know to class their morale as poor.

Thanks

And I repeat:

In the Spanish army dragoons they were classified as light cavalry.

That´s not an opinion from me, is taken from contemporary documents.

In the other hand It is well known that dragoons were originally mounted infantry, and everything that was not heavy/line cavalry was somehow rated and/or treated as light cavalry.

Hello blankfrank

Rene Chartrand in his book "Spanish Army of the Napoleonic Wars (1)", shows the Dragoons in it's own section along with the "Heavy Cavalry","Mounted Chasseurs" and "Hussars". Which suggests he sees them all as a little different.

In 1803 the corps of Dragoons were abolished and the regiments transferred into Hussars and Mounted Chasseurs. Not only did the regiments resent this transformation, but the tactical void left by their absence quickly exposed the futility of this flawed reorganisation. In 1805 the Dragoon regiments were reinstated.

The obvious questions are what void was left and if they were already light cavalry why would they resent the transformation? Was it because they thought of themselves as heavy cavalry and this was a downgrade in their eyes, or what?

You can interpret that pretty much anyway you want, but it appears to me that they were probably considered at least as medium cavalry at the time, as were the French Dragoons. A sort of all purpose cavalry, not really heavy or light, but will for fill either roll when needed.

I would also not be so quick to rate them all as poor morale. As a little research into their individual histories could reveal that they all can't be painted with the same brush.

Best regards,

Glenn

If the Spanish didn't have cuirassiers at that time or very few of them. Then making all the dragoons light cavalry, would remove all/most "heavy" cav from spanish forces.

Knee boots, straight swords = heavy; short boots, curved swords = light.

In cases of confusion believe the sword not the boots.

I think much of the confusion stems from contemporary naming (particularly French) of so-called "light" or "legere" cavalry, which was applied to many classes of cavalry throughout the 18th Century regardless of true "heaviness" – basically if they didn't wear armour they were called "light". Then the Brits invented "Light Dragoons" to fill the gap that most nations achieved with Hussars (which Britain subsequently adopted anyway), which despite their name, are quite distinct in function from "heavy" Dragoons. For practical purposes the contemporary terminology is misleading, and I agree with the general concensus that Dragoons were medium/heavy cavalry, a jack-of-all-trades, which in broad gaming terms translates to heavy (line) cavalry, certainly by the time of the Peninsular War.

The rating used will depend on the rules that you use. Cavalry can have two l or h or three l,m,h OR they may be rated as line, battle or scout based on function. Plenty of room for the opinions of all of the posters to be right.

For the OP,

What do Light and Heavy cavalry do differently under the rules you are looking at?

db

This is why the classification by the rules is important. In some rules the classification indicates performance in combat with a heavy cavalry having a more impact on Light cavalry than medium.

Often a light cavalry will be able to operate in a skirmish line or scout but not always. So you can have Light cavalry which cannot operate in a skirmish line which takes considerable training and would be a hindrance to heavy cavalry in a charge.

This is why some rules do not use L-M-H ratings but more of a function.

Martinet refers to dragoons as "cavalerie légere":

Legally, ALL French Napoleonic cavalry were légere, including Cuirassiers, Carabiniers, and Grenadiers a cheval. this is a hold-over from the Ancien Regime, where the only cavalerie lourde were the gens d'armes, i.e., the knights of the feudal levy.

The Russians, Austrians, and Prussians also included Dragoons in the light rather than the line cavalry, but this, like the above French anomaly, was a legalistic distinction, not one of function. They ended to be mounted on larger horses than hussars and the like and be used as shock cavalry (though, of course, the Prussians used hussars in that role as well).

There are two aspects to be considered. One is the size of horses used, which determines the classification of "weight" for battlefield effect. The other is the training, or the intended role. Cavalry classed as "light" would theoretically be trained in scouting, screening and outpost duties.

This could lead to a "mix", as in the British Light Cavalry, which were intentionally mounted on larger horses, only slightly smaller on average than the "Heavies", so as to be able to hold their own in a charge on the battlefield. They still fulfilled their role as Light Cavalry in scouting, screening and outpost duties.

In our games, we often allow the player with the most Light Cavalry to deploy second, as he has "outscouted" the other player. How that Light Cavalry performs on the battlefield depends, of course, on its morale and how heavily it is mounted.

blankfrank…? (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

I am smiling. I have got more than enough information here. Thanks everyone.

In the British army the heavies had straight swords and the lights sabers. This appears to carry over to other armies as well.

Happy for you my friend.

I still sustain that the Spanish Dragoons were heavy. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

We have just finished our book on the Spanish Cavalry. The definiotion of light and heavy is a wargame issue or how you define it.

Type or sword
Weight of horse
How they are used
Officer organisation

Problem is Spanish Cavalry had barely 1 squadron present and the rest in wagons, dismounted or on mules.

STephen

Re the British cavalry. Inspection reports show there was generally little difference between the size of horses in the Dragoon/Dragoon Guard and Light Dragoon regiments- despite the different titles. They were all generally larger than continental heavy cavalry mounts.
These big powerful horses could give British Cavalry a significant advantage in the first clash. They could also easily carry an over enthusiastic trooper half a mile into the enemy lines, at which point the need for a Plan B would become belatedly apparent….

Re the Spanish cavalry- I would say the distinction between heavy and light was more apparent than real. As I understand it the replacement and remount situation was far from ideal and the individual regiments simply got whatever men and horses they could- leading over time to an equalisation between the types- especially as Stephen says, when regiments were lucky to put a squadron or two on horseback. For wargames purposes, I would have them moving as heavies and fighting as lights.

SJDonovan 05 Jan 2016 1:20 p.m. PST !
Knee boots, straight swords = heavy; short boots, curved swords = light.

In cases of confusion believe the sword not the boots.

Excellent suggestion. I like to think of napoleonic cavalry characterization as finding out their mission and their "prey".

Curiassiurs clearly have medium and light cavalry as their prey. They are armored against slashing swords, have heavy horses to push around the horses of lighter cavalry and have a LONG straight sword to stab into and kill the bodies of enemy cavalry.

Hussars and other light cavalry (with cheaper uniforms)can either be scouting units, that never see a pitched battle, or can sometimes also be specific occasion light battle cavalry. The second type is great for exploiting and running down broken enemy units- either a broken battalion of infantry or an entire army in disarray and retreat. They are cheap to build. They are often used to be around and keep the enemy from maneavuring freely and force less-solid lines of battle into squares. Their prey is the broken unit, and in favorable cases, (with no heavier enemy cavalry around and a low enemy infantry density), the flank and rear of enemy infantry.

Dragoons are not really mounted infantry- they ae way too expensive for that role. They can be just advance, scouting light types that overlap with the light cavalry, but most of them are meant to be involved in the main battle as the primary cavalry. They are strong enough to send off light cavalry. Their prey is the flanks and rear of enemy infantry units. They have enough weight to threaten faultering continuous lines of infantry and the corners of squares. They get a lot of attention as they are used to magnify a tempoary tactical advantage.

There are also a bunch of "oddball" types. Some very few lancer units were elite and capable of handling many types of opponents. Most were not skilled enough but gave light units ("lancers") some chance against heavier cavalry and infantry in square. Cossacks were a different type of animal all together. "Lava" attacks, fake retreats, continuous opportunist attacks, when you weren't supposed to be fighting, was the method- with a small knife on the end of a long stick, skillfully handled as the weapon. These were "tribe" units, who knew their horses, each other, and the tactics, a level beyond established military protocal.

What would I do with these Spanish units? Who knows what they actually were- not the enemy and probably not even their commanders and higher level generals. Maybe give them a mixture of abilities and degrees of abilities for the wargame. They are not world-beaters, but the enemy and even the owning player should not know exactly what they have.

Apologies for such a late post – I somehow got "unverified" and took a while to sort it out.
No doubt Stephen Summerhill and Gerald Cronin's new book will tell us all, but here is my penny's worth. There were 4 departments in the Spanish army: infantry, cavalry, dragoons and artillery, each with its own staff, generals, inspectors – huge sinecures for well-connected grandees.
Spanish "Cavalry" (12 regiments, in blue) were theoretically heavy cavalry, like the French "Cavalry" before Napoleon reorganised them as Cuirrassiers (in the British army they had become Dragoon Guards). Also under the cavalry department were the 4 light regiments (2 hussars, 2 cazadores=chasseurs). The other 8 Spanish horsed regiments were dragoons – supposedly medium cavalry – all on their own in a separate dept. Hopelessly expensive. And – actually – they were light cavalry.
Therefore, in 1802, as part of his army reforms, Godoy abolished the Dragoon division, converting the two existing cacadores to hussars and the 8 dragoon regiments to cazadores (in identical uniforms), reflecting the reality of the situation. The light infantry were also put into more practical, identical "cazador" uniforms, the Guards got light companies and some line regiments began to introduce light companies, the artillery was reformed, the line infantry went into a new, mid-blue identical uniform losing facing colours. As you can imagine there was HUGE resistance (except from the artillerymen).
The dragoon regiments were actually reclothed as Cazadores (in identical uniforms). Certainly the two sent to Denmark (Almansa, Villavicosia) were. But after Trafalgar, Godoy's power was broken. The 1805 regulation reinstated the Dragoons as a separate inspectorate (at least) and put the light infantry back into blue uniforms.
BUT the reality of the situation was that very many Spanish foot and horse units were still in their 1802 uniforms in 1808 and indeed 1809. One of the better Spanish authors on Peninsula battles in the series "Guerreros y batallas" goes into all of this and shows that Pavia, a dragoon regiment, was, at the battle of Ocaña (19.11.1809) was dressed as chasseurs, carried lances and was led by a hussar. We know this because a coroporal Vincente Manzano killed General Paris with his lance in a reconnaissance skirmish just before the full clash at Ontígola (massive cavalry clash before Ocaña, where they outperformed the Guardias de Corps). Pavia had a good combat record.

So.
-Spanish "cavalry" were more like heavy dragoons (British & French armies) than heavy cavalry, because of the horses as several contributors pointed out
-Spanish "dragoons" were light cavalry
-Many if not all Spanish "dragoons" were dressed and armed as light cavalry (curved sabres)
-Some Spanish light cavalry carried lances – in Pavia's case this is irrefutable.

I'd love to know more about the combat records/reputations of the Spanish cavalry regiments- there must have been as in all armies significant variation.

It's interesting why Spanish keep so many line/heavy cavalry regiments during the war? Why they did not change them to light regiments, or use more lances?

The reality of the Spanish armies of the period was that they were simply eager to get any guys who could ride onto any horses with four legs. There was little practical functional distinction between any of the regiments whatever their title and uniform.
After the wars of course, when the recruiting and remounting situation became more stable- more recognisable functional distinctions between cavalry types became possible.

Those looks good!
28mm

Amicalement
Armand