"Rare film of French Cuirassiers charging (made in 1896)" Topic

The difference in cohesion shown in this footage and the oft shown 'charge' of the Republican Guard (linked above) is really noticeable, in my opinion – even if they are obviously a bit put off by the cameraman. A case of field cavalrymen v parade ground riders perhaps

Isn't the main difference that the Garde Republicaine are riding at full tilt? And for a lot longer than most C19th cavalry would have been in battle- A la Bondarchuk

The cuirassiers and Republican Guard are both following the SOP for heavy and light cavalry, camera or not. The motion picture camera was new at the time of the cuirassier filming.

As the methods practiced on the parade ground for a 'charge' were the same as those in the field, there wouldn't be much difference in performance.

Yes, the Republican Guard were riding at full tilt – for far too long, as you write, 42flanker, which makes for great cinema. However, it is illustrative of poor command and control, I suggest, and an excess of enthusiasm.

In comparison, eyewitness accounts of effective charges and the revelant drill manuals limit the full gallop to the last moment precisely because it led to such a loss of cohesion. This is precisely what we can see the cuirassiers doing and they reach the target at the same time and in good order.

So the Republican Guard are seemingly breaking SOPs and are a fine demonstration of what a body of horse would have looked like when their commanders lost control of them.

In comparison, apart from some minor confusion as they approached the unfamiliar camera, the cuirassiers seemingly perform a textbook charge. It's a valuable piece of footage and I understand that there maybe one of a unit of hussars as well.

Yes, the Republican Guard were riding at full tilt – for far too long, as you write.

How long is 'too long?' It was only about a minute or so, and then they had to gradually slow the horses to avoid collisions and missteps.

So the Republican Guard are seemingly breaking SOPs and are a fine demonstration of what a body of horse would have looked like when their commanders lost control of them.

They aren't breaking SOP at a full gallop and the commander didn't lose control. That is what happens whenever a group of horses are released at a full gallop. At speed, the differences in gait and temperament show. That is why the heavies trotted… to keep formation. The same thing happens if a group of men run at full tilt… the formation falls apart.

'Too long' as galloping in over the last 30 yards or so, would take less than 'a minute or so.' That was precisely in order to avoid the disintegration of the formation before reaching the objective we are discussing.

Of course, we could then consider the likelihood that the objective, be it infantry or cavalry*, would still be offering an cohesive formation at the point of impact and, if so, whether a cavalry unit would actually hit home.

Obviously, it wouldn't be a gun position, which would be contrary to all the accepted practice of war…..

How long is 'too long?' It was only about a minute or so, and then they had to gradually slow the horses to avoid collisions and missteps.

As 42flanker has written, a minute is a long time to be in the gallop. At the usual speed of 25-30 mph, a horse could cover up to half a mile in that time. The classic flat race is ten furlongs (a mile and a quarter) and the participants are blown at the finish.

The period manuals consistently direct moving from the trot to the canter at 250 yds from the enemy and to full gallop (referred to the charge) about 80 yards away, i.e. about 10 seconds at full tilt for precisely the reasons you go on to mention, e.g. differences in gait and temperament affecting unit cohesion.

They aren't breaking SOP at a full gallop and the commander didn't lose control. That is what happens whenever a group of horses are released at a full gallop. At speed, the differences in gait and temperament show. That is why the heavies trotted… to keep formation. The same thing happens if a group of men run at full tilt… the formation falls apart.

If, as you have agreed, heavy horse historically trotted in order to retain formation and if period manuals require that units didn't break into the charge until the final 80 yds or so, how can the commander be said to be in control and following standard operating procedures when he charges half a mile out, which leads to his unit disintegrating in such a fashion as shown in the Republican Guard film?

The period manuals consistently direct moving from the trot to the canter at 250 yds from the enemy and to full gallop (referred to the charge) about 80 yards away, i.e. about 10 seconds at full tilt for precisely the reasons you go on to mention, e.g. differences in gait and temperament affecting unit cohesion.

? A man can cover 100 yards in 6 seconds, so 80 yards at a full gallop isn't ten seconds. I understood the charge would commence at about 600 yards at a walk, distance at a full gallop would start [not achieve full speed] at about 200-250 yards. That's about 10 seconds or less than 2 minutes from commencing the walk to impact.

The current world record for 100m (109.361yds) is 9.58secs. So if you know a man that can do it in 6secs, you'd best warn them off for the next Olympics

The manuals I have checked to date (Austrian, British, Danish, French, and Swedish) focus on a short (c.80yd) final charge. Can you confirm where you get 200-250yds? It may be that you are mixing period use of 'gallop' for collected gallop, i.e. canter, with 'charge' or full gallop. As an aside, 'galop' is still used in Danish to refer to the canter and google translate also gets it wrong

42flanker

The lance was actually withdrawn from British service during the Boer War, but then reintroduced in 1904. At the post-war Royal Commission, many forward thinking and / or highly effective officers of the Boer War (Rimington, French etc) argued that the sight of a line of lancers was terrifying for the enemy: which I rather fancy it must have been. The experience at Elandslaagte was not something any Boer would ever forget, and can reasonably be assumed to have contributed to the Boer habit of withdrawing from positions as soon as their flanks were in any way threatened. One general (I think it was Brabazon) argued that tomahawks / battleaxes should be introduced rather than search for the 'perfect' sabre you mention.

In comparison to these (admittedly magnificent) French cuirassiers, the British cavalry was pretty 'modern' even before the Boer War – no shining breast plates etc, each man was equipped with a carbine and did the same annual shooting tests as the infantry. In response to increased fire power, tactics for the charge stressed approaching in loose order and only closing up immediately prior to impact, and encouraged the use of approaching from unexpected directions etc.

Imperial cavalry did excellent work in the fighting around Colesberg (outfighting the invading republicans despite being significantly outnumbered), shattered the fleeing Boers at Elandslaagte and were mainly responsible for the success of Roberts' outflanking march which both relieved Kimberley and cut off Cronje with his 4000+ men.

Many (including, famously, Erskine Childers) thought they were out of date by the turn of the century, but given their record and achievements in South Africa, it is hard to argue that there was not still a role for them at the time – though obviously one which was rather different than 50 years earlier.

q>So if you know a man that can do it in 6secs, you'd best warn them off for the next Olympics

Janner:

Yep, that should read

A man can cover 100 yards in 10 seconds, so 80 yards at a full gallop doesn't take ten seconds.

Mea Culpa

The manuals I have checked to date (Austrian, British, Danish, French, and Swedish) focus on a short (c.80yd) final charge.

I think we are talking about two different things. If they started a gallop at 80 yards, they wouldn't get up to full speed in that distance before hitting the enemy--not in formation. I will pull up what I have, but IIRC, it is giving the horse his head at that point for light cavalry. For Heavy cavalry I am not sure that a full-out gallop was ever recommended.

Again, I'll get back to you on that.

No worries, but I think you're underestimating the acceleration potential of a body of horse and the 'charge' aimed that they achieved full or extended gallop just as they reached the target.

On cavalry type, the British drill manuals, for example, made no distinction between the lights and heavies in such matters.

"many forward thinking and / or highly effective officers of the Boer War (Rimington, French etc) argued that the sight of a line of lancers was terrifying for the enemy"

That does sound like a contradiction in terms.

By 1914, German hussars and French dragoons had also been equipped with lances, at least in part. Did lance-armed cavalry have a decisive effect in actions during the open phase of the war?

Cavalry clearly had a role in the South African War but actions to which you refer did not bear much relation to the circumstances when the armies of the great powers clashed in 1914.

In earlier periods, some might have been described as little more than affairs of outposts.

There is of course a distinction to be made between observing the evolving, or enduring, role of cavalry between say 1870 and 1914 and discussing the efficacy of l'arme blanche at the end of that period.

Janner:

I think that there are a number of different issues with regard to the charge. They involve not only light and heavy, but the size of the unit[s] charging and the national approach--and the years as tactics changed.

For instance, the Prussians used a 'Wall Attack' or en murial through 1806 which multiple heavy regiments where the last 700 to 1,000 paces of this attack were executed at a gallop. [Nafziger Imperial Bayonets, p.159]

The Military Experiments of Attack and Defense carried out in 1805 chart the cavalry charging at 80 yards as you point out, but going to a gallop at 170 yards.

But even that can be misleading because the walk, trot and gallop were at a regulated 'paced' or controlled.
Walk: Not exceeding four miles an hour
Trot: Not exceeding eight and a half miles an hour
Gallop: Eleven miles an hour.

That is according to the British Instructions to Light Dragoons regarding the exercise and field movements.

That is one reason why each regiment and type of cavalry attempted to get a particular size horse: Equal step distances in their pace, which was important for horses operating together.

For the British, there wasn't much difference in the operation of their lights and heavies, but there were some as the lights and light dragoons received their own regulations apart from the 1795 cavalry regulations.

The charge was not the same as the gallop. The charge according to the Light Dragoon instructions above was done as close to the enemy as possible and after any enemy infantry volley. It was when the spurs were put to the horse [giving it free rein] and swords were drawn. That could be anywhere between 150 and 50 yards depending on circumstances, but regardless, the horses would be in a controlled gallop well before that point. The hope was to have the volley smoke obscure any damage the volley had executed and have the cavalry appear through the smoke close to the enemy.

Then there was the transition from three ranks of horsemen to two for most armies during the wars. Single squadron or regiment actions were different in execution from brigade actions.

The distances that an attack was to begin differed between nations. The Russians, for instance, wanted attacks to begin [that is go from walk to trot to gallop] as close to the enemy as possible to preserve order in 1800-7. [Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars, Vol I Zhmodikov p. 59] This was changed as the Russians began to use larger numbers of horsemen in several lines with reserves. The idea was to quickly hit and then make way for the second line, so galloping began further out. That was changing by 1813. Barclay de Tolley wrote in his General Instructions August 1813 that cavalry shouldn't begin to gallop until 50 paces from the enemy to avoid disorder and tiring the horses. [Of course, his instructions did not necessarily echo any other commander's instructions. Such was the Napoleonic Wars.]

And of course, the French and allies continued to have their heavy cavalry charge at a trot to preserve order, though I know there were times circumstances dictated otherwise… The Union Brigade charged at a walk, and only began to trot when they hit the French at Waterloo.

For light cavalry, the *general* norm was to begin a gallop out at 150 to 250 yards and 'charge' at 80 or closer.

No worries, but I think you're underestimating the acceleration potential of a body of horse and the 'charge' aimed that they achieved full or extended gallop just as they reached the target.

Janner: It isn't the potential we need to talk about, but a body of horse doing it together, which is far different. You see it in the Republican Guard video. The two troops begin to gallop, but maintain order. They are in a controlled gallop, slower than the potential, so acceleration is measured. It is obvious when they give free rein to the horses in an all-out gallop.

On cavalry type, the British drill manuals, for example, made no distinction between the lights and heavies in such matters.

there were some. There were several drill manuals, one for cavalry [covering them all], then one for light horse, and then one for light Dragoons, and several manuals for hussars [put together by Paget in 1798] and others. As the war progressed more distinctions were established.

But even that can be misleading because the walk, trot and gallop were at a regulated 'paced' or controlled.
Walk: Not exceeding four miles an hour
Trot: Not exceeding eight and a half miles an hour
Gallop: Eleven miles an hour.

As I mentioned up thread, Gallop here (and in similar primary sources) relates to the Collected Gallop, now called the Canter. So, within the sequence, Charge is consistantly used to describe the Extended Gallop, which is still controlled of course, and I am struggling to understand why you would think otherwise, i.e. it feels like we are speaking different 'languages'. So can I ask, do you ride?

There were several drill manuals, one for cavalry [covering them all], then one for light horse, and then one for light Dragoons, and several manuals for hussars [put together by Paget in 1798] and others. As the war progressed more distinctions were established.

Yes, I have copies, but I am unaware of there being a distinction made with regards to the conduct of the charge beyond volunteer units being given a simplified version. Can you specifically quote such a distinction being made between two or more of these manuals?

On the Guard, agreed, they are individually in control of their mounts, but, based on my personal experience of military riding, eyewitness accounts, and the relevant manuals, they quickly lose cohesion – unlike the cuirassiers.

As an aside, 11mph is 5.38 yrds per sec or 53.8 yrds in 10 secs…

As I mentioned up thread, Gallop here (and in similar primary sources) relates to the Collected Gallop, now called the Canter. So, within the sequence, Charge is consistantly used to describe the Extended Gallop, which is still controlled of course, and I am struggling to understand why you would think otherwise, i.e. it feels like we are speaking different 'languages'. So can I ask, do you ride?

Janner:

Yes, I do/did ride. Worked on a cattle ranch and even rode bareback bronc in a small town rodeo in my college years. [I did stay on for 8 seconds, but no style.] That isn't military riding, to be sure. I have had a number of conversations with members of the Canadian Mounties' Drill Team:

YouTube link

I think we are doing the potato/potatoe thing. Well, two points: I am trying to relate it to the Republican Guard video and not naming different types/speed of a gallop, such as a controlled gallop, which is actually a three-beat canter that only goes at 11mph. I thought I was giving that away by listing the speed.

It was called a gallop during the period, so that is what I called it. The second point: The distances of when a charge began, whatever we see as a 'gallop' did vary by country, period and circumstances.

The 'extended gallop' was faster, 18-24mph, but not the 30mph of a 'racing gallop' which is what you are seeing at the end of the Guard video. What I understand, the last 80 yards has the charge going from the 'collected gallop', to a full racing gallop for light horse, while the heavies wouldn't. The control came with the entire unit turning up the speed all together.

Obviously, the amount of training a unit received had a lot to do with what the unit could do.

Janner:

Here is how Emanual Von Warnery, a Prussian general of Hussars describes the charge in his Remarks on Cavalry,1798 page 46:

At the first sound of the trumpet, the whole begin to move forward, first and second line, and the reserve: the attacking wing perfectly dressed in line, marches on at a walk; at the second sound, which ought to be doubled, the whole begin to trot, ( which the second line, and the reserve, continue to do till after the charge is finished) at the third sound, which is tripled, at about 150 or 200 paces from the enemy, the first line begins to gallop, and when they approach within 70 or at most 80 yards of the enemy, the trumpets sound gay and lively fanfares or flourishes of the trumpet, then the troopers prick with both spurs, and push forward at full speed, without however entirely slackening the bridle, as all the horses cannot gallop with equal velocity; but when within about twenty paces, they must force their gallop as much as possible, to give the full impulse of the charge, or as the King of Prussia [Frederick], used to call it, the grand coup de collier; the rear ranks must then also press forward with all their weight and speed, as if they would force forward their front ranks or file leaders; this is called furnishing the shock.

This is in line with most light cavalry practices, at least in the first half of the Napoleonic wars. Just more thoughts on the issue.

It might sound like a contradiction in terms 100+ years later, but it was based entirely on their experience in the field: and no one who studied their records in South Africa could suggest that Rimington and French were not highly effective officers.

It is, of course, true that cavalry played a very limited role on the western front in WW1 – but no one can reasonably have known that before it happened, and they played an important role in other theatres of that war.

Perhaps in 100 years time, people will look at (for example) today's manned-fighter aircraft or 70-tonne MBTs and say that we should have switched these out to more 'modern' systems ages ago.

When an officer like Haig, while rationally assessing fields of fire and effective range for dismounted cavalry in relation to a cavalry 'problem', and yet in the same paper can question a mounted manoeuvre as being 'contrary to the cavalry spirit,' it seems to me that being effective (albeit in a colonial context) and forward looking were two different matters.

It also seems to me that military men of that period (to generalise) while engaging intellectually with their profession, as they thought, could be blinkered by a complacent belief in their own 'forward' thinking, as well as, in the case of men like French, a faulty assessment of their recent successes, with their vision perhaps clouded by a romanticism in relation their arm of service that was far less forward looking.

By that token, the question as to what extent 'reason' came into the failure of military thinkers and planners to understand, or to accept, the effects of automatic weapons and high explosive on the European battlefield (not only in relation to cavalry action) is for another time.

I think we are doing the potato/potatoe thing.

We certainly seemed to have reached a degree of common ground/vocabulary – and hats off for the rodeo work

I agree that there were variations between manuals/countries, although the 80yrds thing does crop up quite consistently (such as in your Prussian example of 1798).

The final spurt mentioned is of interest, especially as twenty Prussian paces is only a smidgeon over sixteen yards, i.e. the matter of but moments on horseback. As we seemingly agree, this relates to minimising any potential loss of cohesion, such as displayed in the Guard video, but not in that of the cuirassiers – neither of which were/are light horse.

42flanker

I cannot disagree with any of what you have said, but I think you have nevertheless fallen into the trap of looking back knowing that the '14-'18 war occurred, and the details of how it panned out etc; not a single man alive in 1903/4 (when the Royal Commission into the Boer War was held) knew what would happen 10 years from then, so it is hard to see what else they could do than look at what they had learned from the Boer War, and adapt and improve training / tactics / equipment / doctrine accordingly – and no one could reasonably claim that imperial cavalry / mounted infantry (by the end of the war, was there much difference?) had not proved decisive throughout that conflict.
It is also interesting to contrast the soul-searching of the supposedly 'hidebound by tradition' British to the supposedly uber-professional German army of the period – whose official report on the Boer War covered the 18 months of the guerrilla war in a single paragraph.

Also, based on their experiences of the previous 50 years, there was far more chance of Britain being involved in another war similar to the Boer War than finding itself pitched into a new and previously un-thought of mass industrialized hell-on-earth in Western Europe, so it is perfectly logical that they thought the lessons learned in South Africa were worth learning.
And even had the next great war been fought mainly in (for example) the Middle East / North Africa / Russia or some other sparsely inhabited place, they probably still would have been.

It is also logical that men of a certain military arm will want to preserve it – though perhaps this has as much to do with keeping a job than 'romanticism'. To use an example I mentioned earlier, will we look back at the RAF's manned fighter aircraft in a 100 years and scoff? Will our Great-Grandchildren – who will no doubt consider a manned fighter plane in the same we look at a Sopwith Camel – dismiss as romantic the decision to invest billions in the F35? It doesn't seem like that to many today, but it might seem like an act of pure folly to future generations – as nonsensical to them as trying to perfect the cavalry sabre in 1906 is to us.

Of course, it is obvious to us now that the days of the cavalry (in the true form) were numbered as soon as the machine gun and magazine rifle appeared, but it probably didn't seem that way at the time, and, indeed, there proved to be plenty of life in the old dog for a while to come.

I don't think I would regard myself guilty for taking a historical perpective. Isn't that what these discussions involve- unless we are attempting a seance?

The evidence regarding the development of modern weaponry was there already, but in 1902 the colonial perspective of British officers, understandable in an army that in 1914 had seen no experience of the European battlfield for 100 years (I discount the Crimea), meant that they did not interpret that evidence with sufficient clarity. Astonishing, given that the British were the first army to adopt the Maxim gun, for instance.

Mind you the French, Germans and Austrians had more recent European experience, but theyalso were blinkered by their own traditions, the French, for instance, by Napoleonic nostaliga and the 'spirit of the offensive.'

Looking at what lessons might be learned from the Boer war does not mean that those involved were asking the right questions or that their attitudes and opinions enabled them draw the right lessons. Bearing in mind that shortly afterwards the British army was re-organized to provide a force intended precisely to be committed to a European war that was looking increasingly likely

I am not sure I find your invocation of the word 'logic,' in terms of the miltiary conservatism that we have observed, entirely persuasive.

Well, each to their own, but I personally find it more relevant (or 'logical', if I may use that word?) to attempt to understand decisions taken at the time by trying not to grant myself the benefit of hindsight – virtually anything can look be made to seem ludicrous if you have a 100+ years of hindsight to fall back on.

What, for example, were these 'right questions' which should have been asked at the Royal Commission – the ones which those attending was seemingly too conservative / blinkered to ask? I have read the entire minutes of the commission and found the depth and detail they went to fascinating – I wonder what they missed?

Given that even the adoption of tomahawks was discussed, I am not sure I find your invocation of the word 'blinkered' entirely persuasive.

Well, ludicrous is your word not mine, but now you mention tomahawks, I wouldn't automatically file that under 'forward looking'.

This not a question of hindsight, it's a question of understanding how pre-conceptions, possibly coloured by nostalgia, might have affected analysis. Understanding and evaluating decisions made in the past are surely both part of historical enquiry.

As an example I would return to the re-introduction of the lance, although I suspect that decision was not made solely on the basis of skewering a few routed Boers on one isolated occasion.

Of course, there were many useful lessons learned as a result of the Boer war, which resulted in the BEF being the best prepared army to leave British shores, and comprising some of the best trained infantry among the European powers.

That was in part the result of improved musketry, and fire and manoeuvre tactics, which, ironically, had been the real reason for the victory at Elandslaagte, not the charge of the 5th Lancers, albeit the result of a rare example of enlightened battlefield command during a fairly chaotic period.

either of which were/are light horse.

I think the Republican Guard was using light horse drill, including being armed with light horse [curved] sabers. Of course, the Guard is really a composite of heavy and light horse forms, more for show than anything.

So no examples of the 'right questions' that should have been asked at the Royal Commission, but which they were 'too conservative / blinkered / not as forward thinking as you' to ask?

Hi McLaddie,

Their sabre does seem to lay somewhere between the straight blade of Napoleonic gendarmes and the pronounced curve of that carried by light horseman in the Napoleonic era. It looks much like the universal sabres that came later, which became increasing straight as the nineteenth century progressed, but they apear to be riding mounts of a similar size to the cuirassiers. So it would be interesting to see their actual drill manual

Bump.

Matthew 27;52

and the dead arose and were seen by many…….

Well done for resurrecting.

I think the Republican Guard carry a modern version of the Napoleonic 'Montmorency' heavy cavalry sabre, as used by the Horse Grenadiers, Carabiniers post 1810, and I think some other elite heavy units. Long slim blade with a slight but very noticeable curve.

I'm inspired, gonna work on getting a "stache" like that. Only one problem, mine will be all grey!

Well THE VIDEO is still there, so time to 'Redux' this!
Actual MOVING French Cuirassiers!
~d

I am impressed.

Solitary guy mounted on a gray (over to the left) is the trumpeter, maybe?

I can't find it, but this video has been posted before on TMP.

>> I can't find it, but this video has been posted before on TMP. <<

That's kinda why the thread starts in 2016___ and the url IS the VERY FIRST POST!
I figured it was obvious___ >> YouTube link <<
- -
Cuirassier 17 Aug 2016 5:59 a.m.

Filmed by the Lumière brothers in 1896. Very, very interesting. Charge!

YouTube link
- -

I would recommend reading Taktics by Balck (translated by Krueger). Whilst written in 1912 most of the cavalry material is worth reading.

In the video of the Mounties RCMP towards the end it shows the cavalry in one line breaking out by the flank and reforming further back, useful in rallying after a melee.