"French Lancers, Heavy or Light?" Topic

During the Republic, dragoons were officially described as belonging to the light cavalry (Décret du 16 nivôse an II – according to Bardin).

Evidently, during the Empire, dragoons were no longer considered pure cavalry officially, neither heavy nor light, but were described as "arme mixte". Not in the sense of "something in between heavy and light cavalry" but meaning that they were trained as both cavalry and infantry. Anything else was not at issue. Obviously, the idea that dragoons should be seen as "cavalerie moyenne" and should be described accordingly was quite alien to Napoleon, even if dragoons actually performed as "cavalerie moyenne" (or as "heavy", or as "light"…) on many occasions. So, it seems that, during the Empire, dragoons were not only not counted among either the heavy or the light cavalry, they weren't considered medium cavalry either.

That's why, to my knowledge, they were never called "cavalerie moyenne" or "cavalerie de ligne" in any official documents. I think, if the concept of "cavalerie moyenne" had really been present at the time, the term would definitely have been used in the" Ordonnance Provisoire Pour la Cavalerie" (an XIII/re-edited in 1813), which is not the case.

There we read about "Cavalerie" (in general, but mostly meaning "grosse cavalerie"), "Cavalerie Légère" and, distinguished from the other two in terms of organization and tactics, "Dragons" (in terms of harness, however, dragoons are mentioned along with the [heavy] cavalry).

"Chevau-Légers (Lanciers)" are another branch mentioned seperately but definitely are not related in any way to the dragoons. In my opinion, they were clearly counted among the light cavalry. After all, the term "Chevau-Légers" is self-explaining enough, and they were equipped correspondingly.

Agreed Phil (if I maybe so bold), there was seeminlgy a degree of variation in what certain unit titles actually meant across Europe and North America and I could easily lose a great deal of time delving into the nuances of cavalry usage.

However, I think we all agreed that the correct response to the OP is that French Napoleonic lancers were light cavalry (mostly) carrying long pointy sticks

Regards from sunny Denmark!

Of the four quotations used for the ‘definition' of dragoons, it should be noted that they might be taken out of context and more should be added to them to make a point. And it is important that they are from outside the period 1791-1815, and not all by cavalrymen. Neither Bardin nor Mathieu-Dumas were cavalry officers.

The analogy with de Brack's memoir is not valid. De Brack was writing what to all intents and purposes is a field manual for his light cavalry regiment (de Brack came out of the chasseurs a cheval and the 2d Lancers of the Imperial Guard, the Guard Lancer Regiment in 1815), and his examples are based on his experience in the wars. Finally, he was an expert light cavalry officer and his memoir is one of the best of the period.

A few points:

Journal des débats et des décrets 1792"Cavalerie de ligne, composée de 29 régimens de cavalerie , et 15 de dragons , portés tous à 4 escadrons" And dragons were no longer among the troupes légères.

The Martinet prints of the Empire period label/describe the dragoons as 'cavalerie legere.'

And what is 'decreed', especially during the Revolution, may or may not be either realistic or practiced in the field.

And a logical argument can be made that all cavalry, light or heavy, not belonging to the Imperial Guard were line cavalry.

The change brought by Napoléon was the creation of a a new category "cavalerie de réserve" and the dissolution of the old regiments of "cavalerie", transforming them into cuirassiers and (mostly) dragons. I think it was only from 1805 or even therafter that one could really see the French considering that thier cavalry was composed of "cavalerie lourde" (cuirassiers, carabiniers) suitable for service as "cavalerie de réserve", "calvalerie légère" (chasseurs, hussards) suitable for use as light troops and a rather newer idea of "cavalerie de ligne" as "cavalerie moyenne" on medium sized horses (and dragons decreasingly equipped with long arms) that could be employed in concert with heavy cavalry in the réserve, in concert with infantry in detachments, and to defeat enemy light and irregular cavalry.

The Cavalry Reserve was not a new ‘category' of cavalry, but a tactical and operational corps formation/organization which was composed of heavy cavalry, dragoon divisions, and light cavalry divisions and their supporting horse artillery. It was usually commanded by Murat, though Bessieres commanded it in 1809 (and proved to be a better cavalry commander than Murat). Murat's chief of staff was General Belliard.

In 1805, for example, at the beginning of the Ulm campaign, the Cavalry Reserve was composed of the cuirassier divisions of Nansouty and d'Hautpoul, the dragoon divisions of Klein, Walther, Bourcier, and Beaumont, and the dismounted dragoon division of Baraguey d'Hilliers. At the beginning of November, the Milhaud's light cavalry brigade of two chasseurs a cheval regiments had been added/attached. By the time of Austerlitz in early December, the four dragoon divisions had been detached to other commands and two light cavalry divisions, Kellermann's and Fauconnet's, had been attached. So, again, the Cavalry Reserve was not a type of cavalry, but a corps-sized cavalry formation.

When did the dragoons give up their long arms? They had them at least through 1812, and the dragoon regiments in Spain undoubtedly carried them through 1814. They very well could have given them up when they returned to France in 1814 for the campaign as the infantry were suffering a shortage of suitable muskets.

The heavy cavalry regiments were changed during the Consulate and early Empire. There were twenty-five regiments of heavy cavalry, one of them armored, termed cavalerie de bataille. Napoleon abolished seven of them, converted twelve into cuirassiers, and the remaining six were converted to dragoon regiments. So ‘most' of them were either disbanded or converted to cuirassiers, not dragoons. The men and horses of the seven abolished regiments were transferred to the remaining eighteen to bring them up to strength. Three hussar regiments were also converted to dragoon outfits. The cuirassiers were classed as elite troops, just as the other two heavy cavalry regiments, the 1st and 2d Carabiniers were, but the latter would not be armored until 1810 after heavy losses in 1809.

The lanciers were disbanded.

There was a lancer regiment in the new Royal Guard, so they didn't completely vanish. And it should be noted (again) that the lancer regiments were light cavalry. Sweeping statements are seldom accurate or useful.

It should also be noted that the Empress' Dragoons of the Imperial Guard were classed as a heavy cavalry regiment. They and the Grenadiers a Cheval always were equipped with their long arm. The Grenadiers a Cheval could and did at times fire mounted at the halt. So did chasseurs a cheval. There is a picture of the 5th Chasseurs a Cheval firing mounted skirmishing with Cossacks. Parquin in his memoir describes his regiment, the 20th Chasseurs, meeting a Russian cavalry advance at Eylau with mounted carbine fire.

Just as a further note, cuirassiers, fully armed and equipped, weighed 309 pounds, dragoons 273, and hussars and chasseurs 251. A well-cared-for horse can carry up to one-quarter of its own weight.

Bringing up the Bourbon reorganization of the French army is very applicable to the overall situation of the units that made it up. The army was disbanded and rebuilt with little or no consideration being given to organization, tradition, functioning, or esprit de corps. In short, it was a mess, in a detested white uniform for the infantry, and the tricolor gone. In 1820 Latour-Maubourg became Minister of War and he brought back some of the old esprit, the blue uniform for the infantry, but it wasn't until Soult became Minister of War, brought back in 1848 by Louis Philippe, that the army once more had its traditions restored and order brought back to the army.

From 4th Cuirassier:

A historian's job is to sift out what's the cyclical and to-be-expected revisionism from the main strand of thinking that's actually useful.

Exactly correct. That's called historical inquiry. Unfortunately, there is too much of the bad type of revisionism present in both published works and on the internet and that isn't helpful at all.

The French lance was certainly shorter that 12 feet…

The regulation French lance was about 9 feet (276 centimeters) long and weighed about 7 pounds (3.3 kilograms). The Polish lance, which could have been carried by some of the Polish lancer regiments, was about 2.5 inches longer.

The lance shafts were made of either ash or walnut and were a little over an inch in diameter and there was a pointed iron 'shoe' at the base of butt end. A new lance which was longer and lighter was put into production in 1816.

Something that always entertains me no end is the revisionist historian who doesn't realise that being a revisionist makes him of the mainstream :-)

While an interesting argument could not the question have been resolved by considering the French Corp organisation chart?

If the lancers replaced a light cavalry unit or occupied a position normally occupied by light cavalry; the French considered them light cavalry.

If they occupied a position normally occupied by a heavy cavalry unit, then they were heavy cavalry.

In examining the organisation charts for the period 1809-1814 they appear to have been regarded by the French as light horse.

Neither Bardin nor Mathieu-Dumas were cavalry officers.

Nor were you, Brech. Does that mean you cannot be trusted on anything, but the use of artillery in the US Marine Corps? Of course not, just like you, they did not serve in isolation, but within a combined arms framework. Just like de Brack and sometime dragoon Carrion-Nisas, they were seemingly comfortable touching on the roles of other arms and their opinions should not be dismissed out of hand, I suggest.

In truth, there appears to be a degree of ambiguity and I am quite comfortable with not nailing my colours to one mast or the other on this issue.

Forgive a total amateur response here…

Surely what matters is not the parent units (whether Dragoons were Heavy, Middle or even Light infantry on horses…I could see an argument for the last actually)

Not how they were brigaded…

But how they were used…

Light cavalry are for recce, guarding the flanks, pursuit of a fleeing enemy, harassing their lines of communications, protecting one's own LOCs.

Heavy are for the battlefield. Smashing into units that are on the verge of collapse anyway…or facing the other lot's heavies.

So how were French lancers actually used? Did they do the scouting of Chasseurs a Chev or Hussars……or were they in practice kept back to use against formed, but unsteady, infantry or light cavalry in a pitched battle. I freely admit I wait to hear, but my concept is of not much light cavalry work in practice.

Oh dear. This muddies the waters even more. My impression is of light cavalry, rarely used as such, but instead saved for a very specific role, where heavy cavalry would have been expected. A big long stick with a pointy bit helped on a battlefield, but not on a muddy lane in a sunken Belgian Road.

I did start this by saying………

French light cavalry as well as heavy cavalry were employed on the battlefield in charge and countercharge, depending on the situation.

Dragoons were expected to fulfill any cavalry mission assigned to them.

We should not ignore the analysation of officers serving in the Napoleonic wars, even when written later.

AS to the empolyment of regiments 1 – 6 – I would agree with Deadhead, they were used more like heavy cavalry – didn't they play a vital part in destroying the Union brigade by their counter charge at Belle Alliance?

And the gendarmes à cheval – and gendarmes d'ordonnance for that matter – were (senso strictu) "gens d'armes" and not really cavalry

The idea that the Imperial Gendarmerie was 'not really cavalry' is incorrect.

For the Gendarmerie there are two volumes that are very helpful:

-La Gendarmerie Francaise en Espagne et en Portugal (Campagnes de 1807 a 1814) by Capitaine Martin, edited by C Terana.

-Gendarmes and the State in Nineteenth Century Europe by Clive Emsley. The French Gendarmerie are covered on pages 13-120.

Napoleon completely revamped, reorganized, and reformed the Gendarmerie. Inheriting the Marechausee upon becoming First Consul, Napoleon renamed it the Gendarmerie Nationale and was restaffed with former soldiers who had made at least four campaigns, were literate, and at least twenty-five years old. Moncey became its commander and it was managed through the Ministry of War.

In 1804 it became the Imperial Gendarmerie. The Gendarmerie d'Elite of the Imperial Guard which evolved from a strong company of picked gendarmes was also created in 1802 and some of their officers had been in the Dromedary Regiment in Egypt (Upon their return to France, the Dromedary Regiment was taken into the Gendarmerie).

The Gendarmerie had two missions: the first was the maintenance of law and order in the interior of France. The second was as military police on campaign with the field armies. They saw action, especially in Spain (where they were known as the Gendarmerie of Spain or the 'little gendarmerie'). They were respected by the combat troops, especially in Spain, and the gendarmerie had considerably more combat experience than regular line troops.

The Gendarmerie with the field armies were usually all mounted, and Davout's gendarmerie detachment saw action at Auerstadt, attacking, overrunning, and capturing a Prussian artillery battery.

In Spain, the famous Gendarmerie Legion of Burgos, which saw extensive combat against the guerillas and charged at Villadrigo in 1812 and was took part in the defeat of Wellington's cavalry there.

Some of the 'little gendarmerie' in Spain was armed with lances, the lanciers gendarmes, and that was a weapon the Spanish feared. They were uniformed as light cavalry, though in blue, not green, and wore shakos instead of the usual bicorne of the gendarmerie. The Gendarmerie d'Elite wore bearskins similar to that of the Foot Artillery of the Guard.

So, the Imperial Gendarmerie was cavalry for all intents and purposes (even though there were gendarmes a pied), both heavy and light and were valued for their efficiency and overall general worth in multiple roles.

For the Gendarmes d'Ordnance, they were raised in 1806 and were named after 'the gentlemen of King Henry IV's personal bodyguard.'

They were organized in five companies by Marshal Kellermann at Mainz and were cavalry, organized and mounted as such. A sixth company was raised without horses and performed garrison dity at Mainz briefly. Two of the companies saw action in 1807, but the others did not and they were disbanded in October 1807. The gendarmes that had seen combat were commissioned sous-lieutenants in the cavalry and the others were offered commissions after a year's service as Velites. More than two hundred of the 393 chose to remain in the service. They were considered brave, but unhandy soldiers.

G'Day Liam

You asked a good question…"so how were French lancers actually used"…

…and yet we are not permitted sweeping statements…because we are told that "sweeping statements are seldom accurate or useful."

But is this not a sweeping statement…looks like Googlewhack:

"French light cavalry as well as heavy cavalry were employed on the battlefield in charge and countercharge, depending on the situation. Dragoons were expected to fulfill any cavalry mission assigned to them."

With that said…what was the difference between Chevau-Légers…Chevau-Légers Lanciers…and…and normal regiment de Lanciers…?

Why did Napoleon designate then as Chevau-Légers Lanciers?

Why did Napoleon decide to create "les lanciers en cavlerie legere reguliere"…and what does that mean?

I wonder where this fits into such a sweeping statement…

If a logical argument can be made that all cavalry, light or heavy, not belonging to the Imperial Guard were line cavalry…why were there terms of cavalerie legere et grosse cavalerie…and where does cavalerie mixte fit into all this…?

Best Regards
Art

"The idea that the Imperial Gendarmerie was 'not really cavalry' is incorrect."

Shall we suppose that in the Royal and Impérial Almanchs stretching over more than 150 years they were mistakenly described as a separate Corps (as were the artillerie and the génie), not part of the cavalry?

And in the annual états-militaires that their officers were omitted from the seniority lists of the cavalry due to a regretably oft-repeated typographical mistake?

There is no argument that the Imperial Gendarmerie were a separate corps.

They were also for the most part mounted, and fought mounted. They were employed as cavalry, as shown-especially in Spain, and they were armed and equipped as cavalry.

That makes them, for all intents and purposes despite their special status, cavalry.

So, if we do not have formal decree, but a somewhat scattered set of references and organizational changes or a history of how they were actually used, we *should* use these informal or imprecise methods when we look at gendarmes à cheval and *should not* do so when looking at dragons?

In other words, when you write something, it is always perfect and correct, and we should ask no questions and offer no other approaches to the issue? I am new here, and that is not the type of dicussion I was expecting.

"In other words, when you write something, it is always perfect and correct, and we should ask no questions and offer no other approaches to the issue? I am new here, and that is not the type of dicussion I was expecting."

You will encounter this kind of discussion, to the detriment of all those who are interested in the period – only with one or two persons – they rarely contribute anything usefull, in my view.

You have tools, like the ignore, or stifle – which I did – to avoid wasting my time reading unhelpfull personal opinions.

So, if we do not have formal decree, but a somewhat scattered set of references and organizational changes or a history of how they were actually used, we *should* use these informal or imprecise methods when we look at gendarmes à cheval and *should not* do so when looking at dragons?
In other words, when you write something, it is always perfect and correct, and we should ask no questions and offer no other approaches to the issue? I am new here, and that is not the type of dicussion I was expecting.

Did you expect that everything you wrote or posted would be agreed with? Even when others thought you either might be incorrect or that disagreed with you?

It doesn't work that way. That is called a discussion.

And there is no 'win' or 'lose' in the discussions on the forum. There is just information. You post for the forum members whether or not you're in a discussion with just one member.

I would also recommend that you ignore the 'white noise' from those who make third person ad hominem remarks. I've enjoyed your postings and have taken them as useful notes. If you cannot accept that that's your affair and no one else's.

I don't know what you were expecting, but, again, if you believe that your postings should be accepted as gospel, then you are mistaken. Are you postings valuable-certainly and that is noted. But everyone has the right to question or 'correct' a posting, that's how it works. And if you don't agree with what someone is posting, it is your right to say so. If it is accepted or not is another matter.

Everyone here has something to offer and you have clearly demonstrated that you do.

During the Republic, dragoons were officially described as belonging to the light cavalry (Décret du 16 nivôse an II – according to Bardin).
Evidently, during the Empire, dragoons were no longer considered pure cavalry officially, neither heavy nor light, but were described as "arme mixte". Not in the sense of "something in between heavy and light cavalry" but meaning that they were trained as both cavalry and infantry. Anything else was not at issue. Obviously, the idea that dragoons should be seen as "cavalerie moyenne" and should be described accordingly was quite alien to Napoleon, even if dragoons actually performed as "cavalerie moyenne" (or as "heavy", or as "light"…) on many occasions. So, it seems that, during the Empire, dragoons were not only not counted among either the heavy or the light cavalry, they weren't considered medium cavalry either.
That's why, to my knowledge, they were never called "cavalerie moyenne" or "cavalerie de ligne" in any official documents. I think, if the concept of "cavalerie moyenne" had really been present at the time, the term would definitely have been used in the" Ordonnance Provisoire Pour la Cavalerie" (an XIII/re-edited in 1813), which is not the case.
There we read about "Cavalerie" (in general, but mostly meaning "grosse cavalerie"), "Cavalerie Légère" and, distinguished from the other two in terms of organization and tactics, "Dragons" (in terms of harness, however, dragoons are mentioned along with the [heavy] cavalry).
"Chevau-Légers (Lanciers)" are another branch mentioned seperately but definitely are not related in any way to the dragoons. In my opinion, they were clearly counted among the light cavalry. After all, the term "Chevau-Légers" is self-explaining enough, and they were equipped correspondingly.

Agree.

Good post-very well done.