"Cavalry Against Artillery-Examples" Topic

The Napoleonic Wars became the age of the artillery battle and as the wars progressed artillery came into its own as a battlefield force, equal to the other two major combat arms, the infantry and cavalry. It could be said that artillery was in the ascendant, and cavalry was beginning a long-slow descent as firepower came to dominate the battlefield.

Cavalry against artillery is an interesting case to investigate and there are at least four examples of artillery fighting against cavalry when artillery had the advantage.

The first example is Senarmont at Friedland in 1807, when, during his attack against the Russian center, he destroyed it and changed the course of the action. When engaged against the Russian infantry, he was attacked by the Russian Guard cavalry on his left flank. Turning his artillery to face the new threat, he engaged the Russian horse with two volleys of canister which quite literally blew the Tsar's picked cavalrymen off the field.

The second example is Drouot's artillery action against the allied horse at Hanau in 1813. Bringing his Guard artillery into action against Wrede's command the French artillery was charged by the allied cavalry. Drouot so depleted the allied horse that those survivors who actually reached the French gun line were fought off by the French gunners, and the Grenadiers a Cheval of the Imperial Guard counterattacked driving off the remnants.

The third example was at Albuera in Spain in 1811. The defeated French infantry of Girard's V Corps were tumbling down in a rout that prohibited the corps artillery under General Bourgeat from crossing the stream at the ford. The quick-witted Bourgeat organized the corps artillery into two large batteries, one of 12-pounders assigned to his chief of staff, Colonel Bouchu, and the remainder under his personal command, and the 29 field pieces not only showed a bold front to pursuing allied cavalry, but by vigorous fire action prohibited them interfering further with the French infantry and allowed the infantry to rally around their eagles. Bourgeat was supported by a battalion of the 12th Legere which had remained intact and by Latour-Maubourg's French cavalry, which had earlier overrun and destroyed a British infantry brigade.

Lastly, at Waterloo, a French Guard foot artillery company at the end of the action which had run out of ammunition stood by their guns with lighted portfires and bluffed pursuing British cavalry into halting, giving their comrades a few precious minutes to leave the battlefield.
The conclusion that can be reached with these four examples, and there are undoubtedly more, is that cavalry did not fare too well against well-handled and disciplined artillery.

Kevin, what are the primary sources for the examples from Hanau and Waterloo?

12 pounders at Albuera – I'm skeptical.

Stephen

You're right-it should read a battery of 12 guns. Good catch and well done.

K

I doubt that anyone doubted that a well served battery of artillery could give cavalry a bad day.

Thanks Kevin!….

Amicalement
Armand

As far as I can tell from all the examples in the litterature it was mainly about flank protection. If cavalry coudl maneuvre against open flanks the artillery would retreat. On the other hand et Eggmuhl the french cavalry frontally attacked the austrian artillery in the redoubt with succes in spite of it being supproted by austrian cavalry.

Generally it seems that artillery thought itself to be dependent on a supprting unit of infantry or cavalry to be sure o defending a piece of terrain (At Hanaa the guard cavalry was in support). This is also reflected in the original Reisswitz kriegspiel rules – a good test of period thoughts on tactics – where an attack on an artillery unit is a contest with its supporting u nit more than the battery per se.

Mercer's account at Waterloo is probably the best known, but I do have some doubts, previously expressed here and causing great upset. Understatement of one's achievements was not the style of that era….as any account shows.

OK, he had the advantage of the slope, the crest for some protection, the obstacles (ie their predecessors!) in front of the attacking cavalry etc, but I simply cannot work out how his guns achieved a rate of fire sufficient to halt, "Single handedly?", what seemed to be a determined frontal attack by cavalry.

At Hanau the artilery was only saved by the just in time counter charge of cuirassiers, otherwise the Bavarian chevaulgers would have destroyed the French battery.

And yes I doubt that artillery – unsupported could give any other unit a bad day, the effect of artillery is overrated in modern wargaming.

Reisswitz – re edition in 1828 reduced the effect of artillery, without support, either from infantry or cavalry artillery will be taken, in my view a sound rule.

Drouots ADC notes :
The Emperor gave order to the General Drouot to gather thirty or forty cannon of the Guard, to silence the enemy artillery (nota bene – counter battery fire – which so some world famous artillery expert never existed) (…) Never the less the General Drouot reached it and took position on edge of the forests with a marvelous speed; a quarter of an hours was enough for him to extinguish the enemy fire (nota bene – counter battery fire with effect). But then the prince Wrède mad a charge on our batteries, which were supported by no infantry (nota bene – lack of support troops were noted); the general Drouot loaded his guns with canister shot and waited till the cavalry charge was nearly upon him till he fired … the enemy horsemen who followed, arrived almost on our guns it was a cirtical moment; he general Drouot who was on foot, had drawn his sword, gunners had amred themselves with ram rods and with trail spikes (nota bene – the effect of canister was not enough to stop the Bavarian cavalry and the French gunners readied themselves for hand to hand combat).
Fortunately the General Nansouty had cleared the wood behind us and emerged on our right; overturning everything which was in his way.(so the French cavalry had the credit to save the artillery)"
(Vie de la Planta, cited in Dawson : Les Brutal The Guard Foot Artillery 1797 to 1815, p.197 / 198

At one of the battles in 1809 an Austrian artillery position was rolled up by cavalry.

Conculsion, usually artillery needed support and protection to withstand infantry or cavalry charges (the Rajaevski redout was captured by cavalry at Borodino).

It is so interesting how the mirroring of these effects (counterbattery and support for artillery) in wargame rules make th battles work historically :-)

Whose cuirassiers were employed?

Nansouty commanded the Guard Cavalry in 1813-1814 and so commanded no cuirassiers.

See Grand Artilleurs by Maurice Girod de l'Ain. While Drouot was supported by Guard cavalry at Hanau, there is no evidence that he would have been destroyed at Hanau.

@ deadhead

Mercer's immediate flanks were secured on two squares of Brunswick infantry. Beyond those were more squares. The cavalry advancing would have to veer quite widely past those to avoid his fire, which probably wouldn't even have been possible given the density of the attacks. Even if thet attempted this they would be exposed to flanking fire.

So I suspect that the cavalry couldn't avoid his fire and he couldn't miss. Canister on top of ball at 50 yards' range….blimey O'Riley…

"[Sénarmont] was attacked by the Russian Guard cavalry on his left flank. Turning his artillery to face the new threat, he engaged the Russian horse with two volleys of canister which quite literally blew the Tsar's picked cavalrymen off the field."

Nothing like this happened, except that Séramont fired on some Russian guard cavalry to his left – which I suppose in Sénarmont's vivid imagination and that of our colleague, amounts to some kind of literal blowing away. Hurrah ! Hurrah! Hurrah!

What actually happened ….

The Russian Guards cavalry in 1807 consisted of 30 squadrons total. These 30 squadrons did not attack the French artillery under Sénarmont at Friedland – only 4 squadrons of the Horse Guards were in action anywhere near Sénarmont. So that would but more like "attacked by *13% of* the Russian Guard cavalry".

Except that's not right either.

The Russian Horse Guards, at 8 in the evening, "under fire from 30 pieces of artillery" (which they just ignored) advanced and attacked Nansouty's cuirassiers who were with Motier's infantry to the left of Sénarmont. The first three squadrons of Horse Guards broke through the leading sqadrons of cuirassiers and were up on the infantry when taken in the flank by Nansouty's reserve. The 4th squadron of Horse Guards, under Guards Cavalry-Captain Prince Vadbol'skiy, counter-charged the cuirassiers and the Horse Guards were able to disengage. They were then ordered, as part of the general retreat, to depart the battlefield.

The whole episode is rather famous, well covered in the regimental histories of the Horse Guards and mentioned in at least two of the regimentals for Nansouty's cuirassiers. There is even a painting ….

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. Frederick II of Prussia.

4th Cuirassier….good point! They could not outflank, they could only come head on.

The Light Brigade did manage it 40 years later, but I must admit, I would not relish it!

Slightly later you've Von Bredow's cavalry brigade charging against essentially Napoleonic artillery at the battle of Mars-La-Tour in 1870.

Von Bredow used terrain and smoke to conceal his movements and only had to charge over open ground for the last 1,000 yards. His losses were, by the end, just over 50% of the 800 men in his cavalry brigade.

@Le Breton

Thanks for the message and painting, I really like the Horse Guards uniforms of 1807

American confederate cavalryman Forrester:

"There aint't no good way to charge an artillery battery"

There are other examples of cavalry successfully charging artillery. Kellerman's cavalry did it at Austerlitz. However, it was the cavalry speed and ability to get at the flanks of artillery that were the greatest threat. Head-on charges were debated at the time by most cavalrymen, but like infantry, cavalry didn't want to charge head-on into the guns…even though the Light Brigade at Balaclava actually succeeded against A LOT of artillery.

Here is a discussion about cavalry attacking artillery recounted by Cavalry Captain Brotherton:

At Fuentes d'Onor[British habit of putting 'r's on Spanish words] we had a very fine fellow, Captain Knipe, killed through his gallant obstinacy, if I may call it so. We had the night before been discussing the best mode for cavalry to attack batteries in the open field. He maintained, contrary to us all, that the ought to be charged in front, instead of the usual way of gaining their flanks, and thereby avoiding their fire. Poor fellow, the experiment the next day, in support of his argument, was fatal to him. He had the opportunity of charging one of the enemy's batteries, which he did by attacking it immediately in front, and got through the discharge of round-shot with little loss, but the enemy having most rapidly reloaded with grape, let fly at his party, at a close and murderous distance, almost entirely destroying it; he himself receiving a grape-shot, passing through his body. The shot went through his lungs. I was with the poor fellow next morning, as long as he survived. He could speak distinctly, and was most composed and resigned, and even argued the point over again.

Brotherton, A Hawk at War, pp. 41-42. Author's emphasis.

I imagine that Captain Knipe was commanding a squadron or smaller 'party'. Note the statement about the "usual way" of attacking artillery and that the artillery was well-served, reloading "most rapidly."

In both Russian and French sources, the Russian Guard cavalry attacking Senarmont's artillery battery is well documented.

Nansouty's heavy cavalry division was posted on the French left flank in and around Heinrichsdorf under the overall command of Grouchy, who was acting as chief of cavalry as Murat was not present..They were not near Senarmont's position opposite the Russian center and west of Friedland.

Yermelov commented on the Russian Guard Cavalry, which were attached to Bagration's command that 'The cavalry of the Guard no longer showed their usual gallantry.'

The Russian Guard cavalry was attached to Bagrations command and were in the center of the Russian line. One of the Russian cavalry troopers who participated in the charge commented that 'We saw nothing before us but flames and smoke.'

The facts of Senarmont's action, including his ammunition expenditure and the damage he caused to the Russian center is fully documented.

Napoleon remarked to Senarmont after the battle that Senarmont had 'made my success.'

The material is readily available and in print if anyone is interested.

From Cavalry Outpost Duties by Antoine de Brack, on Attacking Artillery with Cavalry, 210-211:

Question: ‘The Drill Book, I believe, directs artillery to be charged by cavalry as foragers?'

Answer: ‘The formation is a good one when the ground is smooth and the pieces exposed; but what the drill book does not say is, that even upon smooth ground it is necessary, before attempting to charge a battery, to have the ground reconnoitered by a few bold and well-mounted scouts, not numerous enough nor close enough together to tempt the enemy to waste projectiles on them. Without taking that precaution one risks being brought up standing before attaining the object desired, and being obliged to retreat with no other result than the loss of some of his men. This precaution was taken by General Colbert at Wagram, when the Emperor ordered him to charge the Austrian center; and it was that which, by saving his brigade from useless losses, enabled him, an hour later, to take so brilliant a part in the final victory.'

‘All terrains in war, and especially those upon which batteries are placed, are not smooth; the elevations necessary to enable the pieces to be pointed generally indicate corresponding depressions, sunken roads, ravines, undulations in front of them, which it is necessary to know and take advantage of, to protect the advance of the troops and shelter them from projectiles from the outset of the charge. When once begun, in this case more than any other, is rapidity of gait a guarantee of success.'

‘One more thing to remember is, that, if the battery you charge is supported by infantry, the charge should be so directed as to keep the guns between you and the infantry. The fear of killing their artillerymen will stop the infantry fire.'

‘The best method of capturing a battery, especially in undulating ground, is to make a false attack with one half of your troops, and charge the guns with the other.'

Yermolov *did not* report any attack by the Guard Cavalry on Sénarmont.

Yermolov's comments that Mr. Brechtel quotes come from page 257 of "Russian Eyewitness Accounts of the Campaign of 1807" by Alexander Mikaberidze:
"Around 6:00 PM Napoleon arrived and the entire French army, too. With a forest concelaing their movements, masses of French gathered aginst our left; a battery of 40 guns was delpoyed on the edge of the forest and a fierce cannonade began. Because of the close range, the artillery fire was direct and our reargurd's cavalry greatly suffered from it. The rearguard was soon retreating as well. The army soon began withdrawing to the bridges. The only way to reach the main bridge was through the city itself. Chaos reigned in the narrow streets and this was further increased by the enemy artillery. Based on the direction of the enemy columns, it was obvious that they intended to cut us off from the crossing; to delay them, the Life Guard Izmailovskii and Pavlovskii Grenadier regiments made an attaack, but that same ghastly battery halted their gallant assault and the regiments turned back.
"The cavalry of the [Russian Imperial] Guard no longer showed their usual gallantry. I managed to cross the river via the nearest pontoon bridge wit the rearguard's artillery but it was already under enemy fire and of it was damaged. …."

On page 107 of "Alexey Yermolov's Memoirs" by Alexander Mikaberidze, the passage is translated:
"Its distinguishing gallantry was no longer with the cavalry of the Guard."

The passage in the Russian original is:
"Не далее провожала конную гвардию отличная ее храбрость."
link

I would translate this as :
"No further were the horse guards accompanied/attended by their distinguishing bravery."

And note that in interpreting the manuscript, a small difference in capitalization would give the reading:
"No further was the [regiment of] Horse Guards accompanied/attended by their distinguishing bravery."

Anyway – nothing in Yermolov says anything about cavalry attacking Sénarmont. So our colleague Mr. Brechtel is just thowing smoke at us to cite this passage.

Mr. Brechtel, you claimed that such a cavalry vs. artillery "example" existed.
Please provide primary source information, other than Sénarmont's own "boasting", stating that any Russian Guards cavalry attacked Sénarmont.

"What do you mean by attacking a battery in front, contrary to all the usages of warfare and custom of the service?"

Lord Raglan, 25th October 1854

artillery was extremley vulnerable to be taken, a true support arm, important, but depending on the protection of infantry and cavalry.

Belle Alliance in case the artillery was so good – why then couldn't neither the Allied guns, nor the French – stop cavalry charges??

The British guners had to abandon their guns and look for shelter in the squares.

And what of the British heavy cavalry reaching and causing damage at the French gun-line?

And all these guns abandoned on the battlefields of Europe must have been so for many reasons, including the crew being in danger from cavalry advances thus abandoning their guns, which in anyone's book the gun(s) would be classed as being lost due to cavalry action.

Paul :)

At the battle of Balaklava, while the Light Brigade made their costly but successful, attack on the 12-gun Cossack battery in the North Valley, on their left 150 men of the French Chasseurs d'Afrique charged a 14-gun battery on the Fedoukine Heights, taking them in the flank and forced them to withdraw.

Yes – artillery needed infantry or cavalry protection – otherwise they would loose guns or would have to withdraw much earlier to avoid capture
Senarmont had two full battalions at Friedland for protection

Nolan is reported to have sketched in chalk on the wall of the regimental stables how a cavalry regiment could take an artillery battery from the front. It relied on crossing the ground fast enough that the horsemen would be among the guns before many of them were brought to the ground.

It was possible all right, just costlier than he envisaged.

I imagine that the 14 cannon to the left of them and the 32 cannon to the right, with the added fire of several battalions of infantry, must have severely compromised Nolan's notional scheme.

@42f

No doubt. I forget the book I read about it in, but Nolan was looking at it exactly like a wargamer. He sketched out move distances and how long in minutes it would take to cover it, converted it into rounds fired by the battery and hence determined that it was possible.

I used to do the same – work out the charge distance of light cavalry (42cm) then estimate artillery effects at the average range and hence that it was possible for a cavalry regiment to charge a battery frontally.

In both cases, when you do it for real some other factor you didn't think about crops up. What is quite impressive about Nolan is that he was proposing to be among the charging cavalry himself, so these weren't hypothetical losses to little metal figures that he was contemplating.

Lieutenant Frisenberg, serving in Fynske Infantry Regiment in the Battle of Sehested 10th December 1813, wrote an interesting passage in his memoirs:

"The artillery opened the fight by shooting holes in the enemy infantry masses, and in return they fired at us. The 2nd Company, where I stood, and even the 6th Company under Captain v. Neckelmann, was ordered forward to cover [support] Artillery Captain v. Fries' Battery. On the day of battle it is always most dangerous to stand as support for the artillery, as all the enemy cannons is aimed at the support of the artillery; because when this [support] is knocked down the artillery is soon at the mercy of the enemy cavalry."

He also tells about the attempts at outflanking their position, which seems to be a standard tactic.