"Napoleonic Wargaming Lancers Under-Rated?" Topic

Seems to me from reading a few historical actions that skilled lancer cavalry dominated it's (mounted)opposition. Are these accounts accurately reflected in wargaming?

Interestingly, the lance was the last cavalry weapon used in the early wars of the 20th century. For reason?

I would be interested in hearing cases of lance armed cavalry performing badly to cast doubts on my limited understanding of the matter.

There is probably a reason the lance/spear was THE main weapon of cavalry for millenia.

French lancers were defeated at Genappes: link

Not that I think the lancers performed badly, but clearly not "dominant" in either part of the action.

Dibble posted some examples here in an old thread (about halfway down page 5): TMP link

Anyone here up for a command or Prussian Napoleonic Landwehr lancers? Spanish Napoleonic lancers? Anyone?

Certain Napoleonic lancer regiments were quite good--but I suspect it was the men and not the weapon. It is, obviously, just what you want against unprepared or disordered infantry. But I think it's telling that the triumph of the lance comes a generation or so after cavalry ceases to be am important arm on the battlefield. It was fashion, not tactics.

Interesting and very specific question.

It asks about skilled lancers…

and only about competency against cavalry.

So we can forget the question of extra training and expense and how effective they could be against squares, let alone broken infantry.

Genappe showed how deadly they could be when squeezed into a mass that simply could not be broken our outfalnked….and how Heavy cavalry could then deal with them when they were once out in the open and slightly dispersed. The old story of the lance being little use for defence of course; you had better get your opponent first thrust, because parrying his stroke is almost impossible.

Was the lance/spear really the main cavalry arm for millennia? OK, Agincourt time and the Renaissance era maybe, but from Rome, through the Normans and Crusades, Elizabethan and ECW, 7years War etc surely the sword/sabre dominated. I speak from profound ignorance I stress, but that never stops me expressing an authoritative statement of fact!

I believe the lance could be pretty formidable in the hands of veteran troopers thoroughly trained in its use, notably the Poles. The longer reach of the lance made it very effective in the first impact of a charge, but it also had a drawback in being a clumsy defensive arm in the close press of a melee after that first impact, where skilled swordsmen might make mincemeat out of lancers.

See? We all posted together and all agree!

how often does that happen here?

I watched a demonstration by a ' French' ( Polish) lancer and his colleagues at Waterloo 2015.

They were galloping around spearing bits of wood on the ground in a very efficient manner. Not nice to be on the receiving end of that!

With respect to cavalry I believe that his Majesty, whilst keen on lancers decreed that the second and any follow up ranks were not to be armed with this weapon as after the initial impact the lance had to be dispensed with as it was not a practical close order weapon.

My rules reflect this. Lancer front ranks get a onus for the impact and then a deduction for any second round of a melee.

Best wishes,

Chris

There has to be a reason why all German Cavalry in WWI were armed with lances.

Personally I think lancers are over-rated, it's quality, by which I mean training, morale, experience, tactics and leadership, that counts far more than equipment. Like so much in Napoleonic warfare I expect the primary effect of the lance was psychological rather than physical.

There has to be a reason why all German Cavalry in WWI were armed with lances.

Possibly because infantry were more likely to be lying down?

Personally I think lancers are over-rated, it's quality, by which I mean training, morale, experience, tactics and leadership, that counts far more than equipment. Like so much in Napoleonic warfare I expect the primary effect of the lance was psychological rather than physical.

I agree with that, I personally think wargaming rules overemphasize "cavalry types" Cuirassier, hussars, chasseurs it's all the same, it's the training, experience of the men and the leadership that really matters.

That said, I still think the lance is the most effective cavalry weapon, and the reason it disappeared was the change from mostly male to mostly firearms. And it took some 200 years to get back into the concept that yeah lance is the most effective cavalry weapon.

But as I said at the start, it's training and leadership that wins not the size of the horse, the armor or not armor their use or the weapon. The Swedish cavalry of the GNW dominated the enemy cavalry including armored lace-armed heavy Winged Hussars.

From all my readings it took a lot of experience to mastera lance, Cossacks everyone writes carried one from a early age so one might think they were the best but we know their war records.

French lancers were defeated at Genappes

French lancers and hussars nearly wiped out a British infantry brigade at Albuera in 1811.

French lancers helped destroy the Union brigade at Waterloo. They hit the brigade in the flank while Farine's cuirassiers hit them in the front.

Pire's lancers ranged over the Quatre Bras battlefield against allied infantry.

Seems to me they did very well. The action you've mentioned was minor and happened in a built up area during the pursuit of the retreating Anglo-Dutch army from Quatre Bras.

How many German Cavalry in WWI used their lances? It was a fashion statement by then.

The Napoleonic second ranks were switched to sabres, not because lances were inferior, but because of the danger they presented to their colleagues in the front rank!

Every incident mentioned by Brechtel was against disorganised/dispersed/uncoordinated units…whether foot or cavalry. Then, they were lethal, because of their longer reach and there was no threat to them.

Brechtel's posting makes the point as to how limited lancers were. Genappe (initially) was a fluke as they were so compressed together…they simply could not have broken…..Albuera, against surprised infantry, any cavalry unit would have slaughtered them…..Union Brigade…as he says, flank attack against blown cavalry. QB they were fine, killing the odd helpless Highland Colonel I guess, until they came up against the 42nd, once a square was formed. Rain pouring down and preventing musketry, God help those in square against lancers, I accept.

Lancers could be lethal….but the question was intended for those of you who throw dice. Face to face, against a similarly "elite" cavalry unit, did the lance give them any SIGNIFICANT advantage?

I love typos- "lace-armed heavy Winged Hussars". Conjures up visions of all these butch Polish cavalry guys waving their handerkerchiefs as the Swedish cavalry bore down on them with bare steel. Probably a minus 4 on combat dice?

They are the deadliest regiment on the tabletop in the In The Grand Manner rules by Peter Gilder. So much so that players routinely target Lancers with artillery as soon as they make an appearance on the table.

lancers totally overated in the Napoleonic period. Albuera, a suprise flank attack, not really the lance that was decisive.Deadhead has covered the other very biased examples. Against decent cavalry they have a slight initial advantage then a distinct disadvantage if they ever get to melee. Maybe the morale impact of being charged by lances is the real battle changer

Also the old statement that militia cavalry armed with lances were poor in their use but it motivated them having them ????

Prussian Landwehr, Russian dragoons with sticks there are a lot of poor examples in the Napoleoic age

I usually rate Austrian Uhlans and Polish lancers as skilled. French lancers in 1815 could argue the same. The certainly made an impression on the Prussians and British.

Remember, it was the Austrian Uhlans who forced the vaunted French Carabiniers to get armour after their 1809 mauling and inspired the French to convert regiments to lancers.

When did lancers start to reappear prior to the Napoleonic Wars, and what prompted their reintroduction?
Someone must have thought it was a good move..though not good enough to re-equip every unit.

Not so sure about that premise. On the Southern part of the Shevardino battlefield, Nansouty sent the Red Lancers of Hamburg against some unidentified Russian cavalry (it was too dark to distinguish clearly), who unfortunately, turned out to be cuirassiers. Thirion de Metz quoted in Mikaberidze's Borodino: "This regiment flew to the attack, delivered its charge and fell on the enemy with felled lances aimed at the body. The Russian cavalry received the shock without budging and, in the same moment as the French lance-heads touched the enemy's chest, the regiment about-faced and came back towards us as if it in turn had been charged." The lancers took shelter behind nearby French cuirassiers.

Lancers looked very martial and threatening, but the took real skill to use and were much more effective against infantry than other cavalry.

I have several accounts of French Carabiniers and different nations' cuirassiers STANDING to take lancer cavalry charges much like the account that Jeffreyw3 gave. several are given in Chlapowski's Memoirs of a Polish Lancer. The win/loss ratio for the Lancers is 1:3. British officer Cocks in his diary describes how French Lancers would customarily drop their lances after or at times before the initial charge to use their sabers.

It is interesting, though, that the British converted four light dragoon regiments to lancers in 1816…

Possibly because infantry were more likely to be lying down?

It was a rhetorical question.

Many "lancer" regiments had lance only in first rank. Something to ponder.

Didn't the "Red Lancers" get charged and "overthrown" by a Prussian Jaeger battalion in 1813? I remember reading a Prussian[?] general's acoount who thought that they a greater threat to infantry than cavalry.

The British also adopted the Bell top shako, cuirass, and converted more units to hussars 1816-20…. fashion decisions more than any practical military choice.

Lancers, I think, showed no marked advantage in facing other cavalry. To prove it you need to show a consistent pattern of success for lancers against other cavalry.

Nap converted dragoons to lancers so clearly a need was identified. Not saying they were superhuman but it suggests that the guys on the ground who actually (dare I say it) knew what they were talking about, thought it a good idea Just sayin'

Great discussion guys! Thanks for the examples and insights. I do believe personally it was a fearsome weapon, but maybe had limitations especially against armor? Training seems to play a large role also.

So many examples of devastating effects and others of sub par performance.

Horse heights.

Rider with sabre on tall horse = many, many infantry headache
Rider with sabre on short horse/pony = laughing infantry & pony/rider get bayonetted.

Rider with lance on tall horse = infantry headache (from lance heel)
Rider with lance on short horse/pony = infantry run-through

Lance gives power to badly-mounted cavalry.

Nap converted dragoons to lancers so clearly a need was identified. Not saying they were superhuman but it suggests that the guys on the ground who actually (dare I say it) knew what they were talking about, thought it a good idea Just sayin'

Because Napoleon thought and did something doesn't mean it actually matters.

Napoleon might have thought it had an effect, does that mean it did? No, people think not washing their underwear makes them lucky in football without any evidence.

Or he might have thought they looked cool/scary

He might have thought it compensated for the fact that the quality of his cavalry was decreasing.

Even smart people do lots of stuff that is based on a feeling or an idea that had no basis in reality.
Did the French need both Hussars and Chasseurs? No, they are the same cavalry except for the uniform.

Napoleon converted dragoons to lancers so clearly a need was identified. Not saying they were superhuman but it suggests that the guys on the ground who actually (dare I say it) knew what they were talking about, thought it a good idea. Just sayin'

It may also have been experimental to see if there was a distinct benefit, rather than because a specific need had been identified.

I guess what I would be looking for here is:

Did the French in the early parts of the war particularly fear Allied lancers?

Did the British show an undue fear/respect for French lancers?

What did Napoleon say were his reasons?

Did the Allies note an increase in the efficiency of French cavalry after it adopted the lance?

Sheesh.

Sheesh.

?

Because Napoleon thought and did something doesn't mean it actually matters.

I couldn't disagree more.

Of course, he was an ignorant barbarian born too early to benefit from 1990s diversity awareness training. That was his misfortune and loss. Thus he never learnt that Neapolitan troops were in fact every bit as good as grenadiers à cheval, a point on which he was mistaken.

On most Napoleonic military matters, however, the opinion of Napoleon, the greatest military commander since Alexander the Great, and the man who gave his name to the era, are generally worth hearing.

If Napoleon thought it was a good idea to have a certain number of cuirassiers and lancers in your army, we can be sure it was. If only he'd wised up and organised his army into "stands"! Imagine how much better Waterloo would have gone if he'd understood Wellington's "zones of control"!

Excellent posting.

It may also have been experimental to see if there was a distinct benefit, rather than because a specific need had been identified.
I guess what I would be looking for here is:
Did the French in the early parts of the war particularly fear Allied lancers?
Did the British show an undue fear/respect for French lancers?
What did Napoleon say were his reasons?
Did the Allies note an increase in the efficiency of French cavalry after it adopted the lance?

Find any answers yet, or are you actually looking?

"Russian dragoons with sticks – there are a lot of poor examples in the Napoleoic age"

Actually, the specific "dragoons with sticks" were rather carefully chosen, and seemed to have had rather large numbers of troopers from ethic or "national" groups well known for using lances. Additionaly, in most cases, there appears to have been several months of light duty during which the conversion was effected.

The Yamburg, Orenburg, Siberia, Zhitomir, Vladimir, Taganrog, and Serpukhov Dragoon regiments were ordered to convert to Lancers at the end of 1812.

The Orenburg and Siberia dragoons, unusually for the Russian military, had actually been stationed and largely manned in the places of their geographical names. So their ranks would have quite many Ural and Siberian cossacks, and even baptized Kalmyks, all well acquinted with the use of the lance. These regiments were made a part of the western Russian forces only in late 1810 (both in the 3rd Reserve cavalry corps, 1st Western army). During 1813, they were converted to lancers while part of Benigsen's Polish army, supporting the reductions of the various fortified places in Poland and Germany.

In late 1806, the Orenburg and Siberia dragoons were divided to form new regiments, the Yamburg and Serpukhov dragoons (the remainder of the regiments to be completed with recruits), so again there would be a cadre who already knew the use of the lance. The Yamburg dragoons fought with the 1st Separate corps defending the approach to Saint Petersburg in 1812. They converted to lancers while supporting the seige of Danzig in 1813. The Serpukhov dragoons had served in the Crimea until mid-1812, where they recruited from Bug and Ukrainian Cossacks and some baptized Tatars, all used to the lance. They joined the main conflict with the French at the Berezina, and seemed to have had no special break in active serivce to convert to lancers.

The Zhitomir dragoons had been formed in Podolia governate (central western Ukraine) late in 1805 from 4 squadrons taken from dragoon and cuirassier regiments. They recruited mostly from southen Lithuanians (including some batized Tatars), and Ukrainian cossacks. They had been posted to the western border of the Ukraine through 1812. They joined the main conflict with the French at the Berezina, and seemed to have had no special break in active serivce to convert to lancers.

The Vladimir and Taganrog dragoons had formed part of forces in the southern Ukraine for decades, and were largely recruited from among the Bug Cossacks and "fellow-believer" emigrés from the Balkans. They had been stationed in the Crimea for many years prior to 1812. They seem to have been converted to lancers before joining the main conflict with the French after the armistice in 1813

===================

"Napoleon converted dragoons to lancers so clearly a need was identified."

The idea was to equip each curassier division going into Russia with 1-2 lancer regiments, to scout and forage and stop harrassment by Russian hussars and cossacks, to avoid tiring out the heavy cavalry's larger mounts. In addtion to 2 Polish regiments ex- Vistula Legion (already lanced armed), it was decided to re-equip 6 veteran French dragoon regiments which were to be withdrawn from Spain for refitting anyway.

This actually took longer than expected, so that rather few of the new lancers saw service in Russia.

@ Le Breton

That's really interesting stuff, especially on the Russians, about whom I am not that well informed.

Of course as gamers we tend to value units chiefly according to their tactical value. Typically, cuirassiers are better than dragoons are better than hussars, so to a wargamer, the only reason for converting a unit from one troop type to another would be to obtain an improvement.

In reality, no such oversimplified consideration seems to have applied. The Austrians converted dragoons to chevaux-legers wholesale. The French converted dragoons to lancers. The Russians converted not only dragoons but also cuirassiers to lancers (thanks, I never knew that). After 1815 the British converted light dragoons to lancers.

The rationale could be to obtain a gamey type of improvement (hussars to lancers) but equally it could have been to reduce the cost of the unit without much reducing its effectiveness. So you took your dragoons off their dragoon horses, put them on light cavalry horses, and gave them a lance; hey presto, still on a par with dragoons, but less fodder, cheaper to buy, etc.

This left more heavy mounts for the heavy cavalry, which might also be why you'd convert cuirassiers to lancers.

I'm only surprised nobody ever gave an actual armoured cuirassier unit lances. If a lance was generally better than a sword, surely a cuirassier with a lance was better than a cuirassier with a sword? It would seem not.

That is interesting. The one example of the lancers winning against Cuirassiers in Chlapowski's Memoirs of a Polish Lancer are Russian Lancers and Cossacks in 1812.

I couldn't disagree more.

As I said, even the smartest people do stuff that isn't based on evidence or reality.

Did Napoleon need both hussars and Chasseurs?
Did he need Cuirassiers and carabiners?
No, he bought into the ideas of his time just like everyone else.
Napoleon did many mistakes, had many ideas not based on reality, he wasn't an all-knowing god of war.

The six French dragoon regiments that were converted to lancers in 1811 did not encompass the entire regiment in each case.

What Napoleon ordered for the five dragoon regiments that were in Spain was instead of recalling the entire regiment in each case, only the regimental headquarters and the cadres of two squadrons were recalled.

The cadres consisted of the officers, NCOs, trumpeters, and ten picked dragoons per company. The remainder of the regiments horses and personnel were divided among the dragoon regiments that remained in Spain.

The cadres once they had returned to France were filled up with recruits and replacements. The dragoon regiments so 'converted' were the 1st, 3d, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 29th. These became the 1st, 2d, 3d, 4th, 5th, and 6th Chevau-legers Lanciers, respectively.

The organization and training of the new lancer regiments went slowly, but at least one squadron of them were assigned to each of the cuirassier divisions for the invasion of Russia.

The lancers were light cavalry.

The Poles were considered the best lancers in Europe. The lance was the traditional weapon of the Polish cavalry.

France did not have any lancer units when war began in 1792. The only lancer unit noted in the French army before 1792 belonged to Marshal de Saxe. That unit had been largely made up of Poles.

Russia, Prussia, and Austria had been known to recruit their lancer units from their Polish 'subjects' who came under their rule because of the partitionings of Poland in the 1790s.

After the wars began, Polish volunteers went to serve France against their traditional enemies and formed light cavalry units that eventually became the famous Vistula Legion which ended up having two regiments of lancers. Another was added by the Polish light cavalry of the Imperial Guard who adopted the lance in 1809. The Lancers of Berg were also formed as were the 2d Lancer regiment of the Guard from the Dutch Garde a Cheval, the last in 1810.

The six line lancer regiments were formed in 1811-1812 along with arming the 30th Chasseurs a Cheval with lances. That gave the French two Guard lancer units, one quasi-Guard lancer unit, and nine line lancer units.

These would be supplemented by the Guard Eclaireurs units in late 1813-1814.

Combined with this were the lancer regiment of the Duchy of Warsaw and later the Lithuanian lancer regiments-separate from the Polish regiments but numbered in sequence.

Lastly, a Gendarme lancer unit, the Lanciers Gendarmes, was formed in Spain. They were sometimes referred to as Gendarmes Chevau-legers.

"Russia, Prussia, and Austria had been known to recruit their lancer units from their Polish 'subjects' who came under their rule because of the partitionings of Poland in the 1790s."

Actually the Russians equipped essentially all cavalry that was not ethnically Russian with lances. This had included all sorts of units of Ukrainians, and emigré Balkans, Moldovans, Romanians and so under the reign of Catherine. By the end of Paul's reign in 1801, these units were lance-armed:

Lieb-Cossack regiment
Lieb-Ural sotynya
1st Chuguev regiment
2nd Chuguev regiment
1st Teptyar regiment
2nd Teptyar regiment
Lithuanian Tatar Horse regiment
Polish Horse regiment
Don Cossack host
Black Sea Cossack host
Siberian Cossack host
Orenburg Cossack host
Ural Cossack host
Astrakhan Cossack host
Greben Cossack settlement
Terek Cossack settlement
Seminye Cossack settlement
Khoper Cossack settlement
Volga Cossack settlement
Mozdok Cossack settlement
Mozdok Mountain command
Stravropol Baptized Kalmyk command

Negotiations were in process at this time with the still independent (but lance-armed) animist Nogai in the Caucasus and the Buddhist Kalmyks of the steppes about Astrakhan, which later brought more lance-armed units into the Russian service (1803)

Indeed, the Polish Horse regiment was raised from *volunteer* ethnic Poles in territory acquired from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Virtually none of this territory is today part of Poland (but instead Lithuania, Belarus and the Ukraine). The Lithuanian Tatar regiment was the same, but from ethnic Lithuanians and Tatars. The unit was soon split along this ethnic divide into two regiments as the number of volunteers became sufficiently large (1803). Similarly, the Volhynia regiment was later composed of ethnic Ukrainians from this territory (1807).
The Russian territorial aquisitions :
link

====================

"The Poles were considered the best lancers in Europe."

By whom in the era? – and how far east did they think "Europe" extended?

One thing that is evident: The number of lancer regiments and regiments given lances [in the first rank] grew over the 20 years of war, from the French to Prussians and Russian regiments so there were many more lance-armed cavalry in 1813-14 than 1805.

Whether that had much to do with the actual performance of light cavalry wielding lances is more debatable. It required time to be proficient in their use, which means one more set of skills lancers had to aquire.

Lance-armed cavalry was 1. impressive with hundreds of pennants flying and 2. Certainly had a psychological impact regardless of the competency of the cavalry itself.

Let us not forget one other unit of lancers in French service (albeit only briefly) : the (nominally) 4 squadrons (established at a total of 496 men, including officers) of "dragons-piquers" of the Légion germanique forrmed per the law of 4 septembre 1792.
link

Perhaps this might be of interest?

link

Interesting that with all these nations creating lancers nobody has easily found a quote from a contemporary general or military theorist as to why the change was made and what they though lancers could do better than others.

If no such opinion can be found it might be as has been hinted that the lance was just a way to make the troopers feel more confident at getting to close quarters.

That might explain new units being so armed, but there appears to be quite a few experienced and good quality troops also making the change.

The apparent ability of lancers to really chew through disadvantaged infantry might just be a happy accident of their weaponry.

Regards

David F Brown