"The Dragoons Concept in the Napoleonic Era and " Topic

….in North America.

Interesting… do you agree?

"The natural conflict inherent in the dragoon concept was widely recognized even at the time; namely that to be a fully trained infantry formation, the men most absolutely believe that an infantry square cannot be broken by cavalry; and to be a fully trained cavalry formation, they must absolutely believe that only the very best infantry units can resist a cavalry charge. Clearly any one unit can never hold both beliefs.

In Europe, with it's long tradition of sabres drawn cavalry charges on relatively open battlefields, (Napoleonic Era) dragoons were treated and trained as cavalry who occasionally dismounted. Throughout the continent, Dragoons (except Light Dragoons, who were equivalent to Chasseurs) were treated as Medium cavalry, consisting of larger men on larger horses, but unarmoured, and saw themselves as such.

In North America, the concept of the sabres-drawn cavalry charge never really caught on. This can likely be explained by the absence of a knighthood tradition; the prevalence of rifles instead of muskets as dominant firearm; and the much greater cover on the battlefields that increased the importance of, and need for, skirmishers. In consequence, North American Dragoons were generally treated as, and saw themselves as, mounted infantry…."
From here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Not altogether. The "natural" trend is to put a man on a horse--anything with four legs, really--to get him to the battlefield. But then they decide they're cavalry. They want swords and better horses, and they won't dismount lest they lose caste. You have to raise more mounted infantry and start over. You can see this happening again with mechanized infantry and their "infantry fighting vehicles."

Napoleon's dragoons had almost completely transitioned to cavalry, and the "glory years" dismounted dragoons were purely a symptom of the shortage of horses. I remember an instance of French Napoleonic dragoons actually getting off their horses to fight, and one example is more than I can think of for anyone else's.

And North America has--if not a shortage of horses, a stingier government. I can find you War of 1812 dragoons fighting dismounted because the government sold their horses, or hadn't bought any. But I can't name a single battle in which the US dragoons rode to the battle and dismounted to fight. If they fought dismounted, they marched to the battlefield.

Mounted rifles or mounted volunteers are earlier in the dragoon process--and mostly used in wooded terrain--and will (sometimes) ride to battle and fight on foot. But no one ever called them dragoons, and even at that, there's the Thames. No training for mounted combat, woods--and they still charged on horseback.

ACW is more complicated. But the question was Napoleonic.

Oh. And would someone like to stand in front of William Washington or Light Horse Harry Lee and tell them the concept of the sabres-drawn cavalry charge never caught on in North America? For that matter, consider the British Legion.

It takes year to train battlefield cavalry, and Madison wouldn't pay for horses in peacetime. Nor is a small professional cavalry likely to be where you need it in a war of coastal incursions. But they certainly understood the concept.

Also worth noting that if you have next to no cavalry, they're scouts. Only when you have scouts do you start looking for battlefield cavalry. Worked the same way for the British, which is why you don't see mounted charges at Maida, Vimerio or New Orleans.

Slight correction, the British did make a cavalry charge at Vimeiro. Lt Colonel Taylor was killed leading the 20th Light Dragoons together with Portuguese cavalry in a charge during the closing stages of the battle in front of Vimeiro.

This can likely be explained by ….the prevalence of rifles instead of muskets as dominant firearm;

Now we are getting into American mythology rather than American history. That statement alone renders anything he has to say erroneous, irrelevant and just plain silly.

Robert PiepenBrink wrote: "ACW is more complicated. But the question was Napoleonic."

Why more complicated ? Can you elaborate more on this matter ? I thought during ACW there was just one type of cavalry. It's quite simple as comparing to Napoleonic Wars with all the hussars, lancers, cuirassiers, dragoons, uhlans, chevaulegeres, and chasseurs.

Close-order drill.

Free-thinking and lovin' yanks don't do it. Bone-headed europeans do do it.

"I thought during ACW there was just one type of cavalry."

Osage, like to explain that to assorted "mounted infantry" units? I once ran into the "Umpteenth Somethingstate Mounted Infantry (Dismounted.)" Nor were all units with "cavalry" in the name during the ACW equally trained and equipped for the same types of combat. And while there are a lot of titles in the Napoleonic Wars, the big arguments are generally whether there were two types--heavy and light--or three, counting (non-light) dragoons differently. As I recall, Napoleon insisted on three. He never hesitated to transfer a cuirassier officer to a carabinier regiment, or a chasseur a cheval officer to the hussars. They were titles, not types.

But there are other ways to be complicated. The ACW balance between scouting, dismounted action by mounted units and flat-out old-style cavalry charges is affected by
Terrain
Number of Mounted Troops Available
Length of Training of Said Troops
Weapons Available to Mounted Units
Weapons Available to their Enemies
Condition of the Horses, and
Doctrine

Some of which change as the war goes on. And I bet I'm missing at least one important factor, which was why I said I wasn't going into it.

Carojon, quite right. My apologies. But I'll stand by the overall principle: when your army only has a handful of mounted men, the first thing you want is scouts: any cavalry charge is a bonus.

The mention of Johnson's Mounted Volunteers at the Battle of the Thames in 1813 does not get the facts quite right. First, many books and articles call them mounted rifles, but that is a bit misleading, as Colonel Richard Mentor Johnson actually left it to the discretion of each man whether to carry a rifle or a musket; being Kentuckians, most probably opted for a rifle, but those who were poor shots or had bad eyesight had a better chance with a musket loaded with "buck and ball." The unit did not have sabers, but Johnson wanted each man to carry a tomahawk or hatchet and a knife, and a pair of pistols, if possible. And they were trained for the possibility of mounted action. Johnson had his men take turns charging at a line of their comrades who delivered vollies of blanks to accustom their horses to charging into gunfire (a bit of con-job on the poor gullible beasts). Although Johnson's Regiment is often referred to as mere militia, their actual status is a bit nebulous. I am inclined to think they were actually U.S. Volunteers, a type of temporary federal unit much akin to the volunteer regiments of the American Civil War, but I have never found evidence to prove that beyond doubt.

I know nothing of this, but that never stops me from speaking with authority.

Surely the transition from Napoleonic true cavalry to mounted infantry (dragoons) of the ACW related largely to the firepower the latter could now deliver. They were simply now far more use as highly mobile light infantry than sabre-wielding, large, slow, targets

I remember an instance of French Napoleonic dragoons actually getting off their horses to fight, and one example is more than I can think of for anyone else's.

I recall reading in G. R. Glieg's The Subaltern of British dragoons dismounting to seize and hold a bridge during the fighting in the Pyrenees.

Rick

William Washington's 3rd Continental Lt. Dragoons, and the attached 1st Dragoons during the American Revolution's Southern Campaign operated at times as "heavy cavalry" [not my term, but an illustrative description for employment from the following reference]. It is believed Washington was heavily influenced by German and French officers who brought with them their field experience of Europe's battle cavalry during the 7YW and from tactical theorist of the time (authored texts W. Washington may also have been influenced by).

ref: Cavalry of the Revolution, by Jim Piecuch

Responding here, because this thread has also been link to the AWI forum.

American forces in the south used dragoon tactics effectively. The Mounted gunmen would attempt to encircle the Red Sticks and often had the role of dismounting and setting up a blocking position to the rear of the enemy.

I think cavalry was not in large use in the USA because of the terrain. When the Europeans first arrived in the US they described the entire east coast, Florida to Maine as a vast wilderness, completely covered with virgin forest. Even as they carved farmland out of the countryside the woods represented an impassible terrain feature because the kind of woodgathering taken for granted in Western Europe didn't happen and the undergrowth along the treelines prevented easy passage. And the country was open areas surrounded by woods, not woods surrounded by farmland. Cavalry had its uses but large bodies of cavalry would find very little terrain in which to operate. And because of the prevalence of defensible terrain dragoons would be far more useful than battle cavalry.

At Murvihill,

Depending on the particular time period and exact area, it's easy to overestimate the amount of forest cover in eastern North America. It is true that the whole region was covered by forest at the time of European discovery, except for the limited areas cleared by Indian tribes for cultivation. But by the late 18th century, vast areas had been largely cleared for agriculture, by commercial logging, and for firewood. In the early 19th century there was actually considerable worry that the U.S. would run out of supplies of firewood.

There is actually more woodland in many areas now than there was 200 years ago due to abandonment of the more marginally productive farmland, and the fact that wood is no longer the primary fuel. Many years ago I lived on the Virginia Peninsula within a half-hour drive of Yorktown. There is a painting of the surrender of Cornwallis' army in 1780 by an eyewitness. That shows the countryside as quite open, but it is now again covered with tall trees outside of the built-up areas.

Another pertinent point concerning the War of 1812 American dragoons is that neither of the two regular regiments (eventually consolidated into one regiment)was issued with carbines. I have never seen anything to indicate that they tried to carry standard muskets when mounted, so they could not have functioned effectively in the original dragoon concept. They were trained to charge, and did so unsuccessfully at the Battle of Chrysler's Farm in 1813, being repulsed by British musketry and artillery fire. One squadron served rather effectively against Indians in the Old Northwest, often working in conjunction with companies of U.S. Rangers.

Just to be clear, however, there were never enough horses provided to fully mount the dragoons, so some companies served only on foot, armed with standard infantry muskets.

By the time of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars dragoons had evolved into cavalry and were no longer mounted infantry.

They could, and were armed as such depending on the country, perform a limited dismounted role.

Interestingly, when first organized the French Grenadiers a Cheval were recruited from the dragoon regiments.

Also of interest, is the French sometimes listed them as light cavalry, as were the Grenadiers a Cheval initially.

some of the french dragoons got converted into lancers later…which made them much more akin to light cavalry in their role, despite straight sabres, yes?

My rules treat French Dragoons as heavy when fighting against lights, and as lights when they run into true heavies. Spanish too. British already conveniently already make a distinction. The only time dragoons ever dismount is in skirmish situations, during vedette operations. I have some nice dismounted 28mm dragoons for those games.

Were there ever any heavies that used a lance in any army during the period or perhaps even as early as the 18th century?

The French light-horse lancers were light cavalry.

As a point of interest, most of the cavalry that charged at Eylau in Murat's great charge were dragoons. There was only one division, d'Hautpoul's, that was made up of cuirassiers.

The armoured heavy lancer of the Polish army was in decline during the course of the C18th. By the 1770s their role had been taken over by the light cavalry uhlan.