"The Great Cavalry Debate" Topic

Of possible interest?

PDF link

Amicalement
Armand

I thought so yes.

My first reaction was "Debate? What debate?". Evolution of firearms and esp Mr Maxim's contribution made the sword-armed cavalry charge, on the battlefield, increasingly suicidal as the 19th C passed. However, the many roles of cavalry (light cavalry largely), as listed in this article, still applied.

But now as dragoons, using their horses for mobility and acting as infantry when in action. Even in modern conflicts some role, provided absolute air superiority and a terrain where vehicles simply cannot go (eg WWI and II Eastern Front or Afghanistan today).

This article is good at the history of the debate, rather than offering such (thank goodness). It gets very interesting later on, as it covers WWI.

Good find (how does he do it?)

(Grin)

There was indeed a major debate. The introduction of the lance in the late decades of the 19th century – to be only dumped for good during the Great War – shows that many still though it would be up to the steel and not the gun. Thats the "Great Cavalry Debate".

Agree – good read and I really like how the author goes over the evolution of what tack and gear cavalry wore

Thanks for posting!

Happy you enjoyed it my good friends!. (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

The "cavalry debate" is just one part of the whole "elan and bravery can overcome" argument still fostered by many nations military architects right up to and even after 1914!

it was a genuine argument that well led, motivated troops could rise to the occasion despite whatever defence their enemy put up – sounds bonkers I know, but that was the theory.

The "impact" of a full blooded cavalry charge; or infantry attack was believed able to carry the day, even though the ACW; Franco-Prussian, Boer and Russo-Japanese Wars had all pretty much broken this myth :)

Agree!

Amicalement
Armand