"The relative rarity of heavy cavalry" Topic

Hi Glenn,

Oh, sure, I see your point of view too. The fact that there was a difference doesn't mean your system is 'wrong' in deeming it too small to reflect in the rules. Nor does it mean a system that does reflect it is necessarily 'right' – it might be given too much weight or represented inappropriately, just as you suggest. As so often with wargames rules, there's more than one right answer.

Chris

I tend to follow the argument that human beings are rational and logical and do things for good reason. By that argument a government would not continue to pay extra for a heavy cavalryman if there wasn't some advantage to him. What's more, if light and heavy cavalry were equal fighters why produce cavalry with less utility in skirmishing and reconnaissance at higher cost? Numerous examples exist of cavalry changing from one type to another, if Cuirassier weren't any better than light cavalry they would have been converted to light cavalry.

Hello Murvihill!

"I tend to follow the argument that human beings are rational and logical and do things for good reason. By that argument a government would not continue to pay extra for a heavy cavalryman if there wasn't some advantage to him."

There was a great advantage. Heavy cavalry were intended to be used as shock troops and in that role they generally performed better than any other cavalry. Who does not want a few Divisions of heavy cavalry under their command?

"What's more, if light and heavy cavalry were equal fighters why produce cavalry with less utility in skirmishing and reconnaissance at higher cost?"

Because they were needed for shock value. Light cavalry were intended to handle the other cavalry requirements such as skirmishing, reconnaissance and infantry support. In the absence of heavy cavalry they also performed those duties.

"Numerous examples exist of cavalry changing from one type to another, if Cuirassier weren't any better than light cavalry they would have been converted to light cavalry."

I don't think anyone has said that Cuirassiers weren't the best suited for shock value. To convert them to light cavalry would be madness.

Best regards,

Glenn

From my Hungary 1848 example, according to Professor Robert Hermann, they differed: "When facing cavalry, chevau-legers and hussars sought to disrupt the enemy cavalry's close order formations and turn the action into a series of single combats. […] Cuirassiers and dragoons on the other hand sought to stay in close order when fighting chevau-legers and hussars."

I have been doing some research and I suspect you are correct. All cavalry could adopt the same density, but lights preferred a looser formation, which gave them a major advantage against heavies, while heavies preferred the classic compact French density of 1 horse per metre, or abouts, which gave them an advantage against lights. Its hard to determine what "loose" formation density was, but it was probably 2-3 metres per horse – with 3 being the more likely. I will need to read more accounts to confirm this, but that is my gut feel at the moment.

As for what a light v a heavy means, as already covered in this thread its all about the size of the horse – perhaps also cavalryman as well although I am uncertain if this extended to nationalities other than the French.

In 1812 (French) the height of horses was as follow:
cuirassiers and carabiniers – . . . . 155 cm – 160 cm
dragoons and artillery – . . . . . . . . .153 cm – 155 cm
chasseurs and hussars – . . . . . . . . 149 cm – 153 cm
lighthorse-lancers – . . . . . . . . . . . . .146 cm – 150 cm
Polish uhlans – . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 cm – 153 cm
Polish Krakusi – . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 cm – 142 cm (nicknamed by Napoleon "my Pygmy Cavalry")

@Murvihill: "I tend to follow the argument that human beings are rational and logical and do things for good reason. By that argument a government would not continue to pay extra for a heavy cavalryman if there wasn't some advantage to him."

Us humans aren't always that sensible. Clausewitz roundly criticises the Austrian army of 1799 for committing far too many cavalry to Germany and Switzerland – many more than were necessary for the cavalry duties required – and says that the money would have been much better spent on a larger number of infantry. See his 1799 histories:
link
link

(I know it looks like I only know about two things – Clausewitz, and Hungary 1848 – but both seemed pertinent here.)

I'm interested in the claim that the weight of heavy cavalry horses was significantly different to that of light cavalry horses so I thought I'd look into it a bit.

This site link
lets you estimate a horse's weight but to do so you need its length as well as its height. Luckily there's a table where they've roughed it out for you.

So taking the top value in pfmodel's range of heights, they approximate to the following heights in hands and hence weights:

cuirassiers and carabiniers 15.7, 580kg
dragoons and artillery 15.3, 530kg
chasseurs and hussars 15.1, 510kg
lighthorse-lancers 14.8, 490kg
Polish uhlans 15.1, 510kg
Polish Krakusi 14.0, 380kg

so it appears the heaviest horses weighed about 15% to 18% more than the lightest (disregarding the outlier Krakusi horse). That's about half the difference I'd have guessed.

It does suggest that a small numerical advantage for lights would cancel most of the weight advantage of heavies, assuming that the it's the overall mass rather than the individual trooper that matters.

As for what a light v a heavy means, as already covered in this thread its all about the size of the horse – perhaps also cavalryman as well although I am uncertain if this extended to nationalities other than the French.

It's the horse, the rider, the sword type, the training and, in the case of both armored an unarmored cuirassiers, the formation. Cavalry columns were a heavy hit just like French and Prussian infantry columns.

This thread got me thinking about how I based my cavalry, so I did my research, detailed in this Video, and now have discovered I need to rebase my medium and heavy cavalry.

I suppose I need to thank this thread as it has allowed me to correct my earlier error, but I really wish I got it right in the beginning. I was happy in my ignorance.