"Napoleonic British Heavy Dragoons Review" Topic
6 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Product Reviews Message Board Back to the Plastic Figures Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral Napoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticlePegboards can be used for wargaming campaigns.
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 16 Nov 2020 9:58 p.m. PST |
"Britain's cavalry did not enjoy a good reputation during the Napoleonic Wars, particularly with their own commanders. Wellington once said he considered his own cavalry inferior to that of the French "…for want of order", and that was the point. The heavy cavalry were brave but suffered from a lack of training, which meant they had to learn much of their trade when on campaign. Far worse, they were arrogant and had little discipline, so when they charged an enemy they often chased them for kilometres and turned a success into a disaster as they were either absent for the rest of the battle, or were caught and broken by fresh enemy troops. Waterloo was a classic disaster for the heavies, but their reputation went back much further than that. In the Peninsular war the heavy cavalry were little represented for much of the time, partly because of this reputation, and partly because the terrain often did not favour massed cavalry action. Nevertheless heavy charges did occur such as at Salamanca in 1812, so a set of British heavy dragoons for the period was long overdue. We will get straight to by far the most obvious characteristic of this set, which is the vast difference in the size of the figures. This is evident in our photo, with the figure on the left being about 23.5mm in height and the two on the right about 21.5mm. That is a difference of 14cm (or five inches if you prefer), which is certainly within the natural variety of human heights then and now, but it means the smaller men are only 155cm tall, which was small even at the start of the 19th century, and particularly for heavy cavalrymen, who were supposed to be the bigger, heavier men. Worse yet, the proportions are the same, so not only is the man much smaller, but so too is his sword and equipment, which cannot be explained away. So our stated average height is pretty meaningless here, and in our view the two smaller figures are much too small for heavy cavalry…"
Full Review here link
Amicalement Armand |
Tango01 | 17 Nov 2020 12:19 p.m. PST |
Sad there are too few poses…. Amicalement Armand
|
4th Cuirassier | 17 Nov 2020 1:39 p.m. PST |
I like my cavalry in a variety of poses and my foot all in much the same pose… |
Bill Slavin | 17 Nov 2020 2:30 p.m. PST |
Yes, it seems there are a few sad thongs about this set. But I have five boxes, so I guess I will use them! |
Widowson | 17 Nov 2020 7:12 p.m. PST |
Two big guys with big swords. Two little guys with little swords. Only two horse poses. Bah. |
Tango01 | 18 Nov 2020 12:21 p.m. PST |
|
|