Help support TMP


"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 Interest

General
Napoleonic

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Recent Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article


Featured Profile Article

Pegboards at Dollar Tree

Pegboards can be used for wargaming campaigns.


Featured Book Review


1,189 hits since 16 Nov 2020
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0116 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…"

picture

picture


Full Review here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Tango0117 Nov 2020 12:19 p.m. PST

Sad there are too few poses….


Amicalement
Armand

4th Cuirassier17 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 Slavin17 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!

Widowson17 Nov 2020 7:12 p.m. PST

Two big guys with big swords. Two little guys with little swords. Only two horse poses. Bah.

Tango0118 Nov 2020 12:21 p.m. PST

Glup!…

Amicalement
Armand

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.