ChrisBBB2 | 27 Dec 2020 5:09 a.m. PST |
Can knowledgeable TMPers name any decent-sized battles fought between conventional combined-arms forces (ie, significant proportions of infantry, cavalry and artillery) where the victorious side manages to win almost exclusively through the actions of its cavalry and/or artillery, without any significant contribution from its infantry? Before Temesvar (1849), the next I can think of is Rossbach (1757), but surely there must be others? Thanks in advance for any suggestions! Chris Bloody Big BATTLES! groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com |
colonial nic | 27 Dec 2020 5:13 a.m. PST |
Lots of 17th Century battles? You know the type, cavalry wing(s) surge ahead and roll up the flanks/rear before the slower moving infantry lines do anything decisive. |
Brechtel198 | 27 Dec 2020 5:24 a.m. PST |
At New Orleans on 8 January 1815 the main British attack was defeated almost exclusively by American artillery. The overwhelming majority of British casualties was caused by artillery fire. See The British at the Gates by Robin Reilly. |
BillyNM | 27 Dec 2020 5:44 a.m. PST |
If both sides are all-arms it would be hard to find any where infantry were not involved. So if it's just a question of emphasis is the Battle of Warburg, 31 July 1760, the sort of thing you're looking for? |
Allan F Mountford | 27 Dec 2020 5:54 a.m. PST |
The battle of Fere-Champenoise (25 March 1814) might suit at a push, though the victorious Allies had no infantry actually on the field: link |
Brechtel198 | 27 Dec 2020 6:16 a.m. PST |
Good catch Allan! Well done. |
von Winterfeldt | 27 Dec 2020 6:25 a.m. PST |
|
Herkybird | 27 Dec 2020 6:30 a.m. PST |
Almost any of the battles of Alexander the Great! |
cavcrazy | 27 Dec 2020 7:31 a.m. PST |
Have you thought about the ACW battle of Mine Creek? Union cavalry against Confederate infantry, cavalry, and artillery covering the escape of their wagon train….look into it, it's fascinating. |
Nine pound round | 27 Dec 2020 7:36 a.m. PST |
|
42flanker | 27 Dec 2020 9:05 a.m. PST |
Several actions in April-May 1794 around Landrecies and Menin, were won by Austrian and British cavalry breaking French infantry formations: Villers en Cauchies, Landrecies-Beaumont, and Willems. link link link |
Brechtel198 | 27 Dec 2020 9:59 a.m. PST |
Senarmont at Friedland had a decisive contribution to the action. Drouot at Lutzen also. Senarmont at Ocana had a decisive role in the action, although a secondary one that allowed success by the French on the other flank. |
The Virtual Armchair General | 27 Dec 2020 11:21 a.m. PST |
|
Delort | 27 Dec 2020 3:24 p.m. PST |
What about Vauchamps in 1814? |
colonial nic | 27 Dec 2020 4:32 p.m. PST |
Balaklava 1854. Apart from the stand of the 93rd Highlanders, most the decisive moves were by cavalry. |
Perris0707 | 27 Dec 2020 5:53 p.m. PST |
Von Bredow's "todesfahrt" "Death Ride" at Mars-la-tour was a decisive factor in saving the German 10th and 3rd Corps from being overwhelmed by the French Army of the Rhine. |
gamertom | 27 Dec 2020 7:11 p.m. PST |
I'm surprised no one has mentioned the ACW battle of Malvern Hill. While both infantry and artillery were involved, both sides attested to the Union artillery being the decisive element in the Union's tactical victory. |
Corporal Trim | 28 Dec 2020 7:46 a.m. PST |
Not Beersheba even though the charge of the Australian 4th and 12th Light Horse has attained semi-mythological status. The main battle was fought, and largely won, by the infantry and artillery of XX Corps in their assault of the main Turkish positions which stretched westwards from the town before the charge occurred. This was only made against a rearguard of about 200 men covering the withdrawal in their sector. The Desert Mounted Corps, of which the Australians were a part, had been given the town itself as their objective as they needed the water there for their horses. |
Timbo W | 28 Dec 2020 8:45 a.m. PST |
Roundway Down is the ECW ecample |
The Virtual Armchair General | 29 Dec 2020 10:55 a.m. PST |
Corporal Tim! Thank you, Sir, for the clarification! TVAG |
Unlucky General | 29 Dec 2020 1:11 p.m. PST |
Chris, I will second Colonel Nic's suggestion for Balaclava. I've been repeatedly returning to this particular battle and am forming the opinion that the engagement in 1854 was an Allied victory which was largely successfully managed by Lord Raglan. Apart from the Turkish garrisons across a series of redoubts holding out in the preliminary stages of the engagement, the Allies (British, French, Turks) only had their cavalry division in the rear areas to protect Balaclava Bay from being taken and their army cut off from supply. The battle was a Russian initiative. Whilst seizing allied fortifications, they managed to temporarily relieve the siege of Sevastopol only – achieving both limited tactical and strategic success. The Allies only had the 93rd Highlanders and what Turks could be rallied together with rearward batteries of landed and entrenched naval artillery. All the rest was cavalry: 5 double-squadrons of heavy dragoons, 5 double squadrons of light cavalry, two regiments of Chasseurs d'Afrique with some horse and foot field artillery. The Russians had no battle cavalry at all but plenty of hussars and Cossacks which were out-classed generally. Whilst popularly imagined as a blunder, the Charge of the Light Brigade was a costly gamble which stop-checked further movements from the Russian advance (all arms) together with French cavalry flanking support and earlier engagements by the Heavy Brigade. |
Marulaz1 | 29 Dec 2020 4:54 p.m. PST |
Well, it seems to me that the Union Cavalry at the 3rd battle of Winchester or Opequon Creek, had a significant impact on the eventual victory, causing the collapse of the Confederate left flank primarily on its own. However I don't think it would be correct to say the Union infantry, facing the Confederate right had no or even little impact. It's a difficult battle to find details on, at least that has been my experiance. I attended a lecture by Mr. Jeffrey Wert (back in the 90s), and came away with the impression that the cavalry vs infantry action on the Confederate left was the final decisive factor however. Fascinating topic by the way. John |
Lucius | 30 Dec 2020 8:38 a.m. PST |
It isn't my period, but when I read "The Arms of Krupp", I was left with the impression that the German artillery at Sedan, in the Franco-Prussian War, that it was by far the biggest reason for victory. |
Brechtel198 | 30 Dec 2020 8:49 a.m. PST |
The Prussian artillery arm, abused and ignored by Frederick the Great and that didn't recover enough during the Napoleonic period, grew to be a dominant army by the time of the Wars of German Unification. The Prussian artillery completely outclassed the French arm, which was technologically behind that of Prussia and was outfought on the battlefield. |
Prince of Essling | 30 Dec 2020 10:25 a.m. PST |
French right wing on second day of Dresden. |
ChrisBBB2 | 30 Dec 2020 11:01 a.m. PST |
Thank you for all your various replies and suggestions (some closer to the mark than others). I'm glad people found it an interesting question. I appreciate you all taking the trouble to respond. Chris Bloody Big BATTLES! BBB group: groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles BBBBlog: bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com BBB on FB: link |
42flanker | 30 Dec 2020 11:07 a.m. PST |
Chris, I will second Colonel Nic's suggestion for Balaclava. I've been repeatedly returning to this particular battle and am forming the opinion that the engagement in 1854 was an Allied victory which was largely successfully managed by Lord Raglan, I found that an intriguing proposition. While the Russian advance that day failed to reach the British base at Balaklava- an attempt we might politely describe as half-hearted – at the end of the day they held the redoubts captured in the morning and had interdicted the causeway road to the siege lines. That did indeed represent a tactical and strategic success, although not a decisive outcome given that the siege continued. Describing the Light Brigade attack to be "popularly imagined as a blunder" seems a strange conclusion. Would not "universally regarded as a blunder" be more accurate? It would be hard to find anyone at the time, from the commander in chief down, who did not regard it as such, and by and large that has remained the case. The temporary capture of the cossack battery was ultimately futile since the guns were neither removed or spiked, and the cost in men and, particularly, in horses, had been high. I must confess that my impression is that Raglan's response to the Russian attack that morning hardly answers the description of 'managing' let alone 'successfully.' I don't believe that it was Raglan's intention that the Light Brigade should make a frontal attack on the cossack battery, running the gauntlet of enemy guns and infantry to reach their objective. Have I got that wrong? |
DrsRob | 30 Dec 2020 3:23 p.m. PST |
The verdict of the French General Bosquet says it all: "C'est magnifique, mais c'est ne pas la guerre!" |
138SquadronRAF | 31 Dec 2020 10:54 a.m. PST |
The Prussian artillery completely outclassed the French arm, which was technologically behind that of Prussia and was outfought on the battlefield. Krupp had approached France in the 1860's offering to sell them breech loading artillery. The French rejected the idea. |
Oliver Schmidt | 31 Dec 2020 11:14 a.m. PST |
The combat at Haynau on 26 May 1813. Not a real battle though: 22 Prussian squadrons in a surprise attack running down the French 16th Division (Maison: 8 battalions and 18 guns), which was on the march. link
|
42flanker | 31 Dec 2020 12:22 p.m. PST |
Krupp had approached France in the 1860's offering to sell them breech loading artillery. The French rejected the idea. But they did then come up with the soixante quinze (obviously a little late for 1870) |
von Winterfeldt | 31 Dec 2020 3:03 p.m. PST |
Just reading a book about 1812 what about Mir Ostrolenko but do they classify as battles? |
ReallySameSeneffeAsBefore | 02 Jan 2021 9:51 a.m. PST |
Elixhem 1705. An advance guard vs rear guard clash IIRC. Allied mostly British vs Bavarian and French cavalry (mostly the former). Infantry and artillery present. The French infantry retreated in a giant square after the cavalry was defeated, and several guns were lost. I don't think the allied infantry got much of a look in. Another one worth looking at is Warburg 1760. There was an early flank action involving Infantry, but the main part of the battle was the action by the massed British cavalry, with artillery support which impressed everyone by its speed across country and rapidity into action. Good battle to wargame. |
1809andallthat | 02 Jan 2021 1:26 p.m. PST |
Although part of the larger battle of Eggmuhl the action at Alteglofsheim on the evening of the 22nd April 1809 was predominately cavalry with supporting artillery. The rearguard action in front of Regensburg on the following day would also probably count. |
Brechtel198 | 03 Jan 2021 5:56 a.m. PST |
There is an interesting infantry against cavalry and artillery during the Russian campaign which is told by Faber du Faur, the Wurttemberg artillery officer who left a valuable memoir. Near Krasny on 14 August Russian General Neverovskii's infantry division, with supporting cavalry and artillery was caught in the open by Murat supported by the Wurttemberg 2d Horse Artillery Battery. The Russian cavalry fled and his artillery was overrun and taken. Nevertheless he formed his infantry into one large square which was attacked by the French cavalry. Murat failed to adequately support his cavalry with the fire of the Wurttemberg artillery and though the French inflected 2,000 casualties on the Russian infantry, they were able, still in square, to withdraw to a wooded defile. Murat had caught the Russian infantry in the open, a plain that stretched for miles. His failure to effect artillery fire on the Russian square between charges allowed the Russians to successfully withdraw, though with heavy losses. |
ChrisBBB2 | 05 Jan 2021 6:39 a.m. PST |
As you guys are evidently continuing to have fun with this, I owe you all a fuller response. My question in full stressed that the victorious force should include a normal large proportion of infantry, but that these should not make a significant contribution. The topic title did not mention that factor. Understandably, quite a few of you answered the topic line rather than the full question. Such answers are therefore disqualified on that technicality, but I have learned about some interesting actions as a result, so thank you anyway. I should probably have said cavalry AND artillery, rather than 'and/or', since that is the comparison I was really looking for. Therefore, again, the artillery-only victories are interesting but not quite what I was after. Here's my summary of the degree to which I think each of the battles offered meets the criteria I set. NB With so many to review, my review has necessarily been somewhat swift and therefore I may have mischaracterised some. If so, I apologise; please forgive my errors. At New Orleans (1815), the British attackers were bloodily repulsed almost exclusively by artillery fire. At Warburg in 1760, it was the British cavalry that swept the French from the field, but not before a column of British and Hanoverian grenadiers had drawn a French counterattack that inflicted significant casualties. At Fère-Champenoise in 1814, two French corps (about 20,000 men) attempting a fighting withdrawal in the rain were routed by an allied Austro-Russo-Prussian cavalry force about 50% stronger in both men and guns but with no allied infantry on the battlefield. Mine Creek (ACW): good fun, but purely cavalry on the Union side. The battle of Valmy in 1792 was essentially a mere cannonade which deterred a Prussian attack with about 1% casualties on each side. Villers-en-Cauchies (1794): purely a cavalry attack (no attacking infantry involved) and too small to count. Beaumont-en-Cambresis (1794): although the allies' ~4,000 cavalry clearly won the day, they apparently suffered less than a third of the allied casualties. There was protracted skirmishing by light troops and outposts beforehand, which must therefore be considered a significant infantry contribution. At Willems (1794), the cavalry's success was only against one of three columns, the others presumably being fended off by infantry. Mars-la-Tour, Friedland, Luetzen, Ocana, Dresden: all involved significant infantry fighting. Vauchamps (1814) mainly one long cavalry pursuit, but started by Marmont's infantry standing firm and then counterattacking. Balaklava: seems harsh to dismiss the infantry when hundreds of Turkish infantry were killed, as well as the thin red streak's contribution. Beersheba (1917) – infantry were heavily involved and suffered the heaviest casualties. Roundway Down (ECW) and other C17 battles may qualify but are earlier than my remit. Malvern Hill (ACW), like New Orleans, an attack successfully repulsed essentially by artillery alone. Haynau, Mir, Krasny: no infantry in the victorious force, I think? and really a bit too small to qualify. Elixhem is interesting and perhaps closest to the brief. However, it is half a century earlier than Rossbach. We still have a gap of almost a century between my two initial examples. Thank you all again for all these interesting examples of unusual actions. Some very wargameable battles to be found in that list!
Chris Bloody Big BATTLES! groups.io/g/bloodybigbattles BBBBlog: bloodybigbattles.blogspot.com |
138SquadronRAF | 05 Jan 2021 9:23 a.m. PST |
Roundway Down (ECW) and other C17 battles may qualify but are earlier than my remit. I grew up near Roundway Down. The poblem with that battlefield was forming up your army with it's back to a steep scarp. You have nowhere to go with a set back: link Lansdown was another battlefield I knew growing up, that's a similar slope but Waller at least had the sense to defend the slope, even if he was pushed back. |
McLaddie | 06 Jan 2021 12:21 a.m. PST |
I'm surprised that Sedan 1870 hasn't been mentioned as an artillery victory. |
ChrisBBB2 | 06 Jan 2021 5:11 a.m. PST |
Actually, Bill, Sedan was mentioned by Lucius, above. But it's another where the infantry were plenty busy so it doesn't meet the 'no significant contribution' criterion. |
Whirlwind | 08 Jan 2021 12:59 a.m. PST |
How about Alba de Tormes? Possibly Cabezon as well, although I am not totally sure how much fighting Merle's infantry did in the latter. |
Lambert | 08 Jan 2021 12:38 p.m. PST |
Hastings, if you count arrow fire as artillery |
AuttieCat | 09 Jan 2021 6:59 a.m. PST |
My $.02 USD, I do not think that 'Little Big Horn' would count. I believe that the Indians were mounted infantry, more than they were cavalry. Also, if my mind serves me correctly, didn't the Indians usually fight dismounted (as infantry) in this battle???? If this be true, would many/most of the South Africa Boer War forces, then also be called 'cavalry'??? Tom Semian Irvine, PA. 16329 |
Teodoro Reding | 19 Jan 2021 6:02 p.m. PST |
Following the initial definition – all arms present, one arm wins the battle, three or four Peninsula battles spring to mind – and there nay be more: - Medina del Rio Seco July 1808: a chasseur brigade rolls up the main Spanish position, turning (the better half of) the Spanish (regular) army into a mass of fugitives, with only one unit in square as a rearguard - Medellin, May 1808, after Dragoon charges fail to break the advancing Spanish infantry line, which is pushing back Leval's German division, a light cavalry brigade defeats Spanish cavalry and rolls up the line, leading to mass slaughter - Ocaña, autumn 1809, largest army the Spanish ever field (c50,000) destroyed after cavalry on the right flank give way and French cavalry roll up the line – again. - The Gebora, Spring 1811: Entire Spanish army surprised and destroyed by a cavalry attack (cavalry didn't bother to wait for their infantry or artillery) Plus I'm sure there are other, less dramatic, examples in Spain |
Teodoro Reding | 19 Jan 2021 7:21 p.m. PST |
Actually at the Gebora, the Spanish formed squares – by division, according to the book – and were destroyed by combined infantry and cavalry attacks – so I guess it doesn't count. The first three are better examples of success by just cavalry – with Cabezon and Alba de Tormes, as mentioned by Whirlwind And then there's Somosierra!! Also, Saguntum was pretty much won by a charge by the Italian Dragoons of Napoleon |
Brechtel198 | 20 Jan 2021 4:12 a.m. PST |
I believe that the Indians were mounted infantry, more than they were cavalry. The Plains Indians were perhaps the best light cavalry in the world at the time. And they did fight mounted, so that makes them cavalry, does it not? |
Brechtel198 | 20 Jan 2021 4:13 a.m. PST |
- Ocaña, autumn 1809, largest army the Spanish ever field (c50,000) destroyed after cavalry on the right flank give way and French cavalry roll up the line – again. The French artillery performed an economy of force mission on the French right flank which gave the opportunity for the French cavalry action. |
Whirlwind | 20 Jan 2021 7:42 a.m. PST |
@T Reding, There was probably too much infantry and artillery action at Medina del Rio Seco, Medellin, Ocana, Somosierra and Saguntum for them to qualify by Chris' criteria, I think. |
ChrisBBB2 | 20 Jan 2021 8:01 a.m. PST |
|