"Cavalry: Swords Before Pistols" Topic

""…the sword is the most destructive and almost only necessary weapon a dragoon carries."

So wrote Major Richard Call of the 3d Light Dragoons to Governor Thomas Jefferson in March of 1781. At first glance it may seem odd that a light horseman would make such a statement given the wide use of firearms on Eighteenth Century battlefields. However, when one steps back and thinks "inside the box" of Eighteenth Century military practice it makes perfect sense.

There is an old military adage that says: cavalry takes, infantry holds and artillery clears. Whether on offense or defense the cavalry's only real power was derived through the mounted charge. In the Eighteenth century, cavalry were the ultimate shock troops of the battlefield and the sword reigned supreme in ministering that discipline. That wasn't always the case. The advent of gunpowder and the relinquishing of heavy steel armor had promised to change all that in the century prior to the American Revolution. Pistol wielding dragoons and mounted musketeers were perceived as the next greatest thing in mounted warfare as firearms offered far greater range than a three foot sword. Experience proved there were a multitude of problems with this new theory…"
More in Journal of the American Revolution Blog

link

Armand

Uh, yeah, except when charging steady infantry armed with bayonets from the front. That seldom worked regardless of weapon.

Honestly, if charging unsteady troops such as most militia, or from flank or rear, the galloping horse was the main weapon.

Ride now, ride now, ride to Gondor!

"the galloping horse was the main weapon."

Indeed, the trotting horse might often be sufficient.

Cavalry is only effective when on the move. In general firearms are most effective when fired from a stable platform; of which a moving horse is not the best example.

Not to mention that Cavalry was extremely expensive to raise, train, and maintain. And at least during the AWI, in most cases, to valuable to lose.

Most individuals did not have much experience actually riding horses… They knew how to hook up a plow or wagon to one but not a whole lot beyond that…

Thanks.

Armand

Well, horse ownership was widespread, at least in the south. Many if not most southern militia were mounted. And a cotton/tobacco economy is always also a horse culture, because worn-out land becomes pasture. Virginia was a huge producer of cattle, and also of horses. But I agree that standards of horsemanship would have been low among the small farmers, though much higher in the planter class.

That old movie about Hampton recruiting a Texas cowboy to teach his men to drive cattle for the Beefsteak Raid was fun but also an insult to the Virginias, who were quite familiar with cattle.

Think about the timing of that statement. March of 1781 would have been after Hammond's Store and Cowpens, and it might have been after Guilford Courthouse. He might have been on the receiving end at Monck's Corner and Lenud's Ferry, and he would have heard accounts of Waxhaws and Pyle's Defeat.

Yes, good point.

'Whether on offense or defense the cavalry's only real power was derived through the mounted charge.'

Hmmm… not sure I agree. Cavalry's 'real power' was in the threat of the charge. It stalled advances to protect flanks and forced lines or columns of attack to adopt squares, whether or not it charged. In later times, the threat of being charged forced loose order infantry to close up and thereby become more vulnerable to incoming rifle fire and of course artillery. The AWI has never appealed to me to wargame bc cavalry does not have a significant tactical role. Nor the ACW. Despite every southerner being born in a stable with a sword or pistol in his hand, as the myth goes; and indeed, fighting for a God who condones slavery.

'Whether on offense or defense the cavalry's only real power was derived through the mounted charge.'

Hmmm… not sure I agree. Cavalry's 'real power' was in the threat of the charge. It stalled advances to protect flanks and forced lines or columns of attack to adopt squares, whether or not it charged. In later times, the threat of being charged forced loose order infantry to close up and thereby become more vulnerable to incoming rifle fire and of course artillery. The AWi has never appealed to me to wargame bc cavalry doesnot have a significant tactical role. Nor the ACW. Despite every southerner being born in a stable with a sword or pistol in his hand – and several slaves, btw.

Thanks also…

Armand

Another way of putting it, perhaps, is that the power of stationary cavalry was principally in terms of where it would go next.

Meanwhile it offered as attractive a target as concentrated formations of infantry.