"Heavy and/or Medium Cavalry" Topic

I'm beginning to think all 'Medium' Dragoons whatever their nationality should be considered 'Battle Cavlry' but their ACE morale and movement ratings remain as is. If you then use them in circumstances where true Heavies should be you will pay the price. Was the orginal thinking that they had no armour so classed as 'Medium' so didn't have the impact but gained in mobility?

Thanks for comments in anticipation.

Definitely medium (read Dragoons) we're used as battle cavalry. I try to use them as they were but it's a uphill battle.

@Rosenberg,

There are a lot of factors to consider in whether dragoons should be "battle cavalry" or not.

A key factor is the status of their horses? For example, the horses for the French dragoons in the Peninsula were often in poor shape due to the lack of fodder and their use in a reconnaissance / screening role. In another example, I read that Exelmans complained about his dragoons being used in the "light cavalry" role as it would degrade their capability for use on the battlefield (i.e., as "battle cavalry").

Then there's cases like the Spanish dragoons who were converted to light dragoons and then back to dragoons. Even ignoring their chronic lack of horses, should a dragoon unit convert from light dragoons to "medium" dragoons instantly be considered "battle cavalry".

And…of course, there's lots of light cavalry who were kept in a reserve role until they were on the battlefield and who had superior mounts. They merit "battle cavalry" status, which just goes to show that the question doesn't reduce to a simple classification.

Of course, one could take the view that they are "battle cavalry" unless other factors suggest otherwise.

Just some thoughts that as to whether or not all "medium" dragoons should be "battle cavalry".

In my game history I award or degrade units by merit or actions in games, while not often does separate a unit from their fellow units slightly. As per Empire rules jump by a point so often takes two events to gain or lose a moral class. Maybe a medium cavalry unit could instead gain battle cavalry classification.

Dragoons were dismounted skirmishers before the end of the WSS. You could argue that they served as second-line heavy cavalry until the end of the 7YW (i.e. as 'medium' cavalry since they tended not to wear the cuirass); but after that, they are essentially as 'heavy' a cavalry as curiassiers or life guards and the rest. During this period – 1720s-1760s – the quality of horses improved commensurate with their changing role.

What does a breastplate weigh? 25 pounds? I suggest that the quality of horses is far more significant in any classification than the technical distinction between dragoons and 'heavier' cavalry. For instance, dragoons carried a dragoon-musket that cuirassiers usually did not. The combined weight of man and horse was hardly different, therefore.

Just a few thoughts…

Horses sizes varied by type as follows:
Official height of cavalry horses in 1812:
- cuirassiers and carabiniers . . . . 155 cm – 160 cm
- dragoons and artillery . . . . . . . . 153 cm – 155 cm
- chasseurs and hussars . . . . . . . . 149 cm – 153 cm
- lancers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .146 cm – 150 cm
- Polish uhlans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .142 cm – 153 cm
The size would affect both strength and agility.