"Dragoons: light, line or heavy cavalry?" Topic

Hi, i was once again thinking about dragoons and in what category they belonged.
British light dragoons are obviously light cavalry.
British dragoons and dragoon guards are heavy cavalry. Are French dragoons heavy cavalry like them or "medium" cavalry? What about the other nations?

Thanks!

IMO, French dragoons were battlefield cavalry who could also be used in the reconnaissance/screening role.

Jim

By the Napoleonic Wars, I'd say across the board heavy cavalry, but usually inferior as such to regiments called cuirassiers "horse grenadiers" or just "cavalry" or "horse." They were, obviously, the ones formed into infantry units when there weren't enough horses to go around, and some nations' dragoons seem to have had more of a vestigial capacity to dismount and fight with some efficiency on foot than others.

I might hedge just a tad for US War of 1812 dragoons, sometimes called light dragoons, and certainly capable of operating as such. Some of the Continental dragoons had been capable of both scouting and acting as battle cavalry, but we just don't have enough examples of the War of 1812 versions in combat for me to be satisfied we know their range of capabilities.

And note that I'm mostly speaking in generalities. I would not expect the French Guard Dragoons to dismount, but I would expect them to ride right through many Spanish regiments of nominally superior type. In the end, training, selection of men and horses and morale trump labels.

British "Light" Dragoons…… in name maybe but their actions tell of the battle cavalry type. Their horses generally larger then the typical French dragoon ride. Officers tended to charge and ask questions a bit later… after their win or chased back by French reserves. There are reasons why Wellington used his KGL or Hussar cavalry for outpost duties, under able commanders. They knew the tradecraft and only after several campaign seasons did the British "Light" dragoon come close to the skill of the KGL or Hussars… which were former light dragoon regiments.. go figure.

For Russians, dragoons were clearly "heavy cavalry" (тяжелая кавалерiя / tyazhelaya kavaleriya). The type also had the distinction of being considered ethnically or "nationally" Russian.

From 1802, Army dragoon troopers' horses were at least 151 cm tall at the withers (14 hands & 3-1/2 English inches) and cost 50 rubles. They were typically from state-owned studs in central and northern European Russia. The dragoons were typically conscripted from the same territories. Same applied to (later) gendarme units.

For valuation, 100 rubles = 10 years' pay for a trooper or about 5 months pay for a junior lieutenant.

For comparison, Army cuirassiers' horses were at least 160 cm (15/3 hands) at the withers, and cost 100 rubles. They were typicallly either imported from north Germany or from the Emperor's own stud farms.

Army hussars, lancers and (later) horse-jäger horses were at least 142 cm (14 hands) tall and cost 40 rubles. Their stud farms were typically in southern Russia, and included bloodlines from Native steppe horse breeds.

For the Napoleonic Wars dragoons of pretty much every combatant were battlefield cavalry – so essentially heavy cavalry

Interestingly if you go back to the Seven Years War, Russian dragoons were significantly lower quality than those of other combatants, who were most clearly battle cavalry (for example, the Bayreuth Dragoons) – Russian dragoons were mounted on low quality horses and were most suited for internal and frontier duty; for battle cavalry the SYW Russians did use Horse Grenadiers

French horse sizes & prices (1809)

cuirassiers, carabiniers à cheval : 156-160 cm / 500 francs
dragons, lanciers : 153-157 cm / 400 francs
hussards, chasseurs à cheval : 149-153 cm / 300 francs
"éclaireurs" (1813-1814) : minimum 138 cm

For valuation, 500 francs = about 4 years pay for a trooper or about 5 months pay for a junior lieutenant

There was no such thing as "medium" cavalry in the parlance of the day; cavalry was either light or heavy, line or guard. Cuirassiers and others were heavier heavy cavalry than dragoons in most cases.

An exception to Frederick's rule of thumb above would be Prussia, whose dragoons were light cavalry, and possibly Austria, whose cavalry switched between being called chevaux-legers and dragoons and back again. This and the barely distinguishable uniform distinctions suggests that Austrian dragoons might have been a bit light too.

Heavy Cav: those that wear armour
Medium Cav: Dragoons (not Light of course)
Light Cav: everything else.

I use Empire which has all three types but all Heavy and Dragoons I classify as 'Battle Cavalry'along with those regiments specifically named. Everything else is 'Not Battle Cavalry'. I don't use the classification of DUB (Cossacks etc)

Medium Cav can maneouvre further than Heavy but not so far as light but like Heavy's only have two functions per impulse whereas Lights have three. This is Empire talk but it pretty clear to other rule users I think.

a very difficult question, example Prussian Dragoons were classed as light cavalry, despite up to 1808 being dressed and equipped like heavy cavalry, straight cavalry sword, heavy boots, etc, but the remounts were of Polish / Ukrainian origin, however two regiments retained at least 2/3 of their German remounts and classed as heavy cavarly, from 1808 all regiments were classed as light cavalry.

As for French Dragoons, in case one can see them being part of heavy cavalry corps – but as well as performing all other possible cavalry tasks as well, so realy difficult to say.

on the topic of cavalry and what category they come under – what about Uhlans – were they light, line, heavy? – i assume light?

For the Russians, Army uhlans were light cavalry (легкая кавалерiя / legkaya kavaleriya).

They were so identified in the annual list of field-grade officers and had the typical light cavalry organiation of 1 regiment = 2 battalions, each of 5 squadrons = 10 total squadrons (until all Army cavalry regiments took the same organization in 1813).

The Russians considered uhlans to be an ethnic/"national" cavalry type of Poles and Cossacks.

Through 1812, the men and the horses were obtained mostly locally to the regiment's named location, a senior ranker (товарищъ/tovarishch/comrade) typically being a volunteer :
--- Lithuania Lancers : Orthodox Christians from the old Polish-Lithuania Commonwealth lands
--- Polish Lancers : Catholic Christians from the old Polish-Lithuania Commonwealth lands
--- Tatar Lancers : Moslem Tatars from the old Polish-Lithuania Commonwealth lands
--- Volhynia Lancers : from the ethnically mixed population in the north-west "corner" of the Ukraine
--- Chuguev Lancers : Chuguev Cossacks, from settlements just south-east of Kharkov

This regional or ethnic/"national" charateristic was less evident in the 7 regiments converted to uhlans from dragoons in 1813. But it was re-employed for the 8 regiments raised from Ukrainian and Bug Cossacks in 1816/1817.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, Uhlans/lancers are everywhere officially light cavalry in period--and may I compliment Michman on the Russian summary?--but they're seldom brigaded with the other light horse. I think some wargame rules which have "medium" cavalry place them there, but that was not a Napoleonic concept. 4th Cuirassiers is right about that. I get a distinct impression they were better at pursuit than scouting, but I'd love to see more comment from contemporary senior officers on their proper use. Possibly the éclaireurs were different--or just that horses were harder come by in 1813-14.

Oh. And I agree with Wargamerabbit to a degree. The British don't have distinct manuals for different cavalry types, so they tend to blur a little, though less so in the KGL, which retains Hanoverian traditions.

I would like to see a better case made for dragoons as "mediums" somehow being faster or more maneuverable than cuirassiers & company. People keep saying that, but I seldom see supporting evidence. My own suspicion is that all cavalry was about equally fast, but the lights, either by drill or by choice of horses, had less trouble covering broken ground. Dragoons, I think, were just cheaper, mounted on smaller, easier to obtain horses.

Just off the top of my head in the French army generally dragoons were either brigaded together or with cuirassiers in cavalry corps, rather than with the light cavalry or attached to infantry corps.

I am with Robert on the concept of medium cavalry in the Napoleonic wars. It is more likely than not a wargaming construct.

Russian brigading of uhlans :

1812
--- Life-Guard Uhlans* brigaded with the Life-Guard Dragoons* – in the 1st Reserve Cavalry corps, 1st Western army
--- Polish Uhlans** initially as a brigade alone, then brigaded with the Izyum Hussars** at Borodino – in the 2nd Reserve Cavalry corps, 1st Western army
--- Lithuanian Uhlans** initially as a brigade alone, then brigaded with the Akhtyka Hussars** at Borodino – in the 4th Reserve Cavalry corps, 2nd Western army
--- Tatar Uhlans** brigaded with the Alexandria Hussars – in Count Lambert's detachment, 3rd Reserve Observational army
--- Chuguyev Uhlans*** initially as a brigade alone, then brigaded with the Olviopol Hussars*** – in the Danube army
--- Volhynian Uhlans*** as a brigade alone – in the Separate Serbia detachment

* the 4 "active" squadrons
** the 8 "active" squadrons
*** all 10 squadrons

1813-1816
--- only nominally at first in 1813 : 3 Army Uhlan divisions, each division of 2 Uhlan brigades, each brigade of 2 Uhlan regiments, each regiment of 6 "active" squadrons – 72 total "active" squadrons
--- one Army Uhlan division with each of the first 3 Reserve Cavalry corps, each paired with a Cuirassier division (with one Hussar or Dragoon division included with each Infantry corps)

Contemporary French cavalry regulations had a single document for use by cuirassiers and dragoons.

Hello Imrazor!

I'm with 4th Cuirassier.

"There was no such thing as "medium" cavalry in the parlance of the day; cavalry was either light or heavy, line or guard. Cuirassiers and others were heavier heavy cavalry than dragoons in most cases."

So unless stated as Light Dragoons, they are heavy cavalry.

I think the concept of medium cavalry is one of the many wargaming myths.

Best regards,

Glenn

Blimey, Glenn and I agree on something! * faints *

@ robert

To the best of my knowledge and belief, Uhlans/lancers are everywhere officially light cavalry in period

Yes, the clue is in the full name – chevaux-legers-lanciers: "light horse lancers".

I agree there is no such thing as medium cavalry during the period in question, but defining dragoon in some cases is difficult. Heavy cavalry normally consists of big men on big horses with long straight swords designed to fight to their front. However some dragoon have small horses and some have very large horses. I suspect I would class most dragoons as heavy. The British light dragoons are problematic as they had big horses, so I have no idea what you should class them.

Sorry 4th, but I was hoping you wouldn't notice!

Hello pfmodel!

If your saying that British Light Dragoons are riding the same horses as British Heavy Dragoons then would you not classify them the same? The only difference being their off battle field assignments.

Best regards,

Glenn

Perhaps class according to role?

Light cavalry – reconnaissance, vedettes, foraging, skirmishing, etc:

- Typical: Hussars, Chevau-legers, Chevaux-legers lanciers (*), Uhlans
- Heavyweight: British light-dragoons
- Conscript light cavalry: Prussian Landwehr lancers
- Irregular light cavalry: Russian cossacks

The Horse – Close-order formations, infantry destruction:

- Typical: Aus/Fra/Pru/Rus cuirassiers, Grenadiers-a-cheval, British dragoon-guards, British dragoons
- Lightweight: Austrian dragoons, Austrian chevauleger, French dragons, French gendarmes(**), Prussian dragoons, Russian dragun

In their role and against intended targets they should all perform similarly, differences are only noted when encountering similar role type.

(*) I think the French named "Chevaux-legers Lanciers" to differentiate them from their earlier Heavy-cavalry Gendarmerie armed with a proper massive lance.

(**) French gendarmes – paramilitary.

If your saying that British Light Dragoons are riding the same horses as British Heavy Dragoons

The British had very large and high quality horses. I am uncertain if the horses of the heavy dragoons were the same or not, but i suspect the heavies did get the largest horses. Its just the light dragoon horses were as large as the horses the French were using for their dragoon and even Cuirassiers. I am not an expect on the British but think the Great British 12th Light Dragoons used sabres, which is typical for light cavalry so i suspect their doctrine was different to the Kings Dragoons, for example.

the French Dragoons and Chevau-légers Lanciers belong to the Line Cavalry

(**) French gendarmes – paramilitary.

all but paramilitary they are fully totally military, part of the Cavalry of the French Army, despite foot gendarmes brigades, often recruited from veterans, until 1788 the Gendarmerie Companies were the Elite of the Cavalry with the Carabiniers and the Military Houselhold before the name was given to the Territorial Military Police Maréchaussée in 1791

the Gendarmes didn't and don't match at all with that kind of meaning with the CONTRAS FARC Wagner etc

A paramilitary is an organization whose structure, tactics, training, subculture, and (often) function are similar to those of a professional military, but is not part of a country's official or legitimate armed forces

so, nothing to do with Gendarmes

In the 1809 French army against Austria the French had no units classed as Dragoons by them. Carabiniers were brigaded with Cuirassiers, where the Cuirassiers were brigaded with non cuirassier regiments, this appears to be approx 1 in 4 are carabiniers.

The only corps that had dragoons were in Confederation of the Rhine organisations, and then they are brigaded with light regiments.

Addendum. We can't use the British as a model, as after 179-something the British army officially had no cavalry.

Dragoons etc were not 'cavalry' in the military parlance of the day, cavalry being a specific type of men on horses. The cavalry were redesignated en masse as dragoons etc were paid 1d a day per man less than cavalry. That works out to £1.00 GBP 10s 5d a year per man, when the average family income was about £40.00 GBP

Even today the British army has no 'cavalry' but does have 'dragoons'.

I would say British "heavy dragoons" aren't dragoons in the way the rest of the continent envisaged dragoons.

Weren't they Mounted Infantry which then went to "Hmmm, what do we use these guys for?" to "Ok maybe medium cav?"

The British army had fusiliers who didn't carry a fusil, grenadiers who didn't use grenades, and so on. These titles tended to persist long after the purpose of the unit had changed, which is why you had functional cavalry who were in fact still called dragoons (mounted infantry) even though they were no longer able to work on foot. It's not at all clear from their regimental titles what a Life or Royal Horse Guard actually functionally was on a battlefield. They could presumably have been repurposed from heavy to light cavalry if required (not in mid-battle obviously).

None was "medium" cavalry, however, which didn't exist – it's a wargamer's organising idea, like units in "elements" and "stands", which also didn't exist.

Well despite that bit of condescension, ulimately the distinction of cavalry came, not surprisingly, down to the horses they rode which in general were small for units like Hussars and Large for Cruiassiers with Dragoons falling somewhere in between.

One could almost say light, medium and heavy

In the 1809 French army against Austria the French had no units classed as Dragoons by them. Carabiniers were brigaded with Cuirassiers, where the Cuirassiers were brigaded with non cuirassier regiments, this appears to be approx 1 in 4 are carabiniers.

not counting some provisional detachts e.g. coming from companies of the 3e Dragons who joined the Army, there were the Empress Dragoons of the Guard, 2 brigades of the 1st and 2nd Dragoons Division Grouchy and Pully of the Army of Italy, this last one including one squadron of the 24e Dragons, took part in the campaign against Austria
that is why the regimental flags of the 7e 23e 28e 29e 30e Dragons have earned the Battle Honour «Wagram 1809» in the folds of their standards

Yebbut nobody did.

Addenda the 3 companies detached from 3e Dragons belonged to the Reserve and a larger Dragoons force under General Beaumont's Dragoons Division with 6 Provisional Dragoons Regiments sent to Augsburg and fought the Austrians in Beisenstein and Bayreuth in june july 1809

Dragoons in the French service developed into another branch of cavalry.

Interestingly, sometimes the French classed them as light cavalry.

@ 4th

As you say names persist when things actually change. The term Chevau-leger in the French army originally applied to anyone lighter than the Gen D'armes, which once meant only 3/4 armour not cap a pied.

On the subject of differentiating cavalry I'd suggest that tactical situation and the state of their horses was a lot more important than any nominal classification, which is largely a function of rules writers imaginations.

The 'classification' of the French cavalry arm was a function of their assigned missions and the designation of light and heavy cavalry had a definite meaning and purpose.

For example, the size of the horses, and many times the men, were definitive as to what type of cavalry they were.

'The average cuirassier, completely armed and equipped, weighed in at approximately 309 pounds, as against 273 for a dragoon and 251 for a hussar or chasseur [a cheval].'-John Elting, Swords Around a Throne, 698-699.

For an excellent summary of the French cavalry arm of the period, see Chapter XI of Swords, 'The High Horsemen', 227-247. Another outstanding reference is Antoine de Brack's Light Cavalry Outpost Duties (Avant-Postes de Cavalerie Legere).

@ Brechtel

Were the average weights taken before or after breakfast, in camp or on campaign, September 1805 or January 1813; what are the confidence limits on the data and the n number. My dad use to say there are lies, damned lies and statistics, but really there are only useful data and pointless numbers.

Have you read de Brack or any other French cavalry memoir?

I don't think there's any doubt that there was a difference between light and heavy cavalry. Most countries recruiting heavy cavalry recruited large blokes and they put them on correspondingly large horses, amplifying the difference between a cuirassier and a hussar.

What is also true is that some countries were shorter of horses than others. Britain had British and Irish horseflesh to draw on, which wasn't in short supply compared to the army's needs to begin with, and didn't become so by constant campaign attrition either. As a result, your average British cavalryman was better-mounted than his equivalent in most other armies – to the point where some light cavalry regiments had horses that would in other armies have been found under heavy cavalrymen.

This doesn't mean British cavalry were automatically better – the guy who's lost three horses in previous campaigns is probably a seasoned campaigner for it. It does mean there's room to vary cavalry factors by nation and time period.

What is also important I think is not to mistake rule writers' conventions and gameplay-assisting fiddles for reflections of historical practice. Napoleonic armies did not include "medium" cavalry. Rule writers have invented this because they feel like where there's light and heavy, there must also be a medium between them. It's not founded in any historical doctrine or tactical use. Armies did not manoeuvre in elements or stands, either. It's just that they're a convenient way to move large numbers of figures around, so if all figures are in four-figure bases, you might as well write rules that reflect it.

What is also important I think is not to mistake rule writers' conventions and gameplay-assisting fiddles for reflections of historical practice.

Why do our impressions or analyses have to be based solely on what they thought during the Napoleonic wars? We cant make our own observations?

Napoleonic armies did not include "medium" cavalry. Rule writers have invented this because they feel like where there's light and heavy, there must also be a medium between them.

Do we have to lift our categories strictly from what they observed or understood at the time?

Maybe the word "medium" was outside of their philosophy. Perhaps "medium" was what was meant by "line" cavalry which usually excluded Hussars and cuirassiers.

I havent studied all Napoleonic rules writers definitions but historically there were differences between different types of horse units in terms of use on campaign, battle, counter insurgency duties, pursuit etc.

It's not founded in any historical doctrine or tactical use.

During pitched battles, French dragoons fought differently than both French Hussars and cuirassiers. I thought that the dragoons fought in line but didnt skirmish/screen while the hussars did skirmish and the cuirassiers often fought in columns.

Also, I dont think it is an accident that lancers were converted from dragoon units and fought the same way as dragoons; in line but didnt skirmish.

Armies did not manoeuvre in elements or stands, either. It's just that they're a convenient way to move large numbers of figures around, so if all figures are in four-figure bases, you might as well write rules that reflect it.

Fascinant. Can you develop your theory a bit more?

Dragoons were also employed as heavy cavalry by the French. Three of the divisions that made the great cavalry charge at Eylau were dragoons.

And in Spain, with the exception of eastern Spain under Suchet, the dragoon regiments were the de facto heavy cavalry of the French armies deployed there.

Here's an interesting thought, if the colonel of the French 9th Hussars insisted that they charge knee to knee at a steady trot [don't ask for a reference I'm too senile to remember] so as not to get disordered does that make them heavy cavalry. Should we have 'trotters' and 'gallopers' as they do in earlier period rules.

They remain light cavalry, whether or not they conduct ordered charges.

Designations do not change because missions do.

French cavalry commanders, regardless of the type of cavalry, would sometimes charge at the trot for greater control during the charge.

link

@ Mark

If he'd spaced them out 15 yards apart they wouldn't have become artillery :=P

On the subject of differentiating cavalry I'd suggest that tactical situation and the state of their horses was a lot more important than any nominal classification, which is largely a function of rules writers imaginations.

A very good point.

On the subject of differentiating cavalry I'd suggest that tactical situation and the state of their horses was a lot more important than any nominal classification, which is largely a function of rules writers imaginations.

Cavalry was categorized by type based on the size of the horses, the size of the men in the regiments, and the mission assigned. For example, cuirassiers were not designed for light cavalry work (scouting, screening, reconnaissance, etc)

Wargaming rules have invented certain terms, however, such as 'converged' units and medium cavalry, both of which are either incorrect or did not exist.