"Cavalry charging through friendly infantry" Topic

The 92nd hanging onto the stirrups of the Scots Greys is a myth, but could cavalry in theory charge from behind a line of friendly infantry, and go through them, so as to engage an enemy to their front? Would there be casualties? Would both units be disordered?

You would have to enact an orderly passage of lines in Order to avoid complete chaos.

The idea of a charge at full tilt through your own lines would be result in a disorganised mess. Hardly the dressed ranks required for command and control.

Best wishes,

Chris

You could do it the same way you get to Carnegie Hall.
Practice.

Lots and Lots of Practice.

I have always been bothered by that. Any units passing through another unit should always cause some kind of disorder or suffer a penalty.

Not a prayer. Try looking at distances--how long to build up momentum, how much warning the target unit needs for countermeasures--how fast they're moving as they go through a formed infantry battalion or regiment, and how long that unit needs to go to double interval--the minimum which will let horses pass between files. And now remember your cavalry are at interval, and have to get back in formation. As a problem for a precision drill team, after three months you might stop killing your own infantry. But to attempt in the presence of the enemy? Never.

Mind you "unit" is a flexible word. I can easily see brigades 300 yards or more back from the point of contact passing through one another--if only just getting off the road while the cavalry rode past. But as a tactical thing? A cavalry charge? No.

Charge through? No.

IMO Charge no, manoeuvre at the walk by a) each unit doubling ranks by sub unit so a series of half troop columns passed through a line of half company columns before each double their files again or b) one unit standing fast and the other filing through the natural small gaps between sub-units; yes in a low stress situation, say a quarter mile from any enemy.

Just as there is no such things as 'friendly' fire, all horses are large and scary if you're stood near them.

Measurement exercise.
Gap between infantry ranks lets say is 22". All ranks directly behind the soldier in front rank, no filling the 22" gap for this calculation.

Rider on typical horse is wider than 22", even if we have the trooper ride funny looking and he raises his boots to avoid contact.

Result… collisions everywhere. Horses, even at slow walk sends foot soldier to ground… then what happens?

Change situation to fully deployed skirmisher formation on open ground and moving cavalry. Possible but I wouldn't want to be any foot soldier trusting the horse and rider have good eyesight.

Not a chance in God's green earth – cavalry- especially heavy cavalry – charged en murale, boot to boot as much as possible; charging through friendly infantry would i) cause a bunch of casualties, mostly among the infantry, ii) reduce a charging cavalry to a slowly moving mass of disorganized troopers and iii) leave a disordered and battered infantry unit capable of only reorganizing in place or an untidy retreat

Gap between infantry ranks lets say is 22". All ranks directly behind the soldier in front rank, no filling the 22" gap for this calculation.

It's even worse than you laid out. 22" isn't a gap, it's a frontage, meaning the soldiers are standing shoulder-to-shoulder. This is why most horse & musket rules consider battalions and smaller units to be impermeable to maneuver and musketry. The only way through a formed infantry unit is to ride them down. That seems just a wee bit… unfriendly.

- Ix

I agree with the consensus opinion. For wargame purposes though I can see allowing it. How much time would it take for an infantry unit to open up suitable gaps in its lines, the cavalry to ride through them, form up in front of the infantry and launch a charge over a couple of hundred yards? A half hour? Fifteen minutes? Less than that? For many wargames the time interval for a turn is longer than the time interval to carry out that maneuver.

Not to mention that in the SYW, infantry was sent to support Cav by covering them while returning from a round of mounted melee. The infantry were to stave off any pursuing enemy cav thus allowing the friendly cav to reform closer to the front. Not exactly "charging" thru friendlies, but I envision the maneuver would allow for a rather quick passing of the lines!

If it was common practice in the SYW one could expect it remained a tactical practice in the Napoleonic era.

Thanks folks. I am guessing not really possible.

The question arose in mind because, like probably all of us, I have been involved in games where you have infantry units lined up table edge to table edge. A single one of my French battalions is 20cm wide in line. On a hypothetical table 8 by 5 feet table, with forces along the long side, you can only get about nine or ten battalions next to each other allowing for intervals. Not a lot of room for your reserves to move forward.

I just need a bigger table, in a bigger room, in a bigger house, and to have rubber arms.

Charging through (over) your own deployed infantry – errrr, no.
But you could work with infantry ployed in columns to facillitate a charge.

For example, both the Russians and French had the colonne vuide (void column).
8 pelotons (8 Russian platoons, 8 French guard 1/2-companies, 8 French companies pre-1808 with grenadiers detached), "p" is a peloton of ~24 files in 3 ranks or ~16m frontage, "=" is empty space of same size, 2 battalions are shown:

Start :

total ~225m frontage
total 9 ranks + file closers
==pppp==pppp==
==p==p==p==p==
==p==p==p==p==

The two center pelotons advance obliquely to create two 1/2-battalion columns on peloton frontage :

total ~225m frontage
total 12 ranks + file closers
==p==p==p==p==
==p==p==p==p==
==p==p==p==p==
==p==p==p==p==

There is now a gap of ~33m between the columns on platoon frontage. This can be used to cross obstructed terrain, to reveal artillery or permit a passage of lines.

If we are to pass cavalry through the formation, the cavalry can break each squadron (of 2 lines) into half-squadrons (French compagnies) and pass through the gaps and then (if desired) quickly deploy on squadron frontage on the other side.

Well, it is not a "charge" through friendly troops, but could be done very quickly with cavalry at the trot. It is a little painstaking to set up. But it was used by the Russians against the Turks and some of the passes of cavalry through infantry on the French left at Austerlitz might have used this.

Later period Russians and French more commonly just formed once on platoon or division frontage :

platoon frontage
formed on the right
total ~255m frontage
total 24 ranks + file closers
=======p=======p
=======p=======p
=======p=======p
=======p=======p
=======p=======p
=======p=======p
=======p=======p
=======p=======p

Or, more usually

division frontage
formed on the center
total ~255m frontage
total 12 ranks + file closers
===pp======pp===
===pp======pp===
===pp======pp===
===pp======pp===

Here the gaps were large enough, about 100m, to permit a squadron of cavalry to pass at will. Since most charges were done by waves of squadrons on squadron frontage, one could thus (more or less) "charge" through your own infantry or at least start a charge while passing your own ployed infantry.

Or, if you desired to charge on division (2 squadron) frontage, these later period infantry formations allowed a quick passage of lines by squadron and then easy forming up by division.

The game scale and tactical level may or may not support modelling these evolutions.

@ Dyeforminis
"If it was common practice in the SYW one could expect it remained a tactical practice in the Napoleonic era."

Why; the soldiers of the Severn Years War were professionals, those of the Napoleonic mostly mass conscripts and tactical doctrine had changed in other areas.

@ 4th Cuirassier

I'd suggest you need some rules where you need to have reserves rather than deploying your force out in a single line. I suspect you're playing with competition based rules rather than historical based ones. I deploy 16 French battalions for a total of 282 figures on a 6 foot frontage based on the section of the Wagram battlefield that I took the troops OoB from. Typically this frontage gets reduced further as no one wants to fight through the village of Baumsdorf, so the division goes in in three waves of a brigade each on a frontage of about 4 feet. As far as I can tell this is pretty much historically accurate. Of courses in a smaller action and there were plenty, then a couple of battalions might have that size table to themselves.

@michman

Awesome schematics and explanation

PS. I try to read "Colonne Vuide" as "Empty column" or "Hollow column"

PS2. Similarly, "Attack Column" can be read as "Column formed on the middle" (the German version is better)

@ Mark J

Interesting angle. Years ago when 6 or 8 battalions a side was all we had, they did indeed line up side by side from edge to edge more or less. With a gun battery or two and the odd terrain obstacle, you held the entire width of the table.

Later as the battalion count rose, you did indeed have second and third lines, essentially because there was nowhere else to put them anyway. The issue either way is that if your line is continuous in that way, there's literally no break in it through which these second-line units e.g. cavalry can move forward.

Eventually the starting position for most battles was that you'd have skirmishers and artillery in the front line, with columns and cavalry behind to counterattack any local enemy successes. This worked OK for 'columnar' armies – French, Russian, Prussian, late Austrian – but not too well for linear ones, such as British or early Austrian.

@4thC

I think the French development of the Divisional System – with successive infantry brigades flanked by artillery and backed up by cavalry squadrons – was their solution to breaking the tactical dead-lock created by unitary deployments.

It is very amusing that Napoleonic wargames recreate this problem with the edge-to-edge deployments!

@Stoppage

Much, much better English-naming. Thank you !!

A precise definition of "colonne d'attaque" for the French would be :
--- column formed on division (2 peloton) frontage
--- the head of the column being the center pelotons (i.e., on the center)
--- the spacing between the following divisions being 1/2 the frontage of a peloton

The Russians seemed to have preferred a "closed column formed on the center" where the following divisions were pulled up close to the division to their front.

Both versions were quite possible for both armies. But the French were more prone to form a square when threatened by cavalry (hence the spacing) while the Russians often just faced out the rear ranks and outer files and received cavalry in column ….. (or even directed the infantry to make a counter charge).

I did not include above these features of the depths of the columns as I was attempting to illustrate the means by which cavalry might easily move through ployed infantry.

=============

"but not too well for linear ones, such as British or early Austrian."

I have never studied nor gamed these. Please do not take my post above as applying to these.

Theoretically you could have all of the companies in the infantry battalion wheel simultaneously 90 degrees to right or left. This would create a number of company-wide gaps in the line that the cavalry could pass through. In the ACW drill you could also do that with the 'By the Right of Companies to the Rear (or Front)' manuever. But there is no way you'd want to do either thing if you were already heavily engaged to your front. A sure recipe for disaster.

@michman

The English didn't do columns formed on the centre – they used columns of successive grand divisions (right in front) and used the "drawer" technique to deploy (to the left).

@scottwashburn

The English did a backwards wheel of platoons (aka companies) fixed on the left flank to form a counter-march column (to move to right).

Bearing in mind that the cavalry and the yeomanry (militia horse) were used to put down riots and mutinies – I am not sure that the typical infanteer would be happy having their formation broken up and interspersed with erstwhile frenemies.

@ 4th Cuirassier

Which is surely how it should be, those armies still fighting the Seven Years War being at a disadvantage to those who have moved on tactically. From what I can see in big battles; Wagram Borodino et al, the cavalry came in massive blocks who maneuvered into the gaps between the divisions or even Corps of Infantry; they don't seem to have intermingled much. It's very difficult to find detailed reports of small actions [offers accepted for 1809 if anyone knows any] but I strongly suspect that the cavalry rode round the sides of the infantry again. How we represent this on a table is up to us, but I don't see 'fixing' the rules to allow us to do what we want if it isn't historical as appropriate.

@ Scottwashburn

Wheeling would involve getting nearer the enemy. If you turned every man to their right so forming files of 3 then these could snake back into thin lines allowing the oncoming cavalry to maintain a liner formation. If the enemy have seen your cavalry they're probably keener on forming square than trying to charge and catch you maneuvering so it might be possible with well trained troops; French 1805/6 maybe

As a charge would normally reasonably occur close to the enemy and the horses would need to be stirrup to stirrup I would suggest a charge through infantry is unlikely. If you look at the Prussian 1812 and French 1840's drill manuals it may imply this was done, but a small amount of cavalry was back in the rear to support the infantry line to the front, in case they broke, not to launch an attack through the infantry line.

It seems to me the best starting place for answering a question like this is, is there credible evidence of this happening. if yes, then there's your answer. If no, then all the theorising and speculation is only that.

I think, as michman says, the problem was resolved by creating lanes. Wargamer convention of base to base deployment has to assume those lanes exist and make rules accordingly. What we can be fairly certain of is cavalry were not routinely "passing through" shoulder to shoulder formations of infantry, unless. perhaps, they were fleeing . ..

Getting a bigger table sure opens up avenues of maneuver and need for reserves

Getting a bigger table sure opens up avenues of manoeuvre and need for reserves

Very true. It also depends on the scale of rules you use. Having a lot of empty real estate changed the nature of your game dramatically as it introduces pre-battle manoeuvring, reinforcements and flank attacks.

The only issue with a large playing area is you can't remain seated for a game.

Similarly, "Attack Column" can be read as "Column formed on the middle" (the German version is better)

Found it again:

Colonne nach der mitte

von Reisswitz/Leeson – Kriegspiel (1824) – Appendix One Prussian Army Organisation & Tactics – Attack column (Page 53)

Referencing:

Carl von Decker – Die Taktik der Drei Waffen (1833)

Here all French regulations on the "colonne d'attaque" which I could find (in French only, sorry):

demi-brigade.org/colattfr.htm

Nobody 'charged' through their own infantry, unless they were noble French knights at Crecy. At best, the charge would destroy one unit and badly disorganize the other.

Moving cavalry through infantry was fairly common, writers giving little attention to it. Prussian Emanuel von Warnery, speaking of cavalry deployed behind a line of infantry, writes in his 1798 Remarks on Cavalry"

Suppose a corps of reserve to be composed of fifteen squadrons, five of which are dragoons, and the remainder Hussars: The whole must pass through the lines of their infantry at the same time, intervals being formed for that purpose, by doubling the ranks.

page 75 with a diagram on page 76 with Plate 23.

This is what Le Marchant's heavy cavalry did at Salamanca as described by Rory Muir in his book, Salamanca, page 128:

But it seems that the [cavalry] regiments in the centre and right of the brigade approached Wallace's line from behind at a canter. Gratten [officer in the 88th] describes how the British infantry were startled by their sudden appearance, and at first mistook them for the enemy and began to form square. In a moment they were recognized, however, and the order was quickly given to 'Open right and left', creating gaps in the line through which the cavalry passed. Le Marchant's men then quickly re-formed their line, and charged forward at full speed. The French infantry facing them had little time to react…

Now, the maneuvers were simple enough that it was quickly done, even when Wallace's brigade could be said to have been a bit disorganized in attempting to form square.

This is what the Scots Greys did at Waterloo, the 92nd allowed the heavy cavalry to walk through their line by doubling their lines 'left and right', making room so the cavalry could pass through. There was a scant 150 yards between the British and French lines, so the famous 'charge' seen painted years later or the disorganized gallop for nearly a mile seen in the movie "Waterloo", never happened. The best the Greys and the rest of the heavy cavalry could accomplish at that distance was trot into the French. It was certainly enough.

Troops passing through one another was a common occurrence on the battlefield, and a necessary one when a battle line was deployed with supports in the rear. The pass-through maneuvers were given attention in the respective cavalry and infantry regulations.

As for "The 92nd hanging onto the stirrups of the Scots Greys is a myth," not necessarily. Most highland regiments were considered to be 'natural' light infantry and at times used as such. The idea of light infantry 'holding on' to cavalry as they move forward was 'old school', but common enough behavior. Here is Napoleon writing to Berthier about forming light infantry companies for each line and legere regiment prior to the 1804-5 creation of the Voltigeurs.

-Napoleon to Berthier, 22 December 1803

'There will be in every battalion of light infantry regiments a company called the 'mounted company' or 'mobile company' or 'partisan company,' or some other name of this sort. This company will always be the third in the battalion, counting the grenadier company as the first. It will be composed of well-built and vigorous men, of the smallest height. No noncommissioned officer or soldier should be more than four feet eleven inches tall and the officers should not exceed five feet. [French measure]

It will be armed with a lighter fusil than the dragoon's fusil and will be drilled in firing. Officers and noncommissioned officers will be armed with rifled carbines. The men of these companies will be practiced in following the cavalry at a trot, holding sometimes the boot of the rider and sometimes the mane of the horse, and in mounting briskly and jumping behind the rider, so that he thus can rapidly be transported by the cavalry.

Now, obviously the mounted company was dropped in the end, but one can see that the idea was not new nor thought strange. Certainly, the use of small cavalry units attached to infantry commands was a common enough practice during the period.

Whether the Highlanders of the 92nd actually did grab onto the Scots Greys' horses as they passed through, there are accounts of it happening, but how many did this, who knows?