NAPOLEONIC CAVALRY AND ITS ROLE

Traditionally Napoleonic cavalry has been divided into three categories, that of the heavies (who were almost always armoured), the cavalry of the line (sometimes called dragoons) and the lights. Each category ostensibly had a specific role during the campaign and then the battle itself. However it is my contention that the actual differences between Napoleonic cavalry were far from distinct especially regarding the cavalty of the line, the dragoons, and the light cavalry. The distinction that defines the heavies is more obvious and I'll cover this first.

The role of the heavy cavalryman was primarily that of a shock force to be used to defeat the enemy's cavalry or infantry. These would be such cavalry as cuirassiers, carabiniers and garde du corps. They would be held in reserve until such time as called upon when their impact could be brought into play. Their duties during the campaign were thus intentionally restricted. They were not usually required for scouting, security or anti- partisan operations. (Although very occasionally heavies were used as scouts, this was exceptional.) The heavy cavalry tended to be regarded as an elite force, attracting the country's richest and more influential of officers. This placed them in a better position to other cavalry types as their noble patronage not only secured the cream of recruits and mounts but also the first choice of good remounts. Thus the heavy cavalry had a good chance of reaching the battlefield in reasonable condition having been spared the rigours of campaign duties and as such it was normally in a position to carry out its expected role.

The wearing of the cuirass gave a significant boost to the wearer's confidence and morale. Soldiers are more willing to close with the enemy if well protected. Despite what has been said about the negative aspects of the cuirass I have no doubt that its use inspired a significant degree of extra confidence, providing an advantage in combat over other cavalry types. (Anyone who has worn body armour in modern day situations will have some idea of this -with it you feel confident, without out it you feel vulnerable.) The argument that a cuirass may impede a cavalryman's performance during a melee is, I feel, erroneous - nine times out of ten melees had already been won or lost before the actual hacking started. Finally the commanders of the time, being in the whole intelligent and experienced generals, would surely have got rid of the expensive cuirass if it were thought to be of only limited value. They did not.

Next, according to tradition, come the cavalry of the line; the dragoons, lancers and possibly chevauleger.1 The role of these cavalrymen is far from distinct. They were certainly used for campaign duties such as scouting, escort duty and anti-partisan operations, either in support of the light cavalry or where no light cavalry was available. If called upon for such duties the quality of their mounts would most certainly decline and probably at a far faster rate than that of the heavy cavalry, as the line cavalry would be in competition with not only the heavy regiments but also many light regiments.

During battle the cavalry of the line were not usually expected to act as shock cavalry; that is, as heavy cavalry on the battlefield, although at times they were expected to do so, sometimes being brigaded with the heavies. However their ability to carry out this role would have fluctuated considerably. Some regiments, well-mounted, on big horses, and little used for campaign duties, could fulfil this task but these were probably a minority. Those regiments fully employed in campaign duties or short of quality mounts must have been of very limited use in the shock role. Lancers in the right conditions could fulfil the shock role but could not normally sustain such action after the initial charge and were generally called upon to perform the duties of light cavalry rather than that of shock cavalry.

The final category is that of the light cavalry, such as hussars, chasseurs and light dragoons, (and feasibly chevauleger regiments). Their role was not dissimilar to the cavalry of the line. Campaign duties were primarily scouting, reconnaissance and intelligence gathering - the eyes and ears of the army. They were also used in anti-partisan and escort duties. As their role was clearly defined most light cavalry regiments were called upon to carry out these tasks. When acquiring remounts light cavalry were in a slightly better position than other cavalry types as the light regiments usually received smaller recruits and horses carried a lighter load. This meant the lights were able to perform campaign duties equally well on large or small horses.

During battle the light cavalry role was in fact very similar to that of the cavalry of the line. In that they generally fought the enemy's light or line cavalry, provided support or engaged foot targets. They were occasionally called upon to carry out the shock role and they were very occasionally successful. But on the whole they were simply not capable of such attacks. Though light cavalry could usually hold its own against other lights, lancers and dragoons if they engaged cuirassiers or well mounted dragoons then they were in a precarious situation and would generally be defeated. The light cavalry's eagerness to close to contact must have dropped off rapidly once the realisation had sunk in that they where up against heavies. Knowing that they were up against the enemy's heavy cavalry reserve, most of whom are bigger, are wearing armour and have bigger horses cannot have been good for morale!

There were times when light cavalry beat heavies. However I can find no concrete examples where this was done in a head to head formed charge, it usually resulted from the heavies having been caught at a disadvantage. The French carabiniers defeat by Hungarian hussars at Leipzig in 1813 is a good example of this disadvantage. The carabiniers didn't think the hussars would dare charge and were caught napping when they actually did! Being unable to counter charge the carabiniers became disordered then broke and ran. I can only find one example of lights supposedly defeating heavy cavalry in a straightforward charge and melee -the Saxon Prince Albert Chevaulegers defeat of the Austrian Ezherzog cuirassiers at Wagram. However the Saxons charged in company with their own cuirassiers and it is not clear if the Austrians where beaten in a one to one engagement..

Just two categories of cavalry?

After examining the actual roles of Napoleonic cavalry there appears to be very little distinction in the battle role between the cavalry of the line and light cavalry. I am of the opinion that in reality there was actually no such thing as "medium" or line cavalry. I suspect that all cavalry, except elite heavy regiments, were either regarded as capable of shock action or incapable, those incapable of such action being regarded as "lighter" more general-purpose cavalry.

My point is that there were either good quality regiments mounted on decent horses or poorly mounted units or units with smaller horses. Respective combat ability on any given day simply came down to the horseflesh available at the time, training and morale. Dragoons, cavalry of the line and light cavalry should be either be classed as capable of shock action, (therefore "heavy") or incapable of such action, (therefore "light").

Obviously the vast majority of genuine light cavalry was incapable of shock action and falls easily into the general purpose or "light" category. To regard dragoons as a distinct and heavier combat category is unreasonable as the majority of dragoon regiments were in fact no more capable of shock action than their "lighter" associates. This is borne out by the repeated success of British light cavalry over French dragoons in the Peninsula. The British actually had larger horses and kept them in better shape than their French counterparts thus making them more capable of shock action. (if this were played out in a traditional wargame the British light cavalry would be at a distinct disadvantage against the "heavier" French dragoons.)

This argument is also supported when various armies (such as the Bavarian army) changed the titles of their dragoon regiments to chevauleger and back again as and when it suited them, with little regard for a distinct difference between the two types. This would mean that under traditional wargames rules that classify chevauleger as light cavalry these dragoon regiments suddenly become light cavalry overnight!

In summary, therefore, there really should only be two categories of cavalry - that of heavy/shock cavalry or general purpose/light cavalry!

RULE OBSERVATIONS

Is this reflected in Napoleonic rule sets? Many rule sets divide the cavalry into the traditional three categories heavy, medium (dragoons and lancers) and light but some do beak away from the medium cavalry concept and adopt a different approach.

For instance Avalon Hill's Napoleon's Battles made the brave decision to categorise all dragoon regiments as "light cavalry" effectively doing away with the medium cavairy category. Their justification for this was that once a campaign was under way the horse weight of dragoon mounts dropped of significantly thus rendering them no more effective than lights. As a very general principle this is acceptable but I feel it's a rather harsh generalisation doing a disservice to the good dragoon regiments. It can also lead to problems when considering specific dragoon formations in certain campaigns. For instance the French dragoons in 1814 were certainly a cut above their respective light cavalry at that time.

In the later versions of Empire the game designers have adopted a concept called "Battle Cavalry". Cavalry units, regardless of type, are slotted into this category according to ability. This I think is closer to the mark than Avalon Hill's approach. The rules go through each nations cavalry types often identifying particular regiments and rate them as either Battle Cavalry or not. Most heavies fall into this category but also some dragoons and exceptional light regiments. The problem with this approach is you are left at the mercy of the rule writer's interpretation of history. This is fine if you're in agreement but I can imagine some seriously annoyed wargamers whose favourite crack regiments have been found to be downgraded under this system.

Shako however still relies on the standard three categories - heavy, dragoon (including guard light) and light. Though the light category includes lancers. The rules concentrate on simplicity and do not explore further possibilities. This is understandable considering the level of the game. However, I feel that this broad approach can lead to anomalies such as French dragoons being too power 'I when up against British light cavalry in the Peninsular. There is also a category of second rate cavalry which ignores any distinction between heavy and light, which is perhaps nearer the mark.

General de Brigade only covers the heavy and light categories of cavalry and partially reflects my viewpoint above. There is no reference to medium or dragoon cavairy in the melee factors - only heavy or light. Lancers are only given the benefits of heavy cavalry if carrying out a formed charge - they are classed as lights for all other situations. This allows players the scope to classify the cavalry of the line as they see fit. For example poorly mounted dragoons can be classed as light cavalry for melee purposes. There is also scope to classify certain regiments with poor or good mounts and also adjust morale ratings.

Principles of War have now brought out a Napoleonic version but I've been unable to study this. Perhaps readers could let us know if there are any significant concepts in these rules?

CONCLUSION

I feel that there is no one all encompassing solution to the problem unless you decide to classify each cavalry regiment individually taking into account the particular campaign and the regiments historical performance. It's good to see some rules attempting to get away from the concept of heavy, medium and light cavalry and trying to tackle the problem from other angles. But the more I think about it the more I'm inclined towards the idea of adopting just the two categories of cavalry.

GENERAL DE BRIGADE

I should like to thank Christopher Salander for taking the time to review General de Brigade through the MWAN article that was reprinted in Issue 26 of Age of Napoleon. He made some useful suggestions and I'll address a few of them here.

1. Units dispersing when down to 25% casualties is an excellent idea, speeds up the games and will certainly be implemented in future editions.

2. 1 agree with the suggested pushback casualty rate of I in 9. Simplicity is the main reason all casualty rates are the same and I see no problem with implementing this new casualty rate.

3. Regarding an increased casualty rate for routing troops I think Chris may have missed the rule that routers are only in rout for one turn - if they fail to rally they disperse. Thus there is no real need to implement a higher casualty rate.

4. We will have to agree to differ on the artillery mounting suggestion. I have used this scale to represent the fact that batteries were large and cumbersome units - this is reflected in the number of gun models. You need adequate space to deploy which reduces the potential for unrealistic nippy little batteries. A secondly point is the casualty rate. By scaling batteries down the rate they sustain casualties is also affected and may make them too weak to survive for any reasonable length of time in the battle.