In the last issue of this magazine, I wrote an article on the possibility to fire from the saddle and then melee. I did not cover the types of weapon used. I did not think that was important since, at the time, I was only concerned with the sequence of events that took place, i.e. fire and melee. Things would have certainly remained that way if I had not had an opportunity to read about the subject and find out, at my great surprise how much misleading information has been written on that subject. Let me give you few examples. In Oman's STUDIES IN THE NAPOLEONIC WARS, pages 2.40-241 in the chapter on NAPOLEON AND HIS CAVALRY I was very pleased with the performances of the French dragoons at the combat, of Burkersdorf on February 14, 1807,(see footnote I) and the following, which is the only pertinent part on the "firing of weapons" from the saddle by Napoleon's cavalry: Speaking generally, it may be said that after 1807, Napoleon gave up entirely any notion of using dragoons as mounted infantry. For the future they may be considered in his army as merely one of the five sorts of cavalry. They even ceased to be distinguished from the others by their having a musket, for in 1811 the Emperor ordered the Cuirassiers to be furnished with a carbine or "musketoon", and the chasseurs had already been provided with it. Of all the French cavalry in Napoleon's last three years of reign, 1812-13-14, only the newly created lancers had not got it, and the Emperor had issued orders, just before the Russian War of 1812 broke out, that experiments should be made to see whether the carbine could not be carried along with the lance--though this combination was never actually made, the addition turning out to be too cumbersome. Then, I took a look at 1815 THE ARMIES AT WATERLOO by Ugo Pericoli. On pages 129 and 130, I found Pericoli in full agreement with Oman's comments on the value of the French dragoons ... the same quotation on the combat of Burkersdorf is given to illustrate the value of French dragoons. It is certainly the poorest showing of the French dragoons performances during the Napoleonic period. Is it the significant and usual behavior of French dragoons? Then why make such statements? I started to have a different picture in reading NAPOLEON'S DRAGOONS AND LANCERS by Emir Bukhari (Osprey Men-at-Arms Series). I went back to Pericolli's book. Page 79, I was rewarded of my efforts: "Apart from the cuirassiers and lancers, all the other cavalry also had some longer firearms. The Grenadiers a cheval carried full length muskets, which must have been a severe handicap to them." You can be sure of that one! I frankly don't see why the Grenadiers a cheval...of the Guard, should not have been equipped with the Year IX musketoon. I also took a look at Weller's WELLINGTON AT WATERLOO, pages 175-176: "The cavalry of all armies during the Napoleonic wars also regularly issued with firearms. Pistols and short carbines predominated, types which could be used while mounted. These were valuable for guard duty, and for certain special missions, but were surprisingly ineffective when used by the horsemen in regular combat. Some Some rifled carbines were used in the British Army which were manufactured in accordance with the general principles of the Baker rifle. Creditable shooting can be done with a weapon of this type when carefully loaded, but this additional accuracy was probably wasted on cavalry who had neither the skill nor the stable firing position necessary for good shooting. Even though French dragoons had dismounted and fought on foot with their short muskets ten years before, no cavalry did this, I believe at Waterloo. Battlefield relics indicate, however, that short. muskets were used at waterloo by the French, most of them of a type that did not take bayonets. (see footnote 2)  The drawings show the difference in length between the Charleville and the Dragoon muskets. The Charleville is 60 inches long, the Dragoon musket is 55 inches. Gun, Model Year IX. for Dragoons (total length 1415mm, about 55 inches) Barrel was 1029mm, about 41 inches long, of the same shape and calibre as preceding. Furniture in brass except the swivels and the middle band. The dragoons musket was issued to the artillery after 1812 to replace the gun model 1777 for artillery which was too heavy. The dragoon musket took the bayonet model Year IX which was 406 mm long. Perhaps to be complete we should give the description of the Charleville: Gun, Model 1777. corrected Year IX (total length 1529 mm, about 60 inches) Barrel length 1136 mm, about 44 inches, bayonet stud under the barrel. Stock had a slight swell. Lockplate had the body and hammer convex on t the outside. Brass pan without fence. The frizzen curl eliminated. Hammer had reinforce. Ramrod of steel with pear-shaped head. Ramrod retaining spring held in stock by pin. Bayonet Model Year IX was 406 mm long, about 16 inches. II.Musketoon, model Year IX for CAVALRY. This musketoon an an attempt was made to standardize the cavalry musketoons. This weapon was distributed to light and heavy cavalry including the lancers in spite of what Oman said. The Carabiniers and the Cuirassiers also received that Year IX musketoon in 1812. Following is the description given by FRENCH MILITARY WEAPONS page 19: Musketoon, model Year IX for cavalry (total length 1114.5 mm, about 44 in.) Barrel was 758 mm long, about 30 inches, with five short faces at the breech. Stock has a swell but no cheek piece. Furniture in brass. Two bands. Upper swivel attached to lower band, rear swivel to rear end of trigger guard. Trigger bow separate and held to plate with a screw at the front. Pear-shaped head on ramrod. Special bayonet which was 487mm long, about 20 inches. Some other types of musketoons were also used by the French cavalry. They were the musketoon, Model 1777 (total length 1172 mm, 46 in.) called for heavy cavalry. The barrel was 847 mm, 33 inches, and was the longest of the musketoon,(It was identical to muskatoon Model 1766 and the musketoon Model 1786 for cavalry ( total length 1065mm, 42 inches)  Ugo Pericolli also reports that some rifled carbines were used at Waterloo by the British seventh and tenth hussars. I am not sure that is correct and I am sure that some can help on that one. My reason is simple, the mistake could come from the fact that, according to BRITISH LIGHT CAVALRY by John Pimlott, page 36: "Furthermore each trooper had a flintlock pistol in a saddleholster and a smooth-bore carbine manufactured in accordance with the general principles of the Baker rifles." Still according to Pericolli, the British light cavalry carbine (Paget's Carbine) had a 16 in. long barrel and was reputed to be an excellent weapon. The British heavy cavalry carbine was much larger with a 26 in. long barrel. Also the British heavy carbine could be equipped with a bayonet. I don't know about the British light carbine. Yet Weller tells us that no cavalry weapons at Waterloo took a bayonet. Drawings showing the light cavalry carbine with a 16 in. barrel and the heavy cavalry carbine with a 26 in. barrel. The same is true for all the weapons used by the French cavalry could accept a bayonet, which does not mean that bayonets were always issued to French cavalry units. In fact, the bayonet was not a very useful weapon in the light cavalry. In 1806 Parquin's regiment, the 20th chasseurs a cheval was equipped with it, and the only usage that he and his companions found for it was to dig up potatoes. ref. PARQUIN'S MILITARY MEMOIRES page 41. To clear up some of that mess we should find out what kind of long range weapons the French cavalry was using. We'll see also the case of other countries. My main source for the French army is the book by Major James E. Hicks, published by N. FLAYDERMAN & Co.: FRENCH MILITARY WEAPONS 1717-1938. It is a very good book that give information traceable to French military archives. I. The dragoon musket That is a very common source of mistakes. Many authors call the Dragoon's musket a carbine. That is a falsehood. The dragoons since their creation in the French army had always a shorter version of the uharleville musket. I have made some drawings of both.:versions which can be seen next page. I have already covered the French Dragoon musket in issue 3 of NJN. Following is the description of the weapon from FRENCH MILITARY WEAPONS page 18  The barrel length was 704 mm, having five faces at the breech end. Stock quite short, without cheekpiece. Drawings showing some French cavalry musketoons etc. III. Blunderbuss (Tromblon de Mameluk) (total length 790mm, about 31in.) It is the weapon shown above. Barrel was five sided from the breech to 40 mm from the muzzle. Rear portion browned. Muzzle bell-mounted. Short stock. Barrel held to stock with pins. Trigger guard in brass. Ramrod thimble. No swivels. Swan-necked hammer. Lockplate of carbine Model 1793. Ramrod of the carbine Model 1793. IV. Musketoon. Rifled for the Guard Dragoons. (total length 1100mm, about 44 inches) Barrel length 750 mm, about 30 inches, rifled with 13 grooves. Stock and furniture of the Guard. Upper band has two rings. Stock extends to within 300mm of the muzzle. No side plate, but brass rosette substituted, the rear one having a swivel ring of iron. Pear-shaped head on ramrod. Bayonet, Model Musketoon Year IX. To many of you the above rifled musketoon of the Guard may comes as a surprise. I have to find yet a picture of such weapon and I don't have any other data, range, performances and year of service. Needless to say that any additional information would be welcome. r Range of the Above Weapons The dragoon musket had about the same performances and range than the Charleville musket. The question is open for the rifled musket. The range for the musketoon is difficult to find. According to Nigel de Lee FRENCH LANCERS(Almark Publishing Co.) page 8, a colonel of the Lancers of the Guard, de Brack, reckoned the musketoon to be effective at 90 meters. Unfortunately, if a horseman whished to shoot with any degree of accuracy, he had to fire while his horse was still. Also on occasion hussars, chasseurs etc, would dismount and fire on foot. This was done often by the dragoons and as late as Waterloo when the dragoons of Grouchy were dispatched to hold the bridges at Namur until Groucny came up with his two army Corps. The practice of firing from the saddle with the horse at a standstill was also common in the French Army. A picture of French Hussars skirmishing, with the horses at a stand still, can be seen in Roger's NAPOLEON ARMY between pages 96 and 97. In our next issue we should make an attempt to evaluate the cavalry weapons of other nations such as Prussia, Russia, Austria etc. FOOTNOTE I. The following is the story of the combat of Burkersdorf according to Oman's STUDIES IN THE NAPOLEONIC PERIOD page 240; "..The occasion was the combat of Burkersdorf on February 14,1807: Milhaud and his division had been executing a reconnaissance in force towards Friedland, and were retiring, followed by the enemy of very inferior strength. He was falling back in echelon of brigades at his leisure, keeping off with ease a small observing force of Cossacks, when he was suddently attacked in flank by a single regiment of Russian hussars, which emerged unexpectedly from a village and rode in upon him. Milhaud gave orders for the nearest brigade to form front to flank, but it failed to do so in time to meet the Russian onset, and was charged and broken long before it was ready. Thereupon the other two brigades, still in progress of formation and clubbed by unsteady manoeuvring, rode off the field before they had been attacked at all. They then started galloping, and could not be rallied till they had gone three miles to the rear. Milhaud wrote to Murat that evening that he had tried not to survive such a disgraceful rout of his division, by riding straight at the front of the enemy, with only four men behind him, but by some miracle had been neither killed nor taken. He then asked to be relieved of his command "je ne veux pas commander de pareilles troupes"(I don't want to command such poor troops)- they could not be trusted to make a single change of formation in a hurry, and had gone off the field in disorder when they found themselves caught in a disadvantageous position even by a very inferior number. The explanation given was that that many of the men had actually been trained only to infantry drill, and had only received horses after reaching the front in Poland. They got flurried, and fell into hopeless disorder, when suddenly attacked in flank, because of their consciousness that they were not capable of executing any movement in haste. The last campaign had proved the danger of a half-cavalry' training to troops acting as infantry- this one proved the danger of a half-infantry training to troops acting as cavalry." We'll come back to the above comments in an article on the origin of Dragoons and their training in different armies before the French revolution. That is quite interesting and really open the eyes of anyone interested in dragoons and cavalry. FOOTNOTE 2. I think that here, we have a very good example of the old subject of the reliability of data, I should say examples. The first one is Oman saying that the French lancers never had carbines. Just take a look at one of the following books; 1. FRENCH LANCERS by Nigel de Lee, Almark 2. FRENCH NAPOLEONIC LANCER REGIMENTS by Michael Head, Almark 3. NAPOLEON'S ARMY by Col.H.C.B.Rogers, Hippocrene books,page 47. The second is the fact that Jack Weller says that at Waterloo the French cavalry were equipped with muskets that did not take bayonets. That statement is incorrect. Most if not all the French cavalry, with the exception of the dragoons that had their own type of musket, was equipped with the fear IX musketdon for cavalry which especially designed to the a special bayonet. The third is the statement by Jack Weller: "Some rifled carbines here used in the British Army which were manufactured in accordance with the general principle of the Baker rifle." Could that; be a mistake? The reason I say that is simple. It's the following statement made by John Pimlott in BRITISH LIGHT CAVALRY (Almark) page 36; "Furthermore each trooper had a flintlock pistol and a smooth-bore carbine manufactured in accordance with the general principles of the Baker rifles." Both statements are strangly alike! John Pimlott is a senior lecturer in War Studies at the Royal Military of Sandhurst. Jack Weller is a widely known author on military history, weapons and tactics. He is honorary curator of the West Point Museum.  Please note that it's perfectly possible that some Baker rifled carbines had been used by the British cavalry. That would be in agreement with Pericoli, page 79: "In the Seventh and Tenth Hussars rifled carbines were used by at least some of the troopers." I don't know who is right. To finish let me point out the other statement by lericoli page 79: "The GRENADIERS A CHEVAL carried full length infantry muskets, which must have been a severe handicap to them." I don't think much has to be said on that one! I hope the above notes are of interest. Back to Empire, Eagles, & Lions Table of Contents Vol. 1 No. 21 Back to EEL List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1978 by Jean Lochet This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com