We, wargamers, all agree on one point, since almost all rules, if not all rules, allow horse artillery special privileges. To be specific, such privileges are reflected by the following since usually horse artillery is allowed to... (1) move (much more than foot artillery) (2) unlimber (3) fire. It should be noted that foot artillery is usually allowed only two of the above (again as a general rule). Is the above accepted practice conform to realism? I am sure that no one can argue about the greater mobility of horse artillery. So, the only point in question here Is the ability of horse artillery to move, unlimber and fire in the same turn. Following is a quotation from Dr. Patrick Griffith's FRENCH ARTILLERY (Almark 1976)page 10: It was, paradoxically, slow to come into action, because although it could manoeuvre at perhaps twice the speed of a foot battery, it took longer for the gunners to dismount, park their horses, and run to their pieces. indeed, such was the gymnastic rigour of the service that its gunners suffered heavily from that scourge of early nineteenth century medicine, an epidemic of hernias. Particularly in night surprises the horse artillery was notoriously slow off the mark, as gunners and drivers would be milling round helplessly trying to decide which horse was theirs, tripping over tethering ropes, and tying each other in knots. Allow me to say here that Dr. Griffith is a lecturer in Way Studies at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. That should gives some weight to the above quotation. Please note that Dr. Griffith fully acknowledge the usefulness of horse artillery mainly because of its greater movement length. Once more note that I am not the advocate of anything. I just report here facts as stated by a reliable reference source and the very least that can be said is that a question is raised. Of course once more if my reference is wrong I am wrong. But one can help wonder, once more, if some of the Napoleonic wargaming practices are based on facts. I am not trying to destroy the valuable work that has been done by the "pioneers" of wargaming. It is easier to criticise and destroy than to build. I could stop here since there is enough "material" in the above few lines to unleash against me all kinds of comments and articles to tell me, in one form or another, that I don't know what I am talking about. That may be so, but I can not help it, if the above brings some more questions in my mind. One of them is on Austrian artillery. Ray Johnson, in his booklet Napoleonic Organization (p.17) says: Austria had no true horse artillery; their cavalry batteries were assigned to cavalry and Advance Guard formations. They were only slightly more mobile than regular batteries as there was a provision for the gunners to ride astraddle the limbers. These were composed of 3- or 6-lb. guns, usually 6 to a battery. I think, although the movement of such artillery should be less than foot artillery, such "cavalry batteries" had an advantage over mounted artillery since its artillerists would not have to dismount and were next to the gun, readily available to fire the gun ... That should be a reason for quicker initial flying .... That brings two other questions. The first one is why the French horse artillery went to the "integrally mounted crew" and did not stick to the "wurst" system like the Austrian since such a system was used in 1792 in the first trials of the French horse artillery? ref. de Toussard AMERICAN ARTILLERIST COMPANION vol. II, page 4. The second question is why field artillery should not be allowed the same privileges and also allowed to move, unlimber and fire in the same turn? We should remind here that artillerists in a foot battery were walking and moving next and with the guns. Is the actual standard based on the matter of eliteness since the best elements were usually allocated to the horse artillery? Then if eliteness is just the criteria, Guard artillery should be allowed the same privileges than horse artillery, i.e. move, unlimber and fire in the same turn. One can argue that the guns used by the field artillery were bigger than the guns used by the horse artillery. Not necessarily so! French horse artillery in the early days of the Napoleonic period (1792-1797) was using 8-pounders. ref. de Toussard vol.,2, page 45, and Lachouque GUNS page 101. The Year IX 6-pounder was apparently the only gun used by the French horse artillery in Russia and was almost as heavy as the 8-pounder. No doubt however that the 4-pounder was the most used gun in the French horse artillery if one considers the overall picture of the Napoleonic period. Do not forget that we are speaking of the sturdy Gribeauval system. All authoritative sources report that in spite of their weight these guns were very easy to handle and move around (ref. FRENCH ARTILLERY, FIREPOWER etc.). Quimby in the BACKGROUND OF NAPOLEONIC WARFARE, page 146, reports the following: As a result of the improvements in the carriages, the new guns rolled much easier. A four-pounder could be hauled easily by four or even three horses. It could be handled readily by eight using braces and levers. They could change position easily and even follow infantry on favorable ground. Four horses or eleven men could move an 8-pounder without difficulty, while six horses or fifteen men could do the same for a twelve-pounder. This ability to manhandle the guns allowed one to leave the horses in shelter, a very important consideration. Please note that the 4-lber was handled with no difficulties by 8 men and the 8-pder by 11 men. The other nations' horse artillery were using, with perhaps the exception of the U.S. Army, guns that were usually lighter than the Gribcauval system. (The British 9-pounder was equivalent in weight to a French 8-pounder and the new 1815 Prussian field guns used at Waterloo were as heavy as the French guns (ref. Jack Weller WELLINGTON AT WATERLOO) So, the data presented above should also be pertinent for the horse artillery of other nations. I don't eliminate the possibility to have overlooked some unknown pertinent points. It is time to conclude. That is difficult to do when one has only questions. However I would like to point out that horse artillery may be slightly over evaluated in Wargaming, and that, perhaps, it was nothing more than an outstanding branch of the artillery to provide quickly and when needed in a given spot of a battle field a reserve of artillery but nothing more. An interesting point in my humble opinion, substantiated by the fact that the artillery of the Guard had quite a few horse batteries and that precisely Napoleon used to say: "It is the artillery of my Guard that is the decisive factor in my battles." I present the following extract from FRENCH ARTILLERY, page 10: Paradoxically horse artillery, which was so useful in the very forefront of a battle, was also ideal for use in the reserve role. When a general had developed his battle and was ready to commit his reserve at a weak spot identified in the enemy line, it. was the horse artillery which he could most rapidly call up to prepare the way. For this reason the Guard Artillery contained a high proportion of horse batteries, and they often made considerable movements during the very climax of Napoleon's battles. I would like also to acknowledge the fact that horse artillery was in addition very mobile and the following from FRENCH ARTILLERY, page is significant: Almost as soon as the horse artillery had been formed it was recognised as an invaluable addition to the army, and its numbers were dramatically increased. It could accompany rapid strategic movements better than the foot guns, and could give cavalry formations an element of solidity which they had previously lacked. After the cavalry had forced enemy infantry to form square, for example, a horse battery firing at close range could wreak havoc in the closely packed ranks. Horse artillery was also useful when it was cooperating with infantry, either skirmishers or the masses behind. it was more ready to go forward with an attack than the foot artillery, although as the wars went on the foot guns increasingly followed this example. it was pointed out that the apparent disadvantage which light guns might. experience when advancing into the muzzles of heavier batteries could often be negated by the faster rate of fire of the former. On many a field the French horse artillery seemed to prove the truth of this, although it sometimes paid heavily. By the way I also think that Dr. Griffith's book FRENCH ARTILLERY is a very valuable addition to any wargamer library. Back to Empire, Eagles, & Lions Table of Contents Vol. 1 No. 26 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