'Cavalry is useful before, during, and after the battle', as Napoleon put it! Really interesting video, I've been reading about Napoleonic tactics on and off for 20 years, but still learned something new from this. On a small technical point, in English the straight heavy cavalry weapon would be called a sword, not a sabre, as it is not curved. Also, on skirmishers, one of their main purposes is obviously to stop the enemy doing the same to you - to prevent them scouting, harassing your battle line, etc. Once one side is using skirmishers, the other side has to introduce them as a defensive measure.
Technically correct, but as time went by - especially in the latter half of the 19th century - the term "sabre" came to refer to any military sword, regardless of blade shape or edge geometry.
Whenever I've been in 'Militaria' stores I have always noticed that 'Cavalry sabres' were often shorter and most equipment for cavalry was designed to be lighter and less burdensome as a horse has enough of a burden carrying a man without carrying his pack too? If sabres were longer then they were thinner as the balance on a saddle is not so troublesome when on two feet. Also, there is the consideration of the horse itself when it comes to swinging a sabre at an enemy with a horse's head and body thrashing around. 'Piercing' would be preferable to 'slashing', wouldn't you say? When an arm is raised, then your centre of balance is lost and a mere nudge would likely knock you from the saddle!
@@jackofshadows8538 It's true that heavy cavalry would often stab with their sabers rather than chop. But militairy saddles were made to keep the soldiers in the saddle if possible, not letting them be vulnerable to nudges.
2:26 The British Dragoons were actually a special case here. During the mid-1700s, the British converted all of their cavalry (referred to in the British Army as "horse") units to Dragoons, in order to pay them on a lower scale (a legacy of the Dragoon's mounted infantry origins). So all British cavalry units in the Napoleonic period were officially called Dragoons, but the name was more of a financial scam than any reflection on their actual functions. The British distinction between Light and Heavy Dragoons was the truly functional one, since it reflected which set of roles a particular unit was intended to fulfill.
Yeah, the army converted them all into dragoons in 1768, though the process began in 1748. Light dragoon companies were added to regiments in IIRC 1752 or 1753, but full-regiments come only with the Seven Years War, and indeed were meant to be the analogues to the continents' hussars.
My godfather was one of the last men trained to be horse mounted in the US cavalry. He told me that when you charge down foot soldiers, ride parallel or slightly in front of them and backhand slash them in the face. If you try slashing from behind you will strike their packs.
Frankly, the stereotypical US cavalry were more like Dragoons or Light Horse soldiers, than true cavalry. Ride into battle, then, quickly, dismount and fight on foot...
@@EarlJohn61 that would make sense. We've always had a tradition of "the individual marksmen" that still purists to this very day from decades of frontier warfare. It's most easily seen in the Springfield 1903 being set up as more of a target rifle than a combat rifle with it's complex and tiny sights, etc. There's no way a soldier on horseback could get off a decent shot up to the army's standards from a moving horse
If you ain't CAV you ain't. A salute to the great soldiers of US CAV. I trained with 1/12 CAV from Ft. Hood, TX. They showed excellent maneuvers. Thumbs up!!!!
I was thinking "how could he not see the parallels between modern combined arms and cavalry tactics?" Then you dropped it in right at the end. Well played, sir. Thanks for the enlightening videos.
Great video! Thanks for all the information. I just want to add one point regarding the use of cavalry against artillery: The problem of these attacks was often that the squadrons had no real possibility to destroy the captured guns. According to “Keegan (1976): The face of battle”, during the Waterloo battle, artillery men were often fleeing towards nearby friendly infantry columns when facing a cavalry charge. The cavalry was therefore getting the ground with only few casualties but were unable to do any harm to the abandoned guns with just sabers equipped. A common practice during this time was to use nails to seal the touch holes of the guns but therefore a cavalry man has to get off his horse what many refused to do as a sense of status. If no infantry unit was following the cavalry charge to deal with the guns, the squadrons had to leave the captured canons to go on for further tasks. This gave time for the artillery men to get back to their position and continuing their work and made the attack quite useless. Of course this was just possible if the gunners got aware of the charge in time.
For more on this topic, I highly recommend Rory Muir's "Tactics and Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon" It does an excellent job exploring the tactics, doctrine, and practical use of all branches of land forces during the war, as well as comparisons between mostly French and English. It also deals with raising regiments, procurement, command and control, and expectations while on maneuver. For the Napoelonic wars, perhaps more than anything previous, displayed the vital necessity of the war of maneuver. Napoleon's superior organization and supply allowed him to move faster, and concentrate his army more successfully than any other nation, enabling him to defeat empires. A key example of this is the difference between his Italian Campaign of 1796/97 and the Ulm campaign of 1805. In the first, Napoleon was able to concentrate his army and defeat the austrians in detail. The austrians thought they learned their lesson, and kept their army far more concetrated for the Ulm Campaign. The result was Napoleon being able to outmaneuver and entrap the entire austrain army.
I'm in love with the beige background you used; it's very soothing/comforting to the eyes! Once again you've outdone yourself with regards to the quality of your videos
Superb observation of the Napoleonic wars cavalry in less than 25 minutes, would not believe this is possible, many thanks! As regards the cavalry attacking the infantry - there was a lesser known in the West retreat of the Neverovsky division to Smolensk under constant attacks of the French cavalry. The nuances were that: 1) at least 2/3 of the soldiers and a majority of the officers of the Russian division were just recruited/ never saw an action; 2) they were attacked by probably the best and most experienced part of the best of the world cavalry - led by probably the best cavalry commander f the time Murat; 3) there were 2 French cavalrymen per one Russian infantryman; 4) there were in total at least 40 French charges during the whole day of the retreat. French attacked relentlessly and bravely and managed in some cases (on the turns of the road, etc.) to chip off some small formations of the Russians but the main body of the division (to remind - for a majority of its members this was the first real action) was like a steel wall. Moreover, Neverovsky managed to send his artillery ahead and plotted an ambush upon the French cavalry! Following which the French gave up. They later complained that their horses were “too tired” to continue. Hmm, the Neverovsky division covered the same way by foot under the constant attacks (and marched a twice longer way than the French cavalry the day before). The next day the depleted but still highly motivated Neverovsky division repelled numerous attacks of the French forces (again, substantially exceeding them in numbers) at Smolensk covering the deployment of the main Russian forces. Many consider this successful retreat as a critical point that did not allow Napoleon to trap the Russians at Smolensk and thus to destroy the Russian army (he had s substantial superiority in numbers at that time). Neverovsky, in my view, is one of the most outstanding and forgotten heroes of the Napoleonic wars - he was a truly “soldiers’ general” explaining to his soldiers every maneuver and caring about them in and out a battle. The soldiers paid back with the outmost trust.
This was really interesting. The stuff about cavalry vs cavalry in particular. I spend a lot of time inventing fantasy worlds etc... and I like to have realistic warfare in them, this is a nice bit of knowledge to have for that purpose.
Being a child of the cold war I've often neglected studying the Napoleonic era over more modern conflicts.Thanks for explaining this in a clear connected manner.
A unit of Currasier and a unit of Royal Dragoons spot one another, on a hot summer day in northern France. They form dense orderly lines opposite ends of a fallow field, waiting for the charge, only 500 meters apart. From both sides the call is given the horses start! First with a leisurely walk, then to a trot, then they gallop! By the time they reach fifty meters the hoof falls are so quick, it is as if their horses are flying o'er the dusty ground. The men draw their blades, glinting in the hot sun, their warcries join the the deafening thunder of the charge. Then at ten meters the horses come to as hard a stop one can expect from horses in formation. At three meters both lines are stopped cold. The men tentatively lower their weapons and look to their officers. "Uh... shit." Says the English Colonel. "Hey, umm... Ugh, do any of you frenchies speak English?" The French Colonel comes forward, "Ouais, a bit." "Great, great... look I kinda saw this going differently in my head" spoke the Englishman scratching his scraggly beard. "I also thought this would be a bit more..." the Frenchman gives a shrug "/dramatic/." "Perhaps", piped up the French Colonel, "Perhaps we should back up and try again?" The English Colonel looked to the ground, tipped up his cap wiping away the sweat accumulating on his brow, and shifted in his saddle. "It would just feel */weird/* now." "Ouais, it would indeed" "Maybe we should both back up and then at a hundred meters..." "...We both turn about face and go our separate ways. Forget this ever happened." "Exactly, toodles my good man." "Adieu." ~*THE END*~
The TV version would end in piles of dead horses and men while survivors recklessly leap over the piles to stab each other. Critics would never stop talking about how "realistic" the scene is.
Wait a minute I thought the heavy cavalry horses Especially the cuirassier were more aggressive than normal horses and well trained and will charge anyway, There is many first hand accounts of horses charging each other I think it's just as bad of a misconception to say that horses never charge another mass of horses of infantry
in 1760 Ridinger, a riding master writes about the officers compressing the line form the sides by riding their horses sideways to the middle, this will compress the line to the point where it will bulge forward int he middle, greatly aiding in the horses committing to the attack. similarly the horse will be very keen to hide behind the horse next to it when charging, and this is why an echelon attack is much more likely to be effective, as the animals want to follow the herd under stress, and yet avoid the enemy, this can result in a surge that rampages through the enemy, in particular if the leading horses are well selected, also the first three strides of gallop are almost impossible for the horse to shy or stop, so that might be part of why a formation might strike the gallop really late. also a formation only striking the canter at 20-30 yards might be seen to 'have attacked in trot' especially in high corn, like at waterloo. another factor in the 'shoot only once' factor is the smokescreen the infantry will lay in front of themselves and not be able to target at all after the first volley, the horses suddenly appearing from the mist. the reason it is probably not very effective to charge cavalry with cavalry in the napoleonic era is the lack of wedge formations, so often employed from about 1000-1650 (and earlier in Macedonian and Byzantine cavalry), wedge formations allow the horses to litteraly split the enemy units mass, and if done right is not hard to do with actual horses. there are very clear depictions (chronicles of the crusades 1470s france, for instance) of these wedges being used cav vs cav. this comes down to 3 factors: -lances, armour and riding quality. all three of those things fell out of favour around 1650 with the lack of localized horse supply, allowing much greater education of the animals. a well trained horse with an armoured rider with a couched lance can control enemy weapons in front of his horses head, that is less easy for a sabre armed trooper. The lances used in the napoleonic era are much shorter and lighter and are held in the middle, greatly reducing range. the wedge is therefore able to allow the horses to work as a snowplough, something hardly possible for later cavalry. it has to be said that gunfire was employed en masse from at least 1400 onward, (and first used on the European battlefield in 1340) and fully plate armoured cavalry does not crop up until 1360, and continues until at least 1644 in the west and later int he east. so gunfire cannot be the reason for the disappearance for this type of tactic, but horse supply correlates much better.
The wedge was not used, as the movies and computer games show, as a plough. It was in many ways similar to the echelon in the attack, weaker but more flexible than a line. The great advantage of the wedge (or rhombus, which is basically the same), is that you can turn the formation 90 degrees really fast. At the time the wedge was popular, the cavalry charge against an infantry formation was a game of chicken. If the foot broke formation, the horse could charge home. But if the foot stead fast, the horse had to break off. With a line formation, you get a better charge, but the formation is slow to turn. That means you have to break off the charge early. What you can do with a wedge, or rhombus, is to switch the leading horse on order. So that the tip of the rhumbus turns into the side, and one of the sides turns into the tip. This makes the wedge and rhumbos formations to be able to get closer to the enemy before calling off the charge and turn. Making it much harder for the enemy officers to keep their men steady in their formations. And if the lead horse sees a crack in the infantry, he knows he can charge home.
It really was a great summary, imho one of your best pieces actually - comprehensive, yet to the point. It is good to see that you keep focused on doing what you seem to be doing best. Only fly in the ointment is the lack of more historical examples to flesh out the statements and conclusions that are made. But of course it would even require much more time to include these. Thanks for uploading, it is very clear that many hours were spent into research and production!
Who the hell would dislike this? It's is really, really good. Very educational and yet also highly entertaining! Exactly what I look for on TH-cam. Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to put this together! Instantly subscribed.
Nice information on calvary and brings to mind how cinema misrepresents calvary charges. However, the movie Waterloo showed the folly of French Cuirassers charging battle hardened infantry without infantry support. There was also a good scene in Waterloo in which the Scottish Greys tangled with French lancers. I like your videos, keep up the good work!
It should be added that cavalry - particularly heavy cavalry - was extremely expensive to maintain. Only the larger nations could afford it in substantial numbers. For example, the Sardinian and later Italian Bersaglieri (light infantry) was founded to compensate for expensive cavalry.
Did the heavy cavalry still use horses specifically bred for the charge? It would explain part of the cost and gives a reason for the cavalry performance at Waterloo, as the French probably did not have enough of those warhorses left. when they rapidly rebuild their army. Light cavalry probably could make use of basic riding horses which were also used in the civilian sector.
That is not that maintenance means. It would be equipment cost. To maintain it means to support. To support heavy cavalry should be essentially the same as to support light cavalry. Sure, horses might eat a little more, maybe those units are more prestigious and thus are getting paid better, but those are such neglible costs that they are not worth mentioning. Heavy costs incurs when nation needs serial crafted items. Cost of something significantly drops down when nation establish proper infrastructure to create such items en mass. I do not see how those horses could be more costly. Horse is a horse. It will fuck with other horses just as well, thus ensuring numbers. It will grow the same as other horses. Maybe due to size it will eat little bit more, but that is meaningless. It is a horse, not a king. The only real price increase could come from need to armor their heavy cavalry, but once again, not all of them were armored to begin with. Furthermore, armor is not that expensive. We are not talking about full body armor of knights. At that time, medium armor like of Roman legions were most widespread. Saying that Nepaleon era nations could not afford that Roman empire could produce en mass is just an insult to armies of that time.
A horse is not a horse as a dog is not a dog. You have different breeds for different purposes. If the breed is rarer the cost to buy is higher. Just look up modern horse trading. Prices go from around a thousand dollar to 50 million dollar. As horses need to be replaced the maintenance is higher if you've more expensive horses to replace. Furthermore some breeds of horses require more maintenance than other. For an simple example some horses you can leave in the rain without problems, others need to stay in warm stables or get sick. And about scaling the economy during peace battle horses do not get bred much as the demand is limited. In war the demand rises but the breeders are then at war and then it still takes a couple of years to get a functional horse.
Nice presentation, informative, the Napoleonic wars is something that was greatly lacking in an already poor school history class in the U.S. (for reasons I don't understand [accurate] history (and geography) was and is a low priority in our primary school system).
my favourite video by you so far. not only is the time period much more interesting for me than ww2, but its also very informative and has great visualization. keep up the good work! :)
Polish cavalry has always been terrifying. They were not always well led or had a just cause but damn there must be something in the blood. Poles are such good cavalry men.
Thanks very much Berhard. I think you might be interested to know that online English dictionaries are very useful these days! Whether you use English or American English, you can see the phonetic spelling & listen to a (computer generated) voice pronouncing of even the French words we use. So you can learn pronunciation of words you normally only read, like echelon, coup de grace, etc.
Wow, what a fantastic video! That answered so many questions I had about cavalry. Also, the icons used were amazing as always. Thanks for a really good video, MHV.
I was born in the wrong time period. I should be a Napoleonic cavalry officer, clanking around with my spurs and saber and medals, wearing a chocolate soldier uniform, and with a princess under each arm.
I have Thomas Anderson's book "Sturmartillerie - Spearhead of the Infantry" and when you mentioned horse artillery, I thought "ah, Sturmgeschütz". As you said here, as you said about the Blitz-eh, Bewegungskrieg, nothing new.
Love the citations on Cavalry vs Cavalry. Makes sense that the horse learned not to go against other horses.Given any surprise, horsed forces are truly scary.
you would actually be surprised what men did to horses in the past , some armies trained their horses to kick and bite at anything that dared touch them or their rider , or even run back ˝home˝ after the rider was dead or something , what i mean is that isnt so black and white
Weedus, good idea! I usually put them way on the flanks to attempt to take out enemy artillery as quick as possible, or to intercept broken units, and chase them down too.
Wedge knee behind knee "all-out aggressive cavalry" is from Charles XIIs of Sweden and his Caroleans cavalry units (1700-1712) - also in early-stage development at the battle of Lund 1676 and battle of Landskrona 1677 (Charles XIs of Sweden).
This presentation puts Custer's quote about Amerindian cavalry as "the finest light cavalry in the world" into perspective. It also answers some questions I had about John Mosby's pistol-armed Confederate cavalry vs. Union cavalry, comparing their saber charges as being as ineffective "as if they were wielding cornstalks." Cavalry vs. infantry armed with magazine rifles made Napoleon's assertion about battle a thing of the past.
I would like to point out that most if not all these principles existed long before Napoleon. Take the point at 18:05, for instance, about the idea that the cavalry is very useful if the enemy is still in marching column. That's basically what happened at the battle of Turnhout, and in many other engagements, the cavalry simply scared the enemy into battle formation. The biggest difference between the horsemen of 1815 and those of the 16th century, is the reintroduction of the lance. Before, the lance had dissapeared due to pikemen, but with the replacement of the pike by the socket bayonet in the late 17th century, it became a viable weapon once again (if somewhat single-use, since it will probably get stuck in something during the charge).
Love your videos and how consistent you are with backing everything up with source material. 99% of the "Fact" spewers on both here and netflix could learn alot from you. Kudos! And loved the finnish. During the era, it was still a bit like the medieval battles. 80% of all losses occur during the rout. No cavalry to give chase means no actual losses to the enemy.
Good stuff. Very educational. I find the battle tactics of the 18th & 19th centuries to be fascinating. During the Napoleonic wars it was a constant chess game of infantry vs cavalry vs artilery. Infantry could deploy in square to repel cavalry but that made them vulnerable to artillery. Cavalry could devastate a line of infantry especially if attacked on the flank. Infantry usually deployed in line to attack or defend against infantry. Artillery could usually repel infantry & cavalry but not without infantry support. If cavalry & infantry got close enough or to the rear of artillery, they could be devastating.
It is important to note that cavalry during this period acted quite differently from cavalry prior to the rise of artillery and firearms, cavalry was indeed expected to frontally engage both cavalry and prepared infantry during antiquity and the medieval period.
-"Maneuver is one of the two basic components of combat, the other is firepower." -"Nope, we need a wall, a big one and we gonna name it Maginot Line."
During a conversation of workmen in the 1950s the following was spoken by an old WW1 veteran in a broad Yorkshire accent; "You've never known fear until you've faced a cavalry charge"
Reminds me of the official US Army wargame simulations we used to run in the late 1990's on HP workstations with four button "pucks". The simulation only allowed each side's commander to see what his soldiers could see, so both sides would have an advance screen of M2/M3 Bradleys or BMP's trying to identify good routes and threats while preventing the other side from doing the same. The light cavalry would inevitably skirmish with each other, blasting away with 25mm , 30mm, or 76mm guns and the occasional wire-guided missile. Once the light cavalry had identified an enemy weak point, the heavy cavalry (US armor battalion or Soviet tank battalion) would charge at it, 120mm or 125mm smoothbore cannons blazing. Now you send up a cloud of drones to "see what's over the next hill." Blinding and destroying drones must inevitably follow.
The importance of cavalry could not be overstated for deciding battles and campaigns in any era. The lack of effectively cavalry was a major reason why WWI turned into a stalemate. Modern machine guns, barbed wire and artillery made it practically impossible for horse cavalry to exploit opening s and weak points they were needed for. Therefore these openings had to be exploited with infantry. Unfortunately, there is only so far infantry can push before they are exhausted. This is why advances of the western front had such high costs for little, if any, gain.
This commentary is quite interesting, both for the context of the Napoleonic Wars and also for wider context. Thinking as a historian mostly of much later times, it strikes me that people learning how to properly use and focus armored vehicles may have had to re-learn the lessons of cavalry tactics from earlier times. [For instance, the initial applications of armored vehicles in World War I largely bogged down in the mud and ultimately did not accomplish much of military value, partly because of a limited concept of these new military tools as only a slow-moving infantry support vehicle, rather than something with a grander vision?] American General George Patton, who came from a neighborhood not so far from where I grew up in Southern California (and who is somebody I suspect is WAY over-rated in military and other history) is credited on the American side with at least realizing that tanks were, in fact, a kind of armored cavalry that should act in the way that cavalry traditionally had acted, before the stalemate of the Western Front in World War I that put an end to traditional horse-mounted cavalry tactics. But your discussion also makes me recall much earlier times--namely, the "cataphracts" (extremely heavy cavalry, by the standards of the times, with both horses and riders heavily armored), during the various wars and campaigns of the Crusades in medieval times. The Byzantine cataphracts were, apparently, a pretty terrifying weapon with enormous shock value for breaking through enemy lines in the period from roughly AD 800-1400, if those enemy lines were relatively fixed; but the Arab fighters, with much lighter cavalry, learned to let the cataphracts run, do whatever they did, tire themselves out, and then lighter, more mobile Arab cavalry could run circles around both the Byzantine cataphracts and the other Byzantine defensive lines. [And, with the ultimate fall of Constantinople, we know who ultimately won.] In keeping with that, during the Mighty Pandemic, I found and read a free copy of Nigel Hamilton's extensive biography of Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery, the victor at the crucial battle of El Alamein in North Africa near Egypt in the Second World War. Now, unlike a lot of Brits, I, speaking as an American, do not automatically fall on my ass and start worshipping Monty just at the mention of his name. [ ;-) Sorry, all you Brits, but that's the case. Monty caused a lot of logistical and management problems for the Americans who were bank-rolling the whole war on the Western Front in World War II, and trust me--we haven't forgotten it. We also haven't forgotten his near-disastrous failure in Operation Market Garden, the massive over-reach recounted in "A Bridge Too Far." ;-) ] Anyway, part of Monty's whole approach to warfare, which he developed from the trenches of World War I through his time in India and Palestine between the wars to his helping to lead British forces to a more-or-less honorable withdrawal at Dunkirk and beyond, seemingly was precisely the lesson of infantry commanders facing cavalry in Napoleonic times: namely, you don't just fall on your asses and concede defeat because your enemy has tanks (or cavalry); rather, you make plans in advance for how best to fight them, slow them down, and deny them the advantage of superior mobility through concerted and well-trained infantry tactics. The Nigel Hamilton biography is rather interesting in showing how this approach was used, more or less, to aggressive rather than defensive advantage, at the Battle of El Alamein, where the whole battle was won largely by skilled infantry and artillery tactics, where the British armored forces commanders were less capable. [Many thanks to the Aussie infantry on the northern flank who courageously filled in where British armor miserably failed!] At any rate, part of Monty's overall message, which seems to have militarily correct, is: take away the shock value of charging cavalry or tanks, and they're really just another force vector than can be canceled by other forces. That, put in to practice, may have been Monty's message, and advantage, more than anything else.
Hmmm, your a wizard.... I just bought a couple of Napoleonic Wars books this weekend and now you come out with a ridiculously awesome/infotainment video. If your doing 20+ min vids in 2018 the final piece in my life is in place.😂
The Cavalry Charge in tight formation was taken from the Sweds during the Great Northern War under Karl Xll. It was his father King Karl Xl who improved cavalry tactics with the tight formation of knee to knee three lines deep always attacking at a gallop so as not to give the enamy time to reform. The Battle of Holowczyn July 3 1708 was one of greatest cavalry engagments of the war whereby the Swedish Cavalry routed and defeated the much greater Russian Cavalry .
One of historic moments which shows how important cavalry understanding and usage was can be found if you study A. W. Suvorov (russian generalissimus from mid to late 18th century) who was never beaten in battle. His first ever battle as force commander in his career was against Sweden and looked something like this (generally speaking of course): 2000-3000 Swedes entrenched themselves on a hill and waited for the russian forces to attack. Suvorov just arrived himself, looked at the situation and said literally no more than "500 cossacks, attack there", immediately the order was carried out. While charging the cossacks "dived" into the hilly area so the Swedes could not see them. They appeared only right in front of their faces. The swedes ran. Casualties minimum to none. 1st won battle for Suvorovs perfect career to come :)
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
'Cavalry is useful before, during, and after the battle', as Napoleon put it! Really interesting video, I've been reading about Napoleonic tactics on and off for 20 years, but still learned something new from this. On a small technical point, in English the straight heavy cavalry weapon would be called a sword, not a sabre, as it is not curved. Also, on skirmishers, one of their main purposes is obviously to stop the enemy doing the same to you - to prevent them scouting, harassing your battle line, etc. Once one side is using skirmishers, the other side has to introduce them as a defensive measure.
The British rifle men were superior to any smooth bore musket vultigeur (not sure on the spelling)
@@Mikapaintings Voltigeur. [Voltijeo].
Technically correct, but as time went by - especially in the latter half of the 19th century - the term "sabre" came to refer to any military sword, regardless of blade shape or edge geometry.
Very interesting video. I actually made an in-depth Napoleon light infantry tactics video if anyone wants to check it out
The Great Khan is looking down upon this comment nodding with a slight grin on his face
My dad is a modern day hussar in the swedish army :). But they use helicopters instead.
carfel the best That's OP!
Fallskärmsjägarna är husarer! Livregementets husarer.
He must be going for a technological victory.
He can still play Sabaton while he rides around in the helicopter. If he's a Hussar, he's earned it.
Going for that victory royal
So light cavalry used lightsabers?
While Lancers had the longest shafts.
And Pre-industrial Light and Magic.
In fact they used heavy sabers.
Whenever I've been in 'Militaria' stores I have always noticed that 'Cavalry sabres' were often shorter and most equipment for cavalry was designed to be lighter and less burdensome as a horse has enough of a burden carrying a man without carrying his pack too? If sabres were longer then they were thinner as the balance on a saddle is not so troublesome when on two feet.
Also, there is the consideration of the horse itself when it comes to swinging a sabre at an enemy with a horse's head and body thrashing around. 'Piercing' would be preferable to 'slashing', wouldn't you say? When an arm is raised, then your centre of balance is lost and a mere nudge would likely knock you from the saddle!
@@jackofshadows8538 It's true that heavy cavalry would often stab with their sabers rather than chop. But militairy saddles were made to keep the soldiers in the saddle if possible, not letting them be vulnerable to nudges.
2:26 The British Dragoons were actually a special case here. During the mid-1700s, the British converted all of their cavalry (referred to in the British Army as "horse") units to Dragoons, in order to pay them on a lower scale (a legacy of the Dragoon's mounted infantry origins). So all British cavalry units in the Napoleonic period were officially called Dragoons, but the name was more of a financial scam than any reflection on their actual functions. The British distinction between Light and Heavy Dragoons was the truly functional one, since it reflected which set of roles a particular unit was intended to fulfill.
Yeah, the army converted them all into dragoons in 1768, though the process began in 1748. Light dragoon companies were added to regiments in IIRC 1752 or 1753, but full-regiments come only with the Seven Years War, and indeed were meant to be the analogues to the continents' hussars.
lmao
Source?
@@imkeepingmynamethis en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragoon#Early_history_and_role , near the end.
My godfather was one of the last men trained to be horse mounted in the US cavalry. He told me that when you charge down foot soldiers, ride parallel or slightly in front of them and backhand slash them in the face. If you try slashing from behind you will strike their packs.
26th Cav?
Frankly, the stereotypical US cavalry were more like Dragoons or Light Horse soldiers, than true cavalry.
Ride into battle, then, quickly, dismount and fight on foot...
@@EarlJohn61 that would make sense. We've always had a tradition of "the individual marksmen" that still purists to this very day from decades of frontier warfare. It's most easily seen in the Springfield 1903 being set up as more of a target rifle than a combat rifle with it's complex and tiny sights, etc. There's no way a soldier on horseback could get off a decent shot up to the army's standards from a moving horse
moo
If you ain't CAV you ain't. A salute to the great soldiers of US CAV. I trained with 1/12 CAV from Ft. Hood, TX. They showed excellent maneuvers. Thumbs up!!!!
Best Cavalry explanation video ever made, Thank You
Add this to your featured playlist. Its one of your best ever, and I dont even read about Napoleonic times much at all.
good point!
and thx!
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized Please enable Persian subtitles for all your programs
I was thinking "how could he not see the parallels between modern combined arms and cavalry tactics?" Then you dropped it in right at the end. Well played, sir. Thanks for the enlightening videos.
Was eagerly waiting for the one, and holly molly this is really great! Rarely seen such a clear, dense and well organized 20+ min video. Great job!
9:59 “Any disturbance in the force...” Love it
;) I kept the jokes rather subtle this time.
Unlike Lucasfilm. ;-)
so if there is an awakening it will cause all sorts of chaos like two crap movies a possible flop and one slightly mediocre film
LOL!
Great video! Thanks for all the information. I just want to add one point regarding the use of cavalry against artillery: The problem of these attacks was often that the squadrons had no real possibility to destroy the captured guns. According to “Keegan (1976): The face of battle”, during the Waterloo battle, artillery men were often fleeing towards nearby friendly infantry columns when facing a cavalry charge. The cavalry was therefore getting the ground with only few casualties but were unable to do any harm to the abandoned guns with just sabers equipped. A common practice during this time was to use nails to seal the touch holes of the guns but therefore a cavalry man has to get off his horse what many refused to do as a sense of status. If no infantry unit was following the cavalry charge to deal with the guns, the squadrons had to leave the captured canons to go on for further tasks. This gave time for the artillery men to get back to their position and continuing their work and made the attack quite useless. Of course this was just possible if the gunners got aware of the charge in time.
For more on this topic, I highly recommend Rory Muir's "Tactics and Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon"
It does an excellent job exploring the tactics, doctrine, and practical use of all branches of land forces during the war, as well as comparisons between mostly French and English. It also deals with raising regiments, procurement, command and control, and expectations while on maneuver.
For the Napoelonic wars, perhaps more than anything previous, displayed the vital necessity of the war of maneuver. Napoleon's superior organization and supply allowed him to move faster, and concentrate his army more successfully than any other nation, enabling him to defeat empires.
A key example of this is the difference between his Italian Campaign of 1796/97 and the Ulm campaign of 1805. In the first, Napoleon was able to concentrate his army and defeat the austrians in detail. The austrians thought they learned their lesson, and kept their army far more concetrated for the Ulm Campaign. The result was Napoleon being able to outmaneuver and entrap the entire austrain army.
I'm in love with the beige background you used; it's very soothing/comforting to the eyes! Once again you've outdone yourself with regards to the quality of your videos
Lloyd would approve.
"Doesn't like beige? He's NO SON OF MINE!"
He hugs our eyes.
I like the Reichskangaroo being the symbol for "Not Crazy Enough".
You do a good job portraying historical French military tactics, and I like it. The French have such a rich military history.
Superb observation of the Napoleonic wars cavalry in less than 25 minutes, would not believe this is possible, many thanks!
As regards the cavalry attacking the infantry - there was a lesser known in the West retreat of the Neverovsky division to Smolensk under constant attacks of the French cavalry. The nuances were that:
1) at least 2/3 of the soldiers and a majority of the officers of the Russian division were just recruited/ never saw an action;
2) they were attacked by probably the best and most experienced part of the best of the world cavalry - led by probably the best cavalry commander f the time Murat;
3) there were 2 French cavalrymen per one Russian infantryman;
4) there were in total at least 40 French charges during the whole day of the retreat.
French attacked relentlessly and bravely and managed in some cases (on the turns of the road, etc.) to chip off some small formations of the Russians but the main body of the division (to remind - for a majority of its members this was the first real action) was like a steel wall. Moreover, Neverovsky managed to send his artillery ahead and plotted an ambush upon the French cavalry! Following which the French gave up.
They later complained that their horses were “too tired” to continue. Hmm, the Neverovsky division covered the same way by foot under the constant attacks (and marched a twice longer way than the French cavalry the day before).
The next day the depleted but still highly motivated Neverovsky division repelled numerous attacks of the French forces (again, substantially exceeding them in numbers) at Smolensk covering the deployment of the main Russian forces.
Many consider this successful retreat as a critical point that did not allow Napoleon to trap the Russians at Smolensk and thus to destroy the Russian army (he had s substantial superiority in numbers at that time).
Neverovsky, in my view, is one of the most outstanding and forgotten heroes of the Napoleonic wars - he was a truly “soldiers’ general” explaining to his soldiers every maneuver and caring about them in and out a battle. The soldiers paid back with the outmost trust.
Russians are tough, you can't defeat them easily! 💪 Later, winter got the French army, as others decades after. 😁
Nope. Winter was still the VIP
This was really interesting. The stuff about cavalry vs cavalry in particular. I spend a lot of time inventing fantasy worlds etc... and I like to have realistic warfare in them, this is a nice bit of knowledge to have for that purpose.
Being a child of the cold war I've often neglected studying the Napoleonic era over more modern conflicts.Thanks for explaining this in a clear connected manner.
Love the way you organise points.
A unit of Currasier and a unit of Royal Dragoons spot one another, on a hot summer day in northern France. They form dense orderly lines opposite ends of a fallow field, waiting for the charge, only 500 meters apart. From both sides the call is given the horses start! First with a leisurely walk, then to a trot, then they gallop! By the time they reach fifty meters the hoof falls are so quick, it is as if their horses are flying o'er the dusty ground. The men draw their blades, glinting in the hot sun, their warcries join the the deafening thunder of the charge. Then at ten meters the horses come to as hard a stop one can expect from horses in formation. At three meters both lines are stopped cold. The men tentatively lower their weapons and look to their officers.
"Uh... shit." Says the English Colonel. "Hey, umm... Ugh, do any of you frenchies speak English?"
The French Colonel comes forward, "Ouais, a bit."
"Great, great... look I kinda saw this going differently in my head" spoke the Englishman scratching his scraggly beard.
"I also thought this would be a bit more..." the Frenchman gives a shrug "/dramatic/."
"Perhaps", piped up the French Colonel, "Perhaps we should back up and try again?"
The English Colonel looked to the ground, tipped up his cap wiping away the sweat accumulating on his brow, and shifted in his saddle. "It would just feel */weird/* now."
"Ouais, it would indeed"
"Maybe we should both back up and then at a hundred meters..."
"...We both turn about face and go our separate ways. Forget this ever happened."
"Exactly, toodles my good man."
"Adieu."
~*THE END*~
This played out Realistically. Perhaps they could have exchanged cigarettes and gifts as WW1.
The TV version would end in piles of dead horses and men while survivors recklessly leap over the piles to stab each other.
Critics would never stop talking about how "realistic" the scene is.
Except the English Colonel would exclamate: "Oh, bollocks..." instead of "Uh shit"
Wait a minute
I thought the heavy cavalry horses Especially the cuirassier were more aggressive than normal horses and well trained and will charge anyway,
There is many first hand accounts of horses charging each other I think it's just as bad of a misconception to say that horses never charge another mass of horses of infantry
If only real wars ended like this ...
When your playing Napoleon Total War and you forget to put your troops into square formation before a cavalry charge.
when you haven't researched square yet so you position three separate units into a triangle
Very interesting video. I actually made an in-depth Napoleon light infantry tactics video if anyone wants to check it out
@@hoplite6164 But... why not a square then ?
@@BlackHawk2b takes less units
@@hoplite6164 Yeah sure but I find it funny ^^
That moment you realise you were playing mount and blade in exactly the right way
in 1760 Ridinger, a riding master writes about the officers compressing the line form the sides by riding their horses sideways to the middle, this will compress the line to the point where it will bulge forward int he middle, greatly aiding in the horses committing to the attack.
similarly the horse will be very keen to hide behind the horse next to it when charging, and this is why an echelon attack is much more likely to be effective, as the animals want to follow the herd under stress, and yet avoid the enemy, this can result in a surge that rampages through the enemy, in particular if the leading horses are well selected,
also the first three strides of gallop are almost impossible for the horse to shy or stop, so that might be part of why a formation might strike the gallop really late.
also a formation only striking the canter at 20-30 yards might be seen to 'have attacked in trot' especially in high corn, like at waterloo.
another factor in the 'shoot only once' factor is the smokescreen the infantry will lay in front of themselves and not be able to target at all after the first volley, the horses suddenly appearing from the mist.
the reason it is probably not very effective to charge cavalry with cavalry in the napoleonic era is the lack of wedge formations, so often employed from about 1000-1650 (and earlier in Macedonian and Byzantine cavalry), wedge formations allow the horses to litteraly split the enemy units mass, and if done right is not hard to do with actual horses.
there are very clear depictions (chronicles of the crusades 1470s france, for instance) of these wedges being used cav vs cav.
this comes down to 3 factors: -lances, armour and riding quality.
all three of those things fell out of favour around 1650 with the lack of localized horse supply, allowing much greater education of the animals.
a well trained horse with an armoured rider with a couched lance can control enemy weapons in front of his horses head, that is less easy for a sabre armed trooper. The lances used in the napoleonic era are much shorter and lighter and are held in the middle, greatly reducing range.
the wedge is therefore able to allow the horses to work as a snowplough, something hardly possible for later cavalry.
it has to be said that gunfire was employed en masse from at least 1400 onward, (and first used on the European battlefield in 1340) and fully plate armoured cavalry does not crop up until 1360, and continues until at least 1644 in the west and later int he east.
so gunfire cannot be the reason for the disappearance for this type of tactic, but horse supply correlates much better.
The wedge was not used, as the movies and computer games show, as a plough. It was in many ways similar to the echelon in the attack, weaker but more flexible than a line. The great advantage of the wedge (or rhombus, which is basically the same), is that you can turn the formation 90 degrees really fast.
At the time the wedge was popular, the cavalry charge against an infantry formation was a game of chicken. If the foot broke formation, the horse could charge home. But if the foot stead fast, the horse had to break off. With a line formation, you get a better charge, but the formation is slow to turn. That means you have to break off the charge early. What you can do with a wedge, or rhombus, is to switch the leading horse on order. So that the tip of the rhumbus turns into the side, and one of the sides turns into the tip. This makes the wedge and rhumbos formations to be able to get closer to the enemy before calling off the charge and turn. Making it much harder for the enemy officers to keep their men steady in their formations. And if the lead horse sees a crack in the infantry, he knows he can charge home.
Was starting to worry about you. Great to see a new video from MHV!
yeah, fell a bit off the radar and that video took 40 hours.. new record.
It really was a great summary, imho one of your best pieces actually - comprehensive, yet to the point. It is good to see that you keep focused on doing what you seem to be doing best. Only fly in the ointment is the lack of more historical examples to flesh out the statements and conclusions that are made. But of course it would even require much more time to include these.
Thanks for uploading, it is very clear that many hours were spent into research and production!
Who the hell would dislike this? It's is really, really good. Very educational and yet also highly entertaining! Exactly what I look for on TH-cam. Thank you so much for taking the time and effort to put this together! Instantly subscribed.
Nice information on calvary and brings to mind how cinema misrepresents calvary charges. However, the movie Waterloo showed the folly of French Cuirassers charging battle hardened infantry without infantry support. There was also a good scene in Waterloo in which the Scottish Greys tangled with French lancers. I like your videos, keep up the good work!
I was told if you are past theyr lances it is like killing rabbits (Uxbridge afaik)
It should be added that cavalry - particularly heavy cavalry - was extremely expensive to maintain. Only the larger nations could afford it in substantial numbers. For example, the Sardinian and later Italian Bersaglieri (light infantry) was founded to compensate for expensive cavalry.
yeah, I cut quite a lot, the French also had to acquire a lot of Austrian and other horses, because they lacked quite a lot.
But it does no make sense. What is inherently more expensive to maintain in heavy cavalry than the light one?
Did the heavy cavalry still use horses specifically bred for the charge? It would explain part of the cost and gives a reason for the cavalry performance at Waterloo, as the French probably did not have enough of those warhorses left. when they rapidly rebuild their army.
Light cavalry probably could make use of basic riding horses which were also used in the civilian sector.
That is not that maintenance means. It would be equipment cost. To maintain it means to support. To support heavy cavalry should be essentially the same as to support light cavalry. Sure, horses might eat a little more, maybe those units are more prestigious and thus are getting paid better, but those are such neglible costs that they are not worth mentioning.
Heavy costs incurs when nation needs serial crafted items. Cost of something significantly drops down when nation establish proper infrastructure to create such items en mass. I do not see how those horses could be more costly. Horse is a horse. It will fuck with other horses just as well, thus ensuring numbers. It will grow the same as other horses. Maybe due to size it will eat little bit more, but that is meaningless. It is a horse, not a king. The only real price increase could come from need to armor their heavy cavalry, but once again, not all of them were armored to begin with. Furthermore, armor is not that expensive. We are not talking about full body armor of knights. At that time, medium armor like of Roman legions were most widespread. Saying that Nepaleon era nations could not afford that Roman empire could produce en mass is just an insult to armies of that time.
A horse is not a horse as a dog is not a dog. You have different breeds for different purposes. If the breed is rarer the cost to buy is higher. Just look up modern horse trading. Prices go from around a thousand dollar to 50 million dollar. As horses need to be replaced the maintenance is higher if you've more expensive horses to replace. Furthermore some breeds of horses require more maintenance than other. For an simple example some horses you can leave in the rain without problems, others need to stay in warm stables or get sick. And about scaling the economy during peace battle horses do not get bred much as the demand is limited. In war the demand rises but the breeders are then at war and then it still takes a couple of years to get a functional horse.
I'd love to watch others videos from Napoleonic era !! Plz :D
Video with uniforms :D
Nice presentation, informative, the Napoleonic wars is something that was greatly lacking in an already poor school history class in the U.S. (for reasons I don't understand [accurate] history (and geography) was and is a low priority in our primary school system).
Easily disturbed snowflake @ 14:20, I see what you did there.
finally, someone noticed that joke :)
Excellent video! Also, love that you cite sources during the video. And now I have some new books to read.
my favourite video by you so far. not only is the time period much more interesting for me than ww2, but its also very informative and has great visualization. keep up the good work! :)
I’m here to study up on this for a pathfinder character. Many thanks!
I don’t mind cavalry, I find them most effective when you make them run at the kids just as they come out of school.
Henry V of England Heir of France Sire, surely you mean écoles, those little blighters who wear their backpacks on both shoulders...?
"Epic dash of the Polish light horse at Samosierra Pass"
Dobry komentarz :)w temacie innych historycznych walk i wielkiej historii SZABLi polskiej zapraszam więcej jest tuu szablotłuk polski
That has been my favourite military action ever since I saw a video on it. Somosierra was absolutely badass.
Polish cavalry has always been terrifying. They were not always well led or had a just cause but damn there must be something in the blood. Poles are such good cavalry men.
Thanks very much Berhard. I think you might be interested to know that online English dictionaries are very useful these days! Whether you use English or American English, you can see the phonetic spelling & listen to a (computer generated) voice pronouncing of even the French words we use. So you can learn pronunciation of words you normally only read, like echelon, coup de grace, etc.
I have years figuring out this. Thanks for the great video and content!
@ 9:59 Any disturbance in the force could have serious consequences. It made my star wars geekness smile.
Magnificent. It's just amazing that this keeps getting better and better.
Excellent video with a great conclusion. I knew very little about this subject before, but this really explains cavalry neatly.
Wow, what a fantastic video! That answered so many questions I had about cavalry. Also, the icons used were amazing as always. Thanks for a really good video, MHV.
Good video. I will show this video to my history teacher. We are currently talking about the napoleonic wars.
Great video as always. You should cover pike and shot era tacts. Theyve always confused and interested me
I love your Napoleonic videos, very interesting time period
I really liked this video, loved the comparison with tanks at the end!
I was born in the wrong time period. I should be a Napoleonic cavalry officer, clanking around with my spurs and saber and medals, wearing a chocolate soldier uniform, and with a princess under each arm.
18th- and early 19th century warfare is so fascinating.
I would have liked a mention of Alexandre Dumas, a decorated french cavalry general from the Napoleonic wars.
I'm an infantryman in a scout unit for some time now and for some reason learning about this somehow makes me hate them less
Horse artillery? Why not both - a TANK!
Excellent video essay, it's always truly worth watching your content. Keep up the good work :)
I have Thomas Anderson's book "Sturmartillerie - Spearhead of the Infantry" and when you mentioned horse artillery, I thought "ah, Sturmgeschütz". As you said here, as you said about the Blitz-eh, Bewegungskrieg, nothing new.
Some how like the isis campaigns in iraq, syria. With huge numbers of pick ups, heavy caliber mounted machine guns, mobile mortars crews, etc.
22:20Very well explained video, thanks. Btw in the "War and Peace" BBC serie there is one scene were French infantry stops cavalery charge
Dobry komentarz :)w temacie innych historycznych walk i wielkiej historii SZABLi polskiej zapraszam więcej jest tuu szablotłuk polski
Didn't click a video title this quickly in a long while. Thank you. Your accent makes the video much more enjoyable.
Well done. I have read and played a lot on this topic and this is a great summation.
Oh God, I was *just* looking up cavalry tactics the other day on TH-cam, and was unimpressed by the search results. You're a freaking godsent.
Great video. So clearly & well explained. Has made me rethink my cavalry & artillery use in computer & TT Wargaming. Thanks for sharing.
Love the citations on Cavalry vs Cavalry. Makes sense that the horse learned not to go against other horses.Given any surprise, horsed forces are truly scary.
you would actually be surprised what men did to horses in the past , some armies trained their horses to kick and bite at anything that dared touch them or their rider , or even run back ˝home˝ after the rider was dead or something , what i mean is that isnt so black and white
Weedus, good idea! I usually put them way on the flanks to attempt to take out enemy artillery as quick as possible, or to intercept broken units, and chase them down too.
Wedge knee behind knee "all-out aggressive cavalry" is from Charles XIIs of Sweden and his Caroleans cavalry units (1700-1712) - also in early-stage development at the battle of Lund 1676 and battle of Landskrona 1677 (Charles XIs of Sweden).
And Swedes learned that from whom? Who gave them many painful lessons about cavalry usage on battlefield?
great video, you should do more about Napoleonic warfare
This presentation puts Custer's quote about Amerindian cavalry as "the finest light cavalry in the world" into perspective. It also answers some questions I had about John Mosby's pistol-armed Confederate cavalry vs. Union cavalry, comparing their saber charges as being as ineffective "as if they were wielding cornstalks." Cavalry vs. infantry armed with magazine rifles made Napoleon's assertion about battle a thing of the past.
I would like to point out that most if not all these principles existed long before Napoleon.
Take the point at 18:05, for instance, about the idea that the cavalry is very useful if the enemy is still in marching column. That's basically what happened at the battle of Turnhout, and in many other engagements, the cavalry simply scared the enemy into battle formation.
The biggest difference between the horsemen of 1815 and those of the 16th century, is the reintroduction of the lance. Before, the lance had dissapeared due to pikemen, but with the replacement of the pike by the socket bayonet in the late 17th century, it became a viable weapon once again (if somewhat single-use, since it will probably get stuck in something during the charge).
Genuinely a good video. Interesting and informative.
Thanks for the info dude! I will use the tips next time on campaign.
Love your videos and how consistent you are with backing everything up with source material. 99% of the "Fact" spewers on both here and netflix could learn alot from you. Kudos! And loved the finnish. During the era, it was still a bit like the medieval battles. 80% of all losses occur during the rout. No cavalry to give chase means no actual losses to the enemy.
This is a video ive been hoping for for a looong time!
This explained a thousand battle reports after the fact to me. Thank you, that was incredible scholarship.
Good stuff. Very educational. I find the battle tactics of the 18th & 19th centuries to be fascinating. During the Napoleonic wars it was a constant chess game of infantry vs cavalry vs artilery. Infantry could deploy in square to repel cavalry but that made them vulnerable to artillery. Cavalry could devastate a line of infantry especially if attacked on the flank. Infantry usually deployed in line to attack or defend against infantry. Artillery could usually repel infantry & cavalry but not without infantry support. If cavalry & infantry got close enough or to the rear of artillery, they could be devastating.
That video was really well explained and illustrated, good job !
Thank you for going back to your roots I waited for a good video since a whilen
You're taking me right back to Napoleon: Total War. Nostalgia.
One of your best videos! Top quality :)
Nice now I can actual be good at Napoleon Total War
Your pronunciation of French expression is great. Especially "coup de grâce"
Thank you
oh boy after a few months time to binge once more
cooked up a great dinner, nothing to make it even better than great viewing!
This is an outstanding briefing. Thank you.
It is important to note that cavalry during this period acted quite differently from cavalry prior to the rise of artillery and firearms, cavalry was indeed expected to frontally engage both cavalry and prepared infantry during antiquity and the medieval period.
MY DREAM OF YOUR CHANNEL WITH NAPOLEONIC TACTICS HAS FINALLY BECOME TRUE! OMG
I’m commenting before watching the video, but I already know that it will be a great video! Also, Napoleon Total War :)
Especially with the NTW3 mod
I will spring for it when it goes on steam sale!
Darthmod all the way. 700 hours of play...damn you Steam! Lol
The dragoon with a musketoon inflicted a fatal wound with a boom
-"Maneuver is one of the two basic components of combat, the other is firepower."
-"Nope, we need a wall, a big one and we gonna name it Maginot Line."
To prevent the enemy from maneuvering and provide you with superior fire power. I don't see the issue.
Its reasonable to not believe the german tanks could cross a really irregular area covered in a forest
During a conversation of workmen in the 1950s the following was spoken by an old WW1 veteran in a broad Yorkshire accent; "You've never known fear until you've faced a cavalry charge"
Great job, one of your best. I am looking forward to watching Infantry Combat and Tactics during Napoleon ;)
Reminds me of the official US Army wargame simulations we used to run in the late 1990's on HP workstations with four button "pucks". The simulation only allowed each side's commander to see what his soldiers could see, so both sides would have an advance screen of M2/M3 Bradleys or BMP's trying to identify good routes and threats while preventing the other side from doing the same. The light cavalry would inevitably skirmish with each other, blasting away with 25mm , 30mm, or 76mm guns and the occasional wire-guided missile. Once the light cavalry had identified an enemy weak point, the heavy cavalry (US armor battalion or Soviet tank battalion) would charge at it, 120mm or 125mm smoothbore cannons blazing.
Now you send up a cloud of drones to "see what's over the next hill." Blinding and destroying drones must inevitably follow.
Amazing work! i look forward to seeing more Napoleonic videos in the future!!!
The importance of cavalry could not be overstated for deciding battles and campaigns in any era. The lack of effectively cavalry was a major reason why WWI turned into a stalemate. Modern machine guns, barbed wire and artillery made it practically impossible for horse cavalry to exploit opening s and weak points they were needed for. Therefore these openings had to be exploited with infantry. Unfortunately, there is only so far infantry can push before they are exhausted. This is why advances of the western front had such high costs for little, if any, gain.
This was great, one of the better vids you've produced this year
thx. well, I only did a few and this one took 40 hours...
This commentary is quite interesting, both for the context of the Napoleonic Wars and also for wider context.
Thinking as a historian mostly of much later times, it strikes me that people learning how to properly use and focus armored vehicles may have had to re-learn the lessons of cavalry tactics from earlier times. [For instance, the initial applications of armored vehicles in World War I largely bogged down in the mud and ultimately did not accomplish much of military value, partly because of a limited concept of these new military tools as only a slow-moving infantry support vehicle, rather than something with a grander vision?] American General George Patton, who came from a neighborhood not so far from where I grew up in Southern California (and who is somebody I suspect is WAY over-rated in military and other history) is credited on the American side with at least realizing that tanks were, in fact, a kind of armored cavalry that should act in the way that cavalry traditionally had acted, before the stalemate of the Western Front in World War I that put an end to traditional horse-mounted cavalry tactics.
But your discussion also makes me recall much earlier times--namely, the "cataphracts" (extremely heavy cavalry, by the standards of the times, with both horses and riders heavily armored), during the various wars and campaigns of the Crusades in medieval times. The Byzantine cataphracts were, apparently, a pretty terrifying weapon with enormous shock value for breaking through enemy lines in the period from roughly AD 800-1400, if those enemy lines were relatively fixed; but the Arab fighters, with much lighter cavalry, learned to let the cataphracts run, do whatever they did, tire themselves out, and then lighter, more mobile Arab cavalry could run circles around both the Byzantine cataphracts and the other Byzantine defensive lines. [And, with the ultimate fall of Constantinople, we know who ultimately won.]
In keeping with that, during the Mighty Pandemic, I found and read a free copy of Nigel Hamilton's extensive biography of Field Marshal Sir Bernard Montgomery, the victor at the crucial battle of El Alamein in North Africa near Egypt in the Second World War. Now, unlike a lot of Brits, I, speaking as an American, do not automatically fall on my ass and start worshipping Monty just at the mention of his name. [ ;-) Sorry, all you Brits, but that's the case. Monty caused a lot of logistical and management problems for the Americans who were bank-rolling the whole war on the Western Front in World War II, and trust me--we haven't forgotten it. We also haven't forgotten his near-disastrous failure in Operation Market Garden, the massive over-reach recounted in "A Bridge Too Far." ;-) ] Anyway, part of Monty's whole approach to warfare, which he developed from the trenches of World War I through his time in India and Palestine between the wars to his helping to lead British forces to a more-or-less honorable withdrawal at Dunkirk and beyond, seemingly was precisely the lesson of infantry commanders facing cavalry in Napoleonic times: namely, you don't just fall on your asses and concede defeat because your enemy has tanks (or cavalry); rather, you make plans in advance for how best to fight them, slow them down, and deny them the advantage of superior mobility through concerted and well-trained infantry tactics. The Nigel Hamilton biography is rather interesting in showing how this approach was used, more or less, to aggressive rather than defensive advantage, at the Battle of El Alamein, where the whole battle was won largely by skilled infantry and artillery tactics, where the British armored forces commanders were less capable. [Many thanks to the Aussie infantry on the northern flank who courageously filled in where British armor miserably failed!] At any rate, part of Monty's overall message, which seems to have militarily correct, is: take away the shock value of charging cavalry or tanks, and they're really just another force vector than can be canceled by other forces. That, put in to practice, may have been Monty's message, and advantage, more than anything else.
23:30 Or in other words: “War, War never changes.”
I was using this video to help with tactics in war thunder when i play with friends!
Thanks for teaching us the use of cavalry
Hmmm, your a wizard.... I just bought a couple of Napoleonic Wars books this weekend and now you come out with a ridiculously awesome/infotainment video. If your doing 20+ min vids in 2018 the final piece in my life is in place.😂
thx this will help me in my next Empire and Napoleon total war campaigns!
The Cavalry Charge in tight formation was taken from the Sweds during the Great Northern War under Karl Xll. It was his father King Karl Xl who improved cavalry tactics with the tight formation of knee to knee three lines deep always attacking at a gallop so as not to give the enamy time to reform. The Battle of Holowczyn July 3 1708 was one of greatest cavalry engagments of the war whereby the Swedish Cavalry routed and defeated the much greater Russian Cavalry .
One of historic moments which shows how important cavalry understanding and usage was can be found if you study A. W. Suvorov (russian generalissimus from mid to late 18th century) who was never beaten in battle. His first ever battle as force commander in his career was against Sweden and looked something like this (generally speaking of course): 2000-3000 Swedes entrenched themselves on a hill and waited for the russian forces to attack. Suvorov just arrived himself, looked at the situation and said literally no more than "500 cossacks, attack there", immediately the order was carried out. While charging the cossacks "dived" into the hilly area so the Swedes could not see them. They appeared only right in front of their faces. The swedes ran. Casualties minimum to none. 1st won battle for Suvorovs perfect career to come :)
Simply a great educative video! Thank you sir!
Thank you for covering this topic :)
Really liked the Napoleonic era stuff and the Marlborough era. Very good!