Cavalry!

Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Recruiting_poster_New_York_Mounted_Rifles.jpg


There were four types of mounted forces prevalent in the Civil War.
  1. Cavalry were forces that fought principally on horseback, armed with carbines, pistols, and especially sabers. Only a small percentage of Civil War forces met this definition—primarily Union mounted forces in the Eastern Theater during the first half of the war. Confederate forces in the East generally carried neither carbines nor sabers. A few Confederate regiments in the Western Theatercarried shotguns, especially early in the war.
At the time of the Civil War, the cavalry had five major missions, in rough priority:
  1. Reconnaissance and counter-reconnaissance screening
  2. Defensive, delaying actions
  3. Pursuit and harassment of defeated enemy forces
  4. Offensive actions
  5. Long-distance raiding against enemy lines of communications, supply depots, railroads, etc.
Offensive actions were certainly not unknown, however, but they were more frequently employed against enemy cavalry than against infantry. Examples of offensive actions include the Battle of Brandy Station and the Battle of Yellow Tavern; cavalry versus cavalry examples include the First Battle of Bull Run and Elon J. Farnsworth's ill-fated charge on the third day of the Battle of Gettysburg.

Reconnaissance was the key to effective cavalry, as it remains today in modern armies (although modern cavalrymen use light armored vehicles or helicopters instead of horses). The cavalry serves as the "eyes" of the army. Reconnaissance was a crucial component in the Gettysburg Campaign, where cavalry under Union General Alfred Pleasontonattempted to find the wide-ranging Army of Northern Virginia on its invasion of the North, and Confederate cavalry under J.E.B. Stuart effectively employed counter-reconnaissance to screen passes in the Blue Ridge Mountains and hide Robert E. Lee's movements.

Long-distance raids were the most desirable mission for cavalrymen, primarily because of the fame that successful raids would bring, but they were often of little practical strategic value. Jeb Stuart became famous for two audacious raids on the Union Army of the Potomac in 1862; in his third such attempt, during the Gettysburg Campaign, he squandered much of the cavalry forces of the Army of Northern Virginia and deprived Robert E. Lee of adequate reconnaissance at the beginning of the Battle of Gettysburg, one of the principal reasons for the Confederate defeat there. Union attempts at strategic raids had mixed success. George Stoneman's raid in the Battle of Chancellorsville was a failure; Benjamin Grierson's raid in the Vicksburg Campaign was a strategic masterpiece that diverted critical Confederate forces away from Ulysses S. Grant's army; James H. Wilson's massive 1865 raid in Alabama foreshadowed the armored warfare maneuvers of World War II. In general, strategic raids were used more effectively in the Western Theater of the war.

Defensive actions by the cavalry were critical in the retreat from Gettysburg. Pursuit and harassment of enemy forces were often neglected (particularly by the Union after Gettysburg and Antietam), but can be seen in their finest form in the pursuit of Robert E. Lee during the Appomattox Campaign.

(Taken from Wikipedia - Cavalry in the American Civil War)
 
'A charge is a maneuver in battle in which combatants advance towards their enemy at their best speed in an attempt to engage in close combat. The charge is the dominant shock attack and has been the key tactic and decisive moment of many battles throughout history.

Cavalry charges
The shock value of a charge attack has been especially exploited in cavalry tactics, both of armored knights and lighter mounted troops of both earlier and later eras. Historians such as John Keegan have shown that when correctly prepared against (such as by improvising fortifications) and, especially, by standing firm in face of the onslaught, cavalry charges often failed against infantry, with horses refusing to gallop into the dense mass of enemies,[4] or the charging unit itself breaking up. However, when cavalry charges succeeded, it was usually due to the defending formation breaking up (often in fear) and scattering, to be hunted down by the enemy.[5] It must be noted, though, that while it was not recommended for a cavalry charge to continue against unbroken infantry, charges were still a viable danger to heavy infantry... However, only highly trained horses would voluntarily charge dense, unbroken enemy formations directly, and in order to be effective, a strong formation would have to be kept – such strong formations being the result of efficient training. Heavy cavalry lacking even a single part of this combination – composed of high morale, excellent training, quality equipment, individual prowess, and collective discipline of both the warrior and the mount – would suffer in a charge against unbroken heavy infantry, and only the very best heavy cavalrymen (e.g., knights and cataphracts) throughout history would own these in regards to their era and terrain.'

(Taken from Wikipedia - Charge (warfare))
 
However, only highly trained horses would voluntarily charge dense, unbroken enemy formations directly, and in order to be effective, a strong formation would have to be kept – such strong formations being the result of efficient training
That's the reason the British used the infantry square against cavalry attacks - the horses wouldn't gallop into their formations.
 
Great thread @Cavalry Charger! Really good information.
I like to start with the basics, and build from there :smile:

Not that I'm aware of. In the ACW, Cavalry usually fought against cavalry or dismounted against infantry.
I thought they may have charged infantry positions, but I do know they also dismounted to fight. It's interesting to know that there were men dedicated to taking the horses to the rear when this happened. That's something that only came to my attention more recently.
 
It's interesting to know that there were men dedicated to taking the horses to the rear when this happened. That's something that only came to my attention more recently.
I have always assumed that they decided on the person to hold the horses by counting off in fours- every fourth man took the reins of his horse and three others and staked them to the ground or held them until needed. Can anyone confirm whether this is how they did it? Or did they just turn and say, "Bob, it's your turn to hold the horses."?
Of course, the drawback- against the benefits of having mounted soldiers- was that the effective fighting force was reduced by one-fourth.
 
'I consider that the success was due to the rapidity with which the movement was carried out. Owing to the volume of fire brought to bear from the enemy's position by machine-guns and rifles, a dismounted attack would have resulted in a much greater number of casualties. It was noticed also that the morale of the enemy was greatly shaken through our troops galloping over his positions thereby causing his riflemen and machine gunners to lose all control of fire discipline. When the troops came within short range of the trenches the enemy seemed to direct almost all his fire at the horses.'

— Lieutenant Colonel M. Bourchier, commander of the 4th Light Horse Regiment

One of the most successful offensive cavalry charges of the 20th century was not conducted by cavalry at all, but rather by mounted infantry, when on 31 October 1917, the Australian 4th Light Horse Brigade charged across two miles of open terrain in the face of Ottoman artillery and machine gun fire to successfully capture Beersheba in what would come to be known as the Battle of Beersheba. (Wikipedia Charge (warfare))

In this case it seems mounted infantry had a better chance when crossing open terrain, and the strategy makes sense.
 
Back
Top