What Does A Cavalry Battle Look Like?

[MikeyB]

I'm thinking like a Brandy Station. Is it guys on horseback exchanging carbine fire w/ other guys on horseback 200 yards apart? Is it just charge and counter charge w/ pistols and sabers? Is it actually fought mostly dismounted? Is it just giant mobs of horses and men grouped together fighting it out w/ sabers? Is it all of the above? Do you have long lines of cavalry attacking in formation like an infantry line?

Anyone have a good book on Brandy Station (or another big CW cavalry action) that may better illustrate what it was really like?

 

[Dan Kohli]

After doing a quick reread of a couple of books, I get the impression that the Federal cavalry was mounted when they attacked. The events surrounding Yellow Tavern, pretty much every way cavalry could be used was used.

 

[bankerpapaw]

I cannot even begin to imagine the number of horses and men at Brandy Station.

 

[6thMichCav]

I imagine a soccer riot with horses, pistols, carbines and swords, spread over a 20-mile square field.

 

[Dan Kohli]

I forgot to add that the rebels probably fought dismounted due to the being on the defense. But I think it might be a good idea to have someone who's familiar with the battles of Brandy Station and Yellow Tavern answer these questions.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Eric Wittenberg is your go to author for anything related to cavalry.

 

[Old Soldier]

It was unusual as cavalry were normally used as either a scouting force or, in a battle, a flank force, only sent in after hours of infantry exchanges of volley, to batter a broken or retreating enemy. If they were 200 yards apart, they wouldn't hit much except the horses. If it was a real cavalry action - no infantry or field artillery - then it is usually manouver, volley, draw swords and charge.

This action was really an 'advance to contact'. The Union troops assembled without being spotted and rode into action. Much was made of an early morning fog to attack a Confed camp beside a river - to prevent a surprise attack! - together with a rapid, large reinforcement. Given the fog, 200 yards is not a reality - more like 2 - 20. They had some support from light artillery as cavalry did in those days. It was NOT just a charge and gone, as it lasted most of the day. It was not a great success number-wise and the Union troops eventually broke contact after 10 hours (!) with a cas total of 907 (69 killed, 352 wounded, and 486 missing, primarily captured); Confederate losses totaled 523, but it gave the Federal cavalry the confidence to become the dominant force. Until then, the Confederate cavalry had held the field.

A rather neat pencil drawing rather sums up a moment in this long cavalry battle:

No. It was not done at the time. You ain't got time, buddy!

 

[Josh The Lighthouse Guy]

I think the short answer is: it depends. Some cavalry battles were mostly mounted, some mostly dismounted, some very mixed. I think Brandy Station was very mixed. It depended on circumstances, topography, and equipment. Many Confederate cavalry in the west lacked sabers for proper mounted combat.

It seems like cavalry usually defended dismounted and attacked mounted, but circumstances weren't always idea enough to make it happen. I don't get the impression carbines were fired from horseback very much.

East Cavalry Field at Gettysburg was probably more classic "horses crashing and sabers slashing" than many of the fights in Virginia on less open terrain.

I'm not an expert; these are just my impressions.

 

[General JJ]

I think the short answer is: it depends. Some cavalry battles were mostly mounted, some mostly dismounted, some very mixed. I think Brandy Station was very mixed. It depended on circumstances, topography, and equipment. Many Confederate cavalry in the west lacked sabers for proper mounted combat.

It seems like cavalry usually defended dismounted and attacked mounted, but circumstances weren't always idea enough to make it happen. I don't get the impression carbines were fired from horseback very much.

East Cavalry Field at Gettysburg was probably more classic "horses crashing and sabers slashing" than many of the fights in Virginia on less open terrain.

I'm not an expert; these are just my impressions.

Agreed. It also depends on the year of the engagement. Kelly's Ford and Brandy Station look a lot different than Haw's Shop.

 

[Old Soldier]

Carbines were designed to be fired from horseback, one handed, if necessary (one hand for the horse ...). The range was limited due to their short barrels. The ammunition was often with reduced charge to overcome the recoil of such weapons. The breechloading carbines, also firing a reduced power round, were the SMG of their day!

Cavalry were the arm of ATTACK, like the tanks of today. They were not equipped to hold positions for any length of time, just to delay until the infantry arrived. Any artillery they had was horse artillery - light guns to move with them at their marching pace and usually firing a much smaller round than their field artillery cousins. Given that they were often on their own, ammunition resupply was near impossible - but you don't need ammo for a sword (or lance).

Given the distances involved and the slow speed of infantry advance on foot, much use was made of 'mounted infantry', armed with infantry rifles, but they were not cavalrymen. They fought dismounted - to the ridicule of some traditional cavalrymen.

 

[infomanpa]

I've been wondering that for a long time. I've been looking for an accurate movie or video depiction of this kind of action.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

One of the best depictions of cavalry combat I have ever seen, including infantry forming squares against a cavalry charge, is found in the excellent 1970 film Waterloo (there is a link to its IMDB listing below). The producers paid the Polish government to use its military, which is why the soldiers are all young and fit.

Waterloo (1970) ⭐ 7.3 | Action, Biography, Drama

2h 3m | G

www.imdb.com

 

[Kurtlg]

One of the best depictions of cavalry combat I have ever seen, including infantry forming squares against a cavalry charge, is found in the excellent 1970 film Waterloo (there is a link to its IMDB listing below). The producers paid the Polish government to use its military, which is why the soldiers are all young and fit.

Waterloo (1970) ⭐ 7.3 | Action, Biography, Drama

2h 3m | G

www.imdb.com

I saw it in 1971 and will always remember the slow motion segment of the charging Scot's Greys.

 

[Stryker65]

I read somewhere that some attached cavalry were used in a mounted infantry role, with the initial fighting being on horseback but once severe fighting broke out they would be dismounted and fighting as infantry, i. e. horses being used only as transportation. Of course, when the age of Wilson and Sheridan came about, this soon became obsolete.

 

[C. Cash]

I always thought Brandy Station was a clash where both sides fought mounted. In the Western Theatre the role of Cavalry had evolved by the time of the 1864 Atlanta Campaign. They still performed their scouts and raids but were used more and more in the dismounted role as Infantry. https://www.westerntheatercivilwar....s-tennessee-cavalry-brigade-at-pickett-s-mill

 

[Dan Kohli]

There's a few disadvantages to using cavalry as infantry compared to mounted riflemen/infantry. Mostly having the cavalry dismount reduced their manpower by one fourth, the carbines didn't have the range of most other longarms, and the box for the carbines carried 20 rounds. Troopers were were trained to fire from horseback and dismounted with the pistol and carbine. Even though the carbines were smaller than the muskets they still required both hands to fire.

 

[C. Cash]

In the case of Wheeler's men, they carried the Austrian Lorenz and Enfields both long and short. Their only real disadvantage was the lack of a bayonet. They learned to throw up hasty cover around themselves: logs, rocks, fencerails etc and fight from cover. This they did very well.

 

[Old Soldier]

There's a few disadvantages to using cavalry as infantry compared to mounted riflemen/infantry. Mostly having the cavalry dismount reduced their manpower by one fourth,

To explain to those not familiar with these tactics, the reason they were reduced is that they used 'every fourth man' to hold the horses.

 

[Bryce]

I always thought Brandy Station was a clash where both sides fought mounted. In the Western Theatre the role of Cavalry had evolved by the time of the 1864 Atlanta Campaign. They still performed their scouts and raids but were used more and more in the dismounted role as Infantry. https://www.westerntheatercivilwar....s-tennessee-cavalry-brigade-at-pickett-s-mill

I've been talking to Jeffrey Hunt who is writing a series of four books on the campaign between July and December 1863. I've noticed that increasingly Stuart and his cavalry are fighting dismounted. They're doing this because the federal's are introducing large number of skirmishers with repeating rifles on their skirmish line. One of the most extraordinary and mysterious events for the AMV cavalry is the flight attached tavern on May 7, 1864

fitz lee's entire division, three or 4000 men fought on foot defending the approach to Spotsylvania. On that day they were fighting Torbetts entire first division

 

[Bryce]

I've been wondering that for a long time. I've been looking for an accurate movie or video depiction of this kind of action.

If you ever get a chance, take a look at the writings of a French scholar and soldier, ardent de Piq. He's one of the people who pointed out that two cavalry lines that charge each other very rarely connect. One side or the other falls back.