What Does A Cavalry Battle Look Like?

[thomas aagaard]

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.

It was shot in Ukraine, with support from the red army.

 

[DixieRifles]

Is it actually fought mostly dismounted?

Most of the battles in the West that I have studied which took place after summer of 1863, were fought dismounted. Example: Forrest's Battle of Brices' Crossroads, Miss. An inventory of Forrest's cavalry corps show they were mainly armed with rifles and pistols and only his escort carried sabres.

 

[C. Cash]

The "Lucky" Fourth Man: The process of Cavalrymen dismounting to fight on foot as Infantry was described by William Hezekiah Mitchell, who was a 4th Sergeant in Company F, 1st Tennessee Cavalry (Wheeler's). He wrote, "They usually rode quickly to the battle area and dismounted to make the actual attack on foot. When they came to the place to dismount, they would count off, 'One, two, three, lucky, one, two, three, lucky.' Each fourth man who was 'lucky' was a horse holder who stayed behind to have the mounts ready for pursuit or withdrawal."
The officers remained mounted as long as possible as was the case at Pickett's Mill but these had multiple mounts killed underneath them as they rode up and down the lines. The Cavalry would then fight in a single spread out line as opposed to the Infantry who fought in more tightly packed multiple ranks. In the absence of a trench they would pile up rocks, logs and fence posts and fight from cover and elevation when possible. Their objective was to hold out until Infantry could arrive and replace them. At Pickett's Mill they held Hazen for about 1 hour until Cleburne sent Baucum and Lowrey.

 

[C. Cash]

Please delete....double post.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I would recommend Powell & Wittenberg's book on the Tullahoma Campaign for a vivid account of a cavalry battle.

When Rosecrans took command of the 14th Army Corps in October 1862 the cavalry was laughable. Regiments lacked horses, tack, traps & weapons of any kind. Standing up the Army of the Cumberland in January 1863 he appointed General Stanley as army cavalry commander.

Six months of old school drill & practice completely revolutionized the hapless recruits.

In June 1863 cavalry under Stanley's overall command with attacking Joe Wheeler & taking Bragg's HQ town of Shelbyville TN. Every one of the Cumberlander troopers was armed with a saber, pistol & breech loading carbine or Spencer repeater.

Wheeler fought from behind elaborate earthworks & mounted. He suffered one of the most lopsided defeats of the war.

 

[JerryD]

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 always thought European cavalry were much different than American cavalry, so surprised by your statement. I defer to your superior knowledge, of course, but wasn't European cavalry, especially during the Napoleonic Wars, much more of an offensive force than American cavalry? They also had various types of cavalry for various uses, I thought, whereas American cavalry was much more a scouting force instead of a fighting force. Am I wrong here?

 

[The Last Observer]

I always thought European cavalry were much different than American cavalry, so surprised by your statement. I defer to your superior knowledge, of course, but wasn't European cavalry, especially during the Napoleonic Wars, much more of an offensive force than American cavalry? They also had various types of cavalry for various uses, I thought, whereas American cavalry was much more a scouting force instead of a fighting force. Am I wrong here?

Kinda. Fifty years makes a lot of difference.

Napoleonic cavalry was an arm of maneuver. In theory it existed for recon, for screening retreats and advances, and for occasional tactical charges; in practise a lot of the time it existed mostly as a threat "in being", forcing the enemy to take precautions against cavalry attacks and therefore limit their tactical options. While some cavalry were issued with pistols and carbines, in practise these were such short range weapons that the cavalry were still basically a melee arm.

In terms of simple numbers, most countries had far more light (read: recon and raiding) cavalry during the Napoleonic era than they did heavy (read: trained and equipped for shock charges) cavalry. As such, you could fairly say that with the exception of France (who loved heavy cavalry) and Russia (who were experimenting with mounted infantry) cavalry in the Napoleonic era was mostly a scouting force. This isn't to say that they didn't fight, but their equipment and training shows that fighting was a secondary task.

But that was fifty years before.

By the 1860s, European writers and military theorists were grappling with the obsolescence of melee cavalry. More forward-looking theorists argued that cavalry's main weapon was now the firearm; traditionalists claimed that "the saber will always be the cavalryman's weapon." A few high-profile incidents during the 1866 and 1871 wars were seized on by the traditionalists as proof that their ideas were still valid. However, the main thing theorists of the time were arguing was whether armies simply had too much cavalry: it was expensive and was increasingly not being used, held back for decisive charges that never came. This was probably a fair criticism, European armies of the 1860s and 1870s had a far higher ratio of cavalry than armies of the American Civil War did; but the discussion often focused on expense as the primary factor, and generals never like it when they get criticised by accountants. Mark Bennett is an excellent English-language historian on the topic.

If you compare American cavalry of the 1860s with European cavalry of the 1810s, then yes, while both have a predominantly scouting role, the latter also has far more of an offensive role. If you compare American cavalry of the 1860s to European cavalry of the 1860s, then the main difference I'd argue you'd see is that Americans are simply more practical. The sentimentality and denial that the European cavalry had in the 1860s - sending people and horses to their deaths rather than admit that breech-loading rifles had changed the battlefield calculus - just wasn't something you got as much in the New World.

Past the 1860s, the situation changes again, since the Americans revert to fighting indigenous peoples and the Europeans revert to fighting colonial wars; and the logistical and technological mismatch of these conflicts end up being very different from the peer conflicts of the mid 19th century.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Kinda. Fifty years makes a lot of difference.

Napoleonic cavalry was an arm of maneuver. In theory it existed for recon, for screening retreats and advances, and for occasional tactical charges; in practise a lot of the time it existed mostly as a threat "in being", forcing the enemy to take precautions against cavalry attacks and therefore limit their tactical options. While some cavalry were issued with pistols and carbines, in practise these were such short range weapons that the cavalry were still basically a melee arm.

In terms of simple numbers, most countries had far more light (read: recon and raiding) cavalry during the Napoleonic era than they did heavy (read: trained and equipped for shock charges) cavalry. As such, you could fairly say that with the exception of France (who loved heavy cavalry) and Russia (who were experimenting with mounted infantry) cavalry in the Napoleonic era was mostly a scouting force. This isn't to say that they didn't fight, but their equipment and training shows that fighting was a secondary task.

But that was fifty years before.

By the 1860s, European writers and military theorists were grappling with the obsolescence of melee cavalry. More forward-looking theorists argued that cavalry's main weapon was now the firearm; traditionalists claimed that "the saber will always be the cavalryman's weapon." A few high-profile incidents during the 1866 and 1871 wars were seized on by the traditionalists as proof that their ideas were still valid. However, the main thing theorists of the time were arguing was whether armies simply had too much cavalry: it was expensive and was increasingly not being used, held back for decisive charges that never came. This was probably a fair criticism, European armies of the 1860s and 1870s had a far higher ratio of cavalry than armies of the American Civil War did; but the discussion often focused on expense as the primary factor, and generals never like it when they get criticised by accountants. Mark Bennett is an excellent English-language historian on the topic.

If you compare American cavalry of the 1860s with European cavalry of the 1810s, then yes, while both have a predominantly scouting role, the latter also has far more of an offensive role. If you compare American cavalry of the 1860s to European cavalry of the 1860s, then the main difference I'd argue you'd see is that Americans are simply more practical. The sentimentality and denial that the European cavalry had in the 1860s - sending people and horses to their deaths rather than admit that breech-loading rifles had changed the battlefield calculus - just wasn't something you got as much in the New World.

Past the 1860s, the situation changes again, since the Americans revert to fighting indigenous peoples and the Europeans revert to fighting colonial wars; and the logistical and technological mismatch of these conflicts end up being very different from the peer conflicts of the mid 19th century.

I live a few miles from Hoover's Gap TN. In June 1863 Wilder's brigade of mounted infantry broke through the gap & held off determined attacks by CSA infantry. Armed with Spencer repeating rifles, the Lightening Brigade had 3X the fire power of a muzzle loader. For the first time mounted soldiers could stand their ground against infantry.

John Buford's stand a few days later at Gettysburg was made possible by breechloading carbines.

Armed with repeating rifles & breechloading carbines, the cavalry became, in effect, mounted infantry.

 

[Dan Kohli]

I live a few miles from Hoover's Gap TN. In June 1863 Wilder's brigade of mounted infantry broke through the gap & held off determined attacks by CSA infantry. Armed with Spencer repeating rifles, the Lightening Brigade had 3X the fire power of a muzzle loader. For the first time mounted soldiers could stand their ground against infantry.

John Buford's stand a few days later at Gettysburg was made possible by breechloading carbines.

Armed with repeating rifles & breechloading carbines, the cavalry became, in effect, mounted infantry.

I believe the term mounted riflemen is a bit more adequate for how the infantry was used during the war. Wilder's mounted infantry was still a "line" infantry brigade in roll and training, just with horses.

 

[Dan Kohli]

The impression I get when reading about wars between the Revolution and the Civil War was that the Federal Government preferred to have volunteers raised as mounted riflemen opposed to proper cavalry. The riflemen were easier and quicker to train.

 

[Rhea Cole]

I believe the term mounted riflemen is a bit more adequate for how the infantry was used during the war. Wilder's mounted infantry was still a "line" infantry brigade in roll and training, just with horses.

Wilder's men picked the yellow braid off of their cavalry jackets & initially carried axes rather than sabres. It was emphatically not a cavalry unit. They referred to themselves as mounted infantry.

The Lightening Brigade is considered the genesis of modern armored infantry.

The Lightening Brigade was a combined arms unit. Eli Lilly's battery of 3" rifles & a "jackass" battery of 12 pound mountain howitzers were assigned to the brigade.

Lilly's ammunition boxes were re-packed with extra short range rounds. At Hoover's Gap fired "long range canister" consisting of a solid bolt & three canister rounds onto Bate's attackers. The combination of canister & fast firing repeaters was devestating.

Wilder deployed his men in a skirmish line, not the conventional cavalry or infantry tactic. Bate expected to send the pesky cavalry legging it for the horse holders like always. The overwhelming fire of the Spencers & canister shocked Bate's veterans, driving many of them to ground.

The "Ditch of Death" at Chickamauga is another example of Wilder's innovative combined arms tactics at work.

So, if mounted infantry was good enough for Wilder, it is good enough for me. Call the Lightening Brigade mounted infantry anything else & nobody will know what is being referred to.

I actually don't see the point of citing distinction without difference.

 

[Old Soldier]

The impression I get when reading about wars between the Revolution and the Civil War was that the Federal Government preferred to have volunteers raised as mounted riflemen opposed to proper cavalry. The riflemen were easier and quicker to train.

But neither were trained properly. Marksmanship went to the wind in favour of rate of fire.

 

[Dan Kohli]

Wilder's men picked the yellow braid off of their cavalry jackets & initially carried axes rather than sabres. It was emphatically not a cavalry unit. They referred to themselves as mounted infantry.

The Lightening Brigade is considered the genesis of modern armored infantry.

The Lightening Brigade was a combined arms unit. Eli Lilly's battery of 3" rifles & a "jackass" battery of 12 pound mountain howitzers were assigned to the brigade.

Lilly's ammunition boxes were re-packed with extra short range rounds. At Hoover's Gap fired "long range canister" consisting of a solid bolt & three canister rounds onto Bate's attackers.

Wilder deployed his men in a skirmish line, not the conventional cavalry or infantry tactic. Bate expected to send the pesky cavalry legging it for the horse holders like always. The overwhelming fire of the Spencers & canister shocked Bate's veterans, driving many of them to ground.

The "Ditch of Death" at Chickamauga is another example of Wilder's innovative combined arms tactics at work.

So, if mounted infantry was good enough for Wilder, it is good enough for me. Call the Lightening Brigade mounted infantry anything else & nobody will know what is being referred to.

I actually don't see the point of citing distinction without difference.

Point taken.

 

[Rhea Cole]

Point taken.

As a living historian at Stones River I have participated in Tullahoma Campaign / Hoover's Gap programs annually for years. I was also Ed Bearss "local guy" on several of his bus tours of the Tullahoma Campaign.

I understand why people have a hard time understanding the Tullahoma / Chattanooga Campaign. It began in Murfreesboro TN & concluded six months later. The Union line ran from Cumberland Gap, to Knoxville, down the Sequache Valley to Chattanooga & westward to Vicksburg.

Compared to the Tullahoma / Chattanooga Campaign to Gettysburg is like comparing chess to checkers.

 

[damYankee]

I shared this video years ago on the forum, it is one of the only films of the last American Cavalry units on maneuvers.
This was filmed during WWII, The 8th 10th and 11th Cavalry Regiments were given the responsibility of securing the southern border, and they accomplished the mission within 90 days.
IMO, the film will gat you as close to a charge as you would feel safe doing.