Would heavy cavalry have been useful?

[MikeyB]

Or was this a relic of "the last war?"

If either side had a heavy cavalry arm, would it have made a difference, or would they quickly have been converted into dragoons anyway?

 

[Sheltowee]

Or was this a relic of "the last war?"

If either side had a heavy cavalry arm, would it have made a difference, or would they quickly have been converted into dragoons anyway?

I like the question.
Admit to not being very knowledgeable about difference between cavalry and heavy cavalry?

 

[Lampasas Bill]

Heavy cavalry, as developed in Europe, depended on large horses that could literally push aside the smaller horses of opposing light cavalry when in hand-to-hand combat. Such horses were expensive to maintain and difficult to replace, so I doubt they would have been practical in Union or Confederate armies. If any heavy cavalry had been used, it would have ended up using whatever riding horses were available (and in many cases plow horses or carriage horses) and fighting on foot much of the time.

 

[TheRealMrHoward]

I don't think they were a relic, as they were effective in the Franco-Prussian war, and all major European powers kept then through WWII.

The civil war seemed like such a shoe string affair, that I don't see anyway that the government would pay the cost of keeping such a group in the field. Quality heavy horses alone, would seem almost impossible to acquire!

For example, in the 1850s they had more mounted infantry units in the west, versus dragoon units, because they were cheaper!

 

[Sheltowee]

I don't think they were a relic, as they were effective in the Franco-Prussian war, and all major European powers kept then through WWII.

The civil war seemed like such a shoe string affair, that I don't see anyway that the government would pay the cost of keeping such a group in the field. Quality heavy horses alone, would seem almost impossible to acquire!

For example, in the 1850s they had more mounted infantry units in the west, versus dragoon units, because they were cheaper!

Interesting. How was mounted infantry cheaper than dragoon? Type of mounts, again?

 

[TheRealMrHoward]

Interesting. How was mounted infantry cheaper than dragoon? Type of mounts, again?

I think the pay rate for infantry was cheaper than a dragoon!

 

[SeaTurtle]

And here's me thinking this was going to be a thread about guys wearing plate-armor and wielding lances. Didn't even know the term "heavy cavalry" was still used in the 19th-century. Thought it only made a modern-era comeback when tanks started being used.

Guess you learn something new every day. What sort of arms would 19th-century "heavy cavalry" have carried?

 

[MikeyB]

Heavy cavalry, as developed in Europe, depended on large horses that could literally push aside the smaller horses of opposing light cavalry when in hand-to-hand combat. Such horses were expensive to maintain and difficult to replace, so I doubt they would have been practical in Union or Confederate armies. If any heavy cavalry had been used, it would have ended up using whatever riding horses were available (and in many cases plow horses or carriage horses) and fighting on foot much of the time.

Was heavy cavalry used primarily as a counter to regular cavalry? I had pictured in my mind these were heavy guys that would run down infantry or guns (like in the movie waterloo) or crush infantry in the flank?

What kind of usage would have made sense in the ACW had they existed?

 

[trice]

And here's me thinking this was going to be a thread about guys wearing plate-armor and wielding lances. Didn't even know the term "heavy cavalry" was still used in the 19th-century. Thought it only made a modern-era comeback when tanks started being used.

Guess you learn something new every day. What sort of arms would 19th-century "heavy cavalry" have carried?

Generally, we would be talking about Cuirassiers. In 1870 for the Franco-Prussian War the French had 11 regiments of those and the Prussians had 10. The Austrians had 12 regiments for the 1866 Austro-Prussian War, but that experience led to them disbanding those regiments in 1868.

This is an image of a French Cuirassier from 1870. Note the breastplate, helmet and the long, straight sword. Heavy cavalry meant big men on big horses. The long and heavy sword would help them to hit men on the ground without stooping (lancers were even better at that). Back in Napoleonic days, French cuirassiers had a breast-and-back armor; Austrians only a breastplate. That saved weight and cost, but made the Austrians vulnerable to backswings in combat.

Dragoons were sort of jack-of-all-trades cavalry. Not designed to be great as heavy, medium or light cavalry, but able to fill in at any role and armed to fight dismounted as well.

 

[trice]

Was heavy cavalry used primarily as a counter to regular cavalry? I had pictured in my mind these were heavy guys that would run down infantry or guns (like in the movie waterloo) or crush infantry in the flank?

What kind of usage would have made sense in the ACW had they existed?

The role of heavy cavalry in the nineteenth century was supposed to be the crushing charge at the critical moment of the battle, designed to break the enemy and drive them from the field. It is hard to find actual examples of that working out after the Napoleonic Wars, though.

 

[redbob]

With the advancements in weaponry, I suspect that they would have just made better targets for artillery and massed fire during the Civil War.

 

[trice]

With the advancements in weaponry, I suspect that they would have just made better targets for artillery and massed fire during the Civil War.

Relatively few Civil War battlefields would have made for a good European-style heavy cavalry charge. You need a nice, big open field for that sort of thing. Say 600 yards or more of clear terrain to work the charge up in to maintain control and mass. Procedure would call for the first 200 yards of the charge to be at a walk, the next 200 at a trot, only the last 200 at a gallop. You'd need space to form for the charge before you started as well.

With the advances in artillery and rifles, a massed cavalry charge over a long open field becomes very vulnerable.

 

[TerryB]

One reason the Greeks got lucky at Marathon was the absence of the Persian Cavalry, but here, we're mostly talking about archers and javelin throwers. At Platea, the Persian Cavalry was so effective it caused the Greeks to begin a night retreat. Only the deaths of the commander of the cavalry and Mardonius, the Persian commander, turned the Greek retreat into a Persian defeat. By the time of Alexander, the Macedonians had perfected the tactic of cavalry holding the flanks and seeking opportunities to charge into broken infantry. Up until then, the Greeks were weak in both archery and cavalry. Gunpowder was what shifted the emphasis toward infantry by say 1500, but the longbow had already demonstrated that armored knights on horseback were doomed, as in Crecy and Agincourt.

 

[Irishtom29]

Gunpowder was what shifted the emphasis toward infantry by say 1500, but the longbow had already demonstrated that armored knights on horseback were doomed, as in Crecy and Agincourt.

I think disciplined pikemen and the arquebus put paid to knightly cavalry more than the longbow and at Agincourt the French were so ineptly handled as to perhaps make the use of the bow incidental. (and most of the French armored men at arms approached on foot and closed with the English where the battle was decided by the melee). I think the lessons of the Swiss-Burgundian War and the Spanish-French wars in early 16th Century Italy are more instructive than the 100 Years War.

Anyway, I think a division of heavy cavalry would have been right handy for Meade after the repulse of Pickett's Charge. And let's throw in some Polish lancers too. Americans have the habit of thinking that if they don't do something, or fail to do it properly, it isn't worth doing.

Regards

 

[TheRealMrHoward]

I think disciplined pikemen and the arquebus put paid to knightly cavalry more than the longbow and at Agincourt the French were so ineptly handled as to perhaps make the use of the bow incidental. (and most of the French armored men at arms approached on foot and closed with the English where the battle was decided by the melee). I think the lessons of the Swiss-Burgundian War and the Spanish-French wars in early 16th Century Italy are more instructive than the 100 Years War.

Anyway, I think a division of heavy cavalry would have been right handy for Meade after the repulse of Pickett's Charge. And let's throw in some Polish lancers too. Americans have the habit of thinking that if they don't do something, or fail to do it properly, it isn't worth doing.

Regards

I was trying to think of a ACW battle where heavy cavalry could have been used to good affect and I kept thinking of Pickets charge! But, likely they would have been encumbered by all the fencing.

Also at Chancellorsville, the Penn cavalry inadvertently broke the impetus of the Confederate's rolling up the Union right flank.

Also, in general I don't think there was anyway that the CS could have fielded heavy cavalry, given every trooper had to bring their own mount!

 

[MikeyB]

I was trying to think of a ACW battle where heavy cavalry could have been used to good affect and I kept thinking of Pickets charge! But, likely they would have been encumbered by all the fencing.

Also at Chancellorsville, the Penn cavalry inadvertently broke the impetus of the Confederate's rolling up the Union right flank.

Also, in general I don't think there was anyway that the CS could have fielded heavy cavalry, given every trooper had to bring their own mount!

How about at Second Manassas? Could this have obliterated Pope?

 

[Irishtom29]

How about at Second Manassas? Could this have obliterated Pope?

I too wonder.

 

[trice]

How about at Second Manassas? Could this have obliterated Pope?

Excellent!

The truth is that the Rebel cavalry almost played a very important part at 2nd Manassas. This was Robertson's brigade. Stuart was not present with the cavalry in Longstreet's assault, because he was pushing artillery forward to fire into the Union flank as they retreated before Longstreet's attack.

Buford led a saber charge into the advance of the Confederate cavalry, rocking them back, then was scattered and thrown back by a "Grumble" Jones counter-charge. With that, the Union cavalry on that flank was defeated and gone. Jones wanted to continue the pursuit, to try to cut the retreating infantry off. Beverly Robertson called a halt and that was the end of the cavalry action.

Before the ANV crossed the Potomac on the way to Antietam, Lee and Stuart decided it was urgent that General Robertson be sent to North Carolina to train new recruits.

 

[SeaTurtle]

This is an image of a French Cuirassier from 1870. Note the breastplate, helmet and the long, straight sword.

Was there ever any discussion during the ACW of equipping cavalry with such armor? I've read there were some (mostly inconsequential) experiments with bullet-proof vests during the war. Given that cavalry during the ACW still used edged weapons, I would think that if anyone actually had to use armor back then, it'd be them.

 

[trice]

Was there ever any discussion during the ACW of equipping cavalry with such armor? I've read there were some (mostly inconsequential) experiments with bullet-proof vests during the war. Given that cavalry during the ACW still used edged weapons, I would think that if anyone actually had to use armor back then, it'd be them.

None I know of, anyway!