Glorious Cavalry Charges

[Count von Csollich]

I've got another question and I'm sorry if this has already been adressed somewhere in connection with the ongoing discussion about the demo (just haven't had the time of reading all the posts... as there is much, but still not enough, snow outside  )

I have seen charges of cavalry taking out guns and I have seen charges following up routing units resulting in their capture, I've seen Infantry forming Square and receiving Cavalry in line with a crushing volley at point blank range - all VERY COOL and realistic

BUT

I haven't seen one single successful charge against an infantry unit in line or being disorganized but not routed... the cavalry always stops and never charges home...

which leads me to only one conclusion
HOW is Eylau going to work???

[Gunner24]

the cavalry always stops and never charges home...

I see this a lot, it's almost as if the Cavalry wait for the Infantry to form square.  It does appear to be very hard for the Cavalry to launch a surprise charge on Infantry lines, which could be correct, it should be hard, but not impossible. 

I have seen case's where the Cavalry is in the rear, behind an enemy line, and still not attack, could it be to do with the "spirit" and "fatigue" levels going down so quickly, maybe too quickly ?.

[antiochus]

Eylau was not the norm by any means. The snow storm enabled the french cavalry to not only do the charge but to also line up 10,000+ cavalrymen without the Russians being aware. I'm not sure of the anomalies that the second poster was talking about but cavalry charges are very misunderstood because horses are misunderstood. Going into square was not always done to receive a cavalry attack as a matter of fact some generals thought squares were useless. A solid three or even two line of infantry with bayonets would stop a charge. Horses are not like cattle and they will do all in their power to avoid holes or people or whatever. Just one more reason that the troops were drilled and drilled and were almost as afraid of punishment as of battle. Having to stand in line with cavalry headed straight towards you and not run but just sit there is almost unbelievable. Even squares were broken but that was usually from the collision of wounded and dying horses into the men or lancers who could stab from just far enough away.

 The smashing cavalry attacks we read about are from infantry that did not stand but buckled and ran. It is much like what we were taught about man to man fighting in the Napoleonic wars.It didn't happen that often at all. One side would fold long before the other side came to grips with them. i'm too lazy to get up and get my books but I believe Napoleon's chief surgeon said he saw something like seven bayonet wounds.

[Count von Csollich]

I see this a lot, it's almost as if the Cavalry wait for the Infantry to form square.  It does appear to be very hard for the Cavalry to launch a surprise charge on Infantry lines, which could be correct, it should be hard, but not impossible.  

I think this particular thing could be in connection with the two different engines: the one with calculating the outcome and the one with actually showing it in 3D

I have seen case's where the Cavalry is in the rear, behind an enemy line, and still not attack, could it be to do with the "spirit" and "fatigue" levels going down so quickly, maybe too quickly ?.

Thanks for emphasising my question
I know that such frontal charges were very rarely seen but definitely more often than cavalry breaking up a square or doing soemthing even more fancy!!!

[Count von Csollich]

Eylau was not the norm by any means. The snow storm enabled the french cavalry to not only do the charge but to also line up 10,000+ cavalrymen without the Russians being aware. I'm not sure of the anomalies that the second poster was talking about but cavalry charges are very misunderstood because horses are misunderstood. Going into square was not always done to receive a cavalry attack as a matter of fact some generals thought squares were useless. A solid three or even two line of infantry with bayonets would stop a charge. Horses are not like cattle and they will do all in their power to avoid holes or people or whatever. Just one more reason that the troops were drilled and drilled and were almost as afraid of punishment as of battle. Having to stand in line with cavalry headed straight towards you and not run but just sit there is almost unbelievable. Even squares were broken but that was usually from the collision of wounded and dying horses into the men or lancers who could stab from just far enough away.

 The smashing cavalry attacks we read about are from infantry that did not stand but buckled and ran. It is much like what we were taught about man to man fighting in the Napoleonic wars.It didn't happen that often at all. One side would fold long before the other side came to grips with them. i'm too lazy to get up and get my books but I believe Napoleon's chief surgeon said he saw something like seven bayonet wounds.

I totally agree, but as you said it did happen at stages at that was my question!

[Hook]

I haven't seen one single successful charge against an infantry unit in line or being disorganized but not routed... the cavalry always stops and never charges home...

I've seen a few.  Some are successful, some are not.  But it's frustrating to watch your cavalry just standing there.  It probably depends on the condition of the infantry and the cavalry, and the cavalry colonel's aggressiveness.

Hook

[Chevalier IX]

from what I understand the cavalry stopping short was the common symptom of a charge fialed before it even occured,more often from what I understand the horses would shy away from the collision if there was a definite facing of bayonet or otherwise toward them.as previous posts have stated there is a great misconception concerning horses that has many belieivng they will pitch themselves headlong unto danger without thought or question,ut their overall survival instinct usually disuades this action before it occurs...usually being key here;)

[Pariente]

According to a French topic, cavalry may not charge if it is threatened by artillery or other cavalry. It charges if an infantry ennemy unit is already engaged (this unit's morale may nosedive and the unit may run away, so it's the scramble for the pickings ).

Breaking a square is very hard ; the Mamluks tried in front of the Pyramids, unsuccessfully.

[Count von Csollich]

According to a French topic, cavalry may not charge if it is threatened by artillery or other cavalry. It charges if an infantry ennemy unit is already engaged (this unit's morale may nosedive and the unit may run away, so it's the scramble for the pickings ).

Breaking a square is very hard ; the Mamluks tried in front of the Pyramids, unsuccessfully.

Does this mean that if I want to see a Cavalry unit smashing into formed up infantry (not in square) I have to engage it otherwise, according to Napoleons doctrin: Cavarly charges are always useful espacially from the flank when already engaged?... if so VERY COOL!!!

[antiochus]

Yes Napoleonic tactics were much like paper rock scissors. You threaten infantry into a square with cavalry and then run up the horse artillery to blast the squares. Which in turn breaks the morale of the square and they flee only to be run down by the cavalry. Same reason you keep cavalry near your artillery so an infantry unit won't charge at the artillery for fear of the cavalry. So if they advance it is slowly and they get pounded to pieces by the artillery.

 
A little OT but artillery in this age is the " god of battles ". During Friedland the french artillery moved closer and closer to the Russian infantry until they were blasting away at something like one hundred paces.Also for those who care you wanted your round shot to bounce much like skipping a stone across the water. That is why the condition of the ground ( ie. Waterloo ) was so important.


Back on topic, cavalry's role is also misunderstood. Charges were never supposed to be against infantry holding steady as at Waterloo. Cavalry would be the fire and forget weapon of the times. You only released the cavalry against a wavering foe to turn their retreat into a rout. The only other use for heavy cavalry was as a last ditch effort to save your troops to withdraw. Such as the many different " death rides " of cavalry down through the ages. Napoleon in 1813 won both the battles of Lutzen and Bautzen against the Allies but was unable to inflict any lasting damage because the French cavalry was so small in numbers in the spring of 1813.

[Count von Csollich]

Going into square was not always done to receive a cavalry attack as a matter of fact some generals thought squares were useless. A solid three or even two line of infantry with bayonets would stop a charge.

I know: the Austrian alternative introduced in 1808/09 by Archduke Charles was the "Mass", which means nothing less than closing up the ranks and presenting the bayonet - A tactic very successful against d'Espagne's Cuirassiers at Aspern

and I now remember that some French General de Division kept his men in line, while receiving a large contingent of Prussian Cavalry at Jena, because his flanks were secured by villages... he delivered a volley at close range and sent them packing...

So thanks for all the enlightening answers guys...
(still hoping to see a Cuirassier unit just sweeping away a single regiment in line   - only once   )

[Count von Csollich]

A little OT but artillery in this age is the " god of battles ". During Friedland the french artillery moved closer and closer to the Russian infantry until they were blasting away at something like one hundred paces.Also for those who care you wanted your round shot to bounce much like skipping a stone across the water. That is why the condition of the ground ( ie. Waterloo ) was so important.

and at Wagram the famous grand battery of Guard artillery closed up to canister range, and while receiving devastating volleys the Austrians responded with courage forcing Napoleon to call up for Volunteers from his Guard infantry to replace the losses of his gunners (which were promptly found)

  I shall overlook the part that of course the galling french fire was to much and the "whites" finally broke and ran  

[antiochus]

 Sorry when I can babble about a history topic I let loose. Sometimes I forget myself and in the middle of a dissertation to my family I realize they are all snoring.

Ah Charles my favorite foe of Napoleon. He is highly underrated. If he was left to himself and was able to reorganize the Austrian army, what might he have achieved. To me he is the only general who fought Napoleon to a stand still in his prime. I know Eylau is brought up but to me without the weather included Eylau is just another French victory although hard fought.

[Count von Csollich]

Sorry when I can babble about a history topic I let loose. Sometimes I forget myself and in the middle of a dissertation to my family I realize they are all snoring.

I think you understood me wrong...I find these discussions fascinating...usually I can only have such discussions with my professors while the rest of the people in the room are snoring 

so I hope this isn't the last one

[Pariente]

Yes Napoleonic tactics were much like paper rock scissors. You threaten infantry into a square with cavalry and then run up the horse artillery to blast the squares. Which in turn breaks the morale of the square and they flee only to be run down by the cavalry. Same reason you keep cavalry near your artillery so an infantry unit won't charge at the artillery for fear of the cavalry. So if they advance it is slowly and they get pounded to pieces by the artillery.

 
A little OT but artillery in this age is the " god of battles ". During Friedland the french artillery moved closer and closer to the Russian infantry until they were blasting away at something like one hundred paces.Also for those who care you wanted your round shot to bounce much like skipping a stone across the water. That is why the condition of the ground ( ie. Waterloo ) was so important.


Back on topic, cavalry's role is also misunderstood. Charges were never supposed to be against infantry holding steady as at Waterloo. Cavalry would be the fire and forget weapon of the times. You only released the cavalry against a wavering foe to turn their retreat into a rout. The only other use for heavy cavalry was as a last ditch effort to save your troops to withdraw. Such as the many different " death rides " of cavalry down through the ages. Napoleon in 1813 won both the battles of Lutzen and Bautzen against the Allies but was unable to inflict any lasting damage because the French cavalry was so small in numbers in the spring of 1813.

I agree with you : cavalry, infantry and artillery may be used to defeat a corps (base of napoleonic tactics). Threatening infantry to form in square and destroy them with artillery, then charging with cavalry was used and may be used in Histwar. I don't find the link, but JMM talked once about the soil rigidity and the bouncing of cannonballs.

Cavalry's goal is pursuit, I totally agree.