#heavy cavalry

[wearemercs]

Imperial Cataphract by LonelysoundR

[ageha-sds]

was on break and did a bunch of AC6 renders for myself. this is truly self care

[sadierosewrites]

Smith's Costumes: Week Twenty-Four

Happy Waterloo Week! Welcome back to our exploration of Charles Hamilton Smith's Costumes of the Army of the British Empire, in which we'll be looking at a different print every week of the year.

This week we're looking at the "Heavy & Light Cavalry in Watering Order."

Watering Order.

Heeheehee.

Anyway.

Our print has both Heavy and Light Cavalry. What does that mean? The Heavy Cavalry (in red on the right) were on larger, heavier, stronger horses, whose size allowed their riders to break enemy formations. [4] They carried straight sabres. [8] The heavy cavalry's role was to deliver shock attacks on the battlefield. [7] Light Cavalry, to the right in blue, were mounted on faster horses suited to their roles in skirmishing and reconnoitering. [7] British light cavalry units included light dragoons, hussars and lancers. [7] Both used horses with their tails trimmed short, a practice adopted by British cavalry and German cavalry in British service. [1] This made them rather recognizable. For instance, when Wellington and Blucher met early afternoon on June 16th, near Ligny, the British attaché to Blucher's force, Hardinge, had been able to identify the Duke of Wellington and his entourage approaching because of the cut tails of their horses. [2, 157]

Regardless of unit, they had horses they needed to care for and so each morning, they took their horses from camp to water them before setting off on patrols or going into battle. [1]

Although part of his military reputation had developed from an imaginative handling of cavalry in India, Wellington was often disappointed by his European cavalry. [3, 24-26] It's hard to blame him. The cavalry could provide exemplary service, such as under General Le Marchant at Salamanca...or they could overdo it to the point of disaster. [3, 26] The Battle of Waterloo is a case-in-point for both, which is one of the reasons I chose this print for Waterloo week.

The Battle of Waterloo opened with the French artillery barrage and then an attack on the Allied right flank, on Hougoumont. [2, 200] Then came columns of D'Erlon's Corps' infantry in echelon. [2, 203] They were formed of battalions deployed in line, three ranks deep and 180 files wide, with battalions deployed one behind the other at five or six pace intervals to make columns. [3, 98] These were designed to thwart the traditional French issue from Spain of insufficient columnar firepower against British infantry in line. [3, 98] They could expand the firing front quickly when they reached the battle place by the battalions behind coming out to flank the lead battalion. [3, 99] Although this had some initial success against the British infantry, allowing them to push the defenders of La Haye Sainte back to the buildings, "no conceivable formation could be so unsuitable to receive a charge by British heavy cavalry." [3, 103]

D'Erlon's left flank was protected by French cavalry, headed by cuirassiers. [3, 100] These needed to be dealt with as they broke some Hanoverians and charged to the crest of Wellington's position just west of the Genappe road. [3, 100-01] Wellington ordered Uxbridge to throw Somerset's Household Brigade of British heavy cavalry in line and attack the French horsemen just approaching the crest. [3, 102]

The British horses were stronger and less tired, and they came upon the French with advantages of weight, numbers, and surprise. [3, 102] The British were superbly mounted, knew how to ride, and each man was strong enough to make lethal use of his long straight sabre. [3,103] The cuirassiers were swept back, losing heavily, and the French infantry in the area were also ridden down. [3, 102] As Somerset's Brigade-- including the 1st Life Guards pictured above-- crashed into Quiot's men, Ponsonby's Union Brigade struck Donzelot's and Marcognet's divisions. [3,102-03, 6]

They completely broke Donzelot's Division and smashed Marcognet's. [3, 103] Even as one of d'Erlon's officers attempted to reform the 45me de Ligne, to establish some order and reform the platoons, the British cavalry forced their way into his attempt and began hacking the French to pieces. [2, 204-05] While resolute infantry squares are nearly impenetrable against charging cavalry, broken penetrated ranks offer no resistance and cavalry may slaughter with impunity. [2,204-05] The French infantry could not reach far enough to attack the cavalry, and shooting was equally likely to produce a friendly fire incident as it was to hit the attackers. [2, 204-05] In the heat of battle, the English killed even the drummers and fifers. [2, 204-05] Two eagles were taken and upwards of 3,000 prisoners secured, while others surrendered but later escaped due to insufficient numbers to guard them. [3, 103] Save for Durutte's Division, which didn't come into contact with the British heavy cavalry at all, d'Erlon's Corps was temporarily destroyed. [3, 103]

Had things ended there, this would be remembered as perhaps the most magnificent success in the history of the British mounted arm. [3, 103]

Unfortunately, it didn't end there.

The British cavalry over did it, their reaction "hysterical" as they yielded, officers and men alike, to their greatest weakness: they became intoxicated with what they'd already done and endeavored to accomplish the impossible. [2, 205-07; 3, 103] Ignoring orders to return, young officers forgot they were supposed to be professional soldiers in their quest to display their personal gallantry. [2, 205-07; 3, 103] "Older officers who should have known better joined them with no more appreciation of the proper employing of cavalry on a battlefield than a novice in a nunnery." [3, 103-04] There was no appreciation of the professional duty of an officer in cavalry regiments; they thought of combat as a kind of glorious foxhunt. [3, 105] They wished to be the forefront of a magnificent spectacle which showcased their personal intrepidity, even at the expense of the real interests of their units and army. [3, 105] This attitude passed down from officers to their men. [3, 105]

Two-thousand, five hundred cavalry took part in the charge. [2, 205-07] In destroying the d'Erlon's infantry, they'd taken scant losses. [3, 104] Then they hit the French grand battery and the 30,000 formed artillery, infantry, and cavalry behind them. [3, 104] They were completely out of control, all order and formation long lost, as they dashed forward on blown horses through muddy ground. [3, 104] Lord Uxbridge himself led the Household Brigade but lost all control of it. [3, 104] Sir William Ponsonby led his own Brigade "with equal bravery and even less knowledge of his job." [3, 104]

Napoleon took advantage of the opportunity given. [3, 104] Infantry, artillery fire, and cavalry in formation stopped them and more French cavalry and took them in the flank. [3, 104] Jacquinot's Lancers were particularly effective in taking down disorganized men on tired horses, either singly or in small groups. [3, 104] Sir William Ponsonby (above) was killed by such lancers when his horse became mired in the mud near enemy lines. [5] The light cavalry brigades of Vandeleur and Vivian had to race to their heavier counterparts' rescue. [3, 104]. However, the 12th Light Dragoons under Sir Frederick Ponsonby also achieved success then went out of control. [3, 104]

Total casualties were fifty percent or more-- only about a thousand came back and those who survived were so disorganized that the brigades lost far more than half their efficiency. [2, 205-07; 3, 104] This prevented their use later, when they could have done immense good to help repulse the French cavalry attacks on the infantry squares. [2, 213] Much of the cavalry brought up to replace Somerset and Ponsonby's brigades refused to charge and the light divisions couldn't be allowed to encounter the heavier French cavalry until they were too exhausted to retaliate. [2, 213-14] The best the decimated cavalry could do was to remain to the rear of the infantry and shore up the wavering morale of the Brunswickers and Netherlanders. [2, 214]

The British Cavalry's legacy at the Battle of Waterloo will always be one of extremes, of glorious highs and devastating lows. The glory of capturing the French Eagles, as shown above, and the tragedy of the death of so much of their force, as represented below. [9, 10]

Sources: [1] https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=1950-11-33-20 [2] Hibbert, Christopher. Waterloo: Napoleon’s Last Campaign. Mentor Books, 1967. p.157. [3] Weller, Jac. Wellington at Waterloo. London: Greenhill Books, 1992. [4] https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/cavalry-roles [5] https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=1962-12-81-1 [6] https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=1977-04-70-1 [7] https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=1950-11-33-19 [8] https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=1975-10-91-1 [9] https://www.rct.uk/collection/404825/the-battle-of-waterloo-the-charge-of-the-second-brigade-of-cavalry [10]https://collection.nam.ac.uk/detail.php?acc=1971-02-33-533-23

If you'd like to look at the full series of weekly posts exploring Smith's Costumes of the Army of the British Empire, search the tag #CABE Project 2026.

[dauntlessghostrider]

Why Everyone Is Wrong About How Centaurs Fight

This has actually been a pet peeve of mine for a while and I just got around to typing it out now (in response to my brother's stupid opinions).

(Disclaimer: I am not an expert in any of these subjects, though I have written papers on cavalry combat before, so like. I'm not unfamiliar with it either)

Most fantasy worlds have centaurs fighting with bows.

This is probably because archery on horseback is well ingrained in pop culture and history. Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan. The napoleonic Hussars, Dragoons, and Cassocks used the same principle just with guns.

Archery on horseback, aka light cavalry, is genuinely one of the best ways of picking enemies off at a long distance in a pre-missile world. There's a reason it lasted from Ancient Greece to fucking World War Two. (No, I'm not joking, look up cavalry tactics in WW2. It's an interesting but depressing read).

Why did it last so long?

Maneuverability. Unlike heavy cavalry, they aren't carrying as much weight (aka armor) and the horses are lighter types instead of heavy drafts generally used by knights (not every knight rides a destrier! Those were fucking expensive!). Also light cavalry aren't bunched up like heavy cavalry and harass flanks or even the rear of an enemy force. They can come in, pick off a few men, and when the enemy tries to counterattack, run away, then come back in, pick off a few more men, and the cycle continues. (Light cavalry also includes the duties of scouting and message-running. They were considered the eyes and ears of an army.)

The thing is, though, a centaur doesn't have the same maneuverability as a man on a horse. Why? As stated in this video by Blumineck, a centaur only has one brain. The horse is the one concentrating on running, not tripping over rough terrain, and watching where they're going. The man is concentrating on shooting and not getting shot. A centaur would have to focus on both at the same time. Which is possible, but likely they'd not be as accurate or fast (you don't sprint when you're not looking straight ahead, do you?).

But you know what a centaur would really be good at? Heavy cavalry, aka being a knight. Heavy cavalry is good at one thing, and that is a charge. You've seen it in every medieval or fantasy movie with horses. (They are also good at terrifying the fuck out of the enemy forces because, well, just imagine being on the other side of that charge. This is why they're called shock cavalry too.)

But why would a centaur be so good at that? Because of momentum. Heavy cavalry is all about momentum, really. After all, hitting someone with a lance at a walk is very different than hitting someone with a lance at a gallop.

Using a melee weapon (a lance, sword, hammer, battle axe, etc.) doesn't take as much concentration as a bow, javelin, or gun because you don't have to aim (well, you do, but you know what I mean).

The running and fighting are done separately, you run up to the enemy and hit them, then keep hitting them. Thus a one-brained centaur can also do what the two separate brains of a knight and a warhorse do.

So what I really want is a centaur in plate armor, barding (horse armor), and caparison (the long cloth that goes over the barding).

Like wouldn't a centaur knight be fucking awesome? Why haven't I seen a book about a centaur becoming a knight? Do I really have to write it myself?

[memories-of-ancients]

The Forgotten Mongol Heavy Cavalry,

When it comes to legends of the vicious Mongol conquests horse archers seem to be the celebrity rock stars of the Mongol Army who get all the fame and admiration. Depictions of Mongol battles in modern times usually show wild barbarian Mongol horse archers riding circles around enemy formations while showering them with volley after volley of arrows. Missing are the less glorified Mongol heavy cavalry, an absence which I’m sure would make the Great Khan sad because the Mongols had fine heavy cavalry. Not to put down horse archers, but horse archers alone don’t always win battles. While horse archers have their advantages, they also have several weakness and limitations, especially against opposing heavy infantry and cavalry equipped with shields and armor while in a defensive battle formation. What made the Mongols effective was not the mere fact they had horse archers, but because they had better tactics, among them combined arms tactics where they were able to coordinate the abilities of different units to accomplish a goal on the battlefield. This isn’t just a principle of Mongol warfare, but a principle of warfare in general. Whether we're talking ancient times or modern warfare, the side that has better combined arms tactics typically wins.  

The early Mongol Army consisted of 60% horse archers and 40% heavy cavalry. Later the Mongols would adopt new units such as heavy infantry, light infantry, siege units, and artillery conscripted from the peoples they conquered. However for this post I’m only referring to the early Mongol Army commanded by Genghis Khan and his general Subutai.  The purpose of the horse archers were as skirmishing units; to harass, sow chaos and confusion, and weaken the discipline of enemy ranks. The purpose of the heavy cavalry was to directly engage enemy units in close combat. To do their job, Mongol heavy cavalry were heavily armed and armored, much more so than their horse archer counterparts. They were armored head to toe in lamellar armor composed of metal plates sewn together into a suit. Often this armor also covered the horse as well. 

Their primary arm was a lance used to conduct charges. For melee fighting they would carry swords or axes, and also maces for armored opponents. They would also probably carry a shield. Along with their horse archer counterparts, Mongol heavy cavalry also carried a bow in order to engage the enemy at a distance. In essence Mongol heavy cavalry were similar to Middle Eastern or Byzantine cataphracts and European mounted knights. 

On the battlefield, Mongol units typically fought in five ranks, the first three ranks composed of horse archers, the last two composed of heavy cavalry.  During a Mongol charge, the horse archers would close to around 50 - 100 yards and fire arrows while the heavy cavalry would protect them from counterattack by enemy cavalry. It should be noted that Mongol heavy cavalry were also armed with bows, so likewise would be firing on the enemy as well. After firing, the formation would turn around, resupply with arrows, and remount with fresh horses. They would then repeat the charge again and again until eventually the enemy would weaken, begin to panic, lose discipline, and perhaps break ranks.  At that point the heavy cavalry would swoop in and smash the enemy formation. The Mongols also used deceptive tactics which the heavy cavalry would be an essential part. One common tactic was the feigned retreat, where a Mongol unit would pretend to retreat in panic as if defeated. The enemy would in turn charge expecting to chase down and massacre a terrified enemy. To their horror, the Mongols would reform and counterattack, the heavy cavalry at the front to smash the disorganized enemy and the horse archers firing from the rear. Another tactic would be to use the horse archers to draw the enemy into an ambush, where the heavy cavalry would appear from a hidden position and conduct a surprise attack on the enemy flanks or rear.

[blue-and-gilt]

What happens when a friend and fellow sword collector comes round to talk swords, collecting, rifles, books and generally chew the fat.

[illustratus]

[domjordanillustration]

demonic lancer