War Horse Read online

  Sixteenth-Century Cavalry Tactics

  The tactical employment of the reiters utilized a maneuver called the caracole. In this maneuver, the reiters formed in a fairly narrow but very deep formation just out of effective range of the targeted enemy. They then advanced at a trot in a column composed of a series of lines to within point-blank range of the enemy. The first line then wheeled to the left, fired their pistols, and rode to the rear of the column as the next rank took their place and fired. A perfectly executed operation allowed time for the reiter to reload before moving forward to repeat the process. This tactic was particularly effective against pure pike infantry formations. The French captain Blaise de Montluc described the effect of the reiter caracole as “seeing nothing but fire and steel.” Though the pistol-armed reiter was not a chivalric figure, practicality won out, and by the end of the sixteenth century he replaced most lance-armed heavy cavalry. The caracole was less effective against infantry formations that contained musketeers. Musket fire could devastate the relatively slow caracole formation before it could get within pistol range. Still, the caracole remained an important tactic well into the Thirty Years War (1618–1648).12

  Organizing cavalry was the subject of much debate and experimentation during the sixteenth century. One issue was whether it was best to have several relatively small units, 30 to 100 horsemen, formed in one or two ranks over a wide area, or to have a square or rectangular formation that was as many as 17 horsemen deep and as many as 100 horsemen across. The smaller unit brought more men into contact with the enemy. However, without numbers behind pushing the forward ranks forward, the horsemen would tend to avoid direct confrontation with the enemy. Additionally, the wider formation was difficult to control and required a higher quality of horsemanship to maintain. A large part of a commander’s concern in the sixteenth century was cavalrymen who avoided close combat. Tavannes pointed out that this was a major issue that argued for a deep formation. He encouraged commanders to consider walking or trotting into the attack because it was more difficult for cowards to duck out of the formation when it was moving slow. He noted that a captain who covered 15 paces at the gallop might find himself arriving at his target completely alone.13

  The attitude of the mercenary cavalry argued for the use of the deeper formation. The deep formation also facilitated the execution of the caracole maneuver. The caracole maneuver was a difficult operation that took extensive training to execute properly. The historical legacy of the caracole was not its tactical effectiveness, but rather the drill training required to execute the maneuver effectively in combat. The number of hours spent practicing the caracole served to instill in the European horse, for the first time, the concepts of discipline, responsiveness to command, and unit cohesion that was absent from Medieval cavalry. It also highlighted the importance of individual horsemanship. Thus, the caracole, though it may have had only marginal value on the battlefield, was a superb training tool and was central to the transition of bodies of mounted warriors into cavalry units.14 Over time, the deep squadron gave way to the wider shallower formation. This was possible because of better training and horsemanship within the formation.

  SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY CAVALRY

  During the seventeenth century, the reforms of the previous century continued to be refined and developed as cavalry adjusted to further technological advances in infantry weapons and cannon. By the end of the seventeenth century, cavalry was facing an even more lethal battlefield made up of massed flintlock muskets and light mobile cannon. The major developments in cavalry were demonstrated in the Thirty Years War, the English Civil War, and the French Wars at the end of the century.

  Seventeenth-Century Cavalry Tactics

  Cavalry avoided attacking the pike and musket infantry formations directly. Basic cavalry tactics positioned cavalry on the wings to fight a “cavalry battle” against their mounted opponents. If this was successful they then threatened the enemy infantry rear and flanks, or waited patiently for a break in the discipline of the enemy infantry formation to allow a frontal attack. Cavalry tactics in general resembled somewhat the classic cavalry tactics of the Romans and Macedonians.

  The accepted cavalry tactic at the beginning of the seventeenth century was the caracole; but during the Thirty Years War, cavalry leaders modified it to be more practical. The cavalry moved forward in two ranks at the trot to within pistol range of the enemy, halted, and the first rank fired a volley. The horseman returned the pistol to the holster and then fired a second pistol. At that point the front rank counter-marched to reload while the second moved into position and fired its volleys. Cavalry completely abandoned the classic caracole well before the end of the Thirty Years War.15

  During the Thirty Years War the cavalry did not normally engage in close combat. Gustavus Adolphus is given credit by some historians with bringing cavalry back to a position of importance on the battlefield by reintroducing the charge with cold steel. His orders to his cavalry were described by German political and military theorist Bogislaus Philip von Chemnitz writing in the early 1640s: “Only the first or at most the first two ranks, when near enough to see the whites of the enemy’s eyes, were to give fire, then to reach for their swords; the last rank however was to attack without shooting but with swords drawn, and to keep both pistols (or in the front ranks, one) in reserve for the melee.”16 The attack with saber returned as the essential tactic of Gustav’s cavalry, but it was a trend that had already become evident among German cavalry before the arrival of the Swedes.

  The Swedish cavalry, though competent and aggressive, could not stand up to the charge of the German Imperial cuirassiers. The body armor of the cuirassiers gave them great protection in a sword-on-sword melee. Their armor allowed cuirassiers to close with sword-armed cavalry and use their pistols at point-blank range. On several occasions, Imperial cavalry rode completely through Swedish cavalry. Recognizing this weakness, Chemnitz relates that Gustav advised his cavalry that it was pointless to try fight the German cuirassiers on even terms. Instead they “need only give the horse a deep thrust with the sword, twist broadly with it and rip open the wound; in this way horse and man would be quickly bowled over, and beaten just the same.”17

  The French view remained as expressed to the king by D’Aurignac, a student of the great Marshall Turenne, in 1663: “It is the cavalry that ordinarily wins battles.” Though the French had officially adopted the tactics of the German reiters, pistol attacks were unpopular with many commanders. Some French commanders felt forced to use the caracole by the decrease in riding skills among their cavalrymen and because of the inability of the lance to make an impression on disciplined infantry with pikes. French king Henry IV was an advocate of a return to close combat as the cavalry’s preferred method of fighting. By the beginning of the seventeenth century the French cavalry were firing an initial volley of pistol fire and then closing in with the sword. A formation of about five or six ranks replaced the deep caracole formation. Later in the century, under the influence of Gustavus Adolphus’s example, minor changes in tactics occurred, including reducing the formation depth to three ranks where it remained until the end of the century.18

  Seventeenth-Century Cavalry Weapons and Armor

  Over the course of the seventeenth century, cavalry organizations gradually became simpler as the understanding of cavalry capabilities increased. Near the start of the century, John Cruso identified five types of cavalry, most by the type of weapon that they employed: cuirassier, lancer, harquebusier, dragoon, and carabinier.19 These were the types of cavalry found in most armies of the Thirty Years War. During that war, the types of cavalry continued to be refined. Imperial cavalry divided into four main types: cuirassiers, harquebusiers, dragoons, and Croats (light cavalry). By the end of the century, most armies had adopted three or four types of cavalry: cuirassiers, line cavalry, dragoons, and light cavalry (going by a variety of names including light dragoons, hussars, and Croats).

  The harquebusier was named after hi
s principle weapon, the harquebus. They usually wore only a breast and back plate and performed a variety of mounted duties. Additional weapons included a saber and pistols. His role in battle was to support the cuirassiers with fire and protect their flanks.20 Typically, harquebusiers rode small horses. The intent was that they use their harquebus from horseback though they rarely did. Over time, they adopted similar weapons and armor as cuirassiers, and the two types were often indistinguishable. The harquebus was the first successful firearm. A slow-burning wick lowered into and igniting a pan of powder fired the weapon. Designed as an infantry weapon, it was adapted for use by mounted forces by shortening the barrel. The carbine was a similar weapon to the harquebus but designed specifically for use by mounted forces. The length of the weapons was the same. The difference between the carbine and the harquebus for mounted service was the bore. The carbine had a bore that was similar in size to a pistol bore. Thus, the bullet size for the carbine size was the same as the pistol: 24 to the pound.21 Armies discarded the harquebus weapon with the fielding of the flintlock firing mechanism after the English Civil War.

  For most of the seventeenth century firepower was a major concern of cavalry. Toward this end, building on the model of the reiters, pistols were regular equipment for all cavalry. At the beginning of the century the wheellock pistol was still the standard cavalry pistol. Around 1639 the flintlock pistol began to replace the wheellock. The advantages of the flintlock pistol were a slightly greater range, more reliable firing mechanism, and greater ease of loading. The barrel length of the flintlock pistol, at 14 inches, was shorter than the standard wheellock making it easier to handle.22

  Through the century the sword and the pistol vied to be the primary arm of the cavalry. German cavalry relied on the pistol. The French cavalry began the century practicing the caracole, then after the Thirty Years War they emphasized the sword. By the end of the century, however, the French had returned to an emphasis on the pistol as their preferred close combat weapon. The French cavalry sword of the late seventeenth century was a straight blade made for thrusting rather than slashing. After the Dutch wars at the end of the century, they traded their straight swords for curved sabers that were better for slashing. Most cavalry of the seventeenth century used a straight sword with the exception of light cavalry, which typically adopted a curved blade saber.23

  At the beginning of the seventeenth century, although the completely armored cuirassier was the ideal, the reality was that many wore only breast and back plates, and open-faced helmets. The partly armored cuirassiers were called “half-cuirassiers.” They carried a sword and two pistols. By the end of the century the idea of the cuirassier and the half-cuirassier merged, and the cuirassier wore only the breast and back plate. This armor, called the cuirass, remained the defining equipment of the heavy cavalry until the twentieth century.

  At the beginning of the seventeenth century, the preference was for cavalry to wear armor, and many, like the reiters, were equipped in full plate armor. Mounted harquebusiers wore only the breast and back plate armor, and dragoons did not wear armor at all. Through the seventeenth century the trend was for cavalrymen in the field to lighten their armor load despite regulations which required more armor. French cavalry began shedding their armor during the Thirty Years War. In 1638, Louis XIII had to order officers to wear their armor under threat of losing their noble rank. In 1675, Louis XIV had to issue a similar order demanding that all cavalry officers wear their cuirasses.24 The cuirass during this period weighed about 30 pounds or more. In comparison, a full set of Medieval plate armor weighed as little as 45 pounds. The difference was the thickness necessary for the cuirass to be able to stop musket fire. By the middle of the century, most cavalrymen abandoned armor except for in the heavy cavalry who wore a minimum armor set consisting of an open face helmet and a cuirass.

  One of the most interesting developments in cavalry armor was the introduction of the buff coat. These coats appeared sometime after 1610 and by the end of the Thirty Years War were in wide use on all sides. The buff coat developed from the padded doublet worn under full armor. They were made from thick cow or elk hide. They were somewhat effective against saber slashes and many considered them no less effective against firearms than armor.25 In England and elsewhere the buff coat disappeared as cloth uniforms appeared in the last quarter of the seventeenth century.

  The English Civil War also saw the development of a another unique piece of armor known as the bridle gauntlet. The bridle gauntlet covered the left hand and arm only, and was designed to protect against an enemy saber slash at the arm or bridle itself, because a successful blow could destroy the rider’s ability to control his horse.

  National Cavalry

  At the beginning of the seventeenth century Sweden fielded one of the first truly national cavalry forces. Swedish farmers received an exemption from taxes for providing a fully equipped cavalry trooper with horse to Gustavus Adolphus’s army. Swedish cavalry fought for king and country, and their nationalistic bond made them more cohesive than mercenary units. Each Swedish cavalry regiment consisted of two 175-man squadrons. At their largest in 1631, they organized in five regional regiments of eight companies of 125 horses each. This gave Sweden a cavalry force of 5,000 men.26

  Gustavus Adolphus ignored the specialized types of cavalry. He took the pistols and saber of the cuirassiers, and the light armor of the harquebusiers, and combined them into a new general purpose cavalry. This new cavalry was not light cavalry but rather a standardized form of the half-cuirassier. They were able to charge in the main battle as well as perform scouting and other campaign duties. They could do neither mission as well as specialized heavy and light cavalry but were more cost effective in the long term due to their versatility.27 In many ways this change harkened back to the general purpose cavalry of the Romans as well as the general utility of Medieval Middle Eastern and Mongol cavalry. Over the period of the seventeenth century, other nations copied this form of general purpose cavalry, and it was sometimes referred to simply as “horse.”

  The other important national cavalry of the seventeenth century were the French. By the late seventeenth century most French cavalry also became a general purpose type, called cavalerie legere. They were almost identical to the cuirassier heavy cavalry except that they did not wear armor. They were the regular battle cavalry of the French army and the most numerous of the cavalry types. Their primary weapons were the pistol and the sword. In the last part of the century the French also added a company of caribiniers to each cavalry regiment. Their purpose was to move forward of the cavalry companies and use their carbines to prevent harassment of the main companies by infantry or light cavalry as they maneuvered. The French included dragoons as part of their mounted force throughout the century. The term dragoon, originated with the French who initially armed mounted infantry with a type of blunderbuss firearm called a dragon. The French establishment did not include permanent light cavalry units until 1692.28

  The basic organization of the French cavalry was the company which could vary widely in size. In 1610 French companies numbered 100 troopers. Over the century they fluctuated in size, usually numbering between 45 and 70, but by the end of the century they hit their lowest authorized strength of 20 men. In the early seventeenth century all companies were separate organizations. In 1635, Louis XIII ordered the formation of the first 12 regiments of cavalry, one of carabiniers, and six regiments of dragoons. Initially, each regiment was composed of two squadrons, and each squadron of two companies. Like the number of troopers in a company, the number of regiments fluctuated greatly. At one point there were 170 regiments on active service while at other times virtually none. In 1671 they formed a relatively permanent structure of 99 regiments. Regiments consisted of either 8 or 12 companies organized into two or three squadrons. The squadron became the main tactical unit replacing the company.29

  EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY CAVALRY

  During the eighteenth century cavalry continued to be an
important and even battle winning component of the European armies. Although the proportion of cavalry compared to the size of the army decreased in some armies, others maintained very large cavalry forces throughout the century. In 1720 the Russian regular army’s 36,000 cavalry were 38 percent of the force. Twenty years later in 1740, Frederick the Great inherited a Prussian army in which 17,000 cavalrymen made up 43 percent of the force. Where numbers of cavalry decreased it was because cavalry cost three times more than infantry to maintain. An examination of numbers and individual battles indicates that though many historians and even generals of the period believed that “Firearms and not cold steel now decide battles,” this was in fact an inaccurate overgeneralization.30 Throughout the eighteenth century, cavalry remained an extremely critical component of the army and often was the battle-winning arm.

  Eighteenth-Century Cavalry Weapons and Armor

  The debate over cavalry armor and specifically the cuirass continued into the eighteenth century. Some nations had abandoned it early in the eighteenth century only to have it return to use a hundred years later. In some armies it was part of the regulation uniform but ignored by the army in the field. Some armies wore the entire front and back plate while others just wore the front plate. By the middle of the eighteenth century it was generally no longer in use except by the heavy cavalry cuirassiers and officers. By mid-century all other cavalry were wearing long cloth coats of varied colors according to function and nation, with distinguishing linings and facings.31

  Some cavalry continued to wear other elements of armor, notably helmets, in the first years of the eighteenth century. However, helmets eventually went away except for ceremonial purposes in all but a few heavy cavalry regiments. The common military headgear was the tricorner hat which was an impractical piece of equipment for cavalry purposes but was the standard for both infantry and cavalry until the last decade of the century. The heavy cavalry wore a metal insert inside the hat to help protect against sword blows. Thigh-high boots, often rolled down to give double protection at the knee, were the standard footwear of the cavalry.