CUIRASSIERS (and cavalry in general)

[Stauffenberg]

The use of cavalry is something I am learning on the fly and the Cuirassiers are an interesting cavalry type. JEB Stuart would have been in his element with these armored pistol-packing horsemen:

The cuirassiers were highly armored big men on big horses. They used to wear a costly three quarter armor, usually blackened, that ensure them protection from enemy bullets, together with a closed helmet, the most distinctive model being known as the Savoyard helm. They were armed with a pair of wheellock pistols attached to the horse saddle and a sword (Brnadic even suggest the use of old fashioned, long broadswords). During the 30s, the cuirassiers began to abandon their heavy armors being equipped, at the end of the war, not much differently from napoleonic or later cuirassiers with only a breast armor (and sometimes back) and an opened helmet as body protection.
Both Brzezinski and Brnadic agree on the cuirassiers tactics in the XVII century: deployed in usually 12 deep formations, they slowly marched against the enemy, speeding up their pace as they advance, slowing down only to shoot their pair of pistols. After the pistols were shot to create confusion amongst enemy ranks, the first file of cuirassiers would have charged with swords in hand, while the second was free to decide to shoot the pistols or join the melee. The ineffective "caracole" tactic, which consisted in the first ranks shooting their pistols and turning back, is described by both authors as a degeneration caused by low morale or fear to lose life or a costly horse, not as a standard tactic.
http://fritzvicari.deviantart.com/art/Cuirassiers-and-Harquebusiers-Thirty-Years-War-359811877

Or would he? Clearly not the nimblest cavalry unit to do your recon for you but I have been doing this in pbem somewhat, surely a misuse of what has to be heavy cavalry. I also have them riding shotgun for supply carts, something these elite horsemen would not have been thrilled to have as a mission.

Other thoughts on TYW cavalry?


[ATTACH]34779[/ATTACH]

[Straight Arrow]

The Croats provided superb light cavalry.

Schooled by harsh border raiding with the Turks, they were renowned for their skill in scouting, skirmishing and raiding.

Some old histories compare the Croats to the Native American horse cultures.

The worst atrocities in the 1631 Sack of Magdeburg are often blamed on them. An old prayer runs: "God save us from the plague, hunger, war and the Croats".

[Charles]

some more general info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Revolution

https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/351-16.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercio

from what I gather, the 1600-1650 period was a transitional era, when the power of infantry was on the rise due to changes in firepower, tactics, organisation and the importance of cavalry, on the battlefield at least, was in a corresponding decline.

[Lynxyonok]

Yes, cavalry in TYW is quite different from other AGEOD games in my opinion. They are fast yet weak, and cost-prohibitive to replace. And since most units only have one squad, there is no replacing losses - the unit is lost.

So I use them for harassment and recon - for as long as I have them. I know I can't afford to feed them in winter, and I can't afford to maintain them. Frequently I can't even spare command points for them in a stack. I typically lose 30-40% of my cavalry annually...

As for the real TYW, cavalry was quite painful to face. Especially Swedish cavalry, which I cannot wait to obtain:

"The Hakkapeliitta were well-trained Finnish light cavalrymen who excelled in sudden and savage attacks, raiding and reconnaissance. The greatest advantage of the fast and lightly armored Hakkapeliitta cavalry was its charge. They typically had a sword, a helmet, and leather armor or a breastplate of steel. They would attack at a full gallop, fire the first pistol at twenty paces and the second at five paces, and then draw the sword. The horse itself was used like another weapon, as it was used to trample enemy infantry.

The horses used by the Hakkapeliitta were the ancestors of the modern Finnhorse; they were strong and durable."

[aryaman]

some more general info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Revolution

https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/351-16.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tercio

from what I gather, the 1600-1650 period was a transitional era, when the power of infantry was on the rise due to changes in firepower, tactics, organisation and the importance of cavalry, on the battlefield at least, was in a corresponding decline.

On the contrary, the TYW saw an increase of the importance of cavalry as years passed, the late armies had considerably more cavalry than infantry.

[Random]

I would not go so far as to say that armies had more horse than foot but the ratio between the two arms certainly changed with a greater percentage of the former. There would always be an issue in monarchical, semi-feudal societies where for the most part only the upper strata could actually own horses and where the middle class (as it would develop) was essentially nonexistent. Horsemanship was a mark of status and opening the ranks of the peasantry to the cavalry was generally unacceptable to the gentry. The war also saw the decline in body armour, rendered obsolete by improved small arms and the transition of cavalry from being firepower oriented to using shock with edged weapons or lances.

I quite like the way the TYW models its forces including the dynamics between arms and captures the essence of the operational problems of the era.

-C

[Stauffenberg]

On the contrary, the TYW saw an increase of the importance of cavalry as years passed, the late armies had considerably more cavalry than infantry.

Most of the energy of these foot troops was expended marching around on bad tracks attempting to come to grips with the enemy and many generals of this era saw their task as exhausting the enemy, making him pointlessly march here and there before closing in to administer the coup de grace. "Getting there firstest with the mostest"--a rough parapharse of Nathan Bedford Forrest--would see cavalry as the obvious best way to do that--both to screen their own main force and to ascertain the enemy's. Not to argue the fact that infantry firepower and tactics were not becoming more and more lethal, it's the simple fact that your cavalry could get there sooner while your armies slogged around in relatively short campaign seasons with usually poor or very spotty intel on enemy forces. Your fast-moving cavalry were critical to remedy this, but were cuirassiers were up for this? One would think they did not operate at any great range from the main army, keeping in mind that at it's peak the armor of the cuirassiers horseman weighed up to 80 lbs on its own.

As it is, in TYW I have the feeling that cuirassiers move too fast, or at least are not cohesion-penalized enough. You would want your heavy cavalry on your wings in a set-piece battle at all costs surely, assuming the terrain allowed for a large front deployment, as much in 1628 as was the case from the Neo-Assyrian Empire (745–727 BC) through Hellenistic and Roman times when cataphracts evolved and were employed, the main idea being to have your heavy cavalry close up and let loose projectiles (arrows, and later pistol or carbine fire) and then charge at speed over short distances and literally smash an enemy line apart. TYW cuirassiers employed the same tactic, although without the horse armored they relied mainly upon the sword at close quarters. If this is the case then their long range independent movement capabilities should be curtailed, but on the other hand set-piece battles should get combat benefits with cuirassier heavy cavalry able to effectively deploy (perhaps like the early tanks in RUS get vs fortifications).

[Konrad von Richtmark]

I too am guilty of often using cuirassiers for outrider duty. I usually send them out alone to capture areas around my expected march route to enable the army to draw supplies from adjacent provinces. While using cheaper, lighter cavalry is of course preferable, often cuirassiers is the only thing I have. Many stacks created by scripted event have them and not much else in the way of cavalry.

I try to keep one or two cuirassier units in each field army though, just because it wouldn't feel right otherwise. A real army with absolutely no cavalry would be tactically gimped on the field. Not sure whether the game takes that into account though. Cavalry should be part force multiplier, part tactical exploitation weapon. Use your own infantry to mess up the enemy infantry, and follow up with a cavalry charge. Maybe make the cavalry charge special battle action much more likely to succeed, but require the armies to already have fought a round at close combat distance? No idea though whether such a thing is possible to program without modifying the game engine.

[Stauffenberg]

I too am guilty of often using cuirassiers for outrider duty. I usually send them out alone to capture areas around my expected march route to enable the army to draw supplies from adjacent provinces. While using cheaper, lighter cavalry is of course preferable, often cuirassiers is the only thing I have. Many stacks created by scripted event have them and not much else in the way of cavalry.

I try to keep one or two cuirassier units in each field army though, just because it wouldn't feel right otherwise. A real army with absolutely no cavalry would be tactically gimped on the field. Not sure whether the game takes that into account though. Cavalry should be part force multiplier, part tactical exploitation weapon. Use your own infantry to mess up the enemy infantry, and follow up with a cavalry charge. Maybe make the cavalry charge special battle action much more likely to succeed, but require the armies to already have fought a round at close combat distance? No idea though whether such a thing is possible to program without modifying the game engine.

Well I agree. This plethora of cuirassiers, which are heavy cavalry, feels off, as you are forced to willy nilly use them as scouts and raiders--my main reason for starting this thread. In one of my pbems as the Catholics I have Protestant cuirassiers raiders "laying siege" to some 8 cities between the Rhine and the Sudetenland"....
How were they actually employed?

[Leibst]

The cuirassiers were a force that were used attacking with his pistols to enemy infantry in order to make casualties before an infantry attack.
There were several ways of doing this and this change with the pass of the time. But Cuirassiers of course could see themselves merged in hand to hand combat against enemy cavalry, including other cuirassiers.

[Stauffenberg]

The cuirassiers were a force that were used attacking with his pistols to enemy infantry in order to make casualties before an infantry attack.
There were several ways of doing this and this change with the pass of the time. But Cuirassiers of course could see themselves merged in hand to hand combat against enemy cavalry, including other cuirassiers.

Yes that part is well-understood. I wanted to know if they were roaming all over the countryside as independent raiders and scouts--something you will find yourself using them for in TYW.

[aryaman]

I would not go so far as to say that armies had more horse than foot but the ratio between the two arms certainly changed with a greater percentage of the former. There would always be an issue in monarchical, semi-feudal societies where for the most part only the upper strata could actually own horses and where the middle class (as it would develop) was essentially nonexistent. Horsemanship was a mark of status and opening the ranks of the peasantry to the cavalry was generally unacceptable to the gentry. The war also saw the decline in body armour, rendered obsolete by improved small arms and the transition of cavalry from being firepower oriented to using shock with edged weapons or lances.

I quite like the way the TYW models its forces including the dynamics between arms and captures the essence of the operational problems of the era.

-C

The Imperial army at 2nd Breitenfeld had 10.000 inf and 16.000 cavalry, at Jankow 5.000 Inf and 11.000 cavalry. the tendency was clear.

[aryaman]

I would not go so far as to say that armies had more horse than foot but the ratio between the two arms certainly changed with a greater percentage of the former. There would always be an issue in monarchical, semi-feudal societies where for the most part only the upper strata could actually own horses and where the middle class (as it would develop) was essentially nonexistent. Horsemanship was a mark of status and opening the ranks of the peasantry to the cavalry was generally unacceptable to the gentry. The war also saw the decline in body armour, rendered obsolete by improved small arms and the transition of cavalry from being firepower oriented to using shock with edged weapons or lances.

I quite like the way the TYW models its forces including the dynamics between arms and captures the essence of the operational problems of the era.

-C

The Imperial army at 2nd Breitenfeld had 10.000 inf and 16.000 cavalry, at Jankow 5.000 Inf and 11.000 cavalry. the tendency was clear.

[Random]

The Imperial army at 2nd Breitenfeld had 10.000 inf and 16.000 cavalry, at Jankow 5.000 Inf and 11.000 cavalry. the tendency was clear.

Perhaps in specific battles but this is not the case for Nordlingen, Rocroi or for the period following the TYW when the socket bayonet and flintlock replaced the pike and wheellock musket. A couple of exceptions hardly makes a trend in the area of military innovation and while cavalry might serve as the arm of decision in some battles, those 16th and 17th Century battles between European proto-states where horse outnumbered foot were unusual.

-C

[Konrad von Richtmark]

Another question. For cuirassiers kept with armies, is it worth it including them in groups? Or, even stacking them together in an all-cuirassier group? Would doing the latter give them a good chance to get stuck in close combat on favourable terms?

[aryaman]

The original post by Charles was about the 1600-1650 period, in that period there is a definitive tendency to an increase in cavalry proportion, from the early battles, like White Mountain or Wimpfen, to the late battles. The Swedish at Breitenfeld had 14.000 foot and 8.000 horse, at Lutzen 12.000 foot and 6.000 Horse, at Nordlingen 16.000 foot and 9.700 Horse, at Wittstotock 7.750 foot and 10.250 Horse, at Jankow 6.135 foot and 8.530 Horse , there was a progression from 33% to 58% of cavalry as a proportion of the armies. Guthrie discuss the issue atributing it to the increased emphasis on "small war", raid, ambuscade, skirmish, outpost and scouting. David Parrott also noticed the increased impact of cavalry in battles as the arm of decision

[aryaman]

Yes that part is well-understood. I wanted to know if they were roaming all over the countryside as independent raiders and scouts--something you will find yourself using them for in TYW.

In the early period of the war, before 1635, Kuirassiers were used as battlefield units, while the small war was reserved to Horse Arquebussiers and irregulars like Croats or Cossacks. After around 1635 the Swedish model of a jack of all trades cavalry type was the rule. Some Horse Arquebussiers regiments change their denomination to "Dragoons" but they still fought on horseback rather than as mounted infantry.

[Lynxyonok]

With cold winters, slow movement exacerbated by traffic penalties and inactive leaders, cavalry will absolutely be used as raiders. Because it is better to have light presence in ten provinces than overwhelming in just one...

Oh and here's another wiki quote.
Some historians associate the demise of the caracole with the name of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (1594–1632). He regarded the technique as fairly inefficient and forbade the cavalry regiments in Swedish employ from using it. However, he was definitely not the first military commander to dismiss the caracole; François de la Noue, in his account of his service under Henry IV of France, mentioned that the pistol-armed Protestant cavalry used their weapons much like very long swords or lances, charging fiercely against the enemy formation before discharging the pistols at point-blank range (or even laying the pistol's muzzle directly against the opponent's armour before firing).

[Stauffenberg]

With cold winters, slow movement exacerbated by traffic penalties and inactive leaders, cavalry will absolutely be used as raiders. Because it is better to have light presence in ten provinces than overwhelming in just one...

Oh and here's another wiki quote.
Some historians associate the demise of the caracole with the name of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (1594–1632). He regarded the technique as fairly inefficient and forbade the cavalry regiments in Swedish employ from using it. However, he was definitely not the first military commander to dismiss the caracole; François de la Noue, in his account of his service under Henry IV of France, mentioned that the pistol-armed Protestant cavalry used their weapons much like very long swords or lances, charging fiercely against the enemy formation before discharging the pistols at point-blank range (or even laying the pistol's muzzle directly against the opponent's armour before firing).

Well really we need a source for stats on the effectiveness on these handguns on armor. They had to be wildly inaccurate to begin with at any sort of range anyhow. What sort of shot was used? What kind of penetration against an enemy knight wearing over 80 lbs of armor could be expected? Frequent misfires no doubt--and reloading? Forget it--Fire them off and charge one assumes. I gather that by the 30s the new trend towards lighter armored cuirassiers became apparent. Were they still heavy cavalry? Was their main employment intended to be in large set-piece battles? Or were they used a lot as raiders and scouts as TYW pretty much obliges you to use them as? My question still stands.

[Stauffenberg]

In the early period of the war, before 1635, Kuirassiers were used as battlefield units, while the small war was reserved to Horse Arquebussiers and irregulars like Croats or Cossacks. After around 1635 the Swedish model of a jack of all trades cavalry type was the rule. Some Horse Arquebussiers regiments change their denomination to "Dragoons" but they still fought on horseback rather than as mounted infantry.

Yes this is what one expects? So why the plethora of cuirassiers in TYW at least at the outset? (I am only 2-3 years into it in pbem so take my comments advisedly). I am under the assumption as I said earlier, that cuirassiers at the beginning of the TYW were intended to be used in the venerable tradition of the cataphracts--i.e. employed on the wings or in reserve as heavy cavalry, an ace to be played at a critical moment, then ordered forward to fire their projectiles at close range and charge to break the enemy line. What possible benefit is to be had sending off heavily armored knights on horseback to scout or raid long-range? You needed these units close in for any set-piece battle, not off on some fool's errand that would quickly exhaust these heavy units. Perhaps later on when their armor was less effective against shots and they started wearing the lighter chest-oriented cuirassier armor they were doing this, but early on is what I am concerned with here.

[aryaman]

Well, I think I just answered you, before 1635 Kuirassiers were used mainly in pitched battles while the other cavalry tasks were assigned to Horse Arkebussiers. Later Kuirassiers become lighter, usually dropping completely armoured in exchange of a buff coat, just like other lighter cavalry, so they were used for all the roles of cavalry.
BTW There was no plethora of Kuirassiers, at White Mountain, for instance, out of 6.000 cavalry in the Catholic army just 1.400 were Kuirassiers.

[aryaman]

Well, after taking a look I see there could be after all a plethora of Kuirassiers in the game, for instance, in the 1622 scenario Tilly´s cavalry is all Kuirassiers but for the Croats, but in Guthrie OOB are just 1 Kuirassier regiment (Eynatten) and 2 mixed , the other 2 being Horse Arkebusiers or simply "cavalry"

[Stauffenberg]

Well, after taking a look I see there could be after all a plethora of Kuirassiers in the game, for instance, in the 1622 scenario Tilly´s cavalry is all Kuirassiers but for the Croats, but in Guthrie OOB are just 1 Kuirassier regiment (Eynatten) and 2 mixed , the other 2 being Horse Arkebusiers or simply "cavalry"

I agreed with your historical points and was basically just posting initial reactions from my first pbems, where the number of cuirassiers (and how best to employ them) jumps out at you. As I said, in one game as the Catholics I had Protestant cuirassiers besieging 8 different cities--deep cavalry raids wearing up to 80 lbs of armor just didn't seem very realistic on such a scale.

[Charles]

On the contrary, the TYW saw an increase of the importance of cavalry as years passed, the late armies had considerably more cavalry than infantry.

The original post by Charles was about the 1600-1650 period, in that period there is a definitive tendency to an increase in cavalry proportion, from the early battles, like White Mountain or Wimpfen, to the late battles. The Swedish at Breitenfeld had 14.000 foot and 8.000 horse, at Lutzen 12.000 foot and 6.000 Horse, at Nordlingen 16.000 foot and 9.700 Horse, at Wittstotock 7.750 foot and 10.250 Horse, at Jankow 6.135 foot and 8.530 Horse , there was a progression from 33% to 58% of cavalry as a proportion of the armies. Guthrie discuss the issue atributing it to the increased emphasis on "small war", raid, ambuscade, skirmish, outpost and scouting. David Parrott also noticed the increased impact of cavalry in battles as the arm of decision

On the contrary, if you had read my post an the accompanying links, you would have understood I was referring to the effectiveness of cavalry on the battlefield. That is what the term the "infantry revolution" refers to.

In the 1600-1650 period, it was almost impossible for cavalry to defeat unbroken professionally trained and organized infantry. i.e.:

Successful tactics depended greatly on maneuvering the various elements of the early-modern army in close co-ordination. Pikemen could defend themselves from cavalry attack, but were very vulnerable to musket fire.

Cavalry were useful for reconnaissance and surprise, but stood little chance against disciplined pikemen and were little used in Western European warfare. When France went to war in 1635, only just over twelve thousand of its 132,000 troops were cavalry.

https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/351-16.htm

More substance has the case for the "return of Heavy Infantry" as Carey has named it.[SUP][17][/SUP] Pikemen, unlike other infantry, could stand in the open against heavy cavalry. While requiring drill and discipline, individual training requirements were much lower than those for archers or knights, and the switch from heavily armoured knight to footsoldier made possible the expansion in the size of armies from the late 15th century onwards as infantry could be trained more quickly and could be hired in great numbers. But that change was slow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Revolution#The_infantry_revolution_and_the_decline_of_cavalry

[Stauffenberg]

Some great links Charles thanks!

[Ebbingford]

I never use cuirassiers for scouting. I keep them in my armies. Their replacements cost too much in WS and WS often gets short.

[aryaman]

Charles, In fact I wrote myself the Wiki article on the Military Revolution you linked!
So, to the point, you wrote from what I gather, the 1600-1650 period was a transitional era, when the power of infantry was on the rise due to changes in firepower, tactics, organisation and the importance of cavalry, on the battlefield at least, was in a corresponding decline. and that is not correct. That could be applied to the 1500-1550 period very well, but after that cavalry regained importance in the battlefield to the point that the last battles in the TYW like I quoted to you Cavalry outnumbered infantry, sometimes 2 to 1.
The reasons for that are discussed, I quoted Guthrie about the increasing role of light cavalry in campaign, to that can be added that cavalry itself evolved, answering to the evolution of infantry. It was a dialectic process, however there is no doubt that in the 1600-1650 perod cavalry regained importance in the battlefield.

[aryaman]

BTW regarding the figures you quote for the French army in 1635, you have to keep in mind that much of the infantry was confined to garrison duties, not for field armies. In that year of 1635, according to David Parrott the French army in the Low Countries started with Paper Strength of 28.000 Infantry and 6.000 Cavalry, and in May of 1635 a muster roll showed 22.000 Infantry and 4.500 Cavalry. For actual battles, at Honnecourt (1642) the French had 7.000 Inf and 3.000 Cavalry, at Rocroi (1643) 14.400 Inf and 6.400 Cav, at Lens 7.200 Inf and 9.000 Cavalry. As you see, the French field armies experienced the same process of increase in cavalry.

[Straight Arrow]

For what it's worth, from the Italian wars on, there was a steady movement away from the heavy lance armed cavalry, the gendarmes - steel encased cavalrymen of noble birth, to a lighter cavalry armed with pistols.

[Charles]

Charles, In fact I wrote myself the Wiki article on the Military Revolution you linked!
So, to the point, you wrote from what I gather, the 1600-1650 period was a transitional era, when the power of infantry was on the rise due to changes in firepower, tactics, organisation and the importance of cavalry, on the battlefield at least, was in a corresponding decline. and that is not correct. That could be applied to the 1500-1550 period very well, but after that cavalry regained importance in the battlefield to the point that the last battles in the TYW like I quoted to you Cavalry outnumbered infantry, sometimes 2 to 1.
The reasons for that are discussed, I quoted Guthrie about the increasing role of light cavalry in campaign, to that can be added that cavalry itself evolved, answering to the evolution of infantry. It was a dialectic process, however there is no doubt that in the 1600-1650 perod cavalry regained importance in the battlefield.

Not sure why you keep harping on this, but no, you are not correct as what my post said. I should know since I wrote it. My post was about battlefield effectiveness. Now I could have chosen the period from the Hundred Years War to 1945, but this is a game about the Thirty Years War.

You have to be careful not to confuse raw numbers with battlefield effectiveness. I agree that the proportion of cavalry went up in the later years, but as Wilson points out, that was mostly due to increasing difficulty in recruiting replacements which lowered the number of infantry and the overall size of armies. Commanders also wanted to have more cavalry so they could respond more rapidly to threats to compensate for the lower troop levels and this was also dictated by logistical constraints since mounted men could "forage", i.e. loot, over a wider area. But these are strategic and operational considerations which do not point to increasing effectiveness in the tactical sphere, i.e. on the actual field of battle.

The total amount of cavalry also declined over the later part of the war. For example, the Imperial Army had a total of 101 cavalry regiments in 1636, but only 49 in 1644 and 54 in 1646-47.

The proportions of foot to horse also varied greatly in that period. For example, when Gallas took the field in 1643, his army of 32,000 was only 1/3rd cavalry. In the battle of Rocroi in 1643, the percentage of cavalry on both sides was in the 25-30% range.

You should also note that immediately after 1648, the proportion of cavalry in western armies went back to more normal levels and never went back to 1635-1647 levels, which shows that this was the result of the conditions which existed during the war and not because cavalry suddenly became more effective on the field of battle.