The Three Musketeers question

As usual, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. I suspect you make it up as you go along.

I have no idea what cavalry means in the contemporary Australian army, but in the United States Army, cavalry comes in two flavors--standard cavalry, equipped like any other armored unit, and using the Abrams main battle tank, and air cavalry, equipped with helicopters.

Dragoons were effectively used in both roles--as a mounted force to charge an enemy line, and dismounted to fight as infantry. Until late in the 19th century, the use of muzzle loading infantry weapons meant that dragoons had as much of an opportunity to fight effectively as did any infantry formation. In the United States, there were only two cavalry establishments until about 1850 when Congress authorized the Second Cavalry Regiment--those were the First Cavalry and the First Dragoons. The nature of combat in the American Civil War and later on the Great Plains lead the U.S. to abandon the use of dragoons. Nevertheless, whether designated as dragoons or not, American cavalry on both sides in our civil war fought often and effectively dismounted--in fact, mounted combat outside la petite guerre was uncommon. The cavalry fights at the battle of Gettysburg, for example, were all dismounted except for Kilpatrick's useless charge which slaughtered Federal cavalry largely to no purpose.

On the first day of that battle, Buford's cavalry fought dismounted and held up Heth's division long enough for the First Corps to shake out a line and oppose the Confederate advance. They were using breech loading, mult-shot carbines, and inflicted heavy casualties on Pettigrew's brigade. They cut off and captured a large part of Lane's brigade. They were withdrawn after relatively light casualties when the First Corps was in position, because cavalry was the most expensive arm of the army, and commanders did all they could to keep casualties in men and horses to a minimum. When Stuart finally arrived on the battlefield, with the exception of Kilpatrick's foolhardy charge, his troopers fought the Federal troopers dismounted.

During the battle of the Wilderness, Stuart brought his cavalry onto Lee's right flank in the nick of time, and they fought dismounted to prevent Meade's army from enveloping that flank. When the Federals broke out of the Wilderness, and Sheridan lead a major raid against Lee's communications, Stuart and Sheridan fought dismounted at Yellow Tavern, where Stuart was mortally wounded.

In the West, both Joe Wheeler and Nathan Forrest frequently fought dismounted--and in fact, that was Forrest's preferred tactic. Leaving aside the apocryphal versions of his remark, Forrest did say that the day went to the man who "arrived first with the most." In fact, there was just a single large scale mounted cavalry battle in the entire war, at Brandy Station. Other than that engagement, cavalry either patrolled in vedettes, or fought dismounted. I recommend Memoirs of the Confederate War for Independence, Philadelphia and London, 1867, by Heros Von Borcke for detailed accounts of how the cavalry operated in the petite guerre.

You have correctly identified the problem, **** for brains, you have just attributed it to the wrong side.

Dragoons were bad at both roles of cavalry and fast infantry until the idea of using them dismounted was abandoned and they were used as medium cavalry. As infantry they tended to ride away. As cavalry they tended to be beaten by cavalry units who thought themselves superior. Your knowledge from google is sadly lacking as usual. Have you thought of getting a formal qualification ? Anything.....bus driver ? Waiter ?

The US civil war is one example of dragoons fighting well as infantry, but poorly as cavalry. The Confederates had far superior cavalry whilst the Union had good mounted infantry. The difference between the two sides illustrates well the difference between training as mounted infantry or training as battlefield cavalry. Despite the superior cavalry of the south, very few strictly cavalry charges occurred during the US Civil War. One of the more famous and succesful was by Custer, later of Sioux Indian fame. A classic example of the use of dragoons as more mobile than infantry is Sherman's ride through the south.

They were very seldom good at both roles, and most often failed at both.

Cavalry in most modern armies is used for reconnaissance. This is distinct from armoured units that are equipped with main battle tanks. Cav units are usually equipped with an ACAV vehicle like the M3. In Vietnam the first air cav units were formed for mobility. The mounted Infantry units equipped with the M2 could be said to have inherited the dragoon role.

I Hope you are enjoying this topic because I learn so much for the responses.

BBB

More than anything else, i enjoy the wit of people like Joe and George . . .

The original was: "C'etait une nuit orageuse et sombre." So a close translation would be: "It was a stormy and dark night." The question, then, is whether Paul Clifford was translated into French and, if so, whether the opening line was rendered the same as Dumas's version.

I think what defines a saber is that it is sharp along one edge. It can be straight or curved.

The reason being, is that you can't perform a lunge when riding; you have to chop instead, so you need a sharpened edge.

Excellent . . . according to your link, Washington Irving might have been the first to use it in print. I read it as a kid, and then i read it a few years ago for the second time. The copy i found at a Goodwill store was one of those old, old lightweight, cheap hard-bound books which were briefly popular before paperbacks came along. Therefore, i can't say whose translation was used for it. Perhaps the common use of the phrase influenced whoever made the translation i read.

The Wikipedia article on saber states that they were usually curved, but that heavy cavalry used a straight blade, often sharpened on both edges--which is nothing more than the definition of a military long sword. While your description of its use would be descripitve of its use in pursuing men fleeing on foot, the weapon would not necessarily be used that way in a cavalry on cavalry action.

Probably the greatest triumph of dragoons in a cavalry action was the charge of the Heavy Brigade at the first battle of Balaclava. Scarlett had only about 600 troopers, and the charge would have been a slow motion affair by the silly standard of Hollywood. They were charging uphill at the Russians, and they were very close when they began their charge. According to the Wikipedia article, the entire force available to Scarlett were dragoons . . .



The Russians numbered about 2000 to 3000 troopers. One dragoon regiment hit the Russians in flank and cut their way right through the Russians, in one side and out the other. Scarlett's casualties were amazingly light--about a dozen killed and fewer than one hundred wounded, while the Russians had about 50 killed, and several hundred wounded. The Russian cavalry had already been repulsed by the 93rd Highlanders ("the thin red line of heroes"); the charge of the Heavy Brigade had stopped their cavalry in it's career along the Causeway Heights. The famous (and useless) charge of the Light Brigade, while a futile, bloody and stupendous mistake, seemed to have further paralyzed the Russians. The Chausseurs d'Afrique arrived to cover the retreat of the Light Brigade, and regiments of infantry from the French reserve arrived to prop up the allied right flank, ending the battle there.

Scarlett's charge is little known, but it, along with the more famous "thin red line" and the charge of Light Brigade served to halt a Russian attack which in the early morning threatened to outflank the Allies and roll up their line. More than any single action in that battle, Scarlett and his dragoons saved the situation.

That thin red line, them Highlanders, they was tough. I think that's because they was wearin' skirts, ever'body made fun of 'em, and they was in a real shitty mood that mornin' . . .

You are correct. A sword has a double cutting edge, so the samurai used a sabre, not a sword.

Again, you are correct but there are diarists who have made specific mention of sabers being used by charging cavalry as a pointed weapon, being aimed like a sword . Of course once the initial charge was over, the curved saber was far superior especially in balance to a straight sword.

One diarist records two opposing regiments of cavalry riding into each by first opening their ranks to allow more contact, riding through each others ranks, reforming and retiring to their respective lines having left a mere handful lying on the ground. About 5 casualties out of about a thousand men !!!

Funny how no mention is ever made of the other units involved in defending with the scots. And if the cavalry had of made contact, the scots were meat.

The saber and rapier are models for modern fencing weapons, the foil, saber and
epee. My son Nigel's weapon was the foil. You score a touch by thrusting, the
target being the torso, not including the arms. A saber scores a touch with a thrust
or a slash, the target being the body from the waist up. The epee is odd in that
you score with a thrust, but it can be on any part of the body.

Having watched a lot of fencing while Nigel was competing, I suspect real duels
were a lot quicker than those Errol Flynn/Basil Rathbone battles.

And my fencing instructor in college told us the triathlon is based on being a Napoleonic-era courier. Ride your horse until it gets shot, swim a river, and fight your way through with your sword....

I always thought it was the other way around, though; epee was the one that made sense (to me) and the others had screwy rules.

There were no other units defending with the Highlanders. After the Russian detachment (and it was exactly that, a detachment from the main body, and numbering 500 or fewer troopers) was repulsed, a batter of the Royal Artillery and a battery of the Royal Marines lobbed some shells into the Russians to discourage another attack. It was all over in about 15 minutes. The same thing with Scarlett's charge of the Heavy Brigade, about ten or fifteen minutes. Both actions were significant because Lord Raglan was farntically trying to get an infantry division into position to protect the flank (Pennyfather's, i believe) and the French were marching a cavalry regiment and some infantry regiments to the right flank--but something had to be done to stop the Russian cavalry until that time.

The repulse of the Russian cavalry, the completely idiotic and inexplicable (from the Russian point of view) charge of the Light Brigade and the arrival English and French infantry were enough to convince the Russians that they'd done all they could do that day. Their infantry was never committed to an assault.

From the British Battles-dot-com page on the first battle of Balaclava:



(emphasis was added)

Incorrect. The 93rd Highlanders were in the second battle line along with (from memory) 3 regts of turks, or Ottomans. British histories refer to these as "some" Ottomans, but they were the soldiers who had bravely defended the redoubts, esp No 1 redoubt, before being forced (with 25% casualties) to withdraw from the Russian infantry attack of about 2,700 men. Far from running from the field, the Ottomans joined the 500 odd men from the 93rd and formed a second line. That was when the Russian detachment attacked the second line that was off to their left, as the rest of the Russian cav, about 3,000 strong stood to counter the British Heavy Brigade that had come into view to their front.

The reporter William Russell for the Times who started this rumuor later had to retract it. Lucas and Campbell also acknowledged the steadfastness of the Ottomans and the role they played.

As i said before, you just make this **** up as you go along. Did you even bother to read the linked material? You're delusional if you think your ipse dixit trumps material based on verifiable sources.

The main purpose of the Russian Cav detachment was to force the Allied Inf to form square, which would mean they could not manouver quickly into range to fire on the main cav body. They seem to have had a rush of blood and decided to attack. Staying in line was a huge gamble...if they could put down enough firepower, the cav would turn away. If they couldnt, they were toast. What formation the Ottomans adopted is not recorded, but the line was a very risky formation for those circumstances.

How I have missed your pixie dipshit. Why do you think google will make an historian out of you ? You know nothing of the detail and little twists to these things you post about. You could be replaced by a 100 page book on the history of the world.