Question about Cavalry vs Napoleonic square

If I failed to explain any point, or if my explanation falls short, then point it out and I will try to patch it.

If my explanation is dead wrong then point out the parts wrong, and explain the whys, to that I can learn why my ideas were wrong and so that I can actualize them.


I think I followed it.

I think my issue with the current line of debate is with the idea of the Gendarme as some kind of wunderwaffe that later armies were too stupid or parsimonious to appreciate. Yet I would contend is that in fact we see armies embrace effective troop types whatever the cost burden. Cavalry and horse artillery were both retained, the later in small numbers because it was so expensive the former if anything quite possibly increasing as a proportion of battlefield troops in the 17th and 18th centuries relative to most armies of the medieval period. For troop types where the issue was training we still see numbers of these troops deployed such as Jager/Rifles also the issue for that example they could not hold entirely on their own in the period and yet we still see them.

Shock action was still used into the 20th Century, the British for example addressing the problem of facing infantry with ever more firepower adding more firepower to their cavalry in terms of numbers of machine guns and quick firing horse artillery. Relative to the expense of horse artillery, armour would have been a diminishing cost and support manpower and horse relatively minor in the 18th and early 19th centuries.

So to try and condense my point cavalry was still effective but it required proper support and usage to make it so, not heavy armour and lances. On the other hand cavalry with heavy armour and lances but without knowledge of the nature of the infantry square are in for an unpleasant surprise.

Edit: heading off to bed but one final point before I brush my teeth, the lance as countless people have pointed out made a comeback because there was still a military niche for it...armies do resurrect good ideas if and when they work.
 
Last edited:

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
While in this case it would be a total curbstomp in some circumstances an army from 1415 could beat one from 1815. For example in a knights versus cavalry contest while the knights would take some casulties from pistols at short range their larger horses, stronger armour and more experience with swords would probably see them beat an equal number of Napleonic cavalry.
Probably not.

Heavy armored cavalry was hell on wheels going in a more or less straight line. There mounts, particularly destriers, were bred for strength and straight line sprinting speed and trained for that sort of activity since foalhood. 19th Century cavalry was generally much better mounted for general service, being mounted on palfrey or field hunter style animals that had considerable more endurance and were notably more nimble. 19th Century cavalry also carried at least one, frequently two-four "horse pistols". These would be capable of killing long before heavy cavalry could reach lance, much less sword/battle-axe range. Worse, what the 19th Century horse would do is lead the heavy cavalry into range of the field artillery (which was around three times the max that any 15th Century combatant would expect, and that could fire at a rate that was unimaginable to those who had experienced the early cannon, most of which could fire one or twice an hour, with heavy guns firing 5-6 shots a day.
 
I think my issue with the current line of debate is with the idea of the Gendarme as some kind of wunderwaffe that later armies were too stupid or parsimonious to appreciate.

I don't think it's stupidity or parsimony, just a sensible allocation of resources. Field battles were quite rare -- an army might fight one or two a campaign season, if that -- and cavalry would be more often called on to scout and raid than to fight in a pitched battle. If you had a choice between raising a unit of men-at-arms who were really good in battle but quite useless for anything else, or raising a unit of arquebusiers who were quite good in battle and also quite good at scouting and raiding, it makes sense to go for the latter over the former.
 
I don't think it's stupidity or parsimony, just a sensible allocation of resources. Field battles were quite rare -- an army might fight one or two a campaign season, if that -- and cavalry would be more often called on to scout and raid than to fight in a pitched battle. If you had a choice between raising a unit of men-at-arms who were really good in battle but quite useless for anything else, or raising a unit of arquebusiers who were quite good in battle and also quite good at scouting and raiding, it makes sense to go for the latter over the former.

But Agincourt is an example of a chevauchee getting intercepted. The whole point of those French gentlemen in all that armour was they were good for countering such raiding forces. The whole point of the various systems we tend to lump together as the feudal system was to have local forces ready to meet raids....that was the gerndarmes' day job. They could also conduct them too, the English raiding forces included a goodly proportion of men at arms as well as a few of the remaining hobilars and a large number of mounted longbowmen.
 
Probably not.

Heavy armored cavalry was hell on wheels going in a more or less straight line. There mounts, particularly destriers, were bred for strength and straight line sprinting speed and trained for that sort of activity since foalhood. 19th Century cavalry was generally much better mounted for general service, being mounted on palfrey or field hunter style animals that had considerable more endurance and were notably more nimble. 19th Century cavalry also carried at least one, frequently two-four "horse pistols". These would be capable of killing long before heavy cavalry could reach lance, much less sword/battle-axe range. Worse, what the 19th Century horse would do is lead the heavy cavalry into range of the field artillery (which was around three times the max that any 15th Century combatant would expect, and that could fire at a rate that was unimaginable to those who had experienced the early cannon, most of which could fire one or twice an hour, with heavy guns firing 5-6 shots a day.

Pistols were normally fired at point blank range against armoured cavalry. 17th century Cuirassier armour could stand up to point-blank pistol shots in the reinforced breastplate and helmet, though the limbs and face were more vulnerable. Naturally, these were the preferred targets for pistoliers. Some tests show they'd even have a chance at deflecting .357 magnum rounds. Of course, the artillery would be the real killer-no point having expensive, heavy armour that can resist pistols and long ranged musketry if canister can shred the cavalry. A true Man-At-Arms(as opposed to a demi-lancer) would also have multiple horses-a heavy destrier/courser(destriers were more of a tourney horse, whereas coursers were more of a battle horse) and a lighter horse for riding on the march. This was one of the reasons pistoliers replaced lancers-a lancers horse needs to be able to gallop with an armoured man on it's back to be effective, whereas a pistolier's horse just needs to move at a fast trot. Finding horses that could do the latter is much, much easier than the former.
 
But Agincourt is an example of a chevauchee getting intercepted. The whole point of those French gentlemen in all that armour was they were good for countering such raiding forces. The whole point of the various systems we tend to lump together as the feudal system was to have local forces ready to meet raids....that was the gerndarmes' day job. They could also conduct them too, the English raiding forces included a goodly proportion of men at arms as well as a few of the remaining hobilars and a large number of mounted longbowmen.

I think there are two main factors that made men-at-arms less useful in 16th century than in 15th century warfare.

First of all, medieval knights were quite versatile, and could just as happily dismount and fight as heavy infantry (indeed, this is precisely what the English knights did at Agincourt). However, dismounted men-at-arms were generally ineffective against blocks of pikemen, as the Swiss showed, meaning that, if you wanted to counter them, you needed pikemen of your own. This meant that, after the rise of pikemen, men-at-arms were less versatile than in previous eras, and consequently their upkeep was harder to justify.

Secondly, armies were now raised and maintained by the central government, meaning that the government now paid for their soldiers' equipment. If you're a nobleman summoned to war and you have money to spare, it makes sense to spend it on getting yourself the best suit of armour you can to maximise your chances of survival; sure, you could spend the money on equipping another soldier, but what benefit would that bring you? If, on the other hand, you're a government official in charge of raising the troops and you've got money to spare, it makes sense to spend it raising even more troops; two arquebusiers would generally beat one man-at-arms, after all. Accordingly the trend was for soldiers to be issued equipment that was good enough but not too expensive, because, from the point of view of the government, this was a better investment than having a small number of soldiers all wearing state-of-the-art full plate.
 
I think there are two main factors that made men-at-arms less useful in 16th century than in 15th century warfare.

First of all, medieval knights were quite versatile, and could just as happily dismount and fight as heavy infantry (indeed, this is precisely what the English knights did at Agincourt). However, dismounted men-at-arms were generally ineffective against blocks of pikemen, as the Swiss showed, meaning that, if you wanted to counter them, you needed pikemen of your own. This meant that, after the rise of pikemen, men-at-arms were less versatile than in previous eras, and consequently their upkeep was harder to justify.

Secondly, armies were now raised and maintained by the central government, meaning that the government now paid for their soldiers' equipment. If you're a nobleman summoned to war and you have money to spare, it makes sense to spend it on getting yourself the best suit of armour you can to maximise your chances of survival; sure, you could spend the money on equipping another soldier, but what benefit would that bring you? If, on the other hand, you're a government official in charge of raising the troops and you've got money to spare, it makes sense to spend it raising even more troops; two arquebusiers would generally beat one man-at-arms, after all. Accordingly the trend was for soldiers to be issued equipment that was good enough but not too expensive, because, from the point of view of the government, this was a better investment than having a small number of soldiers all wearing state-of-the-art full plate.


Except that central governments had multiple tools when it came to raising troops rather than simply employing full time regulars, I know you have read mine and others posts when we rattle off numbers of regulars, reserves, militia and volunteers for the later 19th Century. Raising regulars and having a mounted militia drawn on the well to do are not mutually exclusive actions. Indeed even if they were then if a certain troop type were as effective as say archers or men at arms have been claimed to be then you would at the very least see some specialist regiments or companies so equipped.

Heavy cuirassier type cavalry for example was maintained despite being considerably more expensive than other kinds of horse. Horse artillery was maintained despite being on average twice the cost to raise and support and having lighter guns than an equivalent field artillery battery. Light infantry and rifle troops were maintained despite costing more to train (and equip, rifling a barrel adds a lot of man hours and rifles needed fancier faster burning powder, in the case of riflemen) and the rifle troops needed the support of smoothbore equipped light infantry as they lacked the rate of fire to oppose either line or smoothbore armed light infantry if they got in close enough to use their own weapons. More expensive kinds of troops if they were effective in their role were maintained in proportion to the balance between their cost and effect.

So if government were willing to undergo the hire of at least a few soldiers whose each shot cost five times that of an equivalent musket armed man why were archers and men at arms not? It might be worth noting that the kind of people who could afford to become longbowmen could often also afford to fit out as men at arms and might serve as both in the course of their careers.

edit: Took me a while to look up but the average cost of an India Pattern Musket (the version of the Brown Bess most likely scene in the OP scenario) 18 shillings and 5 pence, source, the average cost of the Baker infantry rifle as issued to companies of the 95th Rifles 36 shillings with patch box and 32 shillings without, source.
 
Last edited:
Except that central governments had multiple tools when it came to raising troops rather than simply employing full time regulars, I know you have read mine and others posts when we rattle off numbers of regulars, reserves, militia and volunteers for the later 19th Century. Raising regulars and having a mounted militia drawn on the well to do are not mutually exclusive actions. Indeed even if they were then if a certain troop type were as effective as say archers or men at arms have been claimed to be then you would at the very least see some specialist regiments or companies so equipped.

I have a question on this point that I bolded, before I give my opinion on that part.

When you write that do you refer to units on the late 19th century or in other time frames?

Heavy cuirassier type cavalry for example was maintained despite being considerably more expensive than other kinds of horse. Horse artillery was maintained despite being on average twice the cost to raise and support and having lighter guns than an equivalent field artillery battery. Light infantry and rifle troops were maintained despite costing more to train (and equip, rifling a barrel adds a lot of man hours and rifles needed fancier faster burning powder, in the case of riflemen) and the rifle troops needed the support of smoothbore equipped light infantry as they lacked the rate of fire to oppose either line or smoothbore armed light infantry if they got in close enough to use their own weapons. More expensive kinds of troops if they were effective in their role were maintained in proportion to the balance between their cost and effect.

edit: Took me a while to look up but the average cost of an India Pattern Musket (the version of the Brown Bess most likely scene in the OP scenario) 18 shillings and 5 pence, source, the average cost of the Baker infantry rifle as issued to companies of the 95th Rifles 36 shillings with patch box and 32 shillings without, source.

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I think you are making a mistake in thinking that the governments, and officers, only saw the cost of raising certain units, when they had cheaper ones.

Horse artillery was kept because on the usual battlefield of the 18-19th century, they were easier to redeploy. I went to the Portuguese Military Museum in Lisbon and I saw captured French field cannons from the Peninsular War and those bastards are big and heavy, so it would be a pain in the ass to change their position. In contrast the lighter Horse Guns could move faster and were easier to redeploy, and also had another advantage over regular artillery, that was that they could keep up with the Cavalry Divisions/Brigades. The armies used them because despite their cost, sending cavalry without artillery support is suicidal and it was cheaper to make Horse Artillery units than to retrain the dead. Also Horse Guns were usually also used by the faster light infantry units.

Light troops and rifles were kept because they were very very useful on the battlefield. They provided a screen to cover movements, were trained to ambush enemy soldiers and they were useful skirmishers. The Rifles despite their cost were cost effective, because their greater range and aim were valuable in the skirmish fight that preceded the clash between the Line Infantry. Also while light troops could fight as line troops, most line regiments had one light company that would usually join with others to form ad hoc Light Battalions, because they were trained for it, while rifles were trained to be skirmishers. During the Peninsular War the elite regiments of the Portuguese Army were the Hunter Battalion that were light infantry, with one rifle company.

So if government were willing to undergo the hire of at least a few soldiers whose each shot cost five times that of an equivalent musket armed man why were archers and men at arms not? It might be worth noting that the kind of people who could afford to become longbowmen could often also afford to fit out as men at arms and might serve as both in the course of their careers.

Because you can easily train one men to use a pike or a musket, while it takes many years to be able to be a able longbowmen and the men at arms simply became obsolete with the advent of the pike and shot tactics. If you lose a longbowman in battle it will take you a long time to train another man to fill his place, while if you lose a musketeer you just take the weapon give it to the nearest conscript and you spend 30, or less, shots in making him a decent enough soldier. Sure that you can use the same scenario and replace musket for crossbow.

The men-at-arms were knights/nobles/mercenaries and retinues. This were men that had spent a large part of their lives training for war. In contrast the pikemen is just a guy that you dragged into your army and thought him how to march in formation and which part of the pike is the pointy one. You can easily replace the later while the the other will be harder to replace.

In both cases it wasn't just a case of what was cheaper or not but what was easier to replace. The English had laws that forced people to train with the longbow to have a large manpower reserve, while the French had a big population and a powerful nobility that could keep men-at-arms in large numbers. But what if large numbers were butchered in a battle/siege? Sure you can use the reserves but what if those die? It just begin a process in which the government will eventually find it easier to replace a simple pikeman/musketeer than a men-at-arms/longbowman.
 
I have a question on this point that I bolded, before I give my opinion on that part.

When you write that do you refer to units on the late 19th century or in other time frames?

I would expect it to be a case of both, archery and/or men at arms companies would have been retained since the beginning of the gunpowder era and if still effective would have retained to Napoleonic era where I focus on the British experience as it is to be the British and KGL represented in the OP.


I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I think you are making a mistake in thinking that the governments, and officers, only saw the cost of raising certain units, when they had cheaper ones.

Horse artillery
Light troops and rifles


Because you can easily train one men to use a pike or a musket,

Long story short, horse artillery takes a long time to train, horses for artillery service take a long time to train (that is true even in batteries where the gunners typically walk in battle) and they need riding horses besides taking advantage of those is a skill that needs teaching to most gunnery recruits. Light infantry and riflemen in particular needed more training than line infantry.


The men-at-arms were knights/nobles/mercenaries and retinues. This were men that had spent a large part of their lives training for war. In contrast the pikemen is just a guy that you dragged into your army and thought him how to march in formation and which part of the pike is the pointy one. You can easily replace the later while the the other will be harder to replace.

The man at arms in English usage might well be a mercenary but there is no requirement he be either a knight or nobleman. To pluck examples from my own family tree he might be a miller or son of a miller, not exactly your poor folk but yeomanry, craftsmen and merchant backgrounds, some men at arms in English service were also at times longbow archers. Contrary to the pike being an easy weapon to master it was in fact requiring of considerable strength in an age where such strength could not be taken for granted, indeed gentleman rankers chose to serve as pikemen because they were considered an elite compared to the mass of musketeers who from the English Civil Wars (Scottish and Irish flavours also available) outnumbered them two to one.

In both cases it wasn't just a case of what was cheaper or not but what was easier to replace. The English had laws that forced people to train with the longbow to have a large manpower reserve, while the French had a big population and a powerful nobility that could keep men-at-arms in large numbers. But what if large numbers were butchered in a battle/siege? Sure you can use the reserves but what if those die? It just begin a process in which the government will eventually find it easier to replace a simple pikeman/musketeer than a men-at-arms/longbowman.

By the Napoleonic era the British liked to take six months to train a new recruit, this was much longer than most armies on the continent but still proved fairly robust in the face of massacre. However as noted there were specialist troop types who received even more training. Further but the English were not above for example apprenticing boys to military or near military service or naval service in particular where ship's officers would first go to sea as captain's servants or midshipmen to learn the profession. Besides how long does it take to train a man at arms compared to a nineteenth century cavalryman? Really, if you want them you can train them. Again for archers it is very rare for the enthusiasts who today we rely on to 'confirm' the feats of archery described in historical texts to have actually trained from boyhood to the role. Selecting from the population for stronger, more fit (as in aptitudes in this instance) individuals for specialised tasks is actually a quality that governments (not just the English government and the Scots) improved at over the ages.

Further we have the question as to why the English government did relinquish its laws on archery and no longer see the necessity of compelling its gentry to train as men as arms?
 
Last edited:
I would expect it to be a case of both, archery and/or men at arms companies would have been retained since the beginning of the gunpowder era and if still effective would have retained to Napoleonic era where I focus on the British experience as it is to be the British and KGL represented in the OP.

Thank you for the clarification.

The reason why they weren't used was because they would be rather useless, especially on the late 19th century. You can't use a bow while its raining; you have to create a industry to keep the archers arrow reserves high; they might fire 12 arrows a minute indicates that if they had the standard number of shot a musketeer had at the time, 30-40 shots, they would use their ammunition in 3 minutes; a musket had more penetrative power; and psychologically a musket firing is much more terrifying that you shooting a bow. Now that all of this and replace the musket for the bolt-action rifles that the armies used on the late 19th century.

Men-at-arms gave other reasons.

First off you can stop thinking of them as heavy cavalry. Sure they are well trained to one or one combat but the government would prefer to have their own heavy cavalry regiments that would be specifically trained to serve the tactics the army is using.

There is no need for heavy infantry on the age of gunshot. It would be impossible for most of them to have full armour, and the government ain't going to pay for it, so most would only have a breastplate, if they had the means, if not mail and letter, and a heavy musket can punch throw the breastplate while an arrow can't. Also see from the point of view of the poor bastard armed with a close quarters weapon when most of the killing is being done at long range; the guy will throw away his weapons take a musket and shot from some dead and fire back. Plus if you ordered heavy infantry to attack head on against a line of infantry who long do you think it will take until they break? No one is suicidal and advancing with just a plate and a sword/axe/[insert weapon] while the other side if firing lead balls against you those men would just run away.

Now no doubt you are thinking but what about on a defensive role? Surely heavy infantry would be useful defending.

Well sure but they would only be useful on that role, and the armies already had heavy cavalry to close gaps on the line, and to gain time to allow the reserves to reach the gap, so having 1 unit that is only useful on one scenario (men-at-arms) while the other (heavy cavalry) can do the same as the others and it can also be used to fight back against other soldier types.




Long story short, horse artillery takes a long time to train, horses for artillery service take a long time to train (that is true even in batteries where the gunners typically walk in battle) and they need riding horses besides taking advantage of those is a skill that needs teaching to most gunnery recruits. Light infantry and riflemen in particular needed more training than line infantry.

Long story short they were used, despite their longer training times, because they were useful. No 19th century general would consider committing an attack without having light infantry to test the other side; rifles were specific units on the early 19th century, but they constantly proved their worth during the Napoleonic Wars (during Badajoz they fended back several French raids, in San Marcial a company of 70 held a full French division for some hours under rainy weather, etc...), they were extremely popular among the army and they fulfilled they role of acting as skirmishers, sharpshooters and scouts perfectly.

The light infantry was also very useful. Look at Valmy where the Prussian line infantry failed to break the French Tirailleur.

They were part of the armies because they were useful and in some tactics vital. Horse artillery was needed to protect cavalry and their fast movement was vital for any tactic/strategy that relied on speed. They only became obsolete when the power of the infantry and of the foot artillery made cavalry obsolete, with the rise of tanks and self-propelled artillery.

Light infantry was a vital part of any army and it was the line infantry that died out, as line tactics became obsolete all infantry in practice became light infantry.

Riflemen were the specialized infantry of their time, the same way commandos are the special infantry of our age. Both are expensive to train and it takes a huge amount of time but for some reason but exist at different points in history because they provided more advantages than problems.


The man at arms in English usage might well be a mercenary but there is no requirement he be either a knight or nobleman. To pluck examples from my own family tree he might be a miller or son of a miller, not exactly your poor folk but yeomanry, craftsmen and merchant backgrounds, some men at arms in English service were also at times longbow archers. Contrary to the pike being an easy weapon to master it was in fact requiring of considerable strength in an age where such strength could not be taken for granted, indeed gentleman rankers chose to serve as pikemen because they were considered an elite compared to the mass of musketeers who from the English Civil Wars (Scottish and Irish flavours also available) outnumbered them two to one.

First the longbow is a weapon that takes long periods of time to master. It will take years to get a bowmen and the longbow requires lots of strength to use correctly. I never used a pike but I have experience with longbows of several heights and I can tell you that you need much strength to keep heavy bows still while aiming.

Also I don't know about English pikemen but most Spanish armies preferred to use mercenaries and/or voluteers to act as pikemen, with the second/third sons of the nobility and ruined nobles being known for serving in the ranks, usually to escape from their debts, and they served most of the times on the "piques armados" armed pikemen, the heavy pikemen. Not because they were the elite but because they usually brought heavy armour with them when they enlisted.

By the Napoleonic era the British liked to take six months to train a new recruit, this was much longer than most armies on the continent but still proved fairly robust in the face of massacre. However as noted there were specialist troop types who received even more training. Further but the English were not above for example apprenticing boys to military or near military service or naval service in particular where ship's officers would first go to sea as captain's servants or midshipmen to learn the profession. Besides how long does it take to train a man at arms compared to a nineteenth century cavalryman? Really, if you want them you can train them. Again for archers it is very rare for the enthusiasts who today we rely on to 'confirm' the feats of archery described in historical texts to have actually trained from boyhood to the role. Selecting from the population for stronger, more fit (as in aptitudes in this instance) individuals for specialised tasks is actually a quality that governments (not just the English government and the Scots) improved at over the ages.

Further we have the question as to why the English government did relinquish its laws on archery and no longer see the necessity of compelling its gentry to train as men as arms?

The British could allow themselves to spend so much time training recruits because they never suffered a crushing defeat during the Peninsular War. Had that occurred they would do the same the other powers did, spend 2-3 months training a 3 battalions and after that they were ready.

Ok answer me on this question - Why do you think that the common men-at-arms would be better than a cavalrymen? The heavy cavalry is an evolution of the men-at-arms. The men-at-arms was trained to fight as an individual while the 19th century cavalrymen was trained to serve in a regiment, to fight as a unit and to fulfill roles that the men-at-arms didn't, like scouting.

Again man, the archer was abandoned because a longbow can't pierce throw good plate, the musket is easier to use and train and an archer would demand more ammunition than a musketeer.

If you send archers to combat in the Napoleonic Wars what do you think would happen? They would require much more protection from cavalry, than the line infantry, as the later had bayonets to protect against cavalry, they would require much more ammunition and if it rained they would be useless because the string would become wet, sure the same problem occurs with the gunpowder of the musketeers but the musket could, and would, be improved to remove this problem.

In the end the musket proved to be easier to use. You don't need specific laws to create a manpower reserve, its easy to mass train men with it, they were more deadly and had a far more brutal psychological effect.

Further we have the question as to why the English government did relinquish its laws on archery and no longer see the necessity of compelling its gentry to train as men as arms?

Because the people weren't training? I have no idea so it could be by any reason.
 
Thank you for the clarification.

Sadly having read you post I rather don't think I have clarified anything for you

Ok answer me on this question - Why do you think that the common men-at-arms would be better than a cavalrymen?

Because I don't. I think men-at-arms are no more effective than 19th Century Heavy Cavalry. I also think Calbear is right and that cavalry pistols which historically were among the least used arms in a British cavalryman's kit by the 19th Century would actually see some action and were likely a pretty effective solution to some guy kitted out in medieval and even possibly post-medieval full plate armour on a barderd horse. The British were a penny pinching lot,they relegated all their line cavalry to dragoons to justify a lower rate of pay and yet they continued to issue pistols. Likely because in India you did from time to time encounter the odd fully armoured horseman.

First the longbow is a weapon that takes long periods of time to master. It will take years to get a bowmen and the longbow requires lots of strength to use correctly. I never used a pike but I have experience with longbows of several heights and I can tell you that you need much strength to keep heavy bows still while aiming.

This is where we actually differ. I don't think training was the issue at all...at all...causing the demise of the combatant bowman. My contention based on studying numerous battles and campaigns as best I am able from the extant sources is that warbow while an effective missile weapon in itself was simply not as effective as gunpowder longarms as a weapon of war. Had it been as good we would see more instances of numerically superior bow armed forces prevailing in the historical record but the clear trend is if one side has firearms and the other does not, the side with firearms prevails.

If you send archers to combat in the Napoleonic Wars what do you think would happen? They would require much more protection from cavalry, than the line infantry, as the later had bayonets to protect against cavalry, they would require much more ammunition and if it rained they would be useless because the string would become wet, sure the same problem occurs with the gunpowder of the musketeers but the musket could, and would, be improved to remove this problem.

Well Agincourt followed a damp day and the wet was not congenial to loose powder firearms which could only be cleaned laboriously with lots of hot water or fired repeatedly until the wet muck was expended. Even so I think that history teaches us that when bowmen met gunmen in innumerable battles and skirmishes they lost and that was on top of being more vulnerable to cavalry than military musket armed men once the socket bayonet was invented....though to be fair you could beat bowmen with folks armed with fowling pieces.

In the end the musket proved to be easier to use. You don't need specific laws to create a manpower reserve, its easy to mass train men with it, they were more deadly and had a far more brutal psychological effect.

Now here again there is substantive disagreement between us. The musket proved to be quiet simply better. The reason that archers were not retained was they were obviously not better. However we see arquebus/carbine and musket armed troops repeatedly prevail over their bow armed rivals strongly suggesting that it was not even a question of equality but of superiority. The greater psychological effect I would suggest resulted not from noise and smoke but from the impact of having men wounded in the very same ranks as you, something firearms did to a far greater extent than bows.

Because the people weren't training? I have no idea so it could be by any reason.

Every morning young children across the world get up early and go to train as gymnasts or other athletes, they do so because their parents expect such training to pay off in their futures. If longbowmen could have expected to earn a living or even have a fallback living, which they would have done were longbows the better weapon, then a career as a mercenary either in government or foreign service would have beckoned and mercenaries were fairly well remunerated by the standards of the day and for many centuries a large mercenary market existed across Europe. Even simply as a means of protecting ones home and livelihood it would have seemed attractive. The longbow continued to be trained with as a weapon of war after English mercenary longbowmen were no longer being sought after in Europe. It was soldiers returning from the continent who earliest lobbied for its use by the trained bands to be discontinued and their evidence was then further reinforced by campaigns on home soil. People stopped using the bow once it became less effective than the competition, not stopped training with it causing it to become less effective.
 
Sadly having read you post I rather don't think I have clarified anything for you

Really? I asked if you thought that longbows and men-at-arms would be raised in the late 19th century, and your answer was:

I would expect it to be a case of both, archery and/or men at arms companies would have been retained since the beginning of the gunpowder era and if still effective would have retained to Napoleonic era where I focus on the British experience as it is to be the British and KGL represented in the OP.

The bolded part is the keyword, if effective. I gave you the reasons on why they wouldn't be effective. Honestly if the British went with archer and men-at-arms to the Napoleonic Wars, no power in Europe would believe in what the reports said.



Because I don't. I think men-at-arms are no more effective than 19th Century Heavy Cavalry. I also think Calbear is right and that cavalry pistols which historically were among the least used arms in a British cavalryman's kit by the 19th Century would actually see some action and


That's because pistols were a part of the gear of the cavalry in the 16th and 17th century, the Swedish cavalry used them with success in several actions, and by the 19th they were becoming obsolete. The only cavalry that used armour were some heavy cavalry regiments in some countries, so if the chance of fighting against armoured cavalry was lower there was no need to use them.

were likely a pretty effective solution to some guy kitted out in medieval and even possibly post-medieval full plate armour on a barderd horse. The British were a penny pinching lot,they relegated all their line cavalry to dragoons to justify a lower rate of pay and yet they continued to issue pistols. Likely because in India you did from time to time encounter the odd fully armoured horseman.

Its cheaper to just blow them to oblivion with artillery.

Also the Dragoons were heavy cavalry in the British Army they were supposed to have close quarters weapons, the Light Dragoons were issued with carbines not pistols.

This is where we actually differ. I don't think training was the issue at all...at all...causing the demise of the combatant bowman. My contention based on studying numerous battles and campaigns as best I am able from the extant sources is that warbow while an effective missile weapon in itself was simply not as effective as gunpowder longarms as a weapon of war. Had it been as good we would see more instances of numerically superior bow armed forces prevailing in the historical record but the clear trend is if one side has firearms and the other does not, the side with firearms prevails.

The training was only one of the points I showed. Also the quote you used was I comparing the strength and time needed to dominate a pike and a bow and I didn't refereed firearms, I was just saying that I think that mastering a pike was easier than a longbow.

Well Agincourt followed a damp day and the wet was not congenial to loose powder firearms which could only be cleaned laboriously with lots of hot water or fired repeatedly until the wet muck was expended. Even so I think that history teaches us that when bowmen met gunmen in innumerable battles and skirmishes they lost and that was on top of being more vulnerable to cavalry than military musket armed men once the socket bayonet was invented....though to be fair you could beat bowmen with folks armed with fowling pieces.

All I said was that the archers would be more vulnerable so we are in agreement?

Now here again there is substantive disagreement between us. The musket proved to be quiet simply better. The reason that archers were not retained was they were obviously not better. However we see arquebus/carbine and musket armed troops repeatedly prevail over their bow armed rivals strongly suggesting that it was not even a question of equality but of superiority. The greater psychological effect I would suggest resulted not from noise and smoke but from the impact of having men wounded in the very same ranks as you, something firearms did to a far greater extent than bows.

Ok I honestly don't see the disagreement here. I say that muskets are easier and better, you say the same. I say it was deadlier, you say that musketeers won against archers. I speak about psychological effect and then you also agree on that.

Where is the disagreement?

Every morning young children across the world get up early and go to train as gymnasts or other athletes, they do so because their parents expect such training to pay off in their futures. If longbowmen could have expected to earn a living or even have a fallback living, which they would have done were longbows the better weapon, then a career as a mercenary either in government or foreign service would have beckoned and mercenaries were fairly well remunerated by the standards of the day and for many centuries a large mercenary market existed across Europe. Even simply as a means of protecting ones home and livelihood it would have seemed attractive. The longbow continued to be trained with as a weapon of war after English mercenary longbowmen were no longer being sought after in Europe. It was soldiers returning from the continent who earliest lobbied for its use by the trained bands to be discontinued and their evidence was then further reinforced by campaigns on home soil. People stopped using the bow once it became less effective than the competition, not stopped training with it causing it to become less effective.

Ok I found some articles that might be of your interest. Alderney warbowwales.

In the view of many, the reason for the decline in the bow lay not in the weapon, but in the quality of those who drew it. Rather than long, cold hours at the butts developing their strength and improving their aim and rate of fire, the new generation preferred to spend their time at cards, dicing, quoits, bowls and other ‘new and crafty games’. Well before Elizabeth’s reign, Latimer bewailed the reluctance of the young to train. ‘In my tyme’, opined the Bishop, ‘my poor father was as diligent to teach me to shute, as to learn any thynge, so I thincke other men dyd thyr children … I had my bowes bought me according to my age and strength’. He saw the decline of the bow as part of a social slide into general decadence. In a sermon before a young Edward VI he ranted against how the young men had ‘taken up with whoring in towns, in stead of shooting in the fields’.
 
Overall the problem is a mix of agreeing in circles and either I am completely your point as to the conclusion or you are missing mine or both

That's because pistols were a part of the gear of the cavalry in the 16th and 17th century, the Swedish cavalry used them with success in several actions, and by the 19th they were becoming obsolete. The only cavalry that used armour were some heavy cavalry regiments in some countries, so if the chance of fighting against armoured cavalry was lower there was no need to use them.

Its cheaper to just blow them to oblivion with artillery.

Also the Dragoons were heavy cavalry in the British Army they were supposed to have close quarters weapons, the Light Dragoons were issued with carbines not pistols.

The arms of dragoon guard (heavy cavalry) were heavy dragoon pattern sword, pistol and carbine, the arms of a light dragoon or hussar were light dragoon pattern sword, pistol and carbine. Some lancer regiments may have given up their carbines for their lances but while I know this to be the case later I am not sure this applied in the Napoleonic era, otherwise same as light dragoon. Earlier Horse regiments had typically two pistols plus sword and carbine in the era when armoured cavalry were common as you did not always have time to wait for the artillery.

The training was only one of the points I showed. Also the quote you used was I comparing the strength and time needed to dominate a pike and a bow and I didn't refereed firearms, I was just saying that I think that mastering a pike was easier than a longbow.

All I said was that the archers would be more vulnerable so we are in agreement?

There I am confident we are in agreement


Ok I honestly don't see the disagreement here. I say that muskets are easier and better, you say the same. I say it was deadlier, you say that musketeers won against archers. I speak about psychological effect and then you also agree on that.

Where is the disagreement?

Probably none...it is surprisingly hard to agree on the internet.

Ok I found some articles that might be of your interest. Alderney warbowwales.

Thanks. As for the quote from Bishop Latimer, Juvenal himself agreed that young men were not getting beaten sufficiently, it has often been a contention of the old, that the morals (or lack thereof) of the young are to blame. I more agree with the Alderney ship site that technology had simply moved on.
 
For those that like their weapons

newlandpistol1.jpg


The standard issue pistol for British cavalry and I think Kings German Legion cavalry too, the New Land Pattern Cavalry Pistol

The replica model described has a 0.62 calibre barrel which seems a bit tight for period 0.615 diameter 20 bore carbine shot, I have seen older articles described as having a 16 bore barrel (i.e around 0.663 inch) which would seem a bit loose but perhaps not exceptionally so, the standard bore diameter for British carbines was 0.65 to fire the shot described above.

Btw the OP does not seem to have attached any cavalry to the Anglo-German force.
http://www.militaryheritage.com/pistol6.htm
 
Top