What it says on the tin really. Washington and Congress decided cavalry wasn't needed. What would the effects of having a Continental Cavalry Corps have on the American Revolutionary War? Could it have helped win independence earlier? I know in a few battles, Washington wished he had had some cavalry units (primarily in 1776 and 1777 if I recall)
WI: Continental Cavalry?
- Thread starter Urcea
- Start date
This. Continental and Militia forces did include units of cavalry and dragoons. General Washington's own second cousin, General William Washington, became known as an excellent commander of mounted troops, particularly in battles in the Carolinas, at the head of dragoon troops.
They do seem to have been very uncommon - something like 4 regiments of dragoons/light cavalry (not sure the line between the two has ever been respected in this country) - but that's the expense factor.
I doubt even if more could be raised that it would be enough to make a strategic difference overall, though having some in areas that OTL could use men watching the flanks couldn't have hurt.
Definitely the expense factor, yes. A possible second issue, the more difficult requirements for training horseback troops. Soldiers who are hard to train, expensive to equip, and a government broke and short on everything.
Not a good combination when a Cavalry Corps for the Continental Army is what you're wanting.
Not a good combination when a Cavalry Corps for the Continental Army is what you're wanting.
Japhy
Banned
A main goal of the Continental Army was simply to exist. Washington's war being one pretty much centered on a Fabian strategy, tying the British down and seeking to fight only when nessessary. As a result of this and as others noted, the massive resource drain of building a real mounted arm, there's little reason for such a force to exist.
At the very least its hard to imagine that amid all the supply struggles and cold winters such a force could continue to operate. Furthermore, its difficult to see that issues of food and mounts aside, what benefit it would bring. There aren't many duties that the Cavalry would provide that weren't already covered for Washington. Militia, Rangers, Riflemen, and Light Infantry could cover the scouting and flank fighting the Cavalry normally was assigned, and Scouting and Intelligence could be covered by the same men, and by the widespread network of ideological Patriot's who could report sightings.
At the very least its hard to imagine that amid all the supply struggles and cold winters such a force could continue to operate. Furthermore, its difficult to see that issues of food and mounts aside, what benefit it would bring. There aren't many duties that the Cavalry would provide that weren't already covered for Washington. Militia, Rangers, Riflemen, and Light Infantry could cover the scouting and flank fighting the Cavalry normally was assigned, and Scouting and Intelligence could be covered by the same men, and by the widespread network of ideological Patriot's who could report sightings.
I think Japhy really struck a major point here. Washington and the Continental Army lacked cavalry, but they probably didn't need as much cavalry as a force in more conventionally European warfare would have required. To be really, brutally honest, General Washington did not need to win great battles with glorious charges of cavalry. He needed to keep the Continental Army, and thus the American Revolution, alive. As long as there was still a rebellion in progress, and an army in the field which the British had to chase down, they had a chance.
Ironically, the handful of cavalry the rebels had won the day for them at Cowpens... probably the only time that happened...
At least a portion of the Continental mounted units at Cowpens were under the command of William Washington, so if you know anything about his reputation, it is no surprise they did so well there.
Had the infantry not held firm, William Washington's horsemen would have been irrelevant. Which brings up the other side of the "why do we need expensive cavalry".
I'm not entirely sure that light infantry could handle scouting as well as cavalry, but it was good enough to make it difficult to press the issue given the obstacles in the way.
I'm not entirely sure that light infantry could handle scouting as well as cavalry, but it was good enough to make it difficult to press the issue given the obstacles in the way.
Yes, and had Washington and his cavalry not been there, the stand of the infantry would not have held indefinitely. Both arms served a valuable role at Cowpens.
Japhy
Banned
They and the rangers/riflemen of the Continental Ay seemed to handle the duties fine. There's not much in the history of the continental Army of them having trouble due to a failure of scouting.
Further issue: With the Army being raised via "Lines" and Washinton's trouble getting additional regiments, every cavalry unit raised would be an infantry unit lost not just from supply issues but simply non existent on the rolls.
Long Island? Brandywine Creek? Arguably Camden (some sort of intelligence failure, pardon the pun)
I'm not going to say cavalry automatically changes that, but I beg to differ.
The light infantry and riflemen were definitely a blessing, but one can give them too mcuh credit as well as too little.
Which raises the question on whether, if one could be formed, a cavalry regiment would have been worth more than an additional infantry regiment.
The evidence, IMO, is ambiguous.
Note: I'm assuming we're all looking at the same kind of cavalry - not some mad attempt at American cuirassers or lancers.