Cavalry of the Napoleonic Era: Cuirassiers, Dragoons, Hussars, and Lancers

Military terminology is hardly a straightforward thing, and this was as much the case in the Napoleonic Era as it is today! We've all seen these names thrown around to describe the different kinds of cavalry, but what do they actually mean? What, if anything, makes them distinctive? And just how much do these lines of classification blur when applied to real life examples?
-
-
- -
- -
This video was made in support of The Native Oak. Learn more about our educational mission here:
www.nativeoak....
If you'd like to support the channel, please consider giving on Patreon,
/ brandonf
You can follow me on social media too!
/ thenativeoak
/ brandonfisichella

[@BrandonF]

"Why is this video so blurry?" Well, I was trying something a little different with the editing, and it didn't really work out like I was thinking it might. Sorry for that! This video may be better to listen to than to watch if the blurry motion gives you a headache! But for those just discovering this channel, please know that I made this video a long while back and the editing is *much* improved since then!

[@marylupapada4601]

Very annoying.

[@charliecharliewhiskey9403]

@@marylupapada4601 Yes, you are. :-D

[@charliecharliewhiskey9403]

I'm glad you moved away from this style, but it's also not *that* bad :-)

[@JoeMama-mg5dk]

Wooooo Brandon! Wooooo bring the history! Bring the brain

[@JuandeFucaU]

looks like this was made blurry to avoid a copyright strike from the movie Waterloo..... I recognize about 90%+ of the blurred scenes.

[@mnk9073]

I think it was a french general who said dragoons are hardest to train because first you hand them a musket and teach them that formed up infantry easily repells every cavalry charge and then you put them on a horse and convince them that a good charge easily breaks every infantry formation.

[@thedrifter2790]

As I understand it Dragoons are best suited towards dismounting and then taking on an Infantry Role?

[@mnk9073]

@@thedrifter2790 Yes, they were essentially in the beginning and in the end what we would call today mobile infantry. However this role got lost quickly outside of France and the German States, especially in th UK where they became heavy cavalry very early on. The French however kept the dual role for quite some time and theirs were taught both infantry and cavalry skills. Napoleon and his generals used them as dismounted infantry to quickly seize and hold strategic points like river crossings and towns ahead of the army and as mounted cavalry to great effect in Spain and most famously during the battle of Jena.

[@abraham8178]

Then where are they on Waterloo? They surely can break British square formation

[@davidcolin6519]

@@abraham8178 The real problem with any mounted attack on a square formation is the training of the troops in the square. If the square breaks at any time, then every member of the square is instantly in grave peril. That puts every level of command under intense scrutiny. Commanders have to be trusted, sub-commanders have to believe in the troops and the troops have to trust each other and everybody above them. If you learn anything from the Napoleonic wars it should be the importance of command AND training. Very few of the Continental commanders gained that trust or had the tactical understanding. Napoleon had it, and some of his commanders gained it. Kutuzov had it, and Wellesley (Wellington had it... in spades. Wellington was the first general commander to insist on drilling all troops. In the Peninsular campaign it paid dividends in that the regulars were often able to steady the irregulars. But without the reputation that Wellesley had gained in India, the troops would not have had the trust to obey. In spite of most of the Peninsula troops not being available at Waterloo, Wellington's reputation was still immense, and his use of the British troops throughout the battle formation leant strength to those squares. Also worth noting is the fact that Wellington deployed his troops on the trailing edge of contours, rather than ahead of them, thus not only reducing losses and making deployment less evident to the enemy, but also making any changes in that deployment far less obvious to enemy commanders. Ney's cavalry charge would almost certainly have broken almost any other army in Europe. Such charges had been successful many times in other campaigns. But that is the problem with a charge against square formations. It can either break the enemy formation or it can break the cavalry. The squares held, and the result was a disastrous loss of Napoleon´s major shock force. From then on, Napoleon was on the back foot, and when the Old Guard failed to break Wellington's resolve, that was the final nail. Please note that I have deliberately avoided referring to "British" formations. About half of Wellington's forces at Waterloo were not under the original control of the British, and even quite a few of those that were were not even British! The KGL ( King's German Legion) were under British Command, but were German, etc.

[@augustushananvillaramaramo1213]

@@davidcolin6519 thank you for a long and very good answer. However, that's not the answer to my question. here, we talk about the dragoons, which dismount then attack as an infantry unit. One of the reasons for Ney's failure to break the British square is that his whole cavalry is a melee unit. Had they got some infantry musket, they can shoot those square from distance, and break it soon. So, my question is, where are the dragoons? Why don't they exist at Waterloo? They were surely handy to assist those cavalries in breaking those squares.

[@superbun277]

“[the Winged Hussars] have such a disproportionate and obsessed fan base you’d think they were German” Oof, the sass is strong in this one 🤣 Also, I think a _certain_ Swedish heavy metal band may be partially responsible...

[@cinjonsmythe6318]

Do they wear armoured footwear, perhaps?

[@fullmetalgamers1276]

I'm a quarter polish and I felt that stab.

[@Napalmoleon]

Didnt really get that reference. Are Germans known for having an obsessed and disproportionate fan base for things like that?

[@fullmetalgamers1276]

@@Napalmoleon no it's a werhaboo joke. People who are obsessed with the werhmacht and german ww2 stuff. The people who scream when you point out the flaws in the tiger tank.

[@FieldMarshalYT]

@@fullmetalgamers1276 And the Prussiaboos.

[@adityaraman7265]

"They have such a disproportionate base of obsessed fans you'd think that they were German." Lmao, golden

[@Hwje1111]

BMW

[@felisasininus1784]

Yeah, a slavic unit attracting a bunch of white fascist fans. Ironic.

[@scotcheggable]

@@felisasininus1784 I think you might be insane

[@felisasininus1784]

@@scotcheggable Oh, someone's getting unnecessarily defensive here.

[@haydencrawford8552]

I felt personally attacked as I'm both a fan of the winged hussars and imperial Germany

[@mothninja6928]

Why were the Polish considered to make the best lancers? Because lances are pole-arms, of course! :D ... ...I'll get my pelisse.

[@guycalabrese4040]

🤣🤣🤣

[@seneca983]

Haha! (In the US, you have the right to bear-arms instead of pole-arms.)

[@sophiam2095]

I'm planning a scene where a vampire is trying to not get mauled by a pack of werewolves so she tried jokes because laughter bonds. And after a chuckler for an opener, I needed her to tell a seemingly inoffensive joke with a pun so bad it makes the Derick Vinyard wanna be leader roar "I'll fucking kill you!" and a chase ensues. This is that joke. It's the kind of joke which would drive the mean spirited to murder. But honestly, that's a compliment. The pun is so horrible it's a form of PUN-ishment.

[@kinglouiev9530]

seneca983 Pole-arms includes Spears, Pikes, Halberds, Poleaxes, Sword staves, Man Catchers, Quarter Staves, Lances, Military Forks, War Hammers, Javelins, War Scythes, Pointy Sticks, Yari, Pilum,... blah blah blah. There’s so many broomsticks to choose from. They are arms & you have the right to bear them. My favorite Pole-arm is a Flagpole because of its symbolic value. It could either be a lance, pike, spear or a long dart depending on its length.

[@peterblood50]

Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk 😏

[@vincentoppenheimer9473]

Do I see "Waterloo", the greatest historical movie ever made, faded out in the background? Yes, I do and I love it.

[@oddballsok]

fading out ? i dont love it.

[@benjamingrist6539]

When you go to drive the Brits from the continent, but you're nearsighted and forgot your glasses.

[@PobortzaPl]

I like "Waterloo" but honestly some of this faded scenes were... annoying?

[@ggsgng566]

The uniforms are not so accurate... It's a great movie, but the uniforms...

[@miklosernoehazy8678]

@@ggsgng566 ...most of the uniforms depicted in that film, although accurate, are dress uniforms, and not the service pattern uniforms which would have been worn on campaign and in battle (the dress uniforms make for a better image and spectacle on the big, wide, CinemaScope screen, -pure showmanship; but isn't that the point of a dress uniform?).... ...a minor detail to the historical accuracy of the film, but who cares?... ... It's a great movie!... ...one of my favorites, right up there with Ridley Scott's "The Duelists"...

[@tomfennesy9105]

The Lancers were hard to train. Napoleon had a hard time making dragoons into Lancers. Usually they threw the lance away before the battle. Polish Lancers were better because they never stopped using Lance's from the late 1600's to late 1700's like everyone else.

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

Where did you hear about converted lancers tossing away their lances before battle? In the Waterloo campaign the French converted lancers performed very well.

[@user-zz1sk5go5i]

@@sirrathersplendid4825 in 1812 campaign

[@pablojn4826]

Brandon F: "These cavalry terms are sometimes confusing" NTW players: you know am something of a *H i s t o r i a n* myself

[@erenrager6679]

*The Expert*

[@spencergalland5754]

Mount and blade NW players be like Oh. R E A L L Y

[@2710cruiser]

LOL... I play as Prussians and I just spam Regiment of Horse in all my armee korps 🤣 4 or 6 Regiment of Horse in each korps... depending if they’re panzer korps or infantrie korps... shit... wrong time line

[@LeftBlankIntentionally]

Napoleon Darthmod players

[@bluesnail5042]

Damn Brandon, that broadside against Winged Hussaraboos was ruthless

[@adamlakeman7240]

I came *this* close to spitting out my tea when I heard that. Utterly savage.

[@TheRingoism]

Well deserved to be fair, Sabaton are cringe personally

[@pablojn4826]

I was T H I S close to spitting my "maté"

[@ArghastOfTheAlliance]

@@TheRingoism I really like Sabaton and I'm happy to see that they can sell out entire shows, but I gotta regrettably admit that nowadays their lyrics quite often may sound silly and infantile, like if they were written by a 13 year old. I guess it sells better, and I don't blame them for wanting to earn more, but I like their older songs more. They can be much more serious, dark, and at times even poetic.

[@TheRingoism]

@No U You'd lose a lot of money mate, not a fan of his music at all. Sorry.

[@brickbreak841]

Girlfriend: Ditches you for friends Can't carry a single grocery bag Makes droning noise while complaining Run into them cheating on you Horse: Never leaves your side Can carry a grown man with weapons, plus wear armour Makes strong, valiant whinny Run into enemy and drive a lance through their chest

[@harrisonmcarthur7816]

We don't deserve Horses.

[@angrycanuck7408]

Brick Break and will run into fricking bullets for you

[@jadenk1409]

Minecraft horses when player goes somewhere else without bonding them to fence: Aight, I'mma head out.

[@danieldykstra3079]

To be fair, it won't hurt as much when your girlfriend steps on your foot.

[@jadenk1409]

@@danieldykstra3079 What if she's wearing heels?

[@terry7907]

Manipulating a lance on horseback requires a particular skill set, which is why they were recruited from eastern Europe, which had a tradition of lancers. Also, you might have mentioned that a primary difference in armament in the cavalry was that the lights usually carried a curved saber, while the heavy usually carried a straight sword.

[@BeKindToBirds]

Why did heavy cavalry prefer a straight blade? Was it because they would spend more time dismounted and less time slashing from horseback?

[@sirrathersplendid4825]

@@BeKindToBirds - A straight blade allows the moving horseman to deliver a deep thrust at speed, which is often a killing blow. A sabre meanwhile will cause slashing wounds which are not quite so lethal. Also the straight blade is typically much stronger, and will not snap as easily.

[@TheWhiskyDelta]

@@BeKindToBirds Basically a straight sword is better in a head to head clash, which heavy cavalry were expected to do, charging headlong into the fray. More flexible in use, better reach and durability, even the British heavies who favored slashing still used straight (often dull tipped) sabers as even when slashing straight offers some advantages in use. A curved blade is on the other hand much more convenient. Light cavalry are mostly doing flanking attacks or chasing men down, they don't need to out duel someone in a head to head fight, in such cases the convenience of a curved blade is the better option. Stabbing is often avoided because it risks losing the blade (getting stuck in an enemy), and since you are attacking backs where you don't have to outight someone a curved sword it is easier to make slashing cuts and less likely to get stuck

[@moritamikamikara3879]

"Any Hussar to live to more than 30 is a blackguard!"

[@sonnyocad287]

Ah, my favourite extinct insult!

[@moritamikamikara3879]

@@sonnyocad287 This is a quote from Antoine-Charles-Louis, Comte de Lasalle, himself a Hussar, who died at age 34 in battle ...I guess that makes him a blackguard

[@PaulMclauchlin]

@@moritamikamikara3879 There's a portrait of Lasalle at 13.35.

[@Dr_Robodaz]

Harry Flashman: *nervous shuffling*

[@miklosernoehazy8678]

@@Dr_Robodaz ...didn't he survive The Charge of the Light Brigade suffering a thunderous fit of the vapors?...

[@truth__hurts]

Discovered recently that my 4th great-grandfather was a hussar serving in Napoleon's army. I love this period.

[@jozefkozon4520]

The rumor is that until the Polish uhlans showed what was possible with the lance, Napoleon considered abandoning its concept altogether. And they proved it by preying on Moscow lancers (probably compatriots) and, having acquired their weapons in close combat, smoothly crossed over to make a bloody highway in enemy lines. This event made such an impression that other cavalry in Napoleon's service adapted the lance to their repertoire.

[@PR_nick]

Lance zdobyto na austriackich lansjersch. Wtedy imperator poznał ich siłę w rękach polskich jeźdźców.

[@jozefkozon4520]

@@PR_nick Słyszałem obie wersje.

[@NZAce13]

That's dope ASF 😂😂

[@aleksandersokal5279]

In Poland we have a distinction between the heavy (winged hussar type unit popular in Poland from 16th-18th century) which we call "husarz" in singular, "husarze" in plural and "husaria" as the name of the unit, while the light hussars which were common in 18th-19th century are called "huzar" in singular and "huzarzy" in plural and the name of the unit. Interestingly the hussar idea came to Poland in very late 15th century as light cavalry from Serbia and it was then mixed with the native noble heavy cavalry tactics. Thus, the Polish Winged Hussars emerged in mid-16th century, which had the heavy character to them. Though they were very much capable of carrying out other roles on the battlefield and on some cases even served as infantry capturing castle and in defesive ways like the battle of Hodów 1694. P.S.: Ulans were better than other Europeans is because they brought back the idea of a lance being used in combat back to the table to begin with, in Poland cavalry warfare did not stagnate like in the countries to the west (though the overall country stagnated in the 18th century and was partitioned from 1772 to 1794).

[@CorePathway]

I’m happy the Polish military has their heroes. They (Poles) get a bad rap from WWII

[@aleksandersokal5279]

@@CorePathway Funny.

[@littleumbrella1763]

Serbia? Werent the original medieval hussars Hungarian?

[@aleksandersokal5279]

@@littleumbrella1763 It started in Sebia, went into Hungary and then into Poland.

[@charlesdeleo4608]

We remember In September That’s the night Vienna was freed We made the enemy bleed THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED!

[@robertx8020]

I love those uniforms during the Napoleonic Era . Painting figures of this era is one of my hobbies

[@eshaanbidarakoppa5738]

Robert X where can you get the figures?

[@robertx8020]

@@eshaanbidarakoppa5738 lots of places.. e.g. www.amazon.co.uk/napoleonic-figures/s?k=napoleonic+figures

[@TemmieContingenC]

@@eshaanbidarakoppa5738 Model Kits and Etsy have a lot of small figurines

[@Altrantis]

During the Chilean war of independence,and I suspect a lot of the rest of Latin America, sometimes the bulk of the army were lancers. In the early 1800s Chile, horses were a lot more common than guns or sabers, so building an entire army of mostly lancers was easy.

[@capscaps04]

So far I know, the latin battles of those times were very violent and considering how rare was actually melee combat in those times despicte how video games and movies always features these napoleonic battles with a lot of melee combat, I doubt that most latin countries were only armed with spears, for example the argentine army wich played a big role on the independence of chile, was know in those times for their precise artillery and their anti cavalry fusilers wich not only used their muskets to stop charges but also they used bolas to bring down the calvary men from their horses.

[@GuineaPigEveryday]

@@capscaps04 ik this isn't early 1800s but the Triple Alliance War is really shockingly deadly, the fact that they had a war through which 75% of a country's entire population managed to be wiped out, where it left irreparably damage on the population due to the majority of those deaths being males and leaving the ratio of male to female unbalanced.

[@wehosrmthink7510]

Also during the Mexican War of 1846-48 , the US military invaders in California faced off ( and lost a few battles to) exclusively lancer formations of “Californio” militia .

[@ericleung663]

During the Chilean war of independence, there wasn't this blurry shitty video.

[@obi-wankenobi1233]

I think it's safe to say that Husars had the best-looking uniforms.

[@pablojn4826]

French Chasseurs a Cheval: Oh you are a *soldier* alright just not a *E l i t e* one General Lasalle: Try me I hope someone get it

[@marrqi7wini54]

@@pablojn4826 Megamind?

[@pablojn4826]

@@marrqi7wini54 Yes mei boi

[@EJ160E]

*Mamelukes have entered the chat*

[@furiouswolf8831]

Winged hussar B)

[@MrAwsomenoob]

"They are the noblest cavalry in Europe and the worst led." "That may be, but we'll match them with our lancers"

[@MadManchou]

There can be a lot of debate about the best cavalry in Europe. What everyone agrees on is that British cavalry is well down in the bottom tier.

[@alifarrafiwahyudi4804]

Waterloo

[@gutsjoestar7450]

@@MadManchou he never said it was the best he saod it was the noblest the best cavalry was obviously the prussian one, or the french cuirassiers at some point

[@SI-cd7xs]

@@gutsjoestar7450 how was the Prussian hussars the best when most of them were foreigners initially?

[@hisstatus]

@@MadManchou the Austrian cavalry is the best cavalry,because the Hungarians are good. Their cavarly barely saw any fighting though

[@glenwilson8292]

The perfect example of the importance of tradition in naming cavalry units: In the modern British Army, the Queens Royal Hussars are mounted in Challenger 2 main battle tanks, compared to other cavalry units in lighter vehicles.

[@twosheds7105]

I did my military service in The Hussars of the Life Guard Regiment (Sweden, K 3, Livregementets Husarer). The horses were now replaced by helicopters. Still cool name.

[@johnwotek3816]

Meanwhile, the french have a hussard regiment in jeep doing recon and a regiment of hussard being droped in plane. Both are rather specialized in recon and intel gathering.

[@ceoofwalls6751]

Your one of the best History channel on KZbin

[@BrandonF]

Well thank you!

[@kingharlaus1123]

THIS

[@anthonyanderson5302]

Agreed

[@ceoofwalls6751]

Probably the most underrated history KZbinr

[@nomoregoodlife1255]

its true!

[@DreadBirate]

Last time I was this early cavalry was still restricted to the knights.

[@thehistoadian]

yeet

[@RRW359]

Knight? Is that some kind of fancy cataphract?

[@australianword3812]

@@RRW359 indeed

[@HandleMyBallsYouTube]

Due to the pedantic nature of this channel I must regretfully inform you, even though I realize that this is a joke, that cavalry was never restricted to just knights.

[@australianword3812]

@@HandleMyBallsKZbin shhh, they were still rich or thieves or quite lucky

[@robertrayes4566]

Massive improvements in both editing and pacing, as well as an excellent addition in the form of the light classical music in the background. The script has also seen a great improvement, far more formal and straight-to-the-point, as well as time effective and efficient in its delivery. If this is the direction this channel is going, you have my full support sir!

[@BrandonF]

Well thank you! The editing took a bit longer to do, but overall I think it's worth it for the effect. Still going to play around with how I do it, but I am liking the idea of "activity" on screen at all times, rather than just scrolling through images.

[@robertrayes4566]

@@BrandonF Certainly! It works far better both in terms of not having videos look like a power point but also in adding and reinforcing the theme(s) of the video

[@Fitzgerald934]

@@BrandonF I hear the tunes of Victoria II aswell, I see you are a man of culture.

[@stanislaskowalski7461]

I can see two reasons why there weren't more lanciers. The lance requires special training and was often considered an elite weapon. Lance is cumbersome but it isn't during battles that soldiers might dislike it. It's during marches that they tend to conveniently lose it, as it happens with many pieces of equipment, no matter how effective they might be during heavy fightings.

[@thestuGmaster]

I no joke have be trying to understand Napoleonic cavalry all day today. But yet you just solved all my answers right here. Thanks!

[@BrandonF]

It's fun when the timing works out like that!

[@anthonyanderson5302]

I too have in the past wondered about the differences. This has really been informative. I've been reading the awesome Sharpe series by Bernard Cornwell and cavalry is mentioned several times. This video has helped a bunch. Thanks

[@model-man7802]

The Highlanders liked cooking in them but finding one without holes was the challenge I was told at the museum in Waterloo Belgium.

[@ckc7261]

The Victoria II soundtrack is strong with this one...

[@daftknut1722]

Absolutely love that game.

[@avel2863]

As far as I know the Grenadier Guards were never grenadiers; their name is an honorific title that comes from having defeated the French grenadiers at Waterloo.

[@warlord0877]

Yes, at the time time it was thought they defeated the Grenadiers of theOld Guard but they actually defeated the Chasseurs of the old guard

[@romainfr2981]

@@warlord0877 they never defeated the old guard because the old guard didn't fight at waterloo ( I mean the true old guard including only the first foot grenadiers guards and the first foot chasseurs guard)

[@jaads7910]

Romain FR never knew that,

[@robowisanveithasung6022]

well, they weren't grenadiers entirely but they DID have a grenadier company as was normal in a british regiment of foot

[@trollege9618]

They only defeated the 3rd Chasseurs of the Guard and retreated when the 4th Chasseurs came up on their disorganized formations.

[@kadeberrier3799]

As a WW1 German researcher, I find it very interesting that the Germans had their own takes or versions of all of these. Though in WW1, the Husaren, Ulanen, Kürassier, Dragoner, Jäger zu Pferde, Garde du Corps and, Schweres Reiter all had their own roles. By 1917, 4 to 5 Kavallerie Divisonen containing a mix of all of these Kavallerie types were completely dismounted

[@EpimetheusHistory]

♫ Tradition! Tradition! ♪

[@omrimoshe3993]

Lucky me found one of the contant creators i like :D

[@kathrynavery8983]

I would be in the british light cavalry/dragoons because Wellington said" I believe that my cavalry can hold its own when out numbered, but when odds are even they will get to eager and brake discipline." And the plus side is that the british were constantly outnumbered.

[@juanmolinafernandez3983]

As I am a practicioner of european historical martial arts, I must say that there are a lot of debate about weapons from 18th to 20th century, but there are a few facts. Usually, reach it's always better, so why, then, most of cavalry didn't used lances at that time? Well, I'll say my opinion based on my researchs about this topic (I must say I'm a pole weapons lover) and my own experience, but it is simple: to use a lance in horseback it's difficult. Very difficult. Needs years of training to be a fine fighter with lance in any situations. So, if you are good trained lancer (what means years of horseback training and years of lance training) probably you would have advantage over your enemies in any situation, even in close meleé. In comparison, to use a saber on horseback It's very simple and relatively fast to learn and to being proficient on mounted fencing. Even a few months would be enough to be proficient with cavalry sabre of any kind. In fact, it was the reason why in between 16th century and 17th century the cavalry lance was abandoned by most of the cavalry (except in Poland), because the proper use of a lance needed years of training and a quality of horses, but firing pistols, even being a lot less efficient at that time, were preferible, because there were not needed as training and good quality horses for it.

[@user-vr8qd4hk6y]

@@jeffreyhuang3814 Bladed polearms didn't have round shafts. Maybe there were exceptions, but in general it would be trash, exactly for the reason you mentioned. As a rule they had oval shafts or sometimes more rectangular. It's wrong to say they were difficult to use if they weren't like that. About passing lance or other polearms, you are right. In most cases you can just retract your weapon and still fight. It would not be as good as on full range and weapon as swords might perform better. But it's not the case of being immediately "toast".

[@alex_zetsu]

I'm not sold that lances would give an edge in all situations. European knights of the high Middle Ages usually carried a single-handed weapon like a sword or mace alongside their lances... even when charging. They clearly anticipated being in situations when a lance might not be so great and it was happening often enough to bring something with shorter reach.

[@TheDiackon]

@@alex_zetsu thats diffrent type of lance You're talking about.

[@stanislaskowalski7461]

When men's fashion meant something.

[@thomascatty379]

Man, the Napoleonic Era got the best looking uniforms

[@martinmagtagnob771]

@@thomascatty379 not just that, even the GERMANS =￣ω￣=

[@thomascatty379]

Martin Magtagnob what ?

[@hemmingwayfan]

While I wouldn't want to live in the era I would love for the men's fashions to make a comeback

[@nobleman9393]

Sure

[@charleslarrivee2908]

One correction: the Hussars of Napoleonic battles weren't "Western" exactly. They were inspired by and based upon the Hungarian Hussars who fought so well for Maria Theresa in her wars, a more eastern form of warfare initially perfected against Turks and other nomads.

[@laciihasz4734]

If i am correct the first french hussar regiment was created by Bercseny Laszlo, a general of a defeated hungarian rebel leader. Bercseny joined the french after the hungarian freedom fight was lost. This regiment is still existing in the modern day french army.

[@battlez9577]

The hussars of the coalition forces were different to the early hussars of the balkans and Carpathians from the centuries before

[@wertyuiopasd6281]

Wrong.

[@AThousandYoung]

17:21 There was also a perceived continuity between the lance and the pistol. The pistol was considered "the longest lance" because it outranged them all, is one handed, does massive piercing damage and is made unusable after one shot (like a lance breaks and needs to be replaced, a pistol has to be reloaded)

[@JorgeUribe]

15:22 'Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly to the front, follow the enemy and try to prevent the enemy carrying away the guns.'

[@urseliusurgel4365]

The two French Carabinier regiments were classed as heavy cavalry before they received cuirasses. Their name is just a tradition, a remnant of earlier times, they made no more use of carbines than did any other French heavy cavalry unit. They were the most senior regiments of French cavalry outside of the Imperial Guard, they outranked, as it were, all the cuirassier regiments. British cavalry had a number of aspects that were unlike those of other nations. The gradation of size of horse between types of cavalry was not really evident. Extant records show that the height in hands of horses belonging to Heavy Dragoon (and Dragoon Guard) regiments was not significantly greater than that of horses belonging to Light Dragoon and Hussar regiments. It was considered that the horses of heavy regiments should be more heavily fleshed, but to what extent this was followed is unknown. Because Britain had relatively few cavalry, it was realised that all regiments had to be equal to making a formal battlefield charge. British hussars and light dragoons charged and broke French dragoon regiments on a number of occasions (Sahagun and Campo Mayor for example). The only difference between British light dragoons and hussars was their uniform, and the facial hair grown by the latter. All types of cavalry are recorded as dismounting to use firearms on foot, but these were on specific occasions, defending a bridge or ford against other cavalry for example. However, the idea of dragoon regiments of the Napoleonic era acting as mounted infantry regularly is untrue. Some French dragoon regiments served on foot in some campaigns, but this was due to a lack of mounts, not to their being regarded as mounted infantry.

[@Sinistercabbage]

That is very interesting, I long wondered about how heavy the British heavy cavalry really was. I suspected they ll be more like French dragoons. Do you have any info about height of recruits though? I remember reading something about 5'11 for Horse Guards but that seems very tall (and it may apply to earlier period when the regiment was very small and thus you could find enough tall recruits.)

[@urseliusurgel4365]

@@Sinistercabbage The Lifeguards were exceptional and only took very large physical specimens. Corporal Shaw of the lifeguards (killed at Waterloo) was a prize fighter (bare-knuckle boxer) and was a very large, heavy-built man. But Sgt Ewart of the Scots Greys was also over 6ft in height. Height restrictions were also found in the light cavalry, especially in the more fashionable regiments, such as the 10th Hussars. The book 'Jottings from my Sabretasche', written by a sergeant of the 15th Hussars, tells of the author being told he was too short to join the regiment by Prince Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, the regiment's colonel in chief. However, a lieutenant pointed out that he was young and still had some growing to do, so he was recruited. Because Britain and Ireland had a good supply of horses suitable as cavalry mounts - hunters bred for fox-hunting, with a considerable amount of thoroughbred blood - all regiments could find good-sized mounts.

[@Sinistercabbage]

@@urseliusurgel4365 Ah, forgot to ask, were the horses of the lifeguards and horse guards also of the medium type or were they heavier? Interesting thig is that 5'10 was about 2sd deviations away from average so only 3% men were at this height or taller. Probably 1% for 6ft. Also, do you know anything about horse sizes in Russian cavalry? Napolun website gives 142 cm to 151cm for just about every cavalry type except for cuirassiers (151-160cm). It seems that their dragoons would have been very light (I mean even light cavalry of other nations,particulary Prussian would have ridden bigger horses). Maybe someone just made a mistake when converting measuring units?

[@urseliusurgel4365]

@@Sinistercabbage British measurement of horses is in 'hands', and a hand is 4 inches. The 2nd Dragoons (Scots Greys) in 1813 had the following: 57 mounts at 16 hands (162.5cm), 256 at 15.5 hands (157.5cm), 340 at 15 hands (152.5cm) and 55 at 14.5 hands (147.3cm). An average British cavalry mount would have been a little over 15 hands in height. I suspect that the Household cavalry would average somewhat taller and be of a 'heavy hunter' type, but I don't have any figures to hand. I have not seen any figures for Russian cavalry horse sizes. I did read somewhere that in the Peninsular War captured British troop horses were usually appropriated by French cavalry officers, which speaks for the quality of the average British ranker's horse.

[@royaldragoon7059]

I'm former Household Cavalry Blues and royals the current day life guards prefer more race horse style slim and tall wereas my old regiment the blues are more into cart horses or so a life gard officer once said

[@chopmopjeter18]

I really want to see Brandon play Mount And Blade: Napoleonic Wars multiplayer so he can reee at the historical inaccuracies of people running around in mobs and zig-zagging to avoid gunfire/cannon fire.

[@fixnix5491]

I am in an austrian Mount and Blade cavalry reg and we try to apply the historical accurate commands of the austrian "Abrichtungs-Reglement" of 1807 and to move and act on the battlefield like austrian cuirassiers did in the great battles of Aspern, Wagram, Leipzig etc. As far as the game let us do it of course ...

[@FieldMarshalYT]

Play in a regiment, they tend to do proper line battles and such.

[@crimzonempire4677]

098765 Craper MnB doesn’t like spears at Point blank unless you are able to spin like a crazy person to abuse the Momentum damage system

[@thethirdsicily4802]

what the hell are you talking about? thats how they fought, read a book once in your life.

[@seneca983]

13:01 "Incidentally if you don't know, these guys are called the Winged Hussars and they have such a disproportionate base of obsessed fans you'd think that they were German." :D

[@thegreatsallingerkaiser2545]

Thanks for the video, it was useful and interesting. About the cuirassier's armour, I know stories about when in the Napoleonic war at the battle of Raab, the Hungarian hussars used not just sabers, but "fokos"-s too (it's like a warhammer, spontoon thing). At the cuirassier's charge, they engaged them in melee and put large holes on their brastplates with it. Some of the French did not died, and after the battle - when the Austrian army retreated - the medics looked at the holes and said, "aah, these were bullets." But they weren't. They couldn't find the bullets in the soldiers wounds, because it was the fokos, not a musket. I find this quite funny, and interesting about the Hungarian hussars, and they effectiveness.

[@Aramis419]

I read the article, recently published, that features you and The History Guy. Good on ya for getting the recognition you deserve!

[@BrandonF]

Thank you!

[@-Thunder-Warrior-]

Loved this video! How about doing a video on the Sappers/Pioneers at some point? Beards, axes, gauntlets and aprons, a very striking Napoleonic unit!

[@giovannisantostasi9615]

In Italy, we still have a type of police (that is also part of the armed forces) called Carabinieri. They descend from the Napoleonic wars type of Carabeeners.

[@tomaszmankowski9103]

Pretty decent summary. Certainly worth watching and recommending. Lancers and heavy lancers. I believe the reason why heavy lancers gradually disappeared was the cost of those, elite units. In lancer units the shock of the charge is the main reason why you are forming such units and why they could be so dangerous and relatively similar shock value could be achieved with less costly and faster lighter cavalry. During early modern era or till the XVIIIth century the last two countries which fielded heavy lancers were Kingdom of Hungary (later actually as semi-independent the Duchy of Transylvania and Habsburg Royal Hungary) and of course the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but first of those gradually were losing armour and armoured lancers were reduced to a small force of elite, semi-ceremonial force. Even in the Commonwealth there was a huge difference between lighter Winged Hussars from late XVIth and early XVIIth and those from later part of the XVIIth century. Even more - heavy lancers from the Lithuanian part of the Commonwealth became lighter in armour. They even lost much of their elite status and from time to time were used in scout forces (usually mostly without lances). Simply the cost of the cavalry had to be justified by their destructive value and that required a certain level of care, large pool of trained soldiers and finally numbers to make them relevant after all is done. Lighter lancers do not need that much. The ancestor of all Napoleonic era Ulhans is National Cavalry or Kawaleria Narodowa of the reformed Commonwealth's army from late XVIIIth century, especially its Vanguard Regiments (or Pułki Straży Przedniej) because while National Cavalry was simply quickly converted cavalry of all shades and forms (medium and heavy) the Vanguard Regiments managed to retain a degree of training to use the lance (and other weapons) efficiently as a part of trained, disciplined, unified force. A part of that comes from Tartar origin of some of those Vanguard Regiments as the very word Uhlan (or ułan/ulan) does. Of many overlooked qualities of early modern heavy lancers was the fact that they did have a lance and a 'lance' at the same time - the first one was 3m+ long and used only for its shock value which doesn't last forever while the second 'lance' happened to be a suitably long sword with a pointed end and was used in very similar way a lance from the Napoleon's time. You really do not need armour when you have a lance unless it is VERY justified. All lancers need to disengage, retreat, reform and charge again and lighter cavalry can do that better while lighter, short(-ish) lance of the Napoleonic Period (and later decades) works better when facing some enemies during this time in history such as tight blocks of infantry. After all we are talking about massive armies - even at the hight of the popularity of Commonwealth's heavy lancers there were no more than 10 000 of them in an army of 100k (around 1621). Two centuries later 100k was the number of soldiers tiny Duchy of Warsaw fielded and all its heavy cavalry was one, small regiment of Cuirassiers which was hardly anything more than a form of vanity project. Every weapon has its time in history, heavy lancers lost it during the XVIIIth century.

[@Eidridin]

Heavy Lancers were also something that stemmed from the Medieval Era, and the only way to get a sufficient number of them were aristocrats affording their own equipment. For a regimental and uniform catering era, uniformed harnesses are not very practical financially, nor do an industry greatly support it anymore. Especially when there are mixed results of effectiveness against muskets. The funny thing is that the Heavy Cuirassier in the 19th century would be equivalent to Light Cavalry in 15th century Western Europe.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

@@Eidridin In body armor yes, in rider and horse sizes and breeds no.

[@jockobeans]

If you want a jack-of-all-trades cavalry, you can look to the New World at the Soldados de Cuera/Lanceros of Alta California. Initially carried leather armor and shield, with sword, lance, pistols, carbine and/or bow & arrow. Fought well against a variety of opponents from native warriors to the USMC.

[@wehosrmthink7510]

Yes! Lance units won victories against the U.S. until lack of numbers and artillery did them in.

[@granapriego]

I recommend the film The Duelists.

[@gwtpictgwtpict4214]

Oh thank you for the reminder, haven't watched that in years :-)

[@AB-bg7os]

Hungarian Hussars are really underrated. András Hadik took Berlin with a few Hussars alone. Not only that but they are different from the fact that they have their own way of thinking, basically a sub culture within the cavalry. To be a Hussar is being quick thinking, brave, ready to face danger.

[@tudorm6838]

The winged hussars were a great cavalry, but with expensive armament, special horses, skilled people. Very effective, but difficult to obtain in significant numbers.

[@koreancowboy42]

Well no duh xD all that equipment along side armor and wheel lock pistols and what not.

[@pisuoxide]

Considering they casualty ratio they were well worth the price

[@thevoidlookspretty7079]

That’s why I like to think of this from an infantryman’s perspective: They’re all horsey bois.

[@jack50br54]

If you want to get advanced you could say, shooty horsey bois, slashy horsey bois, and pokey horsey boys.

[@gooner72]

What i like about the traditions of the British Army is that we still have Lancers, Hussars and Dragoons cavalry to this day but instead of riding horses into battle, they use light reconnaissance armoured vehicles and also 60 tonne MBT's as well. We are unique and I'm immensely proud of these traditions. 🇬🇧🇬🇧✌✌

[@avishalom2000lm]

12:50- I KNEW the Winged Hussars would arrive at some point in this video!

[@WarpMiniatures]

Thanks for an amazing video! I stumbled across it whilst doing research on what to name the mounted troops for a faction of my fantasy game... and I've decided upon Dragoons. Keep up the great work, will be scouring through your channel for even more wonderful content!

[@buwanbuwaya6927]

Did you finished it yet?

[@baldrick3888]

In general a good video, thank you! What really is missing when talking about light and heavy cavalry of the period is the different saber/swords. The heavy cavalry sword (or Palasch) was straight and the light cavalry saber was curved in most armies (like British, French, Russian etc.). The long, heavy sword and how you would hold it in a charge helped to define the role of heavy cavalry. While different flexible blows (perhaps on fleeing enemys) were easiers with the lighter curved saber, Lances: well, to be effective you need some training (exception was the Prussian Landwehr cav with lances who performed okay) and more important - western Europe didn´t have a lance tradition in the 18th century. With Napoleon it is obvious. He started without lancers, saw what his Poles could do with lances and raised more and more of those units. In the Imperial German army after 1871 all types of cavalry were issued lances and were trained thoroughly with them (as part of a transformation of all types to a general more light, dragoon-like type of cav).

[@jozefkozon4520]

The rumor is that until the Polish uhlans showed what was possible with the lance, Napoleon considered abandoning its concept altogether. And they proved it by preying on Moscow lancers (probably compatriots) and, having acquired their weapons in close combat, smoothly crossed over to make a bloody highway in enemy lines. This event made such an impression that other cavalry in Napoleon's service adapted the lance to their repertoire.

[@majungasaurusaaaa]

I wouldn't call a lancer "dragoon like".

[@HaNsWiDjAjA]

There were two main types of straight heavy cavalry sword in the Napoleonic period. The French and later the Russian heavies utilized a very thrust-centric design with a narrow, very long blade (38 inches) tapering to a razor sharp point, and a massive guard. It was held at arms length during the charge like a mini lance, with the massive guard upwards, serving as a sort of shield. The "pallash" used by other nations' heavy cavalries, like those of the Austrian, British, Prussians, etc, were on the other hand primarily a cutting weapon, with a shorter and much broader blade. It frequently had a hatchet point unsuitable for thrusting. The first type was optimized for the charge in line, the inital clash when the battle lines met, to give the cuirassiers the most reach advantage possible. The latter on the other hand was meant for the melee that followed the lines meeting.

[@ernesttravers7517]

Very good. The light lancers, as opposed to the old jousters, were used to chase down fleeing infantry. They would lance a running man in the back, which caused the lance to go backwards, the momentum would pull out the lance and it would be raised back to level and spear the next fleeing infantryman. A very efficient way of killing. Mas production even.

[@sergeyyagelskiy8141]

This channel is terribly underappreciated. Great job, Brandon. Wonderful.

[@LindrosPetri]

Great! Thanks! The reason I am currently interested in 18th and early 19th century warfare was because of Mount and Blade Napoleonic Wars where you can actually play as these different types of horsemen.

[@wojbla01]

Well Sir, there was a reason why after the Battle of Albuerra British converted 4 of their Dragoons Regmts into LANCERS.. Lancers of Col Konopka where descendats of the hussars charging from Kahlenburg Hill .. 1683 Vienna.. and why till today Lancers Regmts of the UK wear the Polish Lancers jackets and Polish 4 squared hats? and why the RCMP of Canada is carrying the lances adorned with red and white Polish National Cavalry colours? and same for India or Guards of the Emperor of Japan?

[@keithorbell8946]

The cuirasses worn by the Horse Guards today represent those captured at Waterloo by their antecedent regiments. Like the Foot Guards’ bearskins they are, arguably, a physical battle honour.

[@sebastiendorat5050]

Because you find it honorable to pick-up cuirasses and bearskins on the ground or from dead bodies? In what is it physical or a battle honour? It’s just called scavenging and copying some French military traditions / ornaments that were way more stylish than British ones. In summary the two most iconic symbols of the current British guards were just stolen from French imperial military traditions. These two symbols were just french standard issue materials that French units used to wear for more than 14 years before Waterloo.

[@Vanic00]

Your videos are so informative. I truly love to sit and enjoy a meal or snack while listening to your lectures. Your doing great work my friend, great work!!!

[@DukeTKIV]

The amount of passion in this man's voice- the attitude, the emotion, the motivation in his voice as you listen to him explain this... I mean, come on. Where else can you get this?

[@ColonialBoi]

France:ah shit, we have all these metal chest plates that we are not sure really work all the time Currasier enters room* France: perfect

[@barleysixseventwo6665]

This entire video is just Brandon stating an assumption in a questioning manner, then answering it with: “Well yes, but actually no”

[@lootnscoot50]

Really cool breakdown of the roles and naming conventions, well done! 👍

[@krunomrki]

Trained on military border with Osmanlic (Ottoman) Turkish Empire, one of the most famous military units of early modern age (1500 - 1800) in Europe was Croatian light cavalry. These units, took part in 30-years war, in 17th century, mostly on the territory of Germany. Croats were even accused for killing the Swedish king in that war. However, Croatian light cavalry was also engaged in war for Austrian legacy, in 1740-ies, as a part of Habsburgs' forces (very notorious was barun Trenk with his pandurs from Slavonia region). In one of the battles Croatian light cavalry made charge on the Prussian high command camp and on that occasion Croats won the Prussian state and millitary flags as a trophy. Those Prussian flags were kept in Zagreb National Museum, untill the 1941. when leader of Croatian fashists (organization named: Ustasha) Ante Pavelić met Adolf Hitler and gave him Prussian flags as a symbolic gift. (For Croats the 2nd world war was a civil war, because one part of Croats were ally of Hitler's Germany and other part of Croats went to the mountains and forests where they had organized the partisan army against Germans, Italians and their colaborators (Croatian Ustashe and Serbian Chetniks); Josip Broz Tito the leader of Yugoslav Komunist Party and marshal of partisan army was also Croat.The Yugoslav partisans was unic example of resistance movement in occupeid Europe that grow into a real, organized army: Patizans; by the end of 1943 they were in number of 100 000 men and women). Our tradition and history is in big part military, especially because from the cca. 1450 to 1815. Croatia was litterary millitary border against Turks ("ante muralis Christianitatis" as it was said already in 16th century). Ban Zrinski defending the fort Siget in southern Hungary against army of at least 80 000 Osmanlic forces; Nikola Jurišić [pronounced as: Yurishich] defending fort Kiseg, Petar Kružić [ pronounced as: Kruzhich] defending fort Klis near the city Split; battle on the Field of Krbava (1493), battle of Sisak (1593) and so on and so on ... numerous battles from year to year, to preserve their homes and land. Croats took part in Napoleonic wars, as a light cavalry in Napoleon's march to Russia; Napoleon was delighted and enthusiastic with the brave actions of Croatian cavalry during the retreat of his army, and somewhere is noted that he said: "If I would have 100 thousand Croats, I could conquer the world." History of cavalry in Croatian history goes in written sources as far as 1st half of 10th century, when Byzantine emperor Konstantinos Porfirogenetos wrote in his work "De administrando imperio" (cca. year 950) that Croatia can rise force of 60 000 cavalry and 100 000 infantry. That was on the begining of 10th century, when Croatia defended its territory from early Magjars (Hunagarians) which had came to what is today's Hungary; also Croats defeted around year 927 Bulgarian invading army.

[@oddballsok]

18:10 In the Brussels arms museum, I am fairly sure I read about a dutch lancer serving in the french polish lancers (In Spain and later in Waterloo) So the "polish" not meaning exclusively polish men, but a style of military unit. Or at least, after starting as 100% original polish, with the expedition to Moscow, any of the ranks had to be filled.

[@Cyprian96]

Are you sure? Wasn't there a Dutch Lancers regiment as well?

[@Artur_M.]

I think you are referring to the 2e régiment de chevau-légers lanciers de la Garde Impériale (2nd Regiment of Light Cavalry Lancers of the Imperial Guard). It was an all-Dutch unit created in 1810 when the puppet Kingdom of Holland was fully incorporated into the French Empire and it was modeled after the Polish lancers, specifically the famous 1st (Polish) Light Cavalry Regiment of the Imperial Guard (formed in 1807, became Lancers in 1809). They had nearly identical uniforms but with reversed colors. It was mostly the Dutch lancers that were present at Waterloo, at this point Napoleon had only an honorary squadron of Polish volunteers that followed him to Elba left in his service. BTW the uniforms of lancers/uhlans regiments all over Europe (especially the characteristic caps) were based on the Polish ones, just like the hussars all over Europe were dressed in Hungarian style.

[@Cyprian96]

@@Artur_M. the cap is called czapka/ tschapka which literally means 'hat' in polish. Other parts of typical lancer/ulan uniform were named after the polish words as well, such as the kurtka/curtka

[@Artur_M.]

@@Cyprian96 Yeah, I found it rather amusing when I learned about it. As you probably know, this type of peaked, four-pointed cap is rather called 'rogatywka' in Polish.

[@jozefkozon4520]

@@Artur_M. The rumor is that until the Polish uhlans showed what was possible with the lance, Napoleon considered abandoning its concept altogether. And they proved it by preying on Moscow lancers (probably compatriots) and, having acquired their weapons in close combat, smoothly crossed over to make a bloody highway in enemy lines. This event made such an impression that other cavalry in Napoleon's service adapted the lance to their repertoire.

[@Timrath]

At 2:20 you speak of "Napoleonic cuirassiers", but the picture you show is that of a cuirassier from the 1860-1870s. Although technically you're not wrong, since that was the era of Napoleon III...

[@gabinchorein-parisot3255]

Timrath it might still be napoleonic era , but not as great as Napoléon 1er . In fact many French just don’t really care about Napoléon III and mostly just forget him or hate him because of the Franco-Prussian war , where france loosed the Alsace-Lorraine. And this was one of the reason why france was in WW1 , because French wanted a revenge , and even after getting the Alsace-Lorraine back , french didn’t liked alsacians because of their germans accents , which caused people to not trust alsacians during WW2 , thinking they would betray france. Funny how a part of a country lost a long time was wanted to be get back , then hated just because of a german accent. This comment is sponsored by raid shadow legen....

[@pablojn4826]

@@gabinchorein-parisot3255 I'm giving you a like for the epicgamer meme reference

[@jamesfkellyjr1964]

the comments about the blurr are spot on. I noticed it right away and was totally distracted by it. The fact that you've included some really great images doesn't lend to "just listening" to the video and undoes your otherwise good effort.

[@Leptospirosi]

One thing to understand is that Calvary, after it lost their main role as line troops with the advent of heavy armoured infantry, switched their emphasis on Mobility. In the Napoleonic era whatever cavalry was unsuitable to charge a tightly formed infantry, whatever called. But Cavalry had a menacing role that infantry had not, being free to engage and disengage at will, charging a flank in minutes and being like lions around a heard of buffalo waiting for any show of weakness. Heavy Cavalry was usually used to charge in the flank of an engaged enemy infantry, while light cavalry, usually smaller and fighting in a more skirmishing formations was used to chase down any fleeting enemy units, avoiding it to reform and come back to bug you later (Quatre Bras) or charging down to the enemy artillery which was usually a much softer target while being spread out enough to not provide a single obvious target for those same guns.. It also had it's main role outside of the battlefield, disturbing provision lines, scouting forward for the enemy while being able to disengage at will. Armament was varying depending on the nationality of the cavalry: Lanced Uhlans were coming from those nations where hunting with lances was a common sport, while Hussar/Cossack style of fighting was more common in the open terrain plans like Western Hungary and south Ukraine. Western cavalry was more used to guns and could be used as mounted troops if the need arises because it was usually more disciplined. In the end, the troops we know today were actually "what was available" and a fashion tool as well since successful units were often integrated and emulated by other nations (Hussars), depending on what you are fighting with or which troops you have available, in a continent where, in the Napoleonic era, a lot of different nations and cultures found themselves fighting across all Europe in a rather fluid matter.

[@edim108]

"[the Winged Hussars] have such a disproportionate and obsessed fan base you’d think they were German" That had me laughing so hard I started crying 🤣 To be fair, they were incredibly effective in their time, not loosing a single engagement for 120 years, often against enemy many times their number. There's a lot to like about the Winged Hussars, but a certain Swedish Power Metal band *_might_* have had something to do with their popularity.

[@michaelodonnell1638]

A strange but true fact; for most of the 19th century, practically all U.S. cavalry were actually dragoons in the original sense, while British dragoons were actually heavy cavalry!

[@JDB1878]

And the term they threw around from the Mexican war on was "Mounted rifles"

[@dochteur1886]

Regarding cuirass and its effectiveness at stopping firearms injuries - the most important armour of any cavalryman, when charging against an enemy firing at them was his horse, as during charge, tucked under horses neck, the probability of a man being hit instead of a horse was very close to zero (this raises a question of how many of these dents in cuirassier armour might be caused by bullet going through a horse before it landed on it), so while it might have also been meant as protection in this regard, cuirassiers primary target in almost any battle with a few exceptions was to charge in and engage other enemy cavalry, while prioritizing a charge against infantry would signal either opportunistic moments of luck, order out of desperation, or when situation demanded it regardless of the probability of its success. (Or outright mistake at the side of the commander, result of misunderstanding...) Apart from cuirass, most of their other equipment pieces design and decisions were infuenced by their ability to enhance protection vs other mounted and sword wielding opponents. As for carabineers, well in the broadest sense of the word, the description provided in the video is correct (highly mobile, using preferably carbines, emphasizing skirmishing tactics, used for police duties, patroling, controlling crowds et., etc.) , but as this mentions French Napoleonic carabineer specifically, the description is competely off the mark. They were actually the most prestigious regiments of non-guard napoleonic cavalry. Untill 1809 they were outfitted in a fashion similar to Grenadiers a cheval and only getting equipped with brass covered cuirasses after suffering heavy losses in their clashes with uhlans that year. (supplemented by white uniform) There were only 2 regiments of carabineers in Napoleons army and they could effectively be described exclusively as the elite cuirassier units, if the mode of their use is taken into consideration, being fully labelled as heavy cavalry, their use resembling light cavalry was non-existent, or only very sporadic. As for light cavalrys capabilities, many real examples of their use put the textbook descrptions of their role and duties distinction vs heavy cavalry to the dust. It might almost be true, that for every successful charge of cuirassiers against infantry, there might be at least two, when talking about the light cavalry in its broadest definition, as all cavalry was equal face to face with firepower, which, if used efficiently was the real killer and stopper of cavalry charges, with baynets being purely tools of defence and impotent at causing any significant disruption, or casualties. (easy to go around and having all the time in the world to endlessly probe squares defence, when no allied cavalry is present, in short see the battle of Dresden in 1813 for a reference, of how well squares do, when robbed of the ability to pour of volleys into charging horsemen.) If this failed to stop attacking horsemen, it required resolution, good mount and riding skill and sacrifice to plunge into the enemy to create a gap and give cavalry a chance to actually eliminate infantry unit as a cohesively functioning entity and at many of these, light cavalrymen would excell as individuals and best their heavy cavalry counterparts. (most glaring examples would be mamluks, polish guard lancers and paradoxically several british cavalry regiments in their post napoleonic wars colonial conflicts in 19th century - but with the caveat of any cavalry unit type having only very little chance to easily and quickly break a well formed square of disciplined infantry, even only facing bayonets, compared to their chances, when supported by horse artillery for example) So light cavalry was not only fully capable of successfully charging infantry, it did on many occasions and many times would be more fit for the task, than cuirassiers for example, if for no other reason, than for the fact that it generally formed a huge numerical majority in any armies cavalry force present on the battlefield. Finally Polish Winged hussars - yes theyre hyped by popular culture, their exploits in 16th-17th century are extraordinary, but they never faced the elite of the elite infantry of their times, like Swiss pikesquares, or spanish tercios, as these were able to sustain charges from even french gendarmes (much more heavily armoured cavalry lancers - plus fully armored horse, at least equally skilled and disciplined in any regard), so theres no reason to suppose Winged hussars would make any impression upon them. They were just lucky with what kinds of opponents fornute brought them to fight against. Nevertheless Polish Guard lancers were extremely potent force on the Napoleonic battlesfields, against both infantry and cavalry. Why wouldnt all the regiments be equipped with lances? Lance itself required skill and long lasting tradition of use plus it required master horsemen to complement it and only Poles could confidently state they had it all. It could never become a weapons of choice for mass cavalry training at this time. While for less skilled lance wielding cavalry units the addage of "once you get past the point hes finished" might be perfectly true, a man wielding lance which outreaches any other weapon on the battlefield, while also riding his horse like he walks his legs is basically untouchable in any situation and any position to his point. (Plus he also carries several pistols and sabre, which he can use at any time, as he sees fit)

[@brittakriep2938]

The ,Gendarmes', today known as police, had been heavy cavallry before the French Revolution. Gendarmes ,gens des armes' means ,men at arms' in englisch, once non noble horsemen in full armor.

[@Boruta46]

Regarding Polish Winged hussars, they several times sucessfully faced Swedish army (a top performing infantry at the time). I read somewhere that during the several decades of their use, one strategy was alternative charges: by more heavily armoured mounted units ( ''Pancerni'') armed with pistols ( who would disengage after firing from close up ) , alternated with charges by hussars ( who would also somehow disengage after each charge ''en masse'' , to replace their shattered lances). This seems a more complex strategy wearing down infantry/pikemen, rather than than a one off 'do or die' charge as implied in movies.

[@johnwotek3816]

@@brittakriep2938 "The ,Gendarmes', today known as police, had been heavy cavallry before the French Revolution. Gendarmes ,gens des armes' means ,men at arms' in englisch, once non noble horsemen in full armor." The word gendarme, yes, the gendarmerie in itself, no. The first "gendarmes" were actually the marshalls of the king. At some point, they were placed under the military house of the king of France, in which you could find the "gendarmes", which were a heavy cavalry unit. At the revolution, the marshalls of the king were rebranded as the gendarmerie nationale, while the gendarme of the king became just standard heavy cavalry unit. You did have gendarme acting as heavy cavalry, like the gendarmes d'élite of the Imperial guard. You also had various horses gendarmes on France, alongside gendarmes on foot.

[@Battleshipguy20]

The Napoleonic wars is the only way I’ve managed to outsmart all of my history teachers

[@dentescare]

Maybe you could review how accurate are the units in Age of Empires III. I remembered those names from that game

[@Daveed56]

"Cavalry, of which I might add, there be many....... all sorts of bastard varieties, in their tin frocks, and lancers!"....... Patrick Harper

[@KaelNL]

You made it sound like Napoleon had loads of Polish Lancers (which is untrue) while you entirely left out the Chasseurs au Cheval, one of the largest branches of Napoleon's cavalry.

[@claudest-arnaud2072]

Correction: Chasseurs à Cheval. The former means Horse Hunter while the later means « horse mounted hunter «

[@robowisanveithasung6022]

it was so big, that he even had a personal regiment of chasseurs a cheval de la garde imperiale, to which napoleon respected and liked so much that he wore their colonel's uniform

[@sandramartindale3702]

I enjoyed how you showed the difference between caribinears and the curasiars

[@jarentz]

cuirassier is pronounced in French “ee ay” not “er”

[@canicheenrage]

And the french "u" doesn't exist in english. He's doing his best. Arf, forgot the "i" in carabinier too. And Hussards having two S, its Huçards, not Huzards... :p

[@midiot777]

Yes sir - like the Cognac.

[@kadeberrier3799]

In German, Kürassier (German spelling) is pronounced differently, often butchered even by them. It depends the region. Also in German, Hussars is Husaren (Hoos-ar-en)

[@hannibalburgers477]

Dont worry, its french. Nobody respects that language enough to try to pronounce it right

[@hannibalburgers477]

That being told I tend to pronounce them as "Kyu - Eeras - eers"

[@istvansipos9940]

yes, a lance is effective for all the reasons mentioned in the video. Plus, you need a sword-ish side arm for every rider, and a lance is dirt cheap compared to a fire arm (main weapon)

[@TheBanana1226]

Fantastic video!! I loved your discussion at the end about the role of aesthetics & tradition in naming. I especially liked this one since I’ve worked with horses for a long time and have my own, so I’d be curious to look more into the breeding, conformation, training/conditioning, tack, husbandry, etc. of the Napoleonic cavalry horses. For example, it looks like they almost always used double bridles (which require a pretty sophisticated education of the horse) and they held all 4 reins in one hand-extremely impressive, considering the technical precision it would take to manipulate each bit independently using only one hand, while wielding a weapon in the other

[@TheIfifi]

Just adding here... the horses were also trained for combat in unexpected ways. They were trained to bite and kick on commands. As well as rearing and lashing out. In the british army you should supply your own horse. Which was VERY expensive. However upon proof of death usual by chooping off a foot... you could get it replaced.

[@rollo216]

Hello Hannah Arnold. As a horseman, and former cavalryman (Danish mounted guard hussars) I can tell a bit about our horses and equipment, as it is still the the same as during the napoleonic wars. (My regiment fought in the wars on french side) The horses used by the danish hussars, were small and agile of a brown or black coat, these were the horses for the fighting men, where as the buglers rode white horses, that an officer might better locate the bugler in a battle. The horse where and are still ridden with double bridle, this gives a better control of the horses but also the added effect of applying pressure on the mandible making the horse rear. (A hoof to the chest or skull kills just as well as a sabre) The horses are and were primarily geldings or mares as there temper were better suited for campaigns, the horses were trained by the remount section of the regiment, making sure there was always fresh horses to replace the fallen, as horses are bigger targets than men, they were often replaced. Over the years the horses have gotten bigger, I myself rode a friesian, far from the original “light fast and agile horse” back in the days a good horse lasted about 5 years of service today most make it to there twenties. The horses were well looked after by the men and often to the degree of true comradeship. We have an old motto, dating to the days of regular war. My horse, my saddle my self. Implying to the matter of importance for the common hussar. Some of it still carries over today, I have spent my fair share sleeping along side my old warhorse in the stables. Hope this gives some answers, if there is anything specific don’t hesitate to ask.

[@TheBanana1226]

@@TheIfifi Very interesting! I was wondering about that, if these men had to provide and train their own horse as knights did (I think, I'm VERY far from an expert on that). The Spanische Hofreitschule in Vienna still trains a lot of classical dressage movements that have military roots--the airs above the ground like the courbette (horse rearing up and hopping forward on two legs) and the capriole ("goat hop") would have been extremely intimidating to see on the battlefield, but I think in the past, those movements were probably restricted to schooling to improve the refinement of training, since leaving the underbelly of the horse exposed in battle would be an awful idea

[@TheBanana1226]

​@@rollo216 Thank you so much for your reply and insights!! I wonder what modern breed their horses would have resembled. Breeds today are so specialized for different purposes, and not any of them are warfare-- so it's hard to imagine your standard "warhorse" like you can imagine your standard "ranch horse" or "showjumper", because the job just doesn't exist anymore (thankfully). It's interesting that Friesians are so often used in shows/film and reenactments, probably because of their beauty and temperament. Can I ask about the saddles you used? It looks like the pommels and cantles are quite high, and the trees wooden. Did they have any wool flocking, or stuffed panels of any kind? Or was the wooden frame set on the horse, then padding added with fur/cloth/etc?

[@rollo216]

@@TheBanana1226 In Denmark we used knabstrupper horses in the war of 1864 and the Frederiksborg horse have been used by the royals since 1700. The original knights horse ar by manny thought to resemble the percheron. As for the saddles these days the horses have 3 saddles. one for dressage one for showjumping and a "hussar saddle". The two are for daily usage and the third for royal service. The hussar saddle while modernised builds on the original wooden framed saddles. The wooden saddles where simple low cut saddles to be less restraining on the rider. the saddles were padden beneath with simple woolen cloth and the Shabrack placed on top for show and comfort. I have added a link to the units info folder forsvaret.dk/GHR/hesteskadronen/vaernepligt/Documents/Introduction%20in%20English.pdf

[@keithorbell8946]

A couple of points: I believe that during the Revolutionary War (against France, 1780’s to 90’s) the British Lifeguards did have Cuirasses, but these were declared obsolete. The Ciurasses issued to the Mounted Regiment of the Horse Guards date from Waterloo, where the Life Guards apparently defeated a Cuirassier unit and took their cuirasses as spoils of war (how they found time during that incredibly “busy” battle is a matter of conjecture) The Grenadier Guards are so named because it was initially believed that they had defeated the Grenadiers a Pied of the Imperial Guard at Waterloo, taking their name and bearskins. Actually it was the Chasseurs a Pied, still, a major point of the Battle, which shattered the morale of the main French force.

[@caiosentomo6525]

Very interesting video! In the mid XIX century the cavalry of my country, Brazil, was a exact mix of Lancers and Carabiners (Clavineiros), and latter some Mounted Hunters armed with Spencer Carbines

[@PowermadNavigator]

This is very informative and clearly a lot of work went into this. Cuirassier armor would vary a lot sometimes indeed. By the time of the Franco-Prussian war, it was near useless against firearms, but was still valid protection against lances, spears, bayonets and debris of any sort. Though as that museum piece showed - you get shot with a Chassepot or Needle Gun like that, you're dead.

[@NothingIsKnown00]

Maybe one reason to give your cavalry armor: It makes them feel protected so they’ll be more willing to charge into gunfire.

[@Feral.cat713]

Wonderful video! I really enjoyed this style of editing. Keep up the good work.

[@Jack-me7kl]

now, if you've played Mount&Blade Warband: Napoleonic Wars, you'd know that lancers are just the best.

[@iskandartaib]

The 1st Foot Guards got the name Grenadier Guards as a result of Waterloo, for stopping the French Imperial Guard. As Bernard Cornwell pointed out, though.. it was all a mistake.. the actual Imperial Guard infantry units that attacked the Guards position were actually Chasseurs of the Guard - the veteran Grenadiers were off on the flank trying to hold off the Prussians. I suppose "Chasseur Guards" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

[@Jeqavy_Wavy]

Been reading his book on Waterloo, great information in there!

[@menschman1464]

Cuirassiers and heavy horse: big punch Dragoons and carabiniers: what can I say I’m adaptable Hussars: sneaky bois Lancers: POKE

[@F_Bardamu]

You really have a talent for sharing your knowledge and passion for this subject. As a foreigner, I appreciate that you speak so clearly and don't shy away from sophisticated words. You're very pleasant to listen to.

[@Theduckwebcomics]

Well said about Hussars. The "winged" ones (we still don't know if they really wore them in battle) only really became super popular relatively recently. Before that they were mostly forgotten to history. Hussars began as Slavic mercenaries from Serbia who served with the border forces for Hungary and Poland against the ottomans. The winged style theme comes from the Muslim Delhi Riders. The Polish Hussars died out as a tradition hundereds of years ago while the Hungarian Hussars carried on constantly. They became light cavalry, dressed in the typical style of Hungarian men of the time.

[@reiko_plk.s.w9444]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6vLZoaGosh9laM kzbin.info/www/bejne/pYraoWCFjbqJiKc

[@communism_is_wrong7167]

I find Calvary to be very interesting after the height Of the middle ages, because it goes from being the end-all be-all to a specific tool that has to be used tactically.

[@desthomas8747]

Dragoons were infantry, mounted on horses, they were based on mounted archers of the Hundred Years War. The horses allowed the bow and musket armed infantry to keep pace and support the Knights/Cavalry with firepower. the tactics were to dismount and use their long range weapons to support the cavalry. They were mounted on cheaper lighter horses and paid a fraction of their mounted cavalry. During the Battle of Naseby, in the English Civil War, Oakey's dragoons were ordered to hide behind some hedges and fire their muskets at the attacking Royalists, at one stage found themselves with the unsupported flanks of the Royalist infantry, Colonel Oakey ordered his men to mount up and charge into the enemy thus starting the dragoons being used in some form of attacking cavalry. Being paid less than cavalry and on cheaper lighter horses they were a blessing to commanders. they complained, the commanders gave them titles such as Guards Dragoons so the cavalry complained. Dumas's Musketeers were Dragoons.

[@doktertjiftjaf5186]

15:22 this is hands down the best way to describe the incident of 'the Charge of the Light Brigade'

[@thomasdrane9170]

Hey Brandon F love the video and channel, I will allow the low blow on the Polish Hussars but I love the Calvary most of favorite unit of all time keep it up

[@Altrantis]

What I' getting from this is most of the confusion in naming units comes from the brits being convoluted and confusing and spreading miscommunication, not what the rest of Europe was doing. So... basically brits being brits as usual.

[@doug6500]

Don't speak our language then?

[@ktoniand2097]

About the lack of popularity of the lance during that time, once you understand the advantages and disadvantages of melee weapons during history, it’s easy to explain within the context. Note that I’ll say sword, but I also include sabers who were, to my understanding, far more popular at that time. . First, let’s take the most basic understanding about the relationship between swords and lances against armors. . You can’t cut through mail or plate armor with an axe, let alone a sword or saber. You may cut through cloth armor like gambeson with a sword, but even then the cut effectiveness is reduced by quite a margin (both katana and longswords can be stopped by gambeson, even with proper technique: cloth armor need more love). Even cloth can reduce the effectiveness of a sword (through it will traverse it and hurt, it can sometime be the difference between having your arm cut clean and having a deep cut in your arm). . On the over side, lance can pierce mail and, in the hand of a charging cavalier on his horse, it can piece plate armor when it doesn’t glance off. Lance in general traverse through cloth armor rather easily, let alone normal clothing. . Now all of that is said, let’s put these into the context of Napoleonic Wars. During the Napoleonic Wars, most units had little to no armor and no shield. Cuirassiers are actually among the most armored unit of that time, and most of the time they had only a breastplate and a helmet. . What does it imply? Well, as long as you strike elsewhere than on the few armor pieces you may face, sword’s strikes will be effective and thus will deal damage. For a cavalier, the arms and face will most of the case be exposed, meaning you have a lot of ways to incapacitate and/or kill your opponent even against armored opponent, let alone the common infantry-man or light cavalier. That context made swords FAR more effective than during the past centuries in term of damage, and thus increase it’s general effectiveness by a LOT. Add into that the advantages that the sword has when compared to lances: it’s agility in close combat and the ease to carry. It’s also longer than a dagger or an axe, making it’s reach reasonable enough to then being used as a main melee weapon. . On the other side, the lance is a weapon that is cumbersome to carry, and it’s not as nimble in close combat. It has reach and is an intimidating weapon to face, but it can break more easily than swords and thus need to be changed between battles. Most importantly during that time it’s almost an exclusivity of cavalry, as the bayonet made it obsolete for infantry. Adding to that is the fact that it break more easily make it more of an expandable item. Thus, making your cavalry use lance mean that you have a whole weapon supply that is exclusive to those cavalry, and that most of the time won’t be used by other units. And if it wasn’t enough, you also need some reserve of lances to replace them quickly. As an example, Napoleon didn’t equip his cavalry with lances until he had to face the Russian’s cossacks, who were equipped with lances.

[@rrl4245]

Well done! I particularly enjoy the script and narration. Excellent!

[@canicheenrage]

Another thing about the french cuirassiers: They had lattes ( "slats", nothing to do with italian milk) which were long straight sabers, and would be used the same way as a lance in a charge. The result being ( horse+ big guy + armor + equipment ) x (charging speed)/2 = 1 shitton of pressure at the latte's tip.

[@Dr_Robodaz]

Me: A quiet day in the workshop during Operation Granby. *Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and Irish Hussar Challenger MBTs start trickling in to patch up dings* Sgt: "If you ask Col. Denaro about his horses one more time, you'll be bashing spuds with me boot up your arse!" Me: *Definiexistential crisis moment*

[@davidcashin1894]

This was a pretty good discussion of types and roles of cavalry. What would really be interesting is a discussion of daily duties on the march, in camp, and in garrison. How did Brigading work? One Regiment actively scouting/screening the other resting or just marching. Scouting and use of the terrain. Logistics for cavalry? Feeding Foraging fixing weapons, training and buying horses, training troopers etc Things we rarely talk about.

[@bobstine3785]

I am reading Conrad's "The Duel", an excellent novella that was made into the wonderful movie, "The Duelists". Early in the book, the narrator says that the conflict could only have happened in the cavalry. 😁