This discussion has been going on on sci.military for a while, but I
thought some here might be interested.
> THIS IS A BIT LONG - BE WARNED.
>
> > From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
> >
> > Don't know about this particular (pre-Napoleonic) period but I
> > don't recall that the Prussians had Cuirassiers. Dragoons were
> > ostensibly mounted infantry (they were armed with carbines) but
> > were at the time of Napoleon used as heavy cavalry. From the war-
> > game tables one can tell that they were fairly poor as infantry
> > but were fairly good heavy cavalry.
>
> Dragoons had dropped being "real" infantry by the start of the 1700's
> in most armies, although they retained muskets until well after
> Napoleon's time. They were expected to be able to act as infantry,
> however - standing guard, etc, and armies short on horses would
> sometimes use large numbers dismounted (Napoleon had a brigade or two
> in Spain for more than a year). Of course, wearing boots and spurs
> didn't help their secondary function one little bit :-).
>
> The Prussians had a good number of Cuirassier Regts, at Leuthen there
> were 11 Regts, totaling 53 Sqns, at Rossbach 5 Regts, 23 Sqns.
>
> > Grenadiers were simply infantry chosen for their size. They were
> > also more highly trained than the regular infantry of the line.
> > As such they were used for shock effect and to shore up critical
> > places.
>
> Grenadiers were not particularly more trained than other troops - just
> bigger and generally regarded as elite. Grenadiers usually got more
> pay and had higher status than the rest of the troops, so they fought
> better as well.
>
> > >Only 10 squadrons of dragoons swept
> > >6 battle hardened Austrian infantry regiments into disappearance. They took > > >66 unit flags and the Austrians lost 10,000 men wounded and killed. This > was
> > >the battle of Hohenfriedberg in June 1745 after which Frederick II (the > Great)>wrote his Hohenfriedberger March music.
> >
> >
> > I wonder what point of development anti-cavalry tactics were at
> > this point in time. Weren't infantry still armed with matchlocks
> > and pikes? Perhaps bayonets had just come into vogue and the square
> > hadn't been perfected yet. Or perhaps the Austrians were taken by
> > surprise and didn't have time to form square.
>
> no, infantry was no longer armed with matchlocks and pikes, they had
> mostly disappeared by 1700. Flintlocks plus ring bayonets were the
> norm by the Seven Years War (1756 - 1763). The standard infantry
> defence against was the square, even at this early time period.
> However no-one had invented suitable drills to enable large formations
> (eg battalions of 400+) to form it quickly on the battlefield, so it
> was rarely used.
>
> The Austrian infantry in question had just been in a firefight with
> Prussian infantry, and, although intact, was somewhat shaken.
> Prussian infantry had a significantly higher rate of fire than anyone
> else's, due to the adoption of iron ramrods, while the rest of the
> world used wood. The iron enabled the infantry to take less time
> ensuring the ramrod was perfectly aligned with the barrel before
> ramming, as it was more robust and didn't break as quickly.
>
> This does, however, contrast with the 8 or 9 battalions of British and
> Hanoverian infantry who took apart the cream of the French Cavalry at
> Minden in 1759. These troops (von Sporken's division - Waldegrave's
> Brigade of 12th, 23rd, 37th Foot and Kingsley's Brig of 20th, 25th &
> 51st Foot, plus 1st & 2nd Bns Hanoverian Guards - the "optional" 9th
> Hanoverian Bn I haven't identified) mistook an order (shades of the
> Crimea) "When the time comes the advance is to be accompanied by the
> beat of the drum" to mean "advance to the beat of the drum". No-one
> knows how this came about, but the effect was devastating:
>
> The allied infantry advanced to within 500 yds of the French cavalry,
> which formed the centre of their line, while under the fire of 66
> guns. 12 Squadrons of Cavalry, the Carabiniers and Mousquetaires,
> charged them, only to be blown away @ 30-40 yds by the fire of the
> infantry in line formation. A few managed to reach the infantry, and
> penetrate the line, but were set upon from behind and despatched. A
> further 22 squadrons met the same fat soon after. 8 Bns of French
> infantry threatened the right flank of the little formation, but 10
> minutes firefight with the 12th and 27th saw them off. A further 8
> bns attacked the allies, but were driven off by the 20th, 25th and
> 51st.
>
> A third French cavalry force, their last reserve, of 18 sqns now
> attacked. The allied C-in-C spotted them forming up, and moved some
> artillery and infantry to support von Sporken. The artillery caught
> the French cav by surprise, and inflicted severe casualties and some
> disorder. Despite this the charge reached and penetrated the Allied
> line, but was then defeated by musketry of the infantry in the new
> supporting line, immediately to the rear, while the survivors of the
> front line's third rank also turned about and fired into the backs of
> the French Cav.
>
> The allied commander (Prince Ferdinand) now ordered his small cavalry
> reserve under Lord Sackville to complete the French rout. Lord
> Sackville had better things to do, however, and the allied cavalry did
> nothing all day.
>
> Thus the unauthorised advance of the allied infantry bought about the
> defeat of 63 sqns of French cavalry, and won the battle.
>
> As an interesting post-script, the regiments which fought on the
> allied side in this battlee got to wear the "Minden Rose" as a battle
> honour. Some were on opposing sections of the front lines during WWI,
> the Hanoverian regts being part of the Imperial German army of that
> > >>One of my ancestors was a 'Feldjaeger' in the Royal Prussian Army ...
> > >
> > >This would be light calvalry, similar to the British "lancers". Literally it > > >means "field hunter".
> >
> > Request for a small point of information.... Wasn't a feldjaeger
> > a light *infantryman*, not a cavalryman? I'd always associated "jaegers"
> > with chaps having a distinct green element to their ensembles, edelweisse
> > badges, and rifled (as opposed to smoothbore) firearms. Sorta like the
> > German equivalent of Napoleon's skermishers (voltageurs?), or the British
> > "Rifle" regiments, perhaps? (All those jolly, rustic hunters and innkeepers > > foresaking the Black Forest with its bears, wolves, boars, and deer for the
> > thrills of a more dangerous, though cognate field of sport......(8-))
>
> Not sure about "Feldjaeger", but "Jaeger" was certainly the title for
> German light infantry in general, often armed with rifled muskets.
> The number of such troops in all armies increased markedly during the
> SYW, many "FreiKompanies" being formed on all sides, usually
> containing a portion of light cavalry (Hussars, Light Dragoons, etc)
> and some light infantry. The Austrians were to blame for this - they
> used large numbers of irregular infantry from their border with the
> Ottoman Empire. These Pandours (or Croats or Serbs, etc) were a real
> pain in the posterier for Frederick, virtually beseiging him in camp
> on more than one occaision. At one point a group of 60 even attempted
> to kidnap an Ambassador from the middle of the Prussian camp, failing
> only because they took a servant instead!! To counter the threat
> Frederick was forced to raise similar troops, though he despised them,
> and disbanded all of them after the war.
>
> The regular Prussian light infantry consisted of 2 companies of
> Jagers, which were expanded to a battalion in 1760, then wiped out by
> Cossacks near Spandau in October of that year.
>
> > From Neal Smith <sasrns@unx.sas.com>
>
> > |> The dragoons were heavily armed calvalry. The uniform resembled the US
> > |> revolutionary army uniform, but the boots come to mid-thigh and the hat is > > |> a two-cornered cocked hat with a plume.
> > |>
> > The dragoons were still considered mounted infantry at this time and
> > fought this way I would say at least 50% of the time. They were not
> > considered battlefield cavalry. The battlefield cavalry was still called
> > "cavalry" or "heavy horse" during this time period.
>
> As above for the Dragoons. "Horse" as a designation was obsolete by
> the SYW, the British having converted their regiments of "Horse" into
> "Dragoon Guards" in the 1740's. The French still used the title
> "Cavalry Regiment", in the English, but generaly referred to their cav
> regts by title, eg "Maison du Roi", Royal Pologne, Royal-Cravattes,
> etc.
>
> Phew, that was a bit longer than intended - hope I didn't bore anyone
> unduly :-)
>
> Sources: War monthly # 46 (especially for Minden)
> Uniforms of the Seven Years War (Blandford - highly
> recommended, has some good battle maps and orders of battle)
> Frederick the Great, a Military Life; Christopher Duffy
