|
Post by stuart on Nov 26, 2010 2:22:19 GMT -5
No Alan, the point you're missing is that all cavalrymen could fight on foot if they were required to which is why they were issued with carbines. They didn't like it, but they'd do it if they had to - unless of course they were lancers which gave them an excuse to go on sitting on their horses.
If I can clarify a little further. The original dragoons were true mounted infantry in that they were armed with infantry weapons - and as an illustration of that the carbines carried by British dragoons for most of the 18th century had 42" barrels and were distinguished from infantry muskets only by their slightly smaller bore .65 calibre. In fact the same musket with a .75 calibre barrel was adopted as the Short Land Pattern Firelock in 1768. Just as importantly when dismounted they were expected to form up in rank and file and perform regular infantry drill.
By the Napoleonic Wars however they were spending all their time on horseback and this was reflected by the earlier adoption of much shorter-barrelled firearms - what we would normally recognise as carbines. They no longer had a mounted infantry role as such, but there were obviously occasions when some of them might have to do so because there was no alternative, whether they were Dragoon Guards, Light Dragoons or Hussars.
Exactly the same thing happened in other armies and perhaps the best way of summing it up is by noting that these days there are some soldiers who call themselves dragoons, but who drive Main Battle Tanks and display all the traditional cavalryman's reluctance to dismount - and would look at you in a very sideways manner if it was suggested that because they were designated as dragoons rather than hussars or lancers they should have a mounted infantry role. Obviously they occasionally have to do it and have to provide their own security and mount foot patrols, but that's not the same thing.
In fact I'm reminded as I write this that the two light dragoon regiments which served in North America during the Revolution - the 16th and 17th, both temporarily had specially raised dismounted troops attached to them in order to carry out out those duties so that the "real" dragoons didn't need to get off their horses but could concentrate on being proper cavalrymen.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 26, 2010 2:43:15 GMT -5
There is a further wrinkle to this which occurs to me. In referring to the Sesma report, Gary grumbled about a lack of confidence in the inconsistency of the varying translations and I referred in another post to the fact that some of Cuautla Dragoons carried lances.
What should have occured to me but didn't is that there was no such regiment. Permanente mounted units such as the Cuautla were designated as Cavalry.
When Urrea's narrative describes dismounting them did he actually use the word dragoons or was this just a casual translation error with dragoon being used as a common synonym for trooper, just as so often we've seen the word rifle misused in relation to a smooth-bored musket?
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 26, 2010 8:44:13 GMT -5
There is a further wrinkle to this which occurs to me. In referring to the Sesma report, Gary grumbled about a lack of confidence in the inconsistency of the varying translations and I referred in another post to the fact that some of Cuautla Dragoons carried lances. What should have occured to me but didn't is that there was no such regiment. Permanente mounted units such as the Cuautla were designated as Cavalry. When Urrea's narrative describes dismounting them did he actually use the word dragoons or was this just a casual translation error with dragoon being used as a common synonym for trooper, just as so often we've seen the word rifle misused in relation to a smooth-bored musket? Point well taken.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 26, 2010 13:48:40 GMT -5
One point, that should perhaps be emphaisized is that were some very significant differences between countries prior to Waterloo. As cavalry evolved in all nations - the differences between heavy, light, and dragoons, gradually disappeared. Lancers, though regarded as light cavalry, imo are a special case. Take France as an example neither light or heavy cavalry carried carbines when the Napoleonic Wars began. ONLY the Drgaoons did. However, with France's repeated battles with Russian cossacks, (initially armed with bows and some carbines), French Light Cavalry were soon authorized to carry carbines, but it wasn't until 1811 that all French Light Regiments were so armed. French Heavy Cavalry was authorized to start carrying carbines in 1805, but in practice did not until 1812. French Cavalry was mission specific organized. Light Cavalry was primarily for reconassaince, security, and pursuit. Heavy Cavalry for shock action. Dragoons were regarded as Medium Cavalry and a kind of a jack of all trades. Medium Cavalry was found in both Heavy and Light Cavalry Divisions. While organized for mission specific tasks, very obviously, the commander is going to use the forces he has available for the missions he faces. This very basic concept along with the gradual issue of the carbine to all but lancers led to a blurring of the traditional roles of the cavalry. Other nations' cavalry evolved similarly but obviously followed different timelines. The US Cavalry tradition is one of Dragoons and not the other types for three very simple reasons, the first is simply economy. The early US could not financially afford fielding mutiple types of single mission specific regiments - because of cost they had to be jack of all trades regiments. The second was terrain, the Eastern US at this point in its history was heavily forested. The third reason was the military threat, and the US simply did not face a threat requiring specialized cavalry and in fact until enterring the Louisanna Purchase in the 1830s did not maintain any cavalry regiments except during wartime. Annexation of Texas, the Mexican War and probably more importantly the Comanche Nation changed that. The Dragoon Regiments and the Mounted Rifles and then the first two Cavalry regiments (light cavalry) of the US all had different organizations -initially, however as they were all being used for the same missions in the 1850s these differences gradually disapeared and led to their eventual redisignation as cavalry. But, within the US a strong Dragoon tradition was maintained until the 20th Century when the advent of machine guns and modern rifles made such a tradition paramount and instead it virtually disappeared. Mexican tradition very obviously evolved differently, but except for the incorporation of lancers and the heavy use of presidials relied on dragoons. By the 1830s all cavalry except for lancers had a dismounted ability - but I think there is a difference between having the ability and willingly following the dragoon traditniion. DEATH BEFORE DISMOUNT? As somebody who has served in both armor and cavalry units, probably one of the most difficult tactical questions is correctly anticipating the infantry dismount point!
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 26, 2010 15:03:22 GMT -5
Somewhere in this conversation the main issue has been lost by a tendency to wander too far afield in the search for answers and examples. Yet the answers remain very simple. For one thing, dragoons were definitely cavalry troops PARTICULARLY trained to fight both on horseback and on foot. Their duties were manifold, too, not just battle-related. The following definition of dragoons is from the article on "Cavalry" in The Penny Cyclopaedia for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, published in London in 1836---the very year we are dealing with. It nails the issue on the head with refreshing brevity and clarity:
"The dragoons are a species of light cavalry, trained to act either on horseback or on foot as may be required. Pere Daniel ascribes their formation to the Marechal de Brissac, when he commanded the French armies in Piedmont at the end of the sixteenth century. The practice of horsemen fighting on foot is however very antient: the Roman cavalry are said to have done so at the battle of Cannae, and Proeopius relates that one of the generals of Justinian, in an engagement with the Persians, caused his horsemen to dismount, and oppose their lances to the enemy's cavalry. Dragoons appear to have been introduced into the English service before the middle of the seventeenth century; but the oldest regiment of dragoons in the army is that of the Scotch Greys, which was raised in 1681. Dragoons perform the duty of advanced guards and patroles ; they escort convoys, and harass the enemy in his retreat ; or, in reverses ot fortune, they protect tho dispersed and defeated infantry. The name Dragoon appears to come from the Latin Draconarius, the appellation given to a standard-bearer, who carried a standard or colour with the figure of a dragon on it. (Ammianus Mnrcell. xx. 4 ; Vegetius, ii. 7.)
So it is no wonder that at Refugio Urrea at one point orders some of his dragoons to dismount, not necessarily to attack the enemy, but to SHOW his intimidated Yucatan infantry battalion how to perform their duty!
The argument that all cavalry had to fight on foot now and then is certainly true, and rather obvious, but it's missing, again, the main point. Dragoons had SPECIAL training in dismounted as well as mounted duty, and that's what makes them of interest to us where the Mexican army is concerned. They were not mounted infantry. Some of them indeed carried lances, but their essential duty in 1836 is described perfectly in a nutshell in the above definition.
And that's why when you read about dismounted cavalry in the 1835-36 Texas campaigns, they are invariably "dragones," not "lancerz."
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 26, 2010 15:04:31 GMT -5
And yes, Urrea did use the word "dragones," as translated by Dimmick, Castaneda, and a few other translators.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 26, 2010 15:42:08 GMT -5
Yet another example of "dragoons" as late as 1890 being employed in their characteristic dismounted fighting service, when necessary, is this passage from p. 282 of the Journal of the United Service Institution of India: Volumes 19-20:
"In the pre-supposeded struggle on Afghan soil, the Cavalry of both sides will of course be pushed well to the front, and the campaign will commence with Cavalry actions between the advanced forces, which actions will terminate with one side obtaining the ascendancy: the weaker Cavalry will have to retire within the bounds of its Army for support, whilst the stronger will have sway over the whole country around, and will then have acquired the first solid advantage towards ensuring ultimate success. These preliminary fights will of necessity be of the nature of Cavalry combats for the establishment of an ascendancy; they will be consequent on rapid and aggressive movements, and will not result from the occupation of particular strong positions pending the arrival of Infantry, for there are few such strategical points of special importance in the supposed sphere of action between Kandahar and Herat. In these combats, therefore, the country generally being of an open nature, suited for the manoeuvring of Cavalry, the dismounted fire of Dragoons will act a minor part, the main issue will be decided by cold steel, and that force which is best qualified by its preliminary training for arbitration at close quarters, will remain victors on the field."
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 26, 2010 16:45:15 GMT -5
I fear that six pages in on this one we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Notwithstanding that mouldy dictionary reference the term dragoon had no particular significance but was simply a synonym for a cavalryman. The Scots Greys alluded to were certainly raised as mounted infantry but although still officially the 2nd Dragoons in 1836 they were heavy cavalry. Like all cavalrymen they were trained to fight on foot and carried carbines, but they didn't normally expect to do so, and nor was it something only demanded of regiments historically bearing the title dragoons.
I think that Herb sums it up pretty well and the only point where I'd disagree with him is that all French cavalry carried carbines right through the Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, including lancers (and consequently this may also have been true of the Mexican cavalry as they were consciously modelled on the Frogs). The only exceptions were the true heavies; the curassiers and their eventual adoption of carbines was indeed forced upon them by the Cossacks - after a notorious incident in Russia where a curassier regiment was caught by them while dispersed gathering forage and lacking any firearms to defend themselves were nearly all captured; in fact afterwards the French supposedly made an official complaint about the unfairness of the Cossacks attacking while they were helpless!
|
|
|
Post by alanhufffines on Nov 26, 2010 17:24:56 GMT -5
Thank you, Gary. Whew.
I do agree with Stuart that over six pages we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Off to a new topic!
Happy Thanksgiving to all in the US and Happy Boxing Day or Guy Fawkes or whatever the devil you crazy kids in the UK celebrate.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 26, 2010 17:29:15 GMT -5
I fear that six pages in on this one we're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Notwithstanding that mouldy dictionary reference the term dragoon had no particular significance but was simply a synonym for a cavalryman. The Scots Greys alluded to were certainly raised as mounted infantry but although still officially the 2nd Dragoons in 1836 they were heavy cavalry. Like all cavalrymen they were trained to fight on foot and carried carbines, but they didn't normally expect to do so, and nor was it something only demanded of regiments historically bearing the title dragoons. I think that Herb sums it up pretty well and the only point where I'd disagree with him is that all French cavalry carried carbines right through the Revolution and Napoleonic Wars, including lancers (and consequently this may also have been true of the Mexican cavalry as they were consciously modelled on the Frogs). The only exceptions were the true heavies; the curassiers and their eventual adoption of carbines was indeed forced upon them by the Cossacks - after a notorious incident in Russia where a curassier regiment was caught by them while dispersed gathering forage and lacking any firearms to defend themselves were nearly all captured; in fact afterwards the French supposedly made an official complaint about the unfairness of the Cossacks attacking while they were helpless! I don't want to quote chapter and verse to carry on this argument to infinity either, but that "mouldy dictionary reference" of "dragoons" was actually a succinct example of many more detailed ones that can be found in military manuals published throughout the 19th century. Occasionally there are differences in the definition, but the emphasis is made that a proficiency in dismounted service training, as well as in other peripheral duties not ordinarily assigned to other horse units, was paramount for dragoons. They were not "simply" cavalrymen. And since none of us appear to be experts on Mexican dragoons in 1836 Texas, I would suggest readers on this post keep an open mind. As evidenced in Urrea and other documentary sources, there's a lot we've obviously never critically and closely examined before.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 26, 2010 17:32:35 GMT -5
Alan, Happy Thanksgiving to you and yours...and to everyone else here!
And even though these debates rarely settle such questions, they do begin thought processes that often lead to some kind of convincing evidence. And this debate has barely scratched anything remotely resembling a documentary surface.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 27, 2010 4:42:29 GMT -5
Thank you, Gary. Whew. I do agree with Stuart that over six pages we are just going to have to agree to disagree. Off to a new topic! Happy Thanksgiving to all in the US and Happy Boxing Day or Guy Fawkes or whatever the devil you crazy kids in the UK celebrate. Guy Fawkes is 5 November and an excuse for a barbeque in awful weather but its not a public holiday. The next one up is Christmas Day and Boxing day is the one immediately after. We then get a day off for New Year in England and two days in Scotland.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Nov 27, 2010 10:34:52 GMT -5
Stuart - Eons ago (somewhere in the stone age of the early 1960s) I spent Christmas and New Years in Glasgow. It was a real experience. I had expected a real Dickens Christmas, but it was very, very low key. Not a big deal at all. New Years Eve, however, was another story. I was invited to the home of a friend, where we had a quiet dinner and even quieter conversation afterward. I began to think it was going to be the dullest evening of my life -- until the bells of a local church started ringing in the new year at midnight. Suddenly, the entire street exploded into wild revelry that went on nearly till daybreak! I never saw so many people so wasted, or having so much fun, in my life!
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 27, 2010 11:35:10 GMT -5
Back in my father's day Christmas was barely celebrated at all. New Year or Hogmaney was the big one, and very largely still is. We have a custom called First Footing; basically if you are out and about before midnight you can move freely, but if you're indoors at the bells you have to stay there until the first visitor of the year crosses the threshhold. So what happens is that the younger ones go off in groups to enjoy themselves during the evening and then from midnight onwards start calling on the friends and relations of everybody in the group, to be entertained with food and strong drink before passing on to the next. Having once been "first-footed" those who were in are then free to start doing the same. One year I didn't get home for four days...
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 27, 2010 11:44:15 GMT -5
I don't want to quote chapter and verse to carry on this argument to infinity either, but that "mouldy dictionary reference" of "dragoons" was actually a succinct example of many more detailed ones that can be found in military manuals published throughout the 19th century. Occasionally there are differences in the definition, but the emphasis is made that a proficiency in dismounted service training, as well as in other peripheral duties not ordinarily assigned to other horse units, was paramount for dragoons. They were not "simply" cavalrymen. It was indeed mouldy; as I mentioned at the time it was published the Scots Greys were heavy cavalry and as for military manuals, all British cavalry, irrespective of whether they were designated as Lifeguards, horse, dragoon guards (ex horse), dragoons or light dragoons had followed a common drill book since April 1787. There was no specialist training given to dragoons. That 1890 reference from India sums up my argument exactly because there was at that time no distinction whatsoever between dragoons and other types of cavalry in the British Army and the term was only used as an old-fashioned synonym for a cavalryman
|
|