|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 27, 2010 16:56:38 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 It's a presumptuous stretch to ascribe a universal pattern for dragoons in the 19th century based on the UK experience alone, in effect applying that pattern to Mexico and the rest of the world. For instance, The memoirs of Baron Thiébault (late lieutenant-general in the French army clearly spells out that dragoons of Napoleon's army were indeed trained to serve as both foot and horse troops, and he underscores that this was a dragoon specialty: "On my arrival at Versailles, I was entrusted with the reorganization of the three dragoon regiments, upon the system according to which regiments of that arm ought to be equally well adapted for fighting on horseback or on foot. Accordingly we were expected first to prove to them, regarded as cavalry, that nothing in the world could resist a mounted troop, well composed, well commanded, well instructed, employing with ability and vigour at the right moment the power resulting from speed and impact; while on the other hand, regarded as infantry, they had to learn that the best cavalry in the world must be annihilated by infantry which remains steady and makes the best use of its fire and its bayonets." Bukhari in NAPOLEON'S DRAGOONS AND LANCERS confirms this: Dragoons "were not just any band of individuals sorted and labelled cavalrymen; they were mounted infantrymen, trained to be equally adept with musket and sabre, and proud of that distinction. Though their role was to become increasingly similar to that of heavy cavalry, theirs was a distinguished heritage. Originally mounted for the sake of mobility but generally fighting on foot, they evolved into an army equally at home sabring at the charge as firing dismounted, becoming neither light nor heavy but medium cavalry." Hew Strachan in FROM WATERLOO TO BALACLAVA also confirms that in nineteenth century France "a dragoon was expected to skirmish and flit from cover to cover while encumbered with boots and helmet." 19th century British dragoons may not have served as foot troops as often as their European counterparts--I cannot claim expertise in this matter---but the fact is that British cavalry WERE instructed in dismounted combat (e.g., as in the 1833 cavalry regulations), although Strachan does make the point that British DRAGOONS in colonial service were "more flexible" when it came to adopting such "old school" dragoon methods. For instance, the 7th Dragoon Guards, posted at the Cape of Good Hope in 1848 were never "expected...to load these Rifles on horseback, but to ride up and fire on foot." Strachan further notes that such overseas units often HAD to act as foot troops because of a general lack of soldiers in garrison! There are other examples, and they are legion, pardon the pun. So I again caution: do not assume that all dragoons functioned the same way around the world, especially in Mexico. It's apparent that Santa Anna's dragoons---whether they followed the French or Spanish or other European models---obviously had considerable training in dismounted combat. To what degree their training was more extensive than the other cavalry units in the Mexican army remains unknown. The doors on this subject, far from being closed, only remain wide open. To simply dismiss this issue based on a generalization is not doing History justice, for the counter-evidence is too significantly voluminous to be ignored.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 27, 2010 18:21:36 GMT -5
Fear not. All the way through this argument I've been trying to make the point that fighting on foot as and when the circumstances required it was expected of all cavalry irrespective of whether they happened to be called dragoons or anything else.
The French may have clung on to a distinction between dragoons and other cavalry into the Napoleonic Wars, but it was one which most other European armies had given up on long ago - hence the adoption of short barrelled carbines rather than muskets and the establishment of a common drillbook for all cavalry rather than specialist training for those units retaining the word dragoons in their titles.
Those 7th Dragoon Guards you cite were not and never had been dragoons. They were and always had been heavy cavalry and were as Strachan notes required to fight on foot for lack of other troops, not because their title had changed from Horse to Dragoon Guards.
They were in fact neither dragoons nor guards. It was all a cost cutting exercise back in 1746 when it was recognised that since there was then no practical difference between horse and dragoons, there was no point in continuing to grant a higher rate of pay to troopers of horse. They were therefore placed on the same pay scale as dragoons but to preserve their former social superiority were allowed to call themselves dragoon guards rather than dragoons - this also avoided arguments over regimental seniority had they all simply become dragoons. They remained heavy cavalry and so too did those dragoon regiments not later redesignated as light dragoons, hussars or lancers; hence as I've mentioned the fact that the 2nd Dragoons, otherwise known as the Scots Greys, were classed as heavy cavalry.
|
|
|
Post by Chuck T on Nov 27, 2010 22:07:07 GMT -5
"Firm as my native rock. I have withstood the shock. Of England, of Denmark, of Rome and the world. But see how proudly her war steeds are prancing . Deep groves of steel troden down in their path. They eyes of my sons like their bright swords are glancing. Triumphantly riding through ruin and death. Bold hearts and nodding plumes wave o're their bloody tombs. Deepeyed in gore is the green tartan's wave. Shivering are the ranks of steel dire is the horseman's wheel. Victorious in battlefield Scotland the brave."
"The spirit of Scotia reigns fearless and free"
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 28, 2010 5:05:48 GMT -5
And on that note I think we'll leave it. We may not have agreed but can I thank everyone for their patience and good humour throughout this debate
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 28, 2010 7:48:10 GMT -5
Ah, but there's much much more! As I noted earlier, it's absurd to assume that Mexican dragoons of 1836 operated in identical fashion to their British and Continental counterparts. In military history, such smug generalizations are usually discouraged. Without getting sidetracked into comparisons with the dragoons of the UK, let's go right to Texas of the 1830s-40s: The record of Mexican "dragones" fighting in a dismounted mode against the Texians is sufficiently extensive to suggest a pattern of professional training that would also explain why they were frequently utilized in that mode. Some examples: * Urrea had "230 dragoons from several corps" (de la Pena) when he defeated Fannin's square. Captain Jack Shackleford, if he overestimated the number of Urrea's dragoons, nevertheless gives us a ground-eye view of the opening of that battle: "The cavalry on our right dismounted, about 350 strong, and when within about a quarter of a mile of us, gave a volley with their scopets, which came whizzing over our heads." * At Refugio, Urrea ordered his dragoons to dismount to show the hesitating Yucatan infantry tyros how to attack a position on foot! * At the action at the Nueces crossing in November 1835, Captain Rodriguez upon his arrival immediately dismounted his dragoons in skirmish order along a high river bank and began firing at Capain Westover's men. Another unit of dragoons, as recalled by a Texian, attacked Westover's right flank and "took advantage of the timber there." * Another instance of Mexican dragoons fighting proficiently in dismounted mode in timber---something one rarely reads lancers, hussars and even presidials doing---occured during the Salado fight of 1842. Noted General Adrian Woll in his report: "...on reaching the first trees of the mound, our dragoons dismounted, encouraged by their chiefs and officers, particularly the Brevet Colonels Cayetano Montero, Pedro Rangel and Jos� Ma. Carrasco, and entering the wood, started cutting down every enemy they encountered. A quarter hour later all was finished. Meantime, the advantages obtained in the forest had been conserved, the enemy did not return our fire any more." * Colonel Pedro Delgado wrote that Harrisburg was captured by Santa Anna himself, who, "with an adjutant and fifteen dragoons went afoot to that town, distant about one mile, entered it, and succeeded in capturing two Americans."*At San Patricio, according to Urrea (irrespective of Filisola's cranky assessment): " I arrived in San Patricio at three in the morning and immediately ordered a party of thirty men headed by Capt. Rafael Pretalia to proceed to the ranch of Don Juli�n de la Garza (a league distant) to attack twelve or fifteen men who were guarding 150 horses there. I ordered forty dragoons of the remaining force to dismount; and, dividing them into three groups under good officers, I gave instructions for them to charge the position of the enemy, protected by the rest of our mounted troops. The enemy was attacked at half past three in the morning in the midst of the rain, and although forty men within the fort defended themselves resolutely, the door was forced at dawn, sixteen being killed and twenty-four being taken prisoners." There are more examples but these are sufficient to make the point. If a "dragoon" by 1830 was supposed to be merely another cavalryman who could fight on foot when called upon, then that implies that no special training was given him. Yet this assumption flies in the face of those dragoons who were indeed given special training in dismounted service---from Napoleon's army, to the early American frontier, and even as late as 1877 in Russia's army fighting the Turks. And by the documentation, evidently the Mexican dragoons were as well. Just how extensively is the real question. What one can draw from all this is that obviously there is no statement of certainty that can be made about dragoons in combat in the 19th century, and much that warrants further investigation. Proceed with caution!
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 28, 2010 10:29:59 GMT -5
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 .... We're probably splitting hairs, when I say Napoleonic Wars, I'm referring to the Wars of the Revolution, Consulate, and Empire. My readings show that it was the battles against the Russians, during the Revolution that led to the carbine being issued to the Hussars, and Chasseurs, how fast that occurred appears to have varied considerably, with the last regiments receiving them in 1811. However, you are right, the vast majority had received them well before that. Napoleon authorized the heavies to carry carbines, when Vienna and its arsenals fell in 1805, but for some reason (tradition?) this did not finally occur until 1812. Napoleoen did authorize the lancers to be equipped with carbines (I can't find a date, but assume it's probably around 1805 and his major cavalry reorganization at the channel camps). It seems that the lancers were only partially so equipped. According to Elting, in practice the Lancers would deploy squadrons in the first rank equipped with lances while the second rank squadrons would be carbine equipped.
|
|
|
Post by chrism on Nov 28, 2010 10:58:58 GMT -5
While you seem to have thrashed out the differences between dragoons and cavalry quite well, there still seems to be the issue of just which regiments were classed as which. Hefter makes it clear that there are minor differences in equipment: Cavalry carried a carbine on a hook from their cross belt and its muzzle rested in a cup on the right side of the saddle; Dragoons carried a short musket in a leather "quiver". That assumes that these descriptions were actually carried out. So are there units that were actually designated designated as Dragoons and others as Cavalry. Or is the term dragoon being used to describe cavalry operating in the dismounted mode?
Chris
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 28, 2010 11:54:52 GMT -5
Well as Herb says a lot of this is down to splitting hairs. Dragoon was certainly being used as a general synonym for a cavalry trooper at this time, and a lot of "pure" cavalry regiments bore the title dragoon for what had become historical reasons, but off-hand I can't recall it being used in a practical sense, as in (hypothetically) "The hussars were dismounted to act as dragoons"
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 28, 2010 14:44:29 GMT -5
I know a lot of you are firmly entrenched in your line of thinking, but all this discussion has opened up a whole new area of study as far as I'm concerned. And the deeper I dig, the more surprised I am with the results.
The sad truth is that the tactical duties of Mexican dragoons have not been researched worth a d**n. Yet what evidence we do have tells us that they were versatile, not predictable. They could serve in dismounted serice as skirmishers, in defense of positions, and even in attacks on enemy positions on foot, not to mention functioning as scouts, escorts, etc.
Another typical moment came during the Grass Fight of November 26, 1835: 150 Mexican dragoons dismounted and took position in a ditch in order to confront the advance of Bowie and his detachment. The dragoons did not charge into the latter's ranks, but chose to fire at them from cover.
Considering the few engagments that can be numbered during the Texas Revolution, it is remarkable how frequently "dragones" are mentioned in dismounted service---and not dismounted lancers or presidials or hussars.
So anyone is welcome to nurture their own presumptions about all this. But to me it's a rather fascinating, and as-yet unresolved and barely studied, subject.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 28, 2010 23:07:27 GMT -5
Agree with you that a nice study on how and when Mexican cavalry was used in the TR is overdue...
You raise an interesting question--at the siege of Bexar, were not the mounted troops all presidials? I was looking at the Woolsey/Filisola (not the best, I know) but was struck by references to "presidio dragoons" (pages 72-73). In Cos' report to Tornel 27 November 1835 on the Grass Fight, he also uses the term "Dragones." So, are they also calling Presidial troops dragoons as well....
Grass Fight is a great example of Mexican mounted troops fighting both on foot and horseback....
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Nov 29, 2010 2:09:25 GMT -5
Indeed they were, every one of them, and while I keep promising to go away and leave this thread alone I can't help but make the point that those French Napoleonic dragoons, who were the last hold-outs for the (occasional) mounted infantry role were equipped with proper infantry muskets, everybody else by now had short-barrelled carbines or in this context escopetas - cf. Shackleford's reference to the Mexican cavalry firing their escopetas and Urrea's comment about the snafu when he issued carbine ammunition to his infantry
There's absolutely no doubt that cavalry fought on foot as required, which seems to have been pretty often in Texas, but that was down to circumstances not because they got special training because they sometimes happened to be called, or referred to as, dragoons.
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 29, 2010 6:30:31 GMT -5
Agree with you that a nice study on how and when Mexican cavalry was used in the TR is overdue... You raise an interesting question--at the siege of Bexar, were not the mounted troops all presidials? I was looking at the Woolsey/Filisola (not the best, I know) but was struck by references to "presidio dragoons" (pages 72-73). In Cos' report to Tornel 27 November 1835 on the Grass Fight, he also uses the term "Dragones." So, are they also calling Presidial troops dragoons as well.... Grass Fight is a great example of Mexican mounted troops fighting both on foot and horseback.... Oddly enough they WERE called dragoons. In his oft-reproduced print of a blue-clad, lance-carrying, Zorro-like "presidial," Linati gives it the title, " Dragoon. Troop of the Line." He notes in his description, "a helmet was substituted for a round hat which distinguished the ancient American riders. This change, if it pleases the eye more, is not as convenient for the soldiers. The round hat guarantees the rays of the sun almost always [falls] perpendicular, as well as the rains that often fall in torrents from May until September." In the Vinkhuizen Collection there's also a drawing of a mounted Mexican "presidial" with lance, also called a "Dragoner." So once again there's a lot of mystery associated with the Mexican "dragoons," ditto the "presidials" (as opposed to militia cavalry companies), a lot of unanswered questions, and a lot of neglected research. Why was any Mexican cavalry unit called "dragoon"? Was it an official title? Was the observer simply lumping all cavalry together as "dragoons"? Did their equipment and weapons give them such an appellation? Did they receive special training? I make no claim, again, to expertise in this area. But I'm asking questions and there has been no credible, well-informed source to answer them. And I don't mean to make this thread "dragone."
|
|
|
Post by garyzaboly on Nov 29, 2010 6:49:17 GMT -5
Indeed they were, every one of them, and while I keep promising to go away and leave this thread alone I can't help but make the point that those French Napoleonic dragoons, who were the last hold-outs for the (occasional) mounted infantry role were equipped with proper infantry muskets, everybody else by now had short-barrelled carbines or in this context escopetas - cf. Shackleford's reference to the Mexican cavalry firing their escopetas and Urrea's comment about the snafu when he issued carbine ammunition to his infantry There's absolutely no doubt that cavalry fought on foot as required, which seems to have been pretty often in Texas, but that was down to circumstances not because they got special training because they sometimes happened to be called, or referred to as, dragoons. In fact Napoleon's dragoons did have those infantry muskets, which had been issued under the Consulate because there was nothing else available, replaced with an IX pattern musketoon. I would also caution that we have no idea whatsoever of the full extent of training the Mexican dragoons received, viz., whether solely for mounted duty, or combined with training for dismounted service. Judging by European models, I would place my bets on the latter, especially considering the guerilla-like nature of their foes (Indians, insurrectionists holed up in the mountains, etc.), and the inescapable fact that when indeed required to serve on foot they did so with a remarkable immediacy and know-how.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Nov 29, 2010 10:56:55 GMT -5
I would also caution that we have no idea whatsoever of the full extent of training the Mexican dragoons received, viz., whether solely for mounted duty, or combined with training for dismounted service. Judging by European models, I would place my bets on the latter, especially considering the guerilla-like nature of their foes (Indians, insurrectionists holed up in the mountains, etc.), and the inescapable fact that when indeed required to serve on foot they did so with a remarkable immediacy and know-how. Gary, without hard data, it's pretty hard to assume that dragoons, received a lot of dismounted training. If we look at periods that we have hard data for, very little training of any kind took place. Most of the "normal" duty day was filled with fatigue details for the average soldier, simply maintaining himself his horse, the barracks and stables. Generally speaking a couple of hours of mounted drill (drill and ceremonies) occurred daily, but that was it. Now of course - everything depended on the colonel (still mostly true), what he wanted, was what would be emphasized. While cavalry was evolving during this time period, I still think that in the western hemisphere in the 1830s, dragooons were the chosen mounted force for their mixed capability, and that it was not simply a title. Other, than study by the officers, though I expect most practical experience in both mounted and dismounted operations occurred on campaign and not in peacetime training. "Remember your Regiment and follow your Officers." CPT Charles May, 2d Dragoons, Resca de la Palma.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Nov 29, 2010 11:22:00 GMT -5
Who, of course, led his 2nd US Dragoons in a mounted charge against a Mexican artillery battery...
Would be nice to see that Galvan 1824 Mexican Cav Tactics that Hefter references...which is on line as it turns out. Have to do some reading...
|
|