Take the 2-minute tour ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

On at least two occasions when cavalry was used in charges, it was "wiped out." These include the (in)famous charge of the Light Brigade at Balaclava, and Marshal Ney's cavalry charge at Waterloo.

These charges did succeed after a fashion, however. The Light Brigade spiked a battery of guns, and the sacrifice of Ney's dragoons cleared the way for a (short-lived) infantry advance.

The Confederates launched "Pickett's charge" (of infantry) on the third day of the battle of Gettysburg (coincidentally or otherwise following the arrival of J.E.B. Stuart's cavalry).

Do the above, or other historical examples indicate that the Confederates would have done better to have the cavalry lead the way, e.g. to silence the Union artillery that devastated the Confederate infantry ranks? (The purpose of the cavalry was to "exploit" the infantry charge IF it broke the Union line.)

"Better" in this regard does not mean that the Confederates would have won, only that they would have "upgraded" their chances from "none" to "slim" or reduced their prospects of defeat to "a chance versus a certainty."

Confederate general James Longstreet was quoted in the Killer Angels (book and movie) as saying, "No 15,000 men could take that hill." Would 23,000 men (8,000 of them mounted) have had a better chance?

share|improve this question
    
Another spectacular cavalry charge that Napoleon pulled off in his time was that of the Poles at Somosierra. –  Felix Goldberg May 1 '13 at 9:10
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

According to Cavalry Operations In The Ancient Greek World, the uphill cavalry attack could be very effective. So, if the cavalry attacked, the Confederates would have done better. The other question is - was it really possible to send cavalry in attack? Would they obey to that order?

share|improve this answer
3  
The advent of things like stirrups and rifled firearms may have changed the equation a bit in the intervening 2000 years, no? –  T.E.D. Apr 8 '13 at 13:50
    
No. Bad logic. The cavalry moves faster than infantry. Rifles allow kill faster, but it is the proportion of KIA that matters –  Gangnus Apr 8 '13 at 13:55
    
The Southern cavalry (and other soldiers) would have done anything for their beloved general, Robert E. Lee. But maybe Lee "learned" from the other two examples (which took place during his lifetime), and came up with a "cure" that was worse than the "disease." Using the cavalry would have shortened the war; the Confederates would have either won the battle, and probably the war, or lost the war faster than they actually did. –  Tom Au Apr 8 '13 at 16:28
1  
@T.E.D.: My "best" recollection was that the new Union rifles misfired at Gettysburg, allowing the South's Geneal Armistead to say, "Give them the steel, boys." Basically, the Northerners had to fight southern bayonets with bayonets. –  Tom Au Apr 8 '13 at 17:48
1  
@Russell: That was the charge of the LIGHT brigade, referred to in question. –  Tom Au Apr 28 '13 at 13:19
show 2 more comments

The role of cavalry shifted dramatically after the advent of long range infantry rifles. During the Napoleonic period, it was still somewhat common to have cavalry make charges against massed infantry formations because, at the time, the effective range of an infantry musket was less than a football field, thus the cavalry had very little distance to cover under fire.

By the time the Civil War came around the normal infantry weapon was rifled and used Minié balls which were much more accurate at range. A cavalryman on horseback makes a pretty large target, for this reason cavalry charges into massed infantry almost disappear after this point. Not to mention, after the widespread use of cavalry by Napoleon and the French, infantry weapons and tactics meant to counter cavalry charges had become much more effective. Cavalry continued to serve a number of roles due to their speed, but unless they had the element of surprise they would typically fight dismounted, as infantry.

To answer your question: Cavalry at the front of the Confederate lines, on horseback, would have likely been slaughtered. In fact, cavalry fleeing through the Confederate infantry lines could have hampered their advance and hurt the morale of the Confederate troops, actually making the charge less effective.

share|improve this answer
    
You're probably right in THEORY. But my "best" recollection was that the new Union rifles misfired at Gettysburg, allowing the South's Geneal Armistead to say, "Give them the steel, boys." Sabre-wielding cavalry would probably have done "better." Basically, the Confederates didn't have a "legitimate" chance to win. But given the actual circumstances, they might have "gotten lucky" by putting cavalry in front. I upvoted your answer for "general" usefulness, and only the apparent conflict with the actual facts (as I understand them) prevents me from accepting it. –  Tom Au May 1 '13 at 13:24
    
Interesting. The sources I've found (Wikipedia, The Battle Cry of Freedom) all mention Pickett's men coming under heavy artillery and rifle fire while making the charge, so the misfiring problem wasn't enough to silence the Union rifles. The cavalry would still be exposed to artillery fire the entire way across the field. Not to mention, by using the cavalry thusly Lee would have sacrificed his ability to properly exploit the charge. Try as I might, I still can't come up with a situation where cavalry first would have won Lee the battle. –  Odysseus May 1 '13 at 20:26
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.