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.

Due to the nature of trench warfare, a cavalry or a horse-back squad would’ve been rather useless in the war. But, I also know that countries had not anticipated trench warfare – they didn’t know that there troops were going to dig holes in the ground to defend themselves from enemy machine guns. So I was just wondering if any countries deployed their cavalry.

share|improve this question
I took out "made the mistake." It was not common, but there were a few instances when deploying cavalry MADE SENSE. –  Tom Au May 1 '13 at 17:32
thank you very much! –  clickonMe May 1 '13 at 18:00
How about en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_World_War_I#Cavalry ? –  Louis Rhys Aug 19 '13 at 19:07

4 Answers 4

At the risk of flogging a dead horse here, I think we need to mention another aspect - the attitudes of the top commanders. The most glaring example I have in mind is Haig who famously told young officers (the remark may be apocryphal but certainly reflective of his recorded opinions) in July 1914:

I hope none of you gentlemen is so foolish as to think that aeroplanes will be usefully employed for reconnaissance purposes in war. There is only one way for commanders to get information by reconnaissance, and that is by the cavalry

Well, that may be understandable, but amazingly the man persisted in this opinion and this is waht he had to say in 1926 (yep, nineteen twenty-six, eight years after the end of the war):

I believe that the value of the horse and the opportunity for the horse in the future are likely to be as great as ever. Aeroplanes and tanks are only accessories to the men and the horse, and I feel sure that as time goes on you will find just as much use for the horse—the well-bred horse—as you have ever done in the past.

(quoted from a page that does a really admirable job of skewering Haig).

However, not all cavalry commanders of WWI were bloody cruel butchers like Haig. An example of a cavalry general who both did his job well (on the Eastern Front) and learnt enough in the process to realize that cavalry was over is Mannerheim.

One more thing worthy of mention: Celaya.

share|improve this answer

Yes. See Wikipedia.

All of the major combatants in World War I (1914–1918) began the conflict with cavalry forces. The Central Powers, Germany and Austria–Hungary, stopped using them on the Western Front soon after the war began. They continued to be deployed in a limited fashion on the Eastern Front well into the war. The Ottoman Empire used cavalry extensively during the war. On the Allied side, the United Kingdom used mounted infantry and cavalry charges throughout the war, but the United States used cavalry for only a short time. Although not particularly successful on the Western Front, Allied cavalry did have some success in the Middle Eastern theatre, possibly because they faced a weaker and less technologically advanced enemy. Russia used cavalry forces on the Eastern Front, but with limited success.

Although trench warfare is the image of WWI, not all the war was fought from or in trenches.

For example,

One of the last cavalry charges of the war came at the Battle of the Somme in 1916. The attack was on July 14th on High Wood – a German strongpoint that was holding up the British advance. Men from the 20th Deccan Horse, an Indian cavalry unit, attacked the German positions. Armed with lances and despite going uphill which slowed down the charging horses, some of the men reached the woods. Some Germans surrendered when confronted by cavalry in woodland – something they could not have expected. However, the attack, while brave, was very costly with 102 men killed along with 130 horses.

That is just from 10 minutes of cursory research; a more skilled scholar could doubtless pull up other examples.

share|improve this answer
Such a large link, but still helpful... upvote :) –  clickonMe May 1 '13 at 17:03
Not worth adding another answer for this, but the two main reasons cavalry wasn't used as much despite most of the armies still having a cavalry branch was 1) Highly vulnerable to long range rifles and artillery. For this reason, they were kept so far behind the lines they could rarely get to the front in time to make a difference, and 2) Horses had trouble navigating the countless shell holes at the front without breaking their legs. –  Odysseus May 1 '13 at 19:11

Cavalry was used only sporadically in World War I. On the Western Front, there were only a handful of divisions used for "special services" such as scouting and transport. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_cavalry_during_the_First_World_War

In the Eastern front, where distances were larger, cavalry was used as "spearheads," e.g. by the Germans at the battle of Tannenburg, and by Russia's General Brusilov.

Cavalry was also used in "peripheral" areas such as the invasion of Iraq (then held by the Ottoman Empire).

share|improve this answer

Probably the only large cavalry charge is the one Australians performed during the battle of Beer Sheva. The ANZAC forces were in fact mounted infantry and the charge was performed with infantry weapons (no lances but rifles with bayonets), this was surprising for Turkish defenders. It was so quick that the Turks could not destroy wells.

On other fronts (especially in Poland, Russia and Romania) cavalry performed reconnaissance tasks, but played no major role in any battle. Many cavalry men changed forces; one of the most notable examples was Manfred von Richthofen, the best pilot during the war. He had the rank Rittmeister, which is cavalry captain. His brother, Lothar, also a famous ace, was a cavalry man too.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.