French Napoleonic Cuirassiers

Faramir · Aug 31, 2024

Were these the best cavalry of the Napoleonic wars?

I ask as a lot of the cavalry engagements were fought with swords yet the Cuirassiers having metal ...... plates had more protection than most.

Limbs and necks would still be vulnernable yet the torso would be protected.

What is the thinking on this?

Tercios Espanoles · Aug 31, 2024

The French weren't the only ones with cuirassiers. The Russians and Austrians also fielded them, and probably others too.

Chlodio · Aug 31, 2024

The same thinking as behind the bullet-proof vest. One is more likely to survive an arm wound. Chest and stomach wounds are more deadly. Armies had been scaling back on armor for centuries. The cuirass and helmet were the last to go with the helmet making a come back in WW1 and the cuirass replaced by the flak jacket in the late 20th century. I don't know any soldiers in the last 400 years that wore arm or leg protection.

Olleus · Aug 31, 2024

Schola Gladiatora had a video reading sources from people that fought against them. No idea if they're accurate or hyperbole but, either way, it says something about the reputation they had and the fear they invoked. I'm sure that there were special guard regiments (or the like) that they were more elite, but as a broader class of soldiers, they certainly seem to have created their own mythology.

Naomasa298 · Aug 31, 2024

Your torso is the largest part of your body - you're less likely to be hit in an arm or a leg. Cuirasses were *expensive*. If you had to prioritise a part of your body to protect, your torso makes the most sense. Getting hit in any organ, or your gut will kill you. You might lose a limb if you were hit it in, but your chances of survival were much better.

Tercios Espanoles · Aug 31, 2024

Naomasa298 said:
...but your chances of survival were much better.

Mostly.

Grenadier On Beans · Sep 1, 2024

Whenever people talk about Cuirassiers, there seems to be this obsession debating if the ......plate was effective against ranged fire or not while ignoring the fact that these cavalry were for close quarters combat and the ......plate was mainly meant as additional protection against a sword or bayonet

If it ended up stopping or lessening the impact of a ball, that was a perk

Olleus · Sep 1, 2024

Grenadier On Beans said:
Whenever people talk about Cuirassiers, there seems to be this obsession debating if the ......plate was effective against ranged fire or not while ignoring the fact that these cavalry were for close quarters combat and the ......plate was mainly meant as additional protection against a sword or bayonet

If it ended up stopping or lessening the impact of a ball, that was a perk

The obsession is about their ......plate generally. Which, fair enough, is where they get their name from. But there's more to them than etymology, reducing anything to a simple piece of military hardware is never going to capture the whole spirit. I think there's more to them than that. I'm no expert, but the long standing tradition of French heavy cavalry, their reputation, their esprit-de-corps, their estoc-like sword, the organisational decision to group the strongest men together and on the biggest horses (thereby weakening the rest of French shock-cavalry), their training, their tactical deployments, and much more besides is likely to be just as important.

johnincornwall · Sep 2, 2024

Best cavalry of the Napoleonic wars? Comes back to the ancient debate about heavy cavalry and light cavalry. There's a time for lancers and a time for curassiers. So what is 'best'?

Search

Search

French Napoleonic Cuirassiers

Faramir

Tercios Espanoles

Chlodio

Olleus

Naomasa298

Tercios Espanoles

Grenadier On Beans

Olleus

johnincornwall

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions