Tactics in the English Civil War?

[cegorach]

The British did not have a significant amount heavy cav at Waterloo but they were used well in combination with the infantry and artillery.


Well ? Where is the rest of the Allied cavalry in this battle then ? What happened to all those soldiers except the Union Brigade ?

D'Erlon's corps slogged up the hill - suffered greatly from the British musketry and artillery - and just as they were wavering get hit by the Union Brigade charging at full pelt, down hill.

Hmm. I have read a different story - if I am correct the brigade was thrown after the French 13th division of cuirassiers appeared and started killing British infantry.

The charge shattered that assault and there was no furthur significant infantry attack

La Haye Sainte ? Who was fighting there ? Also the Prussians appeared on the French right wing and D'Erlon's corsps had to deal with them, fortunatelly most of the work was done by small lobau's corps, but d'rlon's infantry couldn't continue with the assault with full force anyway.

Besides British left wing wasn't in their best condition, just like the center so it was pretty obvious the right move is to throw the Guard - but the whole one, not the small part which found the British formation, and not really in the place they wanted i.e. the part which was in the condition to stop them.

Admittedly the Union brigade was spent as a force as they were eventually caught by french cavalry in the french lines - but they had done their job.

If they wouldn't die they would, but it was only a temorary setback for the French with some serious losses, but not critical.


However, a comparison between British and French cavalry is not comparing like with like. The French mounted arm was much, much bigger and was needed for a bigger variety of roles. The British emphasis was always on the infantry which was to be its battle winning arm over and over again. The cavalry was there principally to support the infantry and to carry out scouting activities. The Heavy cavalry arm was always small and arguebly waterloo was the only battle in which it made a significant impact. In contrast the light cavalry played a part in most of the Peninsula battles and was well regarded in its ability for scouting and skirmishing.

Because the British fought small war not the big one like Prussia, Austria or Russia. It is like using the experiences of the Allied forces in Northern Africa during the 2nd WW to design tank tactics in central Europe.

Also the entire Waterloo campaign doesn't give the British much credit for strategical planning, the whole story would be finished if Ney didn't intervene in Napoleon's orders at Ligny. Without the Prussians the British or rather Allied army at Waterloo wouldn't have a chance.

It has been said multiple times that infantry would retreat and form up again. Why didn't the opponents follow up and keep the pressure high? If their side was winning why let the enemy recover? Was it because both sides tended to be equally disordered and pursuing could prove disastrous or was just too confusing to be reliable?

It depends what batles do you mean ?
Anyway if would be quite reasonable to assume that both sides were disorganised, confused by the fog of war or simply reforming their lines. There is also the question of reserves e.g. at Lutzen BOTH armies were in pretty bad condition and there was even a break in fighting about 30 minutes long.

Another question is if the infantry is able to maintain its formation in pursuit at all, cavalry is obvious choice to advance after the fleeing foe, besides in both bigger battles of the ECW - Marston Moor and Naseby the Royalist rearguard did great job in saving their fellow soldiers' lifes - both Whitecoats and Bluecoats were veteran units which were effctive in stopping the victorious bit mauled and tired Roundheads.

[CBR]

[B]To fuel the discussion a bit:
It has been said multiple times that infantry would retreat and form up again. Why didn't the opponents follow up and keep the pressure high? If their side was winning why let the enemy recover? Was it because both sides tended to be equally disordered and pursuing could prove disastrous or was just too confusing to be reliable?

I remember reading about one hoplite battle where the Athenians repulsed their enemies but were too tired to pursue so the enemy reformed and closed in again. That was repeated a few times before the Athenians were victorious.

So my guess is a combination of fatigue, how many in the front ranks were wounded or orders to hold the line as we see at Hastings.

If we look at from a gaming perspective:

Scenario
1) Unit A and B locked in combat with losses more or less equal.
2) Unit A losing more men (losing)
3) Unit A losing a lot more men (losing badly)

1) could cause one side to lose heart a bit (bad morale roll) and front rankers would pull back but the chance of pursuit would be low. But if morale is high both sides will keep on fighting.

2) Would most likely cause A to pull back at one point and B will have a higher chance of advancing after them.

3) Would be were A most certainly would pull back and give B the highest chance of pursuing and causing A to rout even.

Being the attacker might also make it more likely for a unit pull back if things arent going well while being defender might give lesser chance to pursue as men feel safe just "holding the line"

And the longer the units have been fighting the lesser chance of pursuing because of fatigue and losses.

At least thats how I imagine a simple "ruleset" would look like to give a feel for how combat worked.


CBR