Question about Horse Artillery

This is for Discussions about Napoleonic History only.
User avatar
Rodriguez
Villein
Villein
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 2:45 am

Question about Horse Artillery

Postby Rodriguez » Fri Mar 16, 2018 2:17 am

Does anybody know why there were foot artillery batteries on open field battles?

I mean, there were foot artillery batteries and horse artillery batteries of 3, 4, 6, and 8 pounders. Why were there ANY foot artillery batteries for this type of gun? Was there a disadvantage to horse artillery batteries? Why not just use horse artillery? Why make foot artillery batteries if horses can haul guns way faster than men? Couldn't they spare a few horses to make all batteries horse artillery? <-- I assume that's not the reason.

And another question. Why weren't 12 pounder horse artillery batteries a thing?

Only asking here since I couldn't find any information about this anywhere online.

Thank you, and please forgive my ignorance. Cheers!

User avatar
nAp_75
Villein
Villein
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 9:14 am
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Contact:

Re: Question about Horse Artillery

Postby nAp_75 » Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:38 pm

Rodriguez wrote:Does anybody know why there were foot artillery batteries on open field battles?
...


In my humble opinion, there was basically just a field artillery. :cool:
This was again divided into foot artillery and mounted or horse artillery.
When we talk about foot artillery, only the gunners went by foot. The guns were indeed drawn by horses. In the horse artillery both the guns and the gunners were mounted. The gunners on foot should normally support the infantry, the mounted gunners then, of course, the cavalry.
In the course of wars and battles, however, there were always artilleries without any horses at all, because there were simply not enough horses; the rest was shifted to the cavalry.
In general, artillery was considered an auxiliary force which was unable to win battles without any support of infantry or cavalry. There was no suitable concept for the use of artillery, where it could operate as a separate category of weapons and decisively influence battles. Nevertheless, it was an important support weapon, which had a decisive influence on an army's effectiveness when properly deployed. :handgestures-salute:
"... si j’avais eu Bessières à Waterloo, ma garde aurait décidé de la victoire ..." (N.B.)

User avatar
Lord Liberalis
Lord
Lord
Posts: 3318
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 12:16 pm
Location: Kremlin, Moscow
Contact:

Re: Question about Horse Artillery

Postby Lord Liberalis » Sun Mar 18, 2018 9:49 am

nAp_75 wrote:In general, artillery was considered an auxiliary force which was unable to win battles without any support of infantry or cavalry.

Challenge accepted !
To save Russia, we have to burn Moscow.

http://www.Grognards.org
http://www.Napoleon-Souvenirs.com

User avatar
MightyOwl27
Lord
Lord
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 4:17 pm
Location: Jaen, Spain

Re: Question about Horse Artillery

Postby MightyOwl27 » Tue Mar 20, 2018 1:42 pm

I don't know for certain but I think cost would be the primary reason, all horse artillery means lots of extra horses. Also many nations including France at some points of the Napoleonic Wars lacked quality horses or sufficient remounts.
Another reason would be tradition, horse artillery was comparatively new, from the Seven Years War, although in reality it was only used with any tactical effectiveness from the Revolutionary wars. Also foot batteries only had to keep up with the infantry so why spend the extra money. As for 12pdr horse artillery perhaps the guns were too heavy.


Return to “The Napoleonic Library”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest