Cossack question

[bahdahbum]

Hy

There was in another topic a discussion about the cossacks . Are they just irregukar cavalry or can they be battle cavalry . it is good to remember that it is because of the cossacks that Napoleon did create lancers regiment . Now Cossacks where mainly used for reconnaissance and harrasment . But they did beat french and allied cavalry .

I think the russian player should be able to choose between an irregular unit and some irregular lancer units . Certainly if Platov is near ( should be a charismatic leader ) .

Any comments

[Astronomican]

My main problem with the Russian list is that Cossacks have no lances, yet the lance was their primary weapon.

Whilst I would not rate them as battle cavalry in the same way that cuirassiers, dragoons, etc, were battle cavalry, they did play their part in harassing the enemy, and on occasion beat enemy cavalry when the situation was in their favour.

From my earlier post on the subject:-

A Polish Uhlan Regiment under General Konopka was attacked by Cossacks near Slonim. The Cossacks dispersed the regiment, killing many, and taking a large number of prisoners.

At Mir, Cossacks defeated the 3rd, 15th and 16th Polish Uhlans - the 3rd Uhlans were wipe out. The Cossacks were supported by regular Russian cavalry.

In 1812, the Grodno Hussars, with Cossacks on the flanks, defeated Polish and French Hussars at Drouia. The Poles and French fled with the Cossacks in pursuit, harassing them at every opportunity. The Cossacks' prisoners were sent to General Wittgenstein.

Three Cossack regiments defeated the Polish 1st Chasseurs at Romanov. They were supported by Russian Hussars, Dragoons, Uhlans and horse artillery.

In October 1813 near Kassel, three Cossack regiments destroyed the Hussar Regiment ‘Jerome’.

As for being a nuisance, over 3500 Young Guard were harassed by 800 Cossacks at Langengebode, on the road to Hanau. The Young Guard were pinned down until, at daybreak, Bavarians arrived and took the Young Guard as POWs.

Cossacks are very useful when the opportunity presents itself - Generals Vandamme and Haxo knew this all too well (both were captured by Cossacks when they rode into the middle of a retreating French infantry column, captured the two officers, and rode away!)

All the Cossacks in the quoted examples were armed with lances - Cossacks should have lances in the army list and be pointed accordingly.


Jimi

[Sarmaticus]

Hy

There was in another topic a discussion about the cossacks . Are they just irregukar cavalry or can they be battle cavalry . it is good to remember that it is because of the cossacks that Napoleon did create lancers regiment . Now Cossacks where mainly used for reconnaissance and harrasment . But they did beat french and allied cavalry .

I think the russian player should be able to choose between an irregular unit and some irregular lancer units . Certainly if Platov is near ( should be a charismatic leader ) .

Any comments

IIRC The French adopted lances after the Galician Poles in the Austrian Army gave them an hard time in 1809 - when the Russians were, officially, on the French side.
Reading Marbot et al, my impression is that Cossacks, other than the Regiment of the Guard, were not line troops at all: they fought in swarms after their own fashion.

[deadtorius]

I believe I read somewhere last night in the rules, and please don't ask for page reference I don't recall where but it might have been in the back part on armies, that irregular mounted are always treated as skirmishers.

So they have to CMT to charge non-skirmishing mounted and can evade if charged. Don't see why they could not have lances or be counted as part lancers in the army list books that have not yet been released. Hope that would make them seem more like what you might have had in mind, seems to cover hordey types that could possibly charge in so not really reliable.

[KendallB]

My view on the lance issue is that as said the Cossacks attacked in swarms, not in proper fomations like regular lancers. That would negate the shock effect of having a lance as the Cossacks are performing individual combats albeit with a lance rather than a sabre.

Anyway if they were priced with the lance I lose my 28 point Cossack which have a BC added making up my free 40 point unit when attacking. That fellow has caused much consternation among my opponents!

[deadtorius]

yes that free 40 points can come as a real surprise alright. In todays game Blathergut got a unit of Dragoons, didn't make my day to see more mounted showing up on table...

[panda2]

Cossack certainly carried lances and it was probably their favoured weapon. However,the only effect of giving troops lancer capablity in the game is to increase the effectiveness of cavalry against infantry.

It is wort noting that irregular light cavalry with lance is as effective against infantry in squares as Uhlans and rather better than Cuirassier, if they make the CMT to charge or are led by a commander. Is there any evidence that Cossacks were generally used in this way? How often did they charge squares? How often did they break in? How does their performance compare to Cuirassiers or Uhlans? If the evidence exsist that they were very effective at assauting infantry, they should have lance capability. If it doesn't, they shouldn't.

Andy D

Andy D

[bahdahbum]

I think you missed the point . The question is not should ALL the cossacks be as good as battle cavalry, but would it not be possible to have the possibility to have at least one unit better than the other ...after all they got experience, they destroyed french units, cavalry units ....

Most of the cossacks would just be skirmishers .

[Astronomican]

Cossacks would never attack steady infantry - too much like hard work and the certainty of a very high death rate!
Also, Cossacks are not Uhlans. Uhlans are disciplined mounted troops, who are well-versed in charging in formation against enemy troops.
Cossacks are the utter opposite - they are sneaky opportunistic killers who excel in being a total nuisance.

I recently played a French vrs Russian game where my lance-armed Cossacks (with officer attachment) made a huge flanking move to get behind the French lines. They sat patiently waiting for several turns for the right moment to act.
After a few turns, my Russian infantry had sent several French units in retreat with degraded moral - this was what the Cossacks were waiting for. In they swarmed, a-hacking and a-stabbing, and 2 French units were broken. They then peeled away and waited for the next opportunity. Classic Cossacks in action!


Jimi

[MikeHorah]

This issue of whether Cossacks had or were trained to use lances is as old as Napoleonic wargaming itself in my experience and we invariably always all end up saying they don't match up to regular Uhlans trained to use the weapon effectively . Had they been, there would have been little point to the Russians having Uhlan regiments at all as they had plenty of cheaper cossacks.

From my reading the cossack " lance" was often as not just a long light wooden pole with a blunt or rounded end. It might knock someone over, or knock off their hat but little else. In properly formed ranks infantry could withstand it and if caught fleeing the light cavalry sabre was just as effective against infantry. Their horses were smaller and wiry but they were just not intended for or trained as as line of battle cavalry - used in scouting harrasing pursuit and skirmish situations. Effectiveness in the winter in Russia is more about their durability in such conditions than the weapon. (The flank move at Borodino was just a feint to make the French think there was an effective force threatening). Even if it could be proven that some cossack units were skilled users of "proper "lances it would need to be on a systematic basis and as part of army doctrine - and they would still be irregular cavalry.

But in any case the lance at this time is not the "super" weapon of earlier times and rulesets and we only give them an advantage against infantry and artillery. Quality and training matters more than the weapon at this time.

[Astronomican]

This issue of whether Cossacks had or were trained to use lances is as old as Napoleonic wargaming itself in my experience

The first recorded usage of the word "Cossack" was in the 14th-century, and was used to describe a lance-armed marauding irregular cavalryman. To even try to say that Cossacks did not have lances, or were not trained to use them, definately flies in the face of historical documents over 500 years old! Osprey has a very nice book on the Cossacks (MAA 013 "The Cossacks") describing their origins from the Tartars up to the present day - tis a very interesting read.

and we invariably always all end up saying they don't match up to regular Uhlans trained to use the weapon effectively.

That's what I've been saying since the issue about Cossacks and lances appeared.

Had they been, there would have been little point to the Russians having Uhlan regiments at all as they had plenty of cheaper cossacks.

Apples and oranges. Beats me why people are so determined to compare Uhlans and Cossacks. The two did not operate the same way, nor expected to operate the same way.

From my reading the cossack " lance" was often as not just a long light wooden pole with a blunt or rounded end.

Made of hardwood from the Russian forests, standing 8ft long with a large metal point, and often had a small ball behind the point to stop the lance going in too deep - definately not a twig!

It might knock someone over, or knock off their hat but little else.

Utter nonsense!

In properly formed ranks infantry could withstand it

Quite true - not so the case when you aren't properly formed ranks, as the French and their Allies found out on numerous occassions.

and if caught fleeing the light cavalry sabre was just as effective against infantry.

True, but why get close to your enemy when you can stab him from several feet away? I guess the French Lancers at Waterloo should have dropped their lances and used their swords when pursuing the Scots Greys.

Their horses were smaller and wiry but they were just not intended for or trained as as line of battle cavalry

Very true.

used in scouting harrasing pursuit and skirmish situations.

Exactly my point.

Even if it could be proven that some cossack units were skilled users of "proper "lances it would need to be on a systematic basis and as part of army doctrine - and they would still be irregular cavalry.

I have provided a few instances of Cossacks defeating their enemies. I guess its not enough to show that in the right situation the Cossacks performed quite well.

But in any case the lance at this time is not the "super" weapon of earlier times and rulesets and we only give them an advantage against infantry and artillery. Quality and training matters more than the weapon at this time.

Cossacks were using the lance from the time they could get onto the back of a horse. The afore-mentioned Osprey book even states that Polish towns would hire mercenary Cossacks because of their lance-wielding irregular status. And lets not forget that to combat the Cossack nuisance, Napoleon raised his own "imitation Cossacks", the Lithuanian Tartars. These fought the Cossacks at their own game, along with the Polish Krakus regiment.


Jimi

[hazelbark]

Even if it could be proven that some cossack units were skilled users of "proper "lances it would need to be on a systematic basis and as part of army doctrine - and they would still be irregular cavalry.

I have provided a few instances of Cossacks defeating their enemies. I guess its not enough to show that in the right situation the Cossacks performed quite well.

Cossacks were using the lance from the time they could get onto the back of a horse. The afore-mentioned Osprey book even states that Polish towns would hire mercenary Cossacks because of their lance-wielding irregular status. And lets not forget that to combat the Cossack nuisance, Napoleon raised his own "imitation Cossacks", the Lithuanian Tartars. These fought the Cossacks at their own game, along with the Polish Krakus regiment.
[/quote]

Right but their own game was rarely a real battle in the battle line. A corps level action is not where they were in the fray. They excelled in the "little war" or guerilla war which is not a corps or multi-level corps action. Even the examples read like the exceptions and still they aren't charging in the center of the army.

Yea we get it. I wouldn't want to meet cossacks in a dark alley. Or anywhere that i wasn't travelling in numbers. But they didn't serve in the battle line.

[Astronomican]

I suggest you go and read some books about Cossacks.


Jimi

[hazelbark]

I suggest you go and read some books about Cossacks.

I suggest you read some books about Napoleonic battles above the glorified skirmish level. I honestly think we are saying the same thing, but you keep taking these positions like cossacks could successfully charge French Cuirassier head on.

Consider the big battles
Austerlitz
Eylau
Friedland
Borodino
Dresden
Leipzig

Did the Cossacks fight like battle cavalry in those no. You can drop down to the next tier of battles and still no. Did they provide a major service to the Russian armies on the march...absolutely. They provided a screen that was a significant problem for the French in 1807, 1812, 1813, 1814. Without a doubt they were a significant operational factor. But that doesn't make them battle troops. There successes are very limited (rare) in open field battles.

[Astronomican]

I honestly think we are saying the same thing, but you keep taking these positions like cossacks could successfully charge French Cuirassier head on.

I have NEVER made that claim. Kindly stop attributing claims to me that I have never said.

But that doesn't make them battle troops.

Precisely my point - a point you fail to comprehend and insist that I want Cossacks classed as battle cavalry.

Go back and read what I've actually typed - you'll find my first posts on the subject of Cossacks in the Errata thread (second page) and my first post in this thread.


Jimi

[shadowdragon]

I honestly think we are saying the same thing, but you keep taking these positions like cossacks could successfully charge French Cuirassier head on.

I have NEVER made that claim. Kindly stop attributing claims to me that I have never said.

But that doesn't make them battle troops.

Precisely my point - a point you fail to comprehend and insist that I want Cossacks classed as battle cavalry.

Go back and read what I've actually typed - you'll find my first posts on the subject of Cossacks in the Errata thread (second page) and my first post in this thread.


Jimi

There is a difference, in FoG, between having a "weapon" and having a "capability". The "lance" capability in FoG has only one benefit in the rules, which is to give +2 combat dice versus infantry and artillery. It confers no advantage versus enemy cavalry. Therefore, I don't see that having or not having the "lance" capability would make any difference for the various cases you've cited since all but one are Cossacks (with or without support) versus cavalry. Even the one Cossack versus infantry case is really more about an isolated infantry formation being caught and pinned by light cavalry then it is about that cavalry having a lance.

I think you need to work through the various cases you've cited in terms of how they would be gamed in FoG before insisting on modifications. The design philosophy is a top-down one (i.e., units have various attributes to get desired outcomes) and not a bottom up one (i.e., a unit is armed with "xyz" weapon so we give it "xyz" capability). There are many other rules out there using the latter design philosophy but FoG isn't one of them.

For example, 3 Cossacks (small) units versus 1 average (small) light cavalry.

Logically the cossacks should try to get into a position to attack the enemy from multiple directions, but let's say they don't and attack only from the front (making their CMT to do so). One unit attacks with one supporting unit on each flank.

Cossacks = 4 + 4 = 8 dice at 5+ to hit (-1 for being a skirmisher) = 2 2/3 hits
Enemy cavalry = 6 dice at 4+ to hit = 3 hits

The results are for the Cossacks = steady 10.9%, disordered 54.7%, wavering 32.8%, broken 1.6%
For the Light Cavalry = steady 19.5%, disordered 54.6%, wavering 23.9%, broken 2.0%

If the light cavalry get any result other than steady it will be in trouble as it will still be facing at least 2 steady cossack units. It's not good for the isolated regular light cavalry unit. Seems to me that FoG works. Of course, having or not having a "lance" capability would make no difference to the above.

One thing giving the Cossacks the lance capability would do is to increase their cost and that to me would make them less, nor more, desirable.

[KendallB]

I absolutely agree with you Shadowdragon!

If you use your 3 Cossacks correctly which is one attacking, one in flank support and one in rear support then you get:
Cossacks: 4 dice +2 (flank) +1 (rear) = 7 dice hitting on 5+ --> 2.33 hits
Light Cav: 6 dice -1(rear) = 5 dice hitting on 4+ --> 2.5 hits
With only 5 dice it is impossible for the Cossacks to be broken. On average the Light cavalry have has dropped cohesion level and two fresh and one disordered Cossacks remain...

[Astronomican]

Skirmishing Cavalry cannot provide rear support - page 57.


Jimi

[shadowdragon]

Skirmishing Cavalry cannot provide rear support - page 57.


Jimi

No, it reads,

Bullet - "Infantry and Artillery can only be supported by other infantry. The supporting unit must not be in skirmish formation."

New Bullet - "Cavalry can only receive rear support from other Cavalry."

i.e., infantry supporting infantry or artillery cannot be in skirmish formation. It says nothing about skirmishing cavalry not being able to provide rear support.

[Astronomican]

My bad - you're right.


Jimi