Army of Saxony

[baskerville]

Well I would like to say I like the new book, but I am confused at some of the labels you gave the Saxon Cav, and was wondering what was the justification for not making theirs some of the better Heavy Cav in the game.

I know most of the other rule sets we have looked at (shako 2, lasalle) had their Heavy Cav as some of the most elite in the game.

I know I am not the greatest napoleonics buff, I do know that the Saxon Cav did pull off a lot of crazy things during the war.

Examples
1812 list, two unit of Heavy- Guarde Du Corps, you dont even give them guard here.
1813 list, guarde du corps Elan Avg, Training Drilled
Zastrow Cuirassiers Training Drilled, no guard either.

It also seems weird that they never have a chance to get two units of heavy and hardly have any cav in any of their lists. The only thing that was good about Saxony was their Cav.

Baskerville

[Astronomican]

I agree that the Saxon heavy cavalry in 1812 should get a better rating - everyone held them in very high esteem because of what they were capable of doing, and it should be reflected in the army list.

Both the Garde du Corps and Zastrow Cuirassiers were virtually destroyed when storming the Grand Redoubt at Borodino. The Saxon cavalry had to be re-built afterwards from survivors, troopers from their respective depots, transfers from other cavalry regiments, and new recruits. A great loss of life for such little gain.

[terrys]

I agree that the Saxon heavy cavalry in 1812 should get a better rating - everyone held them in very high esteem because of what they were capable of doing, and it should be reflected in the army list.

We make them superior/veteran/shock but not guard. This makes them as good as the very best French Cuirassiers, but not quite as good as the Old Guard Grenadiers a Cheval, which we think is correct. As has been stated - they were virtually destroyed storming the great redoubt at Borodino - this leads us to 4 decisions:
1) That they made it into the great redoubt, therefore Superior would be correct.
2) That they were able to recover even after taking appalling losses - which makes Veteran a good choice
3) That they were destroyed, therefore guard status would not be correct.
4) They were destroyed, which makes them less good after 1812.

When assessing their ability we have to compare them with best cavalry of the period - which is Old Guard heavy cavalry, Russian Guard cuirassiers, and other high quality Cuirassiers.

While I agree that they were held in very high esteem, I would contend that the Old Guard Grenadiers a Cheval were held even higher.

[MikeHorah]

Well I would like to say I like the new book, but I am confused at some of the labels you gave the Saxon Cav, and was wondering what was the justification for not making theirs some of the better Heavy Cav in the game.

I know most of the other rule sets we have looked at (shako 2, lasalle) had their Heavy Cav as some of the most elite in the game.

I know I am not the greatest napoleonics buff, I do know that the Saxon Cav did pull off a lot of crazy things during the war.

Examples
1812 list, two unit of Heavy- Guarde Du Corps, you dont even give them guard here.
1813 list, guarde du corps Elan Avg, Training Drilled
Zastrow Cuirassiers Training Drilled, no guard either.

It also seems weird that they never have a chance to get two units of heavy and hardly have any cav in any of their lists. The only thing that was good about Saxony was their Cav.

Baskerville

Just because the title of a unit is Guard/Garde du Corps etc does not mean we automatically give them that classification in the lists. To do so would be to dilute that term and capability eg where the garde du corps of a nation were purely ceremonial or in very small numbers. My view is that Saxon heavy cavalry were equally good as each other primarily because of their horses and horsemanship and I was not willing to do down the cuirassiers for the sake of making the Garde du corps Guard in all cases. For small nations it's on case by case basis not a formula.In 1813 we do treat them slightly differently and allow a mixed unit. And you do have to treat each list as a thing unto itself for a campaign .

I really had to struggle on whether to classify Neapolitan Guards as such - still only average drilled.

The thing is also that small nations did not always have the infrastructure to support large guard formations like the French and Russians, late on the Prussians and to a limited extent the British when it came to getting the pick of the recruits and conscripts, best officers, equipment, food and - more pay. To be a French imprerial guardsman was almost to be in dfferent army to the line. Less so in other nations.

Actually I don't agree that the only thing that was good about the Saxons was their cavalry. They had some good infantry in 1806 and 1809 and in 1812. They sprang from the same military tradition as the Prussians in the 18th century and Napoleon gave them their independence after 1806 so they had something to fight for . Until 1813 they were loyal and the heavies stayed that way. Napoleon had to send them home when Saxony changed sides after Leipzig ( and ceased as an independent state) . Their light cavalry were pretty good too until 1813.

[baskerville]

Well I know we could argue forever over some of the rankings of these units, I will just have to disagree with you over which was better.

But I do have to ask then why is the 1812 guarde du corps not guard when the 1813 group is after they where destroyed @ borodino. I know a lot of the good light cav was essentially destroyed covering the retreat from russia. But if this is also the case why is the light cav you get in the 1812 list all just avg and nothing really special.