Most of western Europe was ignorant of the Cossacks until their exploits during Napoleon’s 1812 Russian campaign made them legends. The regular French cavalry, especially inexperienced recruits, were terrified of them. At the great allied victory parade in London in 1814, the Russian Cossack participants were the most popular of the visiting allied contingents.8
The Cossacks organized into geographic groups called hosts, which in turn were organized in a military manner. An ataman, who was also a general officer of the Russian army, led the host. In the years leading up to World War I, all Cossack males served in the Russian military for 4 years, followed by 20 years in the reserves. They served only in their own units and under their own officers. Each Cossack brought all his own kit to military service, including his horse. The rifle and ammunition were the only items issued to him by the government.9 At the time of World War I, there were 11 hosts: Don, Ural, Terek, Kuban, Orenburg, Astrakhan, Siberian, Transbaikalian, Amur, Semiretshensk, and Ussuri.10 When the Cossack reserves mobilized for World War I, virtually every male Cossack up to age 45 entered military service.
In the Russian cavalry of World War I, the most numerous of the Cossack hosts were the Don Cossacks: 58 of 160 cavalry regiments were from the Don Cossack host, while 100 of the 172 separate squadrons were also Don Cossacks. The second most numerous were the Kuban Cossacks, making up 33 regiments and 30 squadrons. The Kuban Cossacks were originally from the Ukraine but over time had immigrated to the eastern Black Sea region and settled around the Kuban River. They were the Russian bulwark against invasion from the Caucasus Mountains. The Kuban and Terek hosts adopted many of the traditions of the people of the Caucasus, and the czar authorized them to wear the traditional papakha, cherkesska, and burka instead of imperial uniforms. The papakha was a sheepskin hat of any natural color. The cherkesska was a long woolen belted coat with the slashed cartridge loops sewn into the breast. The burka was a thick black woolen cape worn instead of the army winter greatcoat. Other Cossack cavalry wore the standard army uniform but could be distinguished by blue pants with a pant stripe and shoulder board color designating the host.11
In 1905 and 1906 the government used Cossack cavalry units, mostly Don Cossacks, to put down civil unrest in many of the major Russian urban centers. To this point, the Cossacks had a generally positive image among the Russian peasants and public. After 1905, they became increasingly associated with the oppressiveness of the regime. The Czar’s personal escort, the Konvoi—made up of Cossacks always wearing traditional cherkesska, reinforced the image of the Cossacks as a repressive tool of the regime.
The Cossacks had an international reputation as ferocious fighters, and their physical appearance matched that image. British General Knox described the Cossacks he saw while observing the Russian front lines: “I saw a squadron of Ural Cossacks in Sandomir—big, red-bearded, wild looking men, nearly all with a water-proof coat over their military great-coat. I don’t wonder that the Austrians are frightened by them.” Though greatly respected by civilians, the enemy, and allies, by the time of World War I, many in the Russian cavalry believed that the Cossacks had lost their special military prowess because the Russians had succeeded in civilizing them. Most Russian cavalry leaders considered the line Russian cavalry superior to Cossack cavalry, but this may have reflected a prejudice within the army against the Cossacks’ special status.12
Weapons and Equipment
The general armament of cavalry in World War I was lance, saber, and rifle. However, there were many exceptions. Among cavalrymen, debates on the utility of the lance continued, and in many organizations, cavalrymen questioned the utility of the saber. Additionally, carbines saw their last days as a cavalry weapon; during the war rifles replaced carbines in those armies that had not made the change before the war.
Russian cavalry in World War I carried a saber, rifle, and lance. The cavalrymen understood that the lance was a throwaway weapon. All Russian cavalry units had the lance and were very proficient in its use. In the charge, only the first rank would carry the lance. Just like lance-armed cavalry centuries before, after the initial contact, the cavalryman discarded the lance and switched to the saber. British General Knox ascribed the unwillingness of Austrian cavalry to meet Russian cavalry in a melee due to the former’s not being armed with a lance. “Every trooper in the Russian cavalry would now carry a lance if it were allowed. The German lance is a few inches shorter, a discovery which pleased the Russians.” Like the Russians, all German cavalry carried lances. The German lance was hollow cast steel and 10 and a half feet long. In the French cavalry, the cuirassiers were the only cavalry not armed with a lance.13 In the British cavalry the lancer regiments carried lances, but other cavalry did not.
French cavalry, including cuirassiers, carried an 8mm carbine with a three round magazine. Cuirassiers carried the weapon in a bucket in the near side of the saddle while all other cavalry types carried it by the sling across the back.14 The weapon, a carbine version of the French Lebel rifle accepted into service in 1886, was inferior to the standard cavalry arms of all the other combatants. The weapon was not very accurate, had a slow rate of fire, and because of its tube magazine, occasionally set off a round in the magazine. The poor quality of the French carbine reflected the French disinterest in dismounted fighting.
The German cavalry had the 1898 pattern Mauser short rifle, which was the same weapon as the 1898 rifle but 5 1/2 inches shorter. The German cavalry’s rifle was a quality weapon whose main weakness was the lack of training the cavalry trooper had in its use. Both the British and the Russians cavalry also carried very serviceable rifles. The British had the .303-caliber Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifle. It was a solid weapon with a respectable 10-round internal magazine. Because of the Boer War, marksmanship and dismounted tactics received great emphasis in the British cavalry before the war. The Russians used a cavalry rifle that was a lighter and slightly shorter version of the standard infantry rifle the M91/10 Mosin-Nagant. The Russians modified their sword scabbards with loops to attach the rifle bayonet to the outside.
At the beginning of the war, the sword was a standard weapon of all cavalry. Russian cavalry were great believers in the sword, particularly the Cossacks. The Cossacks used a unique traditional saber called a shashka. It was slightly curved, razor sharp, and uniquely had no guard around the handgrip. It was a deadly and feared weapon. Russian cavalry Captain Littaeur related the story of a 4-man Cossack patrol encountering a 12-man German cavalry patrol, which they engaged with their shashkas. Within minutes, 11 Germans were dispatched, all with the deadly shashka. Cossack commander Captain Tikhotsky described the awful damaged the shashka could cause when he examined an Austrian battery overrun by a charge of Cossack cavalry: “I was awed at the result of the saber slashes: some bodies lay headless, others had been sliced in half from shoulder to waist, the victims’ innards lying blood-less. Like some ghastly anatomical exhibits.” The Kuban Cossacks, who executed that particular attack, disdained lances and learned to wield the shashka from early youth.15
Most of the cavalry forces had discarded the colorful trappings of the Napoleonic era or adapted them to the drab uniform requirements of the modern battlefield as the war went on. The French cuirassiers, however, chose to retain the cuirass as a piece of equipment. They were the only cavalry still using the ancient armor in the twentieth century. It weighed about 15 pounds and provided no useful protection against modern small arms.16 They designed canvas covers for the cuirass and for their polished helmets to keep them from being too conspicuous. The only explanation for the continued use of this impractical piece of equipment was the positive psychological effect of the traditional heavy cavalry kit on the cuirassiers who the French army still expected to charge in massed formations.
Tactics
Cavalry leaders debated operations in the years before the war, and one of the most important works on cavalry tactics was German Lieutenant General Frederick von Bernhardi’s Cavalry in Future Wars, published i
n English in 1909. Bernhardi saw the necessity of a complete reevaluation of continental cavalry based on changes in warfare. He maintained that cavalry had to be able to operate independently. Bernhardi, a student of both the American Civil War and the Boer War, recognized that cavalry firepower was a critical factor in its future success.17
In Britain, a debate raged over the cavalry lessons of the Boer War. Both sides used excerpts of Bernhardi’s book for support. One side of the debate maintained that the traditional cavalry role of massed shock action was still not only valid but central to cavalry’s contribution on the battlefield. Two books written by Erskine Childers, War and the Arme Blanche published in 1910 and German Influence on British Cavalry published in 1911, both explored in detail the cavalry lessons of the Boer War for the British service and represented the essence of arguments that countered the cavalry traditionalists. Childers’ view complimented Bernhardi and made the unequivocal point that the future of cavalry was associated with firepower: “Far from being weakened, Cavalry, if properly equipped and trained, have potentialities immensely greater than the Cavalry of 1870, because they now possess—in our country at any rate—the weapon [the rifle] which, united with the horse, qualifies them to tackle any other arm on their own terms.”18 Though writing very convincingly, neither Bernhardi nor Childers had a major impact on the cavalry forces of the period outside Britain.
During World War I, no army created a truly independent cavalry force. Both the French and the Russians showed an interest in independent cavalry action, but creating such a force was a lower priority than supporting the infantry formations. The Russians simply did not have enough cavalry to create a separate cavalry force. The French formed the GHQ cavalry reserve whose primary purpose was employment as a decisive shock force. Though organized well for its shock role, its organization, equipment, and training did not permit operating independent of the infantry. The French envisioned the GHQ cavalry winning the tactical battle with a decisive charge. Its actual employment in the war was more as a reaction force to cover the flanks or gaps in the infantry line. The British eventually formed a cavalry corps that, like the French, functioned during the war as a reserve. In the Palestine theater the British Desert Mounted Corps (DMC) was probably the closest organization in the war to a pure mounted cavalry force capable of independent action, though it, like all cavalry corps in the war, was tied closely to the maneuver plan of the infantry. The DMC, however, was capable of breaking from the infantry and executing independent pursuit operations as it demonstrated in the last months of the war.
Though the various cavalry forces were alike in that they supported the infantry, they differed in their tactical techniques. The experience of the Franco-Prussian War was still the greatest influence in France and Germany, and those two countries, along with the Austrians, represented a traditional approach to cavalry. The French were determined to influence the tactical battle with a large cavalry reserve executing the massed charge in the Napoleonic tradition. The French “Regulations for the Service of Armies in Campaign” stated, “Mounted attack with Arme Blanche (saber or lance), which alone gives rapid and decisive results, is the principal mode of action of cavalry. Dismounted combat is employed when the situation or terrain momentarily prevent attaining the mission by mounted action.” The Germans had a similar view. After the war, the German inspector general of cavalry stated, “Before the war, the importance of dismounted combat had not been given its just value. . . . Going into the war with the idea of mounted combat, with troopers of three years service knowing how to use their lances, the cavalry was poorly prepared for combat by fire. The advice of General von Bernhardi had not been listened to sufficiently.”19
Units below regimental level most effectively executed cavalry charges. A determined charge by one small body of horseman against another often decided cavalry patrol actions. However, charging in formations regimental size or larger became increasingly problematic as the war went on. Large cavalry charges were impossible on the western front after October 1914. On the eastern front there was always some possibility of a charge, with the understanding that the larger the force the greater the difficulty in execution. Infantry and artillery firepower was an important defense against the charge, but not the only one. Wire was a major problem. A few simple strands of wire, not even barbed wire, were sufficient to stop a galloping regiment cold. For a charge of any significant body of horseman to have a chance of success they had to have clear ground. British Captain Francis Grenfell described a charge by the 9th Lancers in 1914 that encountered wire: “we simply galloped about, like rabbits in front of a line of guns. Men and horses falling in all directions. Most of one’s time was spent in dodging the horses.”20 Cavalry had no hope charging against entrenched infantry supported by deliberate barbed wire obstacles.
Another major obstacle to the success of the charge was the loss of the psychological advantage. With quick-firing rifles, machineguns, and pistols, dismounted troops were much less likely to break than in previous eras. The dismounted soldier was very confident in the ability of his weapons to bring down a horse and rider, especially at close range. In a cavalry charge by Cossacks against an Austrian artillery battery, the Austrian gunners fought the Cossacks to the last man with pistols and rifles rather than run away or cower under their guns. No nineteenth-century gun crew would have ever considered standing and fighting against saber-wielding Cossacks. The psychological aspect of the charge was critical, and as the new confidence of dismounted troops diminished the fear of a charge, the chances of a successful charge were greatly reduced.
In contrast to the Germans, French, and Austrians, the British and Russians had developed a very capable dismounted capability in their cavalry forces without diminishing their ability to attack mounted. These two cavalry forces made important contributions from the beginning of the war by dismounting and employing the firepower of the rifleman. A captured German baron said to a Sergeant Hanna of the 15th Hussars, “the British shooting was marvelous and dreadful to watch, the men being wiped out by it.”21 The Russians and British also did not hesitate to attack dismounted when their officers recognized the conditions did not support the mounted charge. The French, Austrians, Germans, and other cavalry armies eventually recognized the importance of dismounted action and adapted.
Horses and Horsemanship
Despite the fact that close to 2 million horses saw service as cavalry mounts in World War I, the quality of the mounts was superb. This was a function of the professionalism of cavalry leaders, the efficient organization of remount and other support activities, and the proliferation of well-organized and scientific training systems. Many of the mounts seen in previous conflicts were present in great numbers on the European battlefields: American grade, French Barbs, British hunters, and German warmbloods. British regiments arriving from South Africa rode Afrikaner ponies.22 Several new breeds and types got wide attention for the first time on the continent and in the Middle East and were impressive in their ability to handle the physical and psychological stresses of combat. Among these were the various breeds of the Cossacks and the sturdy horses of Australia.
Horses
In the early twentieth century the remount systems in Europe were exceptionally well organized. In Russia, government stallions stood for stud, which cost a civilian peasant or farmer 3 rubles. Four years later the army would buy the progeny back for as much as 400 rubles. From there the horse went to a reserve regiment where it was broken and trained for a year. Officers had their choice of government horses, which they purchased from the reserve training unit for 450 rubles. All officers had two mounts, one private and one issued. The army named all horses bought in a given year with names beginning with the same letter. By regulation, the horses served for 8 years and then went to public auction for sale. However, leaders ignored this regulation to get rid of troublesome mounts and to keep on steady, strong horses even when they exceeded the maximum age. Captain Littauer relates that when his squadr
on went to war it had four horses that were 20 years old. The Russian cavalry was an extremely well-mounted force. All of the horses were Russian bred. Most were three-quarters Thoroughbred or had a strong Thoroughbred influence. Russia’s horse population according to a 1900 census was 22 million head. From these, the cavalry had the pick of the best. The army rated only about one percent as cavalry material. The Don horse was one of the most popular and numerous of the breeds in the cavalry.23
At the time of World War I, the mount of the Cossacks differed depending on the host. The most numerous host, the Don Cossacks, rode an exceptional cavalry mount bred on the steppes of the Trans-Don region. The horse was the result of crossing Mongolian ponies with Arabs stolen from the Turks. This original Don horse was the mount of the Cossacks of the Napoleonic period. The Russian general Ivan Krasnov described the breed as “small, thin, light, hot-tempered with a strong back and firm hoof, rarely sick, impervious to cold and wet and eating almost anything.”24 In the nineteenth century, the breeders mixed considerable Thoroughbred blood into the breed. The result was a horse that was relatively fast and bigger but still was very hardy, and had remarkable endurance. Krasnov believed that these new Trans-Don horses, bred specifically for the Russian cavalry, were inferior to the original steppe breed. However, the Don horse as described by the French war correspondent Dick de Lonely, on campaign with the Russian army in 1877, measured up to military requirements quite well:
War Horse Page 43
