>Renaissance cuirassiers: used pistols as their main weapon

File: 1492418236223.jpg (106KB, 736x1012px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 736x1012px

>>2885873
They mainly only fired one shot though before they charged in, usually supporting heavier cavalry.

File: pappenh.jpg (272KB, 772x900px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 772x900px

>>2885904
Why was the pistol almost abandoned by cavalry, though ?

File: 1492417994099.jpg (118KB, 646x872px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 646x872px

>>2885925
I am honestly not sure, maybe uneffective?

File: 61427bebf4db5184aefbafbfa1377758.jpg (223KB, 736x1120px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 736x1120px

>>2885925
Carbines and revolvers.

>>2885873
They used pistols to kill other heavily armored cavalry. Usually point blank range to stand a chance to get through their pistol proof breastplate and helmet

When they dropped most of their armor the need to use pistols went away. Against infantry there isn't much point in using pistols since they will outshoot you. The predominant tactic was to just charge in with swords drawn.

I do believe Napoleonic cuirassiers had pistols but according to sources they weren't of much use.

File: 5832592375723.jpg (308KB, 800x567px) Image search: [Google]

308KB, 800x567px

>tfw warfare will never be aesthetic again

>>2885925
Because a pistol volley was no longer particularly useful, the point was to go in fast and hard before the opposition had a time to meaningfully counter your charge.

The problem is psychological. Commanders believed, rightly or wrongly, that letting their cavalry carry pistols would give them an excuse to stand off and shoot when charging home would be more effective. The pistol was more effective against armor than the lance, but once armor was out of style, there was no reason not to use swords instead. If cavalry was disarmed of their pistols or issued only a tiny amount of ammunition then they would be forced to charge into sword range.

>>2885873
Wasn't the point of the pistol to give them something to do against pike formations? Ride up, fire a hot at close range and ride away. They didn't stand any kind of chance in a melee fight. By the modern era their weren't pikes so the cavalry changed roles to a rapid strike melee force. They probably could still have had pistols but it might have been prohibitively expensive to equip a whole force with them when the saber was more effective.

>>2886122
>Wasn't the point of the pistol to give them something to do against pike formations?
No. They wouldn't be about to outshoot the musket support. Pistols were for fighting other cavalry.

>salvos 11801

>>2885873
Cuirassiers, like most French cavalry in the Napoleonic era had firearms

>>2886006
Any sources for that? Because
>would give them an excuse to stand off and shoot when charging home would be more effective.
Like, what the fuck, how you imagine that? In the middle of charge some soldiers say
>Ah fuck it, I don't feel like charging, shooty time!
>The pistol was more effective against armor than the lance
Good fucking luck with penetrating 17thC/later breastplates with pistol. It was hard enough with powerful muskets. Pistols? No way.
>but once armor was out of style, there was no reason not to use swords instead.
Anon... Do you really can't find any good reasons, to shot at unarmoured people?
>issued only a tiny amount of ammunition
Considering how long it takes to reload blackpowder firearms, small amout of ammunition doesn't matter, as they won't probably have chance to reload in battle either way.

>>2886166
>Like, what the fuck, how you imagine that? In the middle of charge some soldiers say
>Ah fuck it, I don't feel like charging, shooty time!

Happened all the time- noted by La Noue, Roger Williams and Humfrey Barwick. Horsemen with pistols would fire, and instead of following through on the charge they would wheel away, exposing them to a countercharge in the rear.

>Good fucking luck with penetrating 17thC/later breastplates with pistol.
Better luck against helmets and leg armor, which is what the manuals instructed cavalry to aim at.

>Anon... Do you really can't find any good reasons, to shot at unarmoured people?
Sure, but they're secondary to the cavalry's main function, and letting the cavalry carry firearms introduced the temptation in unoptimal conditions if they were poorly trained.

>Considering how long it takes to reload blackpowder firearms, small amout of ammunition doesn't matter, as they won't probably have chance to reload in battle either way.
Most battles lasted a lot longer than they do in Total War.

When it comes down to it, pistols just weren't tactically effective, and cavalrymen only have two hands. If you wanted to follow through with the charge after shooting, you're probably not going to have enough time to holster your pistol and unsheathe your sword.

>>2886329
The pistols were tied to the saddle so that they could be immediately dropped after firing.

>>2885873
>>2885925

Quick rundown.

Reiters came into fashion during the Italian wars, where Reiters with their pistols were used with good effect against the prevalent Gendarmes/Demi-lancers, who were armored lancers similar to knights. Due to their expense, gendarmes were few and charged in very shallow ranks; pistol-armed Reiters would shoot holes through these ranks then close in with swords around the outnumbered Gendarmes.

Against pike formations, Reiters adopted the "Caracole", where pistol armed cavalry would discharge pistols at close range into massed infantry to avoid the pikes, then ride away to reload and do it again. Problem is, once "shot" began appearing in "Pike and Shot" formations, pistol armed cavalry could not out-shoot massed infantry with arquebus/muskets.

Gustavus Adolphus told his cavalry to not bother with the "fall back and reload" part, and told them to charge home with swords immediately after discharging a volley. Speed and agility was of the essence, to strike at the flanks before pike formations could react, so cavalrymen ditched most of their armor. It's important to note that these horsemen used thrusting swords, rather than slashing with them.

Improvements in firearms and artillery, as well as the invention of the bayonet, made dense pike blocks obsolete on the battlefield. Now infantry only had 1.5 meter long bayonets to defend against cavalry, instead of 6 meter long pikes. This meant cavalry was more able to charge home against infantry as long as they could close the distance without being shredded by gunfire. Most cuirassiers of the Napoleonic period still had a pistol for skirmishing.

TL:DR

Early Cuirassiers had pistols because they were great against heavy lance cavalry, but awful against infantry with long arms. Cavalry regained the ability to charge home against infantry once the pike disappeared from the battlefield, so melee weapons came back.

File: Napoleon's Cuirassiers And Carabiniers-28.jpg (425KB, 1653x2198px) Image search: [Google]

425KB, 1653x2198px

>>2885873
Uh, every cavalryman of the 18th Century had a firearm. Cuirassiers had pistols. Otherwise they wouldn't be carrying those small ammo-boxes around.

Its just that they're main function in an 18th/19th Century Battlefield was shock cavalry.

File: PlancheA_238479.jpg (183KB, 600x726px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 600x726px

>>2885975
>>2886006
>>2886221
>>2886507
Thank you for all these exhaustive answers.

What do you guys would have prefered to serve with, the Light or the heavy cavalry in a Napoleonic war?

File: Understanding Napoleonic Cavalry.jpg (107KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 960x960px

>>2889077
Obvious choice.

>>2889105
This