ECW Dragoons

[Alan Charlesworth]

I was wondering if anyone can help with some information about ECW Dragoons and what they were armed with.

In the P&S suggested army lists they are given Firelocks. This was queried and disputed by other players in a recent game who were trying P&S for the first time. As this is not one of my main periods of interest my knowledge in this area is superficial.

I do know that it was practice to try and arm Dragoons with firelocks. The reference material I have supports this idea. There is also some evidence from General Monck about Dragoons where he says it is desirable to arm Dragoons with firelocks but that the practicalities of supply and availability may meant that they might not be available.

So what I was wondering was - how likely is it that Dragoons would have firelocks and did this change over the course of the war and was availabilty different for each side?

[westwaller]

By 1644 Royalist Dragoons were thought to have had '...a firelock of rather wider bore than the infantry variety, and at 3 feet in length, rather shorter' according to John Barrat's 'Cavaliers'. He says that Dragoons also carried Carbines and ordinary matchlock muskets. Barrat also states; 'Generally their dress was identical to that of the foot soldier, riding boots often rejected in favour of shoes for ease of movement when fighting on foot.'

If you are fielding Royalists, it may be worth you getting hold of 'Cavaliers' as it has fairly succinct chapters that answer those 'what about' questions eg: The Officers', 'The Horse', 'The Foot' and 'Dragoons & Firelocks: The Royalist 'Special Forces'' to name a few.

[SteveMorgan]

Firelocks and Carbines were the usual way to arm dragoons...matchlocks were just not practical (having burning match smouldering away while getting on and off horses as well as riding them was rather difficult).
That is not to say that some poorly equipped dragoons did not end up with matchlocks, but these guys generally then acted almost entirely like standard musketeers so I have ignored them for the rules. Fire and evade just seems a stretch too far with matchlocks.
Cheers
Steve

[Alan Charlesworth]

Hi Steve

Yes I can fully understand what you are saying about the real practical problems of using slow match and trying to act as Dragoons in a battlefield capacity.

So in game terms I understand you to be saying that so called 'Dragoons' who had matchlock type weapons would effectively be dismounted before the action started and act more like a group of Commanded Shotte rather than using their mounted capability. They might have rode to the battlefield but would not be fighting or moving whilst mounted on the battlefield?

[SteveMorgan]

Hi Alan

That is a very good summary of the idea behind the Dragoons as appear in the rules....certainly the intention was not to say 'Dragoons never had matchlocks', but for the basic lists, with the Fire & Evade rule attached, they come with Firelocks.

Cheers

Steve

[HobbitMiles]

Having made extensive use of both matchlock and firelock muskets I would dispute that there is very much difference in their use in the field. The primary difference is that in order to make use of a matchlock you need a lit match (at the risk of stating the blooming obvious), in practice this is carried in the left hand and gets in the way very little - it may be a little awkward on horseback, but I can't see that it would make a huge difference to riding. A good musketeer keeps his match burning evenly as a matter of habit. Earlier generations managed to use mounted arquebus. At a strategic level matchlocks pose a problem because the quantities of match used could be huge.

The main advantage of a firelock is that it can be brought into use instantly without having to have lit match to hand - thus it was very useful for bodyguards. It was also useful for artillery guards as it avoids having lit match in the presence of open powder barrels.

I've witnessed both weapons in use alongside each other on very many occassions, and often firelocks prove to be surprisingly unreliable. Flints easily shatter or simply fail to spark and if the mechanism becomes damaged the weapon is useless unless you also have lit match to hand. On the other hand matchlock mechanisms are simpler (and in general therefore more reliable) and if the mechanism fails or becomes damaged the pan of the musket can be opened and the match applied manually. I would argue therefore that the ability to fire and evade should very much be down to the quality of the man and not the weapon carried.

[Correus]

...it may be worth you getting hold of 'Cavaliers' as it has fairly succinct chapters that answer those 'what about' questions eg: The Officers', 'The Horse', 'The Foot' and 'Dragoons & Firelocks: The Royalist 'Special Forces'' to name a few.

Could you be a bit more specific in regard to the book name and author? I tried to look it up on Amazon and only got a couple novels.

[HobbitMiles]

I presume WestWaller is referring to:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cavaliers-John- ... 0750935251

[westwaller]

Yup that is the one.

[Correus]

I presume WestWaller is referring to:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cavaliers-John- ... 0750935251

Hmmm....that one did not show up in my Amazon US search. With the authors name it should now.

Thanks.