Were dragoons useful during the Mexican American War?

[Fortunagen]

I'm actually getting very conflicting articles on both sides of this debate. During the Battle of Resaca de la Palma, it appears the use of a cavalry charge was the deciding point in determining the battle in the Southern Texas terrain. However, in almost all of the other major battles in the war, the dragoons seem to be almost useless to either side. Could the dragoon could have helped one side more if it had been further instrumented? Or was it due to the leadership of Charles May that gave the dragoons their success?

I personally believe the dragoon might have been much more useful if implemented in a broader terrain, however, in this stage of the war, I think the United States was correct in it's actions to pursue a traditional march south into Mexico.

What say ye, NSG?

[Conserative Morality]

My knowledge of the Mexican-American War is pretty limited, but isn't the point of dragoons to ride to battle mounted, then dismount and fight as infantry?

[Fortunagen]

My knowledge of the Mexican-American War is pretty limited, but isn't the point of dragoons to ride to battle mounted, then dismount and fight as infantry?

From what I could glean from the article, the dragoons were mainly used to ambush artillery and other pieces that could be overpowered by men. But it seems neither side used them very much outside of a few limited engagements.

[MERIZoC]

I see what you did there.

[Washington Resistance Army]

:rofl:
I see what you did there.

What did they do

[Tubbsalot]

My knowledge of the Mexican-American War is pretty limited, but isn't the point of dragoons to ride to battle mounted, then dismount and fight as infantry?

Nah. Dragoons were pretty much standard cavalry, at least by the time of this war.

Also by the time of this war, firearms had developed to the point of choking out cavalry from all battlefield roles, relegated to scouting and light harassment of a retreating army. So as refs the title, not knowing anything about this particular war, I'm going to say "yes, they probably contributed as they were able, but were not a decisive factor in battle."

[Kelinfort]

It's all Obama's fault

But seriously, in the Mexican American war, Dragoons did play a role...not extremely important, mind you, but their tactics did influence some of the lowland battles. Across the desert and into Mexico, however, their usefulness declined drastically.

[MERIZoC]

:rofl:
I see what you did there.

What did they do

From the…..I don't even know what to call it thread.

Don't believe me? Write a thread about horse tactics of the Mexican American War, and within three pages, see if you don't have somebody explaining why it's Obama's fault.

[Conserative Morality]

Nah. Dragoons were pretty much standard cavalry, at least by the time of this war.

Also by the time of this war, firearms had developed to the point of choking out cavalry from all battlefield roles, relegated to scouting and light harassment of a retreating army. So as refs the title, not knowing anything about this particular war, I'm going to say "yes, they probably contributed as they were able, but were not a decisive factor in battle."

I remembering reading about how cavalry in the Civil War had that position reversed; standard cavalry had pretty much become Dragoons.

[Fortunagen]

But seriously, in the Mexican American war, Dragoons did play a role...not extremely important, mind you, but their tactics did influence some of the lowland battles. Across the desert and into Mexico, however, their usefulness declined drastically.

Do you think there would have been a way to make them useful in Northern Mexico?

[Tubbsalot]

I remembering reading about how cavalry in the Civil War had that position reversed; standard cavalry had pretty much become Dragoons.

Well, if you mean that "dragoon" was a term for standard cavalry, that doesn't surprise me. If you mean all cavalry was essentially mounted infantry, well, shrug - it originated in Europe, so maybe the Americans held to the mounted infantry version longer than others?

[Kelinfort]

But seriously, in the Mexican American war, Dragoons did play a role...not extremely important, mind you, but their tactics did influence some of the lowland battles. Across the desert and into Mexico, however, their usefulness declined drastically.

Do you think there would have been a way to make them useful in Northern Mexico?

Eh...if you mean the intermountain west no. The area near Matamoros and the coast, however, is pretty low lying. Near Coahuila and Chihuahua, the land is arid and mountainous...not really the best for horses.

What really would've made them more effective is shock charges. Coupled with their use in the California campaign, they may have had a greater effect.

[The UK in Exile]

I'm actually getting very conflicting articles on both sides of this debate. During the Battle of Resaca de la Palma, it appears the use of a cavalry charge was the deciding point in determining the battle in the Southern Texas terrain. However, in almost all of the other major battles in the war, the dragoons seem to be almost useless to either side. Could the dragoon could have helped one side more if it had been further instrumented? Or was it due to the leadership of Charles May that gave the dragoons their success?

I personally believe the dragoon might have been much more useful if implemented in a broader terrain, however, in this stage of the war, I think the United States was correct in it's actions to pursue a traditional march south into Mexico.

What say ye, NSG?

In an army like the US without the Hierachical class distinction between cavalry and infantry the boundary between the two should largely have been meaningless.

[Conserative Morality]

Well, if you mean that "dragoon" was a term for standard cavalry, that doesn't surprise me. If you mean all cavalry was essentially mounted infantry, well, shrug - it originated in Europe, so maybe the Americans held to the mounted infantry version longer than others?

I was going for 'All cavalry, whatever the name, had essentially become mounted infantry'. The Italians held onto the traditional dragoon for a while, I seem to remember, as did the Poles.

[Fortunagen]

I'm actually getting very conflicting articles on both sides of this debate. During the Battle of Resaca de la Palma, it appears the use of a cavalry charge was the deciding point in determining the battle in the Southern Texas terrain. However, in almost all of the other major battles in the war, the dragoons seem to be almost useless to either side. Could the dragoon could have helped one side more if it had been further instrumented? Or was it due to the leadership of Charles May that gave the dragoons their success?

I personally believe the dragoon might have been much more useful if implemented in a broader terrain, however, in this stage of the war, I think the United States was correct in it's actions to pursue a traditional march south into Mexico.

What say ye, NSG?

In an army like the US without the Hierachical class distinction between cavalry and infantry the boundary between the two should largely have been meaningless.

What about Mexico?

[Fortunagen]

Well, if you mean that "dragoon" was a term for standard cavalry, that doesn't surprise me. If you mean all cavalry was essentially mounted infantry, well, shrug - it originated in Europe, so maybe the Americans held to the mounted infantry version longer than others?

I was going for 'All cavalry, whatever the name, had essentially become mounted infantry'. The Italians held onto the traditional dragoon for a while, I seem to remember, as did the Poles.

[Greed and Death]

My knowledge of the Mexican-American War is pretty limited, but isn't the point of dragoons to ride to battle mounted, then dismount and fight as infantry?

That was the 1700's by the time of the Mexican American war they had become light Calvary.

[The UK in Exile]

Well, if you mean that "dragoon" was a term for standard cavalry, that doesn't surprise me. If you mean all cavalry was essentially mounted infantry, well, shrug - it originated in Europe, so maybe the Americans held to the mounted infantry version longer than others?

I was going for 'All cavalry, whatever the name, had essentially become mounted infantry'. The Italians held onto the traditional dragoon for a while, I seem to remember, as did the Poles.

Well, traditionally, Dragoon is a mounted infantry man. from the 1700s onward the distinction between Cavalry, Dragoon, Light Dragoon, Hussar etc all become progressively blurry, till you've effectively got Heavy Cavalry, Light Cavalry and Lancers, with sword, saber and lance respectively. All with various kinds of fashion differences but not much else. UK maintain this distinction in the Main British army up till 1856 (see: the charge of the light brigade, Cavalry still very much a sword and saber affair.)

[Conserative Morality]

I was going for 'All cavalry, whatever the name, had essentially become mounted infantry'. The Italians held onto the traditional dragoon for a while, I seem to remember, as did the Poles.

Well, traditionally, Dragoon is a mounted infantry man. from the 1700s onward the distinction between Cavalry, Dragoon, Light Dragoon, Hussar etc all become progressively blurry, till you've effectively got Heavy Cavalry, Light Cavalry and Lancers, with sword, saber and lance respectively. All with various kinds of fashion differences but not much else. UK maintain this distinction in the Main British army up till 1856 (see: the charge of the light brigade, Cavalry still very much a sword and saber affair.)

I suppose I'm looking here more; it mentions that traditional cavalry formed only a small percentage of cavalry in the Civil War. An effect of my provincialism, I guess.

[The UK in Exile]

Well, traditionally, Dragoon is a mounted infantry man. from the 1700s onward the distinction between Cavalry, Dragoon, Light Dragoon, Hussar etc all become progressively blurry, till you've effectively got Heavy Cavalry, Light Cavalry and Lancers, with sword, saber and lance respectively. All with various kinds of fashion differences but not much else. UK maintain this distinction in the Main British army up till 1856 (see: the charge of the light brigade, Cavalry still very much a sword and saber affair.)

I suppose I'm looking here more; it mentions that traditional cavalry formed only a small percentage of cavalry in the Civil War. An effect of my provincialism, I guess.

Sure, and unhelpfully, "traditional" cavalry where perfectly happy to dismount and fight on foot when the situation called for it.

So a Dragoon is a man on horse who expects to fight on foot but doesn't always and cavalry is a man on a horse who doesn't expect to fight on foot but sometimes does. they both have the same arms and equipment, which distinguishes them from mounted infantry, who carry rifles. Meanwhile, in Europe everyone is hacking at each other with swords and shitting themselves every time they see lancers.

Its unsuprisingly confusing.

[The Union of the West]

I read "Dragoons" as "Dragons", and I expected this to be some fantasy alternative history thread.

Anyway, I think it was Charles May's leadership that led to their success.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

Dragoons are always the correct answer.
Unless hussars are the correct answer.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Dragoons are always the correct answer.
Unless hussars are the correct answer. (Image)

Cossacks reign supreme *nods*

[Conserative Morality]

Sure, and unhelpfully, "traditional" cavalry where perfectly happy to dismount and fight on foot when the situation called for it.

So a Dragoon is a man on horse who expects to fight on foot but doesn't always and cavalry is a man on a horse who doesn't expect to fight on foot but sometimes does. they both have the same arms and equipment, which distinguishes them from mounted infantry, who carry rifles. Meanwhile, in Europe everyone is hacking at each other with swords and shitting themselves every time they see lancers.

Its unsuprisingly confusing.

Swords are more gentlemanly, I suppose.

[Corrian]

I read this as "Were dragons useful during the Mexican American War?" and was like "Wut?"