Combined arms - melee, or just a tactic?
As a wargamer the use of combined arms in a melee has become a norm...but was it reality? I am trying to find examples of where this actually occurred. Historically, the usage for Combined arms, were supporting formations that could deal with threats and make breakthroughs. For example the cannon would soften the target, the infantry would pummel in to the weakened line, and the cavalry would screen, and mop up (or alternatively the infantry volleys, and the cavalry crack in on the flank). So my question is, where have we actually had cavalry, and infantry in the same melee? The ride of the Jocks at Waterloo, was just that, as the highlanders were dropped off prior to the greys charging home...unless the poor highlander got carried away (and coincidentally interfered in the capabilities of the trooper in melee, not to mention the highlander hanging on for grim death ;-) The reason I ask, is that where is the room to manoeuvre? And as for those cavalry, when their blood is up they might not realise who they are chopping up... Plus there is the timing involved in getting it right....it is bad enough when you are the same arm...let alone travelling at different speeds. I can see cavalry charging home at a later point in a melee, when there is a clear gap between the formations. Just my tuppence worth, and trying to get some thoughts from you....

There was some of that around McDonald's formation at Wagram, but it was pretty rare because of the relative speeds and the fact that cavalry cannot stand still. It is more one of these "special factors", which were derived long after the event to "explain" why the French won. The reality of it was much more the taking of an opportunity to throw cavalry in at an opportune moment or to save a situation. From Jemappes onwards, the French were using big lines with infantry close by, but holding the cavalry in large reserves to strike a hammer blow - the combined arms we hear much about is like "marching to guns" in that we only really hear about in terms of "it should have been done" - Ney at Waterloo in particular. The Allies also did it, but the cavalry forces were much smaller and thus less pretty.

I've been curious about this for quite some time. I have yet to find an instance of formed infantry and cavalry attacking the same enemy at the same time. Most instances of combined arms I have been able to find are artillery plus one of the other arms. Yours, James D. Gray

I think Marengo has something to answer for on this, but it shows the "post match reinterpretation". Desaix had his infantry south of the road with Marmont's battery to the north. He could see the Austrian cavalry would deploy north of the road adn so, put Kellerman through the vines to support Marmont's guns. However, Kellerman of course saw his opportinity. You could say it was tri-arms, but it was force of circumstance, especially as Kellerman's troopers were moving at slow speed initially.