Verhovayak Lapja, 1954 (37. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)
1954-04-07 / 4. szám
Bland, Baylor and Sheldon, were more mounted infantry, without the least elementary training or organization in the cavalry sense. England, and thus Washington, knew but little on the subject of light cavalry, which is an ignored factor in the English art of war. They knew still less on the subject of Hussars, which is a specialized form of light cavalry. As a matter of fact, we had to wait another twenty-eight years before the first English Hussar Regiment, the Seventh, was organized in 1805. Now Kováts knew more and thought differently on the subject of the Hussars. He was one of them: perhaps the best of them, definitely second to none in America. Cavalry had existed since ancient times, reaching its zenith under Frederick the Great. Of Frederick’s twenty-two battles fifteen were won by his cavalry and Kováts was one of his soldiers. Training was the secret of Frederick’s success and Kováts was trained by Frederick. Organization was Frederick’s succes and Kováts organized for him. Kováts learned in fifteen victorious battles the dominating influence of his hussars, and thus, and for no. other purpose, he came to America to organize hussars for Washington. He knew his worth, he was reasonable in assessing his professional importance. He was reasonable even though he did lose his patience while waiting and came to this country without Franklin’s recommendation, having taken it for granted that his established rank among the professionals would be all he would need in order to be entrusted with a serious assignment. In the strict sense of military history he failed. Cavalry never became of any importance in the Revolutionary War. The English prejudice against cavalry was too strong for him to overcome and another three generations of Americans had to die before the seeds sown by him started to germinate in a more fertile soil. The military ideals he nourished became dominant through the pressure of adversity during the latter part of the Civil War. But he failed only so far as the Revolutionary War is concerned, otherwise his is the glory of the pioneer, and if any one is that, then he is the father of the United States Cavalry. — 6 — his interpreter and official promoter, did their best to create a cavalry, a modern one in the European sense, for Washington, They were full of enthusiasm during the months of November and December of 1777. Washington’s letter on “Mr.” Kovats in January seemed to cool their spirits considerably. In February the situation deteriorated further. On March 1 Washington ordered Pulaski to join General Wayne. Two days later they battled the English at Haddon’s Field. They lost, and Pulaski, believing he had enough, resigned his command of the cavalry. His resignation was accepted by Congress. It seemed again that for Kovats this was the end. Kovats' and Pulaski undoubtedly meant well. They firmly and rightly believed in the decisive superiority of modern cavalry. They took it for granted that their expert approach to the creation of this dominant military factor would be met with approval. They made the unfortunate and common mistake: calculating in European terms in America. There is a difference in organizing cavalry for armies numbering hundreds of thousands and being scientific und routine-like for Washington with his meager four thousand men. It hurt the feelings and professional dignity of these heroes when their detailed recommendation concerning cavalry uniforms was gently ignored by Washington. Perhaps they even blamed him with a layman’s ignorance of the disciplinary importance of a soldier’s dress; they were too disheartened by the bitter smile on Washington’s face while reading a memorandum of theirs on boots and shining buttons. But alas, it was only five days before that he wrote from Valley Forge: “We have this day no less than 2,873 men unfit for duty because they are barefooted of otherwise naked”. His strength was altogether 4,000. Pulaski’s resignation from his command of the cavalry was sudden and dramatic only on the surface. We have enough evidence to show that Pulaski and Kovats considered this move as early as January when, as we know now, they changed their policy, started preparations for a different approach, and it seems that they postponed the act of resignation only until the time when their prepara— 11 —
