Well, as everyone knows (by now
) I am not a huge fan of the Marlborough Cult Period and so am perhaps not well qualified to comment but I would offer the following as at least a foil to those who perceive Marlborough's uber dragoons as equal to Horse:
1. Interesting that troops who are trained in TWO roles - mounted and dismounted and who are essentially mounted infantry would be superior to soldiers trained specifically to fight mounted. It may be so, but if it is true why wasn't everyone doing it and what was the point of Horse in the first place! Military thinking is as much about economy as anything else - witness the modern British Army in combat. Why wouldn't ALL units just convert to dragoons? After all, it wasn't the Crown's money most of the time it was the Proprietor's first and then subsidized by the State. These blokes were always trying to make a penny so seems slightly anomalous unless there was a specific military reason(which of course you have gathered, I believe there was!)
2. Historically even in later periods the successors in most armies of Horse and Dragoons continued to recognize the 'perceived' superiority. Cuirassiers in the French army even in Napoleonic times? Dragoons seen as rather utilitarian semi - infantry-like cavalry? Again. maybe convention and nothing more but....
3. Mount quality? Again, maybe I am barking up the wrong Horse but I was under the impression that dragoon mounts at least up to 1700 may have been of lesser horseflesh quality than those of true Horse? Happy to be proved wrong on that.
4. Is there repeated, irrefutable evidence of dragoons equalling or beating Horse in combat.. and not just the well known and oft quoted examples such as Blenheim. Again, Marlborough Cultists can sever my limbs with blunt dragoon bayonets but I would be interested in the compelling counter argumentation.....
Otherwise.. I'll stick with my opinion
As always... ready for a discussion