View Full Version : Historical Question on Cavalry Charges
george585
04-30-2008, 23:33
Hello!
First of all a very big thank you to the EB Team for the wonderful mod they created!
I wonder how cavalry with lances charged an enemy in real life. In game, you can easily have a unit of cavalry arranged in 4 ranks charge an enemy and it all works perfectly. However how in real life the 2nd, 3rd, and other ranks did not smash into the first one when it hit the enemy?
Thanks.
Just a guess but I'd imagine the horse was smart enough not to run into the behind of another horse. Probably find a hole. THey probably had some space between the ranks too.
RTW-like charges generally didn't happen from what I understand. Horses don't like running into things, goes against their instincts. A lot of times, it was a battle of morale between the men and the horse. Sometimes the horsemen just ran around behind the engaged infantry. That usually scared them enough.
It's my understanding that Alexander used wedges a lot, and probably a lot of other generals too. Same thing doesn't work in RTW, that's why we don't even get the option to form that in EB 1.1. Wedges were used to just push directly through an enemy formation, and then the infantry will fill that space and practically cut the enemy formation in half.
george585
05-01-2008, 00:39
Interesting! Though it's hard to believe that they did not sdmah into one another at all. And I think I have read in EB texts or somewhere else that a skilled cataphhract could actually kill 2 infantrymen in one charge (meaning I guess that the contos went completely through the first one and seriously affected the one behind him).
eggthief
05-01-2008, 00:53
Interesting! Though it's hard to believe that they did not sdmah into one another at all. And I think I have read in EB texts or somewhere else that a skilled cataphhract could actually kill 2 infantrymen in one charge (meaning I guess that the contos went completely through the first one and seriously affected the one behind him).
U wont see this happen with rtw not even when using cataphracts, but fear not eb2 is coming.
Slim_Ghost
05-01-2008, 08:14
I thought that warhorses are specially trained to be very aggressive, and thus would not be afraid to crash into infantry.
Well if someone physically rammed the infantry line with their horse, these things would likely happen;
1. The horse would come to a very sudden stop
2. The rider would go flying into the enemy infantry
3. A few infantrymen would be knocked to the ground
4. The rest of the infantrymen would hack the horse and/or rider into pieces. Fast.
Parallel Pain
05-01-2008, 10:10
I thought that warhorses are specially trained to be very aggressive, and thus would not be afraid to crash into infantry.
It's hard enough to train humans, who can be manipulated by peer-pressure, religion, order, or threats to run headlong into a wall. I don't think it's possible to train horses, who are motivated only by instinct and their own survival, to do the same. I mean maybe if we can tell them "do it or I'll put a bullet through your head" but we don't speak horse. :laugh4:
Anyways this is how the infantry square works. It's so compact it gives the men some courage, and even if they do want to run they can't. As the formation remains intact, to the horse the rows and rows of men look like a wall, so they either refuse to charge or shy away before impact. It's the same for line formation as long as the men don't start running or bolting.
O'ETAIPOS
05-01-2008, 10:35
It's hard enough to train humans, who can be manipulated by peer-pressure, religion, order, or threats to run headlong into a wall. I don't think it's possible to train horses, who are motivated only by instinct and their own survival, to do the same. I mean maybe if we can tell them "do it or I'll put a bullet through your head" but we don't speak horse. :laugh4:
Anyways this is how the infantry square works. It's so compact it gives the men some courage, and even if they do want to run they can't. As the formation remains intact, to the horse the rows and rows of men look like a wall, so they either refuse to charge or shy away before impact. It's the same for line formation as long as the men don't start running or bolting.
Horses during charge, if it is properly performed, are acting like during stampede, and this is affecting the way they react. Stampeeding horses do not care what is in front of them, but are running in a way where main group is running, ignoring men, diches or other obstacles.
This means that one horse will never charge line of men, but a big group may do this. But they will only do this if none of the horsemen will freak out and turn before impact. If even one person would break from charge, then whole charge will be destroyed.
This obviously means that a lot is in the mind of those who are charging. If the horsemen were ready to sacrifice they will perform much better and will actually take less losses, as only they are able to charge efectively.
Anyway, always remember that roman horses were just like a pony, I mean they were more little than modern horses.
Gebeleisis
05-01-2008, 14:35
well i know that horses and men grew in time but isnt that a bit radical?
Mindaros
05-01-2008, 15:12
Apparently what horses don't want to charge are sharp obstacles like bayonets. In the Battle of Waterloo the French cavalry couldn't penetrate the British squares.
The Persian Cataphract
05-01-2008, 15:45
Serried ranks of heavy horse, deployed knee-to-knee in a columned formation actually keep their momentum for a longer time, due to the aforementioned "stampede"-effect. First they had to adjust the formation with a slow trot or ambling speed and only seconds before the impact did the horsemen charge with a furious gallop. This is why the cataphract for instance was a successful recipe, both against other cavalry and against infantry; Against cavalry of other formations, they would simply be overwhelmed by this coordinated "iron fist".
Infantry, well, we are not talking small horses, we are talking about large, muscular, and powerful beasts, in cases barded with heavy armour, carrying heavily armed and armoured soldiers; It's a huge difference from fleet light horse with lightly armed skirmishers. The cataphract was always meant to destroy the enemy's front ranks, rather than flank or envelop the entire formation. If as much as a few ranks of infantry had been disposed of by heavy horse, it would often be a sign of a successful breakthrough. Later the Romans dealt with these risks with the deployment of caltrops and deeper deployment of infantry, unit per unit.
Strategos Alexandros
05-01-2008, 15:46
I would say an infantry formation could be classed as a sharp obstacle personally.:beam:
I acutally saw a video clip on the internet where some lady is jogging along and goes flying when a horse charges in, lowers its head and nails her. She was literally like a bowling pin.. the horse lost almost no momentum at all.
And this was a relatively small horse and a relatively heavy woman, without any extra mass (armoured rider, armor, etc). If there is nothing the horse can impale itself on, I'm sure it would have no trouble literally running over a line of infantry.. I mean if they attacked a mass of infantry the horse might trip over all the bodies at some point, but it should have no trouble knocking armoured infantry around.
And you can convince a person to run into a wall... a person can brace himself and absorb the impact. You probably couldn't convince a person to run into a spear point.
Parallel Pain
05-01-2008, 22:27
And just so happens the infantry had lots of pointy and otherwise dangerous things as well as 5+ other men standing behind him to offer support.
Oh and he also has a shield and some armor.
I don't think a "sword wall" would not be effective at all. The shield might make it easier for the horse to knock you out of its way by giving it a large, flat surface to transfer force into rather than a glancing blow off a shoulder or something.
Parallel Pain
05-02-2008, 07:19
The soldier would also be bracing for impact, with the 5+ people behind him also bracing themselves to ready to support him if he's pushed back.
Seleukus
05-02-2008, 07:31
I don't think a "sword wall" would not be effective at all. The shield might make it easier for the horse to knock you out of its way by giving it a large, flat surface to transfer force into rather than a glancing blow off a shoulder or something.
At the Battle of Hastings, the Saxon shieldwall was composed of warriors armed with swords and the famous Danish battleaxe. Same thing with the Battle of Tours. If you were right, we would probably be typing in Arabic right now.
LorDBulA
05-02-2008, 11:32
Cavalry charge in my opinion is mental contest. It is very brutal and terrifying for both sides. It needs special man and horses to perform it and it takes extraordinary very experience troops to withstand it.
Just imagine yourself standing in the first line of infantry with shield and sword waiting for this wall of horses with long pointy sticks to hit you. You just know that chances of surviving with little injuries are extremely small.
I would start to run for my life long before cavalry would hit infantry line.
The soldier would also be bracing for impact, with the 5+ people behind him also bracing themselves to ready to support him if he's pushed back.
You should take 5 friends and test it. Just brace yourself against small car (about 800 kg ) moving at 25km/h. Yea right, you wont stand a chance, you wont even try to stand, all of you will just run from the car and this is normal after all you dont want to be badly injured.
I think that im most cases infantry just broke and run before lines met, it takes only few to start a rout especially if all of them are thinking "why the hell I am not running away right now"
On the other hand charge is also difficult for cavalrymen, I guess lots of charging men is thinking "why the hell infantry is not breaking yet, will they break, will they break ? ". And again it takes only few that flinch to break cavalry charge.
I think that only on very rare occasion when both cavalry and infantry where crack troops you would see clash like in RTW/M2TW.
And I am sure this outcome would be unexpected and undesired by both sides.
And again victory would be decided by mental factor, which side would hold on a second longer then the other.
QuintusSertorius
05-02-2008, 12:03
I thought that warhorses are specially trained to be very aggressive, and thus would not be afraid to crash into infantry.
Regardless of training, a horse is a skittish, nervous herbivore, who's evolutionary response to danger is to run away very fast. Horses don't like stepping on ground where they might break a leg, nor jumping into places they can't see. They won't voluntarily step on a prone man, for example, nor into a densely-packed group of them. Nor will they charge onto a fixed spear.
Anyway, always remember that roman horses were just like a pony, I mean they were more little than modern horses.
No, they weren't. The disappearance of chariots was largely due to bigger horses which could carry a man being bred. Which made the clunky chariot completely obselete (even then they tended to be used as "battle taxis" rather than as cavalry).
The Romans bred good quality mounts in the Rosea Rura, and the Celts, Iberians, Parthians and many others also had good horses.
I don't think a "sword wall" would not be effective at all. The shield might make it easier for the horse to knock you out of its way by giving it a large, flat surface to transfer force into rather than a glancing blow off a shoulder or something.
Horses won't jump into a mass of men, nor can they be coaxed into charging home into a group of them. Doesn't matter whether they have spears or swords, if they're formed up properly, the horse won't do it.
As to cavalry charges, it's more likely that contact wasn't even required for a charge to be successful. Men in the rear ranks were always nervous, being close to the fighting but unable to see whether or not they were winning. They also had the easiest route to escape, adding to the vulnerability of the rear.
The Persian Cataphract
05-02-2008, 14:58
I think personally, that the two latest responses in this thread are probably the most apt in describing the balance and importance of discipline. On the one hand, a man by rule can not withstand the charge of a heavy horse, without taking very drastic measures (Sturdy spear fixed on a prone position, caltrops, ditches). An infantry line will usually depend their success on the depth of their lines. Shields would have little to marginal effects in disrupting formations of heavy horse, and could on the other hand cause other injuries as a liability for infantry. It would more or less rely on how the shields were locked together. It would simply depend on the discipline and tactics of the horsemen. If the heavy horse moves in a serried, tight formation, by rule the shields of opposing infantry would not be very significant to the defence, lest it was used in combination with other tactical measures, such as the aforementioned ditches, caltrops or fixed spears (Or a combination of them all). If we speak of light horse or a squadron of cavalry too impetuous to maintain formation, then locked shields could carry some merit in deterring individual horses from crashing into a large object (This is the key argument in using a shield-wall; In normal cases horses do not crash into walls or into dead halts, or even into objects larger than themselves, irrespective of training; The shield-wall therefore had a psychological property to it which had effect against cavalry).
On the other hand, even if the horse was at times an unpredictable animal, a full-sized horse as used by Eastern heavy cavalry, standing between fourteen and fifteen hands tall, some extraordinary animals probably as tall as Akhal-Teke at sixteen hands, extremely muscular (Think a compact Percheron at fifteen hands; Cappadocians and Nisaeans. Armenian horses are even more compact but still retains these properties). An average Percheron weighs about 900 kilograms (About 1900 lbs.). So it is reasonable to think that the behemoths bred by the Partho-Sassanians could easily weigh more than a thousand pounds. This is an impressive creature; Training it to carry an extremely heavily armoured rider and heavy barding, and you have got a much heavier horse, yes more encumbered, but nonetheless a unit meant to crash into front lines. To emphasize their purpose, they are trained to amble or trot in a serried and columned formation, maintaining themselves as a mobile fist. Given how Graeco-Roman sources have embellished Partho-Sassanian heavy horse as fearsome warriors, there must be some truth to their reputation.
Then we get back into the issue of mentality and the contest of balance as LorDBulA mentioned. It may not apply as much to the cataphract due to armament and tactics (Instead the cataphract has its own inherent weaknesses, amongst these heat-loss and stamina). The cataphract was conceived in the beginning to counter horse-archery, but developed into becoming the decisive hammer which did not immediately require the anvil (Pin-and-flank). The cataphract, in the form we all recognize given the ludicrous nomenclature (Super-heavy cavalry), was meant to decide the battle with a single charge to the front. Given that this purpose prevailed for centuries, there is no reason to rule out success.
well i know that horses and men grew in time
Hum, this is not 100% true. Time ago, I believed, like you, that romans were more little than we (specially because I'm 1,90 tall :beam: ).
But a few days ago I've been reading the requirements to be a roman legionary after the Marian reforms, which are:
- Being a roman citizen.
- Being registered (in the census)
- Being bachelor (at least before enlist)
- Being 16-20 years old
- Minimal stature of 1,70
- And so on...
I think that things like the stature are proportional to the quality of life. Same for horses, maybe.
QuintusSertorius
05-02-2008, 15:06
Demographically, height changed both up and down with nutrion and such. There was no broad pattern of people getting ever-taller.
Height is a combinant gene thing (ie the more "height genes" you inherit, the taller your potential), but it also depends very heavily on getting sufficient nutrition during puberty. Doesn't matter how good your genes are, if you don't get the right food at the right time, you won't grow to your full potential.
Height is also related to fertility for women. The taller a woman is, the later she tends to become fertile, because the body only has limited resources. Growing your long bones, and developing sexual organs both use up those resources, so it tends to be an either/or type equation. All that said, the taller you are, the healthier you tend to be, shortness (specifically leg-length) being linked with a number of illnesses. So it's an optimum balance thing of health and fertility.
Horses won't jump into a mass of men, nor can they be coaxed into charging home into a group of them. Doesn't matter whether they have spears or swords, if they're formed up properly, the horse won't do it.
Another fan of James Patterson's Myth of Mounted Knight I see.
I used to live in a rural area - one of my neighbours lost 5 horses when they stampeded through a 6 foot high solid wood fence. You're telling me horses won't ever charge into a wall? Patently false.
Is it a sure thing that in combat you can make the horses crash into an infantry line? Certainly not. Just like it's not a sure thing that men will walk in close-ordered formation into machine gun fire, but with training many Germans and British did just that in WW1.
That you try to rationalize a horse's emotions and reactions is where your argument starts to break down. Why do you think there are so many TV shows about dumb animal tricks? Or when you see those massive bears in Eastern Europe being led around by a nose ring and abused by some malnourished, barely-able-to-walk 60 year old man - why doesn't the bear just maul him and be on its way? Isn't that what it's instinct would tell it to do when threatened?
Anyway, always remember that roman horses were just like a pony, I mean they were more little than modern horses
No, they weren't. The disappearance of chariots was largely due to bigger horses which could carry a man being bred. Which made the clunky chariot completely obselete (even then they tended to be used as "battle taxis" rather than as cavalry).
The Romans bred good quality mounts in the Rosea Rura, and the Celts, Iberians, Parthians and many others also had good horses.
This (http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=2214038) is a summary of an article called " The appeal of the ancient horse: a condition of the question applied to the Age of Iron of the Iberian Peninsula" by Quesada, the most important military ancient historian in Spain.
The complete article is in a book which I read a long time ago in Sabadells library. It basically affirms that horses measured 1,30 or 1,40, but they were as good for the battle as bigger horses.
However, in Orient the horses were bigger.
anything can be trained. put some armor on the horse, get a few slaves for training, once it is used to it, watch the bodies fly.
russia almighty
05-04-2008, 18:22
This is coming from a semi-regular horse rider; horses can be trained to go right through and over things. I like to jump shit once and a while, and my horse does it.
Horses are pretty dumb creatures in my opinion, beautiful but really dumb.
Back ground - ridden for 20 years been involved with breaking, training analysing and watched a lot of horse antics.
Horses are flight creatures - they gallop to get away from things. Man trains that to other uses. A horse will run through things - if its scared enough and with many other horses it will run through fences, hedges, ditches and such only stooping when it is too injured to continue. Or too knackered
Myths:
Horses don't like galloping down hill - try it - they don't. IMHO any cavalry charging downhill should be immediately disordered. The zig-zag downhill.
Truths
Horses like galloping uphill -like hares - an example of cavalry charging up a hill - charge of the HEAVY brigade at balaclava (the light brigade were plain dumb)
Ever wondered what blinkers were for....where the ones race horses have came from.....the ones on armoured war horses had blinds so the horse couldn't see where it was going. These were closed just before charging - horsemen at this time used 'sharp' spurs (and I mean points that made the horses bleed) to cause pain to make the horses charge no what
Five men stopping a war horse at full charge - no chance
Five men in full armour - weighs 1 tonne and is stationary
One fully armoured horse and rider - 1.2-5 tonnes
Einstien e=mc2.
Horse
c for a horse at gallop = 60kph(40mph)=15metres/sec
e=1200x15x15=shitloads
Men
c=0
e=not a lot
Five men have NIL chance of stopping it. They may kill it, injure it, cause it to fall, the horse and rider may be thrown to the ground but the next horse is through.......that's what is supposed to happen next...the five men are dead or at best still flying through the air backwards.
Marshall Ney at Waterloo got through 5 horses (mad bastard :) it didn't stop him.
Myth (unrelated but sorry was mentioned above)
No square at Waterloo was broken - many were....just not enough. The French cavalry stopped because the captured their objective - Wellington's guns - but they didn't spike them...why is another story because if they had Napoleon may well have won. The English squares were behind the artillery and the French cavalry engaged them piecemeal. They were also fighting English cavalry as well and the English were also good at defending yadda uyadda yadda........ They didn't succeed because they charged unsupported...another long story....
Anyway - don't underestimate a charging horse - if you have ever stood in the way of one - you get out of the way fast :)...and often need clean underwear afterwards :)
Five men stopping a war horse at full charge - no chance
Five men in full armour - weighs 1 tonne and is stationary
One fully armoured horse and rider - 1.2-5 tonnes
Einstien e=mc2.
Horse
c for a horse at gallop = 60kph(40mph)=15metres/sec
e=1200x15x15=shitloads
Men
c=0
e=not a lot
Einstein's E=mc^2 equation deals with the transition of mass to energy and back. c is the speed of light, not a person's velocity. That equation has nothing to do with what you're talking about. It deals with things at a microscopic level.
You're looking for E = .5mv^2. But yes, a lot of energy is involved.
You should probably use the Impulse = Momentum equation as well.
And 5 men in full armor would definitely not weigh one ton. That would mean each man would weigh 200 kilograms each! That's just not possible here. I doubt that horse would weigh that much either. Half everything and it'd probably be alright.
...bla bla bla...
This man is a genius. Membership?
And 5 men in full armor would definitely not weigh one ton. That would mean each man would weigh 200 kilograms each! That's just not possible here. I doubt that horse would weigh that much either. Half everything and it'd probably be alright.
Yeh your right...getting me lbs and kg mixed up...sign of old age....probably in the region of 100-120 kgs ....and as to my use of Einsteinisms..... the point i was trying to make is there...roughly :)
Decimus Attius Arbiter
05-05-2008, 19:50
I was watching the Kentucky Derby the other day and thought of RTW and cavalry charges. I couldn't imagine standing in front of a group of running horses.
In addition to all the above, the lance can and will help break up any close-ordered enemy formation. A lot of the success of the charge probably depends on how well trained the cavalry men are to transferring their force into the front-ranks of infantry. They do it well and it helps clear a path for the horse to ram through. One (among many) reason why a sword wall would generally get the short end of the stick is because their sticks are too short.
Gnaeus Servilius
05-13-2008, 15:54
I'd also like to point out that even when a charge has finished, horses can kick bite and stamp on people in addition to the fellow on the horse doing all kinds of nasty tricks with whatever weapon he has at hand. I got kicked by a horse once, it happend in a split second and I was badly winded and went flying a good few feet and from where I was looking it didn't even look like the horse kicked me with it's full power. I've been bitten as well, that was also quick and quite painful. So if you didn't have any or much armour on biting would be pretty effective as well. Horses can be trained to do all these things.Their clever buggers. Also when being ridden horses 'compete' with each other which I think would make for good momentum during a charge. Also, horses have their own personality, some are brave, aggressive, ect so I think selecting a good warhorse is something the ancient horseman would definitely want to take into consideration.
If your interested in ancient horsemanship try and give Xenophon's art of horsemanship a read. It's a suprisongly light read and quite informative.
Anyway I hope that was helpful.
Cartaphilus
05-13-2008, 17:37
The lance is good for a knight to deal with both infantry or other horse-riders.
The french lancers in Waterloo destroyed the english cavalry that they fought.
With a lance you can hit your enemy at a safe distance, and kill him before he can give a single blow with his sword.
Half a league half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred:
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!' he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
Flashed all their sabres bare,
Flashed as they turned in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wondered:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right through the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reeled from the sabre-stroke,
Shattered and sundered.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came through the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made!
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!
The lance is good for a knight to deal with both infantry or other horse-riders.
The french lancers in Waterloo destroyed the english cavalry that they fought.
With a lance you can hit your enemy at a safe distance, and kill him before he can give a single blow with his sword.
Half a league half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred:
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!' he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismayed?
Not though the soldier knew
Someone had blundered:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.
Flashed all their sabres bare,
Flashed as they turned in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wondered:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right through the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reeled from the sabre-stroke,
Shattered and sundered.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.
Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volleyed and thundered;
Stormed at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came through the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made!
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!
Huh? :wall:
QuintusSertorius
05-13-2008, 22:57
The lance is good for a knight to deal with both infantry or other horse-riders.
The french lancers in Waterloo destroyed the english cavalry that they fought.
With a lance you can hit your enemy at a safe distance, and kill him before he can give a single blow with his sword.
A lance is useless against formed infantry ready to deliver a musket volley. Unless it's raining heavily, their powder is sodden and they're nervous.
Happened at Albuera in 1811, although General Beresford still managed to disarm a lancer bare-handed.
Cartaphilus
05-13-2008, 23:01
Don't you like Tennyson?
:sweatdrop:
Or don't you like the french lancers' work against the cavalry in Waterloo? Are you a great-great-grandson of one of the Ponsonbys?
I don't like you making overreaching conclusions based on an engagement where half the British force was dispersed. Kinda like saying the cuirassiers were useless against heavy dragoons 'cause they got shredded at the sunken road.
There's a report someone made, whose escapes me, that lancers are pretty much useless once you get past the first two ranks, and that they'd do better to form the rest of the squadrons with swords to follow up the charge.
Cartaphilus
05-13-2008, 23:14
A lance is useless against formed infantry ready to deliver a musket volley. Unless it's raining heavily, their powder is sodden and they're nervous.
Happened at Albuera in 1811, although General Beresford still managed to disarm a lancer bare-handed.
Obvious.
See the english victories over the french in the Hundred Years' War.
The pikes and the longbows won the fields.
And of course the gunpowder killed in the end the cavalry - but see the last (suicidal?) cavalry charges in the first and second World War (awesome!).
I meant that in normal (ideal) conditions the lancers (well trained) will destroy the hussars or other cavalry units, because of their weapons.
After Waterloo all the european armies create (or recreate) new lancers units.
That's what I've wanted to say.
QuintusSertorius
05-14-2008, 00:03
I meant that in normal (ideal) conditions the lancers (well trained) will destroy the hussars or other cavalry units, because of their weapons.
After Waterloo all the european armies create (or recreate) new lancers units.
That's what I've wanted to say.
In ideal conditions that suit the particular unit in question, they can beat any other. You get into the really stupid game of "what if".
Before Waterloo the French made quite a lot of use of Polish lancers. These things move in cycles and trends which may or may not be influenced by particular events.
Cartaphilus
05-14-2008, 07:28
Waterloo (and the french lancers) was one of these events.
I read a lot about it, and the (real or moral) impact of what the Jacquinot's lancers (less than 700 horsemen) did that day against the Scots Greys was so great to recruit or reform new units of lancers, changing the former tendency of disbanding the lancer units. That's a fact.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.