The myth of the cavalry charge [Archive] - Page 2

Hakonarson

10-24-2002, 04:45

Quote Originally posted by Beavis:
CBR thanks for the links they support the cavalry lobby.[/QUOTE]
Y'reckon? I thought they quite clearly showed that even the vaunted Hussaria, 100-250 yrs after the time period of the game, and fightign against troops who were largely NOT PIKE had to have all sorets of things go right for them in order to win.....

[/QUOTE]The Swedes at Kircholm may have been poorly trained but they were regular troops and the pike was not invicible against cavalry, period.)[/QUOTE]

Duh!!

So what that hey were "regular"? That's irrelevant - they were poor - good irregulars are good, and poor regulars are still poor - being regular or not is irrelevant.

And no it doesn't show that piek weer not invincible - it shows that piek AND SHOT were not invincible.

The Shot component of later armies was ALWAYS vulnerable to cavalry, and since the Swedes were at laest half shot you can't say anythign about the pike on their own at all!!

Quote Hakonarsen the math at Kircholm: 100 Poles dead, 200 wounded. That`s suicide! How many poorly trained Swedish casualties?[/QUOTE]

Lots- it would have been less if they were well trained.

However again you only read or absorbed those parts of my post you wanted to.

the 300 Hussars of the Polish centre lost 150 horses - that is TACTICAL suicide - the unit was effectively destroyed for furtehr use that day.

Of course winning teh fight was worth it, but it wasn't a simple "chage and win" - it still involved a lot of losses.

Teh Swedish losses were, as always, mainly in the pursuit.

Interestingly the best account I've read of the battle (http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/battles/1600-Sw/1600-Sw-08.htm) notes that most of hte Polish cavalry was German mercenary Reiter.

Quote Final score Husaria 2 pikes 0.).][/QUOTE]

One of the battles where the Hussars apparently rode ove pikes (Landsknechts this time) was Lubiezsow.

I did find one very good (ie reasonably objective) site on the Poles at http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/misc/sitemap.htm which gives an account of this battle.

What happened was the 3100 Landsknechts attacked th ePolish infantry, who gave them a volley or 2 and then counter atacked with their swords.

I quote:

"With the Lansknechts halted momentarily, two standards of hussars charged them in the flank. The Lansknechts broke ...." (and the rest of the army fled with them - it comprising anotehr 6000 town militia and a few hundred town cavalry and 400 mercenary Reiter)

A perfect example of how heavy cavalry should be used - pin him in front and charge his flank!!

Quote Unnamed Russian battle doesn`t count, it could have been made up for all we know..[/QUOTE]

Well the account of it is posted in CBR's links above, so if you think it's made up then you must also think that Hussars themselves are made up??

Just because I'd forgotten the name doesn't make it fictinoal - here's another link: http://polisharmies.ds4a.com/greatest2/greatest2.html

It's the battle of Klushino at the bottom of the page. Here the Hussars mostly use the oft condemned caracole themselves!!

Quote You can`t argue that the accounts aren`t accurate because they are Polish because the same can be said about Courtai or the Hundred Years War.[/QUOTE]

I most certainly can - and I DO argue agaisnt biased accounts of any battles, including the mythology of the longbow that the English built up from teh 100 yw especially!

I can, and do, and will continue to argue against all such military myths, of whatever origin.

BTW Hussaia were, of course NOT heavy cavalry!! they evolved from light unarmoured Serbian and Hungarian Husars in Polish service who were found to be rather useful vs Tartars etc when knights weer lumbering along too slow to be effective.

The did receive armour, but it was always rather minimal compared to the full or 3/4 armour of European Cuirassiers.

I reckon a good modern analogy would be battlecruisers - fast, heavily armed, but a bit vulnerable if not used properly. Fortunately the Poles always seemed to use their Hussars properly!!

CBR

10-24-2002, 04:48

Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
Ok guys...

I'm getting a little tired of this now.

[/QUOTE]

Yes we basically all agree that cavalry has to be improved. It will improve game balance, be more historical correct and really be more fun as cavalry is the fun unit.
Have already said what I believe should be changed in MTW.. I dont know how much the game developers will change but I think its important we players come up with
what we believe is the best solution based on history/fun/game balance so they dont have any reasons not to change it...only that they dont care heh.

CBR

Hakonarson

10-24-2002, 06:11

Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
Of course spears should have anti-cav capabilities, even against lancearmed cav (can't imagine Order Foot getting trounced by Steppe Cavalry). But the anti-chargebonus is what needs to be removed.[/QUOTE]

Err...what's the anti-charge bonus??

Quote Heavy cav is not only extensively overpriced, they are also underpowered. Something needs to be done. If they are not underpowered their price needs a drop, if they are then they need to be better, period.
They are not very fun right now, and that is ruining the game I think. People need to get the feeling that heavy cav is worth it.[/QUOTE]

I still use them!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

But yes, there are some things that can be done, but IMO it's in the morale area as well as combat.

Bump up the penalties to being attacked in flank and rear to the point where they almost invariably guarantee an instant rout by even very good troops, and half the "battle" for cavalry is won IMO.

the other thing to do is stop infantry from gettign any offensive or defensive bonuses if they are moving when they fight cavalry......actually I'd change this to if they are moving when they aer struck by a cavalry CHARGE.

Between them these 2 changes force infantry to protect their flanks better from teeh more mobile cavalry, to hold when atacked by cavalry (unless you wnat to run the associated risks), they will allow caalry to "break into" formations I think, in a more pelasing visual effect, and will also encourage cavalry to actually charge into contact to get the proper benefit.

BTW for those interested in Kircholm (1605) - I ad a look at the WRG army lists at lunch time - the Swedes of the period get NO pike (zero, none, zip), and at least half their shot are armed with lesser firearms than muskets. His comment is that the Swedish army there "lacked a single pike" and is quoted from another sourfce which alas he doesn't identify.

Now Phil Barker (who wrote them) is a pretty controversial chap in many respects, and not all agree with his analysis of things, but none-the-less he's also a doyen of historical figure gaming.

I know gathering history from wargaming rules isn't good practice, but I thought it worth repearing.

Cousin Zoidfarb

10-24-2002, 07:35

Wow! 200 Polish infantry defeat 5000 Scot infantry!
The Husaria defeat Cavalry 4 times their number at Klushino, I guess their horses got a little tired when it was the pikes turn.
Your source also states the terrain wasn't favourable for a cavalry charge.

You neglect to mention the allusion your source makes that the Husaria defeated infantry and an outnumbering Russian force (poorly-trained no doubt) at Orsza 1514. No details given about how the Russians were armed. Your source does however also state that Hussars were not deterred by pike formations.

Quoting wargame developers as sources doesn't lend much credibility.

I see thing s as a simple arms race. Lances were once short and thrown or used overhead. "Lancer" means to throw en francais. Then they were couched and became longer in most of Europe (the Lithuanians continued to throw lances)since they're longer spears are ineffective and the knight dominates Europe. The infantry spear becomes the pike and successfully defends against charging cavalry, the Poles ingeniously lighten and lengthen their lances allowing their cavalry to successfully attack pikes, nuff said.

BTW the Husaria were more heavily armored than most other cavalry and charged like knights did, Cuirassiers were out of fashion by the 1650's.

Very enjoyable links BTW.

Kraxis

10-24-2002, 08:46

Quote Err...what's the anti-charge bonus??[/QUOTE]

Hmmm... this explains why it seemed you never understood my reasoning when we discussed Courtrai.

Spear- and pikeunits get a special bonus, they negate cavalry charges. The charge is in most cases 8 for heavy cavalry (6 in the others), this you add to the attackvalue to get the impact. But without this charge the heavy cavalry is at a major disadvantage against the Spearmen. They can be engaged by two spearmen (and two more attacking over the shoulder), the Spearmen have the ranksbonus (2 to charge, 1 to attack and 2 to def, if in four ranks, does not show up in F1) which luckily don't work in forests. These are all bonusses normal troops don't get.
They make sure that the heavy cav won't kill any spearmen.

This is why heavy cav won't kill more than perhaps 5-8 spearmen before they are down to 15 themselves and break.

Try to mod a battle where the enemy has a unit of some sort and a unit of 1 Spearman (not general to make sure he has one life), then give yourself 40 knights and charge him. He will stand (if he doesn't break from moralepenalty) firm and you will perhaps see him charge back, but most likely you will see the knights get stopped by this one man due to his ability to soak up charges.

I think it would go a long way if cavalry did not get penalized for doing head on charges on spearmen when no other units get that penalty.

Of course units out of order should get a penalty, but sadly that is not the case.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

Boleslaw Wrymouth

10-24-2002, 08:59

Wow, since I checked back, the historical debate of cavalry and infantry is being argued in terms of MINIATURE WARGAMING. HEHE.

Harkon.. let me quote (and it shall take a lot of typing) a much more studied work.

"The arguement that the Swedish defeat at Kircholm was due to inferior pikemanship depends on the dogma that it was impossible for cavalry to break pike formations, and depends on circular reasoning; the pike in skilled hands was invincible against cavalry; at Kircholm, the Swedish infantry was broken by cavalry, therefore the Swedish infantry must have been lacking in skill."

"...but the Swedish army at Kircholm did not consist of half-trained Swedish peasants. The 1604 Riksdag voted taxes for three years to enable Charles to hire 9,000 foreign mercenaries, under two experienced western commanders, Duke Frederick of Luneburg and Count Joachim Frederick of Mansfeld. Together with the western mercenaries in the cavalry, they outnumbered Chodkiewicz's (the Polish commander) entire army, yet they suffered a spectacular defeat." ("The Northern Wars 1558-1721" Robert I. Frost)

The fact is that most of the frontline infantry the Poles fought were mercenaries from the west. Frost is meticilous and tends to concentrate on tax records and economic trends. Wargamers would be better served if they looked at at tax records and official rolls rather than vague descriptions.

The ugly and sorry effect for all you pikemen is that the charge worked. It worked against all of the major western powers. In many cases, the best western pikemen were involved. Certainly at Kircholm the pikes were of the best western tradition. The Poles were much more likely to face a German pike formation then a Russian one when they were fighting Russia. Sweden became the wonder of the military world by copying Poland and then slowly refining it's methods. It's methods REQUIRED both the infantry and cavalry charge and refused the lazy musket duels and caracoles of western armies. Eventually, the manuals demanded that neither the cavalry nor the infantry should fire more than one volley when attacking. Anyone interested in this period of warfare and the fall of Poland as a major power, the rise of Prussia and the rise of Russia should read this book.

Anyone interested in Swedish military taxation and the fall into autocracy should read this book. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

My last comment will be the same damn one I have repeated over and over. The dominance of the heavy cavalry was not made up. They wrote what they saw and what they saw was lopsided slaughters when cavalry met infantry. That was medieval warfare.

[This message has been edited by Boleslaw Wrymouth (edited 10-24-2002).]

Boleslaw Wrymouth

10-24-2002, 09:16

Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
I have seen pictures of what I think is lances from that period, and they are not anything like the knights lances. They look to better at stabbing than the knights lance (which is a more a pole than a spear), and that fits well with the accounts we have read here that the lancers didn't charge as much as trot up and stab. So naturally they would want to keep their lances intact to stab more than one victim or else the point would be lost quite fast.
Strapping on the lance like that would ensure the lancer didn't drop the lance when in the thick of it, where the knight would drop his at once he reached that stage to fight with his sword/mace/flail/whatever.

[/QUOTE]

What do you mean Kraxis?

A lance was a spear. Until the 16th century it looked exactly like a long spear. The tournament lance is what most people are familiar with, but that was never used in battle.

The "prance and poke" school of cavalry is inherently silly. They charge and then stop at a respectful distance. I suppose the idea is that they would panic troops when they ran towards them but if the infantry didn't cooperate the cavalry would stop and start poking. That would be effective exactly one time. Infantry, Europe-wide, would just smirk...."watch, they are going to pull up right here.....CHARGE!".

Why does everyone distrust soldiers accounts? They actually fought the battles.

amrcg

10-24-2002, 12:29

Quote Originally posted by Akka:
If charges was ineffective against poorly trained troops, why it ended that in the Crusades (when facing professionnal armies with a complete different military background), the only solution for muslims to vainquish the charge of HC was to avoid it ?
(BTW : this point was pointed in before, if ever people would just accept to READ PREVIOUS POSTS).

[This message has been edited by Akka (edited 10-23-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Akka (edited 10-23-2002).][/QUOTE]

Could you please point us to some crusader battles where the western knights were able to defeat by frontal charge a group of well trained and armed infantry standing in (deep enough) close formation with flanks protected?
It's that it contradicts what we see in most battles from antiquity to the 19th century passing through the Middle Ages, when the power of infantry against cavalry was well recognised (even in the early period) as attested by the following examples where knights fought dismounted:

- Tinchebrai (1106) is a fine example of infantry being used to stop a charge, with cavalry being used to envelop the enemy.
Henry I was attacked by his brother Robert. He placed his infantry in the front line and dismounted knights in the second, with a contingent of 700 cavalry with each. Robert apparently also dismounted some of his forces. He then launched a cavalry charge against Henry's right wing, which broke through the first line but was held by the second, a similar charge on the left making little progress. Henry then sent a hidden reserve of perhaps 1000 cavalry under Helias of Maine against the entangled Normans and won the day.

- Bremule (1119) is another example where knights are dismounted to play the role of infantry.
Henry dismounted all but 100 of his 500 knights when he encountered the invading forces of Louis VI of France. It was a small-scale affair since Louis himself had only 400 knights. The French came in two or three divisions and the first, though apparently lacking discipline, actually broke the Norman cavalry screen. However, on confronting the dismounted knights it was surrounded and cut to pieces, as was the next division. Louis, himself being wounded, fled.

Tell me one example (Crusades or not), a single example where western knights were able to defeat by frontal charge a group of well trained and armed infantry standing in (deep enough) close formation with flanks protected.
You'll see that on average, whenever this situation is known to have occured, cavalry was defeated.

Antonio

AgentBif

10-24-2002, 14:21

Quote Originally posted by amrcg:

It's that it contradicts what we see in most battles from antiquity to the 19th century passing through the Middle Ages, when the power of infantry against cavalry was well recognised (even in the early period) as attested by the following examples where knights fought dismounted
[/QUOTE]

Well, I've been reading a book by Hans Delbruck with a chapter specifically regarding the dismounting of knights. He cites 3 or 4 examples of battles where this sort of thing was done and in every case apparently it was to enhance the morale of the militia and men-at-arms. Apparently there was serious concern that if the battle started going bad, the cavalry would just ride off and leave the poor sods to die.

He specifically points out that the knights are giving up a tremendous advantage for the sake of bolstering the resolve of the entire army.

bif

AgentBif

10-24-2002, 14:24

Quote Originally posted by Boleslaw Wrymouth:

The "prance and poke" school of cavalry is inherently silly. They charge and then stop at a respectful distance. I suppose the idea is that they would panic troops when they ran towards them but if the infantry didn't cooperate the cavalry would stop and start poking. That would be effective exactly one time. Infantry, Europe-wide, would just smirk...."watch, they are going to pull up right here.....CHARGE!".
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, knights, and presumably heavy cavalry in general, would carry additional weapons into battle so that when the lance was expended, they'd still have something to dish out the pain...

bif

amrcg

10-24-2002, 15:06

Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
Well, I've been reading a book by Hans Delbruck with a chapter specifically regarding the dismounting of knights. He cites 3 or 4 examples of battles where this sort of thing was done and in every case apparently it was to enhance the morale of the militia and men-at-arms. Apparently there was serious concern that if the battle started going bad, the cavalry would just ride off and leave the poor sods to die.

He specifically points out that the knights are giving up a tremendous advantage for the sake of bolstering the resolve of the entire army.

bif[/QUOTE]

At Brémule (see the description in my last posting) there were knights only, and still Henry dismounted the majority on his side. 400 knights on foot stood against 400 mounted knights long enough to allow the the reserve of 100 mounted knights to attack the rear of the enemy.

Antonio

Vlad007

10-24-2002, 17:10

Boleslaw Wrymouth
Well said

The force of a chargign body of heavy cavalry hittign a stationary body of infatry is huge. Knight H/V were trained to aim ther lance at the uper torso as to throw the target up and back on to the rank behind them.

Anti charge is bull shit. May be against stationry pikes set to recive but not spare man

amrcg

10-24-2002, 17:21

Quote Originally posted by Vlad007:
Boleslaw Wrymouth
Well said

The force of a chargign body of heavy cavalry hittign a stationary body of infatry is huge. Knight H/V were trained to aim ther lance at the uper torso as to throw the target up and back on to the rank behind them.

Anti charge is bull shit. May be against stationry pikes set to recive but not spare man[/QUOTE]

This is not my way of working. Please present examples taken from real battles. Where and when did a cavalry frontal charge beat a body of disciplined unscathed stationary infantry (armed with either spears, cut lances, polearms, pikes, etc.) at least 6 deep with protected flanks and was victorious? Please present names of battles, not philosophical considerations.

Antonio

Kraxis

10-24-2002, 18:45

Quote Originally posted by Boleslaw Wrymouth:

A lance was a spear. Until the 16th century it looked exactly like a long spear. The tournament lance is what most people are familiar with, but that was never used in battle.
[/QUOTE]

I would like if you backed this up somehow. Information is always a nice thing. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Well, from the accounts we have from jousters of these days, lances were indeed much the same as the ones used in jousting tournaments.
Why should they not be like that?
As the lance became longer it was getting harder and harder to hold it and aim it, with the hand placed so far back. The the couched lance came by. Besides holding the lance at the shoulder the other most important thing about it was the counterweight behind the gripple (quite long in some cases). The knight would still have to have a substantial strength in his hand but now it was possible to lengthen the lance.
Also for the lance to be able to transfer enough energy to the target, then there would have to be a breaker in front of the hand. There we have fluid shape of the big round grip.
This worked in jousting, then why would they go back to spears that were not balanced, had no handle that could transfer the energy properly and were perhaps not even going to break on impact risking the knight getting thrown out of the saddle or injured.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

Cousin Zoidfarb

10-24-2002, 18:54

At the battle of Warsaw in the 1650's the Husaria now a minority in the PLC army crashed through 3 regiments of Swedish infantry and broke into the second line of infantry.

Husaria 3 pike 0

I find it hard to give a point to the pikes for Klushino since the terrain was not suitable to the cavalry charge as mentioned in the source and to assume that 200 Polish infantry were able to defeat 5000 Scots and German infantry without the Husaria giving a helping hand is hard to accept.

There are the other battles where the PLC was successful with an almost totally cavalry army against armies with cavalry and infantry, aganist the Swedes, Austrians, Turks, Russians so there has to be some truth to the myth of the cavalry charge, no?

The Poles charged pikes with the Husaria, it was done and they were successful.

Size does matter. We also forget trigonometry where the lance is held at 0' but the pike is held at a larger angle, reducing the effective reach.

What bugs the pro-cavalry lobby is that spears have such high anti-cavalry bonuses in the game. This should be limited to pikes and spears should have much less of a benefit.

amrcg

10-24-2002, 18:54

Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
I would like if you backed this up somehow. Information is always a nice thing. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Well, from the accounts we have from jousters of these days, lances were indeed much the same as the ones used in jousting tournaments.
Why should they not be like that?
As the lance became longer it was getting harder and harder to hold it and aim it, with the hand placed so far back. The the couched lance came by. Besides holding the lance at the shoulder the other most important thing about it was the counterweight behind the gripple (quite long in some cases). The knight would still have to have a substantial strength in his hand but now it was possible to lengthen the lance.
Also for the lance to be able to transfer enough energy to the target, then there would have to be a breaker in front of the hand. There we have fluid shape of the big round grip.
This worked in jousting, then why would they go back to spears that were not balanced, had no handle that could transfer the energy properly and were perhaps not even going to break on impact risking the knight getting thrown out of the saddle or injured.

[/QUOTE]

I don't know if battlefield lances were similar or not to jousting lances. What I know for sure is that at least from the XIVth century onward battlefield lances were longer than infantry spears. The proof comes from the fact that several sources attest that knights would cut their lances to the length of a spear when fighting as infantry.

Antonio

amrcg

10-24-2002, 19:20

Quote Originally posted by Beavis:

Size does matter. We also forget trigonometry where the lance is held at 0' but the pike is held at a larger angle, reducing the effective reach.
[/QUOTE]

Have you ever looked at a 16th or 17th century infantry manual? The 2nd and subsequent lines held the pikes at 0' over the front man's shoulder.

Antonio

Kraxis

10-24-2002, 20:57

Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
Have you ever looked at a 16th or 17th century infantry manual? The 2nd and subsequent lines held the pikes at 0' over the front man's shoulder.

Antonio

[/QUOTE]

Outside the timeframe really, but more to the point it is the second rank not the first rank, and the second ranks pikes/spears would not extent that far out.

About the Husaria, I found a page while searching for lances, I think there were some 12 battles won by the Polish credited to the Husaria there, of course not all were won against pikes. I think that shows that the Husaria were indeed very powerful.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

CBR

10-24-2002, 22:10

Quote Originally posted by Beavis:

What bugs the pro-cavalry lobby is that spears have such high anti-cavalry bonuses in the game. This should be limited to pikes and spears should have much less of a benefit.[/QUOTE]

Well examples from wars fought 200-500 years after the period we are talking about doesnt tell us much do they? I might as well come up with loads of examples of cavalry not being able to deal with infantry squares in the Napoleonic wars...

The polish hussars fought infantry where at least 2/3 were muskets and, as one of the links I found says, pikes stood in only 3 ranks and in a very loose formation.

In 2 of the battles which you consider victories for the cavalry charge: one was a flank attack with polish infantry doing a lot of the fighting...one website dosnt even mention the hussars only the infantry. The second battle was an advancing infantry formation being surprised by sudden polish resistance and then a charge by the hussars. The latest battle you mention..well couldnt find any specific information on that battle so who knows what happened.

If you cant see the difference between infantry standing firm prepared for a cavalry charge and infantry on the move or infantry fighting infantry while flanked by cavalry...if you cant see the difference between infantry tactics in 16xx compared to infantry tactics in 11xx or 14xx...well let me just be nice and say this dicussion is rather pointless then..

So could we try and keep it Medieval please..

Pikes should be better than spears..as it is right now you dont need pikes to defeat cavalry. But spears could be 6 feet or even 10 feet and still not considered a pike.

Dont know if removing the anticharge bonus is too much or simply reduce the general cavalry defensebonus is too little, or something between. (hell we could remove the anticharge bonus for both pikes and spears as they have cavalry defense bonus already, and see what happens) But the anticharge bonus should clearly not be there (or reduced a lot) if spear/pikes is standing in just a few ranks (and ofc when moving). That bonus is not just about weapon lenght but also depth/density of the formation.

Even if we do assume that the cavalry lances did push soldiers back that would in most cases still only push less than half the front back as the infantry in a defensive shieldwall had less frontage per man than the charging horse. If the infantry didnt move, the horse would have stopped before hitting the wall of men/shields/spears.

There are IIRC lots of examples of cavalry making repeated charges trying to break the infantry formation...if they really charged blindly into it the first time and didnt break the formation their losses would have been insanely high after just the first charge.

Holes in the front rank could easily happen: some men panicking and trying to move back, a knight using his (longer) lance to kill a few and then push further in or some horse/rider wounded/gone mad continuing into the formation.

Thats why it so important for infantry so move as close together as possible: mutual/morale support, to create a wall that a horse could see no way through and therefore had to stop. If there is a gap then the disaster could happen and sometimes that didnt even happen as the infantry formation opened up and most of the cavalry just went through the gap.

Found this..contains some references to some book too.
http://www.dicksonc.act.edu.au/Showcase/ClioContents/Clio2/stirrup.html

CBR

CBR

10-24-2002, 22:16

Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:

I think that shows that the Husaria were indeed very powerful.

[/QUOTE]

No doubt that they were powerful but that is also outside the timeframe http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

CBR

Cousin Zoidfarb

10-24-2002, 22:21

amrcg, the only way a pikeman can hold a pike at 0 degrees is if he held it with his two hands and didn`t brace the pike in the ground. If the pike wasn`t braced or set it wasn`t very effective as it would be knocked out of the pikeman`s hands on impact.

BlackWatch McKenna

10-24-2002, 22:30

[not medieval but...]

Polish Winged Hussar!

Dang - they were my favorite army to paint of all times. They were armed with Long Lances and a breast plate - their horses were unarmored. Fast and Furious -and if you lost your lance in battle, you were drummed out of the corp!

Those big feathers on their backs made a tremendous racket that freaked out their opponents.

//black

http://home.pacbell.net/ittybear/

they are the chaps on the far right, with the big "wings" on their backs...

A nice movie about them is The Deluge http://server101.hypermart.net/feniks/ogien/cnd/movie.htm

You get to see some Hussaren winnin' and losin' on various occassions. Dang - I could go on all day about them.....

Kraxis

10-24-2002, 22:45

Quote Originally posted by CBR:

Holes in the front rank could easily happen: some men panicking and trying to move back, a knight using his (longer) lance to kill a few and then push further in or some horse/rider wounded/gone mad continuing into the formation.
[/QUOTE]

Yup, that is very correct. And that is why it is so wrong for the spearmen to get the anticharge bonus. Right now there will never be any holes in the formation, and any losses will be due to the knights fighting in melee, the situation they tried to avoid and the situation the spears would have the advantage in.
If the bonus was removed then heavy cav might be able to make Spearmen run (they have bad morale to start with), but most likely not the better spears. This would very much represent the fearfactor of standing up to the charge.
Spearmen being normal men with spears would be scared and could not be counted on to stand up to a charge, though they might making the m a viable way to hold the enemy knights.
Also this would perhaps force battles to take on the historical fight where knight fought knights first, then infantry.
It is all a much more interesting situation as it all is around a big IF or MIGHT, concerning the charge, not a certain outcome. I like that.

I looked at the battle of Bouvine, apparently the allied halbardiers defeated the french militia in the center but were chopped up by the knights directly behind the militia. The halbardiers knowing there would be enemies further back showed a lot of restraint in not pursuing the fleeing french.
After the militia were out of the way king Philippe and the knights charge the reformed halbardiers and trampled them with the charge and began killing them with swords after that.

That incident caused the rest of the French forces to charge as well and despite some very tenacious mercs on the right flank of the allied forces, they managed to win the battle.

There we have it, a dense infantry formation armed with halbardiers being defeated by a frontal charge.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

amrcg

10-24-2002, 23:21

Akka

10-25-2002, 00:23

Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
How did you conclude that the halbardiers restrained their pursuit? But even if we did, the example is not good because I asked for "disciplined unscathed stationary infantry (armed with either spears, cut lances, polearms, pikes, etc.) at least 6 deep with protected flanks". A body of tired halbardiers just coming out from a melee is hardly the example I was looking for.
Again, show me an example where the infantry in the bove said conditions was defeated by a cavalry frontal charge.

Antonio
[/QUOTE]

Well, so situations where cavalry has to charge uphill, with obstacles on the way, being peppered by archery or having no suffisant space to charge, in a muddy ground, shows that the frontal charge was ineffective ; while when they success, it's because infantry is tired/undisciplined/poor and then it's not a worthy example ?

Well, I would like to see a single standard here. If charging and tramplin a tired infantry unit is not a proof that frontal charge was effective, then being cut to ribbons when charging in unfavourable condition should not prove that it's ineffective either.

Kraxis

10-25-2002, 00:36

Well Akka has a point, it has to be equal terms for both sides. We can't just push something away with tiredness if we can't do the same for the cavalry.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

Cousin Zoidfarb

10-25-2002, 01:21

Well said Akka.

Hakonarson

10-25-2002, 02:02

Quote Originally posted by Boleslaw Wrymouth:
Harkon.. let me quote (and it shall take a lot of typing) a much more studied work.

"The arguement that the Swedish defeat at Kircholm was due to inferior pikemanship depends on the dogma that it was impossible for cavalry to break pike formations, and depends on circular reasoning; the pike in skilled hands was invincible against cavalry; at Kircholm, the Swedish infantry was broken by cavalry, therefore the Swedish infantry must have been lacking in skill."[/QUOTE]

Quote "...but the Swedish army at Kircholm did not consist of half-trained Swedish peasants. The 1604 Riksdag voted taxes for three years to enable Charles to hire 9,000 foreign mercenaries, under two experienced western commanders, Duke Frederick of Luneburg and Count Joachim Frederick of Mansfeld. Together with the western mercenaries in the cavalry, they outnumbered Chodkiewicz's (the Polish commander) entire army, yet they suffered a spectacular defeat." ("The Northern Wars 1558-1721" Robert I. Frost))[/QUOTE]

An interesting quote which fails to say anythign about pike, or the quality of the mercenaries, nor provides any actual evidence of their presence at Kircholm aside from the raw comment that they were there.

Now Dr Frost is a respected historian of the period, but like all of us needs more than bald statements, and every otehr source identifies teh Swedish army at Kircholm as being at least largely Sedes and finns (5000 explicitly identified as such at http://polisharmies.ds4a.com/camp1/camp1.html - which also uses Frost as a source).

Quote The fact is that most of the frontline infantry the Poles fought were mercenaries from the west. Frost is meticilous and tends to concentrate on tax records and economic trends. [/QUOTE]

Cool - now where does he actually say that those mercenaries were at Kircholm, that they were infantry, and that they formed the front line?

Quote The ugly and sorry effect for all you pikemen is that the charge worked. It worked against all of the major western powers. In many cases, the best western pikemen were involved. [/QUOTE]

something not based on your post - how do you know those mercenaries were at Kircholm, that they weer pike armed, and that they were the best of the west??

[This message has been edited by Hakonarson (edited 10-24-2002).]

Hakonarson

10-25-2002, 03:51

I'd like to thank Boleslaw for bringing up Frost - I've known about his work for a while but never considered the period all that important!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

So today I've closed that gap & ordered up a few other works. I thought I'd post them here so ppl can se what is available.

From Essex Miniatures in the UK:
WRG's "Armies of the Middle Agest", volumes 1 and 2
Osprey Men-at-Arms Series MAA 184 and 188, Polish armies 1576-1696 volumes 1 and 2

From Amazon
Gustavus Adolphus: A History of the Art of War from Its Revival After the Middle Ages to the End of the Spanish Succession War, With a Detailed accou (Paperback)
War and the State in Early Modern Europe: Spain, the Dutch Republic and Sweden as Fiscal-military States, 1500-1660 (Warfare and History) (Paperback)
The Northern Wars: War, State and Society in Northeastern Europe, 1558-1721 (Modern Wars in Perspective) (Paperback)

I'd also highly recommend Osprey Men at Arms "The Armies of Gustavus Adolphus", volumes 1 & 2 for anyone interested in that gentleman.

The Yogi

10-25-2002, 05:34

I have seen in this thread claims that effective cavalry charges depended on the weapons (the lance was longer than the spear) and some on morale (infantry would sometimes break before the charge hit home).

But what I think is forgotten is what huge effect on morale the weapons must have had. With a spear shorter than the knights lance, the poor bastard standing in the first rank knows that even if the charge is held, he will most likely get skewered. Thus, he should be more likely to break and run.

On the the other hand, with a pike that same guy knows that if he just sits tight, he will be protected by his own weapon and that of the men behind him, and that he has a good chance of being OK. So he stays put.

I belive everything else equal, the spear infantry would be much more likely to break from a cavalry charge than pike - most people are non to eager to die for the cause.

[This message has been edited by The Yogi (edited 10-24-2002).]

The Yogi

10-25-2002, 05:39

Let me see if I got this straight:

Any unit armed with the weapon SPEAR in the crusaders_unit_prod11.txt file is immune to the effects of cavalry charges?

So reducing the defensive anti-cav bonus for spears would have no effect on the anti-charge bonus, you'd have to rearm the Spearmen with say SWORD? (And then they would not really be Spearmen, would they...)

Rather hard to MOD the units myself then...

[This message has been edited by The Yogi (edited 10-25-2002).]

Hakonarson

10-25-2002, 06:17

Quote Originally posted by Beavis:
Wow! 200 Polish infantry defeat 5000 Scot infantry!
The Husaria defeat Cavalry 4 times their number at Klushino, I guess their horses got a little tired when it was the pikes turn.
Your source also states the terrain wasn't favourable for a cavalry charge..[/QUOTE]

So what? I thought Husaria could overcome anything?

I'm not sure where your 200 Hussars defet 5000 Scots comes from tho??

Quote You neglect to mention the allusion your source makes that the Husaria defeated infantry and an outnumbering Russian force (poorly-trained no doubt) at Orsza 1514. No details given about how the Russians were armed. [/QUOTE]

In 1514 there were no Hussaria - perhaps Serbian and Hungarian "Ussars" - light cavalry armed with a lance and without armour.

Quote Your source does however also state that Hussars were not deterred by pike formations..[/QUOTE]

Really? so why did they use infantry to soften them up at all? Why didn't they charge the front of the Landsknects in 1576 - instead letting their infantry engage the front and then charging the Germans in the flanks?

Quote Quoting wargame developers as sources doesn't lend much credibility..[/QUOTE]

Which is what I said - none-the-less the particular wargame developer is also a respected historian in his own right with many published works on miiltary history that are indispensible to the serious gamer.

He views wargaming as a means of re-enacting ACTUAL history and has a savage reputation for taking no prisoners and demolishing myths - wargaming would be a lot better, IMO, if more gamers and historians were like him!

Quote I see thing s as a simple arms race. Lances were once short and thrown or used overhead. "Lancer" means to throw en francais. Then they were couched and became longer in most of Europe (the Lithuanians continued to throw lances)since they're longer spears are ineffective and the knight dominates Europe. The infantry spear becomes the pike and successfully defends against charging cavalry, the Poles ingeniously lighten and lengthen their lances allowing their cavalry to successfully attack pikes, nuff said..[/QUOTE]

And yet it didn't work at Courtrai - where one web site claims that cavalry lances of the tiem were (1302) were longer than infantry "pikes". (I have my doubts tho'....)

Quote BTW the Husaria were more heavily armored than most other cavalry and charged like knights did, Cuirassiers were out of fashion by the 1650's..[/QUOTE]

Hussars were certainly NOT more heavily armoured than other cavalry!! they had enough to qualify them as "light horse" in the European scheme of things - their development from unarmoured foreign light cavalry is nicely written at http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/spirals/s-hussar.htm

I'm not sure why the obsolescence of Cuirassiers in the mid-late 17th century has to do with anything - even Hussaria were being phased out by then!

Quote
Very enjoyable links BTW.[/QUOTE]

Thanks - IMO there's always room for improving knowledge even in an intense debate.

[This message has been edited by Hakonarson (edited 10-25-2002).]

Didz

10-25-2002, 06:52

Quote
No, I did not defeat my argument. I never said that any infantry would collapse at the first charge. I never said that several charges were not needed to definitely destroy an infantry front.

What I meant is that making a full frontal charge against a wall of spears was not suicidal and was even pretty effective.
Withdrawing after a charge to make another one just means that the first impact was not decisive for the battle. It also mean that you did not take such high losses that you would give up the frontal charge and try something else. It also means that you still consider that another charge could destroy the opponent unit. All in all it proves that the charges ARE effective, even against a steady professional standing unit situated on a position giving it an advantage.
[/QUOTE]

In that case what are we arguing about. Because that’s exactly what I have been saying since that start of this thread.

That cavalry did not perform suicidal full gallop charges into steady infantry but would instead make repeated controlled advances and withdrawals until such time as an opportunity presented itself to exploit a failure of command and control and break the enemy formation apart. The only real issue is your use of the word charge which produces an instance Warner Brothers induced image of galloping horseflesh when in fact most cavalry charges were conducted at a steady walk/trot or canter.
Quote

That's only your opinion, which shows that you consider them probably more stupids and unskilled than they were, and considering that several times there WAS tricks and traps in battle (the false rout at Hasting, ie), I then just disagree with you on this point.

On the other hand, EVEN if it was the case, I would then point that if they were only trained to do frontal charge, it was because it WAS effective. Or they would have been trained to do something else.
[/QUOTE]

Yes ! Of course its my opinion. Just as everything that has ever been written about medieval warfare is someones opinion and always will be until someone invents a time machine and goes back there with a video camera.

However, I never said that Medieval Knights were stupid nor did I say they were unskilled and I would thank you not to put words into my mouth. What I said was that a battle of Medieval Knights probably had limited tactical options because they lacked the discipline and tactical finesse necessary to do anything else.

The point I was making was that if we compare the quite elaborate arrangements that were necessary to give Napoleonic cavalry their tactical flexibility with command structure and training of a battle of Medieval Knights then it is reasonable to conclude that a regiment of French Dragoons in 1803 would be capable of performing far more elborate manourves on the battlefield that a similar number of Knights in 1303.
A cavalry regiment in 1803 would have been rigorously trained both horse and man to perform these manoeuvres together en-masse over several months whilst the knights may never have been drilled together at all prior to the battle.

The 1803 regiment and the brigade to which it belonged would have the benefit of a pre-defined command and control structure which was recognised and enforced by military discipline from General down to NCO. Every six men in an 1803 cavalry regiment had at least one officer or NCO watching them to make sure they stayed in line didn't rush the pace and maintained the right direction. Each manoeuvre element or 3 or 4 men was boxed in both in front on each flank and behind by officers and NCO's whose sole job was to make sure that the men stayed together and didn't increase the pace or intervals during the advance.

Add to that the inherent tendency for the knight to dismiss infantry as inferior and to consider themselves an irresistible force and one has both the motivation and the excuse

So the fact remains that despite :

1) the knights not having sufficient distance to reach a good speed for the charge;

2) the ground being covered with broken bow, left here precisely to make the charge more difficult ;

3) the knight having to cross previously on obstacle that has tired them and that some could not even pass ;

4) the enemy being in higher ground, hence the charge being more difficult ;

5) the Flemish being prepared to receive the
charge, having steady formation, adequately placed spears and shields;

6) well, despite all of this, the charge still broken through EIGHT ranks and could not be pushed back without reinforcement.

Not according to the account I read.

According to the account I read the French managed to enter the formation but failed to break through it. The process described was NOT as you have quite rightly stated a headlong gallop into a steady wall of infantry but a steady hack and bash in which the French managed no doubt by superior weapon skills to force their way into the Flemish formation and almost broke it but didn't and instead found themselves exhausted and surrounded by vengeful infantry.

This must have been made easier by the fact that only one in two of the men were armed with spears and thus the ratio between spear points and horse would have been lower than normal providing greater gaps and thus opportunity for the knights to force their way into the formation.

Quote
7) How would the charge would have fared then in plain flat ground, even with professional soldiers ready to receive it. That would again prove rather the EFFECTIVENESS of a dumb full-frontal charge against a wall of spears than the opposite.
[/quite]

That’s difficult to answer and would depend on the determination of the Flemish to stand their ground under such conditions.
As Baron de Jomini remarked the psychological impact of cavalry on infantry was marked not by the speed of their advance but by the measure of its determination and likely effectiveness based on the level of order, cohesion and discipline during its approach.

Thus it is reasonable to conclude that had the 2,500 French Knights had the opportunity to approach the Flemish line in a solid and orderly manner the psychological impact on the Flemish infantry would have been far greater than the fragmented and obviously disrupted approach that actually occurred.
My guess is that some, if not all, of the Flemish infantry would have panicked or at least flinched during the final approach and the Knights would have had the opportunity they needed to break through their lines and run them down.

However, I still believe that if they stood their ground and the French had insisted of attacking them frontally then the result would have been the same.

Actually, I would think it's not because of the lack of spears (which are VERY cheap weapons), but rather because, when you receive a charge from a 1 ton horse carrying about 200-250 Kg of rider + armour, it's much more efficient to have on men entirely devoted to keep the spear targeted at him, and one entirely devoted to keep the shield up against him.

I don't recall suggesting any economic motive for the lack of spears amongst the Flemish formation. In fact I suspect that the choice of weapons was deliberate the only point I would make is that by substituting a goedendag for every other spear must have reduced the density of the spear wall by 50% and thus made it easier for the French Knights to find a gap in which to enter the Flemish formation.
Quote

I will make some research, but usually, battles are remembered precisely when they see the victory of the underdog, and the more the underdog is weak, the more they are remembered. So I think I can make a pretty good guess by saying "nearly all BUT the ones who were cited in this thread".
[/QUOTE]

I have numerous examples of cavalry riding down and practically destroying opposing infantry, such as the examples of Quatre Bras and Gilly already quoted. But more detailed research shows that in every instance the infantry has either panicked before the cavalry closed or been caught during deployment. I have not found any primary evidence yet of cavalry literally riding over a steady body of infantry.

In fact during the charge of the Union Brigade (which included the Scots Greys) at Waterloo which was supposedly an all out charge which overran an entire Corps of infantry. The actual eyewitness accounts show that whilst the cavalry were indeed galloping back and forth all over the valley cutting down fleeing infantrymen. They were actually unable to do anything about several large groups who managed to remain calm and form rallying squares.

In desperation Ponsonby sent his Aide back up the ridge and asked Kempt to send some infantry forward to break them up so he could continue the attack. Kempt at first refused to leave the ridge without orders but eventually sent the 28th forward whereupon the French realising that they could not escape surrendered.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Didz

10-25-2002, 07:05

Quote Originally posted by Beavis:
Some guy thinks a 1 ton animal galloping into you and stomping on your head will just make your bum smart a little.....

Let's face it. Heavy cavalry trained to charge was the elite of the medieval period from Spain to China. Why? because it was effective. Anyone who says it is only because the wealthy of Europe preferred to fight that way is not taking into account the rest of the way North African, Middle-Eastern and Asian shock troops fought, as heavy cavalry.

Short spears should not have as much anti-cavalry benefits as they do in the game because lances that were couched were longer. The Husaria had longer lances than pikes and defeated pike formations at Kircholm and Lubieszow (the little known Danzig rebellion).

Cavalry suck in this game, fortunately it is easy to mod.

BTW right on Akka

[This message has been edited by Beavis (edited 10-22-2002).][/QUOTE]

Thats fine if you want to recreate a Warner Brother Epic version of Medieval Warfare on your computer.

In reality a it wouldn't matter if the horse weight 1 ton of 50 tons if it ran headlong onto the end of a braced spear of pike at 20 mph it would either have a spear point sticky out of its arse or if its armour held it would be knocked sideways by the impact.

Yes! the infantryman would be dead. But the knight would also be down and tripping up the horse of the knight behind him.

The logic of the situation is that if you have an advantage you use it you don't throw it away. The advantage of the knight was that it had the weight and speed to ride down opposing infantry and break up their formations but you can't do that if your horse is dead or blown. Therefore you don't gallop headlong at an enemy formation that clearly isn't on the verge of collapse.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Hakonarson

10-25-2002, 07:10

Quote Originally posted by Didz:
I have not found any primary evidence yet of cavalry literally riding over a steady body of infantry.
[/QUOTE]

the Prusian Bayreuth Dragoons did so vs austrian infantry during a 18th C battle I forget the name of, but it made that Dragoon Regiment quite famous for 50 years - that and the fact that it was twice the size of a "normal" regiment (10 sqns instead of 5).

they ran headlong into an infantry line that had both its flanks protects - IIRC the infantry were Grenadiers, considered an elite. I don't recall whether or not they also ran over the 2nd line behind.

Famously at Minden the British and Hanoverian infantry stood in line and blasted the French Heavy cavalry to a halt in what was considered a major feat of arms (although a few did break through the infantry line) - yet just 30 or 40 years alter the reverse was considered a major feat of arms - that cavalry COULD charge home against an infantry line!

And befoer anyone starts on about infantry in line being vulnerable to cavalry - that's not true - it is only the ENDS of the infantry line that are vulnerable - the flanks (and rear of course) of the formation. Infantry in line with their flanks anchored are exactly the same as infantry in square. Indeed there's at least 1 instance where a battalion stood in line with anotehr battalion in square at ach end and defeated several cavalry charges (Gorodetchna in Russia in 1812 - Saxon or Austrian infantry IIRC, vs Russian Dragons and Hussars)

However it should be remembered that in all of these cases (this one and the Napoleonic ones you mention) it was infantry FIRE that was the defensive mechanism - for soem reason I haven't ever really determined a few casualties on a charging unit of horsemen seemed to be enough to stop a cavalry charge in those times - perhaps the gaps created gave neighbouring horses an opportunity to turn aside??

CBR

10-25-2002, 07:23

Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
I looked at the battle of Bouvine, apparently the allied halbardiers defeated the french militia in the center but were chopped up by the knights directly behind the militia. The halbardiers knowing there would be enemies further back showed a lot of restraint in not pursuing the fleeing french.
After the militia were out of the way king Philippe and the knights charge the reformed halbardiers and trampled them with the charge and began killing them with swords after that.

That incident caused the rest of the French forces to charge as well and despite some very tenacious mercs on the right flank of the allied forces, they managed to win the battle.

There we have it, a dense infantry formation armed with halbardiers being defeated by a frontal charge.

[/QUOTE]

From "Western warfare in the age of the crusades 1000-1300" By John France

p. 240
"....The speed of Otto's movement meant that he attacked just as the last of the French infantry came into line. They rushed past the (French) king's forces, but were driven back on them and scattered by the allied cavalry, which seem to have been leading the general charge. But the signs are that this charge was not so well co-ordinated, because German foot crashed into the royal division and threw the king off his horse, only to be defeated by the knights of the king's immediate entourage, all of whom went on to attack Otto and his entourage, who seem to have been elsewhere in the fight. Guillaume le Breton describes this fight vividly while failing to give us any overall picture of what was happening, but the isolation of the german foot suggests an ill-co-ordinated attack, albeit one which almost succeeded."

Think Hakonarson mentioned the last act of the battle..

p. 241
"Renaud of Boulogne had an infantry force of about 700 strong. He formed them into a double-ranked circle, bristling with long lances and double-edged axes. His knights made constant sallies and then sought refuge in the circle. In the end, they were overwhelmed by Thomas of St-Valéry with 50 knights and 2,000 foot."

CBR

[This message has been edited by CBR (edited 10-25-2002).]

Didz

10-25-2002, 07:48

Quote Originally posted by Boleslaw Wrymouth:

Why does everyone distrust soldiers accounts? They actually fought the battles.
[/QUOTE]

The simple reason is that soldiers, generals and chroniclers (for a wide variety of reasons not least personal glory) tell LIES.

Therefore, in order to make a reasonably accurate assessment of what really happened one has to read and cross-reference as many official reports and eyewitness accounts of an event as possible (preferably from opposing sides)and look for commonality.

Doing this is very time consuming and unfortunately a lot of people have written books without bothering which perpetuates the lies.

In fact its quite fascinating if you have the time and motivation to begin doing this sort of research because it throws up all sorts of weird anomalies. The biggest problem being to get the timeline right as most eyewitnesses didn't have a watch and those that did rarely think to check it when something critical happens so one starts off with a sort of jig-saw puzzle of eyewitness statments and you have to sort them by tangible links in order to determine whether tow witnesses are referring to the same event or two seperate instances.

Then you get the official cover ups like the controversy over the capture of the French Eagle at Waterloo where a Captain from the Royals and a Corporal form the Inniskillings both claimed the honour and the Corporal was bribed to keep his mouth shut. Then there are the British Regiments that have a habit of finding their colours lying about on the battlefield even though the French claimed to have captured them.

Course, nobody thanks you for doing this sort of research because everyone prefers the to beleive the Warner Brothers version of events. The only guy I know who had the guts to actually publish the results of this type of research was Peter Hofschroer and he ended up having to take some people to court for slander because of the reaction he got.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Hakonarson

10-25-2002, 07:48

http://www.deremilitari.org/bouvines.htm

This link contains several contemporary or near contemporary accounts of Bouvines - the final stand of the flemins is mentioned in a few of them - teh force that finally crushed them is said to be 3000 fresh horse (ie those who still had lances as opposed to those who only had their short weapons left) in one, and 50 knights and 2000 foot in another.

confusingly the 2 accounts of teeh forces involved in the final stand are written by the same person - William of Breton, Chaplain to the French King at the battle!!

CBR

10-25-2002, 07:51

Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
Spearmen being normal men with spears would be scared and could not be counted on to stand up to a charge, though they might making the m a viable way to hold the enemy knights.
[/QUOTE]

Well..define normal men? The infantry at Courtrai and the early swiss were nothing more than a militia really.

Again one of the big problems in MP is that you can easily give loads of valour to the cheap units..several things need to be changed.

The more I think about it, the more I like the anti charge bonus to be removed for both spear and pike..and give the pike 2 more in cav def perhaps..dont know the results of these changes and might be difficult to test it...hmm

Also this would perhaps force battles to take on the historical fight where knight fought knights first, then infantry.
It is all a much more interesting situation as it all is around a big IF or MIGHT, concerning the charge, not a certain outcome. I like that.

Yes I like big ifs too.

CBR

[This message has been edited by CBR (edited 10-25-2002).]

CBR

10-25-2002, 07:58

Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:

confusingly the 2 accounts of teeh forces involved in the final stand are written by the same person - William of Breton, Chaplain to the French King at the battle!![/QUOTE]

LOL history is fun don't you think? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

CBR

Akka

10-25-2002, 16:47

Quote In that case what are we arguing about. Because that’s exactly what I have been saying since that start of this thread.

That cavalry did not perform suicidal full gallop charges into steady infantry but would instead make repeated controlled advances and withdrawals until such time as an opportunity presented itself to exploit a failure of command and control and break the enemy formation apart. The only real issue is your use of the word charge which produces an instance Warner Brothers induced image of galloping horseflesh when in fact most cavalry charges were conducted at a steady walk/trot or canter.[/QUOTE]

No, cavalry would charge full speed, and crash into the lines of the infantry.
Would the infantry collapse and break the lines, then the cavalry would run after the routers and slaughter them.
Would the infantry hold the lines and stay steady, the cavalry would withdraw to make another charge.
The issue is not that I use the word charge which bring the Warner Bros pictures, the issue is that you don't believe it was actually used and actually WORKED.

Quote My guess is that some, if not all, of the Flemish infantry would have panicked or at least flinched during the final approach and the Knights would have had the opportunity they needed to break through their lines and run them down.

In reality a it wouldn't matter if the horse weight 1 ton of 50 tons if it ran headlong onto the end of a braced spear of pike at 20 mph it would either have a spear point sticky out of its arse or if its armour held it would be knocked sideways by the impact.

Yes! the infantryman would be dead. But the knight would also be down and tripping up the horse of the knight behind him.[/QUOTE]

I think some people here need to be reminded what really represent a charging horse.
Just for the account so : stopping a charging horse with a fully armored knight on it is exactly like stopping a car (same mass) falling from the 3rd or 4th floor (same speed).
Sure the horse would be dead in several cases. I mean, if the spear was able to reach its target (the wielder was not pushed back by the knight's own lance) and if it was able to breach through the armor (which is quite probable, according to the cinetic energy, but still don't happen always).
The fact is, the spearmen of the first rank would also be dead, and several of the second rank too.
In MTW, I hardly see even the first rank taking even several casualties on contact.

Kraxis

10-25-2002, 18:13

Quote Originally posted by CBR:
p. 241
"Renaud of Boulogne had an infantry force of about 700 strong. He formed them into a double-ranked circle, bristling with long lances and double-edged axes. His knights made constant sallies and then sought refuge in the circle. In the end, they were overwhelmed by Thomas of St-Valéry with 50 knights and 2,000 foot."[/QUOTE]

Those were the mercenaries I mentioned. I was quite impressed that they fought on after the main army and Otto had fled.

Quote Well..define normal men? The infantry at Courtrai and the early swiss were nothing more than a militia really.[/QUOTE]

That was what made their battles so impressive. But lets face it, at Courtrai the Flemish didn't think they would be spared should they surrender, so their resolve was far greater than a unit of speararmed peasants fighting for their lord whom they hate.
The Swiss fought for something too, their families and their way of life.
Both groups had in common that they had a reason to fight, while most men pressed into service were not so determined to win.

I can't see past the situation of sending a unit of knights to charge some Spearmen... Getting closer and closer... CRASH!!! A lot of the firstliners die... Break... BREAK dammit!!! GAAAHHH They didn't... Pull back and reform. No don't reenter the fight, pull back you stupid English kniggits!!!
Another charge... ahh this time the Spearmen didn't hold up... I guess the first charge scared them a bit.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

CBR

10-25-2002, 18:24

Quote Originally posted by Akka:
... Just for the account so : stopping a charging horse with a fully armored knight on it is exactly like stopping a car (same mass) falling from the 3rd or 4th floor (same speed).
[/QUOTE]

Just one big difference..the horse has a brain..the car doesnt. You know anything about horse psychology at all? I dont so I have to read what expert riders has to say about that matter.

CBR

Akka

10-25-2002, 18:43

Quote Originally posted by CBR:
Just one big difference..the horse has a brain..the car doesnt. You know anything about horse psychology at all? I dont so I have to read what expert riders has to say about that matter.

CBR

[/QUOTE]

Completely irrelevent.
A horse TRAINED FOR WAR is TRAINED to rush through wall of people (mind you, a horse following his natural instinct will become mad as soon as anything is put on his back, and will NEVER run into someone if not cornered, but rather flee away ; here you can see that any domesticated horse has already some of his primitive instincts nullified).
And beside that, horse could be blinded to not see anything but the strict minimum, and so were not aware up to the last second that they would crush into people.

CBR

10-25-2002, 19:09

Quote Originally posted by Akka:
Completely irrelevent.
A horse TRAINED FOR WAR is TRAINED to rush through wall of people (mind you, a horse following his natural instinct will become mad as soon as anything is put on his back, and will NEVER run into someone if not cornered, but rather flee away ; here you can see that any domesticated horse has already some of his primitive instincts nullified).
And beside that, horse could be blinded to not see anything but the strict minimum, and so were not aware up to the last second that they would crush into people.

[/QUOTE]

based in what? plz come up with some references.

CBR

solypsist

10-25-2002, 21:53

this thread is getting a bit too unwieldy at close to 300 posts, so let's try and shift to the other, new Cavalry Debate thread; I'll close this soon and tranfer it to the archives for storage

CBR

10-25-2002, 22:07

Oi!! the discussion has just started lol

We will just start to fill the other thread with lots of historical arguments http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

CBR

Nial Black Knee

10-25-2002, 22:29

The point about men and horses not charging
pikes at a gallop is very true. But to say that horses of the time period would not jump onto pikes because of self preservation is incorrect. Most Knights had 2 horses. one to ride around on, and a war horse for battle. Anyone that trains dogs can tell you that animals of specific breeds will att with no regard to their wellbeing. The average people in the middle ages were terrified of the Knights war horse because
it was trained to be a viciuos fighter. The love for and of combat can be trained into any annimal. It's called Battlelust. A knights war horse was also much larger than an average horse. These animals were trained
from birth to be viciuos. If you want specific instances in Liturature I'll have to Find the books and give you titles . Let me Know.

CBR

10-25-2002, 22:36

Yes please

CBR

Nial Black Knee

10-25-2002, 23:03

Hey CBR I'm at work so just did a search for Medival history/tactics. According to the web site a Knight must have 3 horses. One being a "Dexterarius" wich was led by hand
and only used for the onset or charge. these horse were bigger and the medival phrase,
mounting ones high horse refers to these
war horses.

Cousin Zoidfarb

10-26-2002, 02:14

Didz my reply you quoted, was in response to someone who said a horse crashing into you won`t hurt you. I agree a medieval knight charging a pike formation would not have much success.

My stance on the subject is this.
Pikes rendered the knights charge ineffective in the medieval period, until the Husaria of the PLC were armed with lances that could outreach pikes.
The spears that existed before the introduction of pikes didn`t have an effective reach against units armed with long lances.
This is what should be reflected in the game. Pikes should have benefit against all cavalry, and spears should only have benefit against cavalry not armed with lances.

CBR

10-26-2002, 02:51

Quote Originally posted by Nial Black Knee:
Hey CBR I'm at work so just did a search for Medival history/tactics. According to the web site a Knight must have 3 horses. One being a "Dexterarius" wich was led by hand
and only used for the onset or charge. these horse were bigger and the medival phrase,
mounting ones high horse refers to these
war horses.[/QUOTE]

Yes I know they had more than one horse. The warhorse needed to be as fresh as possible for the battle. How many horses also depended on wealth could be 4 horses for some knights and down to just one for esquires or mounted sergeants.

The warhorse being a lot bigger than the ordinary horse also depends on what years we are talking about. And it was generally very expensive.

Ann Hyland has written several good books about horses used in warfare.

Here some links with references
http://orb.rhodes.edu/non_spec/missteps/Ch3.html
http://www.dicksonc.act.edu.au/Showcase/ClioContents/Clio2/stirrup.html

CBR

Nial Black Knee

10-26-2002, 04:32

Very interesting opinions, I both agree and disagree.
1)Yes Knights frequently dismounted, but usually when a defensive posture.
2)Mobility is the Key to any mounted warfare
3)The % of mounted to foot given in the article is basicly the % usual for combined arms forces, we see this well into the US
civil war approx 1/4 cavalry to 3/4 inf.
4)while only infantry can hold ground Cavalry
can take it Quicker.
5)Horses were frequently wore armor that severly impaired their sight, making it almost impossible for them to see what they were approaching
6)The size of the horse is relative to the size of the man. We all know that most humans in this time period were much smaller on average than we are today. 5' would be reasonably tall for a man in the middle ages and many were under 5'. So a 15hh horse
would be considered huge to a 4 1/2 foot tall man.
7) Using artist paintings to judge historical fact is dangerous , do to the fact
that most artists wanted to please their patron, and therefore wouldn't want to make the Knight look like a child on the horse.
At the very least you wouldn't be working for many nobles, might even loose the old head.
8)Early spears and pikes had shafts of wood.
Wood bends splinters and breaks when put under great stress. Such as 1000 lbs of horse and rider crashing into it.
9)Not all hvy cav charges were successfull
by any means, But to say that hvy cav were
well armed skirmishers is foolish.
It was very expensive to outfit a Knight.
I can't believe all the nobles spent that kind of money, not to mention the comfort
factor, just to be glorified skermishers.
Not to mention the fact that that role can be filled by less expensive alternatives.
Hvy Cav like any military unit needs to be used correctly to be effective. this is one reason Napoleon was such a good general, he understood that any unit can win the day if used at the correct time and in the correct way. But God did he love his artillery, but thats another disscusion.

Didz

10-26-2002, 04:54

Quote Originally posted by Akka:
No, cavalry would charge full speed, and crash into the lines of the infantry.
Would the infantry collapse and break the lines, then the cavalry would run after the routers and slaughter them.
Would the infantry hold the lines and stay steady, the cavalry would withdraw to make another charge.
The issue is not that I use the word charge which bring the Warner Bros pictures, the issue is that you don't believe it was actually used and actually WORKED.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry Akka. I realise how keen you are to believe that this was how it happened so I think we should just agree to disagree.

As several people have stressed already my own view that it didn't happen is nothing more than my personal opinion based upon my research of the 1815 Campaign in Belgium and I have no primary evidence to support my assertions.

I am basing my opinions purely on logic, the basic laws of physic's and the battlefield behaviour of Napoleonic Cavalry. If I had time and could read latin I might be tempted to do some research on Medieval Cavalry tactic's but I don't its taken me almost ten years to gain a reasonable understanding of what really happened at Waterloo and I suspect that there is a lot more evidence relating to that battle than say Agincourt or Crecy.

If somebody out there has done the research and can produce clear evidence of what really happened then from I'd be interested to read a logical and scientifically plausible explanation of how knights operated on the battlefield but there is little point in continuing this 'Yes They Did, No They Didn't' debate.

We both agree that the role of cavalry in MTW needs to be improved so I suggest we stick to sorting out the game.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Richard the Slayer

10-26-2002, 05:04

I have done some reading up Medieval battles, results....

- At the battle of Falkirk the English knights could not penetrate the scottish schiltrons (scots spearman - in reality they were more like pike). However in a concerted charge they could penetrate the ranks but could not force the spear to retreat. In the long run the only way for the english knights to win was by attacking the spearman when the english longbow DIORGANIZED them. At this point the knights had a merry ole time of hacking down scots. Note the combined arms - the English knights could not win the battle without the longbow.

- The battle of Agincourt, Crecy. In each battle the Knights were too crammed together to effectively get into contact with the English longbow. The main problem however was the fact that the Knights could not close with the longbow for the longbow wiped out the front ranks one at a time.

- Leignitz. I believe my spelling may be wrong but in this battle Tuetonic knights battled mongol archers. The mongols lead the impetous knights in a trap and mowed them down with horse archers. The tuetonic knights were so slow and winded they could not effectively enter into melee with the horse archers.

Didz

10-26-2002, 05:20

Quote Originally posted by Beavis:
Didz my reply you quoted, was in response to someone who said a horse crashing into you won`t hurt you. I agree a medieval knight charging a pike formation would not have much success.

My stance on the subject is this.
Pikes rendered the knights charge ineffective in the medieval period, until the Husaria of the PLC were armed with lances that could outreach pikes.
The spears that existed before the introduction of pikes didn`t have an effective reach against units armed with long lances.

This is what should be reflected in the game. Pikes should have benefit against all cavalry, and spears should only have benefit against cavalry not armed with lances.[/QUOTE]

Sorry Beavis! I may have over-reacted to the first part of your posting.

I don't deny that what you say is correct according to accepted historical text. I am merely curious to understand the mechanic's of the process.

History books and chroniclers are very good at making glib statements along the lines of the Umpteenth Hussars surged forward and overran the enemy square but rarely explain the reason why it happened or how they did it.

Since this thread began I have become increasing curious about how Medieval cavalry actually operated on the battlefield. My studies of Napoleonic Warfare suggest that if we could go back and watch them in action it wouldn't look anything like the image we have been conditioned to expect but as far as I am aware nobody has actually published any detailed studies of from this period.

Although some of the recent historical programmes on TV here in the UK suggest that archaeologists, historians and re-enactors are beginning to challenge some of the myths that have been past down through history and come up with more plausible theories. There was an excellent study on Celtic Chariots recently where they actually built a replica based on the remains of one found in a burial mound and with the help of re-enactors managed to demonstrate how it worked and was employed on the battlefield.

There were also some excellent archaeological engineering tests done on reconstructions of Medieval seiges engines which showed how effective they were against castle walls.

So maybe some day someone will stand up a line of volunteers with spears and charge them with mounted knights just to see what happens http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

[This message has been edited by Didz (edited 10-25-2002).]

[This message has been edited by Didz (edited 10-25-2002).]

Richard the Slayer

10-26-2002, 05:37

Didz you hold a spear and i'll charge you at full gallop with a lance and we'll settle the whole discussion! (I hope your insurance covers being trampled by a knight)

CBR

10-26-2002, 08:43

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nial Black Knee:
Very interesting opinions, I both agree and disagree.
1)Yes Knights frequently dismounted, but usually when a defensive posture.

Both offensive and defensive. All depended on circumstances. And cavalry being dismounted is the best thing to do if outnumbered (especially in cavalry)..the english did it most of the battles in HYW. Anglo-Saxons did it at Hastings...and lots of other examples.

2)Mobility is the Key to any mounted warfare

Dont think anyone has said the opposite of that..

3)The % of mounted to foot given in the article is basicly the % usual for combined arms forces, we see this well into the US
civil war approx 1/4 cavalry to 3/4 inf.

yes as cavalry always had an important role in a battle..no cavalry and you are most likely forced into a defensive postion and lost the initiative.

4)while only infantry can hold ground Cavalry
can take it Quicker.

And might have a problem holding it but yes cavalry is useful..no one is saying the opposite really?...

5)Horses were frequently wore armor that severly impaired their sight, making it almost impossible for them to see what they were approaching

And what do you base that on?? Even when horses got lots of armor in the late middleages I havent seen any picture of horse armor that severly impaires their sight.

6)The size of the horse is relative to the size of the man. We all know that most humans in this time period were much smaller on average than we are today. 5' would be reasonably tall for a man in the middle ages and many were under 5'. So a 15hh horse
would be considered huge to a 4 1/2 foot tall man.

Ah come on!! Yes a horse is scary but lets stay with facts shall we..average height (depending on when and where in Europe) were IIRC anywhere between 160 to 170 cm for males. Dont think you will find many being 137 cm tall..

7) Using artist paintings to judge historical fact is dangerous , do to the fact
that most artists wanted to please their patron, and therefore wouldn't want to make the Knight look like a child on the horse.
At the very least you wouldn't be working for many nobles, might even loose the old head.

Yes so we also have text, skeletons and armors from that time.

8)Early spears and pikes had shafts of wood.
Wood bends splinters and breaks when put under great stress. Such as 1000 lbs of horse and rider crashing into it.

Oh yes it might break but that doesnt stop the spear head from penetrating into the horse and the horse still dont like a wall of men and shields not to mention all those sticks pointing at it.

9)Not all hvy cav charges were successfull
by any means, But to say that hvy cav were
well armed skirmishers is foolish.
It was very expensive to outfit a Knight.
I can't believe all the nobles spent that kind of money, not to mention the comfort
factor, just to be glorified skermishers.
Not to mention the fact that that role can be filled by less expensive alternatives.
Hvy Cav like any military unit needs to be used correctly to be effective.

No cavalry were not only skirmishers. They had a role on the battlefield. If attacking disordered infantry even head on it was deadly. And remember not all cavalry where heavy expensive knights. You will find lots of examples of heavy knights fighting in battles so armor was good to have. But did they charge into steady prepared infantry at all costs. The myth says they did the facts says they didnt. And that doesnt make knights stupid because they bought all that armor as it was needed. They charged lots of infantry, sometimes in the flank, sometimes head on and they won lots of times but it was when infantry were moving/disordered they had the biggest success. That is what we are talking about and that is what several of us wants to change in MTW: that infantry is only really good when standing firm and recieving a cavalry charge not while they are moving.

CBR

Ktonos

10-26-2002, 13:13

Correct me if I am wrong,but isn't a spear armed unit concidered as the defender when standing still before conduct with cavalry and attacker when they move towards it(even if the cavalry also moves/charges to the spear unit)? If yes,then the spear bonus in the first case is major(3-5) but in the last case is minor(0-1).

Till now I used Katafraktous for heavy cavalry and had no "realism" problems. Let us not forget that the cavalry units in the game are composed of 20-40 men and the spear infantry 80-100. And yes horses where always had there vision taken out with "kaliptra" in battles, espesialy heavy cavalry...

Nial Black Knee

10-26-2002, 19:17

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CBR:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nial Black Knee:
Very interesting opinions, I both agree and disagree.
1)Yes Knights frequently dismounted, but usually when a defensive posture.

Both offensive and defensive. All depended on circumstances. And cavalry being dismounted is the best thing to do if outnumbered (especially in cavalry)..the english did it most of the battles in HYW. Anglo-Saxons did it at Hastings...and lots of other examples.

2)Mobility is the Key to any mounted warfare

Dont think anyone has said the opposite of that..

3)The % of mounted to foot given in the article is basicly the % usual for combined arms forces, we see this well into the US
civil war approx 1/4 cavalry to 3/4 inf.

yes as cavalry always had an important role in a battle..no cavalry and you are most likely forced into a defensive postion and lost the initiative.

4)while only infantry can hold ground Cavalry
can take it Quicker.

And might have a problem holding it but yes cavalry is useful..no one is saying the opposite really?...

5)Horses were frequently wore armor that severly impaired their sight, making it almost impossible for them to see what they were approaching

And what do you base that on?? Even when horses got lots of armor in the late middleages I havent seen any picture of horse armor that severly impaires their sight.

6)The size of the horse is relative to the size of the man. We all know that most humans in this time period were much smaller on average than we are today. 5' would be reasonably tall for a man in the middle ages and many were under 5'. So a 15hh horse
would be considered huge to a 4 1/2 foot tall man.

Ah come on!! Yes a horse is scary but lets stay with facts shall we..average height (depending on when and where in Europe) were IIRC anywhere between 160 to 170 cm for males. Dont think you will find many being 137 cm tall..

7) Using artist paintings to judge historical fact is dangerous , do to the fact
that most artists wanted to please their patron, and therefore wouldn't want to make the Knight look like a child on the horse.
At the very least you wouldn't be working for many nobles, might even loose the old head.

Yes so we also have text, skeletons and armors from that time.

8)Early spears and pikes had shafts of wood.
Wood bends splinters and breaks when put under great stress. Such as 1000 lbs of horse and rider crashing into it.

Oh yes it might break but that doesnt stop the spear head from penetrating into the horse and the horse still dont like a wall of men and shields not to mention all those sticks pointing at it.

9)Not all hvy cav charges were successfull
by any means, But to say that hvy cav were
well armed skirmishers is foolish.
It was very expensive to outfit a Knight.
I can't believe all the nobles spent that kind of money, not to mention the comfort
factor, just to be glorified skermishers.
Not to mention the fact that that role can be filled by less expensive alternatives.
Hvy Cav like any military unit needs to be used correctly to be effective.

No cavalry were not only skirmishers. They had a role on the battlefield. If attacking disordered infantry even head on it was deadly. And remember not all cavalry where heavy expensive knights. You will find lots of examples of heavy knights fighting in battles so armor was good to have. But did they charge into steady prepared infantry at all costs. The myth says they did the facts says they didnt. And that doesnt make knights stupid because they bought all that armor as it was needed. They charged lots of infantry, sometimes in the flank, sometimes head on and they won lots of times but it was when infantry were moving/disordered they had the biggest success. That is what we are talking about and that is what several of us wants to change in MTW: that infantry is only really good when standing firm and recieving a cavalry charge not while they are moving.

CBR

[/QUOTE
I think you misunderstand.I was specificaly addressing the points in the links that you posted. There are plenty of sets of armor from the period that support the size of people. Not to say that there was not big people we are talking averages. What I think of Hvy Cav in the middle ages and how I use mine is not nessesarily the same thing. Do I think that they charged head first into infantry armed with spears and pikes? Yes.
Whether they succeeded or not would seem to me to depend on several factors. Morale of the infantry being one of the key ones. Do
I use my Hvy Cav that way in the game? Rarely. Being a big Civil War buff. I have always had a soft spot for Cav. " hit them on the flanks son, and we'll roll em up like a plow going through soft earth". Sorry couldn't resist. HEHE

Michael the Great

10-26-2002, 21:30

U ppl r missing somethin.
Remember,trroops with shorter spears had shields to protect against the charge.

Richard the Slayer

10-26-2002, 23:40

I believe some of you are going around circles by pointing out each others points. You can argue til the cows come home about short spears, long spears, hoop skirts or kilts, but the bottom line is the fact that different sized units are causing major inbalances in game play as well as unit cost and value.

Richard the Slayer

10-26-2002, 23:44

P.S. I love the post about people in the Middle Ages being leprichans, thats my favorite LOL. Yea I guess your right most people in 1300 were about 3 feet tall.

Didz

10-27-2002, 01:11

Quote Originally posted by Richard the Slayer:
Didz you hold a spear and i'll charge you at full gallop with a lance and we'll settle the whole discussion! (I hope your insurance covers being trampled by a knight)[/QUOTE]

Hang On! Richard lets get this right.

It would have to be me and probably at least 8 possibly 12 of my mates armed with spears and deployed in four ranks, in order to make it historically accurate.

And if you and your horse can ride into us and walk away afterwards then I'll admit defeat http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Boleslaw Wrymouth

10-27-2002, 10:58

Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
something not based on your post - how do you know those mercenaries were at Kircholm, that they weer pike armed, and that they were the best of the west??

[This message has been edited by Hakonarson (edited 10-24-2002).][/QUOTE]

Because the Swedish generals said they were? Squares thirty by thirty, with a nucleus bordered by shot. If I am not mistaken, very German. These are Swedish numbers: 8368 infantry, 2500 cavalry. Out of 8000, 3300 were armed with pikes or halberds, virtually all of them formations from the West. The rest were Swedes who perhaps...what..made up tactics as they went along? I enjoy your posts but you seem to think all European nations existed in a game of Civ3, where technological or military technology was traded or valuable. Technology could not be protected, so everyone got it if they could afford it.

[This message has been edited by Boleslaw Wrymouth (edited 10-27-2002).]

Boleslaw Wrymouth

10-27-2002, 11:24

Quote Originally posted by Hosakawa Tito:
Some good points by Didz and Goodridge. Horses have been in my family since I can remember. Until just recently I used to breed Paints, sold most of them off, and just kept a few for pleasure riding now, plus I still board 6 horses for others. I especially like Didz's observation on the terrain effects on the horse. He's on the money there. Horses perform their best on level or gently rolling ground,mongol cav country, and if I'm not mistaken this was taken into account in STW with the heavy cav units especially, I believe it was even stated in the manual. Not sure about MTW, but I assume the mod of the cav units is similar. You both are also correct about the way a horse thinks. It is a rare animal that will willingly throw itself at a hedge of spears, most ones that do in a cav charge are pushed into the pikes from the horses behind them.
[/QUOTE]

With all due respect I have been involved with horse herds that included riders. I've ridden on a hunt that had no real purpose (unlike English hunts) and all it takes, out of a herd of 50, is one horse to jump the log. They all follow. That must of been the first clue for the men, that domesticated them, that they could be used in war for their masters advantage. I've also ridden with my girlfriend, alone and with a little train but when they are...I can only imagine a 1000 well trained warhorses chomping at the bit.

If you combine their nature (want to stay in the herd, love to run) with intense training you have a war machine. We are just now understanding medieval martial arts (because historians are beginning to look) and I believe we are going to see the art of military horse following soon. As fencing and boxing show, you can't count on modern or even an early modern model to extrapolate medieval techniques.

P.S. Did anyone watch the Breeders Cup today and see that horse break it's legs? Sickening....When I was a kid I remember crying over Foolish Pleasure. Any late word, are they going to try and save him?

Boleslaw Wrymouth

10-27-2002, 11:56

Didz said:

"The point I was making was that if we compare the quite elaborate arrangements that were necessary to give Napoleonic cavalry their tactical flexibility with command structure and training of a battle of Medieval Knights then it is reasonable to conclude that a regiment of French Dragoons in 1803 would be capable of performing far more elborate manourves on the battlefield that a similar number of Knights in 1303."

[This message has been edited by Boleslaw Wrymouth (edited 10-27-2002).]

Boleslaw Wrymouth

10-27-2002, 12:21

Harkon,

From http://www.deremilitari.org/mcglynn.htm:

"The study of medieval warfare has suffered from an approach that concentrates on its social, governmental and economic factors to the detriment of military methods and practice. The nature of feudal society has been analysed in great depth, but its application to how wars were actually fought has largely been ignored and frequently misinterpreted. Despite recent important work these misinterpretations have been stubbornly persistent, perpetuating the long-held myth that the art of warfare reached its nadir in the Middle Ages. John Keegan's latest book, A History of Warfare (Hutchinson, 1993), reflects the view of some leading military historians in referring to 'the long interregnum between the disappearance of the disciplined armies of Rome and the appearance of state forces in the sixteenth century'. In The Wars of the Roses (Cassell, 1993), Robin Neillands regards knightly warfare as involving no great skill, being simply a matter of bludgeoning one's opponent to the ground. Whereas these and other historians have assimilated a number of the more correct observations on medieval warfare, the complete picture has remained frustratingly obscure."

It's a good collection of articles and one author mentioned is worth reading. Verbruggen mentions scores of victories by lancers. I can't believe some of you on this thread are even asking for "defeat-by-cavarly".

[This message has been edited by Boleslaw Wrymouth (edited 10-27-2002).]

Boleslaw Wrymouth

10-27-2002, 16:03

Quote Originally posted by Boleslaw Wrymouth:
Didz said:

Medieval Knights then it is reasonable to conclude that a regiment of French Dragoons in 1803 would be capable of performing far more elborate manourves on the battlefield that a similar number of Knights in 1303."

[This message has been edited by Boleslaw Wrymouth (edited 10-27-2002).][/QUOTE]

This is wrong. You can't possibly assume heavy cavalry would be effective through 500 years of European progress. But, certain tactics...VERY DIFFERENT than medieval charges were effective.

Napoleonic cavalry tactics were a wholesale import from eastern Europe with a western European flavor. Had Napoleon charged his Dutch and Polish lancers at the height of the battle of Borodino, European history might have been different. When both units were asked to go it alone they were amazingly successful. Maybe cavalry started to die in the western mind as a revolutionary imperative.

In the U.S. it never died..it became the AirCav.

Didz

10-27-2002, 16:38

Quote Originally posted by Boleslaw Wrymouth:
This is wrong. You can't possibly assume heavy cavalry would be effective through 500 years of European progress. But, certain tactics...VERY DIFFERENT than medieval charges were effective.

[/QUOTE]

What's wrong????

I don't understand this response. What has the effect of a heavy cavalry charge got to do with the level of command and control necessary to effect elaborate manouevres on a battlefield????

I can only assume my original statement lost something in the translation.

If anyone has any information on the command and control structure of a medieval Battle that shows it was capable of the same manouevring flexibility as a Napoleonic Cavalry Regiment then I'd be interested to read about it.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Didz

10-27-2002, 16:55

Quote Originally posted by Boleslaw Wrymouth:
With all due respect I have been involved with horse herds that included riders. I've ridden on a hunt that had no real purpose (unlike English hunts) and all it takes, out of a herd of 50, is one horse to jump the log. They all follow.[/QUOTE]

I don't think you can compare jumping over a log with riding into a solid wall of spearpoints six or seven feet high.

And even if we follow your logic then surely what we are witnessing a the lead horse successfully jumping over the log and galloping off unharmed. So the other horses think 'Hey! he did it, so it must be ok!'

However, if the lead horse galloped into a line of spears and went down in flailing mass of hooves and blood. Surely the rest of the herd would think "Shit! I'm not gonna bloody do that."

My friends assure me that horses are extremely intelligent animals. In fact one of my firends insist that they even have characters and a sense of sense of humour, especailly hers that like to walk under low branches whenever it thinks she isn't paying attention.

One suggestion was that they were blindfolded so they couldn't see the spears but that would have mean't that they would also have been unable to respond to other situations that rider wanted them to so it doesn't seem very likely.

Do you really think horses are that dumb?

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Boleslaw Wrymouth

10-27-2002, 17:10

Quote Originally posted by Didz:
What's wrong????

I don't understand this response. What has the effect of a heavy cavalry charge got to do with the level of command and control necessary to effect elaborate manouevres on a battlefield????

I can only assume my original statement lost something in the translation.

If anyone has any information on the command and control structure of a medieval Battle that shows it was capable of the same manouevring flexibility as a Napoleonic Cavalry Regiment then I'd be interested to read about it.

[/QUOTE]

Nothing is wrong with what you said. The book harkon is about to read will disabuse you of the idea that Napoleonic "Command and Control" actually was able to direct cavalry in any meaningful way compared to Rennaisance or Medieval methods.

Napoleonic cavalry tactics were haphazard commands and famously disconnected from the main thrust of the battle. Cavalry was much better coordinated 100 years before, or 500 years before. Napoleon was able to mobilize a revolutionary population under the mercernary model. INFANTRY was organized on this model.

Cavalry, the aristocracy and their retainers, had already been organized on this model for 500 years. The same conscription, same order into ranks, same payment for defaults. Worse penalties for refusal. The infantry was also sloppy, but the nobility paid for it. Service and tribute only flowed through the nobility and the nobility paid for protection, their own and the peasants.

Didz

10-27-2002, 17:37

Quote
Napoleonic cavalry tactics were haphazard commands and famously disconnected from the main thrust of the battle.
[/B][/QUOTE]

There are plenty of primary source references which confirm that Napoleonic Cavalry did indeed perform the drills they were trained to perform on the battlefield and even under heavy fire.

The actual detail of the organisation varied from nation to nation but the basic system involved the sub-division of the Regiment into Manouevring elements of between 5 and 8 horsemen boxed in by command and control numeries that were required to ensure alignment, cohesion and direction.

This system mean't that the Regiment could perform quite complex changes in formation and direction without losing order or becoming mis-aligned providing the officers and NCO's involved did their jobs properly.

The most commonly quoted exception was the British Cavalry who seemed unable to do anything but charge. However, these frequent incidents were due more to the failure of British Cavalry officers to apply themselves to the enforcement of the prescribed drills than any inherent problem in the command and control structure itself.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Boleslaw Wrymouth

10-27-2002, 17:49

Quote Originally posted by Didz:
I don't think you can compare jumping over a log with riding into a solid wall of spearpoints six or seven feet high.

And even if we follow your logic then surely what we are witnessing a the lead horse successfully jumping over the log and galloping off unharmed. So the other horses think 'Hey! he did it, so it must be ok!'

However, if the lead horse galloped into a line of spears and went down in flailing mass of hooves and blood. Surely the rest of the herd would think "Shit! I'm not gonna bloody do that."

My friends assure me that horses are extremely intelligent animals. In fact one of my firends insist that they even have characters and a sense of sense of humour, especailly hers that like to walk under low branches whenever it thinks she isn't paying attention.

One suggestion was that they were blindfolded so they couldn't see the spears but that would have mean't that they would also have been unable to respond to other situations that rider wanted them to so it doesn't seem very likely.

Do you really think horses are that dumb?

[/QUOTE]

First of all, a horse jumping a log or fence is not the same as charging a "spear-wall" (it's like Beowolf, make up words for non-existant things.) There wasn't a spear-wall of 7 foot spears to jump over.

The Normans charged, with lances barely couched, a wall of skin shields and short throwing spears. They devastated the saxon line and then showed the way for an incredible period of dominance: Every single culture using that technique mysteriously became overlords. (The couched lance was quickly adopted in Poland. All of Poland's neighbors were familiar with it except what is now known as Belarus. Lithuania caught on, and right about the time the couched lance reached Poland, they conquered the vast majority of the Russians. I'm sorry, they should have dismounted.)

From there, arms and armor evolved. Every single primary source has said the lancers and knights could, if they had the numbers, run over any sort of foot soldier. They also stress the importance of infantry to hold the field.

This is a truly stupid arguement. It's like arguing whether a soldier in W.W.II was killed by a .22, .30, .45, or 20mm cannon or he wasn't killed at all. You can't actually prove anything. Even with statistics. All you can trust is eyewitness accounts.

You can't believe a medieval mercenary when he describes a charge, but a monk is an authoritave source?

Boleslaw Wrymouth

10-27-2002, 18:08

Quote Originally posted by Didz:
However, if the lead horse galloped into a line of spears and went down in flailing mass of hooves and blood. Surely the rest of the herd would think "Shit! I'm not gonna bloody do that."

My friends assure me that horses are extremely intelligent animals. In fact one of my firends insist that they even have characters and a sense of sense of humour, especailly hers that like to walk under low branches whenever it thinks she isn't paying attention.

One suggestion was that they were blindfolded so they couldn't see the spears but that would have mean't that they would also have been unable to respond to other situations that rider wanted them to so it doesn't seem very likely.

Do you really think horses are that dumb?

[/QUOTE]

Your friend is sentimental Horses are not that bright. I had a friend tell me her entire inner conversation with a milk cow. She apparently found herself with the cow.

The cow, however, remained a cow.

I love horses. They are beautiful animals and I have depended on them more than once.
But they don't have a sense of humor nor do they even have a sense of peril. A dog somehow knows if it's going to get it, a horse sit's there dumb. You can ride a horse over a cliff, ride them to death. A dog, your best friend, would snap and snarl and say "fuck you". I love horses but they are not what teenage girls think they are. They are, however, perfect creatures for War.

Lord Krazy

10-27-2002, 20:13

Dinner too http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
You guy realy got on
your high horse on this one.
I reckon you should get togeather
over some horse stew so you could get
it from the horses mouth so to speak http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

LK http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Michael the Great

10-27-2002, 20:54

Ahrhhh,enough talk...to battle!!!!!!!!!!!

Realy now,some of u said that charging too hard would throw him of his horse,that's not true in the case of heavy cav.
Because of the heavy armor weared.

------------------
Io,Mihai-Voda,din mila lui Dumnezeu,domn al Tarii Romanesti,Tarii Ardealului si a toata tara Moldovei.

Akka

10-27-2002, 21:21

Quote I don't think you can compare jumping over a log with riding into a solid wall of spearpoints six or seven feet high.[/QUOTE]

When panicked, horses jump from cliff hundred meters high (and die). When trained, they voluntarily fall on the ground at the signal while running full speed (I think the name is "stunt horses").
Adequately trained, a horse will do ANYTHING he is told. You vastely underestimate the training abiities.

Quote And even if we follow your logic then surely what we are witnessing a the lead horse successfully jumping over the log and galloping off unharmed. So the other horses think 'Hey! he did it, so it must be ok!'

However, if the lead horse galloped into a line of spears and went down in flailing mass of hooves and blood. Surely the rest of the herd would think "Shit! I'm not gonna bloody do that." [/QUOTE]

Are you joking, or are you really giving to horse such a capacity to see a situation, analyze it, deduce and foresee and then decide beyond the orders he is given ?

Quote My friends assure me that horses are extremely intelligent animals. In fact one of my firends insist that they even have characters and a sense of sense of humour, especailly hers that like to walk under low branches whenever it thinks she isn't paying attention.

One suggestion was that they were blindfolded so they couldn't see the spears but that would have mean't that they would also have been unable to respond to other situations that rider wanted them to so it doesn't seem very likely.

Do you really think horses are that dumb?[/QUOTE]

Being accustomed to them since childhood, and having grow in a horse-loving family, I can say it : yes, they ARE that dumb. Probably even more http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Though, adequately trained, they can do some truly amazing things (cf the Zingarro Circus).

tomppb

10-28-2002, 00:50

OK you guys and I'm training my horse to run headlong on purpose into guys holding spears are really getting on my nerves. Yes perhaps you can train a horse to do almost anything, but that means you have to actually practice it. SORRY but I don't think on Saturday afternoon the knight got all his lazy peasants together and lined them up so he could charge at them and impale himself or run them over. How exactly do you practice charging at a bunch of spearmen. If you actually stop before hitting the spearmen you are just training the horse to do the same thing in battle. If you actually smash into the spearmen they or you will both be dead/seriously injured. Doesn't sound like a good practice session to me.

Infantry formations either broke up before the knights arrived allowing them to enter gaps in the formation and cause complete chaose spearing troops with their lances and knocking heads off with their swords. OR if the infantry didn't show any sign of budging the knights would slow and come up short of the formation perhaps with some hacking and slashing.

But there were no massive collisions, any that happened probably happened by accident. It would just end up in a huge scrum causing as much damage to the knights as the infantry. Im not saying that infantry had the advantage, probably most of the time the infantry broke and ran and got slaughtered by the knights. But I just don't believe that there were many instances of horses crashing into firm lines of infantry.

Sorry! The battle of Hastings took all day for a reason. If it had been a simple matter of the Norman knights just rolling over the Saxon shield wall it would have been over in 15 minutes.

Kraxis

10-28-2002, 03:18

Quote Originally posted by tomppb:
SORRY but I don't think on Saturday afternoon the knight got all his lazy peasants together and lined them up so he could charge at them and impale himself or run them over. How exactly do you practice charging at a bunch of spearmen.[/QUOTE]

Y do know that horses don't see all that well, not bad, but not as well as we do by any chance. It won't be able to see any spears at a distance, and when it gets closer the position of its eyes shields the vision from seeing the spears that well. It is not the same as the pikes, they presented a more coherent body than a few spears (spears had a much harder time covering each other than pikes).

So you could just build a lot of humanlike attraps and put them in a formation much like that of enemy infantry. The knight could then train the horse into running into these attraps. It had more to do with the wall of bodies rather than the spears themselves if the horse would charge.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

Richard the Slayer

10-28-2002, 06:32

I have just posted a new topic on a book called "The Art of War." This book is not to be confused with Sun Tzu's Art of War. This deals strictly with Medieval combat. I didnt buy it but I flipped through its pages and it has extensive information on troop types from on all sorts of Medieval nations. The importance of the book is that unlike other Medieval combat books this provides concrete specific examples of units in combat, with troop types. For those of you who are debating how cavalry fought, there is specific information on cavalry battles showing examples of cav charging against diff unit types. If you cant find it at your book store or library find it on amazon.com or similar. I will buy it soon and hope to enlighten the folks here on Medieval fighting methods http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Richard the Slayer

10-28-2002, 06:37

P.S. instead of rambling on about how your best friends horse behaves or how long a medieval soldiers pointy stick was, it would be much more useful in terms of medieval military study to include real concrete examples from books on the subject, instead of making the keen observation that medieval people were less than 4 feet in height.

Didz

10-28-2002, 14:11

Quote Originally posted by Richard the Slayer:
I have just posted a new topic on a book called "The Art of War." For those of you who are debating how cavalry fought, there is specific information on cavalry battles showing examples of cav charging against diff unit types. If you cant find it at your book store or library find it on amazon.com or similar. I will buy it soon and hope to enlighten the folks here on Medieval fighting methods http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif [/QUOTE]

Sounds interesting! Hopefully, it will use multiple primary reference sources for the examples rather than the usual progaganda and boasting. But if so it seems long overdue based on the lack of real evidence produced so far on this thread it.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

tomppb

10-29-2002, 00:33

True but the problem is so many medievial sources are suspect. Of course objectivity in history is an illusion. But medievial writers didn't even have a smattering of the concept of objective writing. History was usually written to glorify a particular political leader or cause etc. I would love it if someone could find us some "objective" sources. really http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Richard the Slayer

10-29-2002, 07:27

There are some serious modern historians who examine historical sources, evidence, and artifacts to draw solid conclusions. Some of the newer books out on mediedal warfare are not like books on the past - they do not boast any one sides achievements and are quite subjective in their subject matter(s).

Hakonarson

10-29-2002, 07:30

Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Sounds interesting! Hopefully, it will use multiple primary reference sources for the examples rather than the usual progaganda and boasting. But if so it seems long overdue based on the lack of real evidence produced so far on this thread it.
[/QUOTE]

It's not new - he's just found Oman's book - the original is over a century old, it's quiet good but many of the conclusions and alayses are no longer accepted.

Didz

10-29-2002, 16:39

Quote Originally posted by Boleslaw Wrymouth:

First of all, a horse jumping a log or fence is not the same as charging a "spear-wall" (it's like Beowolf, make up words for non-existant things.) There wasn't a spear-wall of 7 foot spears to jump over.

The Normans charged, with lances barely couched, a wall of skin shields and short throwing spears.[/QUOTE]

Ah! right so now we are debating the nature of a spear armed infantry units defence.

It's a valid point. The assumption throughout this debate has been that speararmed infantry threatened by cavalry would have gone into a defensive posture and used their spears to produce a defensive hedge. But it follows that not all spears were heavy enough or long enough to be used in this way. A short light throwing spear would certainly not be much use. My own assumption was that infantry armed with such a weapon would be classed as Javelin throwers in MTW but that may not be the case.

IMO, infantry that cannot use their weapons to produce a spear wall should not be given the +4 Defence bonus. In fact they would probably be more vulnerable to cavalry than troops armed with axes and billhooks, as they have no effective way of bringing down a horse.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Didz

10-29-2002, 17:58

Quote Originally posted by Michael the Great:
Ahrhhh,enough talk...to battle!!!!!!!!!!!

Realy now,some of u said that charging too hard would throw him of his horse,that's not true in the case of heavy cav.
Because of the heavy armor weared.

[/QUOTE]

OK! Michael.

En Avant, ChAAAAARGE!......

Here's my counter-attack.

How fast does a horse gallop??????

Lets say 20 mph average. (That's almost 10 yards per second.)

How much reach had a couched lance got.?????

Probably depended on the period/nation/individual manufacturer but lets assume 6 feet beyond the nose of the horse or (2 yards)

So in effect the horse and rider are covering the distance of their weapon reach in .2 of a second (literally a split second).

Ok! Next step.

Lets put a line of spearmen 8 deep across their path. A charging horse would occupy a frontage of about two paces (just over 1 yard) as we know from contempory accounts that horsemen always open ranks slightly when galloping to allow for the natural motion of the horse. That means that if the infantry are standing shoulder to shoulder (22 inch frontage) the horseman will be facing at least two files of spearmen. Thats a total of sixteen spearmen facing one horseman of which the first four ranks would be presenting their spear points with the other eight men acting as a physical and morale support.

Right! 0.2 seconds before impact the point of the Knights lance if properly aimed penetrates the chest of a front rank spearman. Assuming the lance is pointed it will NOT throw him backwards as such but at that speed will probably go straight through him and possibly those men standing behind him as will.

0.15 before impact. Several spearmen are impaled on the end of the knights lance and are already dead although their brains probably haven't had time to register that fact yet. The knights lance now has between 14 and 42 stone of human flesh impaled on the end of it and as the doomed spearmen begin to fall backwards and down the tip of the knights lance will begin to drop. In their death throes these spearmen are about to release their weapons but only 0.05 seconds has passed so far and their first reaction will probably be to clench their weapons more tightly in a nervous reaction.

0.10 to impact. A whole tenth of a second has past. The impaled spearman are falling and at the same time being carried backwards into the men behind them. The tip of the knights lance is being pulled down by the weight of their bodies and the knight is being forced to compensate by leaning back in the saddle to maintain his balance. The dead spearmen have released their weapons and are about falling to the ground. However, the horse has now covered a further yard and is already pressing on the spearpoints of the surviving first rank spearmans weapon together with that of the dead spearman whose weapon is still poised even though he has released it simply because it hasn't had time to fall to the ground yet.

0.05 to impact. The horse continues to move forward a further 1.5 feet. The point of the first rank spear enters its chest. The point of the dead spearmans weapon hits the horses breast plate and is thrust sideways at force into the side of the horse next to it gouging a great slice out of its flesh.

0.00 Impact. The Knights horse now enters the Infantry formation collecting the front rank spearman on its chest plate and smashing him backwards into the man behind. The spear embedded in the horses chest is driven in several feet and under pressure of the horses own forward movement is wrench upwards tearing through the horses vital organs before eventually snapping under the strain. Meanwhile the tip of knights lance has been dragged down and is about to bury itself in the ground. Whilst the high spear points of the 3rd and 4th rank spearmen are about to make contact with his body and head.

-0.05 .5 seconds after impact. The knights horse continues forward stumbling over the front rank spearman, trampling his body and impacting with the second rank spearman who is already off his feet and flinging him into the third rank man. The tip of the knights lance drives itself into the earth and stops dead. The spear of the third rank man enters the knight midriff whilst the spear of the fourth rank man glances off the knights helmet with such force it dislocates his neck.

-0.10 .1 second after impact. The horse continues forward though now it is off its feet and falling forward. It smashes into the third and fourth rank men whilst crushing the first and second rank men beneath it. Though no longer held the spear of the thrid rank man remains imbedded in the knights stomach but the knight is completely unaware of anything, anyway. The tip of the knights lance is now embedded in the soil with three bodies still screaming their last breaths impaled on the end. By now it will be nearly vertical as the forward movement of the horse overreaches it. If the lance has been deliberately weakened it will probably snap allowing the dead knight to continue forward with his dying horse. If not the stress imposed by the forward movement of the horse and the weight on the tip will create a pole vault effect lifting the knight out of his saddle and flinging him over the head of his horse into the rear ranks of the infantry.

-1.00 1 Second after impact. The second rank of knights impacts with the mound of dying horses and infantry from the first rank. Some manage to jump over the pile but at least half become trapped in the wreckage. Horses legs snap as they become caught or are tripped from under them and they slide forward into the remnants of the infantry behind.

-2.00 2 Seconds after impact. The third rank of knights ploughs into the ever growing mass. The infantry begin to recover from their shock and go through a 'fight or flight' reaction.

2.2 seconds have now passed. At least one knight and six infantry are dead but a further two knights are down or in trouble. If the infantry rally as the flemings did then the slaughter of the knights will begin.

If the infantry panic then the knights might be able to sort themselves out and continue the pursuit.

Now! I don't know if thats what would really happen if a knight charged full gallop into an infantry spear wall but in my opinion it makes logical sense and takes into account the normal lawas of physic's.

It also conforms to the historical references left from the Napoleonic wars where the same laws of physic's higlighted the dangers of closing with a steady enemy too rapidly. I agree that Armour, weight and weapon technology certainly make a difference but IMO not to the point where they can completely negate the consequences and so I am left unconvinced that the romantic image of knights charging at full gallop is accurate.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

amrcg

10-29-2002, 19:13

Quote Originally posted by Didz:
OK! Michael.

En Avant, ChAAAAARGE!......

Here's my counter-attack.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, this describes what would happen physically if morale factors were not taken into account. But it provides a clue to these morale factors, i.e. both knight and foot soldier would be affraid of the charge. So, as someone said before, the typical charge would have cavalry approaching in block and increasing speed as they approached infantry. If the latter showed signs that it was breaking, the cavalrymen would proceed at full gallop, forcing the rest of the footmen to flee (as they felt abandoned by the companions who were already running away). But if the infantry line did not waver, the charge would slow down, eventually stopping and trying to exchange a few stabs with the lance (a throwing the lances as the Normans did at Hastings)... But if the leader was smart and the horsemen disciplined, the latter would soon retreat and regroup for another charge before the footmen counter-charged the stopped horses.

How would we model this in MTW?

Cheers,
Antonio

Akka

10-29-2002, 19:53

I strongly dismiss such representation of reality.
We ALWAYS forgot several factors when we try to imagine what things happen, factors which can be crucial.
I find it much better to actually rely upon information about what happened, rather than rely upon what we imagine.

If you want to have a good example on how different are imagining a case and actually living it, just try to simulate a fight in slow motion with a friend, and see how easy it is to wonder "well I would make this move if he is actually doing this one" and so on.
And when it happens real life, you just take the punch and go down http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by Akka (edited 10-29-2002).]

amrcg

10-29-2002, 20:41

Quote Originally posted by Akka:
I strongly dismiss such representation of reality.
We ALWAYS forgot several factors when we try to imagine what things happen, factors which can be crucial.
I find it much better to actually rely upon information about what happened, rather than rely upon what we imagine.

If you want to have a good example on how different are imagining a case and actually living it, just try to simulate a fight in slow motion with a friend, and see how easy it is to wonder "well I would make this move if he is actually doing this one" and so on.
And when it happens real life, you just take the punch and go down http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

[This message has been edited by Akka (edited 10-29-2002).][/QUOTE]

Very true. That's why I prefer to rely on the comparative study of battle accounts. And until now no one has shown an example of a battle where mounted armoured knights were victorious charging frontally a steady, determined and unscathed group of static infantry in close deep formation and flanks protected.

Antonio

Kraxis

10-29-2002, 20:43

Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
But if the leader was smart and the horsemen disciplined, the latter would soon retreat and regroup for another charge before the footmen counter-charged the stopped horses.[/QUOTE]

If that was the case the knights would have to charge another part of the enemy infantry, these guys would know that the knights would never charge them if they held together.
The guys next to those who held would have noticed this and would hold as well.

If the knights were really unlucky a lof of infantry would have noticed and thus no force would run in fright. Effectively the knights would be out of the equation without having engaged with the enemy. These soldiers would now have an experience that told them never to run. So in any other battle they would hold their ground. Some would become mercs, bringing the knowledge to other parts of Europe.
50 years after the incident the infantry of Europe would on general know this due to instructors who had been taught by mercs or had themselves used it.

So I doubt that the knights would stop if the infantry held. They would stop if there were other things playing in as well. But eventually they would charge the infantry and close in with them.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

amrcg

10-29-2002, 21:39

Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
If that was the case the knights would have to charge another part of the enemy infantry, these guys would know that the knights would never charge them if they held together.
The guys next to those who held would have noticed this and would hold as well.

If the knights were really unlucky a lof of infantry would have noticed and thus no force would run in fright. Effectively the knights would be out of the equation without having engaged with the enemy. These soldiers would now have an experience that told them never to run. So in any other battle they would hold their ground. Some would become mercs, bringing the knowledge to other parts of Europe.
50 years after the incident the infantry of Europe would on general know this due to instructors who had been taught by mercs or had themselves used it.
[/QUOTE]
You are discarding the other half of the story. The knights were supported by archers, crossbowmen, and other infantry. The retreat of the knights would mean that the missile units were again sent to harass the enemy, opening gaps, lessening the lines and decreasing morale as each arrow taught the spearmen that a man can in fact die, and it can even happen to the guy on your right with whoom you were talking 5 minutes ago. After some time (and Hastings took a lot of time) the knights would try their luck again.
Nevertheless a different thing could happen, which you have identified:

Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:

So I doubt that the knights would stop if the infantry held. They would stop if there were other things playing in as well. But eventually they would charge the infantry and close in with them.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly! The infantry would feel tempted to charge the retreating knights... In which case they were dead due to loss of cohesion of the line (at least presenting gaps between sections of the line if moving in block, or even preventing mutual support between charging "berserkers"). They would soon learn that they should not have charged, but unfortunately few would be able to use this lesson as mercenaries. Some of the housecarle veterans of Hastings managed to enter the Byzantine Varangian Guard... But surely they were few.

Cheers,
Antonio

AgentBif

10-30-2002, 00:32

Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Now! I don't know if thats what would really happen if a knight charged full gallop into an infantry spear wall but in my opinion it makes logical sense and takes into account the normal lawas of physic's.
[/QUOTE]

Amusing tale, but you bypass all kinds of possible physics. For instance, you immediately assume weapons penetrate armor with no problems. There is a good chance that a spear or lance would deflect off of armor if there is any significant amount of incidence angle off of a true normal impact. Note that a spear braced on the ground will have vertical incidence as well.

Also, you neglected to account for the possibility that the lance would break upon impact with one target. If it didn't break, the knight's arm would be dislocated and he would likely be unhorsed long before it ever approached a second man... So no shishkabab's there.

bif

amrcg

10-30-2002, 00:44

Didz

10-30-2002, 01:27

Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
Yes, this describes what would happen physically if morale factors were not taken into account. But it provides a clue to these morale factors, i.e. both knight and foot soldier would be affraid of the charge. So, as someone said before, the typical charge would have cavalry approaching in block and increasing speed as they approached infantry. If the latter showed signs that it was breaking, the cavalrymen would proceed at full gallop, forcing the rest of the footmen to flee (as they felt abandoned by the companions who were already running away). But if the infantry line did not waver, the charge would slow down, eventually stopping and trying to exchange a few stabs with the lance (a throwing the lances as the Normans did at Hastings)...
How would we model this in MTW?

Cheers,
Antonio[/QUOTE]

Yep! That was exactly the opinion I voiced earlier. I'm glad at least someone begins to see my point.

Quite clearly the whole scenario changes radically if the 16 spearmen panic during the advance of the knights and begin to break ranks. Without their weapons braced they become highly vulnerable and can virtually ridden down with impunity.

Whish is why I still maintain as I did on the other thread that the issue is one of morale and whether the infantry are caught during movement that need to be considered not why knights can't ride through steady walls of spearmen.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

tomppb

10-30-2002, 07:01

I agree with you Didz. Although I do think the lances were designed to break on impact. But the fact remains that if an infantry formation has any depth and is firm smashing into it at a gallop is as dangerous for the knight as it is for the infantry.

I still think that knight's equipement was primarily designed for use against other knights. Remember these were warriors not professional soldiers. War without glory and recognition was pointless to them. They wanted to jab their lance into another knight, not some peasant scum. Charging horses will naturally make space for eachother as they pass as is shown by numerous accounts of opposing cavalry formations passing through one another, often with very little loss to either side.

If I may put in another quote from "The Renaissance at War" :

Besides his specialized equipment and extensive training, the traditional man-at-arms brought his own peculiar view of warfare to the battlefield. Foremost in his mind was the possiblity of acquiring renown through combat. This personal mission could sometimes overshadow any sense of the larger strategy in play or politics at stake. Baldassare Castiglione, who captained a squadron of fifty men-at-arms at the turn of the sixteenth century, recommended in his immensely influential book of manners, The Courtier, that a man should only put himself in danger when there was the possibility of his individual bravery being noticed and talked about. Such an admission suggests the extent to which the psychology of the tournament coloured real war: for the warrior aristocrat, there had to be spectators."

My point being in bringing this up is even medieval soldiers were subject to wishful thinking on how the battlefield worked. Just as WWI generals continued to send waves of infantry into the machine gun and artillery fire after it was proven futile so too the way of the knight could continue for years even after it was outdated by the inception of professional infantry. BUT intially the knight's charge was not futile or ineffective. Its psychological impact was often more than enough to set the militia infantry running at which time the cavalry could easily cut down the individual soldiers. And since the infantry formation was broken up the knight did not have to worry about spearing one infantryman only to have his horse collide into 4 others causing the ruination of them all.

Richard the Slayer

10-30-2002, 08:10

Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
It's not new - he's just found Oman's book - the original is over a century old, it's quiet good but many of the conclusions and alayses are no longer accepted.

[/QUOTE]

Were talking about the Oxford Englishmen who wrote this book around 1889 right? Why are the conclusions no longer accepted?

Didz

10-30-2002, 09:06

Quote Originally posted by Akka:
I strongly dismiss such representation of reality.

We ALWAYS forgot several factors when we try to imagine what things happen, factors which can be crucial.

I find it much better to actually rely upon information about what happened, rather than rely upon what we imagine.

[This message has been edited by Akka (edited 10-29-2002).][/QUOTE]

Well thats fine except that there are very few reliable accounts of what actually happened.

Most accounts that were written at the time (or within a few years) were little more than blantant propaganda and even paintings and reports of more recent battles have proved to be inaccurate upon subsequent research.

So, it not quite as simple as 'this monk said this' or 'this historian wrote that'.

For example several eminent Napoleonic Historians have had their works completely discredited over the last few years because they were based solely of official government reports which were found to be grossly biased in favour of the host nation.

Likewise recently translated German records that have only recent been analysed cast a completely different picture on the comtemporary British history of the 1815 Campaign.

The big problem with the Medieval Period is that very few men were literate enough to keep their own diaries and so the information we tend to get is second or third hand and often written long after the actual event.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Didz

10-30-2002, 15:54

Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
Amusing tale, but you bypass all kinds of possible physics. For instance, you immediately assume weapons penetrate armor with no problems. There is a good chance that a spear or lance would deflect off of armor if there is any significant amount of incidence angle off of a true normal impact. Note that a spear braced on the ground will have vertical incidence as well.

Also, you neglected to account for the possibility that the lance would break upon impact with one target. If it didn't break, the knight's arm would be dislocated and he would likely be unhorsed long before it ever approached a second man... So no shishkabab's there.

bif[/QUOTE]

I hadn't forgotten these possibilities nor the possibility that the knight might miss completely or that all sixteen spear points might fail to connect with anything. There are a miriad of possible variations on the actual outcome.

I choose to stick to what I thought was the worse case scenario for the infantry and assume a killing blow by the knight.

In reality its difficult to imagine how a tipped lance with all the impetus of a galloping horse behind it would not penetrate.

But, even the infsntry was wearing armour and it didn't, in a tightly packed infantry formation it couldn't avoid knocking the man it hit off his feet and backwards into his colleagues and would then probably glance off and do no end of damage to those standing behind him.

The knight would still get a huge kick in the shoulder from the impact and would still have to survive the braced spearpoints of the rest of the defenders only to be rolled onto the ground stunned but alive with his dying horse.

Whether he then survived the second and third waves ploughing into the carnage would be a matter of pure luck. If he did he would then be faced with a long walk back to the pavilion or the possibility of capture and ransom.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Didz

10-30-2002, 15:56

Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
It's not new - he's just found Oman's book - the original is over a century old, it's quiet good but many of the conclusions and alayses are no longer accepted.

[/QUOTE]

Oh! Right. Yes! I think Oman is one the historians whose Napoleonic Warfare analysis has recently been discredited too.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Didz

10-30-2002, 16:06

Quote Originally posted by tomppb:

I still think that knight's equipement was primarily designed for use against other knights. [/QUOTE]

Yes! And one confirmation of this is to study the armour worn by the horses.

If you look at a real suit of horse armour you will notice that most of it is angled and designed to catch and deflect blows received at an angle from above. In other words from weapons borne by other mounted troops.

However, an footsoldier particulalry one armed with a spear is more likely to be aiming his weapon up from below and so if the knight was intended to meet large numbers of infantry one would expect his armour to be designed and angled to deflect upward angled thrusts.

Some of the Eastern Heavy Cavalry do seem to have fully armoured skirts on their horses but most Western Knights don't.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Didz

10-30-2002, 16:28

Quote Originally posted by Richard the Slayer:
Were talking about the Oxford Englishmen who wrote this book around 1889 right? Why are the conclusions no longer accepted?

[/QUOTE]

There are lots and lots of reasons for this and to be fair its not really a bad reflection on most of the Historians although it has to said that there are some who are blantantly guilty of pretty poor research and plagiarism.

The real cause is quite rapid advancements being made in the fields of archaeological engineering and historical research which are causing people to go back and re-evaulate the accepted accounts.

I have already mentioned the DNA testing they did on the bones of medieval cavalry horses which confirmed how big they really were but there is a hell of a lot more going on.

Add to that the fact that early histories were written largely from an academic stance using official material and that large volumes of first hand primary references are only just coming to light and you begin to realise that we are living in a very exciting time for Historians who now have a much great range of tools, techniques and skills available to them than say your Victorian History Professor from Oxford.

But it does mean that many of the accepted truths about our past are being challenged and some people do get upset about it.

Nations (and individuals) are quite protective of their history and their hero's and when new evidence starts suggesting that perhaps things weren't quite as glorious as history suggests and that their hero's weren't quite as wonderful then things can get quite nasty.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Kraxis

10-30-2002, 22:28

Quote Originally posted by Didz:

The knight would still get a huge kick in the shoulder from the impact and would still have to survive the braced spearpoints of the rest of the defenders only to be rolled onto the ground stunned but alive with his dying horse.
[/QUOTE]

Of course he would get a kick, but even an average knight would have practiced with the lance. He might even have defeated a few other knights in Tournaments. Now if he didn't get injuries from striking the enemy there, at comparably higher speeds (both horses running, perhaps not charging), why should we expect him to get any in a fight where the speed of closure is lower? He might of course get injuries, all soldiers can get injuries from bad luck and such. But the knight expected to hit the enemy and be able to fight on with the same arm using a sword/mace/flail/whatever.

But lets think back at the time of impact:

The spearman standing there holding his 7 foot spear, braced in the ground.
The lance strikes him squarely in the chest (lucky knight) impaling him, but even if he dies at once he will most likely have a short weak spasm in his arms (and most other parts of the body), so he clenches his spear harder (as you correctly wrote).
The lance transfers to the body a great amount of force sending him backwards at a speed a bit slower than the lance. Because he clenches the spear he brings it up from its former great anti-knight position, to a position that is perhaps even a not so anti-knight vertical.
The horse is running on, while the spearman is thrown back into the next man, who might get knocked out from the sudden compression of his lungs, at the very least he too will get pushed back and his spear will also go vertical if he continues to hold on to it. But this time the horse is closer and the spearpoint has a chance actually hitting the head or throat of the horse, unfortunately for him this is a much smaller target than the chest and chances are that he will fall to one side a bit (the formation would not have been perfect, the men would try to look over the should of the others making it a little bit rhomboid) making the spearpoint pass the horse. Naturally it would hit in some cases, even the first man would hit sometimes...
The third man would perhaps be able to stand up, but he too would feel the compression of his chest quite violently. He would have been able to see the knight close and hit and would as many people do in scary situation inhale sharply. The 'Oof'he lets out would save his life with a few broken ribs but I'm not sure a man in such a situation would clech his spear harder. I was once at a concert up front, and suddenly people from behind began rushing forward. The compression made me lose sight for a few splitseconds, and I noticed at once that I had dropped my shirt (I never found it again, would probably not want it again http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif). I'm guessing the third man would experience the same.
I could ofcourse be wrong.

[EDIT] Forgot in my hurry that the horse would just be stumbling over the fallen men and the endresult would be much the same.
It is a big perhaps if it could be standing after passing over the fallen men, it could happen but I doubt it. I just think it would not be fatal for the horse and knight all the time.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[This message has been edited by Kraxis (edited 10-30-2002).]

Maelstrom

10-30-2002, 22:34

Please guys....please...no more.....I can't take any more......

http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

AgentBif

10-31-2002, 02:21

Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
Well, I think that the main point is made here is that a full shock in equal terms was dangerous for the men in both sides, and so it would be avoided either by the infantry or the horsemen or both. [/QUOTE]

War is dangerous. That's why it sucks.

Of course combat is dangerous for both sides!

But the point is, mounted knights in the western tradition were generally the primary attack force. A full-on frontal charge of a massive wall of heavy cavalry was usually the main attack, and not infrequently it was the opening move. This was not a rare thing, it was the modus operandi, the SOP, the way things were done.

The trick was, that with all that heavy armor (both man and horse), the knights counted on having the upper hand against infantry... against everything.

As far as total carnage, well, my understanding is that if the initial charge penetrated significantly, the infantry would decide that their cause was lost and generally run before much fighting was done. Apparently, this is one of the reasons there was usually tough competition among the knights for the right of first contact, because if the first wave succeeded, the battle would often be over before everyone got a chance to see combat.

The knights were not some trace, dainty reserve force only to be trotted out when the enemy began to run away, they were the ones that convinced the enemy to run away in the first place!

They weren't simply anti-archer troops (like in this game), they were anti-everything troops!

bif

[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-30-2002).]

AgentBif

10-31-2002, 02:29

Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Yes! And one confirmation of this is to study the armour worn by the horses.

If you look at a real suit of horse armour you will notice that most of it is angled and designed to catch and deflect blows received at an angle from above.
[/QUOTE]

Sorry man, why don't you post this picture of "deflect from above" armor you are talking about. I just don't see what you are referring to. In all the images of armor and barding that I have seen, there is ample protection from infantry arms of all types. Horses, of course, are vulnerable in the legs and belly, but it just isn't feasible to protect a horse there.

To try to pretend that knight and horse armor wasn't designed for use against infantry and therefore knights weren't used against infantry is very very weak; Especially so because we know for a fact that knights were frequently employed in full-on frontal charges against infantry.

bif

AgentBif

10-31-2002, 02:40

Kraxis

10-31-2002, 05:58

My last input here, I guess...

So far what have mostly been suggested/argued is that the horse was a mount, a way to propel the knight ahead, give him an advantage of hight and finally make him imposing (man on big expensive horse = man have big expensive armour = me not kill man).

But the horse was much more than that. It was a weapon in itself. The knights and other heavy cav knew very well the dangers of close combat and drilled the horses to do many dreaded moves. If you have ever seen the Spanish Horseschool (or whatever it is called in english), you will notice many beautiful maneuvers.
The most famed is the one where the horse rears onto the hindlegs, jumps and in midair kicks out with hindlegs again. It is an awesome sight, and I would certainly not want to be there when it did it. Even the spinning of the horse practiced a lot in the 'beautiful riding' competisions (you know where the horse and rider has to do things on a limited area, almost always at a very slow gallop), well it was a way to get the infantry back and not let them get too close. Of course it wouldn't help any if the infantry had very long weapons such as pikes, but swordarmed infantry would have trouble getting in there.
The way the knights are pulled from their horses in many moves is simply wrong, the horse wouldn't just stand there and wait, it would kick, jump, anything. The horse knew the infantry were baddies, they might even have been trained to fight people it did not know, making it a very dangerous animal to steal or even handle if you were the new squire.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

tomppb

10-31-2002, 08:10

I have a hard time believing a group of charging knights all stopped so their horses could kick the enemy. I think a knight would prefer his horse to remain a stable platform with all that armor on.

Kraxis

10-31-2002, 08:40

Ok, did I say the knight stopped up to fight the infantry with his horse. He would of course rely on his lance and close melee weapons.

No, I said should he happen to be surrounded the horse itself was not a bad weapon. It could defend itself to some extent.
Of course a heavy horse with armour on it would have hard time doing what those Spanish horses do, and then be able to run, if it at all could do it. But the point is that that particular method was a finetuned drill, borne out of centuries of cavalry combat. Certainly a backkick was possible from a Destrier, and the size of it compared to the generally small size of non-nobles of the time would make it not only fightening but deadly.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

amrcg

10-31-2002, 13:26

Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
Ok, did I say the knight stopped up to fight the infantry with his horse. He would of course rely on his lance and close melee weapons.

No, I said should he happen to be surrounded the horse itself was not a bad weapon. It could defend itself to some extent.
Of course a heavy horse with armour on it would have hard time doing what those Spanish horses do, and then be able to run, if it at all could do it. But the point is that that particular method was a finetuned drill, borne out of centuries of cavalry combat. Certainly a backkick was possible from a Destrier, and the size of it compared to the generally small size of non-nobles of the time would make it not only fightening but deadly.
[/QUOTE]

We talk and talk, but again, no one seems to be able to present an historical example of a victorious frontal charge by knights on a determined unscathed static formation of spearmen with protected flanks... Every example I've seen of a victorious frontal charge by knights shows a tired, harassed, disorganised, broken or flanked infantry unit.

Cheers,
Antonio

Boleslaw Wrymouth

11-01-2002, 12:01

amrcg,

That's because no one believes eyewitnesses. Medieval journals and diaries are apparently suspect and only Keegan's description of NAPOLEONIC warfare is valid when talking of cavalry. Medieval accounts are either fantasy or propaganda according to most modern military historians. These, of course, are the same historians who told us the knight had no skill or understanding of swordsmanship. Hehe, fencing was an art but the martial skills of a knight consisted of bashing and then bashing again.

Fencing is an aristocratic joke. Related to true medieval sword fighting exactly like masterbation is to intercourse. If you examine a true medieval manual, even as an amateur, you quickly realize that what you are looking at is not wild swinging but an entire system devoted to killing or incapicitating an opponent in the least possible moves. If you look at their weapons you would realize they couldn't fence if they wanted to. Death and incapacity was the goal. This has been accepted. The idea that our European ancestors didn't just swing and poke indiscrimantely but had a form of martial arts every bit as good and in some situations better than East Asia is no longer in dispute. This entire history is based on manuals and contemperary accounts.

That horsemen charged and decimated infantry in the Middle Ages is also based on the same sources. "A scythe through chaff" is a common metaphor. But, because historians have found that certain writers had certain patrons, this evidence should be discarded and a 20th century historian's interpretation of a 19th century campaign should, now and forever, be the definative study of cavalry from 200 B.C to 2002 B.C..

The reason I haven't posted examples of cavalry beating well-ordered infantry is threefold: 1.) I did. Do a search for Kircholm. 2.) There are endless eyewitness testimonies to the charge but, by definition, they are biased and invalid to a modern historian. It becomes a losing battle. Napoleonic texts are bible and reliable but medieval texts are lies and exaggeration. 3.) I did post links but no one seems to have actually looked at them.
http://www.deremilitari.org/

A good place to start. "He lived it, he saw it and he chose to give it to posterity. But it can't possibly be true." Historian "blank".

Didz

11-01-2002, 16:07

Quote Originally posted by tomppb:
BUT intially the knight's charge was not futile or ineffective. Its psychological impact was often more than enough to set the militia infantry running at which time the cavalry could easily cut down the individual soldiers. And since the infantry formation was broken up the knight did not have to worry about spearing one infantryman only to have his horse collide into 4 others causing the ruination of them all.

[/QUOTE]

Yes! and that was the point I was trying to make right at the start of this thread and then managed to do better on its sisted thread 'Charge - The great cavalry debate.'

To my mind the issue should not be why MTW cavalry can't ride over infantry but Why MTW infantry hardly ever panic when charged by cavalry.

I think thats where the problem lies. Infantry being attacked by cavalry ought to panic more often especailly if caught unprepared and on the move whereas at the moment its actually possible to launch a successful counter-charge with infantry against charging cavalry.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Didz

11-01-2002, 16:32

Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
Of course he would get a kick, but even an average knight would have practiced with the lance. He might even have defeated a few other knights in Tournaments. Now if he didn't get injuries from striking the enemy there, at comparably higher speeds (both horses running, perhaps not charging), why should we expect him to get any in a fight where the speed of closure is lower? He might of course get injuries, all soldiers can get injuries from bad luck and such. But the knight expected to hit the enemy and be able to fight on with the same arm using a sword/mace/flail/whatever.
[/QUOTE]

This was one reason why I was curious to hear from re-enactors who ought to be able to vouch for the recoil impact of hitting a galloping target with a lance.

The only real difference I can imagine between the tourament and the battlefield is that in the tournment the lances were blunted or capped and so the normal result was a deflection hit kocking the opponent off their horse.

In the case of battlefield combat against infantry however the assumption is that the lance was un-capped and lethal. This a hit was not intended to be deflected by to penetrate. Thus the recoil effect would not be a short sharp kick in the shoulder but far more powerful and sustained as the lance point would remain in the victim[s] and have to carry their bodies with it.

I have no idea how different that would be for the knight or what steps they took to prepare or avoid it.

All I do know is that Napoleonic lancers were warned against allowing their lances to penetrate beyond the blade and to withdraw the head very quickly after impact which is one reason why victims are reported to have multiple lance wounds rather than one killing blow.

Quote

But lets think back at the time of impact:

The spearman standing there holding his 7 foot spear, braced in the ground.
The lance strikes him squarely in the chest (lucky knight) impaling him, but even if he dies at once he will most likely have a short weak spasm in his arms (and most other parts of the body), so he clenches his spear harder (as you correctly wrote).
The lance transfers to the body a great amount of force sending him backwards at a speed a bit slower than the lance. Because he clenches the spear he brings it up from its former great anti-knight position, to a position that is perhaps even a not so anti-knight vertical.
The horse is running on, while the spearman is thrown back into the next man, who might get knocked out from the sudden compression of his lungs, at the very least he too will get pushed back and his spear will also go vertical if he continues to hold on to it. But this time the horse is closer and the spearpoint has a chance actually hitting the head or throat of the horse, unfortunately for him this is a much smaller target than the chest and chances are that he will fall to one side a bit (the formation would not have been perfect, the men would try to look over the should of the others making it a little bit rhomboid) making the spearpoint pass the horse. Naturally it would hit in some cases, even the first man would hit sometimes...
The third man would perhaps be able to stand up, but he too would feel the compression of his chest quite violently. He would have been able to see the knight close and hit and would as many people do in scary situation inhale sharply. The 'Oof'he lets out would save his life with a few broken ribs but I'm not sure a man in such a situation would clech his spear harder. I was once at a concert up front, and suddenly people from behind began rushing forward. The compression made me lose sight for a few splitseconds, and I noticed at once that I had dropped my shirt (I never found it again, would probably not want it again http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif). I'm guessing the third man would experience the same.
I could ofcourse be wrong.
[/QUOTE]

Well! we could all be wrong as we are merely playing with logic here but your scenario is as logically plausible as mine. And your right in theory both horse and rider might survive the impact to be rolled into the ground although the net result is the same either way.

Also don't forget that the knight would have another whole file of spearmen opposing him not just one due to the comparative width of frontage. So regardless of whether the man he hit kept his spearpoint down there was still another one aimed at his horses chest.

[EDIT] Forgot in my hurry that the horse would just be stumbling over the fallen men and the endresult would be much the same.
It is a big perhaps if it could be standing after passing over the fallen men, it could happen but I doubt it. I just think it would not be fatal for the horse and knight all the time.[/B][/QUOTE]

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Didz

11-01-2002, 16:42

Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
But the point is, mounted knights in the western tradition were generally the primary attack force. A full-on frontal charge of a massive wall of heavy cavalry was usually the main attack, and not infrequently it was the opening move. This was not a rare thing, it was the modus operandi, the SOP, the way things were done.
[/QUOTE]

Well you are obviously better read than I am. So far the battles I have looked at all began with an attempt to soften up the enemy infantry with missile fire before the cavalry were committed. And the final massed cavalry assault seems almost to have been the final resort when that attempt failed.

I can't help wondering also what the official story of the battle would be if after the missile fire had completely demoralised the infatry the knights did charge and ride them down.

How many of the victorious knights basking in their glory would actually remember the insignificant detail that the crossbowmen had demoralised the enemy before they attacked?

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Didz

11-01-2002, 17:14

Quote Originally posted by Boleslaw Wrymouth:
I did post links but no one seems to have actually looked at them.
http://www.deremilitari.org/

A good place to start. "He lived it, he saw it and he chose to give it to posterity. But it can't possibly be true." Historian "blank".[/QUOTE]

Sorry BW I did go to your website and have a look but your URL just gives me the Home Page and I had no idea what it was you wanted me to read (and there's a lot of stuff on that site).

In the end I gave up trying to find the references you were thinking of.

------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis

Teutonic Knight

11-01-2002, 21:23

this is the longest thread I have ever witnessed in my entire life...........

CBR

11-01-2002, 21:40

Have looked there for info..lots of interesting articles but not much about cavalry versus infantry.
http://www.deremilitari.org/humphries.pdf

A bit info about knights and foot

http://www.deremilitari.org/marshall.pdf

Really only cavalry versus cavalry

http://www.deremilitari.org/mcglynn.htm

"Articles by Matthew Bennet, Jim Bradhury and John Gillingham reveal the 'vitally important' role of infantry by such telling examples as when the spears of Henry II's foot-soldiers saw off the French cavalry at Gisors in 1188 ('not the kind of thing that is supposed to happen in medieval warfare before the battle of Courtai in 1302') and the series of battles in England and Normandy between 1066 and 1141 which display the tactical combination of cavalry, dismounted knights, archers and infantry"

There might be more...

As I see it the primary reason for this ongoing discussion is the lack of knowledge/understanding of medieval warfare. Lots of nice theories, silly ideas and statements with no references to back them up: Blindfolded horses charging directly into frightened midget 4 1/2 foot tall soldiers might be the worst http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

Kircholm is not the greatest example to prove what cavalry could do 200-500 years before kircholm. See earlier in this thread for my comments on Kircholm and other battles during that period.

Im no expert but I have tried to provide references to books and websites when I have made my case and so have others. Ofc there is room for discussing sources and historians but it still looks more like general statements than concrete examples.

But no matter what, we have several historical examples to draw some (perhaps limited) conclusions on:

At Bouvines(1214) we see the german infantry, moving forward after defeating the french infantry, being defeated by cavalry. In the end we hear about a smaller infantry force making a last stand, standing in a square, apparently not defeated easily.

The Flemish infantry defeated french knights at Courtrai(1302), after fighting with french infantry first. Same type of infantry both have wins and losses against the French in the next couple of years (Arques 1303 and Mons-en-Pévèle 1304) the sources talks about the french knights reluctance of attacking the flemish infantry after Courtrai, especially if the infantry is prepared to recieve the cavalry charge (standing in square and/or using terrain/wagons as flank/rear protection). But the knights had success when attacking unprepared/attacking infantry.

Cavalry attacking the flanks or rear of an infantry formation was deadly but frontal attacks were deadly too if the infantry was not prepared..but was does prepared mean?

We are not just talking about the foot soldiers looking at the cavalry charging and thinking "ok Im prepared" We are talking about the whole infantry formation/unit going form standard marching order or close combat order to an even more dense order.

The normal combat close formation would be about 3 feet frontage per front soldier( we see that in ancient times too) and 6-7 feet depth. If forming a defensive formation against cavalry we are looking at about 1 1/2 foot frontage with depth reduced too. A formation not designed for speed and maneuver but for defense. The space between sub-units might be closed too so there is no room for any cavalry.

All that takes time and with limited command and control might not be easy if the formation was moving forward and as its not very mobile the flanks has to be protected by something (terrain or cavalry)

We do see that sometimes the infantry formed a square-like formation so there were no unprotected flanks: the scots with schiltrons and the flemish with the crown formation.

We do know from military manuals in the 16th and 17th century that cavalry trained for attacking pike formations. Maybe they didnt train for it that much earlier in the Middleages but we do know that knights attacked and won and sometimes they attacked and lost even before the pike came into use.

CBR