View Full Version : The myth of the cavalry charge
I have been reading with interest the debates on this forum about the various aspects of medieval combat. (e.g. Spears v Swords and Knights v Spears etc) and whilst I cannot claim to have any expert knowledge on the subject I think there are some important points which I have discovered about Napoleonic warfare that are equally relevant to the Medieval period.
The first point to make right at the start is that real warfare, certainly on the Napoleonic battlefield was absolutely nothing like the way it is depicted in films, paintings and even to a large extent in actual eyewitness accounts and reports. As Wellington said after a particularly stirring account of the battle by one of his generals at a commemoration dinner in honour of his victory at Waterloo. "If that was what happened, then surely I could not have been there."
Diarists, report writers, painters, film makers and even historians all tend to create with the interest of their target audience in mind and so we the consumers are presented not with what actually happened but what the creator thinks ought to have happened or thinks his target audience want to believe happened.
The truth normally hides between the lines and must be uncovered by careful cross-referencing of accounts from many different sources to look for ambiguities. In effect it requires detective work and a large application of logic and common sense. I won't bore you with the details but suffice it to say that for example most of the commonly understood history of the Battle of Waterloo is total rubbish as are the vast majority of the paintings produced to glorify the event.
The first and most important illusion is the myth of the cavalry charge. We are all familiar with the concept. The Charge of the Light Brigade, the Charge of the Scots Greys etc. A great host of big men on big horses hurling themselves with great impact on the enemy.
Well sorry folks, it didn't happen. At least not the way we imagine it or the way it was painted by all those artists eager to glorify the event.
The reality is that cavalry if they broke into a gallop at all did so at the very last minute and only then if they sensed that victory was in the bag. There are two very important reasons for this.
a) Unit cohesion
b) Command and Control
It is simply impossible for a group of mounted men to maintain formation at anything above a canter. Therefore, the gallop was reserved for the final dash upon their opponent. All the cavalry manuals of the Napoleonic period advocate this method and Wellington's main criticism of the British cavalry was they failed to abide by this rule and tended to dash at everything with great vigour only to dash back again with equal enthusiasm. It is also a fact that once moving at such a pace the opportunity to pass any command verbally or by signal is lost. I know in all the cowboy films the buglers are sounding the charge at full gallop but if you try it in real life you'll take your teeth out and even if you managed a few notes the sheer noise of all the galloping horses would prevent anyone hearing it.
In practice cavalry approached their objective at the walk/trot carefully maintaining alignment and with their leaders dictating and curbing the pace of the advance. The objective being that they arrive on target together and in a solid line. In some instances such as the charge of the Scots Greys at Waterloo the cavalry would close with the enemy at this pace. In this instance a gallop was impossible because the enemy were already too close and unnecessary as the French infantry had already panicked and so the Greys merely trotted up to them and began hacking them down as they tried to escape back through the hedge.
The reason the solid line was so important was NOT to maximise the impact of the collision with the enemy but to maximise the visual impact of their approach on the enemy and to impress them with the determination of their advance.
The second myth of the cavalry charge is that that they hurled themselves bodily into the enemy formation. The fact of the matter is that you cannot train a horse, or for that matter a man to impale themselves of opponent's weapon. Inevitably one or both of them are going to balk at the prospect of doing so. You can train a horse to tolerate loud and unexpected noise, you can train it to kick out and bite at an obstacle in front of it but you can't train it to walk onto a pike, bayonet or spear and if you did it would be dead anyway. The second augment against such a tactic is that it would be essentially pointless in that unless armed with a lance forcing ones mount directly onto an opponent leaves the rider with little opportunity to use his weapon and even if armed with a lance then forcing it at high velocity into an opponents body is a sure fire way of permanently disarming yourself and possibly catapulting yourself out of the saddle or breaking your arm.
Incidentally another interesting myth is that the cavalry charge is more effective if launched downhill. In fact evidence suggests just the opposite because of the anatomy of a horse travelling down a slope is much harder for a horse than travelling up it. A horse moving down a slope tends to want to sit on its haunches or zigzag back and forth to lessen the incline which means it cannot make full use of its more powerful hind legs. Whereas a horse travelling up a slope is able to support itself on its stronger back legs in order to power its forward movement.
More importantly if attacking from horseback an opponent lower down a slope has the advantage of being presented with a clearer strike at the breast his opponents horse whilst the rider higher up the slope must extend his own reach farther due the angle of his horses back.
What actually happened at the end of a so-called charge depended largely on the psychological impact the approach has had on the enemy. If as was hoped some of the enemy has panicked during the approach then the leaders will almost certainly order a final gallop. At this point it is assumed and expected that some if not all of the opposing troops will panic and try to escape the impact. This will almost certainly mean that those directly in the path of the charging horsemen will try to avoid them either by forcing their way back into the rear of their formation or to one side. This may involve dropping your weapon or turning your back on the advancing horsemen. Either way, it will create a gap in the enemy defensive formation and at that point the first line of cavalry would push home to spread the panic and widen the gap. In effect prizing the enemy formation apart.
If the enemy formation still stood its ground at this point the leaders of the second line might decide to commit there own force to further the effect again relying upon the enemy to panic and try to avoid them. But more likely they would hold their own line back and use it to cover the withdrawal of their colleagues from the first. Without this close tactical reserve withdrawal of the first line becomes impossible without heavy casualties as the enemy can follow up as we see demonstrated in MTW?
However, if the enemy formation shows no sign whatsoever of panic then quite simply the cavalry stop and don't charge home. At Waterloo there were numerous accounts of cavalry on both sides trotting up their opponents and halting within spitting distance of them only to go three's about and withdraw. These were in effect failed charges where the leader had assessed that the enemy were not going to panic and so their was no point charging home. In some cases the cavalry even resorted to taunting their opponents in the hope that they could goad them into breaking formation to attack them and thus leave some gaps to exploit.
According to Keegan the French Knights at Agincourt attempting to weather the hail of arrows were so driven together that when they arrived at the English position they were in such a solid mass they were unable to form a proper tactical reserve allowing the English to leave their position and close with them without the threat of being ridden down.
As a final resort if the cavalry could not intimidate their opponents into breaking formation then their only option was to rely on third party support. Hence the need for horse artillery, horse archers or some other form of mobile missile troops. At Waterloo the French cavalry attacking Mercers battery were so desperate to persuade his gunners to quit their guns that they tried to use their carbines to rattle them. Unfortunately a carbine fired from the saddle is not very accurate and Mercer was able to re-assure his men by riding up and down in front of his own guns inviting the enemy to take pot shots at him and in the end the French gave up on the idea.
So, what does all this rambling have to do with MTW?
Well it suggests that things are about right as they stand.
Knights and other cavalry that charge home but fail to break an enemy formation ought to get bogged down and take heavy casualties. The only real issue is whether the enemy ought to panic more often than they do at present. Clearly, the issue here is one of morale and discipline rather than weapon technology.
From a players view we ought to make sure that we keep a fresh unit of cavalry always on hand to act as a tactical reserve to exploit the initial charge or support its withdrawal and ideally a unit of missile troops as well.
There is also an argument for changing the slope advantage for cavalry but I suspect that would be just too radical.
Didz
chunkynut
10-08-2002, 19:14
Big post.
nuff said.
Agree with the unit cohesion part for napoleons era but unfortunatly in medieval times the charge was seen as honourable and undertaken no matter what the orders were.
Also the cav of napeloen had light armour if any and even the horses of the knights had loads of armour. This can cause a very big whole in the line of battle! And bogged down and take casualties, these men were trained in very undiscaplined fighting of 1 v 1 or 1 v many from an early age (as soon as they can weild a sword effectively).
[This message has been edited by chunkynut (edited 10-08-2002).]
I don't even have an option on the subject but I liked reading your post.
so thx for that
Goodridge
10-08-2002, 19:31
Hello,
You make some very, very good points. However, your statement that "there are some important points which I have discovered about Napoleonic warfare that are equally relevant to the Medieval period." is largely false. You are ignoring the passing of almost a full millenium of history and warfare. There are some grounds for comparison, yes, but the cavalry of 1000 CE and 1800 CE were often two different creatures.
Cavalry in the 19th century had taken on new roles. Despite what history books often tell us, most people were not idiots and had leared the futility of horse units charging headlong into pikes and musket fire. Aside from a few exceptions, which you have noted, cavalry was used for scouting, harrassing, and for attacking very weak units (routing, skirmishers, etc). At Waterloo, the French cavalry did in fact stop short because they couldn't break the English squares, and were forced to resort to point blank carbine fire to attempt to disorder them. They failed.
Your argument becomes more relevent when you begin to speak of the psychological effects of the charge. It is here that we get into the heart of medieval cavalry. Heavy horse were shock units. This is not a factor to be downplayed. Just imagine yourself standing in a poorly trained mob of militia armed with shody gear, seeing a mass of huge warhorses bearing down on you. It took a truly brave man to stand up to that. Once you began to panic and break apart, the one advantage you had, which was a solid wall of bodies, was lost and you would be riden down.
These were the days before complex military drill. Most infantry could not use useful formations other than the most basic sort, and even if they could, it was difficult to steel yourself to stand up to a massive object such as a horse and rider.
Technology was the other key issue. Napoleonic muskets were certainly poor tools of warfare, but they were far superior to anything fielded during the medieval period. Combined with the close order drills first perfected by the Spanish Tercios, musket fire was deadly to any cavalry foolish enough to charge headlong without support.
There was nothing of equal power in the early medieval period. As time went on and technology improved, cavalry began to loose their advantage. But for a long time, especially in areas where English Longbows and other powerful missiles were not common, the power of shock was still key.
I think MTW does a fairly good job of replicating this. It forces you to use tactics to get the most out of your cavalry. I think that people are just a little upset at the ability of peasent spearmen to hold up powerful knights. This was not historically accurate. Advanced spears (with better gear and training) and pikes gave the infantry a new edge. Basic spears would actually be SHORTER than the average lance or cavalry spear. This has been noted in other threads. A one handed spear would have to be held close to the middle for proper balance, making it little better than a sword in terms of reach.
However, the current balance is fine. There has to be some counter to cavalry or else that is all anyone would build in the early period. This is a game after all.
Spears should however receive massive penalties if their flank or rear is set upon. Just look at the effect the flexible early legions had on the static phalanx to see what can happen when someone manages to get around the wall of steel.
Like I said, you make a very compelling argument, but looking at Napoleonics or anything in that general period is very misleeding.
I would encourage anyone having trobule fighting spears to take their time and maneuver. If you can set up the situation so that the spears no longer have the advantage you will win. Fix them in place with your infantry, which will give your cav time to maneuver to the flanks and rear. If the spears turn to face this new threat, your infantry can charge their now exposed flanks, leading to the same slaughter.
------------------
Kyle Goodridge
TheLastEuropean
10-08-2002, 19:45
If I remember correctly, in Shogun the cavalry performed better on the flat than downhill. Presume MTW to be the same.
MajorFreak
10-08-2002, 20:05
sweet! I'm kinda confused how agincourt longbowmen got such great accuracy on the french cavalry, seeing as how MTW archers suck at hitting fast advancing targets...Any info on that bit? plz thxi'm assuming it's because you were correct about the canter bit until the last moment[/list]
[This message has been edited by MajorFreak (edited 10-08-2002).]
Hosakawa Tito
10-08-2002, 20:36
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. It takes lots of training to get them to jump those fences in equestrian events, and if you stabbed that horse in the flank with a spear he'd never want to jump it again, and I couldn't possibly count the number of times I've been thrown off trying to jump simple little ditches, logs, fences etc...
most times a horse wants to go around the object, not over or through it. A knights warhorse was his most prized possession and was not easy to replace, they wouldn't sacrifice them foolishly or the knight would end up as heavily armored infantry.
Heavy cav were best used to exploit holes already present in the shield wall and to pyschologically terrorize poorly trained units, which made up the bulk of most medieval armies. It looks good on film to see heavy cav crash into a wall of defenders, Braveheart comes to mind, but if you ever saw the program on how the film was made, they didn't just use mechanical (dummy) horses to appease the animal rights folks in those scenes. You couldn't get a real horse to do that, they'd stop their charge right in front and the riders would go sailing over the horses heads and into the defenders, the very earliest form of horse artillery lol.
I think the game developers have done a fine job modding the horse units in this game and in my opinion they shouldn't really change them. I think some peoples complaints about the cav units are based on their perceptions of what Hollywood conveys to them in movies like BraveHeart, and not what the horse can and cannot/will not do in real life. Good thread gentlemen.
------------------
Diplomacy is the art of telling someone to go to hell so that they look forward to making the trip.
Last night I engaged a spear unit with one of my own and sent a med cav unit crashing into his flank and rear.
Not only didn't this unit break but he quickly formed an asymetrical Vee and
put a beating on my mounted sergents.
The Novos must of snuck in a high morale general because I assasinated his predecessor. The unit also must have been good because my leader was average with no VV's.
I won regardless, and don't really care, but I found this simple spear unit's immediate response and the flexibility and coheision of its formation to be a bit much.
But to quote Thucydides "Ya never know"
------------------
He moves, you move first.
Quote Originally posted by Goodridge:
Hello,
However, your statement that "there are some important points which I have discovered about Napoleonic warfare that are equally relevant to the Medieval period." is largely false. You are ignoring the passing of almost a full millenium of history and warfare.
[/QUOTE]
I think relevance lies in not in weapon technology but in human and equine psychology. I don't beleive that the medieval horse and rider were anymore inclined to skewer themselves on a pike or spear than their Napoleonic equivalent.
Quote
Your argument becomes more relevent when you begin to speak of the psychological effects of the charge. It is here that we get into the heart of medieval cavalry. Heavy horse were shock units. This is not a factor to be downplayed. Just imagine yourself standing in a poorly trained mob of militia armed with shody gear, seeing a mass of huge warhorses bearing down on you. It took a truly brave man to stand up to that. Once you began to panic and break apart, the one advantage you had, which was a solid wall of bodies, was lost and you would be riden down.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly, and this was the real point I was trying to make. The difference between the performance of cavalry in the Medieval period and the Napoleonic period was nothing to do with the men on the horses and everything to do with the men they were attacking.
Medieval cavalry were able to charge home more often and with greater effect because generally the command and control quality of the men they were attacking was lower than that of a Napoleonic unit. In short they panicked easier.
Quote
Technology was the other key issue. Napoleonic muskets were certainly poor tools of warfare, but they were far superior to anything fielded during the medieval period.
[/QUOTE]
Surprisingly! this is a red herring. The fact that a Napoleonic infantryman was armed with a musket had little if any impact upon the final success of a cavalry charge. The simple reason for this was once again psychological rather than physical. There are numerous accounts of cavalry halting less than fifty paces from an infantry square and chanting abuse at the infantrymen in an attempt to provoke them into discharging their muskets. Likewise, Mercer mentions that the French attempted repeatedly to provoke him into firing his guns. I was surprised by this as I would have thought that with a target so close blazing away at them was the most sensible thing to do. Fifty paces is short range even for a musket let alone a 9pdr loaded with cannister.
The conclusion I came to was that there was an instinctive battle of the minds going on in these confrontations.
On the one hand the cavalry knew that if they could launch a charge when their enemy was in the process of trying to reload their weapons they would have a distinct morale advantage and would be more likely to cause a panic. Whilst the infantry and gunner knew that as long as they held their fire the cavalry would be reluctant to attempt a charge. And so we read of many such mexican stand-offs occuring some in quite bizarre circumstances. However, the net result is that the infantry are in effect rendered little more effective that spearmen in such situations and one can imagine such a face off occuring in exactly the same circumstances on a medieval battlefield.
Quote
I think that people are just a little upset at the ability of peasent spearmen to hold up powerful knights. This was not historically accurate. Advanced spears (with better gear and training) and pikes gave the infantry a new edge. Basic spears would actually be SHORTER than the average lance or cavalry spear. This has been noted in other threads. A one handed spear would have to be held close to the middle for proper balance, making it little better than a sword in terms of reach.
[/QUOTE]
I agree with the issue but not the problem. I personally don't beleive it has anything to do with the length of a spear or a sword but simply the likelihood of the spear unit panicking when approached by mounted knights.
In MTW if knights get in amongst a routing or wavering spear unit they massacre them. If there is a argument for improving the value of mounted knights it should focus on how readily a unit of spearmen would panic when charged rather than how far their spears reach.
Quote
I would encourage anyone having trobule fighting spears to take their time and maneuver. If you can set up the situation so that the spears no longer have the advantage you will win. Fix them in place with your infantry, which will give your cav time to maneuver to the flanks and rear. If the spears turn to face this new threat, your infantry can charge their now exposed flanks, leading to the same slaughter.
[/QUOTE]
Agreed! combined arms is the answer.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
[This message has been edited by Didz (edited 10-08-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Didz (edited 10-08-2002).]
Very nice post Didz. I agree with most of your points, tough not with your conclusion with respect of MTW. IMHO the following ones are very important observations:
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
The reason the solid line was so important was NOT to maximise the impact of the collision with the enemy but to maximise the visual impact of their approach on the enemy and to impress them with the determination of their advance.
What actually happened at the end of a so-called charge depended largely on the psychological impact the approach has had on the enemy. If as was hoped some of the enemy has panicked during the approach then the leaders will almost certainly order a final gallop. At this point it is assumed and expected that some if not all of the opposing troops will panic and try to escape the impact.
[/QUOTE]
Way back in STW/MI I have tried to make a similar argument, tough less elaborate as yours http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif I've argued that unexperienced troops should receive a moral penalty when charged by (heavy/shock) cavalry units. Alas, this was not implemented nor in STW neither in MTW. Check out the following thread:
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum14/HTML/000029.html
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
So, what does all this rambling have to do with MTW?
Well it suggests that things are about right as they stand.
Knights and other cavalry that charge home but fail to break an enemy formation ought to get bogged down and take heavy casualties. The only real issue is whether the enemy ought to panic more often than they do at present. Clearly, the issue here is one of morale and discipline rather than weapon technology.
From a players view we ought to make sure that we keep a fresh unit of cavalry always on hand to act as a tactical reserve to exploit the initial charge or support its withdrawal and ideally a unit of missile troops as well.
[/QUOTE]
Now, this is where I disagree. Cavalry in MTW is useless as shock troop. You cannot break infantry formations not even by attacking the rear. (At least I've never succeeded with it http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif (as a side note: in STW it was possible!) If you dont believe me just play a few games online and observe how the cavalry is used. You will see that it used in a very "Napoleonic way" i.e. for harassing, screening, chasing, etc. but never as shock troops, never to break formations. Some folks dont even take cavalry , and most players take light or medium cavalry (Alan mercenaries, Mounted Sergeants, Ghulams). You wont see any knights (royal, chivalric or order) which is a shame given that it is supposed to be Medieval Total War. This is not to say that the game in it is present form is not interesting, because it is. Just it has very little resemblance to medieval warfare. IMHO it feels more like hoplite warfare in which cavarly had only a marginal role.
Note, that I am not arguing that Cavalry should be a kind of uberunit capable of breaking anything with a head-on charge. Good anti-cav units such as pikemen should be able to repel a head-on charge with ease, but heavy cavalry should be able to break swordsmen formations (head-on) and spear formations (flank, rear). And yes, cavalry should dominate in early games! Otherwise what is the use the different periods? As it stands folks pick orderfoot or saracens or whatever infantry they can regardless of the historical period of the game, there is no or very little difference in game play. IMHO waste of options. In Early games cavalry should dominate. In High games cavalry should still be strong but disiplined infantry should gain the upper hand. In Late games cavalry should be more marginal, infantry and ranged unit should dominate. As it stands infantry dominate in all cases. Cavalry is definitely underpowered at least in early games.
Goodridge
10-08-2002, 21:10
Quote Surprisingly! this is a red herring. The fact that a Napoleonic infantryman was armed with a musket had little if any impact upon the final success of a cavalry charge. [/QUOTE]
I have heard of the standoff problems you mentioned, but keep in mind that a well trained infantry unit was made up of multiple ranks that could discharge independtly (altough this could lead to mistakes in which the wrong soldiers fired), so they would rarely all be unable to fire. Additionally, the front rank of many formations would kneel and set bayonets to help ward of cav. Not that a bayonet could do the job the same way a pike could, but it was better than nothing http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Either way, the point I was getting at was that firepower had gone up a great deal, making infantry that much more deadly at range against any target, especially a nice big one like a horse.
Quote sweet! I'm kinda confused how agincourt longbowmen got such great accuracy on the french cavalry, seeing as how MTW archers suck at hitting fast advancing targets...Any info on that bit? plz thx [/QUOTE]
I suggest you read John Keegan's account of the battle (I'm sure its online). Very good reading.
Basically, the French were coming down a relatively narrow field in a big mass, so the English just had to fire and were bound to hit something. There were so many of them that it was hard to miss.
The real slaughter came when the French men-at-arms got into action. They were packed so tight in an effort to get to the front lines that they could not turn around and fight back against the English, who gleefully ran up to their flanks to hack them up and take prisonors. This is after the retreating French cav ran many of them over while retreating. Whoops.
------------------
Kyle Goodridge
Quote Originally posted by DojoRat:
Last night I engaged a spear unit with one of my own and sent a med cav unit crashing into his flank and rear.
Not only didn't this unit break but he quickly formed an asymetrical Vee and
put a beating on my mounted sergents.
[/QUOTE]
Yep! I think this is the real issue. Even highly trained and disciplined infantry engaged by cavalry would have a real problem performing any sort manouvre like this.
The problem being that under such stress even a minor hiccup in such a movement would generate panic and lead to disaster.
At Quatre Bras the 69th lost their colours to French cavalry because they were caught by surprise. But the panic which led to their destruction was not the fact that they were in line but that they were in the process of forming square. Apparently the officer in charge of the Grenadier company was in the process of leading his men into position when he became aware of the French Cavalry bearing down on them. He made a mistake and instead of urging his men to complete the movement he ordered them to halt and fire into the approaching cavalry. This the men did but then realising they were standing in alone with empty muskets they panicked and breaking ranks ran towards their colleagues in the square closely pursued by the French horse.
They arrived at about the same time and in doing so totally disrupted the rest of the battalion which broke ranks and fled for the woods leaving the colours and small party of stouter or more foolish men to their fate.
A similar fate befell the Prussian Fusileer Regiment Nr28 at Gilly the day before when the battalion commander attempted to withdraw them in square whilst under threat from the French Dragoons. The panic was caused by the 10th Company facing about to front the approaching cavalry whilst the rest of the battalion continued to withdraw thus creating a breach in the square and causing panic.
The French spotting the mistake immediately spurred forward and charged home. The regiment lost 13 officers and 614 men in space of a few minutes. Whilst the square of the 6th Regiment a few hundred paces away stood its ground and was ignored.
Major Von Haine of the 6th Regmt summed the situation up by stating that what needed to be done was to hold off the cavalry with calmness and determination until the woods could be reached. He called on his men to remain calm and finished with the words "No man is to fire unless I give the order."
Didz
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
[This message has been edited by Didz (edited 10-08-2002).]
Very interesting discussion with some excellent points. I agree with Didz's points whole heartedly. The success of a charge against a formed unit is a function of morale. I also agree with Goodridges point that heavy cavalry rarely, if ever, breaks formed spearmen in MTW.
One question comes to mind as my knowledge of medieval warfare is not as great as I would like. Were most cavalry charges during 11th to 15th century against infantry or against other cavalry? Was cavalry the dominent component of armies, thus they just fought each other? Did cavalry actually charge and break infantry often?
In the battle of Hastings, I read of a dominant heavy cavalry force struggling to defeat King Harold's infantry army. It was a long drawn out battle which may not have been won, if the archers weren't present to thin out the Harolds foot ranks. And this is in the early time frame.
The Scots schiltrons were not defeated by pure cavalry. They were defeated by a mixture of Knights and archers.
How many examples are there of cavalry just riding over infantry during this timeframe other than just peasants?
One practical note. Has anyone experimented with increasing the charge bonus of cavalry? It might be interesting to see the results of doubling or tripling the initial charge bonus. If the charge bonus were higher, the initial shock might break low morale units.
[This message has been edited by Jagger (edited 10-08-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Goodridge:
You make some very, very good points. However, your statement that "there are some important points which I have discovered about Napoleonic warfare that are equally relevant to the Medieval period." is largely false. You are ignoring the passing of almost a full millenium of history and warfare. There are some grounds for comparison, yes, but the cavalry of 1000 CE and 1800 CE were often two different creatures.
[/QUOTE]
I agree 100%.
Quote Originally posted by Goodridge:
Your argument becomes more relevent when you begin to speak of the psychological effects of the charge. It is here that we get into the heart of medieval cavalry. Heavy horse were shock units. [/QUOTE]
Again, I agree 100%. But you cannot use them in MP as shock troops, there is no way.
Quote Originally posted by Goodridge:
There was nothing of equal power in the early medieval period. As time went on and technology improved, cavalry began to loose their advantage. But for a long time, especially in areas where English Longbows and other powerful missiles were not common, the power of shock was still key.
I think MTW does a fairly good job of replicating this. [/QUOTE]
Surprising conclusion in the light of your previous comment and in the light of the fact that you cannot use cavalry as shock in MP.
Quote Originally posted by Goodridge:
It forces you to use tactics to get the most out of your cavalry. I think that people are just a little upset at the ability of peasent spearmen to hold up powerful knights. This was not historically accurate.[/QUOTE]
So, people are rightfully upset, or not?
Quote Originally posted by Goodridge:
However, the current balance is fine. There has to be some counter to cavalry or else that is all anyone would build in the early period. This is a game after all.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, the early period should be dominated by cavalry. What is the problem with it? If you dont want a cavalry game then you could still pick high or late. There would be a variety at least.
Quote Originally posted by Goodridge:
Spears should however receive massive penalties if their flank or rear is set upon. [/QUOTE]
Yes, they should, but they did not. A cavalry rear attack wont route an orderfoot for example.
Quote Originally posted by Goodridge:
Just look at the effect the flexible early legions had on the static phalanx to see what can happen when someone manages to get around the wall of steel.[/QUOTE]
This is medieval, IMHO you cannot compare hoplites and phalanx to medieval infantry (esp. early period).
Quote Originally posted by Goodridge:
Like I said, you make a very compelling argument, but looking at Napoleonics or anything in that general period is very misleeding. [/QUOTE]
In a same way looking at ancient warfare can be misleading http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Quote Originally posted by Goodridge:
I would encourage anyone having trobule fighting spears to take their time and maneuver. If you can set up the situation so that the spears no longer have the advantage you will win. Fix them in place with your infantry, which will give your cav time to maneuver to the flanks and rear. If the spears turn to face this new threat, your infantry can charge their now exposed flanks, leading to the same slaughter.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but I cannot buy these "outsmart your opponents" argumnets. What do you think your opponent would do in the meantime? Read the Daily Mirror??? Heavy cavalry were shock troops, as you observed, as they were used as shock troops without any smart and intricate tactical manouvers. In fact any commander plannig intricate nanouvers were asking for trouble (IMHO). Please list some medieval battles in which heavy cavalry carried out some intricate flanking and rearing manouvers while spear troops were holding the front. As I said cavalry should dominate the early period.
And Goodridge please dont take this as personal offence, just your post provided the perfect quotes for my argument http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif In fact IMHO we agree about quite a lot, except gameplay.
Quote Originally posted by Cheetah:
Sorry, but I cannot buy these "outsmart your opponents" argumnets. What do you think your opponent would do in the meantime? Read the Daily Mirror??? Heavy cavalry were shock troops, as you observed, as they were used as shock troops without any smart and intricate tactical manouvers. In fact any commander plannig intricate nanouvers were asking for trouble (IMHO). Please list some medieval battles in which heavy cavalry carried out some intricate flanking and rearing manouvers while spear troops were holding the front. As I said cavalry should dominate the early period.
And Goodridge please dont take this as personal offence, just your post provided the perfect quotes for my argument http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif In fact IMHO we agree about quite a lot, except gameplay.[/QUOTE]
I agree! Such clever manouvres rarely seem a feature of medieval warefare but they do work in the game.
The fact that they don't figure on the real battlefield is again a matter of command and control. Firstly, the troops in general were not organised and drilled to the level that would allow such movements and secondly it was not necessary to go to such lengths to acheive a morale advantage.
Unfortunately neither of these seems to be true in MTW where troops can and do perform intricate manourves in the face of the enemy and do need to be outmanouvred in effect a result.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by Cheetah:
Very nice post Didz. I agree with most of your points, tough not with your conclusion with respect of MTW. IMHO the following ones are very important observations:
Now, this is where I disagree. Cavalry in MTW is useless as shock troop. You cannot break infantry formations not even by attacking the rear.[/QUOTE]
Umm! I thought that was the whole gist of my argument.
But just to clarify the point I was making was that just as in the Napoleonic period the success of a cavalry charge depended on its ability to panic its opponents and get them to break formation.
The issue therefore in MTW is whether cavalry and in particular Knights should be able to panic their opponents with more ease.
I would ad that I am particularly scepitical at the ability of infantry to change formation and manouvre whilst under threat or engaged by enemy cavalry which IMO should carry a major panic penalty.
Hopefully that clears that up.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Umm! I thought that was the whole gist of my argument.
But just to clarify the point I was making was that just as in the Napoleonic period the success of a cavalry charge depended on its ability to panic its opponents and get them to break formation.
The issue therefore in MTW is whether cavalry and in particular Knights should be able to panic their opponents with more ease.
I would ad that I am particularly scepitical at the ability of infantry to change formation and manouvre whilst under threat or engaged by enemy cavalry which IMO should carry a major panic penalty.
Hopefully that clears that up.
[/QUOTE]
Again, I agree completely with your observations about cavalry (and infantry!), and I support your idea that the cavalry charge should incure some moral penalty. But based on your observations and on your proposal I would conlude that cavalry is underpowered, whereas you conclude that cavalry is just fine. This is what I dont understand http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Cousin Zoidfarb
10-08-2002, 22:09
Didz the examples you mention are limited. You only describe Western European experience. Furthermore, the English never had a reputation as being good cavalry that's why their infantry arm was developed. The most successful commander of the middle-ages was Tamerlane who led a mostly cavalry army which had heavily armoured units. Later on in history, one of the most successful military powers in Europe was cavalry-based, that being the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This army defeated Western and Eastern opponents with the Husaria (Winged hussar heavy cavalry) being the elite. Their most feared tactic was their charge three hundred years after Crecy. These horsemen were armed with very long lances able to break pike squares. Good leadership and disciplined is very important in battle and this is what the French lacked in the 14th-15th centuries
Quote Originally posted by Cheetah:
Sorry, but I cannot buy these "outsmart your opponents" argumnets. What do you think your opponent would do in the meantime? Read the Daily Mirror??? Heavy cavalry were shock troops, as you observed, as they were used as shock troops without any smart and intricate tactical manouvers. In fact any commander plannig intricate nanouvers were asking for trouble (IMHO). Please list some medieval battles in which heavy cavalry carried out some intricate flanking and rearing manouvers while spear troops were holding the front. As I said cavalry should dominate the early period.
[/QUOTE]
You are right. I'm not able to recall an example of an deliberate flanking maneuver by knights - which makes us praise the MTW developers for limiting the speed of knight units. Nevertheless, you are wrong when you assume that commanders in the early period just sent thair cavalry forward for an all-out-charge. At Bouvines (1214), for example, both sides placed their infantry militias in the centre of the first line, backed up by knights. The French cavalry only charged the enemy infantry after the latter defeated and started to pursue the French infantry (their formation was surely broken by the infantry match and consequent pursue).
Several other battles of the early period feature infantry (sometimes dismounted knights) being placed in the frontline with mounted knights to back it up as a reserve.
So don't tell me that battles of the early period were only charges of knights. Spear armed infantry was recognised and used as a valuable asset to protect against cavalry frontal charges. And although there are little or no flanking maneuvres by mounted knights (except after right or left wing knights defeated the enemy troops directly to their front), commanders cared about their position on the battlefield so that their charge could be delivered at the right moment, after the enemy infantry wall lost cohesion.
Cheers,
Antonio
Hmm another thread about cavalry...
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Umm! I thought that was the whole gist of my argument.
But just to clarify the point I was making was that just as in the Napoleonic period the success of a cavalry charge depended on its ability to panic its opponents and get them to break formation.
The issue therefore in MTW is whether cavalry and in particular Knights should be able to panic their opponents with more ease.
I would ad that I am particularly scepitical at the ability of infantry to change formation and manouvre whilst under threat or engaged by enemy cavalry which IMO should carry a major panic penalty.
Hopefully that clears that up.
[/QUOTE]
We should always be careful comparing Napoleonic warfare with Medieval warfare as muskets and cannons changed tactics a lot.
Infantry always tried to move into squares to protect themselves against cavalry. Standing in a formation where your flank/rea is protected 6 ranks deep with muskets ready to fire at incoming cavalry and in many cases several squares supporting each other means a lot to the morale of infantry. I think(at Waterloo) that the english even had difficulties getting out of square formation just because it felt so safe to stay in that formation with enemy cavalry near by.
Infantry caught in the open with no time to form square where routed quickly.
In medieval times Infantry formed up in dense formations with terrain protecting their flanks/rear (at least in several battles where an all infantry army faced cavalry) If they were to have a chance against cavalry they didnt think about offense but defense: to stand firm, recieve and repel the cavalry charge.
You simply dont see that in MTW. Spears/pikes caught is the rear/flank by charging heavy cavalry will in most cases not be defeated...only if they are already engaged in fighting another unit.
Just to change how fast infantry maneuvers and giving a morale penalty is as I see it not enough.
If the most expensive cavalry is not a big threat to spear units why have pikes at all?
If a charge into flank/rear of units isnt a disaster, infantry still walks around on the battlefield as they like and you dont really have to worry about keeping your units together in a big defensive formation or covered by your own cavalry.
As it is now cavalry is simply a support unit for your main force: the infantry. And a support unit you shouldnt spend too much money on..Alans is good enough really.
There should be difference between early, high and late but there isnt.
CBR
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
In medieval times Infantry formed up in dense formations with terrain protecting their flanks/rear (at least in several battles where an all infantry army faced cavalry) If they were to have a chance against cavalry they didnt think about offense but defense: to stand firm, recieve and repel the cavalry charge.
You simply dont see that in MTW. Spears/pikes caught is the rear/flank by charging heavy cavalry will in most cases not be defeated...only if they are already engaged in fighting another unit.
Just to change how fast infantry maneuvers and giving a morale penalty is as I see it not enough.
[/QUOTE]
Well, I agree. In MTW infantry should melt away when charged from the flank or rear by mounted knights.
Cheers,
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by Beavis:
Didz the examples you mention are limited. You only describe Western European experience. Furthermore, the English never had a reputation as being good cavalry that's why their infantry arm was developed. The most successful commander of the middle-ages was Tamerlane who led a mostly cavalry army which had heavily armoured units. Later on in history, one of the most successful military powers in Europe was cavalry-based, that being the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. This army defeated Western and Eastern opponents with the Husaria (Winged hussar heavy cavalry) being the elite. Their most feared tactic was their charge three hundred years after Crecy. These horsemen were armed with very long lances able to break pike squares. Good leadership and disciplined is very important in battle and this is what the French lacked in the 14th-15th centuries
[/QUOTE]
I don't doubt that what you say is true I merely question the methid by which they did it.
Long lance or not charging full tilt into an enemy pike formation would do nothing but bring about Mutually Assured Destruction for both the lancer and the pikeman.
If as you say the lance outreached the pike the sensible option would be to halt and use the extra reach to take out individual pikemen and spread disruption in the enemy formation until a breach appeared that could be explioted.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
In medieval times Infantry formed up in dense formations with terrain protecting their flanks/rear (at least in several battles where an all infantry army faced cavalry) If they were to have a chance against cavalry they didnt think about offense but defense: to stand firm, recieve and repel the cavalry charge.
You simply dont see that in MTW. Spears/pikes caught is the rear/flank by charging heavy cavalry will in most cases not be defeated...only if they are already engaged in fighting another unit.
[/QUOTE]
I agree this does not seem right.
IMO: For infantry to survive a charge by mounted knights or any cavalry they should be in a suitably deep formation, stationary and on Hold Formation for maximum cohension.
Any unit pike or otherwise caught by cavalry whilst moving or in the flank or rear or even in a shallow formation should suffer such crippling morale penalties as to almost guarantee a rout.
But,(and this is the crux)if a unit of mounted knights charges full tilt inot the front face of a steady pike unit it should not have a hope in hell of succeeding and beefing up the combat attack bonus of the knights would create just such an anomaly.
So, I say yes make it easier for cavalry to rout badly managed infantry but don't turn them into four legged tiger tanks.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Cousin Zoidfarb
10-08-2002, 23:21
The Winged Hussar charged full tilt. It was considered a dishonor not to break your lnace during the battle. The lance would not only eliminate the target but would also push it back due to momentum. During that period Western European cavalry attacked at a trot with pistols and withdrew (the caracole). After his encounters with the Poles Gustavus Adolphus reintroduced the charge to his cavalry.
Some great points made here, my compliments to all. I am not touting the supremacy of heavy cavalry but I do understand many people's complaints about heavy cavalry in MTW.
Please keep in mind that during the medieval era it was considered par for the course for heavy cavalry to charge headlong into the enemy's line. What else is expected when you cover rider and horse in armor? If this was an exercise in futility then heavy cavalry charges would have been relegated to obsolesence long before the age of gunpowder. The point is that armor clad knights carrying long lances riding massive, armor clad horses were designed to smash through enemy lines and did so, at least with enough success that such units were considered a necessary and valuable asset to any commander of the era.
Based on the era, men, horses, armor and weaponry we must also assume that these horse were trained far more rigorously than the horses of the gunpowder era and were expected to be thick in the midst of a hostile, bloody melee. Horses may act in their own self interest but how do you explain stunt horses and those used in equestrian events? Admittedly the latter are not trained to smash into things on purpose (but many do and still keep going or submit to repeated attempts) but jumping over large obstacles is just as difficult, especially to animals that evolved in grassland environments.
Lastly, if you've ever seen the breeds of horses used for medieval era heavy cavalry you would see that they are considerably larger than the horses used for heavy cavalry during the Napoleonic era. Some years ago I remember watching a documentary that dealt with large breeds of horses and it touched on the age of chivalry and the Crusades when they were highly sought after as mounts for knights. These horses are not just large, they are massive, thick legged and frightfully tall. So much so that when they rear up on their hind legs in the midst of a group of trainers and handlers it looks so out of place as to make you think it was a special effect. They are so large and possess such a wide gait that it proved painful for a knight to ride them for prolonged periods of time. The knight and his squire and/or servant rode 'normal' sized horses for everyday travel and used the war mount as a pack animal (the normal horses looked like ponies next to the war horse). No doubt their considerable size, mass and muscle gave extra shock value to their charges.
I can understand the 'reluctant horse' behaviour when confronted with a wall of spears, pikes and polearms but what about a wall of men carrying swords and shields? Part of the benefit of using a long lance its ability to penetrate, push or knock down the intended target, usually before the horse even makes contact. Heavy cavalry should have a much easier time of it against sword units and the like.
I have always been uneasy about charging my spearmen into charging cavalry. I receive the huge charge bonus by performing this tactic and I am unaware of any penalties. But in reality, I just can't see spearmen charging into charging cavalry.
I see spearman as hunkering down and locking arms and trying to look mean and ugly as the cavalry approaches rather than letting out a warcry and rushing forward.
[This message has been edited by Jagger (edited 10-08-2002).]
So what you guys are saying is that if you were on the left flank 3rd row deep with a 6-foot spear, and you saw someone coming in onto your flank, you wouldn't turn to face/fight them? It's human nature to fight what you see, and the guys on the flank will turn and face their threat.
The "V" phenomenon you describe is human nature. As a spearman, it has been drilled into you for months (maybe even years) that your survival depends on the mass of the formation and the support of the mass in fending off and fighting an attacker. You know that if you break and run, you will either a) be run down and killed, b) be singled out as an attack of opportunity by any enemy in the area and killed, or c) courtmarshalled and executed after the battle for breaking formation, risking the lives of your formation-mates, and cowardice.
So what would you do if attacked from the flank? You'd do the only option available to you, which is turn and face the attacker. So would all the guys around you. You'd only run away if you felt that the formation was crumbling and the perils of running were less than the perils of fighting on. (or if everyone else was running away) Safety is with the formation, not running away with many nasty men on big horses chasing you.
Also, an individual spearsmen does not know much about geometry. Sure he trains with his formation-mates to maintain square/rectangle formations. But when the **** hits the fan, he'll fall back on his more basic instinct which is a) survival depends on being in a tight group with his rank-mates, and b) the threat is in the direction of the enemy that he sees, thus he'll turn and face the flank attack, with the guys nearby. *This* is why the V formation occurs, the guys on the flank lose sense of which direction the "front" of the formation is supposed to be, and by drilled instinct form another front along the attacked flank. This is also why it is important to not let spearmen form a straightish line when they do this (the "V"), if you can get that flank line to be wavy or jagged, the spearmen will be in trouble.
Now when you have much longer weapons (like yari or pikes) which extend 10ft beyond the guy in front of you, it's much harder to turn and face the attacker from the side (your pike would have to rotate through guys in front of you). The human reaction at this point is to drop the pike and grab something else to fight the attacker from the side with. If you don't have an alternate weapon, well you're in trouble. This is the curse of the pike-style weapon. Sure it makes for an impenetratable wall in front. But it means that if an attack comes from the side and the formation can't turn as a whole in time, the formation is in trouble. This is a disadvantage that the shorter spears don't have. But you can be certain that the unit would be acutely aware of this limination, and that every day they train on maneuvering like a whole, which would include how to rotate to follow an enemy cavalry unit. People are highly motivated when they know their life is on the line.
It can be very frustrating to look at your cavalry unit attack from the side and not demolish an enemy unit, *especially* in MP. But you must look at it from the individual soldier's standpoint, and what would go through your head if you were in that situation (and *not* what you want to go through his head when you're his enemy). IMO, the reason that cavalry aren't all that useful in MP is due to the equality of the opposing forces. As several people have stated above, most real medieval armies were probably full of poorly-trained and poorly-motivated soldiers. If you want to replicate this in MTW, give each side 10 out of the 16 units as 0-valor peasents only http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Then you should see the behaviour you're looking for
A thought about heavy cavalry vs heavy foot soldiers. One disadvantage to the cavalry is density. For a given area of ground, one horse, with space around to enable the use of a weapon, takes up the same space as several foot-soldiers (many if they are in a tight formation). So you have several weapons vs few in any given spot of the battle. I'm talking about once the charge has stopped (or hit home) and the cavalry is milling about amongst the soldiers trying to chop them up. If the soldiers out-number the cavalry by a 2:1 advantage locally (very common in MTW), you have two to three footsoldiers hacking at the horse/cavalryman, while the cavalryman can only engage one of them at a time. Who has the advantage?
This brings to mind an analogy with schoolyard fights. Take the really big bully. He relies on scaring the bejeezus out of the other kids (which he can do due to meanness and size and the fact that 1:1 he can beat any of the other kids). If 3-4 of the smaller kids go after him, however, one or two will get creamed, but while he's beating up on those kids, the others get around and start hitting and kicking at all sorts of tender spots. Now imagine they're all wielding weapons, who do you think will die? Many of the footsoldiers, and many of the cavalrymen.
The bully in the schoolyard relies on many cavalry-like tactics and methods for fighting to get his way. But of course, bullies in schoolyards are so different than cavalry on battlefields, that we should just throw the analogy away completely http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
I mostly use my cavalry for diversion {in SP}, to try to entice the opponent to open up his formation, leaving me with gaps or isolated units to bear down on with my infantry units. A successful isolation or diversion usually opens up a lot of possibilities.
The main thing about cav is mobility. I engage units of spear\pike using, ofcourse, men-at-arms and such and then use the superior speed of the cavalry to form up on their rear, charge and break the enemy formation. Any head-on business is reserved for desperate last ditch attempts to hold off any critical maneuvers form the enemy that threatens to envelop my flanks.
But as I pointed out, cav is not to be considered a battering ram, but a unit for added finesse.
Sure, it would be nice to charge things flat with cav, but both game-play and realism would suffer a lot.
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
I agree this does not seem right.
IMO: For infantry to survive a charge by mounted knights or any cavalry they should be in a suitably deep formation, stationary and on Hold Formation for maximum cohension.
Any unit pike or otherwise caught by cavalry whilst moving or in the flank or rear or even in a shallow formation should suffer such crippling morale penalties as to almost guarantee a rout.
But,(and this is the crux)if a unit of mounted knights charges full tilt inot the front face of a steady pike unit it should not have a hope in hell of succeeding and beefing up the combat attack bonus of the knights would create just such an anomaly.
So, I say yes make it easier for cavalry to rout badly managed infantry but don't turn them into four legged tiger tanks.
[/QUOTE]
Well cavalry shouldnt be invincible and ofc changes should not create anomalies like you describe could happen.
It should be the dominant unit on the battlefield as I see it was during a good part of the Middleages. And by that I dont mean a unit type that crushes eveything in its path. But I just want it do be defeated just like it was defeated back then and not like it is in MTW now.
Should a 200 florin pike unit be able to stop a 1100 florÃn Lancer if the pike is stationary and in hold formation? I dont think it should do it all the time..thats what you have the swiss pikes and armoured pikes for. BUT it should have a good chance to stop the Lancers.
I really dont know much about late medieval (Swiss) pikes versus cavalry so Im no expert. So if anyone know anything about some specific battles or some book references that would be great.....or maybe I already have the book(s)... but glorious battles in MTW are more important at the moment heh
CBR
Quote Originally posted by hoof:
So what you guys are saying is that if you were on the left flank 3rd row deep with a 6-foot spear, and you saw someone coming in onto your flank, you wouldn't turn to face/fight them? It's human nature to fight what you see, and the guys on the flank will turn and face their threat.[/QUOTE]
Oh yes you would most likely turn and a few others around you. Just one problem.. your 1000 man unit are marching forward and if you and the rest of the left flank suddenly turns around it would create a hole and the unit might lose cohesion as the rest are continuing to march forward.
Quote Originally posted by hoof:
The "V" phenomenon you describe is human nature. As a spearman, it has been drilled into you for months (maybe even years) that your survival depends on the mass of the formation and the support of the mass in fending off and fighting an attacker. You know that if you break and run, you will either a) be run down and killed, b) be singled out as an attack of opportunity by any enemy in the area and killed, or c) courtmarshalled and executed after the battle for breaking formation, risking the lives of your formation-mates, and cowardice. So what would you do if attacked from the flank? You'd do the only option available to you, which is turn and face the attacker. So would all the guys around you. You'd only run away if you felt that the formation was crumbling and the perils of running were less than the perils of fighting on. (or if everyone else was running away) Safety is with the formation, not running away with many nasty men on big horses chasing you.[/QUOTE]
Yes you have been drilled for months. You know everything depends on the unit sticking together. Following orders is important. You know to look for the banner, listen to the drummer and the officers commands right?. Your on right flank. You hear the drums beating and everyone is marching forward as that was the last order the officer shouted. You cant see anything to your front except the 10 men in front of you as you are in 11th rank, but it doesnt matter as that what you have been training for... the order was forward 65 paces/minute as usual. Suddenly you hear some shouts to your left not your officer..if youre lucky you might see some of the pikes level down...but the drummer keeps beating on his drum and everyone around you keeps marching forward until suddenly you notice that half the men to your left is not there anymore WTF?? you hear other men shouting and some looking/listening desperately after the officers and now youre confused..that was not the plan!! whats going on?? and then you hear the increasing thunder of cavalry... is the formation crumbling? fight or flight??
It's human nature to fear what you cant see
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Now I really miss one formation in MTW: the square... its an important formation even more important than the wedge IMO ofc you can do it with 4 units but still...
CBR
Lord Krazy
10-09-2002, 01:23
I think the effect of a cavalry charge
on infantry should be based mostly on
formation and moral of both
units.Infantry normaly broke not as result
of the people they had lost more so the
fear of what they where about to
loose.Fear makes you run pain makes you limp.
LK
AgentBif
10-09-2002, 01:26
Ok, so there's lots of debate going back and forth about whether HCav were or were not effective. It is a very complex problem that cannot be reliably broken down into comparative elements to clear up the problem... certainly not without lots of debate. And historians of course are dubiously influenced by lack of understanding, lack of actual experience, social and nationalistic bias, etc. In the absence of extensive experiment, it is very difficult to resolve this issue by logic alone.
But there is one observation which I think has been underappreciated... Cavalry, and heavy cavalry were dominant for a LONG TIME. Clearly the generals of those ages observed on the battlefield that in fact these units were not only quite capable and cost effective, but indispensible. They saw their heavy horse face down hordes of spears and archers and decided that they performed quite well because they continued to field them, in spite of the grievous expense.
If HCav in reality suffered as much as they do against peasant spears in this game, I do not believe such cavalry would have continued to be so prevelant (just as they are almost non-existent in this game). Nobles would have gone on to become mighty spear wielders on foot, praised in song for standing against hordes of enemy swordsmen and the few foolish cavalry that dared to even look at them funny.
The fact is, the game as it is implemented does not encourage anywhere near the same kind of troop disposition as occurred in reality and this is a solid clue that something is definitely broken in the game mechanics.
So all of you who keep saying "cavalry in this game are just fine"... are you just silly spear fanboys or what? Do you guys who keep trumpeting this tired line even TRY to field cavalry dominant armies in the game?
bif
It's an interesting question: just what could you train a heavily armored, massive warhorse to do? Was it a deadly game of chicken where if the spearman blinked he'd lose? Could a horse be prodded to smash into any apparently solid formation whether it was holding a 14' pike or a 3' sword?
How quickly could even only a trotting 2,200lb armored horse and knight stop its momemtum?
I do know one thing, I'm the Kern in the back.
------------------
He moves, you move first.
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
Now I really miss one formation in MTW: the square... its an important formation even more important than the wedge IMO ofc you can do it with 4 units but still...
CBR[/QUOTE]
You really don't miss it because you have it. Just form a square manually with your units and that's it (4 units at least). To allow the square to be formed automatically would in my opinion be unrealistic. The square of the Middle Ages was not the standard square formation maneuver of the Napoleonic era, which only needed a couple of commands to be formed. During the Middle Ages the square had to be positioned contigent by contingent and it took time.
Cheers,
Antonio
Michael_B1111
10-09-2002, 01:44
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Didz:
[B]
>I have been reading with interest the >debates on this forum about the various >aspects of medieval combat. (e.g. Spears v >Swords and Knights v Spears etc) and whilst >I cannot claim to have any expert knowledge >on the subject I think there are some >important points which I have discovered >about Napoleonic warfare that are equally >relevant to the Medieval period.
The problem with history of Western cavalry is that often it is a question of competence of cavalrymen and their commanders, not the question of effectiveness of cavalry as such.
I recommend doing some learning on the cavalry of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from the 16-17th century...especially while compared at the Western cavalry at the same time.
It shows well on the cavalry of Sweden and the P-L Commonwealth- Sweden was a major power of that time, and their army was reputed to be one of the best. They did a lot fighting at that time...fighting in the 'modern' Western European manner- the caracole, which meant using firearms and avoiding charges and melee.
They have fought in Western Europe with a lot of succes...but when they fought with the PLC , it suddenly turned out their "modern" cavalry is useless and the pike&musktet infrantry cannot always deal with the PLC lance&saber cavalry.
Adolf Gustav actually did some changes in the training of his cavalry after those (painfull) experiences- namely he did order his cavalrymen to charge at the enemy with drawn rapiers.
So the point is that you could also "prove" that cavalry charges were't effective by writing that cavalry in the 16-17th did't do charges.
It was more about having the knowledge of how to train and use cavalry, not about effectiveness of cavalry as such.
Check especially the Kirholm battle at 1605- the Polish-Lithuanian "charger" cavalry army against at least twice more numerous Swedish "pike&musket" infrantry army.
Notice the "PIKE" word especially. :-)
Michael
------------------
Michael B.
Quote Originally posted by DojoRat:
I do know one thing, I'm the Kern in the back.
[/QUOTE]
Hahahaha... Yes, and you can be sure to find me next to you, putting on my runningshoes.
Bif, what you just discribed is what many people with big titles and degrees call evolution. You know, only the fittest survive. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
You can train the horse to believe that the lance will break the formation. It won't actually know it is the lance, but it will believe that the solid line in front of it will suddenly open up when it is very near.
In fact I think the very big horses (Belgians, the horses which ancestors went on Crusades) can't see what is in front of them at a quite far distance, so it would just believe it could run over the seemingly solid line.
This brings the speculation that you could run the horse right into a brickwall... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
You can do all sort of things with horses. Take the Pikadores in bullfighting, their horses are big and armoured and they too face a dangerous enemy. Of course they are blinded, but they are trained to ignore the stabbing feeling when the bull charges their side. Trust me, the horse will feel it and it will be painful, just not dangerous due to the armour. I have seen horses with big burnmarks where the horns struck the armour, and as far as I know bent ribs are not all that uncommon. The last bit about bent ribs I don't know for sure though.
I only want knights to be useful. Who want them to be allpowering? It is equally boring if we saw knights on the scale we see spears. Imagine the outrage if the general MP army had the opposite amount of spears to heavy cav.
------------------
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 10-08-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Kraxis (edited 10-08-2002).]
Tachikaze
10-09-2002, 02:03
I tend to agree with Didz on this, especially the importance of psychology and morale and the lesser importance of weapon technology.
Now, my own thoughts.
1) I think MTW does not accurately reproduce the psychological effects of a cavalry charge. I think that swordsmen standing around in a rather losse formation would turn-tail and head for the hills in the face of heavy cavalry. I think cavalry could be repelled by a tight group of pikemen, but the pikemen aren't much interested in considering the odds or physics. They don't want to get run over by a horse, regardless of whether their formation ultimately holds.
2) I've often considered carefully the physics of a cavalry charge. I can't reconcile the popular image of the headlong crash into a group of tightly-packed infantry with the physical reality.
Once a group of horses hits a standing, tight pack of soldiers, where do they go? The soldiers don't melt away. A pack of human bodies would stop a horse quite quickly, whether they were dead or alive. My point is: without the possibility of a unit breaking and running, a group of cavalry cannot charge through a densely-packed unit of foot soldiers.
If the infantry unit were loose enough, I can see a charge working. The horses could pass through the gaps between the men.
3) There is a difference between morale and moral. Check your dictionaries.
[This message has been edited by Tachikaze (edited 10-08-2002).]
Careful AgentBif, the fact that cavalry were a big part of medieval warfare for a long time does not say much as to how they were used, nor how effective they were in various situations. What it *DOES* show is that the various military powers of the time felt it was worth the expense to invest the time and effort in setting up and training cavalry units.
Take for example 17-18th century Japan. The Katana was the dominant weapon for Samurai. Based on that you could easily (and wrongly) judge that the Katana was the most effective weapons in the Japanese arsenal for warfare. STW demonstrates quite well that this simply wasn't the case. It was other circumstances during the 17-18th century Japan made it so that the katana was the dominant samurai weapon of the time (primarily because large scale battles were a thing of the past at that time). A similar situation occured with the Rapier during western European history and the nobility.
Another example is WW2. Tanks were a prominant part of WW2. Does that mean that they roll over infantry in any situation? Heck no! I've spent the better part of the last five years studying WW2 military history, and the fact is that WW2 era tanks were very vulnerable to infantry. Out on the field, exposed infantry were machine-gun fodder for tanks. However, infantry had anti-tank guns, later in the war they had bazookas and Panzer-Fausts, and at all times in the war when the tanks got into confined quarters (such as in a town or city) they were extremely vulnerable to close assults. The only way to fully eliminate these weaknesses and exploit the tank's abilities to the fullest was if the tank worked with other infantry.
One could easily say that tanks vs infantry, the tank should win every time based on the logic of how prominant tanks were in WW2. One would also be believing a myth if one said that. Just because WW2 tanks were very vulnerable to infantry in a lot of situations didn't make them useless. Far from it, they were a very effective part of *combined arms* combat during the time. An army fighting with tanks often had an advantage to one without, but it was not essential to use tanks (for example, tanks were not used much in the fighting over China during WW2, except when the Soviets rolled in from the north)
Maybe cavalry are the same way, the mythos has distorted their actual value and history has forgotten how they were used. Maybe MTW has it right, or maybe reality was very different. But simply relying on the fact that cavalry were a prominant part of Medieval combat and extrapolating from that one fact can lead to incorrect assumptions, IMO.
Hakonarson
10-09-2002, 02:16
Yes - a good post on a good topic.
However one or 2 points.
You most certainly CAN train a horse to "impale itself" - that is to charge into a solid block of infantry. But it's likely to get killed or wounded of course and so it only happens once!!
Keegan notes this in the article on Agincourt in "The face of Battle".
I recently obtained Ann Hylands book on training of Roman cavalry, and there are numerous exercises in teaching horses to overcome their "natural" fears - standign in face of a charge, charging home, etc.
Also another point about Agincourt - the bit about the French being driven together and not being able to amintain a reserve applies to knights ON FOOT!! Tehre weer 2 mounted bodies of about 500 each that attacked on the wings early on in teh battle and were defeated by archery and stakes (and some horses DID charge onto thestakes with fatal results!!), but teh main attacks weer on foot, so aren't really relevant to a discussion of charges on horseback!!
I agree with Tachikaze, if a horse charges into a formation of men (spears or no), the mob *will* stop the momentum of the horse, even if several men die in the process. It's pure physics, and collision dynamics.
Speaking of which, I remember reading about an old Masai trick for fighting lions in Africa with a spear. You goad the lion to attack you, and ram the butt of the stick into the ground. The lion will leap at you, land on the spear, and stop. Then you lift the butt out of the ground and hold the lion out of claw's reach until it dies.
A spear held in one's hands alone cannot stop a heavy animal (or person), because of momentum. However, a strong, stout spear, braced at the back by the ground, *can* stop an animal cold, and you can do it holding the spear in one hand (however, you'd be in trouble if the spear's butt slipped ). Of course the spear would then be embedded in the animal and thus useless. However, the rider would probably be thrown to the ground and promptly killed by other spearmen.
More food for thought...
the Count of Flanders
10-09-2002, 02:27
Quote Originally posted by sodoff:
But as I pointed out, cav is not to be considered a battering ram, but a unit for added finesse.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry but that is exactly what western knights up till the 13th century were: battering rams. Read the battle reports of the first crusade where those knights in the holy land faced trained professional soldiers rather than simple peasants holding polearms and see that the crusaders pulled off overwhelming vicories with their battering rams. Later the muslems changed their tactics accordingly but these tactics involved avoiding ("dodging") the charge rather than stopping it in its tracks.
Why are battles like Courtrai and Crecy remembered? Because for the first time in hundreds of years the knights didn't win it hands down.
I agree with the solution given by others here: a unit that is being charged by knights (or other units using couched lance to charge) should receive a severe morale penalty.
------------------
------------------
http://users.skynet.be/fa307901/sig_org.jpg
Proud member of the OOOO (http://www.oooo.freewebspace.com)
Quote It's an interesting question: just what could you train a heavily armored, massive warhorse to do? Was it a deadly game of chicken where if the spearman blinked he'd lose? Could a horse be prodded to smash into any apparently solid formation whether it was holding a 14' pike or a 3' sword?[/QUOTE]
Apparently they could do alot more than some people give them credit for. These same horses were also used in jousting and they didn't seem to mind some other guy pointing a long stick in their general direction as the distance rapidly closed (or the fact that their rider was jerked around or suddenly thrown from the saddle upon impact). I'm willing to bet the training of warhorses was far more involved and rigorous in this era than during the gunpowder era. They had to be reliable and steady in a sea of screaming men that were swinging and thrusting shiny objects around their head.
The lance was the primary weapon of a mounted knight but even without that lengthy bit of nastiness projected to the front of the horse I do believe it was easier to drive a warhorse into a mass of men holding swords instead of spears (and certainly moreso than pikes).
Quote How quickly could even only a trotting 2,200lb armored horse and knight stop its momemtum?[/QUOTE]
Not very quickly, and even slowing down such a horse is still 2,200lbs of nervous muscle. If it decided to rear or buck upon impact would you want to be the spearman in front when it came down? And how easy would it be to physically stop a 2,200lb armored horse from simply walking through the remaining ranks once the front line was breached?
If I'm not mistaken it was improvements in missile weapons that led to the eventual demise of the cavalry charge and not the implementation of advanced spear or pike units. Cavalry charges were as relevant in the Medieval era as they were in the era that saw Alexander, Darius and Caesar. Never invincible but always powerful.
[This message has been edited by Spino (edited 10-08-2002).]
Hakonarson
10-09-2002, 03:18
Didz wrote:
Quote The fact that a Napoleonic infantryman was armed with a musket had little if any impact upon the final success of a cavalry charge. The simple reason for this was once again psychological rather than physical. There are numerous accounts of cavalry halting less than fifty paces from an infantry square and chanting abuse at the infantrymen in an attempt to provoke them into discharging their muskets. Likewise, Mercer mentions that the French attempted repeatedly to provoke him into firing his guns. I was surprised by this as I would have thought that with a target so close blazing away at them was the most sensible thing to do. Fifty paces is short range even for a musket let alone a 9pdr loaded with cannister.
The conclusion I came to was that there was an instinctive battle of the minds going on in these confrontations.
[/QUOTE]
Nope - you'd be wrong http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Firepower stopped cavalry charges in Napoleonic times - a musket or grape ball could stop a horse cold.
however fired too early you wouldn't have enough effect, and fired too late and the effect might be too late - there were a couple of accounts ofdead horses crashing into squares, disrupting the formation and then the rest of the cavalry rode them down.
BUT - the muzzle loaders took time to reload.
the reason for the taunting was to get the infantry to fire - the cavalry would then charge and ride them down as unloaded muskets are actually not very good spears!!
Something like this happened at het battle of Dresden in 1813, and nicely illustrates the relative strengths and weaknesses of infantry, cavalry and artillery.
The battle was fought just after a downpour - a real cloud-burst that left hte infantry nuable to fire.
One Austrian Division was caught by French cavalry on the wrong side of a swollen river, and was summonsed to surrender. The French pointed out that the Austrian infantry couldn't fire adn so were helpless. Teh Austrian commander refused - pointing out that the cavalry couldn't charge on the muddy ground and would be destroyed in close melee with his infantry!!
However Napoleon had been a bit cunning and put every spare horse he had to pulling his artillery - and when the guns arrived the Austrians surrendered!! (artillery ammunition being better protected from the rain in Caissons)
Hakonarson
10-09-2002, 03:28
Michael_B1111 wrote:
Quote Check especially the Kirholm battle at 1605- the Polish-Lithuanian "charger" cavalry army against at least twice more numerous Swedish "pike&musket" infrantry army.
Notice the "PIKE" word especially. :-)
[/QUOTE]
I had this discussion on the old .com forum.
There's no evidence that the Swedes at Kircholm had any significant pike, and their infantry that were broken by the Hussaria had ben disorderd by attacking uphil and receiving fire from the Polish/Lithuanian infantry.
Indeed the commander of the Swedish army a year or 2 before had noted that the Swedes weer universally lacking in pike, with barely one to be had, and there was no significant reorganisation of Swedish infantry until 1611 or so.
It (Swedish infantry) was fairly low quality at the time, indifferently equipped and not well trained.
There's also no evidence at all of the Polish Husaria ever having broken a formed pike block frontally.
alas most of the informatin available on the battles is from Polish sources and while quite rightly hailing the great victory they tend to exageraet a lot of stuff to mahe themselves look batter - much as the English did after Crecy, Agincourt, etc.
In fact I'd say the Hussaria and their hollow lance are a direct equivalent in military mythology to the english machine-gun-longbow!! lol
Quote Originally posted by the Count of Flanders:
Sorry but that is exactly what western knights up till the 13th century were: battering rams. Read the battle reports of the first crusade where those knights in the holy land faced trained professional soldiers rather than simple peasants holding polearms and see that the crusaders pulled off overwhelming vicories with their battering rams.[/QUOTE]
Not that I disagree with your overall point, but this is not a good example. Arab infantry were notoriously weak, poorly armed and armored, and probably not much better than peasants. They were more skirmishers than anything else - and skirmishers aren't intended to stand up to heavy cav.
Grifman
[This message has been edited by Grifman (edited 10-08-2002).]
I don't claim to know the answers here, but I want to throw out some thoughts and possibilities, feel free to discuss http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
First off, were knights used because they were effective, or effective because they were used? Think about that question for a moment . . .
Point is, the Frankish army in the 700's was primarily an infantry army fighting close to the Roman style - close order heavy infantry. This can be seen in their victory at Poiters over the Muslims. The Muslim light cavalry could not disrupt or penetrate the formed heavy Frankish infantry - all the chronicles tell us this. So how and why did an infantry based Frankish army become a cavalry based (assuming this is true for the moment) French army in the later Middle Ages? How did this total transformation occur? And why did this army also appear to become more feudalized over time?
Well, one theory is that the great Viking raids of the 800's and 900's led to this change. First off, heavy infantry could not mass and respond to lightening raids off the coasts and up rivers by the Vikings. Instead, cavalry based forces were required for rapid response, much in the same way Roman armies moved to cavalry in the face of barbarian invasions in the 3rd century.
This also apparently increased the rate of feudalism. Rather than more centralized forces, which could not respond to rapid, small raids over wide areas, people had to rely upon more localized defense - their local lord with his forces on the spot - not the king or one of his generals. These came to be built around armored locally based knights who could respond with speed to Viking incursions in a way that infantry could not. In the end, society invested it resources in the mounted knight. And once developed the upper echelons of society - made up of the knightly aristocracy - had a vested interest in maintaining that position .
My point is is not whether close order disciplined infantry could stand off cavalry (I tend to believe they could as I think history did show again and again) - but that Medieval society did not use such infantry because it (or more accurately, it's leaders) didn't WANT TO. It wasn't a matter of military effectiveness of infantry vs. cavalry, but the inherent interest of the ruling classes to maintain their position. Effective infantry can be more easily trained and maintained compared with a knight and horse - yet to do so would mean that the aristocracy no longer had a purpose, a reason for ruling over everyone else.
My point is that knights were effective because they were trained and used - and infantry was generally ineffective because they were not trained and used. Yes, specialists such as siege troops, bowmen, castle guards, men-at-arms attached to a knight, etc. existed - but only to support the knights - not to supplant them. Knights were the key because they were the weapon of choice - not necessarily because they were the best or only weapon.
Is this unusual or strange? No, certainly not. Think of the Japanese, the inspiration for a game a few of us might be familiar with http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif They gave up gunpowder weapons because of what it would do to the position of the samari. I think the situation with the knight was similar. Knights were the weapon of choice because of what would happen to the aristocracy if horse based forces were supplanted by infantry based ones, not because infantry were not effective.
In the end, it was only a combination of events - the development of pikes, better trained infantry such as developed by the English and Swiss, supported and eventually supplanted totally by the key development of firearms, that lead to the knights demise. Gunpowder was the key, as it took even less training to load and fire a gun than train a soldier how to use a shield/sword/spear -and with one shot he could blow a heavily armored, expensive knight out of the saddle. The heavily armored horseman could only stand so long before the winds of history and progress . . .
Of course, this is just one theory, and not one of my own creation - it could be totally off http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif But it sounds plausible.
Grifman
[This message has been edited by Grifman (edited 10-08-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Grifman:
My point is is not whether close order disciplined infantry could stand off cavalry (I tend to believe they could as I think history did show again and again) - but that Medieval society did not use such infantry because it (or more accurately, it's leaders) didn't WANT TO. It wasn't a matter of military effectiveness of infantry vs. cavalry, but the inherent interest of the ruling classes to maintain their position. Effective infantry can be more easily trained and maintained compared with a knight and horse - yet to do so would mean that the aristocracy no longer had a purpose, a reason for ruling over everyone else.
My point is that knights were effective because they were trained and used - and infantry was generally ineffective because they were not trained and used. [This message has been edited by Grifman (edited 10-08-2002).][/QUOTE]
Good point Grifman, I tend to agree with you http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif However, this does not change the fact that cavalry was a dominant force in that age and IMHO this should be reflected in the game. Early period infantry should not perform as efficiently against cavalry as late period pikemen did.
BTW, just a quick observation: if you test V0 cavalry vs V0 infantry on a 1:1 ratio (i.e. let's say 100 strong cavs vs 100 strong inf) then the "historical balance" comes through!!! A 100 strong knight unit will sweap away a 100 strong spear unit! It is the unit cost and especially the unit size that ruins this "balance".
Quote Originally posted by Cheetah: Good point Grifman, I tend to agree with you http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif However, this does not change the fact that cavalry was a dominant force in that age and IMHO this should be reflected in the game. Early period infantry should not perform as efficiently against cavalry as late period pikemen did.[/QUOTE]
Yes, the game does not model society's preference for heavily armed knights - it really gives an option - heavy disciplined infantry - that was not used until high and late periods of the game.
Quote BTW, just a quick observation: if you test V0 cavalry vs V0 infantry on a 1:1 ratio (i.e. let's say 100 strong cavs vs 100 strong inf) then the "historical balance" comes through!!! A 100 strong knight unit will sweap away a 100 strong spear unit! It is the unit cost and especially the unit size that ruins this "balance".[/QUOTE]
Yes, I tried that myself to see what would happen. I've previously posted that the number of knights in a unit is the problem, not really their effectiveness. On a per man basis they ARE more effective - there just aren't enough of them given the cost.
Grifman
[This message has been edited by Grifman (edited 10-08-2002).]
Perec_Dojo
10-09-2002, 05:05
If Grifman is correct that the elites never concentrated on the training of elite, well disciplined infantry (and I tend to think that this is the case), then the problem is not that infantry is too powerful, but that it is too easy to train and acquire. Just as in multiplayer, the infantry units are not particularly unbalanced vs. Cav at 0 valor, but the ease with which infantry can have their morale raised, keeps them from routing in the face of cav charges. The "myth" that started this thread worked in both directions. Everyone believed in the power of cavs, and the game should reflect this. Our modern sensibilities look for the way to acquire battlefield superiority, but societies don't always choose the best units or tactics for the pitched battle, but for the society itself.
Michael_B1111
10-09-2002, 05:45
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
Michael_B1111 wrote:
>There's no evidence that the Swedes at >Kircholm had any significant pike, and >their infantry that were broken by the >Hussaria had ben disorderd by attacking >uphil and receiving fire from the >Polish/Lithuanian infantry.
What infrantry? AFAR Chodkiewicz had about 4000 total troops...most of which was cavalry while The Swedish had more than 10000 troops. Polish muskets did't have "automatic fire option", so the firepower of the PLC infrantry could't be that significant.
>Indeed the commander of the Swedish army a >year or 2 before had noted that the Swedes >weer universally lacking in pike, with >barely one to be had, and there was no >significant reorganisation of Swedish >infantry until 1611 or so.
Even if few soldiers did have pikes, than given the number advantage, it still was a lot of pikes.
>It (Swedish infantry) was fairly low >quality at the time, indifferently equipped
>and not well trained.
yes, AFAIK it was not as well trained as the the PLC cavalry.
On the other side, IMHO infrantry does need less training than cavalry.
>There's also no evidence at all of the >Polish Husaria ever having broken a formed >pike block frontally.
So for what purpose long lances? Seems like a direct anti-pike weapon to me. If it did't work...then for what purpose lances,mhm?
>alas most of the informatin available on >the battles is from Polish sources and >while quite rightly hailing the great >victory they tend to exageraet a lot of >stuff to mahe themselves look batter - much >as the English did after Crecy, Agincourt, >etc.
Any proof of inflating the victory?
The facts as I know them:
~4000 vs ~11000
Mostly cavalry vs Mostly infrantry
And about 75% loses on the Swedish side (captured and dead) of course probably a lot of it had to with cavalry chasing running infrantry.(and there was no map end to save them)
>In fact I'd say the Hussaria and their >hollow lance are a direct equivalent in >military mythology to the english machine->gun-longbow!! lol[/QUOTE]
I'd say that a cavalry which was created basing on both western and eastern warfare, combining the know-how gained on fighting different enemies, might have been a very good one.
Overall my point was that competent cavalry was being used by competent commanders with success to charge against infrantry.
I did use Kirholm as an example.
The Polish-Swedish wars overall show how the "modern" 16-17th western ways of using cavalry (non-charging) were wrong and how the Swedes trained their cavalry in a more "obsolete" and "uneffective" (charging) way more like the PLC did. (IE the Swedes, knowing both charging and caracole, chose to reform their cavalry to do charging)
Michael
Hakonarson
10-09-2002, 05:59
Michael certainly the Swedes outnumbered the Poles by heaps, but as we all know numbers are not nearly as important as morale!
Why the long lances? I don't know - perhaps they were in resonse to European pike, but the Swedes didn't have many pikes so I don't see the point of the comment.
There were at least 1000 Polish and Lithuanian infantry at Kircholm, according to Polish sources - they formed the front line, were all armed with muskets (no pike at all) and had time to fire a couple of volleys into the Swedes. They didn't have to be machine gunners to disorder the enemy!!
I completley agree that well handled cavalry can ride down infantry when the circumstances are right for it, but IMO any European cavalry could have charged down the Swedes - they were that poor quality.
your comments about European cavalry not charging are also not true. Many German cavalry had adopted the Caracole for sure, but the Dutch and French never did and it was their system that the Swedes eventually followed - charging with pistol and sword, not the Polish one of lancers!
In fact the French changed from lancers (Gendarmes) directly to pistoliers as a result of their experiences with the Dutch.
The Caracole evolved for 2 reasos:
1/ it was very useful vs pike!! Pistols can shoot furtehr than pike can poke!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
2/ Mercenaries attempting to preserve their horses. The tactic with pistols agaisnt anything except pike was ALWAYS supposed to be advance, fire, charge. However mercenary units begane to try to preserve their horses by turnign away, nd for many mercenaries this became teh only drill the ever really used, and it is them who generally gave it a bad name.
I'd thoroughly recommend getting hold of the Osprey series books on the Army of Gustavus Adolphus - they are modern works that dispell a whole lot of myths about the Swedish army and its supposed superiority over all others of the time - especially it's cavalry, which was actually always quite weak!
Quote Originally posted by Perec_Dojo:
If Grifman is correct that the elites never concentrated on the training of elite, well disciplined infantry (and I tend to think that this is the case), then the problem is not that infantry is too powerful, but that it is too easy to train and acquire. Just as in multiplayer, the infantry units are not particularly unbalanced vs. Cav at 0 valor, but the ease with which infantry can have their morale raised, keeps them from routing in the face of cav charges. The "myth" that started this thread worked in both directions. Everyone believed in the power of cavs, and the game should reflect this. Our modern sensibilities look for the way to acquire battlefield superiority, but societies don't always choose the best units or tactics for the pitched battle, but for the society itself.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if I am correct or not. But if the theory is true, I don't think the problem is that spearmen are too cheap. I just don't think such units really existed for the most part. I really think their real life counterparts are already there in the game - urban militia. I think most towns had troops that could be called out, and were to support the local lords, and other than peasants, these supplied the main infantry, along with men-at-arms and bowmen to stiffen them. I really think that perhaps the game should just not have spearmen - at least for the Western feudal armies. I think perhaps the game could/should be modded to eliminate spearmen which would then give you urban militia as your main early polearmed infantry.
Grifman
Tachikaze
10-09-2002, 06:32
Quote Our modern sensibilities look for the way to acquire battlefield superiority, but societies don't always choose the best units or tactics for the pitched battle, but for the society itself.[/QUOTE]
That is very true. We should not use the predominance of a weapon, tactic, troop type, etc. as an argument for effectiveness.
I don't think the arrogance of the nobility is the best answer for the dominance of the knight on medieval battlefields, though there is truth in that.
The answer probably has more to do with economics. The knights outfitted themselves. They served a higher aristocrat in exchange for lands. This was part of a deal. Common soldiers, on the other hand, had to be outfitted, fed, housed, cared for, transported. The transportation of the food alone was a huge logistical task. And 300 common soldiers eat more than 100 knights.
------------------
http://members.cox.net/ramen/icon09.gif
Knowing the Tao saves you thousands of dollars in psychiatric bills and credit card debt.
Quote Originally posted by Tachikaze:
The answer probably has more to do with economics. The knights outfitted themselves. They served a higher aristocrat in exchange for lands. This was part of a deal. Common soldiers, on the other hand, had to be outfitted, fed, housed, cared for, transported. The transportation of the food alone was a huge logistical task. And 300 common soldiers eat more than 100 knights[/QUOTE]
I'd disagree. There was more to a knight than just himself. Each knight also had several men-at-arms, squires, retainers, etc. such that 100 knights, etc. were probably equal to your 300 infantry.
Grifman
Hakonarson
10-09-2002, 07:05
Not always - by the mid 1200's you could hire hundreds of Mercenary cavalry on their own, without much in the way of ancillary servants - well at least not ones that fought.
whereas feudal knight service might require a Knight to bring along a set number of lesser soldiers.
I'm not sure that the point of this is tho - sure supply was always a problem - put any group of people together and try to feed them "off the land" - the old saying is "amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics"!
The number of battles caused because of supply considerations probably outweighs all other causes combined!
Quote Originally posted by Grifman:
I don't know if I am correct or not. But if the theory is true, I don't think the problem is that spearmen are too cheap. I just don't think such units really existed for the most part. I really think their real life counterparts are already there in the game - urban militia. I think most towns had troops that could be called out, and were to support the local lords, and other than peasants, these supplied the main infantry, along with men-at-arms and bowmen to stiffen them. I really think that perhaps the game should just not have spearmen - at least for the Western feudal armies. I think perhaps the game could/should be modded to eliminate spearmen which would then give you urban militia as your main early polearmed infantry.
Grifman
[/QUOTE]
Now we're getting to the meat of the matter. MTW contains a number of whopping historical inaccuracies-- and the composition of the armies is one of them. What the Hell is a Medieval English Spearman?????? Or a Medieval Turkish "Spearman"??????
I don't think they existed.
On the other hand...
perhaps these spearmen existed as the primary component of the all-conqering army of the Medieval German Empire! Unfortunately, this mighty force never had the opportunity to put its secret weapon into production-- the SA-262 Kris Kringle Waffen Sleigh!
Strangely enough, the reindeer not only can be trained to impale themselves on enemy pikes, they actually LIKE IT (especially Rudolf)!!
AgentBif
10-09-2002, 07:06
Quote Originally posted by Tachikaze:
That is very true. We should not use the predominance of a weapon, tactic, troop type, etc. as an argument for effectiveness.
[/QUOTE]
I disagree strongly. All factors and evidence are valid information for drawing conclusions.
In terms of whether or not the prevalence of cavalry was an indication of effectiveness... it's simple common sense.
Feudal society was highly competative and greed was as dominant in those days as it is now. It's a matter of survival. If peasant spears were as effective then as they are in the game, the knights and those who spent enourmous funds on maintaining heavy cavalry would have died out. Those greedy lords who saw how inneffective and totally cost prohibitive knights were compared to poorly fed peons with loincloths and sticks would have exploited said peasents to wipe the land of their silly armored foes very quickly.
Armor and warhorse were fantastically expensive to purchase and maintain. One armored knight with entourage would easly cost more to field than many poorly trained men-at-arms. So if the rabble with the pointy sticks were so much more effective than the knights, it would only take one greedy noble to turn the trend.
Furthermore, pikes and the added expense of training would not have been motivated if HCav were ineffective and easily countered with traditional men at arms and spears.
Note also how rapidly trends in military technology changed when one good example demonstrated the failure of the old way of doing things: longbow vs knights, cannon vs castle, musket vs armor, pistol vs pike.
Anyway, if heavy cavalry were really as ineffective as the game implies, there is simply no credible way that nobles relying on such an approach would have survived the brutal competative struggles on the medieval age.
Face it, the game is broken. It needs to be fixed. If not for historical accuracy, at least for the sake of maintaining interest. Personally, I will rapidly run out of motivation to play this game if it's present design of supporting only _one_ viable tactical approach is not overturned.
The mass spear/sword rush will get old pretty quick.
bif
[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-09-2002).]
Hakonarson
10-09-2002, 07:29
Quote Originally posted by dancho:
Now we're getting to the meat of the matter. MTW contains a number of whopping historical inaccuracies-- and the composition of the armies is one of them. What the Hell is a Medieval English Spearman?????? Or a Medieval Turkish "Spearman"??????
I don't think they existed.
[/QUOTE]
The English certainly did exist - the old Saxon Fyrd continued for ayears after the Norman conquest - it was no longer called that, but the obligation to serve remained teh same as it had been in Saxon times (40 or 60 days!) for hundreds of years yet.
but you're probably right for the Turks - IIRC their "standard" infantry was an archer - termed an "Azab".
while "Urban Militia" were probably more a feature on the continent than in England. there weer militia's in England - especially from some of hte larger towns such as London, nd they weer very well equipped but were probably spearmen as otehr infantry were.
but spearmen were common - "Viking" Leidang and Hird became spearmen and crosbowmen in the 12th or 13th century, and russia, Italy, France and Spain always had at elast the option of having largge numbers of relatively effective spear armed infantry.
But yes there's a lot of historical inaccuracy, and yes the troop selection could certainly be limited some more.
But then this is a game of development, not blindly re-creating history - if you want to develop England along more European lines with (say) knights and militia then why not??
Perhaps part of the answer is to change how troops are built - for example in England "Billmen" came about as a cheaper replacement for dismounted knights/men at arms, as other close-fighting infantry had all but disappeared under a wave of longbowmen.
But in MTW Billmen are a superior type of militia (IIRC), so the English get to use Urban militia before they get the Bill and that's not how they developed at all.
For England billmen should be a combination of Spear Workshop and an advanced castle type - something beyond that required to build basic knights.
Also for example Hobilars were an English troop type developed from horse troops along the Scottish and Welsh border areas - they did not exist in 1100!! IIRC they didn't get "invented" until about 1300 or a bit later??
And on the subject of inaccuracies - the Almo's didn't own much of anything in 1094 either!! They weer only founded about 1125 or 1130!!
Spain was occupied by the Murabits, and the Almo's were effectively a "revolt" against the them!!
Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
In terms of whether or not the prevalence of cavalry was an indication of effectiveness... it's simple common sense. [/QUOTE]
No, not necessarily.
Quote Feudal society was highly competative and greed was as dominant in those days as it is now. It's a matter of survival. If peasant spears were as effective then as they are in the game, the knights and those who spent enourmous funds on maintaining heavy cavalry would have died out. Those greedy lords who saw how inneffective and totally cost prohibitive knights were compared to poorly fed peons with loincloths and sticks would have exploited said peasents to wipe the land of their silly armored foes very quickly.[/QUOTE]
First, off, you are setting up a strawman. No one here is claiming peasant spearmen could hold off a cavalry charge - we are talking about trained, disciplined armored infantry. Your argument is flawed off the bat.
Secondly, as I noted, it is not unheard for societies to reject weapons that would shatter them. Samurai Japan accepted, then rejected guns when it proved they would threaten the special place samurai held. It is possible that the same occurred in feudal Europe with respect to knights.
Lastly, with respect to discipline trained armored infantry, history disproves you. We know that disciplined armored infantry could consistently defeat or stand off cavalry charges. Greek infantry did it, Roman infantry did, Frankish infantry did it, Swiss pikemen did it. So then it falls to you to explain why feudal society did not embrace this historically effective military tradition.
Quote Armor and warhorse were fantastically expensive to purchase and maintain. One armored knight with entourage would easly cost more to field than many poorly trained men-at-arms. So if the rabble with the pointy sticks were so much more effective than the knights, it would only take one greedy noble to turn the trend.[/QUOTE]
Again, no one here but you is talking of peasant rabble - strawman. And the Japanese example shows that a feudalistic rejection of heavy infantry might be due to societal issues.
Grifman
[This message has been edited by Grifman (edited 10-09-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Grifman (edited 10-09-2002).]
Hakonarson
10-09-2002, 07:55
Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
Feudal society was highly competative and greed was as dominant in those days as it is now. It's a matter of survival. If peasant spears were as effective then as they are in the game, the knights and those who spent enourmous funds on maintaining heavy cavalry would have died out. Those greedy lords who saw how inneffective and totally cost prohibitive knights were compared to poorly fed peons with loincloths and sticks would have exploited said peasents to wipe the land of their silly armored foes very quickly.
Armor and warhorse were fantastically expensive to purchase and maintain. One armored knight with entourage would easly cost more to field than many poorly trained men-at-arms. So if the rabble with the pointy sticks were so much more effective than the knights, it would only take one greedy noble to turn the trend. [/QUOTE]
Err...even in the worst scenarios Knights demolish peasants in any numbers!!
Quote Furthermore, pikes and the added expense of training would not have been motivated if HCav were ineffective and easily countered with traditional men at arms and spears.[/QUOTE]
What amkes you say that?
That was aways the case - men with spears have ALWAYS been difficult-to-impossible for cavalry to dislodge.
There's more to horsemen than running over spearmen - social status, mobility, survivability (the ability to run away!!), etc.
Quote Note also how rapidly trends in military technology changed when one good example demonstrated the failure of the old way of doing things: longbow vs knights, cannon vs castle, musket vs armor, pistol vs pike. [/QUOTE]
Um...no - the longbow didn't make the knight obsolete at all, the cannon didn't cause the castle to disappear or become useless, and pistols didn't cause infantry to abandon pikes!
Or at least I think those are the things you're talking about??
Quote Anyway, if heavy cavalry were really as ineffective as the game implies, there is simply no credible way that nobles relying on such an approach would have survived the brutal competative struggles on the medieval age.[/QUOTE]
I don't find heavy cavalry useless - I find it necessary to provide a coup de grace - much as it was historically used for!
Quote The mass spear/sword rush will get old pretty quick.
[/QUOTE]
But then Men at Arms were historiically actualy dismounted knights......and above you're complaining of the lack of effectiveness of knights against peasants??
[This message has been edited by Hakonarson (edited 10-09-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
The English certainly did exist - the old Saxon Fyrd continued for ayears after the Norman conquest - it was no longer called that, but the obligation to serve remained teh same as it had been in Saxon times (40 or 60 days!) for hundreds of years yet.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but though not necessarily "urban", I would term these troops as a type of militia.
Quote while "Urban Militia" were probably more a feature on the continent than in England. there weer militia's in England - especially from some of hte larger towns such as London, nd they weer very well equipped but were probably spearmen as otehr infantry were.
but spearmen were common - "Viking" Leidang and Hird became spearmen and crosbowmen in the 12th or 13th century, and russia, Italy, France and Spain always had at elast the option of having largge numbers of relatively effective spear armed infantry.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, I think you have hit upon part of the issue. Peoples' perceptions have been colored by movies, general reading, etc, and our historians focus more on say England, France, and Germany, while outside those areas there was perhaps less emphasis on knights.
For example, I was reading last night about Christian urban militias fighting in Spain against the Muslims. They apparently made up the vast majority of Spanish forces, numbering the thousands while Spanish knights often numbered only in the hundreds in a number of battles given as examples in the article. Apparently though militias, these were well trained well led forces that often times campaigned at considerable distances and for considerable lengths of time against the Muslims. Now their opponents were different than Western feudal armies, but given what I read, I suspect they would have given a good account of themselves against Western heavy cavalry.
I think the northern Italian citystates were similar. Here independent cities were the rule, not feudal estates - and these states had their own militias that they relied upon, with perhaps a smattering of knights and mercenaries. In fact here is a description of one of the well known Osprey books on Medieval Italian armies:
"As early as the 11th century, Italian warfare was developing along lines which were unique in medieval Europe. This fragmented, cosmopolitan region, increasingly rich from international trade, saw the rise of independent cities able to fund armies of urban militia, sometimes defying the traditional feudal aristocracy."
So, I think we can see that the idea of the all conquering, heavy cavalryman, was neither all conquering nor as universal as he might appear at first glance. We hear and read alot about France, England, maybe Germany, and the Crusades. But how many have read of combat in 11th century northern Italy? Or about the reconquista of Spain? Or Byzantium vs. the Muslims? None of which emphasized large numbers of heavy cavalry - at least compared with Western feudal forces.
I suspect our reading of history has been somewhat colored.
Grifman
AgentBif
10-09-2002, 09:34
Quote Originally posted by Grifman:
No, not necessarily.
[/QUOTE]
Lol, yes, I know, common sense doesn't always come easy to people...
Quote
No one here is claiming peasant spearmen could hold off a cavalry charge - we are talking about trained, disciplined armored infantry. Your argument is flawed off the bat.
[/QUOTE]
Obfuscating wordplay aside, the issue is that cavalry in this game are far less effective than they were in reality. Please leave the disingenuous gamesmanship out of the discussion.
Quote
Secondly, as I noted, it is not unheard for societies to reject weapons that would shatter them. Samurai Japan accepted, then rejected guns when it proved they would threaten the special place samurai held.
[/QUOTE]
An interesting point in Japanese history, but Japanese culture was so different from European culture in such extreme ways that the analogy is not really valid. At the time the entire Japanese people were united under a strong Shogunate. The Japanese were heavily traditional and followed rigid caste-based rulership and a cultural ethos of honor to a degree that no fractured European society could even compare to. It is believable that an imperial edict would be followed by the Japanese people. European society would be incapable of such pure heed to some higher principle that would fly so strongly in the face of the pursuit of greed and tribal advancement. Note that the Pope tried to outlaw crossbows and was almost totally ignored.
Quote
Again, no one here but you is talking of peasant rabble - strawman.
[/QUOTE]
My reference to "rabble" is a reference to lesser (non-noble) men-at-arms and lower... Which is exactly the heart of the debate. The only straw here comes from your attempts to obscure the issues for whatever reason.
bif
[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-09-2002).]
MajorFreak
10-09-2002, 10:05
curiouser and curiouser
DarthPharazon
10-09-2002, 10:24
Quote Originally posted by Jagger:
I have always been uneasy about charging my spearmen into charging cavalry. [snip], I just can't see spearmen charging into charging cavalry.
[/QUOTE]
By spearmen do you include pikemen?
If so, then this _did_ happen. I read that in one battle in Switzerland, Swiss pikemen charged into charging knights. And brought the knights to a standstill.
However ... I have only ever read of the Swiss doing this.
Quote Lol, yes, I know, common sense doesn't always come easy to people...[/QUOTE]
I'm not certain where the condescension is coming from - I wasn't impolite to you even though I disagreed with you. Perhaps this is bluff since you didn't refute much of anything I said?
Quote Obfuscating wordplay aside, the issue is that cavalry in this game are far less effective than they were in reality. Please leave the disingenuous gamesmanship out of the discussion.[/QUOTE]
No obfuscating here - you clearly created a strawman that you could smash down. I don't necessarily disagree that cavalry in the game aren't as powerful as they should be. But that wasn't really what I was discussing as you seemed to have missed the entire point while trying to beat up your strawman. I wasn't discussing the game, I was discussing what happened in the Middle Ages. Guess you missed that in your rush to be a snot.
Quote An interesting point in Japanese history, but Japanese culture was so different from European culture in such extreme ways that the analogy is not really valid. At the time the entire Japanese people were united under a strong Shogunate. The Japanese were heavily traditional and followed rigid caste-based rulership and a cultural ethos of honor to a degree that no fractured European society could even compare to. It is believable that an imperial edict would be followed by the Japanese people. European society would be incapable of such pure heed to some higher principle that would fly so strongly in the face of the pursuit of greed and tribal advancement. Note that the Pope tried to outlaw crossbows and was almost totally ignored.[/QUOTE]
Europe was arguably just as stratified as Japan - what was the whole lord/leige setup but a stratification - peasants/serfs under knights under various lords under kings, with churchmen and town burghers thrown in the mix. Yet you fail to give an argument as to why feudal societies failed until mid (English) late (Swiss) in the Middle Ages to develop strong armored infantry. As I showed, historically disciplined armored infantry has almost always been able to defeat or stand off cavalry with perhaps the exception of horsearchers. Yet you fail to tell us why feudal Europe abandoned this historically successful military force. You reject my reason without providing one of your own. I described how/why it developed, and why it stayed that way for so long. You have done neither at this point, other than to strut about like a peacock.
As a further example for your thought, France never tried to develop good archers, even though they knew of this English strength. It was beneath the knights, and if knight didn't do it, it didn't matter, no matter what resulted on the battlefield. Yes, they couldn't have had longbows, they never really developed archery to much extent (at one battle they even hired mercenary xbowmen because they knew it was a deficiency - Crecy, I think?) and they virtually conceded ranged combat to the British. According to you, this shouldn't have happened, yet it did. Why?
Quote My reference to "rabble" is a reference to lesser (non-noble) men-at-arms and lower... Which is exactly the heart of the debate. The only straw here comes from your attempts to obscure the issues for whatever reason.[/QUOTE]
Your usage of terms is sloppy. All non-nobles were not peasants. Men-at-arms are not the same as a "peasant rabble" and if you know as much as you claim to know, then you'd know you are wrong in equating the two. Men-at arms were properly armed and trained - something that could not be said of any peasant rabble. Anyone would know the difference between the two - why don't you since you think you know so much?
As for obscuring the issues, I find that comment hilarious. First off, you're the one having to explain what he means several times by his sloppy use of language (how many other people here believe that "peasant rabble" means men-at-arms? Raise your hands, LOL!) Secondly, you start off talking about the game in your response, when I am talking about history - who's obscuring what? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif Thirdly, I'm not obscuring anything, I'm just waiting for you to deal with the issues I've raised rather than strutting and primping in front of everyone. I am still waiting for your explanation as to why Western feudal armies relied upon heavy cavalry in the face of hundreds of years of Greek, Roman, and even Frankish history, if not for societal reasons.
PS, I don't mind a debate, there's just no need for you to be a snot or a prick about it.
Grifman
[This message has been edited by Grifman (edited 10-09-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Grifman (edited 10-09-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Grifman (edited 10-09-2002).]
Hakonarson
10-09-2002, 14:19
originally posted by Grif
Quote As a further example for your thought, France never tried to develop good archers, even though they knew of this English strength. It was beneath the knights, and if knight didn't do it, it didn't matter, no matter what resulted on the battlefield. Yes, they couldn't have had longbows, they never really developed archery to much extent (at one battle they even hired mercenary xbowmen because they knew it was a deficiency - Crecy, I think?) and they virtually conceded ranged combat to the British. According to you, this shouldn't have happened, yet it did. Why?[/QUOTE]
Actually they did try, adn the y failed.
The instituted the Francs Archers - mostly armed with longbows but a few crossbowmen too. They were modeled exactly along the English lines - required to train weekly, etc.
they were...umm..."ineffective" - reputedly fit only for shooting chickens!! lol
Evidently it took more than just big bows, long arrows and bodkin points to make good longbowmen!
Later on, towards the end of the HYW the King had a body guard of Scots Archers - longbowmen again, mounted and very heavily equiped - virtually indistinguishable from knights except lacking lances and with bows!!
Later these evolved into French Archers who gradually abandoned the bow and became "proper" cavalry rather than mounted infantry - the title "Archers" was retained by some elite French cavalry until the late 1500's or early 1600's maybe.
Quote Originally posted by hoof:
So what you guys are saying is that if you were on the left flank 3rd row deep with a 6-foot spear, and you saw someone coming in onto your flank, you wouldn't turn to face/fight them? It's human nature to fight what you see, and the guys on the flank will turn and face their threat.
[/QUOTE]
No! What we are saying is exactly that.
Imagine a situation where a Pike unit has hunkered down in the middle of a field and locked pikes ready to defend itself against a unit of cavalry to its front.
The unit is calm and steady its captains are urging the men to hold fast keep their weapons firm and all will be well. The cavalry are reluctant to close because they are faced with a solid hedgehog of pikes.
But the units flank is in the air and another enemy unit begins to close on its flank. The men on that flank see the enemy coming and begin to get nervous. They may wait for their captains to do something about this new threat or they may decide to do something themselves. Either way part of the hedgehog will have to conduct a change of face to meet the new threat.
This spreads a message to the entire formation that something isn't going according to plan. Men begin to figit they those that can't see whats happening begin to look about and ask questions. Those ordered to move have to unbrace their pikes and raise them in order to move. Captains begin to shout urgent orders. Someone gets their pike caught and in a panic drops it and draws their sword. The cavalry opposite see the ripple of uncertainty in the enemy ranks and begin to advance. More orders are shouted men still uncertain about whats happening on their flanks now see the cavalry closing on them rapidly to the front. A captain worried about getting caught in mid-change of face orders his company to halt immediately and face the oncoming cavalry. Confused some of the men do and some don't, they begin pushing each other out of the way to get where they think they ought to be. The company next in formation keeps marching and collides with the one that has stopped. More contradictory orders more confusion and all the while the cavalry are closing. The ground is beginning to shake with the thud of their hooves. The pikemen realise that things have gone terrible wrong. The men nearest the cavalry begin to flinch backward uncertain about the support they will get from the rest of the formation. Pikes are unbraced as men shuffle away from the oncoming threat. Those caught in the chaos on the flank lose all faith in their officers and dropping their pikes run back towards the rest of their colleagues for safety. Their arrival merely spreads the panic they might even be mistaken for the enemy charging in to the rear of the formation.
More men drop thier pikes and push their way into the mob trying to place their colleagues between themselves and the enemy.
At that point the Cavalry rush in amongst them bowling men over and smashing them to the ground. The pikemen scatter throwing down their weapons and running towards the nearest place of safety. They cavalry now at full gallop ride them down picking their targets at will.
Their General turns to his aide and says "Thats the way I like to see cavalry behave. See how they have ridden down that pike unit at the full charge. Make sure you note that in my diary."
This is my understanding of how such things tended to happen on a real battlefield and how the myth of the cavalry charge gets perpetuated. Its not that charges didn't happen it just that they didn't quite happen the way they are described.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
Didz wrote:
Nope - you'd be wrong http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Firepower stopped cavalry charges in Napoleonic times - a musket or grape ball could stop a horse cold.
however fired too early you wouldn't have enough effect, and fired too late and the effect might be too late - there were a couple of accounts ofdead horses crashing into squares, disrupting the formation and then the rest of the cavalry rode them down.
BUT - the muzzle loaders took time to reload.
the reason for the taunting was to get the infantry to fire - the cavalry would then charge and ride them down as unloaded muskets are actually not very good spears!!
Something like this happened at het battle of Dresden in 1813, and nicely illustrates the relative strengths and weaknesses of infantry, cavalry and artillery.
The battle was fought just after a downpour - a real cloud-burst that left hte infantry nuable to fire.
One Austrian Division was caught by French cavalry on the wrong side of a swollen river, and was summonsed to surrender. The French pointed out that the Austrian infantry couldn't fire adn so were helpless. Teh Austrian commander refused - pointing out that the cavalry couldn't charge on the muddy ground and would be destroyed in close melee with his infantry!!
However Napoleon had been a bit cunning and put every spare horse he had to pulling his artillery - and when the guns arrived the Austrians surrendered!! (artillery ammunition being better protected from the rain in Caissons)[/QUOTE]
Sometimes these discussions make me laugh.
You say NO! your wrong and then proceed to repeat exactly my own argument back to me in support of your point.
The point I was making was that it was the threat of musketry and cannon fire which stopped a cavalry charge buit that once discharged the infantry were vulnerable and could be more easily panicked into flight.
The matter of the Austrian Square is well documented and the arrival of the single gun was enough to allow the Austrian Commander to surrender with his honour intact.
So yes I agree with you.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
the Count of Flanders
10-09-2002, 15:34
Quote Originally posted by Grifman:
My point is is not whether close order disciplined infantry could stand off cavalry (I tend to believe they could as I think history did show again and again) - but that Medieval society did not use such infantry because it (or more accurately, it's leaders) didn't WANT TO. It wasn't a matter of military effectiveness of infantry vs. cavalry, but the inherent interest of the ruling classes to maintain their position. Effective infantry can be more easily trained and maintained compared with a knight and horse - yet to do so would mean that the aristocracy no longer had a purpose, a reason for ruling over everyone else.
My point is that knights were effective because they were trained and used - and infantry was generally ineffective because they were not trained and used. Yes, specialists such as siege troops, bowmen, castle guards, men-at-arms attached to a knight, etc. existed - but only to support the knights - not to supplant them. Knights were the key because they were the weapon of choice - not necessarily because they were the best or only weapon.
[This message has been edited by Grifman (edited 10-08-2002).][/QUOTE]
Well there are a few things here that I don't agree with. First off I am rather sure that (but not completely though) the Romans noted the decisive use of heavy cav by the Salic Franks (the tribe that would later produce the Meroving kings) against romans even before the great barbaric invasions. But fact is, you can't compare pre and post medieval western heavy cav since they didn't use couched lance charges. Couched lance charge is what gave the knights its strength: he could charge at (relatively) high speeds and convert a part of its mass and velocity into striking power: only couched lance can achieve this.
Secondly your theory about a self sustaining military system where knights rule supreme on the battlefield has some truth to it but it still doesn't refute the effectiveness of the knight's charge. The banning of crossbows by the pope under pressure of the nobility supports your view but once again I turn to the crusades (even if you didn't agree with my last post): for this system to work both sides on the battlefield have to support it (ie not field any special anti-knight units). In europe this was the case but the muslems didn't participate in this. On the contrary after the muslems got their asses wupped initially by the european heavy cav charge they tried lots of things to counter the frankish charge: they started using pike/spear formations (with only medium success) and using light cav to evade the cav charge. This balanced the scales a little bit but the Frankish charge still proved to be a decisive factor in almost every battle. Of course the crusaders changed tactics too: they also recruited light cavalry (turcopoles) and spear-armed infantry became more important, better trained and equiped in the armies of Outremer than in any european army. The heavy cav charge was also better used: less reckless headlong charges, more waiting for the right place and time to place a charge. But still at the end of the day it was the heavy cav charge that proved decisive in almost every battle. Where there were defeats they certainly can't be put to the uneffectiveness of the knights rather than very poor strategic planning (eg Hattin). Even the Muslems admitted that Frankish heavy cavalry was a very strong fighting force that was very hard to beat. So you can't just say they were so effective just because the ruling elite was unwilling to do something about it.
------------------
------------------
http://users.skynet.be/fa307901/sig_org.jpg
Proud member of the OOOO (http://www.oooo.freewebspace.com)
Quote Originally posted by Grifman:
I don't claim to know the answers here, but I want to throw out some thoughts and possibilities, feel free to discuss http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
First off, were knights used because they were effective, or effective because they were used? Think about that question for a moment . . .
My point is that knights were effective because they were trained and used - and infantry was generally ineffective because they were not trained and used.
[This message has been edited by Grifman (edited 10-08-2002).][/QUOTE]
As you say, mounted troops were quite useful from the strategical perspective as they could travel faster.
Nevertheless mounted troops were also effective on the battlefield when employed correctly. Mounted knights were effective against other mounted knights or against disorganized infantry, and they could also be used for envelopment (flank and rear attacks) or pursue defeated troops. Should mounted knights be employed to charge a solid wall of infantry? Of course not. It seldom hapenned and when it hapenned it was usually disastrous for the mounted knights.
As to infantry, it was used a lot even in the early period, and even if it consisted of dismounted knights:
- 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.
The corolary is that we see the need for infantry to provide the stability of the formation even in the early period, and when true infantry is not enough, the knights (sometimes the majority of them)dismount.
Quote Originally posted by the Count of Flanders:
Why are battles like Courtrai and Crecy remembered? Because for the first time in hundreds of years the knights didn't win it hands down.
I agree with the solution given by others here: a unit that is being charged by knights (or other units using couched lance to charge) should receive a severe morale penalty.
[/QUOTE]
Those battles are remembered not because infantry defeated cavalry for the first time, but because armies essentially consisting of lower class folk (at Courtrai at least, there were almost no knights) were able to defeat armies essentially consisting of nobility.
Other battles where infantry defeated cavalry are not so well remembered as odd because both sides consisted essentially of knights (even if the majority of the latter fought dismounted).
Cheers,
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
Michael_B1111 wrote:
I had this discussion on the old .com forum.
There's no evidence that the Swedes at Kircholm had any significant pike, and their infantry that were broken by the Hussaria had ben disorderd by attacking uphil and receiving fire from the Polish/Lithuanian infantry.
Indeed the commander of the Swedish army a year or 2 before had noted that the Swedes weer universally lacking in pike, with barely one to be had, and there was no significant reorganisation of Swedish infantry until 1611 or so.
It (Swedish infantry) was fairly low quality at the time, indifferently equipped and not well trained.
There's also no evidence at all of the Polish Husaria ever having broken a formed pike block frontally.
alas most of the informatin available on the battles is from Polish sources and while quite rightly hailing the great victory they tend to exageraet a lot of stuff to mahe themselves look batter - much as the English did after Crecy, Agincourt, etc.
In fact I'd say the Hussaria and their hollow lance are a direct equivalent in military mythology to the english machine-gun-longbow!! lol[/QUOTE]
Thank you Hako.
Nice to find someone else round here who hasn't bought into the propoganda version of history.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by the Count of Flanders:
But fact is, you can't compare pre and post medieval western heavy cav since they didn't use couched lance charges. Couched lance charge is what gave the knights its strength: he could charge at (relatively) high speeds and convert a part of its mass and velocity into striking power: only couched lance can achieve this.
[/QUOTE]
Count,
I am curious about the way a couched lance was actually used in a battlefield context having never had to consider the problem in any depth during my Napoleonic studies.
In the lists its use is pretty well defined as the opposing riders were kept apart by the central barrier and the lack of a point meant that its purpose was restricted to bouncing the opponent out of the saddle.
However, on the battlefield its purpose becomes harder to define. Clearly it could not be used to 'give point' as the Napoleonic lances were and must have relied purely on the forward momentum of the horse to drive it home. However, unlike its use in the lists driving it home at speed would merely bury its head in the target and as Napoleonic lancers discovered to their cost such a mistake could be as damaging to you as to the person struck. Suddenly ramming a lance into a 14 stone dead weight is a sure fire way to catapult yourself bodily from the saddle if done at speed and if not that then a dislocation of the arm or shattering of the lance is almost certain.
I know that Napoleonic lancers tended to close on their enemy at the walk/trot in a solid boot to boot line and 'give point' to their front in order to drive the enemy before them. the aim being to inflict multiple minor wounds without burying their lance head beyond the blade but this clearly would not be possible with a couched weapon.
Against an armoured opponent the situation would be even more awkward and would be a bit like driving a screwdriver in to a can of baked beans. The punctured armour would almost certainly trap the lance head as the target went down dragging the lance and presumably the rider down with it until the horse in overrunning the prone target produced a perfect pole vault effect.
Were lances deliberately weakened at the head like Roman pilum to ensure that they broke off rather than killing their owners?
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
[This message has been edited by Didz (edited 10-09-2002).]
A.Saturnus
10-09-2002, 19:43
I can`t say I know as much of medieval warfare as some others in this forum neither do I know enough of horses, but there are some things just commen sense tells you.
I think most will agree that cav can`t charge a solid wall of pikes. This is what pikes are made for: holding of horses. But a pike is not just heavy, it is long. Ever tried to handle a 3 meter stick at one end? You could never hold it just so to threaten away cav, you definitly have to place it on the ground. If a hondred men have their pikes this way no knight will ever charge through. But imaging you are alone with your pike, there`s no way to fight with such a thing a melee fight except maybe you are a barbarian with whirlwind skill! So your only chance as pikeman is to hold of the charge. If a formation is attacked from the rear, you never could change direction quickly enough. The cav attacking from the rear would - so I guess - not use lances but maces to ride close to the pikemen facing the wrong direction and swing against there heads. If a horseman with a mace is close enough to swing and you just have a pike, you`re dead. So charging a formation holding it`s points directly at you is suicide but if you`re at their rear or at the flank you will render their pikes useless. Even normal infantry with swords will make a better stand i that case cause they`re more flexible.
I don`t think knights charged the way we`ve seen it in films, but fighting from horseback will surely give you a great advantage in melee, and that`s just the reason why mounted knights were pretty effective in medieval and classical times.
Quote Originally posted by hoof:
...the fact is that WW2 era tanks were very vulnerable to infantry. Out on the field, exposed infantry were machine-gun fodder for tanks. However, infantry had anti-tank guns, later in the war they had bazookas and Panzer-Fausts, and at all times in the war when the tanks got into confined quarters (such as in a town or city) they were extremely vulnerable to close assults. IMO.[/QUOTE]
Reminds me of one of my very few WW2 wargames.
I knew my opponents had a fixation with tanks and so i spent all my points on panzer fausts and A/T guns.
When the screen went back there were my opponents lovely tanks all lined up ready to go and on my side there was nothing visible as all my men were hidden behind hedges.
After major objections the umpire eventually insisted that my opponents begin the game and their tanks began to roll foward trying to hunt out my panzerfausts. Which they eventually found only as they exploded in great gouts of flame.
There were tantrums and arguments all round by I made my point and it was the last time our club saw a WW2 battle dominated by tanks.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Cousin Zoidfarb
10-09-2002, 22:30
We are discussing the importance of the cavalry charge.
The example of the Husaria was brought up.
These were heavy cavalry armed with lance as their primary weapon. Although Hakonarsen the sources may be biased the same arguments could be mentioned about any pike victory. It cannot be doubted that the Husaria was a very successful unit even though it may have been exagerated.
Polish forces at the time were well-trained, small in number and able to defeat oriental and occidental armies.
Naturally tactics are important, charging up a hill, in a forest, against wooden stakes should spell disaster for cavalry. this contributed to French defeats in the Hundred years war and Nicopolis.
So the example is valid and strengthens the point of the pro-cavalry posters: The most successful cavalry of the pike and shot era was lance-armed (the Husaria and the Sipahis). Interestingly by the end of the 17th century Hetman Jablonowski removed the lance from the Husaria`s armament and although surely not the only cause, the Polish military declined. Of course proper tactis is essential.
BTW I think I have a picture of Kircholm with cavalry charging pikes, (I know it`s just a painting).
the Count of Flanders
10-09-2002, 23:15
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Count,
I am curious about the way a couched lance was actually used in a battlefield context having never had to consider the problem in any depth during my Napoleonic studies.
In the lists its use is pretty well defined as the opposing riders were kept apart by the central barrier and the lack of a point meant that its purpose was restricted to bouncing the opponent out of the saddle.
However, on the battlefield its purpose becomes harder to define. Clearly it could not be used to 'give point' as the Napoleonic lances were and must have relied purely on the forward momentum of the horse to drive it home. However, unlike its use in the lists driving it home at speed would merely bury its head in the target and as Napoleonic lancers discovered to their cost such a mistake could be as damaging to you as to the person struck. Suddenly ramming a lance into a 14 stone dead weight is a sure fire way to catapult yourself bodily from the saddle if done at speed and if not that then a dislocation of the arm or shattering of the lance is almost certain.
I know that Napoleonic lancers tended to close on their enemy at the walk/trot in a solid boot to boot line and 'give point' to their front in order to drive the enemy before them. the aim being to inflict multiple minor wounds without burying their lance head beyond the blade but this clearly would not be possible with a couched weapon.
Against an armoured opponent the situation would be even more awkward and would be a bit like driving a screwdriver in to a can of baked beans. The punctured armour would almost certainly trap the lance head as the target went down dragging the lance and presumably the rider down with it until the horse in overrunning the prone target produced a perfect pole vault effect.
Were lances deliberately weakened at the head like Roman pilum to ensure that they broke off rather than killing their owners?
[/QUOTE]
I must say I don't know much about cavalry in the Napoleonic era. As for the lance points: you are touching a subject I recently discussed (by email) with an American guy that does medieval jousting in some sort of entertainment park (and has a strong interest in medieval heavy cav). He claimed that is was most likely a "blunted" lance head that was used since that would be the easiest way to break up infantry formations. He gave the an example of his personal experience: after a run his lance bounced off his opponents shield making him loose his balance and control of his lance. While his horse was slowing down the lance by accident hit a squire (which luckily was wearing some sort of leather armour) hurling him back 6 feet and breaking a couple of ribs. Note that this wasn't even a full, intended hit and the horse was no longer at full charge speed either (in any case at jousts the horses would never reach full charge speed since they were moving towards each other at relatively high speeds), imagine what a full charge would have caused. If in this case the lance would have a sharp point that didn't broke off it would have "sishkebabed" the infantryman and you would get the effect you described.
To be honest I've never read about this subject but it would seem logical that the lance heads were either blunted or weakened somewhere along the shaft (we know this was done for jousting lances). If someone knows this, please enlighten me.
------------------
------------------
http://users.skynet.be/fa307901/sig_org.jpg
Proud member of the OOOO (http://www.oooo.freewebspace.com)
DragonCat
10-09-2002, 23:39
Wonderful post overall - kudos all.
As to MTW multiplayer (or SP for that matter), I disagree that cavalry aren't that useful.
In multiplayer, one of my more successful tactics is to take mounted crossbowmen. After they have expended their missles, they make excellent light cavalry to charge into flanks or rears of engaged enemy troops. Invariably, they provide the last straw to break and rout the enemy unit. I have done this time and again.
I have NOT experimented much with using cavalry as INITIAL shock units - nor do I advocate it. However, as FINISHER shock units, cavalry does very well indeed. I invite you to meet me online for demonstration. . .
------------------
DragonCat
. . . on the prowl!
AgentBif
10-10-2002, 00:43
Quote
I'm not certain where the condescension is coming from - I wasn't impolite to you even though I disagreed with you. Perhaps this is bluff since you didn't refute much of anything I said?
[/QUOTE]
I was not being condescending, it was a joke about how difficult it is to get people to accept something that seems patently obvious when they have an emotional attachment to their own way of thinking.
Furthermore, I addressed everything you threw at me, except the line about how I am obligated to prove that well trained infantry were never used throughout most of history... Which of course is not my obligation at all since I never made any claim to the contrary.
Quote
No obfuscating here - you clearly created a strawman that you could smash down.
...
I wasn't discussing the game, I was discussing what happened in the Middle Ages. Guess you missed that in your rush to be a snot.
[/QUOTE]
Go back and read my post. It is clear that I am referring to not only peasantry but also men-at-arms class troops. Yes I am being sloppy with my word choices... But it's out of whimsical disrespect and frustration with the game's model of their capabilities. I will try to be more precise in my diction.
I am aware that there is a distinction between farmers and non-noble men who were actually retained and trained on a regular basis. OTOH, there was really a grey spectrum of quality between pure peasantry and professional near-knightly footmen. Referring to men-at-arms as "peasantry" was not allways wholly inaccurate.
Anyway, my arguments are that both classes of troops are too effective vs cavalry (or that cavalry are too weak against them) in the game. You may be discussing history with no heed at all for the game's design, but after all, this IS an MTW forum and the reason this thread exists is because there is considerable contention about how the game models these aspects.
Your attack on my arguments seemed to focus only on the phrases were I used the term "peasant" and (in my interpretation) deliberately ignored the issues that I was really addressing. Then you make up this strawman story about how I'm just trying to make an easy folly to shoot down. That's obfuscating the argument... You are directing it away from the issue I am really trying to address: the effectiveness of cavalry in the game. Perhaps you misinterpreted my intentions and I yours.
And "snot"? Geez dude, I'm not the one going around calling people names!
Silly.
Quote
Europe was arguably just as stratified as Japan - what was the whole lord/leige setup but a stratification - peasants/serfs under knights under various lords under kings, with churchmen and town burghers thrown in the mix.
[/QUOTE]
The Japanese musket banning thing is not irrelevant because Europe was stratified, it's irrelevant because Japanese society at the time was under iron rule and because the psychology of that people at all levels was much more amenable to imperial edict and preservation of the ethos of honor than ragged European societies ever were. Greed and tribalism dominated Europe. Japan was relatively ordered and governed at the time of your example.
Competative greed and tribalism are precisely why I maintain that any dramatic advantage in military methodology would be readily seized upon and become dominant once people were made aware of it. The counter-speculation that lesser lords and those about to lose their sovereinty would not resort to a method of warfare that was far more effective than a grievously expensive and untennable tradition just stretches credibility too much, IMO.
Quote
Yet you fail to give an argument as to why feudal societies failed until mid (English) late (Swiss) in the Middle Ages to develop strong armored infantry.
[/QUOTE]
WTF? I don't understand why you think it is my responsibility to discuss this when AFIK I never made any statements to the contrary.
Quote
I am still waiting for your explanation as to why Western feudal armies relied upon heavy cavalry in the face of hundreds of years of Greek, Roman, and even Frankish history, if not for societal reasons.
[/QUOTE]
What? I have stated several times thus far that this sort of predominance is a clear indication that such methodology was effective. Had it not been effective (in fact, woefully pathetic as the game models it), those who resorted to such terribly expensive vanity would have quickly become another archeologist's "lost civilization".
Those who think cavalry are "just fine" in the game as it is now are burdened to explain just why cavalry was so popular throughout history. The notion of feudal romanticism is just too flimsy a counter argument, IMO.
bif
[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-09-2002).]
Perec_Dojo
10-10-2002, 01:36
In other posts it has been noted that mounted knights do perform as advertised when the unit sizes are changed to be equal with infantry. Judging by some of the posts here, the accounts of medieval battles mention horses in much larger proportions than we find them in MTW.
I think if the unit sizes were all normalized to 100 (or 60, or whatever) all of these problems would likely disappear. Certainly, there aren't enough knights running around in the early game, since they take so long to tech up to. But in this period, there were lots of knights. Where are they?
The mistake in the MTW model is the centralized economy and administration for factions that has them all running like rennaissance absolutist monarchies. We lose the feudal character of these systems, where the nobility was pre-existing and brought there own knights to the table. If anything, knights should come in fixed amounts, generated automatically by the nobility, and other troops would be levied, purchased as mercenaries, or (in later periods) trained and developed. Mounted knights should be a fact of life for christian factions.
Regardless of the actual power of mounted knights in history, currently there is no option to use them in large numbers in the early game, when in fact they were used in large numbers all through history. Pretty much only the Poles can generate significant numbers of good cavalry in the early period (unless you count Hobilars).
Hakonarson
10-10-2002, 02:17
Ooohh...lots of lovely historical arguments!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Apologies to Didz - I must've misread you because I thought you were going on about moreal, not musketry (not that morale isn't important!)
Husaria - yes, they were well trained and confident and their Swedish (and Russian and many other) foes were poorly trained and equipped and that is certainly a recipe for small numbers to defeat larger ones!!
Sipahis in the 1600's weern't armed with lances tho - they were mainly sworsmen, with pistols and carbines.
I'm not sure whether Huussaria and sipahis weer the most effective cavalry tho - did they ever fight Cuirassier armed in teh duthc fashion (sword & pistols)??
I guess Sipahis did as they fought the Asutrians but I have no info on any of those battles - any pointers would be welcome.
However I would point out that the lance had already given way to pistols in France, where the Elite Catholic Gendarmes had droped it in favour of pistols.
I guess if reach is important then pistols aer always going to shoot furtehr than a lance will poke!!
As for not being able to compare medieval cavalry with ancient - utter bollocks!!
Roman, Sassanid and Parthian armies had cavalry that charged with a lance held 2 handed - the Kontos (trans = bargepole!). It was as long as a medieval lance, but with a longer spear head - there are descriptions of it being weilded as a pole arm using the sharp sides of the spear head as blades.
The saddle used by these horsemen anchored them to the horse in exactly the same way the high-backed medieval saddle did for Knights. It had tall horns at the corners that braced the rider, and so transfered the momentum of the horse to the lance, and the shock of impact to the horse.
There are desciptions of enemy being skewered by kontos - pierced right through. One particularly grisly one mentions a rider lifting his victim skyward impaled on his kontos still writing in agony!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
It is a myth created by 19th century cavalrymen that lack of stirrup made anicent cavalry ineffective and unable to deliver a shock charge.
The definitive work on Roman cavalry techniques is by Ann Hyland "Training the Roman Cavalry" - the author has taken a Roman cavalry training text and actually built the equipment and done the exercises.
It is still widely available - Look up the author on Bibliofind or amazon - IIRC my copy set me back US$20 + P&P.
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
There are desciptions of enemy being skewered by kontos - pierced right through. One particularly grisly one mentions a rider lifting his victim skyward impaled on his kontos still writing in agony!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
[/QUOTE]
Sorry H, but do you actually consider that story plausable.
The principle of moments would mean that a 14 stone man emplaed on the end of a Kontos would probably weight the equivalent of a ton or two. Attempting to raise such a weight would snap the weapon unless of course he was a small child.
The Irish were very fond of impaling English officers on spears but contemporary prints show that it took several men and at least three seperate spears to support the mans weight.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by the Count of Flanders:
Originally posted by Didz:
[b] Count,
[quote] [b]I must say I don't know much about cavalry in the Napoleonic era. As for the lance points: you are touching a subject I recently discussed (by email) with an American guy that does medieval jousting in some sort of entertainment park (and has a strong interest in medieval heavy cav). He claimed that is was most likely a "blunted" lance head that was used since that would be the easiest way to break up infantry formations. He gave the an example of his personal experience: after a run his lance bounced off his opponents shield making him loose his balance and control of his lance. While his horse was slowing down the lance by accident hit a squire (which luckily was wearing some sort of leather armour) hurling him back 6 feet and breaking a couple of ribs. Note that this wasn't even a full, intended hit and the horse was no longer at full charge speed either (in any case at jousts the horses would never reach full charge speed since they were moving towards each other at relatively high speeds), imagine what a full charge would have caused. If in this case the lance would have a sharp point that didn't broke off it would have "sishkebabed" the infantryman and you would get the effect you described.
To be honest I've never read about this subject but it would seem logical that the lance heads were either blunted or weakened somewhere along the shaft (we know this was done for jousting lances). If someone knows this, please enlighten me.
I must admit this sounds like the most plausible explanation of how the couched lance must have been used. A blunt end designed specifically not to penetrate would hopefully disable the target whilst leaving the rider seated and armed. A pointed weapon would almost certainly result in a catastrophic result.
It is said that one of the most common mistakes of poorly training Napoleonic Lancers was to approach their target too rapidly and to bury the blade of the lance so deeply that it catapulted them from the saddle and broke their wrist.
An attempt was made to compensate by adding a metal ball shape just behind the lance blade which was intended to stop the lance penetrating too far but this was only partially successful. The best solution proved to be training and a more controlled momentum.
Where lancers really came into their own was in pursuit when the enemy could be relied upon to extract themselves from the point of the lance.
The other major problem for lancers was getting too close to their opponents so that they could not use their lance properly and whilst there were some defensive movements intended to parry blows from a close in opponent these don't appear to be very practical some involve balancing the lance of the palm of the hand about the head and spinning it which doesn't sound like a very good idea in the middle of a melee.
Hence lancers tended to fight shy of getting mixed up too closely with their target preferring to stand off and jab from a distance until the enemy tried to run.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Cousin Zoidfarb
10-10-2002, 03:36
Hakonarsen is missing some Osprey men-at-arms books. He states the Swedes were poorly-trained, they kicked everyone`s ass in the Thirty-Years-War. I guess their pikemen really charged well. And Sipahis did have lances amongst other weapons.
The beef the pro-knight movement has is that in MTW is not with the pikes being effective against cavalry, but that the spearmen running after cavalry with weapon overhead being so deadly to cavalry.
The Husaria did fight Cuirassiers the P-L Commonwealth even had units of these in their army (the foreign autorament) these being raised in the German regions of the country.
[This message has been edited by Beavis (edited 10-09-2002).]
Hakonarson
10-10-2002, 03:38
Maybe there's some artistic licence - I've started looking for the original source to find hte exact wording and credibility (or otherwise) of the author.
There's no particular need to assume the victim weighed 14 stone, nor that he was at the extreme end of the spear.
Nor indeed that he was raised to vertical - it may have been nothing more than lifting him out of the saddle prior to shaking him off the end of the spear.
The point isn't that the guy was lifted but that he was impaled.
Hakonarson
10-10-2002, 03:50
Quote Originally posted by Beavis:
Hakonarsen is missing some Osprey men-at-arms books. He states the Swedes were poorly-trained, they kicked everyone`s ass in the Thirty-Years-War. [/QUOTE]
And there was 20 years between Kircholm and GA's intro to the 30YW - a lot can happen in 20 years, and it did to the Swedish army.
My quote about the Swedes lacking pikes was from the man bought in by the then King of Sweden to reorg the Swedish army in 1601.
Sure the Swedes did well in the 30yw - but then they also got thrashed a couple of times, had their king killed, and accomplished much of it with mercenary troops!!
Quote The beef the pro-knight movement has is that in MTW is not with the pikes being effective against cavalry, but that the spearmen running after cavalry with weapon overhead being so deadly to cavalry)[/QUOTE].
I agree - spearmen should not be atacking cavalry and still getting lots of bonuses for formation. No infantry should!
Quote The Husaria did fight Cuirassiers the P-L Commonwealth even had units of these in their army (the foreign autorament) these being raised in the German regions of the country.[/QUOTE]
I'm sure they did, but oddly enough the polish sources I've read don't make much mention of them! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
do you have any sources for clashes between Husaria and Cuirassiers?
Omegamann
10-10-2002, 16:27
Hi,
first off I absolutly love this kind of historical debate, very interresting.
But to come back to the problem at hand, (Spears standing up to a knight charge) I might have a possible solution.
I hope it is agreed that spears (and some other units) should break and rout more often under the threat of being charged by knights, before the charge even connects.
To create this behavior without making the knights universaly better (upping charge and attack) or making spears universaly poorer (decreasing valor or att) it would be possible to make spears (and some other units) Fear knights (heavy armored horsemen with lances + templars with swords), just like the cav units already fear camels.
Though I dont think CA will officialy put this in a patch (having stated that its a game not a simmulation of medival warfare) the "unit fears other units" stat is modable.
So now I hope you continue with your discussion http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
You can mod it in the "Units this unit is fearful of" column of the "crusader_unit_prod11.xls"
I don't know if I can give the non-spear weapon negative value in "attack bonus vs cav" and "def bonus vs cav" to make them less effective against cav.
Quote
I agree - spearmen should not be atacking cavalry and still getting lots of bonuses for formation. No infantry should!
[/QUOTE]
I am absolutely with Hak and the rest of you on this. One of the ways cavalry dominated the battlefield was by forcing the opposing infantry to adopt a defensive posture.
On the Napoleonic battlefield this typically meant forming square but on ealrier battlefields it would have been a hedgehog or merely a hunkered down shield wall.
Either way the net result was that the infantry in effect became paralysed. They could not move forward or back without the risk of getting caught unprepared by the cavalry.
In my wargame rules I call this 'Cavalry Freeze' and it gives cavalry a major advantage over dismounted troops.
Quite apart from anything else it means that the side with cavalry dominance can effectively manouvre their own infantry and missile troops at will and their enemy cannot respond. It then only becomes a matter of time before your missile troops or infantry begin to disrupt the enemy infantry formations and your cavalry can complete the rout.
In MTW terms this can be best represented by giving infantry major morale penalties for moving when too close to cavalry.
This isn't to say it never happened but such events were extremely rare and very dangerous.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
[This message has been edited by Didz (edited 10-10-2002).]
Omegamann
10-10-2002, 17:30
Quote Originally posted by pdoan8:
You can mod it in the "Units this unit is fearful of" column of the "crusader_unit_prod11.xls"
I don't know if I can give the non-spear weapon negative value in "attack bonus vs cav" and "def bonus vs cav" to make them less effective against cav.[/QUOTE]
Yes I know were its modable, this is why I put it here for discussion.
I dont think nonspears should get stats against cav, as spears already have positive ones to make them stand out.
But certain nonspears should be just as fearfull of knights as spears, reducing their stand up courage and effectiveness.
It would be interresting to make a whole system of units fearing other units to
simulate comon misconceptions and superstition in the time period. (i.e. everybody - in the christian world - fears the Crusading orders)
Lets not get to much into modding here, so we this wont get transferd to the modding forum.
Quote Originally posted by Omegamann:
I hope it is agreed that spears (and some other units) should break and rout more often under the threat of being charged by knights, before the charge even connects.
To create this behavior without making the knights universaly better (upping charge and attack) or making spears universaly poorer (decreasing valor or att) it would be possible to make spears (and some other units) Fear knights (heavy armored horsemen with lances + templars with swords), just like the cav units already fear camels.
[/QUOTE]
Yep! I think that has got to be the solution.
However, the fear factor should be applied to all foot troops and artillery not just spears. I find sword armed infantry are just as capable of charging and routing knights as spears are.
Also what is really needed is a fear factor which is only applied when a foot unit is NOT hunkered down and on Hold Formation.
A player who has carefully deployed his infantry with secure flanks and is calmly standing waiting for the cavalry should not be penalized if the Cavalry player stupidly charges his knights straight into his line.
Cavalry freeze should also apply to all cavalry but in varying degree according to type. Even Horse Archers should impose some degree of cavalry freeze on opposing infantry though obviously not as great as a battle of mounted knights.
What we need is a rule change that reinforces the correct role for cavalry and infantry rather than one that gives a bonus to players with a fetish for Knight rushes.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
[This message has been edited by Didz (edited 10-10-2002).]
I personally think that is dangerous to play with fear factors too much. One should not abuse them. For example at Courtrai the poorly trained Flemish mitilia did not fear the French charge and received it well. At Tinchebrai the foot knights of Henry received Robert's charge of mounted knights without wavering. It is better to play with the rank bonuses for spearmen and pikemen when attacked on the move, on the flank or rear.
Anyway, as this thread is turning to the topic of adapting infantry in MTW, why not to present your ideas in http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/002647.html
which covers the topic?
Antonio
Omegamann
10-10-2002, 18:14
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
However, the fear factor should be applied to all foot troops and artillery not just spears. I find sword armed infantry are just as capable of charging and routing knights as spears are.
[/QUOTE]
Thats what I meant when I said that we should create more complex fear relationships.
Light foot fearing knights, peasant rabble (inc archers and UM) fearing anything on 4 legs, maybe even fearing armored foot (the clasic light amored peasant being slaughtered by the proffessional killer in full chain mail)
I have some more ideas about this, though it would be a chore to balance http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
Quote
Also what is really needed is a fear factor which is only applied when a foot unit is NOT hunkered down and on Hold Formation.
A player who has carefully deployed his infantry with secure flanks and is calmly standing waiting for the cavalry should not be penalized if the Cavalry player stupidly charges his knights straight into his line.
[/QUOTE]
As I dont think that CA will do us the favor in including this situatonal fear, it would be nice to hear how fear is actualy supposed to work in game.
Supposedly it deals out a moral penalty to units in the proximity of their feared unit.
A moral penalty can be countered by many ways in the game.
Staying together, protecting your flank, veteran soldiers, good general...
Now it would be nice to know exactly how big the fearfactor is anyway.
Maybe the points you raised are already covered.
Spears standing/advancing in a line, their flanks covered and their General encouraging nearby could very well offset the fear penalty.
On the other hand a unit of Spears out alone on the field, worried about their flanks seeing the knights charging in would hopefully be more prone to route.
Omegamann
10-10-2002, 18:32
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
I personally think that is dangerous to play with fear factors too much. One should not abuse them. For example at Courtrai the poorly trained Flemish mitilia did not fear the French charge and received it well. At Tinchebrai the foot knights of Henry received Robert's charge of mounted knights without wavering. It is better to play with the rank bonuses for spearmen and pikemen when attacked on the move, on the flank or rear.
Anyway, as this thread is turning to the topic of adapting infantry in MTW, why not to present your ideas in http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/002647.html
which covers the topic?
Antonio[/QUOTE]
Did post there already, but was apparently ignored http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
As for your other points:
Surely footknigts would not fear their mounted counterparts and the Flemings at Courtrai could be considered Fanatics in MTW, as they werent just peasants told to figth and die for their Lord but dedicated people fighting for their cause.
A nice depiction of this battle can be read here: http://theforum.skalman.nu/viewtopic.php?t=86
Quote Originally posted by Omegamann:
Surely footknigts would not fear their mounted counterparts and the Flemings at Courtrai could be considered Fanatics in MTW, as they werent just peasants told to figth and die for their Lord but dedicated people fighting for their cause.
[/QUOTE]
And would professional sergeants spearmen fear the mounted knights? I would say as much as the foot knights.
Antonio
Omegamann
10-10-2002, 19:25
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
And would professional sergeants spearmen fear the mounted knights? I would say as much as the foot knights.
Antonio[/QUOTE]
foot knights have better armor, better valor and are elite in game terms.
In history they also always had a reason to not fight on horseback (terrain, weather...)
I did want to say that its very important to know exactly what fear does in the game and then carefully decide which unit should fear which unit.
But I am looking for a way to solve the problem at hand without having to try to pressure CA into changing an aspect of their game.
the Count of Flanders
10-10-2002, 20:00
The reason that Flemish took the charge is because it was their last stand: defeat would equal death and French tiranny for their families. This factor is already in the game: an army that has nowhere to retreat gets a morale bonus.
------------------
------------------
http://users.skynet.be/fa307901/sig_org.jpg
Proud member of the OOOO (http://www.oooo.freewebspace.com)
Quote
foot knights have better armor, better valor
I did want to say that its very important to know exactly what fear does in the game and then carefully decide which unit should fear which unit.
But I am looking for a way to solve the problem at hand without having to try to pressure CA into changing an aspect of their game.
[/QUOTE]
Very Good point.
I think we have to be quite clear exactly what it is we are trying to model when we talk about fear in these terms.
Its fair to say that only an idiot isn't going to be scared during a battle and so everyone is going to be suffering from fear regardless of troop type. The real difference becomes apparent when we compare unit situation and commmand and control.
And again this has nothing to do with troop quality or motivation.
For instance a bunch of dismounted knights who are not used to fighting on foot and have never fought together before may well find themselves less able to respond to a sudden new threat than a nearby unit of spearmen who have been carefully drilled and prepared.
Likewise, a unit of fanatic's may well be so frenzied that they become totally unmanageable when confronted by an enemy.
This has nothing to do with Fear as such because all of these troops would be scared but what it does do is cause a disruption and loss of cohesion in the units formation which can be explioted by an attacker.
And it is that disruption and the expliotation of it that leads individuals in the target unit to feel exposed and turns fear into panic.
My understanding from STW was that this effect was modelled into the game and that each individual soldier responded personally to their own situation. If so, then in theory it should be possible to model loss of unit cohesion and panic correctly.
However, it should not be based just upon a rock, paper scissors comparison of unit types but needs to consider the level of unit cohesion and quality of command control of each unit and its battlefield situation.
Again, I'm pretty such MTW does this already but it seems some adjustment is required as units just aren't fragile enough.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
This is a wonderful thread but for those of you expecting the devs to properly address the Spear vs. Heavy Cavalry issue take a look at Longjohn2's reply in this thread:
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/002626.html
Quote I'd advise people are interested in historical accuracy to play without giving units any upgrades. Most of the things people are suggesting are already in the game, but upgrading valour or giving the army a 9 star general tend to mean that morale effects count for little.
You also have to understand that MTW is not a wargame or a simulation. It is a historically themed strategy game aimed at that the mass market. This menas that there are many features in the game that can't necessarily be justified historically, and it means we try to have clear combat rules such as spears beat cavalry.
That said I have made a couple of slight tweaks with regard to cavalry fighting spears, The basic rule remains though. Cavalry should certain be more cost effective vs other types too.
A lot of people have expressed the view that units charged in flank or rear should just fold up and die. Given the way you easily manoeuvre your units with no delay, I don't think this would improve the game, especailly for MP.[/QUOTE]
Hi,
Wow, what a thread. As a long time wargamer, history buff and reader of Strategy and Tactics magazine (by the blessed SPI) I have a few observations to make:
F=MA. I.e. Force equals Mass times Acceleration:
The knight, riding a Clydesdale, Belgian or Perchon, with his armor and saddle made specifically to couch and brace the lance, such that all the momentum of the horse and rider is transfered to the lance head, strikes a spear/pike-man who has NOT grounded his weapon ...
The man will not be standing afterwards. And, because of the barding on the horse and armor on the rider, the knight or horse will have suffered no more than a bruise.
To correctly reflect reality, spear and pike units should only be able to withstand a charge--even from the front--if they are on hold position and HAVE NOT MOVED for some period of time, representing them grounding their weapons.
Also, M:TW would do well to steal from John Hill, the designer of classic games, such as (the original) Squad Leader and Johnny Reb. There should be a "fear of charge" modifier used in a final morale check that takes place just prior to impact.
In the system for Johnny Reb, units that failed their fear of charge morale check would go shaken (a morale state inbetween normal morale and routing) and suffer greatly in the coming melee. Most often it would lead to them routing when the melee ensued.
Only in the case of the charger and the chargee both passing their final morale check would you see the sort of mutual carnage we see now. Charging units receive a bonus to their morale, but might go shaken and break if the receiving unit passed its fear of charge morale check and could deliver a point blank volley.
Units facing knights or other heavy cav that do not have grounded polearms/spears/pikes should receive severe morale penalties when charged by cav if you want to see the game reflect reality.
Also in Johnny Reb (and I've seen it in other games, but don't remember which) is a rule called "Seeing the Elephant." A phrase dating to the Punic Wars.
Units that had never seen combat before (i.e. green units) take an addtional morale check the first time they are exposed to combat. (Either by being shot and taking casualties or by being charged.) Only then do you find out what their true morale is. They might be normal, veteran, elite or just stay green (in which case they will not long remain on the field).
While Johnny Reb is an ACW rules set, the majority of those rules would serve any period of warfare up until WWI.
If you know John Hill, then you know that his rules are based on long and intense study of the periods and on men and their reaction to the insanity of war.
Anyway, just some food for thought.
Vaya con pizza,
V'ger gone
Quote Originally posted by Omegamann:
Thats what I meant when I said that we should create more complex fear relationships. Light foot fearing knights, peasant rabble (inc archers and UM) fearing anything on 4 legs, maybe even fearing armored foot (the clasic light amored peasant being slaughtered by the proffessional killer in full chain mail) [/QUOTE]
I'm not mocking you, but I have a vision of two armies coming on the field, looking at each other, and then both running as fast as they could in the opposite directions http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
And yes, it would be hard to balance.
Grifman
I've been doing some looking for descriptions of medieval battles and here is an interesting one, the Battle of Bouvines, with something for everyone:
http://xenophongroup.com/montjoie/bouvines.htm
What seems interesting are:
1) the proportions of infantry to cavalry - seemed to be lots of infantry, at least two thirds for the French, more for the HRE
2) it started as an infantry battle in the center
3) the initial center pike infantry charge of the HRE was crushed by French cavalry only after the HRE infantry had defeated the French urban militias (and were perhaps disorganized in the aftermath?)
4) yet stationery pike formations of the HRE seemed to hold their ground, providing protection for their outnumbered cavalry later in the battle, until finally overwhelmed by numbers
Interesting . . .
I'll look for others.
Grifman
Here's a essay on medieval strategy and tactics - note the excerpt from Archer Jones on the relationships between the different types of forces. Probably will have the cav boys all up in arms http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
http://www.sca.org.nz/collegium/uni36/medieval_war.php
Grifman
[This message has been edited by Grifman (edited 10-11-2002).]
Here's an interesting site on arms and armor, with discussion on regional differences in composition of troops and weapons - I found that part very interesting, comparing and contrasting warfare in Spain compared with France vs. England, the HRE and Italy, and Eastern Europe. I have more respect for what the programmers of the game had to consider.
http://www.ceu.hu/medstud/manual/SRM/arms1.htm
Grifman
Boleslaw Wrymouth
10-11-2002, 09:57
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
Yes - a good post on a good topic.
However one or 2 points.
You most certainly CAN train a horse to "impale itself" - that is to charge into a solid block of infantry. But it's likely to get killed or wounded of course and so it only happens once!!
Keegan notes this in the article on Agincourt in "The face of Battle".
!![/QUOTE]
He doesn't say you can train a horse to impale itself in battle. I believe he says it can happen. Keegan says its incidental rather than the nature of horses and men.
You CAN train a horse to do most anything...especially in a charge where its bests instincts rule. If you have ever tried to pull a horse from a little five horse group, then you know what I mean. Imagine a 1000 horse herd. This is the origin of the repeated charge. It was protecting men who had second thoughts.
The horses had no problem, Keegan.
Boleslaw Wrymouth
10-11-2002, 11:05
Grifman,
That is a great site...it consists of what most whould consider "Western" thoughts of warfare. But the collections and history are put together by what you, and most, wold consider "Eastern Europeans". Capital "E".
It's a shame that we Americans only know the siege warfare of the 15-16th century. Cavalry tactics from the Poles, Hungarians and "Russians" patrolled our borders. The cavalry pennant used by our lightly armored forces today is simply a copy of the Polish flag.
Boleslaw Wrymouth
10-11-2002, 11:29
And before I pass out from drunkeness, I can see where you got that from that link, "Horse as a rapid reaction force", but it doesn't work. Every early Crusade should have proved that. They were developed as the ultimate arm.
think a good simulation should have scale. The scale of MTW is wonderful, yet not enough. Eventually we can see the interactions of a 20,000 man army v. an 50,000 man army. But for now, we should listen to the very precious voices from the past and not make up sociological theories. A military theory might be better.
[This message has been edited by Boleslaw Wrymouth (edited 10-11-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Boleslaw Wrymouth (edited 10-11-2002).]
Hakonarson
10-11-2002, 12:30
Quote Originally posted by Boleslaw Wrymouth:
He doesn't say you can train a horse to impale itself in battle. I believe he says it can happen. Keegan says its incidental rather than the nature of horses and men.[/QUOTE]
Nope - he says that the horses were trined to charge home.
Let's be clear tho - when I said "impale themselves" I meant to charge home into a body of men - it just so happens that if the men had spears then this would invariably involve impalement!! :: http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
The exact quote is:
Quote "For archers were trained to "receive cavalry", the horses trained to charge home, while the principle function of the riders to insist on the horses doing that against their nature rebelled." (pg 83, italics are in the original)[/QUOTE]
Quote You CAN train a horse to do most anything...especially in a charge where its bests instincts rule. If you have ever tried to pull a horse from a little five horse group, then you know what I mean. Imagine a 1000 horse herd. This is the origin of the repeated charge. It was protecting men who had second thoughts.
The horses had no problem, Keegan.
[/QUOTE]
I've never tried to cut a horse out of a herd, but I accept that hteherding instinct was also strong in "trained" cavalry, and the inability to move aside due to surrounding numbers is one reason why cavalry formations try to remain tight.
It's also one of the reasons that disordered cavalry is much less effective - gaps in the ranks allow horses to balk and turn aside if they can overcome their training (or if they haven't had any).
I don't think it's hte origin of anything tho'.
[This message has been edited by Hakonarson (edited 10-11-2002).]
Lord Romulous
10-11-2002, 12:39
my question is that in a age before cattle prods up the ass, how did you train a horse to charge home?? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
ahh the wonders of modern technology !!
"you can train a horse to do anything, it is merely a question of voltage"
Gene Hackman - Crimson Tide
the Count of Flanders
10-11-2002, 14:36
Quote Originally posted by V'ger:
F=MA. I.e. Force equals Mass times Acceleration:
The knight, riding a Clydesdale, Belgian or Perchon, with his armor and saddle made specifically to couch and brace the lance, such that all the momentum of the horse and rider is transfered to the lance head, strikes a spear/pike-man who has NOT grounded his weapon ...
The man will not be standing afterwards. And, because of the barding on the horse and armor on the rider, the knight or horse will have suffered no more than a bruise.
[/QUOTE]
Just wanted to make the remark that a lot of people have argued with F=M*A but that this formula is only true for the amount of energy in horse and rider while charging but is NOT equal to the energy that the knight is able to transfer to the target with his lance. If 5% of the initial energy could be transformed into striking force that would be a very good knight. But the effect would still be destructive though. Also the effect of horses trampling infantry is overrated, every knight would try to avoid to expose his (very expensive) horse's weakest parts (by this I mean the legs) so recklessly.
------------------
------------------
http://users.skynet.be/fa307901/sig_org.jpg
Proud member of the OOOO (http://www.oooo.freewebspace.com)
Quote Originally posted by Spino:
This is a wonderful thread but for those of you expecting the devs to properly address the Spear vs. Heavy Cavalry issue take a look at Longjohn2's reply in this thread:
http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum7/HTML/002626.html
I'd advise people are interested in historical accuracy to play without giving units any upgrades. Most of the things people are suggesting are already in the game, but upgrading valour or giving the army a 9 star general tend to mean that morale effects count for little.
You also have to understand that MTW is not a wargame or a simulation. It is a historically themed strategy game aimed at that the mass market. This menas that there are many features in the game that can't necessarily be justified historically, and it means we try to have clear combat rules such as spears beat cavalry.
That said I have made a couple of slight tweaks with regard to cavalry fighting spears, The basic rule remains though. Cavalry should certain be more cost effective vs other types too.
A lot of people have expressed the view that units charged in flank or rear should just fold up and die. Given the way you easily manoeuvre your units with no delay, I don't think this would improve the game, especailly for MP.[/QUOTE]
Well, this is in fact the death penalty for those who wish to use MTW as a tactical simulator of Medieval warfare =(.
Cheers,
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by the Count of Flanders:
Just wanted to make the remark that a lot of people have argued with F=M*A but that this formula is only true for the amount of energy in horse and rider while charging but is NOT equal to the energy that the knight is able to transfer to the target with his lance. If 5% of the initial energy could be transformed into striking force that would be a very good knight. But the effect would still be destructive though. Also the effect of horses trampling infantry is overrated, every knight would try to avoid to expose his (very expensive) horse's weakest parts (by this I mean the legs) so recklessly.
[/QUOTE]
About Norman knights in the early period someone said (I will check who he was in my Osprey books) that if an orange was thrown to the middle of charging knights, they were so closely packed that the orange would not fall to the ground. My question is how one can charge in such a close formation and still achieve the speed that many members of this thread claim to have been achieved.
Testimonies like this provide evidence that the gallop only developed at the last meters before impact.
Cheers,
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
Well, this is in fact the death penalty for those who wish to use MTW as a tactical simulator of Medieval warfare =(.
Cheers,
Antonio[/QUOTE]
Well, let's just crawl off and cry. The game was advertised as a strategy game, not a war game. A war game would be expected to try and follow a more historical basis as they are alot more concerned with stuff like that. This game was never advertised like that.
Besides, if it really tears you up such that you would have to crawl off and die, the game in clearly moddable to the extent that YOU can create your own vision of medieval combat. No need to crawl off and die unless you yourself really don't care.
Grifman
Quote Originally posted by Grifman:
Well, let's just crawl off and cry. The game was advertised as a strategy game, not a war game. A war game would be expected to try and follow a more historical basis as they are alot more concerned with stuff like that. This game was never advertised like that.
Besides, if it really tears you up such that you would have to crawl off and die, the game in clearly moddable to the extent that YOU can create your own vision of medieval combat. No need to crawl off and die unless you yourself really don't care.
Grifman
[/QUOTE]
Hmm I guess I was misled by the title then. I would never have bought it if was named Medieval: Total Strategy http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
CBR
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
Hmm I guess I was misled by the title then. I would never have bought it if was named Medieval: Total Strategy http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
CBR[/QUOTE]
Neither would I. The battle engine is what got me interested in STW and MTW.
Antonio
I liken STW to Panzer General, ie a "light" wargame. Like Panzer General, I think it does a fine job of capturing many aspects of war and strategy but it does so in a highly stylised way that you can't take literally. Viewed as historical wargames, both MTW and Panzer General are very suspect on scale, unit composition, logistics etc. However, in Panzer General, I enjoyed the "rock-scissors-stone" combined arms representation which we are arguing about in MTW. In both cases, we look for gameplay that "feels right" even if it is not an accurate simulation. I think there it is room to debate realism in these games, but we can not expect too much from CA. The fact that they allow the relevant parameters to be moddable is a pretty big concession to the history buffs already.
I think these threads on spearman vs cavalry etc are fascinating from a military history point of view and don't think we should be too discouraged if CA does not share our enthusiasm.
For what it is worth, I don't find the current balance of arms in the SP too unhistorical or dull. If I could change anything it would be to reduce the cost and/or increase the size of units of knights. Looking at the Shogun Academy's frontpage shot of a mass heavy cavalry charge makes me suddenly rather nostalgic for 100 heavy cav! If the player had 200-400 knights on the battlefield, then I don't think they would complain they were useless.
Omegamann
10-11-2002, 19:52
Quote Originally posted by Simon Appleton:
Looking at the Shogun Academy's frontpage shot of a mass heavy cavalry charge makes me suddenly rather nostalgic for 100 heavy cav! If the player had 200-400 knights on the battlefield, then I don't think they would complain they were useless.[/QUOTE]
Interestingly the historical battles and campaigns feature 100men knight units.
I think the small unitsize in SP and MP is simply there for the sake of balance.
As for CA I do respect thier oppinion in the matter, and I still think they have given us a great deal of modding potential to change the SP game to reflect our tastes.
I think there is a "historical units" mod already up for download.
I myself will continue experimenting with the fear stat.
Quote Originally posted by Omegamann:
I think there is a "historical units" mod already up for download.
[/QUOTE]
Where is that?
Antonio
First off - a previous poster was correct. A trained horse will do pretty much anything. If I remember rightly the medieval period used blinkers extensively. The horse can be trained to ignore the problematic smells and clatter. It's up to the rider whether or not it's safe to charge into a wall of pikes.
Second - a knight can charge into a spear wall but most won't - what a knight will look for is rents in a line caused by the terrain, missile fire, incompetance or indiscipline. He'll charge into those and exploit it.
Third - a cavalry charge is terrifying. A modern example was shown during the filming of 'The Battle of Waterloo'. When the 'cavalry' charged the actors (actually Russian soldiers) in their squares - they broke three times before the sequence could be finished. Simply due to the noise and appearance of the charge.
Michael the Great
10-11-2002, 21:31
Quote Originally posted by Omegamann:
Originally posted by Didz:
However, the fear factor should be applied to all foot troops and artillery not just spears. I find sword armed infantry are just as capable of charging and routing knights as spears are.
Thats what I meant when I said that we should create more complex fear relationships.
Light foot fearing knights, peasant rabble (inc archers and UM) fearing anything on 4 legs, maybe even fearing armored foot (the clasic light amored peasant being slaughtered by the proffessional killer in full chain mail)
I have some more ideas about this, though it would be a chore to balance http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
Quote
Also what is really needed is a fear factor which is only applied when a foot unit is NOT hunkered down and on Hold Formation.
A player who has carefully deployed his infantry with secure flanks and is calmly standing waiting for the cavalry should not be penalized if the Cavalry player stupidly charges his knights straight into his line.
[/QUOTE]
As I dont think that CA will do us the favor in including this situatonal fear, it would be nice to hear how fear is actualy supposed to work in game.
Supposedly it deals out a moral penalty to units in the proximity of their feared unit.
A moral penalty can be countered by many ways in the game.
Staying together, protecting your flank, veteran soldiers, good general...
Now it would be nice to know exactly how big the fearfactor is anyway.
Maybe the points you raised are already covered.
Spears standing/advancing in a line, their flanks covered and their General encouraging nearby could very well offset the fear penalty.
On the other hand a unit of Spears out alone on the field, worried about their flanks seeing the knights charging in would hopefully be more prone to route.[/QUOTE]
There is no fear factor,just as Longjohn posted,the fear factor is represented with a bonus and a penalty applied for cav when facing camels......
Mori Gabriel Syme
10-11-2002, 22:29
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
About Norman knights in the early period someone said (I will check who he was in my Osprey books) that if an orange was thrown to the middle of charging knights, they were so closely packed that the orange would not fall to the ground.
[/QUOTE]
What I read just a couple of weeks ago in The Knights Templar: A New History is that the military orders moved in such close order that it was written by someone who observe the Hospitallers that an apple thrown into their midst would not fall to the ground without touching a man or horse. It was simply an indication of the superior discipline of the Military Orders, in the Crusading Kingdoms at least. They would not have charged while so tightly packed, but would have been capable off maintaining optimum order so that the charge would have optimum impact.
------------------
Others enslave by victory,
Their subjects, as their foes, oppress;
Anna conquers but to free,
And governs but to bless. -- Edmund Smith (Anna stands for England)
Omegamann
10-11-2002, 22:36
Quote Originally posted by Michael the Great:
There is no fear factor,just as Longjohn posted,the fear factor is represented with a bonus and a penalty applied for cav when facing camels......[/QUOTE]
Its in the unitprod file under "units this unit fears".
I assume its moddable, and not only there for refference
Quote Third - a cavalry charge is terrifying. A modern example was shown during the filming of 'The Battle of Waterloo'. When the 'cavalry' charged the actors (actually Russian soldiers) in their squares - they broke three times before the sequence could be finished. Simply due to the noise and appearance of the charge.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know that! What a funny tidbit of information. The Assistant Director must have been having fits with all those extras ruining the carefully orchestrated shots. I work in film and it given the scope of those shots and the number of extras involved it must have taken a ridiculously long amount of time to set those shots up. Well, that's an extra for you; underpaid and undertrained.
AgentBif
10-11-2002, 23:37
A lot of people in this thread have decided, defacto, that cavalry would never charge a rank of spears head-on. But I started thinking about whether or not plate and barding would make this tactic possible with heavy cavalry. Check out my post about armor and front aspect cavalry charges (http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000451.html) here.
I have a lot of questions about what such armor is capable of but describe why I think knights developed heavier and more expensive gear as they evolved...
bif
[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-11-2002).]
Quote ...The game was advertised as a strategy game, not a war game. A war game would be expected to try and follow a more historical basis as they are alot more concerned with stuff like that. This game was never advertised like that.[/QUOTE]
Quite true that the TW series was never advertised as a historical wargame but isn't it odd how the most attractive selling point of both titles was the 3D tactical battles? I have some gaming friends who avoid strategy games like the plague but they perked right up when I demonstrated a tactical battle complete with archery exchanges, wild melees, cavalry charges, and a vicious, bloody rout. Let's also not forget that many reviews seem to highlight the tactical battles as being the most enjoyable part of the game.
I strongly disagree with the notion that the Total War series is not, at least in part with respect to the tactical battles, a wargame. The TW series simulates the tactical aspect of pre-gunpowder warfare to a greater degree than most turn based, hex map and die type wargames ever could. In fact one could argue that the TW series are the best computer wargames for the eras they represent. The tactical battles in the Total War games (ah, you see... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif ) model everything from weapons, armor, formation, unit facing, leadership, weather, terrain, and most importantly, morale! What standard RTS comes anywhere close to that level of depth? I think most of you who think wargames are overwhelmingly complicated and complete simulations of all aspects of warfare are sorely misinformed. A wargame need not have the complex weapon and damage modeling of the Combat Mission series or the dizzying hex and unit count of a John Tiller/HPS game to be considered a wargame. Take a look at the classic Close Combat series which also featured realtime tactical combat (except it was on a 2D battlefield). Many of the factors it modeled are also modeled in the TW series and clearly the Close Combat series were wargames.
All wargames are NOT historically based. You can have science fiction and fantasy based wargames and many are quite successful. As I understand it there is a rabid community of folks in the UK who adore the minature rules wargames for the Warhammer and Warhammer 40K universes.
When and how did the term wargame become such a dirty word?
Quote Originally posted by Spino:
......When and how did the term wargame become such a dirty word?[/QUOTE]
Yes very good question..
CBR
Quote Originally posted by Grifman:
I'm not mocking you, but I have a vision of two armies coming on the field, looking at each other, and then both running as fast as they could in the opposite directions http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
And yes, it would be hard to balance.
Grifman[/QUOTE]
Don't laugh too early I assure you that it has happened more than once.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
Well, this is in fact the death penalty for those who wish to use MTW as a tactical simulator of Medieval warfare =(.
Cheers,
Antonio[/QUOTE]
Yes! This statement is a major blow to the credability of TW who I assumed designing their games of serious historical research.
Now it appears that what we are playing is nothing more the Medieval Red Alert.
Don't get me wrong I like Red Alert I just thought that TW were going for something a bit more mature.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by Mori Gabriel Syme:
What I read just a couple of weeks ago in The Knights Templar: A New History is that the military orders moved in such close order that it was written by someone who observe the Hospitallers that an apple thrown into their midst would not fall to the ground without touching a man or horse. It was simply an indication of the superior discipline of the Military Orders, in the Crusading Kingdoms at least. They would not have charged while so tightly packed, but would have been capable off maintaining optimum order so that the charge would have optimum impact.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I am sure it was a lemon, or perhaps it was fig. After all we are talking about the middle east.
Either way its a load of cods wallop. The key point about the movement of cavalry was to maintain distance between successive lines. This was essential to allow each wave to negotiate obsticals, prsent their weapons without disabling the men in front of them and ensure the maximum shock effect as each wave struck home.
It was the failure to maintain such spacing that left the French Knights so helpless at Agincourt. Pressing your horse up close behind the horse in front of you acheives nothing other than ensure that your mount gets a brown nose if the horse in front farts.
Having said that, of course, if viewed from the ground and from the front or rear it would appear as though the cavalry are in such a dense formation as certainly those in the front rank would be trying to keep boot to boot.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
My understanding of the topic is that on largely wide-open areas that calvary was dominant until weapons and tactics were developed. On that note recall that much effort went into developing weaponry for foot soldiers to help offset the imbalance that horse created.
Regarding the game, several things come to mind.
1. offset the strength of calvary by attempting to draw them into unsuitable terrain such as woods - yes peasants can annihilate heavy calvary in woods.
2. offset their strength by engaging them in front with strong units and behind with weak units which to my mind seems realistic
3. game allows for tactical manipulation of calvary which can draw foot in and cause them to spread out. Manipulating and spreading out foot with multiple calvary units can achieve a point where several calvary attack foot from more than one angle achieving devastating results (which to my mind seem realistic).
4. did have a bug where Byzantine heavy calvary lined up and waited for my peasants to creep up behind them and win
5. there is also what seems to be a bug where calvary just do not want to move frequently in an attack and if the enemy is running away frequently have to be constantly nudged along to attack the survivors
AgentBif
10-12-2002, 01:14
Quote Originally posted by Spino:
When and how did the term wargame become such a dirty word?
[/QUOTE]
CA would like to avoid the term "wargame" because it would obligate them to be historically and physically rigorous in their modelling. That's expensive work and takes people who have spent years of their lives studying the full body of historical work and documents exploring the field in question.
As far as wargame being a "dirty" word, I am not aware of anyone using that term with disdain.
bif
Quote Originally posted by murk:
5. there is also what seems to be a bug where calvary just do not want to move frequently in an attack and if the enemy is running away frequently have to be constantly nudged along to attack the survivors[/QUOTE]
I've noticed that but I thought it was a rather clever feature as it only seemed to happen when my cavalry were totally knackered. I thought the game had a feature that monitored the fatigue of the horses and prevented them charging when they goot too tired.
I've also noticed that my Steppe Cavalry are very reluctant to close with Spanish Chiv Knights which I assumed was a perfectly sensible response built into the game mechanic's.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Soapyfrog
10-12-2002, 01:34
Exhausted cavalry will not in fact charge... the little routing men can outrun exhausted cavalry without to much trouble, which makes sense.
There are fear factors built into the game for many units, so that might explain other instances of hesitent units.
Also, Elite cavalry tends to ignore non-elite routers... this means you have to manually encourage them to chase after peasants and militia etc.
Quote CA would like to avoid the term "wargame" because it would obligate them to be historically and physically rigorous in their modelling. That's expensive work and takes people who have spent years of their lives studying the full body of historical work and documents exploring the field in question.[/QUOTE]
How so? The term 'wargame' only obligates CA to create a game that features a reasonably accurate depiction of warfare! Most, if not all war and strategy games are abstractions of real life (or fantasy) and not surprisingly most wargames are incredibly simplified abstractions which completely circumvent the modeling of minutae in favor of easily understood values. It doesn't take thousands of hours of research or a PhD in history to know that Napoleon's Command rating would rate a '10 out of 10' or that German panzer divisions were better than their Russian counterparts or even that a unit being attacked from the side or rear should suffer huge losses in men and morale! Hell, just from watching the typical Hollyweird epic you could figure out that cavalry charges were rather effective and dangerous to those on the receiving end.
Quote As far as wargame being a "dirty" word, I am not aware of anyone using that term with disdain.[/QUOTE]
This is more of a state of mind than an actual, open hostility towards the genre. In these politically correct times I have actually experienced criticism from people who thought my passion in wargames and military history implied I was some war mongering closet fascist and yet those same people play games like Diablo, Starcraft or Civilization III! Based on the current trend of political correctness and the unfortunately negative image that wargaming's cumbersome and complicated past can conjure up it's likely that CA (or more accurately Activision, their publisher) has deliberately avoided the term 'wargame' because of the potentially negative impact that single word can have on sales. Change the description from 'operational/tactical level wargame' to 'historically based realtime strategy game' and the average idiot will fail to realize he's been duped into buying one of those complicated, evil, fascist oriented wargames.
[This message has been edited by Spino (edited 10-11-2002).]
Soapyfrog
10-12-2002, 02:19
Again with the Hollywood! Spino! Hollywood wouldn't know a cavalry charge from a herd of grazing cattle.
The rest of your post is good though http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
Hmm I guess I was misled by the title then. I would never have bought it if was named Medieval: Total Strategy http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
CBR[/QUOTE]
Did you think "Warcraft" by Blizzard was a wargame - it has "war" in the title? If you are a serious wargamer you know the tight strict definition of the genre. If you don't, most wargames are of an historical nature, very much based upon stats of the units, with very little or no "empire building". They will sacrifice gameplay at times for historicity as wargamers usually want to replay historical battles and are willing to sacrifice alot to get them.
For example, Civ has battles in it, but by no generally accepted definition of the word is Civ a wargame. Starcraft has battles but it's not a wargame. Civ has empire building, and it's combat model is simplistic. Starcraft is sci-fi, so it's king of hard to know how accurate its weapon models are http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif These are all considered strategy games. MTW is a strategy game set in the Middle Ages, featuring empire building and tactical combat. But its combat model is not rigoursly historical as the programmers have said. It is medieval themed combat, but they have made some sacrifices for gameplay and to appeal to a mass market - something most wargames do not do - most of them are not mass market games but more aimed at their narrowly defined target markets.
If you want a wargame, I suggest you do a little more research about you are buying next time - then you won't be so disappointed.
Grifman
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
Neither would I. The battle engine is what got me interested in STW and MTW.
Antonio
[/QUOTE]
See my above post on wargames and next time you will be able to make a more informed purchase decision.
Grifman
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
[B] Yes! This statement is a major blow to the credability of TW who I assumed designing their games of serious historical research.
Uh, why is it a blow to their credibility when the problem is that YOU assumed something that wasn't true? Seems like the error is yours, not the developers?
[quote]Now it appears that what we are playing is nothing more the Medieval Red Alert. Don't get me wrong I like Red Alert I just thought that TW were going for something a bit more mature.
I think that is carrying it a bit too far. The game is historically themed, and has an historical base, but just like some movies are "fact based" but not "exactly true" the same could be said of MTW.
Grifman
Quote Originally posted by Grifman:
Did you think "Warcraft" by Blizzard was a wargame - it has "war" in the title? If you are a serious wargamer you know the tight strict definition of the genre. If you don't, most wargames are of an historical nature, very much based upon stats of the units, with very little or no "empire building". They will sacrifice gameplay at times for historicity as wargamers usually want to replay historical battles and are willing to sacrifice alot to get them.
For example, Civ has battles in it, but by no generally accepted definition of the word is Civ a wargame. Starcraft has battles but it's not a wargame. Civ has empire building, and it's combat model is simplistic. Starcraft is sci-fi, so it's king of hard to know how accurate its weapon models are http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif These are all considered strategy games. MTW is a strategy game set in the Middle Ages, featuring empire building and tactical combat. But its combat model is not rigoursly historical as the programmers have said. It is medieval themed combat, but they have made some sacrifices for gameplay and to appeal to a mass market - something most wargames do not do - most of them are not mass market games but more aimed at their narrowly defined target markets.
If you want a wargame, I suggest you do a little more research about you are buying next time - then you won't be so disappointed.
Grifman
[/QUOTE]
Well in the games you mention none of them have a distinct combat engine as MTW has.
All the changes I want to the current system and as several others want too is both to make the game more historical correct and even make the game more fun as there are several units that are not worth to buy (Talking MP) Its not really about adding loads of things to make the game only playable by people with phd's or something.
I fully accept the considerations about gameplay as a game has to be fun and if you want to hit a mass market you cant get all details.
-"It is a historically themed strategy game aimed at that the mass market"- thats no excuse to keep errors in game play and I dont think it was meant like that. The suggested changes seen in this thread and others will not suddenly ruin it for the mass market.
Now look at MTW battles. You pretty much have all the weapon/troop types that did excist back then. All these types were there for a reason..some disappeared again as new weapons/tactics were developed ofc and some of them were used in bigger numbers than others etc.
We see that in the game as you can pick 3 different eras to fight in (MP again)
Now if you dont get it right (and thats not easy ofc) and make some units a lot better or worse compared to history then the balance will be upset.
This is not red alert or starcraft or whatever. In games like that you can easily invent/change unit types just for the sake of game balance and no one would complain about that.
But in MTW you cant invent new (fantasy) units/weapons as its afterall a historically themed game right? (maybe the naptha throwers are a bit fantasy but its afterall only one unit and not a very good unit, havent played much with really)
As it is right now missile units and cavalry are way too expensive compared to their worth both from a historically point of view and for gameplay/balance. And cavalry could be better in flank/rear attacks.
Have I been disappointed...well having played STW I knew what to expect but I have been disappointed with some of the MP aspects and thats mostly userinterface but thats another story...
But I will certainly become disappointed if CA just says that the game is fine (using the quote above as argument) and wont make some of these (IMO) important changes that will increase the fun in the game as I really feel we have a strong case and lots of good arguments.
But the noise level on this forum is very high and some people dont always use a very friendly tone and there are a lots of suggestions in threads out there (some better that others) and all these combined might make the developers quit reading/thinking about doing changes as all they get is complaining anyway.
CBR
Hakonarson
10-12-2002, 06:07
I like hte description someone gave comparing MTW to Panzer General - fun, vaguel historical (certainly in its setting!) but let's not confuse it with reality!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
There IS a lot of accurate history in MTW - there's also a llot of codswallop!!
Feudal Seargents? Chivalric knights? there were never any such things. There were knights who owed their knight service to higher lords, some who owed it to city states, some who were members of military orders and some who weren't but served with the military orders anyway.
Only the military orders would have had different titles at the time - any titles we give to them now are anachronistic.
Sure some had differnet characteristics to others - but most of the differences in MTW are highly artificial to give "colour" to the game IMO.
Has anyone compared Feudal and Chivalric seargents on TotalAssembly?? I'd love to know what the idea was behind the differences in morale and valour - the Feudal ones are higher in both, but have less armour to make up for it.
I too bought this hoping for a detailed battle editor and have been disappointed by its lack.
But that doesn't stop me playing it until 2am!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Cousin Zoidfarb
10-12-2002, 06:21
Hakonarsen, I went back to my Osprey books and in fact they mention Cuirassiers ( if cavalry in heavy 3/4 armour is your definition)in the ``foreign autorament`` of the PL Commonwealth. They were called ``Koracyr``. Husaria came accross Western armies in the Danzig rebellion ( I read they routed pikemen!, yea I know you don`t believe it), in the early 1600`s against Sweden and in the Deluge of the mid 1600`s. No specific mention against cuirrasiers who fell out of favour as cavalry by the 1650`s.
Anyway, the Husaria had a great reputation just as the Welsh longbowmen had or the mongol horsearchers or a Mercedes-Benz, so they had to be pretty good, so the lance can`t all be that bad.
I just modded my files to make heavy cavalry, and horsearchers more effective and weakened spearmen and the game is a lot more fun.
Boleslaw Wrymouth
10-12-2002, 09:46
Quote A cavalry charge is terrifying. A modern example was shown during the filming of 'The Battle of Waterloo'. When the 'cavalry' charged the actors (actually Russian soldiers) in their squares - they broke three times before the sequence could be finished. Simply due to the noise and appearance of the charge.[/B][/QUOTE]
Wow...I didn't know that. Hardened Red Army veterans fleeing.
The cavalry charges on the eastern front have always fascinated me. I'm sure you know this but they were so successfull that I can't think of a failure. I can't think of an UNSUCCESSFUL charge.
From the U.S. Marine cavalry charge(26th. Cavalry Scouts) to the Italian charge with sabres drawn, it still works.
[This message has been edited by Boleslaw Wrymouth (edited 10-12-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Boleslaw Wrymouth:
Wow...I didn't know that. Hardened Red Army veterans fleeing.
The cavalry charges on the eastern front have always fascinated me. I'm sure you know this but they were so successfull that I can't think of a failure. I can't think of an UNSUCCESSFUL charge.
From the U.S. Marine cavalry charge(26th. Cavalry Scouts) to the Italian charge with sabres drawn, it still works.
[This message has been edited by Boleslaw Wrymouth (edited 10-12-2002).][/QUOTE]
It still works!? Oh, yeah, that's why we saw all those cavalry charges in Desert Storm http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Grifman
Quote Originally posted by Boleslaw Wrymouth:
Wow...I didn't know that. Hardened Red Army veterans fleeing.[/QUOTE]
Impressed by unarmed men fleeing a pseudo charge? Give them rifles and machine guns and there won't be any surprises http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Grifman
AgentBif
10-12-2002, 11:19
Quote Originally posted by Grifman:
It still works!? Oh, yeah, that's why we saw all those cavalry charges in Desert Storm http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
[/QUOTE]
There were likely several US cavalry units deployed in the Gulf War... Air Cav, Armored Cav, etc http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
bif
Hakonarson
10-12-2002, 12:15
Quote Originally posted by Tachikaze:
I2) I've often considered carefully the physics of a cavalry charge. I can't reconcile the popular image of the headlong crash into a group of tightly-packed infantry with the physical reality.
Once a group of horses hits a standing, tight pack of soldiers, where do they go? The soldiers don't melt away. A pack of human bodies would stop a horse quite quickly, whether they were dead or alive. My point is: without the possibility of a unit breaking and running, a group of cavalry cannot charge through a densely-packed unit of foot soldiers.
If the infantry unit were loose enough, I can see a charge working. The horses could pass through the gaps between the men.
[/QUOTE]
You're quite right - they don't pass through the infantry - they crash into them and there is absolute carnage!!
If the infantry is not in close order then they get knocked over by the cavalry and literally trampled!
Either way it's not a good look!!
Mori Gabriel Syme
10-15-2002, 01:17
Also consider the Battle of Courtrai. One need little more proof that a horse can be made to charge a line of infantry with spears.
The Flemish did three very intelligent things. First, after both sides had exhausted their bolts to little effect, the crossbowmen cut their strings & dropped their bows on the ground to disorder the cavalry charge that they knew was next.
Second, the infantry lined up eight rows deep in a line not far from the river, meaning the French knights, sergeants, & squires would not have enough room to gain top charging speed. The French had to cross the river & line up again.
Third, the infantry worked in three-man teams. One man held a spear grounded. His servant held a pavise. With them, a man with a goedendag, a heavy wooden shaft topped by an iron cap with spike; the weapon could be used for thrusting or crushing. These men swung at either the horses' heads or the riders, whichever they could hit.
The charge was ineffective on the right & left sides, penetrating only a couple of rows. In the center, however, despite all the preparations of the Flemish, the charge nearly broke completely through the line; a reserve unit under command of John of Renesse rushed in to support the line & pushed the French back.
Such was the power of even a poor charge.
------------------
Others enslave by victory,
Their subjects, as their foes, oppress;
Anna conquers but to free,
And governs but to bless. -- Edmund Smith (Anna stands for England)
[This message has been edited by Mori Gabriel Syme (edited 10-14-2002).]
My (SP based) take on Cavalry charges and general Cav use :
My armies NEVER go anywhere without Cavalry support, be it Polish Retainers or more recently the Byzantine Kataphrakts and Allagion Cavalry. They certainly are very very effective when you think about what to do with them.
I see many people saying that the Cav charge in the flank or rear of an enemy infantry unit doesn't break it. Well, in MP I assume many players are beefing their inf units up with valour (and therefore morale) bonuses making them harder to rout so that's perhaps a reason why. Personally, again from an SP standpoint I have broken many an enemy infantry unit with a well timed cav charge into the flank or rear.
Engage the enemy infantry with your own equivalents and maneuver your cav into a flanking position. CHARGE ! Smile as you see the side of the enemy buckle and melt under the weight of those armoured warhorses ! So what if the enemy unit tries to form up a defense against the flank charge ? Your infantry unit that was fighting them in the first place gets an easier ride, and the end result is a better casualty ratio for you and a bigger chance that the enemy will break.
Note that the wise Cavalry general will know the weaknessnes and strengths of his units. Throwing Kataphrakts into a mass of axe-wielding (and armour piercing) Militia Sergeants for example is NOT to be advised.
I like to deploy Cavalry with a view to getting into the missile troops sitting in the rear of a developing battle. If the enemy counters by moving some infantry to try and head me off he leaves a gap my own footmen can exploit, and the Cav's better mobility will eventually gain the advantage of position and strike into the soft targets. Once panic ensues and the enemy archers are fleeing you have started denting the morale of those hard to shift spear and foot units bogging down your infantry in the centre of the battle.
Now you have Impetous Cavalry behind enemy foot units that are already engaged. You can guess the result I'm sure. Infantry WILL break when smacked in the rear by a Cavalry charge - the whole point about a shock attack is that it's primary use is to rout wavering units. There's no way of knowing the enemy's morale so just use your own experience of how your armies react to gauge when to make your move.
Maybe some people expect to win battles without losing a few expensive soldiers ? I find well used Cavalry as devastating as they should be but, correctly, they are vunerable when bogged down and flanked themselves.
Perhaps the MP patch will address the fatigue issues the Cav have which will improve their utility in MP gaming.
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
Keegan notes this in the article on Agincourt in "The face of Battle".
Also another point about Agincourt - the bit about the French being driven together and not being able to amintain a reserve applies to knights ON FOOT!! Tehre weer 2 mounted bodies of about 500 each that attacked on the wings early on in teh battle and were defeated by archery and stakes (and some horses DID charge onto thestakes with fatal results!!), but teh main attacks weer on foot, so aren't really relevant to a discussion of charges on horseback!![/QUOTE]
My recollection was that he was talking about the two mounted wings also but I may be wrong as I don't have this book with me and I'm quoting from memory which is never a good idea.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by Tachikaze:
I tend to agree with Didz on this, especially the importance of psychology and morale and the lesser importance of weapon technology.
[/QUOTE]
Picking up again on this theme. Its not just the horse that is going through a psychology test just before the point of impact. There are at least three brains working overtime at this point.
The horse who may of may not have been persuaded that walking into solid objects with pointy ends won't hurt.
The rider who may or may not be as convinced as the horse or may not be sure that the horse is convinced.
And the footsoldier who may or may not have been convinced by whatever training he had that standing in front of charging horse with a spear is going to work.
The bottom line is that a least one of these individuals has been sold a lemon but what really matters is whether they all beleive what they have been told.
We have all seen how jumping horses suddenly lose faith in their training and refuse to jump a fence and so we know that horses sometimes do have a crisis of commitment at a vital moment despite their training. We have also heard that the Red Army lads filming Waterloo suffered a crisis of faith in the directors assurances that the cavalry really were going to stop before they hit them.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
[This message has been edited by Didz (edited 10-18-2002).]
carpaithian
10-18-2002, 17:32
Man what a massive debate..hehe
got a couple of points...somebody named michael(obviously a swede..hehe) made a very intressting observation wich is 100procent correct.. there are many proven battles during the later part of the 30 year war and even as far as to the wars by Karl X Gustavus...(Intresting point here...this was the last time in history that we saw a charge by medieval style knights (hussars), who where completely anihilated, with the remainder fleeing into the history books by swedish grapeshot fire from artillery cannons) where cavalry performed the so often mentioned "non-existing" all out charge by shoting when close and then all out stampeed)(which is also a reason why you could get a horse to attack a line of soldiers standing fast) with rapiers (specially made for the emplied purpose)..
think there are some other points that need be discussed too (if somebody hasnt already brought them up)
1.most of you seem to be discussing this in an aspect of professional armies, which a medieval army could in no way be compared to as the concept of standing well trained pikemen and so on was a later invented concept (hence the effectivness of a charge)..
2.in almost all the cases, when more than 10 people started running away in the first line, the whole army would run in a sort of domino effect unless the first line is halted.
3.giving commands on the battlefield (applies even during the late 1600h)was something that was in most cases directed by the leader of the specific unit (if at all)during the actuall engagement because of the lack of cellphones... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif.... 3b. ever tried to give orders during a full scale battle with screaming and ¤"&# going on all around you?? or perhaps when gunpowder weapons are applied in a thick fog where theres a 50/50 chance you actually just slashed the enemy and not your friend (seing as the film hollypropaganda idea of same colored uniforms bla bla was generally only applied by the nobility, dirt mud smoke and fog.. (again not until karl X´s time)
3. so they all left their artillery at home?? if you study history you will find that (applies mostly to late period i think,, not sure when exactly first used) their is one evil invention called grapeshot i believe in english, that devastated ANYONE attacking you army.. trained or not...
well probably forgot half the things i wanted to say...so critizise away and ill probably find them somewhere in my brain again... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
sorry if somebody already wrote all this... so many threads in my mind att the moment..hehe
carpaithian
10-18-2002, 17:49
two more things... harkason or what his name is (sorry if its wrong)... swedish infantry being of poor quality is completely incorrect.. they consisted of mostly experienced mercenaries (i said almost..hehe)..
i have to agree to what was said earlier..there is no historical evidence whatsoever that hussars broke a swedish pike formation with a headon attack... there is however lots of evidence to show that both swedes an poles and so on where very addept att writing very very very propagandistical versions of battles... (ex. a general of karl x, charges a small unit of russian soldiers who are outnumbered somthing like 20/1 and afterwards writes to the king proclaming his victory over the russian army of atleast 3000 men...hehe... scratch a couple of zeros there...)
Hakonarson
10-18-2002, 18:09
Quote Originally posted by carpaithian:
two more things... harkason or what his name is (sorry if its wrong)... swedish infantry being of poor quality is completely incorrect.. they consisted of mostly experienced mercenaries (i said almost..hehe)..[/QUOTE]
Not in 1605 at Kircholm it didn't!!
In 1605 the Swedish infantry was completely native, conscript, poorly trained and ill equipped!
It was 15-20 years afterwards that the Swedish army was made up of about 50/50 mercenaries and natives - the reason for the mercenaries being that the Swedish population was relatively limited.
And even then not all mercenaries were experienced - there are comments about Scots coming into service bare legged and uequipped except for their "native bows" - ie longbows, which had to be replaced with pike or musket.
And up it came again...
Back to the point I guess.
Since I'm not too familiar with the subject I can't say this is true, but why would the big destrier horses, those used by the knights also be called Chargers???
To me that sounds like they did indeed charge hard and fast, unless that name has come of later ages.
About jousting, I'm pretty sure they used blunted lances. It would be both dangerous to the target as well as the lancer if it penetrated the target. The movie Ivanhoe depicts this very well I think, though I doubt there was the choice of going pointed lance.
Also, I'm pretty sure that lances in battle were pointed, but with a weakness somewhere near the middle.
Firstly, that would save the knight from the injuries of a hard impact as well as it would make sure he would drop it after impact. If it was whole the enemy could use it against him if he dropped it, so he would not do that, but then he would be very vulnerable to close combat.
Lastly, why would the knights have that many lances with them in battle, carried by their squires in the back?
That indicated th knights chaging in with their lances, the enemy recieves the charge and don't break, so the knights break off and return to restock their lances for another charge.
That would be a very horrible position for the enemy infantry. Even if they held up first time, second time or even third time the knights would return with a new charge killing and maiming the first lines.
So even if the infantry was stoic it would face impossible odds should the knights be able to disengage.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
carpaithian
10-18-2002, 18:24
thats not correct ...
BEFORE 1605 your statement would be correct... but (as historical archives will confirm) karl 9th went home to sweden before 1605 to crush a upprising at home and att the same time talked the council into giving him money for raising an army mainly consisting of germans,english, french and scots.. you have a point though that not all the mercenaries were experienced (had a later period in mind when writing this..hehe... missed your 1605 connection)
intresting point however is that the polish hussars did succeed in several head on charges against normal infantry...what a suprise...hehe
!correctional note! in a previous thread where i mentioned the last polish cavalry charge, i ofcourse did not mean polish hussars as we know them, but armored polish royal knights!!!
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
I can't say this is true, but why would the big destrier horses, those used by the knights also be called Chargers???
To me that sounds like they did indeed charge hard and fast, unless that name has come of later ages.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure where the term 'charger' came from. Probably US Cavalry films. I beleive the Medieval term for a horse was a 'Hob' hence Hobladiers.
I also recall reading or hearing somewhere that the latest scientific evidence shows that the horse ridden by most knightly orders were much closer to our current hunters in build and not cart-horses afterall. I think they did DNA analysis or something on the bones.
Quote
Also, I'm pretty sure that lances in battle were pointed, but with a weakness somewhere near the middle.
[/QUOTE]
The problem with this theory is that if linked to the concept of the all out charge it still doesn't work. A horse closing on an enemy at say 20mph would cover about 10 yards a second or about 3 lance lengths.
Therefore, the theory that a lance could break on impact and thus save the rider from injury or that the lance could push down a spearman and thus avoid the spear imbedding itself in the horse doesn't make sense. A third of a second just isn't long enough to allow for weapons to break or drop. Indeed one possible result would be that the broken end of the lance would merely be thrust backward into the rider.
I'd be interested in hearing from any re-enactors who have been involved in a joust to find out how this works as a similar problem ought to occur.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
AgentBif
10-18-2002, 21:12
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Therefore, the theory that a lance could break on impact and thus save the rider from injury or that the lance could push down a spearman and thus avoid the spear imbedding itself in the horse doesn't make sense. A third of a second just isn't long enough to allow for weapons to break or drop. Indeed one possible result would be that the broken end of the lance would merely be thrust backward into the rider.
[/QUOTE]
Since tourney lances were designed to break safely under full charge, it seems entirely plausible that battle lances could be designed to do so. The wooden backside is not likely to penetrate plate http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif And to guarantee drop on a solid hit, it seems to me the rider merely needs to hold it with some balance between a firm and loose grip... With the fingers giving way on impalement.
bif
Papewaio
10-18-2002, 21:55
The evolution of warfare and the states that survive are the ones with the most successful weapon system. Given the shear amount of fighting in Europe and the steady progression of weapons, armour and castles as well as tactics, It would tend to point to the conclusion that there was some point into having well armoured horsemen rather then just ranks and ranks of spearmen.
You would not make massive investments of time and money in training and feeding animals ten times the size of men. Just to figure out that yet again this year they are not an effective weapon just like the last couple of centuries.
Not likely. If a country could have expanded without the use of calvary. It would have. As a cost effective weapon system both in manpower, food and fiscal demands the knights must have held more then just prestige to have gained such a universal foothold in every military army throughout Europe.
Of course one has to add in the might of manuever. But why the hell would one use lances if it was just a matter of swift movement and outflanking your enemy to gain the best piece of ground on the potential battlefields?
Why would you persist in potentially deadly tourneys with lances? Why would you send your young sons off in droves if it was so much more deadly to be a knight in a charge then a spearman defending such?
If that was true, then it would have been a rapid change of nobility from mounted knights to a few radicals on the ground in phalanx like spear formations. These radical nobles who surived longer by being spearmen would in turn have moved up the ranks as the dukes and heirs died in droves, and also in turn the heirs of the spearmen nobles would have flourished to take up the majority of the nobility.
Evolution works on the battlefield. There are reasons knights and lances were used. They were not there purely for show. The same applies to knights using swords and any other weapon.
When knights dismounted for battles a big deal was made of it. It was not common for them to do such, and the tactical advantage gained from such had to be enough to do so. Mounted you have height, speed, and something carrying most of your armoured weight (a horse being ten times as large effectively feels your armoured weight as a tenth of which you would). You also have presence. For crowd control mounted police are factored in as equivalent to ten or twenty riot police... and these guys are using batons 2 feet long not lances twelve foot long.
Weapon systems are developed, experimented and rejected if they fail. With the knights being present in so much of Europe for such a length of time it does tend to point to them being a successful weapon system. That knights charging infantry was such a deadly thing must have held true for quite a time.
It stands to reason that charging knights would be so deadly. A lance is just a spear. The momentum generated from a mounted spear would be the same as the same as generated by 10 or more charging spearmen. So effectively to deliver the same amount of impact as knights charging you would need to charge with a ten deep group of spearmen. [Energy = 0.5*mass*velocity^2] This is based on the idea that a horse weighs ten times that of a man and is going at the same velocity... however the energy impact is even more when you factor in the increased speed of a horse.
The sheer smashing impact of a horse (dead or alive) and momentum from a charge would cause extreme carnage. Add to it that a horses shoes are the size of ones head and would be landing on ones thighs and lower torso and then trampled on you. The damage would be considerable.
Another way to think of it is if you had to stand still while being tackled by all the forwards of an opposing rugby team by yourself (similar weights of 800 to 900 odd kilos), how well would you come off of it? Would you be able to stop them? Or if you where standing still how many of your mates would it take to stop them?
Let me say it this way Pap... WOW!
You said everything I wanted to say, but I could never have put it together in one post. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
Evolution has always worked, the weak will die out in time... And so they do.
One aspect one has to consider, is if the lance was indeed intended to be used as a charging weapon (which I believe) then it would without a doubt be a killing weapon, unless the infantry outreaches it (even then it is not sure).
So here I stand, facing a fast moving wall of giant beasts with long lances pointing at me, well knowing that those laces, should they hit me, will kill me.
Would I stand around if I was only armed with a small spear and a big wooden shield and having a few weks of training? I doubt it.
Even if I stayed put and my buddies around me did the same, and by some luck I survived the charge, I would not be worth much as all my friends around me would be killed or badly injured due to horses, lances or swords (when the knight has discarded the remnants of the lance). I would be to a great extent alone. Yes I could go and engage the nearest knight, but I would show my back to any other knight behind or to the side of that knight, to me that sounds like a deathwish.
Now it is never going happen thzat knights or other heavy cav is going to beat spears head on.
Though I find it very tempting to think of knights chrashing into spears and winning. If the chargebonus was not taken out of the cav against spears head on (I don't hope there is any trouble for charging the rear), we would see knights beating spears, but with great losses. And since spears are rather cheap and numerous it would not be costeffective to do so. The knights would have lost more value than the spears, which is most accurate I think.
Even taking the anticharge out would not be much for the higher spears because of their great defensive value against cav, but lowlife spears, which we all hate beating the crap out of expensive knights would get trampled because of their low defense. A fitting solution, a solution that will never happen.
You can say I have a hard time believing that as long as the Spearman just ducks his head down under the shield he will be perfectly safe from the knights charge. Man, I would want such a shield. Can you imagine having such a shield if you get hit by a car? The car would just bounce off the shield... NICE!!! Yup, such a shield would be a lifesaver.
------------------
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 10-18-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Papewaio:
The evolution of warfare and the states that survive are the ones with the most successful weapon system. Given the shear amount of fighting in Europe and the steady progression of weapons, armour and castles as well as tactics, It would tend to point to the conclusion that there was some point into having well armoured horsemen rather then just ranks and ranks of spearmen.
You would not make massive investments of time and money in training and feeding animals ten times the size of men. Just to figure out that yet again this year they are not an effective weapon just like the last couple of centuries.
Not likely. If a country could have expanded without the use of calvary. It would have. As a cost effective weapon system both in manpower, food and fiscal demands the knights must have held more then just prestige to have gained such a universal foothold in every military army throughout Europe.
[/QUOTE]
No doubt. Armoured horsemen were effective. The question is: how?
Quote Originally posted by Papewaio:
Of course one has to add in the might of manuever. But why the hell would one use lances if it was just a matter of swift movement and outflanking your enemy to gain the best piece of ground on the potential battlefields?
[/QUOTE]
It was not only a question of outmaneuvering, of course. Armoured horsemen were used to charge the enemy in their front. But were they successful alone? If armoured horsemen were enough, why would bowmen, crossbowmen, spearmen and other auxiliaries be hired/recruited? The fact is that a frontal charge by armoured horsemen in the beginning of the battle was almost always doomed to defeat unless the enemy was heavily outnumbered or badly armed. A competent commander would not charge the knights on enemy formed spearmen before the latter were harassed by missile units. Spearmen must form a static mass in order to have a chance against armoured horsemen. But to remain static means to be frustratingly more vulnerable to missiles. Besides the morale effect, missiles open gaps in the formation, which can only be blocked at the expense of depth.
It was after this harassment that armoured horsemen would take their chance in a frontal charge against spearmen.
Sometimes both armies had spearmen. Bouvines is a good example. In this battle the spearmen in the centre were sent against each other, with horsemen remaining behind as a reserve. Once the French spearmen broke, the French horsemen behind charged the victorious (yet broke) German spearmen, proceeding with the charge until reaching the German horsemen positioned behind the German spearmen.
So, the armoured horsemen were effective. But they had to be released in the proper moment in order to be so. They seldom risked charging an unscathed spearmen formation. The latter had firstly to be harassed or broken so that the horsemen charge would have the greatest effect.
Quote
It stands to reason that charging knights would be so deadly. A lance is just a spear. The momentum generated from a mounted spear would be the same as the same as generated by 10 or more charging spearmen. So effectively to deliver the same amount of impact as knights charging you would need to charge with a ten deep group of spearmen. [Energy = 0.5*mass*velocity^2] This is based on the idea that a horse weighs ten times that of a man and is going at the same velocity... however the energy impact is even more when you factor in the increased speed of a horse.
The sheer smashing impact of a horse (dead or alive) and momentum from a charge would cause extreme carnage. Add to it that a horses shoes are the size of ones head and would be landing on ones thighs and lower torso and then trampled on you. The damage would be considerable.
Another way to think of it is if you had to stand still while being tackled by all the forwards of an opposing rugby team by yourself (similar weights of 800 to 900 odd kilos), how well would you come off of it? Would you be able to stop them? Or if you where standing still how many of your mates would it take to stop them?
[/QUOTE]
I don't think that this kind of reasoning is valid. A battle is not only equations. But just imagine what the effect would be of 3 or 4 spear points being directly ahead of a charging horse. Imagine that the infantry stood, either for being disciplined or becoming static with terror. The horse would be impaled. After that, the horses behind it would trample it and maybe fall, and rank after rank the charge would become into a static confusion with scared horses clashing against the butt of the horses in front and knights being unhorsed and falling. After that, momentum was over and the surviving rear ranks of spearmen would advance to kill the - now stopped and disarrayed - horsemen.
Would infantry stand to the charge as I have described? I don't know. The horsemen did not know either. So most likely they would not risk unless auxiliary troops had wrecked the enemy cohesion and morale to some extent. But the horsemen sometimes risked... And at Courtrai they risked too much and lost because the Flemish spearmen would in fact stand and receive the charge until momentum had vanished and velocity = 0, making Energy=0 too.
Cheers,
Antonio
And you know, this is modelled in the game. If a spear unit is shakey, a frontal charge by cavalry will rout them. You have to develop a good feel for when it will work. It's not a disaster if it doesn't work either because you can pull the cav back, although, you will take some losses disengaging.
[This message has been edited by Puzz3D (edited 10-19-2002).]
Papewaio
10-19-2002, 06:27
Amcrg-sama,
I agree with you. We have to look at the complete weapons system and why they were deployed. I was not proposing that the battles purely had knights. We have to look why armies invested so much into the combinations that the fielded and why they were successful at the time. Nearly everytime it comes down to how well trained the troops where and then how much of a stuff up the general makes (or just another aspect of training). In the history that we hear about we tend to forget how much training and discipline the Janisarie, Longbow, Knight and Swiss Pike had. In the end of the day I think it comes down to basic weapon handling, unit tactics, combined arms coordination, and strategic factors. Overall the better trained and disciplined army wins.
Even in Agincourt the knights were not stupid enough to go first. The merc crossbowmen where the first wave and got massacred by both the English Archers and then the over eager French Knights. Some of the mistakes in the battle can lead us to see how knights were supposed to be used:
Failed to use proper softening up of infantry position with missile fire before assaulting.
Assaulted in a channeled avenue rather then flanking and being able to choose gaps that were supposed to be created by above.
Charging along a muddy field.
Attacking a fortified position of stakes and anti-knight equiped infantry.
I think the biggest problem was that the French was channeled. This lead to reducing the front of the English and concentrating the fire of the longbows forward. If flanking had been possible the density of the longbow fire would have been reduced by maybe a factor of 3 or more. Also the Knights would have been able to clash with more forces and flanking. I don't think the English would have had enough infantry to cover all fronts in that case.
I think the game will be at its best when we get a feel for the times it was set in. When we field similar weapon systems and combined arms for similar reasons to the people of that time. Maybe we will field masses of peasants and spears to stock our armies on the borders to lessen potential land grabs while concentrating on trade and strategically building up better units. Maybe in mulitplayer we will see combined arms ruling the field in historically accurate combinations AND in ones that would never have been dreamed up by a commander because of social conditioning.
Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
And to guarantee drop on a solid hit, it seems to me the rider merely needs to hold it with some balance between a firm and loose grip... With the fingers giving way on impalement.
[/QUOTE]
I think I'm right in saying that the concept of dropping a lance is a none starter. My understanding was that the couched lance was actually attached in some way to the riders equipment in order to avoid it being knocked out of the riders hand.
Certainly, the Napoleonic lance was bound to the riders wrist with a wrist strap for precisely that reason.
It is also worth noting that the big difference between a joust and battle is that in a joust the opponents are forced to maintain their distance and pass by each other. Thus the breaking of a lance would throw the broken shaft away from the rider. In battle the rider would by necessity need to concentrated on the targets directly ahead especailly when dealing with infantry and so the impact would thrust the lance backward into his arm and shoulder.
Again I think we need a re-enactor to explain the mechanic's of this process.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
An excerpt from "The Renaissance At War" :
The man-at-arms' prime weapon remained the heavy lance. Much like the longbow, this was a mechanically simple weapon that was none the less very difficult to master. It took talent and years of training to develop the strength and balance to sit a charging horse while hodling a lance firm and steady. The ideal aiming point was the head or neck of the mounted opponent. Jousts remained a popular event, a chance for well-born warriors to display their hard won skill. At a 1559 tourney held to celebrate peace between France and Spain, King Henry II of France was tragically killed by a spectacularly well aimed lance that splintered against his visor, sending a shard of wood through the vision-slit to pierce his eye and brain. This blow was delivered in a tournament, but equal skill was possible on the battlefield. At Fornovo in 1495, according to a Venetian observer who was also a curious medical doctor, many of the dead men-at-arms were mortally wounded by a precise lance blow to the neck. Such brutal precision, delivered by one man moving at speed against another, required practice from boyhood. The lance had its limitations. It was a one-time weapon. Unless the wielder completely missed his target, or his weapon glanced aside, a lance shattered on impact- a testament to the force involved. The Florentine painter Paolo Uccello littered the foreground of his paintings of the battle of San Romano with the discarded stumps and pieces of broken lances. In the moments after a charge, in the clutch of melee combat, the man-at-arms relied on his sword. Armour-cracking maces and war hammers were also popular."
Sorry for the long winded post but I thought it gave some interesting insights into lances. It also brings up the point that men-at-arms regarded other men-at-arms as their main battlefield foe. Sort of like how when the tank developed, its main mission became to destory other tanks.
AgentBif
10-20-2002, 02:04
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
I think I'm right in saying that the concept of dropping a lance is a none starter.
[/QUOTE]
I don't know, it seems very dangerous to me to strap something to your body so that it can't easily be removed. Of course, if that was very common, they would have to rely on the weapon breaking properly... Unhorsing, and dislocated or broken arms being the price otherwise.
But what would one do once he scored a hit? How do you draw another weapon once you are enmeshed in the enemy formation?
It doesn't seem so obvious to me that lances would be lashed down all the time.
And as far as direction of attack, I would think the knight would lance the target just to his right and rely on his horse or his lefthand buddy to take out the one just in front of him. This enables the broken haft to deflect to the side.
bif
Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
It doesn't seem so obvious to me that lances would be lashed down all the time.
[/QUOTE]
I must admit I feel the same and was sceptical about the whole idea of Napoleonic Lancers lashing their lances to their wrists.
However, there is no doubt that the official drill manuals required that the wrist strap be used and even specifies the method of binding it.
Whether, in reality the soldiers stuck to the book when in the field is another question entirely and difficult to confirm. Perhaps the lashings were only applied on parade. Personally, if I were a lancer I would want to be able to drop my lance and draw a pistol or sword pretty quick if I found myself crowded in too close to use it.
It depends on whether one believes that history should be based solely on evidence from written sources or take into account assumptions about natural human behaviour.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
I must admit I feel the same and was sceptical about the whole idea of Napoleonic Lancers lashing their lances to their wrists.
[/QUOTE]
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.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Yes I would have to say that the Napoleonic lance and the Medieval lance were two completely different weapons, in form and function.
Hakonarson
10-20-2002, 06:05
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
So here I stand, facing a fast moving wall of giant beasts with long lances pointing at me, well knowing that those laces, should they hit me, will kill me.
Would I stand around if I was only armed with a small spear and a big wooden shield and having a few weks of training? I doubt it.[/QUOTE]
You are being anachronistic - the average instantry spearmen would never face a cavalry charge in his entire service.
I suggest that he made no such comparison, rather he was fighting alongside many of his peers - if he was in the front ank then he couldn't run away because the rear ranks prevent ed that, nd if he was in a rear rank he didn't have the sight of hte cavalry charging to worry him.
So hte front rank guy IS in a pretty invidious position, but I believe his sheer ignorance of things we consider utterly basic would help him stay put!!
I mean how many of us would stand upright ina line shoulder to shoulder with others to be shot at by muskets?
I venture that none of us would - and yet MILLIONS of our ancestors did. Not only that but some of them did it many times.
Putting our own feelings and beliefs forward as if they are the ame as medieval soldiery is not useful, because if our thoughts were three in the time no-one would have fought much at all - hands up everyone here who is prepared to fight in close quarters with someon who is determined to cut their guts out with an axe or sword??
So I believe that medieval soldiers didn't make any such comparison of spear length. They would be told that they can defeat cavalry by initially standing in a solid bunch so hte horses couldn't knock them over (and they'd be familiar with horse psychology from farmwork).
That would be the limit of their comparison between the 2 troop types. Sure they'd be scared, but any veterans among them (IMO tghere would be few) would have told them that running away from cavalry is worse!
Quote Even if I stayed put and my buddies around me did the same, and by some luck I survived the charge, I would not be worth much as all my friends around me would be killed or badly injured due to horses, lances or swords (when the knight has discarded the remnants of the lance). I would be to a great extent alone. [/QUOTE]
Sorry - that's nonsense. Getting knocked over by a horse doesn't kill you or even necessarily injure you much - the likely result, IMO is you get knocked sideways out of the way and not trampled. So all that's happened is you've been knocked to the ground.
Now a horse hasa finite amount of energy, and as it knocks over men it loses that energy - eventually either hte infantr yhas to turn and run, or the horse will break through and keep going out the other side or come to a stop surrounded by pissed off infantry - most of htem still on their feet!!
We know cavalry could break clean through formed infantry, and then the infantry could reform behind them cutting them off from the rest of their atmy - eg 200 Scots cavalry at the Battle of hte Standard in 1138 did this, and for a later example the French Cavalry at the Battle of Eylau vs the Russians in 1807.
So I see clear, actual historical examples that sho wyour analysis to be quite wrong.
Quote Even taking the anticharge out would not be much for the higher spears because of their great defensive value against cav, but lowlife spears, which we all hate beating the crap out of expensive knights would get trampled because of their low defense. A fitting solution, a solution that will never happen.[/QUOTE]
A fitting solution?? Only in your flawed analysis!!
I hope nothing like it ever happens to allow knights to run over spearmen without much bother - because then MTW will be a fantasy game and no longer of any interest to me!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
A fitting solution?? Only in your flawed analysis!!
I hope nothing like it ever happens to allow knights to run over spearmen without much bother - because then MTW will be a fantasy game and no longer of any interest to me!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif[/QUOTE]
And ducking behind the shield and thus making sure you can stop a heavy cavalry charge without any injury is realistic??? It seems you do selective quoting of me here.
It is not like the cav would just have a walk in the park against the spearmen, they would suffer great losses. But seriously, having a little spear and a big shield does not make me impervious to being trampled by big animals like horses. Right now that is what is 'fantasy' about the game.
I don't like the cavalry just bounce off the shields. Those shields soak up all the momentum of the horses and make them go from top speed to zero velocity in the course of one or two feet.
I can understand the pikes, at least a pike can be planted in the ground.
If the heavy cavalry carried into the ranks of the spearmen (remember the anti-cavbonus is still there to reflect the spears they are armed with) then it would be carnage for both sides fast. They would never just run them over like Peasants. How often have you seen equal Valour heavy cav run over Feudal MAA head on? Not very often I venture a guess at. Because of the Spearmens shields and anti-cavbonus they would have an equal if not better defense than the Feudal MAA. So there would not be any case where they just ran them over.
And to the other point about the Spearman not think about the length of his spear. Well, he would see the length of the lances of his sides knights. Then it is simple deduction of what he can see.
You talk about his knowledge of horses from his farming, then he would also be knowing that he could never stop a horse bearing down on him.
Musketfights, yes... Well, most units came out of the fights with most men uninjured had they not routed. Simply because the muskets were so horribly inaccurate. In time the men would know that they should fear the enemy charge rather than their fire (artillery not counted here). That was the case in most battles.
The routs came when one side charged, either at once or after a short fight. So why would the men stand there and take the shots but not the melee? Because they had a much better chance of surviving being fired at.
Back to the horses hitting my formation. I might very well only be knocked over, but then there is the next horse, which has not seen me and will thus not avoid trampling me (as is their nature but can be trained away). The case I presented was when the cavalry had come to a halt inside my formation, or else I would not have much of a chance to engage a knight. I could try and stab at him as he passed but that would most likely end with me losing the grip on the spear as I would hold it in an overhand style. So I could only use my spear when the knight had stopped or was bearing down on me, and the latter would not be healthy for me due to the knights lance.
Infantry forming up after a charge had passed through, yes that did happen, nobody would ever say it was impossible. But I don't think the Spearmen would be capable of that, Feudal Sergeants (the proffesional spearmen) could possibly, but our levied spearmen could most likely not. They were told that their formation would hold, it did not, they saw their friends get killed and what else during the charge... They would be too scared to be able to think rigidly as to reform.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Hakonarson
10-20-2002, 11:03
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
And ducking behind the shield and thus making sure you can stop a heavy cavalry charge without any injury is realistic??? It seems you do selective quoting of me here.[/QUOTE]
Rubbish - I said nothing of the sort and at least I did quote you and not put words into your mouth that you never said as you just did or me!
But let me make this clear:
Ordinary spearmen, with your so-called "short" spears, SHOULD be able to halt a cavalry charge in its tracks.
They won't do it all the time, but it's something you'd never do if you were a sane cavalry commander unless you were desperate.
Quote . But seriously, having a little spear and a big shield does not make me impervious to being trampled by big animals like horses. Right now that is what is 'fantasy' about the game.[/QUOTE]
Nope - you don't need any spear or sheild at all - what you need it iron will and/or an inability to run away - the weapons involved can actaully be unimportant!
Quote
I can understand the pikes, at least a pike can be planted in the ground.[/QUOTE]
Oh where on earth did you get this from??
You remember the battle of Jaffa in the turtorail?
Well in hte ACTUAL battle that is EXACTLY what Richards spearmen did - they planted the butt ends of their spears in the ground, and set up their shields as a palisade.
So much for that part of your argument!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
I'm still amazed that people think that pikes and spears are somehow different weapons appart from their length - jeez mate - they're just a pole with a point!!
Quote If the heavy cavalry carried into the ranks of the spearmen (remember the anti-cavbonus is still there to reflect the spears they are armed with) then it would be carnage for both sides fast. [/QUOTE]
As I have said.
Quote They would never just run them over like Peasants. How often have you seen equal Valour heavy cav run over Feudal MAA head on? Not very often I venture a guess at. Because of the Spearmens shields and anti-cavbonus they would have an equal if not better defense than the Feudal MAA. So there would not be any case where they just ran them over.[/QUOTE]
Huh - are you talking about MAA or spearmen?? Why are you mixing the 2 up in your argument - it makes no sense to me.
[/B][/QUOTE]And to the other point about the Spearman not think about the length of his spear. Well, he would see the length of the lances of his sides knights. Then it is simple deduction of what he can see.
You talk about his knowledge of horses from his farming, then he would also be knowing that he could never stop a horse bearing down on him.[/B][/QUOTE]
And yet despite all this these {"short" spearmen DID halt heavy cavalry cahrges time and time again in actual battle.
I'm disappointed that you persist in this line of reasoning when it is clearly not supported by history!!
Quote Musketfights, yes... Well, most units came out of the fights with most men uninjured had they not routed. Simply because the muskets were so horribly inaccurate. In time the men would know that they should fear the enemy charge rather than their fire (artillery not counted here). That was the case in most battles.
The routs came when one side charged, either at once or after a short fight. So why would the men stand there and take the shots but not the melee? Because they had a much better chance of surviving being fired at.
Back to the horses hitting my formation. I might very well only be knocked over, but then there is the next horse, which has not seen me and will thus not avoid trampling me (as is their nature but can be trained away). [/QUOTE]
The example I gave at Eylau was of some 5000 French cavalry riding through massed ranks of Rusian infantry who were deployed in close columns - the infantry were l;iterally ridden over!!
Then the Russian infantry picked themselves up and reformed, and hte French cavalry found themselves trapped between the reserves and the reformed front formations.
Another charge by 1500 Guard cavalry under Murat cut a pth for the remnants of the initial charge to escape.
There was no dodging or riding around - hte Russian infantry were formed shoulder to shoulder several ranks deep, and the French cavalry were charging knee to knee.
Quote The case I presented was when the cavalry had come to a halt inside my formation, or else I would not have much of a chance to engage a knight. I could try and stab at him as he passed but that would most likely end with me losing the grip on the spear as I would hold it in an overhand style. So I could only use my spear when the knight had stopped or was bearing down on me, and the latter would not be healthy for me due to the knights lance.[/QUOTE]
huh - why wouldn't you stab underarm? such a thrust going upwards would stand a good chance of passing under the shield and hitting hte target in the lower torso - a very nasty strike indeed.
Quote Infantry forming up after a charge had passed through, yes that did happen, nobody would ever say it was impossible. But I don't think the Spearmen would be capable of that, Feudal Sergeants (the proffesional spearmen) could possibly, but our levied spearmen could most likely not. They were told that their formation would hold, it did not, they saw their friends get killed and what else during the charge... They would be too scared to be able to think rigidly as to reform.
[/QUOTE]
Well you are just simply wrong again!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
There are accounts of it happening all the way back to the battle of Qadsh in 1279 BC, when the "knights" (so to speak) were Hittitte Chariots.
Roman infantry did it, Frankish tribesmen did it, Arab infantry did it, poor quality English infantry levies did it at the Standard.
Somehow I get the impression that no amount of historical example is ever going to satisfay you tho - you've got your mind set (or so it seems to me) and that is that http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif
Quote Originally posted by tomppb:
Yes I would have to say that the Napoleonic lance and the Medieval lance were two completely different weapons, in form and function.[/QUOTE]
Yes! They were and I think I mentioned earlier that Napoleonic Lancers were trained not to charge home but stopped short of the target and gave point as you suggested by extending the arm to thrust the blade of the lance into the target.
The medieval knight used a couched lance which was static and required the movement of the horse to give it thrust. However, the same basic issues exist for both weapons.
a) If thrust into a target at speed the overall effect for both weapons would be mutually assured destruction. At 20 mph (10yds per sec.) the impact would certainly kill the target but would probably kill the rider too or if not kill them, then catapult them out of the saddle and/or break their wrist or shoulder.
b) Once the enemy were close alongside both weapons were virtually useless. The Napoleonic Lancer was trained to use his lance to parry close in attacks but could not attack back. The couched lance cannot even be used in this limited sense and so just becomes a useless length of wood. In fact by getting too close both lancers throw away the main benefit of their weapons and give the advantage to their opponents.
Thus some comparisons are valid and both types of lance must have been most useful when pursuiting a broken foe as the lancer was then free to pick a target and ride it down without risk of getting mobbed when he slowed down to make the final thrust and extract his weapon.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Hakonarson
10-20-2002, 16:35
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Yes! They were and I think I mentioned earlier that Napoleonic Lancers were trained not to charge home but stopped short of the target and gave point as you suggested by extending the arm to thrust the blade of the lance into the target.[/QUOTE]
Um...not quite!!
They could do this if the target required it, but they were trained to gallop past pivoting the lance as they struck so it wasn't ripped from their grip.
some lancers are even recorded throwing their lances like javelins against infantry squares too - but that's not how thye were trained!!
Quote The medieval knight used a couched lance which was static and required the movement of the horse to give it thrust. However, the same basic issues exist for both weapons.
a) If thrust into a target at speed the overall effect for both weapons would be mutually assured destruction. At 20 mph (10yds per sec.) the impact would certainly kill the target but would probably kill the rider too or if not kill them, then catapult them out of the saddle and/or break their wrist or shoulder.[/QUOTE]
No - not at all. the Napoleonic lance was noteable for its lack of lethality - many British soldiers in the Peninsular survived multiple wounds, and the Polish lancers gained a reputation for cruelty based upon repreatedly stabing soldiers on the ground - part of hte reason for this was that Napoleonic infantry were taught to lie down to avoid being stabbed by cavalry armed with sabres - but of course lancers could reach them when they did so!
Quote b) Once the enemy were close alongside both weapons were virtually useless. The Napoleonic Lancer was trained to use his lance to parry close in attacks but could not attack back. The couched lance cannot even be used in this limited sense and so just becomes a useless length of wood. In fact by getting too close both lancers throw away the main benefit of their weapons and give the advantage to their opponents.[/QUOTE]
Yep.
AgentBif
10-20-2002, 23:44
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
It was not only a question of outmaneuvering, of course. Armoured horsemen were used to charge the enemy in their front. But were they successful alone? If armoured horsemen were enough, why would bowmen, crossbowmen, spearmen and other auxiliaries be hired/recruited?
[/QUOTE]
Since heavy cavalry is very expensive (and often composed of nobility), it makes sense that those fielding forces would choose to expend their "cheaper" troops first. Furthermore, it is likely that most fuedal lords had access to many more people than they could afford to outfit and train for duty as heavy cavalry and so chose to field them in roles that were much less expensive in terms of training and maintenance. Finally, there are situations where cavalry don't serve well (wooded areas, hilly regions) and having a variety of troop types enhances tactical flexibility, not giving an enemy an obvious weakness to exploit.
All of these points provide explanation for the use of infantry and missile in reality without first assuming that heavy cavalry sucked the way they do in MTW http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
bif
[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-20-2002).]
AgentBif
10-20-2002, 23:59
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
If thrust into a target at speed the overall effect for both weapons would be mutually assured destruction.
At 20 mph (10yds per sec.) the impact would certainly kill the target but would probably kill the rider too or if not kill them, then catapult them out of the saddle and/or break their wrist or shoulder.
[/QUOTE]
Unless, as has been proposed earlier, the lance was designed to break on impact... a "safety lance".
Quote
b) Once the enemy were close alongside both weapons were virtually useless.
[/QUOTE]
Which is why I don't buy that most of the time lancers would strap on a lance so that it was hard to remove. There are many accounts of heavy cavalry getting bogged in an enemy infantry formation... And there are accounts of knights carrying multiple weapons into battle (sword, mace, hammer, morningstar, axe). Once making contact with an infantry mob, the cavalryman would need to draw a weapon suitable for melee and having a big lance tied to his arm would be a very dangerous impediment. Finally, lancers would know that they'd be heavily outnumbered by enemy infantry, why would they limit themselves to only being able to make one kill?
Perhaps there were times when such technique was used, but it doesn't seem plausible to me to speculate that that is the way they always operated throughout hundreds of years of lancing history.
bif
[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-20-2002).]
Thats why I put in that quote from the "Renaissance at War" above. It seems obvious to me that the medieval lance was designed to shatter on impact, still causing injury to the target but not upsetting the rider.
In addition I still think the knights preferred opponent was another knight so it was lance vs lance not lance vs spearmen.
Remember again culturally the knights wanted to fight their equals to show their prowess. Medieval warfare was not nearly as scientific or professional as Napoleonic warfare. Knights were groups of individual warriors. They did not train as units. I would speculate that the interval between horses was much greater than a Napoleonic cavalry unit.
As to people talking about infantry stopping the momentum of the horses. I think that is backwards. It is not the infantry that is slowing the horse down, it is the horse! If a horse sees a seemingly solid object such as a firm infantry unit, it will slow on its own as it gets closer. But if the infantry unit starts breaking up then the horses will proceed into the gaps, of course speeding up the process of the infantry routing. I think an infantry/cavalry encounter was always decided before any contact was made. Either the infantry hold firm in which case the horses slow and stop a short way from the infantry and mill about, or the infantry panic and run and the cavalry charges through the gaps causing many casualties.
Gunpowder does change this a little but I will confine myself to medieval warfare for now.
For game terms I think units should have a discipline rating (maybe which could be increased with the war academy etc) and when they are charged they have to make a check, if they fail they turn and run. If they pass they stand and the cavalry unit loses its charge bonus. In other words the cavalry unit stops in front of the infantry unit and just starts hacking and slashing as in normal melee.
Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
Since heavy cavalry is very expensive (and often composed of nobility), it makes sense that those fielding forces would choose to expend their "cheaper" troops first. Furthermore, it is likely that most fuedal lords had access to many more people than they could afford to outfit and train for duty as heavy cavalry and so chose to field them in roles that were much less expensive in terms of training and maintenance. Finally, there are situations where cavalry don't serve well (wooded areas, hilly regions) and having a variety of troop types enhances tactical flexibility, not giving an enemy an obvious weakness to exploit.
All of these points provide explanation for the use of infantry and missile in reality without first assuming that heavy cavalry sucked the way they do in MTW http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
bif
[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-20-2002).][/QUOTE]
You provide a different and valid explanation with which I agree in part. It explains why cheaper units and levies were fielded. But what about expensive mercenary units like archers, arbalesters, etc.? And why was the main tactic to harass the enemy first before sending the knights in a charge? If the knights were enough to break the enemy's "less expensive" infantry, why would missile units be hired with the mission of harassing them first? And why were those less expensive troops used even in the open field where cavalry should unconditionally rule?
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Some troops were fielded in addition to knights because they were less expensive. But that does not mean that less expensive troops could not be effective when properly used. As to MTW I have said many times that I agree that spearmen/pikemen/polearms are too maneuverable and keep formation (i.e. support bonuses) easily in all situations, which in fact cripples part of the important advantages that cavalry would have in a real battle. But I am not a fanatic as too say that knights should be able to sweep spearmen from the field without previous harassment or outmaneuvering.
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
But I am not a fanatic as too say that knights should be able to sweep spearmen from the field without previous harassment or outmaneuvering.
Antonio
[/QUOTE]
I don't hope that is what you think of me, wanting the knights to rule the field unopposed.
What I can't get a gripe with is the fact that a formation of Spearmen can soak up the cavcharge with losses on their own.
Considering that the knights lance outreaches the spear the infantry carries at least a few losses should be suffered. If the knights somehow manages to get their horses to run into the formation I can hardly believe the first couple of ranks of Spearmen would be able to stand up and let the horses bounce off their shields. Some of them would undoubtedly be knocked over/killed/ brushed aside or pushed back.
The formation of Spearmen is for most parts as strong as it is deep, but the individual Spearman is only as strong as he ever was. Even if he was only pushed back, he was pushed back into the tight formation of men behind him and I believe that would be unpleasant to the point of death in quite a few cases. So while the formation would live through the charge, the struck Spearmen would not always live.
That is what I want to be present in the game.
Even Hark agreed it was carnage for both sides, at least that is what I understand by you saying it was correct when I said it was like that. Perhaps I understood it wrong, then tell me.
Tell me that you agree that some of the Spearmen would suffer from the charge, it was inevitale that they did. That they won in the end or did not, I don't really care about.
The situation is not long from the Halbardiers/Billmen not having a chargeremoving bonus. Why shouldn't they have it? They have a point at the end of their weapon and the bill/halbard is longer than the represented spears in the game.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
the Count of Flanders
10-21-2002, 19:02
Quote
Ordinary spearmen, with your so-called "short" spears, SHOULD be able to halt a cavalry charge in its tracks.
They won't do it all the time, but it's something you'd never do if you were a sane cavalry commander unless you were desperate.
[/QUOTE]
I don't agree, only in the 14th century "commoners" started beating nobilty armies on a regular basis.
Quote
You remember the battle of Jaffa in the turtorail?
Well in hte ACTUAL battle that is EXACTLY what Richards spearmen did - they planted the butt ends of their spears in the ground, and set up their shields as a palisade.
[/QUOTE]
[/quote]
Bad example: the muslems didn't use couched lance charges. The muslems had nothing that could be compared to european heavy cav. I doubt they (the english) would have done the same thing if they were faced against european knights. The palissades were usefull agaist the muslems because they used horse archers, stopping an arrow is entirely different from stopping a heavy war horse.
Quote
And yet despite all this these {"short" spearmen DID halt heavy cavalry cahrges time and time again in actual battle.
[/QUOTE]
I would love to hear those battles, before the 14th century and still in the medieval period (11th-12th-13th century).
as to infantry forming up after a charge:
Quote
There are accounts of it happening all the way back to the battle of Qadsh in 1279 BC, when the "knights" (so to speak) were Hittitte Chariots.
Roman infantry did it, Frankish tribesmen did it, Arab infantry did it, poor quality English infantry levies did it at the Standard.
[/QUOTE]
romans, franks, hittites, smurfs: all not relevant because out of time period and as such not facing couched lance.
During the crusades arab infantry was consequently flattened and routed by knights. I suspect you mean arab cavalry that regularly avoided charges, broke up, and regrouped behind them.
Don't know about the english example.
------------------
------------------
http://users.skynet.be/fa307901/sig_org.jpg
Proud member of the OOOO (http://www.oooo.freewebspace.com)
[This message has been edited by the Count of Flanders (edited 10-21-2002).]
[This message has been edited by the Count of Flanders (edited 10-21-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
The formation of Spearmen is for most parts as strong as it is deep, but the individual Spearman is only as strong as he ever was. Even if he was only pushed back, he was pushed back into the tight formation of men behind him and I believe that would be unpleasant to the point of death in quite a few cases. So while the formation would live through the charge, the struck Spearmen would not always live.
That is what I want to be present in the game.
Even Hark agreed it was carnage for both sides, at least that is what I understand by you saying it was correct when I said it was like that. Perhaps I understood it wrong, then tell me.
Tell me that you agree that some of the Spearmen would suffer from the charge, it was inevitale that they did. That they won in the end or did not, I don't really care about.
[/QUOTE]
I agree that some of the spearmen would suffer from the charge, specially those in the front ranks. When spearmen were able to win after such a charge it was because the rear ranks would have kept a semblance of the initial formation, killing the knights in melee after momentum had vanished.
Antonio
The author of the thread has quoted the Charge of the Light Brigade... yeah this is exactly how it happened, they were riding in a steady colum between four russian gun batteries mounted on the hills on the sides of the valley at a temperate pace. They only charged when they were at the firing distance on the shrapnell cyllinder rounds... what myth are we tlikng abut here then?
I guess this post is aimed at uninformed or misinformed people, but why post it at the wargame forum? beats me...
Lord Romulous
10-21-2002, 20:13
one thing i have noticed is that cav are a way too vunerable to spears when the spears are running away.
i routed a almost full strength unit of valour 2 chiv sergants by holding them with my own chiv sarges and hiting them in the flanks with gulam cav.
once the chiv sarges routed however i lost 5 cav to the routing troops.
that i did not like. spears should be massacerd by charging cav when they are totaly out of formation and running away with their backs to the cavs lances.
not totaly on topic but was unhappy so had to vent http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
The Yogi
10-21-2002, 23:06
Coming in very late in this debate, I'd like to offer a few points of wiev that I think might have been left out earlier.
First, the main reason cavalry dominated the early feudal era battlefield was in no small part that it WAS a feudal era. Kings, Dukes and Barons did not have a lot of cash to hire infantry with, what they had was fiefs with an obligation to perform military service. And those fiefs were knights! What money they did have was mainly spent on specialist mercenaries - support troops like archers, crossbowmen etc.
Oh, the kings would have LOVED to get their hands on good, profesional infantry in numbers. Infantry is what you need for both sides of sieges, which was the most typical form of medieval warfare anyway - the field battle was relatively rare - but they mostly couldn't afford it, and used what they had - knights. One good example of how little cash income Feudal monarchs had is telling - in 1241 the Holy Roman Emperor, supposedly the most powerfull monarch of western Christianity, had an income of 7700 Marks of silver, which was about 20% of the income of the King of Denmark at the time - all because Denmark had the Öresund tariff income. Because of this lack of cash, their rank and file infantry would have been peasant leavies armed with pitchforks and the like.
Which leads us directly into the second reason cavalry dominated the early feudal battlefield - rank and file did not exist in this era! There has been a lot of arguing about spearmen "holding formation" etc, but the truth is that marching in step, square formations etc are all 15th century re-discovery of methods abandoned at the end of antiquity. Even the drum to mark the beat was introduced by the Swiss for their pikemen. Feudal armies would have moved about in rather disorganized bunches, especially the poor untrained peasant infantry. The organized squares of spearmen that we see in the game would simply not have existed in any numbers. The most accurate representation of Early period infantry in MTW units would have been - peasants. No wonder the Knights dominated the field! There were of course exceptions - anglo-saxon English fought on foot in the norse tradition, forming shield walls and mantaing cloose order formation. These units, the Vikings of the game should probably be the Early units best capable of withstanding the cavalry charge - Hastings is a good example.
For the game to be the most accurate to history, among the first and cheapest unita to build in the campaign game would be Feudal Knights. The typical Early period medieval army would be a great many Feudal Knights, even more peasant rabble and then some very few and expensive professional infantry like archers etc. This is very far from the present situation, too far I belive.
Mori Gabriel Syme
10-21-2002, 23:44
I find it incredible that so many believe it impossible that heavily armored men with long lances riding large, heavily armored, well trained horses could, at the proper time & with the proper technique, effectively charge ranks of spear which had been softened by archery. If it didn't work, why did they keep doing it? Tradition? A tradition is difficult to pass on if so many of its practioners die so quickly. The history of European warfare shows that either the nobility were suicidal or the charge worked because they kept doing it.
I admit that the only lance I have seen in person is the one in the Tower of London from the time of Henry VIII (his armor is amazing, too--state of the art). It is about 14 ft. long. It would easily stike the shield of the spearman before the spear stikes the horse--if the knight wields it with skill. & being struck by a lance carrying the force of a charging warhorse doesn't knock someone over: it propels him backwards at nearly that same speed. We've read earlier in this thread about the unfortunate re-enactor accidentally hit by a lance at low speed.
After impact, the horse is no longer moving at charging speed, true. That doesn't mean it stops. It wasn't pushed to roll from the far side of the field to stop when it hits something. It continued to push. & the horse doesn't stand there to be stabbed with spears. Horses bite & kick & stamp. Horse & knight trained to fight together. & don't forget, most of the men on either side of the horse are worried more by the horse in front of them.
As I noted before regarding Courtrai, a poorly executed charge nearly broke through eight ranks of spears with pavises & goedendags which stood fast & had not been properly softened by archery. It was entirely possible for a well-executed & well-timed charge to pass through eight or ten ranks, especially if anyone in the infantry panicked.
------------------
Others enslave by victory,
Their subjects, as their foes, oppress;
Anna conquers but to free,
And governs but to bless. -- Edmund Smith (Anna stands for England)
The Yogi
10-22-2002, 00:44
Perhaps you misunderstood my post, Mori. I do belive in the power of the charging knights, I have no doubt they broke through stiff opposition on many occasions. What I was trying to show was that in the Early period of MTW, there should BE very little stiff opposition around, and that Knights would be around in great numbers due to the feudal system (ie they are overprized in the game).
During the Early period, heavy horse SHOULD completely dominate the battlefield.
AgentBif
10-22-2002, 01:01
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
And why was the main tactic to harass the enemy first before sending the knights in a charge? If the knights were enough to break the enemy's "less expensive" infantry, why would missile units be hired with the mission of harassing them first? And why were those less expensive troops used even in the open field where cavalry should unconditionally rule?
[/B][/QUOTE]
I don't understand the mystery... If you have the lesser troops available, it makes sense to expend them first so the heavy cavalry takes fewer casualties. It's not an indication that the heavy cavalry is incapable, it just means that they are expensive to replace.
Seems totally obvious to me.
bif
Cousin Zoidfarb
10-22-2002, 01:05
This debate is getting tiresome.
Many people are neglecting what was going on outside Western Europe. These are the general facts:
Before pikes heavy cavalry dominated Europe and was the elite of the Mongols, and Middle East.
Many posts have stated that heavy cavalry persisted because of tradition and not reason, however, Muslim armies were disciplined, well-trained and the elite was heavy cavalry.
Armies that were victorious against knights negated the charge by avoiding it (horsearchers), obstacles (the Hussite war wagon, the caltrops and stakes used by the English to protect the archers) or pikes which injured the rider before the lance could hit.
Spears are shorter than pikes and lances and should not have the benefits against cavalry that they have in this game.
Cavalry charged even after the introduction of pikes.
Even now riot police use horses for crowd control and dispersion, you can't deny the advantage a mounted man has. The crowd may be unarmed but the policeman doesn't have a lance either.
Cousin Zoidfarb
10-22-2002, 01:07
This debate is getting tiresome.
Many people are neglecting what was going on outside Western Europe. These are the general facts:
Before pikes heavy cavalry dominated Europe and was the elite of the Mongols, and Middle East.
Many posts have stated that heavy cavalry persisted because of tradition and not reason, however, Muslim armies were disciplined, well-trained and the elite was heavy cavalry.
Armies that were victorious against knights negated the charge by avoiding it (horsearchers), obstacles (the Hussite war wagon, the caltrops and stakes used by the English to protect the archers) or pikes which injured the rider before the lance could hit.
Spears are shorter than pikes and lances and should not have the benefits against cavalry that they have in this game.
Cavalry charged even after the introduction of pikes.
Even now riot police use horses for crowd control and dispersion, you can't deny the advantage a mounted man has. The crowd may be unarmed but the policeman doesn't have a lance either.
Symbiosis_Bob
10-22-2002, 03:38
i, sadly, didnt have the patience or time to read through the entire thread, however...
as someone way back mentioned, i too would like to see some distinct differences between the ages. I mean, whats the point of advancing to new and more expensive technology if it does the same thing?
(im more interested in game issues than historical ones).
Thus, just my two bits: the idea is not we -the players of the game - should imitate history, but that we should be put into it. The fantasy is that we should be some conneticut yankees in king arthur's court and imagine what we could do with the knowledge we have.
also, id like to note the humorous quality of the phrase:
"I beleive in the power of the charging knight."
Well what about santa, eh?
I don't think people are saying that heavy cavalry was ineffective, I think they are saying many modern people misunderstand the nature of the cavalry charges.
Sorry but it was not a case of horses going 30 mph crashing into a solid wall of bodies, and bulldozing their way through by sheer force.
My first point is the medieval knight first and foremost wanted to fight other medieval knights. If none were available or if the other knights were dismounted (something that happened more and more as time went on, so maybe the medieval generals were learning the cavalry charge was not the end all be all of warfare) then you would have the situation of knight on horseback versus foot soldier.
My second point. If cavalry charged infantry the outcome was determined before one lance touched anybody. If the infantry lost their nerve and started to break up the cavalry was going to exploit the gaps in the infantry formation and the result would normally be a rout and slaughter. If the infantry held firm then the horses would slow from gallop to canter, to trot and kind of mill about in front of the infantry perhaps with some hacking and slashing, but most likely the end result would be the cavalry would turn around and go away to reform. That is how it happened at Hastings. The shield wall of the Saxons held firm all morning so the Norman Knights were reduced to trying to spook them and making harrassing attacks. But as the day wore on Norman archers steadily wore down the shield wall and more importantly a feigned retreat by Norman knights was able to draw out a part of the Saxon line who foolishly pursued, and then the Knights turned on the Saxon footsoldiers who had no cohesion, and slaughtered them. This combined with Harold being killed by an arrow caused a complete collapse in Saxon morale and it was only then that the Norman knights were able to ride over them and scatter them.
The Yogi
10-22-2002, 04:02
Quote Originally posted by Symbiosis_Bob:
Thus, just my two bits: the idea is not we -the players of the game - should imitate history, but that we should be put into it. The fantasy is that we should be some conneticut yankees in king arthur's court and imagine what we could do with the knowledge we have.
[/QUOTE]
Agree, but our options should be limited to those available at the time. If I was placed as ruler of a warring middle-aged kingdom tomorrow, I'd probably try to teach them how to make gunpowder and cannon. That should not be an option in a game like MTW. The same applies to strong professional infantry - the western european rulers of the time understood its worth, they could just not afford it - and neither should we!
The Yogi
10-22-2002, 04:08
Quote Originally posted by tomppb:
and it was only then that the Norman knights were able to ride over them and scatter them.[/QUOTE]
As I said, Saxon infantry and their shield wall was the exception, not the rule at the time. Most western infantry of the period would not have had a formation to begin with that needed to be scattered.
Yogi, no argument from me at all. I'm just saying the Saxons were reasonbly firm infantry and so that is why the battle progressed as it did. If the Saxons were your typical peasant levy you are right they probably would have hoofed as soon as the Norman Knights formed up in front of them.
But my point was the result of these charges had more to do with the discipline, cohesion of the soldiers, rather than the particular weapons they were holding.
The Saxons had had a long time and plenty of battles against the Vikings to learn what was effective and what was not. The shieldwall was learned through the battles with them. It was simply what won the latter fights. So the Saxons having seen the effectiveness of a protected shieldwall plenty of times would believe in it in the battle against the Normans.
Quote Originally posted by tomppb:
But my point was the result of these charges had more to do with the discipline, cohesion of the soldiers, rather than the particular weapons they were holding.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that was perhaps much the case. But remember that the French at Courtrai managed to charge a force of determined spearmen (I would rather call them pikemen because of the length of their spear), and not only did they charge in fully, they even managed to push back one of the flanks. That this had no positive effect on the battle is not an issue in this particular discussion.
So there were indeed charges that carried into a solid line of infantry... A ghastly sight no doubt, but it apparently happened.
While we all want units to either break or not when the knights/heavy cav gets close, I bet that is pretty hard to implement, as well as getting the knights to slow down when it become obvious they won't break.
So we have to go for the next best thing, what would happen if an impact against a solid line of infantry happened...
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
AgentBif
10-22-2002, 11:53
Quote Originally posted by tomppb:
I don't think people are saying that heavy cavalry was ineffective, I think they are saying many modern people misunderstand the nature of the cavalry charges.
[/QUOTE]
No, people are saying "cavalry as implemented in the game are just fine". Which is total hogwash since in the game they are next to useless in large numbers.
Nobody in their right mind uses a cavalry dominant approach in the game, while history is the opposite for some 1000 years.
Cavalry, as implemented in the game are NOT fine, since people do not choose them in numbers equivalent to what was used in history. IMO, a cavalry dominant approach should be a feasible tactical choice (among others), but it isn't.
In order to get cavalry in the game to match the cost effectiveness of their historical counterparts, they either need to be rendered much cheaper (per man, including both initial and maintenance costs) or beefed up, or both.
IMO, men on a horse should recieve a significant defense bonus, since when they are way up on a horse, they are out of the normal threat zone of a standard melee weapon. Many of the vital areas on a man that one would normally target when he is on the ground are simply out of reach of most weapons. Spears don't easily penetrate heavy armor and when stabbing up at an angle would tend to just deflect more often. On a man-for-man basis, I think cavalry should perform better in melee than they do in the game.
Another idea I've heard which I though was kinda neat is that a horse and man should be modeled separately; So if the horse goes down at least you still have a heavy infantryman (sometimes) who can continue to put up a fight in a melee. He'd have a hard time keeping up with his unit if they decided to move on, but then that's his problem... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
bif
[This message has been edited by AgentBif (edited 10-22-2002).]
Hakonarson
10-22-2002, 13:49
Quote Originally posted by Beavis:
These are the general facts:
Before pikes heavy cavalry dominated Europe and was the elite of the Mongols, and Middle East. [/QUOTE]
Define "dominated the battlefield" please?
Thye certainly couldn't and didn't jsut run over whoever they pleased that asn't heavy cavalry.......
Quote Many posts have stated that heavy cavalry persisted because of tradition and not reason, however, Muslim armies were disciplined, well-trained and the elite was heavy cavalry..[/QUOTE]
Err..yes...and so?
Quote Armies that were victorious against knights negated the charge by avoiding it (horsearchers), obstacles (the Hussite war wagon, the caltrops and stakes used by the English to protect the archers) or pikes which injured the rider before the lance could hit..[/QUOTE]
How about early Swiss? Not a pike or an obstable or a horse archer in sight......
Quote Spears are shorter than pikes and lances and should not have the benefits against cavalry that they have in this game. .[/QUOTE]
A gross generalisation not born out by history - spears and lances had various lengths at various times in history - most cavalry "lances" before 1300 were only 7-8 feet long - in fact they look almost exactly the same as infantry spears.
Of course many infantry spears were longer than this, especially Scots and Flemish and Welsh.
Quote Cavalry charged even after the introduction of pikes. .[/QUOTE]
Yep
. Quote Even now riot police use horses for crowd control and dispersion, you can't deny the advantage a mounted man has. The crowd may be unarmed but the policeman doesn't have a lance either.[/QUOTE]
Yep - but the crown has no thought/expectation/collective will to do anythign about a horse either - our society has almost no ability to imbue its members with a meaningful ability ot fight in close order close combat!! lol
That's the best red herring to date for sure!
Quote Originally posted by Mori Gabriel Syme:
As I noted before regarding Courtrai, a poorly executed charge nearly broke through eight ranks of spears with pavises & goedendags which stood fast & had not been properly softened by archery. It was entirely possible for a well-executed & well-timed charge to pass through eight or ten ranks, especially if anyone in the infantry panicked.
[/QUOTE]
I was curious about this comment as my daughter did a project on The Battle of Spurs (Courtrai) as part of her school work recently and I didn't recall any such incident being mentioned. So I did a bit of research and soon found this account of the battle which seems reasonably well researched.
http://www.liebaart.org/slag_e.htm
Both armies started to prepare for the battle early in the morning. This took quite some time, especially in the French army where the knightly formations needed more time to manoeuvre to their appointed positions.
Battle of the crossbow shooters
The Flemish crossbowmen had taken position right behind the two brooks. They were somehow protected by their big paveses carried by their servants. The French footsoldiers attack first and here too the crossbowmen advance first.
The battle starts around noon. Both sides shoot arrows but gain very little success. After a while the Flemish men are out of arrows and the pressure from the French becomes too great. They retreat backwards, to the own lines. While they retreat they cut the strings of the bows and throw them on the ground, in order to make the charge of the knights on horse later more difficult.
The French footsoldiers advance and start to cross the brooks. Their commanders understand that this can severely obstruct the charge of the knights and so they order their men to stand aside. Immediately afterwards the signal for the knights to charge is given.
The French left wing attacks
The left corps of the army advances a bit sooner than the right corps. It's the corps of marshal Raoul de Nesle. The French foot can avoid for the most part to be run over by their own cavalry. It's a myth that the French knights impatiently rode into their own infantry and therefore were defeated.
But the French knights do have trouble getting over the three meters wide brook in closed order. Most get over however without too much trouble. What does cause a problem is the fact that the speed is out of their attack. Once they cross the brook the knights have to form up again and take a new go for their charge. The distance between them and the Flemish lines is however too short now to gain enough speed.
The Flemings stand closely packed, eight rows deep. The first line has alternately a man with a spear and a man with a goedendag. The men with the spear put the shaft end on the ground with their foot on top to take the first shock of the charge. The men with the goedendags raise their heavy weapons to let them come down on the heads of the horses or on the knights.
The French knights ride ahead on this wall of peaks and goedendags. Their charge produces a thundering noise and thus they crash into the Flemings. But the wall doesn't break up! Only at isolated spots some knights manage to enter the line, but they are immediately taken care of by the deeper lines and chopped into pieces. A major break through does not happen.
The attack of the right wing
The right wing of the French army apparently attacked in a more organised way. Their crossing of the Groeninge brook happens much better, but even here they don't manage to break through. The Flemish line stands!
While the French knights are attacking on the field, the garrison of the royal castle of Courtrai tries to force their way out and attack the Flemish in the back. Here the Ypres town militia throws them back and this attack turns out to be a complete failure.
In the centre of the Flemish lines, where the men of the Franc of Bruges and Coastal Flanders are standing, the French almost manage to force a break through. They had a bit more space to perform a better charge here. The French knights deeply enter the lines and the front almost collapses. The Flemish reserve under John of Renesse quickly rushes in and throws back the enemy. The lines are repaired.
The battle now rages over the whole frontline, and for the most part fierce close combat takes place. The French knights loose their big advantage. The goedendags do their terrible job and mercilessly pound on knights and horses. The Flemish commoners start to advance themselves now.
The Flemish Victory
The count of Artois had not taken part in the first charge and noticed that his knights were about to be thrown back. Therefore he decided to go into action himself, in an attempt to avoid a defeat. Mounted on his magnificent steed Morel he crosses the Groeninge brook without any trouble and he enters deeply into the Flemish ranks. He even manages to rip of a piece of the big Flemish banner, but then he too goes down by the anger of the Flemish soldiers.
With the death of their supreme commander the curtain falls over the French attack. The Flemings have advanced towards the brooks and the French knights who are not slain desperately try to run. The Flemish soldiers don't let this happen and the battle turns into a frightening slaughter. The by the French and Leliaarts despised Flemish commoners take their revenge.
The battle is fought without mercy.
The French rearguard with the two remaining battles hangs the shield on their back and runs. The French footsoldiers try to evacuate, but a lot of them are caught by the Flemings and are killed without mercy. Some Brabançons who fought with the French try to change sides and now shout "Vlaenderen die Leeu", but Guy of Namur orders to kill all those that wear spurs. The fugitives are chased for more than 10 kilometres from the battlefield. The Flemish victory is complete!
So! unless I am reading this completely wrongly what we have is a battle where a force of commoners rapidly formed and only partially armed with spears manages to halt a several charges by French Knights, admittedly in very unfavourable circumstances.
The French do appear to have managed to force their way into the line at one point but failed to break it and as such merely added to their own problems by surrounding themselves with vengeful footsoldiers who not only cut them to peices but refused to allow them to escape and slaughtered the fallen.
Hardly, the example of a perfect cavalry charge but rather a reasonable reflection of exactly what happens in MTW.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Hakonarson
10-22-2002, 15:12
Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
No, people are saying "cavalry as implemented in the game are just fine". Which is total hogwash since in the game they are next to useless in large numbers.)[/QUOTE]
You don't get large numbers of them - max unit size is 40 men, vs 100 for spears & sergeants.
Quote Nobody in their right mind uses a cavalry dominant approach in the game, while history is the opposite for some 1000 years.)[/QUOTE]
Well Mongols and Mamelukes used lots of intfantry at tiems too - but appart gfrom them who do you think had cavalry dominanted armies??
Not too many Western Europeans armies did - most had many, many more infantry that total cavalry.
Quote Cavalry, as implemented in the game are NOT fine, since people do not choose them in numbers equivalent to what was used in history. [/QUOTE]
such as??
I can name dozens of battels where cavalry were outnumbered several-to-one, and a very few where they were in equal numbers or outnumbered their infantry...so it seems to me that infantry should almost always outnumber their cavalry.
Quote In order to get cavalry in the game to match the cost effectiveness of their historical counterparts, they either need to be rendered much cheaper (per man, including both initial and maintenance costs) or beefed up, or both.[/QUOTE]
Well the relative costs of cavalry and infantry in the game are about historical I think - given that a senior knight might be paid 12 times the rate for a skilled infantry man or 24 times an ordinary one (such as a spearman)
Quote
IMO, men on a horse should recieve a significant defense bonus, since when they are way up on a horse, they are out of the normal threat zone of a standard melee weapon. Many of the vital areas on a man that one would normally target when he is on the ground are simply out of reach of most weapons. Spears don't easily penetrate heavy armor and when stabbing up at an angle would tend to just deflect more often. On a man-for-man basis, I think cavalry should perform better in melee than they do in the game.[/QUOTE]
Sorry - that's so much nonsense.
The horse itself is extremely vulnerable and stationary cavalry have always had trouble with infantry.
In some extreme cases cavalry have been accompanid by light infantry who have enterd batle once the cavalry became stationary - the effectiveness of these infantry is well documented from the first century AD onwards.
They couold move underneath horses and hanstring or gut them with some ease.
The strength of hte horse is the charge - not being stationary, and it is extrememly difficult for a cavalryman to defend both himself and his horse adequately with only 2 hands!!
Quote
Another idea I've heard which I though was kinda neat is that a horse and man should be modeled separately; So if the horse goes down at least you still have a heavy infantryman (sometimes) who can continue to put up a fight in a melee. He'd have a hard time keeping up with his unit if they decided to move on, but then that's his problem... http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif[/QUOTE]
You'd have a very, very sick infantryman since he'd jsut fallen to the ground, been knocked around and very possibly trampled on.
However things like this did happen when mounts have been killed by archery rather than in close combat. So the knights had the opportunity to recover from the ordeal, or possibly the horse collapsed slowly rather than them falling off from a great height (arrows tend to kill slowly through blod loss, pain and shock!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/frown.gif)
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
So! unless I am reading this completely wrongly what we have is a battle where a force of commoners rapidly formed and only partially armed with spears manages to halt a several charges by French Knights, admittedly in very unfavourable circumstances.
The French do appear to have managed to force their way into the line at one point but failed to break it and as such merely added to their own problems by surrounding themselves with vengeful footsoldiers who not only cut them to peices but refused to allow them to escape and slaughtered the fallen.
Hardly, the example of a perfect cavalry charge but rather a reasonable reflection of exactly what happens in MTW.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. That is because you are analysing a battle where the knights have lost.
Yesterday I did some experiments with knights and spermen.
I have chosen a unit of archers and a unit of feudal knights. The enemy had only a unit of spearmen. My archers harassed the spearmen in the beginning, while the knights were kept behind. The spearmen almost immediately advanced to chase the archers. The archers retreated and the spearmen were RUNNING after them. When they approached my knights, I charged with the latter. The knights stopped immediately after closing with the running spearmen (who should have lost cohesion if this was a real battle). I had to rout my knights and reform them. Than the spearmen restarted to chase my archers. The reformed knights caught them from the rear and the spearmen immediately routed.
Obviously there is something wrong in here. I would expect the combat to have followed in one of two ways, both resulting in the defeat of spearmen:
1) The spearmen kept static and were harassed by archers until they lost men and morale enough for a successful charge by the knights.
2) The spearmen chased the archers, loosing cohesion, which would be exploited by the knights in a charge, who would be able to cut through the RUNNING spearmen.
Neither of this hapenned. The knights were only able to win when they charged the rear of the spearmen, despite the fact that these were running like rabbits to chase the retreating archers.
I then re-fought the battle, but at this time I charged the spearmen in the beginning. Even when I charged from the flank, the spearmen could wheel quite fast to face the knights and the charge of the latter would immediately stop. It is funny that spearmen were even able to charge the knights before impact. Moreover, the knights achieved only a few casualties, with the charge impact being responsible for only 1 (!!) dead spearman (the rest were killed during the melee) even though the charge caught them from the flank.
There is definitely something wrong with MTW and it is not only the cost of units and quality of units available. The very basis of the model for the units (specially infantry) is not working in the proper way and as such (supposedly) average quality infantry is winning even in situations where they are doomed to defeat by the most basic tactical doctrine.
Cheers,
Antonio
AgentBif
10-22-2002, 16:46
Quote
Not too many Western Europeans armies did - most had many, many more infantry that total cavalry
[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about population dominance but tactical dominance. By "cavalry dominant" I mean where your heavy cavalry is your main attack. Nevertheless, there have been several examples mentioned in this board over the last several weeks regarding battles where cavalry DID outnumber infantry.
Even in terms of population, people still do not choose an order of battle with anywhere near a historically typical ratio of heavy cavalry to infantry. If you do manage to find a game where someone uses heavy cavalry, it will be at most like 20-80 men out of 1000 (not even 10%!). That's a clear indication that there is something very broken in the game regarding the effectiveness of cavalry.
Quote
Well the relative costs of cavalry and infantry in the game are about historical I think - given that a senior knight might be paid 12 times the rate for a skilled infantry man or 24 times an ordinary one (such as a spearman)
[/QUOTE]
First of all, not all heavy cavalry were what you are referring to as "senior knights"... Some even filled out their numbers by equipping men-at-arms! Secondly, the cost alone is not the issue, rather it is cost effectiveness. If the game gets the cost right (which I don't believe it has, about 20x right now), it has their effectiveness way off. The game must correctly balance cost AND effectiveness simultaneously to get the right ratio in a gamer's usage of those units.
Quote
The horse itself is extremely vulnerable and stationary cavalry have always had trouble with infantry.
In some extreme cases cavalry have been accompanid by light infantry who have enterd batle once the cavalry became stationary - the effectiveness of these infantry is well documented from the first century AD onwards.
[/QUOTE]
In order to engage the cavalry, they must disperse their formation (especially if employing pole arms or swords). If the formation disperses, then the cavalry can become mobile again. Anyone familiar with any kind of melee combat style knows that mobility is key to defense, at least as much as armor/parrying. Furthermore, warhorses were fierce animals trained to defend themselves... That's 2 hands, 4 iron-shod hooves, and a nasty bite that can rip off a face. Finally, heavy cavalry equipped themselves with all manner of long anti-infantry arms, presumably for the purpose of using them.
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
You'd have a very, very sick infantryman since he'd jsut fallen to the ground, been knocked around and very possibly trampled on.
[/QUOTE]
An armored man departing a falling horse does NOT always end up "very very sick". Sometimes a horse pins a leg, but the rider will usually have some warning that it's time to dismount. Until then, the rider's legs are pretty much the only vulnerable spot on him.
bif
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
So! unless I am reading this completely wrongly what we have is a battle where a force of commoners rapidly formed and only partially armed with spears manages to halt a several charges by French Knights, admittedly in very unfavourable circumstances.[/QUOTE]
As you said, it was very unfavourable circumstances.
Also, I have noticed that when it comes to show that heavy cavalry charges were not that much effective, it's constantly the same battles that are cited (Azincourt, Crécy and the like), which were famous PRECISELY because knights were beaten by footmen. Also notice that in ALL of these battles, the circumstances were exceptionnally bad for a charge (chargees in a higher ground, mud/river to cross for the knight, and so on).
There is about 400 years of warfare, including 200 years of Crusades, against people from another culture and military organisation (which means different tradition, so not the "we keep heavy cavalry because it's the tradition"). This mean thousands battles. If routing heavy cavalry with spearmen was so usual, why the defeat of the knights, despite the bad circumstances, where so striking as we remember them centuries later ?
Of course the knight was not a killing machine that only another knight was able to stop. Ten knights charging in a melee of hundreds of soldiers would not survive. But it was considered that a mounted knight was as effective as about ten footsoldiers (which is perhaps a bit exaggerated, but still give an idea of the effectiveness of heavy cavalry in battle).
Having said most of this in other threads..
The differences in costs of units are not good..the heavy cavalry is way too expensive compared to the cheap infantry. Also archer units are generally too expensive as well as some of the expensive foot.
And that is based on what most miniature rulesets are using plus historical wages of troops, although my knowledge of wages is a bit limited I do have a few examples.
http://www.usna.edu/Users/history/abels/hh315/capetian.htm
"Payment of soldiers: knights (72 d. a day); mounted sergeants (36 d.); mounted crossbowmen (54 or 48 d.); crossbowmen on foot (12 or 18 d); foot sergeants (8 d.)"
And from "The Crécy war" by Alfred H. Burne
Knights: 2s. a day, esquires 1s., mounted archers 6d. and foot archers 2d.
Im not saying we should just copy these pays into MTW as there were changes through time, national differences and availability of certain troop types but they give a general idea of what the cost differences should be.
So should something be changed?
Infantry alone did defeat cavalry in several battles but you have to look at how they did it and how you do it in MTW.
History shows time and time again that infantry stood firm and recieved the cavalry charge. Just the threat of cavalry near by would force infantry to stop or slow down and move into a defensive formation. The Romans did it in ancient times and the infantry did it in Napoleonic times too.
Getting cover on the flanks/rear by woods/hills/rivers or with your own cavalry and standing in dense shieldwalls is what you see in the history books.
The cavalry charge was deadly if it hit unprepared infantry even if it was a frontal attack.
"Infantry Warfare in the early fourteenth century" by Kelly DeVries is a nice book for those who are interested.
If you have an all foot army and at least 6 units or so are spears you dont have to think too much about the enemy cavalry. You dont have to worry about your units are moving or not..they will defeat cavalry. Protecting flanks/rear is not that important.. only if your unit is already engaged or it will turn quickly and the first few seconds will not give the cavalry that many kills or routs. Basically infantry dominates the battlefield and cavalry is just a nice and expensive unit that is good for flanking.
Things that should be changed:
Costs: Too easy to get very good high valour infantry. The patch should make a few changes there at least.
Speed: Cavalry is too slow or infantry is too fast. Cavalry should be at least 25% faster. Infantry turns too quickly.
Flanks/rear: The effect of a cavalry charge in the flanks/rear of an infantry units is too small. Might be better after the patch(see cost) but my guess is that its not enough.
Defense: Infantry should only be able to stop the cavalry charge if standing firm..any movement at all should give them problems. So no defense bonus versus cavalry while moving. And again.. more time needed to stop and "dress ranks"
Attack: spears and pikes should not get any attack bonuses against cavalry. Long pointy sticks are good at keeping the cavalry away..if you really want to do some killing bring in the billman/halbardier.
Cavalry should dominate the battlefield not by being the steamroller that cant be stopped but something that should make people think more carefully about moving infantry: thinking about terrain, missile and cavalry support.
CBR
Has anyone else noticed that the arguement on this thread goes round in circles?
The original point I tried to make was that Cavalry did not charge full gallop into formed and steady infantry in a secure position.
We then had a lot of people trying to argue that cavalry had indeed rode right over the top of formed infantry and somehow survived.
We then get people replying by pointing the numerous examples when cavalry actually tried to do this and got well and truly cut to ribbons as a result.
Then we get people saying that these examples are unrepresentative because the infantry involved were formed, steady and in favourable positions.
Anyone notice that in fact we are all saying exactly the same thing here?
It's just that nobody is bothering to listen.
Right back at the beginning the point was made that Cavalry charging a shaken, poorly trained or badly deployed infantry unit would almost certainly smash straight through it as it tried to escape and slaughter it. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that.
However, Cavalry faced with a formed, steady infantry unit in a secure position would stand little chance of riding over them unless some freak accident caused the infantry to panic.
IMO: The problem with MTW is that infantry do not panic often enough when charged by cavalry. In fact I have become so complacent that I actually regularly charge enemy knights with my AUM's confident that even though they don't have spears they will massacre them.
This is clearly wrong but the answer isn't to turn Knights into four legged bulldozers its to penalize the infantry so that they panic if not in a cohesive formation when the knights approach them.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Swoosh So
10-22-2002, 19:42
lol 200+ posts you guys have warfare as a hobby?
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
The original point I tried to make was that Cavalry did not charge full gallop into formed and steady infantry in a secure position.
We then had a lot of people trying to argue that cavalry had indeed rode right over the top of formed infantry and somehow survived.
We then get people replying by pointing the numerous examples when cavalry actually tried to do this and got well and truly cut to ribbons as a result.
Then we get people saying that these examples are unrepresentative because the infantry involved were formed, steady and in favourable positions.
Anyone notice that in fact we are all saying exactly the same thing here?[/QUOTE]
No, I disagree.
I actually think that the cavalry DID charge into well-formed infantry, steady, ready to receive the charge, well trained, and despise that managed to many if not most of the time break at least some lines of the infantry and make many more casualties than they received.
I even think that, though it could require several "charges-withdraws-charge again", they most of the time ended by breaking the infantry units and trampling them.
To support my views, I said that the only examples so far where cavalry failed miserably were battles where the situation was incredibly in favor of the infantry, and that the knights still charged (which shows they nevertheless expected to be able to win, which mean that several times in the past they DID win this way even in such circumstances).
Quote Originally posted by Akka:
No, I disagree.
I actually think that the cavalry DID charge into well-formed infantry, steady, ready to receive the charge, well trained, and despise that managed to many if not most of the time break at least some lines of the infantry and make many more casualties than they received.
I even think that, though it could require several "charges-withdraws-charge again", they most of the time ended by breaking the infantry units and trampling them.
To support my views, I said that the only examples so far where cavalry failed miserably were battles where the situation was incredibly in favor of the infantry, and that the knights still charged (which shows they nevertheless expected to be able to win, which mean that several times in the past they DID win this way even in such circumstances).[/QUOTE]
There is a flaw in your argument. It's that when cavalry started to be systematically beaten by infantry, that was when well trained infantry able to stand in formation started to appear in significant numbers. This was probably because towns were now able to field better trained militias while in earlier periods well trained infantry was almost surely constituted by expensive mercenaries or dismounted knights.
My point of view is - again - that cohesive infantry in standing still and well formed is able to stand a cavalry frontal charge. When cohesion of formation is lost by movement or melee, a charge of knights would beat even well trained infantry. Besides, flank and rear attacks by cavalry on infantry should be extremely dangerous for the latter. The problem with MTW is that infantry maneuvres too fast and cohesion is never lost during movement or melee.
Cheers,
Antonio
The Yogi
10-22-2002, 21:27
As far as the battle model goes, I find myself agreeing mostly with amrcg - well formed, equpped and trained infantry staying put should mostly be able to withstand a cavalry charge, especially if they have spears that can be braced against the ground. Only they should take signifcant casualties in the process, which they don't do now.
BUT - the MTW Spearman is a basic unit that appears in the Early period of the game. As such, it should be poorly trained, badly equipped, lack all kind of unit cohesion and most importantly, fully expect to be squashed flat by the high and mighty knights. I have much less a problem with Chivalrigh or Gothic sergeants holding up to Cavalry attack but the Spearmen of MTW should simply be slightly better equipped peasants and break more often than not from a frontal charge by Feudal Knights.
And as for the relative cost of units, again, I must point out that the Feudal system did not give Europan Kings much choice in what kind of troops to buy. They did not recieve taxes, they recieved Feudal obligations from vassal knights.
Good infantry was expensive, Knights they had in abundance. Feudal Knights should be CHEAP. Reasonably, it might be the ONLY unit a less affluent King can afford, appart from peasant levies.
[This message has been edited by The Yogi (edited 10-22-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Hardly, the example of a perfect cavalry charge but rather a reasonable reflection of exactly what happens in MTW.
[/QUOTE]
WHAT?!?!?!?!?
Theer is something very wrong with that statement. Let me explain.
The example you present clearly shows that the knights managed to break into the ranks of the Flemish spearmen (rather pikemen as they spear were very long), and that even in a bad situation for a charge.
No way will you ever get a unit of Chivalric Knights to break ranks of the Spearmen... They will perhaps push them back during melee, the melee that should be so deadly for the knights.
So you see it is exactly the opposite of what you present.
Try to reenact the battle and you will know what I say.
6 Spearmen and 6 Halbardiers. Give yourself 10 Chivalric Knights, charge head on and see what happens. You will see the Spearmen getting very few losses and the Halbardiers shredding the knights, very true to history, but you will not see the knights push into the ranks of the Spearmen during the charge as it was clear they did at Courtrai. And we are talking about Spearmen here, not proffesional Sergeants.
Thanks to armcg for presenting the inherent weakness of the knights. This weakness would be healed if the knights could just charge spearunits (not pikes).
Right now the only way to win against Spearmen is to use some very radical tactics, tactics I can hardly believe were used in the medieval times.
For knights to win against Spearmen (1 on 1) you have to have them in a single line, then put them in Loose, attack and as soon there is contact put them in Close. You might win against the Spearmen this way.
Even flankattacks are defeated... WTF!?!??!
Hark, you said that the Mongols used infantry in numbers at times.
That is certainly true.
But the Mongols themselves did not fight as infantry ever, they only dismounted to fire their heavy compound bows. Their infantry came from subjugated tribes and peoples, and they were considered even more expandable than European peasants were to their Lords.
"They were expected to fight kin and friend, slay their family and ravage their lands. If they did not want to fight they were executed, if they fought well and slew many a friend they could expect nothing more than keeping their lives."
A Peasant at least would have the chance to raise in social ranks if he did well in combat. These guys did not.
They were there to hold the enemy while the Horse Archers did their job, or the heavy cav ambushed the enemy.
They were not expected to take out the enemy mounted units, they were expected to use up the enemy so the Mongols themselves could win the battle.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
It's that when cavalry started to be systematically beaten by infantry, that was when well trained infantry able to stand in formation started to appear in significant numbers.[/QUOTE]
Yes, that is true... Infantry wins began to rake up.
But as it is right now we almost have that infantry force from the get go. The Spearmen are coherent like a force of the later ages.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
There is a flaw in your argument. It's that when cavalry started to be systematically beaten by infantry, that was when well trained infantry able to stand in formation started to appear in significant numbers. This was probably because towns were now able to field better trained militias while in earlier periods well trained infantry was almost surely constituted by expensive mercenaries or dismounted knights.[/QUOTE]
Again, I fully disagree. What you say is only true for intra-european wars, in a time where Europe was in awful economical condition, where kings were able to only pay a half-pillaging small army (the whole army of the king of France with its 19 millions inhabitants was smaller than the army of Athens in the antiquity with its 400 000 inhabitants, just as a matter of camparison), and only for a very short time.
In other words and to sum up : armies in the middle-age were small, bad trained and not disciplined because they cost too much to the broken kings.
Now, islamic world at the time was much, much richer, and did not had the same trouble of money and could levy professionnal army. Byzantine empire had also mercenaries, very well trained and disciplined. Both had armies proportionnally much bigger than European kings.
And despite that, the european heavy cavalry was a fearsome weapon in the Crusades, and the only way to defeating it for muslims was to avoid the charge, to drive it off, to use the terrain, well anything but to just stand it and let it break on their positions.
Hence I persist and say that full frontal charges were efficients and lethal. I even say that it was efficient and lethal against the pike - though much harder and much bloodier for the cavalry - and that is was not until firearms became widespread that it became obsolete.
Quote My point of view is - again - that cohesive infantry in standing still and well formed is able to stand a cavalry frontal charge. When cohesion of formation is lost by movement or melee, a charge of knights would beat even well trained infantry. Besides, flank and rear attacks by cavalry on infantry should be extremely dangerous for the latter. The problem with MTW is that infantry maneuvres too fast and cohesion is never lost during movement or melee.[/QUOTE]
With the first sentence, I would change the "is able" with a "may be able depending if the conditions are favourable".
On the rest I can only wholefully agree.
[This message has been edited by Akka (edited 10-22-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
Yes, that is true... Infantry wins began to rake up.
But as it is right now we almost have that infantry force from the get go. The Spearmen are coherent like a force of the later ages.
[/QUOTE]
I would go even further. STATIC spearmen, pikemen and other infantry types are as coherent as expensive mercenaries or late period militia. MOVING/RUNNING/CHARGING spearmen, pikemen and other infantry types are much more coherent then expensive mercenaries or late period militia even when attacked from the flank.
Cheers,
Antonio
In game terms:
Units charged by cavalry should have to make some kind of check (discipline rating maybe) otherwise they rout.
Infantry units should get no charge bonus or spear bonus if they are moving. In other words force infantry to recieve cav charges stationary otherwise they get no spear bonus (and won't get a charge bonus anyway cuz they are not moving)
I think these two adjustments will bring cavalry up to their historical performance.
Quote Originally posted by Akka:
No, I disagree.
I actually think that the cavalry DID charge into well-formed infantry, steady, ready to receive the charge, well trained, and despise that managed to many if not most of the time break at least some lines of the infantry and make many more casualties than they received.
I even think that, though it could require several "charges-withdraws-charge again", they most of the time ended by breaking the infantry units and trampling them.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry! Akka but you just defeated your own argument. If as you say the cavalry had to make repeated charges then by implication it means they must have made repeated failed charges. All you are saying is that eventually by luck or persistence they wore the infantry down to a point where they panicked and lost formation.
Quote
To support my views, I said that the only examples so far where cavalry failed miserably were battles where the situation was incredibly in favor of the infantry, and that the knights still charged (which shows they nevertheless expected to be able to win, which mean that several times in the past they DID win this way even in such circumstances).[/QUOTE]
No! What this shows is the discipline and tactical finesse amongst the cavalry was so poor that they were incapable of doing anything else. Soldiers on the battle field cannot make up new tactics and drills on the spur of the moment. If the knights have only ever been trained to conduct a dumb head on assault then thats all they can do no matter how ridiculous the situation may be.
Indeed, the reverse is more likely where soldiers have been trained to act with more intelligence and yet completely lose their heads in battle and still do something stupid.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by Kraxis:
WHAT?!?!?!?!?
The example you present clearly shows that the knights managed to break into the ranks of the Flemish spearmen (rather pikemen as they spear were very long), and that even in a bad situation for a charge.
[/QUOTE]
No! It doesn't I read that account very carefully before posting it.
What it says is that at every point along the line the French Knights failed to penetrate the Flemish line, except in the centre where they managed to drive in the front of the formation but failed to break it and become overwhelmed by the Flemish who closed around them and massacred them.
Quote
Only at isolated spots some knights manage to enter the line, but they are immediately taken care of by the deeper lines and chopped into pieces. A major break through does not happen. [/QUOTE]
Note: only at isloted spots some knights manage to enter the line...and are chopped to peices.
Quote
The right wing of the French army apparently attacked in a more organised way. Their crossing of the Groeninge brook happens much better, but even here they don't manage to break through. The Flemish line stands!
[/QUOTE]
Note: ...even here they don't manage to break through. The Flemish line stands!
Quote
In the centre of the Flemish lines, where the men of the Franc of Bruges and Coastal Flanders are standing, the French almost manage to force a break through. They had a bit more space to perform a better charge here. The French knights deeply enter the lines and the front almost collapses. The Flemish reserve under John of Renesse quickly rushes in and throws back the enemy. The lines are repaired.
[/QUOTE]
Note: French Knights deeply enter (Not break through)....the lines and the front almost collapses (as in it didn't collapse)... The lines are repaired. (as in they were restored without being broken)
Quote
The Count of Artois had not taken part in the first charge and noticed that his knights were about to be thrown back. Therefore he decided to go into action himself, in an attempt to avoid a defeat.
Mounted on his magnificent steed Morel he crosses the Groeninge brook without any trouble and he enters deeply into the Flemish ranks. He even manages to rip of a piece of the big Flemish banner, but then he too goes down by the anger of the Flemish soldiers.
[/QUOTE]
Ok! Here we have the Count at the head of fresh battles of Knights attempting to snatch victory from defeat by charging into the Flemish infantry who by now must be tired and partly dis-organised by the mass of Knights from the first charge still imbedded in their line. But still the French cavalry fail to break the Flemish line
So where is the confirmation that at any point the French Cavalry rode over the Flemish line and destroyed it. All they did was embed themselves in it which is exactly what happens in MTW.
Over 1,000 French Knights were slaughtered out of a force of 2,500 by a militia which was only partially armed with spears (apparently only every other man was armed with a pike/spear the other had a goedendags so the spear wall must have been thinner than usual)
But at no point does it state that the French overran the Flemish line.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by tomppb:
In game terms:
Units charged by cavalry should have to make some kind of check (discipline rating maybe) otherwise they rout.
Infantry units should get no charge bonus or spear bonus if they are moving. In other words force infantry to recieve cav charges stationary otherwise they get no spear bonus (and won't get a charge bonus anyway cuz they are not moving)
I think these two adjustments will bring cavalry up to their historical performance.[/QUOTE]
Yes! I agree its ridiculous that infantry caught on the move and sometimes even in the flank can calmly turn and face an enemy cavalry charge and defeat it.
I would actually go farther and say that not only must the infantry be totally stationary and steady to receive the charge but they must also be kept on 'HOLD FORMATION' throughout otherwise the cavalry would force their way into the formation and prise it apart.
Unfortunately, just doing away with the spear bonus is not enough as AUM's are just as good at defeating cavalry and are only armed with swords.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
Unfortunately, just doing away with the spear bonus is not enough as AUM's are just as good at defeating cavalry and are only armed with swords.
[/QUOTE]
And how much valour does your AUMs have? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
CBR
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
So where is the confirmation that at any point the French Cavalry rode over the Flemish line and destroyed it. All they did was embed themselves in it which is exactly what happens in MTW.
[/QUOTE]
Well do people know about any battles where infantry standing firm (or something close to that) to recieve a charge actually was defeated by cavalry?
Dont care if its peasants or pikemen.. with or without missile support..just want some facts instead of an endless theoretical discussion heh
CBR
AgentBif
10-23-2002, 01:32
Quote
Sorry! Akka but you just defeated your own argument. If as you say the cavalry had to make repeated charges then by implication it means they must have made repeated failed charges. All you are saying is that eventually by luck or persistence they wore the infantry down to a point where they panicked and lost formation.
[/QUOTE]
He did not defeat his own argument, he made the precisely the point he intended to and it is a good one. They charged the front, clearly they expected that would be effective... The most likely explanation being that it WAS effective in previous battles (likely so for the previous few hundred years, for that matter). You were claiming that cavalry would never charge dug-in and prepared infantry formations, yet he points out that this was done on numerous occasions, even in situations that were not favorable to them to begin with.
It is likely that if such commanders had always (or usually) seen the heavy cavalry fail frontal assaults, they would simply abandon the notion of trying when it came to those few times when the enemy was in a supremely prepared and well defended situation.
Also, I am curious in all these exceptionally well known cavalry defeats, why did they not attempt to flank the defenders? Why not circle around behind where they hadn't set up their pointy steaks and spear formations? The only general reason I can think of is that the brute force method must have often worked.
bif
AgentBif
10-23-2002, 01:39
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
But at no point does it state that the French overran the Flemish line.
[/QUOTE]
But weren't the Flemish like 8 ranks deep WITH reenforcements? And when you consider the short field up the far bank of the river and the fact that they nearly broke through, and that it was a frontal charge, there are strong points to be won for the cavalry lobby here.
Such a disadvantaged charge would have been far less effective in MTW... And some of those disadvantages aren't even modeled in the game!
bif
Quote Sorry! Akka but you just defeated your own argument. If as you say the cavalry had to make repeated charges then by implication it means they must have made repeated failed charges. All you are saying is that eventually by luck or persistence they wore the infantry down to a point where they panicked and lost formation.[/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 effectives, even against a steady professionnal standing unit situated on a position giving it an advantage.
Quote No! What this shows is the discipline and tactical finesse amongst the cavalry was so poor that they were incapable of doing anything else. Soldiers on the battle field cannot make up new tactics and drills on the spur of the moment. If the knights have only ever been trained to conduct a dumb head on assault then thats all they can do no matter how ridiculous the situation may be.[/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 Note: French Knights deeply enter (Not break through)....the lines and the front almost collapses (as in it didn't collapse)... The lines are repaired. (as in they were restored without being broken)[/QUOTE]
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 ;
well, despite all of this, the charge still broken through EIGHT ranks and could not be pushed back without reinforcement.
How would the charge would have fared then in plain flat ground, even with professionnal soldiers ready to receive it http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/eek.gif
That would again prove rather the EFFECTIVENESS of a dumb full-frontal charge against a wall of spears than the opposite.
Quote (apparently only every other man was armed with a pike/spear the other had a goedendags so the spear wall must have been thinner than usual)[/QUOTE]
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 + armor, 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.
Quote Well do people know about any battles where infantry standing firm (or something close to that) to recieve a charge actually was defeated by cavalry?
Dont care if its peasants or pikemen.. with or without missile support..just want some facts instead of an endless theoretical discussion heh[/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".
Cousin Zoidfarb
10-23-2002, 02:14
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).]
DragonCat
10-23-2002, 02:17
WOW, I can't believe how long this post has gotten . . .
. . . Talk about beating a dead horse!
Seriously though. Great Stuff. Post On!
------------------
DragonCat
. . . on the prowl!
DragonCat
10-23-2002, 02:20
WOW, I can't believe how long this post has gotten . . .
. . . Talk about beating a dead horse!
Seriously though. Great Stuff. Post On!
------------------
DragonCat
. . . on the prowl!
Hakonarson
10-23-2002, 02:24
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
Well do people know about any battles where infantry standing firm (or something close to that) to recieve a charge actually was defeated by cavalry?
Dont care if its peasants or pikemen.. with or without missile support..just want some facts instead of an endless theoretical discussion heh
CBR
[/QUOTE]
Whole battles? No.
Bits of battles - yep.
Eg the final act at Bouvines was 700 infantry eventually overrun by 3000 cavalry charging at them from all sides several times. Mind you the whole of hte rest of the infantry's army had fled, so I'm not sure jsut how wonderful their moral was - but they did stand and fight to the last rather than flee.
Hastings (of course!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif)
As some people have noted - infantry defeating cavalry was of note, but then Hastings is also of note sicne it is an extremely rare example of cavalry defeating infantry!! although the Cavalry comprised a minority of hte Norman army and was supported by spearmen and archers too!! lol
But if you're looking for an example of cavalry crushing infantry with a singel charge (or something that resembles that) I shall have to go to my books at lunch - I can't think of any example right now.
Damn this is a big post. One vital factor you keep forgetting to mention is the relative equipment of the knight or heavy Cav compared to a spearman or pike man. Can you say full plate armour. Well I can, I have a full suit that head to toe. It ranges from 2mm to 1.6mm. I am 5.7ft and it weighs 45 kgs. I also joust and do steel weapon foot combat. Armour is so important and plate armour was very effective. A knight armed in plate verses a spearman in leather mail or even partial plate has a large advantage. Plate armour is very hard to penetrate spear points glance off it so easy. All I am saying is that heavy cav with heavy warhorses that where barded are very well protected and do take allot of punishment. All you anti cavalry infantry lovers you go talk to the polish they will tell you what they did to your beloved swiss pikeman with there 6.2 meter long winged hussar lances.
In MTW when spearman charge they still stop a cavalry charge. That is bull shit. Hitting them in the flank or the rear does piss all as well. Hitting infantry in the flank or rear with heavy horse should absolutely destroy them. Pikes and spares are only good when set in the ground to receive a charge. MTW spear based unites are to tough. Especially against spear man cav charges should be able to break up their formations. I am not saying every time but they should have the ability to smash a infantry line so that it loses any formation bouns it would have happened.
Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
Also, I am curious in all these exceptionally well known cavalry defeats, why did they not attempt to flank the defenders? Why not circle around behind where they hadn't set up their pointy steaks and spear formations? The only general reason I can think of is that the brute force method must have often worked.
bif
[/QUOTE]
Because the defender always used some kind of terrain to protect the flanks/rear. The few examples I know of where terrain wasnt involved, the infantry formed up in what would be called a square/circle like formation.
The best weapon cavalry really has is its charge. The moral effect of it alone could rout an infantry unit.. poorly trained/fatigued/demoralized/disordered.. things like that. It moves a lot faster than its infantry target and therefore it could exploit any weaknesses.. a hole created in the solid infantry line or a unit getting too close and still in marching order or hitting an exposed flank.
Its the whole idea of cavalry: shocktroops
They were superior to ordinary infantry both in 1 on 1 in combat and socially. That will cause arrogance that is hard to change.
Information back then was very limited. Not easy to get any knowledge of what happened at a certain battle if you were not there yourself and even then it would not have been easy seeing/understanding something that happened just 200 meters away.
How many battles could a knight expect to participate in during his lifetime and personally learn from them?
And there were always examples of charges that did win the day but the causes of victories and defeat were not seen how we might see it today: Courage and individual fighting were the primary concerns for the knight.
How could the knight see the difference between one rebel militia to another. They were all socially inferior, badly equipped/trained to his eye. Only one thing to do...charge.
CBR
Hakonarson
10-23-2002, 02:49
Actually the Polish Husars rode over Swedish infantry, not Swiss, and the Swedes were roughly half musketeers and half "pikes" - except that the CinC of the Swedes had noted that the Swedish infantry was poor quality and almost completely lacked pikes - they certainly had nothing like 6.2 metre ones - the standard Swedish pike length of a couple of decades later was about 5 metres.
Oh, and of course the Swedes had been attacking uphil against the Polish/Lithuanian infantry that had let them have several volleys of musketry, and most of the Polish Caalry were NOT Hussars.
Oh, and one other thing - the Hussars took 50% casualties among their horses, and 10% among their men - they were finishwd as a fighting unit for that day!! lol
But back to the discussion in hand.
One of the reasons this discussion goes on is that here are actually 2 subjects being talked about.
One is the historical performance of infantry vs cavalry.
Historically the vast majority of Knights did NOT wear full plate armour and ride horses barded with plate. By the time the richest knights could afford that (and that's the only people who ever did!!) infantry had true pikes and firearms, not short spears!! And "well equipped" pikemen who were expected to fight cavalry were themselves wearing plate armour in the form of cuirasses, tassets and helmets!!
Beavis' wishes to the contrary, steady infantry have always been a major headache for cavalry. It has been that way since time immemorial, and remains that today (vs armour).
However IMO the more contentious issue is how MTW addresses various things - especialy the ability of infantry to move around the battlefield and retain all it's bonuses, and the morale effect of being hit in flank or rear.
IMO there IS cause for complaint here.
Infantry should not get rank bonuses for charging anyone, and IMO should get charging bonuses only vs other infantry. Indeed even the movement caused by reorganising due to casualties should have some effect while it is happening, so a well times cavalry charge combined with archery could work - as happened at Falkirk for example.
also the penalties for getting attacked in flank and rear are nothing like they were historically - the mere presence of unknown troops in the rear of an army has been known to cause rout!! Even when those troops were actually friendly on a few occasions!!
Bumping up the flank/rear moral penalties I think would restore a lot to cavalry - it would force slow moving infantry to stay closer together to provide mutual support.
with infantry restricted from ranging over the battlefiled at will cavalry's mobility becomes actually useful to get behind a static line and launch such attacks, and one or 2 units doing that should be quite decisive in the normal course of events.
however even then it's not automatic - there were formations infantry could adopt to resist from all directions - the famous Scots Schiltron was not unique - Spearmen have used similar throughout the ages and it shuold be an option for several units to get together and form one - or even jsut a single unit to do so.
Of course they'd then be stationary, and archers could have a little "fun"!!
[This message has been edited by Hakonarson (edited 10-22-2002).]
[This message has been edited by Hakonarson (edited 10-22-2002).]
Hakonarson
10-23-2002, 03:48
Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
Also, I am curious in all these exceptionally well known cavalry defeats, why did they not attempt to flank the defenders? Why not circle around behind where they hadn't set up their pointy steaks and spear formations? The only general reason I can think of is that the brute force method must have often worked.
[/QUOTE]
IMO the main reason is lack of command and control systems that would allow this.
A general needed his army under his direct gaze to be able to issue orders to it.
Despite this there are many cases of ambushes and flank marches historically - sometimes they workd, as often as not they arrived too late, or too early, some got lost, etc.
Perhaps the most famous flank march in history if the Persians at Thermopylae, where they used a mountain pass to get around the Greek position. The Greeks knew about the pass and assigned 1000 men to protect it, but these guys saw the Persians approaching and withdrew up the hil to a better defensive position - and the Persians jsut marched right by them!!
so the performance of troops out of sight of the general was always a problem, and this isn't represented at all in MTW.
[Edited 'cos it was 1000 men, not 100!]
[This message has been edited by Hakonarson (edited 10-22-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
But at no point does it state that the French overran the Flemish line.
[/QUOTE]
So what does that bring you? I never said they did. I said they broke into the spearmens ranks during the charge, nothing more than that. I never said that they broke any formation.
Obviously the flanks were not that good, but at least the right flank managed to do better than any cav in MTW, getting the line to waver a little.
You must know, and I guess you do, that there is a very big difference between 'breaking into' and 'breaking' on a whole. Not everything is about breaking the unit on a whole.
I have never said that would happen, but that the spearmen would certainly feel the charge, and they would feel it badly.
You will never see any cavalry unit break into a unit of Spearmen head on in MTW, even if they are running, much less actually break through.
That is the major difference from the battle. Why can't you accept that the knights actually carried some weight in their charge?
Since the knights in the center almost managed to break through despite a somewhat limited charge makes me wonder if not they would have done it had the terrain been flat and had no obstacles. I think they would. An action unheard of in MTW.
What do I care that the Flemish won, the knights managed to actually do something against the spearman/halbardier formation.
I feel I'm repeating myself here, but the fact remains from your posts: The knights managed to deliver carnage among the first ranks.
Quote As some people have noted - infantry defeating cavalry was of note, but then Hastings is also of note sicne it is an extremely rare example of cavalry defeating infantry!! although the Cavalry comprised a minority of hte Norman army and was supported by spearmen and archers too!! lol[/QUOTE]
It has become wideknown now, that William wanted to make his adversary seem very powerful after battle, as it would give him little prestige if he defeated a tired, worn-out army that was mainly made up of peasants. So the accounts can't be taken so highly.
But still, there were very few other battles in those days where you could say the infantry managed to take the sting out of the cavalry. That is part of the "Ohhhh"-effect about Hastings.
But even Hastings can't be repeated, if you are to make the knights as important as they were to William. It would be the infantry winning the battle for you and could possibly do that without the knights. The knights were very important in winning the battle for William, without them he would never have been able to make the feinted rout work proporly.
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Talking about historical correctness http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
The best unit should be the peasant mob...
Just look at swiss history. Those folks where mostly peasants. And they sure tought the austrians, germans and others to stay away. Later they became profesional mercenaries, but during their fight for independence they where a militia army.
Just look at the folowing batles, and tell me if peasants shouldn't rule the medieval batlefields http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif :
1315 Battle of Morgarten: the Forest Cantons defeat Leopold of Austria.
1386 Battle of Sempach: the Confederation defeats Leopold II of Swabia.
1388 Battle of Naefels: confirms the result of Sempach.
1415 Conquest of the Aargau from Frederick of Austria
1436-50 The Toggenburg War: Civil war, the side alied to Emperor Frederick III of the HRE lost
1460 Conquest of the Thurgau from Austria
1474-77 Hostilities against Charles the Bold of Burgundy: Batles of Grandson (2 March 1476) and Morat (22 June 1476) and Charles withdrew to Lorraine where he was defeated and killed
1499 War against Emperor Maximilian; Swiss win the battle of Dornach (22 July) and the Emperor comes to terms by the Treaty of Basle (22 Sept.) granting the Swiss virtual independence.
Most of the early batles where not fought with swiss pikeniers but with hellbardiers. And without a cavallery to speak of...
The old swiss rocked, then they became pacifists and went into the banking busines...
There is a debate going on here as to why cavalry was effective:
1) Cavalry had a "moral" advantage ie the sight of huge warhorses with armored men gave them a psychological advantage. The infantry that panicked began to break up and run before they were touched by a lance.
2) Cavalry with lance and superior armour destroyed infantry through superior weapons, and the momentum of their horses, ie actually bowling the infantry over. It didn't matter what the infantry did they were simply run over.
But we ALL agree that cavalry as it stands is too weak! I personally subscribe to #1 I think infantry should be forced to make a check when charged by cavalry and if failed should rout. I also think infantry should have to face cavalry charges while stationary otherwise they should suffer extreme penalties. The advantage of infantry was in their cohesion.
Quote Originally posted by Hakonarson:
Whole battles? No.
Bits of battles - yep.
Eg the final act at Bouvines was 700 infantry eventually overrun by 3000 cavalry charging at them from all sides several times. Mind you the whole of hte rest of the infantry's army had fled, so I'm not sure jsut how wonderful their moral was - but they did stand and fight to the last rather than flee.
[/QUOTE]
Even in MTW sorrounded infantry will loose to cavalry.
Quote [B]
Hastings (of course!! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif)
As some people have noted - infantry defeating cavalry was of note, but then Hastings is also of note sicne it is an extremely rare example of cavalry defeating infantry!! although the Cavalry comprised a minority of hte Norman army and was supported by spearmen and archers too!! lol
[/QUOTE]
I would say that the archers won the day for William. And their main feat was to kill Harold himself.
Quote
But if you're looking for an example of cavalry crushing infantry with a singel charge (or something that resembles that) I shall have to go to my books at lunch - I can't think of any example right now.[/QUOTE]
Neither do I. Most likely it does not exist unless the infantry are untrained and poorly equipped peasants.
Cheers,
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by AgentBif:
But weren't the Flemish like 8 ranks deep WITH reenforcements? And when you consider the short field up the far bank of the river and the fact that they nearly broke through, and that it was a frontal charge, there are strong points to be won for the cavalry lobby here.
bif[/QUOTE]
No! There aren't. This is a perfect example of why Knights should not be turned into four-legged bulldozers.
I would also put on record that I have never argued that Cavalry did not attack formed infantry frontally. There are numerous examples of that occuring however, it is clear from this account of Courtrai and others that such attacks did NOT smash straight through the enemy formation as suggested by 'Knights are really tanks in disguise' lobby.
Personally, I find the adjectives used to describe the French attack in the account of Courtrai quite interesting in that during the early part of the description the writer uses all the classic Cavalry Charge adjectives. e.g. Thundering hoofs etc. but actually fails to continue this theme to describe the final close and point of decision.
There is no mention of a bone crushing charge or of infantry being smashed to the ground under pounding hoofs. Instead he says some of the cavalry were successful in 'entering the Flemish formation'.
To me this suggests an almost sedate and protracted process with the French knights pushing their way into the enemy formation knocking the Flemish Spearpoints to one side and hacking their way steadily forward rather than riding roughshod over the heads of their opponents.
It should also be noted that the attack by the French Knights only occured after a protacted exchange between opposing crossbowmen had provided indecisive and the French had run out of ammunition. In short the French had run out of tactical options and the Knights were too proud to back off and wait for a more favourable opportunity.
------------------
Didz
Fortis balore et armis
Dont down play the hussars. Yes they did have lances up to 6.2 meters long it is well documented. sweeds swiss bah. Still pikeman
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
No! There aren't. This is a perfect example of why Knights should not be turned into four-legged bulldozers.
I would also put on record that I have never argued that Cavalry did not attack formed infantry frontally. There are numerous examples of that occuring however, it is clear from this account of Courtrai and others that such attacks did NOT smash straight through the enemy formation as suggested by 'Knights are really tanks in disguise' lobby.
Personally, I find the adjectives used to describe the French attack in the account of Courtrai quite interesting in that during the early part of the description the writer uses all the classic Cavalry Charge adjectives. e.g. Thundering hoofs etc. but actually fails to continue this theme to describe the final close and point of decision.
There is no mention of a bone crushing charge or of infantry being smashed to the ground under pounding hoofs. Instead he says some of the cavalry were successful in 'entering the Flemish formation'.
To me this suggests an almost sedate and protracted process with the French knights pushing their way into the enemy formation knocking the Flemish Spearpoints to one side and hacking their way steadily forward rather than riding roughshod over the heads of their opponents.
It should also be noted that the attack by the French Knights only occured after a protacted exchange between opposing crossbowmen had provided indecisive and the French had run out of ammunition. In short the French had run out of tactical options and the Knights were too proud to back off and wait for a more favourable opportunity.
[/QUOTE]
I totally agree. Cavalry was supposed to be used against formed infantry only after the latter were harassed by missile units. That's why the missile units went ahead. The French were unfortunate that the Flemish had their missile units too, which - although forced to retreat - were able to check the attack of the French crossbowmen and hinder the "standard operational procedures" of the French. The latter, confident that Flemish militia were poorly armed and prepared levies decided to charge anyway, which proved fatal. Had the French crossbowmen been able to discharge their load on the Flemish lines unopposed, they mights have caused anough casualties and morale loss that would allow the frontal charge by the knights to be victorious.
As you can see I believe that a frontal charge by armoured cavalry on infantry can be quite effective, but only when the proper conditions are met, e.g.:
a) When the infantry is very unprepared and/or poorly armed.
b) When the infantry is previously harassed by missile units.
c) When the infantry is broken due to movement speed, broken terrain, melee, etc.
d) When infantry was caught from the flank or rear.
Condition a) was very common in the early period as the cities were usually not able to field well trained militias. Peasants were also poor fighters in normal conditions.
Condition b) was responsible for several English victories in Scotland, and was surely the objective of the French at Courtrai.
Condition c) hapenned at Bouvines, when the French knights charged the victorious German infantry which was pursuing the defeated French infantry.
Condition d) hapenned in some battles (I recall at least one XIIth century battle), namely when cavalry was able to attack enemy infantry already comitted from the back (though I don't recall an example where such a meneuvre alone with no support was employed).
Cheers,
Antonio
I have the sad feeling I'm talking to the wind...
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
As you can see I believe that a frontal charge by armoured cavalry on infantry can be quite effective, but only when the proper conditions are met, e.g.:
a) When the infantry is very unprepared and/or poorly armed.
b) When the infantry is previously harassed by missile units.
c) When the infantry is broken due to movement speed, broken terrain, melee, etc.
d) When infantry was caught from the flank or rear.[/QUOTE]
No.
In fact, it's not that "cavalry was effective only when condition were favourables", but rather "cavalry was ineffective only when conditions were extremely unfavourable".
Well, I spent several posts using arguments. Don't want to copy-and-paste them here. If people don't want to hear, well, repeating it won't change their mind.
Quote Originally posted by Akka:
I have the sad feeling I'm talking to the wind...
No.
In fact, it's not that "cavalry was effective only when condition were favourables", but rather "cavalry was ineffective only when conditions were extremely unfavourable".
Well, I spent several posts using arguments. Don't want to copy-and-paste them here. If people don't want to hear, well, repeating it won't change their mind.[/QUOTE]
Unfavourable like what? Well trained cohesive infantry standing with flanks protected and not previously harassed by missile units?
Cheers,
Antonio
Cousin Zoidfarb
10-23-2002, 20:40
Hakonarsen the Hussars may have not been able to fight the rest of the day at Kircholm but neither were the 'poorly-trained' Swedish pikemen. As you say they were the minority the rest being lightly armed 'cossacks' with shorter lances. Anyway the almost completely cavalry army routed an outnumbering force.
You forgot completely about the battle of Lubieszow.
Final score: Husaria 2 Pikemen 0
The gripe the cavalry lobby has is that spears have such strong anti-cav benefits, even Hakonarsen partly excused the Swedish defeat at Kircholm because of the shorter half-pike.
In the game pikes should have defense against lance-armed cavalry and spears should only get benefit against cavalry not armed with lances.
Quote Originally posted by Beavis:
In the game pikes should have defense against lance-armed cavalry and spears should only get benefit against cavalry not armed with lances. [/QUOTE]
I would be satisfied with removing the anti-charge value of spearmen. That would make it a much more balanced battle, and a six-seven feet spear is very short when planted in the ground like the Flemish did (with 12 feet spears mind you).
Quote There is no mention of a bone crushing charge or of infantry being smashed to the ground under pounding hoofs. Instead he says some of the cavalry were successful in 'entering the Flemish formation'.[/QUOTE]
That is true enough, but in the sentence just before he mentiones the 'better charge'.
Quote They had a bit more space to perform a better charge here. The French knights deeply enter the lines and the front almost collapses.[/QUOTE]
The front almost collapsed... That happens mostly after these cases, in a situation of no flanking, no mystery forces and no missilefire:
A very heavy charge, by cav or infantry it doesn't matter.
A prolonged melee where the morale is beginning to falter.
And lastly if the enemy soldiers are simply too good and cuts down those who oppose them.
It was not a prolonged melee, at least that is what I get from the text.
And several times it is stated that the knights get a good beating by the goedendags, so they are not much better in melee, at least not to force a collapse. Perhaps forcing a brach, but not a collapse.
That leaves us with a heavy charge.
So if the charge did not produce any effect and the knights halted and pushed instead, then he would have written that, as the knights charged the wings, it is so stated by the writer. In those cases he made an effort of writing that the charges failed to a great extent. Why should they not charge in the middle? It seems very obvious they did.
------------------
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 10-23-2002).]
Cyricist
10-23-2002, 21:08
Hmmm .. why don't we write a book on this subject.. you certainly seem well informed the lot of you http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif..
Ride on...
Quote Originally posted by Cyricist:
Hmmm .. why don't we write a book on this subject.. you certainly seem well informed the lot of you http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif..
Ride on...[/QUOTE]
Yes... That would seem a good idea to make some easy money. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
Come lets contact a company. We could call the book:
Knights: Tanks or foolish nobles? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
Quote Originally posted by amrcg:
Unfavourable like what? Well trained cohesive infantry standing with flanks protected and not previously harassed by missile units?
Cheers,
Antonio[/QUOTE]
Haven't you even bother to READ what you answered to ?
This was included in the quote you answered :
Quote Well, I spent several posts using arguments. Don't want to copy-and-paste them here. If people don't want to hear, well, repeating it won't change their mind.[/QUOTE]
Which means I already gave these arguments.
If you would have read, and bothered to look the previous posts, you would have find this :
Quote 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 ;
well, despite all of this, the charge still broken through EIGHT ranks and could not be pushed back without reinforcement.
How would the charge would have fared then in plain flat ground, even with professionnal 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.[/QUOTE]
The facts are :
1) even in extremely unfavourable circumstances (charging uphill, being tired by having to cross big obstacles, on a field encumbered, without the distance required to reach a sufficient speed, against a wall of spears formed by a steady infantry unit which was not softened by arrows and was resolved to fight), heavy cavalry was still able to enter the lines in some points, and break through eight ranks one time out of three.
2) The only battles used in this thread to show the lack of power of cavalry are battles where cavalry WAS in very unfavorable circumstances.
For me, it's a proof of the efficiency of the dumb full-frontal charge more than anything.
[This message has been edited by Akka (edited 10-23-2002).]
Quote Originally posted by Akka:
The facts are :
1) even in extremely unfavourable circumstances (charging uphill, being tired by having to cross big obstacles, on a field encumbered, without the distance required to reach a sufficient speed, against a wall of spears formed by a steady infantry unit which was not softened by arrows and was resolved to fight), heavy cavalry was still able to enter the lines in some points, and break through eight ranks one time out of three.
2) The only battles used in this thread to show the lack of power of cavalry are battles where cavalry WAS in very unfavorable circumstances.
For me, it's a proof of the efficiency of the dumb full-frontal charge more than anything.
[This message has been edited by Akka (edited 10-23-2002).][/QUOTE]
You seem to generalize the unfavourable conditions to all parts of the front at Courtrai. The description - unfortunately we cannot go there and watch - says that on the right and centre of the French line, the cavalry was able to gain speed. Even with this speed, the cavalry did not manage to rout the Flemish, period. Should MTW improve the cavalry charge allowing the latter to push back the infantry? Maybe. Anyway it would just be a quation of graphical appealing as the result would be the same: cavalry charging frontally static cohesive unscathed infantry with protected flanks should loose the combat.
Antonio
Quote Originally posted by Beavis:
Hakonarsen the Hussars may have not been able to fight the rest of the day at Kircholm but neither were the 'poorly-trained' Swedish pikemen. As you say they were the minority the rest being lightly armed 'cossacks' with shorter lances. Anyway the almost completely cavalry army routed an outnumbering force.
You forgot completely about the battle of Lubieszow.
Final score: Husaria 2 Pikemen 0
The gripe the cavalry lobby has is that spears have such strong anti-cav benefits, even Hakonarsen partly excused the Swedish defeat at Kircholm because of the shorter half-pike.
In the game pikes should have defense against lance-armed cavalry and spears should only get benefit against cavalry not armed with lances. [/QUOTE]
Not knowing much about that time periode..only the few websites I just found:
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm
The description of how the hussars fought versus the swedish foot and the battle of Kircholm (if the information on that site is correct) explains perfectly why the hussars won.
Several points:
The pikes normally only stood 3 ranks deep and apparently 1.5 meters between each file. That might have been a formation that worked nicely against light/non armoured cavalry equipped with swords and pistols but is far from what we see earlier in the middleages. And against the hussars, who practically had gone back to the good old fashioned cavalry charge, that type of pike and shot formation wouldnt be that good.
At Kircholm we see a swedish army advance up hill (at least the division hit by the hussars) against a feigned retreat from the poles. Suddenly they have to fight as the poles start shooting with muskets and guns and then a cavalry charge. The swedish pike and shot formation can hardly be considered in a steady and firm defensive formation as they were advancing and under fire. If the hussars were that good why didnt they just attack right away instead of luring the swedes to advance by making a feigned retreat?
Found something about Lubieszow here:
http://polisharmies.ds4a.com/lub/gdansk.html
http://www.allempires.com/empires/polish_lit_full/polish_lit1.htm
Not much really.
Only thing I see is the hussars supported the infantry in defeating the landsknechts.
As we are discussing possible changes to MTW based on history, we always have to be careful bringing in other timeperiods without looking at the possible changes in tactics and weapons.
I cant see how the hussars, the battle of Kircholm and Lubieszow tells us much about what cavalry did 100-500 years earlier. If anything they tell the same story as we can read about in earlier battles: Unprepared infantry has severe problems against a sudden cavalry charge and infantry in general has problems facing a combined attack from cavalry and infantry.
That doesnt mean that infantry shouldnt have losses when stopping and defeating a cavalry charge and that pikes should be better than spears. MTW only has 2 categories of long pointy sticks: Spears and pikes. A lot of the spears in the middelages could be considered longspears og halfpikes or whatever we should call them and still pretty good against cavalry.
Just because the cavalry lance had a slight advantage in length at one time the horse would still have been impaled by the second or third rank of long pointy sticks. If the hussars lost half their horses against 3 ranks of short pikes standing in what I would call loose order then imagine what would happen when charging some infantry deployed in a density nearly 10 times that.
CBR
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
Just because the cavalry lance had a slight advantage in length at one time the horse would still have been impaled by the second or third rank of long pointy sticks.
[/QUOTE]
I'm not too sure about that.
If you read about the jousting-accident earlier in this thread you would know that te spearman would be thrown back when struck, no matter the lance be pointed or not. That would disrupt the second and perhaps the third rank ensuring the spears would not be so sure of the horse impaling itself.
And then we have what I want, disruption of the Spearmens ranks due to the force of the charge.
So should I call my publisher so we can get soem money? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif
------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.
You may not care about war, but war cares about you!
AgentBif
10-24-2002, 01:15
Quote Originally posted by Didz:
No! There aren't. This is a perfect example of why Knights should not be turned into four-legged bulldozers.
[/QUOTE]
It's not a perfect example at all!
Geez. The point is, that the Phlegms http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif had several major advantages going for them that were unusual. Remove the river and the crossbows on the ground, for example, and it is reasonable to conjecture that the French may well have penetrated.
bif
Hakonarson
10-24-2002, 02:10
Quote Originally posted by Beavis:
Hakonarsen the Hussars may have not been able to fight the rest of the day at Kircholm but neither were the 'poorly-trained' Swedish pikemen. [/QUOTE]
Indeed - you have missed my point - perhaps I didn't make it well.
My point is that even versus poorly trained troops, at best HALF of whom were pike, a frontal charge by heavy cavalry was AT BEST tactical suicide for the cavalry unit.
Quote As you say they were the minority the rest being lightly armed 'cossacks' with shorter lances. Anyway the almost completely cavalry army routed an outnumbering force. [/QUOTE]
Yep - it's been done before and since - it's not all that remarkable that good cavalry can over run poor infantry.
Quote You forgot completely about the battle of Lubieszow.
Final score: Husaria 2 Pikemen 0[/QUOTE]
Actually I'd never heard of the battle, and are those the only 2 battles that Husaria fought against pike in?
No they aren't - they took a thrashing vs the Rusians at least once IIRC - the Russians being relatively well trained, equipped and prepared had to be winkled out by fire to prepare for a final charge.
And ultimately the lance lost the match to hte pike when the hussars gave up their lances!!
Quote The gripe the cavalry lobby has is that spears have such strong anti-cav benefits, even Hakonarsen partly excused the Swedish defeat at Kircholm because of the shorter half-pike.[/QUOTE]
I did no such thing!
I said they had very few pike at all - I didn't mention anything about length!
And of course I put in the fact you've not mentioned that the Swedes were also "prepared" by the fire of het Polish inantry, adn at least half of them did not carry pieks at all!
Quote In the game pikes should have defense against lance-armed cavalry and spears should only get benefit against cavalry not armed with lances. [/QUOTE]
Arrant nonsense!
In the 2 battles you mention - rather small affairs of no great consequence let it be noted - the Hussaria were fighting poor quality troops - in those circumstances any cavalry at all has a much greater chance of success as against prepared troops.
People who emphasis weapons over morale, training and cohesion, like you have, show little idea of what actually mattered.
Most lances throughout history have ben exactly the smae length as the "normal" spears carried by infantry - your argument is utterly specious.
Quote My point is that even versus poorly trained troops, at best HALF of whom were pike, a frontal charge by heavy cavalry was AT BEST tactical suicide for the cavalry unit.[/QUOTE]
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).]
Hakonarson
10-24-2002, 02:32
Quote Originally posted by CBR:
Only thing I see is the hussars supported the infantry in defeating the landsknechts.
[/QUOTE]
A very succint summary and a point well made!
Teh accounts we have of hussars defeating varius western and eastern armies are quiet intersting, but as someone mentioned about Hastings - they are almost invariably written by Poles proud of their national heritage and making the most of it!
Even at Kircholm the Hussars were aided by infantry, while in some of the otehr battles the infantry won the batle and hte Hussars aided them.
While the big battle against the Russians was won by brilliant leadership against typically stationary Russian tactics and internal dissent.
While the Poles retained high morale and cohesion they wee always going to be a force to be reckoned with and able to defeat less cohesive and worse quality armies of any variety - that's the nature of good and bad troops!
BTW of course teh Russian army in 1610 contained sweet FA pikemen at all - the Western contingents would ahve ben formed in the normal western manner of 1 pike to every 1 or 2 musketeers, but hte bulk of the native russian infantry was probalby Streltsi and cossacks mostly armed with firearm and/or axe.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.