insane numbers of cavalry...

[Ragss]

Watching all the TC videos raised a concern with me...Many of the units of horses were absoultely HUUUGE This seems...odd...I guess im just used to charging 20 knights into 60 swordsmen, not 200 horses into 200 swordsmen. It just seems hard to use like we all know how, flanking and tight manuevers.

Any other opinions on this?

[Leet Eriksson]

well first of all,since were talking about cavalry in antiquity,they might be more fragile than the ones in MTW and could only be used in skirmishing and flanking manuevers,becuase the game seems to emphasise on heavier infantry and not cavalry,they should not be treated as your coup de grace like you did with knights.thats why i think they increased their numbers.also pulling off manuevers is pretty easy becuase the maps this time around are bigger.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

In shogun cavalry is same size as infantry unit...no problems flanking there.

[The Wizard]

Well, if the infantry units are bigger, shouldn't the cavalry become bigger as well?

Besides, units in TC were oversized to better approach the real army sizes.

[jLan]

Cavalry probably won't be as strong as in MTW, at least if you look at it historically. The stir-up (or however it's spelled) wasn't invented yet in the era that RTW takes place in, so charging with a lance was virtually impossible, since you'd probably fall off the horse in the process. Basically we will just have the lighter forms of cavalry we know from MTW I expect.. Mounted archers and other mounted skrimishers, plus some spear-armed cavalry to give chase and flank.

[Longshanks]

I agree with Jlan. I suspect that cavalry units won't be the juggernauts they were in MTW.

[TigerVX]

I think Elephants will take the place of tank =P. But did you see the TC episode of Chalons? One unit of Visigoth cavalry got butchered by a unit of Auxilery.

[The Wizard]

Quote[/b] (jLan @ April 24 2004,21:19)]Cavalry probably won't be as strong as in MTW, at least if you look at it historically. The stir-up (or however it's spelled) wasn't invented yet in the era that RTW takes place in, so charging with a lance was virtually impossible, since you'd probably fall off the horse in the process. Basically we will just have the lighter forms of cavalry we know from MTW I expect.. Mounted archers and other mounted skrimishers, plus some spear-armed cavalry to give chase and flank.
It was quite possible, take a look at the hetairoi and the Persian heavy cavalry (who, with the ill training they received, did reasonably against the hetairoi) and the Parthian cataphracts. It just took a great horseman and long training to do it. But if you take one look at the devastation a hetairoi or Parthian heavy horse charge could wreak, it was worth it.

I do not know when, but somewhere in the Roman Imperial age, the war saddle was invented. With a large cantle at the back, it made it a lot easier for, for instance, a clibanarius or a Sassanid lancer to resist falling off of his horse at impact.



~Wiz

[CBR]

The stirrup isnt really necessary for use of lance in shock combat. The saddle design is more important and the 4-horned saddle, that was used in ancient times, was a good design. The stirrup actually helps horsearchers a lot, maybe even more than lancers.

Here is one
link (http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.shtml)

Cavalry in ancient times didnt have the same advantage in training and armour versus infantry as we see in medieval times. Nor was it used in same numbers (except the eastern armies) so it didnt have the same impact in battle.

Try some MTW historical battles and there are actually 100 men cavalry units used a few times heh. And we do see very large infantry units (300? men) in TC too.


CBR

[The Wizard]

CBR, do you know when the war saddle was first employed on a large scale? A hunch tells me my estimate is a bit off... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif



~Wiz

[Ashen]

Probably right about stirrups helping archers more since bows were far more prevalent weapons than lances on horseback in the middle-east/asian area where the stirrup first appeared.

Plus the real lance wasn't really adopted mass scale until the middle ages I believe. It was mostly spear and sword until then.

[The Wizard]

So you would call the xyston and the charging weapon of an East Parthian lancer (cataphract) a spear? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif



~Wiz

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Ashen @ April 25 2004,15:13)]Probably right about stirrups helping archers more since bows were far more prevalent weapons than lances on horseback in the middle-east/asian area where the stirrup first appeared.
Sorry, but no. In the West, the stirrups were first used about 400AD. The 4-horned saddle was used, in the West, well before 200BC. The Celts used such a saddle.



Quote[/b] ]Plus the real lance wasn't really adopted mass scale until the middle ages I believe. It was mostly spear and sword until then.
Sorry, again. Cavalry never uses spears. The equivalent of a spear, in cavalry use, was always called lance. When you mean real lance, you are refering to couched lances, which is an improvement invented in the Middle Ages.

Lance - cavalry weapon.
Spear - infantry weapon.

[SpencerH]

I was trying to think of an example of 'heavy cav' from around this time period and all I could think of was the Macedonians who did use cavalry as shock troops.

[Nowake]

Sorry, again. Cavalry never uses spears. The equivalent of a spear, in cavalry use, was always called lance.


This way of differentiating is simplistic. The cavalry lances were lighter and more the spearpoint was shaped somewhat different.

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Ashen @ April 25 2004,22:13)]Probably right about stirrups helping archers more since bows were far more prevalent weapons than lances on horseback in the middle-east/asian area where the stirrup first appeared.
Well more because a horsearcher would stand in his stirrups while using his bow. That way he can compensate for the movement of the horse and deliver a more accurate "fire"

The sirrup doesnt help the lancer much as they wont prevent him from being pushed back on impact. Thats really only the saddle and his skill. In the link I gave its mentioned that:
Quote[/b] ]the stirrups can be useful before the impact, to brace the rider more firmly against the cantle. The moment of impact however, tends to pull the rider's feet up and back - or otherwise "out" of the stirrups.


They even tried to use lances without a saddle and it can be done.


CBR

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ April 25 2004,13:44)]CBR, do you know when the war saddle was first employed on a large scale? A hunch tells me my estimate is a bit off... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif
Hm well we cant really be 100% sure.. But AFAIK we have archaeological evidence from early 1st century AD so we know Romans used the 4 horned saddle at that point. Some experts think they got it from Germans and Celts in late 1st century BC but it could have been earlier.

But as you can see from Alexander the Great and his Companions they didnt need the 4 horned saddle to make them good and feared cavalry.


CBR

[CBR]

Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ April 26 2004,00:22)]Sorry, again. Cavalry never uses spears. The equivalent of a spear, in cavalry use, was always called lance.
How can you make such a statement? Some languages dont even have a seperate word for spear/lance

I have seen several discussions on what specific weapon some ancient unit used, because the names of the weapons used in the text could mean several things. Several translations have had errors because they didnt know what english word to use.

The lance we see in later medieval ages were the most advanced and very different compared to an infantry weapon. Before that there wouldnt be that much of a difference.

In some medieval texts spear and lance are used interchangeably (even what talking about infantry) and I guess difference in length might be the reason, as a lance could be longer than a normal (short)spear.


CBR

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (CBR @ April 27 2004,06:36)]
Quote[/b] (Aymar de Bois Mauri @ April 26 2004,00:22)]Sorry, again. Cavalry never uses spears. The equivalent of a spear, in cavalry use, was always called lance.
How can you make such a statement? Some languages dont even have a seperate word for spear/lance

I have seen several discussions on what specific weapon some ancient unit used, because the names of the weapons used in the text could mean several things. Several translations have had errors because they didnt know what english word to use.

The lance we see in later medieval ages were the most advanced and very different compared to an infantry weapon. Before that there wouldnt be that much of a difference.

In some medieval texts spear and lance are used interchangeably (even what talking about infantry) and I guess difference in length might be the reason, as a lance could be longer than a normal (short)spear.


CBR
OK. So, I'm being unfair to other languages. Let me explain:

In Portuguese, Lance (Lança) always mean Cavalry weapon. Spear (Zarguncho ou Venábulo), like Pike (Pique) or throwing spear (Azagaia), always means Infantry weapon. On the other hand, Javelin or Dart (Dardo) aren't exclusivelly designated as Infantry or Cavalry weapons.

[shingenmitch2]

CB,
I'd modify ur first post a bit. Stirrups aren't required for shock tactics as the 4 prong saddle was adaquate. However, stirrups are much more effective for shock tactics as they allow transference of impact forces to the rider's legs as opposed to back/butt. Thus the Knights were an improved charger.

As for where the 4-prong saddle develop there is some debate. Generally it is called the Celtic sadle, but there is growing evidence that it was a Scythian/Sarmatian development.

Spear/lance debate
I have no idea about other languages...
My understanding for English definitions is that the employment of the weapon is as important to how it is termed as is whether or not it was used by infantry or cavalry. Thus a cav. could use a "cavalry spear" if the weapon was a traditional spear length and used predominantly for stabbing from a horse--like early Greek and Persian cavalry employed it. If it was an elongated spear used in a "charge" like the Sarmatians employed it is was considered a lance.

A javelin is any spear designed for throwing. Thus, throwing spear and javelin would be the same thing. (as opposed to a spear designed for thrusting that I happened to toss)
I'm not certain, but I think the difference between a military dart and small javelin is that the dart has "fins" to help guide it.

[Kraxis]

shingen, that classicalfencing site clearly proves that the saddle is the most important part, not the stirrups.
To use the stirrups to transfer the power you would have to lean forward quite a bit to get the legs towards the back (I'm sure you understand what I mean), but that would in effect lessen the balance of the rider. Not something you would want if you expect to get a rather hard shock.
Further, I have seen for instance the Bayeaux tapestry and a few pictures of later images, never have I seen a rider that leans forward like what I mentioned. I have though seen riders lean forward by bending his body at the hips.

Thus I can only conclude that the stirrups were the most important thing to balance, and thus stamina. I mean clinging to a horse with your legs is something that will sap your strength rather quick.

About the language issues...
Well in danish we don't have a proper word for pike, so we use the same word for pike and lance, while spear more or less feels like something for infantry, though it can be used to determine the weapon of cavalry with a short spear.
So it is all about the culture and its language, and I believe in english spear can be used for both infantry and cavalry, while lance is purely a cavalry weapon.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

OK, guys I won't refer spear as an exclusivelly infantry weapon in the future. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wave.gif

[The Wizard]

In Dutch, speer (spear) is the word used for infantry, and infantry alone. Lans (lance) is a word used for both infantry and cavalry usage, but predominantly for cavalry. Then again, Dutch is a western language. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif



~Wiz

[Oleander Ardens]

Intéresting debate;

I know perhaps how at least the Scythians called their long stick with the sharp end http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

We know that the Scythians got their name from the Indo-Iranian "shoothers" or better archers, and the Sarmantians likewise from the word "arrowbearer".

Now there is a semi-mythic Scythian tribe called Gerrhi;
Now this is a word which is deeply rooted in the indoeuropean languages for thousends of years in various forms: ira. Gerrahe IIRC, ger. Ger, celtic. gaesum and so one.

We all now that in the germanic tradition a warrior was very often simply called "spearman" or in the older form "german".

It sould be truly surprising if Gerrhi wouldn't mean "Spearmen"...

So all points to the conclusion that the Scythians used a Gerrha or something called in similar way. Note that it could both be a javelin, a "spear" or a lance..

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (The Wizard @ April 28 2004,12:59)]In Dutch, speer (spear) is the word used for infantry, and infantry alone. Lans (lance) is a word used for both infantry and cavalry usage, but predominantly for cavalry. Then again, Dutch is a western language. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif



~Wiz
So is Portuguese... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wink.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Oleander Ardens @ April 28 2004,14:33)]Intéresting debate;

I know perhaps how at least the Scythians called their long stick with the sharp end http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

We know that the Scythians got their name from the Indo-Iranian "shoothers" or better archers, and the Sarmantians likewise from the word "arrowbearer".

Now there is a semi-mythic Scythian tribe called Gerrhi;
Now this is a word which is deeply rooted in the indoeuropean languages for thousends of years in various forms: ira. Gerrahe IIRC, ger. Ger, celtic. gaesum and so one.

We all now that in the germanic tradition a warrior was very often simply called "spearman" or in the older form "german".

It sould be truly surprising if Gerrhi wouldn't mean "Spearmen"...

So all points to the conclusion that the Scythians used a Gerrha or something called in similar way. Note that it could both be a javelin, a "spear" or a lance..
Interesting that you mention it. It seems that many names of populations have similar origin processes...

Any others? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-inquisitive.gif

[Hakonarson]

Long spears used on horseback were called Kontos (Kontus, contos, etc) by the Romans - I believe the word means "bargepole" and refers to the length of the weapon.

There is no practical difference between spears used on foot or mounted - they can have various lengths, different shaped heads, butt-spikes or not, etc.

the couched lance was initially not a different type of weapon - it was the same ol' spear used in a different manner - I've seen earlier pictures of lances (kontos) being held in 2 hands along the flank of hte horse that is probably functionally the same (Parthians, Sarmatians, etc).

The development of the lance with hand guards, etc did mark a difference from the infantry spear - the ultimate probably being the Polish lance - hollow and anything up to 6 metres long

The final version of the lance - the light Napoleonic styles, again were not any different from spears used on foot.

Basically if it's long with a point on it then it's a spear - and they have always been pretty similar to each other

[Ragss]

lol...I'm glad I could start such a heated discussion.

[Oleander Ardens]

Quote[/b] ]Any others?

The Samnites are said to have gotten their name from their spear/javelin the "saunia" IIRC

We don't know if the Sax gave the name to the tribe of the Saxons or vice versa, the other way around.

The same applies to the Franks and the Franciska...


I rather sure that with a little research you could detect some more, but for the moment this is all...


About the Scythian gerrhae:

From the pictures It seems that the Scythians only used rather short spears, which could also been thrown if necessary.

The Kontos seems to be a Sarmantian innovation, or to origin from the Steppes between Altai and the Volga...

[The Wizard]

Were the Sarmatians not the people that did not use the traditionally Skythian horse archers, but only heavy horse? At least that's what I read on some site, and it sounds pretty hard to believe, since if you rely on only heavy horse and foot archers, horse archers will defeat you, and Skythian warfare was centered around the horse archer.



~Wiz

[Oleander Ardens]

Well Sarmantians used beside "normal" HA also heavier armored calvalry with kontos and bow - or better two bows, as it was costum.

Archery has become so important that it wasn't just important how good an archer you were, but also how effective your armor was in stopping arrows.

The point was that two enemys with very similar archery equipment (in this case "Scythian double-curved recurved composite bow" and bronze trilobate arrows) could only gain an advantage in a direct archerduel by increasing their resistence against arrows - in poor words by increasing their armor.

[Oleander Ardens]

By the way some nice info about the Scyhtian Bow shows you why it deserves a subcat in the projectile stats http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

http://www.atarn.org/chinese/scythian_bows.htm


Some info about different Euroasian arrowheads:

http://www.ancienttouch.com/scythian_arrowheads.htm


Finally I might add that in Sarmantian graves up two fifty cast bronze socketed trolobate arrowheads in a single gorytos (combined bowcase and quiver)

[shingenmitch2]

CB --- excellent link on the shock cav., missed it my first pass thru thread. It certainly goes against what I've previously read. I'm very inclined to believe someone with practical knowledge. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

Hak
"Basically if it's long with a point on it then it's a spear - and they have always been pretty similar to each other"

Well, yes we're splitting hairs here but the terminology is important. I mean what is the difference between a pike and a spear? Nothing more than length. But the employment and length is significant enough for the "long spear" to acquire another name "sarissa" or our "pike."

I think when peeps talk about cavalry lance, it is more than just a regular spear used "crouched," although I guess that the employment could qualify it. Generally tho, I think that lance's length was significant enough that the Macedonians named that spear type the "xyston." The Sarmatian weapon, as has been pointed out, was differentiated from all normal spears as the Kontos.

[CBR]

Glad you finally read it Mitch http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

From what I have been told the words spear and lance is the same in Spanish.. and even Italian too?: Lanza/Lancia

When I hear the word lance I see it as either the late medieval specialised lance or a "normal" long spear used couched on horseback (lances used by foot to be longspears/pikes). But some lighter/ancient cavalry could easily use a standard short spear and thats not really a lance.


CBR

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (CBR @ April 29 2004,12:52)]Glad you finally read it Mitch http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

From what I have been told the words spear and lance is the same in Spanish.. and even Italian too?: Lanza/Lancia
But not in Portuguese, although a lot of ignorant portuguese persons have the stupid tendency to call every wooden shaft with a sticky point, a Lança(lance) Even halberds, billhoks or tridents http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-bigcry.gif

"É longa e pontiaguda? Então é uma lança"

-Translation-

"It's long and pointy? Then it's a lance"

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-rolleyes.gif

[Kaatar]

I think TC is just played on the "huge" setting to make the battles more realistic (army size wise) and to make the battles last longer. I'd say a single TC battle lasts about 3 hours and they just cut it down to fit the time slot. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Kaatar @ April 29 2004,14:18)]I think TC is just played on the "huge" setting to make the battles more realistic (army size wise) and to make the battles last longer. I'd say a single TC battle lasts about 3 hours and they just cut it down to fit the time slot. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
That's not my impression after watching the videos. I think that the editing of the shows hasn't really cut much game time. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-thinking.gif

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ April 29 2004,10:58)]Hak
"Basically if it's long with a point on it then it's a spear - and they have always been pretty similar to each other"

Well, yes we're splitting hairs here but the terminology is important. I mean what is the difference between a pike and a spear? Nothing more than length. But the employment and length is significant enough for the "long spear" to acquire another name "sarissa" or our "pike."
The difference between a "pike" and a spear, is that one you use 2-handed, the other single handed.

Historicaly there weer "spears" that were longer than some pikes - eg Iphicrates made his peltasts' spears 50% longer than normal - so maybe 14-15 feet in length, but they were apparently still used 1 handed as there is no record of them being used otherwise.

However later Scots and Swiss "pikes" started at 12 feet, and in the "pike and shot" era pikemen often shortened their pikes to 9-10 feet to make them handier - but still used them in 2 hands.

So again it is primarily a matter of usage, not physical characteristics.

[econ21]

I remember reading a re-enactor's comment that spears were much more effective two handed. One handed maybe ok to present a wall of spears to hold off cavalry etc. But if you want to do dammage in a real melee, the thrust you can get with two hands is much more lethal than you can get one-handed.

[shingenmitch2]

Hak,

"But the employment and length is significant enough for the "long spear" to acquire another name "sarissa" or our "pike."

"The difference between a "pike" and a spear, is that one you use 2-handed, the other single handed.""

That is why i pointed out that employment (which is a function of length, pikes are used the way they are because they so damn long) is important to how something is named.
---------


"Historicaly there weer "spears" that were longer than some pikes"

Ever pick up a pole 14-16' long? It becomes instantly obvious it wasn't used like the old hoplite spear. If it was, the enemy could easily knock away the tip because the user has very little leverage and control. I seriously doubt Iphrac hoplites used it 1-handed except in rare circumstances (or unless they crouched it like a lance and attempted underhand stabs--and then that is still being used more like a pike than 8' hoplite spear overhand stab). If I recall correctly Iphract even reduced the shield size -- presumably for the same reason as the Mac's--to get that left hand on the spear.

I believe this "Iphrac" spear wasn't called something different than spear, precisely because it was so darn new to the Greeks--they had no other word to call it. When the Mac's adopted it and it became more common, then a new name was provided it "sarissa."

Regardless, when a spear gets much beyond 10' long it starts requiring 2-hand use for standard employment and at that point it is a pike no matter what anyone wants to call it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-smile.gif

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ April 30 2004,03:31)]I remember reading a re-enactor's comment that spears were much more effective two handed. One handed maybe ok to present a wall of spears to hold off cavalry etc. But if you want to do dammage in a real melee, the thrust you can get with two hands is much more lethal than you can get two-handed.
Yes. That increases the speed and surprise of the attack. The problem is that no shield can be sustained to increase defense, or else it defeats the change to two-handed weilding.

[shingenmitch2]

"no shield can be sustained to increase defense"

That really depends on the design of the shield. The Mac's modified their shield such that they were able to both wield the sarissa w/2-hands and wear the shield. Infact, the strap of the shield assisted the soldier's arm in holding the pike--by transfering the pike's weight to the shouldier. The shield actually made 2-handed pike use easier in some respects.

[The Wizard]

'Mac's.'

I love it, mitch http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif



~Wiz

[Aymar de Bois Mauri]

Quote[/b] (shingenmitch2 @ April 30 2004,12:04)]"no shield can be sustained to increase defense"

That really depends on the design of the shield. The Mac's modified their shield such that they were able to both wield the sarissa w/2-hands and wear the shield. Infact, the strap of the shield assisted the soldier's arm in holding the pike--by transfering the pike's weight to the shouldier. The shield actually made 2-handed pike use easier in some respects.
Didn't know that. Smart adaptation.

[biguth dickuth]

One addition to this discussion about the names of spears in different languages:

In greek the name for the infantry spear is "dory" and a spearman (or spear-bearer to be more accurate) is called "doryforos" from "dory" and the verb "fero" which means hold. So "doryforos" ("doryforoi" in plural) is the one who holds a spear.

Now the funny thing: Some "vip's" of the ancient times had bodyguards who were spearmen. When the vip was walking out in the street or sitting somewhere, the bodyguards were walking or standing all around him.
The astronomers who noticed the movement of smaller celestial objects around bigger ones saw an analogy between these objects and the "vip's" bodyguards.
Thus, they named these celestial objects "doryforoi".

So the greek word for satellite is "doryforos", meaning spearman

[andrewt]

Quote[/b] (Simon Appleton @ April 30 2004,00:31)]I remember reading a re-enactor's comment that spears were much more effective two handed. One handed maybe ok to present a wall of spears to hold off cavalry etc. But if you want to do dammage in a real melee, the thrust you can get with two hands is much more lethal than you can get two-handed.
I'm a little confused about this reenactment thing. From your statement, it seems like they are actually trying to injure and kill each other. I thought it was just marching and formations and stuff.

[econ21]

I've never participated in re-enactments but from what I've read, it sounds like some get physical. For such kinds of re-enactments, there are societies that write down out strict rules about equipment (weapons must be blunt, light etc to avoid injuries) and allowed strikes (even point-based systems for when you have been struck in such a way that you must play "dead"). From what little I've read, injuries are pretty common nonetheless. Some re-enactors seems to have got into learning combat styles from antiquity and are effectively experts in historical martial arts. I think some other folk here may have first hand knowledge.

[Seven.the.Hun]

well, cav vs. man...there is something in that its similar to 2 against one... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-toff.gif

[scooter_the_shooter]

Quote[/b] (SpencerH @ April 26 2004,08:44)]I was trying to think of an example of 'heavy cav' from around this time period and all I could think of was the Macedonians who did use cavalry as shock troops.
he is right there will be heavy cav YAY

[Steppe Merc]

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-wall.gif You can have lancers without stirrups Look at the Parthians, Scythians and Sarmatians Most didn't take up stirrups till well into the ADs But they still had their lancers. Why? They held it in to hands, not couched, and had a horned saddle so they didn't go flying. Stirrups helped, but were not essential
edit: Thank you CBR, and other that supported my claim. I was just so tired of seeingg again and again at the .com about how the horses are worthless in this time period... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/rolleyes.gif

[Lazul]

All this talk about lances and charges reminded me of a thing I read about Swedish (finish to in a way) Cavalry.
Instead of just lining up on row and charge like maniacs they used a rather tricky tacitc.
The formed like a Wedge and lined up "really, really close" so that there where no space between them and now each soldiers put his knee in behind the other guys knee and so on all the way back to the last guy at the edge of the Wedge.
As they charged they did so leaning toward and in a way turned in to a really deadly weapon. Im no expert but for some reason the shock was greater as it was nearly imossible for the enemy to close in on 1 cavalryman.
And I might add that they didnt use this tactic against pikes. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/bigthumb.gif

I guess the horse was as much a weapon as the rapier weilded by the horsemen. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-book2.gif


(BTW, this is the during the 30 years war and around that time when we swedes really kicked ass with the finns) http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/gc-2thumbsup.gif