Lances [Archive]

AvramL

08-07-2002, 12:25

In reality, medieval heavy horsemen would aim to smash through enemy formations without stopping and thus ride out the other side. It was prescisely when an armoured charge got bogged down that the men at arms were most vulnerable to being overwhelmed and dragged from their saddles and killed by foot soldiers (ex. Crecy and Agincourt). Ofcourse, ideally the target forces would break when faced with coherent conrois of horsemen charging in their direction. Though IMO the mounted Knight/man at arms was a highly overrated battlefield force. charges could get easily broken up by terrain or debris and isolated knights are easily taken out, the size of his destrier alone meant that the density of cavalry formations was not nearly that of infantry ones, meaning that every horsemen could be assailed by several infantrymen(certain death given that all the infantryman had to do was take the horse down and the rider was nearly defensless). A stationary horse and rider is an easy target, so against stubborn infantry, cavalry was at a disadvantage. Other things limited the usefullness of heavy cavalry, such as relatively flat, open ground being needed for a proper charge, and the cost of maintaining such elite. So, in conclusion, I'll go for a good infantry unit over a mediocre heavy cavalry unit anyday.

Oh, and about lances http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif those were effective in a charge as they could deliver nasty blows at a speed but were usually broken in the initial attack and were certainly far to long and cumbersome to be any use in a close quarters melee. A cavalryman would instead draw some short melee weapon such as a sword, mace, warhammer etc.

PS. to experience heavy cavalry as it was meant to be employed, tweak a battle giving your knight unit high stats (like 16 honour and top armour/weapon points) and than charge some hapless infantry unit in line formation http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
(as a side note, the cavalry in MTW doesn't move as quickly as in real life so the full effect of destriers hitting infantry at a charge is not recreated)

Loras

08-07-2002, 13:18

i think it'd look better if knights switched to some kind of melee weapon, sword/mace/rocks etc...after the charge. instead of always having the lance. the knights charge at the enemy, lances in hand, then 5 or so seconds after the initial hit, then all whip out their maces, gothic knight style, and start doing things that heads generally disapprove of.

------------------
-All knowledge is worth having-

Xiahou

08-07-2002, 14:03

Or we could just pretend thats what they're doing. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/biggrin.gif

AvramL

08-07-2002, 14:06

As it is, it looks like their trying to pick up litter with their lances.

Prodigy

08-07-2002, 14:41

Litter is a nickname for the enemy.

------------------
I am the law and you can't beat the law.

Vanya

08-07-2002, 20:19

GAH!

They are just collecting the heads for the afternoon soup. If you look closely, they carry a bag on the back of their saddle...

GAH!

DrNo

08-07-2002, 22:18

I can just see it now...

'Those horsemen dropped their Lances and pulled out a sword in that fight over there, so how come when they charged me they had their lances back?'

Kalt

08-07-2002, 23:34

That is just it, it isnt like they carried multiple lances, so they should basically get 1 big bonus lance strike then, unless they broke thru, dump the lances and melee.

A man on a horse isnt easy to kill. He has a great height and reach advantage versus anything but a long spear / polearm, and attacking his horse leaves YOU open to attack. Multiple people can be warded away with slashes/swings to either side etc.

A heavy cav is a tank, it is not an easy target to take out. Read about Cortez versus the Aztecs and his use of armored cavalry if you want to see what happens when heavy cav faces an enemy that has not had hundreds of years to adapt to them.

The Aztecs thought the mounted rider was a single beast/demon instead of a man and horse. Eventually they managed to kill one, but it wasnt easy, and Cortez walked his men into plenty of ambushes. In spite of there being only a tiny number of heavy horse with him, their role in his conquest is significant.

Heavy horse didnt dominate the battlefield because they had many glaring flaws. Exploiting the on-paper weakness of heavy cav requires that you have men on hand willing to stand on the front lines with a long stick and pray that he dies fast when he gets ground underfoot.

Anyways though, meleeing with lances is really really stupid, the developers should have ignored lances entirely if they werent willing/able to program a weapon switch.

AvramL

08-08-2002, 00:45

Well, as for the height advantage of a horseman, this is somewhat negated by the fact that the horse providing that advantage is, in many ways, a bit of a liability. A horse can't negotiate obstacles all that well, a horse needs open terrain etc. to charge in an orderly fashion, and one good blow to the horse's head will likely remove both it and the rider from the fight. But you are correct in saying that polearms are by far the most effective way of dealing with cavalry. Groups of infantry at least partially armed with polearms can, unsupported, see off a cavalry charge. I guess then, the single most improtant factor was that men at arms required years of training to fight in a conroi, while infantry needed little training, just some brains and nerve to defeat a heavy cavalry attack.

And BTW, Cortez's exploits against the Aztecs had more to do with native allies, unrest in the Aztec empire, and European diseases than outright victories in battle. In fact, it could be said that the Aztec empire was ready to fall, Cortez's arrival was just the spark that ignited the fire. As for his heavy cavalry, like the firearms he brought, they terrified the natives as they had never seen anything like it. Thus I don't think a fair comparison can be drawn between the use of heavy cavalry in Europe and the new world.

[This message has been edited by AvramL (edited 08-07-2002).]

NARF

08-08-2002, 01:24

Is it realy that big of a deal?

Nelson

08-08-2002, 01:37

Dr No is right. The constant lance stabbing is a concession to graphic simplicity. If the lance broke or became cumbursome in a situation then it would be discarded and something else would come out, sword, mace, whatever. Doing this for each horseman would require the game to do more book keeping than it already does. Besides, the game already arms everyone in a unit the same way when this is often inaccurate. Gendarmes fought with whatever they chose. One would never see 60 15th century knights all with swords. Some would use hammers, others maces or axes. So the lance issue is small potatoes IMO.

Let's be glad we can dismount them. Now THAT'S a big deal!

------------------
CONITOERGOVINCO

Toda Nebuchadnezzar

08-08-2002, 02:13

The knights can dismount??? Didn't know that.

Thats damn cool.

About the lances issue, if you want the game to be 3Gb then ask CA to add it in for TW3 otherwise just be happy MTW is coming out soon.

------------------
Jaguara-Spoken like a TRUE SPAMMER Toda!

No Fear Legend.

PlasmaFlux

08-08-2002, 02:42

Quote Well, as for the height advantage of a horseman, this is somewhat negated by the fact that the horse providing that advantage is, in many ways, a bit of a liability. A horse can't negotiate obstacles all that well, a horse needs open terrain etc. to charge in an orderly fashion, and one good blow to the horse's head will likely remove both it and the rider from the fight.[/QUOTE]

That's so wrong. Firstly, medieval cavalry horses didn't need ANY kind of good terrain for a charge - they didn't care, they were trained to go through obstacles. Good terrain only helped. Secondly, horses were heavily barded and delivering "one good blow" to an armored horse's head is much easier said than done, especially when the horse is wheeling and fighting (not the rider, but YOU) and the head is a couple feet above yours. Then there's the armored rider, delivering great sweeping blows from a few feet above you and killing several infantrymen with each sweep. There's a reason people used polearms for these things, in that a knight among non-spear-armed infantry was a nearly-unstoppable juggernaut.

Vanya

08-08-2002, 02:54

Quote Originally posted by Toda Nebuchadnezzar:
The knights can dismount??? Didn't know that.

Thats damn cool.
[/QUOTE]

If they dismount, do they fight with their lances while on foot? http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/confused.gif

GAH!

Dionysus9

08-08-2002, 03:03

The easiest way to kill a mounted Knight has not been "stumbled" on by anyone yet in this thread:

Cut a leg off the horse, then jump on the Knight as he topples of the steed and pry his face-plate up enough to get to the jugular.

Horses legs are vulnerable unless they are rearing or charging headlong at you. 1/4 of the horse+rider weight is on each leg, which is a spindly little thing prone to breakage/severenace. A stationary horse is going to get its legs chopped out pretty quick-- even a big destrier/war-horse. Imagine falling off a 6 foot steed in full plate armor-- can you say "stunned"?

To improve your technique, checkout the opening combat sequence in Conan the Destroyer.

NARF

08-08-2002, 03:49

You cant dismount them in the middle of a battle can you

Nelson

08-08-2002, 04:19

Dismounting is done during deployment. Once the battle begins there is no mounting up.

Historically they could cut the lances down or use pole arms or single handed weapons with a shield depending on the era. I don't know how they are depicted in the game. I expect they are pretty tough cookies.

The dismount option will allow you build a knight unit instead of having to choose between a good infantry unit OR a good cav unit when you can only do one at a time in your important regions.

------------------
CONITOERGOVINCO

AvramL

08-08-2002, 05:28

Quote Originally posted by PlasmaFlux:
That's so wrong. Firstly, medieval cavalry horses didn't need ANY kind of good terrain for a charge - they didn't care, they were trained to go through obstacles. Good terrain only helped. Secondly, horses were heavily barded and delivering "one good blow" to an armored horse's head is much easier said than done, especially when the horse is wheeling and fighting (not the rider, but YOU) and the head is a couple feet above yours. Then there's the armored rider, delivering great sweeping blows from a few feet above you and killing several infantrymen with each sweep. There's a reason people used polearms for these things, in that a knight among non-spear-armed infantry was a nearly-unstoppable juggernaut.[/QUOTE]

As for battlefield obstacles, stuff like bodies,horsepits and stakes, cavalry would have a hard time getting through that in GOOD ORDER, that is vital because a successfull cavalry charge needs cohesion so that the men at arms aren't engaging piece meal. Secondly, if the part about a horseman in a melee was true than I don't see any way the English could have won the battles of Crecy, Agincourt and Poiters. In these engagements the French men at arms managed with great DISORDER to close with the dismounted English where they were overwhelmed by men serving as infantry (many not carrying polearms). At these battles the horses ridden by the French were first assailed by arrows, bringing many down, and then by the infantry. All the descriptions of the mentioned battles that I have read indicate that most of the French were killed after their (relatively unarmoured) horses were brought down. And all this was managed with relatively few English casualities!
regarding polearms, they were wonderfull at halting cavalry charges but I imagine that in a confined, confused melee they were not neccesarily a battle winning weapon.

Xiahou

08-08-2002, 07:41

I think this is truly nit-picking at its finest. Calvary used lances for a charge and switched to melee weapons during fights. We all know this- just because they didnt go to all the trouble of making animations of knights drawing swords doesnt mean they are still fighting with lances. Its only a cosmetic problem, lets get over it.

AvramL

08-08-2002, 09:54

Yeah, your right, it's unrealistic to expect CA to model men doing things as specific as switching weapons etc. I guess we'll just have to imagine that they are http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

PlasmaFlux

08-08-2002, 10:29

Quote As for battlefield obstacles, stuff like bodies,horsepits and stakes, cavalry would have a hard time getting through that in GOOD ORDER, that is vital because a successfull cavalry charge needs cohesion so that the men at arms aren't engaging piece meal.[/QUOTE]

Knights were not stupid, they certainly knew how to stop their horses and wait. These things affected the MOMENTUM of a charge, not the order of one.

Quote Secondly, if the part about a horseman in a melee was true than I don't see any way the English could have won the battles of Crecy, Agincourt and Poiters. In these engagements the French men at arms managed with great DISORDER to close with the dismounted English where they were overwhelmed by men serving as infantry (many not carrying polearms).[/QUOTE]

Several flaws in your argument. First, at Poitiers (and possibly at Agincourt - sources conflict on whether the French attacked mounted or dismounted) the French attacked DISMOUNTED and in a highly disorganized fashion. Secondly, the failure at Crecy was due mainly to incompetence in the handling of the Genoese crossbowmen and the fact that most of the French knights that closed with the English line were already unhorsed. At the first battle where knights were defeated by infantrymen (the battle of Courtrai), the Flemish infantry was configured wholly to withstand a cavalry charge and the French had to cross a stream to get to them.

Looking at the battle of Patay in 1430 (a battle where mounted knights actually engaged dismounted English in good order using intelligent tactics), the flanked English lost two thousand men at the cost of five French knights. The Limeys set up as usual, the French charged from the flank, and a lot of English blood was spilled.

Quote Cut a leg off the horse, then jump on the Knight as he topples of the steed and pry his face-plate up enough to get to the jugular.[/QUOTE]

Again, easier said than done. First, warhorses would not politely stand there for you, and the rider would be giving you a rather hard time with his weapon. Secondly, barding quite often hung over the legs. Third, armor was not very heavy - knights were quite capable of leaping from the saddle and landing on their feet.

Dionysus9

08-08-2002, 13:14

So the steed has impenitrable "leg barding" and the knight can fly from his saddle with his incredibly light (yet protective armor) and land on his feet fighting?

Truly an insdestructible foe!

Unless of course you have a +5 Halbered and a suit of your ownn Mithril Plate.

And anyway, I acknowledged that the horse isn't going to just stand there and let you chop its legs off, but-- if you can stop the charge-- and you can hit the leg, the knight is going to hit the ground. Sure his buddy is charging right next-to/beside him, but your formation should be engaging as a unit.

If each spearman does his job and absent a flank, I dont see how a cavalry charge has any chance at all against trained troops with planted spears. Either the horse will be impaled immediately, throwing the rider off, or the horse will have to stop in its tracks which isn't really much of a cav charge.

I admit I dont have any friggin clue about what really went down in 13th century cavalry charges, but its my 2 cents worth.

AvramL

08-08-2002, 13:25

While Agincourt and poiters are arguable, at Crecy john of Luxembourg King of Bohemia's division managed to exploit the confusion of the first charge (Count of Alencon) which was disrupted from having to ride through the genoese (and longbow fire) and make an orderly charge into the confused British lines. However, after a bloody melee, the french (many of that division weren't actually French) were repulsed, leaving King John and his bodyguard dead. The point is, that men at arms weren't a decisive factor unless used properly, and when you consider the cost of fielding such troops, it becomes clear that a competent commander with decent infantry was often preferable to expensive and impetous heavy cavalry.

Oh, and when cantering up to a charge, cavalry might be able to avoid many obstacles (though they may also start disrupting formations as the horsemen are hardly like to stop in the middle of the field while possibly being shot at), but certainly when in a full blown charge that is impossible.
As well, the behaviour of Alencon's division at Crecy hardly gives a favourable impression of the intelligence and level-headedness of the men at arms. They (likely) became angered at the premature retreat of the genoese (who had been sent forward without pavises) and flying in the face of all military logic, charged through their own mercenaries disrupting their formation in the process.

AvramL

08-08-2002, 13:31

don't forget the horses often pinned the riders down. Besides, a dismounted knight in a sea of hostile infantry is hardly going to last long. Most accounts I've read suggest that smashing the horse in the face (mouth?) was a very effective way of quickly bringing down a horseman, (in a close and crowded melee) not too difficult to accomplish given that the knight will be having to fend off multiple foes.

DrNo

08-08-2002, 15:19

Quote Originally posted by Dionysus9:

And anyway, I acknowledged that the horse isn't going to just stand there and let you chop its legs off, but-- if you can stop the charge-- and you can hit the leg, the knight is going to hit the ground. Sure his buddy is charging right next-to/beside him, but your formation should be engaging as a unit.

If each spearman does his job and absent a flank, I dont see how a cavalry charge has any chance at all against trained troops with planted spears. Either the horse will be impaled immediately, throwing the rider off, or the horse will have to stop in its tracks which isn't really much of a cav charge.

[/QUOTE]

If you have spearman against horse they arn't going to be able to chop the horses legs off with their spears. So the best way is to plant the spear/pike and let the horse impale itself Braveheart style. There is of course the question of what happens to all that momentum, the front line of spears will no doubt have a few horses hitting them.

The thing is though that the lances were long enough to hit the infantry before the spears hit the horse. The lance could only hit one target at a time though and the horse would generally have been facing 2 or 3 spears so one would hit home on the horse.
Pikes are a different issue though being able to counter the reach of lances and stop the horse before it hit the front line.

So what's the easiest way to stop a knight... shoot them! Longbows, crossbows, guns take your pick.

Cheetah

08-08-2002, 18:13

I like this thread http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Lurkster

08-08-2002, 18:40

I don't really like getting into these threads because I only have a passing familiarity with the medieval period and there are always many more people with greater knowledge than me participating, but here goes:

From a logical standpoint, it seems to me that many of us are falling into a bit of a bias trap. It seems that the popular/controversial thing to do is to "debunk" the "myth" of the knight's efficacy. One of the main arguments about the uselessness of heavy cavalry is their apparent lack of discipline. However (and please correct me if I am wrong), I cannot believe that non-professional infantry in a non-standing arny would have such greater discipline.

This leads to the problem of discussing the ability of infantry to withstand a cavalry charge. I think it has been amply demonstrated that well-trained and hardended infantry, equipped with the proper weapons and used in the proper way, could easily withstand a charge. The problem is that such a force would be, to my thinking, a relative rarity in the period. Thus, the heavy cavalry shows its great utility; it is a force with at least a minimum of training (thanks to the feudal social structure) and likely a decisive advantage in equipment. This type of force would easily outmatch its common opponents, usually through the morale-shattering charge. This also played into the hands of the cavalry, as they could wreak a horrible slaughter on a fleeing enemy force (likely better than an infantry army could).

I feel that the heavy cavalry ruled the medieval world on average because of its physical, social, and morale advantages. When your society is built on producing members of this class, and they can typically overwhelm the average opposing infantry force, why would they not remain the primary unit on the battlefield?

Of course, my argument rests entirely on viewing the heavy cavalry in the "bigger picture". I have no problem admitting that the proper infantry can dispose of cavalry: one only has to look to the evolution of cavalry in Napoleonic times to see that it quickly became a supporting force as infantry training and discipline increased.

I'm sure that this argument will be rebutted, and I am looking forward to adding to my knowledge as it is http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

Frantz

08-08-2002, 18:41

2 notes
at Crecy the Genoa's crossbowben failed cos they didnt had the Pavese protection , so they were no match for the higher rate of fire of the longbows
The war lance wasnt intended to broke , in the tournament the lance had to broke for security reasons but not in war , at Fornovo the french knights had far better lances than the italian counterpart for example.

Vanya

08-08-2002, 19:37

Kinigit helmets make good drinking cups. At least those with low lead content...

GAH!

AvramL

08-09-2002, 00:24

You forget that knights and their retainers trained for years to fight in a coordinated unit, while a few days training, some nerve and experience (weapons too) can produce a strong infantry unit capable of repulsing a cavalry charge, at less cost. Also, as the middle ages progressed, the feudal system of raising troops gave way to the indenture system. Whereby soldiers were starting to be paid (before only hired mercenaries and, in a way, knights, were paid) and raised in volunteer units as opposed to by feudal obligation. As a result, the quality of infantry improved. This all meant that while elite men at arms might still be a potent weapon, they could not be replaced easily, while there would always be a stream of decent, semi-professional infantry.

I'm not trying to debunk the usefullness of heavy cavalry, just the notion of their near invincibility during the medieval period.

[This message has been edited by AvramL (edited 08-08-2002).]

Lurkster

08-09-2002, 01:40

Avram - your arguments definitely make sense for the mid to late Medieval periods. Also, I am hardly trying to prove that heavy cav was nigh invincible, as you can see from my previous comments. I see what you mean about the ease of training infantry as well. I just wanted to get across the utility of cav to those who have semi-blindly "taken sides" and chosen infantry over cavalry (a pointless argument, since neither can be decisively declared the winner)

Dionysus9

08-09-2002, 03:09

Lurkster--

I think your point about "social" factors makes a lot of sense, and applies generally to the effects of a cavalry charge on semi-professional soldiers:

First, Knights we almost universally part of the upper-class/nobility. They enjoyed a social "mystique" of superiority. Your average semi-professional pikeman wouldn't waltz up to a knight and clap him on the back saying "wazzup." (or the medieval counterpart). I'm sure that this fostered some hatred/distrust in the lower/middle classes, but not without a corresponding amount amount fear/awe.

Second, as children of nobility, a knight-to be was groomed for combat at a young age and enjoyed martial training begging in their youth. As vassals of the king they would be expected to lead the defense of the kingdom, and they were certainly well trained for that purpose (as well as for other social-heirarchical reasons). Many (if not all)would have received instruction in battlefield tactics and historical battles.

Third, Knight's (as children of the elite) would have been raised on a higher-fat, higher-protein diet than their proletariat countrymen. Better nutrition equates to height, endurance, and health.

Fourth, Knight's would be quite familiar with horses and their limitations/behavior. The average conscript on the other hand would never be able to afford a horse suitable for battle and would have had rather limited contact with horses in general. During most of the medieval age, horses were reserved for the landed elite. A semi-professional pikeman would be lucky to afford a broken-down-nag to help in the fields or hobble them into town.

So, this all adds up to an incredible intimidation value:

60 Mounted Knights on War Steeds barrelling down an a pocket of glorified farmers is not an easy force to stand up to when you are hungry/malnurished and you know the Knights have been training for this precise moment since they could walk.

Just imagine the thunder of hooves in that last 20 seconds or so...it must have been pretty friggin' intense.

The only thing working in the peasant's favor is their hatred of (not only the enemy) but noblemen in general (especially enemy nobelmen). This is their one chance to stick it to "the man" (provided they dont crap their pants first).

Papewaio

08-09-2002, 11:47

Quote Originally posted by AvramL:
You forget that knights and their retainers trained for years to fight in a coordinated unit, while a few days training, some nerve and experience (weapons too) can produce a strong infantry unit capable of repulsing a cavalry charge, at less cost. Also, as the middle ages progressed, the feudal system of raising troops gave way to the indenture system. Whereby soldiers were starting to be paid (before only hired mercenaries and, in a way, knights, were paid) and raised in volunteer units as opposed to by feudal obligation. As a result, the quality of infantry improved. This all meant that while elite men at arms might still be a potent weapon, they could not be replaced easily, while there would always be a stream of decent, semi-professional infantry.

I'm not trying to debunk the usefullness of heavy cavalry, just the notion of their near invincibility during the medieval period.

[This message has been edited by AvramL (edited 08-08-2002).][/QUOTE]

a few days training... what like Braveheart... lop down a few skinny trees and you have an anti-calvary infantry unit... maybe.

But I would say the proof is in the pudding. Where battles like Agincourt are noted for being the exception to the rule regarding Knights. Most of the time they were very deadly in battle.

The armour they wore is no heavier then modern army kit. Better distrubution across the body. They also could jump onto there horses. Most of the armour shown is hollywood full plate. Poorly crafted and poorly designed. Not the more common chain armour variants of the MTW period.

The professional soldiers who replaced the landed gentry where better not because they were paid in a different way (money instead of land) and they were not better because they could be trained quicker. The first examples of the professional type soldiers were the Turkish Jannisary (trained from there youth) and the British Longbowmen (trained for many years).

Pikemen took a while longer before they were effective against calvary. Sure point it at the oncoming charge... but which one when they are also out flanking you as well? Changing direction of pikes is very difficult to do and keep the much needed cohesion of formation. In a square you are immobile and archer fire will butcher your men.

What rules is combined arms. Calvary and Cannons/ spearmen and longbows etc.

AvramL

08-09-2002, 11:51

An important note: a knight was also known as a man at arms, however, a man at arms was not always a knight. A senior knight or lord led a conroi, a group of anywhere from 12 to 50 men at arms who were trained together and could charge knee to knee in a coherent fashion. Most of those in the conroi would be vassals of the leader, that is to say either lesser knights or simply trained soldiers from the leader's lands. The commander would be charged by his lord or king to provide a retinue during campaigns of which a conroi of heavy cavalry was the centerpiece. So to label a formation as being knights is a great generalisation.

Also, It's often been said that to refer to a medieval fighting force as an army is inaccurate, as that implies precise organization, leadership and uniformity. Istead, it should be referred to as a "host". A collection of independantly led companies of men of all variety all serving the same nation/leader/cause etc. with often little clear command structure and haphazardly thrown together into different "wings" with commanders assigned to each of these wings. A medieval host was, thus, a rather clumsy instrument in comparison to later "armies".

Kalt

08-09-2002, 12:24

""Cut a leg off the horse, then jump on the Knight as he topples of the steed and pry his face-plate up enough to get to the jugular.""

I remember one day not very long ago where a would-be Marine professed that tanks would fall easy prey to a burst from an automatic grenade launcher. After being chastised that the penetration on the grenades would scarcely gouge the armor on a MBT, he replied "Well you could just hit the Cannon!"

What I have quoted here reminds be of that humerous moment, and I wanted to share my good times with you all.

(sarcastic) On another note, I can kill any man alive. With my bare hands. You see, all I have to do is grab you from behind and break your neck, I know it works because I see it all the time in Stephen Segal movies.

Kalt

08-09-2002, 12:29

"" Obstacles blah blah, Needs good terrain, blah blah blah, Cavalry weak/overrated, blah blah blah""

I hope everyone here knows that heavy cavalry always walked at a nice easy pace right up to enemy units, then when they got close they broke into a trot, and they only began to full gallop when they were something like less than 50 yards till contact. Galloping with all that weight would exhaust a horse reeeeal quick.

Also, I hate to restate the obvious, but considering that heavy cavalry dominated warfare for several centuries, I think that any conceptual objections to their power are moot.

AvramL

08-09-2002, 14:25

That heavy cavalry dominated European warfare for several centuries was a result of the place that commanders gave it. For the first half of the medieval period, the mounted higher classes (and their mounted retinues) were almost the only extensively trained forces available, infantry was little more than a mob as the prestige,wealth,training and therefore the power lay with the cavalry. As time went on, leaders started to pay more attention to practibility and successfull strategies rather than a fine and intimidating array of heavy cavalry. Large numbers of well armed,professional,paid and yet still relatively cheap infantry replaced less flexible cavalry as the most important fighting arm (this started before the widespread use of firearms).

And BTW as long as the infantry positioned themselves high on a steep hill, in woods, on/behind marshy/boggy ground or behind man made obstacles than cavalry was not terribly effective. However, when battle was offered on nice ground, and providing they weren't facing huge numbers of troops armed with polearms, than heavy cavalry was a very usefull force.

Papewaio

08-09-2002, 15:45

Quote Originally posted by Kalt:

(sarcastic) On another note, I can kill any man alive. With my bare hands. You see, all I have to do is grab you from behind and break your neck, I know it works because I see it all the time in Stephen Segal movies.

[/QUOTE]

So can I... it just requires some curry, lager and time to ferment.

AvramL

08-09-2002, 16:39

I'd try feeding him high cholesterol foods instead.

Lurkster

08-09-2002, 18:13

What Papewaio said is perhaps the end of this argument: "What rules is combined arms"

This statement is, I think, indisputable. There can be no comparison between a combined arms force and another single-minded force. In terms of MTW, I think most of us know this: you see very few armies that do not operate in a combined arms manner in SP or MP. However, this is at least partially attributed to our modern familiarity with combined arms tactics (which are the norm now).

I think this entire topic can also be expressed in terms of a debate over the extent to which medieval commanders could/did use combined arms tactics (in whatever limited sense).

Dionysus9

08-09-2002, 23:17

Well Kalt, If you are alone in the field facing a single tank, the tank is useless if you can approach it and stand on top of it.

An automatic grenade launcher probably wont do it, but armor piercing anti-tank rockets certainly will -- at 1/1,000th the cost of the tank.

Tanks are good for charging around enemy flanks and deep into enemy territory (as long as you can keep them fueled).

Anyway, I'm not convinced that heavy cav dominated warfare for centuries.

PlasmaFlux

08-10-2002, 01:13

Quote I hope everyone here knows that heavy cavalry always walked at a nice easy pace right up to enemy units, then when they got close they broke into a trot, and they only began to full gallop when they were something like less than 50 yards till contact. Galloping with all that weight would exhaust a horse reeeeal quick.[/QUOTE]

Not really. Cavalry doing such would be archer bait, and they were NOT carrying a terribly heavy load. A beefy knight, plus armor, plus barding, plus his gear came to around 400 pounts. Not much on a one-ton warhorse bred for such things.

Quote That heavy cavalry dominated European warfare for several centuries was a result of the place that commanders gave it.[/QUOTE]

Then there was the small fact that until the rise of long polearms, infantry were ill-equipped to resist a charge. Even after that, a flanking charge could quite easily penetrate even a dense formation of Swiss pikemen - and pikes are impossible to use in close combat. Infantry were only effective against heavy cavalry as long as they kept a very tight, disciplined formation that was not penetrated and were equipped to fight with anti-cavalry weapons. Cavalry were -always- effective against infantry, even ones with polearms. The instances of cavalry being defeated by infantry are notable exceptions to the rule.

Quote Large numbers of well armed,professional,paid and yet still relatively cheap infantry replaced less flexible cavalry as the most important fighting arm (this started before the widespread use of firearms).[/QUOTE]

Only among the English, who used extremely specialized infantry formations that fell quickly to intelligent cavalry tactics or cannons.

Quote You forget that knights and their retainers trained for years to fight in a coordinated unit, while a few days training, some nerve and experience (weapons too) can produce a strong infantry unit capable of repulsing a cavalry charge, at less cost.[/QUOTE]

Right on the first count, wrong on the second. Longbowmen trained for LONGER than knights did, and pike drills took a very long time to perfect. Infantry trained for a few days would be practically helpless against a charge, even WITH polearms. Good infantry did not take as long to train as good cavalry, but it took time. You couldn't grab the local yokels, give them pikes and expect them to fight well.

Quote I'm not trying to debunk the usefullness of heavy cavalry, just the notion of their near invincibility during the medieval period.[/QUOTE]

That's my point - they WERE near-invincible in the right conditions, up until the early 1600s. That they eventually took a back seat was due to the emergence of good muskets.

AvramL

08-10-2002, 10:07

Alright, now for my counterargument http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
first of all, you are assuming infantry are going to just stand there in wide open ground and let themselves be ridden down. Secondly it doesn't take too much training to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder presenting polearms (a static formation, not trained enough for maneuvers), a formation which cavalry COULD NOT charge home into (look at the French heavy cavalry at Waterloo, where the bayonet tipped muskets of the B infantry squares presented an impenetrable barrier), so your statement about cavalry always being effective against infantry (regardless of the terrain?) is simply not true. (as for your remark about flanking, this is moot because it applies to all fighting branches, and we're talking about head on confrontation anyway)

And it is an historical fact that by the end of the 15th century, heavy cavalry was in serious decline. They were usually from then on placed on the flanks of the army (they became "lighter" to acommodate their new role) to engage the enemy cavalry and hopefully drive them off and attack the center from the rear. At this time, the staple of European armies was fast becoming polearmed infantry. It is commonly beleived that it was the introduction of firearms that made knights obselete, but, in fact, their death knell had already started with the example set by the swiss.

AvramL

08-10-2002, 10:23

Oh and BTW, just look at the battle of Hastings to see how ineffective heavy cavalry sometimes was against densely formed infantry.

Xiahou

08-10-2002, 14:06

Quote Originally posted by AvramL:
first of all, you are assuming infantry are going to just stand there in wide open ground and let themselves be ridden down. Secondly it doesn't take too much training to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder presenting polearms [/QUOTE]

Enters the fray http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Actually it takes a good bit of training, and more importantly discipline, for infantry to stand up to a charge. If you have a mass of heavily armed, heavily armored behemoths barreling towards you, shaking the very ground ... your first instinct is invariably to run for your life. Obviously this impulse can be overcome, but not by peasants given a few days training on formations and use of pikes.

Furthermore, you said "first of all, you are assuming infantry are going to just stand there in wide open ground and let themselves be ridden down" what would you have them do? Run and then be ridden down? :P

LittleGrizzly

08-10-2002, 15:19

Quote Originally posted by Xiahou:
Enters the fray http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

Actually it takes a good bit of training, and more importantly discipline, for infantry to stand up to a charge. If you have a mass of heavily armed, heavily armored behemoths barreling towards you, shaking the very ground ... your first instinct is invariably to run for your life. Obviously this impulse can be overcome, but not by peasants given a few days training on formations and use of pikes.

Furthermore, you said "first of all, you are assuming infantry are going to just stand there in wide open ground and let themselves be ridden down" what would you have them do? Run and then be ridden down? :P

[/QUOTE]

nope ud run hoping they take too long riding down ur comrades to get 2 u

Frantz

08-10-2002, 17:15

There was a period between around 950 and 1100 in which infantry was used only as skirmishers due to the introduction of the crossbow ( expecially in Italy and France ) the only real heavy infantry were dismounted knights ( remember that often knights werent nobles in some countries) .
Another important advantage that cavalry gave was the pursuit , and so its strange that MTW dont have probably the best light cavalry of the time , the venetian's 'stradioti'.

Cousin Zoidfarb

08-10-2002, 18:37

Great posts Plasmaflux. One detail omitted.
Heavy cavalry with lances were used by the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth until the late 17th century with great success. Some sources state the lances used by these units were longer than pikes (they were hollow inside so they wouldn't be too heavy) so they were effective against infantry squares. The French knights' failure during the Hundred years war was more than likely due to bad tactics and discipline, as seen in other conflicts such as Legnitz, Khalka, Lake Peipus, Nicopolis etc.

Cheetah

08-10-2002, 18:50

Quote Originally posted by AvramL:
Alright, now for my counterargument http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif
first of all, you are assuming infantry are going to just stand there in wide open ground and let themselves be ridden down. Secondly it doesn't take too much training to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder presenting polearms (a static formation, not trained enough for maneuvers), a formation which cavalry COULD NOT charge home into (look at the French heavy cavalry at Waterloo, where the bayonet tipped muskets of the B infantry squares presented an impenetrable barrier)[/QUOTE]

John Keegan writes in „The Face of the Battle” about the French cav charge at Waterloo:

Quote Practice against poorer troops had let them to expect a different result: a visible shiver of uncertainty along the ranks of the waiting musketeers which would lend their horsemen nerve for the last fifty yards, a ragged spatter of balls over their heads to signal the volley mistimed, then a sudden collapse of resolution and disappearance of order – regiment become drove, backs turned, heads hunched between shoulders, helot-fleet flying before the faster hooves of the lords of the battle: this, in theory, should have been the effect of such a charge. This process was more nearly realised in many places along Wellington’s front than the magnitude of the ultimate cavalry debacle suggests. „The first time a body of cuirassiers approached the square into which I have ridden” (it was the 79th Regiment’s) wrote a Royal Engineer officer, „the men – all the young soldiers - seemed to be alarmed. They fired high and with little effect, and in one of the angles there was just as much hesitation as made me feel exceedingly uncomfortable.” Morris, a sergeant of 71st, testifies to the power of the psychological shock-waves emitted by these mounted onsets. … [/QUOTE]

Now, if this can happen with regular infantry (in the age of guns) then what do you expect from the local farmers?

AvramL I agree with you that there is much more behind the dominance of heavy cavalry in the early medieval period then pure battlefield efficiency (i.e socio-economic factors). I also agree with you about the effect of terrain. However, good infantry takes time to train, it is not enough to give a long polearm to the locals and tell them to stand in a row. That is exactly where the socio-economic factors kicks in. Do you have the will, money, organisational structure, etc. to train good infantry or not?

Papewaio

08-10-2002, 19:14

Cavalry were used right up to the second world war by the polish... charged tanks and failed. Last actual viable use that I can think of sword weilding Cavalry was the Australian Light Horse in September 1918.

----

Cavalry never really died they just modernised think helicopters and tanks.

[This message has been edited by Papewaio (edited 08-10-2002).]

Cousin Zoidfarb

08-10-2002, 20:18

Papewaio, FYI:
1.last effective cavalry charge was in 1944 when anti-tank emplacements (dragon's teeth, anti-tank guns) were overrun by units accompanying the Soviets. The cossacks were used as anti-partisan units by the Germans in the balkans.
2. The story that Polish lancers charged tanks is a myth. Usually, the Polish cavalry fought like dragoons; move on horse, fight on foot. The story of the cavalry charge against armoured vehicles stems from an event where an unprepared German infantry unit was spotted in the clear by the Polish cavalry which was in some woods. A cavalry charge routed the infantry, a few German armoured cars were behind a hill and then entered the fray decimating the cavalry.

The issue at hand is the middle-age period.
I think longbows, spears and pikes are going to be too powerful in the game. Spears and pikes should only be effective against cavalry if the spear is set, ie the soldier is not moving and the spear is braced in the ground. In shogun you could run after cavalry with your spears and rout them. Too bad there isn't a "set" or "square" order for polearmed infantry which would give them only then anti-cavalry benefits.

AvramL

08-11-2002, 00:59

Ofcourse, I suppose, a good commander won't send his heavy cavalry charging headlong into dense formations of polearmed infantry. And to clarify, what I meant by not too much training was perhaps several months at most (in the 18th and 19th centuries well drilled infantry could be produced in that amount of time). It would also be folly to deploy in ground that gave your opponent's heavy cavalry an advantage. As paid troops became better able to properly equip themselves(14th century), heavy cavalry lost much of it's advantage and, considering it's inability to quickly replace losses, it became less worthwhile an expenditure.

Papewaio

08-11-2002, 03:53

Quote Originally posted by Beavis:
Papewaio, FYI:
1.last effective cavalry charge was in 1944 when anti-tank emplacements (dragon's teeth, anti-tank guns) were overrun by units accompanying the Soviets. The cossacks were used as anti-partisan units by the Germans in the balkans.
2. The story that Polish lancers charged tanks is a myth. ...

The issue at hand is the middle-age period.
I think longbows, spears and pikes are going to be too powerful in the game. [/QUOTE]

Thanks for the update Beavis. The point I was trying to make which is stronger with your data (after posting I went on to read up more about the light horse and came across the cossacks and that the russians had up to 200,000 cavalry/dragoons in WW II).

That even up to the end of WW II cavalry where an effective weapon in warfare.

AvramL

08-11-2002, 04:45

Effective during the second world war?
I think what you mean is the horse as transportation (mounted infantry).

AvramL

08-11-2002, 04:53

Didn't mention this before but I think that polearms were a lot more effective against cavalry then bayonet tipped muskets, and smart cavalry commanders wouldn't charge straight into them anyway. If the infantry stands fast, then the horses will swerve rather than hit the hedge of metal, halting the momentum of the charge.

I totally agree with Beavis about formations though, polearmed units in improper formations should receive only a very small anti cavalry bonus (they're still more effective than other infantry in the same formation) while ones in a good dense formation should receive a huge anti cavalry bonus.

PlasmaFlux

08-11-2002, 07:15

Quote first of all, you are assuming infantry are going to just stand there in wide open ground and let themselves be ridden down. Secondly it doesn't take too much training to be able to stand shoulder to shoulder presenting polearms (a static formation, not trained enough for maneuvers), a formation which cavalry COULD NOT charge home into (look at the French heavy cavalry at Waterloo, where the bayonet tipped muskets of the B infantry squares presented an impenetrable barrier), so your statement about cavalry always being effective against infantry (regardless of the terrain?) is simply not true.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I am assuming that. After all, the only way for infantry to defend is to stand fast and let themselves be charged. They might be able to do any number of things to decrease cavalry effectiveness.... but saying that you get to dig pits and sow caltrops while I don't get to flank is a fallacy.

Cavalry could quite easily charge into a disorganized rabble with polearms. The sheer psychological effect would ALWAYS break a line of barely-trained peasants, and the length of their lances would (sometimes - lance lengths varied) allow them to kill the defending infantry before they could be touched. As well, an unmoving formation of pikemen could be easily flanked and destroyed.

Quote (as for your remark about flanking, this is moot because it applies to all fighting branches, and we're talking about head on confrontation anyway)[/QUOTE]

Nope, it isn't. Cavalry were the fastest troops, and as such were able to force a flanking attack upon the enemy. Infantry flanking is a much harder operation and much less effective.

Quote Oh and BTW, just look at the battle of Hastings to see how ineffective heavy cavalry sometimes was against densely formed infantry.[/QUOTE]

Cavalry attacking up a steep hill into highly-disciplined enemies, unable to flank because of bogs all around them.... Hastings was LOUSY cavalry country. Once the English shield wall broke, the cavalry moved in and mopped up.

Quote And it is an historical fact that by the end of the 15th century, heavy cavalry was in serious decline. They were usually from then on placed on the flanks of the army (they became "lighter" to acommodate their new role) to engage the enemy cavalry and hopefully drive them off and attack the center from the rear. At this time, the staple of European armies was fast becoming polearmed infantry. It is commonly beleived that it was the introduction of firearms that made knights obselete, but, in fact, their death knell had already started with the example set by the swiss.[/QUOTE]

Not particularly. The heaviest cavalry ever was during the mid-1500s, when armor could be made bulletproof. It was not until the Napoleanic Wars that armored cavalry and the full-on charge finally fell out of style, mainly because of the increasing accuracy and power of musketry. The main success of the Swiss was the good defensive terrain of Switzerland. Their infantry were good at defending against cavalry, but against infantry they lacked - one incident has three hundred German soldiers armed with two-handed swords routing an entire body of Swiss mercenaries. Of course, that's where halberds come in, but that's what cavalry is for....

As for cavalry falling out of favor because of the increasing popularity of polearms, that is not entirely correct. The wheel-lock pistol and longer lances could outreach the pike, so it was the rise of dense formations of arquebusiers that spelled the end for the knight - not the rise of pikemen.

AvramL

08-11-2002, 10:59

First of all, about Hastings. The point about terrain and just standing in the open etc. was that a good commander wouldn't deploy troops in a field perfect for cavalry charges, but instead would choose high ground (like at Hastings) or other ground less favorable to cavalry. And to say that the English forces at Hastings were well disciplined is far from the truth. In fact, it was their lack of discipline that caused their defeat. Seeing the Bretons on the Norman left flank retreat, the English facing them, thinking the battle won, charged down the slope only to be cut to pieces by forces from the Norman center. This weakened the English line which gave the Normans a foothold on the high ground. Though ultimately it was Harold's death that caused the English army to rout. The anglo Saxons at Hastings fended off the Norman cavalry because of their dense shield wall and good ground, not because of discipline (the english fyrdmen who made up most of Harold's army were trained mostly in personal combat, and not that thoroughly either, nor, being militia, were they particularily well armed).

Now, I wargame the 18th century a lot and I can tell you that, as said before, by this time, and before, cavalry was kept on the flanks of the army in order to attempt to outflank the opponent, in which their speed was an asset(this usually entailed fighting the enemy cavalry, thus delegating horsemen to a supporting role). In the end, battles by that time were usually decided by the infantry. However, this is different than their role in Medieval combat which was far more direct. Even before the english civil war this was the case, bottom line: cavalry could no longer face infantry head on. The thing with flanking is that it's effective no matter the troops involved, the main advantage cavalry had was speed. However, we're arguing about how effective infantry could/couldn't be in facing a cavalry charge from the front, as that is how cavalry was generally deployed in medieval battles, being forced to concentrate on an enemy flank is kind of an admission of the opponent's forces being superior in a head on clash, which was what most medieval commanders preferred.

HJM168359

08-11-2002, 12:11

The biggest thing as to who win a battle is who has the better trained troops. This is going back a little in time but look at ancient Rome and Parthia. A well trained roman with a sword, shild and a javilin easly repel extremly heavy parthian cavalry even after being bombarded by arrows from parathian cavalry archers, some of the best ever. The roman infantry were so well organized and tightly put togeter that there was no way that they would break due to the charge. Each man was basily pushing on the other man so he couldnt back up. There were no pole arms being used in this formation either. Roman legionaires were also very effective against infantry and archers (archers due to there orginized use of there shilds). Romans always worked as one, were very orginized and very well disiplined. The only times when legionaires were defeated was when they were broken apart. A great example of this was the battle of Teutonburg Wald. This was not due to bad troops but a shitty leader who lead them into a very thick area of woods where they were killed one by one. There was no way in hell they could have stayed as a group in there. A group a extremly well trained infantry can beat just about any kinda of other unit if used correctly. Good tatics like the Romans in espically orgnization were not seen again till the 1600's.
Also as for pole arms they can be a true pain in the ass to use. Braveheart is hollywood. No group of knights would charge into a large group of pikes they would just go around your side and hit you from the side or rear. Also think how hard is to turn orderly with a bunch of guys with 20 foot sticks in there hands. It took a lot of training to be a good pikemen or spearman. As for box formations only a very inexperinced general or very stupid general would send a group of cavalry at a formation of such. Rather they would just send in infantry or moe them down with archers.
As for many of the battles of the Hundred Years War the english did not will due to their melee ability , but because of the masses of arrows being shot at the knights as they advanced. French knights were known to have said that the amount of arrows darken the sky, not a compforting feeling, espically when about 10 seconds later half the people around you drop dead and you have no way of fighting back. The british could have one those battles without their longbows.
The point i have been trying to get to i guess is that whose evers troop are better orginzed, trained, and lead are going to be the ones to win. Not specificly cavalry or infantry. Although throughout the middle ages cavalry seemed to be much better trained, orginized, and equiped, not infantry. Me personlly i espically like katphraktoi because they are so powerful but not invincible. Also historicly they were some of the best trained military units in all of Europe through out the middle ages. Thanks for reading and sorry if there are a few spelling errors.

turken00

08-11-2002, 19:21

I believe that the effectiveness of heavily armoured cavalry declined slowly but steadily throughout the Middle Ages. There is no doubt that armoured horsemen formed the main units of many armies in the 700-1300s. They were strong, relatively mobile, and deadly. However, as military tactics improved, the use of cavalry became less important. Cavalry was of course NOT invincible in the Middle Ages as some people seem to think. The best evidence of the weakness of cavalry could be found in the various battles of the Hundred Years War, Agincourt, Crecy, and many other battles in which French Knights were crushed by the English infantrymen. The effective use of archers marked the end of the dominance of cavalry on the battlefields of Europe. A group of skilled archers, perhaps longbowmen, deployed on high ground were in my opinion invincible to a cavalry charge. The beginning of the 15th century was the turning point of military strategy, where infantry would replace cavalry in armies. Before this, the infantry was there only to support the cavalry. However, soon it became the opposite... the cavalry was only there to support the infantry and protect its flanks.

[This message has been edited by turken00 (edited 08-11-2002).]

dancho

08-11-2002, 21:50

In my humble opinion...

The vast majority of medieval warfare was guerilla warfare. Cavalry was essential for hit-and-run raiding, ambushes and scouting. Large armies engaged in set-piece battles was the exception, not the rule.

Knights on horseback spent most of their time marauding, kidnapping (each other) and looting. All these activities require sturdy horses to haul away the loot and put distance between you and 'posse' when they come after you.

Cavalry was dominant in medieval warfare because the old Roman way of using huge infantry armies was too expensive and difficult for any one king or duke. When a 'large battle' occurred it was a bad time to be a cavalry man-- so kings with large, trained infantry armies would defeat armies of mounted knights who were out of their element in large battles. The English were practically invincible during the Hundred Years War/War of Castilian Succession since they had a large infantry army that could fight in 'set piece' battles.

AvramL

08-12-2002, 00:25

That's light cavalry and mounted infantry, heavy cavalry wouldn't take part in those activities except to provide leadership(they were also too heavy for that kind of hit and run mobility). Most medieval warfare was raiding (the famous Chevaucee economic warfare) and sieging, pitched battles were relatively rare. Thus further emphasizing the limited usefullnes of heavy cavalry.

Wavesword

08-12-2002, 00:29

On a crusading note very few knights were capable of routing vast bodies of ill trained infantry, particularly if someone went into a Church the previous day declared they had found the lance which pierced the saviour's side, and then dressed up a few knights in white while playing 'ride of the valkyries' on an anachronistic sound system.

PlasmaFlux

08-12-2002, 10:51

Quote First of all, about Hastings. The point about terrain and just standing in the open etc. was that a good commander wouldn't deploy troops in a field perfect for cavalry charges, but instead would choose high ground (like at Hastings) or other ground less favorable to cavalry. And to say that the English forces at Hastings were well disciplined is far from the truth. In fact, it was their lack of discipline that caused their defeat. Seeing the Bretons on the Norman left flank retreat, the English facing them, thinking the battle won, charged down the slope only to be cut to pieces by forces from the Norman center. This weakened the English line which gave the Normans a foothold on the high ground.[/QUOTE]

Conversely, a good commander does not have to accept battle on terrain that he does not want to fight on. You can sit up on top of a big, steep hill all you want - I'm not going to fight you there, sorry. That's why most medieval battles were protracted sieges, not field battles.

As for Hastings, it takes a great deal of discipline to maintain a shield wall while under attack by every weapon in the book. Later-on, such a dense and static formation could be easily destroyed with a concentrated arrow barrage from crossbows or longbows. The Norman shortbows of the time were not up to the task of penetrating English shields. The English were eventually lured out of their position by a faked retreat and anihilated.

Quote Now, I wargame the 18th century a lot and I can tell you that, as said before, by this time, and before, cavalry was kept on the flanks of the army in order to attempt to outflank the opponent, in which their speed was an asset(this usually entailed fighting the enemy cavalry, thus delegating horsemen to a supporting role). In the end, battles by that time were usually decided by the infantry.[/QUOTE]

True, but only insofar that the increased power of infantry muskets made a frontal cavalry charge a losing proposition.

Quote However, this is different than their role in Medieval combat which was far more direct. Even before the english civil war this was the case, bottom line: cavalry could no longer face infantry head on.[/QUOTE]

Not really. Mid-1500s cavalry were quite well-equipped for the task of facing blocks of pikemen head-on and coming out on top - the arquebus has much more to do with their downfall than the pike. Nobunaga demonstrated this at Nagashino, killing thousands of enemy cavalrymen in massed salvos.

Quote The thing with flanking is that it's effective no matter the troops involved, the main advantage cavalry had was speed. However, we're arguing about how effective infantry could/couldn't be in facing a cavalry charge from the front, as that is how cavalry was generally deployed in medieval battles, being forced to concentrate on an enemy flank is kind of an admission of the opponent's forces being superior in a head on clash, which was what most medieval commanders preferred.[/QUOTE]

Speed, and the ability to rapidly massacre thousands of infantrymen once their formation was penetrated. An infantry flanking action could be easily countered - cavalry was unstoppable.

As for your second point, entrenched defenders with pits, caltrops, stakes, longbows and pikes did have the advantage against a frontal charge.... but the French demonstrated at Patay that they were practically helpless when attacked from the flank. At Fromigny, such static formations went the way of the dinosaurs when the English were forced into an attack by French cannon fire.

Again, insisting that you get to utilize every infantry trick in the book and that I have to frontally charge is a pure fallacy, and I will not debate by those rules. If we are debating the effectiveness of melee infantry against cavalry, then it's a flat-ground frontal charge. You expand your playbook, so do I.

AvramL

08-12-2002, 11:33

Alright I'm getting sick of this never ending argument. From this point I could cite the English civil war as a good example of infantry as a battle winning force, as the warfare at that time differed little from that in the 18th century save for the fact that firearms at that time were not particualrily effective (making pikemen prominent). But anyway, lets just end this by saying that the factors that lead to a battle playing out the way it does are varied and complex. So to say that some variable is always constant (such as one particular fighting arm being effective) is incorrect, instead many factors (including the one mentioned) are dependant on the sum of various other factors.

Nelson

08-12-2002, 20:41

My recollection of the 17th century is that the army that won the cav fight went on to win the battle. Pikes were the support arm, muskets the killers and cav the decision maker. IIRC...

------------------
CONITOERGOVINCO

Wavesword

08-12-2002, 23:54

Similar conclusions were drawn by some of the great commanders of antiquity, who argued that superiority in cavalry more than compensated for severe deficiencies in infantry. I *think* I remember this from either Scipo or Hannibal's summaries of Zama.

Papewaio

08-13-2002, 07:16

Quote Originally posted by AvramL:
Effective during the second world war?
I think what you mean is the horse as transportation (mounted infantry).[/QUOTE]

Not sure, Beavis may be able to define that. My prior post stated that they were used successfully as late as 1918.

And this is far after the time of armoured horse cavalry.

Even the Roman Legions had their upper class mounted on horses.

In history where possible an army field as many horsemen as they could based on economic factors. Then they would dismout based on battlefield considerations.

Combined arms will always win though... but in the case of some armies that was just a matter of having archers who could wield a sword on horseback ie the Mongols.

andrewt

08-13-2002, 08:46

Cavalry is always useful. Mobility is very important in a war and and the sheer force of a cavalry charge brings down morale as well as breaking the enemy formation. Saying that entrenched infantry can beat a cavalry charge head on is a fallacy. You can't compare two different types of units and say that one is superior to another of one is using good strategy and tactics and the other is using no strategy at all and just charging blindly. Either make the comparison when both are using good strategy or when both are not using any strategy at all. The only thing that an entrenched infantry beating a head-on cavalry charge proves is who has the better general, not who is better.

I wonder if the Japanese ever thought of kamikaze cavalry. Strap some spikes onto a cavalry rider's armor and have him charge the enemy at full speed. Once his horse hits the pikes, he going to be flung forward like a projectile, killing a few soldiers with the spikes in his armor. They like to die for honor anyway and you only need to train them how to ride a horse.

Cousin Zoidfarb

08-13-2002, 09:00

The Ottomans arguably had the best infantry of the period: the Janissaries. Cavalry wasn`t neglected by the turks, the Sipahis (fairly heavily armoured) were the backbone of their army, obviosly they realised that both are needed and provide different functions. Their success was based on discipline, which when there was a lack of, spelled defeat for the knight.

Papewaio since you asked, the last cavalry charge(on horses) took place by Independent Polish units fghting with the red army in 1944 against anti-tank defenses.
These defenses consisted of concrete blocks called dragon`s teeth which the horse could manouvre around and anti-tank guns which fired armor-penetrating shells (not highly explosive). I have to look up my refernces for the battle`s name. But in 1939, generally cavalry fought as dragoons.

Boleslaw Wrymouth

08-13-2002, 10:16

Just a couple of quick notes.

Cavalry did virtually disappear in Western Europe for a time when war became a grinding series of seiges. It did not disappear in central or eastern Europe however, but evolved. Both Polish and Swedish cavalry went through important changes and both were quite capable of breaking disciplined infantry armed with pikes and firearms.

Before someone replies with " well the infantry must have been primitive, it wouldn't have worked with western troops" please take a look at the Swedish involvement in the Thirty Years War.

Both these nations tactics had created cavalry that were perfectly capable of breaking a disciplined infantry force of the best trained and best equipped Western mercenary infantry up until the mid 1600's and sometimes later. (Look at what the Swede's did to the Saxons in the Great Northern War.)

The reason cavalry reappeared as a significant force in the western part of Europe was not because they were romantic or because they gave the aristocracy employment but because they still were effective with a proper tactical doctrine.

As an interesting side note the last AMERICAN cavaly charge was in 1942, I believe, against Japanese troops in the Phillipines. It was successful.