Cavalry Charge

I have alwasy been curiouse about how a real life charge would work. Its pretty easy to imagine the impact the horse will have running at say 40 miles an hour ( 65 kilometers ) and slamming into a human being. But what i have a hard time imagining is how the rider fights while the horse is in ful charge. He has his spear which he thrusts into the enemy. Now if he does this at that speed can he hold on to the spear as it makes contact with the enemy? or did they let go of the spear as soon as it made contact. Im also guessing that once the charge was over they didnt have use of their spears becasue it wold have been in the bodies of the enemy. I have an idea of how the charge worked, but im not quite sure. If any one knows about this topic i would appricated if u would inform me thanks.

i know in medieval period, the knights charged with their spears and after 1st impact most lances were broken and throwed away if not broken just dropped. after that they drawed their swords, and fought on. that's why most knights were used later on cause they were weakened after their 1st charge if you used them too soon, their effect was wasted because the other side was still strong enought to recover from the blow while the knights had no lances anymore for another charge. but in battles that lasted for days, the went back to get new lances

I think that some of your thoughs could be true, as that the spears should be broken or simply stuck in someone's body, so they should try to use a secondary weapon. That is not represented in the game, so it's probably not very realistic in this aspect.

Anyway, I don't believe that the horses charged at 65 km/h. They were not race horses, they were wearing some armour tehmselves and the rider on them surely wasn't as light as a jockey, and he also weared armour and hold some quite heavy weapons. Additionaly, the ground wouldn't probably be flat enough to allow maximum speed. In roman times, considering they hadn't stirrups, they surelly wasn't able to charge at that speed without falling themselves to the ground on impact. I think a quite large horse at about 30 km/h would be more than enough to effectively knock off some men and be able to get advantage of the disrupted formation.

that lance breaking thing is actually there, but i doesn works that right. after a charge they don't switch to secundairy but only after a while, and by then most fights are over. i you dan't like that push "alt+right click at the unit" for switching to secundairy weapons. highly recommended for catapharact camels and normal cataphracts as they have a mace that has Armour Piercing

I suspect that simply having a heavy horse and rider hit a group of people would knock over and break quite a few of them straight out. Add to that a lance and a disrupted or unprepared formation...

You lift the lance upwards right after the charge, then lower it again. That way you get another type of collission. If the target is lightly armored and the lance sharp enough the energy is transformed into destruction energy rather than movement energy and the impact isn't that problematic.

The big problem is that horse and rider isn't one unit. Using the lance will throw the rider out of the saddle, backwards upwards, which means a faster, stronger horse isn't necessarily an as big improvement as some people think. Which also, in return, means that the ancient charges weren't necessarily that much less powerful than the Medieval charge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ZZR Puig

I think that some of your thoughs could be true, as that the spears should be broken or simply stuck in someone's body, so they should try to use a secondary weapon.

In roman times, considering they hadn't stirrups, they surelly wasn't able to charge at that speed without falling themselves to the ground on impact.

---

Stirrups are not necessarily needed for a strong charge. It`s the saddle that gives the rider most hold. Also if the lance break or not on impact depends on the used tactic.


http://img213.echo.cx/img213/6574/la23xa.th.jpg

Ever been around a horse?

They don't need to be going very fast to have a devastating effect on you. From what I know of cavalry, charges at top speed were unheard-of. A little faster than a quick trot was preferred.

This is, incidentally, a major problem I have with the game. Certain "elite" units (an unwelcome throwback from hit point-based RTS games) seem able to stand up to a cavalry charge despite being hit from behind or the flank, at full charge. Many times I have watched my cavalry charge a group of marching hoplites from behind (or even skirmishers), impact, and watch as the hoplites stop leisurely, turn, and defend.

If cavalry, or any unit, really, hits you from the rear, that unit should immediately rout, period.

And thanks to the Delayer for the excellent photograph.

Real life charges were intended to skewer an enemy (or two) with one thrust, then the secondary weapon would be deployed. If a lance was used, and broken, it could be used as an effective club, but generally, some secondary weapon was equipped.

I think RTW cavalry charges will break any infantry unit (even elite ones) if the attack is from the rear, and wedge formation is used. It is also much better to have 2 units charging from different angles to consistently demolish some heavy infantry units.

I've been experimenting recently with Numidian Cavalry, and found that they can effectively destroy Principes when 2 units charge from the rear using the Alt+Attack with skirmish and missile options turned off. This works even in regular formation, which is surprising with such a light cav unit.

SPartans are so unrealistic, when they are charged from the side and the rear, they don't even rout. They were amazing warriors, amazingly trained and disciplined to have the best courage of all the Greeks but I think a cavalry charge from the side and the back would break them.

If you use 2 units to charge, the Spartans will break every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Livius

This is, incidentally, a major problem I have with the game. Certain "elite" units (an unwelcome throwback from hit point-based RTS games) seem able to stand up to a cavalry charge despite being hit from behind or the flank, at full charge.

---

Um, first time I have heard someone say cavalry charges are too weak in RTW. Did you ever play MTW? They seem massively stronger now despite the cavalry being historically weaker.

I tend to regard RTW units as representing bigger units. So I agree a cavalry charge against hoplites who were only say four men deep would be pretty horrendous (although I still have trouble thinking about horses charging into a solid wall of men). But presumably historically, ancient infantry were in more dense - ie deeper - units. In which case, you would have thought the cavalry would lose momentum and the conflict become a little more even.

I suspect a typical Roman legionnary formation of the period might be able to survive a rear charge by most cavalry of the day, if their morale held. More historically knowlegeable members might be able to correct me on this, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simon Appleton

Um, first time I have heard someone say cavalry charges are too weak in RTW. Did you ever play MTW? They seem massively stronger now despite the cavalry being historically weaker.

I tend to regard RTW units as representing bigger units. So I agree a cavalry charge against hoplites who were only say four men deep would be pretty horrendous (although I still have trouble thinking about horses charging into a solid wall of men). But presumably historically, ancient infantry were in more dense - ie deeper - units. In which case, you would have thought the cavalry would lose momentum and the conflict become a little more even.

I suspect a typical Roman legionnary formation of the period might be able to survive a rear charge by most cavalry of the day, if their morale held. More historically knowlegeable members might be able to correct me on this, however.

---

Calvary charges are definitely overpowered if anything in this game. In this period calvary was only really good for fighting other calvary and harrassing the flanks/rear of enemy units. Even if calvary were left free to attack an enemy formation from behind, it would be (from what I've read) strictly a hit and run, skirmish type attack than the full speed rush that plows into the middle of the group. As for legionaries holding formation from a rear calvary attack, it would certainly be more likely than a phalanx type formation, but getting flanked by any kind of unit was usually lethal, even to the Romans.

In this game calvary is also often devastating charging non-spear units head on, which also is pretty inaccurate given our source material. However, given that the developers had to make some fun vs realism choices, I don't have a big problem with them making calvary more general purpose than it actually was.

Correct. In fact, the charge in those days were really just a collision of horse and flesh. The lance never came into it. I.e. the lance was not employed in such a way as to take advantage of the shock of collision. They would simply fly off their horses if they tried a charge with lances levelled. They used the lances for stabbing after the horses knocked away a few bodies. In other words, the initial contact didn't kill anyone unlike in the medieval days. It was the stabbing that happened later that did. Of course, the horses' hooves were also some pretty mean weapons, but most of it was poke poke poke while galloping around, not 'charge!'-CRASH-poke if you get my idea.

It is interesting that every now and then we have to debunk the 'stirrup'-myth. Stirrups are indeed not needed for a proper charge, they will help you keep your balance and it will most certainly keep strain down on the rider in a twirling melee.

Read this about the saddle and stirrups.
The link not only proves that stirrups are not needed, but more surprisingly even a saddle seems to be less important than believed. But then again the Companions and the Thessalians rode bareback.

Anyway, cavalry in the period we play weren't too keen on shock tactics, they were not armed or trained for that. A few were, Companions and the eastern cataphracts, but the vast majority were there to screen the infantry (that includes scouting and attacking skirmishers), protect them in retreat and chase the enemy in victory. Classical cavalry tactics.
Most of the horses in the period wouldn't be up to the task of running at a formed block of men.

Remember this when you complain that the cavalry can't run everything down from the rear.
Also remember that we have a major advantage in that our scales are much much more manageable (try getting a few thousand nobles on horses to stop chasing a fleeing enemy, wheel about and form ranks again... not easy) as well as we have perfect relations of orders. In these environments we can do things that would never have been possible back then.

hahaha guess we forget again the difficulties CA must juggle with. Oh well. I like shock cavalry if it's shock cavalry. :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Craterus

SPartans are so unrealistic, when they are charged from the side and the rear, they don't even rout. They were amazing warriors, amazingly trained and disciplined to have the best courage of all the Greeks but I think a cavalry charge from the side and the back would break them.

---

One thing the game also does not show is the ability of infantry to form a square. Or for Spartans the many different formations within a single unit they could form.

Square seems more like the Napoleonic formation counter to cavalry.

Anyhow, lances can still be used without stirups and saddle. One just typically did not couch the lance. Instead, one would hold it and let go upon impact as to no get knocked off. Even this weakened punch is still enough to skewer a man.

The horseman also needs tremendously strong thighs and back to hold himself on the horse for this riding bareback.

It disturbs me when I see about 30-40 guys in chainmail and shorts with short spears riding on horses plow through SEVERAL HUNDRED other trouser-wearing types. Is it me or are cav charges way more effective in RTW than in MTW even though the cav are relatively weaker in comparison with the infantry of the times???

You guys seen those Rohirrim cav charges in Lord of the Rings? What a load of crap! Orcs must be made of tofu...... :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland

You guys seen those Rohirrim cav charges in Lord of the Rings? What a load of crap! Orcs must be made of tofu...... :bow:

---

Well, the orcs were being flanked, and that was a LOT of horses. :charge:

The role of cavalry has alwasy been prized ever since ancient times. For example the Parthian and Armenian heavy cataphracts were known and feared for their devistative impact on the battle field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland

It disturbs me when I see about 30-40 guys in chainmail and shorts with short spears riding on horses plow through SEVERAL HUNDRED other trouser-wearing types. Is it me or are cav charges way more effective in RTW than in MTW even though the cav are relatively weaker in comparison with the infantry of the times???

You guys seen those Rohirrim cav charges in Lord of the Rings? What a load of crap! Orcs must be made of tofu...... :bow:

---

Heavy Orc 120kg, Light Horse 800kg.

Then times the mass by the speed and you soon see that a horse has a lot of momentum.

Quote:

---

You guys seen those Rohirrim cav charges in Lord of the Rings? What a load of crap! Orcs must be made of tofu......

---

Yeah, even more realistic was the fact that the horses were able to charge down a near vertical incline [Helm's Deep] without breaking their forelegs, but I suppose they had magic or some crap get-out like that. Or how the Orc's armed with pikes [Pelenor Fields] don't just skewer the horses so they throw their riders. Even the Scots had worked out that trick.
It makes much more sense in the book, but Peter Jackson doesn't seem to understand how battles work so you just have to try and imagine them being a bit better. I think he believes what we all thought when we were about 5 that the knight on horse back must beat the person on foot because the knight has a horse and a lance and is nobler.

P.S I kill the first person that points out it was a fantasy film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Al Khalifah

P.S I kill the first person that points out it was a fantasy film.

---

It was a fantasy film.

But then the orcs on the Pelennor seemed a rather small breed (smaller than the Uruk-hai at least) and had shorter spears than the uruks at Helm's Deep. On top of that, they had some serious morale issues, as evidenced by their facial expressions. And from what we can see, there may only have been a few lines facing the charge - a charge by a cavalry force of 6000 men who happen to be the best and most experienced riders in the world at that time.

So, I can easily see them breaking through the first ranks of orcs. It becomes more problematic for me when they subsequently rout all 200 000 orcs on the battlefield (perhaps a bit less, what with the fighting over the city, but still). That's an incredible feat for only 6000 riders.

But no-one ever claimed mister Jackson was a military genius. Cavalry charge on a ruined city?

In the game though, some allowance has to be made for unrealistic aspects for the sake of fun. Many people love big, epic cavalry charges (especially after the LotR movies), therefore they must be in the game.

Quote:

---

But then the orcs on the Pelennor seemed a rather small breed (smaller than the Uruk-hai at least) and had shorter spears than the uruks at Helm's Deep..... And from what we can see, there may only have been a few lines facing the charge - a charge by a cavalry force of 6000 men who happen to be the best and most experienced riders in the world at that time.

---

True they were smaller, but this lot seemed to be armed with pikes rather than spears, which if used correctly are far more effective at bringing down a mounted soldier. The ones in the film wouldn't be too difficult to ram into a horses neck, making it stop suddenly and innevitably throwing its rider, who would be easy pickings while stunned if not dead from the fall. The horses behind the front ranks would most likely falter on the carnage infront of them or turn in terror. The orcs are also in a very deep column formation, as deep as it is long it seems. They have plenty of time to turn and meet the charge, so its not a flanking manouver and it wouldn't take more than 4 lines of pikemen/orcs to stop the charge.

Quote:

---

On top of that, they had some serious morale issues, as evidenced by their facial expressions.

---

A race created entirely for killing has morale issues? Are they frightened they won't live to see their lovely semi-detached home, with an ash-black picket fence in Mount Doom Springs or their darling wife and strapping young orclings again?

The real reason is simple. In fantasy or attempts at historical films, cavalry always beats infantry unless the infantry comes up with some wily tactic involving sharpened bits of wood (never actual pikes - BRAVEHEART GRRR) or fire pits. Because they never would've been able to get away with it as family film if it had horses being skewered like a kebab on the end of a pike and their riders stabbed repeatedly to death.

In the LOTR-universe orcs hate being outside by day, and are notoriously prone to running away if the going gets tough. Not the Uruk-Hai though.

In the movie that charge gave every person watching a rush - in my oppinion one of the best scenes ever, so who cares if it makes military sense.

Uruk Hai were dead humans and elfs that's why they were big

Orcs are also dead elfs, that's what I tohught anyway? ~:confused: ~:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sardo

In the game though, some allowance has to be made for unrealistic aspects for the sake of fun. Many people love big, epic cavalry charges (especially after the LotR movies), therefore they must be in the game.

---

In interviews back in September, CA employees were claiming that RTW was like a movie such as Gladiator or Braveheart. MikeB took exception when I repeated those claims in this forum as if they were untrue because at the time marketing was still trying to portray RTW as having somewhat realistic gameplay. However, we can see now that RTW gameplay is more fantasy than reality. Even before RTW was released, LongJohn confirmed that elements were being put in the game to conform to popular conceptions.

Now the players who wanted an historical game are written off as hardcore when they point out issues. The irony is that despite CA's claim that gameplay comes before historical accuracy or realism, they failed to get the gameplay anywhere near the potential that the engine allows. Is the player who simply wants the RPS to function properly too hardcore now? It seems so. The gameplay is supposed to be RPS isn't it?