just a comment about palanhx and cavalry

Obviously the ancient cavarly isnt better than the medieval but in every battle the cavarly has to be important dont you remeber that alexander win all his battle with the" hummer and the anvil " dont you think that the hummer is the most important? . and remember in medieval cavalry the impact was strong but with all de armor the horse and the knight were so tired , and remeber that in de medieval age who have horses was the rich poeple not everyone... that makes the cavalry so dessicive , becuase the ordinary people hasnt the equipment necessesary to hold on a cavalry attak ! . so i think that maybe isnt necessary to toned down the cavarly if you want a more realistic battle you need to :
1- investigate about what units hold on the calvary ( spearmen wolud be more effective against cavarly ) like the javelins are effective agains the elephants and chariots
2-when the cavarly attak the firist line of the horses wolud die and the horsemen fall and die or continue fighting like infantry and the firs line of infantry if thay are simply soldiers no bonus calvalry they die at least two of his entire lines just in the impact , but if they are spearmen they must to hold on and die only the first line
3-the spears didnt break in the crash that makes the palahnx ( in the rtw and eb) invulnerable and they didnt separe his lines in a unlikely territory like mountains or forests when they sholud be separe and vulnerable to the normal infantry.

----- my final point is : if you want the game realistic make the calvarly dessicive (that's why they are always the half number of the infantry) and think in my point about phalanxs


what do you think?

First, cavalry need to be toned down -- the standard charge values are ridiculous, and the results even more so. I've seen entire units trampled out of existence in a single thunderous cavalry charge. No, if we want more realistic battles, we need more realistic cavalry.

Historically, the effectiveness of cavalry came from the fear of a charge -- men would break and run rather than face those hooves, making for easy hunting. However, men who held firm had a far better success rate at battling off cavalry. I'm wondering if it'd be possible to give militias a morale penalty versus cavalry to better mirror this effect?

yeah i agreee with the values its ridiculus but a dont agree with the effectivenes of cavarly the horsemen has the advantage in the fight one to one with a infantry you really think that is just about the braveness ? you hold on a crash and then you win? the cavarly is the dessicive weapon if they werent thy woludnt be used until the first world war! it wanst only the fear or charge its a horse going to you with a horsemen wiht armor and very long spear the spear is just ornamental? you can imagine the cavalry like a faster phalanx with long spears and much stamina is like the tank in modern war !!! the effectivenes depends of get down the rider of the horse of kill the horse and that only could be wiht long spears before they crash you or with proyectiles , so wait the attak with a sword and be the bravest in the earth doesnt help much, i think the problem are the spearmen they need to be better agains cavalry and lesser agains infantry that makes you recruit a mixed gruop of units because in rtw you only recruit heavy infranty and they do all. the spearmen was lighter and the results were bad!

You can allways adjust the mentioned values ( penalty vs. mounted units; fear effect of the cavalry; lower morale for the levies, etc. ) in the EDU.

yes but what is your opinion ??? i think that spearmen needs to be better so the recruitmen wolud be more mixed an flexible! for every scenary

i am afraid your message is coming a bit foggy to me as english is clearly not your first language (nothing wrong with that), but to me but cavalry IS decisive in both games especially in Medieval.

In EBI horsemen of all qualities fare absolutely horribly in melee to the point where they should be kept out of it at all times. even Super Cataphracts

I´ve never been in an ancient melee battle myself, obviosly, but i prefer to put myself in the place of a foot soldier, even disciplined, trained, and tough, and then, after some time beeing in a pitch battle, tired, i imagine what it would like to be charged by cavalry, especially heavy lancers, heaviliy armoured ( normaly from the rear/flank ) ... i don´t know, i think... only really disciplined ( elite + adequate formation like shieldwall, spearwall, shildtrom? ) troops would keep fighting, while any other would simply break and run ( if there is where to ), imo. I might repeat what was said on the forums many times, but it is not only the charge itself, but also the impact of the horses ( have you ever been near a horse that is moving around, playing bit crazy? you´d be thrown away like a sheet of paper due to its mass ). Those are warhorses: trained, agressive. It is, of course, another matter when those charges would be frontal, especially against organized spearmen, or even a hoplite phalanx. All in all, i think the charge of ( heavy, not ponny like ) horses, lance armed riders etc. etc. should be toned down aproprietly, but the "powercharge" aspect should be implemented, if possible.

A running horse will always veer away from an object it cannot jump over or move through. A cavalry charge wouldn't slam into a mass of men like it does in TW games, it would be absolute suicide for the riders on the front ranks.

how does it work then? Oliver Stone's representation of Alexander's charge at gaugamela didn't really make sense or seem effective, then ran to the side of the enemy then got off their horses and started fighting. this isn't how i imagine the great hetairoi charges, so i ask, how did it really work? was it really just fear that made the enemy run?

Quote:

---

A running horse will always veer away from an object it cannot jump over or move through.

---

This is a much discussed matter and what you say seems to be the common wisdom around these parts but on the other hand I've read comments from people, claiming to have a lot of experience with horses, who say that a trained horse will do what the rider wants no matter what.

I was talking about lances - several meters infront of the horse and rider. Would you be so kind and explain the meaning of "charge"? Not in RTW, but concerning ancient warfare? Also i was not accidently talking about "powercharge" ( the RTW feature ), but rather deliberately: the charge itself might not be as deadly as we see in Lord of the Rings movie, but the the effect of a mass of animals penetrating a mass of men + the riders who slash anyone within the reach of their melee weapons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro

yeah i agreee with the values its ridiculus but a dont agree with the effectivenes of cavarly the horsemen has the advantage in the fight one to one with a infantry you really think that is just about the braveness ? you hold on a crash and then you win? the cavarly is the dessicive weapon if they werent thy woludnt be used until the first world war! it wanst only the fear or charge its a horse going to you with a horsemen wiht armor and very long spear the spear is just ornamental? you can imagine the cavalry like a faster phalanx with long spears and much stamina is like the tank in modern war !!! the effectivenes depends of get down the rider of the horse of kill the horse and that only could be wiht long spears before they crash you or with proyectiles , so wait the attak with a sword and be the bravest in the earth doesnt help much, i think the problem are the spearmen they need to be better agains cavalry and lesser agains infantry that makes you recruit a mixed gruop of units because in rtw you only recruit heavy infranty and they do all. the spearmen was lighter and the results were bad!

---

IF cavalry were to actually charge into a formation of heavy troops, all advantage would go to the infantry. Cavalry's greatest strength is mobility, and that is quickly lost after the initial charge. After that, it's a simple matter to pull a cavalryman down from his horse and fall on top of him, so in short, yes, it is a matter of bogging down the cavalry. I don't doubt that such a charge would be devastating to the front ranks of infantry, but it'd prove even more disastrous for the cavalry. Remember, all this is hypothetical since rarely would cavalry actually charge home against a standing unit (at least according to Machiavelli).

And in the first World War, cavalry served mostly as transport. Gunpowder rendered cavalry near obsolete on the battlefield and repeating rifles, and later machine guns, even more so.

so how does it work!!!!!! how did Alexander rout the main Persian body if his hetairoi didn't physically slam into the mass of troops. do the Xystons just stab one guy and everyone else freaks out and runs away?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pedro

...dont you remeber that alexander win all his battle with the "hummer and the anvil " dont you think that the hummer is the most important?

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www.busmanagement.com/media/m...225/hummer.jpg

I don't doubt that if Alexander drove a Hummer into the enemy lines, he would have easily won every battle. :nice:


But seriously, I'm curious to know people's thoughts on this matter, which has definitely been debated before. It seems that whenever the topic of cavalry charges comes up (and not just on this forum), half the well-studied people take the stance that the notion of cavalry charging full-speed into enemy ranks is a just a myth, while the other half assert that it is indeed possible. I'm no scholar on ancient or medieval warfare, and have very little horse riding experience, but I'm inclined to think that if both ancient and medieval writers claimeded that heavy cavalry charges could break enemy formations, then they must have been effective somehow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

so how does it work!!!!!! how did Alexander rout the main Persian body if his hetairoi didn't physically slam into the mass of troops. do the Xystons just stab one guy and everyone else freaks out and runs away?

---

Remember it is the horses in a cavalry charge that do the most damage, they will crack skulls with kicks of their legs, trample over men, bite at wrists etc. A skilled calvary man, if attacking a solid formation would probably aim his charge at a gap in the enemy lines, causing the formation to break up with men fleeing or shuffling backwards.

Although not a historical text, I like how Steven Pressfield put it in The Virtues of War

The scene is Alexander speaking to the reader about his strategy at Chaeronea.

"The Thebans do not understand modern warfare. They believe Philip's strength resides where theirs does, in the massed formation of the heavy infantry. No. The role of the Macedonian phalanx is not to slug it out, power for power, against the foe. Its job is to fix the enemy in place, while our heavy cavalry delivers the decisive shock from the flank or rear. The Theban despises cavalry. His hoplite soul holds horse troops in contempt. He cannot believe that mounted men will willingly fling themselves upon the hedgehog's back of bristling, serried spear points.
But we will.
I will.
Today we will make believers of them."

. . .

"As the Sacred Band comes forward (as it must to attack Antipater's brigade in the flank), our wedges of Companion Cavalry appear on their left, hurtling towards them. The foe's reinforcing companies of the Heracles, Cadmus , and Electra regiments must flood forward now, filling the breach created by the Sacred Band's charge. We can see their captains shouting and gesticulating for this, and their gallant ranks straining to obey."

. . .

"A gap opens between the Sacred Band and it's supporting units. Into this gap I charge. Bucephalus is first to strike the foe. My horse is a prodigy. He stands seventeen hands high and weighs over twelve hundred pounds. His hooves on the earth make tracks broad as skillets, his quarters are the size of regimental kettles. I cannot imagine the terror that must have seized that initial warrior of the Sacred Band as my stallion's driving knees crashed upon him, followed by the massive bulk of his iron-armored chest. The front parted before me with the sound of rending metal. I could feel Cleitus and Telamon behind me on the left, Socrates Redbeard on the right.
The cavalry charge is nothing grander than a directed stampede. Men have believed that horses will refuse to overrun massed infantry, as they will balk at running into a wall of stone. But horses are herd animals, and in the madness of the rush, they will follow the leader headlong off a cliff. In the formation of the wedge, where the commander's horse is alone at the point, the mounts of the succeeding chevrons are not following their eyes and senses, they're following the lead horse. And if the leader is brave enough or reckless enough, spurred on by a rider impetuous enough, the trailers must follow. The same instinct that drives a herd off a precipice will propel it into massed infantry.

Here's a video of two horses running into a solid object at the 0:40 mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xloi...yer_embedded#!

wow, many thanks for that. great description of what i was looking for using a battle that has always interested me very much, thanks!

Napoleon said that a cavalry charge should be performed on engaged units, either on the flanks or rear...
Pretty much says how a charge can be so powerful and deadly, but as some said given their mobility, horses can charge and retreat at leisure (I believe that was one of the peculiarity of the Normans)...
Bottom line, in my opinion, is more about the tactical situation a commander can create rather than the charge itself...

Waterloo may be a good and most recent guide to this type of tactic and its effect. The massed charge of the French heavies on the British and Allied line could have swung this battle but the infantry moving into a square formation (a four sided phalanx?) stopped this succeeding. Is this the most modern example of a phalanx in effective operation?

All bar two of the squares survived the charge. Other less well protected units didn't. Imagery of the battle shows the french cavalry after the intial contact circling the squares using missile (pistols) rather than a headlong crash into the massed infantry ranks. And these were the best (equip/horses/training/experience) heavy cavalry around at the time....... having about two hours earlier destroyed the british heavy cavalry......

Heres the latest media coverage of the action
http://www.britishbattles.com/waterl...ssiers-450.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HFox

Is this the most modern example of a phalanx in effective operation?
[/url]

---

Well, with the end of cavalry on the battlefield and pretty much the end of melee (at least in "planned melee") a formation like the phalanx got outdated...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fomalhaut

how does it work then? Oliver Stone's representation of Alexander's charge at gaugamela didn't really make sense or seem effective, then ran to the side of the enemy then got off their horses and started fighting. this isn't how i imagine the great hetairoi charges, so i ask, how did it really work? was it really just fear that made the enemy run?

---

Most of the time is seems to have basically been a game of chicken, if the infantry wavered and broke up then the charge would continue with the riders chasing down the enemy.

If the infantry held, the cavalry would stop short of them or veer away. They could then have the option of either trotting at slower speed into the mass of infantry to engage in melee, riding along the edges of the formations stabbing inwards at the enemy or reforming and charging again.

The later tactic of the infantry square in my mind is a perfect demonstration against the stereotypical view of a cavalry charge. If cavalry really did ride at high speed right into a infantry formation then the infantry square, with its sides consisting of just 2 or 3 ranks of men, would have been utterly useless. A single running horse would go through that with ease.

In reality is was highly effective, in fact one of the few times one was actually broken was as a result of the stereotypical high speed cavalry collision, a charging horse was shot too close to the square causing it's dead body to collide with the soldiers, blasting a hole in the formation that the rest of the cavalry could then enter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

A running horse will always veer away from an object it cannot jump over or move through. A cavalry charge wouldn't slam into a mass of men like it does in TW games, it would be absolute suicide for the riders on the front ranks.

---

Why? This is only true if you make a whole bunch of assumptions. First and most important is the speed of the charge. Obviously its not at a full gallop though that seems to be how most movies and game portray it. That would damage the horse on impact just like you said but it doesn't matter if the object is "solid" or not. Impacts at enough velocity between 2 masses always result in the energy going somewhere- and while it might take more energy to break a horse leg bone than a human bone impact of more than 20mph would risk even a horses legs.

2nd is this idea that horses won't charge toward something it can't move through or around. It seems somehow "common" knowledge by people who haven't spent much time around horses- and yes, if a horse is in its full faculties and has no rider that is probably true. However when a horse is panicked or scared it might do all sorts of crazy things. Well trained horses also trust their riders to the point that even if it had doubts it will trust the riders instincts over its own in many situations.

3rd- why on earth would people assume that horses raised around humans would assume a group of humans standing together is impassable? Horses are strong and most know their strength but the relationship between human and horse allows the human to guide that strength due to Herd behavior which brings up the next point.

In the midst of a mass of excited horses moving the same direction in a close group most of the horses won't really even see where they are going. Only some of the horses in front and sides will have much idea of what is going on so even if we assume few ancient people could train horses well enough(poor assumption I think) there are likely a few outliers which could be put in those positions. Even now in dog breeding, some dogs are more aggressive than others even when bred for that trait and part of the expense of cavalry is the training which is intense. Not every horse is cut out to be a charger and there is a reason most chargers were stallions.

Now the final assumption is that all charges by ancient cultures were conducted in the same manner. It seems obvious that not everyone fought in the same style so why would cavalry battles be the same either? I think that accounts for much of the conflicting information. At the same time some heavy cavalries appeared to be much better than others- or at least surviving accounts give that credit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

Most of the time is seems to have basically been a game of chicken, if the infantry wavered and broke up then the charge would continue with the riders chasing down the enemy.

If the infantry held, the cavalry would stop short of them or veer away. They could then have the option of either trotting at slower speed into the mass of infantry to engage in melee, riding along the edges of the formations stabbing inwards at the enemy or reforming and charging again.

---

Sometimes it could have been a game of chicken- afterall, why not? Even a good cavalry charge into the rear of an engaged unit is likely to cost some cavalry casualties. However if you can feint charge and the enemy infantry breaks before contact is even made the advantage of the cavalry is multiplied at very small cost. Ancient commanders could make calculations on the cost/benefit and wouldn't put their unit to unnecessary risk. If the enemy held fast though that doesn't mean the cavalries role in the battle is over. Few ancient armies were uniform and if one unit or part of the line held another might not. Also if 1 flank of an army was made stronger to overpower the enemy, the cavalry eliminating enemy cavalry on the weak flank or the strong flank could be very important depending on the terrain and the strategy. I don't think you were making any claims about that specifically but saying that cavalry charge was mostly a game of chicken seems overly simplistic unless you were referencing just a single aspect of the opening parts of a battle.

But that brings into question the other aspect- the speed of the charge. Saying horses gallop into a charge but then pull up short of the enemy in a feint seems contradictory. A mass of horses galloping one direction doesn't suddenly stop.

I believe wedge formations offered cavalries expecting to make contact the best odds of success first because there is some control- IE in the herd will follow the lead horse direction. A solid line as MTW2 and other games and media portrays is very hard to control and basically once the charge is started there is no or very limited control.

Cavalry charge doesn't always have the same goal. A heavy cataphract style charge would be to collapse/push back an enemy formation and defeat it with heavily armored cavalry. An Alexander/Companion style wedge charge is to break infantry formations apart, isolate and destroy cohesion allowing infantry to exploit the now vulnerable enemy or if the enemy army had minimal command and control due to poor training/ethnic/cultural reasons then once the formation is broken it might never reform.

Then there are the morale affects. Infantry focused on 1 enemy in 1 direction have an easier time keeping good morale. Men that know they are flanked or even surrounded and not knowing exactly where an attack will come from have much more difficult time focusing on the task in front of them. Blitz tactics millenia after the EB period exploited this fact as well... isolate entire armies, move quickly, and attack from unexpected directions and men become exhausted and more readily surrender/rout.

The main reason I doubt that MTW2 style frontal charges occurred very often (but weren't impossible as is implied by you) is the casualty rates if the opposing infantry held fast. Keeping the cavalry alive and able to act as counter/screen to enemy or exploit future gaps in enemy lines etc would usually be more important than wasting many lives of horses and men in a charge into a prepared and disciplined spear infantry formation. However if its the crucial point in a battle the cost might be deemed worth it and sometimes such charges seem to have occurred according to historical accounts but they do seem rare.

How to reflect that with MTW2 mechanics is probably difficult... but I think not completely out of possibility.

Great posts, Agricola and Ichon!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichon

Why? This is only true if you make a whole bunch of assumptions. First and most important is the speed of the charge. Obviously its not at a full gallop though that seems to be how most movies and game portray it. That would damage the horse on impact just like you said but it doesn't matter if the object is "solid" or not. Impacts at enough velocity between 2 masses always result in the energy going somewhere- and while it might take more energy to break a horse leg bone than a human bone impact of more than 20mph would risk even a horses legs.

---

By "running" I meant the full speed gallop you see in most films and games (like TW).

Quote:

---

2nd is this idea that horses won't charge toward something it can't move through or around. It seems somehow "common" knowledge by people who haven't spent much time around horses- and yes, if a horse is in its full faculties and has no rider that is probably true. However when a horse is panicked or scared it might do all sorts of crazy things. Well trained horses also trust their riders to the point that even if it had doubts it will trust the riders instincts over its own in many situations.

---

Panicked horses are less easy to control, not more.

Quote:

---

3rd- why on earth would people assume that horses raised around humans would assume a group of humans standing together is impassable? Horses are strong and most know their strength but the relationship between human and horse allows the human to guide that strength due to Herd behavior which brings up the next point.

---

Yes they would know their strength, which is why they wouldn't run full pelt into a group of 100 people who didn't move out the way.

Quote:

---

In the midst of a mass of excited horses moving the same direction in a close group most of the horses won't really even see where they are going. Only some of the horses in front and sides will have much idea of what is going on so even if we assume few ancient people could train horses well enough(poor assumption I think) there are likely a few outliers which could be put in those positions. Even now in dog breeding, some dogs are more aggressive than others even when bred for that trait and part of the expense of cavalry is the training which is intense. Not every horse is cut out to be a charger and there is a reason most chargers were stallions.

Now the final assumption is that all charges by ancient cultures were conducted in the same manner. It seems obvious that not everyone fought in the same style so why would cavalry battles be the same either? I think that accounts for much of the conflicting information. At the same time some heavy cavalries appeared to be much better than others- or at least surviving accounts give that credit.

---

Both fair points.

Quote:

---

Sometimes it could have been a game of chicken- afterall, why not? Even a good cavalry charge into the rear of an engaged unit is likely to cost some cavalry casualties. However if you can feint charge and the enemy infantry breaks before contact is even made the advantage of the cavalry is multiplied at very small cost. Ancient commanders could make calculations on the cost/benefit and wouldn't put their unit to unnecessary risk. If the enemy held fast though that doesn't mean the cavalries role in the battle is over. Few ancient armies were uniform and if one unit or part of the line held another might not. Also if 1 flank of an army was made stronger to overpower the enemy, the cavalry eliminating enemy cavalry on the weak flank or the strong flank could be very important depending on the terrain and the strategy. I don't think you were making any claims about that specifically but saying that cavalry charge was mostly a game of chicken seems overly simplistic unless you were referencing just a single aspect of the opening parts of a battle.

---

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here, I never said that if cavalry failed to rout the enemy on the first attempt they would do nothing for the rest of the battle.

Quote:

---

But that brings into question the other aspect- the speed of the charge. Saying horses gallop into a charge but then pull up short of the enemy in a feint seems contradictory. A mass of horses galloping one direction doesn't suddenly stop.

---

No it doesn't because I never said the cavalry galloped into a charge.

Quote:

---

I believe wedge formations offered cavalries expecting to make contact the best odds of success first because there is some control- IE in the herd will follow the lead horse direction. A solid line as MTW2 and other games and media portrays is very hard to control and basically once the charge is started there is no or very limited control.

---

I'm pretty sure the wedge formation didn't narrow to a single rider at it's tip, certainly later wedge formations never did this (the Byzantines used a 20 men tip for example).

Quote:

---

The main reason I doubt that MTW2 style frontal charges occurred very often (but weren't impossible as is implied by you) is the casualty rates if the opposing infantry held fast. Keeping the cavalry alive and able to act as counter/screen to enemy or exploit future gaps in enemy lines etc would usually be more important than wasting many lives of horses and men in a charge into a prepared and disciplined spear infantry formation. However if its the crucial point in a battle the cost might be deemed worth it and sometimes such charges seem to have occurred according to historical accounts but they do seem rare.

---

Hmm...I think you have the wrong end of the stick here, again I never said that cavalry wouldn't charge into infantry, what I said was they wouldn't run into them at the speeds we see in TW games.

I seem to remember having this same conversation last time the subject was brought up and it turned out that we were basically saying the same thing.

I agree with those who say that frontal cavalry charges into a line of trained and disciplined infantry is almost suicidal, specially in the EB period. Many armies of that time were disciplined professional soldiers with fighting styles and weapons that discouraged such charges. And even pikemen from the "Barbarian" factions made up their lack of phalangites with a strong warrior culture that encouraged bravery and found cowardness as repulsive.

Even super-heavy cavalry like Parthian cataphracts didn't charge headlong into an infantry line, at least not after foot and horse archers and other ranged units had considerably weaken and demoralized the enemy lines. And don't forget that the rise of cataphracts was parallel to the shorter numbers of elite phalangites and the lower quality and numbers of Hetaroi the Seleucids could field.

Finally, that kind of charge would surely produce many casualties among cavalry, and this weren't cheap troops, quite the opposite. Most of the heavy cavalry was compossed by a social elite who were the ones that could afford the breeding, training and equipment of the horse.

In the post-Classical Antiquity world cavalry was the master of the battlefield, until massed gunpowder power was used. But in the EB timeframe it was used in a combined arms fashion, even by those who fielded the larger numbers like the Sauromatae or Parthians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bobbin

By "running" I meant the full speed gallop you see in most films and games (like TW).

Panicked horses are less easy to control, not more.

Yes they would know their strength, which is why they wouldn't run full pelt into a group of 100 people who didn't move out the way.

No it doesn't because I never said the cavalry galloped into a charge.

I'm pretty sure the wedge formation didn't narrow to a single rider at it's tip, certainly later wedge formations never did this (the Byzantines used a 20 men tip for example).

Hmm...I think you have the wrong end of the stick here, again I never said that cavalry wouldn't charge into infantry, what I said was they wouldn't run into them at the speeds we see in TW games.

I seem to remember having this same conversation last time the subject was brought up and it turned out that we were basically saying the same thing.

---

The distinction is more fine than your initial statement appeared is all. I remember we talked about this in other thread but I didn't see we had been in agreement until now.

Panic stricken horses are more difficult to control directly but do follow the herd more readily at the same time. I didn't mean the lead rider as in 1 on the point but the person in command of the cavalry who was usually in the front ranks of the wedge somewhere.

The only part we might disagree about after reading your follow-up is that horses would veer from a group of people. If you mean by running as "gallop" then most horses unless in a stampede would try to avoid a group of people under its own inclination and only very few horses would obey a rider and smash into such a group. However if horses are moving towards a group of men at a slow canter I don't think there is any evidence they would try to avoid contact at all cost or completely balk. Especially if trained to do so under loud conditions.

Horses in that era probably weighed anywhere from 700-1200lbs, if were warhorses probably average around 1,000 though I've read of skeletons found that indicated up to 1300lbs though that would be exceptionally rare. So even saying 900lbs... plus 150lb rider and another 50lbs gear. 1100lbs of a single horse pushing against 150lb infantryman with 30lbs gear(less saddle etc). That would be at least 6 ranks in a single file to push back effectively against 1 horse, more likely more since as individuals over that distance they can't apply the force to push back as efficiently as the horse could push forward.

Horses might not be doing such math in their heads but I don't think they would be super intimidated just because men are standing in a group. That assumes horses are remarkably stupid they can't tell a solid object from a group of men.

Other than that point I think we definitely agree about how horse charge being portrayed in TW as a fast gallop in a long line typically is not very accurate. I don't know if there is a way to make wedge formation only available for charges or if that is the best solution but it could be part of a solution- even though the wedges are not quite right either it seems closer than a 2 rank deep elongated unit which does the most damage in a charge currently.

Quote:

---

If you mean by running as "gallop" then most horses unless in a stampede would try to avoid a group of people under its own inclination and only very few horses would obey a rider and smash into such a group.

---

I think that's the point that both parties are advocating -- cavalry won't charge into a unit of men. A canter is a different matter altogether, and they probably wouldn't swerve from this slower approach though cavalry would be at a distinct disadvantage in direct melee.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ichon

The only part we might disagree about after reading your follow-up is that horses would veer from a group of people. If you mean by running as "gallop" then most horses unless in a stampede would try to avoid a group of people under its own inclination and only very few horses would obey a rider and smash into such a group. However if horses are moving towards a group of men at a slow canter I don't think there is any evidence they would try to avoid contact at all cost or completely balk. Especially if trained to do so under loud conditions.

---

Yes at a canter they would most likely just plough right into them, you see police horses do this all the time during riots. A wall of spear points would obviously change their reaction though.

Quote:

---

Other than that point I think we definitely agree about how horse charge being portrayed in TW as a fast gallop in a long line typically is not very accurate. I don't know if there is a way to make wedge formation only available for charges or if that is the best solution but it could be part of a solution- even though the wedges are not quite right either it seems closer than a 2 rank deep elongated unit which does the most damage in a charge currently.

---

Sadly there is not much we can do about it, we certainly can't mod when a formation is used. The wedge in TW games is pretty useless anyway, IIRC the whole formation has a tendency to stop ones the tip hits it's target.

Good thread. Basically, ancient cavalry goes for flanks or rear of the enemy - or goes for a gap in the front line.

Alexander's cavalry had great success against the Persians because a great number of the Persians were skirmishers, archers and slingers. And skirmishers will generally run away from an enemy charge, particularly a cavalry charge. And once the skirmishers start running, spearmen of low quality (poorly trained levies) may start running too. From there it's only a short step to the whole army panicking and fleeing for their lives.

Big, low quality armies are often a liability - more people on the battlefield only means that there is more people who might panic and run, spreading panic throughout the army. People have more in common with sheep than with wolves.

An interesting and parallel thread here which raises the issue of historical accounts of cavalry being 'over glossed' as well as some other interestingpoints.

http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/...charges-shock/

the link in the article is interesting.....highlighting how a 70-90lb woman can knock over a horse + jocket weighing 7-900 lbs travelling at 35 miles per hour.

If I had the option of being the armoured infantryman behind a shield or the rider cantering at him......I know my preference. :)

Now you've all got me reading!! :)

Found these two nice accounts of recent cavalry charges ....and quite heartwarming in a way

http://www.teoti.co.uk/military/9291...ry-charge.html
http://www.ww2talk.com/forum/news-ar...tish-army.html

Quote:

---

Sadly there is not much we can do about it, we certainly can't mod when a formation is used. The wedge in TW games is pretty useless anyway, IIRC the whole formation has a tendency to stop ones the tip hits it's target.

---

It does work when you target your charge at the unit behind it, then the wedge keeps going and goes through the enemy nicely.

i use that trick to smash skirmishers slingers and others who would normally due to loose formation evade the charges but if you target the unit suporting them they get stuck beteween a shieldwall and a lance point :D