Results 1 to 30 of 43

Thread: Historical Question on Cavalry Charges

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    The Creator of Stories Member Parallel Pain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Sitting on the Throne of My Empires
    Posts
    380

    Default Re: Historical Question on Cavalry Charges

    Quote Originally Posted by Slim_Ghost
    I thought that warhorses are specially trained to be very aggressive, and thus would not be afraid to crash into infantry.
    It's hard enough to train humans, who can be manipulated by peer-pressure, religion, order, or threats to run headlong into a wall. I don't think it's possible to train horses, who are motivated only by instinct and their own survival, to do the same. I mean maybe if we can tell them "do it or I'll put a bullet through your head" but we don't speak horse.

    Anyways this is how the infantry square works. It's so compact it gives the men some courage, and even if they do want to run they can't. As the formation remains intact, to the horse the rows and rows of men look like a wall, so they either refuse to charge or shy away before impact. It's the same for line formation as long as the men don't start running or bolting.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Historical Question on Cavalry Charges

    Quote Originally Posted by Parallel Pain
    It's hard enough to train humans, who can be manipulated by peer-pressure, religion, order, or threats to run headlong into a wall. I don't think it's possible to train horses, who are motivated only by instinct and their own survival, to do the same. I mean maybe if we can tell them "do it or I'll put a bullet through your head" but we don't speak horse.

    Anyways this is how the infantry square works. It's so compact it gives the men some courage, and even if they do want to run they can't. As the formation remains intact, to the horse the rows and rows of men look like a wall, so they either refuse to charge or shy away before impact. It's the same for line formation as long as the men don't start running or bolting.

    Horses during charge, if it is properly performed, are acting like during stampede, and this is affecting the way they react. Stampeeding horses do not care what is in front of them, but are running in a way where main group is running, ignoring men, diches or other obstacles.

    This means that one horse will never charge line of men, but a big group may do this. But they will only do this if none of the horsemen will freak out and turn before impact. If even one person would break from charge, then whole charge will be destroyed.
    This obviously means that a lot is in the mind of those who are charging. If the horsemen were ready to sacrifice they will perform much better and will actually take less losses, as only they are able to charge efectively.

    EB ship system destroyer and Makedonia FC

  3. #3
    REGIVS ORATOR LINGVAE LATINAE Member Jaume's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    92

    Default Re: Historical Question on Cavalry Charges

    Anyway, always remember that roman horses were just like a pony, I mean they were more little than modern horses.

  4. #4
    WotD 2D graphic Dude Member Gebeleisis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cluj-Napoca , Transylvania , Romania
    Posts
    427

    Default Re: Historical Question on Cavalry Charges

    well i know that horses and men grew in time but isnt that a bit radical?

  5. #5

    Default Re: Historical Question on Cavalry Charges

    Apparently what horses don't want to charge are sharp obstacles like bayonets. In the Battle of Waterloo the French cavalry couldn't penetrate the British squares.

  6. #6
    Marzbân-î Jundîshâpûr Member The Persian Cataphract's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    3,170

    Default Re: Historical Question on Cavalry Charges

    Serried ranks of heavy horse, deployed knee-to-knee in a columned formation actually keep their momentum for a longer time, due to the aforementioned "stampede"-effect. First they had to adjust the formation with a slow trot or ambling speed and only seconds before the impact did the horsemen charge with a furious gallop. This is why the cataphract for instance was a successful recipe, both against other cavalry and against infantry; Against cavalry of other formations, they would simply be overwhelmed by this coordinated "iron fist".

    Infantry, well, we are not talking small horses, we are talking about large, muscular, and powerful beasts, in cases barded with heavy armour, carrying heavily armed and armoured soldiers; It's a huge difference from fleet light horse with lightly armed skirmishers. The cataphract was always meant to destroy the enemy's front ranks, rather than flank or envelop the entire formation. If as much as a few ranks of infantry had been disposed of by heavy horse, it would often be a sign of a successful breakthrough. Later the Romans dealt with these risks with the deployment of caltrops and deeper deployment of infantry, unit per unit.


    "Fortunate is every man who in purity and truth recognizes valiance and prevents it from becoming bravado" - Âriôbarzanes of the Sûrên-Pahlavân

  7. #7
    I is da bestest at grammar Member Strategos Alexandros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Here.
    Posts
    538

    Default Re: Historical Question on Cavalry Charges

    I would say an infantry formation could be classed as a sharp obstacle personally.
    - my first balloon, from Mouzafphaerre
    - LS balloon

    Modo Egredior
    https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bi...ookup=Plb.+toc <- read this!
    "Do you know what's worth fighting for?
    When it's not worth dying for?"

  8. #8

    Default Re: Historical Question on Cavalry Charges

    I acutally saw a video clip on the internet where some lady is jogging along and goes flying when a horse charges in, lowers its head and nails her. She was literally like a bowling pin.. the horse lost almost no momentum at all.

    And this was a relatively small horse and a relatively heavy woman, without any extra mass (armoured rider, armor, etc). If there is nothing the horse can impale itself on, I'm sure it would have no trouble literally running over a line of infantry.. I mean if they attacked a mass of infantry the horse might trip over all the bodies at some point, but it should have no trouble knocking armoured infantry around.

    And you can convince a person to run into a wall... a person can brace himself and absorb the impact. You probably couldn't convince a person to run into a spear point.
    Last edited by Midnj; 05-01-2008 at 22:08.

  9. #9
    REGIVS ORATOR LINGVAE LATINAE Member Jaume's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    92

    Default Re: Historical Question on Cavalry Charges

    Quote Originally Posted by Gebeleisis
    well i know that horses and men grew in time
    Hum, this is not 100% true. Time ago, I believed, like you, that romans were more little than we (specially because I'm 1,90 tall ).

    But a few days ago I've been reading the requirements to be a roman legionary after the Marian reforms, which are:

    - Being a roman citizen.

    - Being registered (in the census)

    - Being bachelor (at least before enlist)

    - Being 16-20 years old

    - Minimal stature of 1,70

    - And so on...

    I think that things like the stature are proportional to the quality of life. Same for horses, maybe.

  10. #10
    EBII Hod Carrier Member QuintusSertorius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    23,453

    Default Re: Historical Question on Cavalry Charges

    Demographically, height changed both up and down with nutrion and such. There was no broad pattern of people getting ever-taller.

    Height is a combinant gene thing (ie the more "height genes" you inherit, the taller your potential), but it also depends very heavily on getting sufficient nutrition during puberty. Doesn't matter how good your genes are, if you don't get the right food at the right time, you won't grow to your full potential.

    Height is also related to fertility for women. The taller a woman is, the later she tends to become fertile, because the body only has limited resources. Growing your long bones, and developing sexual organs both use up those resources, so it tends to be an either/or type equation. All that said, the taller you are, the healthier you tend to be, shortness (specifically leg-length) being linked with a number of illnesses. So it's an optimum balance thing of health and fertility.
    Last edited by QuintusSertorius; 05-02-2008 at 15:08.
    It began on seven hills - an EB 1.1 Romani AAR with historical house-rules (now ceased)
    Heirs to Lysimachos - an EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR with semi-historical houserules (now ceased)
    Philetairos' Gift - a second EB 1.1 Epeiros-as-Pergamon AAR


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO