It seems a fair point the OP raises, and I look forward to the ingenious solution the EB2 team comes up with.
My own uniformed impression is that the stirrup was not in general use (if at all) in the EB2 period, thus making heavy cavalry less effective. Is the problem delivering shock from an unbraced rider and mount to the target without dismounting the rider?
Of course there was effective heavy-to-kataphract weight cav around in the classical age, which did smash infantry quite badly, but just less effectively than horsemen of the age of chivalry. Is that a fair assesment? Its a gross simpification, but the Roman empire held quite well against the northern foes until they were swept away in the Gothic storm, which I'm assuming was a stirrup assisted movement.
I recall a short archaeological film comparing depictions (eg from illuminated mss) with excavated bodies, showing enormous wounds, for example blokes split from collarbone to pelvis. Terrifying how much force a horseman can generate when properly mounted and braced, he had the force of his mount and the extra height (from standing in the stirrups) to swing down from. No wonder even succesful infantry tradtions like the early Franks 9not to mention the eastern empire) adopted heavy cav armament.
Bookmarks