Adding Frighten_mounted to Sarissa units

[Celtic_Punk]

I would say no, fright is something instinctive; a shying away from fire, elephants or camels if you are a horse. And from berserkers if you are a human, the anormal and dangerous, by sheer instingt like you shy away from a snake or tarantula or get goosebumps or whatever, something that can only be overcome by bravery or training.

Spears deterring cavalry is not from fright- they are no more frightening than any other wall of men to a horse. It is the rider thinking "Hmmm... if I charge unto long and pointy things we will die, I better circle round them or charge somewhere else", it is not from fright, just sheer tactical sense.

Let us not mix the two. Phalanxes are over-effective already, no need to add something instinctive that is no worse than any other massive and tight formation of infantry.

its well known that horses don't like to charge into walls of pointy objects.

[Macilrille]

Is it?

Yes, but no more so than into any other wall of men. I challenge you to come forth with a source that counters my argument from working 5 years with horses; and I tell you that horses fear men holding spears no more than other men- just like game animals do not fear armed men more than others.

Horses are not users of tools, so they do not recognise such. I already listed it all.

[A Very Super Market]

Perhaps that is not the point he is trying to make. Surely, a horse does recognize that a man with a sarissa seems to be bigger than one with a sword?

[Macilrille]

No it does not. It sees a man.
And while horses does not like to charge into massive formations of men, spears/pike/sarrisae does not frighten the horse more than the man would.

A wolf would frighten it, or a lion, something it instinctively recognises as a threat. That frightens it, fright is instinctive behavior in Humans and Horses.

Wolves, lions etc has preyed on horses for millenia, sarrisae has not and is thus not ingrained in its instinctive behavior as threatening and consequently not eliciting the instinctive reaction; fright. If it was it would be hard for the rider to use a spear himself as well.

[kurt190]

Warhorses are trained to overcome any fears they might have - what is the point of having a warhorse that decides itself where it is going to charge?
In WW1 they had to cope with constant artillery barrages, tanks, machine guns, barbed wire, trenches and poison gas - do you think a few pointy sticks is going to worry them?

kurt

[Macilrille]

First of all, you are wrong, they are trained to not fear anything the owner anticipates them meeting, which I have stated numerous times in this thread. But that is not really the issue. The issue is whether Sarrisae Ûbermenschen" should have Frighten-Cavalry added.

So how does your argument support adding Frighten to the sarrisae already-superhuman phalanxes?

[A Very Super Market]

I'm not attempting to convince you that phalanxes should be able to frighten cavalry. I'm just trying to make sense of the point of spears if horses do not fear them. Felled trees are not natural enemies of horses, but they will avoid them rather then charge into them.

My question is, if horses do not even recognize spears and pikes as objects, then why do we not hear more stories of mass impalements?

[Macilrille]

I am not certain I understand your question and I am getting fed up with the persistence of this thread.
But I shall try and reply to what I think you are asking.

1. The OP is in fact arguing that sarrisae should frigthen horses, which is what I am arguing against.

2. The point of spears is; that if your unit has spears you can actually do damage to a horse and rider. With a sword or axe you have more difficulty, especially if the rider is equipped with a spear/lance/kontos. Further, a grounded, spear/pike will in fact lead to the horse or rider impaling itself by its own speed if charging you from the front. Which is why cavalry belongs on the flanks, but that is another story. Bows achieve the same effect, you can injure horse and rider without them reaching you. English longbow and Swiss-German Pike were the vanguishers of knights for a reason. Further, spears are a cheap way of achieving this and requires less training to use than the Longbow while cheaper than the X-bow. That is the point of spears.

3. You hear stories of mass impalements if you study medieval military history. However, smart generals and cavalrists will use cavalry on the flank to try and get around or behind the enemy to hit an exposed flank or from behind. As for horses not impaling themselves on spears and pikes without their riders if that is what you are asking, horses are not predators, they do not charge humans whether or not the Human is holding a spear. Except if it is a trained warhorse with a rider (if overconfident knight, charging spears, see point 2).

4. Felled trees? What has that to do with anything? Have you at all read what I have written all through this thread? Horses will not voluntarily charge anything, they are prey, not predators. However, "not voluntarily charge" is very far from the instinctive reaction we call "Fright" that makes us flee. Which is what this is all about. A horse will gladly stand right next to a fallen tree. try and make it stand right next to a lion or pack of wolves, those are beings that elicits Fright in a horse, trees do not. It will not charge the tree, for horses are not aggressive animals, nor predators, but it will not fear it either.


Now, with all due respect I sense that you and possibly others, are merely arguing for the sake of arguing; not to prove a point, support it, reach consensus or anything else, but because you enjoy it.

I fail to see one supporting argument for sarrisae supermen (already overpowered) scaring horses, actually eliciting the instinctive reaction; Fright. All I see is "but... but..."

So, to me the debate is concluded. I will not waste more time on arguing for the sake of it.

If those with no arguments "for" wish to continue in their belief, so be it. Nothing I can say and has not already said will convince them.

I wonder how many people posting here has actually ridden or worked with horses or know anything about them except that people ride them...

[NeoSpartan]

Well said Macilrille

[A Very Super Market]

If you think I am merely being obstinant, then you have misunderstood again. I have no intention of trying to convince anyone that sarissae should frighten horses. Rather, I was posing a simple question on the point of a polearm.

I expect no answer. If you do not wish to continue, you are free to do so.

[Antonivs Silvicola]

Ok guys. Heres my "expertise" on the debate. I am a Comanche/Cherokee native american. I have been around horses literally my entire life. Ive been riding since I was 4. A normal horse will not charge into a solid object(mass of men or otherwise). Its just not in their nature as has been stated. However, a horse with appropriate training(lots of training) will do almost anything its rider comands it to. Its all about training and trust. Horses are not any "dumber" than any other animal but they are very loyal and trusting and will do anything for their master. If hes ignorant enough to charge a wall of death, the horse will follow without question(again with proper training). In my opinion it has much more to do with horse/rider relationship than anything else. Feel free to criticize me if you wish, but I expect you to have more experience with horses if you feel the need. And sarrisae should NOT frighten mounts.

[Macilrille]

Ah no pro then AVSM.

I am surprised and very happy to have a Native American here- especially since we agree

/me moves on.