Sword vs. Spear

[Baiae]

There are numerous reasons why people would go into a hopeless fight or go into a charge knowing they would die. It can happen and did happen.

Yeah, but how do you persuade a horse to do it?

[Watchman]

Er...hoof ? The examples you cite are from the period after nationalism and patriotism in the modern sense developed. Around that time soldiers were also supposed to stoically and fatalistically accept the prospect of death and injury and "soldier on" nonetheless, which in many ways was their primary difference to the warriors of earlier ages. A very few conditional exceptions aside, those ideas simply weren't around before about 17th or 18th century or thereabouts, at least not in Western Eurasia. Warriors were into it for the money/loot, the glory, their legal obligations to their superiors, because they had no choice, or any combination thereof; "for the Fatherland" mentality was conspicuously absent in almost all cases (save the few conditional exceptions; the Romans were one).

Mounted warriors, if not actually the elite (as in Rome and Greece, the advocates of massed heavy infantry; they might be noblemen, but their military importance and thus real influence was limited), were in any case highly trained and expensive specialists who filled certain vital roles in armies. Only very foolish commanders would waste them in useless suicide attacks against steady phalanxes.

Incidentally, the Korean War human-wave attacks were borne out out stark practical necessity - the Chinese and the North Koreans quite simply didn't have the tanks and artillery required to smash through the Allied fortifications, and had to make do with manpower and will instead. I sincerely doubt about the "first waves with sticks" part, incidentally - even if the first assaults faltered (as was almost certain) the survivors, who'd then spend their time huddling in craters, ditches etc., could make themselves comparatively useful by trading fire with the defenders.

I've also read the Chinese at least made heavy use of stormtrooper-style infiltration tactics to support the main assaults - sending in small units of picked men to sneak into the trenches and spread chaos among the defenders.

[Ptah]

Yeah, but how do you persuade a horse to do it?

Warhorses will follow their masters to whatever end. It's what they're trained to do. Ofcourse, not all animals can overcome instinct with training alone. So asking if a warhorse will carry on the charge or not, would be something akin to asking whether a soldier will go on a suicide mission or not.

It's all about motivation. A wall of bayonets, zounds of artillery fire, gunshots, explosions, etc. certainly didn't stop the English Light Brigade, or their horses, from charging the guns. The result was a disaster ofcourse, but motivated men, and horses, will charge. Just like the soldiers from the trenches in the Great War would charge, to their certain deaths.

[Watchman]

Alas, dead horsies tend to get in the way of the live ones (and the latter tend to get a little nervous by the screams of the former). Especially if you concentrate the assault too much - cavalry can't add "mass" to the charge by actual physical pushing anyway.

And any horse tries to back off when it actually hits the spear-points.

[Ptah]

Alas, dead horsies tend to get in the way of the live ones (and the latter tend to get a little nervous by the screams of the former). Especially if you concentrate the assault too much - cavalry can't add "mass" to the charge by actual physical pushing anyway.

And any horse tries to back off when it actually hits the spear-points.

Dead horses also tend to fall down with spectacular thud, and sling around people with force powerful enough to push neckbones inside the skull. When a horse row intentionally charges a spear row with full force, virtually all of the people mounted or standing, can be considred "dead". The first row of both sides will die.

So, unless you have some really great braking system that can stop a 600kg object travelling at 38mph within 10 yards of distance, a trained warhorse ordered for a charge will not stop. That's a fact.

The problem with traditional anti-cavalry spear rows is that when people are packed close together to form a wall, once a foreign object enters inside the ranks the people in contact with that object cannot move around and wield weapons aggressively due to insufficient maneuvering space. So typically, if for some reason a suicidal cavalry force charges a spear wall, it will break inside the ranks like a nail hammered to a wood block (with humongous casulaties, ofcourse). Only when the position of the spear ranks shifts around and gains enough room to actively skewer the cavalrymen that successfully entered a spear row alive, will they be able to stop the cavalry.

This was possible in the ancient times where soldiers were highly motivated citizens, trained regularly, and had enough wealth to equip themselves with expensive pieces of armour and weaponery. The spear formations were in very deep ranks, and despite the initial drive, eventually spears will do away with cavalry. However, when such high quality of infantry seized to exist, heavy cavalry had no problems disrupting spear-armed infantry lines whatsoever.

Tactical avoidance of charging a spearwall with cavalry, is not a problem of will, it's a problem of efficiency and attrition. Generals refrained from ordering their cavalry to go become shish-kebab not because it was impossible, but because it was stupid.

[sapi]

lol an interesting viewpoint - i agree!

[nokem]

A wall of bayonets, zounds of artillery fire, gunshots, explosions, etc. certainly didn't stop the English Light Brigade, or their horses, from charging the guns. The result was a disaster ofcourse...

The popular perception of the charge of the light brigade owes a lot to the 1968 film of the same name. In fact its interpretation of events has been quite coherently challenged.

The LB were not supposed to charge the Russian guns head on - they were ordered to flank them. The brigade suffered heavy casualties but did in fact capture the position. There was no guarantee they would have been more successful following their original instructions. I've heard it argued that the incident was actually a great success - though expensive and accidental.

[nokem]

Hmm. Can't edit posts. But I found my source - "Hell Riders: The Truth About the Charge of the Light Brigade" by Terry Brighton.

Interesting article about it here... http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/...344535,00.html with some interesting titbits for all you hippophiles and a big sideways dig at Gulf War II: Attack of the Clones.

Anyhow... miles off topic. Back to the fascinating software development debate on another hijacked thread.

[Didz]

It has also been proven that the losses to the Light Brigade were grossly exaggerated and that in fact the vast majority survived mainly because the majority of the Russian guns were firing en-enfilade and the light brigades formation was moving too fast to be targetted effectively.

[MoROmeTe]

Usually horses don't charge spears. I seem to recall a tect about a polish brigade charging pikes in the late Muddle Ages, I think. But it didn't happen in the time RTW is set in.
A blade, up close and personal, against a warband is a great asset. Not so great if you are up against a phalanx. Chance are you are not going to make it to the point where you can use your blade.
It seems normal that blades can be used faster than spears.

[Nelson]

Why should sword armed troops get any bonus at all against spear armed troops? Granted, a sword might be a tad handier at arms length but getting past the spear point is hardly automatic.

And please, I'm open to any reasonable explanation EXCEPT the old worn out and overused rock, paper, scissors analogy which I reject as being over simplified and gamey.

[Watchman]

Well, most pike-carrying phalangites are pretty much crap with their backup sword attack, at least compared to any halfway decent "specialist" swordsmen... but I don't think that counts.

Anyway, I read somewhere spears were supposed to give a small bonus against cavalry and a small penalty against infantry.

[Proletariat]

And please, I'm open to any reasonable explanation EXCEPT the old worn out and overused rock, paper, scissors analogy which I reject as being over simplified and gamey.

I await your own computer game's release. It will be very 'realistic' and fun, I'm sure. Have at it.

[Nelson]

I await your own computer game's release. It will be very 'realistic' and fun, I'm sure. Have at it.

Ho ho! Now we should we restrict discussion to developers only, heh?

I asked a simple question, chief.

Why should sword armed troops get any bonus at all against spear armed troops?

Do you have a sensible explanation? Can you contribute anything at all here?

Have at it.