Quote Originally Posted by VAE VICTUS
so if a horse wont charge spears, were the knights of use because of a lack of disciplined foot in the medieval period? i mean you can lead a horse to a battle, but you cant make him kill himself.
or did they simply build up the horses momentum to the point where the horse couldnt stop itself?
also if they did this, this could increase the risk of injury to the horse, which were and are expensive, were many knights wiiling to do this? how often did they have to buy destriers?
A warhorse was trained to charge armed infantry. A horse might not be the brightest animal on Earth but its not stupid or blind. It will not see a large group of men as a wall that it cant go through, but simply as a group of men with the same sticks it saw during training.

AFAIK it didnt take that many losses before a cavalry unit was disrupted enough to cancel its charge and move back to reform. Riders would lose confidence if the tight formation wasnt held and if the overall situation simply didnt feel as if going as planned. Missile fire or ditches/potholes or simple lack of training would be causes of such disruption.

It took lots of confidence to charge an enemy formation and that goes for both infantry and cavalry and such confidence could easily disappear.

Of course just because a unit would charge home didnt mean that the cavalry would automatically defeat the infantry. There is no doubt that there was a huge mental pressure on infantry facing a cavalry charge and there was a risk of some men, if not the whole unit, to rout even before actual contact. But high morale and good weapons and armor meant that infantry had a good chance of defeating the cavalry.

Now what would happen if the cavalry was confident enough to close in and the infantry didnt break before contact? Did the cavalry gallop into the infantry or did they slow down a bit? I have seen one description of a cavalry charge to be like throwing a handful of peas at a window, first one comes, a few more and then the rest. Just as one would expect an infantry charge as some are braver than the others. If the infantry stood firm and had long spears/pikes maybe fewer riders would be inclined to go in and it took a few brave men to charge home for others to follow them. If the infantry didnt look as scary, no long weapons or infantry was disrupted, more riders had the guts to go in.

Each cavalry charge would produce its own unique result: from one extreme end to the other with either cavalry breaking off before contact to infantry routing before contact. And in between there would be actual contact and fighting, with the cavalry sometimes doing a great charge and sometimes not so good with only few men going in and the rest hanging back a bit. Sometimes the whole infantry line stood firm and fought well and in other cases parts of the line would fall back and holes appear.


Knights would always have been of use whether infantry was good or bad, just as well as you see cavalry having a role up until late 19th century. When they were dominant it was because they were the only well equipped and trained force a king could rely on. Even from the late 15th century when infantry clearly was strong (e.g. Swiss and Landsknechts) heavy cavalry was still used and could be important on the battlefield.

But in general you wouldnt see heavy cavalry just making head on charges against prepared infantry: they were simply not numerous enough and used more in combiniation with infantry or out on the flanks. But there are a few examples like Crecy and especially Courtrai but they both ended with defeat, and in both cases the French learned their lesson and started to dismount as they would have a better chance of winning that way.

Warhorses were indeed expensive but it was also expected that lost horses would be replaced by the Kings they fought for. Diseases would take its fair share, but combat could be brutal for a unit if the fighting was tough and I think thats something people back then just accepted.


CBR