Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Heavy Cavalry Reply to topic
This is a standard topic  
Author Message
Bill Sahigan





Joined: 06 Jun 2008

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Sun 01 Mar, 2009 7:46 pm    Post subject: Heavy Cavalry         Reply with quote

Hmmm... the other cavalry thread had me thinking on something thats been bugging me for a while:

for those experienced with cavalry tactics, how does cavalry work? I understand that cavalry is mainly used as shock troops to smash through the enemy line at one small point to break their formation(and cause a route), and hurts morale more than the actual battle line(broken line= broken morale?). however, the act of pushing through a solid line of men seems iffy to me, particularly when one is facing pikes. Should the first line of horses die at impact, wouldn't it effectively halt the advance of the charge completely? Cavalry corpses are awfully hard to run through... right?

Also, how does having multiple lines of horses improve the 'pushing power' of a charge?

lastly, how does a wedge formation work?(similar to previous question). and what fool would want to be the one at the tip of the wedge?

Cheers. (and thanks)
View user's profile Send private message
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,689

PostPosted: Mon 02 Mar, 2009 1:41 am    Post subject: Re: Heavy Cavalry         Reply with quote

Bill Sahigan wrote:
I understand that cavalry is mainly used as shock troops to smash through the enemy line at one small point to break their formation(and cause a route),


You ought to qualify that with heavy cavalry.


Quote:
and hurts morale more than the actual battle line(broken line= broken morale?).


We don't really know that. Breaking the enemy's morale before contact was certainly the ideal goal for cavalry charges, but there's still no universal consensus about how much actual physical shock (as opposed to the mere threat of it) adds to this equation.


Quote:
however, the act of pushing through a solid line of men seems iffy to me, particularly when one is facing pikes.


Quite so; this is why we see a general preference among heavy cavalry units in history to attack the flanks and/or corners of an infantry formation whenever possible, rather than going from the front. If I remember correctly, the controversial instance of French gendarmes cutting their way clean through a pike formation at the Battle of Ceresole in the 1540s was done exactly this way, by breaking into a corner (perhaps even a rear corner) of the pike square. And they did lose a lot of men and horses while inflicting similarly heavy casualties in return.


Quote:
Should the first line of horses die at impact, wouldn't it effectively halt the advance of the charge completely? Cavalry corpses are awfully hard to run through... right?


There's no guarantee that the horses would be killed upon impact. It happened at Bannockburn, but in that battle the English horsemen were trapped and unable to strike the flanks of the Scottish pike/spear formations, and some interpretations hold that the Scots were actually advancing and pressing the English back rather than passively waiting to be charged Braveheart-style.

In other instances, such as the Napoleonic battle of Eylau and the Battle of Omdurman, cavalrymen did seem to have crashed frontally into infantry and broke clean through to the other side. While the horsemen suffered heavy casualties, they were clearly not annihilated, since the French cavalry column at Eylau turned right back and cut their way out once more through the mass of Russian infantry and the British lancers at Omdurman were able to dismount on the other side in sufficient numbers to tear the Sudanese line apart with close-range fire from their carbines/short rifles.

It should also be noted that coordinated close-range firearm volleys seem to have been more effective than hand-to-hand weaponry at actually killing cavalry and building a rampart of dead men and horses. Even in Napoleonic times, when the square was the preferred anti-cavalry formation for run-of-the mill infantry, elite infantry units are known to have effectively repelled cavalry charges with a musketry volley in line. Remember that the most memorable victory of solid infantry against cavalry in the Crimean War was known as the "Thin Red Line!"


Quote:
Also, how does having multiple lines of horses improve the 'pushing power' of a charge?


Aelian (an ancient Roman military writer) thinks it doesn't; the French cavalry commander at Eylau and the Swiss-Nurembrger cavalrymen at Pillenreuth would probably disagree.


Quote:
lastly, how does a wedge formation work?(similar to previous question). and what fool would want to be the one at the tip of the wedge?


We don't know for sure. Personally, I think the difference between a cavalry wedge and cavalry column in attack is only a matter of semantics, and that they operated more-or-less in the same way; one plausible interpretation can be read in a rather long article about the cavalry charges at the Battle of Eylau.

As for what kind of fool would want to be at the head of a cavalry wedge/column, I suppose it'd have to be a brave fool--and perhaps a very well-armored one as well. The plans at the Battle of Pillenreuth explicitly mentioned that the three bravest knights among the Nuremberger mercenaries were to charge at the head of the wedge and fourteen distinguished gentlemen were to bring up the rear as file-closers in order to prevent the intermediate ranks from flinching or breaking off.

Note that this interpretation isn't universally agreed upon. In fact, anybody looking for a simple and (near-universal) consensus on the mechanics of shock cavalry action simply isn't going to find one.
View user's profile Send private message
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Mon 02 Mar, 2009 2:42 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

How many sources do we have on the use of the Wedge formation by cavalry?
From the descriptions I have heard, at least from the later periods, the norm was to charge in a line.

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,689

PostPosted: Mon 02 Mar, 2009 3:15 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Not many. The unambiguous sources that I know of are Nikephoros Phokas's Military Precepts from the ninth century, and an account of the 15th-century battle of Pillenreuth. Other possible accounts are just that--possibles, not confirmed. These range from the "great iron pig" of Teutonic Knights in the 13th(?)-century battle of Rakovor to the even more ambiguous call to form "deep and narrow" in the Battle of Worringen and reports of the tightness of the German (Flemish?) men-at-arms' formation at the Battle of Bouvines.
View user's profile Send private message
Luka Borscak




Location: Croatia
Joined: 11 Jun 2007
Likes: 7 pages

Posts: 2,227

PostPosted: Mon 02 Mar, 2009 4:21 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I already asked this in the barding topic but it was not answered and I think this topic is better for the question. So, how vulnerable horse in a close fighting that lasts some time is? Would infantryman automatically strike horse when horseman appeared in front of him or there is no time to waste on horse while man on the horse attacks you? I don't think horse charge on spearmen, of course spearmen would try to stop the charge with meeting the horses with spears. And what about cavalry vs cavalry fight? Would cavalrymen try to kill the opponents horses as soon as possible or concentrate on the real enemy?
View user's profile Send private message
Bill Sahigan





Joined: 06 Jun 2008

Posts: 56

PostPosted: Mon 02 Mar, 2009 7:03 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:

Quote:
Also, how does having multiple lines of horses improve the 'pushing power' of a charge?


Aelian (an ancient Roman military writer) thinks it doesn't; the French cavalry commander at Eylau and the Swiss-Nurembrger cavalrymen at Pillenreuth would probably disagree.


So, we don't know if it actually does? I'd always figured that the back line would only help if the front line is completely wiped out, and would only serve to hasten that inevitability if otherwise.
View user's profile Send private message
Elling Polden




Location: Bergen, Norway
Joined: 19 Feb 2004
Likes: 1 page

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 1,576

PostPosted: Mon 02 Mar, 2009 8:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

[quote="Bill Sahigan"]
Quote:

I'd always figured that the back line would only help if the front line is completely wiped out, and would only serve to hasten that inevitability if otherwise.


Keep in mind that battles are usually determined by psychology rather than kills. A formation that maintains its "moral momentum" can continue to push until they are all dead, while loosing it can cause them to break even before impact.

As such, charging as part of a massive formation is less scary and better for morale than charging in a thin line.
A massive formation is also more scary than a line.
Which is one of the reasons they where the order of the day untill machineguns, modern artillery and bolt action rifles provided the firepower to blow them to bits. (the other beeing the dificulty of moving large amounts of people around the battlefield)

"this [fight] looks curious, almost like a game. See, they are looking around them before they fall, to find a dry spot to fall on, or they are falling on their shields. Can you see blood on their cloths and weapons? No. This must be trickery."
-Reidar Sendeman, from King Sverre's Saga, 1201
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger
Lafayette C Curtis




Location: Indonesia
Joined: 29 Nov 2006
Reading list: 7 books

Posts: 2,689

PostPosted: Sat 07 Mar, 2009 9:02 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Bill Sahigan wrote:
Quote:

Quote:
Also, how does having multiple lines of horses improve the 'pushing power' of a charge?


Aelian (an ancient Roman military writer) thinks it doesn't; the French cavalry commander at Eylau and the Swiss-Nurembrger cavalrymen at Pillenreuth would probably disagree.


So, we don't know if it actually does? I'd always figured that the back line would only help if the front line is completely wiped out, and would only serve to hasten that inevitability if otherwise.


Yes, we don't know. We don't know that it actually doesn't, either. What we do know is that some ancient and medieval military authorities (Aelian and the Byzantine emperor Maurice, for example) had the opinion that rear ranks of horses couldn't provide any additional "push" for the front ranks. On the other hand, extant records of military formations show that deep cavalry formations were used effectively, and had notable successes against more extended but shallower lines; aside from the Nikephorian cataphracts and the Pillenreuth wedge, we also have the deep squadrons of 16th- and 17th-century sword-and-pistol cavalry, as well as the Swedish cavalry wedge that may have lasted well into the 18th century. And still we're not certain that these formations were adopted from the conviction that the rear ranks would help push the foremost ones. For example, Francois de la Noue wrote a detailed essay setting forth why the deep squadron was preferable to the en haye line, but I can't find any reference to the "push" of the rear ranks in that essay--only that the presence of the rear ranks would help keep the members of the formation from flinching and that they would allow the deep squadron to sustain the engagement better than the extended line if the combat degenerated into an intermingled melee.

So...well, I think some people did believe that rear ranks would provide more "push" for a cavalry formation while some other people believed the contrary, and many saw advantages in a deeper formation even if they didn't believe the idea of the rear-rank push.

It all just goes back to that lack of universal consensus about how shock cavalry actually worked.
View user's profile Send private message
Daniel Staberg




Location: Gothenburg/Sweden
Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 2 books

Posts: 562

PostPosted: Sat 07 Mar, 2009 9:19 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Just to make one thing clear. The Swedish cavalry 'wedge' did exist but it is not a wedge nor is it a deep formation. Rather it is a 3 rank deep line which has been bent into the shape of a somewhat flattened chevron. The reason for this shape is the men are riding knee-behind-knee rather than the knee-to-knee of other european cavalry. It was in use for a very short period due to the training required to use it (roughly 1680's to 1720's)
View user's profile Send private message
Lukasz Papaj




Location: Malbork, Poland
Joined: 09 Mar 2009

Posts: 59

PostPosted: Tue 10 Mar, 2009 6:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There are multiple layers to the subject:
1. What era we are talking
2. What specific country

Speaking from my country (Poland) perspective there are at least two "iterations" of heavy cavalry: the medieval knight and XVI-XVII-beginning of XVIII century hussar. While both are classified as heavy cavalry but there are major differences.

For Polish medieval heavy cavalry one major event is "Battle of Grunwald" (also known as first "battle of Tannenberg" or "battle of Stebark" in German sources, Žalgirio mūšis (Battle of Žalgiris) by Lithuanians), fought 15th of July, 1410. It was supposedly biggest horse army only battle in Europe. Written sources for this battle are: "Cronica conflictus Wladislai Regis Poloniae cum Cruciferis Anno Christi 1410"(Anonymus?) , Johann von Possilge: "Scriptores Rerum Prussicarum" (this two are supposedly written contemporaneously to the battle) , Jan Dlugosz (Joannes Longinus) : "Banderia Prutenorum" and "Annales" (written about 60 years after the battle), . I base following info on book by Andrzej Nadolski "Grunwald 1410" - seria "Historyczne Bitwy".
For long time it was assumed that this battle was fought with banners set in "picket fence" formations, where "lances" were just loose formations, roughly set in "line". This view is right now heavily contested, and polish historians think that battle was fought using banners in wedge-column formations, similar to ones desciribed in Branderburg chronicles from year 1477 (precise source is not stated). Generaly there are 3 "types" of banners described: Goncza (Rynnbanner), about 400 horses; sw. Jerzego (st. George), about 500 horses; Chorągiew Wielka (Hauptbanner, Great Banner), about 700 horses. Names from Branderburg chronicle correspond with ones known from the sources for Grunwald battle.
General setup is similar regardless of size: 5 ranks deep wedge formed by lancers following by collumn of shot troops flanked by additional lancers. It will probably be looking like in one in attachment (red- lancers, blue- crossbowmen, the exact lance/crossbow ratio is pure speculation on my part , based on 1+3 lance size)
The great banner can also be deployed with 7 horse wedge front, with longer column.
We do not know spacing of troops inside- if they rode "knee to knee" or maybe used spacing similar to later hussar formations. We do know that shot troops were expected to volley fire above the wedge. We do know that whole banners can be annihilated in single charge (as happened with one of Smolensk banners). We also know that knights sometimes detached from main body and fought one -on -one with single enemy, like in example of duel between Dypold von Kockritz and king Wladislaw Jagiello (though in some banners such behaviour was heavily fined). We do know that banners were able to pull out of contact and manoeuvre for whole duration of battle. Banners were rotated out of the field to resupply and rest before next attack, like in example of banners used in fatal raid by Ulrich von Jungingen near end of battle. As you see there are some facts, but they are "sketchy". There's no account on how precisely an attack of one banner on another was commenced. (at least- to my knowledge)

As for second instance, the Hussars, there are more "technical" details known from contemporary sources like "Memoirs" of Jan Chryzostom Pasek (thought one need to be careful with evaluating such sources) . Main armament was 5.5 m long lance (hollowed out on whole length, made from two pieces glued together), supplemented with tuck, sabre and at least pair of pistols. The banner is said to compromise from about 150-200 "horses" (but numbers varied in time). Primary manner of deployment was in 3-4 lines with 4 meter spacing between horses, to make a room to manoeuvre about obstacles and such , also this way it presented less "dense" target for infantry. First line was composed of "companions", having best armour and weapons. Against infantry the length of charge was in 375 meter range. During charge there was a technique to maximize shock - the far lines moved to canter faster than first line (last 30 meters mark for 1st line, 60 meters for deeper ranks), in a manner that made first and second line strike simultaneously . On those last meters the danger from shot infantry was lesser (as they usually were busy hiding behind pikemen at that point). Against infantry using countermarch technique there was expected causality rate of 3-5 hussars per charge; after changes in infantry tactics made by Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (use of 4-6 ranks simultaneous fire) this rate grown to about 25 killed. As with medieval banners the hussars were expected of full manoeuvrability, and were rotated on the battlefield to resupply and rest. It is said that Hussars were expected to have at least "wagon of trees" for a campaign. (tree=colloquial for lance) .
For details about hussary there's an entry on the subject in "features" section.



 Attachment: 52.76 KB
choragwie_small.jpg
Possible layout of banner types for Battle of Grunwald, 15 July 1410
View user's profile Send private message
Gary Teuscher





Joined: 19 Nov 2008

Spotlight topics: 1
Posts: 704

PostPosted: Tue 10 Mar, 2009 7:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

The biggest advantage for multiple lines in a formation of cavalry is to me pretty simple.

IF the cavalry does not balk and does get "into the opposing formation". and IF the infantry does not break, you have a "slogging match". The cavalry don't usually have the density of formation, and have an advantage here, but they do have their mounts as well as weapons, something the infantry do not.

In this situation you are probably looking at some interpenetration, i.e. the cavalry may wind up a few ranks deep in the infantry. Without any supporting cavalry (Or infantry for that matter), the cavalry will be outnumbered and if the infantry holds they will be in deep trouble. A second, third or how many depp line adds numbers to the cavalry, making it tougher for the infantry to "gang up" on the cavalry. My understanding is pulling the man from a saddle in this situation was a fairly common tactice - though stirrups make it a bit tougher than in ancient times.

BTW - IMO the entire infantry force does not "break", or nor would the entire cavalry force all "balk" in most situations. There will be some infantry standing their ground, maybe some flinching or trying to retreat through their own lines, which would cause a mess in the combat situation.

I would also think it was not nearly as perfect of a situation as one may think of by looking at a wargame - in other words, the first line of cavalry does not die neatly in fornt of the infantry formation. It would be much more chaotic, possibly infantry holding their ground with no interpenetration in some spots of the line, cavalry getting penetration in others.

A good example of the slogging match I mention above was at Ciavate (hopefully I spelled that right), where a group of dismounted Swabian knights hels their ground for a long time after much of the rest of the army had fled. They were eventually ridden down by cavalry, but this paricular part of the battle was costly in casualties to both sides. On an interesting note, they are sometimes mentioned as using 2-handed swords my some historians, but most think this is an incorrect interpretation of the translation.
View user's profile Send private message
Bryan F Douglas




Location: Ozark Medieval Fortress,Lead Hill, AR
Joined: 14 Aug 2010

Posts: 4

PostPosted: Wed 22 Sep, 2010 9:18 pm    Post subject: I think it is much simpler         Reply with quote

Have you ever watched a steeple chase? It is not uncommon for a well trained horse to balk at a jump. I think this must be true of a charge. A horse is a herd animal, if the horse next to and behind you are running straight into a unit, as part of the herd you will too.

A heavy horse and man weigh near a ton running at near 35 miles an hour. Even if you kill the horse dead on the spot it will still crash threw your lines.

I have had a horse charge me, even when you know it is not going to run you down, or can't (because of a fence) it is hard to stand your ground and not to get your self clear. If you are hit with a wedge formation you have more directions to get away from the horse that will run you down, their by breaking the formation.

I have seen very major wounds not even slow a horse for more than enough time to complete a charge ( worst being disemboweled by a T-post).

I think you would attack what ever would work at the time. A riderless horse would not be much of a threat, a wounded horse could be
View user's profile Send private message
Colt Reeves





Joined: 09 Mar 2009

Posts: 466

PostPosted: Wed 22 Sep, 2010 10:44 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I have to agree with Bryan here. I've had horses charge me and having a half ton+ of meat come at you does make one think of their mortality, even knowing in my case that the horses were going to avoid running into me. I don't think one can really "get it" without having been around fast moving horses/other large animals. Maybe I'm just more used to cars passing me by the side of the road or something, but I don't get that same feeling from man-made vehicles as I did with horses. A sort of small and squashy feeling...

And as he says, simple physics isn't on your side. You may spear the horse, but that isn't going to stop him right off. Again, I have some experience here. One of my sister's horses was scared of a neighbor's mare and when she came into the barn he decided he was leaving by the shortest route possible: Through me. I bounced ten feet or so (better than going under the hooves I'm sure), but I don't think he even noticed me. Certainly didn't slow him down any. Wink

My other thought is that horse really shines when the foot does break and scatter. Then they can ride round in small groups attacking any easy targets. That could make a serious impression on the survivors and could lead to an unofficial PR campaign as they tell how the fearsome knights rode them down and slaughtered them en masse. Maybe what we hear is a slightly twisted story. Just a random thought.
View user's profile Send private message
Werner Stiegler





Joined: 27 Feb 2007

Posts: 122

PostPosted: Thu 23 Sep, 2010 12:11 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Not many. The unambiguous sources that I know of are Nikephoros Phokas's Military Precepts from the ninth century, and an account of the 15th-century battle of Pillenreuth. Other possible accounts are just that--possibles, not confirmed. These range from the "great iron pig" of Teutonic Knights in the 13th(?)-century battle of Rakovor to the even more ambiguous call to form "deep and narrow" in the Battle of Worringen and reports of the tightness of the German (Flemish?) men-at-arms' formation at the Battle of Bouvines.
There's also Philipp von Seldeck who talks about the wedge as a formation and wedge vs wedge tactics quite a bit in his Kriegsbuch. Furthermore, he's a contemporary writer, which makes his letters a very interesting read.
View user's profile Send private message
Zac Evans




Location: London
Joined: 26 Dec 2006

Posts: 151

PostPosted: Thu 23 Sep, 2010 2:28 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Something that we read in books all the time nowadays is that "for every one we killed, there were two more to take his place". Now this is obviously impossible, but the best way to give this appearance is to ride in deep formations. You can have a relatively small front that seems numberless if you can always plug the gap in the line.

Also, as said before, Horses run as a herd, and the more they have running with them, the more likely they are to continue onward. Finally, remember that most infantry from the glory days of heavy cavalry were not wonderfully trained. The big downfalls of heavy cavalry come in battles where the enemy are well trained and effectively led, ie. Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt.
View user's profile Send private message
Randall Moffett




Location: Northern Utah
Joined: 07 Jun 2006
Reading list: 5 books

Posts: 2,098

PostPosted: Thu 23 Sep, 2010 7:30 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

It should be pointed out that there are very good examples of heavy cavalry charging into and defeating well disiplined formations of infantry. I think one can safely say that this is the exception over the rule most of the time and seems to come down to how many casualties both sides are willing to take. Some of the battles where this happens in the 16th century are just amazing how well the heavy cavalry did against pikes and shot.

I have said this before but I will say it once more. Having spoken to people all over the world that work in military and police work involving horses those animals are trained to run you down. I was talking to a police officer in England who worked in riot control and he made the comment that the horses, once they get trained for it, have no problem charging into thick mobs of people. When I lived in Chile and many of the police especially rural are still mounted, one carabinero told me that during a few years of contention in the country decades ago early on the protestors figured that the horses would not charge them if they were gathered in mass. He said after a few times of being run into by a group of mounted police the arrival of just a handful of horsemen would break up many crowds (not promoting one side of the conflict over the other just an example here). My guess is that these medieval horses were some of the best trained horses in the world and I have no doubt they would charge a wall of people if they were urged to.

RPM
View user's profile Send private message
Scott Hrouda




Location: Minnesota, USA
Joined: 17 Nov 2006
Likes: 15 pages
Reading list: 87 books

Posts: 643

PostPosted: Thu 23 Sep, 2010 10:02 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I also have a modern example to add to the discussion of historical heavy cavalry. Take it for what it’s worth.

Any given weekend night in the downtown Minneapolis “Warehouse District” (bar district) provides a vivid snapshot of the importance of mounted police. Two mounted officers can control an unruly mob of 100 drunkards. The horses do not hesitate to push directly into the crowd, nor do they flinch when people get too close and wave their arms about.

Recently, there’s been an unfortunate increase in assaults on our police horses. Fortunately, the horses are very well trained haven’t spooked even after being assulted by a drunkard.

...and that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana shaped. - Sir Bedevere
View user's profile Send private message
Colt Reeves





Joined: 09 Mar 2009

Posts: 466

PostPosted: Fri 24 Sep, 2010 12:24 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Moving a bit off-topic here, I'm surprised you don't really see any head/face armor on police horses. A horse's eyes aren't very well protected.

One might put some thought into other armor as well, perhaps put small spikes on the bridles to discourage people grabbing them. I heard that was sometimes done way back when.

Bah, who am I kidding. They'll never get funding for that. More likely to be disbanded because some group got together and whined to the government that horses are too dangerous and hard to control.
View user's profile Send private message
Michal Plezia
Industry Professional



Location: Poland
Joined: 07 Oct 2005
Likes: 2 pages
Reading list: 1 book

Posts: 585

PostPosted: Fri 24 Sep, 2010 3:38 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

There are two movies that may be worth watching ( some scenes are somewhat brutal, but IMO they show the potential that calvary has vs infantry):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEUoqQrNspI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqm6Lg8XHSM

www.elchon.com

Polish Guild of Knifemakers

The sword is a weapon for killing, the art of the sword is the art of killing. No matter what fancy words you use or what titles you put to
it that is the only truth.
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Bryan F Douglas




Location: Ozark Medieval Fortress,Lead Hill, AR
Joined: 14 Aug 2010

Posts: 4

PostPosted: Fri 24 Sep, 2010 5:10 am    Post subject: modern horse armor         Reply with quote

Modern horse armor


 Attachment: 74.8 KB
riot_horses_mid.jpg

View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Heavy Cavalry
Page 1 of 1 Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 8 Hours

View previous topic :: View next topic
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum






All contents © Copyright 2003-2018 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum