Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Re: whom to ask and perhaps we have the wrong image of infan
With regard to a horse charging a pike line or any seemingly solid object, I think from examining modern horse racing we can see the level of training a horse can be put through and ultimately be taught to completely ignore it's instincts at the cost of it's health.

Here's an external site that tracks racehorse death:

http://www.horsedeathwatch.com/

It's data spans from 13 March 2007 to 31 July 2011. Of all the horses that died as a result of racing, I count 47 horses on that list in just over 4 years that died after collapsing from exhaustion either after the race, and even during the race. I believe this goes to show that a horse, when trained properly, and driven by it's rider, will do things beyond it's limits on command, potentially to it's own death. If the bond between horse and rider is so strong, that a horse will allow itself to essentially be exhausted to the point of collapse and death, is it not by extension reasonable, that the horse could be trained to run at a line of men with pikes? Beyond shear training, I think the bond between rider and horse is worth examining as well, and should not be underestimated. Just as a dog will put itself at risk for it's master, so to a horse will push beyond its limits.

I believe we see examples in modern life of horses being trained to do things against their natural prey instinct, so it seems silly to me to think that horses selected and bred for war wouldn't just as easily be trained to violate their natural instincts and charge seemingly immovable or dangerous objects.
[quote="Kurt Scholz"]
Jaroslav Kravcak wrote:
William P wrote:
Michael Curl wrote:

unless you know what ACTUALLY happens when a horse is forced into a unbroken pike block without barding id imagione a scene of carnage. but if theres an ACTUALdocumented account of unbarded horsement charging pieblocks, in terms of whathappens to the horses aside from just describing heavy losses.


At the battle of Ceresole french chevaux legers attempted to stop italian pikesquare with seemingly many casualties and their commander being captured but Id say they still rather stopped before impact (because of riders will just as of a horse) and then suffer from gunfire and melee with pikemen from distance rather then directly impaling horses on pikes. But they were succesfull eventually as they delayed the formation and it couldnt support Landsknechts. :evil: At least I picture it as few minutes of horsemen hovering around formation to find an opening in it to exploit and finally retreating. They were still seemingly heavily outnumbered.

But its second hand information Im not aware of exact sources describing it or circumstances of the event. Maybe theyve miscalculated infantrys resolve and thought theyll break them by sheer impression. Maybe others will clear it out. :)

Horse wouldnt charge into solid line is something like mantra, Ive seen it in different books as a sidenote to why cavalry wasnt that succesfull in particular case, nevertheless everyone seemingly accepts that their riders were more than willing to do this. :lol: My impression is unbarded horses would never be let into unbroken line of infantry on purpouse unless they had means to reach infantrymen first (like using lances against short weapons) and would retreat afterwards as quickly as possible. (also something to distract enemies firepower would be crucial for succes as mentioned earlier)


http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y110/Nephtys...arrior.jpg
The picture is from "An Historical Guide to Arms and Armour" by Stephen Bull and Tony North. (mentioned http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t...tony+north in this forum)

So barding can be lots of things. Are we talking about Early Modern warfare or Medieval (concerning technology?) and earlier? In Modern warfare cuirassiers were meant for breaking infantry but they had usually artillery support or used the dead horse trick. One thing about lines, try a line of foot one mile long abreast moving forward... sorry but there must be gaps.


Well to specify I meant horse plate armour from period about 1450-1570 or so and their contemporary elite infantry opponents like Swiss and Landsknechts with period weaponry and formations. I was talking about something similar regarding horsemen with insufficiently protected horses- that if they were sent against a pikesquare they would maybe try to ride around and look for any weak spot to exploit, like a gap. The better the infantry the less chance there is theyll be succesfull or even if they are that infantry wont break but plug the gap and dispatch anyone getting inside.

Milanese at the battle of Arbedo supposedly lost about 400 horses in initial attacks on Swiss. Given that some were lost due to missile fire why would the others die in melee? Id say they werent purpouslessly hurling themselves on pikes but tryed to exploit whatever was possible, but unsuccesfully. Are there any exact descriptions or analyses of what happened there to (dis)prove what was the reason for such a loss?

Same at the battle of St. Jacob an der Birs where 1500 Swis defended for some time against combined cavalry attack and missile fire supposedly causing many casualties before being annihilated. (600 horses were to burnt after battle)

And also mentioned bond between rider and a horse. :) Would it be bigger for a knight and his animal or an average napoleonic cuirassier? Would they view horses value differently in general? Not in terms of sheer monetary price but also as their companions and friends maybe. Would rennaisance noble treat it kindly or he wouldnt mind sacrifice his horse in battle even if it was useless and brought no benefit?
Well as to them being unwilling to charge into a tight line..... I think evidence demonstrates this untrue.

A few years back I spoke to a gent who trained riot control horses for duty and he made a comment the only thing they could not teach them how to do was fly. The more I have looked at this I think he might be right.

Here are some excerpts from 2008 when Tampa police are trained by as well as the horses by Cpl. Mike Morrow for riot control and descriptions of what they are doing.

'It allowed Tampa police Cpl. Mike Morrow to evaluate riders and get the horses used to tight spaces. Other drills included trainers trying to grab and tackle mounted officers who maneuvered their horses into intimidating defensive spins.

The horses also clumped together and marched shoulder to shoulder through a mob of practice rioters, splitting the crowd while smoke bombs boomed and loudspeakers blared crowd noise.....

Their mere presence can settle unruly crowds because mounted officers say the animals are calm, stoic police ambassadors who don't look as menacing as riot police. But they are more than community relations tools, officers quickly pointed out.

Horses cut through traffic jams, push more people aside than 18 men, give officers high vantages and keep law officers safe, because people are less likely to attack a mounted officer than one on foot."

St. Petersburg Times, Justin George, Times Staff Writer In Print: Friday, September 26, 2008 ( http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/article827557.ece )

Now this is not quite the same as war but still they are trained to do a huge variety of things not in their nature.

Another interesting article that talks about the progression they use for teaching horses to push things out of the way.

'Exercises at this year's spring training helped the newer horses overcome a natural inclination to flee from danger. Crowd control techniques were introduced by having the riders ask the horses to push a 6-foot inflatable beach ball around the arena. In another exercise, the horses were asked to stand still while firecrackers were thrown near their feet.

More experienced horses and riders practiced pushing human volunteers out of the way.'

( http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/29579929.html )

They even have fairly detailed lines of genealogy for horse bred for riot control, not unlike what was done in period for war.

One can train a horse to do anything. I have family who work in training horses (not riot training by the way) and it is amazing what a horse can learn. Couple this with how aggressive some horses are, I watched a lone horse plow into a group of people outside some stables simply because it was irritated by something one of them had done. I worked at a place training some horses for jousting and it took some work to get them to do it, I remember one young horse turn 180 degrees and bolt back to the stables, but they get it eventually.

Also consider often with a lance or later pistol horses still have an advantage of distance, power and weight. Horses can push much more than their own weight, having been knocked aside by horses a handful of times I'd hate to see what a line flank to flank would look, or worse, feel like.

Just some things to look at related to the horses themselves and training influence.

RPM
Browsing discussions on romanarmytalk I found one odd argument why charging any horse into any solid formatiom deep enough is suicide- because a tightly packed wall of men acts alike brickwall so horse wouldnt have a chance to survive collision. (Maybe as an update to horse would never ever charge anything :lol: )

My personal feeling of it is its overstated a little. Even if it was completely true such a dense formation would be great target for any missile. Or are there any accounts of horses dying because they hit a wall of people cemented together? :)
Jaroslav Kravcak wrote:

And also mentioned bond between rider and a horse. :) Would it be bigger for a knight and his animal or an average napoleonic cuirassier? Would they view horses value differently in general? Not in terms of sheer monetary price but also as their companions and friends maybe. Would rennaisance noble treat it kindly or he wouldnt mind sacrifice his horse in battle even if it was useless and brought no benefit?


"The Art of Warfare in Western Europe" mentions insurances for the horses of Medieval knights. In the Renaissance it wasn't about the insurance of very expensive mounts, but replacement with suitable mounts. The issue is that losing knights' war horses meant losing lots of money so an expensive horse goes hand in hand with armour and tactics to preserve it. metal plates are just one possibility of protection, there are a lot more equally successful solutions. With cheaper and less trained mounts and another replacement system there'll be a rather different approach.

Jaroslav Kravcak wrote:
Browsing discussions on romanarmytalk I found one odd argument why charging any horse into any solid formatiom deep enough is suicide- because a tightly packed wall of men acts alike brickwall so horse wouldnt have a chance to survive collision. (Maybe as an update to horse would never ever charge anything :lol: )

My personal feeling of it is its overstated a little. Even if it was completely true such a dense formation would be great target for any missile. Or are there any accounts of horses dying because they hit a wall of people cemented together? :)


and @ Randall Moffett

Pushing men reminds me of the othismos model for Ancient Greek warfare. If a horse can push that many men they have a problem standing their ground and breathing while the horse has little trouble doing so because its belly moves at 90° to the pushing force. So a cavalry charge can be quite slow and work possibly more like a hoplite phalanx with mounted "hoplites" and very likely lots of missile support by light troops.
http://hollow-lakedaimon.blogspot.com/2008/11...model.html

That also makes me think about how pike squares worked. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there were several ways they could fight. One was charging each other with lowered pikes, one was stopping in front of each other and fencing with the pikes and one was running at each other without lowered pikes and pushing each other over. Because of the increasing length the pike became less and less deadly and pikes at a charge were very likely to not harm the other pikemen. This likely depends also on the way a pike was held, at the balance point in the Swiss way or at the end in the German way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bad-war.jpg
This image by Hans Holbein the Younger depicts what I think to be the pushing version without lowered pikes.
I certainly think it is possible for infantry to hold up against cavalry. No question about that as we do have several battles showing a massacre of horsemen from frontal assaults. I do think it had is time and place where it was effective though. If one horse can push aside 18 men then 500 can push aside some 9000 men optimally. Now the deeper the ranks and such I am sure makes it less of a straight forward process but still if they can displace even 3-4 times their numbers this would cause men to push and force there way into the surrounding force and create a massive weakness in the ranks.

I know of no accounts of horses dying by impact with people, missiles though, yes this seems fairly common to be an issue.

RPM
Wouldnt it be worse for men in frontal ranks of infantry formation if horsemen decided to push them, not ride into them, rather than for horses themselves? (rather in case of roman infantry than rennaisance pike and shot) It seems to me like these would be compressed from both sides maybe. Higher plaftorm would favour cataphracts and with men in front of them being pushed together and men behind them unable to help they would be presented with good target. Maintaining solid line of horses would be crutial as not to allow outflanking. Could this scenario be realistic?

Battle of Adrianople and also Carrhaee is sometimes interpretes as this:
In first instance that flanking charge compressed roman infantry to the point they werent able to use their weapons effectively in second that cataphracts (directly or indirectly) forced romans to tighten formation and make it nice target for horse archers.

Quote:
this illustrates i think an important point about the topic of charging spears.. or stakes even.
we have gendarmes charge and pass near harmlessly through a pike block at least once


Considering Grandson even a dozen horsemen if let into formation could destroy its resolve it seems. Besides casualties they inflicted, if they managed to capture bernese banner it could have caused much trouble if not disintegration. (maybe not as they were Swiss :lol: ) Would it be so harmless if several horsemen on armoured horses pass through lanes in formation and several times? Regarding battle of Ceresole I still search for any indication of how much one sided was this struggle of Gendarmes and imperial infantry. Initially they suposedly have 5000 men, at the end they surrendered to french cavalry and there were 3150 prisoners taken. What happened to almost 2000 other men? (not to indicate that i think they were all killed/wounded in these charges but even if like 10 percent of it was the case, still it would be rather shocking experience being an infantryman subjected to this wouldnt it? :) Havent they been veterans and deal with the shock, it couldve easily turned to the best example of how effective rennaisance heavy cavalry could be. :cool: )
Nathan Quarantillo wrote:
I would like to point out that the heavy cavalry charge became the predominant tactic of the Nobility of Europe for a reason. It worked. I think that if cavalry only rarely actually met infantry who were in formation and were skittish as has been suggested by some, they would never have became as popular as they did. European nobles weren't stupid.


This didn't have to be the case. I don't really understand why people are so obsessed about cavalry's ability to charge infantry when, in fact, up to quite a late date (the early 18th century at the soonest) European cavalry tactics was mostly based on the premise that the cavalry would first engage the enemy cavalry and defeat them, then turn on the flanks of the enemy infantry if the defeat of their cavalry hadn't already sent these infantrymen scampering for safety. Sometimes they didn't even bother with the infantry, going on to simply chase the enemy cavalry since the enemy infantry would have been left isolated and could be dealt with later. Of course, this (ignoring the infantry) was increasingly frowned upon as the principle of combined arms gained more formal recognition, especially from the 16th century onwards. In any case, though, the cavalry manuals we have, even at fairly late periods (say, the mid-17th century) worried more about how to defeat the enemy's horse than how to break their foot without the help of friendly infantry and artillery.
Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
Nathan Quarantillo wrote:
I would like to point out that the heavy cavalry charge became the predominant tactic of the Nobility of Europe for a reason. It worked. I think that if cavalry only rarely actually met infantry who were in formation and were skittish as has been suggested by some, they would never have became as popular as they did. European nobles weren't stupid.


This didn't have to be the case. I don't really understand why people are so obsessed about cavalry's ability to charge infantry when, in fact, up to quite a late date (the early 18th century at the soonest) European cavalry tactics was mostly based on the premise that the cavalry would first engage the enemy cavalry and defeat them, then turn on the flanks of the enemy infantry if the defeat of their cavalry hadn't already sent these infantrymen scampering for safety. Sometimes they didn't even bother with the infantry, going on to simply chase the enemy cavalry since the enemy infantry would have been left isolated and could be dealt with later. Of course, this (ignoring the infantry) was increasingly frowned upon as the principle of combined arms gained more formal recognition, especially from the 16th century onwards. In any case, though, the cavalry manuals we have, even at fairly late periods (say, the mid-17th century) worried more about how to defeat the enemy's horse than how to break their foot without the help of friendly infantry and artillery.


Id say this obsession is centered around clashes of feudal cavalry with flemmish, confederates, english (or scots at bannockburn :) ) And the fact these are cited as showing how infantry was superior to cavalry.

But is there any archetypal superiority of heavy infantry against heavy cavalry? Is horse wouldnt charge into solid anything the deciding factor of cavalry failure? I personally dont think so.

Most of these battles had supposedly ´cavalry´ army accepting to attack well prepared defencive position frontally. (Courtrai, Bannockburn, Crecy, Poitiers) Wouldnt it be suicidal in any era and circumstances?

In others, like Crecy once again, poor coordination and no general goal played its part as well Id say. (In face of many smaller attacks of various bodies of cavalry were english ever really outnumbered in this battle after all?)

Sometimes it seems to me biggest part of defeat was clear inferiority of their own infantry. (Laupen, Grandson) And actually heavy cavalry itself even though outnumbered was the only force in this feudal/multinational army to put up any reasonable resistance. At Sempach same feudal knights were defeated dismounted.

There are also battles where there was no real cavalry v infantry or any clash at all like at Morat when Burgundians were surprized in their camp unprepared and were slaghtered subsequently.

For victory of flemmish at Courtrai there are like 3 defeats Im aware of- Mons en Peleve, Cassel, Roosebeke. Two of these seem to be flemmish attacking french in their camp.

There is Bannockburn where english were heavily defeated and then there is Falkirk where similar army defeated them by superior coordination.

So with my current (I think very poor) knowledge of it I suppose it were circustances, commander, discipline and failure to use all the available elements in concert etc that lost these battles for defeated side so decisely, not some ever existing rule of heavy infantry beats heavy cavalry. As you said heavy cavalry had more important tasks before they would battle it out with enemy infantry and if it was first thing they attemted to do in battle it was because of failure to use them properly.

Im no professional historian and Im largely confronted with popular literature on this subject that is rather one sided and not complex enough and trying to put these things straigth. :) The question is- with proper leadership would it still be impossible for french to defeat english at Crecy or flemmish at Courtrai for example? Or did du Guesclin have an army radically different from french army at Crecy or Poitiers?
Randall Moffett wrote:
I certainly think it is possible for infantry to hold up against cavalry. No question about that as we do have several battles showing a massacre of horsemen from frontal assaults. I do think it had is time and place where it was effective though. If one horse can push aside 18 men then 500 can push aside some 9000 men optimally. Now the deeper the ranks and such I am sure makes it less of a straight forward process but still if they can displace even 3-4 times their numbers this would cause men to push and force there way into the surrounding force and create a massive weakness in the ranks.

I know of no accounts of horses dying by impact with people, missiles though, yes this seems fairly common to be an issue.

RPM


well the OP seemed to mainlty have this in reference to pikeformations. a non pike formation is another matter and id probably agree with that assessment. since aside rom spears likea greek phalanx, shortr weaponed infantry will be softened a spli second before actual bodily contact through the use of the lance. whichunless immistaken were commonly in the 3 metre range during the medieval period.
i think it also depends on the quality of armour of the infantry, a better aarmoured man will when struckbe less easily felled by cavalry and have a greater ability to, when the cavalrymen sop, to strike at the men and their mounts especially.
Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
I don't really understand why people are so obsessed about cavalry's ability to charge infantry when, in fact, up to quite a late date (the early 18th century at the soonest) European cavalry tactics was mostly based on the premise that the cavalry would first engage the enemy cavalry and defeat them, then turn on the flanks of the enemy infantry


I don't understand that too. Frontal cavalry charge into steadfast infantry was not the norm. Often that was a simple mistake, so why discuss combat effectiveness of a mistake? And if we talk about some theoretical cavalry charge instead of the real charge in real battle, if we fail to notice that cavalry operates not in vacuum but in some connection to other units, we have less and less chances to get some useful answer.
A. Tomsinov wrote:
Lafayette C Curtis wrote:
I don't really understand why people are so obsessed about cavalry's ability to charge infantry when, in fact, up to quite a late date (the early 18th century at the soonest) European cavalry tactics was mostly based on the premise that the cavalry would first engage the enemy cavalry and defeat them, then turn on the flanks of the enemy infantry


I don't understand that too. Frontal cavalry charge into steadfast infantry was not the norm. Often that was a simple mistake, so why discuss combat effectiveness of a mistake? And if we talk about some theoretical cavalry charge instead of the real charge in real battle, if we fail to notice that cavalry operates not in vacuum but in some connection to other units, we have less and less chances to get some useful answer.


this isnt historical documentation by any stretch.
but when i fight a battle in the total war series gams (aside from empire and shogun 2, havent tried them)
but what i notice is that indeed. you always deal with the cavalry first. especially if you operate a all cavalry force like i often do. ignoring the cavalry and attacking the infantry first will get you slaughtered my usual courseof action is to attempt to isolate the cavalry and defeat them, then surround and smash the footsoldiersto pieces. this is especially true if you mostly use missile cavalry which are often quite fragile in melee.


what also happens quite often is that even very powerful and well protected cavalry such as cataphracts and plate armoured knights can still take decent casualties if they get bogged down fighting infantry while stationary
i imagine this would give the infantry a chance to stab or hamstring the horse

even a treebranch or club to a horses mouth might possibly startle it enough to cause it to bolt, or rear and dump the rider.

that said one aspect of real life isnt shown in the games i.e the men getting dragged off their horses and mobbed to death.

that said. a charging nit of cataphraktoi from the broken crescent mod of medieval 2 total war has the potential to completely wipe out medium level swordsmen batallions just through the impact alone. then again this is 70 or so catahracts vs about 125 infantry.
Hi.

I'm doing my bachelor thesis on how a knight would ride his horse in battle, in the middle ages.
Off course a horse could charge a massive wall (of people) and brake the line. It's all about how your train the beast, and off course sometimes the cavalry charge didn't manage, because the infantry was too experienced.
If you take sources, for example, you see it on almost every source, that the lance strike is given, while both hind legs are in the ground, and the front legs are in the air. That means that all the horses weight the riders, is pushing forward, and is centered on the lance tip, and then it is capable of smashing through anything. This was a galop called the "Carrière", a variation of a galop called "terre a terre", and it it important to add that this is a renaissance lingo, we don't know the medieval ones.
I'm very sceptical by using personal experiences when answering this question, because by doing that, you think of yourself that you are as good as the medieval horse trainers - and we will never bee! Instead of thinking, "that's not possible" we should think "What is the reason why they painted/write it? And what can we do, to make it possible?" The medieval people didn't write/paint this because it looked good, they had to have a reason.
On my opinion we have to acknowledge the riders of the middleages, because the had a different relationship with their horses. They rode the on a everyday basis, because they had to get from a to b, wich meant that they acknowledged them as living creatures, and respected their individualities. This also what Dom Duarte explains in his book "Bem Cavalgar", and if you noticed how horses are always depicted with "human" eyes on illustrations, it gives a perception that these animals was regarded as a sort spirituel creature, not with a soul, but as important.

http://academicartofriding.com/exercises/terr...[/url][/i]
I think a few things about a cavalry "charge" - first, we really don't know how they actually charged into an enemy infantry line.

Could have been at the gallop (I doubt), canter, trot or even a walk. Someone mentioned earlier the horse would have merely walked and pushed - like pikeman tactics - this is a distinct possibility.

I would think the speed at initial engagement depended on the depth and resolve of the infantry formation. If it was only a few deep, or breaking, a canter or trot could make sense. Steadfast and a deep infantry formation - a trot at best, or a walk.

These 1000+ pound animals could puch effectively against men at best abut 1/5 of their size.

and being pushed back is demoralizing - it could lead to the collapse or route of a body of infantry depending on how well they react.

However, if they stand their ground, they outnumber the cavalry, sherely based on the fact that you can pack more men than horses per square meter.

A cavalry force that interpenetrates an infantry force can cause them to route - but if they do not, the cavalry are at a disadvantage, and outnumbered. Riders can be drug from the saddles or attacked by a few men at a time. and heavy cavalry are an "expensive" unit, not one that you want to trade man for man with infantry.

But much is determined by the depth of the infantry formation, and the resolve of the infantry. Of course, pikes are better than swords at least on the initial impact, though hand weapons are effective when it gets into a slogging match.

Cavalry, even heavy, are much more effective against infantry if hitting them in the flank or rear - preferably with their own infantry attacking the enmy infantries front.
Gary Teuscher wrote:
Someone mentioned earlier the horse would have merely walked and pushed - like pikeman tactics - this is a distinct possibility.


I guess, it would be a very difficult and dangerous task to push a square of pikemen. Each horseman would face a quite scaring number of pikes pointed directly at him...
[/quote]we really don't know how they actually charged into an enemy infantry line.

That is not true. If we look at contemporary illustrations of horses charging in war situations, it's, as I've mentioned earlier, with both hind legs in the ground, which means in full gait, which means that it is smashing through enemy lines. I agree with you that this is a very dangerous attack, because if it fails it is crucial for the cavalry. However, we must not forget the mentality of these knight, because they fought under a chivalry code, which is a mixture of af roman and germanic warrior mentality. For these knights is was a honour to die in combat, or an even greater honour to have charged enemy lines hard, and won the battle. It was all about glory, and I do not think that we should think modern military mentality, where it's all about winning (sort of, compared to chivalry mentality). It is, in my opinion, dangerous to think effectiveness when thinking about medieval cavalry charges, because they fought with a different discourse, then a modern one.
Besides, medieval dressage was much more elegant, than what you see at medieval faires today. Horses were much lighter and faster, and would look much more like rejoneos ride their horses when fighting bulls in the corrida. This means that knights wasn't an easy target, as you would imagine a modern day medieval faire jouster is, but much faster, agile, and the advantage of riding a horse in battle is that when you are fighting an opponent, you are always fighting two against one: if the man on the ground attack the horse, the knight will attack the man on the ground, and if the man on the ground attack the knight, the horse attack the man on the ground. To teach your horse to be an active attacker, was very difficult, and that is why it took up to seven years of intensive training to train your destrier, before it was able to rear, bite and kick on command, which also explain the high price for a destrier. Biting on command might seem far out, but a rejoneador called Diego Ventura has a stallion called Morante, which actually bites the bulls, when it gets close: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uu_6NNOAW_c

There is no reason why you should use a horse, if you only want to trot or walk against your enemy, because there will be no weight in the lance strike, and then you might aswell dismount and poke your enemy from the ground. The horse is only useful when you use its weight in full gait, as almost all illustrations show us: [/url]http://www.manuscriptminiatures.com/roman-dalexandre-francais-790/2440/
Notice how both hind legs are in the ground, as the lance strike is delivered.
What you see very rarely, is a war situation where a cavalry is charging an infantry line, and I think that it is because both warlords would know that an infantry line wouldn't hold long against a cavalry charge, so often both warlords would send his heavy cavalry, against his opponents heavy cavalry, and then hope thats his own heavy cavalry would fight down the opponent, so that his heavy cavalry could start attacking the infantry (from the flanks). This is also what you see on illustrations of war, that the knights are fighting in the middle, and then the infantry is fighting around the cavalry: [url]http://www.britishbattles.com/100-years-war/poitiers.htm
This picture shows very well how I think that a medieval war, with heavy cavalry would look like. Of course this i a propaganda depiction of the french king fighting the english king, but nonetheless, the artist must have made the illustration out from how he experience battles, and might not be aware of this.

A medieval heavy cavalry is not an expensive unit, because the warlord wouldn't get any money out of his pocket, by using it. The knight payed his own equipment, and servants, and he had an obligation to serve his lord. The king/warlord would always have new knights, because squires would become knights eventually - so I don't think that it was something a warlord would be nervous about.[/url]
Joakim an illustration that shows the horse on its rear feet just before impact doesn’t necessarily mean that the horse is smashing through the line. It could also mean that the horse trotted up to the line, saw a group of men whose courage was wavering, and at the last moment leaped toward those men. Or it could be that horses simply look better when they are painted like that as opposed to a trot. I'm not saying it doesn't mean they weren't at a full gallop but I don't think we can be for sure. There are also images of mail clad warriors cut clean in two by the sword and of saints fighting dragons. There is also a drawing of an elephant I’ve seen that was clearly done by someone who has never seen an elephant. Not to mention all the images of biblical figures painted wearing clothing and armour that didn't exist until 1000-1500 + years later. I'm not saying we can't learn a great deal from these images but we shouldn't rely solely on them as proof.
I think one of the main assets of the mounted cavalry is from its mobility. They can change the tide of battle because they can more easily take advantage of openings and weaknesses in the opposition’s lines and not to mention the added vantage point from being higher than everyone else. Harass the infantry until you find a weakness. Now I’m not saying that they didn't charge at a full gallop into infantry because i suspect they did at times. It's even probably that during a full on charge some knights would slide to a stop just before impact, but others would not. Do that in some semblance of order with the knights in front stopping, the ones further behind continuing on past them then the nights who stopped falling in behind the others as they hit the line and pressing forward. That would be a very simple move for trained cavalry and disorienting for the infantry. Or it might end in total failure for the cavalry, Who knows :D Maybe that was even the tactic, get as close to the enemy as you can at full gallop. Lower the lance and try to impale someone while your horse slid to a stop. Pivot the horse on its hind end and gallop off to get another lance? Of course this is all conjecture and speculation on my part. After all I wasn’t there.
Know for my opinion about horses, they are stupid animals....period. If anybody doubts me find even one of them that can do my taxes or read a book or even plant a garden :lol: But seriously you can train a horse to do anything it can do on its own and to do it on command. Some are easier than others and some aren't worth the effort. Those get different jobs. I honestly don't think it would be that much of a challenge to train a horse to gallop right into a wall of pikemen. Some have said a horse wouldn't run headfirst into a wall of spears. Well a horse doesn’t know the difference between a spear and a pool noodle. They are scared of everything: new, different, noisy, out of place, flapping, waiving, flying etc. Once you get them over being scared of a mail box on their left side you turn them around and have to work on them not being scared of the exact same mailbox on their right side. Is there any difference between a wall of pikes and a mailbox or a grocery bag blowing underneath them? To a horse they can all mean the end of the world. (On a breezy day bring some grocery bags to the next horse event you go to and you will be able to quickly tell who the good riders are).
I don’t know if I’ve added anything to the topic or not but there’s my two cents.
Quote:
Someone mentioned earlier the horse would have merely walked and pushed - like pikeman tactics - this is a distinct possibility.


Quote:
I guess, it would be a very difficult and dangerous task to push a square of pikemen. Each horseman would face a quite scaring number of pikes pointed directly at him...


You miss understand my statement. I was suggesting they may well have pushed in a fashion similar to greek hoplites or pikemen - not that they would try to push pikemen.

To add to that, I think indeed about every frontal assault we know of with cavalry taking pikemen head on they met little sucess.

The sucess against the long spears of Schiltrons came after the schiltron ranks were disordered (or at at least received a lot of casualties) from bowmen.
Quote:
That is not true. If we look at contemporary illustrations of horses charging in war situations, it's, as I've mentioned earlier, with both hind legs in the ground, which means in full gait, which means that it is smashing through enemy lines.


From what I have seen - these illustrations don't really show what happens at impact - they are generally before impact of the opposing lines of battle.

Quote:
Or it could be that horses simply look better when they are painted like that as opposed to a trot. I'm not saying it doesn't mean they weren't at a full gallop but I don't think we can be for sure. There are also images of mail clad warriors cut clean in two by the sword and of saints fighting dragons.


I agree. These are illustrations, not photos, and may suffer from some "artistic license"

Quote:
However, we must not forget the mentality of these knight, because they fought under a chivalry code, which is a mixture of af roman and germanic warrior mentality. For these knights is was a honour to die in combat, or an even greater honour to have charged enemy lines hard, and won the battle. It was all about glory, and I do not think that we should think modern military mentality, where it's all about winning (sort of, compared to chivalry mentality). It is, in my opinion, dangerous to think effectiveness when thinking about medieval cavalry charges, because they fought with a different discourse, then a modern one.


I would not go so far with the idealized "chivalric knight" mentality. If this were entirely true, hundreds of English horse would have been skewered charging the Schiltrons at Bannockburn, not just a few.

It's about glory, sure, but self preservation as well. Likley why most of the English horse retreated from the Schiltrons as opposed to skewering themselves - the Scottish formations of long spearmen held, and the cavalry had little effect against them. If their formation would have broke to some extent - the results could have been far different.

Don't forget,, it's tough to bask in glory if dead. And their are plenty of incidents where knights routed, though usually only after sustaining casualties.
Some info here on templar cavalry http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/bennett1.htm
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

Page 4 of 9

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 2003-2006 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Full-featured Version of the forum