| Author |
Message |
|
Peter Bosman
|
 Posted: Fri 14 Mar, 2008 2:20 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Scott Eschenbrenner wrote: | | Is there an ideal load that would balance performance and protection? I think we have terms like "heavy" and "light" for a reason; |
This might be a good one to start a new thread as there is an optimum:: the least possible  
Anything else is a compromise dictated by tactics, by mounted forces fullfilling tactical roles that strengthen the effectiveness and versatility of an army beyond ' mere' skirmishing centaurs.
The extra contribution to the army however is NOT an improvement in 'cavalryness' as all that compromises the agility and speed of the horse compromises the centaur.
Optimum therefor must be split in optimum for the army and optimum for the horsepowered human brain.
Optimum for the latter means that less is more.
Steel plating the horses legs therefor must have been a highly specialised application IF it existed beyond parading....
peter
|
|
 |
 |
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Mar, 2008 2:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Peter Bosman wrote: | | Well Lafayette, if there is no horse, it is not cavalry..... |
Tell that to the modern military personnel who explicitly gave the names "Armored Cavalry" and "Airmobile Cavalry" to said arms. Or to the World War I theorists who explicitly compared the roles of the aircraft at that time to the then-vanishing cavalry. If you want to dispute the issue, then discuss it with them, not with me--I wasn't the one who made those names and comparisons.
Note that no matter how much we discuss this, I suspect we'll never come to an agreement because--as I've said--my starting point for the definition of "light" and "heavy" cavalry is entirely different from yours. Even our fundamental definition of "cavalry" may be quite different, as I'd willingly call most mounted infantry "light cavalry" because, despite of their tactical doctrine of fighting on foot, many of these mounted infantrymen had strategic roles that were identical to the light cavalry's "war of outposts," including the aforementioned scouting, screening, and harassment, not to mention raiding or internal security duties.
|
|
 |
|
|
Peter Bosman
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Mar, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | | If you want to dispute the issue, then discuss it with them, ... |
I do not want to: 'they' are using an anachronistic term that does not cover the content. Period. For whatever reason. There may be several reasons as an explanation but that does not make it correct. No discussion needed: no horses = no cavalry
Some people call it evolution of language as an excuse for mistaken use and lack of inventiveness.
peter
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Eschenbrenner
|
| Posted: Fri 14 Mar, 2008 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm really enjoying this tangent, so I'll go start a new thread in the Off-Topic section called "Cavalry Discussion." Standby... 
Here's a link: http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=128249#128249
Last edited by Scott Eschenbrenner on Fri 14 Mar, 2008 9:04 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
Chad Arnow
myArmoury Team
|
| Posted: Sat 15 Mar, 2008 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Scott Eschenbrenner wrote: | | There I go again with the double post. Sorry. |
If you do double post, you can simply use the delete button to delete it if no one has replied to it.
ChadA
http://chadarnow.com/
|
|
  |
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 25 Apr, 2008 4:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Mmm...just found this old thread on the same subject of leg armor for horses. Much of the content overlaps that of this thread, but there are some interesting differences as well:
http://www.myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=4608
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a standard topic