[Gary Teuscher]

I read the first link, did not read the second one til now, William.

I gues there is one HUGE difference though in the cavalry vs infantry debate - which clearly favors cavalry. Cavalry that fail in melee and retreat are not in danger of being followed usually, and can recollect themselves, rally, and fight again. Infantry, failing in a battle against cavalry will route and be cut down.

Hastings is a good example of infantry vs cavalry IMO, as the Saxons had no cavalry of their own to cloud the issue as to what happened.

They stood their ground against a few cavalry assaults, driving the cavalry off, the only time they really took many casualties is when their men broke ranks to pursue. The Norman cavarly on the other hand did not seem to fare well in the first few clashes, but were able to retreat, rally, and try again.

When the Saxon infantry finally break, they are pursued and suffer in the rout.

[Mikael Ranelius]

Speaking of cavalry charges, I recently read a claim by D. Nicolle that medieval men-at-arms charged at a "slow canter" rather than at full speed. Is this claim substantiated? If we look at medieval depictions of mounted men charging such as the Bayeux tapestry or Maciejowski Bible, the horses are often clearly shown at a gallop... What can we gather from the written sources on that issue?

[Christian Borglum]

Mikael, I've heard the Canter-pace charge theory espoused by more folks than David Nicolle. Period artwork such as the Bayeaux Tapestry do seem to frequently show horses at the gallop. Although it's not a direct corollary, jousts are performed at a gallop. Since the joust was originally a contest of military skill, it seems like the techniques would mostly mirror military practice. So, I think it's pretty likely that the lance charge was delivered at gallop.
Now, I do think it's very possible that a period cavalry would approach the enemy at a quick canter to maintain the spacing and integrity of their formation. Then they may have accelerated to a gallop to deliver the charge maybe over the last 50 to 100 yards. Of course, that's only my opinion of what's plausible. Perhaps another forumite more experienced in horsemanship can comment further,
The problem is that we really have no military manuals being written in western or central europe during the "age of chivalry" circa 1066-1300 CE. No one seems to have bothered to write down exactly how they did it. There are the "Rules" of the Knightly orders, but I don't know if those documents describe exactly 'how' the brother-knights were to deliver a charge. During the Renaissance, I believe there were some folks writing on military theory. The question then becomes how relevant are the later writings to earlier practices.

[Gary Teuscher]

Maybe the velocity of the initial clash depended on how solid the infantry stood? The more infantry that break of the line wavers the faster the initial clash, if it holds solid they slow to a walk or even shy away.

I look at the initial clashes at Stirling Bridge. If the Cavalry were charging at a gallop, I think there would have been more casualties among the English Heavy Cavalry.

[Bjorn Hagstrom]

As a rider, I would throw in another good reason for charging at a slower pace than a full out gallop:
(Note this is speculation not backed with medieval sources)

If the charge fails, the horse will stop and turn very, very quickly. You certainly do not want to be hurled off the horse and land on your back right in front of the enemy line! So if the cavalry are not absolutely certain the infantry line will yield, and the ground is not perfect turf I would guess that a slower pace would be used.

It is quite intimidating facing a body of horse. I have been standing in a field with a flock of around 20 horses (varying sizes) running by in speed and the ground really shakes! And that was a flock not coming directly at me, no armoured riders with mal intent! Standing up to a cavalry charge must have been a very true test of discipline for infantry.

[William P]

heres a quote from a 6th cenury byzantine manuscript for the cavalry formation.

[Mikael Ranelius]

Interesting points. One argument that has been put forward in favor of the slow-speed-charge hypothesis is that a unit. e.g. conrois, of horsemen will have dofficulties keeping formation if charging at full speed. However, we know from later times that heavy cavalry actually did charge at a gallop. I'm not very familiar with early modern cavalry tactics, but I know that Carolean Swedish cavalry at the time of the Great Northern War did charge at the gallop, in a dense ("knee by knee") wedge formation in three ranks. If 17th/18th century cavalry were able to charge at full speed in tight 250-men formations, I see little reason to doubt that medieval cavalry would have fared worse when charging in smaller formations of 25-50.

[Daniel Staberg]

[William P]

i should note the byzantine manual says 'fall upon the enemy at a gallop' that means on impact i would imagine, it doesnt say how the whole of the charge should proceed.

but hen again i may be wrong