[Gary Teuscher]

[Ben P.]

[Robin Palmer]

Gentlmen all I can add is that at Waterloo the finest cavalry in Europe failed to break the british squares despite repeated efferts. On the whole they were beaten by hedges of bayonets not gun fire tests conducted by I believe the household cavalry showed that even hard ridden horses will turn away from hedge of spikes. I read somewhere I do not have source that horses used to be divided into three classes. New horses trained to ride down dummys these could be ridden into troops if not to close packed once. Horses who had been in battle and learned that wooden shields and mail clad men were not padded dummys some could be driven to charge again the rest not. Lastly the veterans who had learned to avoid men and weapons these difinatly wouldnt charge home. How accurate the data is I am not sure but it makes sence to me.

[Gary Teuscher]

[Robin Palmer]

Hi gary
Good point and one to be taken into account commentaters of the day did state that hastly raised or not the French cavalary lacked nothing in determination or courage so possibly in the area of cavalry things may have evened out. After I posted I considered hastings despite losing the saxon line withstood every attack the best norman cavalry could throw for most of the day. Defeat came through line breaking not direct action. I believe that for every case of cavalry breaking foot you will find twenty of them failing I believe that where foot stood firm and held formation horse would fail.

Your bob palmer

[Zac Evans]

You'll note that the British heavy cavalry did very well, however, although they did take heavy losses.

I think its actually to do with the quality of the horses. The French had used up most of their good cavalry horses by Waterloo, whereas the British bought their heavy cavalry over pretty much specially for the battle.

Bearing this in mind, I'd say Waterloo would be a huge indicator of the difference between the abilities of well trained war horses over untrained ones.

[Bill Tsafa]

I have wondered how striking with a lance at full gallop works. If you manage to get penetration on anyone it seems to me like you are forced to drop your lance. How can you possibly pull it back out while the horse is moving forward at speed.

If you hit the shield plate or breast plate of and opposing rider who is much heavier, who is to say that you don't knock yourself off your own horse. Most foot combat is easy to recreate, but mounted charges are rarely done. Most modern jousts are done with breakaway sticks.

[Robin Palmer]

Hi vassillis
I am no expert but I believe it would depend on the type of lance used light lance against unarmoured or lightly armoured foe I have seen displays which show that it is possible to free lance as you go past. British cavalry trained to do it twisting wrist as they went past to pull lance free. With heavy lances the weight would make controlling penetration more difficult thus making freeing it almost impossible.

On the matter of lance against plate that depends a lot of how the lance is held many harness had a lance rest which braced the lance transferring a lot of the force to the harness. Given riders were braced into high backed saddles designed to stop them being unhorsed the lance would almost cirtainly break. If the rider lacked the rest then it was down to arm strength when lance met plate it either penetrated or stopped if it stopped them it came down to what bit was weakest lance shaft or riders arm.

[Steven H]

[Bill Tsafa]

[Zac Evans]

[Nate C.]

[Jean Thibodeau]

[Robin Palmer]

Hi all
On the matter of charge the term can be missleading in norman and crusader period and probably later the key was to hold a solid formation and strike was usually delivered at the canter at best trying to hold close order at the flat gallop over even good ground would be difficult. Riders would ride leg touching leg often in two ranks second one horse length behind lances lined between riders in front. So the image of massive hell for leather gallops is not supported by evidence plus the later war horses was bred for strength and staminiar not speed.

Yours Bob palmer.

[Randall Moffett]

Bob,

I think Cliff's article went through a great number of chronicles over the high and part of the late medieval period (not sure if he went to 1350 or 1400) to look at exactly that question. If there were more accounts where cavalry won over being repulsed that is. I think the answer was they did.

I think it should be fairly clear a horse can be trained to hit/run over people but that it is not in their nature in general to do so. Jousting for example few horses take on their own at first. I remember a young horse that bolted away from the other horse as soon as they neared it. With training this changed and it knew what to do and had no issue with it. There is enough primary documents that describe effective heavy cavalry charges that I cannot see how it can be argued really they were not possible. I think the key is looking into how and why it fails to when it does not.

RPM

[Robin Palmer]

Randal
I do not doubt that horses can be trained to charge down and hit people history shows they can and did. I do feel jousting horses are a little different from battle the tilt is divided by a barrier so horses are not on collision course so training horses to run the course should be simple enough. Training horses to charge head on into other horses or men is a very different matter it is obviously possible cliff has proved that in his research.

That cavalry succeeded is proven I agree with you we need to look more at the foot than the horse why they failed or succeeded is key to the cavalry's success or failiour..

Your Bob palmer

[Dan Howard]

So is there any evidence of a cavalry charge breaking through an unbroken line of spears? Just citing a few examples where cavalry were successful tells us nothing. I agree with Robin that it is the infantry that needs to be examined. As already said, there is an enormous difference between convincing a horse to run down some men who have dropped their spears, or running towards a gap in a line that already lost cohesion, and convincing that horse to impale itself on a wall of spear points. If the infantry can maintain cohesion then it will repulse cavalry. If not then cavalry will win through.

[Daniel Staberg]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

I guess the rule in finding an answer to the question is "If it happens once, it doesn't necessarily have to happen every time;" direct hand-to-hand clashes between an unbroken infantry and a charging cavalry formation certainly happened, but most of the time the clash was decided before contact when the infantry broke and ran (thus becoming no longer "unbroken"), the horses shied, or the riders chickened out (in both cases meaning that the cavalry ceased to be "charging"). Winston Churchill said as much in his personal account of the Battle of Omdurman--where he was involved in one of those uncommon occasions where attacking cavalry did contact and ride through unbroken infantry.

[Robin Palmer]

With respect to Winston churchill as I recall the charge was against dervish foot who while brave and determined men were not trained foot in a massed block.