Info Favorites Register Log in
myArmoury.com Discussion Forums

Forum index Memberlist Usergroups Spotlight Topics Search
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Cavalry charges, help! Reply to topic
This is a standard topic Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next 
Author Message
Lafayette C Curtis




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

Posts: 2,698

PostPosted: Wed 18 Mar, 2009 7:18 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

But they stood and received the charge, and engaged the British cavalrymen in hand-to-hand combat; isn't that the whole point of the discussion? Note that Churchill's description of them don't give the impression of a loose mass of skirmishers; the Sudanese infantry at the far side of the gully might not have been a Swiss pike square, but breaking through them wasn't like a walk in the park. The Lancers certainly took fairly heavy casualties going through the Sudanese ranks.

(Note that, while I'm generally of the school that most infantry-cavalry shock interactions were decided before contact, I believe just as firmly that there were certainly exceptions that proved the rule, and that Omdurman was one of them.)
View user's profile Send private message
Gordon Frye




Location: Kingston, Washington
Joined: 20 Apr 2004
Reading list: 15 books

Spotlight topics: 2
Posts: 1,191

PostPosted: Thu 19 Mar, 2009 8:53 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Daniel is correct in his statement about Ceresole (1544) and Dreux (1562) in that the French Gendarmerie charged completely through the opposing pike squares. What is amazing is that in both cases the infantry (in the former case Imperialist Germans, in the second Royalist Swiss) were unshaken prior to the charges yet the horses charged straight through, but what is even more amazing is that in both cases, neither infantry formation was broken. Incredible bravery and discipline was shown on both sides in those particular battles as the cavalry charged through, and the infantry retained it's cohesion, through multiple assaults. The Germans only "broke" to surrender to the French Gendarmes when the Franco-Swiss infantry forces finished dealing with their own opponents and charged the Germans on the flank, while the Swiss at Dreux never did break, and it was their solid resistance which was credited for the victory of the Royalists.

(BTW, it isn't often noted that at the Battle of Ceresole, on the other flank, the French [i}cheveaux legér[i*], which are somewhat lighter cavalry than the Gendarmerie, charged the Italian infantry, and while they succeeded in slowing them down, did not penetrate the formation, and were ruined in the proccess.)

Per lances, also during the 16th Century at least, it was considered infamous for a lancer to return with his lance unbroken. According to Cruso, even the Cornet was to break his lance upon his enemy's breast, though it meant the loss of their battle flag. Such were the fashions of the day. 19th Century lancers however were not under such strictures, and there are techniques for lancing an opponent and "rolling" the lance back into position to be used again. Of course you can only do that with the much lighter lance, the old "heavy lance" of the 16th Century, especially when used with a lance arrét, was a "single-shot" weapon.

Cheers!

Gordon [/i]

"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Jaroslav Kravcak




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 22 Apr 2006

Posts: 123

PostPosted: Wed 03 Aug, 2011 1:54 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Robin Palmer wrote:
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.


Might I ask where could I get some accounts of cavalry charging infantry square where horses not charging wall of muskets was more important than firepower?

Im interested in this era only marginally and certainly have seen only little minority of battle accounts nevertheless the ones Ive seen indicate that if infantry held ground it could be enough to fire salvo from relatively long distance and horsemen simply ran away instead of proper charge. While when they were resolved to come into contact shooting at the right moment (not too soon for accuracy and not too late because dead horses would be carried by momentum into men in square IIRC) would stop the charge and maybe create a pile of dead bodies that would hinder any advance even further.

So basically I assumed any men getting into range of sword would be rather lonely and easily dispatchable if nothing gone bad so even if one horse luckily leaped into square there was scarsely anyone that could exploit it left and if for some reason infantry was deprived of their firepower breaching would be far more propable. Is this notion incorrect?

Also regarding battle of Ceresole. Happy Everyone writing about french gendarmes riding through imperial pikesquare mention something like not without considerable loss. What does it mean exactly? (de la Noue mentions IIRC that 60 gentlemen were killed in the battle I wasnt able to find anything more specific from sources Im able to get. Can it be quantified what were acceptable losses from average engagement for a company of gendarmes by this date? Eg. in osprey winged hussars Brzezinski states on average one hussar company wouldnt loose more than 12 men and twice as much horse based on his own research) Could it be said how much damage they did? (in de la Noues memoirs Ive read something like that despite their captains in frontal ranks being killed they still stood their ground, in du Bellay that first charge cost french 12-15 men but was succesfull in especially because imperial square was still occupied with fighting french infantry while other charges were more costly. But nothing more specific once again and Im not sure if I understood it correctly as my french is terrible and i only used translator for parts I was interested in Laughing Out Loud )
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Nathan Quarantillo




Location: Eastern Panhandle WV, USA
Joined: 14 Aug 2009

Posts: 279

PostPosted: Wed 03 Aug, 2011 10:33 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

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.

And as far as striking a man with effective armour, I think it would matter little. He has just been hit with a ton of weight traveling at 20+ MPH. I think that he would have been sent tumbling, penetration or not.
And I agree the lance was a one-shot weapon. I think it's use was similar to the Roman Pilum (not in any operational sense, but in tactical use), to break the first and maybe second ranks, and to utterly ruin it's unit cohesion and formation. Then the horse can get within the formation. it's use IMO was to create the gap in the line for the horse and rider to exploit.

And you have to remember, that during the Knight's age of dominance, infantry had yet to adopt a weapon that could outreach a lance. It was the use of disciplined Pike formations (that could fatally outreach the lance) that finally rendered the tactic as mostly ineffective. (however, mentioned above are some exceptions even to this)

"Id rather be historically accurate than politically correct"
View user's profile Send private message
Kurt Scholz





Joined: 09 Dec 2008

Posts: 390

PostPosted: Wed 03 Aug, 2011 11:37 pm    Post subject: whom to ask and perhaps we have the wrong image of infantry         Reply with quote

Let's take a look at the police using horses in riots. These are the closest you can get to a war horse and I guess their handlers will be knowledgable on the subject.
Training horses could work if you tell them that these people on foot will move away so the horse can pass. The only problem I see is that the horse can feel fooled if it doesn't happen in battle. One idea that comes to my mind is if infantry possibly formed small gaps in the formation to break up the attacking mounted formation and better dispatch them because horses would opt for the gaps.
About the lance on horse and on foot. You needed just weapons of the same length. The man on foot would support the rear end of the lance in the ground with his foot and outreach the mounted man with a lance of the same length because the man on foot strikes the horse first and the rider and the man on foot strike each other at least at the same moment, however, the man on foot can better evade or deflect the strike. Armour and missile weapon preparation work might be the key to understanding horse vs foot.
I doubt that one long solid line is the best way to meet a mounted charge because horses are powerful and if properly armoured in the front it'll be quite difficult to harm them, although a properly timed rising lance can strike their belly. So I think, it's important to use the natural instincts of a horse under stress in order to avoid that it topples the whole line by making 5 men in a row flying back through unwanted acceleration and the standing rest being surrounded and cut down. In my opinion the most dangerous element of the mounted charge is the unbroken line foot on foot that transfers huge power in one solid mass. Whatever pointy stick you have, it's likely to break and your opponent is not heavily armoured for no reason.

So I would make the following suggestion for tactics:
If the enemy horse attacks in one solid line strike for the horse in order to have first strike. But that's quite dangerous because fast and dying horses can break formations, but the rider is usually the best armoured target with the least chance to wound.
If the enemy horse goes for the gaps(made by calculation or panic), strike for the riders, especially their legs and buttocks, and let empty horses pass.
If one rider is making it through a gap strike his horse so he's just one man on foot against many men on foot.
For infantry in my opinion the best choice is having small gaps in the formation that horses will try to exploit and the second best is having no gaps so the horses doubt they can pass, at least after the first try.
View user's profile Send private message
Sam Gordon Campbell




Location: Australia.
Joined: 16 Nov 2008

Posts: 678

PostPosted: Thu 04 Aug, 2011 2:48 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I think if I was on the reciving end end of a cavalry charge, if ones unit ('cause I'll be buggered if I has to go one on one with a mounted opponet) lacked the reach of a melee weapon and/or couldn't outshoot (not that that would stop them) them, i'd hope that we had prepared the field in such a way as to stop or at least slow and lessen the effect of a cavalry charge ala ditches and pot holes with some caltrops for good measure.
Member of Australia's Stoccata School of Defence since 2008.
Host of Crash Course HEMA.
Founder of The Van Dieman's Land Stage Gladiators.
View user's profile Send private message
Kurt Scholz





Joined: 09 Dec 2008

Posts: 390

PostPosted: Thu 04 Aug, 2011 12:50 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Sam Gordon Campbell wrote:
I think if I was on the reciving end end of a cavalry charge, if ones unit ('cause I'll be buggered if I has to go one on one with a mounted opponet) lacked the reach of a melee weapon and/or couldn't outshoot (not that that would stop them) them, i'd hope that we had prepared the field in such a way as to stop or at least slow and lessen the effect of a cavalry charge ala ditches and pot holes with some caltrops for good measure.


Good idea. In Early Medieval Europe the Germans used checkerboard ditches to defend their refuge forts against mounted archers. I think that would also work kin the field and you can do it quite fast with lots of men because you only have to excavate half the depth and heap the other half and you can dig lots of holes with independently working men. Adding some pointy sticks will make it a formidable obstacle, but you can't move it. So you might find yourself at a disadvantage against unmounted ranged combat from dismounted enemies.
View user's profile Send private message
Nathan Quarantillo




Location: Eastern Panhandle WV, USA
Joined: 14 Aug 2009

Posts: 279

PostPosted: Thu 04 Aug, 2011 6:10 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Field preparation was one of the great cornerstones of the English system that triumphed against the French Knights. Weather it be the Brier/Hedge funnel at Poitiers, the caltrop/ pothole field of Crecy, or the stakes of Agincourt, you need SOMETHING to keep your missile troops from turning into heavy cavalry fodder.
And the English stakes were quite portable, two to an archer I believe.

"Id rather be historically accurate than politically correct"
View user's profile Send private message
Kurt Scholz





Joined: 09 Dec 2008

Posts: 390

PostPosted: Fri 05 Aug, 2011 3:31 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nathan Quarantillo wrote:
Field preparation was one of the great cornerstones of the English system that triumphed against the French Knights. Weather it be the Brier/Hedge funnel at Poitiers, the caltrop/ pothole field of Crecy, or the stakes of Agincourt, you need SOMETHING to keep your missile troops from turning into heavy cavalry fodder.
And the English stakes were quite portable, two to an archer I believe.


But didn't they need a defensive battle plan and things got awry if the missile troops were under fire from cannons from beyond bow range? So the French mistake was rather that they didn't well prepare the assaults with missile troops with better missile protection like big shields or superior range.
A properly prepared cavalry assault would have succeeded in my opinion. Missile troops first hold their positions against the enemy under the cover of large shields. Behind them infantry with big shields moves in and makes holes in the defensive structures. The killing blow is cavalry in columns dashing through the holes and killing the enemy from behind.
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,523

PostPosted: Fri 05 Aug, 2011 7:10 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Gordon Frye wrote:
Daniel is correct in his statement about Ceresole (1544) and Dreux (1562) in that the French Gendarmerie charged completely through the opposing pike squares. What is amazing is that in both cases the infantry (in the former case Imperialist Germans, in the second Royalist Swiss) were unshaken prior to the charges yet the horses charged straight through, but what is even more amazing is that in both cases, neither infantry formation was broken. Incredible bravery and discipline was shown on both sides in those particular battles as the cavalry charged through, and the infantry retained it's cohesion, through multiple assaults. The Germans only "broke" to surrender to the French Gendarmes when the Franco-Swiss infantry forces finished dealing with their own opponents and charged the Germans on the flank, while the Swiss at Dreux never did break, and it was their solid resistance which was credited for the victory of the Royalists.

(BTW, it isn't often noted that at the Battle of Ceresole, on the other flank, the French [i}cheveaux legér[i*], which are somewhat lighter cavalry than the Gendarmerie, charged the Italian infantry, and while they succeeded in slowing them down, did not penetrate the formation, and were ruined in the proccess.)
Per lances, also during the 16th Century at least, it was considered infamous for a lancer to return with his lance unbroken. According to Cruso, even the Cornet was to break his lance upon his enemy's breast, though it meant the loss of their battle flag. Such were the fashions of the day. 19th Century lancers however were not under such strictures, and there are techniques for lancing an opponent and "rolling" the lance back into position to be used again. Of course you can only do that with the much lighter lance, the old "heavy lance" of the 16th Century, especially when used with a lance arrét, was a "single-shot" weapon.

Cheers!

Gordon [/i]


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

yet the lighter cavalry suffered heavy losses.
i can guess why, barding.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mElmWHG4ZsA in the hundred years war a common english tactic was to far aring shots to disrupt the momentumn of the charge as well as close range volleys that were if anything more likely to damadge armour.
but in the video about the battle of verneuil mike loades is told that the lombard cavalry apparently had barding which prevented that from happening. i think that the same effect occured with those gendarmes.

and while braveheart is infamous for its artistic liscences with history. but in the battle of stirling the english knights chargethe scottish pikes and DONT turn or baulk and we see them getting utterly mashed. had the nights been like the gendarmes in terms of the tight 2 line formation the second line would have smashed that scottish host to pieces.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7ur3iV6Z34

but that aside charging unbroken spearmen or especially pikes is not that much better than charging emplaced stakes like those used by the english.
and if you force your horse to keep riding into them. allits weight will cause it to be essentially impaled on the pike.
thats alot of horses lost for very little gained

i remember a piece on theriders of rohan for the LOTR some book thing. saying that they woulld always try to soften up the enemy line firs because to charge a well ordered line is a waste ofhorses which were very precious


regarding infantry squares thes a paragraph or two in sharpes sword which might help elaborate on the subject abit obviously bernard isnt exactly an expert. and this isnt a historical account.. however it sheds a tiny bit of light on things i think.

(end of Ch 25) "cavalry cannot break a well-formed infantry square. it was a rule of war proved time and time again, that as long as the infantry were solidly ranked, their musket tipped with bayonettes, horses will not charge home. sharpe hasd stood in squares and watched the cavalry charge ... the muskets had fired, the horses l, and the surviving cavalry sheered away from the sides of the square, "

(chapter 26 or 27) "artillery could break a square, infantry cound break a square but cavalry could not. there was a mathamaical logic that proved it, a man on horseback needed some four feet of width in which to charge. facing him in fourranks would be 8 men, an infantry needed only 2 feet, slightly less, and so the horseman was charging down a corridor at the end waited 8 bullets and 8 bayonets. and even if the infantry were unloaded, if they only had their bayonets the n the charge would still fail. a horse would not charge home that solid wall of men and steel. it would go so far then swerve and sharpe had stood in squares often enough to know how safe they (the french) were. "

now obviously the rules with knights with lances and pike blocks is alittle different to this for a few reasons
a infantry square is hollow. if a man were to force his horse to charge into the square and slam into it. he might get hurt and die but he then opens a gap in the square. allowing his comrades to wedge themselves in. and tear the square apart from the inside.

the actual paragrapes are a recreation of an account of a skirmish after the batle of salamanca where english and KGL cavalry charge french squares, they ucceed in getting in only because a lone riders horse tumbles and opens a gap in the square with survivors from that square weakening the other squares trying to get to safety by forcing themseves between their comrades, opening up slight gaps.

in braveheart though we see what is supposedly more characteristic of earlier knights pre 15th C as being sometimes quite ill disciplined just charging as onegreat wave. said overeagernes on part ofthe knights was partly why the arabs in the crusades were able to win so many battles. against the crusaders by drawing the knights away and surrounding them.


so another angle to this question is why on earth would knights even WANT to charge unbarded horse into a wall of spearpoints. its quite simply suicidal because all the armour in the world on a man wont help him if hes thrown from his horse and mobbed to death.. and the cost of replacing all those horses would be enormous,
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Michael Curl




Location: Northern California, US
Joined: 06 Jan 2008

Posts: 487

PostPosted: Fri 05 Aug, 2011 10:16 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Please do not cite Braveheart or lord of the rings for anything in this forum other than movie discussions. As we all know movies have no basis in fact other than what the directors want them to have. While some movies are more accurate than others, none count for anything in these types of debates.
E Pluribus Unum
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Kurt Scholz





Joined: 09 Dec 2008

Posts: 390

PostPosted: Fri 05 Aug, 2011 12:12 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

William P wrote:

yet the lighter cavalry suffered heavy losses.
i can guess why, barding.


to condense your argument and not discuss all things that shouldn't be discussed here. I agree that armour on the horse can help to keep the horse alive when attacking infantry. In early modern times it became increasingly difficult to give horses and riders this kind of protection against firearms. Without these protections you had to use a different doctrine for success with less expense per rider and thus more riders for example and cheaper to replace mounts.
You can research the Polish-lithuanian winged hussars for the capabilities and problems of a force that remained armoured, mounted and had lances. Their mounts were difficult to replace, cavalry suffered more loses in terms of money needed for replacement, so mounted infantry and infantry grew in importance. That doesn't mean that trained lancers (ulans, but these were light lancers, not heavy like the winged hussars) couldn't be a devastating force as late as the Napoleonic wars, but very well trained men are few and a levée en masse wins by numbers with simple guns and swords.
Back to infantry squares, these guys had to walk and move quite fast as a unit and retain formation over terrain and in the chaos of a clash, so for sure these units were deployed with space in between (watch a modern military parade, even the Chinese have space in between and they seem kind of crazy about order in parades). Space in between means the horse will naturally use it to run through. Now the infantry must defend themselves against the passing rider (if he has a lance it's easier than say with a sword or a warhammer) and the rider must survive the halberds and pikes. Good armour and high speed help the task unless your enemy has something to penetrate that armour ready or you forgot to armour the horse that's 60% of the target area.
View user's profile Send private message
Jaroslav Kravcak




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 22 Apr 2006

Posts: 123

PostPosted: Fri 05 Aug, 2011 1:25 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I remember one interesting discussion about battle of Grandson and the thing that interested me most was that Swiss were closest to breaking when Louis de Chatel-Guyon (I hope name is right Big Grin ) managed to leap somehow with his armoured horse into wall of pikes creating opening (and horse surviving) to which about 12 men were able to get themselves. In few minutes they killed about 30 Swiss supposedly (more than 10 percent of casualties they themselves reported) and got as far as to bernese standard and were finally neutralized while they were wrestling standard from the hands of standard bearer.

While this is very interesting, I picture how french managed to create holes in Spanish/ Swiss square similarly to this. That in case of Ceresole especially they wouldnt simply ride over the square as a line but rather would maybe instinctively bunch together recoiling from fire poured into them (maybe on purpouse) forming little compact wedges. (Wouldnt their nice line be ruined by horses falling from musket fire anyway?) If these had brave and well armoured horse at the top it could force a way into line of pikes and while inside infantry would instinctively open gaps because of fear of horses and situation they werent so well prepared for while close formation and mutual support was crutial for that at least some of horsemen got out fit enough for another round. (armour of horses in front would maybe also help) And maybe as this was repeated more times the effect of first time surprize was gone. Ceresole is rather more interesting than battle of Dreux Id say in fact that there were no other units providing fire support etc. so it was basically between about 200 gendarmes and some 100 or so gentlemen volunteers (I hope I havent misread de la Noues description) against about 5000 infantry well motivated and equipped to fight them off that were victorious just moments before. They supposedly did it three times losing 60 gentlemen.

Id say if there were several times more such a horsemen they would have good chance to physically eliminate this infantry formation even if they had to kill them to the last. (But absolutely for price that wasnt worth it provided they broke it just as well and only thing needed was to threaten them with being attacked by victorious infantry from other side of the battlefield Big Grin So possible but not too rational. )

I hope anyone knowledgeable will clear out any errors in this long speculation Ill be glad to learn something new.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Nathan Quarantillo




Location: Eastern Panhandle WV, USA
Joined: 14 Aug 2009

Posts: 279

PostPosted: Fri 05 Aug, 2011 5:56 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Kurt Scholz wrote:
Nathan Quarantillo wrote:
Field preparation was one of the great cornerstones of the English system that triumphed against the French Knights. Weather it be the Brier/Hedge funnel at Poitiers, the caltrop/ pothole field of Crecy, or the stakes of Agincourt, you need SOMETHING to keep your missile troops from turning into heavy cavalry fodder.
And the English stakes were quite portable, two to an archer I believe.


But didn't they need a defensive battle plan and things got awry if the missile troops were under fire from cannons from beyond bow range? So the French mistake was rather that they didn't well prepare the assaults with missile troops with better missile protection like big shields or superior range.
A properly prepared cavalry assault would have succeeded in my opinion. Missile troops first hold their positions against the enemy under the cover of large shields. Behind them infantry with big shields moves in and makes holes in the defensive structures. The killing blow is cavalry in columns dashing through the holes and killing the enemy from behind.


The English system relied on defensive positions, not a defensive battle plan. At Agincourt, King Henry V was very offensive in his use of he English system. And yes, it did become "Awry" if the archers were under fire from something that they couldn't reach to fire back at. Castillon, the last battle of the HYW is a perfect example of this. French Artillery park decimates English archers, Talbot attempts to retaliate with his cavalry, promptly gets mashed by French Knights and Artillery.

"Id rather be historically accurate than politically correct"
View user's profile Send private message
Ken Speed





Joined: 09 Oct 2006

Posts: 656

PostPosted: Fri 05 Aug, 2011 6:49 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

I've been following this discussion with some interest and I think the writers are forgetting that horses are herd animals. I don't for a minute disagree with the assertion that horse will avoid barriers and jumps but that is true for individual horses. A group of horse will generally stay in the group. we are, after all, talking about massed cavalry charges. if you think about it the horses are neither more stupid nor smarter than the men who charge an entrenched enemy, in both cases I suspect the group mind temporarily overpowers that of the individual.
View user's profile Send private message
William P




Location: Sydney, Australia
Joined: 11 Jul 2010

Posts: 1,523

PostPosted: Fri 05 Aug, 2011 8:16 pm    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Michael Curl wrote:
Please do not cite Braveheart or lord of the rings for anything in this forum other than movie discussions. As we all know movies have no basis in fact other than what the directors want them to have. While some movies are more accurate than others, none count for anything in these types of debates.


the LOTR wasnt the movie as such it was someones riting of the culture of the people. its probably more based off the book.

the rationale for braveheart is that it shows what i reckon would happen anyway if you keept charging at an unbroken pike formation
because lets be realistic if the horsement didnt swerve or baulk. and drove themselves at the pikes. theres not a lot of imagination needed to think of whats going to happen next.

n reality theres not a whole lotof difference between a pike formation and a emplacement of stakes in terms of the forces invlved on collision. we have a still accelerating horse that hits one or more pike points the pikepoint is stationary the horse is moving onto the point. and we know generally what happens when a object throws itself onto a sharp point, it gets impaled,
whichis exactly what happens in braveheart.

i liken it to what happens if you run headlong through a brick wall . most people who run at a brick wall if they dont stop will likely suffer at least some form of injury. as a rsult unless your stupid or reckless people largely attempt to avoid a collision


and just incase yor thinking im just looking at the movie and thinking thats what happens it was acually the opposite in this case

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.
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Kurt Scholz





Joined: 09 Dec 2008

Posts: 390

PostPosted: Sat 06 Aug, 2011 1:41 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Nathan Quarantillo wrote:
Kurt Scholz wrote:
Nathan Quarantillo wrote:
Field preparation was one of the great cornerstones of the English system that triumphed against the French Knights. Weather it be the Brier/Hedge funnel at Poitiers, the caltrop/ pothole field of Crecy, or the stakes of Agincourt, you need SOMETHING to keep your missile troops from turning into heavy cavalry fodder.
And the English stakes were quite portable, two to an archer I believe.


But didn't they need a defensive battle plan and things got awry if the missile troops were under fire from cannons from beyond bow range? So the French mistake was rather that they didn't well prepare the assaults with missile troops with better missile protection like big shields or superior range.
A properly prepared cavalry assault would have succeeded in my opinion. Missile troops first hold their positions against the enemy under the cover of large shields. Behind them infantry with big shields moves in and makes holes in the defensive structures. The killing blow is cavalry in columns dashing through the holes and killing the enemy from behind.


The English system relied on defensive positions, not a defensive battle plan. At Agincourt, King Henry V was very offensive in his use of he English system. And yes, it did become "Awry" if the archers were under fire from something that they couldn't reach to fire back at. Castillon, the last battle of the HYW is a perfect example of this. French Artillery park decimates English archers, Talbot attempts to retaliate with his cavalry, promptly gets mashed by French Knights and Artillery.


I agree.
View user's profile Send private message
Jaroslav Kravcak




Location: Slovakia
Joined: 22 Apr 2006

Posts: 123

PostPosted: Sat 06 Aug, 2011 5:56 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

[quote="William P"]
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. Happy

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. Laughing Out Loud 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)
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Michael Curl




Location: Northern California, US
Joined: 06 Jan 2008

Posts: 487

PostPosted: Sat 06 Aug, 2011 8:27 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

Quote:
the rationale for braveheart is that it shows what i reckon would happen anyway if you keept charging at an unbroken pike formation
because lets be realistic if the horsement didnt swerve or baulk. and drove themselves at the pikes. theres not a lot of imagination needed to think of whats going to happen next.


My apologies, I have a knee jerk reaction to people mentioning movies to support a point.

E Pluribus Unum
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Kurt Scholz





Joined: 09 Dec 2008

Posts: 390

PostPosted: Sat 06 Aug, 2011 8:36 am    Post subject:         Reply with quote

[quote="Jaroslav Kravcak"]
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. Happy

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. Laughing Out Loud 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.
View user's profile Send private message


Display posts from previous:   
Forum Index > Off-topic Talk > Cavalry charges, help!
Page 3 of 9 Reply to topic
Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next 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 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum