| Author |
Message |
|
Gary Teuscher
|
 Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2012 8:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | Huscarls held on their own by using exclusively axes in the centre? But still its hard to imagine in that context: they would be unshielded, packed together to resist cavalry charge, even if horses wouldnt push into them, riders could still ride paralel to them stabbing at them with their lances, or throwing javelins and if they managed to get among them, axes seem to be pretty useless from such a close range, especially for huge, sweeping cuts. How would they cause big casualties to norman riders, without suffering at least the same, or more, speaking about close combat? |
There are illustrations of Huscarls with their shields slung behind them, using an axe.
My thoughts - The Huscarls held up their shields, threw javelins, and when the Norman closed they slung the shild behind and used axes.
The axe also does not need such huge sweeping cuts to be used sucessfully - short chops would work well, even a thrust in the face with the haft could put someone out of comission.
|
|
  |
 |
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Mon 17 Sep, 2012 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If the axe is held together with strong javelins of equal length, won't you get something like the menavlion rank of Byzantine infantry?
An atgeir, supposed to be some kind of bill, just like the menavlion is a short hewing spear, might be another solution that I don't know from the tapestry, but literary sources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2012 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | | Quote: | | Huscarls held on their own by using exclusively axes in the centre? But still its hard to imagine in that context: they would be unshielded, packed together to resist cavalry charge, even if horses wouldnt push into them, riders could still ride paralel to them stabbing at them with their lances, or throwing javelins and if they managed to get among them, axes seem to be pretty useless from such a close range, especially for huge, sweeping cuts. How would they cause big casualties to norman riders, without suffering at least the same, or more, speaking about close combat? |
There are illustrations of Huscarls with their shields slung behind them, using an axe.
My thoughts - The Huscarls held up their shields, threw javelins, and when the Norman closed they slung the shild behind and used axes.
The axe also does not need such huge sweeping cuts to be used sucessfully - short chops would work well, even a thrust in the face with the haft could put someone out of comission. |
So maybe it was very loosly similar to Arrians battle order against alans with front ranks holding in tight formation, while rear ranks would throw javelins over their heads into approaching enemy cavalry?
Might I ask, if there is some indication, that there were some preprepared obstacles in the way of norman advance? How steep would Senlac hill be?
What about now looking at it from the other side? What were options of norman infantry and cavalry, when engaging saxon line?
|
|
 |
|
|
William P
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2012 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
also at the battle of gaugamela i keep hearing the idea that when alexander did that maneuver of riding along the front of his lines he hid a group of skirmishers from the cavalry that was shadowing him so that when he did that hairpin turn to curl into the persian main line, the bactrian cavalry were set upon by these light troopers.
i cant comment on how true this is though
| Kurt Scholz wrote: | If the axe is held together with strong javelins of equal length, won't you get something like the menavlion rank of Byzantine infantry?
An atgeir, supposed to be some kind of bill, just like the menavlion is a short hewing spear, might be another solution that I don't know from the tapestry, but literary sources. |
im researching the byzantine infantry now and i can tell you, the menavlion bearers didnt seem to have javelins..
thats an older outdated interperetation of the evidence.
they were heavy close quarter skirmishers,
the javelin use in the byzantine regiments fell to the akontistai aka the javelineers, these were the light mostly unarmoured javelin armed skirmishers that would be seen in battles for all of eternity like the thracian peltests etc.
the menavlion was a heavy spear, and it was their main weapon, with as far as i know, no javelin use
it was pretty damn heavy the manuals seem to suggest that it should be as thick as you can get your fingers around for most thats about 6cm diameter
the menavlion was also about 8 ft long... it was DESIGNED to be thick and solid and designed to in a sense give the hoplites of the byzantines a hardened edge,
compared to the 4m pike of byzantine regulars.
it was braced against the ground and aimed at the horses breast.
while it was a long head.. i dont think it was meant to be a halberd i.e hack and stab, , its primary purpose was bracing it to resist a shock charge by heavy cavalry that reputedly could resist a horse impact even in situations when the regular pikes were broken on saidimpact.
Lets contrast this with the daneaxe,
the one confirmed daneaxe haft length from a grave is 108cm this isnt servicable as a weapon to hold and brace it against cavalry like a menavlion i dont think.
art like the bayeux tapestry gives a possible length up to 4-5 foot. but the whole tapestry has issues with perspective so it might be longer there than it normally was
you simply cannot do that sort of menavlion stuff with such a short weapon, bracing it like a spear against the ground.
but how you face cavalry depends immensely on HOW the cavalry actually attacked..
did they charge knee to knee with lances/ spears couched under the arm or in a lunging / downward stabbing grip? or did they charge in a looser formation like mounted skirmishers riding up to the saxons, throwing spears and riding away again
.if it was the latter i could see the saxon huskarls standing in a loose formation at the front, and as the cavary approach, dodge the thrown spears, and step aside tand do a nice neat horizontal swing as the horse passes you, depending on how yyou hit the top horn of the axe will slice deep into your opponents horse.
and make it uncontrollable.
like a loose formation of men with whirling axes that were in theory a veritable meat grinder for the horses, remember these horses were expensive so to risk attacking these men who might fatally wound your horse and you not long after that, you might try and not close with the huskarls as much
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescrip..._46_1_2225 byzantine troops against cavalry
http://www.levantia.com.au/military/Fit_for_the_Task.pdf byzantine weapon dimensions
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:ST5Hd4X3BhgJ:vddb.laba.lt/fedora/get/LT-eLABa-0001:J.04~2007~ISSN_1392-5520.N_8.PG_302-309/DS.002.1.01.ARTIC+jorma+leppaaho+sword&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh81uMhpHGkAzwBxV5__W4j01cN1Pc5cMEJner_7E-WyLodizO2v7GephltA-TK9iq_5zBirvIu7kNsT1gS7N0tcSOQ_MUngIRaQdANjBQypmnBoNiwpmqTGkLmt7IhWxN-Dej5&sig=AHIEtbQ4vYNxN4k_4goI_zofQhMyAkVRvg&pli=1 daneaxe handle
|
|
|
|
|
Luka Borscak
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2012 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: | | Luka Borscak wrote: | | Anything solid I ever read about Hastings emphasizes tightness of Saxon shield wall and Norman cavalry disability to penetrate through it. So huscarls with two handed axes would maybe be incorporated as a second line behind shield and try to swing vertically over the shoulders of shield bearing man in the front rank. From time to time axeman might step outside the shieldwall to attack lonely mounted Norman but axemen would be unable to withstand the charge with axes alone without shields. And mounted Normans made a series of mounted attacks that retreated to regroup when they failed. Infantry and cavalry attacks were launched separately as far as I know. And both armies had at least 5000 men overall, exact composition not really known. |
Thats exactly what I thought and I dont know, if its correct. I also suppose Huscarls werent restrained to using two handed axes exclusively, that just like their norman counterpart, they would be able to fight with variety of weapons, as nessesity dictated, even on horseback, if needed.
Some closer details Ive found to it are, that Huscarls took their position in the centre, with fyrds mostly composing wings, could it be, that while fyrds held out utilizing shield wall, Huscarls held on their own by using exclusively axes in the centre? But still its hard to imagine in that context: they would be unshielded, packed together to resist cavalry charge, even if horses wouldnt push into them, riders could still ride paralel to them stabbing at them with their lances, or throwing javelins and if they managed to get among them, axes seem to be pretty useless from such a close range, especially for huge, sweeping cuts. How would they cause big casualties to norman riders, without suffering at least the same, or more, speaking about close combat?
There is general notion in most of what Ive read, that battle was a piece of cake for Saxons with disproportionately lower casualties before many broke to pursue fleeing enemy several times and were cut down and excuses are given everywhere about why Normans won. Wasnt it eventually, because they were fighting a long battle of atrittion, in which Saxons couldnt prevail with horsemen playing significant part in it?
Speaking about number of combatants and then especially casualty figures, are these speculative guesses, or are they backed up by some evidence? (Like number of 600-700 horses lost for normans I found somewhere as estimate without any proper mentioned source) |
I didn't find any real evidence for number. Most of it is guessing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2012 7:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| William P wrote: |
im researching the byzantine infantry now and i can tell you, the menavlion bearers didnt seem to have javelins..
thats an older outdated interperetation of the evidence.
they were heavy close quarter skirmishers,
the javelin use in the byzantine regiments fell to the akontistai aka the javelineers, these were the light mostly unarmoured javelin armed skirmishers that would be seen in battles for all of eternity like the thracian peltests etc.
the menavlion was a heavy spear, and it was their main weapon, with as far as i know, no javelin use
it was pretty damn heavy the manuals seem to suggest that it should be as thick as you can get your fingers around for most thats about 6cm diameter
the menavlion was also about 8 ft long... it was DESIGNED to be thick and solid and designed to in a sense give the hoplites of the byzantines a hardened edge,
compared to the 4m pike of byzantine regulars.
it was braced against the ground and aimed at the horses breast.
while it was a long head.. i dont think it was meant to be a halberd i.e hack and stab, , its primary purpose was bracing it to resist a shock charge by heavy cavalry that reputedly could resist a horse impact even in situations when the regular pikes were broken on saidimpact.
|
Sorry, seems like a bunch of misunderstandings. The menavlion is a hewing spear and the boar spear or the swordstaff are probably the closest relatives. The bill and atgeir suggestion was about the hewing aspect to be highlighted in an easy manner for an English audience.
I don't suggest that the menavlion was a javelin, nor that the menavlion bearers had any javelins. Byzantium had clearly separated close and ranged combat specialists then. The same is probably not true for Anglo-Saxon England.
A long axe held together with a javelin could work as support for not much more length than the axe. I took the upper limit of 1.5m or 5 feet as maximum axe length for which this combination seemed useful to me. Europe had not the same kind of horses as the Near East then. I was playing with ideas about feasibility and should not be mistaken as anything else.
We need to add the long infantry spears(still part of reconstructions?) other than the normal 8ft/2.4m spears and axes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 18 Sep, 2012 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So maybe it was very loosly similar to Arrians battle order against alans with front ranks holding in tight formation, while rear ranks would throw javelins over their heads into approaching enemy cavalry? |
Yes.
I think perhaps there are some thoughts that one has to have spears to repel a cavalry attack. But l think merely a tight unit of men with shields and some javelins from the back would be daunting to Horses I would think.
| Quote: | | Might I ask, if there is some indication, that there were some preprepared obstacles in the way of norman advance? How steep would Senlac hill be? |
Not sure. I thought I remember reading something about obstacles, but I don't remember if this was guesswork or if there was a legit primary source.
| Quote: | | What about now looking at it from the other side? What were options of norman infantry and cavalry, when engaging saxon line? |
Well, pretty much what they did, apparently flanking manuvers were not a possibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
| Posted: Wed 19 Sep, 2012 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I found one quite unteresting discussion considering at some part utilization of shield wall vs first line of Huscarls with axes:
http://netsword.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000492-3.html
Well regarding Arrians order of battle, he seemed to pack first 3 ranks together with interlocked shields and protruding javelins. while other ranks would provide huge missile support (additional 5 ranks throwing pilas, one rank of archers, one rank of horse archers, flanks secured by his own cavalry and terrain obstacles) He is also mentioned many times as quite competent cavalry commander. This order seems (at least I found it described at some spaces) very similar to phalanx a little. Why would he need so elabourate order, if two lines of men with two handed axes with some backup were enough to do the trick?
Thats pure speculation, but couldnt Huscarls be in front of actual shieldwall behind their spear points, Id say they would still be reasonably safe and covered by spears of ranks behind them, while they would actively engage especially norman infantry and fend off cavalry attempting breakthrough. Or what about them being interpersed among spearmen, they maybe wouldnt have to be so tightly packed against cavalry, that they wouldnt allow axemen covering it the interval before the impetous of charge was blunted. Still, Im somehow convinced their main fighting involved fight against norman infantry, while cavalry wouldnt dare to close so much on the whole front.
From purely speculative perspective: Do you think normans would gain their victory easier, if they dismounted all, or significant part of their cavalry to stiffen infantry assaults (maybe leaving few hundred men as mounted reserve), given all other conditions were the same?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Sep, 2012 9:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Jaroslav wrote:
| Quote: | | I found one quite unteresting discussion considering at some part utilization of shield wall vs first line of Huscarls with axes: |
Jaroslav, I found this part of the link interesting:
| Quote: | | There was only ever one recorded instance of cavalry breaking up a properly formed infantry square. It happened in Spain, and occurred when an attacking French cavalryman _and_ his horse were simultaneously killed in mid-charge, and crashed full force into the English line. The French cavalry took advantage of the breach so provided, and were able to break the square. In all other instances, these highly trained warhorses could not be persuaded to attack a hedge of bayonets, but sheered off at the last moment. |
This is kind of the way I look at these things as well, though the middle ages horses may have been a bit less uncomfortable closing for combat. Not that they would have no problem charging a block of close formation infantry - but they may have been a bit more willing.
I've said this a few other times, what IMO determined a clash between Infantry and cavalry was who "flinched" first. If the Infantry stayed in formation to meet the attack, they stood a good chance of winning. Now they could be hit over and over again as the cavalry retreated and reformed - and might eventually give way due to attrition and wavering morale.
Unfortunately, most recounts of combat to not say whether or not the infantry "flinched".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
| Posted: Thu 20 Sep, 2012 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gary Teuscher wrote: | Jaroslav wrote:
| Quote: | | I found one quite unteresting discussion considering at some part utilization of shield wall vs first line of Huscarls with axes: |
Jaroslav, I found this part of the link interesting:
| Quote: | | There was only ever one recorded instance of cavalry breaking up a properly formed infantry square. It happened in Spain, and occurred when an attacking French cavalryman _and_ his horse were simultaneously killed in mid-charge, and crashed full force into the English line. The French cavalry took advantage of the breach so provided, and were able to break the square. In all other instances, these highly trained warhorses could not be persuaded to attack a hedge of bayonets, but sheered off at the last moment. |
This is kind of the way I look at these things as well, though the middle ages horses may have been a bit less uncomfortable closing for combat. Not that they would have no problem charging a block of close formation infantry - but they may have been a bit more willing.
I've said this a few other times, what IMO determined a clash between Infantry and cavalry was who "flinched" first. If the Infantry stayed in formation to meet the attack, they stood a good chance of winning. Now they could be hit over and over again as the cavalry retreated and reformed - and might eventually give way due to attrition and wavering morale.
Unfortunately, most recounts of combat to not say whether or not the infantry "flinched". |
Im of roughly the same opinion. There are only few instances Ive found so far, where neither cavalry, not infantry ´flinched´ and Im quite interested in these. Id say the question especially for horsemen involved in different times and places could be, if they ever even considered this option of running their mount directly into someone else, be it against single enemy or whole formation.
On the other hand. it seems hugely comlex, sometimes maybe single infantryman, that would have doubted and single cavalryman and horse, that wouldnt resulted in collapse of whole formation, while sometimes (maybe most times?) these little breaches would be simply plugged, even repeatedly and noone would even bother to mention it happened in greater detail, because they didnt find it worthy of extra effort.
Would cavalry need all organized resistance to collapse before they reach target of their charge? Couldnt they handle resisting, but lets say partially digested enemy?
My current belief is, that the key to defeat cavalry charge quickly and decisely was allways firepower. (well of course, if roman javelins and others could also be thus classified) While even the best infantry could be eventually cracked open completely without it, given it is cornered and surrounded for very long time and no other reversal happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roderick Stacey
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Sep, 2012 1:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think that quote has the sides wrong, it was English Cavalry against French Infantry.
Also at Quatre Bras, the 42nd Royal Highlanders formed square, trapping Cavalry in the middle!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Sep, 2012 5:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Roderick Stacey wrote: | I think that quote has the sides wrong, it was English Cavalry against French Infantry.
Also at Quatre Bras, the 42nd Royal Highlanders formed square, trapping Cavalry in the middle! |
He propably mentioned Garcia Hernandez.
Also, could you elabourate more on 42nd Highlanders and Quatre Bras, I have found only vague information about them being attacked by cavalry suffering considerable losses. Where could I get more information about them trapping cavalry inside of the square?
I was also reviewing my Osprey books and their illustrations lately, which reminded me one occuring picture, generally depicting cavalrymen in fight against infantrymen, where horses allways seems like they were out of control, rider struggling to actually hold in the saddle, let alone attack or defend himself properly, while infantry are allways depicted being on left side of horse and being at ease out of harms way, like they havent even moved and got there. (Dont know if I can post scans on this forum, but something like this is depicted for example in Granada 1492, Armies of German peasant wars, or Polish Winged Hussars)
Id say it could be labelled as modern representation of one on one encounter of horseman and footman and riders generally seem completely incompetent to even manage their mounts.
Is it just artistic licence, or was there a dreat deal of research behind how to depict these scenes, just like most propably behind any piece of equipment in these plates?
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Fri 21 Sep, 2012 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
The evidence suggests warhorses did occasionally charge into pike blocks during the sixteenth century. You see various accounts of this - Dreux 1562 comes immediately to mind. Military manuals assume cavalry had the potential to run right into pikes. That's why pikemen braced their pikes and all that. Humphrey Barwick specifically advised targeting the horse's chest over its head in such circumstance, supposing that chest armor was both rarer and thinner. If warhorses always turned away before impact, these instructions make little sense. Now, on the other hand, the same military manuals universally consider charging prepared pikemen a bad idea by my recollection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
| Posted: Sat 22 Sep, 2012 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | The evidence suggests warhorses did occasionally charge into pike blocks during the sixteenth century. You see various accounts of this - Dreux 1562 comes immediately to mind. Military manuals assume cavalry had the potential to run right into pikes. That's why pikemen braced their pikes and all that. Humphrey Barwick specifically advised targeting the horse's chest over its head in such circumstance, supposing that chest armor was both rarer and thinner. If warhorses always turned away before impact, these instructions make little sense. Now, on the other hand, the same military manuals universally consider charging prepared pikemen a bad idea by my recollection. |
This is from battle of Aliwal (http://www.britishbattles.com/first-sikh-war/aliwal.htm)
The charge of the right wing of HM 16th Lancers is said to have been led by a Sergeant Newsome, who shouted out “Hullo boys, here goes for death or a commission.” He leapt his horse over the kneeling front rank of Sikh infantry and went to grab a Sikh colour. He was killed by 19 bayonet wounds. It is reported that the squadron managed to break into the square because Newsome’s horse was so fiery and ill-trained that it went straight through the infantry. Peacetime cavalry training had horses breaking around an infantry square which made it difficult to persuade them to do otherwise in a real battle.
Its only one incident and one remark, but could it be, that later cavalry indeed found horse well trained rather if he actively avoided collisions, or jumping over infantrymens heads and ill-trained, if he did so?
Also watching some parkour, horses sometimes jump fences almost as high as their and riders combined height, so would it be the problem to jump over heads of someone on foot, or weapons aimed against them? (I mean jump itself only, ommiting risks, that were surely many, though on the other hand it could maybe be an element of surprize.)
|
|
|
|
|
J.D. Crawford
|
| Posted: Sat 22 Sep, 2012 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I notice a lot of emphasis here on direct head-on confrontation between cavalry and infantry, but in every ancient or medieval battle I've read about where cavalry really wreaked havoc against infantry, it was either because the infantry broke formation (impetuously charging or running away) or because the cavalry got around the sides and especially behind infantry formations.
What I would really like to learn is more resources on the basics of sword play from horseback against infantry. I've read some good articles (e.g. thrusting vs. cutting at SwordForum) but they seemed to assume we already know the basics. Many of us get exposed to foot-to-foot dueling techniques but I've seen surprisingly little about medieval cavalry sworsmanship (obviously not as accessible to most of us without horses). This is kind of ironic given the emphasis of mounted combat in the medieval period.
- For example, how do you avoid loosing or snapping off a blade when performing a thrust from the back of a fast moving sword?
- Don't you loose a lot of the advantage of forward momentum when sweeping a sword downward in a forward arc?
- Conversely, an arc sweeping from the reverse direction would have maximum impact summating with the horses movement, but then if you miss how do you avoid following through to hit the horses neck/head?
- what about horse to horse swordplay (getting off topic, I know)?
- Do we have any original medieval sources on such techniques, or are we entirely reliant on techniques used in later periods toward the end of the sword's use?
Some pointers toward basic information on this would be appreciated.
|
|
 |
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
| Posted: Sat 22 Sep, 2012 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J.D. Crawford wrote: | I notice a lot of emphasis here on direct head-on confrontation between cavalry and infantry, but in every ancient or medieval battle I've read about where cavalry really wreaked havoc against infantry, it was either because the infantry broke formation (impetuously charging or running away) or because the cavalry got around the sides and especially behind infantry formations.
What I would really like to learn is more resources on the basics of sword play from horseback against infantry. I've read some good articles (e.g. thrusting vs. cutting at SwordForum) but they seemed to assume we already know the basics. Many of us get exposed to foot-to-foot dueling techniques but I've seen surprisingly little about medieval cavalry sworsmanship (obviously not as accessible to most of us without horses). This is kind of ironic given the emphasis of mounted combat in the medieval period.
- For example, how do you avoid loosing or snapping off a blade when performing a thrust from the back of a fast moving sword?
- Don't you loose a lot of the advantage of forward momentum when sweeping a sword downward in a forward arc?
- Conversely, an arc sweeping from the reverse direction would have maximum impact summating with the horses movement, but then if you miss how do you avoid following through to hit the horses neck/head?
- what about horse to horse swordplay (getting off topic, I know)?
- Do we have any original medieval sources on such techniques, or are we entirely reliant on techniques used in later periods toward the end of the sword's use?
Some pointers toward basic information on this would be appreciated. |
Actually Id say its greatly to the topic.  It was originally created to answer why there is so much less information on mounted combat in surviving manuals and emphasis is put on foot duelling and most parts on horse vs foot duels generally include advices for footman how to engage someone mounted and not vice versa. (there are some advices for horsemen against someone on foot Ive found. but very scarse, like one or few plates in Meyer)
Maybe for same reason this threat eventually once again devolved into discussion about cavalry charges in battles (but which of course is also very interesting and seemingly there is much more to say to it generally) in contrast to original emphasis on one on one and one against few and considering especially what a horseman could or would do against infantryman, that resisted.
General aim was to ask if it could be that cavalrymen had huge troubles even hold to their saddles in combat, so they generally only engaged men on foot if they already threw away their weapons and were running away, or if dense mass of men was best against horsemen, because they generally had great advantage against infantry in loose order as single horseman was at advantage against single infantryman, if given enough space to maneuver.
Also Id say its generally agreed so far, that frontal attacks against determined infantry generally wouldnt lead to their defeat.
On the other hand Id say the battles, where steady infantry wreaked havoc on cavalry without many casualties mostly involved either great firepower, or severely obstructed way of retreat for horsemen and that casualties in rout itself were disproportionately higher, than in fight itself. (Id say all the famous and notoriously cited battles, like Crecy, Courtrai, or Bannockburn would fall into this cathegory)
There are battles, in which infantry resisted several charges without doing too much damage themselves only to be broken later with the asistence of firepower. (Like Falkirk)
And that in very few examples, where cavalry engaged unbroken infantry in orderly manner and riding into them (I know of Ceresole, Dreux, Grandson at one point, maybe Kirchholm as well, from more modern examples Aliwal, Khushab, or Omdurman and maybe others for which it is not quite explicitely stated) both sides would suffer damage (though Id say in such case infantry suffer much harder and can potentially be broken by such misfortune.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kurt Scholz
|
| Posted: Sun 23 Sep, 2012 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
We could take the horse vs foot discussion a tad farther. Depending on the degree of interoperational training and nerves, cavalry vs cavalry can have advantages, including small well trained horses besting larger mounts. Just my idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
| Posted: Wed 26 Sep, 2012 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jaroslav Kravcak wrote: | | General aim was to ask if it could be that cavalrymen had huge troubles even hold to their saddles in combat, so they generally only engaged men on foot if they already threw away their weapons and were running away, or if dense mass of men was best against horsemen, because they generally had great advantage against infantry in loose order as single horseman was at advantage against single infantryman, if given enough space to maneuver. |
I'd favor the latter interpretation. While we haven't be able to produce smoking-gun evidence for the superiority of cavalry in individual or very small-scale contests, but overall dynamics of period warfare and martial discourse point this direction. Sixteenth-century military writers did claim that that relatively small numbers of cavalry could rout even giant bodies of shot and short weapons (swords, targets, halberds, partisans, etc). For example, Francois de la Noue alleged that 700-800 men-at-arms would run down 18,000 (!) unsupported arquebusiers. The experience of Spanish lancers in Mexico, though probably exaggerated in extant sources, lends empirical support to these assertions. While holding their lances, Spanish horsemen apparently broke through Amerindian formations with near impunity. (Given that the heavy lance functions a single-use weapon at least against armored cavalry, this makes me wonder what kind of lances the conquistadors used.) Anyway, sixteenth- and seventh-century combat revolved around non-pike infantry's inability to defend itself from cavalry. Cavalry typically constituted the core element in force engaged in routine raids and skirmishes. (The famous border horsemen in England/Scotland come to mind.) None of this strictly precludes a single rider from having even or sour odds against a foe on foot, but I feel it turns the notion rather unlikely.
Particularly with a lance in the picture, I suspect the mounted individual had a solid advantage against an adversary on foot. The border horse mentioned above supposedly used lances up to 18ft in length, which would be terrifying to face on foot without a pike of your own. The plates from Meyer show closing and grappling strategies could succeed, but you've got to worry about getting trampled in you ward and rush. With lance and mount, the rider completely controls the terms of engagement. That's a happy situation to be in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Thu 27 Sep, 2012 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Benjamin H. Abbott wrote: | | Anyway, sixteenth- and seventh-century combat revolved around non-pike infantry's inability to defend itself from cavalry. |
Not entirely. There was a progression whereby the infantry grew more and more competent in the use of their firearms, such that by the end of the 17th century the preferred method to hold a frontal attack by cavalry was to form a shallow line and deliver a close-range volley with the musket. The inherent weakness of this method against flanking movements led to the development of the 18th/19th-century infantry square, which was not a solid block of men but more like a shallow line with its ends wrapped around upon itself.
Even then, there were already instances in the 16th century where infantry drove off cavalry largely with their firepower (not their pikes) in small-scale skirmishes; Blaise de Monluc relates a couple of incidents from his time in the Italian Wars. It would seem that, the smaller the scale of the incident, the more the result depends on a case-by-case basis upon intangible factors like morale, experience, and leadership. (Not that these factors aren't important in massed encounters, but in small skirmishes they appear to carry overwhelming importance.)
Oh, while we're at it, there's another little-known instance of cavalry breaking solid infantry: the Battle of Khushab in 1858(?), where British cavalry initially failed to charge a well-formed Persian (though Western-trained) infantry square, but then one of the officers at the head of the charge jumped his horse over the bayonets and into the square, instantly killing the horse and severely injuring the man but creating a hole just big enough for the rest of the British cavalry unit to exploit. The lesson is that, while instances of a frontal cavalry attack breaking steady close-order infantry were the exception rather than the rule, it happened often enough that the cavalry had better try it once or twice if there was nothing better to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
This is a standard topic