| Author |
Message |
Gordon Frye
|
 Posted: Fri 08 Dec, 2006 8:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jean Thibodeau wrote: | Just making the comment above to bring up an optional use of " straw men " as an alternative to assuming that they might have been used to train horses to knockdown men. If these where even used ???  
I guess some obscure mention of using straw men exists somewhere, even if only some Victorian era or fiction based idea in origin ? I have to go back to the first few posts to remember how this subject all started.   |
Jean;
Yup, that's the big question, indeed. Where does the term "Knocking Down Straw Men" arise from?
Cheers!
Gordon
"After God, we owe our victory to our Horses"
Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada
http://www.renaissancesoldier.com/
http://historypundit.blogspot.com/
|
|
    |
 |
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 08 Dec, 2006 8:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Louis Nolan's 19th-century cavalry manual uses poles as guideposts for both slalom and straight-riding exercises, as well as for the base of the thrusting and cutting targets (the ring and the turk's head, respectively). But no straw men, and definitely no driving the horse head-on into any solid obstacles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jaroslav Kravcak
|
| Posted: Sun 18 Mar, 2012 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: | That's certainly an interesting post, Vincent. As a matter of fact, it reminds me that I've seen a glimpse of a manual describing how to train horses to charge a line of men by having it charge through the space between two wooden dummies and then reducing the space until the gap is just barely large enough to let the horse through. This comes from a 19th-century manual, however, so I'm not sure about how applicable it would be to earlier periods. And nowhere did it advise the horseman to drive the horse into the straw dummy.
As for battle accounts, Winston Churchill's account of the battle of Omdurman is worth mentioning. There, he described two squadrons of British lancers charging clearly through a loose line of Mahdist riflemen about three or four ranks deep. Neither side was broken, and the Lancers ended up dismounting on the far side of the Mahdist formation and tearing it apart with point-blank fire from their carbines. However, at one end of the line another squadron met a much deeper line of infantry (eight, ten, or twenty deep--I don't remember precisely) and was practically annihilated.
Other possible instances of cavalry breaking into infantry lines were the 16th-century battles of Ceresole and Dreux, where French gendarmes broke into the corner of pike squares and cut their way through to the other side, though they did little real damage along the way and at Ceresole they suffered horrible casualties in doing so. But then, these gendarmes were the most heavily-armored cavalry ever if we take account of both men and horses, so there might have been several unique factors in action. |
Might I ask where exactly is it mentioned and quantified that french gendarmes suffered horrific casualties, while causing little? Ive seen nothing similar, when speaking about memoirs (If my memory is correct tha battle is mentioned in memoirs of de la Noue, du Bellay, Montluc at least)- Ive read them in french maybe Ive skipped something but no mentioning of them breaking into infantry at the corner, just vague statement of gendarmes comming through them, and IIRC du Bellay mentiones that first charge was most succesfull, cost french 14 or 15 men and even routed a portion of imperial formation (charged by flank before supporting french infantry fled the battlefield). De la Noue (or Montluc Im not completely sure) mentions about 60 gentlemen dead at the end of battle.
Regarding numbers there supposedly were 200-300 gendarmes against 5000 veterans (spanish and landsknechts) and my feeling was that most of french casualties were incurred by arquebus fire while their passes through infantry would on the other hand rather cause casualties to the enemy than to themselves. (This is just speculation based on an incident from battle of Grandson where Louiss de Chalons was capable of force a way into pikes of Swiss along with few other horsemen and they killed about 30 swiss and were almost able to seize one of cantons standards IIRC it was bernese one- six or seven horsemen almost broke a formation of 10000, had they not been neutralized and situation solved) Also extrapolating from this example Id say that not all of them passed through, most would be stopped, shot to pieces, while maybe only few managed to hack their way through infantry and this feet was maybe highlited too much.
So is there any source describing what really happened in great detail, or are details of this particular part of battle rather assesments/specualtions - regarding how/where they attacked and how succesfull they really were. Have anyone counted imperial dead/wounded in this encounter? Or explained how many men at arms and in what manner managed to force their way through? (In example of battle of Grandson it supposedly was armoured horse jumping over frontal ranks of pikes creating a gap for few other men - Id say any chance of actually routing whole formation was astronomically low, when thinking about swiss, anyway soe other infantry would maybe give way because of it)
So is it possible one/few such breaches could be opened by some well mounted and armoured men and exploited by few others cutting men on their way (inflicting significant casualties in absolute numbers, but isignificant concerning the global outcome- once again example of Grandson- 6 men killing 30 in few minutes- about one tenth of casualties of swiss admitted in this battle), while substantial portion of gendarmes was held by pikemen and received fire before recoiling? Or is it stated explicitly somewhere, that most rode through infantry in line as they charged, fire had little effect and most casualties occured inside infantry?
Regarding battle of Omdurman (as it was desribed in this book: The Last Charge: The 21st Lancers and the Battle of Omdurman - it contains quite many details), about 400 lancers, whose main duties through whole campaign was rather reconnaisance would face any real resistance for the first time and it wasnt so much a charge as it was a trap- badly outnumbered by about 2800 men, most of them hidden in so called Khor (riverbed?) 4 feet deep in the middle, kneeling. Only about 200-300 men were visible from distance and their original objective was to disperse these, they didnt anticipated to meet such a resistance. Their charge swept this advance guard aside easily before they met main force of spearmen absolutely confident in their ability to annihilate them. As you said at the flanks they only faced about 4 ranks and ground was almost even- despite being unarmoured and unprepared for sucha clash and facing skilled warriors they cahrged through with only few wounded (Im not competely sure but squadrons at the franks had hardly anyone killed and few wounded and lost horses)
It was absolutely different in the middle - they were basically forced to jump directly into a hole 4 feet deep,into 12-20lines of densly packed men, into spearpoints sticking from ground piercing horses, while others were thrown from horses by sudden impact and not all managed to make it back to horseback, anyone on the ground would be cut to pieces, others were cut by two handed sword or pierces by ugly looking javelins. Pistols are described as being of best use but it was disapointment that shot enemies stood erect by the pressure from others around, swords were too weak to deflect cuts or two handed swords wielded by dervishes. But all in all many despite all setbacks in this part managed to get away.
Total toll of a charge was 21 killed and some 50 badly wounded while about 119 horses or so were lost, most in the center. Casualties of dervishes arent mentioned reliably, at least not in this book. (But theirformation were all but ruined after horsemen had passed, at least according to churchills account) They were finally routed by rifle fire of cavalry that regrouped and dismounted in their rear and were further punished by artillery fire. Actually according to this book other charge was contemplated but eventually this was abandoned.
So at least to me it was much more complex than just saying they charged and were annihilated.  They were forced into trap and most were lucky to get away with their bare life, less so for horses.
|
|
 |
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Mon 19 Mar, 2012 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
RE: Size of Middle Ages Horses
Based on horse armour and shoes, you are probably looking at a 14-14.5 HH horse during the Norman period, as big as 14.5-15 during the Later Middles ages.
Look at one of the most prized warhorses of this time - the Andalusian (Willima the Conqueror was purported to have ridden one of these) - 14-15 Hands, about 1100 pounds.
It is believed that the later Lipzzaners were simialr to late middle ages wrahorses, 14-14 Hands in height but a bit more stockly than the Andalusian, maybe 1200-1300 pounds.
Both the above breeds are considered "baroque" horses, which are of the group that were the warhorse of the middle ages. Even the mighty "Destrier" as likley no more than 15 hands and 1200-1300, being distinguished from other horses not a smuch because of size, but because of training and temprament.
| Quote: | The Baroque horse is a term used to generally describe the type of agile but strong-bodied descendants of horses in the Middle Ages such as the destrier. Specific ancestors of this type include the Neapolitan horse, and the Iberian horse of Barb ancestry known in the Middle Ages as the Spanish Jennet. They are characterized by powerful hindquarters, a muscular, arched neck, a straight or slightly convex profile, and usually a full, thick mane and tail. These horses are particularly well-suited for the haute ecole discipline of classical dressage [1]
The modern breeds included in this category include the Andalusian horse, Frederiksborger, Friesian, Ginetta, Kladruber, Knabstrupper (non-sport horse type), the Lipizzan, Lusitano, Menorquina, Murgese, and crossbreds such as the Warlander. Lipizzans are probably the best known of the Baroque type breeds due to their national showcase at the Spanish Riding School in Vienna, Austria. |
European Warhorses were a mixture of Hot (Arabian, Barb, Akhal Teke, some ponies) and Cold blood, considered "warm bloods". They were bred for agility and speed as well as strength. The plodding middle ages Percheron was not at all like the Draft horse you see today, it's size coming from being bred the past for hundered years for draught.
Actually, there were probably not even any of the large drafts you see around today back then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ralph Grinly
|
| Posted: Mon 19 Mar, 2012 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
|
Some very interesting observations have been made in this thread, much food for thought. Maybe I'm labouring under a misconception over the distinction between light and heavy cavalry. I was always under the impression that the *primary* LC role was scouting, skirmishing and pursuit of broken enemy, where as the *primary * role of the Heavy Cavalry was attacking the enemies Heavy Cavalry..not their infantry ? And during the middle ages and renaissance the role of the Knights was much the same..attacking other mounted combatants, not infantry ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Teuscher
|
| Posted: Tue 20 Mar, 2012 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I was always under the impression that the *primary* LC role was scouting, skirmishing and pursuit of broken enemy, where as the *primary * role of the Heavy Cavalry was attacking the enemies Heavy Cavalry..not their infantry ? And during the middle ages and renaissance the role of the Knights was much the same..attacking other mounted combatants, not infantry ? |
Fairly accurate, other than Heavies were melee cavalry and could go against any opponent.
In classical Alexandrian concepts, yes, the Heavies defeat the other heavies then turn to hit infantry in the flanks. But the battlefield as far to varied to allow that all the time. If if your opponent is primarily infantry, what do you do then?
The debate seems to be mostly how effective heavy cavalry were in frontal assaults against infantry that holds their ground. I am one that thinks if infantry hold their ground for a few minutes and do not route during either the initial clash or the first few minutes of melee combat, they have a great advantage, though I am assuming similar morale and armour for the infantry.
I'd be careful though to when classifying cavalry strictly as heavies and lights, some could perfrom both roles with some degree of ability. At least it counds like you are classifying them in a tactical sense, not an armour sense.
There were Turkic horse archers that wore fairly complete mail, but who tactically performed as lights - and close order unarmoured or not well armoured cavalry that performed as Heavy Cavalry (I'm thinking of the unarmoured ostrogothic retainers that performed as shock cavalry).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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