Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

[SigniferOne]

Guys, please let's have civility on the forum.

[total war lover]

Oh,I forgot, Churchill is really reliable. Remember he made a personal matter of it to garantee the Polish their freedom and independence after WW2? Remember how that turned out? Oh and by the way?I never said cavalry could break a Greek phalanx,you made that up. I'm saying that horses indeed will not charge a solid line of men. So don't begin saying I said things I actually didn't say. Now shut up,or form a decent opinion,based on real facts.

[alhoon]

Guys, please let's have civility on the forum.

SO, I think you should start editing some of the posts here, just a suggestion. Or lock the thread.

[Skyn0s]

Now shut up,or form a decent opinion,based on real facts.

If you want to discuss about an opinion on history fact you must :

- Be polite
- Arguments leaning on reliable sources
- Describe clearly your opinion

In fact, this is not the case here, so please don't post another message like that, or personnaly, i will report your comportement

[total war lover]

Ok,I'll let the one guy I was arguing with start. Politely.

[David93]

Oh,I forgot, Churchill is really reliable. Remember he made a personal matter of it to garantee the Polish their freedom and independence after WW2? Remember how that turned out? Oh and by the way?I never said cavalry could break a Greek phalanx,you made that up. I'm saying that horses indeed will not charge a solid line of men. So don't begin saying I said things I actually didn't say. Now shut up,or form a decent opinion,based on real facts.

If your talking to me, im not sure what you want me to argue with you made no valid points, you just randomly claimed that a well respected man was unreliable, mentioned a greek phalanx for some reason, as iguana simply said he knew they wouldnt break a phalanx.
Then you proceeded to say shut up, failed to present a decent argument or any historical evidence that would suport you.

[SigniferOne]

Please continue the conversation but the next uncivil post will be edited out.

[Rinan]

Interesting discussion going on here. War and the like always looks nicer in Hollywood films than it actually did in grim, dark reality, eh?

Anyway, as for the cavalry charge, I suppose it would make a difference what the horse is charging at. Take the hammer-and-anvil tactic. In this case the horses aren't charging a solid mass of nasty pikes pointing towards them, but more something like a chaotic brawl of melee. Most of the enemies would have their backs to the charging horses (some might turn in time, but it certainly won't be a rank of pikes), so maybe that would frighten the horses less?

Then again, the Roman cavalry of this era wasn't really meant for massive charges, but to harass and run down routers. Not sure about the other factions.

In any case, from a gameplay point of view I would suggest working with the base TW has set. As someone else mentioned; there is more about the TW-battle system that isn't historically correct. It's just a game after all. It's not like Age of Empires gives you correct cavalry charges for that matter.

[Paaja]

Hi guys,

if you want to know more about cavalry in ancient warfare just read books of horsemen like Philip Sidnell - Warhorse or perfect detailed book Cavalry Operations In The Ancient Greek World - Robert. E Gaebel, very thoughtfull books. It give you info about practical matters, Sidnell is rider who provided insight, cause he's making experiments what's like to be horsemen in ancient style. Gaebel is more theoretician, but both are thinking! How did it work, how is possible to make it real? And not just citing some doubtful names, or opinions based on authority and citations from books. You must realize warfare is practical matter, just because you don't have positive view or evidence, that something wasn't it doesn't mean that don't exist, because if you think about it sometimes is reconstructing only possible way how to solve problem.

First of all we must get done one thing clear. There are several myths and faults in our view of the cavalry. Horse, especially warhorse is able to charge in the line to front. What all the battles in Napoleonic wars? Cavalry could ride trough and destroy the carré formation! so the cavalry arm could be very efficient, but you need trained men, horses, good tactic, not just random attack any time.

Second - we are thinking on several fragments of bones, that we know the size of old races of horses, actually we don't it is just estimation, and I think in Gaebel is citation of some archaeologist, who says: The ancient people have all kind of sizes in the horses like today! Except the heavy bat-horse. So they weren't riding the pony, it's total nonsense, you must realize, that warrior in 900-130 BC wasn't dwarf! People have standard height 170 cm, and the exceptional men have even 2 meters. 'Another argument, the horse must have carry the men, his armor and arms, that weight a lot sometimes (25-40 kg + saddle and horse armor), so he must be large, well build and tall, at least between 170 - 180 cm in wither, even more.

3)If cavalry and rider must be effective, he must control his horse perfectly, read the Xenophon books about Horsemanship and Hipparchus (Cavalry commander), what he want from recruit, that is standard for horse license in Czech Republic and I think in others countries as well. What such rider should can? Leaping the ditches, in, out, across ditches, riding from the hill or up the hill and etc.

4) That main aspect what bothers anyone, what equipment riders and horses had at that times? (I'm interested in era between 900 BC -25 AD) And now it is my research and opinions from Aristotle, Xenophon, Polybius, modern authors like Pressfield - master of epic novels, or scholars like in Assyriology Jana Pečírková, military historician Sidnell, Gaebel, Osprey military series etc. In ancient times were saddles, and probalby not just in new Assyria empire even with stirrups.

Don't be absurd people, ancient civilizations had great imagination, practical skills, like technique granulation, welding of metal, filigree, machine from Anticythera, water pumps etc. And the weren't smart enough to add stirrup for saddle? That's crazy, it's like argument about who invented the handle of pot Cause it is instinctively thing, other cultures during the times, solving similar problems and find solution. Think for once, if you want effective cavalry, you need healthy horse, and that requires certain form of horseshoe, good saddle, bits, etc. because if don't you hurt the horse! Horseshoes had tribes from central Asia, Scythians, Persians, Carthaginians armies, Spaniards. I don't see a reason why other cultures shouldn't have these equipment, of course they are exceptions like Numidians (they don't need it), Germans(they thought it is effeminate), Romans ( I think they were just stupid).

5) What leads me to conclusions, that in ancient times it was standard for Greeks, Italian tribes, Persians, Spaniards, Asiatic people to have this all equipment? Well numerous mentions in books, findings of artifacts and It is reasonable to have it, without it, you cannot have the long kontos on horseback, have the armor (without good balance which gives you saddle and stirrups, it is difference to be a Indian from north American plains, which carry only his bow and pants than be a heavy or medium cavalry with armored warrior or partially armored horse ). The cavalry were functional arm, not clumsy riders, incapable to do frontal or side attack (of course you cannot break Macedonian phalanx, maybe classical phalanx like in Tegyra 375 BC. Or we know that Xenophon writes, before you throw your javelin stand up in your saddle, can you tell me, how can you do it without stirrups? No I want to see By the way Sidnell doing this stuff, he knows it is nonsense to be armored rider on partial armored horse and strike without saddle with stirrups, you simply fall! It is possible to ride horse without stirrups, saddle, but only if you are light bowmen, otherwise it is impossible to control horse effectively and be able fight on horseback.

6) Example of efficiency of cavalry attack in times od old Greek is in Aristotle book Politics, in archaic times, cavalry charged front ad were able to break trough! Thessalian cavalry made a dog food from Spartan hoplite army, 1000 riders in the end of 6 century BC(I think year 511?), they charged frontal, numerous mentions from that times forward, that Macedonian and Thessalian cavalry aren't skirmish calvary but they charged front unlike form other Greeks, not just sides.. Like tribe of Massagete, which were fist full armored cavalry after the Assyrians. The wedge formation was in armies of Scythians, Thracians, Macedonians have it from them, Thessalians were inventors of rhomboid formations, which is excellent,were used hundreds years later in Napoleonic era, cause can effectively change ways and break trough.

In Herodotus you have passage, that in Greek-Persian war like Theban cavalry massacred hoplites in full frontal attack, or during the Ionian revolt (6 century BC) revolt, was a commander from Greek army, who knew, that Persian leader is very good rider and his horse is trained to run trough lines, kicking soldiers etc. so he prepared with his shield bearer from Caria for this and prevailed. In 4 century Theban cavalry was main part of tactical plan of battle, they attacked from sides, but were able to beat heavy infantry, or read Virtues of War Pressfield painted very lively battle scenes and what horse attack in a mass in the ranks of infantry can do....
It is really logical assume these things what I said. I hope, that some of you will think about it, and even if you don't agree, read the books, taht I mentioned in first sentence, they are easy to get...

XAIPE from your Horse lover in the middle of Europe

[Paaja]

If you really interested how can calvary operate effectively, read trough books of Jiří Kovařík, or anyone who's making seriously Napoleonic era.

http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiří_Kovařík_(spisovatel) I'm so sad, his books aren't in English, but real quality believe me, he can write explain and is not boring, rare combination.

[Earl of Snot]

I have not much knowledge about horses, so I have no idea how a real cavalry charge looked like or if a trained horse would charge into a line at all. For me, Titus Vorenus made some very good points about the behaviour of horses.

Using so called eye witness, like ancient writers, are sometimes difficult to interpret. Unfortunately we cannot eye witness it anymore, but I found some interesting videos about police horses charging (although the word "charge" is probably wrongly used here) into people, which I think is the closest we can get to a real charge.

Given that a police horseriders' intention is definitely not to kill humans, which means he slows his horse down before impact (and not even using full speed, but imagine he would), it's very interesting how both, horses and the "lineinfantry" (the protesters in this case ) behave. This fits very good to Titus Vorenus' idea of what an infantry soldier would do: making gaps, which means: break formation and we Total War players know, that's not the best thing to happen to our army .



In the next video you can even see (at 0:33 )how the first white horse knocks out the guy with the blue jacket and this time the crowd doesn't pull back that heavily. Now imagine again, horses on full battle speed, not slowed down by the rider before impact, would the horse stop by itself? Let alone the momentum? I'm not sure if the horses "expect" that the whole solid line of infantry would make gaps so they do not hesitate charging directly into it.

[Casual Tactician]

I must say Titus Vorenus contrived anecdote of "Mr. Infantryman" that just want's to "RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN RUN!!!" is fun to read, but not really proof for his claim. It seems to me that Titus' initial post is mainly composed of assumptions. There are for example no quotes from ancient sources that would confirm his point of view. The only valid arguments presented until now are the Churchill quote from Iguanaonastick's post, which contradicts Titus' assumption that...

The horse evolved to run away from things--that is how they survived, as they for the most part lack any other defensive mechanism. This is ingrained into the horse so deeply that it simply cannot be overcome. No horse--not even an enraged, trained charger--can be made to run into a solid object. It will veer off, or buck, or most likely simply stop.

Period.

...as well as the videos presented by Earl of Snot.

In the second video the sequence where one horse rams in to a pedestrian (at 0:33) apparently without any sign of reluctance or indication wanting to shy away whatsoever, is in stark contrast to Titus' claim that...

On a similar note, people do not bounce off horses, and horses do not bowl over people. Horses have no instinct to ram--they will kick and even bite, but they're not bulls (or, for that matter, an elephant, which will indeed happily charge into things).

And if you imagine in the first video the protesters to be the flank of an infantry unit or a disorderly/non-veteran light infantry line, and add 10ft+ long lances to the police troopers and think of them to be actual, trained shock cavalry --I'm pretty sure they could deliver a strong physical impact on top of the psychological threat they constitute. Wheras Titus denies cavalry the physical aspect in a charge:

Cavalry charges do not break infantry by physical impact, but by psychological impact.

.

I'm not saying that his ideas are pure invention, but that he proposes a very radical point of view without any evidence to support it other than assumptions. I mean, why should any foot soldier even think about running away from charging cavarly when he can be sure that:

No horse--not even an enraged, trained charger--can be made to run into a solid object. It will veer off, or buck, or most likely simply stop.

Period.

In an era where horses were a part of the everyday life especially soldiers ought to know that the cavalry charge (which is only a feint according to Titus) doesn't pose any threat. Which raises the concern why troopers would try that obvious feint in the first place and why they are sometimes equipped with 10ft or longer lances, although a sword or short spear would be sufficient and possibly also more practical to hunt down fleeing infantry.


This excerpt from the EBII Sauromate preview, done by a team that has many historians for that era at hand and that puts a great deal of it's effort into historical research, suggests that ancient cavalry (and thus also horses) were able to charge at infantry units, although of course not into a steadfast wall of well-trained spearmen:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Even after the lancer had appeared and risen to prominence, mounted archery appears to have remained an integral and important component of Sarmatian tactics, with even the lancers themselves carrying a bow besides their long contus sarmaticus and longswords. Similarly, finds of armor from the Sauromatian period show that the earliest Sarmatian armies already had a core of heavy cavalry which was provided by the upper classes able to afford protective gear for themselves and, sometimes, even their horses. This structure with a nucleus of heavier, aristocratic cavalry better prepared for melee surrounded by swarms of light horse archers is common to many steppe armies.

This switch towards a more direct approach needs to be correctly understood, as the battle descriptions found in the sources show that it remained firmly within the steppe traditions of mounted warfare. The sources speak abundantly of the powerful charge of the contus-wielding Sarmatians. However, those same sources also indicate that, despite outward appearances, those were not mad, potentially suicidal, actions. If faced with a solid battle line, a firm wall of spears held by men resolved to stand their ground, the seemingly wild charge would turn into an apparently equally wild retreat. Of course, more often than not, it was a feigned retreat, a maneuver no less controlled than the previous charge and designed to lure an enemy into a pursuit that had good chances to throw its formation into disorder, prevent units from providing mutual support, and that would open up chances for such maneuvers as outflanking and charges to the rear for the Sarmatians.

The shift from a harass and evade doctrine towards greater emphasis on hand-to-hand combat and shock action is not easy to date precisely. Of course, it could well have been a fairly gradual process that occurred over a substantial amount of time. Written sources suggest that the transition had not happened yet in the late second century BCE, at least in the area around the AzovSea, but that it was completed by the first decades of the first century CE. The Sarmatians that fought against the Pontic general Diophantes in the Crimea in 110 BCE are described as lightly armed and unable to stand their ground against heavier troops. In contrast, by 35 CE we find the Sarmatians eschewing mounted archery contests and instead charging headlong into Parthian cavalry. By 69 CE, the Romans dealing with Roxolani raids already have it as an established fact that their charges are very dangerous and nearly unstoppable.

Archeology provides some additional pointers on when the switch occurred. The kit of the armored lancer, consisting of scale armor, large spearhead and longsword, begins to appear in Sarmatian graves in the Volga region in the third and second centuries BCE. The troop type might have been copied from the neighboring Massagetae and Sakas. Those peoples had a tradition of armored cavalry dating back to the fifth century BCE and beyond, and Alexander’s campaigns presumably put them into contact with Macedonian Companion cavalry that were able and willing to charge home with their xysta. A terracotta from Koï-Krylgan-Kala in Uzbekistan of the fourth or early third centuries BCE shows an apparently unarmored lancer wielding a long lance and another from Khumbuz-Tepe shows an armored one on an equally protected horse. In any case, it seems clear that there were armored lancers in Transoxiana in the third century BCE and that the troop type spread from there.

.

And these quotes form Xenophon's "The Cavalry General" also mention cavarly being specially trained and the mounts being superior to normal "civilian" horses, as well as their ability to charge at an enemy -- and that in a time before the emergence of actual shock cavalry such as the Macedonian hetairoi (Companion cavalry):

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The best safeguard against failure in any attempt to enforce pursuit or conduct a retreat lies in a thorough knowledge of your horse's powers. But how is this experience to be got? Simply by paying attention to their behaviour in the peaceable manouvres of the sham fight, when there is no real enemy to intervene—how the animals come off, in fact, and what stamina they show in the various charges and retreats.

Suppose men and horses to have been taught and trained to leap trenches and scale dykes, to spring up banks, and plunge from heights without scathe, to gallop headlong at full speed adown a steep: they will tower over unpractised opponents as the birds of the air tower over creatures that crawl and walk. Their feet are case-hardened by constant training, and, when it comes to tramping over rough ground, must differ from the uninitiated as the sound man from the lame. And so again, when it comes to charging and retiring, the onward-dashing gallop, the well-skilled, timely retreat, expert knowledge of the ground and scenery will assert superiority over inexpertness like that of eyesight over blindness.

But suppose the chance should occur of entering the lists against an equal number of the enemy's cavalry, according to my judgment it were no bad plan to split the squadron into divisions, (...) and when the word of command is passed, form squadron to the front and charge the hostile ranks —a maneuver calculated, as I conceive, to bring the whole mass down upon the enemy with paralysing force, and to cause him some trouble to extricate himself.

To make these dispositions is not hard; the difficulty is to discover a body of men who will dash forward and charge an enemy as above described intelligently and loyally, with an eager spirit and unfailing courage. That is a problem for a good cavalry general to solve. I mean an officer who must be competent to so assert himself in speech or action that those under him will no longer hesitate. They will recognise of themselves that it is a good thing and a right to obey, to follow their leader, to rush to close quarters with the foe. A desire will consume them to achieve some deed of glory and renown. A capacity will be given them patiently to abide by the resolution of their souls.

Note: Notice how Xenophon mentions that the problem with a decent charge seems to be the quality of the trooper, but he doesn't mention the horse and it for example veering off at all in this context.

To turn to another matter, take the case in which you have two armeis facing one another in battle order, or a pair of fortresses belonging to rival powers, and in the space between all kinds of cavalry manouvres are enacted, wheelings and charges and retreats. Under such circumstances the custom usually is for either party after wheeling to set off at a slow pace and to gallop full speed only in the middle of the course. But now suppose that a commander, after making feint in this style, presently on wheeling quickens for the charge and quickens to retire—he will be able to hit the enemy far harder, and pull through absolutely without scathe himself most likely; through charging at full speed whilst in proximity to his own stronghold (or main body), and quickening to a gallop as he retires from the stronghold (or main body) of the enemy. If further, he could secretly contrive to leave behind four or five troopers, the bravest and best mounted of the squadron, it would give them an immense advantage in falling upon the enemy whilst wheeling to return to the charge.

.

As said before I'm not suggesting that cavarly would by all means charge head-on into dense and steadfast infantry formations or that their sole purpose was to grind infantry, but I simply don't come to the same radical conclusions as Titus. And some of his arguments are an amusing read but really oversimplifying matters. For example:

So, here you are, Mr. Infantryman. You are most likely poor and probably malnourished and exhausted. You probably carry a spear, or if you're lucky a lousy sword, and your shield is either light and small or big and heavy, and you have, oh, maybe a helmet and what is basically a padded sweater.

What about the Roman triarii and princeps, the Spartan and Theban hoplites or other infantry composed of free or wealthy men? Perhaps they don't fit into the radical contrast/idea of untrained and timid infrantry vs noble and elite heavy cavalry, that is necessary for the anecdote of the fleeing footman and thus the purely psychological impact of cavalry.
Another more reasonable explanation for infantry fleeing from charging cavalry is, that they simply knew or heard first hand that (heavy shock) cavalry does charge into static infantry formations; preferably into the flank or rear, but under favourable conditions for the cavalry also in a frontal charge. If on the other hand it was a given that horses can't engage, ram or charge at a static formation --as it's against their nature and can't be overcome by any training whatsoever, and thus no man has ever seen cavalry doing such-- why on earth would anyone want to turn their back on them, as it's also well known to virtually everyone either from personal experience or from reliable reports that the cavalry can cut down fleeing enemies in droves?
Now, if a foot soldier knows though that he can get killed both in the course of a cavalry charge and when fleeing, it makes a lot of sense for some of the soldiers --especially in the front ranks-- to run away, as the possibility of surviving might seem higher for them if the get the hell out of the possible impact zone.

And what's this supposed to be?

Cavalry manuever around infantry, cavalry scout infantry, cavalry frighten infantry, and--to use an expression familiar to anyone who has played an MMO--cavalry "kite" infantry (either by peppering them with missiles or just by causing the infantry to vainly chase them). But cavalry do not charge into infantry.

Forget everything you've seen in Hollywood and everything you've seen in games. This is really not up for debate.

Making a mere assumption without even feeling at the least inclined to back it up with a contemporary (ancient) source, exemplified by a online-gaming term and then the chutzpah to say it's not up for debate. When proposing such an extrem hypothesis one ought to at least concede that it's debatable, or?

[Roman4life]

i on hundred percent agree with paaja and casual tactition

i may not know very much about this subject but alexander allegedy used a hammer and anvil tactic which means if he pushed people onto pikes the cavalry would actually have to engage or else it would be called the anvil and flyspray as they would just run away as the cavalry all but refused to charge

i have also decided i want to throw a little basic science in here forces act on objects like a bullet or missle for example would a bullet bounce of a person because he wasnt moving no of course it wouldnt it would go through him and possibly want the preverbial seconds
a horse is unlilkey to be stoped by infantry because the kinectic energy translates to physical energy on impact which means all that stuff in hollywood where people go flying is correct to a degree as all the force off the charge Previously potentail becomes practical energy much like just before and the moment when someone is hit by a car also the ability to stop just prior to impact is not one many ancient and medieval cavalry units could afford and indeed only the most sure footed horses could stop at such a speed if it was by itself but being pushed on by the horses behind it in the dense formations would mean that front rank actually couldnt just stop and the back ranks wouldnt stop because they wouldnt see a danger
as a rule the object with a force acting on it (the horse) will be much less affected by the speed than the object unluckey enough to be in the way (the infantry)
easy example bullet and target only bullets designed to morph are likley to do so when impacting a human the human feels the most force and bulky animals like warhorses are well able to withstand the estimated force of impact on infantry and come away unscathed(if the estimated size and muscle dispostion of remains are correct that is)
just like a arrow

[LVCIVS IVNIVS BRVTVS]

I think the real problem here is that this is posted in the wrong forum O.O

This doesn't seem to be a matter for mods, but more for those over working the Total War games to take care of. It may not have been meant as inflammatory, but it certainly comes across as such. Maybe write a book on the modern perception of the historical uses of cavalry? Of course, then you're going to be debating for a long time...

[Skyn0s]

I think the real problem here is that this is posted in the wrong forum O.O

Not at all, i think it's always good to have some interesting debate, and different point of view concerning the history subjects.

Personally, i didn't participate because i hadn't the sources or the necessary knowledges to announce my feeling on the question. But for sure with all we have seen on this thread it's a base for some fixes / projects.

[Khwarezm]

"Horses are herd animals, with a clear hierarchy of rank, led by a dominant individual, usually a mare. They are also social creatures who are able to form companionship attachments to their own species and to other animals, including humans. They communicate in various ways, including vocalizations such as nickering or whinnying, mutual grooming, and body language. Many horses will become difficult to manage if they are isolated, but with training, horses can learn to accept a human as a companion, and thus be comfortable away from other horses."
Ensminger Horses and Horsemanship pp. 305–309


You can see at 1:40 that the horses are following the 4 riders. Even if they are in the water, the horses keep following them. This suggests that a horse will follow a group (like a herd). We can suggest with this knowledge that a group of charging cavalry, put close together, won't stop charging if it is close to the enemy.

Let's describe a cavalry charge with my leet skills:
If a charge starts at ~400m from the enemy, than would the horses be at top speed ~100m from the enemy. The infantry is too far away to make the horses stop. None of the horses is slowing down at this point. The horses can see the other horses running at top speed so they will continue what they are doing. The riders pursue the horses to go even faster so the horse-brain-cell is saying: "I need to freaking continue even though there are freaking idiots ahead, because all my other mates are running at high speed. Even that alpha- and gamma-male continue running and my boss doesn't pull on that rope to say that I need to slow down."
And for the people that pretend: "The horses are not stupid, they will not charge into pointy sticks". Take heed to my advice, horses are specialized to charge into pike formations.
The horses just continue doing what they are doing, running in a group towards the enemy at high speed. The cavalry continues charging (for a short time) when they are in they infantry formation (knive through butter).

Conclusion:
Horses are herd animals and will charge into infantry if they are in a group. Because of the fact that horses are aware of danger, are they not charging individual into infantry.

[k/t]

What I wanted to say though isn't that horses are rhinoceri

Rhinoceroses.

Given that a police horseriders' intention is definitely not to kill humans

I'm not so sure about that.



If there is no clear evidence of how horses behaved, can't we just reenact a cavalry charge? There are a ton of reenactors around the world. Or at least put mannequins dressed in armour in a line and charge some horses into them.

I read the charge would reach full speed only 30 m away in order to not tire the horses.

[Kabeloko]

As decent as the M2TW engine is, it might be quite tough to create the desired effects. Two things spring to mind.

1. You have a great argument but remember that it's a game and with the technology its going to be a while until someone creates AI for a PC game that will work they way you outlined. It would also have to correct infantry too, as mentioned before.

2. I believe that there are other issues to address concerning cavalry in PI. As you have seen by the time period, heavy cavalry wasn't really HEAVY per-se. Many of the cavalry units in the game ride bareback with little armour and are still way too good at melee. they can wade in and engage units of infantry head on for extended periods of time and inflict large casualties. Yes, they die now but the bonuses they gain vs infantry in prolonged melee are too great. If you want to make things balanced, fix this first. Again, as said before EB had a great set up for cavalry, pity it crashed so much...

gave u a ring pal, for remembering that this is a game and have engine limitations...
and i believe its not fair to put this in paeninsula italica forum, as its a medieval 2 issue, that no modder can solve with the sistem at hand...

[Domen123]

I have never heard a bigger bull*hit before - "cavalry do not charge"!

A "normal" horse maybe do not.

But man - that's why a good Destrier / battle horse was worth several villages in silver / gold in the Middle Ages!

These horses do charge:

1) Trained stunt horses:

http://horsefame.tripod.com/stunts.htm

Some of them would even charge into a wall in full gallop. And it is quite easy to train them to do it (use paper or cardboard "walls" to train).

2) Trained battle horses (attached thumbnails).

Moreover - a rider has:

a) sharp spurs
b) sharp curbs / bits

To force a horse to obedience.

But these (spurs and curbs / bit) might not be necessary if you trained your horse properly, that is:

a) You properly "convinced" your horse that you are superior in hierarchy
b) Your horse "trusts" you (some prefer to make their horse fear them, but trusting is better)

Like these guys:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parelli...l_Horsemanship

http://www.montyroberts.com/ab_about...endar/courses/

3) Today you will not find horses which are trained in a similar way as battle horses used to be in the past, except of maybe:

a) already mentioned stunt horses
b) horses used during corridas:



But even these are not trained in exactly the same way as horses were trained to battles in the past, of course.

[Domen123]

If there is no clear evidence of how horses behaved, can't we just reenact a cavalry charge?

There are tonnes of evidences in past sources and past accounts.

But it's not like Western douchebags would actually read a historical source from a nation which actually had a good cavalry force - not some clowns on horses.

Just joking.

But seriously - there are tonnes of accounts & sources (not only evidences like descriptions of cav. vs inf. fights and cav. vs cav. fights, also evidences like for example: horses charging into wooden obstacles like solid, thick fences and breaking them with their chests, etc.)

When it comes to reenacting - too risky for both those charging and those being charged at.

Plus actually that specific breed of horses which was most commonly used as battle horses during Middle Ages, is currently extinct.

I'm not sure how situation looks like with breeds of horses which were most commonly used as battle horses in other eras.

This becomes even more egregious when you consider that in a battle setting, the solid object the horse is moving towards is almost certainly carrying a sword or, worse, a spear or a pike--i.e., something long and pointy. A horse is not stupid--"pointy"="bad", and no horse can be made to blithely run into an object so obviously dangerous.

This is a lesson well learned by Napoleon. Time and again his cavalry attempted to charge the British infantry squares--and time and again the horses veered off at the last moment, only to be blasted to smithereens by the infantry. To paraphrase the eminent military historian John Keegan in his The Face of Battle (in which he discusses, among much else, everything I've mentioned here, and is a superb read), we often sympathize with the poor British soldiers, but really we should be pitying the French cavalry.

And here we've got a painting painted before 1630 by Pieter Snayers, showing a battle fought in 1605 (so accuracy should not be disputed):

As you can see this cavalry is just smashing an infantry unit in square formation:



This is a part of a larger picture of this battle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kirholm_1605_I.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kircholm

This is a lesson well learned by Napoleon

Napoleon wasn't even there when one of his generals ordered that charge.

Plus there were not only infantry squares, also unfavourable terrain for cavalry, due to which its formation was shattered during charge.

Throughout any ancient or medieval society, only a few could afford any kind of horse at all

Nah, another misconception.

Actually "poor quality" horses were common and cheap.

Horses--especially domesticated ones, as they are bred for sheer speed--are terribly fragile animals. Even if you managed to get your horse to charge into a person, the impact--particularly if the foe is shielded or armoured--would almost certainly cripple the horse--and kill it, since, as those of you who follow horse racing or raise horses will be all too well aware, a horse with a broken leg is a goner.

LOL.

Modern race horses are bred for sheer speed.

Battle horses (those for heavy cavalry at least) were not bred for sheer speed AT ALL - they were bred mainly for stamina & strength.

Of course best horses were such which were both fast and strong / resistant.

And not - horses are not "terribly fragile" (maybe race horses - bred for sheer speed - are, but not others) - quite contrary:

A participant of World War 1 (Eastern Front, which was mobile not trench like West) wrote this about resistance of horses to fire of even modern firearms:

"The fear of infantry was intensified by great resistance of horses to wounds. During a charge only killed horses or those which had crushed leg bones were falling immediately. Other horses, often wounded several times, even mortally, in a zeal of attack continued to run and with their entire mass - under riders or without them - were blindly bumping into the enemy, parting and trampling his lines. From distance this apparent lack of casualties of the charging unit was creating an impression of inefficiency of infantry fire. Infantry was confused enough, that most of bullets were starting to fly too high, and often in a decisive moment infantry was throwing their weapons and commencing a flight, which meant a certain annihilation for them."

And horses used by military units at that time were not even nearly as strong / resistant as those heavy, Medieval Destriers.

Definitely a human is a much more fragile "animal" than a horse.

Of course there are less (like some strength athletes, for example) and more fragile humans - the same case is with horses.