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

[Domen123]

1. but once the cavalry on the roman side was defeated the Parthians continued to undermine morale, it was only when everyone could see the end of morale on the roman side that there was a charge. Carrhae might not be the best example because of the numbers involved, but that appears to have been the never ending constant in Parthian and Persian tactics, the support would always be used and was always an essential part of any victory.

Let's use the same argument as Razor used regarding anti-cavalry obstacles:

Undermining morale was used because it was useful. Anything useful to hamper the enemy in any way would be used. That doesn't inherently mean that cataphracts couldn't just charge on the first day and completely smash the Romans.

But if you have a lot of time and you are not in a hurry, why not to undermine enemy morale a bit before delivering the final blow?

Especially that fighting against demoralized enemy you will most likely suffer smaller casualties than fighting enemy in good shape.

BTW - I think that Parthian arrows were undermining not only enemy morale, also enemy numbers - to some extent at least.

The intention of British Cavalry wasn't to ram a horse into a human either, I got lazy looking for a documentary on old cavalry so I just took a clip from the movie warhorse, it is very interesting that the horses never touch anything.Here is a very accurate clip from the movie warhorse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9pk...eature=related

As you could see the training is clearly to keep your horse safe and put your sword into a german not ram a horse into a german.

This is a movie, not real life.

And Taras Bulba movie is not even based on real events, but purely fictional.

tanks can also break down when not fighting, but then they have all the time to repair it, wheras during a battle, you'd rather run away from a tank.

Tanks never operate alone. And I have read about examples of repairing tanks in the heat of battle - other tanks helped (protecting the broken one / covering with fire and with their own "bodies").

That is also the description of the Don Cossacks followin Borodino. There are no accounts of the Cossacks coming in the night and trampling, the deaths are caused by swords and spears.

It is very similar to the depiction of cossacks in Taras Bulba and Admiral (which in turn is based on accounts of how Cossacks attacked Napoleon's army).

This one is documentary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDFPiF3xXCQ

Sorry if I am beating a dead horse (no pun intended) but the sabre and the lance or in hussars case pike seems to be the killer to me, the horse doesn't seem to hit anyone, the obstacle courses british cavalry trained on appear to be designed to teach riders to avoid putting their horse in danger while teaching them to slash their enemies head with a sabre.

Sorry if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but the training for cavalry appears to be based on getting close enough to slash your enemies quickly, and use of shock to kill quickly. The greatest cavalry leader of all time (Hannibal) never sent horse cavalry into a frontal assault, there is a reason. Cavalry could defeat Legionaries, but they had to be used wisely.

1. What you write all refers to light cavalry - not to heavy cavalry.

2. British / English never really had good cavalry.

3. I watched both videos but somehow didn't see anything which would support your claims.

Cavalrymen were also usually of higher social status, like the nobility and others that could afford a horse.

Almost everyone could afford a horse in the Middle Ages - even a peasant.

But not everyone could afford a combat horse. And they were so expensive FOR A REASON.

For example in 1302 Robert II, count of Artois, bought 5 "great combat horses" for 280 livres each (on average), 2 "cart-horses" for 50 livres each, one "fast horse" for 60 livres, 14 "nags" for 34 livres each and 3 "small horses" for 12 livres each.

As you can see one "great horse" was worth as much as 5 "fast horses", 6 "cart-horses", 8 "nags" and 23 "small horses".

Nobody would buy such expensive horses if they were going to die in the first battle. Those horses had to be resistant to wounds.

In 1277 Florence hired some mercenary knights - among conditions of the contract was that each of them should have a horse worth at least 30 livres (which was equal to amount of money they would receive for 133 days of service).

In 1222 Venice required every knight from Crete to have a horse worth at least 75 livres as well as 2 squires.

King of England Edward I in 1282 found out that there are no any "big horses capable of military service" in England. After that he ordered all of his subjects who owned lands bringing at least 30 pounds sterlings of income, to buy at least one "strong horse, capable of military service, with proper armament."

===============================================

Another example - according to Starowolski, "Eques Polonus" (written in 1628) prices of horses used by Polish Winged Hussars were between 200 (the poorest soldiers) and 1000 - 1500 (the richest soldiers) ducats (1 ducat was equivalent to 44,55 g of silver in 1628).

By comparison in the same time (1626 - 1629) in the Polish city of Lwow (today Lviv, Ukraine) you could buy an ox for less than 3,5 ducats (152,5 g of silver).

In other words, 1 horse of a Polish Winged Hussar was worth as much as between 58 and 438 oxen:

x between 29 and 219 =

The greatest cavalry leader of all time (Hannibal)

Hannibal was by no means the greatest cavalry leader of all time.

Even Alexander the Great made better use of his cavalry (well, he also had much better cavalry) than Hannibal.

[TheNasoRomaLost]

Let's use the same argument as Razor used regarding anti-cavalry obstacles:

Undermining morale was used because it was useful. Anything useful to hamper the enemy in any way would be used. That doesn't inherently mean that cataphracts couldn't just charge on the first day and completely smash the Romans.

But if you have a lot of time and you are not in a hurry, why not to undermine enemy morale a bit before delivering the final blow?

Especially that fighting against demoralized enemy you will most likely suffer smaller casualties than fighting enemy in good shape.

BTW - I think that Parthian arrows were undermining not only enemy morale, also enemy numbers - to some extent at least.

This is a movie, not real life.

And Taras Bulba movie is not even based on real events, but purely fictional.

1. What you write all refers to light cavalry - not to heavy cavalry.

2. British / English never really had good cavalry.

3. I watched both videos but somehow didn't see anything which would support your claims.

Hannibal was by no means the greatest cavalry leader of all time.

Even Alexander the Great made better use of his cavalry (well, he also had much better cavalry) than Hannibal.

1. I shouldn't have stated my opinion on Hannibal as fact, but Alexander didn't use frontal assault either his battles also involved a great deal of flexibility. The reason I called Hannibal the greatest cavalry general of all time is because all of his victories were because of cavalry.

2. On the first point, the reason is because of the risk of rain, unlikely in that area but possible. The longer a battle goes on the more likely the unexpected will happen. Granted rain is unlikely in the desert but could the same be said of Gaul? The Gauls didn't charge their cavalry into a frontal assault either. I agree Parthian arrows did kill some Romans, but not too many. The Testudo is overrated but I think the main killer was the charge.

3. They both support what I said, the videos are of cavalry training and the training involves the horse not hitting the target, while the cavalry trainee slashes at something resembling an enemy head.

4. British cavalry was looked down on but it delivered great results on a regular basis. Remember the charge of British Cavalry saving the day at Waterloo?

5. I'm not saying your wrong I'm just looking for more persuasion because evidence I have seen has always suggested that cavalry would hit with their lances or slash with swords, not ram the enemy with horses. Yes some of what I used was movies, but I used them because I thought they were very realistic. It just seems a tough sell that the horse was supposed to ram into the human when the training obstacles taught riders to slash at the enemy instead.

[Domen123]

the videos are of cavalry training and the training involves the horse not hitting the target

Where is it explicitly said in these videos ???

In the first video we can see just a typical cavalry training of accuracy in using melee weapons.

The Winged Hussars did similar exercises with their long lances - targetting a small ring with their lance while charging at full speed:

This photo shows modern reenactment of such kind of training:



However, I don't see how this type of training indicates that they were trained to "avoid hitting the target" with their horses?

because evidence I have seen has always suggested that cavalry would hit with their lances or slash with swords, not ram the enemy with horses.

It just seems a tough sell that the horse was supposed to ram into the human when the training obstacles taught riders to slash at the enemy instead.

Of course they would hit with lances and slash with swords.

But when you charge a dense line of infantry you will slash one infantryman with sword and ram the one standing next to him with horse.

That's quite obvious.

2. Didn't hussars have their horses jump over obstacles? Didn't the Hussars also have spears that should be classified as pikes?

I'm not sure about which Hussars you write - Hussars light cavalry or Hussars heavy cavalry (Polish-Lithuanian Hussars).

Polish Winged Hussars surely were trained to both jumb over obstacles, but also to ram obstacles with their horses.

They are credited with ramming things like solid wooden fences using simply chests of their horses in several battles.

If a horse had no problem with ramming a solid wooden fence, I'm sure it had no problem with ramming a man.

Of course cavalry can also jump over obstacles.

================================================

Yes some of what I used was movies, but I used them because I thought they were very realistic.

There is no war movie which is "very realistic", to be honest. Regardless of what kind of warfare it shows (modern, Medieval, WW2, WW1, ancient, etc.).

Movies are usually more "effective" (especially more bloody in terms of casualties per second and how many hectolitres of blood are shed each second) than real war, because of course you need attention of public to earn money from your movie. On the other hand, they are less realistic in many aspects because you simply can't accurately show these aspects without endangering lives of actors (both human and animal actors).

Of course computer technique is what can help. But it also doesn't solve all the problems.

4. British cavalry was looked down on but it delivered great results on a regular basis. Remember the charge of British Cavalry saving the day at Waterloo?

Yes I do. I was thinking rather of older times - Middle Ages and Early Modern Era. When warfare was more similar to Ancient times than in 19th century.

The Gauls didn't charge their cavalry into a frontal assault either.

How do you know it?

Anyway - regardless from which side you charge - frontal assault, flanking assault, rear assault, etc. - it always will involve some ramming.

If you want to hit enemy line - no matter from behind, from the flank or from the front - you will have to hit (i.e. ram).

but Alexander didn't use frontal assault either his battles also involved a great deal of flexibility.

He did use frontal assault as well as flanking assault.

There is no flanking assault which is efficient without a frontal assault.

If you want to flank some unit or attack it from the rear, you have to engage it from the front first.

In other words - anvil will never be efficient without a hammer. That's why its "hammer and anvil" tactics - not "anvil tactics"...

2. On the first point, the reason is because of the risk of rain, unlikely in that area but possible.

As long as they had sunny weather they could use their horse archers.

Archers are not efficient during heavy rain so it was one more reason to use archers as long as it was possible.

And when it would start to rain, they would stop using archers and charge. But it didn't so they used archers for several days.

[Artorath]

...this thread made a rather enjoyable read, going from an emphatic and controversial thesis, to a decisive counter-argument, then devolving into mildly related and minor debates given the already strong evidence presented.

In summary, my humble opinion:

CAVALRY DID CHARGE!

Tenses people, they were important.

Also, well done modders on the mod.

[kaesonius]

yea, I agree. well done so far! it's an amazing mod in a great time period. As for the cavalry, I personally find that they are still pretty strong vs any kind of ground troop. If spearmen or two handed weapons are getting an anti cavalry bonus, its not big enough. Is there something that can be done about tweaking cavalry strength or bonuses of certain ground troops vs them?

[TheNasoRomaLost]

Where is it explicitly said in these videos ???

In the first video we can see just a typical cavalry training of accuracy in using melee weapons.

The Winged Hussars did similar exercises with their long lances - targetting a small ring with their lance while charging at full speed:

This photo shows modern reenactment of such kind of training:



However, I don't see how this type of training indicates that they were trained to "avoid hitting the target" with their horses?

Of course they would hit with lances and slash with swords.

But when you charge a dense line of infantry you will slash one infantryman with sword and ram the one standing next to him with horse.

That's quite obvious.

I'm not sure about which Hussars you write - Hussars light cavalry or Hussars heavy cavalry (Polish-Lithuanian Hussars).

Polish Winged Hussars surely were trained to both jumb over obstacles, but also to ram obstacles with their horses.

They are credited with ramming things like solid wooden fences using simply chests of their horses in several battles.

If a horse had no problem with ramming a solid wooden fence, I'm sure it had no problem with ramming a man.

Of course cavalry can also jump over obstacles.

================================================

There is no war movie which is "very realistic", to be honest. Regardless of what kind of warfare it shows (modern, Medieval, WW2, WW1, ancient, etc.).

Movies are usually more "effective" (especially more bloody in terms of casualties per second and how many hectolitres of blood are shed each second) than real war, because of course you need attention of public to earn money from your movie. On the other hand, they are less realistic in many aspects because you simply can't accurately show these aspects without endangering lives of actors (both human and animal actors).

Of course computer technique is what can help. But it also doesn't solve all the problems.

Yes I do. I was thinking rather of older times - Middle Ages and Early Modern Era. When warfare was more similar to Ancient times than in 19th century.

How do you know it?

Anyway - regardless from which side you charge - frontal assault, flanking assault, rear assault, etc. - it always will involve some ramming.

If you want to hit enemy line - no matter from behind, from the flank or from the front - you will have to hit (i.e. ram).

He did use frontal assault as well as flanking assault.

There is no flanking assault which is efficient without a frontal assault.

If you want to flank some unit or attack it from the rear, you have to engage it from the front first.

In other words - anvil will never be efficient without a hammer. That's why its "hammer and anvil" tactics - not "anvil tactics"...

As long as they had sunny weather they could use their horse archers.

Archers are not efficient during heavy rain so it was one more reason to use archers as long as it was possible.

And when it would start to rain, they would stop using archers and charge. But it didn't so they used archers for several days.

Sorry it took me so long to respond, I started on the Peninsula Italica II mod for RTW and Brytenwalda mod for Warband and between them my free computer time has been eaten up so I understand if your through answering my questions.

1. The picture you brought seems to reinforce my comment on the training, the Hussar isn't charging into the enemy either. My impression of cavalry is their initial charge would cause very heavy casualties causing the rest to flee.

Your arguments have been persuasive that a horse could be through intense training be made to go against it's evolution, but that one point about the training seems to indicate to me that actually ramming the horse into the man wasn't intended, and that infantry usually fled after the slashing and stabbing started, I could be wrong of course.

[Domen123]

BTW - I have found an interesting 15th century sculpture (made in Italy) of a heavy combat horse:





Can you see this "mass"? This animal is 90% muscles. And is very big. And is fast (despite looking ponderous - like Grizzly Bears).

This horse's body weight is probably around 1 tonne (late Medieval combat horses often weighed 800 - 1200 kg - today you don't see so heavy horses).

When you are hit by such thing charging at full speed, it is like being hit by a passenger car driving at maximum allowed speed for built-up area.

======================================

In a car crash of pedestrian vs car, when a car moves 60 km/h, a pedestrian has only 15% chance of surviving and even if he survives, he usually becomes a permanently disabled person. If a car rides 50 km/h, a pedestrian has some 40% chance of surviving, but even if he survives he is usually disabled.

The chance of surviving of a pedestrian depends on the speed and weight of the car (on its kinetic energy, which is Ek = 1/2 * m * v2). Now take into consideration, that for example Fiat Seicento weights ca. 750 kilogrammes. Vast majority of passenger cars don't weight more than 1,5 tonne.

Kinetic energy of a Seicento driving 60 km/h is about 104,17 kJ.

The average weight of combat horses in late medieval was something between 800 and 1200 kilogrammes. Their maximum speed during charge (so in the moment of striking enemy lines) was some 45 - 50 km/h. This is not the end of the whole story, because we must also add the weight of a knight and his armour to this (and horse's armour if it had any). Knights armour's weight (full plate armour) was usually between 25 and 55 kilogrammes. The knight himself could weight - let's say - some 80 - 90 kg. If the horse was also armoured, then its weight was also bigger than 800 - 1200 kg (after adding the armour's weight).

To summ up - let's assume that a horse + knight's weight was some 1300 kg and they were riding some 50 km/h. Now we can count what was their kinetic energy - my result is 125,36 kJ. Even if a horse + knight weight is 1200 kg and their speed 45 km/h, their kinetic energy is still 93,75 kJ (which is not much less than 104,17 kJ).

To summ up - heavily armoured medieval knights could achieve bigger kinetic energy than modern Fiat Seicento moving 60 km/h. And a modern Fiat Seicento moving 60 km/h kills 85% of people if there is a crash, and vast majority of the remaining 15% are becoming permanently disabled.

Fiat Seicento kills by simple power of crush - without any additional weapons (like long lances). Medieval heavy cavalry had bigger power of crush and moreover it also had dangerous weapons (like lances as well as close-combat weapons like Zweihander seen in the sculpture above).

Also let's think a bit - let's say that we have a Fiat Seicento driving 60 km/h on one side and several lines of medieval troops on the opposite side. How do you think - would several lines of medieval infantry be able to stop a Fiat Seicento (which has lower kinetic energy than Medieval knight) or not?

That's why I think that cavalry vs infantry in Vanilla M2TW is not powerful enough. During frontal charges cavalry often stops after crushing maybe one or maybe two lines of enemy infantry. Imagine a Fiat Seicento moving 60 km/h and being stopped by a single or double line of people...

=======================================================

And here another 15th century sculpture of a horse:



Photo of a mid-15th century horse armour:



Source for all these 4 images posted above:

http://hipologia.pl/news/show/id/73/lang/pl/page/13

[Domen123]

that a horse could be through intense training be made to go against it's evolution

Through intense training and trogh intense & controlled breeding as well.

Let me remind you that a wolf:



Was definitely made to go against it's evolution:



Through intense training & breeding.

[Skyn0s]

That's why I think that cavalry vs infantry in Vanilla M2TW is not powerful enough. During frontal charges cavalry often stops after crushing maybe one or maybe two lines of enemy infantry. Imagine a Fiat Seicento moving 60 km/h and being stopped by a single or double line of people...

After a good read, i think you didn't take the fact that the horses are animals. Of course they have a powerful capacity during charge, due to their weight and their speed during the charge, as you said, but they still animals and have probably some comprehensible reaction front of the danger.
Now i have read an interesting article concerning this subject in Ancient Warfare magazine, and will post it soon as i can use my scanner .

Skyn0s

[Domen123]

Different animals act differently in front of the danger. And also under different circumstances they act differently.

This refers even to wild animals - reactions of various species are different in case of confrontation (for example bears & lions)

And you can influence reactions of domesticated (and also wild - see circus) animals via training & selection in breeding.

Have you ever been to circus ???

By the way - what I wrote is not theory. Sources confirm that horses could charge directly into "solid objects" and did it on numerous occasions.

Now i have read an interesting article concerning this subject in Ancient Warfare magazine, and will post it soon as i can use my scanner

I will eagerly read this.

But when it coms to Ancient Warfare - before stirrups were invented, it was a bit more difficult for the rider to charge than for post-stirrup cavalry. Of course it was all the matter of training. But definitely it is harder to keep yourself in the saddle (i.e. to not fall on the ground from your horse) in battle without stirrups.

Especially when you use 2 hands in combat, stirrups are very useful in keeping you on your horse / in your saddle and preventing from falling out.

After a good read, i think you didn't take the fact that the horses are animals.

And it seems that you don't take the fact that humans / people - technically - are also animals (yet Darwin confirmed this).

Yet throughout ages they were / are able to go to war and kill each other mercilessly, and even to show acts of so called bravery at war (despite the existence of a psychological evolutional barrier which tells everyone of us: "don't expose yourself / your life to danger!").

Someone said (one of Ancient guys, don't remember exactly who):

"Few people are born brave - many become so through training and force of discipline".

The same refers to animals.

[Skyn0s]

Different animals act differently in front of the danger. And also under different circumstances they act differently.

This refers even to wild animals - reactions of various species are different in case of confrontation (for example bears & lions)

I'm totally agree with you, for example the elephants were a species for who the reaction were quite uncontrollable.

And you can influence reactions of domesticated (and also wild - see circus) animals via training & selection in breeding.

Have you ever been to circus ???

Yeah i've been to circus, and like you have said, you can influence the reactions of domesticated animals, and i would add the precisions that you couldn't determined them. Like you have probably seen, even the better tamer dread the reaction of his animals, that he has trained, and he's never sure of their reactions.

By the way - what I wrote is not theory. Sources confirm that horses could charge directly into "solid objects" and did it on numerous occasions.

Of course i will not have take you seriously if it was not the case, concerning the sources.
"Horses could charge directly into solid objects", of course they can, but wasn't it be suicidal for them ? even for the horseman ?
In a tactical way it's always a danger to make a charge in front of the ennemy, because of the formations that can adopt the adversary. Of course it depends of the situation, but in a general view, it would have been to dangerous for the cavalry to charge in front of the enemy, and preferable to wait a moment of disorganization, to be decisional.

I will eagerly read this.

But when it coms to Ancient Warfare - before stirrups were invented, it was a bit more difficult for the rider to charge than for post-stirrup cavalry. Of course it was all the matter of training. But definitely it is harder to keep yourself in the saddle (i.e. to not fall on the ground from your horse) in battle without stirrups.

Especially when you use 2 hands in combat, stirrups are very useful in keeping you on your horse / in your saddle and preventing from falling out.

There it is the link of what i have compiled for you, i haven't copy the entire article, because of the copyright on the magazine .

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

And it seems that you don't take the fact that humans / people - technically - are also animals (yet Darwin confirmed this).

Yet throughout ages they were / are able to go to war and kill each other mercilessly, and even to show acts of so called bravery at war (despite the existence of a psychological evolutional barrier which tells everyone of us: "don't expose yourself / your life to danger!").

Of course we are animals, but we have build, even during the ancient periods, societies, and that is the fact that make the difference with the others animals. We have conscience, in a general way, of the danger, and of our capacities.
The animals even if their weir influenced by training have an instinct, that the humans can ignore this instinct, if the situation require this type of sacrifice.

Someone said (one of Ancient guys, don't remember exactly who):

"Few people are born brave - many become so through training and force of discipline".

The same refers to animals.

You are probably talking about Vegetius who said this sentence, but don't really understand what is the link with our subject, except the fact that discipline is a military form that can be understanding differently as you speak about human forces or animals forces .

[Domen123]

Of course we are animals, but we have build, even during the ancient periods, societies, and that is the fact that make the difference with the others animals.

Some other animals have also built societies - like Primates, for example chimpanzees. But not only Primates.

"Horses could charge directly into solid objects", of course they can, but wasn't it be suicidal for them ? even for the horseman ?

Why suicidal? For a car driver it is not suicidal to smash a pedestrian so why should it be for a horse rider?

BTW - war as such is "sucidal" in a sense. Two bodies of infantry charging against each other is also "suicidal" in a sense.

There it is the link of what i have compiled for you, i haven't copy the entire article, because of the copyright on the magazine

So this actually confirms my point fully - in each case at least the first 4 ranks of infantry (and in some cases all ranks) are smashed by cavalry.

But please note that in their model the horse is only 330 kg heavy (and its speed is only 40 km/h). And they also wrote:

"The mass of horse and rider is deliberately slightly underestimated, as we do not have reliable data on the size of horses used by Roman cavalry."

While as I wrote before, late Medieval combat horses were often even 800 - 1200 kg heavy.

And 330 kg is surely way too low (not "slightly") for Roman horses (even though they were certainly not as heavy as late Medieval ones).

500 - 600+ kg would be more realistic for Roman horses. Even nowadays an average adult horse is 550 - 650 kg heavy, according to this website:

http://zapytaj.onet.pl/Category/010,...azy_kon__.html

330 kg is a normal weight but for a pony - not for a horse!!! I don't think that Roman cavalry used ponies in battles...

So actually this model suffers from serious bias - too small mass and speed of horse compared to mass & speed of real combat horses.

Thus kinetic energy of a charging horse from their model is not as large as kinetic energy of a real charging horse (especially Medieval one).

Heavier and faster horse would inflict even more damage (i.e. smash more ranks of foot soldiers) than horse from their model.

it would have been to dangerous for the cavalry to charge in front of the enemy

Definitely not more dangerous than it is for the infantry to charge in front of the enemy.

We have conscience, in a general way, of the danger, and of our capacities.

Some scientists would say that conscience is an illusion created by our brain in order to make us feel comfortable.

Also - there is no proof that animals do not have some sort of conscience, similar to ours. And I don't think it is possible to check.

The animals even if their weir influenced by training have an instinct, that the humans can ignore this instinct, if the situation require this type of sacrifice.

No, you are wrong.

Humans - in vast majority of situations - cannot "just ignore" their instinct. Recently on "Costa Concordia" almost noone was able to ignore their instinct - there was widespread panic, disorder and chaos as witnesses testify. Everyone was just trying to save their own lifes, including the captain Francesco Skettino.

Very few of us - humans - have features which predestine them to potentially become so called "heroes". Most of us would just become panic-stricken in a difficult, life-threatening situation - even though everyone claims, and is convinced, that he / she would surely behave like hero in such situation.

In December 1941 at the gates of Moscow Russians deployed NKVD units behind regular army units - to kill everyone who would try a step back.

Of course you can learn how to ignore your instinct in certain situations - this is called training and / or discipline.

Animals can be trained / disciplined in a similar way.

And this is what Vegetius wrote, when he wrote that few men are born brave, but many can become so through training and force of discipline.

Also - when you are familiar with some sort of situation, you will act differently than when you encounter such situation for the first time. If someone had the misfortune to experience some sort of accident, they will probably not panic next time when a very similar accident happens to them.

The same refers to animals - a horse which already fought in 15 battles would react differently than a horse used in combat for the 1st time.

Of course you can also train a horse how to behave in battle, by exposing it to simulations of battle conditions, during training. And by other methods.

This works similar when it comes to soldiers - you don't train soldiers in real battles. You train them in "fake battles", various simulations, and such.

[Domen123]

http://zapytaj.onet.pl/Category/010,...azy_kon__.html

What they write there about mass of modern horses is:

pony: 100 - 400 kg
normal horse: 500 (one user wrote that his particular horse is 465 kg) - 650 kg
sport horse: ca. 600 kg
large working horse / cold-blooded horse: 600 - 1000 - even 1500 kg

And late Medieval combat horses (those used by heavy cavalry) as I wrote: 800 - 1200 kg.

So I don't think that Roman battle horses were just 330 kg, like they assumed in that model.

[Skyn0s]

I think it's a little bit complicated to take a few exemples of our time to explain a concept into the ancient warfare. What means something to us, and whatever what we are talking about, probably was different in the past, because of the culture, the ideology, and others things that a simple post wouldn't be sufficient to quoted.

Concerning the conscience of the danger, i haven't spoke about death, so it wasn't my intention to say tha :" in front of the death "nobody react"".
I wanted to say that a veteran or somebody who is trained for that, have the capacity to ignore the danger, in a sense of "heroism". An animal wouldn't have such an emotion as "heroism" don't you think ? It's more like courage concerning an animal as a horse.

Why suicidal? For a car driver it is not suicidal to smash a pedestrian so why should it be for a horse rider?

What are you talking about ?
For a horse rider who charge front of an infantry, it would have been suicidal in a sense of the power balances against a unit well prepared, as the manipular organization of the roman army.
As an exemple Hannibal don't take the risk to let his numidians charge the roman army at Cannes, but make the choice to let them been in contact with his infantry, before make a charge behind them

Definitely not more dangerous than it is for the infantry to charge in front of the enemy.

That isn't the point, the cavalry was composed at the ancient period, about the elite of the society, and in a more "professional" army, the elite of the army. Certain society as the numidians, or the sarmates, even the germans, were well known for the quality of their cavalry, but it wasn't the tactic at all to charge in front of the ennemy ; harass or chase the infantry, respond to the opposed cavalry, that were their fonctions. (the sarmate can be a real exception to this hypothese )


Concerning the mass of the horses, i haven't such knowledges on the subject to discuss with you about the veracity of the theory that i presented you. I just shared it with you, and as you can see, we can make other theory with a more appropriate (on what Ancient sources our hypothese would have his base ?) mass for the horses.

The animals even if their weir influenced by training have an instinct, that the humans can ignore this instinct, if the situation require this type of sacrifice.

No, you are wrong.

Of course you can learn how to ignore your instinct in certain situations - this is called training and / or discipline.
Animals can be trained / disciplined in a similar way.

Agree with the humans, but i continue to think that the animals can't be trained, or really disciplined to ignore their instincts. But as you said, probably, i was wrong when i said that the humans are able to ^^


Our discussion is interesting, i tried to argue (with the difference of language it's difficult to find the appropriate words in all the situations) about your point of view, in purpose to present my opinion, and hope that it make the debate more intense

[Domen123]

BTW - what about scythed chariots?

Will you also claim that scythed chariots were not designed to charge into enemy lines? (so why they had scythes?).

And what animals towed scythed chariots? Maybe those were elephants, not horses?

That isn't the point, the cavalry was composed at the ancient period, about the elite of the society, and in a more "professional" army, the elite of the army. Certain society as the numidians, or the sarmates, even the germans, were well known for the quality of their cavalry, but it wasn't the tactic at all to charge in front of the ennemy ; harass or chase the infantry, respond to the opposed cavalry, that were their fonctions. (the sarmate can be a real exception to this hypothese )

So you claim that they didn't charge because they were elite of the society and they preferred not to risk their lifes - but leave this for peasants & plebs?

What about their fighting spirit, patriotism, and such - they had no of this at all?

And actually - not only Sarmates as you claim, but also Germanic cavalry certainly charged into the enemy frontally.

Even Numidians did it - as I already wrote in this thread (apparently you haven't read the entire thread! - confess!!! ) - I will quote this again:

Check post #57:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...9#post10823709

Gaius Sallustius Crispus' account of the Jugurthine war.

While describing the battle at the outskirts of Zama (a much later one, against Jugurtha) in 108 B.C., Sallustius (59.) writes:

"(...) during the fight Numidian cavalrymen, self-confident (...) contrary to the usually applied tactics consisting of attacking and retreating*, were directly knocking against the enemy, breaking their battle array and sowing confusion into their ranks; hereby (...) almost achieving victory over Romans."

===============================

An animal wouldn't have such an emotion as "heroism" don't you think ? It's more like courage concerning an animal as a horse.

But there are no practical (external) differences betweem heroism and courage in actual behaviour "fueled" by either heroism or courage. They both work the same way IMO.

Some dictionaries even describe heroism as synonym of courage, so I don't know what exactly is your point.

but i continue to think that the animals can't be trained, or really disciplined to ignore their instincts.

Well, actually all domesticated animals are constantly "ignoring" their instinct in some way.

The sole fact of being domesticated and not escaping from your "Master" already = ignoring instinct in itself.

======================================

What are you talking about ?
For a horse rider who charge front of an infantry, it would have been suicidal in a sense of the power balances against a unit well prepared, as the manipular organization of the roman army.

And what do you base your above quoted hypothesis on?

The manipular organization of the Roman army used to be overran by cavalry in numerous battles.

Even pike formations in 17th century used to be overran by some times of cavalry (i.e. Winged Hussars).

Your statement is a hypothesis (without any hard proofs to back it up, IMO) - and moreover it is a generalization.

But I have to agree that for one horse rider it would have been suicidal to charge a unit.

The problem is that horse rider would not be alone but accompanied by hundreds of similar horse riders...

As an exemple Hannibal don't take the risk to let his numidians charge the roman army at Cannes, but make the choice to let them been in contact with his infantry, before make a charge behind them

First of all - Numidians were light cavalry, not heavy cavalry. And their primary tactics was skirmishing & rear charges like that at Cannae.

Yet they sometimes also charged frontally - an example was already quoted by me above (battle of Zama 108 B.C.).

Secondly - Hannibal could not send his infantry to make a charge behind the Romans. Because infantry is too slow for such outflanking maneuveres. So it is obvious that he sent his cavalry to charge behind the Romans.

Our discussion is interesting, i tried to argue (with the difference of language it's difficult to find the appropriate words in all the situations) about your point of view, in purpose to present my opinion, and hope that it make the debate more intense

Yes it is very interesting. And I'm also not a native English speaker so yeah, it is sometimes hard to find an appropriate word.

[AqD]

Just one technical comment :

Rather than "Frighten nearby enemy", cav units should probably have frighten_foot attributes in the EDU.

-

It's far from enough and it doesn't reflect the fact that cavalry are only scary when they charge toward you, especially when you're not expecting it. The effect of surprising attack is too weak to be useful in TW games.


The configuration I made in my (retired) mod may help a little:
- Troops' discipline: replace "disciplined" with "normal" for all but elite troops. Cause them to be routed easily under surprise attack
- Troops' base morale: increased to compensate lower discipline.
- Infantry formation spacing: dense (heavy infantry) or very dense (hoplites)
- Cavalry formation spacing: wide (heavy cav) or very wide (light cav)
- Cavalry defense: as high as their corresponding dismounted units, to compensate format spacing.
- Cavalry attack: 30%-50% higher or with armour-piercing (compared to their dismounted brothers).
- Cavalry charge: depending on the horses and weapons. For ancient greek/italian cavalry it'd be weak, maybe double of attack value.
- frighten_foot is necessary, and power_charge for cavalry trained to charge,

It makes cavalry to have stronger attack and weaker defense due to the formation spacing - if they stay on ground they'd be easily surrounded by infantry and then get slaughtered. But the defense would be high enough for them not to die on charge impact - assume the enemies are routed.

The configuration also enables light cavalry to charge successfully when enemies are low on morale, from side or behind. But if they stay and fight they'd die much faster due to low defense. It's historical that light cavalry are used to charge - steppe people had been doing that for thousands of years.

Note the armour-piercing effect is especially important on cavalry-vs-cavalry battles. You can find sources which indicate that even though poorly-equipped, skilled steppe cavalrymen can easily bring down the heaviest cataphracts, i.e. light cavalry with high attack/defense, but weak armour: unable to stand against any infantry (when surrounded their melee defense is useless), but doing fine against other cavalry due to high ap attack. They don't have to fight to win - just use lassos or push other cavalrymen to fall from horses.



BTW, no matter what you do, AI cannot use cavalry wisely. So any attempt to make cavalry's behavior more realistic would cause AI cavalry to be weaker, and easier for players to win.

[Domen123]

Definitely against instinct:

http://www.flicklife.com/742f6dddaa1...orse_Race.html

=====================================

- Cavalry formation spacing: wide (heavy cav) or very wide (light cav)

But does it correspond to the real tactics of heavy cavalry which was to charge in tight formation (so called "knee to knee") at least in the moment of collision with enemy line (some cavalry formations altered their formation during charge - from loose to tight) - in order to intensify the power and results of impact?:

[Domen123]

Some of the races of horces which are descendants or "imitations" (less-impressive-than-original attempts of genetic reconstruction, like modern Frisian horses - which are the result of genetic reconstruction of a completely extinct, original Medieval race) of Medieval races of battle horses:

http://www.ultimatehorsesite.com/inf...lesthorse.html

http://www.stajniatrot.pl/texts/mondre/belgi.html

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





====================================================

And here some more info:

Albertus Magnus in his 13th century work "Animalibus" ("About animals") distinguished 4 types of horses: combat (dextrarii or bellici), to riding (palefridi), to fast riding (curiles equi) and workehorses (runcini). A rich knight had at least several horses: for travelling, for carrying luggage and for combat. A combat horse, especially courser, differed from other horses in strength, stamina, speed, manoeuvrability and quick reaction to orders as well as fiery temperament (combat horses were usually stallions, which explains their fiery temperament). What decided about price of a combat horse, were its combat values: size, tallness, wide and muscular chest, hard and short back, wide and convex rump, strong legs with hard knees and short fetlocks, proper temperament and confident moves, nimbleness, lightness of moves. Also its look was important. Apart from this, a trained horse was not afraid, of course, of combat turmoil, smell of blood, etc., etc.

Compared to steppe horses of Mongols, or even Arab horses, coursers of European knights looked extremely impressively:

"A European horse, carrying a knight in armour, was like living tank - ferocious during charge, undefeated in battle (...)".

Just like today, most sought-after were horses of white and black colour. Also bucksins were valued. But the most important was combat usefulness of a particular horse - its individual features such as stamina, courage, intelligence. A horse of proper colour, with mentioned values, was enormously expensive. Such specimen were looked for among Norman horses. Danish horses were especially valued because of bravery. Monarchs of this state were keeping a herd numbering about 2000 of such horses in Fredericksburg. From neighbouring countries originated Frisian and Flamand horses. These last ones were valued by knights due to their great tallness. France by the end of Middle Ages was importing from Germany horses characterized by strong stature and great strength, which allowed to carry a rider in full plate armour. However, the most expensive were horses from Italy and Spain. The Moors, who captured the Iberian Peninsula (711 - 1492) came there riding on Middle Eastern and North African horses. These races of horses, thanks to interbreeding, added the Spanish so called berber race, used by knights, additional speed and stamina. Also in that region famous of their beauty and grace, jennet horses - were breeded. Jennets were a bit too delicate for heavy cavalry, but their further interbreeding with formerly used heavy races, added the destriers used by knights more beautiful look and elegance. Similar interbreeding between races of European and Middle Eastern horses took place during the Crusades - it led to creation of races more aggressive and brave in combat and more resistant to hardships of war.

[Skyn0s]

BTW - what about scythed chariots?

Will you also claim that scythed chariots were not designed to charge into enemy lines? (so why they had scythes?).
And what animals towed scythed chariots? Maybe those were elephants, not horses?

That's not the point, and that's not the same type of tactics ... i never spoke about it, and the only point connected to our discussion is that the chariots were led by horses, and that they were trained to charge the ennemy in purpose to break their lines.

Ironic sentences are great when we spoke about something serious, stay on the main subject would be nice.

So you claim that they didn't charge because they were elite of the society and they preferred not to risk their lifes - but leave this for peasants & plebs?

What about their fighting spirit, patriotism, and such - they had no of this at all?

As the sources, as Polybe told us, only heroic charge, in a last way of glory have been made by the roman cavalry. The spirit, patriotism and such is to be an officer of the great legion... is to fight others cavalry men. Can you believe that only 300 cavalry men were able to charge front of enemy lines ? i don't think so. The legions at our timeframe wasn't compose about peasants, they were citizens, and their positions into the legion was determined by their cens and their experience.
The plebeians were also a difference made beetween the ancient family of romes, that were kind of "nobles" due to their rank and also their cens, and the rest of the population, except the slaves.

It was complicated because the cavalry was more a notion of rank, because the city give you an horse, that a notion of tactics concerning the romans.

Concerning the greeks, i think it's pretty the same. Concerning the macedonian, it's different because of an elite corps, composed by veterans, in a more professionnal way !

And actually - not only Sarmates as you claim, but also Germanic cavalry certainly charged into the enemy frontally.

I hadn't "claimed" that they never did, just said that it wasn't their first use in battles. The Sarmates were cover by a light cavalry, due to the type of tactics, that the germans have a different climate, different type of relief, who modified the strategy put on the battlefield.
But exception, and also necessity determined the type of tactics was the more appropriate.

Even Numidians did it - as I already wrote in this thread (apparently you haven't read the entire thread! - confess!!! ) - I will quote this again:

Check post #57:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...9#post10823709



===============================

But there are no practical (external) differences betweem heroism and courage in actual behaviour "fueled" by either heroism or courage. They both work the same way IMO.

Some dictionaries even describe heroism as synonym of courage, so I don't know what exactly is your point.

Well, actually all domesticated animals are constantly "ignoring" their instinct in some way.

The sole fact of being domesticated and not escaping from your "Master" already = ignoring instinct in itself.

I must confess that i haven't read entirely, please excuse myself ...

Concerning heroism or courage... must say that you're right, after think about it, i must say that heroism is a certain type of courage of course ; domesticated animals never "ignore" their instinct, but i have give my point of view as an observator of different type of animals that were domesticated and have unpredictable comportment at a certain moment. I have experienced that myself with a dog, and would be really surprise that it will be completely different with a horse, concerning the instinct.

======================================

And what do you base your above quoted hypothesis on?

The manipular organization of the Roman army used to be overran by cavalry in numerous battles.

Even pike formations in 17th century used to be overran by some times of cavalry (i.e. Winged Hussars).

Your statement is a hypothesis (without any hard proofs to back it up, IMO) - and moreover it is a generalization.

Hadn't search the proof concerning the hypothesis, let me the time and i will try to organize it, be patient , please.
I tried to stay on ancient source, "pike formations in 17th century", certainly can add some details, but it's not a source at all concerning our timeframe !
Reactions, tactics are in some parts dependant of the period we studied, even if some main ideology and tactics concern all the periods.

But I have to agree that for one horse rider it would have been suicidal to charge a unit.

The problem is that horse rider would not be alone but accompanied by hundreds of similar horse riders...

With some proportion, it would have been suicidal for a little group against enemy composed about spears men, or too numerous. I think it depends of the type of unit we spoke about, against whom, and the stuff, also the experience, of the cavalry we speack about.

First of all - Numidians were light cavalry, not heavy cavalry. And their primary tactics was skirmishing & rear charges like that at Cannae.

yes, that's my point, clearly we can observe two different tactics, depends of the quality and type of the cavalry.

Yet they sometimes also charged frontally - an example was already quoted by me above (battle of Zama 108 B.C.).

Exception don't make the rules
As you said "their primary tactics was skirmishing & rear charges" ...

Secondly - Hannibal could not send his infantry to make a charge behind the Romans. Because infantry is too slow for such outflanking maneuveres. So it is obvious that he sent his cavalry to charge behind the Romans.

Not just a question of speed. The infantry who composed his flank were the elite of his army, and his tactics was to surround the romans. the center move back, and at the same time the cavalry charge on the rear as you said. The employment and deployment of the cavalry was different in every battle, we can see some general tactics, but this army is extremely dependent of the battlefield and other facts.

Definitely against instinct:

http://www.flicklife.com/742f6dddaa1...orse_Race.html

=====================================

But does it correspond to the real tactics of heavy cavalry which was to charge in tight formation (so called "knee to knee") at least in the moment of collision with enemy line (some cavalry formations altered their formation during charge - from loose to tight) - in order to intensify the power and results of impact?:

Excellent, thank you, but as i said above, i don't think all exemples of "modern way of war" can explain our preoccupation. Maybe the point of instinct is more clear, but i think we can concentrate ourself on sources.

Some of the races of horses which are descendants or "imitations" (less-impressive-than-original attempts of genetic reconstruction, like modern Frisian horses - which are the result of genetic reconstruction of a completely extinct, original Medieval race) of Medieval races of battle horses:

http://www.ultimatehorsesite.com/inf...lesthorse.html

http://www.stajniatrot.pl/texts/mondre/belgi.html

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



====================================================

And here some more info:

Excellent, thanks for those informations, really interesting to read.

[TWWolfe]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say:

Horses sometimes do not charge, but CAVALRY certainly do!