Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 132

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

  1. #101

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

    Can you believe that only 300 cavalry men were able to charge front of enemy lines ? i don't think so.

    It is possible, but of course I agree that it is very dangerous for such a tiny force - it would be dangerous even for excellent, disciplined cavalry armed with long lances and clad in good armours (and Roman cavalry was not so good, I guess).

    Long lance was a fearsome weapon, especially in its most advanced form used by the Winged Hussars in 17th century (hollow inside, on average 18 foot long - but there were even longer specimens, some over 6.2 meters long; most likely longer ones were used in combats against pikemen, while against cavalry Hussars used shorter ones). The longest surviving to modern times original long lance of Hussars (it can be found in Austria) is 6.15 meters long.

    Sources say that a Winged Hussar, charging at full speed with long lance, could easily run his enemy's armour (and the enemy wearing it too - of course) through. There are examples of piercing several enemies in one impact - even up to 6 men could be pierced through by one long lance during one impact.

    In battles often the enemy tried to avoid collision with charging lancers - either by escaping backwards, or by trying to step aside (like Macedonians did at Gaugamela when facing Persian scythed chariots). Not mentioning the extended use of various both natural and manmade anti-cavalry obstacles.

    Anti-cavalry obstacles (both terrain & manmade) was pretty much the only way to stop the charge of Winged Hussars. Pikemen were not enough.

    In the battle of Vienna one banner of Hussars (149 men) carried out a reconnaissance charge before the final attack of the main cavalry force (to examine if terrain was suitable for a cavalry charge). Turkish forces avoided head-on confrontation - Turkish cavalry stepped aside or ran away backwards before the charging unit (and it was just 149 men strong - a tiny force!). The Polish unit penetrated deeply into the Turkish lines - up to the camp of their commander.

    Only encircling the Polish unit from all sides and hammering the riders with large battle mauls and battle axes helped - as Turkish account says:

    The first unit, clad in iron, attacked the tent of the illustrious Serdar master [Grand Vizier Kara Mustafa Pasha]. Faced them and engaged them in combat levands [personal guard units] of the Serdar master under command of a sercheshmesh, as well as his palace and court aghas. Giaours however, were all clad in iron, so saber was not useful there, but experienced in battles heroes [Turkish soldiers] were not disconcerted by this at all. Each of them had a maul, a mace or an axe, so they started to hammer giaours in heads, faces and arms, while those who didn't have such weapons, tried to rip their horses with sabers. This way with grace of Allah they were forced to retreat, and most of them were killed or wounded.

    The banner lost 12 killed NCOs (companions) and 23-24 killed enlisted men (in total 35-36 out of 149) in this charge, as Sobieski reported.

    No other Polish cavalry banner suffered so heavy losses in the battle of Vienna as this banner in its "suicidal" charge. It is easy for a numerically superior force to encircle a tiny charging force of 149 cavalry - but impossible to outflank & encircle a cavalry force of many thousands, charging in wide line.

    When this micro-charge of 149 cavalry was repulsed - king John Sobieski already knew that further terrain was suitable for cavalry. The massive, enormous charge that followed involved 20,000 Polish and German cavalrymen - this huge force was spearheaded by 3,000 Polish Winged Hussars, who charged in the very first line of this formation. That was one of the biggest cavalry charges in history. The Turkish forces were literally smashed. The battle of Vienna was won.
    Last edited by Domen123; April 13, 2012 at 04:51 AM.

  2. #102

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

    Some accounts about Winged Hussars vs pikemen combats:

    Battle of Kircholm (600 cavalry charging & defeating 3840 pike-musket infantry):

    "Hussars attacked against pikemen, as it could not be differently, they broke the enemy formation, not without own damages."

    Battle of Klushino (pike-musket infantry deployed behind a solid wooden fence):

    "(...) our horsemen, after ramming fences, with which the enemies treacherously strengthened their defences, plunging into pikes with chests of horses, suffered a lot of damage."

    Another account of the same events:

    "German musketeers (...) deployed near field fortifications like behind a swamp, behind a fence, in dense formation, harmed us, protected by pikemen."

    But in the end German mercenary infantry was defeated by again and again repeated charges of Hussars. But the final blow could be inflicted to them by Hussars only after Polish infantry forced them with musket fire to retreat from their position behind the fence, to a new, less protected defensive position.

    About Polish-Swedish combats in Livonia:

    "(...) our lancers wipe out not only enemy cavalry, but also pikemen, as fresh examples from Livonia prove."

    In the battle of Mitawa in 1622 (the battle as a whole was inconclusive) 2 banners of Hussars (ca. 600 horsemen) charged against 2000 Swedish pike-musket infantry, broke through their lines and descended on the rear of the Swedish lines. However, mercenary Reiters of the Polish army refused to charge the Swedes to support the Hussars. Hussars thus had to withdraw - their casualties during the charge which broke through Swedish lines were just 2 soldiers killed.

    Even more examples of Hussars defeating pikemen in frontal charges are from Polish-Russian wars (Russian armies also made extensive use of pikemen).

    All of this was possible thanks to long lances they used (which were longer than pikes), combined with tactics they used.

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

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    Last edited by Domen123; April 13, 2012 at 09:35 AM.

  3. #103

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

    I believe this article is also appropriate:

    http://badassoftheweek.com/hussars.html

    Please rep me for my posts, not for the fact that i have a Pony as an Avatar.


  4. #104

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

    if the turks were using the longer 7m pikes of phalanx post alexander the winged hussar charge probaly would have failed. the longer stick always wins.

  5. #105

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


  6. #106

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

    Horses DO charge. I've owned horses all my life and I've personally been charged (and hit) by horses on many occasions. Domesticated horses have little to non-existent fear of people and stallions (all war horses were stallions) are known for their aggressive behaviour. Groups of stallions routinely become predators and often have to be put-down.

    Did infantry run away from cavalry? Yes, all the time. Did infantry stand and get smashed down? Yes, all the time. Heavy cavalry dominated battlefields for thousands of years and there's piles of 1st hand accounts illustrating full-frontal cavalry charges. To say "Cavalry didn't charge" is historical revisionism pure and simple.

    Both celts and Romans wore spurs and there's little more you need to make a horse charge a line of infantry.

    Cheers
    Last edited by AlphaDelta; May 11, 2012 at 05:40 AM.
    "I don't want to sit around Windsor because ermm .. I just generally don't like England that much" - Prince Harry, 3rd in Line for the British Thrown



    For King or Country - The English civil wars.

  7. #107

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

    Another interesting article:

    http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php

    And here some interesting discussion:

    http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showth...thout-stirrups

    Quote Originally Posted by AlphaDelta
    Both celts and Romans wore spurs and there's little more you need to make a horse charge a line of infantry.

    True, and that article above also says about this (proving that importance of stirrups was often exaggerated).

    To say "Cavalry didn't charge" is historical revisionism pure and simple.

    This is so true and beyond question. I fully agree.

    It is also a failed attempt of (alleged) myth-busting, which actually creates new myths.

    And I'm really glad that someone who actually ownes horses said this, while most of users who write in this thread probably have hardly seen any real horses in their life (I also don't own horses, but at least my point has been confirmed by someone with first-hand experience).

    Groups of stallions routinely become predators and often have to be put-down.

    Something related to the statement above:

    http://horsetalk.co.nz/2012/04/17/ho...ating-killers/

    And this quote:



    Unlike European horses, which normally received more human interaction as they grew up, many 19th century North American horses retained a savage streak which resulted in numerous violent accidents and deaths to the horses’ owners. The four time man-killer known as Rysdyk was one such murderous equine.

    If you can train a horse to eat meat, why can't you train him to charge solid objects (especially considering his aggressive nature - see the quote above):




    In 1954 National Geographic magazine documented how Kazakh chief Qali Beg led his tribe 3000 miles from Sinkiang, China to safety in Kashmir, India. Part of the tribe’s journey was made on specially trained meat-eating horses, who were able to survive in the grassless Takla Makan desert.

    Actually Alexander the Great's stallion - Bucephalus - was aggressive and meat-eating:



    The darker story of how Alexander tamed the man-eating Bucephalus has been white-washed out of history in favour of a children’s fairy tale, which states that the fierce horse was afraid of its shadow.
    Last edited by Domen123; May 12, 2012 at 05:51 PM.

  8. #108

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

    if the turks were using the longer 7m pikes of phalanx post alexander the winged hussar charge probaly would have failed. the longer stick always wins

    Yeah, Macedonian-style phalanx would be nearly impossible to beat in a frontal attack - by anyone, be it cavalry or infantry.

    On the other hand - it was not flexible (as it was a ponderous, huge solid block) and much more vulnerable to flank or rear attacks than "normal" infantry.

    I guess instead of using Winged Hussars, a 17th century army would just disorganize the thightly-packed phalanx with artillery & musket fire.

    It was harder to retain cohesion for a stiff phalanx during maneuvers & while under heavy fire than for a flexible Roman legion, for example.

    Every weapon, every unit has advantages and disadvantages. Not only length of the stick counts, as they say, also technique.
    Last edited by Domen123; May 12, 2012 at 06:05 PM.

  9. #109
    debux's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Chile
    Posts
    1,068

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

    Maybe one man isn't intimidating to a horse, but maybe a whole line of men (resembling a rather high wall) might make it reconsider charging into those men...

    I'm just saying there might be a possibility that AlphaDelta didn't mention, I'm not giving a counter argument (as I've been run over a horse as well), I just want to state something that form my point of view, was overlooked. Although it would be hard to imagine ancient battles without charging cavalry.

    Now that I come to think it again, maybe the success (as well of the probability) of a cavalry charge depended on the opposition given, whether they were charging a solid and dense mass of men or a dispersed and unorganized group of men in a relatively loose formation. I'm guessing that it would be impossible to convince a horse into charging into the first, but it might have been different in the other case (as the horse might see that it is not a dense and tight group of men, and that it is possible to go through it, judging by the gaps in the formation mentioned)
    Linky linky to my last.fm profile! Clicky clicky! If you like anything that ranges from breakbeat to downtempo/chillout, from house to drum & bass, you might find something new in between! (Artist suggestions are more than welcome )


  10. #110

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

    Did you read the entire discussion, Debux? Or you just came and posted without reading more than 2 - 3 last posts.

    I'm guessing that it would be impossible to convince a horse into charging into the first,
    Maybe after a lengthy talk and drinking several cups of tea together? What else? Well - "convincing" is not even a good word here.

    You order / force a horse to do what you want - certainly not "convince". Not until defenders of animal rights were created.

    You have spurs and other things to inflict pain on your horse and force it to do what you want.

    Just like NKVD squads had machine pistols to force Soviet soldiers to hold their lines and "no a step back" at Moscow, in 1941.

    Simple as that.

    You know how prehistoric native American hunters hunted for buffalos and horses (actually 13,000 years ago there were horses in Americas - a small, forest breed of horses -, as well as camels, but they became extinct about 10,000 years ago)? They forced entire herds of these animals to jump into a canyon:

    After European contact and acquisition of horses, they continued to apply this tactics in buffalo hunts:

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

    http://www.nps.gov/history/history/o...rte1/chap1.htm



    About horses and camels in North America (they became extinct ca. 10,000 years ago - possibly due to human hunters):

    http://www.livescience.com/5336-ice-...-colorado.html

    whether they were charging a solid and dense mass of men
    Compare mass of men to mass of horses + riders and you will see who will trample and smash whom in such case.

    And actually if your infantry formation is too dense, soldiers can't even fight (they have no space to use their weapons) and breathe.

    One example of cavalry badly defeating legionary infantry is the battle of Adrianople in 378 AD. Gothic cavalry charged legionary infantry and trampled and squeezed them in such a way, that many Roman legionaries died crushed or strangled in the crowd, either by enemy cavalry or by their own comrades.

    Many of them probably suffocated.
    Last edited by Domen123; May 13, 2012 at 06:55 AM.

  11. #111

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

    somebody here mentioned Waterloo - perhaps they forget that the entire french cavalry charged by accident and not by order [no point to go into details here those who know know] as nobody believed that they could actually win against well drilled squares of infantry.

    I've read that the failure of the French charge against British squares at Waterloo was to large extent caused by difficult terrain across which they charged - i.e. their formation got shattered and disorganized already during charge, due to roughness of terrain and terrain obstacles which slowed them down and reduced their cohesion. And regarding that famous movie scene - it was more the problem with men, than with horses:

    "Extras playing British infantry panicked repeatedly and scattered during the filming of some of the cavalry charges. Attempts to reassure them by marking the closest approach of the horses with white tape similarly failed, and the scene was cut."

    Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066549/trivia

    In reality during that charge French cavalry clearly did charge into those British bayonet squares, because British infantry also suffered heavy casualties in that combat, inflicted by French cavalry (if we assume that horses couldn't even be forced to get close to those British squares, then what would be the cause of British losses?).

    And actually some of 26 British squares were nearly broken by French cavalry - Lord Uxbridge sent remnants of his cavalry to save them, and only that's why the situation was brought again under British control.

  12. #112
    debux's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Chile
    Posts
    1,068

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

    Well, I must say that my memory isn't good, nor does my life revolve around TWC thread discussions, so I can't remember or have time to go over topics that were covered in an interesting thread, to which I have suscribed in the hope of reading interesting arguments, but apparently some people feel insulted when their opinion is not agreed to. I just had a sudden thought I wanted to share, and one that I didn't remember that was covered (and apparently, it wasn't).

    By convincing a horse, of course I didn't mean to almost talk to it into doing what you wanted, but rather that it would always do your bidding. The same way I doubt you could convince a horse into jumping into a canyon (unless it's a very dire situation where it's life is threatened), I doubt you can convince a horse into charging directly into what would look like a low wall, like a phalanx of greek hoplites. Instead, I think that the horse would instinctively try to jump over it, as it would do with a wall. Maybe you can convince a Buffalo to fall down a george, but I doubt you can make it to crash itself against a wall (and while on topic, I think buffalo's and horses are very different animals, right? Buffalo's aren't as savage and meat eating like you say horses were some time).

    By organised and dense mass of men, I obviously meant a capable formation. No man is stupid enough to get so closely packed together so that they can't move comfortably. However, both kind of hellenic phalanxes proved to be tough, dense formations that were hard to penetrate, even by cavalry (if they were steady and prepared). And Adrianapole wasn't the most linear kind of battle, IIRC... My point is that cavalry wouldn't be able to charge a group of men that is prepared and in a (relatively, not as extreme like the example you did) dense fomation, although, like in Adrianapole, they would be able to charge a formation of tired and disorganised men (I believe the Roman weren't expecting such a devastating charge, and therefore had no reserves to face an incoming cavalry charge).

    Now, your Waterloo example is a good one. It is one I hadn't considered while I was thinking of my suggestion. But it leads me to think of the conditions that let the French cavalry break the british formations, the same way that the persians (for example) were unable to break the greek formations in the same kind of frontal charge. I'm guessing that the probability of a frontal cavalry charge was hard to determine, the same way that battles are won by matter of chance and specific, unforseeable conditions, frontal cavalry charges were also dependent on such conditions for them to be successful.
    Linky linky to my last.fm profile! Clicky clicky! If you like anything that ranges from breakbeat to downtempo/chillout, from house to drum & bass, you might find something new in between! (Artist suggestions are more than welcome )


  13. #113

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

    but apparently some people feel insulted when their opinion is not agreed to.
    No I don't feel insulted, come on! If anything, I am a bit sad that you didn't read all of my arguments which support my point.

    the same way I doubt you could convince a horse into jumping into a canyon
    Tell this to all those "mass cemeteries" of prehistoric buffalos and horses and camels found in North America, in canyons.

    (unless it's a very dire situation where it's life is threatened),
    A bunch of prehistoric cavemen wearing furs, making a lot of noise and running towards you with primitive weapons.

    I don't think it is more life-threatening than jumping into a canyon. Yet horses preferred to jump.

    My point is that cavalry wouldn't be able to charge a group of men that is prepared
    But it was able to do it numerous times in history. So this point isn't really correct.

    I doubt you can convince a horse into charging directly into what would look like a low wall
    Sometimes you don't even have to convince it - it will do it by itself:

    http://animal.discovery.com/videos/u...nto-crowd.html

    Instead, I think that the horse would instinctively try to jump over it, as it would do with a wall.
    It is a very good point. But the result is pretty much the same - when a horse tries to jump over a man who is high enough that it is impossible to jump over him, this horse will simply jump onto his head - and as the result, trample and kill him.

    See the video above, by the way, where a panic-stricken horse charges straight into a mass / crowd of people.

    It doesn't try to jump, rather bumbs directly into them - but that's because it is attached to a chariot-like thing.

    the same way that the persians (for example) were unable to break the greek formations in the same kind of frontal charge.
    The Persians didn't even have heavy cavalry (or at least not in any considerable numbers) until Cyrus the Younger.

    But even after that Persian heavy cavalry was not of best quality. Actually check what Macedonian heavy cav was capable of.

    IIRC, Macedonian heavy cavalry was credited with defeating Greek phalanx formation on some occassions during times of Philip II.

    Maybe you can convince a Buffalo to fall down a george, but I doubt you can make it to crash itself against a wall
    I don't think anyone has ever tried to convince a Buffalo to crash into a wall. So hard to say.

    (and while on topic, I think buffalo's and horses are very different animals, right? Buffalo's aren't as savage and meat eating like you say horses were some time).
    I would say their behaviour is pretty similar - both buffalos and horses are mainly herbivorous and they are both herd animals.

    No man is stupid enough to get so closely packed together so that they can't move comfortably.
    I guess Persians were at Thermopylae, when they attacked in a wave of several thousand men at once, against a narrow pass where you could deploy maybe 100 men in one line at most (if we believe the Greek accounts).

    frontal cavalry charges were also dependent on such conditions for them to be successful.
    One of those conditions was quality and combat abilities of this cavalry which was charging.

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

    Thanks to existence of knighthood Medieval Europe developed the finest breeds of horses for heavy cavalry. During the age of Crusades Muslims were importing horses for their Mamluk heavy cavalry (a formation which was developed specifically to counter charges of Frankish knights) from Italian city-states and from Persia, their own horses (Arabians) were not suitable for heavy cavalry formations. It was a very lucrative trade for Italy.

    Arabians were not suitable to fight in formation because they were skittish by nature. And European knights fought in formations (this required training and discipline from both men & horses) - such as for example wedge formation (also known as "pig"), which was very efficient and had great power of penetrating enemy lines.

    All Muslim sources from the age of crusades admit the superiority of Frankish heavy cavalry over both Muslim cavalry & infantry. Later Mamluks compensated for this superiority, but still even in battles lost by crusaders - such as the battle of Hattin in 1187 - Frankish heavy cavalry proved its great efficiency in melee combat. This is confirmed by both Muslim & Christian sources. Frankish knights cut through Muslim infantry (and majority of them carried spears) like a knife cuts through butter. And that was not due to poor morale or something likes this (actually at Hattin Muslim forces had surely higher morale than Frankish, who were hungry, thirsty and exhausted - while Muslim soldiers laughed in their faces and poured water over the sand before their very eyes).

    Later more sophisticated formations were developed - like the wedge-column formation with heavy lancers in the front and on both wings, while mounted crossbowmen in the center (during a charge mounted crossbowmen shot over the heads of their heavier comrades in order to "soften" enemy lines before impact of lancers).

    A good combat horse for a heavy lancer was worth fortune (and this 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".

    The same refers also to later times. According to "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 Lwow (today Lviv, Ukraine) you could buy an ox for less than 3,5 ducats (152,5 g of silver).

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

    You could provide oxen for several villages or Folwarks (Falvaraks) instead of buying 1 such horse.

    Nobody would pay such a fortune for an animal who would not charge into "something solid or sharp".

    These horses were perfectly trained, they were of finest breeds. With best features useful in combat. A fine horse made a real difference in battle - and that's why it was worth a fortune, compared to "average" horse.
    Last edited by Domen123; May 13, 2012 at 03:44 PM.

  14. #114

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

    Found also this:

    Quote Originally Posted by debux
    I doubt you can convince a horse into charging directly into what would look like a low wall

    So check these videos:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



    As well as this:



    Another one - horse tramples oncoming car:

    http://www.break.com/index/horse-tra...oming-car.html

    And here spectator run over by horse:

    http://www.break.com/index/spectator...-by-horse.html

    Horse slams into starting gate:

    http://www.break.com/index/horse-sla...ting-gate.html

    Horse runs into fence (on its own, without any encouragement):

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

    And next one:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-0...s-race/2708746

    And:


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

    So - a horse wouldn't charge into something solid? Really?
    Last edited by Domen123; May 13, 2012 at 04:43 PM.

  15. #115
    debux's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Chile
    Posts
    1,068

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

    The second video (of your second post) sure convinced me that cavalry can charge something solid (and sure freaked the hell outta me), but I'm thinking that the horses charged it because it was unable to maneuver around it, because the horses weren't able to coordinate their movements, making it impossible to move anywhere aside of forwards (they were also carrying that carriage, which hampered even further their maneuverability) . Also your text at the end of the second paragraph was very well written and convincing. But I'm still not very convinced with most of the rest of what you wrote.

    I'm guessing that horses (as well as many animals) don't consider the consequences of doing something, unless it has had a previous experience with it. My best example here are dogs (as I own one), as if they do something very stupid that hurts them, they never do it again. Therefore, a horse wouldn't consider the consequences of falling down to its death down a canyon, as it has not done it before (I doubt any horse can come out of one alive). And I do think that a group of irrational savage cavemen that make a lot of noise are threatening (at least I wouldn't want to live that experience, thank you ).
    You also quoted in post #107 of this thread that "Groups of stallions routinely become predators and often have to be put-down.", which does make them different to buffalos (which was the comparison that I referred to in my last post). And in the very first video, I think the horse, rather than running into those group of men, was trying to run away from the chariot it was carrying, not really caring where it was going to, so technically I don't think the horse was convinced himself of charging those people, but simply just running away (and if it had not fallen, it would be easier to determine how it would have reacted to that group of people, either by attempting to jump or simply go straight, although this is a rather unpleasant and cruel thought)

    Combining what you have said, I start to believe that a horse could be trained into charging, but a normal and untrained horse would refuse to (which was to what I referred to before). Which would explain the superiority of the Companions over the any of the elements of the persian army in the hellenistic conquest of Asia. However, I'm still adamant that a horse would refuse to charge a shield wall of hoplites, but rather try to jump it (as many of your vids proved that the natural instinct for a horse to pass a low wall/fence/etc was to jump). This would technically be a charge, but it would be hard to fight on top of a horse who just tried to jump over a shield wall, and tried to get steady again (like the man on the first video of your second post)... besides, it would be suicidal to charge a wall of prepared hoplites so I guess it was my misunderstanding to think of that as what you tried to say before.

    So I can conclude on two things, that cavalry can indeed charge, but not everything, and not always in the Hollywood-eske form, and if faced by a solid opposition (not like in your first vid, where the spectators were all dispersed and trying to flee), they would attempt to jump over it, instead of trying to ram it with their own body. I'm also starting to believe that horses are more stupid and irrational than I though
    Last edited by debux; May 13, 2012 at 05:22 PM.
    Linky linky to my last.fm profile! Clicky clicky! If you like anything that ranges from breakbeat to downtempo/chillout, from house to drum & bass, you might find something new in between! (Artist suggestions are more than welcome )


  16. #116

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

    Quote Originally Posted by debux View Post
    The second video (of your second post) sure convinced me that cavalry can charge something solid (and sure freaked the hell outta me), but I'm thinking that the horses charged it because it was unable to maneuver around it, because the horses weren't able to coordinate their movements, making it impossible to move anywhere aside of forwards (they were also carrying that carriage, which hampered even further their maneuverability) . Also your text at the end of the second paragraph was very well written and convincing. But I'm still not very convinced with most of the rest of what you wrote.
    You just described a cavalry charge. A large pack of horses running withers to withers, nose to tail, unable to turn, stop or coordinate their movements, 'decision' is taken out of the equation and you're just left with F=MA. And yes some horses would (if they were on the right foot) attempt to jump a mass of men, most likely causing major injuries to the horse. This is backed up by historical records that detail how cavalry men could 'go through' several horses in a battle.

    Also remember that while the natural escape vector for a frightened soldier is backwards, the natural escape vector for a horse is forwards. Predators (mainly large cats) that historically ate horses attack from the rear and side, the only defense is to run forward. If you've ever seen a horse race you can see this in full effect. The rider uses the whip to create a frightening crack to the side and rear and the horse bolts forward.

    Domen123, That's some good research material right there. They clearly show how horses can move through people like they aren't even there. The chariot video is especially nasty.

    Cheers
    "I don't want to sit around Windsor because ermm .. I just generally don't like England that much" - Prince Harry, 3rd in Line for the British Thrown



    For King or Country - The English civil wars.

  17. #117

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

    but I'm thinking that the horses charged it because it was unable to maneuver around it,
    It is one of possible explanations and it's a very good point. Surely a horse without a rider would rather maneuver around it if it could.

    But remember that in real battles a horse is controlled by its rider. And also cavalry - when striking enemy line - was usually charging in a tight formation, so called "knee to knee" (horses in each line were close to each other - that's why it's called "knee to knee"). So in such formation horses were also unable to maneuver around - in such case they would fall into other horses which were charging on their right and left. They had to go forward and fall into what was in front of them.

    And actually for a charging horse, bumping into a man in front of it was often a better "choice" than bumping into a horse next to it.

    And even if it was not a better choice (for example if a man in front had a sharp pike) - its rider would still force it to do so.

    You just described a cavalry charge. A large pack of horses running withers to withers, nose to tail, unable to turn, stop or coordinate their movements,
    Exactly, he just explained how a charge of heavy cavalry works. And no matter how we call it - knee to knee, withers to withers, etc.

    Also remember that while the natural escape vector for a frightened soldier is backwards, the natural escape vector for a horse is forwards. Predators (mainly large cats) that historically ate horses attack from the rear and side, the only defense is to run forward. If you've ever seen a horse race you can see this in full effect. The rider uses the whip to create a frightening crack to the side and rear and the horse bolts forward.
    Definitely what you wrote above couldn't be more correct - this video also confirms:

    http://www.flicklife.com/742f6dddaa1...orse_Race.html
    Last edited by Domen123; May 14, 2012 at 05:43 AM.

  18. #118

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

    When searching for those videos which I posted above, I also found a YT video of a horse charging towards a wall of house. It looked like it was going to hit that wall, but slowed down and stopped in the last moment.

    Maybe you could do such thing in battle - with a "wall" of pikemen, instead of a brick wall. If at the same time your lance was long enough to hit the pikeman in front of you first, then maybe it was possible to reduce casualties during charge and still charge pikemen successfully. Of course one such charge would "take down" most likely just the 1st line of enemy pike formation during impact (lances would hit only the first line of enemy pikemen).

    But eliminating the 1st line could be enough to disorganize the pike formation enough to plunge into the remaining lines within a sword cut range and engage them in close quarters. Sources indicate that in close quarters Hussars usually at first targeted enemy hands / arms, cutting them with swords / sabers in order to prevent the enemy from using weapons. Only later they delivered a deadly blow to an already handless / armless enemy.

    Hussars could also make use of pistols (firing from close range) while dealing with remaining lines.

    All of this may explain why it was often necessary to charge a pike unit several times before defeating it.

    Last edited by Domen123; May 14, 2012 at 05:06 PM.

  19. #119

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

    At Waterloo in that failed charge there was 10500 infantry vs 3500 French cavalry - 3 to 1 ratio.

    There were 4 infantry brigades (Ompteda, Kielmannsegge, von Kruse, Sir Halkett) vs 26 cavalry squadrons.

    Numbers counted basing on:

    http://napolun.com/mirror/napoleonis..._WATERLOO.html

    Ompteda - 2.087
    Kielmannsegge - 3.315
    von Kruse - 2.841
    Sir Halkett - 2.274

    Total of 10500 infantry.

    And 26 squadrons of cavalry = 3500 (average Napoleon's cavalry squadron at Waterloo - 135).

    A 3 to 1 numerical superiority and you still call it a "great victory" for infantry.

    And infantry squares suffered heavy losses while repulsing that cavalry (for example V Line Btn. KGL under Mjr. Schroeder which was part of Ompteda's brigade lost 93% of soldiers in the battle of Waterloo).

    Entire brigade of von Kielmannsegge lost 45% of soldiers in the battle of Waterloo.

  20. #120

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

    Interesting discussion also started here (where I post as Peter):

    http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtop...99613#p1699613

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter
    Quote Originally Posted by Galahad
    --Examples of battles where charging cavalry failed against disciplined and unshaken infantry are numerous. For example: Crecy, Courtrai, Arques, Bannockburn, Balaclava, Sedan, Kunersdorf, Waterloo, Torgau. They are the norm, not the exception.
    You are completely wrong that cavalry in these battles failed against infantry.

    The reasons were different - in addition to "just infantry", much more importact factors played their role:

    Bannockburn ----> swampy terrain + cavalry was attacked by infantry shiltroms while crossing a river (before it could reform into a battle array / formation & carry out an organized charge or fight in an organized way).

    Crecy -----> the English had prepared in advance defensive positions, surrounded by palisades, ditches, wires and pitfalls. In front of their positions also czośniki / Krähenfuß (forgot the English word) were scattered:

    http://stelkerowyblog.blogspot.com/2...sniki-cz2.html

    German word for czośniki is Krähenfuß: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kr%C3%A4henfu%C3%9F

    Arques ---> vastly superior number of infantry. Despite victory, infantry still suffered huge losses: 3000 dead.

    Courtrai --> infantry formation was protected by 2 streams (Groeninge Beek & Grote Bek) 2,5-3 m wide and 1,5 m deep each, with swampy banks. On eastern banks of both streams infantry digged numerous pitfalls before the battle, which were concealed with branches & ground. Also ditches were digged. Some of them were filled with water from the Lys river (so they turned into moats). Left wing of infantry position was further protected by stone walls of the Groeninge monastery & right flank was covered by Lage Vijver (moat of the town of Courtrai). Behind the Flamand formation was the river, so attack from the rear was impossible (but so was retreat in case of failure).

    Infantry was deployed close enough behind Groeninge Beek & Grote Bek so that cavalry - after crossing these streams - was not able to reform and carry out organized charge again (not enough space).

    Courtrai was thus hardly an open field, pitched battle (just like Crecy). It was defence in prepared position with numerous both natural & man-made obstacles protecting infantry. Yet cavalry lost only ca. 700 casualties in this battle (while it carried out a number of charges against a strong force numbering thousands of infantry).

    Map showing defensive positions of the Flamand infantry (red colour) at Courtrai:



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

    Other examples are from as late as 19th century so I will not comment them right now in this thread.

    here's a quote from Polish Winged Hussar: 1576-1775, by Richard Brzezinski and Velimir Vuksic:
    This quote was already posted on the previous page and I already commented it.

    Brzezinski is by no means an expert regarding this period of history.

    It is a book from Osprey's "Men At Arms" series (which is not exactly famous for historical accuracy).

    hitting troops on the move before they could deploy (Patay
    Preparing a defensive position like that at Crecy or Courtrai would take hours, if not days.

    You can't blame cavalry at Patay that it didn't wait until infantry prepared pitfalls, moats, palisades, etc.

    Patay is an example what happens to infantry in an open, flat field. It gets slaughtered by cavalry. Courtrai or Crecy were examples of static defence of infantry behind positions prepared many hours or days before the arrival of cavalry to the battlefield (you need a lot of luck and sufficient planning to have so much time to prepare), which were strengthened by man-made and natural obstacles; everything placed in easy to defend terrain.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •