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.