Cavalry, The Couched Lance, and the Charge

[Judeman266]

There is a great debate about the role of cavalry and charging. This subject was extensively discussed in another forum but I thought that I should get some opinions from people who frequent the SS forums as well.
I thought that these articles I found provided some useful historical information and practical application to the subject by using historical sources, research, and application of the techniques to procure results.

Tell me what you guys think.

Charge of horse vs infantry:

"This is not to say that the effect of a charging horse impacting a foot soldier was inconsequential, or even incidental. I have witnessed first hand the impact of an armored knight and horse, colliding with a standing squire. The unfortunate lad was thrown a good fifteen feet and had the wind knocked out of him, while the show was halted and an ambulance was called to remove him from the field on a back-board. (He was only shaken up.) The Knight probably counted on the footman's fear of just such an impact to act as a kind of "psychological" weapon, to help open the wall. No doubt in combat, trampling an opponent is preferable to being killed, but it still places the horse's most delicate points of anatomy, his legs, at high risk. Without discounting the effect of a horse to ground collision, I say only that this was not the rider's primary intention but rather should be considered as a secondary effect of a shock charge."


On the purpose of the stirrup:

"Stirrups are a logical step in progression to aid in "rising" from the seat, which must be accomplished from the knees without them. ... They are perhaps best employed in assisting the rider to "rise" in his seat and so isolate the movement of his body from that of his horse. Such isolation is most helpful in firing projectile weapons like bows. This is likely the reason why the stirrups originated in the great horse cultures of the east, which are known as excellent mounted archers."

Reason for use of a leather jerkin or chainmail:

"The lance is forced back into the armpit, where it is gripped between the pectoral muscle and inside edge of the biceps and triceps. We learned fairly quickly that to perform a pass wearing only a light shirt or jacket would often result in a tear or abrasion commonly called a Quintain Burn. If the rider's grip was weak, the lance would slide back causing friction burns along the arm and chest. Repeated passes in one rehearsal often resulted in ugly bruises and bleeding. The effect was reduced when practiced in a leather jerkin or chainmail, though that too had its own peculiar tortures."

Impact of charge on rider and horse:


"If the angle of impact was too oblique, the lance would skip off the surface of the shield, and torque back against the rider's face, neck or chest. In order to prevent clothes-lining himself, or hitting his horse with the butt of the lance, we developed a technique called "windmilling". This was achieved by instantly releasing the "armpit grip" and raising the lance above the rider's head. The momentum of the point was allowed to carry the tip counter-clockwise, clearing the horse and rider' heads, and brought to a stop by the strength of the wrist alone. A weak grip could result in the lance simply flying away above and behind the rider. This exact move was also useful when the lance penetrated a shield or target, and the rider needed to release a lance to prevent himself from being unhorsed."

"If the lance does not break, then the rider must continue to "push" through the hit, either penetrating the target, or "unhorsing" it. This was accomplished while simultaneously moving the bridle hand forward even as the body recoiled backwards, and strength was expended to maintain the contact.
One of the biggest misconceptions about shock combat is that the combined weight of horse and rider is directly translated to the lance - As if somehow the horse, rider, and lance were one rigid mass. In fact, they may move down the field as one, but at the moment of impact, they react as separate units.
In reality the rider's body acts as a shock absorber, or buffer, between the lance and horse. It cannot be stressed enough that the rider's own strength and weight are the key to translating the mass of the horse into the force of impact. Although the size of the medieval warhorse gradually increased over time, the effective size of the lance and horse interface (the rider) did not."

In this second article the author describes a possible reason for knights being pictured with lances overhand and underhand

Possible reason Knights are pictured with lance overhand in the Bayeux Tapestry:

"But what to make of his reference that the chieftain "... bore a great long dart, which he cast with much skill." One might be tempted to say that without saddle he could ONLY throw the "great long dart" and would never couch it. But by referencing Froissart's contemporary mention of tilting at posts and breaking "light" lances, I think it is more likely that the Irish utilized a very light lance - something longer than a "spear" or javelin but not as heavy as the lances used by the English. Such a lance could be used over hand, underhand, thrown OR couched - just like the images on the Bayeux tapestry illustrate."

Sections of the Bayeux Tapestry illustrating lances held overhand and underhand

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Here are the links to the articles:

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

http://www.classicalfencing.com/arti...connection.php


Here is the other thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=463297

After the first page it gets interesting.

[ksenagos]

When i first saw your thread i knew i had to post you this thread http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=463297
but apparently you already know it.I believe it is one of the most complete articles on what was the purpose of cavalry use (at least in mtw2)

[Orlorin]

Can you give any info on the cavalry practices of the Tagmata of the Medieval Roman armies? Did they fight more as the cataphracts of the Selecuid Empire (Less Charge?) or as more western shock cavalry?

[Sanderlicious]

A nice, succinct compilation of information here. I was interested.
I will have to read more into the articles before I can really add anything of value to the conversation.

Rep for the work

[Judeman266]

@Orlorin They fought more as cataphracts. They were equipped with a layer of heavy mail, lamellar, and 2 layers of padding. Also their horses were covered in armor. They were equipped primarily with spear and mace. Thus their role would be defined as a brawler. They were more focused on melee fighting and less on the charge.

[Ichon]

I hadn't read that thread before but it is one of the better ones on TWC forums about cavalry. The article by Richard Alvarez I can't find anything to disagree with. First time I've encountered him but from my own experience and some other more modern authors what he says is correct-most of the sources stating horses won't charge masses of men, shock charge is impossible without stirrups, etc is from a narrow time period between 1920s to 1980 written by academics with little familiarity with actual horses or equestrian skills but vast familiarity with written sources which breeds lots of bad assumptions.

@Orlorin They fought more as cataphracts. They were equipped with a layer of heavy mail, lamellar, and 2 layers of padding. Also their horses were covered in armor cataphract armored horse 7. They were equipped primarily with spear and mace. Thus their role would be defined as a brawler. They were more focused on melee fighting and less on the charge.

The important part is that while they might not have been doing shock style of charges the idea was more than just fighting in melee- the purpose was to push into a formation and break it apart similar to a shock charge. The massive armor enabled that to occur with fewer casualties than a shock charge and could also work in rougher terrain. Also the armor helped vs arrows which were encountered frequently from good archers along ERE borders. The main issue was the cost of supporting them.

[Judeman266]

Thanks Ichon for clearing that up. Different tactic, same purpose.

[Vissewalde rex de Gerzika]

@Orlorin They fought more as cataphracts. They were equipped with a layer of heavy mail, lamellar, and 2 layers of padding. Also their horses were covered in armor. They were equipped primarily with spear and mace. Thus their role would be defined as a brawler. They were more focused on melee fighting and less on the charge.

How did they move? They must have weighed like 350 kg(just my guess), seems like a lot for a single horse to carry around and even charge, were they specially trained/breeded for the purpose of being able to charge with so much stuff on them?

[Strengelicher]

Thx Judeman266 for the info. +rep

[Psyborg7]

How did they move? They must have weighed like 350 kg(just my guess), seems like a lot for a single horse to carry around and even charge, were they specially trained/breeded for the purpose of being able to charge with so much stuff on them?

Yes, horses were specially trained/breeded. The quality of cavalry decided about many battles.
Proof - Battle of Kirchholm

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

[Psyborg7]

Nice heroic victory
Casualties and losses 100 dead
200 wounded 5,000[2][3]– 9,000[4]
dead, wounded, missing or (captured 500)[5]
11 artillery guns

[Ichon]

How did they move? They must have weighed like 350 kg(just my guess), seems like a lot for a single horse to carry around and even charge, were they specially trained/breeded for the purpose of being able to charge with so much stuff on them?

They did not charge as lancers but used their weight and armor to push apart enemy formations as well standing off archers.

[DochtorGajo]

When i first saw your thread i knew i had to post you this thread http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=463297
but apparently you already know it.I believe it is one of the most complete articles on what was the purpose of cavalry use (at least in mtw2)

This is rather useless mind construct, than anything hugely relevant about the purpouse of cavalry use and especially in M2TW, depicting medieval times.

It shows few poor examples of battles notoriously grinded by anglophiles as examples of how useless cavalry was and I dont see much more names quoted besides Keegan there. So I wholeheartedly hope noone will remodel cavalry in this mod after this crap.

It oversimplifies and brings out solutions that are simply useless in this game system. There are too many definite statements that try to look like they solved everything, like NO horse ANYTIME NO matter what would do something. Yes it would, with training and patient desensibilization to these stimuli, just like you dont send untrained people to battle and expect them to perform mirracles, you also generally dont expect poorly trained horses unacustommed to such a situation to not shy away from impact. (As article stated YES horses are smart, they can understand its not one huge concrete wall, but just a bunch of people) They surely were expected to run close enough to deliver impact of lance, or were they carrying these just for fun?

Horses are scared of simply anything, training them to get used to huge masses of men is just the same as getting them used to everything else, if you say its absolutely impossible, then you can say you cant train them to do nothing. Its not about what you can or cannot do, its about what you need/want or dont need/dont want to train your horse to get used to.

One very important point in adopting deep pike formations in rennaisance was to resist lance armed and heavily armoured cavalry, which was as a rule mounted on well trained horses. (At least in context of french hommes d armes of 15th and 16th century, where it was generally recognized, that infantry without pikes was almost defenceless against them without other means of defence)

That horse cant throw people away at impact is once more pure nonsence, especially if this is augmented by training. From quite tangible example I can post example of polo pony bowling through few ranks of men without problem or breaking all his legs, while infantrymen remained intact as stated in this article noted by one norwegian cavalry renactor at battle of Hastings reproduction. (Of course there are some quite explicitly described examples of cavalry colliding with infantry and loads of example, where it can be speculated to start with) Its like saying you die of collision with 6 years old child wearing suit of armour.

There is truth in this article, especially regarding statement, that most cavalry vs infantry interactions were decided before initial impact. But that is general law, it counts for cav vs cav and inf vs inf as well. So stating hoplites should have big charge value, while cavalry NONE is once again put on its head. If cavalry is made to have zero charge value, than every unit should have zero charge value from this perspective. This would require whole new system of unit interactions in this game, which is most propably not possible. In context of how combat works in total war this is great solution and any change towards reality would require whole new game with complex changes, just taking charge away from cavalry plus some useless adjustments, that surely wont make it something more than entirely useless are in no way step in realisms way. It was many times resolve of men, rather than horses, that would fail first, to ride by and not to try tackle infantry formation, if faced with missiles combined with serried points.

Stainless steel has great cavalry, though lethality of charge could surely be reduced, but for both infantry and cavalry, as on one side cavalry looses half its unit in some cases, while it can kill 3x or 4x their number at one frontal charge. We adjusted values in multiplayer a little, giving units globally about x3 defence for cav and 2x for infantry defence and shield values, with minor charge value adjustments for cavalry and 2h infantry and increasing anti cavalry bonuses for pikemen and spearmen. It wasnt optimal, but it did indeed gave longer battles and infantry very resistant to frontal charges, which could kill some, but wouldnt wipe out whole units, while cavalry would also not suffer so hugely at retreat. It reminded me unit balance in EB or RS2, which is quite well made.

To sum it up: I dont imply horses were allways, or even preferably used as invincible battering rams, but if thats what they were meant to do and if they were trained to do so and if situation demanded it, they surely could. That doesnt mean, that even in this examples it wouldnt be more propable, or preferable, that infantry would simply run away, making it easier, but few examples of steady infantry facing cavalry resolved to charge through show and some may be speculated about, that it was possible to charge through, demolishing infantry formation even repeatedly, which was reformed afterwards or even leading to the collapse of infantry formation, both sides suffering some casualties. (Very good examples are battle of Ceresole and battle of Dreux, as to Kirchholm, Im not sure, but if they managed to surround infantry and charge from several directions, then why not, even without horse armour? They surely could do it with these lances against any other pikeless infantry, no matter how steady, if in the open. There are also Khushab and Aliwal, examples of british cavalry breaking steady infantry squares. Battle of Dresden is also nice example of how ommited is the role of firepower in facing cavalry in square in contrast to allways highlighted points about how horse wouldnt charge anything)

I see this statements of infantry praise and cavalry denigration in people fascinated by roman history very often (or by medieval infantry for that matter), they generally completely ommit, that even their beloved legions were very dependent upon cavalry support throughout their history to protect their flanks. (For interesting reading about it, Id recommend Philip Sidnel: Warhorse: Cavalry in the anciant warfare) They also ommit, that any infantry charge would be just so much, or rather even more about pure psychological overwhelming of opposition, than about actual physical damage this charging unit could cause and if charged infantry stood their ground, they would also be most propably and most times compelled to halt, reform and get into slow fight of formation against formation in ordered line. And that it was cavalry once again, that could decide this even struggle decidedly in few moments by attacking enemy, where he wasnt formed properly to face it.

If someone doubts these information, I can put up some quotes from knowledgeable people to specific points, if Ill be able to recollect them. Generally, comunicating with people reenacting cavalry and studying its use in depth, my impression is there simply is almost no good research, that could say definitely what a horse would never do, even with proper and patient training and accomplished rider atop,or what would cavalry charge in different periods and situations look like, there are just speaculations, even among people studying this subject specifically and they allways note this.

In other words, for me any statements like in this article should come from a person, whose lifelong accupation was theoretical and especially practical study of utilization of horses, with very good and complex knowledge of its aspects in at least one period in human history and rough knowledge of others. Otherwise its just as good a guess as of anyone, historian, or not.

And to the LOTR charge at Pelennor fields: it really looks cool to say how unrealistic something was outright, just because it was in a Hollywood movie, but I dont see it as completely bad regarding realism, as it was depicted. Orcs were charged to the unprotected flank, where they were hastily ordered in few ranks with some wooden toothpicks as only protection and seemingly routing before cavalry ever reached them, without much resistance. (At least it looked like this) What followed was more or less a massacre of completely disordered and panicking enemy to my eye, something, that most propably occured infinite number of times in warfare.

[Orlorin]

And to the LOTR charge at Pelennor fields: it really looks cool to say how unrealistic something was outright, just because it was in a Hollywood movie, but I dont see it as completely bad regarding realism, as it was depicted. Orcs were charged to the unprotected flank, where they were hastily ordered in few ranks with some wooden toothpicks as only protection and seemingly routing before cavalry ever reached them, without much resistance. (At least it looked like this) What followed was more or less a massacre of completely disordered and panicking enemy to my eye, something, that most propably occured infinite number of times in warfare.

With regards to that charge, I think the psychological impact of a suicidal charge was the main factor. The Orcs knew that the cavalry was willing go straight into them at full speed. "To death and glory!" They yelled death like three times. The arrow barrages also didn't seem to slow them, I agree, the orcs were routing, and not really equipped to deal with that situation.

Some background, the Witch King had put some ten thousand disciplined Easterling infantry on the roads leading to Minas Tirith, only a local guide allowed them to attack such a unprepared force.

[Ichon]

This is rather useless mind construct, than anything hugely relevant about the purpouse of cavalry use and especially in M2TW, depicting medieval times.

LOL If you read the rest that the majority of people are disagreeing with OP and listing battles and charges. It was put up as link in reference to the later pages not that OP.

[misterbull]

LOL If you read the rest that the majority of people are disagreeing with OP and listing battles and charges. It was put up as link in reference to the later pages not that OP.

I thought he was referring the OP myself who I strongly disagree with. I'll have to read the discussion.

[Greendragon]

I think it would be useful to look at modern day mounted riot police or even mounted police for that matter.

They specifically train there horses to run at mobs of admittedly drunken fools however they still charge at solid targets. They rely on the fact that people will run away and after this occurs a couple of times is it unreasonable to expect that a horse will expect that said solid mass of people to feel as well?

Additionally they also train there horses to physically push and butt people away.

[Judeman266]

@misterbull

No, I was referring to the later pages of the thread not the misinformed opinion of the OP. I guess I'll clarify in the first post.

[TWWolfe]

Well, Having ridden horses, and having a mother who trained police horses, i can confirm that the people who think horses will not charge masses of men have never had much actual, hands on experience with horses. and those "little" legs are a hell of a lot stronger than you think they are

[Ichon]

Holes and cluttered obstacles on a field are the worst for horses legs which is why cavalry rarely remained effective in mountains or forests but terrain can be uneven and cavalry can still charge. Stepping in a hole/trench, numerous obstacles like trees, posts, planted shields, etc can stop a cavalry charge. Rolling hills, mud, grass, even fields with lots of boulders or small trees don't slow horses very much though might be enough to reduce the power of a charge those things alone wouldn't stop a charge.