What should a proper cavalry charge look like?

[+Marius+]

Sigh, I see that the ol' debunking cavalry charges fellows have done their dirty job.

The people who "debunked" heavy cavalry charges are few 20th century historians who could not get it through their thick skulls that a brutally trained warhorse is not the same thing as the sheltered princess horsie you ride on the tracks.

I will just post a couple of post from a dude at historum instead of writing blocks of texts, this is too soon since my last text block parade;

http://historum.com/showthread.php?p...4?postcount=33
http://historum.com/showthread.php?p...4?postcount=37
http://historum.com/showthread.php?p...1?postcount=44
http://historum.com/war-military-history/97218-how-well-would-roman-army-do-against-selected-medieval-armies-5.html#post2370087?postcount=45
http://historum.com/war-military-his...9?postcount=47
http://historum.com/war-military-his...?postcount=139


It is like people started debunking stuff and then they just could not stop...so they continued onto things that do not need debunking.

[johntarmac]

Sigh, I see that the ol' debunking cavalry charges fellows have done their dirty job.

The people who "debunked" heavy cavalry charges are few 20th century historians who could not get it through their thick skulls that a brutally trained warhorse is not the same thing as the sheltered princess horsie you ride on the tracks.

I will just post a couple of post from a dude at historum instead of writing blocks of texts, this is too soon since my last text block parade;

http://historum.com/showthread.php?p...4?postcount=33
http://historum.com/showthread.php?p...4?postcount=37
http://historum.com/showthread.php?p...1?postcount=44
http://historum.com/war-military-history/97218-how-well-would-roman-army-do-against-selected-medieval-armies-5.html#post2370087?postcount=45
http://historum.com/war-military-his...9?postcount=47
http://historum.com/war-military-his...?postcount=139


It is like people started debunking stuff and then they just could not stop...so they continued onto things that do not need debunking.

While I would agree that a warhorse trained for battle is a completely different beast (maybe monster is a better description) to a gymkhana horse of today those links you posted prove nothing whatsoever.
They are a collection of stylized paintings probably done decades after the battle by an artist who probably never saw a battle in their life and a couple of clips of horses having accidents they can't avoid.

[+Marius+]

those links you posted prove nothing whatsoever.

...sigh.

They are a collection of stylized paintings probably done decades after the battle by an artist who probably never saw a battle

They are contemporary images, including the pike vs cav painting by Pieter Snayers.

in their life and a couple of clips of horses having accidents they can't avoid.

Sure thing buddy;




Whatever makes you feel better.

[BlackCrowActual]

As an actual cavalryman (we don't actually use that term in the Marine Corps, though the US Army still does), and a sometimes-student of history, I've got some insights hopefully some of you will find useful:

Seldom is cavalry used to "break a line;" and here I'm talking about tanks and other armored vehicles to mean cavalry. A thrust of cavalry unsupported in the center of an attack would leave the cavalry vulnerable to swarming from infantry, as well as likely to be stuck in defensive emplacements (mines, etc.). Cavalry being expensive and fragile (yes, even the Abrams), it makes no sense to send it thundering into fixed infantry.

*Yes, I'm discussing 21st century tactics here, but the dynamic remains the same - in the ancient world, an unsupported cavalry charge into fixed infantry (braced behind shields, spears fixed) in defensive positions, would suffer similarly. If the current incarnation of cavalry lacks the mass and numbers to break a defensive enemy position, my assumption is that a few hundred men on horses would similarly unable to break through.

The real value of the horse, even shock cavalry, is not it's weight but its mobility. We are taught to go to where the enemy is not, not to where the enemy is. Our mobility allows for this. Part of the mission reads: "Its mission is to conduct reconnaissance, security and economy of force operations, and, within its capabilities, limited offensive or defensive operations that exploit the unit’s mobility and firepower."

Ancient cavalry would have functioned similarly. Support infantry attacks, pick off isolated units (where the mass equation becomes much more equal), use mobility to attack the enemy where he is weakest, and massacre larger formations once they rout. The valiant charge stuff sounds more like Hollywood to me.

Infantry for mass, cavalry for mobility.

All that said, both then and today, once the infantry engagement begins, cavalry is more than free to begin harassing the flanks and rear of the enemy army. The perception of being surrounded (that the flanks have collapsed and the enemy is all around) will cause most infantry, no matter how disciplined, to begin to seriously weigh their options.

Morale itself comes out of humans innate sense of justice. If everyone else is still fighting, then sure, you'll stay and die to the last man with them. But if a few decide they have pressing engagements elsewhere, the effect is contagious. No one wants to be the only idiot to die for the cause. Cavalry harrying the flanks and in the rear (which were considered to be safe when other units were guarding them for you) lends itself immensely to the idea that your allies have gone off. At that point, the determination of most men fails, and they too run. Then the battle becomes a rout, and the killing begins in earnest.

Human psychology is timeless. Tactics and strategies are designed to exploit that psychology. I expect not much has changed between the cavalry tactics of Alexander and our own time.

[Smiley92]

Can I share a story I got from my fencing instructor? He's been doing reenactment for years, and he knew someone who was one of the extras in Braveheart, filming the cavalry charge scene. The plan was that they would film a few hundred of these guys on horseback charging at the extras playing the Scots, then they would pull up and stop (obviously).

So the first time they tried to film it they got the horsemen in a line and they started rumbling towards the Scottish extras, and as the horses got closer they started moving back a little, even they knew it wasn't a real charge. Then they started moving back more... and faster... and by the time the cavalry were anywhere near them everyone was running

I don't doubt the psychological impact of a frontal charge against an undisciplined force was real, and I can see why a commander might think it was worth a try. If it works you've won the battle, and if it doesn't you can just reign in the horses and let the infantry take over. Still, I see this tactic being more effective if it's a gang of knights crushing a peasant rebellion than two kingdom's armies confronting each other. The cavalry there would probably be busy fighting the enemy cavalry to stop their own force being flanked.

[econ21]

So the first time they tried to film it they got the horsemen in a line and they started rumbling towards the Scottish extras, and as the horses got closer they started moving back a little, even they knew it wasn't a real charge. Then they started moving back more... and faster... and by the time the cavalry were anywhere near them everyone was running

I heard the same thing about the Russian soldiers who were extras in the Waterloo film.

Soldiers of the Red Army were used as extras to portray the British army. They 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.

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