Real life cavalry effectiveness in melee

[gunnigolfer]

How effective in melee were medieval cavalry in real life. Couldn't they easily beat strong swordsmen in a 100vs100 battle without a charge?

[UhOhIt'sAnArrow]

I dono in a charge it seems like the horse would collapse on itself and the rider be thrown off...

[Lusted]

Imagine you have 100 heavily armoured guys on horses. They're fighting 100 heavily armoured guys on foot. Both are engaging the other in melee. Which side has a nice big target to aim at and bring down?

[tmterrill]

Imagine trying to stab almost strait up, anyone know just how tall a horse is, the best you could to is hit the horseman in the legs unless you completely set yourself up to be hit by him. Also has anyone here ever been right next to a horse? They are huge, I wouldn't want to be near them if they were pissed off and in a tense situation, one kick your badly injured, even in heavy armour. Now if an army has spears, horses are toast. They frighten very easy from spears, but swords would be a lot different.

[Lusted]

Imagine trying to stab almost strait up, anyone know just how tall a horse is, the best you could to is hit the horseman in the legs unless you completely set yourself up to be hit by him.

Yeah i know how tall a horse is, it's why i wouldn't be trying to kill the rider, i'd be trying to kill the horse.

[Ozy]

Yeah i know how tall a horse is, it's why i wouldn't be trying to kill the rider, i'd be trying to kill the horse.

I remember reading or hearing somewhere that to attack the horse instead of the knight was considered "dishonorable", kind of cowardly during the Middle Ages.

Edit: I think that rule only applied if the 2 fighters where using a horse...

[tmterrill]

What if the horse has armour? And He can probably kill you right before or right after you try to hit the horse. Principle of higher ground anyone?

[Lusted]

What if the horse has armour? And He can probably kill you right before or right after you try to hit the horse. Principle of higher ground anyone?

Depends where you are attacking him from, or if he's busy dealing with someone else. And as far asi know no horse armour included armoured legs.

[tmterrill]

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...dieval-ii3.jpg The horses have armoured skirts that go more then halfway down their legs.

EDIT
If the infantry stays very tight and the calvary cannot isolate them, yes the infantry will win, but I doubt they can stay in a tight formation for long.

[OKN]

If you kill the horse, the rider can still fight without the horse.

The templars used their cav to cause confusion and break up the enemy lines before the inf would move in, so there are many other elements than just the kill:death ratio

[Banazir]

For a rider it's not easy to hit an enemy, his movements are limited, in a melee the horse it's only a problem for the rider.
More than this, for a footman it's very easy to hit the rider, the horse it's not *that* huge.

The strength of the cavalry it's the charge not the melee.

[Snipafist]

If you kill the horse, the rider can still fight without the horse.

If you kill the horse, the rider is likely pinned under it or falls off of it, making him an easy casualty in most circumstances.

I'd still give the win to the cavalrymen. They've got the advantage of height (which means they chop down into heads and upper torsoes, which is quite effective) and a big mean animal that can easily kill infantry itself. The infantry has to reach up to hit the cavalrymen, or attempt to kill/maim the horse itself (which isn't as amazingly easy as a lot of you computer chair commandoes seem to think it is). The reason cavalry don't want to get bogged down in infantry units is because they are horribly outnumbered (being elite units versus what is usually a large angry mob). If it's a straight fight - X elite cavalry vs X elite infantry, it's an easy win for the cavalry. Only when more advanced polearms (like the hookbill and pike) and more deadly ranged weapons (like the crossbow and longbow) came into the picture did the horse become a drawback, and thus you got the English style of fighting where the knights dismounted for real combat. But even then it was largely because infantry worked better in support of largely static ranged units.

[kapow32]

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...dieval-ii3.jpg The horses have armoured skirts that go more then halfway down their legs.

yes, but you could still bruise or perhaps break a horses leg just through the strength of the blow. a horse would be pretty much finished in a melee with an injured leg

[Casus Belli]

All a swordsman needs to do is cut one of the horse's hamstrings, the tendon at the back of the knee of the hind legs, and the horse is down. A horseman in full armour, if his horse falls over, is going to be on his side and having a lot of difficulty getting up, especially with a horse kicking around. Infantry beats cavalry except in some rare circumstances. Although, as has been said, it can be used to break up lines.

[Lumberjack]

Well, historically they were used in charging tactics, and chasing deserters. Dont know if it was because they werent as efficient, or if horses were just to costly to replace, and its hard to take into account all the variables in an evenly matched fight; weapons, formations, terrain along with a host of other factors would determine who would win a straight match up.

[pat the magnificent]

even post charge, fighting a mounted soldier from on foot is a dangerous proposition, given that the mounted combatant has enough room to move about.

there's several factor you need to remember (most have already been mentioned)

1- Warhorses were big and ****ing mean animals. They bite, they kick, and they're not afraid pain. have you ever seen an angry stallion bucking and kicking? now imagine an ancient warhorse (which is probably much larger than that stallion you remember seeing) trying to hurt and kill you and the only thing you have to defend yourself with is a stubby little blade and a wooden shield.

2- leverage. a blow delivered from a vantage point several feet higher than someone's head is going to be very powerful when delivered downwardly. it'd also take less energy to deliver.

3- stamina. if you're on a horse, you share the load of carrying and fighting in all that armor with a huge (and ****ing mean) beast of burden. you'll probably have more energy in reserve than Joey McSchmuckerson the footsoldier who has been marching and fighting for hours already.

4- mobility. if you have room to maneuver your giant man killing horse, you can make use of a lot of tactics that are denied to footsoldiers. like riding up behind some schmoe and smashing a warhammer into the back of his skull, or swinging your weapon at someone while you ride past him. say theres some guy who's giving you trouble, well you're on a horse so you can just ride away and find someone else to pick on. also your horse is going to be constantly moving, so it wouldn't be nearly as easy to say break one of the horse's legs as you might think it'd be.

5- fear. kind of ties into point 1, but its worth mentioning. there's going to be a certain amount of awe inspired in any peasant footsoldier facing off against an armored knight atop snarling man-killing beast. and even the veteran soldier is going to be aware of the bone crushing power he's facing when confronted with a mounted knight.

[Born Conqueror]

Very good points Pat, also worth mentioning here is the training of these horses, aside from being mean ****ers as already stated they were damn near trained to have the footwork of a boxer, and a skilled rider could literally bob and weave their horse away from attacks, truely remarkable how well they were trained for war. (saw a demonstration at medieval times ) Aside from the boxing footwork they were also trained ofcourse to buck up and kick, as well as kicking backwards, so in other words it wasnt fun getting near a Knight on horseback.

[tmterrill]

Those were exactly the points I was trying to orientate. TY pat and born conq. Also take into consideration how little mobility a knight (unhorsed) with enough armour to compete with a mounted knight has.I would think it would be very hard to swing your sword low enough to get a horses leg (when it has an armoured skirt) while dodging the knight on the horse. You will defienetly catch a blow to the head even if you get the horse.

[A Demented Goldfish]

even post charge, fighting a mounted soldier from on foot is a dangerous proposition, given that the mounted combatant has enough room to move about.

there's several factor you need to remember (most have already been mentioned)

1- Warhorses were big and ****ing mean animals. They bite, they kick, and they're not afraid pain. have you ever seen an angry stallion bucking and kicking? now imagine an ancient warhorse (which is probably much larger than that stallion you remember seeing) trying to hurt and kill you and the only thing you have to defend yourself with is a stubby little blade and a wooden shield.

2- leverage. a blow delivered from a vantage point several feet higher than someone's head is going to be very powerful when delivered downwardly. it'd also take less energy to deliver.

3- stamina. if you're on a horse, you share the load of carrying and fighting in all that armor with a huge (and ****ing mean) beast of burden. you'll probably have more energy in reserve than Joey McSchmuckerson the footsoldier who has been marching and fighting for hours already.

4- mobility. if you have room to maneuver your giant man killing horse, you can make use of a lot of tactics that are denied to footsoldiers. like riding up behind some schmoe and smashing a warhammer into the back of his skull, or swinging your weapon at someone while you ride past him. say theres some guy who's giving you trouble, well you're on a horse so you can just ride away and find someone else to pick on. also your horse is going to be constantly moving, so it wouldn't be nearly as easy to say break one of the horse's legs as you might think it'd be.

5- fear. kind of ties into point 1, but its worth mentioning. there's going to be a certain amount of awe inspired in any peasant footsoldier facing off against an armored knight atop snarling man-killing beast. and even the veteran soldier is going to be aware of the bone crushing power he's facing when confronted with a mounted knight.

lol

[TWWolfe]

lol

Hey, a trained warhorse is a very dangerous creature.

and it wasn't gunpowder per say that eliminated cavalry from the battlefield. rather, it was the introduction of reliable gunpowder weapons. and even with these, cavalry still continued to be used up until the napoleonic wars. heck, there was even a successful cavalry charge during WWI