AI army composition - cavalry

[General A. Skywalker]

Does anyone know how much cavalry (historically) was around on a battlefield of the English Civil War?

I have the feeling that the AI (and the player too at the beginning) have a lot of cavalry, and I don't really like those cavalry versus cavalry-battles.

Also a battle with too much cavalry participating tends to be cavalry-focused, meaning: The enemy attacks with his cavalry, the player sends his own cavalry to defend the infantry/artillery. Both sides are shooting at each other until they run out of ammo, then the close combat begins.
And at the same time the AI kind of "forgets" its infantry force, meaning there can't be a decent infantry-battle, as the AI's simply focused on the cavalry-battle going on, so it uses its infantry only to support the cavalry in close combat.

I think generally said there shouldn't be more than 4 or 5 cavalry units (+general) in a full army.


I admit I haven't had that many battles yet, but I think I'm not totally wrong.

Is anyone with me?

(However, it is a great mod!!! )

[solecist]

supposedly cavalry made up 40% of the armed forces at that time, but i'm just quoting AD on that.

[AlphaDelta]

Cavalry was hugely important and made up a huge presence on the battlefield. From researching the major battles it became clear that cavalry could form upto 40% of an army in this time.

Cheers

[General A. Skywalker]

Cavalry was hugely important and made up a huge presence on the battlefield. From researching the major battles it became clear that cavalry could form upto 40% of an army in this time.

Cheers

Ok, I didn't know that, thanks for the information.

Well, and was it common that cavalry formations stopped in front of each other and exchanged volley after volley? (I mean, weren't cavalry fights mostly h2h combat?)

I know much about 18th century warfare, so maybe this knowledge is misleading me. 17th century isn't my area.

[leonn]

Ok, I didn't know that, thanks for the information.

Well, and was it common that cavalry formations stopped in front of each other and exchanged volley after volley? (I mean, weren't cavalry fights mostly h2h combat?)

I know much about 18th century warfare, so maybe this knowledge is misleading me. 17th century isn't my area.

yes absolutly,check this quote on a cavalry exchange."many pistoll shot were exchanged,but at too great distance on both sydes most shottes,otherwayes the continuell motions of the horses preveened all hurt.some by the restevness of ther owne horses un used to service wer throwne to the grownde"in other words they blazed away like mad and did little damage.the scots horse in particular were known for a reluctance to close for sword strokes,unlike their english counterparts.

[solecist]

pardon the slight misquote

[Point Blank]

I think what makes this mod even more interesting is that most of us are learning about new tactics for the period.

[Shatov]

Alpha:

I've noticed that dedicated melee cavalry seems to be unpopular during this period (except my beloved Scottish (last people I'd expect great cavalry from) Lancers).

Why was this? Seems very curious as I know melee-dedicated cavalry was popular long after the ECW.

I'm not used to it at all; all my favorite armies in TW games (and mods) are light cavalry oriented (Russians, Hungarians, Byzantines, Poles, Parthians, Saka, Turks).

[Chevalier IX]

During this period it the tactics of cavalry changed dramatically,and by most accounts for the worst.Most cavalry arms of the west were rendered useless due to the absence of shock tactic(meaning there was no emphasis on the charge of horse)rathering that the cavalry serve as mounted shooters,and in some armies,this was almost exclusively done.It was not until The lessons learned by Gustav Adolf whilst fighting in the east where the cavalry charge still reigned that the reintroduction of the shock tactic found its way back onto the fields of the west.We see it integrated into the ECW by Prince Rupert of the Rhine and his daring cavalry tactics on the behalf of the royalist arm,but for th most part this was not the norm,but the exception,most cavalry commanders being content with their troopers performing the complicated and rather ineffective caracole technique,which,without getting too in depth on the subject,was rather like the infantry firing by rank,only done on horseback.Now in the defense of the minds of the day,a field full of pikemen is not really the place to be considering a charge,but other,better uses of the cavalry were yet to come again in the logic of the combined arms synthesis,but that is another story all together,and it is only after this that we see Cavalry tak the field yet again in their proper role as battle winners and tide turners....at least in theory

[AlphaDelta]

Good post! +rep

One thing we have to remember is that the caracole at this time was not some kind of cantabrian circle or fancy dressage. It was as you say much like the infantry firing by ranks, whereby the cavalry would move forward one rank at a time to within range of the enemy, discharge their carbines into the formation and then move back to join their own formation.

I don't think this was necessarily a poor tactic, it was obviously designed to defeat large bodies of pikemen which were common through the 16th century and early 17th century. However, clearly such a slow and deliberate system of giving fire was never going to work against a cavalry force that was coming towards you at the charge from the earliest possible moment.

Recieving a charge at the stand depended upon the quality of the cavalrymen. Highly trained and disciplined men could of pulled it off, but so much of Parliaments cavalry in 42 and 43 was poorly trained and poorly led.

Cheers

[leonn]

also the problem with ruperts daring tactics is that he couldnt control them afterwards.the course of a number of battles during the war would have been very different if cavalry had not disappeared over the horizon to be lost for hours plundering.this is why cromwells ironsides became famous,because (eventually!)they could be controlled.

[Shatov]

How did an army with shock cavalry use it during this period? Could shock cavalry be used against the flanks or rear of a pike formation, or would they just beat the caracole and maybe try to get some of the lighter infantry (dragoons and musketeers)?

Seems odd to me to have a pike army without shock cavalry; rather like the awkward late Hellenic armies, an anvil with no hammer.

[AlphaDelta]

As I understand it, cavalry would go after the opposing cavalry. Once the enemy horse had been routed, the cavalry would turn in and attack already engaged infantry.

Cheers

[AWZC]

As I understand it, cavalry would go after the opposing cavalry. Once the enemy horse had been routed, the cavalry would turn in and attack already engaged infantry.

Cheers

Unless it was Ruperts, then it would rout the enemy cavalry before going off to plunder the supply wagons...

[Chevalier IX]

@AD
I am glad you found my post of interest sir
@Leonn
If memory serves,wasnt Ruperts inability to control his cavalry arm after a successful charge one of the things that screwed the Royalists at Naseby after seeing off the Parliamentarian Left???Allowing Cromwell the luxury of not only sweeping the Royalist Left but of also wheeling into the rear of their infantry lines unopposed???

[leonn]

@AD
I am glad you found my post of interest sir
@Leonn
If memory serves,wasnt Ruperts inability to control his cavalry arm after a successful charge one of the things that screwed the Royalists at Naseby after seeing off the Parliamentarian Left???Allowing Cromwell the luxury of not only sweeping the Royalist Left but of also wheeling into the rear of their infantry lines unopposed???

correct,and it wasnt the first time ruperts cavalry were guilty of this.

[Ciaran S]

I´m not so sure about the English Civil War, but in the Thirty Years War cavalry relied on shock tactics, firing their pistols in the charge, then engaging with the sword. The caracole was rendered ineffective due to the already quite lethal firepower of the infantry.

[leonn]

as it eventualy was here.a lot of professional soldiers came back to england when the war began,and started to introduce lessons they had whilst fighting learned from the dutch and swedes,but it was slow to catch on.