The Age of Cavalry

[Old_Scratch]

I've often heard that heavy cavalry dominated the battlefields of medieval Europe. I've heard it described as the age of cavalry, but I wonder why.

Why did mounted knights dominate the medieval battlefield? I've read some old VV posts concerning infantry discipline, or lack there of, and various battles from both the middle ages and classical Rome. Technological improvements were also considered. I didn't seem to find any conclusions though. All the books I've read seem to be biased toward how great knights were, so no help there either.

So, then I thought that maybe saying that cavalry dominated the medieval battlefield is actually wrong, at least partially. Wouldn't the answer to this be that cavalry always dominated the battlefield? From ancient Egyptian chariots to Alexander's companions to a French knight in plate, all had an equal impact on the battle when you take the time period and technology into account. Sure, some cultures shunned the use of cavalry, like classical Greece, but that didn't make their potential use less effective. The importance of cavalry never increased or diminished until maybe the widespread use of pike and shot armies. Maybe even later.

What do you think?

[Manoflooks]

Knights dominated medieval times because they were well armoured compared to most infantry, morale was often(not always) low because of levys, and they had a huge horse, and lance charging at men. And they were very well trained compared to most infantry. So they were terrified, outclassed, and charged at my heavy cavalry. No wonder they lost.

Rome had a small use of cavalry, yet they made a huge empire. Cavalry isnt necessary, greece is yet another example of this, the right infantry can beat most cavalry, but used correctly, cavalry will win. Look at teh Mongols.

[gaius valerius]

Knights dominated medieval times because they were well armoured compared to most infantry, morale was often(not always) low because of levys,

That is a bit generalising, there was a lot of regional variation.

and they had a huge horse

Horses were rather small in this period irrc.

Rome had a small use of cavalry

You sure? What is small? Weren't the auxiliairy or allied cavalries of great importance?

In the Dark Ages, the majority of armies consisted out of rabbles of peasants. Horses back then were a luxury that only the richest could afford. The Frankish knights were amongst the first professional cavalry force in western Europe.

The Dark Ages end in the early 11th century right? Isn't it in the period afterwards - the High Middle Ages - that the so-called knight in shining armour appears? During the Dark Ages iirc infantry was important.

Apart from the fact that horses are powerful and that the knights were well-equipped, a horde of horses storming towards you was terrifying.

Tell that to the cream of the French knighthood charging forward at Courtrai. (a given, this is already at the brink of the Late Middle Ages, but similar examples exist in for example the 12th century when Barbarossa got wacked by Italian militias).

[Manoflooks]

That is a bit generalising, there was a lot of regional variation.

True, but in much of europe armored knights were a large part, and many battles and wars were won and lost on the backs of horses.

Horses were rather small in this period irrc.

relatively small. the average height of a man was lower too.

You sure? What is small? Weren't the auxiliairy or allied cavalries of great importance?

Not a huge thing. In many battles, yes, they were important, but the roman infantry were the creme de la creme. the auxilaries were just that-auxilaries. they were helpful, but not the main section. the samnites had a great tradition of strong cavalry, yet in its early days rome triumphed over it. and allied samnite cavalry accompanied its armies. after the conquest, i mean.

[Old_Scratch]

True, but in much of europe armored knights were a large part, and many battles and wars were won and lost on the backs of horses.

True, but the same could be said about other periods of history as well. I'll list some of the more ancient battles where cavalry was the deciding factor. Cannae 216 BCE, Guagamela 331 BCE, Zama 202 BCE, Kadesh 1275 BCE, Carrae 53 BC etc.

Many battles had between 10,000-20,000 combined cavalry involved, sometimes more.

Having well trained infantry, even pikemen, doesn't mean that you don't need cavalry. There certainly were many battles where cavalry didn't even take part in, but for the battles where cavalry was used, it was almost always the deciding factor. So long as the person in charge of the cavalry isn't completely incompetent that is.

[Dr. Croccer]

In the Dark Ages, the majority of armies consisted out of rabbles of peasants. Horses back then were a luxury that only the richest could afford. The Frankish knights were amongst the first professional cavalry force in western Europe. Apart from the fact that horses are powerful and that the knights were well-equipped, a horde of horses storming towards you was terrifying.

[Old_Scratch]

In the Dark Ages, the majority of armies consisted out of rabbles of peasants.

I think that's a myth. Sure there were levies, but you also had dismounted knights, mercenaries, and semi-professional infantry. It also depends on what region you're talking about. Some factions had strong infantry traditions, like the English, Danes, Swiss, Flemish, and Scots.

Horses back then were a luxury that only the richest could afford.

That's true of previous eras too. Horses weren't any cheaper to buy and maintain in the Roman republic. One could compare a medieval knight to Roman equites as a social class.

I don't think cavalry was any less decisive in the classical world than in middle ages Europe. The first example that comes to mind is the battle of Cannae, 216 BCE. If one were to completely remove cavalry from the battle the Romans probably would have won a decisive victory, instead of suffering the worst defeat in their history.

[Dr. Croccer]

I think that's a myth. Sure there were levies, but you also had dismounted knights, mercenaries, and semi-professional infantry.

In the Dark ages? In western Europe? I doubt it. Apart from the Franks and the Anglo-Saxons, there were very little who could stand up against them. The bulk of the Frankic enemies were tribal infantry or levies, none of these were excellent against cavalry.

It also depends on what region you're talking about. Some factions had strong infantry traditions, like the English, Danes, Swiss, Flemish, and Scots.

The Vikins relied on hit and run tactics, rarely actual battle. The times they tried it they got massacred. Do not forget that the bulk of Viking raiders were poor, unarmoured men looking for loot, not a professional force. Hence why they kept to terror and looting. The Scots got massacred multiple times by the English. Their most notable victory against cavalry, Stirling Bridge, was won due to smart use of the terrain.

[Ciabhán]

Heavy cavalry 'dominated' battlefields when used properly due to the shock effect against infantry. Normally the strongest and bravest among the infantry ranks would have occupied the front few lines, with the unblooded and less courageous in the rear. A charge by heavy cavalry into the flanks or rear was a great way to break the courage of the 'weaker' troops in an opposing force. A frontal charge against infantry, particularly infantry with a lack of pole-weapons would have killed a large portion of the opposing forces bravest troops and left the 'weaker' troops to fight on often resulting in a loss of morale and breaking of the ranks. Heavy cavalry when used properly would hit the line using all the weight of horse, man, arms, and armour to devastate the line. However heavy cavalry were at a disadvantage in the melee following a charge that did not break the enemy and would under ideal circumstances pull out. Think of them like tanks, the kings of the battlefield, but vulnerable if surrounded and unable to use their greatest advantages. There are of course always exceptions the rule such as Agincourt where a lack of coordination and a series of poor decisions cost the French knights dearly.

[Old_Scratch]

In the Dark ages? In western Europe? I doubt it. Apart from the Franks and the Anglo-Saxons, there were very little who could stand up against them. The bulk of the Frankic enemies were tribal infantry or levies, none of these were excellent against cavalry.

The Vikins relied on hit and run tactics, rarely actual battle.

Well, a quick example off the top of my head would be the Huscarls. They were a professional infantry unit paid for and equip by the king. Their effectiveness against heavy cavalry is debatable, but I was just throwing that out there to counter the "peasant rabble" bit.

I think it would help to set a time period though. Gaius Valerius is correct, I was talking about the 11th - 14th centuries.

[Ciabhán]

Well, a quick example off the top of my head would be the Huscarls. They were a professional infantry unit paid for and equip by the king. Their effectiveness against heavy cavalry is debatable, but I was just throwing that out there to counter the "peasant rabble" bit.

I think it would help to set a time period though. Gaius Valerius is correct, I was talking about the 11th - 14th centuries.

Galloglaigh mercenaries were sometimes effective against cavalry if they were drilled to spread to ranks and collapse on the cavalry after the charge but this required a lot of coordination and courage.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

In the Dark ages? In western Europe? I doubt it.

He's clearly not talking about the Dark Ages given that the subject of the thread is "the Age of Cavalry" and the OP is talking about when knights dominated the battlefield.

The Age of Cavalry vaguely lasted from the Battle of Adrianople on August 9, 378, where the Visigothic cavalry smashed the Romans, to about the Renaissance period when Tercio (pike and shot) squares were developed.

Ummm, no and no. As we've discussed in detail here about 100+ times, Adrianople was not a victory of cavalry over infantry, contrary to the now totally discredited Nineteenth Century myth. It was a victory of infantry over infantry after the cavalry (which was not "Visigothic" anyway) drove off the Roman cavalry.

And most of the armies of the early Middle Ages were dominated by infantry as well. The "Age of Cavalry" didn't truly begin until the Eleventh Century when cavalry technology converged to produce the Medieval knight.

[IronBlood]

Ummm, no and no. As we've discussed in detail here about 100+ times, Adrianople was not a victory of cavalry over infantry, contrary to the now totally discredited Nineteenth Century myth. It was a victory of infantry over infantry after the cavalry (which was not "Visigothic" anyway) drove off the Roman cavalry.

And most of the armies of the early Middle Ages were dominated by infantry as well. The"Age of Cavalry" didn't truly begin until the Eleventh Century when cavalry technology converged to produce the Medieval knight.

You are indeed correct, I've screwed up by incorrectly labeled that date, I think some historians label that day as the beginning of the Dark Ages in Europe. (Unless I got that wrong too).

[gaius valerius]

Ummm, no and no. As we've discussed in detail here about 100+ times, Adrianople was not a victory of cavalry over infantry, contrary to the now totally discredited Nineteenth Century myth. It was a victory of infantry over infantry after the cavalry (which was not "Visigothic" anyway) drove off the Roman cavalry.

And most of the armies of the early Middle Ages were dominated by infantry as well. The "Age of Cavalry" didn't truly begin until the Eleventh Century when cavalry technology converged to produce the Medieval knight.

The typical discussion and the typical answer of Thiu, not that I don't agree of course, I'm fully in agreement. I just want to add that if armies relied on cavalry - on paper - in reality they (we're dealing with the pre-High Middle Ages period) still used to dismount a lot. As for example during the Italian campaigns of Belisarius we have a enough of accounts of heavy cavalry going to the battlefield only to dismount and fight on foot.

[IronBlood]

The Age of Cavalry vaguely lasted from the Battle of Adrianople on August 9, 378, where the Visigothic cavalry smashed the Romans, to about the Renaissance period when Tercio (pike and shot) squares were developed.

What really made the horse and man combo into a truly fearsome force on the battlefield, was the introduction of the stirrup to Europe through the Avars. Without the stirrup, Calvary could not true "charge" the enemy, as the force would catapult the rider from his steed. Also improvements in saddle making and design helped the rider stay focused or planted in the saddle, and more comfort while ridding of course.

Like other posters have said, people who could actually afford a horse could assumably buy their own armour too. Maybe not a full armour set, but at least brigandine or a chest plate of some sort. Also the nobility will presumably have more training than a average lowly peasant,as war was seen as almost a sport by nobles. To train their "war skills" dedicated their vast amount of time to honing their skills, whether in sword fighting or equestrian, and hunting helps war skills too.

And of course physics and mobility are important too

[Flatland]

The reason cavalry was so effective in this period was because knights themselves were heavily trained warriors who could afford the best equipment, such as horses and amour. Cavalry itself wasn't a primary factor, just look at Hastings, Bannockburn, Cambuskenneth Bridge, Agincourt, Crecy, and other battles in which trained infantry throughly defeated mounted chivalry. What really existed in this era, and in every other, was a dominance of the trained warrior over raw levies.

[Carl von Döbeln]

The Age of Cavalry vaguely lasted from the Battle of Adrianople on August 9, 378, where the Visigothic cavalry smashed the Romans, to about the Renaissance period when Tercio (pike and shot) squares were developed.

Remember the great use of Cavarly by Gustavus.

[hellheaven1987]

Remember the great use of Cavarly by Gustavus.

Yap, and Grand Army under Napolean had a large portion of cavalry too.

It is really the matter of training and disciplin; an group of ill-disciplin infantry can be paralysed by a cavalry charge and left their formation open for massacre.

[Legio]

The cream of French knighthood was humiliated by Flemish peasants, can't remember the name of the battle atm, but it was int eh mid 1300s.

[Old_Scratch]

The cream of French knighthood was humiliated by Flemish peasants, can't remember the name of the battle atm, but it was int eh mid 1300s.

I think you're talking about the battle of the golden spurs.

So long as the person in charge of the cavalry isn't completely incompetent that is.

Charging over your own infantry, which were winning the battle, and into gulley's and streams doesn't constitute competency.