Advantage of being mounted

[Warmaster Tibs]

For a long time I have wonderd what the advantage was being mounted on a horse to being on foot?

Horses could be easly bogged down and kill in a charge.
Easier to be hit with arrows.
Takes longer to turn around on a horse etc etc
etc etc

So what was the advantage of being mounted in combat?

[HighLord z0b]

Basically, speed, mass and height.

Speed: A soldier can move much faster both marching from place to place as well as on the battlefield when mounted. The importance of mobility cannot be underestimated. They also don't have to carry all the weight of arms and armour themselves so they don't get tired as easily. Speed is also important to add impact to a cavalry charge.

Mass: When charging, a soldier on a horse combines the weight of the horse plus the weight of the soldier and all of his armour together. This mass is transferred to the tip of the spear/lance/sword in a charge, and the increased speed of a horse creates the devastating cavalry charge.

Height: Fighting from higher ground always gives a soldier the advantage and a horse is a mobile platform from which a soldier can fight whilst retaining the advantage of height. Someone higher up also has a psychological advantage.

Of all of these factors I think mobility on the battlefield is by far the biggest advantage, whether you're talking about heavy or light cavalry. Being able to outflank your enemy or to chase off their skirmishers and then wheel around to attack the enemies rear is the biggest advantage of being mounted.

[Mythlacar]

Horses are also very...very large animals. Add on to that a 200 some odd pound man, with heavy armor on, and all together you've got quite a bit of poundage. Should the enemy kill the horse, and it fall on them, the enemy could be in quite a bit of trouble.

Also, you don't see it much in movies and games, but horses in war typically would kick the out of people. You never...ever want to be kicked by a horse

[Grand Duke Vytautas]

Well said guys about trained war horses kicking and biting (weapon in itself). The fact that these war horses are substantially more muscular and larger due to special breeding than normal ones adds even more psychological advantage over regular foot troops.
Also what games like M2TW and sometimes movies don't show is that if charge is not stopped in place it would just go through the line and wrap around it on both flanks, which would disolve into a mess. As long as the horse is moving (even after the charge), mounted guy has some sort of advantage and initiative. This was very practically demonstrated in Weapons that Made Britain documentary series by Mike Loades (he's an awesome historian)
Just my 2 euro cents

[django333]

Also, the fear of a cavalry charge on an unprotected flank is a great psycological weapon. Untrained and undisciplined troops such as levies would more than likely rout at the sight of cavalry charging them.

[Terafis]

In the game mostly for mobility and mass. Mobility for flanking and maneuvers, mass for charging and breaking formations

[Birk]

Heavy armor have a weight on 120 pounds (55kg) Which means you will easily get tired and you are not dynamically at all. You can't run or move fast.
Heavy armor + Horse was like a todays tank. It would easily break the enemy lines and swords wont cut trough your armor. If you fell of the horse then you won't be able to stand up. Someone must give you a hand or you will just lie down there, your armor is just too heavy. Remember people were less physical strong in that age. Average size in Europe was 165cm for a man and the Scandinavians (Vikings) were 173cm. Thats the reason why vikings were better warriors than any other Europeans because of theirs size and longer arms which will give the viking a longer ranger with swords, spears and also physical stronger. The Byzantines Empire had em as Elite Soldiers and Guards. Quote: from an Arabian General "They are tall as palms" Sorry of topic...

But in game you will get this advantages mounted:

Stamina - Run over the enemies, breaking the enemies line
Speed - Surprise em
Flanking - by flanking you can surprise your enemy by coming behind from, killing the vulnerable archers and their General. Which will make your enemy panic.



When i played Rome Total War on very hard as Carthaginian i used horses only against the Romans. With a massive heir of horses i attack from left or right of the enemies line which made the first group of their army panic when they panicked i just pushed my horses on the next group so they panicked. After 2-3mins my enemy was dead.

[Fakir]

I don't know what you guys are talking about. Mounted units are at a substantial disadvantage against foot units in close-quarters combat, and this is well-represented in the game.

[Ichon]

Mounted units have substantial advantage when moving. As soon as a mounted warrior gets stopped forward momentum in a mass of infantry he lose much of the advantage except height which adds more power to downward thrusts of weapon as well put much of the vital parts of his body out of reach.

The problem for a mounted warrior in mass of infantry is he is a large target and usually quite outnumbered. Even with 120 pounds of armor he or his horse is vulnerable when sitting still. A horse is strong and most knights horses were trained to kill but a horse can only kick or stomp a couple people at a time and while getting kicked by a horse can break ribs or kill an unprotected person, an infantry with mail, hauberk, leather gambkin, shield etc is not as vulnerable. Also a mass of infantry being pressed on from behind will overpower even a horse strength.

I think the length of time frontal charges can be devastating in the game is a bit too long but otherwise cavalry does seem represented accurately enough for a game.

Charging down disorganized or fleeing opponents as well as scouting and raiding activities gave cavalry a place in war basically until mechanized elements took over those roles.

Cavalry hitting flanks or rear devastate the infantry as it is unexpected as well as allow to hit and withdraw before the infantry have time to trap the cavalry in their midst. Only for a very brief period of history did frontal cavalry charges have any success. Return to phalanx like spear formations with long pikes and some discipline etc along with crossbows and gunpowder weapons make frontal charges suicidal pretty early in the medieval period. Of course the movement and surprise flank benefits remained so even eventually dragoons were quite successful simply due to the movement factor.

[Fakir]

You need to consider that in the game, the mass and power of the horse itself is only factored in when charging. In other cases, this is not represented. When you have a mounted soldier, with horse, surrounded by enemies, none of them get affected by the horse's weight, its kicking, or what ever else. The surrounding soldiers are only affected by the swing of the mounted soldier's sword or mace.

[Ichon]

You need to consider that in the game, the mass and power of the horse itself is only factored in when charging. In other cases, this is not represented. When you have a mounted soldier, with horse, surrounded by enemies, none of them get affected by the horse's weight, its kicking, or what ever else. The surrounding soldiers are only affected by the swing of the mounted soldier's sword or mace.

They are still affected by the weight. You ever see AI charge a gate in siege with 3-4 units of knights? Even after charge is done if you packed 4 units of spear around the gate the knights able to push thru. Taking losses of course but infantry unit could never do that in the game. It looks weird too... like fish swimming upstream but the game allows the mass of the horses to push thru infantry. Other instances in open field battles as well though it is not as obvious.

[LostWraith]

In real life the horseman's main advantage can be broken down to speed and psychological power.

Speed is what makes then tactically and strategically advantageous. This is primarily the cause of dominance of cavalry in the east. Mongols were able to strategically and tactically outfight their enemy because the pure cavalry nature of their armies gave their commanders the ability to execute complicated and effective maneuvers on both the tactical and strategic scale that their enemies could not match.

Most of the advantages in combat are psychological. This is primarily the cause of dominance of cavalry in the west. Cavalry, no matter how heavy, cannot defeat heavy infantry frontally except by breaking their morale. The point of the charge is to break the morale of the enemy because if the enemy held ground, the horse is stuck after the momentum is gone and all advantages go to the infantry. The dominance of cavalry in Medieval Europe is due to a lack of infantry discipline. Almost all battles in history show that if infantry hold ground against cavalry, cavalry rarely defeat a quality infantry force, no matter how heavy.

[Fakir]

They are still affected by the weight. You ever see AI charge a gate in siege with 3-4 units of knights? Even after charge is done if you packed 4 units of spear around the gate the knights able to push thru. Taking losses of course but infantry unit could never do that in the game. It looks weird too... like fish swimming upstream but the game allows the mass of the horses to push thru infantry. Other instances in open field battles as well though it is not as obvious.

That's not true at all. Massed infantry have the exact same effect of pushing through.

[Ichon]

That's not true at all. Massed infantry have the exact same effect of pushing through.

Never seen it. I play on large and huge size and the formation size of the infantry units make them stop at the gate. Maybe on smaller sizes its possible but infantry definitely do not push past other infantry as fast as the cavalry so mass of the cavalry still does matter.

[Warmaster Tibs]

Even if cavarly in game would push through the infantry at the gate they would get bogged downed and killed soon after.

[Birk]

Never stand still with the horses. Hit (Charge) and run (Retreat) its extremely effective if you repeat it.

Yes, the horses will push the enemies backwards.

[Ichon]

Never stand still with the horses. Hit (Charge) and run (Retreat) its extremely effective if you repeat it.

Yes, the horses will push the enemies backwards.

Right and sometimes the AI will actually use its cavalry like this fairly well. So due to fact in siege the cav WILL push thru a defending spear wall though probably with decent losses, the turn and charge will still give more advantage to the cav. I've never had a situation where I had so many units in a siege that AI actually attacked walls that can afford extra units back from the gate plus units on walls, plus units defending the gate.

[Vae victis]

For a long time I have wonderd what the advantage was being mounted on a horse to being on foot?

Horses could be easly bogged down and kill in a charge.
Easier to be hit with arrows.
Takes longer to turn around on a horse etc etc
etc etc

So what was the advantage of being mounted in combat?

Lol, for chasing all the routers.

In MTW2, I prefer to use horses in field battles where I can charge and use their mobility to flank. In sieges and in close-quarters fighting, I only use horses in moments of crises, where my men are unable to push through the gate or breach in the wall. In close quarters, you will take less loses if you use cavalry in conjunction with infantry, rather then charging and recharging a unit with tight mass.

In RL, I agree with the OP and I think that the role of the knight on the battlefield had its limitations depending on things like terrain and what type of forces the enemy consisted of. Unlike MTW2, an armored knight could always dismount when needed and fight on foot.

[Birk]

Read my first post in this topic. And you might change your view.

Heavy armor have a weight on 120 pounds (55kg) Which means you will easily get tired and you wouldn't be dynamically at all. You can't run or move fast.
Heavy armor + Horse was like a todays tank. It would easily break the enemy lines and swords won't cut trough your armor. If you fell of the horse then you won't be able to stand up. Someone must give you a hand or you will just lie down there, your armor is just too heavy. Remember people were less physical strong for 1000 years ago, because they were smaller. Average size in Europe was 165cm for a man and the Scandinavians (Vikings) were 173cm.

[Vae victis]

I read your post. Unless a thread has many pages, I try to read all of the posts in the threads that I post in.

I am unsure what you want me to change my view in?