Shieldwall vs. cavalry

[Tasmansk Tiger]

Hey folks, I was wondering if anyone knows how shieldwalls worked versus cavalry charges? I know the Spanish tried to imitate the Roman legions with fielding swordmen with shields in th 16th century I believe. This failed badly when faced with cavalry, but I do not know if they employed shieldwalls as well. I guess if you combine sheildwall with long spears you'd be good, but does anyone know if shieldwalls actually worked against cavalry when on even terrain? The battle of Hastings saw this ofcourse, but it was also uphill, tho I dont know how much uphill it was.. From the Sagas of Harald Hardråde I read that the anglo saxons employed cavalry in the battle of stamford bridge, but if it's true I dont know, neither do I know what effect it had if it was actually deployed..

So, anyone knows?
Thanks in advance

[Border Patrol]

Actually even the famed Spanish Tercio Block was only moderately effective at neutralizing cavalry charges.

I'm not too sure about this time period, but if the lance has been invented during the game's time frame then heavy cav should gobble up any infantry it finds.

[Tasmansk Tiger]

Uh yeah that's my thoughts too. At like stainless Steel my Hirdsmenn can at ease stand up to most cavalry charges tho they can't defeat cavalry unless I flank the enemy cavalry with my own or put a shieldwall behind them. Im just wondering if that is unrealistic or not. I know in 1308 there was a massed battle outside of Oslo, Norway. Norwegian peasants/infantry forces defeated Swedish cavalry forces, albeit with heavy losses. I cant remember how many wer eon each side however. I do believe the Franks struggled as well with shieldwalls, but the Norse struggled more against the Frankish cavalry. (if that makes sense)

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

Actually even the famed Spanish Tercio Block was only moderately effective at neutralizing cavalry charges.

I'm not too sure about this time period, but if the lance has been invented during the game's time frame then heavy cav should gobble up any infantry it finds.

It does exist, but it isn't in the British Isles at this point. It's introduced by William the Conqueror.

Cavalry in this period, in this area, is not the heavy cavalry of the 11th to 16th centuries. The reason most nobles dismounted and fought on foot is because an infantry shieldwall was far more effective than the cavalry forces of the day.

The main problem with stopping a cavalry charge is fear. When the ground is rumbling and you're gripping your weapons and just waiting for the impact, the temptation to run must have been overwhelming.

[Imperial Eagle]

I thought the Welsh had (albeit an extremely low number of) two handed i.e. Kontos lances first introduced by Sarmatian auxilaries brought by Rome. The lance caught on pretty well, and during the Anglo-Saxon conquests the shieldwall based Germanic peoples were greatly hindered by "Marca Contwyn" literally "Contus Cavalry". The lance (and heavy cavalry in general) gradually grew rarer as the Romano-British retreated into modern Wales and Cornwall due to loss of good, fertile pasture.

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

I thought the Welsh had (albeit an extremely low number of) two handed i.e. Kontos lances first introduced by Sarmatian auxilaries brought by Rome. The lance caught on pretty well, and during the Anglo-Saxon conquests the shieldwall based Germanic peoples were greatly hindered by "Marca Contwyn" literally "Contus Cavalry". The lance (and heavy cavalry in general) gradually grew rarer as the Romano-British retreated into modern Wales and Cornwall due to loss of good, fertile pasture.

The lance itself is really not the issue, but the stirrup. Without the stirrup, the cavalry charge is lessened in power because if the rider were to hit the opponent at full speed and couch the lance under the armpit, they would deliver a far more powerful attack, but also be catapulted out of the seat and into the enemy ranks very shortly after.

With the stirrup, the rider is able to stay in the saddle when he delivers a couched lance charge.

[Tasmansk Tiger]

Imperial eagle, do you know about any articles online about welsh cavalry?

[Skandinav]

Among Scandinavians the shieldwall remained an effective means by which to stop cavalry all the way up until the late 13th- and early 14th century, infantry terrain benefits notwithstanding.

[Hennaz]

Horses, being clever animals, refused to charge a seemingly solid wall of shields bristling with swords & spears - they swerved away at the last moment. The same principle applies to the napoleonic era square formation.

[Hennaz]

The stirrup not only made cavalry charges effective but stationary combat as well. Before the stirrup a cavalryman attempting to strike a blow powerful enough to actually harm an enemy soldier would like as not fall off his horse, making him both extremely vulnerable and look a bit of a prat.

[Tasmansk Tiger]

But do you think a well disciplined shieldwall could withstand a charge by heavy cavalry with stirrups? I believe they would since the Normans couldn't smash the anglo-saxon shieldwall at Hastings, but again, I don't knwo how much a difference the hill made.

[Hennaz]

Very little. Like I said the horses wouldnt charge home. All the defenders had to do was have the balls to hold thier ground while a large number of huge & scary horses carrying only slightly less scary men charged full gallop at them. Easier said than done.

[Imperial Eagle]

Very little. Like I said the horses wouldnt charge home. All the defenders had to do was have the balls to hold thier ground while a large number of huge & scary horses carrying only slightly less scary men charged full gallop at them. Easier said than done.

Of course since the hardened Huscarls held the front and they had faced some pretty unnerving Vikings at Stamford, it wouldn't be quite as unnerving. But for undrilled troops, it sure was!

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

Very little. Like I said the horses wouldnt charge home. All the defenders had to do was have the balls to hold thier ground while a large number of huge & scary horses carrying only slightly less scary men charged full gallop at them. Easier said than done.

This is pretty much the crux of the issue. The terrible fear that's induced when a line of cavalry is charging straight at you, making the ground rumble and your bladder weak...I can't say that I'd hold my ground.

[Hennaz]

Maybe it's easier when you know you're only chance of survival is standing shoulder to shoulder with your mates but ,frankly, i'd rather not find out.

[onlyonepinman]

My personal opinion on this is (and it only my opinion) is that the shield wall was effective against the cavalry of the time which, while heavy by the standards of 1066, was not truly heavy cavalry with full armoured horses etc.

The battle of Hastings was not won by Cavalry, but rather it was lost through Anglo-Saxon indiscipline. Harold's left flank successfully broke a Norman attack but rather than hold their position and reform, they broke ranks to pursue the routing Normans. This counter attack, led by two of Harold's brothers, failed and many of the Fyrdmen were killed, including Harolds brothers. Those who survived and made their way back to the Saxon lines were not strong enough in number to protect the flank effectively. Furthermore, the death of Harold's brothers left the Saxons without a clear choice of leader when Harold was killed. William saw the weakness on the flank and attacked there, using his Cavalry, effectively destroying the Saxon flank and opening up the line to be massacred. So the effectiveness of the Cavalry in 1066 was the way it was used, not it's ability to break a defensive formation.

The same is generally true with Cavalry of all eras, it is best used against troops in loose formations or against troops in formations that have already begun to break up whether due to morale, indiscipline, casualties or being involved in melee. Even without shields, heavy infantry in a tighted, closed formation stands a very good chance of defeating a cavalry charge (albeit with losses), although a shield and spear is advised for optimum chance of survival and the author of this post takes no responsibility for loss of life in the event that anyone tries to prove/disprove this theory

Cavalry is great for guarding flanks and providing a killer blow to troops already in combat and also for chasing away skirmishers. It's not great at breaking troop formations, especially heavy infantry formations. In fact almost every major military power throughout history which has had to face cavalry has developed some form of protective formation against cavalry from the early phalanxes & shield walls right up to the Square formation. Most of these formations have been highly successful which is why it is the humble infantry, the lowly foot soldier, that has traditionally won battles, grinding out victories. Infantry earn victories, cavalry confirm them.

[Tasmansk Tiger]

Actually I just read on wikipedia (in Norwegian) that the Swedes used shieldwalls with great success against the landsknecht-mercenaries hired by the Danes as late as in 1497 at the battle of Rotebro. Supposedly they were replaced in 1523 by Gustav Vasa with new techniques

[Skandinav]

I don't understand your point, as Landsknechte were not cavalry. Did I miss something ?

[Imperial Eagle]

I think he was just talking about the general effectiveness of the shieldwall.

[Tasmansk Tiger]

yeah, jsut a general info about shieldwall really, sorry for the confusion