Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 132

Thread: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

  1. #41

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    Sorry, double post.

  2. #42

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    A woman charged, knocked down and trampled by a horse and ran over by further horses:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRj2K0ulD8Q


  3. #43

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Domen123 View Post
    A woman charged, knocked down and trampled by a horse and ran over by further horses:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRj2K0ulD8Q

    I saw a protesting dude with a thick styrofoam shield kneeling on his own in front of 20 charging horses and the horses close to the dude all staggered and looked uncomfortable. Only one rider was able to hit the shield with his baton.

  4. #44
    DevrimJan's Avatar Semisalis
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Malta
    Posts
    420

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    What part of the vid was that in?
    My rig.

    Gainward GTX 570
    Intel Core i-7 Sandybridge 2600K
    Asus P8Z68-V Pro Z68 Motherboard
    8GB RAM
    2TB Hardrive
    850W Corsair PSU

    Ok, this thread is over.
    My list of most anticipated mods:

  5. #45

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    Quote Originally Posted by DevrimJan View Post
    What part of the vid was that in?
    Real life in front of the Dutch parliament.

  6. #46
    alhoon's Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Moderator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Chania, Greece
    Posts
    24,758

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    So...
    We're where actually?
    Do Horses charge and trample infantry or not?
    alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
    "Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
    _______________________________________________________
    Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
    Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
    Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).

  7. #47

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Paaja View Post


    Don't be absurd people, ancient civilizations had great imagination, practical skills, like technique granulation, welding of metal, filigree, machine from Anticythera, water pumps etc. And the weren't smart enough to add stirrup for saddle? That's crazy, it's like argument about who invented the handle of pot Cause it is instinctively thing, other cultures during the times, solving similar problems and find solution. Think for once, if you want effective cavalry, you need healthy horse, and that requires certain form of horseshoe, good saddle, bits, etc. because if don't you hurt the horse! Horseshoes had tribes from central Asia, Scythians, Persians, Carthaginians armies, Spaniards. I don't see a reason why other cultures shouldn't have these equipment, of course they are exceptions like Numidians (they don't need it), Germans(they thought it is effeminate), Romans ( I think they were just stupid).

    The cavalry were functional arm, not clumsy riders, incapable to do frontal or side attack (of course you cannot break Macedonian phalanx, maybe classical phalanx like in Tegyra 375 BC. Or we know that Xenophon writes, before you throw your javelin stand up in your saddle, can you tell me, how can you do it without stirrups? No I want to see By the way Sidnell doing this stuff, he knows it is nonsense to be armored rider on partial armored horse and strike without saddle with stirrups, you simply fall! It is possible to ride horse without stirrups, saddle, but only if you are light bowmen, otherwise it is impossible to control horse effectively and be able fight on horseback.
    Hi, I'm new to this forum, but just wanted to chip in. Firstly, just because you think stirrups seem like a really obvious idea doesn't mean you can just assume their use at a date for which there is no evidence. The Greeks and Romans had all the theoretical knowledge required to make a steam locomotive, but it doesn't mean they built one. There is nothing in Xenophon to suggest the use of stirrups and it is possible to raise oneself up using the knees and/or lower leg pressure. It is even possible to do a nice rising trot (only used in European style riding) without stirrups, I've done it and I don't make any claims to be a great horseman. It is much easier with stirrups, but they are not a prerequisite for it.

    Secondly, while I am genuinely flattered that you have referred to my book, Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare you do seem to have misunderstood one of the major themes of it. Far from saying that it is nonsense for heavy cavalry to be effective without stirrups, the main thrust of the book is to present evidence that ancient cavalry, and heavy cavalry in particular (ie shock cavalry, whether armoured or not) was far more effective prior to the invention of stirrups than often given credit for. The revolutionary effect of stirrups has been massively exaggerated and acceptance of it has skewed analysis of ancient evidence (in my humble opinion). It is true that a large part of cavalry's impact was always psychological, but the fear they induced was only so powerful because it was backed up by a real physical threat that, in the right circumstances (and there's the catch) could be devastating.

    Finally, I agree with many of the people posting here that it is wholly relevant to look at eyewitness accounts of cavalry in the modern period to try to understand the mechanics of what actually happened. Besides which, they make fantastic reading. Here is a a good example of cavalry breaking into a square of well-trained infantry in the Anglo-Persian war of 1856-7: Here I'm quoting from The Marquess of Anglesey's History of the British Cavalry vol II. The interpolations in square brackets are his.

    'Captain Ross more, another officer of the regiment, take up the story:

    "The 3rd Cavalry were formed up in close column of squadrons, left in front, facing the
    direction of the enemy....This was a regiment of the Shah's guard [one of the best regular
    regiments in the Persian army, known as the 1st Kushkai Regiment of Fars]. They halted on
    the rise of a small hill and fired volleys at us; when we got close they formed a solid square
    with kneeling ranks and awaited us most steadily"

    At this point, under artillery fire most of which went over the cavalrymen's heads, Captain Forbes, according to Cornet Combe,'gave the orders "The line will advance". "Draw swords". "Third squadron". "Walk". "Trot". "Gallop",and when within a hundred yards of the enemy, "Charge!"
    Another officer of the regiment tells how Forbes and his young adjutant, Lieutenant A. T. Moore (brother of Captain Ross Moore),

    "placed themselves in front of the 6th Troop, which was the one directly opposite the nearest
    face of the square. The others, [Ross] Moore, Malcolmson and Spens, came the least thing
    behind, riding knee to knee, with spurs in their horses' flanks, as if racing after a dog. In rear
    of them rushed the dark troopers of the 3rd...In spite of fire, steel and bullets, they tore down
    upon the nearest face of the devoted square. As they approached, Forbes was shot through
    the thigh, and Spens' horse was wounded; but unheeding, they swept onwards.
    Daunted by the flashes and the fire and the noise and the crackle of musketry, the younger
    Moore's horse swerved as they came up. Dropping his sword and letting it hang by the knot at
    his wrist, he caught up the reins in both hands, screwed his horse's head straight, and then
    coolly, as if riding a fence, leaped him into the square...Of course the horse fell stone dead upon
    the bayonets; so did his brother's, ridden with equal courage and determination.
    ....The barrier once broken, and the entrance once made, in and through it poured [our]
    Troops. On and over everything they rode, till getting out they reformed on the other side, wheeled
    and swept back a second wave of ruin. Out of five hundred Persian soldiers...who composed that
    fatal square, only twenty escaped to tell the tale of its own destruction".

    Captain Ross Moore believed that when the squadron charged it did not number quite 100 men...He believed that the square consisted of 800 men, but from other evidence it seems more likely not to have exceeded 500...The regiment's total losses for the day were one Sowar killed and Captain Forbes and fourteen sowars wounded.'

    There is an even better account from the Battle of Aliwal in the Sikh Wars which I will post shortly if anyone is interested.
    Last edited by philsidnell; December 06, 2011 at 06:36 AM.

  8. #48

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    Quote Originally Posted by Paaja View Post


    Don't be absurd people, ancient civilizations had great imagination, practical skills, like technique granulation, welding of metal, filigree, machine from Anticythera, water pumps etc. And the weren't smart enough to add stirrup for saddle? That's crazy, it's like argument about who invented the handle of pot Cause it is instinctively thing, other cultures during the times, solving similar problems and find solution. Think for once, if you want effective cavalry, you need healthy horse, and that requires certain form of horseshoe, good saddle, bits, etc. because if don't you hurt the horse! Horseshoes had tribes from central Asia, Scythians, Persians, Carthaginians armies, Spaniards. I don't see a reason why other cultures shouldn't have these equipment, of course they are exceptions like Numidians (they don't need it), Germans(they thought it is effeminate), Romans ( I think they were just stupid).

    The cavalry were functional arm, not clumsy riders, incapable to do frontal or side attack (of course you cannot break Macedonian phalanx, maybe classical phalanx like in Tegyra 375 BC. Or we know that Xenophon writes, before you throw your javelin stand up in your saddle, can you tell me, how can you do it without stirrups? No I want to see By the way Sidnell doing this stuff, he knows it is nonsense to be armored rider on partial armored horse and strike without saddle with stirrups, you simply fall! It is possible to ride horse without stirrups, saddle, but only if you are light bowmen, otherwise it is impossible to control horse effectively and be able fight on horseback.
    Hi, I'm new to this forum, but just wanted to chip in. Firstly, just because you think stirrups seem like a really obvious idea doesn't mean you can just assume their use at a date for which there is no evidence. The Greeks and Romans had all the theoretical knowledge required to make a steam locomotive, but it doesn't mean they built one. There is nothing in Xenophon to suggest the use of stirrups and it is possible to raise oneself up using the knees and/or lower leg pressure. It is even possible to do a nice rising trot (only used in European style riding) without stirrups, I've done it and I don't make any claims to be a great horseman. It is much easier with stirrups, but they are not a prerequisite for it.

    Secondly, while I am genuinely flattered that you have referred to my book, Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare you do seem to have misunderstood one of the major themes of it. Far from saying that it is nonsense for heavy cavalry to be effective without stirrups, the main thrust of the book is to present evidence that ancient cavalry, and heavy cavalry in particular (ie shock cavalry, whether armoured or not) was far more effective prior to the invention of stirrups than often given credit for. The revolutionary effect of stirrups has been massively exaggerated and acceptance of it has skewed analysis of ancient evidence (in my humble opinion). It is true that a large part of cavalry's impact was always psychological, but the fear they induced was only so powerful because it was backed up by a real physical threat that, in the right circumstances (and there's the catch) could be devastating.

    Finally, I agree with many of the people posting here that it is wholly relevant to look at eyewitness accounts of cavalry in the modern period to try to understand the mechanics of what actually happened. Besides which, they make fantastic reading. Here is a a good example of cavalry breaking into a square of well-trained infantry in the Anglo-Persian war of 1856-7: Here I'm quoting from The Marquess of Anglesey's History of the British Cavalry vol II. The interpolations in square brackets are his.

    'Captain Ross more, another officer of the regiment, take up the story:

    The 3rd Cavalry were formed up in close column of squadrons, left in front, facing the
    direction of the enemy....This was a regiment of the Shah's guard [one of the best regular
    regiments in the Persian army, known as the 1st Kushkai Regiment of Fars]. They halted on
    the rise of a small hill and fired volleys at us; when we got close they formed a solid square
    with kneeling ranks and awaited us most steadily

    At this point, under artillery fire most of which went over the cavalrymen's heads, Captain Forbes, according to Cornet Combe,'gave the orders "The line will advance". "Draw swords". "Third squadron". "Walk". "Trot". "Gallop",and when within a hundred yards of the enemy, "Charge!"
    Another officer of the regiment tells how Forbes and his young adjutant, Lieutenant A. T. Moore (brother of Captain Ross Moore),

    placed themselves in front of the 6th Troop, which was the one directly opposite the nearest
    face of the square. The others, [Ross] Moore, Malcolmson and Spens, came the least thing
    behind, riding knee to knee, with spurs in their horses' flanks, as if racing after a dog. In rear
    of them rushed the dark troopers of the 3rd...In spite of fire, steel and bullets, they tore down
    upon the nearest face of the devoted square. As they approached, Forbes was shot through
    the thigh, and Spens' horse was wounded; but unheeding, they swept onwards.
    Daunted by the flashes and the fire and the noise and the crackle of musketry, the younger
    Moore's horse swerved as they came up. Dropping his sword and letting it hang by the knot at
    his wrist, he caught up the reins in both hands, screwed his horse's head straight, and then
    coolly, as if riding a fence, leaped him into the square...Of course the horse fell stone dead upon
    the bayonets; so did his brother's, ridden with equal courage and determination.
    ....The barrier once broken, and the entrance once made, in and through it poured [our]
    Troops. On and over everything they rode, till getting out they reformed on the other side, wheeled
    and swept back a second wave of ruin. Out of five hundred Persian soldiers...who composed that
    fatal square, only twenty escaped to tell the tale of its own destruction'.

    Captain Ross Moore believed that when the squadron charged it did not number quite 100 men...He believed that the square consisted of 800 men, but from other evidence it seems more likely not to have exceeded 500...The regiment's total losses for the day were one Sowar killed and Captain Forbes and fourteen sowars wounded.'

    There is an even better account from the Battle of Aliwal in the Sikh Wars which I will post shortly if anyone is interested.

  9. #49

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    Horses wont run into anything that looks impenetrable like infantry squares in Napoleonic times.
    but people spread out like IDK archers or light infantry give the horses gaps and the arms length to cut or stab men. Plus like the woman trampled she didn't look impenetrable. So they ran through her.

  10. #50
    Lazy's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Aachen
    Posts
    661

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    As I know war horses had eye patches ( at least in some movies )... so they did not see the pointy (and very bad) wall of pikes and would charge right into death if ordered by the ( suicidal ) rider! I have even seen horses armours with movable eye patches... horse is allowed to see the ground while travalling... but not the enemy!

    Isn there a desciption of the battle of vienna that descibes polish hussars charging into the ottomans and riding through the hordes of enemy soldiers?!
    Its descibed they killed hunderds of enemies this way...

    I think we should make a difference betwen a "normal" horse ( for example scouts ) and a knights horse (charger)!
    The first one would fall riding through woods if wearing eye patches the other one needs them to be not fully useless!

    In my opinion if a knight would not be able to charge... he would be useless and should fight dismounted!
    Quote Originally Posted by SirWarts View Post
    ...the woman trampled didn't look impenetrable. So they ran through her.

  11. #51
    Lazy's Avatar Biarchus
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Aachen
    Posts
    661

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    Quote Originally Posted by SirWarts View Post
    ...the woman trampled didn't look impenetrable. So they ran through her.
    lol

    ps: sorry for double post! I was laughing too much...
    Quote Originally Posted by SirWarts View Post
    ...the woman trampled didn't look impenetrable. So they ran through her.

  12. #52
    Razor's Avatar Licenced to insult
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Deventer, The Netherlands
    Posts
    4,075

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    Damnit, I knew it. Wrote a wall of text and then I accidentally reloaded the page.

    In short:
    Titus Vorenus does bring up an interesting point, however I wouldn't say that cavalry won't charge. Just that cavalry charges aren't nearly always that successful and heroic and effective against heavy infantry. Long static close combat would be very dangerous for cavalry (big target: horse + horseman = easy to take down). They need to be on the move.

    The Youtube clips prove nothing: of course, a ranting mob would make room for charging cavalry, and of course cavalry can easily overrun a single person.

    A well-trained infantry unit would pose a serious challenge to charging cavalry, even trained cavalry. However when they clash the infantry formation would run the risk of collapsing, because of confusion. Remember that most casualties were taken during a flight. However if the formation holds charging cavalry can do very little.


    Sources should definitely be subject to critical observation. They appear to be more like glorifications and a tell one-sided stories than a depiction of how a battle actually happened in historic reality (glorification of the Polish nobility, glorification of the British cavalry, which Ross More and his brother were a part of; of course they were without fear and charged the enemy head on without a single doubt). Most of all they tell more about how the Polish and British victors are looking back at the battle or want the battle to be remembered like.


    The fear factor plays a big part in it, as well as training (to suppress fear and hold the formation) and the ultimate physical force during the clash. And most of all luck. How this should be implemented is debatable.
    Back in the days of RTW, I was modding myself and also thought of it a lot. What I did was giving heavy infantry 2 hp and cavalry and light infantry 1 hp (cataphracts 2 hp and lower morale). It did make the horses vulnerable to arrow fire, which isn't illogical either. Perhaps giving the cavalry a frighten_foot attribute and some well-trained infantry units the frighten_mounted attribute would also add a new extra level to it?

  13. #53

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    Do Horses charge and trample infantry or not?
    Yes they do. And Polish-Lithuanian Winged Hussars cavalry even used to charge and effectively defeat pikemen infantry, for example in battles like:

    - Lubieszow 1577 - German pikemen broken and defeated by Hussars
    - Kircholm 1605 - during the battle there was a clash of Hussars vs Swedish pikemen - Hussars won
    - Smolensk 1633 - Hussars defeating Russian pikemen & musketeers
    - Mohylew 1655 - Hussars defeating Russian pikemen and then participating in street combats
    - Domany 1655 - Russian pikemen defeated by Hussars
    - Polonka 1660 - victorious combats vs Russian pikemen
    - Kutyszcze 1660 - Hussars defeat much more numerous Russian-Cossack forces (Cuirassiers & infantry)

    And other examples which I don't remember at the moment.

    What I did was giving heavy infantry 2 hp and cavalry and light infantry 1 hp
    Why should cavalry had less hp than infantry if cavalry = 2 "creatures" to kill (including one - a horse - much harder to kill than a man is)?

    And infantry = 1 "creature". Regardless if heavy or light.

    Also a man is easier to kill than a horse, especially armoured horse.

    And a man sitting on a horse - is also harder to hit (= harder to kill) with melee weapons, than a man without a horse.

    (cataphracts 2 hp and lower morale).
    Imagine we are in Middle Ages or even Antiquity (but in Middle Ages even more since there were already stirrups & better saddles).

    If we meet in battle and I am the guy on the horse, while you are the guy without a horse - then I have better morale and more self-confidence since I know that I have superior mobility, superior height (= I am a guy who can hit and crush your head - you are not able to reach my head with your weapons, first you would have to throw me down on the ground from my horse) and that if something goes wrong for me - I can escape, while you cannot escape if something goes wrong for you.

    Thus I don't know why should cataphracts had lower morale than infantry?

    Did they have lower morale than Legions for example at Carrhae? I do not think so...

    Sources should definitely be subject to critical observation. They appear to be more like glorifications and a tell one-sided stories than a depiction of how a battle actually happened in historic reality
    Another conspiracy theory? - all sources throughout ages are nothing but falsified glorifications (but only if they describe combats of cavalry - those sources which describe combats of infantry are all OK and not falsified - Aliens say so so this must be true!).

    I saw a protesting dude with a thick styrofoam shield kneeling on his own in front of 20 charging horses and the horses close to the dude all staggered and looked uncomfortable. Only one rider was able to hit the shield with his baton.
    Did we really watch the same video?

    Anyway - I already said this and I will repeat it again - Mounted Police does not intend to kill and trample people.

    They did not charge at those people at full speed, they did not intend to trample them, their horses aren't trained for such things.

    Yet still that trampled woman was so badly hurt that she had to go to the hospital (fortunately she survived).

    (glorification of the Polish nobility,
    If you speak about Winged Hussars here, then Hussars were not nobility.

    They were regular military formation, organized in the same fashion like regular army is, not some "noble levies". Of course most of its soldiers were recruited from nobility, as service in this formation was expensive (also for those who served - since they had to buy most of equipment on their own) and prestigous, while nobility was both rich and wanted prestige more than other classes. But there were also Hussars who were citizens of towns and even some from peasantry.

    A well-trained infantry unit would pose a serious challenge to charging cavalry, even trained cavalry.
    What does "even trained cavalry" mean? You assume that cavalry was - as a rule - less trained than infantry?

    Well, then this assumption is totally wrong. And actually a very well trained cavalry unit could deal with even very well-trained infantry (of course not in all possible circumstances, not in every historical era, not if infantry was considerably more numerous, etc. - but if the fight is even, the battlefield is flat, no anti-cavalry obstacles like trenches, ditches or stone walls are present, numbers are similar on both sides - then well-trained heavy cavalry beats well-trained heavy infantry).

    Remember that most casualties were taken during a flight.
    Depends. If a unit doesn't flight at all - and still gets completely wiped out - then no casualties are taken during a flight...

    And if the enemy has no enough of cavalry / anything fast to chase you - then you can suffer minimal casualties during a flight.

    When you want to minimize your casualties, sometimes it is better to escape, while sometimes it is better to stand and fight. And sometimes no matter what you do (escape or stand and fight) - you will still get annihilated either way.

    However if the formation holds charging cavalry can do very little.
    Nope. If the charge fails (i.e. enemy formation manages to hold its battle aray intact and is still able to defend), then cavalry can still do a lot of things. For example if impetus of the charge fails to immediately smash enemy lines*, then cavalry in such case can either engage the enemy in hand-to-hand close combat (hoping to finally win in this melee fight, as it has superior height and "mass") or - which is even better - can fall back and later repeat the charge once again.

    *If enemy formation is deep enough this will usually be the case (you cannot smash through - let's say 15 - rows of enemy infantry in just one strike).

    And usually cavalry can do so (repeating its charges once again) many, many times.

    For example there were battles in which various units of Winged Hussars charged against the enemy even like 10 times before defeating them.

    That is why Hussars usually transported at least several long-lances for each soldier per each battle on supply wagons (as each such long-lance was a weapon for single use only, because it was usually getting broken after first clash with the enemy - so Hussars had to return to their supply wagons for new long-lances before charging again, unless they wanted to charge the enemy just with shorter weapons).

    For example in the battle of Klushino one unit of Winged Hussars charged a regiment of pike-musket infantry like 4 times before finally defeating it. Even though, this unit of Winged Hussars did not take heavy casualties during all of those charges - only a dozen or so soldiers were killed or wounded (some soldiers were wounded a few times and still continued to fight) and similar number of horses (while enemy infantry suffered much heavier losses and was in the end defeated).

    Who says that cavalry must always win yet in the very first charge?

    If you charge against your enemy it is not like "either win or get annihilated on your own" in the first charge.

    As I already wrote - a heavy cavalryman is not an easy target to kill / eliminate from battle.

    He can charge your unit, kill 2 or 3 of your men in the 1st strike, fall back, charge again, kill 1 or 2 more of your men in the 2nd strike, fall back, etc. - before you finally manage to kill him or his horse. Now multiply this x 100 and you will see the effect of a charge of a cavalry unit, instead of just a single cavalryman.
    Last edited by Domen123; January 04, 2012 at 08:10 AM.

  14. #54

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    Long static close combat would be very dangerous for cavalry (big target: horse + horseman = easy to take down).
    LOL. Let's use a real-life comparison from boxing:

    It is like saying that long static close combat of a heavyweight boxer vs a featherweight boxer would be very dangerous for the heavyweight boxer because he is a bigger target = easy to take down. LOL. Being bigger is an advantage in melee fight (especially that battle horse is a strong & resistant to wounds animal).

    Being bigger might be a disadvantage when a catapult or a gunpowder cannon, etc. is shooting at you - but not in melee fight!

    A horseman (with stirrups & good saddle at least) is harder to take down for an infantryman than an infantryman is for a horseman (I already explained this - a horseman has a considerable advantage of height - he can thus hit more parts of the infantryman's body - including the most vulnerable part of his body: head - than an infantryman can of horseman's body, especially that upper part of the horse's body covers up some parts of the horseman's body).

    A horseman can also trample an infantryman with his horse in melee - while an infantryman cannot trample a horseman.
    Last edited by Domen123; January 03, 2012 at 07:41 PM.

  15. #55

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    I quote below excerpts from such an interesting article (link) written by doctor Radoslaw Sikora:

    http://www.radoslawsikora.republika....aly/Liubar.pdf

    How did hussars charge?


    Aleksander Michał Lubomirski was a brother of the Hetman Jerzy Sebastian Lubomirski, while Stanisław Herakliusz Lubomirski was Hetman's son. Stanisław Herakliusz had a brother – a future Hetman (in the period of 1702 - 1706) Hieronim Augustyn Lubomirski. Hieronim Augustyn Lubomirski was the author of the earliest (that is known today) regulations documented for the Polish cavalry. It bears the date 1704. These regulations describe in detail how the hussars should charge. And what is particularly interesting, the manner of the charge in the regulations is almost identical with the description of the charge of Aleksander M. Lubomirski's hussars at Liubar in 1660.

    The table below permits us a comparison of the regulations and the charge at Liubar:



    And what about the concept that hussars could alter their formation, even during a charge? There is still some rather strong controversy over this issue.

    6 Leszczyński's account translated by Dariusz Wielec.
    7 Ibid.


    Published in 2006, in his Osprey book 'Polish Winged Hussar 1576 – 1775', author Richard Brzezinski noted:

    'A theory has developed in recent years that hussars conducted half the charge in loose formation, and closed up knee-to knee just before the final spurt, so minimizing missile casualties and allowing the charge to be aborted at the last moment. This theory, apparently introduced by the historian J. Teodorczyk in 1966, flies in the face of western cavalry doctrine. Western writers insist that the entire charge be conducted in tight order, as cavalry formations tend to spread out when horses gallop, with braver riders dashing ahead, and cautious or poorly mounted men falling behind.'

    After the analysis of the Lubomirski's regulation, Brzezinski concludes:

    'The idea that hussars could alter formation even during a charge is clearly a myth.'

    The example presented above, of the charge at Liubar however, says nothing about the cohesion of the hussar formation during the charge. The similarity between Lubomirski's regulations and the description of the charge would suggest (and directly imply) that the hussars at Liubar charged knee-to-knee the entire the time of the charge, and thusly, it would appear to support Brzezinski's generalized thesis.

    As a matter of fact, this conclusion, among other highly debatable issues, is not such an easy one to arrive at. The hussars, in fact, could have altered and did alter their formation during a charge. But I should start from the very beginning of the story...

    In 1966 Jerzy Teodorczyk published his article about the battle of Gniew (Mewe) 1626. This article caused enormous damage in the Polish historiography of this period, because of the fact that Teodorczyk's erroneous arguments were widely accepted in Poland after their presentation, and had remained undisputed until the publication of my book, 'Fenomen Husarii' in 2004.

    As a personal note, allow me to clarify, that for nearly a decade, I have been a critic of J. Teodorczyk's hussar thesis work. Through my extensive research, I have detected and demonstrated flaws in his work. My first books and my PhD thesis demonstrate how my own findings have concluded in opposition to Jerzy Teodorczyk's thesis. That said, I would be the last person who would need to defend Jerzy Teodorczyk’s work. However, not everything in his article deserves a harsh critique...

    Jerzy Teodorczyk indeed introduced the idea that hussars altered their formation during a charge. He based this on various sources and Polish regulations for cavalry from the 18-20th century. He also knew of Hieronim Augustyn Lubomirski's regulations from 1704. It is my conclusion, that most of these sources unfortunately were incorrectly interpreted by J. Teodorczyk, as I said most but not all of them.

    Among other things, Teodorczyk provided a fragment of Bartosz Paprocki's recommendation for Polish cavalry from 1578. Paprocki wrote:

    'Whereas the martial exercise is to train a soldier so he could orderly stand in formation, where they order him, quickly attack, and to spread/loosen [open ranks] and to come together [close ranks]'

    This clearly indicates a concept and practice of altering the cohesion of a formation of the Polish cavalry. Paprocki wasn't alone in writing about this altering of cavalry formation during its movement. I submit that neither Teodorczyk, nor Brzezinski were aware that Marcin Bielski, in his book published in 1569, wrote in his description a passage very similar to Paprocki.

    Bielski wrote that for 'knight people' it is useful very much to train often in the field. Among other things they should train 'spreading and cramming/crowding' (opening and closing ranks). Bielski’s account also described that there were various signals given by the trumpets to open and to close the ranks.

    Did hussars open and close ranks in battles too? And, did they do it during a charge?

    The simple answer is – yes. They did all these things. Fortunately, I was able to find a primary source, written by the Polish hussar Wespazjan Kochowski, who described the actual altering of formation during a charge. This occurred in the battle of Basya, the same fortunate year 1660 AD.

    Kochowski wrote that, being under a fierce fire of some 40 Russian cannons, Polish cavalry (7 banners under Chalecki), in order to avoid casualties; 'spread their formations into a moon'. (Which, from most descriptions of cavalry formations, they describe that the center was slightly behind the wings of the formation, so, in this case, it could acceptably be interpreted more correctly as a ‘Crescent-moon’ shape). This happened after the trumpet had given a signal to begin their attack. So, as we can see by this example, the change of formations could and did happen during a charge.

    What is the conclusion then? It is, therefore, my conviction that hussars usually charged in knee-to-knee formation that made perfect sense. This was the most typical manner to deliver a successful charge. Thus this manner or method was recommended either by the Lubomirski's regulation of 1704 or by Andrzej Maksymilian Fredro's military treaty of 1670 (publication date).

    But sometimes, given the unusual circumstances of the battlefield, it was better to charge with open ranks. And therefore hussars also trained and charged this way as well, utilizing both techniques. And such trained they were also much better able to alter the formation density during their charge.
    Last edited by Domen123; January 04, 2012 at 08:37 AM.

  16. #56
    smoesville's Avatar Vicarius
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Dublin, Ireland
    Posts
    2,803

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    I know this has probably been asked but what has hussars to do with Classical era cavalry?
    Were there but a tree in this godforsaken place i would have hanged myself.

  17. #57

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    Well, probably they had something in common with heavy cavalry of that time too.

    Anyway - in such case, check the Gaius Sallustius Crispus' account of the Jugurthine war.

    While describing the battle at the outskirts of Zama (a much later one, against Jugurtha) in 108 B.C., Sallustius (59.) writes:

    "(...) during the fight Numidian cavalrymen, self-confident (...) contrary to the usually applied tactics consisting of attacking and retreating*, were directly knocking against the enemy, breaking their battle array and sowing confusion into their ranks; hereby (...) almost achieving victory over Romans."

    *So called skirmishing.

    And let me remind you that Numidian horsemen were not really heavily armed - they were rather light cavalry, that's why their usual tactics was skirmishing. Anyway - in this battle they didn't use their usual skirmish tactics, but carried out some direct charges, breaking the lines of Roman infantry. Maybe Jugurtha armed his cavalry with heavier armors & weapons, captured during his previous battles, more suitable for direct combat. Or maybe they carried out charges despite still having the same light weapons, and still succeeded, defeating part of Roman infantry and almost achieving victory in this battle as a whole.

    Anyway as you can see this is a Roman account and it still confirms that their enemies - Numidian cavalry - in this battle charged and trampled Roman infantry. And were quite successful in doing this, despite the fact that usual tactics of the Numidian cavalry was rather skirmishing than charging and trampling.

    And keep in mind that this is a Roman account, not a Numidian "glorification" written by the victors to glorify their own victory - Sallustius had no interest in any "glorification" of enemies of Rome. If anything, he had interest in underestimating their achievements (especially that Jugurtha - even though he eventually lost the war - was pretty successful in resisting the Roman onslaught and Romans had some hard times while trying to defeat him). Sallustius also writes that Numidian cavalry was supported from distance by their missile light infantry (javelinmen, slingers) in that fight - which also helped them to achieve such a success.

    ========================================

    And check also such a battle (info posted by frontier-auxilia):

    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...4#post10534734

    Quote: frontier-auxilia
    This one battle where a bunch of Thessalian cavalrymen routed an army of Spartans with a direct charge. The finest phalanx in Greece shattered by a bunch of horsemen with neither chargers, heavy armor or stirrups. Rarely listed in books because writers don't want to contradict their "Cavalry failed every time they charge a solid block of infantry" theory.

    Damnit forgot the name
    Last edited by Domen123; January 04, 2012 at 11:41 AM.

  18. #58

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    And then of course comes another handbook example of heavy cavalry defeating heavy infantry from the Classical Era - Carrhae.

    Of course some claim that horse archers defeated Roman heavily armored soldiers with large shields and capability of forming testudo formation (ROTFL) at Carrhae, while cataphracts played only marginal role in that battle (LOL). But the fact is that mainly cataphracts contributed to Roman defeat at Carrhae - not horse archers - horse archers were dangerous missile support (which was certainly very helpful - just like slingers & javelinmen at Zama for Jugurtha in 108 B.C.), but were not the main factor in defeating the Romans, most of whom had armors and shields good enough to minimize casualties from arrows.

    ===============================

    Edit:

    Not even mentioning such battles like the siege of Alesia - where Caesar himself admitted that it was his mercenary Germanic heavy cavalry (his last mobile reserve) which repeatedly charged against hordes of Gallic infantry in all the most "hot" spots of his defensive lines, saving the arses of his legionnaires.

    If not his mobile Germanic cav, Caesar would not be able to repulse all Gallic attacks against the outer ring of his fortifications at Alesia.
    Last edited by Domen123; January 04, 2012 at 12:03 PM.

  19. #59

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    Excellent posts Domen123 thank you.

  20. #60
    RaduAlexandru's Avatar Civis
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Bucharest ` Romania
    Posts
    171

    Default Re: Cavalry: The sole (severe) historical flaw of this mod

    Very interesting debate

    I too have read a lot of history and I too know quite a bit about wars in the late medieval period especially.

    From the onset I will say this: cavalry DO charge straight into obstacles - with one difference - the first line of a charge usually tries to jump over the first ranks of opposing infantry and don't usually [I underline usually] slam into it.

    Armored cavalry can and do trample infantry blocks - the only way in which a charge could be stopped is if the first lines of a cavalry charge are met by a solid continuous mass - in which case the first ranks of the infantry formations will be normally trampled but the charge will halt and will try to reform because if the first lines halt the following lines of a charge will NOT slam into equal mass - so Yes horses do not slam into huge objects - say other horses - head-on but they will try to jump or trample smaller objects - say a human.

    Somebody here mentioned the legs of horses - let me put it this way - if you're an infantryman and a horse is charging you ... will you point your spear at the legs of the horse [and probably miss them] while the horse is heading at full speed towards you or will you try to hit its neck or head or the horseman?

    Just one thing thou ... if the front legs of the horse charging you will be hurt the horse will collapse over you ... no further comment about the theoretical fragility of a horses legs - yea they are fragile .. its just that when they charge you its the last part you will try to hit with your spear.

    Medieval armored cavalry were dangerous because when they charged at full speed they could gather enough momentum to destroy an entire infantry formation unless the charge was presented with a continuous and deep line of long spears - this is why the pikemen where virually impervious to cavalry charges - the front line of a charge would be halted before it reached the front line of the pikemen thus the cavalry would loose its cohesion while the pikemen would not.


    I disagree with the assessment that MTW2 doesn't reproduce the effects of cavalry - MTW2 has many many many flaws - especially being created for 15 year old kids with no knowledge of history of civilization in general and thus being an insult for anybody who has the slightest knowledge about these things [we can't blame CA for this - their employees are in the end programmers so by definition ignorant of anything else than code] - but the way the cavalry charges in MTW2 isn't a flaw especially in mods like SS.

    Cavalry charges were finally defeated by the advent of gun powder - yes cavalry could still destroy infantry formations but with great losses and were mostly employed to disorganize enemy infantry while it retreated - somebody here mentioned Waterloo - perhaps they forget that the entire french cavalry charged by accident and not by order [no point to go into details here those who know know] as nobody believed that they could actually win against well drilled squares of infantry.

    I will give a final example - Mochas - the battle that ended the existence of Hungary for centuries to come - the Ottoman's greatest fear were the heavy cavalry of the Hungarian nobility - cavalry that charged with the horses being CHAINED TOGETHER. The Turks deployed light azab infantry widrew the Janissary core behind the guns and deployed the guns in a valley behind the azab infantry. As the Hungarians obliterated the azabs they were being surrounded on the flanks by timariots and were driven towards the guns ... it was the guns which broke their formation not the enemy infantry. Had the Turks deployed in their usual manner the guns would have been overrun after firing just once and their main heavy infantry would have been engaged and perhaps routed by the enemy cavalry. The azabs slowed their charge the guns broke their formation and the Janissaries destroyed them.

    So to sum up - cavalry do charge - heavy cavalry were meant to slam into enemy formations and not just close the gap and hope the enemy will run scarred. MTW2 despite being a silly game for silly and ignorant kids in its vanilla state does reproduce that quite well.


    "Aim towards the Enemy."
    -Instruction printed on US Rocket Launcher

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •