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

[Casual Tactician]

Exellent posts by Domen123 (will add some rep as soon as I'm able to again) and a good one by RaduAlexandru there. Only two other points I want to add, that support the (beyond reasonable doubt proven) claim that cavalry did charge:

1. The equippment, both armour (e.g. heavy/full armour for rider and mount) and weaponry (e.g. up to 4m long lances + short sidearm), of catapharacts, knights and other heavy cavalry such as the Macedonian hetairoi makes more sense, if they were used for charges and/or (prolonged) melee, in opposition to only be used for hint and run tactics or to hunt down fleeing infantry.
2. The initiator of the thread with his subtle claim that:

   CAVALRY DO NOT CHARGE!

   hasn't been posting, ever since people came up with arguments and historic sources that verify the historicity of the cavalry charge to counter his assumptions. Btw, don't the unwritten rules of etiquette of this forum require somekind acknowledgement when a debate is lost or one's assumption is invalidated?

I think at this stage of the debate one would have to be a die-hard conspiracy theorist to deny, that sufficently trained cavalry with adequate horses have the ability to execute a true charge.

[Domen123]

(e.g. up to 4m long lances

Polish-Lithuanian winged hussars sometimes used even much longer long lances (they were used when fighting vs pikemen).

The longest surviving to modern times original long lance of hussars (it can be found in Austria) is 6.15 m long.

But in the Middle Ages & before they probably didn't know technology of production which would allow producing so long lances. Long lances of hussars were produced with use of special technology of production (for example they were being drilled inside, so they were empty inside like bamboo - thus being much lighter).

Here is a photo of such a long lance of hussars but this particular one (reproduction - not original) is much shorter than 6.15 m - it is just 4.41 m:

http://www.radoslawsikora.republika....wiadczenie.pdf

[helmersen]

So when will the next patch be out? I cant wait to play hotseat!

[k/t]

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

And I already said and I will repeat it: I'm not so sure.

[Razor]

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.

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...

Sure a man on horseback is harder to kill, but instead of trying to stick a spear into the rider one could also stick a spear into the horse. That's what I meant with a bigger target. They would be especially sensitive in static melee.
Also there are references of cataphracts being very clumsy units. At the battle of Strasbourg one unit of Roman cataphracts panicked after being overwhelmed by Germanic infantry. No doubt their charge should overwhelming, their armour should save them from being killed easily, but being clumsy and not that mobile and fast-moving because of the armour, could have a psychological impact during a battle. Anyway it was mostly a measure for gameplay's sake.

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).

No, just saying that infantry could pose a challenge to even trained cavalry. Highly trained if you will.
Sure they can deal with infantry, but so can infantry deal with cavalry.

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.

If you mean by escape an orderly retreat then it would indeed save you casualties. A disorganized rout as a result of not holding your nerve against a cavalry charge on the battlefield would most certainly not.

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.

I'm not saying that it all depends on only one charge and then it's either win or lose. Of course a cavalry unit can regroup and charge again. And again and again. But still can be unsuccessful. I remember a battle between Romans and Parthians (can't remember which one exactly) in which the Parthian cavalry outnumbered the Roman infantry and continuously charged and harassed the Roman infantry (who lacked cavalry of their own). After yet another attempt the cavalry took off and called it a day, because the Roman infantry held their formation.
Perhaps we're thinking about different cavalry-infantry clashes from different periods, involving different equipment. I'm thinking of an infantry unit being clad in mail, helmet, large shield and spear and sword from classical period. Totally different from infantry units from the 17th century onwards.

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.

That's a bad comparison. A rider on a horse doesn't compare to a boxer because the rider and the horse are not one and the same. All you need is severe hit against the head or legs of a horse and the rider falls down together with his horse. The horse gives the rider a benefit, but it also makes him extra vulnerable, because he's dependent on the horse. The rider has not only his own safety and wellbeing to take into account, but also the safety and wellbeing of his horse.


EDIT:
I don't think we should take 17th century winged hussars as an example for Parthian cavalry and German cavalry from the classical period and use them interchangeably when convenient. They had different equipment from classical period cavalry and faced different enemies with different weapons and armour. And arguably performed different roles on the battlefield (though not saying that cavalry didn't charge, just that for most cavalry it wouldn't have been their primary role).

[Domen123]

but instead of trying to stick a spear into the rider one could also stick a spear into the horse. That's what I meant with a bigger target.

It is not a big deal - unless you are blind - to accurately stick a spear into even a very small man. So size is a non-factor here.

Also there are references of cataphracts being very clumsy units. At the battle of Strasbourg one unit of Roman cataphracts panicked after being overwhelmed by Germanic infantry.

But it was an ambush. Cataphracts ran into a "horde" of infantry (likely with spears) hidden (probably in the grass) between / among Germanic cavalry.

So actually it was a fight between Roman cataphracts and Germanic cavalry supported by Germanic infantry which the Romans didn't expect as infantry was hidden. And Germans were certainly way superior in numbers, considering that Romans had just 1,000 cataphracts in that battle. Even though, they didn't panic immediately after being ambushed, but resisted for long time, and panicked only after one of their commanders (tribunes) was injured.

Please also note that cataphracts stopped routing and turned back to fight against Germans once again.

but being clumsy and not that mobile and fast-moving because of the armour, could have a psychological impact during a battle.

Heavy infantry is still much more clumsy than even heaviest cavalry like cataphracts. So why didn't you decrease morale of heavy infantry?

Anyway it was mostly a measure for gameplay's sake.

Well, if you just wanted to have a historically not accurate game then everything's OK.

No, just saying that infantry could pose a challenge to even trained cavalry. Highly trained if you will.
Sure they can deal with infantry, but so can infantry deal with cavalry.

I agree, but still I think that cavalry was more likely to win such a duel.

If this was not the case, why would anyone bother to use all of that anti-cavalry technology which was invented throghout the ages.

For example halberd is a weapon invented in 13th century specially for anti-cavalry purposes. Apparently spear was not efficient enough.

Then come all those anti-cavalry obstacles (if cavalry charges were not efficient - who would even bother to invent such things), e.g.:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Or (a bit less complex):



Or this:

http://regiment.pl/forum/viewtopic.p...0098cdc01d58a8

http://kadrinazi.blogspot.com/2010/0...n-i-kozio.html

A disorganized rout as a result of not holding your nerve against a cavalry charge on the battlefield would most certainly not.

But a disorganized rout as a result of not holding your line against something which is slow would most certainly do.

For example when light infantry is routing from heavy infantry, it is not going to suffer heavy losses during this rout (as heavy infantry can't run fast).

All you need is severe hit against the head or legs of a horse and the rider falls down together with his horse.

To achieve knockout in boxing all you need is also a severe hit against the head of a boxer.

Actually hit against the head of a horse would need to be waaaaaayyy more severe than against the head of a human.

BTW - heads of horses were often armored (more often than entire bodies - like in case of cataphracts, but not only them)..

and the rider falls down together with his horse.

.... and then he stands up and continues to fight on foot.

After yet another attempt the cavalry took off and called it a day, because the Roman infantry held their formation.

So neither side was defeated.

The horse gives the rider a benefit, but it also makes him extra vulnerable

A tank also gives its crew a benefit, but also makes them extra vulnerable - every enemy AT gun will aim at their tank.

I'm thinking of an infantry unit being clad in mail, helmet, large shield and spear and sword from classical period

So just say that you think of Roman legions.

[Domen123]

in which the Parthian cavalry outnumbered the Roman infantry

Yes but this (the number of Parthians) is acccording to Roman sources.

According to Roman sources (Ammianus) in the battle of Strasbourg - which you mentioned as example of efficiency against Roman cataphracts - Romans lost in total only 247 killed - infantry, cataphracts & other cavalry combined - out of 12,000 infantry, 1,000 cataphracts & 2,000 other cavalry that they had at the start.

The 247 killed figure included 4 tribunes, of whom only 1 was commander of cataphracts.

On the other hand, Germanic losses in the battle of Strasbourg were placed at 6,000 (Ammianus) - 8,000 (Libanius) killed.

Ammianus writes:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/res_gestae_16.htm

"Now there fell in this battle on the Roman side two hundred and forty-three soldiers and four high officers; Bainobandes, tribune of the Cornuti, and also Laipso; and Innocentius, commander of the mailed cavalry, and one unattached tribune, whose name is not available to me. But of the Alamanni there was counted six thousand corpses lying on the field, and heaps of dead, impossible to reckon, were carried off by the waves of the river."

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

BTW - the fact that Romans introduced both cataphracts and horse archers into their army - under the influence of confrontation with Parthian armies - says for itself when it comes to efficiency of legions against Parthian cavalry. Romans needed to adopt to Parthian style of warfare to efficiently fight with them.

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

Another example of cavalry badly defeating legionary infantry is the battle of Adrianople 378 AD. Gothic cavalry charged legionary infantry and trampled and squeezed them in such a way, that many Roman legionaries died crushed or strangled in the crowd, either by enemy cavalry or by their own comrades.

At Magnesia charge of the right wing of Seleucid cavalry against left wing of Roman infantry was also efficient - the charge easily pierced the Roman line in such a way that Seleucid cavalry could chase the enemy and charge further as far as to the Roman camp. Of course Antiochus screwed up by doing so.

[Domen123]

Horse is actually much harder to hit by another infantryman than infantryman is, and this video (especially around 8:00 to around 8:55) shows why:

Horse kicks and tramples everything around so nobody can get close enough to hit. Especially in ca. 8:33 to 8:55 it can be seen well - one horseman fights against several foot soldiers and nobody get close enough to hit him (without being kicked by his horse before, and being kicked by a horse really hurts):

[smoesville]

That still not to say that all cavalry did charge, the gaelic cavalry rode their horses/ponies on a cushion/blanket so they had little grip. They also used the spear overarm but i'm pretty sure they were an exception even in 800AD and especially in the 12th century. Although another point on that they rode small horses which were more like ponies than the average horse. Don't know how this compared to the cavalry in the mods timeframe.

[Razor]

It is not a big deal - unless you are blind - to accurately stick a spear into even a very small man. So size is a non-factor here.

But it was an ambush. Cataphracts ran into a "horde" of infantry (likely with spears) hidden (probably in the grass) between / among Germanic cavalry.

So actually it was a fight between Roman cataphracts and Germanic cavalry supported by Germanic infantry which the Romans didn't expect as infantry was hidden. And Germans were certainly way superior in numbers, considering that Romans had just 1,000 cataphracts in that battle. Even though, they didn't panic immediately after being ambushed, but resisted for long time, and panicked only after one of their commanders (tribunes) was injured.

Please also note that cataphracts stopped routing and turned back to fight against Germans once again.

Those cataphracts didn't see any fight at all after that.

Heavy infantry is still much more clumsy than even heaviest cavalry like cataphracts. So why didn't you decrease morale of heavy infantry?

Well, if you just wanted to have a historically not accurate game then everything's OK.

Whatever

I agree, but still I think that cavalry was more likely to win such a duel.

If this was not the case, why would anyone bother to use all of that anti-cavalry technology which was invented throghout the ages.

For example halberd is a weapon invented in 13th century specially for anti-cavalry purposes. Apparently spear was not efficient enough.

Then come all those anti-cavalry obstacles (if cavalry charges were not efficient - who would even bother to invent such things), e.g.:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Or (a bit less complex):



Or this:

http://regiment.pl/forum/viewtopic.p...0098cdc01d58a8

http://kadrinazi.blogspot.com/2010/0...n-i-kozio.html

...

Of course cavalry could hurt. It could hurt a lot. But that doesn't mean that they are automatically superior to infantry during a battle. Obviously those obstacles were meant to fend off cavalry. Of course. Why not use them and commit troops - that are otherwise spent to defend the area/flank - elsewhere?

.... and then he stands up and continues to fight on foot.

Were it not that by then he's probably like, you know, dead. He most likely would be dazed, confused and perhaps wounded because of the fall, and therefore a relatively easier target to kill.

So neither side was defeated.

It depends on your definition of defeat. They just couldn't break the Roman infantry formation. That surely doesn't bring victory.

A tank also gives its crew a benefit, but also makes them extra vulnerable - every enemy AT gun will aim at their tank.

How impetuous or well-trained the crew may be, without a working tank the tank could become a coffin or oven i.e. a burden to the crewmen, especially in the heat of battle.

Horse is actually much harder to hit by another infantryman than infantryman is, and this video (especially around 8:00 to around 8:55) shows why:

Horse kicks and tramples everything around so nobody can get close enough to hit. Especially in ca. 8:33 to 8:55 it can be seen well - one horseman fights against several foot soldiers and nobody get close enough to hit him (without being kicked by his horse before, and being kicked by a horse really hurts):

Blimey, that's an awful depiction and not very convincing. I see small shields/bucklers, a few swords and no spears, and a very small and very thin unit formation (probably because of budget and because a real representation could hurt the horse as well). Hardly representative and convincing as an argument.

[TheRomanRuler]

I agree with you!! Reason why catacraps can`t charge against light infantry without armor(if tighly packed). Reason why Rome ruled the world (they got almost only infantry, cav was only supporting)

Hi you forgot that Gothmog lost the battle and the Rohan cavalry completely trampled over his pike formation, thus clearly disproving your theory that horses will not ride into infantry.

Yeah we know.. But you forgot that they are people of Rohan, and their horses were special too! Thats why they were able to charge against those pikes.

[Domen123]

You probably remember the French charge against British squares from the movie "Battle of Waterloo".

That horses won't charge infantry squares like this movie seems to suggest is a myth. On the other hand, the real reason why in this movie horses don't charge British squares directly but just run around them is because extras playing the British soldiers were afraid of their lives:

"They [= actors playing British infantry] panicked repeatedly and scattered during the filming of some of the cavalry charges. Attempts to reassure them by marking the closest approach of the horses with white tape similarly failed, and the scene was cut."

And thus horses had to just run around the extras instead of bumbing into them.

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066549/trivia

[Domen123]

Razor - I see that your "strategy" is to reply after 2 weeks or more, hoping that I will not see your reply. ???

You already admitted I was right and now you try again to disagree hoping that I will not see your reply after so much time ??? Or what ???

Why not use them and commit troops - that are otherwise spent to defend the area/flank - elsewhere?

The problem is that when these obstacles were used, usually entire army was being hidden behind them.

At least everywhere when there was danger of cavalry charge.

Blimey, that's an awful depiction and not very convincing. I see small shields/bucklers, a few swords and no spears, and a very small and very thin unit formation (probably because of budget and because a real representation could hurt the horse as well). Hardly representative and convincing as an argument.

You are crazy, man.

First of all - first you agree with my points, and then you reply after 2 weeks or more, hoping that I will never see this.

And also either you write rubbish, or you have no idea of weapons and armours used by armies in the past.

How impetuous or well-trained the crew may be, without a working tank the tank could become a coffin or oven i.e. a burden to the crewmen, especially in the heat of battle.

And ??? What exactly is your point ???

You deny that tanks ruled the battlefield in 20th century ???

It depends on your definition of defeat. They just couldn't break the Roman infantry formation. That surely doesn't bring victory.

And the Roman infantry formation couldn't break their formation nor inflict any severe losses to them. That surely doesn't bring victory.

Were it not that by then he's probably like, you know, dead.

"Probably" is the key word here.

Those cataphracts didn't see any fight at all after that.

I bet they saw fight in the very next battle.

At least some 938 of them. As they most likely lost about 62 killed including 1 tribune in that battle (out of the initial force of 1000).

I'm thinking of an infantry unit being clad in mail, helmet, large shield and spear and sword from classical period

So just say that you think of Roman legions.

Or not exactly because Roman legions after Marian reforms didn't have spears.

They just had pilla - which are kinds of throwing javelins, not spears to melee combat.

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

Reason why Rome ruled the world (they got almost only infantry, cav was only supporting)

Reminds me of all those Roman defeats caused by they lack of good cavalry.

Including their final collapse too.

BTW - the reason why the Mongols ruled the world (they got almost only cavalry, inf was only supporting).

Reason why catacraps can`t charge against light infantry without armor(if tighly packed).

Because some random guy claims such rubbish on the forum 2000 years later ???

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

the gaelic cavalry rode their horses/ponies on a cushion/blanket so they had little grip. They also used the spear overarm but i'm pretty sure they were an exception even in 800AD and especially in the 12th century. Although another point on that they rode small horses which were more like ponies than the average horse.

Something like Spanish Jinetes light cavalry in late Medieval. They were also skirmishers.

[TheNasoRomaLost]

forgive me for coming in late and not directly replying to everything, I read most of what was written and am impressed but I don't think cavalry charge a solid line of infantry that isn't moving and isn't shaken from the front and even if they did the ancients would not have wasted the aristoi of their societies when the standard hammer and anvil tactics worked very well and I have some examples.

1. If cavalry could both break infantry and charge it through a frontal charge why wasn't that what the Parthians, owners of the Cataphract did? At Carrhae (sp) they had hordes of horse archers spend literally days raining arrows into the legionaries, and they even had camels with the horses with vast cargoes of arrows on their backs. Furthermore the Parthians used either ambush or treachery to kill Crassus. This seems like a lot of work if the armored nobles could have delivered the exact same thing on day one. The Parthians instead knew that a frontal attack on day one would be idiocy and worked very hard and used a great deal or brilliant psychological warfare to break the morale.

2. Didn't hussars have their horses jump over obstacles? Didn't the Hussars also have spears that should be classified as pikes? Could that have helped the horse morale?

3. In 20th century horse charges didn't sabres always deliver the actual death blows?
From movie examples 1;29
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuB3w...eature=related

In this at 4;06 you could see cossacks again doing the same thing, the horse is breathing down infantry's throat but the kill comes from the rider not the charge, and cossacks as a group were based on horses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUckA...eature=related

Sorry I didn't hunt down a better example in admiral, but there is a scene in it where cossacks are fighting riflemen and they use a sabre slash to the throat not a charge effect.

I also know Pilums are designed to bend on impact so they can't be thrown back, but the point of spears against horses is to keep them farther away from you, and a pilum is certainly longer than a gladius.

Just a few points I would like answered on do cavalry charge and was that how they were meant to be used that's all and I have more thanks for being around to answer the points.

[Razor]

You probably remember the French charge against British squares from the movie "Battle of Waterloo".

That horses won't charge infantry squares like this movie seems to suggest is a myth. On the other hand, the real reason why in this movie horses don't charge British squares directly but just run around them is because extras playing the British soldiers were afraid of their lives:

"They [= actors playing British infantry] panicked repeatedly and scattered during the filming of some of the cavalry charges. Attempts to reassure them by marking the closest approach of the horses with white tape similarly failed, and the scene was cut."

And thus horses had to just run around the extras instead of bumbing into them.

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066549/trivia

Well of course, who wouldn't be scared. But I bet they also wouldn't want the horses to get badly hurt either.

Razor - I see that your "strategy" is to reply after 2 weeks or more, hoping that I will not see your reply. ???

You already admitted I was right and now you try again to disagree hoping that I will not see your reply after so much time ??? Or what ???

The problem is that when these obstacles were used, usually entire army was being hidden behind them.

At least everywhere when there was danger of cavalry charge.

You are crazy, man.

First of all - first you agree with my points, and then you reply after 2 weeks or more, hoping that I

will never see this.

I'm employing cavalry tactics. Hit and run. Didn't you notice?
So yeah, I have more things to do in life rather than just waiting for a reply.
I don't know where you get the "2 weeks or more" from though in relation to me. I do know that that number doesn't apply to me but to you.

Anyway.

Obstacles were used, because they were useful. Anything useful to hamper the enemy in any way would be used. That doesn't inherently mean that cavalry is superior to infantry on the battlefield.

And what's with the ad hominem crap? I never said anywhere I definitely agree with your points. I do to certain levels (in that cavalry can and do charge infantry), but then in the end you post something stating that cavalry is superior, using a bad movie clip as an argument.

And also either you write rubbish, or you have no idea of weapons and armours used by armies in the past.

...

...

And ??? What exactly is your point ???

You deny that tanks ruled the battlefield in 20th century ???

And the Roman infantry formation couldn't break their formation nor inflict any severe losses to them. That surely doesn't bring victory.

"Probably" is the key word here.

I bet they saw fight in the very next battle.

At least some 938 of them. As they most likely lost about 62 killed including 1 tribune in that battle (out of the initial force of 1000).


Or not exactly because Roman legions after Marian reforms didn't have spears.

They just had pilla - which are kinds of throwing javelins, not spears to melee combat.

Well well well...

The Roman pilum could also be used as a meelee weapon to counter cavalry. Not the most ideal spear, but decent enough for such a multiple purposes weapon.
And actually I was referring to the late Roman trooper of the 4th-6th century.

I don't really deny that tanks "ruled" the battlefield for the greater part of the 20th century. However even infantry can counter them perfectly with an anti-tank weapon; one puncture in the armour can result in a blackened oven and piles of ashes inside the tank. Disable the tracks of a tank and it's immobile and an easy target to take down.

But it's not about tanks ruling the battlefield or the tank itself. It's about the fact that a tank crew as well as a horseman is dependant on the state of the tank and the horse for their functionality during a battle. If the tank and the horse fail to function in the heat of battle, the tankcrew and the horseman are sitting ducks and an easy target for the enemy. And being a bigger target that doesn't go unnoticed in the heat of battle (unless the tank is camouflaged and/or in cover, but that's a different situation) would also make you extra vulnerable target. The horseman doesn't only have to take care of his own wellbeing, but the horse's as well. Idem dito with tanks. Horse goes down in battle, rider goes down with it in battle. Tank goes down in battle, tank crew goes down in battle. Unless the horseman gets up quickly enough and is not injured and/or caught by the enemy, and the tank crew can get out of the tank unharmed quickly enough before their tank is destroyed.

Stating that tanks and horses rule the battlefield are bold statements. They are effective and useful, but they can be perfectly countered as well.

[Domen123]

The Roman pilum could also be used as a meelee weapon to counter cavalry.

Especially considering that the entire spearhead of pilum was falling off after hitting the target...

Not the most ideal spear, but decent enough for such a multiple purposes weapon.

A weapon for single use only in one battle (spearhead falling off - of course you can attach a new one, but not in the same battle...) can't be anything "multiple"...

And actually I was referring to the late Roman trooper of the 4th-6th century.

Ah, so you was referring to those Roman troopers who got smashed by Gothic cavalry at Adrianople ???:

"Another example of cavalry badly defeating legionary infantry is the battle of Adrianople 378 AD. Gothic cavalry charged legionary infantry and trampled and squeezed them in such a way, that many Roman legionaries died crushed or strangled in the crowd, either by enemy cavalry or by their own comrades."

I see...

I'm employing cavalry tactics. Hit and run. Didn't you notice?

Charge is better than hit and run.

I don't know where you get the "2 weeks or more" from though in relation to me.

My post was on January 15, you replied on January 24 - my bad, its 10 days not two weeks.

using a bad movie clip as an argument.

You didn't care to explain why this movie clip is bad (I don't consider this rubbish as explanation).

Anyway I didn't use it as an argument but just to show you how it possibly looks like.

But I bet they also wouldn't want the horses to get badly hurt either.

So its the fault of the Federation of Young European Greens and Defenders of Animal Rights once again.

Praise the Lord that Greens and Defenders of Animal Rights didn't exist in Middle Ages !!! There would be no knights in our history in such case!

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

I don't really deny that tanks "ruled" the battlefield for the greater part of the 20th century. However even infantry can counter them perfectly with an anti-tank weapon; one puncture in the armour can result in a blackened oven and piles of ashes inside the tank. Disable the tracks of a tank and it's immobile and an easy target to take down.

You are wrong here. One puncture in the armour cannot result in a blackened oven and piles of ashes inside the tank.

At least this is not the case in +/- 98% of all cases of punctures in the armour. But - of course - it depends what calibre did the puncture.

However, as you called it "puncture" - not for example "a huge hole" - I assume that you meant armour penetration by some small calibre weapon.

And - in such case - you are wrong, as I already wrote above. Such damages are easily repairable in vast majority of cases.

To cause "a blackened oven and piles of ashes" you would have to hit directly into fuel tank or ammunition chamber and cause internal explosion.

Otherwise, armour will be penetrated but you will not achieve the "blackened oven" or "piles of ashes" effect.

But it's not about tanks ruling the battlefield or the tank itself. It's about the fact that a tank crew as well as a horseman is dependant on the state of the tank and the horse for their functionality during a battle. If the tank and the horse fail to function in the heat of battle, the tankcrew and the horseman are sitting ducks and an easy target for the enemy.

Still casualties among tank crews - in terms of % - were somehow always smaller than among infantry...

The same refers to cavalry.

And also please notice that cavalry was always receiving more money for their service than infantry. This means they were considered as more valuable soldiers.

In Medieval Florence, for example, wages of mounted knights were some 7 times higher than wages of foot crossbowmen or foot sergeants.

And mounted crossbowmen still received 3 times more than foot crossbowmen...

Source for the wages of Medieval soldiers: Philippe Contamine, "War in the Middle Ages".

Tank goes down in battle, tank crew goes down in battle.

Actually statistics of tank crews survivability rates were considerably higher than tank surviviablity rates.

Unless the horseman gets up quickly enough and is not injured and/or caught by the enemy, and the tank crew can get out of the tank unharmed quickly enough before their tank is destroyed.

Define "destroyed" tank. Not every tank with armour penetrated and immobilised is a destroyed tank.

In fact most of battle damages to tanks are repairable.

And as I wrote - crews of knocked out tanks very often survive.

Stating that tanks and horses rule the battlefield are bold statements.

Tell this to Heinz Guderian and others.

They are effective and useful, but they can be perfectly countered as well.

But not in the open field. Or at least - it is very hard to perfectly counter them in the open field.

[Domen123]

Let me illustrate what I mean with those tanks:

Both photos are from the German Invasion of Poland in 1939:

Here is a German Panzer IV tank hit by fire of Polish French-produced calibre 155mm Schneider howitzer:

155mm Schneider howitzer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_d...1917_Schneider

Aditionally in this case hit by 155mm Schneider fire most likely caused internal explosion of fuel / ammunition inside this tank:




And here is a German Panzer I tank hit by Polish calibre 7,92mm infantry Anti-Tank rifle (armour penetration is marked with white paint):

7,92mm UR Anti-Tank rifle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wz._35_anti-tank_rifle

The German description of this photo - probably a bit ironic - says "Der Feind warf nicht mit Eier" ("The enemy didn't throw at us with eggs"):



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

See the difference ???

And please tell me which damage is easier to repair ??? The one from the first photo, or the one from the 2nd photo ???

The damage caused by Anti-Tank rifle calibre 7,92 mm from the 2nd photo in fact just requires a bit of welding work to repair.

But even though this rifle rather couldn't seriously damage the tank, it still was dangerous because it could "damage" the crew inside.

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

Edit:

1. If cavalry could both break infantry and charge it through a frontal charge why wasn't that what the Parthians, owners of the Cataphract did? At Carrhae (sp) they had hordes of horse archers spend literally days raining arrows into the legionaries, and they even had camels with the horses with vast cargoes of arrows on their backs. Furthermore the Parthians used either ambush or treachery to kill Crassus. This seems like a lot of work if the armored nobles could have delivered the exact same thing on day one.

Remember that at Carrhae the Parthians had only 1,000 cataphracts and 9,000 horse archers vs 35,000 legionaries, 4,000 cavalry and 4,000 light infantry (Wiki).

The Parthians instead knew that a frontal attack on day one would be idiocy and worked very hard and used a great deal or brilliant psychological warfare to break the morale.

A frontal attack of 1,000 cataphracts versus 40,000 Romans (ratio 1:40) on day one would be idocy.

On the other hand, if they had 10,000 cataphracts instead of 1,000 (ratio 1:4) - it would not be idocy.

and cossacks as a group were based on horses.

17th century Zaporozhian Cossacks usually fought as infantry. And they had both infantry and cavalry units.

[Razor]

Especially considering that the entire spearhead of pilum was falling off after hitting the target...

A weapon for single use only in one battle (spearhead falling off - of course you can attach a new one, but not in the same battle...)

can't be anything "multiple"...

Ah, so you was referring to those Roman troopers who got smashed by Gothic cavalry at Adrianople ???:

"Another example of cavalry badly defeating legionary infantry is the battle of Adrianople 378 AD. Gothic cavalry charged legionary

infantry and trampled and squeezed them in such a way, that many Roman legionaries died crushed or strangled in the crowd, either by

enemy cavalry or by their own comrades."

I see...

Charge is better than hit and run.

My post was on January 15, you replied on January 24 - my bad, its 10 days not two weeks.

You didn't care to explain why this movie clip is bad (I don't consider this rubbish as explanation).

Anyway I didn't use it as an argument but just to show you how it possibly looks like.

So its the fault of the Federation of Young European Greens and Defenders of Animal Rights once again.

Praise the Lord that Greens and Defenders of Animal Right didn't exist in Middle Ages !!! The would be no knights in our history in such

case!

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

I said the pilum is not an ideal spear. But it's still long, pointy and you can stick it into an enemy or fend an enemy off with it.
And the Gothic horses weren't expected to be on the battlefield and took the Romans by surprise, overwhelming them.

Charge is not specifically better than hit and run. With a charge there's more at stake than hit and run. With hit and run you throw your javelins, fire arrows, and avoid close combat, whereas with a charge there's the risk of more direct casualties on both sides. One has to time a cavalry charge and feel when a charge can be successful at breaking an enemy infantry formation.

9 days would also do.

I did explain what's wrong with that movie clip. It doesn't show any kind of dense infantry formation or even cavalry formation that would be needed to represent such battles and prove your point. Obviously cavalry has an advantage when freely galloping and charging into a group of 15 men doing a bad imitation of a shield wall with small bucklers and pointing swords forwards instead of presenting a wall of large shields and spears.

And yes it's the fault of Animal Rights activist groups. Oh, and horses are expensive and often rented for such movies.

You are wrong here. One puncture in the armour cannot result in a blackened oven and piles of ashes inside the tank.

At least this is not the case in +/- 98% of all cases of punctures in the armour. But - of course - it depends what calibre did the

puncture.

However, as you called it "puncture" - not for example "a huge hole" - I assume that you meant armour penetration by some small calibre

weapon.

And - in such case - you are wrong, as I already wrote above. Such damages are easily repairable in vast majority of cases.

Still casualties among tank crews - in terms of % - were somehow always smaller than among infantry...

The same refers to cavalry.

And also please notice that cavalry was always receiving more money for their service than infantry. This means they were considered as

more valuable soldiers.

In Medieval Florence, for example, wages of mounted knights were some 7 times higher than wages of foot crossbowmen or foot sergeants.

And mounted crossbowmen still received 3 times more than foot crossbowmen...

Source for the wages of Medieval soldiers: Philippe Contamine, "War in the Middle Ages".

Actually statistics of tank crews survivability rates were considerably higher than tank surviviablity rates.

Define "destroyed" tank. Not every tank with armour penetrated and immobilised is a destroyed tank.

In fact most of battle damages to tanks are repairable.

And as I wrote - crews of knocked out tanks very often survive.

Tell this to Heinz Guderian and others.

But not in the open field. Or at least - it is very hard to perfectly counter them in the open field.

Well that's the thing, it depends on whether units had the right equipment to counter tanks or not and the specifications of the tanks themselves.
But in the heat of the battle (for example during duels) a malfunctioning tank is not something you'd want to have. And besides, tanks can also break down when not fighting, but then they have all the time to repair it, wheras during a battle, you'd rather run away from a tank.

Cavalrymen were also usually of higher social status, like the nobility and others that could afford a horse. For a king it's very important to keep the higher social classes like the nobililty nice and friendly i.e. in check. So logically they were paid more than foot soldiers. But they also received more in return. At least that's the idea behind it.

"Ruling the battlefield" is a highly subjective matter. Heinz Guderian claiming that is of course hardly surprizing. Like I said, with proper material, equipment and tactics tanks don't have to be a problem. Sure they were very important for an army to have and useful, but tanks alone without support from infantry and air support will still be quite vulnerable.

True, in the open field they tend to rule. But then again in the open field they can be easily spotted and be taken under fire by antitank cannons that are in cover. It all depends on specific factors like calibre, range armour thickness etc. But this is a topic that has hardly anything to do with cavalry charging infantry.

Let me illustrate what I mean with those tanks:

Both photos are from the German Invasion of Poland in 1939:

Here is a German Panzer IV tank hit by fire of Polish French-produced calibre 155mm Schneider howitzer:

155mm Schneider howitzer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_d...1917_Schneider

Aditionally in this case hit by 155mm Schneider fire most likely caused internal explosion of fuel / ammunition inside this tank:




And here is a German Panzer I tank hit by Polish calibre 7,92mm infantry Anti-Tank rifle (armour penetration is marked with white paint):

7,92mm UR Anti-Tank rifle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wz._35_anti-tank_rifle

The German description of this photo - probably a bit ironic - says "Der Feind warf nicht mit Eier" ("The enemy didn't throw at us with eggs"):



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

See the difference ???

And please tell me which damage is easier to repair ??? The one from the first photo, or the one from the 2nd photo ???

The damage caused by Anti-Tank rifle calibre 7,92 mm from the 2nd photo in fact just requires a bit of welding work to repair.

But even though this rifle rather couldn't seriously damage the tank, it still was dangerous because it could "damage" the crew inside.

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

LOL. Well yeah the rounds of an anti-tank rifle are like pinpricks compared to the rounds of the howitzer. But even a hole the size of the round itself can indeed kill the whole tank crew (well not the hole itself, but the projectile that enters the chassis through the hole and then explodes). But then I'm talking about Cold War antitank weapons.

But anyway, this all besides the point. It's not about the reparability of damage, it's about the fates of the tank and the tank and the horseman and the horse being connected to each another. A tank crew has no use of the tank when the tank doesn't work but the tank cannot operate without a living tank crew. The effectiveness of a horseman is hampered when a horse is wounded and cannot function optimally while a horse without a living horseman isn't effective either.

[TheNasoRomaLost]

Remember that at Carrhae the Parthians had only 1,000 cataphracts and 9,000 horse archers vs 35,000 legionaries, 4,000 cavalry and 4,000 light infantry (Wiki).

A frontal attack of 1,000 cataphracts versus 40,000 Romans (ratio 1:40) on day one would be idocy.

On the other hand, if they had 10,000 cataphracts instead of 1,000 (ratio 1:4) - it would not be idocy.



17th century Zaporozhian Cossacks usually fought as infantry. And they had both infantry and cavalry units.

Thank you for replying

1. but once the cavalry on the roman side was defeated the Parthians continued to undermine morale, it was only when everyone could see the end of morale on the roman side that there was a charge. Carrhae might not be the best example because of the numbers involved, but that appears to have been the never ending constant in Parthian and Persian tactics, the support would always be used and was always an essential part of any victory.

2. But in that particular clip cossacks are slitting throats not ramming their horses into people. That is also the description of the Don Cossacks followin Borodino. There are no accounts of the Cossacks coming in the night and trampling, the deaths are caused by swords and spears.

The intention of British Cavalry wasn't to ram a horse into a human either, I got lazy looking for a documentary on old cavalry so I just took a clip from the movie warhorse, it is very interesting that the horses never touch anything.Here is a very accurate clip from the movie warhorse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5f9pk...eature=related

As you could see the training is clearly to keep your horse safe and put your sword into a german not ram a horse into a german. It is very similar to the depiction of cossacks in Taras Bulba and Admiral (which in turn is based on accounts of how Cossacks attacked Napoleon's army).

This one is documentary

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDFPiF3xXCQ

Sorry if I am beating a dead horse (no pun intended) but the sabre and the lance or in hussars case pike seems to be the killer to me, the horse doesn't seem to hit anyone, the obstacle courses british cavalry trained on appear to be designed to teach riders to avoid putting their horse in danger while teaching them to slash their enemies head with a sabre.

Sorry if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but the training for cavalry appears to be based on getting close enough to slash your enemies quickly, and use of shock to kill quickly. The greatest cavalry leader of all time (Hannibal) never sent horse cavalry into a frontal assault, there is a reason. Cavalry could defeat Legionaries, but they had to be used wisely.

[Domen123]

Sorry, double post.