Medieval cavalry charges?

[Hanny]

Some accounts about Winged Hussars vs pikemen combats:

Battle of Kircholm (600 cavalry charging & defeating 3840 pike-musket infantry):
.

http://home.comcast.net/~gmcdavid/HistN ... ussar.html

http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/HowHussarFought.htm

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GCW2 ... ke&f=false

This Mod for game Medieval 2 Total War realistically depicts the "charge mechanics" of lance-wielding shock cavalry. This particular video is an attempt of depicting the battle of Klushino in 1610 (over 2700 Polish soldiers including 200 musket-infantry & over 2500 cavalry vs 3350 Swedish mercenary soldiers, 15000 Russian soldiers and about 20 000 Russo-Swedish armed camp servants - Polish armed camp servants did not take part in the battle):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR8G3fEEnx4

Sadly your concept of combat is derived from games designed for teenagers, usinga combat model that has zero relation to reality. This helps us to understand your posts, and is why you may even think horses were trained to run onto spear and pikes....

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

Sadly such mods are created by adult people who always have considerable knowledge of history and military history, often teams of modders include professional historians as researchers. And for teenagers could be designed the basic version of this game, but this is modification created by players themselves, and for players who are dissapointed by the basic version & want more historical accuracy (teenagers don't bother about such this).

BTW - the second of links which you provided, confirms what can be seen in that game combat system.

Not to mention that on the previous 8 pages of this thread you could find much more information about combat tactics of Polish-Lithuanian Hussars, if only you actually bothered to read it. Of course lack of knowledge of languages other than English is also an obstacle to getting to know the way cavalry fought in East & Central Europe.

[Stephan]

My understanding was that the success of the cavalry charged was based on the discipline and structure of the infantry. A wall of 12 foot lances would probably be effective. A line of swordsmen probably wouldn't stand up as well. But, I claim no mass of knowledge on the subject, just my own understandings.

As I understand, the walls of infantry with long lances 12 foot or even longer, become common quite late into the medieval.
Used by 1. the Schweiz freemen regiments. 2. The Belgian cityies voluntary infantery.

The knights army´s own infantery had shorter pole weapons, typically perhaps 7 at most 8 feet long. Ie not effective enough against cavallery with own lances not broken yet.

Im wondering. It was perhaps fully purposefully. the knights didnt wanted the low status infantery to be too effective. The noble knights wanted themselves to be the main, dominating irrestisible weapon on the battlefield. They didnt wanted to be stopped by a mass of common small peasants, just because they had long polearms, and the disciplinge to stand fast.

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

They didnt wanted to be stopped by a mass of common small peasants, just because they had long polearms

I don't think this was enough. The success of Swiss pikemen in combat vs cavalry (as well as vs infantry of course) was much more than having long polearms and just enough discipline to stand fast. Swiss pikemen developed a very innovative and complicated tactics and formations, this required a lot of training and discipline. They also divided their pike armies for 3 tactical components in each battle - vanguard, main forces and rearguard. Surprisingly their tactics was often very aggressive, rather than strictly defensive as we would imagine pike tactics. But even them were not always able to defeat cavalry - in the battle of Marignano in 1515 furious French cavalry charges time and again succeeded n throwing back temporary Swiss gains. In battles of Ravenna and Ceresole they also had to admit cavalry superiority over them, even though they fought bravely and steady. In the battle of Dreux, on the other hand, Swiss discipline got broken by the heavy cavalry charge and they started to run away in fear.

Used by 1. the Schweiz freemen regiments. 2. The Belgian cityies voluntary infantery.

In fact long before them, pikes were already used in battles by warriors from Scotland. However, Scottish pikemen employed a rather purely defensive tactics. The ones who created aggressive pike warfare were the Swiss.

why you may even think horses were trained to run onto spear and pikes...

Spear was the basic weapon of humanity since Prehistory. If what you claim about even trained horses being supposedly afraid of spears was true, then cavalry would be totally useless in every single battle in history.

Examples of cavalry charges conducted against spearmen and even pikemen in history are countless. Ignoring them is your problem, but you can read about some of them on the 9 pages of this thread, for example.

If horses were afraid of spears, they would refuse to charge not only steady, but even routing spearmen...

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

Oh, and another claim of Hanny that in Antiquity cavalry did not use stallions, is also false. For example Parthian and Sassanid knights or Savārān cavalry rode stallions (contrary to horse archers, who rode on ponies).

Sassanid army relied mainly on heavy shock cavalry armed with lances, supported by missile infantry. If Hanny's claims were true, such thing like the Sassanid army could never exist - or at least would be totally ineffective.

While in reality, Parthian and Sassanid Persian armies inflicted a number of defeats on Romans and captured or killed as many as 3 Roman emperors during the history of Roman-Persian wars (Gordian III, Valerian, Julian).

Some pictures showing Sassanid and Parthian cavalry:



Firuzabad Rock reliefs:

[Stephan]

Interesting, on at least two of the silhuette statues, we do see a rider holding with his left arm another man in helmet and chainmail.
so whatever it is, it was something done frequently.

A technique for taking alive prisoners? Or some sort of playful desaming a foe in training, without hurting him?

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

A technique for taking alive prisoners? Or some sort of playful desaming a foe in training, without hurting him?

Probably both - depending on situation (training or combat). Could be also the way of dismounting a foe in battle (perhaps after holding them, they were throwing them on the ground?).

Swedish pikes were 5.98m regulation until 1616 when they went down to 5.3m. Sometime around 1650-70 they went down again to around 4.2m to 4.8m.

And the most spectacular (at least when it comes to scale) successes of Hussars against Swedish pikemen were in period before 1616 - when they had the longest pikes...

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

Interesting discussion about cavalry and chariots vs infantry over here:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/17-rom ... l?start=90

And also over here (about Polish-Lithuanian winged hussars):

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/7-off- ... tml#331328

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

An account describing a British cavalry charge from year 1880:

"The heads of the squadrons wheeled slowly
to the left, and the Lancers, breaking into a trot, began to cross the
Dervish front in column of troops. Thereupon and with one accord the
blue-clad men dropped on their knees, and there burst out a loud, crackling
fire of musketry. It was hardly possible to miss such a target at such
a range. Horses and men fell at once. The only course was plain and welcome
to all. The Colonel, nearer than his regiment, already saw what lay behind
the skirmishers. He ordered, 'Right wheel into line' to be sounded.
The trumpet jerked out a shrill note, heard faintly above the trampling of
the horses and the noise of the rifles. On the instant all the sixteen
troops swung round and locked up into a long galloping line, and the
21st Lancers were committed to their first charge in war.

Two hundred and fifty yards away the dark-blue men were firing madly
in a thin film of light-blue smoke. Their bullets struck the hard gravel
into the air, and the troopers, to shield their faces from the stinging
dust, bowed their helmets forward, like the Cuirassiers at Waterloo.
The pace was fast and the distance short. Yet, before it was half covered,
the whole aspect of the affair changed. A deep crease in the ground--a dry
watercourse, a khor--appeared where all had seemed smooth, level plain;
and from it there sprang, with the suddenness of a pantomime effect
and a high-pitched yell, a dense white mass of men nearly as long as our
front and about twelve deep. A score of horsemen and a dozen bright flags
rose as if by magic from the earth.

Eager warriors sprang forward
to anticipate the shock. The rest stood firm to meet it. The Lancers
acknowledged the apparition only by an increase of pace. Each man wanted
sufficient momentum to drive through such a solid line. The flank troops,
seeing that they overlapped, curved inwards like the horns of a moon.
But the whole event was a matter of seconds. The riflemen, firing bravely
to the last, were swept head over heels into the khor, and jumping down
with them, at full gallop and in the closest order, the British squadrons
struck the fierce brigade with one loud furious shout. The collision was
prodigious. Nearly thirty Lancers, men and horses, and at least two hundred
Arabs were overthrown. The shock was stunning to both sides, and for
perhaps ten wonderful seconds no man heeded his enemy. Terrified horses
wedged in the crowd, bruised and shaken men, sprawling in heaps, struggled,
dazed and stupid, to their feet, panted, and looked about them. Several
fallen Lancers had even time to re-mount. Meanwhile the impetus of the
cavalry carried them on. As a rider tears through a bullfinch, the officers
forced their way through the press; and as an iron rake might be drawn
through a heap of shingle, so the regiment followed. They shattered the
Dervish array, and, their pace reduced to a walk, scrambled out of the khor
on the further side, leaving a score of troopers behind them, and dragging
on with the charge more than a thousand Arabs. Then, and not till then, the
killing began; and thereafter each man saw the world along his lance,
under his guard, or through the back-sight of his pistol; and each had
his own strange tale to tell.

(...)

On this occasion two living walls had actually crashed together.
The Dervishes fought manfully. They tried to hamstring the horses,
They fired their rifles, pressing the muzzles into the very bodies of
their opponents. They cut reins and stirrup-leathers. They flung their
throwing-spears with great dexterity. They tried every device of cool,
determined men practised in war and familiar with cavalry; and, besides,
they swung sharp, heavy swords which bit deep. The hand-to-hand fighting
on the further side of the khor lasted for perhaps one minute. Then the
horses got into their stride again, the pace increased, and the Lancers
drew out from among their antagonists. Within two minutes of the collision
every living man was clear of the Dervish mass. All who had fallen were
cut at with swords till they stopped quivering, but no artistic mutilations
were attempted."

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

This account was written personally by Winston Churchill.

He was one of the British cavalrymen who charged there.

[Fliegende Untertasse]

Interesting, on at least two of the silhuette statues, we do see a rider holding with his left arm another man in helmet and chainmail.
so whatever it is, it was something done frequently.

Where is the second one?
I see one fotograph and one artists rendering of same relief.

A technique for taking alive prisoners? Or some sort of playful desaming a foe in training, without hurting him?

Or it is not an enemy , but a dismounted friend being rescued from battlefield.

[James A Pratt III]

Good books on battles of the period:
by ian Heath:
Armies of the Dark Ages
Armies of Fuedal Europe 1066-1300
Armies and Enemies of the Crusades 1091-1291
Armies of the Middle Ages Vol 1 & 2

Sir Charles Oman
A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages Vol 1 & 2

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/7-off- ... =75#336622

http://historum.com/medieval-byzantine- ... ost1440988

http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.p ... post480743

[rosiejv]

i do medieval reenactment and there is very little truth in cavalry charges as such. and depends on what era your going for, now, medieval battles in europe tend to be based from 1100AD to the mid to late 1400s [to the end of the war of the roses in england], so, lets base this around the center countries at war, the hundred years war, france and england fighting eachother, there were many cavalry charges but all became quite futile by the french, such as crecy, and agincourt. ill look at 2 battles within that era, and then hastings and the battle of barnet, each giving a point in the use of cavalry

at crecy [26.8.1346], edward brought archers and had them on high ground, and dictated the battle, it would of took over 40 seconds for the french to get to the english archers, who had other foot soldiers around them, ready to defend the archers when the french cavalry decended on them, the problem is, the horses were vulnerable, while arrows were more effective against the armour at 20m, the arrows were still effective on horses at over 80m, and after doing private tests, of which health and safety would have a fit about, i can garuntee, horses could of been felled on the charge, an archer could shoot ~12 arrows in the time it would of took for the french to of got to their target, times that by ~7500 archers, even with them shooting 3 arrows each, the effect upon the french cavalry would be enormous, excuse my bad maths but that would be around ~22,500 arrows, with the estimates from mike loads, it would be ~90,000 arrows in that time. the king of france was estimated to of had 2 horses killed beneath him, and the dead would pile up, specialy in the sorties by the english men at arms, when you think there is an estimate of ~12,000 mounted men at arms, would create an emense pile up, making ground hard for the horses to cross, specialy when some say the french charged ~16 times, 1 cronicaler said it when well into the early hours of the morning afterwards.. but already the bows fall was on the same field, edwards cannon. which comes in with the battle of barnet.

at another battle, the battle of verneuil [17.8.1424] is very good example also, the english outnumbered with around ~+8000 men, while the french with around ~14,000 men, 2000 of them milanesian mercinaries, most of them with armour that was like no armour seen before, tempered steel, it was practicaly arrow proof. arrows [at killing range] would ether bounce off, fall against the steel or stick inside, with no damage done to the knight underneath. the ground was dry, very hard to get stakes in, and upon seeing the english archers start hammering the stakes in, the knights began their charge, the horses would of been wearing the same treated armour aswell, meaning, the archers would of found it very difficult to break the charge. the archers were broken, the cavalry then moved to the main english force and pillaged the baggage train, the forces were scattered. sir john of bedford chose otherwise, he gathered his men, and spurred his men for victory, the battle turned for honour, into a battle of bitter hand to hand combat. the archers had been destroyed, but the armour also made the appearance of percussion weapons increase. eg the poleaxe, favoured by bedford. which could unhorse a knight, which was effective against the milanese knights who chose to stay. and personal tip, it hurts!!!
but while that, the french were forced back into verneuil, pushing the french back into the steep ditch, the rest of the milanesian knights came back to find defeat. the army had been broken.

but also, at the battle of hastings [14.10.1066], cavalry were still being used as they would in the roman era by the romans in western europe, they were skirmish troops, they would charge forward with a javeline or axe, and throw it at the enemy, then come back, grab another from a squire, and ride back, throwing over the shield, or would be used to chase down fleeing enemy, like when the line broke. the lance would be held out, not couched, the next major battle to use cavalry charges was the battle of lewes [14.5.1264] in sussex in the civil war. where impact battle had began in western europe. and in part with crecy, when the english was going over the somme river, it is shown to have the mounted archers [paid 6pence a day to the 4pence a day of the archers on foot] loosing their bows upon the french as they charge accross, repelling the french from nipping the baggage train. cavalry were still using skirmish tactics, and probably still have done after the medieval era.

at the battle of barnet [14.4.1471], during the wars of the roses, the knights dismounted and fought on foot, it not common for english knights to engage battle on horseback during the middle ages at all unlike the french, many choosing to ride to a safe location and then dismounting to fight on foot. to a major loss, the kingmaker chose to have his horse taken to the back to his loss. i chose barnet for this example, for it is a major clue as to how using cavalry could of changed the battle.
there are many ideas on how the kingmaker died, but i tend to find the idea louis [in the links below] to be more likely to of happened: that he was on his horse, his brother had ordered/advised to retreat [sir john neville], he mounted his horse and rode straight into the path of the yorkists, and they managed to unhorse him, got him on the ground and did the cou de gras, he would of been wearing a sallet, probably with his visor down, and they drove a rondel straight through the eyeslit, and into one of his his eyes, a quick death. a dagger with no edges just a fine point, often nicknamed 'angels of mercy', if a soldier saw any wounded knight on the ground, he would put it through the eyeslit and put him out of his misery.

also, it takes allot of recources to train a horse, to feed a horse, to train a man to be able to fight on horseback, you would not waste so much recources to send him to his doom, and also, a horse will not go through a line more then 2 lines thick, and also, even if you manage, you could be pulled down and killed. the greeks had tactics to use against chariots. the english archers had tactics against cavalry, and coming from a person who does mounted combat, your going to chase down or skirmish! and dont stop! you lose all advantages when you stop! not to say these never happened, as explained in a video im going to link, but, only an idiot or mad person would stop..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAmf4RTBoYk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-TCIamyYCo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As1rGnx9vng part of series, watch them all...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9O37Tn9bsI

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

David Eltis, "The Military Revolution in Sixteenth-Century Europe" on page 46 quotes Sir John Smythe, "An answer to contrarie opynions militarie", British Library, Harleian MS 135, f 11 - who wrote, that 1000 cavalry can easily defeat 3000 or 4000 missile infantry unless they are protected by pikes or favourable terrain.

On the same page (46) Eltis quotes Matthew Sutcliffe, "The Practice Proceedings, and Lawes of Armies", STC 23468 (1593), page 109 - who in 1593 wrote that a cavalry charge against melee infantry with swords and shields is devastating for infantry, unless they are protected by pikes, ditches, hedgerows or forests.

On next page - 47 - Eltis quotes Robbert Barret, "The Theorike and Practike of Moderne Wares", STC 1500 (1598), page 69 - who in 1598 wrote that missile infantry deployed in open field, unsupported by pikes and without protection provided by hedgerows, ditches, trenches or ramparts, are not able to hold on against cavalry for a long time, and especially are not able to hold on against lancers cavalry.

Raimondo Montecuccoli in "Sulle battaglie" - basing on experiences from the Thirty Years' War (1618 - 1648) - on pages 106 and 150 wrote that cavalry can very quickly destroy musketeers deployed in dense formation (read: density of infantry formation formation is not an obstacle for cavalry in destroying this infantry), unless they are protected by pikes. He also wrote, that pike is "the only defence" of musketeers.

Also Kampenhausen wrote in 1737, that it very rarely happens, that lancers cavalry sustain more damage than they inflict (i.e. lancers almost always inflict higher casualties upon the enemy than they suffer).

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

Marcin Bielski (born 1495 - died 1575) - soldier, historian and writer - wrote about cavalry charges:

"Quality is more important than quantity, and terrain is more important than quality."

So whether the terrain was favourable for cavalry or not, was very important for the outcome of a charge. Another important condition for the charge to suceed, was quality of the charging cavalry - men and horses.

Regarding infantry, Marcin Bielski wrote the following thing:

"If you have infantry against enemy cavalry, deploy your men in rough terrain, deploy your men in wetlands, in thickets, in terrain surrounded by depressions. (...) infantry needs ditches, fences, rivers, hills."

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

Regarding Medieval nobles:

Nobles at that time had very good military training. Their individual training was often not worse than that of professionals, mercenaries, Knight Orders, etc. But there could be problems with unit training, because when men were called to war, often men who didn't know each other ended up in the same unit.

There were units raised by families, clans or rich aristocracts - such units usually included only people who knew each other and trained together, so they were better than "territorial units". Discipline and cooperation were much better in units which consisted of men who knew each other and trained together.

Medieval European nobility was - after all - a warrior caste, just like Medieval Japanese nobility.

In Early and High Middle Ages almost every male child of noble birth was trained to become a warrior.

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

BTW - do you count a noble who becomes a regular soldier as a noble, or as a regular soldier?

Of course that the society was divided into nobles, peasants, burghers, priests, etc.

But the most interested in warfare were always nobles - burghers had more interest in trade and crafts, peasants in farming and animal husbandry, priests in praying and converting people. So of course professional units of regular soldiers were also recruited from among the nobles - to a large extent. There were some burghers and peasants among them too, but largely nobles. Commoners started to serve as regular soldiers on a massive scale only in the 19th and the 20th centuries, when the age of massive armies and general conscription came (the French Revolution, the Napoleonic Wars, the US Civil War, WW1, WW2).

Before that burghers and peasants often fought in wars - but usually as militias or levies, not regulars.

I think that units of regulars and mercenaries were still dominated by recruits of noble birth.

Before Napoleon, war was - like in the 21st century - fought mostly by professionals and warrior castes.

The 19th century and the 20th century with massive armies consisting of conscripts are exceptions.

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

I would say that raising a professional and good quality heavy cavalry was also a problem. Polish husaria (which was a professional, regular military formation) there were towarzysze and pocztowi. Towarzysze were recruited mostly from among nobles (because only rich could afford equipment), but among pocztowi people from all social classes were recruited, because they did not have to buy anything on their own. It was extremely expensive at that time to raise professional, regular armies.

That's were mercenaries were popular - nobody had to raise them - you (as a king) just needed to hire them.

Husaria were not mercenaries, but regulars (zaciężni) - which means that a king hired just a captain, and that captain was responsible for recruiting and training the manpower - both towarzysze and pocztowi.

In case of mercenary units, a king hired entire - already existing - unit, rather than just its captain.

Mercenaries bought their gear on their own, only later they sold their "services" to various kings.

In case of housing - you don't always need barracks for your professional troops. They can house in civilian houses or in provisional camps - that was frequent in history. Historically many professional soldiers were responsible for buying their gear on their own (either or soldiers or just commanders of units and sometimes also NCOs). But of course they received payment for their service, so they could use that money to buy the equipment (or to cover the expenses of previously buying it). There were often documents which established what was the minimum required equipment that you needed to have if you wanted to become a soldier of a particular unit. For example: "to serve in this unit, you need a horse worth at least 20 florins, a sword, (...)" etc. If men could afford it, then they had more than just "minimum".

It was in their interest to have more than what was required as "minimum". For example better armor.

[James A Pratt III]

On archive.org: Sir Charles Oman's
A History of the Art of War in the Middle Ages 2 volumes
A History of the Peninsula War 7 volumes (yes I know its OT but it some heavy duty historical reading)