Medieval cavalry charges?

Discussions on other historical eras.
Post Reply
User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Medieval cavalry charges?

#76

Post by LWD » 16 May 2012, 18:11

Peter K wrote: ...Hussars did well in infantry role, especially in defence
Hardly a surprise. Put in works or even just asked to hold a position a high moral unit such as the Hussars should do well unless out matched by their opposition in either equipment or numbers.
(but at Pskov in 1581 they attacked).
Not much info on it on the web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Pskov doesn't make it sound like they were very successful.
...
But is a bigger target while in range.
Yes, but the difference is size is not even significant enough to be taken into account.
???? A man on a horse has more than twice the target area of a man on foot and that's if he is headed directly towards or away. I suspect an accurate mesure would be more like 3 times the area. That's very significant in my book.
And actually the bigger size of individual targets is fully compensated by smaller density of targets.
If vollee fire at formations was being conducted possibly althoug probably not. If aimed fire then not at all.
Given that they were outnumberd by a huge margin deep in hostile territory
According to Greek propaganda they were outnumbered by a huge margin.
But what do Persian sources say? In this article author explains how Persian numbers were exaggerated:

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/acha ... d_army.php
Indeed the Greeks had a history of exagerating the size of the armies they opposed and the Persians had something of a history of exagerating the size of their armies as well. However your source mentions:
...army of Artaxerxes II at Cunaxa was in reality no more than 40,000...
Now as he recruited at least some of the surviving Persians from his brothers force from what I've read the Greeks were still outnumbered by more than 3 to 1 and perhaps even double
... I fully agree. So generalizations like "infantry > cavalry" or "cavalry > infantry" are not welcomed.
??? Then why did you make one?
Indeed but if you have too essentially equal forces and both take say 10% casualties then one side is reinforced with numbers equal to it's original strength while the other side isn't the latter is in trouble.
But was it really the case that Harold had more manpower reserves (as you claim above)?
I forget exactly where I read it but I remember reading that another group of the Fyrd had rallied at a town less than a days march away. Furthermore Harold had left most/all the Northumbrian Fyrd in the North in his hurry south. Exact numbers are hard to come by but given the nature of the Fyrd Harolds numbers would indeed grow substantially over time.
AFAIK Harold was rather loosing many of his men to desertions on each day, because it was time of harvest and many of his Fyrd's soldiers simply wanted to go home to supervise the harvest in their farms.
I've never read anything to that affect. Given that William was burning and/or appropriateing the local crops I rather doubt it.
Normans didn't have this problem as they were of more noble birth (not farmers like soldiers from Harold's Fyrd) and even if some of them wanted to go home, they couldn't because it was behind the Channel.
Not all the Normans were "nobles" indeed his force had a fair number of mercenaries (not the most reliable troops when things start to go wrong by the way). To balance that Harold had his Huscarls.
The Persians on the other hand failed to accomplish their aims i.e. they suffered a defeat.
I think their main aim was to kick butts of the 10,000 back to Greece.
Not to "kill them all at any price". Persians just to wanted them to get out of their land.
In that case they could have just let them go. They didn't. On the other hand they didn't necessarily want to kill them all, indeed they probably prefered to enslave them. Their activities however clearly showed that just getting them out of Persia was not their aim. Indeed the Greeks would have been happy to go peacefully.

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Medieval cavalry charges?

#77

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 16 May 2012, 18:39

???? A man on a horse has more than twice the target area of a man on foot
Only if he is attacked from the flank. Frontally his area is not so much bigger. Check:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 227AAD0U9y
Not all the Normans were "nobles" indeed his force had a fair number of mercenaries (not the most reliable troops when things start to go wrong by the way).
And mercenaries also didn't have farms. What they did for a living was war, not farming.
I've never read anything to that affect.
I've heard it (in a TV documentary). He already had problem with this after the battle of Stamford Bridge.

Soldiers from levy en masse (such as Fyrd) are typically not willing to stay in the field for long time.

If the military campaign is taking too long, they start to want to go back to their homes.

Especially during harvest (if they are peasants).
Given that William was burning and/or appropriateing the local crops I rather doubt it.
Harold's army at Hastings consisted of soldiers gathered from quite a large area of his country.

Not just from locals.

And also - regarding locals - the fact that someone was just burning your crops (and possibly killing your children and raping your wife) was an even better reason to quickly go home to save them.
from what I've read the Greeks were still outnumbered by more than 3 to 1 and perhaps even double
The Greeks maybe but alongside the Greeks were also Persians. It was a civil war after all.
and the Persians had something of a history of exagerating the size of their armies as well.
Maybe they had a habit of counting their "forces" in a similar way as later Ottoman Turks did.

Let me quote my post from another forum:
Peter K wrote: Why Turkish Medieval / Early Modern Era armies were so massive (compared to their enemies) according to sources from that time?

Well, if you count camp followers you get enormous strength of armies.

For example the Turkish army in the battle of Vienna in 1683 had 50,000 horse-drawn wagons with it (and we must count one coachman and a few camp followers for each horse wagon). So apart from 150,000 soldiers the Ottomans would have probably 150,000 - 200,000 camp followers (including coachmen) with them at Vienna - and 50,000 horse-drawn wagons (one wagon for each 3 soldiers). The same would apply to European armies of course.

And it seems that Turks actually had a habit of counting also camp followers and even horses and camels as "army strength" in their official military documents. I guess it had some propaganda impact on their enemies.

But they didn't count camp followers and horses when counting casualties, on the other hand.

For example Polish 17th century soldier Jan Ostrorog commented the discrepancy in numbers given on Turkish forces in the battle of Khotyn in 1621. Turkish own counts said that their army at Khotyn in 1621 was 300,000 Turks and 100,000 Tatars - in total 400,000. While Polish envoy who was also acting as a spy during his mission to Turkish camp, wrote that there were no more than 150,000 Turks and no more than 60,000 Tatars. And in fact the first number most likely includes all men and horses and the second one probably includes all men (including camp followers).

And here is how Jan Ostrorog explains these great differences in numbers:

"(...) Sir Zelenski [that Polish envoy] counted their forces using Polish method, which is considerably different than Turkish method - in the Turkish army they count separately each living creature, for example if they have a mounted knight and this knight has another horse, or a mule, or a camel - then they count all of this separately, and that's why they get so huge numbers of their armies (...)"

And Ostrorog concludes:

"(...) That's why when there will be a 10,000 strong Polish force, there will still be more actual soldiers among these 10,000, than in a Turkish force which is said to be 20,000 strong, or maybe even in a Turkish force which is said to be 30,000 strong (...)".

Another Polish envoy - Krzysztof Zbaraski - who visited Turkey few years later, wrote:

"Forces of the Turkish tyrant are bigger on paper than in actual armies, because when they count strength of their forces, they count both men and horses"
If vollee fire at formations was being conducted possibly althoug probably not. If aimed fire then not at all.
Nobody aimed in a formation vs formation combat. They just "leveled", not aimed. And actually when you fire from bows or crossbows, you usually fire into the air (so that arrows fall on enemies from above, at some angle).

And even if they did aim, it could not be efficient. As I wrote you overestimate accuracy. Had you actually ever shot from a bow or crossbow? I did - and it's true that I'm not very good at it, but it is really very hard to shoot accurately from a bow when your taget is more than 20 - 30 m away from you. Experienced archer would do better, but not so much better as you claim. Crossbow was not more accurate than bow, it was just easier to use by inexperienced soldiers with similar efficiency / accuracy, while to be good at using bow you need years of training.

Especially that all the time many soldiers would aim at the same target. On the other hand, plenty of potential targets would remain untouched because nobody would aim at them and thus try to "touch" them.

You know what I mean? When 100 soldiers attack 100 archers, and archers somehow happen to conduct aimed fire (which, as I said, didn't happen often), it is not like each of archers would aim at different enemy. Some archers would aim at the same enemy soldier, while many of enemy soldiers would not be targeted by anyone.
I fully agree. So generalizations like "infantry > cavalry" or "cavalry > infantry" are not welcomed.
??? Then why did you make one?
??? I didn't. Actually other users claimed that cavalry will loose against steady infantry.
Hardly a surprise. Put in works or even just asked to hold a position a high moral unit such as the Hussars should do well unless out matched by their opposition in either equipment or numbers.
Yeap. And I don't claim that any infantry unit would do worse than them, in a similar situation.

Of course provided that this infantry would have a high enough morale, when facing such odds.

But Tatar cavalry was very light, it was unarmoured, armed mostly with bows (but in periods of crisis & poverty for the Crimean Khanate, many of its Tatars couldn't even afford a bow - some of them had just crude maces). Tatar cavalry was good for "hit & run" warfare rather than for besieging & capturing fortified positions.

I'm not sure if Tatars fought mounted or dismounted (or both) in that battle of Hodow, but it would make not much difference since they were light troops with light weapons facing well armoured enemies.

And as I wrote Hussars in that battle used long firearms (a bit shorter cavalry muskets, or arquebuses).
Not much info on it on the web. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Pskov doesn't make it sound like they were very successful.
The entire siege of Pskov was tactically inconclusive, but it doesn't tell us anything about how successful was that particular assault (for example it could be successful but then Russians could regain the lost area as the result of counterattacks). I don't have any details about that particular engagement at the moment.
To balance that Harold had his Huscarls.
Yeap. But the bulk of his forces was Fyrd.

In that case they could have just let them go. They didn't. On the other hand they didn't necessarily want to kill them all, indeed they probably prefered to enslave them. Their activities however clearly showed that just getting them out of Persia was not their aim. Indeed the Greeks would have been happy to go peacefully.
Maybe because the Persians thought:

"Oh, the Greeks are retreating. Let's have some fun and shooting exercise at the same time and let's send a huge force of our horse archers behind them. We will suffer minimal losses and still kill some of them".

And maybe they wanted revenge for Cunaxa. Since they couldn't compete in a pitched battle, "hit and run" warfare was the best opportunity to take revenge and inflict heavy losses on withdrawing Greeks.

By the way they also wanted to capture some prisoners, as you mentioned.
I forget exactly where I read it but I remember reading that another group of the Fyrd had rallied at a town less than a days march away. Furthermore Harold had left most/all the Northumbrian Fyrd in the North in his hurry south. Exact numbers are hard to come by but given the nature of the Fyrd Harolds numbers would indeed grow substantially over time.
But the Normans also could bring in more reinforcements from Normandy, across the Channel.


User avatar
LWD
Member
Posts: 8618
Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 22:46
Location: Michigan

Re: Medieval cavalry charges?

#78

Post by LWD » 16 May 2012, 22:17

Peter K wrote:
???? A man on a horse has more than twice the target area of a man on foot
Only if he is attacked from the flank. Frontally his area is not so much bigger. Check:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index ... 227AAD0U9y
Let's see on that site the only two mentions I see on the width of a horse is 24 inches and 32 inches. A man's about 18inches wide. Now add at least another 6 inches for the width of the rider then the horse rider combination is going to be about 50% taller than a man. If we use the smaller measurment then a horse and rider has ~ (30/18)*1.5 = 2.5 times the area (i.e. target size) of a man standing errect.
Not all the Normans were "nobles" indeed his force had a fair number of mercenaries (not the most reliable troops when things start to go wrong by the way).
And mercenaries also didn't have farms. What they did for a living was war, not farming.
The Fyrd did a fair amount of training though and they were protecting their lands. Not that I see a great deal of relevance to this line though.
I've never read anything to that affect.
I've heard it (in a TV documentary). He already had problem with this after the battle of Stamford Bridge.
Well it's understandable that the Northumberland Fyrd wasn't really anxious to head that far south that time of year. Probably contributed to the decision to leave them behind.
Soldiers from levy en masse (such as Fyrd) are typically not willing to stay in the field for long time.
If the military campaign is taking too long, they start to want to go back to their homes.
Especially during harvest (if they are peasants).
But the campaign was hardly "taking too long". Indeed the Fyrd was still gathering that's why Harold's force wasn't stronger and why there would have been substantial additional forces available to him in the near future.
Given that William was burning and/or appropriateing the local crops I rather doubt it.
Harold's army at Hastings consisted of soldiers gathered from quite a large area of his country.
Not just from locals.
Well if you don't count the Huscarls I'm not sure that you are correct in that assesement. Certainly the information at:
http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/hastings/
suggest otherwise. In particular:
Harold paused only five days to assemble his army before marching on Hastings. Hoping to surprise William as he had Harald, he quickly covered the 58 miles to his assembly point at the "hoary apple tree", a well-known local landmark. Exhausted, his army arrived on the evening of the 13th with troops filtering into camp throughout the night.
And also - regarding locals - the fact that someone was just burning your crops (and possibly killing your children and raping your wife) was an even better reason to quickly go home to save them.
You aren't going to save them by yourself. If your lands are already burned then there is only vengence. If they have yet to burn your lands being part of an army between them and your foe is the best way to defend them.
from what I've read the Greeks were still outnumbered by more than 3 to 1 and perhaps even double
The Greeks maybe but alongside the Greeks were also Persians. It was a civil war after all.
Not after the battle. Then it was the Greeks vs the Persians and the numbers at that point were in range I stated. Given some of the wording and source of your reference I'm also a bit sceptical of its numbers.
and the Persians had something of a history of exagerating the size of their armies as well.
Maybe they had a habit of counting their "forces" in a similar way as later Ottoman Turks did.
My impression was that the Persians found large numbers impressive. Indeed they likely were able to overawe many opponents. The Greeks on the otherhand viewd the few defeating or even giving a good account vs the many to be a worthy deed.
...
If vollee fire at formations was being conducted possibly althoug probably not. If aimed fire then not at all.
Nobody aimed in a formation vs formation combat. They just "leveled", not aimed. And actually when you fire from bows or crossbows, you usually fire into the air (so that arrows fall on enemies from above, at some angle).
I'm not at all sure that is the case. Particularly when firing at a retreating foe. Now when firing at an advancing foe volleys were often used for the impact as much as anything else. On the other hand particularly when defences were available aimed fire would have been more common. With a bow or a crossbow in particular you don't loft arrows at close foes. It makes it almost impossible to hit them. With crossbows I'm not sure it was done much in any case. They shoot too flat to make it all that viable plus the surface area to length means that their arial density is fairly low.
And even if they did aim, it could not be efficient. As I wrote you overestimate accuracy. Had you actually ever shot from a bow or crossbow? I did - and it's true that I'm not very good at it, but it is really very hard to shoot accurately from a bow when your taget is more than 20 - 30 m away from you. Experienced archer would do better, but not so much better as you claim. Crossbow was not more accurate than bow, it was just easier to use by inexperienced soldiers with similar efficiency / accuracy, while to be good at using bow you need years of training.
Yes I've shot both. Used to participate in a competition where we could fire as many arrows as we could get off in 12 seconds. The first foour seconds were at a target at ~60 yards, the next four at one at 40 yards, and the last at 20 yards. I didn't practice much but could getting 3 shots off and two hits on a man sized target minus the area covered by a shield and helm. Those who practice much could get 3 off pretty much every time and often 4 or more, usually with 3 or 4 hits. Some were able to do much better. We also shot at a 100 yard target. Practice made a huge difference at that range those who practiced much were probably hitting a horse and man sized target with 50% or more of their arrows. None of us would have come close to being as practiced as a period archer. In another competition I took a crossbow I had never shot before and at arround 30yards put 6 of 8 quarrels into a slit about 6 inches wide by a foot and a half tall. Oh, that was using a reproduction period bow by the way with no sites.
You know what I mean? When 100 soldiers attack 100 archers, and archers somehow happen to conduct aimed fire (which, as I said, didn't happen often), it is not like each of archers would aim at different enemy. Some archers would aim at the same enemy soldier, while many of enemy soldiers would not be targeted by anyone.
That's less of a problem when it's shifted to "fire at will". Volly firing was usually at formations, aimed fire at individuals and spread out over time.
I fully agree. So generalizations like "infantry > cavalry" or "cavalry > infantry" are not welcomed.
??? Then why did you make one?
??? I didn't. Actually other users claimed that cavalry will loose against steady infantry.
Then what's this:
Peter K wrote: ...
1 on 1 a cavalryman is always superior to an infantryman. 100 on 100 as well. And 200 on 200 as well.
...
Hardly a surprise. Put in works or even just asked to hold a position a high moral unit such as the Hussars should do well unless out matched by their opposition in either equipment or numbers.
Yeap. And I don't claim that any infantry unit would do worse than them, in a similar situation.
I suspect quite a few infantry units would do worse. From all I've read the Hussars were a very high quality force. That means both skill at weapon handling and high moral. Probably well above average in both.
...
To balance that Harold had his Huscarls.
Yeap. But the bulk of his forces was Fyrd.
But the bulk of Williams forces were non noble infantry as well
In that case they could have just let them go. They didn't. On the other hand they didn't necessarily want to kill them all, indeed they probably prefered to enslave them. Their activities however clearly showed that just getting them out of Persia was not their aim. Indeed the Greeks would have been happy to go peacefully.
Maybe because the Persians thought:

"Oh, the Greeks are retreating. Let's have some fun and shooting exercise at the same time and let's send a huge force of our horse archers behind them. We will suffer minimal losses and still kill some of them".

And maybe they wanted revenge for Cunaxa. Since they couldn't compete in a pitched battle, "hit and run" warfare was the best opportunity to take revenge and inflict heavy losses on withdrawing Greeks.

By the way they also wanted to capture some prisoners, as you mentioned.
Now you are speculating based on pretty much nothing.
But the Normans also could bring in more reinforcements from Normandy, across the Channel.
Could they? They had been waiting for a significant time for the winds to change to allow them to cross over to England. And where were they to get these extra forces. William had brought most of his available troops plus what he could hire. Even if he could how long would it take?

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Medieval cavalry charges?

#79

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 17 May 2012, 01:18

Yes I've shot both. Used to participate in a competition where we could fire as many arrows as we could get off in 12 seconds. The first foour seconds were at a target at ~60 yards, the next four at one at 40 yards, and the last at 20 yards. I didn't practice much but could getting 3 shots off and two hits on a man sized target minus the area covered by a shield and helm. Those who practice much could get 3 off pretty much every time and often 4 or more, usually with 3 or 4 hits. Some were able to do much better. We also shot at a 100 yard target. Practice made a huge difference at that range those who practiced much were probably hitting a horse and man sized target with 50% or more of their arrows. None of us would have come close to being as practiced as a period archer. In another competition I took a crossbow I had never shot before and at arround 30yards put 6 of 8 quarrels into a slit about 6 inches wide by a foot and a half tall. Oh, that was using a reproduction period bow by the way with no sites.
But this is about exercises / fun competitions. With static targets and no stress (or not so much stress).

In battles targets are not static. They are moving, so much harder to hit (even if they are not moving left and right but just forward). They are also more dangerous. I've seen statistics of musket accuracy, and all of them show that in battles accuracy was always much lower than in exercises (this was caused partly also by human factor - battle stress). Even in case of veteran units. The same, I suppose, is true regarding archers or crossbowmen.
Let's see on that site the only two mentions I see on the width of a horse is 24 inches and 32 inches. A man's about 18inches wide. Now add at least another 6 inches for the width of the rider then the horse rider combination is going to be about 50% taller than a man. If we use the smaller measurment then a horse and rider has ~ (30/18)*1.5 = 2.5 times the area (i.e. target size) of a man standing errect.
And what exactly is your point? Do you claim that it is hard to hit a man-size target with a sword or with a spear, but not hard to hit a horseman-size target? I don't think this difference in size plays any role here.
You aren't going to save them by yourself.
Yes, but try to explain this to men who found themselves in such situation.

They wouldn't even listen. They would go to save their families, driven by emotions, not reason.
With crossbows I'm not sure it was done much in any case. They shoot too flat to make it all that viable plus the surface area to length means that their arial density is fairly low.
Clout shooting with use of crossbows was clearly possible (mounted crossbowmen did it when firing over the heads of lancers - I mentioned the wedge-column formation in which this tactics was implemented).

You pick up a crossbow at a suitable angle and shoot.

Indeed crossbow has a more flat trajectory than bow, but crossbow has this advantage that it has constant tension, so always fires with the same strength. It is thus easier to learn at what angle you have to pick up your crossbow each time before shooting in order to hit a target which is at certain distance away from you.

I think this kind of shooting is called "clout shooting" or "shower shooting" in English.

In Polish it's nawija - high angle firing performed by archers / crossbowmen from rear lines over the heads of their comrades so that the enemy is under fire of arrows / bolts falling from above. Nowadays this term is used to describe the "clout shooting" type of shooting competitions. Name of the "nawija" tactics comes from the word "nawias" (bracket / parenthesis / pale) and represents the trajectory of an arrow / bolt.

Here is an example of a 14th to 15th century wedge-column cavalry formation:

Image

The mentioned Brandenburgian source is "Unterricht" from 1477, written by Albrecht Achilles.

This kind of formation was in use much earlier than 1477, though. Already in 14th century.

At Grunwald in 1410 both Polish and Teutonic cavalry units (banners) used wedge-column formation.

Wedge (German: Spitz) of each banner always consisted of the best "lancers" with the heaviest armour and the best quality of equipment. Column consisted of lighter "shooters" (in its central part) and the rest of heavy "lancers" (on both sides / wings). So lighter troops were protected from all sides by heavier troops.

A standard-bearer of a banner was always in the middle of the last line of wedge (Spitz). It was important that he was well visible for friendly troops, because standard (flag) was used to give signals (orders) during battle.

A standard also had to be big enough to be seen from large distance, so that commander-in-chief of entire army could see where exactly each of his banners was fighting (and did it still exist, or maybe was annihilated).

Units tried at all cost to defend their standards for reasons mentioned above (not just because of "prestige" or something like this). At Grunwald the main standard of the Polish army ("the great banner of the Kingdom" with white eagle painted on it) carried by standard-bearer Marcin of Wrocimowice, was temporarily captured by Teutonic forces in the 3rd phase of the battle. They started to sing "Christ ist erstanden" when they saw this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhw7Zd2KpOI

That was a dangerous blow for the Polish army. The loss of the main banner of the entire army could have resulted in confusion and large-scale panic. But the Polish army kept its cool - it endured the critical moment and soon the main flag of the Kingdom was again carried by Poles, recaptured from Teutonic hands.

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

"Shower shooting" with crossbows - Medieval picture:

Image
Even if he could how long would it take?
Hard to say. But how long would gathering more Fyrd by Harold take?

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Medieval cavalry charges?

#80

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 17 May 2012, 13:31

And something more regarding the length of Hussar lances:
pugsville wrote:The length of Hussar spears is disputed by Richard Brzezinski (arcane polish measurements etc).
If you don't like Polish measurements, let's check French and German:

A French 17th century military engineer - Guillaume le Vasseur de Beauplan - in his book "Déscription de l’Ukrainie... " ("A Description of Ukraine... ") mentioned 19 feet (in French royal feet) long lances used by Hussars.

One French royal foot of 17th century was equal to 33 cm. So 19 feet = 627 cm.

Beauplan came to Poland in 1630, soon after that he joined the Polish army. He took part in construction of Polish fortresses of Kudak, Kremenchuk & New Koniecpol and in campaigns against Cossacks and Tatars.

He returned to France in 1648, so he was serving in the Polish army for nearly 20 years.

And a German officer - Cpt. Johann Jocabi von Wallhausen from Danzig, Poland - in his book "Kriegskunst zu Pferdt" from 1616, wrote that Hussar lances were between 18 and 21 feet. It is not 100% clear which type of foot he used - but either Danzig foot (1 Danzig foot = 288 mm) or Frankfurt am Main foot (= 284.61 mm).

As you can see 21 Danzig feet = about 605 cm.

So both von Wallhausen and de Beauplan confirm that Hussar lances could be over 6 m long. And the longest surviving to our times original specimen - as I mentioned - has 6.15 m. So there is nothing to dispute here. If Brzezinski tries to dispute these undoubtfully reliable figures, it means that he simply didn't do enough research.

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

Johann Jocabi von Wallhausen was an author of 11 military books written between 1615 and 1621:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Krie ... =firefox-a

Guillaume le Vasseur de Beauplan was also an author of many books, mainly on military geography:

http://www.muzeum-polskie.org/muzeum/beauplan-eng.htm

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

And regarding the length of pikes.

Richard Brzezinski mentions, that according to Gustavus Adolphus (a source from 1616), a Swedish pike was 9 Swedish Ells long. And 9 Swedish Ells = about 534 cm (since 1 Swedish Ell = 59.4 cm):

http://www.webbmatte.se/show_asset.php?id=7418

So the longest of Hussar lances had around 1 meter advantage in length over pikes.

1 meter (93 cm) is a considerable advantage, IMHO.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: Medieval cavalry charges?

#81

Post by pugsville » 17 May 2012, 16:37

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.

Brzezinski says Hussar lances 5m.
Radek Sikora ( http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/lance.htm)
says 4.5m to 5.5m for Hussars lance

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Medieval cavalry charges?

#82

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 17 May 2012, 19:13

Radek Sikora ( http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/lance.htm)
says 4.5m to 5.5m for Hussars lance
Radek Sikora wrongly counted Beauplan's 19 feet when he wrote that article.

When he wrote that article, he was basing on B. Gembarzewski's book, who assumed that 1 foot = 29 cm. While in fact 1 French royal foot was 33 cm, not 29 cm. So 19 feet = 6.27 m. And Radek Sikora corrects his previous mistake and provides the correct length (6.2 m) in his doctoral thesis (link below):

http://rozprawy.uph.edu.pl/gsdl/collect ... doslaw.pdf

Unfortunately it is available only in Polish (AFAIK).

This is his doctoral thesis - "Tactics of combat, armament & equipment of Hussars in years 1576 - 1710".

See pages 153 - 154.

And when Radek wrote that article on http://www.kismeta.com, he didn't know yet about the existence of that surviving lance which is 6.15 m long (he later wrote on Polish history forum http://www.historycy.org that one of his friends found that lance in Austria). And probably he also didn't know von Wallhausen's account.

Another source which mentions 6.2 m long lances is Jan Michał Kampenhausen. But he lived in 18th century - that's why historians were not sure if he was correct while describing lances from 17th century. However, now we know also 17th century sources which confirm his data, and we know a surviving lance of this length.

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

Actually on pages 153 - 154 of the link posted above, Radek writes that one French royal foot (Le pied du Roy de France) was 0.324839385 m long, so 19 of such feet were 6.172 m (not just 5.5 m).

He also writes (page 154, my translation), that:

"Moreover, thanks to research of Maciej Downar-Dukowicz, we already know that a Hussar lance of almost identical length as Beauplan wrote survived to our times. The longest of lances found by Maciej Downar-Dukowicz is 6.15 m long, and this without spearhead. When counting also spearhead, it is slightly over 6.2 m long."

And on page 153 he provided some data regarding the length of pikes. Let me quote:

- Russian pikes from year 1660 - 15,5 feet (472 cm) *
- Cossack pikes mid-17th century - ca. 4 m (3.5 - 4 m pole + 27,5 - 63,5 cm spearhead)
- Swedish pikes from 1616 - 9 Swedish Ells (ca. 5.3 m), "but often during march soldiers shortened their pikes so that they were lighter and easier to carry", Sikora adds.

"Earlier, before 1616, Swedish pikes were to reach the length of 5.98 m" - Sikora writes - "but even at that time they could be shorter than Hussar lances" - he adds.

* And as you remember, I mentioned several examples of Hussars frontally charging and defeating Russian pikemen in this time period (the Polish-Russian war of 1654 - 1667, mainly battles fought in 1660).

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

And Radek Sikora mentions even one more source which writes about lances which were over 6 m long - a source from 1749 published in Zamosc. Check page 154 of his doctoral thesis (link above).
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.
Well, ironically most spectacular of Hussar successes against Swedish pikemen were before 1616.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: Medieval cavalry charges?

#83

Post by pugsville » 17 May 2012, 20:50

I dont think the Length sis that important. Regardless of the length of the Pike v Lance there are going to be many more pikes than lancers in given frontage. Successive ranks of pike are just behind other ranks, not so for cavalry, infantry are closer together. Takng out one Pike does not get you off the other 5. If a horse and rider charge into a wall of pike, the horse will be incapacitated the rider thrown and out of the fight, of course this will disrupt both incoming cavalry and pike. But talk of Cavalry charging home against steady determined pikle and not having lots of causalities is wrong.

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Medieval cavalry charges?

#84

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 17 May 2012, 22:06

Takng out one Pike does not get you off the other 5.
Accounts mention situations in which a lance was able to impale several men standing one behind another. Impaling about 2 - 3 men by one lance in one collision could be quite common (the extreme case was 6 men).

As I also wrote before, a Hussar unit after impact could withdraw and repeat the charge.

For example in the battle of Klushino some banners of Hussars charged 8 - 10 times in entire battle.

The banner of Mikolaj Strus carried out 3 charges against Taube's infantry regiment.

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

You also forget that in a cavalry charge enemy infantry dies not only killed by weapons.

A lot of enemy soldiers also die or get injured as a result of collision with charging horses. Or as a result of horses kicking & trampling enemies around them. Like for example in this video (a horse of Kmicic - the guy in mail armour without helmet & with moustache, commanding the Tatars - can be seen kicking enemy horses & riders):



Or in this video a horse of Khalid Ibn Walid is fiercely kicking enemy infantry, who try to surround him:

Mounted combat in this video starts at 7:00 (before that there is just infantry vs infantry):



A combat horse is behaving in an aggressive way and is also fighting, not just its rider.

And being hit, kicked or trampled by a horse is not exactly a pleasant experience.
Regardless of the length of the Pike v Lance there are going to be many more pikes than lancers in given frontage.
We should count 1 m (or even) less per rider. Previously assumed 1.5 m is not the tightest possible formation.

So along a frontline of 100 m there could be 100 riders in the first line, 100 in second line, etc.
Successive ranks of pike are just behind other ranks, not so for cavalry, infantry are closer together.
But cavalry had longer lances in this case.

Anyway, I found an example of a cavalry formation - a column 11 ranks wide and 38 ranks deep - which occupied an area of about 11 meters wide (as you can see 1 m per horseman) and 150 m deep.
But talk of Cavalry charging home against steady determined pikle and not having lots of causalities is wrong.
Depends what you consider as "lots of casualties".

I provided casualty statistics which are reliable and show that casualties were not so heavy.

Most importantly - they were lower than casualties of opposing pikemen.
If a horse and rider charge into a wall of pike, the horse will be incapacitated the rider thrown and out of the fight
Not every horse. And some of them will be just lightly wounded by pikes, or remain unharmed at all.

Many horses could also have partial plate protection like a horse seen in this video at 0:39:



And this scene (these pikes hitting a horse at 0:39) was filmed with a real horse (it's not a SFX).

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: Medieval cavalry charges?

#85

Post by pugsville » 18 May 2012, 15:15

Yes and accounts that say 6 men are on the one lance is reason to discount them as ludicrous propaganda.

These films are not actual events they are a fictional version. This is not evidence.

OK lets work through things slowly and thoroughly. Lets take 3 battles with more than one account and evaluate the accounts. Nominate 3 battles and give links to w accounts for each.

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Medieval cavalry charges?

#86

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 18 May 2012, 17:54

Yes and accounts that say 6 men are on the one lance is reason to discount them as ludicrous propaganda.
There is only one account which says 6. In a 1000000 of cases it is possible that 1 such case happened.
These films are not actual events they are a fictional version. This is not evidence.
Computer effects were not used in these scenes so these are actual events.

In case if you don't know, the history of film spans from late 19th century to the present day.

So you will not find movie scenes from Medieval...

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

Regarding prices:

In Vilna in 1618, a long lance of Hussar was 9 times more expensive than a pike.

Why should one piece of wood be 9 times more expensive than another piece of wood?

Especially that the 9 times more expensive one was for single use only?

Because of much more advanced technology of production - and thanks to this much better combat parameters -, and because a Hussar who used such a lance, could defeat a pikeman who used such a pike in battle.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: Medieval cavalry charges?

#87

Post by pugsville » 18 May 2012, 19:31

Actual Events, no people are not in combat, it's actual it's actors! There's a script. It is not actual events, it's a fictional make believe which is no way evidence of anything. No one is actually being killed.

Frontages of 1m for cavalry charging at a gallop is make believe. 3m much more realistic. I was never a good horseman but I had my horse from aged 5. Closet I got to combat was polo-crosse. But I do now that value of a good horse. My sisters horse was almost unbeatable at novelty races (barrel racing, tent pegging ) you just had to hang on , the horse knew what to do and could turn better brilliantly and was a born competitor. I'm sure some horse were combative but for most , and when talking about military units no.

The First lancer to hot a steady pike formation is pretty much a deadman, it's one lance versus about 9 pikes, pikes will form up at 3 times the frontage and the first three ranks pikes will project for enough forward. Coming off a horse at a gallop is more or less going to be effectively fatal. Sure a horse smashing into the formation even if dead is going to dis order the pikes and create opportunities for those following on.

Facing cavalry charge would be very unnerving and a foot formation that fails to hold it's nerve could be cut up pretty savagely. It's about training, discipline, and experience. Elite units have a history of winning, the confidence and experience of doing it before steels their will at impact. Poor units have no experience or bad experience.

Give me your 3 best examples of Lancers defeating study pikes, examine the accounts.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: Medieval cavalry charges?

#88

Post by pugsville » 18 May 2012, 19:32

Actual Events, no people are not in combat, it's actual it's actors! There's a script. It is not actual events, it's a fictional make believe which is no way evidence of anything. No one is actually being killed.

Frontages of 1m for cavalry charging at a gallop is make believe. 3m much more realistic. I was never a good horseman but I had my horse from aged 5. Closet I got to combat was polo-crosse. But I do now that value of a good horse. My sisters horse was almost unbeatable at novelty races (barrel racing, tent pegging ) you just had to hang on , the horse knew what to do and could turn better brilliantly and was a born competitor. I'm sure some horse were combative but for most , and when talking about military units no.

The First lancer to hot a steady pike formation is pretty much a deadman, it's one lance versus about 9 pikes, pikes will form up at 3 times the frontage and the first three ranks pikes will project for enough forward. Coming off a horse at a gallop is more or less going to be effectively fatal. Sure a horse smashing into the formation even if dead is going to dis order the pikes and create opportunities for those following on.

Facing cavalry charge would be very unnerving and a foot formation that fails to hold it's nerve could be cut up pretty savagely. It's about training, discipline, and experience. Elite units have a history of winning, the confidence and experience of doing it before steels their will at impact. Poor units have no experience or bad experience.

Give me your 3 best examples of Lancers defeating study pikes, examine the accounts.

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: Medieval cavalry charges?

#89

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 18 May 2012, 21:17

I just posted these videos to show how horses can behave.

There are real horses in these videos, not "actors".
Frontages of 1m for cavalry charging at a gallop is make believe. 3m much more realistic.
Nope. To claim it was 3 m is crazy. In a "knee-to-knee" charge it could be 1 m to 1.5 m.
I'm sure some horse were combative but for most, and when talking about military units no.
I'm sure that you didn't read my posts when I explained the difference between "average horse" and combat horse. And I'm sure you have no idea that in Medieval combat horses were breeded in special stud farms and horse breeds which were perfect for heavy cavalry were "produced", thanks to proper selection and interbreeding.

Some of these breeds are extinct nowadays - like Medieval Frisian horses.

Modern Frisians are just reconstruction of that race - not direct continuation.

Here you have some sculptures of late Medieval combat horses and some photos showing modern horse breeds which are most similar to their Medieval, better equivalents:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthre ... 297&page=5

For example this 15th century (dating from 1453) Italian sculpture by Donatello:

Image

Image

As you can see (on the second photo) the horse from this sculpture is a stallion (genitals can be seen).

And you claimed that combat horses were not stallions - well, you was clearly wrong.

This is a stallion and a rider on it is a mercenary knight (Erasmo of Narni "Gattamelata").
it's one lance versus about 9 pikes
How the hell did you get such numbers.

Do you assume that pikemen and pikes were thin like sheets of paper?!
and the first three ranks pikes will project for enough forward.
Considering that lance was much longer than pike - even the 1st rank of pikes will not project enough forward, pikemen from this first rank will be hit by enemy lances before their pikes will be able to hit enemy horses.
Sure a horse smashing into the formation even if dead is going to dis order the pikes and create opportunities for those following on.
Exactly. And I already quoted a source which said that even a heavily or even mortally wounded horse will actually in majority continue to run, instead of falling immediately. Let's quote it once again:

"The fear among infantry was intensified by great resistance of horses to wounds. During a charge only killed horses or those which had crushed leg bones were falling immediately. Other horses, often wounded several times, even mortally, in a zeal of attack continued to run and with their entire mass - under riders or without them - were blindly bumping into the enemies, parting and trampling their lines. From distance this apparent lack of casualties of the charging unit was creating an impression of inefficiency of infantry fire. Infantry was confused enough, that most of bullets were starting to fly too high, and often in a decisive moment infantry was throwing their weapons and commencing a flight, which meant a certain annihilation for them."
But I do now that value of a good horse.
Your horse - whatever horse you had - was NOT a Medieval combat horse. Bear this in mind please.

Did it look like that horse from the sculpture above, or other horses from the link above? No.

Was it a stallion - like that combat horse of mercenary knight Erasmo of Narni? No.
My sisters horse was almost unbeatable at novelty races (barrel racing, tent pegging )
Racing (and high speed) was not the type of activity in which horses of knights were involved. Their horses were not as fast, but were massive, aggressive, obedient to their master and almost unbeatable at battlefields.

Your sister's horse was trained and breeded for racing. Their horses - for combat.

No comparison. But you still don't understand that horses are different, just like humans.

You try to narrow your mind just to your own experiences, instead of being open-minded in discussion.
the horse knew what to do and could turn better brilliantly and was a born competitor.
Your sister's horse was a born competitor and Gattamaleta's horse was a born fighter.

Is it so hard to understand?

Humans have altered the genomes of species for thousands of years through artificial selection.

And later only add proper training to a born fighter and you will get a perfect fighter.

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

The rest later. I have no time now. This discussion is time-consuming.

pugsville
Member
Posts: 1016
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 05:40

Re: Medieval cavalry charges?

#90

Post by pugsville » 19 May 2012, 07:02

Statues are not representative of average cavalry horses, or people. The numbers of stallions in statues is no basis for claiming the prevalence of stallions on the battle field. Stallions were very rarely used as cavalry mounts. The Action in the films is NOT real, who knows how the scenes were actually filmed. The combat prowess of war horses is mostly hyperbole and myth.Unbeatable? Wow all those victories of foot over men on war horses must never have happened,

It is not possible to charge at the Gallop in tight knee to knee. Pure fantasy. Pike can form up 1 pikeman to a meter, thats 3 pike frontage per lancer, before reaching the actually men, at least 3 ranks of pike extend forward, 3 *3 = 9. You take out one man/pike that still leaves 8 to take out the horse or rider.

If the Pike formation that fails to remain steady, Lancer cavalry could win and win easily. It remains as the most likely explanation any victory, especially one without large scale causalities to the lancers.

Post Reply

Return to “Other eras”