Classical armies versus medieval armies

[Derek Pullem]

For anyone still doubting horses can charge into massed infantry, I suggest any detailed reading of the battle of Borodino and how cavalry assaulted a fortified redoubt.
Warfare is not a science, saying that something can ´t happen ever in a neviroment so full of uncontrolled factors is silly. Keegan found some notoriety with his theory, and people is still repeating it in this forum like some other old theories long abandoned in academic circles, like Roberts military revolution, for instance...

Cavalry can charge into massed infantry. They won't charge into formed and steady infantry.

At Borodino the final charge was aimed at the rear of the redoubt and was halted by massed musketry. Only after the redoubt was also assaulted by infantry to the front was the cavalry able to engage.

At The Battle of Shevardino Redoubt the attack was again a combined infantry / cavalry attack on an isolated position.

[Leviathan07]

This actually sounds a lot like the first Spanish tercios.

Makes sense, Macchiavelli wrote On War in the 1510s when AFAIK the Tercios were about to appear on the battlefields.

[DarthMaur]

Cavalry can charge into massed infantry. They won't charge into formed and steady infantry.

We're in desperate need of disambiguation. What exactly do you mean by "into"?

[Aryaman]

Cavalry can charge into massed infantry. They won't charge into formed and steady infantry.

So, horses will discriminate if infantry is actually formed or not? Keegan's theory rest on the assumption that horses are timid animals that would refuse to collide against an inmobile obstacle, it doesn´t matter if infantry is formed in 3 ranks or massed in disorganized company columns.

[Arilou]

Horses, for the record, are fucking NUTS.

Seriously, they scare me. They have the mental stability of rabbits, only they weigh half a ton.

[Derek Pullem]

We're in desperate need of disambiguation. What exactly do you mean by "into"?

So, horses will discriminate if infantry is actually formed or not? Keegan's theory rest on the assumption that horses are timid animals that would refuse to collide against an inmobile obstacle, it doesn´t matter if infantry is formed in 3 ranks or massed in disorganized company columns.

I agree with most of this.

By massed I mean a body of infantry which is not presenting a solid immobile front. Picture a disorganised body of men which is not facing towards the cavalry. Horses will approach such a body and will not shy away so long as they can see paths through the mob.

If the men are standing shoulder to shoulder then no way is a horse going to charge into that. It may bolt into the shield wall because it is more scared of something else but you couldn't organise a movement of cavalry that way.

When I talk about charging I do not necessarily mean at the galllop - I mean a movement to "contact" which could be at anything over a trot.

[Derek Pullem]

Horses, for the record, are fucking NUTS.

Seriously, they scare me. They have the mental stability of rabbits, only they weigh half a ton.

In my experience the riders are generally nuttier (and I ride too!)

[Arilou]

In my experience the riders are generally nuttier (and I ride too!)

Oh, definitely.

[DarthMaur]

I agree with most of this.

By massed I mean a body of infantry which is not presenting a solid immobile front. Picture a disorganised body of men which is not facing towards the cavalry. Horses will approach such a body and will not shy away so long as they can see paths through the mob.

If the men are standing shoulder to shoulder then no way is a horse going to charge into that. It may bolt into the shield wall because it is more scared of something else but you couldn't organise a movement of cavalry that way.

When I talk about charging I do not necessarily mean at the galllop - I mean a movement to "contact" which could be at anything over a trot.

So, i assume by "into" you mean, horsemen going to and through the body of footmen?

Ok then. I actually think horses could be made charging into such shoulder-to-shoulder formation, even if it requires blindfolding them. But that's actually another discussion.

There is no point though. Of course, it would be fatal for first two or five men to get crashed by one ton gendarme, but i bet that the cost of gendarme is higher than 20 footmen.*

And even if it's less costly cavalry, there is still no point, as there are better ways. Like, charging up to infantry line with lances, killing some, and if they don't rout, withdraw and charge again.

Or, charge up to infantry line, then engaging in melee, if they don't rout. Possibly breaking the line by your own weight, but not even at trot, if you're heavy enough.

Bottom line, crashing into is something that's a strawman/mistake on behalf of these people that were considering it, fe. in the links we had. This is especially evident when in one of the links was a consideration of two cavalry units charging each other and then long explanation why it doesn't make sense to hit other cavalryman with your own horse, head-on. OF COURSE it doesn't make sense, and the lenghts he went to describe it makes me think he assumes that charging infantry is the same thing - using horse as a high-speed battering ram or something like that.


*On a side note, these things aren't good for morale. You know you're going to die even if that guy gets killed, so why not run away?

[Derek Pullem]

So, i assume by "into" you mean, horsemen going to and through the body of footmen?

Ok then. I actually think horses could be made charging into such shoulder-to-shoulder formation, even if it requires blindfolding them. But that's actually another discussion.

There is no point though. Of course, it would be fatal for first two or five men to get crashed by one ton gendarme, but i bet that the cost of gendarme is higher than 20 footmen.*

And even if it's less costly cavalry, there is still no point, as there are better ways. Like, charging up to infantry line with lances, killing some, and if they don't rout, withdraw and charge again.

Or, charge up to infantry line, then engaging in melee, if they don't rout. Possibly breaking the line by your own weight, but not even at trot, if you're heavy enough.

Bottom line, crashing into is something that's a strawman/mistake on behalf of these people that were considering it, fe. in the links we had. This is especially evident when in one of the links was a consideration of two cavalry units charging each other and then long explanation why it doesn't make sense to hit other cavalryman with your own horse, head-on. OF COURSE it doesn't make sense, and the lenghts he went to describe it makes me think he assumes that charging infantry is the same thing - using horse as a high-speed battering ram or something like that.


*On a side note, these things aren't good for morale. You know you're going to die even if that guy gets killed, so why not run away?

I'm confused.

Are you saying that cavalry shouldn't charge formed infantry because if they did the cost/benefit ratio would favour the infantry?

Or are you saying cavalry can't charge formed infantry?

My point was that cavalry could charge a mass of unformed or disorganised infantry (even at the trot) if there was a path for the cavalry to move through. This might be caused by a break in the formation or by an element of the infantry panicing and running. Cavalry will then be in open combat with infantry and will slaughter them inducing a panic and a pursuit when the casualty exchange will be even more favourable to the cavalry

The idea of cavalry "poking" at infantry is only really applicable to lancers vs non pole arm infantry (even bayonets will keep sword armed cavalry away).

I agree physical shock is only likely to occur with poorly trained or drunk riders! The moral shock of the cavalry charge is the biggest factor.

I remember a story about the filming of Waterloo (or was it War and Peace) where even though the soldiers/actors in the squares knew the cavalry was going to pass around them that most of the squares ran on the first take.

[DarthMaur]

I'm confused.

Are you saying that cavalry shouldn't charge formed infantry because if they did the cost/benefit ratio would favour the infantry?

Or are you saying cavalry can't charge formed infantry?

I'm saying, basically, that charging != crashing your horse into body of men.

My point was that cavalry could charge a mass of unformed or disorganised infantry (even at the trot) if there was a path for the cavalry to move through. This might be caused by a break in the formation or by an element of the infantry panicing and running. Cavalry will then be in open combat with infantry and will slaughter them inducing a panic and a pursuit when the casualty exchange will be even more favourable to the cavalry.

Yes, if by charge we mean riding through/mixing with infantry, it has to be loose formation. With that i agree, most of the time, it's not what i mean when i use the word "charge".

The idea of cavalry "poking" at infantry is only really applicable to lancers vs non pole arm infantry (even bayonets will keep sword armed cavalry away).

Yes, and i doubt light cavalry was used with such purpose on mind (scaring the infantry, especially if it's non-spear, might be useful, though). But lances are quite prevealent, and it's that why i think the pike is so important. Seriously, lances are no brainer for not-skirmishing cavalry, and that's why i meant caracole was a abomination, because it was uneffective both when faced by shock(lance) cavalry or by infantry (musket armed, of course, Romans are different, but, meh)

Going back a bit, i don't actually know what's the usual gendarme tactic, but i would think that they are going to stay in melee and not withdraw and charge again, due to their armour.

I agree physical shock is only likely to occur with poorly trained or drunk riders! The moral shock of the cavalry charge is the biggest factor.

I remember a story about the filming of Waterloo (or was it War and Peace) where even though the soldiers/actors in the squares knew the cavalry was going to pass around them that most of the squares ran on the first take.

Hehehe, must have been quite a sight

Yes, physical shock as it is meant here (and not getting hit by lance) is most likely unintentional. Although the possibility of it certainly contributes to morale, as i said earlier.

[DarthMaur]

Re: bayonets.

I've seen this arguments many times, and i actually think it's bit off. It's true that these muskets were sort of spears (they were looong compared to today's rifles), and are an asset against non-lance cavalry, but it's not much good against lancers. What did diminish the cavalry was ever increasing rate of fire of firearms, which meant increased casaualties for cavalry. I remember reading examples of 200-strong unit of hussars charging Swedish infantry early in XVIIc and losing a single men and few horses... later it became a whole different story.

[Arilou]

Re: bayonets.

I've seen this arguments many times, and i actually think it's bit off. It's true that these muskets were sort of spears (they were looong compared to today's rifles), and are an asset against non-lance cavalry, but it's not much good against lancers. What did diminish the cavalry was ever increasing rate of fire of firearms, which meant increased casaualties for cavalry. I remember reading examples of 200-strong unit of hussars charging Swedish infantry early in XVIIc and losing a single men and few horses... later it became a whole different story.

These things tended to be pretty much even. If the infantry kept their shots until the last second and got off a close salvoe it tended to pretty much stop cavalry right there, but if they panicked and fired too early (and remember how short range those kinds of muskets were) they were toast.

EDIT: Also one thing the swedes learned was to keep light artillery with the infantry, a grapeshot or two tended to be very effective at breaking up a charge.

[Aryaman]

In the last period of the 30YW tactics changed with infantry having more muskets and less pikes, according to David Parrott, the result was that infantry become more vulnerable to cavalry, so that the proportion of cavalry in field armies increased. Fire power was good to deter infantry attacks, but against cavalry pikes were much better, because cavalry did charge infantry.