Cavalry and chariots against infantry

[koechlyruestow]

Sean Manning wrote:

This was Keegan's approach to his three battles in The Face of Battle; each chapter starts with a narrative in 'rough strokes' which is then broken down into stages and incidents for detailed analysis.

I see where the confusion comes from. You believe that the story told by Keegan is a replica of his working method. It is not. Like I said, a story is a method to tell something to an audience, but in order to write it, Keegan started with an idea. This idea evolved out of study of sources and thinking about them, not out of the method of telling a story in a certain way. He tells the story in this way because that is how literature works, and his audience would not have been captivated by him if he had ignored the rules of literature. Literature is the way we communicate our ideas, not the way we evolve them.

[Robert Vermaat]

Some cavalry vs infantry collision models:

Do you have a larger picture? I can't quite read all of the text.

So this actually confirms my point of view - in each case at least the first 4 ranks of infantry (and in some cases all ranks) are smashed by cavalry.

Are those models based on mechanics (theory) or fact (sources)? Because if so, I wonder why dismounted cavalry and infantry on many occasions managed to hiold off cavalry attacks for hours or even indefinately.

Regarding how animals are - supposedly - too intelligent to be forced to do suicidal things:
[..]A video showing modern horses - so horses far from being trained to do such things (unlike combat horses from the past) - ramming solid objects and plunging into crowd

All videos are of panicking animals. Are you suggesting that cavalry charging into infantry would also be in a state of panic? If so, how would the riders control their horses to charge in the right direction?

[Sean Manning]

Regarding how animals are - supposedly - too intelligent to be forced to do suicidal things:
[..]A video showing modern horses - so horses far from being trained to do such things (unlike combat horses from the past) - ramming solid objects and plunging into crowd

All videos are of panicking animals. Are you suggesting that cavalry charging into infantry would also be in a state of panic? If so, how would the riders control their horses to charge in the right direction?

Asking for modern pictures of people deliberately riding a horse into a solid crowd is unfair, since even riot police on horseback are usually trying not to seriously injure people. But even panicked horses let us reject "no horse will ride into a mass of men waving sharp pointy things which does not get out of the way as it approaches." But I gave an example of a horse that was deliberately ridden into the Saxon shield wall at Hastings 2006. The rider thought that the spearmen would part and let him through, and the spearmen thought that he would wheel away at the last second.

Incidentally, it is Monstrelet's chronicle which describes panicked horses smashing into the French lines and breaking up their formation (link). I think that he is usually considered one of the best sources for the Agincourt campaign. Sources like this are why Keegan believed that horses did crash into men and stakes at Agincourt.

[Mark Hygate]

......... Are those models based on mechanics (theory) or fact (sources)? Because if so, I wonder why dismounted cavalry and infantry on many occasions managed to hiold off cavalry attacks for hours or even indefinately.

I too would really like to know that - it's not entirely clear from the text?

.....All videos are of panicking animals. Are you suggesting that cavalry charging into infantry would also be in a state of panic? If so, how would the riders control their horses to charge in the right direction?

Again, this is not conclusive either, but indeed supportive of the reason that charges (if you're content to 'expend the cannon-fodder') have been tried. If a panicked animal (cf blindfolded and whipped scythed-chariot team are set on a collision course), or a wounded or dying Heavy Cavalry horse still ploughs into the line/square and creates a 'hole' - then in both cases you have a disrupted infantry formation which the cavalry can get into and exploit.

In general, however, imagine a formed body of troops facing forward, in even a minimal 4-deep line. Each charging horseman is then likely to be facing 8 infantry. Some of those may have thrown heavy javelins at you - others, or all, may be facing you with stout spears. Perhaps this is the reason that it is understood that cavalry will die in such circumstances.

Cavalry in the ancient world (less the Steppe nations and the Persian areas, which had other reasons) was mainly used and equipped for Scouting and Skirmishing. Yes, charges were made, but relied upon the infantry formations collapsing either through fatigue, morale or weakness (in flank/rear or whilst moving); which leads to the other best use of cavalry - running down and killing routing troops - the main reason for often high disparity between the losses between winners and losers.

One of the main reasons I remain confident that cavalry (with the exception of the heavily armoured and indeed heavy medieval knight - until Crecy... ;-) ) were never the panzer-shock weapon that many think (or most cavalry-types even now would like to believe) is that for almost the entire Greek & Roman period of professional and semi-professional armies - there were simply never that many of them.

The Greeks may have had theoretical names and formations to call them, but never fielded the numbers - and the Romans thought 600 cavalry per legion (~5000 infantry) was more than enough. If cavalry were ever that wonderful - then we wouldn't have seen so many infantry through-out history.

[Kegluneq]

The Greeks may have had theoretical names and formations to call them, but never fielded the numbers - and the Romans thought 600 cavalry per legion (~5000 infantry) was more than enough. If cavalry were ever that wonderful - then we wouldn't have seen so many infantry though-out history.

This may be true for the legions, but what about the auxiliary units which had a proportionately far higher number of cavalry?

[Macedon]

a

[Macedon]

@ Sean.

Of course some horses would act so. But in order to form a tactical doctrine, one has to know that the vast majority if not all horses would do so and in the process defeat the enemy (maybe they could but chose not to because the effect of that tactic on the cavalry was even more devastating). -This is my greatest objection. The very fact that as you say, the Norman "thought" that the Saxon would give way means that if he knew that he wouldn't he would not act so (I thought initially that you were giving some historical evidence, I then realized that you were talking about the reenactment incident, so this argument is not valid on my part, I only do not delete it to not also have to delete the example of the Parthians I gave)- . The Parthians had the same problem during Antony's retreat from Media. The Romans formed a square and the first ranks kneeled. This, the Parthians perceived as a sign that their enemy were exhausted and attacked them with their contoi instead of their bows (Plut. Life of Antonius). There is no mention of bodies flying around, but immediately, the Parthians were put to flight -maybe discouraged when they saw that the Romans were not really exhausted... Retreats of eastern horsemen are often called flights-.

[Macedon]

@Peter

Yep, especially the name of the author and/or the book (?) this work is from would be required. Maybe it is available online?

After watching the videos, I also found they were not proof of the question at hand.

In one, the horse is trying to jump onto a mass (the car) the fact that this mass gives way under it is impressive to us but something that the horse obviously did not expect. In another, the horse is practically stopping before a fence before trying to jump over it. It certainly did not smash into it. The same applies to the one showing a horse failing to jump over an obstacle. The fact that horses will under conditions try to jump over obstacles is well-documented and even acknowledged as an Olympic sport... In multiple videos we see horses actually shoving, jostling lone individuals, which is also not strange. Finding infantry in dispersed order or crowds (even if totally disordered) striving to get out of the way, was a perfect target for cavalry. The most impressive video was the one with the wagon. There, the horse on the right clearly tried and managed to avoid the wagon in front dragging the other horse on the left along and practically forcing it to really smash into the rear of the other wagon. Would this happen if just one horse was pulling the wagon? According to the video, it would not since, even in this crazed condition, the horses did try to avoid collision. However it could serve as an example of how a chariot driver could (if he chose to remain on it) drive one horse onto the outermost rank of the enemy line.

The combat examples are also problematic, instead of just giving names and dates, Peter, it would be better if you described how these combat instances support your proposed model. Do not get carried away by simplistic quotes about cavalry beating infantry... It is the conditions we are debating not the general truth of the statement. Of course cavalry would mostly "defeat" infantry. If only because cavalry almost always had the initiative, so it was they (or their officers who decided when, where and how they would engage what type of infantry). This does not mean that the infantry had no way of defending itself as you seem to propose - According to this "model", a horse that drives into a solid line of armored soldiers will either trample them and emerge on the other side laughing and bragging or gallop over half of them (the best and most experienced of its men) and then stop before men who have seen half their comrades horribly trampled... - I do not know what parameters this "model" has taken into consideration but I have to say that it does not conform with anything we know about cavalry warfare against infantry as described.

Back to your combat examples :

I have occupied myself only a little with the Napoleonic era (which of course is relative as to what anyone of us understands as "a little"), so I will take the sources you give for granted and not question their validity nor their interpretation of primary sources.

About this charge at Albuera, wikipedia writes :

"Ploughing through the unprepared British infantry, the 1st Vistula Uhlans and the 2nd Hussars virtually annihilated Colborne's first three regiments. Only the fourth, the 31st Regiment of Foot, was able to save itself by forming into squares.[65] The cavalry pressed on against Colborne's supporting KGL artillery battery and captured its guns (although all but the howitzer were subsequently recovered).[69]

Having captured five regimental flags and eight cannon the Uhlans swept past the 31st's square, scattering Beresford and his staff, and attacked the rear of Zayas's line."

So, the lancers, always according to the source you gave, did not attack the squares. They attacked the thin lines of men who didn't have the time to form in squares. And, later, by riding past the enemy squares they attacked the rear another enemy line. This is what the text says.

As for the British squares in Waterloo, why their suffering heavy losses should be strange? We are talking about the age of rifle and cannon... Most of the cavalry would also be equipped with pistols and carbines, some squares would have disintegrated after suffering losses or by simply failing in their morale.. Had you provided us with an account of the action that you think serves your arguments would make it easier for us to debate/agree/disagree with it. Losses alone can be explained in multiple ways.

It is important that you do not make long lists of battles without any explanation as to why you think they serve your arguments. I could write, and no one would disagree with me, that the battle of Carrhae was a total disaster brought upon a mixed Roman army heavily dependent on its heavy infantry by an all-cavalry force. I could say that the heavy infantry square was defeated by the Scythian cavalry. Yes, it was. But as a battle, it stands as one of the greatest examples of how even cataphracts were not used (and I will not say "would not") to break the close-ordered Roman infantry line. So, yes, as a battle it was a great victory of cavalry over infantry BUT with tactics OTHER THAN cataphracts smashing into close ordered infantry lines.

Another example of rush selection of quotes is the one about the crusades. In these lines provided, there is no mention as to what troops were infantry and what cavalry. You rightly comment that nothing is being said or implied about tactical details but the problem is that it does not even say whether it was a cv vs cv action, a cv vs inf action or an inf vs inf one. IIRC, purely from memory and without researching the matter, this is supposed to have been infantry action.

So, as I understand your position, and if I am wrong you should correct me, horses would habitually be trained into smashing head on into anything they perceived solid. As a result, "shock" cavalry would habitually charge into solid lines of infantry surely trampling them to pieces because all the horses of the charging units would be appropriately trained and because of the model you presented there was no way that a single line of horses, let alone successive ones, could actually be stopped by men, especially if they kept close together, shield on back. Of course things could go sometimes wrong, but generally this was a successful way to crush infantry with cavalry and thus it was tactically preferred and utilized by all armies with at least some cavalry background from antiquity.

Is this your opinion?

Why then did not the Persians, who admittedly had some very well armored divisions, NORMALLY attack Greek infantry phalanx with them instead of allowing their inferior infantry to stand against them? And I am not only talking of the Macedonian phalanxes but also those of mercenaries and allied Greek hoplites.

Why did not the Macedonians, with the famed Hetaeroi, never attack an infantry force in close array? (some think that this indeed happened at Issos and Gaugamela mistakingly thinking that Dareius was posted among infantry, which is clear from the sources that he was not)

How about the cataphracts of the Epigonoi and the Diadochoi?

The quite well documented battles between the Carthaginians and the Romans?

Caesar's, Pompey's etc exploits?

Roman civil wars?

[Macedon]

2nd page

Countless battles and yet very few, if any, and sadly debatable incidents of something that had to be standard tactics, the first option for any general with adequate cavalry. The absence of clear descriptions of such action, coupled with the lack of any (with very few notable exceptions I have mentioned regarding the Byzantine cataphracts) advice or instruction in the many tactical manuals that have survived, manuals depicting the methods and tactics of armies who mostly relied on cavalry rather than on infantry clearly show that for any reason (maybe they just hadn't discovered the method in which a horse should be trained yet) this was not, at least for them, a tactic that was normally used. To be frank, they were much more afraid of cavalry with bows. Not until later, were head on cavalry charges considered a real danger in the descriptions of battles against Latins (Normans/Franks etc), when the Byzantine infantry was of a very low quality, their might resting mainly on their "elite" squads and the mercenaries. Again, descriptions do not give a picture of men being thrown into the air, trampled underfoot, files crushed under the force of a galloping charger but there is contact and usually an immediate general rout of the infantry. As the Byzantines kept saying, only the Norman first charge was deemed "irresistable". Then they were "easy" to deal with. And emperor Alexios Comnenos, after much studying of "the ancient texts" he finally devised a formation that was unbeatable by the Turkish cavalry... some form of plaesion (square) of infantry to protect the cavalry and baggage inside. Anyways, maybe the Normans invented the training that would allow warhorses to charge as suggested, or maybe not, maybe they did charge but their charge, as I proposed, exploited fails in morale and order. Had each charge at Hastings been like that, then soon enough, there would be no Saxon untrampled in this shieldwall or no horse standing. What is proposed is a model in which only two things can happen :

1. The infantry is trampled by the horses as they simply gallop over them, bodies flying around, demolished into the ground. Cavalry totally prevails, no way to deal with this threat effectively unless, maybe by using extra long pikes... (maybe the author of this model somwhere brings weaponry also in as a factor)

2. The first horse someplace along the file (actually in fragments of a second) stops because of the resistance met and not because of the halting attempt of its rider who had to keep urging it on. The horse is also crushed from the collision and its rider will probably just fly over the rest of the files as the cavalry ranks after it each falls on the one in front, like cars crushing in the highway one into another.

So, how does that explain the multiple charges attested by the sources? Either most of the infantry are crushed or most of the horses are injured. How did they turn about, ride to a proper distance, regroup and recharge? How did the infantry stand up, reform and re-experience the same effect, how many would be able to stand up, when they should not be enough left to reform in line? Why would they charge in more than a single line, maybe two just to be sure?

In my opinion, something is very wrong with such models of extreme violence. They do not conform with any account we have regarding battles or tactics thereof, the attested tactical deployment of cavalry, the numbers of casualties reported etc.

However, it would be nice to be confronted with ancient an medieval examples of such debatable instances, preferably before gunpowder changed battle-field tactics, so that we can see how common they were.

And if this "model" is correct, then what use where slow or immobile squares against cavalry? A square uses 4 times more men than a line of the same width with 1/4 the firepower. So, why not just form a line with no gaps, in essence a phalanx and keep full firepower? Or why not make what the ancients called amphistomos lines, half men looking to the front and half to the rear. In this way, the formation is again secure and the firepower only halved. Why would cavalry ride around the squares and not, as a standard tactic, just concentrate on the front part of each square? Once they were past it (sometimes 2 (!!!!), other times 4 deep), they would fall on the rest 3/4 of men from the rear effectively slaughtering them. This model makes absolutely no sense in a tactical sense. Maybe, if the horse was a robot on wheels then it would really explain the physics involved adequately, but they are not, they are animals, they get agitated, they feel fear, pain and once they learned that what they are being taught to do is painful, they are not as eager to do it again. Of course there will be examples of such charges, the question is were they the norm? And if not, why? And if conditionally yes, under what conditions?

[Domen]

All videos are of panicking animals.

And also all videos are of untrained and random (in terms of their "quality" or features) animals.

Are you suggesting that cavalry charging into infantry would also be in a state of panic?

No - rather in a state of knowning very well, that their human owner and master has to be obeyed. On the other hand - nowadays horses are not trained with such harsh or efficient methods, and are not punished for disobedience, because Defenders of Animal Rights would immediately start to protest.

If so, how would the riders control their horses to charge in the right direction?

There are proper tools (such as spurs, reins, your own legs, verbal commands, etc.) and proper methods to force the horse to obey you. Especially a trained horse, already knowing who is its master.

and yet very few, if any, and sadly debatable incidents of something that had to be standard tactics

Is being "debatable" defined as "not being written in English language"?

If this the case, then I might agree with this statement.

We are talking about the age of rifle and cannon...

Real combat effciency of firearms was much lower than is often imagined.

There are many primary sources from the past which confirm low efficiency and accuracy in majority of battles. And only a few sources which say about some exceptional, particularly efficient salvos.

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

Had each charge at Hastings been like that, then soon enough, there would be no Saxon untrampled in this shieldwall or no horse standing.

Hastings is actually a good example of shock cavalry with some missile support defeating infantry in terrain extremely favourable for infantry defence, and very difficult for heavy cavalry attacks.

Saxon infantry was deployed in a well-positioned defensive formation atop the narrow, steep hill ridge. Charging up the hill is not exactly the best situation for cavalry, especially if the enemy is numerous and in good defensive formation. Apart from the steep hill ridge Senlac, Harold had also natural obstacles protecting both flanks of his army - his left wing was surrounded by a heavily forested slope traversed by numerous gorges and his right wing - by a stream with swampy terrain on both riversides.

It should be noted that Hastings was mainly a battle of cavalry + missile support (Normans), versus infantry (Harold). The Norman army consisted of some 2500 up to 3000 cavalry and 4000 - 4500 or more infantry, of whom large part were archers & crossbowmen (1000 up to 1700). In total at least 7000 men. Harold's army was of similar strength to that of Wilhelm, but consisted mostly of heavy infantry (Huscarls), spear & shield infantry (Fyrd) and not very numerous missile support (some slingers, maybe also a few archers & crossbowmen). Harold's cavalry was very few - if any.

Norman army was surely more tactically flexible, but in favourable conditions Harold had a chance to win. And at Hastings there were such conditions (very good terrain for defence), but there were also factors which worked against Harold (like fatigue of his men after the long march).

The problem is that Harold lacked offensive power against a force of similar type to that of William (more mobile, more flexible, relying on shock charges and missile support). You can't really utterly destroy enemy army only by defending against its attacks (even if this defence is victorious).

Had William not managed to crush Harold's lines at Hastings on that particular day - he would have simply retreated and waited for another opportunity to fight, in more favourable terrain if possible.

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

So, how does that explain the multiple charges attested by the sources? Either most of the infantry are crushed or most of the horses are injured.

No, not necessarily. I suppose that the model above has some flaws regarding the killing efficiency and killing speed (but even if indeed as many as 4 ranks of infantry were injured or killed by a single charge - like according to this model - it still doesn't mean that the formation was broken, because usually infantry formations designed to defend against cavalry were much deeper than just 4 ranks).

The idea that most of the horses are seriously injured during the collision, is also wrong.

Maybe many horses suffer minor injuries (which are not even qualified as wounds), but it doesn't affect their capability to continue the fight and the movement (like for example bruises).

In the battle of Klushino the Polish husaria unit under Mikolaj Strus (ca. 180 horsemen) carried out in total three charges against Taube's infantry regiment (ca. 400 pikemen and musketeers).

Casualties of Mikolaj Strus' hussars in the entire battle were the following:

Soldiers: 5 dead, 12 wounded - 17 in total
Horses: 20 killed, 7 wounded, 1 missing - 28 in total

If we assume that all these casualties were suffered in combats against Taube's infantry (which is quite doubtful, considering that Strus' unit took part also in one or two other actions during the battle), then it seems that during each of the 3 charges it lost - on average - 5,7 men and 9,3 horses. But - on the other hand - in the last of the 3 charges against Taube, Strus' unit was supported by one more unit of hussars, which probably also suffered some losess - and thus we can assume that the cost of defeating Taube's regiment was roughly the same as total losses of Strus' unit.

By comparison Taube's regiment lost over 50 dead (and an unknown, but rather high, number of wounded). However - these are also casualties of this regiment during the whole battle (and apart from facing charges of hussars, it also took part in maybe one or two other actions - but not very bloody ones, so vast majority of those over 50 dead were most likely killed while facing hussars).

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

Here are the casualties in men of all 23 units of hussars in the battle of Klushino (it should be noted that casualties in horses were almost always higher than in men - see above the data for Strus' unit).

Some of these units participated in even 8 - 10 individual charges and clashes during the battle:

The highest casualty ratio in men (18,33%) was suffered by unit under Lanckoroński (he was also killed). By comparison the Light Brigade at Balaclava had a 36,4% casualty ratio in men.

[Domen]

Do you have a larger picture? I can't quite read all of the text.

Sorry for that. I'll try to find a larger picture.

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

Okay, so a solid wall of people isn't solid enough to stop a horse. and if so, then locked shields won't stop a horse. I think it does depend on the spears to stop the horses.

Some later Byzantine manuals describe the use of menavlia (?) or very sturdy spears to stop a charge. Eric McGreer discusses this in *Sowing the Dragon's Teeth.* If I remember correctly, the first technique placed a single row of infantry with menavlia (?) at some distance from the main body, but gradually the number of infantry with the weapons increased and they were to put themselves immediately before the first rank of the other infantry.

I still think infantry had the advantage in a frontal fight, and was at a disadvantage otherwise, but I guess we have ruled out a lot of the speculation.

Long time ago my friend - when he was still young and stupid (or is it called "brave", maybe? - plus he was also a bit drunk) -, during a historical reenactment of an Early Medieval battle, charged (without any weapons or armor or his own shield) such a solid shield wall of reenactors with shields and in mail armors. And while he rammed it with his left shoulder - but also with entire body, as he literally jumped / smashed into those shields (at a really high speed) - one of reenactors who was part of the shield wall, pushed him with his shield (in the very same moment when he hit the shield running at high speed, he was also pushed / hit by that shield). He was not even knocked over on the ground, nor he lost consciousness - he managed to land on his feet (but I must admit that he is a rather hunky guy, so hard to knock over). The only injury he suffered, was a cut (and thus bleeding) eybrow ridge. But that injury was dressed in a matter of minutes, and apart from that he was all fine (maybe he had some negligible bruises).

So I suppose, that if a shield wall cannot seriously injure a charging man (at a high speed), it all the more cannot seriously injure a charging battle horse. Thus - yes - a horse had to be injured by an accurate spear thrust (or other weapon), not by the sole impact of the collision.

On the other hand - a horse is much heavier than my friend. My friend had maybe 95 kg, a horse is much heavier (many of large Medieval combat horses had more than 750 kg, up to even 1200 kg, average modern adult horses are 550 - 650 kg). They can also run somehow slightly (at least) faster than even the fastest of human beings. So - an impact of a collision with such a horse would be much more devastating for the guy holding that shield, than an impact of a collision with my friend was.

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

Sorry for not replying to all issues in posts above - but I'm quite short on time - so I selected just some excerpts and replied to them. I promise I will reply to other parts of the OPs in question later.

[Marja]

I don't think Hastings is a good example of cavalry defeating infantry.

Although some of the English infantry were defeated when they counterattacked downhill, and were counterattacked in turn, the main English line held almost until nightfall and only collapsed because the Norman archers killed king Harold. Archery was decisive, and it doesn't really fit into the infantry-vs-cavalry debate.

[Domen]

As far as I know, Harold was not killed by an arrow, but by combined hits of a lance and an arrow. I only don't remember which was first - whether he was first hit by an arrow (in his eye - if I remember correctly) and shortly later pierced by a lance thrust, or inversely - lance first, then arrow.

Anyway - IIRC, it happened nearly simultaneously, both an arrow hit and a lance hit, so we can't determine which injury was mortal (or maybe both were mortal). That's what I have read.

Archery was decisive,

It is very doubtful that archery could be decisive against well-armored infantry such as Huscarls, or infantry protected by large shields such as the Fyrd. Of course Huscarls also had shields.

Mail armor - contrary to various urban myths - provided good protection against arrows. So did Saxon shields. Here is something about it (how efficiency of bows & crossbows vs armor is overrated):

This text also notices, that mail armor produced in modern times (for reenactors, researchers, Hollywood, etc.) is of very poor quality - produced with simplified techniques, not similar to original ones:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread...380&page=2

"Many of the techniques of armor-making have been lost, especially with mail. Much of it is butted (i.e. no rivets), which is virtually useless against thrusts. The mail that is riveted is usually low-quality Indian stuff with punched rather than drifted rivets, and the rivets aren't centered, and the material's wrong, and they forget the 10 or 20 layers of padding beneath the mail. The Ayyubid nobleman Usama ibn Munqidh once jumped his horse over a hedge and lanced a Frank in the side so hard he nearly fell off his saddle sideways and had his helmet knocked off. Usama later learned that the Frank was unhurt. He also thought he lanced clean through another knight and killed him, only to learn that, again, the knight survived. There are accounts of crusaders looking like hedgehogs from all the arrows sticking out of their mail armor, and yet they still moved undisturbed. And mail, despite being pricey, was very heavily used for thousands of years all across the Old World. Clearly, it was good stuff."

People also forget that below the mail armor (and in later times - below plate armor), there was always padding (or some other kind of leather / "soft" armor) - and even if some arrow or a crossbow bolt managed to penetrate through the mail armor, it was usually going to be stopped by padding:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread...380&page=4

"The armour primarily involved in stopping arrrows was the padding, which made up quite a lot of the European armour. There tends to be a lot of emphasis on the metal carapace created, and then the crucial role of padding in Medieval armour often gets ignored."

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

BTW - regarding details of tactics used by Polish-Lithuanian hussars while frontally charging pike-musket infantry. Here is one theory about it (article written in English):

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

But the most doubtful and controversial part of this theory, is whether having much longer lances than enemy pikes could or could not allow the hussars to avoid taking casualties from enemy pikes during the collision. This is doubtful, because even if enemy pikeman is hit first and drops his pike on the ground - due to the fact that lance has greater range - then still free falling on the ground of this dropped pike, is going to take some time - and this time is longer than time needed for a hussar to cover the distance dividing him from the spearhead of enemy pike). Considering this, there are two theories:

1) That hussars could on some occasions break pike formations in a frontal charge, but it cost them many own casualties (especially in horses, to smaller extent in soldiers).

Due to this, hussars preferred to defeat pikes using other methods (such as charging pikemen previously confused by their own routing cavalry, or by musket or artillery fire), to reduce casualties.

2) That hussars could somehow stop their horses shortly before collision with enemy pikes (while lances were already hitting and injuring / killing enemy pikemen, due to superior length).

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

Another interesting issue is that since the 1600s pikes were becoming gradually shorter.

For example the "statutory" / "standarized" length of Swedish pikes was:

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.

While the most spectacular successes of Polish hussars in fighting Swedish pikemen took place before 1616 - when Swedish pikemen were using longer pikes than in the later period...

But - on the other hand - it is sometimes claimed that also the length of hussar lances was decreasing over time (at least according to one theory the longest of hussar lances found by archaeologists and in various museums are the early items from the early 1600s - this is only a theory though, because exact dating of such items is usually problematic, so it can't be determined for sure when exactly a particular item was produced). But it seems logical that the length of lances was adjusted to the current needs - when enemies were using longer pikes, longer lances were being produced.

So far, the longest known original lance has 6.15 m (over 20 feet) without the point (spearhead).

6.15 m is the longest lance that was actually found and can be physically touched. But one primary source mentions a lance 19 French royal feet (= 6.172 m) long (this is "A Description of Ukraine" by Guillaume le Vasseur de Beauplan, who was in Poland in the 1630s and 1640s). Another primary source mentions a 6.2 m long lance (but this source - Jan Michał Kampenhausen - is from the 18th century - and he probably refers to lances of the past). Another primary source ("Kriegskunst zu Pferdt" by Johann Jocabi von Wallhausen) mentions that hussar lances could be even 21 Danzig feet (= 6.05 m) long.

Why would anyone bother to produce so extremely long lances, if not to overcome pikemen? And this indirectly confirms that there had to be some frontal charges against pikemen.

Production of so long lances involved a special and costly technique of production. Lances used by hussars were usually made of wood of young aspens. They were hollow inside. Lance was further strengthened outside by glued hemp fibres (like bows from the Mary Rose) and tarred.

So in fact those lances were not wooden lances, but "composite" lances.

Calculations of resistance to bending (stiffness) & resistance to breakage (durability) of such a lance are provided in the book "Fenomen Husarii" by R. Sikora. The result is that a lance of a Hussar of certain level of resistance was 2.8 times lighter than infantry pike of the same resistance. This advantage was exploited in order to produce longer lances.

Such a lance could be longer than pike and still had the required resistance to prevent wabbling.

[Robert Vermaat]

And also all videos are of untrained and random (in terms of their "quality" or features) animals.

That does not matter to our discussion. You have not made it clear why you think that a panicking animal that runs into a solid object should be considered similar to a trained horse doing the same. I can see your point about horses being trained, also being able to run into an unmoving enemy (being killed in the process). This has been debated evry few years on this forum, and always we com e to the same conclusion: it can be done but apparently it never became a common battlefield tactic. Why? My guess would be that you can't afford, appaerently, to kill off so many of your cavalry.

Also, you failed to answer my question: why was it that, apparently, dismounted cavalry and/or infantry managed to withstand attacks of cavalry, for hours or indefinately (when supposedly a good cavalry charge could just bowl them over)?

[Domen]

Also, you failed to answer my question: why was it that, apparently, dismounted cavalry and/or infantry managed to withstand attacks of cavalry, for hours or indefinately (when supposedly a good cavalry charge could just bowl them over)?

I never wrote that it was so easy to - quote - "bowl them all over" (only - that it was possible).

Regarding dismounted cavalry or infantry withstanding attacks of cavalry - very often they were helping themselves with various kinds of field fortifications and anti-cavalry obstacles (or at least by deploying in terrain difficult for cavalry charges), behind which they defended against cavalry.

And I provided examples of battles in which such methods were used by infantry.

Another reason is that - quite simply - cavalry formations were not all the same. Various cavalry formations differed in countless aspects - starting from tactics, weapons, quality of horses ending on morale, training, discipline, obedience to commanders, cohesion, capability of acting as a unit.

For example regarding French knights of the 14th century (who were beaten by the English as we know, on few occasions) - there are theories which say, that by that time French nobility already lost much of its combat effectiveness from the previous times, mainly due to the fact that French armies were relying to large extent on mercenary and paid soldiers rather than on the general knight levy. According to these theories French knights at Crecy or Azincourt were ill-disciplined and incapable of working together as one unit. They were - at best - good as individual fighters, but lost much of their group training.

So according to this, French knights were a "rusted" force, who - by that time - rarely saw combat.

Of course there are also theories which say the opposite - that French knighthood at Azincourt was still a formidable and disciplined fighting force. So I am not going to draw definite conclusions, as I can't proof any of these theories as more correct than the other one. But what do you think about these judgements of the combat value of French knights? Were they indeed ill-disciplined and disorganized?

Or not really?

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

it can be done but apparently it never became a common battlefield tactic. Why? My guess would be that you can't afford, appaerently, to kill off so many of your cavalry.

Well - and here we come to quite an obvious conclusion.

Namely - that it is always better to attack disorganized, demoralized, scattered enemy, than enemy prepared to defence in favourable terrain, standing firm, etc. It is also always better to attack enemy rear or flank, attack from ambush, exploit surprise effect, etc. - than to attack frontally.

However - this is true for all kinds of forces, not just for cavalry. For infantry as well. But cavalry is more mobile than infantry, hence it is easier to use in this role (rather than just for frontal attacks). Maneuvers such as flanking, rear attacks, skirmishing - are harder for infantry, due to their lower speed and mobility. Also infantry is usually cheaper, more commonly available and regarded as less valuable ("Ah, yes, mere infantry - poor beggars" - wrote Plautus), so definitely more commanders would use it as "cannon fodder" (if using such fodder is necessary), rather than risking high losses of their cavalry.

Also in modern warfare this is true for tanks (and for all other military units).

We can even simplify this conclusion, to just one single statement:

It is always more favourable to suffer smaller casualties than higher.

Which - however - does not mean, that cavalry was never able to smash firm and organized infantry formation who fought on rather than fleeing or fighting in a disorganized way as individuals.

It was often possible, and sometimes necessary - it just cost more losses (but not necessarily "so many" - losses in the process could still be relatively low or moderate, for a good quality cavalry).

Cavalry charged frontally or even engaged in melee, when they considered this as necessary (to win the battle). If they thought that there were other ways to win and suffer less losses, they would choose this option. Of course I'm now reconstructing the logic of perfectly reasonable cavalry.

That's basically it.