Cavalry and chariots against infantry

[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.