02-22-2013, 06:26 AM
The part that was about charges read :
It should also be noted that Karl Karlsson Gyllenhielm attempted gallop charges even in 1601 in order to limit the effect of the Hussars superior mobility and skill. The tactic failed with his untrained soldiers but it shows that the old tactics of a cold steel charge were known even before the Gustavian reforms.
I understand from this that KKG organized galloping charges (whatever this might be meant be a forum poster) against the Hussars, in order to engage them and not allow them to do their game on the battle-field as they (or the C-in-C) saw fit. Do you understand something else? I doubt that the Swedes (?) attacking Polish infantry would do much to limit the "superior mobility and skill" of the Hussars.
Man... what do the casualties of a battle have to do with anything? The Parthians did more harm against the Romans and they did not charge INTO their infantry... Many casualties does not mean that there were cavalry charges as you think they were. Maybe they broke and fled and were slaughtered in the process... maybe a herd of wild mammoths trampled them to the ground... how can I (you) say anything unless we have an account of this battle? Don't you understand how critical it is for you to be able to make any point?
It should also be noted that Karl Karlsson Gyllenhielm attempted gallop charges even in 1601 in order to limit the effect of the Hussars superior mobility and skill. The tactic failed with his untrained soldiers but it shows that the old tactics of a cold steel charge were known even before the Gustavian reforms.
I understand from this that KKG organized galloping charges (whatever this might be meant be a forum poster) against the Hussars, in order to engage them and not allow them to do their game on the battle-field as they (or the C-in-C) saw fit. Do you understand something else? I doubt that the Swedes (?) attacking Polish infantry would do much to limit the "superior mobility and skill" of the Hussars.
Man... what do the casualties of a battle have to do with anything? The Parthians did more harm against the Romans and they did not charge INTO their infantry... Many casualties does not mean that there were cavalry charges as you think they were. Maybe they broke and fled and were slaughtered in the process... maybe a herd of wild mammoths trampled them to the ground... how can I (you) say anything unless we have an account of this battle? Don't you understand how critical it is for you to be able to make any point?
