heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry

[Robert Vermaat]

Force equals mass times acceleration, as far as we know this pertained in the Ancient period just as it does now. The basic behaviour and physical performance of horses is also much the same now as it was then.
Therefore all references to cavalry actions involving shock using arme blanche weapons - distinct from those involving or dictated by the use of firearms - are relevant to a greater of lesser degree to similar actions of Antiquity.

I respectfully disagree.
Although the statements of force/mass and weapons are correct by themselves, it's incorrect to maintain that all references to more modern armies are 'therefore' relevant to classical armies.
Horse races were different, unit numbers were different, tactics were different, command structures were different, unit effectivity was different, the opposing force as well as supporting infantry were different, quality of weapons was different, and I don't even mention stirrups etc.

Sorry, but it's insuffienct to make such a claim and continue the discussion as is. This is and remains a forum that discusses Antiquity, and if battles of a 1000 years later are discussed without any reason given why this battle and who was wounded was relevant to Antiquity (Peter, why on earth should we know that "In both those battles Sir Arthur Haselrig was wounded, but not seriously"??) the discussion shall be relegated to the OT section, where it can continue to flower at will.

Please do keep discussing, but I'll be keeping an eye on this and any new cavalry discussions of this kind.