Cavalry and chariots against infantry

[Marja]

Nosworthy claims that, in the Napoleonic era, horses responded differently to bullet wounds and bayonet wounds. It's possible that they panic differently - a bullet wound being one thing, an arrow wound with the arrow shifting as the horse moves being another, and a spear wound where moving on means pushing it deeper in being still more excruciating.

[Robert]

Charging infantry with cavalry standing their ground is very costly, as the account of an accidental confrontation between cavalry and infantry that stood there ground entered at the very beginning of this thread shows:

But some realisation of the cost of our wild ride began to come to those who were
responsible. Riderless horses galloped across the plain. Men, clinging to
their saddles, lurched helplessly about, covered with blood from perhaps
a dozen wounds. Horses, streaming from tremendous gashes, limped and
staggered with their riders. In 120 seconds five officers, 65 men, and 119
horses out of fewer than 400 had been killed or wounded.

Gunshot wounds have, because of the bulletspeed, the tendency to numb, as a jacketed bullet passes through the body. This is the very reason police use special bullets designed to flatten on impact without breaking up, so as to impart maximum stopping power. Even criticaly wounded, a adrenalin high assailant will do serious harm before succumbing.
However, this whole thing is now getting into the realms of fantasy. The suggestion of getting horses to trample defenceless mannequins as a way of proving a point deserves total ridicule. We were also originaly talking about the effectiveness of cavalry against drawn up infantry, not the greatness or non-greatness of Roman civilisation set against High Middle age European society. So could we please move back to the original topic within the original timeframe, the Roman army and its known adversaries.

[Domen]

as the account of an accidental confrontation

"Accidental" being the crucial word here.

Accidental means that cavalry was unprepared and surprised. Accidental means that cavalry had no momentum of the charge, because it was not an organized charge, but marching column.

Also the account you quoted refers to 1880 - so cavalry could die from modern firearms:

http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=27507

There are available casualty figures for Polish-Lithuanian hussars that in some battles show very low casualties compared to casualties suffered by enemy infantry and cavalry in those battles.

A good (and well-documented in primary sources) example is Kircholm - over 100 Lithuanian-Polish dead and well over 7000 Swedish dead (number of buried dead men after the battle was 8300 - but some of them could be local peasants as well as camp servants from both armies, rather than soldiers).

Then we have Klushino - also a well-documented battle when it comes to casualties:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/17-roma...=60#331187

http://s13.postimage.org/6rua6a6pz/Kluszyn_losses.png

At Klushino 21 out of 23 units of hussars which fought in the battle lost ca. 82 dead men (and casualties for the remaining two are unknown), including 26 dead suffered by hussars who fought against the Swedish component of the Russo-Swedish army (which was smaller than Russian) and 56 or more dead (this includes the 2 units with unknown losses) by those who fought against Russians.

By comparison Swedish dead at Klushino numbered hundreds, and Russian dead a few thousands.

Of course there were also wounded men and casualties among horses on both sides.

Losses among hussar horses were higher - for example 600 cavalry who charged 3840 Swedish infantry of the 1st echelon at Kircholm, lost some 150 horses (so 25% of cavalrymen lost horses).

While at the same time, only 30 up to 40 men were lost among those 600.

Those 600 carried out a frontal charge though - hussars who charged enemy flanks suffered less.

Kircholm was won by a frontal charge (those 600) combined with charges against both flanks.

At Klushino 180 hussars under Strus who carried three charges against 400 infantry under Taube lost just 5 killed men, 12 wounded men, 20 killed horses, 7 wounded horses and 1 missing horse. On the other hand, Taube's infantry lost over 50 killed soldiers alone (not including wounded soldiers).

Ratio of killed people in that infantry vs cavalry fight was 1 : 10 in favour of cavalry. Of course when including casualties among horses, then ratio was less in favour of cavalry, but still.

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

The suggestion of getting horses to trample defenceless mannequins as a way of proving a point deserves total ridicule.

Not really - Robert, you entered the discussion late and apparently did not read the thread.

I suggest you read the entire thread (or at least take a quick glance at each post), because apparently you don't know what exactly was disputed here by some posters.

Some posters claimed that majority of horses can't be forced to run into something solid.

They said that - no matter armed or unarmed - horses won't run into a wall of people.

So suggested experiment with a wall of mannequins is not ridiculous at all.

We were also originaly talking about the effectiveness of cavalry against drawn up infantry, not the greatness or non-greatness of Roman civilisation set against High Middle age European society. So could we please move back to the original topic within the original timeframe, the Roman army and its known adversaries.

Ok. I agree.

But from that short OT about the greatness of Rome it seems that some people on this forum are to some extent biased in favour of praising the Roman Empire in all aspects (hence some posts describe it as "almost industrial", with "super high living standards of entire population", etc.). This partially explains why the same posters also tend to overestimate the power of infantry and underestimate the power of cavalry. After all the Roman army initially relied chiefly on heavy legionary infantry.

But later - after experiencing combat against enemies relying on cavalry - Romans increased the proportion of cavalry in their army and introduced units of heavy shock armored cavalry.

Somehow the same was done by Sweden in 17th century after experiencing charges of Polish-Lithuanian cavalry - Gustavus Adolphus improved the tactics of Swedish cavalry, increasing its reliance on shock charge and abandoning the caracole tactic. He also increased numbers of Swedish cavalry.

In the Thirty Years War Sweden had the best cavalry, that could not be matched by any other Western European cavalry. It was also not infrequently capable of charging enemy infantry.

That was the result of experiencing bloody lessons from Lithaunian-Polish cavalry.

The importance of cavalry in the Swedish army during the Thirty Years War, is shown for example by composition of the Swedish army and the proportion of cavalry to infanrty within it.

For example in early 1648 (last year of the war) the Swedish army in Germany included:

Total strength:

- 39,760 infantry
- 2,645 dragoons
- 20,736 cavalry

Including Swedish field forces:

- 22,821 cavalry and dragoons
- 14,690 infantry

And forces assigned to garrison duty:

- 25,070 infantry
- 560 cavalry and dragoons

As you can see, cavalry was 60% of the Swedish field army in 1648.

While in the battle of Kircholm in 1605 - cavalry was 22% of Swedish forces.

[Domen]

By the way - I have just read that account from the beginning to the end... :mrgreen:

You do realize that this account was written personally by Winston Churchill ?!

And Winston Churchill was one of the charging British cavalrymen there!

Robert - you apparently didn't read the entire account of this charge from 1880 (it also confirms that some of the Dervishes had rifles - so surely some of mentioned cavalry losses were from rifle fire):

"The heads of the squadrons wheeled slowly
to the left, and the Lancers, breaking into a trot, began to cross the
Dervish front in column of troops. Thereupon and with one accord the
blue-clad men dropped on their knees, and there burst out a loud, crackling
fire of musketry. It was hardly possible to miss such a target at such
a range. Horses and men fell at once. The only course was plain and welcome
to all. The Colonel, nearer than his regiment, already saw what lay behind
the skirmishers. He ordered, 'Right wheel into line' to be sounded.
The trumpet jerked out a shrill note, heard faintly above the trampling of
the horses and the noise of the rifles. On the instant all the sixteen
troops swung round and locked up into a long galloping line, and the
21st Lancers were committed to their first charge in war.

Two hundred and fifty yards away the dark-blue men were firing madly
in a thin film of light-blue smoke. Their bullets struck the hard gravel
into the air, and the troopers, to shield their faces from the stinging
dust, bowed their helmets forward, like the Cuirassiers at Waterloo.
The pace was fast and the distance short. Yet, before it was half covered,
the whole aspect of the affair changed. A deep crease in the ground--a dry
watercourse, a khor--appeared where all had seemed smooth, level plain;
and from it there sprang, with the suddenness of a pantomime effect
and a high-pitched yell, a dense white mass of men nearly as long as our
front and about twelve deep. A score of horsemen and a dozen bright flags
rose as if by magic from the earth.

Eager warriors sprang forward
to anticipate the shock. The rest stood firm to meet it. The Lancers
acknowledged the apparition only by an increase of pace. Each man wanted
sufficient momentum to drive through such a solid line. The flank troops,
seeing that they overlapped, curved inwards like the horns of a moon.
But the whole event was a matter of seconds. The riflemen, firing bravely
to the last, were swept head over heels into the khor, and jumping down
with them, at full gallop and in the closest order, the British squadrons
struck the fierce brigade with one loud furious shout. The collision was
prodigious. Nearly thirty Lancers, men and horses, and at least two hundred
Arabs were overthrown. The shock was stunning to both sides, and for
perhaps ten wonderful seconds no man heeded his enemy. Terrified horses
wedged in the crowd, bruised and shaken men, sprawling in heaps, struggled,
dazed and stupid, to their feet, panted, and looked about them. Several
fallen Lancers had even time to re-mount. Meanwhile the impetus of the
cavalry carried them on. As a rider tears through a bullfinch, the officers
forced their way through the press; and as an iron rake might be drawn
through a heap of shingle, so the regiment followed. They shattered the
Dervish array, and, their pace reduced to a walk, scrambled out of the khor
on the further side, leaving a score of troopers behind them, and dragging
on with the charge more than a thousand Arabs. Then, and not till then, the
killing began; and thereafter each man saw the world along his lance,
under his guard, or through the back-sight of his pistol; and each had
his own strange tale to tell.

(...)

On this occasion two living walls had actually crashed together.
The Dervishes fought manfully. They tried to hamstring the horses,
They fired their rifles, pressing the muzzles into the very bodies of
their opponents. They cut reins and stirrup-leathers. They flung their
throwing-spears with great dexterity. They tried every device of cool,
determined men practised in war and familiar with cavalry; and, besides,
they swung sharp, heavy swords which bit deep. The hand-to-hand fighting
on the further side of the khor lasted for perhaps one minute. Then the
horses got into their stride again, the pace increased, and the Lancers
drew out from among their antagonists. Within two minutes of the collision
every living man was clear of the Dervish mass. All who had fallen were
cut at with swords till they stopped quivering, but no artistic mutilations
were attempted."

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

This description actually confirms everything that I have written in this thread! :woot: Thank you very much for confirming all my points (even if your intention was different)! :lol:

This is one of the best descriptions of cavalry charges I have ever read!

NO - this is actually the best of all of them!

And this testifies to deadly efficiency of shock cavalry against even determined infantry!

And if you claim that... :

"Nearly thirty Lancers, men and horses, and at least two hundred Arabs were overthrown."

Or:

"Within two minutes of the collision every living man was clear of the Dervish mass."

... if you claim that trading casualties at this ratio (30 men and horses for 200+ men) is not worth it, then I really don't know what is worth it... Perhaps only dropping an atomic bomb on them...

And remember that in that fight, British cavalry was outnumbered 7 to 1.

This easily matches the amazing victories of Polish Hussars against more numerous infantry.

Who would expect to find such a confirmation of cavalry power in a British source...

:whistle:

[Domen]

Dan, thank you for your link. However, I hope you do not mind me saying so but I can't help feeling Churchill's story is a bit neat, contrived and artificial, and many reactions on the site show that I am not alone in my scepticism.

Eduard,

That's because you are British.

And British military history suffers from notorious lack of cavalry being important in battles. British armies relied on infantry. You have only a handful, a terrible scarcity of accounts which confirm the efficiency of cavalry (but they are excellent - as I now realize), and that's why you are so suspicious, that you don't believe them because they are supposedly so few. But you overlook plenty of similar accounts from history of other armies - armies which relied heavily on cavalry, unlike the British army.

For me - as I live in Poland - this account of Churchill is reliable, because I've read similar accounts about charges of cavalry, that say similar things (and I've already quoted some of them in this thread). The account of Churchill is perhaps even more detailed than these Polish primary sources, as it describes the two charges performed by the 21st Lancers in 1880 in extreme detail (and then he also describes fates of individual soldiers, which I also like very much). That's what I want to say.

Also - please note this and take into consideration - the 21st Lancers were by no means experienced in mounted warfare. Churchill explicitly wrote, that it was their very first charge in that war!

Surely this lack of experience in mounted combat contributed to casualties in the 2nd clash.

The lesson from this is one - ignoring military history of other armies can lead to wrong judgments of accounts describing unusual events from history of your army (but usual for some other armies).

So pretty much what already Sean Manning noticed at the beginning of this thread:

Anglophone researchers tend to vastly underestimate capabilities of cavalry.

[Vindex]

Who would expect to find such a confirmation of cavalry power in a British source...:whistle:

Most British scholars of cavalry! I mentioned this regiment on page one of this discussion, by the way.

Perhaps you show a bias too much for the Continental and should temper some of your post Medieval cavalry comments with a wider reading of the Peninsular, Crimean and Near Eastern campaigns of the British Army(most of which occur in the Victorian period; some of which are against comparable enemies faced by ancient cavalry)?

[Thomas Aagaard]

But from that short OT about the greatness of Rome it seems that some people on this forum are to some extent biased in favour of praising the Roman Empire in all aspects (hence some posts describe it as "almost industrial", with "super high living standards of entire population", etc.). This partially explains why the same posters also tend to overestimate the power of infantry and underestimate the power of cavalry. After all the Roman army initially relied chiefly on heavy legionary infantry.

But Peter. You are the same. You "are to some extent biased in favour of praising the" hussars and I think that makes you overestimate the power of cavalry and underestimate the power of infantry.

Cavalry did not dominate battlefields in all periods of military history...
If cavalry was so effective as you make it out to be(no matter the periode), you wouldn't have seen the wide use of dismounted men-at-arms during the 100year war... (by both sides)

And if it was so effective why was the roman army based on infantry? surely they had the knowledge and economic power to do otherwise.

[koechlyruestow]

My dear Peter,

I am certainly not British. And as far as differences between Albion and the continent are concerned, I strongly recommend you try Etudes sur le combat, for some very sobering and professional continental scepticism on the performance of cavalry as a projectile to crush infantry. And I saw a young German military historian on a German TV channel, did not catch his name unfortunately, who gave a description of the performance of the cavalry (and of infantry) at the battle of Liegnitz entirely agreeing with Keegan and especially Ardant du Picq (Keegan got most of his idea's from him, but he mistook Ardant for his Christian name, so it is difficult to retrieve him in his sources).

Sorry Peter, but I consider this piece of the great Winston Churchil as a standard battle piece, that is, a piece of literature, maskerading as battle-report/journalism. Don't get me wrong, I am sure most of the boys from the lancers were convinced this was what had happened, but that does not necesarilly make it true.

[koechlyruestow]

Macedon wrote:

Yes, but the smoke and the sound was something that the horses could get used to like the sound of elephants in antiquity. Actual missiles thrown against them, seeing them flying towards them are another story.

Marcus Junkelmann notes in his Die Reiter Roms that their horses reacted with remarkable phlegm to blunted javelins and pseudo-stones being thrown at them, even the horses that would always bolt as soon as a pedestrian approached them waving a scutum about. Surprising, considering the temperament of these creatures, isn't it? Cannot find it back though, I'll try to retrieve the passage.

[Michael Kerr]

Hi, in regards to Roman Infantry against cavalry charges I have 2 questions. Were pila effective as a defence against cavalry? Were they thrown in a volley when the cavalry got close or did the romans use them as spears like the Greeks in their phalanxes? To my thinking pila would be too short and wouldn't project too far beyond the shield to be a deterrent against cavalry so I assume the romans would have packed their legions with missile troops and steady nerve by the legionaries would be crucial as timing of volleys was important.
Just one other question regarding cavalry vs infantry in ancient warfare. Were cavalry charges against ancient infantry a case of who blinks first? If the infantry blinks and attempts to flee then the horses ride into the gaps to inflict more damage to the remaining infantry or if the horses blink when seeing an unwavering line of spears and attempt to turn to avoid them at the last possible moment. I can see that people all have strong feelings about this by the number of posts on this thread but in regards to problems when comparing similar tactics from different eras I was thinking about the infantry square which in Napoleonic times was effective against cavalry eg. the British at Waterloo but in Roman times at the battle of Carrhae the infantry squares were inneffective against Parthian horse archers.

[M. Demetrius]

Pila were missile weapons, and were used in volleys against incoming troops, mounted or on foot. There was a leaf-shaped head on some pila that is thought to have been used against elephants/horses. On one occasion I can think of, Caesar instructed his troops to hold on to their second pilun, and use them to thrust into the faces of attacking cavalry. (Demoralizing, eh?)

They were too short to be used as pikes in the traditional sense. Much more effective to stick one in somebody's mount at ten paces than to wait until the cavalryman's longer lance was in your own face, wouldn't you think?

Once a line of infantry broke and ran, cavalry were used to run down and slaughter the fleeing soldiers. I don't think they'd have been used often in a frontal attack, but their greater speed would be used to flank and surround troops held in place by other infantry.

[Robert]

I'm with David on this one. Using the speed of the horses to outflank infantry and to roll up the flanks or attack archers would be a far more sensible use than throwing them head on against drawn up infantry. Also, disrupting the logistics and threatening the baggagetrain in a hit and run manner would cause any enemy commander serious worry. Accounts of the battles show that the head on attack on infantry is a very costly way of utilising cavalry.

[Nathan Ross]

Accounts of the battles show that the head on attack on infantry is a very costly way of utilising cavalry.

With normal cavalry, sure. However, as I've said before, there is evidence that very heavily armoured cavalry (cataphracts, and later clibanarii) were specifically intended to break up infantry formations, and trained to do so. They lacked the speed and maneuverability for rapid flanking attacks, so head on assault (or at least the threat of it) would surely be their purpose.

[Domen]

and I think that makes you overestimate the power of cavalry and underestimate the power of infantry.

Cavalry did not dominate battlefields in all periods of military history...

Not at all, because I never claimed such things like "cavalry dominated battlefields in all periods of military history". Claiming that I ever wrote such thing, is simply a lie, because I didn't.

Not only I did not claim anything like this - but I also explained in this thread why infantry was often able to beat off cavalry with relatively small losses, basing on examples of many battles.

It is other posters in this thread who try to prove ridiculous things like the idea that horses won't charge infantry and that heavy shock cavalry was just purely a "psychological weapon"...

Here is what a guy claimed on another forum plus my response to this:

The sight and sensation of such a formation heading my way would scare the crap out of me. Most probably, you too.

Rather no because I have mind on my own and I know that trying to run away from cavalry = certain death, because I'm slower.

You seem to claim that horses have mind on their own, but on the other hand that humans don't...

That is simply stupid. Humans are much more intelligent and much more capable of rational thinking than horses.

And - of course - I don't say that infantry never panicked, because people also do irrational things. But the problem is that people are much more intelligent and rational than horses, and will do such things less frequently than horses. Horses - like other animals that can be domesticated, tamed, trained and selectively bred - and will do things their human masters want them to do.

With normal cavalry, sure. However, as I've said before, there is evidence that very heavily armoured cavalry (cataphracts, and later clibanarii) were specifically intended to break up infantry formations, and trained to do so. They lacked the speed and maneuverability for rapid flanking attacks, so head on assault (or at least the threat of it) would surely be their purpose.

There is evidence that there were also light or medium shock cavalry formations (usually lance-wielding ones, as lance was the best weapon for this task), doing the same, and also suffering small losses. Polish Hussars are described as heavy or medium cavalry, but their horses were not armoured - yet they were capable of breaking enemy infantry formations while suffering small casualties.

The conclusion is that you don't need iron-clad horses to break infantry without staggering losses. You need elite, trained cavalry with good horses, using long enough lances and proper tactics.

21st Lancers in the 1880s were by no means such a good cavalry, yet they destroyed experienced in anti-cavalry combat Dervishes while trading casualties at a ratio 30 men and horses vs 200 men...

[Macedon]

Let's see...

The question as worded in the OP, that is a simple "Cavalry and Chariots against Infantry" is too wide an issue to produce simple results. I tried to put some rules to clarify the conditions to be discussed but I see that most posts are very general and thus greatly misleading. What cavalry (or chariots)? Against what infantry? Where? How are they armed? Armored? Define verbs like "attack", "overcome"...

I guess that what we are interested in in this topic specifically is the tactical choice of a general to order a unit/part/line of his cavalry to charge an enemy line of soldiers standing in close order, having at least a decent depth (less than 4 was termed "weak" or "shallow" by the ancients and the Byzantines).

Charging open-ordered and scattered troops, disordered, confused or routed masses of footmen, very shallow infantry formations was nothing out-of-the-ordinary and I guess that no one would deny that it was a tactic followed in these situations.

1. First we wanted to establish the mechanics and the nature of the horse. The question was "Would a horse, even if urged by his rider, simply gallop into what it considered a solid wall of closed order men?" We have direct quotes from the ancients and later writers that this was not considered a threat and most here believe that such behavior was, to say the least, very rare. Peter, who may be a bit overly excited by the image of lines of horsemen smashing into SUCH lines of infantry provided what he considered evidence, much of it interesting. The videos I personally view as mostly inadequate to produce anything else than a negative result. The model was useless because it was impossible to make out what it said, it certainly looked like an author tried to make some calculations as to what would happen if a horseman (or a small car) actually smashed into a file of men but its results or the actual conditions and opinion of the author were impossible to read. Whatever the case, he would also be the target of criticism but we all know that there are people who believe that cavalry did indeed habitually smash into close-ordered infantry lines.

2. We also talked about training. It is true that there is no text I am aware of that supports that armies used such training. After seeing horses dance and do tricks and stuff I guess one could train horses to do dangerous things and stunts (isn't jumping over tall, seemingly solid obstacles dangerous in the mind of horses? - and yet they are trained with those lego-walls which teach horses that it will be the wall that will give in instead of them. I guess that dressing up straw men with clothes and having horses smash into them might produce the same effect). However, there is no mention of any such training, not among the ancients, nor among the armies of later years. Does it mean that such a training did not exist? No, but in order to call it a "common tactic" there should be something in the sources... Maybe there is such a text in Polish? And another question that jumps to mind, why weren't elephants, even larger animals, trained to trample the enemy?

3. We talked tactics. It is true that such charges are very rare in the accounts of battles. Many have the tendency to interpret any place they read that "cavalry attacked/charged/assaulted infantry" as evidence for such charges but they are not. Especially for ancient cavalry, most often armed with javelins, these instances are normal "skirmishing" attacks, often in close order with what the ancients called "perispasmos", attack and retreat evolutions. Infantry was powerless against such attacks, it only could grin and bear the pressure, relying on its defensive equipment. The difference between normal cavalry and dispersed cavalry was that the former could be engaged by other cavalry, which was the main task of all cavalries throughout history. However, as time goes on, infantry quality decreases and cavalry starts assuming a new, dominating role on the battle-field. In the west, those who have power, the means, land and arms, become armored horsemen, only a few places remain that provide adequate infantry to stand before such men in battle. At that point, cavalry adopts the tactic of charging (that is moving against, not smashing into) enemy infantry formations, which were not expected to stand the psychological pressure. Cavalry makes charges against infantry, 2-3-6 or more times in battles. There is just no way that a trampling smash of horses into any infantry mass that kept its close order and heart and place would not result in a prolonged fight that would decide who of the two would win and who would lose, both with disproportionately heavy casualties, thus making the accounts of multiple charges strange. In the east, cavalry is also predominant. The Byzantine manuals take fully cavalry formations as the norm and then add mixed and infantry formations. In them, cavalry is not supposed to charge, let alone smash into, enemy close-ordered infantry. The cataphract example I mentioned was an exception and even it was suggested to take place against the enemy general. If he had posted himself among infantry, then special care should be taken for the morale of the cataphracts. Again, cavalry is supposed to occupy itself with the enemy cavalry and infantry is used as a safe haven for horsemen to retreat to if hard pressed. Tactically, cavalry was advised to dismount if it could not overcome the enemy cavalry and act as infantry.

Here we have the Norman/Frankish "exception". The Latins were known among Byzantines as being irresistible in their first charges. However, in the really many examples of such action, they too were normally reluctant to charge enemy infantry and when they did, descriptions do not suggest a violent smash. Tactically, they mostly were used against cavalry.

With gunpowder things change... This blasted invention changed formations, depths, armor, everything. Suddenly, lines are abandoned in favor of squares with gaps, through which cavalry can attack and cannons roar... Lines of infantry are now getting shallower, their order gets more open. Cavalry charges change along. They still are mainly used against enemy cavalry or vulnerable, unsupported artillery and when they attack infantry, once they survive the volley(s), they have a number of options. They can smash into the enemy front if they waver, lose their cohesion etc, they can ride through the gaps and attack flanks and rear. During the Napoleonic wars, a square was considered very safe against cavalry, even though the men had no shields, the cavalry might also have firearms, horse-artillery could really shred them to pieces. Were there attacks against squares? Yes, some successful -because of the square's disintegration or just because some horsemen were indeed able to jump, shove etc their way into it- but that does not change the fact that cavalry was not tactically HABITUALLY do that.

Peter brought up a very good example though of cavalry really described as "plunging against the pikes" of it enemy. I am no expert in the battles of the 17th century, I know that tactically they were something between those of the 19th and those we consider pre-gunpowder and TRUSTING in what Peter has brought forward as his sources, should anyone dispute them, I might change my mind, we have at least one example of cavalry charging into infantry at a crazed gallop, conquering it, despite losing a hefty amount of men and horses. Was it because their horses were specially trained to do so? Was it because the Swedes started to disintegrate before the impact? The thing is that it looks a sound example of such an attack. Here, though, one has to determine how often the winged hussars did such charges. Of course, we have to see what they charged against. The article (webpage) that he posted talked about Swedes deployed in a very open order. Were they? Where were the pikemen? Where were the musketeers? How, and how fast, did they change places, what was their anti-cavalry formation like? Was it a square with the musketeers in the middle? Maybe a square with pikemen in front and the musketeers in the last ranks? All this is important to know, before saying anything about how strange such a charge was. Any insight on the period by someone who knows better would be welcome here. Also, some kind of insight as to how common it was for the hussars to attack infantry IN THIS MANNER would also be valuable. I read that it was only in that battle of Kirchholm that such a charge is relatively well documented but, as I said I am no expert in that particular era. Peter mentions other instances but I personally need to see evidence before saying that there are. Here, Peter, it would be nice if there was an English translation of the texts you offered - the whole texts rather than simple quotes, to see if they describe how the whole incident played out rather than just the second of the impact.

IF Peter is right and the winged hussars indeed charged in such a manner as a standard tactic, this I view as an exception and certainly not as the rule but it would be interesting to see how they managed that. Was it their long lance that made it possible? The training of their horses? Some kind of warrior code? Or was it that the conditions on the battlefield allowed them to do something "new"? And why did they not dress their horses with at least frontal pieces of armor, since it was the pikes they were mostly afraid of?

Ammianus I will not discuss, because, whatever anyone says based on a translation is as trustworthy as the translation itself. We have discussed this a number of times, since translators are usually interested in producing a beautiful text and have most often no idea of military terminology or tactics, they have to be very studiously examined. BUT, and here I mainly mean you Peter, you have to start putting the conditions in the picture. Horsemen would of course physically attack confused masses of men, shoving them at walk or trot, and still trample them.