heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry

[Sean Manning]

"But let us come to the other question of yours, in which you desire to know what organization or what natural virtu causes the infantry to be superior to the cavalry. And I tell you, first, that the horses cannot go in all the places that the infantry do, because it is necessary for them either to turn back after they have come forward, or turning back to go forward, or to move from a stand-still, or to stand still after moving, so that, without doubt, the cavalry cannot do precisely thus as the infantry. Horses cannot, after being put into disorder from some attack, return to the order (of the ranks) except with difficulty, and even if the attack does not occur; the infantry rarely do this. In addition to this, it often occurs that a courageous man is mounted on abase horse, and a base man on a courageous horse, whence it must happen that this difference in courage causes disorders. Nor should anyone wonder that a Knot (group) of infantry sustains every attack of the cavalry, for the horse is a sensible animal and knows the dangers, and goes in unwillingly. And if you would think about what forces make him (the horse) go forward and what keep him back, without doubt you will see that those which hold him back are greater than those which push him; for spurs make him go forward, and, on the other hand, the sword and the pike retain him. So that from both ancient and modem experiences, it has been seen that a small group of infantry can be very secure from, and even actually insuperable to, the cavalry. And if you should argue on this that the Elan with which he comes makes it more furious in hurling himself against whoever wants to sustain his attack, and he responds less to the pike than the spur, I say that, as soon as the horse so disposed begins to see himself at the point of being struck by the points of the pikes, either he will by himself check his gait, so that he will stop as soon as he sees himself about to be pricked by them, or, being pricked by them, he will turn to the right or left. If you want to make a test of this, try to run a horse against a wall, and rarely will you find one that will run into it, no matter with what Elan you attempt it. "

Machiavelli, Art of War, B.2, early 16th century

I have many quotes on this issue but none is as straightforward and clear as that. the translation is a bit awkward at places, I found it on the net because i somehow misplaced my copy... Refusing to accept that the majority of horses and riders would not just charge into close-ordered standing infantry with or without pikes because some horses can be trained to do so is to me as far-fetched as saying that no cavalry unit, ever, was determined and trained enough to fall upon such infantry.

However, I feel I have to caution everyone, me included..., that the OP is about cavalry vs cavalry. Let us not transform this thread to yet another cavalry vs infantry discussion. If you do want this, gentlemen, we could resurrect one of the last threads discussing this very thing?

Well, that is one source. Yet isn't it interesting that your clearest source is Machiavelli, who aside from one attempt to reform the militia of Florence was a book soldier? Using him as a source on early 16th century warfare is like using J.F.C. Fuller for early 20th century warfare ... he can be valuable, but not reliable.

If anyone has sources, I would be happy to see them in another thread.