12-12-2009, 05:14 PM
Yes indeed it's a good conversation
I'm tired of quoting so I'll simply address your points (which are good ones I might add) as best I can
1 I comepletely agree that cavalry shouldn't engage solid infantry from the front
2 If men are packed that tight they can't fight back even if the horse is slowed or stopped the infantry would so packed that between the riders the horses attack's it would be like shooting fish in a barrel so you have ot have formation that tight enough you can hit back but not so loose that you're easily broken.
3 It wont be one horse against many since there would be at least the three lines of horses
4 This is why you are trained to keep your seat medieval warsaddles also have the pommel curved over the riders hips
5 I agree that infantry usually throws of frontal cavalry charges otherwise history would be very different as you said. And perhaps the crush of bodies contributed however engaging at a walk would just make a bad situation worse. The gendarmes of Charles the Rash penetrated to the banners of a solid swiss pike square and the swiss themselves grudingly admitted it! However the press of bodies slowed the gendarmes and so they were dragged from their horses and killed. Which shows that they engaged at a gallop and managed to get pretty far and that getting slowed down is a bad idea, it also shows that swiss while solid and unbroken had a loose enough formation that they hold cavalry off otherwise they wouldn't have been able to drag the gendarmes of their horses if they had been so packed together.
And yes I would think that a man getting thrown back would add his weight to his buddies of course that depends on if the buddy doesn't go down from the impromptu missile.
As for the weight of the men. Never mind I was going to do some calculations but I can't remember how many men were in a macedonian phalanx. I'll edit this if I can find the numbers and get time to post here.
6 I totally agree that attacking solid head on is a bad idea, however I do disagree with Arrian horses can and do push the tactics of the husaria and the gendarmes (first slam into the enemy then have light cavalry came in behind them to follow up on the charge) show that they did engage at a gallop and the lighter cavalry's follow up charge was designed to overcome the problem of the horses being slowed. And we can name several battles where they engaged at a gallop.
7 The french lancers at Eylau weren't that sucessful IIRC. As for the Hussars the only battle I can think where they charged multiple times would be Kilchusny which shows that they engaged at a gallop and thay had trouble with the infantry because they didn't have any lances just their Koncerz'
P.S If you don't reply for a week I never think that's a lack of respect, I just know that real life catches up with us. Like it did just now for me :wink: :lol:
Great talking with you by the way, I love arguing over this stuff.
Have fun on your trip!
I'm tired of quoting so I'll simply address your points (which are good ones I might add) as best I can
1 I comepletely agree that cavalry shouldn't engage solid infantry from the front
2 If men are packed that tight they can't fight back even if the horse is slowed or stopped the infantry would so packed that between the riders the horses attack's it would be like shooting fish in a barrel so you have ot have formation that tight enough you can hit back but not so loose that you're easily broken.
3 It wont be one horse against many since there would be at least the three lines of horses
4 This is why you are trained to keep your seat medieval warsaddles also have the pommel curved over the riders hips
5 I agree that infantry usually throws of frontal cavalry charges otherwise history would be very different as you said. And perhaps the crush of bodies contributed however engaging at a walk would just make a bad situation worse. The gendarmes of Charles the Rash penetrated to the banners of a solid swiss pike square and the swiss themselves grudingly admitted it! However the press of bodies slowed the gendarmes and so they were dragged from their horses and killed. Which shows that they engaged at a gallop and managed to get pretty far and that getting slowed down is a bad idea, it also shows that swiss while solid and unbroken had a loose enough formation that they hold cavalry off otherwise they wouldn't have been able to drag the gendarmes of their horses if they had been so packed together.
And yes I would think that a man getting thrown back would add his weight to his buddies of course that depends on if the buddy doesn't go down from the impromptu missile.
As for the weight of the men. Never mind I was going to do some calculations but I can't remember how many men were in a macedonian phalanx. I'll edit this if I can find the numbers and get time to post here.
6 I totally agree that attacking solid head on is a bad idea, however I do disagree with Arrian horses can and do push the tactics of the husaria and the gendarmes (first slam into the enemy then have light cavalry came in behind them to follow up on the charge) show that they did engage at a gallop and the lighter cavalry's follow up charge was designed to overcome the problem of the horses being slowed. And we can name several battles where they engaged at a gallop.
7 The french lancers at Eylau weren't that sucessful IIRC. As for the Hussars the only battle I can think where they charged multiple times would be Kilchusny which shows that they engaged at a gallop and thay had trouble with the infantry because they didn't have any lances just their Koncerz'
P.S If you don't reply for a week I never think that's a lack of respect, I just know that real life catches up with us. Like it did just now for me :wink: :lol:
Great talking with you by the way, I love arguing over this stuff.
Have fun on your trip!
Ben.
