08-09-2013, 11:52 PM
As for Machiavelli, quoted by Macedon on the previous page:
1) Machiavelli lived in period of crisis of cavalry use and quality in Western Europe (the 1510s to the 1520s)
3) He wrote his book in 1519 - 1520, the most recent war to influence his views was the war of the League of Cambrai, in which cavalry indeed was present in small numbers and played an unimportant role.
2) Machiavelli never ever fought in a battle personally, nor he saw a real battle personally
As someone pointed out on the previous page, Machiavelli was an "armchair general", like we are.
He wrote his book shortly after the introduction to warfare in Western Europe of the new model of infantry tactics and organization - the tercio (developed by Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba during the early period of the Italian Wars) - which dominated the battlefields of that area. It took time before cavalry adopted efficient ways of countering the tercio (and also other-than-tercio infantry types needed to adopt such new ways).
For some time tercios were impenetrable from the front, for both any other infantry and cavalry.
Early tercios were like Alexander's Macedonian phalanx of their time.
However, tercios were not unbeatable, as already battles of the late 16th century proved.
There is no surprise that Machiavelli - himself a laic in military matters - considered infantry as superior during the golden age of tercios and the age of crisis for traditional forms of heavy cavalry, still similar to Medieval ones (which shortly before the introduction of tercios had been very important in Italy).
So it is very important to see such opinions in their proper context.
1) Machiavelli lived in period of crisis of cavalry use and quality in Western Europe (the 1510s to the 1520s)
3) He wrote his book in 1519 - 1520, the most recent war to influence his views was the war of the League of Cambrai, in which cavalry indeed was present in small numbers and played an unimportant role.
2) Machiavelli never ever fought in a battle personally, nor he saw a real battle personally
As someone pointed out on the previous page, Machiavelli was an "armchair general", like we are.
He wrote his book shortly after the introduction to warfare in Western Europe of the new model of infantry tactics and organization - the tercio (developed by Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba during the early period of the Italian Wars) - which dominated the battlefields of that area. It took time before cavalry adopted efficient ways of countering the tercio (and also other-than-tercio infantry types needed to adopt such new ways).
For some time tercios were impenetrable from the front, for both any other infantry and cavalry.
Early tercios were like Alexander's Macedonian phalanx of their time.
However, tercios were not unbeatable, as already battles of the late 16th century proved.
There is no surprise that Machiavelli - himself a laic in military matters - considered infantry as superior during the golden age of tercios and the age of crisis for traditional forms of heavy cavalry, still similar to Medieval ones (which shortly before the introduction of tercios had been very important in Italy).
So it is very important to see such opinions in their proper context.
