heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry

[Domen]

We do have (deliberate reference) many examples of cavalry being ineffective/losing against formed and steady infantry in later periods.

And also we do have many examples of cavalry being effective/winning against such infantry.

War is not a card game, where a particular card always beats another defined card.

nobles & rich people (equites) are the ones able to afford horses

Prices of horses did greatly vary / change throughout regions and historical periods.

There were regions and times, where and when even a peasant could afford 2 or 3 horses. And there were also regions and time periods with scarcity of horses, so that only very rich people could have them.

Prices of different horses also varied greatly - dependning on type, age, health, quality, etc.

they are also the ones who tend to write history too.

If this is the case, then how many Parthian / Sassanid nobles tended to write history? Maybe you know these missing works of Parthian / Sassanid historians, who debunk writings of Roman historians?

Horses are too intelligent for that. Spears, Pikes and Bayonets - all good for that, whatever the period.

So you think that horses are much more more intelligent than humans? If true, this may revolutionize science! People were often "stupid" enough to get themselves harmed by spears / pikes / bayonets.

I wrote "stupid", because in fact brave and bold attacks were often what decided the results of battles.

BTW - spear was the most commonly used weapon in entire history of humanity perhaps.

So in case if horses were so afraid of spears, nobody would ever use chariots or heavy cavalry.

Heavy cavalry would be virtually useless if your theories had been valid. But it was not useless. Useless things never get so popular - heavy cavalry existed for several thousand years, until World War 1.

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

Cavalry to: scout; harass; threaten; skirmish; move rapidly; exploit; and run down routers - absolutely fine.

Cataphracts (and most of other types of heavy cavalry) are basically useless for scouting, useless for harassing, useless for threatening*, skirmishing, moving rapidly (cataphracts are slow), useless for exploiting (you do not need heavy armour when enemies are already panicked and running away) and useless for running down routers (because they are slower than light cavalry - which is thus better for running down routers).

So why the heck was heavy cavalry invented and used in battles for ca. 3500 - 4000 years ???

It seems that light cavalry is better for everything. And horse archers should be the best of all.

Light cavalry is also much cheaper - you can have ~1000 light cavalry for the same price as ~100 heavy.

*Useless also for threatening, because if you know that they are not going to charge you anyway, then what the heck is to be afraid of? You claim that horses are too intelligent to do various things, yet you claim that people are stupid enough to commit a suicide by running away at the sight of cavalry (which = death)?

You claim that horses will always refuse to charge against steady infantry, because they are too intelligent to do this. If this had been the case, then why infantry throughout ages sometimes panicked when charged by heavy cavalry? Nobody throughout thousands of years of history noticed, that there was nothing to be afraid of because horses were no real danger? Do you claim that our ancestors were so extremely stupid, while their horses were far too intelligent to do things that people would normally do in battles?

Another thing is, that if this theory had been true, then light cavalry would be equally or even more efficient than heavy when charging infantry. You don't need armour to run down routers. So heavy cavalry should be useless - light but scary-looking cavalry should be enough to cause panic. But wait - why history doesn't know many examples of light cavalry breaking infantry, while this could often be done by heavy cavalry?

especially when they are holding nice pointy spears.

Spear is the most common weapon used throughout entire history of humanity (even after gunpowder was invented, since we can count bayonets placed on rifles as nice pointy spears as well).

I also wonder from how great distance can a horse notice a sharp spearpoint? Can a horse actually recognize an object such as spearpoint from 5 or maybe 10 meters? If a horse can recognize what a spearpoint actually is and even if a horse can understand that a spearpoint can inflict a wound, from 5 meters, then it is still too late for reaction - because a horse at full speed covers a distance of 5 meters in 1/2 of a second.

What if riders are using blinders for their horses? - such a horse can't really see what is in front of it.

Basicly, we are talking cataphracts

It seems that there are no many examples of battles in which cataphracts fought against cataphracts.

Actually - I don't remember even one such battle at this moment.

.