How Effective were Spears Against Cavalry?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Longer than a gladius yes, but why do you assume the have thrown
Down their pila or spears?
Obviously these lines of pikemen were not very deep?
Surely the Parthin Cataphracts had lances at cahrrae?
Yet retreated from contact to let the archers
Wear them down! This would imply that they anticipated heavy casualties
From a frontal assault!

[Domen]

Obviously these lines of pikemen were not very deep?

Obviously they were deep (often they were squares in fact), which is why often they required multiple charges by lancers (rather than just one, single charge) before they could be totally broken.

Anyway - the point is that, during a charge, if you kill your enemy with use of a long lance, then this enemy is no longer standing in the moment when your horse is trampling him, but he is already dead or seriously wounded and overthrown on the ground by impact of your lance's strike.

In other words - a lance hits first, a horse comes later. A lance hits and kills one or several men from enemy line, creating a gap in that line (there are accounts of Cataphracts impaling 2 men in one strike of a lance - similar accounts regarding Winged Hussars say about impaling even 3 or more men on numerous occasions, because they had longer lances - of course this was possible mainly with unarmoured men, or with armoured men in case of "lucky hits" - but usually 1 up to 2 men would be killed).

So the argument / hypothesis used in this thread saying that "probably most horses are rather reluctant to bump into solid objects" is erroneus here, because a horse does not have to hit a solid, standing man, if this man is already killed and overthrown by a weapon of the rider, such as his lance.

Anyway - I still say that horses could bump into solid objects (even though they often didn't have to do this in battles), and I posted videos proving this. There are also accounts saying about cavalry charges "tearing apart" wagon forts - I was thinking that "tearing apart" is surely a kind of metaphor, as I could not imagine a horse destroying a wooden wagon - but I saw this video and changed my mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr3VxnS42vQ

So, technically, even a single running horse has enough kinetic energy to shatter a wagon.

And - BTW - I posted a proposition of an experiment which would allow us to test whether horses would or would not bumb into "a solid wall of men". I am not sure why you guys criticized this idea on the basis that there would be no weapons held by mannequins in my experiment (due to obvious safety considerations for animals and stuntmen)? After all, you claimed that horses would not bump into a wall of any men - not just a wall of armed men, but of any men - so why now you require arms? Is a man without a sword any "less solid" than a man with a sword - from the perspective of a horse?

Surely the Parthin Cataphracts had lances at cahrrae?
Yet retreated from contact to let the archers
Wear them down! This would imply that they anticipated heavy casualties
From a frontal assault!

Your logic is erroneus here. This does not imply that they anticipated heavy casualties from a frontal assault. This only implies that they anticipated some casualties from a frontal assault - and why suffering any casualties if you still have a full quiver of arrows. Simple economy of force.

And it is an untrue statement, that cataphracts did not fight at Carrhae. That they retreated from contact once, doesn't mean that they did this all the time during that battle, which lasted for many days.

And Carrhae was just one of hundreds of battles in the history of Roman-Persian wars.

Shapur I and Shapur II carried out military reforms in the Persian army, which increased the number of cataphracts and also increased the "heaviness" of horse archers, which made them more useful for close combat. If - as you claim - cataphracts would only have a very limited usefulness on the Persian-Roman battlefield (especially before the Romans introduced their own heavy cavalry formations - and during the reign of Shapur I, the Romans still did not have much of heavy cavalry), then why Shapur I decided to increase the percentage of heavy lance-wielding cavalry among his total cavalry force? He also improved armour and arms of horse archers, making them quite useful in close combat as well - why?

It should be noted, that reign of Shapur I was a very successful period of Roman-Persian wars for the Persians. It was not until the Romans countered Shapur's reforms with their own military reforms, when they managed to catch up with the Persians militarily again and take the initiative again.

Longer than a gladius yes, but why do you assume the have thrown
Down their pila or spears?

Of course that legionaries also had pila or spears - as you mentioned. As well as shields.

And thanks to their pila or spears, they were not defenceless against cavalry charges. With just gladius, they would not be able to do anything to repulse a charge of cataphracts.

A spear, a pila and a shield were much more useful against a cavalry charge, than a gladius.

In general spears are much more useful vs cavalry than short weapons - this is why pikemen emerged in Medieval Europe dominated by mounted knights. Pikemen could stop cavalry charges, swordmen or axemen could not - this because "a solid wall of men" is not enough to stop cavalry, you need also sharp and long sticks to do this (or a hail of javelins / pila / arrows - see Agincourt / Crecy).

A gladius could have some use in close combat against cavalry - they could try to inflict wounds to sensitive parts of enemy horse using gladius (such as calfs, knees or underbelly of a horse). But then again - a horse is not just "standing still and waiting until you cut his underbelly" in close combat - a horse is moving, kicking, "jumping", fighting (just like its rider) in close combat. So it is not so easy and it is not so safe to cut its calf and avoid getting kicked in the face by its hoofs.

In fact legionaries of the 4th century AD (after counter-reforms which were a response to Persian military reforms) no longer used traditional gladius and pilum. At that time they used longer, cutting swords - and all of them used spears as their primary weapon. Roman infantry force in the 4th century was mainly a defence-oriented force. The percentage of missile troops also greatly increased - especially among the auxiliaries. Also field artillery (ballistas, etc.) became more numerous. And legionaries themselves transformed into defence-oriented spearmen with long swords as secondary weapon.

[Domen]

A typical Roman "victory" over an Iranian army: the Romans charged and their opponents fled, suffering hardly any casualties.

Nope. Not at all, when it comes to Roman-Sassanid wars.

Aggressive, frontal charge of heavy cavalry (lance-wielding cataphracts) was the main tactics of the Sassanid Persian army, also in battles against Rome.

The typical deployment of the Sassanid army in battle consisted of three lines.

The first line (deployed in the front of the entire army) consisted of elite heavy cavalry, cataphracts (Savaran) in the center of the line, supported by medium and light cavalry (including horse archers - who, however, were not as important in Sassanid army as in Parthian army before) on both flanks. Heavy cavalry was usually deployed in a line of between 3 to 5 ranks deep. The proportion of heavy cavalry to medium and light cavalry in Sassanid period was like 50/50 (compared to 10/90 in Suren Clan's private army at Carrhae in 53 B.C., during the Parthian period).

The second line (deployed behind cavalry) consisted of infantry, equipped with long spears, swords and large shields (soldiers in first ranks also had armour - in further ranks usually not). The second line was further supported by war elephants, deployed between infantry units.

The third line (behind infantry) consisted of foot archers.

The battle tactics of Sassanid armies was extremely offensive and aggressive.

The battle was beginned by Sassanid horse archers and light and medium cavalry, who were harassing enemy lines with arrows, javelins, conducting "hit and run" attacks.

This "missile preparation" was then followed by a massive frontal charge of heavy cavalry (Savaran / cataphracts) against the very center of enemy line. At the beginning of the charge (while already advancing towards the enemy, at first slowly, then gradually increasing the speed) heavy cavalry was reforming its formation from a line (3 to 5 ranks deep) to a wedge formation (or rather a wedge-column formation) The center and the front of the wedge (wedge-column) formation consisted of heavy cavalry, while medium and light cavalry was joining that wedge and consisted both sides of the column (while cataphracts - as already mentioned - were deployed in the front - forming the wedge itself - and in center of the column, that followed the wedge).

Depending on a particular battle, this massive cavalry charge could be carried out either by center and both wings of cavalry, or by center itself (often left wing was being kept in reserve).

The goal of this charge was to destroy the center of enemy army and / or to outflank the enemy.

If the first strike of heavy cavalry did not decisively smash the enemy center, cataphracts could detach from the enemy, withdraw, regroup / reform and then charge again (everything done under covering fire of horse archers, who were harrasing the enemy while the cataphracts were withdrawing and regrouping for another charge, as well as preventing the enemy from chasing the cataphracts while they were doing these maneuveres).

In case if several, repeated charges did not produce a desired effect, commander of the Sassanid army was sending the second line (infantry and war elephants) to charge the enemy army and to support the cavalry. Infantry and war elephants were attacking in a line formation (aka bench formation), elephants were in intervals between infantry units.

Sassanid infantry was a defence-oriented formation of spearmen equipped with long spears, swords and shields (and some of them also wore armour as I already mentioned - these were considered as "heavy infantry", while the remaining ones were "light infantry" - the only difference between them was armour, both had similar weapons). They were not designed for attacking alone - but they were trained to support cavalry in its charges. Another role of infantry was also to protect elephants from enemy attacks. Elephants were the main striking power of the 2nd attack wave of the Sassanid army (the main striking power of the 1st wave were cataphracts - in the 1st wave the support role and protective role was played by light cavalry, skirmishers and horse archers, while in the 2nd wave the support and protective role was played by infantry).

There were some - but not numerous - elite units of infantry.

Infantry was also supposed to exploit occassions created by charges of cavalry and elephants - in other words - infantry was going to charge into / penetrate into gaps in enemy lines "chopped" / "smashed" by heavy cavalry and elephants. Combined efforts of heavy cavalry, infantry and elephants were supposed to shatter enemy lines into isolated "nests of resistance".

In some battles, Sassanids used a slightly different tactics - in this modified variant, they were attacking with cavalry and infantry at the same time (instead of bringing infantry in only after cavalry proved unable to win the battle all by itself, as in the most common variant).

Third line (echelon) of the Sassanid army, as mentioned, consisted of foot archers. They were conducting fire before the hand to hand combat and also in case of covering withdrawal of their own fellow forces (be it cavalry, infantry or elephants) as well as sometimes they were also shooting to retreating enemy forces (when there was no cavalry available at hand to chase them).

During hand to hand combat of Sassanid cavalry and infantry, Sassanid foot archers were halting their fire, because there was a policy of avoiding "friendly fire" casualties.

The Sassanid king or other commander in chief, during the battle stayed in the rear area of his army and observed the battle from his command post - preferably located on top of some hill. He was entering the battle only in case of emergency situations, leading his most elite units - personal guards (Pushtigban) consisting mostly of heavy cavalry and elite foot archers (Kamandaran), as well as the elite division of Immortals (Zhayedan) who consisted mostly of heavy cavalry.

Commander of Pushtigban was at the same commander of a special division of the Sassanid army consisting of picked men from the entire army - war heroes and most distinguished veterans - called Gyanavspar, also known as Peshmerga (they were also kept in reserve and could be used to save the day and to turn the tide of battle only if absolutely necessary). They probably consisted of elite units of all kinds (heavy and light cavalry, heavy infantry, etc.).

Sassanid foot archers had heavy bows and large shields, but probably no armour (only helmets).

Apart from regular infantry (heavy and light infantry equipped with long spears, swords and shields), Sassanids also had levy infantry called Paighan. These were low-quality units drafted from peasants, equipped with shields and spears (no swords or armour). They were used for various tasks - protecting baggage train, as crews of catapults and other artillery, for transporting things, for building fortifications, camps and siege equipment. They were also used for sapping and as "cannon meat" while assaulting fortifications, which is why they often constituted even 2/3 of entire army when such an army was ordered to capture a fortified city or a fortress.

It should be noted that the Sassanid army put its reliance heavily on effectiveness of their shock cavalry charge. Heavy cavalry was the most important part of the Sassanid army - if cavalry failed, infantry was usually not able to win the battle alone, because Sassanid infantry was considerably inferior to Roman infantry. The Romans - on the other hand - usually relied more on infantry.

SOURCES (for the description of Sassanid battle tactics presented above):

Books:

T. Szeląg, "Amida 359"
K. Farrokh, "Sassanian Elite Cavalry"
M. Wozniak, "Armie starożytnej Persji" ("Armies of Ancient Persia")
P. Wilcox, "Rome's Enemies (3). Parthians and Sassanid Persians"

[Domen]

And here interesting articles about Ancient horses:

"Genome-Wide Analysis Reveals Selection for Important Traits in Domestic Horse Breeds":

http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info...en.1003211

"Horses and Humans in Antiquity":

users.hartwick.edu/anthonyd/harnessing%20horsepower.html

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

And let me quote two posts by user Ichon on another forum:

http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.ph...ges/page11

For people not spent much time around horses and have a "My Little Pony" view of horses. Horses are herd animals but can be very aggressive, especially when humans channel and exploit certain herd behaviors and minimize others. Documented cases of even mares chasing down and killing predators as well as much more common attacks by stallions in 'fight' mode. Many behaviors horses display naturally can be trained or at least encouraged by training. Following is a bit graphic starts about 2/3 way through video but just so people realize horses aren't necessarily going to run away from violence-

[COLOR="#green"]Video material not fitting to these forums removed[/COLOR]

Grow up around many horses and you see different types of behaviors that even owning a couple horses you are unlikely to see. Horses act much differently depending on the individual disposition and circumstances which can be changed by extensive training.

Also just as an example of what type of punishment horse can endure and survive as far as falling or hitting something or having men unable to oppose its weight-

[COLOR="#green"]Video material not fitting to these forums removed[/COLOR]

Warhorses were specially selected and trained to exhibit such behaviors way more than just the small amount given on these videos. It was not uncommon for horses to die in training even after being pre-selected for the most desirable behaviors and conformations.

The most valid point I've seen so far on this thread has nothing has little to do with whether or not horses charged bodies of men in formation- the overwhelming weight of evidence is that they did. Read enough of these threads and eventually the evidence of charge is overwhelming though when charging disciplined men even on clear ground some charges failed. The very cost and difficulty of attaining good warhorses was one of the most limiting factors on using cavalry charge wastefully which most often a frontal charge could be against unwavering enemy yet in war many wasteful things happen. Most of the time though the number of cavalry capable of doing a strong frontal charge was far outnumbered by opposing enemy formations and also enemy cavalry which even in fewer numbers could provide a 'check' tactically on the use of such charges. The fact is many horses unless in stampede mode which is not always obviously going to occur would resist charging in a shock manner. Well trained light cavalry such as Numidians in antiquity could do so and probably others but average light cavalry maybe not though perfectly suited for harassment or even opposing stronger enemy cavalry

For the sake of a game many such differences are ignored and cavalry will either charge or they won't. As we've seen in trailed cavalry will frontally charge but the flying bodies and complete elimination of entire formation as we've seen in past TW from a successful charge is gone. If the charged infantry unit maintains its morale and does not rout it will begin inflicting casualties on the much more expensive and often still less numerous cavalry unit which charged and often drive it off. If the infantry morale breaks then the majority of losses will occur in the rout which is as historically reported. In the few seconds after a cavalry charge makes contact if 20% of a formation (first 2-3 lines) is wounded/stunned and the cavalry still appear formed and capable many units will dissolve and in a further minute or so of chase lose another 40% as they flee with backs exposed and barely trying to defend themselves. Realistically probably a few men would clump together and work as a team but many would run. The better the training and discipline of the men the more who would stay and work as a team. However for the fact of the matter if the cavalry is working in conjunction with infantry following into the now disrupted enemy formation such as Alexander's battles and others often went- the charged infantry would still be at a disadvantage even if the attacking cavalry were driven off or fell back.

More important is that costs of cavalry are shown more effectively (where an elite might already possess horses and training but increasing the size of this cavalry class would quickly get hugely expensive so having a small amount of cavalry might not impose huge costs- difficulty of previous TW games where units cost same regardless- but trying to recruit entire armies of cavalry without the resources of steppe land/plains should be very expensive).

There were different breeds of horse in antiquity. Not as many as in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Era but writers of the time name and record characteristics of several breeds and there are written manuals on husbandry none of which survive in entirety on horses but are mentioned by other books which do survive. So it is not a debate on whether ancients were trying to breed better cavalry horses or not- but merely how successful they were and how many generations such success took. Today many of the best working breeds are the 'purer' strains with majority of breeds for show or pleasure riding (aesthetics over performance). There are more and more genetic studies on horses being done because of the generations of selective breeding but still relatively clear types compared to dogs or older domesticated animals. Horses and chickens are among the most recently domesticated animals and are useful to study for many reasons due to clearer genetic markers. There is even dispute whether camels or horses were domesticated first though donkeys appear to have come before camels.

The video I linked were merely to show some people who have claimed in this thread that horses are easily frightened creatures that flee when faced with violence. The first video is just for reference to written texts which report warhorses stomping, kicking, and biting when in battle. Such horses would be very rare even today when bred for such traits (which no one has done for at least a century) but were very valuable in the past. If we are talking about Parthians which bordered steppes where horses were first domesticated they could have had access to breeds with the longest period of selective breeding at that time (about 1,500 years if we use very rough dates) and in fact ancient writers make now of how fine the horses were from these regions. Also it has been noted in mustangs that wild mustangs are usually smaller than mustangs captured young and fed a grain diet so size is a function of both genes and diet. Mustangs were remnants of previously domesticated strains of horses but wild horse bones older than 2,000 years show variation between in size in adult bones between 10-17 hands. Majority are around 14 hands and that is the most common estimate you hear for horses in Punic war era but that does not mean evidence for outliers is absent.

Anyway claiming that all horses won't charge or that all horses will charge is missing the point- in a world where horses are valuable commodities and especially trained war horses can fetch huge sums the outliers in both disposition and size would belong to the richest members of society- the very members who most often formed the cavalry ranks. In an Empire of millions (anywhere form 8-20 million estimates for Parthia at its height) the average field army of Parthia was certainly less than 50,000 and probably about half of which the best horses were selected. There were certainly less horses than people in Parthia and any estimates would be hugely guesswork but for comparison around 1900 in England the War Department estimated about 1.2 million horses but only 150,000 of those were considered cavalry capable with the rest being working horses, pack horses, pleasure horses, etc. The War Department also noted that the horse population in England had been decreasing by about 3% per year for over a decade (as industrial revolution lessened the need for workhorses) and that any sustain overseas campaign would likely require over 300,000 horses (only about 15% for cavalry- the rest for logistics) so it became a priority to ensure supplies of horses from sources outside England.

So of 25,000 cavalry in a Parthian field army the cataphracts on the best horses usually numbered less than 5,000. If the standard for cavalry was higher for cataphracts than 20th century British cavalry and we eliminated by half the proportion of suitable cavalry it would only require a total horse population of a bit less than 100,000 which at least to me does not seem unreasonable but is really difficult to prove or disprove.

[Domen]

Regarding the total number of horses in the Parthian Empire:

Anyway claiming that all horses won't charge or that all horses will charge is missing the point- in a world where horses are valuable commodities and especially trained war horses can fetch huge sums the outliers in both disposition and size would belong to the richest members of society- the very members who most often formed the cavalry ranks. In an Empire of millions (anywhere form 8-20 million estimates for Parthia at its height) the average field army of Parthia was certainly less than 50,000 and probably about half of which the best horses were selected. There were certainly less horses than people in Parthia and any estimates would be hugely guesswork but for comparison around 1900 in England the War Department estimated about 1.2 million horses but only 150,000 of those were considered cavalry capable with the rest being working horses, pack horses, pleasure horses, etc. The War Department also noted that the horse population in England had been decreasing by about 3% per year for over a decade (as industrial revolution lessened the need for workhorses) and that any sustain overseas campaign would likely require over 300,000 horses (only about 15% for cavalry- the rest for logistics) so it became a priority to ensure supplies of horses from sources outside England.

So of 25,000 cavalry in a Parthian field army the cataphracts on the best horses usually numbered less than 5,000. If the standard for cavalry was higher for cataphracts than 20th century British cavalry and we eliminated by half the proportion of suitable cavalry it would only require a total horse population of a bit less than 100,000 which at least to me does not seem unreasonable but is really difficult to prove or disprove.

In Poland before WW2, in 1937 (Poland at that time had 34 million inhabitants) there were 4 million horses. So on average there was 1 horse for each 8,5 human beings. Even if Ancient Parthia had only 8 million inhabitants, 1 horse for each 8,5 people is still 941,200 horses, rather than 100,000.

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

These were just to show the power of horses and that they can act aggressively for some people who were arguing horses would flee away from battle. 3 and sometimes 4 men are unable to hold back a horse controlling the head which is much easier to exert weight against than the whole form of the horse. The harshest lesson for me on strength of horses was a 1 year old horse (not full grown) which I was leading with the rope wrapped around my hand- the horse reared ****ing me into the air above its head and then took off running with me dragged until the rope I had wrapped around my army unraveled. I dislocated my shoulder and some bruises while the horse barely noticed I was there. It seems alot of people arguing that formed group of men could ward off horses don't have any feel for how strong horses are and only good behavior bred into horse and training allow humans to use horses so easily. If horses are bred for aggressive traits it would be quite difficult to stop a charge if you are in the first few ranks and don't have a long spear to impale the horse. Of course most infantry formations were 6-12 ranks deep and in that case frontal charge might well not be effective if the infantry kept their cool and fought back hard as well even small changes in terrain can cause a charge to slow or break apart which battles like Hastings represent where a shield wall on top of a low ridge withstood numerous charges and was only defeated when the cavalry did feint retreat.

"My little ponies": :whistle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w0Q-JS9RME

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcqKzRzySf4

[Domen]

More:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVj3LFHBKAk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4CPK0Cxqjg

[Domen]

And:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9N9Pq0zhmtc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_rZmDKnams

[usmc93]

Sorry for the long post but these are thoughts from a paper I recently wrote on the implications of and degree of impact Swiss Pike and Halberd had on on the decline of the classic heavy cavalry charges of medieval period. Not technically a spear, but developed from...

Following Alexander, cavalry remained an integral part of European warfare but during the Middle Ages
cavalry’s role and tactics underwent a profound change. For approximately three centuries during the
Middle Ages, the armored knight, or cavalryman of the feudal period, commanded the battlefields.
Heavy shock cavalry made its first significant appearance in Western Europe during the reign of
Charlemagne (r. 768-814). After Charlemagne’s rule however, the stirrup was popularized in Europe
and now the heavily armed lancer could not only use his armor and heavy war horse for protection and
mobility, but more so as an integrated weapon.
After the Franks successfully implemented the heavy cavalry charge to dominate their foes, their simplified tactics quickly gained popularity throughout Western Europe. Their tactics were, for the most part, straightforward and predictable and consisted of a terrifying and charge of heavy armored horse and warrior intended to dominate opponents both mentally and physically. When used effectively their long lances and heavy horses rendered an
infantryman’s weapons and shields effectively worthless. From the eleventh to the fourteenth century,
heavy armored knights dominated battles through these types of awe-inspiring mounted shock charges.
Heavy cavalry so dominated the battlefields of Western Europe during this period that they secured
their position at the top of both the military and social hierarchy.

One of the first signs of change to the heavy cavalry charge occurred during the Wars of Scottish
Independence at the Battle of Stirling Bridge (1297) where the Scots used the pike to great success
against elite English mounted knights. The Scots used their pikes and the physical momentum of their
charge to tear apart a mostly mounted English army while they were halfway across a narrow bridge. 6
While not a classic use of what would become well-articulated heavy infantry pikemen, it was a sign of
change ahead in regards to the supremacy of cavalry.

In 1302 at the Battle of the Golden Spurs, the French king Phillip IV sent a classic feudal army consisting
of mounted knights and light infantry to subdue and defeat Flemish town militia who were resistant to
French policies and recent conquest. About 8000 French rode in to quickly control or destroy the 9000
Flemish, comprised totally of foot soldiers mostly armed with pikes. The tight formations held by the
Flemish were unable to be broken by repeated French heavy cavalry charges. The French were defeated
and the large numbers of golden spurs that were collected from the fallen French cavalry gave the
battle its name. After such significant losses suffered by Britain and France, the most dominant feudal countries of Europe, the pike’s power was gaining recognition by contemporaries.

Beginning in the fourteenth century, in the hands of the skilled Swiss, the pike would reach its
renaissance as a battlefield-killing tool and alter the course of cavalry (and infantry) tactics throughout
Western Europe. The Swiss quickly became total masters at handling the pike in any situation and in
total unison. The Swiss understood that with strict discipline and precise maneuverability, mounted
charges would prove futile on any terrain. The Swiss’ lethality first drew attention in 1315, at the Battle of Morgarten, when Swiss infantrymen armed with halberd’s slaughtered highly reputed Austrian mounted knights in repeated
charges. Again at the Battles of Laupen (1339) and Sempach (1386) Swiss pikemen defeated what
would have been considered a far superior heavy cavalry less than a century earlier. And at the peak of
Swiss pike warfare, in 1477 Charles the Bold of Burgundy overconfidently challenged the Swiss infantry
with an army of heavy mounted knights at the Battle of Nancy. History would see the Swiss pikemen
continuously throw back the cream of British, French, and Italian cavalry time after time.
The result of the Swiss success would have a lasting effect on the battlefields of Europe. The
Swiss pikemen’s dominance played a major part in bringing about the demise of the mounted knight.
While the Swiss and their pikes where taking a heavy toll on cavalry charges, the continued
improvement of the English longbow was also having a devastating effect on the simple cavalry charge.
The eventual widespread use of gunpowder in 15th Century Europe also heavily contributed to the
downfall of the mounted knight and cavalry charges.

[Domen]

The
Swiss pikemen’s dominance played a major part in bringing about the demise of the mounted knight.
While the Swiss and their pikes where taking a heavy toll on cavalry charges, the continued
improvement of the English longbow was also having a devastating effect on the simple cavalry charge.
The eventual widespread use of gunpowder in 15th Century Europe also heavily contributed to the
downfall of the mounted knight and cavalry charges.

All these things had an effect on knights, but they did not lead to any "final downfall" of cavalry charges. They led to temporary crisis of cavalry charges in Western Europe (where cavalry for some time rejected charges and started to use tactics such as caracole, using firearms), but in Eastern Europe cavalry charge survived, cavalry tactics in Eastern Europe was improved and finally appeared in its modernized version - the Polish-Lithuanian Winged Hussar, who dominated the battlefields in this part of Europe for about 100 years and who repeatedly was able to defeat pike-shot infantry squares in open terrain, thanks to improved weapons (longer lances), training and tactics. Later Swedish army adopted mounted charge from their Polish-Lithuanian enemies and applied them to great effect in the Thirty Years War. Starting from mid-17th century, Western Europe experienced the Renaissance of a cavalry charge on the battlefield (mainly under Swedish influence, while Swedish tactics was influenced by Polish-Lithuanian tactics before). This Renaissance lasted as long as until the end of the Napoleonic Wars, or even longer (successful heavy cavalry charges against infantry and artillery took place even during the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 - 1871 - for example the famous "Deadly Charge of Von Bredow" carried out by Prussian cuirassiers against numerically superior French infantry, light cavalry and artillery).

So the period of crisis of cavalry in Western Europe was only ca. 1450 / 1500 - ca. 1600 / 1650.

the continued
improvement of the English longbow was also having a devastating effect on the simple cavalry charge.

Longbows never managed to stop a cavalry charge by themselves. I already explained this on previous pages of this thread, or in another thread on this forum (I don't remember exactly, moderators are making a mess by closing threads and opening new ones instead of merging all similar threads into one).

The eventual widespread use of gunpowder in 15th Century Europe also heavily contributed to the
downfall of the mounted knight and cavalry charges.

Firearms of the 15th century were very slow, very inaccurate, very fallible. So they were not able to stop a cavalry charge on their own. However, firearms had great armour penetration capabilities - much better than longbows and crossbows - which means that they created a psychological effect, consisting of the fact that no armour at that time could save your life from a random shot of a firearm.

However, this problem was also solved thanks to improvements in armour-making methods. When you look at plate armour (especially breastplates) produced in the 1600s and late 1500s (as well as later - during the 1700s and during the 1800s - since heavy cavalry used breastplates also during the Napoleonic Wars and later), then you notice that this plate armour is much thicker than Medieval armour from the 1400s. It is also produced from better quality steel or iron, than Medieval armour from the 1400s.

Many breastplates were capable of withstanding fire of gunpowder weapons.

During the Napoleonic Era, withstanding a musket shot was a standard procedure during tests of quality of each body armour series produced for the army by some manufacturer or craftsman. The 17th century saw the Renaissance of armour on European battlefields. Some 17th century cuirassiers were fully clad in armour from head to legs, like knights of the 15th century, or perhaps even more. Other cavalry formations - Polish-Lithuanian Hussars included - used only partial body armour, in this case breastplate, helmet, protection of arms and sometimes legs. But breastplate was always the thickest part of armour - it had to protect at least from pistols. Often it was thick enough to protect even from musket shots.

In England, heavily armoured cavalry saw its Renaissance during the Civil War (1642 - 1651).

Body armour again fell into disuse in the second half of the 19th century, with the increase of armour penetration power of modernized firearms with threaded barrels and better gunpowder.

Nowadays, body armour is again experiencing another Renaissance, in the form of bulletproof vests.

First attempts of using modern body armour for protection were already during WW2. German Stormtroopers were attempting the use of steel plates for protection of torso already during WW1, but those could protect them only from artillery / grenade fragments, not from bullets.

[usmc93]

All these things had an effect on knights, but they did not lead to any "final downfall" of cavalry charges.

Yes, hopefully I did not imply Longbows nor Pikeman nor Firearms stopped cavalry charges altogether. All contributed to its decline and degraded its effective use. No single event cannot be defined as causing the "final downfall."

Longbows never managed to stop a cavalry charge by themselves.

I stated the continued improvement of the English longbow was also having a devastating effect on the simple cavalry charge....hopefully you didnt read "they stopped cavalry charges by themselves" out of that statement alone.

I am new here and must say this thread and the few other threads I have read through are almost unreadable, It seems the moderation or mixing of threads make them extremely difficult to follow.

[Domen]

And it should be noted a charge of cavalry against pikemen (or any other infantry) did not have to end with annihilation of neither cavalry, nor infantry. Repeated and inconclusive charges with a clash of both formations and close combat were possible without many casualties for one or both sides.

Account of Samuel Maskiewicz - one of Polish hussars who fought in the company (banner) of prince Porycki in the battle of Klushino (which was eventually won by Polish hussars) says this:

"(...) about that I shall remember, for it is beyond belief, that the companies managed eight or ten times to fall upon the enemy. (…) After the repeated charges and hand-to-hand fighting with the enemy, our equipment was broken and our strength was dissipated (…) The horses were also ready to drop, because they have not received sustenance since dawn and for five hours of battle, they had served with a will but were reaching the limits which nature imposes (...)."

And Porycki's company (banner) lost only 5 soldiers killed in the entire battle:



Check also discussion on this forum:

http://historum.com/medieval-byzantine-h...tcount=358

[M. Demetrius]

Welcome to the forum, Brent. You are correct in your assessment that the thread is hard to read, and one of the longest conversations we have still active.

(That's a personal opinion, not an official moderator statement or policy)

[Michael Kerr]

Brent wrote:

. No single event cannot be defined as causing the "final downfall."

I think technology finally caught up with the use of horses for cavalry with the introduction of the machine gun and barbed wire which sounded the death knell of cavalry in ww1 in Europe at least, but cavalry still had a major role to play in Sinai campaign with the last successful cavalry charge in a world war at Beersheba not by heavy cavalry but mounted infantry using bayonets. I said world war because I think Polish cavalry chased Red army back to Russia in 1923.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Domen]

Brent wrote:

. No single event cannot be defined as causing the "final downfall."

I think technology finally caught up with the use of horses for cavalry with the introduction of the machine gun and barbed wire which sounded the death knell of cavalry in ww1 in Europe at least, but cavalry still had a major role to play in Sinai campaign with the last successful cavalry charge in a world war at Beersheba not by heavy cavalry but mounted infantry using bayonets. I said world war because I think Polish cavalry chased Red army back to Russia in 1923.
Regards
Michael Kerr

I fully agree. Machine gun, barbed wire and trench was what killed traditional cavalry.

The only thing I might add, is that on the European Eastern Front of WW1 (Russian Empire vs Germany and Austro-Hungary) cavalry was also quite important, like in the Sinai campaign. That's because the Eastern European Front was still much more mobile than the Western Front, where trench warfare dominated over maneuver and mobility. On the Western Front cavalry was used only in 1914 during the initial German offensive into Belgium and France, before static trench warfare started.

In WW2 cavalry was already replaced by mobile motorized and armoured units. But some armies (including the Soviet army in 1939 - 1945 or the Polish army in 1939 and even the German Waffen SS on the Eastern Front in the last years of war) still used many mounted units - but those were used as mounted infantry and were using horses for movement, but fighting dismounted. Mounted cavalry charges in the old style (with saber and pistol in hands) took place in WW2, but were something very rare.

The Polish army in the 1930s used cavalry as Poland was a country with low level of motorization and also creating a large armoured-motorized army was something very expensive - at that time only economic powers such as the USSR, the US, GB, France or Germany could afford this. Just to say that in 1938 there were 4,000,000 horses in Poland, while only 70,000 motor vehicles! Number of people with driving licence was small, which means that a motorized army would experience shortages of drivers.

Poland planned to transform all of its cavalry brigades into mechanized brigades until 1941. The outbreak of war stopped that transformation (and until 1.9.1939 only 2 brigades were already transformed). In mechanized brigades, horses were replaced by motorcycles and horse wagons by trucks and cars.

During WW2, only US army and British army were fully motorized. German army was mostly horse-drawn throughout entire war (and since 1942 it was gradually becoming less motorized than before - they were suffering heavy losses in motor vehicles and experiencing problems with fuel supplies). The German army in WW2 consisted of elite armoured-motorized divisions (ca. 30%) and infantry divisions only partly motorized and still using large amounts of horse-drawn wagons for transportation (ca. 70%).

Most of reconnaissance units in WW2 were still scouts on horseback, rather than motorized units.

Actually, the last cavalry charge in the old style took place recently in Afghanistan by forces of the Northern Alliance (Afghan troops supporting NATO against the Talibans).

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

Another thing is that in the 1900s infantry no longer fought in close-ordered formations. So when speaking about cavalry charges against close-ordered infantry, we can speak only about the 1800s and before. And already after 1850 infantry started to loosen their formations in many battles.

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

Also check this discussion here:

http://forums.totalwar.com/showthread.ph...post481109

[Domen]

Interesting info on Ancient chariots and Ancient cavalry from Chinese sources:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/7-off-topic...tml#340453