horses crashing into soldiers like tanks

[manuelcipo]

Yeah, the on that front, we agree. French knights tended to do it more boldly, but... Well, French knights also failed spectacularly in many cases. Much of the time, if a charge didn't appear to be backing the enemy out of tight ranks, a prudent commander would swerve his charge away before making contact. The rear or flank charge was definitely the preferable option.

Exactly, frontal charge against an organized infantry unit isn't really that common and usually if the infantry kept the line they were able to repel it, i don't know were a lot of this people take their information, take a look at some video from bazbattle, history marche or historia civilis and you'll know that most if not every battle historically didn't end in blood bath, after taking at most 15-20% casualty an army would just run most of the time, when you are a soldier in a medieval army you are working, for money, you almost always do not fight for your home or your family or whatever, you are only trying to make some money, even the lord are trying to get land or a better position even Ceasar was fighting for he's own personal goal, they too would not fight to death most of the time, so when some soldier start to think the battle is lost, or the lord or king who should pay them die, they would just try to run, and thats when most of the casualty happen too when the unit break apart and give the back to the enemy to run, now you all think of medieval fight as this massacre, but there is istance of hour long fight when two armies ten of thousand men strong would fight and the casualty would be less than 100 men, there are instance of enemy army just camping in front of each other for months without attacking cause they were cautious about it, losing an army isn't a small thing they would try to have any possible advantage and even when engaging people wouldn't just go at it without regard for their own life, they were cautious even during an engage, istances of battle over many days where most of the casualty would happen only when one army started running was the norm and even so usually not even 30% of an army would be killed.
Knowing this you really think that someone ever did a cavalry charge like the one we see in movie? they are suicidal to say the least and costly too raising an horse is not simple they don't spawn again even if they die like in warband and if you fall from a horse in full charge after an impact you are probably going to die from the fall itself or maybe from your horse falling over you or the other horses trampling you.
No, cavalry charge as someone stated are made to break morale of enemy troop not many unit will stand in the way of hundred horses charging at you, the first line would **** their pants and run and so the other, but if and when trained and experienced unit were to face a charge bracing pike or spears they would suffer much less loss than the cavalry unit and cavalry most of the time knew that too.
Ancient battle were battle of will and discipline, cavalry were used to outmanuver enemy flanking them throwing them into cahos, attacking ranged unit that almost always were much smaller in size than the infantry and not in tight formation, only for a short time they were used with frontal charge with the same goal as always, break morale, make the enemy run was the goal.
Most ancient civilization made small use of horse for war like greek, romans and the one who did mainly used them for harrassing using mounted archer such as persian and mongols, in medieval time horses were heavily used but still if we take the example of the viking in england and france, they were able to face and win against army with many mounted unit without the use of it, if thing were like some suggested that would not have been possible.

 

[John_M]

Im not sure how videos like these can be used as evidence that horses would run into dense infantry formations or that they could simply plough though those formations without getting hurt. A person running at top speed could do the same as those videos. Its even more comical that these videos are being used when one of said horses were injured to the point of being put down. I imagine that a group of disciplined soldiers braced with shields and polearms offer a much larger threat to the horses health than an unprepared pedestrian.

Horses are useful when people get out of the way and break formation opening up opportunities to attack. But if the horses run into an unmoving infantry formation a lot of people are going to die, including the riders and their horses.


Regarding gameplay, it makes no sense to have cavalry excel at running straight at the enemy. They should be used for charging flanks, exposed units, or infantry that are unprepared.

Cavalry charges against the front of well armed and high tier infantry formations should be ineffective. Cavalry should not just run straight through and should be punished for making such a tactical blunder. Having all of the cavalry and infantry die in the process would be unfun for both sides. Or taking control away from the player and having the horse avoid suicide would also be unfun.

This could be improved by adjusting weight factors of units. Firstly more units should have an additive affect so deeper formations have the ability to slow horses faster. If horses collide with infantry when their shield is up then that would increase the weight of the unit. Having armour make a big affect would simulate elite troops being better able to repel cavalry charges. If a horse makes impact on the back of a person, they should offer much less resistance and have the horse act more like what we see in Bannerlord now.

Ideally with this system we would see horses excel at flanking and charging lone troops or men moving not in formation. Heavy cavalry charges headlong into heavy infantry formations should go 1:1 as the cavalry charge would be stopped and they would have to do normal melee, much like Warband. Heavy cavalry would be able to still charge straight into light infantry with relative success, if they dont have many effective polearms.

The current gameplay looks like the horses are covered in lube and told to run through jello.

 

[manuelcipo]

Regarding gameplay, it makes no sense to have cavalry excel at running straight at the enemy. They should be used for charging flanks, exposed units, or infantry that are unprepared.

Cavalry charges against the front of well armed and high tier infantry formations should be ineffective. Cavalry should not just run straight through and should be punished for making such a tactical blunder. Having all of the cavalry and infantry die in the process would be unfun for both sides. Or taking control away from the player and having the horse avoid suicide would also be unfun.

This could be improved by adjusting weight factors of units. Firstly more units should have an additive affect so deeper formations have the ability to slow horses faster. If horses collide with infantry when their shield is up then that would increase the weight of the unit. Having armour make a big affect would simulate elite troops being better able to repel cavalry charges. If a horse makes impact on the back of a person, they should offer much less resistance and have the horse act more like what we see in Bannerlord now.

Holy Word and what i proposed.

 

[FBohler]

ad hominem attacks

If I remember right I was attacking the logic not the speaker.
You may wish to re-read my post.

 

[hruza]

...most if not every battle historically didn't end in blood bath, after taking at most 15-20% casualty an army would just run most of the time...

Here's some interesting statistic made from several ancient battles. On average casualties were 5% for the winning side and 14% for the loosing side. What that actually means is that about 9% of the losses of the loosing side were done during pursuit, when battle was basically over.

Very few people died during actual fighting.

If I remember right I was attacking the logic not the speaker.
You may wish to re-read my post.

Your posts don't have any reread value, so thanks but no.

 

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

Im not sure how videos like these can be used as evidence that horses would run into dense infantry formations or that they could simply plough though those formations without getting hurt. A person running at top speed could do the same as those videos. Its even more comical that these videos are being used when one of said horses were injured to the point of being put down.

Actually I think in the video I posted, the horse was put down because the authorities believed it might have been rabid or the like. With regards to the rest of this... I wasn't saying they wouldn't get hurt, but rather that they won't get hurt to the point of debilitation as a general rule, particularly when barding became heavier. You could go for the legs, sure, but doing damage to a galloping horse's legs with a spear is far more difficult than it sounds.

Regarding gameplay, it makes no sense to have cavalry excel at running straight at the enemy. They should be used for charging flanks, exposed units, or infantry that are unprepared.

Cavalry charges against the front of well armed and high tier infantry formations should be ineffective. Cavalry should not just run straight through and should be punished for making such a tactical blunder. Having all of the cavalry and infantry die in the process would be unfun for both sides. Or taking control away from the player and having the horse avoid suicide would also be unfun.

I actually agree. The frontal charge shouldn't be a reliable way of decimating enemies. It should be a viable option, but it should be prone to failure as well. The main point I've been making is more on its viability rather than its dominance as a gameplay mechanic. Without a doubt, flanking charges should be the bread and butter of the cavalry.

I disagree with your wording slightly, though. I wouldn't say they should automatically be ineffective. I just feel that if you're talking about heavy infantry in tight ranks, they shouldn't necessarily be able to bowl over the whole formation without a care, and those men should stand a very good chance of resisting the charge.

This could be improved by adjusting weight factors of units. Firstly more units should have an additive affect so deeper formations have the ability to slow horses faster. If horses collide with infantry when their shield is up then that would increase the weight of the unit. Having armour make a big affect would simulate elite troops being better able to repel cavalry charges. If a horse makes impact on the back of a person, they should offer much less resistance and have the horse act more like what we see in Bannerlord now.

Agreed, all this sounds very good to me.

Your posts don't have any reread value, so thanks but no.

Goodness, who's slinging the personal attacks now? In any case, you're right about the numbers, based on research I've done in the past. At least half of the casualties in the pre-modern period occurred during rout, as a general rule. That's exactly why front-on cavalry charges were employed, though. The sights, sounds, and rumbling earth of a knightly charge was meant to unnerve and rout enemies before battle was even joined... and if they didn't flee, the goal was to shatter their formation on impact so their reserves thought twice about sticking around (and, of course, so their formation would be less effective for extended battle).

 

[WilyFerret]

You can't use the real-world fact that a horse is heavy to justify the insane cavalry mechanics in the game currently, because:

1. The weight of an object moving laterally doesn't (much) affect how hard you get hit. Gravity is a vertical force which doesn't really affect momentum. A 40 ton tank which hits you at 20mph is going to impart just as much force as a person who hits you at that speed. If you're standing in a faultline and a moving tectonic plate taps you at 2mph, you won't suddenly get knocked back because of the mass of the object (which is trillions of times more than a horse). Due to the latent elasticity in all objects there is also a limit to how much energy can be transferred in a hit.

2. Horses don't charge headlong into anything stationary. They're not suicidal and no amount of training will override their survival instincts. The "charge" we often read about in sources is usually also a rout by the infantry before they get hit.

but more relevantly,

3. Mount and blade is a game with a disproportionate amount of heavy cavalry, very small battlefields, and no cohesive formations. Even the biggest battles in warband are more like foraging skirmishes, and it's difficult to balance cavalry to be realistic but also not completely wipe the floor in those situations. The solution is to make it much easier for individuals to kill horses which are charging them head on, hence the spear-rearing mechanic. Without these concessions it would just turn the game into a bull in a china shop, which may be more "realistic" in a very short-sighted sense, but doesn't benefit the game.



The lack of morale isn't the issue, it's the ability of horses to crash through multiple lines of stationary infantry without taking much if any damage, while imparting more damage than some arrows. It's absurd.

I would like you to provide more evidence to back your scientific claim in section 1.

You state that weight has nothing to do with how hard an object is to be struck? Please tell me how, if a 55kg woman (athletic sprinter so we deem her to be muscular and have good sprinting potential) was to run head on to you at 25kmph but not try to shove or exert any more muscular power than just the action of running alone would compare to a 95kg male sprinter (also not providing any further resistance than the act of running alone)? Your facts are invalid and all kinetic energy resulting in collision is measured with weight & the mass area.

Another example. If a 40ton tank was driving at 10mph, could you, due to just its vertical movement + speed alone stop it compared to another vehicle weighing 20kg also travelling at 10mph with a far smaller area? Of course you couldn't move the tank, you couldn't slow it and your only hope is to move out of the way. While the lighter, small area mass of the second vehicle is preventable / stoppable.

Please, do educate me o' wise professor ??

 

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

I would like you to provide more evidence to back your scientific claim in section 1.

You state that weight has nothing to do with how hard an object is to be struck? Please tell me how, if a 55kg woman (athletic sprinter so we deem her to be muscular and have good sprinting potential) was to run head on to you at 25kmph but not try to shove or exert any more muscular power than just the action of running alone would compare to a 95kg male sprinter (also not providing any further resistance than the act of running alone)? Your facts are invalid and all kinetic energy resulting in collision is measured with weight & the mass area.

Another example. If a 40ton tank was driving at 10mph, could you, due to just its vertical movement + speed alone stop it compared to another vehicle weighing 20kg also travelling at 10mph with a far smaller area? Of course you couldn't move the tank, you couldn't slow it and your only hope is to move out of the way. While the lighter, small area mass of the second vehicle is preventable / stoppable.

Please, do educate me o' wise professor ??

Yeah, that's the big thing that got me started on all this too. When he said "the weight of an object moving laterally doesn't (much) affect how hard you get hit"... It gave me pause. I get where he's coming from. Weight is the force with which gravity is pushing an object down. Technically speaking, mass is a different quantity. The thing is, what we call "weight" is actually mass. Weight, in physics, is affected by variables. For example, an object floating on the water which transfers its weight elsewhere. That object is weightless under this technical definition because in truth, weight is a measurement of gravitational force.

Mass, however, is constant. The mass, the matter, of a laterally moving object is a key element in the equation of impact force. It's why you can survive getting hit by a car at 50 miles per hour, but getting hit by a train at the same speed is probably going to destroy your organs immediately. Or in a more concrete example from my own life, when I was a kid, I was bigger than most of my peers. I remember I was standing in line waiting to go in after recess one day when a smaller kid sprinted into me from behind trying to knock me over, and it barely budged me. Instead he went down. A few years later, playing football, a bigger guy I was ready for bowled me over when I tried to block him. It's that sort of thing.

 

[manuelcipo]

Here's some interesting statistic made from several ancient battles. On average casualties were 5% for the winning side and 14% for the loosing side. What that actually means is that about 9% of the losses of the loosing side were done during pursuit, when battle was basically over.

Very few people died during actual fighting.

Exactly what i was saying, that is proof itself that frontal charge were never a thing like in movies, a charge like that would be a mess of death, both for the attacker and the defender, there are some historical battle ended in massacre with one army virtually destroyed but are few cases and thats usually for 2 concurrent factor
1. The losing army had the retreat cut for some reason
2. the winning army for a reason was really angry at the losing and chose to kill all the captured enemy instead of selling them in slavery(ancient time) or back to their family for a ransom(medieval time, were the army were composed of nobles)
Still, i understand as surely you do too, that we have to compromise, bannerlord can't be like reality and it wouldn't it much fun either probably(i would hate to lose a battle cause my soldier after the death of 20 comrade started running away) i can get cavalry frontal cavalry charge in the game, but i really would hate see them pass through 5-6 man deep rank line, not so much for the loss of realism itself but as i said in the other post, it would ruin much of the tactics you could use in battle, all the strategy in positioning your soldier, if i have to play against cav like that i'll prefer not to have any archer at all cause they would be messed up for sure in no time, you just cannot protect them, there will be no meaning in having the high ground to slow a charge if it just passes through anyway.
I won't explain again how it should work for me, you can read up my first post if you want to know it, but if cav stay like i saw up until now outside captain mode, i will be very disappointed.

 

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

Exactly what i was saying, that is proof itself that frontal charge were never a thing like in movies, a charge like that would be a mess of death, both for the attacker and the defender, there are some historical battle ended in massacre with one army virtually destroyed but are few cases and thats usually for 2 concurrent factor

I encourage you to look into the battles of Tinchebray, Lewes, Flodden, Tours, Kressenbrunn, and Ascalon. All of these included frontal cavalry charges that did their job, and didn't result in an immediate massacre for either side. (Well, Ascalon did end relatively fast, but the defenders weren't as prepared as they would've liked.)

Further observation on the matter reveals the prevalence of the frontal charge as well:

Medieval European knights attacked in several different ways, implementing shock tactics if possible, but always in formations of several knights, not individually. For defense and mêlée a formation of horsemen was as tight as possible next to each other in a line. This prevented their enemy from charging, and also from surrounding them individually. The most devastating charging method was to ride in a looser formation fast into attack. This attack was often protected by simultaneous or shortly preceding ranged attacks of archers or crossbowmen. The attack began from a distance of about 350 metres and took about 15–20 seconds to cross the contemporary long range weapon's effective distance. A most important element, and one not easily mastered, was to stay in one line with fixed spaces while accelerating and having the maximum speed at impact. Often knights would come in several waves, with the first being the best equipped and armored. The lance as primary weapon pierced the enemy. If an enemy soldier was hit in full gallop by a knight's lance couched under the armpit, he was thrown backwards with such a momentum that he knocked over several of his compatriots, and was more often than not, killed; in some cases, the lance would even skewer the man and kill or wound the soldier behind him. The heavy lances were dropped after the attack and the battle was continued with secondary weapons (swords, axes, or maces, for example).

[...]

The longbow and the crossbow were able to counter the dominance of mounted knights on the battlefield. Although knights of the Middle Ages often fought on foot or at least avoided futile frontal attacks, it happened several times that knightly armies led charges in obeyance to their warrior ideal only to meet with disaster. At Crécy (1346) and Poitiers (1356), the French knights suffered heavy casualties against the Welsh/English longbowmen. The ability to keep several arrows in the air at any given time was an important advantage of the medieval archer. Thus, while a cavalry charge followed a strict pattern of acceleration (400 metres in 2 minutes, gallop just at the last 150 metres) from a distance beyond effective missile range, once they came within range they could be met with a hail of arrows that could severely injure both horse and rider alike. However, unsupported light infantry and archers would not be able to cause enough casualties to a cavalry force, if it were charging across suitable terrain, to tip the odds in their favour in the following melee. Thus, it was always advisable for missile troops to fight on terrain disadvantageous to cavalry charges, and with supporting heavy infantry close by.

However, as the battles above show, many of these cases weren't met with disaster. Generally, only a tightly packed formation of polearms could resist a High Medieval knightly charge effectively. The fact that knights so commonly shattered enemy infantry formations front-on was exactly what led to the famous English defeat at Bannockburnn. The English knights were so confident in their charge that they carried straight ahead into the pikes.

Contrary to popular belief, by the way, pikes weren't effective against cavalry because of their piercing potential against the horses. As a general rule, horses wouldn't ride into pikes to begin with. What made pikes deadly against cavalry were two possibilities:

1. If a horse was pushed into a wall of pikes, it would often stop abruptly short of the wall, which could throw the knight from the saddle in particularly unfortunate cases. (In the age of medieval pikes, stirrups were around to prevent this much of the time.)

2. If a charge was committed and somehow you got the horses through, the pikes being longer than knightly lances allowed them to impact the knight before he could launch his attack, thereby negating his momentum at worst and unhorsing him at best.

As a result, it was often the knights themselves who avoided frontal charges against pikes, with a few noteworthy failures as exceptions. At Flodden, however, the Scottish pikes were charged head-on with success because the uneven ground disrupted their formation. In all other cases, though - particularly cases in the early medieval period, when infantry spears were shorter than cavalry lances - the frontal charge quite commonly followed through, and was successful at least half the time.

 

[FBohler]

Your posts don't have any reread value, so thanks but no.

Your messages aren't worth reading even once, so I'm giving your own (bad) argument back by totally ignoring your posts ?

 

[hruza]

Exactly what i was saying, that is proof itself that frontal charge were never a thing like in movies, a charge like that would be a mess of death, both for the attacker and the defender, there are some historical battle ended in massacre with one army virtually destroyed but are few cases and thats usually for 2 concurrent factor
1. The losing army had the retreat cut for some reason
2. the winning army for a reason was really angry at the losing and chose to kill all the captured enemy instead of selling them in slavery(ancient time) or back to their family for a ransom(medieval time, were the army were composed of nobles)

Yes, along with the fact that even battles where cavalry charges were successful, they often did not succeed at the first attempt and had to be repeated several times. If cavalry would charge by colliding their horses in to enemy, there would hardly be second or third charge, as there would be nobody to repeat it. They would be all dead or dehorsed. And even if there would be some riders and horses left (say from remounts), if first charge in full strength did not succeed, then repeated one with depleted ranks would hardly have bigger chance.

Still, i understand as surely you do too, that we have to compromise, bannerlord can't be like reality and it wouldn't it much fun either probably(i would hate to lose a battle cause my soldier after the death of 20 comrade started running away) i can get cavalry frontal cavalry charge in the game, but i really would hate see them pass through 5-6 man deep rank line, not so much for the loss of realism itself but as i said in the other post, it would ruin much of the tactics you could use in battle, all the strategy in positioning your soldier, if i have to play against cav like that i'll prefer not to have any archer at all cause they would be messed up for sure in no time, you just cannot protect them, there will be no meaning in having the high ground to slow a charge if it just passes through anyway.
I won't explain again how it should work for me, you can read up my first post if you want to know it, but if cav stay like i saw up until now outside captain mode, i will be very disappointed.

That's understood, there are limitations in the computer program. But collision "damage" is really lazy way to implement cavalry charge. It's not that it's just unrealistic. The way to do it is to improve AI, formation behavior, way weapons are used and morale mechanic, which is supposedly in the game since the original came out but it does hardly anything. Some people here who saw code say that it's completely broken.


Btw: battle of Pavia (1525) cavalry charge against infantry line. You can see that cavalry have stoped and men engage infantry with weapons. Some of the horses were already turned around and are disengaging:

 

[Strela1408]

Spores from discharge "armor weighed 100 kg and Knight were placed on a horse using a crane."

 

[Al_Mansur]

the example of the viking in england and france, they were able to face and win against army with many mounted unit without the use of it, if thing were like some suggested that would not have been possible.

I don't know any example of a field battle won by the Vikings against Frankish cavalry (Anglo-Saxons mostly fought on foot, following the old Germanic usage that faded away in France under the Carolingians).

 

[hruza]

How fast can horse with the rider stop:




Vole Face at gallop (and then again at 2:52 and 6:51):



Point: horse isn't a tank and it doesn't move like one.

 

[GitiUsir]

A most important element, and one not easily mastered, was to stay in one line with fixed spaces while accelerating and having the maximum speed at impact
Thus, while a cavalry charge followed a strict pattern of acceleration (400 metres in 2 minutes, gallop just at the last 150 metres) from a distance beyond effective missile range

Because horse stamina was a thing, horses can't run at top speed forever, topic for another discussion. Also keeping formation until the last stretch. That's a cavalry charge.

...Very few people died during actual fighting.

True but even today if you take into account the whole army the casualties percentage may be low but for the units involved in combat it might be very high. Sometimes whole units wiped out, while others further away never engaged the enemy. Probably most units would be shocked and ineffective before 50% casualties and they would turn tails.
This would be a discussion about moral.

Also related to this, the ratio mounted troops to troops on foot is very high in most Warband modules. I think a good ratio is 1 cavalry to 10 foot troops for most armies. Sometimes a bit less (Battania, Sturgia), sometimes more (khuzait). And then maybe a 10% from those would be heavy cavalry. I.e. in captain mode there should be only 2 in a cavalry formation if foot formations can have upto 20 or more. That would decrease the impact on a formation.

...This could be improved by adjusting weight factors of units.

... The way to do it is to improve AI, formation behavior, way weapons are used and morale mechanic,

I prefer hruza ideas more than increasing mass, although maybe a bit more mass for agents wouldn't be a bad idea. Also I think hruza said before that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction so horses should take damage from collisions too.

When you are on horseback in Team Death Match you learn to avoid attacking enemies who are looking at you, and you learn to backstab at top speed or couching-lancing those who are engaged in combat. It's a psychological effect. Why? Because you know that you or your horse can be easily hit if they are aware of your incoming attack.

So bots in single player or captain mode must be dangerous for cavalry. This way players learn to avoid attacking the front or crashing into formations. Then cavalry AI (both low level and formation level) must know how to avoid those risks and how to exploit favorable situations. This makes the game challenging ,interesting and believable.

 

[The Luminary]

Hruza's a massive troll. The Cav AI needs massive improvements. Program the heavy shock Cav to group up and trample though enemy forces, increase their collision damage substantially. Program the light cav to mostly lower morale, chase escaping enemies, deal with cav archers, and flank single targets.

The way Cavalry works so far is completely unacceptable and a sick joke. The game is called mount and blade and Cavs are beyond weak even in open field flat terrain, with stupid AI, and blades are completely unusable on horseback against infantry.

 

[hruza]

This is what happens when cavalry actually crashes their horses in to infantry formation during the charge.

Battle of Omdurman where 21th Lancers of British Army were tricked in to charging what looked like thin line of Dervish skirmishers, but was in reality 12 deep infantry formation hiding in ambush in the dry watercourse during so called Mahdist war. One of the men riding with the 21th Lancers was somebody Winston Churchill and he was kind enough to leave us this description:

On the instant all the sixteen troops swung round and locked up into a long galloping line, and the 21st Lancers were committed to their first charge in war.

Two hundred and fifty yards away the dark-blue men were firing madly in a thin film of light-blue smoke. Their bullets struck the hard gravel into the air, and the troopers, to shield their faces from the stinging dust, bowed their helmets forward, like the Cuirassiers at Waterloo. The pace was fast and the distance short. Yet, before it was half covered, the whole aspect of the affair changed. A deep crease in the ground---a dry watercourse, a khor---appeared where all had seemed smooth, level plain; and from it there sprang, with the suddenness of a pantomime effect and a high-pitched yell, a dense white mass of men nearly as long as our front and about twelve deep. A score of horsemen and a dozen bright flags rose as if by magic from the earth. Eager warriors sprang forward to anticipate the shock. The rest stood firm to meet it. The Lancers acknowledged the apparition only by an increase of pace. Each man wanted sufficient momentum to drive through such a solid line. The flank troops, seeing that they overlapped, curved inwards like the horns of a moon. But the whole event was a matter of seconds. The riflemen, firing bravely to the last, were swept head over heels into the khor, and jumping down with them, at full gallop and in the closest order, the British squadrons struck the fierce brigade with one loud furious shout. The collision was prodigious. Nearly thirty Lancers, men and horses, and at least two hundred Arabs were overthrown. The shock was stunning to both sides, and for perhaps ten wonderful seconds no man heeded his enemy. Terrified horses wedged in the crowd; bruised and shaken men, sprawling in heaps, struggled, dazed and stupid, to their feet, panted, and looked about them. Several fallen Lancers had even time to remount.

Meanwhile the impetus of the cavalry carried them on. As a rider tears through a bullfinch, the officers forced their way through the press; and as an iron rake might be drawn through a heap of shingle, so the regiment followed. They shattered the Dervish array, and, their pace reduced to a walk, scrambled out of the khor on the further side, leaving a score of troopers behind them, and dragging on with the charge more than a thousand Arabs. Then, and not till then, the killing began; and thereafter each man saw the world along his lance, under his guard, or through the back-sight of his pistol; and each had his own strange tale to tell.

Stubborn and unshaken infantry hardly ever meet stubborn and unshaken cavalry. Either the infantry run away and are cut down in flight, or they keep their heads and destroy nearly all the horsemen by their musketry. On this occasion two living walls had actually crashed together. The Dervishes fought manfully. They tried to hamstring the horses. They fired their rifles, pressing the muzzles into the very bodies of their opponents. They cut reins and stirrup-leathers. They flung their throwing-spears with great dexterity. They tried every device of cool, determined men practiced in war and familiar with cavalry; and, besides, they swung sharp, heavy swords which bit deep. The hand-to-hand fighting on the further side of the khor lasted for perhaps one minute. Then the horses got into their stride again, the pace increased, and the Lancers drew out from among their antagonists. Within two minutes of the collision every living man was clear of the Dervish mass. All who had fallen were cut at with swords till they stopped quivering, but no artistic mutilations were attempted. The enemy's behavior gave small ground for complaint.

Two hundred yards away the regiment halted, rallied, faced about, and in less than five minutes were re-formed and ready for a second charge. The men were anxious to cut their way back through their enemies. We were alone together---the cavalry regiment and the Dervish brigade. The ridge hung like a curtain between us and the army. The general battle was forgotten, as it was unseen. This was a private quarrel. The other might have been a massacre; but here the fight was fair, for we too fought with sword and spear. Indeed, the advantage of ground and numbers lay with them. All prepared to settle the debate at once and for ever. But some realization of the cost of our wild ride began to come to those who were responsible. Riderless horses galloped across the plain. Men, clinging to their saddles, lurched helplessly about, covered with blood from perhaps a dozen wounds. Horses, streaming from tremendous gashes, limped and staggered with their riders. In 120 seconds five officers, 66 men, and 119 horses out of less than 400 had been killed or wounded. The Dervish line, broken by the charge, began to re-form at once. They closed up, shook themselves together, and prepared with constancy and courage for another shock. But on military considerations it was desirable to turn them out of the khor first and thus deprive them of their vantage-ground. The regiment again drawn up, three squadrons in line and the fourth in column, now wheeled to the right, and, galloping round the Dervish flank, dismounted and opened a heavy fire with their magazine carbines. Under the pressure of this fire the enemy changed front to meet the new attack, so that both sides were formed at right angles to their original lines. When the Dervish change of front was completed, they began to advance against the dismounted men. But the fire was accurate, and there can be little doubt that the moral effect of the charge had been very great, and that this brave enemy was no longer unshaken. Be this as it may, the fact remains that they retreated swiftly, though in good order, towards the ridge of Surgham Hill, where the Khalifa's Black Flag still waved, and the 21st Lancers remained in possession of the ground---and of their dead.

Such is the true and literal account of the charge.

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/1898churchill-omdurman.asp

And so:

The entire clash of arms lasted less than two minutes, and resulted in the loss of one officer and twenty men of the 21st Lancers killed, while another four officers and forty-six men were wounded. Of the 320 horses engaged in the charge, 119 had been either killed or wounded. Yet the charge had achieved little, and is largely viewed as a near disaster and a terrible mistake by military people of the day and historians ever since.

Ambush at Abu Sunt: The 21st Lancers at the Battle of Omdurman

 

[manuelcipo]

As i said with other words:

Stubborn and unshaken infantry hardly ever meet stubborn and unshaken cavalry.

But some realization of the cost of our wild ride began to come to those who were responsible. Riderless horses galloped across the plain. Men, clinging to their saddles, lurched helplessly about, covered with blood from perhaps a dozen wounds. Horses, streaming from tremendous gashes, limped and staggered with their riders. In 120 seconds five officers, 66 men, and 119 horses out of less than 400 had been killed or wounded.

This is proof enough with the number of casualty in medieval battles that this was not the norm but rather incident that both side tryed to avoid.

I encourage you to look into the battles of Tinchebray, Lewes, Flodden, Tours, Kressenbrunn, and Ascalon. All of these included frontal cavalry charges that did their job, and didn't result in an immediate massacre for either side. (Well, Ascalon did end relatively fast, but the defenders weren't as prepared as they would've liked.)

Man at Flodden there was only some light cav, that got stuck in meele for a lot of time, so no frontal charge for sure and also some unit dismounted to fight.
Ascalon wasn't much a battle than a massacre they found the enemy still camping and no real unit or battle line was formed and still they tried to outflank the enemy with cav on the flanks and infantry in the middle.
Battle of Tinchebray the winning side(Henry) dismounted most of the troop and meet the charge as infantry, then used the remaining cav to flank the enemy and won with virually no casualty, it wasn't a full charge like you propose, if it was there would be no way the infantry suffered so little losses and let's say for a second it was, then it means that a full charge could not break a line of infantry and deal any number of casualty to the enemies.
I won't go on listing all of the battle i think i proved my point already
As i said, Bazbattle,Historia civilis and history marche look up.

 

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

As i said with other words:

This is proof enough with the number of casualty in medieval battles that this was not the norm but rather incident that both side tryed to avoid.



Man at Flodden there was only some light cav, that got stuck in meele for a lot of time, so no frontal charge for sure and also some unit dismounted to fight.
Ascalon wasn't much a battle than a massacre they found the enemy still camping and no real unit or battle line was formed and still they tried to outflank the enemy with cav on the flanks and infantry in the middle.
Battle of Tinchebray the winning side(Henry) dismounted most of the troop and meet the charge as infantry, then used the remaining cav to flank the enemy and won with virually no casualty, it wasn't a full charge like you propose, if it was there would be no way the infantry suffered so little losses and let's say for a second it was, then it means that a full charge could not break a line of infantry and deal any number of casualty to the enemies.
I won't go on listing all of the battle i think i proved my point already
As i said, Bazbattle,Historia civilis and history marche look up.

The cavalry at Flodden, by all accounts, did charge from the front after the English right collapsed. Granted, this was only possible because of the uneven terrain, but the Scots should have known better. This is exactly what defeated the Macedonian phalanx.

Ascalon, I'll give you, was a massacre and most of the defending forces hadn't had time to form proper lines. But it was still a frontal charge.

At Tinchebray, I spoke of Robert's knights rather than Henry's. Robert's knights didn't dismount, and charged Henry's dismounted knights head-on.

So with respect, you haven't proven your point from where I'm standing. I'd be interested to hear counters to some of the other battles I listed, I may have some of my facts wrong with regards to those.

This is what happens when cavalry actually crashes their horses in to infantry formation during the charge.

Battle of Omdurman where 21th Lancers of British Army were tricked in to charging what looked like thin line of Dervish skirmishers, but was in reality 12 deep infantry formation hiding in ambush in the dry watercourse during so called Mahdist war. One of the men riding with the 21th Lancers was somebody Winston Churchill and he was kind enough to leave us this description:



And so:

The entire clash of arms lasted less than two minutes, and resulted in the loss of one officer and twenty men of the 21st Lancers killed, while another four officers and forty-six men were wounded. Of the 320 horses engaged in the charge, 119 had been either killed or wounded. Yet the charge had achieved little, and is largely viewed as a near disaster and a terrible mistake by military people of the day and historians ever since.

Ambush at Abu Sunt: The 21st Lancers at the Battle of Omdurman

A good source, I'll grant you. There are three complicating factors, however, with wielding this as your sole source to prove your argument:

1. This is the era of black powder. Frontal charges did occur during this time, yes. However, it was much, much easier to destroy a cavalry charge at that time than it was in the middle ages. Cavalry of the era were unarmored, and their foes has firearms, the noise and smell of which would spook many a horse alone. Horses were trained to get used to being shot at, but you can only do so much to teach a horse to brave a hail of gunfire.​

​

2. These were lighter horses. Again, unarmored, and bred for speed and temper rather than size and strength. They were less durable, brought less mass to bear, and their riders carried shorter arms than a medieval knight would have. To say nothing of the lack of armor they wore.​

​

These two pose difficulty in using this as an example for the Bannerlord discussion. But what really gets you is the third issue.

3. The account of this battle given by a correspondent from Reuter who bore witness:​

​

Colonel Martin’s orders were to prevent the broken enemy from returning to Omdurman, five miles away from the filed of Battle. The 21st Lancers unexpectedly came upon the enemy’s reserve who were 2000 strong, but whose exact strength could not ascertained owing to the nature of the ground.

The cavalry were then in form of troops. They deployed into line for the attack and charged. When they were within thirty yards of the entrenchments they found the enemy ensconced in a nulla and concealed by a depression of the ground.


The Lancers wild with excitement and coming on at full gallop for the attack, had not a single moment for hesitation. They charged gallantly home, the brunt falling on No.2 squadron, who absolutely had to hack their way through the enemy twenty deep, exposed to a withering infantry fire.

They struggled through, but every man who fell was immediately hacked to pieces by the swords of the fanatic foe.

The men of the British cavalry rallied, bleeding, on the far side of the lanes which they had cut for themselves in the enemy’s ranks and with admirable fortitude they re-formed as coolly as if they had been on parade.

One corporal, who was covered in blood, and reeling in his saddle, when ordered to fall out shouted , waving his bent lance- “Never! Form up No.2” meaning his squadron.

[...]

Then seeing that a second charge would be futile, colonel Martin dismounted his men and with magazine and carbine fire drove the enemy steadily into the zone of the Anglo-Egyptian infantry fire, the Lancers having accomplished their object by covering the enemy line of retirement though at the cost of heavy casualties. This maiden charge of the 21st Lancers is regarded as an extremely brilliant affair.

It's stated in record that, "Of less than 400 men involved in the charge 70 were killed and wounded and the regiment won three Victoria Crosses."

So let's look at what actually happened.

21st Lancers (O = 10 soldiers)

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

vs.

Dervish Infantry (O = 10 soldiers)


OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
​

These presume 3,000 Dervish, as records state "2,500 behind" the initial "few hundred" the charge was leveled against.

With these odds, 400 mounted warriors devoid of armor...

• Rode through withering gunfire.​
• Cut their way through one end of the enemy formation and out the other ("... who absolutely had to hack their way through the enemy twenty deep ...").​
• Conducted themselves brilliantly.​
• Succeeded at their mission with only 70 casualties, including both dead and wounded.​
  • This means that 82% of the lancer contingent came out unscathed.​
  • This also means that, mathematically speaking, it took 42.85 Dervish infantry to wound or kill a single lancer.​
  • This also means that each unscathed lancer was, mathematically speaking, worth 9 Dervish infantry in the fighting.​

I'd say if anything, the charge at Omdurman proves true what I've been saying all along about horses colliding with humans.