Didn't find a single horse that impaled itself willingly on a sharp stick in any of those quotes. Horses been impaled or killed in battles does not make them willingly impaling themselves any more then modern soldiers been shoot makes them willingly impaling themselves on bullets.
The more you "argue" like this with zero relevant evidence provided, the more I find evidence that actually convinces me even more how wrong you are, on stuff I would have originally agreed with you about!
Inventing or imagining evidence and finding evidence are two different things.
I also newer said that pike formations were newer charged and that those charges were newer successful. What I said was that frontal charges against disciplined formed infantry were usually unsuccessful and that cavalry charges were not performed by ramming in to the spears. I did not say that they newer happened or that they were newer successful. You are deliberately twisting what I said and then claiming to beat me in an argument that I have never used. A neat trick. Another example is when you shown horses against broomsticks pretending to be disproving my argument that horses won't deliberately impale themselves on sharp sticks. It's the same kind of fallacy as if you tried to prove that horses are bulletproof by showing video of blank shooting at them.
Further stories from Churchill's combat experience about horses charging directly into fixed bayonets and dying and killing huge numbers of the enemy with the force of the charge!
"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 hedge jump, 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."
Another great example of you inventing the facts. Because words "fixed bayonets" simply aren't there. Plus you have conveniently decided to cut off the part, where English have charged in to an ambush, not knowing that what appears to be just a thin skirmish line on a ridge have larger rebel force hidden in the ravine right behind.
Fixed bayonets my butt:
...that's the Mahdist army Churchill and his fellow men had "charged". Light infantry made of religious fanatic mob armed with shields, swords, javelins and muskets. And even in to them Brits have collided only by an accident, loosing 1/3 of their numbers in the process and failing to accomplish anything. They had to dismount after the "charge" and use their firearms to shoot Mahdists in to retreat.
And now try to replace those pictures with Anglo Saxon shieldwall and try to do a guess how many British horsemen would survive that "collision".
Pages and pages of evidence so far have shattered the single bit of evidence you gave. How much is it going to take for you to just admit you're wrong? Do I have to build a time machine and take you to an actual battle?
At last few examples where citations you bring actually match your claims would help.
Isn't it a bit hypocritical for you to say this when you constantly keep making hypotheticals with zero context or evidence given, such as further down in your post: "Even if horse was so stupid to do it anyway, fact that you have knocked the footmen with the spear only means that horse will impale itself on the spear of the footman behind him."
You're confused here, it was your hypothetical, not mine. I have just shown you that your hypothetical still leads in to a dead horse on a sharp stick.
I have already provided actual evidence regarding the length of spears and pikes. Your only response is "nuh unh it was like this in reality" with no evidence provided for your version of "reality".
You have provided a nice picture of horse been impaled on a spear. I have just told you that you picture supports my argument, not yours. That's all.
Here is evidence-based reality. READ it this time.
As I said earlier: The long pike was uncommon during Bannerlord's time period, a.k.a. the 900s-1100s.
As was the long lance. What you did there is not evidence based reality, that's just cherry picking.
Here the horse doesn't need to know,
Oh he does need to know, that's what "willingly" means.
since (A): I have shown examples of horses being convinced to charge even to their deaths and (B):
No, what you have shown are accidents including panicked horses.
even assuming Machiavelli is correct, he says the horse will stop at "pricking" range,
No, he says:
"...either he will by himself check his gait, so that he will stop as soon as he sees himself about to be pricked by them, or, being pricked by them, he will turn to the right or left."
You keep inventing things nobody said.
which means so long as the rider stays outside "pricking" range (~1m is easily enough) then the rider can bowl over the footman before he stops. As we see in the Napoleonic examples.
If the horse+rider has a 1m range advantage, they are not going to get "impaled" on the first footman's spear, and thus they will definitely not get impaled on the second footman's spear because he is further away.
Except for a minor detail that it only works if horse have stopped, just like Machiavelli said it would. Meanwhile in your theory horse is still running full speed.
Well duh. The point is that horses are not scared of men holding short sticks pointed out at them.
And why would they be scared?
Horses will not have the human knowledge to know that they need to look at the tip of the stick to see if it is sharp.
It's kind of hard to charge directly at a sharp stick pointed on you and not to see it. You don't need human intelligence for that.
And what has color to do with sharpness?
As for the blind spot and depth perception:
LOL!
In fact, horses tend to have a habit of
hurting themselves on sharp things due to not noticing the sharpness.
So do humans. But that's kind of hard thing to not notice when the sharp things are dense rows of spears pointing at you.
Not a single trace of a "sharp stick" inside that link, you're plain falsifying again.
Which is exactly what any warhorse trainer would do with pikes until the horse was not scared of the sight of them, and would only stop if actually being injured by them.
https://cowgirlmagazine.com/police-horses-trained/ and
I have asked you many times to show me sources for "warhorses been trained to crash in to spears". You have provided none. I call it a fake. Been "not scared of the sight of spear" is not the same as "not been scared of impaling itself on them". And you don't need to train horse to not been scared of a sight of spears given they are everywhere, including on the rider that sits on the horse.
Warhorse training is explicitly designed to subdue the horse's survival instincts, and create trust in the rider, convincing the horse that situations which look scary are actually fine.
Source please.
I see spooked horse running in to a wall. And I don't hear or see anybody telling it to do so.
If this had happened -- which it hasn't, by the way -- then go ahead and link to an example of this alleged behaviour occurring.
You can't, because you're literally just describing what you're doing. The truth is that you don't want to go to any effort looking up evidence, and don't want to just admit you're wrong, so you're looking for an easy way out of the argument. One easy example is the lances thing above, where you just repeated yourself, ignored the actual evidence I gave, and provided no evidence at all.
Yes I can:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...red-at-the-moment-suggestions-updated.433527/
You're completely unwilling to be convinced. But I don't have to convince you, I think anyone else reading this should be convinced enough by now.
Or you're very unconvincing. Thanks but I'll go with actual historical sources written by people like Machiavelli who wrote actual military manuals and commanded soldiers as well as historians that studied historical cavalry like Gassmann rather then somebody who shows broomsticks, spooked horse accidents videos as their "evidence" and claims that 5 cm blind spot in front of the horses nose will make it happily ram line of spearmen without noticing them.