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.
Explain to me what crazy-land logic you use to interpret the following quote:
"He spurred between (his allies) and into the thick of the enemy. His horse was killed on the pikes."
And somehow
not come out thinking that the horse was successfully persuaded by its rider to ride into and die on pikes.
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 said, and I quote:
"The only cavalry that can charge through ranks of spearmen is virtual one made using computer graphic. Because it does not have to follow basic laws of physic, biology or even common sense."
Your other claim was: "Cavalry charging disciplined formed infantry -not working."
The Battle of Marignano disproves both those statements. The Swiss infantry were the most disciplined, professional pikemen in the world. They are described as "stubborn" and "formed into a phalanx". Yet the cavalry repeatedly charged into them. And eventually broke them.
But if you are so unable to admit you were wrong that you instead claim you were never arguing the point, then go ahead.
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.
I already explained to you at length why a horse cannot easily tell the difference between a sharp and blunt stick, and that they often injure themselves on sharp things because they do not recognize them. Also why training can make them overcome the fear of sharp objects.
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.
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.
The English knew what they were getting into and so did the horses. It was definitely not an accident.
"The Dervish skirmishing line was 250 yards away, but as the 21st covered half the distance, a wide khor opened in front of them and out of it leaped a dense mass of sword and spear wielding Dervishes, with horsemen and flags among them."
In other words, for an entire football field's distance, the horses allowed themselves to be charged into a "dense mass" of disciplined, unmoving infantrymen armed with long spears. They had plenty of time to see what they were charging into, and still willingly did it.
Another great example of you inventing the facts. Because words "fixed bayonets" simply aren't there. Fixed bayonets my butt...that's the Mahdist army Churchill and his fellow men had "charged". Light infantry armed with shields, swords, javelins and muskets.
"Fixed bayonets" was a genuine mistake on my part, based on an assumption about the time period. I apologize for this minor mistake. However, are you aware you were the one arguing about "pointy sticks" - aka spears - anyway? And that every picture you post of horses charging into "men with pointy sticks" supports my argument? Have some more.
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".
Reasonably well, I'd say. My argument has been from the start that heavy cavalry should go even with a shieldwall in a direct charge, should lose in a charge against long two-hander braced pikes, and should be superior to all infantry which do not have braced long pikes or a shieldwall.
At last few examples where citations you bring actually match your claims would help.
Citations in what sense?
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.
The point flies over your head again. You told me my argument was wrong because it was hypothetical, and then immediately used a hypothetical argument to justify that, instead of providing any actual, real evidence. Which means you're a hypocrite.
My post contained a couple of hypotheticals, and a lot of real evidence. Whereas ALL of your posts contain just hypothetical scenarios with no evidence to back them up.
In no way have you "shown" anything. Quite the contrary. I have explained the basic mathematics that if a horse doesn't get hit by the first stick which is closer, then it is not going to get hit by the second stick which is further away. You did not respond to this.
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.
No, you are either getting confused now, or straight up lying to avoid admitting you were wrong. That discussion was not about the picture of the horse.
Follow the reply chain backwards.
You: (what you just said)
Me: "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. (Sources on pike and lance length)."
You: "In reality when men on horses increased length of their sharp sticks, men on food did the same and vice versa. At the time men on horses started to use long lances, men of foot started to use pikes."
The long lance was uncommon.
Zero source given against my two sources.
Oh he does need to know, that's what "willingly" means.
Stop changing your argument every three seconds. What you said was: "Horse does not know if your lance is going to knock off footmen along with his lance." A horse being made to charge someone can still be willing, whether or not he knows if the lance will knock the footman over.
No, what you have shown are accidents
There is zero indication in the source that Bannockburn was an "accident", and as I have shown above, Omdurman was definitely not an accident either. They were both willing horse and rider charging into massed infantry with spears over a long distance where there was no room for mistake.
No, he says: "or, being pricked by them, he will turn to the right or left."
That is exactly what I said, the horse will stop at pricking range.
Meanwhile in your theory horse is still running full speed.
You accuse me of putting words in other people's mouths then do it in the very next sentence, hypocrite. I already said I am happy to say whatever speed works, after
you said the horse would be approaching at a trot. Here:
"I am perfectly willing to cede the two words "full speed"." Three posts ago.
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.
You need human intelligence to know that it's a sharpened man-made object, something which horses didn't evolve being around in the wild- the pointiest things they would meet in nature would be branches (not as sharp as pikes). If you actually read what I linked, you would know
horses injure themselves on sharp things all the time.
As for the blind spot and depth perception:
LOL!
Try reading the links! You might learn something, like for example that a horse's binocular vision is far worse at distinguishing depth and detail than its monocular vision -- which has a significantly worse blind spot in front of the horse! Therefore, a horse can choose between seeing something in front of them as very blurry, or not at all!
LOL!
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.
The point of the link is that horses
probably don't recognize that they are sharp at all. And as I have already demonstrated with the video, horses will easily ride into a group of men three rows deep pointing broomsticks at you. So the only thing that matters is whether they can tell if it's sharp, and if they're scared of it because it's sharp. And as you yourself say further down, they obviously aren't afraid of sharp things.
Not a single trace of a "sharp stick" inside that link, you're plain falsifying again.
I didn't say it was in the link, work on your reading comprehension. I said SUCH AS sharp sticks. The link was there to indicate you can train horses to stop being afraid of objects.
I have asked you many times to show me sources for "warhorses been trained to crash in to spears". You have provided none.
I have asked you many times to show me ANY sources. You have provided none.
Medieval warhorse training is not something it is easy to find details on. For example, I read Xenophon's treatise on horsemanship, but it doesn't go into specifics about object training. So I tried, but the information doesn't seem to be available.
However, I do not
need to prove that warhorses were specifically trained to charge into spears. Because I have already shown you a video of horses being made to willingly charge into ranks of men holding objects that look similar to spears, and I have already provided evidence that horses cannot distinguish between sharp and blunt, and I have provided evidence that horses can be trained not to be afraid of very scary things in general (even actual flames), and I have provided evidence in this post and others of many real life battles where horses willingly charged into dense ranks of spears.
With all this information combined, it means horses are either naturally not afraid of spears, or can be trained to overcome that fear. Either way, it supports my argument.
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.
Sounds good to me, since that supports my argument. You seem very confused on what you're even arguing about anymore. I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing at this point.
(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.
Are you for ******* real? The source is literally right above that quote.
Lol, nice try. Provide an individual example from that thread.
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.
Against extensive argument and evidence why the Machiavelli quote (the only piece of evidence you have given in this entire discussion) is not applicable to this game's time period, you just ignore it and repeat yourself again.
You misrepresent the evidence I have given out of the context they were used in, and you cherrypick the easiest-to-ridicule ones while ignoring the piles of historical battle examples that support them.
Judging by replies, I've convinced quite a few other people. But you're ignoring that as you ignore everything else that disagrees with your version of reality.