Turns out this is wrong too. Here is a horse willingly impaling itself on a sharp stick at the Battle of Bannockburn. "So saying, he spurred in between Beaumont and Sir William Deyncourt and charged into the thick of the enemy. William was killed, Thomas was taken prisoner, his horse being killed on the pikes."
Also at the Battle of the Golden Spurs, you have horses being persuaded to impale themselves on sharp sticks. "The bulk of the French formations carried on their forward momentum and fell on the Flemish in an ear-splitting crash of horses against men. Unable at most points to break the Flemish line of pikemen, many French knights were knocked from their horses and killed. Those cavalry groups that succeeded in breaking through ****note that they even broke through the pikes!**** were surrounded by the reserves and killed."
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!
I also found out about the Battle of Marignano where the French gendarmes repeatedly succeeded in directly charging Swiss pike formations,
though not without casualties of course:
Further writings from Churchill 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."
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?
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."
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".
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. "Pike" is a specific term referring to a spear that is between 4-8 metres long. In Bannerlord's time period, spears were only about 2 metres tall for most infantry. Though some longer spears did exist, "1.8–2.4 m would have been the norm for spears (...) (Short) spears began to lose fashion among the infantry during the 14th century. Where spears were retained they grew in length, eventually evolving into pikes." In Machiavelli's time, pikes for the average infantryman are described as 6 meters long. "Footemen have for their defence, a breast plate, and for to offende, a launce, sixe yardes and three quarters long, which is called a pike." Now for the lance: This source says lances were 3-3.3 meters, this source gives 2.4-3 meters. So it would be highly possible that the knight would have a range advantage. While we have mostly been discussing Western-style cavalry, Bannerlord's Aserai are partly based on the real-life Sassanians, whose heavy cavalry used a two handed 3.7 meter long lance; and Taleworlds said they gave the Kontos to the Empire, a lance which could be 4 meters long or even longer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kontos_(weapon)
Here the horse doesn't need to know, since (A): I have shown examples of horses being convinced to charge even to their deaths and (B): even assuming Machiavelli is correct, he says the horse will stop at "pricking" range, 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.
Well duh. The point is that horses are not scared of men holding short sticks pointed out at them.
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. Nor do they have the visual capability to easily tell the difference between a sharp and blunt stick. Horses are partially colorblind, have a blind spot right in front of their face and very poor depth perception due to their eyes being on either side of their head, are often nearsighted, and generally have worse eyesight than humans.
In fact, horses tend to have a habit of hurting themselves on sharp things
due to not noticing the sharpness.
Furthermore, it is standard practice for horse trainers to desensitize horses to all sorts of objects that could potentially scare them - such as sharp sticks - through training.
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/
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. As such, in some cases the horse will literally ride into a brick wall if you tell it to.
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.
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.