Knight at Arms
Hruza, as I have shown you in the past, that quote is not relevant to Bannerlord's time period.
And I have shown you that quote is relevant to Bannerlords's time period. Those were still men on horses with armor and sharp sticks attacking men on foot with armor and sharp sticks. Horse won't willingly impale itself, in Bannerlord's period or any other period, including contemporary one.
I showed you heaps of examples from real history of cavalry successfully "crashing full speed into formed enemy lines". I showed you how pikes of the late medieval period, when Machiavelli was alive, were much longer and more solid than the short thin spears of the early medieval period, in which Bannerlord is set; and I showed why that means that cavalry can't charge a braced pike formation, but can charge a spear formation because they outrange them, the crucial difference.
I showed you that your examples are all wrong:
"The kataphraktoi were deployed together in a blunt-wedge formation twelve men deep. It was their role to charge directly into the heart of an enemy army. They would smash through all resistance, inexorably closing on their target and hopefully inducing panic at their approach. The principal advantage provided by the kataphraktoi to the Byzantine military system lay in the introduction of the potential for a devastating mounted charge against enemy infantry forces. The kataphraktoi would charge their enemy at a measured pace, ensuring the entire formation made contact together and augmenting the force of the charge beyond the aggregate sum of its constituent parts. For the enemy’s spears and menavlia will be shattered by the kataphraktoi and their arrows will be ineffective, whereupon the kataphraktoi, gaining in courage and boldness, will smash in the heads and bodies of the enemy and their horses with their iron maces and sabers, and they will break into their formations and from there break through and so completely destroy them."
The kataphraktoi shattered through the enemy ranks easily, their heavy armor protecting them from the spears of the Bulgars, who fought on foot.
And where do you see "successfully crashing full speed into formed enemy lines"? Because I can't find anything like that neither in a piece you have copied nor in the original text:
"It is necessary for the comander of the army to have the triangular formation of kataphraktoi at the ready and the other two units which accompany it, and, on whichever front enemy is facing, have them move out through those internals very calmly in proper formation. Even if enemy formation is made up of infantry, that is to say heavy infantry, the kataphraktoi should not be apprehensive but should proceed to attack very calmly, and aim triangular formation of the kataphraktoi right at the spot where commander of the enemy army is standing. And then the spears of the enemy infantry in the front lines will be smashed by the kataphraktoi, while arrows will be ineffective, as will javelins of their javeliners. Then with the help of God, they will turn to flight."
"Then the front of the triangular formation must move in proper formation at a TROTTING PACE and smash into the position of the enemy commander WHILE THE OUTFLANKERS ON THE OUTSIDE ENCIRCLE THE ENEMY as far as possible and THE OTHER TWO UNITS PROCEED ON BOTH FLANKS with perfect precision and enveness with the rear ranks of the kataphraktoi without getting too far ahead or breaking rank in any way. With the aid of God and through the intercession of His immaculate Mother the enemy will be overcome and give way to flight."
"And with God lending us aid through the intercession of His immaculate Mother, the enemy will be routed by this triangular formation of the kataphraktoi. For the enemy spear and pikes will be shattered by the kataphraktoi and their arrows will be ineffective, whereupon, the kataphraktoi, gaining in courage and boldness, will smash in the heads and bodies of the enemy and their horses with their iron maces and sabers, they will break in to and dismember their formations and from there break through and so completely destroy them.
When the enemy troops do turn to flight, it is not the kataphraktoi who should undertake the pursuit but their two accompanying units trailing behind them."
Praecepta Militaria on the tactics of the deployment of Kataphraktoi
pg 47 of Sowing the Dragons Teeth by Eric McGeer, folio IV.121-IV.154
In case you don't know what "trot" is:
Although it have to be noted that trot can be slower or faster. In any case trot is not a full speed. Not even a gallop.
This is why the "Norman knights rode down the elite units of the Varangian Guard" at both Olivento and Montmaggiore, disproving your statement that "cavalry could do nothing in a frontal attack against well disciplined infantry."
There is nothing about cavalry frontal attacking well disciplined infantry in your link.
One example being the (second) battle of Dyrrhachium: "The centre of the Byzantine Army made a final frontal attack on the Norman centre (300 mounted troops and 500 foot soldiers) and managed to break their formation and force them to retreat back to the castle at Mylos (page 296)."
And completely false again:
First of all, Norman heavy cavalry charge FAILED against Varangian infantry in formation:
The Varangians had been ordered to march just in front of the main line with a strong division of archers a little behind them.
As the opposing armies closed in, Guiscard sent a detachment of cavalry positioned in the centre to feint an attack on the Byzantine positions. Guiscard hoped the feint would draw up the Varangians; however, this plan failed when the cavalry was forced back by the archers.
Notice that Normans knew what I keep saying here, frontal cavalry charge have little chance against formed disciplined infantry, they did not charge with intention to defeat Varangians, they charged with intention to draw them out of the formation, because that's the only way how Norman cavalry could have defeated them.
Second, Varangians then mounted successful charge against Norman heavy cavalry WITH THIER 2H AXES. Those same axes you in your wisdom claim to be completely ineffective against cavalry:
With their massive battle axes, the Varangians attacked the Norman knights, who were driven away after their horses panicked.
And last, Varangian guard was defeated by the force of SPEARMEN and CROSSBOWMEN, after been separated from rest of the Byzantine force:
The Varangians soon became separated from the main force and exhausted so they were in no position to resist an assault. Guiscard sent a strong force of spearmen and crossbowmen against the Varangian flank and inflicted heavy casualties on them. The few remaining Varangians fled into the church of the Archangel Michael. The Normans immediately set the church on fire, and all Varangians perished in the blaze.
This was also exemplified by the Normans' victory at Hastings: "William’s men were inflicting enormous losses and beginning to open gaps in the Saxon front. William led his cavalry forward, and the Normans smashed through the Saxon line and struck at the elite force of huscarls around Harold’s standard."
Wrong. Norman cavalry charges failed. All of them.
The cavalry also failed to make headway, and a general retreat began, blamed on the Breton division on William's left. A rumour started that the duke had been killed, which added to the confusion. The English forces began to pursue the fleeing invaders, but William rode through his forces, showing his face and yelling that he was still alive. The duke then led a counter-attack against the pursuing English forces; some of the English rallied on a hillock before being overwhelmed.
It is not known whether the English pursuit was ordered by Harold or if it was spontaneous.
A lull probably occurred early in the afternoon, and a break for rest and food would probably have been needed. William may have also needed time to implement a new strategy, which may have been inspired by the English pursuit and subsequent rout by the Normans. If the Normans could send their cavalry against the shield wall and then draw the English into more pursuits, breaks in the English line might form. William of Poitiers says the tactic was used twice. Although arguments have been made that the chroniclers' accounts of this tactic were meant to excuse the flight of the Norman troops from battle, this is unlikely as the earlier flight was not glossed over. It was a tactic used by other Norman armies during the period.[r] Some historians have argued that the story of the use of feigned flight as a deliberate tactic was invented after the battle; however most historians agree that it was used by the Normans at Hastings.
You can read rest here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings#Beginning_of_the_battle
It's a typical example of how cavalry charges against competent and determined infantry were ineffective. Normans have to pretend to be defeated and flee to fool English in to breaking their formation to defeat them. In other words, the exact opposite of what you claim. Norman cavalry did not win the battle of Hastings by charging English infantry, Norman cavalry FLED from English infantry to win.
If you have a bow, javelin or crossbow, you might be able to shoot down the horse before it charges you, but if you miss too many shots you're doomed to get a lance through your face. "Neither form of light infantry – archer or javeliner – stood any chance at stopping a heavy cavalry charge alone."
And what does the light infantry have to do with heavy cavalry charging well disciplined heavy infantry?
2: "Bayonet era"? Give me a break! I have already said many times that battles from hundreds of years after Bannerlord's time period are not applicable because of technological advancement. Guns being commonplace "in the bayonet era" had made horse armor nearly useless, and required cavalry armor to be reduced to only chest and head protection, and this left the rider and mount more vulnerable in a melee fight relative to the fully-armored knight of the 1000s, so it's not comparable.
Footmen of Napoleonic era had no armor at all and their bayonets were much shorter then even the shortest spears. It's still man on a horse in armor with sharp stick against man on foot with sharp stick (and no armor). Napoleonic era records are the closest thing we have that describe cavalry combat.
To be sure Napoleonic accounts can't be used mechanically, but they do give useful insights in to cavalry warfare that are lacking from earlier period and can give us idea what is and what isn't possible. Cavalry charging disciplined formed infantry -not working.
3: An infantryman bracing a polearm is forced to put much of its length behind their body in order to rest it on the ground. Therefore, this cancels out the distance in which the cavalryman's horse is in front of them. I've drawn a simple diagram to illustrate.
Your diagram shows infantryman impaling the horse. So thanks for demonstrating my point.
You claim you would only need a 2m spear to impale a horse.
No I don't. Even half meter spear can impale the horse. If there were half meter spears. Which they were not. What were, were these: Cheval de frise
They could impale horse all right. No need for two meters.
I am not going through your other claims because I have disproved them many times before. Just picked couple as an example.
Cavalry can't charge into braced long spears, aka pikes. But they can absolutely charge into spearmen with short spears. To say that "cavalry can't charge into spearmen" is inaccurate.
No they can't. Horse will not willingly impale itself even if rider would be stupid enough to try it. Which he was not either. Cavalry is useless wit their horses impaled.