Are cavalry charges lame in your opinion?

Currently viewing this thread:

hruza

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 that your examples are all wrong:


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.


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.


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.[97] 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.[98] The duke then led a counter-attack against the pursuing English forces; some of the English rallied on a hillock before being overwhelmed.[97]

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.[99] 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.[101] 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.[99][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.[102]


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.
 

Nalgasucia507

Sergeant at Arms
That Total War along with Hollywood taught generations of people completely fake impression about cavalry charges. What you see in Total War and Hollywood scenes is complete nonsense. Both from historical point and a basic physic as well. Not to mention horse self preservation instinct. From the powerful Macedonian Companions to the legendary Medieval Knights with their couched lances, they did not commit mass suicides by crashing full speed in to formed enemy lines. It's an incredibly stupid thing to do. And impossible too. Because you can't force horse to willingly impale itself on a stick. Not on any regular basis to be bale to make it actual tactic in battle:

I say that, as soon as the horse so disposed begins to see himself at the point of being struck by the points of the pikes, 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. If you want to make a test of this, try to run a horse against a wall, and rarely will you find one that will run into it, no matter with what Elan you attempt it.
The Art of War from Niccolo Machiavelli


And before somebody comes with obligatory "but you can train horse to do it" ...no you can't. I have already asked people here to bring me any evidence of such training and nobody was able to bring anything. There is not a single piece of evidence that somebody ever done such thing.

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. It's just bunch of pixels going strait through bunch of other pixels on the screen.
This is what I am talking about on my above post. 0 relevance, and also the post above my first post.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
Why do all these threads convert into a historical debate. If you read the first page of this thread is all about gameplay. Jesus Christ.

Because you are gameplaying historical game of knights, crossbowmen, shieldwalls, spears and swords. You get one right at the first game menu. Jesus obvious Christ.
 

Calabanar

Regular
You are just arguing to argue at this point.

Bannerlord ISN'T a historical game. It has sprinkles of historic inspiration here and there but that's it.

People enjoy charges, and so do I. Let them have them.

What I will say is that I kind of hoped light cav would have a different ai than heavy cav, since their roles are so drastically different.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
You are just arguing to argue at this point.

Bannerlord ISN'T a historical game. It has sprinkles of historic inspiration here and there but that's it.

Sprinkles what?

ABOUT THE GAME

Mount&Blade is an immersive MEDIEVAL action/tactics game taking place in a fictitious land named Calradia. Enriched with RPG elements, Mount&Blade offers a captivating environment, beautifully detailed with hundreds of castles, towns, and villages to explore.

source: https://www.taleworlds.com/en/Games/MountAndBlade

For those who bought medieval action/tactic game despite not knowing what word "medieval" means:

Definition of medieval
(Entry 1 of 2)
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of the Middle Ages
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/medieval

People enjoy charges, and so do I. Let them have them.

Nobody is preventing you from having charges. Charge ahead to your heart's content.
 

Calabanar

Regular
Medieval is a genre, a setting, to define the period the game takes place in. That's it. For Honor is a medieval game as well.

Anyway, like Nalgasucia507 says, this is derailing.

I doubt Taleworlds will do much about the situation of cavarly anyway, appart from, hopefully, fixing the damn AI so it actually lands hits instead of missing 80% of the time. Charges would feel much more impactful as the top right corner of the screen would then suddenly be filled with green text during a succesful "charge".

In fact, I'm pretty confident if they fixed the AI, there wouldn't even be a need to grant more charging power to horsemen (like at release), since horsemen would do the job just fine without feeling op: once stopped in their tracks, they lose their greatest asset: speed.

Edit: Sure, it isn't a "genre" but ffs is that all you care about? If you need to argue that bad just go on Twitter or something.
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
Medieval is a genre, a setting, to define the period the game takes place in. That's it. For Honor is a medieval game as well.

Action/tactics game is a genre. RPG is a genre. RTS is a genre. FPS is a genre. Medieval is name of a historic period.
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Sergeant
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.
You are intentionally ignoring the crucial difference, which is the length of the "sharp stick." If a rider's lance is around a meter longer than the soldier's spear, the rider will knock over the soldier before the horse gets anywhere near "impaling itself".

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)

TL;DR:

In the 1500s, infantry pikes typically outranged cavalry lances, by 2-3m.

In the 1000s, cavalry lances typically outranged infantry spears, by 1-2m. This was easily sufficient distance to lance someone without your horse getting "impaled" or even "pricked".


I have already shown video proof that a horse will willingly ride into a wall of men carrying short sticks pointed at them, and even run them right over.


Machiavelli says a horse, being driven on by spurs, is able to go so close to a wall of pikes that he will continue to the point of not stopping until the pikes are actually pricking him. "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." This means that spurring a horse will allow you to get definitely within lance range, if you are fighting someone who has a short spear.

Here are some excerpts from stories told by Winston Churchill about his days as a cavalryman in Sudan.

"(The sepoy planted his foot and) awaited me with fixed bayonet. I approached him at a smart canter, and guided the horse so as to take the point of the bayonet on its chest." In other words, you can get a horse to do that. And here is a quote regarding presumably non-bayonet wielding infantry. "Bradford broke through the thickest of the enemy, 18 or 20 deep. He was followed by 20 Sikhs; and though there were some men and many horses slightly wounded, Bradford was untouched."

So: Length of a spear matters immensely, and you can get a well trained horse to charge into a potentially injurious situation, unless it is a literal wall of long pikes.

If you could stop cavalry from charging just by having a short spear, they never would have dominated European warfare for literal centuries like they did. You need a LONG, thick spear (pike) to deal with cavalry.
And where do you see "successfully crashing full speed into formed enemy lines"?
Yes, that particular quote does not say "full speed." Many cavalry charges were done at a medium speed (trot-to-canter range) because it was easier to keep formation that way. But that quote in your post certainly describes "successfully crashing into formed enemy lines." That's undeniable.

I am perfectly willing to cede the two words "full speed". Because unlike you I'm a reasonable human being who can be convinced. Really, speed is irrelevant to me. Whatever speed you want to claim is fine. Either way, cavalry charges can and did work.
There is nothing about cavalry frontal attacking well disciplined infantry in your link.
You literally just quoted it yourself.
Are you just engaging in a weird No True Scotsman where any infantry that fails to defeat cavalry must not be "well disciplined"?
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.
The Varangians had shields in this battle, and I have already agreed before that a force of shielded, well trained, well equipped infantry in a shieldwall can resist for quite some time the charges of a well-trained, well-equiped cavalry force. The thing is that in these situations, the cavalry can win eventually by wearing down the shieldwall (see Hastings). The Dyrrhachium example introduces another variable, the archers, who managed to drive off the cavalry before this could happen. But without the archers, it is an even-ish fight; with the cavalry having the initiative.
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.
Where is this "Norman knights" quote coming from? Because if this is Dyrrhachium, then you're getting confused. At no point were "Norman knights" attacked and routed by Varangians with battle axes in a straight fight during Dyrrhacium. What happened was a mixture of Norman light cavalry (not knights) and infantry, who were tangled up attacking another formation, were attacked from the flank by Varangians. That situation is not applicable to this discussion at all.
Yes, two handed axes are effective against a cavalryman in a fight where the cavalryman is already tied up fighting someone else at the same time. That's obvious, I never would have disagreed with that.
The cavalry also failed to make headway, and a general retreat began, blamed on the Breton division on William's left.[97] 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.[98] The duke then led a counter-attack against the pursuing English forces; some of the English rallied on a hillock before being overwhelmed.[97]

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.
For starters, you didn't read the part of that very article that says the feigned flights did not break the shieldwall. They created temporary gaps, but those gaps were replaced by more men, and "the shield wall held." Therefore, something else must have broken the shieldwall, as I said last time you posted this.

Since the last time we argued this, I looked more closely into it than just the Wikipedia page. I found important information that provides context to the battle and indicates the Norman cavalry charges were what broke the shieldwall.

Most early accounts of the battle indicate that Harold was injured by an arrow, but actually killed by cavalrymen attacking him with melee weapons. Since Harold was behind both the shieldwall and surrounded by his own men, this means the Norman knights would have had to break the shieldwall first.


Here in the Bayeux Tapestry you can see a cavalry force with lances and swords charging a formed, stationary shieldwall, and defeating them. The Tapestry, which is the earliest record of the battle, shows a mix of successful and unsuccessful attempts of the cavalrymen attempting to charge the shieldwall, with deaths on either side. This supports my argument, that a shieldwall and cavalry charge are roughly equal to each other, and the battle can go either way. As opposed to infantry with long pikes (who can totally stop a horse charge) and infantry not in a shieldwall or long pikewall (who get ran through and slaughtered).
And what does the light infantry have to do with heavy cavalry charging well disciplined heavy infantry?
It's an aside, talking about archers and javelineers. It obviously wasn't related to the main discussion, it just provided context to it.
Footmen of Napoleonic era had no armor at all and their bayonets were much shorter then even the shortest spears.
Oh, so now the length of the polearm DOES matter, does it?
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.
The Red Lancers (see below quote for the battle they were described as "formidable" in) did not wear armor, same goes for many lancers in the Napoleonic period.
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.
Then try reading the response I already gave on the Napoleonic era.
"In 1815, Sergeant James Anton of the 42nd Highlanders found himself facing French lancers at the crossroads town of Quatre Bras. Describing his feelings afterward, he said, Of all descriptions of cavalry certainly the lancers seem the most formidable to infantry, as the lance can be projected with considerable precision and with deadly effect without bringing the horse to the point of the bayonet."
Your diagram shows infantryman impaling the horse.
Use your ability to read English, please. The diagram was made to refute your false claim. You said: "The infantry here have clear advantage for obvious reasons. Horse sticks far ahead of the rider."

My diagram proves that you are incorrect, and that with equal length polearms, neither the infantryman nor the cavalryman have an advantage, because while the horse sticks ahead of the rider, the polearm also must stick behind the body of the infantryman (in order to be braced).

This was followed by supplementary text (refer to the top of the thread) showing that the cavalryman in Bannerlord's time period typically had a longer polearm than the infantryman, and thus would have the advantage.
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
"A literal solid object covered in spikes, with a wide base securing it firmly on the ground"

is not the same thing as

"an 80kg human trying to hold steady a single spike, while being hit by a lance bearing the momentum of a 500kg horse + 80kg rider"
I am not going through your other claims because I have disproved them many times before. Just picked couple as an example.
No, you haven't. In fact, you never replied to that post at all.

If you don't want to argue, just say you're tired of arguing. There's no need to ****ing lie.
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
You are intentionally ignoring the crucial difference, which is the length of the "sharp stick."

No I am not. I have clearly said that horse will not willingly impale itself on any sharp stick, no matter the length.

If a rider's lance is around a meter longer than the soldier's spear, the rider will knock over the soldier before the horse gets anywhere near "impaling itself".

You see that's the problem with your argument right there. If this then if that then this and that... that's a combat going on inside some mythical spheres somewhere in some mythical void.

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. There are no lances on Bayeux Tapestry.

Plus you conveniently ignoring that:
A. Horse does not know if your lance is going to knock off footmen along with his lance.
B. 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 am not going to dismiss rest of your claims because I already did that before many times and you just keep copy pasting them. I will just stop on one more example that you keep bringing up to show how manipulative you are in your arguments:

I have already shown video proof that a horse will willingly ride into a wall of men carrying short sticks pointed at them, and even run them right over.


Those are not sharp sticks, those are broomsticks. They're not sharp. Broomstick will not impale a horse, not in the way shown on the video, sorry.
 

five bucks

Sergeant
No I am not. I have clearly said that horse will not willingly impale itself on any sharp stick, no matter the length.
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.[19] 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?
You see that's the problem with your argument right there. If this then if that then this and that... that's a combat going on inside some mythical spheres somewhere in some mythical void.
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."
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.
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)
A. Horse does not know if your lance is going to knock off footmen along with his lance.
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.
B. 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.
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.
Those are not sharp sticks, those are broomsticks. They're not sharp. Broomstick will not impale a horse, not in the way shown on the video, sorry.
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/ and

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.
I am not going to dismiss rest of your claims because I already did that before many times and you just keep copy pasting them.
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.
 
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.[19] 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/ and

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.
Bruh, dont feed the trolls xD, its like "arguing" with flat earther, he just keeps closing eyes on facts
@moderator, can we ban this hruza guy? Thanks! Kekw xD
 

ArturMorhghain

Sergeant
My heavy cavalry regularly gets clowned by archers. And not because they’re getting shot - because I’ve outflanked them while they’re concentrating on my infantry - but because the cav miss so many strikes while the archers (1) don’t fear horses at all and so just stand around while they block the horse’s path and (2) pull out their swords and hack my cav to pieces.

Should/can the AI be more reactive to horses if they’re not in a shieldwall/holding a spear?

And I’ve seen a fair amount of suggestions on having cavalry connect with their swings or thrusts more often.
 
Top Bottom