Are cavalry charges lame in your opinion?

Currently viewing this thread:

D0c1

Knight at Arms
The objects that are harder to change speed and direction, that is the more massive ones, will take more damage then objects with less mass, because objects with large mass are harder to displace.
i think that is if your car hits a wall.

it says that work will take place when the vehicle is stopped fast or the speed decreases in large amount. maybe because energy has to take other form idk.

so i see the opposite would be that your vehicle doesn't experience loss of speed, or not much loss of speed, so no work or much less work will take place and you'll suffer less damage.
here's the relevant part imo
If the vehicle comes to a stop, or if the speed is substantially decreased, the lost kinetic energy of the vehicle transforms into some other form. This process will involve work, the integral of force with respect to displacement. The bigger the displacement the weaker the force (and damage and injury.)
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
i think that is if your car hits a wall.

Wall is just an object with mass.

it says that work will take place when the vehicle is stopped fast or the speed decreases in large amount. maybe because energy has to take other form idk.

Work is always done. Work is just an energy taken from or given to the object by a force along with displacement. It does not matter in what form energy is.

Even damage is a result of a form of a work, since parts of the object are been displaced. Deformation, cracks, breakages are also displacement.

so i see the opposite would be that your vehicle doesn't experience loss of speed, or not much loss of speed, so no work or much less work will take place and you'll suffer less damage.
here's the relevant part imo

Loss of speed during collision is result of a force. If a object is massive, like a truck, more of that force will be causing damage then displacement, because truck have more momentum then a car. That however does not automatically mean that truck will take more damage, because while bigger part of a force (and force is equal for the truck and the car) is trying to cause the damage, truck is also more sturdier and damage resistant so to speak. It's made of thicker frame and thicker sheets then a car. Generally speaking. Unless you use some armored military car or something like that.

Imagine a Ping-Pong ball. Hit it and it will fly away long distance and will not be damaged at all. Because its mass is very small. It's easy to displace by force. But glue it firmly to the wall or something solid and hitting it will easily crack it. Because now you have added mass of the object it is glued to to it's mass. Force can't displace it, therefore it will damage it. Lighter, less massive object is, harder it is to damage and more easily to displace.
 

D0c1

Knight at Arms
Loss of speed during collision is result of a force. If a object is massive, like a truck, more of that force will be causing damage then displacement, because truck have more momentum then a car.
because trucks have more momentum than cars, they won't experience significant loss of speed on impact with cars moving at the same speed. thus, the kinetic energy won't transform into other types of energy and they'll sustain very low damage.
again, the quote:
If the vehicle comes to a stop, or if the speed is substantially decreased, the lost kinetic energy of the vehicle transforms into some other form. This process will involve work, the integral of force with respect to displacement. The bigger the displacement the weaker the force (and damage and injury.)

That however does not automatically mean that truck will take more damage, because while bigger part of a force (and force is equal for the truck and the car) is trying to cause the damage, truck is also more sturdier and damage resistant so to speak. It's made of thicker frame and thicker sheets then a car. Generally speaking.
those things aren't mentioned anywhere as a factor. only the mass is relevant.

i see no point arguing further with you because i want a physicist or someone who truly understands physics to answer. not a layman like me.
 

Urzahil

Recruit
From personal experience, when I lead cavalry, I usually lead them against their archers if they're in the back line or extended out on the wings to force them to scramble to get behind the infantry for protection against the cavalry.

And as another poster pointed out it takes a great deal of space to wheel around and get your cavalry back into formation for another organized charge, but some cavalry inevitably get bogged down back among the archers and infantry rushing over to help out. I generally keep my cavalry away from the infantry line until my own infantry line engages them then nail them in the flanks or rear if I'm not screening my infantry's flank against enemy cavalry. I always engage enemy cavalry if they get too close to my archers/infantry - to break up their formation and force them to trickle in their charges.

And I absolutely loathe the expansion of the "slash" damage to so many spear heads....Swinging the spear to "slash" on horseback is just ridiculous and completely unhistorical. The sheer physics of pulling off a successful slash attack with a long spear/lance is almost non-existent. And you definitely don't want to be swinging that spear around in a formation of cavalry for god's sakes - might end up whacking your own cavalry with the shaft. And the opposing cavalry should be laughing at you. XD
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
because trucks have more momentum than cars, they won't experience significant loss of speed on impact with cars moving at the same speed. thus, the kinetic energy won't transform into other types of energy and they'll sustain very low damage.
again, the quote:

It's exactly opposite. And that kinetic energy is energy after the impact and have nothing to do with the force during impact.

those things aren't mentioned anywhere as a factor. only the mass is relevant.

No it's not. I already gave you example of the ball and the window. Properties of the object are important for determining how much damage it sustain.

i see no point arguing further with you because i want a physicist or someone who truly understands physics to answer. not a layman like me.

I suggest your Physic teacher. Newton laws are basic school grade stuff.
 

five bucks

Sergeant at Arms
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.
Marignan_1515.jpg

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.
geography-travel-sudan-mahdist-war-1881-1898-battle-of-omdurman-291898-BHDF09.jpg



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.
iu

21st-Lancers-XXXX-by-Harry-Payne.jpg

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.
BayeuxTapestryScene52b.jpg

BayeuxTapestryScene56.jpg

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:

20393.jpg


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!
HorseBrainHumanBrainEN8-20-horseandriderbooks-1200x800.jpg

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.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
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.

Giordano Bruno had died on a stake. In you interpretation he must have burned himself to death.

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.
Marignan_1515.jpg

But if you are so unable to admit you were wrong that you instead claim you were never arguing the point, then go ahead.

Do you ever read your links?

From your link:

Massed in front of Francis’ center division was a grand battery of seventy-two field guns guarded by the infamous Black Legion
...
Close to sunset, the Swiss approached the French in three divisions of their own, each a dense mass of pikemen. They had no artillery or cavalry and had learned in past actions that a rapid advance into the enemy would sweep all before them.
...
At first the Swiss attack succeeded in driving back the landsknecht defenders and capturing a few of the guns, the speed of the Swiss advance rendering their fire ineffective. But Bourbon’s cavalry from the French right counter-attacked their flank, driving the forlorn hope back to the shelter of the Swiss vanguard.
...
The pursuing French horse were themselves routed by the oncoming Swiss mainbody.
...
In the French center, the grand battery had been reassembled. Opposing them, the Swiss had reformed their largest phalanx. Encouraged by the evening before, the Swiss once again lowered pikes and charged the French guns. This time the grand battery was ready for them. Massed cannon fire tore bloody furrows deep in their ranks, slowing the advance. But the undaunted Swiss continually closed ranks and pushed forward. Again, the defending German landsknechts were driven back; but the massed fire of the guns at point blank range prevented the Swiss from pushing farther forward. Still another French cavalry charge, this time led by Bayard, forced the attacking Swiss to give ground.

Baffled by the artillery but as yet undaunted, the Swiss refocused their assault against Alençon’s left-wing division. After making some headway, this attack too was thrown back. In his report later to his mother, King Francis would boast that “thirty brave charges” were hurled by the French gendarmerie against the stubborn Swiss.
...

THIRTY CHARGES ...THIRTY!!! No cavalry, no artillery, shot to pieces by canon, yet 30 charges from the best heavy cavalry in the world at that time did not break the Swiss footmen.
...
Only the mid-morning arrival of allied Venetian forces commanded by the condottiero Bartolomeo d'Alviano turned the tide against the Swiss. Their attacks repulsed everywhere, their ranks in bloody shambles, they grudgingly gave ground and withdrew.

The battle was a decisive victory for Francis. This could be considered the expected outcome, seeing as the Swiss were heavily outnumbered and outgunned. But the Swiss during the preceding decades had almost habitually emerged victorious from such disadvantageous situations, and the French victory by no means came easily, the battle hanging in the balance until the arrival of the Venetian reinforcements.


I took out just few pieces, anybody interested can just open the link and read complete thing for himself.

Let me sum it up:

Numerically inferior Swiss force of infantry without any support of cavalry and artillery charged superior combined arms French army, for two bloody days withstood French artillery barrage and repeated heavy cavalry charges from all sides while conducting fierce attacks on French themselves and then finally reluctantly withdrew from the field of battle when another force from Venice arrived to help the French.

Tell me, what on earth are you talking about? If anything that's prime example of how utterly ineffective heavy cavalry charges against disciplined formed infantry were.

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.

The English knew what they were getting into and so did the horses. It was definitely not an accident.

The lancers charged with fine style, lances leveled and swords drawn. But when they reached their objective they were shocked to find that the ground fell away five feet to expose a khor—a dry watercourse—filled with 3,000 warriors 10 to 12 ranks deep. The 21st was committed—there was nothing left to do but increase the pace and hope for the best.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2016/10/31/battle-of-omdurman-the-last-british-cavalry-charge/

...right, they "knew" so well that they were shocked. May be they knew and then forgot? Alzheimer lancers?
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
THIRTY CHARGES ...THIRTY!!! No cavalry, no artillery, shot to pieces by canon, yet 30 charges from the best heavy cavalry in the world at that time did not break the Swiss footmen.

You seem to be changing your argument from the initial "No you can NEVER train your warhorse to charge pointy sticks!!" to "Even when they do (which they never do) -they are ineffective!!"
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
You seem to be changing your argument from the initial "No you can NEVER train your warhorse to charge pointy sticks!!" to "Even when they do (which they never do) -they are ineffective!!"

My argument is, that cavalry charges were not performed by colliding horses in to pointy sticks, because horse won't do that (see quote from Machiavelli) and you can't train them to do so (see quote from Grassman). My argument is not that cavalry charges were not performed against men with pointy sticks. Those are two different things.

Cavalry charges against infantry obviously were performed, nobody is denying that. But they were not performed the way you see in Hollywood movies, Total War games or Warband.

How many full speed collisions in to a pike phalanx can horse survive in your opinion? In the text above French king say that his horses survived 30. That should tell you that there is something wrong with your understanding of cavalry charges and how they are depicted in popular games and films.
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Sergeant at Arms
Giordano Bruno had died on a stake. In you interpretation he must have burned himself to death.
Instead of being intentionally obtuse and making this an even bigger time waste, why don't you just directly say what you want to say?
Let's try again. I have given you a quote which specifically states that a rider rode his horse directly into the thick of an enemy pike formation, where it was killed on the pikes.
Can you now admit, based on this proof, that you CAN make a horse ride into a pike formation, contrary to what Machiavelli said? Have you ever admitted to being wrong in your life?
THIRTY CHARGES ...THIRTY!!! No cavalry, no artillery, shot to pieces by canon, yet 30 charges from the best heavy cavalry in the world at that time did not break the Swiss footmen.

Numerically inferior Swiss force of infantry without any support of cavalry and artillery charged superior combined arms French army, for two bloody days withstood French artillery barrage and repeated heavy cavalry charges from all sides while conducting fierce attacks on French themselves and then finally reluctantly withdrew from the field of battle when another force from Venice arrived to help the French.

Tell me, what on earth are you talking about? If anything that's prime example of how utterly ineffective heavy cavalry charges against disciplined formed infantry were.
If you would just read what I am saying instead of blindly disagreeing with everything: I already have agreed with you, multiple times over, that long pike infantry are very effective against a cavalry charge.

The point of linking Marignano is because you said heavy cavalry cannot charge into disciplined infantry, and that you cannot make a horse charge a pike formation. The Swiss were the most disciplined pike infantry in the world at the time, and they did eventually lose. Therefore, both those statements you made are disproven by Marignano.

Marignano is not proof that "formed infantry" in general, no matter their equipment, are able to withstand a cavalry charge; especially since they eventually fell. It is proof that formed long pike infantry are able to withstand a cavalry charge- something I have already agreed with.
The lancers charged with fine style, lances leveled and swords drawn. But when they reached their objective they were shocked to find that the ground fell away five feet to expose a khor—a dry watercourse—filled with 3,000 warriors 10 to 12 ranks deep. The 21st was committed—there was nothing left to do but increase the pace and hope for the best.

https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2016/10/31/battle-of-omdurman-the-last-british-cavalry-charge/

...right, they "knew" so well that they were shocked. May be they knew and then forgot? Alzheimer lancers?
So did you miss the part about seeing the dervishes with their spears at ~100 meters in my previous post, or did you just willingly ignore it again? They were shocked initially, yes, that doesn't mean their mounts didn't have time to react, which is what is relevant in this argument.


The horses had this much time to see, get scared of, and refuse to charge a mass of men with pointy sticks. They continued the charge anyway. Therefore this battle is proof that you can get horses to charge a line of men with pointy sticks.
My argument is, that cavalry charges were not performed by colliding horses in to pointy sticks, because horse won't do that (see quote from Machiavelli) and you can't train them to do so (see quote from Grassman). My argument is not that cavalry charges were not performed against men with pointy sticks. Those are two different things. Cavalry charges against infantry obviously were performed, nobody is denying that. But they were not performed the way you see in Hollywood movies, Total War games or Warband.
Disproven by the Battle of Bannockburn example where a horse is run directly into a pike formation and killed. You can get a horse to do that, either through training, or perhaps horses just naturally lack the vision/awareness--

"A horse's visual field is lowered when it is asked to go "on the bit" with the head held perpendicular to the ground. This makes the horse's binocular vision focus less on distant objects and more on the immediate ground in front of the horse. Riders who ride with their horses "deep" or "behind the vertical" decrease the range of the horse's distance vision even more, focusing only a few feet ahead of the front feet."

--but either way, the point remains, you can get horses to charge directly into massed unbreaking formations of infantry, even pike formations, even to their deaths. If you are arguing it was not a good idea or standard practice to charge pikes directly, I agree with that of course.
 

Demoulius

Regular
I feel cav charges can be alot better done in the game. The riders miss so much of their attacks against infantry its kinda weird. Cav vs cav they seem to have alot less trouble though. It worked just fine in Warband though and it kinda baffles me.

Why are you guys debating if horses will charge carelessly into a mess of pikes/spears though? Obviously they wont if they see the danger.... But I think in that also lies part of the problem. I think alot of factors are at play to determine if a horse is scared or not. Battlefield noises and smells probably are a part of it.A metal tip reflects light that shines on it and just a pointy stick or a broom wont. So that alone might give the horse a visual que about something beeing dangerous as well. Overall though I think its a matter of circumstances and it probably differed from horse to horse as well. To take other animals of an example of that, not all dogs can be trained to be seeing-eye dogs for example.

Im sure training can remove self preservation instincts to a degree, but not completly. The example of the guy charging into a pike formation seems more like an oddity, a rare occurance then something that happened regulary. Otherwise, why would they bother report it at all if it happend all the damn time?

We are still discussing a game though. Ingame it helps if cav has a counter (ontop of other cav beeing a counter) and horses rearing when a pointy stick (as you guys call it) is presented to them as a threat helps with that. Both for single and multiplayer. Prevents the AI or player snowballing the campaign and gives people in multiplayer a counter to cavalry to prevent it from dominating completly.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Heres a an interesting and pretty telling response from a woman who owns racehorses when asked Why Horses Rode into Battle:

Why will horses allow you to ride them into battle?

"The same reason they do any number of quite extraordinary things for humans - as herd animals, they are biologically driven to follow their herd leader. People socialize domestic horses to look to them as the leader, and take advantage of their amazing reflexes to get their bodies via conditioning to the aids to do things before their brain can get caught up in deciding if it's a good idea or not.

Plus there is the "greater herd" effect - you don't normally see a lone rider charging into the thick of it - it's a group of horses/riders. Even in a field, if one horse runs off they all tend to gallop off. It's the herd instinct kicking in again - instinctively, they don't want to be left behind - and this can be taken advantage of very effectively in a group charge - each horse gains courage frim the fact that there are many horses around them galloping in the same direction so they quite willingly will do the same. They can't help it.

Riders use these powerful deep seated herd instincts to solve problems with horses all the time (horse won't cross a stream? He usually will follow another more experienced horse or even a person across very readily, even if he'd refused point blank otherwise due to fear of the unknown)

If horses WERENT herd animals, (or we weren't able to establish ourselves as their herd leaders) given their size and strength there is no way people with their relatively minor pieces of equipment would be able to ride or control a horse at all, never mind ride it into battle.

Ps horses can't imagine or think about their own demise! They are here and now kind of creatures"

~Melanie Arabsky Ledger
Eventer and fan and repeat owner of ex-racehorses / "off the track" thoroughbreds.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
Heres a an interesting and pretty telling response from a woman who owns racehorses when asked Why Horses Rode into Battle:

Problem of your theory is not to ride horse in to a battle. We have plenty of sources that shows that horses rode in to a battle and nobody dispute that.

Your problem is to explain how you can ride horse on to a spear. Which that quote does not explain. Using herd instinct of a horse to make it follow more experienced horse across a stream is all nice and fine, finding horse with experience of impaling itself on a spear is quit a different thing. Dead horses are difficult to follow.

Besides, herd instinct is the last thing you want during a charge because you don't want to loose control of your horse:

For the individual miles, maintaining formation discipline and calibrated speed is not just a challenge in terms of holding position relative to his comrades, but in terms of controlling the horse. Horses in a group tend to act as a herd. If one horse begins galloping, all will, and it is then exceedingly difficult to re-establish control (which explains why officers regularly dealt harshly with a trooper who broke ranks and dashed forward).64 Also, a stampeding herd is liable to overlook obstacles such as ditches,65 caltrops or stakes, and will be upon them before they can react.
Jürg Gassmann
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Also, a stampeding herd is liable to overlook obstacles such as ditches,65 caltrops or stakes, and will be upon them before they can react.

lol so right here it shows they will do detrimental actions if in the proper state of herd instinct...bruh....

I can see the flaw in your argument now -your thinking too binary "Herd instinct needs to be off or else...A B C". But thats now how animal training works. Like the racehorse owner said 'Without the Herd instinct no one but no one would be telling horses what to do period.'

Animal training depending on what you intend for the animal to do is all about intercepting certain instinctual drives of the animal to either erase it , skip it or even enhance it. Think killer dog guard who get the Kill Bite instinct reinforced while the sheep herding dog has all the aspects of the hunting wolf minus the Kill Bite. These are not binary static On/Off all or nothing behaviours.

Animals can be trained to do all kinds of things outside of their normal instincts even to the point in which theyll die trying something theyd normally never do. Depends on the level of training, that specific animal and its trust/loyalty to its owner. Now if we're looking at warfare, obviously cavalry charges have been around for hundreds of years and generally the men they are charging are going to be holding some sort of slender pointy weapon. Now you kind of have multiple arguments running at once: one being that warhorses wont charge at well disciplined heavy infantry head on at cost to their own lives. The 2nd one being that you simply cant get a horse to charge at a man holding a pointy stick -which from the examples from 5 bucks we know that they have and do. The 3rd argument youve made is a classic "move the goalposts "in which after being shown 'they charged 30 times" you said that just proves how ineffective those cav charges were. Now those are two very different statements.

I think its safe to say that its really more about the rider than the horse here -why on earth would leader have his horse charge headfirst into braced pikemen -that would be suicidal. I guess i would agree that a horse would have enough pure animal instinct to tell the difference between a wall of really long braced pikes and just some soldiers with smaller spears. Smaller spears i could easily see a horse being trained to overun but a wall of spikes 8 feet out would be a pretty tough sell to a horse im sure. But again -why on earth would any solder even attempt that. Again with just common sense all warfare and combat is a game of angles, that is quickly getting a better position on your enemy where you can "hit and not be hit". So im guessing throughout history there have been plenty of attempts by cavalry to get a better angle than a frontal attack BUT im just as sure that there have been times -like any firefight- where the enemy has quickly adjusted his anglle thereby the horsed riders were forced into a bad situation.

This debate at this point seems more about ego attached to "winning" then whats good for gameplay. Ive seen Total War mentioned here alot in the negative as if it is responsible for promoting the fallacy of full head on cav charges into braced pikeman - which is strange because im knee deep in a Medieval 1212 campaign right now im constantly trying to find a better angle to charge spearmen with my cav - as they take bad losses with a frontal charge -as they should.
 

hruza

Knight at Arms
lol so right here it shows they will do detrimental actions if in the proper state of herd instinct...bruh...

No, it shows they can overlook detrimental factors when acting as a herd. Horse will collide in to things that it does not see. Just like you. That's all it shows.

Animals can be trained to do all kinds of things outside of their normal instincts even to the point in which theyll die trying something theyd normally never do.

Except I asked you and others many times to show me any historical source or evidence of such a training and how it was conducted. Despite literally centuries of use of the cavalry by people in war, you were unable to find a single source about such a training.

Training that would make horses willingly impale themselves on weapons does not exist today and there is no evidence that it existed in the past. It's all just phantasies of people who refuse to acknowledge that Lord of The Rings films are not a proper historical source to learn about cavalry charges and that in real world goblin pike will not break on a horse skin.
 
Last edited:

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
No, it shows they can overlook detrimental factors when acting as a herd. Horse will collide in to things that it does not see. Just like you. That's all it shows.

Ahh but your quote and source doesnt say that cant see -it says and implies that they will "overlook" the danger when in herd mentality. That mean they can be brought to the mentality to "overlook" certain danger.

Except I asked you and others many times to show me any historical source or evidence of such a training and how it was conducted. Despite literally centuries of use of the cavalry by people in war, you were unable to find a single source about such a training.

Training that would make horses willingly impale themselves on weapons does not exist today and there is no evidence that it existed in the past.

Your confusing me with 5 Bucks -you never asked me. I only entered the discussion as I noticed you seemed to at first be saying that horses wouldnt attack a heavily longspeared armed tightly formed phalanx from the front - a notion i would tend to agree with only to change your argument to "they would never charge men with pointy sticks as a frontal charge because the horse would never do it". Again this has already been disproven with 5 bucks examples in which, (again) you already conceded they charged 30 times but that "it wasnt effective"

Your own source has Jürg Gassmann states "Horses crashing into walls (of infantry) has been documented but its a poor tactical choice as the rider falls and is rendered ineffective" (paraphrasing). He states that it is a tactically ineffective choice But the horses DID crash into them. Thats my point - not that its wise -but that horses and animals can be trained to do all sorts of dangerous things that go against their instinct.
 
This debate at this point seems more about ego attached to "winning" then whats good for gameplay. Ive seen Total War mentioned here alot in the negative as if it is responsible for promoting the fallacy of full head on cav charges into braced pikeman - which is strange because im knee deep in a Medieval 1212 campaign right now im constantly trying to find a better angle to charge spearmen with my cav - as they take bad losses with a frontal charge -as they should.

Fully agree here, for game play purpose should be enough if there was a huge difference between frontal charging and side/back charging. The last time I have played I didn't notice a huge effectiveness difference depending on the side where the charge was coming.

BTW there is no spear wall formation in game, neither 'brace your spears' command, so i guess that defense vs cavalry is not implemented by now.
 
Last edited:

hruza

Knight at Arms
Ahh but your quote and source doesnt say that cant see -it says and implies that they will "overlook" the danger when in herd mentality.

overlook
verb
1. fail to notice.

That mean they can be brought to the mentality to "overlook" certain danger.

Thy can't be brought to any mentality. They have herd mentality and when they are acting as a herd, they can (or not) overlook things. Just like anybody else can when acting in a herd, including people.

Your confusing me with 5 Bucks -you never asked me.

I am now.

I only entered the discussion as I noticed you seemed to at first be saying that horses wouldnt attack a heavily longspeared armed tightly formed phalanx from the front - a notion i would tend to agree with only to change your argument to "they would never charge men with pointy sticks as a frontal charge because the horse would never do it". Again this has already been disproven with 5 bucks examples in which, (again) you already conceded they charged 30 times but that "it wasnt effective"

Your own source has Jürg Gassmann states "Horses crashing into walls (of infantry) has been documented but its a poor tactical choice as the rider falls and is rendered ineffective" (paraphrasing). He states that it is a tactically ineffective choice But the horses DID crash into them.

I already told you, that no one have ever claimed, that horses newer collided in to infantry lines and impaled themselves. Point is that they won't do it willingly and therefore you can't make a battlefield tactic from it. Therefore cavalry charges could not have been performed they way you and some other claim.

As for 5 bucks examples, I have already disproved them above. See the pervious posts.

Thats my point - not that its wise -but that horses and animals can be trained to do all sorts of dangerous things that go against their instinct.

And you still did not gave a single source documenting how horses were trained to collide in to spears.

Because you can't. Such sources does not exist.

Another argument against the “shock” attack into a solid infantry formation is that it cannot be trained; even if done without sharp weapons, it is too dangerous for man and beast on both sides, and what cannot be sensibly trained cannot be a regulation battlefield tactic. What can be observed in re enactments is that horses will gravitate towards a perceived gap in the formation facing them, however small, and will (delicately but irresistibly) shove aside the infantrymen both sides of the gap (experiment done 2015 between the mounted Timetrotter crew and assorted legionary infantry at Augusta Raurica, and at Tournoi XIII; ref. also Bachrach, Carolingians, p.95)
Combat Training for Horse and Rider in the Early Middle Ages
Jürg Gassmann


Fully agree here, for game play purpose should be enough if there was a huge difference between frontal charging and side/back charging. The last time I have played I didn't notice a huge effectiveness difference depending on the side where the charge was coming.

That's because MB is not TRS game like Total War. You don't have some arbitrary variable that says this is the back of the formation so apply +X to attack damage and + Y to attack toll. Fights in MB are not performed in some RNG calculations behind the screens and then game just plays nice animation for the player based on the dice roll. In MB AI bot A have to actually hit AI bot B with the weapon, and it makes no difference if bot B stands at the back or front of the formation.

To make flank and back attacks more realistic, you would need more realistic "morale" system and more complex AI that is not just aim at the target, move forward and hack and slash.

At one side MB is more realistic then Total War, because it simulates actual combat down to individual soldiers. On the other side that simulation is extremely simplistic and not very realistic in itself. And that's the problem devs face.
 
Last edited:

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
And you still did not gave a single source documenting how horses were trained to collide in to spears.

Because you can't. Such sources does not exist.

Five Bucks examples stand:


your retort is incredibly weak:

"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."

as the inference is drawn - they charged and died by Pike. I guess you could try and get a signed legal affidavit from the horse before it died as to its state of mind on how willing he was, how coerced or possibly just "overlooked the pikes" but that makes about as much sense as continuing this argument.

This debate at this point seems more about ego attached to "winning" then whats good for gameplay
Gonna take my own advice.
Bless up
 
There is one thing that really frustrates me in this game (even though I love Bannerlord) and those are Cavalry Charges.
My preffered combat style has always been on horseback as a shock cavalry.
Cavarly was supposed to charge in a tight formation to deal massive damage into enemy lines, from the powerful Macedonian Companions to the legendary Medieval Knights with their couched lances.

Now I know Total War and Bannerlord are two completely different type of games, but sadly in Bannerlord you just don't get the feeling of a cavalry charge, at all.
I try to micro my army (composed of infantry, archers and shock cavalry mostly) in order to face the enemy at a certain angles so when I order the charge they just don't randomly go wherever they want, but it doesn't matter and still happens that when I order my cavalry to charge it is infuriating to see they break formation and follow single cavalry archers instead of charging as a pack to the rear or flank of the enemy line rendering the charge completely useless and dying to stray arrows.
To make matters worse, they sometimes do go and attack the enemy line from an angle I want but most of them just freeze when they crash against a foot soldier as if they were a wall.

Does anybody else feels the same way about it?
first of all, are you using the "realistic battle mod" or w/e its called? that mod turned down the couched lance damage big time so don't use it if you want good cav charge

i've played cav style extensively since EA and i can tell you from experience it doesn't work as easily or as "intuitively". for example. don't use skein formation for your horsemen. i've found that in order to use heavy cav effectively, you leave them on "charge" for no more than 10 seconds after they clash with the enemy. here's what you need to do:

1- don't attack the enemy body with your cavalry alone. in fact don't ever attack the enemy. have your lines formed then go agro them into attacking you if they don't charge at the start. (hitting the enemy from range with a few horse archers would do the trick. position them about 100m away from the enemy army and let them shoot till the enemy charges you)

2- form your cavalry into a long line, 2 men deep is enough. (unless you have like 200 of them and it takes too much space horizontally)

3- never charge the FRONT of the enemy army, always approach from the side or better yet, behind.

4- 10 seconds after the initial impact of your cav charge. command them to form a line behind the enemies and turn them to face the enemy. after they form, charge again. rinse and repeat (as you can see, using the cavalry is about utilizing their mobility and never staying still or losing formation. unlike the infantry or archers you cant just issue commands and leave them)

typically i would start the field battle.
-position my infantry in shield wall in front. have my archers behind loose formation on hill hold arrows. my horse archers either behind or on the right side of my archers. and my cavs waaaaaay yyyy to the left field in line.
-if the enemy harass me with their horse archers, i charge my cav and scatter them, then back as the enemy horse archers would return all the way to his army. once my lines are formed and the enemy isn't charging me. i send some horse archers to go pull them.
-once the enemy is charging me about 125m away i let my ranged start firing. on a hill the tier 5 units actually have more range but aren't as accurate, don't waste ammo, you want the initial volley to down a few troops creating gaps in their line.
-and when the enemy army is about 50m away, my archers would have dropped a good number of them, their have lost some of their formation and cohesion, and their line of archers behind the infantry would be lining up to shoot, in short their army is formed in many layers, stretched, showing you a fat side
-this is when i position my cavary for the first charge from the left side, and sweep them all the way across to the right side of the fight. turn, form, and charge again.
-if there is a situation where the enemy has a lot of infantry and is clashing with yours forming a huge pile. stop the sweep attack with your cavs, they'll just get bogged down, and focus on taking out their archers in the back, while sending your horse archers to charge and shoot enemy infantry in the back with a left circling move(that's why i put them on the right side). once the enemy archers are dealt with, have your cavalry back charge the enemy infantry, this time in one direction only, not back and forth. keep repeating this until their army is on the retreat. then stop the charge, have them sit back. i found, once the enemy is routing, charging them directly with cavalry will oddly enough result in lots of casualties on your side
-if the enemy has reinforcements coming in, you stop firing as well, and wait for them go approach the 125m line, start over again.
-if the enemy has no more reinforcements, and are just routing. you charge the infantry and archers first. have your horse archers push up from the side, then charge, they'll encircle the enemy putting arrows in their backs. and after your infantry makes contact, send your heavy cavs in at the end since they'll be occupied by your infantry to attack your horsemen.

this strategy has provided the most kills for me with the least losses. sometimes instead of charging i just run my cavs through, and they would attack anyone in their way just the same. this method would make retaining formation a lot easier and quicker but you kill less foes. the point of maximising cavalry damage is really to create an ideal environment for them. wide open lines of troops to cut down. make sure the enemy isn't facing your cavs, they aren't in line/formation, and they are stretched by your other troops.

and a lot of people seem to be having this argument of possibility of getting horses to charge pike lines or w/e. first of all. strategically only an arrogant and egotistical fool would charge a pike line. but let me remind you that horses are a lot dumber than people. and a lot faster and heavier. so it wouldn't be a stretch to say that making a horse charge a pike is a lot easier to manage than making a man hold a pike against a charging horse. and assuming both had the discipline to pull it off. the horse would die to impalement to the pikes. and about 5 pikemen would be crushed in the collision.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom