Of course, we celebrate the notable survivors of that fraught situation ....... how many were lost in the same circumstance, like Richard III ?
Richard was apparently dehorsed when
separated from his main force and heavily outnumbered, which makes quite a bit of difference to one's chances of survival.
Cavalry generally could not overcome formed infantry in good order regardless of weapons used by either side as long as the weapons posed a threat.
It was not the material effect of a charge which destroyed the enemy but wearing them down until they broke formation and could be destroyed in the pursuit.
Now this isn't to say that a frontal charge could not succeed as they obviously did. However the mechanism by which they succeeded had little to do with the weapons and was instead decided by morale. Basically combat in those days was a big game of chicken, whoever broke first got annihilated.
I would suggest reading "battle studies" by Ardant du Picq. He breaks this all down much better and he was actually a contemporary of actual cavalry charges.
I've just found and read all sections of his book relevant to cavalry. Yes, his opinion does in some ways seem to match the statement you make above, though not exactly. There are some things that bear keeping in mind.
1: His general statements on the effectiveness of cavalry frontally attacking infantry are based on a handful of examples from the ancient and modern-era (as in, for his day), but not medieval. As has already been discussed here earlier, 1800s melee cavalry had an additional disadvantage relative to infantry which their early medieval counterparts did not- accurate, powerful, common firearms carried by every single infantryman. Ancient cavalry, on the other hand, were less effective than their medieval counterparts in a direct charge because the stirrup hadn't yet been introduced, so it was difficult to hit someone on the ground while wearing 20kg of armor and not fall off; du Picq notes this when he quotes Xenophon.
But medieval warriors, thanks to the stirrup, were more stable when attacking from horseback. And they didn't have to worry about every single infantryman they charged also being an effective ranged combatant as well.
When du Picq actually talks about
medieval warriors, he acknowledges that they were more effective than earlier counterparts: "The fighting of the Middle Ages revived the ancient battles except in science. Cavalrymen attacked each other perhaps more than the ancient cavalry did, for the reason that they were invulnerable: it was not sufficient to throw them down; it was necessary to kill when once they were on the ground."
2: While du Picq did partake in some battles, I don't believe it was as a cavalryman. Perhaps it would be better to read a contemporary account from an actual cavalryman.
Werner Behm of the Mecklenburg Hussars, on what he did at the Battle of Möckern in 1813:
Already we could see an enemy square. Both wings of our regiment extended beyond it, but all veered in to the centre and a dreadful crush developed, so that in the 2nd Squadron, some horses and riders were lifted off the ground. Luckily for us, the side of the square facing us fired too soon. The order "March! March! Hurrah!" rang out and we charged at the enemy. A group of riders in advance of our main body crashed into the corner of the square like a battering ram and broke it away from the other infantry. The wings of the regiment were ordered to close in and we surrounded the square on all sides. On the left wing Leutnant Schüssler was killed and Rittmeister Damm was wounded in the arm. At the first shock, several of our men had penetrated the square in several places, including Cpl. Woltersdorf, whose horse received several bayonet wounds in the chest, but crashed into the square and out again. At the front of the square, which had been the steadiest side, Cpl. Benzien of the 3rd Squadron had charged into the thickest part and had caused chaos, as had Cpl Rheinhold of the 4th Squadron. Many other troopers followed their example. We later counted 60 horses with bayonet wounds in the chest. In a few places the square held firm. And these points, the troopers turned their horses to the left in order to be able to use their sabres, and edged up to the enemy, trying to hack at the officers who were ordering their men to fire. These suffered many cuts to their faces. Gradually the square was crushed together into a shapeless mass; there was no way out for them. Many duels broke out between the hussars and the infantry."
Then we have some historical examples written about by Lewis Nolan, a British cavalry officer, who states "the safety of the infantry does not depend upon the courage, upon the steady discipline and firm behaviour of the square, but rather, solely, on the forbearance of the
cavalry." He writes of the siege of Trichinopoli, 1753:
The Mahrattas, much reduced in numbers, but still determined to have their revenge, formed in two ranks, the second at some distance behind the first; they then advanced steadily up to the bayonets; the English took a deliberate aim, poured upon them a most deadly fire, and down went the leading ranks, men and horses: the Mahrattas had drawn the fire, as had been agreed amongst them; but over their prostrate bodies rushed the rear rank like infuriated fiends, to avenge their fall, and, dashing in through the bayonets, these horsemen killed every man in the detachment.
At Wertingen, 1805:
Murat, at the head of three divisions of cavalry, surprised and defeated General Auffenberg's Austrian corps of nine battalions, four squadrons: the infantry was formed in square and made a gallant resistance. Many fell under the sword; 2000 prisoners, of whom fifty-two were officers, eight guns, and three standards, fell into the hands of the French.
At Waterloo:
The next square to us, was charged at the same time, and were unfortunately broken into (by the French cavalry) and retired in confusion, followed by the [French] cuirassiers.
At the Battle of Dresden 1813, the Austrian square- despite being tightly formed and wielding bayonets- had wet powder and could not fire, so Latour-Maubourg's lancers simply advanced at a trot and skewered them with their lances of superior reach, killing multiple with impunity. Eventually the Austrians broke, but they did not run away at the first charge.
So, in conclusion, direct cavalry charges could in fact charge unbroken, formed infantry in tight formation and succeed. The morale of the infantry did not have to be broken (I have also already demonstrated this earlier in the thread but whatever).
Bonus battle: Los Yebenes, where Polish lancers smashed through the lines of sabre-armed carabineers who tried to block their escape.
The Normans typically did not charge straight into enemy formations and when they did, they used strategems to cause disorder first.
No disagreement about the "typically". This is about whether you can do it, even if it's not the best option.
From an in-game perspective, the player should get better results by flanking, but still be able to succeed in a frontal attack. Otherwise you get the situation of cavalry being totally useless against an enemy they can't flank.
This is actually why the Cavalry at Hastings performed so poorly initially. The archers were unable to be effective due to the angle and shooting at a shield wall, consequently the cavalry was unable to break through and was repulsed every time.
The actual reason is they were charging up a steep hill, potentially into barricades (possibly something like pic related)
and despite this, they still made an impact according to both sources.
Just because you didn't wipe the enemy away in a single charge doesn't mean you "performed poorly". Killing enemies in your charge and losing some of your own men is a neutral result. Also, retreating to attempt another charge doesn't mean you didn't kill anyone.
The battle did not turn until the Saxons broke formation and charged down the hill to be slaughtered, twice. It was only after most of the army was destroyed that the Norman charges finally succeeded on what was probably a very demoralized enemy.
This has already been addressed as incorrect in the thread. The feigned/real flights only drew out a part of the Saxon force; when they were killed,
they were replaced by other men and the shieldwall held. Keep in mind that the feigned flight occurred before the afternoon; by this time, according to the sources, numerous Normans had died as well. If the feigned flights had killed "most" of the Saxon force, the battle would not have lasted for the other half of the day. As for morale,
both sides would have probably been demoralized.
When the Normans charged and succeeded, from the information we have on Hastings, it was into an unbroken formation of tightly-packed infantry which included some of the best heavy infantry in the world at the time.
This is why the Normans actually preferred smaller horses because they were better for turning around in case of a failed charge
Bachrach estimates Norman horses were 15-16 hands, and 14.5 hand horses were found at the 8thc Saxon burial site of Rullstorf. For comparison, massive horses like Clydesdales are 17 hands, while a miniature horse is 12 hands.
This was important because if the enemy failed to break then the mounted knights would be at a major disadvantage in a fight because multiple infantry would engage each one of them.
That's a disadvantage, but on the other hand they had the advantage of raining blows down from above on the enemy's heads, their own heads being safely out of reach, and of their horse's body pushing and trampling the infantry. Also as above examples have shown, cavalry can break right through squares of men if needed.
There are also some alibi's in this thread as well when referring to cataphracts and the heavily armored cavalry of the Renaissance era, this cavalry was wholly different and did not rely on breaking through from mass, but rather they relied on their heavy armor to make them impervious to the enemy and would instead fence the enemy. Such cavalry would focus on approaching slowly as to maintain their order and formation in order to provide mutual support. For them charging at speed was actually dangerous as for one a pike or spear couldn't penetrate their armor unless they impaled themselves upon it, and for two losing cohesion meant getting isolated and that was pretty much the only way they could be brought down. This is why the source on page 5 of this thread refers to the cataphracts just trotting up to their enemies and beating them with maces while the enemy couldn't do anything about it. This was possible in real life because IRL the armor they had was actually very effective. Pikes and spears could do very little to actually harm someone in armor, however that was not their purpose. The pike was meant to be an obstruction to keep the enemy cavalry at bay while halberds, bills, poleaxes, and the like did the work. At the same time the cavalry lance was not meant to fight the pikemen which weren't the primary threat but instead to fight those with the shorter purpose built armor defeating weapons. Eventually the bills and halberds vs lances were replaced by musket vs pistol as firearms were developed.
Yep, all pretty consistent with what I'm saying.
As for the game I have found two mods that make cavalry much better and actually capable. RTS camera, it allows you much greater control of your troops allowing you to pause the game and give orders and it allows you to have melee forces engage enemy formations which is really important for when you want your light cav to charge archers but not the enemy shield wall.
RTS camera is a good mod, yeah. Even if they added the ability to charge the right formation when you want to vanilla it still wouldn't make up for how much melee cav sucks right now, though.