Horse Charges and Collision.

[Roy1012]

Even in siege battles, swadian knights are still very heavily armoured and not a bad choice.

 

[hruza]

Cavalry were both incredibly expensive and incredibly time-consuming/hard to train. They were quite often nobility as well, exclusively in the case of many feudal European societies. This already leads to a high risk high reward dynamic but there is more.

Speaking about pre-gunpowder cavalry, you did not buy or train them. You levied them. You either had them or did not (allies and subject states including). And size, type or quality of cavalry levies largely depended on the socio-economic system of the country from which it was levied.

Cavalry would be used to engage enemy cavalry, disrupt/break units of infantry, or cut down routing opponents.

Engaging enemy cavalry and cutting down fleeing opponents were only really as risky as combat itself is (unless the enemy cavalry was notably superior), and while both important only chasing routed foes is particularly devastating (often being the source of most casualties in a battle, and ensuring the enemy cannot reform their army).

The disruption and breaking of units of infantry was the most high risk and high reward function that cavalry served on a battlefield. It is also what people are most often interested in when reading about how and why cavalry was used. It is after all, the most cinematic and bad ass function.

Cavalry have one huge advantage over infantry. In fact it only have that one single advantage over infantry, but it's advantage that made cavalry what it was: cavalry is more mobile. What that means is that it's cavalry which mostly decides when to engage infantry and how. Therefore cavalry was actually very safe when used against infantry. Even if cavalry engaged infantry and things went sour for some season, cavalry could disengage thanks to the speed advantage.

This is something that is called "initiative" in combat.

Cavalry would charge a unit of infantry, preferably from a flank and/or at a unit that was already wavering, from here it was essentially a game of chicken. The cavalry would count on the terrifying sight, sound, and shaking ground to either create a gap in the unit to push through or dissolve the unit entirely. The infantry would count on their resilience and strength of arms to get the cavalry charge to stall and turn around, if the cavalry did this too close... Horses, especially formed groups of them, can't turn around from a charge super fast they would be open to a devastating counter charge from the infantry.

Very, VERY rarely did charging cavalry actually collide with a braced unit of infantry. The risk was in your expensive highly trained cavalry being slaughtered in a failed charge, the reward was disintegrating entire units of the enemy which often cascaded into a victory.

EDIT: Sorry for that ridiculous response if you were only looking for a sentence or two.

EDIT: This mostly applies to shock cavalry, melee and light cavalry would engage unwavering or braced infantry. Just not colliding at full speed the way movies portray it.

Horses actually can turn around pretty easy, even if in the formation and even when running. Evolution made them to be pretty agile. Just watch horses in the polo game. Horse is not a bullet that fly until it hits something. It responds to the commands and moreover have intelligence of it's own. It knows how to estimate distance to the object and can adjust it's movement so that it does not collide with it, as long as it can see it in advance of course and not counting accidents.

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

Cavalry were both incredibly expensive and incredibly time-consuming/hard to train. They were quite often nobility as well, exclusively in the case of many feudal European societies. This already leads to a high risk high reward dynamic but there is more.

Speaking about pre-gunpowder cavalry, you did not buy or train them. You levied them. You either had them or did not (allies and subject states including). And size, type or quality of cavalry levies largely depended on the socio-economic system of the country from which it was levied.

Cavalry would be used to engage enemy cavalry, disrupt/break units of infantry, or cut down routing opponents.

Engaging enemy cavalry and cutting down fleeing opponents were only really as risky as combat itself is (unless the enemy cavalry was notably superior), and while both important only chasing routed foes is particularly devastating (often being the source of most casualties in a battle, and ensuring the enemy cannot reform their army).

The disruption and breaking of units of infantry was the most high risk and high reward function that cavalry served on a battlefield. It is also what people are most often interested in when reading about how and why cavalry was used. It is after all, the most cinematic and bad ass function.

Cavalry have one huge advantage over infantry. In fact it only have that one single advantage over infantry, but it's advantage that made cavalry what it was: cavalry is more mobile. What that means is that it's cavalry which mostly decides when to engage infantry and how. Therefore cavalry was actually very safe when used against infantry. Even if cavalry engaged infantry and things went sour for some season, cavalry could disengage thanks to the speed advantage.

This is something that is called "initiative" in combat.

Cavalry would charge a unit of infantry, preferably from a flank and/or at a unit that was already wavering, from here it was essentially a game of chicken. The cavalry would count on the terrifying sight, sound, and shaking ground to either create a gap in the unit to push through or dissolve the unit entirely. The infantry would count on their resilience and strength of arms to get the cavalry charge to stall and turn around, if the cavalry did this too close... Horses, especially formed groups of them, can't turn around from a charge super fast they would be open to a devastating counter charge from the infantry.

Very, VERY rarely did charging cavalry actually collide with a braced unit of infantry. The risk was in your expensive highly trained cavalry being slaughtered in a failed charge, the reward was disintegrating entire units of the enemy which often cascaded into a victory.

EDIT: Sorry for that ridiculous response if you were only looking for a sentence or two.

EDIT: This mostly applies to shock cavalry, melee and light cavalry would engage unwavering or braced infantry. Just not colliding at full speed the way movies portray it.

Horses actually can turn around pretty easy, even if in the formation and even when running. Evolution made them to be pretty agile. Just watch horses in the polo game. Horse is not a bullet that fly until it hits something. It responds to the commands and moreover have intelligence of it's own. It knows how to estimate distance to the object and can adjust it's movement so that it does not collide with it, as long as it can see it in advance of course and not counting accidents.

I don't think "expensive" necessarily means bought, that is not what I meant. I noted that they mainly came from nobility, and whoever trained them is irrelevant to the fact that you do not want to lose warriors that are not easily replaceable.

A fair point about their mobility, it is much easier for them to disengage with an enemy (though I wouldn't say that is their ONLY advantage over infantry, being a few feet higher than an opponent helps, and a horse usually creates bigger gaps in units of men than men do).

When I referred to a failed cavalry charge and counter charge I was referring to charges that were broken within very short distances from the braced infantry, with spears or pikes in particular infantry could be upon them in less than seconds even if still some feet away. More often the cavalry being trained and as you note the horses being intelligent, it would break much far enough away to have a few seconds to turn, but counter charges by infantry while rare were a more common result of failed cavalry charges than actual collision of cavalry with braced infantry and were quite devastating to the cavalry.

 

[hruza]

I don't think "expensive" necessarily means bought, that is not what I meant. I noted that they mainly came from nobility, and whoever trained them is irrelevant to the fact that you do not want to lose warriors that are not easily replaceable.

Easily replaceable usually equaled combat ineffective. So choice wasn't really there. Armies that consisted primarily of cavalry, like let's say feudal armies of Medieval Europe or armies of nomadic people, didn't had any "cheap replaceable" component. Units of "peasants" appear only in computer games and Hollywood movies.

A fair point about their mobility, it is much easier for them to disengage with an enemy (though I wouldn't say that is their ONLY advantage over infantry, being a few feet higher than an opponent helps,

That's very controversial advantage given that been on the horse against somebody on the ground exposes your legs which horsemen have little ability to protect. Infantryman can easily parry or block blow coming from above. It's very hard to parry or block blow coming from below. And the footman have a reach advantage. That's result of the basic anatomy. If you are below somebody, you can reach his lower body before he could reach your head -all other things been equal.

Moreover sitting on a horse makes you fixed in place, unable to dodge and with limited movement of the body. You can't defend to your right back side.

Stationary horsemen is usually dead horsemen. Especially if alone.

and a horse usually creates bigger gaps in units of men than men do).

Horse won't willingly collide in to solid units of men. And you can't place horsemen as close as you can footmen. What that means is that if you place line of horsemen against line of men, there will be twice or trice more fighters in the footmen's line. In other words, every horsemen will be confronted with two or three men. Not a good fight to pick.

There is no advantage horseman have over footman, except mobility. But that's the advantage that makes large difference -when used correctly. Strip cavalry of their mobility advantage and they are going to lose. Which is why terrain is so important for cavalry. You don't want to use cavalry in swamp, forest or similar. It needs good hard terrain and space to maneuver. That's also reason why cavalry sometimes fought dismounted.

When I referred to a failed cavalry charge and counter charge I was referring to charges that were broken within very short distances from the braced infantry,

I don't necessary disagree with you, my point is that cavalry charge does not need to be broken even if it fails to disrupt infantry formation. Cavalrymen carry pointed sticks. And as long as their pointed sticks are longer then those of the infantry, it is perfectly possible to carry spear or lance attack without need to collide in to your target. Moreover you can throw a spear and that was actually preferred method for most of the classical era and early medieval heavy cavalry when fighting.

with spears or pikes in particular infantry could be upon them in less than seconds even if still some feet away. More often the cavalry being trained and as you note the horses being intelligent, it would break much far enough away to have a few seconds to turn, but counter charges by infantry while rare were a more common result of failed cavalry charges than actual collision of cavalry with braced infantry and were quite devastating to the cavalry.

Breaking your formation when facing cavalry is actually the worst thing you can do. To defeat cavalry charge, infantry needs to remain in the tight formation. Any gaps opened would ask for exploiting and that's what any half competent cavalry would do.

I frankly can't remember any example of infantry counter-charging charge of the cavalry. That's not to say that infantry newer charged cavalry, but to do it during cavalry own charge would be extremely reckless. Cavalry did not charge in single units and lines, it often charged in several lines and even several successive waves.

Besides, "broken charge" does not mean that cavalry would come to a halt. On contrary, cavalry would tray to remain in motion all the time. That would make any "counter charge" very difficult to execute even if done with perfect timing. Which itself would require perfect control and command over the troops -unlikely at the point when infantry would be receiving charge.

Plus anytime possible, cavalry would try to charge infantry frontally and at the flanks at the same time. It would have been flanking force that would most likely cause infantry line to collapse. Which is why infantry preferred to form squares against charging cavalry. Or protect it's flanks with terrain features, like Henry V at the battle of Agincourt.

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

I think a lot of what we are talking about depends on circumstance.

When you say "the choice wasn't there" doesn't that apply just as much to the people who... couldn't levy cavalrymen? There most certainly were "units of peasants" all throughout medieval Europe and other times, usually rebels or people defending their homelands. They were not the most common combatants movies and games certainly overplay it, but Battle of the Golden Spurs comes immediately to mind, Battle of Visby is another. When I said "not easily replaceable" I was only speaking in comparison to infantry though, I thought it was obvious enough that trained warriors of any kind are not easily replaced, and it's kind of common sense that somebody who has to be equipped with a horse and know how to ride one in combat is LESS easily replaceable than someone trained to fight on foot... I didn't say anything about armies being mostly peasants, or even having peasants, or even that they were mostly infantry.

I can't think of a counter charge after failed a cavalry charge in a battle, i'd have to look into that to figure exactly how rare it was, maybe you're right and it was almost as rare as an actual collision.

I think it's just a bit much to say mobility was their ONLY advantage, intimidation is another. I would have to look more into the dynamics of fighting someone on foot while on horseback, I can think of advantages and disadvantages for either. Do you have any video or sources going into this?

When I was referring to pushing into gaps I was actually talking less about shock cavalry and should have mentioned that, I meant push into gaps while engaged in melee not at speed. You can watch this at work with modern day riot police, they will push their two thousand pound horse through groups of people if they are not shoulder to shoulder. It might not have been a particularly strong strategy compared to a charge, for the reasons you noted about infantry having an advantage in melee, but the Battle of the Golden Spurs is actually an example of this as well (though it was not successful).

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

Something that could really switch up how cavalry is used and make it more realistic without affecting combat, being able to detach them from your army and send them on missions.

Scouting, raiding, and harassing were arguably just as important as uses for cavalry as charging or flanking on the battlefield. It would certainly add another layer to campaigns. Maybe you could send them looting to deny the enemy supplies (do AI armies suffer bad morale?) or reinforcements (now that AI do not spawn them from thin air).

 

[578]

I like the fact most of you talk about cavalry like it had any significant strategy attached to it, yet we all know horses were nothing more than overpowered tanks who just charged straight into battle.

 

[hruza]

I think a lot of what we are talking about depends on circumstance.

When you say "the choice wasn't there" doesn't that apply just as much to the people who... couldn't levy cavalrymen? There most certainly were "units of peasants" all throughout medieval Europe and other times, usually rebels or people defending their homelands.

For the average European peasant during era of fully developed feudalism, homeland was his family and homestead. At maximum his village, as long as he was living in a village as many settlements were just few houses large. That he certainly could defend if in danger. But he hardly cared which feudal lord was stripping taxes from him. He hardly ever saw his lord and even if he would, chance was he spoke different language.

Medieval states were large fiefs, they were not national states in the modern sense. When we say that Hundred Years War was between England and France, that's actually false. In reality it was war between two French kings, one of which happened to be also king of England at the same time.

They were not the most common combatants movies and games certainly overplay it, but Battle of the Golden Spurs comes immediately to mind, Battle of Visby is another.

In the Golden Spurs Flemish army was made of town militias, not peasants and at the Battle of Visby local levy of freemen, and very rich freemen at that took the field. These were basically the last Vikings in the Baltics. Yes they owned farms, but they at the same time engaged in lucrative trade and piracy. I wouldn't consider them peasants. Most of them certainly did not plow fields in the summer heat. They owned serfs for that, if not the slaves.

When I said "not easily replaceable" I was only speaking in comparison to infantry though, I thought it was obvious enough that trained warriors of any kind are not easily replaced, and it's kind of common sense that somebody who has to be equipped with a horse and know how to ride one in combat is LESS easily replaceable than someone trained to fight on foot... I didn't say anything about armies being mostly peasants, or even having peasants, or even that they were mostly infantry.

I get your point but I think you're looking at it from the wrong direction. Armies at that time were raised from levies. And those were a limited pool. If you have lost any soldier, you could not really replace him. You could not hire a peasant, give him spear and shield and send him in to the bootcamp and receive "spearman" after 6 months. That's not how it worked. Any looses had to "regrow". And they had to regrow in a correct social group. Therefore replacing knight was no harder or easier then replacing archer. You would levy a new one if you still had some in your levy pool. You may be able to hire some as a mercenaries, depending on the place and time period, but those too came from limited pools. Often from the levy pools of somebody else who gave you permission to hire them.

Was cavalry more valuable then footsloggers in general? Of course it was. Not last because pool of horsemen was sometimes more limited then that of a footmen and because horseman consumed more resources on campaign. But horseman, at last when we talk about heavy cavalry in Medieval Europe was also much more effective then footmen. You did not need as many of them as few knights could do the job of much larger group of footmen. And that including cases when knights would fight on foot. See the above mentioned battle of Visby where smaller force of Danish knights on foot slaughtered what was basically large Viking force.

I think it's just a bit much to say mobility was their ONLY advantage, intimidation is another. I would have to look more into the dynamics of fighting someone on foot while on horseback, I can think of advantages and disadvantages for either. Do you have any video or sources going into this?

I don't have any video, the last time cavalry was used in combat against massed infantry formations was before camera was invented but there are many citations of commanders or even manuals from Napoleonic era stressing need to remain in motion for cavalry.

When I was referring to pushing into gaps I was actually talking less about shock cavalry and should have mentioned that, I meant push into gaps while engaged in melee not at speed. You can watch this at work with modern day riot police, they will push their two thousand pound horse through groups of people if they are not shoulder to shoulder. It might not have been a particularly strong strategy compared to a charge, for the reasons you noted about infantry having an advantage in melee,

I see. Problem here is that in riots you have two sides that generally does not intend to cause harm to each other and does not carry lethal weapons. I have difficulty to imagine somebody trying to push horses through line of spearmen on purpose as a combat tactic. I won't say it newer happened but I probably not as a regular tactic.

but the Battle of the Golden Spurs is actually an example of this as well (though it was not successful).

What part of Battle of the Golden Spurs you talk about?

Something that could really switch up how cavalry is used and make it more realistic without affecting combat, being able to detach them from your army and send them on missions.

I might be mistaken but I remember vaguely that in Bannerlord you will be able to detach part of your army under command of your companions.

Somebody might be able to confirm or disclaim it.

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

I think a lot of what we are talking about depends on circumstance.

When you say "the choice wasn't there" doesn't that apply just as much to the people who... couldn't levy cavalrymen? There most certainly were "units of peasants" all throughout medieval Europe and other times, usually rebels or people defending their homelands.

For the average European peasant during era of fully developed feudalism, homeland was his family and homestead. At maximum his village, as long as he was living in a village as many settlements were just few houses large. That he certainly could defend if in danger. But he hardly cared which feudal lord was stripping taxes from him. He hardly ever saw his lord and even if he would, chance was he spoke different language.

Medieval states were large fiefs, they were not national states in the modern sense. When we say that Hundred Years War was between England and France, that's actually false. In reality it was war between two French kings, one of which happened to be also king of England at the same time.

They were not the most common combatants movies and games certainly overplay it, but Battle of the Golden Spurs comes immediately to mind, Battle of Visby is another.

In the Golden Spurs Flemish army was made of town militias, not peasants and at the Battle of Visby local levy of freemen, and very rich freemen at that took the field. These were basically the last Vikings in the Baltics. Yes they owned farms, but they at the same time engaged in lucrative trade and piracy. I wouldn't consider them peasants. Most of them certainly did not plow fields in the summer heat. They owned serfs for that, if not the slaves.

When I said "not easily replaceable" I was only speaking in comparison to infantry though, I thought it was obvious enough that trained warriors of any kind are not easily replaced, and it's kind of common sense that somebody who has to be equipped with a horse and know how to ride one in combat is LESS easily replaceable than someone trained to fight on foot... I didn't say anything about armies being mostly peasants, or even having peasants, or even that they were mostly infantry.

I get your point but I think you're looking at it from the wrong direction. Armies at that time were raised from levies. And those were a limited pool. If you have lost any soldier, you could not really replace him. You could not hire a peasant, give him spear and shield and send him in to the bootcamp and receive "spearman" after 6 months. That's not how it worked. Any looses had to "regrow". And they had to regrow in a correct social group. Therefore replacing knight was no harder or easier then replacing archer. You would levy a new one if you still had some in your levy pool. You may be able to hire some as a mercenaries, depending on the place and time period, but those too came from limited pools. Often from the levy pools of somebody else who gave you permission to hire them.

Was cavalry more valuable then footsloggers in general? Of course it was. Not last because pool of horsemen was sometimes more limited then that of a footmen and because horseman consumed more resources on campaign. But horseman, at last when we talk about heavy cavalry in Medieval Europe was also much more effective then footmen. You did not need as many of them as few knights could do the job of much larger group of footmen. And that including cases when knights would fight on foot. See the above mentioned battle of Visby where smaller force of Danish knights on foot slaughtered what was basically large Viking force.

I think it's just a bit much to say mobility was their ONLY advantage, intimidation is another. I would have to look more into the dynamics of fighting someone on foot while on horseback, I can think of advantages and disadvantages for either. Do you have any video or sources going into this?

I don't have any video, the last time cavalry was used in combat against massed infantry formations was before camera was invented but there are many citations of commanders or even manuals from Napoleonic era stressing need to remain in motion for cavalry.

When I was referring to pushing into gaps I was actually talking less about shock cavalry and should have mentioned that, I meant push into gaps while engaged in melee not at speed. You can watch this at work with modern day riot police, they will push their two thousand pound horse through groups of people if they are not shoulder to shoulder. It might not have been a particularly strong strategy compared to a charge, for the reasons you noted about infantry having an advantage in melee,

I see. Problem here is that in riots you have two sides that generally does not intend to cause harm to each other and does not carry lethal weapons. I have difficulty to imagine somebody trying to push horses through line of spearmen on purpose as a combat tactic. I won't say it newer happened but I probably not as a regular tactic.

but the Battle of the Golden Spurs is actually an example of this as well (though it was not successful).

What part of Battle of the Golden Spurs you talk about?

Something that could really switch up how cavalry is used and make it more realistic without affecting combat, being able to detach them from your army and send them on missions.

I might be mistaken but I remember vaguely that in Bannerlord you will be able to detach part of your army under command of your companions.

Somebody might be able to confirm or disclaim it.

Interesting, I suppose I was under the impression that militias's drew from local peasantry, and the combatants at Visby were referred to as peasants in every description of the battle I can find though they also do note the amount of independence they had and disconnect from the cities (different language etc).

It doesn't really matter though, my original point had nothing to do with peasants fighting in battle or even other common people just non-cavalry (non-nobility sort of implied as well). I get that there was just a misunderstanding of what I meant by "expensive" and "replaceable", I was using loose terms.

I was not asking for video of cavalry used against infantry formations, why would you possibly think I meant that? I was asking for a video explaining cavalry used against infantry formations, preferably one that compiled multiple sources so I wouldn't have to dig through multiple Napoleonic manuals. No worries, I found a cheekily named video "Cavalry was a stupid idea" https://youtu.be/1uUk5WGAydI that goes into exactly what you were describing.

The account of the Battle of the Golden Spurs I read described the French cavalry trying to push through the Flemish formations once engaged in melee, with some success in the middle where Robert II of Artois was leading. Of course, the ground was muddy and fortified so they did not have ideal mobility. I cannot recall whether this was a contemporary account either... Will edit in a link if I find it.

I certainly hope that is the case with being able to send companions on missions, perhaps the devblog on campaigning or the party said something about it. It would add almost as many layers to strategy as ambushes would, and would not be nearly as difficult to implement.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Interesting, I suppose I was under the impression that militias's drew from local peasantry, and the combatants at Visby were referred to as peasants in every description of the battle I can find though they also do note the amount of independence they had and disconnect from the cities (different language etc).

The word "peasant" has a modern connotation as a kind of powerless slave in rags but in the middle ages it just refers to a socioeconomic status. There are a few cases in feudalism where lords and other nobility would actually be poorer than some peasants, and those rich peasants might be mercenaries or landowners in their own right with some degree of independence. One of the reasons there were sometimes laws preventing peasants from wearing certain clothing was to prevent these class boundaries from breaking down.

When historians talk about an army having some number of "peasants" in it there is a temptation to imagine a bunch of guys with pitchforks and farm clothes. That may have been the case in times of desperation but if you are a commander, the last thing you want is a bunch of untrained guys eating your supplies and not contributing to the army in any way other than bolstering numbers.

 

[FBohler]

How to derail a post about physics and collision to history class   

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

Interesting, I suppose I was under the impression that militias's drew from local peasantry, and the combatants at Visby were referred to as peasants in every description of the battle I can find though they also do note the amount of independence they had and disconnect from the cities (different language etc).

The word "peasant" has a modern connotation as a kind of powerless slave in rags but in the middle ages it just refers to a socioeconomic status. There are a few cases in feudalism where lords and other nobility would actually be poorer than some peasants, and those rich peasants might be mercenaries or landowners in their own right with some degree of independence. One of the reasons there were sometimes laws preventing peasants from wearing certain clothing was to prevent these class boundaries from breaking down.

When historians talk about an army having some number of "peasants" in it there is a temptation to imagine a bunch of guys with pitchforks and farm clothes. That may have been the case in times of desperation but if you are a commander, the last thing you want is a bunch of untrained guys eating your supplies and not contributing to the army in any way other than bolstering numbers.

I sort of knew that (not the details about being richer than nobility and banned from wearing nice clothes part though) but hruza kind of implied that armies, and the militias at Battle of the Golden Spurs in specific, never used peasants, well to do or otherwise. In fact what they said seemed to me to imply that even in times of desperation they would never use "dirty common folk" to battle.

 

[Honved]

Many of the medieval kingdoms had laws making training mandatory on one day out of each week or month.  Those peasant levies were usually at least somewhat trained, just not to the same extent as professional warriors, who were often forbidden to do any kind of physical labor outside of combat or training for it.  The original post-Roman feudal laws banning serfs from carrying weapons had loosened to some degree, but the general principles still applied in many cases.  Many of the peasants levied for war had already been freed from serfdom, serving as laborers or at various other jobs in the villages and towns, rather than being legally tied to the land.  I suspect that the number of actual "serfs" used in medieval armies was quite limited, which is not necessarily the same as "peasants".

Cavalry was often sent to forage as one of its primary duties.  Scouting and foraging went pretty well hand-in-hand, since you could ask the villagers when they had last seen other cavalry or an army at each place you stopped to collect supplies (whether paid for, or taken by threat of force).

 

[hruza]

Interesting, I suppose I was under the impression that militias's drew from local peasantry, and the combatants at Visby were referred to as peasants in every description of the battle I can find though they also do note the amount of independence they had and disconnect from the cities (different language etc).

They were local militias all right, but I would newer call them peasants. They were well armed and wore mail and brigandines. Sure, not the state of the art stuff at that point, but considering average shield and spear was costing several cows and average mail several dozen cows, these people were far from bottom of the society. They were equivalent of the lesser nobility in social status. They might had owned farms, but they certainly did not have to work them themselves. More so that they engaged in lucrative trade and even piracy. Island of Gotland was kind of anomaly at that point in time, it was basically place that thanks to it's location have frozen in the Viking age. And that battle was the end of that.

I was not asking for video of cavalry used against infantry formations, why would you possibly think I meant that? I was asking for a video explaining cavalry used against infantry formations, preferably one that compiled multiple sources so I wouldn't have to dig through multiple Napoleonic manuals.
No worries, I found a cheekily named video "Cavalry was a stupid idea" https://youtu.be/1uUk5WGAydI that goes into exactly what you were describing.

Oh the infamous Loyd I saw that video long ago so I forgot about it. He has more about cavalry and mobility if you dig through his videos you should find it, now I recall.

The account of the Battle of the Golden Spurs I read described the French cavalry trying to push through the Flemish formations once engaged in melee, with some success in the middle where Robert II of Artois was leading. Of course, the ground was muddy and fortified so they did not have ideal mobility. I cannot recall whether this was a contemporary account either... Will edit in a link if I find it.

Yea, well, I would take words like "push through" in this context with pinch of salt. They might be used in a figurative way. Like "tanks that pushed through enemy defenses".

I certainly hope that is the case with being able to send companions on missions, perhaps the devblog on campaigning or the party said something about it. It would add almost as many layers to strategy as ambushes would, and would not be nearly as difficult to implement.

Now I can't find reference to this so I hope I did not misguide you. I remember reading something like that somewhere but don't remember where.

Many of the medieval kingdoms had laws making training mandatory on one day out of each week or month.

I only recall England, and in Welsh and English areas only at that. Not in Scotland and not in Ireland. And it was specific type of training: archery. And then it only applied to freemen as I recall. No serfs.

Are there any other examples?

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

The account of the Battle of the Golden Spurs I read described the French cavalry trying to push through the Flemish formations once engaged in melee, with some success in the middle where Robert II of Artois was leading. Of course, the ground was muddy and fortified so they did not have ideal mobility. I cannot recall whether this was a contemporary account either... Will edit in a link if I find it.

Yea, well, I would take words like "push through" in this context with pinch of salt. They might be used in a figurative way. Like "tanks that pushed through enemy defenses".

Some historians think that cavalry may have charged at a slow canter or even a trot to literally "push" a formation aside. In the napoleonic era there is evidence of that happening, and the way some medieval sources describe cavalry charges is by using metaphors like "an unstoppable wall" or "the charge rode up to a certain point".

 

[hruza]

Some historians think that cavalry may have charged at a slow canter or even a trot to literally "push" a formation aside. In the napoleonic era there is evidence of that happening, and the way some medieval sources describe cavalry charges is by using metaphors like "an unstoppable wall" or "the charge rode up to a certain point".

I can't imagine something like that against armed people ready to do harm to riders and horses. What I can imagine is something that you often see on those police videos -people backing away before the horses without any contact. But that wouldn't happen against determined troops.

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

Some historians think that cavalry may have charged at a slow canter or even a trot to literally "push" a formation aside. In the napoleonic era there is evidence of that happening, and the way some medieval sources describe cavalry charges is by using metaphors like "an unstoppable wall" or "the charge rode up to a certain point".

I can't imagine something like that against armed people ready to do harm to riders and horses. What I can imagine is something that you often see on those police videos -people backing away before the horses without any contact. But that wouldn't happen against determined troops.

How do you suppose the engagement between the Flemish militia's and French knights looked? Do you think that maybe when the knights "pushed" back the center of the Flemish line that the militiamen moved backwards under pressure of the fight and the knights just moved forward with them as opposed to actually pushing against them or into gaps with the horse?

 

[hruza]

How do you suppose the engagement between the Flemish militia's and French knights looked? Do you think that maybe when the knights "pushed" back the center of the Flemish line that the militiamen moved backwards under pressure of the fight and the knights just moved forward with them as opposed to actually pushing against them or into gaps with the horse?

How do you know that center of the Flemish line was pushed back?

This is how historical sources of the battle look like: The Battle of the Golden Spurs, 1302, the Annales Ghandenses

As you can see they give no useful details of combat whatsoever. And as far as I know, that's one of the best accounts of the battle we have.

What you can read on wikipedia and in the books are modern estimates and reconstructions and as I said before, when modern authors use words like "pushing back" that's nothing more then figure of speech.

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

How do you suppose the engagement between the Flemish militia's and French knights looked? Do you think that maybe when the knights "pushed" back the center of the Flemish line that the militiamen moved backwards under pressure of the fight and the knights just moved forward with them as opposed to actually pushing against them or into gaps with the horse?

How do you know that center of the Flemish line was pushed back?

This is how historical sources of the battle look like: The Battle of the Golden Spurs, 1302, the Annales Ghandenses

As you can see they give no useful details of combat whatsoever. And as far as I know, that's one of the best accounts of the battle we have.

What you can read on wikipedia and in the books are modern estimates and reconstructions and as I said before, when modern authors use words like "pushing back" that's nothing more then figure of speech.

Because almost every account I can find refers to Guy of Namur's men in the center of the line being "pushed back", some refer to men routing, maybe they are all just making it up for fun but I assumed that they are likely interpreting the same source, I will try to find what source that is.

Regardless, I thought I made it clear that I was acknowledging the fact that it was more than likely a figure of speech, that's why I asked what you think they were using a figure of speech to refer to.

Again, what do you think it most likely ACTUALLY looked like since "pushed back" is not to be taken literally?

 

[hruza]

Again, what do you think it most likely ACTUALLY looked like since "pushed back" is not to be taken literally?

French attacks at the battle of Golden Spurs? If modern authors are to be trusted then French heavy cavalry have attacked frontally through some bad terrain for cavalry, crisscrossed by creeks and marshland and got repulsed by determined Flemish line that had it's flanks protected and was armed with pikes and polearms. French may have tried couple of times and then on the retreat got chased back in to the marshes and cut down.

As for what "pushing back" can mean in such context, it can simply mean that Flemish center gave way and may have slowly backtracked under pressure of attacks. But again, I would like to see a source of this claim to be sure that it's not just author's imagination. I saw too many wild claims been made about too many battles without there been backing in the actual sources. Battle of Agincourt is a good example of such "creativity".