horses crashing into soldiers like tanks

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

I love how threads about game features derail to Wikipedia-driven history debate ?

Unfortunately, most "proper" sources are physical. Rather than telling some random stranger to go out and read Leo VI's 10th century treatise Tactica and expecting them to go hunt down a copy just so they can make a reply on a forum, it's generally more convenient to link them to Wikipedia.

 

[hruza]

They are not. The purpose and execution are both different. Modern charges are meant to flush enemies out of a position with morale shocks at best, but more commonly, to close distance for more accurate weapons fire across open ground with little cover. The point is to overwhelm the enemy with targets so that the majority of an element can assume closer positions behind new cover without the element losing much operational integrity, and it's mostly done as a matter of desperation. In a best case scenario, it can scare a smaller enemy element completely out of their own position.

Charges before the era of gunpowder (though there was some overlap into the 17th and 18th centuries) was to break enemy formations. The primary component of force strength in this era was unit cohesion. Groups of of soldiers standing shoulder to shoulder provided many benefits, listing only a few...

1. Morale. The more comrades are at your side, the less likely you are to give into fear and flee. A study showed this was true even in the World Wars, which is one reason for the fireteam system we have today.
2. Overlapping protection. Shields layered over one another provided few opportunities for enemy projectiles or even spears to penetrate.
3. Intimidation. A cohesive wall of soldiers, spears pointed ahead, could terrify less experienced foes.
4. Staying power. A dense formation could hold ground and prevent the enemy from gaining access to good ground, passing through defiles, crossing rivers, and so on.

Thus the key to melee warfare was not the individual man's ability to kill another warrior, but rather in the cohesion of the armed forces when deployed afield. Charges were meant to break this cohesion. This was not possible unless ample physical force is applied. Simply stopping short and stabbing at the shield wall is not going to break that cohesion. You need to smash through it, and you do that by sending 350,000 pounds of galloping horse into the shield wall (lowball 17,000 for the horse, plus 50 or so for the barding, times 200 or so as an average).

You are inventing non existent definitions.

charge
(1): a violent rush forward (as to attack)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charge

Take a look at the wedge formation, uniquely designed to break enemy formations. A favorite of cavalry since the age of Alexander. Why? Because the purpose of shock cavalry was to break enemy formations. It was also used by infantry, of course, because it had a similar effect. Roman legionaries used this as well during the mid to late Republic, and in this observation we see a description of how the wedge achieved its goal:

Wedge formation existed well before age of Alexander and Macedonians themselves adopted it from other cultures, like Scythians. Moreover it was not used exclusively by cavalry, it was used also by the infantry and therefore idea that it required physically ramming opponents with your body to reach effect is absurd.

If you want further proof, look at how a knight lances. Even if the horse could've stopped cold as soon as the lance made contact, it didn't. The knight rides through. That's where the actual power of the attack comes from. If you ride through contact and there are several ranks of unscathed men on the other side of your target, what do you think is going to happen?

I have looked:



Guess what? It does not involve horse collision.

Please tell me you can grasp the notion that to go through a formation, starting on one side and ending up on the other, requires physical contact between your horse and their bodies. Do you reckon the horses just jumped over hundreds of soldiers' heads in a single bound? If need be, here's an illustration.

(Yes, this post is sarcastic, but there's a modicum of truth to it. Even in this fun, simplistic situation, physical contact is required to push from one side of a line to the other.)

Your example is entirely irrelevant, because that's not military formation and they are not fighting with weapons. Military formation of the infantry was formed several ranks deep and there is no way horse can go through it. If infantry holds still, horse will end impaled in the spears and pikes or knocked on the ground. I already showed you video of what full speed impact in to the single feeble woman does to the horse. You can guess what formation of men in close ranks with weapons and armor would do.

Cavalry charge can go through formation in one instance only, when infantry formation is broken during charge. Then there is no need for horses to ram and triple over and impale themselves on anything and they can actually go through.

 

[John the Roleplayer]

[...]

I have looked:



Guess what? It does not involve horse collision.

[...]

Have you really?

Starting about 2:30 in the video Shad says himself that without the tilt lines there was a chance of horses colliding with each other. But of course, I'm sure there's an explanation for that.

 

[Sekij]

You know what stopped Horses domination in real life, it was stacking Hundreas people into an Square and not doing tradition line formations.

 

[hruza]

Have you really?

Starting about 2:30 in the video Shad says himself that without the tilt lines there was a chance of horses colliding with each other. But of course, I'm sure there's an explanation for that.

Which proves my point. Collision is something to avoid during lancing.

You know what stopped Horses domination in real life, it was stacking Hundreas people into an Square and not doing tradition line formations.

That's bit of a simplification but yes, square and other closed formations were counter to cavalry charges. Why? Because cavalry charge wasn't about running into and impaling horses on an infantry pikes and spears, it was about finding weak point in the formation and exploiting it. And infantry line formation have obvious weak points: flanks and rear. And since cavalry is faster then infantry, it can exploit those weak points easily. All you need to do is to engage infantry line from to front to fix it and at the same time attack it's flanks or rear. Infantry formation will collapse and cavalry can run scattered infantry down. Thus solution is to form infantry in to formation which does not have flanks and rear -square or circle.

Cavalry still could break infantry head on, including one formed in the square. But it was much more difficult to do and required creation of a gap in to which cavalry can ride and exploit. If however infantry is disciplined and can hold it's nerve, cavalry charge will fail. As they did in the numerous examples all through the history. Disciplined experienced infantry was very difficult to charge frontally. Still, it takes just few men to lose the nerve during cavalry charge to create opportunity for cavalry to exploit. There are numerous example of infantry formations, including squares collapsing after cavalry managed to exploit the smallest of gaps:

“At Waterloo, when we charged the English squares, one of our lancers, not being able to break down the rampart of bayonets which opposed us, stood up in his stirrups and hurled his lance like a spear; it passed through an infantry soldier, whose death would have opened a passage for us, if the gap had not been quickly closed. That was another lance well lost.“
French officer de Brack on lance.

Cavalry Tactics and Combat during the Napoleonic Wars

One needs to understand that cavalry have huge advantage over infantry in it's mobility. It allows cavalryman to choose time and conditions of and engagement. If conditions are not to his advantage,
cavalryman can always run away from engagement. If infantryman makes mistake, that's the end of him. This has tremendous psychological impact on the infantrymen facing cavalry charge. All it takes for cavalry charge to succeed is for infantry to make one mistake. And this psychological effect is what made cavalry charges so effective. Not size of the horses -which were not selected for size anyway, and other popculture nonsense.

It's horse which gives cavalry this advantage of mobility. Using it as a battering ram is idiotic, because it will deprive cavalry of it's main advantage.

Cavalry horse was transport, not weapon. And fairly expensive transport at that. And it was used as a transport and not a weapon. Horses as a battering rams exist only in Hollywood films and computer games.

 

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

This is the last time I'm going over this with you. One more hurrah to try and help you see common sense. If you won't see it, that's your problem, and it's not really worth discussing as much as we already have to be honest.

You are inventing non existent definitions.

charge
(1): a violent rush forward (as to attack)
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/charge

Why rush? Why? The Roman tortoise worked quite well against projectiles, so why run when you could march? It was much easier to keep cohesion by simply walking at an even pace. Why run? To collide with the bloody enemy at speed and break their formation.

Wedge formation existed well before age of Alexander and Macedonians themselves adopted it from other cultures, like Scythians. Moreover it was not used exclusively by cavalry, it was used also by the infantry and therefore idea that it required physically ramming opponents with your body to reach effect is absurd.

I am very aware of this, and was including infantry applications. The Roman example I cited above was used by legionary maniples, not by cavalry alone. The purpose in this instance was to physically split the enemy's lines and drive a wedge in the middle of them, forcing them to fight up close where the gladius was a better weapon than the longer arms of the Gauls. Why do you keep ignoring the parts of my posts that unequivocally prove you wrong?

I have looked:



Guess what? It does not involve horse collision.

You're talking horse-on-horse in this situation. This video covers jousting, not cavalry-to-infantry charges in formation. This is talking specifically about lance techniques against other horsemen, lance against lance, which was a very different beast. Cavalry were mobile weapons and you were not going to find situations where one group of knights would charge into a stationary group. In this case, both sides were moving at speed and would be maneuvering so as to not hit the rider in front of them. This is a very different application to the classic charge to break infantry lines.

Discourse from one of the few men who are extensively practiced with mounted combat today:

• On charging at speed. The statement: A group of mounted knights had to deliver the lance at a full gallop to have effect on the foot, which runs contrary to your claim in an earlier post that charges weren't done at speed and it was thus easy to stop short.
• Demonstrating a charge. Notice that you ride through the target. Executed against grouped infantry, this demands that some of the infantry are simply bowled over if they don't move out of the way. The horse does not and cannot stop on a dime, and even if it could, the lance would have little effect as a result.
• On the specifics of a battlefield charge. The reason the massed ranks were more effective the closer they were is because the mass of the unit is larger, making for a more powerful impact when they collide with the enemy. A single rider charging into a shield wall would only knock over three or four people. 70,000 pounds or so worth of horses all grouped into one cohesive mass, however, could trample a small host.

[A couched lance] allowed the knight to mount a forceful charge through the ranks of enemy infantry (who were often loosely formed), with the heavy lance epitomizing the momentum of the heavily armored cavalryman in his full motion. And as can be surmised from this description, the infantrymen (especially the lesser trained ones) also had to deal with the devastating psychological impact of an imposing band of war-horses and their expert riders in their full panoply and armament, riding towards them in their greatest speed and momentum.


This tactical gambit of the medieval battlefield may seem simple and brutal, as aptly described by Anna Comnena, a Byzantine princess (and historian) who effusively spoke of how the knights of the First Crusade could punch through the walls of Babylon with their devastating charge. However when it came to organizing massed charges, much had to do with the discipline and training imparted in each of the Norman knights participating in the maneuver.

You have a Byzantine historian-princess talking about knights being able to punch through the walls of Babylon. You have Saracen chroniclers talking about charging knights being able to break the walls of Byzantium, as referenced in the third link above. Both are hyperbole obviously, but why do you think they'd have equated a knight's charge to what is in effect a wrecking ball? Because they trotted really fast until they got to the enemy and then stood there poking them with lances?

In point of fact, that tactic is the worst thing a contingent of knights could do. You completely negate the benefits of cavalry when you stop. A proper charge either steers clear if the commander feels it won't break the lines, or crashes through the enemy, running them down if they flee or retreating over the scattered enemy while they reform to grab new lances and have another run. Infantry is the same situation, minus ever steering clear. The point of an infantry charge is, likewise, to break the enemy's lines. It's why uphill charges were generally ineffectual, and downhill charges were so devastating even on foot. Shield up, smash into the enemy, break their cohesion. That's the entire purpose of a charge.

Your example is entirely irrelevant, because that's not military formation and they are not fighting with weapons. Military formation of the infantry was formed several ranks deep and there is no way horse can go through it. If infantry holds still, horse will end impaled in the spears and pikes or knocked on the ground. I already showed you video of what full speed impact in to the single feeble woman does to the horse. You can guess what formation of men in close ranks with weapons and armor would do.

Looks to me like it does absolutely nothing to the horse, and this isn't even a horse trained for combat. Your example showed a woman running in front of a blindered horse from the side and getting under its legs, while it was entirely focused on a race. A horse charging at an opponent would be aware of the foe and trained to make contact. Also, just how fragile do you think a horse is? The movies show horses getting impaled on spears on impact, yes, but life is not a movie. Horses can take a stab and keep going if need be, and this assumes the line holds to begin with. If a line of spearmen held, often the charge would be curbed near the last moment, but just as often they followed through. Let's do a little math...

You have a spear made of white ash. Spear shafts were commonly made of rather sturdy ash wood. White ash - the strongest type of ash - has a parallel-to-grain compression strength of 7,410 pounds per square inch and a perpendicular-to-grain compression strength of 1,106 pounds per square inch.

Now let's look at the average war horse. We can surmise that on the smaller side of the estimate, war horses weighed around 1,700 pounds, plus another 50 or so for their barding (which protects them from thrusts, by the way!). That's 1,750 pounds or 793.78 kg, and that's not even accounting for the rider. Just the horse. The average horse bred for long-distance running (which war horses often were) clocks around 40 miles per hour, some faster. This equates to 17.8 m/s.

Stop distance must be determined. Let's assume the horse running through is the stop distance. There are no hard numbers on this, so let's just assume it moves about two ranks past the man whose spear hits him. (Before you protest, the shorter the stop distance, the greater the impact.) With a braced stance, we can put the "depth" of a footman at around two and a half feet, maybe three, plus another five feet or so for the amount of spear out in front of him. That's a total of 11 feet or 3.35 meters.

Now we can plug these values into the equation for solving impact from a horizontally moving object: Work = Kinetic Energy is Force × stop distance = 0.5 × mass × velocity^2. Therefore, so F = (0.5 × m × v^2) ÷ d. For us, that's ((0.5 x 793.78 ) x (17.8 ^ 2)) / 3.3, which equates to 37,537.5 Newtons of impact force, or 8,438 pound-force.

What this means is... If you managed to point the spear directly at the horse and hold it perfectly steady, the spear might not break from the weight of one horse and its panoply alone. If you're lucky. That's assuming you can keep it in your hands with 8,438 pounds of force trying to drive it through your hands and into your hip (the high end of the normal range for handgrip strength in a 25-29 year-old male is about 126 pounds). If you're just a little shaky and that spear pushes up, down, left, or right at all, it's going to snap no questions asked.

And this, again, is a single horse. Now let's take what we were told about how tightly knights formed for a charge and apply that to our equation. Assume a single horse colliding with a single rider has four ranks of other knights behind him. Probably more, but let's go with four. Each rank applies strength in a pyramid like so:

O = colliding knight
O = allied knights

OOOO
OOO
OO
O​

Thus, counting only four ranks, we see that this single horse has the mass of nine other horses pushing it forward. Plugging this into the equation is simple; we merely multiply mass by ten (one for the lead horse, nine for the horses pushing it). ((0.5 x 7937.8 ) x (17.8 ^ 2)) / 3.35 becomes 375,375 Newtons, or 84,387 pounds of force being applied by the horse when it collides with the infantry lines. Please tell me in what world a human being can resist that kind of pressure.

Cavalry charge can go through formation in one instance only, when infantry formation is broken during charge. Then there is no need for horses to ram and triple over and impale themselves on anything and they can actually go through.

Even if we apply the backing mass of ten ranks of spearmen as above, assuming all of them held their ground and didn't budge an inch...

X = impacted spearman
X = allied spearmen

X
XX
XXX
XXXX
XXXXX
XXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXX​

Now resistive force isn't a thing I'm up on, so this will be a dirty calculation, but let's assume each man weighs about 200 pounds and has leg strength sufficient to lift another 300. We're looking at 100 men applying mass to resist at the point of impact, and that's generous because it doesn't account for how wide of the impact point most of them are in the backmost ranks. 100 x 200 is 20,000 pounds worth of mass. Even if we add the full 300 leg press of each soldier, which doesn't account for the poor angle, necessity of footing, or other variables a leg press doesn't account for... We're still only at 50,000 pounds of resistive force.

If they could keep their horses brave and steady enough to do so, a tightly packed formation of only ten knights could quite easily run straight through ten ranks worth of infantry, and that's mathematics.

It's okay to be wrong. No one is going to judge you for it down the road if you simply came in with incomplete information. We all learn things when we have discourse with others, even things we're already quite knowledgeable about. I learn more about historical tactics every week just by chatting with others who have an interest. It's when you cling to your incomplete information post after post that it starts to look a bit embarrassing. Let it go, my brother. Look at the tapestries. Horses charged into braced infantry. It happened. It happened enough times to show up on three tapestries I was able to find in a brief Google search. Just accept it and move on, it's not that important.

 

[Twezie]

Michael, just give up. He will not see that he is wrong. Just like when you show proof to people who think the earth is flat, they can't see it.

 

[Dead End]

Let me solve this real quick: *ahem* “ITS CALLED MOUNT & Blade”

In all seriousness, the cav seems fine to me where it is right now, maybe it’s just me though

edit: holy crap are you guys like, horse scientists?

 

[Dead End]

There is no such thing like historical accuracy in Bannerlord for Calradia is 100% fictional.

In a sea of historical debate sits this one isolated comment

 

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

There is no such thing like historical accuracy in Bannerlord for Calradia is 100% fictional.

In a sea of historical debate sits this one isolated comment

Lol! I missed it! Inaccurate, by the way, Bohler. The continent is 100% fictional, but the setting isn't. Every weapon and piece of armor in Calradia is drawn from a historically accurate counterpart, the design and defensive elements of castles are drawn straight from history, and the danger of combat is deliberately held to a believably historical standard (where many games opt out of this constraint). Because these elements are historically accurate, it's perfectly reasonable to want other elements of combat like charges to be historically accurate, or at least historically plausible.

 

[GitiUsir]

... Even if you're a trained soldier with spear at the ready, when you see a giant mass of horseflesh storming at you, shaking the earth beneath your feet, your natural instincts will weaken your resolve, which leads to weaker formations that can be torn asunder by the charge. They were as much a morale shock tactic as a physical attack.

..., by standing firm in face of the onslaught, cavalry charges often failed against infantry, with horses refusing to gallop into the dense mass of enemies,[4] or the charging unit itself breaking up. However, when cavalry charges succeeded, it was usually due to the defending formation breaking up (often in fear) and scattering, to be hunted down by the enemy.[5]

...I point again at the Bayeux Tapestry, which clearly depicts cavalry charging head-on into a dense shield wall, and trampling the front ranks on their way.

...Take a look at the wedge formation, uniquely designed to break enemy formations.

If that part of the Bayeux tapestry is about the battle of Hastings which I think it is, that's exactly the opposite that happened. Normans harassed the saxon shield wall for hours, with archers and cavalry trying to lure the saxons out of their position. Only when normans feigned a retreat the saxons left their position in pursuit and were overran by cavalry. That was the end of the saxon kingdom.

The advantage of the wedge formation is that it's easy to follow the leader and maneuver. So the leading troop can choose a gap in the enemy lines and the following men can break in and enlarge the opening. I.e. it was used by a group of legionaries after being defeated by Hannibal. They formed a wedge and managed to return to their camp. If you want to actually collide with another formation the wedge is one of the worst formations, you'd better try the line.

I agree with @hruza . And for those who laughed: this is not about historical accuracy in a game, it's about what we think about combat mechanics and how we think the real combat happened. If this is more or less reflected in the game is something I'd like, but if you'd like to bounce on walls and do acrobatic combos you should say it so. I thought a forum is made for this reason.

 

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

If that part of the Bayeux tapestry is about the battle of Hastings which I think it is, that's exactly the opposite that happened. Normans harassed the saxon shield wall for hours, with archers and cavalry trying to lure the saxons out of their position. Only when normans feigned a retreat the saxons left their position in pursuit and were overran by cavalry. That was the end of the saxon kingdom.

The outcome of the battle isn't the question, though. The tactic and its prevalence is the question. This is only one of several tapestries that illustrate this (I posted a bunch of them in a previous comment), setting aside the several famous accounts of Frankish and later French knights using frontal charges to initiate battle with infantry. Didn't always work as desired, mind, but it was a done thing and it worked as often as it didn't.

The advantage of the wedge formation is that it's easy to follow the leader and maneuver. So the leading troop can choose a gap in the enemy lines and the following men can break in and enlarge the opening. I.e. it was used by a group of legionaries after being defeated by Hannibal. They formed a wedge and managed to return to their camp. If you want to actually collide with another formation the wedge is one of the worst formations, you'd better try the line.

That's an advantage, yes, but it's not how the Romans used it. Further, if it were terrible for impact, why use it? It defeats the purpose if you do decide to commit to the charge and you're in an unfit formation. Maneuverability was a perk when applied to cavalry tactics, but it was still an effective way of splitting gaps in enemy formations on top of that. The line may have been better, but that doesn't make the wedge terrible.

 

[GitiUsir]

The outcome of the battle isn't the question, though. The tactic and its prevalence is the question. This is only one of several tapestries that illustrate this...

This is what you said: "I point again at the Bayeux Tapestry, which clearly depicts cavalry charging head-on into a dense shield wall "
The question is if you actually ever acknowledge anything when you are wrong. I also quoted several lines of your post that clearly contradict your argument.

That's an advantage, yes, but it's not how the Romans used it. ..

Actually that's how the Romans used it in a real battle. I'm sure you will provide us with references and quotes saying otherwise. Until then I will research those other tapestries you mentioned.

 

[sniparsexe]

omg I had so much fun while reading the conversation between Michael and hruza, I agree with Michael, though.

 

[Dead End]

Lol! I missed it! Inaccurate, by the way, Bohler. The continent is 100% fictional, but the setting isn't. Every weapon and piece of armor in Calradia is drawn from a historically accurate counterpart, the design and defensive elements of castles are drawn straight from history, and the danger of combat is deliberately held to a believably historical standard (where many games opt out of this constraint). Because these elements are historically accurate, it's perfectly reasonable to want other elements of combat like charges to be historically accurate, or at least historically plausible.

I completely agree! I don’t really have a stake in the larger conversation here, but I feel that as long as accuracy doesn’t stand in the way of fun or gameplay it is important. I don’t see how this really would, and if anything makes it more fun to see it in action

 

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

This is what you said: "I point again at the Bayeux Tapestry, which clearly depicts cavalry charging head-on into a dense shield wall "
The question is if you actually ever acknowledge anything when you are wrong. I also quoted several lines of your post that clearly contradict your argument.

Sure I do, but I'm not incorrect here. I said the Bayeux Tapestry depicts a cavalry charge into a shield wall.

You stated that it depicts Hastings, in which the cavalry charges were ineffective until the famous feigned retreat/accidental half-rout, and that the Normans probably would have lost if not for said gambit.

I stated that the outcome was irrelevant, as I was discussing the prevalence of the tactic, not its success rate. I don't doubt that many head-on charges failed. I'm also aware that head-on charges failed at Hastings. But they still occurred.

When you see them at...

• Tinchebray (initially successful, eventually faltered after Elias of Maine's horsemen emerged from hiding and flanked them)
• Bremule (partially successful thanks largely to the personal leadership of Henry Beauclerc)
• Toulouse (successful, granted as a result of a night raid)
• Lewes (successful, battle lost because Edward was a young dumbass who didn't turn around after his cavalry crushed the enemy's right flank)
• Flodden (successful, collapsing the Scottish left as a result)
• Yarmouk (initially successful, pushing from behind allied infantry, until Khalid ibn al-Walid took his own light cavalry to flank them, forcing a Byzantine withdrawal on that flank)
• Alijubarrota (failed thanks to obstacles designed to hinder cavalry charges)
• Tours (partially successful, but ultimately failed thanks to sheer Frankish tenacity and a raid on the charging camp, drawing many troops off)
• Lechfeld (successful, mixed with infantry; the superiority of the Frankish cavalry won the day)
• Antioch (failed, thanks to chain rout)
• Hastings (again, failed, precisely because of the lack of long lances and heavy armor in that era, yet it was attempted anyway)
• Kressenbrunn (both sides employed the tactic, but it was more successful for Bohemia)
• Crug Mawr (failed)
• Ascalon (successful)

When you see them in all these cases and more, it's hard to argue that it wasn't a common tactic, and this isn't even touching the age of black powder. They were risky, yes. If the infantry managed to hold after the initial impact and didn't rout, the cavalry could get stuck into a stationary brawl, which isn't a mounted fighter's strength. Many charges were called off in such a circumstance, and many others, as in some of these examples, failed when they weren't called off. But they still happened. Often.

Actually that's how the Romans used it in a real battle. I'm sure you will provide us with references and quotes saying otherwise. Until then I will research those other tapestries you mentioned.

So we're on the same page, you're saying the Romans used the wedge because it was easier to control the formation and not because it split enemy ranks, correct? At Pydna, the Romans used the wedge to help them split the Macedonian phalanx, already disrupted by uneven terrain. Boudica's rebellion was crushed by a series of wedge charges that broke through the massed Iceni warriors, negating their superior numbers when arrayed in cohesive lines by, well, breaking the lines. Two noteworthy examples off the top of my head. Some say the foraging party at Adatuca broke through to the Roman camp by forcing their way through in a wedge, but I don't know if this is confirmed by any historical sources.

Rome is noted for using three formations above all others, each with a stated purpose:

• Triplex acies allowed for superior maneuverability and quick responses to emerging situations.
• Tortoise formations were employed to protect against projectiles and provide superior cohesion against enemy infantry.
• The wedge was used to cut through enemy lines.

I'm told Adrian Goldsworthy's The Roman Army at War addresses the use and effectiveness of the wedge, though I don't have a copy of my own to confirm this with. "The Illustrated History of the Roman Empire", a now seemingly defunct website some once called one of the best on the internet regarding classical history, seems to have described it as such:

The Wedge was an offensive formation used to cut through enemy lines. They would make a triangle with the front row having shields and a melee-based weapon, and the back rows using bows to strike down enemy forces and push their way through, allowing reinforcements to come in and support them from behind after they have broken the enemy formation.

The most reliable source I can think of offhand, however, is Vegetius' De Re Militari. Here are a few excerpts concerning the wedge:

The line is solely designed to repulse, or if possible, break the enemy. If it is necessary to form the wedge or the pincers, it must be done by the supernumerary troops stationed in the rear for that purpose. [...] In armies not very numerous, it is much better to contract the front, and to have strong reserves. In short, you must have a reserve of good and well-armed infantry near the center to form the wedge and thereby pierce the enemy's line; and also bodies of cavalry armed with lances and cuirasses, with light infantry, near the wings, to surround the flanks of the enemy.

The second in command is posted in the center of the infantry to encourage and support them. A reserve of good and well-armed infantry is near him and under his orders. With this reserve he either forms the wedge to pierce the enemy's line or, if they form the wedge first, prepares the pincers for its reception.

There is also a method of resisting the wedge when formed by the enemy. The wedge is a disposition of a body of infantry widening gradually towards the base and terminating in a point towards the front. It pierces the enemy's line by a multitude of darts directed to one particular place. The soldiers call it the swine's head. To oppose this disposition, they make use of another called the pincers, resembling the letter V, composed of a body of men in close order. It receives the wedge, inclosing it on both sides, and thereby prevents it from penetrating the line.

And the other part of your army, composed of the worst troops, should remain at such a distance from the enemy's left as not to be annoyed by their darts or in danger of being attacked sword in hand. In this oblique formation care must be taken to prevent the line being penetrated by the wedges of the enemy, and it is to be employed only when the enemy's right wing is weak and your greatest strength is on your left.

Or if you intend to penetrate the enemy's line, the wedges which you form for that purpose before your center, must consist of the best disciplined soldiers. Victory in general is gained by a small number of men. Therefore the wisdom of a general appears in nothing more than in such choice of disposition of his men as is most consonant with reason and service.

In all these cases, Vegetius refers to the wedge as being used explicitly to pierce enemy formations by concentrating your force in one place and physically powering your way through. I hope these are sufficient, as I'm unsure about the first few sources.

 

[hruza]

Why rush? Why? The Roman tortoise worked quite well against projectiles, so why run when you could march? It was much easier to keep cohesion by simply walking at an even pace. Why run? To collide with the bloody enemy at speed and break their formation.

Because speed of a maneuver can be important too. And rushing actually works well against projectiles, because it gives enemy less time to shoot. Example: Athenian hoplites rushing Persian line at the Marathon. Greeks even made Olympic discipline out of it: Hoplitodromos.

I am very aware of this, and was including infantry applications. The Roman example I cited above was used by legionary maniples, not by cavalry alone. The purpose in this instance was to physically split the enemy's lines and drive a wedge in the middle of them, forcing them to fight up close where the gladius was a better weapon than the longer arms of the Gauls. Why do you keep ignoring the parts of my posts that unequivocally prove you wrong?

Your posts prove nothing. Show me historical source that proves that infantry in the wedge formation have thrown themselves against the enemy spears. It's absolutely idiotic idea.

You're talking horse-on-horse in this situation.

Cavalry charged other cavalry, not just infantry, didn't it?

This video covers jousting, not cavalry-to-infantry charges in formation. This is talking specifically about lance techniques against other horsemen, lance against lance, which was a very different beast. Cavalry were mobile weapons and you were not going to find situations where one group of knights would charge into a stationary group. In this case, both sides were moving at speed and would be maneuvering so as to not hit the rider in front of them. This is a very different application to the classic charge to break infantry lines.

You are free to post video of a lancing technique against infantry that involves colliding horse in to target.

Discourse from one of the few men who are extensively practiced with mounted combat today:

• On charging at speed. The statement: A group of mounted knights had to deliver the lance at a full gallop to have effect on the foot, which runs contrary to your claim in an earlier post that charges weren't done at speed and it was thus easy to stop short.

That's obvious nonsense. You don't need full speed for lance to be effective. You need full speed for it to be the most effective, but I want to see you taking lance point at the trot and having no effect on you. Besides guess what? In no point in the video he collides his horse in to target or even mentions it.

Demonstrating a charge. Notice that you ride through the target.

I have noticed he rides pass the target and not through it.

Executed against grouped infantry, this demands that some of the infantry are simply bowled over if they don't move out of the way. The horse does not and cannot stop on a dime, and even if it could, the lance would have little effect as a result.

Which is why THIS was not done against grouped infantry.

• On the specifics of a battlefield charge. The reason the massed ranks were more effective the closer they were is because the mass of the unit is larger, making for a more powerful impact when they collide with the enemy. A single rider charging into a shield wall would only knock over three or four people. 70,000 pounds or so worth of horses all grouped into one cohesive mass, however, could trample a small host.

The reason the massed ranks were more effective the closer they were is because your can bring more lance points on the target per the same width.

A single rider charging into a shield wall would only knock over three or four people. 70,000 pounds or so worth of horses all grouped into one cohesive mass, however, could trample a small host.

70,000 pounds or so worth of horses all grouped into one cohesive mas would collide in to each other and trip over each other as soon as their first rank would collide and trip over infantry. Idiocy of such a proposal can't be more obvious. If you want to loose your cavalry in one sweep, that's exactly what you should do, had it been possible to force horses to do it, which isn't because they are not suicidal. Sure, enemy infantry will not have a good time either, but ques what? Infantry is cheaper, easier to replace and there's more of it. Enemy general will applaud you however.

You have a Byzantine historian-princess talking about knights being able to punch through the walls of Babylon. You have Saracen chroniclers talking about charging knights being able to break the walls of Byzantium, as referenced in the third link above. Both are hyperbole obviously, but why do you think they'd have equated a knight's charge to what is in effect a wrecking ball? Because they trotted really fast until they got to the enemy and then stood there poking them with lances?

"Cavalry punching through city walls" is such an obvious metaphor that it can't be any more obvious.

In point of fact, that tactic is the worst thing a contingent of knights could do. You completely negate the benefits of cavalry when you stop. A proper charge either steers clear if the commander feels it won't break the lines, or crashes through the enemy, running them down if they flee or retreating over the scattered enemy while they reform to grab new lances and have another run. Infantry is the same situation, minus ever steering clear. The point of an infantry charge is, likewise, to break the enemy's lines. It's why uphill charges were generally ineffectual, and downhill charges were so devastating even on foot. Shield up, smash into the enemy, break their cohesion. That's the entire purpose of a charge.

How can crashing your cavalry in to infantry line not break infantry line in your logic? Collision of two or more objects is a simple physic right (see part of your reply below). Speed and mass against speed and mass, in this case just mass as infantry is stationary. So how do you prevent cavalry charge that crashes their horses in to infantry from breaking it? You put rocks in to infantry knapsacks to increase their weight? And how do cavalry commander evaluate if his charge is going to break enemy or not? As he gets closer to the enemy he quickly counts enemy soldiers, multiply them with their estimated mass then compares it to speed and mass of his own cavalry? Why would you repeat such a charge that commander have called off somehow magically seen that it can't succeed and why would he expect different result? And if it can't, why on earth would you do it in the first place? How should this nonsense work in practice?

If the cavalry charge worked the way you describe it, there would be no guessing and no second chance. Every charge would end up in total slaughter of one side. And yes, that's wery obviously not what happened in reality.

Looks to me like it does absolutely nothing to the horse, and this isn't even a horse trained for combat.

Nothing except blood all over it's head, belly and legs. So absolutely nothing that they put the horse down afterwards. It's pity that your video does not show what happened with the horse right after impact, as that part happened out of the picture.

Your example showed a woman running in front of a blindered horse from the side and getting under its legs, while it was entirely focused on a race. A horse charging at an opponent would be aware of the foe and trained to make contact.

You still did not show any historical source that shows how to train war horses to collide in to enemy soldiers in formation. But I like how you talk about it as if it was a fact.

Also, just how fragile do you think a horse is? The movies show horses getting impaled on spears on impact, yes, but life is not a movie. Horses can take a stab and keep going if need be, and this assumes the line holds to begin with. If a line of spearmen held, often the charge would be curbed near the last moment, but just as often they followed through. Let's do a little math...

Do no, but let's ask somebody that knows:

Why are horses so fragile?

While this question could come as a surprise for the non-initiated, anyone who has spent time on or around horses will know horses are forever getting injured, lame and sadly often worse. Horses are mostly big animals, seen as powerful and fast. Why is it, then, that they are so fragile?

Millions of years ago, horses used to live in forests. They were much smaller and ate mainly vegetables and fruits. Gradually, their habitat changed to grass land. To survive, horses became bigger as it required larger bodies to process the hard-to-digest cellulose in the grass. They also required longer legs to be able to run away from predators over longer distances.

Over time, and more recently through human’s selective breeding, horses developed to be extremely good and fast runners. Mechanically, thinner legs are more efficient which means that, relative to their size, horses have thin legs and therefore fragile ones too. If you combine this with the fact that they are extremely flighty (their first instinct is to run away) then you have a perfect recipe for broken legs.

It is very complicated and costly to fix a horse's broken leg. First because of how fragile it was in the first place but also because horses are not able to rest, they need to be constantly be on the move as their feet act like a pump which distributes blood throughout the body. If a horse can’t move its survival is at risk, which makes fixing and healing an injured leg problematic. And even if you did fix it, chances are the horse will never be able to run as it used to. This is why many owners chose to put their horses down, for both economic and humane (avoid long lasting pain) reasons.

The second reason horses are fragile is because of their digestive system. Here, again, the answer can be found in evolution. As mentioned earlier, their bodies had to adapt to eat grass which is hard to digest and poor in energy. Cows, sheep or deer also eat grass but they are ruminants which means they digest grass through fermentation in their multi-chambered stomachs. Horses, on the other hand, are what we call “hind gut fermenters” which means that they only have one stomach (like us) but have developed a system in which they can digest cellulose in the hind gut.

It’s precisely because they don’t have the heavy digestive structure of cows or other ruminants that horses can run like they do. But this comes at a cost: they have to eat lots of smaller meals (namely grazing) which will trickle through their digestive tract throughout the day. Horses can’t lie down for an extended amount of time as it disrupts this digestive system. A change in diet, or suddenly eating a big quantity of food as well as drinking too much water at the wrong time will disrupt the digestion.

Unfortunately, a digestive problem in horses often escalates. Horses can’t vomit, they are physically incapable of doing so. Some say it’s another evolutionary tweak to allow them to run from predators - otherwise the back-and-forth motion of their body when they run could make them vomit. Since they can’t vomit, and since their digestive system works like a trickle system, any food impaction (due to something not digested well, for example) can quickly escalate into a colic, something which is often fatal.

In other words, it's not because something is big that it's not fragile.

If they could keep their horses brave and steady enough to do so, a tightly packed formation of only ten knights could quite easily run straight through ten ranks worth of infantry, and that's mathematics.

Wrong discipline. One you need here is called Physic, and in particular part called Mechanics. Do you know why small and light projectile from an anti-tank gun can destroy tank even if tank have thousands of times higher mass? Because it's not about simple mass and speed of the one object against another. Objects are composed of parts. Horse colliding full speed in to tight infantry formation and somehow avoiding impaling itself on their weapons will injure or even break it's legs. And it's mass and speed is what will help them injure or break. That's what happened on my video and that's what likely happened in yours too. Both horses had to be put down.

There's basic law of physic that you, and other proponents of collision theory keep ignoring:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Newton's Third Law

It's okay to be wrong.

It is. Glad you see it that way.

 

[FBohler]

it's perfectly reasonable to want other elements of combat like charges to be historically accurate, or at least historically plausible.

I beg to disagree.
4 direction combat is nothing like actual combat. It's just a very video gamey abstraction just like many, many other aspects.

Yes, aesthetics and setting are grounded in reality, but never forget this is a fantasy game.

 

[World's Coolest Old Guy]

I beg to disagree.
4 direction combat is nothing like actual combat. It's just a very video gamey abstraction just like many, many other aspects.

Yes, aesthetics and setting are grounded in reality, but never forget this is a fantasy game.

It's actually quite similar, to be honest. While there's a lack of variety in animations, most strokes come down to high/overhead, horizontal, or thrusting. The only thing Mount and Blade is missing from the core stokes is an upward stroke. Blocking features close left and right, hanging, and short guards, which account for nearly half of the essential longsword guards. It's not complex nor is it comprehensive, owing to the way the combat mechanics are laid out for accessibility purposes, but even the combat animations are at the very least grounded in realism. I'd argue lacking nuance isn't the same as being unrealistic. For the most part, a game like For Honor is less realistic by far, with all its unnecessary spins, leaps, and flourishes.

This is particularly true of battlefield maneuvers. The majority of fighters tend to devolve into basics in a battlefield scenario as you don't get many opportunities to execute more nuanced combat maneuvers when you have several enemies in your immediate vicinity and your life is on the line. You tend to go for more direct strokes and defensive stances, falling back on the rudimentary in hopes of bashing your way through the enemy's defenses and forcing him back.

 

[FBohler]

I still call it a video gamey abstraction. If they tried to replicate HEMA, the game would be a complete mess.
It isn't by any means some kind of combat simulation. It's a video game.

Things should be 1) beliavable for the average Joe, 2) well balanced to avoid meta gameplay and last but not least 3) FUN.