until i saw video of 200 cav vs 200 heavy archers and they masacrate them...
Decen sized horse(avg. 700kg) with full armor going max speed(60km/h) will run over 4-5 people easily. That is like a car.
Kinetic energy is measured by K=1/2MV^2 20 miles per hour is 8.94 meters per second. 40 tons in kilograms is 36287.4You can't use the real-world fact that a horse is heavy to justify the insane cavalry mechanics in the game currently, because:
1. The weight of an object moving laterally doesn't (much) affect how hard you get hit. Gravity is a vertical force which doesn't really affect momentum. A 40 ton tank which hits you at 20mph is going to impart just as much force as a person who hits you at that speed. If you're standing in a faultline and a moving tectonic plate taps you at 2mph, you won't suddenly get knocked back because of the mass of the object (which is trillions of times more than a horse). Due to the latent elasticity in all objects there is also a limit to how much energy can be transferred in a hit.
2. Horses don't charge headlong into anything stationary. They're not suicidal and no amount of training will override their survival instincts. The "charge" we often read about in sources is usually also a rout by the infantry before they get hit.
but more relevantly,
3. Mount and blade is a game with a disproportionate amount of heavy cavalry, very small battlefields, and no cohesive formations. Even the biggest battles in warband are more like foraging skirmishes, and it's difficult to balance cavalry to be realistic but also not completely wipe the floor in those situations. The solution is to make it much easier for individuals to kill horses which are charging them head on, hence the spear-rearing mechanic. Without these concessions it would just turn the game into a bull in a china shop, which may be more "realistic" in a very short-sighted sense, but doesn't benefit the game.
The lack of morale isn't the issue, it's the ability of horses to crash through multiple lines of stationary infantry without taking much if any damage, while imparting more damage than some arrows. It's absurd.
No it's not. Cars don't have brains and don't feel pain when hurt. Horses do:
That horse was so injured that it had to be put down later.
Even though what you describe definitely happened, quite the opposite happened as well, especially in the Late Middle Ages/Renaissance, when infantry became much more organized and disciplined and could withstand several cavalry charges and not rout.The "charge" we often read about in sources is usually also a rout by the infantry before they get hit.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_CeresoleOn the first charge, Enghien's cavalry penetrated a corner of the Imperial formation, pushing through to the rear and losing some of the volunteers from Paris. As Cardona's ranks closed again, the French cavalry turned and made a second charge under heavy arquebus fire;
That was because the horse had tripped over him. There are plenty of videos showing horses smearing people and walking away without a scratch. Those racing horses are not the best example to use either. Racing horses are not warhorses, they are smaller, faster, and more agile. If you were to do a side by side comparison of a Australian Draught horse running over a man compared to an Arabian horse. You will most likely find that if repeated, the Australian Draught horse would plow through plenty of men with no problem while the smaller Arabian horse will most likely be injured and trip.
Every time this comes up it is because people don´t understand that when your riding a horse it´s a involuntary relation: the animal do not have much of a choice of where it is going. I mean the rider holds the reins and depends on the bit can control the direction of the animal and back in the day also, they got quite vicious spurs to "encourage" the mount to advance; and on top of this you can train any horse to charge into people quite easily. And usually when a cav charge happened it was not only individual horsemen charging the formation but a whole body of cavalry so a kind of herd mentality can be applied to the horses in the body. If anything the horse charge doesn't do enough damage and second thing the game is called MOUNT and Blade so it would be ironic if the mounts proved to be useless.
I have worked with horses and no matter how much a egghead tries to convince me that a horse won't charge a man I can not believe as saw first hand in many situations. I have even saw horses charging a stationary object such as tree and it is not physically possible that a formation of 3-4 rank deep infantry will stop a 6-700 kg horse.Again wrong:
Destrier best-known war horse of the medieval era.
Though the term "Great Horse" was used to describe the destrier, leading some historians to speculate that such animals were the forerunners of modern draught horse breeds,[12] the historical record does not support the image of the destrier as a draft horse.
They apparently were not enormous draft types.[7] Recent research undertaken at the Museum of London, using literary, pictorial and archeological sources, suggests war horses (including destriers) averaged from 14 to 15 hands (56 to 60 inches, 142 to 152 cm), and differed from a riding horse in their strength, musculature and training, rather than in their size.[8] An analysis of medieval horse armour located in the Royal Armouries indicates the equipment was originally worn by horses of 15 to 16 hands (60 to 64 inches, 152 to 163 cm),[9] about the size and build of a modern field hunter or ordinary riding horse.
Horse racing
Thoroughbreds range in height, which is measured in hands (a hand being four inches). Some are as small as 15 hands while others are over 17.
Wrong:
But it is against the nature of a horse to ride into a solid obstacle, so the cavalry attack took one of two forms: Either the horse did a turn (a rollback, demi-pirouette or volte-face) before it met the target, or it passed the target.47 There is no tactically correct third choice – crashing into the target, with horse and rider being cast down, is documented, but can hardly be called “tactically correct” as the fighter is rendered hors combat.
...the inevitable result of cavalry riding into a solid infantry formation will be that the horse will get stuck in the midst of the infantry, and if the impact did not impale it on the infantry’s pikes or spears, their Katzbalger and Roßschinder53 will soon finish the job. Even if the infantry wanted to get out of the way, they couldn’t – there is no-where to go, and not enough time.
Another argument against the “shock” attack into a solid infantry formation is that it cannot be
trained; even if done without sharp weapons, it is too dangerous for man and beast on both sides,
and what cannot be sensibly trained cannot be a regulation battlefield tactic. What can be observed
in re enactments is that horses will gravitate towards a perceived gap in the formation facing them,
however small, and will (delicately but irresistibly) shove aside the infantrymen both sides of the gap (experiment done 2015 between the mounted Timetrotter crew and assorted legionary infantry
at Augusta Raurica, and at Tournoi XIII; ref. also Bachrach, Carolingia ns , p.
Combat Training for Horse and Rider in the Early Middle Ages, Jürg Gassmann
.Again wrong:
Destrier best-known war horse of the medieval era.
Though the term "Great Horse" was used to describe the destrier, leading some historians to speculate that such animals were the forerunners of modern draught horse breeds,[12] the historical record does not support the image of the destrier as a draft horse.
They apparently were not enormous draft types.[7] Recent research undertaken at the Museum of London, using literary, pictorial and archeological sources, suggests war horses (including destriers) averaged from 14 to 15 hands (56 to 60 inches, 142 to 152 cm), and differed from a riding horse in their strength, musculature and training, rather than in their size.[8] An analysis of medieval horse armour located in the Royal Armouries indicates the equipment was originally worn by horses of 15 to 16 hands (60 to 64 inches, 152 to 163 cm),[9] about the size and build of a modern field hunter or ordinary riding horse.
Horse racing
Thoroughbreds range in height, which is measured in hands (a hand being four inches). Some are as small as 15 hands while others are over 17.
Wrong:
But it is against the nature of a horse to ride into a solid obstacle, so the cavalry attack took one of two forms: Either the horse did a turn (a rollback, demi-pirouette or volte-face) before it met the target, or it passed the target.47 There is no tactically correct third choice – crashing into the target, with horse and rider being cast down, is documented, but can hardly be called “tactically correct” as the fighter is rendered hors combat.
...the inevitable result of cavalry riding into a solid infantry formation will be that the horse will get stuck in the midst of the infantry, and if the impact did not impale it on the infantry’s pikes or spears, their Katzbalger and Roßschinder53 will soon finish the job. Even if the infantry wanted to get out of the way, they couldn’t – there is no-where to go, and not enough time.
Another argument against the “shock” attack into a solid infantry formation is that it cannot be
trained; even if done without sharp weapons, it is too dangerous for man and beast on both sides,
and what cannot be sensibly trained cannot be a regulation battlefield tactic. What can be observed
in re enactments is that horses will gravitate towards a perceived gap in the formation facing them,
however small, and will (delicately but irresistibly) shove aside the infantrymen both sides of the gap (experiment done 2015 between the mounted Timetrotter crew and assorted legionary infantry
at Augusta Raurica, and at Tournoi XIII; ref. also Bachrach, Carolingia ns , p.
Combat Training for Horse and Rider in the Early Middle Ages, Jürg Gassmann
Destriers are thought to be a cross between a light draft type and a athletic riding horse. Destriers were robust, muscular, very built. It wasn't some skinny fast Arabian. (It literally states in your reply that they differ in terms of muscular build.) A friesen horse or an Andalusion horse are thought to be good estimates of what Destrier was like. Both of these horses are massive compared to their counterparts. Just because they are the same height does not mean they are the same size.Again wrong:
Destrier best-known war horse of the medieval era.
Though the term "Great Horse" was used to describe the destrier, leading some historians to speculate that such animals were the forerunners of modern draught horse breeds,[12] the historical record does not support the image of the destrier as a draft horse.
They apparently were not enormous draft types.[7] Recent research undertaken at the Museum of London, using literary, pictorial and archeological sources, suggests war horses (including destriers) averaged from 14 to 15 hands (56 to 60 inches, 142 to 152 cm), and differed from a riding horse in their strength, musculature and training, rather than in their size.[8] An analysis of medieval horse armour located in the Royal Armouries indicates the equipment was originally worn by horses of 15 to 16 hands (60 to 64 inches, 152 to 163 cm),[9] about the size and build of a modern field hunter or ordinary riding horse.
Horse racing
Thoroughbreds range in height, which is measured in hands (a hand being four inches). Some are as small as 15 hands while others are over 17.
Wrong:
But it is against the nature of a horse to ride into a solid obstacle, so the cavalry attack took one of two forms: Either the horse did a turn (a rollback, demi-pirouette or volte-face) before it met the target, or it passed the target.47 There is no tactically correct third choice – crashing into the target, with horse and rider being cast down, is documented, but can hardly be called “tactically correct” as the fighter is rendered hors combat.
...the inevitable result of cavalry riding into a solid infantry formation will be that the horse will get stuck in the midst of the infantry, and if the impact did not impale it on the infantry’s pikes or spears, their Katzbalger and Roßschinder53 will soon finish the job. Even if the infantry wanted to get out of the way, they couldn’t – there is no-where to go, and not enough time.
Another argument against the “shock” attack into a solid infantry formation is that it cannot be
trained; even if done without sharp weapons, it is too dangerous for man and beast on both sides,
and what cannot be sensibly trained cannot be a regulation battlefield tactic. What can be observed
in re enactments is that horses will gravitate towards a perceived gap in the formation facing them,
however small, and will (delicately but irresistibly) shove aside the infantrymen both sides of the gap (experiment done 2015 between the mounted Timetrotter crew and assorted legionary infantry
at Augusta Raurica, and at Tournoi XIII; ref. also Bachrach, Carolingia ns , p.
Combat Training for Horse and Rider in the Early Middle Ages, Jürg Gassmann
Bruh this video clearly shows a racing horse ****ing trampling a man and keep going without a careAgain wrong:
Destrier best-known war horse of the medieval era.
Though the term "Great Horse" was used to describe the destrier, leading some historians to speculate that such animals were the forerunners of modern draught horse breeds,[12] the historical record does not support the image of the destrier as a draft horse.
They apparently were not enormous draft types.[7] Recent research undertaken at the Museum of London, using literary, pictorial and archeological sources, suggests war horses (including destriers) averaged from 14 to 15 hands (56 to 60 inches, 142 to 152 cm), and differed from a riding horse in their strength, musculature and training, rather than in their size.[8] An analysis of medieval horse armour located in the Royal Armouries indicates the equipment was originally worn by horses of 15 to 16 hands (60 to 64 inches, 152 to 163 cm),[9] about the size and build of a modern field hunter or ordinary riding horse.
Horse racing
Thoroughbreds range in height, which is measured in hands (a hand being four inches). Some are as small as 15 hands while others are over 17.
Wrong:
But it is against the nature of a horse to ride into a solid obstacle, so the cavalry attack took one of two forms: Either the horse did a turn (a rollback, demi-pirouette or volte-face) before it met the target, or it passed the target.47 There is no tactically correct third choice – crashing into the target, with horse and rider being cast down, is documented, but can hardly be called “tactically correct” as the fighter is rendered hors combat.
...the inevitable result of cavalry riding into a solid infantry formation will be that the horse will get stuck in the midst of the infantry, and if the impact did not impale it on the infantry’s pikes or spears, their Katzbalger and Roßschinder53 will soon finish the job. Even if the infantry wanted to get out of the way, they couldn’t – there is no-where to go, and not enough time.
Another argument against the “shock” attack into a solid infantry formation is that it cannot be
trained; even if done without sharp weapons, it is too dangerous for man and beast on both sides,
and what cannot be sensibly trained cannot be a regulation battlefield tactic. What can be observed
in re enactments is that horses will gravitate towards a perceived gap in the formation facing them,
however small, and will (delicately but irresistibly) shove aside the infantrymen both sides of the gap (experiment done 2015 between the mounted Timetrotter crew and assorted legionary infantry
at Augusta Raurica, and at Tournoi XIII; ref. also Bachrach, Carolingia ns , p.
Combat Training for Horse and Rider in the Early Middle Ages, Jürg Gassmann
Bruh this video clearly shows a racing horse ****ing trampling a man and keep going without a care
Yeah my bad man ngl was meant to respond to the hruza guy but I obviously ****ed upYeah but the more built horses are more likely to trample several men without tripping or having a higher chance of being injured than racing horses. That's the point I made a few replies ago.
You can't use the real-world fact that a horse is heavy to justify the insane cavalry mechanics in the game currently, because:
1. The weight of an object moving laterally doesn't (much) affect how hard you get hit. Gravity is a vertical force which doesn't really affect momentum. A 40 ton tank which hits you at 20mph is going to impart just as much force as a person who hits you at that speed. If you're standing in a faultline and a moving tectonic plate taps you at 2mph, you won't suddenly get knocked back because of the mass of the object (which is trillions of times more than a horse). Due to the latent elasticity in all objects there is also a limit to how much energy can be transferred in a hit.
Destriers are thought to be a cross between a light draft type and a athletic riding horse. Destriers were robust, muscular, very built. It wasn't some skinny fast Arabian. (It literally states in your reply that they differ in terms of muscular build.) A friesen horse or an Andalusion horse are thought to be good estimates of what Destrier was like. Both of these horses are massive compared to their counterparts. Just because they are the same height does not mean they are the same size.
Destriers were robust, muscular, very built. It wasn't some skinny fast Arabian. (It literally states in your reply that they differ in terms of muscular build.) A friesen horse or an Andalusion horse are thought to be good estimates of what Destrier was like. Both of these horses are massive compared to their counterparts. Just because they are the same height does not mean they are the same size.
Also if you look at Battle of Dyrrhachium, (1081) records state that Norman Cavalry charged the center of the Byzantine front and caused it to rout.
Horses charge things in today's day and age.
A trained warhorse would undoubtedly do the same.
This is the middle ages were talking about most of the army was rabble. Aside from the mercenaries and heavily armored knights.
It's not unlikely that horses charged into the best target. Which was nothing more than a feudal levy.
Training a horse to give risk its life up isn't impossible like you say it is. You can train an animal to do almost anything with the right tools and training.
The battle of Carrhae 53bc.
The battle of Patay 1429AD
And the battle of Kircholm 1605 are all examples of cavalry being used to break armies with devastating cavalry charges.
Bruh this video clearly shows a racing horse ****ing trampling a man and keep going without a care
Destrier is not a breed, it's "occupation". Any horse could have been destrier if it fulfilled requirements.
The word destrier does not refer to a breed, but to a type of horse: the finest and strongest warhorse. These horses were usually stallions, bred and raised from foalhood specifically for the needs of war.
Destrier - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Arabian horses are not skinny and they were actually used as a destriers:
well-bred Arabians are strong, sound horses with superior stamina.
by 711 Muslim warriors had reached Spain, and they controlled most of the Iberian Peninsula by 720. Their war horses were of various oriental types, including both Arabians and the Barb horse of North Africa.
Arabian horse - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Modern Frisian horse looks nothing like it's Medieval predecessor as it is result of a crossbreed of original Frisian horse and Spanish breeds. Modern Frisian is light draught breed and as such unsuitable for heavy riding. Riding and draught horse breeds have very different body builds as one is breed for pulling while other for carrying. Draught horse breeds did not even exist during Middle Ages and were bred only much later in history.
Original Frisians were actually used as a war horses, modern Frisians did not.
No historical source says that cavalry charge was done by using horses as a battering rams. Norman cavalry carried lances ...as in actual weapon to charge with.
They don't collide in to solid objects, other then by accident as shown in the video I have posted.
There is no historical record saying that war horses were trained to collide in to objects.
Medieval armies were anything but rabble. They were feudal levies -men rich enough to afford their own weapons and training. Medieval armies made of "rabble" can be seen only in the Hollywood films and computer games, along with horses ramming in to things during charge.
Those horses carried "feudal levy" and regularly charged other "feudal levies" on similar war horses.
The persistent old belief that peasants and small farmers gathered to form a national army or fyrd is a strange delusion dreamt up by antiquarians in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth centuries to justify universal military conscription.
Then give us historical sources that tells how war horses were trained to collide in to spear points. You can't, because such sources does not exist.
Non of them shows example of horses colliding in to lines of infantry.