I've already paid this discussion more heed than I'd intended to. You're not going to see reason, and that's fine, you don't have to. You're free to see what you wish. What I will do, however, is correct your facts:
That's just your speculation. I have already posted source about medieval war horses, they were only slightly larger then larger modern ponies and of medium build.
You're very, very wrong about this. Where did you get this information? Destriers measured as high as 15 or 16 hands.
Ponies reach about 14 hands.
The modern Friesian, who you so actively dismissed as being much larger than a medieval destrier in earlier articles, averages 15.2 hands.
Ponies are remarkably smaller than medieval warhorses. The
smallest destriers might have been roughly comparable in size, but certainly not the average.
Scholars have speculated about the nature of destriers and about the size they attained. 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.
[10]
In modern use, many organizations define a pony as a mature horse that measures less than 14.3 hands (59 inches, 150 cm) at the
withers, but there are a number of exceptions. Different organizations that use a strict measurement model vary from 14 hands (56 inches, 142 cm) to nearly 14.3 hands (59 inches, 150 cm).
The Friesian stands on average about 15.3 hands (63 inches, 160 cm), although it may vary from 14.2 to 17 hands (58 to 68 inches, 147 to 173 cm) at the
withers, and mares or geldings must be at least 15.2 hands (62 inches, 157 cm) to qualify for a "star-designation" pedigree.
-----
"A
charge is a maneuver in
battle in which
combatants advance towards their enemy at their best
speed in an attempt to engage in
close combat, most commonly a
melee. "
"Charge" mean engaging at the max speed it doesn't mean using yourself and your horse like a battering ram, cause it was never a war tactics as i said it would be suicidal.
You're completely misrepresenting my stance. I never said that the point of a charge was to run into the enemy with your horse (though on foot, shield tackling was the norm). I said that as a matter of course, cavalry would collide with infantry, and this is how the charge broke the enemy's formation. You're suggesting that either A, the charge rode at full gallop and then timed it so that the horse would awkwardly and aggressively slide to a stop
right in front of the enemy at melee range, taking all the force of momentum off the tip of their lance in the process, and lance only the first rank... or B, that the charge managed to pass through lightly grouped infantry without touching a single person, and then just stood there and poked the enemy from horseback, which would be suicidal.
Which do you reckon it was, out of curiosity? What does "engaging at max speed" look like in your mind?
In either situation, it sounds pretty ridiculous when you actually try to visualize it. I ask again, why gallop at all? Why not just yell really loudly and shout threats while trotting in a controlled manner towards the enemy? If the goal isn't to crash through, don't you think it would've been more expedient to approach in a way that held the line closer? This should be especially true of infantry charges, where tightly formed ranks could just walk towards the foe, shields overlapping. Why run? Why ever run?
-----
Lances of the 21th Lancers were certainly longer then spears carried by the Norman knights at Hastings.
The mounted lancer experienced a renaissance in the 18th and especially in the 19th century. [...] Formations of
uhlans and later other types of cavalry used 2-3 m (6.5-10 ft) lances as their main weapons.
[Medieval] Lances were much longer and sturdier than their cousin the spear. Usually ranging up to about ten feet in length with the jousting versions sometimes even longer - as long as twelve feet or more.
The Medieval Lance was an interesting polearm with a few different variations.
The first and most popular type of lance is the extremely long handled lance that was used by Jousting knights in tournaments. This type of lance could exceed 20 feet in length and typically had a modified point so as not to seriously injure an opponent.
But lances were also used in real combat and they too could reach lengths of up to 14 feet. They had a combat point that was made to penetrate armor.
They certainly were not. At
best they were around the same length, but the maximum length of a medieval lance exceeded the maximum length of a 19th century lance by several feet.
-----
Say nothing of the lack of armor Dervish infantry wore. If you want to consider armor as a factor, then you need to consider it for both sides.
I brought up the armor to show the factors that would have mitigated the impact of the Lancers' charge as opposed to that of a medieval knight. The defenders' armor is irrelevant. Even so, chain and gambeson isn't going to be incredibly effective against a sharp spear rammed into one's chest with 8,000 pounds of force, either.
-----
Problem with your diagram is that cavalry can't form as closely as infantry can, because riders on the horses are much larger then men of foot are. And from the description we know that 21th Lancers' formation in charge have extended Dervish infantry formation. We also know that infantry formation was 12 deep and not 20 deep. Although that was likely approximation, somehow I doubt that Churchill had time to count them.
Indeed, but the non-combatant observer I quoted would have. He counted them 20 deep. Also cavalry can form quite close. Knee-to-knee is still as close as infantry. Just because the men aren't tight doesn't mean the horses aren't. Medieval knights charged knee-to-knee.
-----
Anything but withering given Churchill don't mention 21th Lancers sustaining any losses. Which is hardly surprising given accuracy and range of smoothbore muskets Dervishes used and speed of the cavalry.
Withering, not lethal. The noise and smell would have still blunted the impact of the charge as the mounts became apprehensive.
-----
Churchill clearly states that actual fighting did not even start until 21th Lancers, those that survived the collision and did not lose their mount, did not push through and emerged on the other side of the ravine. So no, they did not hack their way. And it was 12 deep.
Sorry, lad, but I believe Churchill's own words - copied and pasted directly out of your post - tell a different story:
A score of horsemen and a dozen bright flags rose as if by magic from the earth. Eager warriors sprang forward to anticipate the shock. The rest stood firm to meet it. The Lancers acknowledged the apparition only by an increase of pace. Each man wanted sufficient momentum to drive through such a solid line. [...] The collision was prodigious. Nearly thirty Lancers, men and horses, and at least two hundred Arabs were overthrown.
[...]
Meanwhile the impetus of the cavalry carried them on. As a rider tears through a bullfinch, the officers forced their way through the press; and as an iron rake might be drawn through a heap of shingle, so the regiment followed. They shattered the Dervish array, and, their pace reduced to a walk, scrambled out of the khor on the further side, leaving a score of troopers behind them, and dragging on with the charge more than a thousand Arabs.
[...]
Two hundred yards away the regiment halted, rallied, faced about, and in less than five minutes were re-formed and ready for a second charge. The men were anxious to cut their way back through their enemies.
(Edit: I really,
really hate the buggy quote function. Or whatever aspect of my browser is making it buggy, as the case may be.)
-----
Succeeded only once they dismounted and opened fire from their magazine fed rifles against force using swords and muskets. Charge utterly failed to break Dervishes and 21th Lancers suffered 1/4 of their men and 1/3 of their horses as a casualties accomplishing nothing in the tactical sense. That's a disastrous result.
71 men out of 320 (the man who was there reckoned 400) isn't 1/4, it's closer to 1/5. Nevermind that with a thousand Dervish being dragged on with the charge, my, that's a full
half of their number shattered by the charge.
You're also missing the point of the historian's statement. It wasn't considered a
tactical disaster, it was considered a
strategic mistake. Tactically, it went off brilliantly. Minimal losses and a devastated enemy formation. Three of the Lancers received Britain's most prestigious military honor.
Strategically, however, it accomplished very little and probably shouldn't have been ordered in the first place. That's why it was considered a mistake. Not the outcome, but the decision.
This spectacular encounter earned considerable public attention and praise for the regiment, though it was also criticized as a costly and unnecessary anachronism - since the 2,000 Dervish spearmen dispersed by the 21st Lancers could have been destroyed by rifle fire with few if any British losses.
[3]