On the mechanics of a Cavalry charge.

[Ursca]

I've been playing around with this idea for a while, so here goes:

We all know that horses were the tanks of the medieval period, that a cavalry charge was a battle-winning manoeuvre, and that the proper way to stop one was a mass of pikes, which would stop it in it's tracks. But while this is correct, it's also vastly simplified. The image of a column of horsemen charging headlong into a nest of pikes is fundamentally wrong.

The symbiosis of man and horse is an interesting one. Sometimes we forget that a knight's horse is alive too and in certain ways, smarter than the knight himself. 
A horse can be trained to do just about anything, provided it wants to. An untrained horse will spook at the slightest sudden movement or load noise, but a well trained horse can be 'bomb-proofed'. If a horse is used to noise and movement, then it could conceivably go into combat unfazed. Even better if there are other horses. The herd instinct of a horse means that if it sees other horses confidently galloping at an enemy it will be inclined to do the same thing.
One thing a horse will not do, however, is charge into a packed formation of enemies who are (presumably) intending to stab it with pointy things. No matter the encouragement, not matter the herd mentality, a horse will not go to (in its' eyes) certain death.
There may have been some remarkably brave steeds that would have charged into a brick wall if needs be, but these were the grand national winners of their day, horses fit for kings and dukes, not the bulk of cavalrymen needed to make up a mounted column.
This also might explain why cavalry of the period consisted almost entirely of nobles. Any idiot that can breed cows can breed horses, but to breed a horse large enough to be a warhorse, with a solid and dependable character that could be trusted to do what you said, and could be trained to endure the chaos of combat without batting an eyelash is an expensive and laborious process.

On the other hand, the soldiers on the receiving end of the charge wouldn't be that happy about it either. Horses are big, snorting, muscular beasts and the human brain knows exactly what to do when it sees one of those running towards it - run like hell. Our early ancestors certainly weren't strangers to that kind of situation.
This is exactly why mounted police officers are used today for controlling crowds.

So a cavalry charge is really like a big game of chicken.
The horses will charge, but won't actually hit a packed formation and the formation has to hold it's nerve or it will break and the cavalry will mow them down.
The deciding factor here is polearms. A soldier would feel far more at ease if he had a big spiky barrier between him and the charging horses (I know I would). By holding the formation, any potential cavalry charge is reduced to milling group of scared horses that can't go forward and can't go back, whos' riders are barely in control, especially when faced with a determined wall of pikemen. The Herd instinct also comes into play here as if a horse sees other panicked horses, it will be inclined to panic too. Bing! positive feedback. 

This is why the Napoleonic square formation was such a good defence. It was not that the formation could not be penetrated, but that the horses wouldn't charge it.

This probably won't be news to most here, but I hope it puts some things into perspective.

 

[Vovolov]

Nice read, I thought a horse would do just about anything as long as it was trained to. Didn't actually think it'd fear a certain formation. 

 

[Corinthian Hoplite]

Yup, very true. However, many games seem to forget this 'horse element', which is a very decisive one. I remember watching a program about Wellington's square tactic at Waterloo, and how horses wouldn't just charge against the squares, leaving the cavalry confused and open to musket fire. If the horses did actually charge, they would probably win. Medieval battles wouldn't be much different in terms of horse behaviour.

 

[Archonsod]

Nice read, I thought a horse would do just about anything as long as it was trained to. Didn't actually think it'd fear a certain formation. 

It's not fear, simple common sense. From the viewpoint of the horse ( eyes on the side of the head, being a herbivore, also relies on smell rather than sight) it can't see men holding pointy spears at it, it just sees a solid block of objects directly ahead. As far as the horse is concerned, you're telling it to run full pelt into a solid brick wall.

Yup, very true. However, many games seem to forget this 'horse element', which is a very decisive one. I remember watching a program about Wellington's square tactic at Waterloo, and how horses wouldn't just charge against the squares, leaving the cavalry confused and open to musket fire. If the horses did actually charge, they would probably win. Medieval battles wouldn't be much different in terms of horse behaviour.

Two interesting accounts of cavalry against square, the first from Captain Thomas Brown of the 23rd Foot who observed British cavalry attempt to attack a French rearguard during the Peninsula War:

"Whilst one of these squares retreated, the other kept up a constant fire on our squadron of cavalry attempting to charge it. The horses would not face it, and many of them were killed. When the retreating Square was pursued, it halted and began the same sort of unapproachable fire; the other then commenced it's retreat, & passing by the Square that was engaged, which in it's turn moved off, when it's partner in the conflict had stopped and faced our cavalry".

The second from Sergeant William Gould who attacked a square at Aliwal:

"We had to charge a square of infantry. At them we went, the bullets flying around like a hailstorm. Right in front was a big sergeant, Harry Newsome. He was mounted on a grey charger, and with a shout of "Hullo boys, here goes for death or a comission", forced his horse right over the front rank of kneeling men, bristling with bayonets. As Newsome dashed forward he lent over and grasped one of the enemy's standards, but fell from his horse pierced by 19 bayonet wounds.
Into the gap made by Newsome we dashed, but they made fearsome havoc among us. When we got out on the other side of the square our troop had lost both lieutenants, the cornet, troop sergeant major and two sergeants. I was the only sergeant left. Some of the men shouted "Bill, you've got command, they're all down"".

Morale played a big part, if the infantry broke then they were almost certain to lose. If they held however, even if the cavalry managed to successfully break through their formation the infantry would generally win. For the most part, cavalry would hunt other cavalry (in which case it was a game of chicken, first side to hesitate generally being mown down quite quickly) or harass and pursue running foes.
Of course, another thing people tend to forget about the medieval era is the use of artillery. Even in the middle ages, commanders understood that the tight packed, stationary formation of infantry; such as it would likely adopt if threatened by cavalry, is the ideal target for artillery (and for that matter ranged fire as a whole). The cavalry never needed to charge, simply being close enough to force the infantry into a defensive posture where your archers and artillery could whittle them down for your infantry to mop up would be enough.

 

[Axxchor]

So a cavalry charge is really like a big game of chicken.

It's not fear, simple common sense. From the viewpoint of the horse ( eyes on the side of the head, being a herbivore, also relies on smell rather than sight) it can't see men holding pointy spears at it, it just sees a solid block of objects directly ahead. As far as the horse is concerned, you're telling it to run full pelt into a solid brick wall...

Morale played a big part, if the infantry broke then they were almost certain to lose. If they held however, even if the cavalry managed to successfully break through their formation the infantry would generally win.

Nice writeups!

So, when I hear about Scots playing bagpipes, etc. during battles...is it true that this was not just to look badass, but also a bona fide battle tactic? To disrupt cavalry charges? If so, what other tactics of the disrupting-cavalry-charge type were there?

 

[doorknobdeity]

Military historian John Keegan's book The Face of Battle explores the question in some depth; I don't have the book on hand, but from what I can recall, his musings agree with those of the posters here.

 

[italiano]

Nice read, I thought a horse would do just about anything as long as it was trained to

They can be, but for a horse to be able to disregard it's own health it would have to be very highly trained, which would make it extremely expensive.

 

[Ursca]

So, when I hear about Scots playing bagpipes, etc. during battles...is it true that this was not just to look badass, but also a bona fide battle tactic? To disrupt cavalry charges? If so, what other tactics of the disrupting-cavalry-charge type were there?

Yes, I imagine bagpipes would have a negative effect of cavalry. Even 'bomb-proofed' horses will shy and spook when confronted with unfamiliar things, and the loud and unnatural sound of bagpipes would certainly do the trick.
Depending on how the formation is set up, it only takes one frightened horse to obstruct the rest.

Anti-cavalry tactics are pretty much identical for any time period the world over - stand close together and make as much noise as possible. Other tactics include the use of palisades and other barriers (see Arch's point on running straight into a wall) and occupying uneven terrain.
Uneven and rocky terrain is very dangerous for a cavalry force. Horses are pretty fragile really, if one puts a foot wrong when travelling at a reasonable speed it's going to cripple itself and throw the rider straight to the ground. Rabbit holes are a horseman's worst nightmare, and I'm sure more monarchs have bee killed in riding accidents than have been killed in battle. 

Nice read, I thought a horse would do just about anything as long as it was trained to

They can be, but for a horse to be able to disregard it's own health it would have to be very highly trained, which would make it extremely expensive.

And not any old horse can be trained to that degree. Horses have personalities of their own and even in something like modern horse-racing, the character of a horse is as (if not more) important than it's physical power.

There's a great article here. I haven't read all of it, but it looks like it goes into more detail on this subject. It also references The Face of Battle, so I guess I'll have to have a look at that. Thanks Doorknobdeity. 

 

[Archonsod]

So, when I hear about Scots playing bagpipes, etc. during battles...is it true that this was not just to look badass, but also a bona fide battle tactic? To disrupt cavalry charges? If so, what other tactics of the disrupting-cavalry-charge type were there?

Not the bagpipes, most horses tend to be fine with the pipes Bagpipers are to a Scottish regiment what a bugler is to a US regiment, they're one of the few types of instrument which can be heard clearly during battle, even with cannon and musketry firing, thus are incredibly useful for relaying commands or simply giving confused or disordered companies a point to fall back to. It wasn't just the Scots, the various Northern British regiments were accompanied by Northumbrian pipers, the Irish regiments often had Irish pipers and so forth.

 

[italiano]

And not any old horse can be trained to that degree. Horses have personalities of their own

Now this is a little picky. I was implying that the animal as a species can be made to do so, not that every animal of the species could do so. It's no different than saying that a human is capable of running 100m in under 10 seconds.

 

[Ursca]

I understand that, I was merely adding to your point rather than 'correcting' it. 

 

[doorknobdeity]

There's a great article here. I haven't read all of it, but it looks like it goes into more detail on this subject. It also references The Face of Battle, so I guess I'll have to have a look at that. Thanks Doorknobdeity. 

I do recommend it. He examines both medieval instances (Agincourt) and early modern ones (Waterloo).

 

[Æsir]

Finally! Someone says what I have tried to say in almost every horse/spear realated topic. Horses don't run into sharp stuff. Thank you Ursca. You are my best friend for today!

 

[Axxchor]

There's a great article here. I haven't read all of it, but it looks like it goes into more detail on this subject. It also references The Face of Battle, so I guess I'll have to have a look at that. Thanks Doorknobdeity. 

I do recommend it. He examines both medieval instances (Agincourt) and early modern ones (Waterloo).

Yes, it was a very good read. But I have a further question for those knowledgeable ones here. The article states:

The idea that fleeing infantry could be “ridden down” is no more plausible. [than the idea that cavalry ever charged cavalry]

Do you agree with this statement? To what end, then, does the cavalry charge a square if not to break it up so that fleeing troops can be run down and killed? It seems unlikely that a simple rout is as desired as annihilating the enemy. Besides, if a cavalry charge is ineffective against non-squared troops, then why, as Archonsod said, would the presence of cavalry force enemies into a square in the first place?

The author seems to call into question the significance of cavalry at all!

 

[italiano]

Squares protect flanks and allowing harmless channeling of the cavalry which I imagine also makes them vulnerable to fire.

 

[quiet420]

There's a great article here. I haven't read all of it, but it looks like it goes into more detail on this subject. It also references The Face of Battle, so I guess I'll have to have a look at that. Thanks Doorknobdeity. 

I do recommend it. He examines both medieval instances (Agincourt) and early modern ones (Waterloo).

Yes, it was a very good read. But I have a further question for those knowledgeable ones here. The article states:

The idea that fleeing infantry could be “ridden down” is no more plausible. [than the idea that cavalry ever charged cavalry]

Do you agree with this statement? To what end, then, does the cavalry charge a square if not to break it up so that fleeing troops can be run down and killed? It seems unlikely that a simple rout is as desired as annihilating the enemy. Besides, if a cavalry charge is ineffective against non-squared troops, then why, as Archonsod said, would the presence of cavalry force enemies into a square in the first place?

The author seems to call into question the significance of cavalry at all!

'Running down' means to physically run over an opponent, using your horse as a weapon, not simply pursueing.
if you click on next post, from that article, the author makes it abundantly clear that in his opinion (well founded) the whole idea of "shock tactics" outside the use by lancers, using only a lance, is a myth.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

Obviously your points are all true, the trick to withstanding cavalry is to stand your ground which is a hard enough thing to do (stand next to a police horse and imagine it galloping straight at you, even without the highly trained git on the top, it's horrifying.)
But they DID sometimes charge into pikes and squares, such as Bannockburn and one Napoleonic battle where French Cavalry broke a square by charging the corner (a common tactic, the corner was the weakest part) and it was broken as one dead horse flew threw the ranks, breaking it wide open.

 

[Archonsod]

The idea that fleeing infantry could be “ridden down” is no more plausible. [than the idea that cavalry ever charged cavalry]

It's a ridiculous statement. Cavalry regularly charged cavalry, you need look no further than Waterloo or even the English Civil War to see it in practice. The entire purpose of the cavalry sabre was for running down fleeing troops - for actual combat you wanted a thrusting sword rather than a heavy slasher like the sabre, however the sabre's curve allowed you to attack as you passed a fleeing troop without having the sword wrenched from your hand.

Squares protect flanks and allowing harmless channeling of the cavalry which I imagine also makes them vulnerable to fire.

Among other things. Forming a solid square not only creates a formidable mental obstacle for the horses, but it also means any cavalry who do manage to get into the square are likely to be few in number, making them easy prey to the officers and men in the centre. As the account I posted earlier shows, cavalry managing to enter the square were likely to be bayoneted or shot in short order. The only hope for such cavalry was to continue through and out the other side, generally exposing them to fire from both sides of the square, plus pistols and bayonet while in the square (and if they fail to break out, they're surrounded).
The most lethal mistake made by inexperienced cavalry was to ride around the square if the infantry held during the charge. This allowed the infantry to volley fire from each side as they passed, often at point blank range.

'Running down' means to physically run over an opponent, using your horse as a weapon, not simply pursueing.

In the military context "to run the foe down" means to pursue until they go to ground. Hence why we get references to infantry running down fleeing foes, which obviously presents a rather confusing image using the other definition. The term itself originates from hunting; to run down a deer or rabbit meant to pursue it until it collapsed from exhaustion.

 

[Edwards]

Thanks for an absolutely brilliant post, Urca.

 

[Axxchor]

Let me second that thanks. I learned quite a lot in this thread.