On the mechanics of a Cavalry charge.

[Ashes42]

If I had to guess I would say that a heavy cavalries lance would do more damage, mostly because his horse was probably bigger (more mass more momentum) and because he wasn't planning to skirmish, and therefore would probably be more committed to the charge.  The armor had little to do with the effectiveness.

 

[Archonsod]

It did more damage because it made the light lancer's lance look like a toothpick The light lancer generally wielded a lance designed to impale and withdraw, to minimise how often they would require replacing. Heavy lancers on the other hand were expected to drop the lance after the charge anyway, thus made use of all kinds of nasty tricks to maximise the wound inflicted.

 

[cremo]

one thing i would like to know is if there were lances that could be retained after charing.. i mean.. i doubt that it s like in m&b where the lancer charges an enemy and the lance does't break/block into the dead body and stuff like that, or not?

 

[Cirdan]

On that note, how did lancers in pre-stirrup warfare charge? Did they couch lance the enemy or do something else?

Nobody really knows, hence why historians maintained for many years that it was impossible to utilise a lance before the stirrup was invented. IIRC the popular theory is that it had something to do with the shape of the saddle rather than the stirrup, though to be honest with you I doubt you're going to need either really. A sharp point moving at thirty miles per hour or more is going to beat flesh trying to resist it every time. I'd even go so far as to say that armour isn't likely to change that too much either, unless you're talking tanks.

I believe the invention of the high-sided war saddle is attributed to the Sassanian Persians. Alexander's Hetairoi fought without the benefit of this. And while I'd agree with you that you could probably couch the lance while riding bareback, it's remaining in the saddle after impact that's the problem. Especially if you're charging someone in armour.

 

[Archonsod]

I dunno. You'd only run the risk of falling off the horse if the lance failed to penetrate. I can't see any human wearable armour being much proof against a lance employed from horseback. I'd think it'd only be a problem if the lance tip was blunt for some reason.

 

[Mirathei]

Yes, and its harder to knock 150 lbs of man +50 lbs of armor out of the saddle than just 150 lbs of man, so Tankai is correct.

No it isn't, by that logic a 150lbs man is more likely to fall over than a 50lb man, which is patently absurd Unless they have gravity singularities contained in the horseshoes, or else the majority of his weight is contained in his skull.

Not at all what I said. Look, just take into account the most basic laws of physics: assuming the lance hits, the collision will be a textbook inelastic collision, due to this factor:

... You'd only run the risk of falling off the horse if the lance failed to penetrate. ... I'd think it'd only be a problem if the lance tip was blunt for some reason.

Assuming that by "failed to penetrate" you allow such situations as the lance entering the victim but not exiting, for whatever reason, then this is quite correct. Now say the victim weighs Y kilograms and is standing still and the cavalryman plus his horse weigh Z kilos plus X kilos of armor for horse and man and are moving at V meters per second towards the victim. Thus:

Total momentum initial=total momentum final=(Z+X)*V=(X+Y+Z)*V'=P
Change in speed for the horse and rider=|V'-V|=dV

Obviously, the more abrupt the change in speed, the harder a time the rider will have staying in the saddle, so to measure how relatively difficult it is, we find the change in speed.

P=(Z+X)*V=(X+Y+Z)*V'
V'=((Z+X)*V)/(X+Y+Z)

dV=|V'-V|
dV=|((Z+X)*V)/(X+Y+Z)-V|
dV=|((Z+X)/(X+Y+Z)-1)*V|

As X increases, (Z+X)/(X+Y+Z) approaches 1, and therefore by the above equation dV approaches 0. Thus as the weight of armor increases, the change in speed the rider undergoes approaches 0. With less change in speed, there is less difficulty withstanding that change in speed. The change in speed is less when the armor is more. Therefore when there is more armor, there is less difficulty resisting the change in speed, as the rider is doing less of it.

Of course, there's two things that make this change, while it does occur, rather insignificant: firstly, the weight of the armor is quite small compared to the weight of the horse and man and thus not significant, and secondly, even if it were enough armor to noticeably reduce the change in speed, the strength of the lancer's arm would then become the limiting factor, if it hadn't been before. He'll probably just drop the lance if he hits something hard enough to jerk him out of the saddle.

Besides which, still doesn't affect how hard the lance hits.

Well, actually it does, albeit on a rather insignificant level. I'll use the same physical law again as above, just this time from the victim's perspective. Since the victim's initial velocity is zero, the change for him is simply V'. Using an intermediate step from above, we know the following:

V'=((Z+X)*V)/(X+Y+Z)
V'=((Z+X)/(X+Y+Z))*V

(Z+X)/(X+Y+Z) will always be less than 1, hence why V' is guaranteed to be less than V. However, as X increases, the fraction approaches 1 from below. Thus the greater the weight of the armor, the closer to the horse's galloping speed the victims final velocity will be, thus the greater the jolt he receives. Once again, however, while this difference does exist, it is insignificant, due to the relative lightness of the armor compared to horse and rider and due to the limiting factor of the rider's arm. Also, since the blow is most likely going to kill the victim anyway, it doesn't much matter if it comes with marginally more impact from heavy cavalry.

In short, a cavalryman wearing heavy armor would receive a marginally smaller jolt and deal a slightly harder blow than his lighter counterpart in the event that his lance did not fully skewer the enemy, but the difference is small enough as to be negligible.


Another thing- with such large forces as would make this come into play, not only is the victim almost guaranteed to die regardless, but there is also some small chance that the lance will break, thus changing the entire scenario from a physics perspective.

 

[Archonsod]

Now say the victim weighs Y kilograms and is standing still and the cavalryman plus his horse weigh Z kilos plus X kilos of armor for horse and man and are moving at V meters per second towards the victim.

The horse weighs on average around a tonne. A sixteen stone man in full armour will weigh around a fifth of that, and that's at the upper estimate for rider and armour. In all likelihood, he's going to be lighter. Either way, unless he's got bones of pure lead he's not going to offer any appreciable difference to the equation.

Obviously, the more abrupt the change in speed, the harder a time the rider will have staying in the saddle

The horse won't stop because the lance failed to penetrate. Similarly unless he's charging someone who's feet are set in concrete there's not much chance it'll be the rider knocked to the floor.

Well, actually it does, albeit on a rather insignificant level.

No, the lance focuses all it's force on a single point, not the victim as a whole. Assuming that the initial strength of the lance is more than enough to overcome the resistance of the flesh, any extra force is wasted as the lance exits the other side of the body. In other words, there's a set maximum limit on the possible energy transfer imposed by the nature of the lance, and once this is exceeded extra energy is wasted. I think it's fairly safe to say that this would be exceeded in pretty much all circumstances, bar perhaps a blunt lance.

Another thing- with such large forces as would make this come into play, not only is the victim almost guaranteed to die regardless, but there is also some small chance that the lance will break, thus changing the entire scenario from a physics perspective.

Unlikely, unless skin has a higher tensile strength than steel. Even in the medieval era the lance tip would usually be metal, apart from jousting lances the lance is more likely to break as a result of the weight of the victim once impaled rather than the shock of the initial blow.

 

[SharpFish]

But he is. He is on top of the horse and the man itself + armor and weapons should have enought weight for inercia to give him the advantage. This is my point.

Sort of but not really.  Actually there is a very clear ceiling on the amount of force that can be delivered, and it is the strength of the grip exerted by the rider on the horse.  The rider is effectively a transmission mechanism linking the lance to the horse, and is also the weakest element.  Furthermore, the grip on the horse is perpendicular to the line of force (unlike the grip on the lance), and hence it is leg strength that is probably the most important factor in determining how much energy can be imparted to a target.  Not surprisingly, this developed a school of riding that was obsessed with staying on the horse at all costs and maintaining the "seat".

 

[Mirathei]

Now say the victim weighs Y kilograms and is standing still and the cavalryman plus his horse weigh Z kilos plus X kilos of armor for horse and man and are moving at V meters per second towards the victim.

The horse weighs on average around a tonne. A sixteen stone man in full armour will weigh around a fifth of that, and that's at the upper estimate for rider and armour. In all likelihood, he's going to be lighter. Either way, unless he's got bones of pure lead he's not going to offer any appreciable difference to the equation.

Yes. As I said the difference will almost always be so slight as to be worthless.

Obviously, the more abrupt the change in speed, the harder a time the rider will have staying in the saddle

The horse won't stop because the lance failed to penetrate. Similarly unless he's charging someone who's feet are set in concrete there's not much chance it'll be the rider knocked to the floor.

The horse won't stop, but you must remember Newton's laws: both the rider and the victim are receiving the same force. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If that force is more than the rider can withstand, the rider won't withstand it. The only reasons the rider has an advantage in that regard is because firstly, as you said before, the lance concentrates all its energy to a point, thus impaling the victim rather than colliding with him most of the time, secondly, the horse will take some of the impact if any trampling ensues, and finally, the rider receives the force on his braced arm and can recoil, whereas the victim has no choice where he is hit. Obviously, this would be of no importance in most cases, but if, for example, the footman hit the dirt to avoid the lance in a panic, the rider might end up couching a well rooted rock, in which case, the heavier cavalryman's advantage in momentum would cause his seat in the saddle to be sturdier, thus increasing the (already good) chance that either his grip or the lance's shaft (not so much for the latter) might become the weak point. The same would come into play if he lanced another horse in a head-on cavalry charge or into tight packed infantry. Both are unlikely events, but entirely possible, and would certainly cause this to come into play on some level.

Well, actually it does, albeit on a rather insignificant level.

No, the lance focuses all it's force on a single point, not the victim as a whole. Assuming that the initial strength of the lance is more than enough to overcome the resistance of the flesh, any extra force is wasted as the lance exits the other side of the body. In other words, there's a set maximum limit on the possible energy transfer imposed by the nature of the lance, and once this is exceeded extra energy is wasted. I think it's fairly safe to say that this would be exceeded in pretty much all circumstances, bar perhaps a blunt lance.

This is why the advantage would be somewhat rare. However, if the victim is wearing heavy armor, and perhaps the lance passed through his shield as well, complete penetration is far from guaranteed, especially if the lance hit at a somewhat awkward angle (in which case forget about passing through the shield). And once again, in a head on cavalry vs. cavalry charge, the part of the lance extending past the horse's head may not be long enough to achieve full penetration through another horse. Anyways, there are plenty of hits which might be indirect or otherwise weak enough to not properly skewer their victim, in which case the greater inertia could help drive the lance marginally further in than it otherwise would have been.

Another thing- with such large forces as would make this come into play, not only is the victim almost guaranteed to die regardless, but there is also some small chance that the lance will break, thus changing the entire scenario from a physics perspective.

Unlikely, unless skin has a higher tensile strength than steel. Even in the medieval era the lance tip would usually be metal, apart from jousting lances the lance is more likely to break as a result of the weight of the victim once impaled rather than the shock of the initial blow.

Well, several layers of armor is pretty damned strong. And I wasn't referring to the lance tip breaking, anyway. The wooden part of the shaft would be the weak point, and if the lance hit at a funny angle, it could break. As I said, though, this is rather unlikely.

Anyway, as we've both been saying all along, the difference would be marginal. All I'm saying is that it would exist in certain rare situations. The only time I can see this becoming a factor is in situations where the cavalryman would be plunging headlong into heavy resistance; in short, in situations which only heavy cavalry would be likely to experience anyway. While the difference technically does exist, I'll agree with you that its certainly not something that would be worth taking into account if you were a tactician.

 

[Jaquestrap]

I remember reading about the Heavy Hussars of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and how they were able to be used so effectively in such a late period (they were used all the way up to the late 1700s effectively and by that point they were easily still the heaviest cavalry in the world and arguably the most successful).

They used a number of methods to overcome the more modern armies of those days. One thing that allowed them to charge a group of pike men was that their lances were hollow and counterweighted so this allowed them to be very long, and in many cases longer than a pike. Because they were hollow it lowered to overall weight, and thus allowed it to be longer, and the counterweights allowed the lances to be held out farther without them being unbalanced. Also by those periods the pikemen were supported by gunmen behind them. However it is well known that guns during those periods were obviously very slow to load, prepare, and aim between each volley. That is why much of the military horses during this time were bred to have very fast acceleration. Thus they came towards the enemy at a trot, and they were spread very far apart, which during a charge means that it is not nearly as effective. However as soon as the first volley was fired, the cavalry immediately started to speed up and get more compact. Because of their loose formation during the volley, the cavalry sustained little if any losses, and by the time the guns were ready to fire again, the first charge was already at full speed, and immensely compact with many records saying that by the time the cavalry hit they were riding knee to knee. The first wave would charge, and if it failed to break the infantry it would quickly soon disengage, because earlier while they were charging and fighting another wave of Hussars was making it's way to the enemy. While the enemy forces were still disorientated and not ready to take another charge, the second charge was already in place and about to hit, and it was being followed by a third. It would rarely take more than three charges to break through, and once a charge broke through the others following it would carry the momentum all the way through the other sections of the enemy army, with some cases of battles with Sweden during which the Polish Cavalry broke through the larger army of the swedes at just one point, and then sweeping through and attacking the command areas of the Swedish army, and in some cases still having the momentum to attack other parts of the Swedish army from the rear. Also it helped the Polish Armies very much that the cavalry were not composed of lords and noblemen, but rather of more middle class sons of craftsmen and merchants and bankers, who did not fight individually for their lands, but as one unit such as how the infantry of those periods fought. There are several books on Polish Hussars if you ever want to check them out, but a number of the better ones are in Polish or Russian, so if you can't read those languages then you will have ot find a translated copy.


Edit: An absolutely GREAT article on Polish Cavalry tactics in English, read it if you have the slightest bit of time, and look through the rest of the website if you have more. http://www.wingedhussar.org/husaria.html

 

[Subotai]

Horses can be trained to do anything, that's a fact. In Mongolia we still have cavalry, but we dismount to shoot. The horses are even trained to lie down as cover for the rifleman and not even move when shot.

 

[Redcoat-Mic]

not even move when shot.

How do can you possibly train a horse to do that? 

 

[Ursca]

It's quite simple, really. After the first couple of test shots, the horse will stop thrashing around and lay completely still while you unload further rounds into it.



By that time of course, it's fairly useless for riding.

 

[Jaquestrap]

Guessing that it might include a bit of what westerners might call animal cruelty. I would presume that they use some sort of whip to mimic the initial pain of the bullet, and train the horse to ignore that kind of pain. Of course this is very cruel but in a war nobody will argue while you are fighting. It would be nice if Mongolia at least had the funds to equip their horses with Kevlar vests, however the country isn't what you would call rich or even well off so the only consolation is that it hasn't been at war with anyone for quite a while, and I doubt that anything will happen right now to change that.


Unless China wants to invade another less powerful country and only anger the world further.

However it is interesting to learn a bit about Mongolia, it is a very looked over country in modern times.

 

[Jaquestrap]

The lance is driven by the horse, not the guy holding it. If the horse is faster, then this will drive the lance harder. Makes no difference whether the guy on the horse is carrying a grand piano or stark bollock naked. In fact, you could remove the guy altogether and replace him with some lance holding device without any difference, though accuracy would probably suffer

The difference between a heavy and light lancer tends to be the size of the lance. Heavy lancers also tend to carry a backup weapon so they can engage in melee afterwards, and wear armour for the occasion. A light lancer is expected to skewer and run.

Yeah, however it isn't necessarily the speed of the horse that gives it it's power. For example, an Arabian(very fast, but very light and not nearly as strong as a Destrier would have been), with a light rider who is trying to lance would actually do less damage than the heavy charger with the heavy Knight which is slower but MUCH stronger. IF the lighter rider managed to stay in the saddle (very unlikely) then the Arabian would be slowed tremendously, and would not have the strength to push that lance into the opponent. However the Heavy charger which may be slower actually puts power onto the tip of the lance. And a heavy charger is required for a heavy rider, so yes, arguably a heavy knight would do more damage than a light lancer.

 

[italiano]

Actually, it's force, not power . Force is mass multipled by acceleration.

However the Heavy charger which may be slower actually puts power onto the tip of the lance

Both concentrate their force on the tip of the lance as that is the point of contact. However, I would guess that the difference between heavy and light lancers would be more significant in terms of mass than in speed, and this greater mass is what would allow heavy lancers to strike with greater force.

 

[Balinux]

Exactely my point.

 

[Archonsod]

Both concentrate their force on the tip of the lance as that is the point of contact. However, I would guess that the difference between heavy and light lancers would be more significant in terms of mass than in speed, and this greater mass is what would allow heavy lancers to strike with greater force.

Heavy and Light when applied to cavalry are a description of their role, not physical appearance. Heavy means heavy combat duties, which is generally fighting in the main line of battle. Light is light combat duties; scouting, harrying and sabotage.

 

[Ashes42]

technically yes, but the horse selection is somewhat dependant on the role, if I'm scouting, or even doing a lance charge then running away, I'm going to choose the faster horse which will probably be leaner.  Unless historically each county had only one type and size of horse (aka all our horses are small) there will be human selection of how fast or how massive a horse is prefered.

 

[Archonsod]

Not really. The difference was in the riders rather than the horse, particularly in training. Most cavalry horses belonged to their riders rather than the regiment, thus personal preference usually differed according to the rider, when they had a choice which was something of a luxury. In fact, it rarely mattered, the cavalry only needed to be faster than infantry, which even a dray pony can manage.  Another thing every cavalryman would be aware of is that the designations only held true in theory; bad intelligence or simple bad luck could easily see a light squadron in the midst of a pitched battle, or a heavy squadron isolated on the flank. I expect the men themselves were more interested in the horses ability to keep them alive rather than it's suitability for their role.