The cavalry has insufficient impact.

[Tork789]

So this isn't really a rebuttal to my claim that they didn't charge at high speed into formed infantry

There's nothing to rebut then, since you haven't provided an argument that Maurice advises against charging at an infantry formation, since the description you provided describes a drill and not only it doesn't state that cavalry charges can't be done at gallop, but it also doesn't even specify what type of enemy this drill is supposed to simulate. It is simply a drill, nothing more, nothing less.

And on contrary when he describes the manner a certain enemy has to be dealt with he suggests closing in as quickly as possible, yet you try to draw a conclusion that it somehow means going at trotting speed basing on a claim that a galop charge can't be done in an even, dense, regular order and naturally I'm going to ask you to provide arguments to support that claim, otherwise further discussion is impossible.

By the way if you claim that this part

When lancers attack archers, as we have said, unless they maintain an even, unbroken front, they sustain serious damage from the arrows and fail to come to close quarters..

implies horse archers, then you contradict your claim that a galop can't be done with an even unbroken front or suggest that horse archers can be caught up with using trotting speed.

Moreover, if we to believe you, then in this part

In pursuing the enemy, they should sometimes charge in open order, sometimes together in close order.

Maurice suggests that pursuit can also be done at trotting speed.

 

[Agroplode]

This are Empire tactics, we all know they are useless in Warfare. Where are the fair-haired races tactics, Maurice mentions them and where are the Khuzait manuals?

Joke aside, I dont know why or where this argument is going. its seems we all agree that horses were trained to go into a body of men only the speed at which they did so. I only argued for the case that they did, whether the Empire used a trot and the fair-haired used a charge. Doesn't matter to me. I believe, from the many battles I have read about, that sometimes someone were pretty upset and did charge and if an infantry man really wanted to see the rider would fall of his horse when it slammed into him, then maybe he could stay behind and see, while the rest of his buddies got better ideas and ran.

There is a battle in Dacia or Sarmatia.. over there somewhere, where the Romans have defeated a force and are getting ready to assault the last camp, when the fair-haired Cavalry comes back from foraging to see the dire straits their families are in. The only chance they have is a full on charge before the Roman Cavalry can get in good order, and they do charge so fiercely, that both men and horses are run over. This gives the camp defenders a chance and spirit to sally out and the Romans are defeated. Sometimes sacrifices are made in war beyond the sacrifices expected.

With all that said, I think Bannerlord could do better with the physics part of the game. Today I can dismount and push my war horse around like its a hot air ballon. And the blob of men when the fighting gets thick needs to go away.

 

[Apocal]

There's nothing to rebut then, since you haven't provided an argument that Maurice advises against charging at an infantry formation,

You're right, I never did. I'm puzzled why you continue to believe that when I've said three times now that I quote Maurice as support for charging into well-formed infantry at a trot.

since the description you provided describes a drill and not only it doesn't state that cavalry charges can't be done at gallop, but it also doesn't even specify what type of enemy this drill is supposed to simulate. It is simply a drill, nothing more, nothing less.

It is not meant for a simulated engagement. It is a battle drill in the sense that US Army uses the term ("a collective action rapidly executed without applying a deliberate decision-making process") and very much intended for real, life-or-death clashes with the enemy. And you can tell that he intends it this way because when he goes on to discuss simulation rather than real battle, the translations go "The Scythian Drill, Simulated" "The Alan Drill, Simulated" with "The Italian Drill, For Actual Use" indicating a drill meant... for actual use. All in Book VI: Tactics and Drills.

And on contrary when he describes the manner a certain enemy has to be dealt with he suggests closing in as quickly as possible, yet you try to draw a conclusion that it somehow means going at trotting speed basing on a claim that a galop charge can't be done in an even, dense, regular order and naturally I'm going to ask you to provide arguments to support that claim, otherwise further discussion is impossible.

Horses have different speeds, different riders have different levels of skill in handling their mounts, at a full gallop fast horses pull ahead, slow ones or those with more cautious riders fall behind and drift further aside their fellows in the formation.

By the way if you claim that this part
implies horse archers, then you contradict your claim that a galop can't be done with an even unbroken front or suggest that horse archers can be caught up with using trotting speed.

Where is the contradiction? The standard closed-ranks charge at a trot is arrayed to present a shielded face on all sides. Arrows hit the shields or the horses' barding. As long as the formation remains in close order, they shrug off arrows. It is only in the case of a disorderly charge which risks taking hard hits from the arrows on unshielded men (the archers of the formation) and horses.

As for WHY it works, the text says on the previous page:
Charging against them (Persians) is effective because they are prompted to rapid flight and do not know how to wheel about suddenly against their attackers, as do the Scythian nations.

Moreover, if we to believe you, then in this part

Maurice suggests that pursuit can also be done at trotting speed.

Yes, the pursuit can be done at trotting speed.



And if you run your horse into something really fast, you're likely to get hurt when you fall.

 

[Apocal]

This are Empire tactics, we all know they are useless in Warfare. Where are the fair-haired races tactics, Maurice mentions them and where are the Khuzait manuals?

Maurice mentioned the light haired races favored fighting on foot, but when ahorse like to charge, fast and without organization. The rest of the section was, uh, mostly not flattering about their tactics.

Joke aside, I dont know why or where this argument is going. its seems we all agree that horses were trained to go into a body of men only the speed at which they did so. I only argued for the case that they did, whether the Empire used a trot and the fair-haired used a charge. Doesn't matter to me. I believe, from the many battles I have read about, that sometimes someone were pretty upset and did charge and if an infantry man really wanted to see the rider would fall of his horse when it slammed into him, then maybe he could stay behind and see, while the rest of his buddies got better ideas and ran.

I'd say they didn't do, at least not as a routine matter.

Because it hurts to fall off your horse when it hits something at high speed.

With all that said, I think Bannerlord could do better with the physics part of the game. Today I can dismount and push my war horse around like its a hot air ballon. And the blob of men when the fighting gets thick needs to go away.

There are a lot of things off about Bannerlord physics, like you can collide full-speed into a wall and literally nothing happens. Your horse doesn't even rear back like in Warband. I'd like to see the blob of men gone too, but TW seems to want the big press of men all going 100% trying to slay everything in front of them so I doubt they'll take steps to remove it.

 

[Androme1]

The funny thing is that cavalry is severely overpowered in Simulated battles, but equally underpowered (specifically melee cavalry only though) in actual battles. Cavalry simulated advantage was reduced to 1.2x as opposed to 1.3x, but I think the whole simulation formula should be completely overhauled.

 

[Dodgy]

To be honest, in non simulated battles, the reason I find cavalry to be OP is because of the AI in this game where all of your archers will prefer to focus their attention on those few mounted people running around and distracting them from the fight, while the enemy archers slaughter them in a flash.

 

[Tork789]

You're right, I never did. I'm puzzled why you continue to believe that when I've said three times now that I quote Maurice as support for charging into well-formed infantry at a trot.

Because at first you answered to a guy that was surprised why there are people arguing if charges were ever done. If your only argument now is the speed that these charges were done with, then I can stop pointing this out.

It is not meant for a simulated engagement. It is a battle drill in the sense that US Army uses the term ("a collective action rapidly executed without applying a deliberate decision-making process") and very much intended for real, life-or-death clashes with the enemy. And you can tell that he intends it this way because when he goes on to discuss simulation rather than real battle, the translations go "The Scythian Drill, Simulated" "The Alan Drill, Simulated" with "The Italian Drill, For Actual Use" indicating a drill meant... for actual use. All in Book VI: Tactics and Drills.

Drills, even today, serve as a teaching tool first and foremost, so are not intended to be used as is in a combat situation, but rather to instill discipline and knowledge of different commands and tactics. Maurice places great emphasis on formation's evenness and this particular drill strikes me as a teaching tool for exactly that - you can't expect recruits to be able to hold an even formation even at a relatively low speed at first, so it makes sense that a drill would use lower speeds instead of practicing gallop at a get go. Suggesting that they have never done a gallop charge basing on the fact that there exists a drill with lower speeds is quite a stretch.

Horses have different speeds, different riders have different levels of skill in handling their mounts, at a full gallop fast horses pull ahead, slow ones or those with more cautious riders fall behind and drift further aside their fellows in the formation.

So that still doesn't prove that learning to gallop uniformly can't be done. Nor nowhere does Maurice state that it can't be done and on contrary in that part about persians suggests to charge as fast as possible, you have yet to prove that it doesn't mean gallop.

Maurice mentioned the light haired races favored fighting on foot, but when ahorse like to charge, fast and without organization.

That reminds me that he also never said that an open order gallop charge can't be done.

I also feel that we should establish what the author means by trot, since he clearly says "not too fast but at a trot" which to someone who doesn't know the term trot would give an implication of something that is not "too fast" but still fast.

 

[hruza]

What are you trying to say exactly though? You saw a video of horses charging people, each other and literal solid objects made of stone

I saw your video of a horse colliding by accident in to target made of mud with car tires on the outside to protect horses that might collide in to it by the accident. That's definitely not a stone.

even concluded yourself that they have little say in what they are going to ram

I made no such conclusion. I said that horse on your video was clearly trying avoid the collision.

and that fact was exploited by cavalry warriors throughout history many times as can be seen through numerous historical sources.

Historical sources that you can't provide. Cos they don't exist.

Is it against a nature of a horse to ride into a solid obstacle? Maybe, but then so is serving a man as his transport, his tool and his weapon.

True, except we know for a fact that people were training and even breeding horses for centuries to overcome that part of the horse nature. There are mountains of sources about how it was done, indeed there are whole historical cultures and traditions associated with it. Yet there is not a single manual, artistic depiction or even a mention of training horse to collide in to solid objects.

So in the end this statement is irrelevant, unlike the author of the article you quoted tried to claim. So we can safely generalize that a cavalry charge was one of the many uses of a horse throughout history.

Sure charge was, it just did not include horses colliding in to anything. Other then by accident.

 

[Tork789]

I saw your video of a horse colliding by accident in to target made of mud with car tires on the outside to protect horses that might collide in to it by the accident. That's definitely not a stone.

The whole video includes horses colliding into people, each other and literal solid objects made of stone and it's not an accident since the riders intended to get to the stone well to score a point, they purposefully drive their horses into it again and again. I also encourage you to find the said tires on the outside: https://i.gyazo.com/c1d808bfa47459e61067caf13a76a592.png

I made no such conclusion. I said that horse on your video was clearly trying avoid the collision.

So clearly that it didn't avoid it and went full speed into a stone well.

Historical sources that you can't provide. Cos they don't exist.

I did provide the source for the battle of Ceresole, not my problem you missed it.

There are mountains of sources about how it was done, indeed there are whole historical cultures and traditions associated with it. Yet there is not a single manual, artistic depiction or even a mention of training horse to collide in to solid objects.

What sources have you checked so far? That's quite a bold statement that there isn't a single manual out there. However, you can clearly see that making a horse ram into a stone well isn't something impossible and is still done today.

Sure charge was, it just did not include horses colliding in to anything. Other then by accident.

Again, in the video it was not an accident and not a single one. The riders again and again ram into the stone well to deliver the goat and score a point. It's the opposite of an accident.

 

[Jagati Khan]

That horse finished the race after stumbling WITHOUT its Rider. So the decision to put her down was after the fact -the Horse could still perform while 'in action'

Not to mention that is a race horse not a fully trained and armored beast of a war horse.
Just to add war horses were mainly far more muscled than a regular horse they were not just a lot bigger as some may think and obviously they were extremely well trained.

Oh and Lances are a big issue at the moment they are way too short and should be unuseable when on foot.

 

[Tork789]

Not to mention that is a race horse not a fully trained and armored beast of a war horse.
Just to add war horses were mainly far more muscled than a regular horse they were not just a lot bigger as some may think and obviously they were extremely well trained.

Oh and Lances are a big issue at the moment they are way too short and should be unuseable when on foot.

You skipped this part of the conversation, but it turned out that the horse wasn't put down and suffered only minor injuries and continued to race after that.

 

[Jagati Khan]

You skipped this part of the conversation, but it turned out that the horse wasn't put down and suffered only minor injuries and continued to race after that.

Doesn't surprise me at all though.

 

[hruza]

So clearly that it didn't avoid it and went full speed into a stone well.

As I said, accidents happen. Fact is, that horse did not collide there by intention.

I did provide the source for the battle of Ceresole, not my problem you missed it.

There was not a word there about horses colliding in to anything.

What sources have you checked so far? That's quite a bold statement that there isn't a single manual out there. However, you can clearly see that making a horse ram into a stone well isn't something impossible and is still done today.

All that you and others like you have been able to provide so far ...which is none. As I said, such sources does not exist. You can't provide them and nobody can check them.

Again, in the video it was not an accident and not a single one. The riders again and again ram into the stone well to deliver the goat and score a point. It's the opposite of an accident.

It's completely irrelevant how many accidents you compile in to single video. I can show you video compilations of road accidents, aircraft crashes or people falling in to bear enclosures in the ZOOs, but that does not mean that that's how people drive their cars, fly their airplanes or feed bears in the ZOOs with visitors.

That Kazakh national game that you posted is not played by colliding horses in to anything, which anyone can confirm by simply watching one of the matches posted on the youtube. It's played by riders trying to snatch a goat carcass from one another and throw it in to a target.

 

[hruza]

Not to mention that is a race horse not a fully trained and armored beast of a war horse.

Just to add war horses were mainly far more muscled than a regular horse they were not just a lot bigger as some may think and obviously they were extremely well trained.

And it's true because you saw those armored muscled behemoths in the Hollywood films and video games.

Except it's all fake. Actual war horses were much smaller, lighter then that race horse on the video and were of the medium build. And most of them did not had any armor.

The archaeological record allows us to state with confidence that the mediaeval fighting horse was as a rule not taller than ca. 150 cm / 15 hands, and definitely substantially taller than 120 cm / 12 hands.37 Based on the literature cited above, the prime fighting horse from Late Antiquity until at least the High Middle Ages was probably 14 to at most 15 hands (142 to 153 cm) tall, of medium build, weighing in the region of 400 kg / 850 lbs,38 with a short back, well-sloped shoulder, and square conformation.

Combat Training for Horse and Rider in the Early Middle Ages, Jürg Gassmann

Modern race horses like one on the video on the other hand are:
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_racing#Breeds

 

[Apocal]

Because at first you answered to a guy that was surprised why there are people arguing if charges were ever done. If your only argument now is the speed that these charges were done with, then I can stop pointing this out.

I wrote, exactly: Of the cavalry forces that did make a point of literally riding into well-formed infantry, such as the ERE cataphracts of Maurice's time, they did so at a trot.

Just a reminder.

Drills, even today, serve as a teaching tool first and foremost, so are not intended to be used as is in a combat situation, but rather to instill discipline and knowledge of different commands and tactics.

This is absolutely untrue. Within the text where Maurice specifically describes three drills "simulated" and one "for actual use." Additionally, in the very introduction of that particular book, he writes:
Constant drill is of the greatest value to the soldier. It is easy, however, for the enemy to learn what is going on through spies and deserters, and as a result all the practice is useless.

If it isn't meant to be used in battle, why does it matter if the enemy knows how discipline and knowledge of different commands are attained? Fortunately, he clears this up:
Each formation or drill should be identified in a special way, so the soldiers who are trained in the maneuvers may recognize the differences and not be puzzled by them, and also that they may not know what plan the general intends to follow when the time comes for battle.

He expects the drills to be used in battle and advises that all forms be trained so spies and deserters won't be able to guess his battle plan from the drills practiced and performed.

Secondly, it is a surprise to see someone honestly claim that they are for training purposes only. Their entire training value was (and is) because they were expected to see use in real situations.

Suggesting that they have never done a gallop charge basing on the fact that there exists a drill with lower speeds is quite a stretch.

I'm showing that he first recommends against it directly when speaking of an enemy in good order. Then he only says that a gallop charge (in open order) is done sometimes in pursuit. This was included in my post quoting the Strategikon originally.

So that still doesn't prove that learning to gallop uniformly can't be done.

Of course it doesn't. You asked for my argument, not a proof. It would be difficult to prove this negative through the internet. So how about you show us a video of horses galloping -- not cantering -- in an even and dense formation to prove it can be done?

 

[Jagati Khan]

And it's true because you saw those armored muscled behemoths in the Hollywood films and video games.

Except it's all fake. Actual war horses were much smaller, lighter then that race horse on the video and were of the medium build. And most of them did not had any armor.

The archaeological record allows us to state with confidence that the mediaeval fighting horse was as a rule not taller than ca. 150 cm / 15 hands, and definitely substantially taller than 120 cm / 12 hands.37 Based on the literature cited above, the prime fighting horse from Late Antiquity until at least the High Middle Ages was probably 14 to at most 15 hands (142 to 153 cm) tall, of medium build, weighing in the region of 400 kg / 850 lbs,38 with a short back, well-sloped shoulder, and square conformation.

Combat Training for Horse and Rider in the Early Middle Ages, Jürg Gassmann

Modern race horses like one on the video on the other hand are:
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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_racing#Breeds

War horses were on average 14-15 hands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destrier
As for armor that depends on the period and type of cavalry horse armor just like everything else evolved https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barding

 

[hruza]

War horses were on average 14-15 hands https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destrier

That's what I said. And modern race horses are 15-17 hands. Those "huge" medieval war horses were barely larger then modern ponies, which are up to 14.2 hands tall.

 

[Tork789]

Fact is, that horse did not collide there by intention.

By intention of the rider though, horse's intention is irrelevant here, since it has no say.

There was not a word there about horses colliding in to anything.

So the words "penetrated a corner of the formation" and "pushed through to the rear" do not strike you as implying that there was a collision? That is just denial at this point.

All that you and others like you have been able to provide so far ...which is none

Considering how you treat what you're provided with I'm not surprised. It's easy to claim that you've seen no proofs when you just ignore them.

It's completely irrelevant how many accidents you compile in to single video.

It's completely irrelevant how many times you try to deny facts, at certain point no one will take you seriously.

If it isn't meant to be used in battle

I didn't say that it wasn't meant to be used in battle, I said it isn't meant to be used in battle as is, the same way you don't compete the same way you train. Take weightlifting for example: the sportsmen there might employ light weights and slow paced exercises not used in main competition but still used for general fitness at trainings, yet during the competition they use supramaximal weights and higher speeds in clean&jerk and snatch only. The same could be said about drills, if a drill is supposed to train formations and orders, then it doesn't have to employ the same speeds as in a real battle, especially if you are training recruits who struggle to follow the orders even at a trot, making them going at higher speed would be counterproductive. So drawing a conclusion from a single drill and stretching it over the actual battle use is similar to observing a weightlifter doing bicep curls and assuming that's what he's gonna do at the competition instead of clean&jerk and snatch - which are the exercises they actually compete at.

I'm showing that he first recommends against it directly when speaking of an enemy in good order. Then he only says that a gallop charge (in open order) is done sometimes in pursuit. This was included in my post quoting the Strategikon originally.

No, what you're actually doing is taking a quote from the drills section and trying to exaggerate it as a general advice, even though there is a section about actual tactics and it suggests the opposite of what you claim, following up with drawing a conclusion that any deviation from what is described in the drill is discouraged. Maurice indeed places great emphasis on the cohesion of the formation and warns that an imeptious charge or uneven terrain might break the formation before it reaches the enemy which might ruin the effect of the charge, but nowhere does he state that it only should be done at a slow pace, or only in a tight formation for that matter.

Of course it doesn't. You asked for my argument, not a proof. It would be difficult to prove this negative through the internet. So how about you show us a video of horses galloping -- not cantering -- in an even and dense formation to prove it can be done?

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion the same way I am entitled to mine. As for the proof... you might want to watch these:



You can see the Garde keeping their formation for quite a while at a gallop before it breaks up.

And here's a quote from an article on Cavalry Tactics and Combat during the Napoleonic Wars

Only the battle-hardened and disciplined troops managed to advance in slower, steady pace. They sped up gradually and kept good order until the very last moment when officers ordered them to gallop. Gallop was the winning intoxication gait with little time for second thought. Experience has shown that the best distance from the enemy to begin the gallop, is between 200 and 50 paces. This gradual increase of speed is very important, to prevent the horses from being completely blown on reaching the enemy.

Which to me sounds pretty similar to what Maurice described

Once you get within bowshot make the attack or charge in even, dense, regular order, and do it quickly, for any delay in closing with the enemy means that their steady rate of fire will enable them to discharge more missiles against our soldiers and horses.

So I think there is indeed a point that both Maurice and the authors of the article try to stress - that it's hard to keep a formation at a gallop and that it should be reserved for the last few hundred meters before colliding with the enemy.

 

[xdj1nn]

 

[Apocal]

I didn't say that it wasn't meant to be used in battle, I said it isn't meant to be used in battle as is, the same way you don't compete the same way you train.
...
The same could be said about drills, if a drill is supposed to train formations and orders, then it doesn't have to employ the same speeds as in a real battle, especially if you are training recruits who struggle to follow the orders even at a trot, making them going at higher speed would be counterproductive. So drawing a conclusion from a single drill and stretching it over the actual battle use is similar to observing a weightlifter doing bicep curls and assuming that's what he's gonna do at the competition instead of clean&jerk and snatch - which are the exercises they actually compete at.

The section on training recruits is found in a previous Book. In Book III he lays out the details and reasoning of a tagma's formation. Additionally, Maurice's words do call for a gallop to be used in other situations.

Just not during a charge against a formed enemy.

No, what you're actually doing is taking a quote from the drills section and trying to exaggerate it as a general advice, even though there is a section about actual tactics and it suggests the opposite of what you claim, following up with drawing a conclusion that any deviation from what is described in the drill is discouraged. Maurice indeed places great emphasis on the cohesion of the formation and warns that an imeptious charge or uneven terrain might break the formation before it reaches the enemy which might ruin the effect of the charge, but nowhere does he state that it only should be done at a slow pace, or only in a tight formation for that matter.

It is from Book III: Formations of the Tagma. Nowhere else in the book contains as detailed a description of formations, nor does Maurice indicate that these formations are suitable only for training. Elsewhere (notably in the section of another Book) he is clear to specify the difference between training ("these exercises are suitable for the march") and tactical uses.

Fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion the same way I am entitled to mine. As for the proof... you might want to watch these:



You can see the Garde keeping their formation for quite a while at a gallop before it breaks up.

Watching the first video... that's a canter when they are actually in formation. They maintain a canter in the formation shot until 2:14 (roughly). The next formation shot at 2:19 is already uneven and beginning to break apart. It is also when they begin galloping (i.e. they couldn't hold ranks even at a fast canter). Secondly, that formation isn't as dense as Maurice's description of a tagma's formation, nor is it as deep. Five deep was on the shallow end of tagmatic cavalry and they were pressed closely enough together that the front-rank was literally shielding every horseman behind them. This was tactically important because the men behind them were armed with bows and less barding on their horses, making them somewhat more vulnerable to arrows and other missiles being flung their way.

In the second video, those mounted police are not galloping at any point. Why did you link it?