The cavalry has insufficient impact.

[Tork789]

I already told you, by fighting their way through. The same as way infantry penetrated enemy formations.

Okay, so how do you imagine it? They didn't use their momentum at all? They just approached an infantry formation and started slashing away until they reached the other end? What's the purpose of that action? Why not continue slashing away until every enemy is dead?

And why after they pushed through a formation they got far away enough to get under arquebus fire? You think they made that distance not to gain a momentum for the second charge, then what for?

 

[hruza]

Depends how deep the formation was wether they scattered or kept discipline

Yes, but if infantry kept their nerve, cavalry did not collide in to it and if infantry did not, there was no need to. Cavalry relied first of all on their mobility, because that's the most important advantage they have against infantry. Rider on a horse is big target, horseman is fixed on top of horse with limited mobility and plenty of dead angles, horse is vulnerable and cavalry can't form as densely as infantry can. But mobility gives cavalry ability to engage infantry on it's own terms. It can decide where, when and how to attack, while it can use it's mobility to avoid fighting under adverse conditions.

Therefore what cavalry did against infantry was to look for weak points. Obvious weak points are flanks and rear. So under ideal conditions cavalry charge would consist of part of the cavalry engaging infantry frontally while sending detachments to attack flanks and rear at the same time. Such attack would cause infantry formation to collapse, at which point cavalry would simply run disorganized infantry down. Infantry is relatively safe against cavalry only when tightly formed.

This is why universal anti-cavalry formation for infantry all through history was square or circle formation. Such formations have no flanks and rear. Infantry could also try to "fix" their flanks on geographic features like rivers, woods, hills or even fortifications to deny cavalry ability to attack on flanks or from rear. Or, as was often the case, flanks of the infantry formation would be protected by it's own cavalry. Many battles were decided by cavalry fighting it on the flanks to drive opposing cavalry away and then attack infantry from flank or rear.

When it was not possible to attack flanks or rear, cavalry could try to probe front line of the infantry formation for weakness. They could mount a frontal charge and if noticing infantry in some point of line to weaver or break, they would drive home their attack there. If not, they could always turn around and try another time. But that's difficult against experienced and well disciplined infantry. Sources from Napoleonic era note how cavalry was able to exploit smallest of gaps in infantry formations. If aggressive cavalrymen were able to enter infantry formation, it often caused infantry to loose nerve and break.

You also need to understand that it was not easy for infantry to keep their nerve in the face of cavalry charge. Seeing horde of men on horses ride on you with their lances must have been intimidating, especially because infantry knows that if cavalry breaks them, there is no escape. Cavalry is faster then infantry and men on foot will be ridden down. They can't outrun cavalry. Moreover more likely then not, those men on the horses were better trained and better equipped then those men of foot. Therefore less disciplined and less motivated infantry would often break before any contact was made. And again, it was enough if that happened in one place of the line. And if they did not break the first time, cavalry could repeat their charge again.

Even simple presence of the cavalry in the vicinity of the infantry unit was intimidating. Because cavalry could attack any time it wished at any place it wished while infantry could not. Any mistake made by infantry could immediately be exploited with fatal results.

To sum it up, the most important advantage cavalry had over infantry was mobility. And that mobility was granted to cavalry by their horses. Colliding your horse in to well formed and disciplined infantry formation will more likely then not result in loss of the horse and thus of the most important advantage cavalryman have. Which is why they did not do it (save accidents and exceptions). It makes no sense. Calvary is also more expensive and valuable then infantry, so it makes no sense to exchange your cavalry for enemy infantry by colliding in to it. That would be very favorable exchange for the infantry because it's generally cheaper, more numerous and more expendable.

Getting bogged down is not a good thing for cavalry cataphracts were more designed for that type of combat than others being so heavily armoured for the time period.

Goal of the cataphracts too was to break and disorganize enemy as soon as possible, it's noted in the manuals. Formed in to wedge,they would specifically target point in the enemy line where enemy commander was stationed in order to kill him or make him flee with a hope that enemy line would disintegrate after that as it will not longer have a commander.

 

[hruza]

Okay, so how do you imagine it? They didn't use their momentum at all?

No, they did not. See my post above.

They just approached an infantry formation and started slashing away until they reached the other end?

Some of them yes. This is exactly how cataphracts were intended to be used.

What's the purpose of that action? Why not continue slashing away until every enemy is dead?

Because no enemy is stupid enough to wait to get killed.

And why after they pushed through a formation they got far away enough to get under arquebus fire? You think they made that distance not to gain a momentum for the second charge, then what for?

What distance? If they broke through infantry formation then it was game over for the infantry formation. All they needed to do was to run infantry down.

 

[Magnusnyg]

Yes, but if infantry kept their nerve, cavalry did not collide in to it and if infantry did not, there was no need to. Cavalry relied ed to cavalry by their horses. Colliding your horse in to well formed and disciplined infantry formation will more likely then not result in loss of the horse and thus of the most important advantage cavalryman have. Which is why they did not do it (save accidents and exceptions). It makes no sense. alvary is also more expensive and valuable then infantry, so it makes no sense to exchange your cavalry for enemy infantry by colliding in to it. That would be very favorable exchange for the infantry because it's generally cheaper, more numerous and more expendable.



Goal of the cataphracts too was to break and disorganize enemy as soon as possible, it's noted in the manuals. Formed in to wedge,they would

Yes, but if infantry kept their nerve, cavalry did not collide in to it and if infantry did not, there was no need to. Cavalry relied first of all on their mobility, because that's the most important advantage they have against infantry. Rider on a horse is big target, horseman is fixed on top of horse with limited mobility and plenty of dead angles, horse is vulnerable and cavalry can't form as densely as infantry can. But mobility gives cavalry ability to engage infantry on it's own terms. It can decide where, when and how to attack, while it can use it's mobility to avoid fighting under adverse conditions.

Therefore what cavalry did against infantry was to look for weak points. Obvious weak points are flanks and rear. So under ideal conditions cavalry charge would consist of part of the cavalry engaging infantry frontally while sending detachments to attack flanks and rear at the same time. Such attack would cause infantry formation to collapse, at which point cavalry would simply run disorganized infantry down. Infantry is relatively safe against cavalry only when tightly formed.

This is why universal anti-cavalry formation for infantry all through history was square or circle formation. Such formations have no flanks and rear. Infantry could also try to "fix" their flanks on geographic features like rivers, woods, hills or even fortifications to deny cavalry ability to attack on flanks or from rear. Or, as was often the case, flanks of the infantry formation would be protected by it's own cavalry. Many battles were decided by cavalry fighting it on the flanks to drive opposing cavalry away and then attack infantry from flank or rear.

When it was not possible to attack flanks or rear, cavalry could try to probe front line of the infantry formation for weakness. They could mount a frontal charge and if noticing infantry in some point of line to weaver or break, they would drive home their attack there. If not, they could always turn around and try another time. But that's difficult against experienced and well disciplined infantry. Sources from Napoleonic era note how cavalry was able to exploit smallest of gaps in infantry formations. If aggressive cavalrymen were able to enter infantry formation, it often caused infantry to loose nerve and break.

You also need to understand that it was not easy for infantry to keep their nerve in the face of cavalry charge. Seeing horde of men on horses ride on you with their lances must have been intimidating, especially because infantry knows that if cavalry breaks them, there is no escape. Cavalry is faster then infantry and men on foot will be ridden down. They can't outrun cavalry. Moreover more likely then not, those men on the horses were better trained and better equipped then those men of foot. Therefore less disciplined and less motivated infantry would often break before any contact was made. And again, it was enough if that happened in one place of the line. And if they did not break the first time, cavalry could repeat their charge again.

Even simple presence of the cavalry in the vicinity of the infantry unit was intimidating. Because cavalry could attack any time it wished at any place it wished while infantry could not. Any mistake made by infantry could immediately be exploited with fatal results.

To sum it up, the most important advantage cavalry had over infantry was mobility. And that mobility was granted to cavalry by their horses. Colliding your horse in to well formed and disciplined infantry formation will more likely then not result in loss of the horse and thus of the most important advantage cavalryman have. Which is why they did not do it (save accidents and exceptions). It makes no sense. Calvary is also more expensive and valuable then infantry, so it makes no sense to exchange your cavalry for enemy infantry by colliding in to it. That would be very favorable exchange for the infantry because it's generally cheaper, more numerous and more expendable.



Goal of the cataphracts too was to break and disorganize enemy as soon as possible, it's noted in the manuals. Formed in to wedge,they would specifically target point in the enemy line where enemy commander was stationed in order to kill him or make him flee with a hope that enemy line would disintegrate after that as it will not longer have a commander.

This. It might be a tad long, but it’s pretty much what need to be understood about cavalry. Now M&B IS fantasy, but I like believable fantasy...

 

[Tork789]

Some of them yes. This is exactly how cataphracts were intended to be used.

Because no enemy is stupid enough to wait to get killed.

I still don't see the full picture here. First you say they slashed their way through and when I ask why they didn't slash them all you say they enemy is not stupid enough to get killed yet they just stood there waiting for cavalry to slash through them? Where's the logic?

What distance?

Did you not read the quote completely? Here you go again

On 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.[54] As Cardona's ranks closed again, the French cavalry turned and made a second charge under heavy arquebus fire; this was far more costly, and again failed to break the Imperial column.

 

[Jagati Khan]

No, they did not. See my post above.



Some of them yes. This is exactly how cataphracts were intended to be used.



Because no enemy is stupid enough to wait to get killed.



What distance? If they broke through infantry formation then it was game over for the infantry formation. All they needed to do was to run infantry down.

Medieval European knights attacked in several different ways, implementing shock tactics if possible, but always in formations of several knights, not individually. For defense and mêlée a formation of horsemen was as tight as possible next to each other in a line. This prevented their enemy from charging, and also from surrounding them individually. The most devastating charging method was to ride in a looser formation fast into attack. This attack was often protected by simultaneous or shortly preceding ranged attacks of archers or crossbowmen. The attack began from a distance of about 350 metres and took about 15–20 seconds to cross the contemporary long range weapon's effective distance. A most important element, and one not easily mastered, was to stay in one line with fixed spaces while accelerating and having the maximum speed at impact. Often knights would come in several waves, with the first being the best equipped and armored. The lance as primary weapon pierced the enemy. If an enemy soldier was hit in full gallop by a knight's lance couched under the armpit, he was thrown backwards with such a momentum that he knocked over several of his compatriots, and was more often than not, killed; in some cases, the lance would even skewer the man and kill or wound the soldier behind him. The heavy lances were dropped after the attack and the battle was continued with secondary weapons (swords, axes, or maces, for example).

The Persians deployed their cataphracts in mixed formations with light archers in the rear ranks, supporting the charge with arrows.[4] Mongolian heavy cavalry improved upon the charging effect by attaching hooks to their lances to take enemies down when bypassing. Usually, employed a two-ranks deep formation of heavy cavalry charging the enemy. They were supported by three ranks of light cavalry, delivering rapid closeup shots with heavy armour-breaking arrows. Chinese cavalry and samurai often used polearms. Both handled their primary weapons in the two-handed Asian style. This method of charging attack was very effective, but it depended very much on favourable ground on the chosen battlefield.[citation needed]

Many knights during Medieval battles fought on foot.[citation needed] Attacks would be carried out on horseback only under favorable conditions. If the enemy infantry was equipped with polearms and fought in tight formations it was not possible to charge without heavy losses. A fairly common solution to this was for the men-at-arms to dismount and assault the enemy on foot, such as the way Scottish knights dismounted to stiffen the infantry schiltron or the English combination of longbowmen with dismounted men-at-arms in the Hundred Years' War. Another possibility was to bluff an attack, but turn around before impact. This tempted many infantrymen to go on the chase, leaving their formation. The heavy cavalry then turned around again in this new situation and rode down the scattered infantry. Such a tactic was deployed in the Battle of Hastings (1066).

A further improvement of fighting ability was the use of well-armed infantry reserves during knightly battles on horseback. After some time, the battle would often split into several small groups, with space in between, and both sides would become exhausted. Then, an infantry rush could concentrate on selected targets and rout the enemy. Infantry also helped knights to remount in battle and aided the wounded.

Polish hussar formation at the Battle of Klushino 1610 – painting by Szymon Boguszowicz 1620
The Polish-Lithuanian hussars' primary battle tactic was the charge. They carried the charge to, and through the enemy. The charge started at a slow pace and in a relatively loose formation. The formation gradually gathered pace and closed ranks while approaching the enemy, and reached its highest pace and closest formation immediately before engagement. They tended to repeat the charge several times until the enemy formation broke (they had supply wagons with spare lances). The tactic of a charge by heavily armoured hussars and horses was effective for nearly two centuries. The hussars fought with long lances (a hussar's lance usually ranged from 4.5 to 6.2 metres in length), a koncerz (stabbing sword), a szabla (sabre), one or two pistols and often with a carbine or arquebus, known in Polish as a bandolet. Winged hussars also carried other weapons, such as a nadziak type of war hammer and battleaxes. The lighter, Turkish-style saddle, allowed for more armour to be used by both the horses and the warriors. Moreover, the horses were bred to run very fast with a heavy load and to recover quickly. This was achieved by breeding old Polish horses with Eastern horses, usually from Tatar tribes. As a result, these horses could walk hundreds of kilometres, loaded with over 100 kilograms and still be able to charge in an instant. Also, hussar horses were very quick and manoeuvrable. This allowed hussars to fight with any cavalry or infantry force, from Western heavy kissaiers, to quick Tatars. They were widely regarded as the most powerful cavalry in the world. In the battles of Lubiszew in 1577, Byczyna (158, Kokenhausen (1601), Kircholm (1605), Kłuszyn (1610), Chocim (1621), Martynów (1624), Trzciana (1629), Ochmatów (1644), Beresteczko (1651), Połonka (1660), Cudnów (1660), Chocim (1673), Lwów (1675), Vienna (1683) and Párkány (1683), the Polish-Lithuanian hussars proved to be the decisive factor, often against overwhelming odds. For instance, in the Battle of Kłuszyn, during the Polish-Muscovite War, the Russians and Swedes outnumbered the commonwealth army five-to-one, yet were soundly defeated.[5][6]

 

[hruza]

Medieval European knights attacked in several different ways, implementing shock tactics if possible, but always in formations of several knights, not individually. For defense and mêlée a formation of horsemen was as tight as possible next to each other in a line. This prevented their enemy from charging, and also from surrounding them individually. The most devastating charging method was to ride in a looser formation fast into attack. This attack was often protected by simultaneous or shortly preceding ranged attacks of archers or crossbowmen. The attack began from a distance of about 350 metres and took about 15–20 seconds to cross the contemporary long range weapon's effective distance. A most important element, and one not easily mastered, was to stay in one line with fixed spaces while accelerating and having the maximum speed at impact. Often knights would come in several waves, with the first being the best equipped and armored. The lance as primary weapon pierced the enemy. If an enemy soldier was hit in full gallop by a knight's lance couched under the armpit, he was thrown backwards with such a momentum that he knocked over several of his compatriots, and was more often than not, killed; in some cases, the lance would even skewer the man and kill or wound the soldier behind him. The heavy lances were dropped after the attack and the battle was continued with secondary weapons (swords, axes, or maces, for example).

The Persians deployed their cataphracts in mixed formations with light archers in the rear ranks, supporting the charge with arrows.[4] Mongolian heavy cavalry improved upon the charging effect by attaching hooks to their lances to take enemies down when bypassing. Usually, employed a two-ranks deep formation of heavy cavalry charging the enemy. They were supported by three ranks of light cavalry, delivering rapid closeup shots with heavy armour-breaking arrows. Chinese cavalry and samurai often used polearms. Both handled their primary weapons in the two-handed Asian style. This method of charging attack was very effective, but it depended very much on favourable ground on the chosen battlefield.[citation needed]

Many knights during Medieval battles fought on foot.[citation needed] Attacks would be carried out on horseback only under favorable conditions. If the enemy infantry was equipped with polearms and fought in tight formations it was not possible to charge without heavy losses. A fairly common solution to this was for the men-at-arms to dismount and assault the enemy on foot, such as the way Scottish knights dismounted to stiffen the infantry schiltron or the English combination of longbowmen with dismounted men-at-arms in the Hundred Years' War. Another possibility was to bluff an attack, but turn around before impact. This tempted many infantrymen to go on the chase, leaving their formation. The heavy cavalry then turned around again in this new situation and rode down the scattered infantry. Such a tactic was deployed in the Battle of Hastings (1066).

A further improvement of fighting ability was the use of well-armed infantry reserves during knightly battles on horseback. After some time, the battle would often split into several small groups, with space in between, and both sides would become exhausted. Then, an infantry rush could concentrate on selected targets and rout the enemy. Infantry also helped knights to remount in battle and aided the wounded.

Polish hussar formation at the Battle of Klushino 1610 – painting by Szymon Boguszowicz 1620
The Polish-Lithuanian hussars' primary battle tactic was the charge. They carried the charge to, and through the enemy. The charge started at a slow pace and in a relatively loose formation. The formation gradually gathered pace and closed ranks while approaching the enemy, and reached its highest pace and closest formation immediately before engagement. They tended to repeat the charge several times until the enemy formation broke (they had supply wagons with spare lances). The tactic of a charge by heavily armoured hussars and horses was effective for nearly two centuries. The hussars fought with long lances (a hussar's lance usually ranged from 4.5 to 6.2 metres in length), a koncerz (stabbing sword), a szabla (sabre), one or two pistols and often with a carbine or arquebus, known in Polish as a bandolet. Winged hussars also carried other weapons, such as a nadziak type of war hammer and battleaxes. The lighter, Turkish-style saddle, allowed for more armour to be used by both the horses and the warriors. Moreover, the horses were bred to run very fast with a heavy load and to recover quickly. This was achieved by breeding old Polish horses with Eastern horses, usually from Tatar tribes. As a result, these horses could walk hundreds of kilometres, loaded with over 100 kilograms and still be able to charge in an instant. Also, hussar horses were very quick and manoeuvrable. This allowed hussars to fight with any cavalry or infantry force, from Western heavy kissaiers, to quick Tatars. They were widely regarded as the most powerful cavalry in the world. In the battles of Lubiszew in 1577, Byczyna (158, Kokenhausen (1601), Kircholm (1605), Kłuszyn (1610), Chocim (1621), Martynów (1624), Trzciana (1629), Ochmatów (1644), Beresteczko (1651), Połonka (1660), Cudnów (1660), Chocim (1673), Lwów (1675), Vienna (1683) and Párkány (1683), the Polish-Lithuanian hussars proved to be the decisive factor, often against overwhelming odds. For instance, in the Battle of Kłuszyn, during the Polish-Muscovite War, the Russians and Swedes outnumbered the commonwealth army five-to-one, yet were soundly defeated.[5][6]

No mention of horses colliding in to anything in that text.

 

[Pejot]

Cavalry is fine in BL. It is designed to flank/rear attack, taking down running enemies and frontal charges on shattered formations. The problem is more of how AI uses cavalry. I never let AI take over cavalry and always lead them myself cause I know when they should just run through and when engage. AI tends to engage enemy in melee after first or second charge (depends on how fast it lets horsemen be stuck in infantry). They often try frontal attacks on dense formations or use horsemen just to engage other horsemen.
Nod enough options in tactical AI and not good enough behaviour for cav units AI.

 

[Tork789]

No mention of horses colliding in to anything in that text.

What do you think will happen after what's written here:

The charge started at a slow pace and in a relatively loose formation. The formation gradually gathered pace and closed ranks while approaching the enemy, and reached its highest pace and closest formation immediately before engagement.

Do you think that they will somehow overcome the momentum created by the highest pace and not collide with infantry? If they never intended to collide why even bother with highest pace?

 

[Apocal]

Don't mix exercises and drills, the author separated them for a reason as well.

Yes, that has been my point all along: battle drills are meant to be used, as practiced, in battle. This is a definition consistent with modern military usage (react to contact drills, immediate action drills, rollover drills, etc) and with the usage in the translation. It is even consistent with English usage outside of a military context, as in fire drills and active shooter drills. "Train how you fight, fight how you train."

You then speculated that the trot was used for recruit training purposes, due to a lack of proper horsemanship, ignoring that the Maurice immediately indicated the reason for a trot was so the formation maintained its integrity as it charged into the enemy. Then, in the following paragraph, he stated certain maneuvers (and not easy ones, either) that were to be done at a gallop which throws out the idea that this was meant for recruits still learning to control their mounts. Maurice offers no mention of training value (i.e. with regards to improving horsemanship) except that the men be accustomed to such maneuvers that they might do them in battle, with minimum of signal and no advance notice given.

If we assume that you're right, then he separates drills from drills for actual use, which goes against your narrative that the aforementioned drill we've been discussing was used "as is".

Please, at least have the good grace to read the entire section -- or at least the very next sentence:
It (the Italian drill) consists of two lines, a front line and a support, with assault troops and defenders, with flank guards, outflankers, and detachments for ambush, all of which has been explained above and illustrated by diagrams.

The only place you'll find diagrams before that point is in Book III: Formations of the Tagma. The Italian drill, for Actual Use in Book VI is a restatement of the earlier Book III's Formations of the Tagma. That's why it is shorter in description than the preceding (simulated) drills.

That's your initial claim, which lies on another claim that a cavalry charge can't be done at a gallop in a tight formation, and it's exactly what they describe there.

First off, the quotes you provided say nothing about the cavalry formations. As for the source itself? Your source says describes the cavalry formation thus:
The French Ordonnance provisoire sur l'exercise et les manoeuvres de la cavalerie provides standard intervals and speeds for horses, and describe the tactical formations. Title III, Article VII, paragraph 404 states that two ranks of cavalry were 6 m deep. Title I, Article XII states that the ranks had an interval of 0.666 m measured from the tail of the front horse to the nose of the rear rank.
The cavalry of the Napoleonic Wars was alwayz formed in 2 ranks. (See below).
The interval between squadrons was 10 m, no matter what the formation.

Two ranks at six meters deep, so both much shallower than Maurice's description of his Tagma and less densely packed even then, with more than half a meter between tail of the front horse to nose of the rear rank and a ten meter separation (!) between sub-units.

Furthermore I noticed something else interesting. You seem to have left a large piece of context from your link out:
The gallop was a move which relieved anxiety.
The fast pace however disordered the troops, gaps were created, horses in the center were squeezed out, slower horses and some cowards were far behind. Soon the troops changed into noisy hordes. If they met a well aligned troops advancing in a slow, steady pace they were lost. They were surprised at first at such coolness. The galloping squadrons do not reason these things out, but they know them instinctively. They understand that they have before them a moral impulse superior to theirs. They become uneasy, hesitate. Their hands instinctively turn their horses aside. Some of the horsemen go on to the end, but 75 % have already tried to avoid the shock. There is disorder and flight. Then begins the pursuit at a gallop by the men who attacked at the trot.

This was two paragraphs above the part you initially quoted from the site.

Then there was this:
According to Mark Adkin "a cavalry charge against infantry in square would be thrown back 99 times out of 100."

This is the leading sentence in the portion you quoted above.

You are not reading the sources you are quoting.

How do you imagine then the cavalry penetrating a formation and pushing through to the rear without a physical collision with the infantry?

The formation comes apart; men move and cavalry surge through the gaps. Otherwise the formation remains intact, Mark Adkin's "99 times" comes up and the cavalry are thrown back.

 

[Tork789]

Yes, that has been my point all along: battle drills are meant to be used, as practiced, in battle. This is a definition consistent with modern military usage (react to contact drills, immediate action drills, rollover drills, etc) and with the usage in the translation. It is even consistent with English usage outside of a military context, as in fire drills and active shooter drills. "Train how you fight, fight how you train."

Funny you should mention shooter and fire drills, since those are done in a calm steady manner so that there's a higher chance the students will find a way out in an actual fire or active shooter scenario in a much more organized way, but not exactly like during the drill and with higher speed if possible.

You then speculated that the trot was used for recruit training purposes, due to a lack of proper horsemanship, ignoring that the Maurice immediately indicated the reason for a trot was so the formation maintained its integrity as it charged into the enemy. Then, in the following paragraph, he stated certain maneuvers (and not easy ones, either) that were to be done at a gallop which throws out the idea that this was meant for recruits still learning to control their mounts. Maurice offers no mention of training value (i.e. with regards to improving horsemanship) except that the men be accustomed to such maneuvers that they might do them in battle, with minimum of signal and no advance notice given.

Nobody said anything about horsemanship, I feel like you're using a strawman here. If we take two people who have never been in army and make them do a marching drill for the first time, they will most likely fail to react to commands in time and if we decide to increase the speed of the drill they will also fail to keep up, and it's not the fact that their walking skills are bad, it's just that they are not used to the drills and keeping a steady formation with the other recruits, which is a whole skill in on itself. The same holds true for a cavalry formation - no matter how good you are as a horseman, if you have never practiced holding a formation with other horsemen you won't be able to follow a formation drill properly, especially if we decide to do it with higher speeds.

But if certain drills don't require you to hold a formation but rather just move fast(like a "charge at a gallop" drill), then it's perfectly reasonable to practice them at high speeds.

Drills are not tactical maneuvers in on themselves, they are the building blocks that you use to create your tactics, so nothing would stop you from using the commands "Close ranks" and "Charge" before coming to a distance of several hundred meters before the enemy line and "Charge at a gallop" right after that, since the first command was drilled in your soldiers to create a tight formation and the second one to develop a gallop. And I feel like this is exactly what he meant here

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.

And coincidentally that's exactly what the authors of Napoleonic Era described.

The reason why he recommend practicing the "Close ranks" and "Charge" drill at a trot is exactly because there's a separate command for a gallop charge.

First off, the quotes you provided say nothing about the cavalry formations. As for the source itself? Your source says describes the cavalry formation thus:
The French Ordonnance provisoire sur l'exercise et les manoeuvres de la cavalerie provides standard intervals and speeds for horses, and describe the tactical formations. Title III, Article VII, paragraph 404 states that two ranks of cavalry were 6 m deep. Title I, Article XII states that the ranks had an interval of 0.666 m measured from the tail of the front horse to the nose of the rear rank.
The cavalry of the Napoleonic Wars was alwayz formed in 2 ranks. (See below).
The interval between squadrons was 10 m, no matter what the formation.

Two ranks at six meters deep, so both much shallower than Maurice's description of his Tagma and less densely packed even then, with more than half a meter between tail of the front horse to nose of the rear rank and a ten meter separation (!) between sub-units.

Furthermore I noticed something else interesting. You seem to have left a large piece of context from your link out:
The gallop was a move which relieved anxiety.
The fast pace however disordered the troops, gaps were created, horses in the center were squeezed out, slower horses and some cowards were far behind. Soon the troops changed into noisy hordes. If they met a well aligned troops advancing in a slow, steady pace they were lost. They were surprised at first at such coolness. The galloping squadrons do not reason these things out, but they know them instinctively. They understand that they have before them a moral impulse superior to theirs. They become uneasy, hesitate. Their hands instinctively turn their horses aside. Some of the horsemen go on to the end, but 75 % have already tried to avoid the shock. There is disorder and flight. Then begins the pursuit at a gallop by the men who attacked at the trot.

This was two paragraphs above the part you initially quoted from the site.

Then there was this:
According to Mark Adkin "a cavalry charge against infantry in square would be thrown back 99 times out of 100."

This is the leading sentence in the portion you quoted above.

You are not reading the sources you are quoting.

So how does any of this prove that I'm not reading the sources I'm quoting? Sure, the formations are different from what Maurice describes, should that mean anything if they are still densely packed cavalry formations used for charging? And how does a part describing an impetious charge that loses morale before a well-formed cavalry formation bring anything to the conversation? I don't remember claiming that a disordered cavalry charge led by cowards is the superior cavalry tactics. And about 99 out of 100, you probably missed the part where I actually said

however the success rate wasn't exactly high, since a single cavalryman had to face 6 muskets if cavalry, even tightly formed, charged a square of infantry.

So yeah, I don't see how your accusation stands here.

The formation comes apart; men move and cavalry surge through the gaps. Otherwise the formation remains intact, Mark Adkin's "99 times" comes up and the cavalry are thrown back.

Except that the formation didn't come apart, since the sources mentioned that all three charges failed to break the formation.

 

[Keln]

That's all nice and good, but you forgot Newton's 3rd law of Physic: "For every action, there is equal and opposite reaction".

And this is how Newton's 3rd law works on horses colliding in to people:



That horse had to be put down later because of the injuries it have suffered during collision and fall. "Cavalryman" ended up in the hospital.

So if cavalry's impact damage is too low, so is the infantry's impact damage on horses.

Cavalry can already push through densest formations of infantry making cavalry effective enough, we don't need unrealistic "impact damage". Horse was means of transportation, it wasn't battering ram. Cavalry have weapons to kill infantry, not their mounts.

I do hope you know the difference between a warhorse and a racing horse. Completely different breeds of horses are used for racing, hauling, and fighting. An actual warhorse from medieval period is HUGE (mass, not height), very heavy, strong, and not as fast as a typical race horse, which tends to be smaller.

I would never use a race horse to charge in battle. But an actual warhorse? Those were the battle tanks of their time. And they could charge infantry lines over and over and over without getting hurt.

There is a reason whymany European countries developed cavalry-heavy armies (like France and Poland-Lithuania), and there is a reason why many nations developed spear wall formations and laying down barriers in front of their lines.

I can't believe you literally compared a race horse to an actual warhorse.

 

[Keln]

You can go watch some Hollywood movies or play game from Total War series. Because they invented the spectacular scenes of a large cavalry charge defeating the infantry.

Just recently I had a good laugh about it when I discovered that "famous" French cavalry charge against English longbowmen at the battle of Agincount have never happened and French knights have charged English line of foot ))

But I do agree that those cavalry scenes in Hollywood movies and Total War games look good. They just don't not use real horses and real people. Other then for tricks.

The Polish Winged Hussars at Vienna would like to know your location.

 

[Tork789]

An actual warhorse from medieval period is HUGE, very heavy, strong, and not as fast as a typical race horse, which tends to be smaller.

It was huge in terms of muscle mass probably, but not in terms of height as evidence suggests they were not much higher than 15 hands. Still they were very strong and could endure a lot.

The Polish Winged Hussars at Vienna would like to know your location.

Knowing this guy, he's probably going to argue that the winged hussars didn't physically collide with the ottomans somehow.

 

[JustinTime49]

Wow this thread runs deep.

I think the issue isn't the cav charge in and of itself, but rather the collision mechanics of the game. Horses phase through dense infantry formations, as opposed to Warband where they would successfully impact but slow almost exponentially for each inf they collide with.

Once they fix up collision, I'm sure the issue will be mostly resolved.

 

[hruza]

I do hope you know the difference between a warhorse and a racing horse.

I know you don't. Cos:

Completely different breeds of horses are used for racing, hauling, and fighting.

There were no breeds of war horses.

An actual warhorse from medieval period is HUGE (mass, not height), very heavy, strong, and not as fast as a typical race horse, which tends to be smaller.

You saw it in the Hollywood film, so it must be true. And you did not bother to check actual historical studies. Why would you? Reading them is boring.

There is a reason whymany European countries developed cavalry-heavy armies

Yes, it's called Feudalism.

I can't believe you literally compared a race horse to an actual warhorse.

Beliefs are something you need to discus with your priest.

...sorry for been ironic a little bit, but since you did not bother to read sources I have provided repeatedly in this threat that shows how big war horses were based on research, I won't bother to respond more seriously.

 

[hruza]

I think the issue isn't the cav charge in and of itself, but rather the collision mechanics of the game. Horses phase through dense infantry formations, as opposed to Warband where they would successfully impact but slow almost exponentially for each inf they collide with.

Once they fix up collision, I'm sure the issue will be mostly resolved.

This discussion came many times in the past and devs said that way cavalry is implemented was a compromise between realism and playability. Or to be more precise between how effective infantry is against cavalry, including their ability to stop horses and playability. If you would make cavalry get realistically stooped in the dense infantry formation, heavy cavalry in the game would become useless. I very much doubt they consider it as something to be fixed.

For cavalry-infantry interaction to be more realistic, you would need much more complex AI that would be able to avoid suicide charge dense infantry formations.

 

[Apocal]

Nobody said anything about horsemanship, I feel like you're using a strawman here.

You wrote:

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.

Learning to control your horse is commonly referred to as "horsemanship."

The reason why he recommend practicing the "Close ranks" and "Charge" drill at a trot is exactly because there's a separate command for a gallop charge.

Which he restricts to pursuit; i.e. not well-formed infantry. While also saying charges into formed eneies should be done "not too fast but at a trot."

So how does any of this prove that I'm not reading the sources I'm quoting? Sure, the formations are different from what Maurice describes, should that mean anything if they are still densely packed cavalry formations used for charging?

Firstly, you posted that link to support your assertion that it was possible to hold a dense, even, regular formation at a gallop when the sources therein then say, in detail, the formations weren't especially dense -- certainly nothing like five-deep (at a minimum), nose-to-tail and nearly thigh-to-thigh -- and even then came apart in the gallop.

Secondly, the actual quotes make it clear that galloping formations are inherently disordered by their speed. So that's strike two against this as a source for dense and even formations being held while galloping.

Thirdly there were the prior gaffes: you claimed you had no idea what the Italian drill was for, when it's purpose was written in the first sentence of its section. It is impossible to have missed it if you looked. You also asked how could a charge at a trot possibly could succeed against mounted Persians when Maurice wrote exactly how in the previous paragraph. This wasn't quite as egregious as other, admittedly, but since you were the one who brought the Persian example up, one would assume you read the entire section. Then you said something about Maurice's comments on the fair-haired race's cavalry tactics, when you would not have said a damned thing about it given Maurice stresses how terrible they were.

Taken together, that's why I have the impression you aren't reading a lot of this stuff.

Except that the formation didn't come apart, since the sources mentioned that all three charges failed to break the formation.

If the cavalry were literally, physically colliding with their horses at a gallop, it would be impossible for infantry to (physically) stop them and the formation would break up regardless, every time. Even assuming the infantry speared the horses stone-dead, their momentum would keep their bodies -- and those of their riders -- moving. A 1200lbs horse and rider with an additional 200lbs at a gallop would be, in a physical sense, unstoppable. Every charge would end in the receiving unit mutilated and -- assuming they kept their spears/pikes/halberds on-line -- the charging cavalry mauled as well.

But we know this didn't happen: infantry squares stayed in good order, after receiving a charge, with a handful of casualties. That's in your source. The cavalry which failed to break up the formation reformed and tried again. And again, this is in your source.

So something here has to give. Either they weren't literally colliding with the infantry or they weren't going fast when they did so.

 

[Tork789]

You wrote:


Learning to control your horse is commonly referred to as "horsemanship."



Which he restricts to pursuit; i.e. not well-formed infantry. While also saying charges into formed eneies should be done "not too fast but at a trot."



Firstly, you posted that link to support your assertion that it was possible to hold a dense, even, regular formation at a gallop when the sources therein then say, in detail, the formations weren't especially dense -- certainly nothing like five-deep (at a minimum), nose-to-tail and nearly thigh-to-thigh -- and even then came apart in the gallop.

Secondly, the actual quotes make it clear that galloping formations are inherently disordered by their speed. So that's strike two against this as a source for dense and even formations being held while galloping.

Thirdly there were the prior gaffes: you claimed you had no idea what the Italian drill was for, when it's purpose was written in the first sentence of its section. It is impossible to have missed it if you looked. You also asked how could a charge at a trot possibly could succeed against mounted Persians when Maurice wrote exactly how in the previous paragraph. This wasn't quite as egregious as other, admittedly, but since you were the one who brought the Persian example up, one would assume you read the entire section. Then you said something about Maurice's comments on the fair-haired race's cavalry tactics, when you would not have said a damned thing about it given Maurice stresses how terrible they were.

Taken together, that's why I have the impression you aren't reading a lot of this stuff.



If the cavalry were literally, physically colliding with their horses at a gallop, it would be impossible for infantry to (physically) stop them and the formation would break up regardless, every time. Even assuming the infantry speared the horses stone-dead, their momentum would keep their bodies -- and those of their riders -- moving. A 1200lbs horse and rider with an additional 200lbs at a gallop would be, in a physical sense, unstoppable. Every charge would end in the receiving unit mutilated and -- assuming they kept their spears/pikes/halberds on-line -- the charging cavalry mauled as well.

But we know this didn't happen: infantry squares stayed in good order, after receiving a charge, with a handful of casualties. That's in your source. The cavalry which failed to break up the formation reformed and tried again. And again, this is in your source.

So something here has to give. Either they weren't literally colliding with the infantry or they weren't going fast when they did so.

I feel like we're going in circles here since I've been reiterating the same point for quite a while now, and so did you. Just understand that I'm not trying to disagree with you for the sake of disagreeing, all I'm trying to do here is to understand your point of view and it doesn't really help when you start accusing me of something in a passive-aggressive manner, so let's tone it down, shall we?

Your arguments have a sense of logic behind them, but there are still quite a few white spots that aren't necessarily flaws in your logic, but could also be my failures to understand it, that don't allow me to accept your point of view.

We've been discussing different interpretations of Maurice's work and I believe further discussion will be fruitless, since, like you yourself said, Maurice wasn't very keen on being too detailed in his work and expected the reader to be familiar with the context and since neither you or I aren't even close to what could be called a byzantine general, it's absolutely natural that we are interpreting his words differently.

But let's put the question of galloping in a tight formation aside and get back to one of my questions that I believe was left without attention and that is the interpretation of the word trot.

All this time you insisted that Maurice suggests charging only at a trot basing on this quote from the tagma drills sections. And let's assume you are right. What is the trot then? Trot can assume different speeds and according to wikipedia

A very slow trot is sometimes referred to as a jog. An extremely fast trot has no special name, but in harness racing, the trot of a Standardbred is faster than the gallop of the average non-racehorse, and has been clocked at over 30 miles per hour (48 km/h).

So depending on the breed and intensity and it can be anything from slow to fast. Napoleonic Era sources also describe a fast trot:

The flankers moved in fast trot or gallop and the large spaces allowed for lots of individual movement.

Maurice also refers to trot as "not too fast". So what is exactly the trot in speed metrics?

And that leads me to another question: how do you picture a charge with a trot? If it is a slow trot charge which is basically almost walking pace, what purpose did it serve? Do you not think they used their momentum to literally break the formation? If not then what? And if they did, do you not think that a slow trot wouldn't be enough?

If the cavalry were literally, physically colliding with their horses at a gallop, it would be impossible for infantry to (physically) stop them and the formation would break up regardless, every time. Even assuming the infantry speared the horses stone-dead, their momentum would keep their bodies -- and those of their riders -- moving. A 1200lbs horse and rider with an additional 200lbs at a gallop would be, in a physical sense, unstoppable. Every charge would end in the receiving unit mutilated and -- assuming they kept their spears/pikes/halberds on-line -- the charging cavalry mauled as well.

But we know this didn't happen: infantry squares stayed in good order, after receiving a charge, with a handful of casualties. That's in your source. The cavalry which failed to break up the formation reformed and tried again. And again, this is in your source.

So something here has to give. Either they weren't literally colliding with the infantry or they weren't going fast when they did so.

But we know that the gendarmes penetrated the formation and pushed their way through - that's literally what is written. So you might be right, they couldn't be stopped and they weren't, the way I see it as that they plowed through the formation, leaving a trail of dead behind them, but the formation closed up and they repeated their charge two more times, considering that they were outnumbered roughly 11 to 1 I don't think a single charge would kill a lot of people especially considering that they most likely lost most of their momentum after several lines and managed to push through thanks to the horses' physical force alone. After the second charge they separated from the formation far enough, as I assume, to gain momentum for the second charge and got under arquebus fire. If their intention wasn't to gain a momentum then what purpose did that serve? Again, how do you picture the charge that penetrates a formation and pushes through to the rear?

 

[hruza]

Do you think that they will somehow overcome the momentum created by the highest pace and not collide with infantry?

Somehow? Horse is not a bullet.

If they never intended to collide why even bother with highest pace?

Because it gives enemy less time to shoot, gives more power to the lance strike and because it intimidates the enemy. That's why.