The Game is a Mess

[Lord Milky]

Tell that to the the Ayyubid's who experienced a charge at the Battle of Arsuf.


Richard personally led forward his remaining Norman and English knights against Saladin's center. This charge shattered the Ayyubid line and caused Saladin's army to flee the field. Pushing forward, the Crusaders captured and looted the Ayyubid camp. With darkness approaching, Richard called off any pursuit of the defeated enemy.

Modern estimates of Saladin's army place it at around 25,000 soldiers, "almost" all cavalry (horse archers, light cavalry, and a minority of heavy cavalry).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsuf#Battle

Can't find heavy infantry mentioned there. May be you can.

Found it. Using your own source , which I might add is wikipedia. 

 

[Sarin]

We may not know exactly what a cavalry charge looked like, but knowledge of physics and horses makes it unreasonable to assume that heavy cavalry ever collided with braced lines of infantry as a tactic.

Not to mention that videos of collisions such as the one hruza posted and historical accounts suggest the opposite, in the r/AskHistorians link I cited there is an account by Winston Churchill about a cavalry charge that collided with infantry at the Battle of Omdurman. He notes how rare of an occurrence it was, and how the cavalry were forced with no other options to try and break through. It does not go well for the cavalry, those at the front of the charge are killed and the others thrown from their horses, a few fight to remount in the chaos and escape.

As for Napoleonic cavalry warfare being different from the medieval era, this might be true but we have no reason to assume that means medieval horses ran through/over infantry like a tank. We refer to the Napoleonic era because compared to medieval eras we have an abundance of information and accounts about cavalry warfare, and they are far more detailed. Why should we assume that the capabilities of horses or the lancers riding them changed so drastically? Especially when the horses got bigger and stronger...

It's the target that changed. Medieval infantry, which would be mostly poorly trained spearmen and crossbowmen, had neither means nor discipline to face the cavalry charge in the open without taking massive casualties, so they'd usually break and run before contact. In the 18th and 19th century, however, infantry was equipped almost universally with muskets and had frequent artillery support, so they could shoot down majority of cavalry attempting frontal charge. That is why cavalry tactics changed accordingly and cavalry became  supporting arm...

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

Flemish infantry at the battle of Battle of the Golden Spurs stood just fine.

Tell that to the the Ayyubid's who experienced a charge at the Battle of Arsuf.


Richard personally led forward his remaining Norman and English knights against Saladin's center. This charge shattered the Ayyubid line and caused Saladin's army to flee the field. Pushing forward, the Crusaders captured and looted the Ayyubid camp. With darkness approaching, Richard called off any pursuit of the defeated enemy.

I don't know what historical account of the battle this is from but we have no reason to believe terms like "shattered" should be taken to mean that they collided at a gallop. If lines of infantry (that there were apparently few if any at the Battle of Arsuf, during a period when infantry was usually of low quality) start breaking apart and routing before the cavalry charge collides they have in a sense "shattered" into small groups of fleeing men.

 

[Lord Milky]

Flemish infantry at the battle of Battle of the Golden Spurs stood just fine.

Tell that to the the Ayyubid's who experienced a charge at the Battle of Arsuf.


Richard personally led forward his remaining Norman and English knights against Saladin's center. This charge shattered the Ayyubid line and caused Saladin's army to flee the field. Pushing forward, the Crusaders captured and looted the Ayyubid camp. With darkness approaching, Richard called off any pursuit of the defeated enemy.

I don't know what historical account of the battle this is from but we have no reason to believe terms like "shattered" should be taken to mean that they collided at a gallop. If lines of infantry (that there were apparently few if any at the Battle of Arsuf, during a period when infantry was usually of low quality) start breaking apart and routing before the cavalry charge collides they have in a sense "shattered" into small groups of fleeing men.

Well regardless, I'm simply stating it wasn't uncommon for cavalry to charge infantry. And seeing as the gentlemen continues to use Napoleonic and wikiedia type resources for medieval-era cavalry tactics, I'll post the same to disprove said mindset.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(warfare)#European_Middle_Ages

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

We may not know exactly what a cavalry charge looked like, but knowledge of physics and horses makes it unreasonable to assume that heavy cavalry ever collided with braced lines of infantry as a tactic.

Not to mention that videos of collisions such as the one hruza posted and historical accounts suggest the opposite, in the r/AskHistorians link I cited there is an account by Winston Churchill about a cavalry charge that collided with infantry at the Battle of Omdurman. He notes how rare of an occurrence it was, and how the cavalry were forced with no other options to try and break through. It does not go well for the cavalry, those at the front of the charge are killed and the others thrown from their horses, a few fight to remount in the chaos and escape.

As for Napoleonic cavalry warfare being different from the medieval era, this might be true but we have no reason to assume that means medieval horses ran through/over infantry like a tank. We refer to the Napoleonic era because compared to medieval eras we have an abundance of information and accounts about cavalry warfare, and they are far more detailed. Why should we assume that the capabilities of horses or the lancers riding them changed so drastically? Especially when the horses got bigger and stronger...

It's the target that changed. Medieval infantry, which would be mostly poorly trained spearmen and crossbowmen, had neither means nor discipline to face the cavalry charge in the open without taking massive casualties, so they'd usually break and run before contact. In the 18th and 19th century, however, infantry was equipped almost universally with muskets and had frequent artillery support, so they could shoot down majority of cavalry attempting frontal charge. That is why cavalry tactics changed accordingly and cavalry became  supporting arm...

Yes and if they didn't break and run before contact the cavalry would either turn around and prepare another charge or slow down before impact and engage in melee (almost always with disastrous results). Nothing about that suggests that they could plow through a line of braced infantry or that they would ever purposefully attempt to do so.

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

Flemish infantry at the battle of Battle of the Golden Spurs stood just fine.

Tell that to the the Ayyubid's who experienced a charge at the Battle of Arsuf.


Richard personally led forward his remaining Norman and English knights against Saladin's center. This charge shattered the Ayyubid line and caused Saladin's army to flee the field. Pushing forward, the Crusaders captured and looted the Ayyubid camp. With darkness approaching, Richard called off any pursuit of the defeated enemy.

I don't know what historical account of the battle this is from but we have no reason to believe terms like "shattered" should be taken to mean that they collided at a gallop. If lines of infantry (that there were apparently few if any at the Battle of Arsuf, during a period when infantry was usually of low quality) start breaking apart and routing before the cavalry charge collides they have in a sense "shattered" into small groups of fleeing men.

Well regardless, I'm simply stating it wasn't uncommon for cavalry to charge infantry. And seeing as the gentlemen continues to use Napoleonic and wikiedia type resources for medieval-era cavalry tactics, I'll post the same to disprove said mindset.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(warfare)#European_Middle_Ages

I already explained above why Napoleonic sources are incredibly relevant, and they did not only cite wikipedia. Medieval accounts are vague and far between, Napoleonic (and a few from early 20th century) are the most numerous and detailed accounts of horse-mounted warfare that we have. Again, why should we assume the capabilities and brains of horses changed so drastically? Especially considering the fact that horses got bigger and stronger, why would they become so much less willing to gallop into a line of men? Just watch the video of that collision, with one unprepared person, again.

 

[Lord Milky]

The video you are referencing is a modern day race horse. Are you honestly saying,  that is an accurate portrayal of the training and temperament of a medieval Destrier?

You cannot use the term , "Medieval sources are far and few between , so let's use 19th century etc..
They did not have cannons or musket fire in the early period.

That's like saying we can't study lions but let's use cheetahs as a representation of wild african cats.

 

[hruza]

Found it. Using your own source , which I might add is wikipedia. 

No, you didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Balaclava#Charge_of_the_Light_Brigade

That's cavalry charging artillery. Moreover they were successful. They were routed only after Russian cavalry counter charged them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo#Charge_of_the_British_heavy_cavalry

...and many more. Just a brief look through important battles of the era will show that at that time, cavalry was being used only as supportive arm, exploiting weak points, but the decisive arm was almost always infantry and artillery. Unlike medieval period, cavalry had no chance of breaking the infantry alone. Compare it to battles like Grunwald, Agincourt or Crecy where one or both sides relied on heavy cavalry as decisive arm.

Battle of Albuera - French cavalry broke British infantry brigade alone.
Battle of Katzbach - French cavalry broke Prussian infantry square -alone.
Battle of Dennewitz - French cavalry broke regiment of Prussian infantry.
Battle of Garcia Hernandez - English and German cavalry broke 4000 strong French infantry -alone.

...and many more.

 

[Mike Hawk]

The video you are referencing is a modern day race horse. Are you honestly saying,  that is an accurate portrayal of the training and temperament of a medieval Destrier?

You cannot use the term , "Medieval sources are far and few between , so let's use 19th century etc..
They did not have cannons or musket fire in the early period.

That's like saying we can't study lions but let's use cheetahs as a representation of wild cats.

Thoroughbreds (racing horses) are larger than medieval cavalry horses. The horse that collided with the lady had it's leg broken and was later put down.

Honestly, I've only seen one side provide any actual sources for what they claim. All you really have is vagueness and straw men.

So just stop the charade and provide actual proof of what you claim. Not wordplay, not vague accounts of how cavalry charged in the general direction of infantry. Provide proof that cavalry would regularly slam into infantry 3 lines deep.

 

[hruza]

The video you are referencing is a modern day race horse. Are you honestly saying,  that is an accurate portrayal of the training and temperament of a medieval Destrier?

It's accurate portrayal of collision between horse at full speed and a unarmed and unarmored woman. And that horse is much larger and heavier then your medieval Destrier.

Recent research undertaken at the Museum of London, using literary, pictorial and archeological sources, suggests war horses (including destriers) averaged from 14 to 15 hands (56 to 60 inches, 142 to 152 cm), and differed from a riding horse in their strength, musculature and training, rather than in their size.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destrier#Breeding_and_size

The typical Thoroughbred ranges from 15.2 to 17.0 hands (62 to 68 inches, 157 to 173 cm) high, averaging 16 hands (64 inches, 163 cm). They are most often bay, dark bay or brown, chestnut, black, or gray.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoroughbred#Breed_characteristics

Now what would similar collision between little medieval Destrier and line of men with arms and in armor several ranks deep look like everybody can conclude for himself.

You cannot use the term , "Medieval sources are far and few between , so let's use 19th century etc..
They did not have cannons or musket fire in the early period.

They had them by the middle.

 

[Lord Milky]

The video you are referencing is a modern day race horse. Are you honestly saying,  that is an accurate portrayal of the training and temperament of a medieval Destrier?

You cannot use the term , "Medieval sources are far and few between , so let's use 19th century etc..
They did not have cannons or musket fire in the early period.

That's like saying we can't study lions but let's use cheetahs as a representation of wild cats.

Thoroughbreds (racing horses) are larger than medieval cavalry horses. The horse that collided with the lady had it's leg broken and was later put down.

Honestly, I've only seen one side provide any actual sources for what they claim. All you really have is vagueness and straw men.

So just stop the charade and provide actual proof of what you claim. Not wordplay, not vague accounts of how cavalry charged in the general direction of infantry. Provide proof that cavalry would regularly slam into infantry 3 lines deep.

3 lines deep? I made no mention of said statement. I also made no statement regarding the size comparison between a race horse and a destrier. I said , "training"..and "temperament".


Perhaps you should read the thread more clearly. I have only referenced the battle of Arsuf. Resources for that are readily available. If you have cause to open your mouth, maybe post your own sources instead of being a hypocrite.

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

The video you are referencing is a modern day race horse. Are you honestly saying,  that is an accurate portrayal of the training and temperament of a medieval Destrier?

You cannot use the term , "Medieval sources are far and few between , so let's use 19th century etc..
They did not have cannons or musket fire in the early period.

That's like saying we can't study lions but let's use cheetahs as a representation of wild african cats.

You aren't grasping the point of essentially anything I said. For one a modern racehorse is probably far larger than a medieval Destrier but I will grant that I have never met one to compare their temperaments. The video showcases that regardless of temper a horse colliding at speed with one old woman ended in tragedy for the horse.

Your second point might be relevant if we had very few accounts of lions, the medieval accounts we do have don't suggest that heavy cavalry every galloped into lines of prepared infantry regardless so I suppose it doesn't really matter either way.

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

The video you are referencing is a modern day race horse. Are you honestly saying,  that is an accurate portrayal of the training and temperament of a medieval Destrier?

You cannot use the term , "Medieval sources are far and few between , so let's use 19th century etc..
They did not have cannons or musket fire in the early period.

That's like saying we can't study lions but let's use cheetahs as a representation of wild cats.

Thoroughbreds (racing horses) are larger than medieval cavalry horses. The horse that collided with the lady had it's leg broken and was later put down.

Honestly, I've only seen one side provide any actual sources for what they claim. All you really have is vagueness and straw men.

So just stop the charade and provide actual proof of what you claim. Not wordplay, not vague accounts of how cavalry charged in the general direction of infantry. Provide proof that cavalry would regularly slam into infantry 3 lines deep.

3 lines deep? I made no mention of said statement. Perhaps you should read the thread more clearly. I have only referenced the battle of Arsuf. Resources for that are readily available. If you have cause to open your mouth, maybe post your own sources instead of being a hypocrite.

While I would contest the idea that they had the ability or willingness to slam into one or two lines of prepared infantry, this entire argument basically started when me hruza and others corrected someone claiming that they were likely able to plow through 4 - 6 lines of infantry.

 

[Mike Hawk]

The video you are referencing is a modern day race horse. Are you honestly saying,  that is an accurate portrayal of the training and temperament of a medieval Destrier?

You cannot use the term , "Medieval sources are far and few between , so let's use 19th century etc..
They did not have cannons or musket fire in the early period.

That's like saying we can't study lions but let's use cheetahs as a representation of wild cats.

Thoroughbreds (racing horses) are larger than medieval cavalry horses. The horse that collided with the lady had it's leg broken and was later put down.

Honestly, I've only seen one side provide any actual sources for what they claim. All you really have is vagueness and straw men.

So just stop the charade and provide actual proof of what you claim. Not wordplay, not vague accounts of how cavalry charged in the general direction of infantry. Provide proof that cavalry would regularly slam into infantry 3 lines deep.

3 lines deep? I made no mention of said statement. Perhaps you should read the thread more clearly. I have only referenced the battle of Arsuf. Resources for that are readily available. If you have cause to open your mouth, maybe post your own sources instead of being a hypocrite.

This is literally how this discussion started. One guy claiming horses could go through 3 people. What sources should I post that haven't already been posted? It's been demonstrated pretty clearly that horses cannot go through people as the man claimed, and who's opinion you've been defending.

Pretty much every source on cavalry tactics will tell you that cavalry were horrible at frontal charges, and were very rarely used as such. Sometimes they got lucky and would break a badly prepared opponent, but most of the time it ended in disaster.

But you've posted nothing to support what you claim, so I see no reason to debate this with you.

 

[MountAndMemeButterlord]

Just for fun I will go through some accounts of the Battle of Arsuf. I'm gonna take a wild guess and say nothing I read will suggest that cavalry collided with prepared infantry save maybe for some vague language such as lines "shattering".

 

[Roy1012]

This game thread is a mess.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

The video you are referencing is a modern day race horse. Are you honestly saying,  that is an accurate portrayal of the training and temperament of a medieval Destrier?

You cannot use the term , "Medieval sources are far and few between , so let's use 19th century etc..
They did not have cannons or musket fire in the early period.

That's like saying we can't study lions but let's use cheetahs as a representation of wild african cats.

Using Napoleonic sources to try and make sense of medieval cavalry is perfectly valid. After all we are mainly looking at whether or not you can collide horses into infantry blocks, and whether or not that even works. The dynamic doesn't change.

In theory the Napoleonic era should be the ideal circumstance for cavalry to dominate the battlefield:

1. Infantry in most nations was quite poorly trained.
2. Infantry in all european nations was totally unarmoured.
3. Infantry weapons were not good at deterring cavalry: bayonets are essentially tiny spears, and even a massed musket volley at point blank range could rarely kill more than a handful of cavalry. Scared men with unreliable single shot guns don't mow down horses like in total war.
4. Horses were bigger and more numerous.
5. Napoleonic artillery was primarily a morale weapon and hardly killed anybody.

However what we find time and time again in the sources is that cavalry would usually just scare off infantry long before a collision was ever made, or on the other hand the horsemen would chicken out if the charge lost impetus and would retreat. Medieval sources may describe this process as "the French cavalry charged through the English line and scattered them" or "the charge was repelled" but I find it really hard to believe that they actually collided. Medieval sources are vague because the writers usually weren't there, or if they were they had no interest in describing all the little intricacies of a battle in a chronicle which might span 100 years of history.



I think when you are designing a multiplayer game you have to consider that there are certain things in combat which you just can't simulate without removing player autonomy, like morale or concepts like suppression. Players in an MP game have no incentive to fight in formation, they don't instinctively flee from charging horses, and don't run away when they see a dozen enemies bearing down on them. In this scenario you can never have anything resembling real warfare. I would even say that real combat is too boring for the individual player to put in a multiplayer game. So the best you can hope for is a set of features which make sense together but still feel vaguely historical, like in warband, and sacrifice the idea that you can make cavalry charges dominate in MP without ruining game balance.

 

[hruza]

Perhaps you should read the thread more clearly. I have only referenced the battle of Arsuf. Resources for that are readily available. If you have cause to open your mouth, maybe post your own sources instead of being a hypocrite.

Yep, the only reference you have provided to back your argument about how cavalry collided in to masses of infantry is battle where crusader heavy cavalry charged Turkish light cavalry... makes sense.

 

[JAOOGA]

Well taking into account that the game has been in development for 8 years

predictable I guess

If it took that long to make the game they probaly ran into a few problems.

 

[Al_Mansur]

I don't have the time to carefully read all the previous comments but some points:

1) Comparing light Napoleonic cavalry with medieval armored knights charging with the couched lance technique makes little sense. Not to mention the difference in tactics, mindsets, etc.

2) I'll be wary with what is said on the subject of medieval charge, even by academics. Why? Because the heavy knights charge has become a popular symbol of Middles Ages. And as such, a target to "deconstruct" by myths-busters, which is the main way to get renown nowadays but which often leads to excess. Take for example the case of the flail: this late medieval weapon is attested, both by archeology and iconography, although it has never been widespread probably because not very efficient. Then Hollywood came and turned it into an iconic and unavoidable weapon of medieval times (Invahoe, The Cid, Kingdom of Heaven...). And what do some historians say now that the flaid has been turned into an icon by Hollywood? "Flails never existed": https://www.publicmedievalist.com/curious-case-weapon-didnt-exist/ Which is even more stupid than saying it was an important weapon (there is a good criticism by Dave Satterthwaite below the article).
So, although its importance may have been exaggerated by Hollywood, frontal heavy cav charge may have been a thing back in medieval times.

I'll suggest you to look at the first crusade accounts, as well as at the famous testimony of Usama Ibn Munqidh, which contain many allusion to Frankish heavy charge.

However, charging a formation of heavy infantry with pikes, etc. sounds weird indeed.