Heavy Cavalry Versus Infantry – Charging the Lines

[Aldarion]

Heavy Cavalry Versus Infantry – Charging the Lines

Introduction Heavy cavalry charging the lines of infantry is an awesome sight in historical fiction and fantasy alike. It is difficult to forget Eomer’s charge at Helm’s Deep or the cha…

warfantasy.wordpress.com

Introduction​

Heavy cavalry charging the lines of infantry is an awesome sight in historical fiction and fantasy alike. It is difficult to forget Eomer’s charge at Helm’s Deep or the charge of the Rohirrim at Pelennor.

Yet revisionist historiography exists which holds that the impact of charge of heavy cavalry was based solely on morale. Argument is that horses cannot be trained to charge through, or even at, the solid wall of pointy things. By this explanation, the entire heavy cavalry charge is based solely on morale, a “who blinks the first” game of nerves. If infantry stays in formation, then cavalry will not charge infantry even if said infantry is armed with wet paper and harsh language.

But is that really the case? To determine this, I will look at a number of examples through history.

 

[pmmg]

Another detailed and well presented article. If you wrote this, I wonder if Black Dragon would let you showcase it.

Anyway... I won't profess to be an expert on this, but I too have thought that charging horses into a wall of pikes would cause a lot of chaos, and kill a lot of horses. I do think, if there are enough knights, they would still break the line, but the cost would be perilous. If your horse dies, you're going over its head into pikes. The initial men who impact would probably all die fast. Who wants to be them.

All these things, like terrain, and numbers, and motivation will matter of course. I would think the best use for cavalry is their speed, getting around and flanking and threatening to be a large force coming in from an unprotected side. That would cause the defenders to shift around and maybe make holes. Also, perhaps to attack before the lines are ready.

I am not sure what the ratio is between cavalry charge beating infantry, and infantry beating cavalry charge. I am sure there are instances of both.

 

[Aldarion]

Another detailed and well presented article. If you wrote this, I wonder if Black Dragon would let you showcase it.

I wrote it, yes.

Anyway... I won't profess to be an expert on this, but I too have thought that charging horses into a wall of pikes would cause a lot of chaos, and kill a lot of horses. I do think, if there are enough knights, they would still break the line, but the cost would be perilous. If your horse dies, you're going over its head into pikes. The initial men who impact would probably all die fast. Who wants to be them.

Well, yes - heavy cavalry charges were generally not done lightly. But the point here is that they could be done, and if done properly, could be very successful. It is not enough for infantry to merely "not break ranks" in order to withstand a heavy cavalry charge - they need to have proper training, tactics and equipment to do so.

All these things, like terrain, and numbers, and motivation will matter of course. I would think the best use for cavalry is their speed, getting around and flanking and threatening to be a large force coming in from an unprotected side. That would cause the defenders to shift around and maybe make holes. Also, perhaps to attack before the lines are ready.

Agreed.

I am not sure what the ratio is between cavalry charge beating infantry, and infantry beating cavalry charge. I am sure there are instances of both.

Yes, there are. But considering how expensive heavy cavalry is, I would suggest that it was successful more often than not - especially during the Middle Ages.

If heavy cavalry was as overrated as some historians would have you believe, it will not have existed in the first place. Heavy cavalry is expensive, and if raiding and outflanking was all it was good for... well, you can use light cavalry for that as well.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Fits the basic notions I had from reading on the topic, but this is helluva treatment. Nice work. I'll be bookmarking this one for reference.

 

[Aldarion]

Fits the basic notions I had from reading on the topic, but this is helluva treatment. Nice work. I'll be bookmarking this one for reference.

Thanks!

 

[Mad Swede]

I don't know what you've read, but at least amongst professional soldiers who have studied military history there has never been anyone who has seriously argued that a heavy cavalry charge was all about striking fear into an enemy.

You can compare cavalry with modern armoured vehicles, in the sense that the way you use them and the trade-offs you make in designing and equipping them are very similar. The real advantage of any form of cavalry over foot soldiers is mobility, the cavalry can quickly change position and cover large distances. The best use of cavalry has always been to outflank or attack weak points in the ranks of the foot soldiers. Yes, you can charge the line of foot soldiers directly, but any reasonably well-trained army equipped with pikes or long spears and in a good defensive position will stop the cavalry. In other words, the successful use of cavalry is all about tactics, in particular the use of terrain and in combination with other parts of the army.

So is it good tactics to make a head-on charge with heavy cavalry? Yes, sometimes. The most successful tactic has always been to make the charge with the support of mounted archers immediately behind the cavalry, preferably against a corner of the enemy foot formation or into a gap between units, across terrain which favours the cavalry. A head-on charge against an infantry formation which has not had time to prepare defenses and/or form good defensive lines will almost always succeed (as in the fictional charge at Helms Deep), especially if the infantry are in open terrain. Charges against a well-prepared defensive position, or one where the terrain limits the line of charge, or a combination of these, will almost always fail.

And the best use of heavy cavalry? In modern military terms, the best use is as a mobile strike force either against enemy camps and supply lines or against enemy forces on the move (or in the process of forming up). The other classic tactic is to fix the enemy with ones own infantry and supporting archers, and then to flank the enemy with the cavalry (from both flanks if possible).

 

[Aldarion]

I don't know what you've read, but at least amongst professional soldiers who have studied military history there has never been anyone who has seriously argued that a heavy cavalry charge was all about striking fear into an enemy.

That is actually a rather frequent argument in online discussions, and even among some of the actual historians I have either read or had discussions with. Basically, the argument is that horses, for psychological reasons, refuse to run into a solid mass of people, and thus the heavy cavalry charge is solely a battle of nerves: will the infantry break ranks before cavalry comes into contact, or will they stand firm and turn away horses which will refuse to charge home. To quote a poster from the second link:

Specifically for cavalry charges, no matter the equipment of the attacking cavalry or defending infantry, they can essentially only succeed when the defenders crap their pants. Horses are ridiculously skittish and terrified animals and it took years of training to get one ready for battle. Even then, they will outright refuse to run into a massive obstacle such as a mass of men, pointy sticks or not.

Which I have to admit actually sounds logical, if one knows nothing about actual historical cavalry charges.

Another example, here:

How to survive a cavalry charge

There you are, an infantryman, marching happily along with your musket and pack. When suddenly in the distance, a group of enemy horsemen appear. What are you going to do? You could, of course, sim…

cavalrytales.wordpress.com

This means every approaching cavalryman faces at least six bayonets (two files of men) head on and cannot reach far enough forward with his sword to inflict any damage. And if he turns side-on, which would allow him enough reach, he faces at least twelve bayonets.

No sensible horse will risk impaling itself on such a deadly hedge, so even if a downpour soaked all the powder, preventing any musket being fired, the men in square should still be safe.

I do not know who writer of the blog is, but apparently he didn't study actual cavalry charges in Napoleonic wars in any great detail if that is his conclusion.

And here:

Saruman Should Have Won: An Analysis of Rohirrim Cavalry Tactics in the War of the Ring

It is undoubtedly one of the most dramatic moments in the Lord of the Rings movies. The Battle of Helm’s Deep has been raging all night, and the beleaguered Rohirrim under King Théoden are ha…

nathangoldwag.wordpress.com

Heavy cavalry could be absolutely deadly against light infantry, skirmishers spread out in loose formation who were unable to provide adequate joint protection. Against unprepared or shaky foot soldiers, the shock of a cavalry charge could shatter their formation. But against infantry who held their ground, who stood in formation and maintained a proper defensive posture? A cavalry charge is worse than useless. The problem is the horses. Horses are not actually stupid, and they tend to be very uninterested in dying for their country. If a horse sees a unbroken line of men pointing pointy sticks at him? He’s not going to ram himself onto them.

And of course, BBC:

BBC - History - World Wars: The Art of War

Crucial evolutions in warfare, by Professor Daniel Moran

www.bbc.co.uk

Provided they maintained their cohesion, such masses of pike-wielding infantry presented a formidable obstacle to opponents on horseback, since a horse will not charge into what appears to it to be a solid barrier, however determined its rider.

Over at ASoIaF forum, I have come across an argument that the Unsullied (basically Greek hoplites, for reference) would win against Westerosi heavy cavalry (which is essentially 15th century men-at-arms) simply because they are disciplined enough not to break as soon as the heavy cavalry charges at them.

And even serious historians do make that argument:

Alexander's Cavalry Charge at Chaeronea, 338 BCE

The Battle of Chaeronea, fought in 338 BCE between Philip of Macedon and the Greek city-states, is known only from meager literary evidence and a few archaeological finds. For decades, scholars had reconstructed the battle to include a cavalry charge

www.academia.edu

W. W. Tarn, writing of Alexander’s cavalry charge at the Battle of Issus in 333BCE, said that “it was an axiom that cavalry could not make a frontal attack on an unbroken line of heavy-armed spearmen, as the Persians had learnt to their cost at Plataea.” This “axiom” has by now attained the status of common knowledge, due most of all to the hugely influential book of John Keegan, The Face of Battle.

In his treatment of the Battle of Waterloo, Keegan argues that a defining featureof the battle was the repeated repulse of French cavalry at the hands of British infantry squares. For Keegan, Waterloo demonstrated conclusively that a cavalrycharge could not prevail against a disciplined infantry formation.

The widespread acceptance of this axiom has been instrumental in several revisionist treatments ofone of ancient Greek history’s most famous cavalry actions: the young Alexander the Great’s charge against the Theban Sacred Band, an elite unit of Greek hoplites, at the Battle of Chaeronea in 338 BCE.

So it does appear to be reasonably widespread.

You can compare cavalry with modern armoured vehicles, in the sense that the way you use them and the trade-offs you make in designing and equipping them are very similar. The real advantage of any form of cavalry over foot soldiers is mobility, the cavalry can quickly change position and cover large distances. The best use of cavalry has always been to outflank or attack weak points in the ranks of the foot soldiers. Yes, you can charge the line of foot soldiers directly, but any reasonably well-trained army equipped with pikes or long spears and in a good defensive position will stop the cavalry. In other words, the successful use of cavalry is all about tactics, in particular the use of terrain and in combination with other parts of the army.

So is it good tactics to make a head-on charge with heavy cavalry? Yes, sometimes. The most successful tactic has always been to make the charge with the support of mounted archers immediately behind the cavalry, preferably against a corner of the enemy foot formation or into a gap between units, across terrain which favours the cavalry. A head-on charge against an infantry formation which has not had time to prepare defenses and/or form good defensive lines will almost always succeed (as in the fictional charge at Helms Deep), especially if the infantry are in open terrain. Charges against a well-prepared defensive position, or one where the terrain limits the line of charge, or a combination of these, will almost always fail.

And the best use of heavy cavalry? In modern military terms, the best use is as a mobile strike force either against enemy camps and supply lines or against enemy forces on the move (or in the process of forming up). The other classic tactic is to fix the enemy with ones own infantry and supporting archers, and then to flank the enemy with the cavalry (from both flanks if possible).

Agreed. Yet all too often, and especially in visual media, cavalry gets treated as either that unstoppable juggernaut, or else something that can be stopped simply by a bunch of peasants holding together and not running away. From what I have found out, terrain was probably the biggest determinant in whether cavalry or infantry won; most often, side that won was one that had terrain in their favour. Weather also played a big role.

While heavy cavalry could and would be used for other purposes, its main task was pretty much fighting in pitched battles. Eric McGeer in Sowing the Dragon's Teeth mentions that heavy cavalry (cataphracts, specifically) was used primarily against massed infantry, which would indicate heavy infantry in formation. To increase chances of success, charge would be made against a gap in formation, a corner of the formation, or at a place where two units joined; recommendation was also to aim the cataphracts at the enemy commander and/or the banner, to cut off the head of the army in which case it tended to collapse. Michael Decker in the Byzantine Art of War likewise states that the heavy cavalry would charge at the center of the enemy infantry formation.

Raiding was generally done by light cavalry, simply because it is easier to support in the field; though some heavy cavalry was also occasionally included into the force to provide the necessary punch in case of a pitched battle. But if you look at raiding parties in the Ottoman Wars at least, majority were light-cavalry-only.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Okay, I can see you've got a good grasp of the popular history of Medieval - at least Medieval European - warfare. That's hard work and I think it definitely needs to be celebrated.

It also looks like you're ready to graduate to the next level. Writer's do homework for a living, so let's get started.

I'm going to throw some more popular histories at you, but these are much more advanced and, more importantly, they have Bibliographies in the back. Those are treasures beyond price until you can get a JSTOR subscription.

https://www.amazon.com/Medieval-Warrior-Technology-Techniques-1000-1500/dp/0762774290/
Good starter text on Medieval weapons and tech. Like most that I'm going to did up, they refer to Western Europe, mostly. My subject area was the rise of English nationalism in the 13th century through literature within historical context, so YMMV.

Amazon.com: Warfare in the Medieval World eBook : Carey, Brian Todd, Allfree, Joshua B., Cairns, John, Joshua B. Allfee, John Cairns: Books
Used this one for our most recent book. Good stuff.

Special Operations in the Age of Chivalry, 1100-1550 (Warfare in History, 24): Harari, Yuval Noah: 9781843834526: Amazon.com: Books
Perennial favorite. Excellent research, excellently presented.

100 Battles That Shaped the World: Parragon Books: 9781445466804: Amazon.com: Books
And aren't you a lucky bastard today? When I bought this, it was out of print and I snagged the last remaining copy (that I know about). Excellent books goes into 100 well-known battles and show not only formation but also discusses why things did and didn't work.

Okay, that's enough for now. TV shows are delightfully entertaining and occasionally informative, but for you own professional advancement and reputation, never rely on them for accuracy. On a rare occasion one might lead you to an epiphany. Most of the time they just point out the glaring holes in your understanding of what you're writing about and copies of your newest offering will hit the carpet like rain.

There is, in existence, something called "The Rule of Cool," which posits that if you make something just flat awesome the reader won't care. This is true. It's also risky and not beginners' class. You'll come aross it again when you're ready.

Good luck, god speed, and always do your homework.

 

[Aldarion]

Okay, that's enough for now. TV shows are delightfully entertaining and occasionally informative, but for you own professional advancement and reputation, never rely on them for accuracy. On a rare occasion one might lead you to an epiphany. Most of the time they just point out the glaring holes in your understanding of what you're writing about and copies of your newest offering will hit the carpet like rain.

I don't watch TV shows except for entertainment, so what are you talking about?

Still, thanks for the links.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I don't watch TV shows except for entertainment, so what are you talking about?

Still, thanks for the links.

Probably got confused by all of the TV references in your piece. Can't imagine why. My apologies.

So, references to Saruman and questionable source materials aside, what are you hoping to accomplish, here? This is the thread for webpages, mostly. Are you working up to asking a question about your blog? Or have you somehow meandered down here from Research?

In other words, how can we help you?

 

[Aldarion]

Probably got confused by all of the TV references in your piece. Can't imagine why. My apologies.

Uh, literally the only TV reference is in the introduction, which explains why I wrote the article in the first place... so basically you are discussing the article without having read it at all?

So, references to Saruman and questionable source materials aside, what are you hoping to accomplish, here? This is the thread for webpages, mostly. Are you working up to asking a question about your blog? Or have you somehow meandered down here from Research?

In other words, how can we help you?

Start by figuring out whether I should post things like that in Writers on the Web or Research? I used to post such such stuff in Research before, and then I think somebody (memory of a sieve, sorry) recommended I should post it here.

Also:
How to Use Writers on the Web

This is a new sub-forum created for the purpose of sharing links to your blog posts, workshopping your blog, sharing ideas, and anything related to blogging.

Here are the ground rules:

1. Please don't post your whole blog post or quote extensively. If you do so, your post will be deleted. This is to protect Mythic Scribes from being pinged by Google for duplicate content. Sharing your links is perfectly fine.

2. Be constructive. The idea is to help us all brainstorm ideas about how to improve our blogs.

3. Only post a link if your blog is family friendly and safe for work. If your blog contains adult content, your link will be deleted.

So that's all for the ground rules. Since this is a new sub-forum, these guidelines may be adjusted in the future.

Feel free to create new threads to share your links or ask for help!

 

[Mad Swede]

That is actually a rather frequent argument in online discussions, and even among some of the actual historians I have either read or had discussions with. Basically, the argument is that horses, for psychological reasons, refuse to run into a solid mass of people, and thus the heavy cavalry charge is solely a battle of nerves: will the infantry break ranks before cavalry comes into contact, or will they stand firm and turn away horses which will refuse to charge home.

It's an incorrect argument. In fact, well trained horses riding in a tight group will go straight at an infantry formation. However, such horses are expensive and it takes time to train them.

Over at ASoIaF forum, I have come across an argument that the Unsullied (basically Greek hoplites, for reference) would win against Westerosi heavy cavalry (which is essentially 15th century men-at-arms) simply because they are disciplined enough not to break as soon as the heavy cavalry charges at them.

And even serious historians do make that argument:

Alexander's Cavalry Charge at Chaeronea, 338 BCE

The Battle of Chaeronea, fought in 338 BCE between Philip of Macedon and the Greek city-states, is known only from meager literary evidence and a few archaeological finds. For decades, scholars had reconstructed the battle to include a cavalry charge

www.academia.edu

So it does appear to be reasonably widespread.

Oh dear. Talk about not understanding what Keegan wrote. Keegan was specifically commenting on the Battle of Waterloo (1815), by which time developments in firearms technology meant that well trained, well equipped and disciplined foot soldiers supported by artillery could break up a cavalry charge from a distance. In those circumstances a cavalry charge became fairly suicidal. But an analysis of such a late battle says very little about battles or the use of cavalry 2000 years earlier.

Even before then the use of cavalry for a frontal attack against infantry was regarded as just a little ineffective, and in fact Gustav II Adolf (Gustavus Adolphus to the non-Swedes out there) banned such tactics in the Swedish army in about 1620. He preferred what we now call the combined arms approach, where infantry and artillery were used to fix the enemy allowing cavalry attacks against the flanks and against the artillery at the rear.

While heavy cavalry could and would be used for other purposes, its main task was pretty much fighting in pitched battles. Eric McGeer in Sowing the Dragon's Teeth mentions that heavy cavalry (cataphracts, specifically) was used primarily against massed infantry, which would indicate heavy infantry in formation. To increase chances of success, charge would be made against a gap in formation, a corner of the formation, or at a place where two units joined; recommendation was also to aim the cataphracts at the enemy commander and/or the banner, to cut off the head of the army in which case it tended to collapse. Michael Decker in the Byzantine Art of War likewise states that the heavy cavalry would charge at the center of the enemy infantry formation.

Not quite. What is often forgotten is that the Byzantine cavalry were usually supported by mounted archers riding close behind them showering the defenders with arrows. This tactic (which the Romans copied from the Persians in about 50BC) forced the defenders to make a choice, protect themselves against the arrows or against the charging cavalry. Even then it didn't always work, experience showed that well armoured infantry could hold out against the charge, at least initially. Procopius' writings on the campaigns of Belisarius, De Bellis, are quite illuminating.

Raiding was generally done by light cavalry, simply because it is easier to support in the field; though some heavy cavalry was also occasionally included into the force to provide the necessary punch in case of a pitched battle. But if you look at raiding parties in the Ottoman Wars at least, majority were light-cavalry-only.

Raiding was done using whatever cavalry was available and suitable. Using light cavalry could be a major mistake, especially if the defenders had time to prepare. This is shown by the fate of many of the later Mongol attacks in Eastern Europe, where their light cavalry was heavily defeated by European heavy cavalry. Gustav II Adolf used heavy cavalry for raiding and strikes when he could, and if he had none available he would use the Finnish-Swedish Hakkapeliitta light(ish) cavalry.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Now that entire response was a fantastic birthday present, Swede. Very hot braining.

Also wondering what Malik thoughts look like about this, if he's got the time.

Also also, Aldarion, I'm a huge proponent for learning by doing when it comes to writing. Have you had much time to pursue horseback riding?

 

[Aldarion]

Oh dear. Talk about not understanding what Keegan wrote. Keegan was specifically commenting on the Battle of Waterloo (1815), by which time developments in firearms technology meant that well trained, well equipped and disciplined foot soldiers supported by artillery could break up a cavalry charge from a distance. In those circumstances a cavalry charge became fairly suicidal. But an analysis of such a late battle says very little about battles or the use of cavalry 2000 years earlier.

Agreed, but it would appear that his argument is farily misunderstood.

Even before then the use of cavalry for a frontal attack against infantry was regarded as just a little ineffective, and in fact Gustav II Adolf (Gustavus Adolphus to the non-Swedes out there) banned such tactics in the Swedish army in about 1620. He preferred what we now call the combined arms approach, where infantry and artillery were used to fix the enemy allowing cavalry attacks against the flanks and against the artillery at the rear.

That is still era of gunpowder. Which is actually a point I made in my article:

In 17th century, further development of the firearms – specifically the musket – would further erode importance of cavalry. Even so, cavalry still remained a dangerous force when properly employed – and sometimes, even when improperly employed.

It was in fact only the gunpowder weapons that spelled the end of the traditional shock cavalry on the battlefield, and even that not immediately. While pikes and bayonets were not capable of reliably repelling cavalry charges, massed musketry caused far greater casualties among the horses and did so at sufficient distance for causalties to disorder the cavalry enough to cause the charge to fail. In some cases impact of fire was such that cavalry could not even be properly assembled for the attack. Neither the traditional ranged weapons (longbows and crossbows) nor the early firearms were capable of causing such damage, especially against the cavalry armored in plate. Both Tercios of Spanish Empire and infantry squares of Napoleonic era heavily depended on firepower to defeat any cavalry attacks, and solution to threat of cavalry was to increase the firepower of infantry formations rather than increasing the number of pikemen.

And of course the frontal cavalry charge against a formed infantry was never optimal. But battle does not often leave room for optimal solutions. Charging Swiss pike square was never an optimal solution, yet there were several battles where heavy cavalry did exactly that - repeatedly, and with decent success (Swiss didn't break, but they were forced to retreat with heavy casualties on both sides).

Not quite. What is often forgotten is that the Byzantine cavalry were usually supported by mounted archers riding close behind them showering the defenders with arrows. This tactic (which the Romans copied from the Persians in about 50BC) forced the defenders to make a choice, protect themselves against the arrows or against the charging cavalry. Even then it didn't always work, experience showed that well armoured infantry could hold out against the charge, at least initially. Procopius' writings on the campaigns of Belisarius, De Bellis, are quite illuminating.

That is true, and in fact combining heavy cavalry with missile cavalry (mounted archers / crossbowmen) was a widespread solution (see medieval cavalry "lance" which was a man-at-arms supported by 2-3 crossbowmen).

Raiding was done using whatever cavalry was available and suitable. Using light cavalry could be a major mistake, especially if the defenders had time to prepare. This is shown by the fate of many of the later Mongol attacks in Eastern Europe, where their light cavalry was heavily defeated by European heavy cavalry. Gustav II Adolf used heavy cavalry for raiding and strikes when he could, and if he had none available he would use the Finnish-Swedish Hakkapeliitta light(ish) cavalry.

Mongols actually had significant heavy cavalry (some 40% of their force, IIRC), and it was indeed part of the raids. So while heavy cavalry was important in Eastern European successes in e.g. 1285 invasion, I don't think lack of Mongol heavy cavalry was the reason they failed. Rather, Mongol heavy cavalry played a significant role in their initial successes and compensated for their other disadvantages; but when their enemies introduced heavy cavalry and also constrained Mongol operations by constructing castles, Mongol freedom of operation was heavily constrained, leading to defeat.

Reason why raiders were often light cavalry was, as I said, logistics - light cavalry is not only easier to support in the field but also easier to recruit and faster to mobilize. While heavy cavalry could and would be used in raids, these were usually relatively significant expeditions which took preparation - and this preparation could be detected in advance, making it easier for the enemy to prepare a countermeasure. Light cavalry by contrast could be mobilized quickly and arrive quickly - raid by some 1 000 light cavalry from Bosnia could be organized in a matter of days.

For this reason e.g. Ottoman Akincis and Delis (light cavalry) were far more numerous than Sipahis (heavy cavalry), especially at the borderlands. By the battle of Mohacs in 1526., Ottoman governor of Bosnia had some 10 000 Delis in his service, while number of Sipahis was far fewer.

Hungary followed suit: by the time of Mohacs, majority of Hungarian army was light cavalry. Army that left Budim consisted of 1 200 men-at-arms and 2 500 light cavalry. Even earlier, armies were light-cavalry heavy. Army that Janos Tarcai led to Jajce in 1502 had 2 000 light cavalry but only 50 men-at-arms; remaining 2 000 troops were presumably infantry. In fact, by the early 16th century the military contignents held by the nobility of the southern counties - those under greatest Ottoman threat - appear to have been exclusively light cavalry.

Even earlier, King Matthias heavily used light cavalry as raiders, not just in wars against the Ottomans but also against the Holy Roman Empire and Poland. Hungarian raids against the Ottoman Empire in 1480 also appear to have been only light cavalry at first. OTOH, Pal Kiniszi's raid likely included some heavy cavalry, as he deliberately accepted battle against Ottoman forces in Serbia - though it is also possible both armies were exclusively light cavalry.

Role of heavy cavalry in the raids in which they were present however appears to have been simply as a tactical reserve: they did not carry out any plundering themselves, but remained on a standby, ready to intervene should light cavalry run across Ottoman forces that they could not handle themselves. And as I said, heavy cavalry was not present in all raids.

When it comes to Gustav Adolphus, his raiding will have been of significantly different nature compared to Ottoman and Hungaro-Croatian cross-border raids. Most importantly, his raids were done at times when he already had an army in the field, so organizing a raid was merely a matter of detaching a certain cavalry force from an already mobilized army.

Also also, Aldarion, I'm a huge proponent for learning by doing when it comes to writing. Have you had much time to pursue horseback riding?

Not really - only a little bit as a kid - but even if I had, that would be fairly useless for these purposes anyway. Horses used for modern pleasure horseback riding are different in build and more importantly training and temperament compared to medieval war horses. War horses were trained to tolerate noise of the battlefield (see here) - and this training was extremely important. When e.g. nomads came up against musket-armed infantry (it happened in Eastern Europe), their horses proved useless because noise from the muskets firing spooked them so hard they became uncontrollable. By contrast, stopping a European heavy cavalry charge of the time required actually killing horses: merely shooting muskets will not have worked, because horses had been accustomed to the noise.

Trying to extrapolate anything about medieval cavalry from riding today's horses is like trying to learn about tanks by driving around Lamborghini Revuelto. I am aware of only few trained war horses still existing in the world (I think Jason Kingsley trains horses for reenactment?). And even then, those are still not medieval or even ancient war horses; these bloodlines had been largely lost.

Closest you will get are probably police horses, but even then, police are (generally) not trying to kill the protesters, so even these are of limited use as a source of information on medieval cavalry warfare.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I'm sorry about your horse situation, hon. You could say I know a little bit about horses, but just a bit. My younger writing partner owns two as well as raises goats and sheep, plus her mother was a barrel runner. And when we were much younger my wife and I worked as squires for the jousting company in one of the largest Renaissance festivals in America. She one went digging in the hay to find some unlucky guy's pinky finger when his gauntlet failed and off it went! I mostly made barding for clients who would really prefer to be naked. One actually repeatedly slammed me into a small pine tree while I hand sewed canvas and duck and then as I nipped the last stitch, he tried to take a huge poop on me.

Yeah.

No, these weren't big, tough police horses. They had jobs to do. We had a couple of Clydesdales who loved running back and forth for some reason, and if I remember correctly (I was all of sixteen) we had two Frisians. Now those are horses you never forget - actual warhorses. Magnificent partners in battle, and thankfully for the knight on their back a bit stupid.

A smart warhorse isn't a good warhorse, at least according to Malik .

So, basically, a medieval battle looked a whole lot like Dumb and Dumber with mud and blood and entrails crushed beneath your wet feet. It smells. Blood smells like someone jammed filthy pennies down your throat and the screaming - knights, soldiers, horses - won't stop. The mud is desperation deep and clings to everything because that's what blood does.

So, I've given you some excellent sources. Now it's your job. People with zero experience have been writing about war for thousands of years. Some of us have simply been trained to know when they author is full of BS or not. That was my TED Talk. Snacks are at the back. If you still have questions, I'm happy to answer, but choose wisely.

 

[Mad Swede]

Mongols actually had significant heavy cavalry (some 40% of their force, IIRC), and it was indeed part of the raids. So while heavy cavalry was important in Eastern European successes in e.g. 1285 invasion, I don't think lack of Mongol heavy cavalry was the reason they failed. Rather, Mongol heavy cavalry played a significant role in their initial successes and compensated for their other disadvantages; but when their enemies introduced heavy cavalry and also constrained Mongol operations by constructing castles, Mongol freedom of operation was heavily constrained, leading to defeat.

The Mongol invaders succeeded intially because they (re)introduced cavalry tactics to a part of Europe where such tactics were not known. Add to this the Mongol commander Subutai's understanding of what we now call strategy and they were always likely to succeed against less well organised and trained armies.

Castles and fortified towns already existed when the Mongols invaded - and here it should be noted that the Mongols had siege weapons of their own so they were able to take some towns and castles. What the Hungarians in particular quickly learnt was that fortified positions like castles tie down the invading armies. That is because as an invading commander you can't afford to leave such positions manned by the defenders, because if you do they will sortie and attack your rear. For that reason you as the invading commander have to invest and isolate the position, and that reduces the forces available to you for other tasks. By building more castles and fortifiying more towns the Hungarians tied down so many Mongol forces that they reduced the numerical advantage the Mongols had in the field so making Hungarian cavalry attacks much more effective.

Reason why raiders were often light cavalry was, as I said, logistics - light cavalry is not only easier to support in the field but also easier to recruit and faster to mobilize. While heavy cavalry could and would be used in raids, these were usually relatively significant expeditions which took preparation - and this preparation could be detected in advance, making it easier for the enemy to prepare a countermeasure. Light cavalry by contrast could be mobilized quickly and arrive quickly - raid by some 1 000 light cavalry from Bosnia could be organized in a matter of days.

Sorry, but there is no difference in the major logistical requirements of light cavalry and heavy cavalry. The one key thing required is feed for the horses, and this is by far the biggest constraint on cavalry or any other horse drawn operations. That was true even as late as the First World War and was in fact one of the reasons the Schlieffen Plan failed - the German Army outran their logistics supply and artrillery support because they couldn't feed the horses needed to draw the artillery and supply wagons.

For this reason e.g. Ottoman Akincis and Delis (light cavalry) were far more numerous than Sipahis (heavy cavalry), especially at the borderlands. By the battle of Mohacs in 1526., Ottoman governor of Bosnia had some 10 000 Delis in his service, while number of Sipahis was far fewer.

Hungary followed suit: by the time of Mohacs, majority of Hungarian army was light cavalry. Army that left Budim consisted of 1 200 men-at-arms and 2 500 light cavalry. Even earlier, armies were light-cavalry heavy. Army that Janos Tarcai led to Jajce in 1502 had 2 000 light cavalry but only 50 men-at-arms; remaining 2 000 troops were presumably infantry. In fact, by the early 16th century the military contignents held by the nobility of the southern counties - those under greatest Ottoman threat - appear to have been exclusively light cavalry.

I think I wrote earlier that cavalry forces can be compared to modern armoured vehciles in terms of the trade-offs you make when training and equipping them. Heavy cavalry require bigger horses because the riders are more heavily armed and better armoured. That increases the costs of both horse and rider. In a situation where you as a ruler (or commander) need a lot of cavalry but have a limited budget (which was certainly true in medieval times, when modern deficit financing did not exist) then there is a tendency to have more light cavalry.

Not really - only a little bit as a kid - but even if I had, that would be fairly useless for these purposes anyway. Horses used for modern pleasure horseback riding are different in build and more importantly training and temperament compared to medieval war horses. War horses were trained to tolerate noise of the battlefield (see here) - and this training was extremely important. When e.g. nomads came up against musket-armed infantry (it happened in Eastern Europe), their horses proved useless because noise from the muskets firing spooked them so hard they became uncontrollable. By contrast, stopping a European heavy cavalry charge of the time required actually killing horses: merely shooting muskets will not have worked, because horses had been accustomed to the noise

I do ride, and I ride big horses (18 hands or more). Horses used for "pleasure" riding are sometimes very like those used for cavalry operations, especially if you're using them for jumping or horse trials. The key qualities required are steadiness and complete trust in the rider. That means you the rider need to have one or more horses which are "yours" - or, put another way, the horse needs its own human. Once that trust is established the horse will go with you almost anywhere.

 

[Mad Swede]

So, basically, a medieval battle looked a whole lot like Dumb and Dumber with mud and blood and entrails crushed beneath your wet feet. It smells. Blood smells like someone jammed filthy pennies down your throat and the screaming - knights, soldiers, horses - won't stop. The mud is desperation deep and clings to everything because that's what blood does.

Yes, there is a reason we use the expression "blood bath". It is entirely accurate, even today. Having broken up and then seen the results of a pitched fight between machete wielding groups in Africa you, Aldarion, can take it from me that it isn't a pleasant sight or smell - and the injuries on many of the survivors are horrific, far worse than those caused by bullets.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Friesians are gorgeous and awesome animals. Sadly, the only one I ever rode wasn't mine... because it would have cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 5-7 times the price of my car when it was brand new, LMAO. Dressage horse, stunning and beautiful stallion.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

That would be interesting in a bad way. My uncle always talked about an incident in WW2 where they came upon a German train that had been hauling Russian prisoners. It was towards the end of the war, and the Nazis clubbed the whole train load to death to save on bullets. That kind of stuck with him. My dad was in the Pacific and always talked about when he arrived at the beach to find Filipinos beheading Japanese. Still got photos of both of those moments stashed down in the shed.

In many ways, I'm happy to rely on second-hand info.

Yes, there is a reason we use the expression "blood bath". It is entirely accurate, even today. Having broken up and then seen the results of a pitched fight between machete wielding groups in Africa you, Aldarion, can take it from me that it isn't a pleasant sight or smell - and the injuries on many of the survivors are horrific, far worse than those caused by bullets.

 

[Aldarion]

So, I've given you some excellent sources. Now it's your job. People with zero experience have been writing about war for thousands of years. Some of us have simply been trained to know when they author is full of BS or not. That was my TED Talk. Snacks are at the back. If you still have questions, I'm happy to answer, but choose wisely.

I have given you texts which were written literally by people who fought the wars we are talking about.

Emperor Maurice was a successful general before he became an Emperor.
Nikephoros Phokas was a general and later a campaigning Emperor. He fought in the wars he was writing about, and saw Byzantine cataphracts in action, as well as those of their enemies.
Nikephoros Ouranos led Byzantine armies in multiple successful campaigns, and fought both with and against heavy cavalry of the time.

Appeal to authority only matters if authority in question actually is an authority on the topic. And in this case, authority would be people who had actually seen and used heavy cavalry in actual wars, not people playing generals centuries or millenia after the wars in question.

Also, we actually appear to be in agreement on this particular topic? So what are we arguing about?

The Mongol invaders succeeded intially because they (re)introduced cavalry tactics to a part of Europe where such tactics were not known. Add to this the Mongol commander Subutai's understanding of what we now call strategy and they were always likely to succeed against less well organised and trained armies.

I agree about the strategy - but to say that cavalry tactics were not known at the time is false. What it was deficient in compared to the Mongols was heavy cavalry and artillery, and more crucially organization and command and control.

Basically, Mongols will have achieved similar successes even if they didn't have a single mounted archer in their ranks.

Castles and fortified towns already existed when the Mongols invaded - and here it should be noted that the Mongols had siege weapons of their own so they were able to take some towns and castles. What the Hungarians in particular quickly learnt was that fortified positions like castles tie down the invading armies. That is because as an invading commander you can't afford to leave such positions manned by the defenders, because if you do they will sortie and attack your rear. For that reason you as the invading commander have to invest and isolate the position, and that reduces the forces available to you for other tasks. By building more castles and fortifiying more towns the Hungarians tied down so many Mongol forces that they reduced the numerical advantage the Mongols had in the field so making Hungarian cavalry attacks much more effective.

When Mongols invaded Hungary in 1241, kingdom had a total of TEN (10) stone castles. Ten stone castles in a fairly large kingdom. There were other stone fortifications and cities with stone walls, but these were nearly exclusively in Croatia, particularly in southern Croatia.

Mongols did have their own siege weapons and techniques, but their techniques were only fit for taking wooden fortifications which could be burnt down (luckily for them, that meant majority of fortifications in Hungary at the time). In China, Mongols had large corps of Chinese siege engineers - but these were not available in Europe.

Nevertheless, what you write here still applied: despite being weak and vulnerable to fire, even these wooden (mostly motte-and-bailey style) commital castles still presented an expenditure of time and resources that Mongols could ill afford.

After Mongols left in 1241., Hungary - for obvious reasons - embarked on a massive reorganization programme. This included introduction of feudal heavy cavalry, introduction of large numbers of crossbowmen, as well as construction of a large network of new castles in stone. So when Mongols returned in 1285, they were seen off without too much trouble (at least compared to 1241 invasion).

Sorry, but there is no difference in the major logistical requirements of light cavalry and heavy cavalry. The one key thing required is feed for the horses, and this is by far the biggest constraint on cavalry or any other horse drawn operations. That was true even as late as the First World War and was in fact one of the reasons the Schlieffen Plan failed - the German Army outran their logistics supply and artrillery support because they couldn't feed the horses needed to draw the artillery and supply wagons.

False, and for one simple reason: heavy cavalry requires more horses per man. A knight or a man-at-arms would have a horse he rode into battle, a horse he rode normally, a horse or a mule (or several) for luggage and food, as well as several servants (not all of whom actually fought) to help him prepare for battle and tend to his other needs. In fact, in several Byzantine treatises it is specifically said that not too many servants should be brought on the campaign; heavy cavalrymen clearly tended to overindulge in such luxuries, thus bringing a "useless crowd of noncombatants" as well as "unnecessary baggage, luxury items, expensive equipment which serves no purpose" with the outcome that "a journey of one day will not be completed even in four" (quotes taken literally from "On Campaign Organization"). Meaning that my estimate above is really the best-case scenario - if Byzantines couldn't prevent their professional heavy cavalry from bringing along a crowd of servants, what success would feudal authorities have vis-a-vis armed nobility? For reference, Polish Winged Hussars tended to bring 3 - 6 warhorses, in addition to a dozen pack mules or draught animals.

A light cavalryman would only have his own horse, perhaps another horse for riding and/or backup (Mongols with their herds of horses per rider were an exception), and a mule or two for (far smaller) baggage (though this depended on the distance they were going). He also wouldn't have servants; though as I noted, at least some of heavy cavalryman's servants actually fought in battle and were thus not dead weight.

Lastly, not all horses are equal. Heavy chargers could easily weight 700 kg or more, though more typical weight was I think some 550 to 650 kg. By comparison, light cavalry horses would weight some 360 to 450 kg. So even there there would be some difference in food requirements, though they would obviously be minor compared to everything else I noted above.

I think I wrote earlier that cavalry forces can be compared to modern armoured vehciles in terms of the trade-offs you make when training and equipping them. Heavy cavalry require bigger horses because the riders are more heavily armed and better armoured. That increases the costs of both horse and rider. In a situation where you as a ruler (or commander) need a lot of cavalry but have a limited budget (which was certainly true in medieval times, when modern deficit financing did not exist) then there is a tendency to have more light cavalry.

Precisely, but that is hardly the only difference. See what I wrote about the logistics just above.

I do ride, and I ride big horses (18 hands or more). Horses used for "pleasure" riding are sometimes very like those used for cavalry operations, especially if you're using them for jumping or horse trials. The key qualities required are steadiness and complete trust in the rider. That means you the rider need to have one or more horses which are "yours" - or, put another way, the horse needs its own human. Once that trust is established the horse will go with you almost anywhere.

Agreed.