Cavalry
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 07. 2013
- Now with subtitles in Polish! (Thanks to Tomek Różalski).
Horses were expensive. They had to have advantages to justify their use in battle. Often, though, knights chose to fight dismounted.
www.LloydianAspects.co.uk
Apparently king theoden of rohan gives the middle finger to physics when his rohirrim doesnt lose any speed or momentum when charging through thousands of orcs in lotr return of the king. But that scene is too badass for me to complain.
+Shady Oaks Agreed
to be fair the orcs were in loose formation and blinded... still makes no sense.
+Shady Oaks They were in loose formation,Orcs are alot lighter then men,A Lot weaker,And they where blinding by the sun.
+Shady Oaks The orcs broke before they were hit. Exactly what cavalry want.
+Alex Wood When you ride with your cavalry, always make sure you time your charge for a sudden, mid-charge sunrise. And bring a wizard who knows how to make bright lights.
this is why I ride bears into battle.
me likey ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
oh yeah and they give an extra damage
Putin ?
Oh man this crazy Russians 😂
I'm just picturing 1998's Mulan where the dragon rides a panda up a tree.
So people think cavalry act like how AI act on horseback in mount and blade.
+JAZZ Cat even with floris. tsk tsk tsk
Kiwa Nozukai
That is why that stupid pike fix is for.
Yeah, it's pretty impossible to get decently-behaving cavalry there. Except archers. Dear god, the archers.
@@amethyststohner7110 It ain't so hard.
No they don't, they move around loads.
Mount and Blade is another good series for horse combat. Cavalry is extremely powerful because of lances and sabers, but you absolutely cannot get bogged down slugging it out with foot soldiers, or you will be mobbed and your horse probably killed (right before you are.) So you have to keep moving. Cavalry combat (horse vs horse) is a matter of chasing, wheeling about, charging and retreating. Or perhaps shooting a projectile from the saddle if you have one.
Rhodok Spearmen. Enough said.
koffieslikkersenior Sarranid Mamlukes.
MkeyzITA I dare say both units are matched. If the mamlukes manage to keep up hit and run tactics, the spearmen are done for. Especially when they are also engaged by infantry. But if the mamlukes attack head on, they're done for. Those pikes insta kill galopping horses.
***** You can kill the most heavily armoured horses with a pike if they charge you. The game is designed that way. If you don't order your cavalry around and make sure it uses hit and run tactics, even the swadians are done for against spear infantry.
***** Damn, are you sure damage to friendly troops is set to 1? Rhodok veteran spearman destroy every cavalry type I've encountered. You just need to make sure they're standing in 2 rows. They're quite rubbish in infantry melee though :)
Playing "mount and blade" drums home not stopping... Charging through infantry usually gets your horses legs hacked off tho.
Depends if you have a Great lance or not;)
Same as in Total War.
Mount&Blade horses are incredible. They can run as fast as ever with just 1 hp left, even when they're riddled with spears and arrows, can climb almost vertical surfaces, and are not afraid of anything.
I've played mount and blade only for a little while, but when I as a Player had a horse, and enemy was all infantry, I was invincible. Just because I didn't stop moving. I stopped to play the game, when I run into much larger enemy forces that wiped out all my guys in a moment, but I was charging at the enemy without taking any damage. And every time I thought I'm finally winning, enemy threw reinforcements. I realized that battle can take forever, so I just quit :P
Agreed, charging through anything more than 3 ranks thick is an instant dismount.
The total war games get this... partly right. the cavalry rarely ever just sweep an opponent away, so you usually stick around just long enough for it to break. If, however, the opponent doesn't break, then things get ugly for the cavalry very quickly and they start dying very fast. So you usually hit them, pull out, then hit them again.
+tesnacloud The "hit, retreat, hit, retreat, etc" tactic is actually recommended in the hints/tips that appear during the loading screens.
+Death Maze Challenge
Rome 2 cavalry works realistically. Charge bonus and weight calculation will allow your horses on a charge to smash apart most light infantry formation. There are definitely differences between charging into a line of skirmishes compared to a unit of heavy infantry. There is a weight system in TW which is why a horse can't charge through 6 ranks of armored swordsmen in formation while an elephant can still plow through them.
+tesnacloud Yeah i like that a lot. Thats why cavalry has like ~4 attack but charge bonus of ~24. I started playing RTW 1 again. My favorite.
+tesnacloud The cavalry in TW is very bad to my taste. It should do two things: ether they get through or they stuck. but not stuck for a while. If cavalry charges unfit unit (unfit to defend against cavalry) they would usually break, run and get slaughtered and they do not break slowly. Untrained units will run before the cavalry hits, more trained units may stand until impact, highly trained and prepared units with right weapons may stop the cavalry. Standing against one horse is not easy, just being hit by horse in faster pace can kill, standing against whole cavalry is very dangerous. If you dont have a long weapon or solid formation than better run away from the horse... I use the pull out technique also, but it is not as fast as it would be in reality, it is extremely slow and no option to just swipe through, it could be just and extra ability but it should be option.
+Jakub Tyl agreed, there should be a steadiness vs cavalry rating for each unit, and factors to change the rating that the game makes known.
TL:DR - Cavalry don't stop
+ammo1317 me now or believing?
*****
im not sure what you are asking
Don't stop me now or Don't stop believing? :-D
*****
ah, ok. They don't stop, period. No matter what you may ask, they continue on. :P
+ammo1317 unless you are mongol
♫ don't stop, wheelin',
lest you need healin',
streetfights, polearms...♫
the game series mount and blade and Total War both simulate this quite well, cavalry have no better weapons and armour than regular infantry, and when stopped are at a severe disadvantage to spearmen, but when charging have an incredible ability to waste tens of enemy men per charge, the only issue with M&B is there is no stamina, your horsemen can charge 1200 times and their horse will not slow down, whereas in TW they behave semi-realistically, except horses dont fall over and die of exhaustion, they just slow down.
They don't fall over and die in TW either, they rout if they get too tired
+theguy9208 I am horseman... So far the best mounted combat game I found is Mount and Blade. Though there the cavalry is overpowered due to first lack of stamina s you say and than lack of solid formations. Soldiers in poor formations cannot stand against cavalry. In history it was common that cavalry would change horses as they dont really have that great stamina, you would mostly trot or canter and gallop only the last few meters before target. I hate TW for the cavalry being always stuck, that is just so much not cavalry-ish...
The cavalry might have been overpowered, since your army was limited in the number of units you could command, so it was usually better to have cavalry... but it was still quite possible to defeat larger numbers of cavalry with Rhodok elite infantry by using terrain advantage.
Just position your infantry on a steep hill, have some crossbowmen shoot at the enemy cavalry, and have some heavy spearmen defend against any missiles or any cavalrymen who try to approach uphill.
Was quite possible to defeat light cavalry even when they had 2:1 advantage, or half as many heavier cavalrymen.
I considered calling that strategy "king of the hill" but Rhodoks don't like kings, so...
If you ever played M&B warband and used a Swadian Knight you'd realized it isn't very realistic.
+Chris White try the Napoleonic wars DLC, that's realistic
I think you go too far with 'utterly useless'. Away from the battlefield they had many roles to play in scouting, escorting, foraging, etc. On the field they carried messages, pursued routs, broke thin lines of infantry, and often forced infantry into adopting square formations which both immobilised them and made them very vulnerable to artillery.
Are you talking to yourself?
@@footrot17 It was probably a response to an old comment. CZcams seems to have messed old comments up.
@@alexp5569 knowing Lloyd i think the former is more likely
Your Polish subtitles are labelled as "English (United Kingdom)".
that's because he talks about cavalry. Algorithm assumed language based on this topic ;)
Things I learned playing mount and blade.
They definitly have to reconsider the cavalry mechanics in the Total War series. It's really the only strategy game where realistic battle mechanics matter as much as accurate historical content to historians.
***** I don't know much about R2TW either, but my problem is in the older games like Empire, Napolein etc you got that unrealistic stance of cavalry after bumping into an infantry formation. As Lindy correctly mentioned, when the cavarly comes to halt it's very vulnerable and in the games the single cavalryman is like surrounded by some two dozen enemies and they sometimes can still win the engagement. But ok, that's the trademark 1v1 combat mechanic of Total War. Guess they'd have to change or upgrade that in first place. Also maybe include killing horses and rider seperately. Like cavalrymen gets his horse shot but can continue on foot etc.
LKVideos The problem with the Total War games since Empire is the engine. To kill a soldier another soldier must make a cinematic kill move. That's why the units seem to lock unto eachother and create the unrealistic melee. In the older games, the individual soldiers had collision checking and could be engaged by multiple enemies at the same time. It died when it's health was low and that didn't depend entirely on stats but more upon the situation.
***** I agree that it is pretty, but it is ineffective. I hate number based games. I want to have some degree of control. How else can you win a battle when you're hopelessly outnumbered. Rome TW still is the best game of the series, because the battles were fun. I almost never autoresolve in that game.
When watching the dev video for Total War Warhammer, they mentioned they gonna work on cavalry impacts not only against infantry but also against cavalry itself so let's hope they get it done correctly this time around.
***** interesting. Which mod are you using ?
Cavalry, don't stop believing.
Hold on to that speeding!
Lances, charging hooooome!~
It's always a delight to see your sweater in my subscription box.
Anyone who's played sodding Total War already knows how you're supposed to use cavalry. The very instant your cavalry stops moving, they just become big flippin targets, and that's not what you want. You want your heavy cavalry to go charging in full speed and absolutely WRECK the enemy's front lines (only if you're not fighting spearmen and especially phalanxes of course, that would be a death wish, those you weaken with your long range attackers and then you send in well-trained infantry with swords, that always gets them) and you get your light, nimble cavalry to skirmish and trap the enemy from the sides, picking them off quickly and keeping the whole thing moving. Light cavalry is also great for supporting your infantry and flanking the enemy. Anyone who just piles up all his infantry and cavalry right in front of the enemy expecting them to just get the killing done is either going to flat out be destroyed or is going sustain losses way more heavy than they needed to be. Of course if the fight's easy pickings you might as well if you're bored of constant micro-management. Those games are great, historically AND strategically accurate and logical, a lot of fun. If only the develepors hadn't messed things up so ROYALLY with the last game, Rome 2, but alas.
hopefully they'll fix the cavalry with Atilla :P
VintageLJ Yeah hopefully...
***** Yeah but that's kind of a gamble. I mean, if you send them up against properly skilled skirmishers or bowmen straight up then you're giving them big ol' targets and the tine they need to hit them. Indeed cavalry are especially vulnerable to javelins. With missile infantry I prefer sending in my fask-moving light infantry, and if you attack with enough soldiers they won't be able to run fast enough. Though I'll first weaken them with longer range attacks than they can manage (like attack crossbowmen with longbowmen, skrimishers with archers, archers with better archers, mercenary slingers or mounted archers etc) or if I'm besieging them, I'll even use my siege weaponry. I'll use my cavalry only if it's close enough for a speedy charge or if they're slingers that are rather weak versus cavalry and too fast moving. You have to be sneeky about it. Light infantry is a lot cheaper and more disposable then your good cavalry after all, and you don't want it to charge into a deathtrap (the missiles might be guarded by spearmen or the spearmen might be near by).
***** I prefer using various blitzkrieg and flanking tactics as well as hammer and anvil strikes, depending on the situation, and having a multitude of different units. It involves a lot of micro-management but it can allow me to absolutely dominate in certain battles. I also pick my fights carefully. But yeah battles take a lot longer this way....
***** That's not a bad strategy, but I don't like letting the enemy build up troops, unless I really feel like having a massive epic field battle where my dominating victory isn't absolutely certain of course, and that happens. Most of the time I make sure to build up two or three massive level armies with everything including heavy siege weapons and the best units available to me before declaring war, at which point I proceed to start siege after siege and destroy whatever troops the enemy might have accumulated in small field battles where my far greater forces ensure a curbstomp battle in my favor. Soon enough the enemy's capital is exterminated and ransacked, making me profit and ensuring that the enemy is never able to recover, at which point I basically just win. Kinda sadistic I know but that's how the Romans conquered Europe so it works for me.
Scipio: We have the largest infantry in the empire!
Hannibal: That's cute...
I guess you could mention that most warhorses in history were trained to be aggressive (well, they were most often stallions in a very stressful situation so they're aggressive by nature). They'd bite big pieces of skin and flesh off, they'd kick really hard (I was surprised when I first saw in how many angles can a horse kick, pretty much all around it), they'd push people with their body mass and stomp over those they managed to flip over. A good war horse was a sort of a weapon in itself. Granted, it was most likely a last resort thing when you DID get caught up in a melee (which you'd avoid at all cost), but definetly helped in these situations.
My point is, horses aren't machines, and they definetly weren't passive in battles. Probably the reason why riders loved their mounts so much and often considered them brothers in arms.
I luv this guy, i'm addicted to his videos lolz!
A note about charges; most charges to properly massed infantry sort of just scrapped the formation. Loose infantry (anything less organized than a Roman Century, though it depended on the equipment of both sides) could be charged down the center, and were to deal with them more easily, but cavalry weren't made entirely useless by decent massed infantry. Exception for Cataphracts and similar, but they were so heavy that they didn't charge so much as trot. Difficult to stop, and would have much the same effect, but its hardly the same thing as if they were fast Lancer cavalry.
Basically, they'd come running across the side and either stab (if they had spears or lances) or slash (if they had swords) at the formation, taking a few out at a time. This worked best when the formation was already occupied, as it would both help the infantry holding the formation and massively hurt the moral of the enemy (because cavalry units charging your flanks repeatedly is scary as all shit).
I read that the Cataphracts were countered by literally just standing around. They were so heavy, that they would have to stand down just from the stress of standing around all day, so they couldn't be used as a 'all purpose' troop. But I do get your point about being flanked by cavalry: no-one wants to be the guy on the end, which I bet used to cripple formations.
BeepingMetal You either said that weirdly, your source said it weirdly, or your source is wrong. If you just stood around, Cataphracts would trot at you and be more or less completely invulnerable.
The Romans beat them by smearing the ground in front of their units with oil, so they would slip and fall, and be basically useless for the rest of the battle.
Unus Domus ahh the point is that the presence of enemy troops that did essentially nothing, caused them major problems. They could not spend comparatively long in the field. So, an enemy that feinted interest in attacking would case them exhaustion as they stood battle ready in the field waiting for something to happen ( as in, used false intelligence to suggest there was an army within range in the first place).
Unus Domus
Hmm, which battle did that happen in when oil was used against cataphracts? I have read of the Romans beating them by attacking them in rougg terrain, using caltrops, getting them to pursue the lighter Roman cavalry until they were completely exhausted, and using infantry specially equipped with heavy clubs, but oil?
The only game that really made me appreciate cavalry was "Mount & Blade: Warband" and that's where I learned not to stop moving. Ever. Also, one time after I was unhorsed and lucky enough to manage to kill all of my opponents I found myself thinking that famous line: "A horse... A horse! My kingdom for a horse!". If you have ever played that game, how realistic would you say it is?
+Toni Snakes Exactly that. AI often stops, though, and it's really annoying me when my elite cavalry units charge into the enemy infantry killing one soldier with a spear only to draw a sword and fight ten spearmen... Then they kill the horse, he falls to the ground and gets killed by those spears...
About realism, I'd say it's not bad. The only thing I really hate is how the fighting mechanism isn't really realistic when it comes to spears and generally speaking all the thrusting polearms. In real battles it's not easy to get close to a spearman and cut him down with a sword, but in M&B using the spear while dismounted is a guaranteed failure. You can thrust at a medium-armoured soldier when you're running full speed (and usually you don't even kill him right away) just to find yourself in a wrestling distance with a swordsman...
Normally no man would come close to you when you're holding a spear pointing at him unless he gets it off his way - otherwise he'd just run straight into a spear and with just one little move he'd be dead. In M&B you just see swordsmen casually approaching spearmen like it's no big deal. It's a shame, because the main advantage of the spear, which is the ability of keeping the enemy at bay without endangering yourself by getting close is not applicable. The spear is such a great weapon, and here it's almost useless. It only works good when you're mounted, because lance couching... damn, it's fun.
Great game anyways.
+Toni Snakes
as long as you maintain momentum, you can pretty much run through whole formations. But if they stand firm, and you stop, you're fucked.
So yeah, I'd say M&B: Warband is pretty realisitc for cavalry. Love playing the game. I always dress up my character like a Persian Aswaran on an unarmored horse (preferably a spirited courser). It';s a tough style of play, but rewarding if mastered. Here's what I use at this point (I'm high level):
-masterwork khergit bow and large bag of bodkin arrows
-a light lance
-masterwork sarranid sword.
I wear a veiled conical helmet which is often masked (a Khergit model IIRC), a heavy mail byrnie, splinted greaves and vambraces are standard.
It really shows how superior medieval cavalry equipment and tech is, as I'm often wounded...a shield could come in hand,y, but I only use it if I know I'll be dismounted.
+Albukhshi also shows how good shield walls can be.
RHODOK FTW!
+Yuuta Fujimoto My biggest gripe is the sieges, really who attacks and city with only ONE ladder or ONE siegetower?
+VinGummi2 Yes, that is awful too. Nothing more annoying that your own soldiers pushing you off the ladder during a siege. But there are many mods that change it, especially in mods introducing new city maps. Spear mechanism can't be changed, though :(
Having walked along police lines a few times in my time I can tell you a big horse with a big guy in body armour on it is scary even when it is standing still.
I just love the badge! Saw the movie again yesterday for what felt like the 1000th time :)
I don't think you can understand how much I enjoy watching your videos, how much I light up when I see a new video pop up in my subscription box. Its too much!
Remember in the earlier Total war games where a cav charge could send some poor sod 80 feet (slight exaggeration) in the air? Not sure if it's realistic but it is quite satisfying.
Also, mostly eastern heavy cavalarymen( Byzantines,Hungarian,Turks,Arabs e.t.c.) were often equiped with a bow and a few arrows just to soften infatry lines before charging them.
+Πασχάλης Ιωαννίδης Actually, horseback archery was fairly common in almost all horse-riding warrior societies, from Japanese Samurai to American native tribesmen (when they finally got horses). It was certainly practiced in European knightly circles. The reason it isn't more commonly shown is because A: horseback archery wasn't seen as legend-worthy in European society so there aren't a lot of stories of knights firing bows from horseback (which has continued to our stories of courtly conduct, both realistic and fantasy, today), and B: armor that was more impervious to arrows was developed much more quickly and was developed to great degrees in Europe, making it a far less effective strategy against another mounted knight (at which point it became far less useful in the field, and early firearms were not easily fired nor easily reloaded from horseback).
However, it was a very well practiced and well documented strategy for a vast variety of other cultures and continued to be a viable method of combating less heavily armored foot soldiers and cavalry alike when they presented themselves, and thus, though perhaps less prominent in European record, continued to be a viable method of warfare until the Renaissance in Europe and well after in other areas of the world. It's likely why the pike formation did not become so prominent as an anti-cavalry solution until the proliferation of small firearms; mounted knights might not be able to charge your disciplined pike formation but without fearing firearms they still had an advantage as archers. They could fire into your tight formation while riding across your line while themselves being far harder to hit with an arrow themselves. In fact, if you count firearms mounted in modern (mechanized) cavalry, you could say that the tradition is still highly effective in modern warfare.
javelins were more common in europe, but you are correct, i think though he was especially stating that shock cavalry in the east used bows then attacked.
Y'know, I just realized, it's very interesting: they model this very well in the Fire Emblem games, where the mounted units are the only ones who can move after attacking. The user naturally takes advantage of this capability in most cases to move *away* from their target after attacking. It only makes sense that people whose actual lives depended on their strategy would do the same thing with their most mobile fighters. Fight smarter, not harder. Thanks for the info -- this is super useful!
This is why I like CGI- it might not always look as having people in armor on horseback fighting or a real plane flying,
but it does allow you to show things you otherwise couldn't.
Dead horses and scores of old planes when there might be not be any left flying.
One minor point about warhorses: they don't just stand there and let the other guys man-handle them. They weren't just something the knight/soldier sat on to deliver their attacks from. War horses fought too. They bit, kicked and went crazy.
Not if the cavalry is chaos knights.
YES!!!!!
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
Z Rose SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!
Elias Von Knorrhane METAL BAWXES!?
Oh wait... Wrong series...
(As in Warhammer Fantasty, not 40k)
StateWaffles DA COWARDS! TEH FEWLZ! WE-We should take away... their MEHTAL BAWKSES!
Yes, but in other ways they were different. They advanced in quite close formation, and were quite possibly prepared to stop.
This is why I love the rules for cavalry in Warmachine and Hordes. They have both impact attacks, and a rule called Reposition. The mount itself gets to make an attack on the charge if you get in close enough, and has its own "weapon," suitably marked with a hoof to mark it as a "mount" attack. This is in addition to your lance or war-axe or sabre or whatever else the rider has. After they charge in, they can do a reposition movement as well, typically a 3" move, although light cavalry get 5", which isn't a large amount in that system, seeing as most infantry charge about 9-10". But, it's a very good and fairly simple rule to represent the nature of cavlary, they charge in, smash the frontline with their mount's hooves, impale some dudes with lances at 30MPH, and then ride away so they don't get bogged down. Now, there are rules that will stop you from moving away if you don't manage to kill the entire unit. Essentially as you move away, they get to have a poke at you with their lances, but that is also fairly accurate. Now I won't claim in any way that Warmachine represents the kinds of large-scale battles you're talking about. It's a skirmish game, with the accent being on big smashy steampunk robots and giant fantasy monsters, but it is a very fun and very strategic game. Like, if you have a REALLY cavalry-heavy army, you might have 3 units of 5 cavalry each, and a couple of the aforementioned beasts/robots in addition to your warcaster/warlock, who functions as your "king."
5:32 similarly Arrian (I think) describes the battle of the Hydaspes (between Alexander the great and Persians) as a "cavalry battle with infantry tactics"
You say all the things about depictions of combat that occurred to me watching action movies as a kid. It's as if you've read my mind.
Very good subtitles /dobre CC.
Kudos.
Well, that's because most lands don't have much of the cavalry tradition... if you are really so disapointed in cavalry in movies, check out some Soviet/Russian movies - they know how cavalry works. "Silent Don" is probably the best example - it is about Russian cavalry back in WWI, contains a lot of horse action. For more recent movie, Russian "Sovereign's servant" is great. Northern war, contains as far as I remember only one cavalry charge, but... probably one of the best I've ever seen. (But the story was kind of... meh.)
Or Waterloo, that was an amazing movie. Several brigades of the Red Army in period uniforms and period drill. Not a frame of cgi in the entire movie.
I wouldn't say these countries don't have a tradition of cavalry. Maybe not as prevalent but cavalry were still a big deal in Western Europe up until a few centuries back.
And Quiet Flows the Don, tak ten tytuł brzmi po angielsku
I have had such a problem with this in most movies. I thought it was obvious. Don't stop! Men would totally attack their enemy's horses all the time. Glad you covered this.
I was at a political protest many years ago and the police had ordered the crowd to disperse. When we didn't, they sent in the cavalry. Even though the mounted police were only moving toward us at a trot, every instinct told us to run away, and that we did. It is quite intimidating to try and hold your ground against a tightly packed formation of half ton beasts topped by men with sticks; helmets and shields gleaming in the sun. Great videos, as always!
Indeed! What lindybeige described sounds a lot like what happens in mount and blade. Especially the constantly moving cavalry battle he mentions at the end!
Was it possible to extract an arrow from a wounded horse in the field (provided the wound wasn't made in a critical, or fatal region of the anatomy)? If the arrow was extracted, would it be possible to treat it, perhaps dress it? Or would the horse be just completely panicked and impossible to deal with? I wonder if the horse was a veteran, and had been wounded before, if it might take a wound more calmly. Would it be possible to continue to ride a horse that had suffered a wound during the same campaign?
Better cavalry used specially trained horses. They were meant to charge no matter what, withold any damage and get you back for new lance and new horse, if the enemy haven't started to escape. And then usuall the horse die of wounds.
Heavy cavalry had maybe even 10 times bigger horse loses than human loses.
Mr Odrzut sources?
@@kenhouston814 I don't know about the "get you back for a new horse" part, which seems a bit odd, but from my own experiences with horses and reading up on history, getting the horse to charge a line of infantry was definitely a thing. Stallions are quite aggressive, and would bite and kick enemy soldiers.
And, yes, if the horse is wounded, even quite severely, you can still keep control of it, if you're calm and the horse trusts you - which is why I quite doubt the view of treating horses as disposable. To get a really good relationship with your horse, to make sure he'll do exactly what you need, you'd want to train him yourself from a foal - and horses live a good twenty-something years, which means you can keep your stallion through pretty much your entire military career.
I don't see charging infantry (except, maybe pikemen) as all that suicidal; horses can jump over the height of a man, especially when going at full gallop. So, the infantry are going to need something bigger than just a sword or staff to hold off a horse. A spear would work, but a horse weighs well over a tone; just holding the spear in your hand is not going to be enough. You have to plant the haft in the ground and stand on it, or something like that, and with the great big shield in front of you, that means you can't really move that spear all that much to aim it at the horse. And the horse is going to move around to dodge it.
Unless you have a highly disciplined group of spearmen, I can definitely see a cavalry charge running right through them; and a horses being quite willing to do it with good training - the kind of training that would make it very unlikely to treat the horse as disposable.
@@DJohnGrady I grew up with and train horses, a lot of what you say I agree with. The thought of treating them as disposable flies in the logic of how rider/horse relationships work. Gunpowder age maybe, but not for a medieval army and knights.
@@kenhouston814 Exactly. I sure wouldn't want to ride out into a battlefield with an unknown horse :p
I loved how everyone is talking about total war and mount and blade now, and I love even more that there is not a huge fight about it
Lindy, I would so love to meet you one day. You're amazing. I've always been into knives and stuff and you've imparted a lot of knowledge onto us, I wish there were more blokes like you on CZcams sharing their theories about classical warfare, so much of it has been lost to history, there is so much we don't know about how we used to fight wars, when it had such a significant impact on history.
These Polish subtitles are great!
I wonder how something like the winged hussar's extra long lance changes your tactics. If your lance is even longer than their spears, you can probably break their front line even if they're going to stand firm, creating an opening for the rest of the charge to go through.
@Dieter Gaudlitz Hussar's lance was empty inside which means it was lighter (still preatty heavy) and it break after hitting a target. They would also carry variety of secondary weapons like sabers, axes, maces etc.
I think that the purpose of those very long one-use lances was to cause severe casualties in your enemy's first rank even if your charge didn't break them. That way, when You come back with new lances to try and charge again, the enemy's now first rank, standing amongst corpses and wounded of what used to be the first rank, is much more likely to break and run away.
And this is why I like combat in Civilization 5 so much... not only does the animation of attacking horsemen have them crash right into the enemy infantry, but you also get to move your cavalry after their attack, if they have move-points left so you can retreat before the infantry can counter in their turn... I think thats as good as it gets in a game if you want to make it realistic.
In other words, armored cavalry is the medieval version of a modern battle tank. The only things that can harm you are suitably powerful missile weapons and nearby infantry who manage to get next to you.
So always keep moving as fast as you can if you aren't surrounded by your own guys. You're invincible unless someone gets extremely lucky or someone gets close to you for any length of time.
And that's the reason why light cavalry was mainly used in attacking the enemy flanks and going after the supply trains... You want to keep momentum to trample down the enemy, use your lances and use your sabers and you ride through the enemy.
This helps explain why squares are so effective against cavalry. You can't overrun a square like you can a line.
And this is why the Arabs developed grapples usable from horseback. Can't break through? Ride in close, through a jagged hook in, drag away whatever gets snagged. ;-)
Jonathan Presson artillery is a more effective counter.
They did not overrun enemy formations unless they were suicidal. Even if the enemy is not in a square, you have much more chance of getting hit, hooked or stabbed if you charge through them. Unless the enemy is panicking and his formation is in chaos.
The reason squares are so effective is they have no flanks and no back. You can't outflank a square, you can't attack it in the back. For military purposes, a square is effectively a circle but forming a circle would be timewasting, useless, while forming a square is simply ordering lines and columns as quickly as possible so they form a square (in reality it's more complicated than that because each line is made up of smaller platoons etc. but it still was much more efficient than forming a circle).
@Dieter Gaudlitz Yes, I meant to say it works against cavalry only. Because an enemy infantry formation however quick, still takes time to order their line position, during which the enemy forms their defensive line.
Note how there were no (or only a handful) decisive cavalry charges made during the American Civil War. Which explains why you never hear or see about square formations during that war.
@@AudieHolland Exactly, that is why squares are effective, it has absolutely nothing to do with the shape being thicker as OP seems to be implying.
The primary advantage of Cavalry is Momentum. You've got about a Ton/ne of Knight, Horse, and kit right there, so it's like being hit by a car going the same speed. If you're moving.
A relatively minor advantage is also some serious High Ground, for downward strokes, but you also have the disadvantage of about a Ton/ne of cavalry on 4 relatively spindly legs. They don't kill horses in movies, but back in the day, a mass of Infantry was a lot more concerned with not being Killed by cavalry.
Very good points - British troops were always encouraged to bring down horses when facing cavalry, rather then aiming at the men. Going right back to Crecy and Agincourt, where raining arrows into the horses brought them down and broke up and brought chaos to the French charges. Same at Waterloo when Ney foolishly charged without infantry and artillery support.
Thanks for this video! I had asked for it some weeks ago, and if you made it upon my request or not, I'm glad. Thanks! Maybe some more points in the future might be interesting, like tactics, not only with horses, but battle tactics in general. Thanks!
Calvary were the shock troops. When your side was breaking the enemy's line your cavalry charged in to force the enemy to a paniced retreat. It was the psychological terror for a soldier to have war horses bearing down on them with their speed and size seeming to trample them or be cut down by the calvaryman's weapon. True to your statement, stopping the calvary charge would defeat the advantage it used to force the enemy to drop their weapons and chaoticly run over the soldiers behind them.
Actually, line infantry regiments did bring along pikemen in the early days of muskets to protect against cavalry.
Good points! i worked on stables quite a while and had the opportunity to get raced round by a horse... it was the first time i really felt the power of a horse. I am quite stout with 250+ pounds. and was standing strong on firm ground. And it just knocked me down with no effort. I nearly got my kneecap disarranged too. So i think it might be a major point of charging cavalry. That they were nearly irresistible for infantry men. Except if you dodged, or formed a formation with specialized weapons. I wonder if the Spear properly placed with a foot to lock it would be as effective as some sources claim.
The documented success of the British regimental hollow square using bayonets against cavalry would seem to argue that as long as the infantry do not panic, the horses will refuse to impale themselves on the pointy objects.
Mount & Blade and also the Total War games both do a good job of depicting cavalry. Granted, they can be a little overpowered, but in general, they must follow this golden rule of Don't Stop.
The primary job of cavalry is scouting. Cavalry were the eyes of an army on the march prior to the invention of radio and machine guns, and one interesting thing about cavalry is that they don't hold ground nearly as well as infantry. This is because, as LindyBeige mentioned, of the issues of the horse. That horse has to be well cared for and that's not something horse-soldiers can do too well if they also mean to take and hold terrain.
Nice. Polish subtitles.
he rarely has to come back for things he's missed!
I am very much enjoying your videos. I am a Game Master and I thought you ought to know that I implement many of the things here into my Role Playing Game, and that my players very much enjoy the realism (at least, when it isn't happening to them).
Hi, Lindybeige! I think it was many times repeated here, but I think this is important. Normal hors, as most animals, epecially non-pedators - as horses, never liked to stamp on anyone or any animal, or bite it or being agressive at all. Howether, "war horse" was "something else". Most of cavalry horses were just horses used to loud noises and people and moving in formations (horses prefered to stay in formation even if their cavalryman was already dead). The only cases when people were killed by horses were cases were horses couldn't see what's happenning what's going on and they were running with others... But, there were horses breeded for war. These were very expensive and aftr many years of wars - very hard to find. Well, they were psychos, so, what do you expect?
Aggressive horses were not only able to move over people, but also stamp on other animals (as humans) and were thought to bite enemy. Probably both two things were rare things, but during battles sometimes horses were seen beating off human guts or stamping others to kill them. Yes, this is very odd for horses, even trained ones, but it happened and such horses were considered "great battle horses".... Khem..
And yes, they never stopped before enemy formation, even if it was wall of bayonets - they couldn't stop...
All the best.
love your videos
Point is, no matter how good the square is against cavalry when it is formed - it takes time to get into formation. This is where the speed of a horse comes into place, because way before an infantry line gets all nice and comfy in a square there's already lancers stuck into the nice flesh of the line.
I was once at a re-enactment event. At some point 24 horsemen came charging at the public though the smoke. I felt the urge to get up and run. It is quite a sight.
I never knew that. Quite interesting, thank you.
Winged Hussars also used caracole-ish tactics, but mostly they could function as horse archers as needed, at least until the bows were abandoned by near the end of the 17th century. Manuals showing how Winged Hussars were intended to charge indicate that they weren't supposed to withdraw right after (because the second kopia line would have blocked them) but draw their swords and poke away while waiting for the second line to halt and turn.
Mount and Blade Thought me basically all of this.
If we go by statistics, the bulk of "medium" cavalry worldwide were equipped with missiles of some sort (javelins, bows, pistols, and carbines), especially in Asia where practically all cavalrymen were also horse archers. Charges against massed infantry formations were only common in Europe and the Middle East. Cavalry elsewhere normally skirmished or flanked their enemies and charged them only AFTER the formations already broke.
it is actually relatively easy to keep moving in a bit of a mealstrom, and thereby the two formations can stay in contact and move at the same time.
Also there are loads of examples of cavalrycharges smashing straight through enemy formations of pike, riders, archers, etc etc.
The thing I might say about the wargame rules is that the ground- and timescales mean that the round(s) of "stationary combat" actually represent maneuvers such as withdrawals and short charges (feint or otherwise) rather than a period of fighting at the halt.
I saw a perfect and hilarious example of this kind of ridiculous film&television cavalry the other day. In the series 'The Letter for the King' two groups of cavalry engage each other and they do that thing where they each pair off and fight individual duels. It looks so funny, they can obviously barely move, but the actors really go for it. At the end of the scene the main bad guy throws his spear (the only weapon that is shown to have been effective) into the ground and chases the two mounted and fleeing protagonists without any weapon in hand... scary.
One of the few times a cavalry unit charged straight into a compact unit of infantry that held their line was at one of the battles between british colonial forces and sudanese jihadis. They charged into a lot more infantry than they initially belived that were so tightly packed into a wadi (dried riverbed) that noone could get anywhere other than through the enemy. It was a great slaugther at both sides and probably the one place most Victoria crosses were earned at the same time (7 or 8 or something, can't rembember).
Basically my point is this: The wargame style charge into a solid unit of infantry that fight back happens so few times I even remember one of the exeptions. And it was 19th century not 12th.
I agree. That game taught me a bit about how some formations might act. If i was leading a cavalry charge, unless the enemy infantry was poorly armed, I would ride in a wedge formation along the edge of their own formation to create less binding with the enemy formation and wheel around again.
thats why i love the total-war series. they are pretty acurate when it comes to game-standart
That's one reason why medieval warhorses were so hideously expensive. Not just were only the largest suitable, it took extreme efforts to train them to do things they would normally avoid at all costs.
Cavalry is not a weakness of the infantry square, it's its strength. It's the whole purpose of forming square in the first place. As for morale, that's actually another of the square's strengths. It is much easier to maintain cohesion in a square than in a line. Those who would run while in a square formation would certainly run while in any other formation as well, whereas most who would run while in a line are prevented from doing so in a square - they have a greater sense of protection, too.
Exactly! The infantry would have to be exposed or unsupported or horribly outmatched, so it wasn't a reliable strategy. But it was such a jackpot when it worked that generals where always looking for opportunities, or throwing the cavalry in on a hope!
...
Believin'! Hold on to that feeling!
Finally some common sense regarding cavalry attacks. It is always painful to see those ludicrous charges in the movies where the cavalry would drive into infantry formations like tanks. Cavalry running into steady infantry is pure suicide. And very expensive suicide since a good warhorse takes years to train up properly - not to mention the value of the rider who probably won't live long enough to hit the ground. You said it best, DON'T STOP!!!
finally a video about this from some1! I personally hate this stopping cavalry in games. Especially because this stopping always start a phase, where infantry and cavalry smash eachother and you can see how their health goes down
it is a long way to go, games...
Don't stop! Believing!
In a traditional sense yes, but it took on other roles. They no longer charged like knights into infantary, but instead were used more as flanking troops, scouts and when a battle was over they would be used to make the most of a victory.
The simple fact that Napoleon made huge use of Polish and French lancers shows how cavalry was still vitally important. Admittedly, Cav couldn't attack well entrenched infantry positions without artillery support as at Waterloo, but many of Napoleon's most stunning victories consisted of an intense artillery barrage followed by a heavy cavalry charge. With regards to Cavalry being unable to defeat artillery unsupported, please read wikipedia(dot)org/wiki/Battle_of_Somosierra,
yep. especially since the horse's head is a really nice shield for the guy directly in front of the cavalrymen. unless, like lindy mentioned, they trained their mounts enough for them to continue even though there is a very obvious obstacle waving a pointy thing in their face the cavalrymen will stop dead in their tracks whether they like it or not.
That's what she said :)) On the serious side, another great video Lb! Cheers!
kinda a response to both top comments; mount and blade has a speed multiplier for damage, so you do more if you ride past and sweep your weapon forwards, and the total war games have a charge bonus, which is always bigger for cavalry units. both of these games are therefore taking into account the speed factor of cavalry, and in both games a single horseman, if facing two or more opponents, will get overwhelmed faster than tightly packed heavy infantry with the same quality equipment.
When you realize The Mummy Returns did cavalry better than 'Historically accurate' movies (The guys on horses don't stop unless the horse dies)
Most polearms also works both on their thrust on their way up and pulling them back, either pulling the cavalryman off his mount and/or hitting the mount.
I learnt pretty early on that the advantage of cavalry applies only when it's moving: I went to a dodgy comp, & before I got a bicycle the bullies at the school used to hit-&-run me on my way to the train station, & it was really annoying.
English subtitles are Polish, infantry is "kawaleria".
Old infantry manuals had extended instructions about how do deal with riders including one-on-one encounters depending on the weaponry in play. A well trained musketeer had a fair chance against a single rider in close combat.
I recall reading something about the "Battle of the Golden Spurs", in which spears and pikes and the like where dug into the the ground and quite effectively used against cavalry in exactly that fashion. ;)
Not only a wizard, but he breaks the pikeorcs' discipline for a few precious seconds by somehow strengthening the ray of the sun, blinding the orcs, weakening their formation, and rohirrim charges home before the pikeorcs reform.
I love the Life of Brian reference
In the total war video games, the advice guy basically says most of the things that you said. More specifically he said that stationary cavalry is basically tall infantry and a horses only weakness is a sharpened stick.
The reason why cavalry didn't typically stop in the middle of a mass of infantry is because cavalry were typically deployed against ranged units. The ranged units were typically deployed against infantry, so it was the role of the cavalry to eliminate the threat to the infantry by the opposing ranged units. The cavalry are fast moving units difficult to hit with an arrow, bolt, sling stone, or javelin, so they were used against ranged units, at least at first. If the cavalry were ever used against infantry, then it was done like a drive-by. They never would have crashed their horses directly into a full battle formation because it would have been a death sentence for both horse and rider. Trampling was used of course, but usually on retreating units that are scattered, or on very thin lines of infantry (or ranged units). I think in movies when they have a horseman enter a mass of infantry and start hacking away, it's supposed to look heroic I guess, but I seriously doubt any mounted soldier would actually do it in reality. My two cents...
... And how do you defeat cavalry?... With cavalry, not with infantry or ranged units.
Darren Savoie ehrmm...pikeman...maybe...?
No one would send cavalry directly into a wall of pikemen, because as already mentioned they would eventually come to a full stop and be completely vulnerable. Cavalry are always best deployed using hit and run tactics. That's the whole point of having horses, maneuverability. Cavalry are used to neutralize the enemies ability to perform ranged attacks. They move in quick and move out just as quick. When they've neutralized the ranged units, then they can pick off the infantry stragglers and those on the edges of the formations. This kind of attack is demoralizing because the archers/javelins/slingers are there to take the pressure off of the infantry. When they start dropping it has a profound effect on the rest of the army.
Oh yeah, almost forgot... Most heavy cavalry units would be carrying a spear or a lance, so it's not like sending pikemen in would result in the defeat of the cavalry automatically. A lance is close to the same length as a pike.
This is exactly how you play while mounted in Mount and Blade. You are always looking for speed since it increases the damage of your attacks.
I'm reminded of the Battle of Hastings in 1066. The Saxons held the high ground against the Normans by using a shieldwall. At the end of the day, when the Normans appeared to be retreating, that the Saxons broke ranks and charged. It was only then that they were defeated by a cavalry charge.
Wow! Polish subtitles!
Hollywood cavalry charge almost always end in a melee with infantry. Painters also show them in big melees, which could be where the idea comes from. Usually doesn't end well for the cavalry unit.
modern cavalry (tanks and such) is pretty badass
True, sorry about that ^^
Again, I don't know very much about the 1800's, so I checked Wikipedia (usually not my favourite source). And while they confirmed your claims about the danger of the cavalry against which only one fire volley was possible, it also states:
''The infantry square was used as protection from cavalry charges. It was 4-6 ranks in depth with a square or rectangular shape in order to not present the rear or sides of the soldiers to cavalry.''
So they had solutions apparently.