The Merry Marauder posted:I only mention this because of your avatar, but it's the climax of a Sharpe book. Sharpe's Sword I've not read those books since my mid teens (now in my mid twenties) and I got to say I love it when Cornwell ties in details like that and less silly things like 'The Prince of Orange was a wankah'. I'd really like to see another General History Discussion thread too. It has been a while now since the last one was closed and gold mined. Can't wait for a new generation of goons to show us the bear.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:It's always possible that they don't, since we do know medieval chroniclers are loose as gently caress about a lot of other things. This is a weak argument. For battles like Bremule and Bannockburn, we have multiple accounts from opposing sides, many of whom explicitly had access to eye-witnesses, and 'medieval chroniclers' are not a monolithic group. Orderic Vitalis and Abbot Suger were both very reliable on subjects close to home, and Suger participated in war personally at Toury. Galbert of Bruges, meanwhile, was not only present but wrote a day-to-day accounting of the Siege of Bruges. We can doubt the chroniclers writ large if we like, but fundamentally we have no other sources for most of these confrontations, and so we are left to clutch at scraps and straws. quote:How close together are the Normans? If they are spread far enough apart the horsemen can ride between them, and the men on foot would have room enough to crouch down or move slightly to the side and then either stab the horse in the chest or belly or aim for the rider and try to unhorse him, both of which we know were options at the time. Are the horses approaching the men on foot and then turning away at the last minute? I've heard many accounts of this happening as well, and it would get the opposing sides close to each other. We don't know how close together the Normans were. We do know, however, that they were told to aim for the horses' chests in the succession crisis of 1101. I have seen no evidence of the horses turning away whatsoever, and it seems unlikely that the men on foot would concede the first blows to the mounted knights, yet out of an engagement with nine hundred knights only three were killed. At least four hundred of these knights were mounted, and over a hundred captured. I have also heard about cavalry turning away at the last minute, but it was a conscious decision by the rider rather than by the horse. Indeed, in its ideal form that is what a feigned charge is. quote:I may have been unclear earlier, and for that I'm sorry: when I say that a horse will not charge into an array of sharp things pointed at them, I mean right into: they will not crash into it but turn aside at the last minute. I'm not saying that it won't run toward them, just that at some point it will start thinking that that's a bad idea. And I'm saying that either that is incorrect or its inclination to turn just doesn't matter in a measurable way. quote:Edit: That is interesting, but his arguments touch more on the effect of 'shock' and the wisdom of horses and men colliding (I am fairly convinced it is unwise) than the willingness of the horses to collide to begin with. edit: He also suggests that horses would not trample men on the ground, but I find this unbelievable in the face of narratives like this one on the battle of Nicopolis Johann Schiltberger posted:When the king heard that the Duke of Burgundy was forced to surrender, he took the rest of the people and defeated a body of twelve thousand foot soldiers that had been sent to oppose him. They were all trampled upon and destroyed, and in this engagement a shot killed the horse of my lord Lienhart Richartinger; and I, Hanns Schiltberger, his runner, when I saw this, rode up to him in the crowd and assisted him to mount my own horse, and I then mounted another which belonged to the Turks, and rode back to the other runners. And when all the Turkish footsoldiers were killed, the king advanced upon another corps which was of horse. Also of interest, and running contrary to Mr. Robinson's assertions, is this account from Suger's Deeds of Louis the Fat on a skirmish near Pomponne. To shorten things up, Louis has chased a group of men loyal to Theobald of Blois to a narrow bridge, where they have bottle-necked and begun trampling one another. Abbot Suger posted:Knocked to their knees unwillingly, they leapt back to their feet, causing others to be bumped down. The king and his men gave chase and hemmed them in amid much slaughter. Those he came up against he wiped out, and he wiped them out as much by the blow of his sword as by the very fierce charge of his horse, sending them splashing into the river Marne. quote:Like I said: where are his opponents in relationship to his horse? Are they next to it? Are they approaching it, rather than the other way around? Are they behind it, so it can't back up readily? (quadrupeds hate backing up if there's any impediment or if they can't turn around to see what's going on back there--look at a dog caught between the couch and the coffee table.) In this instance it is not particularly clear, but they were almost certainly surrounding him and the horse. Here's the entirety of the relevant bit, which takes place during the siege of Setenil in 1407: El Victorial posted:There befell a lively skirmish. The Constable did not let all his men take part therein, but Pero Niño was there mounted on a good horse and well armed, and he came away from the midst of the troop and was soon some way off with Ruy Diaz de Mendoza the Bald, who said to Pero Niño: "I know this country, and I will show you a good path by which you can go against the Moors." Ruy Diaz said this to see what he would do, and Pero Niño for his part desired to test his companion, who was rumoured to be a valiant knight and a good gentleman. Pero Niño was pressing forward with this intent, when the Constable came up to him and reasoned with him so much that he restrained him this time; but before he had rejoined the troop the skirmish began again at close quarters, and Pero Niño returned to it with three or four of his men, for there were no more of them that had seen what was happening. As the Moors were on the height above an escarpment, between the rocks and the mosque, the knight and his horse, which bore no armour, found themselves closely pressed there. They hurled so many stones at them that the horse half-wheeled, whereat Pero Niño felt great displeasure and great shame, for never had might of enemies driven him back nor made him turn. And the horse, which was gallant and loyal, returned to the charge, feeling the will of its rider, and thrust itself into the midst of the Moors in such wise that their line was broken and that they took to flight towards the town. And let him know, who would know, that between Pero Niño and the Christians of his following there were more than a hundred Moors; and he went forward striking and killing, and as the place was strait, not a blow was lost. When he had broken his lance against them he drew his sword, and struck so many and such signal blows that it was all one whether those whom they reached were armed or not, for none of them used lance again. So the horse, after being wounded, charges into a number of enemy, then stops at a bridge, and turns around and charges back out through a number of enemy. Note that I'm not trying to say wounds would never shy a horse (there's evidence of it right here, after all) but that it is not a guarantee. It may be worth considering that cavalry charges were seldom delivered in a single line. If, as you suggest, the feeling of something behind the horse would be enough to keep it charging forward, perhaps the second rank would be enough to do it. quote:Was the square already breaking? Was the first breach made by a horse that was already dead, which is what happened at Garcia Hernandez in 1812? Was the ground wet? If a horse slips or trips, it can fall or slide into the square against its will. Are they approaching the square from the side? The horses were heavily armoured and the square was not breaking. Beyond that I'm not sure at the moment. However, heavily armoured horses charging through spears relatively unharmed is not at all unheard of. Indeed, the Praecepta Militaria of Nikephoros Phokas mentions it explicitly, albeit in a parenthetical. Praecepta Militaria posted:The function of these menavlatoi [a kind of elite infantryman] -in the likely event that the enemy gets word of these formations and in turn chooses to react with equal force and outfit heavy cavalrymen, to keep both themselves and their horses safe by means of armor, so that the spears of the infantrymen will be smashed to pieces by these men, and by using their horsemen the enemy will shatter the infantry units- the menavlatoi must be at the ready in front of the infantry division, by no means isolated from them, but instead closely ranked with them. quote:What difference do you see? There seems to be a specialisation in types of military horses and horsemanship that really starts in the 13th century but reaches its apex around the 16th-17th where cavalrymen typically have very particular tasks. Compare the definite differences between light and heavy cavalry in the 16th century vs. the rather ambiguous Knighthood of the 11th and 12th, and their respective roles. The number of horses in armies also increases quite seriously from the 15th-16th centuries, and I suspect, but have not far looked into, how this would have affected the training of them, but would make sense that the diminution of the cavalry arm, as well as hand-to-hand skirmishing roles for some types of cavalry and the decline of the joust meant that neither horse nor rider were as heavily trained as their predecessors. The horses were certainly of good breeding in the later periods, there can really be no doubt about that, but the way they were trained, I suspect, changed. The movement from lances to firearms likely would have been a large part of that. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 23:22 on Feb 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:I don't know how they trained themselves/each other, but the Reisläufer are hundreds of years away from crisp 90 degree unison turns or any other drilled evolution. You're thinking of a process that began at the turn of the 17th century and really got huge at the end of the 17th century and the beginning of the 18th. anecdotes.jpg
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:There seems to be a specialisation in types of military horses and horsemanship that really starts in the 13th century but reaches its apex around the 16th-17th where cavalrymen typically have very particular tasks. Compare the definite differences between light and heavy cavalry in the 16th century vs. the rather ambiguous Knighthood of the 11th and 12th, and their respective roles. The number of horses in armies also increases quite seriously from the 15th-16th centuries, and I suspect, but have not far looked into, how this would have affected the training of them, but would make sense that the diminution of the cavalry arm, as well as hand-to-hand skirmishing roles for some types of cavalry and the decline of the joust meant that neither horse nor rider were as heavily trained as their predecessors. The horses were certainly of good breeding in the later periods, there can really be no doubt about that, but the way they were trained, I suspect, changed. The movement from lances to firearms likely would have been a large part of that. Lancers were still a thing in the Napoleonic Era, from which we get the universal 'squares that stand don't break' maxim. If the infantry (who, note, were not holding big rear end pikes, 'merely' bayoneted muskets) held their positions and their discipline, they would only be broken by cavalry in freak cases (e.g. the dead horse caroming forward, sowing confusion and opening a big hole.) I think the transition away from lances to the carocle etc. happened because dense and disciplined infantry could stymie a charge, not the other way around. quote:When the king heard that the Duke of Burgundy was forced to surrender, he took the rest of the people and defeated a body of twelve thousand foot soldiers that had been sent to oppose him. They were all trampled upon and destroyed, and in this engagement a shot killed the horse of my lord Lienhart Richartinger; and I, Hanns Schiltberger, his runner, when I saw this, rode up to him in the crowd and assisted him to mount my own horse, and I then mounted another which belonged to the Turks, and rode back to the other runners. And when all the Turkish footsoldiers were killed, the king advanced upon another corps which was of horse. This, for instance, says nothing about the discipline of the infantry involved, and now one is arguing that cavalry could slaughter a broken formation at will. If you're trying to use 'they were all trampled upon and destroyed' as evidence for 'horses literally running over all the infantry' I'd say that that's not an unusual turn of phrase and ambiguous in translation. When the Panzers 'overran' the French country side they weren't literally running over squads of French infantry. quote:Knocked to their knees unwillingly, they leapt back to their feet, causing others to be bumped down. The king and his men gave chase and hemmed them in amid much slaughter. Those he came up against he wiped out, and he wiped them out as much by the blow of his sword as by the very fierce charge of his horse, sending them splashing into the river Marne. So we've got an already broken formation, a note that his not using weapons to kill as exceptional, and the fierce charge 'sending them splashing into the River.' So the horses hit the men on the ground just hard enough to send them flying, al la Sauron tossing aside men in Lord of the Rings films, into the river, but all the horses pulled just in time to not go flying into the water after them yet pulled this stop without flinging their rider into the water after the infantry. (Ever seen a horse refuse a hurdle? Not fun for the rider.)or did the broken and battered infantry, upon seeing a few thousand pounds of armored horse and rider bearing down on them, panic and leap splashing into the River, their only escape? quote:There befell a lively skirmish. The Constable did not let all his men take part therein, but Pero Niño was there mounted on a good horse and well armed, and he came away from the midst of the troop and was soon some way off with Ruy Diaz de Mendoza the Bald, who said to Pero Niño: "I know this country, and I will show you a good path by which you can go against the Moors." Ruy Diaz said this to see what he would do, and Pero Niño for his part desired to test his companion, who was rumoured to be a valiant knight and a good gentleman. Pero Niño was pressing forward with this intent, when the Constable came up to him and reasoned with him so much that he restrained him this time; but before he had rejoined the troop the skirmish began again at close quarters, and Pero Niño returned to it with three or four of his men, for there were no more of them that had seen what was happening. As the Moors were on the height above an escarpment, between the rocks and the mosque, the knight and his horse, which bore no armour, found themselves closely pressed there. They hurled so many stones at them that the horse half-wheeled, whereat Pero Niño felt great displeasure and great shame, for never had might of enemies driven him back nor made him turn. And the horse, which was gallant and loyal, returned to the charge, feeling the will of its rider, and thrust itself into the midst of the Moors in such wise that their line was broken and that they took to flight towards the town. And let him know, who would know, that between Pero Niño and the Christians of his following there were more than a hundred Moors; and he went forward striking and killing, and as the place was strait, not a blow was lost. When he had broken his lance against them he drew his sword, and struck so many and such signal blows that it was all one whether those whom they reached were armed or not, for none of them used lance again. First the enemy formation is broken and the rider finds himself among the enemy. No one is saying the horsemen can't do that, it was kinda their thing. Then poo poo gets hairy. All the mentions of killing are by the knight on the horse with his lance and sword, not the horse running people over like bowling pins. The horse is moving through the Moors, but all mentions of killing are the rider cutting men away.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
the JJ posted:Lancers were still a thing in the Napoleonic Era, from which we get the universal 'squares that stand don't break' maxim. If the infantry (who, note, were not holding big rear end pikes, 'merely' bayoneted muskets) held their positions and their discipline, they would only be broken by cavalry in freak cases (e.g. the dead horse caroming forward, sowing confusion and opening a big hole.) I think the transition away from lances to the carocle etc. happened because dense and disciplined infantry could stymie a charge, not the other way around. If you look at the link posted, he mentions in later posts that lancers were no longer employed in early-mid 17th century armies, and only came back in the Napoleonic era. I'd expect almost two hundred years of irrelevance to have an effect on the training of horses, in the same way that if we suddenly found sabres useful again we'd be building on a lot of bad practice. quote:This, for instance, says nothing about the discipline of the infantry involved, and now one is arguing that cavalry could slaughter a broken formation at will. If you're trying to use 'they were all trampled upon and destroyed' as evidence for 'horses literally running over all the infantry' I'd say that that's not an unusual turn of phrase and ambiguous in translation. When the Panzers 'overran' the French country side they weren't literally running over squads of French infantry. The translation may be bad, but the meaning as presented is really not the same as 'overran'. Trampled is a rather specific word, and the modifier of 'upon' makes it even more specific about what's happening. For another example of men being trampled, consider this (admittedly proverbial) mention from William the Breton's prose account of Bouvines, William the Breton posted:It has become common knowledge that the old Countess of Flanders, aunt of Count Ferrand of Spain and daughter of the king of Portugal, so that she was called both queen and countess, had wished to know the outcome of the battle. She cast her fortune according to the custom of the Spaniards who readily use this art and received the following answer: "There will be fighting. The King will be thrown down in the course of the battle and trampled under the horses' hooves and have no sepulcher. Whether or not the Countess ever actually got this fortune is irrelevant. That William chose to have it describe Philip being trampled by horses shows that it was a believable possibility. quote:So we've got an already broken formation, a note that his not using weapons to kill as exceptional, and the fierce charge 'sending them splashing into the River.' So the horses hit the men on the ground just hard enough to send them flying, al la Sauron tossing aside men in Lord of the Rings films, into the river, but all the horses pulled just in time to not go flying into the water after them yet pulled this stop without flinging their rider into the water after the infantry. (Ever seen a horse refuse a hurdle? Not fun for the rider.)or did the broken and battered infantry, upon seeing a few thousand pounds of armored horse and rider bearing down on them, panic and leap splashing into the River, their only escape? You misrepresent my argument here, and seem to misunderstand what Suger is saying. I don't really see where the notion of them flying away is, either in my analysis or in the original work. Suger has already mentioned this was a narrow bridge, with men packed close, and a strong nudge could have been enough to send them over the side. We do not know, after all, if it even had hand rails. Your speculation that they jumped in purely out of fear could very well be true (Suger is, after all, our only source for this instance and was not personally present) but that is not how it is presented. Suger, after all, pairs the blows of the sword with the charge of the horse, which makes more sense when both are a physical impetus, as the former clearly is. Additionally, Suger mentions earlier that men had jumped into the river out of fear, so it follows that those who remained would only get immersed by force. Because of the Abbot's familiarity with war, even if his description of the actual events is not accurate, the fact that he treats it as possible makes it worthy of mention. quote:First the enemy formation is broken and the rider finds himself among the enemy. No one is saying the horsemen can't do that, it was kinda their thing. Then poo poo gets hairy. All the mentions of killing are by the knight on the horse with his lance and sword, not the horse running people over like bowling pins. The horse is moving through the Moors, but all mentions of killing are the rider cutting men away. You are confusing my arguments here. I brought up Pero Niño to show that the Marquess's earlier implication that a horse could be turned aside by non-lethal harm was not universally true. Here we have a horse that initially turned, but then was brought back to bear, and suffered frequent harm, enough that its guts hung out, and it remained controllable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:If you look at the link posted, he mentions in later posts that lancers were no longer employed in early-mid 17th century armies, and only came back in the Napoleonic era. I'd expect almost two hundred years of irrelevance to have an effect on the training of horses, in the same way that if we suddenly found sabres useful again we'd be building on a lot of bad practice. That's not true, there were plenty of lancers in Eastern Europe such as the Polish winged hussars.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Adding to what the JJ said:Rodrigo Diaz posted:This is a weak argument. For battles like Bremule and Bannockburn, we have multiple accounts from opposing sides, many of whom explicitly had access to eye-witnesses, and 'medieval chroniclers' are not a monolithic group. Orderic Vitalis and Abbot Suger were both very reliable on subjects close to home, and Suger participated in war personally at Toury. Galbert of Bruges, meanwhile, was not only present but wrote a day-to-day accounting of the Siege of Bruges. quote:We don't know how close together the Normans were. We do know, however, that they were told to aim for the horses' chests in the succession crisis of 1101. I have seen no evidence of the horses turning away whatsoever, and it seems unlikely that the men on foot would concede the first blows to the mounted knights, yet out of an engagement with nine hundred knights only three were killed. At least four hundred of these knights were mounted, and over a hundred captured. quote:And I'm saying that either that is incorrect or its inclination to turn just doesn't matter in a measurable way. quote:That is interesting, but his arguments touch more on the effect of 'shock' and the wisdom of horses and men colliding (I am fairly convinced it is unwise) than the willingness of the horses to collide to begin with. quote:In this instance it is not particularly clear, but they were almost certainly surrounding him and the horse. quote:It may be worth considering that cavalry charges were seldom delivered in a single line. If, as you suggest, the feeling of something behind the horse would be enough to keep it charging forward, perhaps the second rank would be enough to do it. quote:There seems to be a specialisation in types of military horses and horsemanship that really starts in the 13th century but reaches its apex around the 16th-17th where cavalrymen typically have very particular tasks. Compare the definite differences between light and heavy cavalry in the 16th century vs. the rather ambiguous Knighthood of the 11th and 12th, and their respective roles. The number of horses in armies also increases quite seriously from the 15th-16th centuries, and I suspect, but have not far looked into, how this would have affected the training of them, but would make sense that the diminution of the cavalry arm, as well as hand-to-hand skirmishing roles for some types of cavalry and the decline of the joust meant that neither horse nor rider were as heavily trained as their predecessors. The horses were certainly of good breeding in the later periods, there can really be no doubt about that, but the way they were trained, I suspect, changed. The movement from lances to firearms likely would have been a large part of that. Not to mention everything we know about early modern animal husbandry inclines against this hypothesis; horse breeding, like the breeding of other livestock, did not decline after the middle ages but was carried out more intensively and in a more specialized fashion in the early modern period. People could do this because they began stall-feeding their livestock at this time, enabling them to control the movements (and therefore sexual contact) of their animals to a greater extent. Also, animals fed deliberately in stalls can be bred to grow bigger than animals fed on forage. Edit: Rodrigo Diaz posted:Suger has already mentioned this was a narrow bridge, with men packed close, and a strong nudge could have been enough to send them over the side. We do not know, after all, if it even had hand rails. quote:You are confusing my arguments here. I brought up Pero Niño to show that the Marquess's earlier implication that a horse could be turned aside by non-lethal harm was not universally true. Here we have a horse that initially turned, but then was brought back to bear, and suffered frequent harm, enough that its guts hung out, and it remained controllable. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
You'll get no argument from me that the training certainly changed to adapt to different fighting styles, but outside of the brief foray of the caracole, there wasn't a time when European cavalry gave up the arme blanche as the primary weapon of cavalry. By most accounts, cavalry horses were mean as poo poo and very well trained to set up the sabre stroke of the rider and also kick people in the face. This doesn't seem all that different from what I know of earlier mounted combat, with the exception of lances. I don't see the specialized training of the joust representing an increase or diminution of training over the specialized training needed to make a cuirassier or hussar truly effective. I'd say that the increase in count of horses would lead to a diminution of average training quality due to a greater number of relatively indifferently trained horses, but I highly doubt that it led to a diminution of the peak training quality. It's really tough to tell, though, and of course I am basing my information primarily on accounts of Napoleonic war era cavalry and have little expertise on the earlier eras.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:You'll get no argument from me that the training certainly changed to adapt to different fighting styles, but outside of the brief foray of the caracole, there wasn't a time when European cavalry gave up the arme blanche as the primary weapon of cavalry. By most accounts, cavalry horses were mean as poo poo and very well trained to set up the sabre stroke of the rider and also kick people in the face. This doesn't seem all that different from what I know of earlier mounted combat, with the exception of lances. I don't see the specialized training of the joust representing an increase or diminution of training over the specialized training needed to make a cuirassier or hussar truly effective.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:44
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:No, I think you're right, based on what I know about everything else that's going on in early modern agriculture. In all areas, you see a greater attention being payed to breeding, feed, training, etc. I'm willing to give benefit of the doubt that when we're talking about the landed elite's cavalry mounts that there probably wasn't too much difference in quality just because you're already up at the absolute upper limits of practical horse strength and training. Now I'm off in to fantasizing about an equal number of French Gens d'Armes against an equal number of Cuirassiers on a field somewhere...
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
This is the new tankchat, isn't it?  How about we agree to disagree on this and take a new tack: What's the first European battle that involved substantial numbers of hand-guns, and what's the first battle where they really made a difference? Some time during the Hussite Wars? Earlier? Later?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
Hey pony chat 2013 is where it's at ok? I'm enjoying reading about it. In my mostly uninformed opinion, I would think that earlier centuries would feature horses that were more likely to charge into masses of infantry. I think the average knight, by pure virtue of spending a lifetime devoted to warfare would have a big gently caress off destrier that was equally trained and bred to be mean and willing to perform such tasks. In later centuries I would imagine that cavalry would have a slightly decreased quality, at least in terms of sheer size and training, as a result of the increasing size of armies. I would also think that speedier, yet still large, horses would be of more value than the big destriers of previous centuries due to the increasing use of gunpowder/professional soldiers who may have been more likely to stand up to a charge. I don't doubt that knights mounted on destriers would have been able to smash through levies of amateur soldiers, many of whom may have broken ranks or panicked at the last second, and therefore may have charged onto sharp objects. They were bred for it after all. Later cavalry would have been less likely to do so due to a lesser amount of training, not being as big, and the fact that they were facing troops who may not have been as likely to break, and possibly armed with guns in addition to big pikes. This is all conjecture though, but I think there's obviously a huge amount of difference between cavalry tactics and the evolution armies between the 12th century and the 16th century. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong though, this topic is really fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 01:08
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:Hey pony chat 2013 is where it's at ok? I'm enjoying reading about it. In my opinion, events like Rodrigo Diaz is describing are not horses colliding with people like big fuzzy battering rams but running between them and scattering them when they run away. And you could argue that the spears/bayonets aren't even essential--a Roman legion could hold off cavalry as well, as could some well-disciplined strikers in 19th century labor disputes. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 05:47 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 05:44
|
|
|
I thought when the yeomen got called out the strikers ended up breaking, at least in British labor disputes. Actually, how far back do riot tactics go? Did the Romans have any techniques for dealing with mobs in the city?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 05:53
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I thought when the yeomen got called out the strikers ended up breaking, at least in British labor disputes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
This is the best thread. What's the point of armouring your horses if they won't charge spears? Just psychological intimidation?
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
THE LUMMOX posted:This is the best thread. I want to make this extra clear: I'm not saying horses never get stabbed or that they do not charge people. I am saying that they hate getting things in their face and, while they will go toward those things for a while, they'll turn away before they literally run into them. If you are charging footmen, you're either looking for a gap so you can ride between some of them or you are hoping that they will freak out and run from you. Either way, there's a chance that someone will up and stab your horse. Check out Rodrigo Diaz's excerpt again: the horse gets things thrown at it and eventually gets mobbed by footmen and disemboweled. HEY GUNS fucked around with this message at 12:21 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:I thought when the yeomen got called out the strikers ended up breaking, at least in British labor disputes.  Call out the legions, seal the streets and start stabbing. Better hope that the legions remain loyal. During the uneasy occupation of Jerusalem, the Romans had to murder a few thousand rioters every so often to keep order. Then during the zealot riots in Alexandria, apparently an entire section of the city was burned down during the suppression. And the Nikas riots, well, they sealed up the Hippodrome and didn't let anyone out. Then during the short reign of Michael V an angry mob dragged him out of the palace and mutilated him. Mostly because the household guards were like, "Welp, they seem determined and the boss is kind of an rear end in a top hat". sullat fucked around with this message at 06:29 on Feb 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 06:19
|
|
|
canuckanese posted:I think the average knight, by pure virtue of spending a lifetime devoted to warfare would have a big gently caress off destrier that was equally trained and bred to be mean and willing to perform such tasks. In later centuries I would imagine that cavalry would have a slightly decreased quality, at least in terms of sheer size and training, as a result of the increasing size of armies. I would also think that speedier, yet still large, horses would be of more value than the big destriers of previous centuries due to the increasing use of gunpowder/professional soldiers who may have been more likely to stand up to a charge. I don't doubt that knights mounted on destriers would have been able to smash through levies of amateur soldiers, many of whom may have broken ranks or panicked at the last second, and therefore may have charged onto sharp objects. They were bred for it after all. Later cavalry would have been less likely to do so due to a lesser amount of training, not being as big, and the fact that they were facing troops who may not have been as likely to break, and possibly armed with guns in addition to big pikes. This is all conjecture though, but I think there's obviously a huge amount of difference between cavalry tactics and the evolution armies between the 12th century and the 16th century. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong though, this topic is really fascinating. You are vastly underestimating the professionalism of later European cavalry and probably overestimating the professionalism of earlier cavalry, among other issues.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 12:28
|
|
|
Can someone recommend a book about fortifications from the ACW up til around WW1? The whole discussion about them has me interested and I have a little free time.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
I'm not a big fan of horses. But from what I've heard they can be trained to perform any nasty task you want. The british police train them to trample over people and they have no problem with that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRj2K0ulD8Q
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Are there any great books covering the the general time period of early modern warfare in Europe? Basically from the period just prior to the 30 years war to the Napoleonic Wars. I know there are tons of books on each subject individually but I'm looking for something larger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 00:12
|
|
|
HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:However, there is much less written down from your period than from mine, and what is written down is written in less detail. Descriptions are briefer and stereotyped, formed around stock phrases and common cultural references. I'm not arguing that horsemen are said to "ride down" or "ride in among" the foot. But what this means is left unclear. A medieval chronicle does not attain the level of detail that, say, an 18th century technical manual does, because the authors think of writing in different ways and their audiences expect different things. While they all do rely on a degree of assumed knowledge, many of them are quite detailed. quote:This supports my point. If the footmen are actively aiming for the horses, moving toward them, then horses can get stabbed without riding literally upon the spears. The foot-soldiers that met the initial charge at Bremule were immobile. This is agreed upon by the main sources, and is typical of the period. Foot-soldiers on the move were considered at risk from cavalry, since they often got strung out, as happened to the royal French host in the second siege of Le Puiset. The infantry formation Nikephoros Phokas mentions is also meant to be immobile to receive a charge. To quote again from the Praecepta Militaria Nikephoros Phokas posted:If it should happen, and we hope it does not, that the three deep spears of the infantrymen are smashed by the enemy kataphraktoi, then the menavlatoi, firmly set, stand their ground bravely to receive the charge of the kataphraktoi and turn them away. The emperor, in describing the menavlia, the spear of these elite infantrymen, emphasises that it should be 'just so thick that hands can wield them' and made of whole saplings, rather than 'wood cut into sections'. There is no reason to have especially strong spears unless they are receiving an especially heavy load, for which the spears of the regular infantry were clearly not adequate. quote:How would you force it to go on? How familiar are you with horses? Have you seen horseracing or other equestrian events? Have you ever been standing right next to one when it decides it's going to shift position a little bit? You move along with it because you weigh 170 pounds and it weighs up to ten times that. My argument does not rely upon my own experience with horses, but rather what the chroniclers and biographers say happened and what is provided in military manuals that says it will happen. quote:If it's unwise, why do you believe people are willing to do it routinely? I never said the collision of man and horse was routine (nor indeed did I mention it at all until that post), but people are willing to do all sorts of unwise things, like frontally charge a fortified position or post in GBS. Additionally, whenever it happens that cavalry throws itself upon spears to ill effect, the knights involved all rely on the the formation breaking, either out of arrogance (as at Bremule and Bannockburn) or desperation (as at Hastings) but in the latter case it is rarely done in isolation, but typically with some kind of infantry or missile support (again, as at Hastings). Take another example from Bouvines, where Count Renaud of Boulogne was protected by an immobile 'wheel' of foot sergeants: William the Breton posted:The count kept on retreating with impunity behind the wall of his foot soldiers; he did not need to fear being hit with a mortal blow by the enemy. Indeed, as our knights were fighting on their own with their swords and their short weapons, they would have feared attacking the foot soldiers equipped with lances: these, with their lances longer than knives and swords, and moreover lined up in an unbreachable formation of triple layers of walls, were so cleverly disposed that there was no way that they could be breached. The King, having recognized this, sent against them 3,000 armed retainers mounted on horses and equipped with lances so as to make them abandon their position by putting them in disorder, and thus to free himself of this formidable ring. A clamor then arises; the cries of the dying, the noise of arms make it no longer possible to hear the sounds of the trumpets. They fall, riddled with wounds, all of these unfortunate people with whom the Count of Boulogne had surrounded himself with an art now useless, believing in vain that he could defy all the French by himself, caring to keep on fighting them after all the others had run away and disdaining owing his life to a shameful flight. This emphasises the caution knights would often show in dealing with massed, spear-armed infantry, especially since the number of retainers set against them seems to have been overwhelming. The choice of lance-armed cavalry is also telling, however, because it means that they would indeed be willing to move into spear range, but they clearly met with greatest success once the formation broke. quote:So the rider is surrounded by people on foot, some of which converge upon the horse and stab it. Just what I was saying would happen. See my post above for the point I was making here. quote:They're too far away for that. When a group of horses are running, there's a healthy distance between the ones in front and the ones behind. I'm talking about impediments right behind or beside the horse. This was really a hamfisted attempt to merge our two positions, so eh. Fair enough. quote:No amount of training or breeding will induce a horse to ride toward a spearpoint aimed at its eyes. None. I'm sorry. You do not need to introduce a complicated and unwieldy hypothesis like this. I've introduced plenty of evidence that horses will ride into spears, including an excerpt from a military manual on heavily armoured horses breaking spear shafts while riding into infantry formations. If that's not enough, so be it. quote:Not to mention everything we know about early modern animal husbandry inclines against this hypothesis; horse breeding, like the breeding of other livestock, did not decline after the middle ages but was carried out more intensively and in a more specialized fashion in the early modern period. People could do this because they began stall-feeding their livestock at this time, enabling them to control the movements (and therefore sexual contact) of their animals to a greater extent. Also, animals fed deliberately in stalls can be bred to grow bigger than animals fed on forage. I never said later horses would be of inferior breeding. HEGEL SMOKE A J posted:In my opinion, events like Rodrigo Diaz is describing are not horses colliding with people like big fuzzy battering rams but running between them and scattering them when they run away. That is a misrepresentation of my position. Though there are circumstances where horses could knock people down this was not their optimal use, and seems to have mainly been glancing blows in a rout, which I've already mentioned and which you seem to agree with. It is clear that it was not the impact of the horses but of the weapons used on horseback that provided most harm, though as I've mentioned above men on the ground (prone or supine, take your pick) could be trampled. To take another East Roman example: Leo the Deacon posted:[The emperor] put the ironclad horsemen in front and instructed the archers and slingers to shoot from behind them at the enemy ... At a sign from the emperor the signal for battle was sounded and one could see the Byzantine units proceeding in extraordinarily good order, while the field gleamed with the brilliance of their arms. The Tarsiots could not withstand so great an assault. Overwhelmed by the impact of the lances and by the missiles shot by the men behind [the attackers], they at once gave way to flight and shamefully shut themselves up in the town. But to deal these lance thrusts, the horsemen would (in the frontal charge which kataphraktoi were designed for, and knights at Bremule and Bannockburn executed unwisely) have to get into range of the defenders' spears. This is simple geometry, as spears of equal length would have a shorter distance to travel from the foot-soldier to the horse's chest than the rider to the foot-soldier, especially since the mounted men would be using them overhand. The Norman knights at Hastings took quite a bit of damage from trying to force parts of the English line to break with frontal charges. I do not believe they would have done it by straightforward attrition (a difficult proposition against a densely-packed shield wall), but that the impact of the lances was intended to make them break, as it did to the Tarsiots in Leo's account. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:You are vastly underestimating the professionalism of later European cavalry and probably overestimating the professionalism of earlier cavalry, among other issues. He's got the professionalism of knights essentially correct, but there are a lot of things wrong with that statement to be sure. I've already spent too long on this post, though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
General China posted:I'm not a big fan of horses. Police horses don't give a gently caress about a disorganized unarmed mass of people who are mostly running away, but the cops won't use cavalry charges against a semi-organized mob with homemade shields who can sort of maintain a line under fire like the Occupy Oakland protesters, so they send in the riot cops with shields, batons, and Roman/Viking-era shield wall tactics instead. The pro-Mubarak mobs in Egypt a few years ago tried an unsupported charge by untrained cavalry on camels and cart-horses, and it ended up with all of them being surrounded and dragged off their mounts by the angry mob. A while later they tried the same thing with dudes on motorcycles, and that had the same results.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Ask / Tell > Ask me about Horses!
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:Ask / Tell > Ask me about Horses! yeah the use of the horse is pretty unimportant in military history i see your point (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Not like there were any empires created in on the basis of skilled mounted warriors or anything like that. Totally irrelevant to military history.  Edit: To clarify my earlier post, I didn't mean to make it sound like later cavalry was unprofessional or somehow lesser quality than knights, I just meant that comparatively to both each other and the quality of their opponents (mostly levies vs professionals) I would assume earlier tactics would feature cavalry that could and would be willing to charge directly into masses of infantry. I've always been under the impression that early medieval cavalry was kind of the tank of it's day, whereas later cavalry was more utilitarian, such as dragoons for example. Again, the evolution of cavalry isn't really my forte so this is all pretty much just conjecture and I do appreciate reading responses from you guys who know the topic much better than me. Jamwad Hilder fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Griz posted:Police horses don't give a gently caress about a disorganized unarmed mass of people who are mostly running away, but the cops won't use cavalry charges against a semi-organized mob with homemade shields who can sort of maintain a line under fire like the Occupy Oakland protesters, so they send in the riot cops with shields, batons, and Roman/Viking-era shield wall tactics instead. Riot stuff is loving fascinating. I remember a GBS post from the Occupy heyday last summer (wish I'd saved it, because the thread turned into a shitfest and got gassed) where the OP described his preparations for an action expected to draw riot cops. Dude had everything from his boots to his headgear (either a construction or motorcycle helmet, can't remember) planned out. KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:yeah the use of the horse is pretty unimportant in military history i see your point It's not that horses aren't important, it's that the continued debate over the specifics of cavalry charges is getting a little spergy. Grand Prize Winner fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 03:22
|
|
|
It's still like 100x more interesting than rehashing WW2 poo poo over and over again.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 04:44
|
|
|
Could a tank destroyer hold up against a cavalry charge?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 04:51
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Could a tank destroyer hold up against a cavalry charge? Only when commanded by a gay black Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 04:54
|
|
Phobophilia posted:Could a tank destroyer hold up against a cavalry charge? canister shot
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
We can discuss this.  Shimrra Jamaane posted:Are there any great books covering the the general time period of early modern warfare in Europe? Basically from the period just prior to the 30 years war to the Napoleonic Wars. I know there are tons of books on each subject individually but I'm looking for something larger.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 05:29
|
|
|
Me too. This talk about "Bad War" from the last couple pages is definitely related.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 05:32
|
|
|
I found myself reading up on the Battle of Yarmouk and Khalid ibn al-Walid seems like an interesting fellow. Is there any good historical litterature on him? (Doesn't have to be textbook stuff, semi-historical-fiction can do too). I feel that era is generally glossed over, sadly (i.e, anything between "CRUSADERS" and "ROMAN EMPIRE" - almost like there's some sort of underlying theme there...).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 12:13
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Only when commanded by a gay black Hitler. You'd need a gay black Rommel at a minimum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 12:55
|
|
|
The lack of WW2 posts has been very refreshing. More horses and bad war! Thanks to all the excellent posters who know actually what their talking about.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
Well there were still horse cavalry in WWII...
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
This horsetalk has been quite interesting. I support the the notion that horses don't run against solid objects. Mongols used mounted archers with lancers and didn't charge against intact formations. Medieval knights used long lances. Swedish cavalry in 30-year war fired pistols just before contact. I think the reason that cavalry sometimes managed to break infantry with charge (I mean instances where infantry broke after contact) was that they used longer range weapons and could inflict casualties to the front rank and create gaps for their horses. Another reason might have been blinders or horse armor that limited vision. Romans exploited horses' natural reaction to avoid objects by creating gaps in their formation where charging cavalry would trap itself. But what about cavalry using shorter weapons like sabres? I haven't read much about Napoleonic wars(only played Mount and Blade  ), were there successful charges against infantry that held its ground and only broke after contact?
Hogge Wild fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Feb 3, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:But what about cavalry using shorter weapons like sabres? I haven't read much about Napoleonic wars(only played Mount and Blade Mostly no (I did post Garcia Hernandez earlier), though it did happen. Infantry, when opposed by cavalry, would form square. The only realistic way to break a square formed from quality troops, was to bring up some light horse artillery and pound the gently caress out of the square, which worked well because the men in it were packed together. Or bring up some infantry and have them slug it out for a bit. (See Salamanca for the latter). But if you had good infantry who could form square quickly, and good cavalry, and no guns, neither side was going to be able to do much to each other except wave and yell insults. However, if the guys with sabres caught the infantry out of square, it was pretty brutal. Light cavalry were trained to chase down fleeing enemies, and slash backwards at their faces, since if an enemy were wearing a pack and greatcoat, or even just a greatcoat, the force of the blade would be blunted and they might damage their sabre. Cutting backwards against faces was easier and more effective and led to horrible disfiguring wounds. Horses were trained to automatically pick targets among fleeing men and set up their rider for an effective stroke. Cavalry, especially light cavalry, was frequently used in reconnaissance and patrol. Thus, you'd get small clashes on occasion between light cavalry units, but you would never send hussars against well-formed infantry unless you were stupid (which plenty of people were). Sahagun is a nice example of this. As an English speaker I'm a little biased in favor of English sources and actions. Sorry 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2013 17:30
|
|