|
Given how much of warfare is simply having your dudes at the right place at the right time, it seems to me the direct combat impact of cavalry is nearly a footnote compared to them getting to choose the time and place of engagement.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
Baldbeard posted:The idea of being on a horse in combat seems like an obvious and intuitive advantage, but it also seems like it would be very easy to lose your weapon, get thrown off of the horse, or be pulled down from it in direct combat. I wonder if a bigger part of the use of mounted units was to control the position of the enemy and break formation, rather than to just kill more people than if on foot. During a battle, the goal was never to simply kill the enemy where they stood, but rather to break their morale and make them vulnerable by forcing them to leave their formation. The bulk of the actual killing always took place once one side broke and ran, and cavalry was obviously much better at chasing down fleeing men than infantry. To that end, cavalry was often very successful in breaking poorly disciplined troops, but against disciplined infantry in a good defensive formation, cavalry charges often failed. Alekanderu fucked around with this message at 23:29 on Dec 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Baldbeard posted:The idea of being on a horse in combat seems like an obvious and intuitive advantage, but it also seems like it would be very easy to lose your weapon, get thrown off of the horse, or be pulled down from it in direct combat. I wonder if a bigger part of the use of mounted units was to control the position of the enemy and break formation, rather than to just kill more people than if on foot. I mean, the same thing can be said of modern cavalry (armor); all it takes is one guy with a good position and a high quality missile or a particularly big IED to take down a tank. Actually succeeding in doing this however is very difficult and very risky. That being said, the main thing that mounted soldiers have always brought to battle is mobility. Horses (and vehicles, subsequently) are typically so much faster than men on foot that they offer a distinct advantage in maneuver (that is, positioning yourself in an advantageous position relative to your opponent). Being big and mean and armored gives you a benefit when close combat occurs, but the main advantages you've gained was prior to any contact taking place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I mean, the same thing can be said of modern cavalry (armor); all it takes is one guy with a good position and a high quality missile or a particularly big IED to take down a tank. Actually succeeding in doing this however is very difficult and very risky. And fatigue, with remounts. It's tiring to ride a horse, but not as much as it is to actually slog through the mud and climb the hills and all, and even swinging your sword or holding your lance is aided by having a horse. So cavalry riders can stay fresh for longer than infantry. Dragoons, too: their mobility is part of their efficacy, but so is the fact that they're not going to be winded when they get where they're going. The remounts thing is something that gets overlooked a lot in talking about cavalry action, that the cavalry will charge, go back to the lines, and then switch out horses. This also means that even if someone did get a few slashes in on your horse, the new horse will be pristine. There's an enormous difference, therefore, between a cavalry troop that had to outpace its logistical arm and remounts, and one that is in proper order. There's also the simple factor that by being high up, the cavlaryman has a better perspective on the battlefield. For an infantry dude, if a few guys next to him go down, he may think that his whole unit is crumbling, whereas a cavalry guy has a better idea of how the whole engagement is going. Finally, the different between stirruped (really, stirruped combined with solid-tree saddles) and non-stirruped cavalry is pretty big in terms of weapon efficacy. It's very, very different to consider stirruped vs. non-stirruped cavalry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
Baldbeard posted:Couldn't a single foot-soldier with a spear easily do enough damage to a horse to make it un-ridable? Yes, but the spearman prolly isnt thinking clearly because having a horse run at you at full gallop is pretty fuckin scary, especially if Count vonCocksmasher is sitting on top of it decked out in armor that cost more than you make in your whole life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Baldbeard posted:How did mounted vs infantry play out? Obviously mounted soldiers demolished people on foot, but I've always thought the logistics of it would have to be a messy nightmare. I mean, you are forced to use a single-handed weapon, and your ability to twist and turn would have to be greatly reduced. The biggest thing I'm wondering about though is: Wouldn't horses basically be tripping and breaking legs left and right by stepping on people flailing their weapons around? First I will apologise in advance as I don’t have my sources handy, so I am going by memory and will not be able to give citations. I would start by qualifying a few things you mention. First is that mounted soldiers were also frequently the best trained and best equipped troops on the field, which can skew the results since knight vs. militia might not be the fairest contest. Second is that mounted combat can seem like a messy nightmare because we are more used to fighting on foot; I’ve never studied mounted combat personally, but I would see it as just requiring some specialist training to account for the differences. Another thought to throw in there is the popularity of two-handed weapons rose at a similar time to the decline of cavalry, so at least early on being forced to use a single-handed weapon was not that much of a sacrifice. On your biggest question, I would say horses have pretty good balance and stepping on people might break the person’s leg, but the flailing weapon would need to get a solid hit to break the horse’s leg, and it would be difficult to get a good angle or to hit with enough force. Mounted units breaking through crowds seemed to be consistently successful, judging by eastern accounts of Frankish charges. Against Fatamid infantry a Frankish cavalry charge was fairly reliably successful. I have also heard accounts of French knights riding through a Swiss pike square (I can’t remember exactly where at the moment) and the Swiss pike square just reforming behind them. Generally speaking, discipline of the infantry is a major factor; if they can recover from the initial shock then they can essentially surround and mob the cavalry. Baldbeard posted:The idea of being on a horse in combat seems like an obvious and intuitive advantage, but it also seems like it would be very easy to lose your weapon, get thrown off of the horse, or be pulled down from it in direct combat. I wonder if a bigger part of the use of mounted units was to control the position of the enemy and break formation, rather than to just kill more people than if on foot. For a time knights would have a chain linking their sword to their coat-of-plates to reduce the risk of losing their weapon (I think around 14th century). Another factor is the mounted knight might have a lance, a mace/axe, and a sword, so he can afford to lose a weapon. Being pulled down from the horse in direct combat is definitely a risk, though it is a little more difficult to get close enough to do that to a man on horseback and time spent trying to pull him down is time spent vulnerable. As for spearman vs. horse, I think it depends if the horse is in motion. A mostly stationary horse would be moderately vulnerable to a spearman, though a charging horse is fast enough that you need good timing to catch the horse with that spear, and the strike must be accurate enough and strong enough to strike squarely (an off-angle might push your spear aside with only minor injury to the horse) and you also need to watch out for the weapons of the rider. This is mostly just speculation though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 00:29
|
|
|
Railtus posted:
Also a horse is a very heavy animal if the spear didn't stop it well enough a flying horse into your face would make you break your ranks and probably crush you to death, if not serious injury.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
Chillyrabbit posted:Also a horse is a very heavy animal if the spear didn't stop it well enough a flying horse into your face would make you break your ranks and probably crush you to death, if not serious injury. A surprisingly rare occurrence though. Most often you'd get one or the other part (that is, horse or dude with spear) deciding 'gently caress this' and avoiding the issue. This, for instance, happened probably once through out the whole Napoleonic era (which was, if perhaps a little less reliant on cavalry charges, very well documented and certainly up there as far as number of engagements go.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 09:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:And fatigue, with remounts. It's tiring to ride a horse, but not as much as it is to actually slog through the mud and climb the hills and all, and even swinging your sword or holding your lance is aided by having a horse. So cavalry riders can stay fresh for longer than infantry. Dragoons, too: their mobility is part of their efficacy, but so is the fact that they're not going to be winded when they get where they're going. This is because remounts weren't always accessible in the thick of battle. In the case of many cavalrymen, regular remounts were not even an option. Only knight brothers of the Knights Templars were allowed a spare horse; sergeant brothers would simply have to make-do. quote:Finally, the different between stirruped (really, stirruped combined with solid-tree saddles) and non-stirruped cavalry is pretty big in terms of weapon efficacy. It's very, very different to consider stirruped vs. non-stirruped cavalry. The advantage provided by stirrups is actually comparatively small. Plenty of heavily armed cavalry (Parthian cataphracts, Macedonian and Thessalian cavalry, for example) predate the use of stirrups, and were known to be highly effective. Lighter cavalry, like the mounted javelineers of North Africa, did not adopt stirrups until long after While the stirrup does provide some advantage it was not revolutionary. The notion of the stirrup being a massively important technology, as far as I have seen, chiefly comes from historians trying to explain the rise of mounted combat in Western Europe from ~ the 8th century. These historians (Lynn White the first of them) seize on this piece of technology, rather than complex cultural and political factors as the source of this shift. That's a very strange argument to make. Hell, the argument even has a wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Stirrup_Controversy Railtus posted:Mounted units breaking through crowds seemed to be consistently successful, judging by eastern accounts of Frankish charges. Against Fatamid infantry a Frankish cavalry charge was fairly reliably successful. I have also heard accounts of French knights riding through a Swiss pike square (I can’t remember exactly where at the moment) and the Swiss pike square just reforming behind them. Generally speaking, discipline of the infantry is a major factor; if they can recover from the initial shock then they can essentially surround and mob the cavalry. The instance you are thinking of may have occurred at Marignano in 1515, where the French Gendarmes charged the Swiss multiple times, but I do not know for sure. I do know that Catholic Gendarmes rode through Huguenot pike squares at Dreux in 1562. the JJ posted:A surprisingly rare occurrence though. Most often you'd get one or the other part (that is, horse or dude with spear) deciding 'gently caress this' and avoiding the issue. This, for instance, happened probably once through out the whole Napoleonic era (which was, if perhaps a little less reliant on cavalry charges, very well documented and certainly up there as far as number of engagements go.) Horses refusing to charge was not as common as you claim. The Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos, a revised version of Nikephoros Phokas' Praecepta Militaria, is very explicit as far as the role of kataphraktoi, heavily armoured horsemen riding heavily armoured horses: Nikephoros Ouranos posted:For the enemy's spears and menavlia [a kind of heavier spear or pike] will be shattered by the kataphraktoi and their arrows will prove ineffective, whereupon the kataphraktoi, gaining in courage and boldness, will smash in the heads and bodies of the enemy and their horses with their iron maces and sabers, they will break into and dismember their formations and from there break through and so completely destroy them. Now, unless these sabres and maces were 5 feet long, the horses would be tested by the spears before their riders would have a chance to parry them. We have plenty of other instances from other battles (Hastings, Bremule, Bannockburn) of horses being unafraid of spearpoints, and often impaling themselves upon them as a consequence. What we have more evidence for is the riders not the horses, avoiding spears. There is also no 'perhaps' for the decline of cavalry. Between the 13th and the 19th century cavalry evolved from being the primary offensive force on the battlefield to serving a very much secondary role to the infantry. Chillyrabbit posted:Also a horse is a very heavy animal if the spear didn't stop it well enough a flying horse into your face would make you break your ranks and probably crush you to death, if not serious injury. Yes and no. While this is theortetically true, I have never heard of a dead horse breaking the ranks of formed infantry outside of one instance in the Napoleonic period. Moreover, I do not think that even if a horse did kill one man that it would cause the remaining foot-soldiers too much consternation, unless they were formed only one-rank deep. The dead horse also provides an obstacle for any further charging cavalry. In many instances where cavalry charge onto infantry spears, the charge was in exceedingly bad order either due to over-eagerness by the knights (as at Bremule) or earthworks and other rough terrain breaking up their charge (Courtrai, Bannockburn, Loudon Hill, etc). What this allows, especially if longer spears are used, is for multiple spears to be brought to bear on a single horse. This significantly improves the ability of foot-soldiers to stop these horses. Indeed, the Praecepta Militaria makes a significant point that the kataphraktoi should keep very close order and provides extra time for them to line up in the correct formation (a kind of trapezoid or flat-nosed wedge). They charged at a trot to help keep this formation. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
Although I have not had the pleasure to play with any highly trained horse in practice mounted combat, I can surmise that there is a severe misconception of agility regarding them. There are several breeds of horse that still resemble in size, speed, and agility the destrier's of old, and I can assure you a mounted knight on a well trained warhorse could have danced circles around an infantryman. Probably the best modern representation of what I'm talking about could be seen in bullfighting. My favorite is a Lusitano named Merlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz8BiTtoLp8 (keep in mind a bull is faster and more agile than a human). These horses were capable of strafing, juking, ducking and any other type of agile motion you can imagine. They could run flat out sideways, backwards, and spin on a dime. I imagine riding on one in battle and fighting against infantry would be analogous to going to war on foot against opponents in wheelchairs. (One caveat here is that the level of training a horse had varied wildly, and its safe to assume there were many mounts not as highly trained as this. Still, this serves as the best example of the extreme advantage of a well trained mount.) DandyLion fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Dec 30, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:This is because remounts weren't always accessible in the thick of battle. In the case of many cavalrymen, regular remounts were not even an option. Only knight brothers of the Knights Templars were allowed a spare horse; sergeant brothers would simply have to make-do. I'm not sure what you mean by 'this'. I said there's a huge difference between a cavalry force with remounts and one without remounts. quote:
The Parthian Cataphracts had another bunch of hardware to secure the lance and transfer the horse's momentum to it, the Macedonian cavalry guy had no shield because he had to hold the xyston with both hands. The Persian and other related heavy cavalry tended to focus a lot on missile weapons. What you're saying is kind of like saying the crossbow wasn't that big a deal because, hell, bows were around already. The saddle-tree and stirrup solved a problem; it was a problem solved in other ways, but none of those other ways were remotely as good as it. Similar to the crossbow, it's much easier to learn how to fight from a stirruped horse than one that's not, and it's much easier on the horse, too. Since I wasn't making any argument about cavalry replacing infantry--which is what The Great Stirrup Controversy is about--it doesn't really lend much to this conversation, and that Wiki page is incredibly light on details. It refers to modern re-enactment as proof, but doesn't provide any link to this re-enactment--and I thought you generally agreed that re-enactment is of severely limited value in evaluating this sort of thing, given how hard it is to get the details right. The thing I will agree with is that there were some cavalry that had other technologies that predated the stirrup that provided much, but not all, of the same benefits. But even with Alexander's cavalry, because of lacking the saddle tree and stirrup they couldn't use a shield. Finally, even for missile troops, the stirrup was important. It allowed much easier retreating fire, and while a lot of light cavalry did without it, even with the light cavalry of the American Plains Indians, you find adoption of the saddle-and-stirrup (a simple stirrup, but still a stirrup). It's a transformative technology; I don't agree with the guy's contention that it's what changed stuff from infantry-based to cavalry-based, but there are very important and significant differences between cavalry that have them and those that don't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Yes and no. While this is theortetically true, I have never heard of a dead horse breaking the ranks of formed infantry outside of one instance in the Napoleonic period. Moreover, I do not think that even if a horse did kill one man that it would cause the remaining foot-soldiers too much consternation, unless they were formed only one-rank deep. As I understand it, infantry lines weren't nearly as dense as people commonly think anyway, so it's not like a dead horse will hit that many people at once. If it was easy, why not just shoot at the enemy with dead horses I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 17:03
|
|
|
Awesome replies on the mounted combat topic guys, thanks. My questions have been completely answered, and I really like the new perspective on it. What kind of literature is there on super-detailed first hand accounts of medieval battles? I would love to read a translated play-by-play of forces clashing. Seems like most of what I learned in history classes was "Army X and Army Y clashed, Army X was victorious!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Although I have not had the pleasure to play with any highly trained horse in practice mounted combat, I can surmise that there is a severe misconception of agility regarding them. There are several breeds of horse that still resemble in size, speed, and agility the destrier's of old, and I can assure you a mounted knight on a well trained warhorse could have danced circles around an infantryman. Probably the best modern representation of what I'm talking about could be seen in bullfighting. My favorite is a Lusitano named Merlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz8BiTtoLp8 (keep in mind a bull is faster and more agile than a human). These horses were capable of strafing, juking, ducking and any other type of agile motion you can imagine. They could run flat out sideways, backwards, and spin on a dime. I imagine riding on one in battle and fighting against infantry would be analogous to going to war on foot against opponents in wheelchairs. This is loving awesome. gently caress you romney and your dressage bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2013 23:29
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm not sure what you mean by 'this'. I said there's a huge difference between a cavalry force with remounts and one without remounts. The fact that it is often overlooked is because it's not always relevant. Depending on your period, it's more or less common and sometimes it might not be relevant to a particular fight. I've also only noticed mentions of remounts when the horse died under its owner, perhaps because that was a particularly dramatic circumstance, but it could also be that remounts were only used once the first horse was no longer fit to ride. Other than the fact that knights have multiple horses, I cannot find any real discussion of remounts in the Rule of the Templars, but I will keep looking. quote:The Parthian Cataphracts had another bunch of hardware to secure the lance and transfer the horse's momentum to it, the Macedonian cavalry guy had no shield because he had to hold the xyston with both hands. The Persian and other related heavy cavalry tended to focus a lot on missile weapons. What you're saying is kind of like saying the crossbow wasn't that big a deal because, hell, bows were around already. The saddle-tree and stirrup solved a problem; it was a problem solved in other ways, but none of those other ways were remotely as good as it. Similar to the crossbow, it's much easier to learn how to fight from a stirruped horse than one that's not, and it's much easier on the horse, too. So please explain to me how this affects weapon efficacy, which was your original contention. Couching the lance did not come about until the 11th century, many centuries after the arrival of the stirrup in Europe, and more important than the stirrup for getting more impact out of a charge was the high-backed saddle, followed, later in the middle ages, by the specialised cavalry lance. Until the development of couching, lances were used from horseback much the same as they had in Xenophon's day: Overhand and underhand. quote:Since I wasn't making any argument about cavalry replacing infantry--which is what The Great Stirrup Controversy is about--it doesn't really lend much to this conversation, and that Wiki page is incredibly light on details. It refers to modern re-enactment as proof, but doesn't provide any link to this re-enactment--and I thought you generally agreed that re-enactment is of severely limited value in evaluating this sort of thing, given how hard it is to get the details right. Oh, no, I'm not providing the page as proof of anything, rather I'm just putting it up so that anyone interested can get a bit of understanding of the controversy to which I'm referencing. Historiographical bookkeeping. quote:But even with Alexander's cavalry, because of lacking the saddle tree and stirrup they couldn't use a shield. I don't see how you can support this argument. We know cavalry in Carthaginian and Roman employ used shields and lances. quote:Finally, even for missile troops, the stirrup was important. It allowed much easier retreating fire, and while a lot of light cavalry did without it, even with the light cavalry of the American Plains Indians, you find adoption of the saddle-and-stirrup (a simple stirrup, but still a stirrup). I don't disagree that it was an advantage but I think the advantage had much more to do with training, as you say, and allowing you to stand in the saddle, giving you better range of motion, and making your horse more comfortable than making your weapons hit harder. Kemper Boyd posted:As I understand it, infantry lines weren't nearly as dense as people commonly think anyway, so it's not like a dead horse will hit that many people at once. If it was easy, why not just shoot at the enemy with dead horses I guess. Well, William of Poitiers describes English at Hastings being so tightly packed that their dead could not drop to the ground. Not sure how much tighter you can get without getting all Human Centipede. I think formations only started regularly opening up with the increasing use of firearms, in order to accommodate countermarching, but that's just a guess. We know shields would be overlapped in a shield wall, so at the very least there were some very tight infantry formations out there. From my reading I get the impression that tight formations on foot were the norm, unless we are dealing with skirmishers or bowmen or special circumstances, like the mixed spear-and-crossbow formation that Richard used at Jaffa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:Well, William of Poitiers describes English at Hastings being so tightly packed that their dead could not drop to the ground. Not sure how much tighter you can get without getting all Human Centipede. I think formations only started regularly opening up with the increasing use of firearms, in order to accommodate countermarching, but that's just a guess. We know shields would be overlapped in a shield wall, so at the very least there were some very tight infantry formations out there. From my reading I get the impression that tight formations on foot were the norm, unless we are dealing with skirmishers or bowmen or special circumstances, like the mixed spear-and-crossbow formation that Richard used at Jaffa. I might be wrong, but I have an idea that formations loosed up a bit as time progressed, in the 11th century you would see a lot more tight formations than later when the medieval age was coming to an end. By the time you start seeing pikes becoming the norm for the infantryman, formations got a lot more loose because you needed the space to effectively use it. So we might have been talking about two kind of different things which isn't that weird considering the approximate time frame is something like 800 years or so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
It seems that the only thing known for certain about the advent of the stirrup is that there are as many opinions as there are variations of the stirrup. http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_history/tutor/oldwrld/armies/stirrups.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 11:36
|
|
|
Any instances of non-stirruped cavalry fighting stirruped cavalry? Irish cavalry fought without stirrups until the early 17th century. They often came off worse in straight up fights against their Norman/Anglo Irish/English enemies but they had a much bigger problem than simply not having stirrups, their horses were small mountain ponies while their enemies rode destriers.   
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 13:35
|
|
|
Rodrigo Diaz posted:The fact that it is often overlooked is because it's not always relevant. Depending on your period, it's more or less common and sometimes it might not be relevant to a particular fight. The Mongols, with whom I'm--hah--more familiar, used remounts often, especially when doing a false retreat. I've seen it in other material too that I'll look for, but it seems odd to me that the idea that, if they could, a rider would replace a tired mount with a fresh one is a challenging one for you. quote:So please explain to me how this affects weapon efficacy, which was your original contention. Couching the lance did not come about until the 11th century, many centuries after the arrival of the stirrup in Europe, and more important than the stirrup for getting more impact out of a charge was the high-backed saddle, followed, later in the middle ages, by the specialised cavalry lance. Until the development of couching, lances were used from horseback much the same as they had in Xenophon's day: Overhand and underhand. Being able to stand in the saddle and giving you a better range of motion both improve weapon efficacy. Weapon efficacy isn't only about 'hitting harder', though of course, being able to stand in the saddle does allow you to hit harder, too. A quote:Oh, no, I'm not providing the page as proof of anything, rather I'm just putting it up so that anyone interested can get a bit of understanding of the controversy to which I'm referencing. Historiographical bookkeeping. Did you read the page, though? The page is about some argument that introduction of the stirrup is what gave rise to feudalism. I'm not making anything like that claim: I'm making the claim that the introduction of the stirrup and tree was a very significant technological advance for cavalry. One easy proof of this is that all cavalry adopted the stirrup and tree after it was widely available, when they could. You don't find any knights eschewing it for the old Kataprhaktoi system, for example. quote:I don't see how you can support this argument. We know cavalry in Carthaginian and Roman employ used shields and lances. The argument that ALexander's cavalry needed two hands to support their Xyston. This is confirmed, rather than denied, by the fact that Roman and Roman Auxilary cavalry varied between using shorter spears with shield, or longer spears with no shields. The xyston was around the size of the medieval knight's lance; while you can say that other technologies around the stirrup and saddle tree were just as important in allowing those knights to use both shields and massive lances, I'd agree that stirrup on its own isn't enough, which is why I also talked about the saddle tree. If you want to include the high-backed saddle along with the tree and stirrup as something necessary for massive lance plus shield combo, I'd probably agree though I'd have to look into it more. To me, you seem to be taking the very odd position that the stirrup and tree were really not a big deal. Can you explain their widespread adoption by cavalry forces? Is your contention that the tree-and-stirrups strategic effects (less fatigue for the horses, allowing quicker training) are much more important than the greater range of motion and other effects on weapon usage, and that the latter are just a bonus, or what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 14:39
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:To me, you seem to be taking the very odd position that the stirrup and tree were really not a big deal. Can you explain their widespread adoption by cavalry forces? Is your contention that the tree-and-stirrups strategic effects (less fatigue for the horses, allowing quicker training) are much more important than the greater range of motion and other effects on weapon usage, and that the latter are just a bonus, or what? I think his argument is that while the stirrup and tree were important on an individual horseman basis, they didn't change things as much as was once believed. People were still charging into combat and stabbin' lads before the advent of stirrup and tree. Personally I believe the horses themselves (and subsequently their availability) were more important to the development of cavalry over the centuries. In my previous post I mentioned how Irish horsemen rode small mountain ponies without stirrups or even proper saddles (they rode on what are described as "pads"). The Norman lords who conquered part of the country even adopted this style of riding and combat after assimilating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
The point made above about horses giving superior mobility is most certainly true. Have a video from 1920 to see how mobile and cross-country-capable horses can be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOyvimZuF5o At least check out those drops at 3:30 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nOyvimZuF5o#t=209 A note however: Horses that are capable in body and mind of dealing with those harsh obstacles so easily are the result of a long and most rigorous breeding, selection and training program. If a horse developed problems in its movement aparatus due to the strain of that training (or if its character proved to be unsuitable), not only the single horse but the whole bloodline was removed from the program. So that video does not really give any proof about the capabilities of medieval horses - it just shows what was possible in 1920. Another video showing off mobility that could be used during an actual fight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-TvUnmUP1k This mobility is also the result of high breeding and years of rigorous and highly skilled training. Dont expect any horse to be able to do that. Railtus posted:On your biggest question, I would say horses have pretty good balance and stepping on people might break the person’s leg, but the flailing weapon would need to get a solid hit to break the horse’s leg, and it would be difficult to get a good angle or to hit with enough force. And galloping horses are not THAT fast - normally its around 20-40 km/h (for our modern breeds). Yes, highly bred race horses can go up to 60, but those are specialists and they run on perfect ground. Doing an all-out gallop on unsure ground is just asking for a broken neck of horse and/or rider (and yes, horses do that in nature - but only when they are fleeing head-over-heels from something. They also dont have a rider on their back who fucks up their balance and makes it harder for them to keep upright). Go find a car that moves with 30 km/h (around 20 mph), and you will have no problem stabbing it with a spear or hitting it with a sword/club in a somewhat aimed fashion if its just going by you and you are close enough. If its coming right at you, hmm, who knows. A spear would just be ripped from your fingers when 1000 pounds of horse ram into it. Yea, you would injure it, but I doubt that a spear would be able to penetrate through the sternum (which shields that area) or the ribs and all that muscle into the heart/lungs which you would need for a killshot. Railtus posted:Mounted units breaking through crowds seemed to be consistently successful, judging by eastern accounts of Frankish charges. Against Fatamid infantry a Frankish cavalry charge was fairly reliably successful. I have also heard accounts of French knights riding through a Swiss pike square (I can’t remember exactly where at the moment) and the Swiss pike square just reforming behind them. Generally speaking, discipline of the infantry is a major factor; if they can recover from the initial shock then they can essentially surround and mob the cavalry. Edit: heh, someone posted the same video as I: DandyLion posted:Although I have not had the pleasure to play with any highly trained horse in practice mounted combat, I can surmise that there is a severe misconception of agility regarding them. There are several breeds of horse that still resemble in size, speed, and agility the destrier's of old, and I can assure you a mounted knight on a well trained warhorse could have danced circles around an infantryman. Probably the best modern representation of what I'm talking about could be seen in bullfighting. My favorite is a Lusitano named Merlin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz8BiTtoLp8 (keep in mind a bull is faster and more agile than a human). These horses were capable of strafing, juking, ducking and any other type of agile motion you can imagine. They could run flat out sideways, backwards, and spin on a dime. I imagine riding on one in battle and fighting against infantry would be analogous to going to war on foot against opponents in wheelchairs. Frostwerks posted:This is loving awesome. gently caress you romney and your dressage bullshit.  Obdicut posted:To me, you seem to be taking the very odd position that the stirrup and tree were really not a big deal. Can you explain their widespread adoption by cavalry forces? Is your contention that the tree-and-stirrups strategic effects (less fatigue for the horses, allowing quicker training) are much more important than the greater range of motion and other effects on weapon usage, and that the latter are just a bonus, or what?  Stirrups make it very, VERY much easier to keep your balance in a crisis situation, when the horse suddenly moves. You also can get up easier  Nektu fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Dec 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
How did dismounted Knights typically fight? Sword and Board? Mace? Greatsword?
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 19:54
|
|
|
Wouldn't that depend on what they're facing? If they carry a wide range of weapons on the horse, they could pick and choose the best one for the current opposition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Nektu posted:If its coming right at you, hmm, who knows. A spear would just be ripped from your fingers when 1000 pounds of horse ram into it. Yea, you would injure it, but I doubt that a spear would be able to penetrate through the sternum (which shields that area) or the ribs and all that muscle into the heart/lungs which you would need for a killshot. Thanks for posting those great videos. This is good point, which is why many classical and medieval spears would have a butt-spike that could be buried in the ground against a charge, which meant the spear itself would take the force of any impact. It also meant that any horse that speared itself against a spear-wall would almost certainly die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:18
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:How did dismounted Knights typically fight? Sword and Board? Mace? Greatsword? You're talking about a huge time span, a lot of cultures, and a period of significant development in metal working, weapon making, and armor making. So... lotsa things.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
the JJ posted:You're talking about a huge time span, a lot of cultures, and a period of significant development in metal working, weapon making, and armor making. The last period where plate armor was king, before firearms. Western Europe.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 21:25
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:The last period where plate armor was king, before firearms. Western Europe. But plate armors heyday coincided with firearms! Also Western Europe as in...France? GB? The men fighting the Reconquista were very different than those fighting the Hundred Years War was different than the Crusaders was different than... well you get the idea. That said, Agincourt is sorta a typical English/French throwdown with plate armor and a few, very early and insignificant to the battle cannons so... Most of the dismounted men at arms fought with lances. One book I read said that the French had shortened theirs and the English hadn't but I don't know if that's true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
the JJ posted:But plate armors heyday coincided with firearms! Also Western Europe as in...France? GB? The men fighting the Reconquista were very different than those fighting the Hundred Years War was different than the Crusaders was different than... well you get the idea. Oh. Most of my medeivil knowledge comes from trying to make D&D realistic, so I just wanted to know if sword and board was realistic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:The last period where plate armor was king, before firearms. Western Europe. The earliest firearms predate plate armour, though I assume you mean 1400-1500. The first choice would be a pole-weapon of some kind. A pollaxe is pretty popular; a sort of axe-hammer-spear combo (or hammer-pick-spear, the name pollaxe could be a little misleading). Those things can hit hard enough to be effective against armour and stab into the joints or gaps. Spears were used as well. Fighting manuals from the period still include armoured fighting with the spear; though I would much rather have a pollaxe. A secondary weapon for a knight would probably be a longsword (in D&D terms a bastard sword). These were primarily two-handed; the one-handed use made options such as wrestling at the sword (taking a hand from the sword to grapple) easier. Another popular secondary was single-handed sword (usually just called swords) with buckler. Full-sized shields tended to decline by the time plate armour was in development, though there’s reference to ‘targes’ which were fairly small shields - I have heard them interpreted as bucklers and as larger round shields. Bucklers could hang from your belt and be accessed quickly. These were more popular with non-knightly warriors though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2014 07:41
|
|
|
Mycroft Holmes posted:Oh. Most of my medeivil knowledge comes from trying to make D&D realistic, so I just wanted to know if sword and board was realistic. 'Sword and Board' was only realistic in the context of non-plate armor. Once plate armor came onto the scene in force the only instances where you would likely see them carrying shields was in sieges and other specialized cases. This is one thing that bugs me to no end about modern interpretations of armored combatants. Plate armor protected you just as well as a shield, so why carry the extra weight and additional hand encumbrance? So, as long as you're not wearing plate armor, there is probably some historical context where 'Sword and Board' is realistic and correct.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 15:49
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The Mongols, with whom I'm--hah--more familiar, used remounts often, especially when doing a false retreat. I've seen it in other material too that I'll look for, but it seems odd to me that the idea that, if they could, a rider would replace a tired mount with a fresh one is a challenging one for you. I'm not saying it's strange to me, I'm saying I do not see much reference to it in primary sources. I think this is because charging and withdrawing is not as easy as you seem to assume, and thus why it does not often feature in discussions of mounted combat. quote:Being able to stand in the saddle and giving you a better range of motion both improve weapon efficacy. Weapon efficacy isn't only about 'hitting harder', though of course, being able to stand in the saddle does allow you to hit harder, too. If it doesn't make the weapon more directly deadly that's the efficacy of the combatant rather than the weapon. quote:Did you read the page, though? The page is about some argument that introduction of the stirrup is what gave rise to feudalism. I'm not making anything like that claim: I'm making the claim that the introduction of the stirrup and tree was a very significant technological advance for cavalry. One easy proof of this is that all cavalry adopted the stirrup and tree after it was widely available, when they could. You don't find any knights eschewing it for the old Kataprhaktoi system, for example. I'd just assumed that is how you'd heard of it, since that is the most common origin of the argument. My mistake. quote:The argument that ALexander's cavalry needed two hands to support their Xyston. This is confirmed, rather than denied, by the fact that Roman and Roman Auxilary cavalry varied between using shorter spears with shield, or longer spears with no shields. The xyston was around the size of the medieval knight's lance; while you can say that other technologies around the stirrup and saddle tree were just as important in allowing those knights to use both shields and massive lances, I'd agree that stirrup on its own isn't enough, which is why I also talked about the saddle tree. If you want to include the high-backed saddle along with the tree and stirrup as something necessary for massive lance plus shield combo, I'd probably agree though I'd have to look into it more. Here you are mistaken. Lances were, until the use of couching and, more importantly, lance rests, noticeably shorter than the xyston: I've heard Caroingian lances talked of as no longer than infantry spears (8-9 feet) and by the 12th century somewhat longer (9-11) but both of these are shorter than the 11-13 of the xyston. You don't really get massive lances until the shield falls out of use and lance rests have something really firm to support them (plate armour). quote:To me, you seem to be taking the very odd position that the stirrup and tree were really not a big deal. Can you explain their widespread adoption by cavalry forces? Is your contention that the tree-and-stirrups strategic effects (less fatigue for the horses, allowing quicker training) are much more important than the greater range of motion and other effects on weapon usage, and that the latter are just a bonus, or what? You've got some of it with the latter argument, but at the core that your praise of the stirrup is too high. It's improvements were incremental. It did not significantly change how cavalry were employed, it did not significantly change their proportion in armies, or significantly improve the efficacy of their weapons. Rabhadh posted:I think his argument is that while the stirrup and tree were important on an individual horseman basis, they didn't change things as much as was once believed. People were still charging into combat and stabbin' lads before the advent of stirrup and tree. Personally I believe the horses themselves (and subsequently their availability) were more important to the development of cavalry over the centuries. In my previous post I mentioned how Irish horsemen rode small mountain ponies without stirrups or even proper saddles (they rode on what are described as "pads"). The Norman lords who conquered part of the country even adopted this style of riding and combat after assimilating. I agree with this, but even so it's all incremental. I'll also bring up Dom Duarte's Bem Cavalgar, which mentions two types of riding not heavily dependent upon stirrups, one which he associates with English and some Italians where the feet are not firm in the stirrups, and the other is without any stirrups or saddle at all. He goes on to say that he has seen knights use all styles of riding to good effect. Rodrigo Diaz fucked around with this message at 17:55 on Jan 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:Plate armor protected you just as well as a shield, so why carry the extra weight and additional hand encumbrance? How could that possibly be the case though? Even with plate armor, if someone swung a hammer, sword, or poleaxe, wouldn't you much rather have it hit a shield, then say your forearm? That way the full impact isn't transferring directly to your body. I mean, even with a plate helm on, couldn't you just concuss the ever loving hell out of someone by grabbing your sword by the blade and pommeling them with the hilt?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
Baldbeard posted:How could that possibly be the case though? Even with plate armor, if someone swung a hammer, sword, or poleaxe, wouldn't you much rather have it hit a shield, then say your forearm? That way the full impact isn't transferring directly to your body. I mean, even with a plate helm on, couldn't you just concuss the ever loving hell out of someone by grabbing your sword by the blade and pommeling them with the hilt? The shock hitting the shield is going to be about the same as it hitting plate armor. It's not like shields were made out of vibranium or something. By the time plate rolls around it's better to be the one swinging big with the hammer or having both hands free to grab the blade and pommel whack.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:'Sword and Board' was only realistic in the context of non-plate armor. Once plate armor came onto the scene in force the only instances where you would likely see them carrying shields was in sieges and other specialized cases. This is one thing that bugs me to no end about modern interpretations of armored combatants. Plate armor protected you just as well as a shield, so why carry the extra weight and additional hand encumbrance? Would plate armor protect just as well as a shield in the case of flanged maces and warhammers, though?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
ookuwagata posted:Would plate armor protect just as well as a shield in the case of flanged maces and warhammers, though? Your shield being supported by your arm, unless the attack outright broke the shield/armor section, there's no difference to the impact energy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
veekie posted:Your shield being supported by your arm, unless the attack outright broke the shield/armor section, there's no difference to the impact energy. The only way the impact energy is similar is if the strike lands exactly where your arm is supporting the shield. Even if that were to happen, you would still be better off with a hammer or whatever denting your shield rather than denting your armor section with body under it. Plus shields are angled to deflect blows in ways that you aren't going to do with your arms or elbows. I'm not saying that plate armored soldiers didn't use 2 handed weapons rather than shields, but we have to throw out a lot of basic science and common sense to pretend that a shield doesn't protect you more than your arm with a piece of metal wrapped around it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Point, but I guess the reasoning is that when you have enough defense to shrug off glancing blows, you next need to better ward off blows(which your weapon could do) and stop the opposition faster. Unless you made a mistake or are in a seriously bad position(e.g surrounded), they shouldn't be getting many straight hits in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:20
|
|
|
Baldbeard posted:The only way the impact energy is similar is if the strike lands exactly where your arm is supporting the shield. Even if that were to happen, you would still be better off with a hammer or whatever denting your shield rather than denting your armor section with body under it. Plus shields are angled to deflect blows in ways that you aren't going to do with your arms or elbows. I was also thinking that even if the metal didn't crush the flesh underneath, if the blow lands on a joint and deforms it, the joint may stick. If this happens to your elbow or shoulder, your ability to defend and attack would be compromised. If this happens to your leg or pelvis, your mobility goes. If both, you're basically sitting in a shiny custom fitted coffin. I don't know how closely fitted those armor joints were, but making them too loose fitting would seem like a bigger invitation for a thrust from a spear or sword. If really close fitting, I would think that even some glancing blows might be dangerous. Seems like a horrifying way to go; a few blows from a mace, and you're stuck in a suit of armor, unable to move or defend yourself, waiting to die inside a tiny metal prison.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
ookuwagata posted:Seems like a horrifying way to go; a few blows from a mace, and you're stuck in a suit of armor, unable to move or defend yourself, waiting to die inside a tiny metal prison. This actually happened and hammers and maces were specifically used vs. rigid plate-type armours; once immobilised you could kill the enemy quickly by stabbing through the armpit, crotch or neck joints. I don't know enough to say when this kind of fighting was commonplace though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 11:10 |
|
|
Probably still needs a solid blow to do that I think, the armorer would know of such attacks and build it to be as resistant as possible to fatal denting..
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2014 23:53
|
|