|
Godholio posted:Cavalry attacks weren't constant fights...they would charge, do the most damage possible as quickly as possible, then turn back and reform at a rally point. In fact, the ability of cavalry to reform after an initial successful charge was really what separated truly effective cavalry forces from less effective ones. Later on, but same principle - the British generals hated their own cavalry and much preferred the King's German Legion, because the Germans would stop and reform and could be used against other units. Once the British cavalry broke anything, they tried to hunt it to the ends of the earth, which usually led to the horses getting blown and them getting all hosed to pieces.
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 01:09 |
|
|
To expound on a couple things about the so-called Dark Ages, it's actually incredible how non-innovative the Roman world was. I mean there were some pretty impressive engineering achievements, but the Romans were basically cribbing things off the Greeks and improving their deployment, and peoples' accesses. They weren't actually inventing new things wholesale. In fact, it's not entirely unfair to view a significant portion of the Roman period as relatively stagnant in terms of technological development. In some sense, the "Dark Ages" were actually significantly more inventive, although access to technology and information was definitely curtailed compared to Rome.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2013 01:57
|
|