Hello, fellow soldiers and generals.

I'm a hobbyist student of ancient military history and I have some questions regarding heavy cavalry and their real use on the battlefield against infantry.

1. How did a typical regiment of heavy cavalry attack? How did they inflict the physical blow to infantry units? Did they use lances alone? Or lances for the blow and swords when in close combat?
2. What did infantrymen fear more - the lances or the heavy horses themselves?
3. Did horses charge at the bodies of infantrymen directly or did cavalrymen always had to use their weapons?
4. Were horses naturally afraid of pikes or were it riders who knew the probable result of such a charge.
5. I understand that standing on a field with 200 heavily armoured horses running at you, it takes great courage to stand and fight. Was fear the main factor in cavalry versus infantry warfare or was it rather real strength?

Thanks in advance for answers.

I doubt if anyone is old enough to remember one. I think horses refuse to impale themselves on the stakes (not surprisingly) or even dense seated unarmed crowds (rembember that scene from the film Gandhi?). Presumably instinct prevents them from galloping over 'rough ground' which is what a seated bunch of people would be seen as.

Historians such as John Keegan have shown that when correctly prepared against (such as by improvising fortifications) and, especially, by standing firm in face of the onslaught, cavalry charges often failed against infantry, with horses refusing to gallop into the dense mass of enemies[1], or the charging unit itself breaking up. However, when cavalry charges succeeded, it was usually due to the defending formation breaking up (often in fear) and scattering, to be hunted down by the enemy.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(warfare)

The Heavy Cavalry Charge was good because, adding speed and heavy force is like a wrecking ball into a line espically if since being on a horse against a ground troop means you get.

1. Height to go over any shield walls and hit the enemies heads or back lines thus weaking the front line you are facing.
2. The Horses were trained to run at them and they had armor in most cases as well. The could trample a wounded enemy.
3. Speed, being able to move well armed troops to hit people is good, espically if it is fast.

Also, add in the fact that you use it after a volley of archers or after the main clash of infantry, possibly a last resort.

Also, add in the fact that you use it after a volley of archers or after the main clash of infantry, possibly a last resort.

Indeed. My understanding is that you had to combine elements of infantry, artillery and cavalry to be effective. If the enemy group together in squares then pulverise them with artillery, if they spread out then charge them with cavalry.

Didn't Ney's cavalry charge at Waterloo fail against the British squares because he didn't use artillery along with it?

No, Neys cavalry charge failed because Napoleon wouldnt take advantage of the opening that Ney had created and press it with the Old guard thus crushing and crippling the British line, this might have force wellington to bring his troops over the ridge and into a direct conforntation witht the Grand Bombard, Napoleon's great Artillary crush.

Originally Posted by BootStomp

No, Neys cavalry charge failed because Napoleon wouldnt take advantage of the opening that Ney had created and press it with the Old guard thus crushing and crippling the British line, this might have force wellington to bring his troops over the ridge and into a direct conforntation witht the Grand Bombard, Napoleon's great Artillary crush.

I was under the impression Napolean was incapacitated with illness during the infamous attack

In essence this type of massed cavalry attack relied almost entirely on psychological shock for effect.[86] Close artillery support could disrupt infantry squares and allow cavalry to penetrate; at Waterloo, however, co-operation between the French cavalry and artillery was not impressive. The French artillery did not get close enough to the Anglo-allied infantry in sufficient numbers to be decisive.[87] Artillery fire between charges did produce mounting casualties, but most of this fire was at relatively long range and was often indirect, at targets beyond the ridge. If infantry being attacked held firm in their square defensive formations, and were not panicked, cavalry on their own could do very little damage to them. The French cavalry attacks were repeatedly repelled by the steadfast infantry squares, the harrying fire of British artillery as the French cavalry recoiled down the slopes to regroup, and the decisive counter-charges of Wellington's light cavalry regiments, the Dutch heavy cavalry brigade, and the remaining effectives of the Household Cavalry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo

Originally Posted by perseus

I was under the impression Napolean was incapacitated with illness during the infamous attack



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo

i think you would like the Book 100 Decsive Battles, Waterloo is in it, yes Napolean was ill at the time, but he was still aware of teh situation bc well it is Napolean and he had at times shown he like to micromanage lol. Still he held back the Old Guard(his best troops) and didnt push them forward because he wanted to use them for the killing blow instead. But yes he was ill.

The reason the British and allied infantry werent really hit by the artillary was because he placed them behind the ridge were the artillary and Napolean didn't see them. This protected them and then when the old guard did finally rush in at the battle's end, Wellington brought up his troops and showed his full force, and let the French have a full muskett volly from all his troops not just the forward line.

Not wanting to turn this into a Waterloo discussion, but there were British & Hanoverian Regiments which stood and fell under the French guns throughout the battle - as formed units, brave men. Also Ney was in charge of the Army, whilst Napoleon was incapacitated. He decided to charge without infantry support, as it would take too much time to get the infantry moving. So the "Bravest of the Brave" decided to get things moving & allow the footsloggers to eventually catch up, like that's never happened before!

Coming back to original point a heavy cavalry, or any cavalry charge is just the same today as it was 500 years ago. Shock and fear. Then just as now, if you held your nerve (& had the weapons) you could defeat a cavalry charge - it takes quite a lot of guts to face down a horse or a tank! This could be used to break inexperienced or tired units, which createss gaps in the line which can then be exploited by follow on troops.

As ever these troops need to have infantry, as it is only they that have and will be able to hold ground, the rest of us are window dressing.

Thank you all, guys, for replies that are straight to the point. I'm interested in ancient and early middle ages warfare. Napoleonic era is somehow strange to me and I've never studied any battle of that era. So gunfire is out of question.

Okay, so most of you say that a heavy cavalry charge is more about shock and fear than actual physical impact inflicting damage. That is very important to me so I can better understand the warfare.

I have another question then: Could cavalry still be used as fighting force, not just as shock troops? If, say, a cavalry unit charged at an infantry unit which held its nerve and stood still, could the cavalry still fight it and dominate it?

You mean horse cavalry?
I could see how they could be used for scouts if the terrain was appropriate but as for combat, I'd say they're far too vulnerable. Against infantry, cavalry is dead meat. You try shooting accurately from horseback at ranges that matter in today's battlefield on terrain that horses can operate. It's not going to happen.