Dealing with cavalry

Jonny Reb

Active member
The origin of Western Aristocracy ( some would say the establishment and defence of Christianity ) is the heavily armoured Frankish Knights. Infantry had trouble dealing with these one thinks of the failure of the Saxon shield wall at Hastings. The Frankish cavalry derives from that of the Goths which had defeated the Roman infantry at Adrianopol ( the Roman Army was also a failure against Persian cavalry. )
However the Greek Hoplite with his spear ( like the pike carrying Landsknecht ) was very successful againt Cavalry, yet was defeated by the short sword of the more mobile Roman infantry.
Is history the result of the failure of military commands to adapt their technology and tatics to those of their opponents
 
The Battle of Hastings went on for around 12 hours and the wall did collapse. The House Kurls would take down a charging horse with there two handed axe. It was not until a part of the lane broke to chase some Normans that the line opened up followed by Harold getting a arrow in the eye which caused him to take his eye off the battle that changed history.
 
Frankish infantry beat both Attila's and Muslim cavalry. They formed a square and used their deadly throwing axes, aiming at the horses. They so heavily devastated the Muslim cavalry that the whole Muslim army retreated to Spain in a hurry and even left behind their loot.

The secret to the strenght of the Persian cavalry were stirrups.
 
King Harolds last words were, "Those bloody Norman archers will have someone's eye out in a minute."

Sorry, I couldn't help myself.
 
Last edited:
"Form Square!"

Butler_Lady_Quatre_Bras_1815_004.jpg
 
Absolutely Gunny.

I am convinced that if the British Army at Isandlwana had formed a square with an F group in the middle, they would have beaten off the Zulu.
 
Absolutely Gunny.

I am convinced that if the British Army at Isandlwana had formed a square with an F group in the middle, they would have beaten off the Zulu.

I think you're right. The Zulu's didn't advance like the French or the British did, in lines. They charched like a cavalry.

If I'm not mistaken, the British used buglers to give the order to change from lines to squares.
 
I think you're right. The Zulu's didn't advance like the French or the British did, in lines. They charched like a cavalry.

If I'm not mistaken, the British used buglers to give the order to change from lines to squares.

The ZULU charge what they call the "The horns of the Buffalo" The loins attack head on while the horns out flank their enemy left and right. Job done, game over. If the Square had been used the horns could never have out flanked and neither could the Zulu bring their full force to bear, they would be tripping over each others feet.
 
Absolutely Gunny.

I am convinced that if the British Army at Isandlwana had formed a square with an F group in the middle, they would have beaten off the Zulu.

The square was the ultimate defensive measure for defending against cavalry, it worked at Waterloo, and Brit, you only have to look at the Battle of Ulundi.
The British forces formed a square and the Zulu attack was unable to get close. So, yes, had they done the same at Isandlwana, it may have had a different outcome.
 
The square was the ultimate defensive measure for defending against cavalry, it worked at Waterloo, and Brit, you only have to look at the Battle of Ulundi.
The British forces formed a square and the Zulu attack was unable to get close. So, yes, had they done the same at Isandlwana, it may have had a different outcome.

Absolutely right.

:eek:fftopic::sorry:What is generally unknown or rarely mentioned in books, before a battle the ZULU would smoke weed, pot or whatever you want to call it, so that when they went into battle they were as high as kites.
 
Absolutely right.

:eek:fftopic::sorry:What is generally unknown or rarely mentioned in books, before a battle the ZULU would smoke weed, pot or whatever you want to call it, so that when they went into battle they were as high as kites.

It was called "Mutu" I believe, and was usualy taken as snuff.
Ian Knight, on of the leading Zulu War historians, and a historian of Zulu culture and history, legally obtained some and had it tested at University College Hospital in London.
Unlike most weed, the stuff that makes you mellow, is lacking, but the stuff that gives you a buzz and hypersensitive to your surroundings and makes you feel invincible is present in high levels.
As I said in the other thread, the Zulus believed this "magic" would make them immune from bullets. They did show respect for the bayonet though.
 
It was called "Mutu" I believe, and was usualy taken as snuff.
Ian Knight, on of the leading Zulu War historians, and a historian of Zulu culture and history, legally obtained some and had it tested at University College Hospital in London.
Unlike most weed, the stuff that makes you mellow, is lacking, but the stuff that gives you a buzz and hypersensitive to your surroundings and makes you feel invincible is present in high levels.
As I said in the other thread, the Zulus believed this "magic" would make them immune from bullets. They did show respect for the bayonet though.

Muti is what we would regard as medication, Muti can take many forms, including taken from body parts of new born babies (believe it or not). I had an interesting chat with a Zulu guide at Rorkes Drift, he pointed out a site just across the Buffalo River where they sat and smoked what they call ganga (spelling), he did actually say smoked, but yes it was also used as snuff. Before every battle a Sengorma would carry out some kind of ceremony to install courage into the warriors. The Zulu Sengorma's often brag that they carried out surgery on the human skull to release pressure on the brain, long before the white man. I wonder how many actually survived such surgery?

I was in the shop one day when a chap asked if I still had my Lee Enfield Number 1 Mk3 and bayonet. I went out into the vault, fitted the bayonet and walked to the front of the shop. There were a couple of black chaps looking at firearms, saw the bayonet on the end of the rifle and immediately back away with bulging eyes. From my own personal experience they don't give a toss when faced with firearms, but they don't like cold steel. I have no idea why.

As Isandlwana I meet David Rattray a world leading historian on the Anglo Zulu War as he was leading a tour group. He had an amazing knowledge of the various battles and told the story so well one could imagine oneself there during the battle. Sadly the chap was murdered 26 January 2007.
 
Though today the cavalry may seem anachronistic in modern warfare, it should be remembered that cavalry/horse mounted infantry has been useful in numerous "modern" conflicts.
Everyone has the images of Polish cavalry's suicidal charges at German armoured units in the early stages of WWII, but the Germans themselves as late as 1942 formed an SS cavalry unit, Florian Geyer, and used them in an anti-partisan role.
In 1975 the Rhodesians raised a cavalry unit "The Greys Scouts" which served in the Rhodesian Bush War.
As recently as the Falklands War, British forces used horses and ponies to help patrol the more remote areas of the island following the end of the conflict.
It is interesting to see how what is generaly considered to be a old fashioned form of fighting war, still re-surfaces when needs must.
 
Though today the cavalry may seem anachronistic in modern warfare, it should be remembered that cavalry/horse mounted infantry has been useful in numerous "modern" conflicts.
Everyone has the images of Polish cavalry's suicidal charges at German armoured units in the early stages of WWII, but the Germans themselves as late as 1942 formed an SS cavalry unit, Florian Geyer, and used them in an anti-partisan role.
In 1975 the Rhodesians raised a cavalry unit "The Greys Scouts" which served in the Rhodesian Bush War.
As recently as the Falklands War, British forces used horses and ponies to help patrol the more remote areas of the island following the end of the conflict.
It is interesting to see how what is generaly considered to be a old fashioned form of fighting war, still re-surfaces when needs must.

Nowt like Dobbin when the ground is boggy and nasty.
 
The origin of Western Aristocracy ( some would say the establishment and defence of Christianity ) is the heavily armoured Frankish Knights. Infantry had trouble dealing with these one thinks of the failure of the Saxon shield wall at Hastings. The Frankish cavalry derives from that of the Goths which had defeated the Roman infantry at Adrianopol ( the Roman Army was also a failure against Persian cavalry. )
However the Greek Hoplite with his spear ( like the pike carrying Landsknecht ) was very successful againt Cavalry, yet was defeated by the short sword of the more mobile Roman infantry.
Is history the result of the failure of military commands to adapt their technology and tatics to those of their opponents

Weapons used and tactics employed will always have an impact on the outcome of a good old fashion fight, but dicipline and training more often than not will decide the fight.

The examples you just cited do a great job in illustrating that fact. In most case prior to the widespread use of gunpowder, militaries formed their foot soldiers from under-trained, uneducated, poorly equiped conscripts. That's supposedly where the term infantry came from; child soldiers. A smart commander would send this mob in to try and soften up his enemy, with his better equiped, better trained, seasoned veterans following behind to seal the deal. Although these professionals were still infantry, they were often known by other names, such as 'serjants' (french by way of Latin, meaning ' to serve'). I know the example I just gave is massively over-simplified, but please don't beat me up, as it's just an illustration.

Now, in the case of well-trained, well-disciplined infantry versus cavalry, it seems to me that terrain is often the deciding factor (when numbers on both sides are fairly even). If the infantry has more than two lines of advance to cover, and they're fighting in a phalanx, they're in a bad way.

This leads me back to your post. The examples you cited mostly cover well-trained and diciplined outfits. The reason for my opening statement is that people too often assume calvalry vs infantry was like a rock-beats-scissors affair, when it was often times due simply to the quality of the troops at hand. I think your point is rather astute...when you have a good army, but fail to utilize it based on terrain and your estimation of the enemy's capacity and capabilities, you have nothing.

In short, I'd answer your question with "yes." ...I'd also point out a more modern supporting example; the Polish somehow thought it was a smart idea to pit sword-and-carbine-wielding, hourse-mounted calvalry against German tanks in WWII. Now THAT's one for the history books!

In
 
Oops...I didn't ntice there was a second page to this thread. I hereby recend my kention of Polish Calvalry, and replace it wih...something involving robots.
 
Old Bill in UK still use mounted plod.

Recently the use of Mounted Police was demonstrated durring demonstrations in some major British cities, I'm not talking about the riots, but the English Defence League demonsrtations and the Ant-Facist League counter demonstrations.
The Police use the bulk of the horse to contain, and move masses of people in a way that officers of foot could never do.
 
Back
Top