Why? Is fighting from the saddle that much less effective than fighting standing on the ground?
Heavy Cavalry Charge
Yes I knew it would be interesting for you. It shows many details about how to loose your advantages because of not thinking, including your powerful cavalry
perseus
Active member
In contrast, I've never understood why cavalry were so successful in pitched battles (rather than open country) even in the Middle ages. It must have been relatively easy to slow down a charge with pikes, stakes or potholes dug in front of infantry positions. As the cavalry charge halted they must have been at the mercy of bowmen. It would also be within the technology of a medieval blacksmith to make something like these spikes first used in WW1 that along with barbed wire virtually rendered cavalry useless.
Perhaps a simpler method would for infantry men to carry about 10 short stakes about a foot long. These are placed at an angle of 45 deg in the ground in front of the position, to trip up the charging horse and impale the rider.
Last edited:
bren122
Active member
the devices are called caltrops and date from at least the Dark Ages.It would also be within the technology of a medieval blacksmith to make something like these spikes first used in WW1 that along with barbed wire virtually rendered cavalry useless.
Perhaps a simpler method would for infantry men to carry about 10 short stakes about a foot long. These are placed at an angle of 45 deg in the ground in front of the position, to trip up the charging horse and impale the rider.
30cm stakes aren't going to slow anything down- the stakes used at Agincourt were approximately man height, about as thick as a man's thigh and angled at 60 degrees. this ensured that once impaled the horse could not remove itself easily, adding to the obstacle. it should also be remembered that the site of Agincourt (and most infantry victories of the period) would have led to a funneling of the charge anyway; the major casualties occurred because the ground became churned up and the various waves of infantry/ cavalry became mixed up.
the vast majority of battles simply aren't pitched but rather encounter battles from the line of march. this is where cavalry earns its pay. the old saying for the purpose of cavalry was Find- Fix- Destroy. Light cavalry as scouts or flank guards find the enemy, units of light cavalry or mounted infantry keep the enemy in place whilst the general brings up his army; at the crisis of the battle the general sends in his heavy units to the point of balance and when the enemy is broken his lancers pursue the enemy and keep them from regrouping whilst inflicting casualties.
a well prepared and sited position gives cavalry trouble; but there may be an error of positioning- a misunderstood order- in one instance the commander of the reserve withdrew his troops when he realised that he had been deployed too early- his precipitate withdrawal was interpreted as a general retreat by other units and the gaps in the line were large enough for the enemy cavalry to ride through as a body and attack the rest of the line in the rear.
even the most well prepared positions hold only so long as there are troops to hold them. this was quite often the major cause of medieval victories. The average footman in a medieval host was not a mercenary and certainly not a professional man at arms; he was a levied serf or villein selected by lot from his village and sent off to battle with a household knife to defend himself and a farm tool tied to a pole as his weapon; no armour. without training or experience the site of 100 knights charging his position was more than enough to cause a great many to flee. how many determined if you held your position or not.
weapons such as the crossbow and longbow required years of practice to even gain profficiency; mastery required constant daily practice. the weapon itself was usually beyond the means of a serf- it was against the law in England and France for non-nobles to even own a crossbow and only Yeomen were permitted the use of a longbow in England whilst it was banned in France. given it's height and draw it required a strong man to use it. from a population of @5 million perhaps 500 000 were Yeoman or their families. even with an optimistic estimate that 10% of these were able to use the bow you have 50 000 total- remove 33% for being too old and 33% too young it leaves you with just over 10000. economically you could not take all Yeomen with you; traditional obligations also played a part- most Yeomen served a maximum of 40 days a year with the king. so from a theoretical 50000 you might very well find yourself in the midst of a pitched battle or even a siege with a good proportion of your garrison or army going home and their replacements not yet arrived (the final loss of Calais to the French is an example of this). another consideration, especially in battles involving the Genoese mercenaries who specialised in the crossbow, was that capture inevitably involved mutilation and even death; it was not uncommon at the first set back for your well paid Italians to leg it as far and as fast as they could run; the sight of these experienced men running could turn the tide at the moment when a steady line was most vital.
it is not necessary that your opponent to do everything right to win the battle. one of the major failings of the enemies of Frederick the Great of Prussia was not pursuing his defeats with vigour. by contrast the Roundheads Cavalry tactics in the English Civil War were predicated on ensuring it. it was the major contribution of the English to cavalry tactics- returning to the battle once your enemy was broken. at ?Naseby? both right flanks broke- but whereas the royalists continued their pursuit the roundheads returned to the battle and attacked the rest of the royalist army from the rear- just as the royalists looked set to win. although commonly held as an exemplar of a cavalry victory the failed flanks on both sides occurred because both armies massed their artillery against that flank.
perseus
Active member
Long stakes were intended as a thin screen and had a slightly different purpose, but I assume these could be shattered by cannon or chopped to pieces with a sword. I am suggesting placing short stakes angled across the direction of charge and in depth (say 10 metres deep) to stop the force of the cavalry charge, essentially to trip up the horses. However, given the impetuousness of medieval cavalry it wouldn't surprise me if those cavalry at the back would push those at the front onto them, especially if painted and difficult to see until up close.
Last edited:
Heavy cavalry was just a similar force to actual armoured vehicles. It all deppended on the information one side had of another, the time you had to prepare your resistance in time and materials, if you think you were going to defend and suddenly enemy forces make you try to become a defender, etc, etc.
I never have heard from a direct cavalry charge to a castle, i think no one would do it against a wall of thick and long stakes prepared for that because cavalry was a very valious weapon to be lost in such temerous mission.
Bad decissions in battlefields have ever existed, but the supposed when you find a file of stakes in front is to use your artillery (if you had it), and avancing protecting infantry with archers and shields while you try to use your cavalry (plenty of high class nobile horsemen) using sides or simply awaiting to break lines.
Simply avalanch of horses throug infantry lines are easy to make such a disorder that was enough to make such a big confussion that will give you a real advantage.
I never have heard from a direct cavalry charge to a castle, i think no one would do it against a wall of thick and long stakes prepared for that because cavalry was a very valious weapon to be lost in such temerous mission.
Bad decissions in battlefields have ever existed, but the supposed when you find a file of stakes in front is to use your artillery (if you had it), and avancing protecting infantry with archers and shields while you try to use your cavalry (plenty of high class nobile horsemen) using sides or simply awaiting to break lines.
Simply avalanch of horses throug infantry lines are easy to make such a disorder that was enough to make such a big confussion that will give you a real advantage.
bren122
Active member
History is replete with tales of individual horsemen and even units that have tried to jump field fortifications to get at the enemy- some succeed and some don't. you certainly can 'charge' a castle though- quite often during seiges there were special units ready to charge at short notice. the enemy sorties to disrupt your seige- depending on circumstance he might leave the drawbridge down and the gate up. your pursuit might be more vigorous than realised. you may even get really lucky and find that in his sortie the enemy leaves a lovely big gap between your ready force and the gate. several seiges have ended this way; it is why sally ports and barbicans and gate houses were developed.
one foot or thirty centimetres is the length of your arm from wrist to elbow. to properly plant such a stake you lose 10cm or 4 inches. no matter how densely packed or spread it is not long enough to impede a body of horseman at full charge. for one thing horses had armour fitted to the lower legs- front certainly and most to the back legs as well.
a warhorse was not merely a means of conveyance- it was bred to match the capabilities of the rider. it was bred for agression. in some cases it was even more belligerent than the rider! you simply cannot compare even the most bad tempered of modern horses or even a modern cavalry horse to the warhorse of the medieval period or even the black powder period. the Charge of the Light Brigade gives the clearest example of the sort of animal we are talking about- even when the rider had been felled from the saddle the vast majority of these riderless horses kept attacking when the natural impulse of a modern horse would be to run wild or retreat from the threat. French cavalry charged the artillery at Borodino and remained steady even against cannister rounds at point black range. Until the Light Brigade it was the clearest example of what a body of horsemen could achieve in the face of well sited and emplaced artillery.
one foot or thirty centimetres is the length of your arm from wrist to elbow. to properly plant such a stake you lose 10cm or 4 inches. no matter how densely packed or spread it is not long enough to impede a body of horseman at full charge. for one thing horses had armour fitted to the lower legs- front certainly and most to the back legs as well.
a warhorse was not merely a means of conveyance- it was bred to match the capabilities of the rider. it was bred for agression. in some cases it was even more belligerent than the rider! you simply cannot compare even the most bad tempered of modern horses or even a modern cavalry horse to the warhorse of the medieval period or even the black powder period. the Charge of the Light Brigade gives the clearest example of the sort of animal we are talking about- even when the rider had been felled from the saddle the vast majority of these riderless horses kept attacking when the natural impulse of a modern horse would be to run wild or retreat from the threat. French cavalry charged the artillery at Borodino and remained steady even against cannister rounds at point black range. Until the Light Brigade it was the clearest example of what a body of horsemen could achieve in the face of well sited and emplaced artillery.
perseus
Active member
Caltrops were first reported in 331 BC at Gaugamela and have been used by modern Environmentalists to burst the tyres of vehicles! However, I think these are intended used to pierce the hoof or tyre.
What the short stake in contrast would do is trip the animal up, or perhaps halt the animal due to its reluctance to run over rough ground. The foot lift of a horse is limited especially the rear legs if lumbered with armour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLExqq9HNY8
Perhaps these could be made more effective still by tying a noose around each stake rendering the animal redundant altogether if caught.
What the short stake in contrast would do is trip the animal up, or perhaps halt the animal due to its reluctance to run over rough ground. The foot lift of a horse is limited especially the rear legs if lumbered with armour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLExqq9HNY8
Perhaps these could be made more effective still by tying a noose around each stake rendering the animal redundant altogether if caught.
Last edited:
Partisan
Active member
I've got to echo bren, the reality is that medieval armies were poorly equpped and did not have much in the way of logistic support. Foraging was the how an army existed. Now wood is generally available, but I don't see half the army settling down to whittle trees into sticks is a realistic proposition - nor do I think that you'll find twine universally available.
Now if we were thinking about the best way to slow down heavy cavalry - very boggy ground, position yourself on high ground so that they have to charge uphill, surround yourself with big stakes and have plenty of arrows - in short the tactics which have worked in the past. To my recollection there has only been 1 successful uphill cavalry charge and that was the charge of the Heavy Brigade in the Crimean War.
Now if we were thinking about the best way to slow down heavy cavalry - very boggy ground, position yourself on high ground so that they have to charge uphill, surround yourself with big stakes and have plenty of arrows - in short the tactics which have worked in the past. To my recollection there has only been 1 successful uphill cavalry charge and that was the charge of the Heavy Brigade in the Crimean War.
bren122
Active member
i think that rather than preparing them on site Perseus was suggesting that they be a part of the soldier's equipment. essentially they would have to be what we call boundary spikes, about 2 inches by 2 inches and 10-12 inches long. i think that if they were effective they would end up in the baggage if only because the soldier is going to 'forget' to pick them up the moment he puts it down.
perseus
Active member
Was the battle of Hastings not partly down to cavalry?
I am no horseman, but I guess any experienced rider would avoid difficult ground as you suggest. Why would embedded sticks either gathered from the woods or prepared specially not make the ground especially difficult to charge over? If the defending infantry were only lined immediately behind stakes this would not prevent the lance impacting on them.
Perhaps another option would be to dig potholes in front of the line, these may be difficult to see on muddly ground if they fill with water and impossible to destroy.
A few more notes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_tactics
OK so once the horses have slowed and have to 'tip toe' through whatever ground you have prepared, your own bowmen can take them at near point blank range. Any falling horse will then act as a barrier to the one behind. It seems amazing to me how horses could be effective at all against a half trained army
Last edited:
bren122
Active member
there have been plenty of uphill charges that have been successful- the first thing a general goes for in deploying his troops is height. Napoleon's cavalry was noted for its ability to deliver a successful charge uphill- Borodino, Austerlitz, etc.
although terrain could be a factor in choosing not to charge some other considerations were the chance to take prisoners (for the ransom) and to plunder the enemy camp. where there was little opportunity for these chance to charge into even the most ridiculous situations and conditions was seized with delight by the knight; the Crusades provide numerous examples.
i think that something we may be overlooking is that one reason for not putting impediments in front of your lines was that it would impede your attack.
although terrain could be a factor in choosing not to charge some other considerations were the chance to take prisoners (for the ransom) and to plunder the enemy camp. where there was little opportunity for these chance to charge into even the most ridiculous situations and conditions was seized with delight by the knight; the Crusades provide numerous examples.
i think that something we may be overlooking is that one reason for not putting impediments in front of your lines was that it would impede your attack.
Partisan
Active member
I stand corrected, perhaps it is time to produce a book on successful uphill cavalry charges!
I understand the thought of providing spikes to the baggage train, but this would've taxed an already limited system of resupply. Especially when you could set your army to whittling away for a few days before. That said I'm not sure that anything under a foot would pose a problem & it would require considerable depth. Not too sure how far a horse can jump, but say it's about 8ft? So you'd have to have 1 every foot, stasggered over the area you want to cannalise the cavalry - that's a lot. I think I'd stick with the handy big stakes that scare the bejesus out of horse & rider.
I understand the thought of providing spikes to the baggage train, but this would've taxed an already limited system of resupply. Especially when you could set your army to whittling away for a few days before. That said I'm not sure that anything under a foot would pose a problem & it would require considerable depth. Not too sure how far a horse can jump, but say it's about 8ft? So you'd have to have 1 every foot, stasggered over the area you want to cannalise the cavalry - that's a lot. I think I'd stick with the handy big stakes that scare the bejesus out of horse & rider.
I agree. Harold´s way of gighting was to be fast and use the shiel defensive line, quite compact. Behing were axe men, who used long ones, but explanade on the hill was not wide enough to use them efectively.
When William normands run over the hill did not break the wall because to do it they shoud have needed to be on compact attack and that´s impossible simply because some horses get afraid on the attack and try to go round, and some horses are faster than other running up hills, so cavalry attack could not be as compact as desirable.
The battle was longer than usual and William made their cavalry retreat, that promoted anglosaxons to go against them and normands turned back and got in problems Harold men. Anyway battle was nivelated and anglosaxons still up the hill.
William´s men found a lighter zone in the hill the right zone were they attacked furiously because of their lower inclination, that made Harold to go to that frontline with several hundreds of their better men and casualty and bad luck made him lost life there, where altar of abady was made.
In that time to loose the king was just to loose the battle, that was definitely which made William to be victorious.
Harold showed off to be a good fighter as he had shown months ago being victorious against the viking attack in Norteast England, he resisted perfectly the attacks with that shield defensive wall (it´s said many men were dead standing because of their compact lines) but his brave way of fighting (it´s said he lost 3 horses during battle) made him be in frontline and being killed and his tragedy end supposed to losse the battle.
I think cavalry did not define anything in that battle, it was casualty Harold died, if he didn´t perhaps the resolution was other.
Best regards