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