ility and how much to social foundations , tradition ,etc. Also how related was not only their use but their dominance as a potent weapon in battle to the bad use of Infantry by medieval Europe ?

Well ability did tend to equal social foundations, if you were a knight then you generally had the time to train for war all day and not have to go and collect in the harvest. It was tough for a peasant to be a knight because where would they find the time to do that?

im not too sure what you mean by the second part

Well ability did tend to equal social foundations, if you were a knight then you generally had the time to train for war all day and not have to go and collect in the harvest. It was tough for a peasant to be a knight because where would they find the time to do that?

im not too sure what you mean by the second part

Well i read some interesting things in regard to the barbarian tribes that would overcome the Roman empire , how they acted when they where overcoming them and how the medieval world fought. I do think that the effectiveness of the heavy cavalary was related in a big extend to their society and the lack of empasis of the infantry. True some inventions made the cavalry better but nevertheless i think there was also an "On purpose" dislike for the infantry.

Well i read some interesting things in regard to the barbarian tribes that would overcome the Roman empire , how they acted when they where overcoming them and how the medieval world fought. I do think that the effectiveness of the heavy cavalary was related in a big extend to their society and the lack of empasis of the infantry. True some inventions made the cavalry better but nevertheless i think there was also an "On purpose" dislike for the infantry.
Heavy infantry did still exist in the 'barbarian' groups that overran the Empire, still made up about the same proportion as it did in virtually every army (except for the Republican and early imperial Roman armies, of course), and still provided the mainstay of any given force. Their infantry, being less well trained than the classical armies and certainly less well than the Romans, simply didn't play the gigantic role that the legionary once did. The introduction of the new barbarian heavy cavalry and its adoption by the Romans (to some extent) simply heralded the return of combined arms to warfare, because the cavalry would actually play a more major role than simply covering the flank of the infantry. An awful lot of Western European armies continued to rely on formed heavy infantry units throughout the 'Dark' Ages; at Tours, for example, much is made by most of the chroniclers of the ability of the formed Frankish heavy infantry to resist the Arab light cavalry shock charge. IIRC you don't really see knights being all that dominant until the 12th (maybe 13th)-15th centuries due to the general decline in central royal power and the corresponding ascent of the nobility, who could now afford to trick out their horses with enough armor to smash their way through a given undisciplined horde. Then we finally see the English and Swiss and Hussites, in their own, disparate ways, making it extremely clear that the time of the tactical dominance of heavy cavalry over infantry was over.

Then again, since my purview is mostly classical history, I could be horribly wrong. :p

Your question is a bit oddly worded. What is it you want to know?

Horses have always been something pursued by the upper crust. They're damnably expensive, and not really that useful for most agricultural pursuits, but they make great battle-field transports, and a weapons-platforms, if you know your business.

Cavalry was the special arm already of the Athenian traditonal aristoctracy, the landed gentry, already in the Classical age. It continued like that in western agricultural society. Which means infantry was always around, but not always paid that much attention. I'd assume this holds for Goths etc., wo weren't actually horse-nomads, but probably living too close for comfort to such, making them adopt cav to counter these.

The thing is that the Medieval Nobles spent tremendous amounts of money and brinpower on improving horses to maximise their advantages in battle. And sure, there was a class aspect of slighting infantry.
Otoh already by the 12th c. there were bands of non-noble mercenary infantry fighting for the highest bidder, who effectively used pikes and slim daggers in tight formations specifically to take down noble cavalry, so it's not as if the patent ways for infantry to deal with cavalry was actually forgotten.
Prior to the battle of Bouvines 1214, king Philip August's of France's greatest "victory" was the campaign he had waged to hunt down and kill bands of professional commoner mercenaries moving about in his realm. These mercenaries were efficient enough to engender absolute hatred among the North French noblemen, who routinely put them to death whenever captured.
Otoh mercenaries like this were employed in large number in the Low Countries, Southern France and Italy, where the North-French stylem of Feudal nobleman cavalry wasn't dominant, because Feudalism wasn't dominant.