Oh I didn't notice that somebody replied because it skipped to the next page.
Please check my post on the previous page again because I was editing it for a few times.
In the meantime I will read your replies.
Since artillery was so expensive, it makes all the more sense to no longer require the service of aristocratic heavy cavalry, and instead deploy mercenary light cavalry.
Feudal armies also included light cavalry, which was not mercenary but called to arms on similar terms as that "aristocratic heavy cavalry". In Poland or in the Teutonic Order State in Prussia every knight was bringing several lightly (or maybe "moderately") armed servants - who fought as light or "medium" cavalry. Those were recruited from peasants and from townsmen - knight of course was responsible for equipping his servants.
They usually served as mounted crossbowmen, of course also had swords for close combat.
But - as
Flying Pig already noticed - light cavalry is not a replacement for heavy cavalry.
If artillery is supported by infantry - it would be hard for light cavalry to beat them, and much easier for heavy cavalry.
And in the age of gunpowder there was still a lot to do on the battlefield for heavy cavalry. Including such armed with lances.
Interestingly Western Europe in 16th century stopped using lance-armed cavalry, just to start using it again 100 - 150 years later under the impression of achievements of cavalry from Central & Eastern Europe - for example Winged Hussars. Abandoning lance was a cul-de-sac for Western Europe.
Winged Hussars (lance & broadsword & pistol heavy cavalry) - despite having less armor - repeatedly were able to defeat Western European, heavily armored Cuirassiers (rapier & pistol heavy cavalry) - the main superiority for the Hussars was of course having a long lance.
Long lance also made combat against infantry much more efficient, even though Hussars had less armor than Cuirassiers.
Again, there is a huge difference in context here. The musketeers deployed in the 1600s by Sweden and France is nothing like the primitive arquebusiers used by Burgundy and the Hussites in the 1300s and 1400s.
Which doesn't mean that musket balls were unstoppable. A thick enough armor could stop them. And interestingly as the calibre of muskets used on battlefields gradually declined from 1600s onwards (until Napoleonic Period), armor was becoming more and more immune to musket fire.
Napoleonic muskets had much smaller armor piercing capability than heavy muskets from early 16th century. Heavy armor was also very useful in combat against enemy cavalry equippped with pistols (which were widespread) - thick plate could easily stop pistol shots even from close distance.
It's difficult to determine which is the cause and which is the effect, here. Perhaps it was the case that since aristocrats were less pressured to practice jousting and horsemanship, that therefore they were more concerned with cultural and financial things.
Yeah it is like determining what was first - egg or hen.
Also ability of properly using lance in combat was largely forgotten in many parts of Europe.
The cavalry used in 1800s was nothing like the cavalry used from the 12th to 15th centuries. Hence why I particularly said that heavy cavalry was partially obsolete, even before the Hussite Wars.
Actually the cavalry used in 1800s was not clad in armor everywhere (like the cavalry from 15th century) but the quality and thickness of armor it used (usually only breastplate / curiass and helmet) was actually better / bigger than that of armor from 15th century.
On the other hand Cuirassiers from late 16th / early 17th century were much more heavily armored than even 15th century knights:
Early 17th century Cuirassier's armor:
Hence why I particularly said that heavy cavalry was partially obsolete
If by "partially obsolete" you mean that it wasn't a universal all-killing unstoppable slaughter machine, then every military formation is "partially obsolete".
and which never really approached the sheer destructive power of the knights of old.
Actually it even
exceeded it (see for example Winged Hussars or those early 17th century Cuirassiers).
Soldiers get rather annoyed if you try to make them work for no money!
Unless you give them land to own and economic & political privileges instead of actual coins.
The job of the light cavalry is to reconnaitre and in some cases to harass the enemy and support the infantry in its assaults
Or to support heavy cavalry in its assaults. By the way we can also distinguish something like "medium" cavalry.
What would "medium" cavalry be in our times - if anything ???