Top Ten Medieval Battles

Heavy cavalry wasn't obsolete until late 19th century.

'Proper' heavy cavalry was, although it made a resurgence in 1917. The role remained - cavalry whose task it is to close with and kill the enemy - but it was performed by lighter troops than had gone before, and which never really approached the sheer destructive power of the knights of old.

If you no longer have enough of experienced warriors who can serve for no money - surely.

Soldiers get rather annoyed if you try to make them work for no money!
 
Heavy cavalry wasn't obsolete until late 19th century.

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.

A full set of expensive plate armor became necessary again when gunpowder weapons became widespread to protect against balls fired by those gunpowder weapons (see for example Gottfried Heinrich von Pappenheim's Cuirassiers during the Thirty Years War or thick breastplates of Polish-Lithuanian Winged Hussars).

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.

Gradually as economic changes progressed (no matter which way - towards Capitalism or towards Folwark - because both involved increased, mass production) nobility started to be more busy with economic (and often also cultural or educational) matters and started to have much less time for military matters. That was during the 15th - 17th centuries. That process of decline of noble knighthood class.

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.

If you no longer have enough of experienced warriors who can serve for no money - surely.

Artillery is able to stop a cavalry charge only under favourable circumstances.

And at Castillon there was a huge concentration of artillery guns. To amass such a number of guns on one battlefield was a terribly expensive thing. Artillery was much more expensive than even the most elite heavy cavalry. One shot from a bombard in 15th century was worth 10 cows.

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.
 
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.

Except that light cavalry are not a replacement for heavy. The job of the light cavalry is to reconnaitre and in some cases to harass the enemy and support the infantry in its assaults - those are our men in armoured cars and CVRTs, to bring it up to date. Heavy cavalry goes toe-to-toe with the enemy and provides massive amounts of force in a small area to deliver a decisive blow - that's our MBTs and cruiser tanks, today. A Challenger 2 cannot do the job of a CVRT, and vice-versa.
 
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 ???
 
Artillery can stop a cavalry charge only under favourable conditions or when amassed in great number against not-so-great number of cavalry.
Define "favorable conditions". Seems like weasel words to me.
 
Define "favorable conditions".

"Favorable conditions" for artillery are for example when cavalry is limited to narrow terrain and has to charge artillery positions through a narrow gully:

Like in this battle, for example


Of course you may find also other instances when situation can be described as "favorable conditions" for artillery.

Usually it all comes to two things - difficult terrain or prepared, fortified defensive positions (or both).

Poor morale or not being accustomed to being under artillery barrage of can also be an important factor - like it probably was at Castillon (participants of the charge described "terrible artillery fire" - I bet it had much more of a shock, visual and sensual effect, than of actual lethal effect).

Considering that it was one of the first battles when artillery was used on a huge scale - English cavalry was surely not accustomed to such things.

Also horses of English cavalry were probably not well accustomed to sounds of gunpowder weapons - and thus more inclined to uncontrolled reactions.

The same was later (16th century) reported by Polish-Lithuanian armies regarding horses of Crimean Tatars and Tatar warriors themselves.
 
ParkCungHee said:
Is this book actually good or ideologically blinkered non-sense?

Yes, though I can't quite remember why he decided to use 'anarchist' instead of 'stateless' in the title. He did have an explanation for it. (I think because 'stateless' is something of a loaded term).
 
Huh...does it need a background in SE Asia to understand?
Because the description of "physical dispersion in rugged terrain; agricultural practices that enhance mobility; pliable ethnic identities; devotion to prophetic, millenarian leaders; and maintenance of a largely oral culture that allows them to reinvent their histories and genealogies as they move between and around states." Seems like a topic to compare and contrast with my own readings.
 
ParkCungHee said:
Huh...does it need a background in SE Asia to understand?
Nope.

ParkCungHee said:
Because the description of "physical dispersion in rugged terrain; agricultural practices that enhance mobility; pliable ethnic identities; devotion to prophetic, millenarian leaders; and maintenance of a largely oral culture that allows them to reinvent their histories and genealogies as they move between and around states." Seems like a topic to compare and contrast with my own readings.

That's an accurate summary of the books content.
 
Do you know if any of Scott's other stuff is supposed to be any good? Looking through the list on Amazon, there's a couple of other titles in there that I'd be interested to look at if I like The Art of...
 
His stuff on Southeast Asian peasantry is quite influential. But unusually for me, at least, I haven't got around to reading it yet. (I like that area rather a lot).
 
Top Bottom