The Cavalry Thread

[Phrossack]

This is a thread for discussing the historical use of cavalry. I was originally going to ask just one question, but I figured that wouldn't be enough to constitute a proper thread.

So, throughout history, the vast majority of cavalry fought on unarmored horses. How did they fare against archers, crossbowmen, and the like? After all, couldn't an archer easily shoot the horse to kill it or cause it to panic? Or did they prefer to shoot only the rider?

 

[Dachs]

I don't know about "easily" - a rapidly moving horse, even if it isn't armored, is pretty hard to hit! But I would think that the horse was the most common target. From what I know, most cavalry units brought multiple horses per rider with them, so as to have replacements in case of both normal physical wear on the horse and death in combat. (Assuming the rider survived.)

 

[Ajidica]

Cavalry relied on speed and impact, so although they would have faired poorly during the charge against ranged troops, they would likely win against them once ingaged in melee likely inflicting a greater percentage of casualties and causing the unit to break due to shock impact.
Medieval archers were not trained to fire at specific people on the horses, thats near impossible considering medieval archers werent trained at sniping, they were trained at laying down massive vollys of fire.
I dont have an exact source for this, but once in a cavalry charge it is hard to stop it, look at Agincourt.
There actualy was a Papal Bull stating that ranged weapons were not to be used against Christians because they were unfair against the knightly class. Knights wanted to avoid being killed by a peasant with a cheap crossbow.
I hope that answers your questions.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Cavalry relied on speed and impact,

Heavy cavalry did, but there were more than one type of cavalry unit. Medium and light cavalry were skirmishers, and missile cavalry functioned in an entirely different manner.

so although they would have faired poorly during the charge against ranged troops,

Only when deliberate attempts to shoot down cavalry were made did missile volleys become threatening to even charging cavalry, and those were not common.

they would likely win against them once ingaged in melee likely inflicting a greater percentage of casualties and causing the unit to break due to shock impact.

Missile troops like archers rarely stood in formations that could be "broken" by a cavalry charge. They would have been scattered, though, by their arrival.

Medieval archers were not trained to fire at specific people on the horses, thats near impossible considering medieval archers werent trained at sniping, they were trained at laying down massive vollys of fire.

Most medieval archers were peasant levies who were skilled at hunting, so yes, they would have been "trained at sniping," if you could call it that.

I dont have an exact source for this, but once in a cavalry charge it is hard to stop it, look at Agincourt.

The cavalry charge at Agincourt never met English lines.

There actualy was a Papal Bull stating that ranged weapons were not to be used against Christians because they were unfair against the knightly class. Knights wanted to avoid being killed by a peasant with a cheap crossbow.
I hope that answers your questions.

It was specifically against the use of the crossbow.

 

[joycem10]

Heavy cavalry did, but there were more than one type of cavalry unit. Medium and light cavalry were skirmishers, and missile cavalry functioned in an entirely different manner.

Good point, most people tend to ignore the fact that cavalry's main role was to serve as the eyes and ears of a field general.

 

[Verbose]

Good point, most people tend to ignore the fact that cavalry's main role was to serve as the eyes and ears of a field general.

Well, that's the specifically assigned role for cav from the resurgence of infantry as the main battle-winners from the 16th c. or so.

 

[Verbose]

I don't know about "easily" - a rapidly moving horse, even if it isn't armored, is pretty hard to hit! But I would think that the horse was the most common target. From what I know, most cavalry units brought multiple horses per rider with them, so as to have replacements in case of both normal physical wear on the horse and death in combat. (Assuming the rider survived.)

Just adding to this, that it's also a matter of range. Archers have rather limited range after all, and staying outside of it might not necessarily be that hard for the cav, which then has the option of closing upon these missle troops rather more swiftly than infantry.

Also, in consideration of Dach's point about remounts, seeming underuse of cav might also be a matter of this tending to be a terribly expensive part of any army. It's no fluke that cavalry since at least the ancient Greeks have been associated with the landed aristocracy.

 

[GinandTonic]

Good point, most people tend to ignore the fact that cavalry's main role was to serve as the eyes and ears of a field general.

Not to mention the potential to flank and harass. Even their potential limiting the options of the opposing force.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Good point, most people tend to ignore the fact that cavalry's main role was to serve as the eyes and ears of a field general.

I'd say their main role was as the army's half back, so to speak. They were a huge wild card, and could deliver the decisive blow wherever and whenever, and in glorious fashion. Ever since Leuktra, commanders were thinking about local superiority of force, and the best way to create that is indirectly; being able to take troops from one side of the battlefield to the other very quickly can create this situation where the enemy commander might not have anticipated it. As G&T said, their mere potential to be certain places amplified their danger to the enemy.

 

[GinandTonic]

Also butchers bill for routing against a cavalry charge is horrific. Infantry falling back from infantry there is likely to still be a formation left at the end of it. If cavalry are allowed to run riot retreat becomes rout, colours lost and officers dead.

 

[Phrossack]

Wow, that was quick. Thanks for the replies! I've two more questions:
Just how well could a rider be expected to fare if he fell from his dying horse at a decent speed while wearing armor? And what are the chances that the horse will pin the rider's leg during the fall?

 

[Verbose]

Wow, that was quick. Thanks for the replies! I've two more questions:
Just how well could a rider be expected to fare if he fell from his dying horse at a decent speed while wearing armor? And what are the chances that the horse will pin the rider's leg during the fall?

What's the state of the ground? Makes rather a big difference if you happen to fall on a rock or something soft or/and soggy. But, well, you're wearing armour, a well-trained guy, and you go off forwards over the neck of the horse going down, from the momentum. If the ground isn't very hard you can probably roll and usually come up fighting, even if a bit battered and bruised. Lots of people in history have had horses shot from under them under the circumstances and gone on to fight on one, or multiple, remounts. The gear horsemen wear tend to be designed to be somewhat protective. If sufficiently quick in the uptake, and nimble, you can actually jump off, relatively controlled. Have a bad fall otoh, as in uncontrolled, land on your head, get something snagged, or just be unlucky how or where you land, and it's lights out, broken this, that or the other thing. Learning to fall from a horse is an acquired skill. Sometimes it's said that 100 falls are required to become an accomplished rider. So you actually tend to learn how to get off the damn things in an emergency, at speed.

No real idea how common getting your legged pinned, or being unhorsed and getting your foot caught in the stirrup for that matter, is (both kind of dramatic cliché around horses, no?). You've got to be pretty unlucky in the event I imagine.

 

[Dell19]

A lot of the comments remind me of the Total War games (or any kind of historic combat game). Usually in the total war games you let the infantry engage whilst using light cavalry to scatter the enemy archers or other soft units whilst any medium or heavy cavalry tries to hit the enemy from behind or from the sides.

 

[Dragonlord]

The role of cavalry has changed many times through history, depending mostly on the available equipment and the likely enemies.
Before the invention of the stirrup, cavalry were almost never used as shock troops charging a battle line (an exception being Alexander's Companions). Early cavalry couldn't keep their seat long fighting on a saddle pad w/o stirrups - they were mostly used in a recon role and, most importantly, to harry and destroy a broken and fleeing enemy. They would seldom have faced a situation of ordered missile troops shooting at them.
Used as heavy cavalry to break an enemy line, with stirrups and saddles, horses were armored as well as weight limits allowed, especially the vulnerable neck and chest. The important consideration was the speed at which cavalry could charge missile troops, allowing only a couple of volleys instead of the continuous fire against slow-moving infantry.

 

[Dachs]

Before the invention of the stirrup, cavalry were almost never used as shock troops charging a battle line (an exception being Alexander's Companions). Early cavalry couldn't keep their seat long fighting on a saddle pad w/o stirrups - they were mostly used in a recon role and, most importantly, to harry and destroy a broken and fleeing enemy.

There are far more counterexamples to the old stirrup nonsense than the hetairoi of Makedonia. In addition to all the other shock cavalry the Successors had, one could simply look at the stirrupless contemporary Parthian cataphract cavalry, the zradha and the azad asavaran; cavalry of this type, used alternately as shock and missile cavalry, made up the majority of the Parthian and later Sasanian armies. I recently posted a quote relating to the stirrup-shock cavalry myth; suffice to say that the invention, while handy, was certainly not as important as it's been made out to be, either in terms of permitting the widespread use of shock cavalry or in inducing social and political change in sixth-century Europe.

 

[Lord Baal]

Speaking as an experienced horseman, stirrups mainly just improve your leverage. They don't actually do much for your stability or mobility, assuming you know what you're doing on horseback. While the invention of the stirrup may have made it easier for inexperienced horsemen to fight on horseback, the vast majority of cavalry throughout history was not made up of conscripts or levies. The stirrup's main value was probably making training easier.

@Verbose: In order to get your foot caught in a stirrup, you'd have to have it placed in the stirrup incorrectly to begin with. Getting your leg caught under the horse is fairly easy to do, but a trained horseman would know that of the two sides of a horse, the leg he should be pulling up as quickly as possible is the one on the side the horse is falling on.

 

[Verbose]

@Verbose: In order to get your foot caught in a stirrup, you'd have to have it placed in the stirrup incorrectly to begin with. Getting your leg caught under the horse is fairly easy to do, but a trained horseman would know that of the two sides of a horse, the leg he should be pulling up as quickly as possible is the one on the side the horse is falling on.

That's what they tell me.

 

[Steph]

You can consider that a bow as a max range of 200-300m.

At gallop, a horse run at 45 km/h = 12.5 m/s.

So it 20 seconds, it covers 250 meters.

I think the best rest of fire were probably English longbomen, with perhaps one arrow every 5 seconds.

So the best trained archers, with the longest range can shoo 4 arrows before the cavalry is upon them.

If you take smaller bow, with a shorter range, or crossbow with a much slower rate of fire, you can see that the range units can hope to shoot once or twice before the cavalry can reach them.

Add to this the impact on morale of a cavalry charge on men equipped with bow, which are not suited at all to fight cavarly ine melee, an in fact they will probably shoot once before running.

That's of course for a rang unit not protected by pikes.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yes but in the last case, only the most impetuous would be charging them in the first place.

 

[attackfighter]

You can consider that a bow as a max range of 200-300m.

At gallop, a horse run at 45 km/h = 12.5 m/s.

So it 20 seconds, it covers 250 meters.

I think the best rest of fire were probably English longbomen, with perhaps one arrow every 5 seconds.

So the best trained archers, with the longest range can shoo 4 arrows before the cavalry is upon them.

If you take smaller bow, with a shorter range, or crossbow with a much slower rate of fire, you can see that the range units can hope to shoot once or twice before the cavalry can reach them.

Add to this the impact on morale of a cavalry charge on men equipped with bow, which are not suited at all to fight cavarly ine melee, an in fact they will probably shoot once before running.

That's of course for a rang unit not protected by pikes.

I think I read somewhere that the English longbowmen could fire at something like 1 arrow every 15 seconds. Once every 5 seconds seems a bit much, that's how fast Legolas was going