AH Challenge: Make cavalry king of the battlefield again after 1300

What it does to formations? Which is the point. Firing at long range (defined in this context as over a few hundred yards) is dicey for reasons that need other methods to fix.

Also, musket range is beneath effective artillery range anyway.

Grape shots were at best 200 yard weapons, which is within musket range. I don't know where you're getting 300 yard grapeshot from, naval 24 pounders?

Are you seriously suggesting pike formations would survive shrapnel? I don't know what to say about that.

But if you're going straight at them, and they're backed by infantry...horses make big damn targets.

I'm not saying artillery alone > cavalry, but that coming up is a sign of tactical incompetence.

Actually I amended before your reply to avoid confusion as I know how you'll interpret it. Cavalry is typically used in the flanking role, but they charge in a straight line, just not necessarily at the muzzle of the guns. It would take a dense musket formation to stop cavalry. Infantry is rarely massed 360 degrees around guns. In any case, any formation big enough to stop cavalry makes excellent cannon fodder.
 
is it that easy to stand up to cavalry ? my impression is very difficult to train people to not break when charged. only Swiss and Flanders managed to do that, that why Swiss hired as mercenary.

Well, its easy in the sense that the Swiss didn't stumble on some magic secret, but its hard in the sense that you need them thoroughly and fully trained. See below.

doesn't infantry that can stand when charged is very expensive ? did Swiss have a lot of buyer because other town militia couldn't do the same ?

The main thing is that if you want good infantry, you have to invest in it. You can't just levy a bunch of people and give them spears, you need to go to much the same amount of trouble as for good cavalry. And the idea of armed, capable peasants was not exactly greeted with enthusiasm initially.

Hence the unreliability early in the Early Modern period of French infantry, for instance.

And its easier to just hire mercenaries. Mercenaries just have to be paid.
 
Grape shots were at best 200 yard weapons, which is within musket range. I don't know where you're getting 300 yard grapeshot from, naval 24 pounders?

Are you seriously suggesting pike formations would survive shrapnel? I don't know what to say about that.

I point you to the links I posted after editing my post. And this: http://search.avg.com/?q=%22effective+range+of+canister%22&d=4af05370&tp=chrome&l=en-US&v=7.005.030.004&i=23

200 yards is at the outer limits of musket range. http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_brown_bess.html

Firing at longer range (for the artillery) is useful, but it has its own issues.

As for surviving shrapnel: Somehow, using a combination of bravery and discipline, infantry survived the precursors. I don't think shrapnel would suddenly destroy infantry.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be murderously effective, but "murderously effective" describes grapeshot and canister too.

Actually I amended before your reply to avoid confusion as I know how you'll interpret it. Cavalry is typically used in the flanking role, but they charge in a straight line, just not necessarily at the muzzle of the guns. It would take a dense musket formation to stop cavalry. Infantry is rarely massed 360 degrees around guns. In any case, any formation big enough to stop cavalry makes excellent cannon fodder.
Cavalry was also used for frontal attacks, so it could be either way.

Dense formation? So, like is used already? :D

And infantry doesn't need to be massed 360 degrees around the guns, unless the enemy is entirely outflanking your line, in which case you respond to that.

As for being artillery fodder: Yes, and then you deal with the enemy's artillery.

Combined arms for the win. :D

Or failing that, superior guns.

But that would take a while to develop, I'm mentioning it since you're trying to drive infantry from the field.

Oh, and just a general article on the subject of case shot/cannister/grapeshot: http://www.militaryheritage.com/caseshot.htm
 
Last edited:

PhilippeO

Banned
> The main thing is that if you want good infantry, you have to invest in it.
And its easier to just hire mercenaries. Mercenaries just have to be paid.


couldn't cheap horses pull price of cavalry down until its lower than mercenaries ? you need horses cheap enough that herder become able to own horses. Then you can have numidian/berbers/jinete commoners that can be conscripted. no need of armor + cheap javelin + cheap horses + no training cost = cheap large number of cavalry to hit and run infantry formation. no need of hiring trained mercenary infantry.
 
couldn't cheap horses pull price of cavalry down until its lower than mercenaries ? you need horses cheap enough that herder become able to own horses. Then you can have numidian/berbers/jinete commoners that can be conscripted. no need of armor + cheap javelin + cheap horses + no training cost = cheap large number of cavalry to hit and run infantry formation. no need of hiring trained mercenary infantry.

I doubt it.

"No training cost" is never, ever, ever going to happen. Not unless you have a nomadic culture, which Western Europe doesn't have. And in that circumstance infantry isn't relevant anyway, for what that's worth.

But let's address their effectiveness:

http://xenophongroup.com/EMW/article001.htm

" Typically, they employed "Moorish tactics," skirmishing with enemy light cavalry and harrying formed troops by feigned charges, false retreats, and a great deal of dashing to and fro. A squadron of heavy horse or an infantry unit weak in missile weapons that was beleaguered by a swarm of jinetes was in a most unenviable position, especially if it abandoned its formation to strike out at or pursue its tormentors. The jinetes were so agile and proficient in the use of their weapons that they could easily overcome individual men-at-arms or small, disordered groups of horse or foot. They could, of course, be checked or driven off by comparably skilled light horse--like the Venetian stradiots – but the French in Naples possessed no light horse capable of dealing with them and suffered severely as a result.

Infantry, provided it maintained order and cohesion and could keep the horsemen at a distance with firepower, had little to fear from the jinetes."


And such infantry is easier to produce for Western Europe than jinete-style light cavalry. Even if horses are ridiculously cheap somehow, horses demand a lot of food - you can reduce that to some extent, but its still a problem by the nature of the beast.

So these guys are useful - but it won't eliminate infantry and hiring mercenary infantry.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
> But let's address their effectiveness:

http://xenophongroup.com/EMW/article001.htmInfantry, provided it maintained order and cohesion and could keep the horsemen at a distance with firepower, had little to fear from the jinetes."

isn't Crossbowmen and longbowmen even more expensive than pikemen ?


>
"No training cost" is never, ever, ever going to happen. Not unless you have a nomadic culture, which Western Europe doesn't have. And in that circumstance infantry isn't relevant anyway, for what that's worth.

> And such infantry is easier to produce for Western Europe than jinete-style light cavalry. Even if horses are ridiculously cheap somehow, horses demand a lot of food - you can reduce that to some extent, but its still a problem by the nature of the beast. So these guys are useful - but it won't eliminate infantry and hiring mercenary infantry.

seems true, i have to give up on this cheap horses idea.
 

isn't Crossbowmen and longbowmen even more expensive than pikemen ?


Longbowmen definitely, crossbowmen or men with guns, no.

seems true, i have to give up on this cheap horses idea.

Worth exploring if you want to see how to make light horse favored over heavy horse, though. I think its impractical, but its worth looking into if you can find someone who knows more specifics on horse breeding than I do.

I'd aim for an early POD so that heavy horse as a tradition never develops as far as it did in the West.

Not sure what that would take though. First you'd need to get rid of the absurd Germanic (Gothic, Frankish, Saxon, etc.) prejudice against bows.
 
The question is a wee bit western-Europe-centric. In Eastern Europe, cavalry remained the backbone of the army, made up of well-trained and -equipped noblemen and their retunies while the serfs formed unreliable infantry. The Swedish army was dealt a devastating defeat at Kirkholm by the Polish Hussars 1605. That made the Swedes return to offensive, light cavalry rather than the German style Curassiers, which served the Swedish army very well in the 30 years war. Sweden continued to rely on tight formation charges with rapiers, not firing pistols until in pursuit until 1814.
 
200 yards is at the outer limits of musket range.
And that's good enough to check the artillery before they had shrapnel. The infantry can also march up closer when needed while the artillery isn't nearly as mobile.

As for surviving shrapnel: Somehow, using a combination of bravery and discipline, infantry survived the precursors. I don't think shrapnel would suddenly destroy infantry.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be murderously effective, but "murderously effective" describes grapeshot and canister too.

You realize we're talking about pike formations right? A pike square is immobile. Battles of this period were static, with pike squares taking up advantageous high ground and refusing to move. that's why it went out of business when artillery started using grapeshot and canister. You start using shrapnel against pike square and that's going to be shooting fish in a barrel at a thousand yards. Sure a fast moving column of bayonet musket men can survive, but until that kind of tactic and technology is invented, there's no question cavalry and cannons with shrapnel shot will rule the field.
 
Last edited:
von Alder said:
The question is a wee bit western-Europe-centric. In Eastern Europe, cavalry remained the backbone of the army, made up of well-trained and -equipped noblemen and their retunies while the serfs formed unreliable infantry. The Swedish army was dealt a devastating defeat at Kirkholm by the Polish Hussars 1605. That made the Swedes return to offensive, light cavalry rather than the German style Curassiers, which served the Swedish army very well in the 30 years war. Sweden continued to rely on tight formation charges with rapiers, not firing pistols until in pursuit until 1814.

I wondered about that when reading about the Swedish army as of Charles XII. The emphasis on cold steel, that is.

Interesting.

That's why artillery was vulnerable because it fails to out range musketry. The infantry can also march up closer when needed while the artillery isn't nearly as mobile.

Despite the fact that it does outrange infantry? 200 yards is less than the maximum range of canister/grapeshot, and at the very limits of effective musketry (did you read the links I posted).

Artillery being vulnerable to infantry is a development from the Minie ball and thus rifles as the standard infantry weapon.

You realize we're talking about pike formations right? A pike square is immobile. Battles of this period was static, with pike squares taking up advantages high ground and refusing to move. that's why it went out of business when artillery got better. Sure a fast moving column of bayonet musket men can survive, but until that kind of tactic and technology is invented, cavalry and cannons with shrapnel shot will rule the field.

There's no question better artillery and especially the shrapnel shot would mean cavalry would sweep the battle field.
As for pike formations: Again. Infantry in close formation survived its (shrapnel's) predecessors, and its mobility on the defense was about the same, which is to say, very low. All you're doing is making artillery more dominant, not making cavalry hold its position as dominant better.

Pikes went out of business when effective bayonets meant they were unnecessary.
 
Last edited:
Despite the fact that it does outrange infantry? 200 yards is less than the maximum range of canister/grapeshot, and at the very limits of effective musketry.

As several things I've sourced point out in regards to the artillery end of things.

Artillery being vulnerable to infantry is a development from the Minie ball and thus rifles as the standard infantry weapon.

No it wasn't. Canister DID NOT out range musketry. Both had max range of around 200 yards. Canister from a very big gun like may be a 12 pounder could fire out further, but they were a later development. During the days of the pike square, field guns were more like 4 pounders. They didn't even use canister shot then, just solid ball.

Bottom line, your pike square cannot survive against canister, let alone shrapnel which is an order of magnitude better.

As for pike formations: Again. Infantry in close formation survived its (shrapnel's) predecessors, and its mobility on the defense was about the same, which is to say, very low. All you're doing is making artillery more dominant, not making cavalry hold its position as dominant better.

Pikes went out of business when effective bayonets meant they were unnecessary.

You don't understand. A pike square is a compact, immobile formation which only survived because artillery of the day sucked. They existed purely to counter cavalry. If we invent better artillery shells, the pike square would be history but then the infantry would have NO MEANS of protection against cavalry. Hence the latter will dominate again.

The only way for the infantry to survive is to ditch their pikes and switch to bayonets. This would allow them to be more mobile, less densely formed, and thus be less vulnerable to artillery. They would also double their firepower and pointy weapons against cavalry. But unless and until this is invented, the cavalry will dominate.

I once posted a thread about what if the bayonet was invented earlier for this very reason. You among others at the time insisted it wouldn't work because you failed to understand the advantage the mobile bayonet formation gave the infantry.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=185217&highlight=bayonet
 
Last edited:
No it wasn't. Canister DID NOT out range musketry. Both had max range of around 200 yards.
...
Bottom line...

Bottom line, you are not reading anything I post showing information contrary to what you're saying (and not providing any sources for your statements that indicate those I have posted are incorrect if that's the case), and there's no point in discussing this until you do.

Have a nice day.
 
Bottom line, you are not reading anything I post showing information contrary to what you're saying (and not providing any sources for your statements that indicate those I have posted are incorrect if that's the case), and there's no point in discussing this until you do.

Have a nice day.

You're attributing qualities of bayonet formations to pike squares and Napoleonic artillery to Renaissance cannons. I'm not interested debating with someone who don't know what they're talking about. Goodbye.
 
Not interested debating tactics with someone who don't know what they're talking about. Goodbye.

Yeah, let's ignore who provided sources and what person ignored what those sources said without providing even a wikipedia level source for his own arguments.

Seriously hoping you don't do this again.
 
References and ranting

What you seem to be describing is a cavalry army Vs an infantry army which ain’t going to happen if it’s all in W Europe. Generally the rise of professionalism gives similar composition of armies in similar geography from say 1500.
If it is Horse vs Foot then the winner is the guy with the biggest granaries – normally the town.
A couple of corrections on some factual inaccuracies.
Canister (and I see no reason why any bagged grape would be different) has an effective range from 250m – about 600 for any battlefield artillery. Solid shot is up to 1200. The 250 is for a 3pdr. Shrapnel is about the same as solid and I think in all cases these numbers refer to point of first ricochet.
Reference http://www.thepirateking.com/historical/cannon_smoothbores_early.htm
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/artillery_tactics.htm#_ratio_range_accuracy_artillery
http://www.napoleonguide.com/artillery_ranges.htm
http://www.napoleonguide.com/weapacc.htm
A smoothbore musket has a 50% hit rate at a battalion sized target at 50 yards and apparently falls off at 3% per m after that (12% if its windy). That’s against foot again would probably be more effective vs Horse as the tendency is to fire high, bigger target anyway. See the reference.
The reference for the battalion test is originally in Frederick’s instructions for major generals of infantry I think, he certainly ordered the tests, see also Nostworthy series on battlefield tactics or Paddy Griffiths.
The artillery argument though only really starts to apply on the battlefield regularly from around 1700 and once it does Horse is significantly more vulnerable that Foot. You can see it further off it’s taller so ricochet is more effective and horses lack patriotism and will not close up but tend to get disordered when dismembered.
Pikemen are not immobile – see the Swiss charging various Burgundian and French armies, English in later 100 years war, swedes like lunatics across everywhere and Spanish having to be held in place by repeated cavalry charges at Rocroi.
They are only immobile if constantly under attack by good Horse or ordered to hold in place.
The jinete quote is very selective. Jinetes used javelins basically which means they have to get to within maybe 40 yards. Not firing by Foot means that the Jinete is going to die when he gets to effective musket range range, firing at a distance during the approach means the foot is unloaded for 30 secs to a minute and subject to a shower of javelins and possible panic.
Panic is the main thing. There was an 18C Spanish general – a very elderly man who would demonstrate to his troops that he alone could hold off a horseman with nothing more than a walking cane.
Trying to make Horse even more effective is going to be really hard but the easy way is to have Horse trained in the way Frederick’s were which massively increases capability vs other Horse.
The main problem with the premise that in the 1500 – 1700 period for sure armies rarely had less than 30% Horse and sometimes 70% so how can you make it more dominant?
It’s going to be hard for four reasons. Firstly horses lack patriotism, no fodder=dead horse. Too much water=dead horse, too little water ….. you get the drift. Secondly cavalry can’t assault breaches. Thirdly horses eat more weight per day than men. Fourthly they are not as mobile operationally. Early period you may be able to argue but trained foot will easily outmarch cavalry over a period of weeks in any sort of terrain and can operate in terrain Horse cannot.
The real effectiveness of Jinete (and Hussars and Bashi Bazouks and Rajputs and Cossacks) is if you have no counter. That happened quite a lot and bluntly is decisive. But it’s nothing to do with what happens on the Battlefield and the counter is Mounted Xbows, Hussars, Bosniaks, Chasseurs a cheval and paying them off until you can hire them to work for you.
 
Wall o'text there, but just to respond to something.


Gannt the Chartist said:
The jinete quote is very selective. Jinetes used javelins basically which means they have to get to within maybe 40 yards. Not firing by Foot means that the Jinete is going to die when he gets to effective musket range range, firing at a distance during the approach means the foot is unloaded for 30 secs to a minute and subject to a shower of javelins and possible panic.

That's the thing though. If the foot holds steady and is under good fire discipline, there's not much the jinetes can do. If it doesn't hold steady, that's another thing, but steady foot is hard to break even with heavy cavalry.
 
Top