RodentRevolution
Banned
Of course every singly culture that had horses maintained cavalry, even when their high-status fighting elites did have a history of foot combat. So why did that happen? Why spend so much money? Did the infantry just screw up that much all the time, or could some trained horses actually be induced to come into contact with opponents on foot, no matter how densely packed? Or is it because the idea of an infantry formation that is so dense it appears without gaps but can also fight effectively is kind of dubious in itself?
I think any thought or even if you have a an opportunity a few moments handling weapons should show you that if infantry bunch up too much they do indeed become ineffective...
There are typically something like 18 or 19 movements involved in loading and firing an 18th-19th century musket for example and in many ways wielding
such a musket requires less elbow room than a 17th century musket or a bow. Then look at how much room is required to wield a sword or spear. Also regarding movement while you can under certain circumstances move whilst literally shoulder to shoulder it is usually something you can do only over a very limited distance before an obstacle is encountered.
Simply denying an enemy force movement is the raison d'être of a good many military evolutions. If you have an arm that can force infantry to bunch up and become immobile that is a extremely effective counter against infantry. To be effective in any other circumstance than point defence and even to an extent then a military force must be capable of movement, this doubly true in the era before the arrival of gunpowder weapons.
Throughout history cavalry also had access to long poking weapons and missile weapons of various sorts including improvised tools such as picking up a few rocks to lob at the footsoldiers.
We were discussing what happened to squares bereft of fire earlier in the thread. Clearly, squares bereft of fire weren't all that magical, judging by what happened. If all the infantry had to do was stand firm, why on earth did the Allied commanders at Fere-Champenois even dare approach them?
?
Much of Fere-Champenois was an artillery duel, most of the rest was a fighting withdrawal by the French, much of the cavalry success seems to have occurred when the French became 'disordered'...later in the action Russian cavalry successfully charged squares that had been under sustained artillery barrage. You seem to have reverted from acknowledging the action as being a combined arms one to trying to imply it was a pure clash of foot against horse which it was not. We also see on several occasions during a long and involved action infantry squares successfully resisting cavalry.
I am quite happy to argue that cavalry is a potent force on the battlefield and would go further and point out that it retained its potency until after the First World War despite the popular version of history maintain otherwise. On the other hand like any force in history there were circumstances under which it was more and in others less effective.
If 'all' cavalry could do was force the enemy infantry to become static that would be a huge advantage to a commander in possession of cavalry. If you can pin an enemy in place what is to stop a portion of your force riding or marching off and destroying his crops, destroying his towns? If he is the one raiding and invading then standing still is not a very brilliant way of doing that. Remember most battles were a means to an end not actually the end in themselves, there are of course exceptions but by and large one army was trying to get somewhere else when it ran into the other one.