Pistol vs Armour

Suppose one is a cavalryman in the days where most units have discarded armor since bullets are so prevalent. You have a pistol, a saber or a one handed spear (take your pick), and padded cloth. You need to defeat an opponent who is equipped with outdated equipment, one of those who didn't let go of armor (and his armor can't even stand to your pistol) and he doesn't even have a gunpowder weapon. Unfortunately, your were a bad shot and are down to your last bullet which you just finished reloading. Assuming the land he is squatting on is absolutely important (otherwise you can just gallop away and come back with friends or shots) and you need to get him away, how do you do it? Again, only one shot left.
 
Is he on foot? If so I ride up to point blank range and shoot him.

Otherwise I shoot the horse then ride him down.
 
Is he on foot?

Uh... I can't believe my words left out what was in my mind, yeah he dismounted some time ago and he can't get back to his horse in any reasonable amount of time even if you shot you last bullet and missed.

But he knows its your last shot (and... even if it wasn't the reload time in these days was long) and won't run if you shoot and miss.

Since he's on an important piece of land that for tactical reasons he needs to be done, you can't get away and with only one shot left, it's probably best to make sure the shot contacts. I heard in these days, deviations of 7.12 degrees from idealized trajectory was common (this deviation is using a machine shooting with a replica weapon, in other words before human error, which will inevitably be less than an ideal shot)
 
A lone man on foot doesn't really fare well against a mounted man. Then again armor should do well against sword and spear... eh. I say just charge him with the sword or spear, put the horses wieght behind the blow.
 
You're on a warhorse trained for exactly this situation. Shoot at him from a distance then ride him down and have the horse crush him while taking swings with your sword.
 
A lone man on foot doesn't really fare well against a mounted man. Then again armor should do well against sword and spear... eh. I say just charge him with the sword or spear, put the horses wieght behind the blow.

I was thinking something similar. A lone man on foot usually falls to a mounted man in these days. A guy with a gun on horseback vs a guy who has armor that can't withstand the shot (and therefore carrying deadweight) is even more lopsided. But then the fact that the mounted guy is down to his last shot and doesn't have anything else that can go through the armor... dicey (mounted man is still the favorite, but looks less guaranteed win).

Sabers and spears are not worthless against armored men. Platemail was somewhat weaker at the joints and could be cracked with multiple blows. Alternately, armor blocks blades but not momentum so pummelling or crushing blows sometimes worked (the armor would block the instrument making the blow, but not the force itself). Thirdly, armor reduced the "real estate" one could make effective stabs, but there were exposed locations.

Kind of reminds me of this http://www.quora.com/Who-would-win-...-or-a-Middle-Ages-knight-with-his-heavy-sword except I know that the mounted soldier in the gunpowder age doesn't have a "flexibile" sword (as that's worthless) and that unlike that question, I'm giving the cavalry man a shot.
 
Well, it depends on a few things.

What is the other man armed with? Horses are VERY reluctant to run straight into a sharp, pointy, stabby things so trying to run him down may or may not work. Even war-horses would have this problem.
How skilled are you in this situation with swords or a spear?
What kind of sword do you have?
What is the terrain like?
How thick is your padding? What kind of padding does it have? That can be very effective against a sword, especially if it isn't as sharp as it could be.
Are you skilled in Half-swording at all? That's one of the ways to defeat an opponent in armor (as is using the murder stroke).

All of that is very important in answering the question.
 
What is the other man armed with? Horses are VERY reluctant to run straight into a sharp, pointy, stabby things so trying to run him down may or may not work. Even war-horses would have this problem.

I was thinking of one of those single handed longswords used for slashing, but still has a point. He has short daggers in holsters if you somehow get him to drop his sword, but he has gauntlets.

How skilled are you in this situation with swords or a spear?
What kind of sword do you have?
...

How thick is your padding? What kind of padding does it have? That can be very effective against a sword, especially if it isn't as sharp as it could be.
Are you skilled in Half-swording at all? That's one of the ways to defeat an opponent in armor (as is using the murder stroke).

Hmmm, in both cases with weapon skill I'd say that you are slightly above average for a cavalryman of that era, having participated in 3 battles where you closed the distance before, and being better than others even in your first battle The sword I was imagining was either a cavalry sabre or rapier. I'm leaning towards the sabre since more people know what it is. Your padding is quilted with linen and cotton consisting of maybe 7 layers. This is actually enough to stop a far away arrows, bullet ricochets (!), and slashing attacks, but offers little against a stab of a bayonet... or sword. You practiced half-swording in training, but haven't used it in actual battle.

What is the other man armed with? Horses are VERY reluctant to run straight into a sharp, pointy, stabby things so trying to run him down may or may not work. Even war-horses would have this problem.
How skilled are you in this situation with swords or a spear?
What kind of sword do you have?
What is the terrain like?

Ah terrain. Ok, think of an area with most of the surrounding area covered by this mix where it's 75% of the ground area is clear and the rest covered by mostly conifers, but some other non-rideable vegetation like shrubs. Because of the "mostly clear" part, it's possible to ride the horse around this location without running into a tree, but it will have to make small turns as traveling in a straight line will run into a tree. There is a slight incline of 7.1 degrees. The ground is dry.

Aside from the "most of the surrounding area" you are on a narrow road that's almost completely straight and clear. It goes straight up the slope When you finish reloading that final shot, he is 10 meters away down the road. He was moving in and out of cover as you made your shots and can easily see you loaded... and it was your last shot. There is a 1 meter diameter rock blocking a part of the road between you and him and it's the only part of the road that isn't straight and clear. The road moves around it, but it's a small movement so much that you still have line of sight if he stands. Imagine a grid where a road occupies 1,2,3,4 normally but 4,5,6,7 going around that boulder. Of course, the road isn't 4 meters wide as that's not a "narrow" road, but this analogy should give you an idea that the rock doesn't actually block the road.

To his immediate left, there is a 30 X 100 meter clearing connected to the part of the road he is standing on.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking of one of those single handed longboards
Ah, I've heard the armor helps with surfing ;)


But to answer your question as stated above, you would want to try to get close (staying at a range of about ten-twenty feet) and attempt to shoot the man while the horse is still trotting. Cantering would be better since that is almost always smoother but the increased speed might be worse then the more bumpy ride, especially if you aren't a good shot.

If you miss with the bullet, you would want to go with the spear, one-handed spears could be 7-8 feet long depending. So if it was something of that length (hard to imagine on horse-back but oh well) you'd want to use it over the saber. If it was a lance then it would work even better instead of a one-handed spear.

Forgot to ask what kind of armor the opponent is wearing but let's assume full plate, late Renaissance era amour. You will not be able to cut through that period so the Sabre is of rather limited value. Trying to half-sword with a Sabre is possible but it is rather awkward (trust me, I've tried) and they normally lack the cross-guard or pommel to use it for murder strokes. The rapier could potentially be used but trying to block/parry with a rapier against a heavier weapon is rather tricky, more often then not a strike like that will "push" through your defense and hit you anyway depending on the strike, and the other weapon. In fighting manuals you would normally see two weapons used to block a heavier weapon such as using a rapier and a dagger to block a strike from a hand and a half sword and up or even a single handed sword. You need the extra force.

With the spear you at least have range to your advantage against your opponent which is has big advantages. You can strike him where he can't strike at you. He has to come into your range of attack and get past your point before being able to deal with you. Now, of course, if he does get past your point then he has the advantage. If you have a lance then it's better to stay on horse-back, if you have an actual spear it'd likely be better to be on foot to face him. I've tried using a spear on horse-back and it was very difficult to use and not drop when impacting something. A lance is designed for that in mind, a spear isn't.
 
I probably wont have a spear because its inconvenient to lug around. I'll ride pass him and shoot him with the pistol. If he's still standing I'll circle back with my saber and give point.
 
Well, it depends on a few things.

What is the other man armed with? Horses are VERY reluctant to run straight into a sharp, pointy, stabby things so trying to run him down may or may not work. Even war-horses would have this problem.
While the basic premise here is correct, I would point out that war horses often did do just that. Polish winged hussars being the first example that comes to mind in that they quite happily charged the Swedish infantry at Kirchholm. And I know their are other examples as well. It really depends on how the horse is trained.
 
The question is certainly not how a mounted and armored rider with a pistol besides the more usual weapons can deal with a single opponent (or even three or four of them). The problem is how to deal with a square of pikemen, supported as was traditional by smaller blocks of crossbowmen (or even primitive arquebusiers).
A cavalry force dealt with this problem in two (non exclusive) ways: softening the square with cannon fire (even the smallish 3-pounders which Gustavus Adolphus used were quite effective), followed by a caracole (riding in column to within shooting distance of the square, and shooting them with horseman pistols (they were pretty expensive though) before charging or (IMHO the best) using the cavalry to attack the sides of the square of pikemen while holding them in position with other pikemen formations. In battles fought by combined arms the cavalry was always on the sides, while the center was held by pikemen. The square of pikemen is very effective, but its weakness is that it is a very rigid formation, which cannot turn quickly at all. The battle of Breitenfeld in 1631 (which ended with a decisive Swedish victory notwithstanding the early route of their Saxon allies) is a very good example.
 
Ah, I've heard the armor helps with surfing ;)


But to answer your question as stated above, you would want to try to get close (staying at a range of about ten-twenty feet) and attempt to shoot the man while the horse is still trotting. Cantering would be better since that is almost always smoother but the increased speed might be worse then the more bumpy ride, especially if you aren't a good shot.

If you miss with the bullet, you would want to go with the spear, one-handed spears could be 7-8 feet long depending. So if it was something of that length (hard to imagine on horse-back but oh well) you'd want to use it over the saber. If it was a lance then it would work even better instead of a one-handed spear.

Yeah, that was a longsword typo.

What if you shot him in the leg but missed the femoral, iliac, and profunda arteries (any of which would pretty much guarantee a 20 minute bleedout)?

About one-handed spears being odd on horse-back, actually this was often used during the Roman era to free a hand for a shield, and English knights often (not always) had one strapped to their back in addition to the lance (which.. seems oddly redundant when the lance is just better in most ways except being heavier than the one handed spear) which sometimes switched to after a successful charge. The one handed spear is somewhat harder to imagine in the era of the Great Northern War, War of Austrian Succession, and Crimean War (lances, sabers, and rapiers were common... although I suppose the bayoneted musket of a dragoon could be held in one hand) but in the transition era when most units shed their armor because it was more trouble that it was worth there might be people with outdated equipment.

I probably wont have a spear because its inconvenient to lug around. I'll ride pass him and shoot him with the pistol. If he's still standing I'll circle back with my saber and give point.

Give point? I don't get it.

The question is certainly not how a mounted and armored rider with a pistol besides the more usual weapons can deal with a single opponent (or even three or four of them). The problem is how to deal with a square of pikemen, supported as was traditional by smaller blocks of crossbowmen (or even primitive arquebusiers).

Pike/bayonet squares are obviously annoying but that's not this particular case. This particular case is about dispatching someone who would normally be a trivial opponent in the early days of (actually reliable and not blowing up in the user's face) firearms, if it wasn't for the fact that the rider is down to the last shot.

As for dealing with squares, yeah shooting them with pistols before the charge to damage the formation is best.

I wonder how well a cavalry charge would go into a seven-rank deep line that is in the middle of reloading after overshooting... except that the defending left flank is protected by impassable terrain and the line is long enough that going around the right flank isn't possible to do in 20 minutes. Conventional wisdom says squares and not lines cause problems for cavalry, but isn't the weakness of a line the sides and not the front?
 
As for dealing with squares, yeah shooting them with pistols before the charge to damage the formation is best.

I wonder how well a cavalry charge would go into a seven-rank deep line that is in the middle of reloading after overshooting... except that the defending left flank is protected by impassable terrain and the line is long enough that going around the right flank isn't possible to do in 20 minutes. Conventional wisdom says squares and not lines cause problems for cavalry, but isn't the weakness of a line the sides and not the front?
Squares become unbeatable (unless the attacker can shell them using field guns) once the infantry uses breech-loading guns. However even in the early times it is almost unheard of that four or five ranks of pikemen can be broken by a frontal cavalry charge, unless they are already softened up by cannon fire and/or their morale is already broken. The only real way to break lines of pikemen under good officers is a pike charge, which has in itself its own limitations. The only practical way to go is to chase away the opposing cavalry, and then attack the pike lines from the sides (which is not always possible, in particular if one of the pike sides is anchored on a river. OTOH the pikemen are very slow to deploy, going from a march order in columns to lines, and are even more slower if a portion of them has to switch around to cover a threatened flank. That was one of the reasons for which the early pike-and-shot unities were usually made up by 40-60% pikemen, the rest being missile troops (arquebuses and/or crossbows) and swordmen, more or less in equal number. With the progress of guns, the swordmen were phased out and by the time of the 30 Years war the infantry "regiments" were made up with 2 pikes for each arquebuse.
 
While the basic premise here is correct, I would point out that war horses often did do just that. Polish winged hussars being the first example that comes to mind in that they quite happily charged the Swedish infantry at Kirchholm. And I know their are other examples as well. It really depends on how the horse is trained.
The Winged Hussars were somewhat unique in that they lightened their lances to make them longer than even the longest of pikes (in essence, they started an arms race) and therefore could actually break pike squares through cycle charging. Most European cavalry at the time were either caracole types who would discharge firearms and then scatter away or were simply unable to break infantry and were mostly used for pursuit after the battle.
 
Top