What were the worse places for cavalry to fight

And by cavalry I mean on horseback. The open grasslands of the world are one thing, but where was fighting on horseback the absolute worse thing one could do?

I have to think it would go like this:

Any wetland

Forests

Mountians

and deserts- espeically places that are known for there lack of water like the Sahara.

What do you guys think?
 
Muddy or rocky ground is also bad news for cavalry.

Hmm, are deserts really that bad for horses? Obviously camels would be better, but I can see the value of traveling fast and being able to cover a lot of ground in such places.
 
If you dont have easy access to large amounts of fresh water your horses will just die in the desert that why camels are better in those climates.

But as for open battle it probably would be fine as long as whatever the terrain the horses are on is not to soft that they would get bogged down. But that doesnt solve the logistics problem of having lots of water.
 
On a lake. And that is not entirely a joke.

But seriously: Tactically horses need flat, open land and solid ground. Thus any kind of wetland and most mountainous regions are the worst. Forests depend a bit. If it is not too dense, they may hinder cavalry not too much and still prevent close infantry formations. Most times though it will be a problem.

Logistically deserts are also problematic, then again an infantry army in the desert is simply stupid until fire arms are well established. Obviously camels would be much better logistically, but horses are not that bad an alternative and in combat itself superior. For that reason a lot of Arabian and North African nomads used both.
 
Urban warfare...

In confined spaces in cities with plenty of buildings, short alleys, walls and improvised barricades...

Any chemical warfare environment is also going to be BAD--especially if there's contact agents.
 

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
and deserts- espeically places that are known for there lack of water like the Sahara.
Not really. You have to consider water carefully, but horses were used in desert warfare all the time. The Arabs had some serious horsemanship skills, the Crusaders did it (though they occasionally acted like twits about water supply), many North African civilizations did it, the Americans and Spaniards did it in the Mojave and northern Mexico. The Mongols moved around the Gobi all the time and proved fully capable of operating in the deserts of the Middle East, and you don't find better horsemen. I would not call deserts one of the worst places for cavalry to fight. It requires good logistic thinking and knowledge of the local environment, but it's been done over and over and over again.
 
Last edited:
What do you guys think?

That it's easier to list the place where cavalry can fight. Open plains with good solid ground.

Then again you don't want closely packed infantry in jungles, nor artillery in swamps, nor your logistical tail through a desert, nor to have to attack with anything up a mountain, nor to have to face, with a ground force, an enemy that lives on an island (Venice). In sum, there is a reason if armies made battles essentially by appointment for a long time, and they chose some nice open field for that. That was good for cavalry and for everyone else.

If OTOH you want to keep away an enemy cavalry army, all of the above work well. As mentioned, the Venetians used islands, the surviving Spanish Christian kingdoms used mountains, the Soviet partisans used swamps (to fend away armored cavalry - the four-legged cavalry still was something of a threat to them), etc.
Yes, it is true what some have mentioned, that you can use cavalry in deserts. But if you are defending against that, you can: you must deny them the water. Fortify and maintain control of the oases and wells, or, at worst, be ready and willing to poison them before the enemy takes them.
 

Genghis Kawaii

Gone Fishin'
Yes, it is true what some have mentioned, that you can use cavalry in deserts. But if you are defending against that, you can: you must deny them the water. Fortify and maintain control of the oases and wells, or, at worst, be ready and willing to poison them before the enemy takes them.
This is true, but it does preclude considering deserts as being anywhere near one of the worst places for cavalry to be used. It's not so much that you can do it, it's that, with the exception of civilizations without any access to horses at all, desert dwellers did use horse cavalry, and not just occasionally. A lot of them rank among the best in the business. To put it simply, there are logistical difficulties, and there are ways to defend against cavalry within a desert, but the evidence suggests that deserts are still one of the better environments in which to use cavalry. If the water issue was an insurmountable problem, Arabian and Medieval North African cavalry wouldn't have been so damn good. Plains are better, of course, but not being the best environment for something does not equate with being among the worst. Deserts just plain don't belong in this thread.
 
In most mountains (that I've been to, in Europe) the valleys are generally open and fairly decent for cavalry. They are also where most people would live. You can't take a horse up a mountainside, but generally you wouldn't have to.

The desert rider is practically a cliche. It may be tricky, and they might be less tough than camels, but it's been done, done often and done well.

I'd say that swamps and jungles would be the worst.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Cavalry is a potent weapon when and where it can be used. The places it can't be used are a long and varied list - but it's rare that the places it can't be used are self-sufficient. (i.e. it's the important bits, economically speaking, that are where it can be used.)
 
Depends on the cavalry and the enemy and the era and whether you are talking battlefield or campaign.

The ideal ground would be rolling low hills, firm ground. The further you get away from that the harder things get.
 
How about all in one? Mountain ranges where the ridges are covered by jungles and the valleys and basins are swamps?:p

Do you want the worst terrain for cavalry or the worst terrain for cavalry to face infantry?
 
How about all in one? Mountain ranges where the ridges are covered by jungles and the valleys and basins are swamps?:p
At least you can feed your mounts. Tundra is even trickier. Ice and snow are not good ground to charge on and there is a distinct lack of grass as well :p:p
 
At least you can feed your mounts. Tundra is even trickier. Ice and snow are not good ground to charge on and there is a distinct lack of grass as well :p:p

That's why I asked OP the question;) If it's basically impossible for any type of pre 1900 troops to fight in, does it count? Or does (s)he want a place that others would want to trick enemy cavalries into and make short work of them with other types of troops?
 
Hmm, are deserts really that bad for horses? Obviously camels would be better, but I can see the value of traveling fast and being able to cover a lot of ground in such places.

Guess it depends on what you call desert.

The crusaders at Hattin would agree with you... but the forces of Saladin wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
Top