If cavalry were best used attacking the flanks and rear of an enemy then why was heavily armoured cavalry ever a thing?
to protect themselves from enemy pointy bits
>>1050454
to beat less armored cavalry and protection from missile fire.
>>1050454
Cause a charge is awesome.
>>1050454
Because there came a time when infantry was shit.
Prior the rise of pikemen and standardized armies, this was your infantry arm:
>GUYS
>GUYS
>BUY YOUR OWN WEAPONS
>N
>JUST FORM A LIEN N SHIET.
Sure there were polearms but none of these are of uniform length.
Of course there were people like missile infantry, but your average infantryman was pretty lame for much of the medieval ages.
Because motherfuckers on the flanks and rear still have pikes and arrows
Getting shot at with heavy armor on and an armed horse
>Aw jeez they're shooting at me
>ahh listen to the pitter patter of arrows sliding off my breastplate
>hey Horsey how you doing down there
>Neighhhh
Getting shot at with light or no armor on
>Oh fuck my face
>My body is riddled with wounds
>I am dying
>Oh look my horse collapsed from under me
>all my bones are broken
>Hey there's a desperate looking man rushing at me with a knife maybe he's going to help me
>ah nope he just slit my throat and stole my wedding ring
>>1050454
Because even on the flanks and rear, the other side fights back.
>>1050454
>If cavalry were best used attacking the flanks and rear of an enemy then why was heavily armoured cavalry ever a thing?
Looking from the point of view of a centrally administered and armed modern military is a mistake. Such a central administration may consider the cost-effectiveness of different approaches and will compromise in many ways to maximise the overall effectiveness of the military as a whole.
But these were wealthy people in charge of their own equipment and they bought the best protection they could afford because they didn't want to die.
Now in purely military terms perhaps this money would be better spent on lighter armour offering less protection, with the rest used by the central authority to equip more soldiers, but why would the cavalry elite agree to that?
>>1050454
You could charge disorganised or lightly armed infantry from the front, which is similar to charging the rear.
Some heavy cavalry was designed specifically to charge the front of even braced well armed infantry. Those horses needed a lot of training and often had their vision partially covered as well.
1. Intimidation. 90% of a cavalry charge being successful involved scaring the infantry so bad they broke ranks before the charge connected. A guy in heavy armor is much scarier than a guy in a light tunic.
2. Protection from missile weaponry. The biggest general threat to cavalry was archers because they could break up a charge by shooting into it and spooking, killing, and tripping up the horses, to say nothing of the riders themselves who didn't enjoy being shot at.
3. People who could afford a horse could also afford custom made armor for themselves and their horse.
4. In case of battling with infantry who did not break ranks heavy armor still allows cavalry to not die.
Because those people bought their own equipment and didn't fancy getting shot in the face by some shit eating commoner with buck teeth and no title from 150 yards away. If it were a state army yeah they probably wouldn't have bothered but when you are responsible for your own life you tend to buy the best you can afford so you don't fucking die.
>>1050454
You act like heavy cavalry wasn't massively better than light cavalry at charging flanks and rear too.
>>1050465
Thank you for your insight professor.
>>1050454
The knight getting his head knocked in with the other guy's lance in OPs pic seems like a good reason.
