Watched Lord of the Rings again and love the Rohirric charges. So /his/ what is the greatest cavalry charge of all time and which Western power maintained the most formidable Calvary?
>>407875
John Sobieski III and his charge at Vienna is the largest in recorded history
>>407915
>western power
The deathride during the Frannco Prussian war. Duh
>>407875
Probably the charge of the light cavalry in the Crimean War, not really greatest but one of the most romanticized
There have been a fuck ton of famous cavalry charges, really hard to say. Bouvines, Patay, and Muret come to mind
As far as most formidable, it depends on the era and is rather hard to determine, I'd say that during the Hundred Years War period I would probably be france
>>407922
was that the last successful cavalry charge in western history or is that just a romanticize
Eylau had a pretty impressive charge too (even though not the largest I think)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Eylau#Cavalry_charge_at_Eylau
https://www.f*cebook.com/FranzPeterSchubert/videos/1875282886963/
I like the anzac light horse charge in the battle for Beersheba
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Beersheba_(1917)
May not be the greatest but it was impressive none the less, there's a movie about it called The Lighthorsemen,
you could probably find the charge on YouTube but I've not looked
westerners a shit
their knights were babby nobles and after that era nothing of value came out of their "cavalry"
you cant the charge at vienna from the poles, the single most based charge of all times
circumstances are similar aswell
>>408012
>last successful cavalry charge in western history
Beersheba 1917 beats it, not sure if anybody else lucked out afterwards
>>408805
speak english, ahmed
>>408815
go back to int butthurt chav and take your angloshit pride with you
>t. steppe warrior
>>408828
>be steppe warrior
>get killed by THE FUCKING WIND
lmao, does this picture scare you?
>>407875
On film? Nobody tops Bodarchuk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vlcuvrM1po
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17YqczWI2R8
Having 2,000 actual cavalrymen as extras does wonders
>>408854
Good god I love that movie, so much is great about it. Event the score is good
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2unl3rIgOU
Apparently when they were filming the French charge, a lot of the British got legitimately scared and broke formation
>>408838
it only triggers warm feelings looking at fields so post more or be gone
>>407920
Poland was western at the time.
>>408807
Ah, but that wasn't cavalry, that was mounted infantry.
>>407915
>forced memes
>>408854
>On film? Nobody tops Bodarchuk
This, too bad his son is a fucking hack
>>408807
Italians of all people actually conducted a successful cavalry charge at the East Front in 1942.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Savoia_Cavalleria_at_Isbuscenskij
>>408869
are you retarded?
>>411403
He isn't, strictly speaking the "Western" world at the time was Roman christendom (and filthy protestants admittedly) of which Poland was a part. A border part in fact, a transition to the orthodox East. The notion of West-East we have now (east of Germany = "the East") is a product of the cold war.
>>408869
"Central" (whatever that means) at best.
>>408807
>>408012
Not really western, but 1,700 Polish cavalry charged 17,500 Soviet cavalry at Komarow during the Russo-Polish war in 1920.
>>411423
Nope, western. Central Europe is horseshit.
>>414421
Poland is a part of Central Europe, you mongoloid.
>>414435
>Poland is a part of something that does not exist
>>414454
>I am a fucking retard please rape my face
t. you
Is the Rohirrim charge accurate? I just can't imagine horses charging through dense packs of people. I always picture the horses coming to a stand still and getting cut down.
>>414406
Who won?
>>414454
Why is someone so immensely, geopolitically unaware posting on /his/? Just lurk if you're that retarded.
>>414470
Its not, you are right they will eventually come to a stand still.
>>414471
The Polish. This was during the middle of the Russian civil war, so arguably the Bolsheviks weren't in the best of conditions, but it was still incredibly embarrassing and the end of Soviet efforts in Poland (again to be fair, Poland started the war).
>>407875
>So /his/ what is the greatest cavalry charge of all time and which Western power maintained the most formidable Calvary?
Probably France. But you probably mean into more modern times and thats not really my cup of tea so i could be wrong.
>>414480
Noice, the Poles were always fucking based.
>>407875
Swadia
>>407875
Poles really.
I'd say Russia too, but their shit is way too fucking disorganized what with
-Druzhina
-Household guards
-Private Militias in the form of Cossacks.
Basically Eastern Euros have well developed cavalry forces due to Nomad Fucking Shits compared to Western Europe.
>>407875
Cavalry charges are overrated as fuck and that scene in Lord of the Rings is so fucking stupid it makes me mad, because in reality a little cavalry charging into massive heavy infantry wall which outnumbers them many times could have only ended one way: a catastrophe for the cavalry. In history every time cavalry charged straight into heavy infantry ended up terribly for the cavalry.
Greek hoplites shat on cavalry. Roman legions shat on cavalry. The English longbowmen shat on French knights. The Swiss peasants shat on Habsburg knights. The janissaries shat on Western heavy cavalry. Fire weapons and artillery made cavalry mostly obsolete and reduced it to a very limited role. Most of the times in battles the cavalry was used against the enemy cavalry, not the infantry as charging headlong into heavy infantry outnumbering the cavalry was straight up suicide. So when the enemy cavalry was taken care of, the victor of the cavalry battle could attack the enemy infantry from the side or from the back, that was a very frequent way battles were won.
Cavalry was only effective when it was used the right way, basically utilizing its mobility and striking at the wings, flanking, attacking the back and chasing the enemy.
>>416376
>Fire weapons and artillery made cavalry mostly obsolete and reduced it to a very limited role. Most of the times in battles the cavalry was used against the enemy cavalry
Fast firing weapons to be exact.
There's a reason why the Mounted Archer remained the dominant solider type in Central Asia even with the proliferation of Muskets. from the 1500's-1800;s.
>>407915
> At around 6:00 pm, the Polish king ordered the cavalry attack in four groups, three Polish and one from the Holy Roman Empire. Eighteen thousand horsemen charged down the hills, the largest cavalry charge in history.[23]:152 Jan III Sobieski led the charge[16]:661 at the head of 3,000 Polish heavy lancers, the famed "Winged Hussars".
Agincourt :^)
>>416376
Nigger you almost know what you're talking about.
>Roman legions shat on cavalry.
They weren't stunningly successful against the Huns
>The English longbowmen shat on French knights
Once, and that was due more to the use of favorable terrain than the might of the longbowmen themselves
>The Swiss peasants shat on Habsburg knights
French gendarmes and Habsburg knights had dominated for centuries before that. While you're not wrong about charging headlong into infantry, those are some terrible examples. The difference between suicide and glory when cavalry charged was the cohesion and organization of the enemy, not their numbers.
In the case of the charge of the Rohirrim at the Hornburg, the forces of Isengard were focused on the siege and were not in any proper formation, and were also extremely disorganized (being a mix of wild men, uruk-hai and lesser orcs). Given that the Rohirrim smashed into a disorganized, preoccupied enemy's rear it's no surprise that they were extremely successful. Similarly, in the Pellennor fields, the forces of mordor were both very heterogeneous (easterlings, haradrim, orcs of all types) and busy seiging Minas Tirith. The Rohirrim struck the flank of a surprised, tired enemy and was extremely successful until the haradrim and easterlings arrived.
When Faramir and the knights of Gondor led a direct charge on the host of mordor they were unsuccessful for the same reason the charge of Rohan was successful--they were charging a prepared, entrenched enemy that greatly outnumbered them. The Riddermark was just as devastated when an organized infantry column led by the Haradrim joined the battle. If anything, the cavalry charges in Lord of the Rings showed cavalry used correctly: striking at the flank of a disorganized enemy days into a siege, engaged against another target. The one case where they do as you say and charge a prepared enemy they are utterly devastated.
>>416376
>3 paragraphs on how calvary is worthless
1/10
>>416601
not to mention the entire thing about the oliphaunts stopping the charge.
>muh last host
>literally cucked so hard by nellie that they nearly die
>>416453
Patay :^)
Cavalry's effectiveness against infantry died with the mainstream use of firearms. Squares, with four lines of guns is not something cavalry can beat. See Ney's charge at Waterloo for a particularly poignant example.
>>416666
Hastings :^)
>>416698
>a battle lost in part because the Normans had archers and the English didn't
>>416692
>Cavalry's effectiveness against infantry died with the mainstream use of firearms.
Is that why cavalry lasted 300 years past the moment when firearms started being the most common weapon on the battlefield?
Cavalry was always only ever good in a combined arms effort, so it's silly to use that artillery bait formation that was the napoleonic square as proof of the ineffectiveness of cavalry.
What killed cavalry was the late 19th century repeating firearms and smokeless gunpowder dramatically improving infantry accuracy and rate of fire.
>>416691
Literal autism
>>416731
no actually modernized Calvary died with the dissolution of the CSA
>What is Morgan's raiders
>>416780
>no actually modernized Calvary died with the dissolution of the CSA
Dude cavalry was still used in WW1, the fuck are you talking about?
>>416780
No, "modernized" cavalry died with the mechanization of infantry late in the second world war. Polish and Soviet cavalry were active and generally effective in both the Russo-polish and second world war.
Takeda charge at Nagashino
>>416795
>Polish and Soviet cavalry
Weren't they basically mounted infantry, rather than cavalry? Mounted combat pretty much died in WW1 afaik.
>>416808
No, see >>414406
the Russo-polish war still had straight up cavalry charges with lance, pistol and saber. The whole myth about charging tanks aside, the Poles did successfully charge and clash with German organic cavalry in World War II as well. On the eastern front, soviet cavalry also played a role in preying on German supply lines, but I don't really know whether they actually charged. There are photos of them with swords in hand, but knowing the soviets it could just as easily be staged.
>>416788
ww2 also
>>416750
>pointing out that an infantry battle was an infantry battle in a thread about cavalry and that it wasn't just a one off is autism
>>416788
That doesn't mean it was effective
>>416817
>thinking one country in eastern Europe that was too poor to field modern equipment is relevant
Calvary died with the confederacy
>>416821
The battle of agincourt was lost because of French calvary you retarded faggot
>>414458
Western Europe is what remained independent from the Ottomans, Mongols and Russians/Soviets
Eastern Europe were culturally separated from the rest for various periods of time
Or Eastern Europe is just the slavic people, seperated from the Germanic and Latin due to the aforementioned or lack of contact with Rome.
>>416838
What French cavalry?
>>416842
The ones that charged the English and got mowed down by English archers
Seriously, kill yourself and do it fast
>>416835
>thinking one country in eastern Europe that was too poor to field modern equipment is relevant
The fuck are you on? The Wehrmacht used organic cavalry and had their own charges too, as did the Soviets, British (in Asia), and Japanese in World War I (the Americans and French had cavalry but these generally served as mounted infantry). Rich and poor had nothing to do with it.
The Confederacy was one irrelevant blip in the history of cavalry warfare.
>>416710
>mfw the French had to teach the English how to use a bow
you're welcome, and say hi to Wales for me.
>>416835
>thinking a cavalry band belonging to one backwater failed state in America fighting on a secondary front is relevant
Get over yourself.
>>416851
So a couple of dozen cavalry on the flanks, lost the battle, despite the three massive blocks of infantry in the centre?
>>416851
English archery did far less than French mud and the hand-to-hand actions of the English man-at-arms against dismounted cavalry.
>>416853
>The Confederacy was one irrelevant blip in the history of cavalry warfare.
Lol
Southern calvary had to pay out of pocket for the expense of their horses.
This not only created a mindset of preservation in battle, before the onset of the war, most southerners were already great horsemen.
Now go read the book Morgan's Raiders
>>416851
The French charge was on foot, retard
>>416874
>Now go read the book Morgan's Raiders
>a force that attacked a civilian population, was run to ground by infantry and then decisively defeated
If this is supposed to be the last breath of modernized cavalry, then it must have died long before. At least Stuart could win battles with his horsemen.
>Southern calvary had to pay out of pocket for the expense of their horses.
One post ago you were talking about how Poland was a nation too poor to field modern equipment, and now you're telling me that the Confederacy was too poor to give its soldiers horses? Pot calling the kettle black there.
>>416601
>citing a fairy tale as an argument
Are you retarded?
>>416874
Behold, all the great and illustrious victories of Morgan's Raiders.
>muh numerical inferiority
Pay attention to how Morgan still lost more men even when he was numerically superior and not fighting militia.
All this so the entirety of his force (and all the petticoats they must have stolen from those dastardly federal stores) could get captured.
>>416926
>citing a fairy tale as an argument
Are you illiterate or did you just choose not to read the post I was responding to?
According to >>416376
>Cavalry charges are overrated as fuck and that scene in Lord of the Rings is so fucking stupid it makes me mad
>Cavalry was only effective when it was used the right way, basically utilizing its mobility and striking at the wings, flanking, attacking the back and chasing the enemy.
But the posts notes that every single successful charge in said fairy tale that he happens to mention in his post involved cases where
>Cavalry was only effective when it was used the right way, basically utilizing its mobility and striking at the wings, flanking, attacking the back and chasing the enemy
so by all arguments the scenes in said fairy tale were not stupid and should not make him mad.
>>416889
you obviously didn't read the goddamn book if you think they attacked civilians.
Do you even know what kind of merit it takes to be a brigadier general?
An army made up of more than 3000 volunteer troops.
His entire unit was based around mounted fighting. He fielded artillery that could he carried on two horses and deployed in minutes. His infantry doctrine consisted mounted, and dismounted fighting.
Etc. read the goddamn book
And they paid for their horses out of pocket on grounds of morality. Yankee scum stole them from anywhere they could.
>>416949
>His entire unit was based around mounted fighting. He fielded artillery that could he carried on two horses and deployed in minutes. His infantry doctrine consisted mounted, and dismounted fighting.
are those things supposed to be somehow innovative by the second half of the 19th century? because they aren't
>>416928
>Wikipedia is undeniable fact
>>416949
>you obviously didn't read the goddamn book if you think they attacked civilians.
See >>416928
>The next morning the Confederates resumed their march northward. As they passed up a county road, a shot was fired killing a soldier. The scouts opened fired on a nearby house from which they assumed the shot had come, killing a Lutheran minister and wounding his son.[n 6][30][31]
>His entire unit was based around mounted fighting. He fielded artillery that could he carried on two horses and deployed in minutes. His infantry doctrine consisted mounted, and dismounted fighting.
And what a great success that was! Look at all those victories >>416928 where Morgan inflicted great losses on an outnumbered enemy! It must have been hard killing those 4 hastily-raised militiamen at Corydon! That's nearly one person per piece of artillery Morgan brought!
>>416959
Do you have evidence to the contrary?
>>416953
Considering most Calvary doctrine around the world was:
>lel saber charge
Yes
>>416970
>Considering most Calvary doctrine around the world was:
>lel saber charge
Horse artillery in conjunction with cavalry has been in use since the thirty year's war, you nonce, and was perfected by the Napoleonic wars, forty years before the first shot on fort Sumter. Hell, the US used horse artillery in the Mexican-American war, long before Morgan came up with his "raid."
>His infantry doctrine consisted mounted, and dismounted fighting.
Look up what "Dragoon" means. Those folks have been around since the 17th century and have been serving as mounted infantry since then.
>>416970
Did the Confederacy also invent written language and the wheel while they were inventing cavalry warfare from the ground up?
>>416710
Are you retarded? They lost because they were completely flanked. And they had cavalry, not because of the shitty fledgling bows.
>>416970
Please. America had zero cavalry tradition. Compared to European cav they were a fucking meme.
>>416970
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you cant even spell the word youre talking about?
>Its cavalry not calvary
>>417007
I don't even know why the guy has such a hard-on for a glorified bandit. Jeb Stuart led 9,500 Confederate cavalry against 11,000 Federal Regular Cavalry in the leadup to Gettysburg in the largest cavalry battle in the world since the Crimean War, and he won. Meanwhile this guy wanks off to some no-namer who couldn't even consistently beat militia.
>>416842
they lost because they were a bunch of faggot nobles with no experience on how to will a battle it
would be a shame to call the an army
>>417002
>what does "in part" mean?
>>416970
your consistent use of the word "Calvary"
and your insistence on spouting out stupid shit
leads me to believe you are retarded
>>417038
My strong suit is not civil war history, but I can say without a doubt that the Confederates didn't in any way invent the wheel with their cavalry.
Guy has no idea what hes talking about.
>>417045
>a battle lost in part because the Normans had archers and the English didn't
Those are your exact words, Now are you going to double down on what you said? Or admit your wrong?
Or say its not you, or not respond either way your a faggot mongoloid.
>>417042
The same could be said of the English. Other than sitting outside Harfleur, there hadn't been a battle against the French for decades by the time of Agincourt.
>>416601
Declining Roman military and tactic was pretty different than peak Roman Empire military and tactic as Romans faced with completely different problems. Pretty stupid to think that Huns meant problems to late Roman Empire -cavalry is better than infantry. First thing is that the late Roman military was defending for the most occasions, Rome didn't have the manpower for offensive military campaigns anymore. Another thing was the territory of the empire grew so great that the defense had to be stretched in great lenghts too. So these obstacles the Roman military had to face were completely different than the growing Roman Republic, which had hardly any challengers military-wise, the roman infantry training, tactic, the level of organization and discipline was so immensely superior.
As for the Huns, Hun military and tactic was all about nomadic horsearchers, great for sneak attacks, surprising the enemy and faking retreat, luring the enemy into traps and finishing them off from the distance. And pretty shit in a straight up battle, note the Battle of Catalaunum.
There are so many examples in Middle Ages warfare when traditional knight armies and tactics were defeated. 100-years war, Swiss independance war, the Swiss basicly ending the reign of the mighty Charles the Bold's Burgundy, the Hussite Wars where the Czech fortified infatry shat on Knight armies of the Holy Roman Emperor's knights, Ottomans teaching a number of lessons to Western knights charging straight into jannissaries (battle of Varna, Mohács etc). The era of knights was pretty much over when the High Middle Ages with Italian mercenary armies began.
This is supposed to be serious discussion so I really don't want to go into details with you on your meme fantasy battles, just let me adress this: in real life sieges were hardly ever broken by a single cavalry attack, a complete army of infantry and cavalry was needed to even attempt such a task.
came her to say this
>>407915
But it is also similar to Alexander and his companion cavalry charge against Darius complete with the Olyphants.
>>417119
In part. As in, contributed to. Not "they lost because they didn't have bows".
>>416939
Well, you had better read about the battles of Alexander the Great with Persians, when Persian armies comprising of mostly cavalry charged into the Macedonian phalanx like that in your little meme fairy tale. I can tell you, it wasn't pretty.
>>417143
Ok , now explain to me how "they lost because they didn't have bows". Means in part.
>>417137
>First thing is that the late Roman military was defending for the most occasions
>Rome didn't have the manpower for offensive military campaigns anymore
This has literally nothing to do with whether cavalry would be effective against heavy infantry, unless your argument is that Rome couldn't pile on enough bodies.
> So these obstacles the Roman military had to face were completely different than the growing Roman Republic
Which didn't have to face a cavalry charge often, since they were mainly fighting sarmatians, parthians and gauls
>which had hardly any challengers military-wise
Were the gauls, celts, sarmatians, carthagians, parthians, and greeks all just minor problems?
>the roman infantry training, tactic, the level of organization and discipline was so immensely superior.
[citation needed], late-roman militaries did not decline in efficiency by that much.
>There are so many examples in Middle Ages warfare when traditional knight armies and tactics were defeated.
And so many more where traditional armies of knights demolished the opposition. The hundred-years war is no exception, given Formigny, Castillon, La Brossiniere, and Patay were all decisively won by cavalry action.
>Swiss independance war
Again, you are attributing to infantry what is attributable to Terrain, in this case the Swiss highlands
> the Hussite Wars where the Czech fortified infatry shat on Knight armies of the Holy Roman Emperor's knights
Notice it was the Roman Emperor's knights who won.
> Ottomans teaching a number of lessons to Western knights charging straight into jannissaries (battle of Varna, Mohács etc).
> just let me adress this: in real life sieges were hardly ever broken by a single cavalry attack, a complete army of infantry and cavalry was needed to even attempt such a task.
I like how you can say this unabashedly when one of the greatest cavalry charges of history involved the Poles wiping out said vaunted janissaries in order to lift the siege of Vienna.
>>416851
The knights were dismounted you absolute retard. Stop breathing through your mouth.
>>417167
Well, you had better read about those same battles of Alexander the Great with Persians, when the Greek Companion Cavalry routed the Persian infantry and cavalry like in my little meme fairy tale. I can tell you, it wasn't pretty.
Charge of the Light Brigade
So many Anglos dying
>>417176
>They lost because they didnt have bows
He literally just stated that that wasnt what he said.
He stated that bows contributed to the Anglo Saxon loss at Hastings, which is at least in a small part true. While Hastings was won by cavalry the fact that the Normans used archers as well to disorder and pick apart the shield wall almost certainly helped.
>>417167
>Well, you had better read about the battles of Alexander the Great with Persians, when Persian armies comprising of mostly cavalry charged into the Macedonian phalanx like that in your little meme fairy tale. I can tell you, it wasn't pretty.
Stop being an autist, the dude was literally trying to prove YOUR point, he just said the scenes from LOTR weren't poorly made and that when cavalry DID go straight for enemy infantry they got BTFO.
>>417212
There were mounted and unmounted , either way they fucking lost. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6fRA71S2po
>>417137
>There are so many examples in Middle Ages warfare when traditional knight armies and tactics were defeated.
>Ottomans teaching a number of lessons to Western knights charging straight into jannissaries (battle of Varna, Mohács etc).
> in real life sieges were hardly ever broken by a single cavalry attack, a complete army of infantry and cavalry was needed to even attempt such a task.
Yeah if not for the fact that the greatest battle in defense of christendom since the crusades, taking place well after the Italian wars when the era of knights was supposedly over, involved the Ottoman siege of the fucking capital of the Holy Roman Empire by Janissaries and heavy infantry being broken by the charge of 3,000 Polish Heavy Cavalry in 1683, just like my meme fairy tale huh?
>>417237
>There were mounted and unmounted , either way they fucking lost.
So now even dismounted knights are overrated? So only archers and light infantry are any good right faggot?
>>417176
It doesn't. That's what the 'not' in front of that bit means.
The Normans had lots of archers.
The English did not.
Having archers helped the Normans to win, but it was not the only reason they won.
This is funny because 'le ebin English archers with their magic sticks" maymay.
Hence, the English lost, in part, due to lack of archers.
>>417248
then they get run down by nights
>>417137
>There are so many examples in Middle Ages warfare when traditional knight armies and tactics were defeated.
And so many from then and after where they weren't. Dyrrhachium, Fornovo, Seminara, Ravenna, Vienna, Agnadello, Marigano, the great and many successes of the winged hussars, the Ottoman Sipahi (which were an equal part of the Ottoman victory at Mohacs and were equally effective alongside the Jainssaries), The Hussites, who you mention, were also cavalrymen who fought with the poles (another nation heavily reliant on cavalry) against the teutonic order with success and were ultimately routed by Polish cavalry.
>The era of knights was pretty much over when the High Middle Ages with Italian mercenary armies began.
Which must be why the Winged Hussars were such an effective force for a century.
> just let me adress this: in real life sieges were hardly ever broken by a single cavalry attack, a complete army of infantry and cavalry was needed to even attempt such a task.
Because nobody tried, because no nation save for equestrian nomads could afford an army that was purely cavalry. Not because it was necessarily ineffective. As stated before, Vienna was spearheaded by the cavalry, even if the infantry took part in the mopping up.
>>407915
It's also what the ride of the rohirrim is based off of.
>>417248
Did i ever say that? No the outcome from Agincourt was clear victory from the beginning, out commanded, out flanked out everything.
>>416691
Actually the French knights charged head first uphill into the English and they were disorganized before the charge some of the Knights wherent even mounted before the charge because the French hade been sitting around for hours debating what they where going to do and then all the sudden somone ordered a charge and just went running of towards the enemy
>Muh glorious charge
>>417511
There is no hill at Agincourt. It's a flat field. If anything it slopes DOWN from the French camp towards the English lines. Pic related.
Are you mixing up Agincourt with Crecy?
Ben Greirson led a regiment of 1600 Union cavalry troopers on a raid all the way from Tennessee to Baton Rouge in 1863
http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-ben-grierson-actual-hero/
He used cavalry's advantages in the modern era: superior speed, superior situational awareness and ability to split up and re-combine in order to avoid having to face infantry with bigger numbers and heavier weapons. He massively fucked up southern rail networks and telegraphs and tied down thousands of men chasing him who could have been opposing Grant and Vicksburg
That's how you use cavalry (or, in the 21st century, light infantry mounted in technicals)
>>417592
see >>417296
>Because nobody tried, because no nation save for equestrian nomads could afford an army that was purely cavalry.
It was the cavalry that spearheaded the charge and the infantry that followed. It's a stupid argument to say that no siege was every broken by the charge of a purely cavalry army when there were no cases where it was ever attempted.
>>417219
And that's smart usage of cavalry, proving my point exactly, as I said here >>416376
>So when the enemy cavalry was taken care of, the victor of the cavalry battle could attack the enemy infantry from the side or from the back, that was a very frequent way battles were won.
>>417211
>citation needed
Warfare in the Classical World, Salamander Books Ltd, 1980, pretty good read
But don't let the fact cloud your judgement that Rome managed to conquer the entire Mediterranean and built an empire that lasted 500 years, this had ofc nothing to do with Roman military superiority, Romans were pretty shit in reality, they just lucked out
>celts, sarmatians, carthagians, parthians, and greeks all just minor problems
You tell me, did the Romans wiped the floor with all of them in the end or did the Romans wiped the floor with all of them in the end?
By the way all of those tribes had better cavalry than the Romans? Did it matter in the end?
>inb4 Carrhae
Crassus was a fool for chasing a purely nomad army in disadvantageous terrain, otherwise the parthians were mostly harmless on offense, they couldn't do shit when it came to fighting the Romans on their territory on their terms.
>citing celtics
Shamefur display, Caesar literally shat on them.
>Sarmatians
literally who
>Carthago
mostly naval power that had one tactical genious of a general, sadly he was beaten by inferior Roman generals with his own tactic used against him
>Swiss independance war, attributing to infantry what is attributable to Terrain
really, then look up Battle of Nancy, Swiss fought just as well in foreign territory, Charles the Bold charged headlong into Swiss pikemen with his knights, ending up killing himself, losing the battle and whole Duchy of Burgundy went down the shitter
>a battle won by cavalry action=/=cavalry charges are superior against heavy infantry
Wasting your expensive, precious cavalry on infantry is always stupid, period.
>>417757
Ikr, I wasn't the one who came up with meme cavalry charge of fairy tale movie as an example.
Imagine a 2500 man Companion Cavalry charge in wedge formation with Alexander on the lead horse, his neck twisted to the left and staring off into space, his armor sparkling gold and crimson in the sun, bearing down on you at full speed, screaming a hysterical war cry in a language you don't understand
>>417799
>example
Nobody used a meme cavalry charge of a fairy tale movie as an example, so I don't know who you're arguing with there. What is definite is that the force of a cavalry charge is capable of being the primary factor of a siege breaking in real-life circumstances, indicating that it is not such a huge leap of logic to believe it could be plausible in a meme cavalry charge of a fairy tale movie.
>Nobody in this thread understands army composition
An army needs both infantry and cavalry to survive. Cavalry has its own role, and infantry has its own role. One is not better than the other.
Von Seydlitz at Rossbach was pretty gut.
Battle of ceresole nominated for sheer bravery
Adrianople maybe?
>>417783
>And that's smart usage of cavalry, proving my point exactly
Yes, which proves my point in >>416939, that the usage of heavy cavalry in said meme fairy tale is consistent with what you said >>416376, and your suggestion that somehow Persian lack of success against an organized Greek frontal force of heavy cavalry is indicative of a fairy tale charge being impractical is spurious.
>But don't let the fact cloud your judgement that Rome managed to conquer the entire Mediterranean and built an empire that lasted 500 years, this had ofc nothing to do with Roman military superiority, Romans were pretty shit in reality, they just lucked out
Nobody argued otherwise. What I disagree with is that the organization or discipline of the late roman military was necessarily inferior to the Roman legions of the late republic.
>Crassus was a fool for chasing a purely nomad army in disadvantageous terrain, otherwise the parthians were mostly harmless on offense
Surely that must be why the Romans wiped the floor with all of them.
>You tell me, did the Romans wiped the floor with all of them in the end or did the Romans wiped the floor with all of them in the end?
>Celts
The Celts were never completely defeated, and Rome was sacked by Alesia. To argue that they were never a challenger is silly.
>Sarmatians
>Literally who
you might need to actually read up on what cause the romans to switch from a hoplite phalanx to the manipular formation.
You do already admit Carthage was a real threat, so I won't further pursue it.
>really, then look up Battle of Nancy
really, then look up the Battle of Marignano, where the Swiss pikemen were routed by a cavalry charge into their flanks on flat ground.
>a battle won by infantry action=/=heavy infantry can always resist cavalry charges
I'm not arguing heavy cavalry charges always wins, but they win about as often as they lose. Arguing that Cavalry can never surmount Infantry is equally stupid, period.
>>417296
I looked up some of those battles, you don't make a point with them. Either it was really early Middle Ages all parties fighting chivalry style, an indecisive battle, there were five battles of Ravenna, I don't even, but if you're refering to the Spanish-French war, then it's proving my point, the battle was won by smart usage of cavalry after the French won the fight between tthe cavalries and attacked the Spanish infantry in the back.
The battle of Mohács was lost because the Hungarian King charged headlong into janissaries wall.
I'm tired, pls fuck off. Original point was cavalry being overrated and weak against heavy infantry in tight formation one-on-one and stupid depiction of cavalry in meme fantasy movies. Nobody could disprove that.
>126 posts
>no mention of Dan Helder
For shame
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capture_of_the_Dutch_fleet_at_Den_Helder
>>The Capture of the Dutch fleet at Den Helder or the Battle of Texel occurred in the night of the 23 January 1795, and presents a rare occurrence of a "naval" battle between warships and cavalry; a French Hussar regiment surprised a Dutch fleet frozen at anchor between the port of Den Helder and the island of Texel.[1] After an extraordinary charge across the frozen Zuiderzee, the French cavalry captured 14 Dutch ships and 850 guns.[2] This capture of ships by horsemen is a unique feat in military history.[3][4]
>>417887
You mean samnites not sarmatians.
>>417889
>Either it was really early Middle Ages all parties fighting chivalry style
meme answer, literally means nothing. Infantry and cavalry combined arms was always chivalric
>the battle was won by smart usage of cavalry
> and attacked the Spanish infantry in the back.
And the meme fantasy movie showed smart usage of cavalry after the Rohirrim attacked the Isengard/Morian infantry in the back. That's not a stupid depiction, it's about as close to accurate usage as it gets.
>I'm tired, pls fuck off.
Also retarded. The point was that
>Original point was cavalry being overrated
Definitely incorrect, it was not overrated and integral in the combined arms appraoch
>and weak against heavy infantry in tight formation one-on-one
As often untrue as it is true
>and stupid depiction of cavalry in meme fantasy movies
ANd my argument, back from my first goddamn post, was that it's not a stupid depiction because the cavalry in said meme fantasy movie actively attacked the flanks of an occupied and disorganized opponent. Your argument was disproved a long, long time ago.
>>417900
Yes, I mean samnites, a stupid mistake on my part.
>>416840
More like western europe is the result of the admixture of germanic and roman traditions after the fall of the western roman empire. By the fault the rest of europe is eastern europe, defined by "it's not western europe" just like Asia is just "eurasia but not europe".
Let's speak the truth: these cavalry charges are horrible in battles, because easily ends in desorganization and defeat. Mostly battles were won in history because of soldiers who basically didn't become crazy in the middle of a battle and suddenly started to attack everyone. Look at roman conquests as an example.
>>417918
Look at the first crusade m8 and the subsequent 30 years.
>>417918
Cavalry charges absolutely have a place on the battlefield. Saying that theyre horrible in battles is absolutely incorrect.
As long as a cavalry contingent is well disciplined, they can easily become the most important part of an army.
>>417918
>Let's speak the truth: these cavalry charges are horrible in battles, because easily ends in desorganization and defeat.
The problem is that you can say that about just about a charge by any branch. Spartans could be routed by hoplites, the Xiongnu light cavalry were run to ground by Chinese crossbowmen; the Jin crossbowmen were routed by the Mongols.
> Mostly battles were won in history because of soldiers who basically didn't become crazy in the middle of a battle and suddenly started to attack everyone
Again, you can say that about every unit. The peltasts fought as a group and wiped out the spartans. The Chinese made use of early mechanized infantry via chariots to encircle the Xiongnu. The Mongols fought as a group instead of scattered horse archers. All you're saying are a bunch of platitudes that are way too broad to apply to anyone.
>>417965
>Spartans could be routed by hoplites
*could be routed by peltasts, fuck
>>417887
>Swiss pikemen were routed by a cavalry charge into their flanks
>into their flanks
My point again.
>celts sacking Rome
Just shut the fuck up already, who the fuck cares what happened in the meme times when Rome was little shit city state? I was talking about Roman Empire.
>cause the romans to switch from a hoplite phalanx to the manipular formation
wut
The order of progression was like phalanx-manipulus->cohors, if I remember correctly, manipuluses were inventions against the Macedonian phalany and the bigger cohorses were introduced by Caesar against enemies like celts whose custom was to engage in the bettle with only one decisive big attack, and cohorses were better at stopping those.
Sarmatians were never really a big threat to the Empire. Afaik their heavy cavalry units were the only thing that they made an impression to Romans, that's why they introduced those in the Roman army too in the late period.
The thing with Romans was that whenever they faced a new opponent or tactic, they figured out how to counter it, and that was it, from then on they just ravaged their enemies. This was the story with Carthag as well. In the 1st Punic war they just started to use ladders in their ships to enable invading enemy ships directly, so they managed to transform sea battles to land battles where they had the upper hand. In the second Punic wars they realized that hannibal is not achieving anything in Italy as he cannot lay siege on Rome, so they attacked Carthag on its colonies and homeland, taking the battle to them and without Hannibal they were beaten, so finally Carthag had no choice but to call back Hannibal from Italy to defend Carthag and by that time Scipio had figured out all of his tricks and tactics, turned their allies against him and beat him badly at Zama.
As I said, cavalry charges only win battles, if they are used smart for flanking manoveurs or attacking the back of the enemy and charging headlong into tight formations of heavy infantry is the best way of losing a battle.
>>417907
It was all cavalry in that stupid movie, dipshit. They had no infantry at all! In no way in reality could they have won any battle with just heavy cavalry. The king just said CHAAAARGE, and they charged though like 3 different armies, it was so stupid it hurt. It's was a silly meme movie, you have proved nothing.
>>417820
Persians were shitters, especially their infantry, it was pure dogshit, they didn't even have proper armour and they panicked and fled the same time their king started running.
>>418026
>It was all cavalry in that stupid movie, dipshit.
Yes, see >>417757 the part where nobody did it in real life because nobody is capable of doing it. And are you forgetting the Rohirrim infantry defending Hornberg (and, if you watched the movie, elves for some reason) or the Gondor infantry at Minas Tirith?
>They had no infantry at all! In no way in reality could they have won any battle with just heavy cavalry.
There is no proof of this whatsoever. At Vienna the cavalry charge was a stunning success even in a head-on charge--a charge against a flanked enemy (As in said silly movie) has proven sufficient to break enemy lines time and again. If the soldiers in the Hornberg and Minas Tirith had sallied (we know that they did at the Hornberg) it would have had the same effect.
>The king just said CHAAAARGE, and they charged though like 3 different armies
When was this? At Pelennor they broke through one army that had spent days besieging a city and fighting sorties, not unlike the Ottoman force at Vienna. The next Army that arrived (one that was disciplined heavy infantry and elephants) demolished them until the ghosts showed up.
>It's was a silly meme movie
You ignoring all the factors in the battle and just simplifying it to a cavalry force attacking a fresh static force of heavy infantry is what's silly
>you have proved nothing.
That you are unwilling to read does not mean that proof has not been written.
>>408796
It actually holds the record for longest successful charge. Something like 3km if memory serves.
>>417986
you're generally correct but maniples were lifted from the Samnites, I don't know where the Samnites got the idea but AFAIK they never faced Macedonian style phalanxes
>>418055
Defenders of the castle did next to nothing, a single cavalry group against an entire sieging army can be hardly considered as flanking.
>inb4 meme outbreak of 5 horsemen
>>418127
yes, and the walls of said castle were invulnerable, and they had giant stores.
Orcs didn't have meat on the menu
>>418127
>Defenders of the castle did next to nothing
Apart from the fact that in both cases they had been pushed back to near the citadel itself.
>a single cavalry group against an entire sieging army can be hardly considered as flanking.
It is when the entire besieging army is balls deep within the fortress they happened to be besieging. In that respect it may have been only a limited portion of the besieging force that was even available to respond on the field.
>>416420
>>417986
>My point again.
And my point was that the cavalry in said movie was also charging into flanks.
>Just shut the fuck up already, who the fuck cares what happened in the meme times when Rome was little shit city state?
No, you goalpost-moving piece of shit. See >>417137? Your post? Notice that it says
> the growing Roman Republic, which had hardly any challengers military-wise
REPUBLIC, you illiterate.
>The order of progression was like phalanx-manipulus->cohors, if I remember correctly, manipuluses were inventions against the Macedonian phalany and the bigger cohorses were introduced by Caesar against enemies like celts whose custom was to engage in the bettle with only one decisive big attack, and cohorses were better at stopping those.
see >>418116
>>418116
Yeah, but the guy was talking about Sarmatians tho, I didn't even understand what he was trying to say. Yeah, samnites had influence on Romans as well as Etruscans and all the nearby Italian folks and the Greeks too, didn't find sources on that, but they might as well took it from them. Infantry battles were the customary territorial feature of every tribe or city state in Italy that time though, so yeah, maniples were pretty much the standard infantry unit from the beginning.
>>417551
>It's a flat field
>posts obvious terrain rise
It doesn't need a slope of 30 degrees to be a hill, pal.
>>407915
>John Sobieski
>John
His defeat of Carl Mousetaff Pasha was indeed glorious
>>418214
Are you blind?
>>418222
>Implying Alex and his Friend Cavalry smashing Darry 3's forces at Gagamella wasn't better
>>418160
Basicly Rome was still a city state back then, it was really early in the 4th century AD, Rome hasn't even conquered Etruria yet, I don't see how that's such a big moving goal poast. Rome was a little shitter back then, not the regional force I was refering to.
>>418235
he's just english, he doesn't understand what a hill is
>>417709
Let's be honest, though: his wasn't even the best use of cavalry in the war.
Mr. KKK has that honor.
>>418145
This debate is pointless pretty much, no matter what you say every time I see that scene I still find it highly unrealistic, a small cavalry defeating an entire army, charging into tight formation of pike wall... no, just no.
>>418242
>Basicly Rome was still a city state back then,
sure, but you said that
> I was talking about Roman Empire.
When we were literally never talking about the Roman Empire. That's the goalpost part I was talking about. My point is just that I don't think the Romans were ever without threats, nor that somehow the Roman soldiers of the early republic were superior in training or organization to the Roman soldiers of the late republic, or that the Legions of the late republic or early empire would have necessarily fared any better against the huns than the Romans of the 4th century.
>>418242
>BC, fucked that up
>>418235
Are you? Look closely, the photograph is taken at human height.
http://www.ianmortimer.com/histbiogs/1415/panorama.htm
Even a 10 degree slope in the rain is going to be pure hell for anyone to get through. Have you ever walked through tilled farmland? It's not easy in itself. Add onto that rain and a gradient, and there's no way thousands of people can get where they need to go.
>>418272
Well I suppose have to agree to disagree, but the heavy infantry wall at Helm's deep fell apart because there's literally a scene where the sun cresting the hill causes the pikemen to lose cohesion.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rsa--lrlw3E
That's why they fell apart, that and they were demoralized because they had been fighting a whole night.
At pelennor fields you can actually see the heavy infantry panicking and fleeing right before they hit.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8yOdAqBFcQ
The problem, like I originally said in >>416601, is cohesion, not that heavy infantry are inherently going to win. The Orc formation was hastily assembled and its soldiers panicked (and, unlike the Uruk-hai, they use shorter pikes and are far less disciplined), and they'd been fighting for far longer. I don't see how it's ridiculous. The rohirrim get the floor wiped under them right after when a fresh, disciplined infantry force arrives.
>>418274
Well, Romans were at their peak at late republic/early empire time, so I do think that they would have fared much better with the Huns than a declining Rome. Like the battle of Catalaunum was in 451, 20 years later the Western Roman Empire officially ended, you can't possibly say with a straight face that Roman military of that time - 20 years before the final defeat was - was equivalent of peak Roman military. That is just plain stupid.
>>418293
>it's not easy in itself to walk through tilled farmland
Are you literally from topshop?
The actual reason here is that it wasn't easy for those french fuckers, because they had shitty flat sole shoes back then.
>>407875
The ride of the valkyries
>>418329
>Like the battle of Catalaunum was in 451, 20 years later the Western Roman Empire officially ended, you can't possibly say with a straight face that Roman military of that time - 20 years before the final defeat was - was equivalent of peak Roman military. That is just plain stupid.
I don't think you can compare them, period. The late roman military was different in doctrine, training, and tactics, but I don't think you can call them inferior simply because they come from a dying empire. The Late Roman military adopted spears and cavalry in response to barbarian invasions; I'm not convinced that the Roman Legion could have necessarily performed in the same way, adapted as it was to fighting enemies on foot such as the Gauls, Samnites and Greeks.
>>418342
>cavalry
>cavalerie
>cheval
>hélicoptère
anon...
>>418360
Air cav anon
Get some
>>418310
>forgetting the part when Gandalf's magic wand emitted sacred light that scared the Orcs
Whatever, in reality though, yes, I dare to say heavy infantry always wins against cavalry one-one-one, because infantry is cheaper and always outnumbers cavalry, even if the horses stomp down the first few lines, eventually tight, deep formations break the charge and then it's basically over. This is what would have happened in real life, but then again, if you take a fantasy movie seriously on this board, I really have nothing to say to you.
>>418360
He's right, the 1st cavalry division uses helicopters
>>418337
Have you ever went outside in your life, or does mommy do your shopping for you? Farmland is one of the most difficult solid terrains there are to walk on because there's no flatness to it. You step on the high parts, you sink. You step on the low parts, your feet get caught. It's not like it's a lawn.
>>418382
>forgetting the part when Gandalf's magic wand emitted sacred light that scared the Orcs but then again, if you take a fantasy movie seriously on this board, I really have nothing to say to you.
Don't make stuff up to suit your narrative. Canonically Gandalf's magic wand didn't do anything. He did use that light thing in Return of the King, but that wasn't in the battle.
>I dare to say heavy infantry always wins against cavalry one-one-one, because infantry is cheaper and always outnumbers cavalry
You know, when people say "one-on-one," they usually assume that the numbers no each side are equal.
>even if the horses stomp down the first few lines, eventually tight, deep formations break the charge and then it's basically over.
>This is what would have happened in real life
This happens as often as it doesn't. Half the time the infantry panics and breaks formation and just gets shredded. The Winged Hussars of Poland consistently managed to intimidate larger numbers of infantry into fleeing. When discipline is not present, no numerical superiority in heavy infantry will save you.
> but then again, if you take a fantasy movie seriously on this board, I really have nothing to say to you.
I'm not the one who took a fantasy movie and argued it was unrealistic without actually looking at the circumstances involved.
>>418416
>oh no, farmland
>dem 30 cm hills
>rough terrain
wow, you actually are physically challenged aren't you?
You do realise people manage to push along large machines that are literally stuck into the ground along that nearly intraversible farmland and not completely lose their shit right?
Of course, today, we have the proper footwear for that...
>>418446
And helicopters! Air cav is best cav
>>418446
At how many feet per second, and in what weather, and when being shot at by how many English longbowmen? You already know the answer, don't waste my time.
>>418456
English longbowmen were a meme
>ITT Total War players
>>418556
isn't /gsg/ and /twg/ half of /his/'s userbase?
>>418293
A 10 degree slope is actually somewhat sizable. Thats not a 10 degree slope. While their might be a slope there, its so minimal it wont matter.
What >>418416
Said is more important, especially after it rains, or defenders are given time to fortify their positions. Any self respecting commanded wouldnt try and pull off a charge over a field covered in ditches
Also
>>418446
>30 cm hills
Youre a fucking moron. 30 cms is a third of a meter, thats massive for something to charge over.
Farmland isnt 30 cm hills, but its still rough terrain to pull off a charge.
>>418558
pretty much /twg/ died after /his/ opened
