Psychological effect of cavalry charges

>>1585455

Why limit it to the gunpowder era? A man on foot can more easily put his back into a blow, and you can pack men more tightly on foot than you can mounted on horses.

Cavalry always lose to infantry if they lose momentum. And they always have trouble with men who have kept in formation.

But unless you're stupid or you think your enemy is at the breaking point, you generally didn't have your cav run head on into the mass of enemy infantry. Cavalrymen have enormously more tactical mobility than infantrymen, because horses are faster than people over short distances. They also allow for a focused blow on a particular part of the enemy formation that's at least difficult to do with infantry.

None of this is new; melee cavalry was never effective standing still, and to use them as such was just blundering.

>>1585484
I am aware it's suicidal to charge with cavalry headfront to a formation of infantry but I am saying even when flanking or charging into a broken group I doubt cavalry could win if the men didn't run since they would be greatly outnumbered. Asking whether people died because they ran instead of just staying there and killing the riders instead of routing and being slaughtered like cattle.

>>1585521

So what if they're greatly outnumbered? You're in line, maybe with a gun, maybe with a spear. You're focused on your opposite number of the infantry in the opposing army. Suddenly there's a crash behind you, and dozens to hundreds of guys on horses are rattling through. You can barely see, and you hear people screaming all around. Maybe you never even see the man who stabs you. Or maybe you turn around to fight him, only to be stabbed/shot in the back by the infantry you used to be facing.

Maybe they'll wheel in, smash up your formation some, and then wheel out to wait for a better opportunity as soon as it looks like your defense is organizing. Maybe you're too tightly packed with your fellow infantry to be able to turn around effectively. Maybe your formation is too loose to effectively stop the horses's momentum, and you're stuck swinging at a rapidly moving target, which might or might not be heavily armored, while your buddies are getting struck down like bowling pins.


Real life isn't like an RTS man. Combat is confusing, chaotic, and frightening. Expecting soldiers to react with robotic precision in the best way to meet a sudden threat to an area they weren't focused on, ESPECIALLY if you're in an era where the infantry is mostly non-professional, is just stupid.

>>1585552
Good post, puts things to perspective that even if they were brave enough to deal with a charge they likely wouldn't be able to react in time and required fashion due chaos and panic.

>>1585484
>>1585521
>always
Really, really depends on the forces involved. Byzantines considered the idea of even isolated heavy cavalry on armored horses breaching into infantry formation disastrous, and had special infantry on hand to kill any that did before they could tear the formation apart.

>>1585455
>Could it be argued that cavalry charges in era of gunpowder were more valuable for their psychological effect to break musket lines and cause enemy regiments to rout than their combat prowess? I don't see how outnumbered men with swords could fight against a regiment armed with pseudo-spears within formation.
You ever been around horses? I worked with them for two years, even a small horse can knock a man down with a small nudge. A warhorse at a charge could easily outright kill a man on impact. There is a huge psychological factor, they are very scary coming towards you, but any follow up impact to that is surely going to bring enough destruction and death to rout all but the best trained and held men.

The issue is of course that horses aren't stupid and don't voluntarily run into spikes, that's why they usually charged the side or rear, or broken up formations. You needed very well trained horses to charge a dense braced formation, which did happen sometimes.

File: steel plates.jpg (60KB, 400x404px)

60KB, 400x404px

>>1585521
Cavalry is vulnerable in prolonged combat yes, it's easy to target the riders legs and drag him off the horse, he can only truly defend one of his sides, and the horse is vulnerable too, even if they're hard to kill, they can easily have their hamstrings cut. But that is why cavalry charged instead of walking into combat. No one ever used cavalry to hold the line.