Cavalry is a stupid idea

>GoTfag
Lmao, opinions disregarded

>>1613274
Tell me about Lindy, why does he hate the French?

>>1613294

TELL ME ABOUT BEIGE, WHY DOES HE HATE THE FRANKS?

For a long time cavalry was dumb though.
And then it was cool for a while, but then it went back to being dumb. And then it was cool again until it became completely suicidal so we don't use horses for war anymore.

>>1613286
he worked with the actor, he doesn't give a shit about the show

Why the fuck would you listen to this autist? He's ranting randomly for 18 minutes about stirrups and chariots and used a really click-baity video title with an equally clickbaity thumbnail. He's a lunatic and he's also weak as fuck, seriously would you take martial arts tips from a guy who looks like that? Fuck

>>1613286
Nice argument

>>1613429
>Nice argument
Not an argument

>>1613274
He's John Green level of retarded nowadays.

>>1613520

Nowadays? When was he ever anything but retarded?

>>1613540
>When was he ever anything but retarded?
Whenever he talked about what a bunch of worthless dumb bitches the f*ench were.

>>1613540
>When was he ever anything but retarded?
At the beginning when he published videos about his trips to archeological sites. Then he started posting his "theories" and the channel went to shit.

Kind of a related question. Does it matter what gender the horse is if it was used in battle? Would Numidian cavalry for example have used male horses or would they have also used female. I would assume they used larger male horses but if they're using so many then wouldn't they be hard pressed to find enough male horses.

>>1613568
male horses are bigger and most importantly - more aggressive

>>1613568
I'm going out on a limb here but I'd say that male horses would be preferred for reasons other than size/aggression in that you need a lot more female horses than male ones to keep a sizeable population. Just keep a couple of pedigree males around with lots of lady horses and send the rest of the males to battle. A female horse casualty is potentially the death of more than one horse coz it could have had l o d s o f b a b i e s

>>1613274
Based Lindybeige

>>1613568
Mongols used female horses because of their milk or something like that.

>>1613274
Everything he said here is correct desu

He literally think the Irish are descended from Roman colonists and that swords are useless

>>1613294
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2m4hCO0EGFY

>>1613976
Source about the Irish?

> Some of the greatest and most successful generals in history made excellent use of cavalry
> Some guy on youtube says cavalry is dumb

Who to believe?

Is this the guy who said no one used quivers ever?
Honestly Youtube "history" should be banned on /his/.

>>1614037
he said that they were mainly used for ceremonial purposes

>>1614043
>>1614037
In what video, I must see this

File: husaria.jpg (300KB, 1024x729px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 1024x729px

>>1613274
>Cavalry is a stupid idea

>>1614076
Watch the video dumbo

>>1614067
He doesn't say that nor did he say >>1614037

Some autists on /his/ just like to make up shit about him for some reason

>>1614031
Watch the video moron

>>1614098
Fuck off beige

File: c3bbfd99f8a392e95e982821b341d224_zps284d4e4b.jpg (77KB, 736x414px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 736x414px

>>1613274

He's absolutely right. Horses were good for scouting and transportation. They kind of sucked when it came to actually fighting.

>>1613286
>>1613347
>>1613520
>>1613540
>>1614031
>>1614037
>>1614076
>>1614107

Honestly did any of you retards watch the video.

The conclusion wasn't that cavalry is a stupid idea, but that when people started domesticating horses, using them for battle would have been impossible due to a number of factors such as horses being small back then, no saddles, no stirrups etc.

So yes in these times it would have been stupid to suggest using horses in battle, but as new technologies started being discovered it made more sense to use them as shock troops.

ITT: butthurt Frenchmen.

>>1614108
You've posted a picture from an era when cavalry were least relevant as a combat arm, nonetheless, their use persisted while tactics and organisation experienced rapid change. Why? They remained an important combat arm, not only that but saw a renaissance in utility after the use of pike blocks subsided.

>>1614114
>Honestly did any of you retards watch the video.
Why? There's plenty of idiots on youtube spouting genuinely retarded opinions. If you watched every video with a stupid pretext expecting it to be a clickbait hook and the actual content to be solid, you'd be disappointed. Clickbait does not work in a format where there's so many genuine idiots.

File: 1470787179397.gif (2MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 320x240px

>>1613274

>>1614114

>The conclusion wasn't that cavalry is a stupid idea, but that when people started domesticating horses, using them for battle would have been impossible due to a number of factors such as horses being small back then, no saddles, no stirrups etc.

Except all of that is wrong too.

Horse size was pretty similar all the way from the bronze ages till about 1200 or so.

Gravett, Christopher (2002). English Medieval Knight 1300-1400. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 1-84176-145-1.

>no saddles, no stirrups etc.

Ever hear of a thing called the Chariot that dominated warfare for almost 1,000 years?

>So yes in these times it would have been stupid to suggest using horses in battle, but as new technologies started being discovered it made more sense to use them as shock troops.

Because shock troops are the only use for cavalry, amirite? Oh wait, no, that's retarded, and the earliest attestations we have of mounted combat (nevermind things like using the mounts to aid in scouting, or dismounting to fight, or pulling your carts) are of mounted archery.

Lindy is, as usual, retarded. He draws enormous influence from his LARPing, and never stops to think about broader contexts, or seems to entertain the notion that some of the ancients just might have come up with ideas he hasn't.

>>1614114
>the contents of the video were completely different from what its shitty clickbait title suggested, you bakas
Really fuck off

>>1614108
That line of thinking, along with the video itself, ignores several important strategic contributions that horses gave to armies at war
1. mobility. Horses gives a contingent of soldiers the ability to move quickly around the battlefield and chase down light infantry and skirmishers.
2: leverage. If you were higher off the ground you had a reach advantage over some on foot.
3: psychological. A single horse makes a lot of noise. Thousands of them galloping at your rear flank would have been fucking terrifying.
4: the rout. Most casualties in ancient warfare occur after the morale of one side has been shattered and they break ranks and flee. Horses were indispensable for chasing down enemy soldiers to either kill them or take them hostage.

Horses remain important in every era of warfare until the invention of the automobile.

>>1614146

>Horses remain important in every era of warfare until the invention of the automobile.

Even after that, because you're missing the single biggest contribution the horse has to warfare, namely in the field of logistics. Armies need huge amounts of crap moved from point A to point B. Always have, always will. Even by WW2, every army sans the Americans and Canadians relied primarily on horses to move their shit.

>>1614171
>Even after that, because you're missing the single biggest contribution the horse has to warfare, namely in the field of logistics.
I was addressing their direct battlefield application and I actually agree with you that their most important contribution was in the field of logistics.

>relied primarily on horses to move their shit.
mules or donkeys were probably a lot more cost effective, and horses would have been reserved for the extremely vital task of relaying orders and delivering messages.

>>1614141
>Ever hear of a thing called the Chariot that dominated warfare for almost 1,000 years?

You fucking retard he mentions it in the video.

He is not saying using horses in any way for war is stupid.

He is saying that when horses were domesticated using them for battle e.g. charging at the enemy while on horse back, is a stupid idea.

And after humans discovered stirrups and saddles and got more big and muscular horses from breeding them for generations they then started using them for charging at the enemy.

>Because shock troops are the only use for cavalry, amirite?

As I said above he is pointing that using cavalry in a specific way is stupid. Of course they were used for scouting etc.

You didn't even bother to look a the video did you?

>>1614190

Look, you shouldn't give your video a click-bait title and then complain when people respond to your video as if it were click-bait.

>>1614190
>He is saying that when horses were domesticated using them for battle e.g. charging at the enemy while on horse back, is a stupid idea.

So, in essence, his entire video is attacking a strawman. You're not making a good case for Lindy. Your equating of "use in battle" with head on charges (generally a bad idea in any event, even in later cavalry) is asinine.

>And after humans discovered stirrups and saddles and got more big and muscular horses from breeding them for generations they then started using them for charging at the enemy.

You might want to look up battles like Oenophyta and Potidea, where (small, greek) horses without stirrups and I'm not sure about saddles still made effective charges, by doing an amazing trick called "rushing at them from behind", something made possible by the superior mobility of the horse.


>You didn't even bother to look a the video did you?

No, because like the other anon said, I have better things to do than dissect every retard on Youtube. There are quite a lot of them.

>>1614190
>You didn't even bother to look a the video did you?
Not who you are replying to, but I addressed that here
>>1614132
>Why? There's plenty of idiots on youtube spouting genuinely retarded opinions. If you watched every video with a stupid pretext expecting it to be a clickbait hook and the actual content to be solid, you'd be disappointed. Clickbait does not work in a format where there's so many genuine idiots.

>>1614205
Lindy doesn't seem to even grasp social media so I doubt he's here shilling on 4chan.

OP probably should have summarized it before making this thread but maybe the intention was to stir up shit. Fuck this board and life

>>1613274
Yes cavalry was a incredibly stupid idea with amazing result that changed the face of battle for millenniums and only became obsolete in the past 100 years

>>1614216
>No, because like the other anon said, I have better things to do than dissect every retard on Youtube. There are quite a lot of them.

So you don't watch a video that might or might not be bs, but you happily waste your time arguing about said video you didn't even watch.

File: maxresdefault (2).jpg (343KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

343KB, 1920x1080px

>>1614222
Lindy is aware of these threads.
Also BTFO Lindy haters.

File: my little pony.jpg (748KB, 1024x894px) Image search: [Google]

748KB, 1024x894px

The video in short, for retards:
>cavalry was innefective in the early days, before the invention of saddles and stirrups, and before people bred bigger horses
>early cavalry wasn't mainly used to charge into infantry formations, but for scouting, harrassing the enemy etc.
>Cavalry became very effective as shock troops after the invention of saddles and stirrups in the late classical/early medieval period.

File: The cavalry charge that changed history.png (56KB, 800x587px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 800x587px

>>1614300
>>early cavalry wasn't mainly used to charge into infantry formations, but for scouting, harrassing the enemy etc.
define "early"

>>1614300
>The video in short, for people that don't like to be treated like retards by being served clickbait
ftfy

ITT: Lindyfags in full damage control mode

Will they ever recover?

That Lindy fellow is a good egg.

>>1614269

I happily argue about stupid claims made in this thread, in an attempt to defend the video, which wind up being incredibly retarded.

That strongly implies that the video, too, is incredibly retarded.

>>1614368
Basically, cavalry before saddles existed. Saddles were invented in the 700s BC, so they were already used in Zama. It made cavalry more effective, although it was still rarely used en masse to charge into formations. The stirrup was another huge innovation, it was invented in China in the 4th century AD and was brought to Europe by Central Asian nomads.

>>1614383
At this point, I'm certain that Lindy is aware of /his/ and is trolling you on purpose.

>>1614132
>Why? There's plenty of idiots on youtube spouting genuinely retarded opinions.

Yeah it'd be a shame if someone wasted valuable 'shitpost on /his/' time actually informing themselves about the subject matter of the thread they're posting in.

>>1613294
What sane person doesn't hate the French?

>>1614141
>Ever hear of a thing called the Chariot

>talking shit about the video without watching the video

Holy shit, people like you. I genuinely, from the bottom of my heart, hope you get run over by a car some time soon and get crippled for life. I'm not meming here. You're subhuman trash.

>>1614300

So, in other words, to Lindy, the primary "battle use" was to charge headlong into enemy formations like an idiot? That it is "ineffective" if it is not doing so?

>>1614440
>At this point, I'm certain that Lindy is aware of /his/ and is trolling you on purpose.
So what? Pretending to be a retard is the lowest form of trolling, and pointing this out is by no means taking the bait. He's lucky he operates in a format where people just want to fill time and sponge factoids and don't expect rigour.

>>1614455
I'm just swinging by for the odd post in between doing work.

>>1614141
Well Lindy talks about Calvary not horses in general. Chariots and cavalry are two differnt ways to use horses. It would have been a terribly ridiculous idea to ride on the horse when chariots were the only method currently around.

>>1614440
No one's really aware of /his/. It's a small board on a dying website.

>>1613568
Most cultures used mares simply because they were easier to handle (stallions are much more likely to bolt for stupid reasons, or wanting to fuck). The only people who used stallions would be the ones that used them for shock cavalry (knights are a good example). There are also geldings, which a lot of Europeans used because it eliminated the risk of your horse being used for breeding if its captured.

>>1614527
While I agree that 4chan is dying content wise but the site itself is getting more and more popular according to alexa

File: thinking-monkey_400x400.jpg (32KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x400px

>>1614141
>Osprey book as a source

>>1614527
I don't know about /his/ but /pol/ is as popular as ever

>>1614540
link for shits and giggles http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/4chan.org

>>1614540
I just checked and it turns out you're right! Honestly a bit glad to know that.

>>1614522

Except that the rest of his 'points' retarded as well.

You have evidence that bronze age horses weren't tiny ponies.

https://books.google.com/books?id=biyDDd0uKGMC&pg=PT145&lpg=PT145&dq=Sumerian+horse+14+hands+high&source=bl&ots=yOLyImNRTg&sig=_pEUunbovyXrAVCFoeLSn9Osp8M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjc1eeh6-TOAhWIlR4KHVpvATcQ6AEIJTAB#v=onepage&q=Sumerian%20horse%2014%20hands%20high&f=false

12-14 hands puts them on par with Hobbies and you have statements from wikipedia such as

>Research undertaken at the Museum of London, using literary, pictorial and archaeological sources, supports military horses of 14 to 15 hands (56 to 60 inches, 142 to 152 cm), distinguished from a riding horse by its strength and skill, rather than its size.[46] This average does not seem to vary greatly across the medieval period.

You have statements as to charges in pre-stirrup battles in Greece (not exactly known for its horsemanship) in Peloponesean war battles. You have plenty of evidence of horse archer usage.

And by the way, it's spelled "cavalry". And you are aware that ancient near east armies would use both chariots and unencumbered cavalry simultaneously, yes?


>>1614541

>Retarded autist on youtube is a source

And see the link earlier in the post.

In the video he says that the Celtic saddle was developed in 200bc, and was a requirement for effective shock cavalry.

So what the fuck did the Macedonians use?

>>1614440
>Basically, cavalry before saddles existed. Saddles were invented in the 700s BC
But that's like, most of the history of organized warfare along with most of the history of cavalry. I mean sure warfare existed before that but it was extremely crude and primitive and lacking in the sort of strategic maneuvering which you find in later military, owing perhaps to the fact that now you can send one guy riding a horse to deliver a message quickly around the battlefield?

I mean sure it doesn't make sense to put a man on the back of a horse in 1274 BCE but that didn't stop the Hittites and Egyptians from using chariots by the thousands. And by the 300's BCE Alexander's cavalry was the hammer to his phalanx's anvil

And in fairness, can we at least admit that the title is REALLY click-bait-y. For most of the history of organized warfare cavalry were far from "stupid idea", even if using them to mount a frontal assault is only practical in a specific instance in history.

>>1614558
Fucking hell you're retarded. He is talking about a period way before the peloponessean war

>>1614076

Also how did the Poles get enough leopard skins to equip their entire cavalry with it?

>>1614565

He's making the claims that horses were too small to effectively charge, despite evidence to the contrary, and that specific models of saddles and stirrups were necessary to shock cavalry, despite having actual writing about effective melee charges pre-dating those inventions reaching that part of the world.

This might go a bit faster if you had the slightest bit of reading comprehension.

>>1614300

All you idiots talk about how he stresxses the importance of stirrups. On the contrary he says that the problems that the stirrup solves were already solved in antiquity by the celto-romanic saddle - and that the importance of stirrups has been greatly exaggerated.

>>1614296
How do you know that?

>>1613274
This contrarian fag went too far.

>>1614114
Maybe he should have chosen a non-clickbait title then.

>>1614440
>At this point, I'm certain that Lindy is aware of /his/ and is trolling you on purpose.
I'm fairly certain that he's a literally autistic retard who does not understand the concept of trolling.

>>1614031
did you even watch the video

>>1614536
>Most cultures used mares simply because they were easier to handle
No. Warhorses were almost universally male. When they wanted easier to handle horses, they gelded them. Mixing stallions with mares would cause massive problems when the mares went into heat.

>>1614076

>looks like a selfie stick

>>1614108
>>1614132
>You've posted a picture from an era when cavalry were least relevant as a combat arm
No. In the 17th century cavalry made up a much larger proportion of European armies than they did before or after. Armies not infrequently consisted of 40-50% cavalry, and the proportion was even larger in Eastern Europe.

>>1614114
>no saddles, no stirrups, etc.
Pretty sure redskins that took wild and domestic horses were able to ride them with just a fucking blanket.

>>1613274
Literally nothing he says here is wrong

>>1613274
>hurr durr horses were smaller back then

So were people, right?

What a horrible fucking thread, you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

File: closer.jpg (73KB, 431x576px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 431x576px

This is from some pop history book, I wonder how accurate it is;

>A horse-based style of war-making presented an enormous tactical challenge to the infantry-based military model that characterized settled, agricultural societies in the ancient world. Cavalry archery would stamp itself on the military ethos of the lands bordering the eastern Mediterranean (particularly Persia and, later, the Ottoman Empire) in a way that was not seen in Greece or western Europe, where traditional cavalry tended to be more like mounted infantry, armed with lance, sword, ax, or mace, rather than the bow.

>Nevertheless, it is something of a mystery why horses, domesticated in Central Asia by about 5000 BCE, were not pressed into service as cavalry mounts until about 1000 BCE. And, although chariot warfare was a characteristic of Homeric warfare, cavalry as a separate arm was absent, as it was in the hoplite warfare of the Hellenic city-states. The Greek phalanx placed so much emphasis on the virtue of face-to-face combat, for all ranks irrespective of social status, that fighting on horseback was considered, if not cowardly, then not quite appropriate.

File: 41zulslaSJL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg (33KB, 324x499px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 324x499px

>>1616393

>>1613553
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CApiU7kvgB8

>>1613274

MY NAME IS NICK LLOYD AND I AM A FUCKING DUFUS

>>1614114
So basically this video is just showing the challenges involved with using cavalry in warfare.

Fucking clickbait title. Once the technology was available, then horses were used and it wasn't a stupid idea.

>>1613294
>british
>not hating french
pick one, anon

>>1616164
the only selfie stick the Polish knows is a spear

File: crassus.jpg (17KB, 240x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 240x300px

>>1613274
he talks as if people used cavalry face to face against pike walls. he is just talking meaningless stuff to prove his point.

>>1614108
The Year 1066 would like to have a word with you.

>>1616050

desu no. I just wanted to shitpost.

>>1614132
wew lad

>>1619667
>t. total war historican

File: 1464959348921.jpg (76KB, 1065x859px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1065x859px

>>1613347
butthurt katana plonker sighted

File: 1462851202036.jpg (104KB, 450x320px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 450x320px

>>1614540
>4chan is dying content wise

People have been saying variations of this phrase for over a decade now. Fuck off.

>>1621317
And it's true. 4chan has been steadily going downhill for about a decade. Things started really going to shit around 2007, when 4chan's growth increased exponentially and newfags quickly outnumbered oldfags before they could assimilate. 4chan was revolutionary back then. There was a huge break in the continuity of 4chan culture and norms between 2008-2011. Now 4chan is just reactionary anti-reddit, it's the place faggots come to to not post on reddit, and those newfags probably post on reddit anyways, they just come here to shitpost shit they wouldn't say on reddit. Tumblr probably produces more content at this point.

>>1621370
Yeah, the internet is rapidly homogenizing culturally. There's no real feeling of separate posting styles anymore, everyone from here to fucking instagram types in a sort of tumblr-reddit-4chan pidgin internet voice.

We're a fucking far cry from the days of "lurk moar fgt"

>>1621370
I've never posted on Reddit in my life. I wonder how many people are left on 4chan who can say that.

File: an actual mullet.jpg (54KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 400x400px

>>1614483
>Lindy is this butthurt that no one will watch his retarded click bait video

>>1614108
>implying

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7dm_nbjNjE

File: 1432849498001.png (13KB, 418x359px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 418x359px

>>1613274

This video is so dumb that it's frying my fucking brain. He's talking about his own anecdotal experiences with horses and his own weird perception of what horses are like. Horses were stupidly effective until metal-shelled cartridges became standard.

>horse skirmishers of the bow and gun variety (mongols, cuirassiers)
>chariots
>heavy cavalry (granted, this was not always an effective one, see Agincourt)
>Alexander
>Polish Hussars

I don't even know how a serious historian could pitch this argument, if it's stupid and it works, it's not stupid.

>>1621497
I've never posted there either. Though I do visit occasionally since a google search tends to lead there often.

>>1621317
It's been true for over a decade, the site has been slowly and steadily losing that gleefully sardonic edge that it had... depends on the board though.

>>1621370
>>1621453
>>1621497
o/ oldfags

I agree with all of this, though I do think there are enough of us left on 4chan for the site to have its own voice, dying as that voice may be. After all, where else are those of us with "autism" going to go? I don't know any other site (apart from the other chans, which have never stood on their own) where I can openly mock normalfags or go apeshit over some arcane detail that somebody fucked up. Reddit-speak is rather distinct, due to the voting system the same shit gets seen the most... somehow those fucking subhumans never get tired of seeing the same shit over and over.

Some boards are doing better than others, /fit/ and /gif/ seem pretty healthy while /tg/ seems to be crumbling under the influence of normalfags and the new fad of casual tabletop RPGs. I remember when /tg/ thrived on the minutia of DnD 3.5, now everyone shits on it because there's too much going on. For a while /tg/ was like /b/ 2.0, new and improved-- anything was a good topic as long as you couched it in terms of a role-playing game.

>>1621497
>>1621536
Speaking of that garbage site, this dude >>1613274 belongs there. He talks about everything with an air of authority, and he sounds very convincing, but ultimately his arguments are hollow. He contorts his worldview in order to fit the narrative he came up with and uses that as evidence for the narrative-- he's begging the question. In other words, he sees that horses weren't used a certain way in early history; then he makes up an explanation for why things were that way, from the point of view as if he were there back in ancient times; finally he uses the explanation he made up to try to convince the viewer of how things were in ancient times.

>(People didn't use horses for combat in ancient times)
>Well then! It didn't happen, so people must've thought it was a terrible idea! I say!
>So you see, dear viewer, horses weren't even considered for use because it was such a bad idea. Pip pip cheerio!

It's circular. Anonymous has brought up plenty of uses for horses in combat alternative to the typical armored guy sitting atop the horse cutting footsoldiers down left & right. But this falls outside Lindy's imagination, so he doesn't consider it.

>>1613274

>calls his video "Cavalry is a stupid idea"
>instantly shills for his new sponsor
>goes on to talk about why it was a bad idea for people to ride horses into battle
>talks about a time period when people didnt ride horses into battle


For fucks sake Nikolas, you used to be vaguely competant

File: anibale.jpg (35KB, 450x253px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 450x253px

>>1621800
He's doing a Hannibal comic book with a retarded fag.

>>1613294
Because he is one of those sad souls who think the British Empire is a thing and that British people and their perceived superiority is relevant.

>>1621813
>It's coming home lads

>>1621800

Forgot to mention

>talks about how small the horses were and how they wouldnt take the weight of a man in heavy armour
>le heavy clanky tinman on a crane maymay
>in a time period when people didnt wear armour

>>1613274
who would win:
100 roman cavalry or 1 Spandau?

>>1621823
Why would Roman cavalry want to free Rudolf Hess?

>>1621823
The one that is British, obviously.

>>1621536
I posted once out of desperation because they had a sub that google searches kept directing to, and the question I had was too niche for 4chan. I realized how much I hated reddit after that. I also didn't get an answer to my question, just a shitload of arrogant posturing and brown nosing to mods and answers that were opposite of what I asked for. I made the mistake of calling them out on bullshit, like I would on 4chan, but slightly more polite. Then you just had people having retarded egos because they can't possibly be wrong, even though they fabricated stories and refuse to give details because it never happened, and you're stupid for even considering as such and a bunch of groupies sucking mod cock and defending them.

>>1614567
The Hussars were originally Balkanic(Serbian, Bulgarian, Wallachian) etc. that moved to Poland as their countries fell to the Ottoman onslaught. Now, if you know anything about the turbosluts of the area, they are wearing leopard skin(usually fake) garbage. So it's a historical precedent for Slavs and their neighbors.

>>1621840
There was this butthurt fag on /tv/ that kept posting links and screencaps from some reddit thread(or whatever the fuck they call them there). The """humor""" there is absolutely horrifyingly terrible and when it came to actual discussion I've listened to old drunks with more coherent ramblings. They also worshiped the most entry-tier mediocre shit in the world.

>>1621498
Nah, I just firmly believe that people whoargue with utmost confidence and hubris about things they're not educated in the slightest do not deserve to live.

i.e. most of this board.

>>1621370
Jesus christ man were you even here in 2007? it was a complete and utter cesspool of shitposting.
You need to resist your nostalgic behavior or watch yourself become an average bitter ageing man with no self awareness on his delusions, you are better than this.

>>1613274
Lemme guess, he says horses get scared or whatever. Doesn't he realize the horses were trained? They would do whatever the fuck they were told.

>>1621996
>t. to lazy to watch a video on youtube.

>>1622128

>a 17 minute video that rambles incoherently

>>1621996
yeah, but somebody had to invent how to train a horse in the first place
along with other things, which is the entire point of the video

I'm waiting for the one where he claims that Old Kingdom Egyptian maces were solely ceremonial, because maces are weapons primarily designed to fight against heavily armored foes, which weren't the sorts of people the OKE were fighting.

>>1613274
>What is a chariot
Chariots were used for ranged skirmishing in the time period he is discussing. They have relatively good manoeuvrability and can be redeployed as required.

>Large man in armour
Not on the fucking eurasian steppes idiot

>Forgetting horse blinders
>Forgetting that you get warhorses by taking the stallions and basically blue balling them for a week
Once you get to the battlefield you have several hundred sexually frustrated stallions all ready to fight each other.

>>1614114
>HURR THE TITLE IS COMPLETELY MISLEADING, BUT IM STILL GOING TO DEFEND THIS PRICK
Fuck off, and take your shitty youtubers with you.

>>1617843
ahahahhahah! he's so butthurt about France being shit at war past the 19th century

>>1613274
haven't been able to take anything he's said seriously since he non-ironically believes an army fully on foot with some spearmen can win against cavalry, fucking biased westaboo if i've ever seen one

>>1622601
You clearly didn't watch the video, people have been heavily armored since the domestication of horses.

>>1621271
>t.
can someone update me on this new 4chan lingo?
im still reeling from the senpai's and kys's

>>1623368
Terveisin: Finnish for regards.
t. meme pro

File: 1471889871038.jpg (35KB, 569x580px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 569x580px

>>1613553

It's just banter, m9

don't be a fucking poof.

File: 1406054233746.png (4KB, 120x93px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 120x93px

For the retards: he was talking about mainly ancient warfare and their reasoning, not the use of cavalry as a whole.

>>1621303
>some of you are alright, don't go to France tomorrow.jpg

File: 1467916337805.gif (2MB, 350x196px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 350x196px

>>1616164

You're absolutely right.

It does.

>>1613274
>eurobong says the Asian stirrup is more popular for than European made saddle for no good reason
PERFIDIOUS
ALBION

>>1613274
This dude is a fucking retard (and I don't say that just because I'm French)

File: 1388518624711.png (297KB, 700x895px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 700x895px

>>1623731
>(and I don't say that just because I'm French)

Yes you do.

You can't handle the banter.

File: 2179.jpg (1MB, 2322x2706px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2322x2706px

>>1623105
>heavily armored
That's really subjective, there's a difference between a Bassinet or Armet and a bunch of boar tusks tied to a piece of linen.

Armor becomes cheaper and more protective over time. At the height of the Bronze age only a small elite could afford a bronze panoply and a decent weapon.

>>1624441

We're talking early Old Kingdom here. This is WAY before the bronze age.


http://www.timelineauctions.com/upload/images/items/small/3355-s.jpg

These are some examples of mace heads (the shafts, not surprisingly, are no longer with us)

>>1624448
I should probably mention that I wasn't the guy you were responding too, and I was just making a comment that "heavily armored" means different things in different eras.

>>1623421

Yet he could have cleared the whole thing up by adding ancient to the title.

But obviously that won't cause controversy and get as many clicks.

>>1614559

They just held on real tight with their thighs like all cavalrymen until the stirrup was invented. Seems pretty fuckin' dumb considering how simple the stirrup is.

It's the reason why you couldn't really couch a lance in antiquity.

File: 1447661016278.jpg (815KB, 1721x1080px) Image search: [Google]

815KB, 1721x1080px

>In the context of early civilization, mounting a horse and using it for war would have seemed like a dubious prospect
What's difficult to grasp here?

>>1621303
>Some of you guys are alright, don't go to France tomorrow.

>>1623423
>>1624872
Fuck someone already made the joke

>>1624838

That "using it for war" encompasses an enormous number of activities, many of which would be obvious right off the bat, such as "get to the battlefield faster".

File: john-green-ftr.jpg (638KB, 1440x900px) Image search: [Google]

638KB, 1440x900px

>>1613520
I would say that even John Green isn't retarded as him, just biased somewhat instead of being just a straight insane in his claims like this guy.

File: 1425280772741.jpg (435KB, 1224x920px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 1224x920px

>>1624883
What about battle, then, if it's alright to move the goalpost?

video is too long

tl;dr pls

>>1613274
>bit in its mouth and it spits it out

lmao

this guys is actually surprising me here though, I can't disagree much besides the point that he is stupid for saying cavalry are bad.

>cavalry is bad
>no on, but chariots are completely different, it doesn't matter if they're pulled by horses

>cavalry is bad
>no no, missile cavalry skirmishing is completely different, you not actually fighting

dumb retard.

>>1625004

You've got

>Carry me around from place to place on the battlefield
>Being a visible figure if I'm in charge and horses are rare
>Showing off how incredibly awesome I am for taming a horse in the first place (if we're talking really primitive)
>Carrying me and my bow out of range of the enemy
>Running messages to and fro quickly if that should be necessary
>Maneuvering me around behind the enemy line/formation quickly


Off the top of my head. Someone who had actually been in an ancient battle would probably have more.

>>1616173
"wild" horses were just feral domestic horses. The Spanish, and to a lesser extent French, are responsible for re-releasing horses, but it took till the early 1800s to become widespread. They also bought already trained horses, and learned how to break-them in pretty quick.

Regardless, the European pedigree horses released in North America were very different from true, wild steppe horses in Asia.

File: 1471440387344.gif (933KB, 500x379px) Image search: [Google]

933KB, 500x379px

>>1625016
The Beige triggers /his/ yet again.

>>1625074
>mare's milk is drinkable.
>You can bleed your horse of a few pints of blood in a period of hunger, and it'll be all right
>blood is healthy as fuck, as long as it's not eaten too frequently
>if desperate, horse meat is delicious and nutritious too
>horses are natural proximity alarms (not 100% effective, but reliable enough)
>can smell wolves and shit before you do
>can hear wolves and people and shit before you do

>>1625166

To be fair, none of those are exactly riding the horse, they're all about having the horse along.

>>1625184
not bad to have on a campaign, and certainly part of the reasons horses were domesticated in the first place.

>>1625212

I don't disagree with you at all, but when I entered the thread, it was to reply to this anon, >>1624838 who stated

>In the context of early civilization, mounting a horse and using it for war would have seemed like a dubious prospect.

There probably was a gap between the first domestication of the horse and the first use in battle of the horse, but I was really trying to respond with things that involved mounting the horse. Otherwise, the first and most useful act the horse did, which would continue for most of history, is

>Help me carry crap.

>>1625227
Yea, horses were almost certainly first domesticated as pack animals and food on the go. Eating meat is easier when you can get your meat to follow you around, and carry stuff!, rather than having to hunt it all the time. Horses are fast muthafuckas.

>>1613274
I swear he talked about cavalry ages ago, why is this video new?

>>1626578

Because he has a new sponsor to heavy handedly shill for so he needed to make a whole new video and then give it a controversial title, in order to get lots of fresh new clicks.

>>1614141
You're a dumbass, watch the video next time

>>1614146
He talks about 1 and 3 and argues against 2 in the video
Unfortunately he never really talks about routing, which I imagine should be a subject to take into consideration

He talks about routs in another video though

>>1614205
You mean by not watching and immediately dismissing it?
Yeah, right

>>1613333
checked

>>1624889
Cheerios man is a fucking retard

File: 1452104392295.jpg (713KB, 1280x2004px) Image search: [Google]

713KB, 1280x2004px

>>1613274
i haven't seen the whole video so far since it's about 20 mins.
but about the subject: i'm pretty sure warhorses are... well, made for war.
so they don't get spooked by battlecries, explosive sounds, etc

so yeah, the cons (horses don't charge head-on against tight formations of men, for example) are pretty much supplanted by the pros if you use cavalry like it was meant: as a skirmish force mostly and that's supposed to use surprise attacks from the flanks and if you do this properly you won't have any problem with all those "problems" in the video

>>1614567
how did the french get enough bearskins to equip the grenadiers in the old guard?

t.le grande nation

>>1628510
Cheeriohs man is an ideological slave, not a retard. There's a difference between the two.

>>1628531

>the artist of this piece of crap thinks medieval people knew anything about infection or germ theory

Fucks sake.

File: Philip_shoemate1.jpg (158KB, 792x594px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 792x594px

>Muh saddles
>Muh stirrups

Problem spoon fed babies?

>>1629137
they didn't know the mechanism, but they knew getting shit in an open wound was not a good thing.

>>1629137
>>1629169
apparently some thought rusty arrowheads were more likely to cause infection.

Not sure if that is true though.

>>1629169

<citation needed>

Find me a medieval medical text or commonplace book that says so.

>>1629176
Not him but is this good enough?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8Nef1siUus

>>1629184

Not really. Reading the actual text of the Philomena, Bradmore doesnt explicitly state "keep the wound clean because if it gets dirty he might die".

He applies stuff to the wound which he refers to initially as a cleaning ointment but then changes it to healing ointment.

And then I cleansed the wound with a syringe [squirtillo] full of white wine and then placed
in new probes, made of wads of flax soaked in a cleansing ointment. This is made thus.
[Item] Take a small loaf of white bread, dissolve it well in water, and sift through a cloth. Then take a sufficient quantity of flour and barley and honey and simmer over a gentle heat until it thickens, and add sufficient turpentine oil, and the healing ointment is made.

>>1629184
>>1629212

Additionally he flat out says his greatest concern is causing a siezure or fit, not keeping the wound clean.

"And note that from the beginning right up to the end of my cure, I always anointed him on the neck, every day in the morning and evening, with an ointment to soothe the muscles (Unguentum Nervale), and placed a hot plaster on top, on account of fear of spasm, which was my greatest fear."

>>1629228
Doesn't Mondeville's Cyrugia explicitly state surgeons should clean the wound and clear it of all foreign material?

>>1629250

No idea. Does it? Does it state the reasons why?

>>1629212
>doesnt explicitly state "keep the wound clean because if it gets dirty he might die".
>cleansing ointment.

What is the cleansing ointment for then? Doesn't that imply he intended to clean the wound?

>>1629250
>>1629257
>>1629212
Does this help?

"When the fracture of the skull is considerable and obvious, with a broad,
long wound, as if made with a sword or something similar, and bone has
to be withdrawn (unless there would be a great gush of blood, or unless
something else interferes), the bone to be withdrawn is removed and a
very fine linen cloth is carefully introduced as it were obliquely between
the skull and the dura mater, using a feather. At the opening of the fracture,
a linen or silk cloth, preferably long enough for both ends to pass
under the head, will prevent corrupt matter from flowing from the outside
onto the dura mater, which would bring about still greater harm to the brain. A clean, dry marine sponge is also used, for this thirstily soaks
up the corruption deriving from the surface. The external wound should
be carefully packed with linen soaked in egg-white and slightly pressed
out, a little feather placed on top [for drainage], and the whole bound up
carefully, following the contour of the head."

>>1629258

He then calls it a healing ointment when describing how to make the stuff. He doesnt go into detail why he's keeping the wound clean, just that hes doing so while slowly making the swabs smaller so it gradually heals closed.

>>1614141
>talking about bronze age horses
>citing a book about an age with two ages between and almost two milennia}
>the book literally never even mentions bronze age