How did lance charges work in a battle? We have horse tightly

>How did lance charges work in a battle?
you stab the fucker with your lance

>>1685393
But then what drop your lance? Surely that is ineffective, if it gets stuck what can you do its not like a sword cut.

>>1685392
good question op, bumping because I also want to know more about this

>>1685392
>how does the rider not come off his horse...
cupping the lance rarely allows the lance to actually get stuck inside of something, it usually deflects off bones or glances in general, dealing sufficient damage without fully impaling and as you said being useless afterwards.

formation charging requires a lot of training with the horses and the rider, it is indeed very complicated. On top of this, horses are naturally inclined to go into gaps in the formation, which helps prevent most of the issues of formations colliding.

However, when horse formations do get bogged into a melee, they usually lose their primary benefit which is mobility, and it is a mark of a poor cavalry general to have bogged down cavalry unless its intended to do so.

The lances functions much differently in formation riding than it does in just riding a dude down after the enemy routes, they bounce and deflect off bone much easier than you may think, allowing a rider to just cup the lance and kill multiple men or horses with the same lance.

Calvary charges are primarily psychological. The idea is for the enemy to break and run before your charge actually hits home.

Calvary is ineffective against well disciplined and organised infantry who stand their ground - horses cannot be forced to run into things, they swerve away. Especially they will swerve away from armed men shouting at them and holding pointed sticks.

The lance is to scare the shit out of the standing infantry. You want each man to be thinking 'hope that fucker doesn't skewer me', and he will run away.

Once the infantry runs away they are easy to kill and take prisoner.

Even if your lance hits, it should break or shatter on impact - it was designed to so you didn't go flying of your horse. Then you get your sword or a replacement lance

you guys are missing the point a cav charge would be used to break a line or cause a route not to kill on its own

>>1686393
Sorry, but
>Calvary is ineffective against well disciplined and organised infantry who stand their ground - horses cannot be forced to run into things, they swerve away.

AHAHAHAHAH.
>What are stampedes
>How about incidents during modern horse racing
>What are hundreds of examples in history of battles, where cavalry is doing exactly that.

Only because in some short period of time in western European history cavalry declined a lot, and was to poor ,unorganized and was in small number to successfully fight infantry doesn't mean it was a rule.

>>1685392
Why do you think every lancer carried a secondary weapon? Once the lance gets stuck or breaks, you just drop it. It really isn't that hard.
Also horses in a wedge formation would run over pretty much everything without stopping I guess, I don't think that it happened too often that the horses in the rear crashed into the others.

File: epsom_2460810c[1].jpg (62KB, 460x284px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 460x284px

>>1686655
>>1686655
>well disciplined and organised infantry
Stampedes go around things, not into things.
If you're thinking of something like pic related, it only happened because she jumped at the last minute. If the horse had seen her it would have swerved.
Have you ever ridden?
A horse is an intelligent living thing, not a sprite in a total war game. It won't do something just because you tell it, no more than a dog will

Part of the genius of great commanders like Alexander is knowing the precise moment when the charge will break the morale of the enemy

If you know of a hundreds of battles where a cavalry charge succeeded in a melee against well set infantry, please enlighten me.

>>1686750
You are aware that war horses were specifically trained to NOT avoid things, but run into them, right? It's not like they took random farm nags for cavalry charges.

>>1686750
>Stampedes go around things, not into things.
The Lion King taught me otherwise
>Have you ever ridden?
Yes, it was harder that one can imagine. After some time, when i was already allowed to ride alone (without rope) I did random "3rd gear" (i think it is canter in English) and that was some scary experience.
>A horse is an intelligent living thing
Exactly, and thanks to that it can be trained
>It won't do something just because you tell it
When trained, it will. The same as "horse cant walk into fire". It will, if you trick horse into it.

Yes, horses are very fearful animals, they will be afraid everything new to them. But, problem with horses being afraid of gunfire? Shot gun near them again and again, till they are accustomed to it. Afraid of crashing into infantry formations? Train them. They will happily bite, kick and trample. It is even easier thanks to fact, that horses are herd animals, and they will charge blindly only because other horses are charging.
I think you mistaken two things. Charging into infantry is not problem. But two cavalry formations charging at each other is an awful idea, two horses clashing at each other means 2 horses and 2 riders dead.

.

>>1687079
As for examples, here are few:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wenden_(1601)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Weissenstein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kircholm
Basically all this war ^

Cavalry defending in bad weather?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khotyn_(1621)

Cavalry being massivly outnumbered?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hod%C3%B3w
Yeah, that one isn't against infantry, but infantry would be helpless in that situation. And if you think Tatars where some kind of "backward savages", read about them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisowczycy
They kinda used Tatar tactics and did really well in Thirty Years' War

In Battle of Kumeyki cavalry crushed 12-row wagon fort.

How about charging at fortified artillery batteries?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Somosierra

I knew some examples in strict western battles, but I forgot names.

Basically, well disciplined infantry will be defeated by well disciplined cavalry. But I personally believe, that infantry overall is better. Because money. Quantity over quality. Polish tactics from 16 and 17th century couldn't be copied and repeated by other nations, because they lacked numerous and wealthy nobles

>>1686721
All it takes is one unlucky horse to rip holes in your formation

>>1687082
good post. less is more.

cavalry defeats infantry if the cavalry is logistically independent. western cavalry was generally not, going all the way back to the bronze age. given that, massed infantry had generally been disciplined enough, and the number of cavalry generally so few, that cavalry never had the chance to take form in the way it did in the near east or china.

in china, cavalry basically could not charge because formations were too solid. cavalry were used to flank and chase down broken formations.

then the mongols realized they could just kite everyone, and that lasted about 400 years.