Why was cavalry ever used in battle, apart for reconnaissance?

Because sometimes they were charging enemies that werent heavy infantry with spears and spikes

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

300KB, 1024x729px

>>1932838
Not when your spears are longer.

>>1932854
Infantry pikes were longer. Besides you can't have a very long spear while on horse since it becomes unwieldy.

>>1932838
Whatever man I'd prefer to be the one on the horse.

>>1932838
Siege of Vienna

Infantry is mostly used for catching routing enemies or enemies that look like they will route if chased. Cataphracts are different though because they and the horse are fully armored- in this case they don't care because they're fully armored. Not sure how much charging directly into a solid group of heavy infantry cataphracts did though.

>>1932904
Oops I meant Cavalry*

>>1932838
>charging towards heavy infantry with spears and pikes seems like a death sentence.

Indeed, which is why you didn't do that. The primary use of cavalry is to destroy enemy archers. You wouldn't charge heavy infantry unless they were routing or in a close formation and you can hit them in the flanks.

>>1932838

Horse archery, attacking at the flanks and rear, being able to tactically move fast in response to some unexpected development, chasing down the fleeing enemy, raiding, or being involved in a meeting engagement; Cavalry had lots of uses you retard.

>>1932910
T. total war pro

File: images.jpg (52KB, 506x733px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 506x733px

>>1932927

I don't know what that is. If you disagree, maybe you could use your words instead of memeing like a retarded infant?

>>1932838
Because it was heroic.

not a troll post but did western European armies use horse archers in the same way that say, the mongols did?

>>1933007

There is some usage of them, but of a far more limited extent, mostly in Italy.

I'm not really sure why they developed one way and other people developed another, to be honest.

>>1933012
>There is some usage of them, but of a far more limited extent, mostly in Italy
Wut

>>1933012

interesting

I google'd and came up with a post from reddit


"The issue with horse archery is that it has some major downsides. Foot archers tend to outshoot them and massed horse archers tend to lose against combined troops. European armies also had fairly good success against horse archers as the Romans defeated the Parthian horse archers on many different occasions. Europeans knew about horse archery for a relatively long time but never really chose to adopt in to the extent of other societies.

Horse archers excel at harassing the enemy and engaging in skirmishing tactics. This adoption of skirmishing tactic is also one of the main reasons why you don't see horse archers in most of Europe. Skirmishing requires fairly open areas to allow the harassing troops to retreat. Large parts of Europe are heavily forested / hilly and are not open plains meaning that horse archers could more easily be charged and defeated.

That being said, some medieval European armies did utilize mounted crossbowmen. Later European armies would also use mounted gunmen in combat which is also similar in ideology to horse archery."

>>1932956
>implying you ever read this book
kys

File: destrier_ard.jpg (366KB, 1492x1175px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1492x1175px

>>1932838
Have you ever seen a horse charging against you? It is a big animal, you know. Most famous horse "breed" (I use commas, because people in the middle ages were generally not breeding horses for any specific purpose) are destriers (pic related) which are a bit short, but also incredibly heavy, muscled with tremendously strong legs and backs. Now imagine those beast of the horse heavy armored with a guy who is trained to kill other people from seven years of age and thoroughly enjoys it and bam, you've got a bit vapid impression of how it looked.

Heavy cavalry charge was pretty hardcore psychological effect, there were many upon many battles which ended by the initial charge, which made the enemy panic and rout. And of course, people were not dumb (French sometimes) and did not charge against pikesman regiments. Many instances of historical battles, where cavalry was used in a way we could today call "surgical strike".

But yes, there were also many instances of "FUCK EVERYTHING, CHARGE AND STOMP THE FUCKERS TO HELL" which either got really bad (Unorganized French knights at Agincourt) or really, really good (Poles at Battle of Vienna, who literally started biggest cavalry charge in the human history and rode through the Turks all the way to their base camp).

Golden age of heavy cavalry charges ended in the Europe with the Hussite wars, during which Czechs (my direct ancestors!) deployed firearms in large numbers and used battle-wagons with defensive strategy (sit behind a wagon on a very clever strategic position and shoot everything that moves) as well.

t. Czech.

>>1932838
Cavalry was generally used to take out the trash after the infantry had engaged

>>1933007
White people have honor and arent cowardly hit and run faggots like the mongols

:^)

File: horse knocking people over afghan.png (151KB, 727x621px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 727x621px

>>1932838

>>1933007

No. The steppe tradition of firing from your horse while at full speed was a far superior tactic. Scythians, Huns, Persians, Parthians, Mongols and Turks would keep themselves in constant motion and were often quite close to the enemy. They would ride up to them and ride along them, turning away when the enemy tried to charge them. During all this they would constantly fire arrows at their enemy's lines or even cavalry. A force of just 500 horsemen, each firing an arrow every ten seconds or less, would thus fire 3000 arrows a minute. The pressure and casualties would be immense, and once they ran out of arrows they rode back and picked up more from their squires.

Total War games have made people think that horse archers just stood and fired volleys, like ordinary archers do, but this is not the case. That's what European horse archers did however and they were of much lower quality as a result.

File: courser-type-horse.jpg (28KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x375px

>>1933132
Also to correct a bit: Destriers were most sought after, most prized warhorses, but also the most expensive ones. Most of the knights used Coursers (not as muscled and sturdy, but taller). Pic related.

>>1933132

good post Czech anon. jesus Christ that horse is jacked

>>1933163
Thanks. Also to mention, pure destrier breed is today non-existant. What you see there on the picture is descendant of that breed. Therefore we can picture them even more muscled.

My father trains horses for riding, got a nice childhood with those animals.

>>1933146
>anglo charging his allies and making it seem as if he was brave

holy kek meme magic

>>1932838
There have been several good answers that I'd like to expand on a bit.

Through the early middle ages, during the rise of the "knight" as is often imagined in American media, the bulk of most European armies were poorly equipped levies of farmers. In this environment, an elite cadre of knights (professional soldiers trained from a young age, and well armored, as another person mentioned) could often expect to rout the peasant rabble of their opponents.

When states started accruing the resources to field professional heavy infantry with spears and pikes is exactly when cavalry began its decline in the West. So your original assertion is actually correct.

This trend continued until, by the 18th century, cavalry was mostly just used for the opportunistic charges described by some other answers.

>>1932956
Such bold claims that the tank of medieval battlefield would primarily engage something as lowly and pathetic as an archer need a sauce to be even taken in consideration.

Unless of course you are talking about more modern cavalry than depicted in OP.

File: English PTSD.png (10KB, 706x80px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 706x80px

>>1933174
well...

Is it much to say /his/ discussions on armor and historical combat always are pants on head retarded filled with personal opinions and little else?

File: djHqHwJ.jpg (42KB, 879x318px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 879x318px

>>1932878
>Infantry pikes were longer

Hussar lances were hollow and were quite light, they were designed to break on impact. Furthermore they could use their pistols to shoot at some pikemen before impact.

>>1932838
I wish you fucking clueless mouth breathers would fuck off
WHEN USED RIGHT THEY WERE EFFECTIVE, NOW FUCK OFF WITH YOUR SHIT THREADS

>>1933251
you need to calm down anon

>>1932838
No one had pikes for a long time in Europe, they came back with the Scotts and the Swiss at the end of the 13th century, before that heavy cavalry ruled the battlefield.
Also the armies back then where not that organized, moving in formation was not known.

>>1933233
That pike is too short to be a tercio pike.

Also I cannot believe people are literally arguing for directly charging into pike lines with cavalry for winged hussar meme. If the pikes didn't work against cavalry, they wouldn't be used.

Why must people go full retarded in either direction about this? Either people claiming cavalry is literally useless or that they were juggernauts that charged into heavy infantry head on.

>>1933007
The use of horse archers is integral to nomad way of life. The inverse was also true, you already started training for it when you were a child, because that's simply the way you move around and acquire food in those parts. With horse and bow.

Europe proper could never replicate that level of ability, not anymore than mongols could make an effective military force out of ranks of armored footsoldiers that wreck you completely if they catch up to you.

>>1933178

I literally posted the source you cretin. And yes, cavalry could and did engage infantry, but its primary use in Western warfare has always been to destroy enemy archers and skirmishers. If you think that's a trivial role, then you don't understand how vital archers are in winning battles.

>>1932854

selfie stick

>>1933338
>>1933007

If you look at the distribution of horse-archer societies, you will see that they are mostly confined to the steppes. Why is this? Simply, because you can't grow much in the way of crops in the steppe, so using the land to sustain horses is the optimal economic strategy. The reason why horse nomads invariably abandon thier horse culture very quickly after conquering settled peoples follows from this: If you rule a nice bit of European farmland, and use it to breed horses, you will be out-competed by your neighbours who use the good land to grow crops and hire horse nomad mercenaries with the cash this brings in. Europe never had a notable horse culture because the land is simply too good to "waste" on horses, and without a horse-focussed economy, you can't maintain a horse culture.

The notable exception to this is Hungary, which DID maintain its horse culture much longer than elsewhere, but again if you look at a map, you'll see that the Pannonian plains are the only sizeable bit of steppe inside Europe.

>>1932838

9 times out of 10 the horse was only ever used as a weapons platform. Heavy armored cavalry, in which the horse is used as a weapon itself, was very much the exception.

>>1933007
Closest thing I can think of is Iberian men at arms using javelins before charging.

>>1933327
At the time pikes were not the only weapons used for defending against cavalry. Tercio formations most definitely used arquebusiers which could be used to whittle down charging cavalry formations.

This was important because Pike-men had to deploy their pikes in the ground at an approximately 40 degree angle, which effectively reduced the effective length of their pikes.
Pike-men could only effectively use the proper length of their pikes in infantry combat.

The Polish commonwealth had exceptional cavalry because they had to face off against mostly cavalry cultures, such as the Russians, Tatars and Turks in wide open spaces.

The Western Europeans have a primarily infantry tradition with some cavalry as fast-moving, heavily armored shock units. As pikes came into play cavalry became less important.

>>1933492
Jinetes? Yeah they had to fight moors.

>>1933452
The archers were definitely vital in historical Japanese warfare. I heard that about 70-80% of battle casualties were from arrows.

>>1933506

If you have no horses, then archers will win every battle. Your heavily armoured guys might be highly resistant to arrows, but if they get too close to the archers, they can simply run away. The same armor that protects you from the arrows weighs you down and prevents you from catching them. This is why cavalry is so useful, it can outrun the archers and let the heavy infantry do its thing.

>>1933506
>>1933513
Iirc Japanese cavalry was also primarily bow cavalry?

File: 1717891410.png (1MB, 1269x716px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1269x716px

Well as Lindybeige said "cavalry is a stupid idea".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uUk5WGAydI

>>1933537
It was mixed. Katana, Yari and Yumi

>>1933543
Man, Lindybeige trying very hard to create a controversial video that will get him many views like that katana one so many years ago. In any case I remember reading that the Assyrians were one of the first people to use cavalry and they used it as scouts, no idea if it was old, middle or neo kingdom though. I guess they figured out pretty quickly that calvary had its uses.

>>1933543
He does this for our views doesnt he???

>>1933543
you really can't handle any kind of nuance can you?

>>1932846
/thread

>>1933513
What the fuck, that's not a video game, where you can kite your enemy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzTwBQniLSc

>>1933466
Wasn't every professional soldier in the Byzantine empire trained to be a competent horse archer. and shock cavalryman?

>>1933691
>hurrr the archers are gonna be 50 yards away I can easily sprint 50 yards and catch them

>>1933688
Archers still have lighter equipment and so can run faster and for a longer time.

File: 641f2621d5479dc56b1c890c8d0f9c91.jpg (124KB, 736x558px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 736x558px

>>1933132
>Anonymous 11/07/16(Mon)19:04:42 No

I love you.

>>1933688

I'm not talking about kiting, I'm talking about literally running away until you;re far enough to stop and start shooting arrows again. If you think this is impossible, or that a fully armored knight could somehow outrun an unarmored man, then you're wrong.

>>1933691
>Byzantine empire
>Professional soldiers

Weren't they mostly just Militia and Mercenaries?

>>1932904
They used tactics to "soften" the line before the charge.

>>1932927
A total war pro would've mentioned hammer and anvil tactics. Which is actually a very valid awnser to OP.

>>1932846
First post best post.

>>1933150
Horse archers do move and fire in Total War.

Not saying the games are accurate, for starters the numbers are ridiculous, but don't use them as a punchbag for no reason when you already were making a valid point.

>>1933496
Jinete is just horseman in spanish.

>>1933691
>>1933744
>talking about byzantine army without mentioning a date and scenario

Would you do this for pre-5th century Rome? I hope not.

>>1933688
You're mobile in it, but you're not going to be exerting effort for a prolonged time without risking heat exhaustion. People tend to assume that you have about 10-15 minutes in combat conditions at absolute most.

>>1933513
>>1933743
>If you have no horses, then archers will win every battle.
That's retarded and I'll explain why.

Usually a battle happens because there is some objective like capture a bridge or a hill or another strategic important area. This means that whether attacking or defending in the battle archers by themselves are going to be pretty crap.

If archers are defending said strategic area and the enemy infantry arrives to capture and then the archers run away then they failed their objective. Now the enemy holds this strategic area so they don't need to chase the archers.
If they stay and defend then they'll probably loose since the enemy heavy infantry has better equipment and training.

If archers are attacking this means that the enemy infantry is defending a strategic area so they're holding their ground meaning you have to attack. And you can't just shoot arrows at them until you kill all of them because it's very likely they have shields and other fortifications as well as their own archers and other skirmishers.

So either way an army of archers is a terrible idea. And yes sometimes a force with the majority being archers won the battle but that's not the norm and they also had heavy infantry and cavalry.

Archers can be a vital part of an army (such as the English ones) but assuming that they could win a battle against infantry (with no cavalry involved) is just stupid.

>>1933787
Fair, medieval in particular around 800-1100, but it was a continuing problem, training was a long and expensive process for the core professionals and they just couldn't afford to keep doing it over time.

>>1933780
As opposed to knights.

A horseman by traditional Iberian customs would would be lightly armored with a sword and shield. They harassed enemy formations with their javelins and if the enemies showed an opening they charged.
Very effective especially in the ancient era.

"Jinetes" weren't a professional force, they were just Iberian horseman using time honored traditions.

>>1933804
He obviously means in a free-for-all battle you dunce.

>>1933744
>>1933816
>Fair, medieval in particular around 800-1100

So basically the Macedonian era?

In that case, it depends on what you mean by professional. Thematic (regional) forces were paid to some extent but were more reliant on land; essentially they lived on "military land" as farmers and gained their living/paid for their equipment in that way. Not entirely militia, but not entirely "professional" either if that means being a salaried, standing force. The central or "tagmatic" forces were in general professional, although some units would have been nobles who probably bought some of their own equipment with the proceeds of their own estates.

"Militia" in the sense of an unpaid, locally-raised force did exist but such people were probably restricted to local garrisons of cities/fortifications.

The Varangians existed in this era but it's not exactly fair to call them "mercenaries," because as a unit they were permanently in the imperial employ. It's not as if the Guard turned around and sold its services to other powers or something.

The supposed mercenary army of the Byzantines more aptly refers to the post-Manzikert and post-4th Crusade eras when the supply of "native" manpower was severely depleted.

>>1933496
Jinetes were moors

>>1933919

Spanish "people" are all moors aka niggers.

>>1933953
>moors were black
WE

File: 1477327406760.jpg (114KB, 1012x622px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1012x622px

>>1932838
I imagine that if you ran a thousand pound warhorse into a pike block it would open up a sizable hole for your own men to get through.

File: Good sir.gif (1MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 320x240px

>>1933911
Did a bit of skim research from some textbooks/ primaries myself just now.
Quality post.

>>1932918

Horse archers are based. The ultimate and definitive cuck army removal unit.

Fortresses and very rugged terrain are the only safe havens for cucks when facing based horse archers.

>>1934146
t. mongke

File: Frazetta-banner-1024x716.jpg (148KB, 1024x716px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1024x716px

Would you want to fuck with this?

>>1934180
what kind of retard thinks waving around an axe on a horse is a good idea?

>>1933198
>Is it safe to say that /his/ discussions on everything are pants on head retarded filled with personal opinions and little else?

Yes it is anon

>>1933816
No, they only trained their cav as horse archers after the WRE fell up until the arab invasion. After that it as too costly + they didn't face horse archers as much

>>1933844
Real life isn't a videogame, you can't just run away forever. Also maintaining cohesion in an army that's all running away would be very difficult, they'd probably just end up fleeing

>>1934785
The same kind who thinks it is a good idea to wave a lance on horseback, I guess.

File: images.jpg (4KB, 127x90px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 127x90px

>>1932854
Hussars also had guns so that helped.

File: h.jpg (130KB, 307x819px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 307x819px

>>1934990
hussars with guns were rare in 16 century, they only became popular in second half of 17 century or so

Why didn't Continental Europeans try to copy English/Welsh Longbowmen to fight against cavalry?
Protect Longbowmen with pike infantry and there is nothing cavalry can do. This could also defeat horse archers.

>>1932838
Rohirrim style charges were a meme and never happened. Horses won't run headlong into a dense formation, human or otherwise (unless they can see that they can jump over it). That's why most armies put cavalry on the wings, because it was most effective when you got to the flank/behind and made them shit themselves and break formation, allowing the cavalry to move in.

>>1935189
They were rare, but not unheard of.

Battle of Vienna is probably the most notable example.

File: 103296[1].jpg (56KB, 1024x722px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1024x722px

>>1935106
>An edict of King Stephan Batory in the 1570s required every hussar to carry at least a brace of pistols; 4 pistols became customary fairly early, and carrying 6 was a common practice.
http://www.kismeta.com/diGrasse/PolishFirearms.htm

>>1935130
Probably because crossbows did a better job.

File: 1478132487106.png (226KB, 528x628px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 528x628px

>>1935189
And here is that one retard.

>>1935189
Also, was poster earlier
>>1933146

>>1934785
Bet you wouldn't say that to his face. Internet retard.

>>1935106
Jesus Christ the Commonwealth were amazing.

>>1934785
A Russian one.

File: 1478433725555.jpg (23KB, 359x222px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 359x222px

>>1933543
I love Lindy myself.

>>1935189
>Horses won't run headlong into a dense formation, human or otherwise
Instictavely they want to junp over or avoid. Horses won't step on a man either unless by accident. (under normal circumstances). Of course if said horse is highly agitated or afraid, who knows? They try to avoid shit just like we would.

>>1935521
That's why they were trained to do so. It's just as saying
>cavalry was useless in firearms era, because horses are naturally scared as fuck of explosions, just look at those cats and dogs in New Year's Eve
Or
>Humans can't ride in cars, because they are scared of those fast and loud beasts. Just look at reactions of guys, who never saw cars before

>>1932838
Because they were faster. They could flank the enemy, and in almost all battles flanking is decisive.

>>1932910

>he thinks that soldiers in a medieval army lined up together alongside other guys based only on what type of weapon they are equipped with, just like in videogames and warhammer

>>1933731

<citation needed>

>>1935130

The French dabbled with the idea but it quickly dawned on them that they were losing because of problems within their own ranks rather than the English being armed with superweapons.

>>1935784

You want a citation that "no armor" weighs less than "armor"? Get fucked you spastic.

>>1935816

I want a citation that archers have lighter equipment, you overly aggressive cunt.

>>1933007
No, there's no point in wasting the few horses you have on archers when your infantry can defend them well. the best bows can only be fired while standing anyway. The reason why the mongols were successful is misattributed to their bows. It was actually their surprise tactics. They'd show up to siege a castle or attack an army weeks before they were expected and the defenders wouldn't have their full time to prepare. In field battles they were also known to set up ambushes that took advantage of over eager armies that would chase after forces that they think they beat. Horse archery was only an accessory.

File: Patay.png (284KB, 313x757px) Image search: [Google]

284KB, 313x757px

>>1935801
This.

When they French didn't fuck up like morons, they could use their heavy cavalry effectively.

>>1932838
Bro, somewhere i did read, that Hungarian Royal cavalry attacked russians with armouredcars and sabres during ww2 aprox 1941
Try to search after this german guy: Erich Kern

>>1932838
Because spears don't actually do a fucking thing to stop cavalry armed with lances.

>>1935830

You're a fucking halfwit. Here's an idea: kill yourself you utter waste of skin.

>>1936629
Based Joan. I wish she could step on my balls

>>1936726

Amazing citation you have there.

You should seriously consider going to the doctor for those agression issues.

>>1933007
No. Horse archers don't fare well in Europe past poland/hungary.

It's very, very easy to pin them against terrain features and kill them. It's also fucking impossible to maintain their bows.

There was some use of mounted crossbowmen, but i'm too unfamiliar with it to comment.

>>1933338
>Europe proper could never replicate that level of ability,
The eastern roman empire did it well enough to beat the avars at their own game, anon.
Settled societies can field BETTER horse archers by armoring them, keeping them in formation, and arming and training them for the charge as well as shooting.

>>1933513
>If you have no horses, then archers will win every battle
Tell that to the hellenes.

>>1933731
At which point you completely lose command and control, the slower men die, some of your men keep fucking running, and you invariably rout.

>>1936875

You want a citation for something a child could understand. You are stupider than a child.

>>1936905

Not him, but how is it so obvious. You can stick an archer in heavy armor. Hell, the English, probably the most famous foot archers of Europe (rightly or wrongly) did often heavily armor their archers. The guys with longbows shooting each other at Towton had heavier armor than Caesar's legions.

So I too, would like a citation.

>>1936905

And yet you fail to produce such a citation.

>>1936910

This guy gets it.

>>1936910
Not only did they often wear armor, they were known for having fucking poleaxes.

File: 1545111x.jpg (227KB, 667x667px) Image search: [Google]

227KB, 667x667px

>>1936919

and raving lutes

>>1932838
yes

for most of human history formations where usually not rock solid as they where later on when professional armies became the norm. People where still drilled and trained but they where drawn from proto-conscription policies and supplimented with mercenaries who oftentimes also had their own commanders.

Not only that communication is hilariously difficult on a battlefield without electronics

the reason cavalry was so effective was thus.

1. They could break up formations and force routs
2. During the rout they would run people down, in many battles the rout was when people died the most
3. If the enemy had no formation or communication cavalry broke all cohesiveness in the battle between units on the same side
4. Even if you retreated if you didnt have anything to cover your retreat you would often times be run down.

>>1936889
>There was some use of mounted crossbowmen, but i'm too unfamiliar with it to comment.
In Poland during late medieval period for every lancer(kopijnik) there would be 2-4 mounted crossbowmen.

>>1936910
Here's a thought. Feudal Territories other than England held less emphasis on archers in their armies. Either they had enough infantry or cavalry to protect their archers. So archers were not expected to engage in pitched melee and instead run to the nearest mass of allies. This means they did not require the heavier armor of their infantry counterparts.

This is opposed to The British who had a strong bow archery culture. Their long bowmen could effectively operate as ad hoc light infantry.

>>1936919
Their knight were notorious for preferring to fight on foot.

>>1937288
Here's several thoughts.

Real life isn't like your RTS games. You didn't have huge distinctions between 'infantry' and 'archers', and guys who knew how to shoot would shoot their bows. And if they got into hand to hand combat, they'd drop their bows and pick up whatever melee weapons they carried and fought with them.

Archers were usually at the vanguard; most battles would begin with archers exchanging fire. If you're in armor, you're less likely to get killed by the arrows coming in; you could maneuver to a better shooting position, maybe even under fire, than your non-armored counterpart.

Battles are inherently chaotic, and sure, you probably want to keep your archers from getting stuck into hand to hand, but if something went wrong, you wanted them able to not melt in minutes.

That anyone's archers, if similarly armed and trained, could operate as ad hoc infantry, and in fact, if they traditionally did this, and that was more important than their bow function, they might not even have been thought of as archers, despite using archery in battle.


And I still haven't seen a citation. Source your shit, retard.

>>1937288
Yes, because wearing armor would not be incredibly helpful in the shooting phase of the battle. This, of course, is why nobody carried pavises.

>>1937329
And to add to this:

>>1937288
>Either they had enough infantry or cavalry to protect their archers. So archers were not expected to engage in pitched melee
Guess what you stupid fucking faggot: One of the places where Englishmen providing double duty as archers and armored infantry saw the most use was in fucking italy.

>>1937333
Did you read my last paragraph idiot? Did you read at all? I''m talking about other cultures who were not as "archer heavy" like the English. other cultures neglected their archery traditions.

>>1937417

And you know what those cultures (countries) did? HIRED ENGLISH MERCENARIES TO DO THE JOB FOR THEM.

>>1932854

[spoiler]AND THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED[/spoiler]

>>1937431
Why are we talking about English mercenaries? The original point at the very start was about archers in general wearing lighter equipment than infantry based on melee.

The English and some other mercenaries were the exception not the rule.

>>1937438

Even the English aren't actually an exception, yes English bowmen were expected to fight in the pell-mell, but they weren't issued with armor (tho some probably bought their own) and the English did have dedicated infantry as well, who generally were well-armored (English knights fought on foot alongside their men-at-arms)

>>1937457
English archers were highly regarded by their homeland and any lords who wanted to hire them. The French considered archers as lesser soldiers and were offended by the thought of their prestigious knights being felled by mere arrows.

The English preferred to be boring and pragmatic, while the french were rich as fuck and could afford to be flashy.

>>1937457

Pretty much noone was issued with ANYTHING in a medieval army. You were required to equip yourself. And guess who's going to get picked when you have two guys, one with a bow and a kitchen knife, the other with a bow, horse, sword and full harness of armour?

>>1937480
That's feudalism for ya. The local lord would gather able men from his subjects who were obligated to fight for him. The peasants probably did not own dedicated war equipment so you could might've seen pitchforks, woodcutting axes, hunting bows and maybe makeshift weapons like flails, billhooks, guisarmes and cudgels. I would expect smarter ones to get a padded coat of some sort as quickly as possible

>>1937507

>Peasants
>Being called up in a feudal levy.

Meme harder. Not all serfs were peasants, and what peasants were conscripted (There were very few) would be there in non-combat roles, for carrying and fetching and minor repairs and shoeing horses and the like.

>>1937507

>the lord is going to send his main source of income to war
>armed with pitchforks no less

Why do you think medieval English archers are refered to as yeomen? What is the statute of arms?

>>1937517
I didn't say anything about serfs. I said subjects. Which i mean by peasants and more affluent free-men.
Well of free men probably donned his family war equipmenty which might include a sword or chain-mail.
Peasants (Free tenants) would have to be more economical because they were probably living at the subsistence level.

>>1937528
They didn't take every able men. They took one from each family even if that one man died the family should still be able to pay rent.

The local lord may not have a choice and may have been commanded by his Liege/Marshall to muster some men for an expedition.

>>1937547

<citation needed> on any medieval army recuiting that way short of vikings litterally being about to kick down the door

>>1937552
> Messenger: *Knock* *knock* the lord requests you send a man of fighting age to participate in his expedition.

>Father: Sounds like a shit deal man.
>First son: I wanna go! I'm bored to tears here.
>Second son: I wanna go! I want to go on and adventure!
>Third son: I wanna go! I want to get some sick loot and rape sexy bitches!

Maybe they want to go?

>>1937547
What is better in terms of medieval times:
>Unarmored and undisciplined peasant with shitty weapon and no armor, will probably die in very first battle by random arrow.
>The very same peasant in his farm, doing things, paying taxes, making food.
i wonder

>>1938325
Jesus Christ read for once! Free men who have own land in their lord's territories are obligated to contribute a fighting man *per family* In return the lord protects his people, enforces law establishes facilities makes an opportunity to increase wealth and status and other things.

Each man had an obligation to fight for their lord for a limited time each year.

In a war of national defense both the lord and his men they are rewarded by not having their lands and properties pillaged by enemy soldiers as well as limited loot.

In offensive expeditions both the lord and his men can acquire plunder and land for their realm. Meritorious service can raise the lord's prestige and other assets, this in turn makes the lord more able to reward his subjects and make his fiefs more prosperous.

Even if the local lord is not willing to make offensive expeditions he has no choice if his king calls on to him to contribute for an expedition.

>>1937563
>>1938553

Where are you pulling this "per family" idea from?

>>1938553

You're also missing out that they tended to be rewarded by being paid.

>>1933327
I remember reading a Seleucid monarch designed the equipment of his version of cataphracts to have lances long enough to charge hoplite formations head on, and despite what total war will have you believe they had pretty long spears, almost pikes

>>1933691
Byzantines around Justinian were supposedly as good horse archers as Huns (according to chroniclers) and during a single day in the breaking of a siege in the gothic war around 200 horse archers killed 3000 goths

>>1934785
A lot of knights dismounted after the initial charge, and didn't even swing there sword/axe on horseback but just used the giant hairy monster they rode to crush/knock people down or make them run off

>>1933132
>big animal
for you

>>1936629
La Hire's blade thirsts for blood!

>>1932838
>What is flanking
>What is hit and run

>>1933132
This.
Hussites wrecked the crap out of Crusader heavy knights even when outnumbered.

Pěkný zbytek čtvrtečního odpoledne

>>1933132
Weren't the Swiss peasants beating cavalry armies with their crossbows before the Hussite wars though?

>>1932846
post post best first

>>1933132
Why the fuck does this horse have a hole in its back leg?

>>1941741

File: kura.jpg (38KB, 500x392px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x392px

>>1932838
Part of the action of the charge was the shock effect; scattering the enemy and forcing them to flee in fear renders them combat ineffective as well. Even in a close fight a horse represents a raised platform on which to fight from and provides the ability to disengage from close combat, as well as dictate the terms of the engagement against fighters on foot.

Other tactical applications of cavalry included horseback archery, a tradition held by many nomadic steppe peoples.

Also, cavalry were not universally used in shock tactics. As you note before cavalry have strategic dimensions, able to assist in logistics. Even if they dismounted for combat, fighters traveling by horse had comparatively greater speed and less exhaustion than those marching on foot. On a tactical level, a cavalry unit could use their greater speed to seize an advantageous position then dismount to fight or attack the enemy from the rear.

Finally, many cultures might have traditions, social arrangements, or logistical problems that created strong incentives for the use of cavalry, such as the social conditions that gave rise to Europe's knights.

>>1932846
best post first post

>>1938553
Free men were also obliged by law to own arms and armour and train with it a day every week. So, what do you give your adventurous son: A rake or a suit of armour and a bill?

>>1936889
>Settled societies can field BETTER horse archers by armoring them

Then why did the EREget beaten by Attila and later had to marry one of their emperors daughters into the Ilkhanate royalty?

>>1938775
Probably the Heerban where 1 person in the village was required to muster when called to arms by his lord and the village had to pay the upkeep to his family while he was away. That's the closest approximation I can think of.

>>1937434
Why do we have to do this every thread? Meme tier calvary that was only around because the Mongoks are drunks. They were peasants with sticks that beat up peasants without them.

File: _39935506_iraq_sectors8_map416.gif (16KB, 416x280px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 416x280px

>>1943624
You must be Russian
Only a Russian would insult Poland's glorious Hussars.

Eat a dick you bastard.

>>1942777
>Then why did the ERE get beaten by Attila and later had to marry one of their emperors daughters into the Ilkhanate royalty?
Because at the time they were fielding traditional infantry based legions,and the northern frontier was considered a sideshow while they faced an existential threat in the east.

The avars spurred the formation of large bodies of horse archers, and ended up extinct because of them.