>with the battle of Agincourt/Varna/Nancy/Pavia heavily armored

>>2461536
Winged hussars are so aesthetic

File: shiggy.jpg (48KB, 541x498px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 541x498px

Calvalry doesn't tample cohesive units. Cavalry dooesn't charge into people forming a wall, instead they stop before hitting people and get scared at pikes leaving knights utterly vulnerable and awkward. The value of cavalry is its speed that makes blocking their maneuvers with infantry very difficult, and the fact that flanking with cavalry plays into people's fear and if done correctly leads to routing. Once pikes become the most used infantry weapon in europe,cavalry could only really attack if the enemy flanks were already engaged, otherwise risking getting knights trained from childhood killed by peasants with long sticks.

File: TFW you brought a gun to a spear fight.jpg (129KB, 800x563px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 800x563px

>>2461827
>Calvalry doesn't tample cohesive units. Cavalry dooesn't charge into people forming a wall

This is not true at all.

There were many late medieval and early modern cavalry armies that directly engaged enemy infantry in tight ranks. The winged hussars are a pretty good example of this, as some of their equipment (specifically the lance) was designed to allow them to strike pole-arm armed infantry before impacting the infantry weapons.

Another example were the gendarmes of France (and Burgundy, though Charles got his ones BTFO charging Swiss pikemen head on), who were armoured so completely, man and horse, in plate that, given the right conditions, they could simply smash through infantry formations with their tightly packed and extremely heavy charge.

This continues all the way up to the 19th century, with Napoleon's Lancers being especially devastating against coalition infantry, forcing the use of the compact infantry square to avoid the rush and encirclement that a direct charge could cause, and even then, squares were not always effective in stopping the charge. The power of the lancer's charge at defeating infantry head on was made quite clear during the Napoleonic wars, so much so that they were routinely employed throughout the 19th century, and even into World War 1.

>>2461663
is there a modern equivalent of their aesthetics?