In warfare

>>51098704
Historically, most casualties in battle don't actually happen when both sides are going at it; when a side breaks and flees it's vulnerable, and horses can run down infantry, naturally. A good pursuit can end a war.

Also, being on horseback puts you physically above infantry, making combat less tiring because your swings/stabs/whatever are gravity-assisted and theirs are the opposite.

Ultimately though (connected to the first point) battle in formation is more about psychology than actual bloodshed. The battlefield is terrifying and a soldier has to suppress their natural instinct to run the fuck away in order to fight, but if they do, they're open to attack. Horses pressing in on the sides help that out.

That doesn't answer your questions.

>>51099066
Broken formations would also be disorganization, which clumsily fits into the above statements?
Being charged at is frightening, and being attacked by something larger then yourself is, too. This and the importance of morale should be kept in mind, yes.
>That doesn't answer your questions.
Mostly no, unfortunately.

File: 4eb9637fad40775eaad20d1d22906c8e-c.jpg (50KB, 572x428px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 572x428px

I'll try to bump this once, if it dies, it dies.

>>51101088
>>51099870
Change
>horses
to
>cavalry charge
and you're accurate.

>>51101236
Good, but to be clear, do you mean that the statements in the OP only apply during a cavalry charge, and not otherwise?

>>51098704

Not that anon, but I'd say all of the above is accurate.

With some caveats, naturally:

Disorganized formations were vulnerable to everything except missile fire - so, that's not a great generalization. Still, Cavalry charge is the worst thing that could happen to them.

Cavalry needs flat & dry land to run on - so they can make the best use of their major strength: mobility.
Anything that stops them, or slows them down, is very effective against them.
Muddy ground, hilly ground, pit traps, caltrops, walls of any kind (including shield/spear ones) - any (and all) of it will serve to stop (or at the very least slow down) Cavalry.

And stationary Cavalry is soon-to-be-dead Cavalry.

>>51098704

>Were any of the above statements inaccurate?

Kind of, in a very confusing way.

>Horses are not very effective against fortifications or extra long weapons like polearms.

>>51101236
>>51101423
>cavalry charge

The threat of a cavalry charge shapes every battlefield where they are present. Without the threat light cavalry and light infantry can engage in constant, aggressive harassment until infantry in tight formation is forced to break. Even artillery has to be screened to protect it from cavalry attack, though less as time goes on. Artillery is notably less effective at engaging infantry in skirmish formation.

This means even in fields where the cavalry is held in reserve or used to maneuver on a flank and never engages in a charge it is highly effective, by limiting the deployment and maneuver options of the other force.

>>51099066

The pursuit of routing and broken forces by cavalry became much more aggressive in the 18th century, and in the Nepolonic wars hit it's peak. This made battles far more decisive, by keeping forces running and preventing them from reconstitute themselves. This also shaped the battles indirectly, as good generals would not attempt to engage in a heavy battle if their cavalry forces were not in good shape and ready for a pursuit, and would reserve their cavalry and attempt to avoid having them too heavily blooded in the initial battle so they would be fresh for the chase.

Gustavus Adolphus, for example, won several battles in the thirty years war where he simply wasn't able to finish off the opposing force because his cavalry wasn't very good.

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

42KB, 879x318px

>>51098704
>extra long weapons like polearms
Depends on how long your lance is.

>>51098704
Perhaps you should tell us what you are trying to achieve with these statements?
A defensive structure is "very effective" against cavalry in the sense that it cannot be traversed on horseback, and cannot be ridden down.
It doesn't magically get up and go kill a bunch of dudes, though.

Long polearms in a trained and drilled formation of infantry is effective against cavalry, I would say. If you are one dude with a long spear against someone on a horse, I don't think your very much better off than a guy with a sword.
A horse isn't a car, after all. It doesn't just run in straight lines at high speed.

>>51098704
In general, I think it is fair to say that charging your cavalry frontally into any massed and disciplined formation of infantry is a terrible idea, regardless of which weapons they carry.

>>51105708

Thought id add in for ya

Spear formations have long been a popular and effective part of ancient warfare too.A wall of spears is an effective deterrent to pretty much anything from Calvary to infantry and it even gets in the way of arrows to an extent. It went up and down throughout the centuries ranging from "The right way to fight battles" to getting easily outmaneuvered and smashed to being integral to Pike n Shot formations

Should be noted that a very large number of casualties happened off the battle field. Pre-industrial logistics basically relied on what you could carry on wagons, backpacks, and loot. Starvation, thirst, and low medical supplies were things that killed a lot of soldiers.

To tie it back to OP, cav added another logistics nightmare, and that was having to feed and water horses. Now if you're in a temperate place you'll find grass and water just about everywhere (however its usually better to feed horses actual grains and not just grass if you want them to perform at their peak). But if you're in a desert you better have a good idea of where and how you can provide for your horses.

>>51105851

This actually kinda drives me nuts in a lot of games. Maybe im asking too much but when the BBEG warlord starts marching his army taking a country about every 2 weeks I often have to ask things like "How the fuck did he march across a continent with 100K people in half a year constantly supplying it and replenishing lost forces? Especially when we know his McGuffin doesnt do anything outside of blowing shit up"

I swear every DM I ever played with treats invading a country as a game of capture of the flag where putting your countries Yellow banner ontop of the castle automatically turns it into your territory and the only thing that matter is how many HP you had left to that point

>>51105928

Capturing a fortified position in a pre-industrial era is pretty much game over for the enemy. Forts typcially protected vital roads, bridges and passes, or major population centres. Holding one of these forts gives you control over the civilian populace and all that they produce. Any enemy units in the area of a fort will be extremely vulnerable to units attacking from this position, and any unit attacking from this position will always have a safe and well-supplied base to fall back to if anything goes wrong.

Forts, castles and city walls are the trump card of pre-industrial warfare