When and why did professional infantry replace noble knights as the dominant force on medieval battlefields? How dominant were cavalry in this period?

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,504
If an historian tells me that horses can not charge people, where we do have in every museum here armor for exactly that purpose \
That is NOT the purpose of horse armor.

and multiple modern military manuals of the last 200 years (I do not even want him to read the stuff from 1000 years ago –
they do not say that.


as horse owner you should be familar with the Spanish Riding School in Vienna, they do preform figueres that are based on if your horse is stuck in infantry after a charge from the medieval time) –
They don;t.

I can not have any high respect of any further research work.
Well you complete lack of any is rather telling.
 
Apr 2017
138
Bayreuth
That is NOT the purpose of horse armor.


they do not say that.



They don;t.


Well you complete lack of any is rather telling.
Cool. Willing to bet some money on that? (If this is allowed - by the forum rules). Because normally I got paid for researches.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,504
Cool. Willing to bet some money on that? (If this is allowed - by the forum rules). Because normally I got paid for researches.
Either you bnring something to back you multiple cliams or you don't, that is up to you.

Generally people read sources to say what they what them to say. They often don'tt say what p[eople want them to say. They are also plenty of military manuals which peddle complete and utter fantasy.

Cavalry Commanders and Generals in the Napoleonic wars repeatedly say horses will not charge into a solid mass of men. the failry complete do mination 99 times outof 100 over cavalry makes this argument pretty irerlefutable.

But that fact is if cavalry would charge headling into a mass of men then most of military history would be radically different from what it was.

Have you ever thought that if you disagree with th bulk of military historians that you might just reconsider your views? People who devoted their lives to this stuff, pouring over sources and accounts, thay all got it worng, and your opinion is enough to overturn all that.
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,889
Portugal
Cavalry Commanders and Generals in the Napoleonic wars repeatedly say horses will not charge into a solid mass of men. the failry complete do mination 99 times outof 100 over cavalry makes this argument pretty irerlefutable.
I must say that the first time that I read this was (if I am not mistaken) in “The Face of Battle”, by John Keegan, but I think I already saw recent historians (recent as in 20th century) saying otherwise, so I have the idea that there is a historiographic polemic here with two opposing theories.

I never explored this much so I don’t have a closed perspective here and you are saying here that is pretty irrefutable. I also didn’t knew that commanders in the Napoleonic Wars mentioned this. What were the commanders during the Napoleonic period that mentioned this and the historians that worked on this? I would like to read a bit more on the theme.
 
Apr 2017
138
Bayreuth
Either you bnring something to back you multiple cliams or you don't, that is up to you.

Generally people read sources to say what they what them to say. They often don'tt say what p[eople want them to say. They are also plenty of military manuals which peddle complete and utter fantasy.

Cavalry Commanders and Generals in the Napoleonic wars repeatedly say horses will not charge into a solid mass of men. the failry complete do mination 99 times outof 100 over cavalry makes this argument pretty irerlefutable.

But that fact is if cavalry would charge headling into a mass of men then most of military history would be radically different from what it was.

Have you ever thought that if you disagree with th bulk of military historians that you might just reconsider your views? People who devoted their lives to this stuff, pouring over sources and accounts, thay all got it worng, and your opinion is enough to overturn all that.
So you do not want free money from the stupid guy?

Smart move.

As a pro-tip: Don't tell that 'people' can read sources like they want them to be. Because by that, if I would have never studied cavalry warfare and make up what I want, would have been justified.

You claimed the manuals say not, that cavalry charges infantry.
That is a general statement of yours.
So it does or it does not and I do have to assume you are an expert on that and read all that stuff, and there is nothing in – anywhere.

I got here Handbuch fur Offiziere (Prussian military 1853/revised 1869) page 362 – Chapter: Cavalry vs. infantry: (...)A horse rides three men standing in a row down.

I would say that is a hit.
You can weasel now around: Tight, tight. I said tight infantry!
But that is unfortunately not what you said. You claimed that is not in at all.

Let me quote:
they do not say that.
And if you really would know how they did that, you would know that they had tactics how to circumvent that. I got plenty of that stuff that covers warfare of 400 years and how you think the scholar level is on that topic, I give a flip, because I do know exactly how it is.

That is why I picked some medieval battles up there, where a cavalry charged into an infantry equipped with melee weapons, that was not possible, by the historian Tulius quoted.
You could google them or asked, if you would have actually really cared about that topic, what you did not - while you have such a great empathy for the guys who dedicate their life to such...
Thank you. *sniff
 

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,240
T'Republic of Yorkshire
All participants in this thread WILL produce sources to back up their claims.

You have 24 hours to do so.

Ryanx - you will also quote at least 3 military manuals from the last 200 years that say what you claim they say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sailorsam

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
35,240
T'Republic of Yorkshire
So you do not want free money from the stupid guy?

Smart move.
Don't try it on. No one is going to pay you to do research. If challenged for sources, it's up to you to produce them, if you want to maintain your credibility, instead of just repeating "Oh look how smart I am". You have 24 hours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sailorsam
Apr 2017
138
Bayreuth
Don't try it on. No one is going to pay you to do research. If challenged for sources, it's up to you to produce them, if you want to maintain your credibility, instead of just repeating "Oh look how smart I am". You have 24 hours.
I did already give one up there to him.
Here more:
Manual to study tactic 1864 / Behaviour of the Cavalry vs. Infantry "(...) in the right moment cavalry attacks, the front parts 'throw themselves' onto the most defenseless parts of the hostile infantry"
Lecture about the most important branches of war-science 1831 / Attack of the Cavalry on Infantry "(...) others (cavalry) used the "attack" en echiquier (ref. Tab 9 Fig 112) against infantry"
Manual for leading light infantry in battlefield-operations (1830) / "(...) In case of a cavalry attack [onto a light infantry]

Regarding horse armor to be found in the Dresdener Rustkammer.
And I consider that moderation injustified.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,889
Portugal
I got here Handbuch fur Offiziere (Prussian military 1853/revised 1869) page 362 – Chapter: Cavalry vs. infantry: (...)A horse rides three men standing in a row down.
Can you provide the full source so it can be checked? If a link exists to the work, it would be helpful. Thanks.

Edit: Same for the quotes on the previous post. Thank you.
 

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,889
Portugal
Just took a look to the seminal work of Huici Miranda that studied the three different Berber invasions of the Iberian Peninsula and the most relevant battles that the invasions produced: “Las Grandes Batallas de La Reconquista Durante Las Invasiones Africanas”/“The Great Battles of the Reconquista during the African Invasions”.

The battles are Zalaca (Almoravid victory), Úcles (Almoravid victory), Alarcos (Almohad victory), Las Navas de Tolosa (Christian victory) and Salado (Christian victory). Even if in the meantime Huici Miranda analyses not only the battles but also makes some contextualization.

Re-reading and recalling some parts of the book, the first thing that brought my attention that could be interesting to this thread was:

All the battlefields are in a vast plain, with the exception of Las Navas de Tolosa, where the Christians were on the top of a hill (p.11).

Again, in Huici Miranda, we see the critics that Oman made to the knighs: “Los Castellanos, en general, no tenian mas concepto de la batalla que el de un choque frontal, en el que su valor y la eficacia de su caballeria enloriagada ler permitia forzar y deshacer las líneas enemigas.” / “The Castilians, in general, had no more concept of the battle than that of a frontal clash, in which their value and the effectiveness of their armoured cavalry allowed them to force and crash the enemy lines.” (p.12) Even if a bit latter he praises the Cid. A bit on the line of John’s previous comments.

A side note, two ideas that I posted previously apparently came form a non-Academic work, interesting but not always reliable: “Armies of Feudal Europe – 1066 to 1300”, by Ian Heath (well known author from his Osprey books), notably that there was possible the presence of camelry in Zalaca and the number of the Almohad forces in 1184 (pp. 23-24). Curious things that my mind retains!!!

Not directly related, two quotes that I find relevant to this thread, from João Gouveia Monteiro in the previous mentioned and linked article, about the loss of relevance of the feudal Calvary and about the rising of the artillery (translations are half mine/half by google):

"However, from the middle of the fourteenth century onwards, a major change in the composition of the battlefields was still retained. We are referring to a more constant presence of the pages and servants (auxiliaries of knights and squires), largely traceable to the gain of importance of a light cavalry supported by shooters, which gradually begins to call into question the supremacy of traditional cavalry. (p.155)"

And:

"As an example, and lastly, in France in the late fifteenth century artillery expenditures accounted for about 8 per cent of the total military expenditures of the respective monarchy (20). (p.161)"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yuyue