Talk:Cavalry tactics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Chinese military history task force
Classical warfare task force (c. 700 BC–c. 500 AD)
Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)



This article is not very good. I will translate parts of the German wiki concerning cavalry tactics. For more information on the units themselves look on cavalry and the links there. Wandalstouring 11:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 1620

Hm.. why 1620? I mean major victories of Polish-Lithuanian cavalry against useless western-styled caracole-using cavalry were at least decade or two earlier (e.g. Battle of Kircholm... Also, it soooo western to say the Gustav Adoplh invented the tactics, when he simply borrowed them from Polish cavalry :) Szopen 18:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Commonwealth lost engagements against the Swedish cavalry either (Svedish cavalry was cheaper with less special trained horses and more numerous) and it was absolutely not the caracole that was the reason for a victory at Kirchholm, because it was not employed. Besides both sides used reiter style units who favored the caracole. But the Commonwealth had also units in Hungarian style charging the infantry (otherwise shooting) with sabres and that attack was essential. Of course, to fight with sabres you needed somebody to break the enemy formation. Polish style was the charge of the heavy cavalry, Swedish style was firing pistols at short distance. Battle of Kircholm

There is a special sword used by the Polish winged Hussars. it is long 1.2 -1.8 metres and has a tip, but no blade. Such weapons in between ususal sabres/swords and lances need some coverage. Can you help? Wandalstouring 22:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not really unique to the Poles -- it's called a panzerstecher sword. I think you mean, "no edge," not "no blade."  :-> The Poles called it a Koncerz. It was used in the east as an armour piercing alternative to the lance. Hungarians light horse used it to combat Ottoman cavalry wearing chainmail. The Poles had the lance, but if it snapped they turned to the Koncerz (panzerstecher) to break enemy armour. It was a huge weapon, was enormously expensive and so was used only by wealthier men. For a source on this, see David Hollins' book "Hungarian Hussar 1756-1815" by Osprey Publishing. Larry Dunn 16:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


1620 because it was not used at Kircholm. Later Frederick II of Prussia said: "Any cavalry commander awairing a cavalry charge with carabine in hand is to be imprisoned." The problem is the uniforms for cavalry units were copied from the Hungarians and also their version of charging with ligther troops and sabres has influenced the Commonwealth units and others (like the Dutch influenced infantry at this time). Wandalstouring 17:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] writing a new article

at the moment I start writing a new article here. Feel free to contribute


it should be merged with cavalry. Most of this article seems to be concerned with the chariot, which is not part of cavalry at all. dab (ᛏ) 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Well chariot was usually considered part of the cavalry. Chariot tactics and riders tactics are mostly the same. And it is still under construction.Wandalstouring 23:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the cavalry article and what it says about chariots?

[edit] The original article

Revision as of 01:31, 8 June 2006

For much of history humans have used some form of cavalry for war. Cavalry tactics have evolved over time.

Introduction

While men have fought each other for thousands of years, cavalry has been a more recent phenonom. Along with the tactical advantages on it's own, cavalry has a psycological effect. A group of men charging an enemy on horses invokes fear, sometimes so much as to cause them to retreat. In a modern sense of cavalry we see tanks and armored personnel carriers. Just like chariots of the past did these modern chariots have many of the same advantages.

Ancient Warfare

Cavalry was first used by civilizations who had learned to control animals. The Scythian and Persians made these animals even more deadly by mounting archers on them. Around 1500 BCE, the bow and horse was integrated. The two together created a lethal and mobile unit. As a result the trend of massed infantry slowly began to disappear. The Egyptians improved the Sumerian invention of a chariot to make an even more lethal and effective unit. The Egyptians would overwhelm infantry with large forces of chariots that would smash through their formations, showering them with arrows. Later on the chariot would be countered by light well trained infantry and cavalry.

After the asssination of the Hittite prince, the Egyptians and Hittie went to war. The Hittie had chariots too but there's were different than the Egyptians. Unlike the lighter Egyptian chariots that consisted of an archer and a driver, the Hittie ones were heavier and had a crew of three. In the first battle of the war, both sides relied on their chariots as the main attack troops, while infantry and bowmen stayed behind. The battle ended with the Egyptians chariots surprising the Hittie charioteers as they looted an Egyptian infantry camp and destroying them.

The Assyrian armies relied upon chariots and cavalry as their main shock force. Behind them were bow and spear armed infantry donned in armor. Being that there weren't many horses in Persia, the Persians relied upon The Immortals, a 10,000 man infantry unit, a modertaly armored force armed with spears and bows. When they encountered the Lydian cavlary in their attempt to conquer the civlization they were at a big disadvantage. Through the use of camels, which Lydian horses hated, the Persians were able to negate this factor. As a result of the lessons they learned fighting the Lydians, the Persians incoporated their own cavarly and chariot force.

War Elephants

Elephants can be a terrifying weapon. At several tons each and capable of charging a formation of men, little could stop them before they crushed enemies before them. With thick skin they were difficult to kill. People who'd never seem before often retreated. Atop them would be bowmen or javelin throwers. As powerful as they were, elephants were not unstoppable in the Battle of Gaugamela, Alexander the Great defeated a force of elephants through superior tactics. Wandalstouring 19:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think after some work the article is quite finished now. I listened to the critics on chariots and cut that part a bit.

[edit] prejudiced article about Mongolian tactic

Swarm/encirclement tactics and massed firepower in the field - Mongol tactics were marked by speed, surprise and massive mobility. They approached in widely separated columns, both to ease logistics as well as to gain maneuvering room. Once they had isolated their target, the tumans deployed in wide sweeps, converging on the enemy from several directions. Upon contact the Mongols played cat and mouse, standing-off while devastating opponents with massed arrow fire, or charging in close only to veer off while discharging yet another vicious rain of shafts. Opponents who took the bait and gave pursuit were quickly cut off and liquidated. The constant rain of arrows, the converging swarms of charges and probes, all carried out by the encircling Mongols, were usually enough to "soften up" an enemy. Typically the opposing force broke and then the deadliest butchery began. As is well known, a force is most vulnerable in retreat, and the Mongols were ruthless.

Source: wiki

Wandalstouring 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If somebody can work that over. Mongolian tactic is an excellent example of combined arms. Dismounted infantry archers provide massed arrow fire. Light cavalry with composite bows and javelins ride in circles, shooting from close distance at the enemy. Usually they change horses several times. The single horse of the enemy gets tired during counteroperations. When the target is wounded enough and the horses tired, comes the charge of heavy cavalry. These have hooks on their lances to pull all down, that is not pushed down. In melée the fresh and armored horses give an advantage. These troops are also supported by the light cavalry with precise closeup arrowfire.

Wandalstouring 20:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] differences to the cavalry article

This article is less about specific troops, and when they were employed. It wants to show different tactical developments, compareable to the article about infantry tactics. Wandalstouring 11:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to say it is an unreferenced mess, in parts reading as if it was written by someone whose expertise is founded on playing "Age of Empires" or something. But it can be fixed of course, it just needs some time and references. I added {{unreferenced}} for now to caution the unsuspecting reader. In fact, it should probably be split. Neither chariots nor war elephants qualify as "cavalry". What about turning it into History of the horse in warfare, at present a section of war horse? dab (ᛏ) 11:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

War elephants and chariots DO qualify as cavalry. This expertise from computer games is an insult. Have you ever read the different wiki articles where knowledge about cavalry tactics is spread? I combined them here. Very few is added by myself. To make it very clear, just read the introduction of the cavalry article in this wikipedia:

History
Origins
Before the Iron Age, the role of cavalry on the battlefield was largely performed by light chariots. The chariot originated with the Sintashta-Petrovka culture in Central Asia and spread by nomadic or semi-nomadic Indo-Iranians Citation needed. The chariot was quickly adopted by settled peoples both as a military technology and an object of ceremonial status, especially by the Pharaohs of the New Kingdom of Egypt as well as Assyrian and Babylonian royalty.


How many times is chariot mentioned? What is the relation between chariot and cavalry due to this source?

Refering to war elephants, read Polybius about changes in military. War elephants took the roles chariots performed. What were chariots (See source above)?

I have no source avaiable for you, but British military listed its dromedaryriders as cavalry.

The only point to argue about this way is African cattle. Wandalstouring 17:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As you can read parts are translation and other wiki article, how do I add reference to them???? This is mostly summary and translation. Never seen such a thing on wiki, refering from one article to another. Wandalstouring 17:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I take cavalry not only as troops fighting on horseback. Modern cavalry exists even without horses. It is a question of definition. Read the Polybius source about it. Where would you put the horse artillery of US cavalry? Wandalstouring 17:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stupid edits

Whoever edits shows often a lack of understanding tactics. when you mention wagons and chariots carts are important and the differences between them, for understanding their different tactics. Hope you were not the guy writing about horses pulling with nose rings.Wandalstouring 18:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] contemporary pictures of cavalry

the pictures in this article show all modern views of ancient events and do contain ahistoric mistakes of engagement and equipment. it would be better to have contemporary images, even if they are not as beautiful. Wandalstouring 13:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:MilHist Assessment

A very nice, long article, with lots of pictures, lots of sections, and no glaring gaping omissions. I am not an especial expert in European medieval history, but I was looking for the mention of the Mongols, the battle of Crecy, Stirling Bridge, and a number of other things, which you've supplied. You've included much, if not all, of what ought to be included here, and with a little clean-up of the grammar, spelling, and overall style, I think this article warrants a B. Just needs a little further re-organization and style/grammar polishing. Thank you for tackling such an important and complex topic, and doing such a good job. LordAmeth 14:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I feel Arabian, Indian and Chinese cavalry is underrepresented, but I miss the sources to use for an extension. Wandalstouring 18:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, and being that my own expertise is Japan, I noticed the complete lack of anything on samurai mounted tactics. I could write a whole page on that alone. But I think for the most part it would be redundant to what's already mentioned. The point here, as I see it, is not to discuss the history of cavalry tactics in every country, but to give an overview of how cavalry tactics would work in any country; cavalry charge vs. mounted archery, anti-cavalry measures such as pikes and longbows. I think for the most part Japan skipped the whole 'longbows work well against cavalry' part, perfecting the cavalry charge only a decade or so before it was all ruined by the advent of firearms. LordAmeth 19:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Sure but mentioning some specific details here and there shows you did concern them. Is there currently anything on tactics used by the samurai? For example the Samurai used naginatas on horseback, something that can be compared to the Ger(longbladed spear, used by Germanic forces). Two sentences and a new element is introduced and appraised. Wandalstouring 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for re-organization

One suggestion I have to make this article clearer it to break the "The following tactics were often effective against heavy cavalry:" part out into a separate section, with its own title. At the moment if you are just browsing the article it look as though that section is about cavalry tactics rather than defenses against them Nloth 00:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I create a complete defence section (light and heavy cavalry). Thx. Wandalstouring 08:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge no, cross reference and wikify, yes?

I don't think this article needs to be merged with War horse. There is enough difference between the two -- and both are long enough -- to justify the separation.

That said, there is wisdom to checking both to add appropriate wiki cross-linking, avoidance of duplicative or contradictory material (using the

Main article: [[{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]
template as needed and appropriate summaries), and generally using each as a complement to the other. Montanabw 19:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
clearly it needs to be wikified, furthermore it seems to be the highest ranking article on military tactics, so it is almost a model. Wandalstouring 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] European vs Asian style

In a portion of the text say "Both handled their primary weapons in the two-handed Asian style, which was superior to the single-handed European style in the ability to parry such an attack."

Well, can be true, but here anyone can think that the europeans don't know that style of take the weapon, but contrary, according with the french historian Philip Contamine in "The War in the Middle Ages", the european knights known at least three ways of use the lance:

1. The typical one handed under the arm. 2. The trully ancient like the byzantines, and i think this is the asian style, taking the lance with two hands, the head to down and the base of the lance on the upper position. 3. Taking the lance with one hand and hitting with the base of the lance in a vertical movement.


-Fco


OK, that's new to me, but you sourced it. Thank you. Well, it would be logical for European knights to have learned this at least during the crusades.

Well, I have to look up, but I think there is perhaps a slight difference between Byzanthine and Asian style. It is described to point downwards in Byzanthine Style while the images of Asian style show it pointing upwards. I think the use of very light shields makes it possible to do the Asian style, while with several kilogramm of a shield it was more difficult. Hitting with the lance in a vertical movement reminds me of the Mongols using hooks on them to unhorse the enemy when bypassing, probably more riders had that idea.

-upwards thrust with lance and heavy shield - singlehanded

-downwards thrust with lance and heavy shield - bihanded

-upwards and downwards with lance and light shield bihanded (see also later European cavalry like the Polish winged Hussars) Wandalstouring 22:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

PS: Could you give me the ISBN of this book? I couldn't find it. Thank you Wandalstouring 22:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General comments

All right. The article has a solid beginning, though the language and formatting is still awkward in places--and it can do with more cross-referencing both to other Wikipedia articles and to external websites. I'll try to attract people from the WPMILHIST task forces to help out on the article, as well as visiting it occasionally to add some new information or do some minor edits. Lay 14:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The article is quite cross referenced, but if you have more ideas, OK. You have a very difficult topic here. IT is not about writing specifically what each one did, but more about giving an overall picture. Some of your edits were problematic. The milhistory is well aware of the whole topic. Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military science task force to get some help. Wandalstouring 17:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Problematic as in what? I'm moving the passage on shower shooting back into heavy cavalry tactics, because it's obviously heavy cavalry tactics requiring the exponents to be fairly well armored and capable of forming a solid battle line. Just FYI, I prefer to classify "light" and "heavy" cavalry by role rather than equipment, and shower-shooting cavalry were used as part of the main battle-line rather than as skirmishers. I'll try to locate the Sassanid military manual said to have drawn a distinction between "fighting in line" (that is, shower shooting in the heavy cavalry manner) and "fighting in swarm" (the light cavalry skirmishing action), but it may take some time because I'm not sure that there is a complete English translation of it. Lay 02:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I found it that you have a source about heavy cavalry with bows. You can present your source on shower shooting even if it is not English. But please think about the whole article and not just a little part you want to add about someone specific. This is an overall presentation and not a presentation of all. Wandalstouring 17:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
And I definitely diagree with the use of "knight" in the general sense here, because European heavy cavalry formations have always included many men of non-knightly rank--squires, serjeants, and all manners of professionals. I'm not changing it back yet, but I have to say that the term "men-at-arms," unlike in the Age of Empires game, is not restricted to men fighting on foot. Lay 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't get it. Men at arms are higher level soldiers, usually mounted in combat or at least during transport to the battlefield. That they (including knights) often fought on foot is something else. Definition is quite clear. Wandalstouring 15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I seem to get your error. You add all examples when heavy cavalry and ranged weapons are used under the category heavy cavalry with ranged weapons. Well, that is not quite the defintion used. It means heavy cavalry shooting/throwing ranged weapons. Combined arms are listed above under heavy cavalry with lances. Wandalstouring 15:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of an article about tactics

This article is named cavalry tactics. So the scope is to write about tactics. It is quite difficult and you must be more precise with your presentation of conclusions. Wandalstouring 16:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] structure

Your way of editing does not move smoothly with the imposed structure and the sections get way too long and unstructured. So before any further edits, I argue for a clear superstructure. The current structure is from the translation of the German article. Wandalstouring 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/v/Talk%7ECavalry_tactics_f6c7.html"