How Terrifying is it to fend off elite heavy cavalry with Spears?

[Pisces Axxxxx]

A long time ago I had Shogun:Total War on my laptop. In one of the description for the Takeda Faction of the game, it stated something like "The Takeda horsemen are the best in the land. To Withstand the Takeda Horsemen takes extraordinary courage".

 

This really got me wondering. Usually Medieval Movies like Bravehart and RTS games like Age of Empires always show infantry with spears have a huge advantage over heavily armored cavalry elites like Knights and Samurais. As shown in Bravehart, all you have to do is wait for the Knights to charge than you pull your spears and hit the horses. In games like Rome:Total War and Age of Empires, its even more brutally easily to slaughter heavy cavalry-all you have to do is basically have the spearman attack the knights and they should be able to slaughter them with ease.

 

In fact this easy countering of Knights and elite heavy cavalry by spear infantry as portrayed in movies and games has become so imprinted into popular culture, that many people who don't study Medieval History into detail think that you just have to wait for the Knights to charge your spears and boom they'll get slaughtered as they hit the spears. Basically in their view you just need to hold the spear steadily and you'll be able to slaughter elite knights just like that,

 

However the quote from Shogun:Total War about the Takeda Cavalry taking extraordinary valor to fend off (even assuming you have spear men), made me wonder-is Heavy Cavalry as easy to destroy with spears as Bravehart and PC games portray?

 

I read of cases in Medieval Warfare were spearmen-and we're talking about well-trained ones with long spears- would panic and run away even though they assume those killing positions with the spears (like how the Scotts angled their stakes upward) easily. Or if they do hold it off at first, it seems that as the Knights keep coming, there are times when they would just panic and run away (even if it looks like they did slaughter Knights like in the movies and games).

 

Is it really that terrifying? So many people in today's world-including Military Historians who don't study Medieval Warfare in details and impose modern concepts on the past-think that with basic Discipline and the right position, the elite heavy cavalry should be easy to kill!

 

I mean things I read in the Napoleonic Warfare states that Horses would not charge at men with mere bayonets that are only add 2-3 inches to the rifles they're attached to.And these rifles with their bayonets are much shorters than the spears traditionally used in Medieval and Ancient Warfare!

 

So wouldn't the horses be too scared to charge at the Medieval Spearmen?

 

What exactly made the Knights (and other elite heavy cavalry like the Takeda Samurai) so scary to fight against, even if you're using anti-cavalry weapons that disciplined and trained spearmen would panic and abandon their formations?

Edited October 23, 2012 by Pisces Adonis

[barca]

 

I read of cases in Medieval Warfare were spearmen-and we're talking about well-trained ones with long spears- would panic and run away even though they assume those killing positions with the spears (like how the Scotts angled their stakes upward) easily. Or if they do hold it off at first, it seems that as the Knights keep coming, there are times when they would just panic and run away (even if it looks like they did slaughter Knights like in the movies and games).

 

Is it really that terrifying? So many people in today's world-including Military Historians who don't study Medieval Warfare in details and impose modern concepts on the past-think that with basic Discipline and the right position, the elite heavy cavalry should be easy to kill!

 

 

 

I think it comes down to adequate training. The quintessential pikemen were the Swiss mercenaries, who frequently got the better of heavy cavalry. I somehow doubt that those makeshift formations shown in Braveheat would have been all that effective. The Scots did use Schiltrons, a somewhat circular pike formation that was very effective against cavaalry, but it required appropriate training to be effective.

 

If you look at some of Belisarius' battles in the 6th century, there were instnaces of his ill-diciplined infantry running away from cavalry charges. Again, a matter of training and discipline.

[Melvadius]

... I somehow doubt that those makeshift formations shown in Braveheat would have been all that effective. The Scots did use Schiltrons, a somewhat circular pike formation that was very effective against cavalry, but it required appropriate training to be effective.

 

....

 

Braveheart is not the best source if you are seeking historical accuracy - just look at all that Italian Rennaisance armour the English were wearing.

 

In fact the Bruce did train the schiltrons for some time before Bannockburn where they came as a suprise and along with the pit traps were effectively used against the English knights and lesser mounted men at arms.

 

However in later battles the English had grown wise to the schiltrons use against cavalry so stood off and peppered them with archery fire against which, since they were relatively lighty armoured, they had little defence.

[caldrail]

This is an intersting point. Once, many years ago, I was at a race meeting at Hexham and as the horses piled down the finishing straight, I leaned out to take a good look (safely, mind you). I was struck by the sensation of weight coming at me. The ground was vibrating, the hooves were pounding audibly, and the sense of unswervable purpose in the riders came across. had they been wielding weaponry, it would have been a very daunting experience.

[Klingan]

Caldril is making a great point here, cavalry is as much about psychological warfare as physical strength. I mean, how fun is it, standing there with a pike, even when trained to do so, if you know that the horse will run straight into it, die, roll over and crush you, no matter what happens...

[caldrail]

It doesn't, and the pike wielding soldier would know that, although he wouldn't be immune to the normal sensations of standing there in front of a cavalry charge. A lot depends on what the horses sees. If it believes it can barge past a few individuals of lesser stature, sort like us really, then a trained horse can be urged to do so. If it perceives the infantry unit ahead as a big solid barrier - such as a compact mass of frightened guys behind a shield wall - the horse will in all probability refuse and deliver the hapless rider in front of the enemy unceremoniously if he's not quick witted or skilled enough.

 

No sensible rider in the world is going to impale his mount on a stick in any case. Realise that a cavalry charge isn't about impact, it's about playing chicken. Who will give way first? Will the infantry soil their underwear and 'break', or will the rider wheel away at the last minute? In warfare cavalry does not impact upon formed infantry in defence if they have reasonable means to do so. It will however exploit a weaker formation and woe betide any infantryman who gives a cavalryman enough room to get into the formation, countered by the possibility that the infantry could unhorse the rider (in which case he generally doesn't live long, armour or not)

[GhostOfClayton]

Just how common were Cavalry charges? Has TV (and films) given us a skewed impression. We know that Roman cavalry were employed on the wings to keep an enemy together whilst facing the Roman shield wall, and for chasing down feeling enemies afterwards. Did this totally eveolve into the all out cavalry charge, or were cavalry employed more pratically.

 

Events like that depicted in The Charge of the Light Brigade seem to have a differnt reason for the charge than those desribed by the OP.

[caldrail]

Normally in ancient battles cavalry initially faced each other off to settle who controlled the flanks - not all battles followed this conventional wisdom. Against each other they would often be seen riding back and forth, remaining mobile, and only closing in for melee to force the issue. In terms of action against infantry, this was generally reserved for harassment attacks (in which the horsemen threaten the infantry and lob volleys of spears) or pursuing the hapless losers of a melee (and it was a fortunate infantryman who got away unscathed). If the flanks were decided an attack from the side or rear was possible. The sort of frontal cavalry charge against infantry we normally think of was very rare in ancient times, although becoming an accepted practice toward the end of the empire with the regular use of heavy cavalry, and even then, was not entirely successful until medieval times capitalised on the rarity of professional infantry.

[Maty]

This is outside my area of expertise, but I've talked with some people who have looked at this question. It's not just a matter of standing off the cavalry - one break in the formation and the whole thing is screwed. Once a rider gets within four feet of a man with an eight-foot pike that man is basically defenceless.

 

This can be done in various ways. Archery fire can be used to drop someone at the strategic moment by concentrating on one corner of the formation. Alternatively, even a head-on charge can be followed through if a badly wounded horse keeps going.

 

I been told - but cannot reference - that seventeenth century Indian cavalry used to train certain horses to run blindfolded. Those poor beasts never knew what had hit them (or what they hit) until it was too late. But if one horse hit a spear formation for whatever reason, it was game over.

[caldrail]

By and large cavalry charge at infantry to 'break' their formation in terms of morale and commitment rather than actually collide (horses are animals too and don't like getting hurt, though they are somewhat heavier than us and if you study footage from those police video tv shows, clearly people have a natural tendency to want to back off from an advancing horse, and couldn't do much if they decided otherwise). In other words, a cavalry attack aims to frighten the infantry and push into their ranks rather than collide, which would almost certainly bring down the horse and render the whole thing rather pointless from the cavalry point of view.

 

This is especially true of the ancient era when horses were valued for mobility and were more expensive anyway, never mind relative rarity and social exclusivity. The idea of a couched lance attack is not typical of the period (the shorter lances were used overhand in stabbing attacks back in Roman times) and in any case, such attacks were primarily against opposing cavalry even in later periods (hence the medieval jousting lists) because a horse at speed would pass through the opposing formation, which wasn't possible with compacted infantry.