Dark Age to Medieval

[santaman2000]

Haven't denied the utility of cavalry but apart from horse against horse fights can anyone name a battle won by it without missile support or a solid infantry block to retreat to? Belisarius certainly used cavalry effectively in Italy but although the PBI were despised by writers, on his campaigns it does seem as though he relied on his foot.

Keegan makes the point that a cavalry charge against cavalry is nothing like a head-on clash but the two units would ride through each others group. In effect whatever the size of the two groups it was always like a skirmish. Lancers might have behaved slightly differently because their weapon required a point of aim on an opponent but even so it was never a solid front that struck their opponents.

Is it true that Custer's men lacked sabres and if so did they have pistols with which to skirmish? It seems to me that they tried to act like mounted infantry, dismounting and taking cover behind their horses. Had they been trained in controlled volley fire? The Indians had been called the finest light cavalry in the world but is that only in comparison to their opponents?

I'll try to cover some of your points one at a time.

Starting with your last question, Custers men did have sabers. BUT! From the civil War on sabers were obsolete. According to diaries from the troops, if any cavalry unit (even during the war) attacked with drawn sabers the other side "paid them no more mind than if they had been armed with cornstalks." It's true however that Custer's men fought more like mounted infantry. NOT because of their use of pistols (a mounted charge with pistols is still a cavalry charge) Rather because they dismounted and fought from defensive positions with rifles. And yes that was more common out West after the Civil War.

Your first question asks about successful cavalry charges without infantry back-up:
1. The one I posted regarding the 26th Cavalry against the Japanese in 1942 in Morong
2. The Australian Lighthorse in Beersheba in WWI

The switch from sabers to pistols doesn't change the fact that they were cavalry any more than the switch TOO sabers from lances did. As long as they stay mounted and can perform an effective charge it's still a cavalry tactic.

 

[santaman2000]

We seem to be drifting towards more modern times with the cavalry discussion. Understandable I suppose because cavalry probably holds a particular fascination for many of us.

But back to the OP regarding the Dark Ages/Medieval; Does anyone know of a castle or similar fortification ever successfully withstanding a prolonged siege?

 

[boatman]

I did some checking today and the concensus was that they did not have their sabres and only 24 rounds per man for their revolvers. Just how did Custer think that the 7th could ride through the whole Sioux Nation?

If they were to act as mounted infantry then they didn't seem to make much of a fist of it when dismounted. Dithering by Custer as to whether to charge or to withdraw to a defensive position? I have no doubt that the individuals fought like catamounts whether Irish, German, English or American but they were poorly led.

The charge at Beersheba was gallant and decisive but it had been prepared for with infantry and artillery without whom the Light Horse would not have gotten off their start line.

The charge against the Japanese may have been a successful action but it didn't win the battle.

 

[Goatboy]

You're partly right. The key word regarding the American designations is "had." Shortly after WWII the tank and similar units lost their "mechanized cavalry" designations and have since been referred to as "armored" units.

Cheers for that Santaman, I didn't know that.

Goatboy.

 

[santaman2000]

I did some checking today and the concensus was that they did not have their sabres and only 24 rounds per man for their revolvers. Just how did Custer think that the 7th could ride through the whole Sioux Nation?

If they were to act as mounted infantry then they didn't seem to make much of a fist of it when dismounted. Dithering by Custer as to whether to charge or to withdraw to a defensive position? I have no doubt that the individuals fought like catamounts whether Irish, German, English or American but they were poorly led.

The charge at Beersheba was gallant and decisive but it had been prepared for with infantry and artillery without whom the Light Horse would not have gotten off their start line.

The charge against the Japanese may have been a successful action but it didn't win the battle.

On your first couple of points I agree with you almost completely. Custer's leadership was abominable. He had the arrogance to leave two gatling guns behind because he thought they'd slow him down. From all accounts he felt slighted by being posted out West at all as he felt the Indians were an inferior foe and not worthy of his concern!

But the US didn't take sabers away from it's cavalymen until the 1920s (that's why the Indians referred to the cavalry as the "long knives") although they were mostly a badge of cavalry status rather than a true weapon after 1862.

Not sure about the comment on the Lighthorse so I cain't really reply. Other than to say that "softening" a target with artillery before ANY assault, cavalry, armored, or infantry, is common. Or at least it was until it was largely replaced by airiel bombardment.

As for the 26th, They most certainly DID win that battle! The charge was successful and they did indeed take Morong! That WAS the battle. It's correct however to say that the battle itself didn't help win the rest of the Bataan campaign.

 

[boatman]

Many castles never had to withstand a siege partly because they looked too strong to take.

It was exceptional for an army's camp to be taken in Roman times.
Alfred's burghs were successful.
Unrecorded, Norman motte and bailey castles must have withstood angry Saxon peasants at times.
Then there are the unsuccessful sieges of Vienna and Lucknow not to mention Ladysmith.

 

[Harvestman]

Now I'm no historian, but didn't Gengis Khan use cavalry with some success?

 

[santaman2000]

Yeah I know the Romans were more successful.

The reason I ask about the ones in the Darks ages is that it seems that time woud be on the side of the attacker. It would seem that if they had the ability to surround the castle and cut it off from re-supply (basicly the definition of a siege) they would only need to wait until the defenders began to starve. Granted angry peasants probably wouldn't have the where-with-all to maintain a prolonged siege.

 

[santaman2000]

Now I'm no historian, but didn't Gengis Khan use cavalry with some success?

LOL. That's my impression too.

 

[Toddy]

They only needed to hold the castle until reinforcements came.....see English Civil war King Stephen and Queen Matilda, or Bruce and Stirling and Edinburgh.
Similarly the border castles and those of the Welsh Marches.

Toddy

 

[wattsy]

I think the demise of cavalry as an effective battlefield weapon began during the American Civil War, where apart from a few engagement the cavalry of both armies was relegated to scouting, engaging enemy cavalry or providing a mounted infantry force. It's worth noting that the first Union troops to arrive and fight at Gettysburg were John Bufords cavalry division, and they fought dismounted. During the 19th century cavalry was still the best way to deal with native insurgents unless they were in strength but by the First World War they were a relic.
The main value of cavalry throughout history has been their mobility and the shock value of having up to and over a tonne of man and beast charging at you. During the Peninsula Campaign the British Army could train, equip and maintain 8 infantry troops for the price it took to maintain 1 cavalry trooper, but Wellington never entertained the idea of disbanding his cavalry (although he was interested in raising a regiment of longbowmen), because the best weapon to use against cavalry was not infantry in square, but other cavalry. Cavalry regiments would avoid engagements if there was an unopposed force of cavalry that could attack their flank while they were in contact. The charges of the French cavalry at Waterloo could only happen because the British cavalry had charged earlier in the day and been expended as a fighting unit.

 

[santaman2000]

That makes perfect sense Mary. I suppose the outcome would epend on IF they could count on said reinforcements. But weren't most of the prolonged siges between competing nobles (neighbors I suppose) In other words, could they depend on actually being reinforced? Or were they more worried that the attackers might be the ones reinforced? I know BOTH situations probably occurred; just curious which was more common?

The reason I ask is that we are taught that during this time period the various barons and nobles were trying to consolidate their power and allegiances (such as would give the benefit of those reinforcemets) were somewhat tenuous?

 

[santaman2000]

I think the demise of cavalry as an effective battlefield weapon began during the American Civil War, where apart from a few engagement the cavalry of both armies was relegated to scouting, engaging enemy cavalry or providing a mounted infantry force. It's worth noting that the first Union troops to arrive and fight at Gettysburg were John Bufords cavalry division, and they fought dismounted. During the 19th century cavalry was still the best way to deal with native insurgents unless they were in strength but by the First World War they were a relic.
The main value of cavalry throughout history has been their mobility and the shock value of having up to and over a tonne of man and beast charging at you. During the Peninsula Campaign the British Army could train, equip and maintain 8 infantry troops for the price it took to maintain 1 cavalry trooper, but Wellington never entertained the idea of disbanding his cavalry (although he was interested in raising a regiment of longbowmen), because the best weapon to use against cavalry was not infantry in square, but other cavalry. Cavalry regiments would avoid engagements if there was an unopposed force of cavalry that could attack their flank while they were in contact. The charges of the French cavalry at Waterloo could only happen because the British cavalry had charged earlier in the day and been expended as a fighting unit.

I think you're right. By the first WW cavalry was mostly obsolete. For that matter infantry was moatly ineffective for most of that war as they were driven underground by the machine gun and artillery fire.

 

[rik_uk3]

Haven't denied the utility of cavalry but apart from horse against horse fights can anyone name a battle won by it without missile support or a solid infantry block to retreat to? Belisarius certainly used cavalry effectively in Italy but although the PBI were despised by writers, on his campaigns it does seem as though he relied on his foot.

Keegan makes the point that a cavalry charge against cavalry is nothing like a head-on clash but the two units would ride through each others group. In effect whatever the size of the two groups it was always like a skirmish. Lancers might have behaved slightly differently because their weapon required a point of aim on an opponent but even so it was never a solid front that struck their opponents.

Is it true that Custer's men lacked sabres and if so did they have pistols with which to skirmish? It seems to me that they tried to act like mounted infantry, dismounting and taking cover behind their horses. Had they been trained in controlled volley fire? The Indians had been called the finest light cavalry in the world but is that only in comparison to their opponents?

I found this interesting

[video=youtube;Y8bDcD81AiY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8bDcD81AiY[/video]

Well worth a watch

 

[rik_uk3]

There was a fella called Frank Finkel who said he had escaped and survived the Bighorn. I can't find the first part to this documentary but its still worth watching

[video=youtube;4mSFdcLQf7k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mSFdcLQf7k[/video]

 

[boatman]

Now I'm no historian, but didn't Gengis Khan use cavalry with some success?

Caveat was, without missile support but Genghis's troops were all armed with the bow.

 

[abominable_scouse_monster]

There was a fella called Frank Finkel who said he had escaped and survived the Bighorn. I can't find the first part to this documentary but its still worth watching

[video=youtube;4mSFdcLQf7k]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mSFdcLQf7k[/video]

That was really interesting thanks for that, 53 min well spent.

 

[santaman2000]

Dammit Rik! You keep putting up videos I'd love to see but don't have the hour to spare until later! Stop that!

 

[santaman2000]

Caveat was, without missile support but Genghis's troops were all armed with the bow.

It's fair enough to say that the exact weapons and tactics changed over the years (or in this case were vastly different in another part of the world) but they were still cavalry no matter what their weapons were. And from most accounts yes, they were excellent archers BUT! their success was even more dependent on their horsemanship.

 

[dwardo]

Did you hear about the problems that European knights had against the 'Infidels' during the first crusade ?
Knights rode huge great stallions....the forerunners of the Pecherons, and such like, basically the big heavy horses.
The Arab archers rode fast, nimble mares.

The knights lost because of biology
Their horses took off an chased the mares.

I have seen a modern day reenactor who is equiped as a Medieval Persian archer, on a fast, nimble mare. He had three arrows in the air and another notched .....every arrow hit it's target and he was in full control of his horse. Well trained and he used his legs and his voice to tell her what he wanted her to do.
It was a literally astonishing display of skill, and he said that it was once common.

cheers,
Toddy

Astonishing what some archers can do. Give this video a watch when you have a minute, production is a bit off-putting but its definitely worth watching.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zGnxeSbb3g