because the thinkers of the time hadn't developed tactics for it (creeping barrage, shock troops, bypassing strongpoints etc). it's worth noting that a large proportion of early WW1 assaults were successful but were crucially not followed up troops tended to capture a trench line and then wait until they were counter-attacked rather than pushing on and letting the troops following behind consolidate and mop-up any pockets of resistance. Took the Allies 4 years to learn how to do it properly
Dark Age to Medieval
- Thread starter boatman
- Start date
because the thinkers of the time hadn't developed tactics for it (creeping barrage, shock troops, bypassing strongpoints etc). it's worth noting that a large proportion of early WW1 assaults were successful but were crucially not followed up troops tended to capture a trench line and then wait until they were counter-attacked rather than pushing on and letting the troops following behind consolidate and mop-up any pockets of resistance. Took the Allies 4 years to learn how to do it properly
Mathematically an assault on a trench could never lead to a breakout into open country, that the reserved cavalry were always waiting for. The time taken to assault the first trench line then the subsequent ones enabled reinforcements and field fortifications to be improvised. No blame on troops taking the first trench line for turning it round, isolating it and preparing for the counter-attack, the Germans especially always counter-attacked (in WWII as well). An additional problem was that once a trench line had been attacked it became tougher the next time, encrusted with extra wire and broken bits of previous wire etc etc.
It was one of the articles of faith of British Historians that the Saxons did not ride horses into battle. They even went so far as to state the absurdity that in pursuit Saxons would catch up with a fleeing foe, dismount, hit them with their swords, then remount to chase the next victim.
Just as a counter point, when I played 40K I had a cavalry unit called Rough riders I used them as rapid assault to weaken / harass enemy HQ units or high value targets* but I considered them disposable if they killed the HQ unit great use them to harass from the rear till non where left during the assault I suspect this was partly the philosophy of WW1 Generals who used them in a battle.
Edit to add: But they where useless when armour or artillery where on the field.
* = Just a side note they where also useful if you found a wall of Dakka (enemy who could throw large amounts of fire power down range). 20 Cavalry charging down the field of battle towards the HQ gets attention and allows you to move your units slightly more freely (Moving a wall of IG heavy weapons teams mid table for the 40K fans, covered by a Russ).
Edit to add: But they where useless when armour or artillery where on the field.
* = Just a side note they where also useful if you found a wall of Dakka (enemy who could throw large amounts of fire power down range). 20 Cavalry charging down the field of battle towards the HQ gets attention and allows you to move your units slightly more freely (Moving a wall of IG heavy weapons teams mid table for the 40K fans, covered by a Russ).
Last edited:
A fascinating thread.
I don't have much to contribute just this video of China's first atom bomb detonation in 1964, Test 596.
[video=youtube;LeRK6dWHllM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeRK6dWHllM[/video]
They conducted a battle excercise in conjunction with the detonation.
Notice the cavalry participation and particularly the 2 blokes at 3:20min waving their sabres about, ironic in the latter half of the 20th century.
Happy trails...torc.
I don't have much to contribute just this video of China's first atom bomb detonation in 1964, Test 596.
[video=youtube;LeRK6dWHllM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeRK6dWHllM[/video]
They conducted a battle excercise in conjunction with the detonation.
Notice the cavalry participation and particularly the 2 blokes at 3:20min waving their sabres about, ironic in the latter half of the 20th century.
Happy trails...torc.
Ah - the Dark Ages... Worked with a guy once who got a 1st at Oxford in History, where his speciality was the Dark Ages. Apparently it was called the Dark Ages, not because it was a particularly unpleasant time to live - apparently it was actually a rather good time (in the UK anyway) - but because there is so little hard evidence available about the period.
THe reason he took the Dark ages as his speciality was, he said, because there were only about 5 important and relevant reference books written about the period, so not exactly difficult to research!
THe reason he took the Dark ages as his speciality was, he said, because there were only about 5 important and relevant reference books written about the period, so not exactly difficult to research!
He would find it far harder now to get a handle on the Dark Ages with: the controversy about what sort of Adventus of the Saxons there really was, whether there was any ethnic cleansing of Britons, even whether some form of English was spoken before the Angle and Saxons arrived.
Then there is the archaeological work indicating that some settlements carried on through most eras without any dramatic break but simply shifted location gradually. Not to mention the DNA research. In a way life was simpler when reading "The English Settlements" could set you up and perhaps you might only want to speculate whether Cerdic was a Brit really. A very good novel using this earlier thinking is Alfred Duggan's "Conscience of the King", it's Gildas, the back story.
Then there is the archaeological work indicating that some settlements carried on through most eras without any dramatic break but simply shifted location gradually. Not to mention the DNA research. In a way life was simpler when reading "The English Settlements" could set you up and perhaps you might only want to speculate whether Cerdic was a Brit really. A very good novel using this earlier thinking is Alfred Duggan's "Conscience of the King", it's Gildas, the back story.
We met some early Dark Age Britons once. At an excavation of a Late Roman etc site we had a Living History display. Some possibly 5th century skeletons were being reburied, following the new policy on human remains after research upon them has finished. Quite a solemn moment and the bones were laid out approximately correctly not just heaved into a pit. No sort of religious service which would not have been appropriate but we couldn't resist adding a few flowers we had with us.
Re castles holding out and mounted knights. A look at the Albigensian Crusade may be of interest.
Simon de Montford (NB the father of the Simon de Montfort after whom the University is named) managed to control a large area of Sout West France with a small number of mounted knights, as few as a dozen at times, partly because he had little opposition in the countryside, but mainly through appalling cruelty designed to engender fear. For example, when he captured Bram after a siege, he killed the whole population including women and children apart from six men, five of whom he blinded in both eyes and on whom he blinded only in one eye. These were sent on to the next fortified town to warn the population what would would happen to them if they failed to surrender at the first demand.
The problem for the inhabitants of the Langedoc was that they were not warlike, had no army, did not control the country side, and lived in towns at some distance from one another. So each town was really on its own with no-one likely to lift a siege. Whereas the Norman knights under de Montford had the advantages of mobility and heavy weaponry.
Southwest France still suffers from what de Montfort did just as we in England suffer from land tenure dating from the Conquest; such as not being ableto wild camp the way the Scots can, for example!
Simon de Montford (NB the father of the Simon de Montfort after whom the University is named) managed to control a large area of Sout West France with a small number of mounted knights, as few as a dozen at times, partly because he had little opposition in the countryside, but mainly through appalling cruelty designed to engender fear. For example, when he captured Bram after a siege, he killed the whole population including women and children apart from six men, five of whom he blinded in both eyes and on whom he blinded only in one eye. These were sent on to the next fortified town to warn the population what would would happen to them if they failed to surrender at the first demand.
The problem for the inhabitants of the Langedoc was that they were not warlike, had no army, did not control the country side, and lived in towns at some distance from one another. So each town was really on its own with no-one likely to lift a siege. Whereas the Norman knights under de Montford had the advantages of mobility and heavy weaponry.
Southwest France still suffers from what de Montfort did just as we in England suffer from land tenure dating from the Conquest; such as not being ableto wild camp the way the Scots can, for example!
that wasn't what I was getting at cavalry by WW1 was, at least on the Western Front, obsolete. my post was that successful initial assaults in the early years of the war were rarely reinforced due to the poor communications and tactics of the time. I read a lot of articles on the supposed ineffectiveness of the huge artillery bombardments of the time, when in actual fact until around 1916 assaults would usually face little resistance from the first lines of trenches. They would capture the trenches and fortify the position while waiting for orders due to a lack of initiative in the officers (trenches and dugouts, especially on the German side, became a lot deeper and better designed as the war went on).
The best place to meet a counter-attack is as far forward as possible so it doesn't build up momentum, a good example of this in action is the Band of Brothers episode 'Carentan', when after capturing the town the Americans pushed out into the countryside to meet the German counter-attack
for the Siege of Vienna imagine the Battle of the Pelennor from lord of the rings but in real life
As is very common, I think you may be confusing Simon de Montfort, the Norman thug who despoiled the Languedoc with his son of the same name who was born when his awful father was already a very old man. Simon Junior came to, successfully, seek his fortune in England.
Strewth! What a clanger, hypnotised by my own verbosity. But he did take part in the Crusades so the thug label sticks.
It was actually the Papal legate Arnold Amalric who coined that memorable phrase at the seige of Beziers when the commander of the knights asked him how he was to distinguish between the Cathar heretics and the faithful Catholics.
Mind you I could imagine Cromwell saying something very similar at the seige of Drogheda.
Mind you I could imagine Cromwell saying something very similar at the seige of Drogheda.