Question Home

Position:Home>History> Why is it that most of the historians agree that cavalry is the most advantageou


Question: Why is it that most of the historians agree that cavalry is the most advantageous tools in battles!?
They said that, Before the Industrial Revolution, cavalry was usually decisive!. The exeptions were the time when cavalry did not exist, which is a moot point!.

Can you tell me why most historians agree with this!?

Www@QuestionHome@Com


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
I read the book A distant Mirror by Barbara Tuchman!. In it the descriptions of all battles carried out in the 100 year war between the French and The British, the decisive weapon was the knights in the cavalry, and the reason was that when they charge on the enemy they were in very advantageous position to inflict damage on the infantry since the height of the horse over the man on foot was a win win situation!. The knight could inflict a blow on the head of the footman while this one could not reach the knight!.
Besides, footmen would tire faster, while the horseman would not!.
Other capabilities were the speed the cavalry had to support different areas of the combat zone!.
In short, it was the best weapon they had until the cannon made an appearance!.
If the Sioux indian nation had had the cannon, the US cavalry would have had a different outcome in the conquest of the west!.
Www@QuestionHome@Com

Cavalry was much more mobile!. It could reinforce a faltering defencive position, or could exploit a successful attack!. It could flank an enemy and attack from the rear!. Mobility is the key in tactics, it allows you to dictate the fight!.

However, Cavalry was not omnipotent!. Properly used infantry could defend against cavalry attacks!. Infantry has always been, and will always be, the most necessary component to any army, but it's often the cavalry, or armor in modern warfare, that is decisive!. Not because it's better or more important, but because it can provide that critical force at exactly the right place and time!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Well, it wasn't, really!. The stirrup only arrived in Europe in the 7th century AD!. Before that, cavalry wasn't very useful at all, and was largely relegated to a minor recon, flanking and pursuit role!.

Even after stirrups arrived, and made heavy cavalry a real possibility, cavalry wasn't as important as commonly portrayed!. Though they were usually quite effective, heavy cavalry charges were a rare occurrence, due to the fact that pitched battles were uncommon, and pitched battles on terrain suitable for a major charge even more so!.

The already uncommon cavalry charge became very rare by the 14th century, as European tactics became more and more focused on infantry, and cavalry often operated like dragoons: riding to battle and dismounting to fight!.

The image of the knight in shining armor charging into battle, slaughtering hapless infantry and instantly turning the tide of battle is certainly an entertaining one, but it doesn't really match up with history!. Cavalry were, for most of history, just tactically speedy troops, who could utilize that speed to gain superior positioning, but were really not much more effective than infantry in actual combat, outside of the (fairly rare) charge!. It's also worth mentioning that said charge was largely incapable of actually breaking a disciplined formation of infantry!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

I don't agree with the premise of your question that MOST historians agree that cavalry is the most advantageous tool in battle!.

There is only 1 "KING" of the battlefield, and that is not infantry, nor cavalry!. The King of the battlefield is artillery!.

However, even artillery alone can not win the battle, it takes a combined arms approach to give the best chance for victory!.

cavalry was only decisive against untrained troops or troops who were already placed in a vulnerable position by the infantry and artillery(or the stupidity of their own generals)!. Cavalry were a branch of the military that was feared because if troops broke ranks and ran the cavalry could run them down and turn a defeat into a rout!. Cavalry however could be repulsed by artillery bombardment or by the infantry use of pikes, archery, or rifles!.

whaleWww@QuestionHome@Com

cavalry is not always a decisive weapon!. However it allows for fast moves on the battlefield- which in turn gives opportunity to create surprising situations, thus panicking the opponent!. And if your enemy panicks the battle is won!.

of course this only works if the enemy does panick!. If you look up the Hussites- who fought alost exclusively on foot and yet crushed multiple enemy cavalry armies!. In their case they used mobile field fortifications to protect themselves against the impact of armoured knights

the Scots used the shiltron formation- a circle of pikemen!. In itself it was a development of the Macedonian phalanx (which also was invulnerable to cavalry attack) and could not be broken even by heavy cavalry attacks (only archers could break them)

examples of infantry beating cavalry are numerous- in roman times and in byzantine times!. Crusader infantry had little to fear from muslim cavalry too!. Again to stress- this is possible only if the infantry is well trained and disciplined

cavalry is fast - but also vulnerable!. Mounted archers are a fearsome weapon but can easily be neutralised by foot archers- who have a much better accuracy and range!. The Huns and the Mongols are good examples of horse armies- but as history shows they could be (and have been) broken

The horses can also be a liability- they need good grass and plenty of water and both these resources can be made scarce (if the opposing general has a brain)!. Horses also cannot move over broken ground or forests - which the infantry can - with ease!.

Cavalry units are much more expensive to operate- meaning you can make quick raids into enemy territory but usually cannot take any fortified places (not enough men to storm a town)!.

Cavalry gives opportunities- a definetly nice to have thing in any army!. (read Xenophon's "cavalry General"- gives a good view)

so to sum up- the deciding factor is the intelligence of the commanderWww@QuestionHome@Com

Largely because of the power and speed that a cavalrymen could apply against a defending force!. A mounted cavalryman could move farther in a single day than an infantryman!. He could attack an enemy quicker and retire more swiftly then an infantryman could!. Even today a cavalryman is more mobile than an infantryman, although today the cavalry's "horse" is either a tank or helicopter!.

A mounted warrior is sitting above an infantrymen on the ground, which means that if he swings down on him with a sword, he will his physical momentum along with the force of gravity aiding the attack!. If the horse is at a gallop you will also ad in the horse's momentum to the equation!. Even steal helmets wouldn't stop such a force!. The same things could be applied to a rider using a lance!. The horse's momentum will increase the force used in the rider's attack, beating eve the most powerful body armor!.

The Huns in the 4th and 5th Centuries also added another dimension to cavalry warfare that made them more dangerous and that was a horse archer!. Archers were already used, but they were on foot and usually behind the front lines, which meant their fire was largely inaccurate!. The Huns, put their archers on horseback and would have them charge at enemy defenses!. Because of this, Hun cavalry could fire on individual soldiers and expect to hit them!. When used as "traditional" archers, the horse archers still had he advantage of being highly mobile and could easily avoid attack by a stronger force directly!.

This does not mean that cavalry were invincible!. British archers would slaughter French knights as they rode toward their positions in the Battle of Agincourt!. English warriors under Harold at Hastings made a strong shield wall on top of a hill that succesfuly held of Norman cavalry, and only a strategic blunder made on Harold's part to pursue a seemingly defeated Norman force enabled William I to win the day!. The Ancient Romans and Macadonians formed similar defensive formations to protect their infantry against cavalry by bunching their troops together and thrusting their spears forward, which largely kept cavalry at a distance until something disrupted the order of the defensive infantry unit!. But these were all tactical answers to how to deal with cavalry!.

Those who claim that infantry are more powerful probably look largely to the fact that cavalry units need infantry units to be fully effective!. But that has been a long lesson in the history of warfare!. Combined arms always beats a force that relies on too much of one thing!. In May 1940, the French and British relied exclussively on infantry units, just as they had in WWI, but the Germans had brought about a new tactical style of warfare in which their Panzer Units with mechanized infantry supporting them, and aircraft providing cover and vertually overwhelemed the French and British with their speed allowing them to defeat an army that was numerically superior!.

During one of the Arab-Isreali Wars, Israel thinking their tanks were invincible sent in an armored unit that had no infantry support against Egyptians armed with Soviet made anti-tank rockets!. With no infantry to protect them, the tanks were annahilated and only Israeli air power prevented the Eygptians from making larger gains outide the immediate area around the Siani!. Later in the war, Isreal attacked the Eygptians again, this time providing their tanks with infantry support!. With infantry keeping the Eygptian rocket teams from attacking, the tanks were able to accomplish their mission!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Infantry were (and are) the only body that could (and can) hold ground!.
Both arms are needed!. For example, none of Alexander's battles were won by his infantry, but they were used to 'fix' the enemy while the cavalry manoeuvred round them!. The late Roman army's reliance on cavalry, for example, was not to their advantage!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Because it was the best they had at that time!. You are farther away from your enemies during hand to hand combat!. It is harder to hit a moving target accurately!. You can move the company or platoon or whatever faster than walking!. They could also pack more supplies than a man alone could carry!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

in set battles they dominated (before guns)

http://en!.wikipedia!.org/wiki/Heavy_caval!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Sure!.
Why not!?
Look in the real world!.
Decode this lyrics "Boys"
With Limited Edition from the twilight zone!.
That could not even survive in the real world!.
But crumble into dust in different time zone in time!.
Luke 6!.39-40,41-45,46-49
What do you think!?Www@QuestionHome@Com