Cavalry vs Cavalry bug?

[IronWarrior]

I'm sure I've heard/read this debate about horses before somewhere. The counter argument I think was that those horses were specially bred and trained for this purpose. Not that they would charge right into a line of bayonets, but using their mobility they could have much success against line infantry. Square formation took away the advantage of mobility, and was close to impregnable. The one thing that they could not overcome was some sort of instinctual fear of camels though (obviously in different theatres of operation), from what I understood.

One thing I currently read that I found interesting was that British line employed a 4-rank line at Waterloo at times when they were unable to form square in time.

[TheGrayMouser]

I think it is interesting when people are discussing 18th century or Napoleonic cavalry, there are always the refernences to cavalry never being able to charge into formed infantry for reasons such as: horses wont charge into things they cant see over, or that only a dead or dying horse "falling" onto a infantry square is the only time one can be broken, etc. To be honest , I really dont see a 2000 lb horse thinking that it couldnt push its way thru a 3 deep line of puny humans. There are several medieval/Ren. battles where armoured horsemen were able to literally plow THRU pike formations and emerge on the other side.. (whether they did much damage to the pikes is irrelevent). The 17th century Polish Hussaria was known to be able to beat Swedish pike/shot formations by the charge w a very high chance of success (and low casualties). The companion cavalry of Alexender the Great (riding horses much smaller than a Napoleonic mounts) appear to have destroyed the Theban Sacred band(heavy phlanx style infantry) at Charonea to the man...
Anyways, there are examples of cavalry defeating formed infantry that held firm even at the point of contact...


Imagine a typical Napoleonic battalion square, in good order and morale but has NO powder. Now imagine a line of 16th century Gendarmes charging down on that square. Now, for all intents and purposes the infantry square is nothing more than a 4 deep line of light infantry (no shields or body armour and wielding short and clumsy spears.) I really have no difficulty in imagining the Gendarmes basially plowing thru and over that square, even if every man in it stayed in rank until the moment of contact. I fail to see why a Cuirrassier squadron of Napoleon couldnt potentially do the same thing except for the following reasonings which have nothing to do w the horses themselves :

Perhaps the psychology of the *rider* is what mainly hindered cavalry's performance vs formed infantry by the 18/19th centuries. Thru most of history, the heavy cavalryman was from a warrior cast trained and fully expecting to engage in up close and personal hand to hand combat as a matter of course. For the most part cavalrymen of the 18th/19th cen. were troopers conscripted/drafted from the wealthier peasants or the country gentry classes. They might have had some horsemanship skills but likely little experience in hand to hand combat. I think the "civilising effect " of fighting from a far via musketry was also, ironically a more instinctual way of fighting, and when given the oppurtunity men would often choose to not to close the distance. After all, after several hundred years of "shock cavalry" providing a very important if not decisve role in combat, within 50 years of the wheelock pistol being invented, lances disappeared from almost all European armies and pistolleer tactics dominated untlil the beginning of the 18th century. When cavalry rediscoverd shock tactics by midcentury , I dont feel it was with the same "gusto" or 'killer instinct" as carried out in earlier times.
Firepower by this time would have made the cavarly trooper even less interested in pressing the charge home if it looked like the infantry was going to remain cool and hold fire until point blank range.

Cavalry in earlier times would have been armed and armoured much better than most in this era and this likley gave then a huge morale advantage in pressing the charge home... And they didnt have to worry about 6 muskets on the same frontage of a single horseman capable of 2-5 rounds a minute to contend w either.

[jackx]

Several good points again - infantry fire surely was important, and enabled British infantry in line to repel French cavalry over a hundred years prior to Waterloo already. Wounded and dying horses seem to have contributed to that at least as much as any fear of death on part of the cavalry.

Again, I blame Waterloo for overdramatized depictions of squares that make them seem so important, when in fact, over a hundred years earlier, infantry already turned back cavalry in line, and nobody made much of a fuss about it, because it was the expected outcome. Ok, maybe the French did, as it lost them the battle of Blenheim, but they're usually quick to point out that they didn't really mean to charge the infantry, but being in pursuit of the Allied horse, ended up too close to it to avoid its fire, became severely disordered and where then routed by the reformed allied cav.

Similarly, when Swedish cavalry at Poltava were ordered to charge the Russian foot after the collapse of their own infantry, from the accounts that survive, they were very aware that this was a desperate measure, and mostly a sacrifice to give the infantry time to escape. I wouldn't accuse these horsemen of a "lack of gusto" in the charge with cold steel (though arguably, that was (re-)introduced as an anticavalry measure, and worked well in that regard), but whether the Russians formed square or remained in line, they turned the charges away with ease.

I don't know how to reconcile earlier accounts of heavy horse quite literally "plowing" through defensive infantry formations (though as you mentioned, with unclear destructiveness) with 18th century accounts of horse (physically) refusing to charge into infantry formations most of the time, and of course we have a third type of heavy horse, the cataphracts of (late) antiquity, which supposedly "ground down" there opponent in prolonged melee...

For the 18th century, it seems to be the threat of cavalry that made it valuable in a combined arms setting on the battlefield (much of the value of cavalry is due to its off-battlefield functions, but that's not part of the game, or this discussion), not so much the actual attack. Infantry had a good chance of withstanding attacking cavalry (without there being widespread agreement on the nature, and causes of this), and inflicting considerable casualties in the process, but it could do very little against cavalry hovering close, but out of effective weapons range.
This also reinforced the role of cavalry as the most effective counter to enemy cavalry, leading to almost separate infantry and cavalry engagements, a trend further reinforced by the lack of institutionalized combined arms.

When cavalry attacks on infantry formations happened, they usually happened in a support role - either reinforcing success, or trying to cover a weakness - Driesen at Leuthen is a good example of the latter, and with a decisive part in the outcome of the battle. (So is Seydlitz at Zorndorf arguably, but that's a less clear-cut case with many more what-ifs.)

What exactly that should mean in gameplay terms I don't know yet, it's probably best to wait and see how it plays out once cav-vs-cav works as intended, but I think that readjustments to the disruption modifiers are necessary, and an increased chance for morale loss also seems a reasonable option.

All this debate about cavalry-vs-infantry also has to be seen in front of the background of the continuing shift of tactical advantage from the attacker to the defender, and the ever-increasing dominance of field artillery. This shaped the course of battles, and thus the opportunities for successful employment of cavalry, considerably. The support and "mobile reserve" roles of the cavalry were strengthened, its value as a direct, offensive weapon decreased.

(All these are generalised interpretations of trends, of course, so it shouldn't be hard to find at least one example of the exact opposite for all of the above... )

Edit: Expanded the post as I had to rush off earlier, hopefully my attempt at a summary can also serve as a basis for compromise.

[Venator]

Even in ancient times there are startlingly few examples of cavalry successfully charging infantry from the front (of course generally speaking the infantry formed at least four ranks deep, most often 8 ranks or deeper). Even a trained warhorse will not charge into steady infantry who are armed with spear - or later bayonet - as a cursory examination of the first day of Bannockburn, for example reveals: the English knights, the very flower of chivalry, reduced to throwing swords and axes at the Scots schiltroms. With very, very few exceptions - and most of those caused by accidents - cavalry beat infantry because the infantry break and flee before contact, often because taken flank or rear.

[IronWarrior]

ORIGINAL: Venator
With very, very few exceptions - and most of those caused by accidents - cavalry beat infantry because the infantry break and flee before contact, often because taken flank or rear.

Yeah that's really the key... there's a world of difference and in the amount of success had between cavalry assaulting infantry with protected flanks vrs cavalry charging infantry on a flank.

I think in game terms, and again just from my limited play- correct me if I'm wrong here, I think the shorter distance cavalry begins a charge the less likely it should be for infantry to successfully form square. I haven't seen a failed attempt so far. I do still think that square formation should be more susceptible to musket fire.

[jackx]

The insta-squares are because unless you shoot it up and charge before it can recover, the AI always tries to maintain 0 disruption, and disruption recovery works at a much faster rate than in previous titles in the series. Personally, I'd cut disruption recovery rate in half (it's been effectively quadrupled, as movement points where doubled, and reduction per MP spent was doubled), and maybe just lower the overall chance of being able to form square for all units by 10, too.
In Prussia's Glory, disruption build-up was at times too crippling, and making it less so was a good move, but I think it has been overdone, and as a result, infantry, even after a heavy engagement, or a disorderly advance, isn't really in any danger from cavalry.

[sullafelix]

The plowing through could be explained by the type of horse and how it can be used. A heavily armed knight was on a percheron or clydesdale or similar animal. This was not a gallop charge and the lance could have been longer than the weapon the infantry was using. During the 1813 campaign in a battle in the rain a group of lancers destroyed a square by just using their lance length to spear enough men to collapse the square.
 
Instead of thinking how much a horse might think it is bigger and stronger than a human, think the other way. Out of the many horse trainers I've talked to many believe that the horse is afraid of us not the other way around. You also hit the nail on the head as far as human fear. All a square, line or hexagon or whatever of men need is one or two weak links and they are doomed. That fact must have been drummed long and hard into the infantryman's head at the time. If one tries to run everyone in his outfit is dead.
 
In the descriptions of Waterloo all you read about is the French cavalry milling about and many using their pistols. Frederickian and Napoleonic battle was really a case of rock, paper and scissors. Had infantry and artillery followed the cavalry they would have decimated the British squares. Their were some charges that worked but mostly because of the time and place. Take Eylau for example, 10,000 cavalry ride toward your unit in a snowstorm.
 
Let's also take a look at bayonet charges and hand to hand combat according to the surgeon Larrey it didn't happen. He states ( I can't remember where ) that he only saw two bayonet wounds in his career.  I remember reading that he also said that the French bayonets were so bad in Egypt that the infantry were bending them with their feet to hook the dead Mamelukes out of the Nile looking for gold and jewels. I think many things we were taught and read about have to be rethought with the personal descriptions of the combatants that are not, shall we say embellished.

[TheGrayMouser]

Hey Sulla05
In regards to knights not galloping into combat: Do you have any sources on that? Is it because of the weight of man/equipment that physically prevented it or a tactic in order to keep the men in formation/alighnment? I did some google searches on horse strength/capacity and only found some very odd and disturbing things not relative to cavalry at all...

In regards to the very low # of bayonet causalties in this time period: Yeah, it seems men werent willing to face steel, especially while not armoured in any way.. However, clearly the nearly naked ancient Gauls and Germans had no problems assaulting roman legionairies yielding the Glaudius. I guess it really is an attitude change in western Europe about what "reasonable risk" entails.

[TheGrayMouser]

from IronWarrior
"I think in game terms, and again just from my limited play- correct me if I'm wrong here, I think the shorter distance cavalry begins a charge the less likely it should be for infantry to successfully form square. I haven't seen a failed attempt so far. I do still think that square formation should be more susceptible to musket fire. "

I agree about the shorter distance charge decreasing the chance of forming sqaure, that would be an nice feature. In regards to the square vs musketfire : I thinks its set to 300% additional casualties which theoretically seems ok...

Also, is it disruption that modifies the unit's chance in forming square or is it the morale?? The only modifiers i can find in the editor are for the moral of the unit... It seems like disruption would be better though..

[jackx]

Disruption, morale and unit quality all matter. Unit quality determines the base chance of success, which is then modified by disruption and penalties for low morale.
The maximum penalty for low morale is +30, for disruption it's +50.
(all from the manual, on page 39, and I know that that's also how it worked in PG. The +30 Hussar/Cossack modifier seems to do nothing though, and is probably a leftover from earlier games)


Regarding the bayonet - yes, close combat in the open did not happen, and bayonets probably weren't the preferred close combat weapon when it did happen, many accounts mention swords and musket butts and improvised weapons getting at least as much use. That said, the surgeon would see few people with bayonet wounds, as most of them would be dead or dying, and beyond his help.

I like to think that much of the morale impact of a bayonet charge comes from the fact that mutually-assured death/serious injury is the outcome if neither side gives way. Thus, by being the first to move forward and to (seemingly) accept that, you do provide a very strong incentive for the other to give way. Someone summed it up as "Every nation in Europe claims none can withstand a bayonet attack by its soldiers. They're all right." for the Napoleonic period. This is getting off-topic though...

[sullafelix]

I just used the bayonets as an example of what we were first taught or read about combat in the age.
 
Almost everything that is written in books about cavalry charges is obviously written by people who don't know horses. The larger horses are totally unsuited physically to break into a gallop except for a very short length of time. Even what we read about with normal size horses and charges are incorrect. A steady walking pace with a trot probably 600' away and a gallop at no more than than 300' away would probably be right. The charges that we see in movies etc. are absolutely farcial. You would have a " blown  " horse long before you even met the enemy. Remember you may need your cavalry for more than one charge and also pusuit of the beaten enemy. A thoroughbred who is meant for racing rarely goes over a mile and 1/8 and that is with the lightest load he can possible carry. A larger horse with a large semi-armored cuirasseur on it's back is in a totally different world than the thoroughbred.
 
I have no sources other than having ridden a lot and owned a horse and had an exwife who was brought up on a large horse farm. I know that I have read the " real " info about cavalry charges and I want to say it was in Chandler's " Campaigns of Napoleon " but I could be wrong on that. I'm sure there were other books also.

[jackx]

Ok, I misunderstood your intention behind the bayonet part, then - truth be told, I wasn't too sure where you wanted to go with it, and so I just answered in the general direction of that topic.

Good to know that your actual riding/horse experience checks out with the current take in period  history on cavalry charges. A conservative estimate of the horses' abilities also seem justified by the general supply situation... Max charge distance in the game is 600-900 yards with a 150 yard hex scale, and less accordingly with smaller hex scale. Charging from that far away is more or less pointless though, unless you really need the extra movement to say, flank-charge some unguarded artillery - even if you don't get to 100 disruption in the process, which of course ends the charge immediately, the disruption increase usually more than cancels out the distance bonus.

The earlier "cavalry has to charge x distance" quote probably refers to parade/maneuver, and as an indication that the unit is generally battle-worthy, i.e. able to maintain cohesion on the move.