which on ground fighting force could survive a cavalry charge of 1000 Winged hussars | Page 6 | History Forum

which on ground fighting force could survive a cavalry charge of 1000 Winged hussars

Joined Oct 2013
23,071 Posts | 5,327+
Europix
it's something theoretical
Well, it is in the "speculative" section, isn't it?

The discussion went into a more realistic direction that the initial Winged Hussars vs. Navy seals, vs. Jedi knights, vs. Stallone feat. Schwarzenegger ... but remained theoretical with opinions and speculations. Some of them I simply didn't found realistic, like the horses refusing to charge into a steady, ranged infantry formation. If that would be true, a very good deal of cavalry charges simply wouldn't had token place. And yet, there are plenty of them!

Back to reality:

There are no accounts of hussars repeatedly charging a disciplined infantry formation and breaking it without help of artillery or infantry.

Hussaria was just one unit amongst other units, and their intended role wasn't to maul infantry, break it and destroying it in the end. It's role (and how generally was used) was to quickly and decisively intervene, against any kind of (weaker/weakend) unit (from canon batteries to Tartar light cavalry, You name it) or as last desperate resort to change the tide. And btw, it was not only an elite unit but also just a small part of the Polish cavalry: pietyhorcy, Cossack (it's the name for Cossack cavalry proper as for light Polish cavalry too), Pancerni, Tartars. For example, at the end of the 17th c. , Pancerny were forming approx. 3/4 (if not more) of the Polish Cavalry.

As for breaking the adversary, the battle of Klushino is extremely interesting as the "normal" roles were reversed: it was Hussaria that chewed the enemy and the "coup de grâce" was given by the arrival of the 2 guns and the couple of hundreds strong infantry.

Actually, Klushino is one of the battles that contributed greatly to the "Winged Hussars" hype. Because it was so atypical, (I mean, charging again and again infantry in fortified positions with cavalry...), the difference in number between the two sides (that were overemphasized then exaggerated by the Polish side and fans), the discrepancy in casualties numbers between the two sides.

speical magical lances
Spcial stopping
:(

Pugs, we can disagree, You can prove me wrong, but I don't think that kind of "irony" is needed.

The "kopia" lance wasn't a "magical lance" but a type of lance amongst so many other types through history. It's main specificities were that it was hollowed (2/3d to 3/4th of the length which made it sensibly lighter for its length and better balanced) and extremely long. Btw, hollowed lance wasn't even specific to Poles: Ottomans had it, Hungarian had it, 19th c. Uhlan type cavalry had it.

The weight gained plus the gravity center closer to the rider made it possible to have a +/- 6 meters long lance that the cavalry could use. Quite handy in an era of pike&shot.

So no magic involved: when times and warfare changed, the Kopia as the Polish Hussaria disappeared as inadequate. Obsolete. Or useless, if You prefer.

And I wasn't talking about any "special stopping". I said that a horse in slow (light?) gallop can stop in a matter of meters. And if Your really had ride since 5 and played polo, You know very well it's true.
 
Last edited:
Joined Dec 2013
141 Posts | 132+
Finland
First thing: Hussaria was just one unit amongst other units, and their intended role wasn't to maul infantry, break it and destroying it in the end. It's role (and how generally was used) was to quickly and decisively intervene, against any kind of weaker/weakend unit (from canon batteries to Tartar light cavalry, You name it) or as last desperate resort the change the tide.
It's something I've already said: one doesn't just break through a steady, disciplined infantry (especially pikes), but one can destabilize and render it unsteady and uncohesive thus making it breakable.

And it's what all this stuff about Polish Hussars was. They battered the formation until it lost it's cohésion. One charge, two, three, how many was needed to break through or until themselves "run out of steam" or were defeated.

Ok.
 
Joined Mar 2020
1,889 Posts | 1,693+
UK
I said that a horse in slow (light?) gallop can stop in a matter of meters.
A horse at a full gallop can stop dead within a couple of meters or so if it chooses. Such a sudden stop would invariably throw any rider. Nevertheless a horse can do it.

I've seen one do just that (including throwing its rider) at a C17th battle re-enactment. It bolted after a particularly large cannon was fired, charged off at full pelt across the field until it ran into a pike block that had formed a defensive hedgehog. Then it literally stopped dead about 2 or 3 meters shy of the pikes and threw its rider, right into the middle of the pike block. Fortunately the rider was not hurt since he was propelled over the top of the pikes. Which goes to show that even a horse charging at full kilter will stop dead if it sees a block of infantry with pointy things in front of it. Not only will it stop dead but it will stop before it gets too near the pointy things.
 
Joined Sep 2011
8,474 Posts | 2,515+
Following the bad experience of being caught out in the open, in open marsch formation, by those fellers at Kirkholm in 1611, Swedish infantry spent the rest of the 17th c. shooting them to pieces, in close formation or sometime dug in (dismissively referred to as "kreta robota", mole work, by the aristo Polish cav, but it worked so who cares really) for the rest of the 17th c.
 
Joined Apr 2021
3,662 Posts | 2,723+
Italy
I've seen one do just that (including throwing its rider) at a C17th battle re-enactment. It bolted after a particularly large cannon was fired, charged off at full pelt across the field until it ran into a pike block that had formed a defensive hedgehog. Then it literally stopped dead about 2 or 3 meters shy of the pikes and threw its rider, right into the middle of the pike block. Fortunately the rider was not hurt since he was propelled over the top of the pikes. Which goes to show that even a horse charging at full kilter will stop dead if it sees a block of infantry with pointy things in front of it. Not only will it stop dead but it will stop before it gets too near the pointy things.

The only nitpicking I have to this is that I don't know whether it's really the pointy things that do it. I suspect that for the horse, a compact block of non-moving men is akin to a wall, and that's the real reason why they don't run into it, just like they won't run into the side of the stable. I don't know this for a fact, but...
 
Joined Aug 2014
9,704 Posts | 4,113+
Australia
Which goes to show that even a horse charging at full kilter will stop dead if it sees a block of infantry with pointy things in front of it. Not only will it stop dead but it will stop before it gets too near the pointy things.
Some will. Some won't. It depends on the horse. History tells us that enough horses will throw themselves at a wall of pikes to make the charge viable.
 
Joined Feb 2024
34 Posts | 16+
Poland
What made Polish Winged Hussars an elite cavalry formation? The answer is - mainly their excellent training and their high quality horses (a war horse and a hussar riding it, was an integral combat "unit" on the battlefield - with the exception of battles in which hussars fought dismounted).

Candidates for future hussars started to train very early. We have primary sources which confirm that boys as young as between 9 and 11 years old were already training the art of mounted combat with lance, as well as horsemanship in general. We know that Tomasz Zamoyski in his childhood and early adolescence trained "chasing the ring" and horsemanship at least once a week - every Thursday.

"Chasing the ring" was a kind of military exercise for heavy cavalry, the aim of which was to hit a small ring hanging on a string from a wooden pole, while charging at full speed.

Of course individual training did not stop in childhood. Men who were already serving in husaria, continued to train. Military exercises and various kinds of tournaments and competitions were the main way of spending time by hussars - "instead of wasting time for drinking" (as Żurkowski wrote about Tomasz Zamoyski and his soldiers in 1612 - when Zamoyski was already a commanding officer - Rotamaster / Captain - of a husaria unit).

Tomasz Zamoyski (1594-1638):Tomasz Zamoyski - Wikipedia

During the campaign against Russia in 1612, Tomasz Zamoyski and his soldiers had training every single afternoon (after dinner), unless there was a battle or a march taking place. After they returned back home from the Russian campaign, Zamoyski:

"Lived in his house during Springs and Winters, spending time on reading books, entertainments, riding a horse every day, even when the weather was terrible, together with his soldiers - mastering chasing the ring and other wartime excersises during those rides."

When in 1618 Tomasz Zamoyski arrived at the concentration area of the Polish army together with his private units:

"He frequently trained chasing the ring with them."

In 1619 in Kiev, Zamoyski organized large-scale military exercises for all soldiers in the area, which included competitions with prizes for the winners (among the prizes to win were various weapons, horses and other military stuff). Those exercises included both individual and unit (group) training and competitions.

So there were prizes both for individual soldiers, and for entire units to win.

There were also tournaments similar to Medieval jousting. Some primary sources say, that Polish hussars sometimes liked to organize such tournaments with use of sharp weapons (rather than specially blunted).

Antonio Ansalone in 1629 in his work "Il cavaliere descritto in tre libri" admired the great skill of Polish soldiers in mounted exercises with various weapons. He described the technique of using lance in combat by Polish soldiers and he said that for them, tournaments were the substitute of warfare. He mentioned old-style jousting "across the fence" (campo aperto) originating from Poland (?) and resembling a b****y brawl with use of sharp lances. At that time everywhere else in Europe such fights were fought with use of blunted lances. According to Ansalone the Poles considered such horse races and fights not as entertainment but as a pretext for bloodshed and risking their lifes for no reason.

Ansalone apparently did not made this up entirely. For example in 1633 several dozen duads of cavalrymen volunteered to participate in jousting with use of sharp lances in order to honour the coronation of the new king (Władysław IV Vasa). However, the new king forbade them to organize this risky competition.

But a similar competition took place during the coronation of Stephen Batory in 1576, in which both Poles and Hungarians participated and fought with use of sharp lances.

In 1592 similar fights with use of sharp lances took place during the wedding of parents of Władysław II (Sigismund III Vasa and Anna of Habsbourg) - there were such competitions as chasing the ring, chasing "the hand" and duels with use of sharp lances. As the result of the latter (duels with sharp lances), 2 of the particpants were severely wounded in their stomachs.

A similar casualty was suffered during a jousting with sharp lances at the coronation of Henry III of France in 1574 - one of participants was hurt in his loins.

Lance was only one of many weapons in using which hussars were trained. Extensive and intensive training of husaria included also fencing with various weapons, using firearms (both pistols and long firearms), often even bows. And apart from horsemanship, training included also exercises aimed at increasing the overall physical fitness of young candidates for hussars (and later hussars).

Aside from individual training there was of course also - already mentioned - group training (unit training).

High level of quality individual training was required from candidates for hussars already during recruitment to this formation. Group training - however - was something that young hussars learned only after becoming recruits to this formation.

Bartosz Paprocki in his work from 1578 describes some of unit exercises practiced by hussars and their horses. Required skills of each hussar and each horse were for example:

- every hussar had to know his specific position in a battle formation of his unit
- they had to learn to quickly follow orders, swiftly move to ordered places and charge
- how to alter formation during charge, how to widen and tighten their ranks during charge
- how to quickly & sharply change directions of the entire unit's movement during charge
- how to ably reform from line formation to wedge formation and inversely while charging
- how to coordinate actions of units according to orders of the supreme commander

Paprocki also recommended to carry out such group exercises with as many units as possible on every single day during Winter camps and during peacetime in general.

Some other authors recommended such exercises to take place twice or once a month (which was probably more realistic than proposition of Paprocki to train this everyday).

Other skills practiced by hussars during the unit exercises were also, for example:

- mounted drill
- faked retreat
- gradual giving ground by reserve (perhaps to cover the withdrawal of main forces)
- changing the direction of attack while charging

It is obvious that group maneuvers and exercises of Polish cavalry described above, included the training of horses. However, exercises described so far were mostly about various forms of maneuvring while moving at full speed, or rapidly changing directions during movements.

But Stanisław Dunin Karwacki in his "De ordinanda Republica seu de corrigendis defectibus in statu Republicae Polonae" witten between 1704 and 1710 (times when quality of training of Polish-Lithuanian hussars was rapidly declining and already much lower than even in the 1670s - especially when it comes to group training), postulated the following:

"The cavalry should carry out field exercises, which were practiced by our ancestors, in order to make both their horses and themselves more fit for battle and more accustomed to various weapons. As far as I remember, when late king John III Sobieski was on Winter camps with his army at Bracław in Ukraine, he organized such exercises for his soldiers with lances, sabres and other weapons typical for cavalry. In my opinion this should be introduced again instead of carousals. Thanks to that, both soldiers and their horses were more fit for battle."

Also morale is often very important at war. And reputation of the enemy can influence (negatively or positively) morale of own forces. Winged Hussars owed its battlefield successes not only to excellent tactics, leadership, equipment and manpower quality - but also if not largely, thanks to their excellent morale, self-confidence on the battlefield and the dreadful reputation they had among their enemies.

Later - when Hussars were no longer able to achieve as amazing results on the battlefield, as during their "golden age" - it was also largely due to collapse of their own quality, their own leadership and their own morale. And only to a lesser extent due to technological advancements of enemy firearms.

As for the mentioned decline in quality, leadership and morale:

First of all - leadership:

When we look at the battle of Klushino in 1610 (one of the most famous victories of Winged Hussars), out of 28 squadrons of Hussaria which participated in that battle, 12 were commanded directly by cavalry captain (Polish: rotmistrz; German: rittmeister), 13 by lieutenants and commanders of 3 are unknown.

And most of the lacking cavalry captains (13 - 16) had very good reason why they couldn't command their squadrons. 2 were already dead before the battle, 7 were trusted to command regiments (and that's why their personal squadrons were temporarily under lieutenants) and 1 (hetman Stanislaw Zolkiewski) was the commander-in-chief of the entire army (and that's why his squadron was also led by a lieutenant).

So in total at least 22 - 25 out of 28 cavalry captains "cared about" their squadrons.

On the other hand, at the battle of Klissow in 1702, out of 10 squadrons of Hussaria which participated in that batttle, not a single one was commanded by a cavalry captain. And only absence of one of those 10 - hetman Hieronim Lubomirski (Commander-in-Chief of the entire army at Klissow) is justified.

The remaining 9 simply didn't want to fight and made use of deputies - lieutenants.

Those lieutenants often also made use of deputies - as the result such units were not under command of officers, but lower ranks.

There was a similar situation with towarzysze - companions (each Hussaria squadron consisted of companions - equivalent of modern NCOs - and pocztowi - equivalent of modern enlisted men). In 17th century there was not such thing like "towarzysz sowity" (towarz sowity = companion who was not personally serving in a unit, but was sending additional pocztowy as his deputy - so such a man was a Winged Hussar only "on paper", honorably).

In the 18th century such companions were common. As the result number of NCOs (more valuable than pocztowi) in units significantly decreased.

As the result Hussaria slowly became a formation of "deputies" or "deputies of deputies", with few professional officers and NCOs.

And a simple soldier - pocztowy - when he saw that both his companion and his captain didn't want to fight personally - also lost his will to fight.

Secondly - training:

During the reign of king Jan III Sobieski training of Hussaria was still good. Group exercises were still taking place on a daily basis.

But situation quickly and drastically worsened after Sobieski's death.

Stanislaw Dunin-Karwicki (already quoted before) wrote at the beginning of 18th century:

"Now, when our soldiers set war aside and take care more of peaceful matters, when they prefer to act as deputies from Sejmiki in the Parliament or to play the roles of marshals or directors in them, rather than to command in battle or be with their squadrons and take care of war, we already have more dummies than soldiers, more speakers than warriors. Thus we prefer to fight against the enemy with rations than with weapons."

During the reign of king August III of Saxony Jedrzej Kitowicz wrote about level of training of Polish cavalry at that time:

"Mounted drill was already forgotten (...) marching in pairs and stopping in a row according to registery, not according to height, it was the whole mounted drill."

Dunin Karwicki also criticized the level of discipline of Polish cavalry in the 18th century:

"Moreover, discipline and obedience, on which the entire strength of any army is based, are better in infantry. Because in cavalry of our army, soldiers called companions, conceited due to specific reputation, and even more due to their possessions, concerning themselves as equal to their officers, or even to hetmans, coldly endure orders of their superiors; on the other hand infantry in regiments much more accurately applies orders of their superiors."

==================================================

In the 17th century Winged Hussars used to win battles even against multiple-times stronger enemies.

The victory against 14-times stronger odds was at Liubar-Chudniv in 1660 when 2 squadrons of Hussaria in strength of 250 horses - without any support from any other formation of the army - defeated the advance-guard of the Russian army in strength of 3500 soldiers (1000 cavalry and 2500 infantry):

"(...) A squadron of Hussars under Wladyslaw Wilczkowski (ca. 125 horses), charges against a regiment of Russian Cuirassiers (ca. 1000 horses). Wilczkowski begins the attack on his own initiative. Hussars sustain the fire of multiple carbine salvos and strike into the enemy. After breaking lances, Hussars take their broadswords... The fight is fierce. Armors and huge numerical superiority protect the Cuirassiers for some time. Seeing the lone fight of Wilczkowski's Hussars, another squadron under command of Stanislaw Wyzycki (further 125 horses) launches an attack. Russians do not sustain the second impact. Cuirassiers flee from the battlefield. They spread confusion in ranks of the infantry regiment standing behind them (ca. 2500 Cossacks). Both squadrons of Hussaria, "on the necks" of the escaping Cuirassiers, charge into infantry and literally smash it to the ground."

That event took place on 26.09.1660 between Liubar and Chudniv.
 
Joined Jun 2012
6,239 Posts | 414+
Texas
OMG, not another thread pitting guys without guns vs guys with guns, please.

If one side did not hv guns, pls do not hv them fighting against another that hv guns. It's just completely totally absolutely unfair to my mind.

And it ain't fun even just thinking about it either.

So, at least just for me personally, hussars against 1, 2, 3 or 6 would be fine. But definitely not hussars versus 4 or 5.
Hussars had pistols actually...

#5: Put Hussars up against union infantry that knows they are coming (US was much more wildernessy than Europe) and it equals dead Hussars. Cavalry primarily fought against infantry in a dismounted formation because they would get absolutely murdered otherwise.

#2 and the pikemen would be good if they maintained discipline. Schiltrons were made with cavalry in mind, and legions could deal with cavalry...especially the later Eastern formations. Plumbatta and
pilum are good counters to early pistol fire. Schiltrons might break from it though.
Seals...again its just murder.

I would think the Spartans would have the most problem, as they do not often deal with cavalry and the Hussars could shoot at short range at them.
 
Joined Apr 2021
3,662 Posts | 2,723+
Italy
In the 17th century Winged Hussars used to win battles even against multiple-times stronger enemies.

The victory against 14-times stronger odds was at Liubar-Chudniv in 1660 when 2 squadrons of Hussaria in strength of 250 horses - without any support from any other formation of the army - defeated the advance-guard of the Russian army in strength of 3500 soldiers (1000 cavalry and 2500 infantry):

"(...) A squadron of Hussars under Wladyslaw Wilczkowski (ca. 125 horses), charges against a regiment of Russian Cuirassiers (ca. 1000 horses). Wilczkowski begins the attack on his own initiative. Hussars sustain the fire of multiple carbine salvos and strike into the enemy. After breaking lances, Hussars take their broadswords... The fight is fierce. Armors and huge numerical superiority protect the Cuirassiers for some time. Seeing the lone fight of Wilczkowski's Hussars, another squadron under command of Stanislaw Wyzycki (further 125 horses) launches an attack. Russians do not sustain the second impact. Cuirassiers flee from the battlefield. They spread confusion in ranks of the infantry regiment standing behind them (ca. 2500 Cossacks). Both squadrons of Hussaria, "on the necks" of the escaping Cuirassiers, charge into infantry and literally smash it to the ground."

That event took place on 26.09.1660 between Liubar and Chudniv.

Interesting and detailed post, even though overly long.
My nitpick is to this last part quoted. It's a classic non sequitur. One example of a successful charge against overwhelming numerical odds does not translate, in itself, into your conclusion - i.e. that the hussars used to win on this sort of odds. You might post further examples; otherwise, with one example, the logical conclusion is that it was a one-off event, an exception, rather than the usual result.
 
Joined Aug 2020
1,850 Posts | 1,461+
Devon, England
Hussars had pistols actually...

#5: Put Hussars up against union infantry that knows they are coming (US was much more wildernessy than Europe) and it equals dead Hussars. Cavalry primarily fought against infantry in a dismounted formation because they would get absolutely murdered otherwise.
That is not true, the big issue for Civil War infantry was that they did not know how to form square. Thus there were several successful mounted charges against them.

This site details a few

Further the vast majority of American Civil War infantry did not know how to use the range of their rifle arms, being unfamiliar with both range estimation and setting sights, for the Federal forces and a lot of the rebels it got worse as the ammunition issued for Springfield and Enfield rifles by the Union was an unhappy compromise between the two slightly differing calibres which suited neither weapon, both of which could have performed better than adequately with the right ammunition and a trained soldier employing it.

You have managed to suggest one of the forces that would be most vulnerable to the Hussari after their historical era had passed.

Also as to wildernessy have you been to Poland? Even modern Poland has plenty of deep ancient woodland.
 
Joined Jun 2012
6,239 Posts | 414+
Texas
Thus there were several successful mounted charges against them.
I will note the last paragraph of your article. My bold. Note you are also referring to Union cavalry which was generally armed with fast loading carbines and revolvers.

If mounted assaults could be decisive, as was the case during the last year of the war, why weren't more charges successful? While rifled muskets could damage a cavalry charge the success and failure of a charge boiled down to two factors. First, the cavalry had to be used at the right time. Against infantrymen who were organized and still had their morale, a mounted charge often was little more than an exercise in organized suicide, such as Farnsworth's Charge or the charge at Gaines Mill. Secondly, once the cavalry was engaged, they had to be used in adequate numbers to keep the momentum and prevent the infantrymen from rallying. A perfect example is the 1st Pennsylvania at Cedar Mountain; even though the troopers broke through the rebel line, there were not enough of them to keep the Confederates from rallying and throwing them back. A cavalry charge was a one-shot weapon and its success depended on the commander knowing when to commit the charge at the decisive point at the decisive time. By 1864, Federal cavalry was finally concentrated in sufficient numbers and commanded by men who knew when and where to mount a charge. The results were multiple cavalry charges that were wildly effective against veteran infantrymen equipped with rifled muskets.


Also as to wildernessy have you been to Poland? Even modern Poland has plenty of deep ancient woodland.
To be clear (pardon the pun) I am pointing that out only as if they are marching in column or otherwise not ready to receive a charge they can indeed get hit and mauled. I don't know about Poland but I know in Tennessee the wilderness is such that that could happen quite a bit. I hope this clarifies.
 
Joined Aug 2020
1,850 Posts | 1,461+
Devon, England
I will note the last paragraph of your article. My bold. Note you are also referring to Union cavalry which was generally armed with fast loading carbines and revolvers.





To be clear (pardon the pun) I am pointing that out only as if they are marching in column or otherwise not ready to receive a charge they can indeed get hit and mauled. I don't know about Poland but I know in Tennessee the wilderness is such that that could happen quite a bit. I hope this clarifies.
Not my article, it was just one to illustrate I was not making it up. Also the same article noted a successful charge against entrenched infantry who were pointedly not demoralised.

The way to receive a cavalry charge against disciplined calvary in the 1850s and 1860s was to hit them with rifle fire at long range, so you had time to reload and have further volleys ready cf the Thin Red Line (originally the thin red streak) the 93rd Highlanders at Balaclava or form square and even squares could be defeated. Hell later on even machine guns would be defeated by cavalry charges.

By late war the Union cavalry had adopted the sabre for use in charges it actually proving of far more use in close than a pistol even a revolver from a moving horse. The Hussars themselves had multiple single shot pistols and often a carbine each and were supported by cavalry with more firearms. The point being under the right circumstances the Polish cavalry could provide its own base of fire. There being functionally negligible difference in combat ranges between the arms of the Poles and the great majority of US and Confederate infantry due to training issues.

I take your point that the sometimes enclosed spaces of the American continent did lend themselves to ambush including by cavalry. However it needs to be born in mind the infantry of the Civil War would have been exceptionally vulnerable to cavalry charges if faced by European style cavalry even on open ground. The more highly trained infantry of the US Army in preceding eras might well have in fact performed better despite having a majority of smoothbore.

American officers did, at least somewhat understand the lessons of European Wars prior to the Civil War but the small number of regular officers and former regular officers who returned to service.
and the similar cadres of NCOs were overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of volunteer and conscript troops they were best with.

Now nothing is certain in war and US/Confederate infantry force charged from the front might well hold their ground with fixed bayonets if they held their fire to exactly the right moment, not too far for effect and not so close that dead and dying horses would still crash through their ranks. However it was a chancy gamble for practised infantry to try their luck outside of square formation and even the 93rd probably got away with it because the Russians were taken by surprise. Their own Colonel had advised them they were probably going to die. As it was while on that occasion long range fire proved exceptionally accurate against horsemen not taking precautions in later wars cavalry could and did drive their charges home.

The one saving grace of Civil War American armies was that they probably possessed more artillery than the Poles of the 17th Century would have been acclimatised to and above all far more case shell (aka Shrapnel after its British inventor). That might have given properly supported infantry an important psychological edge. However it really needs to understood the infantry of the ACW were far from magical and indeed likely substandard by both prior and later eras of American let alone world history for the most part.
 
Joined Mar 2018
2,135 Posts | 2,121+
Britain
There's an event in the Franco-Prussian War where about 800 Prussian cavalry charge an infantry supported French gunline. They come into the open about half a mile from the battery, and are under fire during the attack by French infantry armed with bolt action rifles.

This action results in about 50% casualties to the Prussian cavalry - but they close to melee range, maraud around for an hour completely paralyzing the whole French corps, and the situation is only resolved by the commitment of French melee cavalry. This is actually cheap at the price.


This should serve to indicate that melee cavalry can still charge home against heavy firepower - certainly far heavier than the amount that could be put out by a Civil War infantry regiment. The thing that holds off melee cavalry is a contest of morale, with firepower from dense formations being the main thing that erodes the morale of the cavalry during the charge itself - this is why during the Napoleonic wars a unit that throws away its fire is vulnerable. Similarly a square formation is a small formation, which means that the morale contest is more acute and also that the cavalry doesn't need to flinch far to avoid hitting the square.


The effectiveness of mounted charges in the Civil War has far more to do with the sabre than with revolvers - after all, the use of revolvers to make mounted attacks work is basically the caracole, modernized. Revolvers are good for mounted melees but well drilled shock action can break the enemy cavalry without a melee resulting in the first place.
 
Joined May 2024
2 Posts | 1+
England
okay as we know the winged hussars are argubily one of the best cavalry units in history but how would they do against some of the best infantry units in history while your thinking about he a FYI it can only be ground forces if they are primarly cavalry then you cant use them. also the way the facts of what stops a cavalry charge the best when it comes to fighting them on foot. these are your choices and explain of you will.
1. Spartans
2. legionaries
3. immortals
4. modern Navy SEALS
5. Civil War era union rifle men
6 Scottish pike men
7.Something Else
15 men 5 machine guns in crossfire formation
 
  • Like
Reactions: zincwarrior
Joined Oct 2010
16,205 Posts | 4,008+
Some will. Some won't. It depends on the horse. History tells us that enough horses will throw themselves at a wall of pikes to make the charge viable.

They will not.

History tells us the opposite. The vast majoirty of cases the charge is unsuccessful and the cavalry do not close against steady foot.
Tere are very few exceptions and mostly explained by accunts which reveal something happened to disorder the foot before contact.

You have some hostoricl example of cavalry crashing into steady pikes?
 
Joined Oct 2010
16,205 Posts | 4,008+
There's an event in the Franco-Prussian War where about 800 Prussian cavalry charge an infantry supported French gunline. They come into the open about half a mile from the battery, and are under fire during the attack by French infantry armed with bolt action rifles.

This action results in about 50% casualties to the Prussian cavalry - but they close to melee range, maraud around for an hour completely paralyzing the whole French corps, and the situation is only resolved by the commitment of French melee cavalry. This is actually cheap at the price.


This should serve to indicate that melee cavalry can still charge home against heavy firepower - certainly far heavier than the amount that could be put out by a Civil War infantry regiment. The thing that holds off melee cavalry is a contest of morale, with firepower from dense formations being the main thing that erodes the morale of the cavalry during the charge itself - this is why during the Napoleonic wars a unit that throws away its fire is vulnerable. Similarly a square formation is a small formation, which means that the morale contest is more acute and also that the cavalry doesn't need to flinch far to avoid hitting the square.


The effectiveness of mounted charges in the Civil War has far more to do with the sabre than with revolvers - after all, the use of revolvers to make mounted attacks work is basically the caracole, modernized. Revolvers are good for mounted melees but well drilled shock action can break the enemy cavalry without a melee resulting in the first place.
You got a link or source for this incident?
 
Joined Mar 2018
2,135 Posts | 2,121+
Britain
You have some hostoricl example of cavalry crashing into steady pikes?
I think this should be phrased as "cavalry crashing into pikes". If it were the case for example that steady pikes could hold off a cavalry charge but that 90% of the time a cavalry charge caused the pikes to become unsteady before contact, then 90% of the time a charge would work - but there would still be no examples of steady pikes being overrun by cavalry.

It's thus vulnerable to no-true-steady-pikes.
 

Trending History Discussions

Top