Why would armies not just consists out of cavalery?
Cavalery is faster and stronger than infantry.
Why did medieval armies ever use infantry over cavalery?
Is there some advantage infantry has over cavalery that I don't get?
Historically, why was infantry even used?
Cost and logistics. Horses eat a fricking lot and every mounted khomie needs at least 1 extra horse in addition to their warhorse. Also horses cant climb city walls
infantry is cheaper, horses require maintenance
More human than horse. Simple as.
>Blocks your path
What is a schiltron? What is a longbow? What the frick is google or wikipedia? Frick actually reading a book, I'm going straight to PrepHole, maybe even Twitter to figure out everything I need to know.
>What is a schiltron
A scottish meme
>What is a longbow
A britgay meme
Both suck.
>both suck
Essentially everyone disagrees with you.
because people like you answer, then b***h, but their goal was still met despite your b***hing
I actually believe that fighting on foot without a horse is actually some sort of fetish and soldiers get a hardon when NOT riding on a horse, which is why infantry was more common than Cavalery.
But this is just my guess.
better yet, why were cavalry ever used when aircraft are faster and stronger than cavalry? horses cant fly, aircraft can. horses cant carry missiles, aircrarft can.
Because aircrafts weren't a thing in the middle ages, dummy.
explain your sleigh then.
Aircraft can't hold ground, which cavalry can.
>frick horses
You have to understand how meadival armies were formed. In HRE the knight was called for war service. So he got all his stuff, his squire and a handful of other dudes. Maybe 2 spear guys and 2 crossbow guys. And then he went to war. Now you have 1 heavy cavalry and 5 infantry. When a few hundred knights come you suddenly have an army.
And no, those guys following the knight into battle were not peasants. They actually had some training. But mostly they were not professional soldiers like knights or men at arms.
Smaller conflicts between lords were where you would see literal peasants from their lands.
Since spears were cheap, weird small battles bethween "spear militia" groups, supplemented by farming tools, could happen.
>frick horses
god I wish
because infantry standing in a line or square with longer pointy sticks than the cavalry wins. Add archers behind the infantry or people with guns mixed in with the people with sticks and it's gg for the cavalry.
Because owning a horse is expensive as frick and your average foot soldier isn't going to be rich enough to afford one or qualified enough to ride one.
I still genuinely believe that infantry is a fetish of some sort.
Why else would you chose to fight on foot over fighting on horseback?
Because horses are extremely expensive just to keep around, a huge portion of logisitcs was just dedicated to feeding them, then you have the other problem of horses need very specific terrain to operate well in, if you are fighting in an area with rough terrain or the enemy has set up some form of fortification you are shit out of luck, then there is the fact if your opponent is well drilled they won't break due to a calvary charge meaning you will likely run into a pikewall, and then the final issue is you need to spend a good amount of time training the horse and the rider which is something most ancient states, especially the feudal ones, simply would never have the luxury of being able to do since its extremely expensive and time consuming, going back to the feudal ones they also had the problem of most of their "soldiers" being unprofessional levies that were on a time table since they also had to tend to their farms
Cavalry within armies was not just 1 horse per rider.
The Mongols had 4-10 horses per rider and would cycle between them to not exhaust a single horse while traveling long distances.
Horses need food, water, rest and medical treatment like the soldiers within an army. It is best to imagine an army like a moving city when thinking about its logistical demands. Horses could graze on fields and drink from rivers, but not every piece of land offered that luxury.
Some terrain was also very rough to maneuver for infantry so you wouldn't get by with horses.
Depending on the army, training horsemen was highly expensive and took a long time. You also had to train the horses to not shy away from running into crowds of people.
Not every horse was suited for combat. Horse breeding was a thing and unless you were a nomadic horde, you didn't just have an abundance of war horses.
Horses are also b***hes. They get fricked up by elephants and are absolutely firghtened by camels.
Why would armies not just consists out of tanks?
Tanks is faster and stronger than infantry.
Why did WW1 armies ever use infantry over tanks?
Is there some advantage infantry has over tanks that I don't get?
Cost mostly.
Why would armies not just consists out of nukes?
Nukes is faster and stronger than infantry.
Why do modern armies ever use infantry over nukes?
Is there some advantage infantry has over nukes that I don't get?
>Cavalery is faster and stronger than infantry.
Crossbows are so kino, bros
The cheatcode to battles before guns were widespread
>frick horses
i like your idea
Horses are insanely expensive to maintain. For reference they found some documents from medieval england about the cost of a single warhorse a knight had and rough equivalence is the cost of a ferrari.