What was the point of horse cavalry again?

What was the point of horse cavalry again? If you injure a horsey, they seem to go down pretty bloody quickly and take down the poor bastard who rides same. Seems like a pretty bad weak point.

Also, bonus question, are chicks who like horses (Horse Girls), all psychopaths, or is that just a stereotype?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Horsie fast
    Horsie heavy
    Horsie trample puny footslugger
    Horsie carry big dude with sharp and pointy ouch-ouch

    Horse girls are great, can recommend.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Horse girls are great
      why yes, I would like to know more

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Horse girls are fricking crazy. If they started riding horses at a young age, they likely had their first sexual stimulation by means of the saddle. Because of this you will always be second to her love of the horse.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You're right about everything but horse girls. Guaranteed relationship failure since you aren't the horse.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Horse girls are great, can recommend.
      Absolute fricking lies. Not even remotely a stereotype. Don't even FwB a horsegirl unless you like hella drama.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        can't just leave us hanging like that, bud

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      When you say "horse girls", do you mean girls with horses, horsegirls or girl horses?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Girl horses. What did you think we were talking about?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >horsie trample puny footslugger
      >laughs in 14-foot pike

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Unfortunately, cavalry tends to specialize in this thing called "flanking". Try to turn all those bigass spears 90 degrees around.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_square
          >A pike square generally consisted of about 100 men in a 10×10 formation. While on the move, the pike would be carried vertically. However, the troops were drilled to be able to point their pikes in any direction while stationary, with the men in the front of the formation kneeling to allow the men in the center or back to point their pikes over their heads. While stationary, the staff of each pike could be butted against the ground, giving it resistance against attack. Squares could be joined together to form a battle line. If surrounded, pikes could still be pointed in all directions. A well drilled square could change direction very quickly, making it difficult to outmaneuver on horseback.

          Stuff like this has been done a few times in history. Every time some army gets the idea of making square formations intended to fight from all sides at once, they kick ass. Swiss pike squares, the spanish Tercios, even Napoleon's divisional squares centuries later. I always wonder why this pike square concept wasn't used more often in ancient times, it's not like they didn't have the technology.

          I wonder if it could be a discipline thing? It's a high risk high reward strategy maybe, if they're disciplined professional soldiers who will hold the line no matter what then it's an unbeatable strategy, but if even a couple guys pussy out and step back or break formation your whole formation gets slaughtered, so if your soldiers were random levies or conscripts you couldn't make it work?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            is that why the cavalry developed using a bunch of (flintlock?) pistols, discharging them one at a time into the enemy formation?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Probably. Those Swiss pikemen were a motherfricker to break up

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I wonder if it could be a discipline thing?
            Of course that's why, you need your whole army to be trained in that way to make it work and depending on the overall social organization, that might very well not be that easy.

            Also it's absolutely not unbeatable, see of course battles like Rocroi or Pydna/

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              But that brings the question of why more full time professional armies in the past didn't do it. It's clear why you wouldn't have your European feudal peasant levies try to fight this way, but I don't see why ancient full time disciplined armies like the Romans never did.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They did for a large part of the republican years. Then they transition to the maniple system as it was more flexible and easier to integrate the various arms. Pike squares before solid artillery weren't as strong because they were not very mobile and dependant on the terrain, while artillery and heavy range options can somehow even things out.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, that's something I have never understood well. People always say "the maniple system beat the phalanx since it was more flexible" but I don't know exactly what that would have looked like. I know the old Macedonian-style phalanx couldn't turn on a dime to face attacks from multiple directions like the Swiss pike squares supposedly could.

                And about the terrain, I'm sure the maniple system was better at that, but on flat ground wouldn't a Swiss style pike square have the advantage because of their long reach? Long polearms as your primary weapon just seem like such a no-brainer in big infantry battles on flat ground I don't know why any army didn't use them. Like imagine trying to fight a line of guys with pikes and halberds in an open battlefield with just a couple of javelins and a short sword

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Phalanx is over investment on one tiny aspect of combat that is when tip of spear meets. It sacrifices shield size against harassing or mass missiles and elbow to elbow combat when formation pressed on.
                And the initial range advantage falls apart when one can throw a few lighter javelins at higher velocity to reach much longer range with only expendable material and shoddy workmanship.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                because it is difficult to do
                just like right now, we can also ask "why don't more countries spend a minimum of 2% (actually more) of GDP on defence and train their armies properly?"

                answer: it is difficult and both politicians and voters prefer to spend the money on welfare

                >you wouldn't have your European feudal peasant levies try to fight this way
                but they did
                the shield wall is a standard tactic of antiquity: it is both easy and effective to do
                what was difficult to achieve was the kind of manoeuvring that Roman manipular legions did

                Yeah, that's something I have never understood well. People always say "the maniple system beat the phalanx since it was more flexible" but I don't know exactly what that would have looked like. I know the old Macedonian-style phalanx couldn't turn on a dime to face attacks from multiple directions like the Swiss pike squares supposedly could.

                And about the terrain, I'm sure the maniple system was better at that, but on flat ground wouldn't a Swiss style pike square have the advantage because of their long reach? Long polearms as your primary weapon just seem like such a no-brainer in big infantry battles on flat ground I don't know why any army didn't use them. Like imagine trying to fight a line of guys with pikes and halberds in an open battlefield with just a couple of javelins and a short sword

                >on flat ground wouldn't a Swiss style pike square have the advantage because of their long reach?
                yes, but how often would they be able to fight on flat ground?
                the Romans were also better than their contemporaries at the operational and strategic level
                so if a pike square stayed in the plain, for example, they could just go attack key enemy assets located in the hills. now the pikers are faced with a military dilemma - they are forced to take the fight on inferior terrain or risk losing valuable assets

                this is the problem with any army setup that relies on a too-narrow particular set of circumstances to win. overall, the more versatile army wins, versatility meaning the ability to fight advantageously in various different conditions.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >shield wall
                Yeah, but that's obviously vulnerable to flanking. I'm talking about pike formations that could turn on a dime and fight in any or all directions at once like the Swiss supposedly could. I keep coming back to that question because so much of pre-gunpowder warfare seems to revolve around this idea of maneuver and outflanking the enemy, and a formation designed from the get-go to fight comfortably while outflanked seems like a great answer to that. Would the Romans have been slaughtered at Cannae if they had been in a type of formation designed to fight on all sides like those Swiss pike squares?

                Or am I buying into they hype too much and even these formations weren't actually that great at fighting on multiple sides at once?

                >flat ground
                Sure, not all fighting took place on flat ground, but plenty of it did. And I feel like you have to worry about the reverse of that question too--if you are equipped in a way that is less advantageous than pike formations on flat ground, and the enemy army is out there with their pikes waiting for you, you would suffer pretty badly (yeah, sure, "go attack their assets in the hills instead" is great when you're in a situation where you can do that, but it's not like that's always an option you have)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Or am I buying into they hype too much and even these formations weren't actually that great at fighting on multiple sides at once?
                the ability to manoeuvre in that kind of situation is much more dependent on

                this is why it's often said of the Roman army that they had an "NCO corps"*, that they were professionals, and that they were highly disciplined - these are all factors that contribute to being able to respond flexibly to that kind of situation
                >*Goldsworthy points out that the Roman NCO corps is more accurately a Junior Officer corps, and the idea that centurions only came up from the ranks like our NCOs today is a myth - both Roman nobles and plebeians served as centurions

                Hannibal won at Cannae because his troops were even better than the Romans. but not all Carthaginians were that good, only Hannibal's troops.

                >"go attack their assets in the hills instead" is great when you're in a situation where you can do that, but it's not like that's always an option you have)
                correct
                which is why I said the Romans ALSO were better operationally and strategically, in addition to tactics
                discussion of formations and weapons is tactical
                the creation and training of the Roman army, their discipline, and the use of forced marches is operational
                the building of road networks, and other political initiatives that prioritised the army, is strategic

                thus in areas where some enemies (e.g. Hannibal, or for Caesar, Pompey) were able to outfight the Romans tactically, they compensated with superior operational and strategic movement, e.g. by implementing Fabian strategy

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Or am I buying into they hype too much and even these formations weren't actually that great at fighting on multiple sides at once?
                the ability to manoeuvre in that kind of situation is much more dependent on operational acumen and discipline, rather than the design of the formation or individual feat of arms solely

                this is why it's often said of the Roman army that they had an "NCO corps"*, that they were professionals, and that they were highly disciplined - these are all factors that contribute to being able to respond flexibly to that kind of situation
                >*Goldsworthy points out that the Roman NCO corps is more accurately a Junior Officer corps, and the idea that centurions only came up from the ranks like our NCOs today is a myth - both Roman nobles and plebeians served as centurions

                Hannibal won at Cannae because his troops were even better than the Romans. but not all Carthaginians were that good, only Hannibal's troops.

                >"go attack their assets in the hills instead" is great when you're in a situation where you can do that, but it's not like that's always an option you have)
                correct
                which is why I said the Romans ALSO were better operationally and strategically, in addition to tactics
                discussion of formations and weapons is tactical
                the creation and training of the Roman army, their discipline, and the use of forced marches is operational
                the building of road networks, and other political initiatives that prioritised the army, is strategic

                thus in areas where some enemies (e.g. Hannibal, or for Caesar, Pompey) were able to outfight the Romans tactically, they compensated with superior operational and strategic movement, e.g. by implementing Fabian strategy

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Neither swiss pikemen nor tercios were unbeatable by heavy cavalry. In fact the earliest effective counter against tercios was exactly that, heavy cavalry as used by the Dutch during the 80 years war.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I hear all the time about how the tercio was undefeated until Rocroi

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Those people don't know anything about history and probably just wank over muh infantry formations instead. Rocroi was the turning point during which line warfare started to show superiority over the tercio though.
                Tercios were defeated multiple times in the field during the Maurician phase of the war, which allowed the Dutch to gain initiative and gradually gain full control over the north after many bloody sieges.
                https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Turnhout_(1597) this is probably the most impressive victory since it just involves a small cavalry force slam dunking a much larger force including tercios.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the problem with infantry squares is that they are an immobile formation that can be flanked by formations that haven't turned turtle and shot to pieces by artillery etc.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Poke this b***h.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          ok

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Arguably heavy machine guns were still manageable if you could flank them, which is what the Americans did in Morong.
            Those that could be maneuvered on the dime like the BAR and MG42 and especially assault rifles like the StG 44 were what sealed the deal from cavalry having any openings to exploit.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        That’s why you get footslugger to engage with them while you flank behind them. Not hard to understand combined arms

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Horse pussy is good.
      I can attest

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >france has no yakuza
        worse it has algerians

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          They don't happen to be b***hing about horse porn now do they?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Please glass Saint Denis. You can keep the couple hundred decent Algerians

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        She should be riding (You)
        >DYGTY

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Horse girls are great, can recommend.
      Disgusting stall muck caked hands typed this post.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Civilized people wash their hands when they enter their house, Anon.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >they seem to go down pretty bloody quickly
    they don't

    also they're very fast and very heavy

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      More flies on the battlefield

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This, horses can be surprisingly hardy. I once read an anecdote from a British cavalry officer from the Peninsular war, who said that at the battle of Fuentes de Oñoro his horse was shot in the head and went down, so he left it behind. However when he later rejoined his regiment, he heard that the same horse had apparently gotten up, found its way to where the regiment was formed up, taken its place in the formation, and only then dropped down dead. It could be bullshit, but I think it's not impossible.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Horses were willing to charge machine guns, if you didn't mind losing the horse afterward.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i know two horse girls
    one is an absolute sadist and loves controlling
    the other does a whole bunch of coke and ketamin

    also before guns were around there were cataphracts which were like melee tanks

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I've dated 2 horse chicks. The best thing about them is that they already have a hobby. They don't need you to provide full time entertainment. Jock women are the same way. I'd rather be with a woman who has something else going on in her life. Another bonus about horse chicks is that they often have money. Owning a horse is expensive.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      None of you people are having sex. If I'm too poor and skittish for a woman, all of you are.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >skittish
        sounds like you need a horse girl to rein you in

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Hell, set me up. I'm handsome and I'm trying to fix my life

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I might be having less sex than I did in my 30s and 40s, but I still have it

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Good for you, go get em stud. I'm more just being sour that I'll probably be later 20s before I get any, and am currently actually poor. Really fricked my career direction up, not sure how I'll fix it

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            When I was in my 20s most women were dating guys in their 30s. Now I'm married and in my 30s and all these younger girls flirt with me, strange. Get CDL and HAZMAT, haul fuel and be a badass like me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            When I was in my 20s most women were dating guys in their 30s. Now I'm married and in my 30s and all these younger girls flirt with me, strange. Get CDL and HAZMAT, haul fuel and be a badass like me.

            Fricking this. Don't give up hope younganon. Girls would never give me the time of day in my teens or early 20s, now I'm almost 30 and I'm noticing way more attention from them. They smile at me out of nowhere and seem way more eager to talk to me. I used to think I was ass ugly, turns out I just had a terminal case of baby face and looked like a fricking little boy until well into my 20s.

            Whatever you do, don't give up, settle and marry an ugly chick years before you grow into a not-totally-unattractive looking man with better prospects.
            >t. totally not speaking from bitter experience

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              That's the worst thing man, I'm not. I'd be denting the floor with panties if I'd had the foresight to pick a better major (and didn't get so fricking nervous when the pedal hits the metal). But I'll keep my head up about it, only way out is forward.

              https://i.imgur.com/NsFroIW.jpg

              >I'll probably be later 20s before I get any
              Other anons have said it and I'll say it too, your time will come.
              >Just keep your pecker hard and your powder dry and the world will turn

              Will do. At least I'm not KHH, just a technical V.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              https://i.imgur.com/NsFroIW.jpg

              >I'll probably be later 20s before I get any
              Other anons have said it and I'll say it too, your time will come.
              >Just keep your pecker hard and your powder dry and the world will turn

              *and thanks for setting my head straight, the both of you

              https://i.imgur.com/jTSd3P3.jpg

              Yeah. Talk about unwieldy

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'll probably be later 20s before I get any
            Other anons have said it and I'll say it too, your time will come.
            >Just keep your pecker hard and your powder dry and the world will turn

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    They are to quickly pursue and route the retreating enemy to round off a victory.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Up until basically WW1 they were still your most mobile arm of the military. So even though they're squishy as frick, if you need super rapid flanking attacks, or to chase down and kill routed enemy troops that are running before they can regroup and come at you again, cavalry was the only option before you had tanks and trucks.

    My favorite underrated type of military unit from pre-WW1 warfare is mounted dragoons. You have the best of both worlds, you get the mobility of cavalry but then they can dismount and fight defensively like infantry. I don't know why they weren't used more widely throughout history

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      "Cavalry=Tanks"
      Please stop this meme. What is this, Civilization?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I don't know why they weren't used more widely throughout history
      a war horse is 3 to 10 times the weight of a man and consumes 3 to 10 times more oats in addition to roughly as much hay (which is bulky and hard to store and transport) and doesn't eat as much protein or fats as a man
      horses also can't procure and prepare their own food, they need men to do that for them

      horses are very expensive.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Horses are stupid animals that require special handlers, is more the crux of the issue, not their preferred food.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          There were handlers aplenty.
          The problem with horses on campaign has always been finding enough fodder.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I don't know about that. If you look at British shipping records from WW1, horse feed used up more tonnage than ammunition.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It’s funny that one has to tell people but most Anons have obviously never dealt with livestock in general and horses in particular. Feeding them is a major issue because they are really picky when it comes to fodder.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >horses were, like, old timey cars rite
              >just pour hay in the fuel tank when the needle points at E, simple as
              >no you idiot horses LIVING ANIMALS, like our pet dogs
              >a big 20lb bag of kibble lasts nearly two weeks

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If any society with access to them went to the effort and expense of keeping/fielding them for millennia, it seems safe to assume that they genuinely worked.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    in age of firearms? cavalry was used as highly mobile infantry dismouned and fought on foot - rarely when conditions were perfect they would charge and disperse routing units, make raids on logistics and soon

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Only europoors didn't put armor on their horses, and the Mongols who rode multiple horses strung together and just switched if one got hit. Their entire war tactic was to spam breed babies and horses and then spam arrows at the town they were robbing.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >they seem to go down pretty bloody quickly
    You'd know this from all the battles you've seen in real life?

    Maybe from all the horses you've hunted?

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >why was this incredibly widespread tactic used so much
    >it certainly was not because it was effective
    >clearly people were just being stupid for hundreds of years without ever changing or listening to new advice or adapting
    what are the point of these threads?

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://m.youtube.com

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I'm not saying the situation didn't happen, but that I hear the tercio hyped to death and don't know how accurate that is.
    >stuck in mom's basement
    I'm trying, I promise. Should've done literally anything else in higher ed. Way behind.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Tercio was effective for a very limited amount of time, after which cavalry still played a major role on the battlefield. Connect the dots.

      >making it to grad school without ever fricking on the top floor of the library

      I weep for you, poor STEM soul!

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Go punch a horse and tell us how it goes.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Horse Cavalry dominated the battlefield for thousands of years until the Renaissance Italian Wars when massive pike formations becomes popular, after which, while not as dominante, still played a pivotal role through WWI

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >still played a pivotal role through WWI
      but not as breakthrough units any more, merely as mobile infantry

      cavalry died with the advent of repeating rifles like the Snider and Spencer

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Cavalry died with the flintlock and bayonet.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What period is OP's pic from do you think?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >flintlock and bayonet
          not quite yet
          cavalry was still useful at Waterloo

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Correct, but that's still very important before mass mechanization

        There were some cases of them still being used to breakthrough though, such as the charge of the Australian light horse at Beersheba

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    scouting, skirmishing, charging, cutting down fleeing enemies in a rout

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Similar stuff to modern cav scouts just before trucks. Screening, recon, raids, etc

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *