Print Page | Close Window

Infantry vs. Cavalry

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: General History
Forum Name: Military History
Forum Discription: Discussions related to military history: generals, battles, campaigns, etc...
Moderators: Constantine XI, Byzantine Emperor, Knights, Sparten, Temujin
URL: http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12659
Printed Date: 31-Oct-2014 at 05:18


Topic: Infantry vs. Cavalry
Posted By: rockgod214
Subject: Infantry vs. Cavalry
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 12:28
I was always under the impression that on the battle field Cavalry was superior to Infantry. But I am currently reading the Art of War by Niccolo Machiavilli and he said that Infantry is greater than Cavalry. I would like to know what everyone here thought so I may gain a better understanding on why either I or Machiavilli were wrong in our ideas about the importance of cavalry and infantry



Replies:
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 12:52
Every cavalry can unmount and become infantry.

-------------


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 13:20
Infantry is better than cavalry as long as it holds and does not retreat. Look at the Battle of Tours.

-------------



Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 15:38
Infantry is cheaper, requires less supplies, is more versatile, can operate in a greater variety of terrain and conditions and cavalry can't assault infantry head on as a rules.

-------------
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk


Posted By: pikeshot1600
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 17:25
Originally posted by rockgod214

I was always under the impression that on the battle field Cavalry was superior to Infantry. But I am currently reading the Art of War by Niccolo Machiavilli and he said that Infantry is greater than Cavalry. I would like to know what everyone here thought so I may gain a better understanding on why either I or Machiavilli were wrong in our ideas about the importance of cavalry and infantry
 
It certainly depends on the terrain.  Italy is mountainous and has many narrow defiles south of the northern plain around Milan.  The mountain cities needed to be besieged, and gens d'armes were of little use. 
 
Poland is suited to maneuver and has been dominated by cavalry in the past.  Same with Russia.  Rivers are the main barriers in those countries, but they are frequently fordable.
 
In the Netherlands, the Spanish found that they needed far more infantry if campaigning north of the Rhine, where rivers and marshy lowlands cut up the terrain; and they needed much more cavalry if campaigning against the French in Flanders and Brabant. 
 
No general rule here.  Geography is the determinant.
 
 


Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 12-Jun-2006 at 18:00
Geography is the determinant.But cavalry is generally better with better generalship.
 
Infantry is Superior to cavalry in Melee combat.Its easier to weild a weapon on foot and its a larger target to hit a horse and man.Also infantry can form tight formations so they can create local superioty in numbers.

Cavalry is superior in Charging and mobility.Mobility allows the horsemen to create a local superioty in numbers over a infantry force .

On open plains the cavalry will outmaneovre the infantry and outflank them.On constricted spaces the infantry will win in melee combat.
 
When roman empire expanded into more grassy open areas it was weak to horse armies.Parthians,goths,huns,sassanids.
And vice versa when sassanids huns entered roman land. 
 


Posted By: edgewaters
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 13:05
Depends entirely on the time period. Cavalry became less and less useful throughout the 1800s ... by the middle of the century, small groups of infantry could repulse much larger cavalry forces, even in terrain favourable for a charge (eg Battle of Balaclava and the "thin red line", when a single regiment repels 25000 Russian cavalry).


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 18:20
Edgewaters, I agree that cavalry were pretty useless during the the mid-1800s. Other events, besides my favorite the Thin Red Line, proved cavalry were on the out. 

-------------



Posted By: tsar
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 19:46
Infantry could be out manuvered by cavlalry just as easy as cavalry could be out manuvered by infantry


Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 20:51
No Infantry cannot outmanevre Cavalry its impossible!!
 


Posted By: MafiaMaster
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 21:59
If I had to pick either have 1,000 infantry or 1,000 cavalry, I'd have to pick the infantry.  When it comes to infantry, you're fighting as an entire unit and the formation is imperative for the success of the unit.  If one man steps out of formation, there's is a hole in it and that could result in defeat for you.  With cavalry, if some of your horsemen scatter a bit, you can still do the same damage you planned on before.  Therefore, I feel that infantry is better because it allows for much more disciplined men and that is necessary for success in combat.  Furthermore, it is cheaper to fund them, like previously mentioned.  Finally, an infantry man can use a sword, a bow, a spear and all of that and still keep their same power.  However, with cavalry, when you start giving them weapons, their riding abilities begin to disappear.  Just my opinion...

-------------


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 15-Jun-2006 at 22:25
Originally posted by BigL

No Infantry cannot outmanevre Cavalry its impossible!!
 

Ever hear of the Boer War?


-------------



Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 03:13
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa

Originally posted by BigL

No Infantry cannot outmanevre Cavalry its impossible!!
 

Ever hear of the Boer War?
 
 
there are cases of infantry defeating cavalry,Does this mean that they are outmanevored ? No.
 
Yes Bullets from infantry can outmaneovre Cavalry.... As a bullet is more faster than a horse.
 
But a Horse is more mobile than a man therefore it can Outmanevre the infantry ,Cavalry doesnt always decide to however AGINCOURT.
 
 


Posted By: tsar
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 12:32
Originally posted by BigL

No Infantry cannot outmanevre Cavalry its impossible!!
 



     


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 16-Jun-2006 at 15:13
Originally posted by BigL

Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa

Originally posted by BigL

No Infantry cannot outmanevre Cavalry its impossible!!
 

Ever hear of the Boer War?
 
 
there are cases of infantry defeating cavalry,Does this mean that they are outmanevored ? No.
 
Yes Bullets from infantry can outmaneovre Cavalry.... As a bullet is more faster than a horse.
 
But a Horse is more mobile than a man therefore it can Outmanevre the infantry ,Cavalry doesnt always decide to however AGINCOURT.
 
 

Actually, your thesis is idiotic. It is very possible for infantry to outmaneouvre cavalry. In the Boer War, the Boers many times did ambush cavalry. This has happened many times. Therefore it IS POSSIBLE, and has happened.


-------------



Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 01:26
No your an idiot 
Manevability is being able to move troops  tactically.A horse is more mobile than a man not a gun like at the boer war.If they were armed with swords then the horseman could run away ,couldnt they.
Like i said Cavalry doesnt always Chose to for Example Agincourt.


Posted By: tsar
Date Posted: 18-Jun-2006 at 08:47
Originally posted by BigL

If they were armed with swords then the horseman could run away ,couldnt they.
Like i said Cavalry doesnt always Chose to for Example Agincourt.


But if the men were armed with spears then its a different story.
    


Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 03:53

No they can still run away from spears ,find me an example of Cavalry running into spears i will be Suprised, its almost impossible to get a horse to do such a thing.



Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 15:24
Originally posted by Paul

Infantry is cheaper, requires less supplies, is more versatile, can operate in a greater variety of terrain and conditions and cavalry can't assault infantry head on as a rules.
 
the first two points are pretty much crucial actually, however soem coutnries didn't had the problems of price and logistics like Poles and Mongols. so in a rule you can say if you can afford it, cavalry is superior to infantry. however cavalry is by far more versatile, as has already been said, cavalry can dismount and become infantry. terrain is important too, but again, see previous sentence. cavalry also sucessfully charged infantry head on on many occasions. it all depends on leadership however. more often than not in history good cavalry was cursed by really bad commanders.
 
Originally posted by BigL

Infantry is Superior to cavalry in Melee combat.Its easier to weild a weapon on foot and its a larger target to hit a horse and man. Also infantry can form tight formations so they can create local superioty in numbers.
 
Infantry actually is not superior to cavalry in melee, at least in one vs one situation. infantry can only win if they are in formation, if formation is broken the infantry is most likely to rout or surrender. in general rule, cavalry is more disciplined than footmen, this is also because of social background & training (see above note about cost).
 
Originally posted by edgewaters

(eg Battle of Balaclava and the "thin red line", when a single regiment repels 25000 Russian cavalry).
 
this is possibly the single worst example you could have brought up. the Thin red line at Balaklava fell victim to the british propaganda. the thin red line was reinforced by the Turkish infantry who was routed from their trenches where they were thrown out before by the same Russian Curiassiers that now attacked the Highlanders, and as you can guess the Curiassiers already suffered ehavily from this charge on those field fortifications. one of our Turkish memebrs ocne opnened a thread about this in another forum. so thsi is a really abd example because the Curiassiers were most likely outnumbered and already wasted after their first charge. it was extremely likely they would break under those circumstances.


-------------


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 15:33
Originally posted by BigL

No your an idiot 
Manevability is being able to move troops  tactically.A horse is more mobile than a man not a gun like at the boer war.If they were armed with swords then the horseman could run away ,couldnt they.
Like i said Cavalry doesnt always Chose to for Example Agincourt.

First of all, I did not personally insult you. I said your thesis was idiotic. Everybody says idiotic things, but it does not make them idiotic.

Anyways, it is possible for cavalry to be outmaneuvered by infantry. Stop saying this crap. Ever hear of outflanking, or complete encircling? Infantry have done this before. Therefore, your statement is still crap.


-------------



Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 15:41
Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa

Ever hear of the Boer War?
 
ever heard of Boer comamndos? those were mounted rifles. they could encirlce the british because they had horses, the just dismounted for fighting, like the dragoons originally.
 
infnatry did encircle other ifnnatry, yes, but infantry can't encircle cavalry.
 
Actually, your thesis is idiotic. It is very possible for infantry to outmaneouvre cavalry. In the Boer War, the Boers many times did ambush cavalry. This has happened many times. Therefore it IS POSSIBLE, and has happened.
 
but an ambush does in no way equal beign outmanoeverd. in an ambush, troops hide somewhere and wait for the enemy to manoever into the ambush. however descend cavalry that does reconnaissance will never be ambushed.


-------------


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 16:27
Even in a non-ambush situation, infantry can encircle cavalry, especially if it is in a curved line formation. If cavalry goes to deep into an infantry formation, the flanks can come up from behind, and then encircle the cavalry. Therefore, it IS possible.

-------------



Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 16:39

if cavalry can cut their way in the formation, they can also cut their way out of the formation, see Elyau.



-------------


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 18:28
However, infantry can encircle and beat cavalry. Yes, the cavalry can fight their way out of the trap, but chances are they will not if the infantry do not yield. Infantry can outflank, but cannot move faster than cavalry.

-------------



Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 18:33
How can infantry outflank cavalry unless the cavalry is lead by an extremely poor leader, yes its possible but unlikely..
 
Infantry  in a long curved line can try and outflank the cavalry ,but its likey the cavalry wil retreat regroup and attack the spread out infantry.
 
how many historical examples of infantry encircling yet alone outflanking cavalry


Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 19-Jun-2006 at 21:22
As I said it is unlikely, but possible. 

-------------



Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 20-Jun-2006 at 01:05

As i said Sometime commanders Chose to like at Agincourt , Yet you Said my Statement was Idiotic

Please apologize and bow down to Genghis khan



Posted By: BlackRaven135
Date Posted: 17-Aug-2006 at 20:34
Infantry in the defence can dig-in and hold the line.  Also, in a slow advance of attrition the infantry is much more versitile.  However, for high-speed advance with quick action flanking movements, most definatly Cavalry.


Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 00:04
I would refer you to Victor Davis Hanson's Carnage and Culture, especially chapter...four, I think it was, or maybe it was five...at any rate, the one about the battle of Tours. He makes the case for infantry quite nicely.


Posted By: Byzantine Emperor
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 00:07
Originally posted by BigL

As i said Sometime commanders Chose to like at Agincourt , Yet you Said my Statement was Idiotic

Please apologize and bow down to Genghis khan

I doubt Genghis Khan would have been that nice and forgiving!  LOL
 


-------------
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=12713 - Late Byzantine Military
http://www.allempires.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=17337 - Ottoman perceptions of the Americas


Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 02:22
Originally posted by Timotheus

I would refer you to Victor Davis Hanson's Carnage and Culture, especially chapter...four, I think it was, or maybe it was five...at any rate, the one about the battle of Tours. He makes the case for infantry quite nicely.
 
Well from one battle we can surely make clear the dominance of infantry over cavalry.....
 
Its rather like saying that infantry was superior to Tanks in WW2 because the germans halted the russian tanks at several battles in berlin.
 
The Truth is that after the development of good sadles and stirrups,(roughly the time of Huns for Saddles and avars for stirrups)
cavalry forces won all battles unless in terrain where it was unsuited.Or  from bad leadership.
 
Even before this most of a well disciplined infantry defeats like Rome or Hans defeats were caused by cavalry.Carrhae, Adrianople,many battles vs Sassanids.
 
 
 
 
 


Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 03:50
It's depend from infantry and cavalry quality from terrain and leadership so we can't say whatever cavalry or infantry was generally better.


Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 05:40

Well generally Infantry was superior to cavalry in Melee combat as it could make denser tighter formations and also it was easier to weild a weapon on foot naturally.

Cavalry had its adavantage isn Shock power and Mobility, thus it could create a :Local Superioty in Numbers over infantry at any given time.
 
If Shock cavalry was attacking infantry it needed to be untrained/undisciplined  infantry(the majority of medieval),otherwise it could be repelled by a solid mass like the English at Agincourt/poiters  Or the Swiss pikemen.
OR/ by flanking the Enemy-the most effective way of using cavalry against infantry.Unfortunatly for the french they tended to concentrate on frontal charge rather than flanking.
 
Otherwise Horse Archer  cavalry could only be destroyed by infantry if they had superior Firepower,which was difficult vs horse archers as their carracole tactics made them very hard to shoot with arrows,and the standing archers would be shot down.
 


Posted By: Genghis_Kan
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 06:07
Infantry is the most important basis of an army. It is the backbone for most armies. Infantry can defend a place but cavalry cant. But cavalry have the mobility which is very important in attack. The reason why there ar no Han Chinese Dynasty manage to totally destroy the steppe enemy is because they dont have enough cavalry due to lack of horses. Furthermore cavalry do inflict fear into infantry. Imagine u ar an infantry holding a line and you ar in the first row of the group. A group of cavalry is charging at u at full speed. How would u feel? I would be bloody scared. However, cavalry charge cannot last forever so a group of infantry can held them back eventually. In certain case, cavalry do have the similar impact to tank like in WW2 before the invention of MG. So for defence infantry ar superior than cavalry. However, in offensive cavalry ar superior to infantry. Of coz a timely charge is required for success.


Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 06:07
Originally posted by BigL

Well generally Infantry was superior to cavalry in Melee combat as it could make denser tighter formations and also it was easier to weild a weapon on foot naturally.

Cavalry had its adavantage isn Shock power and Mobility, thus it could create a :Local Superioty in Numbers over infantry at any given time.
 
If Shock cavalry was attacking infantry it needed to be untrained/undisciplined  infantry(the majority of medieval),otherwise it could be repelled by a solid mass like the English at Agincourt/poiters  Or the Swiss pikemen.
OR/ by flanking the Enemy-the most effective way of using cavalry against infantry.Unfortunatly for the french they tended to concentrate on frontal charge rather than flanking.
 
Otherwise Horse Archer  cavalry could only be destroyed by infantry if they had superior Firepower,which was difficult vs horse archers as their carracole tactics made them very hard to shoot with arrows,and the standing archers would be shot down.
 
 
I can tell You examples when well trained infantry is routed by cavalry - Kircholm, Battle of Warsaw etc. So everyone can give some examples but as I said it depends from diffrent conditions but I can't agre that infantry is better in melee combat. In close range fight cavalry is normally better.


Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 20:48
Well from one battle we can surely make clear the dominance of infantry over cavalry.....


Rather, Hanson starts at Tours and generalizes into the rest of history.


Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 18-Aug-2006 at 22:29
Originally posted by Timotheus

Well from one battle we can surely make clear the dominance of infantry over cavalry.....


Rather, Hanson starts at Tours and generalizes into the rest of history.
Im not quite sure what you mean?, What is Hanson Saying?


Posted By: Peter III
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 00:58
I'll have to say infantry. A decent regiment of pikemen could easily reak havoc on a well trained regiment of calvary. Infantry could be equipped much more easily as well(and at a much lower cost).


Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 04:55

If cavalry charges Yes, thats why phalanx was used by medieval armies for a their cavalry to fall back on.

Against horse archers then they are useless.


Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 06:14
Originally posted by Peter III

I'll have to say infantry. A decent regiment of pikemen could easily reak havoc on a well trained regiment of calvary. Infantry could be equipped much more easily as well(and at a much lower cost).
 
It depends from a cavalry. I never heard of an example when pikeman would cause a havoc in polish cavalry. It's rather when cavalry got to them it was mather of they will ran in panic or be slaughter or they manage to regroup despite of heavy losses. But I don't think pikemans can cause havoc on a well trained cavalry. 


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 12:09
Originally posted by pikeshot1600

Originally posted by rockgod214

I was always under the impression that on the battle field Cavalry was superior to Infantry. But I am currently reading the Art of War by Niccolo Machiavilli and he said that Infantry is greater than Cavalry. I would like to know what everyone here thought so I may gain a better understanding on why either I or Machiavilli were wrong in our ideas about the importance of cavalry and infantry
 
It certainly depends on the terrain.  Italy is mountainous and has many narrow defiles south of the northern plain around Milan.  The mountain cities needed to be besieged, and gens d'armes were of little use. 
 
Poland is suited to maneuver and has been dominated by cavalry in the past.  Same with Russia.  Rivers are the main barriers in those countries, but they are frequently fordable.
 
In the Netherlands, the Spanish found that they needed far more infantry if campaigning north of the Rhine, where rivers and marshy lowlands cut up the terrain; and they needed much more cavalry if campaigning against the French in Flanders and Brabant. 
 
No general rule here.  Geography is the determinant.
 
 
 
I'm always delighted by these 'apple vs orange questions'...Pikeshot has given some great examples form the historical perspective but I would add that in addition to questions of terrain and logistics...there  are inumerable factors in saying one was better or more effective then the other.
 
And the least of which which springs to mind is historical era...ancient...classic..darkages...mediaeval...pre-modern...modern....etc. and traditional uses for horses for example in varying regions of the world.
 
each of these eras saw a use for both arms..with infantry taking the lead in many cases for a wide variety of reasons....but equally import to to remember is as advanced tactical doctrine occured/developed and mission requirements for a force expanded ...so  too did a requirement for flexibility and eventual coperation among arms....Smile
 
 


-------------
The dead remain dead only the living cry foul.

High up on the Llano.


Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 22:00
No horse will charge a line of serried pikes. If the pikes can hold their line - or even swordmen with good shields (think Hastings) a cavalry charge will fail. If the pikes break ranks the cavalry will wipe them up. It depends, I guess, on who breaks first.

Geography is an important factor but not the all-important one. Morale is. Remember, Alexander defeated a cavalry army with an infantry army at Gaugamela...in a plain.

But it's true, a good band of cavalry in plains or desert (think Arab conquerers 632-732) will in general be superior to infantry, and a good band of infantry in mountain, marsh, or forest will be superior to a cavalry army.

I actually think the most important field of combat is the Navy...but that's for somewhere else


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 22:07
Originally posted by Timotheus

No horse will charge a line of serried pikes. If the pikes can hold their line - or even swordmen with good shields (think Hastings) a cavalry charge will fail. If the pikes break ranks the cavalry will wipe them up. It depends, I guess, on who breaks first.

Geography is an important factor but not the all-important one. Morale is. Remember, Alexander defeated a cavalry army with an infantry army at Gaugamela...in a plain.

But it's true, a good band of cavalry in plains or desert (think Arab conquerers 632-732) will in general be superior to infantry, and a good band of infantry in mountain, marsh, or forest will be superior to a cavalry army.

I actually think the most important field of combat is the Navy...but that's for somewhere else
 
I would have to disagree...there are inumerable examples of Cavalry charging against much worse then a line of Pikemen or warriors with spear..sword and shield........AND being succesful.
 
two such examples come to mind immediately
 
a. Murat's famous charge against the Russian center at Eylau which encompassed a huge battery of cannons...in addition to riflemen...
 
b. the charge of the gallant 'Light Horsemen'  (altho to be absolutely technicaly correct thes folks were mounted infantry)at Beersheba in Palestine during WW1... against fixed positons of riflemen and machine guns..
 
And in addition to many factors to include topography you make an excellent point reference training and morale.
 
best
CV


-------------
The dead remain dead only the living cry foul.

High up on the Llano.


Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 19-Aug-2006 at 23:30
two such examples come to mind immediately


Not really familiar with either...how'd they do?


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 00:31
Originally posted by Timotheus

two such examples come to mind immediately


Not really familiar with either...how'd they do?
 
Well in the case of Murat....it....  with Davout's epic march coming in the middle of a howling ass blizzard ...to strike the Russian flank saved Napoleon from what should have been a major defeat. 10,000 charged ..broke the center...attacked the reserve behind the center..reformed and THEN CHARGED AGAIN to escape encirclement... back thru the decimated Russian Grand battery ....losses were around 3600 or so...magnificent effort.Clap
 
the Light Horsemen's charge broke the Turkish lines (and those guys were no slouches mind) and allowed for the capture of a comm site and most critically the water wells of Beersheba and mind you against fixed positons with machine guns etc...another great effort.... for more detail recommend you just do a generic google.
 
 
best   Smile
CV


-------------
The dead remain dead only the living cry foul.

High up on the Llano.


Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 04:14
the whole discussion is idiotic, im only astonished that so many people takes part in it

-------------
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 10:48
what is 'idiotic ' about wanting to learn and exchange views?Shocked

-------------
The dead remain dead only the living cry foul.

High up on the Llano.


Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 20-Aug-2006 at 13:44
Originally posted by Timotheus

No horse will charge a line of serried pikes. If the pikes can hold their line - or even swordmen with good shields (think Hastings) a cavalry charge will fail. If the pikes break ranks the cavalry will wipe them up. It depends, I guess, on who breaks first.

Geography is an important factor but not the all-important one. Morale is. Remember, Alexander defeated a cavalry army with an infantry army at Gaugamela...in a plain.

But it's true, a good band of cavalry in plains or desert (think Arab conquerers 632-732) will in general be superior to infantry, and a good band of infantry in mountain, marsh, or forest will be superior to a cavalry army.

I actually think the most important field of combat is the Navy...but that's for somewhere else
 
It's actually very untrue. I've heard this before and I don't know where do You take it that horses will not go on a line of pikes. How many examples do You want? Battle of Kircholm 1605, Battle of Klushin 1610, Battle of Warsaw 1656 etc...


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2006 at 17:11
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

 
Well in the case of Murat....it....  with Davout's epic march coming in the middle of a howling ass blizzard ...to strike the Russian flank saved Napoleon from what should have been a major defeat. 10,000 charged ..broke the center...attacked the reserve behind the center..reformed and THEN CHARGED AGAIN to escape encirclement... back thru the decimated Russian Grand battery ....losses were around 3600 or so...magnificent effort.Clap
 
 
thats not very accurate description. in fact when the French broke through the secodn line they were beign attacked and surroudned by Russian cavalry and Cossacks and barely made it back to their own lines.


-------------


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2006 at 17:24
my source was chandler and that was my interpretation...generic tho it may have been.... but it was historicaly accurate... ie. they did charge. they did break the center. they did attack the reserve. and they did recounter charge thru an attempted encirclement to regain their own lines....imo thats descriptive enough
further... (the more desciptive detail you make ref..cavalry and cossacks.. while true... altho the comment ref...barely making it back is subjective and questionable ie...he did not only that but with the vast majority of his force... ) merely re-confirms mine and  has nothing to do with the question posed imo... the success of the charge was indisputable and critical.
 
did i mis-interpret the analysis...did chandler lie or are you merely being hypercritical because you feel in your 'infinite wisdom' it needed more detail.
 
and your comment  after the fact lends even more vindication to the original comment i made.Wink
 
best CV


-------------
The dead remain dead only the living cry foul.

High up on the Llano.


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2006 at 17:56
i don't know what you want to say, let's just say there is also a Russian side of the story and Chandler is not the last word to the issue. and certainly especially for this battle, Russian and French primary sources (memoirs) do disagree with each other more than often. one Russian describing the event first hand was for example Colonel Davidov...

-------------


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2006 at 18:25
Originally posted by Temujin

i don't know what you want to say, let's just say there is also a Russian side of the story and Chandler is not the last word to the issue. and certainly especially for this battle, Russian and French primary sources (memoirs) do disagree with each other more than often. one Russian describing the event first hand was for example Colonel Davidov...
 
 
============================================
First as a fomer Professor of Military Science and Military history...I took into account that I did not know the level of  the questioners expertise and kept it generic...but I DID NOT  violate any historical accuracy or generalized representation of that particular event in the battle.
 
Secondly I treated the initial comment and counter question in the context of the general theme of the thread.
 
Thirdly off course Chandler was not the only source... but his analysis and study and research and general objectivity as a military historian/author is legendary... and it should not be supprising that nationalistic tendencies to quibble over aspects of events between the French and the Russians were evident....then or now. This is an ongoing phenomena reference battle... in all it's myriad facets...since the dawn of historiagraphy.
 
this is after all... what the qualified historian attempts to discern and evaluate in keeping with the historical method.Wink
 
finaly I have been teaching this battle among many others over 30 years...and if a more descriptive and detailed account and analysis type discourse is what you desire..start the thread and if I have additional time I would be happy to join in the discussion...to include comments of the good colonel you mention and others who were on the field.
 
best
 
CV


-------------
The dead remain dead only the living cry foul.

High up on the Llano.


Posted By: BigL
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2006 at 18:51
Remeber the Post topic Ancient and Medieval warfare.
 
In Ancient warfare Infantry was rather dominant but medieval it would be idiotic to say infantry was more valued the cavalry.


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 21-Aug-2006 at 19:57
Originally posted by BigL

Remeber the Post topic Ancient and Medieval warfare.
 
In Ancient warfare Infantry was rather dominant but medieval it would be idiotic to say infantry was more valued the cavalry.
 
 
=============================
 
quite correct yet by post number five examples had gone beyond the medievalWink
 
best
 
CV


-------------
The dead remain dead only the living cry foul.

High up on the Llano.


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2006 at 15:08
hardly impressive, Chandler is only good for starters, nothing for people that want to go into detail. if you taught Eylau for 30 years, well i guess you did it wrong 30 years then...

-------------


Posted By: Timotheus
Date Posted: 22-Aug-2006 at 22:06
I've heard this before and I don't know where do You take it that horses will not go on a line of pikes.


Let me qualify my statement: Smile

It is rare that a body of horsemen will frontally charge a body of pikemen successfully if the pikemen do not break ranks.


Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 04:21
Originally posted by Timotheus

I've heard this before and I don't know where do You take it that horses will not go on a line of pikes.


Let me qualify my statement: Smile

It is rare that a body of horsemen will frontally charge a body of pikemen successfully if the pikemen do not break ranks.
 
Ok, now it's more clear cause for a horse there is no diffrence between jumping through the line of pikes or the wall or other obstacle.
 
I don't know if it is rare. In my opinion it depends from cavalry and infantry's quality. As I stated before Polish Lithuanian cavalry was charging successfully in circumstances You described. Generally cavalrymen is usually better trained than infantrymen.
 


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 13:34
Originally posted by Temujin

hardly impressive, Chandler is only good for starters, nothing for people that want to go into detail. if you taught Eylau for 30 years, well i guess you did it wrong 30 years then...
 
===========================================
 
well you certainly are entitled to your opinion...reference Chandler.. but as to my qualifications and or experience.... on the platform... you know NOTHING ...
 
and your opinion and last comment  would be 'dis-regarded' as an 'immature strawman' response by several senior officers to include Generals and various Deans and Chairmen of Dept's I served under...all of them experienced academians and soldiers..former and current.
 
ie.....as an example of attempted ' sour grapes-one upsmanship' with ZERO knowledge of my personal career and qualifications...let alone my academic and military awards reference the same.
 
Not to mention that it is incredibly rude to make such a statement with no basis other then your own subjective opinion.....if this is how you treat new members at large... then you as a moderator of a sub-forum are suspect imo.


-------------
The dead remain dead only the living cry foul.

High up on the Llano.


Posted By: Majkes
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 13:53
From what I know there are various description of many diffrent battles depending who is the witness and which sides describes a battle. So it's no need to argue about description of single battle as You can't be sure that You are totally right or totally wrong. I assume You weren't present thereErmm. Besides we need new members with good historical knowledge and Centrix Vigills is most likely such person.


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 15:00
Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

...
 
listen, i just added something to what you said and you went of about your personal life which i really don't give a damn about. if you had teached this or that for 30 years or only learned this 30 days ago, i don't care. it was my aim to give both viewpoints which you didn't. if you can't handle being corrected by 23 year old members then you should better stick with your pupils that you can enforce your viewpoint upon but here i will add and correct any post as i wish...


-------------


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 16:02
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Centrix Vigilis

...
 
listen, i just added something to what you said and you went of about your personal life which i really don't give a damn about. if you had teached this or that for 30 years or only learned this 30 days ago, i don't care. it was my aim to give both viewpoints which you didn't. if you can't handle being corrected by 23 year old members then you should better stick with your pupils that you can enforce your viewpoint upon but here i will add and correct any post as i wish...
 
============================================
firstly you did not correct me.. you merely brought more specificity to a point that I had elaborated on in a generic ...yet correct manner... and admitted to doing so  for the reasons I sited above....I gave an excellent analysis of a extremely well known viewpoint and felt that was sufficient.
 
 
there's no arguing that you don't have the right to add a viewpoint or comment/elaborate .... in your view ...on anything anyone has posted ..this is after all a forum for discourse...and I would never suggest such a course. I for example did no such thing to you.
 
or deny your's/anyone's right to  present it in a varying context... this is to be encouraged and appreciated... especialy by amateurs ...
 
but you non the less continue to demonstrate your incredible rudeness and discourtsey with your statement above about not giving a damn....you should do just that ie. 'give a damn'...and especialy as a moderator... and take any comment/experience base of a poster...  into context and demonstrate civility..when their is a difference of opinion..
 
I did not for example disregard your apparent ability or expertise... limted compared to mine....tho it might be...it was you who slighted me.
 
my acknowledgement of past experience and background is no threat to you but may be of signficant value in many respects to my overall prescence here...and  is indicative of my signifcantly experienced abilities to debate on... or comment on....any number of topic threads.
 
but as obviously rudeness appears to be your fortay...and defense ....i shall no longer respond to your subsequent posts....and recomend to the administration that they take a long look at your continued usefulness as a moderator.


-------------
The dead remain dead only the living cry foul.

High up on the Llano.


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 16:10
limted compared to mine
 
your certainly not lacking ego...
 
but let's cut this here, you're new and apparently using outdated views/sources. it is not your fault. :)


-------------


Posted By: Centrix Vigilis
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 16:18
Originally posted by Temujin

limted compared to mine
 
your certainly not lacking ego...
 
but let's cut this here, you're new and apparently using outdated views/sources. it is not your fault. :)
 
again you demonstrate rudness.........only is it... in your opinion... am I utlising or not utlizing or presenting 'outdated views/sources'...You do not speak for the entire forum or have you demonstrated yourself to be an SME......merely rude.


-------------
The dead remain dead only the living cry foul.

High up on the Llano.


Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 23-Aug-2006 at 23:46

Can I suggest you to stop this fighting?



Posted By: Brian J Checco
Date Posted: 31-Jan-2007 at 23:38
The answer should be readily apparent. Which is more predominant today? Infantry or cavalry (even armored, and by 'armored' I mean 'tanks'). Cavalry tactics today state that armor is vulnerable without infantry support. Same as it has always been. The cavalry is rather worthless without the infantry.
Cavalry operates in a support role. The infantry holds and does the real fighting, cavalry in the flanks for the win. However, do not discount the fact that infantry, while not as flashy or mobile as cavalry, can still perform the flanking function.
Infantry it is, then.
Cheers.


Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 01-Feb-2007 at 05:47
Originally posted by rockgod214

I was always under the impression that on the battle field Cavalry was superior to Infantry. But I am currently reading the Art of War by Niccolo Machiavilli and he said that Infantry is greater than Cavalry. I would like to know what everyone here thought so I may gain a better understanding on why either I or Machiavilli were wrong in our ideas about the importance of cavalry and infantry
 
Easy answer always cavalry has been superior to infantry from speed to mighty.


-------------
Anfører


Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2007 at 15:11
 Cavalry is not superior to infantry,nor is it inferior, it's in how it,s used.


Posted By: Top Gun
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2007 at 02:54
he is right Warfare changes whole the time it is never standard

-------------
http://imageshack.us"> <a href="http://imageshack.us">[IMG]http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8017/yinyang17625xw7.jpg"


Posted By: Mordoth
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2007 at 19:52
Either CAvalry or Infanty are assets of the sieges .
 
Cavalry is the TANKs of the era .
Infantry hinders the strikes of quickly moving cavalry . That 's why , both of them are priorly important , however cavalry requires more training , horse-riding , dexterity ...etc


-------------
If Electricity Comes from Electrons ; does Morality come from Morons :|


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2007 at 19:57
I believe that the most powerful army are able to attack in full strength, organized and well coordinated fashion and the ability to adapt to the changing environment. Infantry then, is a lot better than calvary. Calvary's true potential is limited to open plain areas, but infantry is able to show their potential in any environment. Plus infantry have better mobility. Not speed, for no men so far can run faster than horses in open field... but they can if the terrian is ruggy and such.

-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2007 at 13:07
cavalry is better than infantry, but infantry is cheaper and easier to train than cavalry unless you have a large pool of horses and trained men (like Steppe Nomads etc). also, horses move fastest in rough terrain, infantry is never more mobile than either motorised or mounted troops. Soviets for example had a type of cavalry called Gorno-Konnu or Gorno-kavalleereiya, which means moutnain cavalry.


-------------


Posted By: Top Gun
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2007 at 13:16
Originally posted by pekau

I believe that the most powerful army are able to attack in full strength, organized and well coordinated fashion and the ability to adapt to the changing environment. Infantry then, is a lot better than calvary. Calvary's true potential is limited to open plain areas, but infantry is able to show their potePntial in any environment. Plus infantry have better mobility. Not speed, for no men so far can run faster than horses in open field... but they can if the terrian is ruggy and such.
 
 
Pekau I don't gett a clue of what you write it isn't liogic at all
 


-------------
http://imageshack.us"> <a href="http://imageshack.us">[IMG]http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8017/yinyang17625xw7.jpg"


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2007 at 14:15
Ha, sorry. I will reword it better when I have time. But seriously, can't you kind of guess by connecting the words? I was half asleep and was being insane when I was typing this.... 

-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: Top Gun
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2007 at 12:58
off course isn't cavalry better then infantry that would be like saying tanks are better then cavalry.
but that isn't cavalry has better factors like maneuvrability while tanks has more power but less of maneuavrability


-------------
http://imageshack.us"> <a href="http://imageshack.us">[IMG]http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8017/yinyang17625xw7.jpg"


Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2007 at 16:48
 Cavalry was used in flanking and fighting other cavalry as well as skirmish and running down fleeing foes.


Posted By: stung
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2007 at 16:51
 Also cavalry based armies like Byzantines,sassanids,parthians and sarmations were defeated and in some cases regularly by infantry based armies like romand,arabs and franks but neither is better than the other as both have their time and place.


Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2007 at 19:24
Originally posted by Top Gun

off course isn't cavalry better then infantry that would be like saying tanks are better then cavalry.
but that isn't cavalry has better factors like maneuvrability while tanks has more power but less of maneuavrability
 
Speaking of calvary vs. tanks.... I heard that some elite Afghanistanian camel riders with RPG massed into tank formation, and took much of the Soviet tanks before the Red Guards slaughtered them with machineguns. As well, many German tanks were taken out by Russian cossacks, with alcoholic drinks and other substances that acted like a homemade bomb. Though it was not successful in general, it was relatively successful around the Caucaus Mountains...


-------------
http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">      
   
Join us.


Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2007 at 00:12
Speaking of cavalry vs tanks...
Have you heard about the battle of Mokra (in was on the 1st of September, 1939), where 1 brigade of Polish cavalry (Wołyńska Brygada Kawalerii) won with 2 German panzer divisions?
Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra
 


Posted By: Batu
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2007 at 13:03
Elephants are cavalrys right? Elephant beats infantary and burning pigs beat elephants. So the most powerful one is pigs.

-------------
A wizard is never late,nor he is early he arrives exactly when he means to :) ( Gandalf the White in the Third Age of History Empire Of Istari )


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2007 at 13:11
elephants are not cavalry, neither are tanks.

-------------


Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 08:36
Originally posted by Temujin


 also, horses move fastest in rough terrain, infantry is never more mobile than either motorised or mounted troops.


Try and get calvalry through a rainforest or swamp faster than infantry.

I believe the best army is usually one of combined arms utilising both Infantry and calvalry. Give me a combined arms force over one that just uses infantry or calvalry anyday. However if I have to give an opinion I would choose Infantry as though calvalry can be decisive in a field battle and usually made superior scouts and raiders they were usually near useless in taking a city or fortress and Infantry I believe is more versatile on average.



-------------
Common sense is not common.

I do not subscribe to a school of thought, I subscribe to thought.



Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 15:21
Originally posted by ataman

Speaking of cavalry vs tanks...
Have you heard about the battle of Mokra (in was on the 1st of September, 1939), where 1 brigade of Polish cavalry (Wołyńska Brygada Kawalerii) won with 2 German panzer divisions?
Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra
 


more accurately, the artillery of this Cavalry Brigade and a Polish Armored Train managed to stop the advance of the 4. Panzerdivision, inflicting many casualties.


-------------


Posted By: ataman
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2007 at 23:19
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by ataman

Speaking of cavalry vs tanks...
Have you heard about the battle of Mokra (in was on the 1st of September, 1939), where 1 brigade of Polish cavalry (Wołyńska Brygada Kawalerii) won with 2 German panzer divisions?
Here is the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mokra
 


more accurately, the artillery of this Cavalry Brigade and a Polish Armored Train managed to stop the advance of the 4. Panzerdivision, inflicting many casualties.
 
Exactly. This detail should be remembered be these ones who still believe old German propaganda, that Polish cavalry charged tanks with sabres and lances Wink.
BTW, in the battle of Mokra, Polish cavalry successfuly charged German infantry. It was classic charge on horses.


Posted By: cheng peng
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 13:26
hahahaha polish peasant boy idiot thats not true those dumb polish could not have taken tanks with horses
 
they where even to dumb to have it hahahahhahahaha


Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2007 at 20:37
Originally posted by cheng peng

hahahaha polish peasant boy idiot thats not true those dumb polish could not have taken tanks with horses
 
they where even to dumb to have it hahahahhahahaha


They didn't actually charge tanks...they charged infantry...


-------------
Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail.
     Edward Abbey


Posted By: Red4tribe
Date Posted: 09-Mar-2007 at 19:09
I'd have to say cavalry because even with a soward or gun it's hard to stop a charging horse.

-------------
Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining.

George Washington - March 15, 1783



Posted By: Crusader3943
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 12:53
Though cavalry was much faster, infantry did not have a, "mighty steed," which offered a bigger target for the enemy to attack. Also, pikeman could easily devastate large groups of cavalry.

Overall, I'd say that infantry is a bit superior to cavalry, though it is hard to compare, because most often they are used for different tactics. Use the two in unison and you'll have a deadly combination.

Difficult to say now though, as cavalry isn't used anymore.

-------------
Crusader3943


Posted By: Crusader3943
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2007 at 12:56
Originally posted by Red4tribe

I'd have to say cavalry because even with a soward or gun it's hard to stop a charging horse.


Shoot the horse and there goes the rider!

-------------
Crusader3943


Posted By: Onogur
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2007 at 16:23

In my opinion, cavalry is still used today.... not horses, of course, but tanks and other armoured vehicles.



Posted By: Chwyatt
Date Posted: 20-Mar-2007 at 10:10

Horse archers will beat un-armoured infantry. Strong cavalry will beat a disorganised rabble. But disciplined infantry with pikes will beat cavalry. I think the army with good discipline and good protection will usually come out on top, whether they be infantry or cavalry. Terrain plays a role as well. Swiss mountains producing sturdy infantry to beat Burgundian cavalry, or rolling Eurasian steppes producing the ancient/medieval worlds finest cavalry forces.

 

 

Hi all, I’m new here. Greetings to the good people of this forum.



Posted By: Crusader3943
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2007 at 08:46
Originally posted by Onogur

In my opinion, cavalry is still used today.... not horses, of course, but tanks and other armoured vehicles.



Yes, but I think that we're talking about the horse cavalry.

-------------
Crusader3943


Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 27-Mar-2007 at 15:23

Infantry is used to fight down and dirty but the cavalry is what leads the decisive outcome of a battle because of its mobility and superior power. However, both depends on each other because without the infantry holding the line, the cavalry cannot swing around to attack the flanks and rear of an enemy force. Though infantry can do this too, cavalry is better in use. So I must say cavalry is more important than infantry if cavalry is present.



Posted By: HydraDragon
Date Posted: 28-Mar-2007 at 15:00
^^ I agree, cavalry is the decisive troops that would decide the battle.


Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 07:01
Originally posted by Kamikaze 738

Infantry is used to fight down and dirty but the cavalry is what leads the decisive outcome of a battle because of its mobility and superior power. However, both depends on each other because without the infantry holding the line, the cavalry cannot swing around to attack the flanks and rear of an enemy force. Though infantry can do this too, cavalry is better in use. So I must say cavalry is more important than infantry if cavalry is present.



going by your logic calvalry needs infantry as a holding force so it can outflank the enemy but it is not necesary indeed only preferable for calvalry to perform the flanking operation, which Infantry forces are capable if usually worse at performing. So using your logic cavalry needs infantry but infantry doesn't NEED calvalry, the only possible conclusion that can be drawn from this argument is that infantry is more important then calvalry.


-------------
Common sense is not common.

I do not subscribe to a school of thought, I subscribe to thought.



Posted By: Kerimoglu
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 11:54
Infantry in steppe can never stand against cavalry, even if they have pikes and so on. In mountains, cavalry is nothing - remember Carrhae and Antonis counter attack

-------------
History is a farm. Nations are farmers. What they planted before will show what is going to grow tomorrow!


Posted By: HydraDragon
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 13:25
Originally posted by Praetor

Originally posted by Kamikaze 738

Infantry is used to fight down and dirty but the cavalry is what leads the decisive outcome of a battle because of its mobility and superior power. However, both depends on each other because without the infantry holding the line, the cavalry cannot swing around to attack the flanks and rear of an enemy force. Though infantry can do this too, cavalry is better in use. So I must say cavalry is more important than infantry if cavalry is present.



going by your logic calvalry needs infantry as a holding force so it can outflank the enemy but it is not necesary indeed only preferable for calvalry to perform the flanking operation, which Infantry forces are capable if usually worse at performing. So using your logic cavalry needs infantry but infantry doesn't NEED calvalry, the only possible conclusion that can be drawn from this argument is that infantry is more important then calvalry.
 
Cavalry is better than infantry if theres cavalry on the field. Its more important in battle considering the effectiveness of cavalry compare to infantry which is just holding the line.


Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 14:53
Originally posted by Praetor

Originally posted by Kamikaze 738

Infantry is used to fight down and dirty but the cavalry is what leads the decisive outcome of a battle because of its mobility and superior power. However, both depends on each other because without the infantry holding the line, the cavalry cannot swing around to attack the flanks and rear of an enemy force. Though infantry can do this too, cavalry is better in use. So I must say cavalry is more important than infantry if cavalry is present.



going by your logic calvalry needs infantry as a holding force so it can outflank the enemy but it is not necesary indeed only preferable for calvalry to perform the flanking operation, which Infantry forces are capable if usually worse at performing. So using your logic cavalry needs infantry but infantry doesn't NEED calvalry, the only possible conclusion that can be drawn from this argument is that infantry is more important then calvalry.
 
Lol, you are right. Infantry is the basic of mostly all professional armies in the world. I agree but then again I didnt say anything about horse archers or any other ranged cavalry LOL They are the ultimate troops of any army, consider that they are armed with weapons that are fit in close-quater and long-range.


Posted By: Reaper
Date Posted: 29-Mar-2007 at 15:01
I would say it depends on the situation.  In holding ground I'd go with the infantry, when I need mobility and flanking power (not to say infantry can't flank) I'd go with cavalry.


Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 30-Mar-2007 at 05:11
Originally posted by Kamikaze 738

Lol, you are right. Infantry is the basic of mostly all professional armies in the world. I agree but then again I didnt say anything about horse archers or any other ranged cavalry LOL They are the ultimate troops of any army, consider that they are armed with weapons that are fit in close-quater and long-range.


No you didn't say anything about horse archers as I said  was going strictly by your logic as in your argument. As for hose archers they are very effective in certain situations and environments but I don't think they can claim to be the ultimate troops (I don't think any group can). Most hose archers and other ranged calvalry are not suited to close combat well, because of thier lack of armour, appropriate weaponry, type of training and discipline. One exception to this is the Cataphract which is well equiped and trained in both styles of fighting (and is one of my favourite units), however they like all calvalry can still not act as a holding force and are only useful as a raiding and "sallying" force during a siege. In conclusion all types of units have thier limits, so give me a combined arms force anyday.


-------------
Common sense is not common.

I do not subscribe to a school of thought, I subscribe to thought.



Posted By: Kamikaze 738
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2007 at 13:34
Horse Archers can keep their distance against infantry as they are faster and can continue to rain arrows against the infantry as they flee if they are trained to do so. Like cataphracts, they are one of the best trained troops to be used in the battlefield. And who would use cavalry in a pitched battle? They are used as shock troops.



Print Page | Close Window