Talk:Cavalry

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / Medieval Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Template:FAOL

World War II

The last cavalry charges in modern warfare were seen in the Second World War, where Polish and Cossack cavalry regiments scored unexpected successes against German armored advances " In which battle was this? -Colin MacDonald

This should be checked by someone who understands the composition of eastern armies (Persian, Indian, Chinese, etc) better than I do.

Polish cavalry scored with their sabres against tanks? Show me sources. All reports state the Polish cavalry were brave to attack, but few could report their perspective of the events afterwards. Wandalstouring 13:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not with their sabers. I think there have been plenty of references mentioned for the success of Polish cavalrymen in WW2, both in this article and in the more specific pages (such as the page for the Battle of Krojanty, the most classic example). Lay 13:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation of change

Musketeers, pikeman etc were totally useless against properly leaded and trained cavalry, up to some 1620s, and cavalry in eastern style still was able to defeat infantry surely during napoleonic wars (i don't know any such accidents later).

Anyway, i feel that changes i did should be reworded, but i am a bit tired and i will work on it later, unless someone else will eb able to came with inflammatory sentence which would reflect difference between Western and Eastern cavalry szopen

They were not really useless--it's only that in a conflict between well-trained infantry and cavalry, the result entirely depended on which side broke before contact. If the infantry didn't break, the cavalry were simply repulsed and had to return in order to reform for a subsequent attack; if the infantry broke, the cavalry came in and pursued. It's that simple. Lay 18:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between Western and Eastern cavalry? "Eastern" cavalry usually had better skirmishers and skilled horsemen. Their counterpart trained more to act as closed units. But the Romans said this about their German counterparts, etc. This concerns specially Chinese AND European cavalry units in comparison to enemies from the Asian steppe! Big difference is the way lances were held. In Europe it was embedded and single handed, the rest of the world held them in the two handed Asian style to be able to parry. Wandalstouring 13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a bit simplistic, because Sassanids and Mamluks, despite their reliance on the bow, fought in ordered lines using a specific massed archery technique known among modern archers as "rapid shooting" or "shower shooting." Of course, they also had lighter bow-armed cavalry fighting in the more common close-range swarming method, so the picture is never a simple one.

Dragoons vs. Mounted Infantry

My understanding was that dragoons were trained and equipped to fight as both cavalry and infantry. Mounted Infantry referred to infantry that travelled to the festivities on horseback. Edmilne 13:25, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

It is almost the same. Dragoons could fight on horseback (but were no match for real cavalry). Mounted infantry always dismounted for combat. Wandalstouring 12:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Stirrup

I think that there should be a comment explaining the importance of the stirrup (and saddle). It allowed the cavalry to apply the full weight of both rider and horse to the tip of his lance. Backback cavalry could only poke at the opposition for fear of unseating themselves. Edmilne 13:25, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)

Some reenactment riders told me, they have no influence on thrusting with the lance. Therefore only the high saddle is important. Stirrups do have an important role for close combat with secondary weapons like swords, sabres or maces, making it possible to stand up and secure the rider while wheeling around with the horse. Note that till the Mongol invasion light cavalry in Europe and the Middle East disputed pro and contra of stirrups. Wandalstouring 12:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's own article on the Lance says that "Recent evidence has suggested... that the lance charge could be (and was) effected without the benefit of stirrups." Something to consider: a hypothetical horse and rider weighing 453.59237 kilos(1000 pounds) charging at 20 miles per hour(8.9408 meters per second) have a kinetic energy of 13371.715928257 foot pounds (18129.6118092458 joules). I don't know about you but that might make my arm a little sore. Fean 06:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalry weakness

The reason that earlier cavalry could only attack in the flank or rear was because of the presence of disciplined, closed infantry formations like the Greek phalanx and Roman legion. No horse wil plunge itself on such a dense thicket of spears. When such formations disappeared in medieval times frontal cavalry assaults became possible.

Such formations did not dissapear in the Middle Ages--if they did, what will we make of the Byzantine skoutatoi formations, the Anglo-Saxon shieldwalls, and the way that the seemingly independent reinvention of pike squares in several widely separated locales hinted at the presence of a common heritage of massed spear hedge formations? Lay 18:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalry usually attacks infantry at the flanks. No need to commit suicide in their spearhedge and infantry in the MA did have spears and stood close. I started writing on cavalry tactics, firstly, before any frontal assault, firepower was used to create gaps, secondly frontal assault was rarely the favored choice by knights. Read some wiki articles. Wandalstouring 12:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cavalry Designation

Cavalry is not a specific mode of battlefield transport, or rather a specific technology of war. Calvalry is a theory of opearation. The key component of this theory being rapid mobility. Units of the USA are not known as "Cavalry" for historical reasons, they are known as "Cavalry" becasue that is what they are. That the mobility is provided by helicopters today (and possibly tilt rotar aircraft in the future) is a minor distinction

dragoons were originally mounted infantry but later on, became more of heavy cavalry. for example Napoleon's "Cuirassiers" at waterloo were dragoons.

I disagree - the word is specifically from cavalier, French for horseman, derived from Old Italian cavaliere, from Late Latin caballrius, from Latin caballus, horse. Fawcett5 22:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The word's origins have nothing to do with how the concept of Cavalry has evolved. I must agree that the Cavalry designations that continue today are less because of historical ties to a unit designation as Cavalry (although they are celebrated and highly treasured), and more to do with historical ties to mission and concept of employment. It was the horse's speed and mobility that gave Cavalry the advantage, just as today's "steeds" continue to do. --Born2flie 12:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous user you have copied a statement of a military official explaining why the US calls its mobile units cavalry. We already covered this up by saying that there is modern cavalry without horses. Wandalstouring 12:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete my comments simply because you find it inconvenient or irrelevant to your decisions about the article. I recommend a discussion something more like, "Born2flie, we already modified the article after considering anonymous users discussion." You know, something civilized. And, I am not the anonymous user who posted the original discussion topic, and my comments, except where designated as quotes and usually with citations or reference, originate with me. Thank you. --Born2flie 22:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who deleted what? I can not remember doing anything like this on purpose. Wandalstouring 00:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was your first edit after I delineated between all the discussions (check the history page). I accept that it was unintentional. When my comment disappeared and you addressed the anonymous user, I took it to mean you thought I was anonymous user come back to make the case again. --Born2flie 03:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demise

Didn't the Cossacks do some important, victorious calvary operations for the Germans in WWII?-LtNOWIS 04:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, some did fight for Germany (often as an anti-partisan force, almost always as dragoons). Others fought with the Soviets, and occasionally cossack would fight cossack.12.150.117.30 19:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stirrups

Something needs to be said about stirrups?

look above, look on cavalry tactics. reading is a useful ability. Wandalstouring 00:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Lancers

I have removed the link to "Winged Lancers" because it seems redundant--the material is already covered in the "History" section of the "Hussar" article, which in turn already possesses a working link among the list. If anybody objects to this move then let's discuss the pros and cons here. Lay 11:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winged lancers were the Polish unit and they were nice enough to provide us with plenty of pictures. Currently there is rarely a cavalry picture not showing a Polish winged lancer. Wandalstouring 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Cavalry

Can somebody please help me improve this section? I know there are many cavalry forces I haven't covered, like those of the Gok Turuk, the Kushana, and the Rajputs and Marathas, but I'm hampered by a serious lack of sources down here. Lay 02:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

good job, do you have some pictures? Wandalstouring 13:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infamous cavalry forces

Here is the list of infamous cavalry forces. Never mind if it stays really short.

I want to point out that we can add almost anything on horseback in the famous cavalry section. A new division could be useful like: 1. types of cavalry / 2. cavalry forces Wandalstouring 16:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the non-european section

I cann't imagine the most important central asia nomads cann't be placed as the center of this article.We here talk too much of european ones.--Ksyrie 07:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthur more,there are no Indigenous peoples of the Americas part.--Ksyrie 07:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous peoples of the Americas only used horses after they were introduced by the Europeans. Furthermore they did not really use them as Cavalry units as such, rather as skirmishing and raiding parties. This probably qualifies on the fringe of being Cavalry units but I wouldn't expect more than a brief mention in the article. There is also some mention of Central Asian cavalry, although I agree this should be expanded upon along with the introduction of East Asian cavalry. The article will always have a European focus however as Cavalry was undoubtedly a mainly European method of warfare. Canderra 12:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overlap with Horses in warfare

There is massive overlap with Horses in warfare, formerly War Horse. I have spent too much time on it, but any brave editor who fancies a challenge.... BrainyBabe 22:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense

Why is this article in past-tense? Mounted units do still exist. MVMosin 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]