And when you are the typical combatant of a pre-industrial army (a farmer who only tagged along for loot), nothing is really going to convince you to stand your ground when facing something like that. First you falter, then you turn, you run, your buddies do the same and the fight is technically over.
you started well enough but it was massed artillery, mud and machine guns that put an end to horses. tanks and tracked vehicles (be it sleds, trains or trucks) took on the roles that 4 legged animals could not. Resupply infrastructure, spear-tip, scout and carrier of big guns.
Really? Google WW2 Charge at Krojanty The Polish Calvary had Lances,yes,but the sword was replaced with pistols and Rifles and they were considered light mobile units similar to Jeeps with machine gun turrets Of course US Calvary vs Indians where they are shooting at each other on horses (not aiming for Horses which were "valuable spoils") is American History
One has the feeling that said man was optimistic in more than one way. "While we're at it, why only limit it to horses? Why, with this invention why don't we get her to ride on an unpredictable bull instead? Or a tiger?"
i think MOST military tech was at one time considered pretty stupid. guns? ''here... hold this. it will explode, but if it holds together it should shoot this tiny bit out the end'' planes? ''its made of canvas, wood, and paper... hop in and fly it! safe?? oh heavens no... the opposite in fact'' everything is stupid until someone figures out how to make it ''not stupid'' and it gives them a massive advantage. then it's a game changer and they are brilliant
We actually cannot get them work, at least not safely. There are only two gases than can reliably lift a big passenger zeppelin that could transport people/cargo across large distances: Hydrogen and Helium. Hydrogen is cheap (you can get it by electrolysing water) but ridiculously flammable, while Helium is much more stable, but since the US kept its reserves artificially cheap and wasted them for decades, so it is slowly becoming scarce enough that filling zeppelins with the stuff would be a waste.
Well, and if we get some genius coming along making vacuum airships. JS. that would be the "Cheapest" by envelope filler. but I suspect the envelope itself would be space age expensive.
I can tell you why the first horses were ridden, it was quite probably not done for any advantage like using them for work or travel or combat, I bet it was just some idiots having a hold my beer moment.
Not to mention riding a horse is pretty cool. Even if just for getting around, it looks imposing. It could have also begun as a sort of status symbol. A "Look, Im a great chieftain and I can maintain these beautiful beasts", sort of thing
hahahhaha Bob I never thought of it that way but oh man I just know you are right, this exactly how these things happen! "Hold my beer, watch this bro, I can totally jump on that thing and make it carry me around."
I'd suspect that riding horses was more of a thing that kids of nomad tribes started doing. Maybe parents put them on horseback with their baggage when they moved to new pastoral grounds and kids growing up with that might grow up to ride around on horseback. As horses grew bigger and probably with some experimentation in the sort of skirmish battlefields that would occur on the steppes and with knowledge of chariot warfare but without the economy to actually produce chariots, cavalry might have slowly evolved and then reached a point that it became efficient enough to produce an "oh shit"-moment when these tribes started raiding the civilized city states in the middle east.
@@thegreatrainman2336 Horses could easily be beaten back by a wall of spears. Formations made to scare horses and kill them. When muskets came, they took an already used formation to go against horses. Cav were not easy to use. Also looking after thousands of men and a few hundred horses is a hard task alone.
At first I thought you'd lost it- cavalry was extremely useful for commanders, both tactically and as scouts. But then I decided to hear you out, and you are spot-on. It really is kind of amazing that horses were ever domesticated in the first place. The initial domestication must have taken nerves stronger than steel cable!
We'd already had experience with domesticating dogs, goats, cattle, pigs, and even llamas, all of which can be difficult and dangerous in their own ways. Heck, two of those actually want to eat us. I imagine horses were fairly easy to domesticate after that, just build paddocks around them, or somehow drive them in. Perhaps first it was to slaughter for meat or use for milk, but having them around we would have come up with new uses over time, and by then the horses would be more used to be around humans and being handled by them in some way. Cavalry is pretty nuts, but it probably started with using them for carrying loads, then riding for travel, then it would've been a natural outgrowth to hunt from horseback, and eventually ride them into battle as commanders, and finally the cavalry charge.
To clarify: this video isn't saying that cavalry was ineffective throughout history; it obviously wasn't. It's about the numerous problems that needed to be solved by ancient cultures in order for cavalry to become effective.
If a dog is mans best friend then horses must be his greatest ally. The amount of work the horse has done for mankind over the millennia is phenomenal.
@@Bikeadelic only because they've been replaced by steam/internal combustion for 3 generations now but even in WW2 successful cavalry charges were performed, and horses were used to carry artillery and baggage carts just like they have been for millennia.
Mongolian horse archers Sassanid cataphracts Parthian horse archers Russian cossacks Polish hussars Ottoman sipahi French cuirassiers Etc etc And these are only some of the notable ones For thousands of years all armies needed cavalry
@@wynnwong4008 "Mobile archery" thanks to the horses A group of archers couldn't have destroyed an entire roman army with little effort but horse archers did. Also the cataphracts and the hussars were amazing. The heavy cavalry charge was absolutely devastating to the infantry and the hussars... Well they saved vienna
Yes and no, at the same time, you made a few good points, but also made some faults. Let's start step by step: -Armed riders in Europe started around 800 BC with the East Hallstatt Culture, we have iconography like the beltplate of Vace, Slowenia, which shows mounted warriors, and we have the archaeological pendants like Kleinklein, Steiermark, Austria. Iconography, specially the early ones, are hard to believe or are just not enough detailed to get a good image, but when those illustrations, correspond to actual archaeological findings, it becomes clearer. And those guys rode their horses with no real saddles, at lest non with a wooden tree, like the celtic/roman saddles, so it was more like an riding pad, in best case. And it worked, when your riding skills were good. - Horses often get seen as skittish prey creatures, but modern ethology shows significant differences. An example is the gender. In a wild herd, the "leading mare" (leading behaviors is also a very complex topic, and don't work like a pyramid hierarchy as most people think in horses, but this is not relevant for this video) is responsable fr leading the herd to water, food an safety. The "leading stallion" is responsable to keep the herd together and protect the herd from predators, so that the "leading mare" can guide the herd members to a safe place. Do you have an idea how often wild stallions fight and defeat and sometimes (but rare) even kill attacking predators? So in average stallions are braver and more agressive as females, what also explains any kind of historical iconography that the artists and craftsmen showed clearly that the war horses used where stallions. Same for the written sources, at least in best case. So oft curse the people of the past searched and used horses (primarily stallions, but there a few archaeological exceptons, but very rare) who have the necessary braveness and agression. Today those character tread, became less important and it's hard to find such a horse today, because breeding changed, today most horses are working animals or companions in sport and hobby. But even today you find such old bloodlines with very distinctive character trades of the past time, like the Camargue ponies, old Spanish bloodlines, often used for bull fights or robust ponies, who are all less skittish than more modern breeds like the British pure blood. And of course in this very small percentage you find exceptional well conditioned individuals for that kind of job, same as with humans. If you ever meet Zogo, the Murgese stallion of Joram van Essen, and know the destrier of Mike Canfor, or meeting Aragon the old Spanish blood Gelding, who is trained at the moment, by an archaeologist (don't know the name of Aragon's owner, the FB channel don't mentions that) for experiments, you will understand what i mean. Those horses are incredible different from modern breeds, Arne Koets told me (who works with the owner of Aragon for example, that Aragon needed just 5 mins to desensitize from plate armor and being able to do all speeds, without any negative reaction or fear, what is totally different to what you would expect from a horse. So we can tell, that the horses used for combat, where a specific type of character and talent, specialy for the elite, who was usual mounted in most cultures. -Stirrup experiments and researches are done atm, but no result published atm, so more will follow, for example by Lisa Kyre from Germany. -As far as we can tell, horses even in the late medieval period, where not that large as we may think of. The average stays between 150 and 155cm with some exceptions. Similar sizes we can see in roman cavalierly or other periods for example, Sutton Hoo Burial mound 17, a around 8 year old stallion between 152cm of shoulder height. A well treated horse of that size, weight between 450 and 500 kg. Riders say that a horse can, wen well riden, carry a third of his body weight without any risk. So even for late XV century knights, with a full plate suit, which weights (field suit) around 25kg, plus the rider an tack (no full horse armor) you lay around 95 to 105 kg of additional weight. That's still far away from the critical third of the horses body weight. And we know, how well trained those horses of the XV century were. Similar is it with any kind of armor, no matter what period, the armors used for battle from horseback were never that heavy, of course not. With shield and a full coat of mail, with a closed helmet as Arne, André, Joram, and Milan wears for example, it is maybe 30kg of gear depending of the shield. So weight is not a critical factor. There's so much more to say about, but that would be to much, so just here the few most important points. Some references: facebook.com/RijClinicsArneKoets/ facebook.com/destrier.lucilinburhuc/ th-cam.com/users/airntvideos Some Literature: C.Hornig. Das spätsächsische Gräberfeld von Rullstorf (Leihdorf 1993). M. Carver, Sutton Hoo, a seventh-century princely burial and its context (2005). M. Carver, Sutton Hoo, Burialground of Kings? Britishmuseum (2005). W. Gerbers, Auf dem Weg nach Wallhall. Das Pferd der Altsachsen, Begleiter durch Leben und Tod (Lohne 2004). M. Rech (Hrsg), Pferdeopfer-Reiterkrieger. Fahren und Reiten durch die Jahrtausende (Bremen 2006). A. Hyland, The medieval war horse, from Byzantium to the Crusades (New York 1990). H. Müller, Albrecht Dürer. Waffen und Rüstungen (Berlin 2002). j. Clark, Medieval horse and it's equipment, c,1150- 1450, Medieval find from excavations in London (London 2011) J.C Smith, Dürer. Arts & Ideas (vienna 2012).
Ahh yea well, thanks XD It's a topic, which just starts to get researched, so clearer results will follow hopefully soon. Sure good sources are important.
For most of history cavalry’s main purpose was to pursue and cut down retreating enemy forces. Alexander used cavalry as shock troops and in pre-modern and modern era cavalry fought each other, but their main purpose was routing the enemy.
@@FlameDarkfire also covering light infantry/support units (slingers/javelinners/archers/ambushers/horse support units), dont forget about charging from backside or flanks, some types of cavalry even charged in front of heavy infantry (late knights, catafracts), only light support cavalry were supposed to pursue enemies. And EVERY type of cavalry was weak in meele combat against ANY infantry (cavalry had advantages only in charging and moving speed).
It was also used to scout for the enemy pre-battle, harass them while they were moving to and setting up for battle, and to turn their flanks by using the horse's superior speed during the battle. The use of cavalry for warfare IS NOT stupid. Using cavalry INCORRECTLY in warfare is stupid.
Speed, scouting, harrassment, and ability to run down or outflank an enemy force at it's weakest. You wouldn't use cavalry to smash into the front of a prepared and determined enemy force, thats the job of another infantry unit, to pin that unit into place. You would strike a unit from an unprepared flank with cavalry, or to route a wavering or inexperience foe.
good sir, revoke that statement, i believe that knife fighting on the top of a sand worm is a very clever way of carrying out your legacy, you sir are incorrect and mistaking the bad-assery of fighting on the top of a sand worm with a knife in your hand with it not being as brilliant as Leonardo Da Vinci himself!
Thesis of the video: Cavalry was a laughable idea and something that would have appeared impossible to the cultures that adopted the method of warfare. This is not discrediting the efficiency of cavalry. This is not denying the impact that cavalry had in warfare. This is simply a statement about the initial thoughts that people would have when presented with the idea of cavalry. What people are (incorrectly) perceiving Lloyd to be saying: Cavalry's bad
+Patrick Except that this is exactly what he IS saying, in the very first sentence: "Using horses in warfare as cavalry is a stupid idea and that is what I am going to talk about in this video." What are YOU perceiving that he is saying in that sentence?
tzenophile He wasn't saying cavalry was a bad tactic, he was saying the idea of riding around on a horse trying to kill people on foot was likely perceived to be stupid before it became a prevalent military technique. Nobody would know that cavalry would win many battles and that in shock tactics they were supreme when the idea first came along, so it must have just sounded absurd.
@@secretbaguette not like that,I mean almost dropping and killing the fucking child because a moth was in a wall at least 3 meters away from me type of stuff
Mats Nylund sweden is still famous for bogus and illusioned decisions (e.g modern politics are a good example). Very sadly, as its a beautifull country.
they used bows gve them two advantages, speed and range. AND that type of army was kinda new to everyone else, and if it were seen today it wouldve kinda looked like when Adolf invaded poland with tanks and modern tactics.
@@santiagocortez9554 It really wasn`t new. It was just forgotten by a lot of people, but the Hungarians (Ironically, the last european nation the mongols reached, and almost destroyed. ) used the exact same tactics centuries before and menaced most of europe before going native and adopting christianity and the european feudal system.
@@barbatvs8959 Lol "Mary Worshippers" i suppose this is aimed at Catholics? So tell me, what religion should one convert to in the year 1000? You know, before protestants even existed? Oh, btw, Hungary has plenty of Protestants itself these days. If you only consider them "true christians". Of course this kind of exclusion of essentially what is the majority of christianity (Considering if you don't consider Catholics true christians, then i guess you would exlude Eastern Ortohox ones too, since they are closer to Catholicism as to protestants.) is rather dumb.
Experiments were done by a group called CrazyForCows which tried to use steers as cavalry (a bull would be very difficult to train because of their aggresiveness) with specialty saddles and they found they could only coax them into moving 8 miles per hour. They also take more food than a horse. A horse typically will eat 20 pounds of hay per day, a cow will eat 24 pounds. If you were fielding an army of them, the 20% increased food requirements would be very difficult to manage indeed.
Because for some reason mojang doesnt allow us to put saddles on cows in minecracft.More like mojang was a stupid idea am i right?..........haha.......kill me
Horses allowing people to ride them into battle was pretty stupid but horse unions were notoriously ineffective as every motion proposed was shot down with a thunderous nay. I'll get my coat.
Though, many years ago, Lloyd did say that cavalry was, for a long time, a ridiculously stupid idea compared to chariots. Maybe that's why they get along so well!
Swadian and sarranid was using armored war horse, i think the calvary term in lindy mind was smiliar to khergit lancer (which obviously considered the worst melee cavalry, and the cheapest). Riding fast unarmored horse that was not good for anything except flanking manuver
Why did they ever change Salt and Vinegar from Blue to Green, and Cheese and Onion from Green to Blue? Whats next? Yellow Ready Salted? It doesn't bear thinking about.
i guess because in italy cinegar is commonly deoucted as yellow or green, and there are instances of cheese and onions depicted as blue, but we're talking about the uk here so i dunno.
sourcream and onion has been blue, plain salted yellow, dill green, grill/bbq brown, cheese orange and vinegar teal/turqoise in Sweden for as long as I can remember XD
True Born Son of Liberty lol alone with people claiming on youtube to be sons of polish hussars/napoleonic war heroes/viking descendants you could reenact these events. Funniest thing: theyre all from america, where its the easiest to tell your son whatever you like because yiu fled your homecountry and any evidence
I heared PHD mentioning saddles were used few thousands years before cristianity. which make sense because saddles were not so hard to build if you think about it
@Yeast Yeast he was killed during negotiations but as the story goes his the parthians poured melted gold down the throat of his dead corpse... May well be a myth... May just be the truth... Pouring melted gold down the throat has been a recorded method of execution for some civilisations
Caesar also has the same experience getting harassed by Numidian cavalry out in the open during the civil war in North Africa. The different is Caesar is not Crassus.
The title is mostly for clickbait but the point he's making is about wild horses. This is why it took a couple *thousand* years after domestication for horses to be used just for pulling chariots and even longer for horse-riding warriors to become prominent.
Also while trained warhorses might be willing to charge into a shield wall, charging one into solid infantry is a good way to find yourself on a dead horse falling towards a line of hostile soldiers. Well disciplined infantry were incredibly difficult for cavalry to attack in most periods- the main tactic of cavalry is to charge at a formation hoping they'll either break and run or at least get disorganized enough to loosen up so cavalry can run through the middle of them, and if the infantry don't loosen they turn away at the last moment. What made them so powerful is that infantry needed to not only resist the urge to break and run in the face of a giant horse barreling at you, but also resist the urge to leave formation and chase after the enemy when they appeared to be running.
Normally a fan of your work, but this one falls REALLY flat. Yes, undomesticated, untrained horses are a bad idea in battle. Which is why the cultures that utilized them trained them, raised them from birth, practiced with them every day, and invented devices to aid in these endeavors. The armies who had cavalry historically had a GREAT advantage over those who didn't.
The title was inaccurate, probably to get more clicks, but his point wasn't that cavalry was never useful, it's that it was not useful for most of human history, until stirrups and pommels were invented.
my friend Rome hadn't cavlary until make the gauls federats so the where fine and after that they didnt liked using cavlay much and thats the longest lasting empire in our world (if we dont count China as an empire)
As someone who rode horses for more than 10 years actively I often been thinking about this. Like, I'm not the greatest rider out there, but I'm pretty comfortable on horseback even at high speeds, but that's without all the massive weight and gear required for combat. The idea of efficiently maneuvering the horse while at the same time trying to hit people with a weapon and not dying is just baffling to me. Obviously it can be done as proven by history, but the amount of skill it takes both from the people who need to breed and condition the horses as well as the guys doing the actual riding is massive. It does explain why (if my memory serves me correctly) adjusted for inflation the price of a single medieval knight's horse and equipment adjusted for inflation is more than the price of a large modern house.
I remember the jousting competition history channel ran. As it turned out the people who did the best with it were the professional horse trainers. The people with the most riding experience and the people with the best understanding of horses
@Bold well knights in the most basic of terms were simply soldiers who rode horses. Their social standing really varied depending on time period and country. You’re thinking of lords (which all knights were generally lords or land owners but not all lords were knights) but primarily they were cavalry soldiers above all other things
The cavalry only survived into modern times because it was beneath the dignity of the landed gentry to walk into battle. The history of warfare shows that cavalry charges were rarely effective against a determined body of infantrymen, and that after one good charge the surviving horses were blown and unfit for further action. Even if they charged successfully, their momentum often carried them straight off the field and they were of no further use to their generals. It was a hopelessly inefficient form of warfare. The successful horsemen were those either used for reconnaissance or the bowmen or mounted infantry used for harassing actions. To quote Punch "The use of cavalry is to give tone to what would otherwise be a mere vulgar brawl".
velin kosev that area of north macedonia was inhabited by dardanians back in the Bronze Age.And the molosian tribe in chameria(epirus) was southe illyrian. Because the ancient greeks considerd the epirus region way less Greek so pyhrris of epirus was Illyrian to.So iven from his mothers side he was illyrian
Who do you think was the brave man that tried to go grab a 1300-2000lb beast? Also, why don't we drink milk from any other animals? (Hardly anyone drinks goats milk, and I don't know of any other animal we drink milk from.)
Jaxon Duin I personally grew up with goats, and cannot stand goats milk, or cheese. I was saying is there any animals other than cows and goats that people drink milk from. Granted in the U.S people don't drink it, I acknowledged people still drink it :)
+Mrjohnnymoo1 The biggest reason for people not drinking goats milk (excluding south america) is due to its expensive nature. Goats dont produce much milk, and it is therefore in short supply. I personally love goat milk products
In my opinion the reason stirrups became more popular than the roman saddle is that you can stand up in them. This not only means that your horse can gallop longer (due to a more even weight distribution than while sitting down), but also provided an advantage in combat as this allowed you to make your strikes more powerful by allowing you to put your whole weight behind it. Also it provided a defensive advantage as standing up made your upper body harder to reach.
@Lindybeige as a former horse rider, I have a little answer, and observation, about what's said on the "controling" part. To control your horse, you're needing basicaly nothing more than yourself. You BODYWEIGHT, is more than enough, to have direct action on your horse to be exact, and how you're acting with your legs. When I used to ride regularly, we were trained to avoid somes accidents, coming mostly by the gears breaking when we are in action. Losing your stirrups? No big deal. By pressing your ankles, you're able to create enough force to not only STAY on your horse, but also rise yourself out of the saddle, and by example, be ready for jumping. (Good tip, never jump when sitting in your saddle, that's a freaking unpleasant experience) Same, your reins are broken? Sit on, put your weight on the back, and go in opposition with the horse. Want to go right or left? No big deal, push him with your leg. By this you can, with a bit of training, offering a "standard" gesture, turning in a circle, or even making him move on the side directly, staying straight and without turning his head. This, was also used when we were riding a horse a bit "difficult", like those who refuse to answer to the reins, and take advantage of the bit, by bitting it. With a correct training, and a horse known and trained as well, it's possible to have a complete hands-free riding without putting yourself to much in danger... So, I see many options for horses, even without being used to "charge" an enemy army. In first, of course, to be used as scouts. Even if he have to lift your weight, a horse will be more agile than two-wheels-basket. With it you can have high accelerations to a speed far more important than any human, you're able to climb, to jump, to pass river even by swimming. - Yes, horses are able to swim. Fact is, a horse will gradually less be afraid from any kind of things around him, along the fact he will create a bond of trust with his rider. That's quite basical dominance here. Horses aren't made to stay alone. If you're able to take the leading place, than he will follow your lead and be less easily scared. More than scouting, horses can become useful for ranged weapons. Bow, spears, javelins, whatever you could throw to your enemy... As long as you're not going close to them, you would be able to harass, disturb, and sometime break them. And, in the last point, a horse is able to carry two men on his back for, of course, a shorter distance... But still have a decisive speed in those ages. It's more about raiding than moving as a disciplined army, for sure. But it's not stupid to think they could have been used in those ways. And... Raid, raiders, ride, riders... That's a quite close. Maybe words could help us to betterly understand how our ancestors lived those ages. For what I think, again not as historian but as former rider, I have some reluctance to think cavalry was a stupid idea at the first times. I would more think that OUR vision of what is cavalry wasn't accurate for this period. Why using a charge when you can't armor yourself and the horse enough to survive it, when you have plenty of other utilities for them? As scout, quick raiding attack, to carry spearsmens or archers, you're not really in need for a saddle, or to be able to move too largely on the back of your horse. I think the first "cavalry" was more about harassing and hit the morals of your enemy, than directly charging into battle. And that's also why we have few remains about it. Staying on the side, easily running away from the battle, able to cover a large field, they weren't in need to have some kind of heavy stuff on their horses, and no reason to have particular weapons. A mere rope is more than helpful in some case, to assist your position and your lead. But... I see a big disadvantage to the early cavalry. As I said, you have three elements to take in consideration, for a rider to avoid thoses difficulties. Firstly, he need to be skilled and well trained. And it isn't something any men can do. It require a particular training, and I suppose it's at least a two or three years, training. Secondly, he'll need to have a horse well trained as well. And this, could be even hardest to find than a man suitable to ride him. And third, he'll need to create a bond, with his horse. All of them are differents, move differently, think, react, understand things, differently. As we are, riders, all differents. Those three elements are, for as far as I'm concerned, the main reason why cavalry in it early form was something only few can become. Why saddles, reins, stirrups, and other stuff? Well, to let cavalry become a less elitist military group, and allow less trained and skilled men to be able to do as good as the better ones. In fact, to allow it to become more global, and to finally be able to create massive groups of riders. And of course, increase their possibilities, as we see in this video. A stupid idea? Not really, no. But unpracticable idea? Yes, for sure.
He made some valid points though... in closer combat, you do need the special saddles which allow you to swing your body this way and that without falling off. Yes, you can stay balanced on top of a horse without the saddle... but can you still swing a big heavy weapon this way and that and still keep your balance? Way, way more difficult. No amount of training can allow you to defy the laws of physics lol.
I don't know why everybody forget about the living example of early cavalry. Mongols. They fit all the requirements you mentioned and some nomad tribes ruled Europe from horse back.
csquared what heavy weapons would be swinging from a horse’s back? Because swords and axes, even two handed ones (though you wouldn’t use two-handed weapons on a horse’s back) aren’t really heavy at all, and you wouldn’t be swinging a lance or spear around you’d just use it to thrust and charge
Lloyd is like our TH-cam father lol. He gives us long speeches on history and the will and spirit of our ancestors and what they have in common with modern day people. He fulfills more speeches like a father than my real father ever has lol, thanks Lloyd! I’ve learnt a lot from your channel :D
Not agree at all.Rome period,in fact in iron stage,lot of tools regarding to different usage were invented.Stand on ground small,middle and huge size catapult,mechanical powerful spring single and multiple shoots of box were invented and widely make use of them in warfare and that is why Rome empire had huge wide territories in middle east area.but in fact the most trouble zone in ancient time.Well it is and seem logical cavalry are easy triggered,however all horses wearing suitable light weight steel or heavy steel protective armor,all four legs equipped with scythe long at back and short in front while charging in formation or units,together with horse 4-6-8 wheels wagon with small and middle catapult installed in the deck,would be very dangerous and deadly and powerful weapons as modern days using of tanks and howitzers as formation units at all.Agree.😁😂😀
Cavalry chased down the fleeing infantry after they had broken and ran. Without this capability the enemy could re-group on the next hill and set up another defensive line. This is why WW1 ended up in stalemate because the machine gun made it impossible for cavalry to chase down retreating infantry, it was only the invention of the armoured vehicle that made this critical function possible again.
if you can't rout the enemy, the fight takes longer to end. Machine guns were more a stand-off item so unless they fell silent/over-ran you had nothing to push into in the first place. Dig yer holes, plant your duck-boards and settle in because the fighting ain't going anywhere. As to the horses, the less you have to carry the faster your troops can move, why waste a limited meat/haulage expensive resource on the front lines when you haev a few thousand expendible men to throw at the enemy, a few good pokes with a ponty stick (5-10% is more than enough, to decimate became a word for a reason) and they will generally bugger off of their own accord.
I liked the video and his points, but was disappointed that he seemed to skip over what I consider the most important use of cavalry. In addition to chasing down retreating enemies, they could move quickly to get flanks or pull formations out of position. Alexander the great and the Persians both used cavalry to effectively dominate their worlds. The great Mongol hoards were also almost entirely made up of cavalry. It doesn't matter much the question 'how to wear heavy armor on a horse,' because no one did for a long time. That doesn't mean they didn't use cavalry, rather light cavalry were critical forces to any effective army for many centuries. Machine guns did more than just invalidate cavalry, but notably it did that yes. This was a different cavalry than the light kind I was referring to, or the heavy kind the video focused on, being the kind with guns. It is the final kind though and would not be upgraded again both because of how easily it was countered with machine guns (and such) and because motor vehicles would simply replace horses both in combat and in general life (over time).
Historically, mvfc is correct, cavalry was used to harass. We don't really see the concept of a Cavalry charge until Alexander and the Diadochi, even then they're not a set piece until we see the Seleucids. I wonder if this is because questionable efficiency or the wealthier citizens, being more important, weren't considered for less assured tasks.
They were facing a hell of a lot more than 2000 men during world war 1. They had about 15 miles of artillery, barbed wire, machine guns and massed rifle fire to get cavalry through. mvfc maes a very good point. Contrary to popular belief attacks very often penetrated through the first few trenches, but the inability to follow up attacks with speed until technology and all arms warfare in 1918 made it possible was what caused the stalemate and the end of massed attaccking cavalry @Shane Preston
Amazing how many idiots are here in the comment section. Lindy is not saying using cavalry has been a stupid ideia in recent history (mongols, medieval,etc). He is talking about thousands of years ago, when horses were a very different animal to what they are today. In those early days when we domesticated them it sure looked like a stupid idea to ride one straight into a bulk of enemies.
***** no it didn't - check a history book it ended about 500-600 years or so ago and we're speaking in relative terms. We are closer to the Middle Ages than we are 5-6000 years ago when the horses were first domesticated and what lindy was talking about through most of the video.
cavalry is stupid I don't need them in my armies (10 seconds later) "this is a black day! our General has fallen my lord!" (5 more seconds later) "our men are running from the battlefield! a shameful dispray!"
yeah, the point is blah blah blah I'm smart, look at me everyone I'm smart. fuck this dumb shit. rocks were stupid to use as tools. should have invented tools
+big “Neckass” jim Well that's what he is basically saying but it's more like :"stones are stupid they should have used their hands! ' because you have more control of it'?"
I haven't seen a single person saying that Lindy was arguing that cavalry was stupid. I've just seen a lot of people complaining about the "countless idiots" who don't seem to really exist.
because that title was not clickbait at all.... and the direction of the discussion is not pretty normal when making the usual points.... if you are fine with it I have some beef flavored chicken to sell you....
"Lindy, you idiot! I don't need to watch your video to know that you're wrong. Here's a list of everyone who used calvary in history so I can prove that I am an unsung genius and history expert." He's not arguing that the cavalry is ineffective, he's saying that the idea of riding a skiddish and unpredictable animal into battle is ridiculous. It's comparable to the grade-school jokes about the man who first discovered cows milk: it is a stupid idea to grab random saggy bits under an animal and drink the discharge, but it turned out okay.
Yeah, but on the plus side, all of the comments from the pre-watching the video-armchair historians are beneficial to Lindy's video being seen in the first place (not that he needs that much help). Inflammatory isn't always bad on TH-cam and I'm glad to hear his well-researched thoughts on the matter!
People misunderstand this video so hard. He's not saying Cavlary IS a stupid idea, but rather that when it was first devised it would've been seen as a stupid idea, because back then horses were skittish, petite draft animals, not hardy, war-capable mounts, and because there was no equipment or technique for doing something like that yet.
Having ridden horses both in stirrups and bareback, I can say that it is a much more comfortable, smoother ride having the ability to raise up off the saddle and not have every bump transmitted straight into your tailbone/spine. That may be the answer to why they switched to the stirrup.
Matthew e Poland lost some pretty humiliating defeats in the thirteen years war against the order. And this was after Grunwald mind you, so the order was running on a death timer during the war.
Mateusz Jokiel WHEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED!!! Yeah, commonwealth poland was arguably the strongest land nation in the 16th century, only matched by the spanish and turks. But its kinda funny to know that the Poland got that far because some German monks up north thought they were too big for their breeches.
@@josecarioca8785 The Commonwealth did not exist back when the Teutonic Order was subjugated, but yeah, the P-L Union did indeed cripple them in the battle of Grunwald. Both sides were predominantly cavalry though. Oh and by the way, I find it odd that all this time the Teutonic Knights were handing our arses to us, then we have one unlikely victory whilst having them outnumbered severely (almost 10,000 Polish-Lithuanian troops more), and suddenly nobody talks about the rest of the story. In the Thirteen Years' War the Polish armies performed abysmally! EDIT: typoes
Thoughts as to why stirrups would replace 4 pommelled saddles: - Like you mentioned, stirrups are an aid to mounting/dismounting, which would be especially useful as larger horses were bred and put to use -There are benefits to having different saddle designs depending on what the rider is doing or wearing i.e long distance comfort or cavalry charges or hugely armoured buttocks. Stirrups help everyone stay in the saddle but change the seat to suit their needs -Being able to stand up is an enormous advantage. You can use different weapons, ride different terrain and JUMP your brave steed over obstacles that would otherwise be impossible -Stirrups also make controlling the horse with just your knees much more effective, freeing up your hands to smite your enemies more effectively. If pressure on your saddle with your thighs is what's keeping you on the horse, you're not going to be able to train a horse to be steered by your knees and therefore you're a slave to the reigns
The first person to do it wouldn't have looked like a madman. You're falling prey to the same misleading train of thought. These things did not happen all at once, they happened gradually, something that Lindybeigh skirts around the edges of in this and other videos. It didn't start with a man riding a horse, it started with people using horses as domestic farm and pack animals. They carried things, they pulled things. Then, eventually, that transitioned into the use of things like chariots, and with horses being used by messengers and the like. And then, slowly, those horses were bred to be more efficient at these tasks. They became larger, stronger, better able to help farmers work soil, and better able to carry larger loads. *Then* people slowly transitioned towards riding them, and *then* those technologies that made cavalry warfare better were developed. There wasn't a moment where some insane person changed the script, it was a gradual series of changes that were all logical and made perfect sense in the moment.
"Hmm, this tastes good, and is probably nutritious just like a mother's milk is for a human baby. Weird. No idea how we figured this out." It's not that crazy.
@@Evili555 Doesn’t answer the question. Alexander’s heavy cavalry rode their horses bareback but we’re still used to great effect in battle. I would imagine that saddles and stirrups made it a lot easier to fight on horseback, but it was never actually impossible even before they were invented.
I was under the impression that standing up in the saddle was an important part of Calvary. Driving the power of your thrust into your legs rather than your lower back sound like a more powerful move to me.
You are absolutely right. In order to shoot properly from a horse you need to lift off and your butt cheeks cannot be in contact with the saddle. Otherwise everything is very shaky
According to Civilizations 2, horses were used first for transporting people to battle before the invention of the chariot. I think the chariot was probably originally only intended to make transportation easier, but soon got recognised for its potential as a weapon afterwards.
Yes...they would ride up to battle and dismount to fight. Just staying on the Horse was probably a series of accidents that turned out good for the riders
Nope they weren't used that much. They need so much training, that they are super expensive and they need lots of food so it is logistically difficult. And against a well organized army they are kind of useless because the troops can move to the sides so that the elephant goes through a lane and does not deal that much dmg
Years back, I served with the 3rd Armored Cavalry, of course the only horses we had were for parade use, and not for battle, they had been replaced by armor, tanks, armored personal carriers and armored command tracks. When I was a young boy living on our farm, I grew up riding bareback on one of our 3 horses, we had Barney, Lady and Babe, Barney was a Shetland/quarter horse cross, Lady was a huge work horse, and Lady was a younger quarter horse that could run like the wind. Barney was a very tame horse, he would do anything for we kids but hated adults. When dad or mom would approach Barney he would nip at them or turn and ready a kick, however we kids could climb all over him, ride him and if we would fall off, he would stop dead and stand there looking at us till we got back up and remounted. Lady was skittish, she would shy away from things like you mentioned, once she was galloping along with me on her back, down the dirt road that ran past our farm. For some reason she went down into the grassy ditch that was beside the road, when she got near the fence, a large post came along, she shyed away from that and threw me right over the fence onto the soft tall grass that was nice enough to break my fall and not my bones. Babe, being a HUGE horse like to prance. Now if you have ever ridden a horse you would know that a trot is a sort of rough near run, a prance is more of a marching by a horse, a sort of trotting walk if you will, and when riding bareback it just beat the hell out of your but, but when she went into a gallop, the way we kids loved to ride, her gate was so smooth you would think you were riding the rocking horse machine outside the grocery store. Lady's gallop was even smoother, Barney could gallop but only a short distance as he was a very old horse.
During ancient times, (Greeks and earlier Romans) they didn't use cavalry much during the actual fighting so much as running down the enemy after a battle when they're routing. I didn't really think about this much but it makes sense that a lot of people might be hesitant at first and the horses wouldn't like it either. Guy : "Hey there horsie, I have an idea of how to use you" Horse : "What's that" Guy : "Well I'm going to ride you and a bunch of my buddies are going to ride your horse buddies into this big battle we're about to have" Horse : "Wait a minute, you want to ride ME into a big battle where a bunch of people with sharp pointy objects will be trying to kill us" Guy : "Yeah, it'll be great. I'll be up high and harder to hit and can easily attack down at the enemies and you can move fast too. If I a bunch of my friends on your friends charge the enemy HEAD ON moving really fast we can do TONS OF DAMAGE to the enemy army" Horse : "HELL NO! That is a HORRIBLE idea you dumbass!"
Beas7ie * "Hey horse I have an idea, it'll be gr8" Horse: "What's that Ghengis?" Ghengis Khan "We'll take these tiny but powerful bows and charge into battle" Horse "Wot, no." Ghengis: "Fine Fine." Ghengis "How about I take this bow, ride up close to the battle, shoot off some arrows, run away, and let you rest for a couple of minutes and repeat" Horse : "I'm still not sure... " Ghengis : " We'll scare the ever loving shit out of the enemy, make them back into a packed formation, then shoot into the formation while riding around them in a circle, it will look bad ass as fuck." horse: "OK, but if I get killed" Ghengis Khan *Rapes and pillages most of the known world*
You've clearly never ridden a horse... A horse with his friends would like nothing better than running as fast as possible towards some other bunch of horses... They actually love it and get carried away even. They don't shy away. Even horses not trained to do it will get close to people armed with spears if you push it on. Close enough to be able to use a weapon against them even if it's just a javelin.
AdmiralSnackbar7 True. But. And it is a big but. Have you ever tried riding a horse a group of people? One person, fine. A big group. No chance. That's why the Saxons and the Vikings fought on foot; because horses will not charge a sheild wall. Cavalry charges, for the most part, do not work against massed infantry. In most battles that involve cavalry they are used in flanking manoeuvres or to ride down already routed enemies.
Yes b and you can get close to large groups of people and engage. You mention the Saxons and it's true they didn't use them but the Normans did and benefited from it so swings and roundabouts.
While it is true that stirrups are not 100% necessary to make mounted warfare possible, they greatly improve the efficiency and effectiveness. It makes large scale use of cavalry possible. To some extent, it helps start the feudal age. For instance: 1. Shock cavalry. Usually you need bigger horses for shock tactics. To get onto the back of a big horse (150+cm at shoulder) without stirrups is extremely difficult. Noble horsemen might have a page or 2 to assist them to get on, but that's just not practical in battles. 2. Stirrups provide a rest for legs and helps reduce fatigue. Mounted warfare is not just about charge and break. Sometimes, the strategic situations might require long distance marches. Without stirrups, riders can get tired very quickly. 3. Like illustrated in the video, when a horseman leans over to one side to attack enemy infantry, he will have difficulty getting back into the saddle without any riding aids. While pommel saddle can do the same job, but stirrups are just much more simpler and more effective. To use pommel saddle, a rider needs learn to use his thigh to exert forces to get himself back. But stirrups only require a simple push from his foot, which is much easier. 4. Bareback riding can be done but require a lot more training. Just think about it. A skilled rider can ride and fight on bareback. But a lesser trained man can be equally effective with all the riding aides such as saddles and stirrups. It shortens the training cycle of a cavalry force and makes fielding mass horsemen more possible. It is like before internet, people can still communicate pretty well, but once with the internet technology, it greatly improves the efficiency and openness making mass communications more adoptable.
Pandacat80 a theory I had, which would pair well with your discussion of horse height is that stirrups can be “opted into” so to speak. You can put your feet into and out of the stirrups, but once your saddle has this 4 pommel setup you’re stuck with it. And I would imagine the snug fit it provides wouldn’t be ideal for some situations. Also, imagine if you had to get off your large horse in the middle of the battle or away from your assistants - if you had stirrups to help you get back on, that would be a great boon. So stirrups may have won out in part due to their flexibility.
It doesn't seem so difficult: 1. Strategic mobility - having a horse lets you go faster, arrive at the battlefield in better condition, and carry more supplies and gear, even if you don't fight on them. Living on horseback became a lifestyle for many nomadic tribes. 2. Scouting - many civilisations like the Romans may not have been big on cavalry as a fighting unit (they used them, but less extensively than others), yet still wanted them especially as scouts. 3. Skirmishing - a bow or javelinman on horseback is impossible to deal with for enemies who do not have equally ranged weapons. Again something that especially nomads with hunting lifestyles excelled at, and which destroyed some of the greatest armies in history. 4. Run people over - requires strong control, but if you can control a horse to such a degree you are a menace even without any other weapon. Heavy cavalry often was a super weapon on the battlefield.
The Greeks predating the Romans, were using Cavalry as shock troops, I am referring to Alexander and his Companions...and doing it without Roman-Celtic saddles. The Stirrup gave horse archers the ability to steady themselves to shoot better. They no longer sit their butt on horseback, but are suspended on stirrups, using their legs as counter to the horse's movements to steady their upper torso as they aim.
Strategic mobility comes from plenty of remounts and being able to milk your horse which happens to be a hardy breed not needing energy rich grains. Though horse carts vs ox carts armies run on food, protected depots, roads, naval transport, horses add to the requirements see german planning.
In the early times, when horses werent that popular, horses would scare the shit out of infantrymen. A horse is a huge, strong animal. Its basically made just out of muscles and its hooves are extremely dangerous. In the middle ages they even managed to get the horses to actively kick enemiesand actively participate in combat.. Cavalry is great for chasing down fleeing people. See the roman empire. If you put really skilled archers on horses, they are perfect for hit and run tactics. See the parthians and the mongols. Cavalry is great for scouting. Cavalry is great for surrounding, flanking and distracting enemies. Only the development of guns will stop a 300 - 450kg animal galloping towards you with an angry guy on top.
I love how you randomly spew a number. I Googled Polish Hussar vs Sweden Infantry and I get no results showing any battles where only Hussar and Infantry fought each other. Extremely few battles where the forces were in a fairly evenly matched position and numbers. The Hussar was always a very small part of the whole force and same with the Sweden Infantry. Also you only mentioned the Infantry. You didn't mention the Swedish Cavalry which I saw numerous times mentioned dealing a great blow to the Hussar. Where is your source for the number and what battle was it with only Hussar vs Infantry? Was it 1000 vs 1000? or 3000 Hussar vs 100 infantry. Cuz then it's easy to get high KD.
The video hints about how early cavalry was not some brilliant idea because no one had established or known about better tactics and equipment for it. Saying, "lul, the huns and mongols made it work." is complete hind sight, especially since Lindy is talking about cavalry tactics PRIOR to the huns and mongols! xD For another bit of hind sight, Napoleon commented about how stupid of an idea it was to put a steam engine into a wooden ship.
Ironically China are traditionally really, really awful at horse-based warfare. They were smashed so many times back steppe peoples - where the horse was probably domesticated.
Oh flight and space travel was invented in Japan too. In fact the only reason why japan is so advanced is trade with the western powers where japan learned 300 years of technology in just 30 years.
Hannibal: "Yeah, you're right. Riding horses into battle is silly."
Equip: Elephants
*Equips Elephants
Khmer: let add crossbows to those elephants
@@xhawkenx633 under rated
@@xhawkenx633 Funny how a smaller bolt can literally penetrate your armour better than a sawed off javelin
@@maxmuller8633?????
Those are brave words for someone in lancing distance
RAINBOW_REALITY underrated comment man
brave words for someone riding towards my spear
@@lefoolish1989 underrated comment man
@Landsturmregiment underrated comment man
@@lefoolish1989 Brave words for someone who gets charged in by fully plated medieval tank.
cavalry is a stupid name i prefer stallion battalion
Steed stampede
rey nietes nice
Horse full force
I prefer “A Mare Fanfare”.
I swear that’s the name of an album can’t remember the bands name though
“Cavalry is stupid”
This video was sponsored by Crassus INC.
😂😂
I see what you did there
LOL perfect
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
If only ancient people had dirtbikes...
*This Video is Sponsored by the Great Horses Plus*
You win :)
Made my day! :D
Wow amazingly done sir
Oh my god when I thought of that a minute ago I thought I was gonna be the only one lmao. I'm glad to see that I'm not
Touche
Horses naturally run in groups, they form stampedes. That would make it much easier to convince a horse to do a cav charge. Peer pressure.
And when you are the typical combatant of a pre-industrial army (a farmer who only tagged along for loot), nothing is really going to convince you to stand your ground when facing something like that. First you falter, then you turn, you run, your buddies do the same and the fight is technically over.
+Mister Sharpe Isn't that the point?
Yes. He was reinforcing his point, not contradicting it...
Except that the horses would be much more likely to stampede away from the enemy, because they're not stupid.
next they'll all be smoking to try and fit in...
To summarise:
Calvary was stupid when it began.
Then it became effective.
Then cars and tanks came along and it went back to useless.
you started well enough but it was massed artillery, mud and machine guns that put an end to horses.
tanks and tracked vehicles (be it sleds, trains or trucks) took on the roles that 4 legged animals could not.
Resupply infrastructure, spear-tip, scout and carrier of big guns.
Cyber Infotech Hail the Mark 1 AFV!
Cavalry
Don't tell the police that.
Really?
Google WW2 Charge at Krojanty
The Polish Calvary had Lances,yes,but the sword was replaced with pistols and Rifles and they were considered light mobile units similar to Jeeps with machine gun turrets
Of course US Calvary vs Indians where they are shooting at each other on horses (not aiming for Horses which were "valuable spoils") is American History
“Let’s invent something to get my old and frail mother-in-law on this unpredictable horse” said the optimistic Chinese man from 400A.D.
One has the feeling that said man was optimistic in more than one way.
"While we're at it, why only limit it to horses? Why, with this invention why don't we get her to ride on an unpredictable bull instead? Or a tiger?"
i think MOST military tech was at one time considered pretty stupid.
guns? ''here... hold this. it will explode, but if it holds together it should shoot this tiny bit out the end''
planes? ''its made of canvas, wood, and paper... hop in and fly it! safe?? oh heavens no... the opposite in fact''
everything is stupid until someone figures out how to make it ''not stupid'' and it gives them a massive advantage. then it's a game changer and they are brilliant
it was pretty stupid but man do i want passenger zeppelins to come back
PopTartNeko pretty sure we could get those to work safely now. i would love to take a trip on one
We actually cannot get them work, at least not safely. There are only two gases than can reliably lift a big passenger zeppelin that could transport people/cargo across large distances: Hydrogen and Helium. Hydrogen is cheap (you can get it by electrolysing water) but ridiculously flammable, while Helium is much more stable, but since the US kept its reserves artificially cheap and wasted them for decades, so it is slowly becoming scarce enough that filling zeppelins with the stuff would be a waste.
Well, and if we get some genius coming along making vacuum airships. JS. that would be the "Cheapest" by envelope filler. but I suspect the envelope itself would be space age expensive.
But when something is stupid in hindsight then you know it really is stupid.
I can tell you why the first horses were ridden, it was quite probably not done for any advantage like using them for work or travel or combat, I bet it was just some idiots having a hold my beer moment.
Bob Johnson thought the same, quite logical tbh
Not to mention riding a horse is pretty cool. Even if just for getting around, it looks imposing. It could have also begun as a sort of status symbol. A "Look, Im a great chieftain and I can maintain these beautiful beasts", sort of thing
hahahhaha Bob I never thought of it that way but oh man I just know you are right, this exactly how these things happen! "Hold my beer, watch this bro, I can totally jump on that thing and make it carry me around."
@Bob Johnson It all probably developed into a rodeo after that.
I'd suspect that riding horses was more of a thing that kids of nomad tribes started doing. Maybe parents put them on horseback with their baggage when they moved to new pastoral grounds and kids growing up with that might grow up to ride around on horseback. As horses grew bigger and probably with some experimentation in the sort of skirmish battlefields that would occur on the steppes and with knowledge of chariot warfare but without the economy to actually produce chariots, cavalry might have slowly evolved and then reached a point that it became efficient enough to produce an "oh shit"-moment when these tribes started raiding the civilized city states in the middle east.
4.6k persians, mongols , turks and poles disliked this
Sina Zarin also everyone that knows anything about history this fool is throwing up all over himself with stupidity cav was a game changer
juan zatarain did u even watch the video
@@thegreatrainman2336 Did you just read the title and base your opinion off of that?
@@thegreatrainman2336 Horses could easily be beaten back by a wall of spears.
Formations made to scare horses and kill them.
When muskets came, they took an already used formation to go against horses. Cav were not easy to use.
Also looking after thousands of men and a few hundred horses is a hard task alone.
Persians, Mongols/Turkic nomadic horsemen, Winged Hussars, Christian crusader knights, Russian Cossacks, thats just a small list.
At first I thought you'd lost it- cavalry was extremely useful for commanders, both tactically and as scouts. But then I decided to hear you out, and you are spot-on. It really is kind of amazing that horses were ever domesticated in the first place. The initial domestication must have taken nerves stronger than steel cable!
We'd already had experience with domesticating dogs, goats, cattle, pigs, and even llamas, all of which can be difficult and dangerous in their own ways. Heck, two of those actually want to eat us. I imagine horses were fairly easy to domesticate after that, just build paddocks around them, or somehow drive them in. Perhaps first it was to slaughter for meat or use for milk, but having them around we would have come up with new uses over time, and by then the horses would be more used to be around humans and being handled by them in some way. Cavalry is pretty nuts, but it probably started with using them for carrying loads, then riding for travel, then it would've been a natural outgrowth to hunt from horseback, and eventually ride them into battle as commanders, and finally the cavalry charge.
To clarify: this video isn't saying that cavalry was ineffective throughout history; it obviously wasn't. It's about the numerous problems that needed to be solved by ancient cultures in order for cavalry to become effective.
As usual, the commenters are judging the video based on the title.
Muh not denying its effectiveness throughout history but its a dumb idea.
alot of people need to see this, lindy has made a interesting video and instead people write a comment without watching it, sad really
World's Future Leader They have watched the video. Quit being a stuck up fanboy.
GetTrumped lol yeah, but they still don't understand
I heard "this video was sponsored by Great Horses Plus"
So this was all horse propaganda
Courses are for horses.
*xfiles.mid*
Osmorosvo hahahaha
The Barbarian Empires of the Steppes, from the Great Courses Plus, actually covers the topics discussed in this video.
Stop horse abuse now! Donate $9,99 a month to stop the abuse of the horse.
if horses where a terrible idea i cant wait for the elephant video
Fenrir World-Eater one war animal that that everyone can agree on, that was awful in battle was the rhinoceros
@@walterbell1529 The chicken was pretty bad as well
@@tyson6127 Wait till you try a banana
@@walterbell1529 please give me something to Google to research this
th-cam.com/video/pu8JB3XX4OI/w-d-xo.html
When the troops run short of food it's very easy to convert cavalry to carvery.
Advanced logistics
Mongols: "Hold my fermented horse milk."
Hold my Koumiss
Ahmet Akın Aydoğdu The mongols were actually just entirely horses disguised as humans.
@@triangulum8869 Wait, you weren't supposed to know that.
@@triangulum8869 I heard that centaurs are inspired by them because they are in a perfect accordance with horses so they are like a piece of horse
didnt use mongols primarily use horses for archers?
"Laughs in mongolian"
Hahahah...
Hahaha
😂😂😂
Laughs in turkic
MUAHAHAHAHA.COME ONNNNN!!!! YOUR BRITISH ASS IS ABOUT TO FEEL THE WRATH OF KHAN!
If a dog is mans best friend then horses must be his greatest ally. The amount of work the horse has done for mankind over the millennia is phenomenal.
Yeah, well, there's a reason it's called "horsepower" and not "dogpower" ...
@@morganpetros9635 you say it like its common sense but horses are very overlooked in terms of their contribution to humanities history.
@@Bikeadelic only because they've been replaced by steam/internal combustion for 3 generations now but even in WW2 successful cavalry charges were performed, and horses were used to carry artillery and baggage carts just like they have been for millennia.
It's still animal slavery and ultimate animal abuse.
Dog best friend
Horse best ally
Housecat best companion
Lindybeige: “Cavalry is a stupid idea”
Mongol Empire: “Am I a joke to you?”
Mongolian horse archers
Sassanid cataphracts
Parthian horse archers
Russian cossacks
Polish hussars
Ottoman sipahi
French cuirassiers
Etc etc
And these are only some of the notable ones
For thousands of years all armies needed cavalry
Well they're effective mainly due to the archery not the Calvary lol
@@wynnwong4008 "Mobile archery" thanks to the horses
A group of archers couldn't have destroyed an entire roman army with little effort but horse archers did.
Also the cataphracts and the hussars were amazing. The heavy cavalry charge was absolutely devastating to the infantry and the hussars... Well they saved vienna
mongols did use infantry, you know.
@@WhiteWolfsp93 No shit Sherlock. Everyone had infantry. I’m not brain dead. It’s just that the Mongols are very well known for their use of horses.
"I have once been bareback riding, and so I can tell you that it's-- it's... _boy_ you have to grip with your thighs."
-- Lindybeige, 2016.
glad i wasn't the only one who heard this xD
Talking about sex without a condom?
Not really that much unless your trotting
After gripping with your thighs every day for 14 years I'm sure they got the hang of it.
I read this as he said this
Yes and no, at the same time, you made a few good points, but also made some faults. Let's start step by step:
-Armed riders in Europe started around 800 BC with the East Hallstatt Culture, we have iconography like the beltplate of Vace, Slowenia, which shows mounted warriors, and we have the archaeological pendants like Kleinklein, Steiermark, Austria. Iconography, specially the early ones, are hard to believe or are just not enough detailed to get a good image, but when those illustrations, correspond to actual archaeological findings, it becomes clearer. And those guys rode their horses with no real saddles, at lest non with a wooden tree, like the celtic/roman saddles, so it was more like an riding pad, in best case. And it worked, when your riding skills were good.
- Horses often get seen as skittish prey creatures, but modern ethology shows significant differences. An example is the gender. In a wild herd, the "leading mare" (leading behaviors is also a very complex topic, and don't work like a pyramid hierarchy as most people think in horses, but this is not relevant for this video) is responsable fr leading the herd to water, food an safety. The "leading stallion" is responsable to keep the herd together and protect the herd from predators, so that the "leading mare" can guide the herd members to a safe place. Do you have an idea how often wild stallions fight and defeat and sometimes (but rare) even kill attacking predators? So in average stallions are braver and more agressive as females, what also explains any kind of historical iconography that the artists and craftsmen showed clearly that the war horses used where stallions. Same for the written sources, at least in best case. So oft curse the people of the past searched and used horses (primarily stallions, but there a few archaeological exceptons, but very rare) who have the necessary braveness and agression. Today those character tread, became less important and it's hard to find such a horse today, because breeding changed, today most horses are working animals or companions in sport and hobby. But even today you find such old bloodlines with very distinctive character trades of the past time, like the Camargue ponies, old Spanish bloodlines, often used for bull fights or robust ponies, who are all less skittish than more modern breeds like the British pure blood. And of course in this very small percentage you find exceptional well conditioned individuals for that kind of job, same as with humans. If you ever meet Zogo, the Murgese stallion of Joram van Essen, and know the destrier of Mike Canfor, or meeting Aragon the old Spanish blood Gelding, who is trained at the moment, by an archaeologist (don't know the name of Aragon's owner, the FB channel don't mentions that) for experiments, you will understand what i mean. Those horses are incredible different from modern breeds, Arne Koets told me (who works with the owner of Aragon for example, that Aragon needed just 5 mins to desensitize from plate armor and being able to do all speeds, without any negative reaction or fear, what is totally different to what you would expect from a horse. So we can tell, that the horses used for combat, where a specific type of character and talent, specialy for the elite, who was usual mounted in most cultures.
-Stirrup experiments and researches are done atm, but no result published atm, so more will follow, for example by Lisa Kyre from Germany.
-As far as we can tell, horses even in the late medieval period, where not that large as we may think of. The average stays between 150 and 155cm with some exceptions. Similar sizes we can see in roman cavalierly or other periods for example, Sutton Hoo Burial mound 17, a around 8 year old stallion between 152cm of shoulder height. A well treated horse of that size, weight between 450 and 500 kg. Riders say that a horse can, wen well riden, carry a third of his body weight without any risk. So even for late XV century knights, with a full plate suit, which weights (field suit) around 25kg, plus the rider an tack (no full horse armor) you lay around 95 to 105 kg of additional weight. That's still far away from the critical third of the horses body weight. And we know, how well trained those horses of the XV century were. Similar is it with any kind of armor, no matter what period, the armors used for battle from horseback were never that heavy, of course not. With shield and a full coat of mail, with a closed helmet as Arne, André, Joram, and Milan wears for example, it is maybe 30kg of gear depending of the shield. So weight is not a critical factor.
There's so much more to say about, but that would be to much, so just here the few most important points.
Some references:
facebook.com/RijClinicsArneKoets/
facebook.com/destrier.lucilinburhuc/
th-cam.com/users/airntvideos
Some Literature:
C.Hornig. Das spätsächsische Gräberfeld von Rullstorf (Leihdorf 1993).
M. Carver, Sutton Hoo, a seventh-century princely burial and its context (2005).
M. Carver, Sutton Hoo, Burialground of Kings? Britishmuseum (2005).
W. Gerbers, Auf dem Weg nach Wallhall. Das Pferd der Altsachsen, Begleiter durch Leben und Tod (Lohne 2004).
M. Rech (Hrsg), Pferdeopfer-Reiterkrieger. Fahren und Reiten durch die Jahrtausende (Bremen 2006).
A. Hyland, The medieval war horse, from Byzantium to the Crusades (New York 1990).
H. Müller, Albrecht Dürer. Waffen und Rüstungen (Berlin 2002).
j. Clark, Medieval horse and it's equipment, c,1150- 1450, Medieval find from excavations in London (London 2011)
J.C Smith, Dürer. Arts & Ideas (vienna 2012).
Well played
GG WP
I didn’t read it but since you USED PROPER SOURCES Ima assume you’re good
Ahh yea well, thanks XD
It's a topic, which just starts to get researched, so clearer results will follow hopefully soon. Sure good sources are important.
Bronko Brumby, you are a good man. Thank you
Early cavalry wasn't used to charge on a line of men but rather to chase already routed enemies.
For most of history cavalry’s main purpose was to pursue and cut down retreating enemy forces. Alexander used cavalry as shock troops and in pre-modern and modern era cavalry fought each other, but their main purpose was routing the enemy.
@@FlameDarkfire also covering light infantry/support units (slingers/javelinners/archers/ambushers/horse support units), dont forget about charging from backside or flanks, some types of cavalry even charged in front of heavy infantry (late knights, catafracts), only light support cavalry were supposed to pursue enemies.
And EVERY type of cavalry was weak in meele combat against ANY infantry (cavalry had advantages only in charging and moving speed).
That the hell man! Cant believe I gave you a view for this!
It was also used to scout for the enemy pre-battle, harass them while they were moving to and setting up for battle, and to turn their flanks by using the horse's superior speed during the battle. The use of cavalry for warfare IS NOT stupid. Using cavalry INCORRECTLY in warfare is stupid.
Speed, scouting, harrassment, and ability to run down or outflank an enemy force at it's weakest.
You wouldn't use cavalry to smash into the front of a prepared and determined enemy force, thats the job of another infantry unit, to pin that unit into place.
You would strike a unit from an unprepared flank with cavalry, or to route a wavering or inexperience foe.
Can we circle back to this “trousers glued on a bull” idea? I think we have some potential here.
Still not as stupid as trying to knife fight from the top of a sandworm...
good sir, revoke that statement, i believe that knife fighting on the top of a sand worm is a very clever way of carrying out your legacy, you sir are incorrect and mistaking the bad-assery of fighting on the top of a sand worm with a knife in your hand with it not being as brilliant as Leonardo Da Vinci himself!
if you have a long as lance then i guess riding sandworms would be worth it.
mmmmmmm... Shai-Hulud.
Cavalry is a stupid name. They should have called it "horse force".
bahahaha yes
genius
Umm cavalry is derived from the word caballus one of the latin words for horse, or mounted on a horse :D chevalier and cavalry mean "horseman"
"Stallion Battalion"
Croí Saor even better
Thesis of the video:
Cavalry was a laughable idea and something that would have appeared impossible to the cultures that adopted the method of warfare.
This is not discrediting the efficiency of cavalry. This is not denying the impact that cavalry had in warfare. This is simply a statement about the initial thoughts that people would have when presented with the idea of cavalry.
What people are (incorrectly) perceiving Lloyd to be saying:
Cavalry's bad
+
For me it was a simple clickbait.
+Patrick Except that this is exactly what he IS saying, in the very first sentence: "Using horses in warfare as cavalry is a stupid idea and that is what I am going to talk about in this video."
What are YOU perceiving that he is saying in that sentence?
tzenophile He wasn't saying cavalry was a bad tactic, he was saying the idea of riding around on a horse trying to kill people on foot was likely perceived to be stupid before it became a prevalent military technique. Nobody would know that cavalry would win many battles and that in shock tactics they were supreme when the idea first came along, so it must have just sounded absurd.
He is not using the word "was", he is using the word "is". He is being disingenuous, or, in other words, trolling.
Me: Laughs because Horses are scared of the most bizarre things.
Also Me: Sees a Spider and thinks I am gonna die.
Well, my horse, despite not giving a shit about anything normally, almost bucked me off
Because of a moth
@@retrodarktrooper6372 people do that too
@@butterskywalker8785 Buck you off because of a moth? I have to ask in what sort of human interaction has this happened?
@@secretbaguette not like that,I mean almost dropping and killing the fucking child because a moth was in a wall at least 3 meters away from me type of stuff
@@butterskywalker8785 Oh
We Swedes had the stupidest idea, though - moose cavalry! Didn't quite work out, but the trials must have been both impressive and hilarious.
Mats Nylund sweden is still famous for bogus and illusioned decisions (e.g modern politics are a good example). Very sadly, as its a beautifull country.
And painful
didn't you guys also make cannons out of ice?
Mats Nylund thanks for that mental image.
I thought that was the Soviet army?
Minutes later...
*AND THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED!*
*Polish Christian songs intensifies*
Genghis Khan is laughing at the distance.
COMING DOWN THE MOUNTAIN SIDE!
The high ground intensifies
I literally came here to post this comment myself lol. Ottoman Empire btfo.
I understand this guy's arguments...
but the Mongol's case is just stronger.
they used bows gve them two advantages, speed and range. AND that type of army was kinda new to everyone else, and if it were seen today it wouldve kinda looked like when Adolf invaded poland with tanks and modern tactics.
@@santiagocortez9554 It really wasn`t new. It was just forgotten by a lot of people, but the Hungarians (Ironically, the last european nation the mongols reached, and almost destroyed. ) used the exact same tactics centuries before and menaced most of europe before going native and adopting christianity and the european feudal system.
Orpheus Program I think the arguement is for the origin of cavalry, not when it was already established
@@_Muzolf Mary-worshippers aren't Christian.
@@barbatvs8959 Lol "Mary Worshippers" i suppose this is aimed at Catholics? So tell me, what religion should one convert to in the year 1000? You know, before protestants even existed? Oh, btw, Hungary has plenty of Protestants itself these days. If you only consider them "true christians". Of course this kind of exclusion of essentially what is the majority of christianity (Considering if you don't consider Catholics true christians, then i guess you would exlude Eastern Ortohox ones too, since they are closer to Catholicism as to protestants.) is rather dumb.
“Cavalry is a stupid idea”
*Mongol throat singing stops...*
WAS not IS buddy
Title says: "Cavalry WAS a stupid idea" not IS
The real question is why did we not have cow cavalry?!
Cowalvy
Paddy Hugill hell, Bulls have their own handlebars. Stick a saddle and bridle on it, maybe something to extend its horns, and you're good to go.
Experiments were done by a group called CrazyForCows which tried to use steers as cavalry (a bull would be very difficult to train because of their aggresiveness) with specialty saddles and they found they could only coax them into moving 8 miles per hour. They also take more food than a horse. A horse typically will eat 20 pounds of hay per day, a cow will eat 24 pounds. If you were fielding an army of them, the 20% increased food requirements would be very difficult to manage indeed.
Paddy Hugill Cows are a meat&milk machine, they are too expensive.
Because for some reason mojang doesnt allow us to put saddles on cows in minecracft.More like mojang was a stupid idea am i right?..........haha.......kill me
Horses allowing people to ride them into battle was pretty stupid but horse unions were notoriously ineffective as every motion proposed was shot down with a thunderous nay. I'll get my coat.
You can see that Lindy is now biased, because he has a sponsor. It is well known, that "The Great Courses Plus" hates horses
maybe they don't want horses to be smart too?
You'd think they'd be in favour of horses considering the expression "horses for courses"
Normally dropping a sponsor in the middle of a video would be annoying to me, but for some reason, this method of sponsoring really fits Lindy.
+
Though, many years ago, Lloyd did say that cavalry was, for a long time, a ridiculously stupid idea compared to chariots. Maybe that's why they get along so well!
Lindybeige: "Cavalry is a stupid idea."
King Harlaus: "You wot mate?"
Swadian knights go brrrrr
Calling cavalry stupid might actually get the Swadians to stop feasting.
Horses can't handle the epic mass of us butter lords
Dude what a beta. Sarranid Mamlukes are chad
Jeremus the Monk was knocked unconscious by Swadian Knight
Swadian and sarranid was using armored war horse, i think the calvary term in lindy mind was smiliar to khergit lancer (which obviously considered the worst melee cavalry, and the cheapest). Riding fast unarmored horse that was not good for anything except flanking manuver
Why did they ever change Salt and Vinegar from Blue to Green, and Cheese and Onion from Green to Blue? Whats next? Yellow Ready Salted? It doesn't bear thinking about.
Bloody Walkers!
i guess because in italy cinegar is commonly deoucted as yellow or green, and there are instances of cheese and onions depicted as blue, but we're talking about the uk here so i dunno.
In China, Ready Salted/original flavour Lays (walkers) are yellow.
sourcream and onion has been blue, plain salted yellow, dill green, grill/bbq brown, cheese orange and vinegar teal/turqoise in Sweden for as long as I can remember XD
I dunno, yellow for Ready Salted makes sense to me. It's the neutral crisp flavour, so it gets the neutral crisp colour.
Cavalry was a stupid idea.
*THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED*
My great great etc. Grandfather was at Vienna in 1683 as a Winged Hussar. I reenact him with full armor and kopia. Europe's best Cavalry!
One day I'd love to meet someone who brags "My great-etc-great ancestor was a Polish brothel prostitute. I reenact him/her in traditional costume ..."
Raider Fox Goddamit I literally came here to comment that
Cataphrakts*
True Born Son of Liberty lol alone with people claiming on youtube to be sons of polish hussars/napoleonic war heroes/viking descendants you could reenact these events. Funniest thing: theyre all from america, where its the easiest to tell your son whatever you like because yiu fled your homecountry and any evidence
I think they rode horses (properly) before they fought with them.
yeah, that's too basic for him tp admit
i dont think you understand horses.
That's what he said in the video
I heared PHD mentioning saddles were used few thousands years before cristianity. which make sense because saddles were not so hard to build if you think about it
th-cam.com/video/aeWs9fqLbec/w-d-xo.html
Roman General crassus invaded Pathia
"Using calvery is a stupid idea,"
Ends up drinking melted gold
@Yeast Yeast
he was killed during negotiations but as the story goes his the parthians poured melted gold down the throat of his dead corpse...
May well be a myth...
May just be the truth...
Pouring melted gold down the throat has been a recorded method of execution for some civilisations
@@danhall6922 seems wastefull
Caesar also has the same experience getting harassed by Numidian cavalry out in the open during the civil war in North Africa. The different is Caesar is not Crassus.
@@michaekrynicki8330 Just wait for the body to decompose, retrieve the gold from the skeleton a year or two later
Title says: "Cavalry WAS a stupid idea" not IS
but look at my horse... my horse is amazing
give it a lick?
That's a donkey.
+DarkWiiPlayer it tastes just like raisins
it tastes just like raisins!
+DarkWiiPlayer it tastes just like raisins
Strap spandaus to them. Instant victory.
a weapon to surpass metal gear
But what if the enemy armed themselves with crisp packets??
Carrots and sugar cubes.
and stick a few fire arrows up it's bumhole ears and nose, to fuel it's berserk rage
but pommels work only if you unsrew them, so you have to bring lots of swords
THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED
COMING DOWN THE MOUNTAIN SIDE
THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED
COME AND TURNED THE TIDE
Probably listened to that album about thirty times now.
Let it spread
i came here for this not disapointed
This is the best response to this stupid video. Way better then something about those god damn Mongolians, lol.
+Gebirgsjäger they did sort of. The real bullshit is that they took down all videos from youtube for copyright reasons
"Tractor goes thundering past"
As a rancher. That's a phrase I never thought I'd here in my life.
🤣 lol
I mean, have you tried racing a tractor before?
3:28 trained horses dont get spooked as easily. cavalry horses were trained to crash into thing. ex shield walls
The title is mostly for clickbait but the point he's making is about wild horses. This is why it took a couple *thousand* years after domestication for horses to be used just for pulling chariots and even longer for horse-riding warriors to become prominent.
Bruh waaaat
Also while trained warhorses might be willing to charge into a shield wall, charging one into solid infantry is a good way to find yourself on a dead horse falling towards a line of hostile soldiers. Well disciplined infantry were incredibly difficult for cavalry to attack in most periods- the main tactic of cavalry is to charge at a formation hoping they'll either break and run or at least get disorganized enough to loosen up so cavalry can run through the middle of them, and if the infantry don't loosen they turn away at the last moment. What made them so powerful is that infantry needed to not only resist the urge to break and run in the face of a giant horse barreling at you, but also resist the urge to leave formation and chase after the enemy when they appeared to be running.
Watch the whole video mate
*Early cavarly was a stupid idea. Fixed. Your welcome.
You fixed nothing. STFU you pedantic douche. No one likes you.
*you're
+Nathan Brinkerhoff You're doing the Lord's work. Bless you sir.
Modern cavalry is a pretty retarded concept too, anything you could do on horseback you could do better on foot, other than running fast.
oBLACKIECHANoo No middle calavary was the worst.
I suppose it's like the dude who decided to have cheese or yogurt for the first time. It seemed nuts at the time, but eventually worked out.
Or fermented fish.
Or sucked on the underside of a cow
Or eating tomato
@@davesulphate4497 I'm sorry what
@ OsisiZZ milk dude, milk.
"I have once been bareback riding, and boy do you have to grip with your thighs"
What a quote
You ride horses bareback? You must be a Mangolian.
@@NLTops *Numidian
@@muhamadsayyidabidin3906 *it was a joke mixing his name and a nomadic equestrian culture. Go bother someone else.
Just watched that part, that’s what he said
When I ride bareback, I hold her thighs
Normally a fan of your work, but this one falls REALLY flat. Yes, undomesticated, untrained horses are a bad idea in battle. Which is why the cultures that utilized them trained them, raised them from birth, practiced with them every day, and invented devices to aid in these endeavors.
The armies who had cavalry historically had a GREAT advantage over those who didn't.
The title was inaccurate, probably to get more clicks, but his point wasn't that cavalry was never useful, it's that it was not useful for most of human history, until stirrups and pommels were invented.
It's like saying flying was a horrible idea... The first airplanes were quite bad and people died.
You should really watch a video from start to finish before commenting..
my friend Rome hadn't cavlary until make the gauls federats so the where fine and after that they didnt liked using cavlay much and thats the longest lasting empire in our world (if we dont count China as an empire)
inferior bows that let them take over almost everything from the pacific to the med...
riding bareback....I like the sound of that.
You will have no thighs (not to mention the non-mentionables) after two hours...................don't ask it was a weird vacation.
+Monark Roy The joke went straight over your head
hmmm.. OR DID IT?
Don't pull a Lady Godiva, never pull a lady Godiva.
+octemberfury touché
Probably why chariots were used waay before they did the cavalry thing.
i think at first they just used roller blades...but you can only figth on pavement lol
As someone who rode horses for more than 10 years actively I often been thinking about this. Like, I'm not the greatest rider out there, but I'm pretty comfortable on horseback even at high speeds, but that's without all the massive weight and gear required for combat. The idea of efficiently maneuvering the horse while at the same time trying to hit people with a weapon and not dying is just baffling to me. Obviously it can be done as proven by history, but the amount of skill it takes both from the people who need to breed and condition the horses as well as the guys doing the actual riding is massive.
It does explain why (if my memory serves me correctly) adjusted for inflation the price of a single medieval knight's horse and equipment adjusted for inflation is more than the price of a large modern house.
That's why being a knight was a profession. They spent a lifetime in training and practice.
I remember the jousting competition history channel ran. As it turned out the people who did the best with it were the professional horse trainers. The people with the most riding experience and the people with the best understanding of horses
@Bold well knights in the most basic of terms were simply soldiers who rode horses. Their social standing really varied depending on time period and country. You’re thinking of lords (which all knights were generally lords or land owners but not all lords were knights) but primarily they were cavalry soldiers above all other things
The cavalry only survived into modern times because it was beneath the dignity of the landed gentry to walk into battle. The history of warfare shows that cavalry charges were rarely effective against a determined body of infantrymen, and that after one good charge the surviving horses were blown and unfit for further action. Even if they charged successfully, their momentum often carried them straight off the field and they were of no further use to their generals. It was a hopelessly inefficient form of warfare. The successful horsemen were those either used for reconnaissance or the bowmen or mounted infantry used for harassing actions. To quote Punch "The use of cavalry is to give tone to what would otherwise be a mere vulgar brawl".
Slav bear cavalry were not impressed by this video.
Neither was American T-Rex cavalry.
Or Canadian Moose cavalry.
(I do hope you read this in a strong Canadian accent)
TheOneLichemperor Or moose calvary Ayy.
Or Dutch Mosasaurus... submarines?
Or Finnish polar bear cav... ursalry.
I see your point, but cavalry win me battles in Mount and Blade Warband...
F1-F3
"Alexander of Macedon would like to know your location"
@Tony That's rude of you, you have to capitalize the 'Great'.
@@Katniss218 he was greek anyway
velin kosev aaa he was Illyrian anyway.Cool
@@footballmylife9244 he was most certainly Greek. no people ever identified as illyrian :D
velin kosev that area of north macedonia was inhabited by dardanians back in the Bronze Age.And the molosian tribe in chameria(epirus) was southe illyrian. Because the ancient greeks considerd the epirus region way less Greek so pyhrris of epirus was Illyrian to.So iven from his mothers side he was illyrian
As someone with a degree in horses, your horse knowledge really impressed me. Spot on.
degree in horse
Drinking milk from a cow was a stupid idea... until it wasn't. Humans couldn't always digest milk.
Who do you think was the brave man that tried to go grab a 1300-2000lb beast? Also, why don't we drink milk from any other animals? (Hardly anyone drinks goats milk, and I don't know of any other animal we drink milk from.)
+Mrjohnnymoo1 Uhh, lots and lots and lots of people drink goats milk.
Ever heard of this place called "Not North America"?
Jaxon Duin I personally grew up with goats, and cannot stand goats milk, or cheese. I was saying is there any animals other than cows and goats that people drink milk from. Granted in the U.S people don't drink it, I acknowledged people still drink it :)
+Mrjohnnymoo1 The biggest reason for people not drinking goats milk (excluding south america) is due to its expensive nature. Goats dont produce much milk, and it is therefore in short supply. I personally love goat milk products
Evin M I don't think I have met a person in America that enjoy's goat products. Although, I don't know where you are.
I want a 4 pommeled horse.
That's some serious firepower once you unscrew 'em.
that's a bit of an overkill don't you think?
easily beats a spandau
A 4 pommeled horse with spandaus for legs and brens for eyes.
But where is the katana?!
4500 Khergits disliked the video.
Khergits are a pain in the ass if your on the shorter end of the stick
1000 swadian knights
E-Berk silly khergits. Should of had better archers.
Vaegir knights didn't like it either.
27k nords liked the video
In my opinion the reason stirrups became more popular than the roman saddle is that you can stand up in them. This not only means that your horse can gallop longer (due to a more even weight distribution than while sitting down), but also provided an advantage in combat as this allowed you to make your strikes more powerful by allowing you to put your whole weight behind it. Also it provided a defensive advantage as standing up made your upper body harder to reach.
@Lindybeige
as a former horse rider, I have a little answer, and observation, about what's said on the "controling" part.
To control your horse, you're needing basicaly nothing more than yourself.
You BODYWEIGHT, is more than enough, to have direct action on your horse to be exact, and how you're acting with your legs.
When I used to ride regularly, we were trained to avoid somes accidents, coming mostly by the gears breaking when we are in action.
Losing your stirrups? No big deal. By pressing your ankles, you're able to create enough force to not only STAY on your horse, but also rise yourself out of the saddle, and by example, be ready for jumping. (Good tip, never jump when sitting in your saddle, that's a freaking unpleasant experience)
Same, your reins are broken? Sit on, put your weight on the back, and go in opposition with the horse.
Want to go right or left? No big deal, push him with your leg. By this you can, with a bit of training, offering a "standard" gesture, turning in a circle, or even making him move on the side directly, staying straight and without turning his head.
This, was also used when we were riding a horse a bit "difficult", like those who refuse to answer to the reins, and take advantage of the bit, by bitting it. With a correct training, and a horse known and trained as well, it's possible to have a complete hands-free riding without putting yourself to much in danger...
So, I see many options for horses, even without being used to "charge" an enemy army. In first, of course, to be used as scouts. Even if he have to lift your weight, a horse will be more agile than two-wheels-basket. With it you can have high accelerations to a speed far more important than any human, you're able to climb, to jump, to pass river even by swimming. - Yes, horses are able to swim.
Fact is, a horse will gradually less be afraid from any kind of things around him, along the fact he will create a bond of trust with his rider. That's quite basical dominance here. Horses aren't made to stay alone. If you're able to take the leading place, than he will follow your lead and be less easily scared.
More than scouting, horses can become useful for ranged weapons. Bow, spears, javelins, whatever you could throw to your enemy... As long as you're not going close to them, you would be able to harass, disturb, and sometime break them.
And, in the last point, a horse is able to carry two men on his back for, of course, a shorter distance... But still have a decisive speed in those ages. It's more about raiding than moving as a disciplined army, for sure. But it's not stupid to think they could have been used in those ways. And... Raid, raiders, ride, riders... That's a quite close. Maybe words could help us to betterly understand how our ancestors lived those ages.
For what I think, again not as historian but as former rider, I have some reluctance to think cavalry was a stupid idea at the first times. I would more think that OUR vision of what is cavalry wasn't accurate for this period.
Why using a charge when you can't armor yourself and the horse enough to survive it, when you have plenty of other utilities for them?
As scout, quick raiding attack, to carry spearsmens or archers, you're not really in need for a saddle, or to be able to move too largely on the back of your horse.
I think the first "cavalry" was more about harassing and hit the morals of your enemy, than directly charging into battle. And that's also why we have few remains about it. Staying on the side, easily running away from the battle, able to cover a large field, they weren't in need to have some kind of heavy stuff on their horses, and no reason to have particular weapons. A mere rope is more than helpful in some case, to assist your position and your lead.
But... I see a big disadvantage to the early cavalry. As I said, you have three elements to take in consideration, for a rider to avoid thoses difficulties.
Firstly, he need to be skilled and well trained. And it isn't something any men can do. It require a particular training, and I suppose it's at least a two or three years, training.
Secondly, he'll need to have a horse well trained as well. And this, could be even hardest to find than a man suitable to ride him.
And third, he'll need to create a bond, with his horse. All of them are differents, move differently, think, react, understand things, differently. As we are, riders, all differents.
Those three elements are, for as far as I'm concerned, the main reason why cavalry in it early form was something only few can become.
Why saddles, reins, stirrups, and other stuff? Well, to let cavalry become a less elitist military group, and allow less trained and skilled men to be able to do as good as the better ones. In fact, to allow it to become more global, and to finally be able to create massive groups of riders. And of course, increase their possibilities, as we see in this video.
A stupid idea? Not really, no. But unpracticable idea? Yes, for sure.
Marc Savina How long did this essay take to type?
@@CraftQueenJr Damn long, as i'm not as fluent as I would like to be in english.
Thank to have took time to read it ;)
He made some valid points though... in closer combat, you do need the special saddles which allow you to swing your body this way and that without falling off.
Yes, you can stay balanced on top of a horse without the saddle... but can you still swing a big heavy weapon this way and that and still keep your balance? Way, way more difficult. No amount of training can allow you to defy the laws of physics lol.
I don't know why everybody forget about the living example of early cavalry. Mongols. They fit all the requirements you mentioned and some nomad tribes ruled Europe from horse back.
csquared what heavy weapons would be swinging from a horse’s back? Because swords and axes, even two handed ones (though you wouldn’t use two-handed weapons on a horse’s back) aren’t really heavy at all, and you wouldn’t be swinging a lance or spear around you’d just use it to thrust and charge
Ghengis Khan disagrees a bit Lindy.
Watch the damn video before commenting.
LMcAwesome lol you caught me. I got about 5 minutes in before typing that.
most ppls attention span doesnt go beyond 5 minutes, couple that with the title your going to get comments like this and rightly so
AKN Concept Wrongly so.
LMcAwesome
hardly, use click bait at own peril
Lloyd is like our TH-cam father lol. He gives us long speeches on history and the will and spirit of our ancestors and what they have in common with modern day people. He fulfills more speeches like a father than my real father ever has lol, thanks Lloyd! I’ve learnt a lot from your channel :D
-"Cavalry was a stupid idea"
-Alexander The Great: "now listen here little shit"
Not agree at all.Rome period,in fact in iron stage,lot of tools regarding to different usage were invented.Stand on ground small,middle and huge size catapult,mechanical powerful spring single and multiple shoots of box were invented and widely make use of them in warfare and that is why Rome empire had huge wide territories in middle east area.but in fact the most trouble zone in ancient time.Well it is and seem logical cavalry are easy triggered,however all horses wearing suitable light weight steel or heavy steel protective armor,all four legs equipped with scythe long at back and short in front while charging in formation or units,together with horse 4-6-8 wheels wagon with small and middle catapult installed in the deck,would be very dangerous and deadly and powerful weapons as modern days using of tanks and howitzers as formation units at all.Agree.😁😂😀
Cavalry chased down the fleeing infantry after they had broken and ran. Without this capability the enemy could re-group on the next hill and set up another defensive line. This is why WW1 ended up in stalemate because the machine gun made it impossible for cavalry to chase down retreating infantry, it was only the invention of the armoured vehicle that made this critical function possible again.
Your point?
if you can't rout the enemy, the fight takes longer to end.
Machine guns were more a stand-off item so unless they fell silent/over-ran you had nothing to push into in the first place.
Dig yer holes, plant your duck-boards and settle in because the fighting ain't going anywhere.
As to the horses, the less you have to carry the faster your troops can move, why waste a limited meat/haulage expensive resource on the front lines when you haev a few thousand expendible men to throw at the enemy, a few good pokes with a ponty stick (5-10% is more than enough, to decimate became a word for a reason) and they will generally bugger off of their own accord.
I liked the video and his points, but was disappointed that he seemed to skip over what I consider the most important use of cavalry. In addition to chasing down retreating enemies, they could move quickly to get flanks or pull formations out of position. Alexander the great and the Persians both used cavalry to effectively dominate their worlds. The great Mongol hoards were also almost entirely made up of cavalry. It doesn't matter much the question 'how to wear heavy armor on a horse,' because no one did for a long time. That doesn't mean they didn't use cavalry, rather light cavalry were critical forces to any effective army for many centuries. Machine guns did more than just invalidate cavalry, but notably it did that yes. This was a different cavalry than the light kind I was referring to, or the heavy kind the video focused on, being the kind with guns. It is the final kind though and would not be upgraded again both because of how easily it was countered with machine guns (and such) and because motor vehicles would simply replace horses both in combat and in general life (over time).
Historically, mvfc is correct, cavalry was used to harass. We don't really see the concept of a Cavalry charge until Alexander and the Diadochi, even then they're not a set piece until we see the Seleucids. I wonder if this is because questionable efficiency or the wealthier citizens, being more important, weren't considered for less assured tasks.
They were facing a hell of a lot more than 2000 men during world war 1. They had about 15 miles of artillery, barbed wire, machine guns and massed rifle fire to get cavalry through. mvfc maes a very good point. Contrary to popular belief attacks very often penetrated through the first few trenches, but the inability to follow up attacks with speed until technology and all arms warfare in 1918 made it possible was what caused the stalemate and the end of massed attaccking cavalry @Shane Preston
Amazing how many idiots are here in the comment section. Lindy is not saying using cavalry has been a stupid ideia in recent history (mongols, medieval,etc).
He is talking about thousands of years ago, when horses were a very different animal to what they are today. In those early days when we domesticated them it sure looked like a stupid idea to ride one straight into a bulk of enemies.
anddd then its click bait.
yea like 1300s
He makes a great point. Butall through this video, I had the image of Yosemite Sam yelling, "Woah Horse!"
+Reasonably Sane medieval is relatively recent history compared to 5000 years ago or more when horses were first domesticated
***** no it didn't - check a history book it ended about 500-600 years or so ago and we're speaking in relative terms. We are closer to the Middle Ages than we are 5-6000 years ago when the horses were first domesticated and what lindy was talking about through most of the video.
False, Swadian Knights are historically the most powerful soldiers in war, just ask Rhodhok.
In fact, an army of just 200 Swadian knights is enough to conquer the entire world.
Yes, even the Mighty Mamlukes of The Sarranid Sultanate could not compare.
FOR SWADIA!
40 Nord Huscarls > 200 Swadian Knights
Citation needed.
deus vult
*the mongols are typing*
*the takeda clan is typing*
*polish huzzars are typing*
Is the takeda clan at all related to the pharmaceutical company?
@@Khorne_of_the_Hill samurai clan.
when you miss the point of the video
Are you commenting the title only?
"Cavalry WAS a stupid idea". WAS
But cavalry wins me battles in Total War :
noo cretan and syrian archers do ;)
medieval 2 knight's to rear, goodbye noobs.
Dragoons are best. infantry+cavalry
cavalry is stupid I don't need them in my armies
(10 seconds later)
"this is a black day! our General has fallen my lord!"
(5 more seconds later)
"our men are running from the battlefield! a shameful dispray!"
+You'reThatMantis And than the enemy cavalry kills the rest. They were so useless like firearms useless.
So many people have failed to comprehend the point of this video...
it's the bren vs mg42 all over again
The point is, Cavalry was a brilliant idea and essential to any strategic victory
yeah, the point is blah blah blah I'm smart, look at me everyone I'm smart. fuck this dumb shit. rocks were stupid to use as tools. should have invented tools
Half the world is less intelligent than the other half. Considering there is 140k views at the time of writing, I let the reader do the math.
+big “Neckass” jim Well that's what he is basically saying but it's more like :"stones are stupid they should have used their hands! ' because you have more control of it'?"
Jesus, Lindy... When you started talking about barebacking riding, I thought I was on the wrong *tube...
:D
"Boy you have to grip with your thighs!"
"Boy you have to grip with your thighs!"
I heard you the first time.
ppsh43 I only posted it once, youtube messed up and double posted. No snark ass comments needed
I once went horseback riding, and the horse freaked the Fuck out because it saw a peacock
Almost everyone criticising this video clearly hasn't watched it...
I haven't seen a single person saying that Lindy was arguing that cavalry was stupid. I've just seen a lot of people complaining about the "countless idiots" who don't seem to really exist.
Defek hhu
because that title was not clickbait at all.... and the direction of the discussion is not pretty normal when making the usual points.... if you are fine with it I have some beef flavored chicken to sell you....
defek , well , that's because the title just tells you that someone who doesn't know what they're talking about
youtube in a nutshell
"Lindy, you idiot! I don't need to watch your video to know that you're wrong. Here's a list of everyone who used calvary in history so I can prove that I am an unsung genius and history expert."
He's not arguing that the cavalry is ineffective, he's saying that the idea of riding a skiddish and unpredictable animal into battle is ridiculous. It's comparable to the grade-school jokes about the man who first discovered cows milk: it is a stupid idea to grab random saggy bits under an animal and drink the discharge, but it turned out okay.
Or more that certain inventions and selective breeding were required before horses were suitable for riding to battle.
Jason Fee
Oh, absolutely. That would be a more correct explanation.
Yeah, but on the plus side, all of the comments from the pre-watching the video-armchair historians are beneficial to Lindy's video being seen in the first place (not that he needs that much help). Inflammatory isn't always bad on TH-cam and I'm glad to hear his well-researched thoughts on the matter!
Clinegg I wonder how long it took them to work out which discharging dangly bits from a horse were the ones that turned out okay
well except that it worked.
"blue crisp packet! Should be salt and vinegar but is probably cheese and onion!" 😂😂
Madness!!
People misunderstand this video so hard. He's not saying Cavlary IS a stupid idea, but rather that when it was first devised it would've been seen as a stupid idea, because back then horses were skittish, petite draft animals, not hardy, war-capable mounts, and because there was no equipment or technique for doing something like that yet.
Having ridden horses both in stirrups and bareback, I can say that it is a much more comfortable, smoother ride having the ability to raise up off the saddle and not have every bump transmitted straight into your tailbone/spine. That may be the answer to why they switched to the stirrup.
So that's why Cavalry is so effective.
They have 4 pommels to throw at their enemies!
Him: Cavalry is stupid.
Teutonic Knights: Hold my rosary!
Matthew e
Poland lost some pretty humiliating defeats in the thirteen years war against the order.
And this was after Grunwald mind you, so the order was running on a death timer during the war.
@@retardcorpsman Yeah, Poland's performance in the 13 Years' War was uhh... Underwhelming, to say the least. But then the 16th century happened.
Mateusz Jokiel
WHEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED!!!
Yeah, commonwealth poland was arguably the strongest land nation in the 16th century, only matched by the spanish and turks.
But its kinda funny to know that the Poland got that far because some German monks up north thought they were too big for their breeches.
They got their asses handed to them by the Commonwealth though.
@@josecarioca8785 The Commonwealth did not exist back when the Teutonic Order was subjugated, but yeah, the P-L Union did indeed cripple them in the battle of Grunwald. Both sides were predominantly cavalry though.
Oh and by the way, I find it odd that all this time the Teutonic Knights were handing our arses to us, then we have one unlikely victory whilst having them outnumbered severely (almost 10,000 Polish-Lithuanian troops more), and suddenly nobody talks about the rest of the story. In the Thirteen Years' War the Polish armies performed abysmally!
EDIT: typoes
Thoughts as to why stirrups would replace 4 pommelled saddles:
- Like you mentioned, stirrups are an aid to mounting/dismounting, which would be especially useful as larger horses were bred and put to use
-There are benefits to having different saddle designs depending on what the rider is doing or wearing i.e long distance comfort or cavalry charges or hugely armoured buttocks. Stirrups help everyone stay in the saddle but change the seat to suit their needs
-Being able to stand up is an enormous advantage. You can use different weapons, ride different terrain and JUMP your brave steed over obstacles that would otherwise be impossible
-Stirrups also make controlling the horse with just your knees much more effective, freeing up your hands to smite your enemies more effectively. If pressure on your saddle with your thighs is what's keeping you on the horse, you're not going to be able to train a horse to be steered by your knees and therefore you're a slave to the reigns
The people who first used horses in battle first used horses to hunt. They would not need any armor because they would use a bow.
kraigthorne that's a well trained horse😂
Randy Curtis lmao
Guns were a stupid idea, until they wern't. Oh and cities. And agriculture. And language. It's almost like these things evolve slowly over time.
100% agree.
DomR1997 Same with the car or the plane.
The first person to do it wouldn't have looked like a madman. You're falling prey to the same misleading train of thought. These things did not happen all at once, they happened gradually, something that Lindybeigh skirts around the edges of in this and other videos. It didn't start with a man riding a horse, it started with people using horses as domestic farm and pack animals. They carried things, they pulled things. Then, eventually, that transitioned into the use of things like chariots, and with horses being used by messengers and the like. And then, slowly, those horses were bred to be more efficient at these tasks. They became larger, stronger, better able to help farmers work soil, and better able to carry larger loads. *Then* people slowly transitioned towards riding them, and *then* those technologies that made cavalry warfare better were developed. There wasn't a moment where some insane person changed the script, it was a gradual series of changes that were all logical and made perfect sense in the moment.
Malcolm Wright Though I still wonder what was going though the mind of the first person who drank cow/goat milk
"Hmm, this tastes good, and is probably nutritious just like a mother's milk is for a human baby. Weird. No idea how we figured this out."
It's not that crazy.
What about shock cavalry before the romans were a power, like Persian or Thessalian, that Alexander the Great used???
I think he’s talking about how Calvary sucks for melee combat which is true.
@@Evili555
No. He explained how it _was_ a bad idea before clever innovations were made.
@@Bollibompa which is true
@@Evili555 Doesn’t answer the question. Alexander’s heavy cavalry rode their horses bareback but we’re still used to great effect in battle. I would imagine that saddles and stirrups made it a lot easier to fight on horseback, but it was never actually impossible even before they were invented.
I was under the impression that standing up in the saddle was an important part of Calvary. Driving the power of your thrust into your legs rather than your lower back sound like a more powerful move to me.
This is the most sexual non-sexual comment that I have ever seen. I need to go deal with something......
Should have changed the picture in back from Jeor Mormont to Kkal Drogo for this video.
Daario Naharis would work too
I think stirrups were helpful to archers. It seemed to work for the Mongols. They were pretty effective cavalrymen.
You are absolutely right. In order to shoot properly from a horse you need to lift off and your butt cheeks cannot be in contact with the saddle. Otherwise everything is very shaky
And Turks
And Magyars
According to Civilizations 2, horses were used first for transporting people to battle before the invention of the chariot. I think the chariot was probably originally only intended to make transportation easier, but soon got recognised for its potential as a weapon afterwards.
Yes...they would ride up to battle and dismount to fight.
Just staying on the Horse was probably a series of accidents that turned out good for the riders
Farmer Frank a horse owner probaly wanted his best chance in battle, owning a horse while your dead makes no sense
It’s pretty crazy that Alexander the Great conquered “the world” without stirrups
do war elephants they seem odd an interesting
And they worked out very well, historically speaking, and it is considered a form of cavalry.
Nope they weren't used that much. They need so much training, that they are super expensive and they need lots of food so it is logistically difficult. And against a well organized army they are kind of useless because the troops can move to the sides so that the elephant goes through a lane and does not deal that much dmg
Plus elephants are smart, they know danger and run away from it, it's much much harder to train them.
Plus elephant backs aren't really good at taking heavy lifts
They were an effective moral destroyer
"Laughs in +33% cavalry combat ability"
nik limnat
Laughs in inspiring leader, and both cavalry martial skills
"Laughs with %53 cavalry combat ability with hussite commonwealth"
Time to upgrade dude.
Laughs in esen choros
LindyBeige:
Polish Winged Hussars: *WHAT DID YOU JUST SAY, KURWA!?*
In Polish it would be put in a little different way: Co ty, kurwa, pierdolisz? - roughly "Da fak yo' sain?!"
Sometimes a slap across the head says far more than any choice of words.
Dupek is better.
I'd really like to know more about the winged hussars.
Years back, I served with the 3rd Armored Cavalry, of course the only horses we had were for parade use, and not for battle, they had been replaced by armor, tanks, armored personal carriers and armored command tracks. When I was a young boy living on our farm, I grew up riding bareback on one of our 3 horses, we had Barney, Lady and Babe, Barney was a Shetland/quarter horse cross, Lady was a huge work horse, and Lady was a younger quarter horse that could run like the wind. Barney was a very tame horse, he would do anything for we kids but hated adults. When dad or mom would approach Barney he would nip at them or turn and ready a kick, however we kids could climb all over him, ride him and if we would fall off, he would stop dead and stand there looking at us till we got back up and remounted. Lady was skittish, she would shy away from things like you mentioned, once she was galloping along with me on her back, down the dirt road that ran past our farm. For some reason she went down into the grassy ditch that was beside the road, when she got near the fence, a large post came along, she shyed away from that and threw me right over the fence onto the soft tall grass that was nice enough to break my fall and not my bones. Babe, being a HUGE horse like to prance. Now if you have ever ridden a horse you would know that a trot is a sort of rough near run, a prance is more of a marching by a horse, a sort of trotting walk if you will, and when riding bareback it just beat the hell out of your but, but when she went into a gallop, the way we kids loved to ride, her gate was so smooth you would think you were riding the rocking horse machine outside the grocery store. Lady's gallop was even smoother, Barney could gallop but only a short distance as he was a very old horse.
During ancient times, (Greeks and earlier Romans) they didn't use cavalry much during the actual fighting so much as running down the enemy after a battle when they're routing. I didn't really think about this much but it makes sense that a lot of people might be hesitant at first and the horses wouldn't like it either.
Guy : "Hey there horsie, I have an idea of how to use you"
Horse : "What's that"
Guy : "Well I'm going to ride you and a bunch of my buddies are going to ride your horse buddies into this big battle we're about to have"
Horse : "Wait a minute, you want to ride ME into a big battle where a bunch of people with sharp pointy objects will be trying to kill us"
Guy : "Yeah, it'll be great. I'll be up high and harder to hit and can easily attack down at the enemies and you can move fast too. If I a bunch of my friends on your friends charge the enemy HEAD ON moving really fast we can do TONS OF DAMAGE to the enemy army"
Horse : "HELL NO! That is a HORRIBLE idea you dumbass!"
Beas7ie * "Hey horse I have an idea, it'll be gr8"
Horse: "What's that Ghengis?"
Ghengis Khan "We'll take these tiny but powerful bows and charge into battle"
Horse "Wot, no."
Ghengis: "Fine Fine."
Ghengis "How about I take this bow, ride up close to the battle, shoot off some arrows, run away, and let you rest for a couple of minutes and repeat"
Horse : "I'm still not sure... "
Ghengis : " We'll scare the ever loving shit out of the enemy, make them back into a packed formation, then shoot into the formation while riding around them in a circle, it will look bad ass as fuck."
horse: "OK, but if I get killed"
Ghengis Khan *Rapes and pillages most of the known world*
U sure? Persia? Macedon and successors?
You've clearly never ridden a horse... A horse with his friends would like nothing better than running as fast as possible towards some other bunch of horses... They actually love it and get carried away even. They don't shy away. Even horses not trained to do it will get close to people armed with spears if you push it on. Close enough to be able to use a weapon against them even if it's just a javelin.
AdmiralSnackbar7 True. But. And it is a big but. Have you ever tried riding a horse a group of people? One person, fine. A big group. No chance. That's why the Saxons and the Vikings fought on foot; because horses will not charge a sheild wall. Cavalry charges, for the most part, do not work against massed infantry. In most battles that involve cavalry they are used in flanking manoeuvres or to ride down already routed enemies.
Yes b and you can get close to large groups of people and engage. You mention the Saxons and it's true they didn't use them but the Normans did and benefited from it so swings and roundabouts.
While it is true that stirrups are not 100% necessary to make mounted warfare possible, they greatly improve the efficiency and effectiveness. It makes large scale use of cavalry possible. To some extent, it helps start the feudal age. For instance:
1. Shock cavalry. Usually you need bigger horses for shock tactics. To get onto the back of a big horse (150+cm at shoulder) without stirrups is extremely difficult. Noble horsemen might have a page or 2 to assist them to get on, but that's just not practical in battles.
2. Stirrups provide a rest for legs and helps reduce fatigue. Mounted warfare is not just about charge and break. Sometimes, the strategic situations might require long distance marches. Without stirrups, riders can get tired very quickly.
3. Like illustrated in the video, when a horseman leans over to one side to attack enemy infantry, he will have difficulty getting back into the saddle without any riding aids. While pommel saddle can do the same job, but stirrups are just much more simpler and more effective. To use pommel saddle, a rider needs learn to use his thigh to exert forces to get himself back. But stirrups only require a simple push from his foot, which is much easier.
4. Bareback riding can be done but require a lot more training. Just think about it. A skilled rider can ride and fight on bareback. But a lesser trained man can be equally effective with all the riding aides such as saddles and stirrups. It shortens the training cycle of a cavalry force and makes fielding mass horsemen more possible.
It is like before internet, people can still communicate pretty well, but once with the internet technology, it greatly improves the efficiency and openness making mass communications more adoptable.
Pandacat80 a theory I had, which would pair well with your discussion of horse height is that stirrups can be “opted into” so to speak. You can put your feet into and out of the stirrups, but once your saddle has this 4 pommel setup you’re stuck with it. And I would imagine the snug fit it provides wouldn’t be ideal for some situations. Also, imagine if you had to get off your large horse in the middle of the battle or away from your assistants - if you had stirrups to help you get back on, that would be a great boon.
So stirrups may have won out in part due to their flexibility.
It doesn't seem so difficult:
1. Strategic mobility - having a horse lets you go faster, arrive at the battlefield in better condition, and carry more supplies and gear, even if you don't fight on them. Living on horseback became a lifestyle for many nomadic tribes.
2. Scouting - many civilisations like the Romans may not have been big on cavalry as a fighting unit (they used them, but less extensively than others), yet still wanted them especially as scouts.
3. Skirmishing - a bow or javelinman on horseback is impossible to deal with for enemies who do not have equally ranged weapons. Again something that especially nomads with hunting lifestyles excelled at, and which destroyed some of the greatest armies in history.
4. Run people over - requires strong control, but if you can control a horse to such a degree you are a menace even without any other weapon. Heavy cavalry often was a super weapon on the battlefield.
The Greeks predating the Romans, were using Cavalry as shock troops, I am referring to Alexander and his Companions...and doing it without Roman-Celtic saddles.
The Stirrup gave horse archers the ability to steady themselves to shoot better. They no longer sit their butt on horseback, but are suspended on stirrups, using their legs as counter to the horse's movements to steady their upper torso as they aim.
Strategic mobility comes from plenty of remounts and being able to milk your horse which happens to be a hardy breed not needing energy rich grains. Though horse carts vs ox carts armies run on food, protected depots, roads, naval transport, horses add to the requirements see german planning.
In the early times, when horses werent that popular, horses would scare the shit out of infantrymen. A horse is a huge, strong animal. Its basically made just out of muscles and its hooves are extremely dangerous. In the middle ages they even managed to get the horses to actively kick enemiesand actively participate in combat..
Cavalry is great for chasing down fleeing people. See the roman empire.
If you put really skilled archers on horses, they are perfect for hit and run tactics. See the parthians and the mongols.
Cavalry is great for scouting.
Cavalry is great for surrounding, flanking and distracting enemies.
Only the development of guns will stop a 300 - 450kg animal galloping towards you with an angry guy on top.
Winged Hussars vs Swedish infrantry
had KD ratio 12/1 in war
Commonwealth vs Sweden
ikr, hax confirmd
I love how you randomly spew a number. I Googled Polish Hussar vs Sweden Infantry and I get no results showing any battles where only Hussar and Infantry fought each other. Extremely few battles where the forces were in a fairly evenly matched position and numbers. The Hussar was always a very small part of the whole force and same with the Sweden Infantry. Also you only mentioned the Infantry. You didn't mention the Swedish Cavalry which I saw numerous times mentioned dealing a great blow to the Hussar.
Where is your source for the number and what battle was it with only Hussar vs Infantry? Was it 1000 vs 1000? or 3000 Hussar vs 100 infantry. Cuz then it's easy to get high KD.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kircholm
I think, that you didn't search long enough, it the first thing to pop up when you type "polish hussar vs sweden" in google
Also, the Keshik chivalry and horse archers enabled mongolian empire to be the one of biggest empires in the world.
'Cavalry is a stupid idea'
you wanna tell that to the huns or the mongols?
Watch the video before you post stupid comments.
The huns usually rode to battle and dismounted for combat.
do you understand the passage of time... when where the huns around lol, 3000 BC?
The video hints about how early cavalry was not some brilliant idea because no one had established or known about better tactics and equipment for it. Saying, "lul, the huns and mongols made it work." is complete hind sight, especially since Lindy is talking about cavalry tactics PRIOR to the huns and mongols! xD
For another bit of hind sight, Napoleon commented about how stupid of an idea it was to put a steam engine into a wooden ship.
Cavalry is a stupid idea accept for wait for it......the Mongols
'probably China' the standard answer for where everything was invented probably.
+Cowsrthebest
They are now manufactured there instead.
+Cowsrthebest All the modern inventions are from Japan, and built by China, and sent back for repairs by everyone else.
Ironically China are traditionally really, really awful at horse-based warfare. They were smashed so many times back steppe peoples - where the horse was probably domesticated.
***** I was making a joke based on the fact that a lot of things are invented in Japan, I wasn't being serious.
Oh flight and space travel was invented in Japan too.
In fact the only reason why japan is so advanced is trade with the western powers where japan learned 300 years of technology in just 30 years.
With stirrups it's easier to lift yourself and lean forward while riding on horse, it helps during charge with a spear or a lance.