Stanis Baratheon, supposedly the greatest general in the seven kingdoms, advancing his army without any scouts. The Bolton, very impopular in the north and in command of a simple garrison (as far as the show lets us know), manage to assemble a large force of cavalry in almost no time. Anyone reading the books can help me understand?
Tzarhunt in the books you dont see the battle, you dont know what happened. Stannis knew he lost in the show though, but he will break before he bends.
Tzarhunt I haven't read the books, but my understanding is that Roose Bolton has allies and merceneries, and both he and Stannis have been fighting various actions in the lead up to this battle, so both have standing armies in the field (until half Stannis' leaves).
scholagladiatoria it's kinda weird that Stannis had cavalry when he defeated wildlings, but somehow he doesn't have it. I know he lost half of his men deserting, but now they show like it's all infantry.
***** Aye, we only know about it via a letter from Ramsay, which is filled with clear propaganda. In the book Stannis has gained many allies during his march to the Dreadfort, giving him command of a substantial army, although not as big as the one in the show. Edit: Sorry misread your post at first.
jasamgladaan In the night suprise attack they said that a lot of the horses have been killed, and after the mutiny it was said that the deserters took the rest.
***** the cold, wind, snow and hunger ended most of the resistance (along with Stannis's poor choices). no army can survive brutal winters and expect to win without sacrificing huge losses.... the Germans in WW2 are a great example.
Blah b Ridiculous.The "russians"(in the soviet army there weren't only russians) were fighting because their homeland had been invaded.Any soldier who wouldn't fight in any army would be executed on the spot as a deserter.And the "russians" weren't "Military amateurs",they only had their supreme leader execute most of the officer corps just a couple years before.Turns out losing all the experience,leadership,doctrine of an army leads to organizational disasters like in 1941 and early/mid 1942.After the war had hastily rebuilt the soviet command structure and tactics(irony) the soviet and german armies fought essentially on par.The last major soviet epic fail was the 3rd battle of kharkov,and that was against the best germany could offer(manstein and the southern army group) with one of the most incompetent soviet generals in charge(timoshenko).After this the germans had way more moments of "amateurism",simply because hitler gave in to the same mistake stalin had and rearranging army command on the base of political reasoning and not military one.
Blah b You yourself said the soviet army was entirely consisting of russians,ignoring the fact that many soldiers from the other republics contributed greatly to the defeat of germany.So I don't think you possess the knowledge of history required to tell me what the homeland of people you dont think existed is.Also a decade earlier was 1930,a period in which the soviet union was entirely at peace.The closest conflict was the russian civil war in which the bolsheviks enjoyed the support of most people who weren't secessionists,and that was mainly in finland,the caucasus and the baltics.Finland and the baltics were let go to their own civil wars.The baltics were reoccupied by stalin because he was a jerk,he tried to that to finland too and a whole mess came of it.The caucasus was reoccupied along with ukraine because the white army occupied it,and the locals hated the white army way more than the red one.I was more brutal and didnt have a scrap of a plan for the region that wasnt a return to tsarist slavery.If you wanna convince me,your gonna have to come up with some objective argument based on evidence.
***** I'm glad The Art of War was brought up, like he said in the video leave the enemy room to escape because a surrounded enemy will be come a rabid beast. If you surround them you've placed them on what Sun Tzu calls "Death ground", there's no telling how many men you'll lose when the enemy is put in this position. Historically, I think this tactic would work on just about anyone but Ghengis Khan. If you surround him, slaughter him because if you chase the Mongols they'll pick you apart with exhaustion and arrows. No one better in history at killing on the run than the Mongols.
What bothered me most about this fight was the fact that the Boltons had that many horses. I mean, really, the logistics required to support that many horses are mind-boggling. As recently as WWI, for instance, Russian cavalry divisions were between a third and a quarter of the size of their infantry divisions and required *more* railway space per division. I'm extremely skeptical that the Boltons could possibly have fed that many horses, nevermind kept them sufficiently well fed so that they'd be useful in battle. Traditionally, cavalry-heavy field armies (like those of the Ottomans in the 15th century) were utterly useless in winter because the horses were basically on a diet and wouldn't put on the fat and muscle to be good for campaigning until they got to eat the vitamin-rich spring grasses.
My point has nothing to do with numbers (even though, canonically, that battle involves somewhere around ten thousand men). It has to do with logistics. It's hard to feed men during a war. It's harder to feed men and pack animals during a war. It's even harder to feed cavalrymen and their mounts during a war simply due to the added logistical burden cavalry impose upon the force using them. More importantly, look at the field. You can't graze your horses on snow. Every calorie a horse eats has to be laid in store in advance. The North isn't very populous in the best of times and, as of the fifth season of the show, they've basically had four years of constant war. That's four years of sub-par harvest yields. And suddenly we've got an enormous cavalry army? lolwut?
Matt L spring grass is in fact rediculously dangerous to cavalry as the horses will binge and Colic on the high fructan Content. there are many cavalry sources warning for the danger of uncontrolled grazing. but logistics are indeed a big Problem. though many armies will raid hay stores and feed teh animals comparitvely much grain compared to horses now kept. hay and straw can be fed and there are acounts of feeding reed and straw roofs to horses. (straw is a much better source of Food for a horse than most People assume) a horse will nomally spend most of his day grazing, yet if he has to can eat a days' Food within about 2x30 mins if he has to. (particularly hay and grain) so there are ways and means. but the damage to the marshalling Areas will be great indeed. frozen rivers might also impede an army to water horses to some extent. so the main probelm is that the amry would have to travell in fairly small bands to allow them to find enough fodder in Barns. In winter the ground is so sodden that horses will quickly trample what Little gras there is, but this is usually not a Problem on the first night, so an army in non-snow conditions can graze the animals.
Matt L I imagine the sellswords that deserted Stannis, and went of with their horses. Sold their allegiance to the Boltons and that's who we're seeing right there.
Sun Tzu claimed an army given an option to retreat will take it, but an army without one will fight tooth and nail. Then, the Mongols came, did this very thing, and then shot the routing enemies. Turns out you cant actually flee from horse archers.
I've read a few sources dating from the late medieval period too Napoleonic era and one thing appears to be the key factor when cavalry meets infantry. The cavalry will go in with the intention to break cohesion of the opposing formation, losing cohesion and not being able to return to the formation tends to make people flee and leaves them at the mercy of cavalry. To break the cohesion the cavalry relies on the physical shock of impact, casualties caused on impact, fear when getting charged at and seeing your mate impaled on a lance and other factors such as the leader/officer/banner being cut down. If successful those factors combined will result in a formation of a few hundred man in neat lines or a big blob turning into a few hundred individuals who if they cannot reform will be forced to relocate/flee. If a charge fails part of the horsemen will be cut down, part will disengage, turn around and reform and part will emerge at the other side of the infantry formation. The infantry (re)forms if necessary and is ready to receive another attack. Both sides suffered some casualties but the infantry formation is still there, you can charge in again but essentially you are just trading casualties if you don't break the cohesion and horses will tire after a while. Swiss pike blocks demonstrate how espirit d'corps and all that can be an important factor. They had dense pike blocks shot at by cannons taking out 30+ men per shot, heavy cavalry charging through them and emerging at the other side two or three times, 20 or 30% casualty rates and yet they still managed to retain their formation and even if defeated they often did leave the field in formation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dreux Well drilled infantry managed to beat cavalry not because the horses feared to go into the formation but because they absorbed the blow and maintained a formation despite casualties and all that jazz. Numerous other factors such as where the charge takes place (flanks or front), what weapons the infantry uses, the weather and even what breakfast they had influence the ability of a large group of people to maintain cohesion and formation. Seeing your own cavalry flee generally isn't so good on the moral. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rossbach
DushinSC Dude this comment was awesome. I'm a history major who focuses on military and politics, and I can say this comment demonstrated more insight than some of my professors. It's cool that vids like this can bring people with similar interests.
Vaeran7 Happy to help! If you're looking for some summertime reading then I can recommend: Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages by J.F. Verbruggen. It's from the 60s so dated in a few regards yet outstanding and far ahead of its time in others. Modern day prints have notes that correct outdated info and if you read it in conjunction with Renaissance, Medieval and Napoleonic sources you will get a pretty clear picture of what combat in the days of battle formations looked like.
6:00 If the player is allowing this to happen in a Total War game, they are clueless about cavalry use. After you run into the infantry, you should be pulling them out so that you can get the charge bonus again, just like you describe in this video. In addition to a large damage bonus, you get massive morale damage bonuses for charging in the flanks and rear, causing units to break, which is how you win TW games.
Wreqt Yes but there should be a move/charge order that tells the cav unit to try to keep moving after contact, because as Matt said the cav does not want to stop it has to go through or be pulled back.
iopklmification Keep moving through the unit, thus surrounding themselves in the formation, or hit and then retreat, which the game just expects you to do yourself? It would be difficult to get such a charge/move order to work correctly, as the game wouldn't know the best place to send them after the charge, and if it consistently moved them into a bad position, people would complain far more. I mostly played Shogun 2, and the use of cavalry, light cav in particular, pretty much matches what Matt talks about here. I am not sure if Rome 2 changed something about how cav/inf interact.
Wreqt they are not supouse to ge surrounded they are supouse to move throught the whole formation to the other side and them move away and yes you have to choose place where they can do that. Moving that way into formation that is to thick is like disbanding the cavalry and do you have any idea what it would be to turn around 100 horse or so while they are stuck in enemy formation that is crazy. And dont protect them cavalry in Total War games is really really bad.
What I don't get is that he's supposed to have had 4000 bannermen before he hired mercenaries with the Iron Bank funds. "Spoiler incoming" Half of his troops leave him, including the entirety of the mercenary force. The troops we see here is nowhere near 2000+. Also I didn't really get why his troops deserted. They're stuck in the north with no means to get back to their homes. Only place they could possibly go is back to the wall and try to secure passage away. I get that morale would be low, but still... Seems like they just wanted to push for his defeat, which makes large parts of his arc rather pointless. Seemed like they just wanted to get rid of him after having spent soo much time on his story.
My interpretation, when I saw the cavalry, was that the mercenaries who desert with all Stannis' horses go over to the Boltons because there is a much better chance that they will win and therefore be paid. As for the numbers, yeah, true it probably isn't over 2000 but it looks pretty close to 1000, lazy digital editing but enough to give the impression of a reasonable force.
ChipMHazard Well, let's see: they're stuck in the North, during a Westeros winter (which could last a decade), without proper winter gear, supplies, or knowledge of the land. Most horses died (or ran away) during that fire, fire which also means they're very vulnerable to guerrilla tactics. Their leader is an inflexible maniac who sacrificed his own daughter by burning her alive. And what awaits them if they do make it to WInterfell? A lengthy siege for which they are not equipped, or battle with better rested, better fed troops who are accustomed to fighting in the winter. So, almost certain death, no pay and no booty? I'd say they have plenty of reasons to defect. As to where could they go, the answer is South, around Winterfell - remember, most enemy forces are supposed to be holed up inside that fortress waiting for Stannis' army, not hunting the land for defectors.
Zombigotron Aye, head south with few or no supplies. Basicly certain death, especially when traversing through hostile territory. Plus the mercenaries would presumably want to head back to Essos. I could see the defectors having turned to the Boltons.
ChipMHazard Well, considering that, like I said, most of Bolton's army was holed up in WInterfell, they would simply forage the nearby villages. (and by forage, I obviously mean rob/pillage).
Zombigotron Okay, so let's go with them being able to march south without any harrasment from the Boltons. They would still have to travel past the Twins. The mercenaries wouldn't know this, but Stannis' soldiers would. There is literally no real way to get back south.
Every detail about this battle was Idiotic. The thing that just drives me insane, is how Melisandre literally rides off with the last horse, which you think they would reserve for the commander. Also the fact the horses almost appear out of now where, perfect information. Then how Stannis see's this but does not fall back to the trees, where horses charge is rendered somewhat. Another criticism is how the whole Bolton army seems to be on horses. How the hell does half an Army desert without anyone blinking an eye. Why is Stannis' entire ARMY sell swords? Why is there no chain of command, no communication between ranks. Stannis standing at the front lines, yet is revealed to alone in the woods after, for Brienne of Tarth to kill him? I thought we were watching game of thrones, not some Disney Princess Knight tale. Stannis Bartheon had an entire Army fresh, Kingslanding left with weakened Lanisters forces. Yet he goes to wall, and the show shits on him.
Lem Production I think Stannis went to the wall because he wanted to get rid of the Boltons and make Jon Snow the Warden of the North so that he could have the Northern forces support him in his war against the South.
I agree with a lot of your criticism. As to the composition of Stannis army though, its clear that not his entire army was composed of sellswords; as it was said that all the sellswords has ridden off in the night. Those men remaining with him would be his bannermen. It's likely that his army was largely composed of sellswords, because that was what he could get. At his defeat at Kings Landing most of the Stormlords that composed Stannis' army surrendered to the Lannister-Tyrell forces and most were pardoned and taken back in to the Iron Throne forces, so he really have no other troop source. As to how Stannis ended up alone in the woods, its very possible that he made a fighting retreat back to the forest with a small nucleus of his force after he saw that his army was taking a beating. There his bodyguards were finally either slaughtered to a man or more likely were finally scattered by the enemy, leaving him alone. Unlikely, but possible. As to why Stannis did not try to take Kings Landing despite his fresh army, it was because his strategic situation would be hopeless. As Roose Bolton mentioned he barely had 7,000 men in his new army, most of whom were newly recruited sellswords, while the Lannister-Tyrell army that stood in his way was about 90,000 strong. Not much of a fight there.
+scholagladiatoria In the book A Dance with Dragons Stannis didn't sacrifice his daughter, She's at castle black and he's outside of Winterfell in a village surrounded by a frozen lake. It seems the way the battle will go down is Ramsay will come to him and Stannis will lure Ramsay or the Freys/Mandelys onto the snow covered lake that's covered in fishing holes. Note Stannis has Northern allies and Roose Bolton sent out A force in which the one half hates the other and will likely switch sides.( The Manderlys ) In the book Roose has infighting in Winterfell because 1/3 of his army are serving Lords And Ladies who want him dead, but are forced to fight for him because Walder Frey has Hostages at the Twins. There's like three different fractions at Winterfell. The reason Ramsay go's to attack Stannis is because Roose was sick of the infighting and was trying to get rid of useless mouths to feed. Since the Freys and Manderlys are at each others throats, he sends them out. Stannis has 5400 men consisting of 1300 southerner and 4100 Northerners with 80 horses vs 2000 Freys 600 Boltons and 300 Manderlys who will likely switch sides. total 2600 with 1500 being heavy cavalry. ( 300 Manderlys 200 being Knights ) Inside the castle Roose has 3500 more of his own men with 1000 of unknown loyalty who some have their own agendas going on. at least half of them serve lords who want Roose dead. Roose Bolton sent his allies the Freys to go die. to save on the food.
My favorite example of heavy cavalry in the total war games was Medieval 2, though it was a little over the top at times. A good charge in that game would literally send men flying and grievously hurt morale. And yes, as you said, they will stay and fight if you let them, so you have to double click at some distance away so they book it out of melee asap (knights in that game are extremely battle hungry for some reason). I often wiped out small bandit/rebel units with a pair of cavalry units by sending one to charge from the front, and the other to the flank. The one on the flank would charge only a couple seconds after the one on the front, not to maximize casualties, but morale damage.
skykid I mostly clicked behind the enemy unit and let them charge through a line. Most of the time this made a nice gap because of the destroyed morale. Rally the cavalry and let them attack the rear of the enemy army and rush some more troops into the gap to split it into two pieces. Works 85% of the time. I also liked it that ME2 respected the exchange-of-missile-fire-phase of a battle.
skykid Am I the only one here who finds Rome 2's cavarly charges sexy as hell ? The only thing I don't like about cavalry in that game is that they're beasts in melee combat, but since it's simple enough to tell them to move out after a charge, I don't mind it.
Jordan Steeno The cavalry isn't the problem - just the fact that they don't move away "automatically". Cavalry in real-life would be slaughtered if they didn't pull away from an engagement (unless, of course, they were very lucky, winning, or the enemy broke and routed). Thus why Schola described the "proper" way of using cavalry as "sweeping" (that is, light cav).
Grizwold Mayor I understand your point. However, purely from a gamer's point of view, having your soldiers do everything by themselves would be a boring thing to play ! Nothing prevents a player from retreating his cav as soon as the charge is done. If some of the men and horses get stuck in the infantry, well they're done for, just like in real life.
Jordan Steeno Fair point - the game would get boring, if everything was automated. Plus, I guess it's the role of the "commander" (or, "captain" of a cavalry unit) to pull them out - as they probably wouldn't on their own, if they were disciplined troops.
About horses charging at wall of pikes/spears there are historical records that proves heavy cavalry was not always used for head on charges. Horse is smart creature, there are also historical accounts about horses not wanting to go and charge into massed infantry. So both is true.
This show is ridiculous... Stannis, the men that with 1500 Heavy knights managed to Defeat an army of 30 000 men by surprise attacking them by three sides, breaking their morale and letting them all flee while only killing 1000... Has got defeated by cluesless shirtless commander... Is D&D expecting us to buy that shit?
+Ricardo Santos The show has became too big and expensive so they had to cut production cost. Stanis the Mannis and his army was just too expensive. Too many people, too many props, too many fake swords and armor, too much CGI.
One thing Total War has done in their newer games is that unless it's heavy cavalry vs light infantry, your horses will be massacred if you don't pull them away after a charge. It's kinda annoying you can't tell them to charge and then automatically retreat to a safer area, which means you need to keep track of them and order them manually, but it's somewhat more realistic.
Polish hussars usually went straight into opponents, no matter who and how well equipped they were. This formation was so extremely effective as some European professional armies refused to fight against poles. Hussars also usually successfully exterminated numerical superior opponents. Check Battle of Klushino out.
When I saw this I immediately thought of Agincourt - why did Stannis come out onto the plain without any scouts? If he had warning he could have fallen back to where they emerged from the forest which was narrow and his lack of numbers would have been irrelevent. All that cavalry riding up an icy snowy slope into a narrowing opening would have been disaster. That was when my wife told me to shut up and watch the bloody TV ... :-)
Steve Jones Spoilers! Because he's broken. He burned his daughter, his wife hanged herself, his priestess ran, his troops ran, I honestly think he already gave up and just didn't care anymore. He wanted to die doing the "right and honorable" thing which for him is marching on, no matter the consequences.
***** Stannis scouts are southern men, they don't know crap about the north. Bolton scouts know the whole area. Stannis scout doesnt have horses and cannot get away. Boltons have horses (and hounds as well from what we've seen of Ramsay's hunt). Pfft, if Stannis send out scouts it would be their death senteces.
I found your synopsis of giving the enemy an escape avenue interesting as I served in the US Marine Corps Reserve (infantry) from 2002-2008 and that's a tactic that's still taught. I specifically learned it in urban warfare training. We were taught to "avoid the 'trapped rat syndrome' " by giving the enemy a way to get out and have a unit waiting to pick them off as they run.
Matt, you are absolutely right! -in the 16th century dutch cavalry gets a different Pension if they have half barding than if they have 'full barding strong enough to break a pike block'. - the 'chronices of the crusades' (late 15th century) Show a bunch of cavalry tactics in various formations, mostly very tight. -ridinger in 1760 writes that the cavary should learn to 'traverlieren' to push the troopers together in their line from the flanks of their unit to attack the enemy. - the term 'stirrup to stirrup' is to distingish from 'knee in knee' where the width of a single cavalryman becomes about 60-80 cm, only about 20-50% more than a man on foot. (if at all) -wallhausen Shows a Lance caracole where the lines of cavalry litterally pick off men out of the infantry square with Lances and then turn away to let another attack come. -there is a marvellous painting of a caracole (Google it, i can't seem to link it) where you see just how huge such a movement is, concentrating a great vlume of fire on a certain part of the line and subsequently charges the weakened Formation with vigour. -there are a whole bunch of attackes described in medieval sources where the cavalry punch straight through the lines of Major infantry formations. (patay, but even Grandson and Murten, even if they are not ultimately succesfull, they are mentioned to have 'had their Hands on the standard'. ) -the push of the Body of horse is a great Problem to an infantry unit as it litterally causes a Domino effect in the infantry unit, so if an Initial breach is made the infantry are less able to use their melée weapons int he press, whereas the cavalry are comparatiely free to rain death onto the infantries heads while the horses try to swim through the mass of People. -a horse that desies to trample is faster and stronger than most People presume.
airnt by the way, jousters are moving away from the usual heavier breeds to mostly spanish horses across the world atm, due to the growing popularity of melée or 'turnier'. in America heavier draft breeds are more popular, which is why they come off their horses so much (heavy draft horses are too wide to sit securely and are slower and the width means you are less flexible on the horse as you cannot align your knees correctly) but also there we see a move to other breeds. so top jousters are on spanish (andalusian), lusitano, murgese horses... those are pretty Close to warhorses. but the best warhorses are barbs: brave, good for colleciton, bred for canter. (though small )
You "can" charge cavalry into infantry and it "can" work. But usually it didn't. That is the whole reason square formation worked. It's also why in the 19th Century cavalry charged "knee-to-knee" - because horses don't like charging into what appears to be a wall of pointy stuff, but they will if they can't see another way out. The point being that you "can" break a square by doing this, and I'm sure generals hoped it would work, but it's unlikely to work. Surely, in this situation, the cavalry should have wheeled around the infantry vanguard which was already formed up, then they should have destroyed the rearguard which was unformed. Then the vanguard could be attacked, but with mounted archers and spearmen if they had them.
The part of the heavy cavalry that is said to go back to the medieval times. Just want to point out that the Persian Cataphracts (and related units) was used as heavy shock troops from around 1000 BC.
Just go with it. It was the opportunity Brienne needed to avenge her king. Brienne had a rough go of it for a while and needed a win. Don't think about it too much.
+Fabio Q The Scots Greys more or less destroyed one French infantry column, capturing a golden eagle banner in the process, then charged into and through another infantry force, then attacked some French guns. They were then attacked by French cavalry, after all that, yes.
A french unit in column already engaged and another flanked by infantry. My point was not that they did not succeed initially but that they lost 50% of their force and were made useless by the end of it. Oh, and their commander was captured too. All in all the episode was considered a debacle.
+Fabio Q Dont worry (waterloo refference) is english propaganda like all time. (They forget lot of reallity evens, like Prussian desivie action.) :)) The grey charges ok, take some guns but dont nails them, like french cavalery dont do also later. The R-S-Grey was beat by french polish lancer because they go to far away without inf support and because they are tired and fall against the best cavelery lancer of this century. (I dont speak about some highlanders inf who was on horse, actually i dont know if it was true and/or really usefull.) What i know it's that it's not a victory of wellington but a victory of Blucher and a miss battle of french marechaux that miss basic order like follow the cavalery charge by fresh inf troop. This battle is 80% of very difficult way to win for attacker (wet ground, english behind hills, 3 strong farms points, french at 1 vs 2,1 (effective army), figth in 2 sides, Napoleon sick, impetuous marechaux, conscription army (the 100 days army was profesionnal only at 40%).. even with that, the french can really beat the english at 1vs1 without guards reserve. ^^ England can say a BIG THANK YOU to Prussian. Lot of english forget that. And not sorry for my english. ^^
records are a bit shaky tbf, The Greys, Union and Household cavalry's roles are still in dispute, some say they did lots of work others say they were masssacred. but the reason we treat Wellington as a hero is clear Wellington had to hold out for the big army of prussians to arrive, If he hadn't the French would have got a strong, high position with which to fight Blucher but Wellington Held and so Blucher's numbers swelled in and won the battle, they both had crucial roles but Wellington had the difficult job :P He may not have won the battle out right but he held long enough for help to arrive
Well Matt winning when you outnumber them and outmatch them and have better positioning is easy,what i would like to know is how we could win if we were the infantry commander!Any ideas anyone?
scholagladiatoria Well,i don't whatch game of thrones so i don't know about the generals but in this current situation where thw infantry is not formed up properly and i dont think they now have the time to what is there best bet to do?Is there any last hope strategy or simply just fight allaround and hope your men have the courage to fight to the bitter end?
Greg Makropoulos lead the army so that the terrain is better for u then for the enemy. build a scout screen form squares shield-walls pole weapons in front archers in the middle. organize your formations so that they have overlapping kill zones for the archers. but this guy was doomed he killed his own child lost his wife lost 1/2 of man no food no siege weapons no cavalry no red woman, who has fled with the last horse no lack of hope to win
scholagladiatoria As Eamon Mckernan said, the books were quite different, in the tv show is more of a suicidal attack than the real siege and moves he did before (he recluted the equivalent of the scots, he secured important castles on the way down, he made alliances with important families etc....)
Here's another: Battle of García Hernández, 1812, Peninsular War. Two German and British cav brigades destroyed THREE French infantry battalions in square in a head on clash.
The first square was broken by luck, an injured horse ploughed into the face of a light infantry battalion and made a hole big enough for the rest to drive through. They did not simply ride down the square. The second square was destroyed by the panic caused by the fleeing infrantry from the first square which disrupted the formation and allowed the cavaltry amongst them. There was no third square broken, only two IIRC, and both were by KGL dragoons. That's the British interpretation. The French say both battalions were not in square when charged as the men were foraging and could only form partial formations before they were hit by the dragoons. Believe which you will. Neither case involves a frontal assault by cavalry riding down infantry, which was against the common doctrine of the time. This does not mean it never happened just not in this case.
Mr Wibble glad to see your comment on this. That's my understanding too and exactly what I was thinking about when watching the video. The thing is, if it was so easy to get cavalry to charge head on into infantry then square formation would have almost never worked. We know at Waterloo that the French cavalry was battered by British squares and IIRC none of the British squares were broken. Surely, if it was so easy to charge cavalry head on into infantry and spears, then the French would have done that, especially given the mess their cavalry found themselves in on that occasion. As Matt himself explained, squares worked by not having a flank for cavalry to attack, but they provide no additional protection to a head on charge than standard lines.
At Quatre Bras one British regiment, when caught in line by French cavalry from behind, simply turned the rear rank around. The cavalry could make no impression upon it. It is possible that trained war horses of the medieval kind could be trained to crash into a row of well armed and armoured men, horses are not that bright after all, but by Napoleonic tmes the horses used were not that well trained. They were, even the 'heavies' lighter, faster horses, better bred and they could be trained to bite and kick but I seriously doubt they were trained to attack head on. As i said above it was against doctrine and there was a good reason for that - it did not work!
In later periods riders were not armed with lances. If you crush head on into a infantry formation with lances, you do the damage via range before the infantryman usually has even the chance to hit you. By doing so you create a bloodbath in the first line. In the resulting chaos of wounded or dead men it must be very difficult to even find the room to establish a defence against the next charge (which would follow with the sideweapon of the riders) and this even if the infantrymen were to ignore, that their fellow comrades just got slaughtered in front of them without being able to deliver damage and almost no possibility to defend themselves...
Untrained horses donKt want to step on people, or anything they might trip on, because they didn’t evolve to recover from leg injuries. They hate letting strange people, especially loud people or crowds, behind them (they have blind spots, like we do when driving). But even today, we train police horses to get over all that, to either push back a crowd or calmly walk through one. They can be trained to do a lot of things they would otherwise avoid.
explain that to the horde of morons who cant comprehend the fact that horses were trained for war and not just randomly dragged away from a farm or pasture hoping for the best
What i like in your videos, is your insight an logic behind your theories. You are never just debate/figure out the question in one angle. Kudos and keep on doing great work.
It's interesting that you mention the surrounding part and not to do it, and the exact same reason is given by Sun Tzu. If you look at the aftermath of the battle with the amount of troops that the Boltons seem to have lost (easy way is when you see Ramsay killing that crawling guy who surrendered, look at the amount of dead people with Bolton shields on the ground, but even look at how many are returning to Winterfell after). Stannis' army certainly gave them hell and took out a sizable portion of them.
+Sam Ebersole reiksguard 1200 gold, swords man 450 gold, I said equivalent, also demigryphs don't count, horse cav. try charging an iron breaker with a reiksguard.
Disagree, if you play Napoleon Total War and get charged front on by cavalry into bayonets, the cavalry will win, despite them being outnumbered and standing still. It's stupid!
***** It depends on the quality of the cavalry unit, the terrain, and the quality of the infantry unit. If you look at the Battle of Waterloo, though, the Scot's Greys charged into the front of a french column, and routed them.
Whoever was the advisor for this scene did an amazing job, in the initial wide shot which shows the cavalry approaching the infantry-based army of Stannis you can see the troops nearest Stannis are forming up into ranks and preparing to fight while those towards the rear are already beginning to rout and are running from the battle. This is rarely seen in movies/tv and I thought they did an amazing job portraying how an army would act under such conditions.
scholagladiatoria Speaking about direct cavalry charges at infantry formations, maybe you could talk about the Winged Hussars? They were pretty good at it from what I know. I also wonder why rest of Europe didn't implement same tactics.
"It can work"? Please, Matt, It worked like a charm in every battle the Winged Hussars took part in in XVI and XVII century. For example in Battle of Klushino 5,500 Winged hussars completely routed a Swedish-Russian army of around 35,000 troops. Losses? 400 to 5,000. ;) In Battle of Kircholm a 3,600 men strong Polish-Lithuanian army defeated a 11,000 strong army of Sweden, again, thanks to frontal charges of the Winged hussars. Losses? 100 dead, 200 wounded to 7000-8000 captured and routed. ;) And charging at bayonets? Please, pikes, even 4 to 5 meters long! Anyone who says that horses won't charge straight at infantry is completely full of sh*t and has no idea what he is talking about.
TheMournhammer Yes but there are things that are really badly represented in Total War, like Matt said cav gets automatically stuck after a charge instead of trying to keep riding, the only units that can keep a charge going are elephants and chariots but you have to spam orders which is fucking annoying. The whole notion of "melee cav" is rather silly. I don't like that they don't have different spacing for different units, like barbarians standing as close together as a phalanx, I don't like that there are only 1v1 animations, each man is fighting only the man facing him (especially noticable for pikes and spears that always face the direction of the unit), pikes can't be use offensively in R2 (they were much better portrayed in R1), units need to take HUGE losses before routing (like 80%), men can only be dead or alive not hurt, how can a hoplite in phalanx can die to an arrow ? etc...
iopklmification If you wan those things you should try the Europa Barbarorum mod for Rome Total War (Europa Barbarorum II for Medieval 2 is not finished yet). You get a lot of stats for units, including unit spacing, discipline, weapon characteristics, different charge mechanics, and a LOT of cool units)
TheMournhammer There are some very good critiques of the Total War Series and how the engine change made the game look prettier; however, it sacrificed the game's old elements that made the battles more believable. For example, unit collision is really messed up in the new TW engine that first was used for Empire. This creates huge issues in melee focused games like Shogun 2 and especially with Rome 2 where formation and teamwork played a HUGE role in warfare. So, instead we get dumb 1v1 fights that break the glow. This is why cavalry get stuck. They are locked into motion cap animations. I do find that Cavalry are better at running down fleeing infantry now because they can initiate a "collision lock" where in older versions you'd see a cavalry standing 1 foot from a fleeing infantry but the cavalry cannot properly match the solder's pace to deal a blow. Mods also improve a lot of the authenticity, like properly spreading archer shots, but there is only so much they can do with the engine.
I'm wondering. I do get the point that it's normal that the first line of horses might fall but doesn't that kinda block the way for the next line? I just imagine that a dead horse might very well lead the horse to behind that to run into it. Or even dead soldiers on the ground, aren't they kinda bad for the footing? How often to horses just slip and fall because they run over dead people and horses? I just can't picture horses running over dead people without any problems.
BIIGtony Well, firstly they won't die instantly. They'll keep travelling forwards and wiping infantry off their feet. But also horses naturally jump a little if there is an obstruction. Horses, if trained for it, are surprisingly good at keeping their footing on uneven ground.
scholagladiatoria Most cavalry horeses and especially "warhorses" were of a far more robust breed that is no longer neede today and therefore very seldomly found. Horses underwent lost of training and exercise in the past, not like today where they server merely as a pastime recreational "tool", or lasagna stuffing... Keep in mind that before automobiles ruled, we were living in "horse societies" with hundreds of millions of horses. the same way you would train and learn sterring your car, you would also train to ride and use your horse as much as the horse would lear to be ridden and used by you (no pun intended)... Excellent tactical analysis, the same factors are relevant for successful "blitzkrieg" attacks. The shock does not simply come from tanks storming with heavy air support, but from directing an advantage of attack power on a small area and utilize speed in order to shock the ennemy, bring his commad and communications structure in disorder so taht they will not be able to defend properly and decide to flee. Most people in ancient days got killed once the losing side started to flee, it was then that they were routed and wiped..
They were trained. But also at a canter or gallop (the gait a horse charges at), they really don't touch the ground much. Roughly speaking, at a canter a horse has stride length of about 3 yards (these are very rough numbers, but close enough. If you've ever wondered how they know what distance to put jumps in jumping/ hunter jumping competitions, this how its calculated). That is, the horse won't touch the ground over that distance. At a gallop I would expect about four yards (walk is 1, trot 2, canter 3). While a horse's hooves stay close to the ground normally, it wouldn't be that hard to teach then to canter or gallop with a little more verticality. Also consider that they might knock aside bodies (human ones at least) or body parts. A big horse is really a different beast from most horses you see these days. If you want to get a sense of how big and heavy they get, look up Clydesdales and other cart horse breeds. There's a stable joke that carthorses can break your foot and not even notice it- all they did was shift their weight. Warhorses wouldn't be that heavy, but they'd be somewhere between a carthorse and the taller European horse breeds. I forget the exact names, but there are various German warm and cold bloods that tend to be rather tall, I think. All that said, horses did slip and fall. That's why weather is so important-cavalry charges don't always work as well in the mud or the snow, since the ground is even slippier. In fact, weather is still a major concern in horse-racing. If I remember properly, a long-shot horse won the Kentucky Derby this year since it was muddy as hell. This is why(among other reasons) Little-Finger mentioned that the Knights of the Vale were used to fighting in snow when he offered his army to the Lannisters- Vale horses are used to snow and to running through it, so they are less likely to slip and fall, which makes them more effective.
Barristan, one of the best fighters to exist, killed by simple slave masters with masks. Stannis Baratheon, the best experienced commander, beaten by twenty good men. Viewers, one of the most loyal fanbase, fucked in the arse by terrible show writing.
I like the Cavalry strategy from the Russian Lake Peipus (1242). Where the two cav units on either (flanking) side were storming with arrows, making the infantry of the other side not know which way to use their shields while worrying about the incoming cav charge from the front.
+Timothy Heimbach I believe that the only infantry square that was broken at the Battle of Waterloo happened when a horse was shot and killed and the momentum carried it into the soldiers defending the square. It has been a while, but I don't think it was a British unit who's square was broken but one of the allies, Belgians, maybe. I think that it was largely a game of chicken. Would the infantry run away when the horse got close enough? Would the cavalryman turn at the last moment? Would the horse decide that impaling himself on a bayonet was not something he planned to do? I remember the commentary for the movie "The White Feather" there was a claim that in Sudan was the only time when a British infantry square was ever broken but in that case, they had camels and pack animals inside the square so that the attackers could not take advantage of having broken through to attack the soldiers from the rear and the square was quickly reestablished. I would like to hear of other cases besides that one in Persia where an infantry square was broken. It was my understanding that as long as the infantry held, they were essentially invulnerable to cavalry but that if any part of the line panicked, broke and ran, they would soon be cut down from the rear by cavalry. That was part of the reason that officers and NCOs had pistols in order to give the soldiers in the line a reason to find the charging horses the second most frightening thing they had to face.
+Timothy Heimbach mainreason for breaking an enemy is the shock, you can bring a herd of horses into one direction you can even break the squares, and with a small deep of the sides of the square (2-3 men behind each other would be best in bayonet times) they didnt worked against pike troops without a flanc posibility (squares) by a good cordinated troop. mainreason the cavalary became more to using circles and 6 shot-muscets against landsknechte/switzerland mercs (piketroops). you need to understand cavalary was in the past the noble people, they didnt wanted to get slaugthered by professional defence infantry mercs. So the moment your armor is worthless and even your light spear shock troops get useless, you go to range attacks on horses. Same in the roman empire with their great legions. hungarians/goths, mongols, pharther....all ranger on horses, more shooting than shocking cavalry.
+Mark Kelly The incident you refer to was not a British square, but a French one (before Waterloo, but I can't remember exactly when). It was a dead horse that broke the square, and the French survivors accidentally broke another infantry square when they tried to push their way into the square to safety, and so broke holes in the sides right as the cavalry arrived. After that, French infantry squares would even go as far as shooting friendly troops who were trying to get in if enemy cavalry was nearby.
Well, the Black Watch are still, over a century later, living down an incident where one of their squares broke in the Mahdist war in the Sudan (in fairness, they were on bad ground for it and actually won the ensuing brawl, ), so it can't be terribly common. And the tactic was used for centuries by soldiers who were betting their lives on it, which lends support to the idea that yes, they normally worked.
One of the reasons why you don't charge with cavalry straight into a prepared infantry formation is that the Infantry may shoot at your horses. Julius Caesar used this tactic to break a chariots charge during his invasion of Great Britain. His soldiers threw their pila at the horses, not the people, with devastating effect. Scipius Africanus used the same against Hannibal's elephants and while they didn't manage to kill them, the elephants basically rebelled from their handlers and ran away.
I love your videos, but as Napoleonic wars are my pet period, I feel a pressing need to correct a couple of historic assertions you're making. First off, the charge of Household Cavalry at Waterloo is often cited, but it is cited as a *bad* example of heavy cavalry charging. The British horse at Waterloo were poorly trained (or rather, poorly disciplined) and overextended the charge, which pretty much spelt their doom at the hands of the countercharging French. Compare this with the battle of Fuentes de Onoro, where the 2nd Cavalry Brigade managed to *charge repeatedly while retreating*. All in all, heavy cavalry in the Napoleonic wars would generally charge only once because their charge was supposed to be the deciding moment of the battle, followed by a rout and pursuit. In earlier periods, before drill and dressage were as developed, cavalry would only charge once because it was much more difficult to control and getting it to break away and reform was pretty much impossible. With regards to charging a formed body of infantry, well first of all, the infantry in the frame is for all intents and purposes unformed. There are spaces between them large enough not for one, but several horses to ride through side by side, so no fancy tactics is required as they are effectively already routed. Charging with the entire cavalry formation head on is perfectly viable; the infantry can only run backward, where horse will catch up with them easily, or to the side, which is right into the teeth of more cavalry. If they were formed, ie. standing shoulder to shoulder and bristling with spears and pikes and (this is the vital point) *no spaces in between them*, then the rules about charging well-formed infantry would kick in. A horse is perfectly willing to charge *towards* pike-bristling infantry, but it is unwilling to *charge home* which is the crucial difference. Charging home can be successful in one of two situations: either the infantry breaks and holes appear in the formation, in which case the horses will ride through those holes; or the horse is boxed in from both sides by other horses, which will not let him swerve to avoid the infantry. The difficulty in this is why tactics such as caracole were a thing (ie. the cavalry advances towards the enemy and when they don't break, wheels to the side and unloads their sidearms into the formation). While it *is* possible to charge home and thus break a square of well-formed infantry, these situations were regarded as exceptions and therefore noteworthy. This happened e.g. at Garcia Hernandes and in the Siege of Delhi that you mentioned, but the Victoria Crosses were awarded precisely because this was considered extraordinary (By the way, wedge formation was not part of maneuvering drill at that time. The cavalry were expected to slam home all at once, which also prevented the foremost horses from swerving.).
It wasn't smart in any way to attack Stannis, other than 'tv show' reasons. They'd endured in the castle for longer than Stannis' men would. Also, while i agree that face first charge is doable, horses aren't a commodity in got universe ( i believe), so that kind of attack wasn't necessary
***** A) It fit Ramseys character very well. B) He managed to surprise Stannis on the march. Smart is what works, and I don't think it isn't too implausible a tactic to have worked under the given circumstances.
It's like going to Woodstock and burning all the stages. Except the people aren't high hippies, they're soldiers. That's what i meant with his stealth attack being bs
***** Ramsay understands suprise, and scaring the enemy into making silly decisions, and breaking folks. All this worked for him here. His actual battle tactics are slightly flawed, but no one ever said he was a good commander.
So sad that so many of his mean flead when they saw the army. They could do much more damage if they had stuck together. Running away from horsemen is also certain death, why not die after doing more damage?
MrTacticalinuit People don't tend to like dying very much, and will usually take a almost certain death fleeing, rather than absolute certain death fighting.
the knee to knee cavalry is also indicative of antique and late antique heavy cavalry before the development of the stirrup (evidenced by Byzantine military manuals). They push forward in a mass at a slower speed then a medieval man at arms would, due to the difficulty of staying horsed.
I found it amusing that Stannis, the furthest forward guy in the army, survived with barely a scratch until some Bolton troops caught up to him in the woods and cut the back of his leg.
Also, divide them in three divisions, since you have the numbers on your side. One third charges head on with lances. Once pinned and concentrated on them, another third in a mass flank charge(left OR right) also with lances. The Baratheon army may hadn't have enough men to form in very deep ranks, so the flank and the rear would have been hit. An open flank would be there to offer an escape route, facilitating the breaking of the formations and the routing. Another third in reserve, just in case, or ready to pursuit...
Very good commentary. If I may add something: 1. You are absolutely right that light cavalry was not very well suited to fight head on with infantry, thus they would be potentially quite useless at least during the first part of a battle. What you forgot to mention is the fact that, to offset this problem, very often light cavalry was equiped with some kind of ranged weapon (bow, crossbow, javelins). Such units were used at the very beginning of battle to disrupt the enemy forming their battle formations or to rise chaos among their ranks. 2. As for attacking from three sides leaving one side open for enemy to escape - absolutely right. This tactic is "as old as the world itself" ;) You can read about it in "Art of War" by Sun Tzu, and that is 5th century BC. 3. The best exables of heavy cavalry charging against infantry formation head on, even against pikemen, would be Polish husaria (17th century). They used to do it, and most of the time they very victoriuos. They used the special way to make an assult formation while charging, so they were literally riding knee-by-knee when smashing the enemy frontlines. 4. The only questionable thing in this Bolton-Stannis battle were outranners attacking before the main force. There is no information that they were light cavalry using ranged weapons, who would ride along Stannis army and shoot. We can see in later part of the movie, that they attacked frontally with the rest of Bolton cavalry. Such a manouver would be suicidal and simply stupid (they would receive the initial force of Stannis men before being reinforced by commerades and that means they would be slaughtered outright). I never heard or read about using outrunners in this way.
Looks like a classical pincer movement (double envelopment) which corrals a large mass of people to the center at which point they're crushed by the numerically superior center. It's also looks like a given that they're going to be encircled.
in the aftermath of that battle it is apparent that Stanis's forces were driven back into the forest. that might have been the intent. also, the layout of the land enables Bolton to hide his forces in the open, that might as well be a factor in such a decision- enabling an almost surprise attack.
scholagladiatoria Interesting clip, thanks! I have a question: before the battle begins we can see Stannis' men climb down a slope, about 7ft/2m high. Wouldn't the higher ground give an advantage against a cavalry-charge?
Any chance we'll ever get a proper episode on lances & their use? I know lances might be a little out of your wheelhouse but I don't think I've ever seen a replica lance. I've only ever seen tourney lances and I'd love to learn more about proper lances, their differences and potential uses and techniques.
You would also want to divide your cavalry sections more because you can see they start pinching in on each other while they're wheeling and the units heading for the corners of Stannis' forces would really start getting in each other's way if the shot had continued.
The main "iffy" thing about this scene is where did Roose Bolton got so many horses? This is way too many to feed, shelter (it is north and winter) and this is not that kind of unit you want during a possible siege. It almost looks like he new exactly how many and how armed men Stanis have and when he march them there so he could arange an assembly of this much cavalry around exact date so they dont come too early and eat every bit of hay in a 100 kilometer radius around and they dont stay too long for half of them to get sick or even freeze to death nor that they come too late of course. Strange and should have been done differently.
+lamebubblesflysohigh I agree, though to be fair to George, in the books Stannis's army gets bogged down in the snow and never reaches Winterfell. Not as exciting a visual I guess, but it would be more realistic.
From what I've read in ancient warfare from the few texts I've read calvary were used as flanking forces to guard the flanks if no calvary was available they'd use light infantry to do the same thing
The Bolton forces were clearly light cavalry, they wernt using lances or even spears. In fact the Boltons troops were not really known for wearing much armour either. They sent out a full force of cavalry as a shock tactic before Stannis's men could form proper lines. The Boltons were watching them for days before hand they knew the exact compesition of there forces. If half of Stannis's men didn't desert because of killing poor Shireen Baratheon mixed with hunger and cold then it might have been a different story.
In regards to a square being the anti cavalry set up, which i do agree with, a good example being a phalanx having great frontal offensive power but being extremely vulnerable to flanking and having low turning speed, or even shield walls. What about a sheltron, or essentially variations of a sheltron, a circular defense with spears pointing in every direction and shields for missile protection. Wouldn't this be better than a square or would it work more or less the same ?
Wellington was very annoyed with British Cavalry. He always complained the men were well disciplined but the officers were not at all disciplined. They could only be used once as the glory hunting officers refused to answer the recall and reform signal but continued the charge and were not seen again for the remainder of the battle leading their men off in search of glory.
Someone may have mentioned this, but I have successfully used all sorts of cavalry to charge, break away, and reform to charge again in Total War games. In fact, it's been a total game changer, making my horsemen much more useful than they were in the past.
9 ปีที่แล้ว +1
So, about your proposition : First, the footmen are not in square. We have here a first rank that is almost in order but barely. A second rank that will not hold while attacked to flanks and a rank line better composed. The fourth rank is either retreating or not even forming. I don't know if it include a fifth but this a disorderly mob. The reason for that is that the Bolton made a "surprise" attack. I find it difficult that the footmen couldn't form ranks and defensive position at the time of the frame you show, that's the only problem for me. But they didn't and that's the point. So yes, attack with cav (medium max IMHO...) as it is done here seems the most efficient : forming a bigger line of battle than the enemy and everything that is larger will fold on the flanks of the enemy. That's where the real damage is made, especially on an army that didn't have time to prepare. But I think your proposition, while usefull I am sure, would break an important part of Bolton's plan : to take them by surprise. You have to manoeuvre, to spread a little more, etc.. While Bolton's plan is : form the line, and let's charge. Two orders and one maoeuvre. It is quick, efficient and is the main part of the victory IMHO.
Really really good video! And your right no one ever talks about the aftermath of a battle but what people never talk bout is the build up and, rather boringly, the logistical side of a battle/war.
Since we're talking about game of thrones, what do you think would be the best weapons to use against an undead frozen army, assuming you don't have a bunch of Valerian steel and obsidian (dragon glass) on hand?
A question regarding square formations: I understand that a cavalry charge against infantry with bayonets can be successful even if they're in a square formation. But is this also the case with 15th / 16th century pike formations? Breaking through muskets with bayonets is one thing, but 20+ foot / 6+ meter long pikes?
Polish Husaria used knee to knee they even had more expirienced fighters on flanks their role was tightening formation on last meters of attack (begining charge they had loose formation in rows and then in the middle of charge every second guy in row would change position to front to fill gaps then tighten formation)
11:37 as you explained that situation I couldn't help but think of a scene in The Last Samurai, the end battle where Hiroyuki Sanada's character charges in and his horse gets taken down by a bayonet, he falls forward to the ground, rolls and continues the momentum. This scene shown in GOT took me back to Kingdom Of Heaven, battle of Karak, vastly different as both sides had horses there but just the visual image of a smaller force being surrounded and swarmed.
Schola you have to micro manage your troops in Total War. You have to literaly drag them out of a melee fight ( eg franticaly clicking them out ), otherwise they will remain stuck or get back to fighting.
I do wonder, though, why the little groups splitting from the charge? I mean the two by two columns of cavalry at the head of the charge. What is that about?
9 ปีที่แล้ว
Well, watching closely, it is medium cavalry at best. They don't seems to wear a metal armour when I stop image on them, and the two men in the fight vs Baratheon in the scene after are in easy rider leather armour. And the horses are medium size, that's for sure.
If one can reasonably expect their horse to die as a result of this type of charge, was there a special way to ride the horse when that contact was imminent? Would you stand on your feet on the back of the horse? I imagine if your feet were in the stirrups there's a good chance you get tangled up and squashed in the ensuing rollover.
In defense of the Total war games. One of the first things the advisors teach you is that "you dont win a battle by killing every single unit, but by routing the enemy and causing a panic." Another mechanic was that cornered units would always lose it and fight to the death when they had no other alternative, you did lose control of them but they did basicly turn into berserkers.
About horseman charging knee-to-knee. Matt, we have much earlier acounts of horseman doing that than XIX centur: polish winged hussars were closing their ranks on the way to enemy so the last few dozens of meters they were going knee-to-knee to max the strike potential of the entire unit. Winged hussars done it in XVI and XVII century by the default on many battlefields. I dont know if its the earliest knee-to-knee cavalry formation in history, but it still earlier than XIX century. Polish acounts are most numerous, but there are also Swedish and Russian althought I dont know if they were translated to english.
I do not know if you will see this but I am curious about what you would say about some battle depicted in the Book of Mormon. Just from an academic stand point.
The poles had their uhlans/lancers as heavy cavalry, and their hussars as light cavalry. but hussars also had their koncerz sword which had like a 4/5 foot blade. So which one was really the light / heavy?
Will horses charge into stakes? I'm not disputing what your saying but there definitely were instances where horses didn't charge into massed spears (Bannockburn I believe) so how would defenders know when they could and couldn't use this reliably? P.S. btw what's the advantage of a square over a circle? Does it just make shooting easier?
At Schola Gladiatora ... actually Cavalry and infantry are from Italian or more accurately Latin Cavali for horses and Infanta for baby or small person
Make them runaway and slaughter them then - there are ancient and medieval sources that exactlly say about more enemies killed whence they were made to run than during actual struggle. Howeverm I would go with 4 parts, but dived in this way: left, right (flanking force), center, and reserve slowly moving far left/right (depending on terrain) behind flankers. And when enemy rout becomes big it is my reserve force of horses that will slay them. Because they are less tired and will have to pursue at least till daybreak. Flankers and center will slay those who still have will to fight. But frontal charge toward unsoften infantry seems somewhat wrong. Shake them with shooting, smash them with horse charging.
The Polish-Lithuanian Winged Hussars (active 16th-18th cent.), the best cavarly in the history, were doing exactly that: attacking the inside of the opponent formation from the front (be it infantry or cavalry). Some claim the Winged Hussars have never lost a battle before they were legally dissolved by the Polish Sejm in the 18th cent.
So Scholagladiatoria, you would do what Stannis did to the Wildling (in the books) a 3 part pincer/vice? Also, if you look at Stannis' men, they were wielding spears, halberds, and long-reach weapons...how much of a difference would that make? If you were Stannis, would you have had your men retreat to the forest and make a stand there?
+Kiro Haas Before we get into that... Most the light saber fights in that movie are done by people who are suppose to have literally no training. Kylo Ren is the only one who has ANY training and he's not even fully trained according to the movie.
+ChamorruWarrior The fights in TFA are how Lightsaber fights should look not like they do in the prequels. TFA they fought like they did in the Original Trilogy. No one wants to see people flynning and flipping for 30 minutes. The end fight scene of Revenge of the Sith is one of the worst fights in all of movie history.
+trewqpoiuy Sorry but those fans are stupid. How the fuck can you watch two cgi blobs climb up a tower and swing off ropes at eachother and fight and take it seriously? its mindnumbingly dumb
hey i would love to hear you say something about the fight in prince valiant from 1954 it's a big part of my childhood and doesn't matter if good or bad just to hear an opinion about it would be great
This entire season just felt like the writers hated Stannis.
***** They said themselves that they do,
Jag giello Source on that?
***** The entirety of Game of Thrones feels like they hate Stannis.
***** The writers don't.
Jag giello Well if that's true, Stephen Dillane does a great job of making him charismatic.
Stanis Baratheon, supposedly the greatest general in the seven kingdoms, advancing his army without any scouts. The Bolton, very impopular in the north and in command of a simple garrison (as far as the show lets us know), manage to assemble a large force of cavalry in almost no time.
Anyone reading the books can help me understand?
Tzarhunt in the books you dont see the battle, you dont know what happened. Stannis knew he lost in the show though, but he will break before he bends.
Tzarhunt I haven't read the books, but my understanding is that Roose Bolton has allies and merceneries, and both he and Stannis have been fighting various actions in the lead up to this battle, so both have standing armies in the field (until half Stannis' leaves).
scholagladiatoria it's kinda weird that Stannis had cavalry when he defeated wildlings, but somehow he doesn't have it. I know he lost half of his men deserting, but now they show like it's all infantry.
***** Aye, we only know about it via a letter from Ramsay, which is filled with clear propaganda.
In the book Stannis has gained many allies during his march to the Dreadfort,
giving him command of a substantial army, although not as big as the one in the show.
Edit: Sorry misread your post at first.
jasamgladaan In the night suprise attack they said that a lot of the horses have been killed, and after the mutiny it was said that the deserters took the rest.
15:00 a good art of war quote comes to mind. "A surrounded enemy fights twice as hard as one that can escape" paraphrased.
***** the cold, wind, snow and hunger ended most of the resistance (along with Stannis's poor choices). no army can survive brutal winters and expect to win without sacrificing huge losses.... the Germans in WW2 are a great example.
Blah b Ridiculous.The "russians"(in the soviet army there weren't only russians) were fighting because their homeland had been invaded.Any soldier who wouldn't fight in any army would be executed on the spot as a deserter.And the "russians" weren't "Military amateurs",they only had their supreme leader execute most of the officer corps just a couple years before.Turns out losing all the experience,leadership,doctrine of an army leads to organizational disasters like in 1941 and early/mid 1942.After the war had hastily rebuilt the soviet command structure and tactics(irony) the soviet and german armies fought essentially on par.The last major soviet epic fail was the 3rd battle of kharkov,and that was against the best germany could offer(manstein and the southern army group) with one of the most incompetent soviet generals in charge(timoshenko).After this the germans had way more moments of "amateurism",simply because hitler gave in to the same mistake stalin had and rearranging army command on the base of political reasoning and not military one.
Blah b You yourself said the soviet army was entirely consisting of russians,ignoring the fact that many soldiers from the other republics contributed greatly to the defeat of germany.So I don't think you possess the knowledge of history required to tell me what the homeland of people you dont think existed is.Also a decade earlier was 1930,a period in which the soviet union was entirely at peace.The closest conflict was the russian civil war in which the bolsheviks enjoyed the support of most people who weren't secessionists,and that was mainly in finland,the caucasus and the baltics.Finland and the baltics were let go to their own civil wars.The baltics were reoccupied by stalin because he was a jerk,he tried to that to finland too and a whole mess came of it.The caucasus was reoccupied along with ukraine because the white army occupied it,and the locals hated the white army way more than the red one.I was more brutal and didnt have a scrap of a plan for the region that wasnt a return to tsarist slavery.If you wanna convince me,your gonna have to come up with some objective argument based on evidence.
***** I'm glad The Art of War was brought up, like he said in the video leave the enemy room to escape because a surrounded enemy will be come a rabid beast. If you surround them you've placed them on what Sun Tzu calls "Death ground", there's no telling how many men you'll lose when the enemy is put in this position. Historically, I think this tactic would work on just about anyone but Ghengis Khan. If you surround him, slaughter him because if you chase the Mongols they'll pick you apart with exhaustion and arrows. No one better in history at killing on the run than the Mongols.
Sam Williams Grand Vizier Ibrahim Pasha said the same thing before the Battle of Mohacs.
What bothered me most about this fight was the fact that the Boltons had that many horses.
I mean, really, the logistics required to support that many horses are mind-boggling. As recently as WWI, for instance, Russian cavalry divisions were between a third and a quarter of the size of their infantry divisions and required *more* railway space per division. I'm extremely skeptical that the Boltons could possibly have fed that many horses, nevermind kept them sufficiently well fed so that they'd be useful in battle. Traditionally, cavalry-heavy field armies (like those of the Ottomans in the 15th century) were utterly useless in winter because the horses were basically on a diet and wouldn't put on the fat and muscle to be good for campaigning until they got to eat the vitamin-rich spring grasses.
My point has nothing to do with numbers (even though, canonically, that battle involves somewhere around ten thousand men). It has to do with logistics. It's hard to feed men during a war. It's harder to feed men and pack animals during a war. It's even harder to feed cavalrymen and their mounts during a war simply due to the added logistical burden cavalry impose upon the force using them.
More importantly, look at the field. You can't graze your horses on snow. Every calorie a horse eats has to be laid in store in advance. The North isn't very populous in the best of times and, as of the fifth season of the show, they've basically had four years of constant war. That's four years of sub-par harvest yields. And suddenly we've got an enormous cavalry army? lolwut?
Matt L I think they might have been the sellswords who deserted Stannis.
Matt L spring grass is in fact rediculously dangerous to cavalry as the horses will binge and Colic on the high fructan Content. there are many cavalry sources warning for the danger of uncontrolled grazing.
but logistics are indeed a big Problem.
though many armies will raid hay stores and feed teh animals comparitvely much grain compared to horses now kept. hay and straw can be fed and there are acounts of feeding reed and straw roofs to horses. (straw is a much better source of Food for a horse than most People assume)
a horse will nomally spend most of his day grazing, yet if he has to can eat a days' Food within about 2x30 mins if he has to. (particularly hay and grain)
so there are ways and means. but the damage to the marshalling Areas will be great indeed.
frozen rivers might also impede an army to water horses to some extent.
so the main probelm is that the amry would have to travell in fairly small bands to allow them to find enough fodder in Barns. In winter the ground is so sodden that horses will quickly trample what Little gras there is, but this is usually not a Problem on the first night, so an army in non-snow conditions can graze the animals.
Matt L I imagine the sellswords that deserted Stannis, and went of with their horses. Sold their allegiance to the Boltons and that's who we're seeing right there.
***** There is at least 1000 stannis men and at least 1000-2000 horses. Check out those frames again.
I remember Sun Tzu's Art of War mentioned something about leaving an opening when engulfing an enemy position .... good analysis
Sun Tzu claimed an army given an option to retreat will take it, but an army without one will fight tooth and nail.
Then, the Mongols came, did this very thing, and then shot the routing enemies.
Turns out you cant actually flee from horse archers.
I've read a few sources dating from the late medieval period too Napoleonic era and one thing appears to be the key factor when cavalry meets infantry.
The cavalry will go in with the intention to break cohesion of the opposing formation, losing cohesion and not being able to return to the formation tends to make people flee and leaves them at the mercy of cavalry.
To break the cohesion the cavalry relies on the physical shock of impact, casualties caused on impact, fear when getting charged at and seeing your mate impaled on a lance and other factors such as the leader/officer/banner being cut down.
If successful those factors combined will result in a formation of a few hundred man in neat lines or a big blob turning into a few hundred individuals who if they cannot reform will be forced to relocate/flee.
If a charge fails part of the horsemen will be cut down, part will disengage, turn around and reform and part will emerge at the other side of the infantry formation. The infantry (re)forms if necessary and is ready to receive another attack. Both sides suffered some casualties but the infantry formation is still there, you can charge in again but essentially you are just trading casualties if you don't break the cohesion and horses will tire after a while.
Swiss pike blocks demonstrate how espirit d'corps and all that can be an important factor. They had dense pike blocks shot at by cannons taking out 30+ men per shot, heavy cavalry charging through them and emerging at the other side two or three times, 20 or 30% casualty rates and yet they still managed to retain their formation and even if defeated they often did leave the field in formation.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dreux
Well drilled infantry managed to beat cavalry not because the horses feared to go into the formation but because they absorbed the blow and maintained a formation despite casualties and all that jazz.
Numerous other factors such as where the charge takes place (flanks or front), what weapons the infantry uses, the weather and even what breakfast they had influence the ability of a large group of people to maintain cohesion and formation.
Seeing your own cavalry flee generally isn't so good on the moral.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rossbach
DushinSC Uhh, did I bother writing all that down for nothing?
DushinSC No, I found it interesting, and probably some others too. Now I will go to read about the battles that you linked, thank you.
DushinSC This makes sense.
DushinSC
Dude this comment was awesome. I'm a history major who focuses on military and politics, and I can say this comment demonstrated more insight than some of my professors. It's cool that vids like this can bring people with similar interests.
Vaeran7 Happy to help!
If you're looking for some summertime reading then I can recommend: Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages by J.F. Verbruggen.
It's from the 60s so dated in a few regards yet outstanding and far ahead of its time in others. Modern day prints have notes that correct outdated info and if you read it in conjunction with Renaissance, Medieval and Napoleonic sources you will get a pretty clear picture of what combat in the days of battle formations looked like.
6:00 If the player is allowing this to happen in a Total War game, they are clueless about cavalry use. After you run into the infantry, you should be pulling them out so that you can get the charge bonus again, just like you describe in this video. In addition to a large damage bonus, you get massive morale damage bonuses for charging in the flanks and rear, causing units to break, which is how you win TW games.
Wreqt Yes but there should be a move/charge order that tells the cav unit to try to keep moving after contact, because as Matt said the cav does not want to stop it has to go through or be pulled back.
iopklmification
Keep moving through the unit, thus surrounding themselves in the formation, or hit and then retreat, which the game just expects you to do yourself? It would be difficult to get such a charge/move order to work correctly, as the game wouldn't know the best place to send them after the charge, and if it consistently moved them into a bad position, people would complain far more.
I mostly played Shogun 2, and the use of cavalry, light cav in particular, pretty much matches what Matt talks about here. I am not sure if Rome 2 changed something about how cav/inf interact.
Wreqt problem is in total war they do get stuck there and half of them won't leave no matter how many times you make them run
Wreqt they are not supouse to ge surrounded they are supouse to move throught the whole formation to the other side and them move away and yes you have to choose place where they can do that. Moving that way into formation that is to thick is like disbanding the cavalry and do you have any idea what it would be to turn around 100 horse or so while they are stuck in enemy formation that is crazy. And dont protect them cavalry in Total War games is really really bad.
lordiboy69 Must be more acute in Rome 2. They usually back out pretty quickly in Shogun.
What I don't get is that he's supposed to have had 4000 bannermen before he hired mercenaries with the Iron Bank funds.
"Spoiler incoming"
Half of his troops leave him, including the entirety of the mercenary force. The troops we see here is nowhere near 2000+.
Also I didn't really get why his troops deserted. They're stuck in the north with no means to get back to their homes. Only place they could possibly go is back to the wall and try to secure passage away.
I get that morale would be low, but still... Seems like they just wanted to push for his defeat, which makes large parts of his arc rather pointless. Seemed like they just wanted to get rid of him after having spent soo much time on his story.
My interpretation, when I saw the cavalry, was that the mercenaries who desert with all Stannis' horses go over to the Boltons because there is a much better chance that they will win and therefore be paid. As for the numbers, yeah, true it probably isn't over 2000 but it looks pretty close to 1000, lazy digital editing but enough to give the impression of a reasonable force.
ChipMHazard Well, let's see: they're stuck in the North, during a Westeros winter (which could last a decade), without proper winter gear, supplies, or knowledge of the land.
Most horses died (or ran away) during that fire, fire which also means they're very vulnerable to guerrilla tactics.
Their leader is an inflexible maniac who sacrificed his own daughter by burning her alive.
And what awaits them if they do make it to WInterfell? A lengthy siege for which they are not equipped, or battle with better rested, better fed troops who are accustomed to fighting in the winter.
So, almost certain death, no pay and no booty?
I'd say they have plenty of reasons to defect.
As to where could they go, the answer is South, around Winterfell - remember, most enemy forces are supposed to be holed up inside that fortress waiting for Stannis' army, not hunting the land for defectors.
Zombigotron Aye, head south with few or no supplies. Basicly certain death, especially when traversing through hostile territory.
Plus the mercenaries would presumably want to head back to Essos.
I could see the defectors having turned to the Boltons.
ChipMHazard
Well, considering that, like I said, most of Bolton's army was holed up in WInterfell, they would simply forage the nearby villages. (and by forage, I obviously mean rob/pillage).
Zombigotron Okay, so let's go with them being able to march south without any harrasment from the Boltons. They would still have to travel past the Twins. The mercenaries wouldn't know this, but Stannis' soldiers would. There is literally no real way to get back south.
Every detail about this battle was Idiotic. The thing that just drives me insane, is how Melisandre literally rides off with the last horse, which you think they would reserve for the commander. Also the fact the horses almost appear out of now where, perfect information. Then how Stannis see's this but does not fall back to the trees, where horses charge is rendered somewhat. Another criticism is how the whole Bolton army seems to be on horses. How the hell does half an Army desert without anyone blinking an eye. Why is Stannis' entire ARMY sell swords? Why is there no chain of command, no communication between ranks. Stannis standing at the front lines, yet is revealed to alone in the woods after, for Brienne of Tarth to kill him? I thought we were watching game of thrones, not some Disney Princess Knight tale. Stannis Bartheon had an entire Army fresh, Kingslanding left with weakened Lanisters forces. Yet he goes to wall, and the show shits on him.
Lem Production I think Stannis went to the wall because he wanted to get rid of the Boltons and make Jon Snow the Warden of the North so that he could have the Northern forces support him in his war against the South.
Yeah but it's because he chose to do his duty.
I agree with a lot of your criticism. As to the composition of Stannis army though, its clear that not his entire army was composed of sellswords; as it was said that all the sellswords has ridden off in the night. Those men remaining with him would be his bannermen. It's likely that his army was largely composed of sellswords, because that was what he could get. At his defeat at Kings Landing most of the Stormlords that composed Stannis' army surrendered to the Lannister-Tyrell forces and most were pardoned and taken back in to the Iron Throne forces, so he really have no other troop source.
As to how Stannis ended up alone in the woods, its very possible that he made a fighting retreat back to the forest with a small nucleus of his force after he saw that his army was taking a beating. There his bodyguards were finally either slaughtered to a man or more likely were finally scattered by the enemy, leaving him alone. Unlikely, but possible.
As to why Stannis did not try to take Kings Landing despite his fresh army, it was because his strategic situation would be hopeless. As Roose Bolton mentioned he barely had 7,000 men in his new army, most of whom were newly recruited sellswords, while the Lannister-Tyrell army that stood in his way was about 90,000 strong. Not much of a fight there.
+scholagladiatoria In the book A Dance with Dragons Stannis didn't sacrifice his daughter, She's at castle black and he's outside of Winterfell in a village surrounded by a frozen lake. It seems the way the battle will go down is Ramsay will come to him and Stannis will lure Ramsay or the Freys/Mandelys onto the snow covered lake that's covered in fishing holes. Note Stannis has Northern allies and Roose Bolton sent out A force in which the one half hates the other and will likely switch sides.( The Manderlys )
In the book Roose has infighting in Winterfell because 1/3 of his army are serving Lords And Ladies who want him dead, but are forced to fight for him because Walder Frey has Hostages at the Twins. There's like three different fractions at Winterfell. The reason Ramsay go's to attack Stannis is because Roose was sick of the infighting and was trying to get rid of useless mouths to feed. Since the Freys and Manderlys are at each others throats, he sends them out.
Stannis has 5400 men consisting of 1300 southerner and 4100 Northerners with 80 horses vs
2000 Freys 600 Boltons and 300 Manderlys who will likely switch sides.
total 2600 with 1500 being heavy cavalry. ( 300 Manderlys 200 being Knights )
Inside the castle Roose has 3500 more of his own men with 1000 of unknown loyalty who some have their own agendas going on. at least half of them serve lords who want Roose dead.
Roose Bolton sent his allies the Freys to go die. to save on the food.
My favorite example of heavy cavalry in the total war games was Medieval 2, though it was a little over the top at times. A good charge in that game would literally send men flying and grievously hurt morale. And yes, as you said, they will stay and fight if you let them, so you have to double click at some distance away so they book it out of melee asap (knights in that game are extremely battle hungry for some reason). I often wiped out small bandit/rebel units with a pair of cavalry units by sending one to charge from the front, and the other to the flank. The one on the flank would charge only a couple seconds after the one on the front, not to maximize casualties, but morale damage.
skykid I mostly clicked behind the enemy unit and let them charge through a line. Most of the time this made a nice gap because of the destroyed morale. Rally the cavalry and let them attack the rear of the enemy army and rush some more troops into the gap to split it into two pieces. Works 85% of the time. I also liked it that ME2 respected the exchange-of-missile-fire-phase of a battle.
skykid Am I the only one here who finds Rome 2's cavarly charges sexy as hell ? The only thing I don't like about cavalry in that game is that they're beasts in melee combat, but since it's simple enough to tell them to move out after a charge, I don't mind it.
Jordan Steeno The cavalry isn't the problem - just the fact that they don't move away "automatically". Cavalry in real-life would be slaughtered if they didn't pull away from an engagement (unless, of course, they were very lucky, winning, or the enemy broke and routed). Thus why Schola described the "proper" way of using cavalry as "sweeping" (that is, light cav).
Grizwold Mayor
I understand your point. However, purely from a gamer's point of view, having your soldiers do everything by themselves would be a boring thing to play ! Nothing prevents a player from retreating his cav as soon as the charge is done. If some of the men and horses get stuck in the infantry, well they're done for, just like in real life.
Jordan Steeno Fair point - the game would get boring, if everything was automated. Plus, I guess it's the role of the "commander" (or, "captain" of a cavalry unit) to pull them out - as they probably wouldn't on their own, if they were disciplined troops.
About horses charging at wall of pikes/spears there are historical records that proves heavy cavalry was not always used for head on charges. Horse is smart creature, there are also historical accounts about horses not wanting to go and charge into massed infantry. So both is true.
This show is ridiculous...
Stannis, the men that with 1500 Heavy knights managed to Defeat an army of 30 000 men by surprise attacking them by three sides, breaking their morale and letting them all flee while only killing 1000...
Has got defeated by cluesless shirtless commander... Is D&D expecting us to buy that shit?
Ricardo Santos Ramsey was not only shirtless though. He had 20. Good. Men.
XanthelinHS Shirtless Ramsey Snow and 20 good men™ > Dany's Dragons.
Ricardo Santos yes that why they need to fired and now.
poisonedtanto 10 good men are not good nuff.
+Ricardo Santos The show has became too big and expensive so they had to cut production cost. Stanis the Mannis and his army was just too expensive. Too many people, too many props, too many fake swords and armor, too much CGI.
I know you probably have better things to do but can you review the Lord of the Rings battle scenes?
One thing Total War has done in their newer games is that unless it's heavy cavalry vs light infantry, your horses will be massacred if you don't pull them away after a charge. It's kinda annoying you can't tell them to charge and then automatically retreat to a safer area, which means you need to keep track of them and order them manually, but it's somewhat more realistic.
Polish hussars usually went straight into opponents, no matter who and how well equipped they were. This formation was so extremely effective as some European professional armies refused to fight against poles. Hussars also usually successfully exterminated numerical superior opponents. Check Battle of Klushino out.
When I saw this I immediately thought of Agincourt - why did Stannis come out onto the plain without any scouts? If he had warning he could have fallen back to where they emerged from the forest which was narrow and his lack of numbers would have been irrelevent. All that cavalry riding up an icy snowy slope into a narrowing opening would have been disaster. That was when my wife told me to shut up and watch the bloody TV ... :-)
Steve Jones Might be a medieval equivalent to suicide by cop....suicide by Bolton? nasty way to go.
Steve Jones Spoilers!
Because he's broken. He burned his daughter, his wife hanged herself, his priestess ran, his troops ran, I honestly think he already gave up and just didn't care anymore. He wanted to die doing the "right and honorable" thing which for him is marching on, no matter the consequences.
Steve Jones Probably because he had no horses. Any foot-scout would have been ridden down and did not come back.
***** Stannis scouts are southern men, they don't know crap about the north. Bolton scouts know the whole area. Stannis scout doesnt have horses and cannot get away. Boltons have horses (and hounds as well from what we've seen of Ramsay's hunt).
Pfft, if Stannis send out scouts it would be their death senteces.
Steve Jones
Stupid writers wanted to get rid of stannis i guess
I found your synopsis of giving the enemy an escape avenue interesting as I served in the US Marine Corps Reserve (infantry) from 2002-2008 and that's a tactic that's still taught. I specifically learned it in urban warfare training. We were taught to "avoid the 'trapped rat syndrome' " by giving the enemy a way to get out and have a unit waiting to pick them off as they run.
Steven Hansen Cool :-) yes, basic tactics and humans don't change much, just the technology.
Matt, you are absolutely right!
-in the 16th century dutch cavalry gets a different Pension if they have half barding than if they have 'full barding strong enough to break a pike block'.
- the 'chronices of the crusades' (late 15th century) Show a bunch of cavalry tactics in various formations, mostly very tight.
-ridinger in 1760 writes that the cavary should learn to 'traverlieren' to push the troopers together in their line from the flanks of their unit to attack the enemy.
- the term 'stirrup to stirrup' is to distingish from 'knee in knee' where the width of a single cavalryman becomes about 60-80 cm, only about 20-50% more than a man on foot. (if at all)
-wallhausen Shows a Lance caracole where the lines of cavalry litterally pick off men out of the infantry square with Lances and then turn away to let another attack come.
-there is a marvellous painting of a caracole (Google it, i can't seem to link it) where you see just how huge such a movement is, concentrating a great vlume of fire on a certain part of the line and subsequently charges the weakened Formation with vigour.
-there are a whole bunch of attackes described in medieval sources where the cavalry punch straight through the lines of Major infantry formations. (patay, but even Grandson and Murten, even if they are not ultimately succesfull, they are mentioned to have 'had their Hands on the standard'. )
-the push of the Body of horse is a great Problem to an infantry unit as it litterally causes a Domino effect in the infantry unit, so if an Initial breach is made the infantry are less able to use their melée weapons int he press, whereas the cavalry are comparatiely free to rain death onto the infantries heads while the horses try to swim through the mass of People.
-a horse that desies to trample is faster and stronger than most People presume.
airnt by the way, jousters are moving away from the usual heavier breeds to mostly spanish horses across the world atm, due to the growing popularity of melée or 'turnier'.
in America heavier draft breeds are more popular, which is why they come off their horses so much (heavy draft horses are too wide to sit securely and are slower and the width means you are less flexible on the horse as you cannot align your knees correctly) but also there we see a move to other breeds.
so top jousters are on spanish (andalusian), lusitano, murgese horses... those are pretty Close to warhorses.
but the best warhorses are barbs: brave, good for colleciton, bred for canter. (though small )
If I remember correctly Sun Tzu says something about NOT sorrounding the enemy completely ;)
You "can" charge cavalry into infantry and it "can" work. But usually it didn't. That is the whole reason square formation worked. It's also why in the 19th Century cavalry charged "knee-to-knee" - because horses don't like charging into what appears to be a wall of pointy stuff, but they will if they can't see another way out. The point being that you "can" break a square by doing this, and I'm sure generals hoped it would work, but it's unlikely to work.
Surely, in this situation, the cavalry should have wheeled around the infantry vanguard which was already formed up, then they should have destroyed the rearguard which was unformed. Then the vanguard could be attacked, but with mounted archers and spearmen if they had them.
Thank you for adding crucial details that were missed in the video.
The part of the heavy cavalry that is said to go back to the medieval times. Just want to point out that the Persian Cataphracts (and related units) was used as heavy shock troops from around 1000 BC.
Apparently Bolton was smart enough to leave them a way to escape, because the next time we see Stannis he's out in the woods. :D
Just go with it. It was the opportunity Brienne needed to avenge her king. Brienne had a rough go of it for a while and needed a win. Don't think about it too much.
I thought the Scots Greys were decimated and routed by the Franco-Polish Lancers at Waterloo...
+Fabio Q The Scots Greys more or less destroyed one French infantry column, capturing a golden eagle banner in the process, then charged into and through another infantry force, then attacked some French guns. They were then attacked by French cavalry, after all that, yes.
A french unit in column already engaged and another flanked by infantry. My point was not that they did not succeed initially but that they lost 50% of their force and were made useless by the end of it. Oh, and their commander was captured too. All in all the episode was considered a debacle.
+Fabio Q
Dont worry (waterloo refference) is english propaganda like all time. (They forget lot of reallity evens, like Prussian desivie action.) :))
The grey charges ok, take some guns but dont nails them, like french cavalery dont do also later.
The R-S-Grey was beat by french polish lancer because they go to far away without inf support and because they are tired and fall against the best cavelery lancer of this century. (I dont speak about some highlanders inf who was on horse, actually i dont know if it was true and/or really usefull.)
What i know it's that it's not a victory of wellington but a victory of Blucher and a miss battle of french marechaux that miss basic order like follow the cavalery charge by fresh inf troop.
This battle is 80% of very difficult way to win for attacker (wet ground, english behind hills, 3 strong farms points, french at 1 vs 2,1 (effective army), figth in 2 sides, Napoleon sick, impetuous marechaux, conscription army (the 100 days army was profesionnal only at 40%).. even with that, the french can really beat the english at 1vs1 without guards reserve. ^^
England can say a BIG THANK YOU to Prussian. Lot of english forget that.
And not sorry for my english. ^^
records are a bit shaky tbf, The Greys, Union and Household cavalry's roles are still in dispute, some say they did lots of work others say they were masssacred.
but the reason we treat Wellington as a hero is clear
Wellington had to hold out for the big army of prussians to arrive, If he hadn't the French would have got a strong, high position with which to fight Blucher but Wellington Held and so Blucher's numbers swelled in and won the battle, they both had crucial roles but Wellington had the difficult job :P
He may not have won the battle out right but he held long enough for help to arrive
danfr444 Cannot argue with that assessment. That is about right.
Well Matt winning when you outnumber them and outmatch them and have better positioning is easy,what i would like to know is how we could win if we were the infantry commander!Any ideas anyone?
Greg Makropoulos Form square and have pole weapons and archers. Going by the evidence of the TV show, Stannis was strategically clueless.
scholagladiatoria
Well,i don't whatch game of thrones so i don't know about the generals but in this current situation where thw infantry is not formed up properly and i dont think they now have the time to what is there best bet to do?Is there any last hope strategy or simply just fight allaround and hope your men have the courage to fight to the bitter end?
Greg Makropoulos
lead the army so that the terrain is better for u then for the enemy.
build a scout screen
form squares shield-walls pole weapons in front archers in the middle.
organize your formations so that they have overlapping kill zones for the archers.
but this guy was doomed
he killed his own child
lost his wife
lost 1/2 of man
no food
no siege weapons
no cavalry
no red woman, who has fled with the last horse
no lack of hope to win
scholagladiatoria As Eamon Mckernan said, the books were quite different, in the tv show is more of a suicidal attack than the real siege and moves he did before (he recluted the equivalent of the scots, he secured important castles on the way down, he made alliances with important families etc....)
scholagladiatoria Which is a shame because in the books he is the greatest strategist alive.
At the Battle of Canae, Hannibal had his various troops completely surround the Romans. It worked amazingly well for him.
Here's another: Battle of García Hernández, 1812, Peninsular War.
Two German and British cav brigades destroyed THREE French infantry battalions in square in a head on clash.
Caesar Himself a brigade is bigger than a battalion I thought?
The first square was broken by luck, an injured horse ploughed into the face of a light infantry battalion and made a hole big enough for the rest to drive through. They did not simply ride down the square. The second square was destroyed by the panic caused by the fleeing infrantry from the first square which disrupted the formation and allowed the cavaltry amongst them. There was no third square broken, only two IIRC, and both were by KGL dragoons. That's the British interpretation. The French say both battalions were not in square when charged as the men were foraging and could only form partial formations before they were hit by the dragoons. Believe which you will.
Neither case involves a frontal assault by cavalry riding down infantry, which was against the common doctrine of the time.
This does not mean it never happened just not in this case.
Mr Wibble glad to see your comment on this. That's my understanding too and exactly what I was thinking about when watching the video. The thing is, if it was so easy to get cavalry to charge head on into infantry then square formation would have almost never worked. We know at Waterloo that the French cavalry was battered by British squares and IIRC none of the British squares were broken. Surely, if it was so easy to charge cavalry head on into infantry and spears, then the French would have done that, especially given the mess their cavalry found themselves in on that occasion. As Matt himself explained, squares worked by not having a flank for cavalry to attack, but they provide no additional protection to a head on charge than standard lines.
At Quatre Bras one British regiment, when caught in line by French cavalry from behind, simply turned the rear rank around. The cavalry could make no impression upon it.
It is possible that trained war horses of the medieval kind could be trained to crash into a row of well armed and armoured men, horses are not that bright after all, but by Napoleonic tmes the horses used were not that well trained. They were, even the 'heavies' lighter, faster horses, better bred and they could be trained to bite and kick but I seriously doubt they were trained to attack head on. As i said above it was against doctrine and there was a good reason for that - it did not work!
In later periods riders were not armed with lances. If you crush head on into a infantry formation with lances, you do the damage via range before the infantryman usually has even the chance to hit you. By doing so you create a bloodbath in the first line. In the resulting chaos of wounded or dead men it must be very difficult to even find the room to establish a defence against the next charge (which would follow with the sideweapon of the riders) and this even if the infantrymen were to ignore, that their fellow comrades just got slaughtered in front of them without being able to deliver damage and almost no possibility to defend themselves...
Untrained horses donKt want to step on people, or anything they might trip on, because they didn’t evolve to recover from leg injuries. They hate letting strange people, especially loud people or crowds, behind them (they have blind spots, like we do when driving).
But even today, we train police horses to get over all that, to either push back a crowd or calmly walk through one. They can be trained to do a lot of things they would otherwise avoid.
explain that to the horde of morons who cant comprehend the fact that horses were trained for war and not just randomly dragged away from a farm or pasture hoping for the best
I like the intro "from the books"
this battle never happened in the books, atleast not yet ;)
What i like in your videos, is your insight an logic behind your theories. You are never just debate/figure out the question in one angle. Kudos and keep on doing great work.
It's interesting that you mention the surrounding part and not to do it, and the exact same reason is given by Sun Tzu.
If you look at the aftermath of the battle with the amount of troops that the Boltons seem to have lost (easy way is when you see Ramsay killing that crawling guy who surrendered, look at the amount of dead people with Bolton shields on the ground, but even look at how many are returning to Winterfell after). Stannis' army certainly gave them hell and took out a sizable portion of them.
Kisk79 I seriously hope every one of them comes back as a wight and make the Boltons' lives hell.
These battle/duel analysis videos are excellent. Much appreciated!
btw in total war if u leave Calvary in a melee fight they will lose.
In Attila yes in every other total war no, if there equal cost, obviously elite veteran cav can kill peasants.
+Sam Ebersole reiksguard 1200 gold, swords man 450 gold, I said equivalent, also demigryphs don't count, horse cav. try charging an iron breaker with a reiksguard.
Even in the example that he used (Rome: Total War) you have to use cycle-charging to make the cavalry effective, or they will take unecessary losses.
Disagree, if you play Napoleon Total War and get charged front on by cavalry into bayonets, the cavalry will win, despite them being outnumbered and standing still. It's stupid!
*****
It depends on the quality of the cavalry unit, the terrain, and the quality of the infantry unit.
If you look at the Battle of Waterloo, though, the Scot's Greys charged into the front of a french column, and routed them.
Whoever was the advisor for this scene did an amazing job, in the initial wide shot which shows the cavalry approaching the infantry-based army of Stannis you can see the troops nearest Stannis are forming up into ranks and preparing to fight while those towards the rear are already beginning to rout and are running from the battle.
This is rarely seen in movies/tv and I thought they did an amazing job portraying how an army would act under such conditions.
scholagladiatoria
Speaking about direct cavalry charges at infantry formations, maybe you could talk about the Winged Hussars? They were pretty good at it from what I know. I also wonder why rest of Europe didn't implement same tactics.
They did, the majority of Europe used heavy cavalry.
"It can work"? Please, Matt, It worked like a charm in every battle the Winged Hussars took part in in XVI and XVII century. For example in Battle of Klushino 5,500 Winged hussars completely routed a Swedish-Russian army of around 35,000 troops. Losses? 400 to 5,000. ;)
In Battle of Kircholm a 3,600 men strong Polish-Lithuanian army defeated a 11,000 strong army of Sweden, again, thanks to frontal charges of the Winged hussars. Losses? 100 dead, 200 wounded to 7000-8000 captured and routed. ;) And charging at bayonets? Please, pikes, even 4 to 5 meters long!
Anyone who says that horses won't charge straight at infantry is completely full of sh*t and has no idea what he is talking about.
If you don't care about one minor spoiler, then _watch_ on.
_Watch. On_.
_Watch. Jon_.
If horses won't run into bodies of men with spears, then calvary would never have become a thing in Europe or Asia.
you should really use the computer games from the Total War series, it would be a fantastic resource for you.
TheMournhammer Yes but there are things that are really badly represented in Total War, like Matt said cav gets automatically stuck after a charge instead of trying to keep riding, the only units that can keep a charge going are elephants and chariots but you have to spam orders which is fucking annoying. The whole notion of "melee cav" is rather silly.
I don't like that they don't have different spacing for different units, like barbarians standing as close together as a phalanx, I don't like that there are only 1v1 animations, each man is fighting only the man facing him (especially noticable for pikes and spears that always face the direction of the unit), pikes can't be use offensively in R2 (they were much better portrayed in R1), units need to take HUGE losses before routing (like 80%), men can only be dead or alive not hurt, how can a hoplite in phalanx can die to an arrow ? etc...
TheMournhammer dont trust total war to be 100% realistic. more realistic than most games, yes.
iopklmification If you wan those things you should try the Europa Barbarorum mod for Rome Total War (Europa Barbarorum II for Medieval 2 is not finished yet). You get a lot of stats for units, including unit spacing, discipline, weapon characteristics, different charge mechanics, and a LOT of cool units)
Europa Barbarorum is a big step in the right direction, I recomend it.
TheMournhammer There are some very good critiques of the Total War Series and how the engine change made the game look prettier; however, it sacrificed the game's old elements that made the battles more believable.
For example, unit collision is really messed up in the new TW engine that first was used for Empire. This creates huge issues in melee focused games like Shogun 2 and especially with Rome 2 where formation and teamwork played a HUGE role in warfare. So, instead we get dumb 1v1 fights that break the glow. This is why cavalry get stuck. They are locked into motion cap animations.
I do find that Cavalry are better at running down fleeing infantry now because they can initiate a "collision lock" where in older versions you'd see a cavalry standing 1 foot from a fleeing infantry but the cavalry cannot properly match the solder's pace to deal a blow.
Mods also improve a lot of the authenticity, like properly spreading archer shots, but there is only so much they can do with the engine.
Thats why i use Swadian knights in M&B
yeahh best cavalry
+aldipeanutz and best game
I'm wondering. I do get the point that it's normal that the first line of horses might fall but doesn't that kinda block the way for the next line? I just imagine that a dead horse might very well lead the horse to behind that to run into it.
Or even dead soldiers on the ground, aren't they kinda bad for the footing?
How often to horses just slip and fall because they run over dead people and horses?
I just can't picture horses running over dead people without any problems.
BIIGtony Well, firstly they won't die instantly. They'll keep travelling forwards and wiping infantry off their feet. But also horses naturally jump a little if there is an obstruction. Horses, if trained for it, are surprisingly good at keeping their footing on uneven ground.
scholagladiatoria Most cavalry horeses and especially "warhorses" were of a far more robust breed that is no longer neede today and therefore very seldomly found. Horses underwent lost of training and exercise in the past, not like today where they server merely as a pastime recreational "tool", or lasagna stuffing...
Keep in mind that before automobiles ruled, we were living in "horse societies" with hundreds of millions of horses. the same way you would train and learn sterring your car, you would also train to ride and use your horse as much as the horse would lear to be ridden and used by you (no pun intended)...
Excellent tactical analysis, the same factors are relevant for successful "blitzkrieg" attacks. The shock does not simply come from tanks storming with heavy air support, but from directing an advantage of attack power on a small area and utilize speed in order to shock the ennemy, bring his commad and communications structure in disorder so taht they will not be able to defend properly and decide to flee. Most people in ancient days got killed once the losing side started to flee, it was then that they were routed and wiped..
They were trained. But also at a canter or gallop (the gait a horse charges at), they really don't touch the ground much. Roughly speaking, at a canter a horse has stride length of about 3 yards (these are very rough numbers, but close enough. If you've ever wondered how they know what distance to put jumps in jumping/ hunter jumping competitions, this how its calculated). That is, the horse won't touch the ground over that distance. At a gallop I would expect about four yards (walk is 1, trot 2, canter 3). While a horse's hooves stay close to the ground normally, it wouldn't be that hard to teach then to canter or gallop with a little more verticality. Also consider that they might knock aside bodies (human ones at least) or body parts. A big horse is really a different beast from most horses you see these days. If you want to get a sense of how big and heavy they get, look up Clydesdales and other cart horse breeds. There's a stable joke that carthorses can break your foot and not even notice it- all they did was shift their weight. Warhorses wouldn't be that heavy, but they'd be somewhere between a carthorse and the taller European horse breeds. I forget the exact names, but there are various German warm and cold bloods that tend to be rather tall, I think.
All that said, horses did slip and fall. That's why weather is so important-cavalry charges don't always work as well in the mud or the snow, since the ground is even slippier. In fact, weather is still a major concern in horse-racing. If I remember properly, a long-shot horse won the Kentucky Derby this year since it was muddy as hell. This is why(among other reasons) Little-Finger mentioned that the Knights of the Vale were used to fighting in snow when he offered his army to the Lannisters- Vale horses are used to snow and to running through it, so they are less likely to slip and fall, which makes them more effective.
I think you make the best analysis that I have seen so far. Thanks
Barristan, one of the best fighters to exist, killed by simple slave masters with masks.
Stannis Baratheon, the best experienced commander, beaten by twenty good men.
Viewers, one of the most loyal fanbase, fucked in the arse by terrible show writing.
I like the Cavalry strategy from the Russian Lake Peipus (1242). Where the two cav units on either (flanking) side were storming with arrows, making the infantry of the other side not know which way to use their shields while worrying about the incoming cav charge from the front.
did infantry squares normally work though? and did they work because cavalry wouldn't try to attack then or because they usually held?
+Timothy Heimbach I believe that the only infantry square that was broken at the Battle of Waterloo happened when a horse was shot and killed and the momentum carried it into the soldiers defending the square. It has been a while, but I don't think it was a British unit who's square was broken but one of the allies, Belgians, maybe.
I think that it was largely a game of chicken. Would the infantry run away when the horse got close enough? Would the cavalryman turn at the last moment? Would the horse decide that impaling himself on a bayonet was not something he planned to do?
I remember the commentary for the movie "The White Feather" there was a claim that in Sudan was the only time when a British infantry square was ever broken but in that case, they had camels and pack animals inside the square so that the attackers could not take advantage of having broken through to attack the soldiers from the rear and the square was quickly reestablished.
I would like to hear of other cases besides that one in Persia where an infantry square was broken. It was my understanding that as long as the infantry held, they were essentially invulnerable to cavalry but that if any part of the line panicked, broke and ran, they would soon be cut down from the rear by cavalry. That was part of the reason that officers and NCOs had pistols in order to give the soldiers in the line a reason to find the charging horses the second most frightening thing they had to face.
+Timothy Heimbach mainreason for breaking an enemy is the shock, you can bring a herd of horses into one direction you can even break the squares, and with a small deep of the sides of the square (2-3 men behind each other would be best in bayonet times)
they didnt worked against pike troops without a flanc posibility (squares) by a good cordinated troop. mainreason the cavalary became more to using circles and 6 shot-muscets against landsknechte/switzerland mercs (piketroops).
you need to understand cavalary was in the past the noble people, they didnt wanted to get slaugthered by professional defence infantry mercs. So the moment your armor is worthless and even your light spear shock troops get useless, you go to range attacks on horses.
Same in the roman empire with their great legions. hungarians/goths, mongols, pharther....all ranger on horses, more shooting than shocking cavalry.
+Mark Kelly The incident you refer to was not a British square, but a French one (before Waterloo, but I can't remember exactly when). It was a dead horse that broke the square, and the French survivors accidentally broke another infantry square when they tried to push their way into the square to safety, and so broke holes in the sides right as the cavalry arrived. After that, French infantry squares would even go as far as shooting friendly troops who were trying to get in if enemy cavalry was nearby.
Well, the Black Watch are still, over a century later, living down an incident where one of their squares broke in the Mahdist war in the Sudan (in fairness, they were on bad ground for it and actually won the ensuing brawl, ), so it can't be terribly common. And the tactic was used for centuries by soldiers who were betting their lives on it, which lends support to the idea that yes, they normally worked.
There is also an account of three French squares breaking after Salamanca. At Garcia Hernandez.
One of the reasons why you don't charge with cavalry straight into a prepared infantry formation is that the Infantry may shoot at your horses.
Julius Caesar used this tactic to break a chariots charge during his invasion of Great Britain. His soldiers threw their pila at the horses, not the people, with devastating effect.
Scipius Africanus used the same against Hannibal's elephants and while they didn't manage to kill them, the elephants basically rebelled from their handlers and ran away.
The show ruined Stannis.
That tidbit about Total War was extremely fascinating to me. Thank you for that, rest was most excellent as well.
I love your videos, but as Napoleonic wars are my pet period, I feel a pressing need to correct a couple of historic assertions you're making.
First off, the charge of Household Cavalry at Waterloo is often cited, but it is cited as a *bad* example of heavy cavalry charging. The British horse at Waterloo were poorly trained (or rather, poorly disciplined) and overextended the charge, which pretty much spelt their doom at the hands of the countercharging French. Compare this with the battle of Fuentes de Onoro, where the 2nd Cavalry Brigade managed to *charge repeatedly while retreating*.
All in all, heavy cavalry in the Napoleonic wars would generally charge only once because their charge was supposed to be the deciding moment of the battle, followed by a rout and pursuit. In earlier periods, before drill and dressage were as developed, cavalry would only charge once because it was much more difficult to control and getting it to break away and reform was pretty much impossible.
With regards to charging a formed body of infantry, well first of all, the infantry in the frame is for all intents and purposes unformed. There are spaces between them large enough not for one, but several horses to ride through side by side, so no fancy tactics is required as they are effectively already routed. Charging with the entire cavalry formation head on is perfectly viable; the infantry can only run backward, where horse will catch up with them easily, or to the side, which is right into the teeth of more cavalry.
If they were formed, ie. standing shoulder to shoulder and bristling with spears and pikes and (this is the vital point) *no spaces in between them*, then the rules about charging well-formed infantry would kick in. A horse is perfectly willing to charge *towards* pike-bristling infantry, but it is unwilling to *charge home* which is the crucial difference. Charging home can be successful in one of two situations: either the infantry breaks and holes appear in the formation, in which case the horses will ride through those holes; or the horse is boxed in from both sides by other horses, which will not let him swerve to avoid the infantry.
The difficulty in this is why tactics such as caracole were a thing (ie. the cavalry advances towards the enemy and when they don't break, wheels to the side and unloads their sidearms into the formation). While it *is* possible to charge home and thus break a square of well-formed infantry, these situations were regarded as exceptions and therefore noteworthy. This happened e.g. at Garcia Hernandes and in the Siege of Delhi that you mentioned, but the Victoria Crosses were awarded precisely because this was considered extraordinary (By the way, wedge formation was not part of maneuvering drill at that time. The cavalry were expected to slam home all at once, which also prevented the foremost horses from swerving.).
Thanks for adding your knowledge to the discussion and pointing out details Matt overlooked.
It wasn't smart in any way to attack Stannis, other than 'tv show' reasons. They'd endured in the castle for longer than Stannis' men would. Also, while i agree that face first charge is doable, horses aren't a commodity in got universe ( i believe), so that kind of attack wasn't necessary
***** A) It fit Ramseys character very well. B) He managed to surprise Stannis on the march.
Smart is what works, and I don't think it isn't too implausible a tactic to have worked under the given circumstances.
Yeah, but ramsey burning all of supplies, and readying up all the horsemen in time to charge like that was a bit of bs. Rip Stannis, the one true king
***** Ramsey is a degenerate failure as a human being, but no one ever said, that he is bad at leading troops.
It's like going to Woodstock and burning all the stages. Except the people aren't high hippies, they're soldiers. That's what i meant with his stealth attack being bs
***** Ramsay understands suprise, and scaring the enemy into making silly decisions, and breaking folks. All this worked for him here.
His actual battle tactics are slightly flawed, but no one ever said he was a good commander.
So sad that so many of his mean flead when they saw the army. They could do much more damage if they had stuck together. Running away from horsemen is also certain death, why not die after doing more damage?
MrTacticalinuit People don't tend to like dying very much, and will usually take a almost certain death fleeing, rather than absolute certain death fighting.
MrTacticalinuit 'cause you're human?
MrTacticalinuit Holding firm before a cavalry charge is the best thing to do for your unit, but try tell that to the guys in the first rank...
hjorturerlend They all stood, you see the people in the background run away.
MrTacticalinuit I would've fled if I saw that many horses charging down on me.
the knee to knee cavalry is also indicative of antique and late antique heavy cavalry before the development of the stirrup (evidenced by Byzantine military manuals). They push forward in a mass at a slower speed then a medieval man at arms would, due to the difficulty of staying horsed.
I found it amusing that Stannis, the furthest forward guy in the army, survived with barely a scratch until some Bolton troops caught up to him in the woods and cut the back of his leg.
'The guy who won the VC went in head first'.
Not going to get that somewhat comical image out of my head for a while!
Great video btw!
Also, divide them in three divisions, since you have the numbers on your side. One third charges head on with lances. Once pinned and concentrated on them, another third in a mass flank charge(left OR right) also with lances. The Baratheon army may hadn't have enough men to form in very deep ranks, so the flank and the rear would have been hit. An open flank would be there to offer an escape route, facilitating the breaking of the formations and the routing. Another third in reserve, just in case, or ready to pursuit...
Very good commentary. If I may add something:
1. You are absolutely right that light cavalry was not very well suited to fight head on with infantry, thus they would be potentially quite useless at least during the first part of a battle. What you forgot to mention is the fact that, to offset this problem, very often light cavalry was equiped with some kind of ranged weapon (bow, crossbow, javelins). Such units were used at the very beginning of battle to disrupt the enemy forming their battle formations or to rise chaos among their ranks.
2. As for attacking from three sides leaving one side open for enemy to escape - absolutely right. This tactic is "as old as the world itself" ;) You can read about it in "Art of War" by Sun Tzu, and that is 5th century BC.
3. The best exables of heavy cavalry charging against infantry formation head on, even against pikemen, would be Polish husaria (17th century). They used to do it, and most of the time they very victoriuos. They used the special way to make an assult formation while charging, so they were literally riding knee-by-knee when smashing the enemy frontlines.
4. The only questionable thing in this Bolton-Stannis battle were outranners attacking before the main force. There is no information that they were light cavalry using ranged weapons, who would ride along Stannis army and shoot. We can see in later part of the movie, that they attacked frontally with the rest of Bolton cavalry. Such a manouver would be suicidal and simply stupid (they would receive the initial force of Stannis men before being reinforced by commerades and that means they would be slaughtered outright). I never heard or read about using outrunners in this way.
Looks like a classical pincer movement (double envelopment) which corrals a large mass of people to the center at which point they're crushed by the numerically superior center. It's also looks like a given that they're going to be encircled.
in the aftermath of that battle it is apparent that Stanis's forces were driven back into the forest. that might have been the intent.
also, the layout of the land enables Bolton to hide his forces in the open, that might as well be a factor in such a decision- enabling an almost surprise attack.
scholagladiatoria Interesting clip, thanks!
I have a question: before the battle begins we can see Stannis' men climb down a slope, about 7ft/2m high. Wouldn't the higher ground give an advantage against a cavalry-charge?
Any chance we'll ever get a proper episode on lances & their use? I know lances might be a little out of your wheelhouse but I don't think I've ever seen a replica lance. I've only ever seen tourney lances and I'd love to learn more about proper lances, their differences and potential uses and techniques.
You would also want to divide your cavalry sections more because you can see they start pinching in on each other while they're wheeling and the units heading for the corners of Stannis' forces would really start getting in each other's way if the shot had continued.
The main "iffy" thing about this scene is where did Roose Bolton got so many horses? This is way too many to feed, shelter (it is north and winter) and this is not that kind of unit you want during a possible siege. It almost looks like he new exactly how many and how armed men Stanis have and when he march them there so he could arange an assembly of this much cavalry around exact date so they dont come too early and eat every bit of hay in a 100 kilometer radius around and they dont stay too long for half of them to get sick or even freeze to death nor that they come too late of course. Strange and should have been done differently.
+lamebubblesflysohigh I agree, though to be fair to George, in the books Stannis's army gets bogged down in the snow and never reaches Winterfell. Not as exciting a visual I guess, but it would be more realistic.
From what I've read in ancient warfare from the few texts I've read calvary were used as flanking forces to guard the flanks if no calvary was available they'd use light infantry to do the same thing
The Bolton forces were clearly light cavalry, they wernt using lances or even spears. In fact the Boltons troops were not really known for wearing much armour either.
They sent out a full force of cavalry as a shock tactic before Stannis's men could form proper lines. The Boltons were watching them for days before hand they knew the exact compesition of there forces. If half of Stannis's men didn't desert because of killing poor Shireen Baratheon mixed with hunger and cold then it might have been a different story.
In regards to a square being the anti cavalry set up, which i do agree with, a good example being a phalanx having great frontal offensive power but being extremely vulnerable to flanking and having low turning speed, or even shield walls. What about a sheltron, or essentially variations of a sheltron, a circular defense with spears pointing in every direction and shields for missile protection. Wouldn't this be better than a square or would it work more or less the same ?
Wellington was very annoyed with British Cavalry. He always complained the men were well disciplined but the officers were not at all disciplined. They could only be used once as the glory hunting officers refused to answer the recall and reform signal but continued the charge and were not seen again for the remainder of the battle leading their men off in search of glory.
Someone may have mentioned this, but I have successfully used all sorts of cavalry to charge, break away, and reform to charge again in Total War games. In fact, it's been a total game changer, making my horsemen much more useful than they were in the past.
So, about your proposition :
First, the footmen are not in square. We have here a first rank that is almost in order but barely. A second rank that will not hold while attacked to flanks and a rank line better composed. The fourth rank is either retreating or not even forming. I don't know if it include a fifth but this a disorderly mob.
The reason for that is that the Bolton made a "surprise" attack. I find it difficult that the footmen couldn't form ranks and defensive position at the time of the frame you show, that's the only problem for me. But they didn't and that's the point.
So yes, attack with cav (medium max IMHO...) as it is done here seems the most efficient : forming a bigger line of battle than the enemy and everything that is larger will fold on the flanks of the enemy. That's where the real damage is made, especially on an army that didn't have time to prepare.
But I think your proposition, while usefull I am sure, would break an important part of Bolton's plan : to take them by surprise. You have to manoeuvre, to spread a little more, etc.. While Bolton's plan is : form the line, and let's charge. Two orders and one maoeuvre.
It is quick, efficient and is the main part of the victory IMHO.
Really really good video! And your right no one ever talks about the aftermath of a battle but what people never talk bout is the build up and, rather boringly, the logistical side of a battle/war.
Since we're talking about game of thrones, what do you think would be the best weapons to use against an undead frozen army, assuming you don't have a bunch of Valerian steel and obsidian (dragon glass) on hand?
zarbran BroadBroadBroadHead bolts to decapitate? Guillotine-Ballistas? Incendiary arrows & bolts? Grenades? Cannon?
zarbran Fire.
A question regarding square formations: I understand that a cavalry charge against infantry with bayonets can be successful even if they're in a square formation. But is this also the case with 15th / 16th century pike formations? Breaking through muskets with bayonets is one thing, but 20+ foot / 6+ meter long pikes?
"Or if you read this in the books" - HAH! This foolish manoeuvre was never in the books. Stannis is meant to be a *good* military strategist.
I actually really enjoyed watching this video. Good job bro.
Stannis flank is in weak position not a battle formation. Square formation is effective on the cavalry position.
Polish Husaria used knee to knee they even had more expirienced fighters on flanks their role was tightening formation on last meters of attack (begining charge they had loose formation in rows and then in the middle of charge every second guy in row would change position to front to fill gaps then tighten formation)
I would love to know your thoughts on the Riders of Rohan big attack in the Lord of the Rings movies.
Oh Matt?,
Have you ever done a review on Khopesh Swords, and the best way to use them?
11:37 as you explained that situation I couldn't help but think of a scene in The Last Samurai, the end battle where Hiroyuki Sanada's character charges in and his horse gets taken down by a bayonet, he falls forward to the ground, rolls and continues the momentum.
This scene shown in GOT took me back to Kingdom Of Heaven, battle of Karak, vastly different as both sides had horses there but just the visual image of a smaller force being surrounded and swarmed.
Schola you have to micro manage your troops in Total War. You have to literaly drag them out of a melee fight ( eg franticaly clicking them out ), otherwise they will remain stuck or get back to fighting.
I do wonder, though, why the little groups splitting from the charge? I mean the two by two columns of cavalry at the head of the charge. What is that about?
Well, watching closely, it is medium cavalry at best. They don't seems to wear a metal armour when I stop image on them, and the two men in the fight vs Baratheon in the scene after are in easy rider leather armour. And the horses are medium size, that's for sure.
If one can reasonably expect their horse to die as a result of this type of charge, was there a special way to ride the horse when that contact was imminent? Would you stand on your feet on the back of the horse? I imagine if your feet were in the stirrups there's a good chance you get tangled up and squashed in the ensuing rollover.
In defense of the Total war games. One of the first things the advisors teach you is that "you dont win a battle by killing every single unit, but by routing the enemy and causing a panic." Another mechanic was that cornered units would always lose it and fight to the death when they had no other alternative, you did lose control of them but they did basicly turn into berserkers.
About horseman charging knee-to-knee. Matt, we have much earlier acounts of horseman doing that than XIX centur: polish winged hussars were closing their ranks on the way to enemy so the last few dozens of meters they were going knee-to-knee to max the strike potential of the entire unit. Winged hussars done it in XVI and XVII century by the default on many battlefields. I dont know if its the earliest knee-to-knee cavalry formation in history, but it still earlier than XIX century. Polish acounts are most numerous, but there are also Swedish and Russian althought I dont know if they were translated to english.
I do not know if you will see this but I am curious about what you would say about some battle depicted in the Book of Mormon. Just from an academic stand point.
The poles had their uhlans/lancers as heavy cavalry, and their hussars as light cavalry. but hussars also had their koncerz sword which had like a 4/5 foot blade. So which one was really the light / heavy?
Can you do the battle of Helm's deep? including "horses charging pikes at dawn"?
on another cavalry charge, have you seen the The Lighthorsemen movie? a review on this would be amazing.
Will horses charge into stakes? I'm not disputing what your saying but there definitely were instances where horses didn't charge into massed spears (Bannockburn I believe) so how would defenders know when they could and couldn't use this reliably?
P.S. btw what's the advantage of a square over a circle? Does it just make shooting easier?
At Schola Gladiatora ... actually Cavalry and infantry are from Italian or more accurately Latin Cavali for horses and Infanta for baby or small person
Good job! I really like the enthusiasm paired with expertise.
Make them runaway and slaughter them then - there are ancient and medieval sources that exactlly say about more enemies killed whence they were made to run than during actual struggle.
Howeverm I would go with 4 parts, but dived in this way:
left, right (flanking force),
center,
and reserve slowly moving far left/right (depending on terrain) behind flankers.
And when enemy rout becomes big it is my reserve force of horses that will slay them. Because they are less tired and will have to pursue at least till daybreak.
Flankers and center will slay those who still have will to fight.
But frontal charge toward unsoften infantry seems somewhat wrong. Shake them with shooting, smash them with horse charging.
the leave an escape for an enemy (or a fake one) is one of the basic principles described in the art of war.
Would they bother fighting this battle in winter in the first place?
Issue I had with Stanislaus's army is that he did not use scouts. He did not stop in the trees and observe the enemy disposition. ????
The Polish-Lithuanian Winged Hussars (active 16th-18th cent.), the best cavarly in the history, were doing exactly that: attacking the inside of the opponent formation from the front (be it infantry or cavalry). Some claim the Winged Hussars have never lost a battle before they were legally dissolved by the Polish Sejm in the 18th cent.
Can you review the fencing competition in James Bond: Die Another Day?
So Scholagladiatoria, you would do what Stannis did to the Wildling (in the books) a 3 part pincer/vice? Also, if you look at Stannis' men, they were wielding spears, halberds, and long-reach weapons...how much of a difference would that make?
If you were Stannis, would you have had your men retreat to the forest and make a stand there?
Hey, will you do a review of the final lightsaber battle in The Force Awakens?
+Kiro Haas I will :-)
+Kiro Haas Before we get into that... Most the light saber fights in that movie are done by people who are suppose to have literally no training. Kylo Ren is the only one who has ANY training and he's not even fully trained according to the movie.
+ChamorruWarrior The fights in TFA are how Lightsaber fights should look not like they do in the prequels. TFA they fought like they did in the Original Trilogy. No one wants to see people flynning and flipping for 30 minutes. The end fight scene of Revenge of the Sith is one of the worst fights in all of movie history.
+DrSmokeTrees The many fans and high merchandise sales disagree with you.
+trewqpoiuy Sorry but those fans are stupid. How the fuck can you watch two cgi blobs climb up a tower and swing off ropes at eachother and fight and take it seriously? its mindnumbingly dumb
hey i would love to hear you say something about the fight in prince valiant from 1954
it's a big part of my childhood and doesn't matter if good or bad just to hear an opinion about it would be great