Talk:Cavalry tactics

message: This article is not very good. I will translate parts of the German wiki concerning cavalry tactics. For more information on the units themselves look on cavalry and the links there.
Wandalstouring 11:34, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

message: at the moment I start writing a new article here. Feel free to contribute
it should be merged with cavalry. Most of this article seems to be concerned with the chariot, which is not part of cavalry at all. dab (ᛏ) 21:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  writing a new article 

message: Swarm/encirclement tactics and massed firepower in the field - Mongol tactics were marked by speed, surprise and massive mobility. They approached in widely separated columns, both to ease logistics as well as to gain maneuvering room. Once they had isolated their target, the tumans deployed in wide sweeps, converging on the enemy from several directions. Upon contact the Mongols played cat and mouse, standing-off while devastating opponents with massed arrow fire, or charging in close only to veer off while discharging yet another vicious rain of shafts. Opponents who took the bait and gave pursuit were quickly cut off and liquidated. The constant rain of arrows, the converging swarms of charges and probes, all carried out by the encircling Mongols, were usually enough to "soften up" an enemy. Typically the opposing force broke and then the deadliest butchery began. As is well known, a force is most vulnerable in retreat, and the Mongols were ruthless.
Source: wiki
Wandalstouring 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  prejudiced article about Mongolian tactic 

message: Whoever edits shows often a lack of understanding tactics. when you mention wagons and chariots carts are important and the differences between them, for understanding their different tactics. Hope you were not the guy writing about horses pulling with nose rings.Wandalstouring 18:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid edits 

message: the pictures in this article show all modern views of ancient events and do contain ahistoric mistakes of engagement and equipment. it would be better to have contemporary images, even if they are not as beautiful. Wandalstouring 13:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  contemporary pictures of cavalry 

message: A very nice, long article, with lots of pictures, lots of sections, and no glaring gaping omissions. I am not an especial expert in European medieval history, but I was looking for the mention of the Mongols, the battle of Crecy, Stirling Bridge, and a number of other things, which you've supplied. You've included much, if not all, of what ought to be included here, and with a little clean-up of the grammar, spelling, and overall style, I think this article warrants a B. Just needs a little further re-organization and style/grammar polishing. Thank you for tackling such an important and complex topic, and doing such a good job. LordAmeth 14:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I feel Arabian, Indian and Chinese cavalry is underrepresented, but I miss the sources to use for an extension. Wandalstouring 18:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes, and being that my own expertise is Japan, I noticed the complete lack of anything on samurai mounted tactics. I could write a whole page on that alone. But I think for the most part it would be redundant to what's already mentioned. The point here, as I see it, is not to discuss the history of cavalry tactics in every country, but to give an overview of how cavalry tactics would work in any country; cavalry charge vs. mounted archery, anti-cavalry measures such as pikes and longbows. I think for the most part Japan skipped the whole 'longbows work well against cavalry' part, perfecting the cavalry charge only a decade or so before it was all ruined by the advent of firearms. LordAmeth 19:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure but mentioning some specific details here and there shows you did concern them. Is there currently anything on tactics used by the samurai? For example the Samurai used naginatas on horseback, something that can be compared to the Ger(longbladed spear, used by Germanic forces). Two sentences and a new element is introduced and appraised. Wandalstouring 19:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, at least now, 8 years later, this article is full of Polish propaganda. The unproportionally long part about Polish hussars is full of national romantic hogwash! This article perfectly shows the problem with open edit systems!--5.150.214.115 (talk) 21:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:MilHist Assessment

message: One suggestion I have to make this article clearer it to break the "The following tactics were often effective against heavy cavalry:" part out into a separate section, with its own title. At the moment if you are just browsing the article it look as though that section is about cavalry tactics rather than defenses against them Nloth 00:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for re-organization 

message: I don't think this article needs to be merged with War horse.  There is enough difference between the two -- and both are long enough -- to justify the separation.
That said, there is wisdom to checking both to add appropriate wiki cross-linking, avoidance of duplicative or contradictory material (using the  template as needed and appropriate summaries), and generally using each as a complement to the other. Montanabw 19:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: clearly it needs to be wikified, furthermore it seems to be the highest ranking article on military tactics, so it is almost a model. Wandalstouring 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge no, cross reference and wikify, yes? 

message: In a portion of the text say "Both handled their primary weapons in the two-handed Asian style, which was superior to the single-handed European style in the ability to parry such an attack."
Well, can be true, but here anyone can think that the europeans don't know that style of take the weapon, but contrary, according with the french historian Philip Contamine in "The War in the Middle Ages", the european knights known at least three ways of use the lance: 
1. The typical one handed under the arm.
2. The trully ancient like the byzantines, and i think this is the asian style, taking the lance with two hands, the head to down and the base of the lance on the upper position.
3. Taking the lance with one hand and hitting with the base of the lance in a vertical movement.
-Fco
OK, that's new to me, but you sourced it. Thank you. Well, it would be logical for European knights to have learned this at least during the crusades.
Well, I have to look up, but I think there is perhaps a slight difference between Byzanthine and Asian style. It is described to point downwards in Byzanthine Style while the images of Asian style show it pointing upwards. I think the use of very light shields makes it possible to do the Asian style, while with several kilogramm of a shield it was more difficult. Hitting with the lance in a vertical movement reminds me of the Mongols using hooks on them to unhorse the enemy when bypassing, probably more riders had that idea.
-upwards thrust with lance and heavy shield - singlehanded
-downwards thrust with lance and heavy shield - bihanded
-upwards and downwards with lance and light shield bihanded (see also later European cavalry like the Polish winged Hussars) Wandalstouring 22:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: European vs Asian style

message: All right. The article has a solid beginning, though the language and formatting is still awkward in places--and it can do with more cross-referencing both to other Wikipedia articles and to external websites. I'll try to attract people from the WPMILHIST task forces to help out on the article, as well as visiting it occasionally to add some new information or do some minor edits. Lay 14:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is quite cross referenced, but if you have more ideas, OK. You have a very difficult topic here. IT is not about writing specifically what each one did, but more about giving an overall picture. Some of your edits were problematic. The milhistory is well aware of the whole topic. Try Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military science task force to get some help. Wandalstouring 17:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problematic as in what? I'm moving the passage on shower shooting back into heavy cavalry tactics, because it's obviously heavy cavalry tactics requiring the exponents to be fairly well armored and capable of forming a solid battle line. Just FYI, I prefer to classify "light" and "heavy" cavalry by role rather than equipment, and shower-shooting cavalry were used as part of the main battle-line rather than as skirmishers. I'll try to locate the Sassanid military manual said to have drawn a distinction between "fighting in line" (that is, shower shooting in the heavy cavalry manner) and "fighting in swarm" (the light cavalry skirmishing action), but it may take some time because I'm not sure that there is a complete English translation of it. Lay 02:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I found it that you have a source about heavy cavalry with bows. You can present your source on shower shooting even if it is not English. But please think about the whole article and not just a little part you want to add about someone specific. This is an overall presentation and not a presentation of all. Wandalstouring 17:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And I definitely diagree with the use of "knight" in the general sense here, because European heavy cavalry formations have always included many men of non-knightly rank--squires, serjeants, and all manners of professionals. I'm not changing it back yet, but I have to say that the term "men-at-arms," unlike in the Age of Empires game, is not restricted to men fighting on foot. Lay 04:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it. Men at arms are higher level soldiers, usually mounted in combat or at least during transport to the battlefield. That they (including knights) often fought on foot is something else. Definition is quite clear. Wandalstouring 15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, I seem to get your error. You add all examples when heavy cavalry and ranged weapons are used under the category heavy cavalry with ranged weapons. Well, that is not quite the defintion used. It means heavy cavalry shooting/throwing ranged weapons. Combined arms are listed above under heavy cavalry with lances. Wandalstouring 15:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General comments

message: This article is named cavalry tactics. So the scope is to write about tactics.
It is quite difficult and you must be more precise with your presentation of conclusions. Wandalstouring 16:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of an article about tactics 

message: Your way of editing does not move smoothly with the imposed structure and the sections get way too long and unstructured. So before any further edits, I argue for a clear superstructure. The current structure is from the translation of the German article. Wandalstouring 17:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  structure 

message: * Mary Aiken Littauer and Joost H Crouwel, "The origin of the true chariot", Antiquity (1996): 934–939.
This provides a brief, recent literature review of one line of archeological opinion regarding use of the wheel from cattle-drawn wagons to early chariots. It would appear the sequence is: wheel, wagon, harness and bridle, chariot, war-horse. There are specific finds of artifacts, both burials including full physical chariots and graphic representations of the same. Although opinion reconstructing historical progression may fluctuate somewhat, the concrete evidence of the archeological finds may well be of interest to a reader.
I've added an inline "citation needed" tag. The reference above, and many others, are available to provide a bibliography and expansion of the earliest known history section.
PS See also Selected Writings on Chariots and Other Early Vehicles, Riding and Harness (Brill, 2002) by the same authors, edited by Peter Raulwing. Alastair Haines (talk) 00:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have doubts that this is a widely acdepted opinion. Just several days ago, I read that bridle and riding were first in Central Asia, with the chariot excelling in archery. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't know what actually happened, when or where, nor what majority opinion, let alone the range of opinions are. It's not the main aspect of this article, since tactics is more specific than the general history of mounted troops. Still, the bottom line is we need sources on horses. ;) Alastair Haines (talk) 08:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archeology and linguistics 

message: This is from the article: "The heavy lances were dropped after the attack and the battle was continued with secondary weapons (sword, axe, mace or likewise)". With regard to the continued battle with the sword, it seems like knights would continue the fight on horseback, using an arming sword, rather than a longsword or a Zweihänder. Because the painting "Knights Duelling", by Eugène Delacroix, illustrates that knights can fight with single-handed sword on horseback; and a 1548 depiction of a Zweihänder used against pikes in the Battle of Kappel (in the article Zweihänder of Wikipedia) showed how the two-handed sword was used to infantry to smash the pikes.
Is it possible for knights to fight using two-handed sword right on horseback? Any account in history for that? In Romance of the Three Kingdoms, there are single combats on horseback between generals in which some of them could use polearms (the Asian two-handed style), or using two swords (one on each hand) but it seems weird to imagine someone holding a two-handed sword on horseback.
Sophisticate20 (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two-handed sword on horseback 

message: I understand that intervals between units are important to the mobility of the cavalry, and some armies have preferred full interval [where the gaps between units are as wide as the units] and others half interval [where the gaps between units are half as wide]. 173.66.211.53 (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about intervals? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cavalry tactics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206040227/http://www.maharaj.org/tentpegging.shtml to http://www.maharaj.org/tentpegging.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified