Talk:Heavy cavalry

message: Badly needs better coverage of: 
:- Later European periods
:- Mamelukes 
:- China & Japan
:- India
:- Africa
I have done what I can, but it's not really my field.  Also there's too much stuff duplicating knight & chivalry, given the length of the article.
Johnbod 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added what I can about Japan, though, as I say in the article, it is difficult to say what counts as "heavy" cavalry. Feel free to do whatever you wish with this section, as it is obviously more attuned to arguing that Japan never had "heavy" cavalry. The Mongols, Jurchens, Manchus, etc obviously need to be expanded on somewhat, though I am no expert in those fields. (If you'd like, I'd be happy to take a stab at it just using the main articles on those groups as reference). China I honestly do not know about, in terms of their formal army and the organization, tactics, and equipment used. I'm fairly certain that India and Southeast Asia, if they had organized cavalry at all, were likely less numerous, less organized, and less heavily armored than European knights. Places like Australia, Indonesia, and the Pacific Islands, I would think it highly unlikely that they even had horses at all prior to European contact. (Interestingly, I just read yesterday that in Okinawa's early tribute missions to Ming China in the late 14th century, horses, brought to China from Okinawa, were highly valued. I wonder if these were native horses of the smaller Japanese type, or where they came from...) Anyway, I'm sorry I could not be more help, but I wish you luck, and am eager to see this article grow and improve. If you would like me to write something about early samurai archers as light cavalry, I'd be happy to, but as of right now it doesn't look as if that article is just defining the term and not looking for global examples and such. LordAmeth 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No that's great - I left a note on the Chinese MH talk page also.  Thanks for so prompt help!
Mongols light C only I think, but the chinese guys will know.  Johnbod 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize 

message: They are wearing only chainmail. Not plate armor WITH chainmail. Plate armor is key. That would be heavily armored. I'm removing the picture, and replacing with the one at the bottom. 64.236.121.129 16:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture at top doesn't show heavily armored soldiers 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:BattleofIssus333BC-mosaic-detail1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: What's the difference between knights and cataphracts? A difference in which geographical areas used which terms & the fact that the term cataphract came 1st? Or are there any other differences?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.211.214 (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I see, per custom here on Wiki-land, history is portrayed weirdly and the fact that these culturally creative, in terms of history, early Proto-Indo-Europeans responsible formatively for the whole "heavy cavalry" innovation is barely mentioned -- except in a passing, I am sure, painfully endured, reference to the equally Iranian and Germanic "Massa-Getae" -- let's stop fooling ourselves, Jewish academia, the early Aryans have the credit here, in which the division between Iranian and Germanic and Celtic was meaningless because all inter-fused... PLEASE OBJECTIVITY, gosh almighty! The Scythians and Persians (likewise Indo-Europeans, but intermingled) are INHERITORS of a more ancient, "UR-ARYAN" (dare I say?) source... Please, the Hamitic Middle East DID NOT INVENT EVERY SINGLE PART OF CIVILIZATION. Gosh, this PC-Zionist soft-peddling of so-called "racially charged" issues is NAUSEATING, UGH  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.52.186.148 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indo-European Genesis of Cavalry, including Heavy 

message: This is a very poor article that I would class as "start" at best. It has few citations, there are erroneous statements and it's English style is poor and not encyclopaedic. 
Specifically, it has confused the social rank of 'knight' with the type of heavy cavalry called 'men-at-arms' (ie a European fully armoured cavalryman c.1150-1600). Also all the present content on knights is about their social aspects and is irrelevant to the military function of "fully armoured cavalryman". 
Throughout the article is the repeated expression that "heavy cavalry = armoured cavalry", this is erroneous. The distinction between light and heavy cavalry was based on battlefield role, not possession or absence of armour. Light cavalry scouted, raided enemy communications, screened and provided outposts for armies, heavy cavalry were reserved for making formal battlefield charges. The amount of armour was relative and depended on the historical context. The Scots Greys at Waterloo were heavy cavalry, they wore no armour at all. In contrast the light cavalry of Queen Elizabeth I's time wore steel helmets, back and breastplates, a plate gorget, and mail sleeves, or complete plate arm and shoulder defences. Urselius (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good point, I reassessed it for WPEQ.  I see no reason not to work to improve it.  We have Horses in warfare and Horses in the Middle Ages at GA-class.  Horses in the Napoleonic Wars is at least sourced, and Horses in World War I, is a FA.  I think Horse artillery is in OK shape too. I don't really have the time/motivation to do the work on this, but I'd be glad to keep an eye on things and give a heads up if something gets added that might be wonky from the horse side of things (I'm not terribly up on weaponry or armor stuff, my own issue is the "draft horses were Destriers" myth). Feel free to dive in with good source material.  Montanabw(talk) 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Heavy cavalry. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_madeinchina/2005-07/21/content_70825.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161112212930/https://www.msz.gov.pl/resource/21badcbf-0c18-4fb8-8b19-3d382469d25f%3AJCR to https://www.msz.gov.pl/resource/21badcbf-0c18-4fb8-8b19-3d382469d25f%3AJCR
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) 06:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified