>This battle also left me with a lasting impression of the shock
>effect of heavy cavalry. ..Mind you i think history shows us that a
>dense formation of infantry can withstand cavalry more or less
>indefinitely
Presumably the lance-armed knights & their steeds were genuinely trained to charge home, which would be unusual nowadays. Hans Delbruck makes an interesting point that medieval knights were not truly cavalry, in that they didn't fight en masse. Sure they banded together into large groups, but each knight fought individually, without cooperation with his fellows.
Note that after the Norman Conquest footmen more or less went out of fashion, and it's not until the Swiss re-invent the Phalanx that we see footmen beat knights again (not counting the two flukes at Agincourt and Crecy). It's a pity, because the performance of the Saxons in 1066 indicate that they made fine infantry, able to stand up to horse better than the rabble that followed them historically.
Pam C.
>How effective were soldiers behind shield walls at defending
>themselves once the walls were broken?
Terrible. But so was everyone else. The Swiss didn't form a "Shield Wall", because they didn't carry shields, but if you broke up the unit, they were screwed. The Romans didn't usually form a shield wall, except for very specialized tactical purposes, but once more, if the line is shattered, the Romans can't fight effectively (which seems to be what happened at Teutoburgerwald). Of course, they can regroup faster than your typical phalanx.
Powered by hypermail