1. I recently noted a number of interesting (?) conversations on a web site run by an Australian club... 'wargameswithminiatures @ yahoogroups.com'. The messages caught my eye because they dealt with the effect... or non-effect... of "shock cavalry" on infantry. In this current issue of the REVIEW, Otto Schmidt gives his thoughts on the 'cavalry-versus-infantry' combat, and several of the participants seemed to agree with him. And several didn't.
The content of the site's messages turned from the issue of stirrups (did ancient cavalry have stirrups? did they need stirrups? which army first incorporated stirrups? once they appeared, why didn't all armies immediately incorporate them?) to the relative merits of light versus heavy cavalry to frontal cavalry charges on formed infantry.
Concerning the cavalry charges, the 'horsey-experts' -- those that apparently were familiar with riding -- all said that a rider couldn't possibly force his mount to slam into an apparently solid wall of infantry... in fact, into an apparently solid wall of anything. This is the thought expressed by Otto... whether the infantry has pikes or muskets or soda-straws or toothpicks... the infantry weapon itself is of little consequence, and as long as the foot stand tight, the horses won't close.
Well, then... how did "shock cavalry" impact on infantry? It was the horsey-guys' thoughts that as the cavalry approached the line of infantry, several of the unhappy soldiers in the front line would decide it was an opportune time to run off to the men's room, and they turned and fled. Others followed. In this fashion, holes appeared in the line, and it was to these holes that the cavalry riders directed their mounts, thereby penetrating the infantry ranks.
I didn't quite follow this... given a line of charging cavalry, horses' shoulder to shoulder, whizzing along at 60 miles per hour (or whatever horses whiz at), how could a rider 'direct' his mount towards a given gap in the line... was there that much leeway for the rider.?
The stirrup conversation proved unending. First one guy would say that not only was he a horsey-guy and familiar with the beasts, but he had spoken to his friends, other horsey-guys, who said that horses were huge, and that it was impossible to even mount a horse without a stirrup, let alone ride it. And then another horsey-expert would chime in and say that the Huns and Mongols managed to do so for decades. And so on ... and so on.
What was there to learn from this font of information? Absolutely nothing. In my ECW rules, I'll continue to give a pike unit a "plus" against charging cavalry, and charging cavalry a "plus" against non-pike infantry.
2. Got a check from MAGWEB for the PW coffers for about $62 for the last quarter of 2000. The REVIEW is still way behind COURIER and LONE WARRIOR and MWAN... in fact, it's behind a lotta magazines.
3. I saw an e-mail note from Bob Jones, creator of PIQUET, that he was giving up PIQUET and was leaving the hobby to pursue other interests. He was turning all rights to PIQUET over to Brent Oman, who had helped to nurse PIQUET along from the very beginning. Good luck to Bob, and good luck to Brent.
Back to PW Review February 2001 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2001 Wally Simon
This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com