Turning Points that Failed to Turn

[crazy canuck]

I'm not a big fan of the theory myself, but Valmy isn't to blame for inventing it. That would be Victor Davis Hanson. 

Ah good so you know what I am talking about.  What about it do you find unconvincing and if it was a geographical thing wouldn't that make sense?

What is it about the geography of Europe which would explain heavily armoured knights riding heavy horse vs some other form of fighting.

[DGuller]

Wouldn't the forested areas crimp the style of light archer cavalry?  I'm sure that heavy cavalry would prefer to fight in the open rather than in the forest as well, but they would probably suffer a lot less should they be forced to take the fight to the forest.  I imagine than in most places in Europe, the forest is never far away, so the value of light archer cavalry goes down.

[crazy canuck]

Wouldn't the forested areas crimp the style of light archer cavalry?  I'm sure that heavy cavalry would prefer to fight in the open rather than in the forest as well, but they would probably suffer a lot less should they be forced to take the fight to the forest.  I imagine than in most places in Europe, the forest is never far away, so the value of light archer cavalry goes down.

Since the shock value of an heavily armed knight is the charge I am not sure this particular geographical difference explains the various fighting styles.  It would have made a lot more sense to develop a fighting style indepedant of horses if geography was the explanation.

Which brings me back to the cultural issue - warhorses were a sign of prestige because they were so expensive to obtain and maintain.  The perfect thing for fuedal society. 

[Valmy]

Since the shock value of an heavily armed knight is the charge I am not sure this particular geographical difference explains the various fighting styles.  It would have made a lot more sense to develop a fighting style indepedant of horses if geography was the explanation.

Which brings me back to the cultural issue - warhorses were a sign of prestige because they were so expensive to obtain and maintain.  The perfect thing for fuedal society. 

Well the nice thing about heavily armored cavalrymen if they can dismount and still be a powerful force on foot...and the Knights did do that all the time.  Ironically it was only during the Crusades that the Shock Charge became famous.

I think attempts to bring that home were less effective.  But granted I am basing that observation a bit too much on that one battle when Henry Beauclerc defeated Robert Curthose's knights (just returned from the First Crusade) by having his own dismount and fight back their shock charge.  The name of the battle escapes me.  But, granted that may not have been typical the shock charge may indeed have ruled the day.

[Malthus]

My understanding is that the reason horsemen were prefered in feudal times was part prestige - riding horseback is simply more aristocratic than walking, as it literally puts you above the pedestrian crowd - and part practical.

The practical aspect was that, when two groups of armed men fight, generally speaking horsemen will beat infantry where both are fighting in an individualistic style - that is, without stern discipline and unity; whereas infantry is cheaper per man, and tends to beat cavalry - where the infantry is under regular, effective discipline.

Another benefit of being on horseback, of course, is that if shit goes bad and you are beat, your chances of escaping capture, death (or worse) is much better if you are on a horse - particularly if you are wearing armour. Fighting in armour is very tiring and the chances or armoured infantry running away to fight another day are lesser.

In short, where warriors are fighting as an armed gang or mob, per-unit it is better to be on horseback - your are likely to beat the man on foot similarly armed and armoured, and if you don't, well you can escape. However, if your armies are fighting in a regularly disciplined and organized manner, you want more infantry - per-unit they are much cheaper, and a cavalry charge is unlikely to break them; indeed, using dismounted knights to fend off a cavalry charge was a tactic used on occasion. 

As to why Europe had less light horsemen, you guys are looking at it the wrong way around. The Steppe produces light horsemen naturally, because that is simply how steppe nomads usually live. The skills of light horse - to use the "turkish" bow on horseback - are hard to learn and thus expensive to re-create artificially away from the steppe. Euros did adopt archery tactics - think of English Longbowmen - but again, they were expensive to train (hence their habit of hiring themselves out as mercenaries).

[DGuller]

Wouldn't the forested areas crimp the style of light archer cavalry?  I'm sure that heavy cavalry would prefer to fight in the open rather than in the forest as well, but they would probably suffer a lot less should they be forced to take the fight to the forest.  I imagine than in most places in Europe, the forest is never far away, so the value of light archer cavalry goes down.

Since the shock value of an heavily armed knight is the charge I am not sure this particular geographical difference explains the various fighting styles.  It would have made a lot more sense to develop a fighting style indepedant of horses if geography was the explanation.

Which brings me back to the cultural issue - warhorses were a sign of prestige because they were so expensive to obtain and maintain.  The perfect thing for fuedal society.

It's a matter of balance.  Heavy cavalry is devastating in the open, so you want to have that upper hand if that's where you can manage to force the battle, but is still not completely useless in rougher terrain.  On the other hand, I would imagine that lightly armored horse archers are going to be riding to their slaughter if they ever set hooves in the woods.

[The Minsky Moment]

But the treasure ships themselves were meant to exert control.  Following in their footsteps were large numbers of other Chinese.

No the Chinese traders preceded the treasure ships; they were already long established before the Zheng voyages.  They were however, based alomost entirely overseas

The key point here is that although there was a long history of ethnic overseas Chinese sea traders , the Zheng voyages were NOT commercial expeditions.  Seen as such, they would have been totally unviable because the costs of constructing, operating and maintaining such large numbers of enormous ships far exceeded whatever value could be obtained by exchanging Chinese silks and spices for exotic creatures to fill the imperial menageries.

As political-diplomatic iniatives, the Zheng voyages may have had some meaningful purpose, but the notion that they could have been "followed up" as some kind of useful commercial trading venture doesn't make a lot of sense.  It would have required a radical transformation of ideology and cultural presuppositions.

[Valmy]

Euros did adopt archery tactics - think of English Longbowmen - but again, they were expensive to train (hence their habit of hiring themselves out as mercenaries).

Yeah attempts to make Longbowmen outside of England were about as successful as the Seleucids trying to make Roman Legions.

[crazy canuck]

Well the nice thing about heavily armored cavalrymen if they can dismount and still be a powerful force on foot...and the Knights did do that all the time.

A unhorsed knight in heavy armour was a dead heavily armoured knight - A horse A horse My kingdom for a horse.

[crazy canuck]

Euros did adopt archery tactics - think of English Longbowmen - but again, they were expensive to train (hence their habit of hiring themselves out as mercenaries).

Yeah attempts to make Longbowmen outside of England were about as successful as the Seleucids trying to make Roman Legions.

Wales 

[crazy canuck]

As to why Europe had less light horsemen, you guys are looking at it the wrong way around. The Steppe produces light horsemen naturally, because that is simply how steppe nomads usually live.

Thats the very thing I have been saying....  

[Valmy]

A unhorsed knight in heavy armour was a dead heavily armoured knight - A horse A horse My kingdom for a horse.

Nonsense.

[crazy canuck]

Sure, but the European ability to use light-horse techniques was minimal. Unlike the Mamluks, they did not import young central asian lads as soldiers, and culturally light horse was not how they fought. 

Yeah Western Armies have always been bruisers, favoring hand to hand fighting and shock tactics.  I have no idea if that is some sort of cultural thing or just about geography.

Culture had a great deal to do with it.  The Feudal system required heavily armed men to control the local area who in turn required heavy horses that could support them.

Nomadic tribesmen required light horses in their day to day lives (not to mention raiding other nomads or defending against such raids) which converted nicely into lightening fast warefare.

Bump to try to get this back on track.

[Valmy]

Thats the very thing I have been saying....  

I thought that is what I was saying.

[DGuller]

Well the nice thing about heavily armored cavalrymen if they can dismount and still be a powerful force on foot...and the Knights did do that all the time.

A unhorsed knight in heavy armour was a dead heavily armoured knight - A horse A horse My kingdom for a horse.

I can think of many famous battles that featured dismounted knights, and I'm no history buff.