"Cavalry v Infantry" Topic

I'm not well versed in the detail of ECW/Thirty Years War battles. Conventional wisdom would suggest that foot with a combination of musket and like could hold off cavalry, but probably could not act offensively.
Bur can anyone give me examples of cavalry fighting foot, and what the outcomes were? The more detail the better, in terms of tactics used by both sides.
Thanks in advance.

Cavalry faced with steady pike and shot would stand off and fire their pistols.

Examples and outcomes? I believe at First Newbury the London Trained Bands formed hedgehog and faced off both Royalist infantry and cavalry.

I can't think of any instance of unbroken Pike & Shot infantry being successfully attacked by cavalry.

Wait for Brent Nosworthy's new book on Renaissance warfare, it will be amazing.

I didn't know that Nosworthy was working on such a book. Have you any idea when we can expect it?

I can't think of any instance of unbroken Pike & Shot infantry being successfully attacked by cavalry.

What do you consider to be an successfull attack? Making contact? Inflicting casulties? Defeating/breaking the infantry unit?

Two examples:
At the 1st battle of Tver 1609 Polish hussars & other cavalry charged Swedish infantry but were unable to break the battalions due to not having lances. Yet the Swedish infatry took casulties and at least some charges got deep enough into the battalion to capture flags. The fight ended with the Swedes withdrawing of the field in decent order. By the standards of the day the Swedes had lost as they had ceded the battlefield and lost men and flags. Would you consider these Polish charges successfull attacks?

At Lutter am Barenberg 1626 cavalry from Christian IV's army attacked two Imperial infantry regiments (Cerboni & Colloredo) and forced them to give ground but the regiments were not broken. Would this charge by Christian's cavalry be considered a successfull attack?

Cavalry did carry out successfull attacks on unbroken infantry that ended with the infantry unit being badly damaged or completely broken. At Wittstock 1636 Imperial cuirassiers mauled the Swedish and Scots brigades with no evidence suggesting that either unit was broken prior to the charge. At Jankow 1645 Don Felix de Zuniga's veterans held of repeated Swedish charges until Douglas massed 3 squadrons into a single body of men & horses that struck the Imperial brigade with such force that it was completly ridden down and destroyed.

Well there you go, you've come up with a few examples. If those are the only ones, you'd have to say it happened about as often as cavalry breaking a square, which is to say very seldom.

Daniel, I appreciate the examples. They suggest that significant casualties can be inflicted if the cavalry could actually charge home. The expectation that the Lance would have helped breaking the Swedes is interesting, since in an earlier period pikes pretty much stopped unsupported knights cold.

Terrain and visibility, general and specific morale must always be factored in. On an ideal day, the infantry might always be impervious but it's frigging cold wet, and halfthe men have dysentary from bad pork…the captain's mistress gave him the clap and my gloves were stolen. I'm outta here now before those horses get here…

Wargamorium, Nosworthy has finished the book, I have been helping to edit it. A major work possibly his biggest, so no small task. Not sure on release date.

Wealdmaster: This is great news. Can I ask what it covers?

I just got off the phone as I wanted to get permission as to what exactly to announce. I will say as follows directly from the horse's mouth.

"The Book will examine tactics and grand tactics and unit operation on the battlefield in Europe from origins in the 15th century until roughly mid 17th century and more specifically the year of 1643. It will be extensive."

More I cannot say at this time.

Man, I could listen to Dan S all day with enthusiasm.

Sounds like a book for my wishlist.

Dexter Ward,
Those examples are more like the tip of the iceberg, I chose them because the sources are fairly detailed and because there is no evidence that the units were broken or badly disorded prior to the charge.

But often the sources only tells us_what_happend, not_how_it happend. Take another example from the battle of Jankow, the Swedish brigades of Mortaigne and Seestedt were attacked by Bavarian and Saxon cavalry as they made an unsupported advanced out of a wood. Both brigades were very roughly handled, Col. Seestedt was killed and the brigades lost 12 out of 28 flags. They were only saved from a complete rout when a battery of Swedish 3-pounders deployed at the edge of the wood and began to pour fire into the cavalry.
But the sources don't provide a detailed description of just how the Bavarians and Saxons were able to inflict such damage on two veteran brigades, were they outflanked, did the sudden and rapid apperance of enemy cavalry catch them of guard? And so on.

Or indeed what was going on when the guns were able to target one side so effectively – clearly the two sides were separated at that point.
And Korvessa, +1

Or indeed what was going on when the guns were able to target one side so effectively – clearly the two sides were separated at that point.

I imagine that it may have taken repeated charges for the cavalry to do it's work. It may have been while the cavalry was re-grouping for another attack that the cannons took their opportunity. I was just reading a synopsis of the Battle of Lansdowne Hill during which Hopton's infantry held off several counter attacks by Waller's horse.

Advocate,

They suggest that significant casualties can be inflicted if the cavalry could actually charge home.

If cavalry broke into the unit the result would often be devastating with very heavy casualties and a rout. Writing in the early 1640s Raimondo Montecuccoli noted that if the circumstances were right "A small squadron of cavalry, acting promptly, can wreak great havoc among large infantry battle lines."
He then mentions circumstances such as disorder, the terrain and poor support from the musketeers.
Conjecture based on other parts of the text ("Sulle Battaglie") suggests a "small squadron" is probably one of 200 men or less. Cavalry had an ability to cause casualties even when few in number that a lot of wargames rules seem reluctant to model. Take the Lutter am Barenberg example above, how many rules would have two infantry regiments, each with 2000 men, falling back in the face of an attack by probably about 600-700 cavalry.

The expectation that the Lance would have helped breaking the Swedes is interesting, since in an earlier period pikes pretty much stopped unsupported knights cold.

Lack of lances is how the Polish sources explained their inability to break the Swedish battalions. Whether this was an accurate evaluation of the tactical situation or just a convenient excuse to explain away their failure is a matter of debate. At the time Poles & Lithuanians had become used to defeating larger Swedish armies with little effort. The failure to win a complete victory at 1st Tver was a sensitive issue, particularly as the Poles lost the 2nd battle of Tver a couple of days later.

The terms "lance" and "pike" obscure a lot of variation, the lance used by the Polish & Lithuanian hussars, the Kopia, was a hollow design which was quite different from the lances used by western men-at-arms and demi-lancers. The hollow design meant that it could be quite long and still used effectively without a lance rest though the design did sacrifice performance against heavy plate armour. (Not that Wester style lances were that more effective, La Noue considered it a miracle if anyone was killed by a lance when charging well armoured foes.) Likewise, the 10-foot pikes used by Swiss and Landsknechts around 1500 was rather different from the pikes used in 1600 and how the pike was used in combat changed as well. So one has to be careful when drawing conclusions from different periods even if the words used to describe weapons and armour are the same. (Not to mention all the times important nuances are lost in translation to another language or when word have changed meanings over the centuries or even fallen out of use.)

Or indeed what was going on when the guns were able to target one side so effectively – clearly the two sides were separated at that point.

Not necessarily, the Swedish gunners could have done a "Guilford Courthouse" and fired into the mix of friend and foe on the assumption that repelling the cavalry was worth a certain number of friendly casualties. After all the infantry would have lost more men if the cavalry had been able to pursue the infantry at will. My personal theory based what is known about the terrain and the probable position of the Swedish guns is that the cannon deployed at the edge of the wood in a position which allowed them to fire into the flank and rear of the enemy cavalry
imgur.com/sPYe2Bo

Thanks for the information and analysis, Daniel. Much appreciated.