Why did China unite and Europe fail to?

[Thanas]

I wouldn't call that an example of Hussars being able to trample through enemy formations at will, note how this only happened because the Swedes had to disperse their formations due to enemy fire/their own cavalry running through them. I very much doubt the Hussars would have been able to charge through pike and shot infantry with intact formations.

Well, there were several more impressive Hussar victories against Russian quasi pike-and-shot formations, but I did not include them as you could argue most of these were against badly disciplined levies that cavalry could break. I picked Swedes as these had no such issues, at least compared to any contemporary infantry.

Anyway, the main point was that claim that heavy cavalry wasn't decisive and infantry always reigned was dumb. Pike and shot or not, infantry is very soft and easy to break. Without training and discipline at least on par with say Roman Legion or early modern Line Infantry formations you might as well not bother against any competent cavalry.

I think this is too much of a swing in the opposite direction. I would argue that even relatively undisciplined pike and shot formations, like the swiss militia or the Landsknechts of the Thirty Years war could stand up to cavalry reasonably well, as could other quickly raised forces like the saxon shield walls in the past etc. It always is a question of location and tactical conditions IMO.

I'd say it was less due to Swedes being unable to focus them, it was more due to the fact usual Hussar charge was very dispersed and only tightened ranks just before impact, precisely to avoid massed gun or bow volleys demolishing front ranks (as fallen horse is huge threat to everyone riding behind)

Still, there is a limit on how much you can disperse and the ridiculous low number of casualties on the Polish side speaks against any focused fire. It looks like most of the swedes didn't even get off one shot.

Polish Hussars, or Hungarian style (later copied in West) ones? Because yes, normal Hussars were light cavalry, Polish formation had much more in common looking at battlefield role and equipment with knights than them, IMHO.

Yeah, but the Hussars are different than western knights. More closer related to Gendarmes. "Knight" denotes a special role in society.

[Zinegata]

Or you could just point out that the three big English victories do not mean much in the context of the usefulness of the knight. It meant that well-supported infantry, deployed behind prepared field fortifications could defeat cavalry. Well, no big surprise here.

And then one can easily point to the Battle of Patay in the same conflict, where the French cavalry broke through the english lines in a massed charge and, despite being outnumbered 4:1, massacred the English due to their superior knights.

Yeah, but I was going after the specific narrative that knights only worked best as dismounted heavy infantry, a claim that I've seen stem from the three big English victories.

Even within the context of these three battles the narrative falls apart because the French actually also fought mostly dismounted at Poitiers and Agincourt, with calamitous consequences. Dismounting knights without a good plan was a probably worse decision than having no plan and keeping them mounted.

[Simon_Jester]

I think this is too much of a swing in the opposite direction. I would argue that even relatively undisciplined pike and shot formations, like the swiss militia or the Landsknechts of the Thirty Years war could stand up to cavalry reasonably well, as could other quickly raised forces like the saxon shield walls in the past etc. It always is a question of location and tactical conditions IMO.

A thought:

The best explanation I have yet heard for the extreme effectiveness of pikes and shield walls against cavalry is that horses will often refuse to charge into/through an obstacle that looks deadly and impenetrable (like a wall of spears). If this explanation has much to do with it, then even a relatively undisciplined pike unit would still get much of the desired effect just by all having spears pointed in the right general direction.

An equally underdisciplined force of infantry with more normal weapons might not get the same effect. Because a poorly manned and held wall of shields would not have such a meaningful psychological effect on the horses as an equally poorly maintained, but very pointy, wall of long spears.

Is this at all reasonable or plausible?

[Thanas]

I don't know. A shield wall might look just as impenetrable as a wall of spears to a horse or not, I have no idea.

The main issue here is that a wall of large spears is much better than a wall of purely shields simply because it allows you to kill the other side faster.

[PeZook]

Well, there were several more impressive Hussar victories against Russian quasi pike-and-shot formations, but I did not include them as you could argue most of these were against badly disciplined levies that cavalry could break. I picked Swedes as these had no such issues, at least compared to any contemporary infantry.

Standig against swedes was also where the hussars (in their prime) actually suffered the most casualties, too.

Still, I think the hussars actually had several things going for them in synnergy. First, there was training - in their prime they were a very well trained and disciplined formation, which meant they were capable of carrying out battle plans properly and dependably (see Klushino and 8-10 charges performed by some regiments), accomplishing complex maneuvers like breaking a charge without making a mess of things, tightening or losening a formation quickly and on demand, etc.

They also had competent leaders who knew the formation's strengths and weaknesses and employed them accordingly. Kircholm was actually won by army-level maneuver which allowed the Swedes to be destroyed in detail, but performing that would be very difficult with undisciplined troops (all fake retreats are ; poorly led and poorly trained troops can sometimes turn a fake retreat into an actual rout).

Then there was equipment - very expensive, very fine quality, changing accordingly with the times (not a given either), and of course special horses. IIRC losing more horses than men was a very typical state of affairs for cavalry, and hussars were no exception. Sometimes entire regiments were rendered combat-incapable for DECADES due to losses sustained in horses, not men.

So the consistently low casualties were (as is typical I think of any formation anywhere) probably a result of excellent training, command, equipment (esp. armor and very long lances), and strategy, but again that's not something unique to them.