In Lord of the Rings, Game of Thronesand other fantasy works and even historical dramas, they frequently have battles consisting of two large (thousands) cavalry forces charging full speed at each other until they collide with a thunderous roar.
So my question is: Were such battles common?
My intuition says no:
Heavy cavalry was expensive and I suspect large formations of thousands of armored knights would be uncommon.
It seems super dangerous. Like you have a really good chance of crashing into your enemy at 100mph.
It also seems tactically unsound.
And yet, jousting does seem to be practicing that very skill of charging at another knight coming straight at you on horseback.
Grunwald had your cav-on-cav action. You also want to look past the age of actual knights for some other examples - I know more of post-medieval battles, like Turnhout, or what the Grunwald victors evolved into, the Winged Polish Hussars of the Polish-Swedish and Polish-Ottoman wars, where there were many clashes between the hussars and *reiters *or sipahi. Look at Klushino, for one.
But “common”? Naah, I think cav-on-cav was the exception rather than the norm.
And crashing into your enemy at speed (more like 25mph, I think) was kind of the point…
Another factor that would make cavalry-vs-cavalry uncommon is that it would be a fair fight, and nobody in a war wants that. In fact, part of the point of cavalry is to enable unfair fights, by being able to quickly get in position against anything your enemy left poorly defended.
Then consider that for much of history, the people fighting on horseback came from the class of people who were making the decisions. If you’re a nobleman, you’d much rather cut swathes through the enemy’s peasants while the enemy nobility cuts swathes through yours than to actually put yourself at risk against your peers.
Jousting was always regarded as sport, and not as a practical means of attack. If you’ve ever tried running with lance or long pole carried underhand you’ll understand; riding would be even more difficult and impractical on the battlefield.
Cavalry attacks are problematic at best; aside from the difficulty of keeping an aligned front, which requires everyone to move no faster than the slowest charger, they really can only work on broad open battlefields, and after the initial clash and breaking of lines, being on horseback is more of a liability than an advantage. It is impossible to protect the legs and underbelly of a horse, and in an open charge it is quite easy to disrupt a charging line of cavalry as Swiss and Scots pikemen demonstrated. A wounded or panicked horse is a danger to the rider and everyone else around them.
Horses were, of course, quite valuable for their speed, ability to carry equipment, and as a status symbol for gentry and nobility. Expending them on a forward charge where they are almost certain to be wounded beyond healing would be extremely wasteful. One thing horses are good for is keeping a battle leader above the fray and able to direct soldiers, but they would want to do this from the middle to rear of the scrum. So, while mounted cavalry charges may have occurred they were probably uncommon and represented only a small fraction of the fighting force. In battle they were more likely used as a fast raiding, reconnaissance, or signalling as with the Polish Hussars.
The cinematic display of cavalry and battles in general tends to follow the “Rule of Cool” (or if Jon Snow is leading them, the “Rule of Stupid”) rather than any historical accuracy. The actual massing of forces was done more as a display of intimidation rather than a practical fighting tactics.
In early days, they rode horses to the battle site, then dismounted and fought on foot. Roman cavalry, for example.
Later, they were used to transport fighters to weak points on the battlefield.
Mounted troops were kept in reserve behind the lines until the battle was in progress, then when the commander noted a weak point in the enemy’s defenses, he would send the cavalry around to attack that point. Or if he noticed part of his army losing out, he would send the cavalry to them as reinforcements. Other troops would be sent to, but the cavalry could get to such points faster, and hold the line till more infantry could get there.
A massed cavalry-vs-cavalry charge was a poor use of your mounted troops. Like Chronos said, too much of a fair fight.
Much ado is made of five oversized frigates built by the US during the Revolutionary War. In each of the decisive battles between these frigates and British ships, the guy who won had trained his gun crews better than the other guy, and/or killed most or all of the officers on the quarterdeck in the first broadside.
Cavalry vs Cavalry battles did actually happen quite a bit, but it was rare they charged each other. More often it was cavalry A was attacking an infantry group and was hit by cavalry B. Similarly, Cavalry A might just be trying to maneuver around the battlefield and get hit by Cavalry B.
Cavalry v Cavalry engagements often happened, as part of a larger battle. Jeb Stuarts’s defeat against Union Cavalry led by Generals Gregg and Custer at Gettysburg on the third day. The Numidian Cavalry at Zama and earlier at Carthage drove enemy cavalry away and then swung around and hit the enemy in the rear.
Pretty much. “Send in the cavalry” is a reference to the trope of Western movies where the US Cavalry comes in at the last minute and saves the good guys from the Indians or whoever. There’s probably only a couple-three movies that actually had the cavalry do this, but that’s enough to make it a trope.
It’s also consistent with the traditional role of cavalry (both historical horse and modern armored / air cavalry) as a quick reaction force that can rapidly respond to events on the battlefield.
It’s also because cavalry, when used properly, is most effective at the tipping point. The enemy left a flank exposed - send in the cavalry. The enemy has a hole in his line - send in the cavalry. The enemy is wavering after hours of fighting - send in the cavalry. When the dust settles, what everyone remembers is that the cavalry rode in and won the battle. No-one remembers that the infantry did all the work.