Comments on: Writing the cavalry charge http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/04/24/writing-cavalry-charge/ Failing better at understanding the past Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:17:37 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Lafayette C.Curtis http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/04/24/writing-cavalry-charge/#comment-6844 Lafayette C.Curtis Wed, 17 Oct 2007 16:13:04 +0000 http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/04/24/writing-cavalry-charge/#comment-6844 We can complicate the matter further if we take account of the possibility that Renaissance cavalrymen might not have really seen "fire" and "shock" as two fundamentally different things. Henry IV of France, for example, seemed to have employed his pistol-armed troops in a shock role--charging into and through the enemy formation as they fired their pistols at point-blank range. This paradigm treated the pistol just as a particularly powerful shock weapon, rather like a very light lance or a very long sword but with better chances at armor penetration. I also posted a link in a comment to wapenshaw's post, leading to a transcript of a presentation by a Russian cavaly general about his experiences in the Russian Civil War; in case you haven't read that comment, the transcript is <a href="http://pygmy-wars.50megs.com/history/cavalry/shinkarenko.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. You might be interested to check it because it has some insightful (and rather surprising) remarks about the role of shock in 20th-century cavalry warfare. We can complicate the matter further if we take account of the possibility that Renaissance cavalrymen might not have really seen “fire” and “shock” as two fundamentally different things. Henry IV of France, for example, seemed to have employed his pistol-armed troops in a shock role–charging into and through the enemy formation as they fired their pistols at point-blank range. This paradigm treated the pistol just as a particularly powerful shock weapon, rather like a very light lance or a very long sword but with better chances at armor penetration.

I also posted a link in a comment to wapenshaw’s post, leading to a transcript of a presentation by a Russian cavaly general about his experiences in the Russian Civil War; in case you haven’t read that comment, the transcript is here. You might be interested to check it because it has some insightful (and rather surprising) remarks about the role of shock in 20th-century cavalry warfare.

]]> By: Gavin Robinson http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/04/24/writing-cavalry-charge/#comment-4046 Gavin Robinson Wed, 09 May 2007 16:27:42 +0000 http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/04/24/writing-cavalry-charge/#comment-4046 Just remembered this: Webb, Henry Jameson. Elizabethan military science : the books and the practice. Madison (WI) and London, 1965. Just remembered this:

Webb, Henry Jameson. Elizabethan military science : the books and the practice. Madison (WI) and London, 1965.

]]> By: Gavin Robinson http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/04/24/writing-cavalry-charge/#comment-4045 Gavin Robinson Wed, 09 May 2007 14:33:47 +0000 http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/04/24/writing-cavalry-charge/#comment-4045 Not that I know of. I'm trying to separate cavalry from infantry because I think they were probably quite different. A weakness of Barbara Donagan's work is that she lumps all drill books together without distinguishing between infantry, cavalry, and artillery. Although I'm quite sceptical about the relationship between cavalry drill books and reality, I think it's possible that infantry books were more realistic, because infantry combat was possibly more scientific than cavalry combat and needed more complex drill. There were far more books about infantry than about cavalry in this period, which suggests they need to be treated differently. It's an interesting connection that you've made, and it does seem to make sense that police manuals would look to existing genres for guidance. Not that I know of. I’m trying to separate cavalry from infantry because I think they were probably quite different. A weakness of Barbara Donagan’s work is that she lumps all drill books together without distinguishing between infantry, cavalry, and artillery. Although I’m quite sceptical about the relationship between cavalry drill books and reality, I think it’s possible that infantry books were more realistic, because infantry combat was possibly more scientific than cavalry combat and needed more complex drill. There were far more books about infantry than about cavalry in this period, which suggests they need to be treated differently.

It’s an interesting connection that you’ve made, and it does seem to make sense that police manuals would look to existing genres for guidance.

]]> By: Chris Williams http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/04/24/writing-cavalry-charge/#comment-4044 Chris Williams Wed, 09 May 2007 10:15:17 +0000 http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/2007/04/24/writing-cavalry-charge/#comment-4044 Interesting. Has anyone compared the drill books for cavalry with those for infantry? I'm asking because I've got an interest in the C16th drill book as the possible ancestor for the C19th police instruction manuals that I'm trying to explain. Interesting. Has anyone compared the drill books for cavalry with those for infantry? I’m asking because I’ve got an interest in the C16th drill book as the possible ancestor for the C19th police instruction manuals that I’m trying to explain.

]]>