Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Between the times of knights and reiters, what heavy cavalry units, if any, existed in European militaries?
Did you perhaps intend to write "Ritter" instead of "reiter?" In German, the word "Ritter" means knight. The German word "reiter" means equestrian or rider, though it can sometimes mean cavalier (the person, not the attitude ).
Or, I could be entirely mistaken -- often am, in fact.
Reiters were a distinct class of cavalry that arose in western European armies in the 16th century. Early on they were indistinguishable from other heavy cavalry and wore armor very similar to traditional knights. The main distinction was that they employed firearms as a primary weapon in addition to their swords. Generally, they would carry two pistols or in some armies would be armed with an areqebus or carbine. Their battlefield use varied greatly from employing the caracole tactic to being simply used as shock cavalry where they would discharge their firearms at close range and then engage with their swords.
As for what existed between knights and reiters, well the answer would be heavy cavalry and the evolution of the concept of knights. Probably the most succinct answer would be the French gendarmes whose model was copied throughout Europe.
See, it wasn't so much type A replaced type B as it was a continual evolution of tactics and organization. During the Middle Ages they generally had two classes of cavalry, heavily armored lance and sword wielding knights and then lighter cavalry levies that used a combination of weapons but lacked heavy armor.
As the concept of knights changed throughout the Middle Ages it gave rise to the Gendarme that was more or less a formalized setup of cavalry containing a couple different varieities, paid for and supported by the nobility. You would have an allocation of traditional heavy knights (the gendarme) supported by lighter armored companions (coutillier) and then an allocation of supporting troops that were called "archers". These archers were lightly armored and equipped with a bow and lance. Originally the archers were intended to ride into battle and then fight on foot, but this quickly changed and they fought as mounted archers and even delivered charges with their lances. This marks the idea of "heavy", "medium" and "light" cavalry as well as the introduction of the idea of firing while mounted in European armies.
In areas that did not see the evolution of the Gendarme system it gave rise to Hussars, most notably Winged Hussars which were essentially just heavily armored lancer units that very much resembled Middle Age knights.
The basic Gendarme system later evolved into more oranized and idenitified unit types that became common in Europe such as the reiter, curassier and dragoon as well as basic regimental cavalry. The hussar also gained much influence during this time and the hussars evolved into their own unique type of light cavalry and also gave rebirth to lancers.
To sum up the best answer would be Gendarmes to occupy the space between a Middle Age knight and the late Renaissance reiters. Though there isn't much difference in appearance between any of them, just their organization and tactics. The Gendarme and Hussars are when things really started to change as all later cavalry types can trace their genesis to either the Gendarme or the Hussars, even the reiters.
If I may add something, some general distinctions in appearance between knights and reiters seems to be the armor, in that reiters tended to have armor consisting of a number of modular components riveted together, in something of the same style as the lobster tail helmets that were quite popular at the time, as if the armor for the reiters was intended to be more flexible, while still retaining the strength of plate armor. Also, many reiters seemed to prefer leather boots with the cuff turned down, rather than grieves. However, the overall aesthetic of the two is indeed very similar as you stated and at first glance is almost indistinguishable.
BTW, something else I don't understand is why shields fell out of fashion in Europe, though as you mentioned, lances and such were still in use by curassiers, Hussars, etc. and just about everybody was equipped with a sword (e.g. why use a main gauche as a secondary for one's rapier, but not ever a shield? )
What about these guys ? Hussars
I hear they were pretty good
Yac.
Indeed, though they were in use at the same time as reiters. Reiters were a product of Western Europe (originating as the Black Reiters of Germany, then spreading throughout more nations in Western Europe), while the Hussars were just a product of the Polish Commonwealth, and tended to essentially be lancers (sans shields) and did not employ firearms (though the Polish Commonwealth did incorporate dragoons). The two distinct approaches towards the use of heavy cavalry must have made for some interesting battles -- perhaps this needs to be an episode of Deadliest Warrior.
On the topic of shields it comes down to the changing role of cavalry and technological advances that made them obsolete. You can see a trend when you look at armor where large carried/worn shields eventually turned into smaller integrated pieces of the armor and then eventually disappeared altogether.
As armor technology improved the shield simply no longer became necessary. A well engineered suit of armor like those worn in the Renaissance provided an equal level of protection as a shield, so why carry a big heavy shield around?
Though shields were heavy and cumbersome they did provide protection, but only against specific threats. They were good against arrows for instance, but bullets could just blow through them. To make a shield heavy enough to deflect bullets it would be almost unusable. The armor was able to reflect bullets, especially at a distance since the plates were thick enough to block the bullet and the excessive padding worn underneath absorbed the impact. The impact of a bullet hitting a shield had the ability to risk throwing a rider more than a direct hit on a breastplate.
Further, shields found their main use in set individual battles aka knight vs. knight on foot. That kind of combat simply didn't happen anymore and a rider was more likely to face a swarm of infantry then they were to square off against another fully armored swordsman.
Another major change was the evolution of sword technology and fencing tactics, particularly with sabres. It suddenly became possible to both attack and defend with a sword alone and mounted riders needed the ability to reach across themselves and slash at opponents to their side. If they had a shield it simply would have gotten in the way.
All of it is really driven by money, technology and tactics.
Heavily armored mounted knights cost a lot of money. I have seen figures that estimate around $200k modern US just to equip a regular knight and put him on a campaign. This didn't count his associated retinue and support, extra mounts, etc. As the social fabric of Europe changed the nobility was no longer able to bear that expense and you start to see trimming down of the equipment and changing roles/identity of the cavalry. Basically they were becoming soldiers not nobles.
Technology drove a lot of the changes and the tactics in particular. The evolution from knight to gendarme to reiter to cuirassier was all in response to the evolution of infantry weapons, in particular the halberd/pike and then the gun. Halberds had the first major impact where levied troops could easily dismount and defend against a cavalry charge. Then firearms became more and more common and as they became more deadly and powerful suddenly cavalry was no longer invincible. Why pay all that money for knights just to watch them get shot to pieces. Heavy cavalry armor and weapons were constantly evolving to address this threat.
On the tactic front traditional heavy cavalry would charge with the lance and then engage the shattered infantry units with their swords. As infantry weapons and tactics evolved to address this, the cavalry was essentially toast if they got bogged down. It all became about speed for most units. Hit hard with the initial charge whether by lance or with sabre and then carry on, regroup and do it again. Cavalry was no longer wading into a battle and hacking at people. These tactics required speed and maneuverability, the heavier the armor the slower the cavalry and the more vulnerable they were.
In particular look at how halberds and pikes changed the battle. You could no longer just outright charge a block of infantry. So maneuver became more important and armor got lighter. Then along comes the pike and shot days where you have western Europeans going the direction of the Reiter to smash the pikes with caracole or firearms before charging home against the gunners. The eastern solution was the Hussar that turned into massive tanks. Some sources state that Polish Hussars had armor 10mm thick and lances from 18'-24' long. This let them deflect any fire from the gunners with their armor, but gave them greater reach than the pikes.
As firearms became more and more advanced and things like the bayonet were developed it all became about speed and with the exception of cuirassiers who wore a heavy breastplate and maybe a helmet, cavalry was all about hit and run tactics and being as light as possible.
BTW, speaking of pikes...and backing up to medieval civilization, how long did it take for medieval civilization to realize that a heavy cavalry charge could be thwarted with pikemen? It seems this lesson was once learned in classical civilization, but forgotten and relearned eventually after the Norman conquest of England, but during that time knights were very dominant on the battlefield and it took a while for people to catch on that even the best of war horses will usually not break through a wall of pikemen. Imagine if when the Normans landed in England and England had rows and rows of pike wielding peasants waiting for these new soldiers called "knights" that shocked the English -- the Normans would have most likely not conquered England.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
)
