First of all, I want to explain that I don't have any habits of being a good teacher, but there are occasional times when I really can't stand it. Pen & Fun & Pavilion www.biquge.info

We often see posts about cavalry in one way or another on the forums at the beginning, and with all due respect, the theoretical level of the people who started the posts is quite poor. At least not seriously studied the issue. I think the root cause of this phenomenon is that many people are accustomed to obtaining this information from our online novels, rather than honestly reading literature to solve their doubts. However, many authors of online novels are rarely able to take a serious attitude and do some research and research on the practical theoretical issues involved in their works.

Okay, let's get down to business. Let's start by addressing a few common misconceptions.

Myth 1: The biggest role of heavy cavalry is to use it to attack the opponent's infantry head-on.

With this point of view, I believe that most of them rushed to the Internet to post after watching "Braveheart" once.

First of all, the European heavy cavalry of the Middle Ages, at least before the Hundred Years' War, did like to do so (especially the French). The reason for this was simple: the noble cavalry was often faced with a group of improvised peasants who lacked training and anti-cavalry weapons, and an opponent with such poor morale and equipment would of course collapse at the touch of a blow in the face of the magnificent charge of the nobles. But if we turn back in history, it is easy to see that all the world-recognized military experts in Europe have always used heavy cavalry to assault the flanks rather than the front. Both Alexander and Silua, as well as Charlemagne, won the victory by outflanking each other with heavy cavalry.

The best negative lesson for this view is not the famous fiasco of the French, but another battle: generally known as the "Battle on the Ice". Battle: The main force of the Teutonic Knights fought a decisive battle with the army of Grand Duke Novgodro at Lake Chud, due to the terrain restrictions on the battlefield, the flank of the Russian army, with the infantry as the main force, was protected by the terrain, and the Teutonic Knights could only choose to charge head-on. Although it broke through the center of the opposing side (the center was formed by a makeshift civilian army), it fell into the encirclement of the opposing infantry on both flanks, and the whole army formation was suppressed to the center of the lake. Due to the early spring and the nearby hot springs, the lake ice was thin, and many hoplites broke through the ice and fell into the lake to drown. It can be seen from this that when the heavy cavalry cannot make a detour to the opponent's flank, it cannot be defeated by well-trained infantry.

Myth 2: A light infantry long-range strike system of size can easily defeat any heavy cavalry.

This view is clearly derived from a misunderstanding, and almost all those who hold this view cite the example of the poor French, and almost all those who give this example are ignorant of the battle.

If anyone has read the analysis of this battle by Western scholars, it will be clear that the accurate and rapid shooting of the English longbowmen did play a decisive role in the victory, but without the other two factors, the British would have suffered much greater losses than they actually were. The two factors were: the use of dismounted knights as heavy infantry and the setting of certain obstacles to protect the longbowmen; Between the two sides was an area of low-lying soft earth, which hindered the speed of the cavalry.

In fact, the most crucial point is that the French foolishly follow their "flamboyant" aristocratic tradition to charge head-on in a complete formation that has been laid out by the opposing side.

Myth 3: The reason why the Mongol cavalry was able to sweep through Europe was because they had the best crossbow cavalry in the world.

From this idea comes another absurd idea: in the age of cold weapons, the archers were invincible. Let's not talk about the merits of the archers, but the fundamental reason for the victory of the Mongols. Fundamentally, the Mongol victory was based on a strategic rather than a tactical one. In the battle to defeat the Grand Duke of Hungary, for example, the Mongol cavalry did not engage in a decisive battle with the opponent head-on, but used deception to make a large detour to the rear of the opponent, resulting in a complete rout of the Hungarian army. Most of the Mongol army's annihilation was achieved in pursuit, rather than head-to-head.

In terms of troops, the Mongol cavalry was inferior to the European heavy cavalry in terms of absolute speed and momentum, but their only advantage was decisive on a strategic level: their horses were more endurance and hard-working. They could thus use this to make strategic maneuvers that the Europeans could not have imagined, and then cause the collapse of the opposing front, and destroy the living forces of the opposing side with a powerful pursuit. And once they were caught up in siege warfare, the Mongols did not perform very well, neither in Diaoyu nor in Khorezm and Europe.

There is also an opinion that the Mongols won by numerical superiority, not to mention whether the Mongols had so many men and horses. The distance of several thousand kilometers alone is enough to disprove this view, and for example, each Mongol cavalry with three horses, if some claim 100,000 cavalry, it is 300,000 horses. Even if the Mongolian horses ate grass on the spot to get supplies, it would be enough to leave no grass in the Bode Plain within half a month. Coupled with the Mongols' usual clumsy siege performance, they would have been dragged to death by themselves first.

In addition, there is also the view that the cavalry shooting platform is superior to the infantry shooting platform, friends who hold this view, you go to fight CS yourself, see if you are easy to kill people when shooting while running, or easy to kill people when you stand still.

Myth 4: Europeans use full-body plate armor because of its good protective performance.

Compared to chain mail, plate mail is of course more protective. But the reason why Europeans wear it all over their bodies is because their medicine is so backward. Lu Xun was not entirely correct when he said that "Chinese medicine is almost a witch", and until the 16th century, China was still in the leading position in medicine compared to Europe. In the Middle Ages, many of the so-called "medical conclusions" in Europe were based on religious blind faith and speculation, and many doctors could not even treat a simple fracture except for bleeding a patient. Most of the theories of Chinese medicine are at least based on years of clinical experience.

So, in the Middle Ages in Europe and China, if a warrior was slapped on the thigh, it would be completely two things. The Chinese doctor will wash the wound first, then give you gold sore medicine and wrap the wound with clean gauze. Europeans, on the other hand, are much more unlucky, you can only hold the cross and pray that the wound will not become infected, and if you are unfortunate enough to be infected, then wait for the free bus ride in the future (of course, there were no buses at that time).

So compared to amputation, it is still usual to spend more money on armor. This is one of the reasons why after the Industrial Revolution, the whole body armor was replaced by the chest and abdominal armor, because the level of medical care has greatly improved after the Industrial Revolution. It is said that when all the materials used for the whole body armor are added to the chest and abdomen, the bullets of the Mauser gun cannot even penetrate it.

Myth 5: Shoot people first and shoot horses.

I know that the poem "Capture the thief first capture the king, shoot the man first shoots the horse" is very famous and within the scope of the college entrance examination, but this does not mean that it is absolutely correct. Many comrades, imagining light infantry against heavy cavalry, used random arrows to beat all the opposing heavy cavalry into heavy infantry. But if you think about it, whether it is easier to "capture a thief" or "capture a king", if you want to understand, it is clear whether it is easier to shoot a person or a horse.

The example is simple, after entering the industrial age, since the cavalry was equipped with chest and abdominal armor to withstand the damage of bullets, why not equip the horses with similar protective gear. The answer is because it is not necessary, it takes more bullets to kill a horse than it is to kill a person. In addition, we can often see such records of seriously injured mounts miraculously carrying the seriously injured owner back to his own people, and finally died honorably.

Suppose you use 50 cuirassiers to attack a team of 100 infantrymen, if you only need one bullet to kill the cavalry, then it will take at least 5 bullets to kill the horse, and if the infantry rifles are all fired at the cavalry, it is very likely to destroy the opponent's army; But if they all shoot at the horses, then at least half of the cavalry will be able to rush in front of the target.

――――――――――

Damn Telecom, the network was actually cut off yesterday.

PS: Is dough a girl?