The Armchair Historian
Published 11 Jan 2018Why was Cavalry used in warfare?
Our Website: https://www.thearmchairhistorian.com/
Our Twitter:
@ArmchairHistSources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_…
http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleo…
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/cav…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry…
https://ehistory.osu.edu/exhibitions/…
http://www.cincinnaticwrt.org/data/cc…
http://www.napolun.com/mirror/web2.ai…Music: Music: Antonio Salieri: “Twenty six variations on La Folia de Spagna“
From the comments:
The Armchair Historian
1 year agoSo two things….
1. A lot of people are saying the video is an oversimplification. You’re exactly right, this is a prelude of a series I’ll be doing covering all types of cavalry from all different eras, as well as tanks. I’ll be covering mainly the abstract, and the concepts, and less of all the specific numbers and statistics. This video is to act as an intro.
2. A lot of people are saying cavalry and tanks aren’t the same. You’re right again, but here’s what I meant in the video. The tank replaced the cavalry, and still fulfills the abstract usage of cavalry, as a decisive shock unit. You don’t have many of them, they’re more expensive, and they hit harder than their counterparts, infantry, and artillery. Of course tanks are not used in the same way cavalry was in warfare, but as cavalry left they were replaced by armor. In fact, many people tried to use tanks just like cavalry, but it didn’t work. It took up until the end of WW2 for most generals to realize this.
Hope that clears some stuff up,
Griff
To give an example of his second point, the British use of “cruiser” tanks in the Western Desert campaign of World War 2 typified the “it’s just an armoured horse” view of tanks. Disproportional British tank losses to German anti-tank guns was the usual result.
