Talk:Cavalry

Eastern armies
This should be checked by someone who understands the composition of eastern armies (Persian, Indian, Chinese, etc) better than I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh Grosse (talk • contribs) 06:32, 17 October 2001 (UTC)

Explanation of change
Musketeers, pikeman etc were totally useless against properly leaded and trained cavalry, up to some 1620s, and cavalry in eastern style still was able to defeat infantry surely during napoleonic wars (i don't know any such accidents later).

Anyway, i feel that changes i did should be reworded, but i am a bit tired and i will work on it later, unless someone else will eb able to came with inflammatory sentence which would reflect difference between Western and Eastern cavalry szopen — Preceding undated comment added 14:37, 18 January 2002 (UTC)


 * They were not really useless--it's only that in a conflict between well-trained infantry and cavalry, the result entirely depended on which side broke before contact. If the infantry didn't break, the cavalry were simply repulsed and had to return in order to reform for a subsequent attack; if the infantry broke, the cavalry came in and pursued. It's that simple. Lay 18:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Differences between Western and Eastern cavalry? "Eastern" cavalry usually had better skirmishers and skilled horsemen. Their counterpart trained more to act as closed units. But the Romans said this about their German counterparts, etc. This concerns specially Chinese AND European cavalry units in comparison to enemies from the Asian steppe! Big difference is the way lances were held. In Europe it was embedded and single handed, the rest of the world held them in the two handed Asian style to be able to parry. Wandalstouring 13:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds a bit simplistic, because Sassanids and Mamluks, despite their reliance on the bow, fought in ordered lines using a specific massed archery technique known among modern archers as "rapid shooting" or "shower shooting." Of course, they also had lighter bow-armed cavalry fighting in the more common close-range swarming method, so the picture is never a simple one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L clausewitz (talk • contribs) 15:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dragoons vs. Mounted Infantry
My understanding was that dragoons were trained and equipped to fight as both cavalry and infantry. Mounted Infantry referred to infantry that travelled to the festivities on horseback. Edmilne 13:25, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)


 * It is almost the same. Dragoons could fight on horseback (but were no match for real cavalry). Mounted infantry always dismounted for combat. Wandalstouring 12:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Mounted infantry also tended to carry and use full-size infantry rifles or muskets as opposed to carbines.Intothatdarkness (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * My understanding was that dragoons were mounted infantry and that they were paid less than proper cavalry because of this 80.219.123.56 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Dragoons started off in the 17th century as mounted infantry. By the 19th century, they were heavy cavalry. Mounted infantry were reinvented in the second half of the 19th century. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Stirrup
I think that there should be a comment explaining the importance of the stirrup (and saddle). It allowed the cavalry to apply the full weight of both rider and horse to the tip of his lance. Backback cavalry could only poke at the opposition for fear of unseating themselves. Edmilne 13:25, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)


 * Some reenactment riders told me, they have no influence on thrusting with the lance. Therefore only the high saddle is important. Stirrups do have an important role for close combat with secondary weapons like swords, sabres or maces, making it possible to stand up and secure the rider while wheeling around with the horse. Note that till the Mongol invasion light cavalry in Europe and the Middle East disputed pro and contra of stirrups. Wandalstouring 12:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's own article on the Lance says that "Recent evidence has suggested... that the lance charge could be (and was) effected without the benefit of stirrups." Something to consider: a hypothetical horse and rider weighing 453.59237 kilos(1000 pounds) charging at 20 miles per hour(8.9408 meters per second) have a kinetic energy of 13371.715928257 foot pounds (18129.6118092458 joules). I don't know about you but that might make my arm a little sore. Fean 06:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Cavalry weakness
The reason that earlier cavalry could only attack in the flank or rear was because of the presence of disciplined, closed infantry formations like the Greek phalanx and Roman legion. No horse wil plunge itself on such a dense thicket of spears. When such formations disappeared in medieval times frontal cavalry assaults became possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.234.142.72 (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2004 (UTC)


 * Such formations did not dissapear in the Middle Ages--if they did, what will we make of the Byzantine skoutatoi formations, the Anglo-Saxon shieldwalls, and the way that the seemingly independent reinvention of pike squares in several widely separated locales hinted at the presence of a common heritage of massed spear hedge formations? Lay 18:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Cavalry usually attacks infantry at the flanks. No need to commit suicide in their spearhedge and infantry in the MA did have spears and stood close. I started writing on cavalry tactics, firstly, before any frontal assault, firepower was used to create gaps, secondly frontal assault was rarely the favored choice by knights. Read some wiki articles. Wandalstouring 12:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The idea that cavalry won't charge head on into the front of a solid line of heavy infantry is a myth, I have done a large amount of research the matter, and cavlry has charged head on into the front of solid infantry on more than one occassion and then they used infantry or lighter cavalry to follow up on their attack.

Polish Winged Hussar (talk) 16:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Polish Winged Hussar

Cavalry Designation
Cavalry is not a specific mode of battlefield transport, or rather a specific technology of war. Calvalry is a theory of opearation. The key component of this theory being rapid mobility. Units of the USA are not known as "Cavalry" for historical reasons, they are known as "Cavalry" becasue that is what they are. That the mobility is provided by helicopters today (and possibly tilt rotar aircraft in the future) is a minor distinction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffwarnica (talk • contribs) 05:27, 9 March 2004 (UTC)

dragoons were originally mounted infantry but later on, became more of heavy cavalry. for example Napoleon's "Cuirassiers" at waterloo were dragoons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.8.34 (talk) 18:30, 30 August 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree - the word is specifically from cavalier, French for horseman, derived from Old Italian cavaliere, from Late Latin caballrius, from Latin caballus, horse.  Fawcett5 22:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The word's origins have nothing to do with how the concept of Cavalry has evolved. I must agree that the Cavalry designations that continue today are less because of historical ties to a unit designation as Cavalry (although they are celebrated and highly treasured), and more to do with historical ties to mission and concept of employment. It was the horse's speed and mobility that gave Cavalry the advantage, just as today's "steeds" continue to do. --Born2flie 12:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Anonymous user you have copied a statement of a military official explaining why the US calls its mobile units cavalry. We already covered this up by saying that there is modern cavalry without horses. Wandalstouring 12:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't delete my comments simply because you find it inconvenient or irrelevant to your decisions about the article. I recommend a discussion something more like, "Born2flie, we already modified the article after considering anonymous users discussion." You know, something civilized. And, I am not the anonymous user who posted the original discussion topic, and my comments, except where designated as quotes and usually with citations or reference, originate with me. Thank you. --Born2flie 22:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Who deleted what? I can not remember doing anything like this on purpose. Wandalstouring 00:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It was your first edit after I delineated between all the discussions (check the history page). I accept that it was unintentional. When my comment disappeared and you addressed the anonymous user, I took it to mean you thought I was anonymous user come back to make the case again. --Born2flie 03:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Demise
Didn't the Cossacks do some important, victorious calvary operations for the Germans in WWII?-LtNOWIS 04:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, some did fight for Germany (often as an anti-partisan force, almost always as dragoons). Others fought with the Soviets, and occasionally cossack would fight cossack.12.150.117.30 19:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Stirrups
Something needs to be said about stirrups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.89.166.237 (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * look above, look on cavalry tactics. reading is a useful ability. Wandalstouring 00:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Winged Lancers
I have removed the link to "Winged Lancers" because it seems redundant--the material is already covered in the "History" section of the "Hussar" article, which in turn already possesses a working link among the list. If anybody objects to this move then let's discuss the pros and cons here. Lay 11:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Winged lancers were the Polish unit and they were nice enough to provide us with plenty of pictures. Currently there is rarely a cavalry picture not showing a Polish winged lancer. Wandalstouring 16:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Asian Cavalry
Can somebody please help me improve this section? I know there are many cavalry forces I haven't covered, like those of the Gok Turuk, the Kushana, and the Rajputs and Marathas, but I'm hampered by a serious lack of sources down here. Lay 02:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * good job, do you have some pictures? Wandalstouring 13:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe how little Turks were mentioned in this article. I mean those guys practically invented cavalry warfare! It's like not mentioning Italians in an article about Renaissance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.98.36 (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

World War II
The last cavalry charges in modern warfare were seen in the Second World War, where Polish and Cossack cavalry regiments scored unexpected successes against German armored advances " In which battle was this? -Colin MacDonald — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.121.229 (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Polish cavalry scored with their sabres against tanks? Show me sources. All reports state the Polish cavalry were brave to attack, but few could report their perspective of the events afterwards. Wandalstouring 13:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Not with their sabers. I think there have been plenty of references mentioned for the success of Polish cavalrymen in WW2, both in this article and in the more specific pages (such as the page for the Battle of Krojanty, the most classic example). Lay 13:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The poles never charged tanks with their cavalry, the cavalry was used as dragoons, skirmishers, raiders and for recon as well as towing anti-tank and anti-aircraft guns, the few times the poles did charge was against german and only then when they caught them off-guard, what happened at krojanty was the poles attacked some german infantry and were attacked in turn by machine-gun bearing german APCs, the poles retreated.

Polish Winged Hussar (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Polish Winged Hussar

Infamous cavalry forces
Here is the list of infamous cavalry forces. Never mind if it stays really short.

I want to point out that we can add almost anything on horseback in the famous cavalry section. A new division could be useful like: 1. types of cavalry / 2. cavalry forces Wandalstouring 16:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Expand the non-european section
I cann't imagine the most important central asia nomads cann't be placed as the center of this article.We here talk too much of european ones.--Ksyrie 07:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthur more,there are no Indigenous peoples of the Americas part.--Ksyrie 07:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Indigenous peoples of the Americas only used horses after they were introduced by the Europeans. Furthermore they did not really use them as Cavalry units as such, rather as skirmishing and raiding parties. This probably qualifies on the fringe of being Cavalry units but I wouldn't expect more than a brief mention in the article. There is also some mention of Central Asian cavalry, although I agree this should be expanded upon along with the introduction of East Asian cavalry. The article will always have a European focus however as Cavalry was undoubtedly a mainly European method of warfare. Canderra 12:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not really cavalry? What you've described is practically the definition of light cavalry. 62.172.108.23 (talk) 18:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Overlap with Horses in warfare
There is massive overlap with Horses in warfare, formerly War Horse. I have spent too much time on it, but any brave editor who fancies a challenge.... BrainyBabe 22:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's true...perhaps they should just be merged? Otherwise the seperate roles of each article (whatever they may be) would have to be clearly defined. Theonlyedge 20:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Past tense
Why is this article in past-tense? Mounted units do still exist. MVMosin 20:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question...but the fact is; ionly a tiny fraction of essentially ceremonial/useless true military cavalry units exist today. Theonlyedge 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cavalry ranks?
During the late nineteenth/early twentieth century in proffessional armies, what rank did cavalry soldiers hold? I would assume they would be senior to privates, but I don't think all were officers either...does anyone know? It should be added to the history section. Theonlyedge 20:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In the British Army, an ordinary cavalry soldier was called a Trooper. They were equal in rank and pay to an infantry private, though perhaps they had more prestige. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Text corrections
Could RiderByNight please restore the reference to the modern Australian and New Zealand Armies misplaced by his or her last edit please. Also the reference to the Canadian Governor General's Body Guard has been confused with that of the Indian 61st Cavalry. Thank you. 210.246.8.55 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Maratha cavalry -- Saparate article needed VISHAL1976
The Marātha horseman This article may conclude with one or two extracts to give an idea of the way in which the Marātha soldiery took the field. Grant Duff describes the troopers as follows: [208] “The Marātha horsemen are commonly dressed in a pair of light breeches covering the knee, a turban which many of them fasten by passing a fold of it under the chin, a frock of quilted cotton, and a cloth round the waist, with which they generally gird on their swords in preference to securing them with their belts. The horseman is armed with a sword and shield; a proportion in each body carry matchlocks, but the great national weapon is the spear, in the use of which and the management of their horse they evince both grace and dexterity. The spearmen have generally a sword, and sometimes a shield; but the latter is unwieldy and only carried in case the spear should be broken. The trained spearmen may always be known by their riding very long, the ball of the toe touching the stirrup; some of the matchlockmen and most of the Brāhmans ride very short and ungracefully. The bridle consists of a single headstall of cotton-rope, with a small but very severe flexible bit”

12. Cavalry in the field The following account of the Marātha cavalry is given in General Hislop’s Summary of the Marātha and Pindāri Campaigns of 1817–1819:

“The Marāthas possess extraordinary skill in horsemanship, and so intimate an acquaintance with their horses, that they can make their animals do anything, even in full speed, in halting, wheeling, etc.; they likewise use the spear with remarkable dexterity, sometimes in full gallop, grasping their spears short and quickly sticking the point in the ground; still holding the handles, they turn their horse suddenly round it, thus performing on the point of a spear as on a pivot the same circle round and round again. Their horses likewise never leave the particular class or body to which they belong; so that if the rider should be knocked off, away gallops the animal after its fellows, never separating itself from the main body. Every Marātha brings his own horse and his own arms with him to the field, and possibly in the interest they possess in this private equipment we shall find their usual shyness to expose themselves or even to make a bold vigorous attack. But if armies or troops could be frightened by appearances these horses of the Marāthas would dishearten the bravest, actually darkening the plains with their numbers and clouding the horizon with [209]dust for miles and miles around. A little fighting, however, goes a great way with them, as with most others of the native powers in India.”

On this account the Marāthas were called razāh-bazān or lance-wielders. One Muhammadan historian says: “They so use the lance that no cavalry can cope with them. Some 20,000 or 30,000 lances are held up against their enemy so close together as not to leave a span between their heads. If horsemen try to ride them down the points of the spears are levelled at the assailants and they are unhorsed. While cavalry are charging them they strike their lances against each other and the noise so frightens the horses of the enemy that they turn round and bolt.”19 The battle-cries of the Marāthas were, ‘Har, Har Mahādeo,’ and ‘Gopāl, Gopāl.’20

13. Military administration An interesting description of the internal administration of the Marātha cavalry is contained in the letter on the Marāthas by Colonel Tone already quoted. But his account must refer to a period of declining efficiency and cannot represent the military system at its best:

“In the great scale of rank and eminence which is one peculiar feature of Hindu institutions the Marātha holds a very inferior situation, being just removed one degree above those castes which are considered absolutely unclean. He is happily free from the rigorous observances as regards food which fetter the actions of the higher castes. He can eat of all kinds of food with the exception of beef; can dress his meal at all times and seasons; can partake of all victuals dressed by any caste superior to his own; washing and praying are not indispensable in his order and may be practised or omitted at pleasure. The three great tribes which compose the Marātha caste are the Kunbi or farmer, the Dhangar or shepherd and the Goāla or cowherd; to this original cause may perhaps be ascribed that great simplicity of manner which distinguishes the Marātha people. Homer mentions princesses going in person to the fountain to wash their household linen. I can affirm having seen the daughters of a prince who was able to bring an army into the field much larger than the whole Greek confederacy, [210]making bread with their own hands and otherwise employed in the ordinary business of domestic housewifery. I have seen one of the most powerful chiefs of the Empire, after a day of action, assisting in kindling a fire to keep himself warm during the night, and sitting on the ground on a spread saddle-cloth dictating to his secretaries.

“The chief military force of the Marāthas consists in their cavalry, which may be divided into four distinct classes: First the Khāsi Pagah or household forces of the prince; these are always a fine well-appointed body, the horses excellent, being the property of the Sirkār, who gives a monthly allowance to each trooper of the value of about eight rupees. The second class are the cavalry furnished by the Sillādārs,21 who contract to supply a certain number of horse on specified terms, generally about Rs. 35 a month, including the trooper’s pay. The third and most numerous description are volunteers, who join the camp bringing with them their own horse and accoutrements; their pay is generally from Rs. 40 to Rs. 50 a month in proportion to the value of their horse. There is a fourth kind of native cavalry called Pindāris, who are mere marauders, serve without any pay and subsist but by plunder, a fourth part of which they give to the Sirkār; but these are so very licentious a body that they are not employed but in one or two of the Marātha services.

“The troops collected in this manner are under no discipline whatever and engage for no specific period, but quit the army whenever they please; with the exception of furnishing a picquet while in camp, they do no duty but in the day of battle.

“The Marātha cavalry is always irregularly and badly paid; the household troops scarcely ever receive money, but are furnished with a daily allowance of coarse flour and some other ingredients from the bazār which just enable them to exist. The Sillādār is very nearly as badly [211]situated. In his arrangements with the State he has allotted to him a certain proportion of jungle where he pastures his cattle; here he and his family reside, and his sole occupation when not on actual service is increasing his Pagah or troop by breeding out of his mares, of which the Marātha cavalry almost entirely consist. There are no people in the world who understand the method of rearing and multiplying the breed of cattle equal to the Marāthas. It is by no means uncommon for a Sillādār to enter a service with one mare and in a few years be able to muster a very respectable Pagah. They have many methods of rendering the animal prolific; they back their colts much earlier than we do and they are consequently more valuable as they come sooner on the effective strength.

“When called upon for actual service the Sillādār is obliged to give muster. Upon this occasion it is always necessary that the Brāhman who takes it should have a bribe; and indeed the Hāzri, as the muster is termed, is of such a nature that it could not pass by any fair or honourable means. Not only any despicable tattus are substituted in the place of horses but animals are borrowed to fill up the complement. Heel-ropes and grain-bags are produced as belonging to cattle supposed to be at grass; in short every mode is practised to impose on the Sirkār, which in turn reimburses itself by irregular and bad payments; for it is always considered if the Sillādārs receive six months’ arrears out of the year that they are exceedingly well paid. The Volunteers who join the camp are still worse situated, as they have no collective force, and money is very seldom given in a Marātha State without being extorted. In one word, the native cavalry are the worst-paid body of troops in the world. But there is another grand error in this mode of raising troops which is productive of the worst effects. Every man in a Marātha camp is totally independent; he is the proprietor of the horse he rides, which he is never inclined to risk, since without it he can get no service. This single circumstance destroys all enterprise and spirit in the soldier, whose sole business, instead of being desirous of distinguishing himself, is to keep out of the way of danger; for notwithstanding [212]every horseman on entering a service has a certain value put upon his horse, yet should he lose it even in action he never receives any compensation or at least none proportioned to his loss. If at any time a Sillādār is disgusted with the service he can go away without meeting any molestation even though in the face of an enemy. In fact the pay is in general so shamefully irregular that a man is justified in resorting to any measure, however apparently unbecoming, to attain it. It is also another very curious circumstance attending this service that many great Sillādārs have troops in the pay of two or three chiefs at the same time, who are frequently at open war with each other.

14. Sitting Dharna “To recover an arrear of pay there is but one known mode which is universally adopted in all native services, the Mughal as well as the Marātha; this is called Dharna,22 which consists in putting the debtor, be he who he will, into a state of restraint or imprisonment, until satisfaction be given or the money actually obtained. Any person in the Sirkār’s service has a right to demand his pay of the Prince or his minister, and to sit in Dharna if it be not given; nor will he meet with the least hindrance in doing so; for none would obey an order that interfered with the Dharna, as it is a common cause; nor does the soldier incur the slightest charge of mutiny for his conduct, or suffer in the smallest manner in the opinion of his Chief, so universal is the custom. The Dharna is sometimes carried to very violent lengths and may either be executed on the Prince or his minister indifferently, with the same effect; as the Chief always makes it a point of honour not to eat or drink while his Diwān is in duress; sometimes the Dharna lasts for many days, during which time the party upon whom it is exercised is not suffered to eat or drink or wash or pray, or in short is not permitted to move from the spot where he sits, which is frequently bare-headed in the sun, until the money or security be given; so general is this mode of recovery that I suppose the Marātha Chiefs may be said to be nearly one-half of their time in a state of Dharna. [213] 15. The infantry “In the various Marātha services there are very little more than a bare majority who are Marāthas by caste, and very few instances occur of their ever entering into the infantry at all. The sepoys in the pay of the different princes are recruited in Hindustān, and principally of the Rājpūt and Pūrbia caste; these are perhaps the finest race of men in the world for figure and appearance; of lofty stature, strong, graceful and athletic; of acute feelings, high military pride, quick, apprehensive, brave, prudent and economic; at the same time it must be confessed they are impatient of discipline, and naturally inclined to mutiny. They are mere soldiers of fortune and serve only for their pay. There are also a great number of Musalmāns who serve in the different Marātha armies, some of whom have very great commands.

16. Character of the Marātha armies “The Marātha cavalry at times make very long and rapid marches, in which they do not suffer themselves to be interrupted by the monsoon or any violence of weather. In very pressing exigencies it is incredible the fatigue a Marātha horseman will endure; frequently many days pass without his enjoying one regular meal, but he depends entirely for subsistence on the different corn-fields through which the army passes: a few heads of juāri, which he chafes in his hands while on horseback, will serve him for the day; his horse subsists on the same fare, and with the addition of opium, which the Marāthas frequently administer to their cattle, is enabled to perform incredible marches.”

The above analysis of the Marātha troops indicates that their real character was that of freebooting cavalry, largely of the same type as, though no doubt greatly superior in tone and discipline to the Pindāris. Like them they lived by plundering the country. “The Marāthas,” Elphinstone remarked, “are excellent foragers. Every morning at daybreak long lines of men on small horses and ponies are seen issuing from their camps in all directions, who return before night loaded with fodder for the cattle, with firewood torn down from houses, and grain dug up from the pits where it had been concealed by the villagers; while other detachments go to a distance for some days and collect proportionately [214]larger supplies of the same kind.”23 They could thus dispense with a commissariat, and being nearly all mounted were able to make extraordinarily long marches, and consequently to carry out effectively surprise attacks and when repulsed to escape injury in the retreat. Even at Pānīpat where their largest regular force took the field under Sadāsheo Rao Bhao, he had 70,000 regular and irregular cavalry and only 15,000 infantry, of whom 9000 were hired sepoys under a Muhammadan leader. The Marāthas were at their best in attacking the slow-moving and effeminate Mughal armies, while during their period of national ascendancy under the Peshwa there was no strong military power in India which could oppose their forays. When they were by the skill of their opponents at length brought to a set battle, their fighting qualities usually proved to be distinctly poor. At Pānīpat they lost the day by a sudden panic and flight after Ibrahīm Khān Gārdi had obtained for them a decided advantage; while at Argaon and Assaye their performances were contemptible. After the recovery from Pānīpat and the rise of the independent Marātha states, the assistance of European officers was invoked to discipline and train the soldiery. Link:- http://www.gutenberg.org/files/20668/20668-h/20668-h.htm

24 [215] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.252.145 (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bitwa pod Komarowem w 1920 roku.jpg
The image Image:Bitwa pod Komarowem w 1920 roku.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --13:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Crupper
Cavalry-related additions to Crupper would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Argentina
Image:Granaderos-san-martin.JPG belongs somewhere here, but whether on Cavalry or Dragoon I don't know. --Una Smith (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman and Greek Cavalry
I have done a large amount of research and found that the idea of roman and greek cavalry playing a minor role or being adjunct to the infantry is a myth, roman and greek cavalry were used in a decisive shock role

Polish Winged Hussar (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Polish Winged Hussar

Scope
This article does not address or connect to a discussion of the role of cavalry in the modern era, e.g., armored cavalry regiments; or current uses of cavalry or mounted forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.42.184.103 (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The roles of modern armoured units are a very different concept to the horse cavalry to which this article is devoted. Any linkage is simply a historic tradition dating back to the interim period when mounted cavalry was being converted to mechanised or armoured roles and the regiments concerned wanted (not unreasonably) to preserve some aspect of their past. Wikipedia contains a significant number of easily found articles dealing with the complexities of modern armoured warfare. Adding even a summary of these to the already lengthy "Cavalry" article would probably make it impossibly long. Current uses of mounted forces (which are very restricted outside ceremonial roles) are in fact covered in the present article. 121.73.91.201 (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC) Buistr (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Origins of chariots
This article does not cover that topic adequately, and whilst not the main thrust, it is worth noting this: the origins of the ahriot remain controversial. So it should present here only one view that it originatewd amongst some "indo_Iranian" Sintasha peoples. More likely the civilizations of mesopotamia, etc (Assyria, Babylonia). And this is exactly also where they later moved off the chariots and went straight to horse back. As soon as I collect sources, I will amend the origins section. Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Indian cavalry
Incorrect link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20K-Man12 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

British or American English
This article is a mish mosh of British and American English; I just counted approximately 28 armors and 22 armours for example. WP:CONSISTENCY and good writing would say one should be chosen. Is there any preference? Thanks, SchreiberBike (talk) 02:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Difficult to apply the usual Wiki-rules in this particular instance. The subject matter of the article ranges across more than two thousand years and a great many societies. British English, American English, Indian English, Canadian English, Australian English etc are all applicable to particular sections or passages. British (or at least European/Asian) subjects are probably dominant but I don't think that the numerous US editors contributing would be happy to see their national spellings (color, armor etc) vanish from at least the paragraphs relating to North American horsemen. Better perhaps to accept that "Cavalry" is one article where multiculturalism is unavoidable - however untidy. Buistr (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC))

Third oldest (after infantry and chariotry)
Chariotry being older than cavalry seems an extraordinary claim to me as a layman. Can we have a source for this? There may be an issue of definitions here, because surely Eurasian nomads fought on horseback way before 2000 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.93.31 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

North and South American cavalry
I'm seeing sections dedicated entirely for Asian, Arab, Greek and numerous Eurpoean cavalry, but none from the Americas. I think that a section dedicated to American cavalry such as Native Americans (i.e. Sioux, Comance, Cheyenne, Apache), Gaucho, Llanero, Mapuche, and the cowboys/Rough Riders deserves a section. If no one objects, I'll work on it.09:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulls123 (talk • contribs)


 * Sounds a good idea but isn't "Cavalry" too specific a subject to encompass the wide ranging topics that you propose. Essentially this article is concerned with organized and mounted military forces across the world and through the ages. As such it is already very lengthy and includes significant amounts of material on North American (Canadian and US) horse soldiers, though admittedly little as yet on their Latin American counterparts. Additional material on the notable tribal warrior/social class categories that you name would be a valuable addition to Wikipedia but might be better added to such existing articles as Apache, Rough Riders, Gauchos etc. etc. Anyway good luck with your work. Buistr (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Equine?
Should Cavalry articles include WikiProject Equine? For example, this article? --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Regretfully I don't think there would be much interest at WikiProject Equine - the people there are horse enthusiasts (and often owners) with little concern for military history. Some years ago there was friction when Milhist editors attempted to make changes to an article concerning horses in World War I - which was fiercely guarded by their WPEquine counterparts. A case of diverse cultures clashing. Buistr (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the warning and Wiki history. I added two templates to Talk:Mounted archery, and made some minor fixes to the article. We will see what happens.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Polish cavalry in Sochaczew(1939)a.jpg

Photo Size
I have added a photo of Turkish Cavalry in the aftermath of Battle of Dunplupinar, 1922, but it came out too large. If anyone can help with re-sizing of this photo (from another Wiki site) I would appreciate it. Murat (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have reduced the photo size to more closely match the surrounding text. Thanks for providing a dramatic illustration of an actual battle scene. Buistr (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC).


 * Thank you! Murat (talk) 23:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)