NationStates Jolt Archive

What do think is the greatest cavalry of all-time? By cavalry I mean soldiers who fought mounted on horses, and performed excellently under their given conditions.

Examples:

The Mongol HORDE: Light cavalry armed with bows, this group helped Genghis Khan forge the second-largest empire the world has ever known, by using thunderclap-speed and often living-off only their horses (milk and blood).

Apache Horsemen: Specializing in hit-and-run tactics, the Apache cavalry were mounted on wild (and often stolen) horses, and gave the Spanish a run for their money. They proved an incredible thorn in the side of a few nations under the leadership of the ruthless Geronimo.

Napoléon Bonaparte's Hussars: Not only his hussars, but his entire cavalry helped him conquer much of Europe. Dashing and bold, these arrogant soldiers often had fun at other's expense, and were particularly unpleasent to encounter on the battlefield.

Takeda Cavalry: The most renowned horsemen of Japan, the Takeda Cavalry nearly made their clan conquerors of Japan, but collapsed under the power of firearms possessed by the Oda clan at the climatic Battle of Nagashino

Missouri Bushwhackers: From before the American Civil War, to the end of it, the Bushwhackers proved their combat prowess. Caring multiple revolvers and often firing two at once, the Bushwhackers could make Confederate border-raids (sometimes unauthorized), and leave before any reinforcements arrived. They perfected guerrilla tactics.

Teutonic Knights: An order of Christian warrior-monks that started in central Europe during the Medieval Age. Expanding outwards, they made their fellow Christians shake in their shoes for time, while they were virtually unbeatable on the battlefield until their defeat in 1410 at the Battle of Tannenberg.

Of course, there are many other great cavalries. That was just sampling. Which cavalry do you think was the greatest of all-time?

Gotta go with:

http://www.poloniatoday.com/images/Hussar.jpg

Who were basically unbeatable for almost 300 years, and provided the model for future cavalry.

Do panzers count? They're not exactly calvary in the traditional sense, but I've heard some military historians refer to armor as cavalry.

Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders!

Teddy Roosevelt and his Rough Riders!

Riding through Cuba, except for the horses who drowned when they were dropped of the boat or the men who drowned chasing said horses.

I vote for the knights of europe pre-longbow edition.

http://66.81.80.139/Bobinator45a6be60b76e2.jpg

Oh yeah!

Mongol Calvary.

Do panzers count? They're not exactly calvary in the traditional sense, but I've heard some military historians refer to armor as cavalry.

I defined my terms above.

http://66.81.80.139/Bobinator45a6be60b76e2.jpg

Oh yeah!

I was gonna do that! Well done, my friend.

Polish hussars, Hungarian hussars, Vendal horsemen, Mongolian and Turkic horsemen. And bear cavalry ftw.

I'd say the Mongolian horse archer. They were the reason the Mongolian armies had uncontestable dominance on land for so many centuries.

Macedonian horsemen. Had it not been for their skill and flanking ability(not to mention they were actual men, not just sissies who sat in a saddle and shot a bow while running away from whoever persued them), Alexander would have never been so successful.

Byzantine cataphracts, the Mamluks (who kicked the Mongols' butts several times), the Polish Uhlans (of whom Bonaparte said one Polish cavalryman was worth ten French soldiers), the Finnish Hakkapeliitat, and the assorted Cossacks. Thomas Jackson's "Foot Cavalry" deserves a special mention. ;)

Do panzers count? They're not exactly calvary in the traditional sense, but I've heard some military historians refer to armor as cavalry.

It's not just historians. Armored Cav. and certain Air Assault Cav. units still carry out the same scouting, screening, skirmishing and raiding functions of the light cavalry while armored units carry out the shock role of heavy cavalry. The horse artillery role is now carried out by the attack helos of Air Cav. units.

Click Stand']Riding through Cuba, except for the horses who drowned when they were dropped of the boat or the men who drowned chasing said horses.

And that's not to mention the popular version of the Battle of San Juan Hill, which seems to leave out the enormous contribution of the Buffalo Soldiers.

What about elephant cavalry?

Hussars hands down.

depends on how you prefer a cavalry to be working... One might think a massive force is better while an other one might think that the best cavalry used the best tactics...

Personally i think that effectiveness should be the criteria, and then it would be, at least in my opinion, a (group of) bandit(s)/murderer(s) in whatever age area they were living... Since they are more likely to kill a way bigger force then they are composed of... Imagine an army as efficient as a guy like billy the kid whom killed 21 men... They would need to kill 21 times as much soldiers as they are composed of, or when looking at some armies of 10.000 souls, 210.000...

Cossacks!
Come on, not only were they feared by everybody who had fought them, they were a bunch of hard-drinking, womanizing, looting, pilfering, men on small horses. And there were a whooooooole lot of them. They were probably the largest cavalry force in Europe, if not the world, during the height of their usage.
They were like pirates, but on land!

Of course, when used incorrectly they were utter garbage (coughthinredlinecough), but hey, that goes without saying.

I'll go with the Mongols Huns and other Steppe horse nomads

Chaos chosen knights

...

Oh, we're talking about real calvary.

I'd have to put a vote in for the teutonic knights

JEB Stuart's Confederate Cavalry. Proving a place for themselves in the twilight of the fighting horseman.

I'm going to second the vote for the Macedonian cavalry. Without their development under Philip and perfection by Alexander, Greek culture would never have spread so far. Also, the Macedonian Phalanx was pretty much unbeatable even when facing massive odds when matched with the Cavalry. The late successor kingdoms did not have the strength in cavalry and it shows in their hit and miss battles.

I'd hate to be a U.S. Cavalry officer in the mid-1800's facing the Sioux Indians (er, Lakota Tribe or whatever the PC term may be)

I'd hate to be a U.S. Cavalry officer in the mid-1800's facing the Sioux Indians (er, Lakota Tribe or whatever the PC term may be)

Many of the roaming tribes in the West were simply unstoppable until the 1800s. Once the got horses (courtesy of the Spanish) and guns (from Spain and other countries) they dominated the prairies. I found it really interesting, it wasn't until the mid 1800s that the US could really beat them. And part of it was the bison butchering strategy (basically killing all the bison in America to deprive the roaming tribes of their livelihood) which is why there aren't too many bison hanging around these days. Anyways, interesting stuff.

In no particular order:

Mongol Cavalry
Hussars, particularly Polish Winged Hussars
Tuetonic Knights
Mamluks (stopped the Mongols!)
Cossacks

Perhaps Byzantine Cataphracts...

The Parthians?

Napoleon's Hussars by far.

The Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Half a league half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred:
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns' he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd ?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd & thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack & Russian
Reel'd from the sabre-stroke,
Shatter'd & sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse & hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wonder'd.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

JEB Stuart and his Confederate Cavalry were one of the key reasons the Confederacy even lasted as long as it did back in the war of succession. They strike me as some of the best cavalry ever.

The Sarmations had a proud and great cavalry tradition and were influental in the developement of Heavy Cavalry traditions throughout Europe. (No I'm not talking about that silly movie based off the king Arthur legend, I'm talking about the real world.)

One I'm totally surprised I havn't seen... the Huns. The Huns were the biggest threat to the Roman Empire since Carthage, they were so fearsome that the Eastern Roman Empire bribed them to stay away and were one of the key factors in the fall of the West. The Huns conquered numerous people, including the Sarmations and the Goths (who didn't flee to Roman lands). They were also influential in the Pope becoming the most powerful man in Christendom (If you want a history lesson on that just ask). The Huns made both halves of the Roman Empire shudder at the thought of them knocking on thier doorsteps. The only problem they had was a lack of central leadership, Atilla was a great warrior and leader but failed to secure a lasting hierarchy; that is the ONLY reason the Huns didn't conquer most of Europe.

Macedonian cavalry, most especially Alexander's "Companions" were one of the greatest cavalry forces the world has ever seen.

Spanish Lancers were likely the heaviest horse cavalry the world has ever seen, nobody wanted to be ridden down by them even after the invention of the musket.

The Tuetonic knights were almost invincible... they had greater flexibility than their closest rivals in France and were probably some of the bravest warriors to walk the earth, those combined with thier skills and piety made them the model for all European knights.

The Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred, Lord Tennyson - snip for great poemage

I was going to say these guys. Who else gets a great poem written about their worst defeat in history? Imagine what their victories must have been like....

I was going to say these guys. Who else gets a great poem written about their worst defeat in history? Imagine what their victories must have been like....

It was more of a very, very, phyrric victory, since they DID manage to drive the Russians from their guns, albiet with something like %40 casualties.

They were hardly spectacular though, and the only reason they got a poem was because it was the Russians who made them pay so much for a rather pointless bit of land which could have been taken far more easily via other means.
Remember, this was the era of the Great Game. The Russians were getting the Soviet Union treatment from the Brits because they were pretty much the only nation (as the Brits saw it) who could threaten India.

Of course, the Russians did eventually take over India. Its a well known fact that Ghandi was actually a Soviet agent, and India seems to have better relations with Russia than the US, which makes them a bunch of dirty commies.

Cossacks!
Come on, not only were they feared by everybody who had fought them, they were a bunch of hard-drinking, womanizing, looting, pilfering, men on small horses. And there were a whooooooole lot of them. They were probably the largest cavalry force in Europe, if not the world, during the height of their usage.
They were like pirates, but on land!

Of course, when used incorrectly they were utter garbage (coughthinredlinecough), but hey, that goes without saying.

Yes. Cossacks were the gold standard. When people described the horsemanship of American Indians, they compared them to the Cossacks - calling them things like "Cossacks of the Plains."

The Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred, Lord Tennyson
When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wonder'd.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

An ending that needs answering. I give youy Kipling:

The Last of the Light Brigade


There were thirty million English who talked of England's might,
There were twenty broken troopers who lacked a bed for the night.
They had neither food nor money, they had neither service nor trade;
They were only shiftless soldiers, the last of the Light Brigade.

They felt that life was fleeting; they knew not that art was long,
That though they were dying of famine, they lived in deathless song.
They asked for a little money to keep the wolf from the door;
And the thirty million English sent twenty pounds and four !

They laid their heads together that were scarred and lined and grey;
Keen were the Russian sabres, but want was keener than they;
And an old Troop-Sergeant muttered, "Let us go to the man who writes
The things on Balaclava the kiddies at school recites."

They went without bands or colours, a regiment ten-file strong,
To look for the Master-singer who had crowned them all in his song;
And, waiting his servant's order, by the garden gate they stayed,
A desolate little cluster, the last of the Light Brigade.

They strove to stand to attention, to straighen the toil-bowed back;
They drilled on an empty stomach, the loose-knit files fell slack;
With stooping of weary shoulders, in garments tattered and frayed,
They shambled into his presence, the last of the Light Brigade.

The old Troop-Sergeant was spokesman, and "Beggin' your pardon," he said,
"You wrote o' the Light Brigade, sir. Here's all that isn't dead.
An' it's all come true what you wrote, sir, regardin' the mouth of hell;
For we're all of us nigh to the workhouse, an' we thought we'd call an' tell.

"No, thank you, we don't want food, sir; but couldn't you take an' write
A sort of 'to be continued' and 'see next page' o' the fight?
We think that someone has blundered, an' couldn't you tell 'em how?
You wrote we were heroes once, sir. Please, write we are starving now."

The poor little army departed, limping and lean and forlorn.
And the heart of the Master-singer grew hot with "the scorn of scorn."
And he wrote for them wonderful verses that swept the land like flame,
Till the fatted souls of the English were scourged with the thing called Shame.

O thirty million English that babble of England's might,
Behold there are twenty heroes who lack their food to-night;
Our children's children are lisping to "honour the charge they made - "
And we leave to the streets and the workhouse the charge of the Light Brigade!

I was going to say these guys. Who else gets a great poem written about their worst defeat in history? Imagine what their victories must have been like....
It was more of a very, very, phyrric victory, since they DID manage to drive the Russians from their guns, albiet with something like %40 casualties.

Blaim Tennyson for the fame. It was the 93rd Regiment of Foot, Sutherland Highlanders who really the Brits behind and deserve the lionization for Balaklava not being a serious defeat.

The 13th Light Dragoons was 673 strong when they rode into the valley (661 according to some accounts). They suffered 127 WIAs and 118 KIAs. That's 36% casualties, 17% fatal, not a terribly high rate.

They were hardly spectacular though, and the only reason they got a poem was because it was the Russians who made them pay so much for a rather pointless bit of land which could have been taken far more easily via other means.

See above.

Of course, the Russians did eventually take over India. Its a well known fact that Ghandi was actually a Soviet agent, and India seems to have better relations with Russia than the US, which makes them a bunch of dirty commies.

Say what?

The Charge of the Light Brigade by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

Half a league half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred:
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns' he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd ?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do & die,
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley'd & thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Flash'd all their sabres bare,
Flash'd as they turn'd in air
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army while
All the world wonder'd:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro' the line they broke;
Cossack & Russian
Reel'd from the sabre-stroke,
Shatter'd & sunder'd.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
While horse & hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro' the jaws of Death,
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wonder'd.
Honour the charge they made!
Honour the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred!

Cliff Notes Version.

A bunch of guys on horses got slaughtered for no good reason because their commanders were corrupt morons. But it rhymes, so it's heroic.

Cliff Notes Version.

A bunch of guys on horses got slaughtered for no good reason because their commanders were corrupt morons. But it rhymes, so it's heroic.

And the Cliff Notes version of "The Last of the Light Brigade":
England* forgets her heros once they move on to something new, leaving them to rot.

*Not to single out England because it's the poem's subject - most places do that.

the Blues and Royals of course, they still count as a cavalry force yet also have access to one of the better armies of the world

either that or Polish Hussars for sticking anything they could find to themselves

Either the German Gothic knights (medieval times) heavily armoured as close to a tank you could get without adding wheels, and a big gun.
Or the Praetorian Cavalry, i think the Roman forces had brilliant organisation and some of the best heavy infantry of their time, but without their cavalry their flanks would have been closed in.

The cavalry of Alexander. The Mongolians. The Mameluks who defeated the Mongolian calvary.

The Mamluks are up there, as are the Mongols. The Teutonic knights were EXTREMELY bad ass, but also extreme dicks...the various Byzantine cavalry units were all very effective as well. I'd still have to go with either the Cossacks or Hussars, though.

JEB Stuart's Confederate Cavalry. Proving a place for themselves in the twilight of the fighting horseman.

This, because I was in it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3d_acr)

And this

http://www.michcavalry.com/sitebuilder/images/bw_mcb_logo-168x169.jpg

Polish Winged Hussars and the Polish Lancers of Napoleon's army. The best light cavalry of all time were the Comanche.

The British cavalry of the Napoleonic period were apparently the best in the world... but also the worst disciplined.

I'd go for the Polish Lancers of Napoleon, feared across Europe or knight of the High Middle Ages, before pikes or firearms had made their impact against the armoured cavalry. They don't have the plate mail of the later knights, but are the rulers of the battlefield in their period.

Napoleon's Curiassiers or Byzantine Cataphracts are also worth a look in, for sheer heavy-armoured goodness.

If we're going for "At the time", then the Sassanid Cavalry (which then became the Byzantine Cataphracts) were pretty respectable.

Ever?

Stalin's Siberians had a pretty decent cavalry element, used to great effect to crush the Sixth Army and all of that.

I say the Mongol horde. My boyfriend says the bear calvary or the Rohan horsemen. When he's being serious, he agrees with me.

It's HORDE! NOT hoard you fiend!

Mongols all the way. Huns after that...

It's HORDE! NOT hoard you fiend!

Mongols all the way. Huns after that...
The Goths were pretty good. They managed to trounce a Roman army and kill an emperor at Adrianople.

The Goths were pretty good. They managed to trounce a Roman army and kill an emperor at Adrianople.

I could be wrong, but I don't think they were exclusively or largely calvary. But yeah, the Goths are beast.

I could be wrong, but I don't think they were exclusively or largely calvary. But yeah, the Goths are beast.
Probably not, actually. Although I believe they had the edge over the Romans, cavalry wise, in that particular battle.

I'd say the Mongolian horse archer. They were the reason the Mongolian armies had uncontestable dominance on land for so many centuries.

Well, that and the ten-to-one numerical advantage. Seriously, the Mongol horde had over 300,000 members.

Well, that and the ten-to-one numerical advantage. Seriously, the Mongol horde had over 300,000 members.

300000 arrows flying at you = not fun.

And no one could catch up to them.

The Indians fighting ability was always overblown. They were usually ambushing a small number of troops and never any kind of real army and when they were, they always got beat down easily. I don't think you can compare them to any kind of real mounted military force in history.

Think about it. The Indians greatest victory was when they managed to massacre 265 poorly led troops when they had a huge advantage in numbers.

That wouldn't even have been a skirmish anyone remembered in the Civil War. If the government had actually amassed a huge army to defeat the Indians like against the Confederates or Mexicans of that period, they would never have gotten any kind of reputation at all and those like Sitting Bull and Geronimo would never have been written about.

Man to man I would say the Teutonic Knights.

Tuetonic Knights
Mamluks (stopped the Mongols!)


So say you have an open field. In the center there is a small hill (say, 200 meters wide) with some forest on top.

1500 Teutonic Knights vs. 1500 Mamluks, who wins?

The four horsemen. You'd have to combine all the other calvary forces past and present, to accomplish the amount of damage and death that they will supposedly have. -nods-

So say you have an open field. In the center there is a small hill (say, 200 meters wide) with some forest on top.

1500 Teutonic Knights vs. 1500 Mamluks, who wins?

Very tough question! I'm not an expert on either, but I'll give my opinion.

Both Teutonic Knights and Mamluks served in the role as heavy cavalry, which were shock cavalry. They broke through enemy lines and laid waste to enemy formations.

From what I know Teutonic Knights were primarily armed with lances and swords, and protected by chain mail and heater style (by the looks in pics) shields. Their main victories were against the Pagans of the Baltic region, and against the Christian Polish and Russians. The Poles and Lithuanians eventually broke their military power, though the order limped on until Napoleon virtually dissolved it.

The Mamluks, again from what I know, were armed with lances, sabers, and maces (not 100% sure on the maces). I am not sure what type of armor they used, but I am assuming chain mail as well, as most Islamic armies did not use full plate.

The Mamluks were slave warriors- purchased or captured to fight. They were extremely loyal, and eventually the leader of the Mamluks started a dynasty in Egypt. Mamluks fought against Crusaders, even destroying the last crusader kingdom, Mongols, who the defeated several times, as well as against the Ottomans.



Now, I think the Teutonic Knights would be the heavier cavalry, so would win if they charged Mamluks, but would need to be careful of their flank. The Mamluks would probably need to be more creative in their strategy to win. Again, I'm not an expert, and do not know much of either groups strategies, so this is my best guess. Take it or leave it at your leisure.

...

Now, I think the Teutonic Knights would be the heavier cavalry, so would win if they charged Mamluks, but would need to be careful of their flank. The Mamluks would probably need to be more creative in their strategy to win. Again, I'm not an expert, and do not know much of either groups strategies, so this is my best guess. Take it or leave it at your leisure.

Simply put, if the Teutonic Knights were heavier, it is unlikely that they would catch any Mamluks. Therefore, the Mamluks would a) win or b) draw. Heavy troops don't really fare well one on one, unless of course they are both forced to fight.

The Indians fighting ability was always overblown. They were usually ambushing a small number of troops and never any kind of real army and when they were, they always got beat down easily. I don't think you can compare them to any kind of real mounted military force in history.

Think about it. The Indians greatest victory was when they managed to massacre 265 poorly led troops when they had a huge advantage in numbers.

That wouldn't even have been a skirmish anyone remembered in the Civil War. If the government had actually amassed a huge army to defeat the Indians like against the Confederates or Mexicans of that period, they would never have gotten any kind of reputation at all and those like Sitting Bull and Geronimo would never have been written about.

Man to man I would say the Teutonic Knights.

Well duh, don't be an idiot. By the 1850s they had lost their advantage. However, for 250 years or so, they were the masters of the plains.

How about 1500 Mongolian horse archers v. Teutonic Knights or Mamluks, on plains?

I don't understand what you are trying to say. They were the masters of the plains when there was no real competition, they are hardly comparable to great armies of conquest. And they were eventually defeated by cavalry troops of no great number. Nothing like the armies assembled in the Civil War for instance.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. They were the masters of the plains when there was no real competition, they are hardly comparable to great armies of conquest. And they were eventually defeated by cavalry troops of no great number. Nothing like the armies assembled in the Civil War for instance.

Well, there was no competition because they would have killed it all. Seriously, read up. No one messed with them until well into the 1800s, even though they could have made such attempts. I mean, if you look at North America, they were the dominant fighting force for a few hundred years. Granted, if you took them and faced them up with a European army than they might not have done as well. But one must also consider that they had lesser numbers than the Europeans, and yet were still feared.

There was no competition because no one was expanding into the area. Read up on what exactly? The dominance of one group that had no rivals on the Plains for a thousand years? What books do you recommend to read on the subject exactly?

And the whole point is comparing the greatest mounted troops in the world. Not a bunch of primitive tribes in North America that rode horses and fought with settlers, scouts and patrols and still got beaten when it mattered.

I put up a new nomination: http://content.ytmnd.com/content/2/3/4/234643302c78efeb4ed2ab614c65bce5.jpg

depends on how you prefer a cavalry to be working... One might think a massive force is better while an other one might think that the best cavalry used the best tactics...

Personally i think that effectiveness should be the criteria, and then it would be, at least in my opinion, a (group of) bandit(s)/murderer(s) in whatever age area they were living... Since they are more likely to kill a way bigger force then they are composed of... Imagine an army as efficient as a guy like billy the kid whom killed 21 men... They would need to kill 21 times as much soldiers as they are composed of, or when looking at some armies of 10.000 souls, 210.000...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suomussalmi

Finns
350 killed
600 wounded

Soviets
27,500 killed or missing
2,100 taken prisoner
43 tanks destroyed

...as for the greatest cavalry...

Mongolian Horsemen.

Finnish Hakkapeliittas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakkapeliitta) coming as close second ;)

I'd say the Mongolian horse archer. They were the reason the Mongolian armies had uncontestable dominance on land for so many centuries.

I like the Mongols, I wonder how they got so many even though now they have a very small population......

I also like those French Lancers, too bad they got slaughtered at Waterloo.

Cossacks!
Come on, not only were they feared by everybody who had fought them, they were a bunch of hard-drinking, womanizing, looting, pilfering, men on small horses. And there were a whooooooole lot of them. They were probably the largest cavalry force in Europe, if not the world, during the height of their usage.
They were like pirates, but on land!Vikings could kick their butts still, those pathetic wannbe pirates, cannot even all go out to sea and make all of Europe tremble with fear.

Caroleans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroleans) gave the Russians a pretty good beating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Narva_%281700%29). Still, the Mongolians were the best.

Everyone seems to be overlooking the Timurids, to my great disappointment. They were quite similar to the Mongols, except they had gun. And Elephants, to some extent. Not to mention we've totally forgotten the Sipahi!

The Mongol Hoard:
Horde you mean. Mongol HORDE.
Yes, they were quite deadly.


Apache Horsemen: Specializing in hit-and-run tactics, the Apache cavalry were mounted on wild (and often stolen) horses, and gave the Spanish a run for their money. They proved an incredible thorn in the side of a few nations under the leadership of the ruthless Geronimo.

They were warriors and marauders, not soldiers - meaning lots of individual bravery and skill, and poor discipline and strategical coordination. Crazy Horse's Sioux cavalry was far more effective and coordinated, with better strategy and tactics.


Napoléon Bonaparte's Hussars: Not only his hussars, but his entire cavalry helped him conquer much of Europe. Dashing and bold, these arrogant soldiers often had fun at other's expense, and were particularly unpleasent to encounter on the battlefield.
Still the real innovation of Bonaparte's was the fast-moving artillery - he started as artillery officer, after all.


Teutonic Knights: An order of Christian warrior-monks that started in central Europe during the Medieval Age. Expanding outwards, they made their fellow Christians shake in their shoes for time, while they were virtually unbeatable on the battlefield until their defeat in 1410 at the Battle of Tannenberg.

...Alexandr Nevskij should ring a bell here...

About the best cavalry ever, of course it's almost impossible to compare ancient cavalry (no stirrups, and spears) with medieval (stirrups, lances, maces, crossbows and composite bows) and modern (stirrups, guns and sabres).

I'd like to point out one of the craziest uses of cavalry ever - bravery to the point of idiocy: the italian Savoia Cavalleria regiment was part of the italian corps that invaded CCCP in WW2, and they even charged against machine guns and tanks... sometimes even with some results.

A great combination of horse + cannon was the Voloire (read it as french) horse-drawn mobile artillery unit (Piedmontese army in the Italian Independence Wars): six horses drove a four-wheel cart which housed a rifled-gun cannon (a 12 to a 20-pounder iirc) aimed at the rear of the cart itself. The Voloire placed itself, aimed, braked, fired, and gallopped away while recharging. It's not cavalry, anyway.

Anyway, infantry pwns cavalry all the time, since the macedonian phalanx through the swiss pikemen to the field artillery (Balaklava, anyone?). Dragoons (mounted mobile infantry) are more effective than full-fledged cavalrymen.

The Attilan Rough Riders achieve incredible feats on horseback. Yet I tend to call the Ravenwing the greatest cavalry the universe has ever known. I have yet to witness them in action, though, whereas I've fought alongside the sons of Attila.

The Attilan Rough Riders achieve incredible feats on horseback. Yet I tend to call the Ravenwing the greatest cavalry the universe has ever known. I have yet to witness them in action, though, whereas I've fought alongside the sons of Attila.
Waay too mid-'90s.

And the whole point is comparing the greatest mounted troops in the world. Not a bunch of primitive tribes in North America that rode horses and fought with settlers, scouts and patrols and still got beaten when it mattered.

I understand what you are saying. That you cannot compare skirmishing Indians to say, Napoleonic Hussars. But you can. True, the Indians were poorly equipped, and obviously did not have the training that other European cavalries had enjoyed for hundreds of years. But remember: they did incredible things with what they had. They mastered guerrilla warfare.

They harassed the Spanish for many years. They would steal horses, and then leave immediately so that by the time the Spanish arrived they were long gone, attacking the village that the Spanish just left.

So you see, the Apache excel not really because of their fighting ability, but because of their remarkable ability to strike in the right spot, then be off. No one is saying they would stand a snowball's chance in hell against Hussars on an open field. Just like the Bushwhackers, they are not that kind of cavalry.

I understand what you are saying. That you cannot compare skirmishing Indians to say, Napoleonic Hussars. But you can. True, the Indians were poorly equipped, and obviously did not have the training that other European cavalries had enjoyed for hundreds of years. But remember: they did incredible things with what they had. They mastered guerrilla warfare.

They harassed the Spanish for many years. They would steal horses, and then leave immediately so that by the time the Spanish arrived they were long gone, attacking the village that the Spanish just left.

So you see, the Apache excel not really because of their fighting ability, but because of their remarkable ability to strike in the right spot, then be off. No one is saying they would stand a snowball's chance in hell against Hussars on an open field. Just like the Bushwhackers, they are not that kind of cavalry.

The word you're looking for is tactics..or strategy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Suomussalmi

Finns
350 killed
600 wounded

Soviets
27,500 killed or missing
2,100 taken prisoner
43 tanks destroyed

...as for the greatest cavalry...

Mongolian Horsemen.

Finnish Hakkapeliittas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakkapeliitta) coming as close second ;)

I read about that battle, christ! I think the Finns did a pretty good job of that one, and then some!
I never even knew that battle took place, what a victory, but to be fair to the soviets, their troops were poorly armed (i think, i can't give you a definate answer on that, but i heard from my History teacher), that the front wave of soviet troops had the rifles, the next lines had the ammo, so once the first wave died the next lines picked up their rifles and loaded them. And the Soviet troops were conscripted i think, alot of poor morale amongst Soviet forces.
But still that's a brilliant win, even if the Russians didn't want to fight.
Just goes to show, it's not the size of the army, it's how well motivated and trained (and position) it is, of course there's loads more factors for a good army, but i think i got the main ones, oh and well paid.

The word you're looking for is tactics..or strategy...

It is? I know the Apache had good tactics like the Mongols. As for strategy, well, er....

It is? I know the Apache had good tactics like the Mongols. As for strategy, well, er....

Yeah...it was hard to say with regard to the post I was replying to.

As a tactic of hit and run your post is tactically sound....but did not indicate if there was a greater strategy beyond harassment which is not really a strategy.

The Border Reivers
The Hussars
The Camel Corp
The Sioux

[...] harassment which is not really a strategy.

Did I ever say it was? Strategy is more the general's field than the men's.

Did I ever say it was? Strategy is more the general's field than the men's.

No you didn't but I thought it best to cover all eventualities...

No you didn't but I thought it best to cover all eventualities...

Well, if can give a definitive strategy used by the Native Americans, we might discuss it.

Everyone seems to be overlooking the Timurids, to my great disappointment. They were quite similar to the Mongols, except they had gun. And Elephants, to some extent. Not to mention we've totally forgotten the Sipahi!
And the Janjaweed!