Bret Devereaux

Well you ride them TO battle, not INTO battle.

A lot of knightly warfare was also on foot. The horse provide operational mobility, recon ability, etc. Fighting from horseback kinda sucks if you're up against anything bettee than peasant levees.

Eh, yes and no? To be clear, if we're talking 'knightly warfare,' we're talking post-Carolingian period...the skills expected of 'knights' are predominantly (but not exclusively) about mounted combat. They expected to fight mounted far more often than not.

Well a lot of knightly warfare was burning the other side's villages....

True, but because you are raiding another military aristocrat's village, the chance of finding yourself in a 'small' engagement is meaningful. That engagement would also generally take place with both sides mounted.

But the emphasis for aristocrats is overwhelmingly on mounted combat. They have other people - mercenaries/ the sergeantry - to fight on foot. Situations, like Agincourt, where most of the knights are dismounted, are exceptions, not the rule.

Random question: why anti cavalry pike formations develop so late? Is it a matter of training? Or innovation?

I thought it was mostly economic/organizational/circumstantial. "Maintain formation and keep the pointy bits foe-ward" predates pikes. Predates iron, for that matter. Cavalry always had to wait until formation was disrupted. 1/2