I don't have sources onhand to cite but this narrative seems overly simplistic, boiling down the role of cavalry to like "what's their dps" and at odds with what I'd think would be mainstream view
-
-
for another example there's this pop narrative of the hundred years war as the end of the knight that actually isn't true
-
I forget why but french men at arms fought on foot mostly at that point and both famed english victories at crecy and agincourt were mostly because of incredibly favorable terrain
-
but after that french heavy cavalry was pretty dominant and widely feared through much of the 16th century, and pike and shot formations evolved in large part to prevent getting assfucked by them
-
but this is all heavy cav. if we bring in light cav the argument is a joke, societies organized around horse archer skirmish tactics have long been the bane of civilized society
-
most notably the mongols, but the magyars and xiongnu et al fought in much the same style
-
and the switch from hanfu plus chariots to nomad dress plus horse archery was a rather momentous turn in the warring states period and a big part of how qin rolled everyone so fast
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.