Apparent complete absence of tactics during Civil War.

[Disaster]

On assassination (I'm enjoying this thread if you haven't gathered already).

One theory behind why assassination is not considered kosher is covered by the old adage: "better the devil you know than the one you don't know." That is, if you kill off the leader of your enemies, who are you sure to deal with when the war is at a close? This theory is given even more weight in the event of a confrontation between superpowers. Imagine if Kennedy had been killed at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis instead of later when things had cooled down. Every time a Russian premier mysteriously died of a cold what was the question on each foreign policy expert? Who will succeed him? Someone worse?

Finally, it should be noted that we're not talking about superheroes here. Simply assassinating the leader may not do any good as the leader is only one part of the government apparatus. It may even firm up the resolve of the enemy who seek revenge.

[Guest Pillar]

That's a false alternative.

It's not a choice between a "well known" dictator or an unknown one, it's a choice between freedom and persecution. Life and death.

Killing the leaders is like killing the brain of a body. It is the most indirect confrontation you can have in a war.

Destroy the enemy by destroying not only their will, but their mind. Their ability to fight is routed in their ability to plan.

Ask yourself if America would have done so well had Germany successfully eliminated the popular generals, and the president. Ask yourself if Germany would have done so well, if the US had eliminated Rommel and his ilk.

The soldiers aren't the machine of the war, the minds behind the motions are. They are the machinery.

Eliminate them, and you have victory.

That is my offer to the world of strategy.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 07-15-2000).]

[Guest Pillar]

As a bit of humour, had the US assasinated Hitler the Nazi's would have done much better!

(You've got to know what to take out and what to leave in)

[Disaster]

Well, you certainly widened the scope now to include 'all of Germany's staff' etc. This is different than simply assassinating the titular head or the mouthpiece of a country.

Yes, it does matter of what quality the leader is and also timing. But, as I laid out in the superpower confrontation situation, it could still be a bad thing when many levels of authority have the ability to launch devices that could lay the world to waste. How many assassinations do you have to plan then?

In modern times, North Korea wiped out most of the cabinet of South Korea in a bomb. However, this didn't do much to change the situation in North Korea's favour as many other factors were involved which were cultural and geopolitical.

Let me also point out that during the war America did lose its president but his successor continued the struggle.

[Guest Pillar]

Two things you have to keep in mind.

First, we're talking about warfare, not politics. Political views have to be changed intellectually. You can put a gun to a man's head, but you can't force him to think. Reason and force are opposites, and won't function together.

Also, check my original post. I said "Kill the leaders", meaning plural. You must eliminate the mind behind the army.

Glad you've taken an interest in the thread... it seemed to be dying out for a while there!

[Disaster]

We're coming close to agreement here

I wouldn't say that assassination is totally beyond the pale. But it certainly is tricky not just in execution (excuse the pun) but in picking the right target and at the right time. Killing Hitler when he was a painter might have done a lot of good but killing him in the hours after the Allies landed at Normandy might have bad as it may have given the German commanders a chance to bring professionalism back to the wehrmacht at a critical time.

In a society where power is centralized on one person, blasting that fellow's head off might be effective. But if that fellow is merely the the 'first among equals', then it might not make a difference.

Actually, both Sun Tzu and Machiavelli share the same opinion on assassination. For Sun Tzu, assassination was allowed and, if effective, was better than having many killed on the battlefield. This was part of a suite of tools that a general could use to trick, coerce or mislead the enemy without facing battle. You can probably guess what Machiavelli thought of it.

As for force never changing anyone's mind, well, it certainly is effective for changing their behaviour when that force is present.

[Guest Pillar]

Well, part of it being a matter of warfare and not politics is that you target people with the ability to command forces. Hitler was terrible at managing military forces and Rommel was excellent, so Rommel is the target.

Even if a society is equal politically, and the statesman is just "the first among equals", such is not true and never will be true with human nature.

People are *not* equal in intelligence and ability. Kill the ones that can command the masses. Kill the ones who manage the war, not the ones who fight it.

Much like attacking a forces supply is more effective than attacking them directly, so it is true that attacking the mind of the enemy is more effective than attacking their arms.

That is why I disagree with what MadMatt has said about "International Policy" and legalisms. While Matt seems to understand what my points are, the world has yet to make the ethical leap and realize that the same values that determine domestic law should determine international law.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 07-16-2000).]

[Disaster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar:

Well, part of it being a matter of warfare and not politics is that you target people with the ability to command forces. Hitler was terrible at managing military forces and Rommel was excellent, so Rommel is the target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Certainly if you could wave the magic wand and have their best commanders disappear, then go for it. I'm more inclined to believe that assassination is a crap shoot. Certainly doing away with extraordinary men has effect, but these same men rose up through the ranks because their predecessors left their posts for one reason or another.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Even if a society is equal politically, and the statesman is just "the first among equals", such is not true and never will be true with human nature.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What I was trying to argue is that there are types of political and cultural systems where the blow of assassination falls softer. Democratic institutions have fail safes. Assassination may cause temporary disruption but this does not guarantee longterm harm.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Much like attacking a forces supply is more effective than attacking them directly, so it is true that attacking the mind of the enemy is more effective than attacking their arms.

Certainly, when you can. I will however bring up another point which you must consider in dealing with the value of assassination. There are many wars which are fought for limited gains and have therefore limited scope. These are wars where the combatants may not be gripped in a fight to the death. In such a case, I would argue that assassination raises the tenor of the conflict and may open it up to escalation. For example, if a link between Kennedy's assassination and the Soviets was uncovered at the height of the Vietnam War, then we would have faced a global apocalypse. In such a way it would not have served the Soviets to have Kennedy killed. The U.S. would have escalated the conflict immediately.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 07-16-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Pillar]

Nothing like a good 3am debate eh?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Certainly doing away with extraordinary men has effect, but these same men rose up through the ranks because their predecessors left their posts for one reason or another. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That takes time, and experience. It also takes reorganization. It also is a huge hit on the morale of the troops. It also takes time for the troops to trust the new leadership.

Simply put, it's far too difficult to just "slip in" a new General without having a HUGE effect on the war effort. There are many examples throughout history of armies breaking down immediately after their General get's killed, OR, they get so disorganized that the enemy walks all over them.

Yes, it can be diffuclt physically to kill the enemy Generals, but that's war.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> What I was trying to argue is that there are types of political and cultural systems ... where the blow... may cause temporary disruption but this does not guarantee longterm harm.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We are assumiming the two states are at war however. Under such circumstances, even a temporary disruption means obliteration for the regime and it's replacement by foreign government.

Again, I understand your point, but mine is more a military tactic than a way of changing peoples political views. I understand and concur that simply assasinating leaders won't change a nations ideology.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> if a link between Kennedy's assassination and the Soviets was uncovered at the height of the Vietnam War, then we would have faced a global apocalypse <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is why this type of selective killing, ie. assasination, is a weapon of war and not politics. Had the Soviets sunk a US Submarine or bombed a US City, the same result would happen - total war.

I liked what Mr. Liddell-Hart had to say about how Nuclear weapons have affected stategy. If you have his book "Strategy" I would reference you to it's introduction (or just recall it).

Time for me to retire! (Yawn)

Thanks for the interesting discussion and the computer advice.

- Pillar

[Sailor Malan]

I am new to this forum (just ordered my CM last week). I couldn't help noticing that this discussion of tactics has omitted one key factor - CAVALRY. Cavalry were the dominant troop type on the battlefield for hundreds of years, until foot soldiers learnt to deal with them. The permanent fix was a rapid firing, long range, accurate rifle (not MG, the problem was fixed by breach loading repeaters, but not everyone noticed until the MG made it obvious beyond doubt).

The interim fix was forming into organised bodies, with (initially) pikemen to protect the muskets, and then 'fire through' bayonets, that replaced the plug bayonet, which prevented the musket being fired.

Loose formation infantry, unless in cover (thick woods, behind fortifications etc) just got ridden down. This is fine, but in most of western Europe, you wont win any wars if the only way to stop your army getting massacred by horsemen is to hide in woods. (One reason that the British didn't do so well in the war of independance was the closer terrain, that partially overcame this issue. The lack of effective leadership and political will, and the French intervention also figured.)

Thus the two imperatives, of combating the inaccuracy of the musket, and defending the firer against horsemen, lead to line (or strictly close formation)tactics (true line tactics is a whole different discussion).

On the subject of lining up and blasting. References I have quote effectiveness of a musket shot in battle conditions as 0.2-0.5%. At Vittoria (Spain) 3675000 musket balls were fired. 8000 casualties were caused by all weapons, so ignoring the cavalry and artillery inflicted ones, you get one casualty per 459 shots. As the artillery possibly caused 1/3 of the casualties... It isn't like facing MG fire!

(BTW, don't get me started on the depiction of automatic weapon lethality in modern action movies!)

Final aside - English longbows were a better weapon than any firearm until the mid nineteenth century - more accurate, quicker rate of fire, lighter etc. A Lt. Col Lee (44th Foot) proposed reverting to bows in 1792! The only reason why muskets took over was training time. It takes a day or two to train a conscript to fire a musket. It takes years to make an effective bowman.

'nough said

------------------

The conception of such a plan was impossible for a man of Montgomery's innate caution...In fact, Montgomery's decision to mount the operation ...[Market Garden] was as startling as it would have been for an elderly and saintly Bishop suddenly to decide to take up safe breaking and begin on the Bank of England. (R.W.Thompson, Montgomery the Field Marshall)

[Disaster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sailor Malan:

Thus the two imperatives, of combating the inaccuracy of the musket, and defending the firer against horsemen, lead to line (or strictly close formation)tactics (true line tactics is a whole different discussion)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I hope you make the distinction between a line formation and line tactics. As any Nappy commander would tell you, a line was the among the most vulnerable of formations when threatened with cavalry. If they had time, they would have met cavalry with a square (or oblong) or, if they really had to move in the face of cavalry, a dense column. As you have noted, any open formation was inviting a cavalry charge.

Cavalry were important for exploiting breaks in the enemy's formations, for harassing, scouting and screening. Only truly desperate or stupid commanders would launch their heavies against a resolved body of troops. Rather, they would wait until the enemy was shaken and not as eager to meet the charge of a formed body of big guys on big animals waving big swords. As with many things in warfare, cavalry taking an active role on the field was due more to its morale effects than its actual lethality. That is why we are human, yes?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On the subject of lining up and blasting. References I have quote effectiveness of a musket shot in battle conditions as 0.2-0.5%. At Vittoria (Spain) 3675000 musket balls were fired. 8000 casualties were caused by all weapons, so ignoring the cavalry and artillery inflicted ones, you get one casualty per 459 shots. As the artillery possibly caused 1/3 of the casualties... It isn't like facing MG fire!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is what Rory Muir has written on the efficiency of arms of that period as compared to the ACW.

Admissions to the Invalides in Paris in 1762.

68.8% to small arms

13.4% to artillery

14.7% to swords

2.4% to bayonets.

If one can assume that the number of wounds being treated is a subset to the number of deaths caused, then we see that musketry even at that time is the more effective weapon. He later writes that wounds caused by rifles in the American Civil War had caused up to 94% as compared to 2.4%!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

(BTW, don't get me started on the depiction of automatic weapon lethality in modern action movies!)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed! Even having sat through that terrible Patriot last week, the memory of how Hollywood can trash reality is still evident in my head.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Final aside - English longbows were a better weapon than any firearm until the mid nineteenth century - more accurate, quicker rate of fire, lighter etc. A Lt. Col Lee (44th Foot) proposed reverting to bows in 1792! The only reason why muskets took over was training time. It takes a day or two to train a conscript to fire a musket. It takes years to make an effective bowman.

A friend of mine asked me this question which relates to your longbow aside. Granted that becoming effective on a longbow takes a lifetime of training. But, what about the crossbow? A crossbow takes very little training and sights like a gun. I am only guessing, but a crossbow probably eclipsed the developing musket in accuracy and in ease of loading for a long time. Why the mass shift to the musket then?

'nough said

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Jadayne]

wait a minute here. I post a reply where I call the tactics of ww1 ridiculous and no one begs to differ? No one steps up to spank me and call me an ignorant "twitch" fanatic. No one pokes me with sharp pencils and berates me for making such a blanket, obviously completely uninformed statement calling into question the tactics used during the (other) single greatest military cataclism in this century. Isn't anyone gonna quote Clausewitz or Sun Tzu and tell me to go play Tomb Raider? Isn't anyong gonna link me to "Jimbo's WW1 tactics homepage"? Isn't anyone gonna pepper me with angry smilies and challenge me to a home grown CM scenario loosely based on Verdunne?

Are you guys going soft on me?

Wait, does anyone here even know anything about WW1?

[Törni]

To my point of view WWI was a giant slugfest forced by the fact that machineguns appearead and firepower of infantry weapons had grown too strong for infantry to withstand. And there were no tanks around(until the end paheses).

[tss]

Disaster wrote:

Also, it should be added that (unlike the Patriot), melees were not common.

I think it was Grimmelshausen who said: "Whoever kills a pikeman kills an innocent man." (BTW, if you haven't read his "Simplicissimus", do it).

One reason why Karl XIIs army was so efficient in 1700-08 was that he emphasized attack with "cold weapons", that is, swords and bayonets. His tactics was that the whole army would advance near the enemy, fire a single volley, and charge with bayonets. As long as the enemy didn't have enough artillery to decimate the Swedish army enroute, the defenders would most often turn and run when they saw that the Swedish line didn't turn back. However, at Poltava 1709 the Russians did have enough artillery and their lines didn't turn back and run (though, it was a close affair). The result was the worst Swedish military defeat through the history.

And in another post:

Only truly desperate or stupid commanders would launch their heavies against a resolved body of troops.

I seem to remember that during the Napoleonic wars only once was an infantry square broken by a cavalry attack and that was a freak accident: a horse that shot stayed on its feet long enough to crash on the front row and created an opening in the line.

Admissions to the Invalides in Paris in 1762.

68.8% to small arms

13.4% to artillery

14.7% to swords

2.4% to bayonets.

However, artillery hits were lethal more often than musket wounds and that skews the table somewhat. I have no idea how much.

In "Poltava" Peter Englud mentions some skeletons that were found in the battlefield. It was noted that in nearly all cases where sword marks were found in the bones, the hit had come from back and up. That is, a cavalryman had hit a fleeing soldier.

Also, all bodies that had bayonet wounds had also other wounds suggesting that they had been killed while helpless from other wounds.

- Tommi

[This message has been edited by tss (edited 07-17-2000).]

[DrD]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Törni:

To my point of view WWI was a giant slugfest forced by the fact that machineguns appearead and firepower of infantry weapons had grown too strong for infantry to withstand. And there were no tanks around(until the end paheses).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A couple of other thoughts.

Firepower had already increased so much even by the CW that frontal attack against dug-in troops was suicide. Therefore CW generals used manuever to attack the flanks or to entice the enemy into attacking them. So what changed in WWI? 2 very simple things.

First, the airplane made it possible to spot and counter any flanking manuevers. I know they had balloons in the CW but these were fixed. Since flanking manuevers were limited to the speed of infantry they were easily countered.

Second, simple math/physics. There were so many men under arms that for the first time in history we saw the continous front. They didn't start off that way but after the battles in the summer of '14 the armies tried to out-flank each other. This move/counter-move caused the front to spread south until it reached switzerland. No more flanks! For the rest of the war the ONLY tactic available was that of frontal assault.

By the end of the war the new German "storm" units actually could and did break through the front lines regularly. However they just didn't have the mobility to exploit. The reason WWII had so much more movement was thanks to the German's invention of what was originally called "schnell" and later panzer units. These had tanks of course but more importantly infantry mounted in trucks or halftracks and guns towed by vehicles. The luftwaffe also provided a form of highly mobile artillery. These groups could break through the front thanks to their high "shock" value (firepower) and then rapidly exploit. Of course the rest of the world soon caught on and warfare was once again mobile. Of course the continous front was still present and will likely to be so forever.

So WWI was they way it was because of the new continous front (no more manuever/flank attacks) and the lack of any effective tactics to deal with this new situation.

[Mark IV]

DrD: Nice expanation.

I thought WW2 was the patch for WW version 1, to fix the obvous playability problems...

[paullus]

You actually ran into a WWI-type trench situation during the last year and a half of the US Civil War. Most of the later battles in Virginia had Grant throwing thousands of men against Lee's entrenchments (the Bloody Triangle, Cold Harbor, etc).

Most of Sherman's maneuverings around Atlanta were done to get around Johnston's entrenchments. He launched only one direct attack during the campaign (Kennesaw Mtn.) and he quickly gave up on that one once he saw it was a failure (thus saving the lives of his men).

The strength of defensive positions had surpassed the ability of an offensive power to take those positions without taking huge losses (i.e. Cold Harbor). This situation was extended and expanded with the invention of the Machine Gun. It was not until the development of the tank, and tactics on its use (WWII & the panzers) that offensive power once again was on top.

[Mark IV]

The preview for the horror of WWI was the Russo-Japanese War, with all the high-powered artillery, machine-guns, mines, barbed wire, trenches, and accurate repeating rifles. Frightful body count for such a short period.

The R-J War did feature large-scale maneuver around Mukden, but more often than not developed into long lines of trenches, as each side sought to outflank the other. The battle for Port Arthur was a headlong, "I've got more people than you have bullets" kind of thing.

It just about coexisted with the Boer War and the Spanish-American War, which yielded very different pictures of war's development.

[Disaster@work]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tss:

I think it was Grimmelshausen who said: "Whoever kills a pikeman kills an innocent man." (BTW, if you haven't read his "Simplicissimus", do it).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice quote! I've heard the same thing applied to musketry in regards to its accuracy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

One reason why Karl XIIs army was so efficient in 1700-08 was that he emphasized attack with "cold weapons", that is, swords and bayonets. His tactics was that the whole army would advance near the enemy, fire a single volley, and charge with bayonets. As long as the enemy didn't have enough artillery to decimate the Swedish army enroute, the defenders would most often turn and run when they saw that the Swedish line didn't turn back. However, at Poltava 1709 the Russians did have enough artillery and their lines didn't turn back and run (though, it was a close affair). The result was the worst Swedish military defeat through the history.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also on the subject of formations and why people stood in lines is that you were more likely to stay and receive a charge if, Well, in theory at least, there was no where to run if you had a second rank behind you bristling with bayonets. Either be stabbed by your comrades or by your enemies. Choose!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Admissions to the Invalides in Paris in 1762.

68.8% to small arms

13.4% to artillery

14.7% to swords

2.4% to bayonets.

However, artillery hits were lethal more often than musket wounds and that skews the table somewhat. I have no idea how much. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think at that time any type of wound at all was a serious risk to become lethal given the lack of professional medicine for soldiers. That is, of the soldiers who made it to hospital. If you were wounded on the field of battle there was a great chance you might be left there for days and be preyed upon by looters, wolves or die from exposure.

In "Poltava" Peter Englud mentions some skeletons that were found in the battlefield. It was noted that in nearly all cases where sword marks were found in the bones, the hit had come from back and up. That is, a cavalryman had hit a fleeing soldier.

[Disaster@work]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

The preview for the horror of WWI was the Russo-Japanese War, with all the high-powered artillery, machine-guns, mines, barbed wire, trenches, and accurate repeating rifles. Frightful body count for such a short period.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although it was clear to us what lessons the R-J war had for the future of warfare, back then few of the European observers thought that this kind of slaughter would be repeated in Europe, preferring to think less of both the Russians and the Japanese. Was there really any difference in the thinking of the Allied commanders in the Somme? Like the Japanese at Mukden, they believed that elan (or for the Japanese, bushido spirit) would win out over massed quick firing rifles and machine guns.

[Dell Wade]

My 2 cents worth.

The ACW is to this date still studied by the military minds of the world on how it was fought. Never before in war were so many men moved such long distances and supplied in the methods done. Napoleon was close but was still not there. Trains were used to move men, and weapons long distances in a short time. The tactics did not meet the weapons. You must also remember that trench warfar was never used in the methods that they were used in the ACW. Cold harbor was a good example of this and grant lost thousands of men in minutes. Men did in fact march in-line across open fields to the enemy which was hidden behind fences, log's sunken roads you name it. The machine gun also came into being durin the ACW as did the 1st sub that worked and the grandfather to todays battleships.

The ACW was a very brutal war. the mine ball and low muzzle velocity would hit you in the knee and take out your hip or worse, killed you.

Medical tech also did not help. remember more men died of diease than from woulds. Many men lost limbs because of Ganggreen setting in from even a small would that would in todays society cause a little scar.

In no way was the ACW a IGOUGO war. men would fire at each other over rivers, roads, fields. It was a very tactical war. Look at Jacksons tactics at Chancellorsville. He out flanked Hooker and routed him with a force much much smaller. Lee fooled the enemy as well in this battle. he keep Hooker tied up in the fron so Jackson could out flank Hookers men,

Many many times a much smaller force in the ACW beat the enemy who had a much larger force. Lee in most cases had from 35,000 to 70,000 men while the union had 50,000 to 100,000 men. The union had better weapons, but the Confederacy had better moral and in most cases generals.

if the ACW was not so much a war absent of tactics, then why is it that every military mind in the world studies it today and in the past?

Collages and schools of today fail to recognize this critical war in US and world history. The ACW had potential of becoming the 1st world war. Britian, France, and Russia all 3 almost entered into the conflict. the king of Siam even offered up trained War Elepahnts to lincoln to use. Many times in the 1840's and 50's we tried to help Cuba gain independace of Spain, Mexico with its French influence too may have joined.

------------------

"Just Give Me the Prize" Kurgen

[Disaster@work]

All your points on the ACW are good but from my Canadian point of view, there is already an entire bookshelf in Chapters (big book chain) devoted to the American Civil War. In the grand scheme of politics that effected the world, you should expect an equal bookshelf facing it for the Russian civil war / revolution.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Disaster@work:

few of the European observers thought that this kind of slaughter would be repeated in Europe, preferring to think less of both the Russians and the Japanese.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Russians, in turn, thought this of the Japs. The tsar called them "little yellow monkeys", and their army and navy leaders mocked and ridiculed Japanese ability. The Russians were lucky to get out of it as lightly as they did (settlement-wise, I mean; the military cost was almost unthinkable).

Was there really any difference in the thinking of the Allied commanders in the Somme? Like the Japanese at Mukden, they believed that elan (or for the Japanese, bushido spirit) would win out over massed quick firing rifles and machine guns.

[Disaster@work]

Sorry to be off -off topic but I can think of nothing worse than a war in the Amazon after reading this article. Read about the terrifying Candiru fish.

http://www.comedyworld.com/read/?uniRef=essay_165

Anyone care to lead the amphibious assault?

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Disaster@work:

Also on the subject of formations and why people stood in lines is that you were more likely to stay and receive a charge if, Well, in theory at least, there was no where to run if you had a second rank behind you bristling with bayonets. Either be stabbed by your comrades or by your enemies. Choose! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to John Keegan in 'The Face of Battle' (methinks), in Napoleonic times the Sergeant and officers would carry a pike to keep formations in line when in square, by pressing it with the long side against the back of the men to keep them from breaking. He also mentions that cavalry was mostly useful against broken formations.

------------------

Andreas