How unlucky is this guy

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Who wants to pay a bunch of money to see a cavalry trot?

I do. This is why Hollywood expressly states in all of their films that their target audience is "Not Field Marshal Blücher."

[JP Jones]

In my understanding, the Japanese have a much more highly developed sense of shame than people from other regions (i.e., the West).

I am not saying I am an expert, but as one that has been living in Japan and working in a Japanese company for about seven years now, I think perhaps you should rethink your understanding of the Japanese.

In my opinion, the Japanese have a greater sense of honor than westerners. A part of that honor is taking responsibility for misdeeds. Sometimes taking responsibility can be construed as ending one's life to atone. I see it in the news all the time. High ranking government and company officials often resign to atone for scandals or mishaps within their organizations, even if they themselves had nothing personally to do with it. Whereas Americans in similar predicaments generally look for others to blame or ways to sidestep responsibility. Perhaps this is in part due to the propensity of Americans to sue everyone for anything. Lawsuits are far more rare in Japan. I can only speculate that this is because when things go wrong, companies often step up, take the blame and try to compensate people. They take a proactive approach to dealing with "uh-ohs" rather than a defensive, reactive approach. Thus, negating the need to litigate.

So I believe its honor not shame.

To be a hibakusha is just a classification for government benefits. As they article states, he gets nothing extra for being certified as a double survivor. Just the footnote in history as the one and only double survivor.

[gunnergoz]

I am not saying I am an expert, but as one that has been living in Japan and working in a Japanese company for about seven years now, I think perhaps you should rethink your understanding of the Japanese.

In my opinion, the Japanese have a greater sense of honor than westerners. A part of that honor is taking responsibility for misdeeds. Sometimes taking responsibility can be construed as ending one's life to atone. I see it in the news all the time. High ranking government and company officials often resign to atone for scandals or mishaps within their organizations, even if they themselves had nothing personally to do with it. Whereas Americans in similar predicaments generally look for others to blame or ways to sidestep responsibility. Perhaps this is in part due to the propensity of Americans to sue everyone for anything. Lawsuits are far more rare in Japan. I can only speculate that this is because when things go wrong, companies often step up, take the blame and try to compensate people. They take a proactive approach to dealing with "uh-ohs" rather than a defensive, reactive approach. Thus, negating the need to litigate.

So I believe its honor not shame.

To be a hibakusha is just a classification for government benefits. As they article states, he gets nothing extra for being certified as a double survivor. Just the footnote in history as the one and only double survivor.

OK, so they have honor, I don't doubt your analysis. But it still does not answer why they still refuse after all these years to accept blame for their wartime atrocities, particularly against other Asians. I don't consider that very honorable, rather it is shameful.

[JP Jones]

"refuse to accept blame"?????

Several different Japanese Prime Ministers have issued public apologies to the various peoples that had suffered at the hands of the Japanese. Is an apology not good enough? Japan's asain victims just cant let it go. Germany's victims have accepted apologies and moved on. The US has forgiven Japan and moved on, yet China brings up Japan's misdeeds every chance they get.

[costard]

Speaking of horses, why is it that the movies always depict a cavalry charge as a headlong gallop that goes on for several minutes, long after real horses would be blown? To answer my own question, because the makers of action movies believe it is more cinematically exciting and the ignoramuses who make up the bulk of the movie going audience don't know any better anyway. And in that they are most likely correct. But it galls, galls I tell you, the cognoscenti!

Michael

I pity your gall, but it is worth remembering that there are very few cavalry brigades left operational in the world, and it is these that are trained to charge, at the gallop and in a formation.

The battle before the charge of the Light Brigade was a charge by the Heavy Brigade against Russian cavalry - uphill. The famous charge itself was a group of five hundred horsemen, armed with sabres and lances, traversing some two miles of valley floor, between two lines of artillery and attacking a third directly in front. I'm betting they galloped as hard as they possibly could the whole way.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

The famous charge itself was a group of five hundred horsemen, armed with sabres and lances, traversing some two miles of valley floor, between two lines of artillery and attacking a third directly in front. I'm betting they galloped as hard as they possibly could the whole way.

I seriously doubt that as many of them that did make it out would have done so if their horses had just galloped for two miles. Seriously--their horses would have been practically immobile at that point.

[Michael Emrys]

...there are very few cavalry brigades left operational in the world, and it is these that are trained to charge, at the gallop and in a formation.

For parades no doubt. How many saddled charges have been performed under fire in the last 50 years? Or make that the last 100 years if you like. And how many of those were performed at a gallop?

Michael

[costard]

For parades no doubt. How many saddled charges have been performed under fire in the last 50 years? Or make that the last 100 years if you like. And how many of those were performed at a gallop?

Michael

Precisely none in the last fifty years. Hundred years - well I've heard the Poles had cavalry against the Germans in the early days of WW2 and indulged in some sad heroics.

The idea for those with hand weapons is to make the objective and there deal out short range death - they can do no other. But they have to get there, and the idea of being cavalry is that you can cover large distances in a short time, compared with infantry. Sure, it might be that the proper gathered formation speed might be a fast canter or a hand gallop, but being fired upon by rockets and artillery over open sites would no doubt lend an urgency to the need to close the range. In the case of the "Charge of The Light Brigade", the Lights were led to the wrong set of guns. They made it to the central Russian battery and the Russians lost command of those guns for a while. The British cavalry had no means to hold the guns against the Russian infantry, or to carry them off. So, they retired. Back through the same firesack.

FMB - it turns out that I have exaggerated by a factor of two for the distance - the cavalry charge was about one mile. Not many made it out: two thirds of a total of three regiments of cavalry didn't. That's the whole point of British heroism, it is the romanticism of wanton sacrifice for a lost cause: now try to understand your enemy.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

costard,

That makes more sense, but still, I find it difficult to believe that one third of three regiments' worth of dudes could ride out of there at any speed if they'd galloped in the whole way. I think it was around 200 guys.

Still, I'm tempted to agree with Emrys on this one, because I've seen loads of written documentation about how cavalry only began to gallop, if at all, at the very tail end of a charge. I have seen none from authoritative sources about cavalry galloping the whole way.

[Michael Emrys]

...I've seen loads of written documentation about how cavalry only began to gallop, if at all, at the very tail end of a charge. I have seen none from authoritative sources about cavalry galloping the whole way.

That's what I've read, although I am uncertain how authoritative my own source was. Not being deeply committed to the era of mounted cavalry, I've never searched for one. However, what I've read makes sense in light of some things I know about horses in general. It goes more or less like this: The charge begins at a walk. This continues until within some distance (and that distance has never been specified to me) of the target, presumably formed infantry in this case, at which point the pace increases to a canter. If a gallop is used at all, it would only be in the last stage, say a hundred yards.

But a much preferred method of cavalry attack would have been to envelop the flanks and attack from the rear. The infantry square was devised to counter that tactic.

Another tactic was for the cavalry to circle in front of a line it could not get around the flanks of with each trooper firing his pistol into the infantry as he came within range and then reloading as he circled away. This was done until until the pikemen (wouldn't have worked well against infantry armed with musketry, would it?) had been attrited to the point where they broke ranks and ran. At that point, the cavalry would run them down using either a canter or a gallop as required.

After the Crimean War, I doubt that cavalry actually fought mounted a great deal, but more as dragoons. They rode their horses for mobility, but not after entering the range of the enemy's weapons. At that point, they dismounted and fought like infantry. Which is, by the way, what the Polish cavalry did in 1939, contra legend.

Michael

[gunnergoz]

"refuse to accept blame"?????

Several different Japanese Prime Ministers have issued public apologies to the various peoples that had suffered at the hands of the Japanese. Is an apology not good enough? Japan's asain victims just cant let it go. Germany's victims have accepted apologies and moved on. The US has forgiven Japan and moved on, yet China brings up Japan's misdeeds every chance they get.

I understand that they have yet to accept any fault for what happened at Nanking, for one.

[JonS]

Another tactic was for the cavalry to circle in front of a line it could not get around the flanks of with each trooper firing his pistol into the infantry as he came within range and then reloading as he circled away. This was done until until the pikemen (wouldn't have worked well against infantry armed with musketry, would it?) had been attrited to the point where they broke ranks and ran. At that point, the cavalry would run them down using either a canter or a gallop as required.

The caracole. A tactic that was largely worthless at the best of times, and totally fell out of favour by about 1650. Interestingly, the cavalry charge seems to have superseded the caracole.

After the Crimean War, I doubt that cavalry actually fought mounted a great deal, but more as dragoons.

A useful qualifier here would perhaps be that it depends on the enemy. The British, for example, were able to get continued useful service out of their cavalry smacking down the wogs at places like Omdurman. However, against any first class enemy - or indeed second class enemy - cavalry was generally too fragile. There are exceptions (eg, Aust Light Horse in the Middle East), naturally, but by definition exceptions are exceptional events.

[Michael Emrys]

The British, for example, were able to get continued useful service out of their cavalry smacking down the wogs at places like Omdurman.

This is so. I overlooked such cases because I was focussed on warfare between European or European type armies.

We could also note that mounted paramilitary forces were found (and are still occasionally found) to be useful in quelling civil disturbances. But I fear that we have wandered far afield from the original intent of this sub-thread discussion.

Michael

[Sandokan]

I read this thread only now. Bit late.

Anyway, Polish apart, if somebody is interested, in August 1942 there was a pretty famous (in Italy) charge of the Savoia cavalry during the russian campaign. They charged straight a regiment of soviet infantry several times, routing them and taking around 500 prisoners. If you want know something more about it the look for Carica di Isbuschenskij "Isbuschenskij charge" on Google.

But the very last charge for Italian army was in January 1943 in Yugoslavia.

But I think in was a squadron level.

[YankeeDog]

Who wants to pay a bunch of money to see a cavalry trot?

There are a few movies that do, and do so to good dramatic effect. First that comes to mind is "Braveheart." IMO, Mel Gibson makes very effective use of the (historically accurate, AFAIK) acceleration of the English cavalry from trot to full gallop to build the tempo and dramatic tension of the scene.

Not saying that Braveheart is, in general, particularly historically accurate in its representations of 15th century battles. Just speaking on this one aspect.

Regards,

YD

[bitchen frizzy]

Actually, it wasn't accurate even in that aspect, at least for that particular battle.

[Dietrich]

Not saying that Braveheart is, in general, particularly historically accurate in its representations of 15th century battles.

As someone interested most in medieval warfare during the late 12th century (especially the exploits of Norman knights on and off the tournament field), I am repeatedly disappointed that most books, movies, etc., based on war-related events in the Middle Ages focus on the Late Middle Ages (13th century onward), with little attention given to the High Middle Ages (after all, it would be silly to call it the Middle Middle Ages) and even less to the Early Middle Ages (such as the Battle of Hastings and the Norman conquest of Britain... but that's a period of history many Britons prefer to ignore).

The first time I saw Braveheart was pre-9/11; I thought, "Wow... gruesome battle scenes." The second time I saw Braveheart was post-9/11; I thought, "Wow... if William Wallace did nowadays what he was and is glorified for doing then, he wouldn't be idolized... he'd be hunted down as a terrorist!" :eek: To be fair, though, the depiction of William Wallace in Braveheart accords with how heroes are depicted in the majority of heroic tales throughout history. Whereas in modern tales the hero is fairly passive, springing into action only after the villain starts doing his thing and then defeating him, from ancient times all the way to the Late Middle Ages the hero was rather more active: he took what he wanted (in terms of both riches and womankind) and killed who he wanted to kill (compare the original account of Beowulf with the extremely yet deceptively modernized 2007 film adaptation).

[YankeeDog]

Actually, it wasn't accurate even in that aspect, at least for that particular battle.

Good point; I should have been more specific and said I was talking about Medieval cavalry charges in general, not necessarily any accurate depiction of the battle of Stirling specifically. What Mel Gibson put down on film bears almost no resemblance to the historical battle, though I do think what it depicts is closer to general historical Medieval battle tactics than most other Hollywood films.

It's been a long time since I read up on it, but IIRC it was actually the Scottish infantry that charged the (mixed foot & horse) English force just as the English had begun to establish a bridgehead across Stirling Bridge, no?