Not necessarily. Often, the horses were smarter than the riders, and would balk at charging well-disciplined infantry who looked like they might be armed with pikes.

See, the tactics were such that the pikes would sometimes be hidden in what ever ground cover was available and raised (and braced, like jay-t said) at the last moment as the cavalry charged. Of course, probably just as often the pikes would be presented at the beginning of a battle, as a *deterrent* to such a charge.

In either case, if the cavalry (of varying, but usually much more heavily armored than infantry) really wanted to continue the charge, they would often have to force the horse to do so.

There has never been a case, to my knowledge when medieval cavalry got the best of well-disciplined infantry: i. e. infantry that stood their ground and formation throughout the battle.

However, the well-disciplined part is the kicker: the reputation and reality of medieval knights were such that, infantry, even in a controlled formation at the beginning of a battle, would break and run. In which case, the cavalry has it all over the infantry. Hence, the need for a claymore for the (realitively rich) infantryman: it gave him a somewhat better chance in a one-on-one fight with a better armored cavalryman.

The rich part wasn't always true. With it's heavy use and many varying degrees of large swords, oft times weaponry was retrieved by those that survived. I agree with GG in the well trained aspect. Most times the opposing force for the knights were whatever rabble decided to try a civil war or a more barbaric culture, and subsequently were more interested in their own survival than continuing the fight. Which means they broke and ran and were trampled.

To drift off the topic slightly, we get to the argument that a longbowman was better than a arquebus firer in terms of accuracy and rate of fire. A similar circumstance when the Brits met the Amerindians and Oz Aborigines.

I get a lot of requests for fork and spoons at the faires for dinner with the king and queen

lovelies

Interesting take on the fork.

Is that a historical item copied?

Yes, I have a friend that goes to Denmark every other year to tour the mesueams looking for artifacts we can reproduce.We also work with a history professor whose expertise is the Viking era.He goes every year to Scandivia for the reinactments of Vikings .
If you would like I will post some tidbits of history of blacksmithing thru the ages.

Oldfart, I can't argue with you on that one. I don't know anything about bowmen, except the English longbow. Unless you want to start with the much more modern day Olympic archery, which I just so happen to be formally (and formerly) trained in.

Nah, not many olympic archers at Crecy or Agincourt.

Please.

In colonial America it was considered treason for a blacksmith to make iron tools to sale,all iron tools had too be made in England and import taxes paid .In 1774 John Ames of Mass. started making iron shovels .He desinged a very important feature the handle socket that is used to day.Ames shovels are still in business they are sold thru True Value Hardware stores.Since the 1860's Ames shovels were standard issue for troops from the Civil war thru the Korean war.

Sounds typical of the period.

More info in re the Ames shovels please. This is interesting.

all the colonist had was wooden shovels or wooden shovels with iron bracing between the blade and handle.John Ames design was the curved neck socket that the handle fits in, greatly reducing breakage and increasing leverage.The wooden shovels and early iron shovels used by the colonist had straight handles that broke fairly easy.Jseal I couldn't find a pic of the early wooden shovels but I'll keep looking.

jay-t,

Live and learn! TY.

John