Benjamin Parker wrote:1 Is 'Heavy' the correct term?
Depending on what you mean by "correct." The late-medieval and Renaissance Europeans themselves certainly regarded men-at-arms (and the Lancers descended from them) as "heavy" cavalry in comparison to other types like coutiliers, "archers," Border Prickers, and the like.
2 What happens to a pike formation when it is hit by a cavalry charge?
It varies. The horses (or horsemen) could balk and veer away before contact; or they could stop just within range and "fence" with their lances against the pikemen (some lances, particularly Italian ones, were long enough to do this, though the accounts of the Italian Wars don't seem to show this technique as being a very effective one); or the horsemen might have enough momentum to push on and force the pikemen to part aside, giving at least some of the horsemen room to enter and try to split the formation. Sometimes this worked; sometimes, like at Nancy, the horsemen just got surrounded, dragged off their horses, and whacked silly by the men in the middle of the pike formation.
3 Which leads me to number three. When the barding hits the pike point will it be pierced?
Most likely not, unless the point enters a joint or an area covered only with mail. After all, there had to be a reason why late 15th and early 16th-century French gendarmes were braver than most other cavalry when it came to attacking both opposing cavalry and pike-based infantry formation, and their effective armor for both man and horse was almost certainly part of the reason.
And how effective was barding from that era and how much did it weigh?
Varies according to coverage (frontal or full) and balance between plate, mail, and cloth--especially since some men apparently used cloth caparisons to hide how much (or how little) metal the horses had underneath.
Also why did barding fall out of use?
It's a combination of factors. On one hand, armor grew heavier to protect against the increasing power of firearms, and heavier armor had worse impact on the horse than upon the man. Moreover, the increase in the weight of the man's armor meant that the horse's armor had to be reduced somewhat if the rider didn't want to lame an expensive warhorse in every battle (due to the exhaustion engendered by the weight of the armor).
4 How many people will a lance kill before it breaks?
There's no single correct number; however, late 15th-century lances were apparently made to break upon a good hit in order to prevent the rider from being knocked off the saddle, and there was a paradigm whereby a man-at-arms was considered a coward if he returned with an unbroken lance, so it's quite likely that a lance was regarded as a one-strike weapon--though the one strike it could make would have been a really spectacular strike indeed.
5 How well the Gens 'd armes perform (in a frontal charge)
Whose gendarmes and against whom?
6 How did the Gens 'd amres feel about a frontal charge against good unshaken infantry?
Once again, it depends on which gendarmes. The French would probably try, but--like others of their time--they would have
vastly preferred charging against an infantry formation's flanks or corners. After all, 16th-century grand tactical paradigms was based on the Neoclassical (or neo-Macedonian) idea that the heavy cavalry's role was to sweep the opposing cavalry off the field and then descend upon the enemy's infantry denuded flank, so it's probably a mistake to dwell too much on frontal interactions. It's also worth noting that early 16th-century infantry formations tended to be squarish in form (
i.e. very deep, often as deep as they were wide), and this probably had something to do with the (largely correct) belief that infantry had to be able to mount at least a limited defense against the most dangerous cavalry threat from the flank.
7 I've read about warhorses picking people up in their and shaking them or carrying them off. Any info/sources/citations?
None that I've ever seen.
BTW There's this guy I know who says that stallions were only picked as warhorses to show the riders virility (and some other nonsense about gender ideology) and that geldings did just as well (I think this is a load of you-know-what) can you give me any info/sources.citations that say otherwise?
Well, the medieval Europeans certainly preferred stallions--a preference that lasted until at least the 17th century in places. Geldings would have been easier to control, true, but their aggressive and competitive instincts aren't quite as strong as proper stallions with balls. Of course, it wasn't always possible to follow this preference in practice, so geldings and mares saw some use as well.
8 What was the infantryman (specifically swiss and landsknecht) of the times opinion of the Gen 'd Arme?
Nice to have when they're on your side. A bother when they're on the enemy's.
9 How did Gens 'd armes solve the problem of the line coming apart when the horse charged?
Probably by the age-old method of restricting the distance from which they could begin their charges. When this was not done, we have a pretty clear account from La Noue that the line
did break apart, with the braver ones going headlong while the less brave hung back or even turned around.
10 Are there any survivng warhorse training manuals from the era?
Maybe Wallhausen's earliest works? These would have come from the very end of the period under discussion, though.
11 Why didn't the Gens 'd armes keep their lances along with their pistol?
They did. The mid-16th century gendarme
was armed with a lance, plus a pistol for emergencies. Pistol-armed shock cavalry formed a different category that would later be formalized under the name "Cuirassiers."
12 How long did it take Gen 'd arme or Gen 'd Arme like cavalry to reform and change direction?
They probably just couldn't (and didn't) once the charge was sounded. Before that, though, it'd largely depend on the size of the formation. The fastest ones would be the well-trained units that had fairly small sub-units and fairly large numbers of competent small-unit leaders.
Also did their formations come apart that easily?
Again, this depended on training, discipline, and experience. Even the French had both elite and crap gendarmes.
13 Which was the formation of preference? Wedge or En haye?
For whom? And within what timeframe? If it's the French again, their lances appeared to have preferred the shallow
en haye line up until the Wars of Religion or so, but experience in that war led to a gradual shift to pistol-armed cuirassiers operating in deep German-style formations.
14 (This is unrelated with the other questions) IIRC I came across a mentioning in Nicephorus Phocus' work about armouring the inside of the hoof to protect it from caltrops. Any ideas on how that would look/perform?
Hmm...I didn't recall reading that in the Praecepta Militaria. Any reference to which chapter and which section?
