討論：為何騎兵這么有用？

Dagonus
In theory, it is easy to counter cavalry by holding formation. Horses do not want to run into you and often will resist charging straight into someone.This is especially useful if you have spears, pikes, or fixed bayonets. If you give the horse space to run past you, it will just alter course slightly into that gap. Unfortunately for you, it will also bump into you, knock you over and the next horse will trample you. In one of my military history class I had years ago in my undergrad, a student asked "so why don't people just hold formation?" The professor climbed on top of the table the student was sitting at and shouts "You're the front line! I'm this much taller than you! I weigh half a ton more than you and I'm charging at you at a run! If you hold formation, the horse will probably fall on you. Do you think you're holding formation?" "Maybe?" "Only if you are really, really disciplined and not overly stressed from the earlier actions." In short, a cavalry charge is terrifying, especially for undisciplined or green infantry.

理論上，保持住隊(duì)形是很容易對(duì)抗騎兵的。馬匹不想撞到你，通常不會(huì)向人沖撞，如果你有長(zhǎng)矛、長(zhǎng)槍或固定刺刀的時(shí)候會(huì)更有效。如果你旁邊的空間足夠馬匹繞過去，它就會(huì)稍微改變路線進(jìn)入這個(gè)間隙。然而不幸的是，它還是會(huì)碰到你，把你撞倒，然后下一匹馬會(huì)把你踩死。幾年前，在我本科的一堂軍事歷史課上，一個(gè)學(xué)生問“既然如此，那人們?yōu)槭裁床槐３肿￡?duì)型？” 教授爬到學(xué)生坐的桌子上，大聲說“你是前線！我比你高這么多！ 我比你重半噸，而且我正在向你沖鋒！如果你保持隊(duì)形，馬很可能會(huì)撞在你身上。你確認(rèn)你要保持隊(duì)型？”“可能…吧？” “除非你真的真的很有紀(jì)律，并且沒有因?yàn)橹暗男袆?dòng)而過于害怕才有可能?！?簡(jiǎn)言之，騎兵沖鋒很可怕，特別是對(duì)于那些沒有紀(jì)律的軍隊(duì)或新兵。

Not_A_Sholva
It's worth noting that the further back you go in time, the less the difference in size between a horse and a man is though. Sure, people were smaller too, but horses have been deliberately bred to be bigger for thousands of years. Especially if you go back some 5000 years, a rider would have to think about keeping their feet off the ground.

值得注意的是，時(shí)間越早，馬匹和人的個(gè)子差距越小，當(dāng)然，人的個(gè)子也更小，但馬匹一直被有意的往大個(gè)子的方向培養(yǎng)。特別是在5000年前，騎手必須考慮要把腳提起來才能不接觸地面。

ppitm
Virtually all medi war horses would be classed as ponies today. 14 hands and under.
There is only a single archaeological find of a 15 hand horse in the medi period.

實(shí)際上，中世紀(jì)的所有戰(zhàn)馬都會(huì)被歸類為如今的小型馬。高度在14掌以一下。
只有一列中世紀(jì)考古發(fā)現(xiàn)的馬匹是15掌。

MattSR30
I could be misremembering, but I thought their size (and the lack of saddles/stirrups) were the reason chariots were used in the ancient world. They were too small to ride, but they could pull a chariot.

不知道我有沒有記錯(cuò)，但我認(rèn)為它們的尺寸(以及沒有馬鞍和馬鐙) 是古代使用戰(zhàn)車的原因。因?yàn)樗鼈兲×?，不能騎，但它們可以拉戰(zhàn)車。

_Mechaloth_
You're not going to ride a regular horse into battle; you're going to ride a war horse, meaning it was trained to counter some of its survival instincts (against its own, probably better, judgment). Also, horse bodies are a great way to break a spear line. Expensive, sure, but if sacrificing a horse against polearms means some capable men get inside enemy lines, you can be sure as hell they'll take that opportunity.
Also, carrying a shield may not be easy on a horse, but it's sure easier than walking with it through mud and gore. Same with weighty armors. Put a pointy stick in a guy's hand with the momentum of a charging horse and put that against a regular infantryman; advantage to the cavalry (nearly) every time.
A horse itself can be a weapon. A kick can be fatal, getting stepped on can be fatal. Even if someone just gets knocked over, they become an easy target.
I think you are severely underestimating the utility and "bravery" of horses. The latter is a result of training, even in huge animals like elephants.

騎去打仗的馬不是普通的馬，是戰(zhàn)馬，這意味著它被訓(xùn)練過對(duì)抗它的一些生存本能。此外，馬匹的身體也是打破長(zhǎng)矛陣的主要方式。當(dāng)然，代價(jià)很高，但如果犧牲一匹馬來對(duì)抗長(zhǎng)柄武器意味著可以讓強(qiáng)力部隊(duì)突入到敵人的陣線里，那么可以肯定他們會(huì)抓住這個(gè)機(jī)會(huì)。
另外，在馬上攜帶盾牌可能不那么容易，但肯定比帶著盾牌在泥濘中行走容易。重甲也是這樣。騎手拿著狼牙棒騎在馬上沖鋒對(duì)付普通步兵，結(jié)果幾乎每次都對(duì)騎兵有利。
馬匹本身就是武器。踢是致命的，被踩也是致命的。某人即使只是被撞倒，也很容易成為目標(biāo)。我認(rèn)為你嚴(yán)重低估了馬匹的用途和“勇敢”。勇敢是訓(xùn)練的結(jié)果，即使是大象這樣的大型動(dòng)物也是要訓(xùn)練的。

whistleridge
Short answer: Physics.
Longer answer: Horses weigh ~1000lbs/500kg, can cover up to 35 miles/70 kilometers in a day, and can charge at 30mph/48kph over short distances. This gives you advantages of both speed and power. You couldn't catch light cavalry except with other light cavalry, and you couldn't withstand a charge from heavy cavalry except with other heavy cavalry or with a dense formation of spearmen. Spear formations aren't mobile though, so they have no ability to do anything more than stand there or move slowly in one direction.
Cavalry alone typically couldn't defeat well-led infantry (key word: well-led; they literally ride over poorly-led infantry), for precisely the reasons you describe. But it could flow around it, and wait out the infantry. You can only stand in a dense formation so long before you need to eat, sleep, and poop, and the cavalry could more or less lounge around at their leisure. This is what happened to the Romans at Carrhae. However, if the infantry was well-supported by other arms, then they couldn't be isolated and the cavalry couldn't do much but run in circles. This is what happened to Ney at Waterloo.
But the major advantage that cavalry conferred was off the battlefield. They could scout, screen advances, raid deep behind enemy lines, disrupt communications, and even serve as mounted infantry. If the other guy had cavalry and you didn't, it was roughly like fighting a war today where the other guy has air power and you don't - sure, you can still hold out, but it's a lot harder. Time and again in the late Empire and throughout the Middle Ages, powerful and well-led infantry units held a region only to be bypassed by cavalry that burned and raided everything behind them, until eventually the infantry was forced to move out. At which point it was defeated.
There's no one-size-fits-all solution. Infantry alone can't do it all, and cavalry alone can't do it. You need combined arms. That principle still dominates warfare today, which is why you see modern armies using such concepts as the deep battle, the extended battlefield, etc.

簡(jiǎn)單答案：物理。
長(zhǎng)答案：馬匹的重量約為1000磅或500千克，一天可以跑35英里或70公里，可以以每小時(shí)30英里或48公里的速度進(jìn)行短距離沖鋒。這為你提供了速度和動(dòng)力的優(yōu)勢(shì)。你無法攔住輕騎兵，除非有其他輕騎兵攔截，你頂不住重騎兵的沖鋒，除非有其他重騎兵或密集的長(zhǎng)矛兵隊(duì)形。但長(zhǎng)矛隊(duì)形無法移動(dòng)，所以他們除了站在那里、或朝一個(gè)方向緩慢移動(dòng)之外，什么也做不了。
單靠騎兵通常無法擊敗訓(xùn)練有素的步兵，原因和樓主說的一樣（關(guān)鍵詞：訓(xùn)練有素。騎兵真的可以碾死訓(xùn)練不足的步兵）。但騎兵可以繞著步兵跑，或者和步兵磨時(shí)間。你只能在密集的隊(duì)形中長(zhǎng)時(shí)間站著，而你需要吃飯、睡覺和大便，而騎兵們可以休息。這就是羅馬人在卡萊戰(zhàn)役中的遭遇。然而，如果步兵有其他部隊(duì)的有力支持，那么他們就不會(huì)被孤立，騎兵也就沒什么辦法，只能繞圈轉(zhuǎn)。這就是內(nèi)伊元帥在滑鐵盧中的遭遇。
但騎兵的主要優(yōu)勢(shì)是在戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)之外。他們可以偵察、掩護(hù)前進(jìn)，突襲敵人后方，擾亂通訊，甚至充當(dāng)騎馬步兵。如果對(duì)方有騎兵而你沒有，這就像如今的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中對(duì)方有空軍而你沒有。是的，你仍然可以堅(jiān)持抵抗，但這要面臨更多困難。在帝國晚期和整個(gè)中世紀(jì)，強(qiáng)大且訓(xùn)練有素的步兵占據(jù)著一個(gè)地區(qū)，卻被騎兵一次又一次的繞過，襲擊并燒毀了他們身后的一切，直到最后步兵被迫撤離。在某種程度上，步兵是被擊敗了。
沒有單兵種包打天下的方案。步兵不能單獨(dú)完成所有任務(wù)，騎兵也不能。你需要兵種組合。這個(gè)原則仍然主導(dǎo)著如今的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，這就是你看到現(xiàn)代軍隊(duì)使用諸如縱深作戰(zhàn)、擴(kuò)展戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)等概念的原因。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Hygro
In boxing we have weight classes because more weight beats being "a smaller target". Now your weight class is "horse".

在拳擊中，我們有重量級(jí)別，因?yàn)楦叩闹亓考?jí)能擊敗“更小的對(duì)手”。現(xiàn)在，你的重量級(jí)別是“馬”。

whistleridge
Yup.
Prime Ali and Tyson lose to a cow every time, and it's quick. Right of weight is inexorable.

是的。拳王阿里和泰森每次都輸給一頭牛，而且輸?shù)煤芸臁Ｖ亓考?jí)是無可阻擋的。

whistleridge
"Alright, Tyson is coming out, he's clearly here to fight, he ducks, he wea-...He's dead! The cow just...crushed him! It didn't even seem to feel his punches!"

“好的，泰森出來了，他顯然是來戰(zhàn)斗的，他躲開了，他…他死了！牛直接壓死了他！它甚至沒有感受到他的拳頭！”
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

SRD1194
One thing I would add, in response to the "horses are easily startled" argument, the horses used for battlefield work were trained. Much like modern police dogs, war horses would have as many of their instinctive reactions trained out of them. Where a cart horse would run away, a war horse would charge, and rake the enemy with its hoves. Because of the advantages of a mobile fighting force, wealthy, sophisticated nations had breeding programs to make the best war horses. Think about modern thoroughbred horses and show dogs, but with the aim of breeding vicious, fearless, obedient animals. Then you have their rider train with them for months or years, desensitizing it to smoke, fire, noise, and anything else they might encounter on the battlefield.

我要補(bǔ)充一點(diǎn)，以回應(yīng)“馬匹很容易受到驚嚇”的說法，用于戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)的馬是經(jīng)過訓(xùn)練的。就像現(xiàn)代警犬一樣，戰(zhàn)馬的本能反應(yīng)也會(huì)被進(jìn)行很多訓(xùn)練。在馱馬會(huì)逃跑的情況里，戰(zhàn)馬會(huì)繼續(xù)沖鋒，用蹄子踢敵人。由于機(jī)動(dòng)作戰(zhàn)部隊(duì)具有很大的優(yōu)勢(shì)，富裕、有經(jīng)驗(yàn)的國家制定了繁殖計(jì)劃，以培育最好的戰(zhàn)馬。想想現(xiàn)代的純種馬和表演犬，不過它們的目的是兇猛、無畏、順從的動(dòng)物。然后讓騎手和它們一起訓(xùn)練幾個(gè)月或幾年，讓它們對(duì)煙霧、火、噪音和戰(zhàn)場(chǎng)上可能遇到的任何東西不敏感。

gnosis2737
Great response! I think people also underestimate how common it would have been for cavalry to dismount and fight using infantry tactics. Competent cavalry leaders would not order a charge if the situation didn't call for it. They would save their horses and fight on foot as needed.
Cavalry advantages:
Chasing, charging, ambushing, hit and run, scouting, general mobility.
Lastly, cavalry was different from infantry in that they were typically elite. OP compared cavalry units vs well-led infantry unit but historically infantry were the CHEAP warfare solution. Cavalry was best employed to terrorize undisciplined or under-equipped infantry formations.

不錯(cuò)的回復(fù)！我認(rèn)為人們也低估了騎兵下馬使用步兵戰(zhàn)術(shù)作戰(zhàn)的普遍性。如果情況不允許，合格的騎兵指揮官不會(huì)下令沖鋒，他們會(huì)保住他們的馬匹，并在必要時(shí)步行作戰(zhàn)。
騎兵的優(yōu)勢(shì)：追逐、沖鋒、伏擊、打了就跑、偵查、機(jī)動(dòng)性。
最后，騎兵不同于步兵，他們是典型的精英。樓主比較了騎兵部隊(duì)和訓(xùn)練有素的步兵部隊(duì)，但從歷史上看，步兵是廉價(jià)的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)手段。騎兵最適合用來恐嚇沒有紀(jì)律或裝備不足的步兵編隊(duì)。

AnaphoricReference
From the 16th century onwards you increasingly see a formal distinction between cavalry and mounted infantry that just used a standard riding or pack horse for mobility but didn't fight on horseback at all. In earlier times that distinction existed in practice but was mainly a quality issue.
Obviously, given the huge mobility advantages of cavalry in a campaign and the costs of keeping horses, cavalry were ideally not just men on horses but the best men, carrying the best armour and weapons on horses sexted and trained for the purpose. Knights usually went on campaign with two or even three horses to make the most of their mobility and still have a fresh war horse for battle. And even then there are tactical circumstances which call for a dismount.

從16世紀(jì)開始，騎兵和騎馬步兵之間的正式區(qū)別越來越明顯，騎馬步兵只是使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)戰(zhàn)馬或馱馬進(jìn)行機(jī)動(dòng)，但根本不騎馬作戰(zhàn)。在早期，這種區(qū)別在實(shí)踐中是存在的，但主要是質(zhì)量問題。
考慮到騎兵在戰(zhàn)役中的巨大機(jī)動(dòng)性優(yōu)勢(shì)和養(yǎng)馬成本，在理想情況下，騎兵不僅是騎馬的人，而且是最好的人，攜帶著最好的盔甲和武器，騎的馬匹經(jīng)過精心的挑選和訓(xùn)練。騎士出征時(shí)通常帶兩匹甚至三匹馬，以充分發(fā)揮它們的機(jī)動(dòng)性，并且仍然有另一匹體力充沛的戰(zhàn)馬用于戰(zhàn)斗。即便這樣，也仍然有需要下馬作戰(zhàn)的情況。

ActiveFrontEnd
I would imagine also that a calvary charge was pretty scary which would lead to routes for poorly trained infantry. And in an infantry route I assume calvary would be devastating. Are there accounts of leaders using this shock style or were the calvary too valuable to waste for risks like that?

我還可以想象，騎兵沖鋒是非常可怕的，會(huì)讓缺乏訓(xùn)練的步兵崩潰。在前進(jìn)的過程中，騎兵的破壞性極大。有沒有軍隊(duì)將領(lǐng)使用這種突擊方式的記錄，還是說騎兵的價(jià)值太高，不能冒這樣的風(fēng)險(xiǎn)？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

jrhooo
I would imagine also that a calvary charge was pretty scary which would lead to routes for poorly trained infantry.
THIS is one of my most often referenced points, about warfare in general. People talk about "trained and experienced troops" but people tend to miss what the importance of that training and experience is. Whether its holding a battle line instead of running away from the scary charging horses, or charging into an ambush position, or moving up a beach instead of looking for cover, there are so many tactical situations where the correct thing to do that helps you survive is the exact opposite of the thing every human instinct would tell you to do.
Training is what A. Gives you the knowledge to know to do THIS not THAT, and B. gives you the discipline to force yourself to do THIS and override fear alarm in your head screaming THAT.

“我還可以想象，騎兵沖鋒是非?？膳碌?，會(huì)讓缺乏訓(xùn)練的步兵崩潰?！?br /> 關(guān)于戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)，這是我最常提到的觀點(diǎn)之一。人們常說“訓(xùn)練有素、經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的部隊(duì)”，但又往往忽視了訓(xùn)練和經(jīng)驗(yàn)的重要性。無論是在面對(duì)沖鋒的馬匹時(shí)能堅(jiān)守住戰(zhàn)線而不逃跑，或是沖入伏擊位置，或是聚集起來而不是分散尋找掩護(hù)，在許多情況下，能讓你生存下來的正確做法往往與人類本能趨勢(shì)下的做法相反。
訓(xùn)練的意義在于，1、讓你知道做什么而不做什么。2、讓你學(xué)會(huì)強(qiáng)迫自己做正確的選擇，并克服你頭腦中去做錯(cuò)誤選擇的恐懼。

CFA1979
Don’t forget the psychological impact of a 1000lbs animal charging at you are 50km/h with a guy on its back waving a sword/spear/etc. From my understanding, a cavalry charge was more about making the enemies try running away and breaking formation than actually smashing into said enemy like in the movies.

別忘了當(dāng)一只1000磅的動(dòng)物以50公里每小時(shí)的速度沖向你，而它的背上還有騎手在揮舞著刀槍時(shí)帶來的心理沖擊。據(jù)我理解，騎兵沖鋒更多的是要讓敵人逃跑從而打破隊(duì)形，而不是像電影中那樣真正地撞向敵人。

Thewhopper256
One thing I’ve always wondered about (and admittedly never looked into, so I’m rather ignorant on the subject) is what weapons cavalry used. I believe I recall that they largely used pikes and spears because being on a large horse you need reach. But I can’t imagine how you could land a solid spear shot on an enemy without losing your spear and then losing one of your great advantages. I imagine a sword would be rather difficult to be effective with due to the short reach, but certainly better than nothing. Would they use a pike first and then swap to a sword after they land a good hit and lose their pike? Or would they be able to use a pike for multiple hits?

有件事我一直想知道，騎兵使用什么武器？我從來沒有研究過，所以我對(duì)這個(gè)問題相當(dāng)無知。我記得他們主要使用長(zhǎng)槍和長(zhǎng)矛，因?yàn)轵T在一匹大馬上你需要打到人。但我無法想象怎么能在不失去矛的情況下用矛刺敵人？我想刀很難奏效，因?yàn)樗姆秶。隙ū仁裁炊紱]有要好。他們會(huì)先用長(zhǎng)矛，然后在命中對(duì)方并失去長(zhǎng)矛后換成刀？還是說他們能夠用長(zhǎng)矛進(jìn)行多次攻擊？

hurocrat
Lances and longswords early on, mainly (sabers in later times). Pikes were an infantry weapon designed to use against cavalry, basically a giant boar spear. Lances would be easier to withdraw after impact, though you'd still lose it fairly shortly which is why medi knights often carried more than one. But basically yes. The lance would be used for the initial charge to break an enemy's front line, then they'd use the sword for melee fighting after the breakthrough when lances just became too awkward for close quarters. A longsword or heavy saber was devastating from horseback because you could use gravity to add force to a blow, while the infantry's pikes just couldn't be used after the first clash. However, bear in mind that a cavalry charge's best weapon in momentum. If you're mixed up in a melee, you're doing it wrong. So ideally a cavalry charge would plow through, re-form, then do it all over again preferably after getting another lance.
Infantry responded with axes, bills, and halberds. Axes to bring horses down, bills and halberds to bring knights and cav troopers down off their horses.

早期主要用槍和長(zhǎng)劍，后期用軍刀。長(zhǎng)矛是一種用于對(duì)抗騎兵的步兵武器，基本上就是一種巨大的野豬矛。長(zhǎng)槍在命中后更容易收回，盡管仍然很快會(huì)失去它，這就是中世紀(jì)的騎士經(jīng)常攜帶不止一把長(zhǎng)槍的原因。但基本上，是的。長(zhǎng)槍用于最初沖鋒，以打破敵人的前排防線，在突破后，當(dāng)長(zhǎng)槍變得難以近距離使用時(shí)，他們會(huì)使用刀進(jìn)行近戰(zhàn)。一把長(zhǎng)劍或重型軍刀在馬背上具有極大的殺傷性，因?yàn)槟憧梢岳弥亓碓黾哟驌舻牧α浚奖拈L(zhǎng)矛在第一次沖擊后就不能使用了。然而，請(qǐng)記住，騎兵沖鋒最好的武器是沖擊力。如果你卷入了混戰(zhàn)，那么你就沒做對(duì)。所以理想的情況是，騎兵應(yīng)該沖鋒而過，重新組隊(duì)，最好是獲得另一把長(zhǎng)槍后來沖一次。
步兵用斧頭、槍和戟來應(yīng)對(duì)。斧頭可以把馬砍倒，槍和戟可以把騎士和騎兵從馬上拉下來。

MansfromDaVinci
Horses are more easily fed, housed and trained than elephants and they don't go berserk and attack the nearest thing nearly as much.
Also missile cavalry like the Numidian cavalry was effective because you can't catch them with infantry or heavy cavalry, they can ride down your ranged foot soldiers if exposed and fight fairly equally with light cavalry. You almost always fight on their terms after taking their shots. The Numidians only had a few javelins. Parthians, armed with composite bows, were absolute terrors

馬比大象更容易喂養(yǎng)、培育和訓(xùn)練。它們也不會(huì)想大象那么容易發(fā)狂然后攻擊最近的東西。
另外，像努米底亞騎兵這樣的投擲騎兵也很有效，因?yàn)槟銦o法用步兵或重騎兵攔住他們，如果你的遠(yuǎn)程步兵暴露了，他們可以和輕騎兵一樣進(jìn)行踐踏。你幾乎總是按他們的節(jié)奏來戰(zhàn)斗。努米底亞人只有幾支標(biāo)槍。帕提亞人配備了復(fù)合弓，相當(dāng)恐怖。

lobibobo
The Mongols also perfected firing bows from horseback and it was a huge advantage in battle

蒙古人還完善了騎射，這在戰(zhàn)斗中是一個(gè)巨大的優(yōu)勢(shì)

Cogust
Cavalry is extremely lethal to fleeing/routing infantry as you can't outrun them and you can't fight them off as your formation is in shambles.
If well drilled infantry held their ground, then the Cavalry would break off the charge at the last second and reform to try again somewhere else, or perhaps that feint managed to shake up your formation enough so that it is disorganised or demoralised enough for the next charge to succeed?
Charging into a spear wall will get you and your horse killed, even if you manage to break the infantry, so that was not something done voluntarily.
Cavalry generally doesn't want a prolonged melee, most of their advantages disappears and most of their disadvantages come to play, they want to feint, hit a flank, attack disorganised troops and then reform for another charge. Their mobility gave they ample opportunity to do this over and over and infantry most often had more than a single threat to face which often made it hard to face the Cavalry with a solid spear wall.

騎兵對(duì)逃跑、潰散的步兵是非常致命的，因?yàn)槟闩懿贿^他們，由于陣型是混亂的，因此也打不過他們。
如果訓(xùn)練有素的步兵能夠堅(jiān)守陣型，那么騎兵會(huì)在最后一秒結(jié)束沖鋒，在其它地方集結(jié)再試一次，或許這種佯攻足以撼動(dòng)你的陣型，使組織混亂或士氣低落，讓下一次沖鋒能夠成功。
沖進(jìn)長(zhǎng)矛墻里，哪怕你設(shè)法擊潰了步兵，也會(huì)讓你和你的馬被殺死，所以騎兵不會(huì)主動(dòng)這么做。
騎兵一般不想進(jìn)行長(zhǎng)時(shí)間的混戰(zhàn)，這會(huì)讓他們的大多數(shù)優(yōu)勢(shì)消失，劣勢(shì)暴露。他們想要佯攻，擊敵側(cè)翼，攻擊混亂的部隊(duì)，然后重組進(jìn)行下一次沖鋒。他們的機(jī)動(dòng)性讓他們有足夠的機(jī)會(huì)一遍又一遍地這樣做，步兵通常面臨不止一個(gè)威脅，這使得他們很難用堅(jiān)固的長(zhǎng)矛陣面對(duì)騎兵。

AgoraiosBum
Because infantry was often so shitty. When you have poorly trained and armed green levies being asked to fight your battles, and they are facing a warrior caste that spends life in the saddle, often with superior arms and armament, on a 1000 lb horse, bearing down on you, the natural instinct is to break and run.
Now, a well trained pike or spearman can stop the charge by holding their ground. But an army doesn't always have well-trained, veteran pike or spearmen. And if just a few people break and flee, it creates gaps in the line.
Secondarily, even if you have well trained infantry, if they are engaged with other infantry and the cavalry use their mobility to go around the back, the well trained infantry will still break.
Then, cavalry does its most important thing - ride down, kill, and scatter enemy who have broken formation and keep them from forming back up.

因?yàn)椴奖ǔＫ降土?。?dāng)你缺乏訓(xùn)練、裝備不足的新兵要求參加戰(zhàn)斗，而他們面對(duì)的是一生都騎在馬鞍上、裝備優(yōu)良的武器和鎧甲，騎在一匹1000磅重的馬上、向你沖來的戰(zhàn)士階層時(shí)，他們的本能就是崩潰然后逃跑。
訓(xùn)練有素的長(zhǎng)槍兵堅(jiān)守住隊(duì)形確實(shí)能夠阻止騎兵的沖鋒。但軍隊(duì)里并不總是有訓(xùn)練有素、經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的長(zhǎng)槍兵。如果有一些人崩潰逃跑，就會(huì)在防線中造成缺口。
其次，即使你有訓(xùn)練有素的步兵，如果他們與其敵方步兵交戰(zhàn)，而騎兵利用機(jī)動(dòng)性繞到后面，訓(xùn)練有素的步兵仍然會(huì)崩潰。
然后，騎兵會(huì)做最重要的事情——踐踏、殺死、驅(qū)散陣型崩潰的敵人，并阻止他們重組隊(duì)伍。

gamerdude69
Imagine you and 9 of your buddies standing shoulder to shoulder, each with a shield at the ready. 3 mounted horses are 100 yards away charging at you in full gallop. All 3 of them smash into you with 1,000 pounds of weight at 30 mph. 2 of you will be borderline dead. 2 will be seriously injured. Half of you will have gone flying. Your line is broken, you've just been ran over by a horse at full speed, and now you have the wonderful job of fighting a mounted knight while you're in sandals.

想象一下，你和你的9個(gè)伙伴肩并肩站在一起，每個(gè)人都準(zhǔn)備好盾牌。3匹馬在100碼外全速向你沖來。它們以每小時(shí)30英里的速度、以1000磅的重量撞向你。你們中有兩個(gè)人瀕臨死亡，兩個(gè)重傷，一半被撞飛。你們的陣型崩潰了，你剛剛被一匹全速奔跑的馬從身上踩過，在這樣的情況下，你還如何與對(duì)面的騎士戰(zhàn)斗呢。