Re: [FT] (LONG) The Balance of Power -- Fighters and a Defense

John Atkinson wrote:

> The assorted steppe nomads north of China never had
> heavy cavalry.  All light cavalry with missle weapons.
>  And trying to match missle-armed infantry with
> missle-armed cavalry is a loosing game.

Actually fast mobile cavalry with missile weapons is *very* effective,
They're hard to hit and when skilled like the mongols more effective
then a slow foot army. That's why china fell. The skill of hte mongol
bowmen/calvary decimated the chinese armies.
 
> I wasn't aware the Chinese ever had them, in the true
> sense of the word.  By the 9th century knights were
> just starting to come into their own in Europe.

They did. Full metal covered, lance wielding knights. Well not "knights"
but heavy calvary. They didn't last very long though. Most a footnote in
chinese history then a a big part of it. crossbow did away with them.
 
> Once you get effective gunpowder weapons you've
> completely changed the rules for cavalry.

Or decent rank and file bowmen with longbows. The english longbow made
it up to 100lbs and more. That can go through armour like hot knife
through butter.

Mostly I'm putting in the east view on this being a bitter opponent of
the eurocentric model for everything. :)