Is a horse more manoeuvrable than a man?

[waldo]

Why do undrilled cavalry get a free turn and contraction?

Is there any logic or historical basis for a mass of barbarian cavalry turning or contracting as well as Roman legionaries? Or being better at it than their compatriots on foot?

It seems that to try and cover horse archer armies, cavalry have been given some extras that have been extended to all undrilled cavalry. A simple "ride up and shoot and then evade away when charged" has been extended to a general free for all for just about anyone on a horse pre AD 1050, regardless of any training. Drilled do get a better expansion, which is useful, but did the regular Byzantine cavalry only turn and contract as well as Ostrogothic/Arab cavalry?

Either undrilled cavalry should be included with other undrilled or scrap other undrilled and put them all in with undrilled cavalry.

Walter

[philqw78]

Why do undrilled cavalry get a free (turn and) contraction?

They don't, they need to move forwards.

But anyway, as to the whole question. This is a long shot but. Perhaps the rules writers wished to depict cavalry as being more manouverable than foot. Perhaps they are wrong and the Romans should have surrounded the Parthians and shot them to bits. Perhaps foot should have been out on the wings in ancient armies, that way they could make use of their greater agility to outflank the enemy's cavalry.

Either undrilled cavalry should be included with other undrilled or scrap other undrilled and put them all in with undrilled cavalry.

What I think it means is undrilled cavalry should be as manouverable as undrilled foot, or undrilled foot should be as manouverable as their cavalry.