正文翻譯

Directing this question mostly to antiquity but not only: Why was cavalry units so effective during battles? Dont get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of history and I know that it WAS effective but I can't really imagine why.

這個(gè)問題主要是針對(duì)古代，但也不完全是針對(duì)古代，為什么騎兵部隊(duì)在戰(zhàn)斗中這么有用？別誤會(huì)，我是歷史愛好者，我當(dāng)然知道騎兵很有用，但我真的想不出原因。

Horses are (in my eyes) quite easily startled/scared. It's harder to fight on a horseback, you are a bigger target and it was hard and expensive to armour up a horse. Shields are not easy to carry on a horse. Most armies was composed of spears and in my eyes that is a good anti-horse weapon. Elephants were quite easily countered with whistles and lines by Scipios armies during second punic war, why was it tougher to face the Numidian cavalry? Horses are not smarter nor braver than elephants.

在我看來，馬匹很容易受到驚嚇，騎在馬背上更難以作戰(zhàn)，容易成為目標(biāo)，給馬裝上防具又非常貴，在馬上也不好帶盾牌。大多數(shù)軍隊(duì)都是由長(zhǎng)矛組成的，在我看來，長(zhǎng)矛這種武器能很好的防御馬匹。在第二次布匿戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中，大象很容易就被大西庇阿的軍隊(duì)用哨子和隊(duì)列弄得反戈了，為什么騎兵就更困難呢？馬匹并不比大象聰明勇敢。

But even after this, we know for a fact that cavalry was one of the most important factors and many times the reason why you won/lost. Please try to explain detailed but simple to me so I can picture it in my head.

但即使有如此疑問，我們也知道騎兵是戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中最重要的因素之一，很多時(shí)候也是導(dǎo)致你勝敗的原因。請(qǐng)大家簡(jiǎn)潔明了的解釋一下，以便我能在腦海里想象出來。

評(píng)論翻譯

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×耍荒茯T，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。