I think you may be misinterpreting the interpretations of John Keegan, who suggested that the psychological impact of a cavalry charge was perhaps more important in breaking an enemy formation than the physical impact of the charge itself. He thought of it being essentially a game of chicken: will the infantry break before the cavalry hits them or will the cavalry lose its nerve and pull off? I don't agree with Keegan, but we should be careful to not make a strawman out of his argument. At no point does he say that the cavalry did not intend to make contact with the enemy. I've never seen any suggestion of such a thing. Regardless of where you stand on the debate, it cannot be denied that a charging cavalry formation would be made up of hundreds of armored fighting men, armed with lances, swords, and other weapons. They were absolutely planning to make contact with the enemy and carry out as much slaughter as they could. Cavalry charges were not always successful, but they weren't as useless or as immaterial as is sometimes implied.