Did medieval England not use as much cavalry as continental European kingdoms in Combat?

by SamFord97

Sorry if the question sounds a bit clunky but I couldn't think of a better way to word it, but I seem to rember hearing this but I can't find a source. It seems to make sense to me as they'd probably do most of their fighting on the continent and getting lots of horses on to boats to get them across the channel could be difficult.

Rittermeister

There are going to be two answers to this. The first is that, yes, as a whole, England had fewer noblemen who could be mobilized as heavy cavalry (knights and esquires) than France or Germany. England had a smaller population, land less suited for open field farming, and more free peasants, all of which limited the size of the aristocracy. This discrepancy increased with time. On the other hand, the vast majority of campaigns were not max effort. If there are 20,000 knights in France, and only 6,000 in England, but both countries only mobilize 3,000 of them for a campaign, who has more?

On the other hand, the English used as many mounted troops as they possibly could, and on some occasions deployed armies (small ones, admittedly) that were wholly or mostly mounted, being some combination of knights, light cavalry, and mounted archers. This is not quite the same thing as saying they were all cavalry. In the 11th-12th centuries, and again in the 14th-15th centuries, the English frequently rode to battle, then dismounted to do most of the actual fighting, especially when they were on the defensive. The combination of knights and skilled archers proved to be a winner. Continental knights were not accustomed to fighting on foot, and the English were able to give the French black eyes on several occasions before they learned.