Hello, I like 17th century military history.
I've been reading John Lynn's book and I have a question.
In the 17th century, especially during the reign of Louis XIV, which was more important in the field, cavalry or infantry?
I thought that infantry was more important than cavalry in the field after the Battle of Pavia, but what I know is different from the facts of warfare in the late 17th century?
The use and importance of cavalry in a battlefield army is reflected by the popularity of the pike right into the end of your period - by the latter half of the 17th century the pikeman was predominantly (and I stress predominantly - it was not a set rule) an anti-cavalry weapon to defend the firearm element. The pike did not completely disappear from armies in Western Europe until the widespread adoption of the socket-type bayonet, which allowed firearm-equipped units to stand off and defend against cavalry while continuing to fire. Through the course of the century, pikemen gradually lost their armour as they were no longer expected to be heavily engaged in pike vs pike combat. The ideal of your cavalry was the defeat the enemy cavalry on the wings of the army, then to loop around and threaten the enemy infantry, forcing them on the defensive and allowing your artillery and shot to defeat them more easily. However, in some instance (*cough* Royalists at Edgehill *cough*) this plan went awry when the victorious cavalry, after driving off the enemy cavalry, rode off to do their own thing (usually to loot enemy baggage trains)
Certainly, in the field a balance needed to be struck but its perhaps easier to think in terms of the non-battle rather than the battle. The use of cavalry and dragoons outside of the battlefield were essential (I cannot emphasise this enough) in the logistical supply and provision of a marching army (as foragers out of the line of march, patrols around the army, wagon escorts) and as scouts, escorts, as pickets, and as messengers. Without these a campaigning army of solely infantry would be incredibly hamstrung by an opponent with a more mobile element which would be able to disrupt the communications and supply of the army. If it cannot be supplied, the enemy army is defeated without need for a battle. This then, even more than the battlefield, was where cavalry came into its own and why it remained such an important element of armies even as infantry firearm technology developed.
However, contemporary generals were very much aware that a battle was a rather rare beast - sieges were the method of capturing enemy territory and winning wars. In fact many battles only took place when a relieving army came to relieve a siege. And in a siege, it was the infantry that was king - digging trenches, encircling, and finally at the assault. Perhaps the easiest answer to your question is that armies of the period were predominantly composed of infantry but the amount of cavalry remained significant minority due to its uses. Again, this is more a reflection of cavalry's non-battle uses in an age of horse-powered supply lines, messengers, scouting etc. Lynn himself states that French cavalry numbers was usually between 1/4 to 1/3 of the field armies of the period, with the balance being composed almost entirely of infantry.^(1)