Connection ErrorBad RequestThis page went staleSession ExpiredSign in requiredForbiddenNot FoundToo Many RequestsServer ErrorBad GatewayService UnavailableGateway TimeoutHTTP Version Not Supported
Session Expired
Your session has expired. Please log in to continue.
Sign in required
You need an account to do that. Sign in or create one — it only takes a minute.
This page went stale
Your security token was rejected, usually because the page sat open too long or you signed in elsewhere. Nothing was saved. Reload the page and try again.
Request Failed
We encountered an issue while processing your request.
Please check your internet connection and try again.
At least, I haven't found any historical evidence to support the idea that cavalry would routinely defeat second-rate infantry in large numbers (i.e., with ratios close to 1:10).
I haven't found anything like that either. The only thing you could argue is desertion by frightened soldiers, but that wouldn't work against pikemen or heavily armored infantry (heavily armored infantry is ridiculous - a two-handed sword + a huge shield). Overall, cavalry seems weak - a spear is practically impossible to use effectively without a charge, and a sword on the belt looks ridiculous compared to the "club" of the heavily armored infantry. However, griffins look scarier than knights - if you imagine their attack on the enemy, no defensive ditches will save them. A griffin will attack from above and scatter everyone, and the rest will run away or grab whatever weapon they can find. A griffin should be stronger than a knight.