Ironside cavalry

He fulls into that section of the venn diagram that most of this boards do, historically illiterate AND arbitrarily hates anything British.

Historical literacy is the number one cause of Anglophobia.

there's no such thing as Anglophobia

There's no such thing as Anglos. Only muts.

They were very disciplined for their time due to their puritan views and thus did not partake in pillaging, looting, raping, killing prisoners etc.
They were also armed with muskets

>muskets
That's a carbine.

>How effective were they?
pretty effective
>Were they the best cavalry unit in Europe at the time?
kind of, they werent significantly better in a straight fight, but due to their discipline they were better at following up victories, they tended to win on their flank and then follow up by charging exposed enemy positions, much of the rest of european cavalry at the time tended to go loot the baggage, the ironsides kept fighting instead

No, only undisciplined Royalist cavalry did that. Don't project that to the rest of Europe.

more than half of all armies in europe were mercenaries, keeping those shits from looting was a full time job

Thats a pistol, actually, Not the lack of stock, and the empty pistol bucket on the horse's pommel.

Bump

Bump

t. Nigel Nigellius of Buckingsworth.

Under Napoleon, the French cavalry were, in contrast to the infantry, far more renowned for their action in masses than for their duty as light troops. They were deemed irresistible, and even Napier admits their superiority over the English cavalry of that day. Wellington, to a certain degree, did the same. And strange to say, this irresistible cavalry consisted of such inferior horsemen ... no soldiers are so careless of their horses as the French." ("The Armies of Europe" in Putnam's Monthly, No. XXXII, published in 1855

>English land forces of any kind
>best in Europe
>ever

Just no

18th century British armed forces were the best trained in Europe

Also, longbowmen

t. pierre-louis francois de paris xxviii

Pffffffffffffffffffffft
Britain had the shittiest land army among European Great Powers
That's why it took them an entire decade to defeat a French force they outnumbered 4 to 1 in the French and Indians War
And that's also why they got BTFO by peasants rebels a decade later

It's Prussia that had the best land army in Europe in the 18th century
Followed by Russia and France, then by Austria, then by Spain, and only after that by Britain

Most of the fighting in the French and Indian war was American colonists and not British regulars

40.000 soldiers vs 3 million "peasant rebels" aided by french soldiers and the french navy...

The Battle of Blenheim would disagree with that

80 % of allied forces were germans or dutch.

>Blenheim
>British soldiers

What the fuck are those in the picture then? French soldiers?

Wasn't the battle of blenheim 1704? 3 years before the act of union

Thats true, but it was the British soldiers who won the battle, Eugenes soldiers were crap, he said they were crap and wished he had a real army.

One may notice that this was the case at Waterloo as well
British soldiers are so terrible British generals could only win with foreign troops

Or maybe Britain has a low population and most join the navy?

the entire british first line and on most important positions like Hougomont and La Haye Sainte were defended by Kings German Legion, Hannoverians and troops from Saxe-Weimar and Nassau.