degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era

[Macedon]

Geala wrote :
I don't understand the rejection of the idea that cavalry was able to destroy infantry in melee when the infantry was attacked in the flank or back. To fight against infantry the heavy cavalry had to come to melee, or not?

What you are asking has multiple answers. When talking battle tactics you have to be very specific. First, you have to specify how this infantry is deployed. Is it in open order? In dense order? In "skirmish order" (diesparmeni taxis)? Is it "regular" (strictly keeps distances and positions) or "irregular" (more like a dense crowd roughly keeping in line)? Then you have to specify the most important aspect. Is the infantry unit engaged in another melee or isn't it? Attacking an unengaged phalanx on the rear for example is hardly as effective as engaging it while it already fights (Cynos Cephalae). If it is unengaged it can turn and face you quite easily if it stands the first psychological shock and then it will be more like attacking the front. If the infantry is deep, it may even form a double facing phalanx (amphistomi phalanx) and again it will be as if you are attacking the front. Of course your job will be easier if for some reason you totally surprise the infantry unit and attack it before it can reform from a short distance. Flank attacks are also problematic, since a 16.000 men (perfect) phalanx 16 man deep (really deep) has a frontage of about 800-1.000 yards and a depth (flank frontage) of 10-16 yards, less than a single cavalry squadron, let alone a cavalry line. And these 16 men, along with the files beside them will also turn unless they are really occupied, being heavily engaged from the front. Of course it is better to attack the flanks and the rear, but if the unit survives the psychological shock, your attack will very possibly be met with as difficult a task as when attacking the front. If the unit is already engaged, your job will be a lot easier.

Secondly, you speak about heavy cavalry. You have to determine what you mean by that. The Romans of the Republican years for example fought like the Greeks. They closed in by squadron and discharged javelins against the enemy, be it cavalry or infantry. And this form of attack was very effective. Armor was very important, because they were also the target of missiles and without it they were very vulnerable. The Companions of Alexander and Philip are generally also considered "heavy". They were partially armored, not as heavy as purely javelineering Persian cavalry for example, but they fought with the xyston, a long lance. Why? Dense cavalry in squadrons was maneuverable enough to easily escape any type of infantry but couldn't escape other cavalry. So, horse with lances were very effective against cavalry with javelins and short spears. Very often, the Companions were accompanied by light infantry to compensate for their lack of missiles and of course to be protected by enemy missiles. So, and all ancient accounts make this absolutely clear, Companions, a "heavy cavalry" was mainly an anti-cavalry weapon. Now this is also melee, just not against infantry. Did they fight against infantry? No. This was not their role. Should the infantry waver and start running, then any cavalry, even "heavy skirmishing" cavalry would charge and cut them down, but there was no point to risk the elite of your army, usually the richest and most important citizens of your state in a fight that after the first shock would certainly bring you at a disadvantage. Even in later years we read about 6 -12-30 charges of cavalry. No cavalry would stay in the melee with steady infantry. It would be suicidal. There would be always more footmen than horsemen, better armored, better balanced, firm on the ground, with (valuable) horses vulnerable to attack, who could keep their order, while horsemen cannot while in melee. And disengaging is not a piece of cake. The Normans at Hastings also made multiple attested charges. How many melees did ensue from these? None. They charged, stopped and then retreated.

Geala wrote :
If cavalry was not able to go into melee after flank or back attacks, what exactly was the task of heavy cavalry? Why the extreme efforts to neutralize enemy cavalry with the own or with especially deployed infantry, if the cavalry was not able to destroy infantry at all because melee had to be avoided?

The role of cavalry is not to break the infantry, it is first and foremost to oust the enemy horse and then surround the enemy lines, while at the same time protecting their own infantry. If your cavalry is all too competent and your infantry enemy is not, then yes, you could try a real, "heavy cavalry-style" charge, especially if you were a ferocious Frank... People tend to underestimate the power of the missile attacks made by cavalry. These were deadly, especially if they were made from the rear or the "shieldless" flank. Engaged infantry, which had to simultaneously suffer attacks (javelins) from the rear was at serious disadvantage. And of course you would also make your enemy fear that they would not be able to escape, while your own troops would feel relieved, because they would learn that they had nothing to fear from enemy cavalry. Cannae is a very good example for all this and Polybius is very descriptive. In conclusion, I do not say that cavalry did not fight infantry. They did, but this fight was mainly from afar and it was very effective against infantry. There is no real difference between some squadrons of Greek cavalry hurling their javelins against an infantry phalanx with what the Mongols and the Turks did. Infantry was unable to catch these formations and so they would stand helpless (a good example is the battle of Plateae, by Herodot). Only cavalry could engage these formations and keep the infantry safe. What was the real strength of the purely skirmishing formations of the nomads? That they could not be engaged by cavalry, not infantry. As long as there was enough space to wheel around (do the perispasmos), a cavalry was perfectly safe from any infantry.

Giannis wrote :
Perhaps they mean that charging cavalry is unstopable especially if attacking from flank or rear,but once it becomes static it loses its advantages. A horse is always a fearsome thing to have against you in a fight,even when static. It can certainly throw you off battle if you happen to be in front or behind it. But it also offers much greater target,and cavalry without horses is not cavalry anymore! So i assume that heavy cavalry had the necessary protection and training to sustain some short melee until it can disengage and re-engage with its powerful momentum. And perhaps do this several times. I think that light cavalry might not have any disadvantage in the charge,since a horse is always a horse no matter if it's of the heavy or light cavalry. But probably the horses' and cavalrymen's arms and armour was such that even in the short inevitable melee that follows a charge, it sustained too heavy losses.

How many real cataphract cavalry units do we know of? Even the fearsome Western knights were usually much less armored than we think they were and their horses were even less armored than them. Maybe, if more fully armored men and horses could have been provided, maybe then the cavalry would be able to have a more aggressive role against infantry to pursue with reasonable effectiveness. But a cataphract or fully armored knight wears much heavier armor than a very heavy and effective infantryman and the resources to fully armor a horse are astronomic... Forming one unit of such cavalry would be the same in matters of cost and raw materials as equipping a full army. If such a cavalry attacked Arabian infantrymen or Gaulish barbarians, I am sure that the odds would have been in favor of the cavalry. But if the horseman was only wearing a breastplate or chainmail and the horse a frontal leather barding with some metal plates as was usually the case, then staying in the melee would be suicidal. The horse would be killed in a matter of seconds, the (usually aristocrat and arduously trained, friend of the king) rider would be dragged down (as was the case in such instances even in cavalry melees) and killed. So, yes, you are right. As you point out, "the horses' and cavalrymen's arms and armor was such that even in the short inevitable melee that follows a charge, it sustained too heavy losses".

[Aulus Perrinius]

How many real cataphract cavalry units do we know of? Even the fearsome Western knights were usually much less armored than we think they were and their horses were even less armored than them. Maybe, if more fully armored men and horses could have been provided, maybe then the cavalry would be able to have a more aggressive role against infantry to pursue with reasonable effectiveness. But a cataphract or fully armored knight wears much heavier armor than a very heavy and effective infantryman and the resources to fully armor a horse are astronomic... Forming one unit of such cavalry would be the same in matters of cost and raw materials as equipping a full army. If such a cavalry attacked Arabian infantrymen or Gaulish barbarians, I am sure that the odds would have been in favor of the cavalry. But if the horseman was only wearing a breastplate or chainmail and the horse a frontal leather barding with some metal plates as was usually the case, then staying in the melee would be suicidal. The horse would be killed in a matter of seconds, the (usually aristocrat and arduously trained, friend of the king) rider would be dragged down (as was the case in such instances even in cavalry melees) and killed. So, yes, you are right. As you point out, "the horses' and cavalrymen's arms and armor was such that even in the short inevitable melee that follows a charge, it sustained too heavy losses".

Well, that depends, for instance Williams men were pretty lightly armoured compared to a crusader who would have had chausses, hauberk, guantlets, coif and great-helm. Also the horse's (assuming we're talking crusader era) caparisons would as least be quilted, which will stop slashes and thrusts. There're plenty of records for horse armour in them middle ages and by the late eleventh century (at the latest) there was a widespread implementation of horse armour. I agree that first and foremost heavy cavalry is intended to attack the other guys cavarly first and then the infantry. But saying ancient cavalry wouldn't engage infantry in close combat to me is like saying that a Tank doesn't engage infantry because it's primary task is to attack other tanks, as an aside in the 1600's the cavalry was generall ineffective because the used the caracole (didn't engage in melee) it became effective again when they started engaging in melee with the infantry. Also Williams knights did engage the saxon infantry.

Flank attacks are perfectly fine, I don't care if the enemy infantry isn't taken by surprise if I hit them in the rear or flank I win. The horses are moving at 30 miles an hour and they each weigh (combined with their rider and his gear) almost a ton. The infantry are going to flying at least fifteen before fetching up against their buddies at which point they will knock their buddies around and disrupt the formation even more.

"Disdaining to fight from a distance (Presumably with lances) they rode into battle using their swords."

William of Poitiers Gesta Wilhemi PP 12-13

". . . This time they managed to break into the shield wall in several places. . ."

Philip Sidnell's Warhorse cavalry in the ancient world pp 327

As for ancient cavalry engage in the melee with infantry:

"The historian Polybius, writing in the second century BC, concluded from his study of events in the previous century that it was better to enter battle with twice as much cavalry and half as much infantry than it was to be equal in both."

Philip Sidnell's Warhorse: Cavalry in the Ancient World Introduction pp 1

I hardly think he would have made that conclusion of cavalry weren't intended to engage infantry up close as well as sweeping enemy foot off the field.

Phalerum 511 BC The Thessalians charge and hack down a bunch of spartan infantry.

Platea 479 Theban Cavalry cover the retreat of the Persians and Boeatian force and attack bunch of advancing greek infantry destroying them.

In the first battle of their ill-fated Sicilian expedition (415-413 BC) the Athenian hoplites were pursuing the defeated Syracusan infantry and were charged from the front several times by the Syracusan cavalry who drove them back.

On a later occaision the Syracusan foot had broken under an attack by Athenian hoplites and three hundred picked hoplites advanced to take a bridge and cut off the retreat of the Syracusan's however the Syracusan cavalry charged, routed the three hundred hoplites and drove on into the right flank of the phalanx.

At Sogiya 425 BC The Athenian cavalry routed the Corinthian infantry thus deciding the battle.

During at battle at the siege of Syracuse the Syracusan cavalry charged and routed the Athenian left wing

In 429 BC The Chalcidian Cavalry made several charges against the Athenian infantry and finally panicked the athenians to the point that they were routed.

At Amphipolis in 422 BC An Athenian force was overwhelmed by force composed of mostly cavalry and light infantry with cavalry playing the leading role. The Athenian general Cleon was killed and his hoplite formed a square on a hill and beat back two or three attacks.

When Agesilaus invaded Sardis in 395 BC His new cavalry force charged the crack persian troops and the persians fell back from the all out shock of the assault and the greek cavalry won the day.

Source: Warhorse Cavalry in Ancient Warfare by Philip Sidnell. Chapter Two Ancient Greece.

I will post some more but right now I'm going to take a nice long nap and read.

[PMBardunias]

To me, the problem with this discussion and all like it is that we never define the terms we use properly, so are doomed to fail in achieving a consensus. The most important terms are:

"Close formed infantry" What does this mean, how close? Surely the Sudanese were formed at greater interpersonal space than sarissaphoroi. How deep are they formed? How closely packed.

"Charge!" At what velocity are the horses supposed to meet the infantry? As I mentioned above hitting a blockof men at 25ph is suicide- I've seen what happens to cars that hit just one man at this speed. The spacing need not even be all that close, because 20mph is just over 36 feet per second. That means even with a good 3 feet between men in a 12 man file, they would be compressed into a 2,000 pound pile in under a second. Since horses are wided than men, perhaps more like 4,000 lbs. Lest there be fantasies about horses simply knocking men aside, consider where they go. There is no room, for they at best fall into the path of the horse beside you. Running over a line such as this is a problem as well, even for horses following. Men are taller than 3', they will be thown back into the men behind like dominoes. I would be very interested to see a horse run over a 10 meter jumble of men, spears, and shields held at all angles, and come out the other end without a broken leg.

So back to speed. Horses surely will run into line of formed men. We spent much of our prehistoric day hunting horses by chasing them over clifts like lemmings. Surely they want to go over clifts even less than into walls. If the charge is moving at speed and the horses are dense enough then this would be inevitable. Of course as noted above it is suicide and not suprisingly, we rarely read about this occurring. This discussion is often hampered by one side saying "never" and the other holding up a few anomalies as doctine. Incidents like the horse that slipped into a Prussian (?) square in the Napoleonic wars and breached it show that this was not the rule.

One thing that is generally glossed over is that horses will move into formed men at a slower pace. There is no reason that you cannot wade into an enemy formation on horseback other than the advantage that infantry has in numbers and long pointy weapons. Horses are not so easy to kill, especially when armored on head and breast, and provide a height advantage (and don't forget the teeth, a la Lisette). Obviously the advantage lay with the footmen in close combat, but if infantry when not set for such an advance with weapons that maximize their numbers by providing reach, like spears or long axes ans swords, can be fought and broken.

But why do it? The biggest advantage of a horse is mobility, better to hit and run in successive charges than stand and fight. Wade in only after you have already broken their cohesion.

"Steady infantry" This one surely is the heart of the problem. We have no way of knowing from battle descriptions the mental state of the infantry or even their movements just before the cavalry hit them. In all successful cavalry charges, the infantry may well have already broken prior to the moment of contact.

[PMBardunias]

The above discussion reminded me of a section in Xenophon's history describing a clash between Agiselaos's newly formed cavalry and the Thessalian horse while the Spartans travelled through Thessaly. In this passage we see many of the elements that George and others described above: the Spartans forced to march in square for fear of attack, the harrassing tactics of Thessalian cavalry, the reluctance of some of the best cavalry in greece to face hoplites, the ability for cavalry to simply stay out of reach of hoplites and tentative enemy horse, and ultimately the role of cavalry in catching and pinning enemy cavalry.

Xen. Hell. 4.3.[4] And for a time he led the army in a hollow square, with one half of the horsemen in front and the other half at the rear; but when the Thessalians, by charging upon those who were behind, kept interfering with his progress, he sent along to the rear the vanguard of horsemen also, except those about his own person. [5] Now when the two forces had formed in line of battle against one another, the Thessalians, thinking that it was not expedient to engage as cavalry in a battle with hoplites, turned1 round and slowly retired. [6] And the Greeks very cautiously followed them. Agesilaus, however, perceiving the mistakes which each side was making, sent the very stalwart horsemen who were about his person and ordered them not only to give word to the others to pursue with all speed, but to do likewise themselves, and not to give the Thessalians a chance to face round again. [7] And when the Thessalians saw them rushing upon them unexpectedly, some of them fled, others turned about, and others, in trying to do this, were captured while their horses were turned half round. [8] But Polycharmus the Pharsalian, who was the commander of the cavalry, turned round and fell fighting, together with those about him. When this happened, there followed a headlong flight on the part of the Thessalians, so that some of them were killed and others were captured. At all events they did not stop until they had arrived at Mount Narthacium. [9] On that day, accordingly, Agesilaus set up a trophy between Pras and Narthacium and remained on the field of battle, greatly pleased with his exploit, in that he had been victorious, over the people who pride themselves particularly upon their horsemanship, with the cavalry that he had himself gathered together.

[Aulus Perrinius]

To me, the problem with this discussion and all like it is that we never define the terms we use properly, so are doomed to fail in achieving a consensus. The most important terms are:

"Close formed infantry" What does this mean, how close? Surely the Sudanese were formed at greater interpersonal space than sarissaphoroi. How deep are they formed? How closely packed.

"Charge!" At what velocity are the horses supposed to meet the infantry? As I mentioned above hitting a blockof men at 25ph is suicide- I've seen what happens to cars that hit just one man at this speed. The spacing need not even be all that close, because 20mph is just over 36 feet per second. That means even with a good 3 feet between men in a 12 man file, they would be compressed into a 2,000 pound pile in under a second. Since horses are wided than men, perhaps more like 4,000 lbs. Lest there be fantasies about horses simply knocking men aside, consider where they go. There is no room, for they at best fall into the path of the horse beside you. Running over a line such as this is a problem as well, even for horses following. Men are taller than 3', they will be thown back into the men behind like dominoes. I would be very interested to see a horse run over a 10 meter jumble of men, spears, and shields held at all angles, and come out the other end without a broken leg.

So back to speed. Horses surely will run into line of formed men. We spent much of our prehistoric day hunting horses by chasing them over clifts like lemmings. Surely they want to go over clifts even less than into walls. If the charge is moving at speed and the horses are dense enough then this would be inevitable. Of course as noted above it is suicide and not suprisingly, we rarely read about this occurring. This discussion is often hampered by one side saying "never" and the other holding up a few anomalies as doctine. Incidents like the horse that slipped into a Prussian (?) square in the Napoleonic wars and breached it show that this was not the rule.

One thing that is generally glossed over is that horses will move into formed men at a slower pace. There is no reason that you cannot wade into an enemy formation on horseback other than the advantage that infantry has in numbers and long pointy weapons. Horses are not so easy to kill, especially when armored on head and breast, and provide a height advantage (and don't forget the teeth, a la Lisette). Obviously the advantage lay with the footmen in close combat, but if infantry when not set for such an advance with weapons that maximize their numbers by providing reach, like spears or long axes ans swords, can be fought and broken.

But why do it? The biggest advantage of a horse is mobility, better to hit and run in successive charges than stand and fight. Wade in only after you have already broken their cohesion.

"Steady infantry" This one surely is the heart of the problem. We have no way of knowing from battle descriptions the mental state of the infantry or even their movements just before the cavalry hit them. In all successful cavalry charges, the infantry may well have already broken prior to the moment of contact.

I agree. If I was a cavalryman I wouldn't care to hit solid infantry in the front unless they had been softened or I had no other choice. As for weight, well. Assuming the horse weighs 1,500 pounds, his rider will weigh about 180. The rider's gear will probably weigh in at around 2 pounds for the sword. (How much does a lance weigh anyhow?) A pound for the mace (or warhammer) A pound for the dagger. 60 pounds for the horses barding. I assume a Medieval saddle weighs the same as a western one? And 60 pounds for the rider's plate.

So far we have 1,844 pounds. But that's not the complete figure as we don't have the weight for an eighteen foot heavy lance.

As for getting knocked over, people who get under the feet of a bunch of running horses are reduced to mush pretty quickly. I personnaly think that frontal charge may have worked like this:

The Cavalry hits the front ranks, there's lots of splinters, noise, and screaming. Both the lines of cavalry and infantry ripple. The cavalry disengage and ride back to get new lances. Infantry straightens out its battered lines and waits for the next attack. So the cavalry is using it's superior height, weight and gear to try wear the infantry down. By peeling off the infantrymen (Like one peels an orange) ranks. Charge in and kill some, pull back, get new lances, repeat the process.

[Macedon]

Actually, Sidnell is writing (p.43)

"It is generally true that cavalry could not, or would not, charge a well-ordered hoplite phalanx frontally."

I would also advise to look through the examples you present more carefully. You need to find examples of a cavalry clearly attacking formed infantry frontally, in order to make your point. And of course melee should be mentioned or else normal missile combat is much more likely to have happened. Sidnell usually gives (unfortunately only) translations of his sources, so you should be able to understand whether an example is valid for further examination or not.

In Phalerum Sidnell himself admits that the nature of the engagement is unknown. In Solygia, even if the charge was into the melee, the phalanx was frontally engaged (according to Sidnell). The original text is even more shady and certainly does not say how the cavalry fought. Agesilaus charged Persian cavalry not infantry and in your second example, for some reason, his Thessalian enemies charged, but not into the melee, thus not anticipating Agesilaus' horse to charge into them, etc, etc. Don't try to find examples of just any infantry getting charged into, small bands of hoplites retreating, looking for provisions etc. Try to find clear cut examples of major battles where the commander tactically chose to frontally assault enemy formed infantry. This is our disagreement. You advocate that it was a valid and usual (since effective) tactic for ancient commanders to smash their cavalry into the enemy infantry line and I say it wasn't. Melee Charges were made only under very strict conditions and this is also Sidnell's view, although he tends to completely disregard the missile role of heavy cavalry, mentioning it but not analyzing it, since it is the melee he concentrates on. You also tend to fully ignore the fact that all cavalry tactics we certainly have, clear descriptions of how cavalry fought and trained against infantry regard their "skirmishing" capability, that is the ability to discharge missiles against the enemy phalanx, retire and charge again. Do you really doubt that this was the main role of cavalry against infantry? Do you scorn these tactics as ineffective and unable to produce results? Do you think that when we read "charge" in the ancient texts (many different words in Greek - prosbalein/epidramein/eformein klp) it is always into the melee? How do you account for the tactics described by the ancients in the texts provided? Where are the tactical texts which ordain how best a cavalry unit should fall upon enemy infantry? Why do they constantly remind us that it was peculiar to charge into the melee? Xenophon does in the example you provided, the Thessalians did not attack in this way and they did not anticipate the Spartan charge. Arrian does all the time and he speaks of the heavy cavalry of the time per se, the Companions. Polybius also. Again, I do not say that cavalry would NEVER charge into the melee. I only maintain that it was not a normal tactic to use. It could be ordered if certain factors existed, among which the most important would be disorder. Cavalry DID charge into enemy cavalry, although in the ancient times and until the Hellenistic times, it was also not the norm.

I agree. If I was a cavalryman I wouldn't care to hit solid infantry in the front unless they had been softened or I had no other choice.

I guess you mean if you were the commander of an army. Soldiers were not part of such decision anyways. So, you would wait for harassment in its various forms (light infantry, cavalry missiles, infantry battle, maneuvering in the field, physical and psychological fatigue, injuries and death) to soften (I guess you mean disorder, thin, etc) the enemy ranks. This is exactly how such cavalry was normally used against infantry.

The Cavalry hits the front ranks, there's lots of splinters, noise, and screaming. Both the lines of cavalry and infantry ripple. The cavalry disengage and ride back to get new lances. Infantry straightens out its battered lines and waits for the next attack. So the cavalry is using it's superior height, weight and gear to try wear the infantry down. By peeling off the infantrymen (Like one peels an orange) ranks. Charge in and kill some, pull back, get new lances, repeat the process.

Do you really think that it is easy for a cavalry line or squadron (the usual tactical cavalry unit, very small in comparison to the infantry line and as small as 30 men!) to disengage once having smashed upon enemy heavy infantry? This would condemn the many dismounted, those whose horses would be dead, injured, on the ground. Again I do not say that cavalry did not disengage. In medieval times it did. But in ancient times? No such description, no such case.

[PMBardunias]

The Cavalry hits the front ranks, there's lots of splinters, noise, and screaming. Both the lines of cavalry and infantry ripple. The cavalry disengage and ride back to get new lances. Infantry straightens out its battered lines and waits for the next attack. So the cavalry is using it's superior height, weight and gear to try wear the infantry down. By peeling off the infantrymen (Like one peels an orange) ranks. Charge in and kill some, pull back, get new lances, repeat the process.

I have no problem with this occurring sometimes- usually when cavalry have overestimated how "soft" the infantry is and surely not at full speed. You will note that this is not the 'cavalry charge' envisioned by most proponents. If they hit the infantry at the gallop, then by your own scenario above, you'd have them going from 25-30 mph to zero on impact or at best within in a couple of meters- a lethal crash for the rider with only a saddle blanket.

[Aulus Perrinius]

Macedon, I guess you and I had different views of melee, I thought you were talking engaging infantry in close combat period. I guess you were thinking of frontal charges. Even if those wern't frontal attack they still show that ancient cavalry engaged in melee with and charged infantry. Javelins have their place, but they didn't decided the battle. The roman legionaries were armed with javelins but no one suggests they only fought with their javelins, the javelins throwing only really works when you use as a preliminary to a charge, otherwise it's harrasment which doesn't decide a battle. And no, I was talking about the viewpoint of a cavalryman.

PMBardunis, I can go from 20- plus on my ATV to 0 in a few seconds and while I definetely feel it I don't go flying over the handle-bars. If hit the front on a solid phalanx, my horse will take most of impact and it's heavy chest is up to that, my armour will protect me from the rest.

Also, yes I think cavalry could disengage that easily, the infantry have taken hard hit and are busy digging in their heels and reforming while the cavalry pull back. Even a horse that's not running can still mess you up with short lunges and headbutts and the horse has teeth.

[PMBardunias]

PMBardunis, I can go from 20- plus on my ATV to 0 in a few seconds and while I definetely feel it I don't go flying over the handle-bars.

Try stopping from 25 mph in 6 feet on your ATV. You will be suprised at how far you have gone even if you lock up the brakes. The normal braking distance is probably more than 15-20 feet, if you lock them up, less, but not the short distance you'd have hitting an enemy line..

If hit the front on a solid phalanx, my horse will take most of impact and it's heavy chest is up to that, my armour will protect me from the rest.

25-0 in 2 meters and you without a saddle or stirrups and no way to effectively hold on with at least one hand full? You have invented the ancient Airborn corps.

Also, yes I think cavalry could disengage that easily, the infantry have taken hard hit and are busy digging in their heels and reforming while the cavalry pull back. Even a horse that's not running can still mess you up with short lunges and headbutts and the horse has teeth.

Human runners are actually faster than horses over the first few yards of accelleration. Add to this the horses must turn around presenting flank and rear to men whop are facing the right way. Disengagement is by no means a sure thing. Far better would be to hit the infantry line obliquely, they bounce off at an angle wouth the need to turn back.

[Macedon]

Macedon, I guess you and I had different views of melee, I thought you were talking engaging infantry in close combat period.

Melee is melee, missiles are missiles. How can we have different views on melee?

I guess you were thinking of frontal charges.

Of course and I have stated it numerous times. So did you, at least in the beginning.

Even if those wern't frontal attack they still show that ancient cavalry engaged in melee with and charged infantry.

Only under circumstanes, NOT as an initial tactical option. To charge into (as opposed to mere charge, which is usually done with missile weapons) a phalanx with cavalry without having at least disrupted it was extremely rare if it ever happened, but YES, as I also have already stated. under circumstances of course it happened.

Javelins have their place, but they didn't decided the battle.

Javelins had their place in battle and they were the norm when dealing with cavalry charges. If you think that missiles did not decide battles you are wrong, especially when launched by an opponent you couldn't force into melee. Yet, in ancient battles it was the infantry which decided the battles. The cavalry played a secondary role, while this by no means should be taken as an unimportant one. I actually believe that the whole thread started with that specific question.

The roman legionaries were armed with javelins but no one suggests they only fought with their javelins, the javelins throwing only really works when you use as a preliminary to a charge, otherwise it's harrasment which doesn't decide a battle.

Agree. The legionaries as well as the hoplites, who also often bore javelins into battle used their missiles before combat to disrupt the enemy line and (as also attested in many battles) during the melee to constantly harass the opponents. Placement of light infantry behind the ranks was also usual and was called "epitaxis". But their role was to engage in "close combat", although even at this point I like to divide close combat into "ek tou systadein" (melee) and "doratismos" (at spearpoint), which can be quite different in their nature.

And no, I was talking about the viewpoint of a cavalryman.

Interesting, though I thought that we talked about tactics.

Also, yes I think cavalry could disengage that easily, the infantry have taken hard hit and are busy digging in their heels and reforming while the cavalry pull back. Even a horse that's not running can still mess you up with short lunges and headbutts and the horse has teeth.

To add to the comments of PB, I have to point you to Arrian's "Ektaxis kat' Alanon". Arrian's army is deployed to fight an all cavalry opponent. The orders he gives to his heavy infantry is that the first 3 ranks should form something like a foulkon, a testudo with protruding spears, while they close up and physically support each other. The rest of the line is kept in more relaxed/open distances. This actually confirms what PB says. Although he hints at a charge that seems to not have the ferocity you imagine (Arrian says how his men should poke at the horses and their riders and never mentions any horses falling upon the men en mass), the way he posts his men shows that in his opinion a dense formation of 3 men can stop a charging horse (however we might imagine the instance of the impact). The ranks behind these men are ready to step into action and prohibit any retreating action from going unpunished.

"If they do close in though, the first three ranks should lock their shields and press their shoulders and receive the charge as strongly as possible in the most closely ordered formation bound together in the strongest manner. The fourth rank will throw their javelins overhead and the first rank will stab at them and their horses with their spears without pause."

In all, thank you for an interesting discussion.

GK

[PMBardunias]

The orders he gives to his heavy infantry is that the first 3 ranks should form something like a foulkon, a testudo with protruding spears, while they close up and physically support each other.

If I may digress in a wildly inappropriate manner, this passage shows the great difference between the Roman Fulkum and the Hoplite phalanx, and why we must be careful using Arrian as evidence for the ancient Greek formation. In the Fulcum, at least according to Rance (2004), the first two ranks overlap their shields, one atop the other resting on the shield boss below. The third rank would cover those in front with the scutum slanted overhead. Thus, only the forth rank could throw their Pila behind this "wall" of shields (copied from Rance 2004).

the legionaries locked the light infantry within their ranks;
some [legionaries], dropping down on one knee, positioned their
scuta in front of them, while those behind [i.e. the second rank]
covered them with their shields, and others [the third rank]
likewise covered them. The appearance closely resembled a
sloping roof …

Clearly this is nothing like a hoplite phalanx and a much less mobile and flexible formation. It is also clearly not designed for othismos in the Greek sense. Its more like a fortification, and perhaps has more in common with the mostly static Spara-bara shield wall.

The roman legionaries were armed with javelins but no one suggests they only fought with their javelins, the javelins throwing only really works when you use as a preliminary to a charge, otherwise it's harrasment which doesn't decide a battle.

You should read Zmodikov's interesting 2000 paper on republican Roman tactics. I'd avoid a Russian article of his on othismos that is less impressive. Like so many, he completely misunderstands the way files of men push.

[hoplite14gr]

Roman shield is lighter than hoplite shield (in most cases).
I doubt you can do something like fulcum with hoplite shields.

[Macedon]

If I may digress in a wildly inappropriate manner, this passage shows the great difference between the Roman Fulkum and the Hoplite phalanx, and why we must be careful using Arrian as evidence for the ancient Greek formation.

Arrian's army was Roman not Greek hoplites, so their forming an "archaic" foulkon (fulcum) is only logical and of course he was not the inventor, so as a formation, it has to have been in use for some time. Arrian was, among others, a man of stout military background and this actually makes his words even more reliable when talking about tactics, either hellenistic or Persian, Roman or Alan. His text is sadly the only real order of battle that we have from these times. An invaluable resource.

In the Fulcum, at least according to Rance (2004), the first two ranks overlap their shields, one atop the other resting on the shield boss below.

This is more or less what Arrian describes and should not make us wonder since the Alans also discharged tons of missiles. We often use foulkon as though it were a specific tactic, yet in the Byzantine texts, it used to have many different meanings ranging from the formations described by Maurice (Strategikon) and Leo (Tactica) (Rance's fulcum) to simply a dense mass of men, an ordered mass of men, the main army (even in a marching column) etc.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Roman shield is lighter than hoplite shield (in most cases).
I doubt you can do something like fulcum with hoplite shields.

And what is your evidence for this,Stefane?

[hoplite14gr]

Roman shield is lighter than hoplite shield (in most cases).
I doubt you can do something like fulcum with hoplite shields.

And what is your evidence for this,Stefane?

I didn't say I am sure I said i doubt

The surviving scutums are fairly light compared to the "vatican shield".
The average hoplite shield is considered heavier than the scutum
Fulcum is easier done with lighter shields.

Kind regards