07-06-2013, 03:16 AM
Macedon,
Well, I did some extra research into the topic of ancient cavalry. I found that my primary mistake was that horse armor was not widely in use then; cataphracts notwithstanding, I found little evidence which would substantiate claims that the horses themselves were heavily armored. Thus, I concede that any charge directly into a phalanx would be met with gruesome casualties. However, the weight of numbers a massed cavalry charge would bring would probably still break a hoplite phalanx. The horses first through would certainly fall. But horses that follow up after those first few would not be hindered by the spears, as the spears would probably all be shivered or stuck in a horse's chest; from there, the press of the phalanx and horses would make the hoplites unable to bring their spears down, and they would be knocked over, flee, or both, unless they were well-disciplined like the Sacred Band.
Against pike phalanxes, horse charges into the front would be suicidal. I believe that this is why Alexander was so famed for, other than the oblique order, his hammer and anvil strategy; not only was his own infantry far superior to anything the Persians could bring up save Greek mercenaries, his tactics were revolutionary for the time, and indeed I am surprised that Macedon and the Diadokhi fell so easily to Rome. Alexander probably wasn't so stupid as to send his precious Companions and Thessalians head first into a meat grinder, so he flanked them. Okay, you got me, I will leave the charging into spear walls for the medieval knights and write off Chaeronea as an anomaly or misinterpreted history.
Kerr,
Great Zeus Almighty! I play rugby and it is violent enough; hitting each other with whips while fighting over a pig carcass seems downright insane.
I do try and not overly subscribe to any particular theory in history; the idea that shock cavalry is unstoppable seems absurd; I would like to see cataphracts charge into a sarissa phalanx. However, tightly packed infantry can easily be slaughtered by cavalry; this is especially notable at Carrhae, where legionaries, forced into the testudos by Parthian horse archers, were killed with barely any losses to charging cataphracts because the Romans had no room to fight where the cavalrymen could thrust and hack with ease.
The rise of cavalry, to me, seems especially cemented not under Alexander but by the Visigoths at Adrianopolis in 378 AD. While the rise of the knight can by no means be attributed to any single event, Adrianopolis marked a battle where the cavalry triumphed against infantry. Of course, Alexander demonstrated this was possible, as did the Parthians, but cavalry under Rome never achieved the same fame as it did with the Companions or the much later knights.
So, to the gist of it, I would say that cavalry will pretty generally only do one of three things: one, act as highly mobile skirmishers; two, chase down fleeing forces to maximize casualties to the other side; three, act as a flanking force in a hammer and anvil strategy.
Well, I did some extra research into the topic of ancient cavalry. I found that my primary mistake was that horse armor was not widely in use then; cataphracts notwithstanding, I found little evidence which would substantiate claims that the horses themselves were heavily armored. Thus, I concede that any charge directly into a phalanx would be met with gruesome casualties. However, the weight of numbers a massed cavalry charge would bring would probably still break a hoplite phalanx. The horses first through would certainly fall. But horses that follow up after those first few would not be hindered by the spears, as the spears would probably all be shivered or stuck in a horse's chest; from there, the press of the phalanx and horses would make the hoplites unable to bring their spears down, and they would be knocked over, flee, or both, unless they were well-disciplined like the Sacred Band.
Against pike phalanxes, horse charges into the front would be suicidal. I believe that this is why Alexander was so famed for, other than the oblique order, his hammer and anvil strategy; not only was his own infantry far superior to anything the Persians could bring up save Greek mercenaries, his tactics were revolutionary for the time, and indeed I am surprised that Macedon and the Diadokhi fell so easily to Rome. Alexander probably wasn't so stupid as to send his precious Companions and Thessalians head first into a meat grinder, so he flanked them. Okay, you got me, I will leave the charging into spear walls for the medieval knights and write off Chaeronea as an anomaly or misinterpreted history.
Kerr,
Great Zeus Almighty! I play rugby and it is violent enough; hitting each other with whips while fighting over a pig carcass seems downright insane.
I do try and not overly subscribe to any particular theory in history; the idea that shock cavalry is unstoppable seems absurd; I would like to see cataphracts charge into a sarissa phalanx. However, tightly packed infantry can easily be slaughtered by cavalry; this is especially notable at Carrhae, where legionaries, forced into the testudos by Parthian horse archers, were killed with barely any losses to charging cataphracts because the Romans had no room to fight where the cavalrymen could thrust and hack with ease.
The rise of cavalry, to me, seems especially cemented not under Alexander but by the Visigoths at Adrianopolis in 378 AD. While the rise of the knight can by no means be attributed to any single event, Adrianopolis marked a battle where the cavalry triumphed against infantry. Of course, Alexander demonstrated this was possible, as did the Parthians, but cavalry under Rome never achieved the same fame as it did with the Companions or the much later knights.
So, to the gist of it, I would say that cavalry will pretty generally only do one of three things: one, act as highly mobile skirmishers; two, chase down fleeing forces to maximize casualties to the other side; three, act as a flanking force in a hammer and anvil strategy.
