08-06-2013, 06:44 PM
Quote:............................
There has been much talk of how "enemy-shy" horses were back in ancient times; and how a full charge against a solid infantry or cavalry wall was a physical impossibility. I take a different stance-- YES, cataphracts did charge against a formation because their horses were trained specifically for such warfare. Anyone who has played polo knows this. A polo pony is trained to pass by its opponent by mere inches. The horse does not balk, stop, or even flinch. I am so tired of hearing how the ancients were so crude, so stupid, that they could not breed or train their horses to accomplish what modern horses now do...............
Because it's much closer in history and there are so many more reliable sources available (and I certainly don't think there's any real difference between now and then) - do you not credit that horsemen of the 15th to 19th centuries also were of the opinion that a cavalry charge against formed troops with bayonet-fitted muskets or even pikes was doomed to failure unless the line/square broke or a dying horse crashed in and broke them? That horses would indeed balk and not charge home (sensible animals, horses
).I'm not a rider, but are Polo ponies not trained to pass by other horses rather than ram into them? I've also seen many horses refuse to jump fences, even when they've been trained to do that? Is the anecdote of a horse refusing to step on a man unless specifically battle-trained (very rare mounts I believe), not true?
I too will happily play a Devil's advocate, for I seen so much 'shock cavalry are like tanks' in the past - but it's nothing to do with ancient horsemen being wimps. If cavalry could routinely ride over infantry - then a great number of battles would have been quite different. The Allies would have lost Waterloo for one!
Xenophon would not have managed his retreat either......... :wink:
