heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry

[Domen]

Just to try & keep to topic as requested I have a question to ask.
How do we define heavy cavalry in an ancient context?
1. Heavily protected
2. Heavily armed
3. Both of above which would entail bigger & more expensive horses as well as armour & weapons which only a few could afford so in ancient times there were probably fewer heavy cavalry & more medium & light cavalry in armies.
4. Shock troops
Archer Jones in his book “the Art of War in the Western World" although covering early medieval warfare has a general chart covering the “tactical weapons systems" of the 4 main arms of ancient & medieval armies light infantry, heavy infantry, light cavalry & heavy cavalry & the advantages each arm has over the other 3 arms on flat ground in a battle situation which I thought might interest some. Going by this chart heavy cavalry doesn't fare well against either light cavalry or heavy infantry but good against light infantry.


[attachment=7760]image_2013-08-08.jpg[/attachment]

Regards
Michael Kerr

This chart is rather over-simplistic, yet clearly not so wrong. But going by this chart, there is no suggestion that heavy cavalry "doesn't fare well against heavy infantry". This chart only suggests, that heavy infantry can be good in defence (D, while attack is A) vs heavy cavalry. This is true, especially for some types of heavy infantry, such as pikemen (if we count them as heavy infantry rather than a separate weapon system).

Light cavalry can be good against heavy cavalry, but can also be bad - depends what type of light cavalry. Especially missile cavalry can be efficient. However, if heavy cavalry is well-armoured (e.g. cataphracts), it is going to be hard to actually destroy it by missile cavalry - unless after a very long combat and plenty of arrows / missiles used (where to take them from?). Nevertheless, it is generally true that missile cavalry was - just next to pikemen - perhaps one of the most difficult opponents "one on one" versus heavy cavalry.

In case of light cavalry vs heavy infantry fights - the same can be written as above regarding heavy vs light cavalry, except that heavy infantry under most conditions can actually be LESS vulnerable to missile fire than heavy cavalry. So in my opinion alleged superiority of light cavalry over heavy infantry is overrated. Of course in favourable conditions good missile cavalry with never-ending supplies of missiles can destroy heavy infantry. But in my opinion heavy cavalry can be more dangerous for heavy infantry than missile cavalry.

As for light infantry vs heavy infantry - light infantry can be efficient vs heavy (once again - it mostly refers to missile infantry), but often only in favorable conditions and when numbers of light infantry are superior. Victories of peltasts vs hoplites prove this (most achieved with superior numbers and in favourable ground).

When light infantry has nowhere to escape and ground is not favourable, it gets slaughtered (Marathon).

Light infantry can be useful against any cavalry - not just light. This refers especially to missile infantry, when they fight protected by heavy infantry or heavy cavalry (one of reasons why this scheme is over-simplistic is because in real battles various weapon systems listed there cooperate and fight together).

Light infantry can also be good in attack (A) against light cavalry, not just in defence (D) as this chart suggests. Let's mention Jaxartes, where Alexander used well-supported light infantry to attack Scythians.

.