Heavy cavalry charge:How exactly was it done?

[Cipher]

Lately I've been wondering about how did the heavy cavalry such as Hetairoi and Kataphraktoi made their charge.
I cannot think how they could have done it without the aid of the stirrups, since I imagine that if they charge into the infantry with their lances, they would fall off from their horse due to the shock.
I first thought they could have used the horned saddles, but xyston was used with both hands so that wouldn't work.
So do we know how did they managed to absorb the shock of charge and stayed on the horses without resting their foot on the stirrups?

[Marcvs75]

if you really want to know if shock cavalry was possible in ancient warfare i recommend the book "Warhorse" from Philip Sidnell. He explains how shock tactics of cavalry (Hetairoi) was possible.

[hoplite14gr]

Check the threads "Greek Cavalry" and "Greek horses".

A lady in Scotland charged bare back and photos exist. Full charge is possible.

Many people though that ancient cavalry was mounted infantry due to Dionysios of Halicarnassos descriptions but the lady proved them wrong.

At 4th century a type of felt saddle was known.

Kind regards

[hoplite14gr]

Cannot finf th lady's webpage.
Any better photo would be appreciated.

Kind regards

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Also I suppose much of the job,if not most,in the clash would be done by the horse itself,thus the finds of chest and forehead armour for horses especially in the 4th century bc and onwards.
What I don't know is how closely can they charge full speed maintaining their formations,i.e. triangles,like the Macedonians.
Khaire
Giannis

[M. Demetrius]

A lady in Scotland charged bare back

No shirt? :oops:

[hoplite14gr]

A lady in Scotland charged bare back

No shirt? :oops:

Begging you forgivenes for torturing the English language.

I was trying to tell she rode a horse without saddle and stirrups and you can see the outcome in the photos.

If someone know the webpage please advise.


Kind regards

[Cipher]

if you really want to know if shock cavalry was possible in ancient warfare i recommend the book "Warhorse" from Philip Sidnell. He explains how shock tactics of cavalry (Hetairoi) was possible.

Thanks.
I'll definitely check it out.

Check the threads "Greek Cavalry" and "Greek horses".

Can you be a bit more specific?
I searched the forum with those words and I got about 200 pages of result.

I saw the photograph.
It seems he's only trotting the horse...
Did that lady galloped the horse?

What I don't know is how closely can they charge full speed maintaining their formations,i.e. triangles,like the Macedonians.
Khaire
Giannis

That's something I'm wondering about too.
How could they have made a charge without the cavalry in the rear part of the squadron hitting the cavalry in the front unless they broke through the formation without stopping?

[M. Demetrius]

Begging you forgivenes for torturing the English language.

On the contrary. I can never pass up an easy pun, is all. Forgive me for a being a smarty pants.

I have seen a woman riding bare back, though. Only she had a saddle under her.

[Ioannes_Ahenobarbus]

Concerning the kataphraktoi, there is mention somewhere (I humbly apologize for not remembering the source) that they do not "charge" per se, but rather advance at a canter or trot and roll into the enemy in dense formation. Imagine a big, slow wave crashing upon the surf. Because the comprehensive armor of the fore ranks as well as the lances and maces, this could be quite effective, even against tough, solid infantry (Battle of Dorostolon 971). Given, this is a bit of a generalization, but accurate enough.

[Kineas]

I'm interested in the lady in Scotland, but I'll also say that there's quite a well known pair of equine classicists, Littauer and Crouwel, who have fairly exhaustively demonstrated that anything you can do with stirrups, you can do without stirrups, including using a lance.

However, any honest military historian who rides can also attest to the fact that no formed infantry anywhere in history have ever been broken by cavalry action unless they first lost their formation. So if you picture cavalry crashing into Hoplites or the like--not going to happen. Horses pretty much just won't. There are a very few and mostly debatable ancient, early modern, and modern examples...but I recommend Brent Nosworthy's "Anatomy of Victory". Cavalry is decisive when infantry is already unsteady, for whatever reason. A horse presented with an unbroken wall of spear points--remember, 18th C. soldiers only have a 42 inch "spear" with a 17 inch bayonet, and they are in only 2-3 ranks--and they NEVER got broken by frontal charging cavalry... horses just won't go. they'll pull up--as you can see in some of the best paintings of the horse and musket period.
If some of the infantry panic, though, before the horses pull up--then its a whole new ball game.

The Prussian staff did a study in the 1870s and established that the weapon used in a cavalry melee was of no importance, as all that mattered was the riding skill and the size and aggressiveness of the horses. Moderns like us think technology is a determinent--so consider, just for a moment, that it might not be one, and that lances and javelins and swords might actually not have been the reason that Thessalians and Macedonians were so tough... I can say from experience just as many British cavalrymen of the 19th C. said in India--lances are fearsome, but if you parry the point, you own that guy... and if your horse is bigger...

[Kineas]

Pardon me. please insert "I think," "I believe", and "to the best of my understanding" in the preceding post. I think that the actual interaction between cavalry and infantry is one of the most hard fought of pre-modern mil-his subjects--blood is often spilled on wargaming forums--and I don't wish to sound like I have all the answers.

I do like to see the 'technological" argument put in tis place, however--as an argument, but not THE argument. We live in a period where an F-14 with an AIM-54 is just better than a MiG 25 and any combination of missiles... and where that can be a determinent in battle. But that argument does not really have the same validity in the past...or at least deserves to be carefully examined.

[Dan Howard]

Stirrups are severely over-rated. The old myth about heavy lancers only being possible after the development of the stirrup is clearly bollocks.

[Sean Manning]

Kineas, I'm skeptical of attempts to use 18th-19th century evidence to understand what earlier cavalry could and couldn't do .. at least without a heavy infusion of ancient/medieval sources. Such late cavalry fought in shallow formations, and faced gunpowder weapons which were quite effective at killing and disordering them. The point about cavalry being of limited use against a steady hedge of spears unless they can frighten it into breaking is a good one, but that's what cavalry are supposed to do! And medieval cavalry don't seem to have always recoiled from spearmen/pikemen without contact like Napoleonic cavalry generally did. They usually lost that fight, but it took some time.

One day I'd like to see a dedicated study of the mechanics of heavy infantry/shock cavalry combat based on (eg.) medieval European sources. The cavalry normally lost in any period, but how did it happen?

[hoplite14gr]

War is above all phychology!

Standing somewhere, even in the midst of a pike formation listening to the thundering hooves and feeling the earth tremblings as the vibration of the horse steps are transmitted through the ground is a test of nerves.

I was at a show in Morroco. OK it was for tourists and they were light horsemen but if you were at the receiving end at the seats opposite the horsemen it was still unnerving.

Kind regards