Cataphract, Clibanarii, whatever, against Infantry

[Aulus Perrinius]

re eylau look at the date and the weather conditions as well.

Yes I know it was raining and the muskets couldn't fire. I'm not sure as to how the effects the integrity of the square.

[Robert Vermaat]

To all discussing here:

The question was about armoured cavalry vs. infantry, not any horse against any infantry. Battles with infantry carrrying firearms must be vastly different from infantry in heavy phalanx or far more mobile Roman legionaries, for instance.

Mind what you quote - not whole pages please.

[marka]

re eylau look at the date and the weather conditions as well.

Yes I know it was raining and the muskets couldn't fire. I'm not sure as to how the effects the integrity of the square.

er febuary? it was snowing.snow storms...ice.men and horses especially would be in poor condition.

[Ron Andrea]

Weather can make a big difference, though we must be careful to get the details right. An off-topic example: a reowned American historian (I'm thinking Stephen Ambrose) claimed a critical turn in the battle at Gettyburg on July 2, 1963, was influenced by gathering darkness at 7 PM. At Gettyburg's latitude the sun doesn't set until after 9 PM on July 2. He was wrong. (The critical turn happened as reported, but the gathering darkness had nothing to do with it.)

So, was it really raining? Or snowing?

Much earlier, someone reported that horses wouldn't charge straight into massed infantry (more than once :lol: ). If so, how did the ancients train chariot horses to charge infantry? Or did they?

[marka]

Much earlier, someone reported that horses wouldn't charge straight into massed infantry (more than once :lol: ). If so, how did the ancients train chariot horses to charge infantry? Or did they?

no evidence that they did.British/egyptian chariots were too flimsy and the accounts repeatedly stress missile use,the heavier persian/seleucid/assyrian ones did no better.

the byzantine account has persian horses either pulling up short,throwing riders or weaving around the infantry formation,it also says the persians had difficulty using their bows.

[Ron Andrea]

Well, that's consistent anyway. :wink:

[Dan Howard]

the byzantine account has persian horses either pulling up short,throwing riders or weaving around the infantry formation,it also says the persians had difficulty using their bows.

Just for my own curiosity, do you have a cite from that Byzantine account? I'd like to read it.

[Nathan Ross]

...how did the ancients train chariot horses to charge infantry? Or did they?

no evidence that they did...

Chariots would fall into the 'whatever' part of the question, I guess :wink:

At Chaeronea in 86BC, Sulla's army faced the chariots of Mithridates' general Archelaus - these were the famous scythe-wheeled vehicles, which seem to have been specially intended to break through infantry.

Appian:

He next charged with sixty chariots, hoping to sever and break in pieces the formation of the legions by the shock. The Romans opened their ranks and the chariots were carried through by their own momentum to the rear, and before they could turn back they were surrounded and destroyed by the javelins of the rear guard. Mithridatic Wars 42

Plutarch (Life of Sulla, 18.3) describes the same incident. The chariots:

are of most avail after a long course, which gives them velocity and impetus for breaking through an opposing line, but short starts are ineffectual and feeble, as in the case of missiles which do not get full propulsion. And this proved to be true now in the case of Barbarians. The first of their chariots were driven along feebly and engaged sluggishly, so that the Romans, after repulsing them, clapped their hands and laughed and called for more, as they are wont to do at the races in the circus.

Plutarch suggests that the Roman infantry simply 'repulsed' the chariots, while Appian describes the Roman line opening and letting them through, which suggests that the flexibility of the Roman formation was of particular benefit against this type of attack.

Both, however, imply that frontal assault by these sort of chariots was a tried tactic, and therefore the Mithridatic army would have been trained to do it - quite how this was done, however, remains a mystery...

- Nathan

[Aulus Perrinius]

Actually by I meant Cataphracts(fully armoured man on a fully armoured horse) however there's a big deal over whether or not cataphracts had horse armour and if it was only clibanarii who did or if those were just the eastern and western terms repectively for an armoured lancer on an armoured horse from the roman era. By whatever as you can see from my first post I meant lets just put aside the terminology contreversy for now.

What you mention about the chariots sounds like what Gustavus Adolphus a Russian Army and Charles X Gustav tried against the Hussars. Of course the risk of that tactic is that the cavalry might charge into your troops newly created flank's

[marka]

the byzantine account has persian horses either pulling up short,throwing riders or weaving around the infantry formation,it also says the persians had difficulty using their bows.

Just for my own curiosity, do you have a cite from that Byzantine account? I'd like to read it.

its procopius account of the battle of callinicum (sometimes called battle of sura)in the history of wars book 1.18,basically the retreating byzantine infantry were driven against a river bank where they rallied and held off the persians

[marka]

...how did the ancients train chariot horses to charge infantry? Or did they?

no evidence that they did...

Chariots would fall into the 'whatever' part of the question, I guess :wink:

At Chaeronea in 86BC, Sulla's army faced the chariots of Mithridates' general Archelaus - these were the famous scythe-wheeled vehicles, which seem to have been specially intended to break through infantry.

Appian:

He next charged with sixty chariots, hoping to sever and break in pieces the formation of the legions by the shock. The Romans opened their ranks and the chariots were carried through by their own momentum to the rear, and before they could turn back they were surrounded and destroyed by the javelins of the rear guard. Mithridatic Wars 42

Plutarch suggests that the Roman infantry simply 'repulsed' the chariots, while Appian describes the Roman line opening and letting them through, which suggests that the flexibility of the Roman formation was of particular benefit against this type of attack.

Both, however, imply that frontal assault by these sort of chariots was a tried tactic, and therefore the Mithridatic army would have been trained to do it - quite how this was done, however, remains a mystery...

- Nathan[/quote]

appian is probably right
i think sulla did the same as scipio did against hannibals elephants.
i've yet to read of battle where the scythed chariots were much use.... and in at least one case backfired badly.

[Sean Manning]

appian is probably right
i think sulla did the same as scipio did against hannibals elephants.
i've yet to read of battle where the scythed chariots were much use.... and in at least one case backfired badly.

There is a famous one in Xenophon- either the Hellenica or his hagiography of Aegesilaios. A Greek foraging party was cut to pieces by Persian cavalry and two scythed chariots. Scythed chariots were used for 300 years by many armies so there must have been something to them. But they are a good example of horses charging ancient spearmen and pikemen.

[marka]

There is a famous one in Xenophon- either the Hellenica or his hagiography of Aegesilaios. A Greek foraging party was cut to pieces by Persian cavalry and two scythed chariots. Scythed chariots were used for 300 years by many armies so there must have been something to them. But they are a good example of horses charging ancient spearmen and pikemen.

a greek foraging party would have been in open order and somewhat isolated so vulnerable to cavalry anyway.
close order phlangites or legionaries are an entirely different matter.
granted the egyptians and ancient britons found chariots useful but these could easily be countered by missile troops.

[Sean Manning]

There is a famous one in Xenophon- either the Hellenica or his hagiography of Aegesilaios. A Greek foraging party was cut to pieces by Persian cavalry and two scythed chariots. Scythed chariots were used for 300 years by many armies so there must have been something to them. But they are a good example of horses charging ancient spearmen and pikemen.

a greek foraging party would have been in open order and somewhat isolated so vulnerable to cavalry anyway.
close order phlangites or legionaries are an entirely different matter.
granted the egyptians and ancient britons found chariots useful but these could easily be countered by missile troops.

Actually, chariot archers were the dominant arm for close to a thousand years across most of Eurasia. And once cavalry appeared chariots remained in use for centuries more. So they probably weren't "easily countered" even if cavalry replaced them in the end.

Xenophon tells us that the foragers ran together into a mass when the Persians attacked, but that the chariots broke up their close formation and the cavalry finished the job. But its not clear whether the foragers were hoplites or light infantry.

[marka]

There is a famous one in Xenophon- either the Hellenica or his hagiography of Aegesilaios. A Greek foraging party was cut to pieces by Persian cavalry and two scythed chariots.
Actually, chariot archers were the dominant arm for close to a thousand years across most of Eurasia. And once cavalry appeared chariots remained in use for centuries more. So they probably weren't "easily countered" even if cavalry replaced them

[/quote][/quote]

a line of light infantry was sufficient to counter them in the roman period.
the fact is cavalry did replace them.