Cataphract, Clibanarii, whatever, against Infantry

[Dan Howard]

a line of light infantry was sufficient to counter them in the roman period.

“It was seen that our troops were too heavily weighted in armour to deal with such an enemy: they could not pursue them when they retreated and dared not get separated from their standards. The cavalry, too, found it very dangerous work fighting the charioteers; for the Britons would generally give ground on purpose and after drawing them some distance from the legions would jump down and fight on foot, with the odds in their favour.”[Caesar, B.G. 5.16]

From the above one could conclude:
1. That chariots could keep out of reach of the infantry.
2. Roman formations were ineffective against British chariot tactics.
3. The British charioteers considered themselves at a disadvantage when facing cavalry, and so dismounted to fight on foot.

Based on this one would conclude that the best way to handle British chariots was with cavalry - close on them before they can disembark and form up.

Note that British chariots were not used for shock tactics. They acted as skirmishers and would be more effective against light infantry.

[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.
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

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

A screen of light infantry were usually enough to counter scythed chariots, a very specific type of chariot. We don't know exactly how two-man chariots with an archer, or three-man chariots with a bow and a staff weapon, would have interacted with other troop types because they fell out of use at a time when we don't have many detailed accounts of battles. But if cavalry were obviously better than chariots, it wouldn't have taken so many centuries for chariots to fall out of use. Probably, cavalry were slightly cheaper per unit of effectiveness.

[marka]

[

A screen of light infantry were usually enough to counter scythed chariots, a very specific type of chariot. We don't know exactly how two-man chariots with an archer, or three-man chariots with a bow and a staff weapon, would have interacted with other troop types because they fell out of use at a time when we don't have many detailed accounts of battles. But if cavalry were obviously better than chariots, it wouldn't have taken so many centuries for chariots to fall out of use. Probably, cavalry were slightly cheaper per unit of effectiveness.[/quote]

the way they were replaced probably reflects the increasing effectiveness of horse domestication&breeding methods,the increasing skill of the riders and the suitability of the terrain for chariot warfare etc.

[marka]

From the above one could conclude:
1. That chariots could keep out of reach of the infantry.
2. Roman formations were ineffective against British chariot tactics.
3. The British charioteers considered themselves at a disadvantage when facing cavalry, and so dismounted to fight on foot.

Based on this one would conclude that the best way to handle British chariots was with cavalry - close on them before they can disembark and form up.

Note that British chariots were not used for shock tactics. They acted as skirmishers and would be more effective against light infantry.

i would agree with that.
basically caesar didn't take enough light infantry or cavalry to counter both british cavalry and chariots who skirmished but would not close on his forces.

[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.

the skirmish at dasclyeum-i think
the foraging party was rescued by the main body and only suffered about 100 casualties
but the accounts do state that the persians broke up the hurriedly formed phlanx-you are quite correct

[Aulus Perrinius]

Thanks guys for all the info

[Jeffery]

Very new poster here but as to the original question of how would mounted (Mellee) Cavalry fair against late republic to middle Imperial roman heavy infantry I think the outcome would be based largely on the Unit cohesiveness of the infantry. Though out history if the foot facing the cavalry was in good order and presented a solid front to the cavalry the cavalry would fail to charge home. The horses even well trained military mounts just wont charge into a Deep solid apperaring front that the horse would be unsure of being able to clear in a jump. At best cavalry with weapons such as the Kontos could thrust at the infantry when his horse refused near the infantry line. This would be quite hazardous against well formed motivated infantry regardless of thier arms as a counter charge would be a very serious threat against anyone milling about that close to the unit. At the Battle of Carrhae the roman legions held firm against the heavy Parthian horse until disordered by constant demoralizing barrages of arrows and missles from lighter horse and thirst only then did the heavy horse began to inflict serious casualties.

As one poster noted above thru the American Civil war organized disciplened foot even without long pole arms would repulse cavalry. I Imagine that movie shots of cavalry charging into foot with Horses beeing impailed and infantry being trampled largly are just that dramatic flim shots. I imagine heavy mellee horse charges agains infantry were by and large "feeling out" charges. If the infantry stayed in good order a command would be given to break right (usually) or left and turn back (perhaps luring infantry into a pursuit) or if the infantry begain to waiver or route the charge would turn into more of a mounted pursuit.

As an out of period but interesting note in the Napoleonic period infantry were drilled that if "suprised" by horse and not enough time was allowed to form square soldiers were taught to fall prone in front of the cavalry as the horses being "leg shy" of moving over very uneven ground would be nervious to go into what looks to the horse as a very good place to break its legs and sabre armed troopers would have a hard time strking prone troops. Not such a good idea against lancers though.

[Ron Andrea]

Good input. Thank you, Jeffery.

[Aulus Perrinius]

Very new poster here but as to the original question of how would mounted (Mellee) Cavalry fair against late republic to middle Imperial roman heavy infantry I think the outcome would be based largely on the Unit cohesiveness of the infantry. Though out history if the foot facing the cavalry was in good order and presented a solid front to the cavalry the cavalry would fail to charge home. The horses even well trained military mounts just wont charge into a Deep solid apperaring front that the horse would be unsure of being able to clear in a jump. At best cavalry with weapons such as the Kontos could thrust at the infantry when his horse refused near the infantry line. This would be quite hazardous against well formed motivated infantry regardless of thier arms as a counter charge would be a very serious threat against anyone milling about that close to the unit. At the Battle of Carrhae the roman legions held firm against the heavy Parthian horse until disordered by constant demoralizing barrages of arrows and missles from lighter horse and thirst only then did the heavy horse began to inflict serious casualties.

As one poster noted above thru the American Civil war organized disciplened foot even without long pole arms would repulse cavalry. I Imagine that movie shots of cavalry charging into foot with Horses beeing impailed and infantry being trampled largly are just that dramatic flim shots. I imagine heavy mellee horse charges agains infantry were by and large "feeling out" charges. If the infantry stayed in good order a command would be given to break right (usually) or left and turn back (perhaps luring infantry into a pursuit) or if the infantry begain to waiver or route the charge would turn into more of a mounted pursuit.

Not nessesarily, there are several battles that I posted that show where cavalry charged home against infantry and broke them.

[Jeffery]

Very new poster here but as to the original question of how would mounted (Mellee) Cavalry fair against late republic to middle Imperial roman heavy infantry I think the outcome would be based largely on the Unit cohesiveness of the infantry. Though out history if the foot facing the cavalry was in good order and presented a solid front to the cavalry the cavalry would fail to charge home. The horses even well trained military mounts just wont charge into a Deep solid apperaring front that the horse would be unsure of being able to clear in a jump. At best cavalry with weapons such as the Kontos could thrust at the infantry when his horse refused near the infantry line. This would be quite hazardous against well formed motivated infantry regardless of thier arms as a counter charge would be a very serious threat against anyone milling about that close to the unit. At the Battle of Carrhae the roman legions held firm against the heavy Parthian horse until disordered by constant demoralizing barrages of arrows and missles from lighter horse and thirst only then did the heavy horse began to inflict serious casualties.

As one poster noted above thru the American Civil war organized disciplened foot even without long pole arms would repulse cavalry. I Imagine that movie shots of cavalry charging into foot with Horses beeing impailed and infantry being trampled largly are just that dramatic flim shots. I imagine heavy mellee horse charges agains infantry were by and large "feeling out" charges. If the infantry stayed in good order a command would be given to break right (usually) or left and turn back (perhaps luring infantry into a pursuit) or if the infantry begain to waiver or route the charge would turn into more of a mounted pursuit.

Not nessesarily, there are several battles that I posted that show where cavalry charged home against infantry and broke them.

Yes but the question is did the Cavalry in those instances actually impact the ordered infantry in those attacks and break them or did the cavalry exploit some previously existing disorder or did the Infantry waiver and make gaps or begin to route before impact? Having worked with working horses quite extensively my opinion (mind its only that and later evidence from the much better documented Napolenic and ACW) I would say its the later. Certainly there were a few exceptions but they seem to be that exceptions ordered infantry seems to be able to repulse Cavalry they are facing in the largest majority of battles until Unit cohesion breaks down. Having said that late republic and early emperial field forces tended to lack the inherent cavalry and skirmish infantry to stop enemy cavalry from retiring in good order if the charge did not go home Witness the debacle at Carrhae.

[Ron Andrea]

Alexander the Great supposedly said that most battles are won or lost in the minds of the warriors before first contact. (The actual quote was something about defeating the eyes first.)

"Audaces fortuna iuvat" Virgil wrote. “Fortune favors the bold.”

Tarbicus wrote, "A military man, a participant in our great wars, recommends as infallible against infantry in line the charge from the flank, horse following horse. " (I can't find a source for that quote either.)

Perhaps the impact of massed cavalry is/was psychological: To a man afoot, a man mounted looks awfully big. In addition to scouting and mobility, massed cavalry might have been used to intimidate foot warriors, especially those without the training or discipline to stay in ranks.

[Aulus Perrinius]

Yes but the question is did the Cavalry in those instances actually impact the ordered infantry in those attacks and break them or did the cavalry exploit some previously existing disorder or did the Infantry waiver and make gaps or begin to route before impact? Having worked with working horses quite extensively my opinion (mind its only that and later evidence from the much better documented Napolenic and ACW) I would say its the later. Certainly there were a few exceptions but they seem to be that exceptions ordered infantry seems to be able to repulse Cavalry they are facing in the largest majority of battles until Unit cohesion breaks down. Having said that late republic and early emperial field forces tended to lack the inherent cavalry and skirmish infantry to stop enemy cavalry from retiring in good order if the charge did not go home Witness the debacle at Carrhae.

Rather than go over the same old ground I've sent you a PM on the matter

[MikeCampbell]

AFAIK we don't know that alexander commanded the Companions at Chaerona in the 1st place, so puting that up as an example is highly dubious.

At Carrhae Plutarch describes the Romans being "pressed together" by the Cataphracts so they cannot defend themselves properly - which echoes Polybius and Livy talking about Cannae ...where there were, of course, no cataphracts at all!

At Pharsalus Caesar's infantry were told to thrust their pila at the faces of Pompey's cavalry...who weren't cataphracts either really.....

Arrian's "Order of battle vs the Alans" is a description designed specificaly to fight an asian cataphract charge, has the legionaries 8 deep with the 1st line holding their pila as spears, and javelinmen, archers, horse arhers and artillery shooting over their heads.

At Strasbourg in 357 the Romans had 2 units of Cataphracts, who, infamously, were defeated by German troops getting in amoung them and stabbing the horses in their unprotected belllies. whether this was dismounted German cavalry or light infantry attached to the cavalry is debated.

At Magnesia Seleucid cavalry on their right wing included cataphracts and seem to have defeated the Roman left, which was mostly infantry, but the mechanism for doing this is unknown - as it a straight frontal charge, or did they outflank them?

I'd love to see some T'ang accounts of their battles with Tibetans, which may include more descriptions of cat's in action.

Also the Seleucids fought against Parthians, "Bactrians" and Jews a lot, but I dont' know of any details of battles that mention cataphracts from those wars

[Roxofarnes]

It was noted several times in this topic that it refers to efficiency of ancient armored cavalry vs infantry therefore relations about hussars smashing Muscovite or Swedish foot (however I might love these stories of past glory of my nation :lol: ) are not really relevant here.
The fact is however that despite Vegetius' remark that cataphracts were efficient against infantry no ancient battle seems to supoort this view. At Tigranocerta Armenian cataphracts escaped at the very sight of Roman legionaries, at Carrhae cataphracts were either thrown back or even failed to reach the infantry order (they proved to be great against young Crassus' force consisting from Gallic cavalry, skirmishers and SOME legionaries, but not in firm order as these were chasing fake retreat of Parthian-Saka horse-archers), when fighting Aurelian Zenobia's cataphracts were eventually beaten by club wielding unarmored infantry, Argenorentum was pointed before while rapd attack of Roman infantry in one of the battles of Julian's Persian expedition resulted in routing Persian cataphracts, even earliest testemony of employment of this type of cavalry at Magnesia is not really clear when we try to identify what part of Roman order did Seleucid right wing rout. The cataphracts on the left wing were not apparently that succesflul but these we know had to face Roman legionares again. Someone has quoted Tacitus' record of the battles with Sarmatians on Danube when Romans defeated heavy armored horse of Asian type.
To sum up - I am the other part of Roman Eastern front, amateur of Parthian, Persian and Sarmatina warfare but the testemonies can not be challenged and the value of the cataphracts, clibanarii or whatever, aginst motivated, well armed (not always necessarily) foot was very limited. At best. These were fantastically performing versus lighter cavalry or light infantry which means anyone who could threaten horse archers. Killing foot soldiers was latters' job. Cataphracts were devloped in the environment dominated by cavalry and they reflected eastern - steppe philosophy of mounted combat where encounters with ordered infantry were relatively more seldom than with another horse. Main powere there was however light cavalry, and the best of the light cavalry there were the horse archers. Later Sasanian horse took the best of these two and became armored archers, the type of cavalry surviving in Orient at least until Mamelukes.
Regarding Tang and Tibetans - Chinese heavy horse had different origin than the Romans one. First of all there were no cataphract in China before stirrups, secondly late Sui fully armored "tank riders" were different than these of Taizong. Naturally Sui type remained in use but Taizong himself fought in semi-heavy-type which followed Turkish example, which allowed more dynamic manouvering. What is however interesting here is that Han strategists believed that Xiong Nu were vunerable in open plains where their bow mastery on horseback could have been matched with close combat cavalry and foot crossbowmen (dosn't that sound like confirmation of my theory of anti-cavalry employment of cataphracts? :wink: ). Chinese art of war is indeed fascinating but it is different environment, and it would create digression equally useless as examples of cavalry smashing infantry in European 17th century. I would rather stick as close as possible to Roman Army Talk.

[Robert Vermaat]

At Strasbourg in 357 the Romans had 2 units of Cataphracts, who, infamously, were defeated by German troops getting in amoung them and stabbing the horses in their unprotected belllies. whether this was dismounted German cavalry or light infantry attached to the cavalry is debated.

They were not. The right wing cavalry became confused after their commander was wounded. The cavalry then wavered (it did not flee), after which Julian managed to turn them back (37,38).
Further down (42) it is claimed that the Germans defeated and scattered 'the cavalry', but whether this is the left wing cavalry or the right (or both) remains unclear, because earlier Ammianus claimed that the cavalry had rejoined the fight. The wounded cataphract commander Innocentius, did not survive the battle (62).

Never does our only source, Ammianus Marcellinus, say anything about the Germans defeating the cavalry in the manner which you describe. Where is this debated, or that it was dismounted cavalry (only the Alaman leaders seem to have had horses) or even infantry attached to cavalry?
For the source, read this, book XVI, 13:34ff.