Cataphract, Clibanarii, whatever, against Infantry

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

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.

I asume that you are not disputing the mixing of infantry and cavalry as:

"21 And when (just as the above-mentioned deserter had told us) they saw all our cavalry opposite them on the right flank, they put all their strongest cavalry forces on their flank in close order. And among them here and there they intermingled skirmishers and light-armed infantry, as safe policy certainly demanded. 22 For they realised that one of their warriors on horseback, no matter how skilful, in meeting one of our cavalry in coat-of?mail, must hold bridle and shield in one hand and brandish his spear with the other, and would thus be able to do no harm to a soldier hidden in iron armour; whereas the infantry soldier in the very hottest of the fight, when nothing is apt to be guarded against except what is straight before one, can creep about low and unseen, and by piercing a horse's side throw its unsuspecting rider headlong, whereupon he can be slain with little trouble.!"

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).

Eh? The translation at Lacus Curtius has:

"38 Now that had happened for the reason that while the order of their lines was being re-established, the cavalry in coat-of?mail, seeing their leader slightly wounded and one of their companions slipping over the neck of his horse, which had collapsed under the weight of his armour, scattered in whatever direction they could; the cavalry would have caused complete confusion by trampling the infantry underfoot, had not the latter, who were packed close together and intertwined one with the other, held their ground without stirring. So, when Caesar had seen from a distance that the cavalry were looking for nothing except safety in flight, he spurred on his horse and held them back like a kind of barrier."

"Scattered in whatever direction they could" and "looking for nothing except safety in fligt" is rather more than "wavered" IMO.

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,

Ammianus says all the Roman cavalry was on their right:

"And when (just as the above-mentioned deserter had told us) they saw all our cavalry opposite them on the right flank," so it is pretty clear where the cavalry who ran were.

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.

No idea why you think only the Alamanni leaders had horse - see above for "they put all their strongest cavalry forces on their flank in close order". It was only the leaders who dismounted, however:

"34 While he kept often repeating these and other words to the same effect, he placed the greater part of his army opposite the forefront of the savages, and suddenly there was heard the outcry of the German infantry, mingled with indignation, as they shouted with one accord that their princes ought to leave their horses and keep company with them, for fear that they, if anything adverse should occur, abandoning the wretched herd, would easily make shift to escape. 35 On learning of this, Chonodomarius at once sprang down from his horse, and the rest, following his example, did the same without delay; for not one of them doubted that their side would be victorious."

Makes that clear IMO.

[Aulus Perrinius]

I was doing some research and read that Cataphracts would have charged at a trot because their horses would have been to small to run for very long with all that armour. Is that true or not?

Can anyone give me links/citations/sources/references/paragraphs/excerpts/page numbers etc?

-Thanks

[Roxofarnes]

I was doing some research and read that Cataphracts would have charged at a trot because their horses would have been to small to run for very long with all that armour. Is that true or not?

Can anyone give me links/citations/sources/references/paragraphs/excerpts/page numbers etc?

-Thanks

I have read about that peculiar idea however it does not deserve discussion. There is total lack of argument in the idea of cataphracts attacking only in trot. Why do you expect arguments to discuss not argumented bliss of someones imagination? But leaving aside iconography where heavy cavalry is depiced in flying gallop, take for instance example of battle of Immae and cosequent Edessa where Palyrene cataphracts were chasing Roman cavalry until they got exhausted, later they chased and caught Roman horse which was saved by counter attack of Palestine light infantry. Can one chase riders trotting?
The foundation of this blunder is errorous belief that the basic role of cataphracts was to face infantry. This I doubt.
A blunder supporting another blunder :evil: .
Besides, have you ever trotted longer distance without stirrups? How was your back? Now let's say it is the matter of technique and training of the horse. Imagine these famous cataphracts approaching the enemy at the speed of a runner, what surely would allow calling off the attack almost any time but deprive it from all the impetus, not mentioning making the charge vunerable for outmanouvering. Take some examples from early Byzantine times - heavy cavalry from Maurice's Strategikon were not much lighter than the cataphracts of the old and they are advised to charge Persian cavalry which is described as lighter one. Now how would they do that if Persians were able simply to gallop away? In 35AD Sarmatians invaded Parthia and smashed with a single charge Parthian hippotoxotai - again, rapid attack was the factor of success. One might argue that Sarmatian cataphracts were not as heavily armored as Parthian or Roman ones but than why classical authors do not seem to diversify the names of Pontic and Oriental heavy horse? (OK, there are suggestions that cataphracts originated from Sarmatians and clibanarii from Parthians, but why Orientl horse are named cataphracts so often? What were Seleucid cataphracts?).
If I am right there is a passage in Ammianus where Persian cataphacts took by surprise foraging Roman cavalry. Without gallop? Later on Ammianus also mentions rapid manouvers of Persians heavy cavalry.
And one more thing - cataphracts' horses might move at slow pace just to gallop before the target like strong sprinters.
The only sensible argument I can recall supporting "trotting cataphracts" is an apron of the horse at Taq e Bostan. If the lammelae were made of metal the armor would make gallop almost impossible. Alternatively apron was made of hardened leather.

[Aulus Perrinius]

There does seem to be a lot of sweeping generalizations whenever this topic comes up. People also seem to bring up examples from many different periods, even though its likelt that the relationship between different types of troops in different cultures at different times varied.

Another datapoint is the battle of Magnesia in 190 BCE. That involved Seleucid cataphracts charging a Roman line from the front and driving a legion back into its camp in disorder. In his book on the Seleucid army Bezallel bar Kochva argues that the legion which was driven back was one of citizens, not socii as Livy suggests.

According to Livy (I read in the excerpt in Phillip Sidnell's Warhorse: Cavalry in the Ancient World) the Cataphracts first pinned the roman cavalry on the river and took them in the flank and front, breaking them and then they attacked the roman infantry. It sounds to me like the Cataphracts drove the roman cavalry back through the roman infantry who probably got out the way (not wanting to skewer their own men and all) and so they were already shaken up when the Cataphracts hit them. And even after all that the Roman infantry rallied and repulsed the Cataphracts.

[PMBardunias]

I have a specific question concerning a cavalry vs infantry encounter for someone with experience with horses. Suppose I were to form a phalanx of men, then simply kill them all, there bodies falling in ranks. How fast could a horse physically move over the uneven terrain their massed bodies represent without breaking a leg? Conversely how dispersed would the corpses need to be to allow a horse to move rapidly through the area with limited danger?

There must be some anectdotes about the hazard of corpses on a battlefield.

[Aulus Perrinius]

I have a specific question concerning a cavalry vs infantry encounter for someone with experience with horses. Suppose I were to form a phalanx of men, then simply kill them all, there bodies falling in ranks. How fast could a horse physically move over the uneven terrain their massed bodies represent without breaking a leg? Conversely how dispersed would the corpses need to be to allow a horse to move rapidly through the area with limited danger?

There must be some anectdotes about the hazard of corpses on a battlefield.

From my limited knowledge, it would depend on the horse. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned Redcoats dropping flat if they didn't have time to form a square and (hopefully) the horses would try to avoid stepping on them. This didn't IIRC work very well when said cavalry was Lancers. In medieval times horses were trained from the time they foals to bloody corpses and step on them.

And of course a human body is very squishy and so if a running horse stepped on it. . .

[PMBardunias]

And of course a human body is very squishy and so if a running horse stepped on it. . .

Thanks for your reply. I agree that an untrained horse might balk at walking over bodies. I have been at ranches and Zoos where they use either a grate of metal bars or something that looks like a plastic egg carton to block opened gates to hoofed mammal's passage in just this way.

My interest is actually a bit beyond that behavior though. If cavalry hit a phalanx at anything faster than a walk and succedded in killing/toppling men in their ranks, then they could not help but cross over the patch of fallen bodies. I just wondered if this was suicidal, indicating that cavalry would have to charge right up tp a phalanx and then slow to engage the first rank if the phalanx stood firm. This would to some extent render the age-old debate about cavalry charging steady, formed men irrelevent, because I don't think anyone would argue that you can't walk a horse into a rank of men, fighting your way in and pushing. The whole equine behavioral limitation of not wanting to run into a wall of men is gone.

It would also be an indication that accounts where horses do charge through ranks of men and we don't read of piles of horseflesh are either embelleshments on such a walking attack, or indications that the men were already well broken out of ranks.

[Aulus Perrinius]

And of course a human body is very squishy and so if a running horse stepped on it. . .

Thanks for your reply. I agree that an untrained horse might balk at walking over bodies. I have been at ranches and Zoos where they use either a grate of metal bars or something that looks like a plastic egg carton to block opened gates to hoofed mammal's passage in just this way.

My interest is actually a bit beyond that behavior though. If cavalry hit a phalanx at anything faster than a walk and succedded in killing/toppling men in their ranks, then they could not help but cross over the patch of fallen bodies. I just wondered if this was suicidal, indicating that cavalry would have to charge right up tp a phalanx and then slow to engage the first rank if the phalanx stood firm. This would to some extent render the age-old debate about cavalry charging steady, formed men irrelevent, because I don't think anyone would argue that you can't walk a horse into a rank of men, fighting your way in and pushing. The whole equine behavioral limitation of not wanting to run into a wall of men is gone.

It would also be an indication that accounts where horses do charge through ranks of men and we don't read of piles of horseflesh are either embelleshments on such a walking attack, or indications that the men were already well broken out of ranks.

Only in the sixteen hundreds are cavalry mentioned attacking a trot and this was against the other guy's cavalry. Attacking at a walk destroys any shock capability.

At battles such as Omdurman the 21st is mentioned being slowed to walk only after they hacked their way through the mahadist square. Which shows that the 21st hit the enemy at a gallop as well as Churchhills account of the massive amount of shock. (At least two hundred Mahadists were knocked flying and forty lancers were unhorsed)

As for a running horse hitting a phalanx, well the horses wouldn't have to worry about breaking a leg on a corpse (which seems highly unlikely anyway) because someone who gets hit by a 1,500 pound horse that's running at 35 miles an hour won't fall down, they'll go flying. . . and since the only place the victim can go is among his buddies that would also help destroy the integrity of the formation.

[PMBardunias]

Only in the sixteen hundreds are cavalry mentioned attacking a trot and this was against the other guy's cavalry. Attacking at a walk destroys any shock capability.

You are assuming that the "shock" capability is important in attacking infantry. I worry that much of our view of "shock" comes from a joust mentality. A horse hitting a man at anything faster than a walk might be overkill, since a horse walking into you will knock you over or impart sufficient impetus to the weapon of its rider. In at least one reliable breaking of formed men who give no indication of breaking ranks prior to contact, the French lances at Dresden simply walked up an stabbed.

At battles such as Omdurman the 21st is mentioned being slowed to walk only after they hacked their way through the mahadist square. Which shows that the 21st hit the enemy at a gallop as well as Churchhills account of the massive amount of shock. (At least two hundred Mahadists were knocked flying and forty lancers were unhorsed)

Perhaps the exception that proves the rule if these horses tripped over the fallen, but even these men cannot have been packed very tight, since the majority will not have been "flying", but ridden down and over.

As for a running horse hitting a phalanx, well the horses wouldn't have to worry about breaking a leg on a corpse (which seems highly unlikely anyway) because someone who gets hit by a 1,500 pound horse that's running at 35 miles an hour won't fall down, they'll go flying. . . and since the only place the victim can go is among his buddies that would also help destroy the integrity of the formation.

Probably the height of the center of mass of a man, even assuming his simply stands straight up and gets hit, is low enough compared to the chest of a horse that his most likely vector is angled downwards, not up in the air as in a car crash.

Something else that seems to go unappreciated is that if an 800 lb horse (960 lb with rider) hit a relatively tightly massed phalanx of say 8 ranks of 160 lb men, then is is the horse that would go flying when it hit the 1280 lb mass! Of course the weight does not add up as neatly as that due to some space between ranks, but if the men pack tight, it is suicidal for a rider to hit them at speed.


So why charge? There is a great psychological advantage in charging down on infantry, undoubtably they often loosened their ranks just prior to contact and "flinched". But, if they instead nestled in close to the men in front, I doubt a horse could get through except by fighting their way in. So charges surely were performed at a gallop, but they likely slowed prior to contact if the men stood firm. This reduces the often stated "horses won't charge through a mass of men at the gallop," to "horses can't charge through a mass of men at the gallop."

[Aulus Perrinius]

Only in the sixteen hundreds are cavalry mentioned attacking a trot and this was against the other guy's cavalry. Attacking at a walk destroys any shock capability.

You are assuming that the "shock" capability is important in attacking infantry. I worry that much of our view of "shock" comes from a joust mentality. A horse hitting a man at anything faster than a walk might be overkill, since a horse walking into you will knock you over or impart sufficient impetus to the weapon of its rider. In at least one reliable breaking of formed men who give no indication of breaking ranks prior to contact, the French lances at Dresden simply walked up an stabbed.

IIRC that was Eylau.

A walk would hardly generate the force needed.

At battles such as Omdurman the 21st is mentioned being slowed to walk only after they hacked their way through the mahadist square. Which shows that the 21st hit the enemy at a gallop as well as Churchhills account of the massive amount of shock. (At least two hundred Mahadists were knocked flying and forty lancers were unhorsed)

Perhaps the exception that proves the rule if these horses tripped over the fallen, but even these men cannot have been packed very tight, since the majority will not have been "flying", but ridden down and over.

Churchill's account clearly states that the Mahadists were solid and someone hit by a running horse will be knocked flying.

As for a running horse hitting a phalanx, well the horses wouldn't have to worry about breaking a leg on a corpse (which seems highly unlikely anyway) because someone who gets hit by a 1,500 pound horse that's running at 35 miles an hour won't fall down, they'll go flying. . . and since the only place the victim can go is among his buddies that would also help destroy the integrity of the formation.

Probably the height of the center of mass of a man, even assuming his simply stands straight up and gets hit, is low enough compared to the chest of a horse that his most likely vector is angled downwards, not up in the air as in a car crash.

Something else that seems to go unappreciated is that if an 800 lb horse (960 lb with rider) hit a relatively tightly massed phalanx of say 8 ranks of 160 lb men, then is is the horse that would go flying when it hit the 1280 lb mass! Of course the weight does not add up as neatly as that due to some space between ranks, but if the men pack tight, it is suicidal for a rider to hit them at speed.

A horse can weigh a lot more than 800 pounds 1,500 pounds is an average weight for a 14-16 hand horse. And since one 1,500 pound mount would outweigh the combined weight of the phalanx. And since there would more than one horse and they would be charging at 35 miles an hour. . .

And even if the man went down he would still be knocked back a good fifteen feet and into the legs of his comrades.

So why charge? There is a great psychological advantage in charging down on infantry, undoubtably they often loosened their ranks just prior to contact and "flinched". But, if they instead nestled in close to the men in front, I doubt a horse could get through except by fighting their way in. So charges surely were performed at a gallop, but they likely slowed prior to contact if the men stood firm. This reduces the often stated "horses won't charge through a mass of men at the gallop," to "horses can't charge through a mass of men at the gallop."

Why charge? Well you have something that weighs three quarters of a ton and is moving over 30 miles an hour and you have a few hundred of them. That would do a lot of damage to the enemy.

Slowing down is suicide, every military manual I've read on cavalry tactics states that they should go to a gallop at fifty yards, and don't stop for anything, keep going otherwise there's no way you can break the enemy, once cavalry slow down the advantage goes to the infantry. And the rider can't do much, he's flailing around from the back of his mount the horses weight and speed does the most damage.

So yes horses change be trained to charge home against what they think is a solid object (although there's a great deal of debate on whether or not a horse could even see spears) and they can charge at a gallop. Of course charging into the front of the spear points is not a good idea and your surperior speed and maneuverability makes it doubly unnessesary anyway.

If I was a cavalryman I would take the enemy infantry in the flank or the rear and I would only charge the front if: (A. They had been pounded by friendly missle troops. (B. I had no other choice (Like the 21st at Omdurman) And I would only attack the infantry after I had swept the other guys cavalry off the field.

Another point if I may, charging at a trot in armour would be a living hell. And you can forget about posting.

[PMBardunias]

A walk would hardly generate the force needed.

Needed to what? It is enough to give added thrust to a spear point. Pushing through dense ranks has to be easier at a walk than a gallop, because if you hit formed men at 30 mph it is like hitting a solid mass, while in walking through you can wade into them you can push them apart. Try punching a pot full of beans or rice, then simply push your hand into it- the speed you impart forces the mass to act as one entity.

Churchill's account clearly states that the Mahadists were solid and someone hit by a running horse will be knocked flying.

Solid, but at what spacing? Clearly there was a lot of room in between them for them to go flying.

A horse can weigh a lot more than 800 pounds 1,500 pounds is an average weight for a 14-16 hand horse. And since one 1,500 pound mount would outweigh the combined weight of the phalanx. And since there would more than one horse and they would be charging at 35 miles an hour. . .

Ok, so I need 9.73 ranks then. But even with a slight weight advantage, a horse is not going to slice through dense ranks, and as his velocity is sharply checked, you are going over his neck in any case.

And even if the man went down he would still be knocked back a good fifteen feet and into the legs of his comrades.

fifteen feet? If the infantry is formed with 15' between ranks, then sure a horse could gallop through. Surely there is less than 3' spacing per rank if they are recieving cavalry. What happens is that your horse hits the first rank and knocks it back into the second losing some fraction of its own momentum in the process. This continues through each rank, but at anything approaching 30 mph you might as well be hitting a wall at that spacing. The problem gets worse for your horse because he is likely wider than a man, and so may be hitting more than one file at once if shields are overlapped.

Even if the first horse went kamakazi and did end its life in a collision such as this, there would not be corpses of men and your horse all over the ground for the next horse to try to cross at the gallop. I doubt this can be done easily.

Why charge? Well you have something that weighs three quarters of a ton and is moving over 30 miles an hour and you have a few hundred of them. That would do a lot of damage to the enemy.

And they have something that weighs 160 lbs, but multiplied by a few thousand of them in a mass, all moving at 30 mph relative to you. That does a lot more damage.

Slowing down is suicide, every military manual I've read on cavalry tactics states that they should go to a gallop at fifty yards, and don't stop for anything, keep going otherwise there's no way you can break the enemy,

Sure, because the intention is that the enemy will break ranks. It is unlikely that they would add a footnote to the manuals that says "if they don't break ranks you're gonna hit a mass of men at speed and end up stopped dead- or your horse will, you will surely keep moving." :wink:

once cavalry slow down the advantage goes to the infantry. And the rider can't do much, he's flailing around from the back of his mount the horses weight and speed does the most damage.

Which is why I am writing in English and not French. If cavalry could easily break infantry then much of history would be quite different. Where we read of anything approaching reliability in accounts of horse breaking steady infantry it is always big horses and well armored, or with riders equipped with long lances. Either you hit infantry with a long weapon as you pull up so as not to crash into them until you have disrupted their ranks, or you simply wade into them on your big armoured horse as riot police regularly do. And yes, you are at a disadvantage, but that is what history has shown to be true for a head on clash of cavalry and infantry. Notice we are not discussing instances where formed infantry repulsed cavalry, for that is the norm.

So yes horses change be trained to charge home against what they think is a solid object (although there's a great deal of debate on whether or not a horse could even see spears) and they can charge at a gallop. Of course charging into the front of the spear points is not a good idea and your surperior speed and maneuverability makes it doubly unnessesary anyway.

The point is that the horse is smarter than the trainer. A tight packed mass of men at 30 mph IS a solid object! Spears are the least of your worries.

If I was a cavalryman I would take the enemy infantry in the flank or the rear and I would only charge the front if: (A. They had been pounded by friendly missle troops. (B. I had no other choice (Like the 21st at Omdurman) And I would only attack the infantry after I had swept the other guys cavalry off the field.

I agree with all of that, and surely there were incidents like Omdurman where being in the middle of a charging herd limited options, but this cannot have been the norm.

Another point if I may, charging at a trot in armour would be a living hell. And you can forget about posting.

Don't confuse pulling up from a gallop on contact with charging at a trot. You have to charge hell for leather to put the fear of Zeus in the infantry. If they don't lose cohesion, I'd wheel and try again rather than fight an infantry battle from horseback, but if I had a big horse or equal or greater reach with my weapons I might try to see if they'd hold up to assault.

[Aulus Perrinius]

A walk would hardly generate the force needed.

Needed to what? It is enough to give added thrust to a spear point. Pushing through dense ranks has to be easier at a walk than a gallop, because if you hit formed men at 30 mph it is like hitting a solid mass, while in walking through you can wade into them you can push them apart. Try punching a pot full of beans or rice, then simply push your hand into it- the speed you impart forces the mass to act as one entity.

To break the enemy formation of course, all a spear thrust form a walk would do is bounce of the other guy's armour.

An infantry formation is much more flexible than a pot of beans and the speed is the only way you'll get through and have any chance of breaking them.

Churchill's account clearly states that the Mahadists were solid and someone hit by a running horse will be knocked flying.

Solid, but at what spacing? Clearly there was a lot of room in between them for them to go flying.[/quote]

There doesn't need to be a lot of room, there just needs to be running horses

A horse can weigh a lot more than 800 pounds 1,500 pounds is an average weight for a 14-16 hand horse. And since one 1,500 pound mount would outweigh the combined weight of the phalanx. And since there would more than one horse and they would be charging at 35 miles an hour. . .

Ok, so I need 9.73 ranks then. But even with a slight weight advantage, a horse is not going to slice through dense ranks, and as his velocity is sharply checked, you are going over his neck in any case.[/quote]

You ever see a medieval saddle? There's no way you're going over then neck and it doesn't make any sense because a smart cavalry man would hold his seat. You also seem to stacking the deck, one horse against a phalanx? :wink: :lol:

And even if the man went down he would still be knocked back a good fifteen feet and into the legs of his comrades.

fifteen feet? If the infantry is formed with 15' between ranks, then sure a horse could gallop through. Surely there is less than 3' spacing per rank if they are recieving cavalry. What happens is that your horse hits the first rank and knocks it back into the second losing some fraction of its own momentum in the process. This continues through each rank, but at anything approaching 30 mph you might as well be hitting a wall at that spacing. The problem gets worse for your horse because he is likely wider than a man, and so may be hitting more than one file at once if shields are overlapped.[/quote]

Yes fifteen feet. That's how far a running horse can knock someone. A horse wouldn't lose that much velocity, the guys in front wouldn't be slowing the horse down (stabbed, spitted, slashed, trampled, knocked over, etc.) and then the guys behind would have a bunch of their buddies which had been turned into impromptu missiles flying into them and their legs which would in turn knock those guys over and/or trip them and so with all those gaps created that wouldn't slow the horse very much. However I never said the press of bodies wouldn't slow the horse down. But even if did/does it still makes for more sense to engage at a full gallop than a walk.

Even if the first horse went kamakazi and did end its life in a collision such as this, there would not be corpses of men and your horse all over the ground for the next horse to try to cross at the gallop. I doubt this can be done easily.

On the contrary it is quite easy, medieval warhorses were trained to bloody corpses and trample things and my horse will go at a gallop over snow and ice and rough ground, a horses legs aren't that fragile.

Why charge? Well you have something that weighs three quarters of a ton and is moving over 30 miles an hour and you have a few hundred of them. That would do a lot of damage to the enemy.

And they have something that weighs 160 lbs, but multiplied by a few thousand of them in a mass, all moving at 30 mph relative to you. That does a lot more damage.

That doesn't make any sense.

Slowing down is suicide, every military manual I've read on cavalry tactics states that they should go to a gallop at fifty yards, and don't stop for anything, keep going otherwise there's no way you can break the enemy,

Sure, because the intention is that the enemy will break ranks. It is unlikely that they would add a footnote to the manuals that says "if they don't break ranks you're gonna hit a mass of men at speed and end up stopped dead- or your horse will, you will surely keep moving." :wink:

Well I already mentioned the medieval warsaddle. Keep in mind pinning someone's infantry in a charge is still useful (Napoleon did it) And I never disagreed about solid infantry being able to stop charging cavalry.

once cavalry slow down the advantage goes to the infantry. And the rider can't do much, he's flailing around from the back of his mount the horses weight and speed does the most damage.

Which is why I am writing in English and not French. If cavalry could easily break infantry then much of history would be quite different. Where we read of anything approaching reliability in accounts of horse breaking steady infantry it is always big horses and well armored, or with riders equipped with long lances. Either you hit infantry with a long weapon as you pull up so as not to crash into them until you have disrupted their ranks, or you simply wade into them on your big armoured horse as riot police regularly do.

That might account for some of the disrepancies between our posts you seem to be talking about greek and Napoleonic cavalry and I'm thinking of armoued men on armoured horses with lances. And riot police aren't intended to be function like ancient cavalry.

And yes, you are at a disadvantage, but that is what history has shown to be true for a head on clash of cavalry and infantry.

Sources? Actually history shows that in a head on clash you're supposed to charge at a gallop and keep going, and don't stop for anything

Notice we are not discussing instances where formed infantry repulsed cavalry, for that is the norm.

Agreed. However you'll notice that every cavalry type that engaged enemy infantry did it a gallop. Sixteen hundreds cavalry did operate at a trot but never engaged infantry. If the cavalry that broke solid infantry had engaged a walk they to would have been thrown back.

So yes horses change be trained to charge home against what they think is a solid object (although there's a great deal of debate on whether or not a horse could even see spears) and they can charge at a gallop. Of course charging into the front of the spear points is not a good idea and your surperior speed and maneuverability makes it doubly unnessesary anyway.

The point is that the horse is smarter than the trainer. A tight packed mass of men at 30 mph IS a solid object! Spears are the least of your worries.

A human is much smarter than a horse, and spears are the biggest worry those can kill me, a bunhc of guys disrupted by a line of running horses isn't a problem. If one hits solid enemy infantry then you have to go at a gallop otherwise you'll be dragged for your horse and hacked apart.

If I was a cavalryman I would take the enemy infantry in the flank or the rear and I would only charge the front if: (A. They had been pounded by friendly missle troops. (B. I had no other choice (Like the 21st at Omdurman) And I would only attack the infantry after I had swept the other guys cavalry off the field.

I agree with all of that, and surely there were incidents like Omdurman where being in the middle of a charging herd limited options, but this cannot have been the norm.

Another point if I may, charging at a trot in armour would be a living hell. And you can forget about posting.

Don't confuse pulling up from a gallop on contact with charging at a trot. You have to charge hell for leather to put the fear of Zeus in the infantry. If they don't lose cohesion, I'd wheel and try again rather than fight an infantry battle from horseback, but if I had a big horse or equal or greater reach with my weapons I might try to see if they'd hold up to assault.

And fighting from a walk would be even worse all you'd do is get stopped held off unable to reach the enemy and if a charge is slowed or stopped then it's thrown back with heavy losses. Every military manual that adresses shock cavalry states that they must go into a gallop within fifty yards of the enemy and like I said don't stop for anything. As for longer lances and bigger horses . . .

The polish winged hussars wielded lances from 18-25 odd feet long and the lance was designed so that it could impale multiple people before it broke. The hussars horse's are mentioned crashing through solid infantry and swines feathers and ridding across spiked ditches and hacking there way through the enemy. They had guts, that's for sure. *Goes all misty-eyed*

[PMBardunias]

An infantry formation is much more flexible than a pot of beans and the speed is the only way you'll get through and have any chance of breaking them.

Not at 30 mph. Men are a solid wall because if they start off belly to back, they cannot move into a looser formation fast enough if they wanted to.

You ever see a medieval saddle? There's no way you're going over then neck and it doesn't make any sense because a smart cavalry man would hold his seat. You also seem to stacking the deck, one horse against a phalanx?

Well, as you note later, I am for the most part considering ancient cavalry, but even the highest saddle will not hold you on a horse when it goes from 30-0 in short order. As for the one against many. This is simply the fact that at the moment of collision it is a single horse against a mass of packed men, the next horse hits moments later. if we believe Arrian then horses will not push in a group like men, so the one against many match up may be valid even at slower speeds.

Yes fifteen feet. That's how far a running horse can knock someone. A horse wouldn't lose that much velocity, the guys in front wouldn't be slowing the horse down

the point is not how far a collision could throw a man, but that there is no room between men for them to be thrown. The are instantly impacting the men in ranks behind them which serves to add their total combined weight to what the horse it hitting. The horse is hitting a block weighing well over a thousand pounds- 2560lbs if they are in 16 ranks as was the Macedonian common practice.

However I never said the press of bodies wouldn't slow the horse down. But even if did/does it still makes for more sense to engage at a full gallop than a walk.

Once slowed,more likely stopped, they would then be hit from behind by a horse moving at 30 mph if the second rank did not pull up. This would not end well.

On the contrary it is quite easy, medieval warhorses were trained to bloody corpses and trample things and my horse will go at a gallop over snow and ice and rough ground, a horses legs aren't that fragile.

Perhaps, that was my original question after all, but I doubt it would be as easy as that.

There doesn't need to be a lot of room, there just needs to be running horses

And they have something that weighs 160 lbs, but multiplied by a few thousand of them in a mass, all moving at 30 mph relative to you. That does a lot more damage

That doesn't make any sense.

This is the heart of our disagreement. You are not following the physics of this collision- don't take that as an attack, its not obvious. If you and your horse are moving 30 mph, then the men you hit are moving 30 mph relative to you. It is exactly the same thing as if they were moving and you were standing still. A mass of men 8-16 ranks deep, hitting you at 30 mph is worse than a horse hitting you at the same speed.

Actually history shows that in a head on clash you're supposed to charge at a gallop and keep going, and don't stop for anything

History generally shows that you are not supposed to attack steady, formed infantry head on at all. The instances of cavalry of all sorts NOT doing this are innumerable. If it were as easy as you describe, then massed infantry would be worthless on a battlefield. We see just the opposite, infantry always masses to repel cavalry.

However you'll notice that every cavalry type that engaged enemy infantry did it a gallop.

They charged at a gallop, but we don't know if they hit men who remained in tight formation at a gallop. The fact that we can name one or two battles where this might have happened should be telling. If it commonly occurred we'd not be discussing this.

If the cavalry that broke solid infantry had engaged a walk they to would have been thrown back.

Cleary this was not the case for the French lancers mentioned above.

The polish winged hussars wielded lances from 18-25 odd feet long and the lance was designed so that it could impale multiple people before it broke. The hussars horse's are mentioned crashing through solid infantry and swines feathers and ridding across spiked ditches and hacking there way through the enemy. They had guts, that's for sure. *Goes all misty-eyed*

I'm a big fan of Polish Hussars, but there surely is a lot of romance surrounding their abilities in battle. I think it far more likely that the Swedes flinched at Kircholm than that the poles rode through steady, formed men. Their lances were longer than swinefeathers and had an advantage imparted by the angle they were held at over a pike that was braced on the ground and held up steeply as well. Also they regularly charged multiple times into their foes. Why would they need to do this if they could hit at 30 mph and cut through. Clearly they did not.

My apologies, but I'll be out of town for about a week. If I don't respond its not out of a lack of respect, but a lack of internet! Good conversation.

[Aulus Perrinius]

Yes indeed it's a good conversation

I'm tired of quoting so I'll simply address your points (which are good ones I might add) as best I can

1 I comepletely agree that cavalry shouldn't engage solid infantry from the front

2 If men are packed that tight they can't fight back even if the horse is slowed or stopped the infantry would so packed that between the riders the horses attack's it would be like shooting fish in a barrel so you have ot have formation that tight enough you can hit back but not so loose that you're easily broken.

3 It wont be one horse against many since there would be at least the three lines of horses

4 This is why you are trained to keep your seat medieval warsaddles also have the pommel curved over the riders hips

5 I agree that infantry usually throws of frontal cavalry charges otherwise history would be very different as you said. And perhaps the crush of bodies contributed however engaging at a walk would just make a bad situation worse. The gendarmes of Charles the Rash penetrated to the banners of a solid swiss pike square and the swiss themselves grudingly admitted it! However the press of bodies slowed the gendarmes and so they were dragged from their horses and killed. Which shows that they engaged at a gallop and managed to get pretty far and that getting slowed down is a bad idea, it also shows that swiss while solid and unbroken had a loose enough formation that they hold cavalry off otherwise they wouldn't have been able to drag the gendarmes of their horses if they had been so packed together.

And yes I would think that a man getting thrown back would add his weight to his buddies of course that depends on if the buddy doesn't go down from the impromptu missile.

As for the weight of the men. Never mind I was going to do some calculations but I can't remember how many men were in a macedonian phalanx. I'll edit this if I can find the numbers and get time to post here.

6 I totally agree that attacking solid head on is a bad idea, however I do disagree with Arrian horses can and do push the tactics of the husaria and the gendarmes (first slam into the enemy then have light cavalry came in behind them to follow up on the charge) show that they did engage at a gallop and the lighter cavalry's follow up charge was designed to overcome the problem of the horses being slowed. And we can name several battles where they engaged at a gallop.

7 The french lancers at Eylau weren't that sucessful IIRC. As for the Hussars the only battle I can think where they charged multiple times would be Kilchusny which shows that they engaged at a gallop and thay had trouble with the infantry because they didn't have any lances just their Koncerz'

P.S If you don't reply for a week I never think that's a lack of respect, I just know that real life catches up with us. Like it did just now for me :wink: :lol:

Great talking with you by the way, I love arguing over this stuff. Have fun on your trip!

[Robert Vermaat]

Hi Nik,

A bit late, this reply, but I've been off line for some time.. :|

I asume that you are not disputing the mixing of infantry and cavalry

No, I wasn't. I disputed your claim that "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". I've read no evidence of two units being defeated (I'll get back to that later), nor of the supposed manner of the horses being stabbed by germanic troop mingling with the Roman cavalry. that may have occurred, but Ammianus does not describe it.

"Scattered in whatever direction they could" and "looking for nothing except safety in fligt" is rather more than "wavered" IMO.

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,

Yes, indeed that's what Ammianus writes. But Ammianus also writes that the cavalry was stopped by Julian, and that they rejoined the fight. Also, a slightly injured commander suddenly dies in battle - how did this happen if he was already gone?
This is in direct contradiction with what Ammianis wrote before, and hence we have to disbelieve one or the other of his statements. I've chosen to to read the one about the 'scattering cavarly' as the overreaction, since ancient cavalry in flight usually stops when the horses get tired - i have yet to recall a battle where they actually rejoin the fight.

No idea why you think only the Alamanni leaders had horse - see above for "they put all their strongest cavalry forces on their flank in close order".

Yes, you got that one right. The Alamanni had some cavalry.