How Effective were Spears Against Cavalry?

[joeandmich]

Very true. Even in Agincourt the French were Leery to attack English infantry but that was because of the Welsh bowman more than for spearman.

[rrgg]

Although if the cavalry are using those sorts of hit and run attacks then they would probably be using missiles or extra long lances specifically for the purpose of out-ranging the infantry's weapons, and with the most agile side determining at which distance the battle is fought that would still leave anyone armed with a short, thrusting spear sort of high and dry (I suppose I'll leave the question of whether many spears were designed for both thrusting and throwing to another discussion).

[Macedon]

Actually, they usually did have missiles. Byzantine armored lancers, cataphracts included, were also equipped with bows. And do not forget that in medieval times it was the cavalry which was supposed to be fully armored, not the infantry, so a cataphract or a western knight trotting or pushing into a line of ill-trained, mostly unarmored or light armored footsoldiers could scare them away with his mace and sword. If they stayed put, even badly armored foot usually bested armored cavalry, but very often they did not, being peasants against nobles renowned for their fighting skills. This fear, derived from the usual vast gap between infantry and cavalry regarding their experience, training and equipment is largely responsible for the "myth" (up to a point) of the all-charging cavalry and the mistake people often make to broaden their conclusions in other eras and cultures.

Yet, cavalry was first and foremost supposed to fight against enemy cavalry and not infantry. In most ancient battles we see that it is horsemen with javelins (the bulk of ancient cavalry, even those we would call heavy) which they used against infantry and cavalry alike. The Heteroi / Companions of Philip and Alexander, armed with a long spear were never attested to have been used against massed infantry as most people think! What they usually did was attack the enemy cavalry, which used to fight a skirmishing battle (not in skirmish order, just closing in, discharging of missiles and then retreat back to their original positions as other squadrons galloped in) were at a disadvantage against the Companion's longer, sturdier spear. this was the role of the lancers... to attack enemy cavalry.

[Old Husker]

I'd like to second Macedon's comments about ancient cavalry (the Hetairoi included) basically being called upon to fight opposing horsemen (or some mix of cavalry and light infantry support) rather than massed heavy infantry. I believe that even in the case of light infantry opposition, riders probably only took it on when they could get in among troops that were somewhat scattered, rather than standing in good order (and preferably after the footmen had largely exhausted their missiles, which should easily have outranged those of the horsemen and otherwise proven lethal to their mounts).

[Domen]

the horse is not that maneuverable

This depends on:

1) What breed and kind of horse.
2) How well-trained horse.

Some horses can be very maneuverable.

[Macedon]

No, this only makes a horse more maneuverable than another horse. But in close combat, no horse can be compared in maneuverability with the footmen around it. A horseman trying to stand his ground against footmen around it, after having (in any way) pushed himself into a close ordered infantry formation, has to remain largely stationary and can in no way defend against men grabbing at the rider, the reins, ducking under the horse's belly, attacking the rider's left side with any weapon they might be equipped with. The maneuverability, that is the ability to make swift and precise moves in such an environment gives a huge advantage to the footmen. Coupled with local superioriy in numbers, since a horse is much more massive, footmen most always get the upper hand unless they are immediately supported by infantry or unless the quality of their equipment is far superior to that of the infantry.

[Michael Kerr]

Hi, I am not overly knowledgeable about cavalry but I was thinking that cavalry would attack a phalanx at its exposed flanks rather than a front on charge. As a lot of ancient armies positioned their cavalry forces to protect the flanks of their infantry you wanted your cavalry to drive off the enemy cavalry and then attack the exposed flanks. Also an inexperienced phalanx would lose cohesion when attacking or chasing a defeated enemy and be vulnerable to attack by cavalry covering the defeated army's retreat. A moving phalanx would be vulnerable. I feel psychology played a big part of cavalry warfare. Anyway enjoying the topic.
Michael
Kerr