heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry

[Domen]

Sassanid cavalrymen fighting each other:

http://www.livius.org/sao-sd/sassanids/sassanids.htm

[Domen]

Sorry, double post.

[Domen]

Leonardo da Vinci's study of horses in the Battle of Anghiari (1505) - he witnessed that battle:





And here a copy of Leonardo's missing painting (also showing Anghiari) by Peter Paul Rubens:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_...ghiari.jpg



Horses fighting against each other (you can see jumping / trampling, kicking and biting attempts):





Description of the photo below: "This fellow went to pet some strange horses somewhere in Argentina, and they broke his arm, chainmail wouldn't have helped any:"



Police horse about to trample a man:

[Domen]

Some more (see page 5) sources suggesting how could a heavy cavalry vs heavy cavalry engagement look like:

Leonardo da Vinci's study of horses' behaviour in battle:



http://www.kerlam.com.ua/dibooz/Leonardo/006/00609.jpg



And here a copy of Leonardo's now missing painting by Peter Paul Rubens:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Peter_...ghiari.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Anghiari



Horses fighting (you can see jumping / trampling, kicking and biting attempts):





A similar fight between horses depicted in a Medieval painting:



Description of the photo posted below: "This fellow went to pet some strange horses somewhere in Argentina, and they broke his arm [by biting it], chainmail wouldn't have helped any:"



Modern police horse about to trample a man:



Compared to Ancient horses trampling enemies:

http://www.nilemuse.com/muse/pic/RamsesLg.jpg

[Urselius]

Horses can be aggressive. Many of the moves such as the capriole practiced by the classical equestrian schools, like the Spanish Riding School, were developed for combat. As well as biting and kicking stallions sometimes head-butt, which is why some late Medieval chanfrons are equipped with spikes.

The Leonardo combat shows rather fantastically dressed stradiotti - they were light cavalry mercenaries recruited in the Balkans and used extensively by many Renaissance Italian states, especially Venice. They were armed with light lances or bows, and often (as shown) sabres/falchions. Contemporary Italian heavy cavalry would have been completely armoured with plate.

[Alanus]

Don't know if there was a connection or contact between Norsemen & Sarmatians/Alans but I am curious as to how an Old Iranic name got to be so popular in Iceland of all places.... Possibility that Aspar was a name of Sarmatian/Saka diety who protected horses or even a long forgotten Sarmatian/Saka hero. Speculating now. Maybe the origins of word goes back much further to “Indo-European" roots?

Please forgive me for likewise straying from the main topic. Years ago, I discovered that Layamon (a Saxon writer) called the Lady of the Lake by the name, "Argante," or "she who prepares" (young warriors.) In Gothic, we have "arjante," the preparer. Then in the Icelandic Edda, in the Hervar Saga, the name becomes male, Argantar, and he gives the sword Tyrfing to his daughter, Hervar. Tyrfing was also the sword worshiped by the Taifali, the working cavalry of the Tryfingi Goths who adopted the sword-worship ritual. The tribal name means "people of the sword Tyrfing"-- the original Sword in the Stones. How's that for connections unexplainable? At least we find the Taifali as probable heavy cavalry, with the Goths themselves as light cavalry. It doesn't explain how Tyrfing got to Iceland. Perhaps Aspar brought it there. :whistle:

I'm impressed with this thread. We are looking at exactly how aggressive horses could be... and are. If the medieval horse could be trained to bite and trample, then ancient horses had the same capabilities. These are not shy mounts who swerved away from an opponent, as previously assumed.

[Urselius]

I'm impressed with this thread. We are looking at exactly how aggressive horses could be... and are. If the medieval horse could be trained to bite and trample, then ancient horses had the same capabilities. These are not shy mounts who swerved away from an opponent, as previously assumed.

I think there is a difference between a horse's behaviour when charging at speed and when in a melee situation. It would be very difficult indeed to induce a horse to bodily run at another horse head on, or to charge directly at infantry in close formation. However, once hemmed in by other mounts, and pivoting in close melee combat , then a horse's (particularly a stallion's) aggressive instincts could be harnessed to aid the cavalryman.

[Urselius]

The Icelander Snorri Sturluson in the Ynglinga saga describes the god Odin and the Æsir, as having been real people who emigrated from the area around the river Don to Scandinavia at the time of the Roman imperial expansion. Apparently the locals were so impressed with the newcomers that they worshipped them as gods. Certainly Odin seems to have displaced the god Tiw, whose name is cognate with Zeus and 'Jiu' of Jupiter, as the great sky god at a fairly late date.

[Sean Manning]

I'm impressed with this thread. We are looking at exactly how aggressive horses could be... and are. If the medieval horse could be trained to bite and trample, then ancient horses had the same capabilities. These are not shy mounts who swerved away from an opponent, as previously assumed.

I think there is a difference between a horse's behaviour when charging at speed and when in a melee situation. It would be very difficult indeed to induce a horse to bodily run at another horse head on, or to charge directly at infantry in close formation. However, once hemmed in by other mounts, and pivoting in close melee combat , then a horse's (particularly a stallion's) aggressive instincts could be harnessed to aid the cavalryman.

Of course, most horses on an ancient battlefield spent the whole battle hemmed in by other horses! If the horse in the middle of the front rank of a rectangular squadron wanted to swerve, but the horse on either side and the nine ranks behind did not, it would have a problem. In contrast, 18th/19th century European cavalry were usually only two ranks deep because of the threat of fireearms, and I am not sure if they rode knee-to-knee (see eg. Keegan p. 159, or better one of the experts in Napoleonic warfare who he cited).

[Urselius]

I'm impressed with this thread. We are looking at exactly how aggressive horses could be... and are. If the medieval horse could be trained to bite and trample, then ancient horses had the same capabilities. These are not shy mounts who swerved away from an opponent, as previously assumed.

I think there is a difference between a horse's behaviour when charging at speed and when in a melee situation. It would be very difficult indeed to induce a horse to bodily run at another horse head on, or to charge directly at infantry in close formation. However, once hemmed in by other mounts, and pivoting in close melee combat , then a horse's (particularly a stallion's) aggressive instincts could be harnessed to aid the cavalryman.

Of course, most horses on an ancient battlefield spent the whole battle hemmed in by other horses! If the horse in the middle of the front rank of a rectangular squadron wanted to swerve, but the horse on either side and the nine ranks behind did not, it would have a problem. In contrast, 18th/19th century European cavalry were usually only two ranks deep because of the threat of fireearms, and I am not sure if they rode knee-to-knee (see eg. Keegan p. 159, or better one of the experts in Napoleonic warfare who he cited).

A horse in such a situation, faced with an apparently solid obstacle in front of it would pull up, and those behind it would be forced to do likewise. The harshest bit and the severest application of the spur would not be of any use. Cromwell's ironsides rode knee to knee, they attacked at the trot, the Royalists under Prince Rupert charged at the gallop, but their formation must have been more open. There was a trade off between speed of attack and maintenance of formation. A slow attack could be delivered in a tight and regular formation, a charge at speed, a la outrance, unavoidably led to an opening of ranks as individual horses differed in their top speed.

[Domen]

A slow attack could be delivered in a tight and regular formation, a charge at speed, a la outrance, unavoidably led to an opening of ranks as individual horses differed in their top speed.

Not necessarily - a well-trained (in terms of unit training not individual skills) and well-knit unit could charge at speed equal to maximum speed of its slowest horse. In such case, a unit could keep its ranks close, no horse would be left behind. Modern horses can also be trained to "keep the line" even when advancing at high speed, as can be seen for example in the movie scene linked below (move to 5m 50s of the video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnklW0NXxFA#t=05m53s

Of course here you can see this in small scale, as only 3 horses are riding "knee-to-knee" in this scene. But if one line of 3 horses can do this, then lines of 6, 9, 30, 90, 180, etc. horses can do this as well, since as we know "management of many is the same as management of few. It is a matter of organization."

===========================================================

BTW:

It was a good idea, but problematic to implement, to pick horses with similar physical abilities to each unit.

===========================================================

In contrast, 18th/19th century European cavalry were usually only two ranks deep because of the threat of fireearms, and I am not sure if they rode knee-to-knee (see eg. Keegan p. 159, or better one of the experts in Napoleonic warfare who he cited).

Indeed, but this was not always the case, there were numerous exceptions, for example:

http://www.battlefieldanomalies.com/eyla...charge.htm

It is my opinion that the French cavalry adopted a en muraille formation, in great depth. The en muraille deployment consisted of each regiment forming its squadrons in line immediately beside each other. There were no intervals between each squadron, and they rode forward boot to boot [Nosworthy]. The front of Murat's column would therefore be approximately 300 meters wide and, allowing for all of the reserve cavalry and the Guard forming one behind the other, and only minimal space between each regiment, would be some 900-1,200 meters from the head of the column to its rear. Indeed just such a formation is depicted by one of the more down to earth battle-painters, Simeon Fort in one of his Aquarelle's, "La bataille d'Eylau", (Musee de Versailles). Here we can see that, given the conditions of the field, and just as importantly the condition of the men and horses, that Murat used his troopers like a battering ram, or bulldozer, to literally smash his way through the Russian lines. Not only this, but when we take into account the fact that trumpet calls would be difficult to communicate to each squadron over an extended distance owing to the wind, and that officers orders would not be heard due to the same factor, then this type of tight grouping would make control and command far more reliable. At a walking pace the French cavalry would not over-exert their already much fatigued mounts, and the fact they were attacking Russian infantry and cavalry who were "masking" their own artillery as they advanced after the defeat of Augereau's Corps meant that they only had to receive the fire of Russian muskets, and possibly not much of this either when we reflect on what the weather could do, not only to these weapons, but also to the cartridges and powder used to make them effective.

In total 52 French cavalry squadrons participated in that massive charge.

And here is Simeon Fort's painting mentioned above:

[Michael Kerr]

Urselius wrote:

There was a trade off between speed of attack and maintenance of formation. A slow attack could be delivered in a tight and regular formation, a charge at speed, a la outrance, unavoidably led to an opening of ranks as individual horses differed in their top speed.

Interesting point you make about trade off between speed & formation.
The Praecepta Militaria of Byzantine Emperor Nikephorus II Phokas (963-969) talks about a successful tactic against Saracen armies where a wing (504 horsemen) kataphraktoi in the centre form a wedge (trapezium) 12 ranks deep with 20 men in first rank & each succeeding rank increasing by 4 men till the 12th rank which had 64 riders. The treatise is very explicit about makeup, numbers, armour for both rider & horse & weapons to be carried. It states the riders in the first 5 ranks be armed the same with no horse archers but from the 5th row back archers ride in middle protected by alternate mace men & lancers on the flanks. No more than 150 horse archers in formation. Charles Oman mentions that whereas Saracen archers placed a lot of importance in rate of fire, the Byzantines placed a priority in penetration & hitting power. Lighter armed horsemen must be placed inside the wedge. All riders in formations must be armed with swords & mace men are advised to carry spare maces attached to their saddles or belts. Supposed to have worked like a rolling barrage with horse archers shooting straight ahead to clear or thin enemy ranks in front of them before wedge hits enemy lines enabling lancers & mace men to prise open the gaps & the light cavalry could spread out quickly to run down fleeing enemy & finish off isolated enemy troops. I think Saracens had predominately cavalry armies with some foot archers & medium infantry but I don't know too much about Byzantine wars. So to maintain some sort of orderly tight formation they must have travelled at a slower pace, at least early on in the charge.
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Urselius]

The Nikephorian wedge would have had its flanks guarded by other cavalry (not as heavily armoured as the klibanophoroi) in more normal formations of linear ranks. It is interesting that later Medieval western European heavy cavalry (Hundred Years War - Wars of the Roses periods) often seem to have charged with lancers in the centre flanked by swordsmen, so the multiply-armed formation was not a purely Byzantine affair. Men armed with long lances cannot change the direction of attack easily or defend themselves from an attack to their flank, so it made sense for the flankers to be armed with swords as they could react more quickly to changing threats.

The Byzantine wedge formation cannot have charged at much more than a trot, it probably acted as a steamroller. When the Normans and other Westerners fought the Byzantines at the time of Alexios Komneos (1081-1118) their heavy cavalry outclassed the Byzantine kataphraktoi in virtually every encounter. It was probably their charge 'en haie' (like a hedge) in two ranks at high speed, with couched lances, that was their edge. The moral effects of this sort of attack on cavalry used to slower-speed charges must have been very great.

[Urselius]

Not necessarily - a well-trained (in terms of unit training not individual skills) and well-knit unit could charge at speed equal to maximum speed of its slowest horse. In such case, a unit could keep its ranks close, no horse would be left behind. Modern horses can also be trained to "keep the line" even when advancing at high speed, as can be seen for example in the movie scene linked below (move to 5m 50s of the video):

Of course here you can see this in small scale, as only 3 horses are riding "knee-to-knee" in this scene. But if one line of 3 horses can do this, then lines of 6, 9, 30, 90, 180, etc. horses can do this as well, since as we know "management of many is the same as management of few. It is a matter of organization."

The extrapolation from the three horsemen in the clip to whole formations of cavalry is not as simple as you seem to imply. The three horsemen are stunt-riders on highly trained horses, the average cavalryman and mount of the past were probably less adept. No doubt the ground they were to gallop over was closely inspected to ensure that there were no obstacles, and there was not a rank of horsemen before or behind them. Also they were not being subject to missile fire (except for the man with a pistol firing blanks). I think a squadron of 100+ men in two ranks galloping at speed, trying to keep knee to knee over imperfect ground would quickly degenerate - with many falls and also injuries to riders legs from banging against a neighbouring horse's flanks.

Eylau was an exception, recognised as such at the time. Basically Napoleon had joined battle with too few of his infantry present, one infantry corps had been pretty much destroyed and his whole position was threatened with being overrun. The use of cavalry was a desperate measure, because he had no infantry left to stop the Russians. The attack was a prodigious success, mostly because visibility was bad and the Russian infantry had no time to form up to receive cavalry. It came close to disaster however, when Murat's cavalry had bulldozed their way right through the Russian army, the Russian infantry rallied and formed up between them and getting back to their own lines. On blown horses they would have been destroyed if the French Imperial Guard cavalry had not charged and covered their retreat.

[Domen]

The three horsemen are stunt-riders on highly trained horses, the average cavalryman and mount of the past were probably less adept.

Quite the contrary - they were more adept, in case of elite heavy cavalry formations at least.

I think a squadron of 100+ men in two ranks galloping at speed, trying to keep knee to knee over imperfect ground would quickly degenerate - with many falls and also injuries to riders legs from banging against a neighbouring horse's flanks.

I've read that there is a pre-WW2 newsreel showing a Polish cavalry parade, during which a unit of cavalry was galloping at speed in a close knee-to-knee formation (without falls and injuries!).

I understand that polo matches can be pretty full on & horses & their riders do a lot of turning, twisting & sprinting so how tired is your horse/horses after a match & does it need recovery time after games?

The same refers to western riding competitions (rapidly stopping, turning back & around in place, etc.):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pam6YhqSzQ