A taxonomy of cavalry

[Andreas Johansson]

NB: Note sure if this belongs better here or under the rules system discussions forum: admins are encouraged to move the thread as they deem appropriate.

The discussion in the Triumph! thread about different sorts of cavalry got me thinking, can one make a taxonomy of cavalry types that a rulesset must distinguish to deal adequately with our period? Can we get a rough consensus on what's needed? Let's, to keep things relatively simple, stick to horseback fighters, so no chariots, camel riders, or troops that dismount to fight (unless they also fight mounted of course), and let's also ignore anything with gunpowder weapons or incendiaries as being early modern types ahead of themselves.

To get started, here's a classification off the top of my head - is anything missing, and can any groups be usefully combined as pragmatically interchangeable?

"Nutters" - shock cavalry whose only real tactic is charging into CC, or, preferably, into the void created by the enemy breaking before contact. No or negligible shooting capacity. E.g. Frankish and later knights.

"Fencers" - similarly lacking in shooting power, but forgoing precipitate charges for a more deliberate style of combat. E.g. Arab lancers, possibly some cataphracts?

"Bow-and-lance" - cavalry willing to charge home but also capable of effective long range shooting. Forms a continuum from more chargey to more shooty, which could be cut into any number of discrete types. I'd see most steppe cavalry as falling here.

"Shooters" - pure horse archers who avoid close combat with unbroken enemy. The lightest steppe types, some European crossbow cavalry?

"Heavy javelins" - cavalry combining close combat capability with javelin skirmishing. Sort of a short range equivalent of bow-and-lance above. E.g. Roman equites.

"Light javelins" - javelin skirmishers who avoid hand-to-hand combat, unless perhaps with opponents as light as themselves. E.g. Numidians.

The DBA model would in effect say that fencers, bow-and-lance, and heavy javelins are all functionally equivalent, as are shooters and light javelins. Triumph! would merge light and heavy javelins, and apparently lump at least some fencers with the javelins. There's also a Cataphract class, whose description sounds more like fencers than nutters, but doesn't include things like Arab lancers, who are classed as Jav Cav. Elite Cav and Horse Bow correspond conceptually to bow-and-lance and shooters, respectively, though I believe a lot of troops they do class as Horse Bow were perfectly willing to charge in (and carried spears/lances). Plus, horsemen of any description can be Bad Horse if incompetent.

(I guess you could interpret my six classes as the combinations of two variables: shooting range (none, long, short), and weight (heavy, light).)

[Prufrock]

Good topic. Would you class Macedonian Companions as Nutters or Fencers? How about the Prodromoi? Fencers?

[Andreas Johansson]

Good topic. Would you class Macedonian Companions as Nutters or Fencers? How about the Prodromoi? Fencers?

Nutters and dunno, respectively.

[Mark G]

I doubt nutters.

The level of training needed to be that good as shock cavalry makes organised deployment the norm.

It seems to me that training, weight and size of horse, horse and rider armour, missile weapon, and compactness of formation are the key factors.

[Dangun]

I think I would apply the DBA logic here and say, the fine granularity of your 6 categories, will be hard to find evidence for in the sources.

[Prufrock]

I think I would apply the DBA logic here and say, the fine granularity of your 6 categories, will be hard to find evidence for in the sources.

I think there's fairly good evidence for all of these types. Not knowing enough about certain armies to fit them into a scheme with assurance
is an occupational hazard for the rules-writer, and partly why I personally tend to game better-documented eras!

[BjörnF]

I am into Hellenistic stuff so I look into my "the Tactics of Aelian" (Christopher Matthew).
A long story short he divides them into 6 groups:
Kataphraktoi (armoured),
Thureophoroi (lancers/speararmed with shields),
Xystophoroi (lancers),
Hippakontistai (throwing javelins),
Elaphroi (first throws javelins then charge like lancers) and
Hippotoxotai (mounted archers). 
(I hope I haven't misunderstood or misrepresented Aelian).

I wonder if Roman, Carthaginian and Keltic cavalry could be squished into these groups, or maybe we need some more?

[aligern]

Interesting Bjorn. What would be the behaviours of your different types? For example what would be different between lancers and spear/ shield cavalry.

[Dangun]

I think there's fairly good evidence for all of these types.

Apologies, I wasn't very clear.

I am sure that cavalry armed that way existed.
But I am not sure whether the sources will describe them in sufficient detail to say that they behaved particularly differently or - most importantly - whether there is evidence that their arms or behaviour had significantly different effects.

From a wargaming perspective, its hard enough to read into the sources whether bow had a hugely different impact to javeliens, what sources are going to justify a different wargaming effect for "Heavy javelins" vs "Light javelins". Again, I'm not disputing that heavier javelins existed.... But it smells of precision-not-accuracy to try modelling a different impact.

[willb]

Late Roman/Early Byzantine armored bow cavalry - shooters?

[Andreas Johansson]

I doubt nutters.

The level of training needed to be that good as shock cavalry makes organised deployment the norm.

I'm afraid I don't follow. Are you saying that shock cavalry didn't exist in our period because the requisite training didn't exist?

[Andreas Johansson]

From a wargaming perspective, its hard enough to read into the sources whether bow had a hugely different impact to javeliens, what sources are going to justify a different wargaming effect for "Heavy javelins" vs "Light javelins". Again, I'm not disputing that heavier javelins existed.... But it smells of precision-not-accuracy to try modelling a different impact.

What I had in my with that distinction was the discussion in the Triumph! thread about the distinction between Numdian cavalry (light javelins) and Gallic, Iberian, or Roman (heavy javelins). The chief sources to check would be Polybius and Livy. Also Caesar and/or his continuator about his African campaign.

(And in case it needs to be clarified: by "heavy javelins" I didn't mean cavalry chucking heavier missiles, I meant heavier cavalry chucking missiles.)

[Andreas Johansson]

Late Roman/Early Byzantine armored bow cavalry - shooters?

Bow-and-lance I think.

I am into Hellenistic stuff so I look into my "the Tactics of Aelian" (Christopher Matthew).
A long story short he divides them into 6 groups:

I recall I found Aelian's taxonomy of cavalry rather odd when I read him some years ago. I guess I should go and review it, and also Asclepiodotus'.

[Duncan Head]

I doubt nutters.
The level of training needed to be that good as shock cavalry makes organised deployment the norm.

I'm afraid I don't follow. Are you saying that shock cavalry didn't exist in our period because the requisite training didn't exist?

I think Mark's saying that shock cavalry aren't well described as "nutters".

I recall I found Aelian's taxonomy of cavalry rather odd when I read him some years ago. I guess I should go and review it, and also Asclepiodotus'.

Asclepiodotus has a clearer division into three (close-quarters, distance fighters, and intermediate) with subdivisions of each - which seems to be at the root of the DB* tripartite classification. Arrian of course also has his own variant of the same system as Asc and Ael.

[RichT]

As Roy observes, the question is not so much how many different types can you divide cavalry up into, but how all these types behave differently on the battlefield (or table). If they all have different special rules, the rules are not going to be very simple or elegant. If the rules have a high level of abstraction anyway, there's no point having a detailed taxonomy. If all the types just come down to +1 here, -1 there, it might not be very interesting to play.

I think Asclepiodotus' scheme of (surprise surprise) three types is fair. Shock cavalry who charge into contact (whatever that means). Skirmish cavalry who avoid contact and throw or shoot stuff. Intermediate cavalry who ride up, fall back, throw some stuff, charge if the time is right. How to model all this on the table, who knows?