cavalry wheeling

[RichT]

Concerning ranks, we should let Asclepiodotus (Tactics 2.4-6) have the last word:

"Now when one file (lochos) is placed beside another, so that file-leader (lochagos) stands beside file-leader, file-closer (ouragos) beside file-closer, and the men in between beside their comrades-in-rank (homozugoi), such an arrangement will be a formation by file (syllochismos), and the men of the files forming the same rank (homozugoi), front-rank-men (parastatai), and rear-rank-men (epistatai), will be called comrades-in-rank (parastatai) because they stand side by side.

The assembly (syllochismos) of all the files constitutes a phalanx, in which the rank (tagma) of the file-leaders (lochagoi) is called the front (metopon), the length (mekos), the face (prosopon), the mouth (stoma), the marshalling (parataxis), the head of the files (protolochia), and the first line (proton zugon); and the rank [lit. that] behind this consisting of rear-rank-men (epistatai) running the length of the phalanx, is the second line (deuteron zugon), and the rank [lit. that] parallel and behind this is the third line (zugon), and the line behind this is the fourth, and similarly the fifth and the sixth and so on down to the file-closer (ouragoi); but taken all together everything behind the front of the phalanx is called its depth, and the file, from file-leader to file-closer, is the file in depth.
   
And those who stand behind one another in this formation are said to form a file (stoichein), but those who stand side by side are said to form a rank (zugein)."

Polybius uses similar terminology, as we would expect.

[Patrick Waterson]

the problem with the J shaped charge is that if both units are moving there's a risk that they'd both miss.

Yes, although I envisaged two infantry lines fighting in place when the cavalry woke up to its options - although if things are in a state of flux, going beyond and turning round to come in behind the enemy unit makes it hard to miss.

Whether it would happen in real life is surely a matter of how we got to be in the situation.  I can't see a cavalry unit moving up to formate on the corner of an enemy infantry unit.  But if it had originally been engaged to the front and it's enemy had disengaged or fled, something akin to this could happen.

What it would do would again depend on the battlefield situation.  If moving up with no opposition to interfere, I think it would seek to swing out wide of the fight and deliver a charge into the enemy flank or rear.  If opposition is about, it might attack it or hang back to cover the flank of its own infantry.

This makes good sense to me.  Manoeuvre room is life to any form of cavalry except cataphracts and similar bulldozer types, who are probably anyway not that great at manoeuvring outside the straight and narrow.

Which makes me wonder: on the tabletop, should there be a mandatory distance between the flank of a friendly heavy infantry unit/element/manoeuvre component and any friendly cavalry contingent to reflect this, and if so, then how much?  (Naturally, if one dismounts one's own cavalry, no gap would be needed, which brings to mind English Hundred Years' War practice.)

If it came to be in the situation by departure of its enemy to the front, it would come down to discipline.  Would it break ranks to pursue, in which case parts of it would doubtless clash with the flanks of the infantry unit.  If it held discipline, it's leaders may still feel that pursuit of the enemy to the front is the best option.  It might push on past the flank then regroup behind the infantry, which would return us to whether it would be free to deliver an attack into the enemy rear.

In all of these options, there is the question of how much would our cavalry be working to strict parade ground formation in the midst of a melee?  We know that impact cavalry down the ages knew the idea that it should try to hit the enemy together, rather than in dribs and drabs.  What happens after that, though, seems to become more fluid. 

Again, I am inclined to think this a good analysis.  The question of formation keeping is probably where culture comes in: our typical classical types will probably seek to get the unit lined up before going in, whereas a typical mediaeval feudal contingent may put cohesion as a lesser priority, Franks and Normans may well weigh in somewhat piecemeal as long as the banner is foremost in the charge and Mongols would go by the letter of their orders.  Following impact, does the cavalry keep fighting or pull back for another charge?  I think this would depend upon the cavalry's enthusiasm and discipline on the one hand and the amount of shock and disruption they instilled in the enemy foot on the other.  An enemy formation needs to be shaken rather than stirred for the cavalry to do much good (or harm) by staying in contact.

Richard - we shall let Asclepiodotus have the last word, though whether we both think he is saying the same thing can remain an enigma.

[Dave Beatty]

There is another thread going that relates to this - http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2625.msg30756#msg30756

Also here is how they do it in the rodeo... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2JjW_qJbLU&t=4s

[Jim Webster]

There is another thread going that relates to this - http://soa.org.uk/sm/index.php?topic=2625.msg30756#msg30756

Also here is how they do it in the rodeo... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2JjW_qJbLU&t=4s

Remember that American horse riding/saddles etc owe a lot to Spanish/Mexican and from that source to the equites of the Roman Army :-)

[Erpingham]

Remember that American horse riding/saddles etc owe a lot to Spanish/Mexican and from that source to the equites of the Roman Army :-)

Maybe not.  The Mexican word for a cowboy is a Jinete, which name comes from Moorish riding techniques.

[Jim Webster]

Remember that American horse riding/saddles etc owe a lot to Spanish/Mexican and from that source to the equites of the Roman Army :-)

Maybe not.  The Mexican word for a cowboy is a Jinete, which name comes from Moorish riding techniques.

I think I got it from Ann Hyland's stuff about Roman cavalry, apparently a lot of stuff goes back before the moors

[Erpingham]

Remember that American horse riding/saddles etc owe a lot to Spanish/Mexican and from that source to the equites of the Roman Army :-)

Maybe not.  The Mexican word for a cowboy is a Jinete, which name comes from Moorish riding techniques.

I think I got it from Ann Hyland's stuff about Roman cavalry, apparently a lot of stuff goes back before the moors

Well, I'm not going to argue with Ann Hyland on horsey things.  Does give an interesting image of Roman cavalry being like medieval iberian light cavalry though.  Different to Patrick's formal file based formations.

[Jim Webster]

Remember that American horse riding/saddles etc owe a lot to Spanish/Mexican and from that source to the equites of the Roman Army :-)

Maybe not.  The Mexican word for a cowboy is a Jinete, which name comes from Moorish riding techniques.

I think I got it from Ann Hyland's stuff about Roman cavalry, apparently a lot of stuff goes back before the moors

Well, I'm not going to argue with Ann Hyland on horsey things.  Does give an interesting image of Roman cavalry being like medieval iberian light cavalry though.  Different to Patrick's formal file based formations.

Remember it's my memory of Ann Hyland on Horsey things. But yes, were most Roman cavalry 'heavy' or were they what we might consider to be 'light' wearing a mail shirt?

Jim

[Erpingham]

But yes, were most Roman cavalry 'heavy' or were they what we might consider to be 'light' wearing a mail shirt?

Jim

Good question.  We know that did what we might call light cavalry things like throwing spears, javelins and darts and practiced what might be considered a light cavalry tactic in the Cantabrian Circle.  Then there are those droungos/globus refs, which suggest they could move fast and fluidly around the flanks and in reserve.  Maybe they defy strict characterisation?

[Patrick Waterson]

Accepted wisdom is that the equites, which provided the backbone and majority of Roman cavalry, were heavy-ish, in that they are recorded as both using javelins and habitually charging into contact with foes (and on occasion skirmishing).  In essence, they were perfect WRG 'HC' (Heavy Cavalry) types - and of course regular to boot.

The Romans also used Mauri (yes, Moors) and Dalmati (no prizes for guessing these were originally Illyrians), who seem to have been lighter, handier and favourites for scouting and raiding.  I suspect the Mauri could be the eventual-new-world-influence connection we are seeking.

That said, the Visigoths, who ended up settling in Spain, were noted for their gardingi light cavalry, or at least we tend to see them as light cavalry, and this was a point of distinction between their military system and that of the Ostrogoths.  So the connection could be from Mauri, Visigoths and Moors, as both Moors and Visigoths seem to have made extensive use of such irregular skirmishing cavalry.

Side question: would we classify the Rangerettes as regular or irregular cavalry, and as heavy or light?

[Erpingham]

I suspect the Mauri could be the eventual-new-world-influence connection we are seeking.

If Jim is right and he is remembering Ann Hyland's view, it is probably from her book on Roman cavalry.  This focuses on Arrian, IIRC, so I'd expect her to be saying standard Roman riding is the source.  But a tradition of horsemanship connecting Mauri of Roman times and Moors and Berbers of the early Middle Ages seems highly plausible to me.

Side question: would we classify the Rangerettes as regular or irregular cavalry, and as heavy or light?

Given the use of light horses and speed of manoeuver, I'd go with light cavalry.  They are drilled and uniformed but not permanently embodied, so I think I'd go for an regular militia status.

It is interesting that a lot of the same tricks are used in the RCMP musical ride (which has been little mentioned thus far).  RCMP drill is more precise if slower.   

[Patrick Waterson]

It is interesting that a lot of the same tricks are used in the RCMP musical ride (which has been little mentioned thus far).  RCMP drill is more precise if slower.   

As we might expect from regulars , but maybe also expressing a different cultural tradition.  I suspect Romans were very regular by nature (some would doubtless put this down to their three Shredded Wheat*).

*UK in-joke based on a popular advert of an almost popular breakfast cereal in a previous century.

[Erpingham]

Noticed that the BBC has a whole episode on Hadrian's cavalry next Wednesday, in the Digging for Britain series.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09j0qcq

Should plenty there to stir us up

[Erpingham]

I was struck by the lack of group practice.  They had first tried wheeling as a full group only a few hours before the battle.  This could explain how slow they were and how ragged.  Musical Ride it wasn't.   Real regular cavalry would doubtless have performed much better.

[Patrick Waterson]

Not least because regular cavalry would have practised on a daily basis.

They had first tried wheeling as a full group only a few hours before the battle.

No wonder they were messy.  Group training needs to be at least as intensive and prolonged as individual training if one wishes to act as a group.  Unit training needs to be frequent and consistent if the unit is to perform effectively as a unit in action.

One can see they could have difficulty assembling for advance rehearsals, but their indifferent performance could mislead people regarding what real cavalry could and could not do.