SoA Forums

History => Ancient and Medieval History => Weapons and Tactics => Topic started by: Mark G on July 02, 2017, 02:02:00 PM

Title: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on July 02, 2017, 02:02:00 PM
I think there might be a space for a revision of understanding of heavy cavalry wheeling.

Having just witnessed 2 ranks of 15 reenactors wheeling on horseback, I can attest that it is as slow, if not slower, than on foot.

and I think I can define the bit we all keep overlooking.

it is the ranks.

we all understand that the horse on the inside corner has to turn in place, slowly, while the horse on the outer edge can be almost galloping to keep the line.  the bit I think we are forgetting, is that the second rank cannot even begin that process until the front line has fully started moving forward after completing the wheel.

quite simply, there is no space for the second rank corner to turn until the first line completes its turn and starts advancing.

and for a third rank, that gets even slower, as the front rank has to move wheel and move forward 'two spaces', then the second ranks can wheel and move forward 'one space', and then the third rank can begin wheeling, and no ranks can properly start advancing until the last rank has completed its wheel.

cavalry without formation in melee are dead, so this is not just a 'would try to maintain' thing, this is the very basis of cavalry formations - maintaining line and rank at all times.

I go so far as to venture to suggest that formed cavalry wheeling should not be able to advance on the table that turn, with the wheel taking the full game turn - as is common with many rules for infantry.
notions that because horses can move faster, that they can make up the space in the game turn are, on the basis of the physical evidence I have just witnessed, hopelessly optimistic.

and if your rules allow for simultaneous movement, then any cavalry contacted while wheeling would be severely disordered.


Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Nick Harbud on July 02, 2017, 02:57:12 PM
Good observation Mark.

Slightly out of period, I once read a book about the French cavalry during the Revolutionary Wars period.  It was basically c**p, but this did not stop the state appointing a succession of notable cavalry generals to turn it into something less c**p, and executing them when they failed.  One incumbent described his appointment as "A brevet for the guillotine."

Anyway, it appears that one mark of a cavalry formation's prowess (and its commander's talent in leading them) was its ability not only to charge in a coherent manner, but to change direction whilst doing so.  Performing such feats with troops or squadrons was easy enough and complete regiments could be handled by a competent officer.  However, the really great cavalry commanders, like La Salle, could perform these manoeuvres with brigades or even divisions of cavalry.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Duncan Head on July 02, 2017, 03:42:23 PM
What if the cavalry simply have more space between the ranks at the start? Would this restriction only apply close to the enemy, when the ranks were closed up behind each other?
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on July 02, 2017, 08:09:30 PM
Not really Duncan.

You gain the bit of time when second line waits for first line to move forward after it has finished its wheel, but the wheel itself is still slow, and it is still not until last rank moves forward intonpositiin that entire formation is fully wheeled.


Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on July 02, 2017, 08:39:31 PM
Also, if the ranks wheel in their own place, each ends up aligned off set from the line in front.

So the would then gave to in line back into position afterwards.

Try putting three long Lego blocks and turning all three on one corner of each.

If you consider men basically squares, horses are long rectangles, so turning on the spot is automatically going to unalign them, unless the tears are running sideways as well as forwards.

If you have double deep elements, and wheel on a front corner, think about what the back rank had to do to get where he ends.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 03, 2017, 09:59:15 AM
Which may be why classical cavalry manoeuvred by file.  Keep a bit of space between your files (as with Polybius' 6' per file) and you can do all of these things quickly and cleanly without men and animals getting in each other's way.  You can then close up when you are in position to charge, as Duncan mentions.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on July 03, 2017, 11:08:14 AM
Perhaps if you talked through such a manoever in detail, it might become clearer.

I am struggling to see how charging by file results in anything other than isolated cavalry at the point of contact, and how wheel by file achieves any sort of formation at all.

Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 03, 2017, 07:35:48 PM
Yes, it does need a bit more exposition, sorry.

A turma was originally part of a 300-man legionary cavalry contingent, and would have deployed in three files of ten (each led by a decurion) lined up with the rest of its parent unit, each man on a 6' frontage.

From above, the turma looks like this (or would if the horses had been on a severe diet):

- - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - -  (Direction of travel =>)
- - - - - - - - - -

We now try a right wheel.  Owing to keyboard limitations, the explanation is verbal only (sorry).

The right hand file slows down (and contracts), the central file keeps going at its present speed and the left hand file speeds up (and stretches out).  Instead of ten horses trying to keep station on each other's flanks there are only three, so coordinating speeds is easy.  Coordinating speed and distance for individuals in the file is not hard either, as you take your cue from the rider ahead.

But ...

There is the rest of the unit to consider, i.e. another nine such turmae. How do you wheel a cavalry unit 30 men wide?

The simple answer is that you do not.  Say you need to do a right wheel: starting from the opposite side (the left), each turma in turn speeds up and lines up half-way along its immediate predecessor, on its right flank. (T1 and T2 are turma 1 and 2)

                                           _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
T1                                       _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
                                           _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  (Direction of travel =>)
                           _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
T2                       _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
                           _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

etc.

Once the unit is stretched out, the signal is given to wheel.  All turmae then execute a simultaneous wheel with each turma changing direction as above, and as soon as everyone is pointing in the right direction the right hand turma slows down (or the rest speed up) and everyone lines up on it.  Job done.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on July 04, 2017, 09:30:29 AM
Interesting.  With the unit in column of threes, modern (19th century on) would have wheeled by threes, rather than attempt to wheel all ten ranks together.  Is this described in the ancient manuals?
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on July 04, 2017, 09:38:52 AM
I'm not sure that helps the problem of time and order.

Theoretically, only three at a time need to coordinate.  But really, your inside man spends a lot of time sideways to the enemy.
All your turma are stuck until the last outer file is aligned.
Each file still has the problem of the motorway slow down, I cant move until there is space ahead.

And you are not fully moving forward until the back ten are fully turned.

So perhaps a bit easier for the front guy, but at the cost of rank cohesion, and much worse for the back, I think.

We need to get in touch with these guys and have them try it out a few times.

In either case, I suggest my initial point still stands.  Formed cavalry wheels are slow and harder to complete than infantry ones.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 04, 2017, 08:30:51 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on July 04, 2017, 09:30:29 AM
Interesting.  With the unit in column of threes, modern (19th century on) would have wheeled by threes, rather than attempt to wheel all ten ranks together.  Is this described in the ancient manuals?

It might be, but alas we have to the best of my knowledge no copies of Roman manuals.  Otherwise I would be quoting rather than reconstructing.  :)

Quote from: Mark G on July 04, 2017, 09:38:52 AM
I'm not sure that helps the problem of time and order.

Theoretically, only three at a time need to coordinate.  But really, your inside man spends a lot of time sideways to the enemy.

Not a problem unless the enemy is in charge reach, which would mean you have left it a bit late to face him.

Quote
All your turma are stuck until the last outer file is aligned.
Each file still has the problem of the motorway slow down, I cant move until there is space ahead.

And you are not fully moving forward until the back ten are fully turned.

Might be worth bearing in mind that units did not move at full speed until they charged (sometimes not even then) so there was a fair reserve of speed for manoeuvres.

Quote
So perhaps a bit easier for the front guy, but at the cost of rank cohesion, and much worse for the back, I think.

We need to get in touch with these guys and have them try it out a few times.

In either case, I suggest my initial point still stands.  Formed cavalry wheels are slow and harder to complete than infantry ones.

Still not sure this would be the case; a 90-degree wheel is going to cramp anyone's style simply because the right-most file will be, as you suggest, crunched up on itself unless it goes first.  If however you do a 30-degree or even 45-degree wheel the three files of an individual turma should be able to space themselves without difficulty, and individual turmae in the formation alter speed so that those closest to the turn slow down, those furthest away speed up and those in the middle keep their usual speed.

As you say, the best thing is to have Hadrian's Cavalry try it out for themselves.

Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Andreas Johansson on July 09, 2017, 09:45:04 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 04, 2017, 08:30:51 PM

It might be, but alas we have to the best of my knowledge no copies of Roman manuals.  Otherwise I would be quoting rather than reconstructing.  :)
Arrian has something to say about Roman cavalry exercises, but I do not recall if he addresses wheeling specifically (and I don't have my copy at hand to check).
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 09, 2017, 08:23:17 PM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on July 09, 2017, 09:45:04 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 04, 2017, 08:30:51 PM

It might be, but alas we have to the best of my knowledge no copies of Roman manuals.  Otherwise I would be quoting rather than reconstructing.  :)
Arrian has something to say about Roman cavalry exercises, but I do not recall if he addresses wheeling specifically (and I don't have my copy at hand to check).

Join the club ... it is annoying how books drift off somewhere when one wishes to check something in them.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Dangun on July 12, 2017, 08:37:41 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 03, 2017, 07:35:48 PM
Yes, it does need a bit more exposition, sorry.

A turma was originally part of a 300-man legionary cavalry contingent, and would have deployed in three files of ten (each led by a decurion) lined up with the rest of its parent unit, each man on a 6' frontage...

There is the rest of the unit to consider, i.e. another nine such turmae. How do you wheel a cavalry unit 30 men wide? The simple answer is that you do not...

Interesting. Is there a source for the wheeling by subdivisions?
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 13, 2017, 08:16:49 AM
Quote from: Dangun on July 12, 2017, 08:37:41 PM
Interesting. Is there a source for the wheeling by subdivisions?

Alas no, otherwise it would have been quoted here.  Justin and I had earlier discussed wheeling and the mechanics involved, coming to the conclusion that if it is not to take forever it needs to be done by subunits (which may be one reason why in classical armies each subunit usually has its own standard and an experienced man to carry it) and this overcomes the problems of articulation when a wide but shallow formation needs to change facing while moving.  The various bits still have to play catch-up, but this is easier when it can be done a subunit at a time rather than a man at a time.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on July 13, 2017, 06:44:47 PM
although the reenactors at Carlisle ignored your theory, and wheeled in the traditional manner.

and it took ages, as you would expect, but ensured that they retained a coherent front line and formation at all times.

which does rather suggest that they new theory may be a bit too theoretical for them too.

Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Dangun on July 14, 2017, 10:23:08 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 13, 2017, 08:16:49 AM
Alas no, otherwise it would have been quoted here...

How were wheels conducted in the Napoleonic period?
I guess we know that much?
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Jim Webster on July 15, 2017, 06:59:29 AM
Quote from: Dangun on July 14, 2017, 10:23:08 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 13, 2017, 08:16:49 AM
Alas no, otherwise it would have been quoted here...

How were wheels conducted in the Napoleonic period?
I guess we know that much?
serious suggestion, anybody got an evening to sit and watch the 1970 film Waterloo again to see if we see cavalry wheeling. After all the participants included a full soviet cavalry brigade who would have some idea how it was done  8)
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on July 15, 2017, 09:11:09 AM
Quote from: Dangun on July 14, 2017, 10:23:08 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 13, 2017, 08:16:49 AM
Alas no, otherwise it would have been quoted here...

How were wheels conducted in the Napoleonic period?
I guess we know that much?

As mentioned above there are numerous 19th century cavalry manuals online, both British and American (and doubtless in other languages too).  Larger units always wheel by sub-units.  However, I claim no familiarity with this material - I've only referred to some of it for comparative stuff on speeds and charge distances.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on July 15, 2017, 09:26:14 AM
those soviet troops also buckled their squares into triangles , despite being told to stand there while the cavalry ran past.

hardly the best trained troops on offer.

Napoleonic cavalry (really, any cavalry in Europe from (at latest) mid 18th century right up until post crimea) moved by squadron - which were usually divided up into two companies or troops that would each be roughly the size of a turma on most battlefields.

they were also usually two ranks.  occasionally in three.

Pat will be please to know that the basic unit was also the file (two men), which combined into Threes (three files, 6 men) and so on.

but this was irrelevant to wheeling and other formation manoeuvring.

they usually marched around in columns of a squadron frontage (well, halved for two ranks), and that was the size of the basic manoeuvre element - and despite the most famous charges being massed, they almost invariable actually charged by squadron even when in line, because victory went to the chap who could commit the last impact unit i.e. had the last free squadron to throw in.

so we are looking at roughly 25-50 frontage squadrons at the end of a campaign, but potentially up to 100 frontage at full strength on parade.

all manoeuvres were by frontage.

now these roman reenactor guys (and girls) were pretty clear on the day that they had sourced what they were doing, even down to the correct ranges of horse sizes on the field fitting with skeletons and other material.  no one had stirrups even, to just make up the numbers for the afternoon.

so if Pat is right that they didn't manoeuvre by frontage, and instead had come up with a new way to move by file which has subsequently been lost to us, but which managed to retain a formed frontage on completion, I think they would know about it.

but frankly, I cannot see any way that cavalry can wheel other than by frontage, not if they want to retain any formation whatsoever.

and unformed cavalry contacted by formed cavalry are dead, full stop.  doesn't matter if they are equites or medieval knights, or Carabiniers-à-Cheval, every source we have repeats the same thing at every point in time where there is a discussion on formed cavalry.

I should note here that the climactic cavalry charge across the field on this day, was barely a trot - because the reenactors were focussed on retaining frontage and formation even then. which is exactly what we find emphasised again and again in the books of any period about cavalry in battle in Europe.  Even medieval knights focussed on maintaining their formation and arriving together (occasionally couched in terms of not getting ahead of someone more superior but being behind someone inferior, but always the same outcome)

References to cavalry walking into a charge are always accompanied by references to the cavalry not being properly trained to get faster and retain formation (This was Fredericks big innovation during the WAS when he pulled his cavalry out and forced them to train until they could charge together at speed.  they subsequently became known as the best cavalry in Europe for the next 50 years.)

we also have ancient sources attesting to this being the particular weakness of cataphracts - that they were reliant on maintaining a solid frontage at all times because they were too vulnerable to their sides. - strikingly similar to the problems for pikes if they lost solid formation.

and xenophons stuff, what there is on it, is also all about formation and order.

anyway, this area is one of the very few areas where I think we can gain something from looking at post gunpowder eras, because we are looking at something that really hasn't changed much - how to move with groups of men on horses.


Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Dangun on July 15, 2017, 07:42:12 PM
Quote from: Mark G on July 15, 2017, 09:26:14 AM
all manoeuvres were by frontage.

Sorry for asking for clarification, but just so I understand the differences...
You are suggesting that whether a Napoleonic squadron was deployed 25, 50 etc. wide, the whole frontage wheeled as one, or not at all.
Whereas the Patrick/Justin thesis posits wheeling by sub-squadron divisions, that re-line up post wheel.
Just checking?
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on July 16, 2017, 10:24:06 AM
Yes.

Regiments in line would articulate by squadron, but regiments only tended to form line after they were positioned from column, so that would be unusual in itself if the needed to wheel a regiment line rather than redeploy it via moving back into squadron column.

Pats theory is that they did everything by files ignoring frontage, which somehow sorted itself out at the end.

I'm not convinced by his initial description of that, but would like to see more evidence before dismissing it entirely.

Contra is pretty much every bit of evidence we do have on forming cavalry ever.  Which is indicative that it is likely to be consistent.

And frontage is what the reenactors used consistently.

Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 16, 2017, 12:25:35 PM
Quote from: Mark G on July 16, 2017, 10:24:06 AM
Pats theory is that they did everything by files ignoring frontage, which somehow sorted itself out at the end.

Or rather than each turma manoeuvred in three files of ten, basing their speed and relationships on the chap leading the central file.  At a guess, one of the central turmae would carry the unit standard, and other turmae would adjust speed and spacing relative to it.  Given that a 300-man Republican contingent of ten turmae ten deep or - what these Hadrian's cavalry chaps presumably should be re-enacting but evidently are not - a 512-man Imperial ala of presumably 16 turmae (each 32 men) in perhaps two files each sixteen deep would have a frontage of 30 and 32 horses respectively*, the amount of coordination involved is not excessive for well-trained troops.

*at manoeuvre frontage of 6' per mounted man, giving a frontage of 192' or 64 yards for the Imperial ala against 180' or 60 yards for the Republican formation - with the additional option of deploying at half those depths to cover a greater frontage or deploy in close formation for possible shock action

I would point out that keeping frontage aligned throughout need not be a priority, as who would leave wheeling so late as to be within charge reach of the enemy when performing it?
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on July 16, 2017, 12:55:23 PM
I'm not sure we can criticise our reenactors for not just moving about in column of twos or threes.  Surely, even if we assume a fighting formation of three hundred men in 10 ranks, we can't expect a thirty man unit to retain that depth fighting independently.

I remain genuinely surprised none of the ancient manuals give us a clue on how to manoeuver a cavalry unit. 
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 16, 2017, 08:01:14 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on July 16, 2017, 12:55:23 PM
I remain genuinely surprised none of the ancient manuals give us a clue on how to manoeuvre a cavalry unit.

Even Xenophon seems to take it for granted that something so obvious and elementary to his readers is not worthy of mention. :)

We do however have a few clues.  In the classical era, infantry organised and manoeuvred by files, so it is almost certain that cavalry did the same, particularly javelin-armed regular cavalry which, judging by Arrian's manoeuvres, did their javelin shooting in sequence, a sort of early caracole (if I may slightly misuse the term).  This is consistent with organisation by files, if also with a desire to see each individual performing properly.

Then there is organisation: the Roman Republican cavalry turma was 30 strong and the officers were called decurions, and indeed the unit was led by a decurion.  This is consistent with ten-man files (decurion = leader of ten), which implies three such files per 30-man unit, with the senior decurion leading.

QuoteSurely, even if we assume a fighting formation of three hundred men in 10 ranks, we can't expect a thirty man unit to retain that depth fighting independently.

Why 'surely'?  And why 'independently'?  Romans had a tendency to view cavalry as a sort of four-legged fast infantry (not unlike some wargamers) and would expect the men therein to keep their place in the formation at all times.  A turma would not fight by itself on the battlefield; it would have friends.  The smallest 'independent' contingent I know of is the four turmae posted between the leftmost legion and the river at Magnesia - more usually the turma would be part of a formation of hundreds or even thousands.  I noted earlier than there would be the option to draw up five deep, but the basic organisation assumes ten deep, so unless there was a need to cover extra frontage (as on the right at Cannae), ten deep would be the default depth and would remain so until some horsemen fell in action.

When scouting, a different set of rules would come into play.  Most likely, one or two files would split up to scout, perhaps in pairs, with the leading decurion and his file staying back as a refuge for any scouts hard-pressed by a cluster of enemies.  Having nine cavalrymen immediately to hand would also mean the decurion could send a steady stream of messages as his patrols brought in information.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on July 16, 2017, 08:35:56 PM
And what evidence do you offer, Pat?

Napoleonic cavalry were also organised by files, but did not manoever by it.

You need more to make a case to counter the reenactors best efforts.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Dangun on July 16, 2017, 08:37:43 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 16, 2017, 08:01:14 PMWe do however have a few clues...

I am still getting up to speed on the possibilities...
But do we have a source that requires/suggests that Roman cavalry is this agile/well organised, or at least more agile than Napoleonic cavalry? Such sources might give us clues as to how its done?
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on July 17, 2017, 08:59:42 AM
QuoteWhy 'surely'?  And why 'independently'?

We know (because of administrative documents that have survived) that Roman units sent small detachments to do stuff. They scouted, they escorted, they patrolled.  So I'm surprised at the shock the idea of a turma performing on its own causes. 

I'll admit that the idea that they performed different roles in different formations is mine, based on later practice.  But, so far, no-one has produced evidence of any formations at all.

We must also recall that our re-enactors are involved in a show, not an academic exercise in private.  So they are going to deliver a display based on what they've got, not an exploration of being part of an imaginary larger formation.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 17, 2017, 10:14:21 AM
Quote from: Dangun on July 16, 2017, 08:37:43 PM
I am still getting up to speed on the possibilities...
But do we have a source that requires/suggests that Roman cavalry is this agile/well organised, or at least more agile than Napoleonic cavalry? Such sources might give us clues as to how its done?

I am interested to know who might have written such sources, as historians of the Roman period do not appear to have made direct comparisons with Napoleonic practice, and Napoleonic historians appear to have had little or no idea about how Roman cavalry had operated.  Regarding organisation, we have unit strengths and some elements of officer structure, which allow us to conclude that Roman organisation was by files.  Respective agilities would be hard to assess, but given the deliberate nature of most classical military movements I would assume that Napoleonic cavalry would have moved faster and been harder to control.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 17, 2017, 08:59:42 AM
We know (because of administrative documents that have survived) that Roman units sent small detachments to do stuff. They scouted, they escorted, they patrolled.  So I'm surprised at the shock the idea of a turma performing on its own causes. 

The Imperial Romans often had specific exploratores units which specialised in scouting for the army.  Escorting and patrolling were indeed part and parcel of cavalry duties, but I suspect mainly of the auxiliary cavalry rather than the main-line alae we are (or at least I think we are) discussing here.  This of course raises the question of how the auxiliary cavalry were trained, manoeuvred, fought and generally operated, and one would expect they would not differ too much from their first-line brethren.  Perhaps more to the point is that our Hadrian's Cavalry chaps are not touting themselves as displaying their scouting, escorting and patrolling capabilities but rather what they think is their exercise and/or battle formation as per (or more accurately, not quite as per) Arrian's Tactica and Hadrian's period.

Quote
I'll admit that the idea that they performed different roles in different formations is mine, based on later practice.  But, so far, no-one has produced evidence of any formations at all.

I had rather assumed that members would be at least passingly familiar with Polybius' At the most cavalry in a regular engagement is drawn up eight deep, and between each squadron a clear space must be left in the line to enable them to turn or face about. Therefore eight hundred will cover a stade of front ... (XII.18.3), from which we derive the time-honoured rule of thumb of 6' frontage per cavalryman and the explicit reference to eight-deep files.  A stade (stadion) is about 200 yards, and as the cavalry are eight deep, 800 cavalry divided by the depth of 8 gives a frontage of 100 cavalrymen on 200 yards or 2 yards per cavalryman.  The figure of eight deep is explicitly stated as the norm for 'most cavalry' but is inapplicable to the 300-man Republican turma, which given its officer structure would have deployed ten deep, although it has potential applicability to the 512-man Imperial ala.  Polybius' cavalry, like the Romans, are javelin-users and are expected to countermarch, although whether by files or squadrons is unclear.

Quote
We must also recall that our re-enactors are involved in a show, not an academic exercise in private.  So they are going to deliver a display based on what they've got, not an exploration of being part of an imaginary larger formation.

But they are touting themselves as being accurate Hadrianic cavalry - even if they are operating on a figure scale of 1:17, do they give a more accurate impression of period tactics by using historical depths or by using unhistorical breadth?

Please do not get me wrong: I would give these gentlemen every encouragement in what they are attempting to do.  It is just that they are seemingly steeped in Napoleonic cavalry habits rather than the classical way of doing things.  Since they are trying so hard to get small details right one would have hoped they might also have paid a little more attention to basic matters of formation and organisation, but it seems the idea of operating in ranks as opposed to files is as firmly as it is erroneously ingrained in their consciousness.  And they seem to have organised themselves into a 30-man Republican turma not a 32-man Imperial turma, which seems a little odd for anyone who claims to have thoroughly researched what they were doing.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Duncan Head on July 17, 2017, 10:35:37 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 17, 2017, 10:14:21 AM
I had rather assumed that members would be at least passingly familiar with Polybius' At the most cavalry in a regular engagement is drawn up eight deep

Which casts serious doubt on the whole idea that the 30-man turma operated in ten-deep files.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on July 17, 2017, 11:10:45 AM
QuoteThe Imperial Romans often had specific exploratores units which specialised in scouting for the army.  Escorting and patrolling were indeed part and parcel of cavalry duties, but I suspect mainly of the auxiliary cavalry rather than the main-line alae we are (or at least I think we are) discussing here.  This of course raises the question of how the auxiliary cavalry were trained, manoeuvred, fought and generally operated, and one would expect they would not differ too much from their first-line brethren.  Perhaps more to the point is that our Hadrian's Cavalry chaps are not touting themselves as displaying their scouting, escorting and patrolling capabilities but rather what they think is their exercise and/or battle formation as per (or more accurately, not quite as per) Arrian's Tactica and Hadrian's period.

Could you clarify your distinction between auxiliary cavalry and "main-line alae"?  My understanding has been that Roman auxiliary cavalry were the regular Roman cavalry in Hadrian's time.  Have I missed something in Roman military studies? (not at all unlikely).

So far, attempts to understand Hadrianic cavalry tactics have focussed on hypothetical reconstructions based on Greek historians of several hundred years previously.  Yet I'm sure I recall there is a large inscription - perhaps in Africa? - of a speech by Hadrian himself about watching a cavalry demonstration.  Does this tell us nothing useful?  Also didn't Arrian write something on Roman cavalry?
 

Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Duncan Head on July 17, 2017, 11:40:56 AM
You're thinking of the Lambaesis inscription, CIL VIII 18042/ILS 2487. It's fragmentary, particularly the bits addressing the cavalry, and I am not sure that it helps the present discussion. The bit addressed to the Equites VI Cohortis Commagenorum does suggest that wheeling is something that some "lesser" Roman units had trouble with.

http://www.livius.org/sources/about/the-lambaesis-inscription/
https://tigerpapers.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/hadrian-at-lambaesis.pdf
https://tigerpapers.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/hadrian-presentation.pdf
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on July 17, 2017, 12:00:48 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on July 17, 2017, 11:40:56 AM
The bit addressed to the Equites VI Cohortis Commagenorum does suggest that wheeling is something that some "lesser" Roman units had trouble with.
These appear to be the cavalry component of a mixed cohort.  These do not seem to be expected to do as well as the cavalry of the alae
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Andreas Johansson on July 17, 2017, 03:08:36 PM
It occurs to me that the Byzantine military treatises (Strategicon, Praecepta Militaria, etc), while talking a lot about cavalry, don't describe how you wheel, or otherwise change the direction of, a cavalry formation either.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 17, 2017, 08:55:37 PM
Quote from: Duncan Head on July 17, 2017, 10:35:37 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 17, 2017, 10:14:21 AM
I had rather assumed that members would be at least passingly familiar with Polybius' At the most cavalry in a regular engagement is drawn up eight deep

Which casts serious doubt on the whole idea that the 30-man turma operated in ten-deep files.

Were the turmae Greek, I would agree. ;)

Quote from: Duncan Head on July 17, 2017, 11:40:56 AM
You're thinking of the Lambaesis inscription, CIL VIII 18042/ILS 2487. It's fragmentary, particularly the bits addressing the cavalry, and I am not sure that it helps the present discussion. The bit addressed to the Equites VI Cohortis Commagenorum does suggest that wheeling is something that some "lesser" Roman units had trouble with.

From the context, it looks as if this 'wheeling' represents  delivery of a missile (lancea or hasta) or missiles followed by a change of direction - by the individual rather than the unit, albeit each file would presumably be performing simultaneously.

Quote from: Erpingham on July 17, 2017, 12:00:48 PM
These appear to be the cavalry component of a mixed cohort.  These do not seem to be expected to do as well as the cavalry of the alae

As Hadrian mentioned:

"It is hard for horsemen of a cohort to please, even as they are, and harder still not to displease after a show by horsemen of an ala: the training field differs in size, spear throwers are fewer, the right-wheel is tight, the Cantabrian formation is cramped, the condition of the horses and the maintenance of the equipment in keeping with the pay level."

Spear throwers are fewer ... a 128-man display will be less spectacular than a 512-man display, though if the translation is accurate and truly conveys the original intent (which I doubt) it would have the 512 men of a cavalry ala in a single Cantabrian circle.

I suspect that Hadrian was not describing a Cantabrian circle as wargamers understand it, but rather a formation of caracole-style 'racetrack' circulating files.  If this is the correct understanding, then Hadrian's comments seem to describe more feasible activities: 'spear throwers are fewer' because 8 files of 16 would have only 8 men shooting at a time as against the 32 of the 512-man ala*; 'the right wheel is tight' remains enigmatic; 'the Cantabrian formation is cramped' perhaps indicates the narrower frontage as opposed to less space per individual, although 'the training field differs in size' could account for 'cramped' manoeuvres as the auxiliary cavalry would have matched its routines to the available space in its training ground.

*or 16 files of 8 against 64 files of 8 - either way a less impressive display
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on July 18, 2017, 06:46:55 AM
Go on then pat, explain how you can have a tight wheel without a frontage to maintain.


Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 18, 2017, 07:46:50 AM
As I mentioned, the manoeuvre described seems to be not what we would understand by 'wheeling'; it seems rather to refer to the circulation of individual files within the larger formation while shooting.  In such circumstances, the frontage looks after itself.

If you disagree, Mark, or if you are referring to something else, could you explain what you understand by a 'tight wheel' in this context?
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: RichT on July 18, 2017, 10:50:42 AM
I'm late to this party so not really sure what you all are arguing about (or discussing or whatever).

But just to go back to the 'all manoeuvres are by files' thing, there's really no evidence for this at all. The tacticians (Asclepiodotus, Aelian, Arrian) have remarkably little to say about wheeling, and such as they do say is really about the heavy infantry, though there's a hint that the same rules applied to cavalry (the fact that Asclep says 'turning to the shield' is called 'turning to the rein' in cavalry). But infantry wheels are specifically carried out by the whole formation (syntagma in this case) 'turning as one body', ie exactly what we would expect by a wheel, the body as a whole turning by pivoting on the front inside corner.

They do say more about cavalry rhombus and wedge, which are said to be especially good for manoeuvring because of the 'flight of cranes' thing - which is rather negative evidence but does at least indicate (for rhombuses and wedges) manoeuvres by the whole body, not by files.

I haven't found anything in Byzantine manuals about cavalry wheeling either (surprisingly) - Maurice does talk about outflanking manoeuvres which read to me very much as the sort of manoeuvres, by largish bodies, that we would expect (ie turning the whole body in the traditionally understood way). But no details.

There aren't any Roman manuals of course, except Vegetius, who seems to have nothing useful to add.

Agreed that Lambaesis, and Arrian's cavalry sections, appear to descibe some sort of caracole/cantabrian type of individual manoeuvres, not turns by larger bodies.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Chris on July 18, 2017, 01:09:48 PM
Following this thread with a level of interest (as an amateur bystander, not as an academic or quasi-academic well versed in the ancient authorities) and wondering what impact or influence it might have or should have on the rules in use currently?

Understanding that each published set is an abstraction of what happens on the actual field, it is interesting to note the differences between sets of rules. For brief and informal examples: Hail Caesar is very "free" with its movement process. You say what you want to do, roll the command dice, and then move, not move, or move partially. Armati is rather more strict; wheels are quite limited. In ADLG, one can quarter turn, half turn, slide, etc. Wheeling is done by pivoting on interior or base unit (for both infantry and cavalry). In TTS!, wheeling is a difficult activation - if memory serves.

The history, evidence, and discussion is again, interesting. But if it is not applied or applied with reservation - searching for a better term - then why should we be concerned about it, at least with regard to rules and how they play?

Chris
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on July 18, 2017, 01:47:39 PM
Quote from: Chris on July 18, 2017, 01:09:48 PM
The history, evidence, and discussion is again, interesting. But if it is not applied or applied with reservation - searching for a better term - then why should we be concerned about it, at least with regard to rules and how they play?

Chris

Quasi-academic.  What an excellent job description.  Reminds me of a conference I went to recently where I noticed one person had filled in the "post held" section of the attendence list as "autodidact polymath".

Anyway, leaving aside the historical organisation of ancient armies is interesting of itself, I think in game terms the importance of the conversation is that wheeling was more difficult than some wargames rule allow.  To do it right needed drill and training, not just as individuals but also in formation.  We know our Hadrianic Roman trained and could wheel, because Hadrian himself said so.  But what about some warbands bought together for a campaign, or a bunch of medieval men-at-arms?   Without all that formation training, what would happen to them if they tried to wheel?  Ignore the detail for the moment and think what penalties we might apply in rules terms?  Reduced rate of turn (45 degrees a move, perhaps)?  Unit disordered?  And what was a cavalry "slide" ADLG?  And does it attract a disorder penalty? 
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: RichT on July 18, 2017, 02:09:09 PM
Quasi-academic. That's me.

So far as rules go - I wouldn't touch any rules that tried to model things like wheeling explicitly. My strong preference is for all this stuff to be abstracted away, whether overtly (like Lost Battles, where units are in big zones, all facing one of four possible directions) or clandestinely (like DBx, where it feels as if you are micromanaging manoeuvres, but in reality the manoeuvring is all completely abstract).

In terms of real life - I suspect wheeling cavalry in good order while maintaining formation was hard and slow. But also that it was fairly easy (and indeed necessary if you are a bunch of hairy barbarians) to say 'you lot go over there' and have it happen reasonably fast and without too wild a level of disorder (though still disorder enough, no doubt, to end in likely defeat if up against someone who does it better). Whether this is better represented by design for cause (max 45 degrees turn at the halt, incurring 1 disorder point per 10 degrees of turn) or by design for effect (move where you like; veterans fight at +1, levies at -1) is a matter, largely, of taste. 
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on July 18, 2017, 05:17:07 PM
QuoteWhether this is better represented by design for cause (max 45 degrees turn at the halt, incurring 1 disorder point per 10 degrees of turn) or by design for effect (move where you like; veterans fight at +1, levies at -1) is a matter, largely, of taste. 

At the risk of drifting off topic, they are both abstracted.  We have concluded we don't know how ancient cavalry wheeled in detail.  We are even less sure what non-regular cavalry did (at least we know regulars could wheel).  If we wanted to accurately model this, we'd need to use analogy e.g. from Napoleonic or Victorian practice and I'm not sure that would help.  What I'd be looking for is a mechanism that made wheeling hard and, for non-regulars, likely to make them at least temporarily lose order, making them vulnerable to an ordered enemy.  As you say, model what you think the effect is and give the player the tactical challenge, rather than a trigonometry set.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Andreas Johansson on July 18, 2017, 07:04:25 PM
Quote from: RichT on July 18, 2017, 02:09:09 PM
So far as rules go - I wouldn't touch any rules that tried to model things like wheeling explicitly. My strong preference is for all this stuff to be abstracted away, whether overtly ... or clandestinely (like DBx, where it feels as if you are micromanaging manoeuvres, but in reality the manoeuvring is all completely abstract).
If the DBx way counts as "completely abstract"*, is it even possible to have an explicit system on a DBx-like scale, where an element represents hundreds of riders? Whatever happens under the scale of your manoeuvre elements is perforce abstracted away.


* I struggle a bit with the "completely" part - surely a system where we ignore facing altogether is even more abstract, and if so DBx hasn't gone quite all the way to completely abstract. Perhaps oddly, the only systems I can offhand think of that do ignore facing are 1:1 skirmish affairs.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Chris on July 18, 2017, 09:25:06 PM
To be sure, did not mean to offend or impugn with the quasi- academic remark. Perhaps I should have typed "amateur academic" or "aspiring academic"? Perhaps I should learn to keep my fingers silent when listening in/reading discussion threads?

As for the slide in ADLG, this is simply a movement "accessory" applicable for both infantry and cavalry formations. As I understand it (and have employed it on occasion), it allows groups to avoid terrain or friends they cannot interpenetrate by sliding (shifting) one stand frontage to right or left during a forward move. No, there is not a disorder penalty associated with it.

Abstraction . . . oh that word. Take 10 or 12 ancient battles. Assume the standard cavalry - infantry - cavalry deployment. Contest is frontal. If one cavalry flank wins, they will - hopefully - turn around and engaged the exposed side of the enemy infantry or swing further around to take other cavalry from behind. So there is wheeling, but in terms of the large picture, it does not seem to matter than much.

In our tabletop games, however, wheeling angles and devices abound. Good thing? Not so good thing? Depends on one's taste.

Chris

Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 19, 2017, 09:57:42 AM
Given the constraints of tabletop rules, presumably the two aspects of cavalry manoeuvre which matter are:

1) If your unit has to change its frontal facing as part of your move, should this consume any part of your movement allowance, and if so, how much?

2) Should a unit be able to change its facing during the enemy's move, and if so, how much, when and how?
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: RichT on July 19, 2017, 04:54:42 PM
I'd say:
Quote
1) If your unit has to change its frontal facing as part of your move, should this consume any part of your movement allowance, and if so, how much?

Yes, and a lot. Always assuming the rules have literal movement, manoeuvre, etc, not abstractions. Ideally, there might be a choice - turn quickly and lose cohesion, turn slowly and retain cohesion. Decisions are always good (though in this case, they may just add complexity).

Quote
2) Should a unit be able to change its facing during the enemy's move, and if so, how much, when and how?

Depends on the rules (and on level of abstraction). If movement rates are set intelligently, there's no need to react during the enemy's move since the move/distance scales will handle this (broadly - if it takes cavalry 2 mins to move 100 yards, and 2 mins to turn 90 degrees, then cavalry less than 100 yards away will arrive at an exposed flank before the target can turn to face them, so if cavalry move 100 yards in a turn, there's no need to allow reactions during the enemy's move).
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 19, 2017, 08:28:50 PM
This ties in with the question of timescale and ground scale interrelationships.  Given that tabletop wargaming started life as an attempt to attain some form of tactical realism (as opposed to a sort of abstract dice-based entertainment using figures), if we are to have meaningful tactical imperatives on the tabletop this implies a timescale of a few minutes per move in which units have limited manoeuvre capability and players have to make meaningful decisions about what to do with it.

This resulted in the typical 1970s wargame rules being bsed on a 'bound' of 2-3 minutes, whereas nowadays the trend seems to be longer turns with more abstraction, which leaves the time consumed in wheeling as something of a curiosity for a historian rather than a critical consideration fora wargamer.

That said, there are a couple of points of cavalry handling technique which could reduce the time a formation spent wheeling.

1) Moving at reduced speed - cavalry rarely travelled Hollywood-style at the gallop, moving instead at a walk or trot most of the time.  This left a considerable margin of speed in hand to permit some subunits and indeed individuals within a subunit to travel faster than others when executing a wheel.  If moving at the trot, which I would assume to be the default battlefield speed, a wheeling unit could take its time from its central subunit, with those on the inside of the wheel slowing to a walk and those on the outside getting up to a canter.  A wheel taking its cue from the centre would thus proceed more slowly than one taking its cue from the inside man.  Exact dressing would not matter until the manoeuvre was completed, at which point it could swiftly be resumed as the unit travelled at a trot.

2) Trained men and trained horses - once men and mounts know their places in a formation, they will work to keep those places and if temporarily displaced will rapidly resume their customary positional relationships.  This would be of material assistance in rapidly straightening out distortions caused by manoeuvring as in 1) above.

These factors would benefit well-trained and experienced troops (and born-in-the-saddle tribal types), who would  - or should - have considerably less of a penalty for such evolutions than raw and/or poorly-trained troops.  There will still be a penalty, which can be measured as the delay imposed on any troops who have to slow down during the evolution.

Quote from: RichT on July 19, 2017, 04:54:42 PM
Ideally, there might be a choice - turn quickly and lose cohesion, turn slowly and retain cohesion. Decisions are always good (though in this case, they may just add complexity).

Less well-trained/less capable troops might well be allowed this choice: wheel quickly and lose cohesion or keep cohesion and wheel slowly. The veterans/experts would tend to get the best of both worlds.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on July 20, 2017, 06:24:20 AM
It all seems so logical when you spell it out, Pat.

It seems strange that there is absolutely no evidence to support that in the ancient era, and directly contradictory evidence from every other period of human history.

I wonder why that is.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on July 20, 2017, 09:12:25 AM
I'm not sure which part of Patrick's argument mark is referring but I think he has a point about movement speed and timescales.  If we were back in the spurious accuracy days of fixed physical and time scales, we may need to know things in more detail to game them (although in fact we'd have probably extrapolated from the same 19th century manuals, which Patrick doubts are equivalent to ancient techniques).  With a more fluid set up, we can abstract. 

I think the risk in the argument is everything would fit in a longer timeframe so we don't need to allow for it.  In that case, we wouldn't need set move distances because our forces could move anywhere on the field and back in the longer time frame.  Instead, we should see the longer, more fluid move, as a period of time during which things happened but not all at the same time and not all taking the entire time.

I've already said what I think we should model; a degree of difficulty that makes bodies of troops hard to wheel, an ability of regulars to do this in good order but less regular troops to risk getting in a mess.  I'm not sure "born-in-the-saddle tribal types" would be automatically good at wheeling.  I'm not convinced they put a premium on ordered lines to start with, so making them form rigid linear formations which pivot on an axis would be pretty unnatural for them.  But perhaps something else was meant?
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 20, 2017, 09:45:32 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on July 20, 2017, 09:12:25 AM
I'm not sure "born-in-the-saddle tribal types" would be automatically good at wheeling.  I'm not convinced they put a premium on ordered lines to start with, so making them form rigid linear formations which pivot on an axis would be pretty unnatural for them.  But perhaps something else was meant?

Indeed: the likes of Scythians, Huns, Numidians and Moors - not to mention Mongols - were noted for the skill and rapidity of their manoeuvres, something that no regular troops, however well-drilled, could hope to match.  Like a flock of birds, they seem to have brought shoal-type manoeuvring to a fine art.


QuoteI think the risk in the argument is everything would fit in a longer timeframe so we don't need to allow for it.  In that case, we wouldn't need set move distances because our forces could move anywhere on the field and back in the longer time frame.  Instead, we should see the longer, more fluid move, as a period of time during which things happened but not all at the same time and not all taking the entire time.

I would agree: the key limitation on battlefield movement is not how far or how fast troops can move, but how well and accurately their movement can be organised.  In many, perhaps most, armies there will be a great deal of 'hurry up and wait', which consumes time and movement allowance.  This, used as a design principle, would make movement dependent upon a composite of command ability and troop training, with the former manifested as a potential allowance which is transmitted through (or hindered by) the training/experience (or lack of it) of the troops.

Here the mechanisms of WRG 7th Edition are interesting: on a timescale of about 15 minutes per turn, Marches are used to cover distance quickly until one gets within 240 paces of the enemy and preclude any finer form of movement that turn.  This represents the ability to get anywhere on the battlefield in the absence of the enemy (although if a unit is pointing in the wrong direction, getting it pointed the right way involves a time-consuming wheel ...).  At or within 240 paces, one uses Approach moves to close the distance and Counter moves to react to them, following which those who desire or are too enthusiastic to do otherwise launch Charge moves.  The Charge is a bonus move resulting in contact (or evasion by the target) and represents the extra bit of movement when things quicken up as one closes with the enemy.  All in all, WRG 7th Edition is something of an education in battlefield movement and time/activity scaling.

Quote from: Mark G on July 20, 2017, 06:24:20 AM
It seems strange that there is absolutely no evidence to support that in the ancient era, and directly contradictory evidence from every other period of human history.

I wonder why that is.

You mean the gunpowder era, with its artillery and massed gunpowder firearms ... perhaps there might be a reason for a change in formations and techniques? ;)

That said, the musket and pike era featured reiter cavalry, who operated by delivering missiles using circulating files in much the same way as the Romans seem to have done.  They went out of fashion when defeated by shock cavalry, which may be an interesting reflection on the Roman change to lance-armed cavalry in the 3rd-4th centuries AD.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: RichT on July 20, 2017, 09:48:42 AM
The trouble with 1970s tactically realistic rules is that - as shown in this thread - we don't have enough concrete knowledge of the tactical realities to model them accurately, so all those rules' fiddliness and complexity ended up modelling was a fantasy - or to be more charitable, a theory. The dice based abstract entertainments do not attempt to model (or fantasize about) the tactical details, but do successfully model the overall effects (such as better quality troops being more effective in battle). Plus maybe they have some small chance of preventing wargaming bcoming the sole preserve of late middle aged men with over-fond memories of the 1970s... :)
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: RichT on July 20, 2017, 10:37:05 AM
Gunpowder notwithstanding, I think there are very strong reasons for believing that ancient cavalry moved and manoeuvred (and in particular, wheeled) in ways very similar to cavalry of other better known periods. I believe we all broadly agree about that don't we? With lots of allowance for tribal types, hairy barbarians, etc etc doing things differently (as they always have). And also recalling a comment I read somewhere or other about the Napoleonic drill for forming square - that "I never saw anything half so regular take place in a real battle". The fact that a major benefit of wedge/rhombus is facilitating manoeuvre (as well as, ahem, cutting through enemy formations) is an indication that manoeuvre was otherwise hard, but that's not a great revelation.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 20, 2017, 07:58:28 PM
Quote from: RichT on July 20, 2017, 10:37:05 AM
Gunpowder notwithstanding, I think there are very strong reasons for believing that ancient cavalry moved and manoeuvred (and in particular, wheeled) in ways very similar to cavalry of other better known periods.

Would anyone like to enumerate these 'very strong reasons'?  They would seem particularly germane to this discussion.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on July 21, 2017, 06:38:57 AM
We have done Pat,

Try re reading with an open mind, instead of skimming preparatory to the latest bout of Waterson wisdom.


Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 21, 2017, 08:55:18 AM
Quote from: Mark G on July 21, 2017, 06:38:57 AM
We have done Pat,

Try re reading with an open mind, instead of skimming preparatory to the latest bout of Waterson wisdom.

Humour me, please, by restating them clearly. :)
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: RichT on July 21, 2017, 10:01:26 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 20, 2017, 07:58:28 PM
Quote from: RichT on July 20, 2017, 10:37:05 AM
Gunpowder notwithstanding, I think there are very strong reasons for believing that ancient cavalry moved and manoeuvred (and in particular, wheeled) in ways very similar to cavalry of other better known periods.

Would anyone like to enumerate these 'very strong reasons'?  They would seem particularly germane to this discussion.

Well I do think they have been stated clearly quite often, plus are self evident in some cases, and the trouble with stating them clearly again is that we all know where it leads - endless point by point argument and counter argument (but with little actual reasoning or evidence, and lots of airing of pet theories), until in ten or so pages time we end up arguing about the meaning of a single word somewhere or other and get bored and wander off to re-hash some other wearily overdone topic.

But that said, just to humour you, and as it's a Friday, I'll try to set out the arguments as I see them, in the hope that it may be useful information and maybe won't lead to another I said you said session. Not with any intention of changing your mind about anything, Patrick, but just as information, so you know why I and others think what we think. 

So:

1) The problem of moving bodies of cavalry in close order across terrain, as efficiently as possible and with minimum disorder (which we can take as read as militarily desirable) hasn't changed over the centuries, so while different solutions might have been found at different times (such as the wedge, which AFAIK isn't common in other periods), the fundamental problem and therefore the fundamental solution are unlikely to be very different.

2) There is no evidence that ancient cavalry manoeuvred in some fundamentally different way from cavalry of other periods; while there is little evidence (but see below) of how they did manoeuvre, in the absence of evidence to the contrary our starting position should be that similar problems were met with similar solutions. While different theories could be devised, in the absence of any evidence to support them, or any reason to prefer them to the default position, they remain just interesting theories, and cannot supplant the default position.

3) Such evidence as there is for wheeling in the Hellenistic tactical manuals may apply only to infantry, but it is reasonable to assume, in the absence of contradictory evidence, that it would apply to cavalry also, and as formations are described as turning like a single body, which seems to mean wheeling in the way we are familiar with from other periods, it is reasonable to suppose that this is how cavalry wheeled also.

4) Byzantine tactical manuals (so far as I know them) also don't give precise details but seem to describe sub units (bandon size, around 300 men) wheeling as above, as single bodies, and larger formations wheeling by bandons aligning on each other, which is what we would expect from other periods also.

5) The wedge and rhombus are a way to ease the wheeling of a formation as a whole by following the leaders/edges; there is no suggestion that this involved wheeling by files (for example) nor that it replaced wheeling by files in square/oblong formations - the whole point of wedge/rhombus seems to be that it is an improved way to wheel the unit as a body.

6) People with practical experience (such as reenactors) of moving formations on horseback come up with similar solutions.

I could probably add more if I had to.

Does that clarify things?
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: aligern on July 21, 2017, 12:27:03 PM
Richard, I think you missed the 'globus'  or blob. This is IIRC referred to in Maurice and there is an article by the brilliant Philip Rance which features it.  I recall that Maurice thinks its OK for one small unit, not for a full regiment. M's description of the Avar battle line has them in something more blob like, but in a long line of units of varying sizes...presumably retinues. Blobs just follow the flag and arte easy to turn about and move right or left. With flag and commander at its head it would rapidly look like a wedge.  If the flag group moves around the edge then everyone else just turns their horse, if the flag group advances and turns there is no difficulty in a small unit wheeling.
However, I am pretty certain that the globes is specifically not the way a large force of Roman cavalry moves because M says so and thus, given that they are marshalled by squadrons in a line 7 or eight ranks deep and thus approx 40 men wide they must move in squadrons to wheel , form column, move off, then halt and move into line again from the head of the column. All very 18th century. However I suggest doing this in front of the enemy is highly unlikely and that at the distance the army deploys into battle line the units are arrayed in lines and do not do any fancy manoeuvres.
One cavalry manoeuvre we do know about is the Ancient German advance , throw javelins and make a single wheel and move off.
Roy


Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on July 21, 2017, 12:52:53 PM
Quote from: aligern on July 21, 2017, 12:27:03 PM
Richard, I think you missed the 'globus'  or blob. This is IIRC referred to in Maurice and there is an article by the brilliant Philip Rance which features it. 

Is it  Drungus, Δροῦγγος and Δρουγγιστί – a Gallicism and Continuity in Roman Cavalry Tactics (https://www.academia.edu/3677031/_Drungus_%CE%94%CF%81%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CE%B3%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82_and_%CE%94%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%B3%CE%B3%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AF_a_Gallicism_and_Continuity_in_Roman_Cavalry_Tactics_Phoenix_58.1-2_2004_96-130)?
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: RichT on July 21, 2017, 01:29:02 PM
Thanks - and now read! Very interesting.

To partly summarise - Rance sees a continuity in use of non-linear cavalry formations, as opposed to the linear or oblong formations of the main cavalry battle line, from the Hellenistic wedge, though the Roman cuneus or globus to the Late Roman and eventually Byzantine drungus - all being words for non-linear, less formally deployed groupings of (usually) cavalry designed for rapid movement and manoeuvre and used particularly for ambushes, outflanking, exploiting gaps etc (and for defence against the same).

He quotes Mauriuce (Strat 3.5.63-69): "It is necessary to draw up and train the unit not only in a linear formation - for this happens to be useful only for a main engagement or a charge - but also to deploy it in drungi and for it to charge in a straight line and in different circling manoeuvres, first in withdrawals and counter attacks, then in surprise raids against the enemy, and furthermore in giving rapid support to those in need."

(Strat 4.5.7-8) "deployment in a full battle line is impressive and more effective and better ordered and engages in safety, [but] it is slow and not easily manoeuvred when required, as it has only one purpose. Deployment in drungi has the opposite character, for it can both easily conceal itself in ambush, for which a small location suffices, and quickly manoeuvres according to requirements."

I'm reminded not only of line v. wedge, but of phalanx v. maniple and line v. column.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on July 21, 2017, 01:54:38 PM
QuoteThanks - and now read! Very interesting.

Yes, an excellent steer from Roy.  Much wider relevance to what we were talking about than appears on the surface.

It does provide some late Antique support for the ideas expressed about the pros and cons of rigid formations and more informal ones.  And perhaps to wonder about the role of globus/drungus style in the cavalry games as observed by Hadrian.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 21, 2017, 09:41:52 PM
Thank you for laying out your thoughts, Richard, as this enables us to pinpoint where the questions arise.

Quote from: RichT on July 21, 2017, 10:01:26 AM
1) The problem of moving bodies of cavalry in close order across terrain, as efficiently as possible and with minimum disorder (which we can take as read as militarily desirable) hasn't changed over the centuries, so while different solutions might have been found at different times (such as the wedge, which AFAIK isn't common in other periods), the fundamental problem and therefore the fundamental solution are unlikely to be very different.

But specifically how was it done?  Generalised philosophy unfortunately tells us nothing about technique, and can be seriously misleading when battlefield conditions have changed considerably over the centuries.

Quote
2) There is no evidence that ancient cavalry manoeuvred in some fundamentally different way from cavalry of other periods; while there is little evidence (but see below) of how they did manoeuvre, in the absence of evidence to the contrary our starting position should be that similar problems were met with similar solutions. While different theories could be devised, in the absence of any evidence to support them, or any reason to prefer them to the default position, they remain just interesting theories, and cannot supplant the default position.

Although the organisation and command structure of 'ancient cavalry' seems to have differed somewhat, e.g. officering by file, and form tends to follow function.

Quote
3) Such evidence as there is for wheeling in the Hellenistic tactical manuals may apply only to infantry, but it is reasonable to assume, in the absence of contradictory evidence, that it would apply to cavalry also, and as formations are described as turning like a single body, which seems to mean wheeling in the way we are familiar with from other periods, it is reasonable to suppose that this is how cavalry wheeled also.

Although this tells us nothing about the manner in which they turned, whether by rank or by file.  Given that they were organised by file, one would expect them to manoeuvre as a series of files as opposed to a series of ranks.

Quote
4) Byzantine tactical manuals (so far as I know them) also don't give precise details but seem to describe sub units (bandon size, around 300 men) wheeling as above, as single bodies, and larger formations wheeling by bandons aligning on each other, which is what we would expect from other periods also.

This is what I would have thought: the subunits wheel individually and the unit as a whole sorts itself out at the conclusion of the procedure.  This is pretty much what I have been attempting to convey, or thought I was.  That the individual files within a subunit would align on each other I would have thought elementary.

Quote
5) The wedge and rhombus are a way to ease the wheeling of a formation as a whole by following the leaders/edges; there is no suggestion that this involved wheeling by files (for example) nor that it replaced wheeling by files in square/oblong formations - the whole point of wedge/rhombus seems to be that it is an improved way to wheel the unit as a body.

No disagreement there, although I wonder at the 'no suggestion that this involved wheeling by files ... nor that it replaced wheeling by files in square/oblong formations' as there is equally no suggestion that it did not involve such a process.

Quote
6) People with practical experience (such as reenactors) of moving formations on horseback come up with similar solutions.

In other words, people who begin with a 20th/21st century equestrian tradition come up with what they perceive to be a 19th century solution to impose upon a 2nd century problem.

Some may consider the question of manoeuvre by rank or by file trivial - and perhaps it is.  Where it seems to me to be important is that there is a widespread tendency among authors to underestimate historical depths, both for cavalry and infantry, and we could maybe benefit from keeping in mind classical depths and classical organisational principles when attempting to second-guess tactical procedures from the classical era.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Dangun on July 22, 2017, 07:14:47 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on July 21, 2017, 12:52:53 PM
Is it  Drungus, Δροῦγγος and Δρουγγιστί – a Gallicism and Continuity in Roman Cavalry Tactics (https://www.academia.edu/3677031/_Drungus_%CE%94%CF%81%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CE%B3%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82_and_%CE%94%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%B3%CE%B3%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AF_a_Gallicism_and_Continuity_in_Roman_Cavalry_Tactics_Phoenix_58.1-2_2004_96-130)?

Going through the bibliography, I found that Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World (Gaebel, 2002) is available online as a PDF... http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Gaebel_202_Cavalry_Operations_in_the_Ancient_Greek_World.pdf (http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Gaebel_202_Cavalry_Operations_in_the_Ancient_Greek_World.pdf)
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Jim Webster on July 22, 2017, 08:23:26 AM
Quote from: Dangun on July 22, 2017, 07:14:47 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on July 21, 2017, 12:52:53 PM
Is it  Drungus, Δροῦγγος and Δρουγγιστί – a Gallicism and Continuity in Roman Cavalry Tactics (https://www.academia.edu/3677031/_Drungus_%CE%94%CF%81%CE%BF%E1%BF%A6%CE%B3%CE%B3%CE%BF%CF%82_and_%CE%94%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%B3%CE%B3%CE%B9%CF%83%CF%84%CE%AF_a_Gallicism_and_Continuity_in_Roman_Cavalry_Tactics_Phoenix_58.1-2_2004_96-130)?

Going through the bibliography, I found that Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World (Gaebel, 2002) is available online as a PDF... http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Gaebel_202_Cavalry_Operations_in_the_Ancient_Greek_World.pdf (http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Gaebel_202_Cavalry_Operations_in_the_Ancient_Greek_World.pdf)

grabbed that one thanks , now to find time to read it  :-[
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on July 22, 2017, 09:03:01 AM
You really are overplaying the idea the organisation by files determined all movement, Pat.

18th, 19th, 20th century cavalry was also organised by files.  It had no bearing on movement whatever.

And in all probability, so did all earlier periods too .

It proves nothing to this discussion.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 22, 2017, 10:01:30 AM
Quote from: Mark G on July 22, 2017, 09:03:01 AM
You really are overplaying the idea the organisation by files determined all movement, Pat.

It did not 'determine all movement'; it simply meant that cavalry did not manoeuvre by ranks and this has a bearing on the way the Hadrian's Cavalry re-enactment group are trying to do things.  There was also obvious suitability for a tactical repertoire that included javelin-shooting by files. :)

It did of course have a bearing on how cavalry units were handled, and one good feature of Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World (Gaebel, 2002) is that the author brings out the difference in pace and timing between a classical battle and a gunpowder era or modern one. 

Quote18th, 19th, 20th century cavalry was also organised by files.  It had no bearing on movement whatever.

Actually on the battlefield they usually organised by ranks.  Napoleonic practice was to form in two single-rank lines about 200 yards apart, the second line acting as a support for the first and being able, if the first line was demolished by musketry during a charge, to sweep into the infantry while they were reloading.  Compared to the classical period, the gunpowder battlefield was a completely different tactical environment and cavalry techniques and handling were optimised for that battlefield (and remained so even when battlefield conditions again changed during 1861-1914.  New techniques then enabled cavalry to be effective in a more limited way from 1918 to 1945 and further developments in tactics and handling enabled Grey's Scouts (http://rhodesianforces.org/GreysScoutsRideAgain.htm) in Rhodesia to be very useful up to 1979).
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on July 22, 2017, 12:29:02 PM
Ffs, it's back to square one again.

Look.  The basic organisational unit in the early modern period was the file.  They did not manoeuvre by files, but that was the basic organisational unit.
File, then three's, etc, up to half squadrons, squadrons, and regiments'.

But movement was by squadron (and half sqdn for deploying).

They did not move by ranks, they moved by sqdn but MAINTAIN ranks while moving.

You cite ancient cavalry as being organised by files.  Ok, so what?

That has absolutely no effect on how they move, and you cannot cite any evidence that it does.




Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 22, 2017, 09:02:59 PM
Quote from: Mark G on July 22, 2017, 12:29:02 PM
They did not move by ranks, they moved by sqdn but MAINTAIN ranks while moving.

You cite ancient cavalry as being organised by files.  Ok, so what?

That has absolutely no effect on how they move, and you cannot cite any evidence that it does.

"The formation that would add most to the beauty of the exercises at the inspections has already been explained. Provided his horse is strong enough, the leader should ride round with the file that is on the outside every time. He will be galloping all the time himself, and the file whose turn it is to be on the outside with him will also be galloping. Thus the eyes of the Council will always be on the galloping file, and the horses will get a breathing space, resting by turns." - Xenophon, Cavalry Commander 3.9

We may note that the unit of cohesion during the wheel is the file, not the rank.

The mistake made by the Hadrian's Cavalry re-enactors has been to organise their turma by ranks instead of by files, which means their 30-man formation is incorrectly deployed at 10 wide and 3 deep when it should be the other way around.  As a result, it takes at least three times as long as it should to complete a wheel and gives a misleading impression of how a turma appeared on the battlefield or exercise ground.  This was the original point at issue and everything I have seen in this discussion convinces me it is upheld.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on July 23, 2017, 09:02:21 AM
I see you tit-bit of Xenohpon, and raise you a much more specific bit.

Quote"Now the state has divided the cavalry into ten separate regiments. I hold that within these you should, to begin with, appoint file-leaders1 after consulting each of the colonels, choosing sturdy men, who are bent on winning fame by some brilliant deed. These should form the front rank. [3] Next you should choose an equal number of the oldest and most sensible to form the rear rank. To use an illustration, steel has most power to cut through steel when its edge is keen and its back reliable. [4]
To fill the ranks between the front and rear, the file-leaders should choose the men to form the second line, and these in turn the men to form the third, and so on throughout. In this way every man will naturally have complete confidence in the man behind him. [5]

You must be very careful to appoint a competent man as leader in the rear.2 For if he is a good man, his cheers will always hearten the ranks in front of him in case it becomes necessary to charge; or, should the moment come to retreat, his prudent leadership will, in all probability, do much for the safety of his regiment. [6]
An even number of file-leaders has this advantage over an odd, that it is possible to divide the regiment into a larger number of equal parts.
The reasons why I like this formation are these. In the first place, all the men in the front rank are officers; and the obligation to distinguish themselves appeals more strongly to men when they are officers than when they are privates. Secondly, when anything has to be done, the word of command is much more effective if it is passed to officers rather than to privates. [7]
Let us assume that this formation has been adopted: every file-leader must know his position in the line of march by word passed along by the colonel, just as every colonel is informed by the commander of his proper place in the charge. For when these instructions are given there will be much better order than if the men hamper one another like a crowd leaving the theatre. [8] And in the event of a frontal attack, the men in the van are far more willing to fight when they know that this is their station; so is the rear-rank in the event of a surprise attack in the rear, when the men there understand that it is disgraceful to leave their post. [9] But if no order is kept there is confusion whenever the roads are narrow or rivers are being crossed; and when an action is fought no one voluntarily takes his post in the fighting line. "

Xenophon, Cavalry Commander II

Look Patrick,
Ranks!!!
Regiments.
movement orders issued to regiments not files.
Emphasis on order.
Files only referenced in relation to knowing relative position to follow. (which is EXACTLY the same as early-modern usage of cavalry files)
Officers in the FRONT LINE, required to know their position in the FRONT LINE.
etc.


Chapter III, on the other hand, from which you selectively quote your supposed proof, is a lot more specific than you would let on.

for Chapter III directly relates to processions and festivals, not to military organisation and movement.  In fact, the emphasis of the chapter itself is on delighting spectators.  it is a bit like taking the red arrows displays as indicative of sound air combat techniques.

One wonders how you managed to not read chapter two on your way to finding your selectively quoted proof from chapter three.

probably by using the same method that led you to not notice this bit from chapter five

Quote[6] Another way of exaggerating the apparent strength of your force is to arm the grooms with lances or even imitation lances, and put them between the cavalrymen, whether you display the cavalry at the halt or wheel it into line. Thus the bulk of the company is bound to look denser and more massive [7]
On the other hand, if your object is to make a large number look small, then, assuming that your ground affords cover, you can obviously conceal your cavalry by having part in the open and part hidden. If, however, the whole of the ground is exposed, you must form the files into rows and wheel, leaving a gap between each two rows1.

form your files into rows and wheel.  hardly the manoeuvre by file that you would have us believe.

or this from chapter 8

QuoteShould it happen at any time that the cavalry forces engaged are about equal, I think it would be a good plan to split each regiment into two divisions, putting one under the command of the colonel, and the other under the best man available. [18] The latter would follow in the rear of the colonel's division for a time; but presently, when the adversary is near, he would wheel on receiving the order and charge. This plan, I think, would make the blow delivered by the regiment more stunning and more difficult to parry

yet again, regiments and half regiments are the manoeuvre unit, wheeling by such is described.  ditto, [23] and [24] - more regiments wheeling.

I also note, Xenophon, Greek, circa 400 BC.
Hadrian, Roman circa 120 AD
some 500 years difference. 
we see front ranks emphasised in medieval, in renaissance, in the horse and musket era, and in the modern era.  where we have such evidence, it also specifies organisation by file, but movement by squadron or troop with an emphasis on maintaining ranks.  clearly, changing eras is not relevant to the very basics.


now we must let you have the last word, because no thread can possibly end without you having the last word, and it is inconceivable that you could be grown up enough to admit you are simply wrong, so go to it.  but I think there is only one person remaining who thinks as you do, and you can spot him in the mirror.

Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 23, 2017, 10:42:48 AM
Mark, the authoritative text is the Greek.  'Ranks' is a translator's interpolation.  'Colonel' is a mis-rendering of phylarch and 'regiments' mis-conveys phylai.  Athens raised ten separate cavalry contingents, presumably one from, or associated with, each of the ten traditional phylai, 'tribes'.

'Ranks' is a complete red herring here.  Take "These should form the front rank." (Xen CC 2.2)  In the original Greek, this is kai toutous men prōtostatas dei einai, which translates as: "And these (toutous) the sum of (einai]) the file leaders (prōtostatas) [should form being understood]."

There is no word in the Greek which can be taken as 'rank' here or anywhere else in Cavalry Commander.  (The nearest word to 'rank' in Greek appears to be metapon, which normally means 'front' or 'frontage'.)

Now look at the way the unit is organised and how control is exerted: "Let us assume that this formation has been adopted: every file-leader must know his position in the line of march by word passed along by the phylarch, just as every phylarch is informed by the hipparch of his proper place in the charge."

The building-block and unit of organisation, and for that matter movement, is the file, controlled by its leader.  Obviously a unit manoeuvres as a unit, but not by ranks.

The translator is also misleadingly free in 5.6:
"whether you display the cavalry at the halt or wheel it into line"

The Greek is: ēn te hestēkos epideiknuēs to hippikon ēn te paragēs

En = if; te = you; hestēkos = make to stand; epideiknuēs = display, show off, exhibit; to hippikon = the cavalry; en te = if you; paragēs = march the men up from the side, bring them from column into line.

For some reason, the translator likes to render 'paragego' as 'wheel', even though this is not supported by the lexicon and does not seem appropriate to the context, e.g. Hellenica VII.5.22 where Epaminondas, having drawn up his line, proceeds to deepen (not 'wheel') his left.

Again, in V.6, "If, however, the whole of the ground is exposed, you must form the files into rows and wheel, leaving a gap between each two rows."

The Greek is: ēn de pan kataphanes ē to khōrion, dekadas khrē stoikhousas poiēsanta dialeipousas paragein

ēn de pan kataphanes ē to khōrion = If the whole of the locality is exposed (devoid of concealment); dekadas = the ten-man files; khrē = proclaim, order; stoikhousas =  draw up in a line or row; poiēsanta = make happen; dialeipousas = leaving an interval between; paragein = march the men up from the side, bring them from column into line.

Curiously, enough, this does actually involve a wheel, as the end file is being deployed parallel with the enemy, raising its spears to the vertical, while the remaining files lower theirs and thus are partly concealed, make it impossible for the enemy to estimate their numbers.  The unit is presenting its flank to the enemy in order to conceal its strength.  Note again how the file is the key component unit and the files from in 'rows' but not ranks; each 'row' is simply a file facing the enemy along its length.  This is a deception technique, not a combat formation.

So, Mark, I can see where you get excited over this, but do be aware that there is no basis in the Greek for what you think you have discovered.  Greek cavalry, like Roman, organised and operated by files.  A unit was made up of files.  When it manoeuvred, the files kept station on each other.  This has nothing to do with individual maturity, only source statements.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: RichT on July 24, 2017, 01:40:47 PM
Please consider this an addendum and not denying Patrick his last word, or Mark his conclusion - but there are just a couple of points of fact to clarify, and one of opinion, before the thread dies a natural death.

Quote
Take "These should form the front rank." (Xen CC 2.2)  In the original Greek, this is kai toutous men protostatas dei einai, which translates as: "And these (toutous) the sum of (einai]) the file leaders (protostatas) [should form being understood]."

Not quite - einai is a verb (eimi). "These should be the protostatas".

Quote
There is no word in the Greek which can be taken as 'rank' here or anywhere else in Cavalry Commander.  (The nearest word to 'rank' in Greek appears to be metapon, which normally means 'front' or 'frontage'.)

Not true - such a word is protostatas - the 'standers in front' or 'front rankers' - also the 'file leaders' of course, since the totality of the file leaders in a formation is, naturally, the front rank, just as the totality of file closers is the rear rank, the totality of second-in-file is the second rank, and so forth. This is clearly shown in (for example) the very familiar Polybius 18.29-30 (and I trust nobody would argue that the phalanx constituted individual files with no ranks, and where you also find the, also familiar, expression 'kat epistaten kai kata parastaten', 'by standers-behind and standers-beside' or 'by file and rank'). Greeks and Romans aren't as precise in their language as we might like - look at Latin 'ordinum', which serves for rank, file and formation generally. Greek tactical language is based around the file but it is just two ways of describing the same thing.

And to go beyond the simply factual:

Quote
The building-block and unit of organisation, and for that matter movement, is the file, controlled by its leader.  Obviously a unit manoeuvres as a unit, but not by ranks.

This discussion is dogged by the fact that there is no practical difference I can see between 'manoeuvring by file' and 'maoneuvring by rank', unless there is some insistence that files manoeuvred individually (each file waiting until the one beside had completed its manoeuvre), which is self-evidently absurd. Otherwise the practical result is the same. In the case of the Hadrianic reenactors, as a unit of 30 they might well have been better off forming column of threes to perform their manoeuvres, which would be easier - but which isn't manoeuvring by files, it is manoeuvring in column of threes by 30-man subunit. The same applies to Patrick's exposition of his theory on the first page of this thread. But in the case of actual cavalry and infantry it is clearly stated that turning maneuvres were done by the syntagma (Asclepiodotus) or bandon (Maurice) - units of 256-300 men with a front of 16-30, depending on depth. These manoeuvred as single units, and there is no evidence that they split into column of threes (or other subunits of 30 or so) to manoeuvre, still less that they (somehow) broke up into individual files. The practical result would therefore be a turning manoeuvre by ranks 16-30 men long (in which we can all happily grant that the rest of the files would follow the file leader - what else could they do?) The files of the formation would retain the same relative positioning throughout, thus maintaining ranks, as in all other known periods.

Hopefully we can leave it at that, unless to consider applications in wargaming terms again (such as - do wargaming rules take (enough) account of different formations - lines v. drungi, etc).
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on July 24, 2017, 02:53:17 PM
QuoteHopefully we can leave it at that, unless to consider applications in wargaming terms again (such as - do wargaming rules take (enough) account of different formations - lines v. drungi, etc).

We might really need to explore that question separately from wheeling.  It seems to me that we might get entangled in the nature of wedge/rhomboid/flight of cranes formations.  Some, as we know from previous discussions, believe these formations were used to provide almost magical combat advantages, as opposed to being primarily manoeuver strategies.

One thing which seems uncontested about ancient cavalry formations is they tended to be deeper than later Western style (17th century on) ones.  I suspect it would be almost impossible to turn these on a fixed pivot, so they would use a moveable pivot.  The swinging gate pivoting move to swing a unit into the flank of another, so satisfying on a wargames table, would seem very doubtful in practice.

Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 24, 2017, 07:07:04 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on July 24, 2017, 02:53:17 PM
One thing which seems uncontested about ancient cavalry formations is they tended to be deeper than later Western style (17th century on) ones.  I suspect it would be almost impossible to turn these on a fixed pivot, so they would use a moveable pivot.  The swinging gate pivoting move to swing a unit into the flank of another, so satisfying on a wargames table, would seem very doubtful in practice.

A very good point, although here we meet the divide between simulation and reality.  In reality, if you as a classical cavalry commander want to position your formation to hit an opponent in flank, you will anticipate and be ready rather than waiting for the opponent to finish his bound and then begin yours.  Hence the 'swinging gate', although geometrically and vectorially dubious, is probably a closer approximation to reality in overall effect than insisting upon the unit concerned having an increment of forward movement in conjunction with the wheel.

This matter of intersecting timings is responsible for many wargames abstractions, e.g. the DBA base frontage matchup and ability to pivot on the spot to face a charge, which seem inexplicable in terms of actual battlefield manoeuvring.

Quote from: RichT on July 24, 2017, 01:40:47 PM
Quote
There is no word in the Greek which can be taken as 'rank' here or anywhere else in Cavalry Commander.  (The nearest word to 'rank' in Greek appears to be metapon, which normally means 'front' or 'frontage'.)

Not true - such a word is protostatas - the 'standers in front' or 'front rankers' - also the 'file leaders' of course, since the totality of the file leaders in a formation is, naturally, the front rank, just as the totality of file closers is the rear rank, the totality of second-in-file is the second rank, and so forth.

My turn for a nit-pick. ;)

One may see in this the concept of a rank, but not the organisational or operational use of one.  Polybius himself is reduced to using zugou, from zugon, literally a 'yoke-fellow', to delineate soldiers standing side by side (XVIII.29.5).  While such placement obviously existed, the concept of the rank as an entity evidently did not.  (This may have changed by the time Arrian wrote his Order of Battle Against the Alans, if anyone wishes to see how the subject was handled there.)

Quote
And to go beyond the simply factual:

Quote
The building-block and unit of organisation, and for that matter movement, is the file, controlled by its leader.  Obviously a unit manoeuvres as a unit, but not by ranks.

This discussion is dogged by the fact that there is no practical difference I can see between 'manoeuvring by file' and 'maoneuvring by rank', unless there is some insistence that files manoeuvred individually (each file waiting until the one beside had completed its manoeuvre), which is self-evidently absurd. Otherwise the practical result is the same.

It is the same in that the unit gets from point A to point B in the same order it started, but confusing the two leads to mistakes in re-enactment such as putting one's decurions at the end of a rank rather than the beginning of a file, with concomitant misrepresentation of formation (10x3 instead of 3x10) and loss of historicity.  The distinction in theory is minor, as the men are going to be keeping the same relationship to each other whether organised by rank or file, but significant in that various classical tactics, (e.g. the 'caracoling' file delivering a constant output of javelins) become impossible if one tries to operate by rank.  When attempting re-enactment, such apparently trivial distinctions do matter.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 25, 2017, 07:59:28 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on July 24, 2017, 02:53:17 PM
One thing which seems uncontested about ancient cavalry formations is they tended to be deeper than later Western style (17th century on) ones.  I suspect it would be almost impossible to turn these on a fixed pivot, so they would use a moveable pivot.  The swinging gate pivoting move to swing a unit into the flank of another, so satisfying on a wargames table, would seem very doubtful in practice.

Thinking further about this, it does bring up the question of what would happen if we had the classic tabletop situation of infantry units engaged with infantry units, but one side has a cavalry unit standing next door to the end friendly infantry unit but unengaged.

1) Would this actually happen in real life?
2) If it did, what sort of manoeuvre would the cavalry perform in order to close with and grievously harm the enemy?

The 'revolving gate' pivoting on the man closest to the enemy seems out (or is it?).  My own particular conjecture would be a 'J-shaped charge', i.e. moving forward beyond the enemy line, turning round and then having a jolly good charge into the enemy rear.  A file or two could be left to cap the enemy flank for neatness if desired.

Any thoughts?
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Jim Webster on July 25, 2017, 08:37:03 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 25, 2017, 07:59:28 AM

The 'revolving gate' pivoting on the man closest to the enemy seems out (or is it?).  My own particular conjecture would be a 'J-shaped charge', i.e. moving forward beyond the enemy line, turning round and then having a jolly good charge into the enemy rear.  A file or two could be left to cap the enemy flank for neatness if desired.

Any thoughts?

the problem with the J shaped charge is that if both units are moving there's a risk that they'd both miss.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on July 25, 2017, 09:22:02 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on July 25, 2017, 07:59:28 AM

Thinking further about this, it does bring up the question of what would happen if we had the classic tabletop situation of infantry units engaged with infantry units, but one side has a cavalry unit standing next door to the end friendly infantry unit but unengaged.

1) Would this actually happen in real life?
2) If it did, what sort of manoeuvre would the cavalry perform in order to close with and grievously harm the enemy?

Any thoughts?

Good questions and ones I'd also thought about after the initial exchange above.

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.

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. 
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: RichT on July 25, 2017, 10:35:01 AM
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.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on July 25, 2017, 08:14:44 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on July 25, 2017, 08:37:03 AM
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. :)

Quote from: Erpingham on July 25, 2017, 09:22:02 AM
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.)

Quote
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. :)
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Dave Beatty on August 01, 2017, 01:55:17 PM
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
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Jim Webster on August 01, 2017, 02:17:33 PM
Quote from: Dave Beatty on August 01, 2017, 01:55:17 PM
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 :-)
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on August 01, 2017, 02:41:03 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 01, 2017, 02:17:33 PM

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.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Jim Webster on August 01, 2017, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on August 01, 2017, 02:41:03 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 01, 2017, 02:17:33 PM

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
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on August 01, 2017, 03:20:09 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 01, 2017, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on August 01, 2017, 02:41:03 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 01, 2017, 02:17:33 PM

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.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Jim Webster on August 01, 2017, 03:57:17 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on August 01, 2017, 03:20:09 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 01, 2017, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on August 01, 2017, 02:41:03 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 01, 2017, 02:17:33 PM

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
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on August 01, 2017, 04:07:55 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on August 01, 2017, 03:57:17 PM

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?
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on August 01, 2017, 08:06:50 PM
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? ;)
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on August 02, 2017, 08:45:10 AM
QuoteI 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.

QuoteSide 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.   
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on August 02, 2017, 05:24:44 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on August 02, 2017, 08:45:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on December 07, 2017, 04:24:03 PM
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 :)
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Erpingham on December 14, 2017, 10:39:23 AM
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.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on December 14, 2017, 08:22:06 PM
Not least because regular cavalry would have practised on a daily basis.

QuoteThey 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.
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Mark G on December 15, 2017, 08:26:05 AM
That argument is fine for the end guys, but the inside still have to turn largely stationary while staying aligned.  Speed wheeling necessitates a lot if forward creao at the same time or the formation collapses, and that is the danger
Title: Re: cavalry wheeling
Post by: Patrick Waterson on December 15, 2017, 10:52:18 AM
If you have room, forward creep is not a problem and can easily be accommodated by a trained formation with an experienced leader - anything less really has no place on the battlefield.

If you do not have room and must wheel more or less on the spot, it suggests you recently did something wrong!