Cavalry punching through heavy infantry seems not to have been especially rare in Antiquity though it is not a continuous phenomenon. At one time the Roman Republic routinely won its battles by smashing through enemy heavy foot with its cavalry and then finishing off the disordered footmen with its own infantry:
| The infantry on the right wing fought with distinguished valour, with stout resistance from the Volscians. Servius Sulpicius broke with his cavalry through the centre of the enemy's line; whence though he might have returned in the same way to his own party, before the enemy could have restored their broken ranks, it seemed more advisable to attack the enemy's rear, and by attacking the rear he would in a moment have dispersed the enemy by the twofold attack, had not the cavalry of the Volscians and Æquans intercepted him and kept him engaged by a mode of fighting similar to his own. - Livy: Histories 3, 70 |
A charging horse packs a fearsome punch against a standing man as we saw in the chariot thread. Just standing in intermediate formation in an 8-deep or 12-deep line is no guarantee against a cavalry charge (unless the infantry have muskets and that's another story entirely). The Late Roman army dealt with cavalry using the fulcum formation, with involved the front ranks overlapping shields and bunching up together. Earlier pike phalanxes didn't have a problem because they had pikes. But how did other heavy infantry units deal with cavalry? Is there any indication in the sources of special formations besides the fulcum that were used to stop charging cavalry? For example, I notice that the mid-Republican cavalry were able to punch through enemy infantry but later Republican cavalry were not, or at least there is no indication of them doing so. Did the enemy devise a countermeasure? How did Greek hoplites stop cavalry if Rome's opponents could not? ( think we can take it for granted the Volscians were not tribal skirmishers)
And to the floor.
In a lot of the battles that Livy describes, the cavalry cannot have been moving at speed because they often seem to have had to pass through their own embattled infantry to take part in the melee
The first thing I would look at would be what the respective troops were trained to do. We may note in passing that the period c.AD 1066-1300 saw the knightly cavalry of Europe able to do serious damage to most infantry formations in the open (Swiss and Scots were among the few exceptional infantry who could repel a charge), and the devcelopment of missilery, professional discipline and ultimately pike formations saw the end of knightly domination of the battlefield.
The first requisite of infantry facing cavalry is discipline. The opponents charged by Early Roman Republican cavalry appear to have been those lacking discipline, from Volsci to the Gauls at Cremona in 203 BC. We may note that not all such charges were successful; their professed (at least by Livy) aim was to shake the morale and cohesion of a stubborn enemy and thus give the legionaries the advantage in the ongoing combat. (How the Romans extracted the cavalry after an unsuccessful charge through their own infantry is probably worth a chapter in itself; my guess would be that the horsemen
backed out between the files of infantry, and were trained to do so.) Failing training, strong motivation (bonding) would enable infantry to stand.
Infantry do require discipline and/or motivation to stand up to cavalry. Many of us are doubtless familiar with video clips of hundreds of demonstrators scattering as a dozen or so mounted police trot or canter towards them. Perhaps less well known is that when Sergei Bondarchuk was filming the battle scenes for his production of
Waterloo, the Ukranian conscripts standing in for Anglo-allied soldiery initially broke and ran even though they knew the charges were feints for filming! We can view this as the default reaction for untrained, unmotivated troops.
Training and motivation will keep troops standing and in formation. Greek hoplites and most tribal warriors would thus be prepared to stand against oncoming cavalry. Quite apart from the prospect of dying with a shaft through one's back, the prospect of having to explain to one's home community why one fled the field while one's comrades all stood was a formidable deterrent, especially as many societies had particularly unpleasant ways of expiating the sin of cowardice.
Weaponry also helps, in that a forest of pike points is not easy for cavalry to penetrate, with or without serious injury to themselves. Long shafted weapons, however, are not essential - Antony's Roman legions stood against Parthian lance charges and generally amazed the Parthians with their discipline - but are much more desirable than not having them, which may be why Arrian in his
Order of Battle against the Alans armed his first three ranks with the
kontos. (Although some think this is meant to indicate the pilum, after long thought I disagree.
Kontos makes more sense as
kontos.)
So - discipline/motivation is required to stand in the first place; long shafted weapons help, but are not essential.
Others will doubtless have their own thoughts to contribute.
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 11, 2018, 09:53:00 PM
In a lot of the battles that Livy describes, the cavalry cannot have been moving at speed because they often seem to have had to pass through their own embattled infantry to take part in the melee
True, and yet they were still effective - except at Cremona, where they found themselves facing elephants. This in itself indicates that the manoeuvre was executed in fairly leisurely fashion, telegraphing itself in advance, and giving time and opportunity for someone like Hamilcar, who evidently knew what to expect, to enact countermeasures. Bringing his elephants up through his own fighting troops must have been interesting.
While the Forum's system does warn you if someone else has posted a reply while you were typing, it doesn't seem to be able to deal with two people making a post simultaneously. Or at least, that seems to be the likely explanation for my post disappearing - again....
Quote from: Xenophon, Anabasis 3.2.18-19But if anyone of you is despondent because we are without horsemen while the enemy have plenty at hand, let him reflect that your ten thousand horsemen are nothing more than ten thousand men; for nobody ever lost his life in battle from the bite or kick of a horse, but it is the men who do whatever is done in battles. Moreover, we are on a far surer foundation than your horsemen: they are hanging on their horses' backs, afraid not only of us, but also of falling off; while we, standing upon the ground, shall strike with far greater force if anyone comes upon us and shall be far more likely to hit whomsoever we aim at. In one point alone your horsemen have the advantage—flight is safer for them than it is for us.
Which matches up with Patrick's point on training, or at least determination - on both sides. The big problem is surely that it's harder to motivate the horses.
To draw on medieval examples, the key was a tight formation and a lot of nerve. Close up tight from front and sides and hold your ground.
It also helped to be in an advantageous position, such as on hill or a little back from a ditch, which would prevent the cavalry from attacking with momentum.
As Jim has noted, is our idea of a charge a bit "Hollywood" anyway? Did cavalry charge headlong into the midst of the enemy, or did they attack at a more controlled speed? This is not to deny the effects of momentum - a trotting horse is perfectly capable of bowling someone over - more of control.
QuoteSwiss and Scots were among the few exceptional infantry who could repel a charge
This is a very dubious statement. If nothing else, what happened to the Flemings? I think a better reading is that most infantry could stand against cavalry initially but were prone to be worn down, especially if the enemy could deploy missile troops. Many cavalry/infantry fights were attritional, not just a question of cavalry breezing through infantry lines.
If infantry that were irresolute got out of the way of charging horses then for sure the cavalry would have no problem piercing the line. But if the infantry didn't flinch and stood their ground would that by itself be enough to stop the horses? IMHO the only way for infantry not equipped with pikes or muskets to stop charging cavalry is to bunch up - the ranks compact together in close formation creating a multi-legged animal that can't be bowled over. Is it a fair assumption that infantry learned to do that and only then were able to stop cavalry?
Quote(How the Romans extracted the cavalry after an unsuccessful charge through their own infantry is probably worth a chapter in itself; my guess would be that the horsemen backed out between the files of infantry, and were trained to do so.)
My understanding of cavalry formations (with the exception of cataphracts) is that they deployed in files wide enough for a horse to turn in place and head back between adjacent files. The manuals describe this in some detail. If cavalry advanced between infantry files those infantry had to have been in open order to allow enough space for the horses to advance between them. This open order corresponds to the cavalry's default order which meant that as they issued from the infantry they were in formation, capable of charging and countermarching back through their own infantry.
All this supposes of course that the opposing infantry themselves had not yet engaged. How many examples are there of Roman cavalry charging through already engaged infantry? I imagine then that if the cavalry couldn't punch through the enemy infantry they would have no choice but to back up, unless their own foot were able to break off and leave them enough space to countermarch.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 12, 2018, 08:57:25 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on October 11, 2018, 09:53:00 PM
In a lot of the battles that Livy describes, the cavalry cannot have been moving at speed because they often seem to have had to pass through their own embattled infantry to take part in the melee
True, and yet they were still effective - except at Cremona, where they found themselves facing elephants. This in itself indicates that the manoeuvre was executed in fairly leisurely fashion, telegraphing itself in advance, and giving time and opportunity for someone like Hamilcar, who evidently knew what to expect, to enact countermeasures. Bringing his elephants up through his own fighting troops must have been interesting.
But if they were successful in their attack after pushing their way through the ranks of their own infantry, who were still in contact with the enemy infantry, it seems to indicate that the success has nothing to do with momentum of a charge
Indeed it might merely be that the success is owed to the advantage gained by sitting on the bank of a horse raining blows down, but with their own infantry still present to protect the horse
The way I see it, cavalry were mainly used to go round the flanks and break up infantry from the sides rather than frontally, and also to finish off formations that already had holes punched in them by a melee against other infantry.
If cavalry did just straight up charge fresh infantry from the front then I guess they were relying on the target unit losing its nerve (which as Patrick says was pretty likely owing to the psychological terror). "Losing nerve" might literally involve running away or it might just involve losing discipline and cohesion to the extent that the formation became looser and easier for the cavalry to break into.
I think I remember reading in the book Warhorse (my bible for ancient cavalry warfare) that if an infantry formation did maintain cohesion, horses would literally refuse to contact it and swerve off.
Is there any detailed information on what happened during the Norman cavalry charges at Hastings?
With regard to the Volscian infantry, I'd guess they were pretty lightly armoured, undrilled and in loose formation?
Quote from: eques on October 12, 2018, 02:21:40 PM
With regard to the Volscian infantry, I'd guess they were pretty lightly armoured, undrilled and in loose formation?
Not if they were supplying "stout resistance" against the Roman foot.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 12, 2018, 02:25:57 PM
Quote from: eques on October 12, 2018, 02:21:40 PM
With regard to the Volscian infantry, I'd guess they were pretty lightly armoured, undrilled and in loose formation?
Not if they were supplying "stout resistance" against the Roman foot.
But did the cavalry charge them across open ground, or just push through gaps in the Roman foot?
QuoteI think I remember reading in the book Warhorse (my bible for ancient cavalry warfare) that if an infantry formation did maintain cohesion, horses would literally refuse to contact it and swerve off.
Perhaps. Though this is often presented as horse instinct, forgetting that there is a rider on the animal's back managing those instincts. What is the intent of the rider when confronted with this cohesive mass? Is he willing to press into it or does he stand off? Perhaps he engages enough to show willing but not risk his expensive asset, his horse? If he does charge home, does he do it at a gallop, aiming to blast a hole in the enemy for others to follow? Or does he attack in a more controlled way, using the weight of the horse and make it turn and kick out, forcing a gap to fight in? There are medieval examples of both but more of the latter.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 12, 2018, 04:21:21 PM
If he does charge home, does he do it at a gallop, aiming to blast a hole in the enemy for others to follow? Or does he attack in a more controlled way, using the weight of the horse and make it turn and kick out, forcing a gap to fight in? There are medieval examples of both but more of the latter.
Knightly cavalry did seem (for example) able and willing to charge home against a spear hedge at Falkirk (AD 1296) and a pike hedge at Arbedo (AD 1422); in the latter case they failed with 400 piked horses and in the former case just failed. In both cases the now somewhat frustrated knights obeyed orders to pull back and let the archers do the work.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 12, 2018, 09:26:21 AM
QuoteSwiss and Scots were among the few exceptional infantry who could repel a charge
This is a very dubious statement. If nothing else, what happened to the Flemings? I think a better reading is that most infantry could stand against cavalry initially but were prone to be worn down, especially if the enemy could deploy missile troops. Many cavalry/infantry fights were attritional, not just a question of cavalry breezing through infantry lines.
Frederick Barbarossa's campaigns in Italy tend to be taken as an illustration of the ease with which knightly cavalry could defeat standard period infantry in the open field. The Emperor's fifth campaign ran into an unexpected reverse at Legnano where the (trained) infantry of the Lombard League stood against his cavalry, much to just about everyone's surprise.
And yes, the Flemings were among the merry band of stalwarts who gained a reputation for being able to stand off cavalry. Absence of mention was not the same as mention of absence. :)
To take an out-of-period example, Marshal Soult wrote of the British at Albuera,
"There is no beating these troops, in spite of their generals. I always thought they were bad soldiers, now I am sure of it. I had turned their right, pierced their centre and everywhere victory was mine – but they did not know how to run!"
Quote from: Erpingham on October 12, 2018, 04:21:21 PM
QuoteI think I remember reading in the book Warhorse (my bible for ancient cavalry warfare) that if an infantry formation did maintain cohesion, horses would literally refuse to contact it and swerve off.
Perhaps. Though this is often presented as horse instinct, forgetting that there is a rider on the animal's back managing those instincts. What is the intent of the rider when confronted with this cohesive mass? Is he willing to press into it or does he stand off? Perhaps he engages enough to show willing but not risk his expensive asset, his horse? If he does charge home, does he do it at a gallop, aiming to blast a hole in the enemy for others to follow? Or does he attack in a more controlled way, using the weight of the horse and make it turn and kick out, forcing a gap to fight in? There are medieval examples of both but more of the latter.
Mention of fear of losing one's horse reminded me of a section from Usama ibn Munqidh that Matthew Bennett quoted in "The Myth of the Military Supremacy of Knightly Cavalry". It goes:
On a day (in Spring 1111), a number of foot-soldiers came out of Shaizar. The Franks charged them, without disturbing their formation.Thereupon Tancred became angry and said, "You are my knights and each of you receives pay equivalent to the pay of a hundred Muslims. You have these sergeants (by which he means the infantry) in front of you, and you are not capable of moving them!". They answered, "Our only fear was for our horses. Otherwise we would have trampled them and pierced them with our lances." Tancred replied, "The horses are my property; I shall replace any one's horse that gets killed." They then made several charges against the men of Shaizar, and lost seventy horses, without being avble to get the men oput of their position.He also notes this as another case of "the ability of well-ordered foot-soldiers to hold off knightly cavalry in almost any time or place".
The foot-soldiers of Shaizar above would have been the town's
adhath militia.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 12, 2018, 08:01:14 PM
Knightly cavalry did seem (for example) able and willing to charge home against a spear hedge at Falkirk (AD 1296) and a pike hedge at Arbedo (AD 1422); in the latter case they failed with 400 piked horses and in the former case just failed. In both cases the now somewhat frustrated knights obeyed orders to pull back and let the archers do the work.
Now we are left with the issue of what "charge home against" means. Are we assuming that it meant plough into the enemy at speed, or it meant contact the enemy purposefully? Certainly, medieval cavalry got stuck in to their opponents but instant scattering could only be expected if their opponents were a) disordered or in loose order b) inexperienced, poorly trained or badly motivated c) surprised. Most wargames rules would reflect this.
As I've noted, most cavalry v. infantry fights in the Middle Ages were not instant successes one way or another. Infantry would take up a firm defensive position or formation then resist waves of attack, often in smaller squadrons rather than en masse. Hastings is a classic example, but this also happened at Civitate, Legnano, at Bouvines, at Coutrai, Arques, Bannockburn and numerous others. Supporting arms could be crucial to prevent a stalemate e.g. if either side had a useful archer force.
QuoteHe also notes this as another case of "the ability of well-ordered foot-soldiers to hold off knightly cavalry in almost any time or place".
This seems a common modern view of the relative capabilities - John France expresses simlar views, as do the Bachrachs.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 12, 2018, 09:06:50 AM
As Jim has noted, is our idea of a charge a bit "Hollywood" anyway? Did cavalry charge headlong into the midst of the enemy, or did they attack at a more controlled speed? This is not to deny the effects of momentum - a trotting horse is perfectly capable of bowling someone over - more of control.
To draw on another out of period example: When American civil war cavalry conducted a charge the procedure was to start at a walk, then increased to a trot, then a cantor, and only a full gallop over the last several dozen yards. There was one movie that I recall where this was actually done with the commander having the bugler signal the increase in velocity, though it has been so long that I do not recall what the name of it was.
ACW practice was pretty much in line with European practice of the time (and after). Thanks to debates with Justin on cavalry evolutions, I discovered that the US Army even commissioned a comparative study of different European armies' practice written by Gen. George McClellan just before the war.
just trying to encapsulate this into a thought and happy to be put right.....
cavalry v infantry is a case of playing chicken ie who loses their nerve first.....?
what if cavalry are trained to charge up to a point and then if the infantry hold steady, they dont actually slam into them full tilt but slow to a pressurised/attritional contact where horse and rider use well aimed spear and hoof attacks to break the infantry cohesion. Obviously if the infantry dont hold cohesion as the cavalry charge close then the riders goad their mounts into a spurt of speed before contact. This would see cavalry not bouncing off well formed infantry recklessly but adapting to maximise their reach by a calculated and practised methodology. Apologies if mentioned or cited previously
This makes sense: like much of combat, cavalry-infantry interaction is interactive; clear determination on one side will tend to be reciprocated by hesitancy on the other, and vice versa.
I would add that where both sides are brimming with elan and self-belief, neither will flinch and there will be a clash of almighty proportions and mutual injuries. If this proves to be an irresistible force hitting an immovable object, then the irresistible force will reconsider, as Anthony has previously indicated.
So assuming the infantry does not waver or break during the cavalry's approach (if it does, the action is pretty much decided), the cavalry then acts according to its belief and training. The majority of classical cavalry will surge close, hurl a blizzard of javelins, and surge away again or stand there and continue shooting. I would be inclined to favour the surge away, because once cavalry starts to stand in place, the infantry might get the idea of sweeping them away by an advance, which is not good for the cavalry's self-respect, and surging in and away keeps the infantry in a state of anxiety and prevents the horses from becoming bored. Achaemenid cavalry tactics at Plataea in 479 BC ilustrate this approach.
Melee cavalry would presumably do one of two things: pull back for another charge, optionally allowing misilemen to work over the infantry in the interim, or stay in contact and poke. The latter is a losing game against determined infantry: the infantry will pick up courage from the fact they are standing, and will begin to bring down horses and slay their riders. Against infantry already rattled by the initial impact or contact, stay and poke might accentuate a developing collapse; if not, the infantry will recover their wits and begin to wear away at the cavalry.
So for infantry to stand against cavalry requires the belief that they can do so, a belief strong enough to withstand re-examination as the ground shakes to the thunder of a cavalry charge. This prerequisite fulfilled, training and equipment kick in, both for what the cavalry does next and for how effective it turns out to be.
That at least is my summation.
so looking at an obvious example....
Hastings
Again happy to be put right but I take it that the Norman/Breton cavalry ride up to the A-S shieldwall and then stop at close range and engage in atritional melee as the infantry have not broken. Contrast this with later in the day when the shieldwall obviously starts to crumble and the mounted Normans 'force their way into the ranks. I dont read anywhere that the Normans 'slammed' into the A-S shieldwall but again happy to be put right...
Well, our good friend Wace describes the opening of the batttle as follows:
"Then Taillefer who sang right well, rode mounted on a swift horse before the duke, singing of Karle maine, and of Rollant, of Oliver and the vassals who died in Renchevals. And when they drew nigh to the English, "A boon, sire!" cried Taillefer; "I have long served you, and you owe me for all such service. To-day, so please you, you shall repay it. I ask as my guerdon, and beseech you for it earnestly, that you will allow me to strike the first blow in the battle!"
And the duke answered, "I grant it." Then Taillefer put his horse to a gallop, charging before all the rest, and struck an Englishman dead, driving his lance below the breast into his body, and stretching him upon the ground. Then he drew his sword, and struck another, crying out "Come on! come on! What do ye, sirs? lay on! lay on!" At the second blow he struck, the English pushed forward and surrounded him. Forthwith arose the noise and cry of war, and on either side the people put themselves in motion. The Normans moved on to the assault, and the English defended themselves well. Some were striking, others urging onwards; all were bold, and cast aside fear.
And now, behold! That battle was gathered whereof the fame is yet mighty.
Loud and far resounded the bray of the horns; and the shocks of the lances; the mighty strokes of clubs, and the quick clashing of swords."
The question is whether Taillefer was representative of or an exception to Norman knighthood. If the 'shocks of the lances' mean what I think they mean, then he was no exception and the other Normans charged just as hard.
So the Normans contacted the English line, and not, it appears, very tentatively. A determined melee followed. Wace continues:
"One while the Englishmen rushed on, another while they fell back; one while the men from over sea charged onwards, and again at other times retreated. The Normans shouted DEX AIE, the English people UT. Then came the cunning manoeuvres, the rude shocks and strokes of the lance and blows of the sword, among the serjeants and soldiers, both English and Norman. When the English fall, the Normans shout. Each side taunts and defies the other, yet neither knoweth what the other saith; and the Normans say the English bark, because they understand not their speech."
This to-and-fro surging follows the initial contact, but the lances are still delivering 'shocks' as part of 'cunning manoeuvres'. Does this mean that Norman knights are pulling out and charging in again, or just staying in place and wielding their lances extremely vigorously?
Following the initial contact, the ebbing and flowing of the battle lines appears to have continued for some time.
"Some wax strong, others weak; the brave exult, but the cowards tremble, as men who are sore dismayed. The Normans press on the assault, and the English defend their post well; they pierce the hauberks, and cleave the shields; receive and return mighty blows. Again, some press forwards; others yield, and thus in various ways the struggle proceeds."
The Normans 'press on the assault', and in the process 'cleave ... shields' and 'pierce hauberks'. This suggests blows with some force behind them: is this delivered by men at the halt or men who have pulled back for another charge?
And then - a resolution of the melee, and not in the Normans' favour.
"In the plain was a fosse, which the Normans had now behind them, having passed it in the fight without regarding it. But the English charged and drove the Normans before them, till they made them fall back upon this fosse, overthrowing into it horses and men. Many were to be seen falling therein, rolling one over the other, with their faces to the earth, and unable to rise. Many of the English also, whom the Normans drew down along with them, died there. At no time during the day's battle did so many Normans die, as perished in that fosse. So those said who saw the dead.
So the Norman horse are driven back, having failed to dent the English infantry line, by an English charge. I susopect the Normans had been pulling back, charging, and pulling back again, and the English noted the pattern and seized their own chance to charge during one of the pull-backs. Otherwise the English somehow manage a charge from a standing start while more or less corps-a-corps with their opponents.
The battle, selon Wace, continued in this vein.
"The Normans bore it all, but in fact they knew not what the English said; their language seemed like the baying of dogs, which they could not understand. At length they stopped and turned round, determined to recover their ranks; and the barons might be heard crying DEX AIE! for a halt. Then the Normans resumed their former position, turning their faces towards the enemy; and their men were to be seen facing round and rushing onwards to a fresh melee; the one party assaulting the other; this man striking, another pressing onwards. One hits, another misses; one flies, another pursues: one is aiming a stroke, while another discharges his blow. Norman strives with Englishman again, and aims his blows afresh. One flies, another pursues swiftly: the combatants are many, the plain wide, the battle and the melee fierce. On every hand they fight hard, the blows are heavy, and the struggle becomes fierce."
The Normans are 'rushing onwards' to a fresh melee. This does not sound like a sidle up and prod approach.
Finally, as the action draws to a close, Duke William leads in his best troops.
"And when the duke saw his men fall back, and the English triumphing over them, his spirit rose high, and he, seized his shield by the enarmes, and his lance, which a vassal handed to him, and took his post by his gonfanon.
Then those who kept close guard by him, and rode where he rode, being about a thousand armed men, came and rushed with closed ranks upon the English; and with the weight of their good horses, and the blows the knights gave, broke the press of the enemy, and scattered the crowd before them, the good duke leading them on in front."
He 'rushed with closed ranks upon the English' and 'with the weight of their good horses, and the blows the knights gave, broke the press of the enemy', all of which gives the impression of a fairly robust advance and an equally robust contact.
The Wace rendering thus has some assertive and seriously physical charging by the Normans, which fails to penetrate and dislodge the defenders until William's final charge 'broke the press of the enemy', which is presumably what the Normans had been intending from the beginning. If so, their initial 'assault' would have had the same force and determination as the Duke's charge, just a different result.
at the risk of poo-pooing the above, it would sound less exciting if Wace just said the lines came together and they pushed and shoved with a few brave souls trying to brain each other. We are assuming that Wace is accurate and not employing artistic, poetic or sponsor related licence. Dont forget, he wasnt there so is relying on other testimonies and then putting his slant on them. Plus I can vouch for the ferocity of a (lance thrust) attack from a more of less stationary rider and horse during my reenactment days. Shock is one word for it! :)
Quote from: willb on October 14, 2018, 04:39:10 PM
To draw on another out of period example: When American civil war cavalry conducted a charge the procedure was to start at a walk, then increased to a trot, then a cantor, and only a full gallop over the last several dozen yards. There was one movie that I recall where this was actually done with the commander having the bugler signal the increase in velocity, though it has been so long that I do not recall what the name of it was.
I can't speak to a movie on the American Civil War, but I do remember the 1936 version of The Charge of the Light Brigade with Errol Flynn showing much the same sequence for a charge of walk, trot, cantor, and then gallop. Of course, there was a time when Hollywood movie makers would employ former army officers, both US and British, and actually listen to their advice on military affairs and incorporate some bit of reality to the movie. Now we get armored rhinos. :(
Fear for the safety of ones horses extended into modern times.
In the 1780s- to mid 19thc Persian Shahs agreed to replace lost horses or pack animals of his feudal troops if these died on active service.
The Brit officers leading irregular cavalry in India c1800-20s set up an insurance scheme in their units, the men paid a small monthly fee and the fund was used to buy new horses for any men that lost theirs in action. The horses were the property of the Irregulars and they were seen as not wishing to risk their loss and therefore fought timidly before ths insurance scheme was set up.
David F Brown
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 15, 2018, 11:10:57 AM
[1] I would add that where both sides are brimming with elan and self-belief, neither will flinch and there will be a clash of almighty proportions and mutual injuries. [2] If this proves to be an irresistible force hitting an immovable object, then the irresistible force will reconsider, as Anthony has previously indicated.
Aren't these two points at odds with each other?
I agree more with the second, than the first.
If the infantry do not waver, the cavalry are unlikely to close?
Quote from: Dangun on October 16, 2018, 06:14:23 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 15, 2018, 11:10:57 AM
[1] I would add that where both sides are brimming with elan and self-belief, neither will flinch and there will be a clash of almighty proportions and mutual injuries. [2] If this proves to be an irresistible force hitting an immovable object, then the irresistible force will reconsider, as Anthony has previously indicated.
Aren't these two points at odds with each other?
I agree more with the second, than the first.
If the infantry do not waver, the cavalry are unlikely to close?
me too but I think others disagree ;D
QuoteI can't speak to a movie on the American Civil War, but I do remember the 1936 version of The Charge of the Light Brigade with Errol Flynn showing much the same sequence for a charge of walk, trot, cantor, and then gallop.
There is a nice moment in the recent BBC War and Peace where a Russian Hussar unit make a charge which demonstrates it, with the captain shouting at his men to literally "hold their horses" (one of my mums favourite phrases to impetuous children :) ), then at the right distance, drawing swords and charging with much "huzzah"-ing.
QuoteWe are assuming that Wace is accurate and not employing artistic, poetic or sponsor related licence. Dont forget, he wasnt there so is relying on other testimonies and then putting his slant on them.
Wace is a 12th century source but he is usually considered good on military matters. Matt Bennett wrote an interesting article on Wace's descriptions of battle generally which is worth a read (it includes some interesting things about historical practice embedded in fictional accounts - he wrote Arthurian stuff as well as history). One trick which has been suggested for Wace's description of Hastings is to read it while looking at the Bayeux Tapestry version of the battle - it does come over as a dramatised commentary.
One thing to remember about Hastings is the English have chosen a position on a steep hill. The Norman's can't easily charge with momentum, so combat probably means individual conrois making a short dash into action, mixing it with the front line and then falling back if they don't create an opportunity and letting another lot have a go, rather than a massed charge.
Quote from: Dangun on October 16, 2018, 06:14:23 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 15, 2018, 11:10:57 AM
[1] I would add that where both sides are brimming with elan and self-belief, neither will flinch and there will be a clash of almighty proportions and mutual injuries. [2] If this proves to be an irresistible force hitting an immovable object, then the irresistible force will reconsider, as Anthony has previously indicated.
Aren't these two points at odds with each other?
No, simply before and after.
Quote
If the infantry do not waver, the cavalry are unlikely to close?
This depends upon the cavalry's training, equipment and self-belief (the latter being backed by experience). If trained to put plenty of impetus into a charge at the point of impact, that is what will be done. If trained to put the brakes on, that is what will happen. This will differ between cavalry types and traditions. French gensdarmes of the early 16th century would put a weighty charge into anything, even pikemen. German reiters of the same period would not contact steady infantry at all until they had worked them over heavily with a sustained caracole. Different weaponry, training and tactics produced different approaches by these contemporary troop types.
I did point out that in the majority of cases enthusiasm for contact is reflexive (enemy determination seeds friendly doubt and vice versa), but where both sides have high morale and determination the cavalry will force the issue. Wace's description of Hastings gives the impression of such charges; if one believes Wace is inventing this, then there is no more to be said. If on the other hand he was writing from knowledge of historical Norman cavalry tradition, then we have a good example of a battle where cavalry did move hard and fast into contact with steady infantry.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 16, 2018, 09:12:02 AM
One thing to remember about Hastings is the English have chosen a position on a steep hill. The Norman's can't easily charge with momentum, so combat probably means individual conrois making a short dash into action, mixing it with the front line and then falling back if they don't create an opportunity and letting another lot have a go, rather than a massed charge.
This is a valid point. I would still suggest the first charge would from considerations of organisation and enthusiasm have involved everyone, or at least the bulk of the line, after which the in-and-out approach by conroy gives a good match with Wace's interim description prior to the 'feigned flight' (which whether planned or improvised had to be a substantial manoeuvre in order to lure a whole English wing) and the Duke's final charge.
Descriptions of charges are to be treated with caution. They are prone to be exaggerated in the mind of the reader because:
A writer may see an action as a fast charge where a more analytical observer might see a pretty round trot. To an extent it depends on what the ideology of a charge is at the time of writing.
An author might wish to confey action and aggression and portray more drama than was actually happening, particularly as most authors did not take part in battles, let alone cavalry charges.
A tactic whereby a unit adcances in a determined , controlled , fashion with the officers observing the enemy reaction and taking a decision in the last few yards whether to go in against a wavering foe ir break off against a staunch opponent whose spears remain steady might well be described differently according to the outcome without the writer telling us that there was a choice available.
I believe it was Duncan, a long time ago, who pointed out that, senantically, a charge might not reach the opposing line or be just a walk in and push ( like police horses) and yet be described as a charge ( and translated as a charge) . Someone with the appropriate Greek and Latinmight care to tell us if there are actually words or phrases that provide a nuanced version of the act of moving to contact ir threatened contact with an opponent.
We can be pretty certain that charges did go home, or rather that armoured cavalry made contact because , as said orevioysly the Byzantines felt the need to orovide those squads of menaulion wielders because cataphracts would break the thinner spears of standard infantry. That does nit tell us what degree of monentum cataphracts adavanced with.
Matt Bennet , in his presentation at the first recent Society Conference in 2016 analysed more than just Wace and concluded that the Normans were using something like the later 'Tour Francaise' in which they advanced on horseback, traded blows with the Englush front line, with the advantage of having them pinned by the threat of contact, then conducting a very fast turn and getting away. If, as I believe,bthe English are a front rank of braced spearmen with a second rank of axemen, tgen the Nirman has jabbed at the oassive spearman and turned before the axeman can step firward and damage the 'knight'. If I recall correctly, this may nit have been a Breton tactic and they may have suffered more in the interchange than the Normans and French, thus precipitating the first and real flight. Having walked the steep slopes on both putative Hastings sites I suggest that the Normans would not have ridden into the English line hard until late in the day when the English were stressed tired, disordered and showing gaps, because the balance of risk was too great and we do not need to imagine such risky tactics to achieve the desired result.
Roy
We might note here the Battle of Jengland in 851, between the Carolingians and the Bretons.
The Bretons were a cavalry army, the Carolingians largely infantry. The Carolingians drew up in a solid phalanx. The Bretons attacked using feint charges and retreats, throwing javelins. Some of the carolingian infantry lost their discipline and pursued the cavalry, only to be cut off and killed. But the Bretons couldn't deliver the coup de grace and darkness saved the Carolingians. Overnight, the Frankish king fled and, when this was discovered by the rest of the army, they ran away too, many being done for by the pursuing Bretons.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 16, 2018, 02:36:02 PM
We might note here the Battle of Jengland in 851, between the Carolingians and the Bretons.
The Bretons were a cavalry army, the Carolingians largely infantry. The Carolingians drew up in a solid phalanx. The Bretons attacked using feint charges and retreats, throwing javelins. Some of the carolingian infantry lost their discipline and pursued the cavalry, only to be cut off and killed. But the Bretons couldn't deliver the coup de grace and darkness saved the Carolingians. Overnight, the Frankish king fled and, when this was discovered by the rest of the army, they ran away too, many being done for by the pursuing Bretons.
So very like Hastings, including the pursuing fyrd being cut down, except that "Harold" survived till dusk and then legged it? Interesting.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 16, 2018, 02:42:16 PM
So very like Hastings, including the pursuing fyrd being cut down, except that "Harold" survived till dusk and then legged it? Interesting.
I thought so too. One difference was the carolingians had a force of cavalry but not enough to challenge the Bretons. They seem to have been held behind the infantry, perhaps to deter attempts to flank the main infantry line? The other difference is that the Normans seem more keen to get stuck in than to skirmish. Would the Normans have proved more decisive against the disintegrating Frankish line?
I've found a few Carolingian infantry/cavalry battles of interest. At the battle of Montpensier in 892, the Franks attacked a Danish force by first advancing archers to shoot at them, followed by an infantry assault and finally finishing off with a cavalry attack . Sound familiar? It does fit a pattern of cavalry success against infantry - first soften them up then hit them.
At Suntel Mountain in 792, the Franks were campaigning against the (Old) Saxons. The Carolingian cavalry vanguard came upon the Saxon infantry in formation and, rather than waiting for the rest of the army, charged. The result was a disaster as, instead of charging together, every man spurred on his horse and attacked as an individual. The Saxons absorbed the charge then enveloped the Franks, nearly wiping them out.
Finally, we might observe the battle of Lenzen in 929. The Franks (in the form of Saxons, who were loyal Eastern Frankish subjects by this time) found themselves facing a large Slav infantry force deployed in close formation. The Saxons tried a probing attack with cavalry but it failed to make in impact, in part because heavy rain had made the ground conditions treacherous for the horsemen (quite rare example of rain having a noted impact on the terrain here). The Saxons therefore attacked with their infantry, holding the regrouped cavalry in reserve. The battle was long and evenly balanced, with both sides achieving local success but unable to make a decisive break through. Eventually, the Slavs exposed their flank and the Saxon cavalry charged, routing the Slavs, who were cut down in the pursuit.
The morals for the cavalry seems to be 1) Don't tangle frontally with confident close-order foot - instead probe, skirmish, look for an opportunity to deliver a decisive blow 2) Work in conjunction with other arms 3) If you do charge, do it as a group, not a bunch of individuals.
To sum up the thread thus far:
1. Infantry without discipline and motivation tend to scatter at a cavalry charge even before the charge hits home, turning it into an easy pursuit.
2. Infantry with discipline and motivation may stop a cavalry charge. But to be sure of doing so requires a couple of other factors:
a) Tight formation - ranks and files bunched up together. The manuals speak about close formations for infantry ranks as well as files. Close formation ranks were of no use for infantry vs infantry combat as they denied the footman freedom of depth to wield his weapons, which is why surrounded and compressed infantry were invariably slaughtered. The one exception is othismos, and that wasn't really a formation, just a natural progression from spear fencing to closing to contact (following Paul Bardunias). Close formation ranks as a formation seems applicable only as a cavalry-stopper, by making the individual men part of a stable mass a horse could not knock down and hence penetrate.
b) Long spears or pikes. These were very effective in nearly all cases. Still leaves open the question of how infantry not equipped with them managed against cavalry.
c) Nerve. The nerve required of the front ranks was of a special kind in that they stood a good chance being killed by charging cavalry even if their formation as a whole managed to stop the charge.
Looking at the other side of the coin, cavalry 'charging' infantry seem to have happened in several ways:
1. Hit the infantry line at full gallop and try to burst through it without stopping (Republican cavalry).
2. Hit the infantry line hard and strive to break its morale by sparring with the front rankers (Mediaeval knights). The aim is not to burst through but get the infantry to panic as burst through foot are disordered but do not necessarily rout. This approach must allow for a speedy breaking off if the charge fails.
3. Run up to the infantry at a moderate pace, spar briefly with the front rank, then retire before the infantry can envelope the horses and kill the riders. This approach would seem to imply a looser cavalry formation allowing horses in each file to disengage and fall back quickly through their file gaps. The horses are in constant motion, preventing the foot from surrounding them and killing the riders.
Is that about it?
Roy:
Quote
I believe it was Duncan, a long time ago, who pointed out that, senantically, a charge might not reach the opposing line or be just a walk in and push ( like police horses) and yet be described as a charge ( and translated as a charge) . Someone with the appropriate Greek and Latinmight care to tell us if there are actually words or phrases that provide a nuanced version of the act of moving to contact ir threatened contact with an opponent.
I don't believe so, no - as usual Koon's
Infantry Combat in Livy's Battle Narratives is the place to look (though note, 'infantry'), and his point is that words like 'impetus' or 'concurrere' don't necessarily mean what we might think they mean from their English translations (they can just mean 'attack' and cover a multitude of sins). Greek is similar (and here Lendon on the combat metaphors involved - Greek all about depth and weight, Latin all about virtus and impetus - is of interest). Which means that anyone hoping that a high level literary description along the lines of 'the cavalry charged the infantry and broke them' is telling us anything much about the actual combat mechanics involved is kidding themselves.
Justin:
Quote
Is that about it?
As a summary of the thread or as a summary of reality? I don't think so as the latter - your Infantry: 2. a) is controversial in virtually every point. Your Cavalry 1. begs the question.
I thought this might be interesting in answering the question from a different tradition. This is from Abu Bakr al-Turtusi' Lamp for Princes describing Almoravid tactics
This is the battle order that we use and which seems most efficacious in our battles with our enemies. The infantry with their shields, lances, and iron-tipped and penetrating javelins are formed in ranks. Their lances rest obliquely on their
shoulders, the shaft touching the ground, the point aimed at the enemy. Each one kneels on his left knee and holds his shield in the air. Behind the infantry are the elite archers, whose arrows can pierce coats of mail Behind the archers are the cavalry... When the enemy comes near, the archers let fly against them a shower of arrows, while infantry throw their javelins and receive the charge on the points of their lances. Then infantry and archers open their ranks right and left and the Muslim cavalry, charging through the space, routs the enemy, if Allah so decides
Some similarities with Roman and Byzantine practice there - a co-incidence of similar solutions to similar problems?
Quote from: Erpingham on October 16, 2018, 06:05:54 PM
Some similarities with Roman and Byzantine practice there - a co-incidence of similar solutions to similar problems?
Could well be: the Muslims were assumed to have learned much of their military stock-in-trade from the Byzantines.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 16, 2018, 03:58:41 PM
At Suntel Mountain in 792, the Franks were campaigning against the (Old) Saxons. The Carolingian cavalry vanguard came upon the Saxon infantry in formation and, rather than waiting for the rest of the army, charged. The result was a disaster as, instead of charging together, every man spurred on his horse and attacked as an individual. The Saxons absorbed the charge then enveloped the Franks, nearly wiping them out.
This is one factor we have not so far emphasised, namely that the effective impact of a charging formation is greater than the sum of its parts.
QuoteThe morals for the cavalry seems to be 1) Don't tangle frontally with confident close-order foot - instead probe, skirmish, look for an opportunity to deliver a decisive blow 2) Work in conjunction with other arms 3) If you do charge, do it as a group, not a bunch of individuals.
Not a bad checklist. Of course, with numerous different cavalry cultures and traditons this formula will vary considerably, but as a generic giude to using cavalry it nicely covers the essentials.
Quote from: aligern on October 16, 2018, 01:04:33 PM
Matt Bennet, in his presentation at the first recent Society Conference in 2016 analysed more than just Wace and concluded that the Normans were using something like the later 'Tour Francaise' in which they advanced on horseback, traded blows with the Englush front line, with the advantage of having them pinned by the threat of contact, then conducting a very fast turn and getting away. If, as I believe, the English are a front rank of braced spearmen with a second rank of axemen, then the Norman has jabbed at the passive spearman and turned before the axeman can step forward and damage the 'knight'.
Although the accounts of the batle have Norman knights being 'damaged' by axemen, so I suspect use of this tactic was confined to Bretons, who do not seem to have improved their technique since Jengland in AD 851 (see Anthony's earlier post).
Quote from: aligern on October 16, 2018, 01:04:33 PM
Descriptions of charges are to be treated with caution. They are prone to be exaggerated in the mind of the reader because:
A writer may see an action as a fast charge where a more analytical observer might see a pretty round trot. To an extent it depends on what the ideology of a charge is at the time of writing.
An author might wish to confey action and aggression and portray more drama than was actually happening, particularly as most authors did not take part in battles, let alone cavalry charges.
A tactic whereby a unit adcances in a determined , controlled , fashion with the officers observing the enemy reaction and taking a decision in the last few yards whether to go in against a wavering foe ir break off against a staunch opponent whose spears remain steady might well be described differently according to the outcome without the writer telling us that there was a choice available.
I believe it was Duncan, a long time ago, who pointed out that, senantically, a charge might not reach the opposing line or be just a walk in and push ( like police horses) and yet be described as a charge ( and translated as a charge) . Someone with the appropriate Greek and Latinmight care to tell us if there are actually words or phrases that provide a nuanced version of the act of moving to contact ir threatened contact with an opponent.
We can be pretty certain that charges did go home, or rather that armoured cavalry made contact because , as said orevioysly the Byzantines felt the need to orovide those squads of menaulion wielders because cataphracts would break the thinner spears of standard infantry. That does nit tell us what degree of monentum cataphracts adavanced with.
Matt Bennet , in his presentation at the first recent Society Conference in 2016 analysed more than just Wace and concluded that the Normans were using something like the later 'Tour Francaise' in which they advanced on horseback, traded blows with the Englush front line, with the advantage of having them pinned by the threat of contact, then conducting a very fast turn and getting away. If, as I believe,bthe English are a front rank of braced spearmen with a second rank of axemen, tgen the Nirman has jabbed at the oassive spearman and turned before the axeman can step firward and damage the 'knight'. If I recall correctly, this may nit have been a Breton tactic and they may have suffered more in the interchange than the Normans and French, thus precipitating the first and real flight. Having walked the steep slopes on both putative Hastings sites I suggest that the Normans would not have ridden into the English line hard until late in the day when the English were stressed tired, disordered and showing gaps, because the balance of risk was too great and we do not need to imagine such risky tactics to achieve the desired result.
Roy
exactly my thoughts. I really cant take Wace or any 'biased' writer at full face value. Thats not to say I dont believe his accounts per se, just that certain elements will definitely be exaggerated for dramatic (and patron pleasing) effect
Quote from: Dangun on October 16, 2018, 06:14:23 AM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 15, 2018, 11:10:57 AM
[1] I would add that where both sides are brimming with elan and self-belief, neither will flinch and there will be a clash of almighty proportions and mutual injuries. [2] If this proves to be an irresistible force hitting an immovable object, then the irresistible force will reconsider, as Anthony has previously indicated.
Aren't these two points at odds with each other?
I agree more with the second, than the first.
If the infantry do not waver, the cavalry are unlikely to close?
We have the example of Carrhae where the Parthian cataphracts charged the Roman infantry then broke off when the Romans remained steadfast.
It is worth quoting the section on Carrhae in Plutarch's life of Crassus in full. It suffers a bit from the convention that advances to contact are desctpribec or rather translated as charges, whereas it is not actually necessary ro go in at speed to acheive the effects described. Young Crassus, for example likely made quite a gentle advance as he was not going to gain much from impetus.
'24 1 While the Romans were in consternation at this din, suddenly their enemies dropped the coverings of their armour, and were seen to be themselves blazing in helmets and breastplates, their Margianian steel glittering keen and bright, and their horses clad in plates of bronze and steel. 2 Surena himself, however, was the tallest and fairest of them all, although his effeminate beauty did not well correspond to his reputation for valour, but he was dressed more in the Median fashion, with painted face and parted hair, while the rest of the Parthians still wore their hair long and bunched over their foreheads, in Scythian fashion, to make themselves look formidable. 3 And at first they purposed to charge upon the Romans with their long spears, and throw their front ranks into confusion; but when they saw the depth of their formation, where shield p389 was locked with shield, and the firmness and composure of the men, they drew back, and while seeming to break their ranks and disperse, they surrounded the hollow square in which their enemy stood before he was aware of the manoeuvre. 4 And when Crassus ordered his light-armed troops to make a charge, they did not advance far, but encountering a multitude of arrows, abandoned their undertaking and ran back for shelter among the men-at‑arms, among whom they caused the beginning of disorder and fear, for these now saw the velocity and force of the arrows, which fractured armour, and tore their way through every covering alike, whether hard or soft.
5 But the Parthians now stood at long intervals from one another and began to shoot their arrows from all sides at once, not with any accurate aim (for the dense formation of the Romans would not suffer an archer to miss even if he wished it), but making vigorous and powerful shots from bows which were large and mighty and curved so as to discharge their missiles with great force. 6 At once, then, the plight of the Romans was a grievous one; for if they kept their ranks, they were wounded in great numbers, and if they tried to come to close quarters with the enemy, they were just as far from effecting anything and suffered just as much. For the Parthians shot as they fled, and next to the Scythians, they do this most effectively; and it is a very clever thing to seek safety while still fighting, and to take away the shame of flight.
25 1 Now as long as they had hopes that the enemy would exhaust their missiles and desist from battle or fight at close quarters, the Romans held p391 out; but when they perceived that many camels laden with arrows were at hand, from which the Parthians who first encircled them took a fresh supply, then Crassus, seeing no end to this, began to lose heart, and sent messengers to his son with orders to force an engagement with the enemy before he was surrounded; for it was his wing especially which the enemy were attacking and surrounding with their cavalry, in the hope of getting in his rear. 2 Accordingly, the young man took thirteen hundred horsemen, of whom a thousand had come from Caesar, five hundred archers, and eight cohorts of the men-at‑arms who were nearest him, and led them all to the charge. But the Parthians who were trying to envelop him, either because, as some say, they encountered marshes, or because they were manoeuvring to attack Publius as far as possible from his father, wheeled about and made off. 3 Then Publius, shouting that the men did not stand their ground, rode after them, and with him Censorinus and Megabacchus, the latter distinguished for his courage and strength, Censorinus a man of senatorial dignity and a powerful speaker, and both of them comrades of Publius and nearly of the same age. The cavalry followed after Publius, and even the infantry kept pace with them in the zeal and joy which their hopes inspired; for they thought they were victorious and in pursuit of the enemy, until, after they had gone forward a long distance, they perceived the ruse. For the seeming fugitives wheeled about and were joined at the same time by others more numerous still. 4 Then the Romans halted, supposing that the enemy would come to close quarters with them, p393 since they were so few in number. But the Parthians stationed their mail-clad horsemen in front of the Romans, and then with the rest of their cavalry in loose array rode round them, tearing up the surface of the ground, and raising from the depths great heaps of sand which fell in limitless showers of dust, so that the Romans could neither see clearly nor speak plainly, 5 but, being crowded into a narrow compass and falling upon one another, were shot, and died no easy nor even speedy death. For, in the agonies of convulsive pain, and writhing about the arrows, they would break them off in their wounds, and then in trying to pull out by force the barbed heads which had pierced their veins and sinews, they tore and disfigured themselves the more.
6 Thus many died, and the survivors also were incapacitated for fighting. And when Publius urged them to charge the enemy's mail-clad horsemen, they showed him that their hands were riveted to their shields and their feet nailed through and through to the ground, so that they were helpless either for flight or for self-defence. 7 Publius himself, accordingly, cheered on his cavalry, made a vigorous charge with them, and closed with the enemy. But his struggle was an unequal one both offensively and defensively, for his thrusting was done with small and feeble spears against breastplates of raw hide and steel, whereas the thrusts of the enemy were made with pikes against the lightly equipped and unprotected bodies of the Gauls, since it was upon these that Publius chiefly relied, and with these he did indeed work wonders. 8 For they laid hold of the long spears of the Parthians, and grappling with the men, pushed them from p395 their horses, hard as it was to move them owing to the weight of their armour; and many of the Gauls forsook their own horses, and crawling under those of the enemy, stabbed them in the belly. These would rear up in their anguish, and die trampling on riders and foemen indiscriminately mingled. 9 But the Gauls were distressed above all things by the heat and their thirst, to both of which they were unused; and most of their horses had perished by being driven against the long spears. They were therefore compelled to retire upon the men-at‑arms, taking with them Publius, who was severely wounded. And seeing a sandy hillock near by, they all retired to it, and fastened their horses in the centre; then locking their shields together on the outside, they thought they could more easily defend themselves against the Barbarians. 10 But it turned out just the other way. For on level ground, the front ranks do, to some extent, afford relief to those who are behind them. But here, where the inequality of the ground raised one man above another, and lifted every man who was behind another into greater prominence, there was no such thing as escape, but they were all alike hit with arrows, bewailing their inglorious and ineffectual death.
11 Now there were with Publius two Greeks, of those who dwelt near by in Carrhae, Hieronymus and Nicomachus. These joined in trying to persuade him to slip away with them and make their escape to Ichnae, a city which had espoused the Roman cause and was not far off. But Publius, declaring that no death could have such terrors for him as to make him desert those who were perishing on his account, ordered them to save their own lives, bade them farewell, and p397 dismissed them. Then he himself, being unable to use his hand, which had been pierced through with an arrow, presented his side to his shield-bearer and ordered him to strike home with his sword. 12 In like manner also Censorinus is said to have died; but Megabacchus took his own life, and so did the other most notable men. The survivors fought on until the Parthians mounted the hill and transfixed them with their long spears, and they say that not more than five hundred were taken alive. Then the Parthians cut off the head of Publius, and rode off at once to attack Crassus.
26 1 His situation was as follows. After ordering his son to charge the Parthians and receiving tidings that the enemy were routed to a great distance and hotly pursued, and after noticing also that his own immediate opponents were no longer pressing him so hard (since most of them had streamed away to where Publius was), he recovered a little courage, and drawing his troops together, posted them for safety on sloping ground, in immediate expectation that his son would return from the pursuit. 2 Of the messengers sent by Publius to his father, when he began to be in danger, the first fell in with the Barbarians and were slain; the next made their way through with difficulty and reported that Publius was lost unless he received speedy and abundant aid from his father. 3 And now Crassus was a prey to many conflicting emotions, and no longer looked at anything with calm judgement. His fear for the whole army drove him to refuse, and at the same time his yearning love for his son impelled him to grant assistance; but at last he began to move his forces forward.
p399 At this point, however, the enemy came up with clamour and battle cries which made them more fearful than ever, and again many of their drums began bellowing about the Romans, who awaited the beginning of a second battle. 4 Besides, those of the enemy who carried the head of Publius fixed high upon a spear, rode close up and displayed it, scornfully asking after his parents and family, for surely, they said, it was not meet that Crassus, most base and cowardly of men, should be the father of a son so noble and of such splendid valour. This spectacle shattered and unstrung the spirits of the Romans more than all the rest of their terrible experiences, and they were all filled, not with a passion for revenge, as was to have been expected, but with shuddering and trembling. 5 And yet Crassus, as they say, showed more brilliant qualities in that awful hour than ever before, for he went up and down the ranks crying: "Mine, O Romans, is this sorrow, and mine alone; but the great fortune and glory of Rome abide unbroken and unconquered in you, who are alive and safe. And now if ye have any pity for me, thus bereft of the noblest of sons, show it by your wrath against the enemy. Rob them of their joy; avenge their cruelty; be not cast down at what had happened, for it must needs be that those who aim at great deeds should also suffer greatly. 6 It was not without bloody losses that even Lucullus overthrew Tigranes, or Scipio Antiochus; and our fathers of old lost a thousand ships off Sicily, and in Italy many imperators and generals, not one of whom, by his defeat, prevented them from afterwards mastering his conquerors. For it was not by good fortune merely that the Roman state reached its present p401 plenitude of power, but by the patient endurance and valour of those who faced dangers in its behalf."
27 1 Even as he spoke such words of encouragement, Crassus saw that not many of his men listened with any eagerness, but when he also bade them raise the battle cry, he discovered how despondent his army was, so weak, feeble, and uneven was the shout they made, while that which came from the Barbarians was clear and bold. Then, as the enemy got to work, their light cavalry rode round on the flanks of the Romans and shot them with arrows, while the mail-clad horsemen in front, plying their long spears, kept driving them together into a narrow space, except those who, to escape death from the arrows, made bold to rush desperately upon their foes. 2 These did little damage, but met with a speedy death from great and fatal wounds, since the spear which the Parthians thrust into the horses was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once. After fighting in this manner till night came on, the Parthians withdrew, saying that they would grant Crassus one night in which to bewail his son, unless, with a better regard for his own interests, he should consent to go to Arsaces instead of being carried there.'
Quote from: willb on October 16, 2018, 09:50:57 PM
We have the example of Carrhae where the Parthian cataphracts charged the Roman infantry then broke off when the Romans remained steadfast.
Would you describe this as the cavalry:
* charging, impacting and withdrawing; or
* charging, not-impacting and withdrawing; or
* advancing, meleeing and withdrawing?
Do cavalry charge AND impact multiple times?
Quote from: Erpingham on October 16, 2018, 06:05:54 PM
This is the battle order that we use and which seems most efficacious in our battles with our enemies. The infantry with their shields, lances, and iron-tipped and penetrating javelins are formed in ranks. Their lances rest obliquely on their shoulders, the shaft touching the ground, the point aimed at the enemy. Each one kneels on his left knee and holds his shield in the air.
How does one lean one's lance on one's shoulder while pointing it at the enemy? Are they somehow holding their lances behind their backs?
(Incidentally, to connect to an exchange Duncan and I had in the Currently reading thread back in summer, if Turtusi is describing Almoravid troops in the narrow sense - i.e. Lamtuna or other Saharans - then this passage would justify the supporting archers in the DBMM list.)
Quote from: evilgong on October 16, 2018, 03:57:22 AM
Fear for the safety of ones horses extended into modern times.
In the 1780s- to mid 19thc Persian Shahs agreed to replace lost horses or pack animals of his feudal troops if these died on active service.
Back in Europe, compensation for lost horses and gear appears to've been standard for 15C mercenaries. One reason for the popularity of Landsknechte at the end of the century was that they
didn't demand compensation for lost equipment.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 17, 2018, 07:16:57 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on October 16, 2018, 06:05:54 PM
This is the battle order that we use and which seems most efficacious in our battles with our enemies. The infantry with their shields, lances, and iron-tipped and penetrating javelins are formed in ranks. Their lances rest obliquely on their shoulders, the shaft touching the ground, the point aimed at the enemy. Each one kneels on his left knee and holds his shield in the air.
How does one lean one's lance on one's shoulder while pointing it at the enemy? Are they somehow holding their lances behind their backs?
I visualise it as the butt of the lance stuck into the ground behind the kneeling soldier and kept there by the foot of the soldier behind him. The kneeling soldier grips the lance on his shoulder with his right hand to keep it in place whilst holding his shield with his left. A very practical horse-stopper IMHO.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 17, 2018, 07:46:54 AM
I visualise it as the butt of the lance stuck into the ground behind the kneeling soldier and kept there by the foot of the soldier behind him. The kneeling soldier grips the lance on his shoulder with his right hand to keep it in place whilst holding his shield with his left. A very practical horse-stopper IMHO.
Yes, it means over the right shoulder and trailing behind. Personally, I'm not that impressed on a theoretical basis. I experimented a bit and I reckon a 10 ft spear held at the appropriate angle would only protrude about four feet in front of the line, maybe less. That seems an awful lot of spear length wasted. The standard Byzantine and Western European method, leading with the left leg and bracing the spear under the right trailing leg, seems a better bet. Also, the spear end behind the kneeling man would surely be an impediment to the javelinmen.
ObWargameContent: Does anyone sell figures in this pose? :D
Quote from: aligern on October 17, 2018, 12:38:01 AM
It is worth quoting the section on Carrhae in Plutarch's life of Crassus in full. It suffers a bit from the convention that advances to contact are described or rather translated as charges, whereas it is not actually necessary to go in at speed to acheive the effects described. Young Crassus, for example likely made quite a gentle advance as he was not going to gain much from impetus.
The way Plutarch tells us it happened is:
"Publius himself, accordingly, cheered on his cavalry, made a
vigorous charge with them, and closed with the enemy."
'Vigorous charge' translates
prosebale, from
prosballo, to dash against. The term has the general sense of collision.
Whether this was achievable at reduced speed, and whether Gauls and Germans would bother with anything less than a full-blooded charge, is perhaps something to consider.
'Closed with the enemy' is
sunepse, 'join together'; in a hostile sense, 'engage in conflict'. This classifies the result as committed closure as opposed to tentative trial and recoil, as is also indicated by the subsequent description of Gauls seizing lances and trying to pull cataphracts off their horses.
As a further curio, David Nicolle clearly believes Italian infantry used the same technique, as it appears in his Italian Militiaman Osprey and in European Medieval Tactics (I). I've not seen any evidence for it personally. llustrations of Italian infantry usually show the pavise bearers standing in front of the formation, spear held conventionally underarm or overarm.
Quote from: Dangun on October 17, 2018, 05:03:16 AM
Do cavalry charge AND impact multiple times?
Apparently so, especially if equipped only for shock combat, and they feel that just one more charge should do it. Plutarch (Crassus 27.1) describes the process as:
"Then, as the enemy got to work, their light, cavalry rode round on the flanks of the Romans and shot them with arrows, while the mail-clad horsemen in front, plying their long spears, kept driving them together into a narrow space ..."
'Driving them together into a narrow space' translates
sunestellon eis oligon, 'reduce into a little', which implies repetitive urging at the point of a lance which
"... was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once."
So the picture is of the cataphracts charging and impacting multiple times, each time shrinking the Roman formation further.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 17, 2018, 08:29:04 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 17, 2018, 07:46:54 AM
I visualise it as the butt of the lance stuck into the ground behind the kneeling soldier and kept there by the foot of the soldier behind him. The kneeling soldier grips the lance on his shoulder with his right hand to keep it in place whilst holding his shield with his left. A very practical horse-stopper IMHO.
Yes, it means over the right shoulder and trailing behind. Personally, I'm not that impressed on a theoretical basis. I experimented a bit and I reckon a 10 ft spear held at the appropriate angle would only protrude about four feet in front of the line, maybe less. That seems an awful lot of spear length wasted. The standard Byzantine and Western European method, leading with the left leg and bracing the spear under the right trailing leg, seems a better bet. Also, the spear end behind the kneeling man would surely be an impediment to the javelinmen.
One thing it does do is allowing the infantryman to properly cover himself with his shield, better than the Byzantine/Western European method which involves standing and leaning forwards to hold the spear at the correct angle. And what would stop the kneeling soldier having a longer spear?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 17, 2018, 09:10:23 AM
And what would stop the kneeling soldier having a longer spear?
A bit longer perhaps but using anything bigger than 12 ft with one hand could be tricky. Also, its all about angles. You need the spear to be angled so that the spearhead is at chest or neck height on the horse. So just making the spear longer doesn't automatically make the reach equally longer. This cries out for a Justin diagram :)
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 17, 2018, 07:46:54 AM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 17, 2018, 07:16:57 AM
Quote from: Erpingham on October 16, 2018, 06:05:54 PM
This is the battle order that we use and which seems most efficacious in our battles with our enemies. The infantry with their shields, lances, and iron-tipped and penetrating javelins are formed in ranks. Their lances rest obliquely on their shoulders, the shaft touching the ground, the point aimed at the enemy. Each one kneels on his left knee and holds his shield in the air.
How does one lean one's lance on one's shoulder while pointing it at the enemy? Are they somehow holding their lances behind their backs?
I visualise it as the butt of the lance stuck into the ground behind the kneeling soldier and kept there by the foot of the soldier behind him. The kneeling soldier grips the lance on his shoulder with his right hand to keep it in place whilst holding his shield with his left. A very practical horse-stopper IMHO.
Or it's a dodgy translation. The only complete translation of al-Turtushi is into Spanish; I don't know if this extract comes via the Spanish or is independent. I wonder if it could mean under the shoulder, that is in the armpit? Or even resting on the shoulder of the rank in front?
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 17, 2018, 10:21:31 AM
Or it's a dodgy translation. The only complete translation of al-Turtushi is into Spanish; I don't know if this extract comes via the Spanish or is independent. I wonder if it could mean under the shoulder, that is in the armpit? Or even resting on the shoulder of the rank in front?
John France (Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades) draws it from Lourie
A society organised for war: Medieval Spain Past & Present 36 1966.
I've checked in Garcia Fitz and Monteiro War in the Spanish Peninsular, which uses only Spanish sources in its discussion of Al-Andalus. They don't quote the passage but give a detailed paraphrase. Their version speaks of infantry "leaning their spears on their shoulders towards the enemy" So, unless the Spanish translations are wrong, it is on the shoulder.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 17, 2018, 09:31:52 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on October 17, 2018, 09:10:23 AM
And what would stop the kneeling soldier having a longer spear?
A bit longer perhaps but using anything bigger than 12 ft with one hand could be tricky. Also, its all about angles. You need the spear to be angled so that the spearhead is at chest or neck height on the horse. So just making the spear longer doesn't automatically make the reach equally longer. This cries out for a Justin diagram :)
OK, here's an attempt. I used images from the terracotta army as the horses and men are together and allow for an accurate size comparison. The average Chinese male in Antiquity stood 168cm tall (https://www.quora.com/How-tall-were-the-ancient-Chinese). Using that I was able to create a scale. What stands out is that the spear cannot be used to target the horse. Even with the butt fixed two yards behind the kneeling warrior the angle is too high - it has to target the rider. The spear itself is at least 3,5 yards (10,5 feet) long.
(https://i.imgur.com/kIKremL.png)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 17, 2018, 09:05:13 AM
Apparently so, especially if equipped only for shock combat, and they feel that just one more charge should do it. Plutarch (Crassus 27.1) describes the process as:
"Then, as the enemy got to work, their light, cavalry rode round on the flanks of the Romans and shot them with arrows, while the mail-clad horsemen in front, plying their long spears, kept driving them together into a narrow space ..."
'Driving them together into a narrow space' translates sunestellon eis oligon, 'reduce into a little', which implies repetitive urging at the point of a lance which
"... was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once."
So the picture is of the cataphracts charging and impacting multiple times, each time shrinking the Roman formation further.
I think we are talking past each other, because none of the quotes you offered sound like charges to me.
My understanding is that, "to charge," is the use of impetus.
Whereas your quotes described melee from horseback and bowfire from horseback.
I can see from the quotes multiple melees, but I don't see multiple, "charges."
Quote from: Chuck the Grey on October 16, 2018, 03:26:40 AM
I can't speak to a movie on the American Civil War, but I do remember the 1936 version of The Charge of the Light Brigade with Errol Flynn showing much the same sequence for a charge of walk, trot, cantor, and then gallop. Of course, there was a time when Hollywood movie makers would employ former army officers, both US and British, and actually listen to their advice on military affairs and incorporate some bit of reality to the movie. Now we get armored rhinos. :(
In all fairness, I am not sure there are too many ex-Wakandan army officers available to Holywood. :)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 16, 2018, 08:33:32 PM
Could well be: the Muslims were assumed to have learned much of their military stock-in-trade from the Byzantines.
Much of their military traditions came from the Persians. Some of the later manuals are thought to be lifted directly from Sasanian military treatises.
QuoteEven with the butt fixed two yards behind the kneeling warrior the angle is too high - it has to target the rider.
Or the butt is further back, making the spear point an even shorter distance from the infantryman.
Having mentioned the similarities to Roman and Byzantine practice, here is Arrian explaining how to fight Alans.
If [the cavalry] do close in though, the first three ranks should lock their shields and press their shoulders and receive the charge as strongly as possible in the most closely ordered formation bound together in the strongest manner. The fourth rank will throw their javelins overhead and the first rank will stab at them and their horses with their spears without pause. After repulsing the enemy if there's a clear rout, the infantry units must clear lanes and the horsemen should advance, not all squadrons, but only half of them. Here is the Byzantine drill, as per Maurice
If the enemy [cavalry], coming within a bow shot, attempts to break or dislodge the phalanx, which is hazardous for them,
then the infantry close up in the regular manner. And the first, second, and third man in each file are to form themselves into a foulkon, that is, one shield upon another, and having thrust their spears straight forward beyond their shields, fix them firmly in the ground, so that those who dare to come close to them will readily be impaled. They also lean their shoulders and put their weight against their shields so that they might
easily endure the pressure from those outside. The third man, standing more upright, and the fourth, holding their spears like javelins either stab those coming close or hurl them and draw their swords. And the light infantry with the cavalry [stationed to the rear] shoot arrows.It is clear from Arrian and maurice that contact with the horsemen, who will try to use their weight and momentum, is anticipated and countered.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 16, 2018, 06:05:54 PM
I thought this might be interesting in answering the question from a different tradition. This is from Abu Bakr al-Turtusi' Lamp for Princes describing Almoravid tactics
This is the battle order that we use and which seems most efficacious in our battles with our enemies. The infantry with their shields, lances, and iron-tipped and penetrating javelins are formed in ranks. Their lances rest obliquely on their shoulders, the shaft touching the ground, the point aimed at the enemy. Each one kneels on his left knee and holds his shield in the air. Behind the infantry are the elite archers, whose arrows can pierce coats of mail Behind the archers are the cavalry... When the enemy comes near, the archers let fly against them a shower of arrows, while infantry throw their javelins and receive the charge on the points of their lances. Then infantry and archers open their ranks right and left and the Muslim cavalry, charging through the space, routs the enemy, if Allah so decides
And this is a Spanish translation of the same passage, from http://transformacionesdeminiaturashistorica.blogspot.com/2014/:
QuotePor lo que al modo de resistir el coche se refiere, hay una excelente táctica que observamos en nuestro pais, y es la más eficaz que hemos puesto en práctica en la lucha con nuestros enemigos; consiste en poner en primer termino a los infantes con escudos completos, lanzas largas y dardos agudos y penetrantes. Formaban sus filas y ocupaban sus puestos, apoyando las lanzas en el suelo a sus espaldas, con las puntas enfiladas hacia el enemigo. Ellos se echaban a tierra, hincando cada cual su rodilla izquierda en el suelo, y se ponian ante si el escudo levantado. Tras ellos se colocaban los arqueros escogidos, aquellos cuyas flechas traspasan las cotas de malla y detras de estos la caballeris.
Al cargar los cristianos contra los musulmanes, ninguno de los infantes se mueve de la posición en que se encuentra, ni nadie se pone de pie, y asi el enemigo se aproxima, lanzan contra el los arqueros las flechas y los infantes los dardos, y los reciven con la punta de las lanzas...
The key phrase is
apoyando las lanzas en el suelo a sus espaldas, which Google Translate renders as
supporting the spears on the ground behind him. Now I don't really read Spanish - I hope someone here does - but my impression is that
espaldas looks as if it might literally mean "shoulders" (Fr.
épaules?) but might just figuratively mean "at their backs", hence "behind them". So I am beginning to suspect that the "spears on their shoulders" may be over-translation.
(For Andreas: the description is usually taken as being of Andalusian rather than specifically Almoravid Berber tactics. al-Turtushi is saying this is the tactics used
en nuestro pais, "in our country", that is in Spain (he is addressing a Fatimid Egyptian audience) .)
QuoteThe key phrase is apoyando las lanzas en el suelo a sus espaldas, which Google Translate renders as supporting the spears on the ground behind him. Now I don't really read Spanish - I hope someone here does - but my impression is that espaldas looks as if it might literally mean "shoulders" (Fr. épaules?) but might just figuratively mean "at their backs", hence "behind them". So I am beginning to suspect that the "spears on their shoulders" may be over-translation.
Seems reasonable -
espalda is, according to the internet, Spanish for back as in anatomy. Again, according to online translation,
a sus espaldas means "behind his back" in the sense of talking behind someone's back so doesn't have to be literal. It is odd, however, that Javier Albaran, who wrote the chapter quoted earlier, and undoubtedly Spanish, made this error.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 17, 2018, 04:28:39 PM
QuoteThe key phrase is apoyando las lanzas en el suelo a sus espaldas, which Google Translate renders as supporting the spears on the ground behind him. Now I don't really read Spanish - I hope someone here does - but my impression is that espaldas looks as if it might literally mean "shoulders" (Fr. épaules?) but might just figuratively mean "at their backs", hence "behind them". So I am beginning to suspect that the "spears on their shoulders" may be over-translation.
Seems reasonable - espalda is, according to the internet, Spanish for back as in anatomy. Again, according to online translation, a sus espaldas means "behind his back" in the sense of talking behind someone's back so doesn't have to be literal. It is odd, however, that Javier Albaran, who wrote the chapter quoted earlier, and undoubtedly Spanish, made this error.
Translating key words wrong...yes... ::)
Quote
'Vigorous charge' translates prosebale, from prosballo, to dash against. The term has the general sense of collision.
Not true - prosballo has the literal sense of 'throw forward' and, among many general senses, in military contexts it means attack or assault. Nothing more specific than that and certainly no implication of collision. It's the same word incidentally as used for the 'projection' of the sarissas in front of a Macedonian phalanx.
Erpingham:
Quote
It is clear from Arrian and maurice that contact with the horsemen, who will try to use their weight and momentum, is anticipated and countered.
Hmm - is it? It's clear to me that the point of the tight formation was to
prevent contact with the horsemen (if by contact you mean bodily contact, horse body against human body). "The first rank will stab at them and their horses" to me means there is no contact (unless the spears are about six inches long). "Having thrust their spears straight forward beyond their shields, fix them firmly in the ground, so that those who dare to come close to them will readily be impaled" also suggests to me no contact (as the spears project forward in front of the men). "They also lean their shoulders and put their weight against their shields so that they might easily endure the pressure from those outside" - would suggest horsey pressure but then would contradict the first sentence, unless the pressure is from weapons and bumping and barging, not full career collision (and I'm sure that's so). As usual two people can read the same passage and draw different conclusions from it.
I agree though about the Arrian - Byzantine - Almoravid continuity. But spears resting on shoulders is a very odd idea - surely the slightest contact would just knock the spear off? I suspect something is getting lost in translation or interpretation. In Greek 'shoulder' can mean just about any part of the arm, maybe this is similar. An ungrasped spear is serving no purpose. (edited to add) Except perhaps to
look threatening to riders or horses so that they don't even try to close to contact .
I've noticed something. The Spanish is differently punctuated to the English.
The Spanish says "They formed their ranks and took their places, their lances supported in the ground behind their backs, points towards the enemy" or something like (I'm using Google translate here). The English has the first part of the sentence forming the last bit of the previous one. No resting lances, no shoulders, no shaft. It would appear, therefore, that the English may be translated from a different Spanish version which contains extra words or phrases before apoyando and after puestos.
I don't know how you linguistically talented folks cope with this stuff - does my head in.
QuoteHmm - is it? It's clear to me that the point of the tight formation was to prevent contact with the horsemen (if by contact you mean bodily contact, horse body against human body). "The first rank will stab at them and their horses" to me means there is no contact (unless the spears are about six inches long). "Having thrust their spears straight forward beyond their shields, fix them firmly in the ground, so that those who dare to come close to them will readily be impaled" also suggests to me no contact (as the spears project forward in front of the men). "They also lean their shoulders and put their weight against their shields so that they might easily endure the pressure from those outside" - would suggest horsey pressure but then would contradict the first sentence, unless the pressure is from weapons and bumping and barging, not full career collision (and I'm sure that's so). As usual two people can read the same passage and draw different conclusions from it.
Not denying that the main idea may be to discourage attacks. But I can't see how we can make sense of the bracing with their shoulders unless they are anticipating potential impacts and preparing to mitigate their effects.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 17, 2018, 03:39:14 PM(For Andreas: the description is usually taken as being of Andalusian rather than specifically Almoravid Berber tactics. al-Turtushi is saying this is the tactics used en nuestro pais, "in our country", that is in Spain (he is addressing a Fatimid Egyptian audience) .)
Thanks :)
Quote from: Erpingham on October 17, 2018, 06:46:47 PM
Not denying that the main idea may be to discourage attacks. But I can't see how we can make sense of the bracing with their shoulders unless they are anticipating potential impacts and preparing to mitigate their effects.
It could serve a psychological rather than a physical purpose.
That said, if you have a body of cavalry charging our formation, it seems likely that most horses would stop short of contact to present a target for stabbing, while the the odd one, perhaps one with a particularly determined/suicidal rider, or one maddened by a javelin, would actually barge into the infantry. Cf latter-day accounts of holes being opened in infantry formations by a dying horse crashing into it.
OK, found another version of the al-Turtushi passage. This is in David Nicolle, "Medieval Warfare: The Unfriendly Interface" (
The Journal of Military History 63.3, 1999). He lists "trans. M Alarcon,
Lampara de los Principes, Madrid, 1931"; and "partial trans. E Levi-Provencal,
Histoire de l'Espagne Mussulmane III, 1967"; from which I presume this is Nicolle's own translation influenced by the earlier Spanish and French attempts.
QuoteThe infantry with "complete shields" (al-daraq al-kamilah), long spears (al-rumah al-tuwal) and pointed, piercing javelins (mazariq), arrange themselves in several ranks (saff). The butt of the spear is thrust into the earth with its front part pointing forwards towards the enemy and held against the man's chest (wa yarkuzu marakazhum wa rumahhum khaf zahur fi'l-ard wa sudurha shar'ah ila'aduhum jathian fi'l-ard). Each man has his left knee on the ground and holds the grip of his shield in his hand.
A bit different....
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 17, 2018, 09:54:35 PM
OK, found another version of the al-Turtushi passage. This is in David Nicolle, "Medieval Warfare: The Unfriendly Interface" (The Journal of Military History 63.3, 1999). He lists "trans. M Alarcon, Lampara de los Principes, Madrid, 1931"; and "partial trans. E Levi-Provencal, Histoire de l'Espagne Mussulmane III, 1967"; from which I presume this is Nicolle's own translation influenced by the earlier Spanish and French attempts.
QuoteThe infantry with "complete shields" (al-daraq al-kamilah), long spears (al-rumah al-tuwal) and pointed, piercing javelins (mazariq), arrange themselves in several ranks (saff). The butt of the spear is thrust into the earth with its front part pointing forwards towards the enemy and held against the man's chest (wa yarkuzu marakazhum wa rumahhum khaf zahur fi'l-ard wa sudurha shar'ah ila'aduhum jathian fi'l-ard). Each man has his left knee on the ground and holds the grip of his shield in his hand.
A bit different....
That works. :)
(https://i.imgur.com/lkgxEYX.png)
Quote from: Erpingham on October 17, 2018, 06:41:02 PM
I've noticed something. The Spanish is differently punctuated to the English.
The Spanish says "They formed their ranks and took their places, their lances supported in the ground behind their backs, points towards the enemy" or something like (I'm using Google translate here). The English has the first part of the sentence forming the last bit of the previous one. No resting lances, no shoulders, no shaft. It would appear, therefore, that the English may be translated from a different Spanish version which contains extra words or phrases before apoyando and after puestos.
I don't know how you linguistically talented folks cope with this stuff - does my head in.
it strikes me that a more sensible translation would be that that lance butt spike [or whatever] was stuck in the ground behind them.
Which has the advantage of describing a situation that is both possible and apparently used by others
So the Analusians held their spears under rather than over the shoulder. Good source work, Duncan, and nice positive and progressive analysis between Anthony and Justin. This is how discussions should go.
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 17, 2018, 07:05:58 PM
Quote from: Erpingham on October 17, 2018, 06:46:47 PM
Not denying that the main idea may be to discourage attacks. But I can't see how we can make sense of the bracing with their shoulders unless they are anticipating potential impacts and preparing to mitigate their effects.
It could serve a psychological rather than a physical purpose.
One would imagine both. It keeps the infantry in place, gives the cavalry something to think about and, most importantly, has a good chance of standing them off if they call the infantry's bluff and do make contact in a serious way.
Quote from: Dangun on October 17, 2018, 12:38:12 PM
I think we are talking past each other, because none of the quotes you offered sound like charges to me.
My understanding is that, "to charge," is the use of impetus.
Whereas your quotes described melee from horseback and bowfire from horseback.
I can see from the quotes multiple melees, but I don't see multiple, "charges."
It would be hard to explain "... often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once" as deriving from anything but a charge with impetus. The word 'often' may also be a useful clue. :)
Quote from: DougM on October 17, 2018, 12:48:47 PM
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on October 16, 2018, 08:33:32 PM
Could well be: the Muslims were assumed to have learned much of their military stock-in-trade from the Byzantines.
Much of their military traditions came from the Persians. Some of the later manuals are thought to be lifted directly from Sasanian military treatises.
I shall take your word for it, Doug, although the Byzantines appear to have thought differently.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 17, 2018, 09:54:35 PM
OK, found another version of the al-Turtushi passage. This is in David Nicolle, "Medieval Warfare: The Unfriendly Interface" (The Journal of Military History 63.3, 1999). He lists "trans. M Alarcon, Lampara de los Principes, Madrid, 1931"; and "partial trans. E Levi-Provencal, Histoire de l'Espagne Mussulmane III, 1967"; from which I presume this is Nicolle's own translation influenced by the earlier Spanish and French attempts.
QuoteThe infantry with "complete shields" (al-daraq al-kamilah), long spears (al-rumah al-tuwal) and pointed, piercing javelins (mazariq), arrange themselves in several ranks (saff). The butt of the spear is thrust into the earth with its front part pointing forwards towards the enemy and held against the man's chest (wa yarkuzu marakazhum wa rumahhum khaf zahur fi'l-ard wa sudurha shar'ah ila'aduhum jathian fi'l-ard). Each man has his left knee on the ground and holds the grip of his shield in his hand.
A bit different....
Impressive research Duncan. To complete our background checks, the original Spanish we have been looking at came from an older translation
AL-TURTUSI;
Lampara de Ios principes. traduccion espanola por Maxilimiliano Alarcon, 2
tomos, Madrid. 1897-1903. p. 337
Incidentally, what the infantryman does with his shield is changed in the Nicolle version. In Spanish, he definitely raises his shield and there is no mention of the grip.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 18, 2018, 10:20:13 AMTo complete our background checks, the original Spanish we have been looking at came from an older translation
AL-TURTUSI; Lampara de Ios principes. traduccion espanola por Maxilimiliano Alarcon, 2
tomos, Madrid. 1897-1903. p. 337
2010 reprint available (https://smile.amazon.co.uk/L%C3%A1mpara-los-pr%C3%ADncipes-Abub%C3%A9quer-Tortosa/dp/8496800431/) if anyone fancies giving their Spanish a workout on Andalusi statecraft.
One thing I might note with the Nicolle translation is, as already mentioned, in two of his osprey books, he uses the "over the shoulder" version applied to Italian infantry. So, I'm unclear what he is thinking about the pose.
The key thing in the context of the theme is the overall construction of the formation. Kneeling spearman (or perhaps men), standing javelin throwers, archers at the back. Able to open ranks (or open gaps between units) to let cavalry through to attack retreating enemy. This has similarities to Roman and Byzantine practice, so it seems several nations felt this was a viable model.
The northern Europeans probably used a tight shieldwall model, formed in a circle if they couldn't anchor the flanks. A nicely detailed example, albeit probably a fictitious detail within the battle it is describing, is the Norwegian array at Stamford Bridge according to King Harald's Saga
Then King Harald arranged his army, and made the line of battle
long, but not deep. He bent both wings of it back, so that they
met together; and formed a wide ring equally thick all round,
shield to shield, both in the front and rear ranks. The king
himself and his retinue were within the circle; and there was the
banner, and a body of chosen men. Earl Toste, with his retinue,
was at another place, and had a different banner. The army was
arranged in this way, because the king knew that horsemen were
accustomed to ride forwards with great vigour, but to turn back
immediately. Now the king ordered that his own and the earl's
attendants should ride forwards where it was most required. "And
our bowmen," said he, "shall be near to us; and they who stand in
the first rank shall set the spear-shaft on the ground, and the
spear-point against the horseman's breast, if he rides at them;
and those who stand in the second rank shall set the spear-point
against the horse's breast."
So, two ranks of spearmen, the front with spears braced in the ground. Archers to the rear. Two reserves to support weak points. We can see similarities to Byzantine practice in this. But there is a clear whiff of real High Medieval tactics too. The interaction of cavalry and circle can be seen, for example, at Falkirk, Arques, Bannockburn (day 1) and Laupen (and probably Bouvines too).
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 17, 2018, 08:43:58 AM
ObWargameContent: Does anyone sell figures in this pose? :D
I noticed while looking for illustrations of the pose that East Riding Miniatures do a "Kneeling Andalusian Infantryman" in 15mm but their website doesn't illustrate it.
Quote from: Erpingham on October 18, 2018, 11:36:23 AM
Quote from: Andreas Johansson on October 17, 2018, 08:43:58 AM
ObWargameContent: Does anyone sell figures in this pose? :D
I noticed while looking for illustrations of the pose that East Riding Miniatures do a "Kneeling Andalusian Infantryman" in 15mm but their website doesn't illustrate it.
Mirliton have a pack of kneeling Muslim spearmen (http://www.mirliton.it/product_info.php?pName=muslim-heavy-infantry-1&cName=historical-15mm-muslim-1096-1350), though with flat-bottomed
januwiyya shields they don't look especially Andalusian.
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 18, 2018, 11:41:54 AM
Mirliton have a pack of kneeling Muslim spearmen (http://www.mirliton.it/product_info.php?pName=muslim-heavy-infantry-1&cName=historical-15mm-muslim-1096-1350), though with flat-bottomed januwiyya shields they don't look especially Andalusian.
Presumably angling their spears to deter elephants :) One way to get round the controversy about pose - show them in a resting pose before they brace themselves for combat.
Incidentally, I recall now that in a series I think called Plastic warrior in Airfix magazine in the early 70s, Bob O'Brien produced a kneeling arab spearman conversion using the kneeling rifleman from the Airfix Arab set.
I'm tranferring Nick's post from the cavalry vs cavalry thread to here where it seems to better belong.
Quote from: NickHarbud on November 02, 2018, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 02, 2018, 12:09:54 PM
What appears to be established is that a decent-sized horse can burst through an infantry line 8 ranks deep (a typical depth) unless the infantry do something about it. My guess is that they originally deployed in great depth before later switching to ranks bunched up together, othismos-like, which turned them into a stable mass a horse couldn't knock over.
...that and the pointy sticks probably put off the horses somewhat.
My own impression is that one-handed spears alone were not enough to stop horses. Roman cavalry charging through enemy infantry were, as far as I can tell, charging through spearmen (unless the Voscians and Aequans were sword-armed?). I suspect that is because a spearman cannot properly aim a spear at an approaching horse that is moving at speed, and from an overarm hold (discussed in the spear vs sword thread) he is more likely to hit the horse's head - which is one large mass of bone - rather than a more vulnerable part of the horse's anatomy.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 03, 2018, 08:17:31 AM
I'm tranferring Nick's post from the cavalry vs cavalry thread to here where it seems to better belong.
Quote from: NickHarbud on November 02, 2018, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 02, 2018, 12:09:54 PM
What appears to be established is that a decent-sized horse can burst through an infantry line 8 ranks deep (a typical depth) unless the infantry do something about it. My guess is that they originally deployed in great depth before later switching to ranks bunched up together, othismos-like, which turned them into a stable mass a horse couldn't knock over.
...that and the pointy sticks probably put off the horses somewhat.
My own impression is that one-handed spears alone were not enough to stop horses. Roman cavalry charging through enemy infantry were, as far as I can tell, charging through spearmen (unless the Voscians and Aequans were sword-armed?). I suspect that is because a spearman cannot properly aim a spear at an approaching horse that is moving at speed, and from an overarm hold (discussed in the spear vs sword thread) he is more likely to hit the horse's head - which is one large mass of bone - rather than a more vulnerable part of the horse's anatomy.
Greek hoplites don't seem to have had a problem
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2018, 08:47:28 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 03, 2018, 08:17:31 AM
I'm tranferring Nick's post from the cavalry vs cavalry thread to here where it seems to better belong.
Quote from: NickHarbud on November 02, 2018, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 02, 2018, 12:09:54 PM
What appears to be established is that a decent-sized horse can burst through an infantry line 8 ranks deep (a typical depth) unless the infantry do something about it. My guess is that they originally deployed in great depth before later switching to ranks bunched up together, othismos-like, which turned them into a stable mass a horse couldn't knock over.
...that and the pointy sticks probably put off the horses somewhat.
My own impression is that one-handed spears alone were not enough to stop horses. Roman cavalry charging through enemy infantry were, as far as I can tell, charging through spearmen (unless the Voscians and Aequans were sword-armed?). I suspect that is because a spearman cannot properly aim a spear at an approaching horse that is moving at speed, and from an overarm hold (discussed in the spear vs sword thread) he is more likely to hit the horse's head - which is one large mass of bone - rather than a more vulnerable part of the horse's anatomy.
Greek hoplites don't seem to have had a problem
Anti-cavalry othismos?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 03, 2018, 08:51:19 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2018, 08:47:28 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 03, 2018, 08:17:31 AM
I'm tranferring Nick's post from the cavalry vs cavalry thread to here where it seems to better belong.
Quote from: NickHarbud on November 02, 2018, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 02, 2018, 12:09:54 PM
What appears to be established is that a decent-sized horse can burst through an infantry line 8 ranks deep (a typical depth) unless the infantry do something about it. My guess is that they originally deployed in great depth before later switching to ranks bunched up together, othismos-like, which turned them into a stable mass a horse couldn't knock over.
...that and the pointy sticks probably put off the horses somewhat.
My own impression is that one-handed spears alone were not enough to stop horses. Roman cavalry charging through enemy infantry were, as far as I can tell, charging through spearmen (unless the Voscians and Aequans were sword-armed?). I suspect that is because a spearman cannot properly aim a spear at an approaching horse that is moving at speed, and from an overarm hold (discussed in the spear vs sword thread) he is more likely to hit the horse's head - which is one large mass of bone - rather than a more vulnerable part of the horse's anatomy.
Greek hoplites don't seem to have had a problem
Anti-cavalry othismos?
probably not, because in the discussion about Alexander riding down the Theban sacred band, this was apparently possible because the Macedonians could ride down the files, which means that there cannot have been and coming together of the files just to face cavalry
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2018, 09:00:11 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 03, 2018, 08:51:19 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2018, 08:47:28 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 03, 2018, 08:17:31 AM
I'm tranferring Nick's post from the cavalry vs cavalry thread to here where it seems to better belong.
Quote from: NickHarbud on November 02, 2018, 06:15:04 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 02, 2018, 12:09:54 PM
What appears to be established is that a decent-sized horse can burst through an infantry line 8 ranks deep (a typical depth) unless the infantry do something about it. My guess is that they originally deployed in great depth before later switching to ranks bunched up together, othismos-like, which turned them into a stable mass a horse couldn't knock over.
...that and the pointy sticks probably put off the horses somewhat.
My own impression is that one-handed spears alone were not enough to stop horses. Roman cavalry charging through enemy infantry were, as far as I can tell, charging through spearmen (unless the Voscians and Aequans were sword-armed?). I suspect that is because a spearman cannot properly aim a spear at an approaching horse that is moving at speed, and from an overarm hold (discussed in the spear vs sword thread) he is more likely to hit the horse's head - which is one large mass of bone - rather than a more vulnerable part of the horse's anatomy.
Greek hoplites don't seem to have had a problem
Anti-cavalry othismos?
probably not, because in the discussion about Alexander riding down the Theban sacred band, this was apparently possible because the Macedonians could ride down the files, which means that there cannot have been and coming together of the files just to face cavalry
Unless the Thebans were in deployment mode - three feet per file - and had not yet reached shield-overlapping compression which happened when hoplites advanced against an enemy. So their files would theoretically have compressed when charged by cavalry but the file gaps would have remained the same.
It is an interesting question though why Greek cavalry could do nothing to hoplites for as long as these remained in formation whilst Roman cavalry could charge right through an enemy line.
QuoteMy own impression is that one-handed spears alone were not enough to stop horses.
Except as far as we know most infantry faced cavalry with spear in one hand and shield in the other, so, if they were totally inadequate, would armies facing cavalry have not changed their tactics?
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 03, 2018, 09:04:15 AM
It is an interesting question though why Greek cavalry could do nothing to hoplites for as long as these remained in formation whilst Roman cavalry could charge right through an enemy line.
Well, there's an argument that the Western way of war was different and Romans and their enemies might be better modeled as a 'light heavy' troop type rather than a proper heavy like Hoplites etc
But where is the account of them charging through an enemy line (I've been away and missed a lot of thread content)
Jim
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2018, 10:19:27 AM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 03, 2018, 09:04:15 AM
It is an interesting question though why Greek cavalry could do nothing to hoplites for as long as these remained in formation whilst Roman cavalry could charge right through an enemy line.
Well, there's an argument that the Western way of war was different and Romans and their enemies might be better modeled as a 'light heavy' troop type rather than a proper heavy like Hoplites etc
But where is the account of them charging through an enemy line (I've been away and missed a lot of thread content)
Jim
The infantry on the right wing fought with distinguished valour, with stout resistance from the Volscians. Servius Sulpicius broke with his cavalry through the centre of the enemy's line; whence though he might have returned in the same way to his own party, before the enemy could have restored their broken ranks, it seemed more advisable to attack the enemy's rear, and by attacking the rear he would in a moment have dispersed the enemy by the twofold attack, had not the cavalry of the Volscians and Æquans intercepted him and kept him engaged by a mode of fighting similar to his own. - Livy: Histories 3, 70
I have trouble finding an authoritative source on the weaponry of the Volscian and Aelan infantry, but Phil Barker rates them as Auxilia and other rulesets give them javelins and swords.
Provisional hypothesis: Romans discovered that swordsmen were superior to spearmen in melee combat - they could close to within the spearmen's fighting range and dispatch them. So Rome's enemies also switch to swords, retaining javelins for pre-melee skirmishing. Then the Romans twig to the fact that horses can ride right through a line of javelin- and sword-armed infantry as javelins and swords don't stop the horses. Back in Greece, spear-armed hoplites can stop javelin-armed horsemen so long as the hoplites remain in formation. It takes lance-armed Macedonian cavalry and a good dose of KTB to change things. ::)
The longer account of the battle is
[3.70]In the Roman army the two consuls possessed equal authority. Agrippa, however, voluntarily resigned the supreme command to his colleague - a very beneficial arrangement where matters of great importance are concerned - and the latter, thus preferred by the ungrudging self-suppression of his colleague, courteously responded by imparting to him his plans, and treating him in every way as his equal. When drawn up in battle order, Quinctius commanded the right wing, Agrippa the left. The centre was assigned to Sp. Postumius Albus, lieutenant-general; the other lieutenant-general, P. Sulpicius, was given charge of the cavalry. The infantry on the right wing fought splendidly, but met with stout resistance on the side of the Volscians. P. Sulpicius with his cavalry broke the enemy's centre. He could have got back to the main body before the enemy re-formed their broken ranks, but he decided to attack from the rear, and would have scattered the enemy in a moment, attacked as they were in front and rear, had not the cavalry of the Volscians and Aequi, adopting his own tactics, intercepted him and kept him for some time engaged. He shouted to his men that there was no time to lose, they would be surrounded and cut off from their main body if they did not do their utmost to make a finish of the cavalry fight; it was not enough simply to put them to flight, they must dispose of both horses and men, that none might return to the field or renew the fighting. They could not resist those before whom a serried line of infantry had given way.
His words did not fall on deaf ears. In one shock they routed the whole of the cavalry, hurled a vast number from their seats, and drove their lances into the horses. That was the end of the cavalry fight. Next they made a rear attack on the infantry, and when their line began to waver they sent a report to the consuls of what they had done. The news gave fresh courage to the Romans, who were now winning, and dismayed the retreating Aequi. Their defeat began in the centre, where the cavalry charge had thrown them into disorder. Then the repulse of the left wing by the consul Quinctius commenced. The right wing gave more trouble. Here Agrippa, whose age and strength made him fearless, seeing that things were going better in all parts of the field than with him, seized standards from the standard-bearers and advanced with them himself, some he even began to throw amongst the masses of the enemy. Roused at the fear and disgrace of losing them, his men made a fresh charge on the enemy, and in all directions the Romans were equally successful. At this point a message came from Quinctius that he was victorious, and was now threatening the enemy's camp, but would not attack it till he knew that the action on the left wing was decided. If Agrippa had defeated the enemy he was to join him, so that the whole army might together take possession of the spoil. The victorious Agrippa, amidst mutual congratulations, proceeded to his colleague and the enemy's camp. The few defenders were routed in a moment and the entrenchment forced without any resistance. The army was marched back to camp after securing
So it doesn't say that the Roman cavalry 'charged through' the infantry.
"P. Sulpicius with his cavalry broke the enemy's centre. He could have got back to the main body before the enemy re-formed their broken ranks, "
Remembering the financial wealth of the cavalry, it could merely have been the superiority of their equipment and the advantage of height from the horse, which gave them an edge in the standing brawl.
Also it was hardly conclusive as the infantry reformed, so their morale was not broken. Given the small numbers of cavalry in a Roman army, they could have steadily hacked their way through on a narrow front, using the advantages of height and equipment. Then they were about to turn round to try and hack their way back when they get involved in a cavalry fight.
In the cavalry fight Livy talks about a shock which indicates a fierce charge, something he totally fails to mention against the infantry.
Similarly when the Roman cavalry do charge the enemy infantry in the rear, they singularly fail to charge through or scatter them in a moment. They disorder them and the Roman infantry, who are already on top, continue to do their good work
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2018, 12:45:09 PM
So it doesn't say that the Roman cavalry 'charged through' the infantry.
The key sentence is: 'P. Sulpicius with his cavalry broke the enemy's centre.'
In Latin:
P. Sulpicius per mediam hostium aciem cum equitatu perrupit.The keyword here is
perrupit, from
perrumpere, which means: 'to break or rush through; to force one's way through; to break though or force one's way through anything.'
Translating it as 'break' is inaccurate. The Roman cavalry definitely burst through the Volscian infantry centre then needed to decide whether they were going to break through it again and return to their own lines or whether they would wait for the Roman infantry to attack the Volscians from the front whilst they attack them from the rear, turning the Volscians into a hamburger patty and defeating them in short order. The arrival of the Volscian and Aelan cavalry scotched that plan.
The passage makes clear that breaking through infantry does not rout them but disorders them, which disorder proves fatal in the ensuing infantry vs infantry fight.
And whatever formation the Roman cavalry adopted, the leading horsemen were going to have to punch their way individually through a lot of infantry, which they did with ease. I doubt equipment had anything to do with it since if the horses had been stopped in the middle of a mass of foot, that would have been tickets for the riders regardless of how expensive their equipment was.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 03, 2018, 02:07:26 PM
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2018, 12:45:09 PM
So it doesn't say that the Roman cavalry 'charged through' the infantry.
The key sentence is: 'P. Sulpicius with his cavalry broke the enemy's centre.'
In Latin: P. Sulpicius per mediam hostium aciem cum equitatu perrupit.
The keyword here is perrupit, from perrumpere, which means: 'to break or rush through; to force one's way through; to break though or force one's way through anything.'
Translating it as 'break' is inaccurate. The Roman cavalry definitely burst through the Volscian infantry centre then needed to decide whether they were going to break through it again and return to their own lines or whether they would wait for the Roman infantry to attack the Volscians from the front whilst they attack them from the rear, turning the Volscians into a hamburger patty and defeating them in short order. The arrival of the Volscian and Aelan cavalry scotched that plan.
The passage makes clear that breaking through infantry does not rout them but disorders them, which disorder proves fatal in the ensuing infantry vs infantry fight.
And whatever formation the Roman cavalry adopted, the leading horsemen were going to have to punch their way individually through a lot of infantry, which they did with ease. I doubt equipment had anything to do with it since if the horses had been stopped in the middle of a mass of foot, that would have been tickets for the riders regardless of how expensive their equipment was.
I'll leave others to argue about the meaning of the words in Latin, but the fact that the infantry were reforming nearly as fast as the cavalry indicates that they weren't in a particularly bad way.
The problem with the source is that it is about 400 years adrift from the author, so getting too picky about what his words meant is a bit fruitless as he isn't describing something he'd seen.
What we have is a small force of cavalry breaks through the enemy infantry. We know Roman cavalry were supposed, on occasion, to have defeated enemy infantry that they couldn't charge because they'd pushed their way through the ranks of their own infantry to get into combat. There's nothing to say that this isn't what happened this time.
They could have forced their way through moving at a walking pace. Actually not too difficult if they're up against a javelin armed 'auxilia'
But the javelin armed auxilia weren't defeated by this and were reforming almost as fast as the cavalry (in spite of being engaged by Roman infantry to the front) Indeed it could be read that the cavalry had come in fast and the infantry had merely scattered to let them through and were reforming, leaving them for their own cavalry to deal with.
This would fit in with everything else in the text
The Roman cavalry then charge fiercely at the other cavalry, (but aren't mentioned even charging the infantry if we want to be particular with words)
They then attack the enemy infantry from the rear and the infantry line begins to 'waver' because this attack leaves the infantry 'disordered'
Livy doesn't mention that the previous attack disordered the infantry,it certainly didn't upset them as they were reforming.
I suppose the question here is what we are trying to establish.
Is it that Roman cavalry could break through contemporary Italian infantry, which indicates the said infantry were not that great at stopping charging cavalry, or that the said infantry, despite being penetrated, rermained unbroken, which indicates they had morale proof against being broken by cavalry ploughing through their ranks?
As far as I can see, the passage demonstrates both. The Roman cavalry charge through the infantry centre of the Volsci and Aequi, albeit without breaking it. Perrupit, from perrumpo, to break through, is a definite penetration verb, demonstrating that Livy's source clearly stated that the Roman cavalry ploughed through the infantry facing them - only to find themselves in a self-inflicted pickle which they overcame by heroism, quality, inspired leadership or whatever. It could easily have gone the other way.
I do remember there are a number of occasions when Roman cavalry does this sort of charge directly against enemy infantry - at Cremona in 203 BC they do it to 'shake' the opposing Gauls.
If the question is how fast they were moving at contact, it would be more surprising if they could push through and break the enemy ranks at slow speed than at fast speed. All of this anyway suggests that infantry opposition in Italy was not of hoplite quality, which in turn leads one to wonder what happened when Roman cavalry first encountered Greek hoplite infantry.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 03, 2018, 09:37:37 PM
I suppose the question here is what we are trying to establish.
which in turn leads one to wonder what happened when Roman cavalry first encountered Greek hoplite infantry.
Well Polybius wasn't particularly impressed by Roman Cavalry, and at Cannae they were so confident in their horsemanship they dismounted and fought on foot 8)
But by definition he was two centuries after the combat with the Volscians and a lot can change in 200 years. Look at how Hellenic cavalry changed from 450BC to 250BC
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2018, 09:52:22 PM
But by definition he was two centuries after the combat with the Volscians and a lot can change in 200 years. Look at how Hellenic cavalry changed from 450BC to 250BC
That is true. I get the impression that in the intervening centuries the Romans lost a fair bit of their previous elan and picked up a useful change of equipment, courtesy of the Greeks. This suggests they did not do so well in their initial encounters with Greek cavalry.
Greek infantry might also have been something of a surprise to them. :)
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on November 04, 2018, 08:55:16 AM
Quote from: Jim Webster on November 03, 2018, 09:52:22 PM
But by definition he was two centuries after the combat with the Volscians and a lot can change in 200 years. Look at how Hellenic cavalry changed from 450BC to 250BC
That is true. I get the impression that in the intervening centuries the Romans lost a fair bit of their previous elan and picked up a useful change of equipment, courtesy of the Greeks. This suggests they did not do so well in their initial encounters with Greek cavalry.
Greek infantry might also have been something of a surprise to them. :)
Part of the change could have been the infantry they had to deal with. Remember we're not dealing with large numbers of cavalry here so it might have been common practice to allow the cavalry through for your own cavalry to deal with (I remember reading something which said in Italy at one point cavalry seems to have been held back in the reserve.)
The other situation would be when the hillmen closed up to fight Roman infantry and under these circumstances the cavalry seem to have been told to push through their own infantry, so they'd fight with no real momentum and may even have been on foot
Professor Philip Rance has an excellent paper on this. Basically, infantry that stands firm and are prepared for a mounted charge will not be broken through. He cites a number of historical examples to illustrate this.
Quote from: valentinianvictor on November 05, 2018, 11:04:19 AM
Professor Philip Rance has an excellent paper on this. Basically, infantry that stands firm and are prepared for a mounted charge will not be broken through. He cites a number of historical examples to illustrate this.
My take thus far is that spear-armed hoplites could stop javelin-armed cavalry by targeting the riders (there are several Greek vases showing a hoplite outreaching a horseman - he always goes for the rider) but sword- or javelin-armed infantry could not. This possibly suggests why the triarii were spear-armed - precisely to prevent enemy cavalry from penetrating the Roman lines.
My own impression is that missile weapons were pretty useless against fast-moving targets as it was impossible for the shooters to accurately calculate their missiles' flight trajectories with the target constantly closing the distance. So you needed effective melee weapons to stop cavalry.
Which also indicates why lance-armed cavalry were so dangerous against infantry - their lances could outreach the footmen's spears and neutralise the front ranks, allowing the cavalry to burst through the infantry lines before the rear ranks could do anything (KTB or not TB, that is the question..... ::) )
A final note: this might suggest why chariots were good shock weapons against spear-armed infantry: the chariot riders were too far back to be targeted by the spearmen. It all points to spears held overarm not being especially good against horses (and why mediaeval pikemen and others held their pikes underarm and braced the butts in the ground).
Quote from: valentinianvictor on November 05, 2018, 11:04:19 AM
Professor Philip Rance has an excellent paper on this. Basically, infantry that stands firm and are prepared for a mounted charge will not be broken through. He cites a number of historical examples to illustrate this.
Adrian, is this the Foulkon paper or another one? We had some discussion of the Foulkon and Arrian's prototype earlier in the thread.
Rance appears to have expanded upon his paper as it's no longer available on the 'Net.
Quote from: valentinianvictor on November 05, 2018, 01:00:12 PM
Rance appears to have expanded upon his paper as it's no longer available on the 'Net.
It's still here (http://www.legioxxirapax.com/zasoby/Rance2.pdf).
I do not understand what is being claimed/posited in this thread.
It is often unclear as to whether we are claiming that the infantry was defeated by melee from horseback, or defeated by "charging" which I assume we mean is the physical momentum of the horse.
Just as an example...
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 05, 2018, 11:34:06 AM
Which also indicates why lance-armed cavalry were so dangerous against infantry - their lances could outreach the footmen's spears and neutralise the front ranks, allowing the cavalry to burst through the infantry lines before the rear ranks could do anything.
The paragraph begins with talking about reach, which only makes sense from the perspective of melee. But then moves to bursting through which sounds like charging.
The thread seemed to begin with the claim that we could trade horse and rider for at least 8 infantry - a trade so incredibly profitable that a general would throw cavalry away all day for that result. Or is it now we are talking about effectively melee from horseback vs infantry.
Quote from: Dangun on November 22, 2018, 03:44:36 AM
The thread seemed to begin with the claim that we could trade horse and rider for at least 8 infantry - a trade so incredibly profitable that a general would throw cavalry away all day for that result. Or is it now we are talking about effectively melee from horseback vs infantry.
From what I understand, it was outlining the problem faced by infantry because charging horses, or rather men on horses who are moving forward at any sort of useful speed, are incredibly difficult to stop without some sort of coordination by the men on foot. It moved on to how that coordination could be achieved, which essentialy involves the infantry maintaining a formation and hence providing dynamic resistance; a bundle of sticks instead of a mass of single easily-snappable twigs.
Incidentally, I did not see anything to suggest a 'trade' of so many infantry per cavalryman; rather the observation from calculation that an average man on a average horse moving at speed has the capability to knock down 7-8 isolated men in quick succession unless the men on foot act together to resist such occurrences. Hence the proposal that infantry formations acted as a counter to cavalry, and that the considerable depth of early formations gave way to the shallower depths of men who were better protected and coordinated.
Then there is the matter of equipment: even if one's infantry are effectively coordinated to resist the onset of cavalry (which in Greece usually did not mean outright physical contact), is this still effective if the cavalry's weaponry significantly outreaches that of the infantry, transferring the knockdown capability from the impact of the mount to the impact of the lance tip?
If an infantry formation is disrupted by a succession of lance-tips, or indeed any other cause, it can, and presumably does, degrade the infantry to the default state of ordinary men on foot contacted by men on horseback, i.e. uncoordinated individuals easily knocked down or pushed aside.
QuoteIt is often unclear as to whether we are claiming that the infantry was defeated by melee from horseback, or defeated by "charging" which I assume we mean is the physical momentum of the horse.
Maybe because it is a case of 'both and' rather than 'either or'? The charge breaks, or is intended to break, the infantry into a mass of individual targets. This is achieved through a combination of psychology, physical intervention (e.g. lance tips) and a cohesive formation prevailing over a crumbling formation (the cavalry do need their formation; an individual rider ploughing into an infantry unit has a short life expectancy as soon as he slows or is slowed down). Striking down infantrymen may be part of breaking the formation, or the formation may break at contact, allowing the cavalry to strike down infantry without fear of effective retaliation. This killing will happen before, during and after the infantry disintegrate (assuming they do) so can be considered part-cause and part-effect of the infantry formation's disintegration.
For obvious reasons it is difficult to get re-enactors to help clear up the finer - or even the broader - points regarding this. :)
Quote from: Dangun on November 22, 2018, 03:44:36 AM
I do not understand what is being claimed/posited in this thread.
It is often unclear as to whether we are claiming that the infantry was defeated by melee from horseback, or defeated by "charging" which I assume we mean is the physical momentum of the horse.
Just as an example...
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 05, 2018, 11:34:06 AM
Which also indicates why lance-armed cavalry were so dangerous against infantry - their lances could outreach the footmen's spears and neutralise the front ranks, allowing the cavalry to burst through the infantry lines before the rear ranks could do anything.
The paragraph begins with talking about reach, which only makes sense from the perspective of melee. But then moves to bursting through which sounds like charging.
The thread seemed to begin with the claim that we could trade horse and rider for at least 8 infantry - a trade so incredibly profitable that a general would throw cavalry away all day for that result. Or is it now we are talking about effectively melee from horseback vs infantry.
Cavalry had different ways of attacking infantry, and the idea of the thread is to examine how the infantry dealt with the various categories of mounted assaults.
- Heavily armoured cavalry like cataphracts charged infantry then hung around to melee, keeping in formation and deploying in close order so the infantry couldn't surround them.
- Lance-armed Macedonian heavy cavalry and mid-Republican cavalry would charge straight through enemy infantry, delivering a shock charge but not stopping to melee.
- Other cavalry move up in a charge then break off immediately, adopting an open formation to enable horses to retire down their file gaps or otherwise just breaking off as a unit. If a charge was successful in routing the infantry then the cavalry would not break off but press the attack. This seems to have been the case for the Norman knights at Hastings.
How did infantry deal with charges? Several techniques:
- Deploy in very deep lines. Since a horse could smash through only so many infantry ranks before being brought to a halt (with fatal consequences for the rider) it makes sense to use deep formations with 20 or more ranks. The advantage of this is that is requires no additional training of the infantry. Raw recruits - like the conscript armies of the Fertile Crescent - could stand on the battlefield confident the enemy chariots or cavalry would (probably) not charge them provided they simply stood their ground.
- Use weapons effectively. This was done either by fixing the butt-end of a spear in the ground or by using very long spears or pikes. Spears fixed in the ground stopped the horse dead in its tracks (hopefully), whilst long spears or pikes killed the rider before his own weapon could kill the infantryman. A combination of long spears/pikes and butt-ends in ground would be especially effective.
- Bunch up, creating a compact mass a horse could not smash through. This seems to have been the method of the fulkon, which also added spear-in-ground to its anti-cavalry repertoire.
Dealing with cavalry willing to melee seems to have involved the infantry keeping their nerve and getting close and personal with the horsemen, as they could then fight them on more equal terms.
Couple of points.
Do we know that only "Lance-armed Macedonian heavy cavalry and mid-Republican cavalry" aimed to break through enemy infantry without melee? It seems to me we lack evidence on the matter. From the dark days of the "KTB wedge" debate, I recall we have very few detailed examples of the interaction of Macedonian cavalry and infantry, so this emphasis seems strange. And what is the purpose of the break through? Is it just an attempt to break up the formation that has had the good fortune to break through, rather than get bogged down, rather than a completely separate tactic?
Quote from: Erpingham on November 22, 2018, 12:29:10 PM
Couple of points.
Do we know that only "Lance-armed Macedonian heavy cavalry and mid-Republican cavalry" aimed to break through enemy infantry without melee? It seems to me we lack evidence on the matter. From the dark days of the "KTB wedge" debate, I recall we have very few detailed examples of the interaction of Macedonian cavalry and infantry, so this emphasis seems strange. And what is the purpose of the break through? Is it just an attempt to break up the formation that has had the good fortune to break through, rather than get bogged down, rather than a completely separate tactic?
The manuals (Asklepiodotus in particular I think) talk about infantry deploying in a thin line when attacked by cavalry so that relatively few men are affected when the cavalry punch through the line. Roman cavalry punching through infantry is clearly stated in Livy. KTB is a whole new old debate so let's leave it aside for now. I don't know if any other cavalry types punched through infantry in Antiquity (though the manuals imply there were).
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 22, 2018, 12:35:02 PM
The manuals (Asklepiodotus in particular I think) talk about infantry deploying in a thin line when attacked by cavalry so that relatively few men are affected when the cavalry punch through the line.
No they don't, especially not Asclepiodotus!
Quote
Roman cavalry punching through infantry is clearly stated in Livy.
Not it isn't. It's the usual thing - literary source says 'the cavalry broke the enemy infantry'. That can be read in many different ways, one of which is the low level literal way - that the cavalry literally smashed into and broke (or tossed aside) the infantry and passed through unimpeded. Whether this low level literal way is the (or a) correct way is the point at issue - I think it's fair to say 99% of people who have considered the question think it isn't.
Quote
KTB is a whole new old debate so let's leave it aside for now.
Amen to that :)
Quote
I don't know if any other cavalry types punched through infantry in Antiquity (though the manuals imply there were).
Which manuals are those? Some quotes and references would be handy.
QuoteRoman cavalry punching through infantry is clearly stated in Livy.
Medieval cavalry "punched through" infantry on several occassions. It is unclear that was their intention, though. Does Livy clearly state that they cavalry deliberately punched through without initiating hand-to-hand combat?
QuoteKTB is a whole new old debate so let's leave it aside for now.
I agree, but it did show us we have less solid information than we would like to be dogmatic about tactical details.
Quote from: RichT on November 22, 2018, 01:40:42 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on November 22, 2018, 12:35:02 PM
The manuals (Asklepiodotus in particular I think) talk about infantry deploying in a thin line when attacked by cavalry so that relatively few men are affected when the cavalry punch through the line.
No they don't, especially not Asclepiodotus!
It's Aelian:
Tactics, 44:
| A squadron of cavalry forming an oblong square, with a depth double that of its width, is known as a heteromekes [ἑτερομηκης] formation. Such a formation is useful in many situations. It can be adopted to deceive an enemy by the narrowness of its frontage, and to break his line through the weight and density of its configuration. It may also be easily led through defiles without the size of the army being easily perceived.
The infantry formation best suited to oppose this is the transverse phalanx [phalanx plagia, φάλαγξ πλαγία], or oblong formation. Although this formation is easily pierced by the opposing cavalry, its depth is so small that a violent charge by cavalry is hardly felt by the majority of the infantry, but the impetus is mainly wasted on empty space because, being extended laterally, the infantry formation has only a small dimension from front to rear. |
Aelian describes a transverse phalanx in 29:
| The transverse phalanx [phalanx plagia, φάλαγξ πλαγία] has its width much greater than its depth. |
QuoteQuote
Roman cavalry punching through infantry is clearly stated in Livy.
Not it isn't. It's the usual thing - literary source says 'the cavalry broke the enemy infantry'. That can be read in many different ways, one of which is the low level literal way - that the cavalry literally smashed into and broke (or tossed aside) the infantry and passed through unimpeded. Whether this low level literal way is the (or a) correct way is the point at issue - I think it's fair to say 99% of people who have considered the question think it isn't.
I'm not sure what the 99% say but the Latin is clear enough:
| P. Sulpicius per mediam hostium aciem cum equitatu perrupit.
P. Sulpicius with his cavalry broke through the enemy's centre. |
Here is the dictionary definition of
perrumpere, from Lewis and Short (http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=perrupit&la=la&can=perrupit0&prior=equitatu&d=Perseus:text:1999.02.0201:book=3:chapter=70&i=1#Perseus:text:1999.04.0059:entry=perrumpo-contents):
| per-rumpo , rūpi, ruptum, 3, v. n. and
I. [select] a., to break through.
I. [select] Neutr., to break or rush through, to force one's way through: "per medios hostes perrumpunt," Caes. B. G. 6, 39: "in vestibulum templi," Liv. 3, 18: "in urbem," id. 10, 41: "in triclinium usque," Suet. Oth. 8.—Impers. pass.: "nec per castra eorum perrumpi ad Capuam posse," Liv. 26, 7. —
II. [select] Act.
1. [select] In gen., to break through any thing: "ut rates perrumperet," Caes. B. C. 1, 26: "perrumpitur concretus aër," Cic. Tusc. 1, 18, 42: "bipenni Limina," Verg. A. 2, 479: "laterum cratem," Ov. M. 12, 370: "costam," Cels. 8, 9.—
2. [select] In partic., to force one's way through any thing: "paludem," Caes. B. G. 7, 19: "acie perruptā," Vell. 2, 112, 6; Tac. H. 2, 44: "perruptus hostis," id. A. 1, 51: "Acheronta," Hor. C. 1, 3, 36.—
B. [select] Trop., to break through, break down, overcome: "leges," Cic. Off. 3, 8, 36: "periculum," id. Part. 32, 112: "quaestiones," Cic. Verr. 2, 1, 5, § 13: "perrumpi affectu aliquo," Tac. A. 3, 15: "magistratus, qui te invito perrumpunt," overcome your modesty, id. ib. 4, 40: "fastidia," Hor. Ep. 1, 10, 25. |
QuoteQuote
I don't know if any other cavalry types punched through infantry in Antiquity (though the manuals imply there were).
Which manuals are those? Some quotes and references would be handy.
Aelian, as above.
Ah Aelian 44 - I had forgotten that. OK - leaving aside translation (or textual) questions (you have Matthew's translation - do be cautious), compare the chapters preceding and following. If you still think this is good evidence for the 'bowl them over' theory then fine - I wish you well.
Meaning of perrumpere - one last try - is the Latin clearer than the English, 'break through'? Can you think of contexts - military contexts - in which 'break through' is used in English where it doesn't imply 'bowl them over'? If the argument is that in this case (cavalry charging infantry) the Latin must mean 'bowl them over' because cavalry do bowl infantry over, then is that not just begging the question?
I think this topic has no further mileage, though I will in parting mention a perrumpere passage that I think is much better evidence for 'bowl them over' than the one you are using, Livy 8.30.6 (provided you use the right translation!):
"The cavalry, too — at the suggestion of Lucius Cominius, a tribune of the soldiers — after charging a number of times without being able to break [perrumpere] the enemy's lines, pulled the bridles off their horses and spurred them on so hotly that nothing could resist the shock, and arms and men went down before them over a wide front. The foot soldiers, following up the cavalry charge, advanced on the disordered enemy, of whom it is said that twenty thousand were slain that day."
Ta for that example from Livy 8. :)
Putting both quotes in context it seems clear enough that they describe the same thing.
Perrumpere carries the sense of violent contact - smashing through, forcing a passage through - which, with the men and arms going down in Livy 8, clearly shows the horses riding into contact with the infantry. It's interesting to note that the Roman cavalry didn't always succeed in charging through infantry, due, at least in the example you cite, to the horses' unwillingness to press home the charge. Their riders have to remove any excuse for them to stop (bridles off) and spur them (
calcaribus) to keep going. So it wasn't an automatically successful tactic.
| In the battle-line Quinctius held the right wing, Agrippa the left; to Spurius Postumius [p. 239]Albus, the lieutenant, they gave the centre in1 charge; and the other lieutenant, Publius Sulpicius, they put in command of the horse. [3] The infantry on the right fought brilliantly, and were vigorously resisted by the Volsci. [4] Publius Sulpicius broke through the enemy's centre with his cavalry. He might have returned to the Roman side the way he went, before the enemy could re-form their broken ranks; but it seemed better to assail them in the rear. It would have been but the work of a moment to charge them from behind and throw them into confusion between the two attacks; but the Volscian and Aequian cavalry met him with his own kind of troops and held him in check for some little while. [5] Thereupon Sulpicius cried out that there was no time for hesitation; they were surrounded and cut off from their fellows, unless they put forth all their might and disposed of the enemy's cavalry. [6] Nor was it enough to rout them and let them get safely off; they must destroy them, horse and man, that none might ride back into the battle or renew the fight. It would be impossible, he said, for their cavalry to resist his men, when the close ranks of their infantry had given way before them. [7] His words did not fall upon deaf ears. With a single rush the Romans routed the entire body of cavalry. Hurling great numbers of them from their horses, they transfixed men and steeds with their javelins. [8] This ended the cavalry-battle. Then they fell upon the hostile infantry, and sent off gallopers to announce their success to the consuls, where the enemy's line was already beginning to give way.2 The tidings at once aroused fresh ardour in the conquering Romans and [p. 241]filled the faltering Aequi with confusion. [9] It was in the centre that their defeat began, where the attack of the troopers had thrown their ranks into disorder; then the left wing began to fall back before the consul Quinctius. [10] The Romans experienced most difficulty on the right; there Agrippa, young, active, and courageous, perceiving that the battle was everywhere going better than on his own front, snatched the standards from the men who bore them, and began to carry them forward himself, and even to fling some of them into the press of the enemy. The disgrace with which his soldiers were thus threatened spurred them to the attack, and the victory was extended to every part of the line. - Livy 3: 70 |
The tactic has two phases:
1. The Roman cavalry charge through the enemy infantry to the other side of their line. This does not rout the infantry but disorders them.
2. The Roman infantry and cavalry then execute a combined attack against the shaken enemy line from two directions. This is enough to rout the enemy infantry.
The Volsci cavalry on the wings gallop around the rear of their infantry to engage the Roman cavalry before they can execute Part 2. Sulpicius knows they must defeat the Volsci cavalry or be annihilated - they are surrounded, with enemy infantry on one side, cavalry on two sides and the enemy camp on the fourth side. I imagine he split his cavalry command into two parts, each of which attacked the enemy cavalry coming in from each wing. The Romans win the cavalry engagement and are now free to execute Part 2 with predictable results.
| The expedition into Samnium was attended with ambiguous auspices; but the flaw in them took effect, not in the outcome of the war, which was waged successfully, but in the animosities and madness of the generals. [2] for Papirius, the dictator, as he was setting out for Rome, on the advice of the keeper of the sacred chickens, to take the auspices afresh, warned the master of the horse to remain in his position, and not to engage in battle with the enemy while he himself was absent. [3] when Quintus Fabius had ascertained from his scouts —after the departure of the dictator —that [4] the enemy were in all respects as careless and unguarded as if there had been not a single Roman in Samnium, whether it was that the spirited young man felt aggrieved that all power should seem to be vested in the dictator, or that lie was tempted by the opportunity of striking a successful blow, he put the army in fighting trim, and advancing upon a place they call Imbrinium, engaged in a pitched battle with the Samnites. [5] this engagement was so fortunate that no greater success could have been gained, had the dictator been present; the general failed not his men, nor the men their general. [6] The cavalry, too —at the suggestion of Lucius Cominius, a tribune of the soldiers —after charging a number of times without being able to break the enemy's lines, pulled the bridles off their horses and spurred them on so hotly that nothing could resist the shock, and arms and men went down before them over a wide front. [7] The foot soldiers, following up the cavalry charge, advanced on the disordered enemy, [p. 117]of whom it is said that twenty thousand were slain1 that day. - Livy 8: 30 |
If 20 000 enemy foot (or at least a lot of enemy foot) were slain that implies they could not flee the battlefield since the Roman cavalry were in their rear, performing the same job on them that the Roman cavalry had performed in 3:70.
I wonder if the Roman trick of advancing their cavalry through their infantry was done so the enemy infantry would be surprised by the ensuing cavalry charge, and not have time to prepare for it.
Does any ruleset replicate this tactic?
Quote from: Duncan Head on October 12, 2018, 09:05:15 AM
Quote from: Xenophon, Anabasis 3.2.18-19But if anyone of you is despondent because we are without horsemen while the enemy have plenty at hand, let him reflect that your ten thousand horsemen are nothing more than ten thousand men; for nobody ever lost his life in battle from the bite or kick of a horse, but it is the men who do whatever is done in battles. Moreover, we are on a far surer foundation than your horsemen: they are hanging on their horses' backs, afraid not only of us, but also of falling off; while we, standing upon the ground, shall strike with far greater force if anyone comes upon us and shall be far more likely to hit whomsoever we aim at. In one point alone your horsemen have the advantage—flight is safer for them than it is for us.
Has he forgotten the horse of Artybius? The shield kicking horse, who lost his legs to a Carian sickle. One thinks as well of Baron Marbot's Lisette.
Quote from: PMBardunias on December 04, 2018, 05:06:02 AM
One thinks as well of Baron Marbot's Lisette.
For those unacquainted with this particular steed, take a peek here (https://cavalrytales.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/one-end-bites-the-other-end-kicks/).