How did infantry stop charging cavalry?

[Justin Swanton]

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).

[RichT]

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!

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.

KTB is a whole new old debate so let's leave it aside for now.

Amen to that

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.

[Erpingham]

Roman 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?

KTB 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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

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:

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.

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.

[RichT]

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."

[Justin Swanton]

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?

[PMBardunias]

But 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.

[Patrick Waterson]

One thinks as well of Baron Marbot's Lisette.

For those unacquainted with this particular steed, take a peek here.