Heavy cavalry charging infantry

[Justin Swanton]

I've recently submitted an article on the Macedonian cavalry wedge, and the subject got me thinking about cavalry charges in general.

For the Macedonians, my hypothesis is that they passed right through the infantry line via the gaps between files, and hence did not present a vulnerable target.

Heavily protected cavalry like cataphracts went in shoulder-to-shoulder and after the initial impact stayed around for melee combat, the protected pack of armoured horses and riders likewise not presenting a vulnerable target.

But what about less protected horses and riders? A mediaeval knight for example? When the horses charged into the infantry they would be stopped by the mass of footmen in front of them. This would immediately make the horse, and to a lesser extent the rider, an exposed target. Mediaeval horses were not protected, hence they would be gravely wounded in their first combat, having to be slaughtered after the battle. How many horses did a mediaeval knight possess? If they were killed outright the knight would be unhorsed and find himself facing several enemy infantry at once.

The only way unarmoured or partially armoured cavalry could succeed against infantry would be if the infantry immediately panicked under the impact of the charge and began running. Did this happen every time? Could heavy cavalry count on this happening every time?

If the infantry did not panic at the first charge, how easy would it be for the cavalry to break off? The front rank of horsemen are immobile and exposed, and will quickly die, followed by the second rank, and so on. How long before the rear ranks - who block the front ranks' line of escape - get the message and back away?

The more I think about it the more the idea of heavy cavalry (except cataphracts) charging infantry seems a highly risky undertaking, but they did it regularly with great success. How did they pull it off?

[Erpingham]

But what about less protected horses and riders? A mediaeval knight for example?

Horse armour was actually pretty common from 13th century onwards.  Mainly padded and leather but mail and plate too.

When the horses charged into the infantry they would be stopped by the mass of footmen in front of them. This would immediately make the horse, and to a lesser extent the rider, an exposed target.

Indeed.  If the infantry stood their ground, the cavalry were very vulnerable.  The trick seems to have been to keep the horse moving - it made it difficult for anyone to grab the reins, unseat the rider or get in under the horse for hamstringing or disembowelling.  The horses were trained to lash out too.

Mediaeval horses were not protected, hence they would be gravely wounded in their first combat, having to be slaughtered after the battle. How many horses did a mediaeval knight possess? If they were killed outright the knight would be unhorsed and find himself facing several enemy infantry at once.

On protection, see above.  Horse casualties were high in combat, which is why most armies into the 14th century operated an insurance scheme to replace lost horses.  Otherwise knights would be tempted not to risk their horses.

Most ordinary men-at-arms had only one warhorse during most of the Middle Ages - most sets of "lance" regulations show only one horse per man, or perhaps one spare riding horse.  15th century Italian lances had a lot of horses, which Michael Mallet certainly believed were to allow changes in battle, but even then there aren't many more than one per man.  It should be noted that the great hero Bayard, having lost his horse in combat with Swiss pikes at Marignano, had to borrow a remount.  Wealthier men, of course, had several horses.  Even so, leaders often lost horses in combat but  were remounted by a member of their household dismounting and giving up their horse (and often their lives).  So, even if spare horses were available, resupply in action was a problem.

In a cavalry infantry fight, we could therefore expect to see a number dismounted cavalry trying either to get clear of the fighting or fighting on on foot. 

Overall, the impression of the contact edge of a cavalry/infantry melee is not one of ranks & files but of intermixing and churning

[Patrick Waterson]

Justin asks a very pertinent question which is in fact several questions.

For mediaeval combat, Anthony's excursus covers the essentials quite nicely.

For classical-period combat, we are looking at rather different traditions.  Consider this extract from Ammianus' description of the battle of Adrianople:

On every side armour and weapons clashed, and Bellona, raging with more than usual madness for the destruction of the Romans, blew her lamentable war-trumpets; our soldiers who were giving way rallied, exchanging many encouraging shouts, but the battle, spreading like flames, filled their hearts with terror, as numbers of them were pierced by strokes of whirling spears and arrows.

[2] Then the lines dashed together like beaked ships, pushing each other back and forth in turn, and tossed about by alternate movements, like waves at sea.  And because the left wing, which had made its way as far as the very wagons, and would have gone farther if it had had any support, being deserted by the rest of the cavalry, was hard pressed by the enemy's numbers, it was crushed, and overwhelmed, as if by the downfall of a mighty rampart. The foot-soldiers thus stood unprotected, and their companies were so crowded together that hardly anyone could pull out his sword or draw back his arm. Because of clouds of dust the heavens could no longer be seen, and echoed with frightful cries. Hence the arrows [tela = weapons] whirling death [vibrantia = hurl or move rapidly] from every side always found their mark with fatal effect, since they could not be seen beforehand nor guarded against.

[3] But when the barbarians, pouring forth in huge hordes, trampled down horse and man, and in the press of ranks no room for retreat could be gained anywhere, and the increased crowding left no opportunity for escape, our soldiers also, showing extreme contempt of falling in the fight, received their death-blows, yet struck down their assailants; and on both sides the strokes of axes split helmet and breastplate.

[4] Here one might see a barbarian filled with lofty courage, his cheeks contracted in a hiss, hamstrung or with right hand severed, or pierced through the side, on the very verge of death threateningly casting about his fierce glance; and by the fall of the combatants on both sides the plains were covered with the bodies of the slain strewn over the ground, while the groans of the dying and of those who had suffered deep wounds caused immense fear when they were heard.

[5] In this great tumult and confusion the infantry, exhausted by their efforts and the danger, when in turn strength and mind for planning anything were lacking, their lances [hastarum = spears] for the most part broken by constant clashing, content to fight with drawn swords, plunged into the dense masses of the foe, regardless of their lives, seeing all around that every loophole of escape was lost.

[6] The ground covered with streams of blood whirled their slippery foothold from under them, so they could only strain every nerve to sell their lives dearly; and they opposed the onrushing foe with such great resolution that some fell by the weapons of their own comrades.  Finally, when the whole scene was discoloured with the hue of dark blood, and wherever men turned their eyes heaps of slain met them, they trod upon the bodies of the dead without mercy.

[7]  Now the sun had risen higher, and when it had finished its course though Leo, and was passing into the house of the heavenly Virgo, scorched the Romans, who were more and more exhausted by hunger and worn out by thirst, as well as distressed by the heavy burden of their armour. Finally our line was broken by the onrushing weight of the barbarians, and since that was the only resort in their last extremity, they took to their heels in disorder as best they could. - Ammianus XXXI.13.1-7

Note the extensive use of missiles, the mass attacks that resulted in ongoing melees, and the final charge that broke the still-fighting Romans.  Filtering out the more purple elements of Ammianus' prose, the Gothic cavalry appear to have relied on a combination of missiles and charges to wear down the Roman infantry (and the Gothic infantry undoubtedly played their part) until a final charge broke what was left of Roman cohesion and morale.

At least that is how I read it.

[Erpingham]

Excuse my ignorance here but I'm having difficulty extracted the cavalry tactics from this.  Should I assume the barbarians who pour forth are cavalry and the infantry are Romans?  Whichever, this seems to start with missile throwing then everything decends into a huge confused melee.  I'm a bit surprised with this, and I had ancient cavalry as "don't get bogged down in an infantry melee " types.

[aligern]

We have debated this one before and the input that. I took fromnthat is that we need to start with the meaning of the word 'charge'.
Is a charge a move that results in contact?
Does that contact have to be a matter of crashing into the infantry, or can contact be a matter of the cavalry stopping in front of the infantry and poking at them with spears or hacking with swords.
Would it still be contact if the cavlry went in fast and then halted to throw javelins or shoot arrows,
Would it be a charge if the cavlry came on at speed and before reaching the opposing line, made a half  turn, threw javelins, shot arrows, and then made another turn and raced away, or moved along the infantry front shooting , turning away after some distance.
Is it still a charge if the cavalry trit in, canter in or do they have to go in full gallop.
Is it a charge if the cavalry crash in to the infantry.

We are unlikely to get detailed descriptions from Ancient sources that answer the above. If you are Ammianus Marcellinus and cavalry (which you have plenty of experience with) always charge at the trot , then, when you observe a unit going into contact at Cromwell's 'pretty round trot' you will describe it as a hard fast charge because you just do not conceive horse galloping in to contact.

We are also not gifted with battle descriptions of cavalry charges where the author was there, took part and stands enough above the battle to describe events without the suspicion  that this is a literary exercise with the portrayal dependent upon Homeric concepts or the necessity of showing Roman virtue or your iwn nations superiority over cowardly foreigners.

Also in my mind are the descriptions of charges from the seventeenth through to the nineteenth centuries, Cavalry are universally praised by late nineteenth century historians, for acting as the arme blanche, for charging in without using firepower, in a shallow formation knee to knee, sword in hand and rast. Yet for  a long period cavalry went in more deliberately, used missile weapons and were iften firmed deep. I am not so sure that the latter tactics can have been so inefficient and we should pause to consider why these supposedly bad tactics prevail for a couple of centuries when the generals have befire them, the example of shalliw formation fast charges by knights and Eastern European lancers .
So I think we have to be really careful that what we mean by a charge is oroperly defined. Parthian cataphracts seem at Carrhae to have advanced on Crassus' legionaries, stabbing them with their contus  and crowding them together. That seems to have beemn sliw and deliberate rather than impactful.  I suspect that at Adrianople the zgoths are advancing slow  and to the Roman infantry and exchanging blows, pushing the Legions back until they are too crowded to defend themselves. Byzantine manuals speak of menaulatoi, men with thick spears who are there to orevent enemy cataphracts breaking into the Greek foot formation by shattering the thinner spears of the Byzantine foot and then coming to melee them at a disadvantage. The menaulia are much stronger and will hold the cataphracts off.
Horsemen have an incredible advantage when fighting against foot. The foot man has to strike upwards abnd that is enfeebling, whereas the horseman's downward strike gathers power. Also the horse is pushing at one level and the man is striking from a higher level so the footman has two oppinents to cope with. Dded to this hirses can rear and kick. The footman faces a problem drawing back his spear as he his his comrades behind, the hoseman's butt spike rises into the ir, unhindered.

Roy

[Patrick Waterson]

Please allow me to excuse Ammianus, who when he writes about a battle tends to get excited, and when he gets excited he ceases to differentiate between what cavalry and infantry are doing (one can see this in his account of Argentoratum, too).

Trying to pry out exactly who is doing what to whom is a bit challenging, but it looks as if we get the following:

"Then the lines dashed together like beaked ships, pushing each other back and forth in turn, and tossed about by alternate movements, like waves at sea."

This looks like a good old classical cavalry fight, with the usual back-and-forth manoeuvres.

"And because the left wing, which had made its way as far as the very wagons, and would have gone farther if it had had any support, being deserted by the rest of the cavalry, was hard pressed by the enemy's numbers, it was crushed, and overwhelmed ..."

Here we have an isolated cavalry contingent trapped and slaughtered by a superior cavalry force which caught it with nowhere to go .

"The foot-soldiers thus stood unprotected ..."

Their cavalry, at least on that wing, had left or been butchered.  Hence we can deduce or infer that the following passage refers to the foot soldiers and their Gothic cavalry assailants:

"Hence the arrows [tela = weapons] whirling death [vibrantia = hurl or move rapidly] from every side always found their mark with fatal effect, since they could not be seen beforehand nor guarded against."

These 'weapons' were presumably javelins, which normally a foot soldier could intercept with his shield or dodge.  So far so good, the Gothic cavalry shoot down their targets from a distance, but then ...

"But when the barbarians, pouring forth in huge hordes, trampled down horse and man, and in the press of ranks no room for retreat could be gained anywhere, and the increased crowding left no opportunity for escape ..."

Here it looks as if Ammianus may be back to cavalry vs cavalry, although it is not 100% clear.  Is Roman cavalry being crowded against Roman infantry?

" ... our soldiers also, showing extreme contempt of falling in the fight, received their death-blows, yet struck down their assailants; and on both sides the strokes of axes split helmet and breastplate."

This may indeed be cavalry vs cavalry or infantry vs infantry, because it would be hard for an infantryman with an axe to split a cavalryman's helmet.

Now comes the tricky bit:

"In this great tumult and confusion the infantry, exhausted by their efforts and the danger, when in turn strength and mind for planning anything were lacking, their lances [hastarum = spears] for the most part broken by constant clashing, content to fight with drawn swords, plunged into the dense masses of the foe ..."

The infantry have obviously been using their spears, but against whom?  The Gothic cavalry, infantry or both?  They seem at any rate to have overcome their compression problem if they can draw swords and plunge into the foe's dense masses.  But are they plunging into dense masses of infantry or of cavalry?

"... they opposed the onrushing foe with such great resolution that some fell by the weapons of their own comrades ..."

This has been taken to signify that they were so crowded that men were forced onto friendly weapon-points.  However "ut etiam telis quidam propriis interirent" may mean that they slew opponents with the enemy's own weapons, which would accord with their 'great resolution'.  This would be easier against enemy infantry, but still possible against enemy cavalry.

"Finally our line was broken by the onrushing weight of the barbarians ..."

The translator renders 'incumbente' (weighty, overbearing) as 'onrushing' both here and in the previous extract.  In essence, the Roman line buckled under pressure - but cavalry pressure, infantry pressure or both?

It looks like both: the Roman cavalry appear to have had the worst of the engagement and perished or decamped, leaving the infantry to be worn down by the Gothic infantry and cavalry.  The way I read the situation is that the Gothic cavalry initially poured in missiles while the Gothic infantry came to grips, then the Gothic cavalry moved in to surround the Roman infantry and keep up a steady pressure on flanks and rear.  The Roman infantry tried to cut their way out and may have managed to repulse their assailants more than once, but the Goths kept pressing them until they broke.

When they broke, "all scattered in flight over unknown paths" (Amianus XXXI.13.10) and Valentinian found himself with two formations, the Mattiarii and Lanciarii, with Victor attempting to bring up the Batavii, who had been posted in reserve but were no longer there.  The rest of the Roman army was being pursued:

"Besides all this, the roads were blocked by many who lay mortally wounded, lamenting the torment of their wounds; and with them also mounds of fallen horses filled the plains with corpses." - Ammianus XXXI.13.11

These fallen horses were at least in part Roman, but would they all have been Roman, or would some signify where Roman infantry had made a stand against Gothic cavalry?

One can see the Gothic cavalry starting out with the expected missile treatment, but then it is possible that they closed in to surround and pressurise the Roman infantry formations.  Against the prospect of a complete surrounding is the fact that Valens, deprived of his (mounted) bodyguard, comes across a couple of auxilia formations and Victor goes off to look for another known to be nearby, fails to find it and decamps, Ricimer and Saturninus apparently managing to do the same.  That the Romans managed to flee down various paths and tracks also suggests the encirclement was less than complete.

It does seem unlikely that the Gothic infantry alone would have managed to break a Roman infantry line through pressure.  I get the impression that the Gothic cavalry, having seen off their outnumbered Roman equivalents, joined in the melee once they had exhausted their missiles.

And Roy makes some useful points about cavalry advantages in melee.  How I read Adrianople is that the Gothic cavalry started out using missiles against the Roman foot, then closed in when their opponents were obviously seriously disadvantaged and the cavalry would be unlikely to collect the usual bloody nose from meleeing formed infantry.  Assuming this was still the usual outcome for cavalry meleeing infantry as of AD 378 ...

[Jim Webster]

The more I think about it the more the idea of heavy cavalry (except cataphracts) charging infantry seems a highly risky undertaking, but they did it regularly with great success. How did they pull it off?

Perhaps they just didn't do it very often. How many examples have we got of mounted troops who weren't cataphracts successfully charging formed up close order infantry?

Horsemen have an incredible advantage when fighting against foot. The foot man has to strike upwards abnd that is enfeebling, whereas the horseman's downward strike gathers power. Also the horse is pushing at one level and the man is striking from a higher level so the footman has two opponents to cope with. Dded to this horses can rear and kick. The footman faces a problem drawing back his spear as he his his comrades behind, the horseman's butt spike rises into the ir, unhindered.

Roy

Not sure about this, once the horse is stopped kicking is to the rear (which tends to be other horsemen). If it rears up (and doesn't throw the rider) then the rider is out of the equation because he's desperately hanging on. If the horse rears up, it exposes vast quantities of soft underbelly to the second rank of infantry who're standing about with spears wondering where to stick them

Also remember that whilst the rider has the advantage of height, the horse doesn't, and its throat is at nice slashing height.
Yes, attacking the horse might upset it, but it's probably upset already and there's the advantage that if you really upset it then it might die, run away or throw the bastard on its back onto the ground where he can take his change with the rest of you.

My suspicion is that if mounted get caught in a long drawn out melee with infantry who don't run away, they're dead. Look at the Persian cavalry caught at Plataea.

Jim

[aligern]

Just to interpose  something we know about the Gothic army, it had lots of foot archers so rather than their cavalry (despite a few Huns) shooting into the Roman mass I would expect the arrows to be coming from the wagonburg.  The Goth foot archers standing upon the wagons shoot down the advancing Romans and then the infantry pour forth.
Roy

[aligern]

Jim, I would agree that the cavalry have a severe problem if the infantry, like early Germans who had specialised anti cavalry attack units of light infantry) were trained to deal with the stalled horse. However, lots of infantry would not be so trained and so there would be a stand off as the infantrymen protected themselves and backed off. However, if you have chaps with Danish axes or halberds which are designed to pull cavalry off the horse then the infantry are back on top.
As to kicking, medieval warhorses were trained to do it  and I doubt that any but very brave infantry would get in close once the horse started lashing out. Remember the rider has trained with the horse to do this, it is not a question of the Greek commander saying who was ever hurt by a horse! When the knight is standing in the stirrups and skashing down as the horse lashes out it will ge a very bold infantryman who can get to the horse's throat.

Roy

[Jim Webster]

Jim, I would agree that the cavalry have a severe problem if the infantry, like early Germans who had specialised anti cavalry attack units of light infantry) were trained to deal with the stalled horse. However, lots of infantry would not be so trained and so there would be a stand off as the infantrymen protected themselves and backed off.

That's the advantage of the eight or ten ranks of infantry, the back ranks stop the front ranks backing off.

However, if you have chaps with Danish axes or halberds which are designed to pull cavalry off the horse then the infantry are back on top.
As to kicking, medieval warhorses were trained to do it  and I doubt that any but very brave infantry would get in close once the horse started lashing out. Remember the rider has trained with the horse to do this, it is not a question of the Greek commander saying who was ever hurt by a horse! When the knight is standing in the stirrups and skashing down as the horse lashes out it will ge a very bold infantryman who can get to the horse's throat.

Roy

No, just the man in the rank behind who's comparatively safe and has a spear.
I've been around horses a bit, and the front end is mainly dangerous because it bites. If it lashes out, then it has to transfer the weight backwards onto the hind legs and rear up. When it does that the rider isn't slashing down on anybody much, because he no longer has the reach
A horse doing that is a bluidy nightmare, but he's a bluidy nightmare to the riders on either side of him as well, because gods alone know where the damned thing is going to come crashing down. Probably straight forward, but remember that as the horse rises up, it's front feet get further away from the infantry in front, and nearer to the helmets of the horsemen on both sides.


The back legs can kick forward, (The cow kick) but they cannot reach much further forward than the rider's legs.
Horses using their back legs to kick will be a nightmare for the other members of the cavalry formation because other horses are most likely to be the victims. If you have a rider so isolated that his horse can lash out without hitting other horses, that man is in serious trouble because he has four or five infantry (plus rear ranks) to worry about.

Jim

[Erpingham]

A useful place to look for combat between knights and infantry are the accounts of the Battle of Coutrai.  If you have Verbruggen's book The Battle of the Golden Spurs you'll see Verbruggen's paraphrases and some quotes.

If we look at those accounts, we see most French charges are not described in any detail but Artois' final charge is described as the "fiercest since Roncevaulx".  Not all charges were as well pressed home, clearly.  Some  points which may help our reconstruction efforts


*The Flemish infantry had "orders of the day" to kill the horses, then deal with the men.
*A charge broke into the formation of the men of the Franc of Bruges and forced them back.  They would have broken if not for the intervention of the Flemish reserve (yes, a counter-attacking infantry reserve - who would have thought it). 
*Willem van Julich, one of the Flemish commanders, was ridden down by Geoffrey of Brabant in what was clearly a deliberate attack.  Julich's standard bearer also went down but Brabant's horse was killed and he fell to his death.  Julich was carried to the rear but his standard bearer raised the banner again to show he was still in the fight. 
*Artois' charge hit the Ghent contingent and he cut deep into it, grabbing and tearing the Ghent standard. (He can't have been the only man to reach the standards - the Ghent standard bearer was apparently knocked to his knees four times)  He was surrounded but his mounted combat skills and the strength of his horse were such he cut himself clear, only to charge back in again.  This time two men attacked him.  One killed his horse and the other knocked Artois to the ground.  He attempted to surrender but appears to have been mobbed and hacked to death.

So, what can we take from this?  That these cavalry at least didn't just canter up and hit a few pikes with their lances - they got stuck in.   The fights were hard and chaotic - the cavalry trying to cut through the infantry or get them to give way, the infantry agressively fighting to retain their formation and use weight of numbers to mob the enemy.

[Patrick Waterson]

Going back in time a bit to the classical world (it always seems to turn up) we can look at a couple of actions where cavalry of the usual Mediterranean sort (not Companions and not Cataphracts) do slam into infantry formations and do quite well out of it.

They charge in from behind.

First we have Polybius III.73-74 and Mago's participation at the Trebia.

The heavy-armed soldiers, however, who were in the front rank of both armies, and in the centre of that, maintained an obstinate and equal fight for a considerable time.

Just then the Numidians, who had been lying in ambush, left their hiding-place, and by a sudden charge on the centre of the Roman rear produced great confusion and alarm throughout the army.

That the Numidians, whom we would normally classify as skirmishing types, came to close quarters on this occasion is indicated by the following:

After this, while the centre of the Roman rear was losing heavily, and suffering severely from the attack of the Numidian ambuscade, their front, thus driven to bay, defeated the Celts and a division of Africans, and, after killing a large number of them, succeeded in cutting their way through the Carthaginian line.

The impetus of the Numidian charge may, if the Roman formation lacked intervals from front to rear, have assisted the Roman infantry to break through its opponents.  However at Trasimene it proved able to do this unaided, and at Cannae the Carthaginian cavalry attack in the Roman rear definitely subtracted from rather than enhanced Roman effectiveness.

Roman revenge time now, and the closing stages of the Battle of Zama (Polybius XV.14).

Being nearly equal in numbers, spirit, courage, and arms, the battle was for a long time undecided, the men in their obstinate valour falling dead without giving way a step; until at last the divisions of Massanissa and Laelius, returning from the pursuit, arrived providentially in the very nick of time.

Upon their charging Hannibal's rear, the greater part of his men were cut down in their ranks; while of those who attempted to fly very few escaped with their life, because the horsemen were close at their heels and the ground was quite level.

Classical period cavalry do seem to have been able to close and melee with effect, but not as a rule frontally against infantry.  'As a rule' is important here, because Livy preserves a number of occasions when Roman cavalry did frontally charge infantry opponents, and on at least one occasion seem to have been successful.

[Andreas Johansson]

So, what can we take from this?  That these cavalry at least didn't just canter up and hit a few pikes with their lances - they got stuck in.

There's notices from the Italian wars about individual gendarmes hacking their way into pike blocks when the general charge bounces.

There's also a bit from the Landshuter War of Succession about heavy cavalry riding down Bohemian infantry uphill behind a pavise wall.

[aligern]

Pijes are particularly useless once you are inside the formation, esoecially f an armoured knight upon an armoured mount is laying about him to all sides.
The 21st lancers charged right through a Dervish unit in the Sudan Wars . They lost some men, but emerged out of tge rear of the Dervish firce, gained higher ground and drove them off with carbine fire.
R