A taxonomy of cavalry

[Andreas Johansson]

I think Mark's saying that shock cavalry aren't well described as "nutters".

I wasn't aiming for good description with any of the names - "shooters" is probably the worst -, just trying for convenient labels.

[Patrick Waterson]

I think Asclepiodotus' scheme of (surprise surprise) three types is fair. Shock cavalry who charge into contact (whatever that means). Skirmish cavalry who avoid contact and throw or shoot stuff. Intermediate cavalry who ride up, fall back, throw some stuff, charge if the time is right. How to model all this on the table, who knows?

One could of course try something like knights, light horse and cavalry to cover these but, as Richard hints, the devil is in the interactive details.

I recall Xenophon describing an encounter between Agesilaus' Greek cavalry and some Persian cavalry (but alas not the reference).  Both would seem to be 'intermediate' but the Greek cavalry's spears (dorata) tended to break while the Persian javelins (palta) proved more durable and at close quarters more serviceable and essentially won the Persians the action.

This is a tricky one to try and model: WRG rules would have both as 'javelin/light spear' armed 'heavy cavalry' types, with the Greeks as 'Regular C' and the Persians as 'Irregular B'.  The Persians would thus be favourites to win, but this is because the random factor would be in their favour ('B' class cannot go worse than -1) rather than because the difference in weaponry is directly represented.  It works (sort of) by conferring the right amount of advantage for what is technically the wrong reason.

The lesson seems to be that one adjusts what one can within one's system to get whatever results one considers worth modelling.  However the parameter(s) involved may not be the logical, or even the obvious, ones, rather those which create the right amount of advantage or imbalance.

[RichT]

That would be Xen. Hell. 3.4.13-14

"when he was not far from Dascyleium, his horsemen, who were going on ahead of him, rode to the top of a hill so as to see what was in front. And by chance the horsemen of Pharnabazus, under the command of Rhathines and Bagaeus, his bastard brother, just about equal to the Greek cavalry in number, had been sent out by Pharnabazus and likewise rode to the top of this same hill. And when the two squadrons saw one another, not so much as four plethra1 apart, at first both halted, the Greek horsemen being drawn up four deep like a phalanx, and the barbarians with a front of not more than twelve, but many men deep. Then, however, the barbarians charged. When they came to a hand-to-hand encounter (ὡς δ᾽ εἰς χεῖρας ἦλθον), all of the Greeks who struck anyone broke their spears, while the barbarians, being armed with javelins of cornel-wood, speedily killed twelve men and two horses. Thereupon the Greeks were turned to flight. But when Agesilaus came to the rescue with the hoplites, the barbarians withdrew again and one of them was killed."

To be honest I think this is precisely the sort of detail that we shouldn't even try to model in wargames rules (and that this is what random factors are for).

To go off piste a bit from cavalry taxonomy, when writing accounts of battles historians (ancient and modern) will often pick up on some small detail and present it as decisive in the outcome of the action (long spears, sturdy spears, fresh horses, aiming at faces, sun in their eyes, wind in their faces, mud underfoot, noble spirits, slavish barbarian uselessness and so on and so forth). Anyone reading all these accounts and trying to incorporate all these factors into a model or wargame will end up with a horrible unplayable game and not learn anything useful about warfare (because the selection of decisive factors in any given action, while not entirely random and no doubt with a basis in fact, has more to do with constructing a compelling narrative than with detailed analysis of causes and outcomes). This is where deciding what factors to include and what to exclude is such a fine art (and my inclination now is to err way on the side of exclusion).

[Erpingham]

The other problem with this event is does it show an underlying superiority of Persian Cavalry over Greek, have a relevance only to these two bodies (e.g. Good persians v. mediocre Greeks) or, as Richard says, really just rely on circumstances and so is best thought of as fortunes of war and covered by a random factor.  As Richard says, interpreting and generalising from history to create plausible rules as a fine art.

[Mark G]

Andreas,

There is a difference between classifying by pejorative and descriptive.

Shooters may be woefully inaccurate in a pre shot era, but to most readers it does describe missile armed.

Nutters not only covers hard charging, but also uncontrollable un trained, near suicidal.

Quite a difference.

[Duncan Head]

That would be Xen. Hell. 3.4.13-14

... the Greek horsemen being drawn up four deep like a phalanx, and the barbarians with a front of not more than twelve, but many men deep.

To be honest I think this is precisely the sort of detail that we shouldn't even try to model in wargames rules (and that this is what random factors are for).

Though some rules have tried to model the greater depth here exhibited by the Persians - DBM (at least some editions thereof) allowed Cav to count a plus for a second supporting element (though MM's given up on that). In our "pushing" debate we observed that Polybios claimed that cavalry were no use deeper than eight ranks, but that still might mean that deep Persians had an advantage over Greeks only four deep. Whether we "should" try to model that depends a lot on the level of the game and on personal preference for amoount of detail.

[Andreas Johansson]

Andreas,

There is a difference between classifying by pejorative and descriptive.

Shooters may be woefully inaccurate in a pre shot era, but to most readers it does describe missile armed.

Nutters not only covers hard charging, but also uncontrollable un trained, near suicidal.

Quite a difference.

Apparently, we've got different connotations for "nutters". Anyway, the names are not, or should not be, important: feel free to think of them as "shock cavalry" or "knights" if you prefer.

(The problem I had in mind with "shooters", BTW, is that three of the other five classes also shoot.)

[RichT]

Duncan:

Though some rules have tried to model the greater depth here exhibited by the Persians - DBM (at least some editions thereof) allowed Cav to count a plus for a second supporting element (though MM's given up on that).

Which is interesting (if it is based solely on this account), given that Xenophon doesn't say or imply that the greater depth gave the Persians any advantage at all. But depth of cavalry is (as we said in the depth thread) a strange business.

Whether we "should" try to model that depends a lot on the level of the game and on personal preference for amount of detail.

Indeed - I expressed it poorly. By "we shouldn't" I mean only "I wouldn't want to". Though I do believe that whatever your preferences, rules with this level of detail won't tell you much useful about ancient warfare, even though they might correctly model one particular account in one particular author of one particular encounter. But of course, YMMV.

While I'm typing (and sorry to further hijack thread), here's a mechanism that captures the flavour of ancient accounts while not drowning players in detail. In place of rolling D6s to generate random numbers, have cards with appropriate values (-3 to +3 or whatever), plus flavour text (an ancient quote, even) explaining the result. Each army gets its own set with appropriately themed cards, eg

Greeks:
Flimsy spears break on impact -1
Sturdy long spears outreach opponents +1
etc

Persians
Strong cornel-wood javelins +1
Wearing trousers enfeebles the men -1
etc

Same range of outcomes. Flavourful explanations. Same degree of hindsight among players as for real commanders (ie none). Or - just roll dice and use your imagination...

[Patrick Waterson]

Persians

Wearing trousers enfeebles the men -1

This is the first time I have really appreciated the importance of good military tailoring ...

[willb]

Late Roman/Early Byzantine armored bow cavalry - shooters?

Bow-and-lance I think.

No lance.  Bow and sword only.  May also apply to some Sassanian heavy cavalry with bow only.

[Patrick Waterson]

Late Roman/Early Byzantine armored bow cavalry - shooters?

Bow-and-lance I think.

No lance.  Bow and sword only.

Not so sure about that - see here.

There is also Maurice's description in the Strategikon:

The Strategikon's author gives us a fair picture of the Byzantine army and its troops, including the equipment borrowed from the Herules, Goths, Slavs and especially the Avars, once barbarian enemies all. Cavalrymen should have "hooded coats of mail reaching to their ankles which may be drawn up by thongs and rings, along with carying cases." Helmets were to have small plumes on top and bows were to be suited to the strength of each man, their cases broad enough that strung bows can fit in them, and spare bow strings kept the men's saddle bags. The men's quivers should have covers and hold 30 or 40 arrows and they should carry small files and awls in their baldrics. The cavalry lances should be "of the Avar type with leather thongs in the middle of the shaft and with pennons." The men were also to have "swords and round neck pieces of the Avar type with linen fringes outside and wool inside." Young foreigners unskilled with the bow should have lances and shields and bucellary troops ought to have iron gauntlets and small tassles hanging from the back straps and neck straps of their horses, as well as small pennons hanging from their own shoulders over their coats of mail, "for the more handsome the soldier is, in his armament, the more confidence he gains in himself and the more fear he inspires in the enemy." Lances were apparently expected to be thrown, for the troops should have "two lances so as to have a spare in case the first one misses. Unskilled men should use lighter bows." - Wikipedia article, Byzantine Army.

[Andreas Johansson]

Late Roman/Early Byzantine armored bow cavalry - shooters?

Bow-and-lance I think.

No lance.  Bow and sword only.  May also apply to some Sassanian heavy cavalry with bow only.

As Patrick points out, Maurice expects his cavalrymen to have both bows and lances. If earlier late Roman / early Byzantine horse archers had bows only, they should perhaps be shooters, but I wouldn't insist on possession of a literal bow and dito lance for Bow-and-lance classification: any long range shooting power combined with a willingness to charge home should qualify.

(I'm starting to wish I'd called the types simply Types I-VI.)

[Erpingham]

(I'm starting to wish I'd called the types simply Types I-VI.)

I wonder if Phil Barker felt the same with DBA? I tend to think number types are more of a problem than names after about three.  The problem comes when you are trying to simplify such diversity as existed in warfare over several thousand years.  If you don't abstract into name types like "Shooter", "Shock" etc., where do you go?

[Patrick Waterson]

And classification is only half the problem: the other half is interaction.

As Richard indicates, attempting to model the difference between Greek and Persian cavalry weaponry and techniques is more effort than result.  However when we come to the difference between Macedonian and Persian cavalry weaponry and techniques, we have differences which are essential to model, and in a way which gives the Macedonians a decided advantage.

However, interaction might on occasion be able to help with classification.  Macedonians are good shock troops who usually operated in conjunction with missile support to make up for their own lack of same.  Persian and Indian cavalry (and presumably Greek, which is deemed to have fought in a more or less similar way) need to belong to a classification which suffers a significant disadvantage against Macedonians.  Numidians fought differently to everyone else in the Western Mediterranean littoral, nonplussing Romans and allied Italians but being defeated by Spanish on account of 'greater strength and daring'.  Spanish seem to have been flexible enough to take on Romans frontally at the Ticinus and Numidians acting in their chosen modus operandi, and would seem to deserve a dual capacity.  And so on (he says, running out of ready examples).

The problem comes when you are trying to simplify such diversity as existed in warfare over several thousand years.

Needless to say, some types simplify better than others, and there are always fringe cases, e.g. how to classify Gelimer's Vandals at Tricameron (he ordered them to use swords only and stand on the defensive).  These will vary in importance depending upon whether one wishes one's system to be a general tabletop knockabout with historicity an optional extra or to be able to achieve a fair approximation of representing historical warfare and notably historical battles.

[aligern]

Patrick makes a good point. There is a problem with the fighting style classification 'system' in tgat it either ignores certain styles or it is repeatedly pared so that we get Superior, inferior, extraordinary, fast etc.  When the categories are very broad it is actually easier to accept that various fighting methods have been lumped together. The more the caregories are multiplied the more difficult it is to accept that Vandals are Knights at AdDecimum and  some sort of inferior cavalry at Tricameron. Incidentally the best explanation if their stasis at that battle is that they hoped to avoid being pulled into disorder by Roman feints and so used the dry stream as a location marker and , by sticking whith their swords, to force a serioys, close quarter fight on Belisarius, where numbers would tell.
Roy