Spacing between horses in cavalry formations

[Justin Swanton]

This takes up from the Contemplating Cavalry thread which is more about gaming cavalry formations than dissecting them as such.

To recap: the manuals all assume cavalry horses are well-spaced in a formation, sufficient to enable them to turn about individually, which will require at least 6 feet clearance. Asklepiodotus talks about horses executing klisis (individual turning) and Aelian describes Roman cavalry routinely executing countermarches which implies horse-wide spaces between the files. The rhomboid formation is built around the horses turning individually in order to point towards one of the four corners of the formation and immediately head off.

The spanner in the works is Polybius (Histories 12:18) who describes an ila a 100 horses wide occupying a frontage of 200 yards, which seems fine except that half of this frontage is taken up by a space apparently as wide as the ila - so the ila itself is 100 yards wide which means one horse per yard. My own take on the passage is that Polybius is describing a space within the ila that is equal to the ila when it wheels, and the tacticians state that a wheeling formation bunches up into close formation, effectively halving its width (it starts out in intermediate formation presumably). I can rehash my argumentation here but it's already in the Contemplating Cavalry thread.

Looking at the other side of the coin however we have cataphract cavalry that AFAIK always fought in the equine equivalent of close formation - 1 yard per horse - since they were used to fight infantry in melee and had to present a solid front the infantry couldn't penetrate. Trawling through some horse videos, I notice that horses don't have a problem with bunching up when moving in a herd but they do avoid taking up station one right behind another. I saw a video of the Household Cavalry on parade: the horses were right behind each other and clearly didn't like it much. Vintage footage of cavalry shows much greater spacing between one rank and the next, but the horses seem quite happy to be in files about 1 yard wide.

My question is what do the sources say, if anything, about different kinds of cavalry adopting close or open formation in combat? Did only cataphracts adopt close formation? To help the discussion here are some images that give a more accurate idea of what equine close and open formations look like:



A couple of things to notice.

1. Horses in close formation are far enough apart to advance comfortably but cannot turn individually in place and retire. If the formation needs to back up in a hurry it will be in trouble. The horses however will have no problem wheeling as a unit.

2. Horses in open formation will have no trouble advancing down the 3-yard-wide file gaps of infantry in open formation. In fact horses in open formation correspond to infantry in open formation in terms of width, so a unit of cavalry that normally deploys in open formation is actually in formation when advancing between the files of friendly infantry. Roman cavalry attacking through Roman infantry comes to mind.

3. Enemy infantry cannot insert themselves between horses in close formation. Not enough space.

And to the floor.

PS: this video shows the kind of terrain horsemen can traverse. Alexander would have found crossing the Pinarus or Granicus a cinch.

PPS: Anthony, do you have that reference from Clifford Rogers Soldiers Lives through History: The Middle Ages on open and close order knights?

[Erpingham]

Oddly enough, this is something I've looked at in the past and found it a bit difficult to pin down exact historical examples.  There are some online examples of Napoleonic heavy cavalry frontages.  The French apparently used 1 m boot to boot, the British 3ft 6in (3ft horse, 3 inch gap between knees of riders).  You can also find interesting dimensional information in design and planning regulations.  For example, a standard stable door under US regulations is 42".  UK guidance states that gateposts or bollards on a bridleway should be no closer than 1.5 m.  So you should be looking for a stirrup to stirrup frontage of between 1-1.5 m

On the reference for Rogers, I'm not sure entirely what you you mean.  The discussion is on pp. 191-7.

Rogers does suggest he thinks there was four feet lateral distance separating riders  in open order (which he basing on a comment in Maurice's Strategikon that open order is where the rider can turn his mount easily within the ranks) and that close order was stirrup-to-stirrup, following the common topos that knights were so close together you could throw an object (usually a glove or an apple) into the formation and it wouldn't hit the ground.

[RichT]

There are AFAIK no details in the tacticians or elsewhere about the intervals of ancient cavalry (I believe the Polybius Issus passage discussed in the other thread is all there is). So then it largely comes down to whether / how much you think the intervals given for infantry can also be applied to cavalry.

Your translation of the Polybius passage in the other thread is wrong, as Duncan points out. I know you'll never accept that so there's no point discussing it.

The Asclepiodotus etc reference to wheeling in close formation is to the one cubit / 18 inches / 0.5 m spacing, so can't apply to cavalry (I think we can safely assume, unless anceint horses were very slim).

One general observation is that while in the recent infantry intervals thread we pondered how intervals were measured - by eye, by body part etc - for cavalry however (if at all) they were measured I suspect they would only be loosely applied - infantry can shuffle about to achieve an exact spacing, but horses (I think) couldn't easily do this, so all spacings would be approximate (and probably with two options, quite loose, or toe to toe).

[Justin Swanton]

There are AFAIK no details in the tacticians or elsewhere about the intervals of ancient cavalry (I believe the Polybius Issus passage discussed in the other thread is all there is). So then it largely comes down to whether / how much you think the intervals given for infantry can also be applied to cavalry.

There seem to be two spacings for cavalry: one that allows horses to turn about individually without colliding against each other, and the other that allows cataphracts at least to fight infantry without those infantry being able to get at their flanks. The question is when and how they were used.

Your translation of the Polybius passage in the other thread is wrong, as Duncan points out. I know you'll never accept that so there's no point discussing it.

Well, Duncan pointed out that I had got the Greek terms klisis, epistrophe and perispasmos wrong and I had no problem accepting that.

If I'm wrong I happily accept I'm wrong, but telling me I'm wrong and proving I'm wrong is not quite the same thing. I'm genuinely interested in figuring out how cavalry formations worked. My problem with squadrons having 1 yard wide files is that that goes against everything the manuals state or imply about the spacing of (non-cataphract) horses. There is need to pull a coherent picture together. I'm listening...

The Asclepiodotus etc reference to wheeling in close formation is to the one cubit / 18 inches / 0.5 m spacing, so can't apply to cavalry (I think we can safely assume, unless anceint horses were very slim).

Fair enough, the passage doesn't mention horses but if contracting together is useful when wheeling infantry then the inference is that it is useful when wheeling cavalry. But I don't have the sources in front of me right now to see if they have something more explicit to say on the subject.

One general observation is that while in the recent infantry intervals thread we pondered how intervals were measured - by eye, by body part etc - for cavalry however (if at all) they were measured I suspect they would only be loosely applied - infantry can shuffle about to achieve an exact spacing, but horses (I think) couldn't easily do this, so all spacings would be approximate (and probably with two options, quite loose, or toe to toe).

True.

[RichT]

I'm listening...

You may well be, but are you hearing?

What standard of proof would satisfy you? When I've delved into grammar before it's either led to an endless to and fro on meanings of individual words (which I have neither the time nor the patience for), or else I've been told (not by you to be fair) that grammar is unimportant.

To what Duncan said in the other thread. I would just add that μεταξὺ is here a preposition taking the genitive (τῶν ἰλῶν), and the meaning is 'between the squadrons'. That's not a proof, it's a statement, but it is at least a statement of fact.

[Justin Swanton]

I'm listening...

You may well be, but are you hearing?

What standard of proof would satisfy you? When I've delved into grammar before it's either led to an endless to and fro on meanings of individual words (which I have neither the time nor the patience for), or else I've been told (not by you to be fair) that grammar is unimportant.

Grammar is important and individual words are important as they are pretty much all we have as source material. Translations are supremely important and I continue to be surprised at the extent to which translators get crucial passages wrong. It's not me being obtuse, it's just the way it is.

To what Duncan said in the other thread. I would just add that μεταξὺ is here a preposition taking the genitive (τῶν ἰλῶν), and the meaning is 'between the squadrons'. That's not a proof, it's a statement, but it is at least a statement of fact.

Here is the LSJ and the Middle Liddell entry for metaxu. In both it has two meanings: between and in the midst of. It's exactly like the Latin inter of line relief fame. Which of the two meanings is correct depends on the context as both meanings take the genitive.

In this case metaxu applies to 'each', not to 'the squadrons. 'Each' is in the singular so 'within' or 'between' are both possible. My Greek isn't good enough to work out whether metaxu applied to a single object is better rendered by 'within' rather than 'between'. Certainly if the object is in the plural 'between' is the natural meaning. At any rate I think there is at least a case for affirming that Polybius is ambiguous.

[RichT]

My Greek isn't good enough

Can't you just leave it at that? I'm going to.

[Erpingham]

Two further pieces of context from 19th century manuals :

US cavalry manuals define the space occupied by a cavalryman as 3ft wide and 9ft deep for calculating frontage and depth.

English Light Horse drill from the Napoleonic period puts the default spacing of cavalry at Easy Files (six inches between men) and Close Order of half a horses length between ranks.  It notes that with cavalry in Open Files, with a 3 ft gap, a mounted man "can just pass betwixt"

If we factor in these latest analogies, our minimum cavalry front is looking to be closer to the 3 ft/1m mark  and the depth  needed to manouever in ranks about 9ft head-to-head.

[Justin Swanton]

My Greek isn't good enough

Can't you just leave it at that? I'm going to.

leave it at that?! Never!

But please feel free to bail out. 

On the subject of ambiguity something comes to mind. Polybius says there is a single space between/within each of the squadrons. This certainly suggests that the space applies to each squadron rather than that there are spaces between the squadrons.

It might be an idea to try it out in English. Metaxu is an ambiguous word best rendered by "in the midst of" - also ambiguous (it's the primary meaning in LSJ). So:

"There is a space in the midst of each of the squadrons" - one intuitively jumps to the idea that the space is within the squadron. If you want to make it clear that the space is between one squadron and the next you would use: "There are spaces in the midst of the squadrons" or even "There is a space in the midst of the squadrons".

[added a day later] One other thought.

and amongst each of the ilae there is need for a space equal to the fronts [of the squadrons] inasmuch as it is equivalent to them when they wheel right/left and that facilitates their wheeling about.

"equivalent to them when they wheel right and left" translates ταῖς ἐπιστροφαῖς δύνασθαι, which is popularly rendered as "enables them to wheel right and left". But that doesn't work in Greek. To use δύνασθαι in the sense of "be able to" results in "those wheeling right/left to be able to" - do what? The Greek doesn't say and the clause is left hanging in mid-air.

Using δύνασθαι in its sense of be "adequate for" or "equivalent to" poses another question. If the squadrons are the same width in line as when wheeling then why does Polybius state that the space must be equal to each of the squadrons and πρὸς τὸ - "that is to say" / "inasmuch as" it must be equal to the wheeling squadrons? Why repeat himself? Polybius was clearly familiar with the manuals hence he would have known that wheeling formations bunch up first: infantry and by inference cavalry. The breadth of a wheeling squadron is half that of a squadron before it wheels, and so the only coherent interpretation of his passage that I can see is that the space or extension within the squadron is half that of the the squadron when stationary or advancing and equal to the width of the squadron when wheeling - allowing it to describe a 180 degree turn and retire through the self-created gap without difficulty.

There is a catch with the "without difficulty" but that's perhaps for another post.

[Justin Swanton]

Picking up on Polybius's affirmation that a space "helps" or "is serviceable" - εὐχρηστεῖν - to a cavalry squadron wheeling 180 degrees, I thought it might be an idea to see exactly how a square formation looks when wheeling.

Strictly-speaking, a group of formations that are shallow lines, say one or two ranks deep, don't need a space to wheel 180 degrees provided they all wheel together. One formation occupies the area vacated by another. Like this:























With formations that are squares however there is a problem: one formation will not have cleared its area before another formation reaches it:






















In this example I have given the squadrons half their proper number of ranks and files for illustrative purposes. Once sees that the last two outer files of the incoming squadron bump into the squadron to its left. I suspect though that when a squadron in a square formation wheels, the distance between the horses in a file increases to the extent that the four outer files of the incoming squadron (8 files in the full sized version) risk bumping into the horses of the adjacent squadron. Hence the need for a space equal to the wheeling squadron.

If one squadron wheels and the adjacent squadron stays put then naturally there is need of a space.

[Erpingham]

Have we bottomed the original question or are we just moving on?

I find the diagrams a bit confusing but in the first one, shouldn't the end point be one troop frontage  further left?  Otherwise your troops are having to conduct a tricky reverse wheel, pivoting on the man who was on the outside.

I strongly recommend looking at some of the 19th century manual, which usually contain diagrams of how to conduct manoeuvers.  Not because they will be identical but you get a flavour of what the people writing them, who were used to moving masses of horses in formation, thought practical.

[Patrick Waterson]

Another thought.

When Greek cavalry wheeled 180 degrees, would they in effect be executing a countermarch by files?  The easy way to do this is:
1) Halt,
2) File leaders swing their mounts around and reverse course up the intervals between files,
3) Subsequent troopers in each file follow suit in sequence.

With a bit of practice one can speed up the tempo and countermarch on the move.

If wheeling (left) by squadrons, they would probably want each squadron to end up a little further left than it started in order to make room for the next squadron.

19th century cavalry manuals are well worth a look if one can get them, the one caveat being they do not customarily handle cavalry by eight-deep (or more) files.  Arrian's Techne Taktike is probably as good as we are going to get for a period source; although Roman and AD, it has most of the classic classical cavalry manoeuvring principles.  Unfortunately I cannot find an English translation on the internet.  Does anybody know of one?

[Mark G]

I can confirm that cavalry wheeling does require the subsequent ranks to remain stationary.

In fact almost every horse is stationary through the process.

The innermost wheeling horse barely moves, the rest of the rank walks slowly around, focussed on maintaining frontal alignment.  The line reaches it's new facing, it advances a horse length or two and stops, becoming the new front.
The second line steps one horse length forward, and begins it's wheel on the same exact point as the first.
When it reaches it's new facing, it and the first line steps forward a length or two, then they stop.
Repeat until the last line is in place, then the formation is completed wheeling, and may move forward.

It takes time.

We had a thread on it two years ago after I saw 30 reenactors perform it in a turma

[Justin Swanton]

Have we bottomed the original question or are we just moving on?

I find the diagrams a bit confusing but in the first one, shouldn't the end point be one troop frontage  further left?  Otherwise your troops are having to conduct a tricky reverse wheel, pivoting on the man who was on the outside.

Sorry, in the first set of diagrams the horseman to the left of each formation should be in the same relative position in each diagram.

I strongly recommend looking at some of the 19th century manual, which usually contain diagrams of how to conduct manoeuvers.  Not because they will be identical but you get a flavour of what the people writing them, who were used to moving masses of horses in formation, thought practical.

Have you anything to show?

[Justin Swanton]

Another thought.

When Greek cavalry wheeled 180 degrees, would they in effect be executing a countermarch by files?  The easy way to do this is:
1) Halt,
2) File leaders swing their mounts around and reverse course up the intervals between files,
3) Subsequent troopers in each file follow suit in sequence.

With a bit of practice one can speed up the tempo and countermarch on the move.

If wheeling (left) by squadrons, they would probably want each squadron to end up a little further left than it started in order to make room for the next squadron.

19th century cavalry manuals are well worth a look if one can get them, the one caveat being they do not customarily handle cavalry by eight-deep (or more) files.  Arrian's Techne Taktike is probably as good as we are going to get for a period source; although Roman and AD, it has most of the classic classical cavalry manoeuvring principles.  Unfortunately I cannot find an English translation on the internet.  Does anybody know of one?

I can give you one (passed on to me by Duncan). Arrian's Roman cavalry use countermarching whilst Polybius clearly refers to wheeling in formation when describing the Greek cavalry at Issus. I personally wonder why cavalry would bother wheeling to retire to the rear when countermarching was much quicker and easier and gave exactly the same result. The only reason I can think of is that the Greek cavalry horses didn't like or weren't trained to move down cavalry file gaps. Wheeling is simpler for horses - they all just move together to the right or left.