How did infantry stop charging cavalry?

[DougM]

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.

[Erpingham]

Even 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.

[Duncan Head]

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/:

Por 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) .)

[Erpingham]

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.

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

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...

[RichT]

'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:

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 .

[Erpingham]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

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.

[Andreas Johansson]

(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

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.

[Duncan Head]

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.

The 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....

[Justin Swanton]

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.

The 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. 

[Jim Webster]

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

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

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.

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.

[Patrick Waterson]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

The 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.