How did infantry stop charging cavalry?

[Duncan Head]

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

2010 reprint available if anyone fancies giving their Spanish a workout on Andalusi statecraft.

[Erpingham]

One thing I might note with the Nicolle translation is, as already mentioned, in two of his osprey books, he uses the "over the shoulder" version applied to Italian infantry. So, I'm unclear what he is thinking about the pose.

The key thing in the context of the theme is the overall construction of the formation.  Kneeling spearman (or perhaps men), standing javelin throwers, archers at the back.  Able to open ranks (or open gaps between units) to let cavalry through to attack retreating enemy.  This has similarities to Roman and Byzantine practice, so it seems several nations felt this was a viable model.

The northern Europeans probably used a tight shieldwall model, formed in a circle if they couldn't anchor the flanks.  A nicely detailed example, albeit probably a fictitious detail within the battle it is describing, is the Norwegian array at Stamford Bridge according to King Harald's Saga

Then King Harald arranged his army, and made the line of battle
long, but not deep.  He bent both wings of it back, so that they
met together; and formed a wide ring equally thick all round,
shield to shield, both in the front and rear ranks.  The king
himself and his retinue were within the circle; and there was the
banner, and a body of chosen men.  Earl Toste, with his retinue,
was at another place, and had a different banner.  The army was
arranged in this way, because the king knew that horsemen were
accustomed to ride forwards with great vigour, but to turn back
immediately.  Now the king ordered that his own and the earl's
attendants should ride forwards where it was most required.  "And
our bowmen," said he, "shall be near to us; and they who stand in
the first rank shall set the spear-shaft on the ground, and the
spear-point against the horseman's breast, if he rides at them;
and those who stand in the second rank shall set the spear-point
against the horse's breast."


So, two ranks of spearmen, the front with spears braced in the ground.  Archers to the rear.  Two reserves to support weak points.  We can see similarities to Byzantine practice in this.  But there is a clear whiff of real High Medieval tactics too.  The interaction of cavalry and circle can be seen, for example, at Falkirk, Arques, Bannockburn (day 1) and Laupen (and probably Bouvines too).

[Erpingham]

ObWargameContent: Does anyone sell figures in this pose? 

I noticed while looking for illustrations of the pose that East Riding Miniatures do a "Kneeling Andalusian Infantryman" in 15mm but their website doesn't illustrate it.

[Duncan Head]

ObWargameContent: Does anyone sell figures in this pose? 

I noticed while looking for illustrations of the pose that East Riding Miniatures do a "Kneeling Andalusian Infantryman" in 15mm but their website doesn't illustrate it.

Mirliton have a pack of kneeling Muslim spearmen, though with flat-bottomed januwiyya shields they don't look especially Andalusian.

[Erpingham]

Mirliton have a pack of kneeling Muslim spearmen, though with flat-bottomed januwiyya shields they don't look especially Andalusian.

Presumably angling their spears to deter elephants   One way to get round the controversy about pose - show them in a resting pose before they brace themselves for combat.

Incidentally, I recall now that in a series I think called Plastic warrior in Airfix magazine in the early 70s, Bob O'Brien produced a kneeling arab spearman conversion using the kneeling rifleman from the Airfix Arab set.

[Justin Swanton]

I'm tranferring Nick's post from the cavalry vs cavalry thread to here where it seems to better belong.

What appears to be established is that a decent-sized horse can burst through an infantry line 8 ranks deep (a typical depth) unless the infantry do something about it. My guess is that they originally deployed in great depth before later switching to ranks bunched up together, othismos-like, which turned them into a stable mass a horse couldn't knock over.

...that and the pointy sticks probably put off the horses somewhat.

My own impression is that one-handed spears alone were not enough to stop horses. Roman cavalry charging through enemy infantry were, as far as I can tell, charging through spearmen (unless the Voscians and Aequans were sword-armed?). I suspect that is because a spearman cannot properly aim a spear at an approaching horse that is moving at speed, and from an overarm hold (discussed in the spear vs sword thread) he is more likely to hit the horse's head -  which is one large mass of bone - rather than a more vulnerable part of the horse's anatomy.

[Jim Webster]

I'm tranferring Nick's post from the cavalry vs cavalry thread to here where it seems to better belong.

What appears to be established is that a decent-sized horse can burst through an infantry line 8 ranks deep (a typical depth) unless the infantry do something about it. My guess is that they originally deployed in great depth before later switching to ranks bunched up together, othismos-like, which turned them into a stable mass a horse couldn't knock over.

...that and the pointy sticks probably put off the horses somewhat.

My own impression is that one-handed spears alone were not enough to stop horses. Roman cavalry charging through enemy infantry were, as far as I can tell, charging through spearmen (unless the Voscians and Aequans were sword-armed?). I suspect that is because a spearman cannot properly aim a spear at an approaching horse that is moving at speed, and from an overarm hold (discussed in the spear vs sword thread) he is more likely to hit the horse's head -  which is one large mass of bone - rather than a more vulnerable part of the horse's anatomy.

Greek hoplites don't seem to have had a problem

[Justin Swanton]

I'm tranferring Nick's post from the cavalry vs cavalry thread to here where it seems to better belong.

What appears to be established is that a decent-sized horse can burst through an infantry line 8 ranks deep (a typical depth) unless the infantry do something about it. My guess is that they originally deployed in great depth before later switching to ranks bunched up together, othismos-like, which turned them into a stable mass a horse couldn't knock over.

...that and the pointy sticks probably put off the horses somewhat.

My own impression is that one-handed spears alone were not enough to stop horses. Roman cavalry charging through enemy infantry were, as far as I can tell, charging through spearmen (unless the Voscians and Aequans were sword-armed?). I suspect that is because a spearman cannot properly aim a spear at an approaching horse that is moving at speed, and from an overarm hold (discussed in the spear vs sword thread) he is more likely to hit the horse's head -  which is one large mass of bone - rather than a more vulnerable part of the horse's anatomy.

Greek hoplites don't seem to have had a problem

Anti-cavalry othismos?

[Jim Webster]

I'm tranferring Nick's post from the cavalry vs cavalry thread to here where it seems to better belong.

What appears to be established is that a decent-sized horse can burst through an infantry line 8 ranks deep (a typical depth) unless the infantry do something about it. My guess is that they originally deployed in great depth before later switching to ranks bunched up together, othismos-like, which turned them into a stable mass a horse couldn't knock over.

...that and the pointy sticks probably put off the horses somewhat.

My own impression is that one-handed spears alone were not enough to stop horses. Roman cavalry charging through enemy infantry were, as far as I can tell, charging through spearmen (unless the Voscians and Aequans were sword-armed?). I suspect that is because a spearman cannot properly aim a spear at an approaching horse that is moving at speed, and from an overarm hold (discussed in the spear vs sword thread) he is more likely to hit the horse's head -  which is one large mass of bone - rather than a more vulnerable part of the horse's anatomy.

Greek hoplites don't seem to have had a problem

Anti-cavalry othismos?

probably not, because in the discussion about Alexander riding down the Theban sacred band, this was apparently possible because the Macedonians could ride down the files, which means that there cannot have been and coming together of the files just to face cavalry

[Justin Swanton]

I'm tranferring Nick's post from the cavalry vs cavalry thread to here where it seems to better belong.

What appears to be established is that a decent-sized horse can burst through an infantry line 8 ranks deep (a typical depth) unless the infantry do something about it. My guess is that they originally deployed in great depth before later switching to ranks bunched up together, othismos-like, which turned them into a stable mass a horse couldn't knock over.

...that and the pointy sticks probably put off the horses somewhat.

My own impression is that one-handed spears alone were not enough to stop horses. Roman cavalry charging through enemy infantry were, as far as I can tell, charging through spearmen (unless the Voscians and Aequans were sword-armed?). I suspect that is because a spearman cannot properly aim a spear at an approaching horse that is moving at speed, and from an overarm hold (discussed in the spear vs sword thread) he is more likely to hit the horse's head -  which is one large mass of bone - rather than a more vulnerable part of the horse's anatomy.

Greek hoplites don't seem to have had a problem

Anti-cavalry othismos?

probably not, because in the discussion about Alexander riding down the Theban sacred band, this was apparently possible because the Macedonians could ride down the files, which means that there cannot have been and coming together of the files just to face cavalry

Unless the Thebans were in deployment mode - three feet per file - and had not yet reached shield-overlapping compression which happened when hoplites advanced against an enemy. So their files would theoretically have compressed when charged by cavalry but the file gaps would have remained the same.

It is an interesting question though why Greek cavalry could do nothing to hoplites for as long as these remained in formation whilst Roman cavalry could charge right through an enemy line.

[Erpingham]

My own impression is that one-handed spears alone were not enough to stop horses.

Except as far as we know most infantry faced cavalry with spear in one hand and shield in the other, so, if they were totally inadequate, would armies facing cavalry have not changed their tactics?

[Jim Webster]

It is an interesting question though why Greek cavalry could do nothing to hoplites for as long as these remained in formation whilst Roman cavalry could charge right through an enemy line.

Well, there's an argument that the Western way of war was different and Romans and their enemies might be better modeled as a 'light heavy' troop type rather than a proper heavy like Hoplites etc

But where is the account of them charging through an enemy line (I've been away and missed a lot of thread content)

Jim

[Justin Swanton]

It is an interesting question though why Greek cavalry could do nothing to hoplites for as long as these remained in formation whilst Roman cavalry could charge right through an enemy line.

Well, there's an argument that the Western way of war was different and Romans and their enemies might be better modeled as a 'light heavy' troop type rather than a proper heavy like Hoplites etc

But where is the account of them charging through an enemy line (I've been away and missed a lot of thread content)

Jim

The infantry on the right wing fought with distinguished valour, with stout resistance from the Volscians. Servius Sulpicius broke with his cavalry through the centre of the enemy's line; whence though he might have returned in the same way to his own party, before the enemy could have restored their broken ranks, it seemed more advisable to attack the enemy's rear, and by attacking the rear he would in a moment have dispersed the enemy by the twofold attack, had not the cavalry of the Volscians and Æquans intercepted him and kept him engaged by a mode of fighting similar to his own. - Livy: Histories 3, 70

[Justin Swanton]

I have trouble finding an authoritative source on the weaponry of the Volscian and Aelan infantry, but Phil Barker rates them as Auxilia and other rulesets give them javelins and swords.

Provisional hypothesis: Romans discovered that swordsmen were superior to spearmen in melee combat - they could close to within the spearmen's fighting range and dispatch them. So Rome's enemies also switch to swords, retaining javelins for pre-melee skirmishing. Then the Romans twig to the fact that horses can ride right through a line of javelin- and sword-armed infantry as javelins and swords don't stop the horses. Back in Greece, spear-armed hoplites can stop javelin-armed horsemen so long as the hoplites remain in formation. It takes lance-armed Macedonian cavalry and a good dose of KTB to change things. 

[Jim Webster]

The longer account of the battle is

[3.70]In the Roman army the two consuls possessed equal authority. Agrippa, however, voluntarily resigned the supreme command to his colleague - a very beneficial arrangement where matters of great importance are concerned - and the latter, thus preferred by the ungrudging self-suppression of his colleague, courteously responded by imparting to him his plans, and treating him in every way as his equal. When drawn up in battle order, Quinctius commanded the right wing, Agrippa the left. The centre was assigned to Sp. Postumius Albus, lieutenant-general; the other lieutenant-general, P. Sulpicius, was given charge of the cavalry. The infantry on the right wing fought splendidly, but met with stout resistance on the side of the Volscians. P. Sulpicius with his cavalry broke the enemy's centre. He could have got back to the main body before the enemy re-formed their broken ranks, but he decided to attack from the rear, and would have scattered the enemy in a moment, attacked as they were in front and rear, had not the cavalry of the Volscians and Aequi, adopting his own tactics, intercepted him and kept him for some time engaged. He shouted to his men that there was no time to lose, they would be surrounded and cut off from their main body if they did not do their utmost to make a finish of the cavalry fight; it was not enough simply to put them to flight, they must dispose of both horses and men, that none might return to the field or renew the fighting. They could not resist those before whom a serried line of infantry had given way.
His words did not fall on deaf ears. In one shock they routed the whole of the cavalry, hurled a vast number from their seats, and drove their lances into the horses. That was the end of the cavalry fight. Next they made a rear attack on the infantry, and when their line began to waver they sent a report to the consuls of what they had done. The news gave fresh courage to the Romans, who were now winning, and dismayed the retreating Aequi. Their defeat began in the centre, where the cavalry charge had thrown them into disorder. Then the repulse of the left wing by the consul Quinctius commenced. The right wing gave more trouble. Here Agrippa, whose age and strength made him fearless, seeing that things were going better in all parts of the field than with him, seized standards from the standard-bearers and advanced with them himself, some he even began to throw amongst the masses of the enemy. Roused at the fear and disgrace of losing them, his men made a fresh charge on the enemy, and in all directions the Romans were equally successful. At this point a message came from Quinctius that he was victorious, and was now threatening the enemy's camp, but would not attack it till he knew that the action on the left wing was decided. If Agrippa had defeated the enemy he was to join him, so that the whole army might together take possession of the spoil. The victorious Agrippa, amidst mutual congratulations, proceeded to his colleague and the enemy's camp. The few defenders were routed in a moment and the entrenchment forced without any resistance. The army was marched back to camp after securing

So it doesn't say that the Roman cavalry 'charged through' the infantry.
"P. Sulpicius with his cavalry broke the enemy's centre. He could have got back to the main body before the enemy re-formed their broken ranks, "

Remembering the financial wealth of the cavalry, it could merely have been the superiority of their equipment and the advantage of height from the horse, which gave them an edge in the standing brawl.
Also it was hardly conclusive as the infantry reformed, so their morale was not broken. Given the small numbers of cavalry in a Roman army, they could have steadily hacked their way through on a narrow front, using the advantages of height and equipment. Then they were about to turn round to try and hack their way back when they get involved in a cavalry fight.

In the cavalry fight Livy talks about a shock which indicates a fierce charge, something he totally fails to mention against the infantry.
Similarly when the Roman cavalry do charge the enemy infantry in the rear, they singularly fail to charge through or scatter them in a moment. They disorder them and the Roman infantry, who are already on top, continue to do their good work