How did infantry stop charging cavalry?

[nikgaukroger]

I think I remember reading in the book Warhorse (my bible for ancient cavalry warfare) that if an infantry formation did maintain cohesion, horses would literally refuse to contact it and swerve off.

Perhaps.  Though this is often presented as horse instinct, forgetting that there is a rider on the animal's back managing those instincts.  What is the intent of the rider when confronted with this cohesive mass?  Is he willing to press into it or does he stand off?  Perhaps he engages enough to show willing but not risk his expensive asset, his horse?  If he does charge home, does he do it at a gallop, aiming to blast a hole in the enemy for others to follow?  Or does he attack in a more controlled way, using the weight of the horse and make it turn and kick out, forcing a gap to fight in? There are medieval examples of both but more of the latter.

Mention of fear of losing one's horse reminded me of a section from Usama ibn Munqidh that Matthew Bennett quoted in "The Myth of the Military Supremacy of Knightly Cavalry". It goes:

On a day (in Spring 1111), a number of foot-soldiers came out of Shaizar. The Franks charged them, without disturbing their formation.Thereupon Tancred became angry and said, "You are my knights and each of you receives pay equivalent to the pay of a hundred Muslims. You have these sergeants (by which he means the infantry) in front of you, and you are not capable of moving them!". They answered, "Our only fear was for our horses. Otherwise we would have trampled them and pierced them with our lances." Tancred replied, "The horses are my property; I shall replace any one's horse that gets killed." They then made several charges against the men of Shaizar, and lost seventy horses, without being avble to get the men oput of their position.

He also notes this as another case of "the ability of well-ordered foot-soldiers to hold off knightly cavalry in almost any time or place".

The foot-soldiers of Shaizar above would have been the town's adhath militia.

[Erpingham]

Knightly cavalry did seem (for example) able and willing to charge home against a spear hedge at Falkirk (AD 1296) and a pike hedge at Arbedo (AD 1422); in the latter case they failed with 400 piked horses and in the former case just failed.  In both cases the now somewhat frustrated knights obeyed orders to pull back and let the archers do the work.

Now we are left with the issue of what "charge home against" means.  Are we assuming that it meant plough into the enemy at speed, or it meant contact the enemy purposefully?  Certainly, medieval cavalry got stuck in to their opponents but instant scattering could only be expected if their opponents were a) disordered or in loose order b) inexperienced, poorly trained or badly motivated c) surprised.  Most wargames rules would reflect this.

As I've noted, most cavalry v. infantry fights in the Middle Ages were not instant successes one way or another.  Infantry would take up a firm defensive position or formation then resist waves of attack, often in smaller squadrons rather than en masse.  Hastings is a classic example, but this also happened at Civitate, Legnano, at Bouvines, at Coutrai, Arques, Bannockburn and numerous others.  Supporting arms could be crucial to prevent a stalemate e.g. if either side had a useful archer force.

He also notes this as another case of "the ability of well-ordered foot-soldiers to hold off knightly cavalry in almost any time or place".

This seems a common modern view of the relative capabilities - John France expresses simlar views, as do the Bachrachs.

[willb]

As Jim has noted, is our idea of a charge a bit "Hollywood" anyway?  Did cavalry charge headlong into the midst of the enemy, or did they attack at a more controlled speed?  This is not to deny the effects of momentum - a trotting horse is perfectly capable of bowling someone over - more of control.

To draw on another out of period example:  When American civil war cavalry conducted a charge the procedure was to start at a walk, then increased to a trot, then a cantor, and only a full gallop over the last several dozen yards.   There was one movie that I recall where this was actually done with the commander having the bugler signal the increase in velocity, though it has been so long that I do not recall what the name of it was.

[Erpingham]

ACW practice was pretty much in line with European practice of the time (and after).  Thanks to debates with Justin on cavalry evolutions, I discovered that the US Army even commissioned a comparative study of different European armies' practice written by Gen. George McClellan just before the war.

[Imperial Dave]

just trying to encapsulate this into a thought and happy to be put right.....

cavalry v infantry is a case of playing chicken ie who loses their nerve first.....?

what if cavalry are trained to charge up to a point and then if the infantry hold steady, they dont actually slam into them full tilt but slow to a pressurised/attritional contact where horse and rider use well aimed spear and hoof attacks to break the infantry cohesion. Obviously if the infantry dont hold cohesion as the cavalry charge close then the riders goad their mounts into a spurt of speed before contact. This would see cavalry not bouncing off well formed infantry recklessly but adapting to maximise their reach by a calculated and practised methodology. Apologies if mentioned or cited previously

[Patrick Waterson]

This makes sense: like much of combat, cavalry-infantry interaction is interactive; clear determination on one side will tend to be reciprocated by hesitancy on the other, and vice versa.

I would add that where both sides are brimming with elan and self-belief, neither will flinch and there will be a clash of almighty proportions and mutual injuries.  If this proves to be an irresistible force hitting an immovable object, then the irresistible force will reconsider, as Anthony has previously indicated.

So assuming the infantry does not waver or break during the cavalry's approach (if it does, the action is pretty much decided), the cavalry then acts according to its belief and training.  The majority of classical cavalry will surge close, hurl a blizzard of javelins, and surge away again or stand there and continue shooting.  I would be inclined to favour the surge away, because once cavalry starts to stand in place, the infantry might get the idea of sweeping them away by an advance, which is not good for the cavalry's self-respect, and surging in and away keeps the infantry in a state of anxiety and prevents the horses from becoming bored.  Achaemenid cavalry tactics at Plataea in 479 BC ilustrate this approach.

Melee cavalry would presumably do one of two things: pull back for another charge, optionally allowing misilemen to work over the infantry in the interim, or stay in contact and poke.  The latter is a losing game against determined infantry: the infantry will pick up courage from the fact they are standing, and will begin to bring down horses and slay their riders.  Against infantry already rattled by the initial impact or contact, stay and poke might accentuate a developing collapse; if not, the infantry will recover their wits and begin to wear away at the cavalry.

So for infantry to stand against cavalry requires the belief that they can do so, a belief strong enough to withstand re-examination as the ground shakes to the thunder of a cavalry charge.  This prerequisite fulfilled, training and equipment kick in, both for what the cavalry does next and for how effective it turns out to be.

That at least is my summation.

[Imperial Dave]

so looking at an obvious example....

Hastings

Again happy to be put right but I take it that the Norman/Breton cavalry ride up to the A-S shieldwall and then stop at close range and engage in atritional melee as the infantry have not broken. Contrast this with later in the day when the shieldwall obviously starts to crumble and the mounted Normans 'force their way into the ranks. I dont read anywhere that the Normans 'slammed' into the A-S shieldwall but again happy to be put right...

[Patrick Waterson]

Well, our good friend Wace describes the opening of the batttle as follows:

"Then Taillefer who sang right well, rode mounted on a swift horse before the duke, singing of Karle maine, and of Rollant, of Oliver and the vassals who died in Renchevals. And when they drew nigh to the English, "A boon, sire!" cried Taillefer; "I have long served you, and you owe me for all such service. To-day, so please you, you shall repay it. I ask as my guerdon, and beseech you for it earnestly, that you will allow me to strike the first blow in the battle!"

And the duke answered, "I grant it." Then Taillefer put his horse to a gallop, charging before all the rest, and struck an Englishman dead, driving his lance below the breast into his body, and stretching him upon the ground. Then he drew his sword, and struck another, crying out "Come on! come on! What do ye, sirs? lay on! lay on!" At the second blow he struck, the English pushed forward and surrounded him. Forthwith arose the noise and cry of war, and on either side the people put themselves in motion. The Normans moved on to the assault, and the English defended themselves well. Some were striking, others urging onwards; all were bold, and cast aside fear.

And now, behold! That battle was gathered whereof the fame is yet mighty.

Loud and far resounded the bray of the horns; and the shocks of the lances; the mighty strokes of clubs, and the quick clashing of swords."

The question is whether Taillefer was representative of or an exception to Norman knighthood.  If the 'shocks of the lances' mean what I think they mean, then he was no exception and the other Normans charged just as hard. 

So the Normans contacted the English line, and not, it appears, very tentatively.  A determined melee followed.  Wace continues:

"One while the Englishmen rushed on, another while they fell back; one while the men from over sea charged onwards, and again at other times retreated. The Normans shouted DEX AIE, the English people UT. Then came the cunning manoeuvres, the rude shocks and strokes of the lance and blows of the sword, among the serjeants and soldiers, both English and Norman. When the English fall, the Normans shout. Each side taunts and defies the other, yet neither knoweth what the other saith; and the Normans say the English bark, because they understand not their speech."

This to-and-fro surging follows the initial contact, but the lances are still delivering 'shocks' as part of 'cunning manoeuvres'.  Does this mean that Norman knights are pulling out and charging in again, or just staying in place and wielding their lances extremely vigorously?

Following the initial contact, the ebbing and flowing of the battle lines appears to have continued for some time.

"Some wax strong, others weak; the brave exult, but the cowards tremble, as men who are sore dismayed. The Normans press on the assault, and the English defend their post well; they pierce the hauberks, and cleave the shields; receive and return mighty blows. Again, some press forwards; others yield, and thus in various ways the struggle proceeds."

The Normans 'press on the assault', and in the process 'cleave ... shields' and 'pierce hauberks'.  This suggests blows with some force behind them: is this delivered by men at the halt or men who have pulled back for another charge?

And then - a resolution of the melee, and not in the Normans' favour.

"In the plain was a fosse, which the Normans had now behind them, having passed it in the fight without regarding it. But the English charged and drove the Normans before them, till they made them fall back upon this fosse, overthrowing into it horses and men. Many were to be seen falling therein, rolling one over the other, with their faces to the earth, and unable to rise. Many of the English also, whom the Normans drew down along with them, died there. At no time during the day's battle did so many Normans die, as perished in that fosse. So those said who saw the dead.

So the Norman horse are driven back, having failed to dent the English infantry line, by an English charge.  I susopect the Normans had been pulling back, charging, and pulling back again, and the English noted the pattern and seized their own chance to charge during one of the pull-backs.  Otherwise the English somehow manage a charge from a standing start while more or less corps-a-corps with their opponents.

The battle, selon Wace, continued in this vein.

"The Normans bore it all, but in fact they knew not what the English said; their language seemed like the baying of dogs, which they could not understand. At length they stopped and turned round, determined to recover their ranks; and the barons might be heard crying DEX AIE! for a halt. Then the Normans resumed their former position, turning their faces towards the enemy; and their men were to be seen facing round and rushing onwards to a fresh melee; the one party assaulting the other; this man striking, another pressing onwards. One hits, another misses; one flies, another pursues: one is aiming a stroke, while another discharges his blow. Norman strives with Englishman again, and aims his blows afresh. One flies, another pursues swiftly: the combatants are many, the plain wide, the battle and the melee fierce. On every hand they fight hard, the blows are heavy, and the struggle becomes fierce."

The Normans are 'rushing onwards' to a fresh melee.  This does not sound like a sidle up and prod approach.

Finally, as the action draws to a close, Duke William leads in his best troops.

"And when the duke saw his men fall back, and the English triumphing over them, his spirit rose high, and he, seized his shield by the enarmes, and his lance, which a vassal handed to him, and took his post by his gonfanon.

Then those who kept close guard by him, and rode where he rode, being about a thousand armed men, came and rushed with closed ranks upon the English; and with the weight of their good horses, and the blows the knights gave, broke the press of the enemy, and scattered the crowd before them, the good duke leading them on in front."

He 'rushed with closed ranks upon the English' and 'with the weight of their good horses, and the blows the knights gave, broke the press of the enemy', all of which gives the impression of a fairly robust advance and an equally robust contact.

The Wace rendering thus has some assertive and seriously physical charging by the Normans, which fails to penetrate and dislodge the defenders until William's final charge 'broke the press of the enemy', which is presumably what the Normans had been intending from the beginning.  If so, their initial 'assault' would have had the same force and determination as the Duke's charge, just a different result.

[Imperial Dave]

at the risk of poo-pooing the above, it would sound less exciting if Wace just said the lines came together and they pushed and shoved with a few brave souls trying to brain each other. We are assuming that Wace is accurate and not employing artistic, poetic or sponsor related licence. Dont forget, he wasnt there so is relying on other testimonies and then putting his slant on them. Plus I can vouch for the ferocity of a (lance thrust) attack from a more of less stationary rider and horse during my reenactment days. Shock is one word for it! 

[Chuck the Grey]

To draw on another out of period example:  When American civil war cavalry conducted a charge the procedure was to start at a walk, then increased to a trot, then a cantor, and only a full gallop over the last several dozen yards.   There was one movie that I recall where this was actually done with the commander having the bugler signal the increase in velocity, though it has been so long that I do not recall what the name of it was.

I can't speak to a movie  on the American Civil War, but I do remember the 1936 version of The Charge of the Light Brigade with Errol Flynn showing much the same sequence for a charge of walk, trot, cantor, and then gallop. Of course, there was a time when Hollywood movie makers would employ former army officers, both US and British, and actually listen to their advice on military affairs and incorporate some bit of reality to the movie. Now we get armored rhinos. 

[evilgong]

Fear for the safety of ones horses extended into modern times.

In the 1780s- to mid 19thc Persian Shahs agreed to replace lost horses or pack animals of his feudal troops if these died on active service. 

The Brit officers leading irregular cavalry in India c1800-20s set up an insurance scheme in their units, the men paid a small monthly fee and the fund was used to buy new horses for any men that lost theirs in action.  The horses were the property of the Irregulars and they were seen as not wishing to risk their loss and therefore fought timidly before ths insurance scheme was set up.

David F Brown

[Dangun]

[1] I would add that where both sides are brimming with elan and self-belief, neither will flinch and there will be a clash of almighty proportions and mutual injuries.  [2] If this proves to be an irresistible force hitting an immovable object, then the irresistible force will reconsider, as Anthony has previously indicated.

Aren't these two points at odds with each other?

I agree more with the second, than the first.
If the infantry do not waver, the cavalry are unlikely to close?

[Imperial Dave]

[1] I would add that where both sides are brimming with elan and self-belief, neither will flinch and there will be a clash of almighty proportions and mutual injuries.  [2] If this proves to be an irresistible force hitting an immovable object, then the irresistible force will reconsider, as Anthony has previously indicated.

Aren't these two points at odds with each other?

I agree more with the second, than the first.
If the infantry do not waver, the cavalry are unlikely to close?

me too but I think others disagree 

[Erpingham]

I can't speak to a movie  on the American Civil War, but I do remember the 1936 version of The Charge of the Light Brigade with Errol Flynn showing much the same sequence for a charge of walk, trot, cantor, and then gallop.

There is a nice moment in the recent BBC War and Peace where a Russian Hussar unit make a charge which demonstrates it, with the captain shouting at his men to literally "hold their horses" (one of my mums favourite phrases to impetuous children ), then at the right distance, drawing swords and charging with much "huzzah"-ing.

[Erpingham]

We are assuming that Wace is accurate and not employing artistic, poetic or sponsor related licence. Dont forget, he wasnt there so is relying on other testimonies and then putting his slant on them.

Wace is a 12th century source but he is usually considered good on military matters.  Matt Bennett wrote an interesting article on Wace's descriptions of battle generally which is worth a read (it includes some interesting things about historical practice embedded in fictional accounts - he wrote Arthurian stuff as well as history).  One trick which has been suggested for Wace's description of Hastings is to read it while looking at the Bayeux Tapestry version of the battle - it does come over as a dramatised commentary. 

One thing to remember about Hastings is the English have chosen a position on a steep hill.  The Norman's can't easily charge with momentum, so combat probably means individual conrois making a short dash into action, mixing it with the front line and then falling back if they don't create an opportunity and letting another lot have a go, rather than a massed charge.