How did infantry stop charging cavalry?

[Andreas Johansson]

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. 

Back in Europe, compensation for lost horses and gear appears to've been standard for 15C mercenaries. One reason for the popularity of Landsknechte at the end of the century was that they didn't demand compensation for lost equipment.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

How does one lean one's lance on one's shoulder while pointing it at the enemy? Are they somehow holding their lances behind their backs?

I visualise it as the butt of the lance stuck into the ground behind the kneeling soldier and kept there by the foot of the soldier behind him. The kneeling soldier grips the lance on his shoulder with his right hand to keep it in place whilst holding his shield with his left. A very practical horse-stopper IMHO.

[Erpingham]

I visualise it as the butt of the lance stuck into the ground behind the kneeling soldier and kept there by the foot of the soldier behind him. The kneeling soldier grips the lance on his shoulder with his right hand to keep it in place whilst holding his shield with his left. A very practical horse-stopper IMHO.

Yes, it means over the right shoulder and trailing behind.  Personally, I'm not that impressed on a theoretical basis.  I experimented a bit and I reckon a 10 ft spear held at the appropriate angle would only protrude about four feet in front of the line, maybe less.  That seems an awful lot of spear length wasted.  The standard Byzantine and Western European method, leading with the left leg and bracing the spear under the right trailing leg, seems a better bet.  Also, the spear end behind the kneeling man would surely be an impediment to the javelinmen.

[Andreas Johansson]

ObWargameContent: Does anyone sell figures in this pose? 

[Patrick Waterson]

It is worth quoting the section on Carrhae in Plutarch's life of Crassus in full. It suffers a bit from the convention that advances to contact are described or rather translated as charges, whereas it is not actually necessary to go in at speed to acheive the effects described.  Young Crassus, for example likely made quite a gentle advance as he was not going to gain much from impetus.

The way Plutarch tells us it happened is:

"Publius himself, accordingly, cheered on his cavalry, made a vigorous charge with them, and closed with the enemy."

'Vigorous charge' translates prosebale, from prosballo, to dash against.  The term has the general sense of collision.

Whether this was achievable at reduced speed, and whether Gauls and Germans would bother with anything less than a full-blooded charge, is perhaps something to consider.

'Closed with the enemy' is sunepse, 'join together'; in a hostile sense, 'engage in conflict'.  This classifies the result as committed closure as opposed to tentative trial and recoil, as is also indicated by the subsequent description of Gauls seizing lances and trying to pull cataphracts off their horses.

[Erpingham]

As a further curio, David Nicolle clearly believes Italian infantry used the same technique, as it appears in his Italian Militiaman Osprey and in European Medieval Tactics (I).  I've not seen any evidence for it personally.  llustrations of Italian infantry usually show the pavise bearers standing in front of the formation, spear held conventionally underarm or overarm.

[Patrick Waterson]

Do cavalry charge AND impact multiple times?

Apparently so, especially if equipped only for shock combat, and they feel that just one more charge should do it.  Plutarch (Crassus 27.1) describes the process as:

"Then, as the enemy got to work, their light, cavalry rode round on the flanks of the Romans and shot them with arrows, while the mail-clad horsemen in front, plying their long spears, kept driving them together into a narrow space ..."

'Driving them together into a narrow space' translates sunestellon eis oligon, 'reduce into a little', which implies repetitive urging at the point of a lance which

"... was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once."

So the picture is of the cataphracts charging and impacting multiple times, each time shrinking the Roman formation further.

[Justin Swanton]

I visualise it as the butt of the lance stuck into the ground behind the kneeling soldier and kept there by the foot of the soldier behind him. The kneeling soldier grips the lance on his shoulder with his right hand to keep it in place whilst holding his shield with his left. A very practical horse-stopper IMHO.

Yes, it means over the right shoulder and trailing behind.  Personally, I'm not that impressed on a theoretical basis.  I experimented a bit and I reckon a 10 ft spear held at the appropriate angle would only protrude about four feet in front of the line, maybe less.  That seems an awful lot of spear length wasted.  The standard Byzantine and Western European method, leading with the left leg and bracing the spear under the right trailing leg, seems a better bet.  Also, the spear end behind the kneeling man would surely be an impediment to the javelinmen.

One thing it does do is allowing the infantryman to properly cover himself with his shield, better than the Byzantine/Western European method which involves standing and leaning forwards to hold the spear at the correct angle. And what would stop the kneeling soldier having a longer spear?

[Erpingham]

And what would stop the kneeling soldier having a longer spear?

A bit longer perhaps but using anything bigger than 12 ft with one hand could be tricky.  Also, its all about angles.  You need the spear to be angled so that the spearhead is at chest or neck height on the horse.  So just making the spear longer doesn't automatically make the reach equally longer.  This cries out for a Justin diagram

[Duncan Head]

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.

How does one lean one's lance on one's shoulder while pointing it at the enemy? Are they somehow holding their lances behind their backs?

I visualise it as the butt of the lance stuck into the ground behind the kneeling soldier and kept there by the foot of the soldier behind him. The kneeling soldier grips the lance on his shoulder with his right hand to keep it in place whilst holding his shield with his left. A very practical horse-stopper IMHO.

Or it's a dodgy translation. The only complete translation of al-Turtushi is into Spanish; I don't know if this extract comes via the Spanish or is independent. I wonder if it could mean under the shoulder, that is in the armpit? Or even resting on the shoulder of the rank in front?

[Erpingham]

Or it's a dodgy translation. The only complete translation of al-Turtushi is into Spanish; I don't know if this extract comes via the Spanish or is independent. I wonder if it could mean under the shoulder, that is in the armpit? Or even resting on the shoulder of the rank in front?

John France (Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades) draws it from Lourie A society organised for war: Medieval Spain Past & Present 36 1966. 

[Erpingham]

I've checked in Garcia Fitz and Monteiro War in the Spanish Peninsular, which uses only Spanish sources in its discussion of Al-Andalus.  They don't quote the passage but give a detailed paraphrase.  Their version speaks of infantry "leaning their spears on their shoulders towards the enemy"  So, unless the Spanish translations are wrong, it is on the shoulder.

[Justin Swanton]

And what would stop the kneeling soldier having a longer spear?

A bit longer perhaps but using anything bigger than 12 ft with one hand could be tricky.  Also, its all about angles.  You need the spear to be angled so that the spearhead is at chest or neck height on the horse.  So just making the spear longer doesn't automatically make the reach equally longer.  This cries out for a Justin diagram

OK, here's an attempt. I used images from the terracotta army as the horses and men are together and allow for an accurate size comparison. The average Chinese male in Antiquity stood 168cm tall. Using that I was able to create a scale. What stands out is that the spear cannot be used to target the horse. Even with the butt fixed two yards behind the kneeling warrior the angle is too high - it has to target the rider. The spear itself is at least 3,5 yards (10,5 feet) long.

[Dangun]

Apparently so, especially if equipped only for shock combat, and they feel that just one more charge should do it.  Plutarch (Crassus 27.1) describes the process as:

"Then, as the enemy got to work, their light, cavalry rode round on the flanks of the Romans and shot them with arrows, while the mail-clad horsemen in front, plying their long spears, kept driving them together into a narrow space ..."

'Driving them together into a narrow space' translates sunestellon eis oligon, 'reduce into a little', which implies repetitive urging at the point of a lance which

"... was heavy with steel, and often had impetus enough to pierce through two men at once."

So the picture is of the cataphracts charging and impacting multiple times, each time shrinking the Roman formation further.

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."

[DougM]

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. 

In all fairness, I am not sure there are too many ex-Wakandan army officers available to Holywood.