How manoeuvrable were cavalry on the battlefield?

[Justin Swanton]

Missed the point Jim.

Justin is not clear on how a unit would manoeuvre by sub units.

The best way to get a grip on that is to look at those well documented methods from the modern era, of which there are many good and clear examples.

Once he gets that, then he take take the concept back in time and apply it.

He's not going to find a one to one mapping, but he will find it easier to conceive what might be happening with more conceptual models to draw from.

A good idea. Let me do that.

[Justin Swanton]

Whilst I'm mugging up on the cavalry manuals I thought of the comparison by the tacticians between a rhombus and a wedge. The tacticians praise the rhombus because it can change direction quickly - obviously by the individual horsemen turning in place - and hence cannot be charged in the flank and rear. They praise the wedge because it can countermarch more easily than the square:

It is said that the Scythians and Thracians invented the wedge formation, and that later the Macedonians used it, since they considered it more practical than the square formation; for the front of the wedge formation is narrow, as in the rhomboid, and only one half as wide, and this made it easiest for them to break through, as well as brought the leaders in front of the rest, while wheeling [ἀναστροφή - turn back, return, wheel round] was thus easier than in the square formation, since all have their eyes fixed on the single squadron-commander, as is the case also in the flight of cranes. - Asklepiodotus: 7.3 The [formation, i.e. wedge] is gathered into a sharp [point], but at the very outset slightly turning around, provides an entire easily unrolled formation. - Arrian: 16

The translation of Arrian is bad and I don't have the Greek in front of me right now. What he seems to be saying, which confirms Asklepiodotus, is that the wedge is very suitable for countermarching, with the lead horse turning 180 degrees and retiring down between the files, followed by the other horses in turn. The wedge is good for that since the leader at the point of the wedge necessarily turns first, giving the other riders time to take their cue from him and turn themselves. In a square the leader would turn before the other riders were aware of it, delaying their following his example in time and disrupting the formation.

Question: why isn't the rhombus just as good at this as the wedge? The answer seems to be that the rhombus wasn't really designed for countermarching. My own take is that since there were four leaders at each corner, the overall commander of the rhombus was obliged to use signals, most likely sound signals, to indicate to the other leaders that it was time to turn right or left. Signals necessarily mean a limited repertoire of manoeuvres (unless the trumpeter used morse code) and countermarching probably wasn't part of them, nor was it necessary since the rhombus could change direction in 90 degree increments so quickly.

[Erpingham]

I confess to never having seen a flight of cranes but I've rather thought of them like a flight of geese or swans - sort of triangular with a leader at the point, changing directions in smooth motions as they flight adjusts to the lead bird.  I've never seen a flight of geese or swans countermarch, with the leader making a sharp 180 degree turn and the others turning back to follow.  While it may be that cranes are very different, I suspect not.  So why use this metaphor to describe countermarching?  I await enlightenment from those with better ornithological, linguistic and cultural knowledge.

[RichT]

Ah, things take a more fruitful turn, perhaps. Wikipedia informs me that there are two species of crane in Greece (limiting things arbitrarily to Greece, though the Scythian or Thracian origin of the wedge might suggest other species of Asian or European cranes as possible models - but for these purposes we are perhaps justified in thinking that formations are not so very different between species). So the possible Greek cranes are:

Common crane, Grus grus
Demoiselle crane, Anthropoides virgo

Now I can find nothing species-specific on the flight formation, so we will again have to assume that formation and flight dynamics are similar across crane species. The classic crane flight formation is of course the 'V', as illustrated here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_formation#/media/File:Eurasian_Cranes_migrating_to_Meyghan_Salt_Lake.jpg

Note these are 'Eurasian cranes', which is the common crane, Grus grus. Note also that the cranes do not in fact fly in wedge formation, so we must convict Asclepiodotus, or perhaps his Thracian or Scythian sources, of some imprecision here, if the crane formation is indeed the inspiration of that used by cavalry. Note also that despite Asclepiodotus' apparent assertion, cranes do not have a 'leader', but rotate the leadership role btween members of the flock, a collegiate form of command comparable perhaps to that in use in Athens in the early fifth century (see Herodotus' account of Marathon). The next possibly disappointing finding is that there is little if anything in the literature about the manoeuvre capabilities of a 'V' of cranes, and in fact the orthodox view is that maneouvrability is not a significant factor in the adoption by cranes of this formation at all; rather, flight endurance appears to be the major advantage of the formation, as each individual is able to fly in the upwash wingtip vortices of the next bird ahead, thus reducing drag and so energy use, and increasing flight range (by 71 percent according to some estimates). It is not clear whether or how this benefit would apply to cavalry at all, since upwash, drag and lift are not a factor for horses (which maintain, as has been famously demonstrated, at least one point of contact with the ground at all times, and which therefore support their own weight through their legs).

It would appear then that the similarities between cavalry formations and crane formations have been greatly overstated, and the relevance of the one to the other may not be very great. It may indeed be that the similarity between the two was more aesthetic than practical, the 'V' shape of the crane formation reminding observers of the wedge of cavalry even though the dynamics of the two formations are very different. However, while there is little in the literature concerning flight manoeuvres, common sense suggests that manoeuvres by cranes in 'V' formation must in fact have been possible. This is at least strongly suggested by the long range migratory flights undertaken by these birds - with no ability to manoeuvre in flight, the cranes would have been required to take off and maintain flight on precisely the correct heading to reach their destination, which could have been many miles away and certainly below the local horizon - this does not seem plausible. So if we grant at least a limited manoeuvre capability to the 'V' of cranes, and we allow that there is at least a functional resemblance between the role of the current flight leader (crane) and the officer in command of a cavalry formation (ilarch), then it may not be too fanciful to suppose that Asclepiodotus (or his sources) could have had in mind the ability of the crane 'leader' to make small course corrections (such as would be required in migratory flight, for example) with the other birds in the flight following this bird's lead (very literally), and there may well be a similarity between such course corrections and the ability of the cavalry leader to make small course corrections such as might be required on the battlefield, while being followed by the rest of the cavalry formation. As such, the crane/cavalry comparison, though not accurate in all details and possibly responsible for serious misconceptions in some cases, may in fact have some basis in practical battlefield reality. Further research on this question is however required, and in particular a review of the literature concerning the formation of birds other than cranes would undoubtedly reveal useful comparative material.

[Erpingham]

Thank you Richard.  So cranes do essentially use a similar technique to swans and geese and observations of the same may inform matters for those of us in crane-deprived areas of the world.

I am going out on a limb here and going to suggest that the flight characteristics of cranes were not the key thing - I doubt if there was sufficient understanding of aeorodynamics or the advantages of the V formation for long distance flight in the Hellenstic era.  I suspect it is the leadership model that is being observed (without possibly understanding this is not hierarchical but communal effort sharing).  But it still remains unclear why a countermarch would be described in these terms, because their moves are about graceful, gradual even, course changes not sharp reverses or turns.

[Justin Swanton]

Thank you Richard.  So cranes do essentially use a similar technique to swans and geese and observations of the same may inform matters for those of us in crane-deprived areas of the world.

I am going out on a limb here and going to suggest that the flight characteristics of cranes were not the key thing - I doubt if there was sufficient understanding of aeorodynamics or the advantages of the V formation for long distance flight in the Hellenstic era.  I suspect it is the leadership model that is being observed (without possibly understanding this is not hierarchical but communal effort sharing).  But it still remains unclear why a countermarch would be described in these terms, because their moves are about graceful, gradual even, course changes not sharp reverses or turns.

I'll get back later with the Greek (if I have the time or energy - I am doing evening overtime during weekdays and more overtime on the weekend and I tend to be clapped out after work). The crucial terms will be the word translated by "unrolled" in Arrian and the term commonly translated as "wheel" in Asklepiodotus - ἀναστροφή - which actually means to turn back, return, wheel round, in other words execute a 180 degree change of direction. "unrolled" I think actually means "countermarched", having seen how this term is used by Arrian to describe the manoeuvres of Roman cavalry. Stay tuned.

PS: I don't think Asklepiodotus means more by the image of cranes than the fact that the frontmost crane leads the rest who form up on him. Nothing about how cranes manoeuvre (as Richard pointed out they don't manoeuvre, just keep going in a more-or-less straight line).

[RichT]

If you are busy, Justin, allow me:

ταῖς δὲ δὴ ἐμβολοειδέσι τάξεσι Σκύθας κεχρῆσθαι μάλιστα ἀκούομεν, καὶ Θρᾷκας, ἀπὸ Σκυθῶν μαθόντας. Φίλιππος δὲ ὁ Μακεδὼν καὶ Μακεδόνας ταύτῃ τῇ τάξει χρῆσθαι ἐπήσκησεν. ὠφέλιμος δὲ καὶ αὕτη δοκεῖ ἡ τάξις, ὅτι ἐν κύκλῳ οἱ ἡγεμόνες τεταγμένοι εἰσί, καὶ τὸ μέτωπον ἐς ὀξὺ ἀπολῆγον εὐπετῶς πᾶσαν τάξιν πολεμίαν διακόπτειν παρέχει, καὶ τὰς ἐπιστροφάς τε καὶ ἀναστροφὰς ὀξείας ποιεῖσθαι δίδωσιν.

DeVoto's tanslation is a shambles. He uses 'unfold' for 'countermarch' (exelisso) - see eg Arrian 23. I don't know if his 'unroll' here is meant to convey the same thing - if so it's not justified by Arrian's Greek. Attempted rough translation of above (based largely on Asclepiodotus as they are very close):

"It is said that the Scythians invented the wedge formation, and the Thracians learned it from them. Philip of Macedon also taught the Macedonians to use it. The formation is useful as the leaders are drawn up around it, and the front being narrow is able to cut through all enemy formations [uh oh], and epistrophes and anastrophes can be made easily". Something like that.

So what are epistrophes and anastrophes? Asclepiodotus 10.4 is your friend: "It is an epistrophe when we close up the entire battalion... [blah blah you know this bit] and move it like the body of one man in such a manner that the entire force swings on the first file leader as on a pivot".

So 'epistrophe' is a quarter turn by wheeling (yes, through 90 degrees). At least it is for infantry. Cavalry probabaly the same? And assuming Greeks were careful with their use of technical vocabulary (which usually they weren't).

For anastrophe, see Asclepiodotus 10.6: "Anastrophe is the reversal of the epistrophe to the position the syntagma originally held".

OK there's a surprise since mostly we might imagine 'anastrophe' to be an 'about turn' or 'about wheel' (through 180 degrees); here Asclepiodotus calls such a 180 wheel 'Perispasmos'(10.7).

So according to Asclepiodotus, epistrophe is 'a wheel through 90 degrees' and anastrophe is 'a wheel through 90 degrees back again having once done the first wheel through 90 degrees'. The difference, we might imagine, is that such a 'reverse wheel' would involve first an about face (Asclepiodotus doesn't mention this) so that the formation can wheel back without having to walk backwards.

I don't know whether that's what you want to hear or not. Certainly, neither Arrian nor Asclepiodotus are talking about countermarching here, and the 'flight of cranes' thing is definitely in the context of wheels, not countermarches.

Now more importantly and interestingly we need some research on the incidence of wheels in flights of cranes, and the limits on the angles through which they are able to wheel.

And edited to add - inspired by Anthony's bold speculations on Hellenistic knowledge of crane aerodynamics, I'm going to suggest that neither Asclep's "and the anastrophe was easier than in the square" nor Arrian's "epistrophes and anastrophes can be made easily" have in mind the technical meanings for epistrophe and anastrophe of Asclep. 10.6-7 - they just mean "wheeling manoeuvres are easy", which is the point, dare I suggest, of the analogy with the cranes, for whom wheeling manoeuvres are also easy. There, I've said it.

[Erpingham]

Now more importantly and interestingly we need some research on the incidence of wheels in flights of cranes, and the limits on the angles through which they are able to wheel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7N_dF64oRA

[Mark G]

What is interesting in that video, is that none of the birds turn in place, they all describe circles in the air.

Seems obvious, but necessary to point out I think

[RichT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7N_dF64oRA

Excellent! Asclepiodotus doesn't have a word for 360 degree wheels ('circling'). Consecutive perispasmoi, perhaps. Multiple consecutive perispasmoi of cranes. Though their formation is all over the place - their leader is going to get a dressing down.

[Erpingham]

What is interesting in that video, is that none of the birds turn in place, they all describe circles in the air.

Seems obvious, but necessary to point out I think

Yes, they don't pivot on a hovering "wing man" but round an external pivot.  It is , as you say, rather obvious for a creature in constant motion.

I suspect we are supposed to read very simple obvious lessons from the crane metaphor.  The follow the leader style, the dynamic flow, the sweeping rather than abrupt turn.  If this style originated on the steppes, where there is ample open space, it would make sense.  This would then contrast with a more rigid rectilinear style, with a more stilted way of manoeuvering.  Maybe.

[Justin Swanton]

If you are busy, Justin, allow me:

ταῖς δὲ δὴ ἐμβολοειδέσι τάξεσι Σκύθας κεχρῆσθαι μάλιστα ἀκούομεν, καὶ Θρᾷκας, ἀπὸ Σκυθῶν μαθόντας. Φίλιππος δὲ ὁ Μακεδὼν καὶ Μακεδόνας ταύτῃ τῇ τάξει χρῆσθαι ἐπήσκησεν. ὠφέλιμος δὲ καὶ αὕτη δοκεῖ ἡ τάξις, ὅτι ἐν κύκλῳ οἱ ἡγεμόνες τεταγμένοι εἰσί, καὶ τὸ μέτωπον ἐς ὀξὺ ἀπολῆγον εὐπετῶς πᾶσαν τάξιν πολεμίαν διακόπτειν παρέχει, καὶ τὰς ἐπιστροφάς τε καὶ ἀναστροφὰς ὀξείας ποιεῖσθαι δίδωσιν.

DeVoto's tanslation is a shambles. He uses 'unfold' for 'countermarch' (exelisso) - see eg Arrian 23. I don't know if his 'unroll' here is meant to convey the same thing - if so it's not justified by Arrian's Greek. Attempted rough translation of above (based largely on Asclepiodotus as they are very close):

"It is said that the Scythians invented the wedge formation, and the Thracians learned it from them. Philip of Macedon also taught the Macedonians to use it. The formation is useful as the leaders are drawn up around it, and the front being narrow is able to cut through all enemy formations [uh oh], and epistrophes and anastrophes can be made easily". Something like that.

So what are epistrophes and anastrophes? Asclepiodotus 10.4 is your friend: "It is an epistrophe when we close up the entire battalion... [blah blah you know this bit] and move it like the body of one man in such a manner that the entire force swings on the first file leader as on a pivot".

So 'epistrophe' is a quarter turn by wheeling (yes, through 90 degrees). At least it is for infantry. Cavalry probabaly the same? And assuming Greeks were careful with their use of technical vocabulary (which usually they weren't).

For anastrophe, see Asclepiodotus 10.6: "Anastrophe is the reversal of the epistrophe to the position the syntagma originally held".

OK there's a surprise since mostly we might imagine 'anastrophe' to be an 'about turn' or 'about wheel' (through 180 degrees); here Asclepiodotus calls such a 180 wheel 'Perispasmos'(10.7).

So according to Asclepiodotus, epistrophe is 'a wheel through 90 degrees' and anastrophe is 'a wheel through 90 degrees back again having once done the first wheel through 90 degrees'. The difference, we might imagine, is that such a 'reverse wheel' would involve first an about face (Asclepiodotus doesn't mention this) so that the formation can wheel back without having to walk backwards.

I don't know whether that's what you want to hear or not. Certainly, neither Arrian nor Asclepiodotus are talking about countermarching here, and the 'flight of cranes' thing is definitely in the context of wheels, not countermarches.

Now more importantly and interestingly we need some research on the incidence of wheels in flights of cranes, and the limits on the angles through which they are able to wheel.

And edited to add - inspired by Anthony's bold speculations on Hellenistic knowledge of crane aerodynamics, I'm going to suggest that neither Asclep's "and the anastrophe was easier than in the square" nor Arrian's "epistrophes and anastrophes can be made easily" have in mind the technical meanings for epistrophe and anastrophe of Asclep. 10.6-7 - they just mean "wheeling manoeuvres are easy", which is the point, dare I suggest, of the analogy with the cranes, for whom wheeling manoeuvres are also easy. There, I've said it.

Fair enough. Wheeling obviously is going to be easier for a wedge since everybody has no trouble playing follow-my-leader. I would think though that in the context of a military manual 'anastrophe' and 'epistrophe' will retain their precise meanings, which means that Arrian is talking about 90 degree wheels.

So to sum up:

1. The rhombus is the most agile formation since it can change direction instantly in 90 degree increments without needing to wheel (the horsemen turn individually in place). It is however the weakest formation in attack since its best horsemen are spread on all 4 sides and the wedge shape does not deliver an effective shock impact. It is also not the best for "piercing all enemy formations". It necessarily changes direction in 90 degree increments.

2. the wedge is less manoevrable than the rhombus but more manoeuvrable than the square, since it can easily wheel. It is especially good for piercing enemy formations. Why? See everything on KTB. One point is that the best riders are concentrated on the two front edges of the wedge. Taking Arrian's terms in the same sense as Asklepiodotus, it wheels in 90 degree increments only.

3. The square is the least manoeuvrable formation since it wheels with difficulty (Mark's take on the cavalry wheel might apply here). But it delivers the best frontal impact since all riders hit the enemy simultaneously, and the best riders are on the front edge only. Presuming the cavalry square wheels like the infantry square (which Asklepiodotus implies) it also wheels in 90 degree increments.

Implications for wargamers:

1. The rhombus can change direction, left, right and back, instantly without any movement penalties, but it suffers a -1 in combat.

2. The wedge requires some movement penalty when wheeling right or left (it cannot turn 180 degrees in place). It fights with normal combat factors. It can pass straight through at least some enemy formations (what does 'pasan' mean? Discuss.).

3. The square requires more movement penalties when wheeling right or left, say something like all its movement allowance is spent on a wheel. It can't turn to face backwards. It has a +1 in combat.

4. All changes of direction are in 90 degree increments. Wargamers must henceforth use square grids. Don't argue.

How does that sound?


PS: This thread is going well. I think we're all learning something. 

[Duncan Head]

4. All changes of direction are in 90 degree increments.

Thus explaining the tacticaal superiority of steppe nomad cavalry, who hadn't read the manuals so could wheel wherever they felt so inclined.

[Justin Swanton]

4. All changes of direction are in 90 degree increments.

Thus explaining the tacticaal superiority of steppe nomad cavalry, who hadn't read the manuals so could wheel wherever they felt so inclined.

Historical research advances!

[RichT]

How does that sound?

Terrible! Though it would take a while to say in what ways.

PS: This thread is going well. I think we're all learning something. 

I've certainly learned a lot about cranes.