How manoeuvrable were cavalry on the battlefield?

[Mark G]

Why do you assume cavalry formed in a loose formation to allow a horse length between?  That's acres of space, not even close enough to be called a formation anymore.

Light cavalry, scouts, fine.  But heavy cavalry would be too easy to isolate without a solid frontal formation as close to the next boot as possible.

It's well documented that if loosely spaced cavalry charge each other, they just past by down the files, while if one side is closed the other cannot do that, and has to consider breaking off.

[Erpingham]

The Changes of Front and Position, by Oblique Echellon, are the safest that can be employed in the presence of, and near to, an Enemy ; they are almost equål in security to the march Of the Regiment in front, or to a uniform wheel of the Line; they can be used in the most critical situations, where the movements of the open Column could not be risked ; and they are more particularly to be used when the enemy's flank is to be gained by throwing a flank forward, or when one's own is to be secured, by throwing it back. The advantages attending them are, the preserving a general front during the March, and enabling a Body to change its Front or Position, either on a fixed or moving point, retaining the power at any moment to stop the movement, form the line, and repel an attack.


So, these wheels as part of an oblique echelon are to be performed "in the presence of, and near to, an enemy".  Note that , wheeling on either a fixed or moving point, the movement can be stopped at any point.  I would suggest that means it doesn't need to reach a multiple of 90 degrees.

I think , in fairness, what counts as near the enemy may be further than it would be before the advent of rifled muskets and effective artillery and therefore some elements of this drill is probably not applicable but at the same time I think the question about whether modern manuals allowed wheels not in increments of 90 degrees is certainly yes.  The question then becomes why wouldn't ancient and medieval cavalry be able to do this?  If cavalry are well enough ordered and drilled to wheel through 90 degrees, why not 45 degrees or 30?  If they aren't well enough organised, would they loose enough to manoeuver globus-style to obtain a similar effect, as Roy suggests?

[Justin Swanton]

But this isn't wheeling. It's a line that remains in line whilst subunits either advance or stay back in echelon. The bit about the fixed or moving point refers to the fact that subunit from which the echelon originates may itself be moving or stationary.

[Erpingham]

enabling a Body to change its Front or Position, either on a fixed or moving point

Front here I believe means "facing" not "frontage".  To change facing on a fixed or moving point is wheeling, I think.  It could mean pivoting but I don't think this is a practical manoeuver as it would mean some units moving backwards while others moved forwards.

[Mark G]

You'll need to more clearly define your terms then Justin.

I understand a moving wheel to be like the arch over a doorway, still a formed line but successively following the arc around from facing up to facing down with facing sideways at the top.

Wheel is like the door hinge, the innermost horse slowly turns on its position as the front maintains alignment.

[Erpingham]

I've found the US Cavalry manual I refered to earlier Poinsett's Cavalry Tactics, originally published 1841.

The section on wheeling starts on page 146 (154 on the slide bar of the scanned copy).  It explains how to do fixed and moving pivot wheels.

One point of similarity to the British manual quoted earlier

In every kind of wheel, the troopers should cease wheeling and retake the direct march at the command FORWARD, at whatever point of the wheel they may be :


As said, we do need to be careful about how we apply these later manuals to earlier periods but the idea that wheels of less than 90 degrees are never described doesn't fit the evidence. 

[Justin Swanton]

Why do you assume cavalry formed in a loose formation to allow a horse length between?  That's acres of space, not even close enough to be called a formation anymore.

Light cavalry, scouts, fine.  But heavy cavalry would be too easy to isolate without a solid frontal formation as close to the next boot as possible.

It's well documented that if loosely spaced cavalry charge each other, they just past by down the files, while if one side is closed the other cannot do that, and has to consider breaking off.

Asklepiodotus describes individuals in a formation turning in place and makes it clear that this is done by cavalry as well as infantry:

Right- or left-facing, then, is the movement of the individual men, 'by spear' to the right, and 'by shield' — called in the cavalry 'by rein' — to the left; this takes place when the enemy falls upon the flanks and we wish either to counter-attack, or else to envelop his wing, i.e., overlap the wing of the enemy. - Asklepiodotus: 10.2 14.37

This ability to turn in place would be essential for one cavalry formation in particular: the rhombus:

It appears that the Thessalians were the first to use the rhomboid formation for their squadrons in cavalry fighting, and this with great success both in retreat and in attack, that they might not be thrown into disorder, since they were able to wheel [στρέφω - twist, turn] in any direction; for they placed their crack troopers on the sides and the very best of these at the angles; and they called the man at the fore angle a squadron-commander (ilarches), the one at the rear angle a squadron-closer (uragos), and those on the right and left angles flank-guards (plagiophylakes) - Asklepiodotus: 7.2 Thessalians mostly use the rhomboid formation. Jason the Thessalian, as the story goes, first invented this shape, but it seems to me that, making use of something discovered much earlier, he became famous from it. It is most suitable for every change and most secure against even the least chance of being taken from the rear or on the flanks. It has its leaders deployed at the corners of the rhombus; at the forward one the troop commander, on the right and on the left those called flank guards and at the remaining one the tail commander. It has the best riders on the sides of the rhombus as these prove greatly useful in battles. - Arrian: 16.

Notice how the Greek in Asklepiodotus talks about 'twisting' or 'turning', not necessarily wheeling as a body, and how this is confirmed by Arrian who describes how the rhombus - unique amongst the cavalry formations - cannot be taken by the flank or rear. Notice also how Arrian calls all the horsemen at the corners of the rhombus 'leaders' or 'commanders'. The implication is clear - the rhombus changed direction by individual horsemen turning in place, not by the entire formation wheeling. This enabled it to change direction quickly and face a flank or rear attack instantly. But to be able to do this the files had to be a reasonable distance part, enough so each horse could turn without bumping into horses of neighbouring files. If the horses deployed in the equivalent of infantry open order, with about 2 yards per file, that would be enough.

The last part of Arrian's manual describes Roman cavalry performing charges and retirements, using countermarching to allow the riders to rotate in the formations. Countermarching presupposes spaces between the files wide enough to allow horses to retire down through them, which means an open order arrangement. Notice that this applies to Roman cavalry, not LH skirmishers. For heavy cavalry like cataphracts however, bunching up so that horses virtually touch each other would be necessary when charging infantry, as cataphracts would stay and engage in melee combat, and close order would be necessary to prevent the footmen from getting on the flanks of the riders.

Indian cavalry interestingly deployed closer together:

The infantry should be arrayed such that the space between any two men is a sama [about 28cm, in between intermediate and close order]; cavalry with three samas [about 84cm or a little less than a yard]; chariots with four samas[i.e. slightly more than a yard] – Arthaśāstra: 10.5.

That could create cavalry files somewhat less than 2 yards wide.

I'd be interested in the documentation on opposing cavalry units passing through each other.

[Mark G]

Start with Frederick and work forward until rifled artillery

[Jim Webster]

I think you have to define by 'manoeuvrable' as well
Cavalry sent round the back of the army to deal with something on the other wing were probably very manoeuvrable, in that formations would probably loosen out during the movement and then close up as they arrived at their destination facing the right direction.

If you regard file leaders and file closers as NCOs there are an awful lot of men in a cavalry unit to shout men back into formation and get stuff tightened up. Everybody knows who they're behind and who they're next to

[Justin Swanton]

enabling a Body to change its Front or Position, either on a fixed or moving point

Front here I believe means "facing" not "frontage".  To change facing on a fixed or moving point is wheeling, I think.  It could mean pivoting but I don't think this is a practical manoeuver as it would mean some units moving backwards while others moved forwards.

Not sure front means facing. It seems to make more sense as the shape of the line - echeloned forward or back - whilst position refers to where the line now is. Notice that this manoeuvre is used to advance past an enemy's flank or to refuse one's own flank, neither of which require wheeling. Notice also the ability to reform the line instantly to receive an enemy attack, something which would be very difficult to do in mid wheel.

[Justin Swanton]

I think you have to define by 'manoeuvrable' as well
Cavalry sent round the back of the army to deal with something on the other wing were probably very manoeuvrable, in that formations would probably loosen out during the movement and then close up as they arrived at their destination facing the right direction.

If you regard file leaders and file closers as NCOs there are an awful lot of men in a cavalry unit to shout men back into formation and get stuff tightened up. Everybody knows who they're behind and who they're next to

My take is that for something like moving round the back of an enemy line to get to the other flank the cavalry would form column, and columns could wheel as they pleased since the column leader would have no problem letting the few horsemen in the front rank know exactly where he wanted to go, with every one else just following suit. But columns aren't fighting formations so this could be done only if there was no danger of being charged whilst en route.

[Justin Swanton]

I've found the US Cavalry manual I refered to earlier Poinsett's Cavalry Tactics, originally published 1841.

The section on wheeling starts on page 146 (154 on the slide bar of the scanned copy).  It explains how to do fixed and moving pivot wheels.

One point of similarity to the British manual quoted earlier

In every kind of wheel, the troopers should cease wheeling and retake the direct march at the command FORWARD, at whatever point of the wheel they may be :


As said, we do need to be careful about how we apply these later manuals to earlier periods but the idea that wheels of less than 90 degrees are never described doesn't fit the evidence.

Wheeling is done by platoons - 24 men according to the manual - which seems to imply that larger units didn't wheel and could change orientation only in column, albeit there is a drill for advancing a line obliquely at a 45° angle.

[Mark G]

And a turma is 30 men.

Which is 3 ranks of ten.  Look at how slow that is on the video.

If you are expecting to find evidence of 500 men by 8 men on horses wheeling, ever. Forget it.

[Justin Swanton]

And a turma is 30 men.

Which is 3 ranks of ten.  Look at how slow that is on the video.

If you are expecting to find evidence of 500 men by 8 men on horses wheeling, ever. Forget it.

So wheeling is more difficult for cavalry than for infantry, such that a body of horse will take longer to wheel than a body of foot of the same dimensions (and more men)?

[Mark G]

Yes, undoubtedly.  Because of the ranks, and because the horses on the inside have a much harder job turning in place than men do.

Remember, on a proper wheel, the second rank must wait for the first rank to not only make their turn, but also move forward before the second rank can itself move to the first line starting point to begin its wheel, etc for each rank. 
And given that spatial logic and the need to anticipate the rear ranks to follow and the possible threat of an enemy, the logical place for that first line to stop and the second line to start is when the first rank has wheeled and moved forward to the full depth of the formation before the second rank moves forward to begin.

You can try this yourself with figures- take a 3x3 element of cavalry
Mark the footprint and especially the front corner.
Now wheel the front elements on a corner.  You can't follow with the second rank until the first then moved forward as half the rear is still occupying some of the space ( the base effectively reminds you how long a horse is) - and you can see the nonsense of the whole formation following the front line of the front element.

So you move the front rank forward and it may as well go forward the full 3 deep.  Second rank now moves to the first start, wheels and forward, then third. 
Finally, the formation as a whole is now ready to advance to the new direction as a formation.

You can speed that up by changing from a full wheel on a pivot, to an open wheel that keeps moving, that's the archway turn, but it requires at least the frontage length again distance before the turn can complete.  Worse if it's done at speed.

And the whole time in a battle you risk an opponent attacking while this complicated movement is incomplete and your fighting ability is greatly reduced.