Cavalry traditions

[Andreas Johansson]

I think this discussion has got far away enough from Fredholm's article (which I still haven't seen!) that a new thread is called for. Click the quote link below to see previous exchanges.

Is that to do with cavalry traditions?  That Europeans had a "shock" tradition and were drawn to weaponry that augmented that?  They didn't really have a "mounted firepower" tradition (allowing for the fact they did, in the later Middle Ages, develop mounted crossbow and handgun armed light cavalry in an auxiliary role)?

I guess you could see it as convergence: by adopting ranged weapons at all, European heavy cavalry becomes more like their Asiatic equivalents. There's still a difference with the Europeans preferring to fight at shorter range, but it's not as stark as the medieval situation where Asiatics combine lance and bow while Europeans fight exclusively hand-to-hand. But there's a funny circular motion on the European side, with the emphasis on firearms lessening again from the 17C.

The Early Modern period also sees the European style expand eastwards, with Russia changing from an Asiatic style to a European one. I believe Ottoman Turkey undergoes a similar evolution at least equipment-wise - switching lance and bow for sword and pistol - but tactics seem to have remined more "eastern".

A constant is perhaps Western European cavalry's disinclination to use the bow.

Subsaharan African cavalry (largely restricted to the Sahel and the Horn of Africa) AFAIK stuck to close combat or throwing weapons, bows and, where available, firearms being used only by infantry.

[Erpingham]

Just wondering how many "cavalry traditions" you were considering in their response to the coming of the "fiery weapons" (as one of the Tudor treatises quaintly calls them)?  We have considered the European "shock" tradition and their adoption of short range firearms, the "Asiatics" with bow and lance (covering Turkey to China and down into India?) and the Sub-Saharan African "shock" tradition (no use of firearms).  Was Japan a separate tradition or a variant of Asiatic?  They don't seem to have gone for mounted firearms but went for infantry firearms quite enthusiastically.

[gavindbm]

I do wonder if best to think of the early mounted Bushi tradition in Japan as more akin to archery chariots....as high status armoured mobile archer engaging in duals/combat which is slightly reminiscent of WW1 aerial dogfights. Particularly, given Friday's belief that the power to weight ratio of early mounted Bushi would be much lower than the Steppe tradition!

With the option of the much later Takeda clan mounted adopting a shock approach (according to some views).

[Andreas Johansson]

Just wondering how many "cavalry traditions" you were considering in their response to the coming of the "fiery weapons" (as one of the Tudor treatises quaintly calls them)?

Only two, really; the European, more shocky one, and an Asiatic - perhaps better called Steppe - one, emphasizing horse archery. If Persians (well, most cavalrymen are likely to have been ethnically Turkic in the Early Modern period) etc. preferred long muskets like the East Asian types (with whom I'm better acquainted) that suggests the Asiatic tradition remained more-or-less cohesive in the gunpowder age, albeit with some defections on the western front.

But if we're to identify a more comprehensive set of traditions, candidates that come to mind include:

An African one, similar to the European in preferring short-ranged weaponry, but I believe less focused on shock, and never AFAIK adopting the use of firearms from horseback. Bedouin cavalry may belong here too.

An "Indigenous South Asian" one, tending to play second fiddle to Turco-Mongol interlopers, but present until British times. Armed with swords and spears rather than bows. SE Asian cavalry may belong here, but I frankly know almost nothing of them.

A Plains Indians one, at least superficially similar to the Asiatic/Steppe one, but there can be no question of the cultural continuity suggested by the word "tradition". Also, acc'd what was said in the original thread, they rejected firearms in a way the A/S tradition did not.

A Latin American one emphasizing the lance. Should perhaps be considered a variant of the European one, but again little use of firearms even in the 19C.

The Japanese surely start as a variant of the A/S tradition, but should perhaps be considered as going their own way. My reading on Japanese military history has a Sengoku Jidai-and-Tokugawa Shogunate-shaped hole, so little idea how their cavalry reacted to firearms. The Meiji army is pretty much Europeanized.

[Duncan Head]

Subsaharan African cavalry (largely restricted to the Sahel and the Horn of Africa) AFAIK stuck to close combat or throwing weapons, bows and, where available, firearms being used only by infantry.

There seems to have been some limited use of mounted archery in Mali, at least by officers - "Each farari has a quiver which he places between his shoulders. He holds his bow in his hand and is mounted on a mare. Some of his men are on foot and some on mounts" (ibn Battuta) and in mediaeval and later Senegambia - see here

[Andreas Johansson]

There seems to have been some limited use of mounted archery in Mali, at least by officers - "Each farari has a quiver which he places between his shoulders. He holds his bow in his hand and is mounted on a mare. Some of his men are on foot and some on mounts" (ibn Battuta) and in mediaeval and later Senegambia - see here

Ah, cool.

If this was limited to the western Sahelian region, it obviously undermines the idea of a single African tradition. Another difference with a perhaps similar distribution is the use of cotton horse armour, which, if I recall correctly from Cairns' The African Knights, was common from Ethiopia to Sokoto, but little used west thereof.

[Erpingham]

Only two, really; the European, more shocky one, and an Asiatic - perhaps better called Steppe - one, emphasizing horse archery.

Interesting, as I'd assumed Asiatic and Horse Archer were separate.

I'm not sure we need to deal with the New World traditions, as they arise well outside the society's time remit.

[Anton]

They, New World, came late to horses too.  The Comanches got them first and opted for long hafted axes and horse armour before moving to bow, shield and lance.

Anyhow, on traditions.  It seems to me we have two European ones.  For convenience I'm going to call them Celtic and Frankish. 

The Celtic one called for throwing javelins and then charging and the Frankish one just charged.  I'm aware it's more complex than that.  The Germanic Visigoths seem to have used the Celtic one, Italian Goths seem to have used both.  I also find the Gaulish and Irish triad of one fighter two supports interesting.  It could be read as drungus/globus.  Then there is Brendan Moyles idea of Breton cavalry wave attacks in Shattered Lances, a tactic he otherwise sees as Eastern.

You might argue that there was a Spanish light horse one too where some horseman primarily skirmished again with javelins.

A very interesting discussion with lots to consider.

[Erpingham]

Anyhow, on traditions.  It seems to me we have two European ones.  For convenience I'm going to call them Celtic and Frankish.

Or maybe "hit and run" and just "hit"

I'd agree though we have two mainstream styles.  I think I'd argue that the "hit and run" was slowly displaced by the "hit" and by the time we reached gunpowder weapons had largely done so in the west of Europe.

The Spanish light cavalry style evolves from the North African and uses a different riding style and equipment.

We might also note the Eastern/Central European/Balkan traditions, mixing horse archers and bow/spear types and later introducing western style shock cavalry.  A mixing point where various traditions intermingle.

[Anton]

I'm now moving more towards three styles I think.

The Spanish one I had in mind is the one that gave us the Cantabrian Circle rather than the later Berber influenced one.  I suppose there was very little in how both manifested so maybe it's the same one back again.   North British cavalry in the Roman period sound similar.  Irish cavalry ditto and maybe Basques too.  They mostly don't charge heavier equipped opponents.

Gallic cavalry charge, Brythonic cavalry charge, some Spanish cavalry charge, Libyan cavalry charge, Roman and Visigothic too- but all can throw javelins.

Franks just charge and once they adopted Catholicism they were on the road to setting the new European model military and social.  With that the charge model becomes dominant where ever Frankish Catholicism is the social system.  The other one or is that two continue where the Frankish Catholic system isn't.

Or so it seems to me.  That gives us' hit and run', 'hit and return to hit' and just 'hit' or something like that.

[Erpingham]

I suspect the two "javelin" cavalry traditions may be part of one pan-European tradition, with cultural adjustments around the willingness to get stuck in.  The "lancer" tradition seems to come from outside.  Do we blame the Romans and their cataphracts?  The Goths and the Lombards?  It really seems to take off under the Imperial Franks though.

[Anton]

Yes, it could be so.  It might also be to do with social position and the practicalities of kit and combat.  It was good to be heroic but the real point was to win and survive to enjoy it.  Aristocrats were expected to be braver than the commonality.  No one ever sang of the fellow at the back no matter how brave he was.

I think the Roman lancer must be important.  It's new in the West and in the right place to trigger emulation.

The Italian Goths seemingly could do both javelin and lance and by the time the Lombards arrive the lance example has already been set.

[Erpingham]

No one ever sang of the fellow at the back no matter how brave he was.

Not even Sir Robin?

[Imperial Dave]

 

[Duncan Head]

The "lancer" tradition seems to come from outside.  Do we blame the Romans and their cataphracts?

King Arthur and his Sarmatians.