cavalry wheeling

[Mark G]

although the reenactors at Carlisle ignored your theory, and wheeled in the traditional manner.

and it took ages, as you would expect, but ensured that they retained a coherent front line and formation at all times.

which does rather suggest that they new theory may be a bit too theoretical for them too.

[Dangun]

Alas no, otherwise it would have been quoted here...

How were wheels conducted in the Napoleonic period?
I guess we know that much?

[Jim Webster]

Alas no, otherwise it would have been quoted here...

How were wheels conducted in the Napoleonic period?
I guess we know that much?

serious suggestion, anybody got an evening to sit and watch the 1970 film Waterloo again to see if we see cavalry wheeling. After all the participants included a full soviet cavalry brigade who would have some idea how it was done 

[Erpingham]

Alas no, otherwise it would have been quoted here...

How were wheels conducted in the Napoleonic period?
I guess we know that much?

As mentioned above there are numerous 19th century cavalry manuals online, both British and American (and doubtless in other languages too).  Larger units always wheel by sub-units.  However, I claim no familiarity with this material - I've only referred to some of it for comparative stuff on speeds and charge distances.

[Mark G]

those soviet troops also buckled their squares into triangles , despite being told to stand there while the cavalry ran past.

hardly the best trained troops on offer.

Napoleonic cavalry (really, any cavalry in Europe from (at latest) mid 18th century right up until post crimea) moved by squadron - which were usually divided up into two companies or troops that would each be roughly the size of a turma on most battlefields.

they were also usually two ranks.  occasionally in three.

Pat will be please to know that the basic unit was also the file (two men), which combined into Threes (three files, 6 men) and so on.

but this was irrelevant to wheeling and other formation manoeuvring.

they usually marched around in columns of a squadron frontage (well, halved for two ranks), and that was the size of the basic manoeuvre element - and despite the most famous charges being massed, they almost invariable actually charged by squadron even when in line, because victory went to the chap who could commit the last impact unit i.e. had the last free squadron to throw in.

so we are looking at roughly 25-50 frontage squadrons at the end of a campaign, but potentially up to 100 frontage at full strength on parade.

all manoeuvres were by frontage.

now these roman reenactor guys (and girls) were pretty clear on the day that they had sourced what they were doing, even down to the correct ranges of horse sizes on the field fitting with skeletons and other material.  no one had stirrups even, to just make up the numbers for the afternoon.

so if Pat is right that they didn't manoeuvre by frontage, and instead had come up with a new way to move by file which has subsequently been lost to us, but which managed to retain a formed frontage on completion, I think they would know about it.

but frankly, I cannot see any way that cavalry can wheel other than by frontage, not if they want to retain any formation whatsoever.

and unformed cavalry contacted by formed cavalry are dead, full stop.  doesn't matter if they are equites or medieval knights, or Carabiniers-à-Cheval, every source we have repeats the same thing at every point in time where there is a discussion on formed cavalry.

I should note here that the climactic cavalry charge across the field on this day, was barely a trot - because the reenactors were focussed on retaining frontage and formation even then. which is exactly what we find emphasised again and again in the books of any period about cavalry in battle in Europe.  Even medieval knights focussed on maintaining their formation and arriving together (occasionally couched in terms of not getting ahead of someone more superior but being behind someone inferior, but always the same outcome)

References to cavalry walking into a charge are always accompanied by references to the cavalry not being properly trained to get faster and retain formation (This was Fredericks big innovation during the WAS when he pulled his cavalry out and forced them to train until they could charge together at speed.  they subsequently became known as the best cavalry in Europe for the next 50 years.)

we also have ancient sources attesting to this being the particular weakness of cataphracts - that they were reliant on maintaining a solid frontage at all times because they were too vulnerable to their sides. - strikingly similar to the problems for pikes if they lost solid formation.

and xenophons stuff, what there is on it, is also all about formation and order.

anyway, this area is one of the very few areas where I think we can gain something from looking at post gunpowder eras, because we are looking at something that really hasn't changed much - how to move with groups of men on horses.

[Dangun]

all manoeuvres were by frontage.

Sorry for asking for clarification, but just so I understand the differences...
You are suggesting that whether a Napoleonic squadron was deployed 25, 50 etc. wide, the whole frontage wheeled as one, or not at all.
Whereas the Patrick/Justin thesis posits wheeling by sub-squadron divisions, that re-line up post wheel.
Just checking?

[Mark G]

Yes.

Regiments in line would articulate by squadron, but regiments only tended to form line after they were positioned from column, so that would be unusual in itself if the needed to wheel a regiment line rather than redeploy it via moving back into squadron column.

Pats theory is that they did everything by files ignoring frontage, which somehow sorted itself out at the end.

I'm not convinced by his initial description of that, but would like to see more evidence before dismissing it entirely.

Contra is pretty much every bit of evidence we do have on forming cavalry ever.  Which is indicative that it is likely to be consistent.

And frontage is what the reenactors used consistently.

[Patrick Waterson]

Pats theory is that they did everything by files ignoring frontage, which somehow sorted itself out at the end.

Or rather than each turma manoeuvred in three files of ten, basing their speed and relationships on the chap leading the central file.  At a guess, one of the central turmae would carry the unit standard, and other turmae would adjust speed and spacing relative to it.  Given that a 300-man Republican contingent of ten turmae ten deep or - what these Hadrian's cavalry chaps presumably should be re-enacting but evidently are not - a 512-man Imperial ala of presumably 16 turmae (each 32 men) in perhaps two files each sixteen deep would have a frontage of 30 and 32 horses respectively*, the amount of coordination involved is not excessive for well-trained troops.

*at manoeuvre frontage of 6' per mounted man, giving a frontage of 192' or 64 yards for the Imperial ala against 180' or 60 yards for the Republican formation - with the additional option of deploying at half those depths to cover a greater frontage or deploy in close formation for possible shock action

I would point out that keeping frontage aligned throughout need not be a priority, as who would leave wheeling so late as to be within charge reach of the enemy when performing it?

[Erpingham]

I'm not sure we can criticise our reenactors for not just moving about in column of twos or threes.  Surely, even if we assume a fighting formation of three hundred men in 10 ranks, we can't expect a thirty man unit to retain that depth fighting independently.

I remain genuinely surprised none of the ancient manuals give us a clue on how to manoeuver a cavalry unit. 

[Patrick Waterson]

I remain genuinely surprised none of the ancient manuals give us a clue on how to manoeuvre a cavalry unit.

Even Xenophon seems to take it for granted that something so obvious and elementary to his readers is not worthy of mention.

We do however have a few clues.  In the classical era, infantry organised and manoeuvred by files, so it is almost certain that cavalry did the same, particularly javelin-armed regular cavalry which, judging by Arrian's manoeuvres, did their javelin shooting in sequence, a sort of early caracole (if I may slightly misuse the term).  This is consistent with organisation by files, if also with a desire to see each individual performing properly.

Then there is organisation: the Roman Republican cavalry turma was 30 strong and the officers were called decurions, and indeed the unit was led by a decurion.  This is consistent with ten-man files (decurion = leader of ten), which implies three such files per 30-man unit, with the senior decurion leading.

Surely, even if we assume a fighting formation of three hundred men in 10 ranks, we can't expect a thirty man unit to retain that depth fighting independently.

Why 'surely'?  And why 'independently'?  Romans had a tendency to view cavalry as a sort of four-legged fast infantry (not unlike some wargamers) and would expect the men therein to keep their place in the formation at all times.  A turma would not fight by itself on the battlefield; it would have friends.  The smallest 'independent' contingent I know of is the four turmae posted between the leftmost legion and the river at Magnesia - more usually the turma would be part of a formation of hundreds or even thousands.  I noted earlier than there would be the option to draw up five deep, but the basic organisation assumes ten deep, so unless there was a need to cover extra frontage (as on the right at Cannae), ten deep would be the default depth and would remain so until some horsemen fell in action.

When scouting, a different set of rules would come into play.  Most likely, one or two files would split up to scout, perhaps in pairs, with the leading decurion and his file staying back as a refuge for any scouts hard-pressed by a cluster of enemies.  Having nine cavalrymen immediately to hand would also mean the decurion could send a steady stream of messages as his patrols brought in information.

[Mark G]

And what evidence do you offer, Pat?

Napoleonic cavalry were also organised by files, but did not manoever by it.

You need more to make a case to counter the reenactors best efforts.

[Dangun]

We do however have a few clues...

I am still getting up to speed on the possibilities...
But do we have a source that requires/suggests that Roman cavalry is this agile/well organised, or at least more agile than Napoleonic cavalry? Such sources might give us clues as to how its done?

[Erpingham]

Why 'surely'?  And why 'independently'?

We know (because of administrative documents that have survived) that Roman units sent small detachments to do stuff. They scouted, they escorted, they patrolled.  So I'm surprised at the shock the idea of a turma performing on its own causes. 

I'll admit that the idea that they performed different roles in different formations is mine, based on later practice.  But, so far, no-one has produced evidence of any formations at all.

We must also recall that our re-enactors are involved in a show, not an academic exercise in private.  So they are going to deliver a display based on what they've got, not an exploration of being part of an imaginary larger formation.

[Patrick Waterson]

I am still getting up to speed on the possibilities...
But do we have a source that requires/suggests that Roman cavalry is this agile/well organised, or at least more agile than Napoleonic cavalry? Such sources might give us clues as to how its done?

I am interested to know who might have written such sources, as historians of the Roman period do not appear to have made direct comparisons with Napoleonic practice, and Napoleonic historians appear to have had little or no idea about how Roman cavalry had operated.  Regarding organisation, we have unit strengths and some elements of officer structure, which allow us to conclude that Roman organisation was by files.  Respective agilities would be hard to assess, but given the deliberate nature of most classical military movements I would assume that Napoleonic cavalry would have moved faster and been harder to control.

We know (because of administrative documents that have survived) that Roman units sent small detachments to do stuff. They scouted, they escorted, they patrolled.  So I'm surprised at the shock the idea of a turma performing on its own causes. 

The Imperial Romans often had specific exploratores units which specialised in scouting for the army.  Escorting and patrolling were indeed part and parcel of cavalry duties, but I suspect mainly of the auxiliary cavalry rather than the main-line alae we are (or at least I think we are) discussing here.  This of course raises the question of how the auxiliary cavalry were trained, manoeuvred, fought and generally operated, and one would expect they would not differ too much from their first-line brethren.  Perhaps more to the point is that our Hadrian's Cavalry chaps are not touting themselves as displaying their scouting, escorting and patrolling capabilities but rather what they think is their exercise and/or battle formation as per (or more accurately, not quite as per) Arrian's Tactica and Hadrian's period.

I'll admit that the idea that they performed different roles in different formations is mine, based on later practice.  But, so far, no-one has produced evidence of any formations at all.

I had rather assumed that members would be at least passingly familiar with Polybius' At the most cavalry in a regular engagement is drawn up eight deep, and between each squadron a clear space must be left in the line to enable them to turn or face about. Therefore eight hundred will cover a stade of front ... (XII.18.3), from which we derive the time-honoured rule of thumb of 6' frontage per cavalryman and the explicit reference to eight-deep files.  A stade (stadion) is about 200 yards, and as the cavalry are eight deep, 800 cavalry divided by the depth of 8 gives a frontage of 100 cavalrymen on 200 yards or 2 yards per cavalryman.  The figure of eight deep is explicitly stated as the norm for 'most cavalry' but is inapplicable to the 300-man Republican turma, which given its officer structure would have deployed ten deep, although it has potential applicability to the 512-man Imperial ala.  Polybius' cavalry, like the Romans, are javelin-users and are expected to countermarch, although whether by files or squadrons is unclear.

We must also recall that our re-enactors are involved in a show, not an academic exercise in private.  So they are going to deliver a display based on what they've got, not an exploration of being part of an imaginary larger formation.

But they are touting themselves as being accurate Hadrianic cavalry - even if they are operating on a figure scale of 1:17, do they give a more accurate impression of period tactics by using historical depths or by using unhistorical breadth?

Please do not get me wrong: I would give these gentlemen every encouragement in what they are attempting to do.  It is just that they are seemingly steeped in Napoleonic cavalry habits rather than the classical way of doing things.  Since they are trying so hard to get small details right one would have hoped they might also have paid a little more attention to basic matters of formation and organisation, but it seems the idea of operating in ranks as opposed to files is as firmly as it is erroneously ingrained in their consciousness.  And they seem to have organised themselves into a 30-man Republican turma not a 32-man Imperial turma, which seems a little odd for anyone who claims to have thoroughly researched what they were doing.

[Duncan Head]

I had rather assumed that members would be at least passingly familiar with Polybius' At the most cavalry in a regular engagement is drawn up eight deep

Which casts serious doubt on the whole idea that the 30-man turma operated in ten-deep files.