Given there's been quite a bit of discussion about cavalry tactics recently, I thought this discussion of cavalry tactics at the (fictional) Battle of the Pelennor Fields might be of interest. It's part of a blog by Bret Devereaux, an academic, who claims that he's trying to point out misconceptions in popular modern culture about the ancient and medieval worlds, but it's really just a poorly disguised set of lectures on those worlds (which personally I think is a good thing!).
A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry (https://acoup.blog/2019/05/31/collections-the-siege-of-gondor-part-iv-the-cavalry-arrives/)
I'd be interested what other people think of them.
I enjoyed this. Thank you for sharing.
I'm sure I've read stuff by this blogger before. Something on medieval logistics and Game of Thrones, IIRC.
Though it isn't the medieval bit, I do like how he has tackled the differences between the source and the film and why those differences might exist.
As to the tactics side, he has got a lot right, I think. The bit about the archery I think he is too fixated on western knights - assorted Eastern Europeans, Turks, Byzantines and Middle Eastern types, not to mention troops further East, had bow armed shock cavalry, so why shouldn't fantasy types.
Because it sayeth in one if the early books of words on wargaming ( Brother Hollin doubtless has the exact quote somewhere in his library ) that cavalry armed with a bow and lance are less fierce in the charge than cavalry with lance alone.
It was certainly a truth generally acknowledged in early WRG rules that giving a soldier a bow lowered his morale. The problem was compounded if you also failed to provide a shield. It was in the reaction test, along with the magical power of Huns to cause fear even among troops who had no knowledge of Huns, like New Kingdom Egyptians.
Quote from: aligern on April 02, 2021, 04:38:20 PM
Because it sayeth in one if the early books of words on wargaming ( Brother Hollin doubtless has the exact quote somewhere in his library ) that cavalry armed with a bow and lance are less fierce in the charge than cavalry with lance alone.
Verily it sayeth that
Quote from: Holly on April 02, 2021, 05:23:13 PM
Quote from: aligern on April 02, 2021, 04:38:20 PM
Because it sayeth in one if the early books of words on wargaming ( Brother Hollin doubtless has the exact quote somewhere in his library ) that cavalry armed with a bow and lance are less fierce in the charge than cavalry with lance alone.
Verily it sayeth that
It would def make it harder to hit anything with the lance if you were also holding the bow and as for accurate shots with the lance held under your arm
Quote from: Baldie on April 02, 2021, 05:47:17 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 02, 2021, 05:23:13 PM
Quote from: aligern on April 02, 2021, 04:38:20 PM
Because it sayeth in one if the early books of words on wargaming ( Brother Hollin doubtless has the exact quote somewhere in his library ) that cavalry armed with a bow and lance are less fierce in the charge than cavalry with lance alone.
Verily it sayeth that
It would def make it harder to hit anything with the lance if you were also holding the bow and as for accurate shots with the lance held under your arm
You don't try to hold bow and lance at the same time. The bow goes into a kind of holster when it isn't being used and I think you slung the lance on your back with a strap. The lancer-archer must have been effective since the Sassanid variant ended the supremacy of Roman infantry, obliging Romans to rely increasingly on a copycat version of the Sassanid horseman.
One thing I think he has underestimated is the number of infantry ranks a horse can smash through. We've covered this elsewhere, just to say that cavalry frequently burst through infantry lines.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 02, 2021, 06:08:05 PM
You don't try to hold bow and lance at the same time. The bow goes into a kind of holster when it isn't being used and I think you slung the lance on your back with a strap.
Or held between the thigh and the horse a la mamluks.
Quote
The lancer-archer must have been effective since the Sassanid variant ended the supremacy of Roman infantry, obliging Romans to rely increasingly on a copycat version of the Sassanid horseman.
Er, not quite like that I'm afraid.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on April 02, 2021, 06:28:46 PM
Quote
The lancer-archer must have been effective since the Sassanid variant ended the supremacy of Roman infantry, obliging Romans to rely increasingly on a copycat version of the Sassanid horseman.
Er, not quite like that I'm afraid.
Oh definitely like that. Absolutely and unarguably like that.
Wanna fight?
the battle of pelennor fields is the exception that proves the rule
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 02, 2021, 06:08:05 PM
One thing I think he has underestimated is the number of infantry ranks a horse can smash through. We've covered this elsewhere, just to say that cavalry frequently burst through infantry lines.
I don't think he's saying that cavalry couldn't burst through infantry lines - more that the riders wouldn't want to try it because if they didn't make it all the way through and out the back it would be a death sentence.
Quote from: Cantabrigian on April 02, 2021, 09:57:21 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 02, 2021, 06:08:05 PM
One thing I think he has underestimated is the number of infantry ranks a horse can smash through. We've covered this elsewhere, just to say that cavalry frequently burst through infantry lines.
I don't think he's saying that cavalry couldn't burst through infantry lines - more that the riders wouldn't want to try it because if they didn't make it all the way through and out the back it would be a death sentence.
It would probably depend on the depth of the infantry line. Given their size, Rohan horses shouldn't have a problem getting through a line 10 men deep, but they wouldn't manage a line 20 deep.
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 03, 2021, 09:35:04 AM
Quote from: Cantabrigian on April 02, 2021, 09:57:21 PM
Quote from: Justin Swanton on April 02, 2021, 06:08:05 PM
One thing I think he has underestimated is the number of infantry ranks a horse can smash through. We've covered this elsewhere, just to say that cavalry frequently burst through infantry lines.
I don't think he's saying that cavalry couldn't burst through infantry lines - more that the riders wouldn't want to try it because if they didn't make it all the way through and out the back it would be a death sentence.
It would probably depend on the depth of the infantry line. Given their size, Rohan horses shouldn't have a problem getting through a line 10 men deep, but they wouldn't manage a line 20 deep.
It depends on the two sides. To close at all, the cavalry need some reason to believe they can break through (unless that isn't their objective in the first place). Disordered infantry, like the orcs, were probably fair game at 10 ranks and you could probably hit them at speed if you were willing to risk horses tripping over bodies. I doubt if real medieval cavalry would have attacked formed close-order infantry in depth in the way the Rohirrim go at it here.
although the formation does waver before impact which is important....
Quote from: Erpingham on April 03, 2021, 10:49:01 AM
you could probably hit them at speed if you were willing to risk horses tripping over bodies.
I think that's an interesting point. The centre of gravity of a horse and rider moving at speed would be considerably higher than that of any close-order infantry they collided with, making a trip much more likely. They might have the momentum to break through, but would probably come out the far side as a flailing ball of broken flesh.
If the infantry are in loose order or disordered you've got far more chance of pushing them aside. Also reducing your impact speed would reduce the risk, but at the cost of less momentum.
QuoteIf the infantry are in loose order or disordered you've got far more chance of pushing them aside. Also reducing your impact speed would reduce the risk, but at the cost of less momentum.
Yes. Hitting troops who are not solid - loose order, disordered, waivering - at speed was probably do-able. The comments in the blog about keeping moving and needing space apply here. The emphasis was on scattering and killing. If the formation remained solid , the emphasis would be on breaking its order first and that probably meant a more controlled impact, possibly more probing attacks. We actually don't have as much detail on this as we would like, but that would be my reading of how medieval cavalry tackled solid infantry.
I'm a bit skeptical about using the film as a model, since the film dramatically increases the visual effect.
I may have even been shushed in the cinema for shouting out 'there's more than 6000 cavalry there !' when the supposed 6000 that were assembled suddenly doubled on screen for the charge itself.
a point that I felt vindicated on somewhere in the big box set commentaries, when the digital effects team admitted there were 12 000 on screen at that point.
and lets not start on the charge down the mountain that Gandalf leads in film 2.
Quote from: Mark G on April 03, 2021, 07:07:47 PM
and lets not start on the charge down the mountain that Gandalf leads in film 2.
that has been raging everytime!
Quote from: Mark G on April 03, 2021, 07:07:47 PMI may have even been shushed in the cinema for shouting out 'there's more than 6000 cavalry there !' when the supposed 6000 that were assembled suddenly doubled on screen for the charge itself.
a point that I felt vindicated on somewhere in the big box set commentaries, when the digital effects team admitted there were 12 000 on screen at that point.
6,000 troopers and 6,000 armed grooms or pages :)
The Rohirrim don't count the latter, of course, but the enemy will. And then the orcish historians will probably double it again for good measure.
clearly the scops will sing of only brave King Theoden armed only with a butter knife.....
Quote from: Holly on April 03, 2021, 09:45:02 PM
clearly the scops will sing of only brave King Theoden armed only with a butter knife.....
Brave King Theoden
he had six thousand men,
He charged right through ten ranks of orcs
Then he charged through ten again.
(sorry!)
Hi there
>>>>
I may have even been shushed in the cinema for shouting out 'there's more than 6000 cavalry there !
>>>>>>
I was watching film 1 at home with some friends when the scene appears with Aragon speaking elvish and they put up sub-titles; I involuntarily called out 'he didn't quite say that'.
When you spot some debatable elvish translations in real time you know you spent your youth reading well.
David F Brown.
Wasn't it the French King Francis who led his Gendarmes in charges that passed through Pike formations but the pike morale was good enough to reform ?
Is that the somewhat suspect description of a charge breaking into a Kiel and riding out the other side because once inside the spear points, it was "impossible " for the footmen to bring their weapons to bear on him?
with orcsies, their morale is paper thin. Once charged through they go shriek-sing back to Mordor
The Byzantine tenth century manuals clearly envisage that armoured men on armoured horses can break into a well irdered foot formation. The armoured horses break the normal infantry spears, so the Byzantines devise squads armed with the menaulion, a thick spear to stop the cataphracts. I suggest that the penetration is accomplished because the Byzantine's enemy is on armoured horses the knights of Francis 1 are.
Roy
Quote from: aligern on April 04, 2021, 11:33:03 PM
The Byzantine tenth century manuals clearly envisage that armoured men on armoured horses can break into a well irdered foot formation. The armoured horses break the normal infantry spears, so the Byzantines devise squads armed with the menaulion, a thick spear to stop the cataphracts. I suggest that the penetration is accomplished because the Byzantine's enemy is on armoured horses the knights of Francis 1 are.
Roy
I guess the question I'd have is at what speed they broke into the formation. Anyone who's seen police horses in action wouldn't doubt that they could push their way in at walking pace, and the additional armour of a cataphract might make this a survivable tactic, and probably quite devastating to the infantry.
I'd imagine that the cataphracts would be going faster than a walk, but how much faster?
QuoteI guess the question I'd have is at what speed they broke into the formation.
One of the great mysteries of medieval combat :)
We know , both from the manual that Roy quoted and also other medieval descriptions, that cavalry could hit infantry with the force to break spears, which suggests more than a walk.
Indeed Anthony , faster than a walk because the cavalry are relying on their horses to push the footmen to either side and, without needing to be be too quick, keep the infantry off balance. The Courtrai chest shows the Flemish infantry fronted by spears, goedendag ( club) wielders next and then buckler and falchion guys. I take that to mean an acceptance that knights are going to break into the , but be slowed by the spears, battered down by the goedendags and despatched by the falchions.
Roy
QuoteI take that to mean an acceptance that knights are going to break into the , but be slowed by the spears, battered down by the goedendags and despatched by the falchions.
I believe the orcs had studied this and based their tactics on it. What they had failed to grasp is you needed not to panic :)
The point about acceptance is a good one. We do have quite a few little vignettes of cavalry v infantry combat where the cavalry penetrate the infantry formation . Provided these break ins are small and the infantry are determined, they can survive. If your tactical doctrine is this will happen but when it does, all hands on deck to repel the invader, its the difference between a surprise and an expected development, morale wise.
If we look at Courtrai and the death of Robert of Artois, we see this in action. Artois penetrates the Flemish formation and lays hand on one of the banners. He is attacked from all sides. Eventually, a monk and a lay brother rush him from opposite sides and one of them takes down his horse with a mighty blow with a godendag. Grounded, he is killed by the mob (who forgot they had orders to capture him, apparently).
Quote from: Mark G on April 03, 2021, 07:07:47 PM
I'm a bit skeptical about using the film as a model, since the film dramatically increases the visual effect.
Definitely this. Throw out the film completely and just reference the book.
absolutely. The book is far superior
Quote from: Holly on April 08, 2021, 02:06:42 PM
absolutely. The book is far superior
It is a very long time since I last read this (Christmas 1974, I think) so I can't say I recall its description and how well it mirrors actual medieval practice. I vaguely recall it was reminiscent of early chivalric romances (like the Song of Roland), which, while not useless as a source, do have some issues. But then, Tolkein wasn't trying to reflect real warfare anymore than Jackson was.
Quote from: Erpingham on April 08, 2021, 02:32:13 PM
Quote from: Holly on April 08, 2021, 02:06:42 PM
absolutely. The book is far superior
It is a very long time since I last read this (Christmas 1974, I think) so I can't say I recall its description and how well it mirrors actual medieval practice. I vaguely recall it was reminiscent of early chivalric romances (like the Song of Roland), which, while not useless as a source, do have some issues. But then, Tolkein wasn't trying to reflect real warfare anymore than Jackson was.
Also for Tolkein, 'real warfare' was the trenches.
I suspect he had a lot of insights we haven't got, but on the technicalities of cavalry charges his only advantage is that he could well have known people of an older generation who'd taken part in them
Quote from: Jim Webster on April 08, 2021, 03:56:38 PM
I suspect he had a lot of insights we haven't got, but on the technicalities of cavalry charges his only advantage is that he could well have known people of an older generation who'd taken part in them
He may have had some insight into cavalry from his officer training that we don't have - it was still a real, if obsolescent, arm of service - and, unlike us, undoubtedly saw cavalry moving about. How much he cared to use this to inform his writing about heroic cavalry charges, I've no idea.
I seem to remember from some distant reading of sources, that he used the Goths as his template for the Rohirrim
Quote from: Holly on April 08, 2021, 05:26:07 PM
I seem to remember from some distant reading of sources, that he used the Goths as his template for the Rohirrim
I think I have also seen that and it makes sense. However, we don't have much Gothic epic poetry describing cavalry charges to build on, so I suspect he had to cast the net wider on that.
I'm slightly sceptical about T using the Goths.
He was trying to build a parallel to our "dark ages" certainly, but I think the langobards were closer to what he had in mind.
Something from pre Norman Western European history anyway, but the Goths seem too late to fit the model, I think.
I'll try and dig up the reference but you may be right. In any case Tolkien used to mash together different cultures to help build his narratives and people
The thing about the books vs the film:
1) Oliphants are more believable, being "merely" elephants;
2) The book includes the Harads, which PJ couldn't seem to fit in after he created his abominations;
3) Orcs are portrayed by their creator as he thought they ought to be, and not by some hack filmmaker whose head has gotten too big.
dont get me started on the oliphants!
I think there were some cultural appropriation type considerations with the Harads in the films.
It's pretty tricky to put what are in the books basically every Islamic stereotype masher together on to film, without characterising a single one of them. No named characters, no roles past an extra, only on the bad guys side and only ever as bad guy soldiers. That's hard to get past any censor even 20 years ago.
Nazis and zombies are the only bad guys you are allowed to film as always bad and one dimensional- and you can kill as many in screen as you like. Any other culturally identifiable group has its defenders and is treated as such by the censors.
Action elf and the oiliphants however ... let's be generous and supposed he had to put in something to allow more CGI
true enough....a fine line to tread these days!
They depicted Easterlings fine.
Linguistically and culturally the people of Rohan are Anglo-Saxon.
It's just the horse thing that is different....