Cavalry Tactics at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields

[Cantabrigian]

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

I'd be interested what other people think of them.

[timurilank]

I enjoyed this. Thank you for sharing.

[Erpingham]

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.

[aligern]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

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

[Baldie]

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

[Justin Swanton]

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.

[nikgaukroger]

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.

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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?

[Imperial Dave]

the battle of pelennor fields is the exception that proves the rule

[Cantabrigian]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Imperial Dave]

although the formation does waver before impact which is important....