RomanArmyTalk

Hi all - Like Michael, I'm not much of an expert on horsemanship (my experience is largely limited to having ridden a few of my uncle's horses back in Nebraska as a youngster). However, I'm lucky enough to have a good friend whose father was accounted "one of the finest horsemen" on the high plains in the early 20th century and who himself "cowboyed" professionally in the years after WWII. I described to him the discussion emerging in this thread and he offered a couple of useful observations. First, he echoed Paul Bardunias' suggestion on flying hussars in thinking that anyone trying to ride the average horse into a relatively solid wall of men (regardless of their weaponery and especially without stirrips) would indeed quicky become a "missileman" (i.e. the horse would stop dead in its tracks and launch the foolish/suicidal critter on its back into the looming barrier). Second, training a horse to run into such a situation against any reasonable sense of self-preservation would require not only extensive conditioning, but quite a rare horse to begin with. He points out that horses are every bit individuals as are their human "masters" and you'd have to go through a "whole slew" of them to find one susceptable to being trained to charge into standing opposition. Given both this scarcity of viable candidates for such training and the time involved in carrying out the necessary conditioning even should such a mount be found, he thinks that the whole idea of "shock-charging cavalry" a highly unlikely one. Of course, getting a horse to stop short and strike with its hooves at an opponent would be more practical This is something Herodotus said at least one specially trained Persian mount did in an action on Cyprus during the Ionian Revolt, albeit with the end result that both it and its rider were rather rapidly slain (by a combination of chariot-mounted opponents and their light infantry escorts).

I think that Michael's comments here on cavalry being effective almost exclusively against formation flanks (and rears) or hoplites in disarray during rapid movement are correct. There are indeed many examples of Greek phalanxes exerting considerable effort to place screening forces (horsemen and/or light infantry) or terrain barriers (both natural and man-made) on their flanks to preclude cavalry envelopment (and suffering dire consequences whenever these preventatives failed). And Herodotus offered a detailed example of what can happen to spearmen making a disorderly advance in describing the action at Plataea in 479 B.C. There, the Megaran-led hoplite brigade was caught out of formation while marching to aid its Athenian allies and was cut to pieces (600 spearmen killed, likely about 15% of the total present) by a much smaller force of Persian-allied Greek horsemen. - Fred Ray

I haven't heard about the lance.

But I generally think archery, and missile weapons generally, were important. Zhmodikov makes a strong argument about thrown missile weapons in classical Roman warfare, and classical Roman infantry were usually better protected than most Old English infantry.

Quote:But I generally think archery, and missile weapons generally, were important.

Yes. But their lethality against armored troops was not as high as is sometimes imagined.

Anyway - for example at Carrhae, according to some theories (see the article below) Surena's troops were using special bows and special arrows (with arrowheads of improved penetration capabilities), and that's why they were so efficient (also firing from close range added to this effect):

http://www.casematepublishing.com/dlc/97...033892.pdf

I'm not sure how valid are theories from this article (maybe You guys can tell), but if the author is right - then Parthian bows and arrows at Carrhae were indeed "special", while in other battles they were much less efficient when it comes to penetrating Roman armors and shields.

Quote:I haven't heard about the lance.

But I generally think archery, and missile weapons generally, were important. Zhmodikov makes a strong argument about thrown missile weapons in classical Roman warfare, and classical Roman infantry were usually better protected than most Old English infantry.

The sources mention that missiles thrown against horses scared them. I guess that this is not the case for firearms, since the bullet would not be visible (although I expect it to on average be more deadly).

Quote:The sources mention that missiles thrown against horses scared them.

I think it is more or less the same case like with what I wrote about Tatar horses according to Polish accounts (it can be found in the thread about Polish Hussars that Macedon compiled from this thread). Namely - that Tatar horses were not accustomed to gun fire, while European horses were - and that's why using firearms against swift Tatar cavalry was regarded as efficient (much more efficient than using them against, for example, Swedish cavalry).

I think the same is with this case - sources which you quote Macedon, mention reactions of horses not accustomed to large-scale usage of missiles against them.

Just like horses of Crimean Tatars were not accustomed to firearms in the 16th century (as firearms in this part of Europe - at the Black Sea and on the steppes - were not very common at that time). But horses can be "accustomed" or "trained" to ignore such things.

=================================

Edit:

Quote: I guess that this is not the case for firearms, since the bullet would not be visible

Well - there are accounts which prove the opposite (see above). But horses could be accustomed to this (just like - most certainly - they could be also accustomed to the sight and noise of missiles).

Regarding the bullet being not visible - the bullet maybe not, but firearms at that time were using black gunpowder, which produces a lot of smoke with each shot - and this smoke is surely visible.

Also - firearms were very loud weapons, much louder than bows. And horses could hear that noise.

Missiles also produce some noise, not that much though - and they don't produce smoke.

==================================================

Quote:the bullet would not be visible (although I expect it to on average be more deadly).

If a bullet hits & penetrates into flesh - it is rather more deadly than an arrow (it also depends on the bullet's calibre though). But old firearms were inaccurate, slow to reload & fallible (technically unreliable).

Moreover - there are accounts, which say that horses are very resistant even to bullets:

A participant of WW1 wrote this about resistance of horses to fire of even modern firearms:

"The fear of infantry was intensified by great resistance of horses to wounds. During a charge only killed horses or those which had crushed leg bones were falling immediately. Other horses, often wounded several times, even mortally, in a zeal of attack continued to run and with their entire mass - under riders or without them - were blindly bumping into the enemy, parting and trampling his lines. From distance this apparent lack of casualties of the charging unit was creating an impression of inefficiency of infantry fire. Infantry was confused enough, that most of bullets were starting to fly too high, and often in a decisive moment infantrymen were throwing their weapons and starting to run away, which meant a certain annihilation for them."

Hence I wrote before, that the easiest way to stop a horse is to shatter its leg bones.

And in case if you doubt the reliability of this account (basing on the stereotype of cavalry being totally useless in WW1) - please take into account, that cavalry was totally useless only on the Western Front of WW1, where positional trench warfare and great saturation of modern weapons such as machine guns and modern artillery was present - while in South-Eastern theatres of WW1, as well as on its Eastern Front - which were both much more mobile frontlines than the Western Front - it was still extensively used (since mobile armored and motorized forces typical for WW2 did not exist yet).

There were also some successful "classical" cavalry charges in WW1 (despite the increasingly overwhelming firepower of infantry and its support weapons) - such as that carried out by the Australian Light Horse at Beersheba in 1917 (there is a movie which includes the scene of this charge):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvjE3h0Ahz8

Yes, but the smoke and the sound was something that the horses could get used to like the sound of elephants in antiquity. Actual missiles thrown against them, seeing them flying towards them are another story.

Peter, I know you have much to answer so I say you should take your time.

However, my main advice is to fist formulate EXACTLY what your position is for as it is it sounds too all-encompassing. Cavalry vs Infantry is a very complex issue that has many many faces.

I personally keep on pressing regarding the compactness of the infantry. For example, in the site you provided it says :

"What was the distance between columns of infantry in formation? The Foote columns were 1.5m apart. One reason was to have free space for loading weapons; the second was to be able to pass to the rear rank after firing."

The translator has some problems with his English, so at first I thought he was talking about the distance between actual column formations but is seems that he means between files. Else that "passing to the rear after firing" would make no sense. So, an infantry formation in which the files are 1.5 m distant from each other are not close-ordered. They are in open order and of course horses can safely gallop through the gaps no objections raised by anyone. A perfect cv. vs inf. scenario.

If this was the standard formation of the hussars' infantry enemies then why would anyone consider such descriptions as problematic?

"We saw it…. the hussars let loose their horses. God, what power! They ran through the smoke and the sound was like that of a thousand blacksmiths beating with a thousand hammers. We saw it…. Jezus Maria! The elite's lances bent forward like stalks of rye, driven by a great storm, bent on glory! The fire of the guns before them glitters! They rush on to the Swedes! They crash into the Swedish riters…. Overwhelm them! They crash into the second regiment - Overwhelmed! Resistance collapses, dissolves, they move forward as easily as if they were parading on a grand boulevard. They sliced without effort through the whole army already! Next target: the regiment of horse guards, where stands the Swede King Carol. And the guard already wavers!"

Exactly what one would expect. No bodies flying around, no horsemen ejected, no horses tumbling to the ground, no footmen trampled... Cavalry slicing through the enemy like butter, slashing them with their swords, piercing them with their lances, no momentum lost, no hussar falling on the hussar in front of him. The infantry thought that their firepower coupled with some pikes among the ranks could keep the hussars away but the latter's superior morale allowed them to go on and do what understandably could be done. Understandably, horses would suffer more losses because they presented a larger target, but not in numbers that were enough to thwart them. No problem here and totally acceptable to the more traditional cavalry charge model.

Quote:If this was the standard formation of the hussars' infantry enemies

Nope it wasn't. While facing cavalry, infantry formation was in close order - at least pikemen (IMHO the fragment which you quoted regarding "passing to the rear after firing" refers to musketeers only, not to pikemen - if I'm not mistaken - and this is just one of few alternative tactics used by musketeers).

Maybe you didn't notice - but this article is from 2000, so very old and there might be some mistakes there (the author has greatly improved in his research since that time).

I didn't bring up this article with intention to present it as 100% true in every aspect.

Quote:then why would anyone consider such descriptions as problematic?

"We saw it…. the hussars let loose their horses. God, what power! They ran through the smoke and the sound was like that of a thousand blacksmiths beating with a thousand hammers. We saw it…. Jezus Maria! The elite's lances bent forward like stalks of rye, driven by a great storm, bent on glory! The fire of the guns before them glitters! They rush on to the Swedes! They crash into the Swedish riters…. Overwhelm them! They crash into the second regiment - Overwhelmed! Resistance collapses, dissolves, they move forward as easily as if they were parading on a grand boulevard. They sliced without effort through the whole army already! Next target: the regiment of horse guards, where stands the Swede King Carol. And the guard already wavers!"

Actually this description is taken from a patriotic novel by Henryk Sienkiewicz.

And the author of the article link to which I provided, clearly writes, that this artistic description has not much to do with the reality of combat. Nor it does provide any technical details of the charge.

Read actually the part of the article, which is below this excerpt from Sienkiewicz.

Regarding the comment by Robert Vermaat that horses in videos which I provided were driven by panic - Robert, you certainly did not watch all of the videos. For example this one below:

How is this horse (trampling an oncoming car) "panicked"? I don't see any signs of panic. This horse is completely calm - it just decided to "take a trip" over an oncomig car:

http://www.break.com/index/horse-trample...g-car.html

This one - trying to ram a fence - is also by no means panicked:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOXmruNJjQE

And this reminds me of hussars ramming fences in the battle of Klushino:
(illustration by Dariusz Wielec)



Taube's infantry was deployed behind such fence at Klushino (see below):

I read the part where he said he did not agree with that description but I only thought it was his opinion on what I thought to be some description taken from primary sources... I wonder why any researcher would profess to research tactics and then use literature of historical fiction (and not even say that he did)....

His whole theory is problematic and full of gaps, maybe the newer version is better thought and supported. What he describes is cavalry in open order attack infantry in open formation. But of you disagree with that then why did you bring it forward?

This is the issue Peter, I have yet to read any source that will somehow describe one of those charges and your full opinion on the mechanics of this charge. Write a description of how you think this charge took place, how they started, how they proceeded, choose a close-ordered, disciplined enemy, describe their reactions assuming that they would stay their ground and then how the impact looked like, what happened next, how they trampled over the enemy. Describe what you would consider normal here, average enough for those and any other cavalrymen to consistently choose to do the same. This will greatly help me understand what you propose.

Btw, why did you call the charge at Beersheba "classic"? What was classic (with that I understand charges as the ones we discuss here) about it?

As I already have written below, the video with the horse trampling a car is nothing special. The car is an nonthreatening solid object. Why would even a person have problems in running over it? The fact that the car gives in under the horse's weight is something that the horse didn't know.

The other video shows a horse running towards a fence, practically stopping and trying to jump over it. There is no ramming involved and certainly not at some quick "charging" speed.

As for the image, it shows a horse crushing a very small, light, in its eyes object. It is one thing to say that the horse is not afraid of narrow branches or bushes and another to say that it would crush into the trunk of a tree. However, should it look sturdy enough to the horse, I expect at least some of them to effectively stop before it.

As for the painting, although such art is generally regarded as not that helpful, it only shows a band of horsemen approaching an enemy pike formation at an indeterminable speed. the only strange thing I find in it, tactically, is that for some reason, these horsemen prefer to maneuver in front of the enemy formation instead of attacking it in its exposed and (in the painting) undefended flanks or just pass through them and spread along its rear. On the other hand, maybe this is what they did in the next frames of the board story :-) :-) ....

Quote:profess to research tactics and then use literature of historical fiction (and not even say that he did)....

How so?

He provided the source of this artistic, fictional description:

Quote:"--Description from Potop "Deluge" Henry Sienkievich."

By the way - you are right that the translation quality is, unfortunately, not the best.

I checked the original Polish version.

==========================

Quote:But of you disagree with that then why did you bring it forward?

I don't disagree with everything - I agree with some aspects, with some others not.

I brought it forward mainly because he mentions the importance of length of lances in overcoming pikemen. And also he describes how hussars minimized casualties from musket fire (i.e. charged in open order initially, while later altered / tightened their formation during charge to close order - before collision with enemy line, they were already charging in a "knee-to-knee" close order formation).

I also brought it forward because it is in English - and newer versions of his theory are in Polish - and I would have to spent a lot of time on translation. And I said I'm quite short on time currently.

I will take my time though - and we might slow down a bit, the pace of this thread is fast.

================================================

Quote:Btw, why did you call the charge at Beersheba "classic"?

Sorry, it was not a very fortunate use of language.

I used wrong words. I should write that it was use of cavalry in a "traditional" way (i.e. not as mounted infantry which only moves to battle on horseback, but as cavalry which fights mounted).

In WW2 cavalry was used almost only as mobile infantry (and fought dismounted).

========================================

Quote:As for the painting, although such art is generally regarded as not that helpful, it only shows a band of horsemen approaching an enemy pike formation at an indeterminable speed. the only strange thing I find in it, tactically, is that for some reason, these horsemen prefer to maneuver in front of the enemy formation instead of attacking it in its exposed and (in the painting) undefended flanks or just pass through them and spread along its rear. On the other hand, maybe this is what they did in the next frames of the board story :-) :-) ....

And what about this painting below? Also inaccurate (in Your opinion)?

It was painted by a certain Pieter Snayers in year 1630 (and depicts the battle of Kircholm from 1605 - but tactics used by hussars did not change that much between 1605 and 1630):



This illustration above, is of course just a part of the bigger image (just like that from Klushino):

Pieter Snayers - "Battle of Kircholm 1605" panorama (BTW - we can see infantry in close order):



Wikipedia article about Pieter Snayers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pieter_Snayers

=================================================

And here the entire panorama of the battle of Klushino by Szymon Boguszowicz:



=================================================

Quote:practically stopping and trying to jump over it.

I see it completely differently (that it tried to ram it).

And IMHO my interpretation (that it was an attempt of ramming) is the right one - after all, "practically stopping" and "trying to jump over" are two contradictory activities - as horses are not able to jump over sth. while standing, they can jump over after taking a running leap (i.e. while on the move). This horse slowed down - because it was trying to check if it is able to ram that object (and it was careful - it did not want to hurt itself, that's why it slowed down - but it was an attempt of ramming it, not jumping over).

Your interpretation of that particular horse's intentions is clearly erroneus.

The person who uploaded that video on YT also named it "horse ramming a fence".

Me and that person cannot both be wrong.

And also - there is a huge difference between "practically stopping" and "slowing down".

This horse slowed down - not "practically stopped". But slowing down is not what horses do when trying to jump over something (because they know, that they need speed to do jump over sth.).

1. Well... if I write about the tactics of Alexander at Granicus and start the whole thing with some modern fictional description adding " from "Alexandrou Historia", by Cleomachos Aristeidou", will it not be misleading? Or did he really think that Henry Sienkevich is soooo renowned to the non-Polish... I really find it hillarious as an approach to something that is meant to resemble a study.


2. As I read it it was no conventional charge. The Aussies just jumped over the entrenchments and then immediately dismounted. There was no cavalry-infantry battle.

3. The first painting shows cavalry in an enveloping position and an infantry square that for some reason has its pikes upright. It shows no clash. No one disputes that cavalry came even to a jostling distance. It is the "galloping into" that we debate. So, again we need the next frames... but again I say you have to be cautious with art. It rarely is realistic and each painting has to be individually researched to be able to say. However, this particular painting does not show any clash.

In the second painting it is also impossible to say what the heck is happening. Instead of a clear frontal charge as your model suggests (if I understand you right), I see conventional envelopment which excludes galloping into the formation, since the cavalry depicted is attacking the square from all sides. It is interesting that there seems to be no reaction from the second line, which also points at the intervals/distances being depicted much distorted (scaled down), total inability or plain imagination of the artist.



I tried to find primary sources on this battle but I only read about some poem (Carolomachia) which I didn't find in English in my short search. Aren't there any historical accounts of the battle? I am sure that studying these would be much more enlightening.

4. Well.. actually you could be both wrong, it would not be the first time that truth has nothing to do with consensus, let alone consensus among 3 people... However, this changes nothing, so I am ready to admit it is a ramming attempt. If you think that during a charge, horses would stop and then "ram" in this way, I have no trouble accepting it too... However, it seems to me that the horse guards itself against injury and then probes the fence trying to see if it can jump over it without risking a true, galloping ramming/jump.

Is this also a ram?

Quote:I tried to find primary sources on this battle

You might look in Swedish sources. This battle was the single bloodiest military disaster in entire Swedish history, with some 7,000 or more Swedish soldiers being killed in one day. About Swedish casualties in the battle of Kircholm writes a researcher from Sweden (nick Adar) on another forum:

And also something interesting regarding attempts of Swedish cavalry to use shock tactics:

Quote:

arkeologen Wrote:At Kircholm there were 10,368 Swedes, out of whom 3,948 has been confirmed as killed in the battle.

The 10 368 soldiers at the start of battle I agree with (and Perkele explained how). The 3 948 dead Swedes is however incorrect as a casuality figure for the battle. I know for a fact that there are no complete records of the Swedish casuality figures for Kircholm. I do not have the numbers infront of me (they can be found in Manckell Svenska Kriegsmacktens historia and Kongl. Svea Livgardes historia uses the numbers from Manckell) but I am quite certain that 3 948 casualities is reached by only adding the casualities from the regiments that the administration registered. The Swedish records are incomplete becuase only the casualities of some regiments where registered. We do not know why (possibly Charles IX trying to limit the impact of the loss) but the Swedish administration stopped counting the remaining strength after counting a little bit more than half the regiments.

There are however alternative ways to calculate the losses. The citizens of Riga paid for the funeral of all the dead soldiers in the battle and they paid for 8300 buried soldiers. If the average losses of the counted Swedish regiments are applied to the other ones I think you get roughly 7000 Swedish soldiers being lost. It is however stated that they most likely are higher than this since the most destroyed regiments most likely were not counted. Radoslaw have however mentioned that he think camp servants being present in the Polish battle lines, boosting the numbers to something slightly above 5000 soldiers IIRC. I think he also have mentioned suspicions about the number of Polish losses (them being a bit higher) but I think we need to wait for him to get those numbers.

(...)

I also originally thought that Sweden learned cavalry tactics from the Polish. Radek however told me that they were most likely imported from the French hugenotts. It should also be noted that Karl Karlsson Gyllenhielm attempted gallop charges even in 1601 in order to limit the effect of the Hussars superior mobility and skill. The tactic failed with his untrained soldiers but it shows that the old tactics of a cold steel charge were known even before the Gustavian reforms.

Swedish history sadly have a tendency to magically teleport Gustav II Adolf into northern Germany. This is a very bad way of describing his reign considering that he spent 18 years fighting Poland, Russian and Denmark before venturing into Germany (and died after 2 years). The reason that he is such a significant character in Swedish history is actually his almost complete reforms of both the military and civilian administration. This turned Sweden from a very minor regional power into the most powerful state in northern Europe. Swedens victory in the 30 years war should really be attributed to Axel Oxenstierna, Johan Banér and Lennart Torstensson.

Also please note that I am Swedish so I have no reason to participate in unwarranted Polish nationalism. This period was however a period where the Polish army dominated the open field and I think Domens summary correctly reflect this.

Quote:I have vacations right now, so I can't check my sources and I can't give you exact numbers. Anyway, Lithuanian-Polish army at Kircholm lost some 100 killed soldiers. Apart from roughly 3700 soldiers in L-P army, there were armed servants (I estimate their number at 5000). Most of them defended the camp, but some of them fought in the open field and chased (plundered) smashed Swedes. Casualties of L-P armed servants are unknown.

The number of 8300 buried corps is very interesting information (more about it you can find in prof. Robert I. Frost book 'The Northern Wars'), but it can't be directly transformed to casualties of Swedish soldiers. Why? Because some of these buried corps could be Polish armed servants, Swedish camp followers (I think bulk of them stayed in Swedish camp at Riga, but it is possible that some of them accompanied Swedish army to Kircholm) and peasents from neighbourhood of Kircholm.

=======================================================

So ca. 8300 men died in that battle (in the battle itself, and in the subsequent chase). Of them Lithuanian-Polish soldiers were ca. 100 killed. And the remaining ca. 8200 of the dead were: Swedish soldiers, local peasants ("collateral damage" perhaps) and Lithuanian-Polish camp servants.

The people in this forum are talking about cavalry vs cavalry charges.

It should also be noted that Karl Karlsson Gyllenhielm attempted gallop charges even in 1601 in order to limit the effect of the Hussars superior mobility and skill. The tactic failed with his untrained soldiers but it shows that the old tactics of a cold steel charge were known even before the Gustavian reforms.

Anyways, I think Peter that you really have to look for some primary sources which will help us understand. Otherwise you are only talking about the theory developed by a single man and that is not strong evidence. Even he has to base his theories on some sources.... If you have his work in Polish look through it again, he has to have references. Hopefully you/we will be able to find them in English (as for me German, Greek or ancient Greek are also fine... :grin: :grin: ). If not, you can make an attempt to look through them yourself and then present us what is relevant. That would really help us and you. You understand that one cannot seriously theorize without some evidence from written sources.

Quote:The people in this forum are talking about cavalry vs cavalry charges.

Nope. The battle of Kircholm was definitely not "cavalry vs cavalry".

Composition of the Polish-Lithuanian army (strength: ca. 3500) at Kircholm was:

- 2500 cavalry
- 1000 infantry

And composition of the Swedish army (strength: ca. 11000) at Kircholm was:

- 2500 cavalry
- 8500 infantry (including 3500 pikemen)

The Swedish army included Swedish, Finnish, Dutch, Scottish and German soldiers or mercenaries.

===========================

Casualties (in men):

- ca. just over 100 men killed on the Polish-Lithuanian side (almost all of them cavalry)

- between 7000 and 8000 men killed on the Swedish side (and more % of cavalry survived)

Perhaps, it was all due to inability of horses to charge infantry...

The part that was about charges read :

It should also be noted that Karl Karlsson Gyllenhielm attempted gallop charges even in 1601 in order to limit the effect of the Hussars superior mobility and skill. The tactic failed with his untrained soldiers but it shows that the old tactics of a cold steel charge were known even before the Gustavian reforms.

I understand from this that KKG organized galloping charges (whatever this might be meant be a forum poster) against the Hussars, in order to engage them and not allow them to do their game on the battle-field as they (or the C-in-C) saw fit. Do you understand something else? I doubt that the Swedes (?) attacking Polish infantry would do much to limit the "superior mobility and skill" of the Hussars.

Man... what do the casualties of a battle have to do with anything? The Parthians did more harm against the Romans and they did not charge INTO their infantry... Many casualties does not mean that there were cavalry charges as you think they were. Maybe they broke and fled and were slaughtered in the process... maybe a herd of wild mammoths trampled them to the ground... how can I (you) say anything unless we have an account of this battle? Don't you understand how critical it is for you to be able to make any point?