+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry (/showthread.php?tid=22973)
heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry - Robert - 10-05-2013
The subject of cavalry charging infantry has been extensively debated in another thread. This topic is headed "Heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry". So before we get into the whole muddle all over again, perhaps it would be nice to move back on topic AND please also get back into antiquity. Basicly, we are talking cataphracts. Oh and Polish hussars are NOT classes as heavy cavalry, as they are unarmoured.
heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry - Domen - 10-05-2013
Quote:are NOT classes as heavy cavalry, as they are unarmoured.
In period ca. 1550 - ca. 1770 they fought armoured and were heavy cavalry.
You are right that they evolved from light cavalry (armed with lances), but that was prior to 1550. They also eventually transformed into light cavalry - but that was after 1770 and their name was changed.
Quote:And unlike simply moving objects of mass - horses (indeed elephants and camels) have brains.
People also have brains. Actually people have much larger brains than horses.
heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry - Urselius - 10-05-2013
Quote:The subject of cavalry charging infantry has been extensively debated in another thread. This topic is headed "Heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry". So before we get into the whole muddle all over again, perhaps it would be nice to move back on topic AND please also get back into antiquity. Basicly, we are talking cataphracts. Oh and Polish hussars are NOT classes as heavy cavalry, as they are unarmoured.
Armour has nothing to do with the classification of cavalry. It is all to do with battle field use and comparison within contemporary standards of equipment. British cavalry of the Napoleonic Wars were not armoured, but they were divided into light and heavy units. In an era when armour was more common - such as Elizabethan England - a cavalryman in a mail-shirt and iron helmet could be called a light cavalryman as the 'Border Horse' were.
heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry - Domen - 10-05-2013
Quote:We do have (deliberate reference) many examples of cavalry being ineffective/losing against formed and steady infantry in later periods.
And also we do have many examples of cavalry being effective/winning against such infantry.
War is not a card game, where a particular card always beats another defined card.
Quote:nobles & rich people (equites) are the ones able to afford horses
Prices of horses did greatly vary / change throughout regions and historical periods.
There were regions and times, where and when even a peasant could afford 2 or 3 horses. And there were also regions and time periods with scarcity of horses, so that only very rich people could have them.
Prices of different horses also varied greatly - dependning on type, age, health, quality, etc.
Quote:they are also the ones who tend to write history too.
If this is the case, then how many Parthian / Sassanid nobles tended to write history? Maybe you know these missing works of Parthian / Sassanid historians, who debunk writings of Roman historians?
Quote:Horses are too intelligent for that. Spears, Pikes and Bayonets - all good for that, whatever the period.
So you think that horses are much more more intelligent than humans? If true, this may revolutionize science! People were often "stupid" enough to get themselves harmed by spears / pikes / bayonets.
I wrote "stupid", because in fact brave and bold attacks were often what decided the results of battles.
BTW - spear was the most commonly used weapon in entire history of humanity perhaps.
So in case if horses were so afraid of spears, nobody would ever use chariots or heavy cavalry.
Heavy cavalry would be virtually useless if your theories had been valid. But it was not useless. Useless things never get so popular - heavy cavalry existed for several thousand years, until World War 1.
====================================
Quote:Cavalry to: scout; harass; threaten; skirmish; move rapidly; exploit; and run down routers - absolutely fine.
Cataphracts (and most of other types of heavy cavalry) are basically useless for scouting, useless for harassing, useless for threatening*, skirmishing, moving rapidly (cataphracts are slow), useless for exploiting (you do not need heavy armour when enemies are already panicked and running away) and useless for running down routers (because they are slower than light cavalry - which is thus better for running down routers).
So why the heck was heavy cavalry invented and used in battles for ca. 3500 - 4000 years ???
It seems that light cavalry is better for everything. And horse archers should be the best of all.
Light cavalry is also much cheaper - you can have ~1000 light cavalry for the same price as ~100 heavy.
*Useless also for threatening, because if you know that they are not going to charge you anyway, then what the heck is to be afraid of? You claim that horses are too intelligent to do various things, yet you claim that people are stupid enough to commit a suicide by running away at the sight of cavalry (which = death)?
You claim that horses will always refuse to charge against steady infantry, because they are too intelligent to do this. If this had been the case, then why infantry throughout ages sometimes panicked when charged by heavy cavalry? Nobody throughout thousands of years of history noticed, that there was nothing to be afraid of because horses were no real danger? Do you claim that our ancestors were so extremely stupid, while their horses were far too intelligent to do things that people would normally do in battles?
Another thing is, that if this theory had been true, then light cavalry would be equally or even more efficient than heavy when charging infantry. You don't need armour to run down routers. So heavy cavalry should be useless - light but scary-looking cavalry should be enough to cause panic. But wait - why history doesn't know many examples of light cavalry breaking infantry, while this could often be done by heavy cavalry?
Quote:especially when they are holding nice pointy spears.
Spear is the most common weapon used throughout entire history of humanity (even after gunpowder was invented, since we can count bayonets placed on rifles as nice pointy spears as well).
I also wonder from how great distance can a horse notice a sharp spearpoint? Can a horse actually recognize an object such as spearpoint from 5 or maybe 10 meters? If a horse can recognize what a spearpoint actually is and even if a horse can understand that a spearpoint can inflict a wound, from 5 meters, then it is still too late for reaction - because a horse at full speed covers a distance of 5 meters in 1/2 of a second.
What if riders are using blinders for their horses? - such a horse can't really see what is in front of it.
Quote:Basicly, we are talking cataphracts
It seems that there are no many examples of battles in which cataphracts fought against cataphracts.
Actually - I don't remember even one such battle at this moment.
.
heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry - M. Demetrius - 10-06-2013
:dizzy:
heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry - Dan Howard - 10-06-2013
This might be worth reading.
http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php
It is pointless using mathematical formulas to try and work out the impact of a lance charge. The effective impact is far less than the combined mass of horse and rider. It is largely dependent on the strength of the rider. It also neatly explains why stirrups are not necessary for shock tactics.
heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry - Mark Hygate - 10-06-2013
I'd quite like to respond to Peter - but perhaps it should be elsewhere. :whistle:
When it comes to terminology, however, perhaps it's worth moving towards defining. Are we here using 'Heavy Cavalry' to mean: where the man and often the horse are armoured; or where the primary weapon (ancient period - kontos/sarissa) is used to engage a single opponent at a time, be he another cavalryman or infantryman. That would leave 'Light' Cavalry as all others where the primary weapon (bow or javelin) is meant to be thrown from a distance?
On that basis, nearly all Western cavalry would be termed Light Cavalry for a majority of the period, with the exception of the Macedonians/Companion types and their successors.
I will admit to thinking back to the old WRG classifications (LC, MC, HC, EHC, SHC), but that was certainly aimed at armour classifications and not weapons.
heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry - Dan Howard - 10-06-2013
I always thought that the terms "heavy" and "light" were applied to the tactics, not the equipment. A fighter could be naked except for a shield and spear and he would be classed as "heavy infantry" if he fought in a shield wall formation. If a mounted unit's primary purpose was to charge a formation of men - i.e. "shock tactics" - then it is classed as "heavy cavalry" regardless of the equipment that was used.
heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry - Mark Hygate - 10-06-2013
Quote:I always thought that the terms "heavy" and "light" were applied to the tactics, not the equipment. A fighter could be naked except for a shield and spear and he would be classed as "heavy infantry" if he fought in a shield wall formation. If a mounted unit's primary purpose was to charge a formation of men - i.e. "shock tactics" - then it is classed as "heavy cavalry" regardless of the equipment that was used.
Hence my post. 'Light' & 'Heavy' can be misconstrued and therefore why I might suggest 'Skirmish' & 'Shock' instead, as well as, perhaps, 'Support' as a third. On that basis I would have the Polybian-period cavalry as 'Support', when the later Allies/auxiliaries (Celts, Spanish, etc) would be 'Skirmish' as well as the later Auxilia. The odd unit of Kontarii, Cataphracts or Clibanarii in the later army would then be 'Shock'.
Conversely that would help with keeping 'Skirmish' accurate, whether it applies to unarmoured bow/javelin cavalry, the majority of Roman Ala, or even some of the Eastern peoples heavily-armoured (if not 'cataphract' indeed) horse archers.
If then the thread is possibly re-defined as 'Shock' vs 'Shock', then I would suggest that this would probably not be the norm. Firstly as the best use of 'Shock' cavalry would be to threaten and exploit any infantry weaknesses and often kept somewhat 'safe' to hopefully achieve that, whilst countering enemy 'Shock' cavalry is better achieved with your 'Skirmish' cavalry, supported by similar infantry.
Thinking about it, I would probably then suggest we talk about infantry in similar terms of 'Skirmish', 'Melée', and 'Support' (Peltasts/Auxilia, etc). It would help with any confusion.
heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry - Domen - 10-06-2013
There is example of a knight tournament from early 1600s, where two opposing pairs of knights instead of bypassing each other, experienced a head-on collision while charging at full speed.
The result was: 4 injured or dead people, but not a single horse died.
And it should be noted that in such case speed values of opposing horses are adding up and kinetic energy was thus 4 times greater than in case of a horse at full speed hitting a stationary object.
============================================
Three head-on-collisions between horses charging against each other at full speed from opposite directions:
First video:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/227713/horse_collision/
Second video (collision can be seen in the background at 1:09 of the video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2AaxRGaKcY
Third video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujFEBsiwNk0
Please note that these are delicate / tender racing horses, not hunky Medieval war horses.
Such racing horses are not only delicate, but also much faster than war horses (their speed can be 20 m/s rather than 10 m/s typical for maximum speed of a horse charging during battle). Moreover, as in case of that tournament described above, speed values are adding up, both horses are charging at 20 m/s speed - kinetic energy is thus 16 times greater than in case of a horse charging at 10 m/s speed and hitting a stationary target. Despite this fact, and despite the fact that such racing horses are more tender than war horses, we can see that in 3 collisions (6 horses) only 1 horse died and 1 more was seriously injured (broken leg).
But these are your "intelligent" horses, which allegedly "refuse" to hit anything... :lol:
===========================================
And here a moving horse hits a stationary horse, description of the video says:
"Hilarious video of my friend colliding with someone else on horseback. (The horses were not hurt)"
So nobody was hurt here (neither riders nor horses).
If riders were hurt, the video would not be described as "hilarious":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdpMDW40vc8
And also this video - but it was already posted by me before in some thread on this forum:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MZ7y-KqWSE
.
heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry - Domen - 10-06-2013
Another great victory of heavy lancers cavalry:
In 1655 at Santo Domingo a Spanish force of 300 lancers + 200 mounted arquebusiers defeated an English invasion force of New Model Army, 9700 soldiers strong under general Venables (a very experienced veteran of few wars and commander), killing 1000 - 1500 English troops, while losing only 30 horsemen killed.
Source: Charles Harding Firth, "Cromwell's Army", pages 114 - 115.
heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry - Michael Kerr - 10-06-2013
I understand the mods & members frustration in reminding other members to stick to the topic & not wander too much into later periods for example gunpowder age battles which at first glance seem to have no revelance to ancient cavalry warfare however sometimes IMHO, warfare from later periods can help in understanding how the ancients fought, both cavalry & infantry. Someone mentioned Aelian earlier in this thread. I assume he was referring to the work of Aelian or Aelianus Tacticus "The Military Arrangements of the Greeks" I don't know how this work was received by Romans when first dedicated to Hadrian although author admitted he wrote most of it during the reign of Trajan, but it seems that the most popular period for Aelian's work was during the 16th & 17th centuries. The large pike & musket armies that raged across Europe during this time were heavily modelled on the Macedonian phalanx & interest in Hellenistic military manuals saw something of a resurgence around this period & that was probably due to the success of the phalanx like pike formations of the Swiss confederation in a number of battles against cavalry in the 15th Century. Leslie J. Worley in his book Hippeis The Cavalry of Ancient Greece mentions 2 battles first was the battle of Ardebo in 1422 where 6000 mercenary Italian Condottiere horsemen attacked a Swiss phalanx of pikemen & after the first hour the result was 400 piked horses & men against the Swiss & in 1444, Dauphin Louis launched the Armagnac cavalry against the Swiss in the battle of St Jacob. 2000 dead lay heaped before the Swiss pikes so you get an idea of the risk of the losses he would suffer in horses & men that an ancient commander faced before deciding to attack a Macedonian phalanx with cavalry. But getting back to ancient cavalry versus cavalry I don't think opposing cavalries charged at each other but in the case of javelin cavalry & lancers you tried to ride to the right of your opponent so you can either aim your javelin or lance at your opponent or his horse & it would be advantageous for your opponent to keep you to his left. Even horse archers were vulnerable if attacked by lancers on their right flank (assuming horse archers were right handed of course.)
Regards
Michael Kerr
heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry - Domen - 10-06-2013
Pike and lance were important in warfare also during the gunpowder era.
Swedish infantry in the Great Northern War (1700 - 1721) was superior to infantry of their opponents because they still had many pikemen. And pikemen could be used both in attack and in defence.
J. J. Kampenhausen was an ethnic German born in Swedish Livonia. Since 1695 he served in the Swedish army and as an officer he took part in combats of the Great Northern War (1700 - 1721). In 1708 he was captured by Polish forces and started to serve as officer in the Polish army. Since 1710 as Colonel of infantry he continued to fight in the GNW. In 1720 he became general major. In 1733 - 1734 he fought in War of the Polish Succession in Royal Prussia. He learned Polish language. In 1737 he published (translated title here) "Praise and apologia of lances and pikes cum refutatione of some allegations about them".
In this work "Praise and apologia of lances and pikes cum refutatione of some allegations about them" Kampenhausen praises both effectiveness of pikemen and effectiveness of heavy cavalry lancers.
Kampenhausen describes how during the battle of Riga (17.06.1701) Swedish Uppland infantry regiment which had no pikes at all - just muskets with "large and good" bayonets - was defeated by a cavalry charge of Saxon cuirassiers. Only two other Swedish infantry regiments - Dalecarlia regiment and Wermanland regiment - were eventually able to: "halt the great impetus of Saxon cuirassiers with use of their pikes."
In another source I found that Dalecarlia regiment (Dala regiment) resisted 5 assaults by Saxon cavalry.
Kampenhausen writes that in the battle of Fraudstadt (13.02.1706) Swedes defeated a combined Saxon-Russian army, which had 3 times more musketeers and 3 times more firepower than Swedish forces, only thanks to pikemen of Nerk Wermeland infantry regiment under Lt. Col. Kronman. Kronman's pikemen carried out a pike charge and defeated several left wing regiments of enemy musketeers.
Kampenhausen writes: "even 100 pikes can inflict more and quicker damage than 200 bayonets."
In another part of his work, Kampenhausen mentions Polish hussars and their battles.
===============================================
When replying to accusation that heavy cavalry is expensive, Kampenhausen writes:
"I must remind you of that story about one burgher from Lviv, who preferred to die several days before Christmas, rather than buying an expensive medicine in a local pharmacy to cure himself, because he was afraid that visits of carol singers and relatives would cost him a lot of money."
And when replying to allegation that lances are an expensive weapon:
"It is a beautiful quasi vero accusation that lances are expensive. After all Poles have a proverb, that only dogs eat cheap meat. I consider such an advisor who suggests to use cheap, poor quality things and in insufficient numbers, just in order to reduce costs, as the greatest ignoramus."
When replying to accusation that heavy lancers are not only expensive, but also demanding, he writes:
"It is true, that only brave and strong men can be lancers. It is true, that only brave horses can be used by them, etc. But is there really a shortage of brave men and of brave horses in the Kingdom of Poland? Neighbouring states are recruiting stalwart Poles into their regiments, so they are at home. Only mints and treasury should be opened et vires et viros regina pecunia donat. (...) Entire world is praising the quality of Polish horses, so why there should be not enough of good horses for the Polish army?"
.
heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry - Dan Howard - 10-06-2013
Quote:"It is true, that only brave and strong men can be lancers. It is true, that only brave horses can be used by them, etc. But is there really a shortage of brave men and of brave horses in the Kingdom of Poland? Neighbouring states are recruiting stalwart Poles into their regiments, so they are at home. Only mints and treasury should be opened et vires et viros regina pecunia donat. (...) Entire world is praising the quality of Polish horses, so why there should be not enough of good horses for the Polish army?".The horse can be from the best breeding stock in the world but is useless in battle until it has been properly trained. Even then, it is only marginally useful until it has been blooded. A fully trained and experienced warhorse is worth many times more than an untrained one. Chaucer wrote that a good destrier cost 200 times more than a plough horse. Take a look at how much the best quarter horses sell for today compared to an untrained yearling.
heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry - Dan Howard - 10-06-2013
Quote:Another great victory of heavy lancers cavalry:None of these examples are any use without the context. How do you define "victory"? Why were they defeated? Were they taken by surprise? Were they hit from the flank or rear? How did the terrain help? Were any diseases spreading through the camp? What percentage of the troops was experienced and well provisioned? What was the weather like?
FWIW all of the great powers of Europe tried to maintain regiments of heavy cavalry, at great expense, right throughout the so-called "age of gunpowder". This wouldn't have been done if they didn't serve a very important function. On the flip side, the 14th century saw a change from cavalry dominated battles to infantry dominated ones. It was around this time that an experienced, disciplined formation of infantry started to get the upper hand over heavy cavalry. The best book on the subject is DeVries' Infantry Warfare in the Early Fourteenth Century.