+- 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: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? (/showthread.php?tid=8876)
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Tarbicus - 04-02-2007
In the case of Cannae though, where cavalry were able to attack directly from the rear, the panic would already have started at the back. Add the less experienced and steadfast being attacked from the flanks, plus the melee and fragmentation at the front. The Romans really were shafted once their own cavalry had fled the field.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Matthew - 04-03-2007
True of any Army, just about. Didn't Pompey's troops quit the field when they saw their Cavalry depart against Caesar?
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Gaius Julius Caesar - 04-03-2007
Yes! they gave up the ghost! In the front gate of the camp, and right out the back! :lol:
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - L C Cinna - 04-03-2007
Quote:In the case of Cannae though, where cavalry were able to attack directly from the rear, the panic would already have started at the back. Add the less experienced and steadfast being attacked from the flanks, plus the melee and fragmentation at the front. The Romans really were shafted once their own cavalry had fled the field.
I think the Carthaginian cavalry at Cannae fought on foot when they closed the encirclement. Remember this is before the Romans or Carthaginians used some kind of usefull saddle like the horned gallic one. If they want to keep pressure on the legions from the back it would be better to fight on foot.
Remember they did that before against the Roman cavalry on the right flank, both carth. cavalry and Roman cavalry fought on foot until the Roman cavalry routed.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Tarbicus - 04-03-2007
Good point. So, the use of the cavalry at the time of the Punic Wars was essentially like upper class dragoons, but who also scouted, carried messages, and harassed the enemy in battle.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Scipio Bristolus - 04-03-2007
My first post on this forum. Very interesting.
My tuppence take on cavalry v. infantry is this; horses will not go too close to a solid object - especially one that they don't like due to colour, shape, noise, whatever goes on in a horses brain etc. Trained warhorses may get closer, but it seems that instances of cavalry breaking *formed* infantry presenting pila/spears/pikes/ fixed bayonets are extremely rare - the well-documented examples from the Napoleonic Wars only seem to occur when horses crash into squares when killed/badly wounded i.e. the pursuit after Talavera (or is it Salamanca?) At Albuera the infantry were surprised from the flank during heavy rain, and by lancers, who could out-reach the infantry in any case, and in the case of the famous portrait of French cavalry flowing around British squares at Waterloo, apparently the cavalry are about 50m closer than they actually got to the squares!
In the C17th it is well attested that cavalry were repulsed by formed infantry, especially pikemen (i.e. LTB at Newbury and Price Ruperts Bluecoats at Naseby) and were only broken when their formation was broken up or they began to waver. The old-fashion caracole was intended to whittle the infantry down prior to a charge, but a charge against fresh troops relied on psychological effects.
Actually, we knwo very little about the minutea of cavalry v cavalry or infantry combat. Think about how two units of horse would have fought? - in the C17th (maybe similar to cataphracts) they charged almost knee to knee. What happened when they met head on?! Did the ranks part to allow each other to pass through, did they pull up or did the crash head on into each other!!
However, how well trained were these horses? With the demand for remounts due to casualties and sickness they may not have been as well trained as they could have been. Was this the case in the ancient world?
However, my riding and reenactment experience (separately) is that the horse, turning under command or through fear, could batter your formation as much as the guy on its back, even accidentally, allowing others in.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - L C Cinna - 04-03-2007
Hi Scipio Bristolus. Welcome to the forums!
I have to agree with what you said in your post.
oh...btw, I'm not a mod but please add your name to your signature. It's a rule and sooner or later someone will tell you anyway :wink:
@Tarbicus:
Yes that's how I see it.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - M. Demetrius - 04-03-2007
Don't forget that a hoof strike from a horse running by can inflict severe injury or death to a man standing on the ground, even if not intentionally done by the horse/rider. That may have accounted for a few casualties when a horse turned aside, or if a man stepped out of ranks at the wrong time.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Aryaman2 - 04-03-2007
Quote:My first post on this forum. Very interesting.Those are characteristic examples of British bibliography, remember that Napoleonic Wars were fought in many other places besides the Peninsular War and many other wars were fought in the 17th century besides the English Civil War. I point 2 famous examples of cavalry crashing into and overruning steady infantry, Eylau and Wimpfen
My tuppence take on cavalry v. infantry is this; horses will not go too close to a solid object - especially one that they don't like due to colour, shape, noise, whatever goes on in a horses brain etc. Trained warhorses may get closer, but it seems that instances of cavalry breaking *formed* infantry presenting pila/spears/pikes/ fixed bayonets are extremely rare - the well-documented examples from the Napoleonic Wars only seem to occur when horses crash into squares when killed/badly wounded i.e. the pursuit after Talavera (or is it Salamanca?) At Albuera the infantry were surprised from the flank during heavy rain, and by lancers, who could out-reach the infantry in any case, and in the case of the famous portrait of French cavalry flowing around British squares at Waterloo, apparently the cavalry are about 50m closer than they actually got to the squares!
In the C17th it is well attested that cavalry were repulsed by formed infantry, especially pikemen (i.e. LTB at Newbury and Price Ruperts Bluecoats at Naseby) and were only broken when their formation was broken up or they began to waver. The old-fashion caracole was intended to whittle the infantry down prior to a charge, but a charge against fresh troops relied on psychological effects.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Tarbicus - 04-03-2007
Quote:Those are characteristic examples of British bibliography, remember that Napoleonic Wars were fought in many other places besides the Peninsular War and many other wars were fought in the 17th century besides the English Civil War. I point 2 famous examples of cavalry crashing into and overruning steady infantry, Eylau and WimpfenI just had a quick read of a page on Eylau:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/military ... eylau.html
Points to note:
Quote:Because of the poor visibility, many Russian regiments were ridden down before they could form square; however, "in other cases, squares were broken up."Interesting, but there were 10,000 cavalry on the charge. Were the squares physically smashed, or did they break up in panic?
Quote:The first targets of this thundering mass were the huge columns of Russian infantry marching on Eylau.Note that the columns were on the march.
Quote:The grouping of cuirassiers (heavy cavalry) into heavy divisions appears a distinctly French innovation, occurring around 1800 when the French armies were reorganized into brigades.Does this apply to antiquity, or was it a brand new innovation of Napoleon's?
Quote:At the battle of Hof, just days prior to Eylau, D'Hautpol's cavalry (2nd Cuirassier Division), "smashed all resistance by brute force, jabbing at the enemy faces with their sword-points, breaking down an infantry square, pressing their powerful horses through the line of guns and riding down the gunners."If the cavalry were able to outreach the infantry with their sabres, then that ties in with what's been said before in this thread. The horses themselves did not physically push into the infantry with their bodies.
What strikes me in the rest of the page is Borodino and Austerlitz. Here's a reason why I can envisage a massed charge of cavalry horses physically breaking a disciplined infantry formation - the horses were unable to stop because of the number of horses close behind them, which scared them even more than the barrier in front. What do you think? It would, however, take an enormous amount of cavalry, just as Napoleon fielded.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Aryaman2 - 04-03-2007
Quote: What strikes me in the rest of the page is Borodino and Austerlitz. Here's a reason why I can envisage a massed charge of cavalry horses physically breaking a disciplined infantry formation - the horses were unable to stop because of the number of horses close behind them, which scared them even more than the barrier in front. What do you think? It would, however, take an enormous amount of cavalry, just as Napoleon fielded.
I think that the ammount of cavalry is relative, in field armies cavalry was a large part, something some historians forget when they watch the numbers of overall armies. For instance, in the 30 Years War in many battles, especially after 1635, cavalry outnumbered infantry, so it was not so difficult for a cavalry force to overrun an infantry force that was actually outnumbered. Depth is also a big factor, in the early 17th century cavalry was tightly packed in six ranks, so that it was very difficult for a horse running in the front line to refuse an obstacle.
To sum up, it has been fashionable after Keegan "The face of Battle" to deny the physical posibility of a charge, but that is based on very scanty evidence and runs against a good number of eyewitness accounts, not that it was the rule, but it was not that uncommon either.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Robert Vermaat - 04-03-2007
Does it not depend on what infantry is facing the cavalry charge? Would long pikes/spears not be more effective in warding off the charge (and don't forget supporting missile fire) and causing confusion amongst the cavalry?
maybe we could say that cavalry charges are difficult in breaking heavy infantry if these are unwavering and armed with pole arms?
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - John Conyard - 04-03-2007
Yes I agree. I have seen horses prepared to ride into infantry who are not armed with long weapons. One horse was out of control and easily split a formation. Another was ridden up to the infantry line, held in balance, then kicked on into the shield wall easily breaking it. But these are the exception, and the infantry were not trying to kill the horse!
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Aryaman2 - 04-03-2007
Quote:Does it not depend on what infantry is facing the cavalry charge? Would long pikes/spears not be more effective in warding off the charge (and don't forget supporting missile fire) and causing confusion amongst the cavalry?Certainly, pikemen blocks were less vulnerable than, say arquebussiers in skirmish, to present 2 extremes, my point is simply that even a block of pikes was not impossible to break by cavalry, and that not always would cavalry refuse contact with such a body, as has been fashionable to claim.
maybe we could say that cavalry charges are difficult in breaking heavy infantry if these are unwavering and armed with pole arms?
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Felix - 04-03-2007
Some excellent points have been made about Napoleonic warfare. In the case of Eylau, the whole battle was fought in a driving snowstorm, which is why Augereau's whole corps got lost on the battlefield and blundered directly into the Russian artillery of Sacken. Even a large body of artillery was almost invisible, giving en element of surprise to any rapid maneuver on the field. Also, it is clear that the cavalry charge was a measure of desparation on Napoleon's part; it was not a carefully set-up knockout blow. It succeeded, which should not blind us to the possibility that it was a highly risky choice. Other mass charges did occur, but often the enemy was already damaged or disrupted.
An important note: in Napoleonic times, an infantry force which was to be attacked by cavalry had almost always already been subject to attack and casualties, by artillery or prior infantry combat. This is considerably different from pre-gunpowder warfare, where (leaving aside the English longbow) missile troops did not make up most of an army, and consequently, most infantry units faced shock combat pretty much intact. A veteran Napoleonic unit could survive heavy casualties and still be in good order and able to resist a charge, but this is by no means the rule.
Also, a square was considered the only safe formation for resisting a cavalry attack (unlike pregunpowder warfare, where blocks and long lines could turn back determined attack), so Napoleonic soldiers out of square would automatically be more liable to panic. This is the orgin of the phrase "the thin red line". The key word is "line" - in the Crimean War, a British (Highlander, I think) regiment armed with the new fangled rifled muskets broke up a Russian cavalry charge without forming square. This was considered a huge achievement at the time.