Heavy cavalry charge:How exactly was it done?

[Paralus]

I first thought they could have used the horned saddles, but xyston was used with both hands so that wouldn't work.
So do we know how did they managed to absorb the shock of charge and stayed on the horses without resting their foot on the stirrups?

You most likely need to get hold of one or two of Minor M Markle's articles. His work on the use of the cavalry lance is involved and, whilst I disagree that a cavalry "sarissa" existed as such, rather informative.

The cavalry xyston was a one handed weapon. This is clearly indicated in the representations of its use that remain to us: the Kinch tomb, the Sidon Sarcophagus and the Alexander Mosaic.

To posit a sarisa of some fifteen or more feet - as Markle does - is, I think, unnecessary. If this weapon in its eighteen foot length, in Markle's view, rendered the phalanx a cumbersome and fractious animal then such would also apply to charging cavalry in files as he imagines them.

I have always rather suspected that the representations we have are of lengthened xystons of about twelve feet. These are counterbalanced to facilitate their use. They likely make use of the lighter "sarisa" heads excavated at Vergina.

[Nicholas Gaukroger]

This link may be of interest:

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php

[Kineas]

Stefanos, I've been charged by cavalry a dozen times, and I've never gotten used to it... so I agree. It is all psychology. And not so much technology. The infantryman isn't afraid of the spear or lance (maybe a little afraid) it's that monster with the hooves...

Oddly, the monster is afraid, too.

[PMBardunias]

If this weapon in its eighteen foot length, in Markle's view, rendered the phalanx a cumbersome and fractious animal then such would also apply to charging cavalry in files as he imagines them.

Renaissance Polish hussars were known to use lances of this length to good effect. ( http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/comp/comp06.htm ) There are tales of Swedish pike being charged through, but like all cavalry-riding-over-infantry stories in my opinion, the swedes must have broken ranks just before contact.

One thing to consider is the nature of a "charge". If I remember correctly, there was a clash between Napoleon's Polish lancers and Prussian infantry in the rain (no gun-play) in which the horse did not charge into them so much as approach an poke them due to their longer reach. I don't recall if they broke.

[Strategos]

I think you mean the battle of Großgörschen 1813?
Well, i remember that horses do not want to run into a solid line of men, if this would not be true, Wellington would have had a hopeless position at Waterloo when General Neys Cavalry attacked the British squares, or remember Gaugamela, when the Macedonians opened channels through their lines to trap the chariots.
I believe that the ranks of a cavalry unit must break when charging a fresh infantry unit, no matter what period you are looking at.
Kind regards
Strategos

[Paralus]

If this weapon in its eighteen foot length, in Markle's view, rendered the phalanx a cumbersome and fractious animal then such would also apply to charging cavalry in files as he imagines them.

Renaissance Polish hussars were known to use lances of this length to good effect. ( http://www.jasinski.co.uk/wojna/comp/comp06.htm )

Yes but those lances were hollow. As well a 'modern' saddle was used including stirrups (overrated or not). I'd see a solid cornel wood sarisa as a little more unwiedly - particularly with a sauroter.

[spyros]

Check the threads "Greek Cavalry" and "Greek horses".

http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/viewtopic. ... sc&start=0

[Sean Manning]

I think you mean the battle of Großgörschen 1813?
Well, i remember that horses do not want to run into a solid line of men, if this would not be true, Wellington would have had a hopeless position at Waterloo when General Neys Cavalry attacked the British squares, or remember Gaugamela, when the Macedonians opened channels through their lines to trap the chariots.
I believe that the ranks of a cavalry unit must break when charging a fresh infantry unit, no matter what period you are looking at.
Kind regards
Strategos

I agree that horses are very reluctant to charge into a solid mass of men., and that fights between spearmen and shock cavalry rarely end well for the cavalry However, in the Napoleonic battle the horses had somewhere to go if they didn't want to (namely, backwards through the one or two ranks behind them into open space, or forwards through the killing fields between the squares)!

I have trouble envisioning Coutrai, or Bannockburn, or any of the other early 14th century battles chronicled by De Vries and others, as consting of a kilometer-long mass of knights cantering towards the kilometer-long wall of spears, halting a few dozen yards away as the horses refuse to go further, and then being shoved into the mire by fear alone. Too many knights died for that. On the other hand, against tired or irresolute cavalry one or two ranks of brave spearmen seems to have been enough to keep them off, riding around and brandising weapons as in the supposed small fight before Bannockburn or the final defeat of the Brabacon pikemen after Bouvines.

Paralus, have you read about Peter Connolley's experiments with a Macedonian lance on horseback? I summarized them in an earlier post somewhere. A friend of his successfully used a 5 m lance with buttspike from horseback, although I suspect that Macedonian xysta were a bit shorter too.

[PMBardunias]

As well a 'modern' saddle was used including stirrups (overrated or not). I'd see a solid cornel wood sarisa as a little more unwiedly - particularly with a sauroter.

The saddle allows for more of the horse's momentum to be transferred by the rider- before being knocked off the horse- but it is not essential. In fact the heavier sarissa might be a means of hitting harder without a saddle to transfer the horse's force. The Sarmatians and their ilk seem to have used some sort of bracing against the horse's shoulder to aid in this, and I don't think there is enough evidence to say that the Macedonians did not do something like this as well.

The sauroter would only serve to move the center of balance back, I'm not sure why you think this would be more unwieldy.

[Paralus]

[Paralus, have you read about Peter Connolley's experiments with a Macedonian lance on horseback? I summarized them in an earlier post somewhere. A friend of his successfully used a 5 m lance with buttspike from horseback, although I suspect that Macedonian xysta were a bit shorter too.

No, I have not. I have read plenty of Markle’s experiments though. In his work it is readily apparent that the sarisa – if used – must be cradled overarm (Sidon Sarcophagus) or held underarm (Alexander Mosaic) before going into action. The grip cannot be adjusted whilst charging as a fifteen foot sarisa is too unwieldily for the one hand.

In the Sidon Sarcophagus Alexander is clearly depicted with the lance in the overarm position thrusting into the Persian in front and below him. It is redolent of Granicus (the cavalry battle fought as an infantry battle). It would seem to Markle (and me) that if these sarisae were used in a charge then the logical position is that of the mosaic.

The sauroter would only serve to move the center of balance back, I'm not sure why you think this would be more unwieldy.

Sean relates that his friend used a five metre lance from horseback. In relation to the sauroter, if it was similar to the infantry sarisa, it would not be heavier than the point; about the same in fact. For the infantryman this is no great problem as he is using two hands. The balance point would be near centre (as opposed to near to front with no counterbalancing sauroter) and two hands would manage holding it at the one third mark.

That would be somewhat different on horseback as balanced near middle means as much of the lance protrudes behind – with a but-spike – as is out front. In the melee of a cavalry charge against other cavalry (or infantry) – such as that described by Arrian at Granicus – this might be a little more difficult to manage than Sean’s friend. That sauroter might present problems as well.

As I say, I lean to a counter balanced (toward the rear) lance of some twelve feet. This, balanced at the four foot mark, presents eight feet to the enemy. It might well be easier to change grips with as the situation demands.

As a colleague (Agesilaos) at Pothos observed: that’s no spear, it’s a goddam sarisa!

Even though it’s just an extended xyston.

Did the Sarmatians use both hands for their lances? Can’t remember.

[Paullus Scipio]

Did the Sarmatians use both hands for their lances? Can’t remember.

....Definitely Yes !!

[PMBardunias]

Sarmatians used the contos in a peculiar two handed grip, resting the forehand on the horse's shoulder (perhaps as a fulcrum to allow them to extend the fore-part of the spear or as a brace against the shock). That said, they did not ride around like this! They surely rode until the last moment with the contos balanced in one hand, as Alexander in the mosaic. I don't think we have enough pictorial evidence to say anything definitive. As an analogy, if we only had small fragments of the Bayeux tapestry we would think that Norman cavalry uniformly used the lance either overhand, underhand, or couched, depending on the fragment found.