Roman Heavy Cavalry Fighting Techniques

[Robert Vermaat]

Pliny (It was Pliny who chronicled Carrhae, right?) writes of the Parthian Cataphracts impaling up to two men at the same time in places and hitting the roman legionaries so hard that the legionaries were pressed together so tightly they couldn't raise their arms something that could only have been done at a gallop. It also shows that horses can be trained to charge head on into solid infantry.

We agree on the notion that cavalry *could* charge into infantry formations head-on (but it was not wise and surely costly), but I disagree that this source shows that it did in this case. The cavalry could ride into the infantry at slow but sure speed, and push against it like another infantry formation would have done. The pressure of the horses would have had the same result (as did the Carthaginian infantry at Cannae or the Gothic infantry at Adrianople. No need to see a charge here.

I think that right before the impact the clibanarius would rise in the saddle and lean forward just a little and then come down and slam his forward into the target thus combining his weight and strength with the speed and weight of his horse (The horse after all is the one that does most of the work) this would agree with the depictions of the two-handed lance technique we see depicted in contemporary art.

How would a clibanarius rise in the saddle without the use of stirrups? The saddle was the only means to provide stability, and even IF a rider could rise in the saddle, the shock of the impact would surely throw him from his steed!

[Aulus Perrinius]

We agree on the notion that cavalry *could* charge into infantry formations head-on (but it was not wise and surely costly)

Agreed on all counts. And even if the horses are trained and do carry out something like that breaking the infantry is another matter entirely.

But I disagre that this source shows that it did in this case. The cavalry could rise into the infantry at slow but sure speed, and push against it like another infantry formation would have done. the pressure of the horses would have had the same result (as did the Carthaginian infantry at Cannae or the Gothic infantry at Adrianople. No need to see a charge here.

True. However Pliny does mention more than one legionary getting impaled at once which would indicate that at least of those horses were going fast than a canter.

How would a clibanarius rise in the saddle without the use of stirrups? The saddle was the only means to provide stability, and even IF a rider could rise in the saddle, the shock of the impact would surely throw him from his steed!

Good point

[Vindex]

How would a clibanarius rise in the saddle without the use of stirrups? The saddle was the only means to provide stability, and even IF a rider could rise in the saddle, the shock of the impact would surely throw him from his steed!

Good point

You can sit "forward" in a saddle with horns (or without for that matter) as opposed to "rising" if by that you mean standing in stirrups. I can't find any illustrations from the period we are discussing at the moment, but see below for a forward seat and then an "ordinary" seat.


Leaning forward would put a lot of pressure on the horse's shoulders and the design of the saddle would have to allow for this for the horse's benefit as opposed to the rider's. It also puts a horse on the forehand and unbalances it (perhaps this is the reference above to a cavlryman falling forard on his horse's neck and his weight bring ing it down? There are lots of modern comaprisons (particularly in National Hunt racing) where a horse will gallop on regardless with a man hanging round his neck desperately trying to regain his seat: but at most that man is 10st 6lbs and not armoured - I bet most of them wished they were before kissing dirt at pace!)

[Kai]

I for one am still not convinced that cavalry would stop and fight stationary against infantry, since I still not see why anyone would willingly give up all his advantages and fight on the enemy’s terms.

As advised by Howard I looked into tactical manuals of the late Romans (early Byzantines if you wish). One section I found most telling:



It is from the Anonymous On Strategy, ch. 17 in G. Dennis’ edition , which G. Dennis dated into the 6th century (1985), while Ph. Rance convincingly put it into a much later context (B yzantinische Zeitschrift 100, pp.701-737). This is quite important as it would include stirrups if Rance is correct. The stirrups are vital for melee. As my words may be not precise enough, for English is my third language, I will let Guy Halsall talk: “By concentrating on the frontal charge […] the debate has possibly missed the point of the stirrup’s advantages. The stirrup does help to keep a rider in the saddle and permits a warrior to strike with much more force to his sides or to the rear during a mêlée. It also makes downward strokes more powerful, enabling the mounted warrior to stand in his stirrups.” (Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, p.174). I do see how the lack of stirrups would also affect the endeavor of balancing a 4,5m lance and striking with it. The horse is a platform, I agree, but it is an unstable platform. Xenophon of course exaggerated that when exhorting his men, but is point is perfectly valid nonetheless:

οὐκοῦν τῶν ἱππέων πολὺ ἡμεῖς ἐπ᾽ ἀσφαλεστέρου ὀχήματός ἐσμεν: οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐφ᾽ ἵππων κρέμανται φοβούμενοι οὐχ ἡμᾶς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ καταπεσεῖν: ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ἐπὶ γῆς βεβηκότες πολὺ μὲν ἰσχυρότερον παίσομεν, ἤν τις προσίῃ, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον ὅτου ἂν βουλώμεθα τευξόμεθα.
“Moreover, we are on a far surer foundation than your horsemen: they are hanging on their horses' backs, afraid not only of us, but also of falling off; while we, standing upon the ground, shall strike with far greater force if anyone comes upon us and shall be far more likely to hit whomsoever we aim at.” (Anabasis 3,2,19)

One might say that there was no saddle here, but that would be true for Alexander the Great as well. The instability of the horse as a platform in stationary combat is something that can be remedied to a certain extend with stirrups but not eliminated. I can neither possibly imagine how it is supposed to work “fixing” the rider to the saddle, nor how that would be as efficient as stirrups, nor what sources are supposed to support this idea.


Anyway it is clear that horsemen precisely are not to slow down. Indeed it is infantry tactics to slow down cavalry so it can be easily defeated with a counter charge (On Strategy, ch. 36). As far as I know, there are no reports of heavy cavalry intentionally stopping in front of an enemy infantry formation and fight stationary. Of course there are reports of cataphracts stopped violently and slaughtered, as it happened at Zeugma or Taurus.

Also there are no depictions of heavy cavalry in stationary combat, unless you count the Alexander-Mosaic.

In this regard, Paul, I think you are coming to conclusions way to fast. You have already concluded it must be certain battle depicted, you have already concluded it must be Issus or Gaugamela (what about Ecbatana? ), and you have already concluded it must be Issus then for you have concluded the Persian Prince… I could continue the list. But I merely advise being open for more than a single opinion in the Alexander-Mosaic. There are e.g. a lot archaological monographies in German alone such as Winter 1909; Andreae 1959 and 1977; Pfrommer 1998, Stähler 1999, and more papers. I actually had to work with them for it was a (admittedly minor) topic of my oral exams. You can read a lot conflicting opinions concerning such historical questions. Probably historians should have a look at W. Eckhardt: Das Alexandermosaik oder: Wie authentisch muss eine historische Darstellung sein? (Römische Mitteilungen 114, pp. 215-269).

To be a bit more specific, you assume I think Alexander is charging with high speed. I do indeed. But I do not think his putting all his weight-and-force of his body (and that of his horse) and the speed of his charge into the lance. As one can clearly see Alexander does not hold the lance close to his body as medieval knights with couched lances or cataphracts with two-handed lances did. In my opinion, he is primarily relying on speed and weight of the lance alone, which is enough to kill actually (with 35 kph and 5kg – low numbers). His arm and his shoulder are turned back due to the impact. If he was in the process of lunging at the enemy, both would be turned forward unless he is preparing to lunge out. However this is opinion only, and you will certainly disagree. The point still is, you cannot just come along and say: that is it, no other options possible. You can almost never do this in archaeology and certainly not an object like this mosaic. After all, all this opinions require the artist and/or his employer having detailed knowledge about military history and physics, which we cannot be sure of.
From the artsy point of view, and that is a very important part of archaeological analysis, Alexander must be riding fast. It is one of the few agreements that the mosaic brilliantly depicts the change of power with a dynamic Alexander charging speedily, a terrified Darius turning away, desperately reaching out, and the whole landscape foreshadowing it (note the VERY important tree signifying the change) and so on. Even the composition of the background agrees. This is the message of the picture, not the way Alexander fought ‘in real life’.

I am not sure if it really makes sense discussing the mosaic in such detail. I would be more convinced if you actually presented an unambiguous ancient depiction of stationary combat conducted by heavy horse or an unambiguous ancient report. We can both discuss for a long time about common sense, but ancient evidence is more convincing.

As we are on the ancient evidence, I would remind not to overestimate the protection offered by armour. I know it is a long bloody discussion how effective armour was and again no consensus is in sight. But: Pacorus and his men, Parthian high nobles thus fighting as cataphracts, were severely decimated by slingers, since slingers do not need to penetrate the armour (cf. Cassius Dio 49,19). In general it again seems to me like a unsound idea just sitting on an instable platform while being bombarded - and counter charged, if the enemy commander has a brain. Venditius had a brain and Pacorus died. However he never stopped (at least not willingly).



By the way, Paul, are you at the RAT conference? Maybe we can share a beer while discussing it further?


PS: the technically correct term chóc is French, although English literature tends to Anglicize it. I thought in a thread with Napoleonic comparisons running wild it would not be inappropriate.


Re: Ammianus and the battle of Strasbourg, it seems it was the horse that collapsed under the weight of the armour, thus the rider fell over the neck, implying the horse front legs collapsed first.

cataphracti equites viso rectore suo leviter vulnerato et consorte quodam per cervicem equi labentis pondere armorum oppresso dilapsi qua quisque poterat peditesque calcando cuncta turbassent (16,12,38)

As Junkelmann pointed out, the weight cannot have been much of a problem, since horses can carry a lot more. It was the dehydration suffered by the sweating and heat-up under the heavy armour which covered the whole body.

[Aulus Perrinius]

Good post Kai!

In Philip Sidnell's book Warhorse: Cavalry in the Ancient World. He points out that one can still maintain a stable seat without a saddle and without stirrups.

I recall reading an article in which the reenactor experimented with riding like one of Alexander's Companions, during a charge against a target he was shoved back on his horse's back but he still managed to generate enough force to knock the target over.

[John Conyard]

Every so often a RAT topic examines the use of cavalry against infantry, and the fact that the old arguments are re-aired here make them no less interesting.

I fear I really don't have the time time to add much to this debate, except to say that given time you can train a horse to be prime minster, and certainly to charge into a solid infantry line. Calm horses with a slow heart rate can be taught quickly, others may take longer.

I have not yet met the infantryman willing to take the impact of a speeding horse:lol: The horse will not stop, it is trained to ride over you.

And yes various armour does restrict your movement. The contos/sarrisa will break on serious impact with a target, as will any weapon.

You can use the kontos at the walk, caunched like a lance or two handed. Or even in a sidewise motion to knock other riders off their horses.

[Robert Vermaat]

Great post Kai.

I for one am still not convinced that cavalry would stop and fight stationary against infantry, since I still not see why anyone would willingly give up all his advantages and fight on the enemy’s terms.

I don't think that what was being advocated here. Normal cavalry indeed has battlefield speed as its one big advantage, and will not likely give that up. What was being said here (at least by me) was that armoured cavalry (especially with horse armour) was unlikely to speed at or along infantry, but fight at low speed or perhaps at times stationary, using the superior range of the contus and the height as an advantage, while being protected against enemy weapons. That's a very different thing from unarmoured cavalry, which has to move in and out of range at a quick pace, and is best used as scouting troops, horse archers, guard flanks and protection of light troops, with the occasional use as chargers into weak spots, and of course harying a fleeing enemy. But that's all different from the heavies.

[John Conyard]

Speed protects you from missiles and gets you away from superior oponants or superior numbers in hand to hand combat. So if the infantry lack missile capacity and are fixed in position, a horseman can engage them while stationary and take liberties. Cavalry dictate the nature and pace of the fight.

[Aulus Perrinius]

Great post Kai.

I don't think that what was being advocated here. Normal cavalry indeed has battlefield speed as its one big advantage, and will not likely give that up. What was being said here (at least by me) was that armoured cavalry (especially with horse armour) was unlikely to speed at or along infantry, but fight at low speed or perhaps at times stationary, using the superior range of the contus and the height as an advantage, while being protected against enemy weapons. That's a very different thing from unarmoured cavalry, which has to move in and out of range at a quick pace, and is best used as scouting troops, horse archers, guard flanks and protection of light troops, with the occasional use as chargers into weak spots, and of course harying a fleeing enemy. But that's all different from the heavies.

Heavy Cavalry can still engage at a gallop, they just have to build-up speed and only go to the gallop at the final fifty yards. I agree that they wouldn't be gallivanting around the field like a bunch of horse archers. That's not their job and their gear would tire them out faster and leave them too exhausted to carry out their intended purpose (To slug it out hand-to-hand)

[John Conyard]

It is not the speed that tires the horse, or the amount of armour. But rather the heat which the armour can exacerbate. Otherwise an armoured horseman can gallop around all day. Or at least most of it.

[John Conyard]

I wanted to post up some more images of horses going through infantry at speed. And a nice one of a horse going over Byron at speed. mile:

But I also wanted to be able to cite Robert E. Gaebel's "Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World".

http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=9183

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cavalry-Operatio...969&sr=1-2

http://ebookee.org/Cavalry-Operations-in...65307.html

It is a while since I have read it but he gives several descriptions of Macedonian cavalry entangled with their enemies in a sort of close order pushing match, certainly at the Granicus and at Gaugamela.

[Robert Vermaat]

It is a while since I have read it but he gives several descriptions of Macedonian cavalry entangled with their enemies in a sort of close order pushing match, certainly at the Granicus and at Gaugamela.

That would surely be interesting, because I'm told left and right that cavalry formations are not supposed to be able to do that, because one line of horses would not be able to 'push' the line of horses to their front without all kinds of chaos. Or is the sheer mass of the frontline of the cavalry already enough to generate enough weight against an infantry formation?

[John Conyard]

The descriptions are of Macedonian cavalry pushing against enemy cavalry. Horses are good at shoulder barging, ask Byron

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Yes John, but I think it would have been a diffent story, if I had been armed..:twisted:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I would agree on that point. The weight of a solid mass of horses would be fairly overwhelming. But there would be serious casualties on both sides, as the infantry are also massed, pushing back, and more importantly, using sharp pointy things to kill and maim both horse and riders! Its not a one sided event by any means!
I hope we can all agree on that?