Cavalry and chariots against infantry

[Domen]

Advance warning: there is actually no account of this battle that described what happened in detail

Unfortunately this is true for majority of accounts of Ancient battles.

So... Maybe let's better stick to accounts from the 17th century... They are more detailed.

Or if you don't want to accept this solution - then let's just admit that we don't know how the hell Ancient cavalry fought, because there are not enough of detailed accounts describing their methods...

Otherwise, this discussion will turn into exchange of speculations and theories, which are not explicitly described in Ancient sources in a detailed enough way to determine for sure how it was...

[Robert Vermaat]

Advance warning: there is actually no account of this battle that described what happened in detail

Unfortunately this is true for majority of accounts of Ancient battles.

I take it, then, that you have no reference for Gothic cavalry charging Roman infantry after all? ;-)

So... Maybe let's better stick to accounts from the 17th century... They are more detailed.

But far less interesting because they lack (in many cases) the opportunity of direct comparison. Winged Hussars are no Roman cavalry, massed pikemen are no Roman infantry.

[Domen]

But far less interesting because they lack (in many cases) the opportunity of direct comparison. Winged Hussars are no Roman cavalry, massed pikemen are no Roman infantry.

But horses are horses. Or maybe not. Maybe they are not "similar" to each other?

One of sources which I quoted says that horses used in Europe during the Roman era were most probably smaller than, for example, Medieval horses. It also says that we don't have enough archaeological discoveries of skeletons of horses from that time to determine this for sure...

So once again lots of questions, but not enough answers.

[Robert Vermaat]

But far less interesting because they lack (in many cases) the opportunity of direct comparison. Winged Hussars are no Roman cavalry, massed pikemen are no Roman infantry.

One of sources which I quoted says that horses used in Europe during the Roman era were most probably smaller than, for example, Medieval horses. It also says that we don't have enough archaeological discoveries of skeletons of horses from that time to determine this for sure...

I have read that as well, which is why in Roman re-enactment we do not want horses that are too tall. One more reason to be carful about comparing Medieval (and later) warfare to Classical warfare.

[Domen]

But on the other hand - also people were shorter back then than today. Am I right?

Average Roman soldier was something like ca. 160 - 165 cm tall, if I recall correctly.

Germanic warriors were taller, because they had more meat and fish in their diet.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

People were taller in the Roman Era than in the Medieval Era if I recall correctly. The Romans were on the verge of an Industrial Era Society, they just had to link all their different inventions together. Not to mention their standard of living and lifespans were much higher/longer. Were they shorter than modern day people? Yes. I'm 74 Inches (188cm) which is incredibly tall for a Roman Soldeir. Most Romans were about 70 inches (176 Centimeters).

[Domen]

That Adrianople reference is unfamiliar to me. I know about the Romans being pressed together unable to use their weapons, but I do not recall them being suffocated, trampled and squeezed by the cavalry.

I do, but I was already asking you to provide us a reference for Adrianople because you so boldly stated that this was a battle in which "Many Romans died because they suffocated after being trampled and squeezed by pressure of Gothic cavalry."(your words). So go ahead and show us who wrote that?

I take it, then, that you have no reference for Gothic cavalry charging Roman infantry after all?

Ammianus Marcellinus XXXI, 13.2-3.:

"(...) being deserted by the rest of the [Roman] cavalry, (...) [Roman] foot-soldiers thus stood unprotected, and their companies were so crowded together that hardly anyone could pull out his sword or draw back his arm. (...) when the barbarians, pouring forth in huge hordes, trampled down horse and man, and in the press of ranks no room for retreat could be gained anywhere, and the increased crowding left no opportunity for escape, our soldiers also, showing extreme contempt of falling in the fight, received their death-blows, yet struck down their assailants; and on both sides the strokes of axes split helmet and breastplate."

XXXI, 13.7.:

"Finally our line was broken by the onrushing weight of the barbarians, and since that was the only resort in their last extremity, they took to their heels in disorder as best they could."

XXXI, 13.10-11.:

"And so the barbarians, their eyes blazing with frenzy, were pursuing our men, in whose veins the blood was chilled with numb horror: some fell without knowing who struck them down, others were buried beneath the mere weight of their assailants; some were slain by the sword of a comrade; for though they often rallied, there was no ground given, nor did anyone spare those who retreated. Besides all this, the roads were blocked by many who lay mortally wounded, lamenting the torment of their wounds; and with them also mounds of fallen horses filled the plains with corpses."

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

During the next day after the battle of Adrianople - in a failed Gothic attempt to capture the town of Adrianople - Ammianus Marcellinus mentions that both Gothic foot and Gothic horse were charging the narrow entrances (already broken down by battering rams gateways) to the town, defended by Roman infantry. But this time were repulsed, with many Gothic horses and soldiers killed.

There are similar accounts which say about Polish Hussars charging already broken down (by battering rams or artillery) gateways and Muscovite infantry deployed behind them. Later Hussars participated in street combats in Moscow - and they did it while on horseback (not dismounted).

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

People were taller in the Roman Era than in the Medieval Era if I recall correctly.

I think it depends on particular periods of both the Roman Era and the Medieval Era.

Generally in times of overpopulation or economic crisis (such as the crisis of the 3rd century or Europe shortly before the Black Death) people were shorter due to shortage of food, especially of meat.

On the other hand, after such periods of rapid population declines, when "excess" population already died and overpopulation was no longer the problem (like during the Dark Ages, or already the late period of the Roman Empire - 4th and 5th centuries, as well as in Europe after the Black Death) people were taller, since there was enough food - including also meat. I've read that people in the Dark Ages were tall.

This is quite ironic, that during the period called "Dark", average Joes had actually more food.

Generally "rural people", who lived in the countryside rather than urban centers, were taller, unless their village was extremely poor. This is because majority of people living in cities were malnourished.

Remember that majority of people in Roman and Medieval cities were poor plebeians. Rich patricians were the minority of urban population both in the Roman Era and Medieval Era. An average peasant in the countryside had better access to food of various kinds, than an average townsman.

[Michael Kerr]

Hi, in regards to chariots against infantry I recall where in the "Battle of Gaugamela" Darius III thought his chariots were his trump card against the Macedonian infantry but Alexander devised tactics to defeat this threat by creating channels in his infantry to funnel the chariots to awaiting infantry who despatched both drivers and horses when they lost momentum and came to a halt.

Also after watching a few of the videos about horses and crowds I remembered a few years ago on the news where there was a University student demo in Sydney (Australia) and the mounted police moved in a line to clear the streets when all of a sudden the front line of the demonstrators all rolled hundreds of marbles towards the mounted police and how the horses just stopped in their tracks and started slipping and sliding all over the place. I saw some skilful riding that day and thankfully no horses or police were hurt but they were interesting modern day "infantry" tactics to stop a horse's momentum. Good discussion though.

Regards
Michael Kerr

[Domen]

The Romans were on the verge of an Industrial Era Society

The verge of an Industrial Era Society is generally not considered as a "healthy period".

Nor is the Early Industrial Era. Read about extreme poverty and hunger among worker's families in the 19th and early 20th century European cities. Also descriptions of slums in European cities.

In the Roman era, the majority of urban population also lived in poverty. In the city of Rome, there was no constant hunger only because the State was sharing out free bread to the poor masses.

But eating almost only bread (and almost no meat or vegetables) is not healthy.

For an average Joe, life in Medieval countryside was more healthy than in Roman cities, unless there was an epidemic disease raging around (but epidemic diseases were also common in the Roman Era).

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

And during times of the Roman Republic before Augustus and before the 1st century AD, there was also extreme poverty in Roman provinces. We have sources which say about huge fiscal exploitation of population in provinces by their governors - tax level was extremely high, so high that people of conquered territories had not much money left to spend on food and basic products of the daily life.

This is also one of reasons why there were so many rebellions in Roman provinces.

Basically the only "Golden Age" for an average Joe living anywhere within the Roman Empire, was the "Pax Romana" period of the 1st century AD (and partially also of the first half of the 2nd century - but already in the 2nd century inflation and negative economic changes started, IIRC).

During that period - I suppose - malnutrition or hunger were not very common in the Roman world. Also large scale epidemic diseases were rather rare during the "Pax Romana" period.

Later similar situation was in the Dark Ages, but due to previous decline of population number.

Overpopulation started to be a huge problem again in the 13th century Europe. But then the Black Death came in mid-14th century, ending the problem of overpopulation and shortage of food.

The Black Death also caused considerable rise of salaries for majority of labour force, as before the Black Death there was "unemployment", while after the Black Death - not enough labour force.

To summ up - the Black Death improved living standards of those who survived it.

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

3. The first painting shows cavalry in an enveloping position and an infantry square that for some reason has its pikes upright.

Maybe guys in the middle have their weapons upright for the same reason as Romans at Adrianople... :

"(...) companies were so crowded together that hardly anyone could pull out his sword or draw back his arm. (...) when the barbarians, pouring forth in huge hordes, trampled down horse and man, and in the press of ranks no room for retreat could be gained anywhere, and the increased crowding left no opportunity for escape, (...)"

At Adrianople (...) I know about the Romans being pressed together unable to use their weapons,

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

Hi, in regards to chariots against infantry I recall where in the "Battle of Gaugamela" Darius III thought his chariots were his trump card against the Macedonian infantry but Alexander devised tactics to defeat this threat by creating channels in his infantry to funnel the chariots to awaiting infantry who despatched both drivers and horses when they lost momentum and came to a halt.

Exactly.

The sole fact that Alexander created channels (instead of ordering his infantry to "absorb" the charge) testifies to the fact, that chariots (and they were drawn by horses) were able to charge infantry head on. And it also means that Alexander was afraid that those chariots could inflict some damage and some casualties upon his phalanx - otherwise he would not bother to order it to create channels, instead of just absorbing the charge... And remember, that Alexander ordered his peltasts and other skirmishers to deal with chariots from distance. This means, that he prefered to engage chariots in missile combat rather than in close combat - surely to avoid losses from the momentum of their charge...

Alexander was one of greatest military geniuses in history - he wouldn't order his men to do unnecessary things on the battlefield. If he ordered to create channels, he knew it was necessary.

Darius III was also not a total idiot - he sent his chariots against Macedonian infantry. Persians must have done similar things before (maybe not against Macedonians, but surely against infantry). He expected his scythed chariots to be efficient against infantry. He only didn't expect those channels...

The same method (creating channels) was often used to avoid elephant and cavalry charges!

Using the very same method king of Sweden ordered his pike and musket infantry to create channels while facing the charge of Polish hussars in the battle of Warsaw in 1656. Later, he ordered his Reiters, dragoons and artillery (as well as infantry reserves) to open flanking fire from all guns, muskets and pistols towards the charging hussars. As the result - the charge was finally repulsed. Although before that happened, the hussars managed to pierce through a few lines of Swedish cavalry and infantry who did not receive the order to create channels on time, or did not manage to do this on time...

And at Warsaw in 1656 - it was a force of just several hundred hussars, charging several thousand Swedish soldiers. Despite such superiority, the Swedish king ordered to avoid confrontation!

Also - hussars weren't supported by other units of the Polish army (nor other cavalry, nor infantry, nor guns) in that charge. They were most valuable part of the army, but their numbers were few in that battle and period (in the 1650s Poland could mobilize several times fewer hussars than in the 1610s).

"Nec Hercules contra plures" - 900 hussars could not single-handedly win a battle against 19,000.

And other Polish troops (especially the general levy of the nobles) did not much to help them. "Lions led by donkeys" can't do much as well - and Polish commander in that battle was a donkey...

but they were interesting modern day "infantry" tactics to stop a horse's momentum.

Interesting story. But remember, that it was a shocking experience for those horses (as well as for the policemen riding them), because it was perhaps the first time they had to face such an "innovative tactics" in "battle". Surprise effect, caused by usage of new methods, is often efficient.

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

And such an informative quote from a user on this forum (my nick on that forum is "Domen"):

http://www.historum.com/medieval-byzanti...ost1371285

Traditional tactic in Christian Spain was for the heavy cavalry to lead a headlong charge into the middle of the enemy and smash them to bits or hope for the best! The Almoravid Emperor Yusuf was a bit too smart for this and used the (now) familiar tactic of a feigned retreat (or to an extent, a real one). - Then the African light cavalry would attack the flanks and eventually encircle the enemy forces. First (in Spain) and famously used at Sagrajas (Zalaca in arabic). He even had the luxury of using his detested allies, the Spanish muslims from the Taifas, as the main centre to take the brunt, with the Senagalese behind them to sweep up the mess at Sagrajas.

By the time of El Cid's prime the enemies of the Almoravids had learnt how to counter this by withdrawing the centre in time, but it didn't always work, like at Consuegra where El Cid's heir was killed. Source: Moros y Cristianos, Javier Esparza and other sources

The later Almohads used infantry with heavy shields and very long pikes, kneeling, with archers and javelin throwers behind, to counter the heavy cavalry charge. They also had some heavy cavalry and Kurdish mounted archers.

Source: Navas de Tolosa, Garcia Fitz, from numerous North African sources

So pretty much another example of infantry countering heavy cavalry by trying to avoid head-on, direct confrontation with it to neutralize its momentum! Muslim infantrymen were trying to withdraw and lure Christian heavy knights cavalry into "channels" (created in their line after the center retreated) and then hoping to repulse the charging cavalry by flanking missile attacks and counter-charges.

Why would infantry try to avoid frontal confrontation with cavalry, if supposedly cavalry could not defeat infantry in such frontal confrontation?! Or why would it use field fortifications to stop cavalry?

For me it is now totally obvious that infantry could and did smash firm infantry in frontal charges.

The only question is how often did this happen in the Antiquity - perhaps not nearly as often, as in the Middle Ages and in the Early Modern Era, considering that majority of Ancient sources say that the most common tactics for cavalry at that time was skirmishing, rather than direct charges.

But there are examples of cavalry performing such charges also in the Ancient Era.

One of such examples is Zama 108 BC (when Sallust wrote that Numidian cavalry fought in an unusual way - because the usual method used by Numidian light horsemen was skirmishing).

One more of such examples is the battle of Adrianople - I provided excerpts from Ammianus.

[Domen]

The Romans were on the verge of an Industrial Era Society

The verge of an Industrial Era Society is generally not considered as a "healthy period".

Nor is the Early Industrial Era. Read about extreme poverty and hunger among worker's families in the 19th and early 20th century European cities. Also descriptions of slums in European cities.

In the Roman era, the majority of urban population also lived in poverty. In the city of Rome, there was no constant hunger only because the State was sharing out free bread to the poor masses.

But eating almost only bread (and almost no meat or vegetables) is not healthy.

For an average Joe, life in Medieval countryside was more healthy than in Roman cities, unless there was an epidemic disease raging around (but epidemic diseases were also common in the Roman Era).

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

And during times of the Roman Republic before Augustus and before the 1st century AD, there was also extreme poverty in Roman provinces. We have sources which say about huge fiscal exploitation of population in provinces by their governors - tax level was extremely high, so high that people of conquered territories had not much money left to spend on food and basic products of the daily life.

This is also one of reasons why there were so many rebellions in Roman provinces.

Basically the only "Golden Age" for an average Joe living anywhere within the Roman Empire, was the "Pax Romana" period of the 1st century AD (and partially also of the first half of the 2nd century - but already in the 2nd century inflation and negative economic changes started, IIRC).

During that period - I suppose - malnutrition or hunger were not very common in the Roman world. Also large scale epidemic diseases were rather rare during the "Pax Romana" period.

Later similar situation was in the Dark Ages, but due to previous decline of population number.

Overpopulation started to be a huge problem again in the 13th century Europe. But then the Black Death came in mid-14th century, ending the problem of overpopulation and shortage of food.

The Black Death also caused considerable rise of salaries for majority of labour force, as before the Black Death there was "unemployment", while after the Black Death - not enough labour force.

To summ up - the Black Death improved living standards of those who survived it.

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

3. The first painting shows cavalry in an enveloping position and an infantry square that for some reason has its pikes upright.

Maybe guys in the middle have their weapons upright for the same reason as Romans at Adrianople... :

"(...) companies were so crowded together that hardly anyone could pull out his sword or draw back his arm. (...) when the barbarians, pouring forth in huge hordes, trampled down horse and man, and in the press of ranks no room for retreat could be gained anywhere, and the increased crowding left no opportunity for escape, (...)"

At Adrianople (...) I know about the Romans being pressed together unable to use their weapons,

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

Hi, in regards to chariots against infantry I recall where in the "Battle of Gaugamela" Darius III thought his chariots were his trump card against the Macedonian infantry but Alexander devised tactics to defeat this threat by creating channels in his infantry to funnel the chariots to awaiting infantry who despatched both drivers and horses when they lost momentum and came to a halt.

Exactly.

The sole fact that Alexander created channels (instead of ordering his infantry to "absorb" the charge) testifies to the fact, that chariots (and they were drawn by horses) were able to charge infantry head on. And it also means that Alexander was afraid that those chariots could inflict some damage and some casualties upon his phalanx - otherwise he would not bother to order it to create channels, instead of just absorbing the charge... And remember, that Alexander ordered his peltasts and other skirmishers to deal with chariots from distance. This means, that he prefered to engage chariots in missile combat rather than in close combat - surely to avoid losses from the momentum of their charge...

Alexander was one of greatest military geniuses in history - he wouldn't order his men to do unnecessary things on the battlefield. If he ordered to create channels, he knew it was necessary.

Darius III was also not a total idiot - he sent his chariots against Macedonian infantry. Persians must have done similar things before (maybe not against Macedonians, but surely against infantry). He expected his scythed chariots to be efficient against infantry. He only didn't expect those channels...

The same method (creating channels) was often used to avoid elephant and cavalry charges!

Using the very same method king of Sweden ordered his pike and musket infantry to create channels while facing the charge of Polish hussars in the battle of Warsaw in 1656. Later, he ordered his Reiters, dragoons and artillery (as well as infantry reserves) to open flanking fire from all guns, muskets and pistols towards the charging hussars. As the result - the charge was finally repulsed. Although before that happened, the hussars managed to pierce through a few lines of Swedish cavalry and infantry who did not receive the order to create channels on time, or did not manage to do this on time...

And at Warsaw in 1656 - it was a force of just several hundred hussars, charging several thousand Swedish soldiers. Despite such superiority, the Swedish king ordered to avoid confrontation!

Also - hussars weren't supported by other units of the Polish army (nor other cavalry, nor infantry, nor guns) in that charge. They were most valuable part of the army, but their numbers were few in that battle and period (in the 1650s Poland could mobilize several times fewer hussars than in the 1610s).

"Nec Hercules contra plures" - 900 hussars could not single-handedly win a battle against 19,000.

And other Polish troops (especially the general levy of the nobles) did not much to help them. "Lions led by donkeys" can't do much as well - and Polish commander in that battle was a donkey...

but they were interesting modern day "infantry" tactics to stop a horse's momentum.

Interesting story. But remember, that it was a shocking experience for those horses (as well as for the policemen riding them), because it was perhaps the first time they had to face such an "innovative tactics" in "battle". Surprise effect, caused by usage of new methods, is often efficient.

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

And such an informative quote from a user on this forum (my nick on that forum is "Domen"):

http://www.historum.com/medieval-byzanti...ost1371285

Traditional tactic in Christian Spain was for the heavy cavalry to lead a headlong charge into the middle of the enemy and smash them to bits or hope for the best! The Almoravid Emperor Yusuf was a bit too smart for this and used the (now) familiar tactic of a feigned retreat (or to an extent, a real one). - Then the African light cavalry would attack the flanks and eventually encircle the enemy forces. First (in Spain) and famously used at Sagrajas (Zalaca in arabic). He even had the luxury of using his detested allies, the Spanish muslims from the Taifas, as the main centre to take the brunt, with the Senagalese behind them to sweep up the mess at Sagrajas.

By the time of El Cid's prime the enemies of the Almoravids had learnt how to counter this by withdrawing the centre in time, but it didn't always work, like at Consuegra where El Cid's heir was killed. Source: Moros y Cristianos, Javier Esparza and other sources

The later Almohads used infantry with heavy shields and very long pikes, kneeling, with archers and javelin throwers behind, to counter the heavy cavalry charge. They also had some heavy cavalry and Kurdish mounted archers.

Source: Navas de Tolosa, Garcia Fitz, from numerous North African primary sources

So pretty much another example of infantry countering heavy cavalry by trying to avoid head-on, direct confrontation with it to neutralize its momentum! Muslim infantrymen were trying to withdraw and lure Christian heavy knights cavalry into "channels" (created in their line after a feigned retreat) and then hoping to repulse the charge by flanking missile attacks and flanking counter-charges.

Why would infantry try to avoid frontal confrontation with cavalry, if supposedly cavalry could not defeat infantry in such frontal confrontation?! Or why would it use field fortifications to stop cavalry?

For me it is now obvious that cavalry could and did smash solid infantry in frontal and flanking charges.

The only question is how often did this happen in the Antiquity - perhaps not nearly as often, as in the Middle Ages and in the Early Modern Era, considering that majority of Ancient sources say that the most common tactics for cavalry at that time was skirmishing, rather than direct charges.

But there are examples of cavalry performing such charges also in the Ancient Era.

One of such examples is Zama 108 BC (when Sallust wrote that Numidian cavalry fought in an unusual way - because the usual method used by Numidian light horsemen was skirmishing).

One more of such examples is the battle of Adrianople - I provided excerpts from Ammianus.

Then we also have the cataphracts - a cavalry formation designed specially to charge infantry.

On the other hand - the main role of clibanarii was to charge enemy cavalry.

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

Some both modern and 17th century pictures showing Polish-Lithuanian winged hussars:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/7-off-t...tml#331328

Pike-musket unit defending behind a fence at Klushino (hussars were ramming and jumping over fences):

[Marja]

First of all, Ammianus doesn't say the Gothic cavalry were doing the trampling. Most modern reconstructions have many more Gothic infantry than Gothic cavalry.

I get the impression that the Goths have surrounded the Romans, and are harassing the Romans with arrows and javelins, and the Romans are launching uncoordinated charges to try to hit back at the Goths. Gradually, the Romans are whittled down, and are leaving their wounded to get trampled by the Gothic advance. I know this is only one impressionistic reconstruction.

Second, Arrian is writing centuries after the events he describes, and to glorify Alexander. I don't trust Arrian as much as I'd trust Xenophon, Polybius, Ammianus, or Procopius, for example.

Third, how do we test our theories?

Yes, my suggestion of going through the sources and tallying things up is flawed, but it is something, and I'm not seeing any better suggestions. I think looking for parallels has been very useful, but it isn't giving us any answers.

[Domen]

First of all, Ammianus doesn't say the Gothic cavalry were doing the trampling.

He also doesn't say the Gothic infantry were doing the trampling...

He uses the words "assailants" and "barbarians" - which don't tell us what type of troops it was.

But from the analysis of the context and the meaning of what he writes, it becomes obvious that it was either cavalry or both of them - cavalry mixed with infantry. Certainly not just infantry.

And when he writes, that "barbarians trampled down horse and man" - it is obvious that he speaks about cavalry, because men would not be able to trample down horses, lol (if you don't believe - then please find some adult horse that could be used as a battle horse and then try to trample down it!).

BTW - according to: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/trample+down

"Trample down = to crush down someone or something with the feet."

How do you imagine a man "crushing down a horse with his feet" possible?!

OTOH - a horse "crushing down a man (or even another horse) with its feet" is possible.

Then Ammianus writes about pursuit (which is typically a job of cavalry - and was at Adrianople, where the Romans lost 2/3 of their army killed, not including wounded survivors - and vast majority of survivors were Roman cavalry... - infantry is too slow to carry out such an efficient pursuit). And he mentions the fact that some of the Romans were "buried beneath the mere weight of their assailants". A man has definitely not enough speed and not enough of the mere weight to "bury" another man "beneath" him... Only a horse (or a chariot, or an elephant, or another large animal) can do this.

Then he writes that "our soldiers also, showing extreme contempt of falling in the fight, received their death-blows, yet struck down their assailants" - so the Roman infantry continued to struggle and inflicted many casualties. And then he concludes (after writing that the field was full of killed and wounded men), that: "also mounds of fallen horses filled the plains with corpses" - and he certainly speaks not only about Roman horses, but also about Gothic horses - because it was the Gothic army which had superiority in cavalry in this battle (they really had enough to "fill the plains with mounds of fallen horses corpses"). On the other hand the Roman cavalry apparently did not suffer too heavy losses in this battle, because it fled from the battlefield rather than fighting to the last drop of blood (Ammianus writes: "being deserted by the rest of the [Roman] cavalry, (...) [Roman] foot-soldiers thus stood unprotected" - and only after this statement he describes the final part of the battle, in which apparently mostly Roman infantry fought, because overwhelming majority of the Roman cavalry had already escaped before).

Interpretation, that he speaks about Gothic infantry trampling Roman men and horses (sic!) is simply stupid... Especially that by that time most of the Roman cavalry already fled from the field.

Regarding Gothic losses at Adrianople - I have seen estimations that they lost 1/4 of initial strength.

So the battle was bloody for both sides (the excerpt about lots of dead horses confirms this).

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

I get the impression that the Goths have surrounded the Romans, and are harassing the Romans with arrows and javelins, and the Romans are launching uncoordinated charges to try to hit back at the Goths. Gradually, the Romans are whittled down, and are leaving their wounded to get trampled by the Gothic advance. I know this is only one impressionistic reconstruction.

Well - this "impression" is indeed totally unrelated to description by Ammianus. He writes that the Romans were squeezed by the Goths and had no space to even use their weapons.

And you claim that they were "launching charges to try to hit back at the Goths".

They were so crowded together that they could not even "pull out their swords or draw back their arms" and also that "in the press of ranks no room for retreat could be gained anywhere, and the increased crowding left no opportunity for escape", but you claim, that at the same time they were able to "launch uncoordinated charges". If due to increased crowding "no room for retreat could be gained anywhere", then also certainly no room for counter-charges could be gained anywhere.

Please note, that what you write - "surrounded and harrasing with arrows and javelins" - is not "the press of ranks". The "press of ranks" indicates that there was no space between the Goths and the Romans, but that the Goths were physically pushing or smashing into the Romans, who were so squeezed due to this pressure, that many of them could not even "pull out their swords or draw back their arms".

You need sufficient space and room to carry out counterattacks or charges.

Also the impression about only Roman wounded being trampled is faulty. Ammianus writes:

"were pursuing our men, in whose veins the blood was chilled with numb horror: some fell without knowing who struck them down, others were buried beneath the mere weight of their assailants"

So he writes that men were "buried beneath the weight of their assailants" while running away being chased - not while lying on the ground wounded. Some were struck by weapons, some trampled.

"Without knowing who struck them" also suggests cavalry (cavalry hits from above - unless you look upward, you don't see the face of a cavalryman, you can only see his horse and legs).

Of course it is possible that some of the wounded and already lying on the ground were also trampled (it is even clear - certainly if someone fell on the ground, he was getting trampled by horses). But - anyway - Ammianus writes about men who tried to run away getting chased and trampled while moving.

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

Such a video as an example of what horses can do in battle (start watching from 5:50):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cxLxb4Bexs#t=5m50s

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

Edit:

In a book about Adrianople, I found photo of such a sculpture from the Arch of Constantine in Rome:

According to the book, it shows the scene of Constantine's shock cavalry smashing Maxentius' heavy infantry (namely - the Praetorian Guard) in the battle of the Milvian Bridge (312 AD):

According to wikipedia, this particular fight took part on the northern side of the river:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_t...ian_Bridge

"Maxentius' Praetorian Guard seem to have made a stubborn stand on the northern bank of the river."



We can clearly see soldiers of the Praetorian Guard getting smashed and trampled down by horses.

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

And such a comment regarding performance of Roman cavalry at Adrianople:

[Marja]

I think we're talking about, at most four thousand Gothic cavalry, and substantially more Gothic infantry, against at least ten thousand Roman infantry.

There are a lot of ambiguities in Ammianus' account, probably derived from different survivors' experiences. He seems to have the cavalry flee early in the battle, and again late in it.

It's worth noting that both Roman cavalry commanders live and both Roman infantry commanders die, as does the emperor. It's likely that the cavalry got away and the infantry were trapped. If the Romans simply fled the field, then the Gothic cavalry could do the pursuing. If, as most interpretations assume the Roman infantry find themselves surrounded, then the Gothic infantry can also cut down the Roman infantry. It's like Cannae or Zama rather than Jena-Auerstadt.

Also, Ammianus has the battle begin with a Roman cavalry charge. And near the end he says "the carcasses of slaughtered horses covered the ground in heaps." Although he has the "trampling down horse and man" much earlier in the account, I still suspect they were trampling down those who had fallen at the beginning of the battle,

Ammianus describes desperate Roman attacks on the Goths, saying they "plunged into the dense masses of the foe, regardless of their lives and aware that there was no hope of escape," [this is where I get the idea of disorganized Roman counterattacks] and I think this fits an encirclement better than a flight. Later he says that "all were scattering in flight over unfamiliar paths," which fits a flight better than an encirclement, but one may describe the infantry and the other may describe the cavalry, or one may describe an earlier stage of the battle and the other a later stage [with the Romans forcing a gap in the encirclement, but collapsing anyway?]

Also, if the Roman infantry are surrounded, backing away from one threat could mean backing into another unit. At first, this would figuratively fit the description, as units become intermingled and lose their order. At the end, then, this could also literally fit the description of not having enough room to use their weapons. I think the threat, and morale collapse, and panic, could create the stampede/crowd crush, even without physical shoving.

Also, Ammianus, Vegetius, and Orosius all emphasize Gothic archers or missile-throwers.

[Domen]

Also, Ammianus, Vegetius, and Orosius all emphasize Gothic archers or missile-throwers.

Archer or missile throwers are good to "soften" enemy formation before close combat, but not deadly enough for armored troops and troops with large shields (such as Roman heavy infantry) to decide the outcome of battle. Also check the info about the battle of Milvian Bridge I posted above.

Macedonian infantry at Gaugamela had much less protection against arrows and other missile projectiles than Roman infantry at Adrianople, while Persians were relying on archers and skirmishers (both infantry and cavalry) to much greater extent than barbarians at Adrianople. Yet Macedonian casualties in the battle of Gaugamela were negligible - which testifies to low actual lethality of missiles.

Also, Ammianus has the battle begin with a Roman cavalry charge.

But later Roman cavalry escaped from the battlefield (and most of it survived the battle).

And when describing combats which took place long after the desertion of Roman cavalry from the battlefield, when Roman infantry was fighting alone, after describing dead infantry, he once again mentions "mounds of fallen horses" which "filled the plains with corpses" - so in my opinion this refers primarly to Gothic horses, much more of which died in this phase of the battle, than of Roman horses.

He seems to have the cavalry flee early in the battle, and again late in it.

There is nothing inconsistent in this. Some of escaping Roman cavalry could rally and return to the battlefield - and then flee once again. Ammianus wrote that escaping Romans "often rallied".

It's worth noting that both Roman cavalry commanders live and both Roman infantry commanders die, as does the emperor. It's likely that the cavalry got away and the infantry were trapped. If the Romans simply fled the field, then the Gothic cavalry could do the pursuing. If, as most interpretations assume the Roman infantry find themselves surrounded, then the Gothic infantry can also cut down the Roman infantry. It's like Cannae or Zama rather than Jena-Auerstadt.

But Ammianus also describes Gothic pursuit of escaping Roman infantry.

Apparently not all of Roman infantry was trapped in such a way that it couldn't escape.

It's worth noting that both Roman cavalry commanders live and both Roman infantry commanders die

Which confirms that Roman cavalry suffered relatively low casualties. And thus the "mounds of fallen horses" which "filled the plains with corpses" had to be Gothic - at least many of them.

And I don't think that skirmishing and keeping at bay can produce "mounds of fallen horses".

Nor does charging enemy cavalry which quickly escaped without much resistance produce them.

So Gothic cavalry had to charge and smash into enemy infantry, suffering losses in horses.

[Marja]

Archer or missile throwers are good to "soften" enemy formation before close combat, but not deadly enough for armored troops and troops with large shields (such as Roman heavy infantry) to decide the outcome of battle.

{{cn}}

Yet Macedonian casualties in the battle of Gaugamela were negligible - which testifies to low actual lethality of missiles.

And no, I don't know why archery succeeded at Carrhae and failed at Gaugemala. None of us do. And how do we know that the casualty claims were accurate? I agree archery was more effective with combined arms, but almost anything was more effective with combined arms. Zhmodikov has established that thrown missiles were effective in heavy infantry combat, which is about the last place anyone would expect them to be effective.

Also check the info about the battle of Milvian Bridge I posted above.

A propaganda frieze? An infantry formation can collapse for many reasons: caught while deploying, caught while retreating, outflanked, etc. Unless we know what happened, we don't know what this shows.

And when describing combats which took place long after the desertion of Roman cavalry from the battlefield, when Roman infantry was fighting alone, after describing dead infantry, he once again mentions "mounds of fallen horses" which "filled the plains with corpses" - so in my opinion this refers primarly to Gothic horses, much more of which died in this phase of the battle, than of Roman horses.

But the Romans had more cavalry than the Goths. I just find it easier to believe that the initial Roman cavalry charge and the cavalry combats explained the fallen horses than that later Gothic cavalry had gone head-to-head with the Roman infantry, instead of going after those Roman infantry who tried to escape.

Apparently not all of Roman infantry was trapped in such a way that it couldn't escape.

No, or not for the whole battle. Again, a lot of this is speculation, but the most common interpretation is that most or all of the Roman infantry was surrounded, and although some may have escaped, one way or another, Ammianus' description works well if they were surrounded.

Which confirms that Roman cavalry suffered relatively low casualties. And thus the "mounds of fallen horses" which "filled the plains with corpses" had to be Gothic - at least many of them.

Relative to the Roman infantry. But not necessarily relative to the Gothic cavalry. And because the Romans had more troops, and more resources, in most current interpretations they had more cavalry. If the Gothic cavalry suffered more losses than the Romans, it would be a Pyrrhic victory.

And I don't think that skirmishing and keeping at bay can produce "mounds of fallen horses".

Nor does charging enemy cavalry which quickly escaped without much resistance produce them.

So Gothic cavalry had to charge and smash into enemy infantry, suffering losses in horses.

But the first thing the Roman cavalry did was charge! And by all indications they charged the Gothic wagon-fort! Now there are some disputes and ambiguities - some suggest they charged Gothic infantry in front of the wagon-fort - but it's precisely the sort of situation where cavalry does suffer catastrophic losses.