heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry

[Robert Vermaat]

Robert, but we don't know much about extreme details of tactics of heavy cavalry from Ancient era. So comparisons to later eras are necessary to create some theories regarding Ancient era.

Which is exactly what I wrote.
WITH the stipulation that discussions do not drift off into these modern eras and begin to discuss those modern examples without any link back to the original topic: classical heavy cavalry. There are plenty of other places where to discuss the battles of the 17ty c. etcetera.

[Mark Hygate]

....................

Imagine a squadron of two ranks, knee to knee galloping at the charge. One horse in the front rank hits a pothole or is felled by a missile, it goes down, it may take out one or both of the horses on either side, and also one or more horses in the following rank - as they cannot swerve aside because they are hemmed in. Not an efficient way of making a charge - charge knee to knee at the trot, or at the gallop in a more open order..............

........often charged in just one rank of horsemen, NOT two ranks...............

Other ranks of horsemen waited in reserve, while only one rank was engaging the enemy at once. They were replacing each other and charging in turn. After charge and impact, each rank was withdrawing, soon after that another rank was charging.............

Only when enemy formation was finally broken, all ranks were charging to help finish off the enemy................

I'd particularly like to link these elements to discussions we've had before, particularly when it comes to cavalry formations and Asclepiodotus, Arrian, Aelian, et al.

For later periods we do have the detail that is missing in ancient manuals - how troops actually fought. So, whilst it is reasonable for multi-rank deep formations of cavalry to form up on parade and even manouever en masse, charging and actual tactical use simply has to be in single lines. Hence still my contention that a Roman turmae most probably fought in 3 individual ranks of 10 - and the square, rhombus and other multi-rank formations in some of the manuals do not detail how they actually fought.

[Robert]

I would side with Robert on this one. The thread is in Roman Military History & Archeology. Still, all kinds of cavalry units from different era are introduced, without making a serious attempt to link these to what we know or persive of Roman cavalry. I am getting pretty tired of Peter's Polish hussars and their supposed acts of bravery and unstopable horses. From what we seem to know, cavalry was a rapid intervention force aimed at disrupting enemy formation and the opponants cavalry at times was used to prevent this, causing a cavalry clash. This however took away a large portion of the real tactical use of cavalry and was meant as a way to stop the original attemp of disruption. In Roman times, it was all about the infantry to take the field and the day and cavalry was in the support role. A paralel to the present was to view the cavalry as an airforce unit supplying close air support. Hahahaha, but he, now I am wandering way off topic :-)

[Domen]

Don't worry Robert,

In other threads on this forum I wrote also about acts of bravery and "unstopable horses" of other cavalry types, including English Ironsides who defeated pikemen on several occasions during the English Civil War. Perhaps the most famous unit of heavy cavalry (cuirassiers) of the ECW were parliamentarian cuirassiers under Sir Arthur Haselrig (man famous for being repeatedly shot by muskets and pistols, stabbed by pikes, cut by swords - and surviving all of that). His cuirassiers charged and defeated pikemen in at least two battles:

- battle of Lansdowne on 5 July 1643, where his men defeated Sir Bevil Grenville's pikemen
- battle of Roundway Down on 13 July 1643

In both those battles Sir Arthur Haselrig was wounded, but not seriously.

As for trot / canter / gallop speed values - these are taken from description of charge of the Light Brigade.

And in 1578 at Gembloux 1,200 Spanish lancers defeated a Dutch army of 20,000 men.

PS: I actually never wrote about any "unstopable" horses. :grin:

I only wrote about horses which can be persuaded or forced or trained NOT to stop.

While some people mistakenly claim, that horses would stop no matter what.

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

BTW - while I support a view that horses can and do trample men, I never ever claimed that a charging unit is able to literally bulldoze through entire enemy formation which is many ranks deep - because it is rather obvious that a horse has not enough momentum and other things to do this. Even though horses can hit, trample or push, they would - at least in most cases (especially when attackers were not cataphracts or gendarmes) - not be able to literally bulldoze through entire enemy formations, like it is depicted in The Lord of the Rings film series. This is why repeated charges were usually necessary to break such formations. And horses of Polish hussars not only were clearly NOT unstopable, but were actually withdrawing after charge - and then repeating another charge. This is why cavalry units often charged many times during one battle.

At Klushino (1610) many squadrons of hussars charged enemy lines 8 or even 10 times:

Account of Samuel Maskiewicz - one of hussars who fought in squadron of prince Porycki at Klushino:

"(...) about this I shall remember, for it is beyond belief, that the squadrons managed eight or ten times to fall upon the enemy. (…) After these repeated charges and hand-to-hand fighting against the enemy, our equipment was broken and our strength was dissipated (…) The horses were also ready to drop from exhaustion, because they had not received sustenance since dawn and for five hours of battle, they had served with a great will but were reaching the limits which nature imposes (...)."

But the battle (5 hours long) was a victory for Polish cavalry against more numerous enemy forces which included both infantry (West European and Russian) and cavalry (Russian and West European).

Porycki's squadron - in which Samuel Maskiewicz served - lost actually just 5 men killed (out of 117) during the entire battle. Apart from men, of course also some horses were killed and many weapons broken - so overall losses of this squadron were bigger than just 5 killed men. And there were also wounded horses.

Some squadrons suffered higher losses - up to 20% wounded or dead (commander included) in the single most depleted one. Enemy losses were still much higher - also during the "combat phase" itself (before pursuit).

But more enemies were cut down after battle, during pursuit (as was the case in most historical battles).

Klushino or Kircholm are not just "Polish-Lithuanian exceptions".

For example Spanish victory at Gembloux in 1578 is equally if not more impressive.

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

What about Seleucid cataphracts in the battle of Panium in 200 BC ???

They defeated Macedonian-style phalanx in that battle - not frontally (they charged from the rear), but still.

In the battle of Raphia - despite ultimate Seleucid defeat in this battle - cataphracts also performed well.

What about Parthian-Seleucid battles? In most cases we have only vague descriptions of what happened.

At Magnesia cataphracts and agema cavalry were the only Seleucid units which achieved success, charging and defeating at least one Allied Legion* and perhaps also one neighbouring actual Roman Legion.

*Latin Ala

In the battle of Zama during the Jugurthine War, Numidian cavalry were reported charging into Roman infantry lines (not skirmishing in their usual way) with considerable success, despite being light cavalry.

What about examples of confrontation between two opposing Ancient heavy cavalry forces?

At Tigranocerta Thracian and Gallic cavalry in Roman service defeated Armenian cataphracts. But was Thracian and Gallic cavalry heavy? I think it was medium, but it was a melee-mode cavalry, not skirmishers.

Are there any known clashes between Parthian and Seleucid heavy cavalry units?

.

[Domen]

Just to try & keep to topic as requested I have a question to ask.
How do we define heavy cavalry in an ancient context?
1. Heavily protected
2. Heavily armed
3. Both of above which would entail bigger & more expensive horses as well as armour & weapons which only a few could afford so in ancient times there were probably fewer heavy cavalry & more medium & light cavalry in armies.
4. Shock troops
Archer Jones in his book “the Art of War in the Western World" although covering early medieval warfare has a general chart covering the “tactical weapons systems" of the 4 main arms of ancient & medieval armies light infantry, heavy infantry, light cavalry & heavy cavalry & the advantages each arm has over the other 3 arms on flat ground in a battle situation which I thought might interest some. Going by this chart heavy cavalry doesn't fare well against either light cavalry or heavy infantry but good against light infantry.


[attachment=7760]image_2013-08-08.jpg[/attachment]

Regards
Michael Kerr

This chart is rather over-simplistic, yet clearly not so wrong. But going by this chart, there is no suggestion that heavy cavalry "doesn't fare well against heavy infantry". This chart only suggests, that heavy infantry can be good in defence (D, while attack is A) vs heavy cavalry. This is true, especially for some types of heavy infantry, such as pikemen (if we count them as heavy infantry rather than a separate weapon system).

Light cavalry can be good against heavy cavalry, but can also be bad - depends what type of light cavalry. Especially missile cavalry can be efficient. However, if heavy cavalry is well-armoured (e.g. cataphracts), it is going to be hard to actually destroy it by missile cavalry - unless after a very long combat and plenty of arrows / missiles used (where to take them from?). Nevertheless, it is generally true that missile cavalry was - just next to pikemen - perhaps one of the most difficult opponents "one on one" versus heavy cavalry.

In case of light cavalry vs heavy infantry fights - the same can be written as above regarding heavy vs light cavalry, except that heavy infantry under most conditions can actually be LESS vulnerable to missile fire than heavy cavalry. So in my opinion alleged superiority of light cavalry over heavy infantry is overrated. Of course in favourable conditions good missile cavalry with never-ending supplies of missiles can destroy heavy infantry. But in my opinion heavy cavalry can be more dangerous for heavy infantry than missile cavalry.

As for light infantry vs heavy infantry - light infantry can be efficient vs heavy (once again - it mostly refers to missile infantry), but often only in favorable conditions and when numbers of light infantry are superior. Victories of peltasts vs hoplites prove this (most achieved with superior numbers and in favourable ground).

When light infantry has nowhere to escape and ground is not favourable, it gets slaughtered (Marathon).

Light infantry can be useful against any cavalry - not just light. This refers especially to missile infantry, when they fight protected by heavy infantry or heavy cavalry (one of reasons why this scheme is over-simplistic is because in real battles various weapon systems listed there cooperate and fight together).

Light infantry can also be good in attack (A) against light cavalry, not just in defence (D) as this chart suggests. Let's mention Jaxartes, where Alexander used well-supported light infantry to attack Scythians.

.

[Urselius]

Force equals mass times acceleration, as far as we know this pertained in the Ancient period just as it does now. The basic behaviour and physical performance of horses is also much the same now as it was then.

Therefore all references to cavalry actions involving shock using arme blanche weapons - distinct from those involving or dictated by the use of firearms - are relevant to a greater of lesser degree to similar actions of Antiquity.

[Robert Vermaat]

Force equals mass times acceleration, as far as we know this pertained in the Ancient period just as it does now. The basic behaviour and physical performance of horses is also much the same now as it was then.
Therefore all references to cavalry actions involving shock using arme blanche weapons - distinct from those involving or dictated by the use of firearms - are relevant to a greater of lesser degree to similar actions of Antiquity.

I respectfully disagree.
Although the statements of force/mass and weapons are correct by themselves, it's incorrect to maintain that all references to more modern armies are 'therefore' relevant to classical armies.
Horse races were different, unit numbers were different, tactics were different, command structures were different, unit effectivity was different, the opposing force as well as supporting infantry were different, quality of weapons was different, and I don't even mention stirrups etc.

Sorry, but it's insuffienct to make such a claim and continue the discussion as is. This is and remains a forum that discusses Antiquity, and if battles of a 1000 years later are discussed without any reason given why this battle and who was wounded was relevant to Antiquity (Peter, why on earth should we know that "In both those battles Sir Arthur Haselrig was wounded, but not seriously"??) the discussion shall be relegated to the OT section, where it can continue to flower at will.

Please do keep discussing, but I'll be keeping an eye on this and any new cavalry discussions of this kind.

[Macedon]

Actually force equals mass times velocity squared, although if this was enough on its own to determine the effect of charging cavalry, then I guess that chariots would have ruled all battlefields because of their increased mass...

[Macedon]

Actually momentum equals mass times velocity, although if this was enough on its own to determine the effect of charging cavalry, then I guess that chariots would have ruled all battlefields because of their increased mass...

[Urselius]

To quote Newton - in translation - "The acceleration of a body is directly proportional to, and in the same direction as, the net force acting on the body, and inversely proportional to its mass."

Hazelrig was heavily armoured, like a cataphract, perhaps if the Parliamentarians had been equipped with maces, like Constantine the Great's cavalry at Turin, he would have been beaten silly..

Swords are sharpened bars of metal with handles, lances are wooden poles with a sharp bit of metal on the end, this is equally true for the troops of Alexander III of Macedon and Napoleon I. Horses are horses, differences in breeds have relatively minor effects on their behaviour - I seem to remember a Roman horse was excavated that would have been 16 hands high, taller than most Napoleonic cavalry mounts.

Cavalry were intimidating when coming at you at speed. Much of the shock of shock action was psychological rather than physical. For the cuirassier at Waterloo facing a an infantry square just as for the contus armed lancer in ancient times his best hope of defeating infantry in formation was to panic them into opening their ranks. If they remained calm and united they could see off the cavalry - 180AD or 1800AD - no difference at all in the way things worked.

[Macedon]

No disrespect Martin, I still think it is momentum you need regarding this issue. The law you refer to has to do with the force that is being exerted on a body in order to accelerate it, which would be relevant if we wanted for some reason to compute the force exerted on a body (the horse or the target) should we know its acceleration. Plus, acceleration has nothing to do with end speed since you can obtain the same end speed by exerting less force for more time. It is the force exerted on the target by the horse-rider set we need here and for this we need the total mass and the speed upon impact. The acceleration here would be irrelevant.

[Flavivs Aetivs]

Macedon is right. High School physics.

[Urselius]

I was wanting to use Newton's original terms. Momentum yes, but the force exerted is due to the change in velocity when a moving object hits a target. When it is moving at a constant velocity, no force is acting on a object - deceleration, which is kinetically equivalent to acceleration, converts the momentum into the force acting on the target. Though horses don't act exactly like missiles in a vacuum!

Military thought, up to c.1750 considered the weight of the horse to be the determining factor in charges - the side with the heavier horses would win. The standard charger of the period was the "black horse" (not always black in colour), you can see them in illustrations of Marlborough's wars - large bodied, though quite short-coupled horses, with great square hindquarters, thick highly curved necks and small heads. After this time the realisation that momentum - speed and mass combined - was the important thing and warm blooded horses, of slighter build and higher speed tended to replace the old "black horse" chargers. What sort of ideas the Ancients entertained on horse form and use in cavalry charges we don't know. We don't know if they had a gradation of paces - trot - canter -gallop as they closed with an enemy as some later regulations stipulated.

[Mark Hygate]

Actually momentum equals mass times velocity, although if this was enough on its own to determine the effect of charging cavalry, then I guess that chariots would have ruled all battlefields because of their increased mass...

And unlike simply moving objects of mass - horses (indeed elephants and camels) have brains.

We do have (deliberate reference) many examples of cavalry being ineffective/losing against formed and steady infantry in later periods when information is more available and I have no worries in projecting that backwards to 'our' times.

Cavalry to: scout; harass; threaten; skirmish; move rapidly; exploit; and run down routers - absolutely fine. But not charge into formed and certainly prepared infantry - especially when they are holding nice pointy spears. Horses are too intelligent for that. Spears, Pikes and Bayonets - all good for that, whatever the period.

Cavalry has now, did earlier and probably did then (nobles & rich people (equites) are the ones able to afford horses) always have a certain cachet - they are also the ones who tend to write history too.

[Cesco]

Hi all, I would like to ask you one question about this argoument: when a cavalry unit charged an infantry unit, was there an actual impact between the horse and the infantry man (or his shield)? I don' t think so, but I would like to know your opinion.