Roman Heavy Cavalry Fighting Techniques

[Paullus Scipio]

Ben wrote:-

That's based on Keegan's theory in The Face of Battle which he bases on one battle (Waterloo).

Yes, it's hard to train horses to charge head on into solid spears or pikes, but the idea that they never did and never could be made to do so is extremely harmful to the field of military history. Horses have charged head on into solid infantry formations at a gallop several times throughout history.

And humans beings can charge head on into spear or pike lines too.

I'm afraid this is an old argument, but one which is now resolved, as far as it can be, in favour of the position I put forward - and that position is not at all based on Keegan,( who based his views on much other research); rather in my case on a lifelong study of military history.

I will even go as far as to say that, in all likelihood, in all of the history of cavalry, "charging" by a large body of horse has never resulted in a head-on collision between horses and resolute infantry with pointy things, or beween substantial bodies of horsemen ( occasionally, in skirmishing, the "charge" was carried out in 'open' order by mutual consent, allowing two 'open' lines to pass through each other.)

To begin with, it must be appreciated that head-on conflict was a comparative rarity, because in the majority of cases one side or the other gave way before potential 'collision'.

Recall too that to allow the highly artificial sport of jousting to occur, it is necessary to have highly trained horses AND a barrier between them - otherwise both shear away for fear of collision, and the riders can't reach each other.....very embarrassing!

For a visual image, actually from ancient times, consider the "Alexander mosaic". having "charged", Alexander's horse is shown stationary, and rearing up to avoid collision.

Or consider Ammianus' detailed account of the battle of Argentoratum [XVI.12.4-62]( a rare one in giving much detail, and very instructive about many aspects of ancient battles). Julian's cataphracts retreat in panic after their commander is wounded, and another horse collapses and throws its rider:-
"...scattered in whatever direction they could; the cavalry would have caused complete confusion by trampling the infantry underfoot, had not the latter, who were packed in close order and intertwined with one another, held their ground...."
Note that the horses will not, even in panic, run into the close-order infantry who stand their ground

Whilst we do not have much of this sort of 'nitty-gritty' detail from our ancient sources, there are plenty of personal accounts from the Napoleonic wars onward, and the psychology of horses has not changed in the last 2,000 years or so.....

Here is but one comment from an English officer ( Lt Col William Tomkinson) with plenty of experience in a real war - the Peninsular war of Napoleonic times.

"He waited so long and the enemy came up so close, that he ordered a squadron of the 16th to charge. The enemy's squadron was about twice their strength, and waited their charge. Our men rode up, and began sabring...... [ note: the French were stationary, and the English 'charged' but in actuality there were no collisions, no smashing of horses together, so as to fall over etc. Clearly the English reined in ("rode up to them") and began sword fighting. Tomkinson goes on....
"This is the only instance I ever met with of two bodies of cavalry coming into opposition, and both standing, as invariably, as I have observed it, one or the other runs away."

I have recounted on other threads how in this same war occurred a very rare instance of a French square being broken by the King's German Legion Dragoons, where there actually WAS a collision when a horse crashed into the square, opening the way for others - but horse and rider were both dead, and the incident was so remarkable it was recorded several times - which demonstrates just how rare such 'collisions' were in reality.

Much the same occurred in the Crimean war when the British Heavy Brigade "charged" the Russian cavalry. The Russians came on at the trot, then halted, the British charged up to them, and a sabring contest began, with the British urging and spurring their horses on into the press ( so obviously they halted before contact - again we don't hear from observers of any 'collisions', or horses bowling other horses over etc.)

There are countless similar detailed descriptions from many wars, and I haven't yet come across one which described bodies of horsemen smashing into one another and horses going down......

The only logical conclusion possible is that it simply didn't happen.Bearing in mind that Military History gives rise to constant legend and mythology, I'd be curious to see actual evidence, which of necessity would need to be fairly recent ( i.e. the last couple of hundred years) for "Horses have charged head on into solid infantry formations at a gallop several times throughout history."

I don't know anyone with a sound knowledge of horses who would claim such a thing ( I have done a fair bit of riding myself, including being part of a "tent pegging" display team when I was young, so I know first-hand something about 'charging'.)

Consider that horses are by nature timid creatures, and that on campaign, the wastage of horse-flesh in any era by any cavalry is truly prodiguous, so that in most battles mounts were not 'trained' to charge at all, and you'll soon see the odds stacking up against 'trained' animals running themselves into sharp objects and committing suicide! Nor the rider either for that matter. Cavalry are not 'kamikazes'!! :grin: :lol:

A couple of more minor points.....I did not say that cavalry did not 'charge' at the gallop ( or perhaps slow canter in the case of cataphracts! ), simply that if they met a solid formation of either cavalry or foot, they would and did spontaneously pull up before a collision took place.

Nor do I believe for one instant that archers or whatever could aim arrows to hit a fast moving horse's legs!!

Horses willing to "attack spears"?? I hope that was intended as a joke, for I'm pretty sure the horse is yet to be born that will willingly, or can even be goaded into, attacking a sharp pointy thing capable of inflicting wounds and pain, be it bayonet or spear, and still less a line of densely packed men bristling with such things.....
Nor does giving the horse armour ( in the case of cataphracts) change their basic instincts - horses are by and large pretty stupid.

For Vindex: Mostly the accounts of cavalrymen and memoirs such as those referred to above, both ancient and modern,including detailed eye-witness accounts e.g. of Omdurman, or the Australian Light Horse in WW1, plus personal experience. An interesting illustration of what happens when furious riders on horses try to attack men armed with sharp things is what happened, not just in the Napoleonic wars generally, but specifically the numerous eye-witness accounts of French cavalry at Waterlo and Quatre Bras "...swirling uselessly around the British squares, unable to do them harm..", as one account put it.

Humans, as I remarked earlier, are also reluctant to run into a wall of sharp pointy things - though they are braver ( or stupider!) than horses in that regard. Here are some statistics from the 'Horse and Musket' era that show that bayonets inflicted a mere 2-5% of wounds, generally the lower figure, and many of those 'coup-de-grace' wounds inflicted on men down injured, or in pursuits or flank attacks, or house-to-house fighting.....

At Malplaquet ( 1709), for example, the best evidence indicates that 2/3 of the wounds received by French troops came from the enemy's fusils, with only about 2 % were inflicted by bayonets. Of the men wounded by gunfire, 60 % had been struck in the left side, the side facing the enemy as a soldier stood in line to fire himself.
- 66 % from fusils
- 32 % from swords and artillery
- 2 % from bayonet'
Looking at a larger sample of veterans admitted to Les Invalides' in 1715,
Corvisier ( a noted Doctor) arrived at the following breakdown of wounds:
- 71.4 % from firearms
- 15.8 % from swords
- 10.0 % from artillery
- 2.8 % from the bayonet

According to another sample taken (in 1762 at the end of the Seven Years War) in 'Les Invalides';
- 69 % of the wounded were wounded by musket balls
- 14 % by sabers
- 13 % by artillery
- 2 % by bayonets

In 1807 during the war between France and Russia and Prussia, Chirurgeon (Surgeon)Baron Dominique Jean Larrey studied wounded on one battlefield and found most were caused by artillery and muskets. Only 2 % of all wounds were caused by bayonets.
- 98 % other wounds
- 2 % wounds from bayonets
The wounds inflicted during "bayonet charges" were more often executed by bullets. Baron Larrey studied one particularly vicious close combat between the Russians and the French and found:
- 119 (or 96 %) wounds from musketballs
- 5 (or 4 %) wounds from bayonets ( mostly against already down and wounded men in an attempt to dispatch them)