Roman Heavy Cavalry Fighting Techniques

[Kai]

Hello Paul,

I think it is useful to differentiate two points very strictly: first, the (in-)ability of cavalry to break infantry formations via choc attack, and second, what they are going to do when the chock has failed.

That cavalry cannot break steady formations of infantry if these hold their ground is old news, really old news. Be it Aristotle (Politics 4,13), Frederick the Great (Réflexions sur la Tactique), or more recently Hans Delbrück discussing that at length with Eduard Meyer, who even said ancient cavalry had no chance whatsoever to harm infantry in any way when they are well trained (a good start on this is Delbrück’s paper in Klio 10, pp.335-340), they all knew that.

The choc attack is psychological more than physical, no doubt about that. However this does not automatically mean cavalry will then stop in front of the opposing formation and fight stationary. (…which is your opinion, Paul, if I understood you correctly)
This goes against the very nature of cavalry, which draws its strength from its speed. A stationary horseman sacrifices all his advantages (the speed and power of the horse) and is most vulnerable to infantry exploiting all the weaknesses of cavalry (the rider having not the stability of a footman). Whenever we find cavalry stopped by and engaged by infantry, they are dead meat.
The long lances do not help here. What exactly would hinder the infantry to charge now at the horsemen? The heavy, hard to balance lances wielded by men on instable ground (i.e. no ground at all) certainly do not. At any rate, the firm ground of the infantry will inevitably ensure the infantry could be equipped with weapons outreaching the kontos, would it have been used by immobile horse against footmen.
Indeed none of the Persian rock reliefs show lances used in melee, but only in fast charge. Alexander’s horse on the mosaic is barely visible; to me it looks like being stopped by the impact of the lance rather violently, but then again, one cannot really see it. There is a lot of “if” and “buts” involved anyway. Is it really Oxathres, has he evaded grapping the lance or has he been impaled grapping the lance, is the mosaic depicting a certain battle for that matter? I stood hours in front of it in Naples discussing with archaeologists. You know very well nothing should be presented as fact in this regard.
However, back to topic: The impact power of the lance is reported by Plutarch e.g., albeit exaggerated in that case, or by the rock reliefs. The trusts of stationary men without firm ground cannot possibly have such effects.

In my opinion, when confronted with steady infantry, cavalry will just turn away, retreat, regroup, and charge again – which is precisely what happened at Waterloo btw. Speed is life. Delbrück names and discusses several ancient instances, when cavalry was effective against infantry, even without breaking, but nonetheless effective due to other factors, all of which require mobility.

The charge cavalry against cavalry is an entirely different animal again.

PS: Belisarius did not have cataphracts at his disposal anyway, if you define cataphracts as heavy cavalry with armoured horses and lances wielded two-handedly, since neither the one nor the other is attested in the very detailed accounts of the war given not just by Procopius.



Moi,

If we call it riding or combating while riding, or whatever is a more a semantics question, is not it?
As for the ability to turn and twist with armour, I think it should be possible if the armour is flexible, maybe it is even possible with later plate armour, considering how incredibly well they suited to the wearer. But I am not sure of neither.


Spurius Papirius Cursor,

I will answer later that weak


regards and have a nice day,
Kai