Roman Heavy Cavalry Fighting Techniques

[Paullus Scipio]

Kai wrote:

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.

I most assuredly agree with this, and most of the rest of your post.

A couple of points.....

The choc (sic:= shock) 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).......
............. Whenever we find cavalry stopped by and engaged by infantry, they are dead meat.

Genrally, probably - except that if the Infantry threaten the cavalry simply turn and ride off. to find easier prey, or if they are really well disciplined, to reform and try again ( a fairly rare occurrence)

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.

I think you underestimate the skills of the cataphract here. As the skills of the bull-fighting 'picador' show, a lance can be used to inflict multiple wounds and in addition, the horsemen will act in concert to try and 'jostle' a breach - though evidently not with much chance of success, as Kai has pointed out. Remember we are not talking individuals here, but one 'wall' against another, which will heave and buckle as combat takes place for a few minutes before one side or the other, or both, break off, perhaps resume for further bouts ( infantry v infantry, probably not cavalry, for the reasons Kai and I have set out) until one side has had enough. Few infantry would have has a spear to 'outreach' the 'konyos' since up to 9 ft/3M or so is the limit for a single handed spear ( 12 ft/4 M may have existed, and the Byzantines seem to have revived the use of two-handed pikes. But it would be a poor Cataphract commander who committed his troops to a head-on clash with a resolute infantry line armed with long spears.......

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.

I can tell you are not a student of physics, mechanics, or engineering, Kai so I won't bore you with formulae and numbers, but look at Aleaxander's single-handed grip, and tell me if he could hold it strongly enough to stop it coming out of his hand, on impact at a gallop/speed ? Assuming he could , which is impossible, how could he stop himself being catapulted off the back of his horse? And if he could do all that how could his legs be strong enough to grip and drag hundreds of kilos of horse-flesh to a shuddering halt? While a knightly high backed saddle and a 'couched' position might help, even a knight could not gallop into a formation, yielding though it might be, without coming off. See the recent AW article on suicidal charges for some of the mechanics, which incidently is most unlikely, for even if the man were bent on suicidal 'deditio,' once again, the horse would not be - almost certainly baulking, rearing and halting at the 'obstacle'.
No, the Mosaic shows Alexander's horse halted, not galloping, and Alexander lunges underhand with his 'xyston'.

As to the identity of the incident, there are only two occasions when there was a confrontation between Alexander and Darius, Issus and Gaugemala. Since the incident depicted is described by Diodorus as taking place at Issus, with Oxathres as the protagonist, it must of necessity be the 'Oxathres incident', especially as no anecdote that would fit the scene apparently ocurred at Gaugemala.....

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.

Once again, I entirely agree with you ! The impact of a lance from a charging horseman is formidable - except that one must take into account the limitations of the wielder holding on at impact, ( see clips of 'tent-pegging,' which I have done, for how that problem is dealt with :wink: ). But that 'speed impact' did not take place in a scenario where there was a rapid closing speed followed by a suicidal smash-up as hundreds of kilos of horseflesh impact something, all on a mass scale. And even if the front rank did carry out such a 'kamikaze' charge, what would happen to subsequent ranks, galloping pell-mell into the carnage and wreckage of the first, like some ancient autobahn pile-up?

Galloping at speed into an enemy formation en masse simply never happened in all history. It could not, for all sorts of reasons. ( as a general rule)