Cavalry and chariots against infantry

[Sean Manning]

Hello Eduardo,

Thanks for your generous invitation, and my apologies again for my distemper. I almost did graduate work on this subject, so it is one that I take seriously.

A detailed explanation for why I do not accept the hypothesis that “no horse will charge into a dense mass of men waving pointy things” would require an article, and I have no time to write one right now. Until then, I suggest that interested people follow the same research program which led me to reject this hypothesis:

Study the mechanics of Napoleonic land warfare, including Keegan's classic study of Waterloo. Note carefully the similarities and differences between Napoleonic and ancient warfare. For example, Napoleonic infantry had cannon and muskets, which disrupted cavalry attacks and forced cavalry to use very shallow formations.

Study land battles in 14th through 16th century Europe, including such battles as Bannockburn, Courtrai, and Marignano. There would have been a lot fewer dead cavalry in all of these battles if horses always refused to come close to a mass of spearmen. Read Keegan's account of Agincourt carefully. Also have a look at the Combat of the Thirty, where on one account a handful of cavalry were able to break up the formation of thirty “English” men-at-arms which had fought off its enemies all day.

Talk to people who have trained warhorses or police horses, especially ones who have studied how people before the 19th century did it.

I believe that anyone who does these three things will find it difficult to recite “No horse will charge into a dense mass of men waving pointy things.” Instead, they will have a long list of things which could happen, of which the horses shying away is only one. I don't think that our models of combat between horsemen and hoplites should be any simpler than our models of combat between hoplites and hoplites.