Cavalry and chariots against infantry

[Sean Manning]

Eduard, you keep repeating things like "throw his pony on the spears" and assuming that such attacks were suicidal for the cavalry horses and riders. I suggest that the first step is to write battle narratives at the traditional big-picture level, and then to perform a Face of Battle analysis of the mechanics of these big events to understand how they could have worked.

I think that you are mistaken here too. Writing battle narrative at the traditional big-picture level relies on other battle-narrative at the big-picture level, and only very slightly on what actually happened. As you would know from Keegan, the narrative tradition is basically corrupt, or rather, it suffers from literature rearing up its ugly head. If you make this the basis of a reconstruction, no wonder you have to deny throwing your horse into a mass of spears is suicide.

I am sorry Sean if I sound school-masterish, I just hope I can persuade you to start with logic and psychology, not with a seductive literary tradition, when you develop your ideas.

I think that we have a difference of methodology here. My view is that the best way to study any aspect of the observable universe is to work from observation and evidence first, then use reason to analyze and order that evidence. This provides a basis for resolving disagreements about assumptions, it allows us to test our assumptions, and it reduces the influence of our preconceptions on our observations. I also think that one can describe an event at a high level without knowing how and why it occurred. One can describe how Winston Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940 in a few sentences, or in a whole book, and both are valid even if the first begs many questions.

I think that any form of comparative evidence, such as psychology or one's own experience riding, is valuable but needs to be used as critically as any other evidence. In particular, it is dangerous to assume that the first comparative evidence which comes to hand (such as a book on Napoleonic tactics) describes a universal truth. For example, Engels' study of Alexander's logistics assumed that Alexander relied on pack animals, so it needs to be adapted to describe the many ancient armies which carried supplies on wagons.

Could you explain a bit more about your methodology and why you use it?