Cavalry and chariots against infantry

[Macedon]

So show me your evidence (primary sources - and they must explicitly say this) that Parthian cavalry never charged into Roman infantry.

Show we Ancient accounts / primary sources that explicitly say the following:

"Cataphracts did never charge into Roman infantry".

Because - apparently - you demand from me to find sources, which explicitly say this about hussars charging pikemen.

Now you are being unreasonable... First, I did never say that they NEVER charged into infantry. Secondly when one says that something NEVER happened then he is logically not required to provide proof. A single proof that what he says never happened did happen at least once, excludes the absolute NEVER. If you make a research in my history of posts you will find a great deal of very specific references, always followed by the original text. Do that to see how things are debated around here. If I wrote a theory about anything and provided no sources other than web pages and magazine articles, I would be pretty laughed at. Of course you are not required to do as i do, it can be taxing and requires a lot of experience in what one "specializes in". But still, you should appreciate the value of sources.

When I quoted a source which says this (in fact the same, but not using the "proper" words that you would be willing to accept):

"(...) our horsemen, after ramming fences, with which the enemies treacherously strengthened their defences, plunging into pikes with chests of horses, suffered a lot of damage."

Then it was still not enough of a proof for You... :woot:

And the excerpt quoted above - is an exact translation of a primary source.

It is NOT an excerpt from an article, or an "interpretation" of a historian.

If you don't agree with the fact that cavalry DID charge into infantry, then please explain what is the valid interpretation of this excerpt (other than that cavalry "smashed into" infantry).

What primary source? Where is the rest of the text? You provided no reference! Never provide quotes with no references and expect anyone to take them seriously. They might be the words of a traditional song as far as anyone is concerned...

Peter, it is evident that you are accustomed to unscientific internet research (no offense meant here - as opposed to accessing tools and specific data bases of journals and universities). The fact that still you have not been able to give at least the names of some historians who wrote on that battle or references to manuscripts that dealt with it means that you simply do not know. Your knowledge seems to be mostly based on reading books (99% of history lovers do so) that present the opinions of certain historians and then adopt them, discuss them etc. No shame in that. But when discussing core matters in depth at least some comfort around sources is necessary. Otherwise you could always claim that Some Guy proposed this theory and then we can agree, disagree or debate about him not you. I hope you realize that I am only giving what I consider well-meant advice and you, of course, are welcome to disregard it, no problem with that. We cannot all see things from the same perspective. Choosing to trust someone's work is your right and privilege. There are those who think that it is better to trust "modern scholars" than reading the originals. After all, "modern scholars" can better evaluate sources and their work is surely based on what they consider good sources. This makes their life much easier, sometimes I hope I was one of them.