Cavalry and chariots against infantry

[Domen]

The Romans were on the verge of an Industrial Era Society

The verge of an Industrial Era Society is generally not considered as a "healthy period".

Nor is the Early Industrial Era. Read about extreme poverty and hunger among worker's families in the 19th and early 20th century European cities. Also descriptions of slums in European cities.

In the Roman era, the majority of urban population also lived in poverty. In the city of Rome, there was no constant hunger only because the State was sharing out free bread to the poor masses.

But eating almost only bread (and almost no meat or vegetables) is not healthy.

For an average Joe, life in Medieval countryside was more healthy than in Roman cities, unless there was an epidemic disease raging around (but epidemic diseases were also common in the Roman Era).

=================================================

And during times of the Roman Republic before Augustus and before the 1st century AD, there was also extreme poverty in Roman provinces. We have sources which say about huge fiscal exploitation of population in provinces by their governors - tax level was extremely high, so high that people of conquered territories had not much money left to spend on food and basic products of the daily life.

This is also one of reasons why there were so many rebellions in Roman provinces.

Basically the only "Golden Age" for an average Joe living anywhere within the Roman Empire, was the "Pax Romana" period of the 1st century AD (and partially also of the first half of the 2nd century - but already in the 2nd century inflation and negative economic changes started, IIRC).

During that period - I suppose - malnutrition or hunger were not very common in the Roman world. Also large scale epidemic diseases were rather rare during the "Pax Romana" period.

Later similar situation was in the Dark Ages, but due to previous decline of population number.

Overpopulation started to be a huge problem again in the 13th century Europe. But then the Black Death came in mid-14th century, ending the problem of overpopulation and shortage of food.

The Black Death also caused considerable rise of salaries for majority of labour force, as before the Black Death there was "unemployment", while after the Black Death - not enough labour force.

To summ up - the Black Death improved living standards of those who survived it.

=======================================

3. The first painting shows cavalry in an enveloping position and an infantry square that for some reason has its pikes upright.

Maybe guys in the middle have their weapons upright for the same reason as Romans at Adrianople... :

"(...) companies were so crowded together that hardly anyone could pull out his sword or draw back his arm. (...) when the barbarians, pouring forth in huge hordes, trampled down horse and man, and in the press of ranks no room for retreat could be gained anywhere, and the increased crowding left no opportunity for escape, (...)"

At Adrianople (...) I know about the Romans being pressed together unable to use their weapons,

=============================================

Hi, in regards to chariots against infantry I recall where in the "Battle of Gaugamela" Darius III thought his chariots were his trump card against the Macedonian infantry but Alexander devised tactics to defeat this threat by creating channels in his infantry to funnel the chariots to awaiting infantry who despatched both drivers and horses when they lost momentum and came to a halt.

Exactly.

The sole fact that Alexander created channels (instead of ordering his infantry to "absorb" the charge) testifies to the fact, that chariots (and they were drawn by horses) were able to charge infantry head on. And it also means that Alexander was afraid that those chariots could inflict some damage and some casualties upon his phalanx - otherwise he would not bother to order it to create channels, instead of just absorbing the charge... And remember, that Alexander ordered his peltasts and other skirmishers to deal with chariots from distance. This means, that he prefered to engage chariots in missile combat rather than in close combat - surely to avoid losses from the momentum of their charge...

Alexander was one of greatest military geniuses in history - he wouldn't order his men to do unnecessary things on the battlefield. If he ordered to create channels, he knew it was necessary.

Darius III was also not a total idiot - he sent his chariots against Macedonian infantry. Persians must have done similar things before (maybe not against Macedonians, but surely against infantry). He expected his scythed chariots to be efficient against infantry. He only didn't expect those channels...

The same method (creating channels) was often used to avoid elephant and cavalry charges!

Using the very same method king of Sweden ordered his pike and musket infantry to create channels while facing the charge of Polish hussars in the battle of Warsaw in 1656. Later, he ordered his Reiters, dragoons and artillery (as well as infantry reserves) to open flanking fire from all guns, muskets and pistols towards the charging hussars. As the result - the charge was finally repulsed. Although before that happened, the hussars managed to pierce through a few lines of Swedish cavalry and infantry who did not receive the order to create channels on time, or did not manage to do this on time...

And at Warsaw in 1656 - it was a force of just several hundred hussars, charging several thousand Swedish soldiers. Despite such superiority, the Swedish king ordered to avoid confrontation!

Also - hussars weren't supported by other units of the Polish army (nor other cavalry, nor infantry, nor guns) in that charge. They were most valuable part of the army, but their numbers were few in that battle and period (in the 1650s Poland could mobilize several times fewer hussars than in the 1610s).

"Nec Hercules contra plures" - 900 hussars could not single-handedly win a battle against 19,000.

And other Polish troops (especially the general levy of the nobles) did not much to help them. "Lions led by donkeys" can't do much as well - and Polish commander in that battle was a donkey...

but they were interesting modern day "infantry" tactics to stop a horse's momentum.

Interesting story. But remember, that it was a shocking experience for those horses (as well as for the policemen riding them), because it was perhaps the first time they had to face such an "innovative tactics" in "battle". Surprise effect, caused by usage of new methods, is often efficient.

================================================

And such an informative quote from a user on this forum (my nick on that forum is "Domen"):

http://www.historum.com/medieval-byzanti...ost1371285

Traditional tactic in Christian Spain was for the heavy cavalry to lead a headlong charge into the middle of the enemy and smash them to bits or hope for the best! The Almoravid Emperor Yusuf was a bit too smart for this and used the (now) familiar tactic of a feigned retreat (or to an extent, a real one). - Then the African light cavalry would attack the flanks and eventually encircle the enemy forces. First (in Spain) and famously used at Sagrajas (Zalaca in arabic). He even had the luxury of using his detested allies, the Spanish muslims from the Taifas, as the main centre to take the brunt, with the Senagalese behind them to sweep up the mess at Sagrajas.

By the time of El Cid's prime the enemies of the Almoravids had learnt how to counter this by withdrawing the centre in time, but it didn't always work, like at Consuegra where El Cid's heir was killed. Source: Moros y Cristianos, Javier Esparza and other sources

The later Almohads used infantry with heavy shields and very long pikes, kneeling, with archers and javelin throwers behind, to counter the heavy cavalry charge. They also had some heavy cavalry and Kurdish mounted archers.

Source: Navas de Tolosa, Garcia Fitz, from numerous North African primary sources

So pretty much another example of infantry countering heavy cavalry by trying to avoid head-on, direct confrontation with it to neutralize its momentum! Muslim infantrymen were trying to withdraw and lure Christian heavy knights cavalry into "channels" (created in their line after a feigned retreat) and then hoping to repulse the charge by flanking missile attacks and flanking counter-charges.

Why would infantry try to avoid frontal confrontation with cavalry, if supposedly cavalry could not defeat infantry in such frontal confrontation?! Or why would it use field fortifications to stop cavalry?

For me it is now obvious that cavalry could and did smash solid infantry in frontal and flanking charges.

The only question is how often did this happen in the Antiquity - perhaps not nearly as often, as in the Middle Ages and in the Early Modern Era, considering that majority of Ancient sources say that the most common tactics for cavalry at that time was skirmishing, rather than direct charges.

But there are examples of cavalry performing such charges also in the Ancient Era.

One of such examples is Zama 108 BC (when Sallust wrote that Numidian cavalry fought in an unusual way - because the usual method used by Numidian light horsemen was skirmishing).

One more of such examples is the battle of Adrianople - I provided excerpts from Ammianus.

Then we also have the cataphracts - a cavalry formation designed specially to charge infantry.

On the other hand - the main role of clibanarii was to charge enemy cavalry.

===================================

Some both modern and 17th century pictures showing Polish-Lithuanian winged hussars:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/7-off-t...tml#331328

Pike-musket unit defending behind a fence at Klushino (hussars were ramming and jumping over fences):