Cavalry and chariots against infantry

[Frank]

Accounts of the battles show that the head on attack on infantry is a very costly way of utilising cavalry.

With normal cavalry, sure. However, as I've said before, there is evidence that very heavily armoured cavalry (cataphracts, and later clibanarii) were specifically intended to break up infantry formations, and trained to do so. They lacked the speed and maneuverability for rapid flanking attacks, so head on assault (or at least the threat of it) would surely be their purpose.

You are right about the purpose of cataphracts and clibanarii, even if shock attacks to infantry was not their only task. They were also very useful against cavalry. Actually the 1st cataphract ala we know about was in Moesia at the Danube border to most propably counter sarmatian cataphracts. Surprisingly the cataphracts in Syria were established later.

But there are also hints, that they never attacked before the mounted archers did not weaken the infantry in preparation of a possible succesfull shock-attack. Because rolling a dice with the most expensive unit on the battlefield would be plain stupid.

It is also known, that this heavy cavalry was an easy victim of light cavalry in combination with special infantry regiments, if they lost their cavalry support. So cataphracts are a two-edged sword. It is again all about tactics on the battlefied using several unit-types situationally in combination. Every unit on the battlefield could be the hero or the victim and fail dramatically.

PS: @Vindex 638 please, 600 is way too unspecific

@ moderators: Don'hesitate to close this thread. All threads I have read so far about ancient heavy cavalry vs. infantry leaded to nothing.