How Effective were Spears Against Cavalry?

[Domen]

Obviously these lines of pikemen were not very deep?

Obviously they were deep (often they were squares in fact), which is why often they required multiple charges by lancers (rather than just one, single charge) before they could be totally broken.

Anyway - the point is that, during a charge, if you kill your enemy with use of a long lance, then this enemy is no longer standing in the moment when your horse is trampling him, but he is already dead or seriously wounded and overthrown on the ground by impact of your lance's strike.

In other words - a lance hits first, a horse comes later. A lance hits and kills one or several men from enemy line, creating a gap in that line (there are accounts of Cataphracts impaling 2 men in one strike of a lance - similar accounts regarding Winged Hussars say about impaling even 3 or more men on numerous occasions, because they had longer lances - of course this was possible mainly with unarmoured men, or with armoured men in case of "lucky hits" - but usually 1 up to 2 men would be killed).

So the argument / hypothesis used in this thread saying that "probably most horses are rather reluctant to bump into solid objects" is erroneus here, because a horse does not have to hit a solid, standing man, if this man is already killed and overthrown by a weapon of the rider, such as his lance.

Anyway - I still say that horses could bump into solid objects (even though they often didn't have to do this in battles), and I posted videos proving this. There are also accounts saying about cavalry charges "tearing apart" wagon forts - I was thinking that "tearing apart" is surely a kind of metaphor, as I could not imagine a horse destroying a wooden wagon - but I saw this video and changed my mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr3VxnS42vQ

So, technically, even a single running horse has enough kinetic energy to shatter a wagon.

And - BTW - I posted a proposition of an experiment which would allow us to test whether horses would or would not bumb into "a solid wall of men". I am not sure why you guys criticized this idea on the basis that there would be no weapons held by mannequins in my experiment (due to obvious safety considerations for animals and stuntmen)? After all, you claimed that horses would not bump into a wall of any men - not just a wall of armed men, but of any men - so why now you require arms? Is a man without a sword any "less solid" than a man with a sword - from the perspective of a horse?

Surely the Parthin Cataphracts had lances at cahrrae?
Yet retreated from contact to let the archers
Wear them down! This would imply that they anticipated heavy casualties
From a frontal assault!

Your logic is erroneus here. This does not imply that they anticipated heavy casualties from a frontal assault. This only implies that they anticipated some casualties from a frontal assault - and why suffering any casualties if you still have a full quiver of arrows. Simple economy of force.

And it is an untrue statement, that cataphracts did not fight at Carrhae. That they retreated from contact once, doesn't mean that they did this all the time during that battle, which lasted for many days.

And Carrhae was just one of hundreds of battles in the history of Roman-Persian wars.

Shapur I and Shapur II carried out military reforms in the Persian army, which increased the number of cataphracts and also increased the "heaviness" of horse archers, which made them more useful for close combat. If - as you claim - cataphracts would only have a very limited usefulness on the Persian-Roman battlefield (especially before the Romans introduced their own heavy cavalry formations - and during the reign of Shapur I, the Romans still did not have much of heavy cavalry), then why Shapur I decided to increase the percentage of heavy lance-wielding cavalry among his total cavalry force? He also improved armour and arms of horse archers, making them quite useful in close combat as well - why?

It should be noted, that reign of Shapur I was a very successful period of Roman-Persian wars for the Persians. It was not until the Romans countered Shapur's reforms with their own military reforms, when they managed to catch up with the Persians militarily again and take the initiative again.

Longer than a gladius yes, but why do you assume the have thrown
Down their pila or spears?

Of course that legionaries also had pila or spears - as you mentioned. As well as shields.

And thanks to their pila or spears, they were not defenceless against cavalry charges. With just gladius, they would not be able to do anything to repulse a charge of cataphracts.

A spear, a pila and a shield were much more useful against a cavalry charge, than a gladius.

In general spears are much more useful vs cavalry than short weapons - this is why pikemen emerged in Medieval Europe dominated by mounted knights. Pikemen could stop cavalry charges, swordmen or axemen could not - this because "a solid wall of men" is not enough to stop cavalry, you need also sharp and long sticks to do this (or a hail of javelins / pila / arrows - see Agincourt / Crecy).

A gladius could have some use in close combat against cavalry - they could try to inflict wounds to sensitive parts of enemy horse using gladius (such as calfs, knees or underbelly of a horse). But then again - a horse is not just "standing still and waiting until you cut his underbelly" in close combat - a horse is moving, kicking, "jumping", fighting (just like its rider) in close combat. So it is not so easy and it is not so safe to cut its calf and avoid getting kicked in the face by its hoofs.

In fact legionaries of the 4th century AD (after counter-reforms which were a response to Persian military reforms) no longer used traditional gladius and pilum. At that time they used longer, cutting swords - and all of them used spears as their primary weapon. Roman infantry force in the 4th century was mainly a defence-oriented force. The percentage of missile troops also greatly increased - especially among the auxiliaries. Also field artillery (ballistas, etc.) became more numerous. And legionaries themselves transformed into defence-oriented spearmen with long swords as secondary weapon.