heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry

[Urselius]

I'm impressed with this thread. We are looking at exactly how aggressive horses could be... and are. If the medieval horse could be trained to bite and trample, then ancient horses had the same capabilities. These are not shy mounts who swerved away from an opponent, as previously assumed.

I think there is a difference between a horse's behaviour when charging at speed and when in a melee situation. It would be very difficult indeed to induce a horse to bodily run at another horse head on, or to charge directly at infantry in close formation. However, once hemmed in by other mounts, and pivoting in close melee combat , then a horse's (particularly a stallion's) aggressive instincts could be harnessed to aid the cavalryman.

Of course, most horses on an ancient battlefield spent the whole battle hemmed in by other horses! If the horse in the middle of the front rank of a rectangular squadron wanted to swerve, but the horse on either side and the nine ranks behind did not, it would have a problem. In contrast, 18th/19th century European cavalry were usually only two ranks deep because of the threat of fireearms, and I am not sure if they rode knee-to-knee (see eg. Keegan p. 159, or better one of the experts in Napoleonic warfare who he cited).

A horse in such a situation, faced with an apparently solid obstacle in front of it would pull up, and those behind it would be forced to do likewise. The harshest bit and the severest application of the spur would not be of any use. Cromwell's ironsides rode knee to knee, they attacked at the trot, the Royalists under Prince Rupert charged at the gallop, but their formation must have been more open. There was a trade off between speed of attack and maintenance of formation. A slow attack could be delivered in a tight and regular formation, a charge at speed, a la outrance, unavoidably led to an opening of ranks as individual horses differed in their top speed.