heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry

[Mark Hygate]

I always thought that the terms "heavy" and "light" were applied to the tactics, not the equipment. A fighter could be naked except for a shield and spear and he would be classed as "heavy infantry" if he fought in a shield wall formation. If a mounted unit's primary purpose was to charge a formation of men - i.e. "shock tactics" - then it is classed as "heavy cavalry" regardless of the equipment that was used.

Hence my post. 'Light' & 'Heavy' can be misconstrued and therefore why I might suggest 'Skirmish' & 'Shock' instead, as well as, perhaps, 'Support' as a third. On that basis I would have the Polybian-period cavalry as 'Support', when the later Allies/auxiliaries (Celts, Spanish, etc) would be 'Skirmish' as well as the later Auxilia. The odd unit of Kontarii, Cataphracts or Clibanarii in the later army would then be 'Shock'.

Conversely that would help with keeping 'Skirmish' accurate, whether it applies to unarmoured bow/javelin cavalry, the majority of Roman Ala, or even some of the Eastern peoples heavily-armoured (if not 'cataphract' indeed) horse archers.

If then the thread is possibly re-defined as 'Shock' vs 'Shock', then I would suggest that this would probably not be the norm. Firstly as the best use of 'Shock' cavalry would be to threaten and exploit any infantry weaknesses and often kept somewhat 'safe' to hopefully achieve that, whilst countering enemy 'Shock' cavalry is better achieved with your 'Skirmish' cavalry, supported by similar infantry.

Thinking about it, I would probably then suggest we talk about infantry in similar terms of 'Skirmish', 'Melée', and 'Support' (Peltasts/Auxilia, etc). It would help with any confusion.