Roman Heavy Cavalry Fighting Techniques

[Aulus Perrinius]

Well it certainly didn't happen at Omdurman! Churchill might have given a legendary/mythological account ( see my post ante in a previous thread) as so often happens, but other eye-witness acoounts reveal the reality, as I have posted in previous threads....."stories" from mediaeval 'chronicles' are just that.....'stories' and not to be trusted at all

Okay, I stand corrected I don't suppose you have any links? And those are hardly stories and why are they not to be trusted?

I agree that are plenty of untrue things written about the wars of that era (just like any other). Besides you're fine with trusting ancient writers :lol:

I'm sorry, but I can't accept that - certainly not without proper evidence. Horse are not Stags- and even they don't rush at each other from any distance or at speed !! Even in the wild, stallions will stop rear up, rather than collide head-on.

Agreed. I'll see if I can dig something up.

You misunderstand....I'm saying the evidence suggests that one party or the other would run, only rarely would both stand and confront one another, and even in the latter case, there were no head-on collisions at speed - we simply never hear of such a thing in reality. This is a digression from the topic, so I won't bother asking for evidence to support such an assertion....that belongs on a different thread

Paul, I think that in a lot of ways we agree on the same issue. I do think however that a head on clash did occur sometimes. Yes, sometimes it wasn't a normal occurence and I'm not advocating a head on clash!

I find it hard to accept that assertion. I don't know of any instances of 'jousting' occurring in battle between masses of cavalry/knights. Nor do I accept that 'jousting' - which might have occurred as a 'training exercise' with some value in war ( but like training drills at football never occur on the field) occurred for 'centuries' without barriers. Supporting evidence for this please?

Sure thing. I'll do some digging.

Mounted riot police most certainly DO NOT train their horses to rear and lash out with their hoves. Indeed they specifically train to avoid such incidents!!hock:

Ah, okay. I stand corrected. I don't suppose you have a link two? I love looking at cavalry training stuff.

Ammianus says no such thing! he doesn't mention them charging, or making contact with the enemy at all.It is friendly troops who avaid trampling because they stand their ground...

Sorry! I thought you were talking about Strasbourg. Oops :oops:

If they don't 'bowl one another over' then obviously no collision at speed has taken place, certainly not a collision at a gallop by the British into stationary Russians.

Is it not possible that the russian horses were pressed so tightly together from the impact that there wasn't any bowling over?

Well, your experiences must be very different to mine. Have you managed to ride a horse into a solid object, even without pointy things? My experience is that will always 'baulk' at any solid obstacle

Well for one thing that depends on the horse, some horses have no problem with running into fences and running through thickects of briars. Some won't come near a fence that's only three high.

Were you training your horse with a medieval or renniasance battle in mind?

I most certainly did not....I agree they charged ( bur ideally together - not at a pell-mell gallop, as every cavalry manual I've seen says they must not gallop fast), and that they spontaneously halted, if presented with a solid obstacle in front of them, and that to make contact the horse must be spurred on over the last few metres from the halt - so to that extent they would be walking, yes.
Specifically at Argentoratum, Ammianus says one of the reasons for the morale collapse was a horse collapsing under the weight of rider and armour whilst stationary !

From what I've read most cavalry trainers reccomend a gradual build-up of speed so the riders didn't end with blown horses. It was only within the final fifty yards that they would go to a gallop. So I think we agree on that one.

As for Ammianius I've always wondered if that was a poor translation or misinterptation. Cataphract armour wasn't that heavy and a Cataphracts mount certainly wouldn't be a weak horse.

A horse lashing out in self-defence against something injuring it is very different from a 'horse trained to attack'.

It's not just in self-defense, I mean't the horses in question were actually actively going after the source of a previous injury.

Which assumes these accounts are true at all..... and if barding/protection must be assumed, doesn't that prove the point that La Noue believed horses wouldn't ordinarily do such things?

Why would La Noue not be trustworthy, he was a contemporary author and a man-at-arms. He just says they wouldn't have nearly as willing to do what they did.

I do agree that it was a pretty rare occurence and I certainly don't think it was a very good idea. I would much rather take the enemy in the flanks or even better the rear.

See above and previous threads....it proves that even someone present may write a 'legendary/mythical' account of what happened.....but in many other such descriptions we don't have the 'nitty-gritty' first-hand accounts to disprove the 'Legend' !:lol: :lol:

You wouldn't happen to have a link to those accounts would you? Eyewittness descriptions of Omdurman? Yes please.

One more thing. If the enemy infantry's front is tightly packed (thus presenting a solid object to a horse) wouldn't the same be true for the flanks and rear of a tightly packed infantry formation?

So why then are there so many instances of horses charging head-on into the flanks and rear?