Cavalry and chariots against infantry

[Domen]

I think reading Muslim and Christian accounts of Crusader cavalry charges can lead to some interesting conclusions. And I am sure some of them are available in English (especially those Christian ones, but some of the Muslim ones as well). For a good start - two quotations from the book titled "The Crusades: Islamic perspectives" by Carole Hillenbrand:


http://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Th...edir_esc=y


Both excerpts are from the account of Ibn al-Athir regarding the battle of Hattin in 1187:

After the count’s departure, the Franks were on the point of capitulating. The Muslims had set fire to the dry grass, and the wind was blowing the smoke into the eyes of the knights. Assailed by thirst, flames, and smoke, by the summer heat and the fires of combat, the Franks were unable to go on. But they believed they could avoid death only by confronting it. They launched attacks so violent that the Muslims were about to give way. Nevertheless, with each assault the Franks suffered heavy losses and their numbers diminished. The Muslims gained possession of the True Cross. For the Franls, this was the heaviest of losses, for it was on this cross, they claim, that the Messiah, peace be upon him, was crucified

When the king of the Franks [Guy] was on the hill with that band, they made a formidable charge against the Muslims facing them, so that they drove them back to my father [Saladin]. I looked towards him and he was overcome by grief and his complexion pale. He took hold of his beard and advanced, crying out "Give the lie to the Devil!" The Muslims rallied, returned to the fight and climbed the hill. When I saw that the Franks withdrew, pursued by the Muslims, I shouted for joy, "We have beaten them!" But the Franks rallied and charged again like the first time and drove the Muslims back to my father. He acted as he had done on the first occasion and the Muslims turned upon the Franks and drove them back to the hill. I again shouted, "We have beaten them!" but my father rounded on me and said, "Be quiet! We have not beaten them until that tent [Guy's] falls." As he was speaking to me, the tent fell. The sultan dismounted, prostrated himself in thanks to God Almighty and wept for joy.

However - once again not much is written regarding technical and tactical details.

===============================================

As a practical note:

If we want to understand how relatively common or uncommon it is for cavalry to defeat infantry or infantry to defeat cavalry, then it helps to decide on specific sources [such as all the battle descriptions in Ammianus] and then tally up the references both to cavalry defeating infantry and to infantry defeating cavalry, and then to expand this by adding additional sources [such as all the battle descriptions in Procopius] and keep tallying up the references both ways.

But what should be taken into account in such statistical comparisons - are numbers.

People often quote examples of infantry beating seriously outnumbered cavalry, as supposed proofs of superiority of infantry over cavalry. However, they forget that cavalry was overhelmingly outnumbered in these battles. It is a fact that cavalry usually had smaller numbers than infantry - and despite having smaller numbers, often managed to defeat infantry. On the other hand, this fact (the numerical inferiority of the victors) is not underlined as well. So often facts are presented in a bad, biased light for cavalry in Anglo-American works. They do not underline the numerical inferiority of cavalry - neither when it comes to its victories, nor its defeats.

Of course there are also examples of infantry being numerically inferior (and either winning or losing). In such cases, the main justification for infantry getting slaughtered, is usually their small number. So why is small number not a good enough justification for cavalry defeats?

Another issue is that it is not going to be easy to isolate just combats of only infantry vs only cavalry. That's because in most battles and even single engagements, clashes and combats of those battles, neither cavalry nor infantry fought unsupported. Usually cavalry is supported by other arms (like infantry or artillery) and infantry is supported by other arms (like cavalry or artillery) and they cooperate on the battlefield, or prepare favourable combat conditions for each other.