Cavalry and chariots against infantry

[Robert Vermaat]

I never wrote that it was so easy to - quote - "bowl them all over" (only - that it was possible).

Nor did I say you did, but the article you posted seemed to suggest (I could not read all of it) to suggest that no massed infantry was able to withstand the charge of a horse, resulting in them being bowled over.
Yes, I agree that it’s possible, in some cases, but hence my question: IF it is possible, then why don’t we see cavalry armies that are – in every battle – running down infantry.

AND PLEASE, CAN WE KEEP THIS ROMAN (or at least Ancient)?
Circumstances during the Hundred Years’ War or during the 16th and 17 th c. are very different: longbows, firearms, different infantry tactics. We ARE discussing ancient warfare here, and most infantry is massed, and equipped with a shield and a spear or a lance. Discussing Hussars and / or French knights is only of limited use.

Regarding dismounted cavalry or infantry withstanding attacks of cavalry - very often they were helping themselves with various kinds of field fortifications and anti-cavalry obstacles (or at least by deploying in terrain difficult for cavalry charges), behind which they defended against cavalry.

Possible indeed, and on occasion that did happen, but there are many accounts of (for instance) 5th to 7th c. Roman infantry (not the best Rome had to offer) withstanding prolonged attack by Sassanid cavalry (both archers as well as armoured). Apparently, the enemy did either not attempt to charge directly into the Roman formation, or they tried and failed.

Yes, good cavalry can charge bad infantry and bring it down, we agree there.

Sure, it’s easier to attack disorganized infantry rather than fresh, high morale, standing firm infantry, but that article you posted suggested that this did not make a difference: the mass of the horse would ensure that the men fall down – simple mechanics. Or so it seems to be suggested.

And yes, I agree, less casualties are to be preferred, BUT! If a battle can be won, casualties do not matter. So if you can break the enemy, every offer is acceptable. This will cause panic in the enemy ranks, and the result is chaos, and hence less casualties than a prolonged battle.

Hence (once more) my question: IF the tactic of horses running down infantry CAN work, why don’t we see this happening in every battle? Sure, not every cavalry is good, not every infantry is bad, but SURELY, if this is feasible, every general will train at least one cavalry unit as ‘kamikaze’ cavalry? If he can open up the enemy infantry by sacrificing a unit of cavalry (allowing the rest to mop up the crumbling enemy), why don’t we see this more?

My suggestion is that it’s, after all, NOT quite so easy to drive horses into infantry and see them fall down, my guess is that infantry does not fall down when a horse drives into them. I think that maybe one horse can bring down some men, but that the formation itself can absorb such a shock. It think that is the reason why we don not see cavalry riding down infantry in any battle. Your opinion?

PLEASE, NO HUSSAR examples. Or Agincourt. This discussion is about ancient warfare.