degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era

[Macedon]

There is a lot of misconception regarding the nature of the cavalry battle, which tends to overstress its contribution in an infantry battle. Horse units did not usually charge into the melee, especially those who were not equipped with the xyston. Cavalry was generally considered unable to fight against massed infantry and even the doratoforoi were used mainly against enemy horse and not infantry. The norm was for the cavalry to fight in perispasmos (evolutions) by squadrons or larger bodies. In effect this is skirmish in close order (not to be confused with what wargamers call skirmish, in ancient Greek "diesparmeni taxis"). Even Alexander's Companions, after Hysdaspes, the epitome of ability and experience, did not charge into the thick line of the Indian Malli, although they were not well equipped. One has to be very careful when he calls a horse unit "heavy" or "light". Heavy cavalry is usually armored cavalry, but heavy cavalry would normally act purely skirmishing. Exceptions do exist (as Polybius clearly says in his account of Cannae and Arrian of Granikos), but exceptions they are. Talking about cavalry charging into an infantry line, I only have in mind Magnesia and there the cavalry are cataphracts, the heaviest ancient cavalry unit... Livy might be an exception, since he gives a number of such instances, but one has to be careful with him, not the best source on military matters...

Anyways... what I mean is that infantry was the most important part of the army. It was infantry that would decide a battle and once your line of footmen broke, cavalry was not in the position to change its course. Cavalry was important but its contribution was mainly psychological. Once it had driven off enemy horsemen, it would attack the enemy's rear (and by attacking we mean the discharge of javelins), forcing the rear ranks to turn and the whole line to feel enveloped and helpless. So, cavalry was important but a good infantry was even more so. It is no wonder that the Roman legions conquered the world with their infantry. If we have to blame something for the demise of the hellenistic armies, we should more like blame the lack of reliable supporting heavy infantry to protect the flanks of the Macedonian phalanx. The Seleucids had all the variety of troops one could employ, but the problem was coordinating all the different arms, a task not easy and very dangerous, especially when these troops were non-Greek. On the other hand, the Ptolemies had manpower shortage regarding local Greeks and utilizing Egyptians was not advisable, so they also had to heavily rely on mercenaries. Like Carthage, relying on foreigners or tributary states to win battles can only work as far as you have inspiring commanders. Once you do not, it is time to quit game...

[Aulus Perrinius]

There is a lot of misconception regarding the nature of the cavalry battle, which tends to overstress its contribution in an infantry battle. Horse units did not usually charge into the melee, especially those who were not equipped with the xyston.

I disagree, horses can be trained to charge into the melee, the idea that cavalry were unimportant compared to the infantry is a myth. Ancient heavy cavalry were used just like their descendents (in a decisive shock role)

Cavalry was generally considered unable to fight against massed infantry and even the doratoforoi were used mainly against enemy horse and not infantry.

Perhaps not from the front but from the flanks and rear is another matter entirely, have you ever been hit by a running horse? What about from behind? A 1,500 pound horse that's running at 30+ miles and hour will knock a man on foot flying for at least fifteen feet

The norm was for the cavalry to fight in perispasmos (evolutions) by squadrons or larger bodies. In effect this is skirmish in close order (not to be confused with what wargamers call skirmish, in ancient Greek "diesparmeni taxis"). Even Alexander's Companions, after Hysdaspes, the epitome of ability and experience, did not charge into the thick line of the Indian Malli, although they were not well equipped.

Perhaps not from the front, but as I said a flank charge changes everything. Besides if their front was disorganized by missiles, they (the companions) would have had no problem taking them in the front.

One has to be very careful when he calls a horse unit "heavy" or "light". Heavy cavalry is usually armored cavalry, but heavy cavalry would normally act purely skirmishing.

Sometimes, but the point of a heavy cavalryman is shock action and this job is determind by his function on the field not by his gear.

Exceptions do exist (as Polybius clearly says in his account of Cannae and Arrian of Granikos), but exceptions they are. Talking about cavalry charging into an infantry line, I only have in mind Magnesia and there the cavalry are cataphracts, the heaviest ancient cavalry unit... Livy might be an exception, since he gives a number of such instances, but one has to be careful with him, not the best source on military matters...

I hardly think they are exceptions after all, there are hundreds of ancient battles where the cavalryman decided the outcome. I hardly think the steadfast courage the roman equites displayed at cannae was the action of skirmisher cavalry.

Anyways... what I mean is that infantry was the most important part of the army. It was infantry that would decide a battle and once your line of footmen broke, cavalry was not in the position to change its course.

That depends on the era and on the army, in early rome the equites and not the infantry were the dominant arm. The legions were cavalry support. And well trained cavalrymen can change the outcome even if the infantry have been swept away, or they can dismount and inspire wavering infantry by sharing the burden.

Cavalry was important but its contribution was mainly psychological. Once it had driven off enemy horsemen, it would attack the enemy's rear (and by attacking we mean the discharge of javelins), forcing the rear ranks to turn and the whole line to feel enveloped and helpless. So, cavalry was important but a good infantry was even more so. It is no wonder that the Roman legions conquered the world with their infantry.

Some psychological, but for the heavy horseman the whole point is the knock over the other guy with a running horse. And the ancient battles show the cavalrymen charging home and attacking with hand weapons, besides, javelin use doesn't rule out shock action. Plenty of ancient cavalrymen liked to loose javelins and then close with the enemy. And rome conquered her territory with plenty of cavalry action and combined arms. And her infantry were beaten plenty of times. After all the cataphracts and archers at carrhae massacred several roman legions. The catastrophe could have been prevented if Crassus had taken those 10,000 armenian heavy cavalry the king of armenia offered him. As for infantry being more important, well that depends on the era and the army. The french army of the 1500's hundreds was 50% heavy cavalry and mostly relied on that for victory. The poles of the 1600's relied mostly on the husaria. In the middle ages the heavy horseman was the dominant arm for almost a millenia.

If we have to blame something for the demise of the hellenistic armies, we should more like blame the lack of reliable supporting heavy infantry to protect the flanks of the Macedonian phalanx. The Seleucids had all the variety of troops one could employ, but the problem was coordinating all the different arms, a task not easy and very dangerous, especially when these troops were non-Greek. On the other hand, the Ptolemies had manpower shortage regarding local Greeks and utilizing Egyptians was not advisable, so they also had to heavily rely on mercenaries. Like Carthage, relying on foreigners or tributary states to win battles can only work as far as you have inspiring commanders. Once you do not, it is time to quit game...

I agree with you there. Very nice summation

[Macedon]

I disagree, horses can be trained to charge into the melee, the idea that cavalry were unimportant compared to the infantry is a myth. Ancient heavy cavalry were used just like their descendents (in a decisive shock role)

Of course some horses can be trained to charge massed infantry, but such training is especially arduous and time consuming and even then, the outcome is not cavalry supremacy. If you think that ancient cavalry regularly charged into a line of infantry, you will have to provide examples. Ancient cavalry was not used as what you call a "shock" unit. The Persian cavalry discharged their javelins and did not engage in melee, although it was much more "heavy" than anything the Greeks had to offer, Companions included. Greek cavalry did not charge into the melee either, not from the flanks nor from the rear (which is not really much better than frontal assault UNLESS the line falls in disorder). Thessalian cavalry did not charge into the melee, nor did the Companions of Philip or Alexander. Pyrrhus cavalry did not charge the Roman infantry, nor did the Roman cavalry charge into Greek or Carthaginian infantry lines. Even charging into the melee against cavalry was peculiar as Arrian (1.15 , 6.8 ) and Polybius (3.115) both stress. Polybius even calls it "barbaric". A very useful text on how cavalry fought is also Pol.10.23. For fairness' sake I will also give you some accounts of cavalry charging into enemy infantry, all from Livy (Ab Urbe Condita, 3.70, 6.32 (the latter is debatable)), but as I said he seems to be unique in such descriptions and I tend to not really trust his military expertise and understanding. The Diadochi and the Epigoni used cavalry en mass, even really armored cavalry. How many instances do we have of cavalry attacking an infantry line "to run them down"? Do we have any such description regarding any major battle of antiquity apart from the cataphracts of Antiochus III at Magnesia?

As for the use of later cavalry, it is also a highly debatable issue, not as to whether such charges existed but as to whether they were the norm. No military manual or treatise (Aelian, Asclepiodotus, Onnasander, Frontinus, Vegetius, Leo VI, Nicephoros Phocas, Nicephoros Ouranos, etc) proposes that cavalry should even under circumstances directly engage enemy infantry in melee. A sole exception might again be the use of the cataphract wedge, which is suggested that it be used against the unit in which the enemy commander is placed. Tactics used by the later Franks were deemed upon as peculiar, more or less in the way that Arrian and Polybius wrote of them in their times.

Perhaps not from the front but from the flanks and rear is another matter entirely, have you ever been hit by a running horse? What about from behind? A 1,500 pound horse that's running at 30+ miles and hour will knock a man on foot flying for at least fifteen feet

I discussed that above. I only can say that I have never been hit nor trampled by a horse, elephant or car, but I have done enough horseback riding in the past to know that a horse will not willingly fall upon a wall and this is what a dense, orderly phalanx is to a horse. Macchiavelli is axiomatic in his “Dell'arte della guerra” (Art of War) in that horses will never charge into a dense mass of infantry exactly for the above reason (I disagree with him, but it is a hint at how cavalry battle was viewed upon in his time). And again you are talking about psychology. A unit of infantry breaking ranks because of a cavalry attack will be trampled to the ground and it is difficult for an inexperienced, not properly trained body of men to maintain ranks at such a sight. But once engaged in melee with infantry, cavalry is at a disadvantage. The space occupied by a single horseman in a cavalry line is about the same as that occupied by 6 footmen. If not accompanied by footmen (amippoi), the cavalry will find itself in a very dangerous situation.

Perhaps not from the front, but as I said a flank charge changes everything. Besides if their front was disorganized by missiles, they (the companions) would have had no problem taking them in the front.

The Companions did not charge infantry, not even in their flanks. They were used to attack enemy cavalry, which was equipped with much shorter spears and javelins and were accompanied by light infantry in order to be able to use missile weapons against their targets and in turn protect themselves from enemy missiles. As for the "disorganized" part, I will have to ask what you mean by it. There are various degrees of disorganization. A simple disorder would not project a valid target for cavalry as long as density was maintained. If the infantry was severely disordered, gaps forming and men starting to abandon their places in the line, then an attack might seem appealing, but even then, they did not attack, at least not in ancient times.

Sometimes, but the point of a heavy cavalryman is shock action and this job is determind by his function on the field not by his gear.

OK, so you belong to the group which advocates the heaviness of cavalry as being more a tactical descriptor than weight of gear. Many share your opinion, others do not, this is my point. I only say that one has to be careful, because what you call heavy cavalry someone else would not.

I hardly think they are exceptions after all, there are hundreds of ancient battles where the cavalryman decided the outcome. I hardly think the steadfast courage the roman equites displayed at cannae was the action of skirmisher cavalry.

Actually there are not and I would welcome any accounts of such events I have missed. As for courage, this has to do with the training of the equites and the cause that drove them. Polybius is all too specific in his account of the battle that what happened in the Roman right flank was non-standard, barbaric and peculiar. They were forced in a melee, for Polybius to make the comments he made, it means that in all other battles against Hannibal this was never experienced again. The Romans fought gallantly before they gave way and fled.

That depends on the era and on the army, in early rome the equites and not the infantry were the dominant arm. The legions were cavalry support. And well trained cavalrymen can change the outcome even if the infantry have been swept away, or they can dismount and inspire wavering infantry by sharing the burden.

I do not claim expertise on the early Roman system of warfare but how did you come to this conclusion? And what battle do you know of whose outcome was changed by the cavalry after an infantry line had collapsed? As for dismounting, yes, Livy has such accounts and in medieval years it was commonplace, but in ancient times it surely was not.

Some psychological, but for the heavy horseman the whole point is the knock over the other guy with a running horse. And the ancient battles show the cavalrymen charging home and attacking with hand weapons, besides, javelin use doesn't rule out shock action. Plenty of ancient cavalrymen liked to loose javelins and then close with the enemy. And rome conquered her territory with plenty of cavalry action and combined arms. And her infantry were beaten plenty of times. After all the cataphracts and archers at carrhae massacred several roman legions. The catastrophe could have been prevented if Crassus had taken those 10,000 armenian heavy cavalry the king of armenia offered him. As for infantry being more important, well that depends on the era and the army. The french army of the 1500's hundreds was 50% heavy cavalry and mostly relied on that for victory. The poles of the 1600's relied mostly on the husaria. In the middle ages the heavy horseman was the dominant arm for almost a millenia.

If you only call heavy a horseman who is determined to engage in melee against enemy infantry then you are right... Since this is his purpose, this is what he will do. But, Persian armored cavalry equipped with javelins will not and neither will Greek semi-armored heteroi, who in turn would charge into another cavalry body. Most accounts we have regarding action of cavalry against infantry have to do with foot that is dispersed or on the run. At Carrhae the Parthian cataphracts did not charge into the plinthion of the legions and of course neither did the horse archers, and Crassus did not lose the legions as a consequence of this "battle", actually a prolonged skirmish, but afterwards through treachery, as he did his life. Of course, the importance of cavalry has to do with many factors and different armies in different eras and places gave more or less importance to it. Armies of horsemen have a unique mobility and can wage devastating campaigns. But, small, feudal, medieval armies of the west based on the knight are not the norm. I would contest your proposal that cavalry was the dominant arm for a millennium as you state. A thousand years is too long a period and you should be much more specific. Cavalry was more important than it was in ancient times, primarily because of the diminished quality of available infantry, but infantry remained the core of most (non-Scythian) armies and with Scythians I mean the collective name given by both ancient and byzantine writers to the nomads of the north east.

I would welcome any evidence you have as to the shock use of cavalry in ancient times, as I am extremely interested in these matters.

Thx

George

[Aulus Perrinius]

Sure thing! (An imaginarey laudes for you as well sir! )

However you'll probably have to wait until tomorrow or possibly the july 10th. As I will need to do some digging and I just got home from martial arts and I have to work tomorrow.

Nice debating with you by the way

[Paullus Scipio]

I disagree, horses can be trained to charge into the melee, the idea that cavalry were unimportant compared to the infantry is a myth. Ancient heavy cavalry were used just like their descendents (in a decisive shock role)

AAAAA......AAA..... GGGHHHH! Not this hoary old chestnut again !THERE IS NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT CAVALRY IN HISTORY EVER, EVER CHARGED FRONTALLY INTO STEADY INFANTRY WHO DID NOT GIVE GROUND!!! OR OTHER CAVALRY EITHER! :roll: :roll:

Really, gentlemen, this subject has been "done to death" on this forum, on many others, and in books and papers aplenty....the above is one of the Great Myths of Military History.

Apart from anything else, horses can't be "trained" to impale themselves on pointy objects, not even bayonets, or to collide head-on!

Who....a....h! Not going to get sucked into this - see previous threads for discussion.....

But re-hash it all if you must..... :wink: :lol:

You would do far better to examine all the different, and many, factors that determined the uses and role of cavalry in Hellenistic and Roman times, and that every battle was unique, and that the main use of cavalry in all periods is outside major battles.....and most importantly reflect upon the fact that the "Alexander Histories" emphasise the legend of Alexander as 'Beau Sabreur' at the head of his Companions, and often don't tell us what was happening in the main battle......

[Macedon]

AAAAA......AAA..... GGGHHHH! Not this hoary old chestnut again !THERE IS NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT CAVALRY IN HISTORY EVER, EVER CHARGED FRONTALLY INTO STEADY INFANTRY WHO DID NOT GIVE GROUND!!! OR OTHER CAVALRY EITHER!

Although I clearly stand for cavalry not normally charging into an enemy infantry line, I find this aforism unconvincing. I would be so much more grateful if you posted some links to these old discussions to examine the information you guys provided and the unavoidable clashes you got into. It would be interesting to read.

Thx

George

[John Conyard]

Without wishing to generate more heat than discussion, just a short note to say a horse can be trained to charge in to anything, although the horse may do it only once. I'm sure it was rare, and there only limited examples of it, but it can be done without a doubt.

That's it. Over and out.

[Paullus Scipio]

Sure, horses can be "tricked" or trained into thinking that dangerous actions won't in fact hurt them - witness 'police horse' training, but as you say, there's a good chance they'll only do it once.....horses aren't very bright, but they are not completely stupid ! ( though I've known one or two.....)

Kamikaze Kavalry !!....one use only !! What a concept! hock: hock: :lol: :lol:

[Aulus Perrinius]

Sure, horses can be "tricked" or trained into thinking that dangerous actions won't in fact hurt them - witness 'police horse' training, but as you say, there's a good chance they'll only do it once.....horses aren't very bright, but they are not completely stupid ! ( though I've known one or two.....)

Kamikaze Kavalry !!....one use only !! What a concept! hock: hock: :lol: :lol:

That theory is based on John Keegan's work which he bases on waterloo and agincourt. Agincourt however proves him wrong as do several cavalry battles throughout history. I've done a ton of research on this subject. The idea that a horse won't or can't be trained to charge head on into solid infantry is nothing more than a myth. That simply won't die. I'll do some digging but that will take me some time (My computer crashed recently so a bunch of my sources went down with it) As for kamikaze cavalry, that's why they had armour for the horse. Besides horses can take a lot spears and musket balls and survive (Inversely however, what's toe-nail fungus for a human is a life-threatening problem for a horse)

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

And we have indeed too high death rates for Alexander's horses,compared to their riders' casualties,isn't that right?! Too high,comparatively.

[Aulus Perrinius]

And we have indeed too high death rates for Alexander's horses,compared to their riders' casualties,isn't that right?! Too high,comparatively.

Well now that you mention the polish husaria tended to lose a lot more horses than they did riders. Not the kind of losses you'd see from horsemen who avoided the melee, I would think

[Sean Manning]

I disagree, horses can be trained to charge into the melee, the idea that cavalry were unimportant compared to the infantry is a myth. Ancient heavy cavalry were used just like their descendents (in a decisive shock role)

AAAAA......AAA..... GGGHHHH! Not this hoary old chestnut again !THERE IS NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT CAVALRY IN HISTORY EVER, EVER CHARGED FRONTALLY INTO STEADY INFANTRY WHO DID NOT GIVE GROUND!!! OR OTHER CAVALRY EITHER! :roll: :roll:

Really, gentlemen, this subject has been "done to death" on this forum, on many others, and in books and papers aplenty....the above is one of the Great Myths of Military History.

Apart from anything else, horses can't be "trained" to impale themselves on pointy objects, not even bayonets, or to collide head-on!

Who....a....h! Not going to get sucked into this - see previous threads for discussion.....

But re-hash it all if you must..... :wink: :lol:

You would do far better to examine all the different, and many, factors that determined the uses and role of cavalry in Hellenistic and Roman times, and that every battle was unique, and that the main use of cavalry in all periods is outside major battles.....and most importantly reflect upon the fact that the "Alexander Histories" emphasise the legend of Alexander as 'Beau Sabreur' at the head of his Companions, and often don't tell us what was happening in the main battle......

Northalerton, 1138: knights in Scottish service break through a line of English spearmen and bowmen which is successfully holding off the Scottish infantry. Courtrai, 1302: French knights charge Flemish militia, almost break through, and are driven back after an extended fight. Marignano, 1515: King Francis enthuses that he's ridden through a Swiss column and taken pike blows to his armour, although a lot of his bodyguard seems to have disappeared. Omdurman, 1898: The 21st lancers charge into a phalanx of spearmen and musketeers (so excited that most of the cavalry forget they have guns!), get caught up in fighting, and either die or cut their way out the back of the enemy formation. None of these matches the simplified “either the infantry run away or the cavalry never get into reach” theory. Something about combat between infantry and cavalry brings out the doctrinaire in people (and especially in ancient historians). A lot of people need to reread The Face of Battle more carefully and imitate Keegan's methods not his conclusions.

I was hoping to do a MA thesis on this, but mine will be on a topic in ancient military history instead.

[Macedon]

I like how this discussion has been thrown off course... Usage of cavalry during the middle ages has nothing to do with what was the norm during the ancient times. Three factors have greatly contributed to cavalry being able to charge into the melee during these years. The first one was the introduction of the stirrup (although some would claim that its value is overrated), the second one was low numbers of combatants, which resulted in most battles being of a very small scale which would be very difficult to be characterized as much more than large skirmishes and last but not least, a very poor infantry both in equipment and training.

Northalerton.. some 60 Scottish knights broke through the line of Englishmen to escape the battle... For some reason, the English had dismounted to strengthen their lines with some reliable infantry. And of course one should consider what sources we have to reconstruct the said battle. Courtrai.. the French knights get stuck in the marshes and are not annihilated only because of the prompt action of reinforcements. And that against an inexperienced army of mostly unarmored Flemish... Marignano... 30 attested cavalry charges not one turning a Swiss column. A blessing for the French brass canons that the Swiss fought in columns. In the end the Swiss retreated, not put to flight. Omdurman... an age that had long abandoned packed infantry formations.

These are not really good examples for someone who wants to suggest that cavalry charges against massed infantry formations was a usual, handbook tactical choice for a commander. I disagree with Paul's conclusion that cavalry never and in no historical era conducted such charges, but I still maintain that :

A. In the ancient times cavalry charges into the melee, at least in the West and Middle East were really rare and very very very seldomly considered as a possibility. I maintain that the norm for armored cavalry fights was through what the ancients called "perispasmoi", which in effect is a skirmish in dense ilai (squadrons) instead of what war-gamers usually call "skirmish order" (in ancient texts "diesparmeni taxis"), while the "doratophoroi/xystophoroi ippeis" (long-spear cavalry) were mainly used to charge into enemy cavalry and not infantry. As a certain exception to this rule, I can only offer the charge of the cataphracts of Antiochus III at Magnesia against the Roman legions posted on the left of their formation.

B. In medieval times, shock cavalry became more and more valuable, primarily because of the feudal system which made it very hard for any noble of any stature and wealth to maintain and train a well-equipped, disciplined and uniform army. Fighting on horseback is always advantageous, as long as your opponents are not able to form a compact body and have the nerves to maintain it. Yet, in most large-scale battles of the medieval years, Sean's examples included, when infantry was abundant, horse charges were largely ineffective (of course effective cavalry charges are known, although sceptics would argue that it was not the combat shock of the charge but failure of morale that determined the success - Byzantine history does provide us of such instances, albeit not aplenty) and thus not really seen as a valid option, although at Marignano, the French king was admirably set on proving me wrong. I guess that the outcome shows that his efforts were not successful. If these examples served the purpose to show that cavalry charges into infantry were conducted no matter what their effectiveness was and thus that horses can be trained or coerced to fall upon men, then I agree. They could. Magnesia proves that too.

It is really interesting how only a few years after Marignano, Machiavelli, a man of Italy wrote in his 2nd chapter of his "Art of War", a book much written like a Platonic dialog :

"The infantry have for their defense a breast plate of iron, and for offense a lance nine armlengths long, which they call a pike, and a sword at their side, rather round in the point than sharp. This is the ordinary armament of the infantry today, for few have their arms and shins (protected by) armor, no one the head; and those few carry a halberd in place of a pike, the shaft of which ((as you know)) is three armlengths long, and has the iron attached as an axe. Among them they have three Scoppettieri (Exploders, i.e., Gunners), who, with a burst of fire fill that office which anciently was done by slingers and bow-men. This method of arming was established by the Germans, and especially by the Swiss, who, being poor and wanting to live in freedom, were, and are, obliged to combat with the ambitions of the Princes of Germany, who were rich and could raise horses, which that people could not do because of poverty: whence it happened that being on foot and wanting to defend themselves from enemies who were on horseback, it behooved them to search the ancient orders and find arms which should defend them from the fury of horses. This necessity has caused them to maintain or rediscover the ancient orders, without which, as every prudent man affirms, the infantry is entirely useless. They therefore take up pikes as arms, which are most useful not only in sustaining (the attacks of) horses, but to overcome them. And because of the virtu of these arms and ancient orders, the Germans have assumed so much audacity, that fifteen or twenty thousand of them would assault any great number of horse, and there have been many examples of this seen in the last twenty five years. And this example of their virtu founded on these arms and these orders have been so powerful, that after King Charles passed into Italy, every nation has imitated them: so that the Spanish armies have come into a very great reputation."

"When Filippo Visconti, Duke of Milan, was assaulted by eighteen thousand Swiss, he sent against them Count Carmingnuola, who was his Captain at that time. This man with six thousand cavalry and a few infantry went to encounter them, and, coming hand to hand with them, was repulsed with very great damage. Whence Carmingnuola as a prudent man quickly recognized the power of the enemy arms, and how much they prevailed against cavalry, and the weakness of cavalry against those on foot so organized; and regrouping his forces, again went to meet the Swiss, and as they came near he made his men-at-arms descend from their horses, and in that manner fought with them, and killed all but three thousand, who, seeing themselves consumed without having any remedy, threw their arms on the ground and surrendered."

"I believe in these times, with respect to saddles and stirrups not used by the ancients, one stays more securely on the horse than at that time. I believe we arm more securely: so that today one squadron of very heavily (armed) men-at-arms comes to be sustained with much more difficulty than was the ancient cavalry. With all of this, I judge, none the less, that no more account ought to be taken of the cavalry than was taken anciently; for ((as has been said above)) they have often in our times been subjected to disgrace by the infantry armed (armored) and organized as (described) above."

"I say, therefore, that those People or Kingdoms which esteem the cavalry more than the infantry, are always weaker and more exposed to complete ruin, as has been observed in Italy in our times, which has been plundered, ruined, and overrun by foreigners, not for any other fault than because they had paid little attention to the foot soldiers and had mounted all their soldiers on horses. Cavalry ought to be used, but as a second and not the first reliance of an army; for they are necessary and most useful in undertaking reconnaissance, in overrunning and despoiling the enemy country, and to keep harassing and troubling the enemy army so as to keep it continually under arms, and to impede its provisions; but as to engagements and battles in the field, which are the important things in war and the object for which armies are organized, they are more useful in pursuing than in routing the enemy, and are much more inferior to the foot soldier in accomplishing the things necessary in accomplishing such (defeats)."

"But let us come to the other question of yours, in which you desire to know what organization or what natural virtu causes the infantry to be superior to the cavalry. And I tell you, first, that the horses cannot go in all the places that the infantry do, because it is necessary for them either to turn back after they have come forward, or turning back to go forward, or to move from a stand-still, or to stand still after moving, so that, without doubt, the cavalry cannot do precisely thus as the infantry. Horses cannot, after being put into disorder from some attack, return to the order (of the ranks) except with difficulty, and even if the attack does not occur; the infantry rarely do this. In addition to this, it often occurs that a courageous man is mounted on a base horse, and a base man on a courageous horse, whence it must happen that this difference in courage causes disorders. Nor should anyone wonder that a Knot (group) of infantry sustains every attack of the cavalry, for the horse is a sensible animal and knows the dangers, and goes in unwillingly. And if you would think about what forces make him (the horse) go forward and what keep him back, without doubt you will see that those which hold him back are greater than those which push him; for spurs make him go forward, and, on the other hand, the sword and the pike retain him. So that from both ancient and modem experiences, it has been seen that a small group of infantry can be very secure from, and even actually insuperable to, the cavalry. And if you should argue on this that the Elan with which he comes makes it more furious in hurling himself against whoever wants to sustain his attack, and he responds less to the pike than the spur, I say that, as soon as the horse so disposed begins to see himself at the point of being struck by the points of the pikes, either he will by himself check his gait, so that he will stop as soon as he sees himself about to be pricked by them, or, being pricked by them, he will turn to the right or left. If you want to make a test of this, try to run a horse against a wall, and rarely will you find one that will run into it, no matter with what Elan you attempt it. Caesar, when he had to combat the Swiss in Gaul, dismounted and made everyone dismount to their feet, and had the horses removed from the ranks, as they were more adept at fleeing than fighting."

It is amazing how Machiavelli, a man who wrote a manual as pragmatic as "The Prince" would look upon the lack of effective infantry training as one of the main reasons for the ills that befell his homeland. But we still are a bit off-topic, since the main question here was whether cavalry used to charge (into infantry) in ancient times with a particular focus on the Alexandrian and Hellenistic times. There is also something about Sean's last comment regarding some MA thesis he hopes to do that sounded to me a bit ironic and unwanted. Maybe it is just humor or I miss something, but I would rather we did not resort to such innuendos. At least Paul used some emoticons to make his I-know-better comments sound more friendly...

[PMBardunias]

It is obvious if one looks at the mechanics involved that if the infantry do not flinch prior to contact, but pack in tight, it is suicidal for a horse to charge into them at speed. This is because 12 ranks of men has a mass of almost 2000 lbs. If the men have not spread out, and men with almost no space between them are forced together at some 20+ mph, this would be like hitting a wall for the horse. At best the rider goes over his neck and the horse dies.

Sometimes this probably happened when horses, and men, were caught in the mindless stampede of a herd, but it is suicidal. More likely is that the horse charges at speed and if the infantry waivers, then press home into men who have opened their order. If they don't flinch, then the horses pull up, but it is important to remember that they can still fight their way into infantry at the walk and then if the men don't hold firm the cavalry can wade into them as mounted riot police do today.

[Paullus Scipio]

Sorry, Sean.....not going there! Save to say that each of your examples is anecdotal ( and the facts disputable), and none actually represent cavalry charging formed infantry and making contact !
George/Macedon wrote:

These are not really good examples for someone who wants to suggest that cavalry charges against massed infantry formations was a usual, handbook tactical choice for a commander. I disagree with Paul's conclusion that cavalry never and in no historical era conducted such charges,

Got to agree with this ( the first part ! :wink: )....if my statement was bald and over-simplified ( perhaps I should have defined "charge" as a mass of horsemen moving at speed into contact with a mass of steady infantry), it was deliberately so to try and head off a well-worn debate.

Sean has cited Omdurman as an example and being modern we have reasonable information....and we have numerous paintings of this "glorious charge", but we also have eye-witness accounts that paint a very different picture. The 21st Lancers, some 400 strong, launched a charge against "a small group" ( less than a hundred srong) of musket armed Dervishes, who were spread out in skirmish order. These turned and ran back, and jumped over the edge of a gully. The cavalry, unable to pull up, also tumbled into the gully - straight in among a large group of Dervishes ( estimated later as 1,000 or more) armed with swords, spears and shields who were sitting there, out of sight and under cover. In less than a minute, 119 horses, 30 men who had come off their mounts, and another 36 men and 5 officers were hacked to pieces. The rest, in panic, managed to break out the other side of the gully and galloped on for 200 yards. There they rallied, moved to the flank, dismounted, and proceeded to use their modern magazine fed '303's to shoot up the helpless Dervishes until they retreated......
All Sean's other examples could similarly be criticised....in fact most so-called "charges" head to head between cavalry and infantry, or even cavalry and cavalry involve the horses pulling up before contact, and fairly ineffectual poking taking place between the respective stationary fronts until one side pulls off and away.......almost always the horsemen.

George's long quotation from Machiavelli is very apposite, and echoed by Winston Churchill, present at Omdurman, who said:
"Stubborn and unshaken infantry hardly ever meet stubborn and unshaken cavalry. Either the infantry run away and are cut down in flight, or they keep their heads and destroy nearly all the horsemen by their musketry. On this occasion two living walls had actually crashed together." - by accident! And the result was an initial massacre of the horsemen.....who later 'got even' thanks to their firepower - on foot !