degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era

[Paullus Scipio]

George/Macedon wrote:

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.

Returning to ancient times and the use of cavalry, this battle is assuredly not an example of cavalry charging into Infantry. Antiochus, on the right flank with 3,000 Cataphract/'covered in' cavalry ( armoured men and horses), plus the Agema ( Royal Bodyguard cavalry) 1,000 strong, supported by 16 elephants, 1,200 Dahaae horse archers and 4,000 slingers and archers, plus 1,500 Gallic infantry.(total: 11,000 men aprox). These occupied a frontage of around 1,600 - 2,000 yards
Facing them on the Roman left were some 10,000 or so legionaries and allies/socii, plus a small number of Roman cavalry, on a frontage of 6-800 yards.( more if they formed up thinly)

According to Livy (XXXVII.42.7) Antiochus 'made an attack' on the Roman left, 'encircling them from the river' i.e. used his longer line to outflank the Romans, who would have been frontally under a heavy barrage from the 5,000 or so archers and slingers, unable to reply. Outflanked and under a hail of missiles,the Roman cavalry "fled and then the infantry who were nearest were driven headlong toward the camp." Notice the wording - no contact, no fighting, the Romans flee and are driven toward the camp. They are rallied by the camp commander Marcus Aemilius and his 2,000 strong Guard, and turn to face the pursuing Seleucids. "When Antiochus saw the troops at whose backs he had just been looking returning to the fight, and another body coming from the camp (the Guard 2,000 strong), and another from the battle line (Attalus with 200 allied cavalry), he turned his horse to flight."

Clearly there was no head-on clash between cavalry and Legionaries - first the Romans break and run, outflanked and under missile fire, pursued by Antiochus, then he in turn flees, with little or no contact between the forces.This is reflected by the light Roman casualties - Livy reports Roman casualties as only 300 infantry and 24 cavalry, plus 25 cavalry from the army of Eumenes, though there are 'many wounded'. Most of the Infantry casualties will have occurred in the main clash between Legions and Phalanx in the centre.

[geala]

1. I was of the opinion that Macedon cavalry charged at infantry at Granikos (from the rear), Issos (the Kardakes) and Gaugamela (left centre), but I have to take a look again. In the middle ages the battle of Verneuil 1424 comes to my mind immediatly where the heavily armored cavalry on armored horses charged frontally and broke through the English lines. But maybe perhaps another anecdote, the Scottish/French lost the battle.

If modern examples were accepted, I could give some from the 18th and 19th c. when cavalry attacked dense infantry formations (mostly carrees) and broke them. The infantry had no extremely long weapons (pikes), but the cavalry had to face devastating fire instead, so maybe its role was not easier than in antiquity and middle ages.

Some authors of the 19th c. think that a perfect cavalry charge by perfectly drilled troopers with best moral could always destroy infantry (Dekker, an experienced soldier, in his treatises about infantry, cavalry and artillery in the 1830s), however that such events nearly never happen in reality. So attacks against infantry bodies which don't move or are not shaken by previous events were to be avoided. The typical attack resulted also not in a big clash into the infantry line, but a stop in front of them. If there were the slighest movement resulting in small holes the attack would be pressed on, the infantry lines broken and the unit destroyed.

2. I would like to introduce another aspect in the discussion about diadochoi and epigonoi cavalry: the elephant. Often ridiculed by some authors it had a certain impact on the battlefields after Alexander. At Hydaspes Alexander was not able to use his cavalry as before because the horses were terrified by Poros elephants. The pezhetairoi took the brunt of the fight and therefore had casualties higher than in all battles before. The diadochoi tried a lot to get their hands on elephants, not solely because they were ignorant posers, but because elephants were a marvellous anti-cavalry arm. Just one example, Antigonos Monophtalmos recognized this at Ipsos. Together with other aspects (good infantry, esp. soldiers with sarissai, as opponents; social changes, financial changes,...) the confrontation with elephants made it more difficult to deliver cavalry on the battlefield.

However I'm against the common point of view that cavalry had no shock role on ancient battlefields. It had it before Alexander (f.e. Pelopidas) and had it after him.

[Aulus Perrinius]

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.

However a horse weighs around 1,500 pounds, couple that with the combined weight of the riders gear and you get close to a ton. Now add another horse and rider to and you get an even weight on both sides. Besides every cavalry instruction on charges I've ever seen instructs to build up speed and then go to gallop within fifty yards of the enemy. And a running horse crosses that distance in about two seconds. Even if the rider was super-human and was fast enough to pull back on the reins the horse will still keep going for at least nine feet.

[Aulus Perrinius]

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.

I'd hardly call Churchills eyewitness account mythical and he doesn't mention the Dervishes sitting, I don't recall the 21st being in panic either. As I said before and will say again, the idea of Keegan's and his cult of infantry worshippers :wink: that a horse won't charge a solid object is a myth and nothing more.

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 !

IIRC the cavalry did more damage to the dervishes than the dervishes did to the cavalry. And so what if it was an accident? Churchill makes it clear that the 21st were stubborn and determind, their charge also leaves Keegan's high and dry.

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.

The stirrup and the saddle are technical aids, they don't affect whether or not you can use cavalry for shock. Medieval infantry were hardly poor quality and just because a force is small doesn't mean a short battle or a large skirmish. Medieval commanders weren't stupid. They used their men-at-arms as the dominant unit of a combined arms force.

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.

Marignano still shows that heavy cavalry can charge against the front of solid infantry, the swiss also left with a large amount of their original force dead on the field. Omdurman, the dervishes were as solid as it gets.

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 :

I don't think anyone's saying that it was handbook tactic. Some of us just disagree with the idea that horses won't charge home against solid objects.

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.

What makes you say that ancient horse wouldn't engage in the melee? (Just for my own curiosity)

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.

I disagree on poor quality troops in the middle ages. Yes, there were blunders, but like any age of military history these should be considered the exception rather than the norm. I do agrre with you (mostly) on the latter part of your post. Charging home against solid infantry can be done. But this does not equate to breaking said solid infantry. I think that once the cavalry reached the front ranks of the infantry both the lines (of foot and horse) would have flexed and shuddered and then the cavalry would disengage as it lost momentum and the infantry would tighten up again and wait for the next assault.

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."

This is why the man-at-arms was dominant on the medival and renaissance battlefield. He wasn't a one trick pony, besides his armour and warhorses he could fight unconventionally, on foot or on horse, he could function as light cavalry or as heavy and as light or heavy infantry. He could perform raids and strikes behind enemy lines. He would also have studied the art of war from the time he was seven years of age.

"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'm not sure what Machivelli was drinking at when he wrote that. Parthian Cataphracts, Macedonian Companions, Selucid Cataphracts and Roman Equites were just as dangerous as their medieval counterparts. And The Italians used men-at-arms (condotierres) as the domiant arm for their forces

"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.

Most of the defeats they suffered were because the enemy heavy horse swept theirs off the field and then ripped their infantry apart. That and the condotierres were mercs

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)."

I think he was roaring drunk when he wrote that (Aside from that fact he's blithely ignoring what properly trained and used men-at-arms can do ). The french won because of their gens 'd armes who were the dominant arm of their force. Not because of the 'humble' sainted infantry man. It was the italian military system that was to blame for their losses. Not how great their infantry were.

"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."

Machiavelli. . . He leaves me speechless.

Well, first off the poles and the french rode through hedges (or fences) at Agincourt and Kilchusny. And the bohemian knights were required to break a lance on a stone wall. Machiavelli also needed to read up on Ceasar's gallic campaign. Besides Marignano, there's also Ravenna, Ceresole and Dreux.

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...

The battles show that it was simply because the french gens 'd armes were better than the italina condotierres. As time and time again they charged, clashed, swept the italian heavy horse off the field and then fell on the infantry. It was a poor military, system, and intriuge that saw the italians defeated. And their cavalry was defeated by the french heavy cavalry. So he's wrong about horses not charging into solid infantry. He's also wrong about a horse being limited in movement. A man-at-arms destrier was extremly fast and agile. And infantry on broken rough ground are just as much at a disadvantage as cavalry.

BTW Macedon I'm still digging but eventually I will have the examples of ancient heavy horse being used for shock posted.

[Sean Manning]

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 !

To rebut a statement like “all cats are black” it is sufficient to produce a single counterexample. I gave four. It was rarely wise for cavalry to charge a determined group of spearmen or pikemen head on, but it often happened and occasionally worked. But I don't think we're going to convince each other in a forum thread

I'm tempted to reply to several people's interesting comments on infantry vs. cavalry, but its off topic so I'll resist. The one thing I will say is that at Magnesia many of the Seleucid cataphracts must have charged the Romans in front. Analyses of unit frontages and the space available support this (eg. in Bar Kochva's book) and so do the difficulties of wheeling a long line of cavalry to all fall upon the left flank of the Romans. I don't think the sources prove one way or another whether or not the cataphracts got into reach of the Romans, or just scared them away.

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...

I was perfectly serious. If I were going to a medieval studies program for my MA, I'd write my thesis on the mechanics of combat between infantry and cavalry. I don't expect to convince the doubters just with forum threads! And I need to read more accounts of combat in the original languages to test my ideas. There are lots of those from the second half of the middle ages.

But my MA will be in ancient history, I don't think there are enough ancient sources for a similar study (and a lot of people have been writing books on ancient cavalry recently), so I'll probably write about another fun topic instead.

[geala]

":2wgppt3w]...

I don't think anyone's saying that it was handbook tactic. Some of us just disagree with the idea that horses won't charge home against solid objects.

...

Don't be so decent. :wink: It was handbook tactic and the task of heavy cavalry also to attack infantry bodies and it was done over and over again at least in the 18th century (from when we have better documentation than antiquity or the medieval times). With mixed results of course, depending on the circumstances. It sometimes also went the other way round, to the surprise of many at Minden 1759 an infantry line was able to attack and crash three cavalry lines.

I think a frontal attack on a unit with sarissai was suicidal. With shorter weapons it depended on the moral of the units involved. A flank or rear attack would have however produced nearly always devastating results (for the infantry). Apart from that why did the argyraspides form the big square at Gabiene? There were only three cavalry units of Antigonos near them. Or, another famous battle, why did Caesar at Pharsalos position one cohort from each of the legions of his third line in a special body to protect his wing from the more numerous cavalry of the senatorial army, if a cavalry attack against dense infantry bodies even from the flank would be out of the possibilities of cavalry?

[Paullus Scipio]

Aulus Perinnus wrote:

I'd hardly call Churchills eyewitness account mythical and he doesn't mention the Dervishes sitting, I don't recall the 21st being in panic either. As I said before and will say again, the idea of Keegan's and his cult of infantry worshippers that a horse won't charge a solid object is a myth and nothing more.

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 !

IIRC the cavalry did more damage to the dervishes than the dervishes did to the cavalry. And so what if it was an accident? Churchill makes it clear that the 21st were stubborn and determind, their charge also leaves Keegan's high and dry.

Churchill's account ( as a news reporter) attempts to glorify something that began as a blunder, and is not the only eye witness account. In several the dervishes are described as sitting when the cavalry (literally! ) stumble/tumble into the gully. As several survivors make clear, initially their only concern was the desperate business of getting out of the gully - done within a minute. Reading "between the lines", this is clear even in Churchill's account of desperate individuals surrounded by hacking dervishes simple trying to escape. Sure the cavalry did a lot of damage to the dervishes - when they dismounted, and fired their magazine fed rifles from several hundred yards away at the helpless crowd !! ( not very sporting, one might think! )

Sean wrote:

To rebut a statement like “all cats are black” it is sufficient to produce a single counterexample. I gave four.

No, you didn't - like I said, all are doubtful anecdotes, and can be argued against - especially that boastful poseur Francis I ! - even the best documented, namely Omdurman, turns out not to be a frontal charge by cavalry moving at speed into a formed body of Infantry ( blundering/falling into a gully which happened to be full of men they didn't know were there doesn't count - but the result, catastrophic to the cavalry, is instructive)

The one thing I will say is that at Magnesia many of the Seleucid cataphracts must have charged the Romans in front. Analyses of unit frontages and the space available support this (eg. in Bar Kochva's book) and so do the difficulties of wheeling a long line of cavalry to all fall upon the left flank of the Romans. I don't think the sources prove one way or another whether or not the cataphracts got into reach of the Romans, or just scared them away.

I did not suggest that the cavalry did not confront the Legions, but rather their line overlapped the flank of the Romans. Livy's account is quite clear - there is no mention of combat between cavalry and infantry at all - Antiochus merely 'advances/attacks' and the Romans turn their backs. Later they rally, turn around, and return to the fray. Since infantry, especially in a deep formation, can't outrun cavalry, this alone argues very strongly that no contact took place ( or else the cavalry would have been in contact, riding them down in the pursuit). The clincher is the casualties. Most of the 300 Infantry dead will have occurred in the combat between the other half of the Roman Legionaries and the Phalanx, but let's be generous and allow half (150) for this left flank. 5,000 archers and slingers will have launched upwards of 50,000 missiles in a few minutes - if only 1% killed a Roman, that would be 500 dead, so you can see that this more than takes care of any casualties here. that the cavalry killed NONE if they made contact is incredible.....even if there were zero missile casualties, a maximum of 150 dead and probably a lot less doesn't say much for the 4,000 heavily armoured 'shock' cavalry, if they made contact in a charge.

Over and above this there is Livy's wording, clearly implying no contact/combat.

We can therefore say with considerable confidence that the cavalry DID NOT charge into the Infantry at Magnesia....

Geala wrote:

It was handbook tactic and the task of heavy cavalry also to attack infantry bodies and it was done over and over again at least in the 18th century (from when we have better documentation than antiquity or the medieval times).

Yes, but not frontally, unless the infantry faltered and ran. As you yourself point out, successful attacks occurred from flank or rear or in other circumstances where the infantry were surprised and/or ran. Minden is a good example of what really happens when the infantry face up to "charging" cavalry - the best cavalry in Europe could not prevail in one "charge" after another, even with serious artillery support, against two successive thin lines of British and Hanoverian infantry - who were able to advance into the 'teeth' of the "charges" and drive the cavalry from the field..

[Paralus]

I think a frontal attack on a unit with sarissai was suicidal. With shorter weapons it depended on the moral of the units involved. A flank or rear attack would have however produced nearly always devastating results (for the infantry). Apart from that why did the argyraspides form the big square at Gabiene?

Or the square formed by the Seleucid phalanx at the above mentioned battle of Magnesia?

[Paullus Scipio]

....and the answer in both cases is that once the sarissa Phalanx lowered its pikes for the attack, or to fend off cavalry, it was particularly vulnerable to flank or rear attacks, being unable to turn left or right or about turn, because of the length of the pikes....

[Paralus]

Indeed: to present sarisae on all sides sorted the cavalry. Javelins and arrows, though, were a different story - particularly with elephants inside the square.

[geala]

Geala wrote:

It was handbook tactic and the task of heavy cavalry also to attack infantry bodies and it was done over and over again at least in the 18th century (from when we have better documentation than antiquity or the medieval times).

Yes, but not frontally, unless the infantry faltered and ran. As you yourself point out, successful attacks occurred from flank or rear or in other circumstances where the infantry were surprised and/or ran. Minden is a good example of what really happens when the infantry face up to "charging" cavalry - the best cavalry in Europe could not prevail in one "charge" after another, even with serious artillery support, against two successive thin lines of British and Hanoverian infantry - who were able to advance into the 'teeth' of the "charges" and drive the cavalry from the field..

Hello Paul,

but you know there were also other events where it was the other way round. Against a square there were fronts all around btw. Many examples I know came from battles in Germany, mainly the Silesian Wars and the Seven Years War, maybe not so well known to the English speaking world. But the events during the fight at Garcia Hernandez 1812 (Wellington in Spain) might be better known, where some firmly standing French squares were destroyed by cavalry, others not, giving us a perfect example what could happen in reality. I think many people visualize only the battle at Waterloo with the seemingly helpless French cavalry masses, repelled time after time by the British squares, when they think about cavalry against infantry. :wink:

[Macedon]

To Paul first :

I feel I have to play the devil's advocate, if not for anything else to stir an interesting discussion. My opinion is clear and has been repeatedly given. Yet, Paul : You reject Magnesia because you choose to folow Livy’s interpretation. Appian says : "En dexia de, iper autos o Antioxos etektato, diakopsas to syntagma tis Romaion fallangos, apespasen, epi poli diokon."

A translation of this is : "Antiochus, on the right, broke through the Roman line of battle, dismembered it, and pursued a long distance." This translation is acceptable and so, according to Appian, melee did ensue. Was it among cavalry forces only? No, because Appian has no Roman cavalry at the river. Of course you will ask me why I take Appian's words over those of Livy. Well... this is a personal preference. As I have already stated I have many reservations regarding Livy's accounts of battles and tactics and even if I didn't trust Appian more, it would still be a given possible example. Where Appian and Livy agree is the number of casualties :

"Of the Roman dead there were found twenty-four knights and 300 foot-soldiers from the city, being mostly those whom Antiochus had slain."

300 dead is a heavy number and cannot be explained unless Roman infantry did fight Antiochus (and the unit he was leading) in melee. Even Livy places these casualties in the infantry, although he does not say whether they were Romans or Italians. One would have to wonder why, if 4 squadrons of Roman cavalry bore the weight of an irresistible charge of cataphracts, they only had some 25 dead. Anyways... This is a direct attestation, although not really detailed, of such a charge, in admittedly, one of two surviving accounts which relay things differently.

Furthermore, according to Livy :

"Servius Sulpicius, the other lieutenant-general, they place over the cavalry. The infantry on the right wing fought with distinguished valour, with stout resistance from the Volscians. Servius Sulpicius broke with his cavalry through the centre of the enemy's line; whence though he might have returned in the same way to his own party, before the enemy could have restored their broken ranks, it seemed more advisable to attack the enemy's rear, and by attacking the rear he would in a moment have dispersed the enemy by the twofold attack, had not the cavalry of the Volscians and ?quans intercepted him and kept him engaged by a mode of fighting similar to his own." (3.70)

"On the following day the battle was renewed; and for a considerable time the Latin troops particularly, who had learned the Roman discipline during the long confederacy, stood their ground with equal bravery and success. A charge of cavalry broke their ranks; when thus confused, the infantry advanced upon them; and as much as the Roman line advanced, so much were the enemy dislodged from their ground; and when once the battle gave way, the Roman prowess became irresistible. When the enemy being routed made for Satricum, which was two miles distant, not for their camp, they were cut down chiefly by the cavalry; their camp was taken and plundered." (6.32)

and regarding later years, according to Anna Comnene :
"The two armies were burning with impatience to attack each other. But the Emperor dreading the irresistible first shock of the Latin cavalry hit upon a new device. He had wagons built, smaller and lighter than the ordinary ones, and four poles fixed to each, in these he placed heavy infantry so that when the Latins came dashing down at full gallop upon the Roman phalanx, the heavy-armed infantry should push the wagons forward and thus break the Latins' line." (Alexias 5.4)

So, we do have direct evidence that cavalry could sometimes charge into disciplined lines of infantry. My objection is that this happened rarely (against undisciplined infantry a lot more often) and with mostly low effectiveness - and this is what many of our friends here have misunderstood in my position.

I agree that sometimes ancient (I prefer to discuss medieval times separately) cavalry did charge into the melee. BUT in order to say that it was common, you will have to find many more examples than a possible charge of cataphracts (the heaviest type of cavalry) at Magnesia and a few debatable occasions in Livy.

About Alexander now :

At Granikos Alexander ordered everyone to “attack”, so the cavalry would attack in the way it was supposed to (Arrian 1.16). How cavalry was supposed to fight is given in Arrian’s description of the battle of Gaugamela (3.15), where he again stresses how the Persian (allied) cavalry charged into the Greek cavalry in order to make a breach and save itself. A similar comment is made in his description of the battle of Granikos, where again he comments how the cavalry battle was like an infantry battle (1.15) and gives a very detailed description thereof. Regarding the charge of Alexander against Darius, unfortunately we may only guess in what unit he positioned himself in (where Dareius was there deployed his friends and the miloforoi (3.11.5) - where his friends on horseback?). Arrian also mentions a “Royal squadron of Dareius” (3.11.6), so, he most possibly was in a cavalry unit. As for his own person, tradition would have him on a chariot, as he was at Issos. In 3.13.1, Arrian again speaks of Dareius and the “par auton” (near/with him) differentiating them from the Miloforoi Persians and the other infantry units he mentions at 3.11.5. Diodorus has Dareius’ brother engage in a cavalry battle in front of the King’s chariot (17.34) at Issos. I presume that he was one of his “par auton”. Finally, a generally ignored, but very informative description is Arrian’s 6.8, where he describes how Alexander’s cavalry fought “going in circles” because the enemy was a dense infantry formation. And at that point Alexander’s cavalry would have been considered as strong, disciplined and experienced as humanly possible...

Aulus Perrinius wrote :
I'd hardly call Churchills eyewitness account mythical and he doesn't mention the Dervishes sitting, I don't recall the 21st being in panic either. As I said before and will say again, the idea of Keegan's and his cult of infantry worshippers :wink: that a horse won't charge a solid object is a myth and nothing more.

The point here is on whether the account is mythical (and who is to say?), but rather that the dervishes would not account as a packed mass of infantry, thus making the example irrelevant, since noone doubts that cavalry did usually and habitually charge disorganized infantry.

Aulus Perrinius wrote :
The stirrup and the saddle are technical aids, they don't affect whether or not you can use cavalry for shock. Medieval infantry were hardly poor quality and just because a force is small doesn't mean a short battle or a large skirmish. Medieval commanders weren't stupid. They used their men-at-arms as the dominant unit of a combined arms force.

They are technical aids which make a cavalry charge into a formed, dense mass of disciplined infantry more effective. Again, I have to state that I DO NOT agree that horses NEVER charge into such situations. I just maintain that in order for such an action to be effective there are so many factors that have to coexist that make it an unappealing tactic to most commanders of any era and thus not a valid tactic for most types of cavalry in any era, even those who some people consider "heavy" or "shock". And all this especially in the ancient times.

Aulus Perrinius wrote :
Marignano still shows that heavy cavalry can charge against the front of solid infantry, the swiss also left with a large amount of their original force dead on the field. Omdurman, the dervishes were as solid as it gets.

Exactly! Isn't that what I am saying? Charging into the melee was possible (above I give clear examples from the ancient times) BUT mostly ineffective and thus avoided.

Aulus Perrinius wrote :
I don't think anyone's saying that it was handbook tactic. Some of us just disagree with the idea that horses won't charge home against solid objects.

Good! So do I. But here you shouldn't be as absolute as Paul tends to be, I guess mostly to make his point. Horses CAN but normally WON'T. IF they are trained well, IF they are equipped well, then they MIGHT. The late medieval English (and not just they) even used to cover the eyes of their chargers, so that they did not see clearly while charging (I can give you bibliography for this if you want, I just do not remember exact location now, but I can find it easily, it is an 18th century English military manual). Men also can charge into solid objects... when I was in the army they used to order us to march and sometimes run into walls or other infantry formations keeping pace and formation. Most of us did, some cowered away. Now, I won't. But people smashing into walls would never apply as an infantry tactic, would it?

Aulus Perrinius wrote :
What makes you say that ancient horse wouldn't engage in the melee? (Just for my own curiosity)

The fact that it didn't. Maybe you misunderstand my words. I don't say they COULDN'T or that they absolutely never did. I am just saying that they normally WOULDN'T, not even those that contemporary "wargaming" historical culture takes for granted that they did. And here you again have to differentiate the target. Of course they charged into the melee with other cavalry. This is why Xenophon and others propose the use of amippoi among the cavalry ranks. Cavalry lines are not dense, so horses can charge through them. Of this we have numerous and diverse examples.

Aulus Perrinius wrote :
I disagree on poor quality troops in the middle ages.

I respect your opinion, but I take it for a fact that all through the medieval years, both in Byzantium and Western Europe, the quality of infantry was much lower than in the ancient times. And when I say quality I mean discipline and order. Frankish dismounted knights and Viking veterans, Saxon huscarl and Italian crossbowmen were considered crack troops, with high morale and great fighting value, but in matters of discipline on the battlefield, keeping their place in the line, close order etc they were nowhere as good, which makes them much more susceptible to cavalry charges. And of course we have to keep in mind that most infantry armies of the medieval times were of low morale and training, more like the as undisciplined barbarian armies of the ancient times than the armies we are discussing now. Even in ancient times, such undisciplined armies were much more susceptible to cavalry charges.

Aulus Perrinius wrote :
This is why the man-at-arms was dominant on the medival and renaissance battlefield. He wasn't a one trick pony, besides his armour and warhorses he could fight unconventionally, on foot or on horse, he could function as light cavalry or as heavy and as light or heavy infantry. He could perform raids and strikes behind enemy lines. He would also have studied the art of war from the time he was seven years of age.

Yes. And I have all too many examples of such action by otherwise mounted men-at -arms. Noone claims that they were not valuable troops for their time.

Aulus Perrinius wrote :
I'm not sure what Machivelli was drinking at when he wrote that. Parthian Cataphracts, Macedonian Companions, Selucid Cataphracts and Roman Equites were just as dangerous as their medieval counterparts. And The Italians used men-at-arms (condotierres) as the domiant arm for their forces

Machiaveli wrote things as he knew them for truth. All those ancient cavalry types you mentioned were very dangerous and this was why they were formed, but in order for a cavalry to play its role, charging into massed, disciplined infantry was not usual, nor expected. He was a man of mathematical and organized thinking and he lived in the said times. To prove him wrong you have to be able to establish that your theory was the norm and that it also was effective. In order to do that , you will need historical examples. Again, I have to state that I would be extremely interested in any such examples, I do not maintain that I have read everything there is about ancient and medieval battlefields.

Sean Manning wrote :

I was perfectly serious. If I were going to a medieval studies program for my MA, I'd write my thesis on the mechanics of combat between infantry and cavalry. I don't expect to convince the doubters just with forum threads! And I need to read more accounts of combat in the original languages to test my ideas. There are lots of those from the second half of the middle ages.

I am very sorry, if I misunderstood you, I thought that the comment was an innuendo about how other people here do not see things scientifically (in ancient military history instead). I am sorry.

I would like to introduce another aspect in the discussion about diadochoi and epigonoi cavalry: the elephant.

A very interesting issue which, in my opinion, would deserve a discussion on its own, so maybe you'd like to start a thread on it instead of discussing it here. Regarding elephants as an anti-cavalry weapon I will just make a short comment here on something that I think many people who are interested in ancient warfare have not thought of :

At Hydaspes, Alexander’s cavalry acted as in every battle. It attacked the Indian cavalry, which found refuge near the elephants. It is very interesting that Porus chose to place all his elephants among his infantry phalanx instead of keeping even a small number to shield his cavalry. Although Arrian’s description of Porus’ cavalry action shows that Indian horses were not terrified by the elephants, what most scholars call “cavalry accustomed to elephant presence”, I would suggest that the reason why he did not do that was that even “accustomed” horses cannot keep their order when they are near elephants. Unfortunately I have never had the real chance to study how real horses behave in the proximity of elephants but Porus’ choice seems irrational, doesn’t it? And of course his cavalry was quickly crushed. But my suggestion does not rely on this battle alone. Hellenistic armies, especially those of Syria but Egyptians too, had a plethora of elephants. In all epic battles like Ipsos or Raphia, elephants were present by the hundreds! Abd yet, hellenistic cavalry was not “immune” to the elephant effect. The Diadochi and the Epigoni did not place elephants among cavalry and elephants still proved effective anti-cavalry weapons, in Ipsos practically prohibiting Demetrios from returning to the battle. The Carthaginians also did not use cavalry with elephants, Pyrrhus didn’t, the Romans didn’t when they could field elephants, maybe the last two did not have the time to really make some horses accustomed, but the Seleucids, the Ptolemies, the Carthaginians and the Indians surely did have plenty of time. I believe that “accustomed” horses still could not keep order near elephants and were prone to anxiety and panic, even if that was at a lesser degree.

[geala]

George, I'm momentarily a bit baffled. While I generally agree with you and Paul that cavalry was often not able to break dense infantry formations from the front (and so often did not dare to attack), at least in antiquity and the middle ages (in the 18th c. cavalry could do it, sometimes, sometimes not), I don't understand the rejection of the idea that cavalry was able to destroy infantry in melee when the infantry was attacked in the flank or back. To fight against infantry the heavy cavalry had to come to melee, or not?

If cavalry was not able to go into melee after flank or back attacks, what exactly was the task of heavy cavalry? Why the extreme efforts to neutralize enemy cavalry with the own or with especially deployed infantry, if the cavalry was not able to destroy infantry at all because melee had to be avoided?

Maybe I'm still not yet understanding what you mean, maybe my thoughts are just a misinterpretation of what you say.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

Perhaps they mean that charging cavalry is unstopable especially if attacking from flank or rear,but once it becomes static it loses its advantages. A horse is always a fearsome thing to have against you in a fight,even when static. It can certainly throw you off battle if you happen to be in front or behind it. But it also offers much greater target,and cavalry without horses is not cavalry anymore! So i assume that heavy cavalry had the necessary protection and training to sustain some short melee until it can disengage and re-engage with its powerful momentum. And perhaps do this several times. I think that light cavalry might not have any disadvantage in the charge,since a horse is always a horse no matter if it's of the heavy or light cavalry. But probably the horses' and cavalrymen's arms and armour was such that even in the short inevitable melee that follows a charge, it sustained too heavy losses.
It's just speculation,but this is how i imagine cavalry fighting.
After all, i do suspect that if you are charged from the rear by heavy cavalry(or light,for that matter) while engaged also in frontal fight,the is not going to be needed a second charge!
Khairete
Giannis

[geala]

Maybe. If the infantry would have shown coordinated resistance, at least with some groups, cavalry in melee might have had troubles. But if it were "everyone for himself", a rider would have had some advantages over the infantryman. A horse is not eager to charge a wall of men but has no problems to attack one or few men and push them aside or to the ground (no own experience but something that I read, I'm not a great friend of cavalry myself :wink: ).

In the example given above, Garcia Hernandez, after the square of the battalion present of the 76. Regiment (about 500 men) was crushed by the 3. Squadron/ Regiment of Heavy Dragoons No. 1 of the KGL (about 110 men), after a short time the most of the infantrymen lay on the ground, ridden down, hacked down or deliberately having layed down to avoid the cavalry sabers. They were four times the men, each with a musket of about 1,50 m length fitted with a bayonet of about 40 cm length, so they could have reached the troopers on the horses or the horses with ease.

When I imagine a unit of armored cavalry charging in the flank or back of a unit of sarissaphoroi, who were helpless with their main weapons in individual combat...