Roman Heavy Cavalry Fighting Techniques

[JeffF]

In reference to the Roman cataphractii/clibinarii of the mid-4th century, reconstructions and illustrations show that these heavy cavalrymen wielded their contos/lance with two hands. I assume this means that the horsemen had to control their mounts using knees and feet only since the use of their weapon required both hands, is this correct? In general how was the lance used? Was the lance held with both hands with the weapon entirely on one side of the horse or was it used across the body with the point of the weapon on one side of the horse's neck and the rear of the lance on the opposite side? These heavy cavalrymen also lacked shields. How did this effect their ability to melee in close combat? They had long swords as a secondary armament but were they at a disadvantage when fighting lighter cavalry when those adversaries had shields?

[Robert Vermaat]

Although I'm by no means a specialst in cavalry warfare, I think (also from the various cavalry discussions on this forum) that indeed, the horse was controlled mostly by knees and legs.
The same would be the case for horse archers.
I think in general, with a large shield, the lance was used with one hand (as would be the javelin), but with a smaller shield attached to the arm a lance could be used two-handed. Although I've seen a lance used in a couched manner (Parthian vs. Sassanis heavy cavalry), I think that the most common way of using the spear was either overarm or with two hands.

Heavy cavalry without shields would be covered in armour so that a shield would not be necessary. I a melee against shield-bearing cavalry that could be a disadvantage, but since I expect that shield-bearing lighter cavalry would therefore be more vulnerable, that might have been a lesser problem.

I dont know whether such very heavy cavalry would as a rule be 'protected' by light cavalry though.

[Kai]

Heavy cavalry without shields would be covered in armour so that a shield would not be necessary. I a melee against shield-bearing cavalry that could be a disadvantage, but since I expect that shield-bearing lighter cavalry would therefore be more vulnerable, that might have been a lesser problem.

In my humble opinion, the shield is not the deciding factor in such a combat. When reviewing super heavy cavalry (however called, cataphracti, clibanarii etc.) the poor performance vs lighter troops was quite appalling to me, be it early on (Magnesia) or later on (Strasbourg). When they lost speed and did not hit the enemy head-on, the heavies had problems, big problems.
In such a situation the lack of stirrups is crucial. I know it does not matter when charging - I have read Junkelmann, don't worry - but Junkelmann also notes the lateral stability provided by the stirrups is useful in melee; and it is all the more useful when you are encumbered by 25kg of armour or more.



@ Jeff: when using the lance with two hands, you can put it across the horse's neck or beside the horse's flanks - Iranian monuments show both, iirvc. Hubertus von Gall: Das Reiterkampfbild in der iranischen und iranisch beeinflußten Kunst parthischer und sasanidischer Zeit is a good entry into this subject.

regards

[Vindex]

Control of the horse could come from the cavalryman's seat (bottom in the saddle) upper thighs (stability) and lower leg (direction). It is debatable whether the horse was trained to compensate for the rider's weight being on one side (which ever side the lance was carried) or that the horse was kept straight by the cavalryman's opposite leg (ie if your lance is to the right, your left lower leg would keep the horse straight and vice versa).

Not convinced personally about stirrups and lateral stability but there may well have been something in the saddle design to give the cavalryman more support for the impact.

But this begs the question what he did with his lance? Did he charge through the front rank carrying all before him or did he batter through the front rank, let go of the lance then use his sword on the next ranks?

Pure speculation, but the lance is a "one hit" weapon I think and the length of the kontos gave the heavy cavalryman the opportunity to make a hole in the front ranks from far enough away to have his sword out and to use the horse's impetus to carry on through the ranks...if anyone was foolsh enough to stay in his way.:wink:

You need a brave horse that's for sure.

[jvrjenivs]

First, I've to admit that I don't have that much experience in horseriding, yet, but I've almost all experience I've is with Roman horned saddle, without stirrups. You can ride perfectly without them, and I don't see why they should be 'crucial'. In my opinion Junkelmann adds to much weight to his 'see, I can ride without stirrups, isn't that nice' debate.

About the kontos, this weapon has to be carried in two hands indeed, as can be seen on some epigraphic evidence. Also, you've to take into account this is a weapon for a charching combat, and force have to be added to it, to be effective. It's about the same as with the earlier phalanx I would say. As it is a long weapon it can almost only be used frontal, so you're most probably not charging alone. (and of course when charging in a big group it's easier to let your horse go right to the front).

Nevertheless it's perfectly possible to control your horse by your legs, weight distribution and even voice. If both rider and horse are trained well and know each other, they will be able to do a lot more as some might expect. But again, riding in a charging formation of multiple horses in a line makes it all easier.

As for the hasta, I would say that is a single handed weapon and is used on the right hand side of the horse, as can be seen on this stele:
http://rpmedia.ask.com/ts?u=/wikipedia/c...rabmal.jpg

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

May I ask, what did a cavalryman do with his two-handed spear after the first impact? It isn't quite practical to fight with in close combat, is it? Or did they just leave and charge again?

[Kai]

You can ride perfectly without them, and I don't see why they should be 'crucial'. In my opinion Junkelmann adds to much weight to his 'see, I can ride without stirrups, isn't that nice' debate.

I am sorry to be blunt, but I feel this is an incorrect summary of Junkelmann’s positions since most of the pages devoted to the riding without stirrup (pp. 104-120 in Reiter Roms, III) tell how useless the stirrup in most situations is – with one notable exception, which I think is important in melee (I’ll try to translate the section):

"The one advantage offered by stirrups in combat is that the rider can fully erect himself when necessary. This makes it easier to turning (your body) to the sides or to the back in order to slash, thrust, or shoot with the bow. Although this is possible without stirrups to a certain extent, it needs more power/strength and flexibility in the hips. Moreover you can stand and put your weight on the inner stirrup thus keeping your balance easily when turning quickly as it is necessary in melee. The rider without stirrups meanwhile has to grip to the horse with his thighs and balance himself by pressuring the outer thigh on the horns of the saddle (if available), both of which is quite tiring." (p.111)

Now imagine that with one lightly or unarmoured rider, and one having to bear more than 25kg of armour or more. Again, it is not so much about riding as it is about the ability to lean and strike to the sides, to turn around, and to turn in your saddle. Here the stirrups are useful, especially when wearing lots of armour.
We classicists are quick to believe medieval people were stupid, but they were not. They had good reasons using stirrups for their heavy armoured cavalry.

But on your other points I fully agree.

[jvrjenivs]

I stand corrected about the Junkelmann opinion then. I've only read his first two parts in full lenght, not the third book. Good to see his mind has changed a bit

[jvrjenivs]

May I ask, what did a cavalryman do with his two-handed spear after the first impact? It isn't quite practical to fight with in close combat, is it? Or did they just leave and charge again?

As I tried to explain above, the kontos should, in my opinion, not be viewed as a weapon for close combat. Just as with the long spears of a phalanx it only works frontal and when charging. As soon as you're comming closer, I would leave my contos in the bodies of the first rankers and grap for your spatha. Also not that (as far as I know) this weapon is mostly associated with heavy cavalry, which is armoured for a reason.

[Vindex]

Thank you for the translation of Junkelmann, Kai; very interesting.

...Again, it is not so much about riding as it is about the ability to lean and strike to the sides, to turn around, and to turn in your saddle. Here the stirrups are useful, especially when wearing lots of armour.

I would argue that your statement here IS about riding. If you twist and turn in a saddle with or without stirrups you interfere with the balance of the horse.

If you're wearing that much armour, can you twist and turn that much anyway I wonder?

[Sean Manning]

Just some thoughts from the perspective of Renaissance martial arts and modern physics.

Reach isn't the only advantage a long kontos has over a one-handed spear. A two-handed lance grip adds stability, making it harder to knock the point aside and stronger to parry with. If a weapon is a lever with its fulcrum where the forward hand grips it, the rear hand (or the armpit, for couched technique) lets you apply force to resist deflection of the point. And unless the lance gets stuck in something of breaks, it could be retained for use in close combat (although it would probably be less effective in that situation than a sword). If every lance in the first rank killed a man on the first charge, battles would have been a lot shorter and bloodier.

On the other hand, ordinary Roman cavalry had an arsenal of throwing weapons, which they could have used as they entered combat or in a swirling melee. A thrown spear has longer range than a spear held in the hand!

I'd guess that a better armoured cavalryman wielding a long spear two-handed had strengths and weaknesses relative to a worse armoured cavalryman with a shield and a spear wielded one-handed. Defining exactly what those were at this distance is tricky.

[Paullus Scipio]

May I ask, what did a cavalryman do with his two-handed spear after the first impact? It isn't quite practical to fight with in close combat, is it? Or did they just leave and charge again?

As I tried to explain above, the kontos should, in my opinion, not be viewed as a weapon for close combat. Just as with the long spears of a phalanx it only works frontal and when charging. As soon as you're comming closer, I would leave my contos in the bodies of the first rankers and grap for your spatha. Also not that (as far as I know) this weapon is mostly associated with heavy cavalry, which is armoured for a reason.

One misconception that seemingly just will not die is that of the "cavalry charge", and also the "bayonet charge/infantry charge". Horses and humans alike are not stupid enough to run headlong at sharp pointy objects. There is no 'first impact', indeed no impact at all.
So what really does happen? The 'chargers' launch their attack, at the trot or canter if done properly ( only very rarely will two evenly matched forces simultaneously 'charge' one another). The defenders soak up the terrifying sounds and sights, and actual ground shaking ( I have experienced this - it really is awesome and terrifying hock: ) and must collectively and individually decide whether to stand their ground ( in the case that they are infantry) or not. If they give way and run, the horses continue to trot/canter forward after them, and a kind of 'pig-sticking' or 'tent-pegging' takes place, with the successful 'chargers' spearing fleeing individuals. No need, then, to abandon one's 'kontos'.

If the defenders resolutely stand their ground, and present a prickly defensive wall, then the line of horses will spontaneously stop, out of reach of the defenders - and likely then sheer off, either to try again, or find easier prey. If the 'charge' is driven resolutely home, which in reality means that the horse, after spontaneously pulling up, is spurred, reluctantly, closer to the screaming thrusting prickly line one step at a time - here the 'kontos' comes into its own, for with it, the cataphracts/clibanarii can outreach the foe by prodding and jabbing at the defenders, while hopefully their own and their horses armour keeps them fairly immune. Again the 'kontos' is not a one-off weapon. Think of the way a 'Picador' in a bull-ring uses his lance to repeatedly inflict wounds.

Against cavalry, the same rules apply, except that if the defenders morale does not collapse and cause running away, they may 'counter-charge'. If the attackers do not 'sheer off' in the face of this, and the two bodies of close packed horsemen approach one another, both sides horses will spontaneously halt rather than run into each other ( not even Hollywood can get two 'walls' of horses to collide). As before, the long 'kontos' allows the cataphract/clibanarii to prod and jab at an opponent or his horse and bring him down, 'picador' fashion. For an example one need look no further than the "Alexander mosaic", which plausibly shows an (alleged)incident at the battle of Issus. Darius' brother Oxathres* has interposed himself between the two (Diodorus Siculus XVII.34), and his wounded horse founders. Alexander is easily able to reach the Persian with his 12 ft lance ( a 'xyston' in this instance), who with his short 'palta' dual-purpose throwing/thrusting weapon 5-6 ft long cannot reach Alexander ( one lies in the foreground, perhaps dropped by Oxathres, who twists and grasps desperately at the lance to escape.) By retaining the 'kontos'/lance, the cataphract is able to jab/prod at the foe and outreach him.

Occasionally, and rarely, at this stage of the combat, especially if the lines of horsemen aren't riding boot to boot, it may be possible for a particularly brave foe and horse to spur and drive, at a walk, between two attackers. Only in that all-too-rare occurence might it become necessary to drop the 'kontos' and defend oneself with secondary weapon ( 'kontos' armed men in the second rank could reach this hypothetical intrepid defender ! )

In short, the 'kontos' is not used like a mediaeval couched lance, nor do trained mediaeval destriers of large size yet exist. ( I would argue too that 'knights' did not charge head-on into one another either).

There is no need to 'drop/dispose' of the 'kontos' after first contact ( which virtually never occurs at speed), but rather it is at that point, whether against infantry or cavalry, that the reach of the 'kontos' come into its own - in 'close' combat....

*Oxathres, if the anecdote is true, had a narrow escape, for he survived the near-miss and Alexander later honoured him by making him a 'Companion' cavalry guard. ( Diod.XVII.77.4)

[Robert Vermaat]

May I ask, what did a cavalryman do with his two-handed spear after the first impact? It isn't quite practical to fight with in close combat, is it? Or did they just leave and charge again?

here the 'kontos' comes into its own, for with it, the cataphracts/clibanarii can outreach the foe by prodding and jabbing at the defenders, while hopefully their own and their horses armour keeps them fairly immune. Again the 'kontos' is not a one-off weapon. Think of the way a 'Picador' in a bull-ring uses his lance to repeatedly inflict wounds.[/quote]
I agree with Paul. The long thrusting spear would be used to stay out of reach of the defenders, hitting them whereas they can 'only' hurl stones, javelins and arrows back at the attackers. Which is where the heavy armour comes in.

[Titvs Statilivs Castvs]

So actually they would more or less fulfil the same role as infantry spearmen, but simply on a horse?

Thank you very much for this useful information, glad I learned this!

[Robert Vermaat]

So actually they would more or less fulfil the same role as infantry spearmen, but simply on a horse?

In this case yes, but they of course had other (mobile) roles, such as (as Paul already wrote) when charging, harrying a broken enemy, or as horse archers. In fact they were far more versatile than just 'spear infantry'.