Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Roman Heavy Cavalry Fighting Techniques
#16
Yes of course, but I mean in close combat. Thanks!
Valete,
Titvs Statilivs Castvs - Sander Van Daele
LEG XI CPF
COH VII RAET EQ (part of LEG XI CPF)

MA in History
Reply
#17
Robert/Vortigern studies wrote:-
Quote: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'.

Well, the post was getting kind of long, without considering these roles, but Robert is entirely right.

Cataphract/Clibanarii cavalry had many roles beyond 'just' frontal confrontation. In the face of a 'close order/heavy' infantry line, enemy 'infantry spearmen' had little alternative to a head-on clash, but cavalry, being more mobile, could work their way around a flank. Equally, against nomad horse archers ( a common Late-Roman foe), an infantry line could do little but stand and endure, whereas ( at least in theory!) by virtue of their long lance and armour, the cataphracts could drive off this 'lesser gentry', or by virtue of their bows, inflict the same long-distance damage on the enemy.

The 'down side' was that these 'super-heavy/all purpose' cavalry were incredibly expensive to raise and train, and often proved to be "jack-of-all-trades, master of none" in practise, being insufficiently numerous to beat nomad cavalry, and often too cumbersome to succeed as 'heavy cavalry' fighting at close quarters, as the Emperor Julian would be the first to testify ! ( Belisarius would have better luck in different circumstances, though his Hunnic cavalry seem to have been his 'Ace' rather than 'cataphracts' )
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#18
Quote:One misconception that seemingly just will not die is that of the "cavalry 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 Confusedhock: ) 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.


That's based on Keegan's theory in The Face of Battle which he bases on one battle (Waterloo).

Yes, it's hard to train horses to charge head on into solid spears or pikes, but the idea that they never did and never could be made to do so is extremely harmful to the field of military history. Horses have charged head on into solid infantry formations at a gallop several times throughout history.

And humans beings can charge head on into spear or pike lines too.

And throughout history heavy lancers have always preferred to start out slow and close the last fifty yards at a gallop. Closing with heavy foot at a walk robs them of their cheif advantage. Besides stallions are very agressive and like fighting and they'll remember their heavy armour protected them from the spears and getting wounded by spears can actually make horses more aggressive towards spears and more willing to attack them.
Ben.
Reply
#19
Quote: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?

It depends on the definition of charge or how you are choosing to use the term.

No right thinking cavalry commander is going to order a slow advance into a hail of arrows or other missiles lobbed in his and his horses' direction. At some point, the slow, intimidating approiach of the cavalry rank is going to have to pick up its pace to get "inside " the range of the missiles and have enough of a force to make an impression on the rank in front of him (presumably on the enemy's flank).

Those being charged are quite capable of aiming at the most vulnerable part of the approaching horses - the legs in this instance - and armoured or not, an arrow can debilitate a horse or his rider sufficiently to make him ineffective in his role.

Also not keen on the references to stallions from Aulus Perrinius. Why is the assumption made that the cavalry rode stallions and nothing else? Three or four stallions left to their own devices are probably going to be more intent on maiming each other than the enemy. Horses were gelded in the ancient world (and yes, I am looking for the reference(s)) and a mare is just as much an entire as a stallion without a lot of the overtly aggressive stallion behaviour.

I enjoyed reading your analysis, Paullus Scipio; may I ask which sources you used for your post after the "so what really does happen"? comment.
Moi Watson

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Reply
#20
Quote:Also not keen on the references to stallions from Aulus Perrinius. Why is the assumption made that the cavalry rode stallions and nothing else? Three or four stallions left to their own devices are probably going to be more intent on maiming each other than the enemy. Horses were gelded in the ancient world (and yes, I am looking for the reference(s)) and a mare is just as much an entire as a stallion without a lot of the overtly aggressive stallion behaviour.


I didn't make an assumption, the french and burgunian ordannces of the 15th-16th century required men-at-arms to own at least three stallions for battle. The polish husaria also used stallions for battle, as did most western medieval heavy cavalrymen.

While stallions are aggressive they're also well-trained and well trained horses don't run around trying to maim each other.

And Xenophon's comment about making sure a cavalry mount's balls weren't so big they interfered with the horse's gait would indicate he preffered stallions.

I do agree that throughout history some rider's prefferred geldings some didn't. I never stallions were a universal cavalry mount.
Ben.
Reply
#21
Ben wrote:-
Quote:That's based on Keegan's theory in The Face of Battle which he bases on one battle (Waterloo).

Yes, it's hard to train horses to charge head on into solid spears or pikes, but the idea that they never did and never could be made to do so is extremely harmful to the field of military history. Horses have charged head on into solid infantry formations at a gallop several times throughout history.

And humans beings can charge head on into spear or pike lines too.

I'm afraid this is an old argument, but one which is now resolved, as far as it can be, in favour of the position I put forward - and that position is not at all based on Keegan,( who based his views on much other research); rather in my case on a lifelong study of military history.

I will even go as far as to say that, in all likelihood, in all of the history of cavalry, "charging" by a large body of horse has never resulted in a head-on collision between horses and resolute infantry with pointy things, or beween substantial bodies of horsemen ( occasionally, in skirmishing, the "charge" was carried out in 'open' order by mutual consent, allowing two 'open' lines to pass through each other.)

To begin with, it must be appreciated that head-on conflict was a comparative rarity, because in the majority of cases one side or the other gave way before potential 'collision'.

Recall too that to allow the highly artificial sport of jousting to occur, it is necessary to have highly trained horses AND a barrier between them - otherwise both shear away for fear of collision, and the riders can't reach each other.....very embarrassing!

For a visual image, actually from ancient times, consider the "Alexander mosaic". having "charged", Alexander's horse is shown stationary, and rearing up to avoid collision.

Or consider Ammianus' detailed account of the battle of Argentoratum [XVI.12.4-62]( a rare one in giving much detail, and very instructive about many aspects of ancient battles). Julian's cataphracts retreat in panic after their commander is wounded, and another horse collapses and throws its rider:-
"...scattered in whatever direction they could; the cavalry would have caused complete confusion by trampling the infantry underfoot, had not the latter, who were packed in close order and intertwined with one another, held their ground...."
Note that the horses will not, even in panic, run into the close-order infantry who stand their ground

Whilst we do not have much of this sort of 'nitty-gritty' detail from our ancient sources, there are plenty of personal accounts from the Napoleonic wars onward, and the psychology of horses has not changed in the last 2,000 years or so.....

Here is but one comment from an English officer ( Lt Col William Tomkinson) with plenty of experience in a real war - the Peninsular war of Napoleonic times.

"He waited so long and the enemy came up so close, that he ordered a squadron of the 16th to charge. The enemy's squadron was about twice their strength, and waited their charge. Our men rode up, and began sabring...... [ note: the French were stationary, and the English 'charged' but in actuality there were no collisions, no smashing of horses together, so as to fall over etc. Clearly the English reined in ("rode up to them") and began sword fighting. Tomkinson goes on....
"This is the only instance I ever met with of two bodies of cavalry coming into opposition, and both standing, as invariably, as I have observed it, one or the other runs away."

I have recounted on other threads how in this same war occurred a very rare instance of a French square being broken by the King's German Legion Dragoons, where there actually WAS a collision when a horse crashed into the square, opening the way for others - but horse and rider were both dead, and the incident was so remarkable it was recorded several times - which demonstrates just how rare such 'collisions' were in reality.

Much the same occurred in the Crimean war when the British Heavy Brigade "charged" the Russian cavalry. The Russians came on at the trot, then halted, the British charged up to them, and a sabring contest began, with the British urging and spurring their horses on into the press ( so obviously they halted before contact - again we don't hear from observers of any 'collisions', or horses bowling other horses over etc.)

There are countless similar detailed descriptions from many wars, and I haven't yet come across one which described bodies of horsemen smashing into one another and horses going down......

The only logical conclusion possible is that it simply didn't happen.Bearing in mind that Military History gives rise to constant legend and mythology, I'd be curious to see actual evidence, which of necessity would need to be fairly recent ( i.e. the last couple of hundred years) for "Horses have charged head on into solid infantry formations at a gallop several times throughout history."

I don't know anyone with a sound knowledge of horses who would claim such a thing ( I have done a fair bit of riding myself, including being part of a "tent pegging" display team when I was young, so I know first-hand something about 'charging'.)

Consider that horses are by nature timid creatures, and that on campaign, the wastage of horse-flesh in any era by any cavalry is truly prodiguous, so that in most battles mounts were not 'trained' to charge at all, and you'll soon see the odds stacking up against 'trained' animals running themselves into sharp objects and committing suicide! Nor the rider either for that matter. Cavalry are not 'kamikazes'!! Smile :grin: :lol:

A couple of more minor points.....I did not say that cavalry did not 'charge' at the gallop ( or perhaps slow canter in the case of cataphracts! ), simply that if they met a solid formation of either cavalry or foot, they would and did spontaneously pull up before a collision took place.

Nor do I believe for one instant that archers or whatever could aim arrows to hit a fast moving horse's legs!!

Horses willing to "attack spears"?? I hope that was intended as a joke, for I'm pretty sure the horse is yet to be born that will willingly, or can even be goaded into, attacking a sharp pointy thing capable of inflicting wounds and pain, be it bayonet or spear, and still less a line of densely packed men bristling with such things.....
Nor does giving the horse armour ( in the case of cataphracts) change their basic instincts - horses are by and large pretty stupid.

For Vindex: Mostly the accounts of cavalrymen and memoirs such as those referred to above, both ancient and modern,including detailed eye-witness accounts e.g. of Omdurman, or the Australian Light Horse in WW1, plus personal experience. An interesting illustration of what happens when furious riders on horses try to attack men armed with sharp things is what happened, not just in the Napoleonic wars generally, but specifically the numerous eye-witness accounts of French cavalry at Waterlo and Quatre Bras "...swirling uselessly around the British squares, unable to do them harm..", as one account put it.

Humans, as I remarked earlier, are also reluctant to run into a wall of sharp pointy things - though they are braver ( or stupider!) than horses in that regard. Here are some statistics from the 'Horse and Musket' era that show that bayonets inflicted a mere 2-5% of wounds, generally the lower figure, and many of those 'coup-de-grace' wounds inflicted on men down injured, or in pursuits or flank attacks, or house-to-house fighting.....

At Malplaquet ( 1709), for example, the best evidence indicates that 2/3 of the wounds received by French troops came from the enemy's fusils, with only about 2 % were inflicted by bayonets. Of the men wounded by gunfire, 60 % had been struck in the left side, the side facing the enemy as a soldier stood in line to fire himself.
- 66 % from fusils
- 32 % from swords and artillery
- 2 % from bayonet'
Looking at a larger sample of veterans admitted to Les Invalides' in 1715,
Corvisier ( a noted Doctor) arrived at the following breakdown of wounds:
- 71.4 % from firearms
- 15.8 % from swords
- 10.0 % from artillery
- 2.8 % from the bayonet

According to another sample taken (in 1762 at the end of the Seven Years War) in 'Les Invalides';
- 69 % of the wounded were wounded by musket balls
- 14 % by sabers
- 13 % by artillery
- 2 % by bayonets

In 1807 during the war between France and Russia and Prussia, Chirurgeon (Surgeon)Baron Dominique Jean Larrey studied wounded on one battlefield and found most were caused by artillery and muskets. Only 2 % of all wounds were caused by bayonets.
- 98 % other wounds
- 2 % wounds from bayonets
The wounds inflicted during "bayonet charges" were more often executed by bullets. Baron Larrey studied one particularly vicious close combat between the Russians and the French and found:
- 119 (or 96 %) wounds from musketballs
- 5 (or 4 %) wounds from bayonets ( mostly against already down and wounded men in an attempt to dispatch them)
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#22
I haven't done you guys the courtesy of reading this thread in detail as yet - apologies. I will - but I know if I don't respond now, I'll forget (old man blues).

I'm trying to get a sense of how Roman super-heavy cavalry were desired to function on a third - fifth century battlefield. Does anyone know of a period source that prescribes how they should be used?

My current impression is that the horse was meant to get the rider from the start-point to the enemy swiftly to somewhat thwart the defensive missile barrage. Once in front of the enemy (infantry e.g.) they fight (mounted) as taller, stronger, heavier and harder-to-wound infantry. I also gather the idea of a cavalry unit as a panzerfaust smashing through obstacles of all kinds is a 20th-century concept where tanks, armoured personnel carriers and helicopters do dramatically penetrate defensive lines.

Cheers
Spurius Papirius Cursor (Howard Russell)
"Life is still worthwhile if you just smile."
(Turner, Parsons, Chaplin)
Reply
#23
Hello Paul,

I think it is useful to differentiate two points very strictly: first, the (in-)ability of cavalry to break infantry formations via choc attack, and second, what they are going to do when the chock has failed.

That cavalry cannot break steady formations of infantry if these hold their ground is old news, really old news. Be it Aristotle (Politics 4,13), Frederick the Great (Réflexions sur la Tactique), or more recently Hans Delbrück discussing that at length with Eduard Meyer, who even said ancient cavalry had no chance whatsoever to harm infantry in any way when they are well trained (a good start on this is Delbrück’s paper in Klio 10, pp.335-340), they all knew that.

The choc attack is psychological more than physical, no doubt about that. However this does not automatically mean cavalry will then stop in front of the opposing formation and fight stationary. (…which is your opinion, Paul, if I understood you correctly)
This goes against the very nature of cavalry, which draws its strength from its speed. A stationary horseman sacrifices all his advantages (the speed and power of the horse) and is most vulnerable to infantry exploiting all the weaknesses of cavalry (the rider having not the stability of a footman). Whenever we find cavalry stopped by and engaged by infantry, they are dead meat.
The long lances do not help here. What exactly would hinder the infantry to charge now at the horsemen? The heavy, hard to balance lances wielded by men on instable ground (i.e. no ground at all) certainly do not. At any rate, the firm ground of the infantry will inevitably ensure the infantry could be equipped with weapons outreaching the kontos, would it have been used by immobile horse against footmen.
Indeed none of the Persian rock reliefs show lances used in melee, but only in fast charge. Alexander’s horse on the mosaic is barely visible; to me it looks like being stopped by the impact of the lance rather violently, but then again, one cannot really see it. There is a lot of “if” and “buts” involved anyway. Is it really Oxathres, has he evaded grapping the lance or has he been impaled grapping the lance, is the mosaic depicting a certain battle for that matter? I stood hours in front of it in Naples discussing with archaeologists. You know very well nothing should be presented as fact in this regard.
However, back to topic: The impact power of the lance is reported by Plutarch e.g., albeit exaggerated in that case, or by the rock reliefs. The trusts of stationary men without firm ground cannot possibly have such effects.

In my opinion, when confronted with steady infantry, cavalry will just turn away, retreat, regroup, and charge again – which is precisely what happened at Waterloo btw. Speed is life. Delbrück names and discusses several ancient instances, when cavalry was effective against infantry, even without breaking, but nonetheless effective due to other factors, all of which require mobility.

The charge cavalry against cavalry is an entirely different animal again.

PS: Belisarius did not have cataphracts at his disposal anyway, if you define cataphracts as heavy cavalry with armoured horses and lances wielded two-handedly, since neither the one nor the other is attested in the very detailed accounts of the war given not just by Procopius.



Moi,

If we call it riding or combating while riding, or whatever is a more a semantics question, is not it? Wink
As for the ability to turn and twist with armour, I think it should be possible if the armour is flexible, maybe it is even possible with later plate armour, considering how incredibly well they suited to the wearer. But I am not sure of neither.


Spurius Papirius Cursor,

I will answer later that weak Smile


regards and have a nice day,
Kai
------------
[Image: regnumhesperium.png]
Reply
#24
Quote:I'm afraid this is an old argument, but one which is now resolved, as far as it can be, in favour of the position I put forward - and that position is not at all based on Keegan,( who based his views on much other research); rather in my case on a lifelong study of military history.

I don't think that it has been resolved that horses can't charge home against solid infantry. I agree that there are plenty of times where they didn't. But there are plenty of instances where it happen. Ravenna, Ceresole, Dreux, Dresden, Aliwal, Omdurman, and Marignano just to name a few.

Quote: I will even go as far as to say that, in all likelihood, in all of the history of cavalry, "charging" by a large body of horse has never resulted in a head-on collision between horses and resolute infantry with pointy things, or beween substantial bodies of horsemen ( occasionally, in skirmishing, the "charge" was carried out in 'open' order by mutual consent, allowing two 'open' lines to pass through each other.)


There are several battles where horses did charge home. And yes horses will charge head on into each other. There are several battles that show that as well.

Quote: To begin with, it must be appreciated that head-on conflict was a comparative rarity, because in the majority of cases one side or the other gave way before potential 'collision'.

First you say that it never happened and now you say it's a rarity. And I agree that a lot of times it didn't happen. What I'm saying is that there are several instances where it did happpen, I'm not saying it happened all the time. Big Grin

Quote:Recall too that to allow the highly artificial sport of jousting to occur, it is necessary to have highly trained horses AND a barrier between them - otherwise both shear away for fear of collision, and the riders can't reach each other.....very embarrassing!

Keep in mind jousting started out as a military excersize amd they jousted for centuries without the barrier. Horses are very willing to run into each other and slug it out. Especially ones that are trained for that.

Quote:For a visual image, actually from ancient times, consider the "Alexander mosaic". having "charged", Alexander's horse is shown stationary, and rearing up to avoid collision.

That Mosiac is fragmented and depicts a scene at the close of the battle. And it's one of the oldest tactics in cavalry history to have your mount rear up and lash out. Modern mounted riot police do that as well.

Quote: Or consider Ammianus' detailed account of the battle of Argentoratum [XVI.12.4-62]( a rare one in giving much detail, and very instructive about many aspects of ancient battles). Julian's cataphracts retreat in panic after their commander is wounded, and another horse collapses and throws its rider:-
"...scattered in whatever direction they could; the cavalry would have caused complete confusion by trampling the infantry underfoot, had not the latter, who were packed in close order and intertwined with one another, held their ground...."
Note that the horses will not, even in panic, run into the close-order infantry who stand their ground


That's not an example of horses refusing to charge, that's an example of men panicking and being unable to do their job because they lost their disipline. And as I recall the Cataphracts had already charged into the enemy. And Ammianius says they would have destroyed the enemy if the enemy hadn't held their ground. Which would indicate that horses had charged head on into the enemy infantry (And the enemy cavalry as well) but the enemy formation was tight and disiplined enough that they weathered the impact of the charge.

Quote: Whilst we do not have much of this sort of 'nitty-gritty' detail from our ancient sources, there are plenty of personal accounts from the Napoleonic wars onward, and the psychology of horses has not changed in the last 2,000 years or so.....

Here is but one comment from an English officer ( Lt Col William Tomkinson) with plenty of experience in a real war - the Peninsular war of Napoleonic times.

"He waited so long and the enemy came up so close, that he ordered a squadron of the 16th to charge. The enemy's squadron was about twice their strength, and waited their charge. Our men rode up, and began sabring...... [ note: the French were stationary, and the English 'charged' but in actuality there were no collisions, no smashing of horses together, so as to fall over etc. Clearly the English reined in ("rode up to them") and began sword fighting. Tomkinson goes on....
"This is the only instance I ever met with of two bodies of cavalry coming into opposition, and both standing, as invariably, as I have observed it, one or the other runs away."

"One or the other runs away"? That's a truth for any troop-type and any battle. In fact that account would indicate to me that the french cavalry held their ground against a charge. A similiar instance occured in 15th century Italy.

Quote: I have recounted on other threads how in this same war occurred a very rare instance of a French square being broken by the King's German Legion Dragoons, where there actually WAS a collision when a horse crashed into the square, opening the way for others - but horse and rider were both dead, and the incident was so remarkable it was recorded several times - which demonstrates just how rare such 'collisions' were in reality.

Again I agree that horses have refused to charge infantry head on several times. I never said they didn't. I just disagree that they never did and can't be trained. Human beings have a problem with killing people, that being said it's still something you can train out of them.

Quote: Much the same occurred in the Crimean war when the British Heavy Brigade "charged" the Russian cavalry. The Russians came on at the trot, then halted, the British charged up to them, and a sabring contest began, with the British urging and spurring their horses on into the press ( so obviously they halted before contact - again we don't hear from observers of any 'collisions', or horses bowling other horses over etc.)

There are countless similar detailed descriptions from many wars, and I haven't yet come across one which described bodies of horsemen smashing into one another and horses going down......

It seems to me that the russians came at a trot and stopped. The british charged on and hit them a gallop. It looks like that the russians plan was to hold their ground and weather the shock of the charge like infantry. Also there were several instances were cavalry during the american civil clashed head on into each other. And a clash like that may press man and horse so tightly together that won't be any bowling each other over.



Quote: The only logical conclusion possible is that it simply didn't happen.Bearing in mind that Military History gives rise to constant legend and mythology, I'd be curious to see actual evidence, which of necessity would need to be fairly recent ( i.e. the last couple of hundred years) for "Horses have charged head on into solid infantry formations at a gallop several times throughout history."

I have said before that I agree completely that it didn't happen several times throughout history. But I disagree with the idea that it never happened. I have given you actual evidence here and in other threads. Why would it need to be fairly recent? A lot of the evidence you're using is extremely ancient Wink Tongue

Quote: I don't know anyone with a sound knowledge of horses who would claim such a thing ( I have done a fair bit of riding myself, including being part of a "tent pegging" display team when I was young, so I know first-hand something about 'charging'.)

I do have plenty of firsthand knowledge about horses and I've researched this for years.

Quote: Consider that horses are by nature timid creatures, and that on campaign, the wastage of horse-flesh in any era by any cavalry is truly prodiguous, so that in most battles mounts were not 'trained' to charge at all, and you'll soon see the odds stacking up against 'trained' animals running themselves into sharp objects and committing suicide! Nor the rider either for that matter. Cavalry are not 'kamikazes'!! Smile :grin: :lol:


Stallions are not timid creatures and that's why heavy cavalry are generally heavily armoured, along with their mounts.



Quote: A couple of more minor points.....I did not say that cavalry did not 'charge' at the gallop ( or perhaps slow canter in the case of cataphracts! ), simply that if they met a solid formation of either cavalry or foot, they would and did spontaneously pull up before a collision took place.


You said that they would walked up to the enemy line. Why would Cataphracts canter? Their horses weren't weak and their armour wasn't super-heavy. I know you said that horses can't charge home against solid infantry and I agree that there were plenty of times where it didn't happen.

Quote: Nor do I believe for one instant that archers or whatever could aim arrows to hit a fast moving horse's legs!!


Agreed

Quote: Horses willing to "attack spears"?? I hope that was intended as a joke, for I'm pretty sure the horse is yet to be born that will willingly, or can even be goaded into, attacking a sharp pointy thing capable of inflicting wounds and pain, be it bayonet or spear, and still less a line of densely packed men bristling with such things.....
Nor does giving the horse armour ( in the case of cataphracts) change their basic instincts - horses are by and large pretty stupid.

No, that's true. A lot of times if a horse is injured by something (Say a polearm during a reenactment, or angry heifer) they will actually become very aggressive and willing to attack the heifer or rip the polearm out of it's wielders hands.

Barding for a horse protects it from things like impacts weapons, blades, spears and missile weapons. The horse will remember that he's protected by the armour and will become bolder (Something noted by La Noue if IIRC. H noted that the Men-at-arms wouldn't have done what they did at Ravenna, Marignano, Ceresole and Dreux if they and their horses hadn't been so heavily armed and armoured)

Quote:For Vindex: Mostly the accounts of cavalrymen and memoirs such as those referred to above, both ancient and modern,including detailed eye-witness accounts e.g. of Omdurman, or the Australian Light Horse in WW1, plus personal experience. An interesting illustration of what happens when furious riders on horses try to attack men armed with sharp things is what happened, not just in the Napoleonic wars generally, but specifically the numerous eye-witness accounts of French cavalry at Waterlo and Quatre Bras "...swirling uselessly around the British squares, unable to do them harm..", as one account put it.

But Paul! I seem to remember you deriding Churchill's eyewitness of Omdurman as propaganda. Confusedhock: :lol:
Ben.
Reply
#25
Paullus Scipio

"- horses are by and large pretty stupid."

You just know that I am not going to agree with that!

And why can't archers aim at horses legs - particularly if they are advancing as slowly as you said originally? One cannot leave caltrops willy nilly on a battle field as your own infantry may have to go over the same ground...
Moi Watson

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, Merlot in one hand, Cigar in the other; body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, what a ride!
Reply
#26
Quote:
Paullus Scipio post=282550 Wrote:I'm afraid this is an old argument, but one which is now resolved, as far as it can be, in favour of the position I put forward - and that position is not at all based on Keegan,( who based his views on much other research); rather in my case on a lifelong study of military history.

I don't think that it has been resolved that horses can't charge home against solid infantry. I agree that there are plenty of times where they didn't. But there are plenty of instances where it happen. Ravenna, Ceresole, Dreux, Dresden, Aliwal, Omdurman, and Marignano just to name a few.
Well it certainly didn't happen at Omdurman! Churchill might have given a legendary/mythological account ( see my post ante in a previous thread) as so often happens, but other eye-witness acoounts reveal the reality, as I have posted in previous threads....."stories" from mediaeval 'chronicles' are just that.....'stories' and not to be trusted at all.

Quote: I will even go as far as to say that, in all likelihood, in all of the history of cavalry, "charging" by a large body of horse has never resulted in a head-on collision between horses and resolute infantry with pointy things, or beween substantial bodies of horsemen ( occasionally, in skirmishing, the "charge" was carried out in 'open' order by mutual consent, allowing two 'open' lines to pass through each other.)


There are several battles where horses did charge home. And yes horses will charge head on into each other. There are several battles that show that as well.
I'm sorry, but I can't accept that - certainly not without proper evidence. Horse are not Stags- and even they don't rush at each other from any distance or at speed !! Even in the wild, stallions will stop rear up, rather than collide head-on.

Quote: To begin with, it must be appreciated that head-on conflict was a comparative rarity, because in the majority of cases one side or the other gave way before potential 'collision'.

First you say that it never happened and now you say it's a rarity. And I agree that a lot of times it didn't happen. What I'm saying is that there are several instances where it did happpen, I'm not saying it happened all the time. Big Grin
You misunderstand....I'm saying the evidence suggests that one party or the other would run, only rarely would both stand and confront one another, and even in the latter case, there were no head-on collisions at speed - we simply never hear of such a thing in reality. This is a digression from the topic, so I won't bother asking for evidence to support such an assertion....that belongs on a different thread

Quote:Recall too that to allow the highly artificial sport of jousting to occur, it is necessary to have highly trained horses AND a barrier between them - otherwise both shear away for fear of collision, and the riders can't reach each other.....very embarrassing!

Keep in mind jousting started out as a military excersize amd they jousted for centuries without the barrier. Horses are very willing to run into each other and slug it out. Especially ones that are trained for that.
I find it hard to accept that assertion. I don't know of any instances of 'jousting' occurring in battle between masses of cavalry/knights. Nor do I accept that 'jousting' - which might have occurred as a 'training exercise' with some value in war ( but like training drills at football never occur on the field) occurred for 'centuries' without barriers. Supporting evidence for this please?

Quote:For a visual image, actually from ancient times, consider the "Alexander mosaic". having "charged", Alexander's horse is shown stationary, and rearing up to avoid collision.

That Mosiac is fragmented and depicts a scene at the close of the battle. And it's one of the oldest tactics in cavalry history to have your mount rear up and lash out. Modern mounted riot police do that as well.
Mounted riot police most certainly DO NOT train their horses to rear and lash out with their hoves. Indeed they specifically train to avoid such incidents!!Confusedhock:

Quote: Or consider Ammianus' detailed account of the battle of Argentoratum [XVI.12.4-62]( a rare one in giving much detail, and very instructive about many aspects of ancient battles). Julian's cataphracts retreat in panic after their commander is wounded, and another horse collapses and throws its rider:-
"...scattered in whatever direction they could; the cavalry would have caused complete confusion by trampling the infantry underfoot, had not the latter, who were packed in close order and intertwined with one another, held their ground...."
Note that the horses will not, even in panic, run into the close-order infantry who stand their ground


That's not an example of horses refusing to charge, that's an example of men panicking and being unable to do their job because they lost their disipline. And as I recall the Cataphracts had already charged into the enemy. And Ammianius says they would have destroyed the enemy if the enemy hadn't held their ground. Which would indicate that horses had charged head on into the enemy infantry (And the enemy cavalry as well) but the enemy formation was tight and disiplined enough that they weathered the impact of the charge.
Ammianus says no such thing! he doesn't mention them charging, or making contact with the enemy at all.It is friendly troops who avaid trampling because they stand their ground...

Quote: Whilst we do not have much of this sort of 'nitty-gritty' detail from our ancient sources, there are plenty of personal accounts from the Napoleonic wars onward, and the psychology of horses has not changed in the last 2,000 years or so.....

Here is but one comment from an English officer ( Lt Col William Tomkinson) with plenty of experience in a real war - the Peninsular war of Napoleonic times.

"He waited so long and the enemy came up so close, that he ordered a squadron of the 16th to charge. The enemy's squadron was about twice their strength, and waited their charge. Our men rode up, and began sabring...... [ note: the French were stationary, and the English 'charged' but in actuality there were no collisions, no smashing of horses together, so as to fall over etc. Clearly the English reined in ("rode up to them") and began sword fighting. Tomkinson goes on....
"This is the only instance I ever met with of two bodies of cavalry coming into opposition, and both standing, as invariably, as I have observed it, one or the other runs away."

"One or the other runs away"? That's a truth for any troop-type and any battle. In fact that account would indicate to me that the french cavalry held their ground against a charge. A similiar instance occured in 15th century Italy.
He means runs away before any 'contact' between the opposing foes, and clearly in this incident there was no 'collision' between opposing lines of horses, but fencing/sabring across the heads of the horses, who must have been stationary for fencing to take place.



Quote: Much the same occurred in the Crimean war when the British Heavy Brigade "charged" the Russian cavalry. The Russians came on at the trot, then halted, the British charged up to them, and a sabring contest began, with the British urging and spurring their horses on into the press ( so obviously they halted before contact - again we don't hear from observers of any 'collisions', or horses bowling other horses over etc.)

There are countless similar detailed descriptions from many wars, and I haven't yet come across one which described bodies of horsemen smashing into one another and horses going down......

It seems to me that the russians came at a trot and stopped. The british charged on and hit them a gallop. It looks like that the russians plan was to hold their ground and weather the shock of the charge like infantry. Also there were several instances were cavalry during the american civil clashed head on into each other. And a clash like that may press man and horse so tightly together that won't be any bowling each other over.
If they don't 'bowl one another over' then obviously no collision at speed has taken place, certainly not a collision at a gallop by the British into stationary Russians.



Quote: I don't know anyone with a sound knowledge of horses who would claim such a thing ( I have done a fair bit of riding myself, including being part of a "tent pegging" display team when I was young, so I know first-hand something about 'charging'.)

I do have plenty of firsthand knowledge about horses and I've researched this for years.
Well, your experiences must be very different to mine. Have you managed to ride a horse into a solid object, even without pointy things?My experience is that will always 'baulk' at any solid obstacle






Quote: A couple of more minor points.....I did not say that cavalry did not 'charge' at the gallop ( or perhaps slow canter in the case of cataphracts! ), simply that if they met a solid formation of either cavalry or foot, they would and did spontaneously pull up before a collision took place.


You said that they would walked up to the enemy line. Why would Cataphracts canter? Their horses weren't weak and their armour wasn't super-heavy. I know you said that horses can't charge home against solid infantry and I agree that there were plenty of times where it didn't happen.
I most certainly did not....I agree they charged ( bur ideally together - not at a pell-mell gallop, as every cavalry manual I've seen says they must not gallop fast), and that they spontaneously halted, if presented with a solid obstacle in front of them, and that to make contact the horse must be spurred on over the last few metres from the halt - so to that extent they would be walking, yes.
Specifically at Argentoratum, Ammianus says one of the reasons for the morale collapse was a horse collapsing under the weight of rider and armour whilst stationary !




A lot of times if a horse is injured by something (Say a polearm during a reenactment, or angry heifer) they will actually become very aggressive and willing to attack the heifer or rip the polearm out of it's wielders hands.
A horse lashing out in self-defence against something injuring it is very different from a 'horse trained to attack'.

Barding for a horse protects it from things like impacts weapons, blades, spears and missile weapons. The horse will remember that he's protected by the armour and will become bolder (Something noted by La Noue if IIRC. H noted that the Men-at-arms wouldn't have done what they did at Ravenna, Marignano, Ceresole and Dreux if they and their horses hadn't been so heavily armed and armoured)
...Which assumes these accounts are true at all..... and if barding/protection must be assumed, doesn't that prove the point that La Noue believed horses wouldn't ordinarily do such things?

Quote:For Vindex: Mostly the accounts of cavalrymen and memoirs such as those referred to above, both ancient and modern,including detailed eye-witness accounts e.g. of Omdurman, or the Australian Light Horse in WW1, plus personal experience. An interesting illustration of what happens when furious riders on horses try to attack men armed with sharp things is what happened, not just in the Napoleonic wars generally, but specifically the numerous eye-witness accounts of French cavalry at Waterlo and Quatre Bras "...swirling uselessly around the British squares, unable to do them harm..", as one account put it.

But Paul! I seem to remember you deriding Churchill's eyewitness of Omdurman as propaganda. Confusedhock: :lol:
See above and previous threads....it proves that even someone present may write a 'legendary/mythical' account of what happened.....but in many other such descriptions we don't have the 'nitty-gritty' first-hand accounts to disprove the 'Legend' !:lol: :lol:
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#27
Kai wrote:
Quote:That cavalry cannot break steady formations of infantry if these hold their ground is old news, really old news. Be it Aristotle (Politics 4,13), Frederick the Great (Réflexions sur la Tactique), or more recently Hans Delbrück discussing that at length with Eduard Meyer, who even said ancient cavalry had no chance whatsoever to harm infantry in any way when they are well trained (a good start on this is Delbrück’s paper in Klio 10, pp.335-340), they all knew that.

I most assuredly agree with this, and most of the rest of your post.

A couple of points.....
Quote:The choc (sic:= shock) attack is psychological more than physical, no doubt about that. However this does not automatically mean cavalry will then stop in front of the opposing formation and fight stationary. (…which is your opinion, Paul, if I understood you correctly).......
............. Whenever we find cavalry stopped by and engaged by infantry, they are dead meat.

Genrally, probably - except that if the Infantry threaten the cavalry simply turn and ride off. to find easier prey, or if they are really well disciplined, to reform and try again ( a fairly rare occurrence)

Quote:The long lances do not help here. What exactly would hinder the infantry to charge now at the horsemen? The heavy, hard to balance lances wielded by men on instable ground (i.e. no ground at all) certainly do not. At any rate, the firm ground of the infantry will inevitably ensure the infantry could be equipped with weapons outreaching the kontos, would it have been used by immobile horse against footmen.

I think you underestimate the skills of the cataphract here. As the skills of the bull-fighting 'picador' show, a lance can be used to inflict multiple wounds and in addition, the horsemen will act in concert to try and 'jostle' a breach - though evidently not with much chance of success, as Kai has pointed out. Remember we are not talking individuals here, but one 'wall' against another, which will heave and buckle as combat takes place for a few minutes before one side or the other, or both, break off, perhaps resume for further bouts ( infantry v infantry, probably not cavalry, for the reasons Kai and I have set out) until one side has had enough. Few infantry would have has a spear to 'outreach' the 'konyos' since up to 9 ft/3M or so is the limit for a single handed spear ( 12 ft/4 M may have existed, and the Byzantines seem to have revived the use of two-handed pikes. But it would be a poor Cataphract commander who committed his troops to a head-on clash with a resolute infantry line armed with long spears.......

Quote:Alexander’s horse on the mosaic is barely visible; to me it looks like being stopped by the impact of the lance rather violently, but then again, one cannot really see it. There is a lot of “if” and “buts” involved anyway. Is it really Oxathres, has he evaded grapping the lance or has he been impaled grapping the lance, is the mosaic depicting a certain battle for that matter? I stood hours in front of it in Naples discussing with archaeologists. You know very well nothing should be presented as fact in this regard.

I can tell you are not a student of physics, mechanics, or engineering, Kai so I won't bore you with formulae and numbers, but look at Aleaxander's single-handed grip, and tell me if he could hold it strongly enough to stop it coming out of his hand, on impact at a gallop/speed ? Assuming he could , which is impossible, how could he stop himself being catapulted off the back of his horse? And if he could do all that how could his legs be strong enough to grip and drag hundreds of kilos of horse-flesh to a shuddering halt? While a knightly high backed saddle and a 'couched' position might help, even a knight could not gallop into a formation, yielding though it might be, without coming off. See the recent AW article on suicidal charges for some of the mechanics, which incidently is most unlikely, for even if the man were bent on suicidal 'deditio,' once again, the horse would not be - almost certainly baulking, rearing and halting at the 'obstacle'.
No, the Mosaic shows Alexander's horse halted, not galloping, and Alexander lunges underhand with his 'xyston'.

As to the identity of the incident, there are only two occasions when there was a confrontation between Alexander and Darius, Issus and Gaugemala. Since the incident depicted is described by Diodorus as taking place at Issus, with Oxathres as the protagonist, it must of necessity be the 'Oxathres incident', especially as no anecdote that would fit the scene apparently ocurred at Gaugemala.....

Quote:The impact power of the lance is reported by Plutarch e.g., albeit exaggerated in that case, or by the rock reliefs. The trusts of stationary men without firm ground cannot possibly have such effects.

In my opinion, when confronted with steady infantry, cavalry will just turn away, retreat, regroup, and charge again – which is precisely what happened at Waterloo btw. Speed is life. Delbrück names and discusses several ancient instances, when cavalry was effective against infantry, even without breaking, but nonetheless effective due to other factors, all of which require mobility.

Once again, I entirely agree with you !Smile The impact of a lance from a charging horseman is formidable - except that one must take into account the limitations of the wielder holding on at impact, ( see clips of 'tent-pegging,' which I have done, for how that problem is dealt with :wink: ). But that 'speed impact' did not take place in a scenario where there was a rapid closing speed followed by a suicidal smash-up as hundreds of kilos of horseflesh impact something, all on a mass scale. And even if the front rank did carry out such a 'kamikaze' charge, what would happen to subsequent ranks, galloping pell-mell into the carnage and wreckage of the first, like some ancient autobahn pile-up?

Galloping at speed into an enemy formation en masse simply never happened in all history. It could not, for all sorts of reasons. ( as a general rule)
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)

"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Reply
#28
Thank you gentlemen for this very nice and informative debate so far. Continue!

A question regarding horses charging at objects: of course a horse in its right mind would not do so, but I've heard time and again that horses can be trained to charge at formations. I believe Junkelmann trained his horses to do so, or else it's hearsay, can't remember. But if a horse is trained to charge at a formation which constantly opens to let it through, why would a horse not come to believe that this will happen every time?

We had three horses present at LRE III, each in various stages of training (below). One would pass through our ranks without difficulty, the second did this best when following the first, but the third would almost all the time shy away, even when being lead on foot.
I could easily accapt that after a lot of training, each horse would happily charge a formation that would only open at the last minute. Then, in batle, it would charge an enemy formation, not realising that this would stab and fail to open.

Ideas?

[attachment=61]2.JPG[/attachment]

[attachment=60]3.jpg[/attachment]

[attachment=62]1.JPG[/attachment]


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
           
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#29
Quote:Well it certainly didn't happen at Omdurman! Churchill might have given a legendary/mythological account ( see my post ante in a previous thread) as so often happens, but other eye-witness acoounts reveal the reality, as I have posted in previous threads....."stories" from mediaeval 'chronicles' are just that.....'stories' and not to be trusted at all

Okay, I stand corrected Smile I don't suppose you have any links? And those are hardly stories and why are they not to be trusted?

I agree that are plenty of untrue things written about the wars of that era (just like any other). Besides you're fine with trusting ancient writers Wink:lol:

Quote: I'm sorry, but I can't accept that - certainly not without proper evidence. Horse are not Stags- and even they don't rush at each other from any distance or at speed !! Even in the wild, stallions will stop rear up, rather than collide head-on.

Agreed. I'll see if I can dig something up. Smile

Quote: You misunderstand....I'm saying the evidence suggests that one party or the other would run, only rarely would both stand and confront one another, and even in the latter case, there were no head-on collisions at speed - we simply never hear of such a thing in reality. This is a digression from the topic, so I won't bother asking for evidence to support such an assertion....that belongs on a different thread

Paul, I think that in a lot of ways we agree on the same issue. I do think however that a head on clash did occur sometimes. Yes, sometimes it wasn't a normal occurence and I'm not advocating a head on clash!

Quote:I find it hard to accept that assertion. I don't know of any instances of 'jousting' occurring in battle between masses of cavalry/knights. Nor do I accept that 'jousting' - which might have occurred as a 'training exercise' with some value in war ( but like training drills at football never occur on the field) occurred for 'centuries' without barriers. Supporting evidence for this please?

Sure thing. I'll do some digging.

Quote:Mounted riot police most certainly DO NOT train their horses to rear and lash out with their hoves. Indeed they specifically train to avoid such incidents!!Confusedhock:

Ah, okay. I stand corrected. I don't suppose you have a link two? I love looking at cavalry training stuff. Big Grin

Quote: Ammianus says no such thing! he doesn't mention them charging, or making contact with the enemy at all.It is friendly troops who avaid trampling because they stand their ground...

Sorry! I thought you were talking about Strasbourg. Oops :oops:

Quote:If they don't 'bowl one another over' then obviously no collision at speed has taken place, certainly not a collision at a gallop by the British into stationary Russians.


Is it not possible that the russian horses were pressed so tightly together from the impact that there wasn't any bowling over?

Quote:Well, your experiences must be very different to mine. Have you managed to ride a horse into a solid object, even without pointy things? My experience is that will always 'baulk' at any solid obstacle

Well for one thing that depends on the horse, some horses have no problem with running into fences and running through thickects of briars. Some won't come near a fence that's only three high.

Were you training your horse with a medieval or renniasance battle in mind?

Quote: I most certainly did not....I agree they charged ( bur ideally together - not at a pell-mell gallop, as every cavalry manual I've seen says they must not gallop fast), and that they spontaneously halted, if presented with a solid obstacle in front of them, and that to make contact the horse must be spurred on over the last few metres from the halt - so to that extent they would be walking, yes.
Specifically at Argentoratum, Ammianus says one of the reasons for the morale collapse was a horse collapsing under the weight of rider and armour whilst stationary !

From what I've read most cavalry trainers reccomend a gradual build-up of speed so the riders didn't end with blown horses. It was only within the final fifty yards that they would go to a gallop. So I think we agree on that one.

As for Ammianius I've always wondered if that was a poor translation or misinterptation. Cataphract armour wasn't that heavy and a Cataphracts mount certainly wouldn't be a weak horse.

Quote:A horse lashing out in self-defence against something injuring it is very different from a 'horse trained to attack'.

It's not just in self-defense, I mean't the horses in question were actually actively going after the source of a previous injury.

Quote: Which assumes these accounts are true at all..... and if barding/protection must be assumed, doesn't that prove the point that La Noue believed horses wouldn't ordinarily do such things?

Why would La Noue not be trustworthy, he was a contemporary author and a man-at-arms. He just says they wouldn't have nearly as willing to do what they did.

I do agree that it was a pretty rare occurence and I certainly don't think it was a very good idea. I would much rather take the enemy in the flanks or even better the rear.

Quote: See above and previous threads....it proves that even someone present may write a 'legendary/mythical' account of what happened.....but in many other such descriptions we don't have the 'nitty-gritty' first-hand accounts to disprove the 'Legend' !:lol: :lol:

You wouldn't happen to have a link to those accounts would you? Eyewittness descriptions of Omdurman? Yes please. Big Grin

One more thing. If the enemy infantry's front is tightly packed (thus presenting a solid object to a horse) wouldn't the same be true for the flanks and rear of a tightly packed infantry formation?

So why then are there so many instances of horses charging head-on into the flanks and rear?
Ben.
Reply
#30
Quote:Thank you gentlemen for this very nice and informative debate so far. Continue!

Thank you Sir, we do what we can. *Bows* :lol:

Quote: A question regarding horses charging at objects: of course a horse in its right mind would not do so, but I've heard time and again that horses can be trained to charge at formations. I believe Junkelmann trained his horses to do so, or else it's hearsay, can't remember. But if a horse is trained to charge at a formation which constantly opens to let it through, why would a horse not come to believe that this will happen every time?

That's a good point. Hmmm, I don't know about training but there were a few battles where that happened.

Quote: We had three horses present at LRE III, each in various stages of training (below). One would pass through our ranks without difficulty, the second did this best when following the first, but the third would almost all the time shy away, even when being lead on foot.
I could easily accapt that after a lot of training, each horse would happily charge a formation that would only open at the last minute. Then, in batle, it would charge an enemy formation, not realising that this would stab and fail to open.

Ideas?

Well that indicate to me that:

A. Horses are different and are herd animals.

B. Some won't have a problem with that, some will.

I could see horses charging home thinking the enemy line was going to open.
I think they'd be very surprised that the line didn't open when they ran into, but if they were armoured they would remember they didn't hurt.

And there's always the factor that only the horses in the front rank can see the enemy (even then they won't see much if their heads are armoured) the horses in the rear ranks won't see what's going on and thus won't be bothered as much.

And the horses in the rear rank will keep the charge4, you have several hundred 1,500 pound animals running at anywhere from 25-30 miles an hour. That charge isn't just gonna stop especially when they're at a gallop and the enemy's within fifty yards.
Ben.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Gallienus mobile heavy cavalry - Mid 3rd century Garys152 3 2,617 11-02-2016, 11:19 PM
Last Post: Renatus
  Update on the Spatha and Gladius fighting techniques! Martin Wallgren 96 29,401 08-14-2014, 10:02 PM
Last Post: john m roberts
  heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry Calvo 220 35,598 05-11-2014, 10:11 PM
Last Post: Alanus

Forum Jump: