Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Roman Heavy Cavalry Fighting Techniques
#31
How trained would you like a cavalry horse to be?Big Grin :wink:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rJstz5E8...re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z85K9brQ...re=related

The second clip is not particularly relevant as it is artillery, but go forward to 2.57 for some idea of speed and horses charging at 'objects' (and 3.40). The half battery charge may not look much, but that amount of horse tonnage passing that close is impressive in the flesh!
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
#32
I think the point about a horse becoming used to a wall of shields opening for it
is right on the button. But even when used to it, they sometimes require extra urging. I doubt they would be so willing if the had observed their fellow herd members being impaled and screaming in agony! Mind you, there are always the exception to the rule.

A very interesting debate by the way, many thanks for your knowledge!
Visne partem mei capere? Comminus agamus! * Me semper rogo, Quid faceret Iulius Caesar? * Confidence is a good thing! Overconfidence is too much of a good thing.
[b]Legio XIIII GMV. (Q. Magivs)RMRS Remember Atuatuca! Vengence will be ours!
Titus Flavius Germanus
Batavian Coh I
Byron Angel
Reply
#33
Nice posts Moi !
They brought back many memories!( I was at that 1994 Royal Tournament, the last I attended. What the clip doesn't convey is the juggernaut rumble and jingle of the massive vehicle, or the smell of horse sweat in close proximity!:wink: ). Being an "old soldier", I confess to being something of a military junkie, and 'back in the day' attended all the large shows - especially the Royal Military Tournament Earl's Court, which I went to mainly for the Royal Naval Gun Race - which probably represents one of the apogees of Victorian military skills, alas no longer carried out. My father crewed in the Fleet Air Arm team, hence the interest. To anyone who has never seen this event I urge you to look up clips. You will be amazed at guns similar but smaller to the Royal Horse Artillery's being raced across a 'chasm' - but as part of the race, the crew must bridge the chasm, and they do so in the twinkling of an eye! I also regularly went to the Edinburgh tattoo ( not a patch now on what it was), Air Displays, Navy Open days, etc since I was a child.
I also went to the rarer Royal Artillery displays on Salisbury Plain ( some of the best Military displays ever seen - massive live firing !) and the huge outdoor Aldershot displays.

It was at Aldershot in 1978 that I experienced as close as anyone gets nowadays to a Cavalry charge, that I briefly referred to earlier.

Just in case anyone thinks that because I espouse a particular line of argument here, I am 'anti-cavalry', let me share the other side of the coin. At Aldershot that year, The Royal Military Academy (Britain's West Point) borrowed the 18 C uniforms from the film "Barry Lyndon" - and a regiment from the Seven Years war took the field, in a display devised by David Chandler, the famous Military Historian!! (another particular interest of mine). As part of the display, they formed square and 'repelled' a 'charge' by the famous Household cavalry you see in the clip, with well disciplined 'musketry'. They also did something particularly ambitious and which, AFIK, has not been done since . They carried out something which would never be allowed now, I suspect, a charge from about 300-400 metres away toward the crowd.. Perhaps a full squadron ( only one !) lined up, commenced 'walk' for 100 metres or so (to the edge of musketry range) then 'trot', and finally 'gallop' before reaching a boundary rope some 50 metres or so away, where they neatly peeled away to each side.

To one with sufficient imagination, even the sight of 100 or so troopers 'boot-to-boot' hundreds of metres away was menacing, and when they commenced a walk, the hairs on the back of my neck began to stand up.

Once they began to trot, the ground began to shake, literally.

Add to that the thunderous rumble of hundreds of hooves, and you start to feel you want to be anywhere but in front of them!

By now the crowd had fallen silent, in awe of this spectacle of 100 or so horses rushing, seemingly unstoppable, onward. As they broke into a fast canter/gallop, and "the Charge" rang out on bugle, a nervous murmur broke out in the crowd.

Nerves turned to relief as they smartly split and wheeled away, but still, the effect was unforgettable, and the urge to run out of the way present, even when you knew it was all perfectly safe !!

Even though I maintain a horse in face of a spear with its butt jammed in the gound,and more spears projecting from behind; or rushing head-on, unable to swerve, at another line of horses would in almost every case baulk; a panic stricken horse, perhaps rearing and lashing out with its hooves is still a fearsome and dangerous beast - not to mention a seemingly invulnerable armoured rider screaming obscenities,with a long nasty 'kontos' repeatedly jabbing at you, and thudding into your shield as your only protection!

Not an experience to be faced by the faint hearted, that's for sure!Confusedhock:

I'm afraid the "Musical Ride" - a dozen or so riders trotting tamely in Indian file in circles just does not have the same effect!! :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
#34
Quote: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?

Nice photos, Robert! Very atmospheric.
Your comments highlight, I think, the major difficulties involved. First, the training itself, I presume, occurred over time - your post implies that training takes a while. Now assuming that you have the facilities, multiply that by hundreds, even thousands in time of war? How long would it take to train thousands of horses? ( and no, most ancient armies didn't have vast peacetime training facilities).

Next, I touched earlier in the prodiguous waste of horseflesh in wartime - any war - because campaign conditions don't lend themselves to looking after horses. Even if your regiment did have 1,000 trained horses at the start of a campaign, very few of them would make it to the decisive battlefield at the end. Here's one example from modern times, when full veterinary facilities were available. The famous Household Cavalry, stars of Moi's clip, embarked 550 horses for the Boer War, in a modern steam ship. Many died en route. Many more died from a variety of causes in the first weeks of the campaign - heatstroke, thirst, starvation, disease, and this was followed by a huge turnover in local horseflesh - who also died in droves. Just one year later, only one original horse -"Freddy" - returned, to a Hero's welcome and a medal ( unusual in the British Army). At the other end of the scale, Napoleon took several hundred thousand horses into Russia, but in six months, in the Russian campaign, they were annihilated, and not in battle. Most regiments lost ALL their horses, the elite 9th Cuirassiers managed to preserve 39 horses out of the 970 they began the short, six month, campaign with, and the many more they sequestered on the campaign. In 1813, after years of War, the French Empire found it hard to find enough horses in all its European territory to mount its cavalry.
As a consequence of this, armies seldom indulged in the sort of training you describe, Robert, for it was largely a pointless waste of time, and could not be done on a mass scale anyway.

Now let us turn to the effectiveness of the training itself. While it is possible to "trick" a horse into thinking a wall of men will always open up ( and even then, it is difficult, as Robert has described), what does the horse do when the time for real action occurs? It is galloping toward the 'wall', either of foot or horse, and ten or so metres away, it realises that lots of nasty pointy things are being brandished at it, and the 'wall' hasn't opened up. It knows something is different and involuntarily, by instinct pulls up ! If it hears a fellow horse scream in pain from being hit by a missile, it knows things are not the same! I said horses were stupid, but not THAT stupid - they will tell the difference, and not commit suicide. Some may go right up to the wall, before stopping and maybe rearing up, others will try and swerve away sooner, banging into their companions either side, causing more panic ( and all this pre-supposes they aren't driven off by a hail of missiles - arrows, stones and those nasty 'martiobarbuli').

Furthermore, the line of horses behaves like a herd - if one or two pull up, they all pull up - bar the odd one dead on its feet, as occurred so remarkably at Garcia Hernandez, the day after Salamanca in the Peninsular war

Then there's the riders.How many of them are bent on suicide? Even if they should happen to be atop a blind, deaf, mad horse, when the 'wall' doesn't open ( and of course it might, in battle) he's going to instinctively rein in and not suicidally smash into a 'solid' object, just as a car driver won't drive into a wall - airbags and seatbelts notwithstanding!!

What kind of General would be pleased to have his 'strike force' of Heavy cavalry "tumble into ruin", even if victorious, the first time they are in action?

I could cite many more examples and factors, but the difficult training of a few horses to even harmlessly re-enact such things proves, I think, how impossible the real thing would be on a mass basis, especially as so few of those hypothetically 'trained' horses would ever make it to a battlefield........

P.S. Another problem of 'scaled up' training. How does an infantry line a couple of hundred yards "open up" in the face of a similar length line of cavalry riding 'boot-to-boot'? Impossible! Such a training program would break down at that point, being only really possible for individual horses or just a few, as you describe. I doubt it could be done, even for as few as ten horses riding side by side.....
"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
#35
Aulus Perinnius wrote:-
Quote:Okay, I stand corrected I don't suppose you have any links?

A good start is this thread, just six months ago, which covered much the same subject.... where much valuable information was given by many participants, a lot of which I suspect is being repeated here!
RAT thread "Degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic times"

http://www.ancient-warfare.org/index.php...&Itemid=40

You will find some of the physics behind collisions there, in posts by Paul Bardunias and others too numerous to mention, including you, Aulus !!Smile :grin:

There is an account of what really happened at Omdurman - but you will have to "google" fairly intensively for the 'eye-witness' accounts, often referred to in newspapers of the time......
"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
#36
Well, I meant that I stood corrected about Omdurman. Big Grin

I still think that it did happen sometimes. I'm not saying it was a good idea or a common occurence. I just disagree that it NEVER happend, and I agree that's generally not a good idea (Attacking the enemy where he's strongest head-on is pretty much never a good idea)

And I definitely would prefer to charge into the enemy's flanks and/or rear. Even if I knew my armour and my horse's armour was good enough.

That's what cavalry's for after, they've got better maneuverability, let the infantry take the enemy infantry in the front and pin them while me and my fellow cataphracts ride around the back of the enemy infantry, kill their cavalry and then ride them down from behind at our leisure.
Ben.
Reply
#37
Hi Paul,

Thank for the reply. First of all, I must say that I'm with Ben of the opinion that this would NOT be a regular occurrance, but only used very occasionally, if at all. the cost would, as you rightly say, be horrendous, not something any commander would want. These forces were extremely costly and not to be wasted.
But, we are talking if it were possible, and the reply below is in that context alone.

Quote:How long would it take to train thousands of horses? (and no, most ancient armies didn't have vast peacetime training facilities).
You’re right, but I was thinking of the Roman army, which I assume would have been training horses all year round to supply the troops with spares. And yes, even then a shortage could occur that would make commanders hesitate how to use their steeds.
But in the case of ample supply, I think that well-trained horses could in theory be used in a charge (more below).

Quote: Napoleon took several hundred thousand horses into Russia, but in six months, in the Russian campaign, they were annihilated, and not in battle.
Indeed, very true. But Hannibal only had just a few elephants left after he entered Italy, but he still used what he had in battle. I think that no matter the cost, a commander will always risk what he has to gain victory. That is IF the consequences are a disaster. If not using the last man is unnecessary, of course a commander might disengage and fight again. But often enough, men and animals are sacrificed to (attempt to) gain the upper hand.

Quote: As a consequence of this, armies seldom indulged in the sort of training you describe, Robert, for it was largely a pointless waste of time, and could not be done on a mass scale anyway.
If we concentrate on the Roman army, do we have any information about this? I mean, we are talking what ifs etc., but in theory, I think this is not far-fetched.

Quote: Now let us turn to the effectiveness of the training itself. While it is possible to "trick" a horse into thinking a wall of men will always open up ( and even then, it is difficult, as Robert has described), what does the horse do when the time for real action occurs? It is galloping toward the 'wall', either of foot or horse, and ten or so metres away, it realises that lots of nasty pointy things are being brandished at it, and the 'wall' hasn't opened up. It knows something is different and involuntarily, by instinct pulls up !
True, but in training, the formation opens up when the horse is just a second away from the line, and if it does not open (with the horse at full gallop), it would not have the chance to pull up in time anyway – the shock of the collision (which was intended) still occurs.

Quote: If it hears a fellow horse scream in pain from being hit by a missile, it knows things are not the same! I said horses were stupid, but not THAT stupid - they will tell the difference, and not commit suicide.
..
Quote: Furthermore, the line of horses behaves like a herd - if one or two pull up, they all pull up - bar the odd one dead on its feet, as occurred so remarkably at Garcia Hernandez, the day after Salamanca in the Peninsular war
Good point.
You are right there, and I would be very interested to know what makes the difference between the instincts of the animal as an individual or as a herd animal. The first ones will (in my opinion) be fooled (which was the idea behind the training), but how will the others behind it react?

Quote:( and all this pre-supposes they aren't driven off by a hail of missiles - arrows, stones and those nasty 'martiobarbuli').
Absolutely right. I think that a barrage of plumbatae would be devastating for a cavalry attack.

Quote: Then there's the riders. How many of them are bent on suicide?
Well, now we’re talking humans, and as you know, humans can fully well impale themselves on spears or run into murderous machine-gun fire. Humans will do that. Plenty of evidence for it.

Quote: What kind of General would be pleased to have his 'strike force' of Heavy cavalry "tumble into ruin", even if victorious, the first time they are in action?
I agree, not the first time, but I’m not talking about using any cavalry that way as a rule. This is but one option of course, and an option that will be extremely costly, but which just might clinch victory.

Quote: P.S. Another problem of 'scaled up' training. How does an infantry line a couple of hundred yards "open up" in the face of a similar length line of cavalry riding 'boot-to-boot'? Impossible!

Why would you want to train the horses against a line of a hundred yards? You can train horses on an individual basis, against perhaps 10-20 men, or maybe with a few more. No need for such large numbers.

But even so, it could be trained, as the Roman infantry did when being attacked by elephants. Those troops would have had to be trained to open up ranks to allow the elephants through in case of such an attack, or they would have made a jumble of it. Therefore I think that this could, in theory at least, also have been used in the training of cavalry. Come to think of it, armies in those days weren’t even standing professional armies either. Therefore I think that training would be more feasible than you imagine.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#38
Quote:I'm afraid the "Musical Ride" - a dozen or so riders trotting tamely in Indian file in circles just does not have the same effect!! :lol:

I know:wink: ...it was more to show the extremes of the music, lights, flapping flags, flash photography, cheering crowd etc etc etc...and the fact that the Adjutant's, drummer and trumpeter's horses are just standing still. Probably bored to death of another display Big Grin

Excellent debate though. I don't wish to go off topic TOO much but has anyone considered the logistics required to keep a large number of horses in the field or in barracks? It is something I am researching at the moment. I think that, if nothing else, would limit the number of horses at a cavalry commander's disposal.
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
#39
I wonder how difficult it is for a fully trained heavy cavalryman using the Contos to withstand the impact of his weapon against an enemy e.g. an infantryman covering himself with his shield. The saddles I see depicted for such cavalry are not the four pommeled type of the early empire but do have high curved front and rear saddle parts that appear to give a fairly secure seat. Using the Contos in its two handed manner, would the cavalryman ride hard against his target imparting the momentum and power of his horse's charge to give his weapon greater impact or did he slow his horse down prior to impact and stab at the enemy using only the power of his arms to thrust at the enemy? The rider, if using the Contos with both hands on one side of his horse, appears to be in a slightly uncomfortable twisted position. Wouldn't this position be prone to losing balance if the weapon was to suddenly impact?

From the previous discussions and my own readings of cavalry warfare it would appear that the main impact of such a cavalry charge would be on the enemy morale, the imposing sight and sound of a massed cavalry charge of heavy horsemen would likely make many or all enemy break ranks prior to impact giving the horsemen the ideal targets of the fleeing enemy backs.

Interesting discussion.
Reply
#40
If I may?

The Contos may have been designed like the medieval lance.

That is it was designed to snap on impact so that it didn't unseat the rider.

Even if it wasn't I would think that impact from a charging horse into a man's shield would break the Contos before the rider had to worry about being unseated.
Ben.
Reply
#41
I daresay that you both see the contus used from horseback at full speed. I have a different picture in mind. The contus was a long weapon, presumably to outreach an opponent. Using such a long weapon head-on or at high speed would indeed mean it would be used very shortly, because it would either snap or (stuck in anything) be lost from the rider's graps. However, I doubt that it would be used with that in mind. An armoured cavalryman would be armoured to withstand stuff thrown at him, and would therefore be designed to spend some time in such a hostile environment.
Therefore, I think that a contus was used to stab an opponent, either at low speed, or perhaps even stationary.

If you find that a strange concept, think of the armoured cavalryman as a weapons platform. they also carried maces for very close quarters, and a bow for a larger distance. Now I can see light horse-archers galloping furiously to and fro enemy lines, peppering them with arrows at high speed 9to protect them). But I can't see heavy cavalry doing that.

And another picture, from Medieval Romano-Byzantine warfare. Can't remember which emperor it was, but he was surrounded by Norman cavalry, but escaped unscathed due to his heavy armour. I think of the Late Roman heavy cavalry in the same way, and I think they could use the contus with care, as a precision weapon, at low speed.
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#42
I don't suppose too many people remember the thread I put up, the one entitled 'The Arms and equipment of Late Roman Clibanarii'?

That contains a number of descriptions of clibanarii in combat, and also the fact that it appears even Roman clibanarii were dual armed with both contus and bow.

I suspect that clibanarii combat was something along these lines-

The clibanarii would slowly ride up to the enemy until at bow range. They would then loose off a couple of volleys of arrows, which would hopefully cause the enemy to waver, before switching to the contus and then moving in at a speed no higher than an easy canter. They could not charge at the rate seen in movies as the armour was so heavy that the horses would have become 'blown' on contact and if they did not punch through the enemy they would not have had the stamina to get away.

Descriptions from both Roman and non-Roman sources would appear to indicate that the riders were fixed onto the saddles and therefore stirrups were totally irrelevant. Its also been argued that the spearhead of the contus was almost a foot long and fairly wide, which enabled it to be both thrust and also swung in a chopping motion (before you doubt this Far Eastern cavalry armed with polearms could do this with ease!).

Its almost certain that clibanarii were an anti-infantry weapon as its impossible to see how they could engage normal heavy cavalry or light cavalry who could easily ride away from their much heavier opponents. Having said that, we have this curious statement in Vegetius Book 3, 23 'Armoured cavalry ('cataphracti equites') are safe from being wounded on account of the armour they wear, but because they are hampered by the weight of their arms are easily taken prisoner and often vulnerable to lassos. They are better in battle againt loose-order infantry than against cavalry, but posted in front of legionaries or mixed with legionaries they often break the enemy line when it comes to comminus, that is, hand-to-hand, fighting.' (Milner 2001).

For an examination on how difficult even heavily armoured cavalry such as clibanarii would have found taking on infantry who remains steady I would heartily recommend this to you- http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grbs/FT...Rance2.pdf
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#43
Quote:The clibanarii would slowly ride up to the enemy until at bow range. They would then loose off a couple of volleys of arrows, which would hopefully cause the enemy to waver, before switching to the contus and then moving in at a speed no higher than an easy canter. They could not charge at the rate seen in movies as the armour was so heavy that the horses would have become 'blown' on contact and if they did not punch through the enemy they would not have had the stamina to get away.

Its almost certain that clibanarii were an anti-infantry weapon as its impossible to see how they could engage normal heavy cavalry or light cavalry who could easily ride away from their much heavier opponents. Having said that, we have this curious statement in Vegetius Book 3, 23 'Armoured cavalry ('cataphracti equites') are safefrom being wounded on account of the armour they wear, but because they are hampered by the weight of their arms are easily taken prisoner and often velnerable to lassos. They are better in battle againt loos-order infanry than against cavalry, but posted in front of legionaries or mixed with legionaries they often break the enemy line when it comes to comminus, that is, hand-to-hand, fighting.' (Milner 2001).

Do we have any evidence for the weight of their armour and the armour of their mounts?

I read that thread you put up, very nice! Some of the accounts that you mentioned say the clibanarii charged and spurred their horses on which would indicate to me that they were very capable of engaging at a gallop I do agree that most cavalry (especially heavil armoured ones) prefer to start slow (that would fit with shooting the enemy as they advanced) and then go into a full gallop within the last fifty yards from the enemy, that way you avoid blowing the horses, intimidate the enemy, build-up speed and then nail at a gallop and your horses still have energy to do it again.

@ Vortigern. Well heavily armoured cavalry throughout history have been armed with maces, after all cavarly's primary purpose on the field is to sweep the enemy cavalry off the field and then flank the infantry which are now helpless. For that kind of job you need something to get through a heavily armoured enemy horseman's gear. I agree that heavy cavalry's job is not to run around and shoot the enemy, in the case of clibanarii they carried bows to soften up the enemy as they advanced to charge and drive off enemy horse archers. I agree that they were intended to be in the thick of things as evidenced by their gear. That doesn't mean they were intended to go at from a canter that robs charging cavalry of it's biggest advantage, the shock from the weight and speed of a charging horse if you need someone to engage the enemy at a slow pace for a long time you've got late roman heavy infantry for that.

Pliny (It was Pliny who chronicled Carrhae, right?) writes of the Parthian Cataphracts impaling up to two men at the same time in places and hitting the roman legionaries so hard that the legionaries were pressed together so tightly they couldn't raise their arms something that could only have been done at a gallop. It also shows that horses can be trained to charge head on into solid infantry.

I think that right before the impact the clibanarius would rise in the saddle and lean forward just a little and then come down and slam his forward into the target thus combining his weight and strength with the speed and weight of his horse (The horse after all is the one that does most of the work) this would agree with the depictions of the two-handed lance technique we see depicted in contemporary art.

It would also serve to disrupt the enemy formation, even a frontal charge against solid infantry can be successful if the infantry line has been disrupted sufficienctly for the horse to crash through.

Note that I'm not saying it was a very common occurence or that it was a good idea, the purpose of cavalry has always been to sweep the other guys cavalry from the field and then engage his infantry preferably from the flanks or the rear.
Ben.
Reply
#44
At the Battle of Strasburg we have the account from Ammianus where one of the clibanarii riders was crushed by the weight of either his armour, or that of his horse, or perhaps both.

Clibanarii would have found it difficult to engage normal cavalry and light horse as they would have been unable to out-run them, the normal cavalry and light horse then waiting for the clibanarii to become tired out and then surround and cut them to pieces.

The description by Vegetius implies that its the weight of the armour that makes them vulnerable to capture. There are other references to the weight of the rider and horses armour in the thread about Late Roman clibanarii I put up.
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
Reply
#45
Quote:At the Battle of Strasburg we have the account from Ammianus where one of the clibanarii riders was crushed by the weight of either his armour, or that of his horse, or perhaps both.


IIRC Ammianius says that the guy fell on his horse's neck. Which would indicate to me that the rider got knocked pretty far forward (which would imply that the rider took a powerful wallop and it would have to have been to get through that kind of armour and wound him, and that his horse was going pretty fast) and so the horse went down because he had a grown man on his neck something that any horse would do (The weight pushed his head down and the rest of the horse's body followed). Besides if his armour was really that heavy why didn't the horse collapse the moment he got into the saddle?

Quote: Clibanarii would have found it difficult to engage normal cavalry and light horse as they would have been unable to out-run them, the normal cavalry and light horse then waiting for the clibanarii to become tired out and then surround and cut them to pieces.

What do you define as normal cavalry? Heavy cavalry job is not to pursue light horse (Unless you're Alexander and you're using the tactics he used) The late romans had light horse of their own and the clibanarii had bows and they had foot archers.

Quote: The description by Vegetius implies that its the weight of the armour that makes them vulnerable to capture. There are other references to the weight of the rider and horses armour in the thread about Late Roman clibanarii I put up.

Wasn't Vegetius talking about lassoes?
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 29,397 08-14-2014, 10:02 PM
Last Post: john m roberts
  heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry Calvo 220 35,587 05-11-2014, 10:11 PM
Last Post: Alanus

Forum Jump: