02-02-2011, 01:56 AM
I for one am still not convinced that cavalry would stop and fight stationary against infantry, since I still not see why anyone would willingly give up all his advantages and fight on the enemy’s terms.
As advised by Howard I looked into tactical manuals of the late Romans (early Byzantines if you wish). One section I found most telling:
![[Image: cavalryn.jpg]](http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4982/cavalryn.jpg)
It is from the Anonymous On Strategy, ch. 17 in G. Dennis’ edition , which G. Dennis dated into the 6th century (1985), while Ph. Rance convincingly put it into a much later context (B yzantinische Zeitschrift 100, pp.701-737). This is quite important as it would include stirrups if Rance is correct. The stirrups are vital for melee. As my words may be not precise enough, for English is my third language, I will let Guy Halsall talk: “By concentrating on the frontal charge […] the debate has possibly missed the point of the stirrup’s advantages. The stirrup does help to keep a rider in the saddle and permits a warrior to strike with much more force to his sides or to the rear during a mêlée. It also makes downward strokes more powerful, enabling the mounted warrior to stand in his stirrups.” (Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, p.174). I do see how the lack of stirrups would also affect the endeavor of balancing a 4,5m lance and striking with it. The horse is a platform, I agree, but it is an unstable platform. Xenophon of course exaggerated that when exhorting his men, but is point is perfectly valid nonetheless:
οὐκοῦν τῶν ἱππέων πολὺ ἡμεῖς ἐπ᾽ ἀσφαλεστέρου ὀχήματός ἐσμεν: οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐφ᾽ ἵππων κρέμανται φοβούμενοι οὐχ ἡμᾶς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ καταπεσεῖν: ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ἐπὶ γῆς βεβηκότες πολὺ μὲν ἰσχυρότερον παίσομεν, ἤν τις προσίῃ, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον ὅτου ἂν βουλώμεθα τευξόμεθα.
“Moreover, we are on a far surer foundation than your horsemen: they are hanging on their horses' backs, afraid not only of us, but also of falling off; while we, standing upon the ground, shall strike with far greater force if anyone comes upon us and shall be far more likely to hit whomsoever we aim at.” (Anabasis 3,2,19)
One might say that there was no saddle here, but that would be true for Alexander the Great as well. The instability of the horse as a platform in stationary combat is something that can be remedied to a certain extend with stirrups but not eliminated. I can neither possibly imagine how it is supposed to work “fixing” the rider to the saddle, nor how that would be as efficient as stirrups, nor what sources are supposed to support this idea.
Anyway it is clear that horsemen precisely are not to slow down. Indeed it is infantry tactics to slow down cavalry so it can be easily defeated with a counter charge (On Strategy, ch. 36). As far as I know, there are no reports of heavy cavalry intentionally stopping in front of an enemy infantry formation and fight stationary. Of course there are reports of cataphracts stopped violently and slaughtered, as it happened at Zeugma or Taurus.
Also there are no depictions of heavy cavalry in stationary combat, unless you count the Alexander-Mosaic.
In this regard, Paul, I think you are coming to conclusions way to fast. You have already concluded it must be certain battle depicted, you have already concluded it must be Issus or Gaugamela (what about Ecbatana?
), and you have already concluded it must be Issus then for you have concluded the Persian Prince… I could continue the list. But I merely advise being open for more than a single opinion in the Alexander-Mosaic. There are e.g. a lot archaological monographies in German alone such as Winter 1909; Andreae 1959 and 1977; Pfrommer 1998, Stähler 1999, and more papers. I actually had to work with them for it was a (admittedly minor) topic of my oral exams. You can read a lot conflicting opinions concerning such historical questions. Probably historians should have a look at W. Eckhardt: Das Alexandermosaik oder: Wie authentisch muss eine historische Darstellung sein? (Römische Mitteilungen 114, pp. 215-269).
To be a bit more specific, you assume I think Alexander is charging with high speed. I do indeed. But I do not think his putting all his weight-and-force of his body (and that of his horse) and the speed of his charge into the lance. As one can clearly see Alexander does not hold the lance close to his body as medieval knights with couched lances or cataphracts with two-handed lances did. In my opinion, he is primarily relying on speed and weight of the lance alone, which is enough to kill actually (with 35 kph and 5kg – low numbers). His arm and his shoulder are turned back due to the impact. If he was in the process of lunging at the enemy, both would be turned forward unless he is preparing to lunge out. However this is opinion only, and you will certainly disagree. The point still is, you cannot just come along and say: that is it, no other options possible. You can almost never do this in archaeology and certainly not an object like this mosaic. After all, all this opinions require the artist and/or his employer having detailed knowledge about military history and physics, which we cannot be sure of.
From the artsy point of view, and that is a very important part of archaeological analysis, Alexander must be riding fast. It is one of the few agreements that the mosaic brilliantly depicts the change of power with a dynamic Alexander charging speedily, a terrified Darius turning away, desperately reaching out, and the whole landscape foreshadowing it (note the VERY important tree signifying the change) and so on. Even the composition of the background agrees. This is the message of the picture, not the way Alexander fought ‘in real life’.
I am not sure if it really makes sense discussing the mosaic in such detail. I would be more convinced if you actually presented an unambiguous ancient depiction of stationary combat conducted by heavy horse or an unambiguous ancient report. We can both discuss for a long time about common sense, but ancient evidence is more convincing.
As we are on the ancient evidence, I would remind not to overestimate the protection offered by armour. I know it is a long bloody discussion how effective armour was and again no consensus is in sight. But: Pacorus and his men, Parthian high nobles thus fighting as cataphracts, were severely decimated by slingers, since slingers do not need to penetrate the armour (cf. Cassius Dio 49,19). In general it again seems to me like a unsound idea just sitting on an instable platform while being bombarded - and counter charged, if the enemy commander has a brain. Venditius had a brain and Pacorus died. However he never stopped (at least not willingly).
By the way, Paul, are you at the RAT conference? Maybe we can share a beer while discussing it further?
PS: the technically correct term chóc is French, although English literature tends to Anglicize it. I thought in a thread with Napoleonic comparisons running wild it would not be inappropriate.
Re: Ammianus and the battle of Strasbourg, it seems it was the horse that collapsed under the weight of the armour, thus the rider fell over the neck, implying the horse front legs collapsed first.
cataphracti equites viso rectore suo leviter vulnerato et consorte quodam per cervicem equi labentis pondere armorum oppresso dilapsi qua quisque poterat peditesque calcando cuncta turbassent (16,12,38)
As Junkelmann pointed out, the weight cannot have been much of a problem, since horses can carry a lot more. It was the dehydration suffered by the sweating and heat-up under the heavy armour which covered the whole body.
As advised by Howard I looked into tactical manuals of the late Romans (early Byzantines if you wish). One section I found most telling:
It is from the Anonymous On Strategy, ch. 17 in G. Dennis’ edition , which G. Dennis dated into the 6th century (1985), while Ph. Rance convincingly put it into a much later context (B yzantinische Zeitschrift 100, pp.701-737). This is quite important as it would include stirrups if Rance is correct. The stirrups are vital for melee. As my words may be not precise enough, for English is my third language, I will let Guy Halsall talk: “By concentrating on the frontal charge […] the debate has possibly missed the point of the stirrup’s advantages. The stirrup does help to keep a rider in the saddle and permits a warrior to strike with much more force to his sides or to the rear during a mêlée. It also makes downward strokes more powerful, enabling the mounted warrior to stand in his stirrups.” (Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West, p.174). I do see how the lack of stirrups would also affect the endeavor of balancing a 4,5m lance and striking with it. The horse is a platform, I agree, but it is an unstable platform. Xenophon of course exaggerated that when exhorting his men, but is point is perfectly valid nonetheless:
οὐκοῦν τῶν ἱππέων πολὺ ἡμεῖς ἐπ᾽ ἀσφαλεστέρου ὀχήματός ἐσμεν: οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐφ᾽ ἵππων κρέμανται φοβούμενοι οὐχ ἡμᾶς μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ καταπεσεῖν: ἡμεῖς δ᾽ ἐπὶ γῆς βεβηκότες πολὺ μὲν ἰσχυρότερον παίσομεν, ἤν τις προσίῃ, πολὺ δὲ μᾶλλον ὅτου ἂν βουλώμεθα τευξόμεθα.
“Moreover, we are on a far surer foundation than your horsemen: they are hanging on their horses' backs, afraid not only of us, but also of falling off; while we, standing upon the ground, shall strike with far greater force if anyone comes upon us and shall be far more likely to hit whomsoever we aim at.” (Anabasis 3,2,19)
One might say that there was no saddle here, but that would be true for Alexander the Great as well. The instability of the horse as a platform in stationary combat is something that can be remedied to a certain extend with stirrups but not eliminated. I can neither possibly imagine how it is supposed to work “fixing” the rider to the saddle, nor how that would be as efficient as stirrups, nor what sources are supposed to support this idea.
Anyway it is clear that horsemen precisely are not to slow down. Indeed it is infantry tactics to slow down cavalry so it can be easily defeated with a counter charge (On Strategy, ch. 36). As far as I know, there are no reports of heavy cavalry intentionally stopping in front of an enemy infantry formation and fight stationary. Of course there are reports of cataphracts stopped violently and slaughtered, as it happened at Zeugma or Taurus.
Also there are no depictions of heavy cavalry in stationary combat, unless you count the Alexander-Mosaic.
In this regard, Paul, I think you are coming to conclusions way to fast. You have already concluded it must be certain battle depicted, you have already concluded it must be Issus or Gaugamela (what about Ecbatana?
), and you have already concluded it must be Issus then for you have concluded the Persian Prince… I could continue the list. But I merely advise being open for more than a single opinion in the Alexander-Mosaic. There are e.g. a lot archaological monographies in German alone such as Winter 1909; Andreae 1959 and 1977; Pfrommer 1998, Stähler 1999, and more papers. I actually had to work with them for it was a (admittedly minor) topic of my oral exams. You can read a lot conflicting opinions concerning such historical questions. Probably historians should have a look at W. Eckhardt: Das Alexandermosaik oder: Wie authentisch muss eine historische Darstellung sein? (Römische Mitteilungen 114, pp. 215-269).To be a bit more specific, you assume I think Alexander is charging with high speed. I do indeed. But I do not think his putting all his weight-and-force of his body (and that of his horse) and the speed of his charge into the lance. As one can clearly see Alexander does not hold the lance close to his body as medieval knights with couched lances or cataphracts with two-handed lances did. In my opinion, he is primarily relying on speed and weight of the lance alone, which is enough to kill actually (with 35 kph and 5kg – low numbers). His arm and his shoulder are turned back due to the impact. If he was in the process of lunging at the enemy, both would be turned forward unless he is preparing to lunge out. However this is opinion only, and you will certainly disagree. The point still is, you cannot just come along and say: that is it, no other options possible. You can almost never do this in archaeology and certainly not an object like this mosaic. After all, all this opinions require the artist and/or his employer having detailed knowledge about military history and physics, which we cannot be sure of.
From the artsy point of view, and that is a very important part of archaeological analysis, Alexander must be riding fast. It is one of the few agreements that the mosaic brilliantly depicts the change of power with a dynamic Alexander charging speedily, a terrified Darius turning away, desperately reaching out, and the whole landscape foreshadowing it (note the VERY important tree signifying the change) and so on. Even the composition of the background agrees. This is the message of the picture, not the way Alexander fought ‘in real life’.
I am not sure if it really makes sense discussing the mosaic in such detail. I would be more convinced if you actually presented an unambiguous ancient depiction of stationary combat conducted by heavy horse or an unambiguous ancient report. We can both discuss for a long time about common sense, but ancient evidence is more convincing.
As we are on the ancient evidence, I would remind not to overestimate the protection offered by armour. I know it is a long bloody discussion how effective armour was and again no consensus is in sight. But: Pacorus and his men, Parthian high nobles thus fighting as cataphracts, were severely decimated by slingers, since slingers do not need to penetrate the armour (cf. Cassius Dio 49,19). In general it again seems to me like a unsound idea just sitting on an instable platform while being bombarded - and counter charged, if the enemy commander has a brain. Venditius had a brain and Pacorus died. However he never stopped (at least not willingly).
By the way, Paul, are you at the RAT conference? Maybe we can share a beer while discussing it further?
PS: the technically correct term chóc is French, although English literature tends to Anglicize it. I thought in a thread with Napoleonic comparisons running wild it would not be inappropriate.
Re: Ammianus and the battle of Strasbourg, it seems it was the horse that collapsed under the weight of the armour, thus the rider fell over the neck, implying the horse front legs collapsed first.
cataphracti equites viso rectore suo leviter vulnerato et consorte quodam per cervicem equi labentis pondere armorum oppresso dilapsi qua quisque poterat peditesque calcando cuncta turbassent (16,12,38)
As Junkelmann pointed out, the weight cannot have been much of a problem, since horses can carry a lot more. It was the dehydration suffered by the sweating and heat-up under the heavy armour which covered the whole body.
------------
![[Image: regnumhesperium.png]](http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3673/regnumhesperium.png)
