07-14-2012, 04:16 AM
Too many points by two members. Some answers deserve their own threads.
No. You make the usual mistake of thinking that "non-shock" cavalry is light and "shock" cavalry is heavy. The actual difference between what the ancients see between "light" and non-light cavalry is not shock capability but their mode of fighting. This is a usual by-product of strategy games who relish in making such categorizations that the ancients themselves seldom made. Light cavalry was cavalry that fought in a formation that facilitated easy flight instead of in dense squadrons. The Greek and Persian cavalry of the time was fighting in perispasmoi, that means they charged, hurled their missiles and then retreated to reform. This was also the Roman mode of cavalry fight, the Carthaginian mode of cavalry fight etc. For horsemen to come in actual hand to hand combat, it was so rare and unexpected that all authors clearly wrote about it. The Macedonian companions are the first cavalry to have acted as what is called "shock cavalry" and that ONLY against enemy cavalry. There are no cataphractoi in the traditional sense of the word in the Achaemenid army, that is full armored doratophoroi on full armored horses. This is a later invention. The Thessalians also used javelins as did all others expect the Prodromoi who are never attested to have fought in battle. The word only means "scouts" in Greek and nothing more. Armor had nothing to do with melee. On the contrary, it, as well as the shield, were mainly arms to defend against missiles and not against melee weapons. This is why the Companions had no shields, this is why the later cataphractoi doratophoroi had no shields.
Nope. They had none. There is no cavalry melee initiated by Persian cavalry unless in defense of their king or in unusual circumstances clearly commented on. The fact that it was the Companions of Alexander that did so is often commented on by Arrian. Again, heavily armored cavalry does not mean "shock cavalry". Do you know that in the whole of the Anabasis the word "cataphract" is not mentioned even once, not even as a descriptive adjective? And Arrian did know exactly what a cataphract was.
And of course, all soldiers had melee weapons. Even the psiloi carried daggers, aces or swords. This is nothing that says anything about cavalry normally and according to tradition fighting in melee.
Anyways, I will later give many examples out of Arrian (and others if you like) as to how cavalry regularly fought and whether engaging in hand to hand combat was usual, normal, expected or not. This has also been discussed in length in this forum. You might want to look it up.
Quote:No, no, no.
The Persian time at that time was different than 100 years earlier. You are talking about earlier times (more or less times of the battle of Marathon) when even the heaviest Persian cavalry looked like this:
But by the time of Gaugamela the Persians already had units of heavy cavalry designed to carry out shock charges - very similar tactics to that of Companions. For example, they had cataphracts in their army. But also other types of heavy cavalry.
And regarding the "spear-bearing" cavalry on the Macedonian side - apart from Companions, also Thessalian cavalry was a "spear-bearing" heavy cavalry unit. Then we had Thracian, Odrysian and Paeonian cavalry - they can be classified as "medium cavalry" - they had both javelins and weapons intended for meelee combat, so they were dual purpose cavalry, but of course they wore less armour than Companion and Thessalian cavalry. And there were also already mentioned sarissophoroi (also called prodromoi) - lightly armoured, but also "spear-bearing" and capable of shock charges.
Only mercenary and allied Greek cavalry of Alexander were typical light skirmish cavalry armed with javelins. And maybe some Syrian horse archers, if he had them at Gaugamela.
![[Image: achaemenid_cavalry.jpg]](http://www.iranchamber.com/history/achaemenids/images/achaemenid_cavalry.jpg)
No. You make the usual mistake of thinking that "non-shock" cavalry is light and "shock" cavalry is heavy. The actual difference between what the ancients see between "light" and non-light cavalry is not shock capability but their mode of fighting. This is a usual by-product of strategy games who relish in making such categorizations that the ancients themselves seldom made. Light cavalry was cavalry that fought in a formation that facilitated easy flight instead of in dense squadrons. The Greek and Persian cavalry of the time was fighting in perispasmoi, that means they charged, hurled their missiles and then retreated to reform. This was also the Roman mode of cavalry fight, the Carthaginian mode of cavalry fight etc. For horsemen to come in actual hand to hand combat, it was so rare and unexpected that all authors clearly wrote about it. The Macedonian companions are the first cavalry to have acted as what is called "shock cavalry" and that ONLY against enemy cavalry. There are no cataphractoi in the traditional sense of the word in the Achaemenid army, that is full armored doratophoroi on full armored horses. This is a later invention. The Thessalians also used javelins as did all others expect the Prodromoi who are never attested to have fought in battle. The word only means "scouts" in Greek and nothing more. Armor had nothing to do with melee. On the contrary, it, as well as the shield, were mainly arms to defend against missiles and not against melee weapons. This is why the Companions had no shields, this is why the later cataphractoi doratophoroi had no shields.
Quote:Regarding Persian cavalry:
But by the time of Gaugamela the Persians already had units of heavy cavalry designed to carry out shock charges - very similar tactics to that of Companions. For example, they had cataphracts in their army. But also other types of heavy cavalry.
For example Sakae / Saca cavalry and Barkan (not sure if I translate this to English correctly) cavalry was armed in double-edged war axes called bipennis - clearly a weapon intended for use in close-combat. They were also armed in swords called akinakes and single-edged, smaller than bipennis, axes called sagaris.
Then they had very well armoured Persian, Bactrian and Indian cavalry.
As well as Scythian (Saca) cataphracts. Also Bactrians, Armenians and Cappadocians fielded some very well armoured, cataphract and other heavy cavalry.
Persian and Indian heavy cavalry units were armed with long spears.
Nope. They had none. There is no cavalry melee initiated by Persian cavalry unless in defense of their king or in unusual circumstances clearly commented on. The fact that it was the Companions of Alexander that did so is often commented on by Arrian. Again, heavily armored cavalry does not mean "shock cavalry". Do you know that in the whole of the Anabasis the word "cataphract" is not mentioned even once, not even as a descriptive adjective? And Arrian did know exactly what a cataphract was.
And of course, all soldiers had melee weapons. Even the psiloi carried daggers, aces or swords. This is nothing that says anything about cavalry normally and according to tradition fighting in melee.
Anyways, I will later give many examples out of Arrian (and others if you like) as to how cavalry regularly fought and whether engaging in hand to hand combat was usual, normal, expected or not. This has also been discussed in length in this forum. You might want to look it up.
