Anti-Cavalry Barrier....

[FAVENTIANVS]

Not the best but... I was there!!! :!: :!:

[Rufus]

Horses as a rule do not like to plunge into pointy things. It will by instinct try to go around such things, as well as try to avoid stepping on stuff on the ground. A normal close order line is enough to deter alot of horses. Also I though cavalry of this period played more of an infantry support role than a shock one.

The overlapping shield formations tend to be more of an anti-missle than anti-cavalry formation from what I have read. Not to say it couldn't of been used as such, I just tend to think you play into the cavalry's hands by tortoising up.

Just chuck a bunch of caltrops out and laugh at the cavalry

[Robert Vermaat]

http://personales.ya.com/ad932102038/ger...103811.jpg&
Eeeerh, not our best foulkon, anyway... :oops:
I prefer this one

I think that the second row should not be crouching but standing more upright. Line three (if present) stands up straight.

[FAVENTIANVS]

What about this one? (Scroll down)
http://www.comitatus.net/roman.htm

[Robert Vermaat]

What about this one? (Scroll down)
http://www.comitatus.net/roman.htm

I'm not sure if this is their end shape or if they are just forming up.
If they are moving forward, this looks fine.
If this is meant to be the defnsive one, the first row should crouch or kneel, the second row bend, with the scuta sloping.

[Alexius]

Its very interesting the theory and the “photos-showâ€Â

[Salvianus]

What about this one?
If they are moving forward, this looks fine.

Yep, we use two diferent formations. For a static wall to take missile fire the front rank kneels and puts head & body behind their shield and puts their spear down while the second rank leans in, minding the gaps and covering their head & body. For clarity we are calling that a testudo.

We take arrow, plumatae, javelin fire and lances from cavalry like this. As Tarbicus quotes, in the real deal for cavalry defence Maurice describes bracing the front ranks spears on the ground, according to Rance' translation. Our downed spears avoid hand & arm injuries. I've had a cavalry lance through my shield, so I don't brace the shield too much with my body or head either :wink:

That pic illustrates our offensive formation for when we ad fulcon, "march in a foulkon" moving forward at a steady pace, although it's not a particularly neat example - perhaps, as you say, they are moving into or out of formation. What I thought for a minute was an exposed helmet is actually the campidoctor standing in front of the formation.

"The men in the front ranks close in until their shields are touching, completely covering their midsections almost to their ankles. The men standing behind them hold their shields above their heads, interlocking them with those of the men in front of them, covering their breasts and faces, and in this way move to attack."

In the full formation, I believe spears should be levelled, second shields all sloped & front shields might need to be a bit lower - even a blunt plumbata in the shins was enough to convince me to experiment with felt greaves :!:

[Robert Vermaat]

Alexius\\n[quote]Its very interesting the theory and the “photos-showâ€Â

[Alexius]

Dear Valerius,

Thanks for your questions; I will try answer the better way (sorry for my poor English):

"Can you tell us more about your 'humble but real' experiences with a cavalry charge?"

- I practise horse riding at medieval period since 1991 (and I’m training for the roman period to) and we have made a few battlefield training and I was feeling what is a horse impact in a human body at foot (in my self…);

"Was it real enough?"

I give you a simple example: do you know the bull fighting (corridas or touradas) in Iberian Peninsula, ok.

In Portugal we have a unique world modality about this (maybe the craziest…) – are the “forcadosâ€Â

[Robert Vermaat]

Alexius\\n[quote]In Portugal we have a unique world modality about this (maybe the craziest…) – are the “forcadosâ€Â

[Tarbicus]

However, in a hunger riot in Vienna in 1919 the rioters resisted the police horses and killed many of them, and afterwards butchered them on the spot for their flesh.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riot_control

I believe it is quite accepted that horses will not impale themselves on spears, and I think the above shows horses to be quite vulnerable to even untrained foot, supporting the opinion that if foot soldiers hold their resolve and nerve they can beat mounted opponents hands down.

[Caius Fabius]

Horses may not choose to impale themselves on spears, but they can be trained to charge a line of spears or people. In the Napoleonic training manuals, the horses were ridden into formations of infantry armed with bayonets and firing blanks. There are diaries of a French horse master which explain that at first the horse was trained to the rider's commands. Then the horse was trained to advance against formed infantrymen. Next against formed infantrymen making noise. Next against men firing blanks, and so on. The horses were first trained that the infantry would move and make lanes for the horse to go down, then the lanes gradually were made smaller. The men started off carrying sticks, and then had muskets with bayonets. Finally the horses were trained to ignore the battle sounds, and do whatever their riders told them, it is total trust of the poor dumb beast for his or her rider. It takes days of training and is intensive for the horse and rider. It worked. In the Napoleonic era, rained horses would even charge an infantry square if asked to, but of course by 1814-1815, the horses and riders were not as well trained as earlier Napoleonic cavalry, and less squares were "broken" at (for example) "Waterloo" than at "Borodino" or "Austerlitz".

I have trained horses for riding in mock charges against ACW re-enactors, certainly more noisy than against infantry armed with pila.

Horses don't want to get hurt. They don't know it's going to hurt, until it happens, and then they trust their rider to take care of them, and make it stop hurting! Of course, modern re-enactors can't devote 8 hours a day, 7 days a week to training their horses, and they don't practice together, teaching the herd maneuvers, but a horse will do as it is trained, and people who don't believe that, have never worked training horses to jump through fire, haze cattle or jump blind obstacles. An untrained horse won't do stuff a trained animal will do, just like the difference between a civilian, a recruit and a seasoned, trained soldier.

Charles Foxtrot
(who actually lives on a cattle ranch)

[Tarbicus]

Crikey! I stand thoroughly corrected, thanks.

Caius, in that case, how do you think a cavalry charge would fare against the formations being talked about, assuming ancient cavalry horses were trained to do the same?

Does anyone have Arrian's Tactica, or Hyland's book on the subject? Roman Auxiliary Cavalryman, AD 14 - 193, by Nic Fields, says that Roman cavalry would not be expected to charge a formation of foot, but to skirmish around them and soften them up by throwing missiles. Tacitus also describes how loyal Roman cavalry refused to charge a solid line of Batavian cohorts (Histories 4.33).

However, that doesn't take into account other nations and how they operated, although Roman cavalry practice seems to be based on Gallic practices and training.

[Comerus Gallus]

Thanks guys for those tip's I know I will need them! :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

a horse will do as it is trained, and people who don't believe that, have never worked training horses to jump through fire, haze cattle or jump blind obstacles. An untrained horse won't do stuff a trained animal will do, just like the difference between a civilian, a recruit and a seasoned, trained soldier.

Great point.
Which is what I wanted to say - you can train a horse to do the 'unnatural thing' (whereas a bull will attack head-on), but it's by no means easy (as Alex implied). And you certainly don't sqander such a valuable horse by driving it unto it's death for the off-chance that a line might break.
Which, I add again, I've not read was done in battle.