Cavalry and chariots against infantry

[Domen]

Hmmm, perhaps you are right.

After all, the Swedish cavalry under KKG had at least one victorious charge against Polish infantry, supported by cavalry (but cavalry was seriously outnumbered by attacking Swedish cavalry). It was in the battle of Koknese on 23 June 1601 - which, as a whole, was victorious for Poland-Lithuania.

Swedish cavalry of the right wing charged and managed to defeat the Polish-Lithuanian left wing, which consisted of 200 infantry with 5 artillery guns supported by 200 - 300 cavalry.

But later counterattack of 3 squadrons (banners) of hussars saved the day on the left wing. And in the meantime 1600 horsemen of the Polish right wing charged and defeated the entire Swedish left wing and center - as the result the battle as a whole ended in a Swedish defeat.

===================================

The Parthians did more harm against the Romans and they did not charge INTO their infantry...

So for what purpose did they had all those cataphracts, Savaran shock cavalry, etc.?

The Parthian (and later Sassanid) cavalry definitely DID charge into Roman infantry!

But the Parthians also had missile cavalry - while Polish-Lithuanian army at Kircholm didn't have any missile cavalry like horse archers. The main role was played by heavy, shock cavalry - Hussars.

Many casualties does not mean that there were cavalry charges as you think they were. Maybe they broke and fled and were slaughtered in the process... maybe a herd of wild mammoths trampled them to the ground... how can I (you) say anything unless we have an account of this battle? Don't you understand how critical it is for you to be able to make any point?

We do have accounts of this battle! Most of the bloody business was done by shock charges of cavalry. The Swedish infantry did not "broke and fled" just like that, without any resistance.

A herd of wild mammoths... - well, maybe of horses, but certainly not of mammoths.

Should I describe this battle? But then i will have to take my time.

As for casualties at Kircholm - casualties among horses on the Polish-Lithuanian side were heavier than casualties in men. Mainly because many horses were injured or died from enemy pikes...

[Macedon]

I hope you do understand that without an account of the battle, what you write, all of it, means nothing. "Someone said in a forum that..." is not evidence for anything. Nor would be an article from a magazine or an article compiled by anyone which will not contain references to sources that we can check. In other forums, posters are usually content to say that they read something in an Osprey or in a certain book of a certain historian but this is not how most Ratters work. Here, when one says that Some Guy wrote something, all are interested in Some Guy's sources to check them themselves, especially when discussing details such as this.

No, do not describe it yourself, find the sources. Only if you cannot find them in English you could make a translation and we will then ask you for clarifications wherever anyone might have questions, like the exact words that the author uses to describe the impact, what it means, what it might mean etc. This is standard procedure, you should not think that it is some kind of prank we play on you. If you look up other threads you will find long discussions about specific words and how many times they crop up in the specific work and what they would exactly mean and which noun is the subject of a specific verb etc etc etc... Again, if you only have a Polish translation of a text originally compiled in another language, then we would not be happy but we at least would have something to read and get an idea even if no certain conclusion would easily be reached.

[Domen]

So show me your evidence (primary sources - and they must explicitly say this) that Parthian cavalry never charged into Roman infantry.

Show we Ancient accounts / primary sources that explicitly say the following:

"Cataphracts did never charge into Roman infantry".

Because - apparently - you demand from me to find sources, which in a similar way explicitly say that hussars were charging into pikemen.

When I quoted a source which says this (in fact the same, but not using the "proper" words that you would be willing to accept):

"(...) our horsemen, after ramming fences, with which the enemies treacherously strengthened their defences, plunging into pikes with chests of horses, suffered a lot of damage."

Then it was still not enough of a proof for You... :woot:

And the excerpt quoted above - is an exact translation of a primary source.

It is NOT an excerpt from an article, a fictional novel, nor an "interpretation" of a historian.

If you don't agree with the fact that cavalry DID charge into infantry, then please explain what is the valid interpretation of this excerpt (other than that cavalry "smashed into" infantry).

Because I really don't have any idea, what can be unclear in interpretation of:

"our cavalry was plunging into pikes with chests of horses"

What exactly is unclear or "controversial" in this excerpt from a primary source?

=========================================

No, do not describe it yourself, find the sources. Only if you cannot find them in English you could make a translation

Ok, why not. BTW - the above excerpt is from a primary source, but on the battle of Klushino.

[Macedon]

So show me your evidence (primary sources - and they must explicitly say this) that Parthian cavalry never charged into Roman infantry.

Show we Ancient accounts / primary sources that explicitly say the following:

"Cataphracts did never charge into Roman infantry".

Because - apparently - you demand from me to find sources, which explicitly say this about hussars charging pikemen.

Now you are being unreasonable... First, I did never say that they NEVER charged into infantry. Secondly when one says that something NEVER happened then he is logically not required to provide proof. A single proof that what he says never happened did happen at least once, excludes the absolute NEVER. If you make a research in my history of posts you will find a great deal of very specific references, always followed by the original text. Do that to see how things are debated around here. If I wrote a theory about anything and provided no sources other than web pages and magazine articles, I would be pretty laughed at. Of course you are not required to do as i do, it can be taxing and requires a lot of experience in what one "specializes in". But still, you should appreciate the value of sources.

When I quoted a source which says this (in fact the same, but not using the "proper" words that you would be willing to accept):

"(...) our horsemen, after ramming fences, with which the enemies treacherously strengthened their defences, plunging into pikes with chests of horses, suffered a lot of damage."

Then it was still not enough of a proof for You... :woot:

And the excerpt quoted above - is an exact translation of a primary source.

It is NOT an excerpt from an article, or an "interpretation" of a historian.

If you don't agree with the fact that cavalry DID charge into infantry, then please explain what is the valid interpretation of this excerpt (other than that cavalry "smashed into" infantry).

What primary source? Where is the rest of the text? You provided no reference! Never provide quotes with no references and expect anyone to take them seriously. They might be the words of a traditional song as far as anyone is concerned...

Peter, it is evident that you are accustomed to unscientific internet research (no offense meant here - as opposed to accessing tools and specific data bases of journals and universities). The fact that still you have not been able to give at least the names of some historians who wrote on that battle or references to manuscripts that dealt with it means that you simply do not know. Your knowledge seems to be mostly based on reading books (99% of history lovers do so) that present the opinions of certain historians and then adopt them, discuss them etc. No shame in that. But when discussing core matters in depth at least some comfort around sources is necessary. Otherwise you could always claim that Some Guy proposed this theory and then we can agree, disagree or debate about him not you. I hope you realize that I am only giving what I consider well-meant advice and you, of course, are welcome to disregard it, no problem with that. We cannot all see things from the same perspective. Choosing to trust someone's work is your right and privilege. There are those who think that it is better to trust "modern scholars" than reading the originals. After all, "modern scholars" can better evaluate sources and their work is surely based on what they consider good sources. This makes their life much easier, sometimes I hope I was one of them.

[Domen]

References below (as well as more excerpts from sources).

All sources below describe the battle of Klushino 1610, where chests of hussar horses were used to break oak fences and pikes:

Original Old-Polish text:

"[Husarze] Zniósłszy piersiami prawie wszystkie, których nieprzjaciel na starcie użył fortele, mężnie się o wojsko jego uderzył".

Translation:

"[Hussars] Ramming with chests of horses almost all fences, which were initially used by the enemy, bravely plowed into his [Jacob De la Gardie's] army".

Source: Anonymous account from the battle of Klushino ("Primary sources to history of the Polish art of war", volume 5, Ed. Zdzisław Spieralski, Jan Wimmer, Warsaw 1961, p. 189).

Original Old-Polish text:

"Sieła nasi w koniach przez mężne natarcie znosząc płoty, któremi zdradą nieprzyjaciel założył w obronie, a na spisy piersiami wpadając szkody odnieśli."

Translation:

"Our horsemen, in a brave charge ramming fences with which the enemy treacherously strengthened their defences, and plunging into pikes with chests of horses, suffered a lot of damage in horses."

Source: Anonymous account from the battle of Klushino ("Primary sources to history of the Polish art of war", volume 5, Ed. Zdzisław Spieralski, Jan Wimmer, Warsaw 1961, p. 190).

Original Old-Polish text:

"Naszym przez opłotki przyszło się potykać i płoty końmi łamać zarazem."

Translation:

"At the same time we had to charge across hurdles and break fences with use of horses."

Source:

"History of the False Dmitri" by Józef Budziłło, [in:] "Moscow in Polish hands. Memoirs of commanders and officers of the Polish garrison of Moscow in years 1610 - 1612. Ed: Marek Kubala, Tomasz Ściężor, Kryspinów 1995, p. 444.

Józef Budziłło was a Polish soldier and diarist who fought in Russia between 1607 and 1612 (then in 1612 he was captured by Russian forces and liberated from captivity in 1619).

Original Old-Polish text:

"Natarli naszy tak mężnie, że z sobą płoty znieść musieli."

Translation:

"Our horsemen attacked so bravely, that they rammed fences during their attack."

Source:

"Diary of the route of His Majesty the King Sigismund III since his fortunate departure from Vilna up to Smolensk in year 1609 on 18th of August and fortunate success for two years until capturing the Smolensk castle in year 1611", Ed. Janusz Byliński, Wrocław 1999, p. 158.

Original Old-Polish text:

"Naszy, przez kilkanaście płotów przebijając... "

Translation:

"Our horsemen, piercing through over a dozen fences... "

Source:

Account of Piotr Kulesza, written in Tsaryovo-Zaymishche on 5 VII 1610 (Library of the National Museum in Krakow)

Original Old-Polish text:

"Panu Podolskiemu koń szwankował na płocie i zginął ze wszystkim."

Translation:

"A horse of Sir Podolski got injured on a fence and was lost with all equipment."

Source: "Casualty Registery of the Companions in the battle of Klushino, 2 miles behind Tsaryovo-Zaymishche, on the day of 4 July 1610" (Library in Kórnik of the Polish Academy of Sciences)

Original Old-Polish text:

"[Husarze] na spisy końskimi piersiami wpadali."

Translation:

"[Hussars] were running into pikes with chests of horses."

Source: "Account about the defeat of Dmitri" (Library of the National Museum of Czartoryscy in Krakow, rps 105, No 41).

And such a Russian primary source / account (maybe some Russian-speaker will be willing to translate it more accurately than I am able to, my Russian is poor):

„Польские войска понемногу тают, но снова свежими силами пополняются и безбоязненно наступают, насмерть стоят и доблестно на полки нападают и пики железные ломают, а в них у немцев вся надежда на спасение”

Source: ЛЕТОПИСНАЯ КНИГА.

And a late 17th century account written by a French courtier of Polish king John III Sobieski:

"Hussars are the most beautiful cavalry in Europe thanks to selection of soldiers, beautiful horses, magnificent outfit and bravery of their horses. (...) Hussars never retreat, riding their horses at full speed, they pierce everything in front of them."

Source:

Francois Paul d'Alerac, "Les anecdotes de Pologne ou memoires secrets du regne de Jean Sobieski", published in Amsterdam in 1699, page 21.

[Domen]

Regarding casualty registery from Klushino:

It doesn't specifically mention weapons which caused casualties among horses (for example it doesn't say: "a horse of Sir / servant of Sir ... was killed by a sabre / sword / pike / etc.).

But it DOES distinguish between horses "shot" and "killed" (and "injured" are another category).

So I suppose, that "shot" were horses killed by firearms, while "killed" were horses killed by melee weapons - and the only melee weapon that is known for being efficient in killing horses and was used by enemies of Polish hussars at Klushino, is a pike...

What is interesting - number of "killed" horses is considerably higher than number of "shot" ones.

While in case of casualties in men - proportion of "killed" to "shot" people is different (it seems like slightly more soldiers are listed as "shot" than "killed" - although I did not count it precisely).

[Dan Howard]

I'm not sure how valid are theories from this article (maybe You guys can tell), but if the author is right - then Parthian bows and arrows at Carrhae were indeed "special", while in other battles they were much less efficient when it comes to penetrating Roman armors and shields.

Their arrows didn't have to be special. Roman armour only covered the torso and shins. If you shoot a dozen arrows at someone then one of them is likely to strike the foot or thigh or arm or neck or face, etc., etc. An arrow through the foot is just as likely to take someone out of the fight as an arrow in the chest.

For more on mail armour: http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

[Robert Vermaat]

Regarding the comment by Robert Vermaat that horses in videos which I provided were driven by panic - Robert, you certainly did not watch all of the videos. For example this one below:
How is this horse (trampling an oncoming car) "panicked"? I don't see any signs of panic. This horse is completely calm - it just decided to "take a trip" over an oncomig car:
This one - trying to ram a fence - is also by no means panicked:

Neither horse is panicked, indeed, but both are very clearly misjudging a jump. No idea why, but neither is deciding to tramle or ram anything. they just seem to think their jump is going to make it. It's different from our discussion, in which horses run into a mass of soldiers which they think is going to open up.

Remind my (other than your apparent fascination with Hussars), what are the images meant for?

[Robert Vermaat]

I never wrote that it was so easy to - quote - "bowl them all over" (only - that it was possible).

Nor did I say you did, but the article you posted seemed to suggest (I could not read all of it) to suggest that no massed infantry was able to withstand the charge of a horse, resulting in them being bowled over.
Yes, I agree that it’s possible, in some cases, but hence my question: IF it is possible, then why don’t we see cavalry armies that are – in every battle – running down infantry.

AND PLEASE, CAN WE KEEP THIS ROMAN (or at least Ancient)?
Circumstances during the Hundred Years’ War or during the 16th and 17 th c. are very different: longbows, firearms, different infantry tactics. We ARE discussing ancient warfare here, and most infantry is massed, and equipped with a shield and a spear or a lance. Discussing Hussars and / or French knights is only of limited use.

Regarding dismounted cavalry or infantry withstanding attacks of cavalry - very often they were helping themselves with various kinds of field fortifications and anti-cavalry obstacles (or at least by deploying in terrain difficult for cavalry charges), behind which they defended against cavalry.

Possible indeed, and on occasion that did happen, but there are many accounts of (for instance) 5th to 7th c. Roman infantry (not the best Rome had to offer) withstanding prolonged attack by Sassanid cavalry (both archers as well as armoured). Apparently, the enemy did either not attempt to charge directly into the Roman formation, or they tried and failed.

Yes, good cavalry can charge bad infantry and bring it down, we agree there.

Sure, it’s easier to attack disorganized infantry rather than fresh, high morale, standing firm infantry, but that article you posted suggested that this did not make a difference: the mass of the horse would ensure that the men fall down – simple mechanics. Or so it seems to be suggested.

And yes, I agree, less casualties are to be preferred, BUT! If a battle can be won, casualties do not matter. So if you can break the enemy, every offer is acceptable. This will cause panic in the enemy ranks, and the result is chaos, and hence less casualties than a prolonged battle.

Hence (once more) my question: IF the tactic of horses running down infantry CAN work, why don’t we see this happening in every battle? Sure, not every cavalry is good, not every infantry is bad, but SURELY, if this is feasible, every general will train at least one cavalry unit as ‘kamikaze’ cavalry? If he can open up the enemy infantry by sacrificing a unit of cavalry (allowing the rest to mop up the crumbling enemy), why don’t we see this more?

My suggestion is that it’s, after all, NOT quite so easy to drive horses into infantry and see them fall down, my guess is that infantry does not fall down when a horse drives into them. I think that maybe one horse can bring down some men, but that the formation itself can absorb such a shock. It think that is the reason why we don not see cavalry riding down infantry in any battle. Your opinion?

PLEASE, NO HUSSAR examples. Or Agincourt. This discussion is about ancient warfare.

[Mark Hygate]

The Greeks may have had theoretical names and formations to call them, but never fielded the numbers - and the Romans thought 600 cavalry per legion (~5000 infantry) was more than enough. If cavalry were ever that wonderful - then we wouldn't have seen so many infantry though-out history.

This may be true for the legions, but what about the auxiliary units which had a proportionately far higher number of cavalry?

Well, an answer to part of that will have to wait for hat little thesis I so wish to write and post here....

But, I am talking about total army ratio's here, not just individual units. Classic 2+2 Roman Consular army - 16-20,000 Infantry and 2,400 cavalry. Greek City state army - often about 10,000 infantry and 3-600 cavalry.

[Domen]

Neither horse is panicked, indeed, but both are very clearly misjudging a jump.

They are not misjudging a jump. The first horse is "misjudging" the resistance or the fence (or rather is trying to check how resistant / strong is this fence - and is it possible to be ram it). The other horse, simply decided to run over that car, as it seemed to be easier than to bypass it.

PLEASE, NO HUSSAR examples. Or Agincourt. This discussion is about ancient warfare.

Ok. I already provided some Ancient examples as well.

For example Sallust in his "Jugurthine War" mentions Numidian cavalry plunging into Roman infantry.

Here is this excerpt (about Numidian cavalry charging in close order - horse against horse):

"In reliance on these, instead of following the usual cavalry tactics of alternate pursuit and retreat, they charged horse against horse, and entangled and confused our ranks, and thus, by the help of their light infantry, almost defeated their enemy."

I used this translation (LIX.):

http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/a...iug1e.html

As well as one Polish translation (which is similar).

But we should also take a look at the original Latin text.

Another example is Adrianople - Gothic cavalry trampled Roman infantry there. Many Romans died because they suffocated after being trampled and squeezed by pressure of Gothic cavalry.

[Mark Hygate]

................
Long time ago my friend - when he was still young and stupid (or is it called "brave", maybe? - plus he was also a bit drunk) -, during a historical reenactment of an Early Medieval battle, charged (without any weapons or armor or his own shield) such a solid shield wall of reenactors with shields and in mail armors. And while he rammed it with his left shoulder - but also with entire body, as he literally jumped / smashed into those shields (at a really high speed) - one of reenactors who was part of the shield wall, pushed him with his shield (in the very same moment when he hit the shield running at high speed, he was also pushed / hit by that shield). He was not even knocked over on the ground, nor he lost consciousness - he managed to land on his feet (but I must admit that he is a rather hunky guy, so hard to knock over). The only injury he suffered, was a cut (and thus bleeding) eybrow ridge. But that injury was dressed in a matter of minutes, and apart from that he was all fine (maybe he had some negligible bruises)............

This example is broadly similar to the physics and momentum examples. The big thing that's missing in that example is that his fellow re-enactors weren't trying to kill him at the time!

I am fairly sure that, if I and my 5 chums are set in a 3-deep line against yon charging man on a horse - with the front two kneeling with our spears planted to spear the horses chest, while the next two place their spears in the horses eyes and the last 2 use their spears to knock the rider off his horse as well - then, no matter how drunk the horse and rider are - they're going to die. With plenty of time to recover before the next horseman arrives (gaps between charging ranks) and has the barricade of his predecessor to get over as well.

I haven't done this myself, but I have stood very much like a Roman legionary with riot shield and gladius-length riot batten against some very keen pseudo-rioters throwing genuine and quite real petrol-bombs. There is a reason army & police riot training works. Training and professionalism works wonders. There is also, btw, a reason that police horses do work - and it's down to the lack of training of the average mob and the lack of 'sharp pointy things'. :wink:

[Robert Vermaat]

Ok. I already provided some Ancient examples as well.
For example Sallust in his "Jugurthine War" mentioned Numidian cavalry plunging into Roman infantry.

Another example is Adrianople - Gothic cavalry trampled Roman infantry there. Many Romans died because they suffocated after being trampled and squeezed by pressure of Gothic cavalry.

Could run these by me again? I seem to have missed the Jugurthine quote in the 'mass' of discussion about lances, pikes and Swedish mercenaries.. :whistle:

That Adrianople reference is unfamiliar to me. I know about the Romans being pressed together unable to use their weapons, but I do not recall them being suffocated, trampled and squeezed by the cavalry.

Besides, that's no reference for cavalry plunging into cavalry.

Can you provide that reference please?

[Domen]

See my post above for the reference on Numidian charges in the battle of Zama in 108 BC.

I already quoted this excerpt before on page 3 (post #330946) - in another version of translation. We should also definitely check the original Latin text, because various translations can sometimes be biased by personal views and thoughts of their authors on how the events looked like.

I know about the Romans being pressed together unable to use their weapons, but I do not recall them being suffocated, trampled and squeezed by the cavalry.

"Squeezing" is the advanced form of "pressing together".

And typical condition in such situation, is suffocating (due to lack of oxygen).

If cavalry was pressing together, it was also trampling some of them (at least those in frontal ranks). Apart from being trampled by horses, they could also trample each other in that crowd.

Do you have any excerpts from primary sources about those charges at Adrianople?

==========================================================

There is also, btw, a reason that police horses do work

The big difference that is missing in this example, is that police horses are not trying to kill civilians - while horsemen of the past cavalry did try to kill their enemies!

I am fairly sure that, if I and my 5 chums are set in a 3-deep line against yon charging man on a horse - with the front two kneeling with our spears planted to spear the horses chest, while the next two place their spears in the horses eyes and the last 2 use their spears to knock the rider off his horse as well - then, no matter how drunk the horse and rider are - they're going to die.

I think that you are too confident about this. By the way - a similar confidence could be expressed regarding you and your 5 chums repulsing an infantry attack. What is the difference?

With plenty of time to recover before the next horseman arrives (gaps between charging ranks)

This "plenty of time" is in reality just a small fraction of a second considering the speed of horses... And gaps between ranks were not that big. While between individual riders in each rank, there were no or almost no gaps at all, considering that shock cavalry usually charged in a knee to knee formation.

BTW - term "knee to knee formation" is not a modern term. This term was already used in the past. Below I quote some excerpts from primary sources from various countries, which describe the density of a heavy cavalry formation shortly before collision with the enemy line:

French Late Medieval instructions for cavalry:

"A dropped apple or a dropped plum has no right to fall on the ground."

This is of course - about an apple or a plum dropped between the riders.

Polish 17th century cavalry command (used by hussars):

"Press together a knee with a knee of your neighbour"

Instructions for British 17th century Ironsides:

"A knee pressed into a knee pit of your neighbour"

Knee pit = popliteal fossa.

Also Macedon - in this thread - wrote that Byzantine heavy cavalry charged in similarly close ranks to examples given above (that there was literally no space between individual riders). Of course trained cavalry could alter their formation during charge (from loose ranks to close ranks and inversely).

Trained cavalry is able to - and often was - charging in very close ranks, so close that sometimes legs of riders were grazing legs of their neighbours and even horses were sometimes grazing each other!

[Robert Vermaat]

I know about the Romans being pressed together unable to use their weapons, but I do not recall them being suffocated, trampled and squeezed by the cavalry.

"Squeezing" is the advanced form of "pressing together".
And typical condition in such situation, is suffocating (due to lack of oxygen).
If cavalry was pressing together, it was also trampling some of them (at least those in frontal ranks). Apart from being trampled by horses, they could also trample each other in that crowd.

So you're actually saying that you don't really know if that happened or not, yet you use this battle as a reference?

Do you have any excerpts from primary sources about those charges at Adrianople?

I do, but I was already asking you to provide us a reference for Adrianople because you so boldly stated that this was a battle in which "Many Romans died because they suffocated after being trampled and squeezed by pressure of Gothic cavalry."(your words). So go ahead and show us who wrote that?

(Advance warning: there is actually no account of this battle that described what happened in detail, so i assume your reference comes from a popular modern account). :whistle: