02-19-2013, 09:06 PM
Peter, there is no doubt that cavalry has been used against infantry. But in order to draw tactical conclusions one should think about :
a. defining the nature of the attack
b. defining the mechanics of the attack
A most common problem I have when debating this very issue is to make others realize that words like "attack" or "charge" means little in tactics. Especially when drawing from Greek sources, translations are so flawed in accuracy that it is really understandable for readers to misunderstand the relevant texts, often unable to make out even whether the attack was taking place against foot or horsemen. It is clear that you are a proponent of cavalry regularly choosing as a comprehensible tactic to smash into the lines of close ordered infantry and might think that such tactics were successful and thus the average preference of a general, but they were not, at least not in the times and cultures we most often discuss here, when infantry is mostly well trained and equipped, arranged in rank and file, with officers and of adequate numbers to conduct a pitched battle.
However, close ordered cavalry would of course very often charge/attack/assault/engage infantry.
1. with their missile weapons in what could be called a skirmish fashion by dense squadrons.
2. physically, when the enemy was caught dispersed, when they started fleeing, generally, whenever the infantry was disordered.
3. in later times (or extremely rarely during the antiquity) if the opposing infantry was expected to break before or upon impact, because of a number of reasons.
4. because of fanaticism or despair, a rare reason but still did occur.
Especially factor nr. 3 could for certain times and cultures actually serve as a norm, since there are many examples of (at least the mass of) infantry being of low martial value and understandably deemed unable to withstand the charge of fully armored, well-armed, regularly trained cavalry of mostly rich noblemen following some warrior-code.
This is why someone HAS TO be very specific when discussing such tactics and avoid generalizing as we do here. Supporting that this was normal tactics to use by a classical or hellenistic Greek commander, by a Roman commander of most periods, even by a Byzantine commander, is very bold and requires evidence that in my experience does not exist in sufficient amount to support such claims.
In conclusion, this issue, to me, should be very carefully worded as to its variables. What most people are eventually asking in the end, and what should first be answered for any other conclusion to be drawn is :
Would a close ordered line of horses of any breed, size, training and armor mounted by horsemen, after advancing against a close ordered line of infantrymen, fall upon the men barring their way and keep pushing them back without instinctively halting, especially at gallop?
If one concludes that under certain conditions, for example special training and for some breeds of horses such behavior would be achievable, then one has to see if, when and where these conditions were met.
To me, the texts are clear as to the inability/unwillingness of regularly used/trained/equipped horses to push against obstacles, be they human or other horses in combat. I expect for exceptions to of course exist, I remember a video of some horse smashing into another horse in some race, but 10 horses out of 1,000 would not dictate cavalry tactics.
a. defining the nature of the attack
b. defining the mechanics of the attack
A most common problem I have when debating this very issue is to make others realize that words like "attack" or "charge" means little in tactics. Especially when drawing from Greek sources, translations are so flawed in accuracy that it is really understandable for readers to misunderstand the relevant texts, often unable to make out even whether the attack was taking place against foot or horsemen. It is clear that you are a proponent of cavalry regularly choosing as a comprehensible tactic to smash into the lines of close ordered infantry and might think that such tactics were successful and thus the average preference of a general, but they were not, at least not in the times and cultures we most often discuss here, when infantry is mostly well trained and equipped, arranged in rank and file, with officers and of adequate numbers to conduct a pitched battle.
However, close ordered cavalry would of course very often charge/attack/assault/engage infantry.
1. with their missile weapons in what could be called a skirmish fashion by dense squadrons.
2. physically, when the enemy was caught dispersed, when they started fleeing, generally, whenever the infantry was disordered.
3. in later times (or extremely rarely during the antiquity) if the opposing infantry was expected to break before or upon impact, because of a number of reasons.
4. because of fanaticism or despair, a rare reason but still did occur.
Especially factor nr. 3 could for certain times and cultures actually serve as a norm, since there are many examples of (at least the mass of) infantry being of low martial value and understandably deemed unable to withstand the charge of fully armored, well-armed, regularly trained cavalry of mostly rich noblemen following some warrior-code.
This is why someone HAS TO be very specific when discussing such tactics and avoid generalizing as we do here. Supporting that this was normal tactics to use by a classical or hellenistic Greek commander, by a Roman commander of most periods, even by a Byzantine commander, is very bold and requires evidence that in my experience does not exist in sufficient amount to support such claims.
In conclusion, this issue, to me, should be very carefully worded as to its variables. What most people are eventually asking in the end, and what should first be answered for any other conclusion to be drawn is :
Would a close ordered line of horses of any breed, size, training and armor mounted by horsemen, after advancing against a close ordered line of infantrymen, fall upon the men barring their way and keep pushing them back without instinctively halting, especially at gallop?
If one concludes that under certain conditions, for example special training and for some breeds of horses such behavior would be achievable, then one has to see if, when and where these conditions were met.
To me, the texts are clear as to the inability/unwillingness of regularly used/trained/equipped horses to push against obstacles, be they human or other horses in combat. I expect for exceptions to of course exist, I remember a video of some horse smashing into another horse in some race, but 10 horses out of 1,000 would not dictate cavalry tactics.
