02-21-2013, 10:39 PM
@Peter
Yep, especially the name of the author and/or the book (?) this work is from would be required. Maybe it is available online?
After watching the videos, I also found they were not proof of the question at hand.
In one, the horse is trying to jump onto a mass (the car) the fact that this mass gives way under it is impressive to us but something that the horse obviously did not expect. In another, the horse is practically stopping before a fence before trying to jump over it. It certainly did not smash into it. The same applies to the one showing a horse failing to jump over an obstacle. The fact that horses will under conditions try to jump over obstacles is well-documented and even acknowledged as an Olympic sport... In multiple videos we see horses actually shoving, jostling lone individuals, which is also not strange. Finding infantry in dispersed order or crowds (even if totally disordered) striving to get out of the way, was a perfect target for cavalry. The most impressive video was the one with the wagon. There, the horse on the right clearly tried and managed to avoid the wagon in front dragging the other horse on the left along and practically forcing it to really smash into the rear of the other wagon. Would this happen if just one horse was pulling the wagon? According to the video, it would not since, even in this crazed condition, the horses did try to avoid collision. However it could serve as an example of how a chariot driver could (if he chose to remain on it) drive one horse onto the outermost rank of the enemy line.
The combat examples are also problematic, instead of just giving names and dates, Peter, it would be better if you described how these combat instances support your proposed model. Do not get carried away by simplistic quotes about cavalry beating infantry... It is the conditions we are debating not the general truth of the statement. Of course cavalry would mostly "defeat" infantry. If only because cavalry almost always had the initiative, so it was they (or their officers who decided when, where and how they would engage what type of infantry). This does not mean that the infantry had no way of defending itself as you seem to propose - According to this "model", a horse that drives into a solid line of armored soldiers will either trample them and emerge on the other side laughing and bragging or gallop over half of them (the best and most experienced of its men) and then stop before men who have seen half their comrades horribly trampled... - I do not know what parameters this "model" has taken into consideration but I have to say that it does not conform with anything we know about cavalry warfare against infantry as described.
Back to your combat examples :
I have occupied myself only a little with the Napoleonic era (which of course is relative as to what anyone of us understands as "a little"), so I will take the sources you give for granted and not question their validity nor their interpretation of primary sources.
About this charge at Albuera, wikipedia writes :
"Ploughing through the unprepared British infantry, the 1st Vistula Uhlans and the 2nd Hussars virtually annihilated Colborne's first three regiments. Only the fourth, the 31st Regiment of Foot, was able to save itself by forming into squares.[65] The cavalry pressed on against Colborne's supporting KGL artillery battery and captured its guns (although all but the howitzer were subsequently recovered).[69]
Having captured five regimental flags and eight cannon the Uhlans swept past the 31st's square, scattering Beresford and his staff, and attacked the rear of Zayas's line."
So, the lancers, always according to the source you gave, did not attack the squares. They attacked the thin lines of men who didn't have the time to form in squares. And, later, by riding past the enemy squares they attacked the rear another enemy line. This is what the text says.
As for the British squares in Waterloo, why their suffering heavy losses should be strange? We are talking about the age of rifle and cannon... Most of the cavalry would also be equipped with pistols and carbines, some squares would have disintegrated after suffering losses or by simply failing in their morale.. Had you provided us with an account of the action that you think serves your arguments would make it easier for us to debate/agree/disagree with it. Losses alone can be explained in multiple ways.
It is important that you do not make long lists of battles without any explanation as to why you think they serve your arguments. I could write, and no one would disagree with me, that the battle of Carrhae was a total disaster brought upon a mixed Roman army heavily dependent on its heavy infantry by an all-cavalry force. I could say that the heavy infantry square was defeated by the Scythian cavalry. Yes, it was. But as a battle, it stands as one of the greatest examples of how even cataphracts were not used (and I will not say "would not") to break the close-ordered Roman infantry line. So, yes, as a battle it was a great victory of cavalry over infantry BUT with tactics OTHER THAN cataphracts smashing into close ordered infantry lines.
Another example of rush selection of quotes is the one about the crusades. In these lines provided, there is no mention as to what troops were infantry and what cavalry. You rightly comment that nothing is being said or implied about tactical details but the problem is that it does not even say whether it was a cv vs cv action, a cv vs inf action or an inf vs inf one. IIRC, purely from memory and without researching the matter, this is supposed to have been infantry action.
So, as I understand your position, and if I am wrong you should correct me, horses would habitually be trained into smashing head on into anything they perceived solid. As a result, "shock" cavalry would habitually charge into solid lines of infantry surely trampling them to pieces because all the horses of the charging units would be appropriately trained and because of the model you presented there was no way that a single line of horses, let alone successive ones, could actually be stopped by men, especially if they kept close together, shield on back. Of course things could go sometimes wrong, but generally this was a successful way to crush infantry with cavalry and thus it was tactically preferred and utilized by all armies with at least some cavalry background from antiquity.
Is this your opinion?
Why then did not the Persians, who admittedly had some very well armored divisions, NORMALLY attack Greek infantry phalanx with them instead of allowing their inferior infantry to stand against them? And I am not only talking of the Macedonian phalanxes but also those of mercenaries and allied Greek hoplites.
Why did not the Macedonians, with the famed Hetaeroi, never attack an infantry force in close array? (some think that this indeed happened at Issos and Gaugamela mistakingly thinking that Dareius was posted among infantry, which is clear from the sources that he was not)
How about the cataphracts of the Epigonoi and the Diadochoi?
The quite well documented battles between the Carthaginians and the Romans?
Caesar's, Pompey's etc exploits?
Roman civil wars?
Yep, especially the name of the author and/or the book (?) this work is from would be required. Maybe it is available online?
After watching the videos, I also found they were not proof of the question at hand.
In one, the horse is trying to jump onto a mass (the car) the fact that this mass gives way under it is impressive to us but something that the horse obviously did not expect. In another, the horse is practically stopping before a fence before trying to jump over it. It certainly did not smash into it. The same applies to the one showing a horse failing to jump over an obstacle. The fact that horses will under conditions try to jump over obstacles is well-documented and even acknowledged as an Olympic sport... In multiple videos we see horses actually shoving, jostling lone individuals, which is also not strange. Finding infantry in dispersed order or crowds (even if totally disordered) striving to get out of the way, was a perfect target for cavalry. The most impressive video was the one with the wagon. There, the horse on the right clearly tried and managed to avoid the wagon in front dragging the other horse on the left along and practically forcing it to really smash into the rear of the other wagon. Would this happen if just one horse was pulling the wagon? According to the video, it would not since, even in this crazed condition, the horses did try to avoid collision. However it could serve as an example of how a chariot driver could (if he chose to remain on it) drive one horse onto the outermost rank of the enemy line.
The combat examples are also problematic, instead of just giving names and dates, Peter, it would be better if you described how these combat instances support your proposed model. Do not get carried away by simplistic quotes about cavalry beating infantry... It is the conditions we are debating not the general truth of the statement. Of course cavalry would mostly "defeat" infantry. If only because cavalry almost always had the initiative, so it was they (or their officers who decided when, where and how they would engage what type of infantry). This does not mean that the infantry had no way of defending itself as you seem to propose - According to this "model", a horse that drives into a solid line of armored soldiers will either trample them and emerge on the other side laughing and bragging or gallop over half of them (the best and most experienced of its men) and then stop before men who have seen half their comrades horribly trampled... - I do not know what parameters this "model" has taken into consideration but I have to say that it does not conform with anything we know about cavalry warfare against infantry as described.
Back to your combat examples :
I have occupied myself only a little with the Napoleonic era (which of course is relative as to what anyone of us understands as "a little"), so I will take the sources you give for granted and not question their validity nor their interpretation of primary sources.
About this charge at Albuera, wikipedia writes :
"Ploughing through the unprepared British infantry, the 1st Vistula Uhlans and the 2nd Hussars virtually annihilated Colborne's first three regiments. Only the fourth, the 31st Regiment of Foot, was able to save itself by forming into squares.[65] The cavalry pressed on against Colborne's supporting KGL artillery battery and captured its guns (although all but the howitzer were subsequently recovered).[69]
Having captured five regimental flags and eight cannon the Uhlans swept past the 31st's square, scattering Beresford and his staff, and attacked the rear of Zayas's line."
So, the lancers, always according to the source you gave, did not attack the squares. They attacked the thin lines of men who didn't have the time to form in squares. And, later, by riding past the enemy squares they attacked the rear another enemy line. This is what the text says.
As for the British squares in Waterloo, why their suffering heavy losses should be strange? We are talking about the age of rifle and cannon... Most of the cavalry would also be equipped with pistols and carbines, some squares would have disintegrated after suffering losses or by simply failing in their morale.. Had you provided us with an account of the action that you think serves your arguments would make it easier for us to debate/agree/disagree with it. Losses alone can be explained in multiple ways.
It is important that you do not make long lists of battles without any explanation as to why you think they serve your arguments. I could write, and no one would disagree with me, that the battle of Carrhae was a total disaster brought upon a mixed Roman army heavily dependent on its heavy infantry by an all-cavalry force. I could say that the heavy infantry square was defeated by the Scythian cavalry. Yes, it was. But as a battle, it stands as one of the greatest examples of how even cataphracts were not used (and I will not say "would not") to break the close-ordered Roman infantry line. So, yes, as a battle it was a great victory of cavalry over infantry BUT with tactics OTHER THAN cataphracts smashing into close ordered infantry lines.
Another example of rush selection of quotes is the one about the crusades. In these lines provided, there is no mention as to what troops were infantry and what cavalry. You rightly comment that nothing is being said or implied about tactical details but the problem is that it does not even say whether it was a cv vs cv action, a cv vs inf action or an inf vs inf one. IIRC, purely from memory and without researching the matter, this is supposed to have been infantry action.
So, as I understand your position, and if I am wrong you should correct me, horses would habitually be trained into smashing head on into anything they perceived solid. As a result, "shock" cavalry would habitually charge into solid lines of infantry surely trampling them to pieces because all the horses of the charging units would be appropriately trained and because of the model you presented there was no way that a single line of horses, let alone successive ones, could actually be stopped by men, especially if they kept close together, shield on back. Of course things could go sometimes wrong, but generally this was a successful way to crush infantry with cavalry and thus it was tactically preferred and utilized by all armies with at least some cavalry background from antiquity.
Is this your opinion?
Why then did not the Persians, who admittedly had some very well armored divisions, NORMALLY attack Greek infantry phalanx with them instead of allowing their inferior infantry to stand against them? And I am not only talking of the Macedonian phalanxes but also those of mercenaries and allied Greek hoplites.
Why did not the Macedonians, with the famed Hetaeroi, never attack an infantry force in close array? (some think that this indeed happened at Issos and Gaugamela mistakingly thinking that Dareius was posted among infantry, which is clear from the sources that he was not)
How about the cataphracts of the Epigonoi and the Diadochoi?
The quite well documented battles between the Carthaginians and the Romans?
Caesar's, Pompey's etc exploits?
Roman civil wars?
