Cavalry and chariots against infantry

[Marja]

Archer or missile throwers are good to "soften" enemy formation before close combat, but not deadly enough for armored troops and troops with large shields (such as Roman heavy infantry) to decide the outcome of battle.

{{cn}}

Yet Macedonian casualties in the battle of Gaugamela were negligible - which testifies to low actual lethality of missiles.

And no, I don't know why archery succeeded at Carrhae and failed at Gaugemala. None of us do. And how do we know that the casualty claims were accurate? I agree archery was more effective with combined arms, but almost anything was more effective with combined arms. Zhmodikov has established that thrown missiles were effective in heavy infantry combat, which is about the last place anyone would expect them to be effective.

Also check the info about the battle of Milvian Bridge I posted above.

A propaganda frieze? An infantry formation can collapse for many reasons: caught while deploying, caught while retreating, outflanked, etc. Unless we know what happened, we don't know what this shows.

And when describing combats which took place long after the desertion of Roman cavalry from the battlefield, when Roman infantry was fighting alone, after describing dead infantry, he once again mentions "mounds of fallen horses" which "filled the plains with corpses" - so in my opinion this refers primarly to Gothic horses, much more of which died in this phase of the battle, than of Roman horses.

But the Romans had more cavalry than the Goths. I just find it easier to believe that the initial Roman cavalry charge and the cavalry combats explained the fallen horses than that later Gothic cavalry had gone head-to-head with the Roman infantry, instead of going after those Roman infantry who tried to escape.

Apparently not all of Roman infantry was trapped in such a way that it couldn't escape.

No, or not for the whole battle. Again, a lot of this is speculation, but the most common interpretation is that most or all of the Roman infantry was surrounded, and although some may have escaped, one way or another, Ammianus' description works well if they were surrounded.

Which confirms that Roman cavalry suffered relatively low casualties. And thus the "mounds of fallen horses" which "filled the plains with corpses" had to be Gothic - at least many of them.

Relative to the Roman infantry. But not necessarily relative to the Gothic cavalry. And because the Romans had more troops, and more resources, in most current interpretations they had more cavalry. If the Gothic cavalry suffered more losses than the Romans, it would be a Pyrrhic victory.

And I don't think that skirmishing and keeping at bay can produce "mounds of fallen horses".

Nor does charging enemy cavalry which quickly escaped without much resistance produce them.

So Gothic cavalry had to charge and smash into enemy infantry, suffering losses in horses.

But the first thing the Roman cavalry did was charge! And by all indications they charged the Gothic wagon-fort! Now there are some disputes and ambiguities - some suggest they charged Gothic infantry in front of the wagon-fort - but it's precisely the sort of situation where cavalry does suffer catastrophic losses.