02-24-2013, 09:52 PM
Let's see...
The question as worded in the OP, that is a simple "Cavalry and Chariots against Infantry" is too wide an issue to produce simple results. I tried to put some rules to clarify the conditions to be discussed but I see that most posts are very general and thus greatly misleading. What cavalry (or chariots)? Against what infantry? Where? How are they armed? Armored? Define verbs like "attack", "overcome"...
I guess that what we are interested in in this topic specifically is the tactical choice of a general to order a unit/part/line of his cavalry to charge an enemy line of soldiers standing in close order, having at least a decent depth (less than 4 was termed "weak" or "shallow" by the ancients and the Byzantines).
Charging open-ordered and scattered troops, disordered, confused or routed masses of footmen, very shallow infantry formations was nothing out-of-the-ordinary and I guess that no one would deny that it was a tactic followed in these situations.
1. First we wanted to establish the mechanics and the nature of the horse. The question was "Would a horse, even if urged by his rider, simply gallop into what it considered a solid wall of closed order men?" We have direct quotes from the ancients and later writers that this was not considered a threat and most here believe that such behavior was, to say the least, very rare. Peter, who may be a bit overly excited by the image of lines of horsemen smashing into SUCH lines of infantry provided what he considered evidence, much of it interesting. The videos I personally view as mostly inadequate to produce anything else than a negative result. The model was useless because it was impossible to make out what it said, it certainly looked like an author tried to make some calculations as to what would happen if a horseman (or a small car) actually smashed into a file of men but its results or the actual conditions and opinion of the author were impossible to read. Whatever the case, he would also be the target of criticism but we all know that there are people who believe that cavalry did indeed habitually smash into close-ordered infantry lines.
2. We also talked about training. It is true that there is no text I am aware of that supports that armies used such training. After seeing horses dance and do tricks and stuff I guess one could train horses to do dangerous things and stunts (isn't jumping over tall, seemingly solid obstacles dangerous in the mind of horses? - and yet they are trained with those lego-walls which teach horses that it will be the wall that will give in instead of them. I guess that dressing up straw men with clothes and having horses smash into them might produce the same effect). However, there is no mention of any such training, not among the ancients, nor among the armies of later years. Does it mean that such a training did not exist? No, but in order to call it a "common tactic" there should be something in the sources... Maybe there is such a text in Polish? And another question that jumps to mind, why weren't elephants, even larger animals, trained to trample the enemy?
3. We talked tactics. It is true that such charges are very rare in the accounts of battles. Many have the tendency to interpret any place they read that "cavalry attacked/charged/assaulted infantry" as evidence for such charges but they are not. Especially for ancient cavalry, most often armed with javelins, these instances are normal "skirmishing" attacks, often in close order with what the ancients called "perispasmos", attack and retreat evolutions. Infantry was powerless against such attacks, it only could grin and bear the pressure, relying on its defensive equipment. The difference between normal cavalry and dispersed cavalry was that the former could be engaged by other cavalry, which was the main task of all cavalries throughout history. However, as time goes on, infantry quality decreases and cavalry starts assuming a new, dominating role on the battle-field. In the west, those who have power, the means, land and arms, become armored horsemen, only a few places remain that provide adequate infantry to stand before such men in battle. At that point, cavalry adopts the tactic of charging (that is moving against, not smashing into) enemy infantry formations, which were not expected to stand the psychological pressure. Cavalry makes charges against infantry, 2-3-6 or more times in battles. There is just no way that a trampling smash of horses into any infantry mass that kept its close order and heart and place would not result in a prolonged fight that would decide who of the two would win and who would lose, both with disproportionately heavy casualties, thus making the accounts of multiple charges strange. In the east, cavalry is also predominant. The Byzantine manuals take fully cavalry formations as the norm and then add mixed and infantry formations. In them, cavalry is not supposed to charge, let alone smash into, enemy close-ordered infantry. The cataphract example I mentioned was an exception and even it was suggested to take place against the enemy general. If he had posted himself among infantry, then special care should be taken for the morale of the cataphracts. Again, cavalry is supposed to occupy itself with the enemy cavalry and infantry is used as a safe haven for horsemen to retreat to if hard pressed. Tactically, cavalry was advised to dismount if it could not overcome the enemy cavalry and act as infantry.
Here we have the Norman/Frankish "exception". The Latins were known among Byzantines as being irresistible in their first charges. However, in the really many examples of such action, they too were normally reluctant to charge enemy infantry and when they did, descriptions do not suggest a violent smash. Tactically, they mostly were used against cavalry.
With gunpowder things change... This blasted invention changed formations, depths, armor, everything. Suddenly, lines are abandoned in favor of squares with gaps, through which cavalry can attack and cannons roar... Lines of infantry are now getting shallower, their order gets more open. Cavalry charges change along. They still are mainly used against enemy cavalry or vulnerable, unsupported artillery and when they attack infantry, once they survive the volley(s), they have a number of options. They can smash into the enemy front if they waver, lose their cohesion etc, they can ride through the gaps and attack flanks and rear. During the Napoleonic wars, a square was considered very safe against cavalry, even though the men had no shields, the cavalry might also have firearms, horse-artillery could really shred them to pieces. Were there attacks against squares? Yes, some successful -because of the square's disintegration or just because some horsemen were indeed able to jump, shove etc their way into it- but that does not change the fact that cavalry was not tactically HABITUALLY do that.
Peter brought up a very good example though of cavalry really described as "plunging against the pikes" of it enemy. I am no expert in the battles of the 17th century, I know that tactically they were something between those of the 19th and those we consider pre-gunpowder and TRUSTING in what Peter has brought forward as his sources, should anyone dispute them, I might change my mind, we have at least one example of cavalry charging into infantry at a crazed gallop, conquering it, despite losing a hefty amount of men and horses. Was it because their horses were specially trained to do so? Was it because the Swedes started to disintegrate before the impact? The thing is that it looks a sound example of such an attack. Here, though, one has to determine how often the winged hussars did such charges. Of course, we have to see what they charged against. The article (webpage) that he posted talked about Swedes deployed in a very open order. Were they? Where were the pikemen? Where were the musketeers? How, and how fast, did they change places, what was their anti-cavalry formation like? Was it a square with the musketeers in the middle? Maybe a square with pikemen in front and the musketeers in the last ranks? All this is important to know, before saying anything about how strange such a charge was. Any insight on the period by someone who knows better would be welcome here. Also, some kind of insight as to how common it was for the hussars to attack infantry IN THIS MANNER would also be valuable. I read that it was only in that battle of Kirchholm that such a charge is relatively well documented but, as I said I am no expert in that particular era. Peter mentions other instances but I personally need to see evidence before saying that there are. Here, Peter, it would be nice if there was an English translation of the texts you offered - the whole texts rather than simple quotes, to see if they describe how the whole incident played out rather than just the second of the impact.
IF Peter is right and the winged hussars indeed charged in such a manner as a standard tactic, this I view as an exception and certainly not as the rule but it would be interesting to see how they managed that. Was it their long lance that made it possible? The training of their horses? Some kind of warrior code? Or was it that the conditions on the battlefield allowed them to do something "new"? And why did they not dress their horses with at least frontal pieces of armor, since it was the pikes they were mostly afraid of?
Ammianus I will not discuss, because, whatever anyone says based on a translation is as trustworthy as the translation itself. We have discussed this a number of times, since translators are usually interested in producing a beautiful text and have most often no idea of military terminology or tactics, they have to be very studiously examined. BUT, and here I mainly mean you Peter, you have to start putting the conditions in the picture. Horsemen would of course physically attack confused masses of men, shoving them at walk or trot, and still trample them.
The question as worded in the OP, that is a simple "Cavalry and Chariots against Infantry" is too wide an issue to produce simple results. I tried to put some rules to clarify the conditions to be discussed but I see that most posts are very general and thus greatly misleading. What cavalry (or chariots)? Against what infantry? Where? How are they armed? Armored? Define verbs like "attack", "overcome"...
I guess that what we are interested in in this topic specifically is the tactical choice of a general to order a unit/part/line of his cavalry to charge an enemy line of soldiers standing in close order, having at least a decent depth (less than 4 was termed "weak" or "shallow" by the ancients and the Byzantines).
Charging open-ordered and scattered troops, disordered, confused or routed masses of footmen, very shallow infantry formations was nothing out-of-the-ordinary and I guess that no one would deny that it was a tactic followed in these situations.
1. First we wanted to establish the mechanics and the nature of the horse. The question was "Would a horse, even if urged by his rider, simply gallop into what it considered a solid wall of closed order men?" We have direct quotes from the ancients and later writers that this was not considered a threat and most here believe that such behavior was, to say the least, very rare. Peter, who may be a bit overly excited by the image of lines of horsemen smashing into SUCH lines of infantry provided what he considered evidence, much of it interesting. The videos I personally view as mostly inadequate to produce anything else than a negative result. The model was useless because it was impossible to make out what it said, it certainly looked like an author tried to make some calculations as to what would happen if a horseman (or a small car) actually smashed into a file of men but its results or the actual conditions and opinion of the author were impossible to read. Whatever the case, he would also be the target of criticism but we all know that there are people who believe that cavalry did indeed habitually smash into close-ordered infantry lines.
2. We also talked about training. It is true that there is no text I am aware of that supports that armies used such training. After seeing horses dance and do tricks and stuff I guess one could train horses to do dangerous things and stunts (isn't jumping over tall, seemingly solid obstacles dangerous in the mind of horses? - and yet they are trained with those lego-walls which teach horses that it will be the wall that will give in instead of them. I guess that dressing up straw men with clothes and having horses smash into them might produce the same effect). However, there is no mention of any such training, not among the ancients, nor among the armies of later years. Does it mean that such a training did not exist? No, but in order to call it a "common tactic" there should be something in the sources... Maybe there is such a text in Polish? And another question that jumps to mind, why weren't elephants, even larger animals, trained to trample the enemy?
3. We talked tactics. It is true that such charges are very rare in the accounts of battles. Many have the tendency to interpret any place they read that "cavalry attacked/charged/assaulted infantry" as evidence for such charges but they are not. Especially for ancient cavalry, most often armed with javelins, these instances are normal "skirmishing" attacks, often in close order with what the ancients called "perispasmos", attack and retreat evolutions. Infantry was powerless against such attacks, it only could grin and bear the pressure, relying on its defensive equipment. The difference between normal cavalry and dispersed cavalry was that the former could be engaged by other cavalry, which was the main task of all cavalries throughout history. However, as time goes on, infantry quality decreases and cavalry starts assuming a new, dominating role on the battle-field. In the west, those who have power, the means, land and arms, become armored horsemen, only a few places remain that provide adequate infantry to stand before such men in battle. At that point, cavalry adopts the tactic of charging (that is moving against, not smashing into) enemy infantry formations, which were not expected to stand the psychological pressure. Cavalry makes charges against infantry, 2-3-6 or more times in battles. There is just no way that a trampling smash of horses into any infantry mass that kept its close order and heart and place would not result in a prolonged fight that would decide who of the two would win and who would lose, both with disproportionately heavy casualties, thus making the accounts of multiple charges strange. In the east, cavalry is also predominant. The Byzantine manuals take fully cavalry formations as the norm and then add mixed and infantry formations. In them, cavalry is not supposed to charge, let alone smash into, enemy close-ordered infantry. The cataphract example I mentioned was an exception and even it was suggested to take place against the enemy general. If he had posted himself among infantry, then special care should be taken for the morale of the cataphracts. Again, cavalry is supposed to occupy itself with the enemy cavalry and infantry is used as a safe haven for horsemen to retreat to if hard pressed. Tactically, cavalry was advised to dismount if it could not overcome the enemy cavalry and act as infantry.
Here we have the Norman/Frankish "exception". The Latins were known among Byzantines as being irresistible in their first charges. However, in the really many examples of such action, they too were normally reluctant to charge enemy infantry and when they did, descriptions do not suggest a violent smash. Tactically, they mostly were used against cavalry.
With gunpowder things change... This blasted invention changed formations, depths, armor, everything. Suddenly, lines are abandoned in favor of squares with gaps, through which cavalry can attack and cannons roar... Lines of infantry are now getting shallower, their order gets more open. Cavalry charges change along. They still are mainly used against enemy cavalry or vulnerable, unsupported artillery and when they attack infantry, once they survive the volley(s), they have a number of options. They can smash into the enemy front if they waver, lose their cohesion etc, they can ride through the gaps and attack flanks and rear. During the Napoleonic wars, a square was considered very safe against cavalry, even though the men had no shields, the cavalry might also have firearms, horse-artillery could really shred them to pieces. Were there attacks against squares? Yes, some successful -because of the square's disintegration or just because some horsemen were indeed able to jump, shove etc their way into it- but that does not change the fact that cavalry was not tactically HABITUALLY do that.
Peter brought up a very good example though of cavalry really described as "plunging against the pikes" of it enemy. I am no expert in the battles of the 17th century, I know that tactically they were something between those of the 19th and those we consider pre-gunpowder and TRUSTING in what Peter has brought forward as his sources, should anyone dispute them, I might change my mind, we have at least one example of cavalry charging into infantry at a crazed gallop, conquering it, despite losing a hefty amount of men and horses. Was it because their horses were specially trained to do so? Was it because the Swedes started to disintegrate before the impact? The thing is that it looks a sound example of such an attack. Here, though, one has to determine how often the winged hussars did such charges. Of course, we have to see what they charged against. The article (webpage) that he posted talked about Swedes deployed in a very open order. Were they? Where were the pikemen? Where were the musketeers? How, and how fast, did they change places, what was their anti-cavalry formation like? Was it a square with the musketeers in the middle? Maybe a square with pikemen in front and the musketeers in the last ranks? All this is important to know, before saying anything about how strange such a charge was. Any insight on the period by someone who knows better would be welcome here. Also, some kind of insight as to how common it was for the hussars to attack infantry IN THIS MANNER would also be valuable. I read that it was only in that battle of Kirchholm that such a charge is relatively well documented but, as I said I am no expert in that particular era. Peter mentions other instances but I personally need to see evidence before saying that there are. Here, Peter, it would be nice if there was an English translation of the texts you offered - the whole texts rather than simple quotes, to see if they describe how the whole incident played out rather than just the second of the impact.
IF Peter is right and the winged hussars indeed charged in such a manner as a standard tactic, this I view as an exception and certainly not as the rule but it would be interesting to see how they managed that. Was it their long lance that made it possible? The training of their horses? Some kind of warrior code? Or was it that the conditions on the battlefield allowed them to do something "new"? And why did they not dress their horses with at least frontal pieces of armor, since it was the pikes they were mostly afraid of?
Ammianus I will not discuss, because, whatever anyone says based on a translation is as trustworthy as the translation itself. We have discussed this a number of times, since translators are usually interested in producing a beautiful text and have most often no idea of military terminology or tactics, they have to be very studiously examined. BUT, and here I mainly mean you Peter, you have to start putting the conditions in the picture. Horsemen would of course physically attack confused masses of men, shoving them at walk or trot, and still trample them.
