How Effective were Spears Against Cavalry?

[Nathan Ross]

All of warfare is more or less suicidal.

Hmm, I'd have to disagree there! If it were, all war would have ended millennia ago and we would be living in perpetual peace, troubled only by a few lunatics hurling themselves to their deaths now and then...

Soldiers fight in order to win, or at least to survive - there are plenty of instances throughout history of individuals making self-sacrificial attacks, but they were rare and noteworthy. Any general expecting his troops to do this as a matter of course would have faced a very prompt mutiny.

There was actually a Roman principle of suicidal attack - a commander on the verge of defeat could perform the ritual of devotio, dedicating himself to the infernal gods and taking on the failings of his army, before throwing himself to a certain end in combat and in the process 'infecting' the enemy with death. This is only recorded as happening three times, however - it seems mainly designed to allow a general who'd really messed things up to redeem his honour!

Sadly, the modern era has seen far greater use of suicide attacks, partly due to the rise of effective indoctrination, whether political or religious, and partly due to the availability of high explosive, which allows an individual to inflict massively disproportionate destruction.

[Macedon]

Regarding Carrhae:

One should ask themselves a question - why should cataphracts charge the Roman line as long as horse archers were not out of arrows (and they had 1000 pack mules loaded with arrows)?

They did not. As I have many times stated, trying/starting a charge is not the same thing as going all the way with it. Cavalry would charge massed infantry, especially in later times, to retreat if the enemy infantry did not give way. In such cases, there is no real danger for the cavalry while there is a real possibility that the enemy will indeed break. And a broken line is a good target for horse-archers too. There is nothing really strange here.

[Domen]

Macedon - why did you tear out of context just a small fragment of my post?

I wrote:

Regarding Carrhae:

One should ask themselves a question - why should cataphracts charge the Roman line as long as horse archers were not out of arrows (and they had 1000 pack mules loaded with arrows)?

Maybe it is not the best comparison - but for the same reason, the USA nuked Japan in 1945, rather than carrying out a seaborne invasion (but nobody doubts such an invasion was going to succeed).

The general principles of war were the same in 53 BC and 1945 - economy of force, minimizing losses.

If Parthians could win just with arrows, they didn't need to risk their lifes in close combat. If Americans could win just with nukes, they didn't need to risk another Okinawa on larger scale.

Also check my response regarding equipment of Medieval cavalry (last post on previous page).

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

Nathan:

Soldiers fight in order to win, or at least to survive

Surviving is not in agreement with fighting. If you escape before contact with the enemy, you have much bigger chances to survive than if you fight - even when your army is victorious.

War is undoubtedly the most suicidal activity of all existing human activities.

Being a soldier on the frontline, is the most risky of all jobs.

there are plenty of instances throughout history of individuals making self-sacrificial attacks, but they were rare and noteworthy.

Maybe they were rare - but they were often able to turn the tides of battles.

Exceptional bravery was often much more important than sheer numerical superiority.

If it were, all war would have ended millennia ago and we would be living in perpetual peace, troubled only by a few lunatics hurling themselves to their deaths now and then...

Nope. I don't agree with this statement. You know why wars did not end millennia ago?

Because people who start wars and people who fight in them are two different groups.

Politicians and governments start wars - and wars are beneficial for them.

However, soldiers fight in wars - and for vast majority of them, wars are by no means beneficial.

Only a very small fraction of all soldiers benefited from wars throughout history.

[Macedon]

Technological level of Ancient armor was nowhere near that of Late Medieval and Early Renaissance plate armor. Also horses used by heavy cavalry in the Middle Ages were larger and of better breed.

...

You would have to precise which exactly period and area of the Middle Ages do you mean.

- This has nothing to do with the average cavalry contingent of most if any medieval armies. Showing the armor worn by 5 men out of a hundred or more means nothing at a tactical level. All the way up to the 15th century, which to me is a turning point because of the introduction of effective gunpowder arms, (and later) there were very few armies that could boast to have homogenous units of men uniformly equipped, trained and disciplined. There is no way to compare the overall effectiveness of a cavalry unit in a regular army to that of an army based on the whims of the counts and dukes of medieval Europe. Everything that had to do with the logistics and support of medieval armies was also usually much inferior. Of course, as always, exceptions existed, like certain Byzantine units in some eras.

- Infantry in Medieval Europe, and this is what is most important as to why cavalry was more ready to charge massed infantry, albeit in "feint" charges, was generally much inferior in all aspects to that of the major ancient powers we occupy ourselves when making such comparisons. Certain elite contingents were an exception to this rule, but these were usually relatively small in number and only a part of armies that comprised low-quality foot easily intimidated by charging cavalry. The uniformity, professionalism, discipline and quality of the state infantry of antiquity was very very rarely rivaled throughout the medieval years.

- I "tore" a small part of your post, because this is what I wanted to comment on. Why should I want to comment on your unlucky WWII comparison? My answer included all I wanted to say about your post. If the Parthians wanted to risk their "nukes" they would have.. as a matter of fact, they did not, so what is your comparison about?

[Domen]

Macedon,

I suggest you read some books on Medieval war - like for example Philippe Contamine "War in the Middle Ages" - to verify your erroneus assumptions of Medieval war, infantry and also cavalry.

Especially when you speak about the supposed lack of discipline or the supposed lack of ability to fight in organized, sophisticated formations of Medieval troops - it is very wide of the truth. This may be true for some Medieval armies, in some periods & areas, in some battles. But not in general.

As for Medieval cavalry - apart from heavy cavalry, large part of Medieval cavalry in many countries (like for example the German states) were mounted crossbowmen. A combination of mounted crossbowmen with heavy lancers worked in a similar way to Ancient Parthian and Sassanid cavalry forces.

As for "5 out of 100 men" - in the 1460s, there were entire cavalry units equipped like that guy. So definitely not just "5 out of 100 men", but 100 out of 100 in a particular heavy cavalry unit.

- I "tore" a small part of your post, because this is what I wanted to comment on.

You tore a small part of my post and completely distorted its meaning by doing so. You suggested, that I was asking why cataphracts did not do this at Carrhae. And then you, supposedly, answered me.

While in reality I was not asking - I was explaining why...

If the Parthians wanted to risk their "nukes" they would have.. as a matter of fact, they did not, so what is your comparison about?

As a matter of fact they had other missile weapons - also very efficient, as it turned out... So why would Parthians even fight in close combat as long as they had enough arrows to kill Roman troops.

If cataphracts didn't charge - they didn't because it wasn't necessary. Not because they couldn't.

Carrhae was an easy victory - minimal casualties for the Parthians, a slaughter for the Romans.

There were many other Parthian & Sassanid victories over Romans, not as easy though. And cataphracts most likely played a more important role in those victories than they did at Carrhae.

[Macedon]

Peter I had prepared a more aggressive answer but I regretted it. After all, if I do not try to be civil, how could I expect others to be? You are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine. I probably have read something myself about the Medieval era, although my something could be much more or much less than what you would consider adequate. I personally believe that you have an issue telling exception from the norm, but then, this is my opinion.

As for the Carrhae incident, I also offered my explanation as to why they did make the charge but did not "complete" it. Your explanation that they did not have to make this charge goes against their commencing it. They did commence it but did not complete it which shows -as Plutarch also confirms- that it was the fastness of the Roman infantry that made them retreat, which in turn means the obvious, that is that such cavalry had the luxury of commencing charges and strike only when things went favorably. I still find your comparison lacking, maybe my imagination is not that evolved..

[Nathan Ross]

Being a soldier on the frontline, is the most risky of all jobs.

Being a soldier is certainly 'risky', but there's a difference between that and 'suicidal'. I think it was Sorokin who estimated the average battle casualty rate for soldiers in pre-modern Europe at 5%. Even if you increase his figure several times, I think it's fair to say that most soldiers could expect to survive their experience of battle.

Politicians and governments start wars... Only a very small fraction of all soldiers benefited from wars throughout history.

Governments may start wars, but they need soldiers to fight them, and soldiers would be in short supply indeed if they could only expect certain death!

But this is getting rather off the point, I think! :neutral:

[Domen]

Sorokin who estimated the average battle casualty rate for soldiers in pre-modern Europe at 5%.

1) Of all soldiers (including rear-area camp servants, etc.), or of soldiers involved in combat?

2) Battle casualties, or casualties from all causes (including various epidemic diseases)?

and soldiers would be in short supply indeed if they could only expect certain death!

Really? Mass conscription leave not much space for decision-making of those conscripted. And just read how many British or German troops who fought in Europe since 1914 made it to 1918.

Or how many Soviet troops who fought already since 1941 made it to 1945.

BTW - Romans had problems with recruiting troops for their campaign against Viriathus in Spain, because casualty ratio was so heavy that only very high payment could encourage anyone to join.

I guess there were similar problems with volunteers after the Roman defeat at Carrhae.

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

I think it's fair to say that most soldiers could expect to survive their experience of battle.

I remember there were two guys (war correspondents, IIRC) in the American Civil War - who wanted to prove that the probability of not becoming casualties while fighting in the first line of an infantry formation is very high. And guess what? In the first battle of that experiment, both were wounded.

So I would say that most soldiers who did not see direct combat could expect to survive.

Also surviving one battle is one thing - surviving 20 years full of campaigns, is another thing.

A Roman soldier had to serve for about 20 years. His chances of surviving that time largely depended on timeframe during which he served - how many wars were fought during that period.

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

Your explanation that they did not have to make this charge goes against their commencing it.

Not really. They did not commence any charge - it was a feigned charge, as you clearly described.

Testing enemy morale and distracting enemy attention from own horse archers cost them nothing.

That's why there was no reason not to carry out a feigned charge to test the enemy.

[Nathan Ross]

Of all soldiers (including rear-area camp servants, etc.), or of soldiers involved in combat?

I think he was referring solely to those killed in combat, but I haven't read Sorokin's work, just seen it quoted here and there, so couldn't be too sure.

Anyway, his point is that direct battle casualties in pre-modern conflicts were relatively few, but that the percentage increases enormously with the arrival of gunpowder weaponry. By the mid 20th century casualty rates of 40% or greater were not unusual; your suggestions about rates of death and wounding in the American Civil War and the two world wars would bear this out.

At the risk of further generalising, I would suggest that the majority of fatalities in ancient battles appear to have occurred during routs, after one side or the other broke and tried to flee. Once battle had commenced, therefore, a soldier would actually be safer if he held his position in formation - the principle of self preservation was actually allied to discipline in these circumstances.

To pull this back somewhat towards the theme, therefore, I would say that there was little motivation for soldiers (whether cavalry or otherwise) to engage in reckless and potentially suicidal attacks against enemy formations. That this sometimes happened is undeniable, but to suggest that it was routine or expected would be to overestimate the exceptional courage of the few and the relative caution of the many.

[Domen]

I think he was referring solely to those killed in combat

So apparently he entirely ignored wounded, many of whom were becoming disabled persons.

By the mid 20th century casualty rates of 40% or greater were not unusual

I know quite a lot about the nature and scale of casualties in WW2.

Contrary to some myths, casualties in individual battles or average daily losses in terms of percentage were not bigger than in pitched battles of earlier times (for example Ancient or Medieval times).

And also 40% casualty rate could be valid for some unlucky platoon, which fell into enemy ambush. But for a division, already 1% during one day of combats, was considered as heavy losses.

It should also be noted that vast majority of losses were being suffered by infantry rifle platoons (check Omar Bradley's "A Soldier's Story" - 83% of losses in Normandy were suffered by rifle platoons).

This means that being a riflemen was much more risky than being anyone else (and riflemen - serving in rifle platoons - were only about 25% of manpower strength of an average infantry division).

Average daily losses during a combat-day for a division, were several dozen wounded and killed.

Anything over 150 dead and wounded per day was considered as heavy losses for a division.

At St-Lo. 30th Inf.Div. had 3934 casualties (dead, wounded, captured, missing, etc.) in 16 days.

[Macedon]

Not really. They did not commence any charge - it was a feigned charge, as you clearly described.

Testing enemy morale and distracting enemy attention from own horse archers cost them nothing.

That's why there was no reason not to carry out a feigned charge to test the enemy.

?? A "feign" charge has to commence or else it is no charge... A charge is a charge even if it does not end in hand to hand combat. They did so, hoping that the Romans would not sustain their attack. The Romans did, the Parthians stopped before the "clash". The Parthians retreated. Had the Romans not withstood the cataphract approach and lose their order, their cohesion and present gaps and disorder, then the Parthians would not have stopped the charge but they would have attacked... The reason to do things on the battlefield is because they may work. If you see that they do not work, you recall, regroup, try something else. This is why they conducted the charge, not having a reason not to do something is not a reason to do it. In a battle, you need reasons to do stuff. There was also no reason for the Parthians to not dance the Harlem shake but no source says they did...

[Domen]

A "feign" charge has to commence or else it is no charge... A charge is a charge

A charge that does not end in hand to hand combat on purpose (i.e. it is planned in advance, that it will not end in hand to hand combat against steady enemy unit) - is a feigned charge.

They did so, hoping that the Romans would not sustain their attack.

Oh - how do you know the exact intentions of the Parthians?

Please quote a source that describes their intentions.

The Romans did,

No - the Romans did not "sustain" anything. There was no actual clash.

[Nathan Ross]

Contrary to some myths, casualties in individual battles or average daily losses in terms of percentage were not bigger than in pitched battles of earlier times... for a division, already 1% during one day of combats, was considered as heavy losses... Average daily losses during a combat-day for a division, were several dozen wounded and killed.

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you here, but don't these figures support the point I was making above, i.e. that battles are not 'more or less suicidal'?

[Domen]

Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you here, but don't these figures support the point I was making above, i.e. that battles are not 'more or less suicidal'?

They rather tell something different:

That in modern warfare proportion of combat troops to support troops and rear troops is very much in favor of the last two categories (i.e. that only a relatively small part of entire - let's say - army, are people who actually fight with rifles in hands as infantry). It also says that most battles do not involve entire available forces of the opposing sides, but only some parts (and while casualties of those parts might be very high, overall casualties for entire force will be much smaller). And also that modern battles generally take much longer time than Ancient battles. Dispersion of troops is also much bigger.

Actually on the daily basis Ancient battles were much more bloody than 20th century ones.

The first day of the battle of the Somme in 1916 - the last such bloodbath in history of warfare - was still much less bloody than the battle of Cannae in 216 BC (which also lasted only for 1 day).

First day of the Somme - some 24,000 dead (including died of wounds later) on both sides.

Battle of Cannae (one day) - at least 60,000 dead on both sides, perhaps much more.

In terms of percentage of forces involved becoming casualties, Cannae is even more tragic.

[Macedon]

A charge that does not end in hand to hand combat on purpose (i.e. it is planned in advance, that it will not end in hand to hand combat against steady enemy unit) - is a feigned charge.

A feigned charge is a charge... "to charge" only means to advance towards an opponent, no contact is required for a charge to be called a charge...

Oh - how do you know the exact intentions of the Parthians?

Please quote a source that describes their intentions.

So, you are discussing Carrhae without having read Plutarch? The exact reference was kindly given by Eduard some posts ago.

"And at first they purposed to charge upon the Romans with their long spears, and throw their front ranks into confusion; but when they saw the depth of their formation, where shield was locked with shield, and the firmness and composure of the men, they drew back, and while seeming to break their ranks and disperse, they surrounded the hollow square in which their enemy stood before he was aware of the manoeuvre." Plut. Crassus, 24.3

Purpose is clearly given, as far as the author is concerned, reasons why they did not physically attack the Romans are also given.

No - the Romans did not "sustain" anything. There was no actual clash.

I wonder why I have to repeat what I write again and again...

As Plutarch clearly writes and as I have many times stated, it was first and foremost the psychological shock of such a charge that any infantry would have to sustain/withstand. This is what the Romans sustained, what Plutarch describes as the Parthians seeing "the firmness and composure of the men", which means their will to stand against them, keep their order and not give way.

As with a charge, a melee is not necessary "to sustain an attack".