heavy cavalry engaging heavy cavalry

[Alanus]

Horses seldom charge into enemies, who are noisy, smelly, freaky and look deadly. They are pretty smart animals, a lot of training is needed even to charge into common spear levies.

There has been much talk of how "enemy-shy" horses were back in ancient times; and how a full charge against a solid infantry or cavalry wall was a physical impossibility. I take a different stance-- YES, cataphracts did charge against a formation because their horses were trained specifically for such warfare. Anyone who has played polo knows this. A polo pony is trained to pass by its opponent by mere inches. The horse does not balk, stop, or even flinch. I am so tired of hearing how the ancients were so crude, so stupid, that they could not breed or train their horses to accomplish what modern horses now do. :twisted:

Perhaps I'm the Devil on this one, but I believe it's a realistic-- and pragmatic-- interpretation in a huge jar of "old hat" prognostications. :whistle:

[Vindex]

Seems appropriate to show you this recent link:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/7-off-topic...perly.html

Some horses LIKE galloping into things and barging them out of the way. All of my polo ponies have - particularly the mares mile: My new one (had her 8 weeks) has a disconcerting habit of aiming for on coming cars! Just in walk, but scares me and the driver - she doesn't care. I think she knows it'll get out of her way!

[Mark Hygate]

............................
There has been much talk of how "enemy-shy" horses were back in ancient times; and how a full charge against a solid infantry or cavalry wall was a physical impossibility. I take a different stance-- YES, cataphracts did charge against a formation because their horses were trained specifically for such warfare. Anyone who has played polo knows this. A polo pony is trained to pass by its opponent by mere inches. The horse does not balk, stop, or even flinch. I am so tired of hearing how the ancients were so crude, so stupid, that they could not breed or train their horses to accomplish what modern horses now do...............

Because it's much closer in history and there are so many more reliable sources available (and I certainly don't think there's any real difference between now and then) - do you not credit that horsemen of the 15th to 19th centuries also were of the opinion that a cavalry charge against formed troops with bayonet-fitted muskets or even pikes was doomed to failure unless the line/square broke or a dying horse crashed in and broke them? That horses would indeed balk and not charge home (sensible animals, horses ).

I'm not a rider, but are Polo ponies not trained to pass by other horses rather than ram into them? I've also seen many horses refuse to jump fences, even when they've been trained to do that? Is the anecdote of a horse refusing to step on a man unless specifically battle-trained (very rare mounts I believe), not true?

I too will happily play a Devil's advocate, for I seen so much 'shock cavalry are like tanks' in the past - but it's nothing to do with ancient horsemen being wimps. If cavalry could routinely ride over infantry - then a great number of battles would have been quite different. The Allies would have lost Waterloo for one!

Xenophon would not have managed his retreat either......... :wink:

[Nathan Ross]

the panegyric speaks of Maxentius' cavalry, which normally would be "invulnerable", being beak and on the head and falling off their horses, which would imply that Constantine's mailed cavalry were using the clubs..

Luckily we have the whole text available in a good modern translation:

In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: Panegyric IV

I admit that when I first read this I'd assumed that the Maxentian clibanarii were charging against Constantine's infantry, which parted to let them through. But in fact it does make more sense as a cavalry clash - Constantine's own 'mailed cavalry' (Cataphractos equites in the latin, so also heavy cavalry) performs a manouvre quite similar to Aurelian's 'feigned flight' in the Zosimus passage (this and the clubs might suggest a dubious connection between the two descriptions, as others have suggested here!).

However, the identity of the clubmen remains obscure, I think. They may be the same as the cavalry, but our men assailed those who were delivered to them with clubs implies that somebody else had done the 'delivering'! I would read this as suggesting that Constantines cataphracts had opened their line and allowed the Maxentian clibanarii through, 'delivering' them to another body of troops, perhaps infantry armed with clubs, stationed behind them.

But you're right that the blows are delivered to the head. We might assume that the clubs were quite long, maybe?... :unsure:

Here's the latin text, to check nuances:

Panegyric IV Latin Text

[Vindex]

I'm not a rider, but are Polo ponies not trained to pass by other horses rather than ram into them? I've also seen many horses refuse to jump fences, even when they've been trained to do that? Is the anecdote of a horse refusing to step on a man unless specifically battle-trained (very rare mounts I believe), not true?

Polo ponies are trained to ride off their opponent. You can bump (but not too hard...legally) but there are rules about angles of approach, and certainly not head on.

A horse will try to avoid treading on anything which isn't a true surface...so if there is a body in the way, they'll try not to step on it but they can still kick you on the way past as I know to my cost! In a polo match, I fell off and one of my team members rode over me. He was supposed to be behind me as that's how you play polo, but he was WAY out of control. The horse tried to jump me but I was still rolling out of the fall. Only a broken collar bone though mile:

[Michael Kerr]

Just adding an example of misconception of horse behaviour & the importance of training & breeding is in which a few ancient sources repeatedly emphasise the effect of elephants on horses, which are alarmed by the smell and noise of elephants and are loathe to approach them. Horses supposed fear of elephants was blamed for the defeat & death of Antigonus at the Battle of Ipsus when Demetrius couldn't return to protect his father's right flank because Seleucus isolated him by blocking his return to the battlefield with a herd of reserve elephants rather than the fact that Demetrius let the pursuit of the allied cavalry under Antiochus go on for too long thus exposing his father's right flank. Yet below is a link I posted a while ago on another thread regarding how in 16th Century Indian Marwari horses were bred & trained specifically to attack elephants or more importantly their mahouts.

http://travel.cnn.com/explorations/play/...nts-630647

Finally I just want to add in a charge by a large body of horses at a phalanx the herd mentality must kick in with horses being competitive & excited & affected by the noise of the charge so would a shield wall manned by inexperienced soldiers really be able to stop a large stampede of horses in this state?
Or would a horse in a large charge be worked up enough in a herd situation to do things he would usually baulk at?
Regards
Michael Kerr

[Sean Manning]

............................
There has been much talk of how "enemy-shy" horses were back in ancient times; and how a full charge against a solid infantry or cavalry wall was a physical impossibility. I take a different stance-- YES, cataphracts did charge against a formation because their horses were trained specifically for such warfare. Anyone who has played polo knows this. A polo pony is trained to pass by its opponent by mere inches. The horse does not balk, stop, or even flinch. I am so tired of hearing how the ancients were so crude, so stupid, that they could not breed or train their horses to accomplish what modern horses now do...............

Because it's much closer in history and there are so many more reliable sources available (and I certainly don't think there's any real difference between now and then) - do you not credit that horsemen of the 15th to 19th centuries also were of the opinion that a cavalry charge against formed troops with bayonet-fitted muskets or even pikes was doomed to failure unless the line/square broke or a dying horse crashed in and broke them?

I have never found anyone who believed that before the 19th century, let alone descriptions of actual fights to support it . Could you give me some examples of people who you think did believe that before the French Revolution?

[Macedon]

"But let us come to the other question of yours, in which you desire to know what organization or what natural virtu causes the infantry to be superior to the cavalry. And I tell you, first, that the horses cannot go in all the places that the infantry do, because it is necessary for them either to turn back after they have come forward, or turning back to go forward, or to move from a stand-still, or to stand still after moving, so that, without doubt, the cavalry cannot do precisely thus as the infantry. Horses cannot, after being put into disorder from some attack, return to the order (of the ranks) except with difficulty, and even if the attack does not occur; the infantry rarely do this. In addition to this, it often occurs that a courageous man is mounted on abase horse, and a base man on a courageous horse, whence it must happen that this difference in courage causes disorders. Nor should anyone wonder that a Knot (group) of infantry sustains every attack of the cavalry, for the horse is a sensible animal and knows the dangers, and goes in unwillingly. And if you would think about what forces make him (the horse) go forward and what keep him back, without doubt you will see that those which hold him back are greater than those which push him; for spurs make him go forward, and, on the other hand, the sword and the pike retain him. So that from both ancient and modem experiences, it has been seen that a small group of infantry can be very secure from, and even actually insuperable to, the cavalry. And if you should argue on this that the Elan with which he comes makes it more furious in hurling himself against whoever wants to sustain his attack, and he responds less to the pike than the spur, I say that, as soon as the horse so disposed begins to see himself at the point of being struck by the points of the pikes, either he will by himself check his gait, so that he will stop as soon as he sees himself about to be pricked by them, or, being pricked by them, he will turn to the right or left. If you want to make a test of this, try to run a horse against a wall, and rarely will you find one that will run into it, no matter with what Elan you attempt it. "

Machiavelli, Art of War, B.2, early 16th century

I have many quotes on this issue but none is as straightforward and clear as that. the translation is a bit awkward at places, I found it on the net because i somehow misplaced my copy... Refusing to accept that the majority of horses and riders would not just charge into close-ordered standing infantry with or without pikes because some horses can be trained to do so is to me as far-fetched as saying that no cavalry unit, ever, was determined and trained enough to fall upon such infantry.

However, I feel I have to caution everyone, me included..., that the OP is about cavalry vs cavalry. Let us not transform this thread to yet another cavalry vs infantry discussion. If you do want this, gentlemen, we could resurrect one of the last threads discussing this very thing?

[Mark Hygate]

.................
However, I feel I have to caution everyone, me included..., that the OP is about cavalry vs cavalry. Let us not transform this thread to yet another cavalry vs infantry discussion. If you do want this, gentlemen, we could resurrect one of the last threads discussing this very thing?

Perfect, thank you and yes.

[Michael Kerr]

Just to try & keep to topic as requested I have a question to ask.
How do we define heavy cavalry in an ancient context?
1. Heavily protected
2. Heavily armed
3. Both of above which would entail bigger & more expensive horses as well as armour & weapons which only a few could afford so in ancient times there were probably fewer heavy cavalry & more medium & light cavalry in armies.
4. Shock troops
Archer Jones in his book “the Art of War in the Western World" although covering early medieval warfare has a general chart covering the “tactical weapons systems" of the 4 main arms of ancient & medieval armies light infantry, heavy infantry, light cavalry & heavy cavalry & the advantages each arm has over the other 3 arms on flat ground in a battle situation which I thought might interest some. Going by this chart heavy cavalry doesn't fare well against either light cavalry or heavy infantry but good against light infantry.


[attachment=7760]image_2013-08-08.jpg[/attachment]

Regards
Michael Kerr

[Alanus]

I take a different stance-- YES, cataphracts did charge against a formation because their horses were trained specifically for such warfare. Anyone who has played polo knows this. A polo pony is trained to pass by its opponent by mere inches. The horse does not balk, stop, or even flinch. I am so tired of hearing how the ancients were so crude, so stupid, that they could not breed or train their horses to accomplish what modern horses now do.

If I read my own quote correctly, I didn't say anything about ramming the opponent. I said, "pass by its opponent by mere inches." Not every battle was recorded, and to think that no heavy-horse charge against heavy-horse ever occurred would be dismissive. If a horse can charge an automobile, as Moi mentioned above, then it certainly had the grit to charge at an on-coming horse... just as polo pony does.

[Alanus]

I take a different stance-- YES, cataphracts did charge against a formation because their horses were trained specifically for such warfare. Anyone who has played polo knows this. A polo pony is trained to pass by its opponent by mere inches. The horse does not balk, stop, or even flinch. I am so tired of hearing how the ancients were so crude, so stupid, that they could not breed or train their horses to accomplish what modern horses now do.

If I read my own quote correctly, I didn't say anything about ramming the opponent. I said, "pass by its opponent by mere inches." Not every battle was recorded, and to think that no heavy-horse charge against heavy-horse ever occurred would be dismissive. If a horse can charge an automobile, as Moi mentioned above, then it certainly had the grit to charge at an on-coming horse... just as a polo pony does.

[Sean Manning]

"But let us come to the other question of yours, in which you desire to know what organization or what natural virtu causes the infantry to be superior to the cavalry. And I tell you, first, that the horses cannot go in all the places that the infantry do, because it is necessary for them either to turn back after they have come forward, or turning back to go forward, or to move from a stand-still, or to stand still after moving, so that, without doubt, the cavalry cannot do precisely thus as the infantry. Horses cannot, after being put into disorder from some attack, return to the order (of the ranks) except with difficulty, and even if the attack does not occur; the infantry rarely do this. In addition to this, it often occurs that a courageous man is mounted on abase horse, and a base man on a courageous horse, whence it must happen that this difference in courage causes disorders. Nor should anyone wonder that a Knot (group) of infantry sustains every attack of the cavalry, for the horse is a sensible animal and knows the dangers, and goes in unwillingly. And if you would think about what forces make him (the horse) go forward and what keep him back, without doubt you will see that those which hold him back are greater than those which push him; for spurs make him go forward, and, on the other hand, the sword and the pike retain him. So that from both ancient and modem experiences, it has been seen that a small group of infantry can be very secure from, and even actually insuperable to, the cavalry. And if you should argue on this that the Elan with which he comes makes it more furious in hurling himself against whoever wants to sustain his attack, and he responds less to the pike than the spur, I say that, as soon as the horse so disposed begins to see himself at the point of being struck by the points of the pikes, either he will by himself check his gait, so that he will stop as soon as he sees himself about to be pricked by them, or, being pricked by them, he will turn to the right or left. If you want to make a test of this, try to run a horse against a wall, and rarely will you find one that will run into it, no matter with what Elan you attempt it. "

Machiavelli, Art of War, B.2, early 16th century

I have many quotes on this issue but none is as straightforward and clear as that. the translation is a bit awkward at places, I found it on the net because i somehow misplaced my copy... Refusing to accept that the majority of horses and riders would not just charge into close-ordered standing infantry with or without pikes because some horses can be trained to do so is to me as far-fetched as saying that no cavalry unit, ever, was determined and trained enough to fall upon such infantry.

However, I feel I have to caution everyone, me included..., that the OP is about cavalry vs cavalry. Let us not transform this thread to yet another cavalry vs infantry discussion. If you do want this, gentlemen, we could resurrect one of the last threads discussing this very thing?

Well, that is one source. Yet isn't it interesting that your clearest source is Machiavelli, who aside from one attempt to reform the militia of Florence was a book soldier? Using him as a source on early 16th century warfare is like using J.F.C. Fuller for early 20th century warfare ... he can be valuable, but not reliable.

If anyone has sources, I would be happy to see them in another thread.

[Sean Manning]

On the original topic, the tilt, or fence along which both horses ran, was invented for jousts because horses often crashed into each other. See Anglo, Martial Arts of Renaissance Europe, p. 227

Maurice said that lancers should close closely together and charge as a solid mass (Strategikon 3.5). I'd argue that his implicit target is other cavalry. This fits with my readings in later medieval sources

Edit: A famous classical case is the fight between Alexander's Thessalian lancers and Darius' Bactrian cataphracts at Issos. Rufus tells us that the Thessalians were driven back and ridden down as long as they were face-to-face with the Bactrians, but charged in when the Bactrians turned and exposed their flanks. The cavalry on both sides wore armour, rode in close order, and were armed with lances so they are "heavy" by any definition.

[Macedon]

Well, that is one source. Yet isn't it interesting that your clearest source is Machiavelli, who aside from one attempt to reform the militia of Florence was a book soldier? Using him as a source on early 16th century warfare is like using J.F.C. Fuller for early 20th century warfare ... he can be valuable, but not reliable.

If anyone has sources, I would be happy to see them in another thread.

Machiavelli was surely much more knowledgeable in these matters than you and me combined. He wrote for people who had vastly more military experience than his and had a reputation to defend. The epitome of a pragmatist, he would not have written something that at least was not generally recognized as common military truth. He is very reliable in the context of his era. However, if you would like to delve more into it, please make (or resurrect) another thread.

Btw, could you give a ref regarding the Bactrians and the Thessalians? I do not seem to be able to find it in my translation of Rufus.