Quote:The Nikephorian wedge would have had its flanks guarded by other cavalry (not as heavily armoured as the klibanophoroi) in more normal formations of linear ranks.
You are right. As I said Byzantine warfare is not my strong point. The treatise talks about 3 lines.
1. Forward line with kataphraktoi in middle & 2 escorting units as well as outflankers
2. Support line four units to place themselves not more than a bow shot behind first line.
3. 3rd line 3 units of Saka with baggage train & escorts making a 4th line behind Saka.
Do you know why Emperor insisted on multiple maces? Do they break after caving in a few skulls or are they easy to dropped or lost in combat as emperor insists that everyone wears swords. Good topic this.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Quote:The three horsemen are stunt-riders on highly trained horses, the average cavalryman and mount of the past were probably less adept.
Quite the contrary - they were more adept, in case of elite heavy cavalry formations at least.
Quote:I think a squadron of 100+ men in two ranks galloping at speed, trying to keep knee to knee over imperfect ground would quickly degenerate - with many falls and also injuries to riders legs from banging against a neighbouring horse's flanks.
I've read that there is a pre-WW2 newsreel showing a Polish cavalry parade, during which a unit of cavalry was galloping at speed in a close knee-to-knee formation (without falls and injuries!).
The stunt rider has to control his horse and remember to look good for the camera. Not that much to do, and they can do these things very well. A cavalryman in action has much more to do, obviously if he were well trained he would fight better than a modern stuntman, who does not have to fight - just appear to do so occasionally. Also a stunt is very carefully planned and all methods of making it safe are employed - a cavalry charge is primarily intended to damage the enemy - looking over the ground beforehand, or choosing the ground to be charged over would usually not take place to any great degree.
Imagine a squadron of two ranks, knee to knee galloping at the charge. One horse in the front rank hits a pothole or is felled by a missile, it goes down, it may take out one or both of the horses on either side, and also one or more horses in the following rank - as they cannot swerve aside because they are hemmed in. Not an efficient way of making a charge - charge knee to knee at the trot, or charge at the gallop in a more open order.
Galloping over prepared ground in a parade is, again, not the same as over uncertain ground on a battlefield.
Quote:The Nikephorian wedge would have had its flanks guarded by other cavalry (not as heavily armoured as the klibanophoroi) in more normal formations of linear ranks.
You are right. As I said Byzantine warfare is not my strong point. The treatise talks about 3 lines.
1. Forward line with kataphraktoi in middle & 2 escorting units as well as outflankers
2. Support line four units to place themselves not more than a bow shot behind first line.
3. 3rd line 3 units of Saka with baggage train & escorts making a 4th line behind Saka.
Do you know why Emperor insisted on multiple maces? Do they break after caving in a few skulls or are they easy to dropped or lost in combat as emperor insists that everyone wears swords. Good topic this.
Regards
Michael Kerr
I know that the Byzantines had multiple names for maces, which might suggest that they had multiple designs. One could perhaps imagine that they used longer maces against infantry and shorter ones against cavalry. Having said that, there is a manuscript illustration of Byzantine cavalry pursuing other cavalry and one or two of the Byzantines are shown wielding very long-hafted maces. Maces were normally attached to the saddle in some way, perhaps they had a tendancy to come loose in combat?
In a description by Niketas Choniates of the Battle of Semlin/Sirmium in the mid 12th century, he says that once the lances were shattered, the Byzantine cavalry drew their swords, once the swords had become blunted they resorted to their maces.
Just looking at "Sewing the Dragon's Teeth by Eric McGeer & his book mentions that all the horsemen who are not archers in the wedge formation should carry shields and I saw an old Byzantine drawing of Theodore of Mistheia using a dead Russian as a shield after his horse is killed on the next page. Gives the term "human shield" new meaning.
[attachment=8053]Humansheilds.jpg[/attachment]
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Quote:Not an efficient way of making a charge - charge knee to knee at the trot, or charge at the gallop in a more open order.
A charging unit could initially advance in loose order and close their ranks soon before clashing vs the enemy. Primary sources confirm that Polish-Lithuanian hussars were able to perform such maneuvers.
Quote:looking over the ground beforehand, or choosing the ground to be charged over would usually not take place to any great degree. One horse in the front rank hits a pothole
In the battle of Vienna in 1683 ground for a massive charge of 20,000 cavalry (spearheaded by ca. 3,000 hussars) was carefully prepared. Before the main charge also some reconnaissance charges by small units were carried out, to check where the ground was most favourable for a massive charge.
Front of that charging cavalry formation was around 4 km wide. 20,000 riders charged downhill:
Obóz turecki - Turkish camp
Wiedeń - the city of Vienna (defended by garrison under Starhemberg)
Despite criticisms of their competence the British heavy cavalry reconnoitered the ground over which they were to charge at Waterloo. There is a difference between this sort of battlefield preparation and what modern stunt riders would do. The military scouts would be looking for major fearures like walls or hidden watercourses, not as stuntmen would do looking at every inch of ground for irregularities.
Most of the fast movement in tight formation in the clips you have shown show cavalry cantering. Well trained horsemen should be capable of this. There is a difference between cantering and galloping a l'outrance.
If cavalry, in a battlefield situation, could charge at the gallop knee to knee you have to ask yourself "why did they ever charge at a slower pace?"
It was generally accepted that higher speed gave more impact to a charge. We know for certain that in the English Civil War the Parliamentarian cavalry charged at the trot, knee to knee, we also know that the Royalists charged at the gallop. At Marston Moor the two cavalry wings of each army charged each other with very different outcomes. The right wing Parliamentarians had to cross a broken area of ground and the Royalists routed them. The Royalist charge at the gallop defeated the Parliamentarian slower approach precisely because they had lost the cohesion of their formation. On the other wing, Prince Rupert's Royalists (including a relative of mine) crashed into Oliver Cromwell's cavalry, who were in perfect formation. Cromwell won, and because his troops were in hand he rallied them and attacked the Royalist infantry in the rear, winning the battle.
If the cohesion of a unit of cavalry was not affected by its speed of attack the above case would not have occurred as it did. If matters were as you infer, then the events at Marston Moor would have been very different, the Royalists galloping in perfect formation, meeting the Parliamentarians moving at a much slower pace should have routed them.
There was a compromise in how fast a unit of cavalry charged, the greater the speed the greater the impact, but also the greater the loss of cohesion. In addition, a unit charging at speed was more difficult to make stop, rally and reform its ranks in order to be of further use in battle.
Quote:Most of the fast movement in tight formation in the clips you have shown show cavalry cantering. Well trained horsemen should be capable of this. There is a difference between cantering and galloping a l'outrance.
Galloping a l'outrance in Polish is cwał (while cantering is galop). Language barrier issues again.
However, it should be noted that in any cavalry charge, galloping a l'outrance took place - if it took place at all - only during the last 50 - 60 steps before enemy lines (according to Giorgio Basta or John Cruso). Il-disciplined French cavalry of the Late Medieval era and of later times was often switching to gallop a l'outrance already 100 steps before enemy lines, which was heavily criticized by Raimondo Montecuccoli.
50 - 60 steps is around 40 - 50 meters.
Cwał speed (gallop a l'outrance speed ) is around 10 meters / second.
It means, that this distance was covered during 4 - 5 seconds.
This time (4 - 5 seconds) is not enough to lose cohesion for a formation.
Before switching to cwał, cavalry was cantering during some time - and only 40 - 50 meters before enemy lines it was switching to gallop a l'outrance. While cantering, trained cavalry could mantain a cohesive formation.
And last 4 - 5 seconds did not make a big difference, even if some horses were faster, some slower.
=======================================
In a charge that culminated at a gallop a l'outrance speed, this is how each distance was covered:
- before 250 meters from enemy lines - trot speed (ca. 3,33 m/s)
- between 250 and 50 / 40 meters from enemy - canter speed (ca. 6,66 m/s)
- last 40 or 50 meters to the enemy line - gallop a l'outrance (ca. 10 m/s)
According to Raimondo Montecuccoli, Late Medieval (15th - 16th centuries) French knights were ill-disciplined and were switching to gallop a l'outrance speed already 100 steps from enemy - they were losing cohesion and their charges were failures. Cavalry switching to full speed 50 or 60 steps before enemy is less likely to lose cohesion. Also François de la Noue (1531 - 1591) criticized French lancers for lack of capability of maintaining cohesion during charge.
Given that this discussion is still active, may I put in a friendly reminder to those involved that (in order to keep this from relegation to OT) the discussion is still to be focused on cavalry from the Classical period?
Comparisons to later periods are of course welcome, but keep in mind that the discussion should NOT wander off to Polish or French or whatever cavalry in their own right, but always should contain the link to why your modern examples relate to classical cavalry.
We do not want to read here an analysis about why the battle of whatsthisplace went awry because general whatsisname messed up the charge.
Robert Vermaat MODERATOR FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Robert, but we don't know much about extreme details of tactics of heavy cavalry from Ancient era. So comparisons to later eras are necessary to create some theories regarding Ancient era.
Quote:and there was not a rank of horsemen before or behind these stunt riders. Also they were not being subject to missile fire (except for the man with a pistol firing blanks). I think a squadron of 100+ men in two ranks galloping at speed, trying to keep knee to knee over imperfect ground would quickly degenerate
Imagine a squadron of two ranks, knee to knee galloping at the charge. One horse in the front rank hits a pothole or is felled by a missile, it goes down, it may take out one or both of the horses on either side, and also one or more horses in the following rank - as they cannot swerve aside because they are hemmed in. Not an efficient way of making a charge - charge knee to knee at the trot, or at the gallop in a more open order.
Quote:A charging unit could initially advance in loose order and close their ranks soon before clashing vs the enemy. Primary sources confirm that Polish-Lithuanian hussars were able to perform such maneuvers.
Just one more comparison to later period:
According to "Taktyka walki, uzbrojenie i wyposażenie husarii w latach 1576-1710" ("Tactics of combats, weaponry and equipment of hussars in period 1576-1710") by Dr. Radosław Sikora, it seems that Polish hussars - when charging with use of long lances and switching to gallop a l'outrance during the last 40 - 50 meters from enemy lines - often charged in just one rank of horsemen, NOT two ranks.
They often followed the mode of attacks depicted below (see pictures) during such combats.
Other ranks of horsemen waited in reserve, while only one rank was engaging the enemy at once. They were replacing each other and charging in turn. After charge and impact, each rank was withdrawing, soon after that another rank was charging.
Only when enemy formation was finally broken, all ranks were charging to help finish off the enemy.
Author of this work only describes this (without illustrations). But this is how I would imagine this:
From the same publication:
When superior enemy forces were attacking and hussars had to give ground, everything was done in similar fashion but each rank was charging in open order so they could pass each other during charges - when one rank was withdrawing, another one was countercharging to delay the enemy advance and cover the retreat of other units - then this rank was withdrawing, while another one countercharged, etc.
Once again no illustrations, but this is how I would imagine this mode of gradual fighting withdrawal:
Quote:According to Raimondo Montecuccoli, Late Medieval (15th - 16th centuries) French knights were ill-disciplined and were switching to gallop a l'outrance speed already 100 steps from enemy - they were losing cohesion and their charges were failures. Cavalry switching to full speed 50 or 60 steps before enemy is less likely to lose cohesion. Also François de la Noue (1531 - 1591) criticized French lancers for lack of capability of maintaining cohesion during charge.
And also Blaise de Montluc (1502 - 1577) wrote about poor quality of training of French lancers.
When it comes mentioned historian Radosław Sikora - according to his works, training and morale were often much more important than weaponry. Sophisticated tactics was also important, but without good training and discipline applying such tactics is impossible, so these factors are related to each other.
Collapse of training, discipline and - as the final result - morale, is also the main reason for the decline of Polish hussars cavalry during the 18th century, according to Dr. Radosław Sikora.
![[Image: charge.png]](http://s23.postimg.org/9jwchc2e3/charge.png)
![[Image: 1673-580x347.jpg]](http://vivathusaria.pl/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/1673-580x347.jpg)
![[Image: 16731-580x385.jpg]](http://vivathusaria.pl/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/16731-580x385.jpg)
![[Image: 10zdj3.JPG]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YGbE_USsZt0/UDUs6pH5rtI/AAAAAAAABYY/TqmWDspYGm8/s1600/10zdj3.JPG)
![[Image: Battle_of_Beresteczko_1651.jpg]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Battle_of_Beresteczko_1651.jpg)
![[Image: walki_husarii2.png]](http://s21.postimg.org/tmmsh6k6f/walki_husarii2.png)
![[Image: walki_husarii3.png]](http://s14.postimg.org/j1v1m28fl/walki_husarii3.png)
