Hard riding no saddles or stirrups

[Dan Diffendale]

Charges spent both man and horse, and considering cavalry was drawn from the wealthier aspects of society, it's unlikely the Romans would send their richest and most influential citizens on a suicide charge directly into enemy infantry.

True for the Early Republic, but what about allied cavalry? Perhaps the Romans weren't so careful with them? Seriously, though, I have to agree that this would not have been good use of resources, but tha doesn't mean it wasn't done.

This is one of those cases where it's useful to step back and consider whether you're coming at the question from a modern or ancient perspective. There are certainly Roman examples of the richest and most influential citizens going on suicidal charges directly into enemy infantry.

As an example of a (semi-?)mythological precedent, consider the story of M Curtius: a chasm opened in the Forum, and could only be closed if the Romans sent that which they valued most into the pit. No amount of valuables could close it; only when the patrician Marcus Curtius mounted his horse and rode in did the chasm close.

The ritual of devotio is precisely a suicide charge of a commander into the enemy, after having given himself over to the deities of the underworld in exchange for victory. Publius Decius Mus in 339 BCE and his son at Sentinum in 295 are the most famous examples.

[floofthegoof]

Usually when suicidal attacking is involved, it is the individual choice of the person making the attack. As part of normal precedure, you can't really ask that of most people with any certainty. You can't really pay someone to commit suicide for your own cause.

Suicide attack, except maybe at critical war turning moments, is not a sound military tactic. If you retreat at least your force is preserved as a possible threat. When you're dead you're just *gone*. When there is no threat, your enemy does exactly what he likes without fear. If you lose a battle and retreat, your enemy must still proceed cautiously. Force preservation is very important.

[Caius Fabius]

well, look at the military tactics of modern warfare, post-1900. Just because something doesn't make financial or psychological sense, doesn't mean it wasn't done. Looking at several different cultures in WW2, they all used different tactics and systems to try to win.

The monetary investment made by the USA in M-4 tanks that were unable to match German armor in 1 on 1 confrontations, still lead to the defeat of the German armor. (One of hundreds of examples that come to mind.)

The question is not is this or that tactic expensive in material or lives, but... can it be done and will it prevent defeat?

Another question is how well trained are your opponents? How many times did Roman cavalry, trained for 4-12 years to attack infantry, actually fight against infantry trained for several years to hold formation and stand their ground in the face of a cavalry charge? Training is very important in the equation. How many time did the Roman cavalry charge 'formed infantry' which broke before contact? This then reinforced the training received by both the men and horses?

[floofthegoof]

The question is not is this or that tactic expensive in material or lives, but... can it be done and will it prevent defeat?

These two questions though are really two ways to ask the same question. How do you train cavalry to give you most benefit in war?

I have no doubt that many times in history this or that horseman went head over horse-shoes into an enemy formation with great effect, sometimes even surviving in rare occasions. But given the risks and expense, I doubt that these people were expected to, or trained to, fight that way.

Many in this thread seem to view the medieval times as the age of 'shock' cavalry. I really have to take exception to this because these people were very high ranking and notoriously self interested to the point of being scarcely controllable by anyone. I bet they roamed the battle field looking for easy pickings, alot more often than face other nobles in combat. I bet battering ram charges happened less in medieval times than in any other time.

[Tiberius Martius]

Charges spent both man and horse, and considering cavalry was drawn from the wealthier aspects of society, it's unlikely the Romans would send their richest and most influential citizens on a suicide charge directly into enemy infantry.

True for the Early Republic, but what about allied cavalry? Perhaps the Romans weren't so careful with them? Seriously, though, I have to agree that this would not have been good use of resources, but tha doesn't mean it wasn't done.

This is one of those cases where it's useful to step back and consider whether you're coming at the question from a modern or ancient perspective. There are certainly Roman examples of the richest and most influential citizens going on suicidal charges directly into enemy infantry.

As an example of a (semi-?)mythological precedent, consider the story of M Curtius: a chasm opened in the Forum, and could only be closed if the Romans sent that which they valued most into the pit. No amount of valuables could close it; only when the patrician Marcus Curtius mounted his horse and rode in did the chasm close.

The ritual of devotio is precisely a suicide charge of a commander into the enemy, after having given himself over to the deities of the underworld in exchange for victory. Publius Decius Mus in 339 BCE and his son at Sentinum in 295 are the most famous examples.

Good information...not to get off topic, is that a hastati impression you're doing there?

[tlclark]

Keep this up though..I need more criticism..you all are giving me great ideas for my disortation!

I love this term...it combines "dissertation" with "distortion"! (A truer neologism has never been coined!) :wink:

I will refer to my diss as a disortation from now on!

Carry on!

BTW - love the thread but I'm in way over my head on this topic, about the only thing I can contribute is my anecdotal opinion of the superiority of mules and asses over horses. My mother's father raised horses and they always put a mule or a donkey in the heard to keep the herd calm, and lead them to water. According to her a mule will break ice on a water trough where horses will not and is smart enough to lead horses around pitfalls.

My wife's grandfather actually did run mule teams in Italy in WWII where tanks and trucks couldn't go! He always said a mule was worth four horses.

[Tiberius Martius]

well, look at the military tactics of modern warfare, post-1900. Just because something doesn't make financial or psychological sense, doesn't mean it wasn't done. Looking at several different cultures in WW2, they all used different tactics and systems to try to win.

The monetary investment made by the USA in M-4 tanks that were unable to match German armor in 1 on 1 confrontations, still lead to the defeat of the German armor. (One of hundreds of examples that come to mind.)

I don't know about that necessarily. The German armor was defeated because the U.S out produced the Germans on an unreal scale. In a lot of ways WWII was won not only on the battlefield but in the war of industry which America won hands down. It's like a big strong guy in a back alley against 50 little guys, he's going to take some of them out, but sheer numbers wise the little guys will overwelm him. So it made great financial and psychological sense to build the M-4 because it was more cost effective and largely more dependable, it was outgunned and outarmored by models like the Konigstiger, but America and her allies produced so many that it really didn't matter.

[Tiberius Martius]

Keep this up though..I need more criticism..you all are giving me great ideas for my disortation!

I love this term...it combines "dissertation" with "distortion"! (A truer neologism has never been coined!) :wink:

I will refer to my diss as a disortation from now on!

Carry on!

BTW - love the thread but I'm in way over my head on this topic, about the only thing I can contribute is my anecdotal opinion of the superiority of mules and asses over horses. My mother's father raised horses and they always put a mule or a donkey in the heard to keep the herd calm, and lead them to water. According to her a mule will break ice on a water trough where horses will not and is smart enough to lead horses around pitfalls.

My wife's grandfather actually did run mule teams in Italy in WWII where tanks and trucks couldn't go! He always said a mule was worth four horses.

Very interesting insight. I never knew that about mules!

[Tiberius Martius]

Usually when suicidal attacking is involved, it is the individual choice of the person making the attack. As part of normal precedure, you can't really ask that of most people with any certainty. You can't really pay someone to commit suicide for your own cause.

Suicide attack, except maybe at critical war turning moments, is not a sound military tactic. If you retreat at least your force is preserved as a possible threat. When you're dead you're just *gone*. When there is no threat, your enemy does exactly what he likes without fear. If you lose a battle and retreat, your enemy must still proceed cautiously. Force preservation is very important.

I totally agree...that's exactly what I was trying to say.

[Felix]

... Many in this thread seem to view the medieval times as the age of 'shock' cavalry. I really have to take exception to this because these people were very high ranking and notoriously self interested to the point of being scarcely controllable by anyone. I bet they roamed the battle field looking for easy pickings, alot more often than face other nobles in combat. I bet battering ram charges happened less in medieval times than in any other time.

The primary sources do not bear this out. If you read the accounts of, say Bouvines in 1214, there is a great deal of very personal violence between men of knightly and noble status. For example:

"Gautier of Ghistelle and Buridan, who were knights of noble prowess, were exhorting the knights of their echelon to battle and were reminding them of the exploits of their friends and ancestors with, it seemed, no more fear than if they had been jousting in a tournament. After unhorsing and striking down some of the above mentioned sergeants, they left them and turned toward the middle of the field to fight the knights. They were then met by the battalion of the Champenois, and they attacked and fought each other valorously. When their lances broke, they pulled out their swords and exchanged wondrous blows. Into this fray appeared Peter of Remy and the men of his company; by force they captured and brought away this Gauthier of Ghistelle and John. Buridan. But a knight of their group called Eustache of Malenghin began to yell out loud with great arrogance "Death, death to the French!" and the French began to surround him. One stopped him and took hold of his head between his arm and his chest, and then ripped his helmet off his head, while another struck him to his heart with a knife between the chin and the ventaille and made him feel through great pain the death with which he had threatened the French through great arrogance. After this Eustache of Malenghin had thus been slain, and Gautier of Ghistelle and Buridan had been taken prisoners, the daring of the French doubled; they put aside all their fears and made use of all their strength as if they were assured of victory. "

"The Viscount of Melun, who had in his troop knights of renown, practised in the use of arms, was fighting at the same time. He attacked his enemies from another side in the same manner that the Count of Saint-Pol had done; he went all the way through them and came back into this battle from another point. "

"The Count of Saint-Pol, who had fought very strongly and for a long time and was already quite worn out by the many blows which he had given and received, withdrew from the press in order to rest, catch his breath, and regain his composure. He had his face turned toward his enemies. As he was thus resting, he noticed that one of his knights had been so well surrounded by his enemies that he could not see an opening through which he could come to him. Even though the count had not yet caught his breath, he put on his helmet, laid his head on his horse's neck, and hugged it firmly with both arms; then he pricked his spurs and in this manner reached his knight through all his enemies. Then he stood up on his stirrups, drew his sword, and distributed blows so great that he split and broke the press of his enemies with his marvelous virtue. After having freed his knight from their hands at great danger to himself, through great courage or folly, he returned to his battalion and his troop. As those who witnessed the following have since recounted, at this point he came into great mortal danger as he was hit by twelve lances at the same time, and yet, with the help of his outstanding virtue, no one could bring either him or his horse down. After accomplishing this marvelous feat and having recouped with his knights who had been resting during this time, he pulled himself together, wrapped himself in his armor, and threw himself back into the thickest of his enemies"

from http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/s ... vines5.htm

[Tiberius Martius]

... Many in this thread seem to view the medieval times as the age of 'shock' cavalry. I really have to take exception to this because these people were very high ranking and notoriously self interested to the point of being scarcely controllable by anyone. I bet they roamed the battle field looking for easy pickings, alot more often than face other nobles in combat. I bet battering ram charges happened less in medieval times than in any other time.

The primary sources do not bear this out. If you read the accounts of, say Bouvines in 1214, there is a great deal of very personal violence between men of knightly and noble status. For example:

"Gautier of Ghistelle and Buridan, who were knights of noble prowess, were exhorting the knights of their echelon to battle and were reminding them of the exploits of their friends and ancestors with, it seemed, no more fear than if they had been jousting in a tournament. After unhorsing and striking down some of the above mentioned sergeants, they left them and turned toward the middle of the field to fight the knights. They were then met by the battalion of the Champenois, and they attacked and fought each other valorously. When their lances broke, they pulled out their swords and exchanged wondrous blows. Into this fray appeared Peter of Remy and the men of his company; by force they captured and brought away this Gauthier of Ghistelle and John. Buridan. But a knight of their group called Eustache of Malenghin began to yell out loud with great arrogance "Death, death to the French!" and the French began to surround him. One stopped him and took hold of his head between his arm and his chest, and then ripped his helmet off his head, while another struck him to his heart with a knife between the chin and the ventaille and made him feel through great pain the death with which he had threatened the French through great arrogance. After this Eustache of Malenghin had thus been slain, and Gautier of Ghistelle and Buridan had been taken prisoners, the daring of the French doubled; they put aside all their fears and made use of all their strength as if they were assured of victory. "

"The Viscount of Melun, who had in his troop knights of renown, practised in the use of arms, was fighting at the same time. He attacked his enemies from another side in the same manner that the Count of Saint-Pol had done; he went all the way through them and came back into this battle from another point. "

"The Count of Saint-Pol, who had fought very strongly and for a long time and was already quite worn out by the many blows which he had given and received, withdrew from the press in order to rest, catch his breath, and regain his composure. He had his face turned toward his enemies. As he was thus resting, he noticed that one of his knights had been so well surrounded by his enemies that he could not see an opening through which he could come to him. Even though the count had not yet caught his breath, he put on his helmet, laid his head on his horse's neck, and hugged it firmly with both arms; then he pricked his spurs and in this manner reached his knight through all his enemies. Then he stood up on his stirrups, drew his sword, and distributed blows so great that he split and broke the press of his enemies with his marvelous virtue. After having freed his knight from their hands at great danger to himself, through great courage or folly, he returned to his battalion and his troop. As those who witnessed the following have since recounted, at this point he came into great mortal danger as he was hit by twelve lances at the same time, and yet, with the help of his outstanding virtue, no one could bring either him or his horse down. After accomplishing this marvelous feat and having recouped with his knights who had been resting during this time, he pulled himself together, wrapped himself in his armor, and threw himself back into the thickest of his enemies"

from http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/s ... vines5.htm

You have to remember though, historians of the ancient and medieval period didn't look at history the way we do today. It was more about the telling of the story than listing what happened and what didn't. It's hard to quote ancient sources well because the truth is usually not always fully explained the way it actually happened. Historians embellish...alot. Back in those days history was passed down through writings but also oral tradition which was largely based on who could tell a better story. Sir Joe Bob may have killed 10 people in a battle in real life, however to those who liked him or revered him he killed 100. It's very difficult to seperate history: fact from fiction. There's probably a grain of truth in all of this, but for the most part nobility in ancient times had a lot to lose so it's highly unlikely you'd see dramatic suicide charges, it happened, but it wasn't an everyday occurence and somewhat of a rarity even if books and sources paint a different picture. Remember who wrote the sources for the most part? The nobility and the educated. Hell, I'd do the same thing, considering I can write and most others could not, I wouldn't write objectively if I was bad and say..."Wow I'm a terrible soldier and I almost peed myself when I saw the Carthaginians yesterday." I'd be more like..."I killed a hundred of the enemy with my sword, while drinking the finest wine and making love to all their womanfolk." Yeah, that sounds way better. The truth may be I'm a decent soldier, but decent doesn't make a great story that people will remember and pass on. So the source of the source can be questionable. The best way for us to study what it would have really been like to be in an ancient battle is through experiencing it first hand (live action, reenactment, workshops, ren faires, actually suiting up and marching and camping and experiencing the full expanse of history)and making adjustments to our thinking as we go. Books give us a decent grasp of the concept, but like Caius was saying earlier, you can read about horsemanship all day and it doesn't make you an expert equestrian. Experience does and the ability to change your thinking. Especially with ancient history, we understand the concept of war but not necessarily how it was fought entirely because we look at war differently with all the information on hand available to us, it's altered our thinking, changed our perspective. Books give us an insight and some first hand information, but it's not the whole picture, the rest we piece together through living it and changing our thinking.

[Robert Vermaat]

You have to remember though, historians of the ancient and medieval period didn't look at history the way we do today. It was more about the telling of the story than listing what happened and what didn't. It's hard to quote ancient sources well because the truth is usually not always fully explained the way it actually happened. Historians embellish...alot. Back in those days history was passed down through writings but also oral tradition which was largely based on who could tell a better story. Sir Joe Bob may have killed 10 people in a battle in real life, however to those who liked him or revered him he killed 100. It's very difficult to seperate history: fact from fiction. There's probably a grain of truth in all of this, but for the most part nobility in ancient times had a lot to lose so it's highly unlikely you'd see dramatic suicide charges, it happened, but it wasn't an everyday occurence and somewhat of a rarity even if books and sources paint a different picture.

Hi Rob,

No doubt you are right about us looking at writing history differently from Romans and later historians.
However, do not make the mistake of throwing away the possible validity of every account with that attitude. Remember these tournaments were events that were witnessed by a lot of people, fans as well as enemies - the descriptions were not chivalric novels in which anything goes. Your suggestion that this was pure fantasy and braggery would not be in agreement with the reaction of the times, when lying like this would be severely frowned upon.

Also, if sources like this this tell us of violent affairs, then where do you base your opinion on that suicide charges were highly unlikely and a rarity 'even if books and sources paint a different picture'? This suggestion that 'today we know better than the sources' is a very dangerous and unscientific approach. I find it all too common in amateur books who have different ideas about the past and therefore use the émbellishment argument' to happily and easily 'reason away' the contemporary sources. Heck I've seen it done by archaeologists and historian too.

If a source tells us something that for some reason we don't accept at face value, it's our job to deduce why that source would do so, and find enough material to make that deduction stick. THAT is the modern approach to writing history!

[Felix]

The battle of Bouvines was well documented, and there is no indication that men were picking easy targets. Instead, they seemed to be looking for the most conspicous targets: i.e. enemy nobles, knights, and even kings.

"udes, Duke of Burgundy, had put on the coat of arms of William des Barres, the good knight, but carried his own shield. You must know that he [William] had performed so many great deeds of arms that he was spoken about with praise as far away as Syria. He [the Duke of Burgundy] looked to one side and saw Arnoul of Audenarde, one of the greatest men of Flanders and, since his youth, one of the best knights, at a spot where he had stopped in front of the sergeants. And thus he charged him. When Arnoul saw him coming, he told his people: "Lords, look, William des Barres, the good knight, is charging us. Let us make our horses face toward him because if he attacks us from the side he would do us too much harm." He was saying this because he thought that the duke was William des Barres on accountt of the coat of arms that he was wearing. As he uttered these words, the duke came upon him and Arnoul stood his ground well and bravely. As they fought each other, the duke bent down and tried to slay his horse but Arnoul had a knife in his hand and tried to hit the duke through the eye-hole of his helmet but the duke bent down and parried the blow, and then fled"

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/s ... vines2.htm

"The first French echelon attacked the Flemings with virility, breaking their echelons by nobly cutting across them, and penetrated their army through all impetuous and tenacious movement"

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/s ... vines1.htm

"the trumpets sounded on both sides and the first battalion, in which the counts we have spoken of were, threw itself so violently on the French that in a moment it broke their ranks and penetrated to where the King of France stood. Count Renaud, who had been disinherited and chased away from his county by the King, saw him, struck him with his lance, threw him to the ground, and tried to kill him with his sword. But a knight who, along with many others, had been assigned to protect him [the King], threw himself between him and the count and received the mortal blow. The French, seeing their King on the ground, hurried towards him, and a large troop of knights put him back on his horse with some difficulty. "

http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/s ... vines4.htm

[Tiberius Martius]

I base my opinion suicide charges were a rarity because those people lived on to write literature about it! It's hard to write about something when your dead! Once again, I was not saying all these things are falacies, some probably did happen. I was simply telling him to question the validity of ancient sources and take all that info into processing instead of just quoting source, source, source.
A lot of my writing is based on logical fact, not necessarily source material, but a combination of both. I find that some source material can be misleading, as men of that time had many motives for their train of thinking and wars are generally written about from the side that won, giving us a very wrong perspective sometimes about what actually happened. Sources give us a picture, but I feel we must fill in the details with our own logic where we can. Remember they wrote about a ship going down because the crew didn't pray enough or a monster flew out of the sea and ate the captain. Ancient sources may say this, but it doesn't make them true. The perspective is extremely important and to be honest a lot of history is missing so we must draw our own conclusions, not necessarily that ALL nobles lied, but that embellishment is human nature and that in those days history was more about the story than the facts of what happened.

[Caius Fabius]

cultural differences....

I suspect some are comparing the ideals, desires and culture of "Romans" to "Modern European" or "Modern American" values. These last two are so impossible to define, that no two groups of people agree on everything, how can we imagine we know what a Roman soldier would or would not do in a certain place or time? How can we imagine that people writing about something that happened in their own time, and was seen by hundreds of their contemporaries would write a totally fictional report to be read by their contemporaries and superiors?

"duh, people just wouldn't be in a suicide charge..." Tell that to the British Light Brigade in Balaclava, or the Japanese Imperial Army or U.S. Marines in the Pacific Island campaign, or The Waffen SS and Wehrmacht Panzermen trying to keep the Soviet Army from entering Germany, or the Russian soldiers attacking German positions, or Hezbollah and Israeli troops fighting over the bunkers in southern Lebanon.

Maybe the average clerk or computer tech or convenience store operator doesn't find it reasonable, but the firemen at the World Trade Center on 9-11 would. When we were in the Fulda Gap (early 1980's), we were told that should the Soviet Army invade, we would have no chance of survival.
That did not stop us from being ready to buy as much time as possible. We didn't have to do it, so I am alive to write a rebuttal today. Soldiers at Omaha beach on D-Day had less of a chance of survival than a Roman cavalryman attacking formed infantry. The ones who survived rarely wrote about it, and most have died without recording their thoughts.

I find there is a great difference in the thought processes of people who have put their life on the line, day after day, and those who only read about combat from a comfy chair. It is probably better to have a great reverence for human life and the sanctity of life and the survival of the individual, and to believe that everyone has a free choice to live or die.

Write your books that way, if you choose. I find that less than 1/5th of my history professors had ever been in the military. Since I was taking military history from actual military officers in several cases, I suspect the history community has a lot less people who actually know what they are talking about when it comes to making a choice to put yourself 'in harm's way'.

The old heros from World War Two no longer teach, the draft card burners and college deferred types have been teaching their version of history and heroism for the past 20-30 years.... I hope that more ex-military will join the teaching profession. This is the only way that young people will learn about duty, honor, country and heroism again, instead of the "do you own thing, and look out for yourself" attitude that is common in school and college. When you figure most teachers went to universities where the liberal instructors pride themselves on resisting military service, and making fun of the men and women who protect them, police, firemen, soldiers, sailors, marines and air forces.. is it any wonder that many people today can't imagine 'making a suicide charge"?

What is live without honor? What is a "good death"? What is a "hero"? This changes from culture to culture and time to time. To imagine that people in another time and place had the same motivations as someone today is silly. To imagine a warrior culture, inured to violence and death from an early age, and taught that their life was only important in how it brought honor to their ancestors and family, would feel the same way as an "average person" today is naive. No wonder the Western culture can't understand a suicide bomber, we don't understand their beliefs, and even if we do know about them, we don't feel them... how can we then make categorical statements about the people 2000 years ago? If the ancient author, writing home in a report that will be read by contemporaries and people who were at the battle says something actually happened, I would suggest that the author will try and tell the truth, to the best of his point of view. Sure, he may write glowingly in heroic prose, but that does not stop the event from being true.