what was the function of the Roman cavalry?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Trasamine springs to mind yes.......

[Aryaman2]

Col. Ardant du Picq argues that cavalry were ineffective against steady and disciplined ranks of infantry, and he was an actual contemporary of, and witness to, cavalry in battle (9th Chausseurs and the Crimean).

In other periods cavalry did charge steady infantry, often overruning it, and it was trained to do it.

In what periods for instance?

For instance in the 17th century, John Cruso in his "Militarie Instructions for the Cavallerie", the standard manual used for cavalry in the English Civil War, wrote how to train a horse "to ride him against a compleat armour, so set upon a steak, that he may overthrow it, and trample it under his feet: that so (and by such other means) your horse (finding that he receiveth no harm) may become bold to approach any object"
In that period there are plenty of battles in which infantry was charged and routed by cavalry.

[Tarbicus]

Trasamine springs to mind yes.......

Who? The Carthaginians? Were the Romans in retreat?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

No ! An Ambush..... :roll:

[Matthew]

For instance in the 17th century, John Cruso in his "Militarie Instructions for the Cavallerie", the standard manual used for cavalry in the English Civil War, wrote how to train a horse "to ride him against a compleat armour, so set upon a steak, that he may overthrow it, and trample it under his feet: that so (and by such other means) your horse (finding that he receiveth no harm) may become bold to approach any object"
In that period there are plenty of battles in which infantry was charged and routed by cavalry.

That's not quite the same thing as training a horse to charge a compact body of Infantry, though; that's training a horse to fight and cope with individual combatants.

As I recall, the last time this discussion was had, it was shown that Cavalry could be (and were at some point) trained to charge compact Infantry bodies, but that it was not a commonly used tactic. Much more common (overwhelmingly so) was for Cavalry to be used against Infantry when the latter was vulnerable to such attacks. The relative vulnerability of any given Infantry body is likely the difference between a failed and successful Cavalry charge.

Matthew James Stanham

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

ie an attack from the unshielded flank and rear....?

[Matthew]

Something like that I would think. Archers would presumably be vulnerable when operating alone (i.e. without Infantry support) and probably Light Infantry as well. Heavy Infantry would be vulnerable when already engaged (as at Cannae and Zama) or otherwise disturbed.

[Tarbicus]

ie an attack from the unshielded flank and rear....?

It's not likely that the infantry would allow themselves to be charged without turning to face the cavalry. Even at Cannae, where exactly that happened, the Romans were bound to have turned and faced the Carthaginians. However, making the reserves do so would probably obliterate morale in the forward ranks, as they would have nowhere and no backup to retreat to should the need arise, which du Picq emphasises was a stringent necessity for Roman armies.

[Matthew]

Indeed, it's not that the Infantry are being attacked in their 'literal' rear (though that might be possible if contacted unexpectedly), but that the formation has been outflanked and disturbed, and the real damage will be done if the formation breaks up. That's the idea, as I understand it, anyway.

Matthew James Stanham

[Aryaman2]

For instance in the 17th century, John Cruso in his "Militarie Instructions for the Cavallerie", the standard manual used for cavalry in the English Civil War, wrote how to train a horse "to ride him against a compleat armour, so set upon a steak, that he may overthrow it, and trample it under his feet: that so (and by such other means) your horse (finding that he receiveth no harm) may become bold to approach any object"
In that period there are plenty of battles in which infantry was charged and routed by cavalry.

That's not quite the same thing as training a horse to charge a compact body of Infantry, though; that's training a horse to fight and cope with individual combatants.

As I recall, the last time this discussion was had, it was shown that Cavalry could be (and were at some point) trained to charge compact Infantry bodies, but that it was not a commonly used tactic. Much more common (overwhelmingly so) was for Cavalry to be used against Infantry when the latter was vulnerable to such attacks. The relative vulnerability of any given Infantry body is likely the difference between a failed and successful Cavalry charge.

Matthew James Stanham

I agree in general with your post, what I dislike is the idea that such charges were phisically impossible, far from that there are a good number of eyewitness accounts on the contrary. As for how common and succesful was it, I will add that it was dependant on periods and armies, and that the 17th century present a good number of examples, but of course there are famous Napoleonic examples, like Eylau, or Borodino, where cavalry charged infantry entrenched behind redoubts.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I would imagine spears or lances carried by calvery would be an effective method of reaching past the range of an infantry man, also the longer spatha, but even so, it would require the equites to actually get stuck in.
An attack from the rear would succeed if the attention of the infantry was focused to the fron, already a confused situation at Cannae, once the the heavy phalanx had started its flanking attack! The rear would have been barely in the position to smartly wheel about to face the new threat.

[xrubio]

For instance in the 17th century, John Cruso in his "Militarie Instructions for the Cavallerie", the standard manual used for cavalry in the English Civil War, wrote how to train a horse "to ride him against a compleat armour, so set upon a steak, that he may overthrow it, and trample it under his feet: that so (and by such other means) your horse (finding that he receiveth no harm) may become bold to approach any object"
In that period there are plenty of battles in which infantry was charged and routed by cavalry.

I think that 17th century is a clear example about the fact that horses can't charge against disciplined infantry. The standard way cavalry attacked at this century was the "caracole", where each row of cavalrymen fired its pistol at a close distance of infantry and retreated, without any physical contact. By the way they didn't gallop, moving horses at a fast pace without expecting any clash against steady infantry.

IMHO only medieval armored knights were trained to charge infantry from the first stages of a battle, but it can be explained thinking about the tactics of the era, and the fact that they in general were poorly trained and, following the concept that cavalry is a psychological weapon, could be broken easier than spanish tercios or napoleonic squares. When infantry tactics became more professional (english archers, dutch militiaman, swiss pikemen) the cavalry charge evolved to the tactics of 17th century.

Xavi

[Tarbicus]

An attack from the rear would succeed if the attention of the infantry was focused to the fron, already a confused situation at Cannae, once the the heavy phalanx had started its flanking attack! The rear would have been barely in the position to smartly wheel about to face the new threat.

I'd have thought it simple for the men to turn and face the cavalry, especially as they were Triarii and highly experienced? I find it difficult to think that there would be no response, and for the cavalry to 'sneak up' on them.

[xrubio]

An attack from the rear would succeed if the attention of the infantry was focused to the fron, already a confused situation at Cannae, once the the heavy phalanx had started its flanking attack! The rear would have been barely in the position to smartly wheel about to face the new threat.

I'd have thought it simple for the men to turn and face the cavalry, especially as they were Triarii and highly experienced? I find it difficult to think that there would be no response, and for the cavalry to 'sneak up' on them.

In fact attacks from the flank seems more effective than attacks from the rear along all the history of warfare, I think, "rolling up" the whole line of infantry. Maybe it is more complicated to defend, given that infantry must realign the face this threat.

Xavi

[Tarbicus]

I see your point, but I still think that the Triarii, although probably very shocked at the event, would still be able to repel cavalry from behind by simply turning about and the officers swapping places. However, morale both at the front and the rear would be crushed, inducing panic right throughout the Roman forces. One of the biggest problems would be that there could have been a rout at the front, but they had nowhere to go. This could leave disorganised gaps in the formation and smaller groups of units on the outer part of the army undefended in turn on their flanks. The Carthaginian forces could "eat away" at the edges more easily, especially with the use of slingers, which we know happened (any attempt by a unit to charge the slingers would expose their rear and completely cut them off). It mightn't even have taken actual close engagement by Hannibal's cavalry at the rear to cause a disastrous upset to the Roman formation.

It's also not likely that the Roman soldiers would know exactly how many had engaged them at the rear, given the immense area the battle covered. All it would take would be for a rumour to spread like wildfire through the ranks that they had been ambushed from behind by reinforcements, many of the men at the front and centre not even being aware that there were major cavalry engagements to the flanks and the Carthaginians at the rear were only those very cavalry.