Why Romans Didn't Charge

When we consider cavalry actions, we are drawn to those heroic exploits of the past. Gaudily dressed swordsmen riding pell-mell to death or glory in the face of withering fire. Troopers riding to the rescue of the wagon train with that familiar and rousing bugle call. But these are later periods with different troops and tactics. Would the romans charge headlong in such a manner?

Well, yes, if they could. Now lets discover why they couldn't.

1 - Lack of penetration

The cavalry can charge an enemy formation if they wish, but the barbarian infantry are not lined up wide in three ranks deep. Instead, they assume a solid mass of men. Therefore when the horses arrive they cannot proceed further. There is no penetration of a tight crowd, and although plenty of barbarians are injured, the horses effectively become stuck. Thats assuming the horses will charge into them in the first place, because a thick mass of barbarians cannot be easily pushed through or jumped in the same way a line can, nor will the horses be persuaded to enter a mass of men who aren't running away. The same is true for cavalry fighting roman infantry formed up in square formations.

2 - Enemy protection

The enemy may well have protection. Armour is not so common amongst barbarians, but shields just as frequent. A charging horsemen has a metal, leather, and wooden obstacle to his initial strike. Many spear or sword thrusts that should kill the opponent either glance off or impale a shield. Indeed, the multitude of shields may even cushion the impact of a galloping horse and would bring the animal to a standstill. Should the target be wearing chainmail or perhaps some form of banded mail, or a solid breastplate, there is a chance the weapon will do no more than stun and bruise him. This is also a time when the helmet comes into its own, since the higher stance of a rider makes the enemy infantrymans head more vulnerable .

3 - Sharp objects

On arrival the horsemen may well discover that the barbarians have a nasty suprise. They're armed to the teeth. Those wielding spears or pikes may well ground them for support and leave the cavalry facing a wall of sharp points. No rider is going to take that on - its suicide. Immediately after contact the horsemen may also discover the barbarians have swords which are every bit as sharp as their own. Once engaged in melee, the rider must prevent himself from being unhorsed by the infantry milling around him. To fall from the horse is deadly - they'll be on you in an instant.

4 - Valuable assets

In a word - Horses. In the ancient world the horse is an expensive animal and in short supply. Risking them in a free-for-all melee is undesirable, and even less so injuring them in a headlong charge against your foe. Without the horse, the rider is merely another footman, with possibly less protection or lighter weaponry.

All this means that a charge in the usual sense is unlikely. There is little to gain from charging an enemy well prepared to defend themselves. In fact, it was not the job of the cavalry to attack the infantry at all, but to protect the flanks from intrusions of enemy cavalry. The effectiveness of this can be seen from the Battle of Cannae in 216BC, when the victorious carthaginians closed the trap behind the roman rear. Even in the late empire, cavalry training was broadly the same as before, and a 2nd century document Tactica, by Arrian, describes complex manoevers that stressed skirmishing with feints and hit-and-run tactics. Interestingly, he also says this - Charging in a straight line forwards they then veer to one side, as though turning to make a circle. This turn they make to the right, that is to the spear-throwing side. For thus nothing stands in the way of javelin throwing, and the shields afford protection to those throwing as they charge. Notice the charge is directed at right-angles to the frontage of the enemy.

Expert opinion agrees. If the opportunity presented itself, they would try to hit the enemy infantry in the flank after their cavalry support had been driven off. Horses could not be made to charge formed bodies of men on foot, but if the infantry lose their formation it was a different story. Then, fighting as individuals, the mounted men have a significant advantage. Once an infantryman lost his nerve and broke and ran from his formation, he would be easy meat for a pursuing cavalryman

Late Roman Cavalryman 236-565ad - Simon Macdowall/Christa Hook

So how did the roman cavalry behave on the field? Lightweight spears/javelins were thrown from horseback to harass and divert the attention of the enemy. The cavalry might ride in quickly, loose a volley of these spears, then ride away to wheel around for another pass. Horses are faster then men and a wise commander uses that to his advantage. Roman cavalry, like many other armies, employs its forces to scout, to mount defensive screens, to ward off enemy horsemen, to harasss, and to pursue.

Against an enemy cavalry unit things are more equal. The men are getting in close and fighting each other from horseback, either stationary or moving, and the horses are paradoxically less at risk aside from misplaced weapon strikes.

Attacking enemy infantry with swords from the flank or rear, the cavalrymen don't charge. They ride in, up close, and use their horse to extract them from danger where possible. The horse also has weight, which a skillfull rider can usefully employ to push men back. I should point out that horses of this time were smaller and lighter than today, useful for speed and essential for the quick turning manoevers practised by the auxillaries. There are lessons to be learned from the modern day. In a riot notice the behaviour of the crowd when police horses canter in. These horsemen don't charge, and don't need to. The unprotected rioters give way immediately and retreat in most cases. A horse will naturally kick against something it doesn't like, and thats not something to underestimate.

Toward the late empire things begin to change. Cavalry was in the ascendant. The oriental cataphract, an early version of the armoured warrior on horseback, is becoming more frequently seen both in roman armies and their opponents. These men are in the vanguard of the first attempts to have cavalry adopt a more aggressive role - The Charge. Using lances, the cataphracts charged headlong to maximise the effect of their weapons. The enemy infantry opened their ranks and allowed the horsemen in, who were then unseated and despatched. The science of the cavalry charge was not yet mastered.

Its also the method that cavalry employed. At the battle of Cannae we hear that Maharbal's cavalry did not simply charge the Roman line, but rather penetrated deep into it and caused havok from within by terrifying the footmen then rush back out before the enemy could counter. I would say that the same thing occurred at Zama and many other battles until the rise of the cataphract.

Its also the method that cavalry employed. At the battle of Cannae we hear that Maharbal's cavalry did not simply charge the Roman line, but rather penetrated deep into it and caused havok from within by terrifying the footmen then rush back out before the enemy could counter. I would say that the same thing occurred at Zama and many other battles until the rise of the cataphract.

This is due to disordered infantry. To be able to penetrate an infantry mass required some confidence and to some point, disordered opponents who aren't putting up a coherent defence. You could argue that at Cannae the roman rear needed only to turn 180 degrees surely? True, but that means they are effectively unsupported by the mass of men still facing the other way, and they have different orders. Also, at Cannae the romans were drawn into a ring of carthaginian forces that caused their massive chequerboard formation to compress into a disorganised mob, a circumstance from which a roman commander could not manoever his men any more. To follow my analogy, the disciplined formations of romans had become something more akin to armed rioters under pressure from all sides without effective leadership or room to retreat.

Caldrail, I fully agree with your conclusions. Roman cavary did not charge infantry.

But, all 4 reasons you mention can be applied to medieval knights and I believe that they charged infantry. Bigger horses, better armour and harnasses and poorer infantry opponents made that possible.

Late roman era (and definitely Byzantine) saw the use of the heavy horse with which charging was a possibility.

also anothe issue would probably be stirrups. When a horse suddenly stops from a full speed then you get flung straight over the head

There were horsemen during that time that did not require the use of stirrups, but those were the exception rather than rule, methinks.

did they have stirrups at that time?

did they have stirrups at that time?

I'm quite sure that they reached the roman areas around the 6th century (ish). They were certainly not used during the republic or early empire at least.

Caldrail, I fully agree with your conclusions. Roman cavary did not charge infantry.

But, all 4 reasons you mention can be applied to medieval knights and I believe that they charged infantry. Bigger horses, better armour and harnasses and poorer infantry opponents made that possible.

Medieval knights prefferred big, aggressive stallions for obvious reasons. Roman cavalry preferred to ride mares, as mentioned by Varro and Pliny the Elder, because they were more obedient and easier to control in tight complex manoevers.

Regarding stirrups, these were introduced by the huns from further east as I recall. However, they weren't used by the romans until after the fall of the west. Roman saddles had four prongs which the rider sat between, using them to brace himself. Re-enactors say these saddles work very well and its easy to support yourself by pushing your thighs into them. Nonetheless, the lack of stirrups is one of the major vulnerabilities of the period, because riders were easier to unhorse without them. I don't know if the roman saddle was any better in that regard - I actually think once a rider was losing his balance he might not have been able to recover.

also anothe issue would probably be stirrups. When a horse suddenly stops from a full speed then you get flung straight over the head

The horse never stopped at full speed in a charge. It just lost its speed and impetus when it broke the infantry's ranks (unless the latter were armed with pikes, in which case the rider would have a serious problem in trying to ride a dead animal).

There are lessons to be learned from the modern day. In a riot notice the behaviour of the crowd when police horses canter in. These horsemen don't charge, and don't need to. The unprotected rioters give way immediately and retreat in most cases. A horse will naturally kick against something it doesn't like, and thats not something to underestimate.

Mounted police will never charge rioters; their point isn't to kill angry civilians. Even without the impact of the horseman's weapon (a club, say), just the impact of a ton of horseflesh would be enough to seriously injure anyone. Urged on by its rider, a trained horse will easily charge straight into an angry mob (without kicking in self-defence). Not only that, but heavy cavalry has been doing it for ages.

Alexander the Great and his companions charged (employing wedges) packed infantry in most of his battles, and unless each shaken footsoldier braced himself and aimed his spear at the horse's belly, most Persians in the first line were not only skewered, but trampled. My point is, warhorses can absorb more frontal impact than you'd think. Otherwise, they would never have been used to charge infantry formations - which they did. They just had to make sure the opposing footsoldiers weren't forming a wall spearpoints.

HC - While I agree that cavalry was used to charge massed infantry in Middle Ages I know no evidence for this during Antiquity. From my knowledge Alexander's cavalry charged persian cavalry and not infantry. Persian infantry was much lighter then greek or roman. Excepting greek hoplite mercenaries and maybe some others it was no problem for macedonian cavalry to charge at the persian missile troops.

HC - While I agree that cavalry was used to charge massed infantry in Middle Ages I know no evidence for this during Antiquity. From my knowledge Alexander's cavalry charged persian cavalry and not infantry. Persian infantry was much lighter then greek or roman. Excepting greek hoplite mercenaries and maybe some others it was no problem for macedonian cavalry to charge at the persian missile troops.

Alexander's favoured tactic was to open up a gap in his enemy's line and charge through. In this manoeuvre, he and his Companions did charge massed infantry. Take a look at Arrian's Anabasis. At Gaugamela, he drove his wedge right through Darius II's massed Apple Bearers, or Immortals (who were armed with short spears) to have a go at the Great King himself.

Whether the targeted infantry was heavy or light, it didn't matter; the cavalry feared the footmen's armament (spears, pikes, or something sharp with enough reach to hit the horse before its rider's lance hits the bearer), not how much armour they were wearing.

The horse never stopped at full speed in a charge. It just lost its speed and impetus when it broke the infantry's ranks

Yes it does - which is why horses refuse to enter the throng. If you tried it, you'll get a flying lesson. Any rider will tell you that. Sorry.

My point is, warhorses can absorb more frontal impact than you'd think.

No, they get injured, like us. Horses are not tanks and unfortunately they can be more vulnerable than us, especially if some idiot tries to ride head on.

Horse on horse charges worked because the cavalry on both sides were in open order, to prevent collisions. Horse on infantry charges rely on the horse being able to evade impact. If they can't, the cavalry go around. That happens in every era.