Hadrian Caesar

Caldrail's got a point. Battles never take place exactly according to statistics, as they do in your wargaming. There's far too much to take into consideration.

Thanks Phil, I appreciate it.

Finally some support. Thanks Phil. I look forward to reading your book. I'm curious, and you're probably my best bet at correctly answering a question over which I've been brooding for quite some time. Scholars seem convinced that charging with the lance couched was impossible in Antiquity, the lack of stirrups providing no brace against the impact of a charge. As far as I know, the only evidence which could support this statement exists in the form of carvings (and one drawing) of cataphracts (usually of Scythian origin) wielding their lances with both hands. It doesn't make sense. The stirrups will only stop a cavalryman from being unhorsed if the impact comes from the sides. Yet as we all know, the impact comes from the front. Furthermore, there isn't supposed to be that much of an impact, anyway. With the momentum of the horse and armoured rider behind it, the lancehead would easily have gone through armour. I'm aware of only one sculpture and one sketch depicting horsemen holding their spears two-handed. First is a Parthian cataphract attacking a lion. The mount is rearing up in front of the beast - an action I thought could only take place while the horse was still. Considering the length of his polearm, wouldn't it have been logical (and less tiring) for the warrior to hold it with both hands in a melee such as this, where the killing blow was dealt by a thrust of the arm rather than a charge? Here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cataphract Second is a Roman relief of a Scyth, riding at ease with his great lance in both hands. Considering the lack of stirrups, the rider wouldn't have been able to rest the butt of his spear down by his foot, as in later years. It must have been easier, in this case, to carry it as he does, using the combined strength of his arms to transport the spear. On a slightly different note: There's an Iranian carving of a cataphract wielding his spear overhand. His weapon seems to be linked to his horse my a chain at the back, and possibly one at the front. Modern scholars claim this was to absorb the impact of a charge without stirrups, but couldn't it just be to rest the lance while riding? As in the second case, these chains may have been modifications to provide even more comfort for the cataphract while riding to and from battle. Do you know of any proof showing a horseman actually charging the enemy two-handed? I can't seem to find any - just these other bits of art. Do these theories make sense, or are the scholars right? What's the opinion of a specialized author such as yourself?

Hoy, Caldrail. One more thing. This is the official international website of the Knights Templar (now a Christian charity based in the UK). Although its function has greatly changed over time, the organisation still knows quite a bit about its medieval knights' battle tactics. http://www.ordotempli.org/knights_templar_...r_research1.htm Read #2) Mounted tactics. The study claims the Templars charged very close together, so much so that one scholar wrote that one group of Knights "rode so close that an apple thrown into their midst would not have touched the ground". Not only did the Knights Templar do this, but abundant evidence has shown that both the Byzantine and Norman cavalry of the era (who were highly feared) did so, too. When you take a look at the military tactics of the time, it wasn't at all uncommon to see a wedge of knights charge massed infantry (with combined arms support, of course). They suggest leaving as little room as possible between horses was the prefered formation, so as to present a moving wall or wedge (except perhaps against cavalry, where a horse-on-horse collision would have been disastrous). This would also have applied to heavy cavalry of Antiquity. The Crusading Knights did this a lot, it seems. You said that would be far too dangerous for both the mounts and riders, and that a head-on collision with a footsoldier would be too costly. Why then did they charge densely-packed men-at-arms over and over again? Surely the Knight didn't have to buy a new warhorse after every battle, having killed his last one upon impact?

Once again, I disagree. Considering we've gotten nowhere, I'd much prefer to change the subject, lest we continue to repeat ourselves.

No, I said the opposite. You're just playing word games. Face it, colliding with infantry just wasn't acceptable to the cavalry. The cavalry charge as you see it is a fallacy. Roman horsemen used their heads, not their testicles. By the way, which was the last book on roman cavalry that you read? Didn't I just say I agreed concerning Roman cavalry? Why then does it matter what book I read about it? That's irrelevant to our argument, just like this ''word game'' you're mentioning. On an historical basis, you're allowed to believe that colliding with infantry was unacceptable. However, it happened many times, and obviously, the horses somehow lived through the charges intact. Let's put an end to this, then, and go back to Roman cavalry. Finally, here is a list of battles in which cavalry succesfully charged dense masses of infantry: - Chaeronea - Granicus - Issus - Gaugamela - Daraa - Waterloo - Moreuil Wood - Naseby

Horses are expected to charge at infantry, not into it. I've given you a complete explanation. I've backed it up with five contemporary sources and two modern expert opnions. Could you please tell us which book on roman cavalry you last read? I agreed with you concerning Roman cavalry, Caldrail. I'm arguing with you because you said it was impossible or foolish for cavalry to charge at infantry. When I say charge infantry, I mean they'll do so in whichever way's best. If the flanks of the opposing infantry are dangerously exposed, then a troop of pro. cavalry will probably charge straight into it as a double line, whether or not it's densely packed. At Trebia and Cannae, heavy cavalry (Gallic and Spanish) fell upon the Romans' rear. As we all know, the legionaries adopted a close order in battle. Had the Carthaginian Horse attacked them in the way you're suggesting, the shock would have been very small. Most if the back ranks would have been killed, yes, but the next ranks up would have had time to turn and defend themselves, using their pila as spears. Against this kind of disciplined wall, cavalry ''skirmishing'', or coming in, taking a few swing at the enemy and then falling back as you've suggested, simply wouldn't work (picking at the formation's corners clearly wasn't an option, either). In fact, the Romans would have killed some of the horses and riders before these could even reach them. Even better - Carrhae. It's generally agreed that here, the Parthian cataphracts and/or mounted archers wiped out the Roman cavalry, and then cooperated in taking out the legionaries. Under a constant hail of arrows, the Romans adopted as close an order as possible, so as to profit from the protection of eachother's shield. Most people have suggested they formed testudos. This is where the cataphracts became truly terrible. Why? Apparently, they attacked the very tight ''turtles''. How? By charging them, head on, with lances! That's how super-heavy cavalry of the Parthian type worked. Yes, although their horses were armoured, their protection wasn't plate, but rather, flexible (and possibly bone-breaking) scale or mail, and I'll tell you, there wasn't much of it. Especially at the front, where the legs and upper chest had to remain uncovered to allow sufficient movement. Somehow the horses withstood this frontal impact without maiming their naked legs... The cataphract of the royal Pushtigban Body Guards was said by Emperor Julian in his memoirs to be able to impale two Roman soldiers on his spear at once with his furious charge - suggesting the guards charged Roman soldiers (always in tight formation against cavalry) from the front. How on Earth can this be?

Horses do this as a matter of course. Watch the Grand National. Although these are trained racehorses you'll still get those that refuse to jump and down the rider goes..... I hope you know the training of a charger is entirely different from that of a racehorse. You say my comparisons are irrelevant? You don't know that. If I don't know that, even when I'm positive of it, then I suppose no one knows anything... My, what a frightening reality. Not relevant to this discussion. Especially since the french cavalry rode around all day without penetrating the squares. Oh, but it is - very much so. That's how an historical debate works, my friend. You may as well tell me I can't use gravity to describe an apple falling on Sir Isaak Newton's head more than 300 years ago. And all because it's a different era? Reliable sources state the French cavalry did charge the squares - repeatedly. Was this not so, then the English redcoats would have taken no casualties in fending the cuirassiers off. Did you really look that up, or are you guessing with your own beliefs? But thats how cavalry attack infantry. Firstly by breaking their formation if possible (no, a charge isn't necessary), and then by picking off stragglers on the edges. If a rider wants to get involved in a serious melee inside the formation, he really will need superior protection because he cannot fend off attacks on all sides. Look at just about any battle involving a heavy cavalry charge against the flanks of massed infantry (I don't have the time to find a number of these sources great enough to convince you) - you'll see these are not fictitious. Furthermore, accounts of heavy cavalry charges against infantry outnumber accounts describing these ''selective melees''. How would a troop of horsemen have done this in formation, anyway? Alexander the great had his Companions charge in wedges so as to break the opposing infantry. This suggests he faced fairly well packed formations of Persians, now and then. Had the infantry been the rabble you're suggesting, the Macedonians would have employed the line, for far better shock effect. Given Caesars ruthless streak I wouldn't be suprised. However, its a known curiosity of human combat that horses are rarely targeted. The riders are of course because they're trying to kill you. The horses are neutral and can be captured to used by your side. So why kill them? Four footmen immediately surround you. I'm certain one of them will kill your mount if they've been trained to do so. A rider who's horse has just reared up, fallen over and broken the man's leg will have trouble defending himself - ample reason to kill the animal. Thats contrary to your arguement. At least try to be consistent. Not at all. The horses survived the charge. This whole time I've been saying that both animals and mounted men are vulnerable when surrounded by infantry (in the ensuing melee). At least try to be logical. Goths may have been warlike nutters, but they're not going to charge a spear wall. I believe you said something along those lines earlier. Here's another quote from knowledable sources.... As horses refuse to collide into an oncoming line of horsemen, encounters between opposing units would have to be very fluid, fast-moving affairs. When combats occurred, it was either because the two lines had opened their files, allowing them to gallop through each others formation, or they had halted just before contact, at which point the individuals could walk their mounts forward to get within weapons reach of the enemy. The cavalry of the Principate was highly confident, and because it was so well trained and led, was able to rally more easily after a pursuit or flight and keep its its formation. The author of the Strategikon points out that it is not dishonourable for cavalry to take flight, as long as they return to the combat. Cavalry combats could sway to and fro as each side beat the enemy, pursued them, and were in turn beaten and pursued by fresh enemy troops. Normally the victor was the side that kept a formed, fresh reserve the longest Cavalry were not normally expected to charge well-ordered infantry, as the results would have been mutually catastrophic to the opposing front ranks. Besides, a horse, especially one being ridden, will not in normal circumstances collide with a solid object if it can stop or go around it. Tacitus describes loyal roman cavalry refusing to charge home on a solid line formed by the rebel Batavian cohorts. Cavalry, therefore, would employ typical skirmishing tactics, that is, riding up, shooting, wheeling away, and then rallying ready to try again. Roman Auxillary Cavalryman AD14-193 (Nic Fields/Adam Hook) That's how Roman cavalry behaved, of course. Being light skirmishers, you wouldn't expect otherwise. A horse who's expected to charge infantry like this will have gone through completely different training.

I wouldn't like bumping into a solid wall, either. But warhorses were trained to charge masses of men, and although the animals may not have relished the thought of trampling armoured humans, they weren't about to pull back just before impact. As I've said, the horse's hooves come up to kick forward at the obstacle. The horse can also (easily) jump over the first obstruction. Some footsoldier in the front line certainly isn't about to absorb the impact of two horse hooves - neither will the ones in the next two or three ranks. After the initial contact, the horse loses its momentum by forcing its way between the men. Not to say we can't challenge modern assertions. I apologize if they lead off the beaten track now and then, but my comparisons to different eras of military tactics support my opinions. That's how people prove their points, sometimes. So here's one of them: at Waterloo, the French cavalry charged the English squares incessantly. Although it was a mistake on the general's part to take on the redcoats in the first place, they must have believed (with all their experience) that they could have some sort of effect on the bayonnet walls. After all, these veterans weren't morons, and attacking solid masses of men wasn't anything new. They did, however, normally attack from the flanks, like sane soldiers. A frontal assault like this was a bit suicidal. You need to look closer at why this victory occured. Half of any combat is psychology. If you faze the enemy, the chances are he'll lose. How do you faze them? By being more aggressive or appearing as a grave threat to their continued existence, much like animals do in the wild. How can you do that? Try charging at them. I once visited Hexham racecourse and peered down the track as the horses rode by. The impression of weight and speed was impressive even without military gear. That doesn't mean the horses have to collide physically with an mass of shielded men, and its actually a bad idea if that happens. Although the horse could in theory bowl over a few men like ninepins (and quite probably kill one or two) the horse will also get hurt. It will be winded, perhaps unable to move, or even unable to stay on its feet. If the horse goes down, so do you, and your future survival is in jeopardy. You said it yourself. The goths horses weren't armoured. What actually happened is that the approach of these horse rattled the roman defenders. Truth is, the romans weren't up to the fight. If cavalry won a such a victory over densely packed infantry then they were able to pick them off individually, which means they were losing formation, which in turn means they were... well... losing it. The fact that cavalry charge at someone does not mean they have to charge into them. In any event, the cavalry involved were not likely to have conducted a charge with swords drawn. Tactics of this time were different because the people involved knew that running into dense packs of men isn't too clever. Neither are horses, but nature gave them enough instinct to realise that apparently solid objects hurt if you gallop into them. What was more likely is that the goth horsemen closed in aggressively, threw spears, turned back or went around, and started pushing men aside on the edge of the increasingly ragged formation. What the riders didn't do is penetrate the formation. That was only going to isolate them and have them surrounded by desperate infantry who are not averse to pulling them off the saddle before they despatch the hapless rider. Thats not a situation I would care for. I would prefer to attack the side or rear and retain speed, weight, and initiative. I see where your coming from, but there must have been more to it than that. The Romans threw javelins (probably including those nasty, long-range little darts called Martiobarbuli) at the Goths, too, and by that date were armed with spears to fend off cavalry. It's unlikely that the Goths came back and picked Romans off at the edges, a hedgehog formation almost always keeping mounted men at a distance. Had the Goths' melee attack been as devastating as you say, they would have had to use a better close-combat weapon than the lance, such as a sword. That would have meant coming up sideways and dangerously exposing the animals' sides. A prefered anti-cavalry tactic employed by infantry (especially when the horses were in among them (check Caesar's conquest of Gaul - combatting the Germans)) was to kill the mounts before the riders. That's why most cavalry units were used as hit-and-runners. This weakness in melees would have been even greater in ancient times, the stirrup's advantage in dueling from horseback being non-existent). Just a jump forward - the Byzantines (late Romans) are credited with the perfection of repeated charges by heavy cavalry (cataphracts and clibinarii). After every charge had petered out, the horsemen had to be sure to retreat as quickly as possible, so as to not get unhorsed, or have their horses ''unmounted''. You said it yourself, Caldrail - cavalry are at a great risk once they're mixed in with the enemy infantry. The Gothic horsemen must have faced something of a spear wall - although clearly not enough to stop them from achieving victory. A charge would have been the best (and perhaps only way) to have the desired shock effect, both psycologically and physically (SLAM!).

(Blame me for the bad translation, it's second hand and back to English again) However this show us that after he drove away Bessos cavalry (The right flank) he continued into the middle against the apple bearers (2000 men) and who was just about to engage the phalanx. In my source it's claimed that the Perisian army had very little or no sleep during the previous night too, beacuse Darius was afraid of a surprise attack during night. True or not, Alexander flanked a infantry unit who was just about to face the phalanx and saw their king flee. It would seem probable that they broke their formation and fled too. Quite possible that they broke and fled, as you say. But they did fight at first, and that's where we're puting the emphasis - on the infantry's reception of the Companions' charge.

I was hoping this would come up. I disagree. Explain if you will how the stirrup would make any difference in a charge. If the impact came from the sides, then I could understand how loops for the rider's feet would help. However, that wasn't the case; the impact came from the front. What makes the matter more confusing is that for centuries riders have been taught to keep their heels down. To brace himself for the impact of a charge, the Templar knight (for example) gripped hard with his legs. Now this is how you stay in the saddle. The use of stirrups (especially if you keep your heels down, like a good boy) won't have any effect on the concequences of the charge's impact. If you didn't squeeze hard with your legs, you'd be nocked right off the back of your mount, with or without stirrups. Take a look at the Alexander mosaic. You'll see the horse of the Persian Alexander's ''unhorsing'' is dead, which means the enemy rider was already standing when the lance struck him. Couching a lance involves bracing the shaft in the armpit and locking the arm in a bent position. Considering stirrups have no obvious effect, cavalrymen must have this for better accuracy; a lance waving about isn''t easy to aim. Properly couching the lance in a charge against a dismounted man is actually impossible because your shoulder gets in the way. You have to aim downward a bit to hit infantry, who aren't as elevated as horsemen. It doesn't really matter how you hold the lance in this case - either way the extended arm will shake more than when the lance is couched. My point is, even cavalry employing stirrups had to resort to this stance when they were running down infantry. That point, plus the fact that stirrups have little to do with the impact, makes it appear as though couching was very possible in ancient times. The carvings where horsemen are holding their spears in overarm positions are probably for aesthetic apearance. Also, notice the ones holding lances underarm are attacking footmen, not mounted men.

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. Any rider? Sorry Caldrail, but how many riders do you know who've charged throngs? I suppose Arrian's account of the battles of Issus and Gaugamela seriously needs to be revised... Guess Alexander's charge against the tight formation of the King's own Immortals are just fictitious, too. Apparently he broke through without losing his troop. 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. I agree with you there - a horse-on-horse collision would be terrible. On the other hand, the poor infantryman who gets a lance head in his belly, one hoof in his face and another in his collerbone might just be dead before he hits the ground. That, or he'll be knocked back into the next rank. You were right, in a sense, when you said a horse kicks at a threat ; in a charge, he'd wouldn't slow down, let alone stop to do so...although he would, as you've said, bring up his hoofs in self-defence. Also, if all horses were so smart as to avoid an ''obvious danger'', how would you explain the suicidal charges of medieval knights at the first pike formations? Take a look at the battle of Bannockburn, for example. It's certainly interesting that the heavy gothic cavalry gained a complete victory over the densely-packed heavy Roman infantry at the battle of Adrianople. As far as I've read, the Goths' horses weren't quite armoured.

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.

HC, if you try looking in the split thead started by Caldrail titled "Why didn't Romans charge?" I think you'll find the response you're looking for. http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6537&hl= Thanks, Gaius.

That makes sense as long as they employed both actions regularily, using each to the greatest effect. I can agree, though, that when they had the option of applying either technique, they would go for the more advantageous thrust (but an opportunity to thrust doesn't show itself any more often than one to cut).