phil sidnell

Ah, if only that were often the case, my job as a commissioning editor of ancient military history would be oh so much easier. In fact, there are very very few British authors specialising in this field who are lucky enough to be able to support themselves at it as their 'day job'. Most are academics who earn their bread and butter through teaching posts or enthusiastic 'amateurs' with 'ordinary' jobs. I think the fact that Adrian Goldsworthy is virtually unique in Britain in earning his keep by writing ancient military history as his main income suggests he must be doing something right. I only wish I could afford to commission him myself... Oh, and Sonic, you only had to ask for a higher word count. I'll be expecting an extra 40,000 words on the next one then! No extension on the deadline, obviously . Phil Sidnell.

Of course, books, even well-founded on analysis of 700 battles, will also reflect the personality of the author in their conclusions. That's what keeps us all discussing this fascinating subject isn't it, there are few cast iron certainties and plenty of room for different approaches and opinions (which we should all be able to discuss calmly and politely).

Which book was that?

More than half I'd say. A huge part of the whole cavalry charging thing (which was the original point) is psychological and largely irrational. It must have been partly the apparently irrational recklessness of a group of men effectively riding on the back of a stampede of large, excited and frightened animals, that made a cavalry charge such a terrifying thing to face up to, even if the infantry did know logically that standing firm was their best defence. Getting off topic now but a good set of wargaming rules does take psychological factors and chance (or those myriad of small factors that would defy prediction - Clausewitz's 'friction') into account. Any wargame so predictable as to say that in this situation this side would always receive 50% casualties and this 100% (quite apart from 100% casualties being very rare in any period) would quickly become tedious. The complexity and the interplay of multiple factors is what makes battles (and wargaming) so interesting (in my humble opinion). Try winning a wargame of the Battle of Granicus or Issus as Alexander, without having to resort to an 'Alexander wins because he's Alexander' rule and you'll see what I mean. Phil

Wargaming is great fun, but has to be informed by what we know of the ancient world from the relevant sources - not the other way round. It can be a useful way to envisage how things happened and can give insights into why a general may have adopted a particular strategy (or more often, tactics), but it is dangerous to start arguing backwards the other way. Just because something works in a wargame does not mean it was done or that it was possible. It may just mean your particular set of wargames rules are wrong. Phil Sidnell.

You might want to try Goldworthy's In the Name of Rome too. Phil

I was wondering how he put one and a half elephants on each flank. Phil

Hi there. I agreed with your point in its essentials, the elephants didn't really get a chance to make much impact in Italy. However, I can't find where exactly in Polybius he says only three made it into Italy. I only have the Penguin translation to hand so perhaps it is lost in editing - could you give me chapter and verse please? I was under the impression a more substantial force made it as far as the Trebia, played a fair part in the battle and then, but for one solitary animal, died from the combination of exhaustion and exposure to severe snow and rain after the battle: In his description of the deployments for the Trebia, Polybius says Hannibal 'divided his force of elephants and stationed them in front of the wings of the infantry phalanx, so that the flanks were doubly protected'. (III.72) This doesn't sound like just three elephants. Later, in the course of the battle, he says 'Finally both wings of Longus' infantry, which were being hard-pressed bfrom thje front by the elephants, and from the flanks by the light-armed troops, gave way and were forced back'. (III.74) And later, apart from the 10,000 who fought their way clear, 'Of the remainder of the Roman army the greater part were killed by the elephants and the cavalry'.(III.74) Describing Carthaginian losses he says: 'They were exultant at the outcome of the battle, which they regarded as a decisive success: the losses among the Spaniards and Africans were very small and most of the casualties had been suffered by the Celts [no mention at this stage of elephant casualties] - The whole army had been severely affected, however, by the pouring rain and the snowfall that followed it, with the result that all the elephants died except for one and large numbers of men and horses perished from the cold'.(III.74) In Livy's account, the elephants are again divided half and half and posted on the extreme flanks beyond the cavalry (whereas in Polybius they were in front of the wings of the phalanx, with cavalry outside of them on the flanks). They played a great part in driving off the Roman cavalry 'as the horses were terrified by the sight and smell of these strange beasts they had never seen before'. After the Roman cavalry had been driven off, they attacked the Roman infantry and 'forced a way right into their line'. The Roman light infantry, (who in Polybius account had retired through the heavies after the initial skirmishes), were called up to counterattack and drive them off, with great success: 'The light-armed foot, specially brought in to deal with them, drove them off with their javelins, followed up, and pierced them again in the soft skin beneath their tail. Under this treatment the brutes were getting out of hand and looked like turning in against their masters [as quite often happened in other battles], so Hannibal had them removed from the centre and transferred to the left wing, against the Celtic auxiliaries [the Cenomani, the only Celtic tribe to remain loyal to Rome]'. Still their contribution was not over, for Livy continues 'The auxiliaries promptly broke and fled, thus adding a fresh cause of alarm for the hard-pressed Romans'. Livy concurs that it was 'rain, sleet and intolerable cold' that 'carried off many of the pack animals and nearly all the elephants'. Livy, xxi, 55-56 I think then it would be fair to say that they did contribute quite a bit to the victory at Trebia, and it was lucky for the Romans that the weather did them in. Of course, this was not the first time an invader had used elephants in Italy. Pyrrhus of Epirus owed his two (proverbially costly) victories over the Romans in no small part to his elephants. In Hellenistic warfare too they were often a major factor in success (although equally often in the defeat of their own side!), and so it is not true they were only succesful against primitive or unsophisticated armies. Alexander's hardest fought battle was against Porus and his elephants. The African elephant used may actually have been Loxodonta Africanus Cyclotis, or bush elephant, only recently identified as a seperate species. Males grow only to about 8' tall, as opposed to 13' for the savannah elephant Loxodonta Africanus[\i] Phil Sidnell

Just got my copy of slingshot with one of your works on the front - well done!

Okay, but that's moving the goal posts. Your original thread was 'why Romans didn't charge' - yet they clearly did. You say that the infantry being charged must waver or break or it was a disaster - I'd agree with that as a general rule, but that is to miss the point. The infantry often did break, which is why cavalry did charge.

No problem. Incindentally, if you do want to read the book, the full title is Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare, ISBN 1-85285-374-3 and you can get it through Amazon and elsewhere. all the best Phil

The quote usually cited in support of this is the following from Livy: 'Now they saw the bodies dismembered with the Spanish sword, arms cut off with the shoulder attached, or heads severed from bodies, with the necks completely cut through, internal organs exposed, and a general feeling of panic ensued when they discovered the kind of wepaons and the kind of men they had to contend with.' Livy, History of Rome, xxxi. 34. This is from his description of the first meeting of Roman and Macedonian troops at Athacus in 200 BC, but what is often not mentioned is that the only Roman troops engaged were cavalry (and they were fighting against both Macedonian cavalry and light infantry. Also, I don't think it is absolutely certainly the case that at this date (ie in the source Livy was drawing on) the term 'spanish sword' would necessarily have meant the final form that became the trademark weapon of the legions. Experience against Spanish troops in the Punic wars had led the Romans to take Spanish smiths back to Italy to make swords, the key being their technique of making better iron/steel, rather than the design itself. The Spanish used either a straight cut-and-thrust sword, which is obviously the pattern for the later classic gladius hispaniensis, or a recurved slashing falcata. Perhaps at first both sorts were known as spanish swords, if made using the new technique, regardless of shape. So it could even be that these cavalry were using the falcata style of sword (back in the 4th c. BC, Xenophon had recommended the similar kopis or machaira to Greek cavalry as more suitable for a horseman, ' because, from the height of a horse's back the cut of a machaira will serve you better than the thrust of a xiphos' or straight sword). Phil Sidnell

Of course in line 3 of the above I meant to say the saddle is more important than the stirrups. D'oh!

Stirrups can provide a lot of stability to a charging lancer or swordsman - against a frontal impact, by pushing forward against them you can brace yourself against the cantle, the raised rear of your saddle. Judging from jousters I spoke to, the saddle is more important than the saddle. In battle it is unlikely that an impact will be purely frontal as it would appear in a diagram drawn from the side. Where stirrups are really useful, even in just everyday riding, is in shifting your weight in the saddle to regain your balance if you are in danger of losing it, because you can put your weight on either one and push off from it as required. Of course many ancient cavalry, including Alexander's companions (sorry Caldrail, I know you only like purely Roman talk), rode without rigid saddles - the earliest evidence for the horned saddles being the 'Gundestrup cauldron' from late 2nd c. BC, at the earliest, and the earliest within the Roman sphere from a relief found in Provence in the 1st c. BC. Stirrups are very nice things to have, but don't underestimate what can be achieved by a rider raised to ride without them. Couching the lance, tucking it under the armpit, was not impossible before stirrups, but there it is generally accepted that there is no evidence that it was done (although there is one graffito of a Sarmatian lancer that looks to me like he might possibly be couching). It did not actually become the standard technique until the late 11th century AD. It would definitely have been possible with a Roman saddle but no stirrups, because I have a photo of it being done by a reenactor against a sand-filled dummy. As for evidence of the two-handed technique, there are a number of good images from artefacts in the Osprey book on the Sarmatians (Caldrail, you have to let me off on this - the Romans copied the contus from the Sarmatians, even calling it the contus sarmaticus). The rock reliefs of Persian and Sassanid lancers at Taq-i-Bustan or Firzubad seem to show the two handed technique also. Incidentally, the Parthian horse in the lion-hunting scene (if you mean the plaque in the British Museum) is probably meant to be galloping rather than rearing. It was not until the development of photography in the late 19th century that anyone, in the Western world, actually managed to correctly work out, and therefore depict, the exact sequence and motion of horses legs in canter and gallop. Nearly all earlier paintings of running horses have their legs in a position that they could only attain while jumping, if then. Hope some of this helps. Phil

Well, I have read a good proportion of the ancient sources. You original statement was that Roman cavalry didn't charge, not that they didn't charge into the middle of determined resistance. Don't misunderstand my position - for cavalry tackling infantry, a flank or rear attack was always preferable if the situation allowed it, and a frontal charge would often fail unless the infantry's order and morale cracked - but this is still charging and it was done - the enemy infantry often did crack. Just with what I have readily to hand, here are some ancient quotes that might interest you: Livy: '[the Sabine enemy in 490 BC] by extending their flanks too widely, had weakened their centre, and Valerius, after a devastating cavalry charge, sent in his infantry to finish the work'. Outside Veii in 483 BC: 'one unsupported cavalry charge broke the enemy resistance'. Polybius on Telamon: 'The end came when the Celts were attacked by the Roman cavalry, who delivered a furious charge from the high ground on the flank; the Celtic cavalry turned and fled, and their infantry were cut down where they stood.' Plutarch on Clastidium: 'the Roman cavalry charged and found themselves engaging not only the Gallic horsemen but also their suppoprting infantry, who attacked them at the same time. But in the end they won a victory which was as unparalleled as it was unexpected'. Julius Caesar on Alesia. This was a rear attack, but was definitely pressed home at the charge: 'Suddenly the Gauls saw the cavalry in their rear and fresh cohorts coming up in front. They broke and fled and were mown down'. Josephus 'For, once their front ranks had been broken by the cavalry, a rout ensued, and, the fugitives falling foul of those in their rear who were pressing forward to the wall, became their own enemies, until at length the whole body, succumbing to the cavalry charges, were dispersed throughout the plain.' Tacitus, describing the cavalry charging into the ongoing infantry fight at Mons Graupius, says 'their first onslaught was terrifying'. Although they were unable to make a quick breakthrough due to 'the solid ranks of the enemy and the roughness of the ground', he leaves no doubt that they were right there in the thick of it, becoming dangerously engaged in a static melee, and in places making things more difficult for their own infantry as terrified horses 'came plunging into the ranks from the side or in head on collision'. I am running out of time now, but will leave you with the thought that Arrian obviously expected the Sarmatian cavalry to press their charges home when he wrote his Acies Contra Alanos[\i]: If they do close in though, the first three ranks should lock their shields and press their shoulders [against them] and recieve the charge as strongly as possible in the most close ordered formation bound together in the strongest manner. The fourth rank will throw their javelins overhead and the first rank will stab at them and their horses with their spears without pause. Phil Sidnell p.s This idea that 'modern' British (and their horses?) were 'berserkers' and the Romans were all phlegmatic and rational seems a bit of a ropey basis for dismissing evidence, especially flawed with regard to early Roman cavlary - the ethos of the equites was that of seeking glory and renown as demonstrated by their penchant for fighting single combat and displaying their battle scars in the forum.

Well, starting from their earliest wars - Etruscans would have been armoured at least as heavily, with heavy Greeks influence, and Samnites too wore some armour (the same Cardiophylax that most republican Roman infantry wore). Then of course there was Pyrrhus' invading Hellenistic army which included both armoured infantry and cavalry. Moving on to the Punic Wars - many Carthaginian troops wore armour - again Hellenistic influence and later captured Roman armour. Of course even some Celts, Celtiberians and Spanish wore armour, though only the wealthiest minority. Then in the 2nd century the major enemies included more Hellenistic Successor states: Macedonians and Seleucids, so that's more armoured infantry and cavalry, including the first meeting with cataphracts at Magnesia. In the first century, apart from the fact that the legions spent a lot of time fighting other legions, one of the main enemies was Mithridates of Pontus - another well balanced force with plenty of armoured infantry and cavalry. Then of course we have the Parthians from 53 AD - more cataphracts and Sarmatians from the 1st century AD with more armoured cavalry - all before we get to the Sassanids! Phil Sidnell

There is a mass of evidence for Roman, and other ancient cavalry charging. It is true that by choice they would prefer to charge infantry from the flank or rear but this still required them to charge in amongst them and come to blows. Alexander is indeed an obvious example, although at Gaugamela it was the Persian cavalry he charged. At Granicus he charged mercenary Greek hoplites (in conjunction with his infantry) and at Issus he charged the Persian Kardakes heavy infantry, who broke at the first onset. Contrary to common belief, the Roman cavalry of the early Republic, to judge by the tradition that came down to later historians like Livy, specialised in shock tactics. The later move to dependence on foreign auxiliaries had more to do with social and political changes affecting the Equestrian class than a native repulsion for cavalry warfare. Cavalry, always including shock cavalry, was an important part of the Roman army in all periods. I won't go into masses of detail now because you have already had a long and rather 'heated' exchange (I've only just discovered this site), but might I humbly suggest you read my book Warhorse, Cavalry in Ancient Warfare. I'd be interested to hear what you think. Just a couple of points I can't resist pointing out now: Stirrups did not come West with the Huns. The earliest finds in Europe come from Avar graves. Their military impact has indeed been over exaggerated. They are very useful indeed (speaking as a rider) but the ancients managed perfectly well without them. 'Modern' cavalry were trained to ride without stirrups to prevent an over-dependence upon them. Cataphracts, though not adopted by the Romans to much later, are attested in Seleucid armies from the early 2nd century BC, probably adopted from the Parthians who followed the earleir Bactrian/Massegetae/Scythian traditions of armouring both horse and rider for some of their cavalry. Later battles are I think perfectly valid evidence for gaining insight into how cavalry charges worked. Waterloo is a great example of the power of cavalry charges - everyone always thinks of the French charges that failed against the British squares in the afternoon, but don't forget the British Union Brigade (heavy cavalry) destroyed the first major French infantry attack in the morning in a matter of minutes with a frontal charge. Here is a telling excerpt of why cavalry was formidable regardless of the details of stirrups, armour etc - the sheer psychological shock of being charged was often enough to disorder infantry sufficiently for the charge to succeed. This is from an eyewitness remember: 'It is an awful thing for infantry to see a body of cavalry riding them at full gallop. The men in square frequently began to shuffle, and so create some unsteadiness. This causes them to neglect their fire. The cavalry seeing this have an inducement to for riding close up, and in all probability in getting into the square, when all is over. When once broken, the infantry, of course, have no chance. If steady it is almost impossible to succeed against infantry, yet I should always be cautious, if in command of infantry attacked by cavalry, having seen the best of troops more afraid of cavalry than any other force.' The very best account of cavalry breaking trained and highly-motivated infantry squares (or triangles actually) is the Battle of Aliwal in the Sikh Wars in the 1840s (can't recall exact date off the top of my head but will post the extract up when I find it. cheers Phil Sidnell

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. 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.