Prometheus Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 First question, would an unit of cavalry require back-up horses? If so how many? How would a mounted soldier prevent dropping his spear/lance. I imagine that hitting an enemy with large speed would result in a large force. I also wondered if a spear wouldn't deflect to the side but I guess that is just an issue of training, keeping the spear straight. At what speed would cavalry charge the enemy. Recently I have been playing a computer game Rome: Total War. In that game cavalry charge into enemy lines with full speed, trampling, or bumping over the enemy on occasion. If one would actually do that I can't imagine the horse not being injured. So I could imagine a forceful charge like in this game being very rare. Can anyone comment on this? Since it would not be required to collide with the enemy in order for cavalry to have its uses. About communication on the battlefield. How effective was this and how much difference did it make? Did a general have control over his units during the battle. Or was it just careful planning and then trusting in the commanders during the battle. I know there are different techniques but I don't even know which one the romans used. How many non-soldiers did an army generally have for support and logistics? It seems that in the roman legions the legionaires did many of these 'civilian' jobs. Any comments. One more question, what would happen to the weapons of an armed visitor trying to get into a walled city. I imagine one wouldn't be allowed to enter the city armed. Would the weapon be confiscated? Would a person be able to get it back? I am not asking this question specifically about how the roman empire handled this but how any walled city would handle this. I could imagine a numbered sortage system like we now have in some cloakrooms(?). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furius Venator Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 A cavalryman can hold his spear in one of two ways. The couched position, used by knights would often result in the breaking of the spear on impact. Contrary to popular belief neither stirrups nor a high backed saddle is required for this technique to work there are plenty of examples in the literature from Xenephon onwards to suggest that this technique was used by horsemen before the adoption of the stirrup. This charge might well be at the canter on impact. The overhand position, most common in ancient times, would tend to preserve the spear longer. The power behind the blow is much less that that of a couched spear on initial impact but it allows for multiple stabs at the enemy. The charge as delivered by a formed body of horse would be initially at the trot, increasing to a canter, maybe even a gallop on occasion, close to the moment of impact. Some very heavily armoured horse (cataphracts) might not get above a fastish trot. Generally, cavalry on cavalry, units would open ranks to allow passage of their opponents without damaging collisions. Cavalry on infantry, either the infantry run before impact or cavalry do not charge home. On command, the Romans used both music, visual (movement of standards) and voice commands though the deatail is slightly lacking. Commanders could influence units held in reserve or those actually in combat. Dispatch riders could be used to give commands to subordinates. I'd recommend a thorough reading of Caesar and also Goldsworthy's work, The Roman Army in Battle 100BC- AD200. The army employed slaves as mule-handlers etc. Numbers are difficult to ascertain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 First question, would an unit of cavalry require back-up horses? If so how many? How would a mounted soldier prevent dropping his spear/lance. I imagine that hitting an enemy with large speed would result in a large force. I also wondered if a spear wouldn't deflect to the side but I guess that is just an issue of training, keeping the spear straight. At what speed would cavalry charge the enemy. Recently I have been playing a computer game Rome: Total War. In that game cavalry charge into enemy lines with full speed, trampling, or bumping over the enemy on occasion. If one would actually do that I can't imagine the horse not being injured. So I could imagine a forceful charge like in this game being very rare. Can anyone comment on this? Since it would not be required to collide with the enemy in order for cavalry to have its uses. About communication on the battlefield. How effective was this and how much difference did it make? Did a general have control over his units during the battle. Or was it just careful planning and then trusting in the commanders during the battle. I know there are different techniques but I don't even know which one the romans used. How many non-soldiers did an army generally have for support and logistics? It seems that in the roman legions the legionaires did many of these 'civilian' jobs. Any comments. One more question, what would happen to the weapons of an armed visitor trying to get into a walled city. I imagine one wouldn't be allowed to enter the city armed. Would the weapon be confiscated? Would a person be able to get it back? I am not asking this question specifically about how the roman empire handled this but how any walled city would handle this. I could imagine a numbered sortage system like we now have in some cloakrooms(?). Wooah now this is a meaty question. Cavalry doesn't usually have any reserve horses. Once unhorsed - tough. You're walking home unless another mount becomes available. Horses are too valuable and slow to obtain in sufficient numbers for a large reserve of animals. Holding a spear/lance is part of cavalry training. It does indeed hit with some force, and its easy to lose the weapon. It should be pointed out though that in most cases in the ancient world the spear was employed at peoples backs as they scattered - so the horse was less likely to be moving at speed and the rider can stab with relative ease. Charging the enemy? Full pace. You get hit by a horse and rider and top speed it goes straight past you without effort. I once stood at the fence during a horse race and was much impressed by the sensation of weight and momentum as they rode by. Mind you, the instinct of a horse would be to try and jump the front rank, so a frontal collision is less likely than being knocked over by hooves hitting the torso/head. Horses do get injured. They land badly or impale themselves on enemy weapons. Forceful charges in ancient times are rare because horses are smaller than more recent wars and carry less arms/armour. They would more likely be used in a harrassing role or chasing soldiers fleeing the field. Communication is vital. Always was, always will be. A good ancient genral must have trusted cool-headed men in command of sections of his army who know and understand the battle plan. Loud horns, riders, or agreed signals are part of this. As the battle progresses things become gradually more chaotic, and minor commanders begin using initiative based on what they can see. Camp followers and other civilian trades followed the romans as much as any other. Its true the legionaries did a lot of their own work, but why labour for hours when a tradesmen outside can do it for a few coins and probably better than you in shorter time. During the Varian Disaster of AD9 we know a huge number of civilians were massacred along with the troops. Armies were a good source of income - the romans were just another paymaster. As for getting into a city whilst armed, it depended on your demeanour. Are there several hundred of you or are you alone? Are you dressed in military armour or civilian tunic? Are you patient and good mannered, or impatient and rude? Is your weapon lashed to a mule, or is it ready at your side? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted March 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 For some reason I tend to mark my questions as 'easy', probably because they are easy to ask. Ok thanks for clarifying the two styles of cavalry. I guess I will have to look at some battle reports and see how cavalry was actually used. But I have been unable to find online sources. So I ordered a book on Alexander and Caesar's commentaries. It would be nice if someone had some sources because there is a big difference between theory and practice. Using the term 'counched position' I found more information: http://www.classicalfencing.com/mounted.shtml About reserve horses, I think I once heard something about fresh horses. I guess this is a question of what is rarer: Good mounted soldiers or good horses. Regarding communications, I wondered about the balance between a general controlling units during the battle and local unit commanders taking initative during the battle based on layed out plan. And about my last question. I found out about a concept known as 'peace-bonded' but when I use the term in google I only find things about re-enactment, LARP, cos-play and whatnot. Is this really a historical term? To detail my question a bit more, I was thinking about a civilian, lets say one or a group of cvilians, armed with a sword in a scabbard attacked to their belt. I could imagine it would be illegal for a civilian to wear a sword in public, like it would be illegal to do this today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Dalby Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 To detail my question a bit more, I was thinking about a civilian, lets say one or a group of cvilians, armed with a sword in a scabbard attacked to their belt. I could imagine it would be illegal for a civilian to wear a sword in public, like it would be illegal to do this today. When Xenophon's Ten Thousand, finding their way back from Mesopotamia to Greece via the Black sea coast c. 400 BC, approached small Greek cities on that coast, they were sometimes not allowed to enter those cities, even singly. Armed or not, they were considered too much of a threat to security. Some newsagents' shops in Britain have signs at the door saying 'only one child at once'. Children, also, can be a threat to security. When I flew to Thailand, long before current security problems, armed with a nice large penknife Mrs Dalby had bought for me (to peel fruit -- I'm not much of a fighter), they wanted to confiscate it. 'Ask the pilot for it when you arrive.' Considering this, I decided I'd ask for a receipt (not that I don't trust pilots, but ...). Writing the receipt was evidently too much trouble, and I had asked very politely, so they quietly gave me my penknife back. I'm agreeing with a previous poster here -- it depends on your demeanour, and on local laws, and on the gatekeeper's decision. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furius Venator Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 I should like to emphasise that there is a difference between a single horseman charging (likely at the full gallop) and a formed body of horse for whom cohesion is essential (charge most likely at a fast canter or slower). Even trained warhorses will not charge home against steady foot, especially spearmen. Their charge might well cause formed foot to break before contact though. They will slow before coming into contact with formed infantry who do not give way. As regards horses, campaigning destroys horses even faster than it does men. Just campaigning, no battles, will quickly reduce the effective strength of cavalry to well below their theoretical maximum. Some armies, especially horse nomads, had spare mounts (up to sixteen in a Hun warrior's string!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman wargamer Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 First question, would an unit of cavalry require back-up horses? If so how many? In Roman Legion it is not a practice, but in Hun's they commonly have more per person. How would a mounted soldier prevent dropping his spear/lance. If their is a "contact charge", the spear will be lost by breakage or impact deflection. At what speed would cavalry charge the enemy. At running speed of the horse, but it is normally always a rear or flanking attack, frontal charge will be a wrong tactical decision.You are commiting suicide acts. In that game cavalry charge into enemy lines with full speed, trampling, or bumping over... computer games is very very far from realistic control system of real life...of Roman warfare. In Roman Legion, they use a continous "battle line" called= legio level = legio augmen cohor level = cohor acies tactical type = 1 = one line = simplex acies 2 = two line = duplex acies 3 = three line = triplex acies so if a single horse or even a 100 horse , will commit a frontal attack charge, will be first meted a volley of 100 Hastatus velitaris, and if they survive the first , second , third throw. ( veterans have more than 3 velitaris ) will surely be maimed by a wall of "hastae"( long big spear ) and the final killing close quarter throw of "hastula" ( small spear ) please take note, here it is how the cohors normally do the triplex acies line; __________________________ Primum Acies Line 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..=............Anteadstatus / medium infantry 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.. 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.. []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.=............Hastatus Posterior / heavy infantry []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/ []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/ []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.=............Hastatus Prior / heavy infantry []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/ []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/ ------------------------------------- Secundus Acies Line 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..=............Ante Princeps / medium infantry / ante pilanus cursores 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.. 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.. ()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/.=............Princeps Posterior / heavy infantry ()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/. ()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/. ()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/.=.............Princeps Prior / heavy infantry ()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/. ()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/...()/.()/.()/. -------------------------------------- Equitatus Turmae ___________________________ CohorsSigniferi -------------------------------------- Tertius Acies Line []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.=............Triarius Prior / heavy infantry []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/ []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/ []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/.=............Triarius Posterior / heavy infantry []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/ []/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/...[]/.[]/.[]/ 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/..=............Ante Triarius / medium infantry / ante pilanus cursores 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.. 0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.,.0/..0/..0/.. About communication on the battlefield. The legiones legatus of the legio have "tactical positioning control" of the "augmen acies" but not the individual manipular line...the normal command will be limited to... augmen retreat , augmen hold , and augmen forward... via legio signiferi. The tribunus have command control of the cohors organizational structure and men. "tactical 'positioning' control" and the "strategical 'movement' manuever" of the "cohors acies". control is by means of CohorsSigniferi. The Romanus Legiones do the battle by "organizational battle line". the unit normally move by the manipular centuriones = by Hastatus , Princeps , and Triarius. not by one or a few person. i hope it helps and my explanation is clear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pertinax Posted March 16, 2006 Report Share Posted March 16, 2006 A small note, the Numidians were criticised for having scrawny mounts-however as auxiliae they and their horses were grudgingly acknowledged to be excellent. The tough little ponies ( being 14 hands doesnt really lead onee to say "horse") were noted for being rugged, durable and not easily winded. Its a little like the quote from Caesar about not fearing the well fed long haired Gaul's but the pale ,hollow eyed ones.The logic is also the same as the Native American's attitude to US Army mounts "big and weak" . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 I've come across things like this. Germanians bred their own horses which Caesar reports were smaller than most, ugly, but utterly unstoppable and very obedient. It appears some tribes used them to good effect by carrying an infantryman to battle with the rider. Two units travelling together for the price of one horse. Gauls on the other hand were apparently horse fanciers who bought the best mounts money could buy, and it might be said they were unwilling to risk them. The poorer tribes, with less to lose, would have ridden in a more aggressive fashion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted March 18, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 (edited) Yes, I have recently read that. He(Caesar) also tells that he orders gallic cavalry to help him but when they arrived their horses turned out to be 'inappropiate'. It doesn't tell if the horses were tiered and instant action was required or that the horses were too small. The account of back-up horses was one talking about the Huns, if I remember correctly. So I wondered if this was common. I understand very well that cavalry doesn't charge the strongest part of the enemy battle line head on. I wondered if they would actually charge a battle line, either from the flank or front and what would happen. Would they just flee. Or if they fleed in most cases would the cavalry stop if the infantry was so crazy as to hold their ground? I imagine that if a flank or rear of a battle line was being charged with heavy lance cavalry the infantry would either try to face their attackers or run, if they had time. Or was the trick to make sure they didn't even realise they were attacked and 'trample' them from behind. I understand that one of the biggest uses for cavalry was manuvering and hunting down fleeing enemies. But cavalry do actually charge in many cases. So I wonder what actually happened in those cases. But now I have realised that for cavalry armed with spears there is a difference between 'shock cavalry' with counched spears/lances and cavalry wielding/thrusting with a hand. The latter would have a lot of trouble actually charging down with force, right? About communications, what would be the role of the signifer and vexillifer(banner carrier, right?). And then we also have the Aquilifer. In the HBO Rome series, in the first episode it shows part of the battle of Alesia. The centurion fights in the first rank and blows a whistle. At one point it shows all legionairies holding each other by a strap in the back of the armor, to help staying in formation so that the first line of men can slide back through the rows so they can rest and fresh men can continue the battle. Is this based on historical accounts? Edited March 18, 2006 by Prometheus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furius Venator Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 Regarding this, in the HBO Rome series, in the first episode it shows part of the battle of Alesia. The centurion fights in the first rank and blows a whistle. At one point it shows all legionairies holding each other by a strap in the back of the armor, to help staying in formation so that the first line of men can slide back through the rows so they can rest and fresh men can continue the battle. Is this based on historical accounts? This will nhave been dreamt up by some academic type with considerable brains and imagination but little common sense or understanding of ancient warfare. Centurion in front rank, so far, so good. We know that they fought in the front ranks from the literary evidence. Blows a whistle. Well maybe he did. Of course one might wonder why the century was provided with a horn-blower if the centurion signalled by whistling like a football referee. The truth is we don't know how orders were signalled. The evidence suggests a mixture of voice commands, music and visual signals (retreat or advance of the standards). As far as I am aware, the introduction of the centurion playing the penny whistle is utterly unsupported by the evidence. And quite unlikely given the presence of a musician in the ranks. Holding each other by a strap in the armour to help staying in formation. This one made me laugh at first. But now I'm grinding my teeth. Professional soldiers don't need to hang onto each other to keep formation, that's what drill is for. Whoever the historical consultant for that series was wants naming so that he can be publicly ridiculed. We don't know how units relieved the front ranks in battle when units were actually fighting. It was most likely done when lulls occurred as the opposing forces withdrew for breath. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 We don't know how units relieved the front ranks in battle when units were actually fighting. It was most likely done when lulls occurred as the opposing forces withdrew for breath. Caesar indicates in the Civil Wars that when possible, it was a continual feeding of fresh troops, and retreat of the tired or injured, no lull required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 A tired or injured man would naturally want to fall back, and given the 'block' formations of ancient troops the guys next to him or behind him would quickly plug the gap - remember that to pursue the injured man the enemy would have to enter the roman formation. Not healthy. Although the actual line of fight is going to wander most combatants would prefer to stay somewhere near their mates. There are exceptions of course. Spartacus in his final battle bravely attempts to fight his way toward Crassus according to source. Brave attempt, but doomed because he was overwhelmed by roman troops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Furius Venator Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 Caesar does say that tired troops were relieved. At no time does he suggest that this was a replacement of front rankers by rear rankers. What is more probable is that centuries were relieved by other centuries when there was a lull in the fighting. I'm not saying that it is impossible that troops actually engaged in hand-to-hand combat (rather than in close proximity to the enemy) were relieved, merely that the evidence does not state that they were and no clear mechanism for the exchange has ever been suggested by a historian. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted March 19, 2006 Report Share Posted March 19, 2006 On the contrary. Swords and shields are not lightweight items, and I would estimate you'd be completely knackered after twenty minutes of combat. Yet we know battles slogged on for hours, so the men must have rotated amongst themselves. Caesar wouldn't have bothered himself with that - he was more concerned with inserting a fresh unit as you say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.