Why Romans Didn't Charge

[caldrail]

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.

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?

[Hadrian Caesar]

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.

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

[caldrail]

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

 

Not in the manner you think. Colliding with dense masses of infantry isn't likely to happen. Horses refuse to do so, and lets be honest, so do many riders, though I accept napoleonic beserkers didn't think too clearly. Even if the horses can be persuaded to collide, all you get is a tangled mass of bodies either dead or struggling to get up, including all the horses who entered the fray like that. If you actually study the battles you've mentioned, you'll find there's no evidence of infantry being bowled over by masses of suicidal horsemen. Why would they do that? Its madness. You might win the battle but how can you prevent outflanking moves from enemy cavalry if yours were wiped out in the last one?

 

I used to believe the same as you years ago, but its a fantasy, and I know its a fantasy because I read something on the subject somewhat more authorative than a web page on this very subject. Listing battles is no good whatsoever - it doesn't prove anything - and in the case of waterloo, I've already informed you that charging dense infantry achieved nothing except pinning the men down. They were NOT attacked in the manner you ascribe because they formed square, a dense mass of infantry, which cavalry of the time didn't charge into - unless the dense mass of infantry was already shaken - which is another point you don't seem to understand. These periods saw co-operation between cavalry and artillery to achieve this effect. Most ancient armies couldn't do this apart from the romans, but as yet I haven't found any evidence for roman field artillery being used in conjunction with the horses in this way, mostly because cavalry actions of this period were against each other to prevent outflanking moves by a highly mobile force.

 

Heavily armoured cavalry do nothing different apart from the fact their protection makes them well nigh impervious in melee, not the charge. Lancers do not collide either. Jousting is all very well but notice both horsemen are kept apart by a fence.

 

Your concept of cavalry action is wrong. Read reports and treatises of the time. Far more revealing and you'll become a better military historian if you do.

[Hadrian Caesar]

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

[Hadrian Caesar]

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?

Edited May 23, 2007 by Hadrian Caesar

[caldrail]

I'm not interested HC. We're discussing ROMAN cavalry, not something that happened nearly a thousand years afterward. In any case, you still miss the essential point about cavalry vs infantry. In a charge situation, its a game of chicken. Who's going to give up first and get out of the way? usually the horse decides that for the rider which is why few cavalry ever do anything so rash.

 

Tell you what. Find a site on medieval history. You'll impress them perhaps?

[longbow]

Medieval Conrois (20-30 mounted sargeants) had a lot of advantage's what there Roman counterparts didnt have,stirrups and a crouched lance can make a lot of difference.But even so,Infantry will stop them,Caltrops and pitts will brake a Conroi up beautifully and the horses what dont snap a leg can be easily killed with a Swallowtail or two through the chest.Once you've got the mounted soldier off his Horse,be it mounted sargeant of even a Knight (very rare on the battlefield) he's knackered without his nagg,last thing he see's will be a lot of Bollock and Rondel daggers .

 

Play nicely you two!

 

Longbow

Edited May 23, 2007 by longbow

[caldrail]

The bonuses of stirrups are nowhere near what some people suggest. They add nothing to the charge or the impact of weapons because the rider cannot brace himself against them. The reason medieval cavalrymen didn't change horses every five minutes was because they couldn't - a destrier stallion (the size of those big cart horses) is an expensive commodity, much pampered by its owner. Is anyone seriously suggesting he's deliberately going to injure that horse by colliding into a pack of men? The horse wouldn't have any of it, and the riders of that time knew it. Like every cavalryman of every period known to cavalry history, they either stopped or went round if the infantry didn't give ground. Apart from a few nutcases and mistaken horses I imagine, but those men and horses were dead meat. I cannot stress this enough. Cavalry only penetrate an infantry unit at the charge if the infantry give ground. I mean, if you see a heavily armoured rider galloping toward you are you going to want to stand there and let him collide? Takes a bit of nerve I think.

 

In any case, the point of this thread is roman tactics. Roman writers have left us with descriptions of cavalry tactics and behaviour on the battlefield. They operated as light cavalry, they rode mares as opposed to stallions, they rode smaller horses than today, they stressed mobile and complex manoevers to outwit the enemy, they rode against opposing cavalry first as a priority, they are known to refuse a head on charge against infantry, preferring hit and run fights that allow them to exploit their mobility. Anything else is a romantic fantasy.

[philosalexandros]

The bonuses of stirrups are nowhere near what some people suggest. They add nothing to the charge or the impact of weapons because the rider cannot brace himself against them.

 

Actually you can eaither lean back inthe stirrups or stand foward in them. Just try to think if standing by squeezing your legs is easier than using your feet.

[longbow]

The bonuses of stirrups are nowhere near what some people suggest. They add nothing to the charge or the impact of weapons because the rider cannot brace himself against them.

How'd you come to that conclussion? do you ride Caldrail?

The Horned saddle is good but with stirrips you can lift your seat out of the saddle which gives more impact to your crouched lance,doesnt it?

 

In any case, the point of this thread is roman tactics

 

OK

[caldrail]

The bonuses of stirrups are nowhere near what some people suggest. They add nothing to the charge or the impact of weapons because the rider cannot brace himself against them.

How'd you come to that conclussion? do you ride Caldrail?

The Horned saddle is good but with stirrips you can lift your seat out of the saddle which gives more impact to your crouched lance,doesnt it?

I have ridden in the past, but whilst I'm no expert on horses, the line of impact is well above the stirrup and to some extent the stirrup might act as a pivot point if you stand. One of the reasons for the use of the four-pronged roman saddle is that it gave support to the seat and in effect braces the body. I'm not aware that standing in the saddle makes the impact any more powerful.

[phil sidnell]

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.

[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

[Hadrian Caesar]

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?

Edited June 7, 2007 by Hadrian Caesar

[caldrail]

Read contemporary sources please. Romans fought cavalry actions primarily to stave off the threat of enemy cavalry. They were used in scouting, harassing, and pursuing. Roman authors tell us that their cavalry were not expected to charge infantry head-on, that they sometimes refused to do so, and that they relied on complex manoevers to achieve their ends.

 

Later periods are not relevant becaue horse, equipment, and tactics had changed. There's another forum for discussing later history.

 

What is made clear from roman sources such as Arrian and Vegetius is that in coming into contact with infantry - usually on the flank or rear for obvious reasons - the cavalry would ride up to them and then either make a pass with thrown/fired weapons or stop and conduct melee. They were not as heavily armoured as some later horsemen and could not afford to ride into the center of determined resistance. The horses would not allow them to do so. The romans preferred mares, not stallions, and they made this choice to suit their tactics.

 

Charging head on is romantic fantasy where romans are concerned. They didn't do it. Read roman sources, they explain it all for you. The Charge of the Light Brigade belongs to english beserkers of the Crimean War, not the sensible organised roman light cavalry of two thousand before. You're dealing with a different mindset here and you need to take that on board.

 

Even in cases where charges took place - as I said - its a game of chicken. Who gives way first? The infantry? The riders? Or the horses? The cavalry do not simply plunge into a solid mass of men and shields because they injure and kill themselves in the process. Horses, believe it or not, are not tanks and don't like getting hurt. However much you train a horse it still won't willingly injure itself for you. Try it yourself. Ride a horse at a solid obstacle. You'll be very impressed by the horses ability to stop when it decides its not a good idea to obey the rider anymore.