Gothic cavalry-Did Medieval Knight tactics originate from them?

[HuangCaesar]

Title:
(note: I am well aware horses don't collide into solid objects, I am just talking about lance tactics)

Did the Knight tactics used by the Franks and later by Europe originate from the Goths and their Sarmatian allies? Or were they simply invented by the Franks? Although Goths were Germanic in nature would be intergrated with the Alans and Sarmatians. Romans often described the Goths as "Scythians". (For example Aetius was was called a "Scythian" when he was really a German/Roman, Emperor Gratian was known to wear Scythian clothing when everyone knows Scythians are long gone) However the Goths could be intergarated with the Roxaloia and the Alans who was known by Romans to have "shock cavalry" by Arrian.

We have no idea how the Gothic cavalry fought at Adrianople whether they were horse archer domiant like the Huns or more lancer orientated. Stirrups defientely were not used against the Romans since the Romans never record it(any weapon with such profficencey would be mentioned) and adopted it long before the average Franks.(Romans were known for coppying their enemies) (Stirrups do not provide any shock charge, and Adrianople is quite overexaggerated with its military doctrine theory) Still interesting to ask if the Goths were light cavalry or heavy cavalry.

Roman cavalry was not for its shock effect. Charges were probally mass arrow and javelin barrages like Spanish Conquistor cavalry rather than knight charges or Parthian charges. This is clearly recorded in Arrian, Zozimus, and Ammianus.

"Cavalry was drawn up to the same deph to not provide the same as infantry in deph, for they do not push eachother, since infantry does not push eachother with their shoulders and flanks, not when they contiunous when the others are drawn up do they constitute a single mass weight for a whole body of troops; on the contrary if they mass and press against eachother they rather cause the horses to panic" Arrian

"At the commencement of the engagement, the Roman cavalry receded, lest the Palmyrenes, who exceeded them in number, and were better horsemen, should by some stratagem surround the Roman army. But the Palmyrene cavalry pursued them so fiercely, though their ranks were broken, that the event was quite contrary to the expectation of the Roman cavalry. For they were |27 pursued by an enemy much their superior in strength, and therefore most of them fell. The foot had to bear the brunt of the action. Observing that the Palmyrenes had broken their ranks when the horse commenced their pursuit, they wheeled about, and attacked them while they were scattered and out of order." Zozimus on the Skirmish nature of the Roman cavalry"Zozimus.

Ammianus describes the Roman cavalry not to preform decisive engagements and a "series of quick skirmishes". Even though Roman cataphracts did exist, they were few in number. (Only 2 units(about 1,4000 men) was ever found in Trajan's time). 5,000 cataphracts were recruited by Marcus Aurelius but these were Sarmatian mercenaries, not regular Auxilia or Legionaires. The Roman Cataphracts in the Battle of Turin and Strasbourg was described to be slow melee cavalry,(a cut down quite easily) and Belasrius or Maurice doesn't seem to make mention or use them in the 6th century.
Even Byzantine tactics preffered skimishing and not dirrect shock engagement as shown in the "Strategikon". This is shown in the Battle of Dara as the Roman cavalry of Belaraius avoided the Perisan cavalry in a feigned retreat before encircling them. Byzantine Cataphracts were known to have an inferior charge capablitity compared to the Knights of Europe.

"In the reign of Alexios I the Byzantine kataphraktoi proved to be unable to withstand the charge of Norman knights, and Alexios, in his later campaigns, was forced to use stratagems which were aimed at avoiding the exposure of his heavy cavalry to such a charge.Contemporary Byzantine armour was probably more effective than that of Western Europe therefore reasons other than a deficit in armour protection must be sought for the poor performance of the Byzantine cavalry. It is probable that the Byzantine heavy cavalry traditionally made charges at relatively slow speed, certainly the deep wedge formations(descibed since Arrian and Strategikon) described in Nikephoros Phokas’ day would have been impossible to deploy at anything faster than a round trot. In the course of the late 11th century the Normans, and other Westerners, evolved a disciplined charge at high speed which developed great impetus, and it is this which outclassed the Byzantines. The role of the couched lance technique, and the connected development of the high-cantled war saddle, in this process is obscure but may have had considerable influence." wikpedia

So the Romans definetley were not forerunners of this new shock cavalry tactic. Although I am refering to the 11th century, skirmish nature of the Roman cavalry is descibed in the Strategikon. Both the Romans and Byzantines relied on foreign mercenaries(not Auxilia and Legionaires) to fill in tactics not acostomed to them. Most of Aetius' army at Chalons were irregular German allies rather than normal Roman Auxilia and Legionaires.

Before the Franks, shock cavalry by Germanic tribes were recorded by the Byzantines by the Strategikon on their Germanic allies.(while normal Roman Auxilia would not usually not do this.) This is a text on German allied cavalry engaging, the Romans cavalry would shower them with arrows and their allied Germans would finish the work with a charge. Such as charge was used at Chalons to defeat the lighter Hunnic cavalry and may be just like the charge the Holy Roman Empire did at Lechfield.

"At the command of 'judge'[close ranks] the soldiers closed from the rear for charge. With the troops marching in close formation, partically after they have closed their flanks, their archers would open fire when the command was given, the experienced men in front two ranks would front two ranks would lean forward and cover their heads with their shields and hold their lances as heigh as their shoulders in the manner of faired hair races" Strategikon

"Shock cavalry was used by the foedereti(Roman allies) troops of the Roman Army. The soldiers, ancestors of the medieval do not engage in skirmish from a distance but armed with swords and lances, perhaps supported by Roman and Hunnic horses, to attempt to destroy them in close combat. Such a charge is described in the Strategikon." Roman army the Greatest military machine of the Ancient World, Chris McNab

What do you think? Do you think Knight tactics were used before the Franks?

[KEA]

What do you think? Do you think Knight tactics were used before the Franks?

I don't think they were used by the Franks at all. We cannot attest "proper knight tactics" before the 12th Century, late 11th Century earliest: The usage of a lance and a large shield by attacking in close order as well as reducing the lance/spear to a role as a weapon solely for the first shock (afterwards swords were used), that's a new developement of the European High Middle Ages. Development probably started around the 1070s in SW Germany because it was unknown to the 1066 Normans and their French and Flemish allies, but was (or seemed to have been) used by Swabian knights in the Saxon Wars a decade later.

Heavy lancers, large shields, stirrups etcpp were used by others before, but not that way. This means the ingrediences were old but the menue was a new one.

[O'Hea]

I'm with KEA, I think that when we talk about "medieval knights" we mean cavalry using the stirrup and the couched lance, and these were technological developments more than tactical ones. The development may have been influenced by the memory of older types of cavalry but we have to recognize the technological break between them.

[Petrucci]

I thought mediveval kinight tactics originate from cataphracts.

[KEA]

hardly with about half a millenium gap.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Charging people with a sharp stick is hardly something that would take a lot of inventing.

As for the specifics, no, not as far as anyone can tell. Knightly tactics were generally based around small, tight-knit and flexible formations - conrois - operating with a certain degree of autonomy as part of larger, brigade-like units called "battailes", sometimes organized into intermediate size squadrons. They'd be able to attack both in a single massed charge and in detail, usually with repeated charges followed by regrouping. This kind of system seems to originate with the Carolingian Franks, but appears somewhat similar to both Roman and Barbarian ways in the antiquity. We can't claim direct descent anywhere.



What the OP most likely meant, though, was massed charges in general. Knights did not usually do that in the way they're portrayed in the movies, see above. The massed single charges at a gallop were more of a modern thing (not that they never happened, they just weren't as common).

[KEA]

The usage of tactical subdivisons is so generic that you can indeed use it to prove that knightly tactics originated from Ancient barbarian combat (or the Troian War if you like).

The key element of knightly combat was the shock assault. That's the reason why battles of the High Middle Ages usually were rather short, often decided by one assault. The usage of lances and destiers wouldn't had made any sense either when the knight had anything else in mind than to ram his lance into the opponent at full galopp (something you can only do once per lance BTW).

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

No, it wasn't. Until around 1100 knee-to-knee couched lance charges weren't common at all, and even after that, cavalry rarely made an all-or-nothing charge all in one go, unless forced to by circumstance. Well, in the bigger battles at least - we're not talking about very lopsided fights here, or ones involving small numbers of cavalry exclusively.

As a matter of fact, battles were rare for most of the period. Castles and fortified cities dominated the land and military thinking alike, so most campaigns were a series of sieges, raids, counter-raids against invaders' logistics or relief attempts - the latter sometimes, but not always ending in a field battle. If one had to fight, it'd more often than not be an ambush or a hit and run cavalry affair rather than a classic pitches battle. In such irregular fighting a single charge might indeed carry the fight. But definitely not most large field battles.

Let's not forget that medieval chroniclers had a bit of a tendency to make it seem like battles were won by gallant, god-supported charges invariably trampling the less virtuous.

[KEA]

No, it wasn't. Until around 1100 knee-to-knee couched lance charges weren't common at all,

ah yes....

We cannot attest "proper knight tactics" before the 12th Century, late 11th Century earliest.

three posts above.

We are talking about High Medieval knightly combat, that's roughly late 11th, 12th, 13th and early 14th Century.

and even after that, cavalry rarely made an all-or-nothing charge all in one go, unless forced to by circumstance. Well, in the bigger battles at least

For example?

We do indeed have successive charges when forced by circumstances, for example when enemy forces are spread so much that they are to be attacked one after the other (e.g. Legnano) or when units enter the field after the battle already has begun (e.g. Bouvines) or when the attack was so poorly organized that each banner attacked on its own (e.g. Crecy). But I wouldn't be able to name any instances of major battles in said periode in which we have repeated charges by small tactical units with regrouping each thereafter.

Let's not forget that medieval chroniclers had a bit of a tendency to make it seem like battles were won by gallant, god-supported charges invariably trampling the less virtuous.

Must have been a temporary fashion because before and after the High Middle Ages the chroniclers have no problems reporting repeative attacks, prolongued toe to toe fighting, failed charges and the like "less virtuous" fighting.

[hellheaven1987]

Carolingian cavalries were largely came from Byzantium and there were extensive effort during the Carolingian Renaissance to import Byzantium military training into West Europe. Those training in term became the base of Frankish knights.

[Edelfred]

Carolingian cavalries were largely came from Byzantium and there were extensive effort during the Carolingian Renaissance to import Byzantium military training into West Europe. Those training in term became the base of Frankish knights.

Both Goths and Byzantium have taken the Alano-Sarmatian riding technologies .

Frankish knights... what do you know about them ? The Franks beleived that their leaders from the tribe Sicambri were of Scytho-Cimmerian stock . So they knew riding by default .
It is like Middle-Sweden Vendel Era the kings troops were riders - Rohirim style ( Tolkien has stidied Vendel Era) while the rest of Proto-Norse and Anglo-Saxons were as always heavy-infantry Germanic style . So the Goths who had contact with Sarmatian nobles had backward connections with their ancestral Scandianvian homeland and installed some of the dynasties from their nobles - Germanic warriors who could ride Sarmatian style.
As a matter of fact those Swedes mentioned above knew stirups while the rest of Europe did not yet.
Or Sarmatian knight of Arthur now it is researched that mythology around the round table is re-telling of Alanic mythology .
The Ossetians legends were studued and everything there matches those Arthurian myths .

[hellheaven1987]

So they knew riding by default.

Knowing riding by default was just one of basics of mounting warfare; Franks had been good horse riders since 3rd Century, but even during Emperor Maurice time it was recorded Franks prefered to fight "dismountly" - a suggestion that Frankish cavalries did not receive extensive mounting warfare training during Merovingian time (although it was possible that the "Merovingian Franks" Byzantium encountered were in fact Burgundian).