Cavalry in the Hellenistic Period

[Mogan]

Erm... There's evidence of Macedon/Diadochi shock cavalry being armed with lances (xystophoroi for example, they were even armed with the sarissa on occasions). But, remember, in opposition to medieval lancers, these men were trained from childhood in noble families to be excellent riders. And when the lance broke, they had swords available.

This article on Wikipedia has an interesting mosaic picture, depicting Alexander the Great leading a cavalry charge, wielding a xyston lance. Lance armed shock cavalry did most certainly exist during this period. Before this the great emperors used chariots for charges, but they switched to horses as they were manoeuvrable. If this meant loosing impact power, there would surely be more records of both chariots and horses in battles.

These horses aren't horses I would let mingle around workhorses, since these could even be bloodthirsty. I seem to recall having heard some people even trained their horses to bite other horses without a familiar scent. They were surely not farm-horses, but trained from infancy.

Also, when a horse and rider is going at fast speeds with a single point in front of them, the shock is delivered according to mass (gravity has a lot to do with this), and a skilled rider, would surely know how to position his spear and himself on the horse so he wouldn't be tossed off. Of course, there's always the possibility of being tossed off anyway, so I think there's a reason experienced cavalry men were so highly sought after: high casualties.

[Zippy]

Erm... There's evidence of Macedon/Diadochi shock cavalry being armed with lances (xystophoroi for example, they were even armed with the sarissa on occasions). But, remember, in opposition to medieval lancers, these men were trained from childhood in noble families to be excellent riders. And when the lance broke, they had swords available.

This article on Wikipedia has an interesting mosaic picture, depicting Alexander the Great leading a cavalry charge, wielding a xyston lance. Lance armed shock cavalry did most certainly exist during this period. Before this the great emperors used chariots for charges, but they switched to horses as they were manoeuvrable. If this meant loosing impact power, there would surely be more records of both chariots and horses in battles.

These horses aren't horses I would let mingle around workhorses, since these could even be bloodthirsty. I seem to recall having heard some people even trained their horses to bite other horses without a familiar scent. They were surely not farm-horses, but trained from infancy.

Also, when a horse and rider is going at fast speeds with a single point in front of them, the shock is delivered according to mass (gravity has a lot to do with this), and a skilled rider, would surely know how to position his spear and himself on the horse so he wouldn't be tossed off. Of course, there's always the possibility of being tossed off anyway, so I think there's a reason experienced cavalry men were so highly sought after: high casualties.

Cavalry have always been a privileged force on the battlefield, therefore training to become a cavalryman was almost always restricted to the upper class land owners and aristocratic noble families. This was even more true with European knights, who were often land owners themselves, and were typically trained from birth to fight from horseback, typically with the ubiquitous lance and sword combination, though sometimes they fought on foot.

Chariots were used in the past primarily because the breeds of horses available were insufficient for combat. They were too small, and not strong enough to adequately support a cavalryman, which is why several would be used to tow a chariot around.

The invention of the stirrup is the primary reason why cavalry became such a dominating force on the battlefield for centuries. It gave the cavalryman much better control over his mount, without the need to resort to the reins, and allowed full-speed charges to be conducted against even tight formations of soldiers.

During a lance charge, it was more likely that the cavalryman would be thrown backwards off of the horse at the moment the lance impacted its target, ala the principle of physics equal and opposite reactions. Therefore, stirrups allowed the cavalryman to brace himself for the charge, and because his feet were secured to the horse, he would not be thrown off backwards. Neither would he be thrown forwards, unless the horse itself was brought to a dead stop, such as being impaled by a Sarissa or other long spear. The mass of the horse allowed it to literally bulldoze into a formation, and would be gradually slowed down by the mass of men it was charged into.

Typical warhorses were of medium-heavy build for shock cavalry(This is the type that had been breed for war for centuries, probably started by people living on the steppes). Light cavalry used ponies. The heaviest horses, known as destriers, were unsuitable to use in war, as they were even more likely to get scared in combat(I believe this is due to a trait of the particular breed), and therefore were used primarily as heavy movers for artillery pieces, supply wagons etc.

[messiah]

Erm... There's evidence of Macedon/Diadochi shock cavalry being armed with lances (xystophoroi for example, they were even armed with the sarissa on occasions).

This article on Wikipedia has an interesting mosaic picture, depicting Alexander the Great leading a cavalry charge, wielding a xyston lance.

From what I've read in books, heavy cavalry like the companions used the xyston, which was about 12 feet long.

The scouts which were occasionally used in battle (prodromoi/sarissaphoroi) were armed with a cavalry sarissa, which was quite differant from the infantry sarissa. Both had sharpened edges, but the cavalry sarissa was about 15 or maybe 16 feet at most (also, it was held 3:5, with 5/8 of the weapon's length aimed at the enemy), meaning you would have to pass about 9-10 feet before you got to the rider. The author of the book (Stephen English, "The Army of Alexander the Great") believes that this cavalry sarissa was used to hold enemies at bay, rather than kill them, because these scouts had a helmet at best, so were not meant for close-quarter combat.

Also, from what I've read, most author's suggest the weapon on the Issus mozaic is too long to be a xyston and is probably meant as an infantry sarissa, which, in real life, could not be used whilst being mounted upon a horse, it was just too long and unwieldy for a cavalry man.

Some people also like to think that the companions used 2 hands to hold the xyston, which is not true. The Macedonian cavalry needed to performe agile moves on the battlefield, and they couldn't control the horse if they needed 2 hands to wield a weapon. Now cataphracts are a differant story - the were extremly heavy and charged straight at the enemy, without performing agile moves. This situation allowed for the usage of a much longer spear.

[Caesar Augustus]

Fascinating stuff Scotus. You can have some rep for that

So shock cavalry is more tied to the quality of the horse rather than the equipment of the rider (provided they have a saddle)?

[Scotus]

Help!!

I would reckon that the training of the horse would be absolutely essential, because from my (limted) experience horses are easily spooked by unfamiliar things and avoid anything they think is a threat. (We tried to get our horse to push open a field gate yesterday evening for the first time and she really didn't want to). So a lot of training would have to be put in to overcome the horse's natural instincts to run away so that they would remain controllable in a battlefield situation and even take part in the fight (stamping, kicking, whatever - as per my comment on dressage).

That said, it would take quite a lot to get a horse to charge at speed into a solid mass of men. (I wonder if some cavalry charges might have been intended to try to get the enemy to break and run rather than actually make contact with an unbroken body of soldiers).

Next would be the skills of the rider - not just at fighting, but also at staying on and controlling the horse in a dynamic environment. Therefore, the ability to balance on the horse in all sorts of situations and to control the horse without the reins (if they were being used) - for example by word of mouth or applying pressure through the knees - so that the hands are free to fight.

Finally, the equipment - and that would depend on what the rider is expected to do. If the shock is delivered through the horse, the rider would tend to be thrown forward over the horse's neck so the support from the back of the saddle would be less important. Once in the melee, the rider would need support in all directions. The saddle could help with that and might be more helpful in dealing with the pushing and shoving than if there isn't a saddle. I suppose a skilled rider could do a certain amount by holding onto the horse's mane with one hand and fighting with the other. However having a supportive saddle would allow you to use both hands to fight and stand up to more pushing and shoving. Maybe the heavier equipment would allow the cavalry to take part in a more prolonged melee.

And back to the original question of stirrups: I can see them offering an advantage in a melee and generally around the field - but I'm not at all convinced that they would make the difference between delivering a "shock" charge and not. I think there would be other ways of dealing with that and I expect the ancients knew them even if we've forgotten!

I'd be delighted to be corrected if anyone knows any different!

[Scotus]

Thank you Mogan - very happy to bow to the evidence! I'll continue to ponder the mechanics! Did they use special breeds of horses?

[Mogan]

Yes. Phillip the second is said to have imported Schytian horses through Thrace. I'll try to look up sources tomorrow, as I really, really should be sleeping now.

[Quinn Inuit]

Hi everyone - first post for me, though I've been playing ExRM for some time now and am still fighting a Bactrian campaign after 18 months! I cherish my double gold chevron cataphracts too much to stop even though the dates have reset a couple of times and I'm way behind on my versions!

Welcome to the boards! I'm glad you're enjoying the game.

I've heard about not having shock cavalry until the stirrup was invented, but having got a horse and thought about the mechanics, I'm not at all convinced.

For a cavalryman to deliver a shock, there has to be a way of transferring the impact from the rider to the horse (and from the horse to the ground). If you only had stirrups, the impact would tend to push the rider off the back of the horse because the leathers that hold the stirrups are far too flexible. What you need is a good, well-attached, saddle that can restrain the rider: then the impact gets transferred from the rider to the saddle, and from the saddle to the horse, and so on.

I've always assumed that is what horned saddles were for (and from vague memories I think that Roman cavalrymen used them). Stirrups would allow a rider to reach side-to-side more and to stand up on the stirrups - i.e. give a greater range of motion, but if you have a heavy cavalryman with a properly designed saddle (horns, or some other form of cantle - the bit that sticks up at the back) they should be able to deliver a shock without stirrups.

Romans did start using the horned saddles after encountering the Gauls, I believe, but such saddles were neither necessary nor sufficient for an effective cavalry force. Caesar (Gallic Wars IV, c.2) notes that the Germans disdained saddles as girly, and repeatedly thwomped the Gauls at odds up to 6:1.

Warhorse has an extended discussion of the probable length of the xyston, settling on ~12' after going through a variety of sources. Interestingly, we have excellent evidence of both overarm and underarm (not couched) use of the xyston. The Issus Mosaic is probably the best source, given its closeness in history to Alexander himself, and it shows underarm use of the xyston _and_ skewering someone.

So, did the Companions have saddles to help them skewer people? No one really knows. There's no evidence that they used them, but they were known to the Thracians not long after Alexander's death, so I suppose it's possible. These were very simple saddles, in any case, and so probably can't be given all the credit for allowing shock charges.

Excellent Scotus. This is something very rare in academics, actually having first hand experience to help support what might otherwise be mere speculation. Your remarks about the design of the saddle having more to do with shock ability than the stirrup definitely seem to support Quinn Inuit's research. It would make sense, since Numidians, who generally rode bearback, were usually skirmishers, only charging or ridding down a fleeing foe, while cataphracts would probably been saddled.

But this brings a question of my own: in the movie Alexander (Colin Farrell), it shows him (and his companions if I remember correctly) riding bearback, but these companions surely would have been intended for heavy/shock calvary. My question is, is the movie correct in this portrail or would companion calvary have been saddled (and thus more effective as shock calvary)??

They would almost certainly have had fabric or whole animal skin cloths on which to sit, but that may have been it. And I don't think the Armenians or Bactrians would have been using saddles, yet they seem to have been acting as shock cavalry for the Persians at the time. At Issus, they hit the Thessalians pretty hard, but got knocked back a little when the remainder of the Thessalians waited till their charge was spent and hit back.

Sorry to disappoint - never seen the film, so can't comment on it - but I would think that unless someone has incredible grip on the horse through their thighs they will just get shoved off the horse if the impact is delivered through a weapon they are holding. If they are fighting more or less stationary, it wouldn't matter so much - which means that the horse just serves to move the rider round the battlefield at speed.

Not so much as you'd think, actually. As far back as Xenophon, we have people writing about the problems of spears shattering in the initial contact. (Xenophon, Hellenic, III, c.4). There definitely weren't saddles then.

I've often wondered what is meant to happen to the weapon when a cavalryman charges, because I can't see how the cavalryman can hold onto a smooth spear when planting it in someone at a charge. Unless it's designed like a medieval jousting lance (at least, as I've seen them in films where they can be couched), I think the rider would have to let go of the spear otherwise it would get forced out of their hand. That would lessen the impact from the weapon.

Definitely wouldn't have been couched. That apparently wasn't used till the Middle Ages.

Maybe they took some of the impact into their arms and eased it into their bodies. No idea. Remember, these guys were trained from childhood to fight on horseback. Those skills simply don't exist anymore.

Or is the "shock" delivered by the horse. That would take some training of the horse (as with police horses), because they seem pretty nervous creatures to me. From what I've read, some of the moves in the "high school" style of dressage in equestrianism (which the Spanish still do) had their origins in training horses to rear and kick in battle. It also would change the demands on the saddle if the horse is delivering the "shock", because all the rider would need to do is to hang on while the horse absorbs the impact.

I could see the horse being a part of the shock. The horses were certainly extensively trained to fight (horses being roughly as brave as Puppeteers in the normal course of things) and, when they weren't properly trained, they tended to suck in melee. (E.g., the Spartan cavalry at Leuctra.)

Interesting how the style of fighting and technology are all linked: what's to happen to the weapon after the intital charge? is the rider to keep holding onto the weapon? Is it the rider/weapon that delivers the "shock" or the horse itself? and how does the rider stay on the horse after all that!

It's definitely a complicated balance. You can certainly appreciate why the Persians didn't develop much shock cavalry...it sounds quite difficult to do.

I think you hit the nail on its head. IMO it's a misconception that thrusting weapons like spears were used as part of the cavalry charge, once embedded in the body of an enemy soldier the spear would be very difficult to dislodge and any attempts to hold on to it would either unseat the rider or seriously injure him. they were rather used as melee weapons using the chaos that a bunch of 500 kg animals coming at you at 45kmph induces in infantry.

It really sounds like Agesilaus's men were using their spears on the charge, though, and breaking them then. Also, we have it recorded that the length of the xyston of the Persian heavy javelin was a key factor in the failure of the Persian cavalry against the Greeks/Macs. If you're in melee and right up next to someone, why do you need a 12' lance? It really would seem most useful on the first contact.

I remember reading an article on an early modern era English cavalry sword that made similar points to argue that thrusting weapons were impractical and it was preferable to have cutting swords for melee.

Oh, dear, let's not go there. That debate will _never_ end. We have 2,400 years of ink spilled on that one with no end in sight.

FWIW, Xenophon agrees with you and recommends a machaira.

this grip for instance would require the rider to generate the force behind the spear thrust rather than using the speed of the horse itself, because of the angle at which the spear comes down.

That's an excellent illustration of the overhand grip and there's certainly a lot of evidence for its use in our time period. Even by the Companions. However, there's lots of good underhand evidence, too, including the Issus Mosaic.

That's pretty much the conclusion I was coming to. The shock would have to come from the impact of a half-tonne horse rather than anything the rider could deliver - as you say, I think the rider would end up seriously hurt if they tried to plant a spear and hang on to it. If the shock is from the horse, then the rider "just" needs to stay on the horse. In the absence of anything else, they could always hold onto the horse's mane (not a flippant suggestion - my daughters were told to do that for jumping if they needed something extra to hold onto).

Fair enough. For the record, though, I think everyone at the time used a fairly savage bit with the exception of the Numidians, who used the Force to guide their horses.

I would reckon that the training of the horse would be absolutely essential, because from my (limted) experience horses are easily spooked by unfamiliar things and avoid anything they think is a threat. (We tried to get our horse to push open a field gate yesterday evening for the first time and she really didn't want to). So a lot of training would have to be put in to overcome the horse's natural instincts to run away so that they would remain controllable in a battlefield situation and even take part in the fight (stamping, kicking, whatever - as per my comment on dressage).

Absolutely. Trained horses were one of the most important resources you had to stockpile for war.

That said, it would take quite a lot to get a horse to charge at speed into a solid mass of men. (I wonder if some cavalry charges might have been intended to try to get the enemy to break and run rather than actually make contact with an unbroken body of soldiers).

I have no doubt at all that was the case. Sidnell thinks a lot of charges were really games of chicken. The horse won't charge into a solid wall of men (they don't like running into apparently solid things, not that I blame them), but the men don't like standing their ground in the face of that much fast-moving quadruped. That's why the wedge formation Alexander used was so important: only the lead rider needed to break the lines. He made room for the second two, who made room for the third three, etc. It was much more effective at breaking a line, and the infantry would be slaughtered once the line was broken.

Next would be the skills of the rider - not just at fighting, but also at staying on and controlling the horse in a dynamic environment. Therefore, the ability to balance on the horse in all sorts of situations and to control the horse without the reins (if they were being used) - for example by word of mouth or applying pressure through the knees - so that the hands are free to fight.

Also very difficult, and likely why we don't see shielded cavalry for quite awhile.

Finally, the equipment - and that would depend on what the rider is expected to do. If the shock is delivered through the horse, the rider would tend to be thrown forward over the horse's neck so the support from the back of the saddle would be less important. Once in the melee, the rider would need support in all directions. The saddle could help with that and might be more helpful in dealing with the pushing and shoving than if there isn't a saddle. I suppose a skilled rider could do a certain amount by holding onto the horse's mane with one hand and fighting with the other. However having a supportive saddle would allow you to use both hands to fight and stand up to more pushing and shoving. Maybe the heavier equipment would allow the cavalry to take part in a more prolonged melee.

Possibly. Remember, though, that the Germans were extremely effective in melee without saddles, even against enemies who used saddles. It must have been possible to do well without them.

And back to the original question of stirrups: I can see them offering an advantage in a melee and generally around the field - but I'm not at all convinced that they would make the difference between delivering a "shock" charge and not. I think there would be other ways of dealing with that and I expect the ancients knew them even if we've forgotten!

I'd be delighted to be corrected if anyone knows any different!

I agree completely. The idea that shock cavalry could not have existed prior to stirrups is simply incoherent with most accounts of battles from the time period.

Erm... There's evidence of Macedon/Diadochi shock cavalry being armed with lances (xystophoroi for example, they were even armed with the sarissa on occasions). But, remember, in opposition to medieval lancers, these men were trained from childhood in noble families to be excellent riders. And when the lance broke, they had swords available.

This article on Wikipedia has an interesting mosaic picture, depicting Alexander the Great leading a cavalry charge, wielding a xyston lance. Lance armed shock cavalry did most certainly exist during this period. Before this the great emperors used chariots for charges, but they switched to horses as they were manoeuvrable. If this meant loosing impact power, there would surely be more records of both chariots and horses in battles.

These horses aren't horses I would let mingle around workhorses, since these could even be bloodthirsty. I seem to recall having heard some people even trained their horses to bite other horses without a familiar scent. They were surely not farm-horses, but trained from infancy.

Also, when a horse and rider is going at fast speeds with a single point in front of them, the shock is delivered according to mass (gravity has a lot to do with this), and a skilled rider, would surely know how to position his spear and himself on the horse so he wouldn't be tossed off. Of course, there's always the possibility of being tossed off anyway, so I think there's a reason experienced cavalry men were so highly sought after: high casualties.

Awesome post. Especially about the bloodthirsty horses. I love that humans can train an herbivore to be bloodthirsty. I did a joke post about that awhile back, but can't find it now.

I agree with all of that, though, and I think you said it in a somewhat less long-winded manner than I did.

Yes. Phillip the second is said to have imported Schytian horses through Thrace. I'll try to look up sources tomorrow, as I really, really should be sleeping now.

I got your back. You're thinking of Phillip's smacking around of the Scythian king Atheas, after which he acquired twenty thousand fine Scythian mares. The problem is that the Thracians plundered* a lot of his booty on the way back, so it's not clear that the mares ever made it back to Macedonia.

Personally, I'll bet a fair number of them did. Unlike gold, which is quite heavy and tends to slow one's flight from the screaming Thracian who just jumped out of the woods next to you, horses actually improve one's escape speed. Therefore, I imagine a good bit of them may have escaped to help form the bloodstock of the Companions' horses.

But that's just me imagining...real life is frequently less interesting.


*I initially wrote the word "stole," but was informed by my wife that "booty" is "plundered," not "stolen." I stand corrected.

[Scotus]

thank you Quinn - that's really helpful stuff. And no need for stirrups (which is where my wondering started)!

[Boom S]

very informative Quinn, my thanks !

FWIW, Xenophon agrees with you and recommends a machaira.

at any rate, I did the same for Mauryan cavalry in CC's FO mod, gave them a broadsword !

[Carados]

I'm of the opinion that weapons such as the xyston and kontos and even spears, perhaps, were not primarily used as part of a charge into infantry but more in combat against opposing cavalry were the extra reach of their weapon could be decisive. Most cavalry were positioned on the flanks which meant they largely engaged one another at some point or another. A lot of hellenistic battles ended up with large cavalry melees on either flank.

Fear is the greatest asset cavalry have when it comes to charging. If infantry don't break, then cavalry tended to get beat. If the infantry did break then they could run them down, stabbing them in the backs with their longer reach weapons - if they still had them.

The horse itself is likely to be the primary cause of damage during a charge due to it's size, speed and strength. Of course, this varies greatly and not all cavalry units make use of horses that are effective for a charge. When it comes to the likes of cataphracts note how much weight the entire unit has. This would turn them into a battering ram with enough force to break through infantry lines without much trouble. This is why the Seleucid cavalry could charge into and defeat the Roman infantry at Magensia (at least those who could/did).

[Boom S]

now that you mention it I've had similar ideas about cavalry using spears primarily against other cavalry but I was hesitant to post them since I haven't come across any authority that claims the same. do you have any source ?

[Carados]

now that you mention it I've had similar ideas about cavalry using spears primarily against other cavalry but I was hesitant to post them since I haven't come across any authority that claims the same. do you have any source ?

You don't really need authority to suggest it. It's apparent when you study a couple of battles and realise that a lot of the time, opposing cavalry have a big scrap at some point. The logical conclusion here is that the cavalry fought one another with these spears/lances - how else would they fight?! They can't exactly stab someone with a sword, whilst carrying a 3/4 metre long weapon in the other hand, surely? Another thing, sometimes these cavalry men would dismount whilst in combat and fight on foot. I believe the reasoning for this is that of space - in a dense cavalry melee, the longer weapons are not going to be as effective because you're severely restricted in movement and with getting enough momentum into the weapon.

Speaking of cataphracts, a fourth century A.D. source (Ammianus Marcellinus) mentioned that they could impale two men on one charge. By that point, they probably would have had substantial saddles, but not stirrups.

Were the weapons used much the same? 600 years is a long time

The Companions seemed pretty good at breaking infantry, too, though I suppose the Persian infantry was much lighter than the Romans.

Much lighter, and probably much less disciplined too.

I think the xyston isn't getting enough credit here, though. Not all that long before Alexander, Xenophon is dismissing the use of a lance in favor of the heavy javelins favored by the Thracians and Persians. Then there was a technological or design advance of some sort that allowed the construction of a lance that would hold up reasonably well, and suddenly Alexander is turning Greek cavalry doctrine on its head.

You might be right, the xyston/kontos might actually have been sturdy enough to be used on the charge. Perhaps less so the kontos, for some reason I visualise that as being exceptionally thin? Does anyone know of any modern day tests being done on these weapons?? It's all good talking hypothetically about all this, but a good scientific test should put most doubts to rest

Actually, the more I think about it the more I'm coming round to thinking that maybe they were pretty decent on the charge. The weapon would be lost regardless though, there is no way you can stab someone with a 3/4 metre weapon and pull it out whilst travelling at Zeus knows what miles per hour. In fact, being designed such that the weapon can pass through two men would be highly advantageous because it means less of the back end of the weapon being exposed to the follow up cavalry men.

Oh! Something I forgot about, it relates to Pyrrhus and that Frentani officer who nearly killed him. Give us a moment as I try and find the piece. Here we go:

In this battle Leonnatus the Macedonian observing one of the Italians watching Pyrrhus and constantly following him about the field, said to him, "My king, do you see that barbarian on the black horse with white feet? He seems to be meditating some desperate deed. He is a man of spirit and courage, and he never takes his eyes off you, and takes no notice of any one else. Beware of that man." Pyrrhus answered, "Leonnatus, no man can avoid his fate; but neither that Italian nor any one else who attacks me will do so with impunity." While they were yet talking the Italian levelled his lance, and urged his horse in full career against Pyrrhus. He struck the king's horse with his spear, and at the same instant his own horse was struck a sidelong blow by Leonnatus. Both horses fell; Pyrrhus was saved by his friends, and the Italian perished fighting. He was of the nation of the Frentani, Hoplacus by name, and was the captain of a troop of horse.

Sounds like a deliberate attempt at using the weapon to kill on the charge here. Granted, this is still cavalry vs cavalry.

I wonder if that would work? It seems reasonable--certainly the horse would like to pull up. But would the horses following you be able to pull up? That would seem pretty hard.

By the way - I do recall the front lines of a cataphract charges as normal however the ranks behind the first few aren't at full speed (they use this time to shoot extra arrows into the enemy ranks). I think this would be common for most cavalry throughout the world. It just makes the most sense to have the first few ranks charge at a higher speed than the ones behind. Otherwise the horses are just going to run into each other and... ugh, horrible.

[Scotus]

Thanks to everyone for the discussion, which is certainly an education for me! I now understand thanks to Zippy's post how the stirrups help: they stop the rider from being flipped over the back of the saddle.

I wonder if there's "degrees of shock" involved, limited by what the technology and skill of the rider can deliver, with the use of saddle and stirrups allowing the maximum? I had in mind a pretty high energy encounter and when I was thinking about riders being thrown over the front of the horse I had in mind running into a braced group of men - I can see how there's a huge range of possible situations, and facing isolated opponents or opponents running away the outcome would be quite different.

Looking at the mosaic of Alexander, it looks to me as if his horse has actually been pulled up short of impact, even though his lance seems to have skewered someone. Alexander himself looks perfectly balanced! Maybe the technique if you wanted to avoid impact but get the most from the horse was to pull the horse up just short but allow the rider's momentum to give extra impetus to the lance thrust. The longer the lance, the further out you could be and still deliver a nasty blow.

Having had a quick scan of Xenophon's guide to horsemanship the skills of the riders seem pretty amazing to me, but interestingly he favoured a good tempered trusting horse. His (brief) comments on using a spear seem to me to relate to melee.

Thanks again to everyone for the discussion - much appreciated at my end.

[Quinn Inuit]

I'm of the opinion that weapons such as the xyston and kontos and even spears, perhaps, were not primarily used as part of a charge into infantry but more in combat against opposing cavalry were the extra reach of their weapon could be decisive. Most cavalry were positioned on the flanks which meant they largely engaged one another at some point or another. A lot of hellenistic battles ended up with large cavalry melees on either flank.

That's something I hadn't considered--that cavalry tended to spend at least as much time fighting other cavalry as it did infantry. I suppose that would have had to play a substantial role in their choice of weapons, then.

Fear is the greatest asset cavalry have when it comes to charging. If infantry don't break, then cavalry tended to get beat. If the infantry did break then they could run them down, stabbing them in the backs with their longer reach weapons - if they still had them.

That's true, but I wonder if the lance helped by knocking the enemy infantry down at the last minute, giving the horse a little more room to get into the line?

The horse itself is likely to be the primary cause of damage during a charge due to it's size, speed and strength. Of course, this varies greatly and not all cavalry units make use of horses that are effective for a charge. When it comes to the likes of cataphracts note how much weight the entire unit has. This would turn them into a battering ram with enough force to break through infantry lines without much trouble. This is why the Seleucid cavalry could charge into and defeat the Roman infantry at Magensia (at least those who could/did).

The Companions seemed pretty good at breaking infantry, too, though I suppose the Persian infantry was much lighter than the Romans.

Speaking of cataphracts, a fourth century A.D. source (Ammianus Marcellinus) mentioned that they could impale two men on one charge. By that point, they probably would have had substantial saddles, but not stirrups.

Cavalry have always been a privileged force on the battlefield, therefore training to become a cavalryman was almost always restricted to the upper class land owners and aristocratic noble families. This was even more true with European knights, who were often land owners themselves, and were typically trained from birth to fight from horseback, typically with the ubiquitous lance and sword combination, though sometimes they fought on foot.

True. The training level required of heavy cavalrymen made them really a human resource in and of themselves.

Chariots were used in the past primarily because the breeds of horses available were insufficient for combat. They were too small, and not strong enough to adequately support a cavalryman, which is why several would be used to tow a chariot around.

That's not entirely the case. We have records of armoured horsemen going back to the Assyrians.

Moreso than the size of the horses was the lack of training. Sidnell goes into this in some detail. He points out that we first see actual cavalry from the steppes and neighboring regions, where the horse was first domesticated and where they had the most experience with it. Other regions that got it later didn't have the accumulated experience to effectively ride them in battle, so they used chariots, instead. Where you have people who are skilled horsemen, you don't really need chariots.

The invention of the stirrup is the primary reason why cavalry became such a dominating force on the battlefield for centuries. It gave the cavalryman much better control over his mount, without the need to resort to the reins, and allowed full-speed charges to be conducted against even tight formations of soldiers.

That's the consensus view, yes. However, if you read my posts above, I think you'll see that the consensus ignores the historical reality: that cavalry was a dominating force on the battlefields of Europe and the Near East for a thousand years before stirrups were introduced there.

During a lance charge, it was more likely that the cavalryman would be thrown backwards off of the horse at the moment the lance impacted its target, ala the principle of physics equal and opposite reactions. Therefore, stirrups allowed the cavalryman to brace himself for the charge, and because his feet were secured to the horse, he would not be thrown off backwards. Neither would he be thrown forwards, unless the horse itself was brought to a dead stop, such as being impaled by a Sarissa or other long spear. The mass of the horse allowed it to literally bulldoze into a formation, and would be gradually slowed down by the mass of men it was charged into.

Typical warhorses were of medium-heavy build for shock cavalry(This is the type that had been breed for war for centuries, probably started by people living on the steppes). Light cavalry used ponies. The heaviest horses, known as destriers, were unsuitable to use in war, as they were even more likely to get scared in combat(I believe this is due to a trait of the particular breed), and therefore were used primarily as heavy movers for artillery pieces, supply wagons etc.

I don't doubt that stirrups made life easier for heavy cavalry, but I think I've established that they're not necessary for it. I am starting to come around to the view that the weight of the horse was at least as important for breaking the enemy's lines as the weapons of the rider, though.

Thanks to everyone for the discussion, which is certainly an education for me! I now understand thanks to Zippy's post how the stirrups help: they stop the rider from being flipped over the back of the saddle.

I wonder if there's "degrees of shock" involved, limited by what the technology and skill of the rider can deliver, with the use of saddle and stirrups allowing the maximum? I had in mind a pretty high energy encounter and when I was thinking about riders being thrown over the front of the horse I had in mind running into a braced group of men - I can see how there's a huge range of possible situations, and facing isolated opponents or opponents running away the outcome would be quite different.

That makes sense.

I think the xyston isn't getting enough credit here, though. Not all that long before Alexander, Xenophon is dismissing the use of a lance in favor of the heavy javelins favored by the Thracians and Persians. Then there was a technological or design advance of some sort that allowed the construction of a lance that would hold up reasonably well, and suddenly Alexander is turning Greek cavalry doctrine on its head.

Looking at the mosaic of Alexander, it looks to me as if his horse has actually been pulled up short of impact, even though his lance seems to have skewered someone. Alexander himself looks perfectly balanced! Maybe the technique if you wanted to avoid impact but get the most from the horse was to pull the horse up just short but allow the rider's momentum to give extra impetus to the lance thrust. The longer the lance, the further out you could be and still deliver a nasty blow.

I wonder if that would work? It seems reasonable--certainly the horse would like to pull up. But would the horses following you be able to pull up? That would seem pretty hard.

Having had a quick scan of Xenophon's guide to horsemanship the skills of the riders seem pretty amazing to me, but interestingly he favoured a good tempered trusting horse. His (brief) comments on using a spear seem to me to relate to melee.

Thanks again to everyone for the discussion - much appreciated at my end.

That makes sense. You would need a horse that trusted you if you were going to get it to charge a bunch of guys with sharp objects.

His focus on spears in melee also makes sense. Somewhere in there he points out that spears tend to break, which is why he prefers the short, heavy javelin for the purpose. I think that he's simply not conceiving of a spear that's durable enough for the shock of a charge, probably because he's never seen one.

You're quite welcome. My co-workers aren't much interested in talking about this sort of thing...I think it's a bit of a niche interest.

[Zippy]

"That's not entirely the case. We have records of armoured horsemen going back to the Assyrians."

That's the consensus view, yes. However, if you read my posts above, I think you'll see that the consensus ignores the historical reality: that cavalry was a dominating force on the battlefields of Europe and the Near East for a thousand years before stirrups were introduced there.

I don't doubt that stirrups made life easier for heavy cavalry, but I think I've established that they're not necessary for it. I am starting to come around to the view that the weight of the horse was at least as important for breaking the enemy's lines as the weapons of the rider, though.

Yeah, I just looked into that, It appears that cataphracts started appearing in the sixth century in the region around the Caspian as early as the sixth century bc, which probably means that heavy cavalry was developed some time before this.

Cavalry was definitely always a dominating force, the stirrups just made them better, as a warrior could easily stay in a saddle when using the stirrups, and gave him better control over his mount, as well as greater combat flexibility(you don't have to worry about falling off the horse when swinging a sword when you have a footrest to stabilize yourself)

stirrups aren't necessary for shock charges, they just make them more effective. And chariots tended to be used by the egyptian military way back in the thousands BC, when, i believe, the horses were still quite small. Evolution and breeding definitely helped with the development of heavy cavalry, and cavalry in general.

[Quinn Inuit]

Excellent use of that bit with the Frentani officer. I didn't make the connection. That was still cav vs. cav, true, but it sounds like Pyrrhus was either stationary or moving slowly.

I searched the book, and I think Sidnell, Peter Connolly, and some people at a Mediaeval Tournament School have all done some tests with period equipment, and the lance does hold together. However, you need a lot of space to either side of you to pull the lance out as you ride by. If you don't have that space, you just have to leave it.

That's an interesting point about cataphracts. That makes their weaponry make a little more sense, actually. The front ranks start whomping on people while the rear ranks hang back a bit and shoot over their heads.

[Boom S]

I would think that the first 2-3 rows of heavy cavalry would break the infantry formation while the rest would then come up and start mopping up, otherwise as Carados(?) says they will run into each other. if the first wave didn't break the infantry sufficiently the 2nd wave would charge and so on. at least that's what I would do !

speaking of stirrups it allowed people with far worse balance to stay atop horses just like it takes less skill to shoot a rifle than to master archery, in some ways it allowed larger cavalry forces. also, horses tend to be quite nervous animals and at least some would probably tend to jump when facing a wall of infantry (Scotus might know better) a stirrup would allow the rider to still stay on top and therefore allow a more efficient charge.

[Wien1938]

I'd add to this that we should not forget the battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC when the Companions (under command of Alexander) broke the Sacred Band and destroyed them.
That said, we don't know for certain how the SB were armed, though it is a reasonable assumption that these were armed as conventional hoplites. These were however renowned as highly drilled.

The critical difference between the xyston and the medieval lance appears to be that the former was not couched for the charge. It was used as an overhand thrusting weapon.
I suspect that the debate over stirrups is not useful here. Only Seleucid cataphracts were noted as having broken a Roman infantry line (and this may be in conjunction with a flank charge) and the ancients appear to have not been worried about frontal charges against unbroken infantry.
Issus appears to have been a charge by the Companions against archers who were not prepared to fight in melee.

[Carados]

I'd add to this that we should not forget the battle of Chaeronea in 338 BC when the Companions (under command of Alexander) broke the Sacred Band and destroyed them.
That said, we don't know for certain how the SB were armed, though it is a reasonable assumption that these were armed as conventional hoplites. These were however reknowned as highly drilled.

There are apparently some opinions that Alexander wasn't part of any cavalry contingent during the battle and that he commanded part of the phalanx. It would make some sense since surely there is no way they could get defeat them otherwise?? It would have to be a head-on attack because the Theban flanks were secure. Do you have any advances on that?

The critical difference between the xyston and the medieval lance appears to be that the former was not couched for the charge. It was used as an overhand thrusting weapon.
I suspect that the debate over stirrups is not useful here. Only Seleucid cataphracts were noted as having broken a Roman infantry line (and this may be in conjunction with a flank charge) and the ancients appear to have not been worried about frontal charges against unbroken infantry.
Issus appears to have been a charge by the Companions against archers who were not prepared to fight in melee.

Ooo Wein is of the opinion they were used overhand. I think the Alexander mosaic actually indicates that they were used overhand - there is a guy behind Alexander who uses one thus.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

http://www1.american.edu/carmel/sk32...er_mosaic2.jpg

The underhand motion of Alexander killing the Persian can be put down to artistic license. Is it really feasible for Alexander to stab someone holding the weapon in one hand like that? Moreover, would an artist really draw Alexander thrusting overhand? His arm would cover his face then and the piece would lose all meaning.