Could cavalry ride down infantry?

[Valentinian Victor]

There was a debate raging on several websites recently over whether it was possible for cavalry to ride down infantry. It was argued by those such as myself that the evidence points to cavalry not being able to charge into infantry who held their ground. A great deal of evidence was presented by both sides of the argument. One important piece of evidence is the article by Rance, the link of which I have put here- http://www.duke.edu/web/classics/grb.../44/Rance2.pdf

[juvenus]

I've just dled that article. Gonna read it later. I would agree with you (unless of course there are undeniable proofs about cavalry destroying orderly implemented infantry wall). Otherwise, I could hardly believe that any horse would be that stupid to charge against the spear point!

[Joar]

Otherwise, I could hardly believe that any horse would be that stupid to charge against the spear point!

Horses are incredibly stupid animals.

[wulfgar610]

Horses are incredibly stupid animals.

Better drivers though!

I would imagine it came down to the nerve of the infantry and the context of their surroundings and whether the pyschological menace of the opposing cavalry was strong enough to intimidate and break the men from their ranks. A solid body of infantry presenting a disciplined wall of spears and shields would be hard to break into or ride over - but if these men wavered as the cavalry approached and began to fragment, then an astute cavalry commander should be able to exploit that opening and ride his troopers either into the dissolving wall or up alongside it to present downward thrusting lances to further disorganize the ranks.

Quite simply, good quality cavalry would roll raw or confused infantry in short order. However good quality infantry which was trained to absorb the initial shock is a different kettle of fish.

A guy with with a big pole in both hands astride a trotting horse, will push an infantrymen over or backwards. Especially when the horse is big and like a mini tractor. The torque of that shove is something else.
However if the men behind the front rank brace it and and the ranks keep their head. And the horse has no momentum anymore then the infantry will gain the upper hand. However if the infantry recoils, then cavalry has space to move forward for another nice shove. Enough shoves and the infantry is having a bad day.

Don't under rate the ability of suitable cavalry to exert pressure.

The success of the Huns was in part due to a heavier breed of horse over 15 hands, compared the gracile Arabs of 14 hands and under the Romans were riding.

However men can ultimately recoup their energy, where as a horse can remain exhausted for the rest of the day. It pays to have remounts.

[Valentinian Victor]

Better drivers though!



Quite simply, good quality cavalry would roll raw or confused infantry in short order. However good quality infantry which was trained to absorb the initial shock is a different kettle of fish.

A guy with with a big pole in both hands astride a trotting horse, will push an infantrymen over or backwards. Especially when the horse is big and like a mini tractor. The torque of that shove is something else.
However if the men behind the front rank brace it and and the ranks keep their head. And the horse has no momentum anymore then the infantry will gain the upper hand. However if the infantry recoils, then cavalry has space to move forward for another nice shove. Enough shoves and the infantry is having a bad day.

Don't under rate the ability of suitable cavalry to exert pressure.

The success of the Huns was in part due to a heavier breed of horse over 15 hands, compared the gracile Arabs of 14 hands and under the Romans were riding.

However men can ultimately recoup their energy, where as a horse can remain exhausted for the rest of the day. It pays to have remounts.

What McDowell, Sheldon, Rance and others are saying is that cavalry appear to ride up and 'test' the morale of the infantry facing them. If the infantry appear to waver then the cavalry charge home. If they appear to be bracing themselves for impact, and especially if they are forming a 'fulcrum', then the cavalry shy away and probe the wings. Horse archers employed the tactic of showering parts of the line to cause a local collapse and then ride in at that point to exploit that weakness in the line.

I can recommend Sheldon's new book 'Blood in the Sand- Rome and Parthia at War' because although it looks at an earlier period, much of what it covers is still relevant for the Late Roman period.

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

What McDowell, Sheldon, Rance and others are saying is that cavalry appear to ride up and 'test' the morale of the infantry facing them. If the infantry appear to waver then the cavalry charge home. If they appear to be bracing themselves for impact, and especially if they are forming a 'fulcrum', then the cavalry shy away and probe the wings. Horse archers employed the tactic of showering parts of the line to cause a local collapse and then ride in at that point to exploit that weakness in the line.

I can recommend Sheldon's new book 'Blood in the Sand- Rome and Parthia at War' because although it looks at an earlier period, much of what it covers is still relevant for the Late Roman period.

That chimes almost exactly with my understanding of how cavalry operated on the battlefield.

I am always struck when reading Ammianus about how the Roman cavalry seem to fare - breaking at Argentoratum possibly due to the rough ground and collapse in morale when an officer is struck down, breaking again on the Persian expedition, and routing at Adrianople when prematurely engaging the Goths. This seems to show perhaps not an impulsive or poorly trained cavalry arm in general but perhaps how carefully cavalry must be used in order for them to be effective alongside their infantry counterparts.

When used properly, Roman cavalry - regulars or foederati - were very effective - I am thinking here of the Tanukh auxiliaries operating against the Goths in Thrace prior to Valens marching north and again when defending Constantinople after Adrianople. Also, these same foederati proving effective on the march to Ctesiphon with Julian - and even according the the Arab chronicler Tabari, proving decisive in the battle of Ctesiphon itself (this against a cavalry dominated culture too).

Procopius in the Gothic wars in Italy provides ample descriptions of later Roman combined arms cavalry teasing and then destroying Gothic infantry and lance-only cavalry to show that if used properly cavalry were devastating.

However, if flung in unsupported or caught unawares then they were 'brittle' indeed!

[wulfgar610]

What McDowell, Sheldon, Rance and others are saying is that cavalry appear to ride up and 'test' the morale of the infantry facing them. If the infantry appear to waver then the cavalry charge home. If they appear to be bracing themselves for impact, and especially if they are forming a 'fulcrum', then the cavalry shy away and probe the wings. Horse archers employed the tactic of showering parts of the line to cause a local collapse and then ride in at that point to exploit that weakness in the line.

I can recommend Sheldon's new book 'Blood in the Sand- Rome and Parthia at War' because although it looks at an earlier period, much of what it covers is still relevant for the Late Roman period.

It depends on the quality of the infantry, they weren't invariably good. It depends on the cohesion of the infantry as well, that wasn't invariably good either.

Infantry suffers from many disadvantages in comparison to cavalry. Infantries great advantage is staying power, provided they stick around long enough to exploit it. Horses tire more quickly than men.

War' because although it looks at an earlier period, much of what it covers is still relevant for the Late Roman period.

Not the large animals the Huns brought to Europe. Big horses can pull tree stumps out of the ground, they can do much the same thing to infantry. How well does a man stand up against tractors?

[juvenus]

The success of the Huns was in part due to a heavier breed of horse over 15 hands, compared the gracile Arabs of 14 hands and under the Romans were riding.

I don't understand this...What does it mean 15 hands?

[Renatus]

I don't understand this...What does it mean 15 hands?

"Hand" is a unit for measuring the height of a horse. It equals 4 inches or 10.16 cms. The measurement is taken from the ground to the withers. Thus, a horse of 15 hands measures 5 feet or 152.40 cms. at the withers.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Horses are incredibly stupid animals.

RoFL, can I use this as my sig?

[SeniorBatavianHorse]

I would imagine it came down to the nerve of the infantry and the context of their surroundings and whether the pyschological menace of the opposing cavalry was strong enough to intimidate and break the men from their ranks. A solid body of infantry presenting a disciplined wall of spears and shields would be hard to break into or ride over - but if these men wavered as the cavalry approached and began to fragment, then an astute cavalry commander should be able to exploit that opening and ride his troopers either into the dissolving wall or up alongside it to present downward thrusting lances to further disorganize the ranks.

Cavalry operated in my opinion as flanking elements around the solid wall of their own infantry - mainly to exploit or intimidate and therefore inhibit the movements of the enemy infantry - after facing off or defeating the enemy cavalry.

The Alessandro Barbara book on Waterloo offers a wonderful insight in the psychology of cavalry versus ranked infantry and while epochs away from a late Roman context does seem applicable in terms of how the cavalry squadrons (turmae) hovered around the British soldiers - feigning charges, sniffing for weaknesses, waiting to exploit a collapse, etc.

[ray243]

I would imagine it came down to the nerve of the infantry and the context of their surroundings and whether the pyschological menace of the opposing cavalry was strong enough to intimidate and break the men from their ranks. A solid body of infantry presenting a disciplined wall of spears and shields would be hard to break into or ride over - but if these men wavered as the cavalry approached and began to fragment, then an astute cavalry commander should be able to exploit that opening and ride his troopers either into the dissolving wall or up alongside it to present downward thrusting lances to further disorganize the ranks.

Cavalry operated in my opinion as flanking elements around the solid wall of their own infantry - mainly to exploit or intimidate and therefore inhibit the movements of the enemy infantry - after facing off or defeating the enemy cavalry.

The Alessandro Barbara book on Waterloo offers a wonderful insight in the psychology of cavalry versus ranked infantry and while epochs away from a late Roman context does seem applicable in terms of how the cavalry squadrons (turmae) hovered around the British soldiers - feigning charges, sniffing for weaknesses, waiting to exploit a collapse, etc.

It seems that limiting the spaces for units to move around also help as well. At least according to Philip Sabin, where he argued one reason why so many Romans are easily killed when they are surronded by Hannibal in Cannae was that all the troops are squeezed like Sardine.

So horses could be use to herd enemy troops into one dense formation, and limiting the combat ability of the unit.

[juvenus]

Absolutely true ray243!
Exactly the same thing (or very similar at least) happened at adrianople. The Roman infantry was so densely packed they could have hardly swung their swords and spears.

Horses are incredibly stupid animals.

Oooooh, don't be so harsh

[Valentinian Victor]

Absolutely true ray243!
Exactly the same thing (or very similar at least) happened at adrianople. The Roman infantry was so densely packed they could have hardly swung their swords and spears.

The most detailed account we have of Adrianople, that given by Ammianus, is not clear on whom the Romans were fighting at that stage, infantry, cavalry or a combination of both. What we can say is that at least part of the Roman reserve line fled the field, exposing the remaining Roman troops to even more danger. The Legiones Lanciarii and Mattarii do not appear to have been in any particular trouble before Valens took refuge within their ranks. However, they then appear to have been almost surrounded and fought a fierce battle with the Goth's before night fell and they were able to break off and flee towards Adrianopolis. It's not clear if the story about a wounded Valen's being taken to a farmhouse which the Goth's then subsequently attacked and then burnt to the ground was an invention or not (From the Roman side its a romance, Valen's sacrificed his life and received a proper cremation, the Christians claiming Valens was consumed by the fires of Hell!).

[Joar]

Oooooh, don't be so harsh

I'm not. Judging from my own experience of being thrown off from horses, they're very fickle, untrustworthy and stupid.

[juvenus]

I'm not. Judging from my own experience of being thrown off from horses, they're very fickle, untrustworthy and stupid.

Perhaps they simply don't like you

[wulfgar610]

I'm not. Judging from my own experience of being thrown off from horses, they're very fickle, untrustworthy and stupid.

You need to form a deep and meaningful relationship with your horse.

[juvenus]

Ahhh, thanks Renatus!

[juvenus]

From what I'd read (Ammianus, "Adrianople campaign" by Simon Mcdowell and "Rome at War" by various authors) it seems as if they fought vs combined Gothic force.
It's suggested that roman front line suffered heavy fire (missiles and arrows) from all sides-enemy infantry from the front and cavalry from the sides-until finally they lost their nerve and fled in disarray. Now, since you're familiar with this I have a question:

The Legiones Lanciarii and Mattarii do not appear to have been in any particular trouble before Valens took refuge within their ranks. However, they then appear to have been almost surrounded and fought a fierce battle with the Goth's before night fell and they were able to break off and flee towards Adrianopolis.

That's tricky! Where did you learn they managed to break off, please? You know, Ammianus tells the story about some Romans getting to the walls of Adrianople but not being let in. Furthermore, he says, they fought vs goths in front of the wall-and that battle was also fierce! Is it possible that some of those were elite palatine legions that managed to break off from the initial carnage at the battle scene?

[Valentinian Victor]

From what I'd read (Ammianus, "Adrianople campaign" by Simon Mcdowell and "Rome at War" by various authors) it seems as if they fought vs combined Gothic force.
It's suggested that roman front line suffered heavy fire (missiles and arrows) from all sides-enemy infantry from the front and cavalry from the sides-until finally they lost their nerve and fled in disarray. Now, since you're familiar with this I have a question:

That's tricky! Where did you learn they managed to break off, please? You know, Ammianus tells the story about some Romans getting to the walls of Adrianople but not being let in. Furthermore, he says, they fought vs goths in front of the wall-and that battle was also fierce! Is it possible that some of those were elite palatine legions that managed to break off from the initial carnage at the battle scene?

I state this because we know from all the accounts concerning Adrianopolis that troops surviving the battle made it to that city and then helped the citizens successfully repulse the very brief Gothic siege. The Legiones Lanciarii and Mattarii must have survived the battle as they are mentioned in other later records, and also in the Eastern section of the Notitia, written around 395AD.

The survivors of the battle did not fight outside of the city, they defended behind the walls, leading to the very famous statement allegedly attributed to Fritigern that went something like 'Goth's do not fight wars with walls'!