Barbarian Cavalry

[Sir Robin]

The first cavalry unit is now on display.

Description doesn't match the picture so I guess they still have alot of work to do tweaking the units.

[RisingSun]

that migtjus be a javelin he is holding,so the description is not off... It seems they are primarily skimishers not meant for combat in melee.

[SgtAndrew]

Haha, cool. This unit pretty much solidified my view of the barbarians though, and my impression about how their units will be in general. I'm not gonna be the barbarians. Their playing style just isn't gonna be very appealing to me. They're probably gonna have very cheap units with a high attack rating, irresistable charge, and low defense rating, and very high casualties will be inevitable even during a win. I don't really want to have a faction like that. They will sure be fun to slaughter though.

[Kongamato]

Copy and Paste time

http://www.totalwar.com/community/images/barcal.jpg

Barbarian Cavalry
Barbarian Cavalry ride small, sturdy and sure-footed horses, and are lead by a wealthy clansman or minor noble. They are capable of darting in to an attack, throwing their javelins, hacking through an unwary, unformed enemy and then making their escape before the opposing troops can react. They carry a sword; a clutch of javelins, a very light shield and can ride swiftly and quietly through woods, scrub and over steep hills where other cavalry units would have diificulty. They are best used as scouts, to ambush or skirmish or to drive away enemy skirmishers. They have little experience of formally organised (or "civilized") cavalry warfare, and are unlikely to be very effective in a straight fight against regular cavalry or properly disciplined infantry.


Along with the Greek Peltasts description, it definitely appears that there will be different terrain types in RTW. That will be interesting.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Quote[/b] (SgtAndrew @ June 13 2003,12:02)]Haha, cool. This unit pretty much solidified my view of the barbarians though, and my impression about how their units will be in general. I'm not gonna be the barbarians. Their playing style just isn't gonna be very appealing to me. They're probably gonna have very cheap units with a high attack rating, irresistable charge, and low defense rating, and very high casualties will be inevitable even during a win. I don't really want to have a faction like that. They will sure be fun to slaughter though.
A bit like the Irish in VI, then? I get the feeling that they're going to be suited to ambushes and the like.

[King James I]

"Barbarian" cavalry not being able to stand up to "civilized" cavalry? What How about Cannae eh? . The last known use of the "civilized" equites class was fighting at Numantia. After that the Romans relied exclusively on allied contingents, which were by the time of Caesar were mostly Barbarian whether Gallic, Iberian, Germanic, or African. Not all of them were light skirmishers, the nobles especially were well equipped with mail armour, 8ft spear, and shield. Although the spear was thrust underarm rather than couched like the Medieval night or held in two hands like with the Parthian cataphract, they must still must have been effective especially against the flanks and rear or else generals from Hannibal to Caesar would have used more "civilized" cavalry wouldn't they?

Oh yeah, I forgot to add that the "Roman" saddle and cavalry shield were based on Celtic designs.

[Leet Eriksson]

err king james,not all barbarians on horses are nobles you know.

[Nowake]

But all the nobles were mounted http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[King James I]

Quote[/b] (faisal @ June 14 2003,01:12)]err king james,not all barbarians on horses are nobles you know.
Thats why I said the nobles were ESPECIALLY well armed. Meaning the nobles weren't the only mounted ones, but they were almost the only ones that could afford the expensive armour.

[Basileus]

looks funny doesnt he hehe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Hakonarson]

I agree with King James - this description pretty much only applies to the Britons, who'se cavalry was described in a document from Vindalona as "contemptible little Britons" - Gallic, German and Spanish cavalry were well regarded and hard fighters, quite capable of standing up to "civilised" cavalry.

Gallic cavalry, for example, fought hard at Carhae vs Parthian cataphracts - although they stood no chance, while the Gallic and Spanish cavalry in Hannibal's army at Cannae overwhelmed their Roman and Italian opponents - although they did have the advantage of numbers.

I'm amazed that CA are going to make these guys useful in difficult terrain - cavalry have always, always, always been disadvantaged in any sort of difficult going compared to troops on foot - I can only hope that perhaps these chaps might be better than otehr horse, but still suffer some sort of problems.

[hoom]

can ride swiftly and quietly through woods, scrub and over steep hills where other cavalry units would have diificulty

[lonewolf371]

Even despite this, cavalry should not be a major aspect in the game. As those of us who have studied even a little bit of Rome should know, cavalry did not play a major aspect in barbarian or Roman armies except during Hannibals conquests up to the fall of the Roman Empire, and thus out of the currrent time period. The reason of course being that the Huns had not introduced the stirrup to Europe thus making it fairly impossible to utilize a horse's speed and weight in a charge. Even as-is fights between cavalry of the time period were hardly battles, if even skirmishes. They would basically just toss javelins at each other, maybe have some sword action and then one side would retreat. Throwing javelins was basically all European cavalry did with some minor sword fights. However I believe Eastern cavalry was a little more evolved by the fact that they used the bow, however I have to admit my uncertainty on that subject.

As per the times that cavalry would charge up behind and route an army I personally might begin running if a bunch of javelins began stabbing me from behind and then a few guys began to come up from behind and chop my fellow soldiers up with swords. Key phrase being "From behind"

[Hakonarson]

Arrrse - thanks for pointing that out http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Lonewolf your knowledge of the subject is completely minimal and your comment about stirrups is jsust a repeat of 19th century cavalry narrowmindedness.

Cavalry had been able to use bows, lances, javelins, swords and shields from horseback since before teh period RTW will cover.

The secret is not the stirrup - but the saddle. There are enough examples of reconstructed saddles around now so we know that cavalry could charge and fight pretty much as well as the later stirrup equipped types.

IIRC there was a long discussion on here about it a month or maybe 6 weeks ago - I'll see if I can find the thread.

Suffice to say that there were armies of completely cavalry around as early as 4-500 BC that defeated all sorts of enemies. They included light horse archers, and usually some sort of charging heavy cavalry armed with a long lance or kontos - an army of 11,0000 Parthians (10,000 archers, 1000 cataphracts) virtualy anhilated a Roman army of 28,000 in 53 BC at Carhae.

[Leet Eriksson]

I heard the parthians did'nt carry lances,but rather a long stick with a sword attached to it http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Hakonarson]

They carried a long heavy lance that had a long spearhead - long enough (the spearhead) so it could be used to slash with the edge as well as to poke with the point.

They certainly did poke with the point tho http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[lonewolf371]

At Carrhae the Romans were at an undispute-able disadvantage. Not only were they on an open plain, but also almost the entire force was heavy infantry. Maneuvors were ideal for cavalry, and the Romand had almost no cavalry of their own to stop the Parthians from dancing around them. Cavalry may have not been quite so powerful at the time, but when you immitate Crassus and set up a death trap for yourself it doesn't matter how inneffective cavalry is you will get slaughtered. Cavalry were not entirely useless but if you had a dumb general I'm afraid they are. Usually unintelligant generals at least understand brute force which they could wield in heavy infantry, but it required one a little more familiar with warfare to maneuvor cavalry to the point where it became victorius. The reason why there were all cavalry armies at the time was because it was the most convenient force to assemble. Especially in Persia and other successor kingdoms where cavalry was much more often seen in armies than heavy infantry. In Europe where there were many rivers streams, rocky areas and hills heavy infantry offered the seemingly perfect soldier but in the wide plains of the Middle-East a cavalry archer or even one with a spear could simply ride around to the back, side, front or any other area of a heavy infantry formations and slaughter away. You only named one instance outside of the ones I mentioned, and I think for a delibrate argument you should probably dig up some more before you post again, and if you're correct there should certainly be more. Heavy infantry played major rolls in Caesar's campaigns and his battle with the Helvetii, his campaigns in Egypt, Marius' repulse of the multiple barbarian invasions during his consulships, Augustus' failed conquests of Germania, multiple barbarian battles in Germania Inferior, and the military conquests of Athens and Greece. Not only did the Romans use heavy infantry but Germanic and Gallic barbarians struggled to copy the practice, but lacked the discipline of the Romans and were thus commonly defeated.

Sure you might be able to stab someone with a spear from horse-back with a saddle, but your much more likely to fall off sideways since it's almost impossible for you to brace yourself.

[Nowake]

Ok, let's get over this polemic ... the cavalry is seen as an inefficient force in the antiquity because the romans weren't using it at its full potential ...



But I have one BIG question: why is this unit so inefficient in hand-to-hand combat? Because Caesars german cavalry were very good fighters, and this is just a small example http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[CBR]

For some info on saddle and stirrups in combat:

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.shtml

One reason for cavalry not being so important in many ancient battles was simply the amount of infantry gathered. We see the same thing in early renaissance where both training was improved and very large amounts of infantry dominated the battlefield. Not that cavalry was weak in that time.. but less of it compared to armies in the earlier middle ages.

Hannibal's army was iirc considered heavy on cav but still had 4-5 footsoldiers for each cavalryman. Alexander the Great had some good cavalry in his Companions but he still had a lot more phalangites and other infantry.

CBR

[Hakonarson]

Lone wolf the Romans at Carhae were not entirely heavy infantry - they included 6000 Gallic cavalry.

And the composition is actually irrelevant anyway - since you had claimed that ancient cavalry was useless therefore they shuoldn't have ben any threat to the Romans under any circumstances
Your comment about falling out of a saddle if trying to hit someone with a spear only applies to low-sided saddles.

Roman saddles were made with 4 large horns at eth corners - riders were almost wedged into place and had excellent support for striking with a spear or anything else.

http://www.roman.org.uk/images/saddle.jpg

This is a picture of a reconstructed Roman saddle made by Peter Connelly - the horns are obvious.

[Nowake]

Ok, Hakonarson, but then why the roman cavalry had so poor results on the battlefield, against germans, parthians, numidians etc.? Because their standard turmae could not stand the charge of the above usualy.

[Alrowan]

dont you all know that styrrups let the way to mounted combat, gah, before then its historically proven that the only useful cavalry units were horse archers and javlinmen, after that they would disponnut in battle and fight on foot

[Nelson]

Shock cavalry was effective long before the advent of stirrups. While stirrups help flexibility in the saddle (which in itself makes for a more effective combatant) they are not required to deliver a fatal blow to an opponent. There was a lot of missile cav in some ancient armies but there was usually a mounted melee force also.

Roman cavalry was weak mostly because it was not very numerous.

[shingenmitch2]

Okay, I'm jumping in...

Cavalry has been crucial to ancient warfare since man learned how to ride the horse (a little after the time of Mittanni) and this was probably mastered by the Scythians.

During the archaic period cavalry was relegated to light skirmishing because what saddle there was (if any) wouldn't provide the rider any support upon impact that mounted fighting creates.

This began to change about the time of Alexander. He was somehow able to utilize his cavalry as a MAIN striking force of his army --- the phalanx pins the enemy foot, Macedonian cavalry breaks enemy cavalry and whammo-- anvil and hammer...

What was Alexander's big advantage over the Persian cavalry? Not really known... perhaps their longer cavalry spear, or perhaps the scythian saddle.

BTW, the Scythians or sarmatians are probably the originator of the "gallic" saddle. The Scythians, and their successors the Sarmatians (to whom the later Parthians were related) were fielding ENTIRE cav armies that were absolutely dominant... 200 BCish --- and were, in some cases using cavalry as shock cav... ie. charging set infantry.

Why didn't Romans & Europe go all cav if it was so effective?
The reason the Scythians/Sarmatians had huge cav forces and the romans didn't is the same reason the Mongols had huge cav armies and Europe didn't --- mainland Europe doesn't have the grazing land to support that many cavalry while the steppe of Eurasia and Central asia does... (The Huns, after they settled down in Hungary, actually gave up their huge horse armies and became much more Germanic in their warfare--why? because they couldn't feed that many horses. Feeding entire horse armies over long periods of time was a problem that the Mongols never solved either) Horses are simply more expensive and harder to up-keep in Europe.

Back to the saddle development... whether Celtic in origin or not, the gallic saddle starts appearing more frequently across Europe after alexender. The Gallic saddle was a decent saddle providing a solid perch that allows for limited lance use and very good sword play... The gallic saddle swept the ancient world and cavalry could be used as an effective arm besides skirmishing... This cavalry was GOOD.

The later stirrup was an improvement allowing for the more effective use of the lance because the rider could transfer the entire force of a charge-contact to his legs. This is where the true shock cavalry came into being and cavalry became a more dominant force. But the key here is that the stirrup was only an improvement, not a revolution... prior to the stirrup, cavalry was a very effective fighting force.


------

And another factor that limited cavalry is that not all horses are created equal. Most European horses at the time were smallish and weren't strong enough to support the full armor of a Kataphract, while the Nicean breed (for a long time, a horse exclusively of central asia) was legendary (the Chinese Emperors had even heard about and coveted the things). The big warhorse of the middle ages did not exist, it hadn't been bread yet

[Hakonarson]

Quote[/b] (pr Fire @ June 17 2003,02:15)]Ok, Hakonarson, but then why the roman cavalry had so poor results on the battlefield, against germans, parthians, numidians etc.? Because their standard turmae could not stand the charge of the above usualy.
As others have said Roman cavalry was often - even usually - outnumbered. The Roman army was an infantry army - cavalry was a prestige arm, but not a numerous one.

Later on - in the late 2nd-early 3rd centuries AD, Roman cavalry was greatly expanded and the army became much more an "all arms" force and the cavalry often won the decisive actions in battles.

Roman cavalry was always fairly ordinary - it wasn't bad, but neither was it particularly good.

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Alrowan @ June 17 2003,15:55)]dont you all know that styrrups let the way to mounted combat, gah, before then its historically proven that the only useful cavalry units were horse archers and javlinmen, after that they would disponnut in battle and fight on foot
As far as I know, the alans were the first to use the saddle. And they got their a$$ kicked on numerous times by other cavalryes.

[Hakonarson]

I think yuo probably meant to say that the Avars were the first to use the stirrup?? In Europe at least.

Thye formed a major empire, defeating many armies that were sent against them befoer succumbing as much to internal revolt by subjects as external threats.

But they weren't realy any more successful than any other major "steppe horse nomad" group that didnt' have stirrups such as Huns, early Alans, Skythians, Sarmatians etc.

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ June 19 2003,00:06)]I think yuo probably meant to say that the Avars were the first to use the stirrup?? In Europe at least.

Thye formed a major empire, defeating many armies that were sent against them befoer succumbing as much to internal revolt by subjects as external threats.

But they weren't realy any more successful than any other major "steppe horse nomad" group that didnt' have stirrups such as Huns, early Alans, Skythians, Sarmatians etc.
Indeed, my bad, the Avars were the ones. And I see you got my point: they didn't fared much better than the others.