Hammer and anvil

I was just watching a documentary on the battle of Cynosephalae it mentioned the cavalry on both sides meeting just after the start of the battle and they weren't mentioned again. I have noticed this crops up quite often in descriptions of ancient battles, the cavalry fighting each other until one drives the other off the field but the winning cavalry are always noted as chasing after the routing enemy rather than flanking enemy infantry. How common were Alexander style hammer and anvil tactics in ancient warfare?

i would guess this must have been pretty common, like isnt your infantry holding down the enemy infantry while ur cavlary flanks the most basic/common stategy ever?? idk, unlike half the people on this forrum im not some genius proffessor/student

well, that depends on how you define "hammer and anvil". if you go by "infantry hold while cavalry smash", then it was quite common, even near-universal: Cannae is one such battle (as well as a classic double envelopement); the infantry held (and buckeled into a cresent shape), the cavalry struck the roman rear. It's worth noting the battles in the wars of the Diadochoi; they are classic cases too+Alexander the III's battles. in other words, "hammer and anvil" is a style of warfare, not a particular tactic, and as such was quite common in the mediterranean. more knowledgeble people may know more. I'd agree with quacking duck.

I myself had always been under the impression that it was very common for the infantry to hold down other infantry while the cavalry smashes from behind, but most of the accounts I have read of ancient battles simply have cavalry vs cavalry while the infantry has a seperate encounter. Perhaps it's just coincidence and I haven't read enough to form a true judgement. :shame:

There are a large number of mitigating factors in play here. For example, how open a given battlefield was and was the Opofor general/king in the mounded formation that was routed. Do you have a particular battle in mind?

Quite a few battles were decided by the success of the flanking cavalry. The infantry banged their heads against the enemies, trying to break the enemy formations.

However, the decisive moments usually were when the enemy cavalry was defeated, then the cavalry could swing around and if the enemy infantry had not started their rout, the sudden charge in the back of enemy cavalry often broke the spirit of most infantry.

Hammer and Anvil was a fairly common strategy BUT it often failed because the cavalry were not diciplined enough to weel and charge the enemy infantry. That was one reason Alexander (and Parmenion) personally controlled the wing cavalry because they required a tighter hand on the reins, so to speak, than the infantry.

The other problem is that you do have to decisively defeat the enemy cavalry lest they reform and pin you against the enemy infantry.

As an example most accounts of Caesar's battles that I have read have the infantry and the cavalry engaging seperately and a few mention the enemy cavalry routing and Caesars just chasing them off the field not returning to take further part in the main encounter. As I mentioned earlier a documentary on the battle of Cynosphalae was what brought it into my head, although the fact that was on a hill was probably a factor and the cavalry battle may well have not been decided when Philips phalanxes quit(it wasn't a great documentary tbh). It just struck me during the program that, although I am aware of the obvious examples like Alexander and Cannae, it seems more often than not when I read or watch a program about an ancient battle cavalry is rarely a decisive force.
Then again I have read little regarding the Diadochi, most of it would be Roman Republic and Greek history.

Ah, well the Romans didn't use the hammer and anvil until MUCH later and the Greeks never got the hang of combined arms fighting. Philip II is credited with inventing close-formation hard-charging cavalry, in the West at least. Certainly Darius' cavalry lacked the cohesion of Alexander's.

So, in other words, you've not been reading about the people who were good at it. When it worked it worked, believe me.

The Romans AFAIK preferred to rely on their heavy infantry to carry the day, partly as they usually flat out didn't have enough cavalry around for decisive actions. Their horse's role tended to be more to block & contain their opposite numbers, thus safeguarding the flanks of the infantry, and chase down routers as the opportunity presented itself - not that they were by any means adverse to carrying out flank attacks whenver possible of course.

One issue for every cavalry force after it finally managed to disperse its opposite number, however, was that their horses tended to be a bit tired at that point - especially if they'd spent some time chasing after their erstwhile opponents. So before they could turn their attentions to the infantry clash at the center they had to reform and rest their mounts, which just might give the now exposed footsloggers enough time to form a proper closed frontage to deflect them, or even reform into a square...

'Course, commanders worried about getting flanked by enemy cavalry also often made a point of anchoring their flank(s) on suitable geographical obstacles, and where such were not present and the time allowed, created them by having ditches dug, trees felled to form an abatis, and so on.