Legions vs. Heavy Cavalry

This is a historical question; I'm not looking for a lot of conjecture, but for some solid historical information (a little conjecture wouldn't hurt, though). How would post-Marian legionaire infantry fair against heavy cavalry?

I realize this is an incredibly broad question (legionaire infantry underwent some changes between the Marian reforms and the fall of the Western empire, and there are a huge variety of heavy cavalry types to choose from), so let me try to narrow it just a little. The legionaires should be the disciplined, well-trained and well-equipped ones we know and love (not lesser-quality troops from a declining Roman military system near the end). The heavy cavalry should be armed with a lance for charging as well as a good melee weapon, such as a sword, and should be experienced men from a strong cavalry culture (examples would include German, Gothic or Celtic cavalry, heavy horsemen from eastern cultures such as Parthians, Huns, and Mongols, or Western knights). (Note that I am not talking about ranged cavalry here.) As for numbers, think reasonably - the infantry naturally outnumbers the cavalry.

I've seen and taken part in several discussions on this. Some have speculated that the flexibility and discipline of the legions would make them capable of defeating heavy cavalry, claiming that once the cavalry charge became bogged down in the deep Roman formation, the disciplined legionaires would easily cut them up. Others have wondered how the legionaires, armed primarily with a short stabbing sword, could have dealt effectively with a cavalry charge (without spears or pikes, they would not have been able to form a solid spear wall).

Historically, the Romans seemed to have trouble against heavy cavalry - although this trouble is often attributed to factors other than a weakness in the legionaire system, such as:

1. A decline in the quality and numbers of infantry during the twilight of the Western empire. This is a reflection of internal problems in the empire.
2. Poorly commanded Roman infantry (battles such as Carrhae or Adrianople).
3. Changing military needs (i.e. the need to counter fast barbarian raiders) forced the Romans to rely more on foreign mercenary cavalry, since heavy infantry could not intercept such raiders.

All of these factors aside, how do legions stack up against heavy cavalry? In particular, can you think of any examples in which legionaire infantry faced a competent heavy cavalry force and won? What about examples in which they lost in a relatively fair fight?

As a side question, how do you think it will be in the game? After all, legionaires are swordsmen, and in MTW, cavalry usually beat swordsmen.

The only historical example of heavy cavalry vs. post-marian Legions I can think of off the top of my head is Carrhae. If I remember correctly, the initial push against the legions here was made with the cataphracts, who failed to break through the Legionary square. The battle was won with the horse archers (and the slaughter of the Roman cavalry) not so much with the cataphracts. As such, the initial failure of the cataphract charge at Carrhae I would actually qualify as proof of the superiority of a properly arranged (squared) Legion over heavy cavalry, despite the eventual Roman defeat.

I think a major factor in dealing with this question is that fact that by the time the post-Marian Legions came about, most of the major opposing nations had been defeated. Heavy Cavalry was mainly reserved for wealthy and prosperous nations and there were few left to even raise this kind of force by that time. This leaves us with the early stages of Roman history, where the Legions and/or the Alae had spearman who could have dealt with the problem, or the late stages, where the Legion had changed so much as to make comparison worthless.

If I remember correctly, at Pharsalus, Caesar had heavy cavalry opposition from the Republicans, under his old cavalry commander Titus Labienus.

He allowed them to get round behind him, where they expected to run amok. Caesar had planned for this, and had equipped his rear ranks with 10 foot long spears - and wiped the floor with them.

AFAIK the stirrup didnt become widely used in europe until the 1200's. IMO its hard to classify anything except for elephants as heavy cav (i.e. using the shock of the charge) until that time.

Mounted units utilized lances and spears but deffinately not to the effect that they would have later. Mainly the heavy cav were the riders which were most armoured and had a good charge - but not nearly as devastating as a couched lance/stirrup rider would have.

I can't wait for the Alexander movie show his Companion Cav charge in with lances couched, stirrups and perhaps even a Western Style Saddle.... boo-urns

This reminds me of the massive "myth of the cavalry charge" thread we had around when MTW was released. There are some differences between knights and heavy cavalry in ancient times, but I would see legions vs heavy cav as rather like Saxons vs Normans at the battle of Hastings. With a solid mass of disciplined heavy infantry (a shield wall or whatever), I can't see cavalry simply running them down. This is just armchair conjecture - some history buff may tell me (as they did about knights) that horses were trained to charge into spears, but I just don't find that a particularly plausible model of how cavalry fought good heavy infantry.

The advantage of cavalry would seem to be more if they could go for the flanks, or - by their superior ability to maneouvre - take apart the enemy piecemeal as the Normans eventually did at Hastings and as the Mongols did against the Teutons etc. The impressive thing about the Romans is that, despite their reputedly weak cavalry, they usually managed to avoid such a fate (although they seemed to fall foul of it with Hannibal a few times). In RTW, I doubt the AI will be so lucky!

Quote:

---

AFAIK the stirrup didnt become widely used in europe until the 1200's. IMO its hard to classify anything except for elephants as heavy cav (i.e. using the shock of the charge) until that time.

---

I'd disagree... stirrups just gave a better stability. Their were still very succseful heavy cavalry lancers way before the stirrups, who used their shock.
And I'd say it depends. Without any support, charging straight on, with eqaul moral, I'd say the legions would probably hold. But after a constant hail of missiles, with some infantry bothering them, and fresh heavy horse come thundering down at the flanks or rear, they'd break.
The problem with Carhae is that they charged fresh Roman troops. If they had waited after the arrow hail, they might well have broken.

Ooh not the "stirrup myth" again!
There have been experiments by some crazy reenactors who proved that the stirrup plays little role to the charging-force of a mounted lancer. It only adds some stability and in fact it is more useful for horse-archers as it makes shooting-on-the-move a lot easier.

What gives the mounted lancer his force and keeps him on horseback when he charges is, mainly, his sadle. A sadle which can transfer the power of the impact from the lance and the rider to the horse without allowing the rider to fall, is the one in question.
There have been several kinds of sadles working that way. The "horned" sadle of the Gauls which was later copied by the Romans, as well as the sadles of medievel knights fall into this category. The macedonians had a similar sadle too and this is one of the factors that gave them their ability to charge so devastatingly. Many eastern peoples had sadles of similar design too.

What made medieval knights even better at charging was that they had perfected this sadle-design, that they used couched lances (which added something to the force) and, of course, their stong horses and massive armour. The stirrup added next to nothing to the charge-force but gave them substancially better stability and control at close-quarter combat.

With all that said, my purpose was to show that the ancient heavy cavalry was quite capable of charging down opponents, despite lacking the stirrup.

Against post-marian legionaires a force of plain heavy cavalry would have a problem winning on their own, due to the deep ranks and the discipline of the romans, but as a part of a combined-arms force some heavy cavalry could really cause great damage to a legion.

purely conjecture, Roman heavy infantry, in testudo, where morale was even and there was more infantry than cav, I'd say infantry would win.

The stirrup did add a big multiplier to the force one could put behind a lance. But if you use the HORSE as the charging implement, armoring it, with an armored swordsman with a sabre or something on top...nope, I still think the testudo would hold. The formation is built to withstand pressure. It's layered and interlocking shields and bodies makes it flexible enough to sustain a hefty shock, and once the charge landed, the square could unpack and envelop the cavalry. Just my hypothesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Servius1234

purely conjecture, Roman heavy infantry, in testudo, where morale was even and there was more infantry than cav, I'd say infantry would win.

The stirrup did add a big multiplier to the force one could put behind a lance. But if you use the HORSE as the charging implement, armoring it, with an armored swordsman with a sabre or something on top...nope, I still think the testudo would hold. The formation is built to withstand pressure. It's layered and interlocking shields and bodies makes it flexible enough to sustain a hefty shock, and once the charge landed, the square could unpack and envelop the cavalry. Just my hypothesis.

---

If you read my previous post you'll see that what i write about the stirrup NOT adding much to the charge-force is the result of actual EXPERIMENTS!
I provide you with a link.
If you read it you'll see that this "no-strong-charge-without-the-stirrup" issue is a classical misconception.

By the way, i don't think the testudo formation was very suitable for absorbing a cavalry charge. A certain formation, with the first line crouching behind their shields and the second line lifting their shields right above the ones of the first line and with both lines sticking their pila out, between their shields, using them like spears, had been evolved for this occasion.

Think about this, how much can you compress concrete as to compressing a foam mattress?

First of all using the tortouse shell to absorb a charge is all theory unless if you can point out documentation of that. No expert here but if you watch time commanders (Watling street) you will notice the historians saying they are in the worst possible situation to absorb a charge and the chariots were a coming. This charge was coming while they were in the tortouse shell. So considering the source I do'nt think its a good option to use. There may have been cases where they were blind to the charge due to being under arrow fire and maintaing the tourtouse shell but if they are blind to the charge they will not be embraced for the shock either.

Another thing the historians said was that cavalry for that time period was only good for the charge and should not go unsupported. Time Commanders is a good example for this as I saw plenty of charges totally dominating the infantry but about 30 seconds later the if the contestants did'nt pull there cavalry out they started getting waisted. Once the horse has stalled the rider has lost all mobility while his enemy can turn 360 degrees he cannot and trying to fight while twisting your upper torso may be difficult, especially if armoured.

Well hopefull it will be this way in the game that if your infantry do'nt break the cavalry may soon find themselves the victem

Quote:

---

This is a historical question; I'm not looking for a lot of conjecture, but for some solid historical information (a little conjecture wouldn't hurt, though). How would post-Marian legionaire infantry fair against heavy cavalry?

---

First, read Arrian's "Order of Battle Against the Alans" Link (it's short). It shows how a Roman legionary force (with supporting troops) might be deployed to face a heavy cavalry opponent. Simply put: Arrian anchors his flanks with hills and puts his legionaries in an 8 rank deep formation. The first four ranks have heavy thrusting spears, the back four have throwing spears. Archers and ballistae are to the rear to provide extra firepower. If the Alans try to charge down the Romans, Arrian expects them to be thrown back by the weight of missiles the formation can throw, and if necessary tight ranks and thrusting spears. Pursuit is left up to cavalry kept in reserve. Arrian's battle array shows that the Romans could (at least theoretically) put together a tough defensive line to counter heavy cavalry. Note that it doesn't just rely on the legionaires, but rather on a combined arms approach.

A couple of battles against the Parthians provide useful examples of legionaires versus heavy cavalry. Carrhae, as mentioned before, is one. There the Parthian heavy cavalry was forced to wait for openings in the Roman formation before it could be effective. The Parthians feinted charges that would force the Romans to adopt close-order formations, then they would use their horse archers to shoot into the closely packed ranks. The horse archers proved to be a bigger threat at Carrhae than the cataphracts. Of course, the terrain at Carrhae was against the Romans, they weren't well supplied, and the Parthians arranged for an unlimited supply of arrows.

The Romans under Ventidius defeated a later Parthian invasion, and if I recall correctly, legionaires in a good defensive position supported by slingers repelled Parthian cataphracts.

At the battle of Tigranocerta, the Romans used their superior mobility to rout a force of Armenian cataphracts by outflanking them and attacking their relatively unprotected thighs. While not a standard engagement, it is at least one way a Roman force could defeat heavy cavalry.

A few hundred years later, the emperor Julian taught his troops to attack heavily armored Persian cataphracts at a run, dive under their lances, and hamstring the horses. He learned these tactics from the Germans who defeated Julian's own cataphracts in that fashion.

In the 3rd century, Aurelian decided to shield his heavy infantry from a direct charge by Palmyran cataphracts. In two separate battles, he used his light cavalry to draw out and disorder the heavier Palmyrans. When the enemy's cataphracts were disordered and their horses blown, he used light horsemen, Palestinian auxiliaries with heavy clubs, and his other infantry to finish them off.

Even at the beginning of the Dark Ages, infantry (or dismounted cavalry) was quite capable of holding off superior numbers of heavy cavalry. When defeated by the Persians at Callinicum, Belisarius was able to form a small force of infantry and dismounted cavalry that the Persian heavy cavalry wasn't able to touch. They kept close ranks, beat their shields, and yelled, startling the enemy's horses. Narses used his infantry, supported by dismounted Germanic auxiliary cavalry to successfully anchor his battleline against Ostrogothic heavy cavalry. In fact, the Byzantine military manuals claim that the Germanic peoples usually dismounted as a way to fight off enemy cavalry.

So, to sum up, a force of Roman heavy infantry probably had a fairly good chance against heavy cavalry... provided they were arrayed properly. They would try to minimize the impact of a cavalry charge by a tight formation, lots of missiles, beating their shields, and giving the war-cry. They could maneuver to attack the enemy from the flanks, or more likely choose a strong defensive position. Caltrops were available to prepare the field. Full use of combined arms was made.

Great post by Aurelian, including the key phrase for any infantry of any period when facing heavy cavalry: "provided they were arrayed properly".

Catch a Roman force in marching columns or otherwise unprepared for combat and they will be in deep trouble, perhaps not as much as some infantry since their discipline and good corp of underofficers might enable them to rally and form a defensive line, but they will take more casualties then they would if ready for battle.

Even a homogeneous force of Legionnaires using just their typical equipment and prepared for battle will be difficult for the cavalry to beat. Pila wouldn't be as good as longer, heavier spears for receiving a charge, but they could be used in this role. Even better, the rear ranks could throw their pila a few seconds before the charge hit home, attempting to disrupt the cavalry and thus reduce their impact. Depth of ranks - and the discipline to hold them - would be used to absorb the charge, slowing and halting the cavalry within the Roman lines, unless they can break through or away. The Roman system of shuffling their squads around to reinforce weakened areas of the line will give them a good chance of making sure the cavalry don't push through.

So how to beat them if you're the cavalry? If you have horse archers they might be able to disrupt the Roman lines enough that your heavy horse can successfully charge, providing the Romans in turn don't have their own missile troops. Assuming just heavy cavalry vs Legionnaies, then perhaps a series of small feinted charges with part of the cavalry force, attempting to roll back the Roman defences by getting them to expend their Pila, leaving them more exposed for the main cavalry charge. The problem would be if the Romans hold their nerve & refuse to waste their Pila, or balancing losses among the decoys against the mass of numbers needed to successfully perform the final charge. A better tactic might be to shadow the Romans, waiting for an opportunity to attack, using the horses' greater mobility to range ahead & prepare obstacles, traps and scout for potential ambush sites.

I'd Roman Legionaires will win against heavy cavalry. They have excellent training and are flexible in tactics.

Great posts here!

testudo - my understanding is that this was a defensive formation against missiles - can't really see that it would have been good against cavalry.

Quote:

---

This reminds me of the massive "myth of the cavalry charge" thread we had around when MTW was released. There are some differences between knights and heavy cavalry in ancient times, but I would see legions vs heavy cav as rather like Saxons vs Normans at the battle of Hastings. With a solid mass of disciplined heavy infantry (a shield wall or whatever), I can't see cavalry simply running them down. This is just armchair conjecture - some history buff may tell me (as they did about knights) that horses were trained to charge into spears, but I just don't find that a particularly plausible model of how cavalry fought good heavy infantry.

---

Actually the battle of Hastings is a very good example of what happens when heavy infantry face cavalry. The Saxons held firm for hours, the Normons did charge but their horses refused when it came to the shield wall.

IIRC the way the Normons won was by hit and run attacks and feigned retreats. Eventually a good part of the Saxon infantry chased them down the hill and broke away from the main army, without their formation they were ridden down and slaughtered.

While we're discussing this, can someone explain to me why the square is such an effective anti-cavalry formation? This was used from ancient Roman times all the way up to the 19th Century to counter cavalry effectively. Is it simply the fact that there is no flank, or is there something more?

You've answered it yourself: there is no flank. Infantry need to be face on to cavalry to have any chance of holding them off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinner

You've answered it yourself: there is no flank. Infantry need to be face on to cavalry to have any chance of holding them off.

---

Exactly, and you can provide a wall of pila/spears/pikes, etc in all directions. Horses will naturally refuse to charge into a solid formation with lots of sharp bits of metal sticking out.

:charge:

Hi guys, thanks for all your replies and useful information! I feel much more enlightened now.

One of the reasons I asked this question was because of an earlier discussion about how effective Roman legions would have been on a Medieval battlefield. I initially argued that they would have been largely ineffective; after all, hadn't they been long outdated by that time? I assumed (rather naively) that heavy cavalry had been the downfall of the legionaire system of war. Naturally, this led me to the conclusion that the weaknesses that had led to the legion's downfall at the twilight of the Western Roman empire would translate over to the Medieval battlefield (only more so, since Western knights were among the strongest heavy cavalry ever devised). Thus, even though legionaires were probably superior to most Medieval infantry fielded, they would still be ridden down by the dominant force on the battlefield, the knights - or so I thought.

After reading these posts, it seems that I was clearly wrong. With the fall of the Roman empire and the descent of Europe into feudalism, many of the earlier advancements in civilization and technology were lost or forgotten, and military technology took a big step backward as well. The new ways of war that emerged appear to have been dictated more by social and economic conditions than by military effectiveness, and were, in many ways, inferior to the Roman military system. Deprived of the stability supplied by Roman civilization, individual settlements had to find ways to defend themselves against bands of marauding barbarians. Military forces were smaller, less disciplined, less well-equipped, and less well-supported logistically. Perhaps they were more suited to dealing with fast-moving raiders than to fighting large-scale wars. However, there appears to be no reason to think that the legionaires of old would have been any less effective on the Medieval battlefield than they had been in their own era. As they had done in the past, they probably would have found a way to deal with the threat of heavy cavalry, and would have outclassed almost any infantry opposing them.

Over time, in fact, it appears that many lessons from antiquity were eventually rediscovered or relearned. For example, the old Greek phalanx was thought to have been made obsolete by the advent of the Roman legion. However, it was resurrected multiple times in the form of pikemen who proved very effective. Examples include the Scottish schiltron and formations of Swiss pikemen, who had the flexibility to fight on uneven ground.

The lesson in all of this seems to be that newer is not necessarily better. We cannot assume that just because a practice or idea has fallen out of use (or out of style) that it is wrong or inferior. Rather, we must examine the reasons behind its drop in popularity, and judge it by its own merits rather than by its supporters (or lack thereof). Those who have gone before us were not any less intelligent than we; our age is an age like any other, with its own common errors and misconceptions.

I would argue that the Romans would have it tough on the medieval battlefield, but for the reason that they would have more problems with Crossbows and Longbows than the knights... Roman armour wouldn't cut it against them, and as charrae shows, they were vulnerable to sustained archer fire once their cavalry support was gone.

The main reason why knights were so effective in medieval times is because of the lack of discipline that Feudal armies had. It took a lot of bottle to keep your lines holding firm in the face of an oncoming cavalry charge... Given that the infantry and spearmen in feudal armies were mostly levies and not professional soldiers they tended to crumble before a massive heavy cavalry charge due to lack of discipline.

The lesson is that tactics that were used in the past, could still have an application on the battlefield even much later on.

I'd agree that post-Marian legionaires would have fared relatively well in the Middle Ages, but I wouldn't really say that the Roman military technology was 'lost'. Some specific technologies lapsed--the lorica segmentata, for example--but other technologies took up the slack, and new and better ones took their place. The Romans had used chain armour extensively, so I don't really think we could say that segmentata is better than chain, it just has different advantages and disadvantages. Crossbows evolved and became more effective in the Middle Ages. The use of the stirrup proliferated. Pattern welding and steel became more common. And the Trebuchet was far better than any siege engine the Greco-Romans developed.

The Romans clearly had an advantage over most medieval armied in logistics and discipline (primarily because they were professional troops maintained by the massive monetary resources of a trans-national tyranny, and could live and train communally, whereas most medieval armies were ad hoc forces that were responsible for their own equipment, training and supplies). But in terms of technology, the Roman armies were not superior to the medieval ones.

I'm just reading 'War in the middle-ages' by philllippe contamine.

Something to add to the above, coming out of this book, is that Roman military strategy was quite well developed. Military strategy as an art in Medieval Europe was pretty dead. The more enlightened medieval kings studied the limited roman texts that there were available on battlefield tactics - so this is where the legions would have generally had a large advantage over most (esp' early) medieval armies.

erm a little OT, but will the square formation be available to legions in the game? wld be a useful anti-calvary formation..btw i'm off to test the demo with the rodeo mod on calvary vs principles!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colovion

I can't wait for the Alexander movie show his Companion Cav charge in with lances couched, stirrups and perhaps even a Western Style Saddle.... boo-urns

---

Have you seen the shots from the movie? No stirrups, correct armour, low saddles and normal long spears (thus couching seems a little tough to do). It looks very promising.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The_Emperor

I would argue that the Romans would have it tough on the medieval battlefield, but for the reason that they would have more problems with Crossbows and Longbows than the knights... Roman armour wouldn't cut it against them, and as charrae shows, they were vulnerable to sustained archer fire once their cavalry support was gone.

---

I think it would be unfair to say that Roman equipment - specifically armour - wouldn't have been effective on the medieval battlefield. At least they were armoured, which is more than could be said for many infantry, and it's likely that the Legions would have adapted to the changes on the battlefield as they often did throughout their history. Imagine the Legions in platemail or even full plate instead of lorica segmenta, perhaps with some carrying crossbows instead of pila.

I think it would also be true to say that any infantry force with limited cavalry and missile support would have lost in a situation like Carrhae: poor leadership; disloyal allies; troops tired from having to march through a desert in heavy armour, effectively cut off from easy water supplies and other support; being surrounded by a more mobile enemy with an effectively unlimited supply of arrows.

As for the effectiveness of crossbows and longbows against lorica segmenta and other Roman-era armour, it should be noted that even quite late medieval plate armour was also relatively ineffective until the Italian armourers developed their 'arrow proof' face hardened plate as used so effectively at the Batlle of Verneuil in 1422 for example.

Everyone who said "combined arms" is IMO very correct. ~:cheers: In terms of raw, head-to-head fighting power, infantry in general has more natural advantages than cavalry in general.

But a homogenous force of ONLY infantry, no matter how good that infantry is, will have problems. And while the Roman Legion almost certainly COULD hold up against a head-on cavalry charge, it would do so at a much higher cost in training and equipment than, say, a simple pike phalanx. And assuming there was no mobility required, the cheaper pike phalanx would probably fare even BETTER than the legion.

Cavalry is weaker in stand-up than infantry, but it is fast and has incredible destructive power if it can strike a weakened foe. Well-trained and equipped infantry like the Legions can be destructive, too, but they are not as flexible in where and when they can strike.

..

The change from Legionairy to Medieval armies was simply a shift in focus from top-notch Heavy Infantry as the breadwinner with cavalry and skirms in support, to top notch Heavy Cavalry as the breadwinner with skirms and infantry in support. And sometimes it was actually the skirms who won the battles, such as with the Welsh/English longbows.

It's all a matter of focus. All armies need to have the same basic components, different elements are just tweaked and emphasized.

Very little changes in history.

DA

These are some of the reasons why on Empire Earth I tended to avoid the fad in which one would buy nothing but dragoons and bombards... my armies generally won assuming both of us had an equal force.