just a comment about palanhx and cavalry

[bobbin]

how does it work then? Oliver Stone's representation of Alexander's charge at gaugamela didn't really make sense or seem effective, then ran to the side of the enemy then got off their horses and started fighting. this isn't how i imagine the great hetairoi charges, so i ask, how did it really work? was it really just fear that made the enemy run?

Most of the time is seems to have basically been a game of chicken, if the infantry wavered and broke up then the charge would continue with the riders chasing down the enemy.

If the infantry held, the cavalry would stop short of them or veer away. They could then have the option of either trotting at slower speed into the mass of infantry to engage in melee, riding along the edges of the formations stabbing inwards at the enemy or reforming and charging again.

The later tactic of the infantry square in my mind is a perfect demonstration against the stereotypical view of a cavalry charge. If cavalry really did ride at high speed right into a infantry formation then the infantry square, with its sides consisting of just 2 or 3 ranks of men, would have been utterly useless. A single running horse would go through that with ease.

In reality is was highly effective, in fact one of the few times one was actually broken was as a result of the stereotypical high speed cavalry collision, a charging horse was shot too close to the square causing it's dead body to collide with the soldiers, blasting a hole in the formation that the rest of the cavalry could then enter.

[Ichon]

A running horse will always veer away from an object it cannot jump over or move through. A cavalry charge wouldn't slam into a mass of men like it does in TW games, it would be absolute suicide for the riders on the front ranks.

Why? This is only true if you make a whole bunch of assumptions. First and most important is the speed of the charge. Obviously its not at a full gallop though that seems to be how most movies and game portray it. That would damage the horse on impact just like you said but it doesn't matter if the object is "solid" or not. Impacts at enough velocity between 2 masses always result in the energy going somewhere- and while it might take more energy to break a horse leg bone than a human bone impact of more than 20mph would risk even a horses legs.

2nd is this idea that horses won't charge toward something it can't move through or around. It seems somehow "common" knowledge by people who haven't spent much time around horses- and yes, if a horse is in its full faculties and has no rider that is probably true. However when a horse is panicked or scared it might do all sorts of crazy things. Well trained horses also trust their riders to the point that even if it had doubts it will trust the riders instincts over its own in many situations.

3rd- why on earth would people assume that horses raised around humans would assume a group of humans standing together is impassable? Horses are strong and most know their strength but the relationship between human and horse allows the human to guide that strength due to Herd behavior which brings up the next point.

In the midst of a mass of excited horses moving the same direction in a close group most of the horses won't really even see where they are going. Only some of the horses in front and sides will have much idea of what is going on so even if we assume few ancient people could train horses well enough(poor assumption I think) there are likely a few outliers which could be put in those positions. Even now in dog breeding, some dogs are more aggressive than others even when bred for that trait and part of the expense of cavalry is the training which is intense. Not every horse is cut out to be a charger and there is a reason most chargers were stallions.

Now the final assumption is that all charges by ancient cultures were conducted in the same manner. It seems obvious that not everyone fought in the same style so why would cavalry battles be the same either? I think that accounts for much of the conflicting information. At the same time some heavy cavalries appeared to be much better than others- or at least surviving accounts give that credit.

Most of the time is seems to have basically been a game of chicken, if the infantry wavered and broke up then the charge would continue with the riders chasing down the enemy.

If the infantry held, the cavalry would stop short of them or veer away. They could then have the option of either trotting at slower speed into the mass of infantry to engage in melee, riding along the edges of the formations stabbing inwards at the enemy or reforming and charging again.

Sometimes it could have been a game of chicken- afterall, why not? Even a good cavalry charge into the rear of an engaged unit is likely to cost some cavalry casualties. However if you can feint charge and the enemy infantry breaks before contact is even made the advantage of the cavalry is multiplied at very small cost. Ancient commanders could make calculations on the cost/benefit and wouldn't put their unit to unnecessary risk. If the enemy held fast though that doesn't mean the cavalries role in the battle is over. Few ancient armies were uniform and if one unit or part of the line held another might not. Also if 1 flank of an army was made stronger to overpower the enemy, the cavalry eliminating enemy cavalry on the weak flank or the strong flank could be very important depending on the terrain and the strategy. I don't think you were making any claims about that specifically but saying that cavalry charge was mostly a game of chicken seems overly simplistic unless you were referencing just a single aspect of the opening parts of a battle.

But that brings into question the other aspect- the speed of the charge. Saying horses gallop into a charge but then pull up short of the enemy in a feint seems contradictory. A mass of horses galloping one direction doesn't suddenly stop.

I believe wedge formations offered cavalries expecting to make contact the best odds of success first because there is some control- IE in the herd will follow the lead horse direction. A solid line as MTW2 and other games and media portrays is very hard to control and basically once the charge is started there is no or very limited control.

Cavalry charge doesn't always have the same goal. A heavy cataphract style charge would be to collapse/push back an enemy formation and defeat it with heavily armored cavalry. An Alexander/Companion style wedge charge is to break infantry formations apart, isolate and destroy cohesion allowing infantry to exploit the now vulnerable enemy or if the enemy army had minimal command and control due to poor training/ethnic/cultural reasons then once the formation is broken it might never reform.

Then there are the morale affects. Infantry focused on 1 enemy in 1 direction have an easier time keeping good morale. Men that know they are flanked or even surrounded and not knowing exactly where an attack will come from have much more difficult time focusing on the task in front of them. Blitz tactics millenia after the EB period exploited this fact as well... isolate entire armies, move quickly, and attack from unexpected directions and men become exhausted and more readily surrender/rout.

The main reason I doubt that MTW2 style frontal charges occurred very often (but weren't impossible as is implied by you) is the casualty rates if the opposing infantry held fast. Keeping the cavalry alive and able to act as counter/screen to enemy or exploit future gaps in enemy lines etc would usually be more important than wasting many lives of horses and men in a charge into a prepared and disciplined spear infantry formation. However if its the crucial point in a battle the cost might be deemed worth it and sometimes such charges seem to have occurred according to historical accounts but they do seem rare.

How to reflect that with MTW2 mechanics is probably difficult... but I think not completely out of possibility.

[B-Wing]

Great posts, Agricola and Ichon!

[NikosMaximilian]

I agree with those who say that frontal cavalry charges into a line of trained and disciplined infantry is almost suicidal, specially in the EB period. Many armies of that time were disciplined professional soldiers with fighting styles and weapons that discouraged such charges. And even pikemen from the "Barbarian" factions made up their lack of phalangites with a strong warrior culture that encouraged bravery and found cowardness as repulsive.

Even super-heavy cavalry like Parthian cataphracts didn't charge headlong into an infantry line, at least not after foot and horse archers and other ranged units had considerably weaken and demoralized the enemy lines. And don't forget that the rise of cataphracts was parallel to the shorter numbers of elite phalangites and the lower quality and numbers of Hetaroi the Seleucids could field.

Finally, that kind of charge would surely produce many casualties among cavalry, and this weren't cheap troops, quite the opposite. Most of the heavy cavalry was compossed by a social elite who were the ones that could afford the breeding, training and equipment of the horse.

In the post-Classical Antiquity world cavalry was the master of the battlefield, until massed gunpowder power was used. But in the EB timeframe it was used in a combined arms fashion, even by those who fielded the larger numbers like the Sauromatae or Parthians.

[bobbin]

Why? This is only true if you make a whole bunch of assumptions. First and most important is the speed of the charge. Obviously its not at a full gallop though that seems to be how most movies and game portray it. That would damage the horse on impact just like you said but it doesn't matter if the object is "solid" or not. Impacts at enough velocity between 2 masses always result in the energy going somewhere- and while it might take more energy to break a horse leg bone than a human bone impact of more than 20mph would risk even a horses legs.

By "running" I meant the full speed gallop you see in most films and games (like TW).

2nd is this idea that horses won't charge toward something it can't move through or around. It seems somehow "common" knowledge by people who haven't spent much time around horses- and yes, if a horse is in its full faculties and has no rider that is probably true. However when a horse is panicked or scared it might do all sorts of crazy things. Well trained horses also trust their riders to the point that even if it had doubts it will trust the riders instincts over its own in many situations.

Panicked horses are less easy to control, not more.

3rd- why on earth would people assume that horses raised around humans would assume a group of humans standing together is impassable? Horses are strong and most know their strength but the relationship between human and horse allows the human to guide that strength due to Herd behavior which brings up the next point.

Yes they would know their strength, which is why they wouldn't run full pelt into a group of 100 people who didn't move out the way.

In the midst of a mass of excited horses moving the same direction in a close group most of the horses won't really even see where they are going. Only some of the horses in front and sides will have much idea of what is going on so even if we assume few ancient people could train horses well enough(poor assumption I think) there are likely a few outliers which could be put in those positions. Even now in dog breeding, some dogs are more aggressive than others even when bred for that trait and part of the expense of cavalry is the training which is intense. Not every horse is cut out to be a charger and there is a reason most chargers were stallions.

Now the final assumption is that all charges by ancient cultures were conducted in the same manner. It seems obvious that not everyone fought in the same style so why would cavalry battles be the same either? I think that accounts for much of the conflicting information. At the same time some heavy cavalries appeared to be much better than others- or at least surviving accounts give that credit.

Both fair points.

Sometimes it could have been a game of chicken- afterall, why not? Even a good cavalry charge into the rear of an engaged unit is likely to cost some cavalry casualties. However if you can feint charge and the enemy infantry breaks before contact is even made the advantage of the cavalry is multiplied at very small cost. Ancient commanders could make calculations on the cost/benefit and wouldn't put their unit to unnecessary risk. If the enemy held fast though that doesn't mean the cavalries role in the battle is over. Few ancient armies were uniform and if one unit or part of the line held another might not. Also if 1 flank of an army was made stronger to overpower the enemy, the cavalry eliminating enemy cavalry on the weak flank or the strong flank could be very important depending on the terrain and the strategy. I don't think you were making any claims about that specifically but saying that cavalry charge was mostly a game of chicken seems overly simplistic unless you were referencing just a single aspect of the opening parts of a battle.

I'm not really sure what you are trying to say here, I never said that if cavalry failed to rout the enemy on the first attempt they would do nothing for the rest of the battle.

But that brings into question the other aspect- the speed of the charge. Saying horses gallop into a charge but then pull up short of the enemy in a feint seems contradictory. A mass of horses galloping one direction doesn't suddenly stop.

No it doesn't because I never said the cavalry galloped into a charge.

I believe wedge formations offered cavalries expecting to make contact the best odds of success first because there is some control- IE in the herd will follow the lead horse direction. A solid line as MTW2 and other games and media portrays is very hard to control and basically once the charge is started there is no or very limited control.

I'm pretty sure the wedge formation didn't narrow to a single rider at it's tip, certainly later wedge formations never did this (the Byzantines used a 20 men tip for example).

The main reason I doubt that MTW2 style frontal charges occurred very often (but weren't impossible as is implied by you) is the casualty rates if the opposing infantry held fast. Keeping the cavalry alive and able to act as counter/screen to enemy or exploit future gaps in enemy lines etc would usually be more important than wasting many lives of horses and men in a charge into a prepared and disciplined spear infantry formation. However if its the crucial point in a battle the cost might be deemed worth it and sometimes such charges seem to have occurred according to historical accounts but they do seem rare.

Hmm...I think you have the wrong end of the stick here, again I never said that cavalry wouldn't charge into infantry, what I said was they wouldn't run into them at the speeds we see in TW games.

I seem to remember having this same conversation last time the subject was brought up and it turned out that we were basically saying the same thing.

[Ichon]

By "running" I meant the full speed gallop you see in most films and games (like TW).

Panicked horses are less easy to control, not more.

Yes they would know their strength, which is why they wouldn't run full pelt into a group of 100 people who didn't move out the way.

No it doesn't because I never said the cavalry galloped into a charge.

I'm pretty sure the wedge formation didn't narrow to a single rider at it's tip, certainly later wedge formations never did this (the Byzantines used a 20 men tip for example).

Hmm...I think you have the wrong end of the stick here, again I never said that cavalry wouldn't charge into infantry, what I said was they wouldn't run into them at the speeds we see in TW games.

I seem to remember having this same conversation last time the subject was brought up and it turned out that we were basically saying the same thing.

The distinction is more fine than your initial statement appeared is all. I remember we talked about this in other thread but I didn't see we had been in agreement until now.

Panic stricken horses are more difficult to control directly but do follow the herd more readily at the same time. I didn't mean the lead rider as in 1 on the point but the person in command of the cavalry who was usually in the front ranks of the wedge somewhere.

The only part we might disagree about after reading your follow-up is that horses would veer from a group of people. If you mean by running as "gallop" then most horses unless in a stampede would try to avoid a group of people under its own inclination and only very few horses would obey a rider and smash into such a group. However if horses are moving towards a group of men at a slow canter I don't think there is any evidence they would try to avoid contact at all cost or completely balk. Especially if trained to do so under loud conditions.

Horses in that era probably weighed anywhere from 700-1200lbs, if were warhorses probably average around 1,000 though I've read of skeletons found that indicated up to 1300lbs though that would be exceptionally rare. So even saying 900lbs... plus 150lb rider and another 50lbs gear. 1100lbs of a single horse pushing against 150lb infantryman with 30lbs gear(less saddle etc). That would be at least 6 ranks in a single file to push back effectively against 1 horse, more likely more since as individuals over that distance they can't apply the force to push back as efficiently as the horse could push forward.

Horses might not be doing such math in their heads but I don't think they would be super intimidated just because men are standing in a group. That assumes horses are remarkably stupid they can't tell a solid object from a group of men.

Other than that point I think we definitely agree about how horse charge being portrayed in TW as a fast gallop in a long line typically is not very accurate. I don't know if there is a way to make wedge formation only available for charges or if that is the best solution but it could be part of a solution- even though the wedges are not quite right either it seems closer than a 2 rank deep elongated unit which does the most damage in a charge currently.

[Omegoa]

If you mean by running as "gallop" then most horses unless in a stampede would try to avoid a group of people under its own inclination and only very few horses would obey a rider and smash into such a group.

I think that's the point that both parties are advocating -- cavalry won't charge into a unit of men. A canter is a different matter altogether, and they probably wouldn't swerve from this slower approach though cavalry would be at a distinct disadvantage in direct melee.

[bobbin]

The only part we might disagree about after reading your follow-up is that horses would veer from a group of people. If you mean by running as "gallop" then most horses unless in a stampede would try to avoid a group of people under its own inclination and only very few horses would obey a rider and smash into such a group. However if horses are moving towards a group of men at a slow canter I don't think there is any evidence they would try to avoid contact at all cost or completely balk. Especially if trained to do so under loud conditions.

Yes at a canter they would most likely just plough right into them, you see police horses do this all the time during riots. A wall of spear points would obviously change their reaction though.

Other than that point I think we definitely agree about how horse charge being portrayed in TW as a fast gallop in a long line typically is not very accurate. I don't know if there is a way to make wedge formation only available for charges or if that is the best solution but it could be part of a solution- even though the wedges are not quite right either it seems closer than a 2 rank deep elongated unit which does the most damage in a charge currently.

Sadly there is not much we can do about it, we certainly can't mod when a formation is used. The wedge in TW games is pretty useless anyway, IIRC the whole formation has a tendency to stop ones the tip hits it's target.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Good thread. Basically, ancient cavalry goes for flanks or rear of the enemy - or goes for a gap in the front line.

Alexander's cavalry had great success against the Persians because a great number of the Persians were skirmishers, archers and slingers. And skirmishers will generally run away from an enemy charge, particularly a cavalry charge. And once the skirmishers start running, spearmen of low quality (poorly trained levies) may start running too. From there it's only a short step to the whole army panicking and fleeing for their lives.

Big, low quality armies are often a liability - more people on the battlefield only means that there is more people who might panic and run, spreading panic throughout the army. People have more in common with sheep than with wolves.

[HFox]

An interesting and parallel thread here which raises the issue of historical accounts of cavalry being 'over glossed' as well as some other interestingpoints.

http://www.investigations.4-lom.com/...charges-shock/

the link in the article is interesting.....highlighting how a 70-90lb woman can knock over a horse + jocket weighing 7-900 lbs travelling at 35 miles per hour.

If I had the option of being the armoured infantryman behind a shield or the rider cantering at him......I know my preference. :)