Legions vs. Heavy Cavalry

[Colovion]

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

[econ21]

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!

[Steppe Merc]

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.

[biguth dickuth]

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.

[Servius]

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.

[biguth dickuth]

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.

[DemonArchangel]

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

[Oaty]

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

[Aurelian]

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.

[Kraxis]

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.