Cav way too powerful

[Whacker]

There is no way that the Roman would have ever been able to fight on horseback like they did in that game.

It wasn't until the stirrup reached Europe that cavalry became not only important, but the essential force in warfare.

What's your basis for this opinion? Most of the more recent books on this topic that I have read, in addition to this excellent article state the exact opposite otherwise regarding shock cavalry tactics.

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

Cavalry in the ancient world, with very few exceptions, was not used as the main force of an army. They were primarily used for guarding the flanks of an infantry line or chasing down routers.

This on the other hand, as I read, is for the most part correct. Even though shock cavalry tactics were possible, it doesn't mean they were used. It'd be interesting to see if other forum members have any knowledge or references to Greek or Roman use of shock cavalry tactics predating the Greek adoption of the persian cataphract style of cavalry.

[Doug-Thompson]

What's your basis for this opinion? Most of the more recent books on this topic that I have read, in addition to this excellent article state the exact opposite otherwise regarding shock cavalry tactics.

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

I read that article earlier this year. It is worth reading.


However, the plain fact is that that there was no effective shock cavalry in the Roman era before the Goths, and they had stirrups.

In the East, the Sassinids did develop effective heavy cavalry pre-stirrup with their deep seated saddles and "barge pole" lances. However, they are the exception that proves the rule. Their social and political organization resembled later feudal societies in the West. Their armored horsemen were very much like knights, minor nobles with their own estates and income. It took many years of training to make a Sassinid heavy cavalryman. Stirrups were the shortcut that helped spread those tactics to Rome's other enemies.

Since I presume the enemies of Rome talked to each other, I wonder how much the Goths and others owe to the Sassinids.

[Whacker]

I read that article earlier this year. It is worth reading.


However, the plain fact is that that there was no effective shock cavalry in the Roman era before the Goths, and they had stirrups.

In the East, the Sassinids did develop effective heavy cavalry pre-stirrup with their deep seated saddles and "barge pole" lances. However, they are the exception that proves the rule. Their social and political organization resembled later feudal societies in the West. Their armored horsemen were very much like knights, minor nobles with their own estates and income. It took many years of training to make a Sassinid heavy cavalryman. Stirrups were the shortcut that helped spread those tactics to Rome's other enemies.

Since I presume the enemies of Rome talked to each other, I wonder how much the Goths and others owe to the Sassinids.

Ave Master Doug

Not to hijack this thread (too much), but do you have some good sources that I can read? I think we all understand and agree that Wikipedia isn't always 100% accurate, but the stirrup article first states that they were indirectly documented in Europe during the 8th century. We should note that it just states "documented", not "appeared or arrived". Given that they were known in Scandinavia several hundred years earlier I can believe it, I'd just like to understand the discrepancy.

Cheers!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As a Roman military historian I feel bound to point out that Cavalry were perfectly capable of charging home and inflicting massive casualties. The problem was that very few peoples outside of the Steppes, Arabia and Thessaly-Macedonia were capable of fielding the cavalrymen. All of the equipment existed and was well up to spec. Modern tests have even shown that a couched-lance grip is possible with a Gallic saddle, although its easier with stirrups.

The main problem in the ancient world was armour level, which was usually not that high and lance technology, which meant that most cav just had spears.

[Doug-Thompson]

As a Roman military historian I feel bound to point out that Cavalry were perfectly capable of charging home and inflicting massive casualties. The problem was that very few peoples outside of the Steppes, Arabia and Thessaly-Macedonia were capable of fielding the cavalrymen. All of the equipment existed and was well up to spec. Modern tests have even shown that a couched-lance grip is possible with a Gallic saddle, although its easier with stirrups.

The main problem in the ancient world was armour level, which was usually not that high and lance technology, which meant that most cav just had spears.

A question, WI: Would it be fair to say that stirrups didn't make cavalry any more effective, man per man, but that it cut the training time and broadened the pool of available cavalrymen by decreasing the amount of practice needed before you had an effective, trained cavalryman?

[Watchman]

A question, WI: Would it be fair to say that stirrups didn't make cavalry any more effective, man per man, but that it cut the training time and broadened the pool of available cavalrymen by decreasing the amount of practice needed before you had an effective, trained cavalryman?

AFAIK it's overall advantageous for a horseman to have decent stirrups, but for the most part, yeah.

There were of course ways to circumvent this little detail. The Parthians, Sassanids and Macedonians among others did it through the feudal scheme - a landowning warrior class freed to put in the necessary training hours by the income of their (or their lords') estates - although that likely required enough geography suitable for rearing horses, and for example the Byzantines and Chinese AFAIK by simply having deep enough pockets to recruit mercenaries from "horse nations" to serve as both soldiers and instructors (as well as some de facto feudal setups here and there). There were presumably not a few other methods too as both for example the ancient Iberians and Thracians were noted for their cavalry.

When all is said and done shock cavalry never worked all that well against solid close-order infantry though, at least not by itself. The Parthians and Sassanids first had to thin out the Roman infantry block with archery before they could throw in the cataphracts for example, the later Byzantine kataphraktoi apparently eventually ended up developing a specialized "blunt wedge" formation which by what I know of it was specifically designed against infantry, and Medieval knights with their lances had a habit of hitting a wall (and quite often getting a pretty bloody nose) when they tried to frontally charge decent spearmen such as some urban militias and professional mercs.

AFAIK there are several reasons for that. One is that horses are very hesitant about what to their eyes seem like big solid obstacles, such as large bodies of men in close order (that they're generally skittish beasts altogether too easily spooked by loud noises and whatnot doesn't really help; training can only take so much off that), and point blank refuse to run into them. Although as most cavalry actually charged at a canter (partly to maintain formation) this wasn't an impassable obstacle.

Another is that the cavalry are in serious trouble if the infantry - or at least some types of infantry - can swarm them once they've been halted. Short swords for example are apparently awfully good at disemboweling the horses or slashing their tendons at close quarters, and as there generally are far more infantrymen in a melee than cavalrymen the latter can get into serious trouble indeed if aggressive footsloggers can get in amongst them - no doubt another reason shock cavalry tended to be a bit obsessive about maintaining formation.

Spears are a major problem because even the relatively shorter ones go a long way to offsetting the height advantage the horseman has, and allow the infantryman to hurt the horse from that much further away. Moreover the longer kind - and the "international standard" of 2-2.5 meters or thereabouts for infantry fighting spears was certainly close enough - can be easily "set" on the ground to turn the weight and speed of the horse against itself; the impact energy is pretty much exactly the same as what the horseman gets out of a couched lance, and kind of tends to lead to skewered horses. Small wonder that right after head defenses the chest was the first place horses were given some armour...

Spears can also be thrown, and I understand that although they have a relatively short range and fly rather slowly, being easy for loose-order light skirmishers to dodge, they have some very serious penetrating and killing power. People used to hunt pretty large game with the things after all, and back then they had to make do with at best flint or obsidian tips. Getting a shower of javelins or, worse yet, heavy throwing spears in the face at near point-blank ranges is obviously prone to distrupting the best ordered cavalry charge and creating gaps in the line (Sassanid cataphracts were apparently even heavier armoured than their Parthian precessadors, no doubt partly to better withstand the heavy javelins the Romans so loved).

All that said, it's not like cavalry cannot break close-order infantry on a frontal charge; they tend to be highly trained and well equipped elite forces after all, and even if the initial charge doesn't break the footmen (as tended to be the case) they'll likely have an advantage in the ensuing slugging match. AFAIK this was one of the things cataphracts were designed for. But unless the disparity in troop quality is pretty mind-boggling (ie. the infantry aren't complete rubbish) that's not actually a very effective way to skin that particular tactical cat; a flank or rear attack works by far better, especially if friendly infantry (or whatever) first pins the formation down.

[Zort]

Good post!

I guess most of my (and others) issues/problems have to do with the buggy charge.

As others pointed out, my cav simply stops sometimes in front of an enemy unit, "walks" into it or simply forgets to lower their lances.

Sometimes when they attack correctly, they really mess up the enemy unit.

[Doug-Thompson]

The best book I've read on warfare in a long time:


"World History of Warfare"

By Christon I. Archer, John R. Ferris, Holger H. Herwig, and Timothy H. E. Travers

University of Nebraska Press


Although your question was more cavalry-specific, this book discusses each era and the developments in it from all over the world. The non-Western world still gets the short shrift, but at least an attempt at comprehensiveness is made.

The best thing about the book: Each chapter has a short bibliographical essay at the end that tells you the best books to date on each of those eras and civiizations. Whatever you're interested in, this book will point you in the right direction.

As for your real question, about the stirrup, there's not much I can point you toward. I was certain that I'd bookmarked an article about the whole controversy, but now I can't find it. I'll look for it on my computer at home. There's been some serious scholarship on the issue, especially lately. As I recall, the absolute first mention of the stirrup was actually the 8th century BC, in India, where it was used but only as a aid for getting into the saddle.

[Doug-Thompson]

Drat. Double post. Sorry.

[Lord Condormanius]

What's your basis for this opinion? Most of the more recent books on this topic that I have read, in addition to this excellent article state the exact opposite otherwise regarding shock cavalry tactics.

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

I don't care for this article (all of his sources are secondary. mostly books written in the '80s), although I wouldn't say that it states "exactly the opposite." Just because something is theoretically possible doesn't mean it happenned. Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang from the side of a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy, but common sense says something altogether different. Common sense tells me that is you are on a horse, riding 30-40 mph (just a guess) with no saddle, no stirrups and you smash into a wall of human beings...sorry, but you are going over the handlebars.

[Doug-Thompson]

I don't care for this article (all of his sources are secondary. mostly books written in the '80s), although I wouldn't say that it states "exactly the opposite." Just because something is theoretically possible doesn't mean it happenned. Theoretical physics can prove that an elephant can hang from the side of a cliff with its tail tied to a daisy, but common sense says something altogether different. Common sense tells me that is you are on a horse, riding 30-40 mph (just a guess) with no saddle, no stirrups and you smash into a wall of human beings...sorry, but you are going over the handlebars.

The article clearly says that having a saddle makes for a much more effective blow and stirrups made it easier. Also, the chief citation is experimentation with horses, not books in the 1980s.

Romans most definitely had saddles, ones that fit so tightly that is was hard for a trained rider to fall out of them.

Drat my bad bookmarking, but there was a site that talked about how the Sassinids carried a heavy lance and would hold it as long as possible after contact, but let is slide through their hands before it sent them "over the handlebars." Just because I read it somewhere doesn't make it so, but the simple fact remains that Sassinids and the Parthians did develop effective heavy cavalry that rode without stirrups. For that matter, so did Alexander the Great centuries before.