Quote Originally Posted by Doug-Thompson
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.