How were the Hetairoi used (And other heavy cavalry)?

[mikil100]

Now, from my readings across the internet and such (I know, such wonderful sources) it seems that cavalry wasn't really used for "shock" like we see in RTW and ALL of its mods, including EB. What I mean by this is a block of cavalry moving together, lowering their lances and plowing into the enemy infantry (usually in a vulnerable state), letting the lance pierce a man or two and the horse plowing over the rest, causing instantaneous rout.

Now, from what I hear horses were reluctant to charge into a solid block of infantry (even a less solid formation, perhaps?) so how did Alexander and others put these magnificent troops to use, other than other Cavalry to Cavalry fighting and chasing routers/ spread out troops? Were the Hetairoi ever used to plow into even loose infantry formations? What DID commanders do with their cavalry?

Also, how would Hetairoi approach and enemy fleeing them? Did they ever use an overhand spear motion?


PS: I don't just mean this for Hetairoi, any civilizations cavalry is up for grabs, but the most pressing question to me is Hetairoi.. (In NO way do I doubt their potency, I just.. want to be further enlightened on how these elite troops did their business so effectivly)

[Apgad]

Steven Pressfield has written a novel about Alexander, and it seems he's done quite a bit of research into the use of cavalry in that period. I read it over a year ago now, but one point I remember is that horses tend to go wherever the herd goes. So only the horses at the front of the formation will see the spear points ahead. The other horses will follow where they're led.

That was a good read actually, I might get that one again.

[Watchman]

Close-combat cavalry is next to impotent when faced with a solid, unwavering wall of infantry in close order. (There *are* ways to get horses to charge even such, but AFAIK they're anything but reliable and don't seem to have worked too often. Although I'm under the impression some of the later cataphract types got around that by *walking* their horses into contact and simply slowly hacking their way into the ranks by the virtue of brute superior mass and armour...) Which is why it has always by preference attacked weakened and/or wavering formations, unformed flanks and rears instead, where the quirks of horse psychology don't get in the way of driving the momentum home.

The usual "division of labour" was really to have foot engage foot and horse engage horse, and the victorious cavalrymen then hopefully remembering to reform and come back to attack the preoccupied enemy infantry in the flank thus precipitating a wholesale rout. The "Alexandrian" tactical system, with pikemen holding the center line and heavy strike cavalry delivering the decisive blow on either flank (the other wing was usually left to lighter cavalry with orders to keep on the defensive and keep enemy horsemen from turning the flanks of the pikemen), is really a pretty purebred example.

[geala]

Heavy cavalry were indeed used as shock troops charging against the enemy. At least this is told us in the sources. How exactly this was done remains far less clear.

What is seemingly more or less accepted in the meantime is that the stirrup had no great impact on cavalry attack performance. I think brutal frontal attacks against dense infantry formations were the exception, in the ancient world as well as in the Middle Ages. If you attacked formations from the side or back or you attacked already shaken and wavering formations cavalry shock attacks could be extremely effective. Alexanders move with the cavalry parallel to the Persian lines at Gaugamela for example was imho made to create a gap in the front lines to attack at a weak point. In the 3rd c. the importance of the cavalry decreased in the Hellenistic world when the successor states more and more relied on huge phalanx blocks but nevertheless good generals (Hannibal f.e.) used cavalry extremely well. Normally the victory depended more on the number and quality of cavalry than of infantry.

[mikil100]

Hmm. Well it seems people have some-what different views on Cavalry. I already knew Alexanders "Hammer and Anvil" tactics, I just wasn't so sure how he proceeded with his cavalry. I understand that once the cavalry is at the flanks of the infantry it may shake them up a bit, possibly leading to a rout..

That fact about the horses going with the herd is very intersting- although I wonder how the horse on the frontline manges, haha.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Horses at the gallop will tend to panic, horses in a group will stampede, after a certain point the ones at the front will keep going foward because they are being pushed by those behind.

[Watchman]

Although as far as I understand you can't make the rear-ranker horses bodily "push" those in front of themselves the way infantrymen quite commonly did. Heck, the poor beasts would be squeezing their windpipes against the rather noticeably bony and muscular hind bits of their mates, and probably ramming their muzzles into the backs of the riders...

I doubt it much improves matters if the riders are sporting pointy things, either. Far as I know even the closest-order cavalry only ever closed in tight by rank, not by file.

Triggering the animals' stampede instinct is neat when it works, but from what I've read of the lenghty history of cavalry combat that's much more easier said than actually done, requires a reasonably onerous set of prereqs and, frankly, isn't something to bet the farm on by what I know of it.

Most of the time, cavalry that insisted on charging steady heavy infantry only got a bloody nose for their troubles. This could be quite disastrous if they both formed the primary strike element of the army and were bad at the disengage-and-reform trick - a combination unfortunately common among Medieval chivalry for example.