SoA Forum

(split from https://forum.soa.org.uk/index.php?topic=10891.0)

Carrhae reminds me of Publius Venditius, the Roman general who crushed Parthian attempts to capitalise on Carrhae. I have no idea how to replicate his battles on a miniatures table except by introducing a special rule that hands the battles to the Romans, namely the inability of the Parthian LH to evade a charge by Roman foot (!). Here's Wiki's summary of the battle:

When the Parthians got to the town, which sat on a small hill, they encountered Roman legions confidently formed in battle order on the slopes. The Parthians rushed to attack - whether this order came from Pacorus or was a spontaneous charge is unknown. In any case, Ventidius ordered his troops, who had the advantage of high ground, to attack the horse-archers advancing up the slope. The horse-archers were forced into close-quartered combat against the legionaries and suffered heavily for it, for they were unsuited for such combat. The Parthian cavalry's will eventually broke and panic spread, many of the horse archers being driven down the slope where they crashed into their fellows in their desperation to escape. The horse-archers eventually fled or fell.

Parthian heavy cavalry, which was stationed at the bottom of the hill, was enveloped and surrounded by the legionaries. Instead of immediately attacking with the legionaries, Ventidius made use of his slingers to rain down projectiles on the Parthian heavy cavalry, which included Pacorus himself. After the barrage was lifted the legionaries moved in and were quickly able to identify Pacorus because of his standard and expensive armour. Pacorus was eventually slain along with his bodyguards, and the remaining cavalry broke and attempted to flee from their entrapment, which not all managed to do.

It is one of the interesting examples where infantry charged cavalry

But were the Parthians in an "uncontrolled advance" or a "wild charge" or did they get too close and have to shoot at "really close range" to avoid any penalties for shooting uphill and failed their movement test for trying to evade on difficult terrain? ;)

I suspect the latter to be honest

Cassius Dio, 49.20:

Quote1 In this way he met Pacorus in Syria Cyrrhestica and conquered him. For when he had not prevented them from crossing the river and had not attacked them at once after they had got across, they imputed sloth and weakness to the Romans and therefore marched against their camp, although it was on high ground, expecting to take it without resistance.
2 But when a sally was suddenly made, the assailants, being cavalry, were driven back down the slope without difficulty; and although at the foot they defended themselves valiantly, the majority of them being in armour, yet they were confused by the unexpectedness of the onslaught and by stumbling over one another and were defeated by the heavy-armed men and especially by the slingers; for these struck them from a distance with their powerful missiles and so were exceedingly difficult for them to withstand.
3 The fall of Pacorus in this struggle was a very great loss to them; for as soon as they perceived that their leader had perished, although a few men zealously fought for his body, yet when these also were slain, all the rest gave way. Some of them desired to escape homeward across the bridge and were unable to do so, being cut off and killed before they could reach it, and others fled for refuge to Antiochus in Commagene.
4 Ventidius easily brought into subjection all the rest out of Syria, which had been hesitating while awaiting the outcome of the war, by sending the prince's head about through the different cities; for the Syrians felt unusual affection for Pacorus on account of his justice and mildness, an affection as great as they had felt for the best kings that had ever ruled them.

What is intriguing me about this episode is that it is one of the rare examples we have of infantry charging cavalry

Do the examples we do have of infantry charging cavalry usually record that the infantry made contact? If the typical response was for the cavalry to successfully evade, then there was probably not too much emphasis on recording those cases.

As far as I can tell, the theory is that if the infantry charged, their formation would get looser and the cavalry would gleefully countercharge them and just smash straight through.

Another couple of examples to be found at https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ammian/24*.html

"The Persians opposed to us serried bands of mail-called horsemen in such close order that the gleam of moving bodies covered with densely fitting plates of iron dazzled the eyes of those who looked upon them, while the whole throng of horse was protected by coverings of leather. The cavalry was backed up by companies of infantry, who, protected by oblong, curved shields covered with wickerwork and raw hides, advanced in very close order. Behind these were elephants, looking like walking hills, and, by the movements of their enormous bodies, they threatened destruction to all who came near them, dreaded as they were from past experience.

9 Hereupon the emperor, following Homeric tactics,⁠59 filled the space between the lines with the weakest of the infantry, fearing that if they formed part of the van and shamefully gave way, they might carry off all the rest with them; or if they were posted in the rear behind all the centuries, they might run off at will with no one to check them. He himself with the light-armed auxiliaries hastened now to the front, and now to the rear.

10 So, when both sides were near enough to look each other in the face, the Romans, gleaming  p463 in their crested helmets and swinging their shields as if to the rhythm of the anapaestic foot,⁠60 advanced slowly; and the light-armed skirmishers opened the battle by hurling their javelins, while the earth everywhere was turned to dust by both sides and swept away in a swift whirlwind. 11 And when the battle-cry was raised in the usual manner by both sides and the trumpets' blare increased the ardour of the men, here and there they fought hand-to‑hand with spears and drawn swords; and the soldiers were freer from the danger of the arrows the more quickly they forced their way into the enemy's ranks. Meanwhile Julian was busily engaged in giving support to those who gave way and in spurring on the laggards, playing the part both of a valiant fellow-soldier and of a commander. 12 Finally, the first battle-line of the Persians began to waver, and at first slowly, then at quick step, turned back and made for the neighbouring city with their armour well heated up.⁠61 Our soldiers pursued them, wearied though they also were after fighting on the scorching plains from sunrise to the end of the day, and following close at their heels and hacking at their legs and backs, drove the whole force with Pigranes, the Surena, and Narseus, their most distinguished generals, in headlong flight to the very walls of Ctesiphon. 13 And they would have pressed in through the gates of the city, mingled with the throng of fugitives, had not the general called Victor, who had himself received a flesh-wound in the shoulder from an arrow, raising his hand and  p465 shouting, restrained them; for he feared that the excited soldiers, if they rashly entered the circuit of the walls and could find no way out, might be overcome by weight of numbers."

Did the Sassanids charge or Roman infantry just advance into them?

And https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Ammian/25*.html

"Leaving this place as well, the whole army had come to a district called Maranga, when near daybreak a huge force of Persians appeared with Merena, general of their cavalry, two sons of the king, and many other magnates. 12 Moreover, all the companies were clad in iron, and all parts of their bodies were covered with thick plates, so fitted that the stiff joints conformed with those of their limbs; and the forms of human faces were so skilfully fitted to their heads, that, since their entire bodies were plated with metal, arrows that fell upon them could lodge only where they could see a little through tiny openings fitted to the circle of the eye, or where through the tips of their noses they were able to get a little breath. 13 Of these some, who were armed with pikes, stood so motionless that you would think them held fast by clamps of bronze. Hard by, the archers (for that nation has especially trusted in this art from the very cradle)⁠1 were bending their flexible bows with such wide-stretched arms that the strings touched their right breasts, while the arrow-points were close to their left hands; and by a highly skilful stroke of the fingers the arrows flew hissing forth and brought with them deadly wounds. 14 Behind them the gleaming elephants, with their awful figures and savage, gaping mouths could scarcely be endured by the faint-hearted; and their trumpeting, their odour, and their strange aspect alarmed  p483 the horses still more. 15 Seated upon these, their drivers carried knives with handles bound to their right hands, remembering the disaster suffered at Nisibis; and if the strength of the driver proved no match for the excited brute, that he might not turn upon his own people (as happened then) and crush masses of them to the ground, he would with a mighty stroke cut through the vertebra which separates the head from the neck. For long ago Hasdrubal, brother of Hannibal, discovered that in that way brutes of this kind could quickly be killed.⁠2 16 Although these sights caused no little fear, the emperor, guarded by troops of armed men and with his trustworthy generals, full of confidence, as the great and dangerous power of the enemy demanded, drew up his soldiers in the form of a crescent with curving wings to meet the enemy. 17 And in order that the onset of the bowmen might not throw our ranks into confusion, he advanced at a swift pace, and so ruined the effectiveness of the arrows.⁠3 Then the usual signal for battle was given, and the Roman infantry in close order with mighty effort drove the serried ranks of the enemy before them. 18 And in the heat of the combat that followed, the clash of shields, the shouts of the men, and the doleful sound of the whirring arrows continued without intermission. The plains were covered with blood and dead bodies, but the Persian losses were greater; for they often lacked endurance in battle and could with difficulty maintain a close contest man to man, since they were accustomed to fight bravely at long range,  but if they perceived that their forces were giving way, as they retreated they would shoot their arrows back like a shower of rain and keep the enemy from a bold pursuit. So by the weight of great strength the Parthians were driven back, and when the signal for retreat was given in the usual manner, our soldiers, long wearied by the fiery course of the sun, returned to their tents, encouraged to dare greater deeds of valour in the future."

Again a swift Roman advance apparently to avoid the archery but were they too quick for the cavalry to charge?

But earlier we had Lucullus  at Tigranocerta

"28 1 Saying this, and bidding his men be of good courage, he crossed the river, and led the way in person against the enemy. He wore a steel breastplate of glittering scales, and a tasselled cloak, and at once let his sword flash forth from its scabbard, indicating that they must forthwith come to close quarters with men who fought with long range missiles, and eliminate, by the rapidity of their onset, the space in which archery would be effective. 2 But when he saw that the mail-clad horsemen, on whom the greatest reliance was placed, were stationed at the foot of a considerable hill which was crowned by a broad and level space, and that the approach to this was a matter of only •four stadia, and neither rough nor steep, he ordered his Thracian and Gallic horsemen to attack the enemy in the flank, and to parry their long spears with their own short swords. 3 (Now the sole resource of the mail-clad horsemen is their long spear, and they  p563 have none other whatsoever, either in defending themselves or attacking their enemies, owing to the weight and rigidity of their armour; in this they are, as it were, immured.) Then he himself, with two cohorts, hastened eagerly towards the hill, his soldiers following with all their might, because they saw him ahead of them in armour, enduring all the fatigue of a foot-soldier, and pressing his way along. Arrived at the top, and standing in the most conspicuous spot, he cried with a loud voice, "The day is ours, the day is ours, my fellow soldiers!" 4 With these words, he led his men against the mail-clad horsemen, ordering them not to hurl their javelins yet, but taking each his own man, to smite the enemy's legs and thighs, which are the only parts of these mail-clad horsemen left exposed. However, there was no need of this mode of fighting, for the enemy did not await the Romans, but, with loud cries and in most disgraceful flight, they hurled themselves and their horses, with all their weight, upon the ranks of their own infantry, before it had so much as begun to fight, and so all those tens of thousands were defeated without the infliction of a wound or the sight of blood. 5 But the great slaughter began at once when they fled, or rather tried to fly, for they were prevented from really doing so by the closeness and depth of their own ranks. Tigranes rode away at the very outset with a few attendants, and took to flight. Seeing his son also in the same plight, he took off the diadem from his head and, in tears, gave it to him, bidding him save himself as best he could by another route. 6 The young man, however, did not venture to assume the diadem, but gave it to his most trusted slave for safe keeping.  p565 This slave happened to be captured, and was brought to Lucullus, and thus even the diadem of Tigranes became a part of the booty. It is said that more than a hundred thousand of the enemy's infantry perished, while of the cavalry only a few, all told, made their escape. Of the Romans, on the other hand, only a hundred were wounded, and only five killed."


We get the same battle from Appian
https://www.livius.org/sources/content/appian/appian-the-mithridatic-wars/appian-the-mithridatic-wars-17#85


"[85] While Sextilius was doing this, Tigranes brought together some 250,000 foot and 50,000 horse. He sent about 6,000 of the latter to Tigranocerta, who broke through the Roman line to the tower, and seized and brought away the king's concubines.

With the rest of his army Tigranes marched against Lucullus. Mithridates, who was now for the first time admitted to his presence, advised him not to come to close quarters with the Romans, but to circle around them with his horse only, to devastate the country, and reduce them by famine if possible, in the same way that he had been served by Lucullus at Cyzicus, where he lost his army without fighting.

Tigranes derided such generalship and advanced and made preparations for battle. When he saw how small the Roman force was, he said jestingly, "If they are here as ambassadors they are too many; if as enemies, altogether too few."

Lucullus saw a hill favorably situated in the rear of Tigranes. He pushed his horse forward from his own front to worry the enemy and draw them upon himself, retiring as they came up, so that the barbarians should break their own ranks in the pursuit. Then he sent his own infantry around to the hill and took possession of it unobserved. When he saw the enemy pursuing as though they had won the fight, and scattered in all directions, with their entire baggage train lying at the foot of the hill, he exclaimed, "Soldiers, we are victorious," and dashed first upon their baggage carriers.

These immediately fled in confusion and ran against their own infantry, and the infantry against the cavalry. Presently the rout was complete. Those who had been drawn a long distance in pursuit of the Roman horse, the latter turned upon and destroyed. The baggage train came into collision with others tumultuously. They were all packed together in such a crowd that nobody could see clearly from what quarter their discomfiture proceeded. There was a great slaughter. Nobody stopped to plunder, for Lucullus had forbidden it with threats of punishment, so that they passed by bracelets and necklaces on the road, and continued killing for a distance of 20 kilometers until nightfall. Then they betook themselves to plunder with the permission of Lucullus."


I get the impression that infantry could charge cavalry if cavalry had let them get too close, even to their front. They could charge them from the flank, if the infantry are again too close for the cavalry to react. They can charge them in poor terrain.

Also if there was what you might call a 'standing brawl' more infantry could be 'fed in'

Also close to the Ventidius example, of course, Caesar's fourth line charging Pompey's cavalry at Pharsalus.

Yes
https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Caesar/Civil_Wars/3D*.html#85


"At the same time the horse on Pompeius' left wing, according to orders, charged in a body, and the whole multitude of archers poured forth. Our cavalry, failing to withstand their attack, gradually quitted their position and retired. Pompeius' cavalry pressed forward all the more eagerly, and deploying by squadrons began to surround our lines on their exposed flank. Caesar, observing it, gave the signal to his fourth line, which he had composed of six cohorts. These advanced rapidly and with colours flying attacked Pompeius' horse with such fury that not one of them stood his ground, and all, wheeling round, not only quitted the position but forthwith in hurried flight made for the highest hills. When these were dislodged all the archers and slingers, left defenceless, without support, were slain. With the same onslaught the cohorts surrounded the left wing, the Pompeians still fighting and continuing their resistance in their lines, and attacked them in the rear."

It's interesting that the map on the wiki seems to show the legionaries hitting the victorious  Pompeian cavalry in the flank as they're still tied up with some of the Caesarian cavalry

images.png


Caesar's comments could support this, or it could be that the Pompeian cavalry had lost their original formation and were perhaps otherwise engaged in surrounding the infantry lines after having driven the Caesarian cavalry off.

Looking at the Latin it seems clear that the 4th line was deployed behind Caesar's cavalry and opposite Pompey's.

Simul his rebus animadversis, quas demonstravimus, timens, ne a multitudine equitum dextrum cornu circumveniretur, celeriter ex tertia acie singulas cohortes detraxit atque ex his quartam instituit equitatuique opposuit et, quid fieri vellet, ostendit monuitque eius diei victoriam in earum cohortium virtute constare.

The cavalry it is "opposed to" - opposuit - is clearly Pompey's, not Caesar's.

After Pompey's cavalry starts driving Caesar's back and the rear ranks of Pompey's horse begin to outflank Caesar's legions the fourth line charges straight ahead - i.e. straight through their own cavalry - and engages Pompey's cavalry frontally. This would be easy enough for them to do if the cavalry were deployed in a standard width of 2 yards per file (to enable the horses to wheel around individually), leaving enough space between files for the infantry to interpenetrate them. Formations passing through each other like this was standard practice. Mid Republican cavalry at one time routinely won battles by charging enemy foot straight through their own infantry and the late Republic would not have forgotten the technique - just applied it in reverse in this case.

Quod ubi Caesar animadvertit, quartae aciei, quam instituerat sex cohortium, dedit signum. Illi celeriter procucurrerunt infestisque signis tanta vi in Pompei equites impetum fecerunt, ut eorum nemo consisteret, omnesque conversi non solum loco excederent, sed protinus incitati fuga montes altissimos peterent

"Procucurrerunt" from procurrere means to run forwards, run out ahead, advance (https://www.latindictionary.io/word/procucurrerunt).

Which gives this setup at the beginning of the battle. The widths and depths are approximate. The 4th line would be completely hidden by the cavalry in front of them.

(https://i.ibb.co/wF0F0F49/pharsalus-cavalry.png) (https://ibb.co/FLxLxLzS)

Thanks for that Justin
would it be possible for one of our wise and technical people to filter off the bottom half of this thread and put it in a thread which said "Infantry charging cavalry" or something similar?

Split as requested

Quote from: dwkay57 on Aug 13, 2026, 04:27 PMBut were the Parthians in an "uncontrolled advance" or a "wild charge" or did they get too close and have to shoot at "really close range" to avoid any penalties for shooting uphill and failed their movement test for trying to evade on difficult terrain? ;)

I suspect the terrain and overconfidence got them too close, every horse archer trying to get in on the act, and the Romans saw their chance. A surprise Roman response led to panic, confusion and loss of formation as the horse archers bumped into each other and could not evade or  retreat. The terrain may have been more constrictive than we realise, otherwise why not go around the flanks?

Casualties led to more panic with horsemen streaming away. The legionaries could now close on the cataphracts and the slingers had a free hand to ply their trade.

You have to give the Roman general,  Publius Ventidius, cudos for a good plan that worked. His use of the terrain, no flanks or open space and the Parthian's overconfidence really turned the tables, and he showed he had learned from past Roman mistakes. He banked on the Parthians doing exactly as they did, so they played their part too!

Yes that seems to sum it up
Infantry can charge cavalry when the cavalry don't see them coming in time to react, or the cavalry are too busy to react.
It intrigued me that the examples we have are Roman, but then they did write a lot. What examples have we of earlier or later?

There are a few medieval ones I know of, which fit the ideas.

At the Battle of Laupen, a portion of Freiburg cavalry was charged in the rear while engaged to the front.  Poor situational awareness meant they seem to have missed that the rest of their army had run away, leaving the rallied Bernese to come to the rescue of their comrades. It did not end well for the cavalry.

At the Battle of Loudon Hill, Bruce ordered a charge to prevent the English cavalry rallying.  The English made the mistake of trying to rally too close, expecting the Scots to remain in their defensive position.

At the Battle of Hausbergen, between the city and bishop of Strasburg, the Strasburg militia advanced to support the civic cavalry who were hard pressed by the bishop's knights. These were too entangled to disengage so were mobbed in a standing fight.  Here the Strasburgers were ordered to target the horses and subsequently took a lot of the bishop's knights prisoner for ransom.

Overall, these suggest that cavalry deprived of the ability to manoeuvre were vulnerable to infantry attack.

Yes these medieval examples do seem to fit the same general criteria. Cavalry disordered, already engaged, in difficult terrain, or just already in trouble, seem to be suitable targets.

Quote from: Jim Webster on Aug 16, 2026, 02:08 PMYes these medieval examples do seem to fit the same general criteria. Cavalry disordered, already engaged, in difficult terrain, or just already in trouble, seem to be suitable targets.

So how to replicate those circumstances in a wargame? (please don't say dice!)

Some circumstances with be 'self evident' (although the rules might have used dice to create the circumstance, other rules might not.)

So a cavalry unit could be in combat with another unit and is unable to do anything about it
A cavalry unit could just have defeated one opponent, might even have pursued, and is now rallying and is in no position just to ride the infantry down.
The cavalry are in difficult terrain and the infantry pounce.
Another circumstance is probably where skirmishing light horse get too close to infantry, try to evade but are slowed or trapped by terrain or impenetrable obstacles.

These might be tricky to achieve but easy enough to fit into the rules.
A more difficult one is where you have a line of Sassanid armoured cavalry facing a line of legionaries. Both lines can deluge each other with missiles. Can the infantry line just grind forward, perhaps more slowly than usual, because the front ranks are keen to maintain the wall of shields and also to be ready to brace if the cavalry do charge. At some point the infantry will 'bump' into the cavalry and thus melee will ensure, but any charge might literally be the last handful of yards.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on Aug 16, 2026, 02:51 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on Aug 16, 2026, 02:08 PMYes these medieval examples do seem to fit the same general criteria. Cavalry disordered, already engaged, in difficult terrain, or just already in trouble, seem to be suitable targets.

So how to replicate those circumstances in a wargame? (please don't say dice!)

Six sided rolling devices with numbers on them

Quote from: Imperial Dave on Aug 16, 2026, 09:54 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on Aug 16, 2026, 02:51 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on Aug 16, 2026, 02:08 PMYes these medieval examples do seem to fit the same general criteria. Cavalry disordered, already engaged, in difficult terrain, or just already in trouble, seem to be suitable targets.

So how to replicate those circumstances in a wargame? (please don't say dice!)

Six sided rolling devices with numbers on them

Groan!  ::)

Quote from: Justin Swanton on Aug 16, 2026, 02:51 PM

Quote from: Jim Webster on Aug 16, 2026, 02:08 PMYes these medieval examples do seem to fit the same general criteria. Cavalry disordered, already engaged, in difficult terrain, or just already in trouble, seem to be suitable targets.

So how to replicate those circumstances in a wargame? (please don't say dice!)

It would depend on the rule mechanisms you use. There would be lots of mechanusms in play but surprise and supporting fire seem to be the most straight forward.

Mounted bow range less effective range shooting uphill. Morale effect (damage, breaking) of being surprised when charged, more so when your escape route is compromised (charged by foot in non-flat terrain?). Contacted when evading automatically causing them to break, flee or be scattered (not simply interpenetrate to rear, rally and return at full strength). Additional impact of being shot at when surprised. Overhead fire by slingers. Damage and shock on horses as the sling pellets hit with velocity. Double surprise and panic when your own side unexpectedly breaks through your ranks.

I've seen a few mechanisms that replicate some of these but these rely on some dice throwing.

In Commands and Colours, those charging "evaders" get to roll all their combat dice and score a hit on a 1-in-6 chance. It takes 3 hits to wipe out a fresh mounted unit. Evading back can block the path of your support troops. If insufficient room to evade, they can't and get a full melee smacking. "Evading" troop types trapped at the back of the table get wolloped. The infantry always strike first, so the mounted could be wiped out before being able to fight back (the element of surprise!).

In the Renaissance rule set Scourge of Princes, cavalry beaten by charging foot will be automatically damaged and will scatter off-table, returning damaged next to their camp next turn. If insufficient room, they delay or don't return. Shooting can proceed movement, so the cavalry may be a free target prior to the charge, so can be shot-up before the infantry charge goes in. The damage is accumulative, so the cavalry are at-risk sitting ducks if they choose to stand in front of formed and missile-armed or supported infantry.

Dicelessly, it depends on your mechanisms. In this battle, the horse archers seem to have been surprised AND trapped. Any sling fire was an added bonus, especially against the cataphracts. Would your game set-up allow for this? The horse archers could do little until they move to very-short range. In this circumstance, the slingers could sit in front or behind uphill and outrange the horse archers. Time is pressing for Pacorus, he must fight to get past, get supplies and maintain his princely prestige. His father does not reward failure and the allies are watching. The Parthian way of war is horse archers first, cataphracts deliver the coup de grace on damaged and demoralised troops. He could have charged first, but cataphracts uphill against good formed foot with missile support can't end well, for Pacorus, his elite troops, his army, his campaign, and his prestige.

I would guess it was fairly common for cavalry to evade charging infantry without any mishaps, what we appear to be reading are those recorded examples where something went wrong, for the other side of course.

I suppose it is a bit like a football highlights reel. All those shots over the bar and defensive midfield bits get missed and we just see shots on target.

Quote from: dwkay57 on Aug 17, 2026, 07:10 AMI would guess it was fairly common for cavalry to evade charging infantry without any mishaps, what we appear to be reading are those recorded examples where something went wrong, for the other side of course.

I suppose it is a bit like a football highlights reel. All those shots over the bar and defensive midfield bits get missed and we just see shots on target.

I suspect that where infantry were faced with skirmishing horse archers etc who they knew they couldn't catch they just didn't charge. After all, when the charge inevitably fails, you're out in the open surrounded by horse archers.
I suspect there were very few charges like that.

If we add in examples where infantry follow up what they think are broken cavalry who turn out just to be rallying back (or feigning flight - it may depend on how it is spun later) we can see why infantry really had to be well controlled and commanded to get these charges to work.

There are 1066 reasons to be careful

The 1066 example is an interesting one. It looks as if the English thought that the Norman army was falling back in disarray and was on the edge of breaking, especially as people on both sides seem to have thought that William was dead.
It seems that William had to frantically gather troops for a counter attack to deal with the pursuers. It is one case where I wonder if the English had a cavalry force which they could have used for a pursuit whether, actually, it would have just pushed the Norman army over the edge  8)

There would be two ways for horsemen to break off from charging infantry:

a) each horse turns 180 degrees individually in place and the whole formation moves off;
b) the files countermarch down through the file spaces, starting with the front rank horses. Aelian describes this manoeuvre in his manual.

Both methods would be compromised if the formation became disordered and more importantly compacted, denying the horses the necessary turning room or room for the files to move down the file spaces. A surprise charge could cause a panic which would precipitate the disorder as the riders realised they couldn't get away in time with an orderly manoeuvre.

It seems thought that the Parthians at Gindarus were already disordered by the time they reached the Roman lines. The rear ranks of Pompey's cavalry at Pharsalus also seems to have lost order as they were busy overlapping the flank of Caesar's legions. With the cavalry being so deep they may not have realised that the front rankers were in trouble with Caesar's infantry until it was too late.

I've just been through my Aelian and cannot see where he advocates countermarch for cavalry.
Polybius  https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/12*.html   12,18,3 states

"For to be really useful cavalry should not be drawn up more than eight deep, and between each troop there must be a space equal in length to the front of a troop so that there may be no difficulty in wheeling and fa�cing round."

So in Polybius's day, and in 170 or 169 Polybius was elected hipparchus cavalry wheeled in a block.
Maurice in his Strategikon (Book 9 Chapter 5) also allocates each horse a width of 3 feet

Given a horse is roughly three times as long as it is broad, to turn on the spot there would have to be about eight feet between files to allow all horses to turn simultaneously.

Quote from: Jim Webster on Aug 18, 2026, 02:59 PMI've just been through my Aelian and cannot see where he advocates countermarch for cavalry.
Polybius  https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/12*.html   12,18,3 states

"For to be really useful cavalry should not be drawn up more than eight deep, and between each troop there must be a space equal in length to the front of a troop so that there may be no difficulty in wheeling and fa�cing round."

So in Polybius's day, and in 170 or 169 Polybius was elected hipparchus cavalry wheeled in a block.
Maurice in his Strategikon (Book 9 Chapter 5) also allocates each horse a width of 3 feet

Given a horse is roughly three times as long as it is broad, to turn on the spot there would have to be about eight feet between files to allow all horses to turn simultaneously.

Sorry, I meant Arrian, specifically his description of the hippika gymnasia where Roman cavalry would advance, throw javelins and countermarch to allow the riders behind them follow suit.

Re cavalry spacing, I covered that text previously here somewhere. The Greek needs a closer look.

I'm working my way through Ann Hyland's 'Training the Roman Cavalry' which is the nearest thing I've got to the appropriate bits of Arrian  ;)
But I remembered this as well

From Tacitus, Annals
Book VI, Chapter 35. It details a clash in 35 AD  between the Parthians (allied with local factions) and a Roman-backed coalition of Iberians, Albanians, and nomadic Sarmatian mercenaries fighting over control of Armenia

"35 1 In the Sarmatian ranks, however, speech was not limited to a leader: man encouraged man not to permit a battle of archers; better to anticipate matters by a charge and a hand-to‑hand struggle! The encounter, in consequence, wore a variety of aspects. For the Parthians, habituated to pursue or flee with equal art,
the Sarmatians, ignoring their shorter-ranged bows, rushed on with pike and sword. At times, advance and retreat alternated in the traditional style of a cavalry engagement: then, as though in a locked line of battle, the combatants struggled breast to breast, with a clash of steel, repulsing and repulsed. Then came the Albanians and Iberians, gripping the enemy, unsaddling him, and pla�cing him in double jeopardy between the horsemen�24 striking from above and the infantry dealing closer wounds below. In the meantime, Pharasmanes and Orodes were carrying support to the resolute or succour to the wavering. Conspicuous figures, they recognized each other: a shout, an exchange of javelins, and  p217 they spurred to the charge — Pharasmanes with the greater fury, as he wounded his opponent through the helmet. He failed to repeat the blow, his horse carrying him too far past while the bravest of his guards interposed to protect the wounded prince. Still, a falsely credited report of his death demoralized the Parthians, and they conceded the victory."

A couple of interesting bits
Firstly the Infantry charged in and joined a cavalry melee. Admittedly they were barbarians and probably didn' know any better  :-[

Then "spread out their squadrons and manoeuvred for room for their flights of missiles:"

Not entirely clear if this meant increasing the space between squadrons, or the space within squadrons.
But it is a useful reminder that Ancient cavalry weren't glued to bases and could do that sort of thing

Thirdly, we have Sarmatian cavalry fighting Parthian cavalry with bows and it seems to have been pretty damned close until the infantry got in.

Finally, and it might be a topos (with hints to the Iliad) but the two commanders had "an exchange of javelins," which isn't something you'd expect from Parthians.

A few thoughts on the quotation from Tacitus. 1) Maybe a case of literary tropes over reliable eye-witness accounts, as Jim notes re the Iliad, especially as barbarians vs semi barbarians with limited Roman involvement. 2) If, if, there is any degree of accuracy, the infantry are attributed to the Iberians and/or Albanians, and the text gives the impression, at least, that they are joining an established cavalry melee. So could, could, be on the flanks or joining the rear of the scrum.  It is perhaps more akin to the supposed habit in earlier periods of Roman or other cavalry to dismount once close order combat had been joined, than the idea of infantry charging cavalry that still has supposed freedom of manoeuvre.

Tacitus' account seems a clear enough example of light infantry peltast types supporting a cavalry engagement - one or two examples from Greek battles IIRC. The cavalry back and forth movement suggests the horse files sufficient far apart from each other to permit the horses to countermarch or at least turn in place. Those spaces would be wide enough for infantry to advance along them and engage the enemy.

The problem we have with this is that a lot of the manuals we have specify close formations for cavalry, indeed some of the discussion we had with Companion cavalry riding down Theban sacred band wouldn't work with the companions hitting in loose formation.
Also once a cavalry melee was started the nice tidy lines would break up. Reading the accounts in Arian of Alexander's fights show people 'out of place'.
Infantry introduced in that can work through or even duck under. I know there is an account of (I think Germanic legionaries) attacking cavalry from underneath. Gallic cavalry dismounted at Carrhae " and many of the Gauls forsook their own horses, and crawling under those of the enemy, stabbed them in the belly. These would rear up in their anguish, and die trampling on riders and foemen indiscriminately mingled."

Different formations for differing tasks? If you want to shoot and throw stuff you need space to wheel away. If you want to charge home, you close up. If you are just moving around to where you need to be, you open the files up to move easier and keep cooler.

Muntaner records that Almoghavars confronted by cavalry would shorten their spears to make them handier for getting under horses and disembowelling them. A static fight with determined infantry was no place for a cavalryman to find himself.

Quote from: stevenneate on Aug 22, 2026, 09:33 AMDifferent formations for differing tasks? If you want to shoot and throw stuff you need space to wheel away. If you want to charge home, you close up. If you are just moving around to where you need to be, you open the files up to move easier and keep cooler.

I think we have to keep reminding ourselves that they aren't glued to the base  :)

We get the conroi of Norman knights who charged in such a dense formation their stirrups were touching. Yet they are also shown throwing spears as javelins.
We have the example of Roman heavy cavalry who exercise as skirmishers with javelins.

I suspect a lot of ancient cavalry were 'light' heavy cavalry. They could open up their formations to skirmish, but when in line of battle ready to fight in close combat they were closed up. This fits with Polybius with spaces between units to allow manoeuvre.
At some point we have to contemplate 'heavy' light cavalry like Huns and Mongols who seem perfectly happy to 'mix it' as well as shoot at people.
It was so much easier when they were just glued to the base  ;)

Quote from: stevenneate on Aug 22, 2026, 09:33 AMDifferent formations for differing tasks? If you want to shoot and throw stuff you need space to wheel away. If you want to charge home, you close up. If you are just moving around to where you need to be, you open the files up to move easier and keep cooler.

Mmmh. You don't need to close up to charge, in fact better not to unless you are heavy cavalry like cataphracts or knights that are well armoured or configured to sweep away infantry with a single charge. Other cavalry charged and retired, then repeat, rather like a carousel, the horses in constant movement to prevent the infantry from ever really getting to grips with them (IMHO). For that you need space for horses to turn and fall back, either all at once or by rank.

Quote from: Jim Webster on Aug 22, 2026, 01:17 PMThis fits with Polybius with spaces between units to allow manoeuvre.

Actually the Greek says space within units, to permit them to wheel. Point being that if square-shaped subunits of a line wheeled together, they would bump into each other. They had to close up first.

So where do Macedonian Companions (or similar) fit it as neither knights nor cataphracts? Perhaps we need more period-specific rules variation as cavalry ain't always just cavalry!

Quote from: Justin Swanton on Aug 22, 2026, 01:25 PMMmmh. You don't need to close up to charge, in fact better not to unless you are heavy cavalry like cataphracts or knights that are well armoured or configured to sweep away infantry with a single charge. Other cavalry charged and retired, then repeat, rather like a carousel, the horses in constant movement to prevent the infantry from ever really getting to grips with them (IMHO). For that you need space for horses to turn and fall back, either all at once or by rank.

What cataphracts did I can't tell you, but it is a bit of a myth that knights (i.e. men-at-arms) were a one charge wonder.  While breaking the enemy with a single charge would be ideal, rather than get bogged down against an unyielding enemy, they could fall back, reform and go again.

Quote from: stevenneate on Aug 23, 2026, 01:55 PMSo where do Macedonian Companions (or similar) fit it as neither knights nor cataphracts? Perhaps we need more period-specific rules variation as cavalry ain't always just cavalry!

We all know what I think of the Macedonian cavalry. Charging through an enemy formation but not just flattening them like knights (who would have had bigger horses). Delicate subject, not for the butterfingered.

Quote from: Erpingham on Aug 23, 2026, 02:37 PM

Quote from: Justin Swanton on Aug 22, 2026, 01:25 PMMmmh. You don't need to close up to charge, in fact better not to unless you are heavy cavalry like cataphracts or knights that are well armoured or configured to sweep away infantry with a single charge. Other cavalry charged and retired, then repeat, rather like a carousel, the horses in constant movement to prevent the infantry from ever really getting to grips with them (IMHO). For that you need space for horses to turn and fall back, either all at once or by rank.

What cataphracts did I can't tell you, but it is a bit of a myth that knights (i.e. men-at-arms) were a one charge wonder.  While breaking the enemy with a single charge would be ideal, rather than get bogged down against an unyielding enemy, they could fall back, reform and go again.

Which meant they weren't in close formation as the horses had to be able to turn around. Maybe just cataphracts then.

Quote from: Justin Swanton on Aug 23, 2026, 02:44 PMWhich meant they weren't in close formation as the horses had to be able to turn around. Maybe just cataphracts then.

They don't need to charge in loose formation. For a start we have a suspicion that knights may have used shallower formations. So at the signal, if you're only three ranks deep, troops can peel off from the back where you don't have to far to go to get more room. Earlier cavalry went in eight or so ranks deep, that is less of an option. Therefore if they go in in loose formation each is facing an awful lot of infantry spears. If they go in in close formation they're committed.

Quote from: Jim Webster on Aug 23, 2026, 03:07 PMThey don't need to charge in loose formation. For a start we have a suspicion that knights may have used shallower formations.

Agree with Jim. If they were charging in deep German-style blocks or wedges, they probably couldn't do this but in shallow French-style en haye formations they had more chance.  Also, they may hit massed together but a few minutes of combat would loosen them up and individual horsemen may well have been able to wheel freely.

Actually your post reminded me of Caracole Anthony
Here the front rank fired. The cavalry doing this were apparently in pretty dense formations. So the front rank fired. Then they seem to have ridden forward to turn round, then went back through the ranks. But this was practiced with the unit virtually halted in front of infantry. The idea seems to have been that if the infantry wavered, or perhaps tried to attack, the Reiters were already closed up ready to charge.

Actually, the caracole, at least as reported by Crusoe, did not countermarch, but wheeled.  Crusoe recommends the front rank advancing 30 paces to give themselves space for the wheel, firing, then wheeling, by default to the left unless blocked by terrain when go to the right, and trotting round to the rear of the unit.  Second rank then advances and does likewise.  Now, Crusoe seems from his diagrams to be using "wheel" not in the modern drill sense of a rank pivoting on left or right marker to sweep round in line, but of the individual cavalrymen turning 90 degrees, and, in this case, then trotting off as rank now transformed into a file.  Crusoe does mention countermarching in his manual but is not seemingly suggesting it in any use when close to an enemy, which makes sense, as it needs much wider spacing between files and ranks.

Now, just because Crusoe in the 17th century does one thing does not of course mean that Scythians, Macedonians, Romans, Persians did the same - or indeed that all of them did things the same way.  However, the one constant is the horse and its size, and the need for the cavalryman to juggle control of the horse with weapon carriage and employment.  Yes, Crusoe's horses may be a bit bigger, his cavalry have stirrups and early modern saddles, but...

Oh, and Crusoe is very clear that caracole is a valid tactic against infantry but suicide versus cavalry.

Quote from: DBS on Aug 24, 2026, 09:56 AMActually, the caracole, at least as reported by Crusoe, did not countermarch, but wheeled.  Crusoe recommends the front rank advancing 30 paces to give themselves space for the wheel, firing, then wheeling, by default to the left unless blocked by terrain when go to the right, and trotting round to the rear of the unit.  Second rank then advances and does likewise.  Now, Crusoe seems from his diagrams to be using "wheel" not in the modern drill sense of a rank pivoting on left or right marker to sweep round in line, but of the individual cavalrymen turning 90 degrees, and, in this case, then trotting off as rank now transformed into a file.  Crusoe does mention countermarching in his manual but is not seemingly suggesting it in any use when close to an enemy, which makes sense, as it needs much wider spacing between files and ranks.

Now, just because Crusoe in the 17th century does one thing does not of course mean that Scythians, Macedonians, Romans, Persians did the same - or indeed that all of them did things the same way.  However, the one constant is the horse and its size, and the need for the cavalryman to juggle control of the horse with weapon carriage and employment.  Yes, Crusoe's horses may be a bit bigger, his cavalry have stirrups and early modern saddles, but...

Oh, and Crusoe is very clear that caracole is a valid tactic against infantry but suicide versus cavalry.

Certainly the moving to left or right of the unit does fit nicely with Polybius having gaps between the units

The other thing Crusoe emphasises in the full on charge to contact is leaving at least 100 paces between ranks, to avoid piling up and allowing the first rank to veer away if needed.

I'll have to reread Xenophon to see what he recommends about ranks. But the combats we read in Arrian about the Macedonian and Persian cavalry seems to read as if everybody pretty much arrived at once

Quote from: Jim Webster on Aug 24, 2026, 07:43 PMI'll have to reread Xenophon to see what he recommends about ranks. But the combats we read in Arrian about the Macedonian and Persian cavalry seems to read as if everybody pretty much arrived at once

I suspect this may be an area where ancient and early modern practice is most likely to differ.  With Crusoe, cavalry versus cavalry involves (at least in theory, if not practice) lancers, and other chaps wielding swords of pistols at point blank range.  So charging to actual contact.  Except for cataphracts or other kontos wielding chaps, perhaps more likely to be exchanges of javelins at close range but not necessarily full contact unless opponents waver.  So perhaps less concern over a mass pile-up and closer rank spacing.

Quote from: DBS on Aug 25, 2026, 07:42 AM

Quote from: Jim Webster on Aug 24, 2026, 07:43 PMI'll have to reread Xenophon to see what he recommends about ranks. But the combats we read in Arrian about the Macedonian and Persian cavalry seems to read as if everybody pretty much arrived at once

I suspect this may be an area where ancient and early modern practice is most likely to differ.  With Crusoe, cavalry versus cavalry involves (at least in theory, if not practice) lancers, and other chaps wielding swords of pistols at point blank range.  So charging to actual contact.  Except for cataphracts or other kontos wielding chaps, perhaps more likely to be exchanges of javelins at close range but not necessarily full contact unless opponents waver.  So perhaps less concern over a mass pile-up and closer rank spacing.

It's bad to say, Alexander's Companions had longer spears, whilst the Persians had a shorter spear which could be thrown but Xenophon thought was better in close combat, and both sides seemed keen to get stuck in.

Oh, absolutely, and one might add Polybius' criticism of earlier Roman cavalry spears being too flimsy to be much use after a single thrust.

I suppose the overall point is that there is no one-model-fits-all.  I just do not think that cavalry charging to contact would have done so by choice whilst in open order unless an opportunistic exploitation by missile cavalry of opponents turning to run...  Definitely no counter-marching whilst anywhere near an enemy.

I think we make cavalry too flexible. In effect, if they were prepared to 'skirmish' then they were in a looser formation. If they were geared up to charge, then they were closer and turning and 'countermarching was probably out.
Going from looser formation to denser would be easy when advancing, the commander would just shout or give a bugle sound for close up as you advanced.
Opening up would be more difficult. If you're going forward, fine, but remember the units on your flanks. If they drop behind to let you skirmish fine, otherwise if you all try it it could get messy.

Returning to the original topic for a moment, I can add another medieval example - Näfels, 1388. It contains the classic elements we already identified. After the initial fighting, when the Austrians had carved up part of the Swiss force, they got on with the real business of looting and burning, dispersing to do so.  At some point, some of the Austrians noticed that most of the Swiss had gathered in good order on a nearby hill. Part of the Austrian force decided they needed to drive them off and launched a disorderly charge up the hill. The Swiss came down the hill at them and the Austrians fell back to the valley, precipitating a general rout. We might note here that the Austrians made a number of tactical errors, attacking with only a part of their force, in disorder, up a hill. Add to this the aggressive nature of Swiss infantry and you have many of the factors we have already identified involved in other incidents.

I think your example warrants the classic 'Don't try this one at home'  8)

As you say, so many of the red flags that we have already identified

For cavalry v. cavalry tactics we have the classic (but typically unclear) statement of Dionysius of Halicarnassus about Roman v. Greek cavalry at Asculum (where Greek = in the army of Pyrrhus though only some of his cavalry were Greek strictly speaking):

"The cavalry stationed upon both wings, knowing beforehand in what tactics they had the advantage over the enemy, resorted to those tactics, the Romans to a hand-to hand, stationary combat, and the Greek horse to wheeling and countermarching manoeuvres. The Romans, when they were pursued by the Greeks, would wheel their horses about, and checking them with the reins, would fight an infantry battle; the Greeks, when they perceived that the Romans were their equals in combat, would swerve to the right and countermarching past one another, would whirl about their horses once more to face forward, and applying the spurs, would charge the enemy's ranks." (DH. 20.2.1-2)

As usual the translation of the terms used makes a fair bit of difference (especially 'wheel', 'swerve' etc) but the overall picture is of Roman cavalry fighting in a static way like infantry, and Greek cavalry doing repeated withdrawals and re-engagements. Countermarching (exeligmos) is definitely involved.