Infantry charging cavalry

[Jim Webster]

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.

[DBS]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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.

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

[DBS]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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

[DBS]

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

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.

[Jim Webster]

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

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.

[DBS]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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

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

[RichT]

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.