Infantry charging cavalry

[Jim Webster]

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.

[DBS]

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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."

[stevenneate]

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.

[Erpingham]

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.

[Jim Webster]

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.

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 

[Justin Swanton]

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.

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.

[Justin Swanton]

This 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.

[stevenneate]

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!

[Erpingham]

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.

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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!

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.

[Justin Swanton]

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.

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.

[Jim Webster]

Which 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.

[Erpingham]

They 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.