Why Romans Didn't Charge

[phil sidnell]

Well, I have read a good proportion of the ancient sources. You original statement was that Roman cavalry didn't charge, not that they didn't charge into the middle of determined resistance. Don't misunderstand my position - for cavalry tackling infantry, a flank or rear attack was always preferable if the situation allowed it, and a frontal charge would often fail unless the infantry's order and morale cracked - but this is still charging and it was done - the enemy infantry often did crack.

 

Just with what I have readily to hand, here are some ancient quotes that might interest you:

 

Livy:

 

'[the Sabine enemy in 490 BC] by extending their flanks too widely, had weakened their centre, and Valerius, after a devastating cavalry charge, sent in his infantry to finish the work'.

 

Outside Veii in 483 BC: 'one unsupported cavalry charge broke the enemy resistance'.

 

 

Polybius on Telamon:

 

'The end came when the Celts were attacked by the Roman cavalry, who delivered a furious charge from the high ground on the flank; the Celtic cavalry turned and fled, and their infantry were cut down where they stood.'

 

Plutarch on Clastidium:

 

'the Roman cavalry charged and found themselves engaging not only the Gallic horsemen but also their suppoprting infantry, who attacked them at the same time. But in the end they won a victory which was as unparalleled as it was unexpected'.

 

 

Julius Caesar on Alesia. This was a rear attack, but was definitely pressed home at the charge:

 

'Suddenly the Gauls saw the cavalry in their rear and fresh cohorts coming up in front. They broke and fled and were mown down'.

 

Josephus

 

'For, once their front ranks had been broken by the cavalry, a rout ensued, and, the fugitives falling foul of those in their rear who were pressing forward to the wall, became their own enemies, until at length the whole body, succumbing to the cavalry charges, were dispersed throughout the plain.'

 

Tacitus, describing the cavalry charging into the ongoing infantry fight at Mons Graupius, says 'their first onslaught was terrifying'. Although they were unable to make a quick breakthrough due to 'the solid ranks of the enemy and the roughness of the ground', he leaves no doubt that they were right there in the thick of it, becoming dangerously engaged in a static melee, and in places making things more difficult for their own infantry as terrified horses 'came plunging into the ranks from the side or in head on collision'.

 

I am running out of time now, but will leave you with the thought that Arrian obviously expected the Sarmatian cavalry to press their charges home when he wrote his Acies Contra Alanos[\i]:

 

If they do close in though, the first three ranks should lock their shields and press their shoulders [against them] and recieve the charge as strongly as possible in the most close ordered formation bound together in the strongest manner. The fourth rank will throw their javelins overhead and the first rank will stab at them and their horses with their spears without pause.

 

 

Phil Sidnell

 

 

p.s

This idea that 'modern' British (and their horses?) were 'berserkers' and the Romans were all phlegmatic and rational seems a bit of a ropey basis for dismissing evidence, especially flawed with regard to early Roman cavlary - the ethos of the equites was that of seeking glory and renown as demonstrated by their penchant for fighting single combat and displaying their battle scars in the forum.

[phil sidnell]

Finally some support. Thanks Phil.

 

I'm curious, and you're probably my best bet at correctly answering a question over which I've been brooding for quite some time. Scholars seem convinced that charging with the lance couched was impossible in Antiquity, the lack of stirrups providing no brace against the impact of a charge. As far as I know, the only evidence which could support this statement exists in the form of carvings (and one drawing) of cataphracts (usually of Scythian origin) wielding their lances with both hands...

 

It doesn't make sense. The stirrups will only stop a cavalryman from being unhorsed if the impact comes from the sides. Yet as we all know, the impact comes from the front. Furthermore, there isn't supposed to be that much of an impact, anyway. With the momentum of the horse and armoured rider behind it, the lancehead would easily have gone through armour....

 

I'm aware of only one sculpture and one sketch depicting horsemen holding their spears two-handed....

 

 

Do you know of any proof showing a horseman actually charging the enemy two-handed?

 

 

 

Stirrups can provide a lot of stability to a charging lancer or swordsman - against a frontal impact, by pushing forward against them you can brace yourself against the cantle, the raised rear of your saddle. Judging from jousters I spoke to, the saddle is more important than the saddle. In battle it is unlikely that an impact will be purely frontal as it would appear in a diagram drawn from the side. Where stirrups are really useful, even in just everyday riding, is in shifting your weight in the saddle to regain your balance if you are in danger of losing it, because you can put your weight on either one and push off from it as required. Of course many ancient cavalry, including Alexander's companions (sorry Caldrail, I know you only like purely Roman talk), rode without rigid saddles - the earliest evidence for the horned saddles being the 'Gundestrup cauldron' from late 2nd c. BC, at the earliest, and the earliest within the Roman sphere from a relief found in Provence in the 1st c. BC. Stirrups are very nice things to have, but don't underestimate what can be achieved by a rider raised to ride without them.

 

Couching the lance, tucking it under the armpit, was not impossible before stirrups, but there it is generally accepted that there is no evidence that it was done (although there is one graffito of a Sarmatian lancer that looks to me like he might possibly be couching). It did not actually become the standard technique until the late 11th century AD. It would definitely have been possible with a Roman saddle but no stirrups, because I have a photo of it being done by a reenactor against a sand-filled dummy.

 

As for evidence of the two-handed technique, there are a number of good images from artefacts in the Osprey book on the Sarmatians (Caldrail, you have to let me off on this - the Romans copied the contus from the Sarmatians, even calling it the contus sarmaticus). The rock reliefs of Persian and Sassanid lancers at Taq-i-Bustan or Firzubad seem to show the two handed technique also.

 

Incidentally, the Parthian horse in the lion-hunting scene (if you mean the plaque in the British Museum) is probably meant to be galloping rather than rearing. It was not until the development of photography in the late 19th century that anyone, in the Western world, actually managed to correctly work out, and therefore depict, the exact sequence and motion of horses legs in canter and gallop. Nearly all earlier paintings of running horses have their legs in a position that they could only attain while jumping, if then.

 

Hope some of this helps.

 

Phil

[phil sidnell]

Of course in line 3 of the above I meant to say the saddle is more important than the stirrups. D'oh!

[Hadrian Caesar]

Thanks Phil, I appreciate it.

[phil sidnell]

Thanks Phil, I appreciate it.

 

No problem. Incindentally, if you do want to read the book, the full title is Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare, ISBN 1-85285-374-3 and you can get it through Amazon and elsewhere.

 

all the best

 

Phil

[caldrail]

The point of the thread was to show that cavalry didn't charge into a mass of infantry - they didn't. The roman sources are very clear on that point. They fought melee on the edge of the infantry formation in order to retain the initiative - so they could pull away and regroup if necessary. Roman cavalry simply didn't have the protection and weight of medieval horsemen who were so invulnerable they could easily afford to push deep into formations - but notice they pushed into, not charged into. A cavalry unit must cause the infantry unit to 'shake' or break up in fear of injury or the whole exercise is a disaster. Once an infantry unit is lossened there are gaps to exploit, and thats manna from from heaven where cavalry are concerned.

 

The image of a charge bashing into people like Total War Rome is ridiculous. Its a preconception that seems very appealing to those of us with those sort of instincts. I used to think that. However, the roman sources describe cavalry of their day in very different terms, and they should know, they were alive at the time. There is nothing worse than someone who has an image of how things were and then tries to persuade others even when the evidence says otherwise. What that person should do is read the sources, learn from them, and be prepared to put the preconceptions to one side in the light of what they discover.

 

Regarding the adoption of foreign weaponry I have no problem with that at all. We know the romans had been influenced by foreign cavalry action, particularly since their own was usually so lacklustre, and most of that influence came from oriental sources. hadrian experimented with cataphracts but it wasn't until constantius that such units were adopted permanently. Hadrian was of course very pro-army despite his lack of territorial ambition, and constantius simply wanted to play an arms race with persia. The cataphract archers are an unusual addition but don't appear to have been too successful, I guess that archery whilst encimbered by scale armour on horseback didn't work too well. There was only one such unit. The increasing use of standard cataphracts (and their derived clibanarii) reflects the roman necessity of 'keeping up with the joneses'. Left to themselves, I seriously doubt the romans would have bothered except perhaps as a display unit.

 

Now, regarding the use of the lance, we're influenced by medieval jousting. The image of two horsemen galloping at break-neck speed past each other isn't romantic fiction at all, but that was under controlled circumstances. There was a fence between them and nothing to run into. Indeed, against opposing cavalry the two units would leave enough space to allow this sort of attack in battle in exactly the same way that roman and foreign cavalry did in ancient times. Cavalry units didn't fight melee as a team, but as a mass of one-on-one combats from horseback. Roman sources tell us their cavalry could be very busy indeed, rushing back and forward to gain the upper hand against their opposing horsemen. There's at least one account of two units chasing each other until one unit's horses became too exhausted to continue, and only then did the other cavalry unit actually do any fighting. Tacitus informs us that is was not cowardly for cavalry to pull away, provided they did not leave the field. But lances against infantry? Here we run into exactly the same problem as before. If the infantry unit remains ordered and presents a shield wall, the horsemen will not collide. They daren't. Their horses will be killed and injured and thats going to spoil their entire day, not to mention relegating these riders to the infantry for the remainder of the campaign. Remember horses were not available off the shelf back then. There was no supply line to replace them. They were expensive beasts and none too common in ancient times for that reason. Its not for nothing that cavalrymen are usually found from amongst the wealthier portions of society. Therefore, the lancers have no choice but to effectively do the same as swordcharges - that is, to either bluff the infantry and go around or pull up short and skewer them at lance length, which is not as ineffective as you might think. The reach of the spear or lance is well beyond the infantry weaponry and therefore despite losing momentum the lancers still retain initiative. Mind you, an infantry unit unlucky or stupid enough to be in open order when the lancers arrive are going to see the cavalry at their finest! They really will grin and exploit that gap, although I would like to remind you of the roman cataphracts who did exactly that and were unhorsed en masse by the crafty enemy infantry. The same applies for attacks to the flank or rear, except in these cases the infantry is at a disadvantage and might even break there and then being forced to face two directions at once.

 

Ancient warfare is something very spontaneous. There was rarely any planning - pointless in a world without infrastructure - they simply decided to go to war and went with what they could round up. The ritualistic approach of later periods is inappropriate when considering cavalry action in roman times, whose prime motivation was to prevent enemy cavalry from outflanking their army and cause as much mayhem without undue risk to their mounts.

 

Lets put it like this. If you can find at least one example of a roman cavalry collsion with infantry in good order then I'll look at this subject again, but until you do, I'll accept the word of ancient writers and modern experts who know far more about this subject than any of us.

[phil sidnell]

A cavalry unit must cause the infantry unit to 'shake' or break up in fear of injury or the whole exercise is a disaster. Once an infantry unit is lossened there are gaps to exploit, and thats manna from from heaven where cavalry are concerned.

 

The image of a charge bashing into people like Total War Rome is ridiculous. Its a preconception that seems very appealing to those of us with those sort of instincts. I used to think that. However, the roman sources describe cavalry of their day in very different terms, and they should know, they were alive at the time. There is nothing worse than someone who has an image of how things were and then tries to persuade others even when the evidence says otherwise. What that person should do is read the sources, learn from them, and be prepared to put the preconceptions to one side in the light of what they discover.

 

Regarding the adoption of foreign weaponry I have no problem with that at all. We know the romans had been influenced by foreign cavalry action, particularly since their own was usually so lacklustre, and most of that influence came from oriental sources. hadrian experimented with cataphracts but it wasn't until constantius that such units were adopted permanently. Hadrian was of course very pro-army despite his lack of territorial ambition, and constantius simply wanted to play an arms race with persia. The cataphract archers are an unusual addition but don't appear to have been too successful, I guess that archery whilst encimbered by scale armour on horseback didn't work too well. There was only one such unit. The increasing use of standard cataphracts (and their derived clibanarii) reflects the roman necessity of 'keeping up with the joneses'. Left to themselves, I seriously doubt the romans would have bothered except perhaps as a display unit.

 

Now, regarding the use of the lance, we're influenced by medieval jousting. The image of two horsemen galloping at break-neck speed past each other isn't romantic fiction at all, but that was under controlled circumstances. There was a fence between them and nothing to run into. Indeed, against opposing cavalry the two units would leave enough space to allow this sort of attack in battle in exactly the same way that roman and foreign cavalry did in ancient times. Cavalry units didn't fight melee as a team, but as a mass of one-on-one combats from horseback. Roman sources tell us their cavalry could be very busy indeed, rushing back and forward to gain the upper hand against their opposing horsemen. There's at least one account of two units chasing each other until one unit's horses became too exhausted to continue, and only then did the other cavalry unit actually do any fighting. Tacitus informs us that is was not cowardly for cavalry to pull away, provided they did not leave the field. But lances against infantry? Here we run into exactly the same problem as before. If the infantry unit remains ordered and presents a shield wall, the horsemen will not collide. They daren't. Their horses will be killed and injured and thats going to spoil their entire day, not to mention relegating these riders to the infantry for the remainder of the campaign. Remember horses were not available off the shelf back then. There was no supply line to replace them. They were expensive beasts and none too common in ancient times for that reason. Its not for nothing that cavalrymen are usually found from amongst the wealthier portions of society. Therefore, the lancers have no choice but to effectively do the same as swordcharges - that is, to either bluff the infantry and go around or pull up short and skewer them at lance length, which is not as ineffective as you might think. The reach of the spear or lance is well beyond the infantry weaponry and therefore despite losing momentum the lancers still retain initiative. Mind you, an infantry unit unlucky or stupid enough to be in open order when the lancers arrive are going to see the cavalry at their finest! They really will grin and exploit that gap, although I would like to remind you of the roman cataphracts who did exactly that and were unhorsed en masse by the crafty enemy infantry. The same applies for attacks to the flank or rear, except in these cases the infantry is at a disadvantage and might even break there and then being forced to face two directions at once.

 

Ancient warfare is something very spontaneous. There was rarely any planning - pointless in a world without infrastructure - they simply decided to go to war and went with what they could round up. The ritualistic approach of later periods is inappropriate when considering cavalry action in roman times, whose prime motivation was to prevent enemy cavalry from outflanking their army and cause as much mayhem without undue risk to their mounts.

 

Lets put it like this. If you can find at least one example of a roman cavalry collsion with infantry in good order then I'll look at this subject again, but until you do, I'll accept the word of ancient writers and modern experts who know far more about this subject than any of us.

[phil sidnell]

Okay, but that's moving the goal posts. Your original thread was 'why Romans didn't charge' - yet they clearly did. You say that the infantry being charged must waver or break or it was a disaster - I'd agree with that as a general rule, but that is to miss the point. The infantry often did break, which is why cavalry did charge.

[caldrail]

The title of the thread was humourous. You weren't supposed to take it literally. As I maintained, my point was that romans did not make frontal charges that crashed into infantry formations at full speed. If the infantry remained steadfast the cavalry needed to do something else, and in any case, roman cavalry was rarely used in such an overtly aggressive manner. Yes infantry sometimes broke. That was the threat of cavalry action in the first place. I've already made that point. My goal posts are right where I left them, and still defended

 

1 - Roman cavalry were used to scout, counter opposing cavalry, harass, outflank, and pursue

 

2 - Roman cavalry preferred mares, not the more agressive stallions

 

3 - Romans cavalry was trained to feint and use mobility & complex manoevers, not to make frontal charges

 

4 - Roman cavalry are described as refusing to make frontal charges

 

5 - Horses do not like collisions - it hurts

 

6 - Roman cavalry charges were intended to spook the infantry formations, not injure them

 

7 - Roman cavalry charges were usually employed to bring missile weapons to bear rapidly before wheeling away

 

8 - Roman cavalry charged up to the enemy infantry and not into them

 

These points are based on contemporary and modern expert opnion. Infantry units may get shaken by cavalry but they're well aware that if they stand together the cavalry cannot penetrate and therefore they remain safer. Thats true of any period and the reason that experienced infantry close up when cavalry come into view.

[roman wargamer]

Your original thread was 'why Romans didn't charge' - yet they clearly did.

there was Roman Equites Quingenaria in every legio designed to shock frontally the enemy line

... normally position in the cuneus wedge at the beginning of the battle,

but will rotationally retreat after the actual initial engagement,

at the rear of the Primum Agmen of the legio... this is not the same of the Cohors Equites Turmae.

 

 

You say that the infantry being charged must waver or break or it was a disaster -

the primary purpose of the frontal attack was to off set the weak frontal line of the enemy and make some gaps,

if the line was over extended and the rear reserved is not enough... the cavalry will frontally attacked

and to made some gaps [the primary function and purpose] to be exploited later by forwarding penetrating testudo.

while the legio Hastatus Manipular Acies will closely press on forward.

 

The infantry often did break, which is why cavalry did charge.

even when the enemy infantry do collapse... it is not the cavalry who will mop them down.

but the Hastatus will press forward to occupy the front line place while the Princeps will press the enemy reserved men.

 

it is the job of the legio antepilanus supernumerary men to further pursue the retreating enemy.

[caldrail]

No, I disagree. When an infantry unit does break and run cavalry is at its most effective. Soldiers who survive that situation should consider themselves very lucky. Infantry can pursue but if they do that they lose formation, and are therefore leaving themselves open to counterattack by cavalry without almost no defence. Infantry can only realistically protect themselves against enemy horsemen by standing together in tight formation. Also remember that the testudo formation is purely protective. It does not form an infantry 'tank' and the men involved need to do something else when they arrive at the enemy.

Edited June 10, 2007 by caldrail

[roman wargamer]

No, I disagree. When an infantry unit does break and run cavalry is at its most effective. Soldiers who survive that situation should consider themselves very lucky. Infantry can pursue but if they do that they lose formation, and are therefore leaving themselves open to counterattack by cavalry without almost no defence. Infantry can only realistically protect themselves against enemy horsemen by standing together in tight formation. Also remember that the testudo formation is purely protective. It does not form an infantry 'tank' and the men involved need to do something else when they arrive at the enemy.

 

your reply has no point of order, direction and reference way.

could you kindly define which is which, soldier, centuria, maniple and agmen you are talking about.

 

let us have a visual perpective what we are talking about.

for example: let's presume there are two Roman legio who are fighting each other.

 

on the North Side [on top of the monitor] is Brutus's' legio.

on the South Side [lower of the monitor] is Caesar's legio.

 

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

we can use these representation as our reference

 

The Cohors

 

1.AnteAdstatus

2.Hastatus Prior...................First Manipular Acies Line

3.Hastatus Posterior

 

4.AntePrinceps

5.Princeps Prior...................Second Manipular Acies Line

6.Princeps Posterior

 

 

E.Cohors Equites Turmae......The Cohors Command Line

0.Signiferi Centuria

 

7.AnteTriarius

8.Triarius Prior....................Third Manipular Acies Line

9.Triarius Posterior

 

The Code Number Use in the Cohors Coding

 

1st Cohors was coded into 9

2nd Cohors was coded into 8

3rd Cohors was coded into 7

4th Cohors was coded into 6

5th Cohors was coded into 5

6th Cohors was coded into 4

7th Cohors was coded into 3

8th Cohors was coded into 2

9th Cohors was coded into 1

 

10th Cohors was coded into 0

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Brutus's's legio was on Simplex Agmen formation

 

111.222.333.444.555.666.777.888.999.000

111.222.333.444.555.666.777.888.999.000

111.222.333.444.555.666.777.888.999.000

 

 

..................111.333.222

..................111.333.222

..................111.333.222

......444.............666..............555

......444.............666..............555

......444.............666..............555

777...................999....................888........000

777...................999....................888........000

777...................999....................888........000

 

while Caesar's legio was on Duplex Agmen Formation with reserved Cohors on both flanks.

 

from this initial formation, it is very apparent that Caesar legio could possinly do a frontal penetration attack.

because he have enough reserved at the rear,

 

and while he's first agmen flanks is under threat... it can be secured by the counter attack of 4 and 5 Cohors.

if ever they will try to counter attacked the 4 and 5 Cohors, the 7 and 8 Cohors could again counter attacked it.

while the 0 Cohors can do a right flanking manuever on the right side

 

if ever the frontal penetration attacked at the center will cost Caesar 100% casualty vs. 50% casualty on enemy.

the Two Cohors Reserved final full frontal penetration will finally break Brutus Legio Line.

 

as my example explanation... the battle have to be fought centuria by centuria, maniple by maniple,

and finally cohors by cohors.

 

and it is only after the final colapse of the Cohors defense will a breaking gaps will be achieved.

 

could you tell your own battle story so we can digest it.

[Mrld]

Roman cavalry mostly did flanking and scouting when they were used.

[caldrail]

your reply has no point of order, direction and reference way.

Yes it does. Its a generalised statement about battle tactics that holds true for any period.

 

could you kindly define which is which, soldier, centuria, maniple and agmen you are talking about.

I'm not that anal. Really, you're wasting your time trying to make these precise definitions. No army in the world could successfully organise themselves for victory they way you'd try to. Cavalry are mobile, infantry are slow. If the enemy retreats, its cavalry that can get there first and do the worst damage. Your infantry - any infantry - would have to run and sprint to get to the right place and catch them, even if they could. As a result, they become disordered and prone to counterattack by enemy cavalry. Sorry, but the idividual unit type of infantry is irrelevant.

 

could you tell your own battle story so we can digest it.

Yes I could, but I'd only be repeating the points I made in earlier posts on this thread.

 

Are you seriously a wargamer? The reason I ask is that your interpretation of roman tactics and deployment is at odds with everyone elses.

[Hadrian Caesar]

Caldrail's got a point. Battles never take place exactly according to statistics, as they do in your wargaming. There's far too much to take into consideration.