Real life historical massed cavalry vs cavalry battles

[GreenWyvern]

A few more depictions of shields on Roman monuments:

[MrDibble]

Nos 2 and 6 are the only ones I’d say were even remotely realistic in style, and even there, there’s no consistency in the sizes. No 6, espcially, look at that scutum on the far right - that’s a meter, easy. So naah, I stick with my original point that the shield size depicted on Trajan’s Column aren’t meant to be scale-accurate.

Note that I actually agree with your general point, that Roman equipment generally isn’t depicted accurately by non-re-enactors (that’s when they even attempt accuracy. Last Legion, I’m looking at you) . I just don’t think Trajan is the place to look for making accurate replicas off of.

[Alessan]

I wouldn’t look to ancient art for accuracy. For instance, I’m pretty sure Greek guys have average sized penises.

[AK84]

@Alessan

Didn’t Roman infantry tactics - which are fairly well-documented - require a large shield? It’s hard to form a shield wall with a buckler.

What Roman are you talking about? The imitation of the Hoplites that the Kingdom and early Republic had pre-Brennus’s sack?

The Maniplar legion of of the Punic Wars and mid republic?
The post Marian reform legion of the late Republic?
The post Augustan legions on the borders?
The Army of the dominate?

Each used different shields.

[Alessan]

@AK84

What Roman are you talking about? The imitation of the Hoplites that the Kingdom and early Republic had pre-Brennus’s sack?

The Maniplar legion of of the Punic Wars and mid republic?
The post Marian reform legion of the late Republic?
The post Augustan legions on the borders?
The Army of the dominate?

Each used different shields.

Well, since this sidetrack started with a discussion on Lorica Segmata (remember?), I supposed I’m talking about the period in which it was used - early-mid Empire. Generally, when laymen such as myself discuss the Roman military, one should assume we mean after the Marian reforms and before the Empire jumped the shark in the mid-3rd Century. The classic, professional, land-after-20-years legions.

[AK84]

@Alessan

Well, since this sidetrack started with a discussion on Lorica Segmata (remember?), I supposed I’m talking about the period in which it was used - early-mid Empire. Generally, when laymen such as myself discuss the Roman military, one should assume we mean after the Marian reforms and before the Empire jumped the shark in the mid-3rd Century. The classic, professional, land-after-20-years legions.

Gotcha.
Even then they seemed to have used different equipment in different regions and tactical situations. On the Euphrates frontier, they tended to operate in looser, more combined arms formations, while against Germanic tribes the situation seems to have resembled the classic tightly packed legionary formation.

[MrDibble]

@Alessan

Well, since this sidetrack started with a discussion on Lorica Segmata (remember?), I supposed I’m talking about the period in which it was used - early-mid Empire. Generally, when laymen such as myself discuss the Roman military, one should assume we mean after the Marian reforms and before the Empire jumped the shark in the mid-3rd Century. The classic, professional, land-after-20-years legions.

But even there, the period between the Reforms and the adoption of *segmentata *is 100 years.

[AK84]

@MrDibble

But even there, the period between the Reforms and the adoption of *segmentata *is 100 years.

The first attested use of segmentata is from 9BC.
But for all we know it was used much earlier.

[Alessan]

@MrDibble

But even there, the period between the Reforms and the adoption of *segmentata *is 100 years.

Yes, but other than that, AFAIK the equipment, tactics and logistics of the Roman legions remained largely unchanged in the 300 years following Marius. Right?

[Ludovic]

You know if he mentions that they did change, you can just reply “sure, but other than the equipment, tactics, and logistics of the Roman legions, what else changed?”

[Sailboat]

“All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?”

[Sailboat]

The following doesn’t address cavalry-vs-=cavalry, but is instructive (and more on-topic than the armor digression, ;))

@John Keegan on Cavalry vs Infantry at Waterloo

Cavalry could do infantry very great harm, using ‘harm’ in a military rather than human context. The regiments of the Union Brigade, which charged the flank of d’Erlon’s Corps, at a moment when it was under fire and attempting to deploy from column to line, reduced it to a purposeless crowd in a few instants… But neither did many of these infantrymen suffer personal injury.

If the story of Waterloo has a ‘leitmotiv’ it is that of cavalry charging square and being repulsed. It was not absolutely inevitable that horsemen who attempted to break a square should fail… The feat of breaking a square was tried by French cavalry time and again at Waterloo — there were perhaps 12 main assaults during the great afternoon cavalry effort — and always (though infantry in line or column suffered) with a complete lack of success. Practice against poorer troops had led them to expect a different result: a visible shiver of uncertainty along the ranks of the waiting musketeers which would lend the horsemen nerve for the last 50 yards, a ragged spatter of balls over their heads to signal the volley mistimed, then a sudden collapse of resolution and disappearance of order — regiment become drove, backs turned, heads hunched between shoulders, helot-feet flying before the faster hooves of the lords of battle: this, in theory, should have been the effect of such a charge.

As Jac Weller has shown by careful analysis of formation-widths, the number of cavalrymen in an attacking line was always much lower than the number of infantrymen with whom their onset brought them face to face. If the average strength of a battalion was about 500, it would, formed four deep, present in square a face of about 60 feet across, opposing about 140 men to the approaching French cavalry. They, because of the greater bulk of their horses, could present no more than about 18 men on the same width of front, with another 18 immediately behind, and it was these 36 who would take the brunt of the square’s fire… If the cavalry’s moral power failed to disarm the infantry — as it always did at Waterloo — then each horseman theoretically became the target for 4 infantrymen. Viewed like this, “Here comes those damned fools again”, seems like an appropriate judgment on the character of the conflict.

Bolding mine – an interesting depiction of the moment cavalry perceives its morale effect has indeed presaged the defeat of an infantry force.

[MrDibble]

@AK84

The first attested use of segmentata is from 9BC.
But for all we know it was used much earlier.

“For all we know” is not archaeology, it’s historical fiction.

[Apollon]

The French and Russian heavy cavalry charged each other at Borodino.
French light and heavy cavalry flanked the British Union Brigade at Waterloo.
Austrian and Prussian cavalry of all types clashed during the last stage of Königgrätz in an all-out charge.
The British and Austrian massed cavalry defeated their French and Bavarian counterparts.

[Tim_T-Bonham.net]

@Apollon

The French and Russian heavy cavalry charged each other at Borodino.
French light and heavy cavalry flanked the British Union Brigade at Waterloo.
Austrian and Prussian cavalry of all types clashed during the last stage of Königgrätz in an all-out charge.
The British and Austrian massed cavalry defeated their French and Bavarian counterparts.

And note that in all of those cases, the side that initiated the massed cavalry charge lost the battle.

Possibly an indication of why there are so few real-life historical examples to cite.