# Roman Army.ca. 100 AD vs Army ca. AD 400: Who Wins? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 20, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774 "2010-10-20T14:03:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/61 "2010-10-26T22:04:58Z")
It’s not that the horse can tell whether the infantry are disciplined; it’s that the horse can tell whether there are sharp pointy things aimed at it. If the horse gets too close and the sharp pointy things are still aimed at it, it’s going to choose the better part of valor rather than gloriously impaling itself. Horses understand self-preservation a lot better than they do glory. Where the discipline comes in is that, if the infantry are undisciplined, then as soon as the cavalry start charging, they’ll drop their pikes and run. And so the horse can see that the pointy things are no longer aiming at it, and so it can safely continue to run forward. ---
**Author:** ![Grossbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba8739/32.png) [@Grossbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grossbottom)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/62 "2010-10-26T22:05:56Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Yes, but equipment _does_ also play a role in morale. > As a legionary in segmentata I _feel_ pretty darn protected and would do things I wouldn’t when wearing mail. More importantly imagine that you’re some Western European barbarian who literally lives in a house made out of twigs. Your “armor” is a couple layers of rabbit fur. Your “sword” is so crappy that after a few swings against a shield, you’ll have to peel off to bend it back into shape. And then those guys show up wearing _matching_ armor, armor that your entire tribe working together would take months to make a single suit of, let alone 5,000 sets. Like it was nothing. Knowing the awesome power, the sophistication, of a society that could send this army against you, was psychologically crushing. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/63 "2010-10-26T22:10:00Z")
> [@Grossbottom](#): > > And yet you are virtually inundated in evidence that trained horses WILL charge unbroken infantry, period. What do you think the horses did? Stopped mid-charge and conferred amongst themselves? “Hey Bubba, that pike line looks really _disciplined_, let’s go find some arbalesters, maybe chew up some grass?” The fact that the targetted troops are disciplined, an entirely internal state of being, makes no effing difference to the horse. Hello? It’s a horse, not Miss Cleo. The technical term is, I beleve, “balking”. That’s when a horse will simply refuse to go forward. Like when its rider expects the horse to impale itself on a bunch of pointy things that do not appear to be moving aside. Pointy things held by disciplined troops, since undisciplined ones are unlikely to stand still and hold pointy things steady while a line of horses thunders towards them. Edit: I see **Chronos** beat me to the punch. > [@](#): > > The guy strapping a small fortune in forged steel to the front of his crushingly expensive mount expects to ride it _directly_ into massed infantry. The person paying him to show up is expecting him to do it _also_. The art and writings of the period unquestionably confirm that that is exactly what they _did_. No one’s saying it was a smart thing to do, a smashingly successful tactic or that their survival rate was high. But as to the question of whether you can get a horse to ride into a packed wall of spearmen, the answer is unequivocally yes. Then surely some examples can be found of horses riding into “a packed wall of spearmen” - they wouldn’t be too difficult to find … ? > [@](#): > > I’m not discussing anything else here so I can’t really imagine what you think we’re talking about other than you being wrong. Heh, unlike you evidently, I prefer to have some actual evidence one way or the other. ---
**Author:** ![Grossbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba8739/32.png) [@Grossbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grossbottom)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/64 "2010-10-26T22:11:51Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > It’s not that the horse can tell whether the infantry are disciplined; it’s that the horse can tell whether there are sharp pointy things aimed at it. If the horse gets too close and the sharp pointy things are still aimed at it, it’s going to choose the better part of valor rather than gloriously impaling itself. Horses understand self-preservation a lot better than they do glory. > > Where the discipline comes in is that, if the infantry are undisciplined, then as soon as the cavalry start charging, they’ll drop their pikes and run. And so the horse can see that the pointy things are no longer aiming at it, and so it can safely continue to run forward. No, I get that. The problem is, if that’s what actually happened, heavy cavalry would not have evolved how it did, for as long as it did. You would never reach the level of say the Northern Italian gendarmes if every time a horse saw a neat row of spearpoints it came to a dead stop. You would not have armies investing so much in what would be a marginally effective, easily countered psych-out technique. If that was likely at all to happen, not only would heavy cavalry have remained in its infancy, but pikes would rarely have killed horses since the horses would just go away. ---
**Author:** ![Grossbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba8739/32.png) [@Grossbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grossbottom)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/65 "2010-10-26T22:14:22Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Then surely some examples can be found of horses riding into “a packed wall of spearmen” - they wouldn’t be too difficult to find … ? You mean…the part where the Normans charged a Saxon shieldwall as already discussed…in this thread…by you…? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/66 "2010-10-26T22:20:05Z")
> [@Grossbottom](#): > > You mean…the part where the Normans charged a Saxon shieldwall as already discussed…in this thread…by you…? Yes, let’s examine the battle of Hastings. > [@](#): > > William relied on basic tactics with archers in the front rank weakening the enemy with arrows, followed by infantry which would engage in close combat, culminating in a cavalry charge that would break through the English forces. However, his tactics did not work as well as planned. William’s army attacked the English as soon as they were ready and formed up. Norman archers shot several volleys but many of the arrows hit the shield wall and had very little effect. Believing the English to have been softened up, William ordered his infantry to attack. As the Normans charged up the hill, the English threw down whatever they could find: stones, javelins, and maces. The barrage inflicted heavy casualties among the Norman ranks, causing the lines to break up. > > The infantry charge reached the English lines, where ferocious hand-to-hand fighting took place. William had expected the English to falter, but the arrow barrage had little effect and nearly all the English troops still stood, their shield wall intact. As a result William ordered his cavalry to charge far sooner than planned.\*\* Faced with a wall of axes, spears and swords, many of the horses shied away despite their careful breeding and training.\*\* After an hour of fighting, the Breton division on William’s left faltered and broke completely, fleeing down the hill. Suffering heavy casualties and realising they would be quickly outflanked, the Norman and Flemish divisions retreated with the Bretons. Unable to resist the temptation, many of the English broke ranks, including hundreds of fyrdmen and Harold’s brothers, Leofwyne and Gyrthe. In the following confused fighting, William’s horse was killed from underneath him, and he toppled to the ground. Initially, many of William’s soldiers thought that he had been killed, and an even greater rout ensued. It was only after he stood up and threw off his helmet that William was able to rally his fleeing troops. [Emphasis added] > **[Battle of Hastings](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings)** > > The Battle of Hastings\[a\] was fought on 14 October 1066 between the Norman-French army of William, Duke of Normandy, and an English army under the Anglo-Saxon King Harold Godwinson, beginning the Norman Conquest of England. It took place approximately 7 mi (11 km) northwest of Hastings, close to the present-day town of Battle, East Sussex, and was a decisive Norman victory. > The background to the battle was the death of the childless King Edward the Confessor in January 1066, which set up a ... Is this really what you wish to rely on as your example? if I was you, I’d look a bit further. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/67 "2010-10-27T02:25:05Z")
> [@](#): > > No, I get that. The problem is, if that’s what actually happened, heavy cavalry would not have evolved how it did, for as long as it did. Cavalry evolved the way it did because it was extremely effective. I never said it wasn’t. They don’t work well against sufficiently disciplined foot soldiers, but that doesn’t matter much, because in the middle ages, the vast majority of foot soldiers were not sufficiently disciplined. ---
**Author:** ![MonkeyMensch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@MonkeyMensch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MonkeyMensch)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 4:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/68 "2010-10-27T04:00:27Z")
> [@FuzzyOgre](#): > > … Oh, mine is shorter than normal too, as I wore it under my shirt when I was a bouncer. That accounts for it being on the light side. … Oh I hope you’re telling truths there. If so, it’s one of the coolest things I’ve seen posted on The Dope. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 7:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/69 "2010-10-27T07:50:26Z")
> [@Grossbottom](#): > > No, I get that. The problem is, if that’s what actually happened, heavy cavalry would not have evolved how it did, for as long as it did. You would never reach the level of say the Northern Italian gendarmes if every time a horse saw a neat row of spearpoints it came to a dead stop. You would not have armies investing so much in what would be a marginally effective, easily countered psych-out technique. > > If that was likely at all to happen, not only would heavy cavalry have remained in its infancy, but pikes would rarely have killed horses since the horses would just go away. You’re forgetting cavalry vs cavalry engagements.Where there usually is enough room for the horses to thunder past each other. It would pay to be well armoured just for those engagements. If horses were so ready to charge steady infantry as you claim, why are they usually stationed on the flanks of the armies? I have no doubt that horses were trained to charge into infantry, some were even trained to kick. I do think the instances, where horse would actually charge into shield formation would be rather small, be it due to training or from sheer panick or pressure from behind. No doubt it happened on occasion, especially a horse rather falling into the formation thereby creating gaps. Exploiting gaps is what heavy cavalry is good at, that’s why the usual formation is a wedge formation. But heavy cavalry is also important to counter the enemies cavalry. ---
**Author:** ![Grossbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba8739/32.png) [@Grossbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grossbottom)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 1:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/70 "2010-10-27T13:09:13Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Cavalry evolved the way it did because it was extremely effective. I never said it wasn’t. They don’t work well against sufficiently disciplined foot soldiers, but that doesn’t matter much, because in the middle ages, the vast majority of foot soldiers were not sufficiently disciplined. That’s great, no one in this thread is arguing whether disciplined foot can repulse a heavy cav charge. ---
**Author:** ![Grossbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba8739/32.png) [@Grossbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grossbottom)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/71 "2010-10-27T13:32:10Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > You’re forgetting cavalry vs cavalry engagements.Where there usually is enough room for the horses to thunder past each other. > It would pay to be well armoured just for those engagements. Nope, I’m not. There’s a difference between purpose and maximum use, and what things actually end up doing. Consider a modern air force, which in proportion of expense and organization is not terrifically different from a medieval heavy cavalry company. You’ve got the pilot and his plane, just like a rider and his horse. And behind that pilot, a dozen other people, mechanics and ordnance loaders, all of whom are necessary to allow that man to go out and kick ass. And also, he costs an effing fortune. For what his operation costs you, you could fill a ship with infantry. So why do you have him? So he can go fly around and luck into a dogfight, and shoot up another plane? No. He might do that, and that’s great. But you’ll get optimal return for the investment when he takes out a bridge, or strafes a destroyer. Or takes out an entire tank column. Now you’ve justified the trouble and expense of that arrangement. Because two dozen guys and a sack full of cash just caused an amount of damage to the enemy far exceeding the expense of their employment. Victory in the entire war, which is the point, will follow if that pattern continues. Now of course, your opponent will get his own air force, and you’ll develop interception tactics, and blah blah. But the original point of the air force, and its continuing optimum use, is to attack ground targets. Cavalry did run around ancient battlefields and smack into each other, but that wasn’t the point…it was the point being frustrated. Optimal use of heavy cavalry was to assault infantry. Suboptimal was to chase and suppress routing forces. Worst of all was to become engaged, and fail to immediately rout, enemy cavalry. Because now 80% of your expenses are over on your flank grinding on the other guy’s 80% of expenses and no one is getting their money’s worth. What Malthus is suggesting, or rather just repeating Keegan’s tired and erroneous conclusion, is tantamount to suggesting that the last century of air combat has been nothing more than exaggerated bluffing, because surface-to-air technology keeps planes from being effective v. ground targets, and so planes never attack ground targets. Ridiculous on its face, and even if it were not, the steady evolution of combat planes belies the notion. They are effective. We keep building more of them, and more advanced models, because they work. 400 years of heavy cavalry evolution should tell you the same. Heavy cavalry development proceeded aggressively, polearms evolved in response, back and forth. This cannot occur without pressure to change and incentive to innovate, such pressure and incentive derived from _men on horses slamming into men carrying spears_, then both sides examining the results and changing things up. This process never occurs if every time 100 peasants hold spears in a bunch, horsies just turn around and canter off into the sunset. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/72 "2010-10-27T13:32:26Z")
> [@Grossbottom](#): > > That’s great, no one in this thread is arguing whether disciplined foot can repulse a heavy cav charge. Sorry but what _are_ you arguing, then? The cavalry is repulsed because the horses shy away. But you say no they don’t they charge home. So what repulses the cavalry that, accoring to you, has penetrated the formation? ---
**Author:** ![Grossbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba8739/32.png) [@Grossbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grossbottom)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/73 "2010-10-27T13:58:30Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Is this really what you wish to rely on as your example? if I was you, I’d look a bit further. Well if we’re respecting wikis… > **[Battle of Waterloo](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo)** > > Army of the North > Wellington's Army > Blücher's Army Waterloo. Oh look, a painting of dead horses next to ranked bayonets, I wonder how they got there. Maybe the redcoats dragged the corpses closer to their formation since heavens know a horse could never be trained to do something so insane as charge. But who has some awesome heavy cav, let’s think. Oh that’s right…the Hussars. > **[Polish hussars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_hussars)** > > The Polish hussars (/həˈzɑːrs/; Polish: husaria \[xuˈsarja\]),\[a\] alternatively known as the winged hussars, were an elite heavy cavalry formation active in Poland and in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth from 1503 to 1702. Their epithet is derived from large rear wings, which were intended to demoralize the enemy during a charge. The hussars ranked as the elite of Polish cavalry until their official disbanding in 1776. > The hussar dress was ostentatious and comprised plated body armour (cuirass, ... [QUOTE=wikipedia] The Polish-Lithuanian hussars’ primary battle tactic was the charge. They carried the charge to, and through the enemy. The charge was slow at first and carried in a relatively loose formation. The formation gradually gathered pace and closed ranks while approaching the enemy and reached the highest pace and closest formation right before the attack. They also tended to repeat the charge several times until the enemy formation broke (they had supply wagons with spare lances). The charging attack, and heavy weight of their armour and horses guaranteed victory for nearly two centuries. [/QUOTE] Wow. In two centuries, I bet no company of hussars ever encountered a spear formation. Lucky guys! More paintings of heavy cavalry doing frontal charges. Probably fabrications. We all know that medieval logisticians just spent huge amounts of money and time on a tactic that never worked as soon as Jethro and the gang were able to get enough pointy stick aimed in the same direction…because the horses just wouldn’t dream of continuing their charge. A horse will go on strike, demand more oats, damn the years of training and a demented howling Pole on his back. That warhorse magically _knows_ those pikes are disciplined and he’s putting a stop to the madness. ---
**Author:** ![Grossbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba8739/32.png) [@Grossbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grossbottom)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/74 "2010-10-27T14:00:17Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Sorry but what _are_ you arguing, then? That heavy cavalry horses can be trained to charge into a massed infantry formation. ---
**Author:** ![Grossbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba8739/32.png) [@Grossbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grossbottom)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/75 "2010-10-27T14:02:49Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > But you say no they don’t they charge home. Oh are we at the point in the SDMB debate where we start misattributing positions? And so soon! Exciting. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/76 "2010-10-27T14:17:00Z")
> [@Grossbottom](#): > > What Malthus is suggesting, or rather just repeating Keegan’s tired and erroneous conclusion, is tantamount to suggesting that the last century of air combat has been nothing more than exaggerated bluffing, because surface-to-air technology keeps planes from being effective v. ground targets, and so planes never attack ground targets. Ridiculous on its face, and even if it were not, the steady evolution of combat planes belies the notion. They are effective. We keep building more of them, and more advanced models, because they work. 400 years of heavy cavalry evolution should tell you the same. Heavy cavalry development proceeded aggressively, polearms evolved in response, back and forth. This cannot occur without pressure to change and incentive to innovate, such pressure and incentive derived from _men on horses slamming into men carrying spears_, then both sides examining the results and changing things up. > > This process never occurs if every time 100 peasants hold spears in a bunch, horsies just turn around and canter off into the sunset. You keep repeating this as an assertion, but you have not offered yet even a single example of a battle in which this particular use of cavalry - according to you, the main use - has actually occurred. Your argument (assuming I understand it correctly) is that this must be the main use, because if it was not, heavy cav has no use. Yet this is very clearly incorrect. Quite aside from its use in defeating undisciplined infantry and other cavalry, there are examples where heavy cav. has beaten infantry - only, as part of a combined arms attack, as at Carrhae and Hastings, the two examples specifically discussed. Not as a straight charge against formed and disciplined infantry. The combined arms approach is necessary exactly because heavy cav will not, _generally_, succefully or at all charge against formed and disciplined infantry - the horses will, in large numbers, balk rather than commit suicide - and so other troop types are usually required to disrupt their formation or erode their discipline if you wish to defeat them (unless they can be tempted to defeat themselves by a false retreat). A lesson painfully learned by the French in the Hundred Year’s War … No far-fetched analogies necessary - simply an actual historical examination of how battles are fought. If you have any actual counter - examples to provide (as opposed to snark, analogies and assertions) I would of course be delighted to hear of them. ---
**Author:** ![FuzzyOgre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a587f6/32.png) [@FuzzyOgre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FuzzyOgre)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/77 "2010-10-27T14:23:08Z")
> [@Grossbottom](#): > > A horse will go on strike, demand more oats, damn the years of training and a demented howling Pole on his back. That warhorse magically _knows_ those pikes are disciplined and he’s putting a stop to the madness. Sir! You are not suggesting those are… French horses? I’m not injecting an opinion, just peanut gallerying. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/78 "2010-10-27T14:24:46Z")
> [@Grossbottom](#): > > Well if we’re respecting wikis… > > [Battle of Waterloo - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo) > Waterloo. Oh look, a painting of dead horses next to ranked bayonets, I wonder how they got there. Maybe the redcoats dragged the corpses closer to their formation since heavens know a horse could never be trained to do something so insane as charge. > > But who has some awesome heavy cav, let’s think. Oh that’s right…the Hussars. > > [Polish hussars - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_hussars) > > Wow. In two centuries, I bet no company of hussars ever encountered a spear formation. Lucky guys! > > More paintings of heavy cavalry doing frontal charges. Probably fabrications. We all know that medieval logisticians just spent huge amounts of money and time on a tactic that never worked as soon as Jethro and the gang were able to get enough pointy stick aimed in the same direction…because the horses just wouldn’t dream of continuing their charge. A horse will go on strike, demand more oats, damn the years of training and a demented howling Pole on his back. That warhorse magically _knows_ those pikes are disciplined and he’s putting a stop to the madness. Wait, you are relying on paintings of the Battle of Waterloo? You do realize that in this battle, the (repeated) cavalry charges against British infantry squares were, for the cavalry, a total waste of time, because they did not charge home agaisnt them - indeed, could not? > **[Battle of Waterloo | The French cavalry attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo#The_French_cavalry_attack)** > > A little before 16:00, Ney noted an apparent exodus from Wellington's centre. He mistook the movement of casualties to the rear for the beginnings of a retreat, and sought to exploit it. Following the defeat of d'Erlon's Corps, Ney had few infantry reserves left, as most of the infantry had been committed either to the futile Hougoumont attack or to the defence of the French right. Ney therefore tried to break Wellington's centre with cavalry alone. Initially, Milhaud's reserve cavalry corps > [@](#): > > A little before 16:00, Ney noted an apparent exodus from Wellington’s centre. He mistook the movement of casualties to the rear for the beginnings of a retreat, and sought to exploit it. Following the defeat of d’Erlon’s Corps, Ney had few infantry reserves left, as most of the infantry been committed either to the futile Hougoumont attack or to the defence of the French right. Ney therefore tried to break Wellington’s centre with cavalry alone.[92] Initially Milhaud’s reserve cavalry corps of cuirassiers and Lefebvre-Desnoëttes’ light cavalry division of the Imperial Guard, some 4,800 sabres, were committed. When these were repulsed, Kellermann’s heavy cavalry corps and Guyot’s heavy cavalry of the Guard were added to the massed assault, a total of around 9,000 cavalry in 67 squadrons.[93] > > “French Cuirassiers”, by Louis Dumoulin.Wellington’s army responded by forming squares (hollow box-formations four ranks deep). Squares were much smaller than usually depicted in paintings of the battle – a 500-man battalion square would have been no more than 60 feet (18 m) in length on a side. Vulnerable to artillery or infantry, squares that stood their ground were deadly to cavalry, because they could not be outflanked and because horses would not charge into a hedge of bayonets. Wellington ordered his artillery crews to take shelter within the squares as the cavalry approached, and to return to their guns and resume fire as they retreated. > > Witnesses in the British infantry recorded as many as 12 assaults, though this probably includes successive waves of the same general attack; the number of general assaults was undoubtedly far fewer. Kellermann, recognising the futility of the attacks, tried to reserve the elite carabinier brigade from joining in, but eventually Ney spotted them and insisted on their involvement.[94] > > A British eyewitness of the first French cavalry attack, an officer in the Foot Guards, recorded his impressions very lucidly and somewhat poetically: > > About four P.M. the enemy’s artillery in front of us ceased firing all of a sudden, and we saw large masses of cavalry advance: not a man present who survived could have forgotten in after life the awful grandeur of that charge. You discovered at a distance what appeared to be an overwhelming, long moving line, which, ever advancing, glittered like a stormy wave of the sea when it catches the sunlight. On they came until they got near enough, whilst the very earth seemed to vibrate beneath the thundering tramp of the mounted host. One might suppose that nothing could have resisted the shock of this terrible moving mass. They were the famous cuirassiers, almost all old soldiers, who had distinguished themselves on most of the battlefields of Europe. In an almost incredibly short period they were within twenty yards of us, shouting “Vive l’Empereur!” The word of command, “Prepare to receive cavalry”, had been given, every man in the front ranks knelt, and a wall bristling with steel, held together by steady hands, presented itself to the infuriated cuirassiers. > —Captain Rees Howell Gronow, Foot Guards, [95] > > “The artillery officers had the range so accurately, that every shot and shell fell into the very centre of their masses.” (Original inscription and drawing after George Jones)In essence this type of massed cavalry attack relied almost entirely on psychological shock for effect.[96] Close artillery support could disrupt infantry squares and allow cavalry to penetrate; at Waterloo, however, co-operation between the French cavalry and artillery was not impressive. The French artillery did not get close enough to the Anglo-allied infantry in sufficient numbers to be decisive.[97] Artillery fire between charges did produce mounting casualties, but most of this fire was at relatively long range and was often indirect, at targets beyond the ridge. If infantry being attacked held firm in their square defensive formations, and were not panicked, cavalry on their own could do very little damage to them. Shit, this is a textbook case of what I’m talking about. Cavalry plus artillery (that is, a “combined arms” approach) could defeat infantry - the cavalry forces the infantry to adopt a dense formation, the artillery blows them apart - but the French cavalry _alone_ could not do fuck-all against the disciplined squares, unless the men ran. ---
**Author:** ![Grossbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba8739/32.png) [@Grossbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grossbottom)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/79 "2010-10-27T14:29:22Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Your argument (assuming I understand it correctly) You don’t understand it correctly, notwithstanding the fact that it has been repeated to you several times. Let me do a hasty recap. You: I’ve heard horses won’t charge into densely packed infantry Me: That’s wrong, they can and they will You: No Me: Yes You: It wasn’t effective Me: Irrelevant to your point, arguable anyway You: No, and besides spearpoints is the issue not actual formation Me: No they’ll go through spearpoint and _evidence that heavy cavalry charged headlong into massed infantry positions_ You: Wait I don’t understand Me: Lose gracefully You: Wait what’s a hussar ---
**Author:** ![Grossbottom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ba8739/32.png) [@Grossbottom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grossbottom)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/80 "2010-10-27T14:33:04Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Shit, this is a textbook case of what I’m talking about. Cavalry plus artillery (that is, a “combined arms” approach) could defeat infantry - the cavalry forces the infantry to adopt a dense formation, the artillery blows them apart - but the French cavalry _alone_ could not do fuck-all against the disciplined squares, unless the men ran. No this is a revision of what I’ve been talking about, I addressed the artillery/pike square/cavalry evolution earlier in this thread. For the nth time, effectiveness of the cavalry charge is not at issue. The question is whether they WILL charge. If you don’t like Waterloo, we’ll find you another one. Give it up man. Your position is contrary to common sense. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774.md?page=5)