# 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:** 5
**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, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/81 "2010-10-27T14:35:10Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > The combined arms approach is necessary exactly because heavy cav will not, _generally_, succefully or at all charge against formed and disciplined infantry Choose one. Choose one and stop wasting my time. I don’t care about “successfully” and your attempts to expand the argument in that direction are transparent weaseling. ---
**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, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/82 "2010-10-27T14:36:16Z")
> [@Grossbottom](#): > > 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. Wait, a battle in which the cavalry notoriously failed to charge home - repreatedly failed - against infantry - is evidence for your position? ---
**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, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/83 "2010-10-27T14:37:43Z")
> **[Battle of Klushino](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Klushino)** > > Uprising of Bolotnikov > False Dmitry II: > Polish-Muscovite war: Here’s a fun one, 4,000 hussars repeatedly frontally crash into packed infantry formations. The lies you find on Wikipedia! Lies! ---
**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, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/84 "2010-10-27T14:38:45Z")
> [@Grossbottom](#): > > Choose one. Choose one and stop wasting my time. I don’t care about “successfully” and your attempts to expand the argument in that direction are transparent weaseling. actually, at this point I’m sort of bemused at your combination of assertiveness and imperviousness to contrary evidence. The fact that you cite the Battle of Waterloo as evidence in your favour is simply stunning. 😃 ---
**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, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/85 "2010-10-27T14:39:17Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Wait, a battle in which the cavalry notoriously failed to charge home - repreatedly failed - against infantry - is evidence for your position? You don’t get it. I’ll concede Waterloo because I’ve got a thousand years in which to find only one battle where horses charged through to spears. I can swing a hundred times and miss 99. I only need one. Your position is hopeless. You’ve lost. Be quiet or lose ungracefully, I’ll enjoy myself either way. ---
**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, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/86 "2010-10-27T14:40:22Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > actually, at this point I’m sort of bemused at your combination of assertiveness and imperviousness to contrary evidence. > > The fact that you cite the Battle of Waterloo as evidence in your favour is simply stunning. 😃 Hurrm yes, let me focus on Waterloo and ignore the hussar cites. No one will think I’m a troglodyte. _smug_ ---
**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, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/87 "2010-10-27T14:47:13Z")
> [@Grossbottom](#): > > [Battle of Klushino - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Klushino) > > Here’s a fun one, 4,000 hussars repeatedly frontally crash into packed infantry formations. The lies you find on Wikipedia! Lies! Execpt that your link says nothing of the sort. > [@](#): > > The Poles attempted to attack soon after dawn, but lost the element of surprise, and Russians were able to fortify their positions. As a result the opening stages of the battle were extremely hard fought all along the line. Mainly this was because the battlefield was crossed by a high fence which allowed the Polish hussars to charge only through a narrow gap. The first part of the battle consisted of Polish hussars repeatedly charging the fortified Russian positions, attempting to break them. The Poles continued to make ferocious attacks, and Samuel Maskiewicz, a witness from one hussar company claimed that his unit charged 8 or 10 times.[2] > > **When rumours began to spread that the Russian’s foreign mercenaries were deserting to the Poles, Russian morale cracked and the native Russian element of the army began to flee. Eventually a Russian cavalry counterattack was mauled by the Poles, and in the ensuring confusion Russians ranks broke, and as usual, infantry running from cavalry suffered extensive losses.** In summary, the hussars attempted - 8 or 10 times - to “break” the formations. They failed. The link doesn’t say whether they crashed ito the formed infantry - or, as is more likely, charged at them a la Waterloo, hoping they would run, given that a failed charge home would not leave them alive to charge another 9 times - but in any event, the formations only “broke” when Russian morale "cracked’ and they ran. ---
**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, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/88 "2010-10-27T14:49:29Z")
> [@Grossbottom](#): > > You don’t get it. I’ll concede Waterloo because I’ve got a thousand years in which to find only one battle where horses charged through to spears. I can swing a hundred times and miss 99. I only need one. > > Your position is hopeless. You’ve lost. Be quiet or lose ungracefully, I’ll enjoy myself either way. Good luck with that form of argument. 😛 ---
**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, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/89 "2010-10-27T14:57:42Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Execpt that your link says nothing of the sort. > > In summary, the hussars attempted - 8 or 10 times - to “break” the formations. They failed. The link doesn’t say whether they crashed ito the formed infantry - or, as is more likely, charged at them a la Waterloo, hoping they would run, given that a failed charge home would not leave them alive to charge another 9 times - but in any event, the formations only “broke” when Russian morale "cracked’ and they ran. > [@Battle of Klushino](#): > > The Poles attempted to attack soon after dawn, but lost the element of surprise, and Russians were able to fortify their positions. As a result the opening stages of the battle were extremely hard fought all along the line. Mainly this was because the battlefield was crossed by a high fence which allowed the Polish hussars to charge only through a narrow gap. **The first part of the battle consisted of Polish hussars repeatedly charging the fortified Russian positions, attempting to break them. The Poles continued to make ferocious attacks, and Samuel Maskiewicz, a witness from one hussar company claimed that his unit charged 8 or 10 times.** Whoops! Weaseling wasn’t enough, now you’ve moved directly into outright intellectual dishonesty? That’s sad, it’s only page 2. Love the Dope. Love. It. You’re all done, buddy. Toss it in. Look at it this way, you go down on a long and distinguished list of people defeated by Polish hussars. ---
**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, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/90 "2010-10-27T15:06:06Z")
> [@Grossbottom](#): > > hussars repeatedly frontally crash into packed infantry formations > [@Malthus](#): > > Execpt that your link says nothing of the sort. > [@Klushino Wiki](#): > > The first part of the battle consisted of Polish hussars repeatedly charging the fortified Russian positions Oops. Oops. Oh, what’s that feeling? Is it called losing the debate? Oh yes, I think it is! Cheerio! _raises teacup, gives tiny wave_ ---
**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, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/91 "2010-10-27T15:19:13Z")
> [@Grossbottom](#): > > Oops. Oops. Oh, what’s that feeling? Is it called losing the debate? Oh yes, I think it is! Cheerio! > > _raises teacup, gives tiny wave_ Hilarious. The cav. at Waterloo “repeatedly charged” the British squares, too. “Repeatedly charged” does not have the same meaning as “frontally crash into packed infantry formations”. Or perhaps you can explain to me how the same Hussar can “crash frontally into packed infantry”, fail to break through, then go back and do it again 8-10 more times? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/92 "2010-10-27T15:25:36Z")
I wonder how much impact the improved archery of the Middle Ages impacted tha cavalry? By the 1100’s ypu had skilled archers (longbowmen), who could deliver punishing and accurate volleys of steel-tipped arrows. These arrows could easily penetrate both chinmail and plate armor, and distances up to 200 feet. There wre also crossbowmen, who had a slower-firing weapon, but one that could deliver a deadly dart (bolt) at even longer ranges. These weapons would bring down a mounted knight quite handily. ---
**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, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/93 "2010-10-27T15:28:13Z")
Here, for example, is a description of the likely tactic used in that battle: > **[Infantry square](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infantry_square)** > > An infantry square, also known as a hollow square or square formation, was a musket-era historic close order formation used in combat by infantry units, usually when threatened with cavalry attack. To deploy its weapons effectively, a traditional infantry unit would generally form a line; but the line was vulnerable to more nimble cavalry, which could sweep around the end of the line, or burst through it, and then attack the undefended rear or simply sweep along the line attacking the individu Th... > [@](#): > > Attacking cavalry would attempt to “break a square” by causing it to lose its cohesion, **either by charging to induce poorly-disciplined infantry to flee before making contact** , or by causing casualties through close-range combat (see above). > > Cavalry charges were made in closely-packed formations, and were often aimed at the corners of the square (the weakest points of the formation.) Feints and false attacks would also be used to make the infantry “throw away their fire” by causing them to fire too early. **However, if the infantrymen were well-disciplined and held their ground, the cavalryman’s dream to “ride a square into red ruin” would not be realized, and such an event was the exception rather than the rule in the history of warfare.** Examples of where cavalry would charge home into infantry were flukes, not a standard tactic. The usual circumstance where this would happen is where a horse was killed so close to the square that its dead body would charge home, opening a gap. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/94 "2010-10-27T15:31:07Z")
> [@ralph124c](#): > > These arrows could easily penetrate both chinmail Customarily worn above the gorget? ---
**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, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/95 "2010-10-27T15:38:40Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > “Repeatedly charged” does not have the same meaning as “frontally crash into packed infantry formations”. > > Or perhaps you can explain to me how the same Hussar can “crash frontally into packed infantry”, fail to break through, then go back and do it again 8-10 more times? 😃 Oh, how did I know that like a rat on a sinking ship you’d creep your tiny claws onto the last possible centimeter of dryness? Because like most puffed up armchair generals on the internet, you’re more concerned with looking like you know what you’re talking about and memorizing facts than thinking critically about those facts. I knew you’d claim the cavalry didn’t actually make contact with the infantry, because that’s the only place you have left to run. And here you forgot one thing: > [@http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish\_hussars](#): > > 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. Why would they carry spare lances if they weren’t hitting people with them? Did they just sort of…chuck them at the infantry when they got close enough? Hahaha. No, my little friend. They had spare lances because when lances hit things, like INFANTRY, they break. The thing I don’t get about people like you is why you just can’t say “Oh hey, Hussars. Learned something new today.” And just move on. Heck I begged you to do it earlier this morning. But no, you have to go on and embarass yourself and get more and more upset about your poor internet armchair generalling, even though anyone with a shred of tactical sense knew you were lost as soon as you took a position equivalent to “no one in two thousand years ever got a horse to charge onto a spear”. Hint: I didn’t have to go farther than Poland. Or is that a comment on the Polish? Anyway, it’s a dumb position. A terrible one. An indefensible one. Smart people knew that. _Loooohooo. Ssseher._ ---
**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, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/96 "2010-10-27T15:41:13Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Examples of where cavalry would charge home into infantry were flukes, not a standard tactic. Oh so now it DID happen, but only as a fluke. Nice retrench buddy, no one will notice. Oh wait, they just did. Haha. ---
**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, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/97 "2010-10-27T15:46:08Z")
> [@MonkeyMensch](#): > > Oh I hope you’re telling truths there. If so, it’s one of the coolest things I’ve seen posted on The Dope. Yup. I tell truths. I still cant find the darn thing. I wanted to share a picture and weigh it again. ---
**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, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/98 "2010-10-27T15:47:45Z")
> [@Grossbottom](#): > > Oh, how did I know that like a rat on a sinking ship you’d creep your tiny claws onto the last possible centimeter of dryness? Because like most puffed up armchair generals on the internet, you’re more concerned with looking like you know what you’re talking about and memorizing facts than thinking critically about those facts. I knew you’d claim the cavalry didn’t actually make contact with the infantry, because that’s the only place you have left to run. And here you forgot one thing: > > Why would they carry spare lances if they weren’t hitting people with them? Did they just sort of…chuck them at the infantry when they got close enough? Hahaha. No, my little friend. They had spare lances because when lances hit things, like INFANTRY, they break. > > The thing I don’t get about people like you is why you just can’t say “Oh hey, Hussars. Learned something new today.” And just move on. Heck I begged you to do it earlier this morning. But no, you have to go on and embarass yourself and get more and more upset about your poor internet armchair generalling, even though anyone with a shred of tactical sense knew you were lost as soon as you took a position equivalent to “no one in two thousand years ever got a horse to charge onto a spear”. Hint: I didn’t have to go farther than Poland. Or is that a comment on the Polish? > > Anyway, it’s a dumb position. A terrible one. An indefensible one. Smart people knew that. > > _Loooohooo. Ssseher._ You are quoting two different sources. No-one doubts that, under the right circumstances, Hussars would “charge” with lances at enemies - and break them. However, the issue is whether the “right circumstances” and the “enemies” in question include charging at formed, disciplined infantry. In any event, you are wacking at a straw man. The issue is not whether someone, somewhere, once charged into the spears, but whether this was the very purpose of heavy cav. My point is that you have yet to find a **single** case in which this was used as a tactic - much less, one in which it was used successfully - and much less, that the use of this tactic was the very purpose of having heavy cav. ---
**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, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/99 "2010-10-27T15:49:15Z")
> [@Grossbottom](#): > > Oh so now it DID happen, but only as a fluke. Nice retrench buddy, no one will notice. Oh wait, they just did. Haha. Yeah, the famous ‘dead cavalry’ brigade, who deliberately use the tactic of having their horses shot from underneath them to win battles. There’s a Polish joke in there somewhere. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Excellent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f19dbf/32.png) [@Mr.Excellent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Excellent)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774/100 "2010-10-27T15:51:06Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Edit: also, lacking cavalry, there is generally no easy way for infantry to strike back. Only in rare strategic circumstances can a purely infantry army _decisively_ defeat cavalry. Though if you’ve got a sufficiently capable infantry army, I wonder if they would often need to inflict a decisive defeat as such. As very capably discussed above, cavalry are expensive to field - and they can’t hold land. If your infantry army controls vital bits of your supply line, won’t the very expensive cavalry die off eventually? Or, more accurately, become combat ineffective. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-army-ca-100-ad-vs-army-ca-ad-400-who-wins/557774.md?page=6)