[Len Parker]

Fidenzio of Padua describes how the Christian cavalry charge failed against the Muslims, and how it was the use of archers and crossbowmen that made the difference. (The Use of the Charge in Battles in the Latin East, 1192-1291)
http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/article...search.htm

[Randall Moffett]

Len,

Of course there are occasions that is true but such comments really only confuse the matter. This is one battle of scores, maybe hundreds in the Levant. The other side of the coin, at Arsuf the three charges seem to destroy the Muslim army. The persons initial question was if it was possible and how not if there are examples of cavalry charges failing to infantry, which is fairly self evident.

If we simply pull up the accounts of cavalry charges that fail this post is going to be a very long list indeed but still avoid getting at the reality of the issue.

Using archery to whittle down infantry is a very ancient tactic indeed. Whether to soften the enemy force for the cavalry or infantry push it is always easier to soften them up before charging home. That does not mean it was always done like this though, only it is an effective, likely more effective tactic.

RPM

[Gary Teuscher]

[Randall Moffett]

I am not disagreeing that higher quality infantry is more likely to withstand a cavalry attack, though I do not agree that rarely is correct. Once again, there are so many accounts of good quality infantry faltering rarely would be a stretch to me. I agree it is more usual but I'd not use rarely.

This is one of the things that is often an issue with break downs of battles. People are looking for anything they can to point to decide the victory or the loss. So many times people take up a few small, and often insignificant occurrences and wave them about as the smoking gun when in fact they are akin to blaming the loss on not warming up or stretching.

Now what accounts are you looking at for this battle as I just read the Alexiad and a few months earlier read some Norman ones and never saw anything that indicates your proposed scenario.

For troops of the Byzantine army. From Anna herself.

"He himself with his whole army and with the flower of the nobility of the Orestias, started quickly and hurried to join the Emperor. Immediately the latter arrived, he arranged the whole army in order of battle, apappointed the bravest men leaders of the battalions, and told them to continue the journey in that same order whereever the nature of the ground permitted, so that by understanding the whole arrangement and each man knowing his exact place, they would not become confused in the heat of battle and would not easily or accidentally shift their place. Constantine Opus led the Guards, Antiochus the Macedonians, Alexander Cabasilas the Thessalians, and Taticius, at that time 'Primicerius,' [=Chief of the household] the Turks of Achrida. He was extremely brave, and absolutely fearless in battle, although he was not descended from free-born stock; for his father, who was a Saracen, fell into the hands of John Comnenus, my paternal grandfather, on a foraging expedition. The leaders of the Manichaeans, who totalled two thousand eight hundred, were Xantas and Culeon, also of the same heresy. All these were very warlike and ever ready to spill their enemies' blood when opportunity offered, they were moreover audacious and [104] insolent. Of the household troops (generally called "Vestiaritae ") and the Frankish regiments Panoucomites and Constantine Hubertopoulos, so called after his origin, were in command."

"The rest of the army he divided into phalanxes and himself took the centre of the line, on his right and left he placed respectively the Caesar Nicephorus Melissenus and Pacurianus, called the " Great Domestic.""

There are only a few of these groups that have any tradition of being cavalry, so we know the bulk is almost without doubt infantry and as can be seen from Anna herself these are not pitiful, weak and afraid peasants but warriors, well armed and ready to fight. As well indicates well formed into phalanxes of spearmen to hold the Normans off "These however, resisted the attack very stoutly, so the others turned their backs" These eventually do fold eventually but clearly they stand to fight the cavalry initially and do so well, it is not until the next assault the are defeated.

In section IV (in my version 108-110) the battle never once mentioned the Normans flanking the varangians (who she calls axe bearers, barbarians and house guard). In Anna's version their advance was too rapid leaving them alone but once again not flanked. She indicates a direct frontal charge.

And then lastly the attack by Robert on the Phalanx- "But Robert like a winged horseman, dashed with his forces against the Roman phalanx, drove it back and split it up into several fragments. " Once again they were not fleeing before struck and fought on even after the cavalry slices them into various sections. As well no indication in anything of them not being top rate infantry.

Now as to Arsuf. Yes most of the army was mounted, that is why when I mentioned their pushing through the rear infantry guard of the crusaders this was valid. Once again a very good infantry force who gets defeated (at least in this action) by a heavy cavalry force. It is not until the rear cavalry body counter attacks till the muslim cavalry is forced back.

This is one of my main issues. You continually keep bringing up the infantry elites but this misses the fact when you have two good teams one likely will lose. And it is not always things like weariness, unpreparedness, etc. sometimes it just happens when the field is level and the teams equal.

Your constant example is a great example of this-
Hastings, yep a great army, on both sides. But it does not show one type superior in any way to the other. It boils down to excellent generalship and good quality armies pulling all their plays until one was victorious and the other defeated.

I am not saying cavalry always or even often victorious simply charging only that discounting this as one of their primary functions would be simply error.

RPM

[Gary Teuscher]

[Randall Moffett]

Got your Pm but since it is the same as this I will reply here.

My peronal opinion. Wiki is not a source. Not even worth discussing that to me. With their current system it is getting better but this is not a source and certainly not enough to refute Anne Komnena and a contemporary commentator, William of Apulia. Truth is few secondary sources counter primary ones to my mind unless they have a heck of a lot of evidence to back them, which considering the text is laid out pretty clear we have no reason to doubt them. If the writer of the Wiki article is using Anna they are interpreting it in a curious (perhaps incorrect way). To be fair I do not know but I am familiar enough the original evidence I am not sure I need to be but will read it over when I have time

The majority of Byzantine armies into these period are infantry heavy. This will become even more so after 1071 as many of the Byzantine horse, both for heavy and light units of cavalry were raised in Anatolia which once the Seljuks and other Turks take away from them following Manzikert will severely cripple their horse farms and breeding programs. Most of the initial groups you have mentioned are infantry forces with few exceptions as the nobles would often have very mixed groups they personally provided, themselves being in the cavalry wing but usually all well to excellently equipped. Because the leaders themselves ride infantry gets less air time but are nonetheless very important, even vital in Byzantine armies. As well many of the men who had made up most of the cavalry units in the empire lost their own lands to the Turks so the other major source of cavalry was further destroyed. Alexius will try to fix this but it is not till John or Manual this is been accomplished. Keep in mind infantry units of the time are counted by 1000s while cavalry is 100s or 50s. This is because the infantry predominated.

1)INFANTRY- I agree. Likely some of the best quality of the time
It consisted of Thracian and Macedonian tagmata, which numbered about 5,000 men;

This is the one possible area I see of high quality infantry, as a portion of this Tagmata. But the typical Skukatoi seems to have declined by this times, meaning the spear bearing lammelar corslet armed infantry. Archers seems to have become more common, along with cavalry.

2) INFANTRY (Being units of guards from urban location/palaces) Once again well equipped. The Tagmata leadership yes but cavalry units are largely infantry but these are not Tagmata from my reading.
the elite excubitors and vestiaritae units, which numbered around 1,000 men;
The elite units of the Tagmata (with the exception of the Varangians) seem to have always been cavalry.

3) Manichaeas- Heretics, allo0wed to fight for allowance in Empire. No evidence to be cavalry. I agree with the rest
force of Manichaeans which comprised 2,800 men, Thessalian cavalry, Balkan conscripts, Armenian infantry and other light troops.

Looks like the infantry portion here was lightly armed - the Thessalians were obviously cavalry

4)I agree
As well as the native troops, the Byzantines were joined by 2,000 Turkish and 1,000 Frankish mercenaries,

Turkish mercenaries - Likley cavalry. The 1000 Frankish mercenaries - hard to say.

5) As well I agree
about 1,000 Varangians and 7,000 Turkish auxiliaries sent by the Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm.

This is one reason I always go back to original sources.to see what is what. In Anna's own listing as well as the Norman accounts it becomes clear the Byzantine force on foot greatly out numbered those on horseback. She clearly states, rode or marched in many of the actions described.

As far as Phalanxes.... yep that is true generally but Anna clearly indicates infantry phalanx at this part so this is not an issue but you are right. They use it generally as battles equivalent. Since we know the spear was likely one of the most common weapons ( infantry in greek is often called spearbearer during this time because this) of this period for the Byzantines and one of the few mentioned by Anna herself in the account I see no reason why to doubt them. She also indicates the Byzantine main host of the center as marching, though Alexius seems to be behind in a heavy cavalry unit (which is also fairly normal. She is also clear to denote light from heavy infantry as the skirmishers are the ones to try and keep the Norman cavalry back from the main host and archers (apparently on foot but we cannot be sure). She indicates the center was made of mixed make up with 'picked' more professional men (in good equipment and attached to princes usually but easily as good as western equivalents) and some others but she does not say specifically who these others are so we cannot assume they are riff-raff and the fact they hold initially speaks against this conclusion. That said the front rank was made of of these picked men, which are well led, equipped and armed. Anna's arraignment seems to indicate the cavalry unit led by Alexius was behind the heavy infantry, this was perhaps mixed with archers or beside them. The light infantry was to harry and try keeping the Norman cavalry but for what ever reason do not appear to remain (perhaps flee) or are defeated quickly by the Norman charge and drive through most of the Byzantine heavy infantry into Alexius and his rear cavalry unit at which point Alexius proves himself to be a regular Hercules and does phenomenal feats fighting the Norman charges leaders. Since the Byzantines were supposed to have long spears, massive shields and armour their primary job was defensive to allow for the offensive bodies, cavalry and varangians to assault but return if they needed. No group excluding perhaps the light infantry simple breaks and flees. Ever group from the infantry at the front to the cavalry at back fight and fight hard but are ultimately defeated. It is possible by the time the Norman cavalry has reached the Byzantine cavalry the Norman infantry had arrived and finished off the infantry and put added pressure on the cavalry. Hard to tell as she does not directly say this.

Now the Turks and others of Anatolia as well as the Balkans (those light infantry levies you mentioned before) we can assume they fled without fighting since Anna clearly states this. I tend to think of the archers, mount and on foot, as Byzantine (Greek) if she is right and the Turks fled so likely so to did the Turkish archers. She does mention one of the ways Alexius was convinced the Turks were really going to fight for him was their being in armour, which is perhaps important.

So I feel you are looking at a well disciplined and equipped force being defeated by an equally well equipped and led cavalry. Now this is an over simplification of the battle as it is not simply one cavalry army verse an infantry one but this cavalry assault as a frontal attack on a heavy infantry body well larger that is successful and clearly is key in ending the battle. So unless you have firm evidence to the contrary I think this is an excellent example as to when a cavalry charge can defeat an infantry group of well equipped and disciplined men. Heck the center fights the cavalry for some time by the amount of detail it is given so these are not any push overs, most being personal troops of some rather important people in the Empire of the Ducas and Komnena families.

Feel free to ask more questions though I had initially focused on Byzantium during my education so I rather enjoy this period. I hope this answers most of your questions.

RPM

[Luka Borscak]

People usually take Hastings as a good example of well disciplined infantry standing up to heavy cavalry charges. But is this fair since Normans had to ride up hill to charge the Saxons? This is definitely not ideal situation for cavalry... Fighting from a higher ground is always a great advantage...

[Randall Moffett]

Luka,

That is true. To be fair I usually do not use Hastings as an example of this. The English line holds against a mixed army of Normans as well.

Something also interesting is that some accounts of Stamford Bridge from the Scandinavian side of the battle indicate Harold Godwinson used cavalry charges to break down the Norwegian infantry.... we know Harold rode south to meet the Normans.... so where were the English horse if they fought mounted? Tired? You'd think people of this tier of society would have more horses. That said it is possible this is a later reason given for their defeat as an excuse but it is a rather interesting possibility. Though if true another good example of infantry defeated by a charge, Harald Hardraada had been captain of the varangian and some of his men had served as well so no lightweights either. But with such little info much of this battle remains speculation, though interesting. I tend to figure Harald and his men were caught at the bridge and bottle-necked, possibly shot by archers (also seemingly missing at Hastings on the Anglo-Saxon side). I sort of doubt Harald Hardraada, no novice military leader would have made such a blunder but even the best general makes a mistake, in his case cost him his life.

RPM

[Gary Teuscher]

[Gary Teuscher]

[Randall Moffett]

Gary,

Yep, that is where it was from, which is why I said it was a hard battle to account for as there are nearly no contemporary accounts.

All I can say is the writer, albeit, 200 years later claimed it was a cavalry verse infantry that won the day. Now if it happened that way, I have no idea. Issue largely rests on having 0 evidence to rely on to later, both choices are not ideal but one leaves us with a battle's name and basically one paragraph which is difficult to make any real sense of. You could be right which is why I looked at the variant possibilities for the battle.

As far as huscarls being mounted, I think you are right and it depended. I have yet to find any contemporary accounts with clear evidence of mounted use except on in the AS Chronicle B I think that had Harold Godwinson fighting mounted of all places on the borders of Wales.

Now to Byzantium

The issue is that the period here is one of major flux. From Basil II's death in 1025 the Byzantine military had more or less fallen apart in some respects to older lines so ideas of Themata and Tagmata are dubious to what they mean at this point. Since they are similar in some respect I will simply call them military districts. With Basil's death Byzantium ends up in major internal conflict. What happens is that several of the old Themes simply fall apart. This gives rise to a period of private armies in the Empire. Two of the main families in this place are the Ducas and Komnena families. In some ways it is sort of like a feudal host but much more along family lines. Alexius will rely on them much of his reign, the summons for military service often to his 'cousins'. These men, whether fighting on foot or horse were arrayed by the wealthy of the wealthy and in some military manuals indicate fairly heavy armour, perhaps more so than anyone in the west. Now back to the military units. These were often by this point if not always mixed units, made up primarily of infantry. This is exactly how the men that are sort of household troops are. The cavalry unit will be where the leader of the force likely was present. Now as to the guard units I mentioned above. They likely rode horses as they were tied to high status people and in smaller numbers but as the varangians fight on foot. So by this period tagmata or tagma should simple be seen as military unit and such the tagma of where ever being the military units of where ever. If you have not seen any of the military manuals of the this part of the Byzantine empire they are certainly useful for understanding the military units, makes and use on the field. Seems the 11th century was such a violent and turbulent place they were in high demand.

Now as to phalanx, yes I mentioned that above. But Anna clearly states in this case the group as infantry with the horse behind. And as all sources of this period, none mention flanking so we can more or less assume the varangian were not flanked, no matter what ever Wiki says. They were isolated but took the hit head on.

RPM

[Gary Teuscher]

[Randall Moffett]

Gary,

With Snorri this is possible but we should be wary to decide a source much closer to the event is wrong with no evidence to back us up besides, well it seems to be. Seems to be an even weaker position to take. That said I tend to present both sides as possible as I am not sure.

To me part of the problem with Anna's account is you are trying to force it to what works best for your paradigm. This is backwards from what we should be doing. If you read the 4 pages or so on the battle it is fairly straight forward generally as to the men involved, where they were and how the battle rolls out.

Anna, clearly in her account indicates the varangians were marking toward the Normans. To you it might be natural but if frontal charges are not the exception but a common tactic we should not assume this to be the case for them. How could they be anything but facing the Normans or meeting them head on. The Varangian would have to be completely unintelligent to miss an army sweep around to their flank without making any move to defend themselves. Such a elite group this is near impossible and if the Normans had used some brilliant maneuver or stratagem Anna would have used it as a reason they were defeated. Instead she used tired which seems like a weak way to excuse them. As well it would place the Normans to the one side of a varangian force and right in front of the Byzantine other battle, a very poor spot to be in. As far as I know there are not, or ever, cavalry in the Varangian unit. It is the Byzantine units that are organized in this way.

I think 6,000 or so is about what you are looking at in Heavy infantry. But see no problem with this really. You likely have a force of about the same size in lighter infantry (with balkan forces, perhaps a bit more) and archers (at least from Anna's account we can assume they are present, and military manuals assert such forces). So say you have this force and thousands of cavalry (perhaps 2-4K Byz and the remainder Turks). The large force of Balkan and Turk units who flee (out of the light infantry and cavalry force) takes out thousands of men. Now looking at the Normans there are really two actions going on here as well as a third unit protection the back who seems to be guarding the city behind them that they are besieging. One group on the Varangians, who likely make it to support later as she writes it in this order. As well clearly some one if fighting of pushing the skirmishers so not every one could be included in the force. So it seems very likely the Norman charge is much smaller than the light and heavy infantries both combined or perhaps even alone, especially once you leave the remaining cavalry of the Byzantines at the rear (Anna gives a fairly clear description of the charge moves through the light harriers, then heavy infantry then cavalry- where Alexius himself is.

Now assuming the units are mixed and the less equipped, disciplined, whatever other description so they break first as you hypothesis I think is incorrect. She no where says who in the infantry line broke and if tactics of the period were enforced (which under Alexius seems likely, a fairly good general by most accounts) the poorer equipped men were in the rear to support the heavies or in front as skirmishers. No matter how you slice it the 'picked' elite men are almost undoubtedly the men at the front ranks she is talking about. Since she mentioned skirmishers earlier we know some were present in the capacity (Remember the Balkan's fled, so we have to figure the men of the military districts and household men were in this place as well) so regardless the bulk of the remaining infantry who stood likely were heavies. The common tactic of the byzantine armies of the time were that large heavy infantry force to defend the cavalry with skirmishers before them. This description from Anna leaves little doubt this is the force in question and more or less they were set up according to the military manuals of the day.

Now we cannot be certain as she does not give more than 4-5 pages of detail on a battle that was fairly large and lasted some time but there is little reason from the main account to think otherwise from what she has left us combined with the military manuals. It has been a few months since I looked at William's account but I do not think anything in it was terribly divergent.

If I have time after creating my Finals for this term I will reread it and create a play by play. We might want to move this to PM as we are taking up a great deal of space here.

RPM

[Gene Green]

This is a very interesting read, and the knowledge of responders far outweighs my own. Still, allow me put in my 2 cents

First, it simply doesn't make sense to have expensive heavy cavalry armed with lances if the horses won't charge in line of infantry or a mass of opposing cavalry. To mow down an already routed foe, you don't need heavy cavalry, the light one would be just fine. The extreme cost of knights' mount speaks for itself. By contrast, from what I read, the later "cheaper" Ritter (?) style cavalry was supposed to use caracole tactics, not direct assault.

Second, even I read many accounts of cavalry directly attacking well-trained infantry with neither side flinching. The Battle of Borodino, I believe, saw attacks of heavy Cuirassier cavalry - which was used for frontal attacks, not light skirmishes like Hussars - against Russian defenses. There infamous "charge of the Light Brigade" in Crimean war couldn't happen without horses galloping towards shooting cannons, not away from them. Me thinks a loud volley of a cannon battery is not any bit less frightening for a horse than a line of pikes.

[Gary Teuscher]

[Lafayette C Curtis]

[Gary Teuscher]

A carocole could be devastating to pike armed infantry, as it effectively gives the cavalry a "longer pike". As long as the infantry did not pocess a lot of missile weapons themselves, it was an effective tactic, not unlikethe horse archers practice of running up to point blank range against relatively stagnant infantry and loosing arrows at point blank range, then retreating. Of course all have their role in combined arms - protected infantry missileman have the advantage over cavalry missilemen. Bayonets along with gunpowder give the infantry the ability to both protect themselves and carry a missile weapon.

But this is really outside of the time period we have been discussing as far as the ability of an infantry man to repel a cavarly assault. Firearms made huge changes in cavalry tactics, from being effective against pikes using caracole tactics early in the period to a great decline of cavalry as comabt troops, more effective in recon by the 18th century.

But, even a Late renaissance heavy cavalryman would have little sucess against a unit of pikemen that were reasonably trained and disciplined. I don't think there are hardly any battlefield reports of renaissance cavalry taking on pike unit in a frontal assault with sucess, unless the pikemen were in some way compromised prior to the cavalry assault.

[D. Phillip Caron]

Two hundred squadrons of French cav. charged, repeatedly, at Waterloo. British Infantry squares are fairly solid looking objects. Those horses could not be all that different from those of 500 or 1000 years earlier. Would they charge a fortress wall? An altogether different matter.

[Randall Moffett]

Gary,

I think you have it there. You have two general systems that usually play out.

Initial charge. Often one group breaks before the other even strikes a blow.

The other is an engagement where it begins to be about who can weather the least damage.

That said this works for infantry for infantry, cavalry verse cavalry and infantry verse cavalry.

The Battle of Bevenshout indicates this with two infantry forces and when one shouts, a volley and a charge the other army turns and runs. It is possible they were drunk though.

RPM

[Gary Teuscher]