[Toni Šušnjar]

After Arabs introduced heavy cavalry (cataphracts), Byzantines responded by introducing the short, thick pike - menavlion; a spear with a shaft so thick that one could barely, if at all, wrap a hand completely around it (basically, when you held it, your thumb and index fingers would not touch). Yet I have found no mention of similar weapons in 15th and 16th centuries, despite heavy cavalry having even more advanced armour in those times; instead, much longer but relatively flimsier pikes seem to have been preferred (menavlion was 2,7 - 3,6 meters long, while pikes were often 5,5 - 7,5 meters long, much closer to sarissa, but with a smaller spearhed and narrower shaft than menavlion). So the question is why, and how did it impact tactics? The only reason I can think of for this difference lies in cavalry itself: Sassanid, Byzantine and Arab cataphracts appear to have used maces and similar one-handed weapons for shock combat, while lancers were used exclusively against opposing cavalry. Meanwhile, Western knights used long lances, which would have significantly outranged menavlion, thus necessitating the pike to also increase in length as an answer. But if menavlion was necessary to stop the charge of cataphracts, how would have thinner pike fared against much more heavily armoured knights of 14th and 15th century? Or was horse armour (barding) uncommon enough among Western knights to make such a question moot?

[Dashiell Harrison]

Long pikes were deployed in dense formations. For every rank in the pike square, there's another rank of pike-points projecting out in front of the formation. A horse charging into a pike formation wouldn't just be running into a single pike, but would instead be running into numerous successive pikes. My guess would be that this would more than make up for each individual pike being slimmer and less capable of stopping the horse in its tracks alone.

[Anthony Clipsom]

[Toni Šušnjar]

[Wyatt W]

[Martin Kallander]

I don't understand where people got the idea that roman cavalry charged at the trot, like Eric literally translated canter as trot in sowing the dragon's teeth and I've never got an explanation as to why he did it beyond "most scholars agree that they charged at the trot"

It's really odd

[Wyatt W]

[Martin Kallander]

That is actually part of a hypotheses I have about why they insist the romans charged at the trot. You see the part about the maces being throwing maces seems to be a modern conjecture too as far as I'm aware. I have so far not found any contemporary source claiming they were intended to be thrown. There is even a bit in Coniates where it is implied that the maces were just backup weapons for when their swords were blunted. (it should be noted that Coniates is 200 years later however)

There were however a french unit of cavalry during the napoleonic wars that charged at the trot called dragoons if memory serves me correct. These riders each carried a carbine or a pistol that they would fire just before they made contact with the enemy. Apparently because of the weight of their equipment combined with this unit not being issued big strong horses and a desire to maintain formation, they only charged at a trotting pace.

Whenever I read modern commentaries about the roman cataphracts I usually get the impression that there is a desire to draw comparisons between these two units for some reason, this is quite evident in Eric's notes especially.

If I'm correct in this then what they have done is assumed the cataphracts were 10th century dragoons and then bent the sources where they don't conform. Because after all, if the dragoons trotted due to the weight of their equipment then surely the cataphracts wouldn't be able to canter! Likewise the maces must have been for throwing if you assume they fight like dragoons because they don't carry anything else that even can be thrown effectively (aside from the 16 lances out of 504 men).

In reality there seems to be very little similarities between cataphracts and dragoons and the maces were probably not for throwing. The 16 lances are also an argument against them trotting since lances need speed to work and despite only making up 3% of the cataphracts, it makes absolutely no sense to go out of your way to equip even a tiny portion of your troops with weapons that don't work.

[Paul Hansen]

Interesting discussion! I know very little about cavalry tactics but I'm really enjoying this thread so far!

[Toni Šušnjar]

[Martin Kallander]

[Mark Millman]

Dear Toni,

[Martin Kallander]

That brings us neatly back to the menaulion, because it was designed to combat the fact that the actual pikes of the roman formations would be smashed to pieces by the charge och the cataphracts which would lead to said formations shattering.

I'm guessing you think hussars were also capable of this feat since the cataphracts did it as standard practice Toni? If so, then they probably could but it would be a lot more costly since their horses weren't protected by armour.

[Bartek Strojek]

[Mark Millman]

Dear Bartek,

Yes; that is certainly true. I only argue that hussars would not needlessly waste their horses. Of course what may be needful against what may be needless is open to considerable argument.

Best,

Mark

[Wyatt W]

[Martin Kallander]

[Henry O.]

Entering the early modern period there were cases of cavalry trying to outrange pikes by using extremely long lances, potentially supported thanks to a rest or hollowed out to make them much lighter. Which had it's own possible advantages and disadvantages.

Perhaps a bit more closer comparison to the cataphract though would be the "men-at-arms" which came to refer specifically to the heavy cavalry wearing complete plate armor along with armored barding for their horses. These do seem to have been considered fairly okay-ish at breaking up pike squares for quite a while, though i think Thomas Digges still considered ranks of pikemen better at resisting barded lancers than weapons like bills or halberds. Most notably the battle of Marignano saw the French heavy cavalry charge multiple times head on into swiss pikemen with even King Francis supposedly being struck on the breastplate by pikes more than a dozen times and seem to have eventually gained the upper hand or driven them back enough for some contemporaries to see it as heavy knights once again gaining the advantage over massed, pike infantry. In practice however, the men-at-arms with barded horses started to fall out of use for a number of various reasons, not the least of which was that pikemen were being guarded by increasing numbers of arquebusiers and musketeers which could easily punch through their armor.


Regarding the menavlion, one thing you might consider is that the early modern pike tactics developed from those being used by the swiss, where the idea was for the pikemen to be a very mobile, offensive arm, the large, solid pike squares essentially doubling as both a defensive square and an attack column. The Byzantine pikemen though according to the treatises seem to have had almost an entirely defensive role. ie they'd form a large, hollow square that could act as a mobile fortress or base of operations on the battlefield, but the actual attacking would primarily be done by the cavalry or light infantry using bows, slings, or javelins who when threatened or repulsed could then retreat back to safety inside the square to regroup. If its expected that they're going to be standing around in place much more often then it perhaps makes a bit more sense to have the first rank armed with extra thick, heavy pole weapons braced against the ground to help better stop the momentum of any charging horse that happens to keep going despite all the sharp pike points. Secondly, while making sure they would be able to outreach any enemy lances may have been a concern at times, the main reason early modern authors give for allowing no short weapons in the front ranks tends to be the threat posed by enemy pikemen if they come to a push. If the byzantine pikemen on the other hand were generally expected to remain defensive during battles, and any similar enemy pikemen they might encounter is likewise expected to remain on the defensive, then being able to handle a head to head engagement against an attacking pike formation probably wasn't as much of a concern.

[Pieter B.]

'Outranging' enemy infantry seems a bit pointless to me.

Great if you decide to completely halt before opposing infantry and try to fence with them but then again if that happened the charge evidently failed. If you charge it does seem more or less irrelevant what weapon you are using.

Say your lance is a meter longer than that of the infantry opposing you. Travelling at a moderate speed of 14 miles per hour that means your range advantage is going to last all of a second before you and your horse successively have to deal with and/or slam in the three or more ranks of successive infantry.

From what I gather the Byzantine cataphracts were specially equipped to deal with infantry and given maces for this job. In the late 1590s Maurice of Nassau felt confident dropping lancers and having all his cavalry equipped with pistol and sword despite being in the midst of the so called pike and shot period.

As for infantry pikes in the 15th and 16th century. These seem to have started out a little shorter at around 12-13 feet at the beginning and lengthening to around 18 feet as a result of infantry competition, not because they had to be grown to deal with cavalry.

I suppose this does suggest that cavalry equipment (with the exception of cataphracts) was largely determined by the need to fight other cavalry with infantry really being an afterthought. Likewise most infantry also seem to be equipped primarily to deal with other infantry. The menavlion or the pikes used by the Burgundians to defend their archers being an exception but perhaps one that proves the rule.

[Martin Kallander]