Cavalry is underrated

[SilvCrimBlac]

Was wondering when you were going to show up. Glad to hear more historical examples on cavalry.

Yeah I got distracted with the "pitched battle" discussion I started and then remembered the purpose of the post, so I dropped some cavalry info in there in the midst of it. Should've separated the two, but oh well. If anyone cares, they'll read it all.

 

[Lloyd]

No, this was only true in the Middle Ages. In the era of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, pitched battles were the norm since the Greeks lacked the resources to fight lengthy campaigns and so preferred betting most conflicts on a single pitched battle. It wasn't until the entry of Persia that long-term campaigns became the new established norm for Greek military practice. I mean the Phalanx was developed by the Greeks due to their preference for pitched battles, which the Macedonians improved upon. The only Greek people besides the Macedonians who ever had any cavalry worth mentioning and in numbers worth using in battle, were the city-states of the Thessalian Plains, most famously, Thebes where the first elite Greek unit of cavalry was created. The Sacred Band of Thebes. Phillip II and then Alexander the Great modeled their own elite cavalry units off of their methods.

Same as the Romans. Pitched battles were the norm, and they were preferred since Legions were trained specifically to fight in pitched battles which is where there advantage lay. Most of the "barbarian" tribes Rome fought, also preferred pitched battles due to this being central to their warrior culture, being Celtic Gaulish and Germanic culture.

Rome never possessed their own elite cavalry units until their Byzantine Empire days, before that, they were almost entirely made of 'barbarian" auxiliaries contracted for a certain amount of time to provide military service. They didn't make their own cavalry until the Eastern Emperor Leo I, (457-474 A.D.), which he did only because of the constant issues he was having with his Gothic generals and auxiliary units. That and Emperor Valens death during a Gothic revolt in 378 during the Battle of Adrianople was still fresh on their minds. Emperor Theodosius, who took power after Valens, after successfully starving out most of the Gothic rebels under Fritigern, attempted to make an elite cavalry unit but spent a good portion of his reign fighting usurpers, the most famous of these being Magnus Maximus and Eugenius with his Frankish right-hand man, Arbogast. Then he needed to keep large contingents of Gothic auxiliary cavalry on his eastern borders with the Sasanian Empire, who were still fighting frequent border clashes despite no outright war being declared. That, and the conflicts with the Persians over Armenia were still fresh in everyone's minds.

Theodosius attempted but never found the time to complete the attempt due to him being on one battlefield or another for the majority of his reign. His last series of battles were in 394, and then he died in 395. Man never had the time. Hell, another good example, Justinian the Great's main general, Belisarius, considered one of the best generals in all of the Early Middle Ages, his armies he marched to reconquer most of the Western Empire's lost territory from the Vandals and the Ostrogoths...his army was 2/3's cavalry. Then you have the early Muslims during the Rashidun Caliphate, the empire Muhammad's religious conquests eventually created, however short lived, their best general was Khalid ibn al-Walid, he was considered their greatest Muslims general of that entire era, and his speciality was using cavalry in unorthodox ways. He was so feared and respected on the battlefield, he was called the Sword of God.

​

So, The Ancient or Antiquity Era as some call it, warfare was predominantly settled by pitched battles in Europe. And lol, in China, siege battles were far, far less common than pitched battles. So again, the only time sieges were more common was in the Middle Ages.

Booo! The statement he made was obviously implied to be about the middle ages. No one writes or cares about antiquity.

 

[CarburetorThompson]

No one writes or cares about antiquity.

Same with early modern - late modern cavalry.

 

[Irl_Rat]

Rome never possessed their own elite cavalry units until their Byzantine Empire days, before that, they were almost entirely made of 'barbarian" auxiliaries contracted for a certain amount of time to provide military service. They didn't make their own cavalry until the Eastern Emperor Leo I, (457-474 A.D.), which he did only because of the constant issues he was having with his Gothic generals and auxiliary units. That and Emperor Valens death during a Gothic revolt in 378 during the Battle of Adrianople was still fresh on their minds. Emperor Theodosius, who took power after Valens, after successfully starving out most of the Gothic rebels under Fritigern, attempted to make an elite cavalry unit but spent a good portion of his reign fighting usurpers, the most famous of these being Magnus Maximus and Eugenius with his Frankish right-hand man, Arbogast. Then he needed to keep large contingents of Gothic auxiliary cavalry on his eastern borders with the Sasanian Empire, who were still fighting frequent border clashes despite no outright war being declared. That, and the conflicts with the Persians over Armenia were still fresh in everyone's minds.

Theodosius attempted but never found the time to complete the attempt due to him being on one battlefield or another for the majority of his reign. His last series of battles were in 394, and then he died in 395. Man never had the time. Hell, another good example, Justinian the Great's main general, Belisarius, considered one of the best generals in all of the Early Middle Ages, his armies he marched to reconquer most of the Western Empire's lost territory from the Vandals and the Ostrogoths...his army was 2/3's cavalry. Then you have the early Muslims during the Rashidun Caliphate, the empire Muhammad's religious conquests eventually created, however short lived, their best general was Khalid ibn al-Walid, he was considered their greatest Muslims general of that entire era, and his speciality was using cavalry in unorthodox ways. He was so feared and respected on the battlefield, he was called the Sword of God.

Keep in mind the reason that cavalry was rarer in large agrarian civilizations is due to the difficulty of maintaining a large number of professional cavalrymen. Not only did cavalrymen require constant training, limiting them to an economic elite, said elites also needed to have a large number of horses or the state had to provide. And based on some source I completely forgot, either a roman or greek author states that the horses of "barbarians" , particularly steppe peoples, were much hardier than their own breeds. While these barbarian horses tended to be smaller than thoroughly bred horses of say Persian or Roman origin, they were much more resistant to disease and could survive in harsher terrain with greater ease. And because a cavalrymen should have multiple horses, then pastoral nomads outperform agrarian peoples in terms of horses suited for military combat, noted by how China frequently traded with northern nomads for horses. A number of horses in agrarian societies were also work animals unsuited to military combat.

In regards to training, agrarian societies were hard-pressed to produce large numbers of highly trained cavalrymen. Since these warriors were almost always from a landed elite, very rarely being composed of a ethnic minority like the Szekly, there was a certain limitation. If these warriors were to be killed, or captured to a lesser extent, then this generally disrupts the administration. I believe that the large number of French knights executed at Crecy, some few hundred or so, caused woe to the French government. Similar event occurred during an Armenian rebellion against Sassanid Persia when a large number of Persian nobles were slain in a pyrrhic victory.

One way to deal with the expense of trained cavarly is to have administrative regions dedicate their resources to training a small number of equestrian warriors. Feudal European knights, Byzantines thematic cavalry, Ottoman timarlot sipahis, and Polish hussars are some examples of this. More importantly, the people in charge of these areas were often responsible for equipping a number of followers as cavalry, not just themselves. Results in formations of lance units: one knight, a few men at arms, and some more followers.

All in all, this seems like a major amount of resources used. However, it was very often cheaper to just hire and sometimes arm outsiders to fight for you. The first benefit is they already come trained and with horses, sometimes even well equipped as well. While mercenaries tend to get a bad rep, particularly due to renaissance era European mercenaries that were prone to war crimes, they were a reliable mainstay of many armies since the Bronze age. While they could betray you for monetary reasons, there was the benefit that mercenaries were rarely entrenched in court politics like native troops making them generally more loyal such as the case with the Batavian guard, Varangians, Ptolemaic Galatian guards, Christian knights serving Moorish rulers, and Swiss pikemen. They were also far more willingly to brutally put down native revolts due to their lack of ties. In regards to equipping these troops, horses were generally not that important. It was to the point that some peoples had a tradition of serving as cavalrymen for other states such as Armenian cataphracts being held in high regards by both the Romans and Persians that employed them However, these outsiders often came from more impoverished states that lacked large amounts of metalworking in terms of quantity not quality. So many agrarian states would just pay and armor these troops, resulting in a elite and generally loyal body of cavalrymen. This can be noted that Genghis Khan's peace treaty with the Jin dynasty demanded a large amount of iron armor that the mongols generally lacked.

Last thing to note is that elite cavalry are not necessarily heavy cavalry. The hunnic horsemen employed by Rome, particularly by Flavius Aetius were generally light to medium cavalry that specialized in hit and run tactics and would smash the weakened enemy with a lance charge. And the elite numidian cavalry were anything but heavy.

The only Greek people besides the Macedonians who ever had any cavalry worth mentioning and in numbers worth using in battle, were the city-states of the Thessalian Plains, most famously, Thebes where the first elite Greek unit of cavalry was created.

I believe that the Athenians were innovating cavalry warfare during the Peloponnesian war, though they were generally mounted skirmishers not shock cavalry. There are also Tarantine horsemen to consider and the Greeks would supplement their forces with cavalry auxiliaries from areas like Thrace.

 

[T.K._Paradox]

Booo! The statement he made was obviously implied to be about the middle ages. No one writes or cares about antiquity.

Actually I was referring to cavalry in general. Not dedicated to a specific time frame.

 

[Lloyd]

Actually I was referring to cavalry in general. Not dedicated to a specific time frame.

Stop counter signaling me man

 

[Irl_Rat]

Thebes where the first elite Greek unit of cavalry was created. The Sacred Band of Thebes

Wasn't the sacred band of thebes a contingent of picked hoplites? Don't recall them being mentioned as proper cavalry. Or were they like the spartan hippeis that was referred by the term hippeis but actually fought on fought, possibly riding into battle?

 

[Twistedskald]

Wasn't the sacred band of thebes a contingent of picked hoplites? Don't recall them being mentioned as proper cavalry. Or were they like the spartan hippeis that was referred by the term hippeis but actually fought on fought, possibly riding into battle?

You are correct. In general Greeks were shit cavalrymen, the mountainous terrain discouraged cavalry in favor of heavy infantry. The Macedonians to their north were marginally better with formations such as the Companion Cavalry, but they depended on the Phalanx more so than the cavalry.

It also should be noted that most ancient Greek armies were citizen armies, meaning the troops paid for their armor, weapons and other equipment. Since few people could pay for the costs there would have been few cavalrymen anyway.

 

[SilvCrimBlac]

Wasn't the sacred band of thebes a contingent of picked hoplites? Don't recall them being mentioned as proper cavalry. Or were they like the spartan hippeis that was referred by the term hippeis but actually fought on fought, possibly riding into battle?

No, they were turned into a unit of cavalry by Epaminondas though they were hoplites before and as well. Epaminondas was the one who finally broke Spartan supremacy in land battles. They might not have fought as cavalrymen in this battle, but I know they fought the Boeotians, (formerly traditional Spartan allies and Athenian enemies) and other Thessalians like those of Pherae, Pherae being the strongest city-state of Thessaly for most of the ancient Greek period. The entire unit perished against Phillip II in the battle of Chaeronea. Now that I think of it, they did fight Phillip II on foot due to the area around Chaeronea having a hill one side with the other side being flat land. The Macedonians captured the flat land initially and used it for their own Companion Cavalry, and the Thebans were doubtful that they could manage the momentum needed to counter charge the Companion Cavalry that were commanded by a young Alexander, so in this instance, the Sacred Band fought as part of the center of the right phalanx.

You are correct. In general Greeks were shit cavalrymen, the mountainous terrain discouraged cavalry in favor of heavy infantry. The Macedonians to their north were marginally better with formations such as the Companion Cavalry, but they depended on the Phalanx more so than the cavalry.

It also should be noted that most ancient Greek armies were citizen armies, meaning the troops paid for their armor, weapons and other equipment. Since few people could pay for the costs there would have been few cavalrymen anyway.

Most of Greece yes. But those in Thessaly were very skilled horsemen because most of Thessaly is proper grassy plains which is the kind of land needed to raise and feed horses.

 

[Irl_Rat]

It also should be noted that most ancient Greek armies were citizen armies, meaning the troops paid for their armor, weapons and other equipment. Since few people could pay for the costs there would have been few cavalrymen anyway.

Think this depends on the time period. Because Greek forces, especially after the 4th century BC, were highly dependent on mercenaries instead of citizens. The vast majority of these mercenaries were Greeks that had gained experience in conflicts around the Mediterranean and normally fought as hoplites or peltasts.

Tyrants in Greece were known to rely on mercenaries to maintain their power while Greek poleis such as Athens relied on mercenaries as a professional force that was more competent and easier to call upon than citizen soldiers.

Also Thessalian cavalry were defeated by Sparta's allied cavalry, probably Tarentine, during a battle in the Cleomenian war. Though the Thessalians won a battle against the Spartan allied cavalry later in the war.

No, they were turned into an elite unit of cavalry. The entire unit perished against Phillip II in the battle of Chaeronea.

Strange, I remember reading that Plutarch stated that the Sacred Band fought as elite hoplites during the battle of Chaeronea.

"And when, after the battle, Philip was surveying the dead, and stopped at the place where the three hundred were lying, all where they had faced the long spears of his phalanx, with their armor, and mingled one with another, he was amazed, and on learning that this was the band of lovers and beloved, burst into tears and said: "Perish miserably they who think that these men did or suffered aught disgraceful." Quote from Plutarch I found online. Possibly incorrect because I'm too lazy to go on a proper academic database and check for Plutarch's account.

 

[SilvCrimBlac]

Think this depends on the time period. Because Greek forces, especially after the 4th century BC, were highly dependent on mercenaries instead of citizens. The vast majority of these mercenaries were Greeks that had gained experience in conflicts around the Mediterranean and normally fought as hoplites or peltasts.

Tyrants in Greece were known to rely on mercenaries to maintain their power while Greek poleis such as Athens relied on mercenaries as a professional force that was more competent and easier to call upon than citizen soldiers.

Also Thessalian cavalry were defeated by Sparta's allied cavalry, probably Tarentine, during a battle in the Cleomenian war. Though the Thessalians won a battle against the Spartan allied cavalry later in the war.

Strange, I remember reading that Plutarch stated that the Sacred Band fought as elite hoplites during the battle of Chaeronea.

"And when, after the battle, Philip was surveying the dead, and stopped at the place where the three hundred were lying, all where they had faced the long spears of his phalanx, with their armor, and mingled one with another, he was amazed, and on learning that this was the band of lovers and beloved, burst into tears and said: "Perish miserably they who think that these men did or suffered aught disgraceful." Quote from Plutarch I found online. Possibly incorrect because I'm too lazy to go on a proper academic database and check for Plutarch's account.

You didn't read my entire comment. I said they dismounted for this battle because the terrain favored the Macedonians Companion Cavalry due to the hilly regions being at the Macedonian rear. The momentum of the hilly region favoring the Macedonian cav, the Theban Sacred Band figured another row of spears would work better than a weakened countercharge against enemy cav charing downhill. Of course it didn't matter as Alexander delayed his charge and instead, went around the hill, something no one expected for some reason.

 

[Irl_Rat]

You didn't read my entire comment. I said they dismounted for this battle because the terrain favored the Macedonians Companion Cavalry due to the hilly regions being at the Macedonian rear. The momentum of the hilly region favoring the Macedonian cav, the Theban Sacred Band figured another row of spears would work better than a weakened countercharge against enemy cav charing downhill. Of course it didn't matter as Alexander delayed his charge and instead, went around the hill, something no one expected for some reason.

Yeah that's my bad. It's probably safe to conclude that they were somewhat similar to European feudal knights, dismounting if the situation called for it and being very skilled in such a situation. Because a portion of the Theban cavalry still fought on horseback at Chaeronea so the Sacred Band must have been considered good enough at being hoplites to warrant their dismounting.

Which brings into the concept of dragoons, which I don't see discussed much in this thread very much. Because some elite soldiers were known to ride into battle then dismount to fight, particularly during the early dark ages.

 

[SilvCrimBlac]

Yeah that's my bad. It's probably safe to conclude that they were somewhat similar to European feudal knights, dismounting if the situation called for it and being very skilled in such a situation. Because a portion of the Theban cavalry still fought on horseback at Chaeronea so the Sacred Band must have been considered good enough at being hoplites to warrant their dismounting.

Which brings into the concept of dragoons, which I don't see discussed much in this thread very much. Because some elite soldiers were known to ride into battle then dismount to fight, particularly during the early dark ages.

I wanted to mention Dragoons too but I wasn't sure if that would fit into a cavalry discussion since technically they didn't fight mounted. Semantics and all. Then there is my favorite of the Renaissance & Early Modern period, the Pistoliers. Mounted knights who had two pistols and a saber. They would rein up parallel to their target, usually no further than 50 yards, discharge their guns, and then charge into a mounted melee with their sabers. They were light cav though they wore cuirassiers, their horses were lightly armored. Pistoliers needed to be able to move quick, shoot, and then charge quickly before the infantry lines could recover from the barrage of gunfire. The pistols were something called "horse pistols", whatever that is. Heavier caliber handguns than normal but I don't know anything more since my only real major interests in European history is in Late Antiquity & Early Middle Ages (400 A.D. - 1000 A.D.) when it comes to European history. I'm most accurate in what I studied in university, however. I studied extensively in Ancient & Medieval East Asian History than in anything else in uni, mostly Chinese history, my specialization being in Late Han to Early Tang Dynasties, (180's A.D. to 630's A.D.) though I had to take classes for pretty much everything until The fall of Yuan Dynasty.

Still, the Ming and Qing Dynasties had their own department due to it being considered early modern and thus warranting a separate space.

Anyway, Pistoliers just always fascinated me. The first ones were German Reiters from the Holy Roman Empire though the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Great Britain soon developed their own, with Great Britain's becoming the more widespread, they even taught their subjects in India to fight as Pistoliers though I'm not sure if it lasted long. As far as I know, Pistoliers lasted from the 1720's to the 1850's or so in Europe, with Britain using them for the longest. The last confirmed usage of the Pistolier model was the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War, trained and wielded by General Nathan Bedford Forrest. His "Pistoliers" were considered the best cavalry on both sides of the war.

 

[Irl_Rat]

Just remembered that one thing unmentioned in this thread is the potential enemies that cavalry might face in a fantasy. Magic is pretty much limitless in application. It can buff cavalry with tailwind, create terrain by freezing rivers, but can also warp flat plains into rugged fields unsuited for charges. And these are just simple applications.

Another issue is the presence of monsters or other creatures on the battlefield. As observed in real human history, horses are often frightened by strange animals, mainly elephants and camels. While horses can be trained to be accustomed to them, untrained horses can react with almost disastrous results. It was to the point that some militaries used camels and elephants explicitly to counter enemy cavalry since these creatures would almost always panic the enemy horses. Now imagine if your horse had to deal with something like a dragon.

Then again, cavalry aren't required to be mounted solely on horses.

 

[Bartun]

Cavalry which has been a big mainstay for centuries in combat is almost never used in Fantasy.

And when it is, it is almost never the protagonist being a member of cavalry.

It is a shame that these badass shock troops never really get the respect they deserve in Fantasy. Anyone else feel the same?

I know this comes late, but how about Imperial Light Dragoons?

 

[T.K._Paradox]

I know this comes late, but how about Imperial Light Dragoons?

View attachment 12478

Nice, but the lance could be longer.

 

[2021]

Sadly I never gets mc who gets hurt and permeantly disabled

 

[Irl_Rat]

I know this comes late, but how about Imperial Light Dragoons?

View attachment 12478

Don't know how the gait of a raptor would be, but I'd imagine that couching a lance wouldn't be easy. And I know dragoon is meant to be a spin on dragon, but it implies that the rider just uses the raptor to move around and dismounts to fight. You know, like an actual dragoon.

Lance also seems to be a jousting lance not a proper war lance, which are normally thinner with a smaller point, more spear like and less club like. And if this is what you consider light cavalry, I assume its purpose is to repeat charge with long lances for maximum damage. I also wonder if the stirrups are attached to the front limbs of the raptor and whether that interferes with the creature's movement.

Anyways, sorry for nitpicking. I am now going to fantasize about trolls using colossal bows and crossbows.

 

[Bartun]

Nice, but the lance could be longer.

Yeah, I couldn't make it longer, I made the drawing too big and the sheet of paper was small

Don't know how the gait of a raptor would be, but I'd imagine that couching a lance wouldn't be easy. And I know dragoon is meant to be a spin on dragon, but it implies that the rider just uses the raptor to move around and dismounts to fight. You know, like an actual dragoon.

Lance also seems to be a jousting lance not a proper war lance, which are normally thinner with a smaller point, more spear like and less club like. And if this is what you consider light cavalry, I assume its purpose is to repeat charge with long lances for maximum damage. I also wonder if the stirrups are attached to the front limbs of the raptor and whether that interferes with the creature's movement.

Anyways, sorry for nitpicking. I am now going to fantasize about trolls using colossal bows and crossbows.

Don't worry, I understand. And yeah, there are many things that are fundamentally wrong with the drawing, but I just thought it would be so cool, I couldn't fit a longer lance because the sheet of paper wasn't big enough.

It's not actually a raptor, but a spinosaurid theropod that specialized in hunting fish, so it would be less likely to attack the rider.

And yeah, dragoons were mounted troops that dismounted to fight on foot, I just named them dragoons to play with the word "dragon" since that's how people call dinosaurs in my story.

 

[Echimera]

I know this comes late, but how about Imperial Light Dragoons?

View attachment 12478

I see your

and raise with

Man, the age of the Cold-One Riders models really shows, really hope they get an update. I actually love the design (though the Saurus should probably sit a bit further back), but it's just so apparent how much better technology got between these two units.

It's not actually a raptor, but a spinosaurid theropod that specialized in hunting fish, so it would be less likely to attack the rider.

So a runt Baryonyx?