How Terrifying is it to fend off elite heavy cavalry (such as Knights,Samurai,dragoons) with Spears?

The Angon seems an awful lot like a northern European take on the Pila, which is more support for the idea that continental early medieval tactics were loosely based on Roman tactics.
I agree : when I said Northern Germanic influence on Barbarian kingdom warfare, I was mostly thinking of the influence you already had in Late Roman army, as well as (but that's mostly concerining Frankish and Anglo-Saxon warfare) the backleash of Roman collapse in Barbaricum, as pointed by Ingrid Ystgaard.

Roughly, trough the destabilization and pauperisation of Scandinavian polities, with a wider use of axes as hand-weapons.
It's still pretty much goes down to Roman influence, but I prefer to distinguish it from the direct Roman influence on weaponry and tactics that romanized Barbarians went trough.

I love the idea of throwing the Angon into an opponent's shield then forcing the haft down to expose them described by Agathius of Myrna.
If you'd allow me, I'd advise you Merovingian Military Organisation, by Bernard Bachrach.

I'd try to hold up the digression from the topic there now, as far as I can ;)
 

Redbeard

Banned
It is usually very interesting to read threads on this board, if not for other reasons then because so many posters can bring so much knowledge forward - often when the discussion goes from the broad lines to bringing examples and counter examples.


But please allow me to go back to the more general issue of cavalry vs infantry. I think it still stands that massed infantry in unbroken formation is practically impossible to defeat by cavalry charge.


The important words are "massed" and "unbroken" - if you can change that in the status of the infantry unit, then the cavalry will have its day, if not, it will not. There are of course many ways to do this, from a horse accidentally falling into the infantry formation and creating a "hole" or bringing up artillery inside firing range of the massed infantry (Dresden) or by the infantry simply having little training and low morale.


Next I find it interesting that the cavalry vs. infantry question in many ways can be brought up to armour vs. infantry.


The golden days of armoured warfare was 1939-41 when tanks broke the linear formations and very controlled deployment of infantry as developed in WWI. When the infantry resorted to hedgehog formations in chess board formation (not unlike how you would deploy pikemen on a renaissance battlefield to counter heavy cavalry) the dashing moves of armoured spearheads soon bogged down and tanks in general couldn’t operate alone, but had to rely on close co-operation with other arms. Just like cavalry after the introduction of Swiss pikemen.


Most astonishing is perhaps how long it took to learn. In the Napoleonic wars British cavalry, which in breed quality (men and horses alike) was above average, was notorious for rooming around by itself way behind the battlefield. And in WWII British armoured units were notorious for refusing any co-operation with (plebian) arms like artillery or infantry but instead charging headlessly against enemy positions bristling with AT guns.


Lately I got Nigel Askey’s Volume IIIa on Barbarossa. He here in detail put light on the Soviet armoured units at Barbarossa and very convincingly argue that the main reason for their failure was too many tanks and to little artillery, infantry and other supporting arms. The Soviets thought you could use tanks like you used cavalry in the very old days – you couldn’t – not even with 20.000+ tanks!
 
The important words are "massed" and "unbroken" - if you can change that in the status of the infantry unit, then the cavalry will have its day, if not, it will not.
I can't speak for all infantry formations in history, but several massed formations weren't that much so : especially shielded formations (but not only, see landsknechte) against cavalry tended to leave space between fighters not just for swordmanship/axemanshipt/whatevermanship, but also to allow missiles to get trough and maybe more importantly to better hold the shock of a charge.

It's not the only formation avaible, tough : Reisläufer tended to follow more closely a phalanx model, while you still had an integrated use of missile weapons.

My point is that you really had a whole array of infantery formations against cavalry (altough it was rarily, as far as I know, used only and specifically against cavalry), and I'd think that while the massed part is pretty much important, it can appear less so that reconstitutions may make it (in fact, you'd have occurences where you'd like to prevent your infantery to get TOO massed in reaction of a cavalry charging them). Basically, you need a disciplined infantry, and one which is familiar enough with formation tactics : you're right that it means unbroken, but I'd stress as much on disciplined.
Don't get me wrong : it doesn't mean levies couldn't be part of these tactics, but IIRC, they were generally let in the back or as suppletives (at least for a good part of MA)

Lately I got Nigel Askey’s Volume IIIa on Barbarossa. He here in detail put light on the Soviet armoured units at Barbarossa and very convincingly argue that the main reason for their failure was too many tanks and to little artillery, infantry and other supporting arms. The Soviets thought you could use tanks like you used cavalry in the very old days – you couldn’t – not even with 20.000+ tanks!
On their behalf, Soviets did a lot of "experimentation on the spot", such as the vertical encirclement.
Anyhow, thanks for the informative post.
 
In the Napoleonic wars British cavalry, which in breed quality (men and horses alike) was above average, was notorious for rooming around by itself way behind the battlefield. And in WWII British armoured units were notorious for refusing any co-operation with (plebian) arms like artillery or infantry but instead charging headlessly against enemy positions bristling with AT guns.
British cavalry were always famous for one 'get 'im Kev' mindless charge then disappearing into the distance to be found after the battle looting the baggage train. The Royal Tank Corps developed and practiced close cooperation with infantry and artillery after their WW1 experience. Unfortunately the tank force was hugely expanded pre war by armouring existing cavalry regiments who disdained the advice of mere mechanics, instead of expanding the professional tankies so the cavalry habit of exchanging bravery for tactics prevailed until 1943. Not helped by a lack of effective HE rounds for tanks to take out A/T guns.

It is dangerous to compare Napoleonic infantry squares with spear manned lines. For the latter cavalry can charge the flanks and come upon the spearmen in disarray unless they are very well trained to change orientation. The Napoleonic square, exemplified by British Infantry, brought the cavalry to a halt and exposed them to close musket fire so they were at risk. The counter to squares is artillery and then infantry so a commander needs an all arms force to defeat well trained infantry. British infantry were brought up on tales of standing firm and that safety was in disciplined formation and were practiced in it again and again. To run was to die. The role of heavy cavalry is like the bayonet. To intimidate the enemy into running away. Then they are helpless. The killing of soldiers by heavy cavalry in a charge is incidental. Once the horses are surrounded in a melee the rider is extraordinarily exposed to a spear or bayonet. Not that I would want to approach a desperate cavalryman with a sabre with intent. Hence the charge is ideally either in and through. regroup and reverse the charge or wheel away from the unbroken line and try again.

Examining the Canterbury Embroidery (Bayeaux Tapestry) one can see that the spears are used overhand by both cavalry and infantry. What is rare is any shown in flight so they seem to be mostly used by the infantry to jab over the shield wall out reaching swords or down from the horse over the wall by cavalry. The sword was properly a sidearm to be kept available for use when the wall was broken or in skirmishing etc. Doubtless someone more knowledgable than I can explain how the axe was used in these circumstances. I would hazard a guess that attackers would try to hack through the shield or over it and defenders would be a second line behind the spearmen to despatch anyone or horse that broke through. They would need the space to wield the axe offensively so a close packed shield wall two deep would only need a few professional Dane Axe wielders behind.

To directly address the OP. I have been charged by Berber light cavalry of perhaps 20 horses and by reenactment heavy cavalry of 40 or so and they all frightened me even knowing that they did not mean to actually charge into us. Terrified into mindless panic no. Like a trained soldier I knew I was safer standing my ground as a group than running and confusing the riders.
 
So, to summarize the longest posts in the entire thread: Heavy Cavalry is useful when the Infantry lacks guts.
Not really : confronting heavy cavalry with infantry mostly works when infantry is able to hold formation (trough discipline and tactical skill) and mobile enough to take most of the initial shick. It's less a question of gut than sound tactics and formations (elaborated or experienced, often both).
Heavy cavalry have a lot of other tactical or operational uses than just opposing infantry, furthermore : its mobility make it interesting to cut off lines or to quickly intercept (a lot of heavy cavalry tends to be able to be dismounted when necessary), eventually explaining why it was an active part of siege warfare. Limitating its use as an anti-infantry tactic is cartoonish.
 
Top