Cavalry tactics
For much of history humans have used some form of cavalry for war. Cavalry tactics have evolved over time.
Introduction
This article is about the tactics used while employing mounted troops, but shows them in connection with other arms related in tactics. The main advantages to unmounted troops were greater mobility, bigger impact and a higher position.
Predecessors
Chariot tactics have been the basics for warfare on horseback. Their development for agility and speed were outdone by riding on horseback. But especially the ability to pass more sorts of terrain was important. These supplanted most light chariots. In Celtic warfare light chariots (essedum) prevailed among mounted troops for their ability to transport heavily armoured warriors and as mobile commanding platforms. In most other militaries chariots prevailed for their impact among the cavalry or infantry, till they were replaced by war elephants, stronger in melées.
Riding and fighting on horseback
First it was not considered effectively to use weapons on horseback, but to use the horse as transport. For a long time riders and charioteers worked alongside in the cavalry. While early horsemen dismounted for any combat, the troops in a chariot didn`t necessarily. It was not possible to draw horizontally an infantry bow on horseback, so archers dismounted to shoot their bows. This tactic prevailed, although composite bows enabled to shoot from horseback. Infantry longbows still could be made more powerful and were better to aim at long distances. Mongolian troops had a Buryatian longbow, the strongest known longbow, for showering the enemy with arrows from a safe distance. First attempts to shoot from horseback were made by drawing the bow vertically, but this way less energy could be stored. The aim on horseback was better than in a jiggling chariot, after it was discovered to shoot while all hooves of the horse were in the air. Still an archer in a chariot could shoot potentially stronger infantry bows.
Javelins were employed as a powerful ranged weapon by many cavalries. They were easy to produce and handle on horseback. In between two to ten javelins would be carried, depending on their weight. Thrown javelins have less range than composite bows, but often prevailed in use besides them. Due to their mass they had stronger armourbreaking ability and caused more fatal wounds. Usage is reported for both light and heavy cavalry, like for example by Numidia's and the Mongol's light cavalry or the heavy cataphracts, Celtic cavalry and the Mameluks during the crusades.
Early saddles had no abdominal belt, nor were they high enough to charge safely with full force. The sarissae, lances and more often spears of cavalry were therefore used as thrusting and cutting weapon with a limited jolt. Stirrups and spurs improved the ability of riders to act fast and secure in melées and manoeuvres demanding agility of the horse. But their employment was not unquestioned. Agile movement of the rider on horseback was highly esteemed for light cavalry to shoot and fight in all directions. Contemporaries regarded stirrups and spurs as inhibiting for this purpose. Andalusian light cavalry refused to employ them till the 12th century, nor were they used by the Baltic turcopoles of the Teutonic order in the battle of Legnica(1241). An outstanding example of combined arms and efficiency of cavalry forces were the medieval Mongols. Important for their horse archery was the use of stirrups for the archer to stand while shooting. This new position enabled to use bigger and stronger cavalry bows than the enemy.
Tactics of light cavalry with bows
Armies of horse archers could cover enemy troops with arrows from a distance and never had to engage in close combat. Slower enemys without effective long range weapons often had no chance against them. Like this the cavalry of the Parthian Empire destroyed the troops of Crassus (53 BC) in the battle of Carrhae. During their raids in Central and Western Europe during the 9th and 10th century the Hungarian mounted archers spread fear and terror in the West Francia and East Francia. The people in these times added to every Lord's Prayer the sentence "and Lord save us from the arrows of the Hungarians." (de sagittis Hungarorum libera nos, domine)
The great weakness of mounted archers was their need of space and their light equipment. If they were forced to fight in close combat against better armored enemies, they usually lost. Furthermore they were not suited for participating in sieges. Good cavalry troops needed lots of training and very good horses. People with this classical cavalry like Hungarians and Mongolians lived practically on horseback.
The battle of Dorylaeum (1097) during the first crusade shows advantages and disadvanteges of mounted archers: the ridergroups of the Seljuk sultan Kilij Arslan I were able to surround an army of crusaders and shoot them from a distance. Suddenly reinforcements under the command of Godfrey of Bouillon arrived and the Seljuks themselves were encircled. They could escape no longer and were annihilated in close combat. The defeat of the Seljuks at Dorylaeum was so complete, that the could practically cross Anatolia unchallenged.
Tactics of heavy cavalry with lances
Knights had several different ways to attack, but always in formations of several knights, not individual. For defense and melée a formation of horsemen was as tight as possible next to each other in a line. This way it was not possible to charge, but enemy could not surround them individualy. With their heavy and armoured chargers they rode down the enemy infantry. The most devestating way was was riding in a looser formation fast into attack. This attack was often protected by simultaneous or shortly preceding ranged attacks of archers or crossbowmen. It started from a distance of about 250 metres and took about 15-20 seconds. Most important and not easily mastered was to stay in one line with fixed spaces while accelerating and having the maximum speed at impact. Often knights were coming in several waves, with the first being the best equipped and armored. The lance as primary weapon pierced the enemy. If an enemy soldier was hit in full gallop by a knights lance embedded under the armpit, he was thrown backwards with such a momentum, that he knocked over several of his backers. The heavy lances were dropped after the attack and the battle was continued with secundary weapons (sword, axe, mace or likewise). Then troops regrouped into the tighter formation mentioned above. Mongolian heavy cavalry even improved it by attaching hooks to their lances to take enemies down, when bypassing. Chinese cavalry used polearms with better slicing ability. Both handled their primary weapons in the two handed Asian style that was supreme to the single handled European style in the ability to parry such an attack. This method of a charging attack was very effective, but it depended upon several factors. The following tactics were often effective against heavy cavalry:
Good long range weapons: The longbow and the crossbow were able to threaten knights. Although the heavy noble cavalry of Middle Ages often fought on foot or at least avoided futile frontal attacks, it happened several times that knightly armies led charges according to their warrior ideal. The results were often devastating: at Crécy (1346) an Poitiers(1356) the French knights had heavy casualties against the English longbowarchers. At Agincourt (1415) 5000 knights were killed by arrowfire.
Polearms:the long spears of Scots and Swiss (pikemen) were an excellent choice. The warriors stood in thight formations like an antique phalanx. In battle against the Scots, the English knights proofed to be as narrow-minded as their French counterpart. In the battles of Stirling Bridge (1297) and Bannockburn (1314) they were defeated by the Scots. The inferior English were the first to imitate this tactic successfully against the French, the Swiss made it perfect. Despite longer lances for the knights, this formation was now almost inpenetrable. The pikemen with polearms were till to the end of the 30 Years War an important part of the troops. As countertactic against pikemen the heavy cavalry developed in the early modern times maneuvers like the caracole.
Using advantages of the terrain: lancers needed hard, plain ground and enough space for attack. a clever enemy avoided battle on open ground and preferred marshy, mountainous or arboreous grounds for battle. The Scots did this at Bannockburn and Stirling. The Swiss defeated the Austrian knights at the battle of Morgarten(1315) by attacking the knightly army in a narrow place bettween an acclivity and a swamp. The peasants of Dithmarschen faced in 1500 at Hemmingstedt the army of the Danish king. The opened the dykes and flooded the country. If the terrain was not well suited for a cavalry attack, English knights often fought on foot and used their lances as pikes. Knights fighting on foot were called men-at-arms in England.
Guerilla warfare: an enemy who could suddenly strike and retreat was a serious problem for the heavy cavalry. Therefore it was important to have also always enough light cavalry.
Modern historians agree, that the major part of knights during many Medieval battles fought on foot. Only with ideal conditions of terrain and support via long range combatants, attacks were carried out on horseback. If the enemy infantry was equipped with polearms and fought in tight formations, the knights bluffed to attack, but soon turned around. Many infantrymen thought this to be a flight and went on chase, leaving their formation. The knights turned around again in this new situation and rode down the infantry. Such a tactic was deployed in the battle of Hastings (1066). Another method was the use of well armed infantry reserves during knightly battles on horseback. After some time the battle split in several small groups with space in between and both sides became exhausted. Then an infantry rush could concentrate on selected targets and route the enemy. Infantry also helped knights to remount in battle and saved the wounded.
Tactics of heavy cavalry with range weapons
Attempts of integrating range weapons and heavy cavalry were made by the Greeks and Persians, equipping their cataphracts with javelin. In contrast to arrows, these missiles could break armor, but range and ammunition were limited.
Mounted knights armed with lances proved ineffective against formations of pikemen combined with crossbowmen whose weapons could penetrate most knight's armor. This lead to the development of new cavalry tactics. Knights and mercenaries deployed in triangular formations, with the most heavily armored knights at the front. To increase its effect, they would carry small, powerful all-metal crossbows of their own. Later, similar competing tactics would feature harquebusiers or musketeers in formation with pikemen, pitted against cavalry firing pistols or carbines. These evolved Reiters and Hakkapeliitta with similar equipment. Their main weapons were two or more pistols and a sword; most wore helmets and leather armor or cuirasses and often additional armor for the arms and legs; sometimes they also carried a long cavalry firearm known as an arquebus or a carbine (although this type of horsemen soon became regarded as a separate class of cavalry - the arquebusier or in Britain harquebusier).
One of the tactics employed, was the caracole. It developed in the mid-16th century in an attempt to integrate gunpowder weapons into cavalry tactics. Equipped with one or two wheellock pistols, cavalrymen would advance on their target at less than a gallop. As each rank came into range, the soldiers would turn away, discharge their pistols at the target, retire to reload, and then repeat the manoeuvre. The tactic was accompanied by the increasing popularity of the German Reiter in Western armies from about 1540.
Some historians associate the demise of the caracole with the name of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden (1594-1632). Certainly he regarded the technique as fairly useless, and ordered cavalry under Swedish command not to use the caracole. Instead the fast and lightly-armored Hakkapeliitta cavalry charged. They would attack at galloping speed, discharge the first pistol at 20 paces, the second at five paces, and then draw the sword. The horse itself was used like another weapon, as it was used to trample enemy infantry.. However, there is evidence that caracole was already falling out of use by 1620, before Gustavus Adolphus reached Poland and Germany.
Modern historians regard the caracole as a military tactic ultimately proving ineffective. It sacrificed the cavalry advantages of speed and mobility, while also leaving mounted soldiers at a disadvantage to massed infantry equipped with heavier and longer-ranged weapons. The caracole gave way to close artillery support for cavalry (see Horse artillery ) - breaking up the infantry formations, forcing the soldiers to scatter and allowing cavalry the advantage in close quarters, melee combat. The last recorded use of the caracole was by the French at the Battle of Minden in 1759.
New tactics of light cavalry and mounted infantry
With increasing firepower and no sufficient protection, the role of cavalry on the battlefield was slowly reduced. Light cavalry with fireams could respond the fire, but the aim was not as good as for infantry. So most important for cavalry was the ability to quickly attack enemy cavalry or scattered infantry with lances and sabres. Speed reduced the time vulnerable to gunfire, but still closed formations became impossible to take. This tactic was a striking surprise of Mongolian light cavalry in the battle of the Kalka River. The alternative was to use them as dragoons, reaching their positions quickly, dismounting and firefighting like infantry. Such a way of fighting had started in Europe at least in the 13th century with mounted longbow and crossbow archers
Dromedary and camel cavalry
Next to elephants these were the highest and heaviest animals avaiable for cavalry. They are not as agile and slower sprinters than horses. Usage as riding animals started before horses. Their advantage was, that while they were standing, a mounted archer could aim and shoot from behind an infantry formation. Equipped with small canons, this gave the Afghan troops an advantage during the third battle of Panipat. Another advantage was the shock and awe effect on horses, which had never before smelled these animals. At Pterium the experienced Lydian cavalry suddenly had to struggle with their horses panicing, when trying to face an attack of camel cavalry. The psychological effect of the best trained and most reliable soldiers being overrun in confusion decided the battle. Major powers of Europe, Africa and Asia were preparing for engagement in this war. It is not known whether after this incident war horses were prepared to face camels and dromedaries.
African cattle
In Africa cattle were used for transporting goods and sometimes men. For warfare the cattles were deployed in massed groups to run down the enemy before the infantry charge. In the battle of Tondibi this backfired. A small Moroccan force with firearms frightend the cattle so much, they overran instead the Songhai imperial army, resulting in an overwhelming victory for the invaders.
References
- J.F. Verbruggen (1997) The Art of Warfare in Western Europe during the Middle Ages The Boydel Press 0-85115-570
- Polybius World History
- partly translated article
Summary and insertion of spread articles about cavalry tactics