 | This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Cavalry tactics" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(January 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
 | This articlepossibly containsoriginal research. Pleaseimprove it byverifying the claims made and addinginline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed.(May 2020) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
For much of history, humans have used some form ofcavalry for war and, as a result,cavalry tactics have evolved over time. Tactically, the main advantages of cavalry over infantry were greater mobility, a larger impact, and a higher riding position.
Chariot tactics had been the basis for using thehorse in war.[citation needed] Thechariot's advantage of speed was outdone by the agility of riding on horseback. The ability of horsemen to pass more difficult terrain was also crucial to this change. Horsemen supplanted most lightchariots. InCeltic warfare, light chariots (essedum) persisted among mounted troops, for their ability to transport heavily armoured warriors and as mobile command platforms.
Elephant cavalry first appeared three thousand years ago, simultaneously in India'sVedic Civilization and in China.[1] FemaleAsian elephants were used, sometimes in small groups, sometimes in vast regiments of thousands of animals in the 13th century,[2] primarily to produce a tactical "shock and awe" effect in the field. In addition, the large animals provided elevated platforms from whicharchers could rain down arrows on the enemy, and from which generals could survey the battle.
The psychological effect of war elephants was often their main tactical use.[3] After encountering elephant cavalry in theBattle of the Hydaspes River,Alexander the Great's troops mutinied and refused to press further intoIndia.[4] However, the animals were often not tractable in battle,[5] and when faced with determined opponents, would often flee and trample their own infantry in their flight.
Horse cavalry developedtent pegging tactics to deal with elephant cavalry. If they maintained their nerve in the face of the larger mounts, horse cavalry could rout elephant cavalry, especially by moving into close quarters and attacking the elephants' vulnerable feet.[6] The Mongols would loose arrows at their enemy elephants' feet and legs until the elephants ran and trampled over their own army.
Next to elephants, camels were the tallest and heaviest animals available for cavalry. They are neither as agile nor as fast ashorses. Their use as riding animals, reported from thebattle of Qarqar, was more frequent than horses in ancient times. Their advantage was that while they were standing, a mounted archer could aim and shoot with a strong bow from behind an infantry formation. Camels equipped with small cannons gave the Afghan troops an advantage during thethird battle of Panipat. Another advantage was their effect on horses, if the horses had never before encountered camels. In thebattle of Pterium experiencedLydian cavalry suddenly had to struggle with their horses panicking, when trying to face an attack of dromedary riders. The psychological effect of the best trained and most reliable soldiers being overrun in confusion decided the battle.
At first it was not considered effective to use weapons on horseback, but rather to use the horse as transportation. "Mounted infantry" would ride to battle, and then dismount to fight. For a long time, riders andcharioteers worked alongside each other in thecavalry. Early domesticated horses were smaller and shorter than the warhorses of later history. Combined with a lack of developed cavalry tactics and the skittish nature of an untrained horse, fighting on horseback was unintuitive at first.
The first recorded instance ofmounted warriors are themounted archers of theIranian tribes appearing inAssyrian records from the 9th century BC.
Mongolian troops had aBuryatbow, for showering the enemy with arrows from a safe distance. The aim on horseback was better than in a jiggling chariot, after it was discovered that the best time to shoot was while all the hooves of the horse were in the air. Nevertheless, 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 handle on horseback. Up to ten javelins would be carried, depending on their size and weight. Thrown javelins have less range than arrows, but often prevailed in use nevertheless, due to its greater mass and armour-piercing capability, usually inflicted fatal wounds more frequently than arrows. Usage is reported for bothlight cavalry andheavy cavalry, for example, by theNumidia andMongol light cavalry, and theCeltic,Cataphract, andMamluk heavy cavalry. The Celtic horsemen's training was copied by theRoman equites. A significant element learned from the Celts was turning on horseback to throw javelins backwards, similar to theParthian shot with bow and arrows.[citation needed]
Stirrups andspurs improved the ability of riders to act fast and securely inmelées andmanoeuvres demanding agility of the horse, but their employment was not unquestioned; ancient shock cavalry performed quite satisfactorily without them. Modernhistorical reenactors have shown that neither the stirrup nor the saddle are strictly necessary for the effective use of the couched lance,[7] refuting apreviously widely held belief. Free movement of the rider on horseback were highly esteemed for light cavalry to shoot and fight in all directions, and contemporaries regardedstirrups andspurs as inhibiting for this purpose.Andalusian light cavalry refused to employ them until the 12th century, nor were they used by theBalticturcopoles of theTeutonic Order in thebattle of Legnica (1241).
An example ofcombined arms and the efficiency of cavalry forces were the MedievalMongols. Important for their horse archery was the use of stirrups for the archer to stand while shooting. This new position enabled them to use larger and stronger cavalry bows than the enemy.
Armies ofhorse archers could cover enemy troops with arrows from a distance and never had to engage in close combat. Slower enemies without effective long range weapons often had no chance against them. It was in this manner that the cavalry of theParthian Empire destroyed the troops ofMarcus Licinius Crassus (53 BC) in theBattle of Carrhae. During their raids in Central and Western Europe during the 9th and 10th centuries, Magyar mounted archers spread terror inWest Francia andEast Francia; a prayer fromModena pleadsde sagittis Hungarorum libera nos, domine ("From the arrows of the Hungarians, deliver us, Lord")[8][citation needed]
Another fairly popular tactic was known as "shower shooting".TheSassanid Persians and theMamluks were the chief proponents of the idea, although Muslim cavalry in India had also been known to use it in battle. It involved a line of fairly well-armoured cavalrymen (often on armoured horses) standing in a massed static position, or advancing in an ordered formation at the walk while loosing their arrows as quickly as possible. It was very effective against unsteady enemies who could easily be unnerved by the sight of a vast cloud of arrows raining down upon them; however, an enemy provided with good armour and discipline would often be able to hold out at least temporarily against the barrage. A case in point isProcopius's accounts ofBelisarius's wars against the Sassanids[9] where he states how the Byzantine cavalry engaged in massed archery duels against their Persian counterparts. The Persians loosed their arrows with far greater frequency, but as their bows were much weaker, they did not do much damage compared to the stronger Roman bows.
The great weakness of mounted archers was their need of space and their light equipment (compared to contemporary heavy cavalry). If they were forced to fight in close combat against better armoured enemies, they usually lost. Furthermore, they were not suited for participating insieges. For example, although victorious in the field the Mongols originally had been unable to take the fortified Chinese cities until they managed to capture and enlist the services of Islamic siege engineers. The Mongols subsequently failed to retake Hungary in 1280 after the Hungarians became more focused on Western European heavy cavalry and castle building. Good cavalry troops needed much training and very good horses. Many peoples who engaged in this form of classical cavalry, such as theHungarians andMongols, practically lived on horseback.
TheBattle of Dorylaeum (1097) during theFirst Crusade shows the advantages and disadvantages of mounted archers; the rider groups of theSeljuksultan,Kilij Arslan I, were able to surround an army of Crusaders and shoot them from a distance. Suddenly, reinforcements under the command ofGodfrey of Bouillon arrived, and the Seljuks themselves were encircled. They could no longer escape and were annihilated in close combat. The defeat of the Seljuks at Dorylaeum was so complete that the Crusaders then crossedAnatolia virtually unchallenged.
Medieval Europeanknights attacked in several different ways, implementingshock tactics if possible, but always in formations of several knights, not individually. For defense andmêlée a formation of horsemen was as tight as possible next to each other in a line. This prevented their enemy from charging, and also from surrounding them individually. The most devastatingcharging method was to ride in a looser formation fast into attack. This attack was often protected by simultaneous or shortly preceding ranged attacks ofarchers orcrossbowmen. The attack began from a distance of about 350 m (1,150 ft) and took about 15–20 seconds to cross the contemporary long range weapon's effective distance. A most important element, and one not easily mastered, was to stay in one line with fixed spaces while accelerating and having the maximum speed at impact. Often knights would come in several waves, with the first being the best equipped and armored. The lance as a primary weapon pierced the enemy. If an enemy soldier was hit in full gallop by a knight's lance couched under the armpit, he was thrown backwards with such a momentum that he knocked over several of his compatriots, and was more often than not, killed; in some cases, the lance would even skewer the man and kill or wound the soldier behind him. The heavy lances were dropped after the attack and the battle was continued with secondary mêlée weapons, such as swords, battle axes, war hammers, or maces.
The Persians deployed theircataphracts in mixed formations with light archers in the rear ranks, supporting the charge with arrows.[10]Mongolian heavy cavalry improved upon the charging effect by attaching hooks to their lances to take enemies down when bypassing. Usually, employed a two-ranks deep formation of heavy cavalry charging the enemy. They were supported by three ranks of light cavalry, delivering rapid closeup shots with heavy armour-breaking arrows.Chinese andJapanese cavalry often used polearms. Both handled their primary weapons in the two-handed Asian style. This method of charging attack was very effective, but it depended very much on favourable ground on the chosen battlefield.[citation needed]
Many knights duringMedieval battles fought on foot.[citation needed] Attacks would be carried out on horseback only under favorable conditions. If the enemy infantry was equipped with polearms and fought in tight formations it was not possible to charge without heavy losses. A fairly common solution to this was for the men-at-arms to dismount and assault the enemy on foot, such as the way Scottish knights dismounted to stiffen the infantryschiltron or the English combination oflongbowmen with dismounted men-at-arms in theHundred Years' War. Another possibility was to bluff an attack, but turn around before impact. This tempted many infantrymen to go on the chase, leaving their formation. The heavy cavalry then turned around again in this new situation and rode down the scattered infantry. Such a tactic was deployed in theBattle of Hastings (1066).
A further improvement of fighting ability was the use of well-armed infantry reserves during knightly battles on horseback. After some time, the battle would often split into several small groups, with space in between, and both sides would become exhausted. Then, an infantry rush could concentrate on selected targets and rout the enemy. Infantry also helped knights to remount in battle and aided the wounded.
ThePolish-Lithuanian hussars' primary battle tactic was thecharge. They carried the charge to, and through the enemy. The charge started at a slow pace and in a relatively loose formation. The formation gradually gathered pace and closed ranks while approaching the enemy, and reached its highest pace and closest formation immediately before engagement. They tended to repeat the charge several times until the enemy formation broke (they had supply wagons with spare lances). The tactic of a charge by heavily armoured hussars and horses was effective for nearly two centuries. The hussars fought with longlances (a hussar's lance usually ranged from 4.5–6.2 m (15–20 ft) in length), akoncerz (long thrusting sword), aszabla (sabre), one or twopistols, and often acarbine orarquebus, known in Polish as abandolet. Winged hussars also carried other weapons, such as thenadziak (horseman's pick), a type ofwar hammer andbattle axe. The lighter, Turkish-style saddle, allowed for more armour to be used by both the horses and the warriors. Moreover, the horses were bred to run very fast with a heavy load and to recover quickly. This was achieved by breeding old Polish horses with Eastern horses, usually from Tatar tribes. As a result, these horses could walk hundreds of kilometres, loaded with over 100 kg (220 lb) and still be able to charge in an instant. Also, hussar horses were very quick and manoeuvrable. This allowed hussars to fight with any cavalry or infantry force, from Western heavyKissaiers, to Eastern lightTatars. They were widely regarded as the most powerful cavalry in the world. In the battles ofLubiszew in 1577,Byczyna (1588),Kokenhausen (1601),Kircholm (1605),Kłuszyn (1610),Chocim (1621),Martynów (1624),Trzciana (1629),Ochmatów (1644),Beresteczko (1651),Połonka (1660),Cudnów (1660),Chocim (1673),Lwów (1675),Vienna (1683), andPárkány (1683), the Polish-Lithuanian hussars proved to be the decisive factor, often against overwhelming odds. For instance, in theBattle of Kłuszyn, during thePolish–Russian War, theRussians andSwedes outnumbered the commonwealth army five-to-one, yet were soundly defeated.[11][12]
Attempts at integrating ranged weapons and heavy cavalry were, for example, made by theGreeks andPersians, equipping their heavier cavalry with bows and javelins. Prior to charging, the enemy would be weakened by repeated missile attacks from combined light cavalry and heavy cavalry (cataphracts).[10] This tactical system was adopted by the Romans, as attested by the presence of an "equites sagittarii clibanarii" unit in theNotitia Dignitatum,[13] and passed down into the tactical repertoire of their Byzantine successors.[14][15]
An enemy who could suddenly strike and retreat usingguerilla warfare tactics was a serious problem for the heavy cavalry. It was therefore important to have enough light cavalry to support the heavier mounted units.
As mentioned earlier, heavy cavalry with lances were always supported by ranged combat units. They could be heavily armoured archers, likecataphracts orclibanarii with bows, advancing together with the charging cavalry. This bow-armed cavalry could loose their arrows as they advanced in the early stages of their charge with the intention of weakening and demoralizing the enemy formation prior to the moment of shock, possibly in shower shooting style. While the enemy was usually capable of countering with equal measures of ranged combat, the horse archers often wore protective equipment, so the changeover from light to heavy cavalry is not always clear and it seems in cases they formed the second charging rank. A similar tactic of heavy skirmishers developed in Late Medieval Europe, employing the easier to handle crossbow. Frontal assaults of heavy cavalry became considered ineffective against formations ofspearmen orpikemen combined withcrossbowmen orlongbow archers. Most of the cavalrymen wore armour that could be penetrated by contemporary crossbows at close ranges. It resulted in the development of new cavalry tactics, whereby knights and mountedmercenaries, deployed in deep triangular wedges, with the most heavily armoured men (especially those able to afford armoured horses) being deployed in the front ranks. To increase its effect, part of the formation would carry small, powerful all-metal crossbows of their own. These mounted crossbowmen could sally out from the rear ranks to provide a skirmish screen or a preliminary barrage of bolts.
Later on, the tactical landscape featuredharquebusiers,musketeers,halberdiers, andpikemen, deployed in combined-arms formations and pitted against cavalry firing pistols orcarbines. One of the cavalry tactics employed in such encounters was thecaracole, developed in the mid-16th century in an attempt to integrategunpowder weapons intocavalry tactics. Equipped with one or twowheellockpistols, cavalrymen would advance on their target at less than agallop. 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. Early on, they had an advantage in firepower, but infantry firepower eventually increased. With the invention of thebayonet, the pike screen against charges could also be turned into a rank of firing soldiers. This tactic was accompanied by the increasing popularity of the Germanreiters in European armies from about 1540, or similar equipped, but usually more lightly armouredhakkapeliitta. Their main weapons were two or more pistols and a sword; initially, most wore three-quarters armour, though as time passed this was reduced to a helmet and a cuirass over a leather coat; 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).
Modern historians regard the caracole as a tactical system that ultimately proved ineffective.[citation needed] It sacrificed the cavalry advantages of speed and mobility, while also leaving mounted soldiers at a disadvantage to massedinfantry equipped with heavier and longer-ranged weapons. The caracole gave way to closeartillery support (seeHorse artillery), deployed to break up the infantry formations and force the foot soldiers to scatter, so that the cavalry would regain their advantage in close-quarters combat. Contemporary writers did not seem to have used the term "caracole" in its modern sense;John Cruso, for example, explained it as a manoeuvre whereby a formation ofcuirassiers would receive the enemy's charge by splitting apart to either side, and then charging back into the flanks of the overextended enemy.
Some historians associate the demise of the caracole with the name ofGustavus Adolphus ofSweden (1594–1632). He regarded the technique as fairly inefficient and forbade the cavalry regiments in Swedish employment from using it. However, he was definitely not the first military commander to dismiss the caracole;François de la Noue, in his account of his service underHenry IV of France, mentioned that the pistol-armed Protestant cavalry used their weapons much like very long swords or lances, charging fiercely against the enemy formation before discharging the pistols at point-blank range (or even laying the pistol's muzzle directly against the opponent's armour before firing). There is reason to believe that the Sweders were influenced by Henry IV's ideas, whether directly or through Dutch mediation – especially by the agency of Swedish officers who served in theLow Countries (Eighty Years' War), such asJacob De la Gardie.
Against light cavalry with bows and javelins
It was impossible for infantry to engage light cavalry with bows and javelins in close combat on ground that did not seriously hinder cavalry movement. The only resort for engagement were missile weapons in ranged combat. In this case both cavalry and infantry fought only in a missile exchange. While the infantry can be considered static in comparison to the cavalry, their own protection, the damage their missiles would cause and the hit rate were important.
For example, in the prelude to theBattle of Mohi,crossbowmen protected bypavises sniped at the Mongol light cavalry, resulting in a tactical defeat of this Mongol unit, although the Mongols did go on to win the overall battle.[16]
The defence of such ranged combat units was important, for cavalry could always switch roles and engage the ranged combat infantry (often lightly armored skirmishers) in close combat.
Against heavy cavalry with lances
Thelongbow and thecrossbow were able to counter the dominance of mounted knights on the battlefield. Although knights of theMiddle Ages often fought on foot or at least avoided futile frontal attacks, it happened several times that knightly armies led charges in obeyance to their warrior ideal only to meet with disaster. AtCrécy (1346) andPoitiers (1356), the French knights suffered heavy casualties against theWelsh and English longbowmen. The ability to keep several arrows in the air at any given time was an important advantage of the medieval archer. Thus, while a cavalry charge followed a strict pattern of acceleration (400 m (1,300 ft) in 2 minutes, gallop at the last 150 m (490 ft)) from a distance beyond effective missile range, once they came within range they could be met with a hail of arrows that could severely injure both horse and rider alike. However, unsupported light infantry and archers would not be able to cause enough casualties to a cavalry force, if it were charging across suitable terrain, to tip the odds in their favour in the following melee. Thus, it was always advisable for missile troops to fight on terrain disadvantageous to cavalry charges, and with supporting heavy infantry close by.
The long spears (pikes) of theScots andSwiss were an excellent defensive weapon against cavalry. The warriors stood in tight formations like an ancientphalanx, the end of their pikes embedded in the ground, presenting a massive spiked wall. In battle against the Scots, the English knights proved to be as narrow-minded as their French counterparts, employing the classic cavalry charge despite the new challenge of the Scottish pike. In the battles ofStirling Bridge (1297) andBannockburn (1314) they were defeated by the Scots. While the English imitated this tactic successfully against the French, the Swiss perfected it. Despite longer lances for the knights, this formation was now almost impenetrable. Pikemen with polearms remained an important part of armies throughout theThirty Years' War. Later tactics used against this formation includedcaracole maneuvers with ranged weapons. However, a well-trained cavalry force could outflank a force of enemy pikemen on even terrain and triumph. The most elite knights, with the best armour, immense prowess and extremely-well trained horses, could charge pike formations and still, even if only scarcely, hold their own, sometimes even triumphing; however, the cost to raise and maintain such troops was enormous and impractical when considering alternative options to the head-on charge.
Lancers needed firm even ground and ample unobstructed space for a cavalry charge to be effective. Opponents could limit avenues for such charges by deploying their forces nearrivers,marshes,woodlands, or other types of rough terrain. The later Roman generals were able to defeat the Parthian Cataphracts by securing their flanks. The Scots did this at Bannockburn and Stirling, and in nearly all their guerilla fighting against the English, as did the Welsh to a great extent. The Swiss defeated the Austrian knights at theBattle of Morgarten (1315) by attacking the knightly army in a narrow place between an acclivity and a swamp. The peasants ofDithmarschen faced in 1500, atHemmingstedt, the army of theDanish king. They opened the dykes and flooded the country. If the terrain was not well suited for a cavalry attack, knights often fought on foot and used their lances as pikes.
With increasing firepower and no sufficient protection, the role of cavalry on the battlefield was slowly reduced. Light cavalry with firearms could return fire, but the aim from a moving platform 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 defeat. This tactic was a striking surprise of Mongolian light cavalry in thebattle of the Kalka River. The alternative was to use them asdragoons, reaching their positions quickly, dismounting, and fighting like infantry, often with projectile weapons. Such a way of fighting had started in Europe at least in the mid-13th century with mountedlongbow andcrossbow archers, but was also employed by the Mongols with their Buryatian longbows.
Cavalry is featured in modern warfare with cavalrymen retaining thelight cavalry missions, albeit the missions of reconnaissance and security remain the same.Heavy cavalry, as such, has its role of shock effect fulfilled bytanks and otherarmoured fighting vehicles.
In 1912 the cavalry of theImperial Russian Army adopted the traditionallava tactic [ru] developed byCossack forces.[17]
Since the early 20th century,infantry fighting vehicles andarmored cars have largely supplanted horses and other animals used for frontline cavalry. The first regular cavalry unit to mechanize was the11th Hussars of theBritish Army, switching from horses to armored cars in 1928. Since then, many cavalry units have mechanized and switched to using armored vehicles orarmed helicopters, with horses only retained for ceremonial purposes, if not phased out of service entirely. However, some modern units, such as theIndian Army's61st Cavalry and some ChinesePeople's Liberation Army's border units inXinjiang andInner Mongolia, continue to use horses on deployments.
Examples of modern military vehicles built specifically for the cavalry role include theM3 Bradley CFV and theM113 ACAV.
Air cavalry, originallysky cavalry[18] is aUnited States Army term that refers to helicopter-equipped units that perform reconnaissance,screening, security, and economy-of-force missions. The term and unit designation properly only refers to those squadrons (i.e., battalion-level organizations), and some independent troops (i.e., companies), affiliated with historical U.S. cavalry regiments, that perform the traditional cavalry mission. After theVietnam War, there also existed one independent brigade-sized air cavalry organization, the6th Air Cavalry Combat Brigade.[19]
U.S. air cavalry squadrons consisted of three air cavalry troops, one armored cavalry troop, and a headquarters and headquarters troop. The air cavalry troops consisted of an aero-scout platoon, an aero-weapons platoon, an aero-rifle platoon, a service platoon, and a headquarters and operations platoon. The troop was commanded by a major, with a captain as executive officer, and a troop first sergeant. Each platoon was commanded by a captain with a lieutenant as assistant platoon commander/section leader and a sergeant first class as platoon sergeant.[citation needed]
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)(The Famous Cossack Attack. As adopted in 1912, for the first time, by the regular Russian Cavalry.)
