Infantry formation against horsemen.

[Cloud Breaker]

Say, a thousand well equipped and experienced infantrymen, majority of whom are not armed with polearms, is bracing against a 300-men medium cavalry charge on a level terrain. Should the infantry be tightly packed together, or spread out, to counter their charge?

The consensus is that horsemen can easily 'cut through' a scattered formation. But as I tried to visualize the scenario, I figured that scattered targets will also make the cavalry formation disperse their own men, as  otherwise they'll be vulnerable to encirclement by the more numerous infantrymen. Also, if the infantrymen were packed together, the cavalry can easily focus their momentum on a smaller area, killing or disabling many in a single charge. So I concluded that staying packed together is just as dangerous as being spread out, and since that's the case, it's better to be spread out because that will at least give a better chance at encircling the horsemen after surviving the initial charge.

The key variables here are:

The infantry and cavalry are similarly equipped and equally experienced, the only difference being that cavalry is mounted;

The majority of the infantry are not armed specifically to fight against cavalry;

The infantry is braced against the cavalry charge;

The terrain is flat, and the weather is fine;

The infantry's primary intent is to destroy the cavalry unit, not run away from it;

And the cavalry also have the same intent against the infantry.


Tell me your thoughts.

 

[FrisianDude]

Why would the cavalry intend to destroy themselves?

 

[Cloud Breaker]

They wouldn't...

 

[FrisianDude]

I know, I just felt like being a pain. I think the infantry should pack together, or maybe form multiple solid blocks. Anyway, they're not in a very good place to fight, really.

 

[Cloud Breaker]

If there were more infantry, will they stand a chance?

 

[FrisianDude]

Depends on their morale, I'd think. The horseman's charge might kill many and the rest would be a bit less eager to continue fighting then, perhaps.

 

[Cloud Breaker]

But they know that there will be no retreat, and their purpose is to destroy the cavalry unit at all costs. They will be desperate, and highly dangerous. They know what exactly they need to do, because survival is impossible without defeating the cavalry, and they are also experienced soldiers.

 

[Zilberfrid]

Static, solid block, scattered would allow horsemen to skirt the edge and off them on the go, a solid block would be extremely hazardous to attack. Also, the footmen could, with little preaparation, forge pikes that are not as effective as spears, but good enough to break a charge

 

[Llew2]

If the cavelry are smart they will have two smaller companies break off and flank the infantry's formation, or better yet simply send a hundred around and hit them squarely in the rear.

They could win doing that, because the Infantry won't be able to maneuver to stop them. 

 

[Aqtai]

It's a film, so there are inaccuracies (such as the ridiculously small tercio), still you get the gist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je-c81wwrpA&feature=related

 

[Cirdan]

It's been said before, but it bears repeating. A cavalry charge is like a giant game of chicken; if the cavalry are willing to die in the charge, and they can get their horses to obey, the infantry will probably lose in this scenario--but if the footmen are also willing to give their lives to do what damage they can to the enemy, the cavalry will be leaving many, quite possibly most, of their number on the field. If you long at long-term consequences, that generally makes for a Pyrrhic victory, so a wise commander will know better than to throw away his fanatical cavalry in a frontal charge.

However, if the infantry do not have some sort of very effective missile weapon, the cavalry--given all the space they could possibly dream of to manoeuvre--will almost certainly win. Why? They can engage and disengage at will, and that's a formidable advantage.

 

[Captain Pyjama Shark]

I'd say that it would most likely be the infantry. The Franks shook late antiquity because they still fought as infantry, yet they usually won battles. This was due to their solid blocks of infantry, which could destroy any Roman, German or Hun cavalry which found its way into it. Thought, I guess it would depend on how prepared the infanrty were, based on your scenario. The Franks used the francisca to decimate charges... so... yeah. 

 

[Zilberfrid]

333% the manpower of the cavalry would also do things. The cavalry would probably not lose though, simply by not attacking, they have that choice.

 

[Tzsak]

Guys, I'm pretty sure the question is not who will win but whether a tightly packed or loose packed formation would be better for the infantry.

 

[Cloud Breaker]

That's right.

At least in the context of medieval fight sim video games, like M&B and M2TW, tightly packed infantry formations were almost always slaughter fest waiting to happen. It presented too many weak points; less coverage, vulnerable flanks, and overall clumsiness of the whole unit. Cohesion is not the key when both sides are ready to fight to the death; (like in M&B) what matters most is which side will be able to kill faster while losing as few troops as possible in the process.

In this regard, the infantry will have the upper hand, as they can afford to lose around 33 men for every 10 horsemen they kill, mathematically speaking. The real issue is which formation will best enable the infantry to maintain the kill-death ratio for the duration of the fight. If the initial cavalry charge can kill, let's say, 200 infantry whilst losing 30 men, the fight will already be heavily tipped in the cavalry's favor. To negate the lethality of the charge, the infantry will have to disperse to spread the damage over a wider area, possibly forcing the cavalry to have only a one-line formation. The thing is, the act of dispersing infantry against a cavalry charge is already against the consensus of military tactics doctrine.

Now we have two deciding factors here: the formation of the infantry unit, and the impetus of cavalry.

There 4 possible scenarios: (combat is unavoidable)

Reckless cavalry vs. Tight infantry formation

Cautious cavalry vs. Tight infantry formation

Reckless cavalry vs. Loose infantry formation

Cautious cavalry vs. Loose infantry formation


Reckless cavalry will involve frontal charge; they'll try to break the infantry formation and kill as many as possible within the shortest span of time.

Cautious cavalry will take as much time as they please, lurking around the corners and hit whenever they want, and retreat before taking too much damage. It will basically be a battle of endurance.


Dial in your variables.

 

[Archonsod]

The consensus is that horsemen can easily 'cut through' a scattered formation. But as I tried to visualize the scenario, I figured that scattered targets will also make the cavalry formation disperse their own men, as  otherwise they'll be vulnerable to encirclement by the more numerous infantrymen.

That's not how a cavalry charge works If the infantry are loose then the cavalry won't stop long enough to be encircled, they'll attack in passes, on each pass riding through the unit and slashing/lancing/thrusting enemies as they pass. Once clear, they'll wheel around and do it again.

The point of a dense formation is that it forces the cavalry to either skirt it, minimising the damage they can cause, or try and ride through it, which if the formation is dense enough will stop the cavalry before their momentum takes them out of the other side. Once stationary, a cavalryman is actually at a disadvantage against infantry; not only can they attack from all sides at once, but the horse is a rather large (albeit dangerous) target.

 

[n00b]

Say, a thousand well equipped and experienced infantrymen, majority of whom are not armed with polearms, is bracing against a 300-men medium cavalry charge on a level terrain. Should the infantry be tightly packed together, or spread out, to counter their charge?

tightly-packed.

So they cannot easily turn back and run, and cavalrymen would find it impossible to kill anyone without directly hiting into the massive crowd.

Spreading-out could work only if the infantry have: very morale, excellent close combat capability, and wielding 2h longswords. It was recorded in Chinese Song dynasty. But of course the tactic could not withstand a charge by highly-trained persian/sarmatian cataphracts in very tightly-packed square.

 

[Gculk]

The consensus is that horsemen can easily 'cut through' a scattered formation. But as I tried to visualize the scenario, I figured that scattered targets will also make the cavalry formation disperse their own men, as  otherwise they'll be vulnerable to encirclement by the more numerous infantrymen.

That's not how a cavalry charge works If the infantry are loose then the cavalry won't stop long enough to be encircled, they'll attack in passes, on each pass riding through the unit and slashing/lancing/thrusting enemies as they pass. Once clear, they'll wheel around and do it again.

The point of a dense formation is that it forces the cavalry to either skirt it, minimising the damage they can cause, or try and ride through it, which if the formation is dense enough will stop the cavalry before their momentum takes them out of the other side. Once stationary, a cavalryman is actually at a disadvantage against infantry; not only can they attack from all sides at once, but the horse is a rather large (albeit dangerous) target.

That.

 

[AlienKnight]

With the numbers as given and presuming the infantry has no pikes or any obstacles made and this is a heavy cavalry, I would bet on cavalry. The tight formation for infantry is the correct way IMHO, it all depends however on the ability to maintain such a formation under the charge of cavalry. The largest cavalry charge in history (if I recall correctly) was the Battle of Vienna (1683), when heavy cavalry surprisingly easily broke the formation of more numerous infantry supported well by artillery and the story was over. The cavalry rode all way through the defending infantry inflicting heavy casualties and the defenders flew in panic (it seems they really really did not want another charge )

On the other hand there are examples of the infantry maintaining the formation well and victorious against a strong cavalry charge, like at Issus (the Phalangists held the ground firmly for long enough against Persian cavalry) or at Gaugamela (the infantry used smart tactics against charriots to get them surrounded and then to eliminate them).

The cavalry usually got the upper hand until the infantry learned how to stop the charge and avoid being flanked (see battles of Crecy and Agincourt).
And that was possbile with use of obstacles, pikes and firepower (first bows and crossbows, then artillery and firearms).

 

[Kealac]

I think that with the right amount of spears the cavalry stand no chance. It was only until cannon and other forms of Artillery were invented to punch holes in squares of pikemen that the tactic was abandoned. That whole idea was pioneered by the swedish army and borrowed by the dutch during the revolt against spain in the 16th century. I'm sure the idea that a long stick might be able to stop a horse in its tracks before it bowls you over was thought of pretty early on.