What defines heavy cavalry?

[Piédalf]

In ancient times they were many kind of cavalry that plays differents roles on the battlefield: light cavalry to take disbanded units and throw javelins and heavy cavalry that acts as shock troops (we will not talk about archer cavalry).

So what's the difference between both?

Armament? a horseman with only clothes as armor will obviously be a light horseman, but many light cavalry had mails and helmets. Also, both have sword and spears most have shields (maybe lighter shields for light cav). Lances are the answer maybe, because it causes a shock contact, but light hussard cavalry used them and they were heavy cavalry that used spears before the 11th in western Europe.

Might be the horse gear the answer? Maybe stirrups can transform well armored light cavalry to heavy cavalry but I'm not so sure.
They were heavy cavalry before stirrups, like the kataphaktoï, because the saddle can prevent the horseman being screened while charging with spear and allows strong hits.

For my part, the horse himself is very important. It seems that celts had short horses (1,30 m. h.)  and I can hardly see how a frontal charge with ponies can be that dangerous. So they mostly used javelins to stay away, using horses to impower the throw. If you compare them with best roman horses and medieval steeds (1,50 m.+) they would look ridiculous.
A steed would be both strong and fast (so not too heavy) and that combination would be devastating in a charge and nice while maneuvering in melee.
Arabs prefered lighter and faster horses, making light cavalry with mailed horsemen.

So, in your mind, is there other facts that make sense?

 

[Vovolov]

I assume light and heavy cavalry wasn't defined by the gear or horses they used, but rather by the role they fulfilled. I expect back in the day they didn't refer to the units as light or heavy cavalry at all, either. Especially in medieval times, I assume any "heavy cavalry" would be the mounted elite, regardless of equipment, and "light cavalry" the regular horsemen.

(These are all assumptions. )

 

[Piédalf]

I assume light and heavy cavalry wasn't defined by the gear or horses they used, but rather by the role they fulfilled. I expect back in the day they didn't refer to the units as light or heavy cavalry at all, either. Especially in medieval times, I assume any "heavy cavalry" would be the mounted elite, regardless of equipment, and "light cavalry" the regular horsemen.

(These are all assumptions. )

+
But I can't see how ponies can make shock troops.

 

[rapier17]

I assume light and heavy cavalry wasn't defined by the gear or horses they used, but rather by the role they fulfilled.

I agree. I think it is down to whether they're primarily used for skirmishing/harassing, exploitation, pursuit or whether their primary role is melee - shock and impact, to break apart formations and scatter them. Essentially the (on paper) difference between Britain's Light & Heavy Dragoons of the Napoleonics (I think - please correct me if I'm wrong) - similar armaments (carbine, sword), lacking armour but different roles.

 

[Redstone Knight]

When they say heavy cavalry, I remember knights who wears plate armors, uses lance rides armored horse.

Maybe the right answer is armor ?

Ottoman Mamluk Cavalry (1550 - Thanks Wikipedia):

Spoiler

Ottoman Deli Cavalry (1590 - Holy Wikipedia):

Spoiler

 

[fysaga]

I think it differs in different eras. The role the cavalry took, for example harrassing or charging, was always the defining factor, but sometimes equipment had its say as well.

 

[FrisianDude]

I assume light and heavy cavalry wasn't defined by the gear or horses they used, but rather by the role they fulfilled. I expect back in the day they didn't refer to the units as light or heavy cavalry at all, either. Especially in medieval times, I assume any "heavy cavalry" would be the mounted elite, regardless of equipment, and "light cavalry" the regular horsemen.

(These are all assumptions. )

+
But I can't see how ponies can make shock troops.

if all you have is ponies then you might simply not field what we now call 'heavy cavalry'. At least; if the difference is in roles and the role of heavy cavalry is 'charge', then a culture with ponies but no big horses simply doesn't field heavy cavalry.

 

[Do not look here]

Generally speaking, in later ages size of horse seems to be main difference. Duchy of Warsaw was forced to borrow and buy horses for their heavy cavalry regiments, as horses suited for lancers weren't considered big enough for that purpose - then again, those smaller horses were more resilient and capable of multiple charges, so there.

The other thing is battlefield purpose - as others mentioned, light cavalry would act as recon, harass enemies and do stuff like that. That doesn't forbid them from charges, but it generally looks like light cavalry would use hit-and-run tactics, while heavy cavalry was expected to charge and break through or tie other cavalry in combat.

Those are just terms anyway, basing too heavy on them isn't healthy. It's not like everyone used gameplay manual left by Alexander the Great to correctly call everything they had at disposition. It's not like commanders thought "well, those guys are heavy cavalry, I better use them now", it was more like "well, those guys are big, they ride friggin' mammoths and are armoured from toes to head, I better use them now".

 

[FrisianDude]

, it was more like "well, those guys are big, they ride friggin' mammoths and are armoured from toes to head, I better use them now".

even more like 'those guys ride the best horses and have the best armour because they are the elite, which means they're probably also the best trained so I miiiight need them right now'

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

If all you have is ponies then you might simply not field what we now call 'heavy cavalry'. At least; if the difference is in roles and the role of heavy cavalry is 'charge', then a culture with ponies but no big horses simply doesn't field heavy cavalry.

States in the ponified Middle East did have "heavy cavalry" though. So did the Mongols, Seljuks, Ayyubids and other kingdoms that commonly get depicted with tiny little baby-ponies. The size of the horse didn't detract from the act of lancers smashing loose or wavering infantry.

So what's the difference between both?

"Heavy" cavalry/infantry is only a term that's coined in the late gunpowder era when the military was deliberately separated between physically imposing men and horses and their less imposing counterparts. I don't think you could even apply for certain regiments if you were shorter than what was practically a giant.

However, calling anything before this period "heavy" or "light" cavalry is sort of arbitrary as there was no distinction. It's just a term military historians have imposed on premodern militaries, which dredges up all kinds of anachronisms.
Arguably there is a distinction between sergeants and knights in certain periods, but even then there aren't enough clear and persistent distinctions for "heavy" and "light" cavalry to be any more than vague labels in Medieval Europe. Not sure about later periods, but in the high middle ages it was common for knights to engage in flank harassment and even javelin-throwing before the battle began in earnest.

It gets even worse in the post-Seljuk Muslim world where seeming contradictions like armoured horse archers and pony'd lancers were commonplace. It all depended on how prestigious a certain military role was; when the Seljuks popularised noble horse archery, it led to elite divisions of extremely well armoured mounted bowmen. Conversely, as the Arab population who made up pre-Seljuk melee cavalry became sidelined, it was increasingly common for mounted swordsmen and lancers to go to battle with what was essentially peasant's gear.

 

[FrisianDude]

If all you have is ponies then you might simply not field what we now call 'heavy cavalry'. At least; if the difference is in roles and the role of heavy cavalry is 'charge', then a culture with ponies but no big horses simply doesn't field heavy cavalry.

States in the ponified Middle East did have "heavy cavalry" though. So did the Mongols, Seljuks, Ayyubids and other kingdoms that commonly get depicted with tiny little baby-ponies. The size of the horse didn't detract from the act of lancers smashing loose or wavering infantry.

... this is true. I was thinking like 9th century Irish rather than the duuuh big horse-hordes

 

[Kharille]

I think its down to whether they're inclined to get stuck in.  I remember an encyclopedia of history mentioning that the Mongolians used 40% light cavalry for harassing and dividing an enemy and 60% heavy infantry with all the metal gear they could salvage.  From their perspective, heavy cavalry got in close and did most of the killing.  I'm sure they relied on pygmy horses, tough, reliable and able to eat grass on the move... 

If you don't have the resources, then you go in with minimal armour.  That's still 'heavy' cavalry as far as I'm concerned.  Depends on the role.