20. Anglim et al., Fighting Techniques, 81–85.
21. Healy, New Kingdom, 23–24.
22. Mark Healy in Qadesh, puts the date as 1300; other sources put it as 1275 BC. In addition the city name is variously spelled “Qadesh” and “Kadesh.” The Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, 30, spells the name “Kadesh” and puts the date of the battle as 1286 BC.
23. Some of the controversial details are omitted because they do not add to an understanding of chariot warfare. In addition to Healy’s well-thought-out description of events, Anthony J. Spalinger also does an in-depth analysis of the battle in War in Ancient Egypt, 209–34. Spalinger’s conclusions do not all coincide with those of Healy. In many cases the evidence appears to make either interpretation equally plausible, although as an academic work Spalinger’s is more complete in citing the sources for his conclusions.
24. Several articles in the Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations contributed to this discussion of the Sea People: Colin Walters, “Ancient Egypt,” 22–44; N. K. Sanders, “The Sea Peoples,” 44–46; and O. R. Gurney, “The Hittites,” 111–17.
25. Clutton-Brock, Horse Power, 66.
26. The advance in horsemanship and equipment is easily discerned by visually examining the cavalry depicted in the relief drawings found in the ruins of the Assyrian Empire and displayed in a variety of sources including Healy, Ancient Assyrians, 11, 24; Anglim et al., Fighting Techniques, 94–95; and A. K. Grayson, “Assyria,” in Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, 107.
27. Grayson, “Assyria,” in Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, 105.
CHAPTER 2: CAVALRY ARMIES
1. Summarized from T. Cuyler Young Jr., “Persia,” in Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, 147–52. Cyrus the Great and his son are also referred to in some texts as Kyros the Great and Kambyses; see De Souza, “Greek Persian Wars,” in De Souza, Heckel, and Llewellyn-Jones, Greeks at War, 27.
2. Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, 74.
3. Warry, Alexander, 33, 53.
4. Hanson, Western Way of War, 27–32.
5. Hyland, Horse in the Ancient World, 27–28, 120–21.
6. Hyland describes the Assyrian system in this regard; ibid., 96.
7. Ibid., 120–22.
8. The Caspian head is short and fine with large eyes, a small muzzle, and large nostrils placed low. There is a pronounced development of the forehead; the ears are very short; the neck slim and graceful, well attached to sloping shoulders; withers are pronounced; back straight; and the tail is set high on a rather level croup. The legs are slim and dense, strong bone and no feathering at the fetlock. The hooves are extremely strong and oval shaped— more like those of the ass than the horse. The overall impression of the Caspian is that of a very small, well-proportioned horse. Subsequent studies confirmed the visual picture osteologically; the Caspian is a horse, not a pony. Xenophon, Persian Expedition, 201; Horse height is measured in hands, where one hand equals 10 cm (4 in); E. Webster, “Caspian Horse Today;” “Caspian,” Breeds of Livestock.
9. Joyce Covington, secretary and treasurer, Caspian Horse Society of the Americas, interview by the author, October 29, 2005.
10. “Fossil and Frozen Horses from Prehistoric Times: The Pazyryk Horses” www.turanianhorse.org
11. The Akhal-Teke should be longer than it is tall, with a rectangular silhouette. The back is long, but strong, with a level top-line. Withers are prominent and attached to a well set in shoulder. Shoulders should be nicely sloped and extremely free moving. The hip angle is wide and gives the appearance of strength. Tail set is low. When viewed from the front, the chest is narrow, although the heart girth is deep. The skin of the Akhal-Teke is very thin, with their coat and hair being quite fine. Often the breed shows a sparse mane and tail, little or no forelock, and the absence of feathering on the fetlocks. Any color is acceptable, as is any combination of white markings. The characteristic “metallic gleam” is a desirable feature. Overall, the Akhal-Teke should give the impression of lithe athleticism without excessive musculature. Akhal-Teke Association of America, “Breed Standard.”
12. Herodotus, History of Herodotus, bk. 7; Ibid., bk. 9.
13. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire, 163; Hyland, Horse in the Ancient World, 30.
14. Xenophon, Art of Horsemanship, 53, 58.
15. Spence, Cavalry of Classical Greece, 165.
16. The size of Xerxes’ army is the subject of much analysis by historians. These figures are based on a variety of estimates as discussed in Connolly, Greece and Rome at War, 12, and De Souza et al., Greeks at War, 49.
17. These numbers are according to Herodotus as reported in Connolly, Greece and Rome at War, 30.
18. Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, 79.
19. Connolly, Greece and Rome at War, 29; summarized from a variety of accounts including Connolly, Greece and Rome at War, 30–35; De Souza et al., Greeks at War, 76–78, and Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, 74–80.
20. Worley, Hippeis, 29–30; Spence, Cavalry of Classical Greece, 25.
21. Worley, Hippeis, 29.
22. Laffin, Brassey’s Battles, 417–18.
23. Spence, Cavalry of Classical Greece, 167.
24. A lot of the source discussion debates the equipment of the Greek cavalry. This issue is highly problematic because of the length of the time period discussed, the cultural differences and preferences of the individual different Greek states, a definite lack of comprehensive evidence, and the constantly changing nature of warfare during the Peloponnesian Wars period. This subject is addressed in Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, 29, Worley, Hippeis, 36–48, and Spence, Cavalry of Classical Greece, 49–65. Worley in particular relies on pottery art relics for most of his opinions on pre–Persian Wars cavalry. His analysis in this area tends to overemphasize the role of cavalry in the Mycenaean and early Archaic periods based purely on the recovered pottery depictions (900–500 BC).
25. Worley, Hippeis, 154.
26. Ibid., 153–54; Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, 148–49.
27. Spence, Cavalry of Classical Greece, 26.
28. Plutarch, “Plutarch’s Parallel Lives: Alexander” in Fall of the Roman Republic; Arrian, Campaigns of Alexander, 282–83. In the introduction, Hamilton notes that Plutarch refers to many ancient sources who report that Bucephalas was killed in battle, and Arrian also refers to “the blow which killed his beloved horse Bucephalas,” 274.
29. Connolly, Greece and Rome at War, 72–73.
30. Worley, Hippeis, 156; Connolly, Greece and Rome at War, 70–73.
31. Markle, “Macedonian Arms,” 87–111; Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, 168–71.
32. Worley, Hippeis, 155, and Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, 161.
33. Worley, Hippeis, 155–56. Connolly’s discussion of cavalry organization matches Worley’s, but he adds that only seven squadrons plus the royal squadron participated in the invasion of Asia, 71.
34. Arrian, Campaigns of Alexander, 73.
35. Plutarch, “Plutarch’s Parallel Lives: Alexander.”
36. Gaebel, Cavalry Operations, 162n6n11.
37. Ibid., 154, and Worley, Hippeis, 159.
38. Arrian, Campaigns of Alexander, 71, and Warry, Alexander 334–323 BC, 19; Macedonian numbers here vary slightly depending on the source. I have rounded the numbers and com-promised some between sources. The numbers provided by the Greek historian Diodorus are 12,000 Macedonian infantry, 7,000 allies, and 5,000 mercenaries. For cavalry the numbers were 1,800 Macedonian, 1,800 Thessalians, and 600 from the rest of Greece. Diodorus quoted in Waldemar Heckel, “The Wars of Alexander the Great, 336–323,” in De Souza et al., Greeks at War, 27.
39. Arrian, Campaigns of Alexander, 71-75.
40. Ibid., 120–21.
41. Warry, Alexander 334–323 BC, 52–54.
42. Bosworth, Conquest and Empire, 78; Warry, Alexander 334–323 BC, 59.
43. The bulk of the Gaugamela description is derived from Arrian, Campaigns of Alexander, 164–72,
Bosworth, Conquest and Empire, 81–85, and Warry, Alexander 334–323 BC, 53–66.
44. Arrian, Campaigns of Alexander, 171–72.
CHAPTER 3: THE ROMANS
1. Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare, 49.
2. Dixon and Southern, Roman Cavalry, 21.
3. Connolly, Greece and Rome, 134.
4. Goldsworthy, Complete Roman Army, 27; McCall, Cavalry of the Roman Republic, 147–49; Connolly, Greece and Rome, 133–34.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid., 47.
7. Cheesman, Auxilia, 31–32; Vegetius, Roman Military, 89.
8. Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare, 107; G. Webster, Roman Imperial Army, 145; Goldsworthy, Complete Roman Army, 56–58; Cheesman, Auxilia, 21.
9. Cheesman, Auxilia, 60–62.
10. Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare, 126–27; G. Webster, Roman Imperial Army, 282; Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare, 133.
11. Dixon and Southern, Roman Cavalry, 27–30, quoting Josephus, the Jewish historian of the Jewish revolt in his work The Jewish War. In Greece and Rome at War, 217–18, Connolly reaches the same conclusion as Dixon and Southern.
12. Suetonius, “The Lives of the Caesars,” LVII; Plutarch, Fall of the Roman Republic, 261; Suetonius, “The Lives of the Caesars,” LXI.
13. Anglim et al., Fighting Techniques, 107. Ann Hyland, Equus, 116, comments that experiments with the Roman saddle indicate that leather leggings are absolutely essential for a secure seat; Dixon and Southern, Roman Cavalry, 35–53, and Connolly, Tiberius Claudius Maximus, 29.
14. G. Webster, Roman Imperial Army, 151–52; Cheesman, Auxilia, 58, 69; Connolly attributes the beginning of fully armored Roman heavy cavalry to Hadrian after meeting Sarmatian heavy cavalry along the Danube in the second half of the first century, Greece and Rome at War, 235.
15. Dixon and Southern, Roman Cavalry, 49, 61–62, 66–67. Intricate metal eye protection is well illustrated in Connolly, Tiberius Claudius Maximus, 22–23.
16. Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare, 182; Elton, Warfare in Roman Europe, 103; Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare, 202; Simon MacDowall makes this point explicitly in Late Roman Cavalryman, 3.
17. Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare, 167; MacDowall, Late Roman Cavalryman, 4.
18. Ibid., 5–7; Ibid., 59; Roger Tomlin, “The Mobile Army,” in Connolly, Greece and Rome at War, 257.
19. Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare, 201.
20. Hyland, Equus, 24.
21. Ibid., 11, 4.
22. Ibid., 20–21.
23. The description of the construction, analysis, and testing of the four-horned saddle is from Connolly and van Driel-Murray, “Roman Cavalry Saddle,” 33–50.
24. When doing lateral work from the horse’s back the value of the rigid horns becomes even more apparent. They enable very sharp, rapid turns to be executed during which the front horns lock the rider in very effectively. When using a weapon, as for instance if the spatha is employed from the right over the horse’s neck and delivered in a downwards cut to the left of the animal’s shoulder, the natural tendency would be for the weight of the torso and weapon arm, plus the poundage of thrust, to disrupt the rider’s equilibrium. By locking the right thigh hard under the right horn the rider can maintain his seat, if not with ease, with greater sense of security than when riding on a soft or bareback. Hyland, Equus, 134.
25. Ibid., 134.
26. Ibid., 135.
27. Hyland, Equus, 50, Dixon and Southern, Roman Cavalry, 181–205; Vegetius, Roman Military, 57, 63, 69.
28. Hyland, Equus, 139.
29. Dixon and Southern, Roman Cavalry, 229–33.
30. Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare, 79–80.
31. “Strabo: The Geography,” bk. 3, chap. 4.
32. Wilcox and Treviño, Barbarians against Rome, 73–74.
33. Caesar, Ancient History, Archaeology, and Biblical Studies, bk. 4, chap. 33.
34. “Strabo: The Geography,” bk. 4, chap. 4; Caesar, Ancient History, Archaeology, and Biblical Studies, bk. 4, chap. 2; Robert Browning, “The Later Roman Empire,” in Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, 266–67.
35. Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare, 139; E. J. Keall, “After Alexander,” in Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, 157.
36. Farrokh, Sassanian Elite Cavalry, 7, 3-5.
37. Keall, “After Alexander,” in Penguin Encyclopedia of Ancient Civilizations, 159.
38. Ibid., 159–61.
39. Farrokh, Sassanian Elite Cavalry, 16–17.
40. Ibid., 7–16.
41. Ibid., 29–31.
42. Ibid., 19.
43. Vegetius, Roman Military, 112; Caesar, Ancient History, Archaeology, and Biblical Studies, bk. 2, chap. 8; Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare, 126.
44. Connolly, Greece and Rome at War, 134; Caesar, Ancient History, Archaeology, and Biblical Studies, bk. 8, chap. 17.
45. Goldsworthy, Roman Warfare, 55–56.
46. Vegetius, Roman Military, 132.
47. Ibid., 79.
48. This account of the battle of Carrhae is a summary of the account by Plutarch, Fall of the Roman Republic, 137–55.
49. Goldsworthy, Roman Army at War, 64–68.
50. Anglim et al., Fighting Techniques, 116.
51. Farrokh, Sassanian Elite Cavalry, 44–45.
52. Ibid., 47–50.
53. The account of Adrianople is based on Simon MacDowall’s comprehensive work on the subject, Adrianople.
54. Ammianus quoted in MacDowall, Adrianople, 80.
CHAPTER 4: THE KNIGHT AND HIS MOUNT
1. Oman, Art of War, xii.
2. John Gillingham, “An Age of Expansion, 1020–1204,” in Medieval Warfare: A History, 59. Gillingham points to gold at the primary motivation of Norman expansion, ibid., 61.
3. Gillingham, “An Age of Expansion” in Medieval Warfare: A History, 71–73; Edbury, “Warfare in the Latin East,” in ibid., 107; Gillingham, “An Age of Expansion,” in ibid., 78.
4. Andrew Ayton, “Arms, Armour, and Horses,” in Medieval Warfare: A History, 196.
5. Gravett, Norman Knight, 28–29.
6. This thesis is convincingly articulated by Stephen Morillo, “The ‘Age of Cavalry’ Revisited,” in Circle of War. Morillo’s thesis is that primarily social and political causes more accurately describe the relative rise and fall of cavalry and infantry capabilities as opposed to technological changes. Specifically, he argues against the stirrup as the explanation for the rise of cavalry dominance in the Middle Ages. The importance of the stirrup is expanded later in a subsequent section of this chapter. For a complete discussion of historiography of the stirrup debate see Sloan, “Stirrup Controversy.”
7. Crosbie-Weston, “Charlemagne,” in Cavalry, 49; France, Western Warfare, 60–61; Oakeshott, Knight in Battle, 20; Christopher Allmand, “New Weapons, New Tactics, 1300–1500,” Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare, 100.
8. Allmand, “New Weapons, New Tactics, 1300–1500,” Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare, 99. Allmand is very specific that he is counting men-at-arms as cavalry, regardless of how they are ultimately employed in battle.
9. Oakeshott, Knight in Battle, 16.
10. Delbruck, Medieval Warfare, 510–11.
11. Ibid., 294–95; Rothero, Armies of Crécy, 18–19; Davis, Medieval Warhorse, 24.
12. Eric Maclagan, “The Bayeux Tapestry,” Battle of Hastings, 33–44; Davis, Medieval Warhorse, 16–17; Bachrach, “Caballus et Caballarius.”
13. Gravett, World of the Medieval Knight, 30; Ibid., 44–45; Davis, Medieval Warhorse, 23–24; Prestwich, Armies and Warfare, 27; Arnold, Renaissance at War, 110.
14. Prestwich, Armies and Warfare, 27.
15. Gravett, Norman Knight, 11, 33, 50–52. Nicolle, French Medieval Armies, 25, 42; Based on English tomb effigies of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries illustrated in Wise, Armies of the Crusades, 7; Verbruggen, Art of Warfare, 23–24.
16. Gravett, World of the Medieval Knight, 20–21, Prestwich, Armies and Warfare, 18–22.
17. Ibid., 24–23.
>
18. Oakeshott, Knight in Battle, 81.
19. Gravett, World of the Medieval Knight, 17; Oakeshott, Knight in Battle, 101.
20. Rabanus Maurus’s interpretation of Vegetius quoted in Bachrach, “On Roman Ramparts,” 66; Verbruggen, Art of Warfare, 27.
21. Ibid., 39.
22. Verbruggen, Art of Warfare, 25–26.
23. Davis, Medieval Warhorse, 34–37.
24. Hanson, Carnage and Culture, 141; Hyland, Medieval Warhorse, 92–93. Based on the Medieval poetry of Wolfram von Eschenbach.
25. Davis, Medieval Warhorse, 40–41.
26. Hyland, Medieval Warhorse, 86; Chenevix Trench, History of Horsemanship, 72; These estimates are based on the skeletal remains evidence recorded by D. James Rackham, “Appendix: Skeletal Evidence of Medieval Horses from London Sites,” in Medieval Horse, 169–70 chart 128.
27. Chenevix Trench, History of Horsemanship, 73; Seward, Hundred Years War, 26; Davis, Medieval Warhorse, 18; Hyland, Medieval Warhorse, 93.
28. Oakeshott, A Knight and His Horse, 10–12; Davis, Medieval Warhorse, 67.
29. Cavalry, 48; Vernam, Man on Horseback, 63–65. De Camp, “Before Stirrups,” 159–60, puts the date of the first definite mention in writing to Emperor Maurice’s Strategikon sometime between 582 and 602. His time line is a mounting loop with the Scythians around 100 BC, and then the rigid stirrup invented by the Sarmatians in the same period.
30. Hyland, Medieval Warhorse, 7, makes this point based on the saddles depicted in the St. Gallen Psalter, c. 890–924, illustrated in Davis, Medieval Warhorse, 13; Hyland, Medieval Warhorse, 7-8; Verbruggen, Art of Warfare, 25; This description is primarily based on the excellent Italian war saddle and detailed armor plates depicted by Pyhrr, LaRocca, and Breiding in Armored Horse in Europe, 60–71.
31. Vernam, Man on Horseback, 71.
32. John Clark, “Horseshoes,” in Medieval Horse, 75–81.
33. Dirk H. Breiding, “Horse Armor in Medieval and Renaissance Europe: An Overview,” in Pyhrr et al., Armored Horse in Europe 1480–1620, 8–14; Gravett, World of the Medieval Knight, 35.
34. Hyland, Medieval Warhorse, 86; Davis, Medieval Warhorse, 37.
35. Rothero, Armies of Crécy, 319.
War Horse Page 49