Has there ever been a case of infantry attacking cavalry?

[mmcv]

Interesting, it seems these examples either fall into one of two camps, either the cavalry charged were cataphracts (which most rules tend to treat as distinct from other types of cavalry given their less maneuverable nature) or it's been a case of cavalry blundering into an ambush.

So no real cases of charging and attacking in the open as such, at least not against non cataphract cavalry.

[dadlamassu]

So no real cases of charging and attacking in the open as such, at least not against non cataphract cavalry.

I did say Bannockburn - English cavalry at foot of hill in front of their infantry.  Scots spearmen advance downhill, melee and defeat them.  Whether they did a Hollywood mad sprint charge is unlikely, more probably a controlled advance with a charge for the las few yards.  Unless you count knights as "cataphract cavalry". 

[mmcv]

I did say Bannockburn - English cavalry at foot of hill in front of their infantry.  Scots spearmen advance downhill, melee and defeat them.  Whether they did a Hollywood mad sprint charge is unlikely, more probably a controlled advance with a charge for the las few yards.  Unless you count knights as "cataphract cavalry".

Apologies, meant to address that one too. No I don't count knights as cataphracts and indeed my main focus is the crusades so knights are important. My understanding of Bannockburn was the Scottish schiltrons drove the English to the river where they broke ranks and fled, again pushing them back until they had no where to go rather than an outright melee. The occasions where there was melee seem to be due to English knights charging the advancing Scots rather than vice versa?

I'm playing out some tests with the rules on table here using small crusades forces. Current iteration is having infantry able to charge the knights (after testing their resolve). The Knights can either turn tail and run half their movement away or take a resolve test themselves and attempt to countercharge. If they fail they take disorder and get taken into melee with the infantry. So it is doable, but should be difficult and ultimately down to the cavalry decision to attempt to fight or flee. Knights are very likely to succeed an attempt to countercharge, whereas medium and light cavalry are probably better off fleeing. I'll also allow cavalry to disengage from melee if they wish though probably with a resolve test.

[Codsticker]

If you are uncertain about allowing infantry to charge cavalry- which, as pointed out earlier, would just evade or counter charge- why not make the odds of success for the infantry so slight that they are unlikely to do so?

[mmcv]

If you are uncertain about allowing infantry to charge cavalry- which, as pointed out earlier, would just evade or counter charge- why not make the odds of success for the infantry so slight that they are unlikely to do so?

Yeah in my experiments last night the infantry had to take a resolve test to advance on them (with a negative modifier). Failing the test can result in then taking disorder or even routing in extreme cases. Success means they advance on the cavalry who in most cases just run away though may potentially counter charge. If the cavalry attempt a counter charge and fail to pass their resolve test they may end up disordered and in melee with the infantry, then would have to await their next activation to attempt to withdraw

This seems a reasonable approach where it can be done in extreme cases but is very hard and risky. I've not settled in what the modifiers will be to charge cav and cav to withdraw yet, will need to tweak and balance them.

Will probably have something similar for cavalry charging non disordered formed infantry. Can be done, bit difficult and near suicidal.

[frank xerox]

Actually two episodes at Bannockburn - on the second day as you say english knights were pinned against their own infantry and given a good spearing.
But on the first day Moray's division came out of the woods and "utterly routed" Cliffords 300 knights in what the chronicle specifically says is open ground, although 1 knight at least wanted to give the Scots more room.
Its a wargaming peeve of mine that most rule writers class schiltrons in every Scots army list as static clumps when, given a wee bit time to train, they seem to have been fairly mobile and well enough drilled to chase cavalry about the pitch.

[AdmiralAndy]

I believe this was rather a decisive factor in the Battle of Hastings, as the Shieldwall on the hill held firm, the Norman Cavalry appeared to be falling back which led to some of the Saxons, breaking ranks to chase after them to finish driving them off. Except it was a feint and the Cavalry then turned round and charged em down. Which happened a few times. So not a successful charge but a charge nonetheless.

On a more successful note, in the Battle of Agincourt as French Cavalry fell back from a charge the Archers would dash out to finish off, or drag back out the mud to their own lines the lottery winning Rich French knight for ransom who had just landed head over heels as his mount tokk an arrow.

So Cavalry been charged whilst disarrayed certainly seems to have been a thing.


But Infantry charging or counter charging formed cavalry then not something I've heard off.

[mellis1644]

Seems to me like the scale you are looking at portraying makes a difference as well.

In a large battle game where a unit is many 100's if not 1000's of figs then this can be foot etc aggressively pushing forward and disrupting cavalry forces as much as really engaging in hand to hand combat per say. An uncontrolled or poorly executed retreat/evade and/or maybe not doing that well is likely as 'damaging' to a units combat effectiveness as other factors - oh and also there is risk of things not working out great for the foot as well if they mishandle this. After all command and control was very limited in most forces of this size/period. But many mounted units make take this as a reason to try to charge moving foot as well if they wanted to do that anyway. I think that's what many large scale ancient games try to reflect with the foot engaging mounted 'combat'.

Now if you are doing a smaller force modeling, where who charges is important and other such factors come in, then a few guys with spears are never to catch a few guys with a horse unless the horse guys wants to fight or is limited by terrain/distractions/other members of his force  from turning and running away etc.

Hope it helps.

[mmcv]

Thanks for the continued thoughts.

Scale wise I'm definitely aiming more for big battle. I am also brewing up some skirmish rules but that'll probably behave slightly differently anyway.

As the current focus is on the Crusades (though will likely transpose to other periods to) the main things I need to deal with are infantry attacking light cavalry (horse archers etc) which should pretty much never happen since the light cav would just melt away, probably popping a few arrows off in the process. The other is infantry attacking medium/heavy cavalry (knights, sergeants, etc) where the tendency would be for the cavalry to counter charge or flee.

So current process for infantry wanting to charge cavalry is
1) Infantry must take a resolve test to charge the cavalry, this will be at a negative modifier (exact value to be determined)
2) If they fail the resolve test they will become disordered, so when the cavalry next activate they'll be in prime position to attack
3) If the succeed the resolve test they can charge the cavalry
4) The cavalry may then decide to evade (in which case they move 1/2 their movement away from the direction of attack if able) or if unable to evade or just because they're feeling feisty, they may attempt to counter charge. This also requires a resolve test for them.
5) If the cavalry passes the resolve test then it meets the infantry (probably at half the infantry movement distance) with a positive modifier (probably what they'd get vs disordered foot). This makes it quite dangerous for the infantry.
6) If the cavalry fails then they mill about in disorder and the foot can contact them and they will be engaged in melee.
7) On the next activation if the cavalry ended up in melee, the cavalry may either test to withdraw or choose to continue the fight, but will be at a disadvantage as they no longer have the momentum of the charge.

This probably sounds a bit more complicated than it actually is, can probably streamline a bit.

The other bit I need to think about is light horse in melee combat. As I'm using an opposed 2d6 +/- modifiers melee system multi unit combats with light horses involved could prove awkward as I'd considered giving them negative modifiers to melee, but that doesn't necessarily make sense if they're attacking in the flank or rear while the infantry is engaged with a heavier combatant to the front. Bit more thinking to do around it, though have a few ideas (ignoring negative modifiers when attacking the flank/rear, flank/rear attacks lowering the opponents value, etc).

[Wellington]

And there was the Battle of Jaxartes. But I think thats a historical anomaly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaxartes

[mmcv]

Jaxartes was again more a case of encircling and pinning them in so they had no where to go than charging. But yes another sensible example where allowing the infantry to advance on cavalry is reasonable but making it easy for them to evade unless they get boxed in.

Will have to play out some more engagements and fiddle the modifiers to see what works well to balance it.

[dadlamassu]

making it easy for them to evade unless they get boxed in.

You should probably also take into account the culture (arrogance?) of the horsemen.  In most cases the cavalry was provided by the ruling class(es) - knights, nobles equites and others who were rich enough to maintain war horses. They regarded themselves as superior and often that to retreat from the enemy was an act of abject cowardice and incurred long lasting family dishonour.  There are many cases of cavalry being impetuous and though this could lead to success it could also lead to disaster. 

A small but important point is that disengaging and evading while maintaining control on the battlefield is regarded as one of the most difficult military manoeuvres as it takes considerable training and confidence.  If the cavalry do successfully evade then they should take a rally test with a negative modifier in order to halt and only return after taking some time to reorganise at the halt.   If attacked during the disorganised retreat and reorganisation they should be heavily penalised.  Also remember that if the Common Folk of the infantry see their lords and masters retreat in the face of the enemy the shout of "Home!" "Every man for himself!" may be heard.

Some cultures (like the Parthians) were unusual in that retreating and reforming was not regarded as cowardice.

So while it should be possible for your infantry to attack cavalry it should also be risky for the cavalry to try to evade.

[mmcv]

You should probably also take into account the culture (arrogance?) of the horsemen.  In most cases the cavalry was provided by the ruling class(es) - knights, nobles equites and others who were rich enough to maintain war horses. They regarded themselves as superior and often that to retreat from the enemy was an act of abject cowardice and incurred long lasting family dishonour.  There are many cases of cavalry being impetuous and though this could lead to success it could also lead to disaster. 

A small but important point is that disengaging and evading while maintaining control on the battlefield is regarded as one of the most difficult military manoeuvres as it takes considerable training and confidence.  If the cavalry do successfully evade then they should take a rally test with a negative modifier in order to halt and only return after taking some time to reorganise at the halt.   If attacked during the disorganised retreat and reorganisation they should be heavily penalised.  Also remember that if the Common Folk of the infantry see their lords and masters retreat in the face of the enemy the shout of "Home!" "Every man for himself!" may be heard.

Some cultures (like the Parthians) were unusual in that retreating and reforming was not regarded as cowardice.

So while it should be possible for your infantry to attack cavalry it should also be risky for the cavalry to try to evade.

Yeah 100%. I have notes to make some form of impetuosity rule for the likes of knights and other such arrogant or fanatical types. Haven't quite worked out the exact mechanics for it yet, but thinking something like failing a resolve test there's a chance that rather than become disordered as normal, they instead charge off towards the nearest enemy. There'll also be some form of keenness stat that allows them a bonus to testing to charge (and equally reluctance stat for militia/levy types who are likely to be less inclined to get into it). Probably some sort of "untried" status too that could go either way. Some thoughts around elite/raw and well armoured as well. So the Hospitallers at Arsuf, for instance, were particularly impetuous despite their orders to not charge, but because they were elite and well armoured they were able to hold together well enough when they did go charging off. At least until Richard sighed at their disobedience and sent the rest of the knights into the melee to support them.

Light horse like the horses archers though I think should pretty much always be able to evade and withdraw from combat, keeping that distance to harass but not engage. But then they have much slimmer chances of surviving the round of close combat if they are caught against terrain, etc.

Also, I would require some form of resolve test to withdraw from combat, particularly for non-light cavalry. Possibly impetuous units would have an even bigger neg here than normal cavalry. If they fail there's a risk of becoming disordered as they attempt to withdraw and fail or even routing entirely as they withdraw from combat but don't stop and reform.