Horses in War

[Dr. John E. McLaughlin]

Just a few notes to clear up some things from a part-time military historian
(I don't spend ALL my time with linguistics) since there's been quite a bit
of speculation about the role of cavalry/chariotry vs. infantry in the horse
discussion.

There's a very ancient triumvirate in military structure:  cavalry (which
includes chariotry), heavy infantry (shields, armor, spears, swords), and
light infantry (slingers, archers).  In looking at history, there is also a
"scissors-paper-rock" relationship among these three elements.  Heavy
Infantry will defeat Cavalry, Light Infantry will defeat Heavy Infantry, and
Cavalry will defeat Light Infantry.  While you can name a counterexample or
two for each of these relationships, the vast preponderance of evidence
supports it.  Thus, while a poor power's army may have consisted only of
light infantry, as it grew it also developed heavy infantry and cavalry.
Once the horse was domesticated, it very quickly became a part of the
army-building process wherever it went--whether pulling a battle platform or
carrying a rider.  It's most important function was never attacking the
shield wall of the heavy infantry, but in scattering the enemy archers and
slingers because it's speed could carry it "under the guns" well before it
was eliminated.  It's second function was as counter-cavalry to protect its
own light infantry.

Now, to the issue of stirrups.  These have been highly overrated in the
history of cavalry.  Many great cavalry armies have existed and been quite
successful without the benefit of stirrups.  The Mongols and Arabs are
particularly fine examples of stirrupless cavalry-heavy armies that kicked
up a lot of trouble (even for those armies whose saddles had stirrups).
Throughout history, technological innovations have had MUCH less influence
than they are given credit for.  They make their impact only when combined
with effective leadership.  The Battle of Hastings is often cited as the
point when the stirrup came into its own, but William would have won the
battle even without stirrups, and probably won it in much the same way--he
had light infantry on the field along with heavy infantry and cavalry and it
was these that defeated the English heavy infantry (Harold died with an
ARROW through his eye) after the English shield was broken by incessant
archery fire.  The cavalry's main role at Hastings was to mop up.

As far as chariotry is concerned.  The comments that chariots were only
useful for limited transport is absolutely false.  The chariot was the
cavalry arm of most of the major Near Eastern armies for centuries.  When
chariotry was used in battle, its greatest successes were always against the
light infantry which was usually arrayed on the flanks of an enemy army.
Once the light infantry broke, the heavy infantry was left unprotected on
its flanks (heavy infantry can't easily turn) and it broke.  It remained a
powerful tool (although expensive) for routing enemy light infantry until
confronted by Alexander the Great's combination of heavy infantry (which it
couldn't defeat) and horse-borne cavalry in the fourth century BCE.
Alexander also dispersed the light infantry into smaller units dispersed
among the heavy infantry which could protect them from the chariotry.  The
Greeks had also developed a more maneuverable horse cavalry and this easily
defeated the Persian chariotry.

Don't underestimate the importance of the chariot in ancient warfare (it
was, in a real sense, equivalent to the modern tank) and don't overestimate
the importance of the stirrup.

John E. McLaughlin, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
mclasutt at brigham.net

Program Director
Utah State University On-Line Linguistics
http://english.usu.edu/lingnet

English Department
3200 Old Main Hill
Utah State University
Logan, UT  84322-3200

(435) 797-2738 (voice)
(435) 797-3797 (fax)