"Cavalry attacking unbroken infantry?" Topic

Just wondering if this was commonly – or ever – done in this period?

Did cavalry ever attack a formation of unbroken infantry in a formal battle situation? Or did cavalry only attack when the infantry was already pinned by other infantry? Or did cavalry only attack infantry which was visibly shaken and about to collapse?

Yes, there are plenty of examples of cavalry attacking 'steady' infantry, preferable they would strike at a flank or the rear. But frontal attacks were far from uncommon, particularly if the infanry had few or no pikes or was known to be of poor quality.

Exampels would include
Hugenots charging Royal Swiss & French infantry at Dreux 1562
Danes charging Swedes at Mared 1563 and Axtorna 1565
Chodkiewcz hussar banner charging Swedish infantry at Kircholm 1605
Polish hussars charging Swedish musketeers at Gorzno 1629 Cronberg & Schönberg charging the Saxons at Breitenfeld 1631
Götz' cuirassiers charging the Swedish brigade at Lützen 1632
Bavarians and Saxons charging the brigades of Mortaigne and Seestedt at Jankow 1645
Swedes charging Don Felix de Zuniga's brigade at Jankow 1645

This raises a question which has been asked on this forum a couple of times before. How would the foot be able to repel these attacks? By the end of the period, the proportion of pikes was much reduced and they would be grouped in the centre of the regiment. And the firepower of the shot would be far less than a Napoleonic infantry unit.

As well, I assume the shot would be in a far loosed formation than Eighteenth or early Nineteenth Century infantry. I'm not sure if this was help or hinder. Looser infantry would be easier to penetrate and disrupt. OTOH, they would be able to use their weapons more effectively to melee with the cavalry when their formation was breached.

Hi

I think, and this is just speculation from a mix of getting people to let me drill them and the like…

Initially, Pike blocks were for infantry clashes with a anti-cav component. As shot took over as the weapon of choice, the purpose of pike changed from being both offensive and defensive to just being a defensive only weapon. And as with all missile, the deeper the target, the more casualties it takes, it was realized that one or two rows of pike were all that was needed for DEFENSE.

I cannot demonstrate your second assumption about "looser" than napoleonic period for infantry, though.

Rocky

The classic must be the final stand of the Whitecoats.

By the end of the period, the proportion of pikes was much reduced and they would be grouped in the centre of the regiment. And the firepower of the shot would be far less than a Napoleonic infantry unit.

I am not so sure that the firepower of a well-trained mid-17th century unit of musketeers would be "far less" per _unit of frontage_ than that of their Napoleonic successors (remember that the units were deployed in more depth than in the Napoleonic times, and this would compensate for a slower rate of fire).

In any case, by the 1650's Swedish musketeers were repeatedly able to halt frontally attacking Polish cavalry with their firepower (though the presence of their light regimental cannons surely helped too).

Huevans,
The pikes were not always deployed in the middle, there are several alternate deployments with the pike formed into 1-3 ranks which cover the entire frontage of the formation.
These 'pure' pike ranks could be deployed in the front, middle or rear of the formation and thus provided protection along the entire front line.

You underestimate 17th C firepower, in this specific situation there was not much diffrence between the two periods. Being hit by a 3 ranks salvo fired by Swedish m/1621 muskets is just as bad as being hit by a slavo by Brown Bess. And the use of a musket rest will actually favour the 17thC musketeers.
But salvo fire was no more foolproof than any other tactic. Sometimes it worked, other times it did not. But if offerd much better chances for survival than Dutch style fire by rank.

The distance between the files depended on the siutation, when firing by salvo the musketeers would be in effectiely close order compared to the open order often used when firing by rank. And when threatend by cavalry the musketeers were quite able to form up in closer order.

And of course charging steady infantry was often costly even if you won. The Danish cavalry had 2/3 of their cavalry killed, wounded or horseless after Axtorna.
Chodkiewicz hussars lost 1/3 of their horses in a single charge into formed Swedish infantry at Kircholm

So many factors to take into account!!

First you would have to define "unbroken" and what is a "formal battle situation".

I guess huevans means a formed body of foot, not engaged in any action (i.e. just standing there), with high morale (for the whole army, i.e. not in the process of disintegrating), and the horse is just opposite at a fair distance with clear view between them (no obstacles, no smoke), plus the forces being "matched", i.e. not in high favour of the horse. I would under these circumstances consider a frontal charge to be sheer folly!

As Daniel points out, such an action would be extremely costly, and trained cavalry is too valuable and hard to replace.
(Still, a foolish commander may well order such an attack.)

But things on the battlefield are seldom what is described above!

The horse could be moving close, just out of range of musketry, and their aim may just be to keep the foot busy (drawing their attention away from other things) ..and in the process discover what seems to be a promising opportunity to disrupt the foot's cohesion. This could lead to an attack, and this attack could bring any result imaginable, from total success (rout of the foot) to a dismal failure of the attackers being repulsed with heavy losses.

On the defender's side, I would agree with the concept that a devastating volley of the whole regiment at close range could (and did) deter the horse from pressing home their charge, but what if it doesn't??

Austrian infantry did just that at Aspern, firing at close range (15 paces) and keeping the cuirassiers at bay.

The salvo would imply a somewhat tighter order, thus creating a closer obstacle which the horse could not as easily penetrate. The loose formation of shot firing by lines would IMO be helpless should their fire not be able to stop the attack (which is likely).

Pike constitutes a real problem for horse as long as it keeps in tight formation. A hedge of pointed sticks is impenetrable for a formed body of horse keeping them from making contact. Hence the practice of gathering the shot under the protection of the pike. If this failed. the shot might be dispersed (and slaughtered if that was the aim of the horse), yet the pike block may well survive.

IMHO infantry is doomed once the horse has made physical contact. Half a ton of horseflesh in action is hard to come by (if you have the guts to try and fight it) and they will normally just plough their way through.

Cheers

Romain

"Tis very obserable that when had broken into this battalion, and were gott amongst them, not so much as a single man of them asked for quarter, or threw down his arms, but every one defended himself to the last; so that we ran as great a danger by the butt end of their muskets as by the volley which they had given us."
The duke of York describing his attack on the New Model infantry at the 2nd battle of the Dunes (1658)

Clearly it was possible for musketeers to stand their ground even when the cavalry broke into them if they were of high quality and refused to break. Was it a common occurence, almost certainly not, and most of the time the musketeers would be roughly handled.

In the 16th Century things are more complex as formations were deeper and contained a core of men with shorter polearms. Even if the cavalry broke through the outer layer of pikes they could be in grater danger from the halberdiers forming the core. At Dreux a Huguenot company of Gendarmes smashed their way into the Swiss square only to be wiped out as they tried to break through the formation.

The use of artillery attached to the infantry would have made staying close to the infantry dangerous. 200 paces may be outside the most effective range for a musket but it is well within the effective range of a 3-pounder. And artillery fire tended to have a great impact on the morale of cavalry. The Bavarians and Saxons who had inflicted a shaprt defeat on Mortaigne & Seested beat a hasty retreat once a Swedish battery of regimental cannon took them under fire at short range.

The Swedish musket drill (after the reforms of Gustav Adolf II) involved the musketeers to "double up" for firing salvo. That is, the musketeers that were deployed 6 ranks deep for the purpose of firing by the rank formed themselves instead into 3 ranks deep formation (while keeping the same frontage), thus resulting in a rather dense formation of shot.

OTOH, those musketeers would have no bayonets on the end of their firearms.

Does anyone have access to drills for pike to cover shot in the event of an attach by horse? I would have thought that a lot of moving about in the face of a cavalry attack would lead to fatal confusion and disorganization.

It could indeed! It all comes down to the rating of the foot and the quality of their officers!

Officers gauged the timeframe and veterans knew what to do. If necessary, a lot of action here does not mean chaos, on the contrary!
But veteran foot might not even reform in a defensive posture, they could decide to show the horse off by their well-timed superior firepower.

It's all about experience!!

Raw, poorly trained and led troops could misestimate the situation and run about like scared chicken resulting in utter confusion. The cavalry would only have to keep in touch..an chase them from the field (which was the aim most of the time).

Change of formation in the presence of the enemy is always a tricky thing!

Cheers

Romain

Surely holding your nerves was important when facing the cavalry charge as an infantryman. Line of cavalry charging straight at you must be a rather scary sight.

Thus holding steady and waiting for the cavalry to get close enough before firing salvo (in order to make the most out of it) would be vital.

That said, it must not have been too easy for the cavalryman either to ride into a salvo of muskets or a hedge of braced pikes.

Here is an interesting firing method recomended by Bariffe link , the shot is formed up behind the pike and thus well protected from any charges from the front. Meanwhile they are still able to deliver effectie fire by rank agaisnt the horse in order to harrass any cavalry who get within range.

Shaking the morale is indeed the key when attacking 'steady'infantry from the front. Johann von Nassau-Siegen recomended charging infantry at the gallop because it recduced the time the cavalry was under fire and was more likely to cause fear and disorder among the infantry. (Against cavalry he recomend charges at the trott because good order was more important than speed when pistoliers fought each other)

And of course a swift charge reduced the reaction time of the infantry when appearing from the flank or rear. The fresh Bavarians and Saxons at Jankow managed to swarm over the two Swedish brigades before neither had time to form an effective defensive formation. In the last phase of the battle the Bavarians once again were in position to charge the Swedish foot, this time from the rear. However they spoted by the foot at some distance and as they were worn out from the long battle they were unable to close with the Swedish foot before the brigades made an about face and brough muskets and regimental cannon to bear on them.

I knew the Bariffe mention, but it would rather be the tricky bit to get there (behind cover of the pike), just as you described in your example!

Once the hedgehog of formed pike was completed, the cavalry would have been wise not to push it! Nothing much to gain, totally unformed (if not disordered), made them easy pray for any horse unit in the vicinity.

It makes perfect sense to have different speeds for attacks against foot/horse.

People in those days knew what to do, sometimes they might not have been able to put it into practice!

Cheers

Romain

And don't forget that Musket are deployed in "order" that is a spacing of 3 feet per soldier measured from the centre line of each soldier (per Bariffe) or in close order on a 1.5 Foot frontage. Normally they will be 6 deep.

The horse on the other hand are in three ranks (at least in the ECW post 1644 or royalist from the off)and on a frontage of 6 feet between each horse (thats the gap not counting the horse) unless they have closed up knee to knee. Either way there are more infantry per foot than horse so if the horse don't break the infantry in the initial impact they are in trouble in melee as they are out numbered and have musketeers all around them pulling them from horse, cutting bridles etc. Even with the horse pitching in with teeth and hooves (assuming properley trained cavalary horses)it isn't a situation to relish.

On top of which tactical units of cavalry on an ECW battlefield were organised in units of around 250 – 300. They were attacking infantry units organised in battlefield tactical units of 600 – 800. The horse tactics appear to suggest that two out of three troops assault while one stays back in reserve so the numbers are even more biased.

I for one am not suprised that tactical doctrine appears to have favoured flank or rear attacks on infantry. Mind you having faced cavalry on re-enactment fields they are pretty damn scary to us muskateers and a lot less so when pike support is on hand. I agree the comments that veteran troops would be a much tougher proposition that raw troops. It really does come down to troop quality and experience.

Thanks for a useful post, elenderil.

Spacing of 3 feet seems a little close for matchlocks. I always assumed 1 of the reasons shotte in this period was so vulnerable to horse is that the shotte would be spaced so far apart and lack cohesion in a melee.