Cavalry on ancient battlefields introduced a new element, proving useful both in reconnaissance and pursuing defeated enemies. The term “cavalry” is quite broad and includes war horses, donkeys, camels, and elephants. In the late Stone Age, European and Asian nations began to domesticate animals suitable for riding or pulling carts. Men rode horses in the northern Pontic region as early as around 4000 BC. Around the same time, donkeys and Bactrian camels were domesticated in Egypt and Southeast Asia, while elephants were domesticated in the Indus Valley (between 2500 and 1750 BC).
-> See also: Ancient Infantry: From 9000 BC to 200 AD
Initially, donkeys were primarily used for transporting burdens, and camels had limited utility in battles. The two most crucial types of animals used by military forces in ancient times were elephants, playing significant battlefield roles, and horses. Horses, initially used for chariot warfare and later for cavalry, had the most profound impact on ancient warfare. Prominent equestrian nations included the Scythians, Persians, Greeks, Iberians, and Gauls, who earned respect and admiration for their cavalry forces. During this period, the precursors of medieval knights, the cataphracts, also emerged. As for elephants, they were indeed formidable weapons, although they had several drawbacks.
The First Cavalry
While horseback riding into battles dates back to the earliest periods, the first known cavalry forces were war chariots. The first confirmed use of war chariots occurred in Mesopotamia, where Sumerian depictions from around 2500 BC illustrate warriors riding in battle chariots. These were heavy vehicles with long, narrow bodies and high front sides. The charioteer sat in front of the warrior, who threw spears attached to quivers on the sides of the chariot.
Four solid disc wheels were made from three parts joined together. Likely fixed to solid axles, the wheels could rotate independently. As the front axle could not rotate, there was likely a considerable risk of overturning during high-speed turns. However, two-wheeled alternatives were also used, providing better maneuverability than four-wheeled chariots. These, however, could only accommodate a single man, likely used primarily for message delivery and transporting officers.
War chariots were pulled by either a four-donkey team or hybrids of donkeys and onagers; horses were almost unknown in the Middle East at that time. Reins passed through metal rings on the drawn pole and continued to ring in the animals’ noses. Pulling on the reins allowed the charioteer to stop the team, but steering required either verbal commands or the use of goads or whips. The yoke was placed only over the two inner animals. The outer two animals were attached by neck straps, reducing their pulling force. Since these animals pulled a lighter load, it was easier to encourage them to move at a faster pace, thereby motivating the inner animals to adapt. Tests demonstrated that such a chariot could achieve speeds of 9–12 mph.
The state owned the chariots, which were issued to warriors before they embarked on a battle and had to be returned afterward. The Sumerian city-state of Umma had a unit comprising 60 chariots, and other cities had roughly comparable forces. Chariots were often occupied by members of the royal family. However, these chariots were overall slow and unwieldy, leading to their abandonment. A chariot that could be effectively used needed to be lighter, with more draft animals and better steering characteristics. Such chariots began to be used around the seventeenth century BC. These chariots were fast, light, and could carry two men. The war chariot became a formidable weapon, dominating the means of warfare in the late Bronze Age.
New Kingdom War Chariots
The nature and use of war chariots in the Middle East are best observed from the remains of the New Kingdom in Egypt, which include whole war chariots placed in tombs. The chariots had a lightweight construction, with each part carefully selected from a specific type of wood and processed into the desired shape. Wheels with four, later six, spokes were mounted on axles over 7 feet long. The axle was placed at the rear of the chariot, increasing stability. In depictions, the axle is sometimes shown beneath the chariot. However, this adjustment was likely made by painters to save space. The chariot’s floor was made of woven leather strips to achieve minimal weight.
A wooden frame ran along the front and sides of the chariot, while the rear was left open for easy boarding. The result was a sturdy but lightweight chariot weighing only 75 pounds. One man could lift this chariot, and two could easily carry it over terrain obstacles impassable for wheeled vehicles. In contemporary tests, a pair of ponies pulling a replica war chariot demonstrated speeds of up to 24 mph. Due to the two-wheel design, the war chariot could be easily maneuvered, but its broad cage could accommodate two soldiers— the charioteer and the warrior.
The warrior had reins wrapped around his body like harnesses, leaving both hands free for using the bow. Otherwise, he would have to hold the handle every time the war chariot encountered uneven terrain. If not in combat, the charioteer held the reins with both hands. In addition to shields, Egyptian and Asiatic charioteers also used helmets and long cloaks made of scale armor. These cloaks consisted of several hundred overlapping 2 mm thick scales sewn onto a fabric garment. The open sides of the war chariot could be covered with curtains made of scale armor or leather covered with metal. Horses were protected by heavy fabric catchers or, less frequently, scale armor.
Equipment of the War Chariot
The equipment of the war chariot was the best available at that time. The bow, belonging to the warrior on the war chariot, was a formidable composite weapon, several centuries older than the war chariot, which now gained recognition. This bow could shoot arrows at a distance of 575 feet, two to three times farther than simple wooden bows commonly used by most infantry archers. The first composite bows were 35–45 inches long and had a circular or simply shaped construction. In the following two millennia, more complex bow shapes emerged, but the classic design remained virtually the same. Although the bows were highly effective, they were very expensive to produce due to the need for special types of wood, horn, and sinew, and the production took a considerable amount of time. Making a good bow took one year, and for an excellent bow, it could take up to 10 years. Their production required significant skill and expertise.
As mentioned before, the war chariot could reach speeds of 24 mph. This made it easy for the war chariot to outpace the infantry and become a highly lethal weapon. Given these capabilities, it was challenging for nations in areas accessible to war chariots to maintain their independence without possessing war chariots themselves. Essentially, every civilized state in the Middle East had to own these chariots.
Armor, composite bows, war chariots, and horses all represented a substantial investment of wealth, manpower, experience, and effort needed to acquire and maintain these weapons. Most of these expenses had to be covered by the ruler. Regarding horses, who were mostly no taller than large ponies, their training began in their first year of life. From four to nine years old, they became suitable for war chariot pulling. These horses were very enduring and could cover distances of up to 37 miles in a day’s march. Egyptians are known to have organized their war chariots into groups of ten. As for tactics, the best strategy for war chariots was a surprise attack. A textbook example of this occurred in the Battle of Kadesh.
Ascendence of Cavalry
With the fall of the Hittite Empire and the weakening of Egypt around 1200 BC, the era of expensive war chariot units began to give way to a new form of mounted units—cavalry. However, this process took centuries. The earliest depiction of an Assyrian rider dates back to the reign of King Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BC). At this time, it essentially involved a group of warriors from a war chariot riding on horseback. An archer would shoot from the bow while his companion held the reins of both horses and a shield. Men sat on the backs of the animals, without saddles, barefoot, and with raised knees. The riders had no armor except for a helmet. In the Bronze Age, men in the Middle East, whether messengers or scouts, rode horses by sitting on the rear part of the back or buttocks with raised knees, as if riding on a donkey or mule. This method is not suitable for fast riding, and besides, it can lead to the injury of the animal’s kidneys.
During the reign of King Salmanassar III (858–824 BC), some horses were equipped with large equestrian skirts. Under the rule of Tiglath-Pileser III (744–727 BC), riders continued to ride in pairs, sitting on horses without saddles and barefoot. However, the posture became more natural, and the rider sat just behind the horse’s withers. Riders also used breastplates and spears, allowing each man to hold his own reins with the left hand. During the reign of King Ashurbanipal (684–631 BC), mounted archers armed with spears began to appear, wearing boots and leg guards. These riders controlled the horses with a single rein looped through a bit, allowing the rider to release the reins, shoot arrows from the bow, and still maintain control over the horse. The horse was protected by a heavy fabric covering at that time.
Scythians
The Scythians were nomadic steppe archers. They are not known as the first, as the Cimmerians were present before them and responsible for the initial invasion of steppe nomadic tribes into the Middle East in the eighth century BC. The Cimmerians crossed the Caucasus and disrupted the empires of Anatolia before they were eventually defeated. Judging by the findings of their distinctive quivers and harnesses, it is likely that the remaining Cimmerians dispersed into Europe along the Danube to Switzerland, southern France, and even Britain.
The people who eradicated them in the northern Pontic area were the Scythians, who followed them into the regions of the Middle East, playing a significant role in the destruction of the Assyrian Empire. Scythian kings and nobility are depicted in richly adorned scale armor with bronze or steel helmets, often of Greek origin or influenced by Greek patterns. Their stallions stood at the withers at a height of 55–60 inches. These horses, typically without armor, were relatively rare. The more common riding animal was a pony, standing around 55 inches tall with a sturdy neck, head, and shoulders but small hindquarters and legs.
The Scythians used their version of the composite bow, which became popular in the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. The bow had a double-curved body with curved ends and was only 30–40 inches long. The bow was exceptionally stiff, requiring considerable strength and skill to draw. The arrowheads were made of bronze and usually had three blades. Some were also equipped with barbs, and many were poisoned. The bow was housed in a case that protected it from moisture, which could adversely affect the glue and deform the wood from which the bow was made. The quiver, called a gorytos, could hold up to 75 arrows. In addition to bows, Scythian riders were further armed with straight swords, war axes, leaf-shaped spearheads, spears measuring 10 feet or longer, and javelins, as throwing spears are called, with barbed tips. Some Scythians used shields, which were usually wooden with a leather cover. The shield could be thrown over the rider’s back, leaving both hands free to operate the bow.
Their Tactics
The Scythians were a martial people accustomed to protecting their own herds and attacking the herds of others. A detailed description of their battle tactics has not been preserved, but judging by similar nations, they likely initiated battles with long-range arrow shooting. Subsequently, through feigned attacks and withdrawals, they aimed to maneuver the enemy into a vulnerable position. Once arrows were depleted, the remaining warriors closed in, exchanged volleys of javelins, and then engaged in hand-to-hand combat. In this phase of the battle, armored nobility on larger horses dominated.
If the opponent was formidable, the Scythians retreated into the steppe, intimidating the pursuer and choosing an opportune moment for a counterattack. They employed this tactic against Persian King Darius I in 512 BC when they invaded Scythia. As Darius advanced, they retreated, and once he pressed on, they turned to attack. Their vanguard assaulted day and night, consistently defeating Darius’s cavalry. Darius ultimately had to withdraw from Scythia. Later, the Scythians annihilated the Macedonian army sent against them by Alexander the Great, even though the Macedonians had previously defeated them in the Balkans.
From the late fourth century BC, another group of steppe nomads, the Sarmatians, attacked from the east, eventually overcoming the Scythians. One possible reason could have been the Sarmatian noble horses, which reached a height of 60 inches. With them, the Sarmatians could field a true heavy cavalry. Since their mounted archers matched the Scythians, it became a significant disadvantage for the Scythians.
Persian Cavalry
In the Middle East and Iran, the Achaemenid Persians (560–330 BC) used a combination of foot archers, spearmen, and cavalry armed with bows and spears, following the example of the Assyrians. This tactic was highly successful in local conditions, defending against steppe nomads, but it failed against the Greeks. The heavily armored spearmen, known as hoplites, had armor and shields resistant to spears, arrowheads, and spear points. This became evident in a battle before the decisive Battle of Plataea in 479 BC, when Persian commander Mardonius sent cavalry against part of the Greek army. They attacked in groups, shooting arrows or hurling javelins and then withdrawing. However, the Greeks held their ground, despite many being wounded.
The lightly equipped Persian cavalry failed to approach at close range. When the Athenians sent their archers, one of them hit the horse of the Persian cavalry commander. Masistios fell to the ground and was killed. In the subsequent Battle of Plataea, which ended the Persian campaign, the cavalry played no role. Masistios rode a horse from the Nisaean breed, renowned for its considerable height at the withers (60 inches).
Such a horse could carry a heavily armored man, as was the case with this commander. Horses from the Nisaean plains in Media, where the state kept 50,000 broodmares, were assigned according to the king’s desire. Thanks to these animals, the Persians could increase the weight of the riders’ armor. They also experimented with armored blankets attached to protect the horses’ legs. In the fourth century BC, they developed lamellar armor made of metal strips covering the hands and feet. Horses were also equipped with protection for the head and chest.
Greek Cavalry
At first glance, one might not expect people from the mountainous, sea-surrounded peninsulas and islands to have any association with cavalry. Indeed, the majority of city-states in Greece did not utilize cavalry. Even prominent city-states like Athens and Sparta did not employ horses until the 5th century BC. However, in certain regions of Greece suitable for horse breeding, especially in Thessaly, Boeotia, and on the island of Euboea, the Greek aristocracy favored cavalry, considering ownership a symbol of higher status. The Greeks bred many horse breeds, known for their dazzling appearance, refined heads, and noble bearing. In Greece, there were two types of cavalry: light and heavy. Light cavalry, armed with javelins, had no armor; heavy cavalry carried spears, javelins, and scale armor. The Greeks also equipped their cavalry spears with a rear spike, useful if the main point broke during combat.
In battles, Greek cavalry typically positioned itself on the wings of their predominantly hoplite armies. Except for the Thessalians, no Greek state had more than 1000 horsemen. Usually, cavalry units were much smaller. With such limited numbers, achieving a significant impact was challenging, but in many cases, cavalry assisted in overcoming the enemy’s flank or covering the withdrawal of their own flanks. Cavalry could also effectively engage lightly armed infantry, forcing the enemy infantry to stay concentrated, thus limiting the damage these units could inflict.
Changes Under Philip II
Significant reforms to the cavalry were implemented by Philip II, the King of Macedonia, situated north of Thessaly. Surrounded by northern tribes and pressured by the Greeks, Philip was compelled to reorganize his nation’s army. He formed heavy infantry units armed with a spear called the sarissa, organized efficient light units from tribal members or mercenaries, and expanded the noble cavalry with light cavalry from Thrace and Thessaly, called the Companion Cavalry (hetairoi). These units were armed with a 10-foot spear with a leaf-shaped tip, a larger blade at the rear, and a strap placed at the center of gravity. Philip also adopted various cavalry formations, including the square and rectangular formations of the Greeks and Persians, the oblique formations used by Thessalian light cavalry, and the wedge formations of the Scythians.
With such an army, Philip triumphed over all the armies in his region. When preparing for an invasion of Persian territory, he was assassinated. His son, Alexander III, known as Alexander the Great, redirected the army eastward and decisively defeated the Persians in massive battles. These clashes are remarkable for the coordinated use of forces that allowed the victory over an enemy with numerical superiority but less experience. An interesting example is the Battle of Gaugamela.
Roman Cavalry
Roman military strategy relied more on infantry than cavalry. While the Roman infantry was formidable, the cavalry, initially represented in small numbers, was relatively weak. This weakness became evident in the Battle of Cannae. Until the 1st century BC, Roman cavalry consisted of Roman citizens who were not particularly skilled horsemen. From the 1st century BC, Romans relied on auxiliary units, called auxilia (literally, helpers), recruited from allied and subdued nations, especially Gauls and Iberians. After Augustus became emperor, he transformed these auxiliary units into professional military formations, with members serving for 25 years, after which they were granted Roman citizenship. The cavalry was mostly organized into alae (wings).
The Romans formed various types of cavalry units, including Numidian and Dalmatian light cavalry, other light cavalry units equipped with Iberian shields (caetra), spearmen using two-handed Sarmatian spears, Eastern cavalry archers, and spearmen with full armor. In the early days of the Roman Empire, soldiers were equipped with a javelin, a double-edged spear, and a shield. The gear featured Gallic patterns, and the rider was often a Gaul. They had chainmail, a helmet, a long cavalry sword (spatha) measuring 25–35 inches, and a sturdy shield. Additionally, a new type of horse harness, horseshoes, and a curved saddle were introduced. Along with the use of the saddle, Roman riders started employing leather riding trousers, riding boots, and spurs.
From the late Republican era to the end of the early Empire (100 BC–200 AD), the Romans dedicated considerable effort to the effective use of cavalry. Training for both horses and riders was lengthy and demanding. Riders underwent both infantry and cavalry training, as they were often required to fight on foot. Units stationed in garrisons conducted marches of 20 Roman miles three times a month, practicing tactical deployment, pursuit, withdrawal, and counterattacks in various types of terrain, allowing horses and riders to adapt to fighting on both flat and rugged ground. Riders were skilled in using a sword, spear, javelin, bow, and sling. As long as the Romans maintained this training regimen, their cavalry remained impressive and efficient.
Cataphracts
While in the Western world, riders became members of the Roman cavalry, in the Eurasian steppes and the Middle East, further developments took place. The Parthians and later the Sasanian Persians began protecting horses and riders with massive metal armor. The Greeks referred to these riders as cataphracts (κατάφρακτοι, katafraktoi, fully covered). The later Roman term was clibanarii (from kamēlia, “camel”), as a reminder of the experience of wearing complete armor on a hot desert day. The weapon of cataphracts, a spear measuring 12 feet, was called a kontos by the Greeks. Riders often wielded it with both hands, following the Sarmatian style, but the Sasanian Persians later attached the spear to the saddles, allowing the horse to absorb the impact. Heavily armored cataphracts could attack mounted archers even before the enemy had shot all their arrows and, at a trot, charge the front lines of organized infantry.
Information about the equipment of cataphracts is available from various sources. Men wore metal helmets with chains or scales to protect the neck and metal face masks with human features. Their bodies were protected by scale or chainmail armor, lamellar plates, or a combination of both; the armor for hands and legs was articulated. Bronze and iron-scale armor found in the city of Dura-Europos protected the backs and sides of horses. Preference was given to bronze armor because iron scales tended to rust due to horse sweat. This armor featured an opening on the back for the saddle, with triangular plates also protecting the horse’s tail. Chest covers and neck guards have not been found, but it is easy to imagine what was made of plates. Late horse masks with eye guards have been excavated at various Roman settlements.
The horses that were to carry this burden had to be large and strong. Only a well-fed horse, standing at a height of 60 inches at the withers, could bear the armor of cataphracts. Both the Sarmatians and the Achaemenid Persians at the end of the first millennium BC did indeed breed horses that matched this description. The Romans and later Byzantines adopted cataphracts into their armies.
War Elephant
Horses were not the only animals used for warfare in ancient times. The same fate befell both African and Indian elephants (unlike the savanna elephant). The Indian elephant, compared to the African forest elephant, is larger and has only one finger on its trunk. Indian and African elephants can be tamed, trained, and used in warfare, unlike larger savanna elephants. Elephants were not bred in captivity due to the significant costs of maintaining a herd, many of which were later found unsuitable for training. Instead, elephants were captured in the wild, tamed, and trained. In ancient times, taming and training elephants were laborious and dangerous tasks. During training, elephants learned to carry riders and obey commands. The complete training process took two to three years.
The use of elephants in warfare was limited to India until the fourth century BC. When Alexander the Great invaded India and fought against King Porus in the Battle of the Hydaspes (328 BC), he encountered war elephants. The Diadochi were greatly impressed by the deployment of elephants and eagerly sought ways to incorporate units composed of elephants. The Seleucids used Indian elephants, while the Ptolemies employed African forest elephants, a practice later adopted by the Carthaginians. Each elephant had a name (famous is Hannibal’s Surus). The driver sat on the elephant’s neck and controlled it through voice commands, pressure with toes beneath its ears, and a stick with a hook. Elephants were often adorned with a system of bells to further enhance the fear they instilled in enemies. Armor, protecting the head and sides, was not uncommon. From the third century BC, elephants carried wooden towers (though the Carthaginians never adopted them), where two or four men could sit.
Elephants’ Shortcomings
Despite their potential effectiveness, elephants had significant drawbacks. The stress of captivity and, particularly, the cruel training necessary to accustom essentially peaceful animals to the sounds of battle and encourage their animalistic fury required to kill the enemy, reduced their average lifespan. War elephants were essentially squandered resources, as a fifth of their herd would die from natural causes within ten years. Constantly acquiring new animals was necessary to maintain a steady state.
However, India and East Africa were considerably distant from the centers of Mediterranean civilization. Elephant husbandry was highly expensive. Yet the most serious drawback for elephants in battle was their tendency to flee. When injured, frightened, enraged by an attack, or deceived by enemies, especially if their driver was injured or killed, elephants sought to escape the battlefield, trampling anything in their path. There are reports of handlers equipped with clubs, cleavers, or special knives killing their own elephants in the case of such an event.
Camels as Ancient Cavalry Mounts
Bactrian camels with two humps served Iranians and Central Asian nations primarily for transporting cargo, although the Achaemenid Persians occasionally used them in warfare. The single-humped Arabian camel, also known as the dromedary, appeared on the battlefield more frequently. As a combat animal, the camel possesses several potentially significant advantages. Its development in desert regions has resulted in few natural enemies, making it less skittish than horses. Known for their stubbornness, with proper training and handling, camels can be sufficiently obedient.
They exhibit better endurance than horses and can graze on almost any grass, leaf, or twig. The camel’s ability to endure without water for an entire week is well known. Moreover, horses unfamiliar with camels often develop a panicked fear of them. Cyrus the Great utilized Bactrian camels in the Battle of Sardis when facing the formidable Lydian cavalry. Gathering all the available camels, Cyrus placed his riders on them. The Lydian horses could not tolerate the sight or scent of these animals and fled. The Lydians were forced to fight on foot, and despite their bravery, they were defeated. Parthians and Sasanian Persians also had units with camels, and Romans used a higher number of units called dromedarii for patrolling along desert borders.
Nevertheless, the camel could not compete with the horse as a war animal due to its lack of speed and maneuverability. Since camels had few natural enemies in the deserts, they did not evolve the ability to move at high speeds.
