CAVALRY. 



367 



and at Mantinea, both Tlieban, Tlu-ssalian, ant 

 Athenian, were severally distinguished, At Ar- 

 bela, Alexander employed his Grecian cavalry with 

 much success, defeating with them the Scythian 

 and Bactrian horse, and throwing the whole Per- 

 sian line into confusion ; indeed, the Thessalian 

 cavalry are stated to have mainly contributed to 

 the glory of this day. However, generally speak- 

 ing, the Grecian cavalry did not enjoy much con- 

 sideration, and the victories of Alexander are more 

 to be attributed to the resisting firmness of the 

 Macedonian phalanx than to the more active bravery 

 of the Thessalian horse. The Grecian cavalry 

 were armed with the helmet, cuirass, shield, lance, 

 and sword, and, after various modifications, were 

 finally formed into troops of eight files and four 

 ranks. The Romans imitated the Greeks in equip- 

 ment, but inverted their order of formation, plac- 

 ing their turmce, or troops of cavalry, in four files 

 and eight ranks, thus diminishing the depth and in- 

 creasing the mobility. The genius of Grecian tac- 

 tics was resistance ; that of the Roman, attack. 

 The Roman cavaliers, like the modern dragoons, 

 were taught to fight both on foot and on horse- 

 back, but in neither situation were they particu- 

 larly distinguished. Hannibal's comparison of 

 them to "horsemen having their feet and hands 

 tied," is strongly illustrative of their inefficiency ; 

 and although the successes of the Carthaginian 

 general may, in a great measure, be attributed to 

 his superiority over his opponents in military skill, 

 and the undisciplined state of the Roman militia in 

 the second Punic war, yet it is evident that the 

 active operations of the Numidian, and the con- 

 temptible condition of the Roman cavalry, enabled 

 him more readily to take advantage of those errors 

 which the republican generals so often committed. 

 The Romans, like the Greeks, placed their prin- 

 cipal dependence in battle, upon their infantry ; 

 and in proportion as the cavalry was increased, did 

 the glory and successes of the imperial army di- 

 minish. The cavalry was augmented under the last 

 of the Caesars, and the empire tottered. Men, 

 little better than savages, with arms and physical 

 force alone, subdued the most extensive arid civil- 

 ized empire of the universe ; notwithstanding the 

 discipline of her armies, and the number of her 

 cavalry. After the subversion of the western em- 

 pire, and the establishment of the Franks in Gaul, 

 we find the invaders gradually increasing the num- 

 ber of their cavalry. At the battle of Tours, in 

 732, the French army consisted of sixty thousand 

 foot and twelve thousand horse; and under Charle- 

 magne and the second race of French monarchs, 

 their armies were almost entirely composed of 

 cavalry. These cavaliers carried defensive armour 

 to a great extent; every remnant of mechanical art 

 that survived in the midst of rudeness and barbar- 

 ity, was employed to protect and arm the man and 

 horse. The defenceless multitude shrunk before 

 the " steel-clad cuirassier," and the feudal system, 

 with all its aristocratical rights, and chivalrous in- 

 fluence, became established: 



" For men-at-arms won- here, 

 Heavily sheathed in mail and plate, 

 Like iron tow-era for strength and weight. 

 With battle-axe and spear." 



Cavalry constituted the principal strength of 

 armies during the middle ages, and the honourable 

 name of miles was confined to those only who 

 served on horseback and were invested with the 

 order of knighthood. The service of the infantry 



was degraded to a miserable and undisciplined popu- 

 lace ; a charge of cavalry was irresistible ; armies 

 were alone formidable in proportion to the number 

 of men-at-arms which they contained, and the uw- 

 defended infantry became an easy conquest to their 

 lordly foes. 



As the comparative inefficiency of infantry be- 

 came evident, a greater proportion of cavalry was 

 employed ; and armies, though better equipped and 

 disciplined, were less numerous. This was the 

 case in the early part of the fourteenth century, at 

 which period the main exertion of every state was 

 to obtain a predominating number of men-at-arms. 

 These troops underwent various changes both in 

 denomination and equipment. At the beginning of 

 the fourteenth century, the cavalry of the Euro- 

 pean armies was divided into heavy and light horse; 

 the men composing the former were called men-at- 

 arms, those of the latter, hobilers. The men-at- 

 arms were so called from their being armed de cap-a- 

 pied ; they were composed of the tenants in capite, 

 (holding by military service,) or their substitutes 

 (servientes.") The hobilers were so called from 

 their riding little horses, termed hobbies ; they con- 

 sisted of the yeomen, and formed the light cavalry 

 of the army. At the beginning of the fifteenth 

 century, the men-at-arms were termed launcers, 

 and the hobilers demi-launcers. At the close of 

 the reign of James I., the heavy cavalry received 

 the denomination of cavaliers, from the intercourse 

 with Spain ; and soon after that, of pistoliers from 

 the peculiar weapon with which they were armed. 

 The defensive equipment of the man and horse 

 appears to have progressively increased, until the 

 introduction of plate-armour, in the fifteenth cen- 

 tury, denoted its ne plus ultra. Now the man-at- 

 arms, cased in entire steel, the several pieces firmly 

 riveted, and proof against every stroke, his charger 

 protected on the head, chest, and shoulder, fought 

 with a security of success that could not be ex- 

 ceeded. The comparatively innocent effect of this 

 excessive precaution is worthy of remark. Machi- 

 avelli relates, that at the battle of Zagonara, in 

 1423, only three persons lost their lives, and those 

 not by the lance, sword, or battle-axe, but, by suf- 

 focation in the mud. At the battle of Molinella no 

 one was killed. In an action between the Neapo- 

 litan and Papal troops, in 1486, not only no one was 

 killed, but it could not be ascertained that any one 

 was wounded. Philip de Comines relates an in- 

 stance where a number of Italian knights were 

 overthrown, but could not be slain until broke up, 

 like huge lobsters, by the servants and followers of 

 the army, each knight requiring three or four men, 

 and as many woodcutter's axes, to despatch him. 

 In fact, the art of defence had outstripped that of 

 destruction; and, although in a charge many were 

 unhorsed by the shock, yet the lance's point could 

 not penetrate the breast-plate, the sword fell harm- 

 less upon the back-plate, the battle-axe was in vain 

 uplifted against the helmet; and the conqueror, in 

 the first impulse of his rage, was unable to reach 

 any vital part of his prostrate enemy. 



St Palaye attributes the decline of chivalry in 

 France to the profusion with which the knightly 

 order was lavished under Charles VI., the exten- 

 sion of the honour to lawyers and others of civil 

 occupations, by Francis I., and the establishment 

 of the compagnies d'ordonnance, in 1445, by Charles 

 VII. The latter circumstance had, no doubt, im- 

 portant influence ; it led to the formation of stand, 

 ing armies, and the employment of mercenary 



