ANCIENT CAVALRY.
The earliest mention of military horsemen is found in the Bible. In Genesis and Isaiah the horses and horsemanship of Palestine and among the Arabs are highly extolled. Diodorus. the historian, mentions au expedition of 20,000 horsemen to put down a rebellion in Baetria. It is probable that the war chariot antedated cav alry as a fighting arm; with scythe-blades at tached to the cod of the axles the chariot became not only a terrible engine, but was also useful to transport foot-soldiers quickly to the battlefield. The creation of regular cavalry is ascribed to the Egyptian King Eam•ses IL. about B.C. 1330.
The earliest cavalry arms were the lance, the javelin, and the bow. Of these the first named has alone survived the changes of centuries and is used to-day, side by side with the latest arms of precision and the newest weapons of war. "In a barbarous country" (says Marshal Mar mont), "where industry has not yet found its way, where there exist neither manufactories nor armories, nor money wherewithal to buy arms abroad, a man mounts his horse and wants a weapon. He cuts a long branch of light wood, sharpens the point, hardens it in the fire, and there is his lance. Later he procures a Dail and fastens it to the end: his weapon has already become more dangerous. Finally, this stall is furnished with an iron tip regularly shaped, and behold the lance which is now generally adopted." A javelin or dart is a small lance to be thrown, and was often made so as to break or bend upon piercing an enemy's body.
An early writer on horsemanship is Xeno phon; be states that the Greeks used cavalry in war as early as D.C. 743. Epaminond,ps did much to develop this arm as a military force, raising and training a body of 5000 mounted men. The Grecian cavalry under Philip of Mace don and Alexander the Great won great renown. It was di vided at first into two classes — heavy and light—to which Alexander added a third, trained to fight either on foot or on horseback. The heavy cavalry consisted of into carefully selected and who supplied their own horses: the remainder were mount ed by the State. The heavy horsemen wore cuirasses of mail, and carried a long lance and a short sword; the light horse were without armor, and carried javelins, daggers, and bows; all rode bareback.
The tactical unit of this force was the Ile' (no of 64 men; the formation of the ile was 1G front and 1 deep, or S front and deep. They some times elmrged in line, but generally in oblong, wedge-shaped columns, the head of which was driven against the enemy like the point of a spear to penetrate their line: two of these tri angles were sometimes joined in the shape of a lozenge, as above.
This formation was abandoned by Alexander for a more open order and extended front, that which he applied at Arbela, where lie defeated Darius, King of Persia. The Greek cavalry RUM bcred 7000, divided into two wings. The Per sians, clad in armor, outnumbered their oppo nents, who were dressed and armed as light •aval•y. Alexander, leading his right wing. rap idly extended his lines so as to overlap the enemy's front, who, in trying to meet this un expected movement, left a gap which Alexander promptly occupied, separating the Persian forces and driving them hack in confusion. Having thus disposed of part of the enemy, .Alexander concentrated his forte upon the remainder of Darius's army, which lie routed and pursued a distance of 75 miles in 21 hours. The tactical principles illustrated in this engagement form the basis of the best modern cavalry methods. After the death of Alexander. the Greek cavalry gradually sank into insignificance.
The lloma us gave more attention to their in fantry than to their eavalry, which, indeed, suf fered from want of horses and competent leaders. Their system resembled that I if the Greeks in that it comprised the heavy, the light, and a kind re-Mrs, trained to fight on foot as well as on horseback. In fact. by reason of their close union with the infantry on the battle-field they were inclined to dismount upon the slightest pre text. "At Canna." says Polybius, "when the Spanish and Gallic eavalry, advancing from the left wing of the Carthaginians, encountered the Romans, the conflict that ensued was, indeed. most warm and vehement, such as resembled rather the combat of barbarians than a battle fought by disciplined and experienced troops. For, instead of falling baek and again returning to the charge, as the custom was in such en gagement•, they had scarcely joined, when, leap ing from their horses, each man seized his enemy." Roman writers assert that their cav alry were often successful with this method of fighting, although the modern light caVa1ry,Jan would make short work of such imprudence. In their encounters with the Carthaginian cav alry the Romans sustained crushing defeats. Hannibal appreciated the value of cavalry. His favorite methods of employing the arm were (1) to turn the enemy's wings and attack him in flank and rear, and (2) to place a mounted corps in ambush and suddenly fall upon his rear. The best Roman generals, lacking cavalry, were forced to avoid the plains and take up positions upon the hills. as safer for their operations.