Hello James,

I think you should not emphasize on morale factor for finding the answer to this question, as morale is very hard to be measured and to be compared objectively (most of the historians are somehow attached to one of the parties involved in a battle and they will thus likely overestimate the morale of their "own" troups and ridicule the morale of the enemy. Furthermore, even if you have accurate descriptions of the morale status - it doesn't really mean anything, as an even very high morale can still be too small for the morale of the enemy).

Hence you should focus on: Weapons, tactics, terrain and, to some extend, luck (of course the latter is also not really measurable).

I think you refer with your question to the battle of Civitate? - if so, this is my opinion:

First of all the norman cavalry (although smaller in size) had the advantage of occupying the high ground. This point is even more advanteous as the norman cavalry was heavy cavalry while the Byzantine was light cavalry. If you have heavy cavalry you need suitable horses (i.e. strong and robust ones)  this gives you a very large impetus once you are going. In combination with the downhill attack, I guess the impact on the light troops was disastrous. It is like a gigantic battering ram.

Secondly the Byzantines were mostly armed with lances and bows which are very usefull when you fight in terrain like a desert  or something similar, but I saw pictures of the landscape of Apulia and this terrain has a lot of trees and bushes where the effect of such weapons are decreased considerably (the trees can block the arrows from the bows and the bushes will also be obstactles).

I'd also be interested in knowing whether you're referring to a particular battle, such as Civitate, James.

Johannes makes some good points, in particular with regard to heavy vs light cavalry, but it really depends on the context you are looking at.  If you are looking at the period after cataphracts had disappeared from the Byzantine armed forces in the late 9th/early 10th century, but before their place was taken by any alternative heavy cavalry, then Norman knights would have been very effective against Byzantine light cavalry.  But that would also be dependent on whether the terrain favoured the Normans, and several other factors.

In open plains or desert, light cavalry can destroy heavy through slowly wearing their opponents down through projectile fire from far enough away to avoid face to face fighting.  There are many examples of that.

Another factor, though, is whether one side knows what to expect from the other.  If the Byzantine cavalry you refer to were light cavalry only used to  fighting other light cavalry, then being charged by heavy cavalry for the first time could catch them completely off guard.

Norman cavalry was heavy, but Byzantines had a heavy and a light version of cavalry, so it depends of the landscape. At the battle of Pelagonia in 1259 the Norman cavalry lost  the battle since they were uncapable to match with the light Selcuk cavalry.

Again, it depends on the chronology of the question.  Is it asking about a specific event, place, or time?  If so, did the Byzantine forces include heavy cavalry at that time?

Another factor, how much of the Byzantine forces were non-citizens, either mercenaries or auxiliaries?  The resolve of an army heavily dependent on one or both can be quickly undermined by self-interest when the tide of battle turns.  In which case morale could be a significant factor.

Greeting James,

Heavy cavalry in the Middle Ages succeeded the chariot of the Ancient Age as the first-line shock weapon in many armies - which is a fact of history. However, it had its limitations against disciplined troops receiving its charge in formations such as the PHALANX or such like. To illustrate this fact, let us see a few examples. The Sasanian Empire of Persia (224-651 AD) boasted of a potent heavy cavalry arm which was the pride of its military, which won many battles throughout the life of the Empire. Yet it failed miserably against the light cavalry and the checquer-formation of the Muslim infantry in the two critical battles of Qadisiya and Nihawand in the 7th Century AD which battles delivered the death-blow to the Empire. In the case of the Norman heavy cavalry also, it had failed to overwhelm Harold's packed infantry formation at Hastings in 1066 AD. So was the case against the Byzantine Varangian Guard formation at the Battle of Dyrrhachium (during the Norman campaigns in the Balkans 1081-1108 AD) and in both cases, it was only when the opposing armies broke formation that they were vanquished. The English heavy cavalry - of Norman origin also - of Edward I Longshanks, failed to penetrate the Scottish infantry formation at Stirling Bridge in 1297. 

It would thus be safe to say that heavy cavalry - Norman or other - had its advantages but under certain conditions. The Byzantine cavalry of the 11th Century and before were of Central Asian nomadic origins and were mainly horse archers, very effective under most conditions - in fact invincible - as demonstrated by the Mongols in the 13th Century and onwards (and the Seljuq Turks before them) , even against the heavy cavalry of European armies. I hope this answers your question to some extent.

Hi all,

I have in particular the Norman campaigns beginning in 1081 against the Emperor Alexios Komnenos in mind.  The Battle of Dyrrachium in 1081 and Alexios' subsequent encounters with Bohemund seem to demonstrate that the Byzantine regular cavalry simply could not stand long in melee against the Normans.  Granted, the regular cavalry was not the kataphraktoi of the tenth/early eleventh centuries, but still, Alexios would have been accompanied by the oikoi of his aristocratic supporters who would have been equipped fairly well - mail shirt, lance, sword and composite bow being the prescribed equipment in the manuals.  A tidbit, obviously exaggerated, caught my eye the other day:  a description of Alexios Komnenos being attacked by three Norman knights who nearly unhorsed him, but whose lances struck from opposing directions and thus kept him in his saddle.  Obviously that didn't happen in precisely this manner, but the idea that a lance blow wouldn't necessarily pierce Byzantine armor seems sound.  What do you make of the notion that Alexios was nearly unhorsed?  Could the qualitative difference between Norman knight/Byzantine regular cavalry simply be that the Normans couched their lances and were adept at knocking the Byzantines out of their saddles?  Unhorsed cavalry is vulnerable.  The Byzantines also fared far better at Larissa, utilizing their bows to unhorse the Normans at a distance and avoid melee - thus an element, surely, of the unfamiliarity with Norman tactics that Kathleen mentioned would have played a part.  

Have a look at pp. 160 - 161 of The Norman Campaigns in the Balkans, 1081-1108 AD by Georgios Theotokis.  (http://books.google.com.au/books?id=PzM3BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA27&lpg=PA27&dq=Battle+of+Dyrrhachium+in+1081&source=bl&ots=P2KJGhOw3E&sig=pXQx8NeH43TtC-76xieP4lrxpIs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kwktVKuALpD48QWS1YKQDA&ved=0CFsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Battle%20of%20Dyrrhachium%20in%201081&f=false)  From this account, I do not get the impression that the Norman cavalry was as effective as your question presented.

Theotokis also makes a strong point in his comment that "heavy cavalry units could make no impression upon ... disciplined foot soldiers who kept their formation unbroken.  ... The cavalry charge was mainly a psychological weapon aimed at frightening the enemy soldiers enough to make gaps in their formation that the ... knights could ... penetrate."

The same principle lay behind the infantry square formations of the Napoleonic Wars.

All the answers offer many elements of the answer that you are after.  Reading Anna Comnena on the Battle of Civitate, the effectiveness of both cavalry was not central to the battle of Civitate, but it is Alexius' loss of nerve during the battle that lead to the rout. It is only in later life in the Battle of Nicea in the 1116  that he showed a willingness to commit his forces and stay the duration.   Not surprisingly, he wan a great victory against the Turks!

The longer lances of Norman knight made them so effective during the crusades from 1096 to 1259.     At Hattin, the Count of Tripoli was able to break through along with more 300 knights Saladin's light cavalry.   If used strategically, Maalouf call them the tanks of the Middle Ages.  However, against good infantry their effect was limited unless used in a flank attack or from the rear.