Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Macedonian cavalry vs infantry
#6
(10-05-2016, 04:28 AM)Lysimachos Wrote:
(10-04-2016, 01:31 AM)Bryan Wrote: "Antiochus from his position on his right wing had noticed that the Romans, trusting to the protection of the river, had only four squadrons of cavalry in position there, and these, keeping in touch with their infantry. had left the bank of the river exposed. He attacked this part of the line with his auxiliaries and cataphracti, and not only forced back their front, but wheeling round along the river, pressed on their flank until the cavalry were put to flight and the infantry, who were next to them, were driven with them in headlong flight to their camp." Livy, 37.42

The Roman infantry at Magnesia weren't hit by a frontal charge, there were only four squadrons/turmae of Roman horse on the left wing, approximately 120 horsemen, these were routed by Antiochus' cavalry, who then wheeled and threatened the Roman flanks, who routed immediately in panic and fled to their camp. There is  no actual mention of the Seleucid even making contact with the Roman infantry. Appian only says that Antiogus' right broke through the Rome left's line, causing great mayhem. 

In addition, based on the standard battle formation of the Roman army's infantry, the left wing infantry at Magnesia was likely not actually Roman, but Socii allies of the Ala Sinistra. However, Appian describes the Romans in front, in triplex acies, with the Latins Socii behind, also in triplex acies, making for six lines of infantry, but this doesn't sound plausible at all, especially since those six lines doesn't include skirmishers, and elephants station in the rear, which would add even more to the depth, and take away from the width of the line, which needed everything they could since Antiochus' army was massive. . 

Justin, 31.8 states that in fact one of the Roman legions was beaten back and fled to their camp.  Bar-Kochva in his book on the Seleucid Army, takes this view and believes that Seleucid heavy cavalry staged a frontal charge on the Roman legion and routed it (based largely on his calculations of the frontages of the opposing armies, and which units he believes faced each other).  Appian's statment that "Antiochus, on the right, broke through the Roman line of battle, dismembered it, and pursued a long distance," also seems to imply a frontal charge more than a flanking movement.

I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation, but there are ancient and modern historians who believe that one of the Roman legions was indeed routed at Magnesia, possibly by a frontal cavalry charge.

There is as much written evidence to say it didn't happen than it might have. But let's look at the dynamics of battle. 

Charging a line of Roman legionnaires frontally is very risky. They have disciplined ranks, large shield protecting them, pilum to throw and thrust with, swords in which they can do damage. In other battles, with little to no instruction or training, Roman infantry took down cataphract in hand to hand combat (Lucullus and Pompey). I'm not saying it couldn't be done, that heavily armored horses moving at the canter, trot, or gallop couldn't break through an infantry line, but its very risky. Seleucid era cataphracts likely did not have horned saddles, that's a later invention. They sat on blankets or skins and used their legs wrapped around the horse's barrel to keep their seat. It isn't entirely sturdy, especially for the shock of hitting stationary targets with the horse or the two handed spears they used. Very easy to be unhorsed, and the worst sort of people they'd want to get unhorsed around. More so, its unnecessary. 

To be victorious Antiochus does not need to frontally charge any Roman maniples. Why would Antiochus risk a personally led frontal charge against heavy infantry (likely he was at the front of the Royal Agema at the tip of the first wedge)? His large and elite force of cavalry wasn't actually facing off with the infantry, they were mirrored off of a measly 120 Roman horsemen holding the left flank. Antiochus can easily charge into them in wedge formation (designed to attack other cavalry, not infantry), rout them with little to no difficulty or friendly casualties, and it instantly opens up the entire left flank of the Roman line. Seeing a large force of enemy cavalry plow through the left wing would have probably terrorized the Roman infantry and caused instant chaos with the most left hand infantry maniples of all three lines. I can imagine that men would have panicked and started running before all of Antiochus' cavalry was even through the Roman line. That flight starts its own response in Antiochus' horsemen, who give chase and start butchering everyone they can, which furthers the rout as the maniples break formation and the men seek the protection of their camp.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Macedonian cavalry vs infantry - by Rizzio - 10-03-2016, 05:06 PM
RE: Macedonian cavalry vs infantry - by JaM - 10-03-2016, 06:07 PM
RE: Macedonian cavalry vs infantry - by Bryan - 10-04-2016, 01:31 AM
RE: Macedonian cavalry vs infantry - by Bryan - 10-05-2016, 03:55 PM
RE: Macedonian cavalry vs infantry - by JaM - 10-05-2016, 02:18 PM
RE: Macedonian cavalry vs infantry - by Bryan - 10-06-2016, 02:08 AM
RE: Macedonian cavalry vs infantry - by JaM - 10-06-2016, 02:06 PM
RE: Macedonian cavalry vs infantry - by Rizzio - 10-06-2016, 04:15 PM
RE: Macedonian cavalry vs infantry - by Bryan - 10-07-2016, 04:01 PM
RE: Macedonian cavalry vs infantry - by JaM - 10-06-2016, 05:11 PM

Forum Jump: