RomanArmyTalk

Pages: 1 2

I picked up a copy of Fuller's Julius Caesar in a used book store recently. I've been having a little trouble following his writing style, though. In some places he writes something that he seems to contradict a few pages later, and in other spots, he's so vague that I have no idea what he's trying to describe. 
 
Something I read in that book really confused me. It was about the cavalry. He wrote that the cavalry was unimportant to the Roman Army, but I've read in several other books that cavalry troops were an integrated part of the military, even though it seemed that most cavalry were allae. 
 
Indeed, a few pages later, Fuller contradicted himself in writing that the cavalry was used extensively as the frontiers were being pushed outward. 
 
Does anyone have insights on Fuller's style of writing or thoughts on description of cavalry usage? I'd really like to know how the Romans viewed their cavalry troops. I know how they were deployed, and I'm sure they weren't viewed as second-class. 
 
 SI HOC LEGERE POTES, OPERIS BONI IN REBVS LATINIS FRVCTVOSIS POTIRI POTES.

Salve, 
 
Fuller was a theorist of mobile armoured warfare and this has coloured his historical publications to some extent. The author therefore has a preference for manoeuvre and mobility, which he deems lacking in the Roman manner of warfare, with the heavy infantry as the main battlewinning force and the construction of fortified camp sites. Roman armies at the times of Caesar contained a lower proportion of horsemen than the later imperial army. Cavalry was however still an important part of the Roman army's tactics, providing reconnaissance and guarding the flanks of the heavy infantry. The majority of horsemen employed by Caesar were allied Gauls with a number of German cavalrymen serving as his horse guard. The legions themselves may have had only a very small number of horsemen, provided that the speculatores at this time were mounted as their imperial counterparts certainly were. Caesar mounted the entire legio X on horses taken from the allied horse when setting out for a meeting with Ariovistus at one point. 
 
Horsemen were never regarded as second class, the earlier Roman legionary being drawn from the higher social classes and the later imperial cavalrymen being well paid compared to the infantry. Command of cavalry units in the imperial army was generally entrusted to men who had several years experience of commanding auxiliary and legionary infantry and marked the high point of the equestrian military career. In prestige and remuneration the horse outclassed the foot. This was not directly reflected in actual tactical value, for the infantry remained the queen of the battlefield throughout imperial history. Infantry, being capable of both taking and holding ground, was more versatile tactically in the set piece battle. The role of the cavalry was subsidiary to the heavy infantry untill Byzantine times, but nevertheless was considered an important and integral part of Roman tactics. Virtually all armies were composed of a mix of horse and foot, with the cavalry component's strength being dependent on the terrain conditions and the nature of enemy forces. All arms formations were generally much better than those containing a single troop type. 
 
There is now a vast amount of literature available on Roman cavalry, which has been one of the more popular subjects of the last years. Here is just a selection of titles: 
 
Connolly, P., Tiberius Claudius Maximus - ein roemischer Reiter (Nuernberg 1990) 32p. 
Coulston, J.C.N., 'Roman, Parthian and Sassanid tactical developments' in: P. Freeman and D.L. Kennedy (ed.) The defence of the Roman and Byzantine East (Oxford 1986), 59-75. 
Eadie, J.W., 'The development of Roman mailed cavalry' in: JRS 57 (1967), 161-173. 
Hyland, A., Equus. The horse in the Roman world (London 1990) 285p. 
Hyland, A., Training the Roman cavalry from Arrian's Ars Tactica (1993). 
Junkelmann, M., Equites Alae (Stuttgart 1989) 140p. 
Junkelmann, M., Rom und die Germanen (Detmold 19??) 48p. 
Junkelmann, M., Die Reiter Roms II (Mainz 1991) 222p. 
Junkelmann, M., Die Reiter Roms III (M ainz 1992) 227p. 
Junkelmann, M., Reiter wie Statuen aus Erz (Mainz 1996) 126p. 
Rea, J.R., 'A cavalryman's career, AD 384 (?)-401' in: ZPE 56 (1984), 79-88. 
Speidel, M.P., 'Horsemen in the Pannonian alae' in: Roman army studies II (Stuttgart 1992), 62-66. 
Speidel, M.P., 'The rise of the mercenaries in the third century' in: Tyche 2 (1987), 191-201. 
Speidel, M.P., 'Cataphractarii clibanarii and the rise of the later Roman mailed cavalry' in: Roman army studies II (Stuttgart 1992), 406-413. 
Speidel, M.P., 'Legionary horsemen on campaigns' in: Saalburg Jahrbuch 47 (1994), 36-39. 
Speidel, M.P., Riding for Caesar. The Roman emperors' horse guard (London 1994) 223p. 
Swinkels, L.J.F. (ed.), Een leven te paard / Reiten fÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¼r Rom (Nijmegen 1995) 48p. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 6/7/01 9:03:23 pm

Te gratia adero, Sander. 
 
That clears things up a lot, especially understanding where Fuller was coming from when he wrote about the legions. SI HOC LEGERE POTES, OPERIS BONI IN REBVS LATINIS FRVCTVOSIS POTIRI POTES.

Salve, 
 
No thanks, you are welcome. The experiences of the carnage of the trench warfare and the later vindication of his theories in WWII are clearly recognisable in Fuller's monographs on Caesar and Alexander. He stresses continuously the importance of cavalry, singling out engagements where horsed troops played an important role, but seems blind for the advantages of the heavy infantry and the fact that horses have a morale problem when attacking infantry that armoured vehicles lack. A tank is harder to frighten than a horse, which may hold back or turn and flee in spite of its rider. 
 
Fuller partly attributes the success of Roman armies in the west to the fact that they did not have to face efficient cavalry. However it was precisely the Gauls that were to become the backbone of the imperial army's auxiliary cavalry regiments and whose contribution to Roman cavalry tactics is evident in Arrian's Tactica. Part of the ancient sources explicitly describe the Gallic and Germanic cavalry as being able to operate with some discipline, which may not be surprising considering that the bulk of the horse would be formed by noblemen and their retainers who as a warrior caste had the time to spare for training that the average farmer called up to fight for his tribe on foot lacked. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Do you have a singlemost trusted resource for information. I've read five or six books, the lastest being Casear's Legions about how the Roman army functioned and how the formations were made up. Beyond the basic information of the principes, hastati, and triarii, it seems that authors can't agree on the structure of the units. 
 
Indeed, in the aforementioned book, the author not only doesn't concur with what I read a few months ago in Military History Magazine, he goes so far as to say that the information he is providing is probably inaccurate! SI HOC LEGERE POTES, OPERIS BONI IN REBVS LATINIS FRVCTVOSIS POTIRI POTES.

Cavalry was indeed important, although the popular image of barbarian horsemen charging down legionnaires and destroying the empire because of Rome's refusal to adapt is false. As has been stated earlier, cavalrymen could never "change down" the disciplined Roman legions. Horse units were, however, essential in scouting, raiding enemy supply lines, etc. Also, cavalry would be able to bypass the slow Roman infantry and raid deep into the empire without too much trouble. Raiding alone can't conquer territory, however, so the Romans naturally preferred infantry. The horse's role on the field of battle itself during the classical period and even the middle ages has been greatly exaggerated. The mounted knight did not ride down helpless peasants at will... in fact, knights almost always rode to the field of battle and then dismounted to engage the enemy. 
 
Alright, I'm getting off the subject. E EM -Quintus Constantius, Praetorian Prefect and Consul of Rome

Ummm ... a brief point because it is off topic - but 'knights' certainly did not generally dismount to fight. There were a few examples of medieval battles where they did dismount, but these were very much the exception, not the rule. For the overwhelming majority of medieval battles knights fought as highly effective heavy cavalry. 
 
E-mail me at [email protected] if you want to discuss this in detail. 
 
Excuse the digression, we medievalists can't help ourselves. Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 

Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project

What about Classical v. Medieval warfare? I believe the post in question was specifically about Roman mounted troops, often called "knights" in English texts. SI HOC LEGERE POTES, OPERIS BONI IN REBVS LATINIS FRVCTVOSIS POTIRI POTES.

Not sure I understand you Marius. Do you mean 'Did Roman cavalry dismount to fight?' (to which the answer is 'Generally, no.') Or are you asking about differences between medieval cavalry and Classical cavalry? 
 
A very quick answer to the latter question would be that medieval cavalry - post seventh century at least - tended to use stirrups, which were unknown in Europe in Classical times. The Roman 'horned saddle' did give cavalrymen a firm seat and enabled them to fight effectively, but stirrups added to this stability and also made the use of the couched lance more effective. 
 
As the medieval period progressed horses were bred to be larger and heavier and armour evolved to greater degrees of sophistication. While later Roman armies did have heavy cavalry - the cataphracts and clibinarii - which were in most respects the equivalent of medieval knights of the tenth to early twelfth century, the medieval knight became the dominant military arm in Europe until the development of musketry. 
 
Popular modern misconceptions about lumbering oafs in overheavy armour attacking without any sense of tactics or co-ordination give little idea of the true effectiveness of the medieval knight at the height of their military effectiveness - they didn't dominate the battlefield for over 500 years for nothing. 
 
But there has been a similar old-fashioned misconception about pre-stirrup cavalry being useless for anything more than scouting, skirmishing and pursuit; myths which the books in Sander's list go some way to correcting. Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 

Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project

Salve, 
 
The single trustworthy source for the exact working of the Roman army's formations is something every ancient historian is after, for none is known as of yet. The exact workings are not understood since no single source has survived that details the precise manner of deployment. One has to work with various references from different sources from varying periods of Roman history to patch together an interpretation. The best book that I know on how the Roman army functioned in battle is A. Goldsworthy's The Roman army at war (available in paperback issue) with some interesting article's on the mechanics of battle appearing in recent years that have reexamined the issue: 
 
Cornell, T., B. Rankov and P. Sabin (ed.), The second Punic war: a reappraisal (London 1996) 117p. 
Sabin, P., 'The face of Roman battle' in: JRS 90 (2000), 1-17. 
Zhmodikov, A., 'Roman republican heavy infantrymen in battle' in: Historia 49 (2000), 67-78. 
 
There is also an excellent site that has models of most recent interpretations of the Roman battle deployment and fighting methods: 
 
www.geocities.com/Athens/Oracle/6622/ 
 
There are also some threads on this forum on the subject. Search the older messages for earlier postings. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

The Romans knew well the deeds of Alexander and his father Philip. In addition the Romans did not only fight Germans over centuries, but also against Parthians then Sassanians and then, later the Goths and Huns. Against the enemies in the east and from central Eurasia infantry alone could not be sufficient. Everyone knew it and to hint that the Romans were so stupid as to insist only on infantry is, in my mind, simply ridiculous and against the facts. The Romans knew very well the importance of cavalry and did what was possible to keep it efficient, well armored and paid (happy) and well integrated with the infantry. I find it very interesting that inspite of Alexander's and Philip's well documented success in finding the perfect match of heavy infantry with cavalry the mix couldn't be easily imitated! It was discovered but it couldn't be reproduced! The Macedonians that invented it lost it after Alexander's death as did the successors of Alexander (his own generals!) that founded the kingdoms his empire broke up into. Everyone studied Alexander but none could re-create that special mix again. Indeed it wasn't simply a matter of ratios and armor. Look at what Lucullus could do against a huge cavalry forces with a tiny but disciplined infantry. Evidently something very special but also very subtle had to occur to make the mixture work. I think that to simplistically state that the Romans were only infantry oriented and explain their downfall as a new supremacy of cavalry is hogwash. Indeed the Eastern Romans knew the importance of cavalry so well, after 600 years of experience of fighting in the East, that the mounted Byzantine soldier was probably the best of his time! To find the right mix had been a problem for centuries. An anthropologist might have something interesting to say about the ethos of the infantry soldier and that of the cavalry squad. Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 6/9/01 9:42:33 am

Salve, 
 
The Sassanid Persians with their heavy reliance on horsed forces are said by Ammianus to have feared the Roman infantry of the fourth century avoiding direct engagement with the heavy infantry during Julian's campaign. Roman tactics of combining infantry and cavalry in the east lived on afterwards. The Byzantines and crusaders also employed mixed formations of heavy horse and infantry to deal with their eastern opponents rather than responding by fielding cavalry only armies themselves. 
 
There is an interesting point you raise there about Alexander the Great and the attempts to recreate his massively succesfull army. At a time there was a renewed Persian empire to the east there were attempts in the third century to recreate a Macedonian style phalanx, reportedly six legions strong (that should certainly still be the largest reenactment group to date) with arms modelled on those carried by Maccedonian phalangites including a pike ( dory makron) and light javelin (as introduced in the later years of Alexander's reign). In addition imperial wannabe Alexanders raised cavalry units styled comites (companions, like the hetairoi) and began to term trusted officers protectores (bodyguards, cf Macedonian soomatophylakes). Faced with a Persian problem of their own the Romans seem to have looked for the answer that proved itself against the previous one. 
 
Succesful cavalry charges rely to a large extent on getting the timing right, knowing at what moment the enemy is likely to break. The ability of the commander to time his assault can make the difference between a succesful charge and one that peters out without any effect. Alexander the Great had an excellent feeling for throwing in the charge at the right moment. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

Thank you, Thiurdareiks. I was asking specifically about Romans' dismounting. SI HOC LEGERE POTES, OPERIS BONI IN REBVS LATINIS FRVCTVOSIS POTIRI POTES.

Salve, 
 
Roman cavalry at times dismounted to fight on foot, though this should not be interpreted to mean that they functioned as mounted infantry. At Cannae for instance the Roman cavalry dismounted in order to better resist the attack of Hannibal's cavalry for it is difficult for horsemen to hold ground. At other times troopers dismounted for storming strongholds as described by Josephus at one instance and implied by a depiction of a standard of the imperial horseguards with a mural crown. As elite troops their high morale and training would make such units excellent assault parties. Part of the Roman cavalry had served in the infantry prior to cavalry service as some troopers mention this in career inscriptions, though it seems most would enter cavalry service directly. 
 
Regards, 
 
Sander van Dorst

I can think of at least one example of mounted infantry in the Roman army. When Ariovistus wanted to meet Caesar to negotiate with him he was wary of the escort the Roman general might bring so, not wanting to have a legionary escort at the conference, insisted they meet accompanied only by mounted troops. 
 
Caesar, on the other hand, didn't trust his allied Gallic cavalry, so he took their horses and mounted the men of the Tenth Legion on them. One soldier of the Tenth is said to have remarked, 'Caesar is better than his word, he promised to make the Tenth his bodyguard and now he's knighting us!' 
 
I'm also under the impression that learning to ride was part of a tiro's basic training. Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius 

Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project

Pages: 1 2

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Anonymous

Anonymous

Thiudareiks Flavius

Anonymous

Thiudareiks Flavius

Guest

Goffredo

Guest

Anonymous

Guest

Thiudareiks Flavius