+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Greek Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era (/showthread.php?tid=17014)
Re: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era - Aulus Perrinius - 07-04-2010
Quote:However lets face it,we shouldn't take Alexander as a typical example of commander with typical tactics and strategies. I mean,Alexander's cavalry was meant to perform tasks that few other commanders would ask from their cavalry. To strike with a relatively small number of cavalry in the center of the enemy line that was much longer,in order to hit the King is not the usual use of cavalry.And it sounds kind of normal that for those peculiar tasks a strong force of cavalry is needed. Because not only does the cavalry have to be quick in doing the strike,but it also has to be successful.
That said,later hellenistic armies might well be considered the norm, actually continueing a greek tradition that cavalry,no matter how good it might be, it is not suited to be the primary force of an army.
Khairete
Giannis
According to Sidnell the numbers of hellenistic cavalrymen remained pretty much the same (except in Macedon, see my above post on that) it was just that the sucessors could recruit and train more infantry than they could heavy cavalry. It doesn't take long to make some peasant into a decent pikeman (as well as being a lot cheaper). It can years to train up a companion cavalryman. That and heavy horse like the companions needed the time and resources to be able to train and have the nessesary horseflesh (and the nessesary numbers of horses). I don't know if the sucessors thought cavalry was inferior (even the greek polis' used heavy cavalry when they could get them) it was just that a lot of the sucessor generals tried to emulate Alexander's style but didn't quit manage it. Where he would break through and then turn to the roll up the enemy flank they would keep going until they were far away from the rest of the army and their horses were exhausted.
Re: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era - Timotheus - 07-04-2010
Quote:I don't know if the sucessors thought cavalry was inferior (even the greek polis' used heavy cavalry when they could get them) it was just that a lot of the sucessor generals tried to emulate Alexander's style but didn't quit manage it. Where he would break through and then turn to the roll up the enemy flank they would keep going until they were far away from the rest of the army and their horses were exhausted.
I am not sure you are being 100% fair. How often did Alexander face large armies equipped and trained as well as the armies fielded by the Diadochi? Lets be honest, beyond the Greek mercenaries and porbably the "Immortals" the Persian Empire deployed infantry that was little better than rabble compared to Alexander.
Re: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era - John Conyard - 07-04-2010
I always feel a little sad when when I read about cavalrymen becoming less effective through time. Infantry may become relatively more effective during certain periods of time, but horses don't get smaller, slower or less capable, or riders less able.
Alexander had a massive impact on those who followed him. As did Napoleon. But his battles are very different from those of his successors. If anything improved metalurgy would improve later cavalry. But their relative success on the battlefield may seen less to us. In the same way we may suggest that few wars are now won with main battle tanks, but they are still around and getting better all the time.
Re: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era - Sean Manning - 07-04-2010
Quote:That's a strong statement. Other than the battles against Alexander, how much do we know about the effectiveness of Darius's troops? Persian infantry fled quickly at the Granicus, had some successes and some failures at Issos, and we can't tell how they fought at Gaugamela because our sources don't discuss it. They also gave Alexander a hard time in sieges and at the Persian Gates. Persian troops (like Gauls in Caesar's day) could have been fairly good soldiers without being able to beat a smaller army of veterans under brilliant leaders.Aulus Perrinius:7sqar4gp Wrote:I don't know if the sucessors thought cavalry was inferior (even the greek polis' used heavy cavalry when they could get them) it was just that a lot of the sucessor generals tried to emulate Alexander's style but didn't quit manage it. Where he would break through and then turn to the roll up the enemy flank they would keep going until they were far away from the rest of the army and their horses were exhausted.
I am not sure you are being 100% fair. How often did Alexander face large armies equipped and trained as well as the armies fielded by the Diadochi? Lets be honest, beyond the Greek mercenaries and porbably the "Immortals" the Persian Empire deployed infantry that was little better than rabble compared to Alexander.
Re: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era - Giannis K. Hoplite - 07-04-2010
True,John, but what i suggested it not that later cavalry got less effective. I even indicated that earlier cavalry might have been as effective. But what's the point of having a good weapon if you don't use it? What's the point of having a gun shooting the air? And it is clear that earlier greek armies might have had hippeis (every city has a whole citizen class of them) but they chose to use them in one way, Alexander chose to use them in another way even against greek armies. And the successors might have not been influenced all that much by Alexander! I guess my arguement is a bit irrelevant to the actual effectiveness of the the cavalrymen themselves!
Khaire
Giannis
Re: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era - Timotheus - 07-05-2010
Quote:Timotheus:33a2x9xm Wrote:That's a strong statement. Other than the battles against Alexander, how much do we know about the effectiveness of Darius's troops? Persian infantry fled quickly at the Granicus, had some successes and some failures at Issos, and we can't tell how they fought at Gaugamela because our sources don't discuss it. They also gave Alexander a hard time in sieges and at the Persian Gates. Persian troops (like Gauls in Caesar's day) could have been fairly good soldiers without being able to beat a smaller army of veterans under brilliant leaders.Aulus Perrinius:33a2x9xm Wrote:I don't know if the sucessors thought cavalry was inferior (even the greek polis' used heavy cavalry when they could get them) it was just that a lot of the sucessor generals tried to emulate Alexander's style but didn't quit manage it. Where he would break through and then turn to the roll up the enemy flank they would keep going until they were far away from the rest of the army and their horses were exhausted.
I am not sure you are being 100% fair. How often did Alexander face large armies equipped and trained as well as the armies fielded by the Diadochi? Lets be honest, beyond the Greek mercenaries and porbably the "Immortals" the Persian Empire deployed infantry that was little better than rabble compared to Alexander.
When did Persian trooops meet up against Macedonian troops and survive? Persian troops could defeat Greek hoplites but not in head on engagements. The simple truth is that infantry, especially heavy infantry, was not the core of the Persian army.
Now the era following Alexander was different. The armies of the various Diadochi were more similiar. The infantry on average was stronger and this made cavalry less devestating than it was under Alexander.
Re: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era - Aulus Perrinius - 07-05-2010
Quote:Aulus Perrinius:348n9ixp Wrote:I don't know if the sucessors thought cavalry was inferior (even the greek polis' used heavy cavalry when they could get them) it was just that a lot of the sucessor generals tried to emulate Alexander's style but didn't quit manage it. Where he would break through and then turn to the roll up the enemy flank they would keep going until they were far away from the rest of the army and their horses were exhausted.
I am not sure you are being 100% fair. How often did Alexander face large armies equipped and trained as well as the armies fielded by the Diadochi? Lets be honest, beyond the Greek mercenaries and porbably the "Immortals" the Persian Empire deployed infantry that was little better than rabble compared to Alexander.
I'm not talking about the soldiers, I'm talking about their commanders : ) Who as I said did try to emulate Alexander, the problem was they weren't Alexander.
Re: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era - Paullus Scipio - 07-05-2010
Nor, as has been pointed out, were their foes Alexander's foes.....their opponents were far more competent than Darius and his army.....
Re: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era - Aulus Perrinius - 07-05-2010
Quote:Nor, as has been pointed out, were their foes Alexander's foes.....their opponents were far more competent than Darius and his army.....
That doesn't nessesarily effect poor command decisions.
Re: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era - Sean Manning - 07-06-2010
Quote:The Persian Gates and Issos. Judging by Arrian, the hoplites who were giving Alexander's phalanx a hard time at Issos were a mix of Persians and Greeks. But then Alexander attacked them in the flank (after routing Persian troops of some kind), Darius fled, and the Persian army broke up. At the Persian Gates the defenders did better than the army of Thracians which tried to roll down carts on Alexander's men as they attacked another pass.Sean Manning:r56u59vk Wrote:Timotheus:r56u59vk Wrote:I am not sure you are being 100% fair. How often did Alexander face large armies equipped and trained as well as the armies fielded by the Diadochi? Lets be honest, beyond the Greek mercenaries and porbably the "Immortals" the Persian Empire deployed infantry that was little better than rabble compared to Alexander.That's a strong statement. Other than the battles against Alexander, how much do we know about the effectiveness of Darius's troops? Persian infantry fled quickly at the Granicus, had some successes and some failures at Issos, and we can't tell how they fought at Gaugamela because our sources don't discuss it. They also gave Alexander a hard time in sieges and at the Persian Gates. Persian troops (like Gauls in Caesar's day) could have been fairly good soldiers without being able to beat a smaller army of veterans under brilliant leaders.
When did Persian trooops meet up against Macedonian troops and survive? Persian troops could defeat Greek hoplites but not in head on engagements. The simple truth is that infantry, especially heavy infantry, was not the core of the Persian army.
In the 6th and 5th centuries, the Persian army was based on infantry. In every land battle of the Persian Wars, the decisive point was a clash of infantry. Sometimes the Persians attacked first, and sometimes the Greeks did. Cavalry grew more important as time passed, but Darius still gave infantry a prominent role at Issos and Gaugamela. Drifting back on topic, Alexander's battle plans also depended on all parts of his army, even if he and his cavalry get most of the glory! But I agree that because he and his army were so much better than their opponents, he could do things which his successors struggled to match.
Re: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era - Timotheus - 07-06-2010
Quote: But I agree that because he and his army were so much better than their opponents, he could do things which his successors struggled to match.
Yes on that I completely agree, it was the main point I was trying to make. The lack of this massive quality advantage meant the Diadochi had to fight differently and one of those differences was a reduction in the importance or prominance of havy cavalry.
Re: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era - Aulus Perrinius - 07-06-2010
Quote:Sean Manning:2bsuzgyz Wrote:But I agree that because he and his army were so much better than their opponents, he could do things which his successors struggled to match.
Yes on that I completely agree, it was the main point I was trying to make. The lack of this massive quality advantage meant the Diadochi had to fight differently and one of those differences was a reduction in the importance or prominance of havy cavalry.
Why a lack of quality make you want to reduce your heavy cavalry in numbers and prominance? I'm not going to reduce the amount of missiles I have in my arsenal just because another country has the same amount and quality.
Besides, you do see a numerical increase and an even heavier reliance on cavalry during the reign of the sucessors. I hardly think the Selucids would have had cataphracts if they thought their cavalry was less important than it had been in Alexander's day.
Re: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era - Timotheus - 07-06-2010
Quote:Timotheus:3uxs9vsu Wrote:Sean Manning:3uxs9vsu Wrote:But I agree that because he and his army were so much better than their opponents, he could do things which his successors struggled to match.
Yes on that I completely agree, it was the main point I was trying to make. The lack of this massive quality advantage meant the Diadochi had to fight differently and one of those differences was a reduction in the importance or prominance of havy cavalry.
Why a lack of quality make you want to reduce your heavy cavalry in numbers and prominance? I'm not going to reduce the amount of missiles I have in my arsenal just because another country has the same amount and quality.
You will though if they are no longer as effective against enemy infantry. The cost of heavy cavalry remained the same but their effectiveness against their foes (the armies of the other Diadochi) declined. Combine these two items and you can see why someone would start to reduce the number of cavalry and their reliance on cavalry for victory.
Once Alexander was dead and his sucessors started fighting how many battles were decisively won by the cavalry versus the number won by infantry?
Darius in a way attempted to emulate Alexander in the last battle they fought against each other. He fielded large numbers of heavy cavalry and hoped to use them to crush Alexander's army. This did not work. The often weaker infantry of Darius (minus the hoplite mercenaries) could be pushed around by the Macedonian infantry and melted under a solid cavalry charge.
When Darius fielded massive numbers of Cavalry he was out-thought by Alexander. Alexander planned for this and had given instructions for his infantry flanks and his secondary line of hoplites to turn about. This mean a square formation of very pointy spears in the hands of well-trained armored infantry. The cavalry was able to inflict damage on Alexander's infantry but not in enough time to save Darius who was still forced to flee from the charge of Alexander.
The Diadochi would have the same problem. As long as each of them fielded sizeable numbers of phalanx and hoplite infantry they could not depend on heavy cavlary charges crushing their enemies. Horses, even well trained and barded heavy cavary do not like to charge well organized formations of spears and even when they do the results are very rarely pretty.
So do you keep fielding the same number of cavalry? Or do you field more infantry and hope your phalanx can push their phalanx off the field.
Re: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era - Aulus Perrinius - 07-06-2010
Quote:You will though if they are no longer as effective against enemy infantry. The cost of heavy cavalry remained the same but their effectiveness against their foes (the armies of the other Diadochi) declined. Combine these two items and you can see why someone would start to reduce the number of cavalry and their reliance on cavalry for victory.
Once Alexander was dead and his sucessors started fighting how many battles were decisively won by the cavalry versus the number won by infantry?
Darius in a way attempted to emulate Alexander in the last battle they fought against each other. He fielded large numbers of heavy cavalry and hoped to use them to crush Alexander's army. This did not work. The often weaker infantry of Darius (minus the hoplite mercenaries) could be pushed around by the Macedonian infantry and melted under a solid cavalry charge.
When Darius fielded massive numbers of Cavalry he was out-thought by Alexander. Alexander planned for this and had given instructions for his infantry flanks and his secondary line of hoplites to turn about. This mean a square formation of very pointy spears in the hands of well-trained armored infantry. The cavalry was able to inflict damage on Alexander's infantry but not in enough time to save Darius who was still forced to flee from the charge of Alexander.
The Diadochi would have the same problem. As long as each of them fielded sizeable numbers of phalanx and hoplite infantry they could not depend on heavy cavlary charges crushing their enemies. Horses, even well trained and barded heavy cavary do not like to charge well organized formations of spears and even when they do the results are very rarely pretty.
So do you keep fielding the same number of cavalry? Or do you field more infantry and hope your phalanx can push their phalanx off the field.
You make some good points (Laudes sir!
) *Goes digging through Philip Sidnell's book Warhorse.*Well as I pointed out earlier they had more infantry available because you can easily equip and train decent infantry, if you want heavy horse like a companion then that takes years, as well as the proper resources, horseflesh, time and money. That limits how many cavalry you can raise as well as increasing the amount of time.
As for battle, in 322 BC Perdiccas sent an officer name Leonnatus back to help put down the rebellion against Macedon. And I'd say the greek heavy infantry was usually the equal of the macedonian phalanx (Chaeronea for example, where they held the macedonian infantry for hours until Alexander finally decided the battle with a cavalry charge) Leo raised 20,000 infantry and 2,500 hundred cavalry. His enemies had 3,500 heavy cavalry and it was with their cavalry that they relied on for the victory. Besides why attack the slow infantry when you can sweep the other guys cavalry from the field (Like the greeks did to Leonnatus) and then attack his infantry?
Another era worth mentioning is the renaissance which was ironically the golden age of the heavy cavalryman. The french gens d' armes faced very disiplined infantry, yet the french relied on them to decide the day and the gens 'd armes made up full 50% of the entire french army. Hardly a sign of not relying as much on their cavalry. (Not to mention the Polish Husaria who faced excellent infantry and still made up 80+ percent of the polish army)
At Gabiene in 317 BC Antigonus Monopthalmus had 9,000 cavalry almost 30% of his entire force. His opponent Eumenes of Cardia had around 6,000 cavalry making up 14.5%
Demetrius Poliocetes commanded had 11,000 infantry and somewhere between 7,000-8,000 cavalry. His enemy Ptolemy I of Egypt had 4,000 cavalry and 18,000 infantry, Ptolemy's cavalry making up over 18% of his force.
At Raphia 217 BC the Ptolemaic cavalry was less than 7% of the force and the selucids had a little over 10 percent. However Ptolemy IV was still fielding 5,000 cavalry and Antiochus III could manage six thousand. The reason for larger infantry to cavalry ratio was because the infantry had been swelled by desperate recruiting Ptolemy IV had fielded 70,000 egyptian peasants that he had armed.
In most succesor battles they still used the cavalry like Alexander did (I don't think they would have kept doing that if the cavalry were ineffective) At Gaza 312 Demetrius placed most (7,500 out of 8,000) of his heavy cavalry on his wing. His opponents Seluceus I and Ptolemy I saw that most of Demetrius' cavalry was on his left they quickly moved 3,000 of their 4,000 cavalry to their right to meet Demetrius' cavalry. Thus the battle opened with a vicious cavalry VS cavalry clash.
At Parataiken in 37 BC Eumenes attacked with a strong right wing that contained most of his best cavalry and 900 companions. Antigonus countered with javelin and bow armed skirmisher type cavalry. Eumenes attack stalled because his heavy cavalry couldn't come to grips with the enemy cavalry. So Eumenes pulled some fast cavalry from his left wing and together with supporting attack from the elephants they drove Antigonus' cavalry off. Antigonus meanwhile was attacking Eumenes weakened left flank.
Sidnells chapter on the successors is chock full of battles like this where cavalry were still as important as they were in Alexander's day and they still achieved successes that would have earned the respect of any elite heavy cavalryman in history.
EDIT: I couldn't find the Laudes function. Ah well, it's the thought that counts. : )
Re: degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era - Timotheus - 07-07-2010
Quote:At Gabiene in 317 BC Antigonus Monopthalmus had 9,000 cavalry almost 30% of his entire force. His opponent Eumenes of Cardia had around 6,000 cavalry making up 14.5%
EDIT: I couldn't find the Laudes function. Ah well, it's the thought that counts. : )
Not to pick just one point out of your post and attack it but I am in a bit of a hurry and I wanted to comment on this battle in particular. This battle to me is an aexample of how much more important infantry became over cavalry. The battle was won by the infantry. The aged elite infantry of Eumenes swept the field of enemy infantry and completely invalidated the sucess Antigonus had with his cavalry.
The only reason that Antigonus won in the end was due to the complete incompetence of one of the subordinates of Eumenes which resulted in cavalry being able to capture baggage of the Silver Shields who were willign to trade Eumenes for their captured family and plunder. This decisive action could have been done by any sort of cavalry since they were capturing improperly defended plunder and non-combatants and doesnt imply any sort of superiority in heavy cavalry.
Yes it is the thought that counts and I certainly appreciate it.