+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Research Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Roman Military History & Archaeology (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Underuse of cavalry in the roman army (/showthread.php?tid=22735)
Pages:
1
2
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army - munifex - 06-07-2013
Was cavarly in the principate underused? The Romans would have needed their cavalry especially agaisnt the parthians. I've read that they underused their cavalry but why, cavalry would have very useful to them.
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army - munifex - 06-07-2013
Sorry its in the wrong category
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army - Macedon - 06-07-2013
Moved!
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army - Vindex - 06-07-2013
May I ask you to elaborate a little please?
Under use in what way? Tactical restraints or strategic restraints? Not enough deployed, or not enough recorded as being deployed?
Sometimes you have to look at the terrain and the conditions of a campaign to decide whether a lack of cavalry was actually a good thing in logistical terms as opposed to a tactical/strategic decision.
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army - Cesco - 06-07-2013
well actually the cavalry wasn' t so usefull... you have to consider, for example that a direct charge of cavalry against a formation of infantry would have been ineffective..so the aim of cavalry was "only" to protect the flanks, thanks to its speed, and to outflank enemy's flanks( that would have had a psychological effect on the enemy) so to have had a too many horsemen would have been vain.
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army - Flavivs Aetivs - 06-07-2013
The Late Roman Army saw an increased importance in Horsemen - where Horse Troops usually made pivitol moves - but infantry were the ones who continued to slog it out on foot, and in the end decided the battle. Cavalry at the time usually only had one role - it wasn't until the Sarmatians arrived that you see multi-role cavalry in Europe, and until around the time of the Huns that the Romans began using Lance-And-Bow cavalry.
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army - Legio Tredecim Gemina - 06-07-2013
Underuse is probably an incorrect word. The ancient Roman army was in the main an infantry army, and in the Republic and early Empire the best in the world. Cavalry was used for reconnaissance and to protect flanks of infantry formations. While it was used to give protection on the flanks, its primary role was harassment of the enemy flanks and in pursuing fleeing enemy soldiers. In the early era, Rome did not develop its cavalry for use common to later eras. It was really in the Eastern provinces in which Rome encountered effective, aggressive use of cavalry by Parthians, who used heavily armored cavalry (cataphracts). These were a continual problem for Roman infantry formations. But by the 5th Century, Rome began to develop heavy cavalry for use in the East. In the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire, heavy cavalry became the mainstay of the army. It was easily the equal of, if not superior to, European cavalry.
Warfare is always in a state of flux. If there can be any valid criticism of the Roman army, it is that it did not develop a more effective cavalry. But there is a saying as valid 2,000 years ago as today, generals always plan to fight yesterday's war.
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army - Flavivs Aetivs - 06-08-2013
Quote:Underuse is probably an incorrect word. The ancient Roman army was in the main an infantry army, and in the Republic and early Empire the best in the world. Cavalry was used for reconnaissance and to protect flanks of infantry formations. While it was used to give protection on the flanks, its primary role was harassment of the enemy flanks and in pursuing fleeing enemy soldiers. In the early era, Rome did not develop its cavalry for use common to later eras. It was really in the Eastern provinces in which Rome encountered effective, aggressive use of cavalry by Parthians, who used heavily armored cavalry (cataphracts). These were a continual problem for Roman infantry formations. But by the 5th Century, Rome began to develop heavy cavalry for use in the East. In the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire, heavy cavalry became the mainstay of the army. It was easily the equal of, if not superior to, European cavalry.
Warfare is always in a state of flux. If there can be any valid criticism of the Roman army, it is that it did not develop a more effective cavalry. But there is a saying as valid 2,000 years ago as today, generals always plan to fight yesterday's war.
Considering the Amount of Troops used in proportion to the territory adequately defended from ~60 A.D. - ~395 A.D. It is still the best army to have existed in the world.
I should also mention that the use of Cataphracts also was prevelant in the west, and that the Parthians did not put an emphasis on Cataphracts like the Sassanids did. The Byzantine cataphracts used Lance-and-Bow tactics, which is what made them superior to Western Heavy Cavalry.
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army - Vindex - 06-08-2013
Quote:well actually the cavalry wasn' t so usefull... you have to consider, for example that a direct charge of cavalry against a formation of infantry would have been ineffective..so the aim of cavalry was "only" to protect the flanks, thanks to its speed, and to outflank enemy's flanks( that would have had a psychological effect on the enemy) so to have had a too many horsemen would have been vain.
Perhaps the mind set to use was that cavalry in this period was never intended to break up a rank of well protected infantry and never intended to do direct charges (a concept many seem to take as the be all and end all of cavalry tactics).
And I would caution against underestimating the psychological effect of a horse coming at you at pace and loosing arrows accurately yet taking out random targets to left or right of an infantry man ordered to hold his ground.
Even turning an infantry flank can have a very bad effect on morale because once a defensive shield formation is broken, an infantryman is very vulnerable.
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army - Mark Hygate - 06-08-2013
Having read it I can only recommend a reading of Ann Hyland's "Equus - the Horse in the Roman World", which contains some very useful information.
It certainly gives a much greater understanding of the logistic difficulties of breeding, supplying, training and feeding cavalry as opposed to infantry. Even without losses the likely replacement rate is ~5x that for soldiers.
Gaining that understanding has certainly helped and drawn me to the conclusion that one reason that the proportion of cavalry in the 'West' is lower than that for the Steppe peoples and Eastern empires is that they just weren't as common. The Steppe Nomads lived for their horses and they were a part of their nomadic life, the Parthians and the Sassanids (et al) used theirs due to the vast distances they had to travel.
The other reasons are well mentioned above - Graeco-Roman armies are infantry-centric and cavalry is in a supporting role. An exception would be the Heavier shock cavalry of Alexander, which could be used to exploit weaknesses and the low morale of many of the conscripted infantry they faced. Even the Cataphract types were mainly used to exploit similar weaknesses after casualties and disruption was already caused.
Infantry (and still true today) holds ground and that's principally what the Romans did. Cavalry is more mobile and thus why the Byzantine's moved towards this as that's also the raiding style of many of their enemies; but their armies often still contained a serious proportion of infantry - they're just less glamorous.
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army - Timianus - 06-09-2013
Another factor to consider is how expensive a horse was (still are now) to own. You had an entire class of citizenship defined by its members' ability to own a horse. And, remember that in the republican period, Rome has a citizen army and everyone had to provide for themselves. Thus, there was a relatively small number of citizens that had the financial ability to own a horse and pay for its upkeep. Later on in the republican period, most cavalry came from Rome's federate contingents. This practice continued on well into the imperial period. Thus, the bulk of the cavalry was supplied by non-roman sources.
I am no expert, but the sense this "armchair historian" gets from the research I have done is that the cavalry was viewed as a secondary, subservient piece/tool of the military that was supplied by someone else. The cavalry scouted, harassed supply lines, and cleared the field once the opposing army routed. The real Romans fought it out on the ground.
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army - Domen - 06-12-2013
Quote:Byzantine cataphracts used Lance-and-Bow tactics, which made them superior to Western Heavy Cavalry.
European armies were also using mounted crossbowmen in large numbers as support for lancers.
Quote:but infantry were the ones who continued to slog it out on foot, and in the end decided the battle.
I wouldn't say so.
Please note that most battles were won by army which won cavalry engagement on both flanks. Instances of winning despite your cavalry being routed were rare and happened only to the Romans (I don't recall any Greek battle in which they won despite having their cavalry defeated - actually the main reason for defeats of Antigonids in wars against Rome, in battles such as Cynoscephalae, was weakness and small number of their cavalry compared to Macedonian cavalry from times of Philip II and Alexander).
Quote:Another factor to consider is how expensive a horse was (still are now) to own.
Nowadays horses are much more expensive than they were for example 100 - 200 years ago. But the main reason for Roman underuse of cavalry was indeed not their own choice, but lack of necessary resources to mobilize large cavalry armies. Italy was not exactly a good place for breeding horses, and Romans were not good raiders. It is never bad to have more cavalry (it can be expensive but not unfavourable).
Especially that if you need foot soldiers, cavalry can get dismounted and fight as infantry.
Raiders are not "completely welded" to their horses.
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army - Flavivs Aetivs - 06-12-2013
Chalons was won by a cavalry engagement in the center and then infantry coming in on the flanks.
Also, crossbowmen are different - in the East the same person carried a bow and a lance. Retreating Archers could turn in an instant on pursuing cavalry and infantry. In europe putting crossbowmen as support is a hell of a lot different than a Turk or Byzzie with an asymmetric bow and a 12 foot (for those not american, about 3.8meter) kontos.
You're right about dismounting though - many barbarian cultures including the goths are recorded dismounting to fight on foot.
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army - Domen - 06-12-2013
Quote:Also, crossbowmen are different - in the East the same person carried a bow and a lance.
In Catholic Medieval Europe those were two different persons. But is it really an inferior solution?
I think it has both its advantages and disadvantages and is different, but not inferior.
Quote:many barbarian cultures including the goths are recorded dismounting to fight on foot.
The Goths not really. There are no proofs at all that Gothic cavalry fought dismounted at Adrianople.
But this was already discussed before in another thread (or a few of them) about cavalry.
Quote:Chalons was won by a cavalry engagement in the center and then infantry coming in on the flanks.
Indeed.
But you will probably agree with me that cavalry on flanks and infantry in the center was much more typical than infantry on flanks and cavalry in the center, due to the fact that cavalry is much more mobile.
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army - Flavivs Aetivs - 06-12-2013
Quote:In Catholic Medieval Europe those were two different persons. But is it really an inferior solution?
I think it has both its advantages and disadvantages and is different, but not inferior.
The Goths not really. There are no proofs at all that Gothic cavalry fought dismounted at Adrianople.
But this was already discussed before in another thread (or a few of them) about cavalry.
Indeed.
But you will probably agree with me that cavalry on flanks and infantry in the center was much more typical than infantry on flanks and cavalry in the center, due to the fact that cavalry is much more mobile.
I wasn't referring to Adrianople in particular, although I had heard that before. Also, yes Infantry center was more common.