+- 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: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? (/showthread.php?tid=8876)
what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Juul - 03-29-2007
What was the function of the Roman cavalry? I'm trying to answer that question, but it doesn't work out very well. I'm searching for information about horses in the roman army. I've found out that the cavalry -compared to the infantry- wasn't very big. So I guess it wasn't important. I found out most cavalry was part of the Auxilia, but I just can't find what the real function of the cavalry was.
I hope someone can help me finding this information, or just tell me a bit more.
(Books aren't an option, because most books are in English and it ain't possible to get them here.)
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Magnus - 03-29-2007
Counter-cavalry, and to protect the flanks...at least in the early empire. It was also handy for skirmishing and chasing down fleeing enemy, or disrupting missile troops.
Oh, and welcome to the forum. Please add your real name to your signature please (forum rules).
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Matthew - 03-29-2007
The ratio of Roman Cavalry to Infantry isn't too different from that in the Medieval period, depending on what sources you use and who you believe. Polybius gives a ratio of around 10,000 Foot to 1,200 Horse when he discusses the organisation of the Roman Army and it's Latin Allies. However, his discussion of actual battles shows that this is fairly theoretical. At Cannae, Polybius indicates the importance of Cavalry and again at Zama by way of contrast.
Actual functions are as Matt indicates, but I would also add 'threatening enemy flanks', since that is the reverse of protecting ones own.
Matthew James Stanham
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Robert Vermaat - 03-29-2007
I would also add persuing defeated enemies.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Vincula - 03-29-2007
while i was browsing I found something about cavalry here: antoninus pius blog
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Robert Vermaat - 03-29-2007
Quote:while i was browsing I found something about cavalry here: antoninus pius blog
Quote:Anonymous said...
I'm a student of Carey's and I agree with this wholeheartedly. We're required to buy the book for his class. If it weren't for the forced market, none would move off the shelves.
Ouch!
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - mcbishop - 03-30-2007
Quote:Anonymous said...
I'm a student of Carey's and I agree with this wholeheartedly. We're required to buy the book for his class. If it weren't for the forced market, none would move off the shelves.
G.R. Watson used to do that, as I discovered to my amazement when, as a fresh-faced undergrad, I attended a seminar at Nottingham in the early 80s whilst I was studying at Sheffield. He sold the books to the students at the beginning of the course then bought them back at the end (allowing for depreciation, naturally...). Best bit was that 'lectures' consisted of the kids reading out loud from the book!
Mike Bishop
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - TraderTrey9785 - 03-30-2007
I think it is important to note that cavalry, although not always in equal numbers to the infantry, was still an integral part of Roman Warfare, but it did have drawbacks. Despite the advantages stated above, cavalry still had many disadvantages such as the fact that it can't hold fixed positions, nor can it break an infantry line in a head-on charge. But successful commanders are able to utilize both cavalry and infantry together in coordinated attacks to achieve victory. The best advantage of cavalry is definitely its sheer speed -- the ability to advance quickly, retire quickly, and shift between the battlefield at a given moment.
I'd recommend reading Goldsworthy's Roman Army at War, he gives a detailed description of the use of Roman Cavalry, and describes how it was utilized in certain situtations. His work emphasizing vexillations (sp?), or mixed-unit formations that utilize infantry, cavalry, archers, etc -- is absolutely wonderful. Also, Robert Gaebel has a book titled Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World that really gives you the basic history of cavalry in Greece. It is really worth reading if you have the time, especially because Gaebel traces the development of cavalry from the beginning and uses different battles to illustrate how cavalry can be used effectively (or misused) in given situations. Although not Roman, its still very helpful.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Tarbicus - 03-30-2007
Don't forget scouting - possibly the most important of their functions.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - xrubio - 03-30-2007
Quote:Don't forget scouting - possibly the most important of their functions.
Functions outside the battlefield itself (scouting, pursuing, scort of supplies) seems to be the most important actions of roman cavalry. The first book of the Caesar's Civil War Commentaries has some nice descriptions of cavalry actions, specially the campaign of Ilerda 49aC, where the caesarian cavalry harassed the enemy constantly along its retreat path.
Xavi Rubio
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - L C Cinna - 03-30-2007
hmmm the old myth again.
Roman cavalry WAS effective and very very good compared to most of the opponents they faced.
First of all you have to make a difference between the Republican period and the Principate. The myth that Roman cavalry s*cks is based on the republican periode where they were beaten by Hannibal's (nummerically superior and heavier) cavalry.
The cavalry during the empire is very good and very effective. People often think they were nothing special because they were part of the auxiliary forces but that is NOT true. Commander of an Ala Millariae was one of the highest and most prestigious ranks to get. The Separation of legions, auxiliae and auxiliary cavalry is just a matter of better organization. The example I like to give is that nowadays tanks are not part of an infantry regiment as well but the 2 are combined when needed but if you separate them they can operate individually as well.
I copied this from another post I made, hope it helps a bit:
Here some numbers on cavalry strenght from Junckelmann:
Augustus: minimum of 10% of the army is cavalry. ca. 30.000
Hadrian/Antoninus: ca.18% min 75.000. the maximum calculation would be 90.000
For the late army in the Notitia it's harder to get real numbers but estimations are around 45.000-50.000 for the mobile field army plus 80.000 for the rest. So around 25% of the army was cavalry. So you see the numbers increased significantly.
Just to compare: Standard in Hellenistic armies was 10% or below.
Those are the numbers for the Roman cavalry units which were part of the army. Note that on several occasions the Romans hired additional units. One example is the army which was sent to crush the Jewish revolt during the reign of Nero. For example the army under Cestius Gallus in 66CE consisted of 16 legionary cohorts. 6 auxiliary cohorts, 4 Alae quingeniariae (around 2.000 heavy horsemen) PLUS
2000 horsearchers from Commagene
1.500 horsearchers from Judaea
1.200 horsearchers from Emesa
Such allied contingents hired by the Romans would not be part of the calculation done before as they were not a permanent part of the army.
So to bring this a bit further:
while we have numbers for the standing auxiliary cavalry (used in Junckelmann's calculation) which apply for the WHOLE Roman army the example of the Jewish revolt I've just given shows that cavalry contingents were attached to the army in a specific theatre according to what the Romans thought was needed. The whole point in creating legions, auxilias and cavalry units as seperate parts of the army is that you have smaller blocks which you can put together for certain operations much easier (like combining tanks, infantry a.s.o. nowadays)
What I want to say is that while in 66CE between 10 to 18 percent of the regular army was cavalry. this specific army here for example had:
8.000 legionary infantry
4.800 auxiliary infantry
2.000 heavy Roman cavalry
4.700 allied horsearchers
7.500 allied archers
1.000 allied skirmishers
21.300 infantry and 6.700 cavalry, so 28.000 men. this means approx. 24% cavalry which is indeed pretty high.
. The REGULAR cavalry forces were greatly increased over time as I showed in my previous post from 10 to 25% of the whole army. The question which is harder to answer is if the Romans really used more cavalry in battles in general.
One of the reasons for increasing the regular cavalry force is the greater number of enemies imho. In the 1st and 2nd century the Romans usually fought one greater operation at once (Invasion of Britain, Dacian war, Marcomanni war, Septimius Parthian campaign for example) and could just concentrate the needed cavalry forces on one point. For Traian's Dacian campaigns cavalry alae from all over the empire were sent to the theatre and it was no problem to have fewer forces left on the other boarders.
in the 3rd and 4th century where Rome is fighting on several fronts at once they needed more regular cavalry because they couldn't afford anymore to withdraw such huge forces from one area and leave only a limited defence there. but I don't think that the number of cavalry which was used on average during battles was really higher in the 4th century.
I used some numbers for forces put together for Roman operations where the Romans combined infantry and cavalry like they felt was needed.So this means operations where they had time to prepare their forces. (In other situations like the revolt of Boudicca the number of cavalry is sometimes much much lower but these were emergencies where there was no time to prepare a proper army.)
Here 2 battles from the 1st century:
Vespasians force according to Josephus:
Legiones V, X, XV
10 cohortes milliariae (10.000 men auxilia)
13 cohortes equitatae (600 footsoldiers and 120 cavalry each. so 7800 foot, 1560 cav.)
then he names 6 units of cavalry, he doesn't say anything about the size. the minimum would be 3.000 maximum 6.000. probably somewhere in the upper middle so around 5.000.
SO all in all Vespasians army had approx regular 7.000 cavalry
from socii:ca 11.000 light troops, mainly archers and around 4.000 cavalry
Soooo full force around 44.000 infantry and 11.000 cavalry. again 25%
Agricola's force at Mons Graupius 84CE: 8.000 heavy auxiliaries, 5.000 cavalry, number of legions is not known but he had 2 or 3. full number of all forces between 20-25.000 so again 20-25% cavalry.
And 2 battles from the 4th century:
Julian at Argentorate in 357 had around 22% cavalry in his force.
Valens at Adrianopolis in 378 had approx. 25%.
Note that the numbers of cavalry the Romans used in all of the battles I posted in this thread is significantly higher than the standard. Hellenistic armies had much fewer (Ptolemaios at Raphia had 6%, Antiochos had aroun 8%, Alexander had around 16% on his campaign). The Germanic tribes had usually very very few cavalry. So besides the Parthians and some Steppepeople with a horsebased culture the Romans actually used A LOT of cavalry in the imperial period.much more than most others at that time.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Tarbicus - 03-30-2007
Col. Ardant du Picq argues that cavalry were ineffective against steady and disciplined ranks of infantry, and he was an actual contemporary of, and witness to, cavalry in battle (9th Chausseurs and the Crimean). IIRC, he points out that the only time a horse will charge into infantry is pretty much by accident, as horses see a massed rank as a single large obstacle. He explicitly states that the way cavalry could attack infantry was through the use of longer spears which could outreach the enemy, and javelins.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - L C Cinna - 03-30-2007
yes I agree with that. A charge is only possible imho if the infantry is broken or in open ranks simply because the horses would not run into any closed obstacle. Here the question is the discipline of the infantry. If they get scared already by approaching cavalry and break BEFORE they are done. if they stay together the cavalry will have to abort the charge.
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - Tarbicus - 03-30-2007
Just to add that a way he believed cavalry could defeat infantry was by scaring them off before they even engaged:
Quote:There never was an encounter between cavalry and infantry. The cavalry harassed with its arrows, with the lance perhaps, while passing rapidly, but it never attacked.
Quote:Man always has had the greatest fear of being trampled upon by horses. That fear has certainly routed a hundred thousand times more men than the real encounter. This was always more or less avoided by the horse, and no one was knocked down. When two ancient cavalry forces wanted really to fight, were forced to it, they fought on foot (Note the Tecinus, Cannae, examples of Livy). I find but little real fighting on horseback in all antiquity like that of Alexander the Great at the passage of the Granicus. Was even that fighting? His cavalry which traversed a river with steep banks defended by the enemy, lost eighty-five men; the Persian cavalry one thousand; and both were equally well armed!
The fighting of the Middle Ages revived the ancient battles except in science. Cavalrymen attacked each other perhaps more than the ancient cavalry did, for the reason that they were invulnerable: it was not sufficient to throw them down; it was necessary to kill when once they were on the ground. They knew, however, that their fighting on horseback was not important so far as results were concerned, for when they wished really to battle, they fought on foot. (Note the combat of the Thirty, Bayard, etc.)
http://www.bellum.nu/literature/ardantdupicq003.html
(Added: we were posting at the same time :wink: )
Re: what was the function of the Roman cavalry? - L C Cinna - 03-30-2007
Quote:(Added: we were posting at the same time :wink: )
yes lol not the best timing we have here :lol: :lol: