03-01-2013, 05:37 PM
I think it was also down to Roman tactical doctrine, which even upto the 5th Century AD placed more emphasis on infantry tactics and formations than it did with cavalry. Read the surviving Roman military manuals and you will see what I mean. Even Vegetius places more reliance on infantry than on cavalry and he was writing in the time when the Romans had far more access to mounted troops than they ever had in the past due to the influx of Alans, Goths and Huns.
I dont buy into the idea that the Huns or Goths fought dismounted, it made no tactical sense for them to do so, the only Hunnic tribe I'm aware of who did employ lots of foot infantry were the Sabir, the Tervingi Goths fought mostly on foot due to the nature of the territory they came from (they were located near the Carpathian mountains), the Greuthungi Goths were mostly mounted troops because they were located further east on the Steppes where their main opponents were the Alans and similar tribes, who were mainly horse archers..
I dont buy into the idea that the Huns or Goths fought dismounted, it made no tactical sense for them to do so, the only Hunnic tribe I'm aware of who did employ lots of foot infantry were the Sabir, the Tervingi Goths fought mostly on foot due to the nature of the territory they came from (they were located near the Carpathian mountains), the Greuthungi Goths were mostly mounted troops because they were located further east on the Steppes where their main opponents were the Alans and similar tribes, who were mainly horse archers..
Adrian Coombs-Hoar
