02-25-2013, 08:40 AM
A quotation from:
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/17-roma...135#331458
Because cavalry is almost completely useless in siege warfare?
And sieges were much more frequent than pitched battles in majority of Roman wars?
The Roman army fought for 250 years in terrain and conditions unfavourable for cavalry - like the mountainous and forested Iberian Peninsula, against enemies using guerilla warfare and ambushes, avoiding pitched battles (see Viriathus with his Lusitanians and the Spanish Wars in general).
The Spanish Wars were the bloodiest (for the Romans) and the longest of all conflicts in Roman military history, maybe except the 2nd Punic War (but the 2nd Punic War actually proved that shortage of cavalry was a crucial disadvantage of the Romans compared to Carthaginians - Hannibal was winning all pitched battles as long as he had cavalry - after most of cavalry betrayed him, he lost at Zama).
But it is not true to say that the Roman army based on infantry all the time.
This is only true for the early and medium periods in evolution of the Roman military.
After experiencing combat against enemies relying on cavalry - Romans increased the proportion of cavalry in their army and introduced to this army various formations of heavy lance-wielding cavalry.
Another reason why for long time Rome didn't have any good cavalry - was because they were by no means a society of riders. That's why they conscripted foreigners to their cavalry units.
It is not possible to create a motorized army, in a country where only 1% of people can drive a car.
Similar situation was in Rome - horses were rarity, few people were experienced riders.
http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/17-roma...135#331458
Quote:And if it was so effective why was the roman army based on infantry? surely they had the knowledge and economic power to do otherwise.
Because cavalry is almost completely useless in siege warfare?
And sieges were much more frequent than pitched battles in majority of Roman wars?
The Roman army fought for 250 years in terrain and conditions unfavourable for cavalry - like the mountainous and forested Iberian Peninsula, against enemies using guerilla warfare and ambushes, avoiding pitched battles (see Viriathus with his Lusitanians and the Spanish Wars in general).
The Spanish Wars were the bloodiest (for the Romans) and the longest of all conflicts in Roman military history, maybe except the 2nd Punic War (but the 2nd Punic War actually proved that shortage of cavalry was a crucial disadvantage of the Romans compared to Carthaginians - Hannibal was winning all pitched battles as long as he had cavalry - after most of cavalry betrayed him, he lost at Zama).
But it is not true to say that the Roman army based on infantry all the time.
This is only true for the early and medium periods in evolution of the Roman military.
After experiencing combat against enemies relying on cavalry - Romans increased the proportion of cavalry in their army and introduced to this army various formations of heavy lance-wielding cavalry.
Another reason why for long time Rome didn't have any good cavalry - was because they were by no means a society of riders. That's why they conscripted foreigners to their cavalry units.
It is not possible to create a motorized army, in a country where only 1% of people can drive a car.
Similar situation was in Rome - horses were rarity, few people were experienced riders.
