degradation of Greek cavalry in Hellenistic era

[eugene]

In the beginning of the Hellenistic era cavalry composed 1/6 of Hellenistic armies. But up to the 3-rd and 2 nd centuries BC this proportion lowered to 1/17. What were the reasons of such phenomenon?
Generally: why do Greeks and Romans generally (with exceptions, which confirm the rule) did not produced effective cavalry?

[Sean Manning]

Why do you think that Greek and Roman cavalry were generally ineffective?

If you look at McCall's Cavalry of the Roman Republic, for example, he argues that Republican Roman cavalry seem to have been at least as good as most of their opponents. The main exception was the cavalry of the Carthaginian army which Hannibal led into Italy. Under the empire Rome had very effective cavalry, although they were outnumbered by Parthian and Sassanid cavalry. Greek and Roman culture did give a lot of prestige to heavily-armed foot soldiers, but cavalry had a lot of prestige too.

The declining proportion of cavalry in late Hellenistic armies is an interesting problem. I don't have an answer for it.

[Paullus Scipio]

...just a thought off the top of the head. Perhaps for the same reasons as McCall gives for Roman Republican cavalry. The 'aristocratic' classes that traditionally provided this arm became so wealthy with the growth of the Macedonian/Successor Empires, that it was no longer seen as worthwhile to serve as 'lowly' troopers.

Significantly, many of the Hellenistic cavalry units are high-status "Guard" units - perhaps serving near the King ( source of all good things) was the only way the newly fabulously rich 'aristocratic' classes could be persuaded to serve......

'Ordinary' cavalry seem to have been mainly 'horsey' peoples, and mercenary - and doubtless hideously expensive.....

A rash generalisation, I know, but perhaps a starting point for discussion....

[Eleatic Guest]

But up to the 3-rd and 2 nd centuries BC this proportion lowered to 1/17. What were the reasons of such phenomenon?

Is this an established fact? I am a bit suspicious about exact ratios given the general paucity of battle accounts.

[eugene]

About 1/17 proportion of cavalry - see Connolly

[eugene]

It is a widespread point of view that the stregth of Greek and Roman armies was (with some exceptions) in their infantry, not cavalry.

[Astiryu1]

Alexander the Great was often associated with cavalry. The terrain of Greece is largely mountainous and horses are more of a wide open spaces thing. Here in the US the East Coast Native Americans were never horsemen on a wide scale but the Plains and West Coast saw many different tribes with horses. The Spanish helped with the spread of Horse cultures via South America and Mexico. The Greeks had a small Horse following and wasn't well documented (as far as I know) but certain city states were better than others from what I have gathered. I suppose that the most effectual degradation came from the rapid expanse of the Macedonians into Asia Minor and losses/limited breeding opportunities would have taken it's toll. The Arabs later had a great Horse culture that "could" be a remnant of the Macedonian system or breeds but I am no expert on the Subject. Since the Moors had Spain for a time(middle ages) the Horses we have here are probably descendants of the period as the Spanish didn't really stress cavalry before then. Which Greek states were known for their Cavalry? Are there any records of horse trading from northern cultures like the Scythians or other Steppe cultures? After those cultures waned the source of cavalry could have dried up.

[Dan Howard]

...just a thought off the top of the head. Perhaps for the same reasons as McCall gives for Roman Republican cavalry. The 'aristocratic' classes that traditionally provided this arm became so wealthy with the growth of the Macedonian/Successor Empires, that it was no longer seen as worthwhile to serve as 'lowly' troopers.

This is the first thing that I considered when this thread came up. Heavy cavalry requires a landholding elite that is willing to spend the time and resources to maintain these units.

[Sean Manning]

It is a widespread point of view that the stregth of Greek and Roman armies was (with some exceptions) in their infantry, not cavalry.

But that's not the same thing as saying that Greek and Roman cavalry were ineffective. Its just that cavalry weren't the most powerful part of most Greek and Roman armies.

I get the impression that Seleucus and his heirs had a lot of cavalry from the eastern satrapies which mostly stayed there doing things which our sources aren't interested in. Its interesting that Livy and Appian both say that 1/6 of Antiochus' army at Magnesia was cavalry (although modern writers tend to reject their statements that Antiochus had 60,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry).

[Aulus Perrinius]

Eugene look up Philip Sidnell's book Warhorse: Cavalry in the Ancient World.

It covers greek, hellenistic and roman cavalry in depth.

As for roman cavalry not being the most powerful arm, I'd say that depends they were at least as good as their enemies depite being outnumbered a lot and they were used in decisive shock role.

In the early republic the Equites were actually the dominant arm, the legionaries were support for the equites.

In the mid-republic the cavalry was still powerful but the problem was at lot of the equites got killed by the carthaginians. Not because they were ineffective but simply because the carathaginians bought their superiors numbers to bear. The equites still held their ground and fought to the last man. The romans were so desperate for cavalry after that they were making boys who were barely old enough to shave into equites.

In the late republic to early empire a lot of the equites became rich and powerful and didn't care to risk that and their lives on the frontier. So they started using gallic and german heavy horse more and more which were still extremely good. There wer

In the 'classic' empire (Legions, segmenata's, gladius' etc.) it depends on what kind of auxilary horse you're using, an armoured sarmatian with a large(er) armoured horse and a kontos is going to pack more punch than say an auxiliary horseman with a hauberk, javelins, spear and spatha. Even then if the cavalry wasn't the dominant arm they still as important as the infantry. There some thread (I'll look it up) that gave some figures on roman cavalry in proportion to infantry cavalry made about twenty-five percent of the army IIRC. In the later empire cavalry got more important although the army was still a balanced mix and cavalry made up thirty to forty percent of the army.

EDIT: According to Sidnell one reason for the macedonians at least was that most of their horse and their riders were sent to persia. This was a one way flow and that depleted most of the macedonian horseflesh. The cadets and cavalrymen also got new land and wealth from the conquered persians and decided to settle down and enjoy the fruits of their labors. The fact that a lot of them married persian women would have been a factor. Do you fancy marching off and risking your life when you've got a woman, kids, and wealth at home? The ground will probably be harder than you remember as well ; ) Then you have the wars between the successors that followed, ancient war was always hard on the equine gene pool. The macedonians were also betrayed by their thessallian allies when the greeks revolted which deprived them of fully half their cavalry.

The other factor has already been mentioned (the people who money, resources and time to be elite cavalry get wealthy and settle down)

[hoplite14gr]

Perhaps these two thread might help an point to answered questions

<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22339">viewtopic.php?f=19&t=22339<!-- l

<!-- l <a class="postlink-local" href="http://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/viewtopic.php?t=18066&highlight=saddle">viewtopic.php?t=18066&highlight=saddle<!-- l


Kind regards

[Lysimachos]

In the beginning of the Hellenistic era cavalry composed 1/6 of Hellenistic armies. But up to the 3-rd and 2 nd centuries BC this proportion lowered to 1/17. What were the reasons of such phenomenon?
Generally: why do Greeks and Romans generally (with exceptions, which confirm the rule) did not produced effective cavalry?

I'd love to know exactly where you got these numbers. I think that the proportion of cavalry to infantry was very often dictated by the terrain and the needs of given campaign. Thus we see that Macedonia and Greece, which are quite hilly, the cavalry proportion is often quite low. At the Battle of Chaeronea in 338BC, the cavalry proportion was only 1/15. Of course when Alexander invaded Asia, he needed much greater cavalry numbers, both to counter the Persian cavalry and simply because the terrain often favored cavalry in Asia.

Cavalry proportions in Asia remained quite large through the Hellenistic era. As Sean mentioned, the Seleucids always had large cavalry contingents, but the ancient sources (and modern commentators!) often tend to ignore events way out east. Some battles, like the Battle of the Arius River between Antiochus III and Euthydemus, were in fact mostly or entirely cavalry engagements. At Magnesia the Seleucid cavalry made up 1/6 of the army, and the Roman/Allied cavalry was at least 1/10 of theirs. And the cavalry often played a critical role in the Seleucid army. The Seleucid heavy cavalry were decisive in the major victory against the Ptolemies at Panion in 200BC, and even in the great defeat at Magnesia, Seleucid heavy cavalry on the right seem to have routed the Roman legionaries opposite them.

So, I would argue that we will see the proportion (and often quality) of cavalry vary more in terms of location than time. Thus we see that in battles in Greece (from Chaeronea through Pydna) the cavalry make up a small portion of the armies, while in the more open terrain found in much of Asia we see large,effective cavalry contingents from the time of Alexander all the way to Magnesia (and beyond). Indeed, Connolly makes much the same argument in Greece and Rome at War pp.80-81.

[Timotheus]

I just finished reading "The Wars of Alexander's Sucessors" volumes 1 and 2 by Bob Bennett and Mike Roberts. There is some mention of the declining of cavalry at least among the armies of the Diadochi. I will I could remember the exact page so I could quote it word for word.

The gist is that while heavy cavalry was still the queen of the battlefield when properly used it was no longe the guaruntee of victory that it was under Alexander. This was not due to any incompedence by the sucessors. This was due to the makeup of armies. Alexander's great cavalry charges that won his battles was aginst infantry that by any definition were "insufficient" to be on the battlefield opposing the phalanx and heavy cavalry possessed by Alexander. The armies of the sucessors were not so inferior. The armies fielded by the various Daidochi were more similar to each other than the armies of Alexander compared to the Persian Empire. Infantry of the Diadochi were not rabble or levies with poor equipment and gear that would easily break at the very sight of a heavy cavalry charge. They instead were often phalanx equiped and trained troops who knew a solid formation defeated a heavy cav charge on any day.

So if the most expensive troops on the field were not the battle dominators they were before then it makes sense that armies would field less of them. Without the quality edge they possessed before they were not as useful.

In a way hellenistic cavalry was like the Roman legion. When deployed against various celtic enemies the Roman legion took on many times its own number and often won smashing victories. Later during civil wars when legions fought against legion there was no qualitative edge and you get massive battles where the winner was the Roman general who arrived with the most troops.

[Giannis K. Hoplite]

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

[Timotheus]

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

Very true, but also have to consider the much larger disparity between the average Persian infantryman and a Greek hoplite or Macedonian Phalanx.