Cavalry and chariots against infantry

[Thomas Aagaard]

But from that short OT about the greatness of Rome it seems that some people on this forum are to some extent biased in favour of praising the Roman Empire in all aspects (hence some posts describe it as "almost industrial", with "super high living standards of entire population", etc.). This partially explains why the same posters also tend to overestimate the power of infantry and underestimate the power of cavalry. After all the Roman army initially relied chiefly on heavy legionary infantry.

But Peter. You are the same. You "are to some extent biased in favour of praising the" hussars and I think that makes you overestimate the power of cavalry and underestimate the power of infantry.

Cavalry did not dominate battlefields in all periods of military history...
If cavalry was so effective as you make it out to be(no matter the periode), you wouldn't have seen the wide use of dismounted men-at-arms during the 100year war... (by both sides)

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.