Why did the Roman army base on infantry?

[Michael Kerr]

Mark Hygate wrote:

I am happy to believe that one of the main reasons the vast majority of the Greek & Roman armies, in the 400BC to 200AD period at least, were light on cavalry was also down to the relative scarcity of the availability of suitably sound and trained horses, let alone the additional logistics needed to sustain them.

I also think that racing at the Circus Maximus which was very popular would have competed with the military in acquiring horses. It was in the politicians' and later on the emperors' interests to keep racing going. They raced up to 135 days a year and there would have been a high turnover of horses.

Regards
Michael Kerr

[Robert Vermaat]

The Goths are recorded to have usually dismounted to fight. They did so in Adrianopolis, and the Alamanni dismounted to fight in Strausbourg.

In both battles, there was Gothic (Hun) as well as Alamannic cavalry action though, in fact it was Gothic cavalry that brought the Roman infantry into jeopardy.

[Robert]

Perhaps the most logical answer would be that infantry holds ground. The Roman army was aimed at expanding their sphere of dominance. Also important is that they had, certainly in the earlier centuries, an infantry based fighting style that worked very well against their unarmored and largely undiciplined opponents. The backbone of any army is the infantry, the grunts who slog it out, so too with the Romans. IMHO the ability of laying siege is not a dominant factor in the strategic choice for infantry, but it is certainly an added benefit.

[Mark Hygate]

........
I also think that racing at the Circus Maximus which was very popular would have competed with the military in acquiring horses. It was in the politicians' and later on the emperors' interests to keep racing going. They raced up to 135 days a year and there would have been a high turnover of horses.
....

Whilst I certainly won't disagree, I would note that horses bred and selected for racing (with or without chariots indeed), tend to have different prime characteristics to those more suitable for the average cavalryman. The very best racers often tend to be highly strung, which is not a useful trait in combat.

During the period (in fact, let's be fair, all the way up until the 19th century) nearly all Western logistics was horse, mule or donkey drawn (with the exception of oxen-style slow movers) - or carried by people themselves (hence Marius' Mules or the more modern Shanks' Pony mile: )

My belief is that the availability of suitable mounts for the military, bearing in mind the 5-6x replacement rate (~4yrs for a horse (cf Hyland) vs 20-25yrs for a Roman soldier, without even accounting for battle losses) and the increased amount of logistic support required; mitigates against large numbers of cavalry.

This was completely different for the Steppe peoples, where a man was measured by his riding prowess and the number of horses/ponies; and grazing was plentiful.

[Michael Kerr]

Mark Hygate wrote:

Whilst I certainly won't disagree, I would note that horses bred and selected for racing (with or without chariots indeed), tend to have different prime characteristics to those more suitable for the average cavalryman. The very best racers often tend to be highly strung, which is not a useful trait in combat.

I agree with what you say so I should have explained myself better. With the importance of games and racing in not only Rome but most of the major cities of the empire, (keeping the masses happy) was always a prime motivation for successive emporers so there would be more monetary incentive for breeders and horse traders to breed and find racing horses rather than horses for the military. As you pointed out the logistical needs of the army was a high priority so mules would be important. (I think early on in his career Vespasian had to resort to mule trading to rebuild his fortune.) That's why I think it was cheaper for them to use Auxiliary cavalry. The Han empire in China also had problems with nomadic tribes and after years of unsuccessful bribing of the tribes they realised that the situation required a military solution and instigated a horse breeding program by acquiring horses (Heavenly Horses) by treaty or force to train a cavalry force who could at least hold their own against the tribes. They both had similar problems but approached them differently.

Regards
Michael
Kerr

[Domen]

Perhaps the most logical answer would be that infantry holds ground. The Roman army was aimed at expanding their sphere of dominance. Also important is that they had, certainly in the earlier centuries, an infantry based fighting style that worked very well against their unarmored and largely undiciplined opponents. The backbone of any army is the infantry, the grunts who slog it out, so too with the Romans. IMHO the ability of laying siege is not a dominant factor in the strategic choice for infantry, but it is certainly an added benefit.

But this alone surely does not yet fully explain the phenomenon. There were other empires in history - such as for example the Parthian-Sassanid Empire, the Mongol Empire (and other nomadic empires - but the Mongol Empire was the most long-lasting of them all) or the Han China Empire - which certainly also aimed at holding ground and expanding their spheres of dominance, but they relied either mostly - or at least to much greater extent than the Roman Empire - on cavalry.

I would rather agree with the explanation given by Mark Hygate.

The Han Empire was able to field enormous cavalry forces for their major campaigns. For example in 126 BC against Xiongnu they fielded over 100,000 cavalry, similar number was fielded in another campaign against Xiongnu in 119 BC - two cavalry armies 50,000 strong each (in total also 100,000 cavalry).

Apart from cavalry, they were also capable of mobilizing enormous numbers of chariots if needed. For example "The Military Storehouse of YongShi's 4th year Equipment Account Book", which lists equipment stored in Donghai Commandery, mentions 7174 chariots of 22 different types.

===========================================

The Han Empire developed an organized system of breeding good quality horses on almost industrial scale. I'm not sure if the Roman Empire was also breeding horses in state-owned stables and stud farms?

Such a quotation:

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.p...topic=3082

2. Secondly, Han Wudi began to build up and improve the Han cavalry force. Through various means (involving smuggling and buying), he began to obtain better breed of horses from the XiongNu and Central Asia (known as the western region). Many stables were built across the empire to encourage these better breed horses to mate and some 100,000 better breed horses were built up. He also ordered that the cereal for these horses be improved.

[ValentinianVictrix]

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..

[Tarbicus]

Interesting discussion: The steppan influences in the Ostgothic Empire