Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Underuse of cavalry in the roman army
#16
Peter wrote:
Quote:But you will probably agree with me that cavalry on flanks and infantry in the center was much more typical than infantry on flanks and cavalry in the center, due to the fact that cavalry is much more mobile.

I agree & I remember a battle that Philip Sidnell mentioned in his book "Warhorse" although the Marcomannic Wars aren't as well documented as other campaigns, Cassius Dio mentions "the Frozen Battle" where a Roman force defeated a large Iazyges raiding party, returning with their loot on the frozen Danube probably 173 AD. The Iazyges were so confident of victory because they trained their horses to fight on ice and snow that they waited for the Romans before they attacked both flanks and centre but Romans formed a square supposedly with cavalry in centre & front rank infantry threw down shields on ice for firmer footing. Because of this tactic the Roman square held & The Iazyges horses lost their footing & many went down making their riders easy prey for Roman swords, because of momentum the following riders piled into the fray and were killed as they were hauled off their struggling horses. Out of a huge force few escaped. Marcus Aurelius adopted the soubriquet Sarmaticus as a result of this victory. It seems to me that the Iazyges expected to meet cavalry on the Roman flanks & were given a nasty surprise.
Regards
Michael Kerr
Michael Kerr
"You can conquer an empire from the back of a horse but you can't rule it from one"
Reply
#17
Quote: in the East the same person carried a bow and a lance.

Also Medieval Hungarian Szeklers cavalry carried both a lances, a shield and a bow (check page 7 of 18):

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20...D1%8C4.pdf

On page 6 of 18 starts the describtion of the "Black Army" formed by Matthias Corvinus.
Reply
#18
Hungary is in the east bro. And shields on cataphracts were common.
Reply
#19
Quote:Hungary is in the east bro.

Hungarian army in the 15th century was much more similar to German army than to Byzantine army.

So your purely geographical distinction of East and West is somehow fallible here.

Hungary was also in the sphere of Latin Christianity, while Byzantine Empire - Greek Christianity.


Quote:And shields on cataphracts were common.

"Western" - as you call them - knights also used shields. Even after the development of plate armour.

I would say that High to Late Medieval Russian cavalry was quite similar to Byzantine cavalry.
Reply
#20
I wasnt comparing Hungarian cavalry to byzantine cavalry, I'm just saying it was more eastern and comparable to Polish or Bulgarian cavalry. Truly Byzantine Troops died out in the 13th century; after 1204 they were copying bulgarian and turkish and italian soldiers.
Reply
#21
Polish cavalry was different from Bulgarian cavalry. At least I think so - I don't know too much about Bulgarian cavalry, but IIRC it was more similar to Russian cavalry (and in such case different from Polish).

It also depends of which period are we talking about, but Polish Medieval armies can be described as "eastern-style" only when it comes to the Early Medieval period. Later you would not be able to distinguish between for example German or French and Polish knights, if not the coats of arms they were wearing.

The same applies to Hungarians - in the High and Late Middle Ages you would not be able to distinguish one hundred Hungarian knights from one hundred German knights, if not the coats of arms.

But it was not always like this, because Hungarians (or rather Magyars) were originally steppe people.

Early Medieval Magyar army was a typical army of nomadic horsemen from the steppes (the Polish army was never like this, because Slavic people were never nomads - even though already early Slavs used significant numbers of cavalry, for example according to Constantine Porphyrogennetos among the Slavic tribe of Chrobats proportion of mounted warriors to foot warriors was like 6 to 10 and Procopius of Caesarea mentions cavalry units in Byzantine service, consisting of Huns and Slavs, already in years 536 - 537).

Of course there were also major differences between various Slavic armies from various periods.

For example the Polabians and Pomeranians of the 11th - 12th centuries were described as very good horsemen, but only light horsemen - they had no heavy cavalry, because they only used small breeds of horses ("ponies", we could say) which were unsuitable for heavy cavalry. They also lived in forested and hilly areas, so smaller horses were more useful there, as well as "hit and run" tactics rather than charges.


Quote:Truly Byzantine Troops died out in the 13th century; after 1204 they were copying bulgarian and turkish and italian soldiers.

They were also using some Serbian, Italian, German and other "western" mercenaries. But this was the case already before 1204 too. BTW - I think that cataphracts were no longer used after 1204, am I right?
Reply
#22
Quote:Truly Byzantine Troops died out in the 13th century; after 1204 they were copying bulgarian and turkish and italian soldiers.
I know that3D printing was awesome, but that's absolutely fascinating! :woot:

OK, seriously, you mean they used mercenaries, or they copied the tactics? I think that even after 1204, there were Byzantine troops, weren't there? I read somewhere that even cataphracts made a shortlived comeback?
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#23
Hmm... I don't know. As far as I recall the only Greek troops were Paramonai who are recorded by Pseudo-Kodinus and some other guy (I can't remember, some greek name). You might be right though. And they certainly were using pretty much just mercenaries. The pronoia seem to have retained a rather byzantine style.
Reply
#24
Byzantine cavalry of the Belisarian model disappeared well before 1100. In the Komnenian period Byzantine kataphraktoi were dedicated lancers. Heavy horse-archers continued to be used but they were mostly Byzantinised Turks or Seljuk mercenaries.

There is a big misunderstanding of the term 'kataphract' as used by medieval Byzantines. To them, speaking Greek as they did, the primary meaning of the term - ie. "covered over" - was paramount. As such it meant "anything notable for being covered" thus a medieval Greek kataphraktos could be any armoured cavalryman. A man in a mailshirt on an unarmoured horse might be classed as a kataphraktos.

Hungarian manuscript illustrations of the 12th century show Hungarian heavy cavalry wearing remarkably Byzantine-styled armour. This is hardly surprising, given that Emperor Manuel I was half Hungarian and King Bela was largely raised in Constantinople.

The 14th century Alexander Manuscript from Thessalonica shows detailed illustrations of soldiers in decidedly Byzantine styled armour, though the widespread depiction of mail chausses worn by the heavy cavalry and brimmed helmets shows that contemporary developments differing from historical Byzantine usage were being accurately shown.
Martin

Fac me cocleario vomere!
Reply
#25
It depends on the time period you are asking about, because as you've seen the Later Empire actually had quite good cavalry. But since you mention Parthians I assume you are speaking to Republican or Early Empire Rome.

To my understanding the lack of Roman cavalry in the early to mid Republican era was similar to why the Greeks didn't use much cavalry either, lack of ready access to large numbers of horses and topography. Horses were something owned only by the wealthy elite, so the numbers of experienced horse riders to draw on would be fairly low, and the mountainous/hilly terrain of Italy was less than ideal for large cavalry formations. Looking at were primarily cavalry based militaries developed and is places like the Steppe, Arabia, or Mongolia, places with huge amounts of flat, open land. So the Romans, like the Greeks, faced smaller fields of battle and relied on disciplined heavy infantry as the core of their army, with cavalry playing a support role.

As the influence of Rome spread and their lack of cavalry became a problem, they made strides to improve their cavalry by recruiting peoples who were better at horsemanship than the Romans were. So Roman legions could have fairly good cavalry, it just varied depending on where they had gotten their auxiliary cavalry from. Julius Ceaser's gaulic cavalry was very effective and likely a reason why he was so often able to defeat much larger armies.
Tom

{Insert Well Known Idiom Here}
Reply
#26
Interesting info on Ancient chariots and Ancient cavalry from Chinese sources:

http://www.romanarmytalk.com/7-off-topic...tml#340453

Here for example a fragment about taking care of horses:


Quote:Marquis Wu asked: "In general are there methods for taking care of the chariots and cavalry?"
Wu Ch'i replied: "Now the horses must be properly settled, with appropriate grass and water and correct feeding so as to be neither hungry nor full. In the winter they should have warm stables, in the summer cool sheds. Their mane and hair should be kept trimmed and their hooves properly cared for. Blinders and ear protectors should be used so as to keep them from being startled and frightened. Practice their galloping and pursuit, exercise constraint over their advancing and halting. Men and horses must be attached to each other; only thereafter can they be employed. "
"The equipment for the chariots and cavalry - such as saddles, bridles, bits, and reins- must all be complete and durable. Normally, the horses do not receive their injuries near the end of the battle but invariably they are injured at the start. Similarly, they are not injured so much by hunger as by being overfed. When the sun is setting and the road long, the riders should frequently dismount for it is better to have the men weary than to overlabor the horses. You should always direct movements so as to keep some strength in reserve against the enemy suddenly turning on us. Anyone who is clear about this can traverse the realm without hindrance."

Another interesting fragment from these Chinese sources (see the link above to read all of them):


Quote:King Wu asked Tai Gong: "When chariots and infantry engage in battle, one chariot is equivalent to how many infantrymen? How many infantrymen are equivalent to one chariot? When cavalry and infantry engage in battle, one cavalryman is equivalent to how many infantrymen? How many infantrymen are equivalent to one cavalryman? When chariots and cavalry engage in battle, one chariot is equivalent to how many cavalrymen? How many cavalrymen are equivalent to one chariot?"
Tai Gong replied: "Chariots are the wings of the army, the means to penetrate solid formations, to press strong enemies and to cut off their flight. (...) after the masses of the army have been arrayed in opposition to the enemy, when fighting on easy terrain, the rule is that one chariot is equivalent to eighty infantrymen, and eighty infantrymen equal to one chariot. One cavalryman is equivalent to eight infantrymen; eight infantrymen is equivalent to one cavalryman. One chariot is equivalent to ten cavalrymen; ten cavalrymen is equivalent to one chariot.
The rule for fighting on difficult terrain is that one chariot is equivalent to forty infantrymen, and forty infantrymen are equivalent to one chariot. One cavalryman is equivalent to four infantrymen; four infantrymen are equivalent to one cavalrymen. One chariot is equivalent to six cavalrymen; six cavalrymen are equivalent to one chariot.
Now chariots and cavalry are the army’s strong weapons. Ten chariots can defeat one thousand men; one hundred chariots can defeat ten thousand men. Ten cavalrymen can drive off one hundred men, and one hundred cavalrymen can drive off one thousand men. These are the approximate numbers."
Reply
#27
Quote:Interesting info on Ancient chariots and Ancient cavalry from Chinese sources:

Because the relevance of Chinese chariots to the Roman army is... :?: :?: :?:
Robert Vermaat
MODERATOR
FECTIO Late Romans
THE CAUSE OF WAR MUST BE JUST
(Maurikios-Strategikon, book VIII.2: Maxim 12)
Reply
#28
Well, the statement that the Romans used cavalry less often or effectively than they could have is a comparative statement, so to decide whether it is correct one must use comparative data (did other societies use cavalry more often or more effectively than the Romans? Why? Could the Roman army have imitated them? Were Roman cavalry more numerous and effective at some times than others? Why?) Very many questions in ancient military history benefit from comparisons, because the sources are scarce and leave some things out. But this is a difficult approach which requires equal care with both sides of the comparison.

On the other hand, I think that Peter could have explained more clearly how his Chinese sources help us answer the question in the original post.
Nullis in verba

I have not checked this forum frequently since 2013, but I hope that these old posts have some value. I now have a blog on books, swords, and the curious things humans do with them.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Roman Army SUPERGLUE article - not kidding! Xanten Cavalry jkaler48 6 2,138 02-18-2008, 10:48 PM
Last Post: Gaius Julius Caesar
  Cavalry proportion and the numbers in late Roman army Aryaman2 22 5,969 02-24-2006, 05:48 PM
Last Post: Aryaman2

Forum Jump: