infantry vs. auxilliary

[Anonymous]

How important exactly was the infantry (the most famous roman military arm)to the other forces including the cavalry, navy, javilineers, archers, etc. Also what sort of comparitive numbers were there in a roman army. <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
Generally speaking the average composition of a Roman army consisted of approximately half citizen forces troops, which were generally organised in in <i> legiones</i> and half allied troops. This division remained more or less constant from republican times to the third century. In this period though the allied forces, called <i> socii</i> (allies) or <i> auxilia</i>, gradually became more and more similar in character in composition to the regular citizen forces with auxiliary regiments containing many Roman citizens as well as barbarians and unenfranchised provincials. In the later Roman army all units could contain both indigenous Roman troops as well as foreign barbarians with little if any difference in composition between <i> legiones</i> and <i> auxilia</i>.<br>
<br>
The proportion of cavalry to infantry differed and this was partly due to the environment where the army operated: horsemen were less useful in operations in mountainous or wooded terrain than on plains and deserts. Generally speaking though republican era armies contained about 10% horsemen whereas in imperial times the percentage could rise to 20 to 25%. In the later Roman army the number of cavalry units was about a third of the army, though infantry formations contained a higher number of men so the overall balance of forces was more or less equal to the early empire. Late Roman field armies contained a higher proportion of infantry than the frontier forces, indicating the continued importance of heavy infantrymen as the decisive arm. Armoured close order heavy infantry armed with a combination of javelins and swords remained the core of Roman fighting methods throughout the centuries. While appearance of weaponry and armour changed with passage of time, the essence of tactics largely remained the same. Cavalry remained subsidiary to the foot soldiers untill Byzantine times.<br>
<br>
The percentage of light vs heavy forces, that is troops meant for engaging the enemy at a distance or at close quarters, varied. Republican armies had about 25 to 30% percent light forces, the later imperial armies probably less. For instance the legions contained some 1200 or more light infantry javelineers in the republican army vs only some three hundred to four hundred in the late republican and imperial era. Even though imperial auxiliary infantry is often classed as light infantry, most were actually heavy infantry meant for close combat rather than skirmishers. Roman heavy infantry almost throughout history had a missile fighting capability using javelins and darts, so this explains the low numbers of specialised light infantry. The composition of light troops changed over the years. Whereas the republican era light troops would generally have a majority of javelineers, the imperial army contained a considerably higher proportion of archers. The exact balance is unsure, but up to a fifth of all units in the later imperial army could consist of archers with bowmen also incorporated in other formations, both foot and mounted.<br>
<br>
Just about the only data available for estimating the relation between navy and army strength comes from the reign of Diocletianus. According to a later writer the army had some 390.000 men and the navy some 45.000. It is unknown though from what exact period of this emperor's reign came these figures which may be important, since he considerably increased the army strenght, at least on paper and probably in actual manpower as well.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showLocalUserPublicProfile?login=sandervandorst>Sander van Dorst</A> at: 5/23/01 8:29:27 am<br></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

In my MA thesis I attempted to calculate the navy's strength for the early imperial period and came up with about the same number as you name, Sander. Besides, I believe that the report about Diocletian's army was dates from the earlier part of his reign and is considered a reasonable estimate for slightly earlier times. But of course, this is hotly debated...<br>
<br>
Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
In my opinion the figures are likely to be genuine and based on reports of some kind. I fully agree that they are probably dating from the earlier part of his reign before the massive increase in legions (which may have been done at the expense of auxiliary strength, since it seems that auxiliary formations were brigaded into new legions). Even taking into account the fact that units are not likely to have been at establishment strength the number for the army at least appears to low for an army of sixty plus legions which were probably still using the old large formation structure.<br>
<br>
What were your estimates of strengths for the main praetorian fleets and the various smaller fleets? Do you consider the estimate of 10.000 each for the Misenum and Ravenna fleets accurate and what do you reckon were the strengths of the provincial fleets?<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[Praefectusclassis]

My estimate was an attempt at 'guesstimation'. I'd have to check my thesis for the precise numbers I calculated, but I figured the Misenate fleet at about 12.000 sailors/marines, the Ravennate at somewhere between 6 and 8.000. The provincial fleets I estimated at a total of about 22-24.000, giving a total of about 40.000 sailors and marines. It was nice to find that my estimate came to about the same number as the source for Diocletian. On the other hand, I have to admit that it is possible to 'estimate' in such a way to find any total you want.<br>
<br>
Greets<br>
<br>
Jasper <p></p><i></i>

[Catiline]

Was not the cavalry considered the senior arm by the later Empire. Julian reduced cavalry to infantry as a punishment in his persian expedition, can't find the reference off hand, but i'm getting Ammianus out to revise this afternoon so I'll look then. <p>It's not a bug, it's a feature</p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
<br>
Cavalry troopers had always outranked infantrymen, even in the early empire. To be made a cavalryman was considered to be a promotion, hence the title of <i> equites promoti</i> which came into use in the third century CE. The troopers got more pay than the foot soldiers and possibly received the status of <i> immunis</i> as a rule, though this is not certain. Cavalry are not attested as building anything themselves, so it is possible that horsemen were excused certain duties at least. The rebellious Batavians in the year of the four emperors demanded besides a general raise in pay that the number of horsemen were increased in their units, an indication that cavalry service was regarded as a better deal than infantry service. The <i> alae</i> of the early empire were as prestigious as the later <i> vexillationes</i>.<br>
<br>
It is commonly held that the cavalry increased in importance in the later empire, though this is debatable for the fourth century. The proportion of horsemen was probably comparable to earlier times. While the number of cavalry units seems relatively high in the later empire, the infantry units had higher strengths than horse units. The creation of the <i> scholae</i> is given as an indication of this growing importance of late Roman cavalry. However emperors from earlier times also had a horse guard, at first the <i> Germani custodes corporis</i>, later on the <i> equites singulares Augusti</i>. Thus it seems to my view not at all strange or particularly new that late Roman emperors formed a horse guard of their own when the <i> equites singulares Augusti</i> were disbanded. The praesental field armies fulfilled the role of the praetorians as an elite force at the emperor's disposal, so their disbandment was made good by other formations. It has ebbn suggested that some praetorians, those attached to Constantine's forces, may have survived the dissolution of the guard as the <i> Promoti</i> and <i> Lancearii Seniores</i>, both high ranking units. The listing of cavalry regiments in the <i> Notitia Dignitatum</i> above the infantry formations is quoted as another indication of their growing importance. However service as a horseman had always brought more glamour and prestige than as a foot slogger and the listing seems more to take prestige into account than battlefield importance. Battle descriptions in Ammianus Marcellinus show that the record of the infantry, the <i> Primani</i> at Strasbourg and the <i> Lancearii</i> and <i> Mattiarii</i> at Adrianople for instance, was actually better than that of the horse soldiers, the cataphract cavalry at Strasbourg fleeing and the cavalry at Adrianople failing to support the infantry and saving themselves by flight.<br>
<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst<br>
<br>
(Note that I am a convinced pedestrian, not a rider. I personally think the view that horses are most useful to an army as self propelled rations has its merits.) <p></p><i></i>

[Catiline]

LOL<br>
<br>
If I'd thought before openign my mouth on hte issue some of that might ahve oocured to me. Personally i hate horses, I invariably fall off them and they bite me. <p>It's not a bug, it's a feature</p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Thanx for all the info. on cavalry, auxillries, and the navy it helps a lot but i've got more work for you guys (heheh). What sorta tacticts did the roman infantry use against cavalry after they disbanded the triarii (which help to the greek phalanx tacticts) why werent the later roman armies overrun by forces strong in cavalry. <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
Cavalry can do little useful against heavy infantry that keeps in close order and does not panick and break ranks. Horses will refuse to charge home on a solid object like a thightly packed group of men. The cavalry charge comes down to a test of nerve, those of the ones being charged and the horses. If the former loose their nerves and make a run for it, they will be easy prey for the horsemen. On the other hand if they remain in good order and present a solid shield wall, especially when also making loads of noise and pointing sharp objects at the horses, chances are that the cavalry charge will come to a halt. For a more recent example of cavalry charges failing against determined infantry one can think of the battle of Waterloo: French cavalry charged the allied squares for a long time without succes: their horses would simply refuse to go near a block of men bristling with bayonets.<br>
<br>
Roman forces facing a heavy cavalry charge deployed in a deeper formation than usual and in close order. The front ranks would be using their javelins as stabbing weapons, the rear ranks would throw them at the enemy. Making a lot of noise and keeping up a steady stream of missiles would also help deter the enemy cavalry.<br>
<br>
You can read about the plans made by a Roman general to face an attack by heavy cavalry on this page: members.tripod.com/~S_van...taxis.html<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>