Importance of Roman Cavalry

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
That is correct. According to Vegetius both recruits and serving soldiers were given training in mounting horses (Book 1 caput 18) and seems to imply that this applied to all troops rather than just cavalrymen. However as it is Vegetius, one should remain cautious.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

t <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

The Romans never seemed to have much or improved with cavalry.This was their bane in the 2nd Punic War,when Hannibal constantly defeated them with this arm.His centre of mixed Carthaginian & mercenary troops would give & break to the weight & superiority of the legion,but his cavalry would rout the opponents weaker horse & wheel to the Romans flanks or rear,turning the tide & winning the day.It was only when this was neutralized & when Hannibals manpower & resources were being depleted that the Romans were able to gain ground & make up for their disastrous losses during the early part of the war.This is most exemplified when Scipio did every means to be superior in cavalry before his date of fate with Hannibal at Zama.<br>
<br>
Why do you think the Romans never improved in this field?Was it lack of interest due to their reliance on their ever trusty legion?Or was it the terrain of Italy,with it's rolling hills unnaturally suited for cavalry?Caesar recruited skilled German horsemen into his army,outnumbering his own native Roman horse.Replies to this would be appreciated. <p></p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
To state that the Roman cavalry did not improve in the field of cavalry is in my view not correct. There was a development in cavalry equipment, tactics and organisation over the centuries and the imperial army had a more substantial cavalry component compared to its republican predecessor. Even in republican times the legionary horse was reformed after Hellenistic models and though it failed in many of the engagements with Hannibal it proved effective in other wars, most notably in those against Macedonia which had once possessed the finest cavalry of Greece. In one of the earlier posts in this thread I have given a list of articles and books on the Roman cavalry, which has sparked a lot of interest recently, that I can recommend reading if you are interested in the subject.<br>
<br>
Terrain is as you mention an important factor that can influence the performance of cavalry and thus influence the preferred mix of fighting methods employed. In ancient Italy however there were areas renowned for their horsed troops, among them Campania, which contributed the flower of the allied cavalry, and Tarentum, from which the light cavalry known as <i> Tarentinoi</i> originated and whose tactics were given a place in several of the Hellenistic royal armies. Thus there did exist some native cavalry traditions even if infantry was the most important arm in most Italic armies.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Thanks Sander.Though if they had improved it back in the Republican times then perhaps they would have accomplished more,especially with commanders like Scipio & Caesar.Perhaps the improvement during the Imperial era was due to the declining quality of commanders & troops? <p></p><i></i>

[Goffredo]

The quality of the generals and Emperors of the empire was far from being low. If you find the time to read about what happened during the third century you might reconsider your list of quality commanders. The Empire was made and defended not only by Scipios and Julius Ceasars! My favorite was Aurelian. Quite a fellow with a lot of military talent!!! His accomplisments are remarkable and it is a shame that most people think simply of that period as one of confusion and decadence. In my opinion the enemies of Rome in the 3rd century were, in many ways, far more serious. In the Punic Wars Rome had the advantage in terms of man-power and political stability. True it was a close call (had Hannibal been a better general he would have taken Rome) but, in my opinion Carthage was doomed to loose once it lost the opportunity to win. In the long run Rome had better assets. In Gaul, Ceasar had also the advantage as the Gauls were not united and evidently not as indomitable as their cousin Germans. True, Ceasar could have been beaten (e.g. against the Nervii) and the final outcome was not obvious. But please now compare with the situation of the third century. The enemies accross the Danube were a whole people (Goths); across the Rhine there were the Alemanni, a confederation of dangerous tribes; in the East the Sassanians and rebel Palymerenes. In my opinion these enemies were far more dangerous bacause Rome no longer had the energy and unlimited man-power to face them. The front was DOUBLE and there were even rebel emperors and rivals to deal with. Aurelian and many of his colleagues of that time died killed in coups. Decius (*) got killed by the Goths and Valerian by the Sassanians. If ever Rome fought hard and with great skill, flexibility and incredible determination for survival it was against Hannibal (okay) and against these later enemies. Reconsider.<br>
<br>
(*) I saw the bust of Decius recently in a visit to the Capitoline Museum in Rome. It is really interesting and I suggest to visitors to look for it. The artist shows with impressive realism the worries on Decius' face. He probably imagined that he was running the risk of being killed by a "friend" or slain in battle. Those were tough times. We know that he actually did die in battle and that makes his bust even more touching. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ugoffredo.showPublicProfile?language=EN>goffredo</A> at: 7/5/01 3:38:39 pm<br></i>

[Eleatic Guest]

There is now a vast amount of literature available on Roman cavalry, which has been one of the more popular subjects of the last years. Here is just a selection of titles:<br>
<br>
Connolly, P., <i> Tiberius Claudius Maximus - ein roemischer Reiter</i> (Nuernberg 1990) 32p.<br>
Coulston, J.C.N., 'Roman, Parthian and Sassanid tactical developments' in: P. Freeman and D.L. Kennedy (ed.) <i> The defence of the Roman and Byzantine East</i> (Oxford 1986), 59-75.<br>
Eadie, J.W., 'The development of Roman mailed cavalry' in: <i> JRS</i> 57 (1967), 161-173.<br>
Hyland, A., <i> Equus. The horse in the Roman world</i> (London 1990) 285p.<br>
Hyland, A., <i> Training the Roman cavalry from Arrian's Ars Tactica</i> (1993).<br>
Junkelmann, M., <i> Equites Alae</i> (Stuttgart 1989) 140p.<br>
Junkelmann, M., <i> Rom und die Germanen</i> (Detmold 19??) 48p.<br>
Junkelmann, M., <i> Die Reiter Roms II</i> (Mainz 1991) 222p.<br>
Junkelmann, M., <i> Die Reiter Roms III</i> (M ainz 1992) 227p.<br>
Junkelmann, M., <i> Reiter wie Statuen aus Erz</i> (Mainz 1996) 126p.<br>
Rea, J.R., 'A cavalryman's career, AD 384 (?)-401' in: <i> ZPE</i> 56 (1984), 79-88.<br>
Speidel, M.P., 'Horsemen in the Pannonian alae' in: <i> Roman army studies</i> II (Stuttgart 1992), 62-66.<br>
Speidel, M.P., 'The rise of the mercenaries in the third century' in: <i> Tyche</i> 2 (1987), 191-201.<br>
Speidel, M.P., 'Cataphractarii clibanarii and the rise of the later Roman mailed cavalry' in: <i> Roman army studies II</i> (Stuttgart 1992), 406-413.<br>
Speidel, M.P., 'Legionary horsemen on campaigns' in: <i> Saalburg Jahrbuch</i> 47 (1994), 36-39.<br>
Speidel, M.P., <i> Riding for Caesar. The Roman emperors' horse guard</i> (London 1994) 223p.<br>
Swinkels, L.J.F. (ed.), <i> Een leven te paard / Reiten für Rom</i> (Nijmegen 1995) 48p.<br>

I am interested in some, say, more biological informations on the horses typically used by the Romans. Were they smaller or larger than breeds of the other peoples, notably in the east, were they even from the Turanian breed, their heights, weights, their endurance, how much fodder and water does a horse need per day, how much of their daily food can they get by pastures, how much by supply from storage, all these more biological and logistical considerations with a view on their impact on tactics and strategy. Any good literature there?

[Kate Gilliver]

Stefan, for stuff in English, try Ann Hyland's works - Equus: the horse in the Roman World and Training the Roman cavalry; she is a horse trainer, not an ancient historian or an archaeologist so you need to exercise caution, but does seem to know quite a lot about horses.