Late Roman Cavalry Numbers

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

I'm having a discussion on another forum where one member is claiming the western Empire fell because it was weak in cavalry. I'm pointing him in the direction of various books which indicate that cavalry had been increasing in numbers, importance, diversity and status in the Roman Army since the Third Century, but so far its been like water off a duck's back. Am I on the right track? What evidence or authorities should I be citing in this discussion?<br>
<br>
The other guy has just cited Nicasie, M.J., <i> Twilight of Empire</i> (Amsterdam. Gieben, 199EM , saying:<br>
<i><br>
What is most important, he confirms that<br>
the small Roman cavalry was tactically mobile, but strategically<br>
inefficient because of the need to protect the horses, which is<br>
part of any cavalry campaign, anyway. Roman cavalry could<br>
therefore not function as a central rapid-response unit, an<br>
observation with profound implications for imperial defense<br>
</i><br>
<br>
He's also cited Jones, A.H.M., <i> The Later Roman Empire, 284-602</i> as supporting his contention that the late Roman Army's cavalry was small in number and inefficient, though without any details or page references.<br>
<br>
Comments welcome. <p>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius<BR>
<P>
Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project<br>

</p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
In an earlier discussion the subject has popped up. The performance of Roman cavalry in earlier periods has tended to be underestimated, while that in the later period has tended to be overestimated, in part accommodating the Adrianople heavy cavalry myth by trying to track a rise of cavalry in the making. The rise of the cavalry is perhaps more apparent than real. There are a number of considerations to take into account when trying to gauge whether cavalry did increase in importance in the later Roman era. Some of the arguments used to support such an increase are not well founded on closer inspection and one can argue that there was more of a continuity with earlier practice until the end of the fourth, start of the fifth century at least.<br>
<br>
One of the arguments brought forward is that the number of cavalry rose in the later army and that they constituted a larger proportion of forces than before. This assumed rise in numbers is based to a large extent on the number of units in the <i> Notitia Dignitatum</i> where horse units number about a third of all formations. However an important consideration is the fact that the evidence available strongly suggests that infantry units counted a higher number of soldiers in their ranks than cavalry units, resulting in a lower proportion of actual strength. It appears that overall the proportion of cavalry may have been at the same level as before, amounting to perhaps 20 percent of the total number of troops rather than 30-35 percent. An actual increase in the proportion of cavalry is therefore hard to support with available evidence.<br>
<br>
A further argument often used to support an increase in importance is the assumption that horsemen increased in prestige, a development that is derived from the listing of cavalry units before infantry in the <i> Notitia Dignitatum</i>. Roman cavalrymen though had always had more prestige than the infantry, both during the republic and early empire. Their pay and service conditions had always been better than that of the foot sloggers, and during the republic cavalrymen were even liable to shorter service than infantry. It was considered a promotion for an infantryman to become a trooper, hence the name of <i> eques promotus</i> in the legionary and praetorian horse and the demand of Batavian auxiliaries for an increase in the number of cavalry in their formations. In the principate the highest stages of the equestrian military career were commands over mounted units rather than formations of foot. It thus appears that the supposed increase in prestige is in fact a continuation of earlier practice rather than a break with the past.<br>
<br>
A third argument for increased importance of cavalry concerns battlefield succes. It is often stated that the legions declined in performance and importance and cavalry became the decisive arm in the late Roman army. The extant source material does not actually support that view, since bot in victory at Strasbourg, where the heavy infantry of the <i> legio primanorum</i> carried the day, as in defeat at Adrianople, where the <i> lancearii</i> and <i> mattiarii</i> made a stand when the cavalry turned tail and fled, the legionaries performed with distinction and the horse failed, the cataphracts panicking at the former and the cavalry opening the battle prematurely and then failing to cover the infantry's flanks. The continued battlefield importance of heavy infantry and subsidiary role of cavalry can also be deducted from the composition of the field armies where the proportion of infantry is higher than in the frontier armies. The elite mobile armies of the fourth century were thus not exactly cavalry based.<br>
<br>
By the sixth century the cavalry seems truely to have acquired a greater importance than the infantry, but even then some more caution is to be used than many publications tend to give. Cavalry actions are given a lot more coverage in Procopius than infantry, but this can in part be attributed to the fact that cavalry are in general the glamourboys attracting more attention than deserved when taking their tactical importance and value into account. Skirmishes and fast, but perhaps not that decisive actions make for more exciting reading(and in more recent times more exciting film). The much maligned Byzantine heavy infantry was still able to withstand Persian heavy cavalry charges and is also recorded as carrying out succesful charges.<br>
<br>
See this earlier thread for publications on the Roman cavalry. For a recent book that deals with republican Roman cavalry see this review<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>

[Thiudareiks Flavius]

Thanks Sander. The contention that the Empire fell because it was weak in cavalry still strikes me as complete nonsense however.<br>
Cheers, <p>Tim O'Neill / Thiudareiks Flavius<BR>
<P>
Visit Clades Variana - Home of the Varus Film Project<br>

</p><i></i>

[Guest]

Salve,<br>
<br>
The Roman empire did not fall because of a weakness in cavalry. Late Roman armies were still succesful on the battlefield, though not invincible (which the Roman army never was). Its army was made up of a combination of various troop types because that functioned best. In the west most barbarian opponents fielded primarily heavy infantry and the Roman answer to that was to use better equipped and disciplined heavy infantry supported by other arms. It would have made little sense to bring an army of only cavalry into the field, since throughout the ages cavalry has faced problems in defeating heavy infantry. Even in the high middle ages heavy cavalry was not universally effective against determined heavy infantry and needed careful selection of suitable ground and the cooperation of other arms to maximise its potential. It should also be noted that where Roman armies faced opponents who did rely primarily on cavalry, such as in the east, they nevertheless continued to field a combination of foot and horse rather than mimick the opposing type of army.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Sander van Dorst <p></p><i></i>