what was the function of the Roman cavalry?

[xrubio]

But what kind of roles this cavalry played?
I mean, veteran cavalry trained in pursuit and scouting functions is really important, because it can be used to locate the enemy before battle, and destroy it in the pursuit (or avoid it if the battle turned into defeat). In general the use of cavalry against close-order formed infantry doesn't seem to be the best option in roman times, but if they are used on these stages of a campaign they can be decisive to transform a small victory on the destruction of the enemy.

Xavi

[Tarbicus]

Scouting is one of the most important attributes given to a good general by ancient Roman writers IIRC, and is one of the key components given to the loss of Varus' legions in 9 AD (seeing as it was the cavalry who betrayed him, no surprise there :wink: )

[L C Cinna]

for the 120 men legionary cavalry:

Scouting and VERY important communication on the battlefield.


For other cavalry forces:

Scouting, chasing routing enemies, screening the infantry before battle, protecting the flanks, harassing and attacking the enemy from the sides and rear.

They could and would attack and charge but only if the situation allowed. A good thing to read is Joephus Judaean war 3rd book:

These Jews, therefore, out of their anger, marched faster than ordinary, and, as if they had come but a little way, approached very near the city, and were come even to it; but Antonius, who was not unapprized of the attack they were going to make upon the city, drew out his horsemen beforehand, and being neither daunted at the multitude, nor at the courage of the enemy, received their first attacks with great bravery; and when they crowded to the very walls, he beat them off. Now the Jews were unskillful in war, but were to fight with those who were skillful therein; they were footmen to fight with horsemen; they were in disorder, to fight those that were united together; they were poorly armed, to fight those that were completely so; they were to fight more by their rage than by sober counsel, and were exposed to soldiers that were exactly obedient; and did every thing they were bidden upon the least intimation. So they were easily beaten; for as soon as ever their first ranks were once in disorder, they were put to flight by the enemy's cavalry, and those of them that came behind such as crowded to the wall fell upon their own party's weapons, and became one another's enemies; and this so long till they were all forced to give way to the attacks of the horsemen, and were dispersed all the plain over, which plain was wide, and all fit for the horsemen; which circumstance was very commodious for the Romans, and occasioned the slaughter of the greatest number of the Jews; for such as ran away, they could overrun them, and make them turn back; and when they had brought them back after their flight, and driven them together, they ran them through, and slew a vast number of them, insomuch that others encompassed others of them, and drove them before them whithersoever they turned themselves, and slew them easily with their arrows; and the great number there were of the Jews seemed a solitude to themselves, by reason of the distress they were in, while the Romans had such good success with their small number, that they seemed to themselves to be the greater multitude. And as the former strove zealously under their misfortunes, out of the shame of a sudden flight, and hopes of the change in their success, so did the latter feel no weariness by reason of their good fortune; insomuch that the fight lasted till the evening, till ten thousand men of the Jews' side lay dead, with two of their generals, John and Silas, and the greater part of the remainder were wounded, with Niger, their remaining general, who fled away together to a small city of Idumea, called Sallis. Some few also of the Romans were wounded in this battle.

[485] As Titus was saying this, an extraordinary fury fell upon the men; and as Trajan was already come before the fight began, with four hundred horsemen, they were uneasy at it, because the reputation of the victory would be diminished by being common to so many. Vespasian had also sent both Antonius and Silo, with two thousand archers, and had given it them in charge to seize upon the mountain that was over against the city, and repel those that were upon the wall; which archers did as they were commanded, and prevented those that attempted to assist them that way; And now Titus made his own horse march first against the enemy, as did the others with a great noise after him, and extended themselves upon the plain as wide as the enemy which confronted them; by which means they appeared much more numerous than they really were. Now the Jews, although they were surprised at their onset, and at their good order, made resistance against their attacks for a little while; but when they were pricked with their long poles, and overborne by the violent noise of the horsemen, they came to be trampled under their feet; many also of them were slain on every side, which made them disperse themselves, and run to the city, as fast as every one of them were able. So Titus pressed upon the hindmost, and slew them; and of the rest, some he fell upon as they stood on heaps, and some he prevented, and met them in the mouth, and run them through; many also he leaped upon as they fell one upon another, and trod them down, and cut off all the retreat they had to the wall, and turned them back into the plain, till at last they forced a passage by their multitude, and got away, and ran into the city.

[S AUFIDIUS]

I like to describe the roles of cavalry and infantry as hammer and anvil!
:wink:

[Aryaman2]

Col. Ardant du Picq argues that cavalry were ineffective against steady and disciplined ranks of infantry, and he was an actual contemporary of, and witness to, cavalry in battle (9th Chausseurs and the Crimean).

In other periods cavalry did charge steady infantry, often overruning it, and it was trained to do it.

[Magnus]

In other periods horse cavalry got mowed down by machine guns and tanks...lol.

[Juul]

Thanks for all the replies! This is what I made from it, (translated from the Dutch, so grammar "tips and hints" aren't necessary) :wink:


Well we have given you a lot of information, but the most important is, of course, what was the function of Roman cavalry and how important was Roman cavalry? First of all: the function of Roman cavalry. If we just look back to the construction of a legion, we see that the part of cavalry is extremely low. 5000 Man infantry against 120 man cavalry.

That comes from the fact that Romans weren't very good horsemen themselves. That also explains why almost all cavalry belonged to the Auxilia.

The function of the cavalry wasn't that large. The cavalry that belongs to the legions functioned as scouting. they were sent forward to the infantry to explore the terrain. At the battlefield they were used as "messengers". they were also used as the Romans defeated the enemy to chase down defeated enemies.

The cavalry that belonged to the auxilia was used as some sort of shield.
They formed a protecting wing formation around the army.

In fact, the roman cavalry wasn't that important in battlefield. they were only used as messengers and shield. They were seldom used to attack the army of the enemy. (forgive me my English, its a bit "weird" sometimes)

Maybe it's nice to tell what I'm doing. I attend "de middelbare school" which is -I think- similar to hi-school. The school year before the exams we all have to make a "profielwerkstuk". It's a presentation, film, science practicum or whatever about a chosen subject. My partner and I chose "de ontwikeling van het paard in de loop der tijd" which means something like: The development of the horse in time/history. I'm now working on the chapter horses in world history->horse in the army. so that's why I asked this question. *just some background information*

[Matthew]

I don't think you have quite understood what people are saying, Juul (or maybe I am not - it's possible). As far as I understand it, what is being said is that:

Cavalry was extremely important to the Roman Army in just about all periods of warfare, so long as the ground was open enough to deploy them effectively.

They were used to scout, skirmish and protect the flanks of an army, as well as to defeat enemy cavalry and they were used to outflank, pursue and harass enemy infantry formations.

Legionary Roman Cavalry decreased in number and importance, but all that meant was that Auxillary Roman and Allied Cavalry increased in number and importance.

Their actual use in battle probably ranged from light support (shooting Arrows, throwing Javelins) to close support (thrusting or charging with spears, closing with swords).

If you are only interested in the function of Roman Legionary Cavalry, that may be a slightly different story, but it would not be wise to only look at that section of the Roman Army if you are looking at how Cavalry was used over the centuries.

[Edit]It is worth noting that in the past a more limited view of the Roman Legionary, Auxillary and Allied Cavalry was current, but that this view has largely been dispelled over the last twenty or thirty years. The introduction of the Stirrup and the Battle of Adrianople were often cited as watershed moments, but we are now inclined to see a more gradual and consistant view of Ancient and Medieval Cavalry Warfare (though, this is open to debate).

Matthew James Stanham

[Robert Vermaat]

Legionary Roman Cavalry decreased in number and importance, but all that meant was that Auxillary Roman and Allied Cavalry increased in number and importance.

And from the 3rd c. onwards, separate cavalry units became an even larger part of the regular army.

[L C Cinna]

I only disagree with those 2 parts

The cavalry that belonged to the auxilia was used as some sort of shield.
They formed a protecting wing formation around the army.

In fact, the roman cavalry wasn't that important in battlefield. they were only used as messengers and shield. They were seldom used to attack the army of the enemy.

If you read some battle accounts like the ones from Iosephus I posted you see that the cavalry did fight and was important. I think the numbers I gave on the use of cavalry show as well that cavalry was very important on the battlefield.

That comes from the fact that Romans weren't very good horsemen themselves. That also explains why almost all cavalry belonged to the Auxilia.

The Romans were not bad horsemen and several Romans served in the auxiliary cavalry.

There are 2 main reasons for the auxiliary cavalry:

-in the Republican society the horsemen were provided by the Aristocracy and therefore had an elite status in society. The aristocrats wanted to keep their special status which was represented by the horse and therefore excluded other citizens from the prestigious service as cavalry.As cavalry was still needed this duty was given to the allies in Italy as they could provide horsemen but because of the lack of citizenship could not be any danger to the Roman elite. This became a usual custom and was carried into the imperial period. At that time the eques were more of a social than a military group, still the Romans sticked with the practice of recruiting horsemen from non citizens as this had become a "tradition".


-after the reforms of Augustus actually came into full effect with the legions, auxila and auxiliary cavalry those were fixed parts of the army but one shouldn't consider them as real 2nd class troops.
While before there were no really professional armies with such a strict organization, the Roman army now was structured. a hellenistic army consisted of infantry and cavalry as one unit, one army for a certain purpose. The Romans had a standing army and had seperate branches which made it easier to transfer troops and to station troops in garrisons.
The legion was one such body but was NEVER intended to act alone, it was just a piece of the puzzle.

the branches were:

-guards
-legions
-auxiliary infantry
-auxiliary cavalry
-fleet

Each was there for organisational matters and NOT as individuals
it is a modern structure compared with other armies of the time (and later times). very modern indeed. and you really HAVE to see it like a modern army:

US for example:

-Army
-USAF
-USMC
-USNavy

All I want to say is that the cavalry shouldn't be seen as something lower or non-Roman. Actually it's the term auxilia which causes most prejudice here and for a better understanding should be dropped when explaining this. So the list would look like that:

Roman Army:

-guards...................Praetorians
-legions...................Standard Heavy Infantry
-auxiliary infantry.....supportive light and heavy infantry
-auxiliary cavalry.....cavalry fighting/combat forces

So to finally make a point here. The cavalry was NOT part of the Auxiliae because they were not as important as the legions or something. they were auxiliae because that was the organisation of the army. They would have been seperated from the legions EVEN IF all horsemen were Roman citizens by 100CE imho.

[Juul]

Hmm..I was quite wrong I see. For this text I also used other Internet sources. Most of them tell the same thing: Romans weren't good horsemen. And I understood that the roman cavalry in general wasn't used as an attacking force.

But what you are saying is that cavalry was used in battle. Were they part of the auxilia? Or both auxilia and legionary?

So I can conclude they (roman cavalry) were important.
-They had and important function to explore the terrain, were used ad messengers and chased down defeated enemies.

-When the terrain was suitable they were used in battle. they were used to shoot arrows, or fight with spears or swords.

-they had an defensive function (only the auxilia or also the legionary?)

or do I still don't understand :oops:
(this is way more complicated than I thought it would be)

[Aryaman2]

Regarding the value of Roman cavalry, Goldsworthy notes that the frequency at what Roman armies were ambushed indicates the scout role was poorly performed, probably disregarded by noble cavalrymen as a function below their status.

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Is that during the Republican era, Inaki?

BTW, is that your first or last name?

[drsrob]

Col. Ardant du Picq argues that cavalry were ineffective against steady and disciplined ranks of infantry, and he was an actual contemporary of, and witness to, cavalry in battle (9th Chausseurs and the Crimean).

In other periods cavalry did charge steady infantry, often overruning it, and it was trained to do it.

In what periods for instance?

[Aryaman2]

Is that during the Republican era, Inaki?

BTW, is that your first or last name?

Republican, yes.
First name