Legions Major Weakness - Cavalry?

[Princeps]

I've just got hold of a very nice book entitled "The age of Fuedalism - 336-1300". It really is a gem of a book (whoever said the dark ages weren't all that dark was right. Although it's a little different to what I'd normally read, more religion and less war than normal, it is fascinating).

 

Anyway, what does Fuedalism have to do with the Roman military? Well, one of the passages in the first section says that Rome's Achille's heal was the cavalry - they simply could not compete with the horse-driven Germanic invaders.

 

I know that Roman cavalry was once thought of as quite primitive(sp), the lack of stirrups being one major factor in this. However, it has been proven that the saddle design they used was sufficiently effective that they could function adequately without stirrups.

 

I believe that Romans still didn't employ cavalry en mass though (I may be wrong). This got me thinking, can any of the experts point to battles towards the end of the Western Empire where the Legions were defeated as a direct result of insufficient cavalry use? Does anyone agree with the author of Fuedalism, that it was their major weakness? (I am as yet undecided).

 

There were also other interesting statements about vikings and such, which raised some questions in my mind, I'll post them in "After hours" later.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Toward the end of the Empire, both halves employed more cavalry than the early glory days of the legion, particularly in the east where they were constantly having to deal with horse riding Goths and Parthian/Persians. I think the fall of the west militairly had more to do with lack of good leadership and lack of manpower.

[Jaden]

In my estimation, the rise of cavalry came about directly as a result of the deterioration of Roman infantry, and not the other way around as many seem to believe. This came largely through the barbarization of the legions, a critical issue even during the reign of Trajan. Increasingly, Rome simply relied upon auxiliaries to fight their wars, and gradually these foreign auxiliaries became the core legions.

 

As a result, the discipline of the legion was a thing of the past as the migration age began, and so they were forced to adopt a much greater cavalry arm in order to counter the many incursions into Imperial territory.

 

Getting back to the question at hand, was cavalry a major weakness for the legions, I would argue no, even during the early Imperial age. They faced a variety of cavalry based enemies (Dacia, Alans, Parthia) and generally triumphed over them in pitched battles, with only a few disastrous exceptions, like the infamous Cannae.

 

Further, contrary to popular belief, Roman cavalry of the early Imperial era was quite effective for its role as legionary support. Of course, as Italia wasn't known for her horses or horsemen, often the cavalry would be allied or auxiliary.

 

In regard to the early feudal age, heavy cavalry came to play such a profound role not as a result of the stirrup, but because of the lack of cohesion and discipline in the infantry of the age. The common peasant levies, poorly armed and armored, simply had no hope of standing against a heavy cavalry charge.

 

However, it's no surprise that as soon as a cohesive, well disciplined infantry once again emerged in Europe (Swiss Pikemen, Landsknechts), even the most heavily armed knights were quickly proven to be out of their league. At this point, the role of European cavalry gradually came to resemble that of Roman cavalry, largely as support for the infantry.

Edited January 3, 2006 by Jaden

[Pertinax]

I agree with Jaden-what is the single most effective cavalry stopping weapon? heavy infantry, horses just arent dumb enough to run or walk into a pointy steel hedge, be they cataphract or light auxiliary. I wish to suggest that in many ways Roman cavalry was a tactical arm , in the way velites/light infantry were used to seal flanks and fluidly move to pressure points.Also cavalry were a deadly "coursing" arm after the battle had broken down and the enemy was in flight. Mounted knights are also , in later times, a social phenomenon as well as a response to a lack of properly trained and accoutered infantry. Witness the Hussite Wars when a bunch of determined plebs acoounted for mounted opposition.

Every time an "innovator" re-invented the phalangite/legionary cavalry was in trouble as a strike arm-be it Scotish Schiltorn, Spanish "Tortoise" or the Landschnekts, British squares at Waterloo and the Zulu "rounds" of Shaka.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Further, contrary to popular belief, Roman cavalry of the early Imperial era was quite effective for its role as legionary support. Of course, as Italia wasn't known for her horses or horsemen, often the cavalry would be allied or auxiliary.

 

I think the difference is application as well. Sure one could say that the early cavalry 'did it's job,' but the important point is the later cavalry did it's job and also expanded upon the role due to the progress of military science. Later cavalry was not so much making up for the lack of the infantry as dealing with the realities of the new battlefields of quick and mounted Parthians and Persians, and the over-running heavy cavalry of Goths and Huns.

 

You say that cavalry is secondary to a good solid heavy infantry unit, but I think the many Roman defeats in the east clearly highlight the weaknesses of a slow and heavily armored unit, no matter how disciplined and professional they might be.

[longbow]

In regard to the early feudal age, heavy cavalry came to play such a profound role not as a result of the stirrup, but because of the lack of cohesion and discipline in the infantry of the age. The common peasant levies, poorly armed and armored, simply had no hope of standing against a heavy cavalry charge.

I think it was more to do with the use of stirrups,when riding with stirrups you can put so much more force into your strike.The Roman four horned saddle was good but it still wasnt as effective as stirrups,the stirrups give you a lot more agility so your able to fight better from horse back.With the Roman saddle you pretty much have to keep your backside planted in the saddle.

Not every Army in Europes middle age was made up of levies and poorly armed peasant's (sigh),the English Army in the hundred years war was totally professional,there wasnt a poorly armed peasant in sight.But i do agree that the Infantry can beat the Cavalry.Look at the battle of Crecy (1346) for example,36,000 French to 12,ooo English,the English dissmounted there Knights and Men at Arms (no levies or peasants present) and formed three battle lines (horses moved to the rear) supported by six thousand Longbowmen and a couple of crappy Ribbalds.The French mounted Knights attacked those lines 14-16 times and were utterly destroyed in doing so.The estimated casualty's are 10,000 dead French with several hundred dead English.A good well trained Infantry Army could best cavalry all day long with support from Archers.

Back to the topic,

Does anyone agree with the author of Fuedalism, that it was their major weakness? (I am as yet undecided).

I dont agree with him,i dont see the Cavalry as a Roman weakness because they may not have had good Roman Cavalry units but they did have good Auxillia Roman Cavalry,Sarmations for example.

Edited January 3, 2006 by longbow

[Pertinax]

Amen to that Longbow.

 

I suspect a lot of warfare has a ritualised/social element, -when one group smashes the convention a lot of people get killed, directly, no-nonsense. The Legion is one such killing element-it didnt matter if you were a brave Gallic chieftain , you got ground up by a Legion like everyone else. French Knights-oh dear , some plebs with deadly weapons let em loose, maximised fatality regardless of perceived rank or "proper " warfare.

[Virgil61]

I've never bought into the cavalry argument. As someone mentioned disciplined infantry has always stopped cavalry, although an infantry only army against a combined infantry/cavarly army is at a great disadvantage. The Romans had always depended on auxiliaries to supply the most of the cavalry arm although I think they may have expanded their own version as well by the late empire. And remember that Germans supplied a lot of the Roman cavalry arm, not only during this period but even as far back as Carrhae. If anything, by this time the Germans were possibly integral to the make-up of an average Roman army.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Not every Army in Europes middle age was made up of levies and poorly armed peasant's (sigh),the English Army in the hundred years war was totally professional,there wasnt a poorly armed peasant in sight.But i do agree that the Infantry can beat the Cavalry.Look at the battle of Crecy (1346) for example,36,000 French to 12,ooo English,the English dissmounted there Knights and Men at Arms (no levies or peasants present) and formed three battle lines (horses moved to the rear) supported by six thousand Longbowmen and a couple of crappy Ribbalds.The French mounted Knights attacked those lines 14-16 times and were utterly destroyed in doing so.The estimated casualty's are 10,000 dead French with several hundred dead English.A good well trained Infantry Army could best cavalry all day long with support from Archers.

 

 

Though that is a good example and that the longbow is very deadly, this example resulted more because the terrain. Having to fight in such a narrow area and horrible ground/ weath conditions is extremely disadvantageous. Being the army that has more men who are unruly and undisciplined results in everyone wants glory for themselves and so there is no formation, yet people riding up and getting shot down because they were so bunched. When they tried to retreat, it only got worse with the mud and heavy armor. So I don't know if I would use it as a case for disciplined army beats calvary. If the battle was the plains, the result would have been different.

Edited January 4, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Princeps]

Ok I think I may have wrong-footed you all with the term "Cavalry" - this of course refers to hand-to-hand fighting units, armed with lances, swords and such like.

 

However, the author also explicitly refers to horse archers. As I'm sure you can appreciate, infantry is highly vulnerable to mounted archers, even if the infantry itself is supported by foot archers.

 

Given this, do you still suppose that legionarries can fight effectively against a force with a strong equine contingent composed of cavalry and mounted archers?

[Favonius Cornelius]

Given this, do you still suppose that legionarries can fight effectively against a force with a strong equine contingent composed of cavalry and mounted archers?

 

Hell no. Wither them down with arrow fire for as long as possible or until they break, then run them down with a cataphract charge. Textbook and unstoppable. The challange to the Roman commander then would be to avoid the situation and fight on his own terms.

[Virgil61]

Ok I think I may have wrong-footed you all with the term "Cavalry" - this of course refers to hand-to-hand fighting units, armed with lances, swords and such like.

 

However, the author also explicitly refers to horse archers. As I'm sure you can appreciate, infantry is highly vulnerable to mounted archers, even if the infantry itself is supported by foot archers.

 

Given this, do you still suppose that legionarries can fight effectively against a force with a strong equine contingent composed of cavalry and mounted archers?

 

I don't agree with the premise that infantry remains highly vulnerable with archers (and other missiles) attached to them. I've posted this before but again let's remember that after the licking at Carrhae they did successfully fight against the Parthians who employed mounted archers and heavy cavalry (cataphracts). I don't think that dismounted archers can be discounted in harassing mounted versions. Dismounted archers are all that saved Antony's army from complete annihilation during its retreat.

 

Add to dismounted archers slingers, the variety of ballista, from around one manuballista per century to larger versions, and you've got a decent combat arms mix to respond with.

 

Here's an extract from Arrian's array against the Alans circa 135 AD--heavy cavalry that I believe weren't big on mounted archers--but with the legions being in Cappadocia it's not much of a stretch that they'd had operating procedures in place which reflected combat tactics with Parthians who's empire was close-by and who Trajan had invaded two decades before.

 

Once thus arrayed there should be silence until the enemies come within missile range; when in range the loudest and most intimidating war cry must be raised by the whole lot, and bolts and stones must be fired from the artillery pieces and arrows from the bows, and javelins by both light armed and shield bearing javelinmen. Stones must also be thrown at the enemies by the allied force on the overwatch position, and the whole missile rain must be coming from all sides to make it concentrated enough to panick the horses and destroy the enemies...

 

An interesting aspect is evidence that axes were used by Roman cavalry to fight against heavily armored cavalry (cataphracts).

 

Yes I think the Romans fought effectively against both heavy-cavalry and mounted-archer combinations.

Edited January 4, 2006 by Virgil61

[Favonius Cornelius]

I don't agree with the premise that infantry remains highly vulnerable with archers (and other missiles) attached to them. I've posted this before but again let's remember that after the licking at Carrhae they did successfully fight against the Parthians who employed mounted archers and heavy cavalry (cataphracts).

 

And these circumstances were such that the Parthians could not use or did not use their cavalry forces to greatest effect, agreed or disagreed?

[Virgil61]

And these circumstances were such that the Parthians could not use or did not use their cavalry forces to greatest effect, agreed or disagreed?

 

Well, yes, I think that was the point of having a substantial missile-mix; deny or neutralize one of your enemies major weapons systems. If you can negate the mounted archers then they're left with cataphracts vs Roman infantry and cavalry support, not good odds for the Parthians.

[Favonius Cornelius]

 

And these circumstances were such that the Parthians could not use or did not use their cavalry forces to greatest effect, agreed or disagreed?

 

Well, yes, I think that was the point of having a substantial missile-mix; deny or neutralize one of your enemies major weapons systems. If you can negate the mounted archers then they're left with cataphracts vs Roman infantry and cavalry support, not good odds for the Parthians.

 

Ah I see, I would agree with that. But would not the eastern horse archer, being both mounted and using a superior compound bow, still maintain the advantage? The slight elevation and better range, and also the ability to fire then withdraw quickly making the difference.

Edited January 5, 2006 by Favonius Cornelius