Knights Replaced Roman Legion Infantry For Mobility and Other Factors

[Pisces Axxxxx]

I was reading in Oman's The Art of War In the Middle Ages that the reason the late Roman Empire and early Franks started abandoning Discipline Heavy Infantry and instead resort to elite heavy cavalry (later to develop what we call "Knights) is that as Rome fell more and more into decline, there were so many enemies attacking Rome from multiple directions.

 

These enemies were of various fighting styles from the quick hit-and-run Horse Archers of the Magyars to the Berserkers of the Lombard, the Roman Infantry lacked the Rapidity to respond to various movements of the enemies of Rome as well as the flexibility and aggressive offensive mobility to adapt to all these various enemies.

 

So eventually the Romans started abandoning the old Legions of Rome and replacing them with Shock Cavalry that could rapidly go throughout what was left of the empire to counter attacks from various sides. They were much more flexible to maneuver around Europe than the Roman Legions were and when they met an enemy head on, they had this "Shock" charge that would rapidly wipe out enemy forces.

 

So basically Elite Heavy Cavalry that gradually developed into what we now call Knights replaced the Roman Legion according to Oman because they had this rapidity,flexibility,shock attacks (that could crush enemies in an instant), and other such advantages that the old Roman Legion lacked.

 

What do you think? Is Oman right?

Edited November 20, 2012 by Pisces Adonis

[barca]

 

So basically Elite Heavy Cavalry that gradually developed into what we now call Knights replaced the Roman Legion according to Oman because they had this rapidity,flexibility,shock attacks (that could crush enemies in an instant), and other such advantages that the old Roman Legion lacked.

 

What do you think? Is Oman right?

 

 

Like everything else, there's an element of truth in Oman's theories, but it really wasn't quite that simple. I suggest reading War Horse: A History of the Military Horse and Rider by Louis A. DiMarco.

 

He suggests that shock cavalry dates back to Alexander the Great who essentially used close ordered infantry tactics to his cavalry formations. As horsemanship evolved through the ages, heavy cavalry became more and more effective. Not only stirrups, but saddles, bits, and snaffles all led to better control of the horse and more stability of the rider.

 

The heavy cavalry of the Romans were the cataphracts and the clibnari. The latter being so heavily armored that they lacked mobility.

 

In reality though, the Late Romans seemed to favor horse archers more. Aetius had his huns as mercenaries. Belisarius had his own Byzantine horse archers based to a large extent on the model of the huns.

[DecimusCaesar]

My statement below could be considered a gross oversimplification, so keep that in mind...

 

The Romans began adopting heavily armoured cavalry due to their encounters with the Persians. In earlier Roman history the Romans had light cavalry, often in use as scouts, or to pursue and harass the enemy off the field. It wasn't until the later Roman era that heavily armoured cataphracts began to make their appearance. Many changes to the traditional legion took place because of the long losing wars against the Sassanid military during the 'Age of Anarchy' in the third Century AD. The Romans began experimenting more with different troop types such as heavy cavalry, but such units were never dominant. In earlier times the Romans had recruited different troop types (think Syrian archers, Balearic slingers) but these types became more prominent when it was apparent that traditional legionary/auxiliary infantrymen could not defeat mobile/light cavalry such as horse archers or the heavily armoured clibinarii. The late Roman army after the reforms of men like Diocletian and Constantine had more heavily armoured cavalry, but these were never as prominent as the infantry, which was just as good as they had been in earlier times, despite the Late Roman army's undeserved reputation for being poor. Cataphracts proved successful against Germanic tribes who invaded the empire though, but the increasing 'Germanisation' of the army would eventually lead to the Western Empire's downfall as the German infantrymen turned against their Roman masters. No amount of heavy cavalry could turn the tide against the loss of territory and revenue, desertion, or the destruction of legions; despite the success of the cataphracts/clibinarii in the field.

[eborius]

It seems to me that the story is very complicated. The Roman army say during the invasion and conqugest of Britain comprised both elements, infantry and cavalry, working together to achieve the advance and ocupation. The infantry was composed of the Roman citizen Legions with a (probably) equal number of auxiliary troops; while the cavalry were almost all auxiliaries, recruited from peoples with a history of mounted warriors etc. It is evident from the works of Tacitus that the Romans were happy to let the auxiliaries do most of the fighting, i.e. at Mons Graupius, while the legions looked on, thus very few ROMANS were killed in gaining the victory. Legionaries were expensive, 'native' soldiers were more expendable. The Legions being heavy infantry behaved like walking 'tanks', while the auxiliary cavalry chased down and rounded up the fleeing enemy. The Legions could be called the 'terror weapon' of the period, but needed the Auxiliary cohorts and Alae to provide most of the necessary other elements to make for sucess. On occasion the balance of these various elements varied, according to availability and the requirements of a particular situation, sometimes units, whether infantry or cavalry, Legionary or Auxiliary, acted seperately, especially for instance in Britain once frontiers such as Hadrian's Wall had become established. It is likely that originally the auxiliary units were intended to act in concert with the Legions posted nearest to them, but there would not always have been time to bring, say, the Legion up from York if trouble suddenly happened as far north as the Wall. Thus the frontier garrisons would have to act alone more and more often, especially in rapid response raids far ahead of the Legions. The practice of drawing off units, or even fragments of them, in Vexilations for particular actions would also have upset anyroop original 'fixed' system. It seems that units of cavalry usually combined to opose enemy action, creating large, very mobile bodies of troops able to take swift effective action against incursions, as well as to make punitive raids into enemy territory. The slower moving Legions could be mobilised to back up as required, while the auxiliary infantry units provided a widespread occupation force, border guard and local police cum security force. All this was well underway by the time Hadrian's Wall was established, if not well before. It was not a major innovation of the Later Empire, but rather an intensification of what was already occuring. I agree with others that the influence of the Persians etc. had an effect, but the usefullness, in fact absolute necessity of an effective cavalry arm, was evident very early on. The historical fact was tha Rome developed in an area poor in cavalry made their infantry primary in the earliest expansion of their state, but they could not have gained the Empire they did with the Legions alone.

One must also take into account the effects of civil wars such as those which brought Constantine to supreme power. His victory at the Milvian Bridge was much credited to his cavalry troops. Such actions would promote this arm at the expense of the infantry.

Also the removal of the distinction between citizen and none-citizen will have reduced the

cudos of the Legions, while the cavalry through all ages has retained an elan of superiority over the infantry.

Thus I would maintain that the 'progress' towards the 'medieval knight' was well under way even in the early days of the Roman Empire, it did not need many of the stated later Roman period developments to initiate it, merely to continue it.

[eborius]

It seems to me that the story is very complicated. The Roman army say during the invasion and conqugest of Britain comprised both elements, infantry and cavalry, working together to achieve the advance and ocupation. The infantry was composed of the Roman citizen Legions with a (probably) equal number of auxiliary troops; while the cavalry were almost all auxiliaries, recruited from peoples with a history of mounted warriors etc. It is evident from the works of Tacitus that the Romans were happy to let the auxiliaries do most of the fighting, i.e. at Mons Graupius, while the legions looked on, thus very few ROMANS were killed in gaining the victory. Legionaries were expensive, 'native' soldiers were more expendable. The Legions being heavy infantry behaved like walking 'tanks', while the auxiliary cavalry chased down and rounded up the fleeing enemy. The Legions could be called the 'terror weapon' of the period, but needed the Auxiliary cohorts and Alae to provide most of the necessary other elements to make for sucess. On occasion the balance of these various elements varied, according to availability and the requirements of a particular situation, sometimes units, whether infantry or cavalry, Legionary or Auxiliary, acted seperately, especially for instance in Britain once frontiers such as Hadrian's Wall had become established. It is likely that originally the auxiliary units were intended to act in concert with the Legions posted nearest to them, but there would not always have been time to bring, say, the Legion up from York if trouble suddenly happened as far north as the Wall. Thus the frontier garrisons would have to act alone more and more often, especially in rapid response raids far ahead of the Legions. The practice of drawing off units, or even fragments of them, in Vexilations for particular actions would also have upset anyroop original 'fixed' system. It seems that units of cavalry usually combined to opose enemy action, creating large, very mobile bodies of troops able to take swift effective action against incursions, as well as to make punitive raids into enemy territory. The slower moving Legions could be mobilised to back up as required, while the auxiliary infantry units provided a widespread occupation force, border guard and local police cum security force. All this was well underway by the time Hadrian's Wall was established, if not well before. It was not a major innovation of the Later Empire, but rather an intensification of what was already occuring. I agree with others that the influence of the Persians etc. had an effect, but the usefullness, in fact absolute necessity of an effective cavalry arm, was evident very early on. The historical fact was tha Rome developed in an area poor in cavalry made their infantry primary in the earliest expansion of their state, but they could not have gained the Empire they did with the Legions alone.

One must also take into account the effects of civil wars such as those which brought Constantine to supreme power. His victory at the Milvian Bridge was much credited to his cavalry troops. Such actions would promote this arm at the expense of the infantry.

Also the removal of the distinction between citizen and none-citizen will have reduced the

cudos of the Legions, while the cavalry through all ages has retained an elan of superiority over the infantry.

Thus I would maintain that the 'progress' towards the 'medieval knight' was well under way even in the early days of the Roman Empire, it did not need many of the stated later Roman period developments to initiate it, merely to continue it.

[caldrail]

I was reading in Oman's The Art of War In the Middle Ages that the reason the late Roman Empire and early Franks started abandoning Discipline Heavy Infantry and instead resort to elite heavy cavalry (later to develop what we call "Knights) is that as Rome fell more and more into decline, there were so many enemies attacking Rome from multiple directions.

 

These enemies were of various fighting styles from the quick hit-and-run Horse Archers of the Magyars to the Berserkers of the Lombard, the Roman Infantry lacked the Rapidity to respond to various movements of the enemies of Rome as well as the flexibility and aggressive offensive mobility to adapt to all these various enemies.

 

So eventually the Romans started abandoning the old Legions of Rome and replacing them with Shock Cavalry that could rapidly go throughout what was left of the empire to counter attacks from various sides. They were much more flexible to maneuver around Europe than the Roman Legions were and when they met an enemy head on, they had this "Shock" charge that would rapidly wipe out enemy forces.

 

So basically Elite Heavy Cavalry that gradually developed into what we now call Knights replaced the Roman Legion according to Oman because they had this rapidity,flexibility,shock attacks (that could crush enemies in an instant), and other such advantages that the old Roman Legion lacked.

 

What do you think? Is Oman right?

 

Firstly, the 'knight' evolved for social reasons, not military, and it can claim descendancy from Roman culture. The adoption of heavier armour would have occured much earlier had the Romans suitable horses strong enough to carry the extra weight without disadvantage - remember that ancient cavalry action was highly fluid and depended absolutely on mobility - cavalry were very concious of wearing out their horses first. Horses are not robotic machines.

 

Secondly - any horseman has 'shock' value, and unfortunately the idea that armoured cavalry collided with infantry at full gallop is hilarious. Whilst it would result in a lot of dead and injured soldiers, it would bring the horse down and the rider with it. Accounts of medieval melee describe horsemen 'pushing' into formations, not colliding with them. Lances were used in a joust-like manner against opposing cavalry who could easily make room for the enemy to pass through at speed (thus the game of 'jousting' in the first place).

 

Also we need to remember that trained or not, a horse is a very nervous animal that doesn't care too much for hurting itself. Should a horse perceive a block of enemy infantry as an unavoidable barrier, it will rapidly come to the decision to stop dead, and the man riding it usually falls off.

 

Thirdly, Oman's description of the empires 'collapse' is pretty standard but ignores the reality that the attacks on the empire were not to destroy it, but to steal from it, and indeed when the last western caesar was ordered off his throne the empire was not destroyed but subject to a barbarian takeover (although the empire did not survive as a single political entity)

 

Fourthly, the late Roman infantry were not quite what we popularly imagine, and in fact the prototype for the middle ages was already developing. They were becoming typical ancient/medieval infantry with their glory days behind them, although it's al;so true that the older heavy infantry were no longer the best solution to the empires military needs any more. Vegetius tells the strength and substance of the legion had gone in his day. Zosimus would later pour scorn on those late empire soldiers, referring to homosexual practises, effeminancy, cowardice, and we also see in Marcellinus a considerable reluctance of the legions to fight at all, with a culture of feathering your own nest among the rank and file.

 

Fifth - the legions of the late empire were well aware of the increasing ascendancy of cavalry which allowed barbarian raids to penetrate far into the empires territory. That was why they split the legions into two classifications. One to guard the borders, another to react and obstruct the threat on home ground. This introduced a complexity into military defence that forced the Romans to develope a simple 'army' organisation above that of the legion, in order to coordinate efforts, but politically this was never going to work successfully in an empire that was increasingly less willing to remain actively part of the whole because the distinction between civilian and military in senior positions was still not seperated thus politics and war were all part of the same deal. In any case, the added complexity did not result in improved coordination because the imperial network was fragmented and more difficult to administer.