Legions Major Weakness - Cavalry?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

May I respectully introduce the Mongols as an army that could have defeated well-disciplined heavy infantry. 50,000 men on horseback that uses a extremely good tactic by confusing the enemy with charge and dispursements tactics relentlessly that the enemy would feel outnumbered only to be surrounded by moving part of their forces into the wrong place.

Edited January 5, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Virgil61]

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.

 

Apparently it didn't, after Carrhae/Antony the Romans dealt with the Parthians, usually having the upper-hand and sacking their capital Cstiphon several times from Trajan to Septimius Severus.

 

That leads to several possibilities; the compound bow wasn't as superior as some think, the Romans may have just had their auxiliaries copy the damn thing (a very Roman thing to do), the simple fact their archers (Numidians, Cretans, etc) were no slouches either or that the Sagittarii (their own mounted archers) were beefed up and/or armed with the Parthian bow. Missiles weren't the only addition either, the Romans also started adopting heavy cavalry themselves in the east.

[longbow]

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.

 

I dont think it would be any different if the fight was on a plain,the Infantry would still dig pits and deploy caltrops.The Archers could still bombard the Horses.On flat ground theres plenty of warning time to reposition troops to counter flanking moves,i think the Infantry would still win that battle.

Cavalry's overated,the Infantry are the war winners.

[rvmaximus]

I think the Romans didn`t have enough 'good quality'cavalry of their own..why..perhaps they thought it was too expensive(it is) to maintain in italia area and perhaps the Roman soldiers pshyche. They felt like their infantry and their ability for hand to hand was second to none. Think most battles prove this out ,even against Hannabal. So what we have here is arrgant ego similar to the armored knights had against the crossbow.

There is no way infantry(even Roman) could beat a superior cavalry with good leadership.( Not hitting them head on for example) Perhaps the Roman empire would have been the Celtic empire if the Celts deployed thgeir superior cavalry in a more intelligent fashion. I feel they would not have been able to defeat the Celts if this occured...but the Celts had to show their bravery and fight the Romans hand to hand....

Also, the Romans used the superior German cavalry to help against the Celts too(later stages)...Two against one,after all their really were not that many Romans in terms of numbers. Gallic cavalry kept the Germanic tribes from entering their lands for a long time until the Romans tilted the balance. It seems to me that the Germanic cavalry was very essential to the Romans..why? Infantry outdated against a good cavalry.

[Pantagathus]

Perhaps the Roman empire would have been the Celtic empire if the Celts deployed thgeir superior cavalry in a more intelligent fashion. I feel they would not have been able to defeat the Celts if this occured...but the Celts had to show their bravery and fight the Romans hand to hand....

 

If they didn't know how to use it, then by Jove what made it superior? I'd be quite entertained to know where you get your information from sometime rvmaximus!

 

Are you perhaps thinking of Celtiberian horseman? My understanding of their particular tactical advantage dealt with a kind of a stake attached to their long bridals that afforded them the flexibility of securely dismounting during battle to fight as infantry reinforcements.

[Pertinax]

may I add that the Britons were a terrifying sight to the Romans -but their chariots were to deliver a warrior to the battlefield and the charioteer was the person of highest status , displaying skill and virtue by ability to handle horseflesh above an ability to fight.Does this remind you of any other N American society?

[Virgil61]

... Infantry outdated against a good cavalry.

 

That's just preposterous. I encourage you to read up on military tactics and not limit it to the Roman era. Disciplined infantry stops cavalry as a rule of thumb.

[Severus]

It seems the argument is becoming fractured.

 

Some people are comparing the legion itself vs. cavalry (horse archers in particular)

 

Other people are comparing Roman armies vs. cavalry (the Parthians in particular)

 

 

The legion itself without auxilliary support would be at a decided disadvantage vs. horse archers (ala Carrhae) for the simple reason that the horsemen would be able to inflict casualties at will on the legion while neutralizing the strengths of the legion (close quarter killing). This scenario, of course, would be modified by the terrain, objectives, generals, etc. It's not like we can throw these two military elements into a vaccuum and have them duke it out. What if the horse archer based army was holding a city and the Legion was looking to capture it? Suddenly the match-up between these two armies is swung 180 degrees. . .

 

 

Comparing the Roman army (legions and their allies) against cavalry (horse archers) opens a whole other argument. I would assume the use of the legions might/discipline in conjunction with supporting missile troops and cavalry was a pretty solid combination. Trajan seems to have done quite well against the Parthians. As to Rome's failing against the mounted hordes in the 4th and 5th century it is very hard to say. The equasion had changed so greatly. These were no longer legionnaires or legions of the early empire. Any theories on what might have happened if the Huns had met the Roman's at the height of their Imperial power? I've often wondered about it. . .

 

I would be interested in reading any historical documents that explain the effect of cataphracts vs. legions. Any suggestions?

 

In my opinion legions would be capable of holding their own against heavy cavalry(depending on all the variable factors of course) but I don't believe that the battle's result would be a foregone conclusion in favor of the legions. . .

 

Matt

[Jaden]

I would be interested in reading any historical documents that explain the effect of cataphracts vs. legions. Any suggestions?

 

In my opinion legions would be capable of holding their own against heavy cavalry(depending on all the variable factors of course) but I don't believe that the battle's result would be a foregone conclusion in favor of the legions. . .

 

Actually, an excellent resource I can across some time back was posted in an earlier thread by Virgil61, which you can find here. It deals with the tactics Arrian utilized to defeat the Alans, who relied heavily upon cavalry. It's also an excellent testament to the Roman use of combined arms, a point many casual military historians of the Roman army fail to realize.

[Virgil61]

Actually, an excellent resource I can across some time back was posted in an earlier thread by Virgil61, which you can find here. It deals with the tactics Arrian utilized to defeat the Alans, who relied heavily upon cavalry. It's also an excellent testament to the Roman use of combined arms, a point many casual military historians of the Roman army fail to realize.

 

Arrian's Array offers an incredible insight to the mind of a Roman commander of the 2nd century. Far from a legion/infantry-only mind-state it shows just how tactically flexible a good--not even a great--commander could be. It's quite a resource that's sadly overlooked when discussing Roman military topics.

[Pertinax]

thats a very useful commentary , and gives the clearest indication of the sophistication of joint arms versus a hefty cavalry threat.

[jbs1114]

In its conquering days at the waning end of the republic and the Augustan age of the empire, Rome utilized cavalry very little during campaigns. In fact, Roman cavalry was all auxilary, so there were no true Roman cavalry attached to a Roman legion, only foreign mercenaries or tribute soldiers. Furthermore, these same horseless armies defeated time and time again gallic, germanic, galatian, and countless other forces heavily dependent on mounted troops. don't forget even the germans were defeated munerous times by Marius, Caesar, Germanicus, and others. Their oppurtunity to attack Rome was never dependent on Rome's lack of cavalry, but on a leadership void and crippling internal strife. If anything, the Romans had more cavalry during the Germanic invasion period than during the golden age, where the Germans were bound by the army of the Danube in their forests. This proves that it was certainly not cavalry which was the deciding factor in the barbarian invasions.

[Severus]

In its conquering days at the waning end of the republic and the Augustan age of the empire, Rome utilized cavalry very little during campaigns. In fact, Roman cavalry was all auxilary, so there were no true Roman cavalry attached to a Roman legion,

 

Incorrect. Roman armies of the late republic and empire nearly always made use of cavalry. The argument that the cavalry used by Rome was not made up of Romans (or people from the surrounding area in Italy) has no bearing whether or not the Romans made use of cavalry.

 

 

 

Furthermore, these same horseless armies defeated time and time again gallic, germanic, galatian, and countless other forces heavily dependent on mounted troops. don't forget even the germans were defeated munerous times by Marius, Caesar, Germanicus, and others.

 

A reference to Horseless armies is incorrect. Read your Conquest of Gaul or Civil Wars by Caesar to see how much the Romans relied on cavalry. I opened it quickly to scan some lines and immediately came upon this passage. . .Check book IV (Invasions of Germany and Britain)passage 7 of Conquest of Gaul. After securing his food (arguably one of the most important aspects of military planning) the next thing Caesar makes sure of is his cavalry detachment. If Late Republican Armies did not make use of cavalry, why would Caesar mention them over and over?

While cavalry did not make up a majority of troops in a legionary army it was an invaluable piece of the entire system, and one that cannot be removed from the whole. . .

 

P.S. Not sure about posting rules, but just making broad blanket statements without any facts is probably not a good thing. . .

 

Matt

[Severus]

To go a step further, even armies of the Middle Republic made use of cavalry. It could be argued that a portion of Hannibal's success could be attributed to his superior cavalry and Rome's inability to field some decent horse units. . . also good cavalry support could lead to victory. . .

 

Here is a link to the battle of Zama. Rome's allied and native cavalry (the Romans did field cavalry after all!?!?) were an important aspect of Scipio's victory. If Scipio had regarded cavalry as "useless" the world would be a very different place right now. . .

 

 

http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/zama.htm

 

 

 

Matt

[mquish]

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.

 

I also dont agree. The overall quality of cavalry through roman times were of better quality than most people make them out to be.ie, Legionary cavalry, Preatorian cavalry and of course the very effective sarmation cavalry. They still were a roman armies weakness when you take them on their own. But see the problem with that is, Most of the time cavalry were used in conjuction with spearmen.ie, legio lancero or velities. So to say that individualy cavalry were a roman armies weakness i think is incorrect.

 

I think the Romans didn`t have enough 'good quality'cavalry of their own

 

The idea that the romans didnt have good quality of their own is proposterous. If you had said to me the romans didnt have good quality light cavalry i would have agreed. the fact is the romans had some of the best auxilia cavalry at that time, ie , the samartians.

Edited March 6, 2006 by mquish