Legions Major Weakness - Cavalry?

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

There are many misconceptions about the roman legions. First of all about the status of the cavalry. In the republic cavalry was a very prestigious part of the army. Only man with noble birth were allowed into the ranks of the cavalry (or only they coud afford the cost for their equipment) units. The rank Master of horses also gives a very important clue. It was one of the most prestigious ranks in the early as well in the late empire also... So it seems to me that the cavalry was a very prestigious arm of the army during its entire existence...

 

I agree with ya, the equites were prestigious, but there is a difference between prestige and effectiveness.

 

Ditto. Also, there are only so many nobles.

[Dominus Rex]

Plautus said, "Ah, yes, mere infantry- poor beggars"

 

Clearly he looked down upon the infantry, as it was much more prestigious to be an equite. One thing he doesn't say is that infantry win the battles, not rich noblemen atop horses.

[Sztripi]

Plautus said, "Ah, yes, mere infantry- poor beggars"

 

Clearly he looked down upon the infantry, as it was much more prestigious to be an equite. One thing he doesn't say is that infantry win the battles, not rich noblemen atop horses.

 

 

Well I wasn't disputing the walue of the infantry. If well trained and motivated the most important part of any army. I was expressing my opinion that the Roman cavalry was indeed an effective force. That it is a misconception that the legions were week in cavalry.

 

"I agree with ya, the equites were prestigious, but there is a difference between prestige and effectiveness."

 

Now sorry but this is bullocks. A prestigious unit in any army is prestigious because it's combat value is very high, or because it is perfoming a vital duty.

 

"Ditto. Also, there are only so many nobles."

 

Well you make that remark based on what? Being a noble was wastly different in Roman society than it was in medieval societies. During the reign of the Emperor Augustus, the rank of equite was officially defined. One could become an Equestrian when one had some 400,000 sesterces. However if one lost his fortune he immediatly lost his status too. Only during the secound century AD. did the Equestrian class changed into more like a class of bureocracy.

 

And one more misconception. The Auxilliary units where also effective, and loyal units. It was one of the most original and effective method of Romanization (it is debated wether it was intentional or not)...

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

Well you make that remark based on what?

 

The fact that there are a lot less rich people than there are poor. I believe you though. However, by the time of Augustus, the legions were clearly defined and the old republican legion caste system gone. I believe the cavalry of the imperial legion were mainly auxilia or even ala by that time.

[caldrail]

Plautus said, "Ah, yes, mere infantry- poor beggars"

 

Clearly he looked down upon the infantry, as it was much more prestigious to be an equite. One thing he doesn't say is that infantry win the battles, not rich noblemen atop horses.

 

 

Well I wasn't disputing the walue of the infantry. If well trained and motivated the most important part of any army. I was expressing my opinion that the Roman cavalry was indeed an effective force. That it is a misconception that the legions were week in cavalry.

 

"I agree with ya, the equites were prestigious, but there is a difference between prestige and effectiveness."

 

Now sorry but this is bullocks. A prestigious unit in any army is prestigious because it's combat value is very high, or because it is perfoming a vital duty.

 

"Ditto. Also, there are only so many nobles."

 

Well you make that remark based on what? Being a noble was wastly different in Roman society than it was in medieval societies. During the reign of the Emperor Augustus, the rank of equite was officially defined. One could become an Equestrian when one had some 400,000 sesterces. However if one lost his fortune he immediatly lost his status too. Only during the secound century AD. did the Equestrian class changed into more like a class of bureocracy.

 

And one more misconception. The Auxilliary units where also effective, and loyal units. It was one of the most original and effective method of Romanization (it is debated wether it was intentional or not)...

 

Prestige in miltary terms is not a function of ability - thats a misconception. There are plenty of prestigous units around the world today who couldn't hope to live up to their reputation against determined opposition. Does this unit get any perks? Extra pay? Lighter duties? Better food? Is their vital duty onerous? Do they have a record of victory or defeat? Do their soldiers get promotions? Are their officers senior members of society? Prestige is a matter of perception.

 

Roman cavalry wasn't brilliant. If it was they'd have gone to more effort with it. Only with the decline of the heavy infantryman and the need for mobility against a mobile enemy was cavalry seen to improve. Julius Caesar for instance used gaulish allies as his cavalry. These men rode expensive pampered horses and weren't too keen on getting to grips with the enemy both for that reason, and also because they all really wanted to ride home and extort tolls from travellers. Auxillaries weren't always capable. When we look at the roman legions its easy to see them as an invincible war machine that crushed opposition like a steamroller. Not so. They fought long and hard to achieve the pax romana and without capable leaders in the field (military ability not being a prerequisite for roman command) Rome would have fallen much earlier. It was their ruthless determination - their competitiveness as a society - that saw them through.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

After the republic, the Roman mindset was becoming more, "If it ain't broke don't fix it." They seemed to do just fine with the cavalry they had. It is true once the infantry began to decline the horsemen impoved in effectiveness.

[caldrail]

Roman infantry maintained its standards up until the 3rd century AD. The gladius was developing during that period, becoming shorter and straighter. Partly this was due to the influence of the 'doctores', the gladiator trainers that were used (sometimes) to teach sword fighting. Perhaps there were other reasons for this but I don't know of any. Then the chaos of the 3rd century hits, everyone is rushed through training and finds themselves wielding slightly overlong daggers against their opponents. Not suprisingly, they tended to say 'To Jupiter with this..." and picked up the nearest spatha so they could keep a healthy distance from their opponent. Roman cavalry rose to meet this gap in military technique to some extent but it was also for two other reasons. One was the first beginnings of the fuedal horseman society of the dark ages and medieval period. The other was the need to counter increasing numbers of enemy horsemen. The infantry were no longer strong enough to dominate the battlefield, cavalry was becoming heavier and more aggressive, and given the potential shock value of a cavalry attack its not suprising that cavalry eventually rose to dominance.

[Sztripi]

Roman infantry maintained its standards up until the 3rd century AD. The gladius was developing during that period, becoming shorter and straighter. Partly this was due to the influence of the 'doctores', the gladiator trainers that were used (sometimes) to teach sword fighting. Perhaps there were other reasons for this but I don't know of any. Then the chaos of the 3rd century hits, everyone is rushed through training and finds themselves wielding slightly overlong daggers against their opponents. Not suprisingly, they tended to say 'To Jupiter with this..." and picked up the nearest spatha so they could keep a healthy distance from their opponent. Roman cavalry rose to meet this gap in military technique to some extent but it was also for two other reasons. One was the first beginnings of the fuedal horseman society of the dark ages and medieval period. The other was the need to counter increasing numbers of enemy horsemen. The infantry were no longer strong enough to dominate the battlefield, cavalry was becoming heavier and more aggressive, and given the potential shock value of a cavalry attack its not suprising that cavalry eventually rose to dominance.

 

 

Now I agree to an extent... There where many reasons why did the Roman legion decline (one among other things was the latter emperors inability to control them effectivly so they downgraded them - less money less equipment). Even so the roman soldiers where regulary better equipped then their opponents. In my opinion the lack of training is the major factor. In the medievial society the nobelmen or horseman had a single occupation - to train for war. As for the shock value you are right the cavalary has a major shock value, but infantry can resist a cavalary charge. And once the charge is broken the tables are turning... But cavalary has one HUGE advantge over infantry. It can run away from the infantry to fight another day. The infantry can't.

[Sztripi]

Prestige in miltary terms is not a function of ability - thats a misconception. There are plenty of prestigous units around the world today who couldn't hope to live up to their reputation against determined opposition. Does this unit get any perks? Extra pay? Lighter duties? Better food? Is their vital duty onerous? Do they have a record of victory or defeat? Do their soldiers get promotions? Are their officers senior members of society? Prestige is a matter of perception.

 

Roman cavalry wasn't brilliant. If it was they'd have gone to more effort with it. Only with the decline of the heavy infantryman and the need for mobility against a mobile enemy was cavalry seen to improve. Julius Caesar for instance used gaulish allies as his cavalry. These men rode expensive pampered horses and weren't too keen on getting to grips with the enemy both for that reason, and also because they all really wanted to ride home and extort tolls from travellers. Auxillaries weren't always capable. When we look at the roman legions its easy to see them as an invincible war machine that crushed opposition like a steamroller. Not so. They fought long and hard to achieve the pax romana and without capable leaders in the field (military ability not being a prerequisite for roman command) Rome would have fallen much earlier. It was their ruthless determination - their competitiveness as a society - that saw them through.

 

Hmmm... You got a good point there... But I have read from many separate sources that the Protectorate age roman legion where capable to move greater distances then a pure cavalary army ot the same age... Wheather you belive or not the limiting factor for the speed of the roman advance was their pack animals. Another misconception is that the leadership was brilliant. It was usually sub standard. Because the legates where chosen not by ability but by other considerations. No West Points. But the command structure of the legion greatly alliviated the leadership problems. But i see that we agree on that. And I absolutly agree on your analysis of the basic and main strength of rome was it's own society. But I am geting off topic. I belive that roman legions had an effective cavalry support. Rome faced many mounted enemies, and fought them effectivly. It is not possible without effective cavalry support. The cavalry where effective especially afther the reforms enacted by Augustus.

Edited September 2, 2006 by Sztripi

[brotus maximus]

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.

and to that is there the possibility that the roman cavalry used bows or other throwable objects at the pikesmen or other like infantry to try and break them up(like running within a certian distance(throwing or shooting distance). is it also possible that in conjunction with having the cavalry, the use of catapults and balistea and the like at the same time to break the formations of the said pikesmen and like ingfantry so the cavalry could ruch in and do a mass assault or something like that.... right?? (if not i am curois to see what stradagys were used(sorry my spelling is bad tonight i got too much caffien in me hehe)

[Vibius Tiberius Costa]

Roman Cavalry was poor, you are right but it was not used as a charging force or an infantry supplement (like the Germanic hordes) it was used to protect the flanks and harass routing or fleeing enemy. The triarri equipped with their hastas were a perfect retalliation force for charging cavalry like in syria but the skirmish style Germans were to much hastle for the romans. Perhaps the most famous Equite unit is the Extraordinnarri of Julius Caesar.

 

Cool topic starter mate

[Titus001]

Cool topic starter mate

yes it is

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

I think the ability of calvary as an actual effective battle unit is overrated(at least in the earlier periods), a man on the ground with a spear can attack more effectively than the mounted man with a sword. I think the major impact of calvary is causing chaos in the enemy's lines, causing the lines to break and perhaps force a rout. My example would be the Battle at Pharsalus. So the major impact of the defeat of Lebianus's calvary would be morale and confusion.

Any comments?

[caldrail]

I think the ability of calvary as an actual effective battle unit is overrated(at least in the earlier periods), a man on the ground with a spear can attack more effectively than the mounted man with a sword. I think the major impact of calvary is causing chaos in the enemy's lines, causing the lines to break and perhaps force a rout. My example would be the Battle at Pharsalus. So the major impact of the defeat of Lebianus's calvary would be morale and confusion.

Any comments?

 

There's fifty or more horsemen coming at you fast. The horses are heavy, their hooves are pounding the ground, you can feel the ground vibrate. The riders are screaming for your blood and raise their weapons to strike - its not good for morale I can assure you. Granted its unlikely the charge is actually going to bump into you as such, but these riders can use their weight, height, and mobility to advantage. In roman times, the cavalry was used in a light role, standing off where-ever possible from the infantry and pestering them with spears, making them nervous, keeping them occupied until the enemy infantry arrive, possibly from another direction - and making it very lethal to consider running away. Infantry can survive cavalry attacks if they maintain close order with some means of defence, otherwise the horsemen will start pulling them apart.

[Antiochus III]

Yes. in fact, when they filmed lotr, many people said that when just a few horses were galloping around the ground shook to the point that it was hard to maintain balance. horses could be extremely effective in breaking morale, but if the men were veterans and they kept their heads, they could maintain a close formation and keep spearpoints pointed at the horses. horses will never charge directly at someting like that, and in fact they will never even trample men laying on hte ground. thus, if a charge lost momentum it could be very ineffective. cavalry alone would rarely be able to rout a whole army, because their effectiveness is highly reduced if the enemies are not broken in the initial charge and the men need to fight in a prolonged melee. becuase of all this, cavalry were often tasked with screening and flanking duties, and they could be confined to a very minor role if they were not heavily armored, were few in number, or if they did not carry long spears.

 

It is also worth mentioning that light infantry sometimes were deployed near cavalry to be a supportive unit.

 

Antiochus III

Edited May 13, 2008 by Antiochus III