Rome's Heavy Cavalry

[Hadrian Caesar]

Did the Romans of the early empire ever use heavy cavalry? All I ever seem to hear is that their mounted troops were light and served the purpose of a simple screening force for the main body of legionaries.

[Princeps]

Yeah, I'd always thought that their cohort cavalry was a light / scouting force. I think they used indentured cataphracts aswell though.

[caldrail]

To begin with the romans relied on auxillary cavalry, who were basically foreign horsemen trained in roman tactics etc. These men fought as light cavalry.

 

From Constantius onwards, clibinarii were introduced to emulate the persian cataphracts. These were indeed heavy cavalry and remained in use to the end of the west and beyond.

 

Heavy cavalry were never used by the early roman army, and they never really had much cavalry at all. A legion after Marius contained 120 horsemen for scouting and courier duties. They certainly weren't equipped or trained for head-on cavalry charges.

[Eunapius Titus]

Right. Even if the Romans did field a significant force of cavalry, whether light, heavy or otherwise, it was in all likelihood auxiliary or simply allied. Heavy cavalry simply didn't figure in with the general strategy of any legion, and I'd wager that the vast majority of Roman generals wouldn't be able to use them effectively even if they did wield a number of them on the battlefield.

Edited June 7, 2006 by Eunapius Titus

[caldrail]

Roman armies didn't have much expertise in cavalry - thats why auxillaries were so important. That doesn't mean that roman commanders were unable to employ it effectively, it simply meant most hadn't the experience to do so. In any case, the auxillary commanders did have this experience and that was available for the asking by his general.

 

The late army was beginning to favour cavalry (largely for mobility) and was therefore given a stronger precedence than it once had. Previously most cavalry was auxillary as you say, but remember each legion in the principate had a small contingent of horsemen. By the late empire expertise in cavalry wasn't unusual - especially when you realise that most roman cavalry were in fact goths at that time.

Edited June 8, 2006 by caldrail

[Neos Dionysos]

By the late empire expertise in cavalry wasn't unusual - especially when you realise that most roman cavalry were in fact goths at that time.

 

I'd say Alan, Hunnic and Sarmatian. The Goths were an infantry based people.

[Virgil61]

Did the Romans of the early empire ever use heavy cavalry? All I ever seem to hear is that their mounted troops were light and served the purpose of a simple screening force for the main body of legionaries.

 

I'll add to the other commentary that you cannot discuss operations of the legions of the late Republic or the Principate without understanding that they were plused up by auxiliary troops whose skills filled in the areas where the Romans were deficient; archers and cavalry come to mind. The Romans in the Republic and Principate had--to put it simply--one strong suit, excellent infantry who doubled as combat engineers. They kept to that strength and used auxilliaries, whose numbers in the Principate roughly equaled those of the legions, in a complementary manner.

[caldrail]

Heavy cavalry in roman armies is based on foreign concepts. Cataphracts, or sarmatian style lancers, begin to appear from the reign of Hadrian (117-138AD). Although they are heavier than other cavalrymen of their time, it would be more accurate to describe them as an intermediate stage. Clibinarii, or persian style lancers, were introduced by Constantius (350-361AD) as the real heavyweights, described as 'oven-men' because of the great heat they had to endure inside their armour.

 

How effective were they? Whereas most cavalry actions in ancient times were scouting, skirmishing, and pursuing, for the first time horsemen are introduced who are ordered to break up an infantry formation by a direct charge. The whole point of these heavy cavalrymen was shock value. The arrival of these armoured horsemen may have worried less experienced troops greatly. Initially they would have seen success. Constantius was impressed enough by reports of persian victories to want this capability for his legions. Their armour protection was handy against enemy missile fire too. However it seems they may not have been as effective as intended. One account describes the infantry opening their ranks, unhorsing the hapless cataphracts, and clubbing them to death. They would have made a fine sight on parades whatever their capability.

[Neos Dionysos]

One account describes the infantry opening their ranks, unhorsing the hapless cataphracts, and clubbing them to death. They would have made a fine sight on parades whatever their capability.

 

Reading this I was reminded how stirrups were still not invented yet. I have to wonder exactly how heavy cavalry worked in antiquity when you had to use interlocking straps of some sort, then add the armor and the armor for the horse...

[Virgil61]

...

Reading this I was reminded how stirrups were still not invented yet. I have to wonder exactly how heavy cavalry worked in antiquity when you had to use interlocking straps of some sort, then add the armor and the armor for the horse...

 

I wish I could remember where I had read this, but I recall an article on cavalry in general and comments on saddles in the Roman-Parthian world. Someone had recreated a version of what it may have been like and found it to be a surprisingly stable platform for a rider enabling them to engage in things like archery, lancing, etc.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Virgil61

[Pertinax]

Horned saddle is the term you may be searching for- a well trained horseis good but more especiallythe accomplished rider can control an animal with only shift of weight and leg pressure, these photos are of 3rd C auxilliae .An experienced rider can knock a recalcitrant animal into shape very quickly (with confidence and subtlety).Reins can be of various configurations and you can of course have leg controlled reins.

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...&cmd=si&img=764

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...&cmd=si&img=761

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?act=mo...&cmd=si&img=751

 

note that all weapon exercises except the spatha require both hands for execution.These re-enactors were fast and accurate. Ok these are cobby 13 hand animals but a Cataphract would upscale in weight (horse and rider) and have a heftier mount, though not perhaps the "destrier" size imagined by many.The four horned saddle seemed to provide a completely stable platform.

Edited June 9, 2006 by Pertinax

[Princeps]

...

Reading this I was reminded how stirrups were still not invented yet. I have to wonder exactly how heavy cavalry worked in antiquity when you had to use interlocking straps of some sort, then add the armor and the armor for the horse...

 

I wish I could remember where I had read this, but I recall an article on cavalry in general and comments on saddles in the Roman-Parthian world. Someone had recreated a version of what it may have been like and found it to be a surprisingly stable platform for a rider enabling them to engage in things like archery, lancing, etc.

 

There have been a few experiments. I mentioned one of them in this thread

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=2867&hl=saddle

[caldrail]

Correct, the horses of these early armoured knights were not destriers. All horses of the ancient world were smaller than the norm we see today.

 

To add to my previous answer, the names 'cataphractii' and 'clibanarii' are used interchangeably. Romans did this sometimes - 'Catapulta' and 'Ballista' are also not specifically defined which caused me a headache at first. Its like describing a 'tank' or 'armoured fighting vehicle'. Both phrases can mean the same thing but the strict definition is different.

 

Now - What exactly was the difference between cataphracts and clibanarii? Both were called cataphracts in strict definition, and their equipment was broadly similar, although the persian style used longer lances and heavier armour. It was this extra weighty metal that gave rise to the nickname 'clibanarius' derived from the word meaning baking-oven.

 

The biggest difference is in fighting style. Sarmatian cataphracts approached the enemy at a leisurely trot and did not attempt to penetrate enemy formation, stabbing with the lance beyond the opponents sword reach. Persian cataphracts were more aggressive and used the weight of a charge to best effect. Many roman clibanarii units were in fact manned with persians.

 

As a point of interest, one later clibanarii formation were horse-archers, not lancers.

Edited June 10, 2006 by caldrail

[Lost_Warrior]

clibanarii! Oven-men! I knew I'd seen that somewhere!!

[oscar]

clibanarii! Oven-men! I knew I'd seen that somewhere!!

I think it was belisarius who created the first truly roman heavy cavalry by combining tactics maneuvers from the huns in archery and the goths. he also introduced a small shield in the arm which also served as a receptacle for darts which were very effective at short range. he paid his men in accordance to their performance in the use of this innovative battle techniques. his new highly specilized cavalry allowed him to defeat the much larger armies of the goths, persians, and vandals.