Roman Cavalry

[oats]

What were the famed categories and famed units of the Roman Cavalry.

 

I understand they also used allied cavalry to supplement their own and after the 2nd Punic War, the importance of deploying elite cavalry to the field was understood and improved upon by later Roman generals.

 

From this site, we get a general idea (i.e. Lancer, Contari, and Cataphract) but does anyone know this subject in detail?

 

(Also, forgive the newbness, but how do I get the board such that I can read all the posts and not have the click on each individual post?)

[caldrail]

Cavalry was at a premium in ancient times. Horses were expensive items and vulnerable in combat. During most of the period, we see cavalry used in supporting roles. Harrasement, scouting, and pursuing. Unlike the massed charges of more recent times the object of the harrasement was to occupy enemy units and perhaps cause them to break formation whilst the real threat marched up the hill. Scouting is obvious. Pursuance is a task that cavalry has always performed. When an enemy unit breaks the horsemen trot into the crowd of fleeing men and cut them down from behind, turning a retreat into a rout with heavy casualties, and ensuring that they're persuaded not to come back again!

 

Later we see the persian influence with the introduction of cataphracts. Tactics begin to change and at last cavalry assumes a more aggressive role, charging the enemy. Not always a success tough. Its on record that such a unit was massacred when the crafty enemy infantry simply stepped aside and allowed them in before unhorsing them and... well it doesn't need much imagination. The tactical use of these units possibly improved over time but the lighter cavalry units retained their former roles, and indeed became more numerous as the importance of cavalry increased toward the end of the west.

[oats]

Didn't the early Republic face major set-backs when met with highly experienced light cavalry? (Numidian cavalry routing Roman Allied cavalry at Cannae is possibly the most obvious example)

 

And the definitive victory by Scipio won through the use of aggressive cavalry?

 

I know later that they employed what is believed to be the precursor to heavy knights and used heavy cavalry tactics, but what different kinds were there?

[caldrail]

Didn't the early Republic face major set-backs when met with highly experienced light cavalry? (Numidian cavalry routing Roman Allied cavalry at Cannae is possibly the most obvious example)

The romans got whatever cavalry they could find. Not everyone wanted to fight for Rome and remember in many cases it was only for money - they weren't particulalrly pro-roman. Caesar found this out with his Aeduii allies. These gauls were 'inordinately fond of their pampered and expensive horses', and when they met stone throwing german cavalry the aeduii fled, even though they outnumbered the germans heavily. We associate the roman army with having lots of highly trained and effective troops, but the quality of troops was just as variable as any other army.

 

And the definitive victory by Scipio won through the use of aggressive cavalry?

 

I know later that they employed what is believed to be the precursor to heavy knights and used heavy cavalry tactics, but what different kinds were there?

 

Lancers of one sort or another are a late development that pre-dates the medieval knight. Before that, cavalry might employ spears but I'll think you'll find these were lightweight weapons that were only intended to carried for harrasement roles - so the cavalry would ride up, throw, and wheel away. Of course these spears might be handy for pursuance too. The roman longsword, the spatha, was that length only because the rider needs the extra reach to be effective from horseback, but this melee weapon requires that the rider get in close. In pursuance this is the only way to achieve your intended result. In open battle, getting up close is always a risk because as cavalrymen have found throughout military history, determined infantry find ways to unhorse them. Therefore, if you want to be aggressive, then your best bet is to try to spook or disrupt the enemy formation. Once they're disordered and can't retaliate effectively, then individual infantry are vulnerable to your superior size and weight. Charging head on was attempted by cataphracts but this was a disaster at least once. It really does require that the horsemen use their momentum to good effect - and they must remain in tight order. To spread themselves like the cataphracts did is not good! Horse archers of course do not attack in this way. They remain at some distance and fire arrows into the enemy formation. Speed is their advantage and they will always turn away rather than fight melee if they can. The interesting exception are the cataphract-archers, of which one unit served in the late roman army. I don't know how effective they were, and possibly the extra armour reduced their ability in archery, but certainly no heroic stories are told of them.