Horse Size in the Roman Cavalry

[guy]

(Have patience with me on this one. I was born in the city and grew up in the nearby suburbs, so I

[Melvadius]

I cannot give a definitive answer to this question as I don't carry specific references I can quote however although this theory has been circulatiing for years I am not convinced that it is correct .

 

Most archaeological work on bone finds traditionally concentrates on total volume bone and where possible some sexing and aging however even on cavalry sites the amount of horse bone can be fairly limited and often it is impossible to say what the horse was used for. Horse equipment can give an indication of some dimensions of horses but you need to be a real expert to extrapolate size from the majority of equipment finds.

 

That said the Fell Pony museum believe that there is a body of evidence (on the basis of particular bone dimensions) to support the view that the average size of a horse in Iron Age Britain was around 12.1 hands (equivalent to the Exmoor Pony today) but in the Roman period there were two larger distinct types found one around 13.3 hh and the second 14-15hh. c/f

 

http://www.fellpony.f9.co.uk/fells/rom_dark/size.htm

 

N.B. A similar but opposite argument seems to have been made regarding warhorse sizes in the Medieval period - claiming the largest size horses averaged 17hh - this also is being called into question c/f http://www.florilegium.org/files/ANIMALS/w...e-size-art.html.

 

I spoke to an animal bone expert on this topic a couple of years back and is opinion supports the above findings that in pre-Roman Britain horse sizes were slightly smaller but during and after the Roman period sizes for the larger horses were fairly stable at the larger size. Obviously this doesn't confirm what size of horse was used for which purpose but I have also been told that the Roman's had specialized horse breeding area's so it is logical to suppose they would have used whatever size horse could carry a mounted man and his equipment.

 

During a re-enactment event I did speak to a couple of cavalry re-enactors who used slightly smaller sized horses but despite their being described as pony size on the following link I don't think that they are all that small

 

c/f http://www.roman-empire.net/diverse/reenac...ald-2007-2.html

Edited January 7, 2008 by Melvadius

[sonic]

It would also be easier for the Romans to ride their smaller horses without stirrups, as was the custom.

 

 

Stirrups were not needed by the Roman cavalry: their saddle took the strain. If in doubt, see the 'Why Romans Didn't Charge' thread on this forum.

 

Sonic

[Kosmo]

It is highly possible that the horses used by roman cavalry were smaller then those used in the Late Middle Ages, but they also had to carry a smaller load.

Mongols, the best cavalry worriors of all times, used small horses, so size tells us little about efficiency of use.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Depictions of cavalry in art support the idea that the horses came in two sizes.

 

In addition to the well-known depictions of the smaller type of cavalry mount, paintings of the neighboring Samnite warriors depict horses of the larger type:

.

This image is taken from a tomb in Paestum, an Italian town later allied with Rome and likely to have supplied Rome with her auxiliary cavalry (equites extraordinarii).

 

A vase painting from 2nd cent BCE Capua shows similar proportions:

.

Edited January 7, 2008 by M. Porcius Cato

[caldrail]

The stirrup was not used in europe during roman times. Archaeological evidence shows they were introduced from the east around the 7th century AD. Roman saddles used four prongs between which the rider secured himself with his thighs. Whilst this sounds uncomfortable and even impractical, it was used successfully for centuries and re-enactors demonstrate this form of saddle.

 

The romans did not charge at the enemy in the way you might imagine. Charges against other cavalry units took place because both units used open order, in order to pass each other without risk of collison. Since horses will refuse point blank to barge into something they interpret as a solid barrier, cavalry charges against tightly pack infantry either stopped short or swerved past the edges. Loose infantry units were vulnerable to cavalry charge. In any event, roman cavalry were used in a light role. That is, engaging opposing cavalry, scouting, harassing, and pursuing. There are records of roman cavalrymen refusing to charge infantry. A typical attack was to ride past, throwing spears, then wheeling about for another pass. In general, the first thing the roman cavalry would have done is secure the flanks of the battlefield to ensure enemy horses were not a threat, then possibly begin an outflanking attack at the sides or rear of the enemy.

 

The introduction of heavily armoured horsemen in roman armies (Cataphractii or Clibanarii) began the evolution of a more direct style of charge, but this wasn't always a success and at least once the wiley enemy infantry opened its ranks, allowed the horses in, then pulled off the riders and despatched them without too much effort. The sort of mounted invulnerability we see in medieval knights was a long time coming.

 

I'm no expert on sizes but roman horses were indeed smaller than todays. They were looking ideally for mares, tractable, agile, and quick.

Edited January 7, 2008 by caldrail

[Gaius Octavius]

The end of this video may be helpful:

 

http://www.roman-empire.net/videos/index.html

[Melvadius]

The end of this video may be helpful:

 

http://www.roman-empire.net/videos/index.html

 

The stills taken at the same time at the Birdoswald event may also be of use as they show what the reconstructed saddle looks like:

 

http://www.roman-empire.net/diverse/reenac...ald-2007-2.html

 

BTW the evidenc efor the shape of the saddle comes in a number of forms - obviously from tombstones, but also archaeological finds of the saddle 'horns' as well as two or three rare finds of the leather which had actually been used originally to cover saddles so have retained the impression of the horns coupling the archaeological evidence together and allowing reconstruction of the saddles for re-enactors.

[M. Demetrius]

There's not much to add to what has been said already, but a quick look at Trajan's Column, the Adamklissi metopes, and other reliefs on arches, grave stele, and art of various kinds universally shows the Roman cavalry horse as about the same size of the AmerIndian pony. Nobody faults the bareback, or near bareback riding Comanche for having smaller mounts. The real advantage of the horse in the sort of battle that Romans and their enemies fought is the ability to run down fleeing troops when a line breaks. Cavalrymen were wise enough to avoid getting surrounded by infantry.

 

In the middle to late Republic, light infantry (velites) were sometimes ferried to crucial spots on the battlefield by riding double, then dropped off to skirmish at a flank or corner of the enemy line. This could tip the balance of the fight on that end of the line, by forcing the infantry to defend from the direct assault of heavier infantry and an enfilade attack of missiles. Smaller horses eat less. Mixed breeds are less prone to diseases, etc., just as in dogs, sheep, and other animals.

 

The Romans understood how to breed livestock, and they were observant enough to note that big horses sired big horses in a general sense. Still, most of the cavalry were mercenaries, hired from cultures that were horse warriors. The Roman battle philosophy revolved around heavy infantry. Once the stirrup was brought to them, though, some say from the Sarmatians and Parthians, the whole nature of cavalry combat stepped up a notch.

[guy]

Here is the famous statue in Rome of Marcus Aurelius on a horse. This horse doesn't seem large by modern standards.

 

Thank you, Viggen for your help with this image.

 

 

 

Edited January 12, 2022 by guy

[caldrail]

There's not much to add to what has been said already, but a quick look at Trajan's Column, the Adamklissi metopes, and other reliefs on arches, grave stele, and art of various kinds universally shows the Roman cavalry horse as about the same size of the AmerIndian pony. Nobody faults the bareback, or near bareback riding Comanche for having smaller mounts. The real advantage of the horse in the sort of battle that Romans and their enemies fought is the ability to run down fleeing troops when a line breaks. Cavalrymen were wise enough to avoid getting surrounded by infantry.

Quite, but then the the priority of cavalry at the beginning of a 'generic' battle was to prevent enemy cavalry from outflanking the line. Therefore there was usually a cavalry vs cavalry action to take the initiative. This wasn't so easy - there are accounts of such actions where both sides are riding back and forth until the horses of one side tire out. In fact, one of the reasons the cataphractii/clibanarii weren't used to charge as you might expect was that the riders were wary of tiring out their horses with all that added armour and such, and would normally attack at a trot, the idea of the armour being that their survivability in melee was improved. The added shock value from momentum was not generally appreciated back then.

 

In the middle to late Republic, light infantry (velites) were sometimes ferried to crucial spots on the battlefield by riding double, then dropped off to skirmish at a flank or corner of the enemy line.

This wasn't standard practice for roman troops at any period, and notice that Caesar records the germans as utilising this practise to mount speedy penetration raids. Do you have a source for this tactic?

 

The Romans understood how to breed livestock, and they were observant enough to note that big horses sired big horses in a general sense.

True, yet there wasn't any established logisitcs for the procurement of horses. They would simply acquire horses locally according to availability (perhaps one reason for the long lasting dependence on infantry?)

 

Still, most of the cavalry were mercenaries, hired from cultures that were horse warriors. The Roman battle philosophy revolved around heavy infantry. Once the stirrup was brought to them, though, some say from the Sarmatians and Parthians, the whole nature of cavalry combat stepped up a notch.

The stirrup did not arrive in the west until the 7th century AD, the byzantines used them marginally before that. In fact, cavalry tactics did not change much with the introduction of the stirrup, although the main advantage of them is to make horse riding more comfortable. Contrary to some beliefs, the stirrup does not allow any superiority in combat. A rider does not achieve any great increase in footing because the stirrup isn't rigidly mounted - there's some give when pressure is placed upon one side.

 

Cavalry tactics evolved in tune with equipment. With improved protection and heavier weapons to counter this armour, larger horses were needed to carry the weight, which led to a more onfident style of cavalryman. It was also the warlike spirit of the western rider, descended from former 'barbarians', that gave rise to the aggressive mounted warrior of the medieval period which is where the cavalryman came into his own.

[21th century Roman]

(Have patience with me on this one. I was born in the city and grew up in the nearby suburbs, so I

Edited January 13, 2008 by 21th century Roman

[caldrail]

Shock value is all about attempted penetration of a body of men. You're absolutely spot on about the intimidation of enemy cavalry - thats why the only real defence is to close ranks and put up a shield or 'sharp' wall, to deter the horses from pushing into melee. However, the tactical disadvantage is that your infantry are now effectively immobile, and a canny commanfer may well use this to good effect.

 

You're wrong about the significance of the stirrup. The rider braces himself with his thighs, both with the roman pronged saddle and with a later stirrup(ed) saddle. Since the spatha was a longsword, there wasn't any need to support the weight on the stirrup. Also, standing in the stirrups renders you more vulnerable to overbalaning attacks.

 

The average height for a roman soldier may have been 5'6"-5'7", the average for romans as a whole was about two inches shorter than that. As for large horses, they simply didn't exist back then. People used animals like donkeys and oxen for pulling weight (camels were used in africa). Horses were expensive to keep, and since they were usually employed as riding animals (or pulling chariots, usually very lightweight ones), there wasn't any need to breed larger horses for what might be considered coarse work.

 

In warfare, the arrival of the larger horse was a direct result of the need for the horse to carry more weight. The armour of a rider and horse are not inconsiderable, and the inability of the roman horse to deal with it was a major factor in the mediocre performance of armoured roman cavalry.

[M. Demetrius]

MD: In the middle to late Republic, light infantry (velites) were sometimes ferried to crucial spots on the battlefield by riding double, then dropped off to skirmish at a flank or corner of the enemy line.

Caldrail: This wasn't standard practice for roman troops at any period, and notice that Caesar records the germans as utilising this practise to mount speedy penetration raids. Do you have a source for this tactic?

 

Yes, Republican Roman Army 200-104BC page 21ff, evidently the source reference for this is Livy (26.4.4) Seems logical enough, not that modern logic has much to do with Ancient Thinking.

[21th century Roman]

Shock value is all about attempted penetration of a body of men. You're absolutely spot on about the intimidation of enemy cavalry - thats why the only real defence is to close ranks and put up a shield or 'sharp' wall, to deter the horses from pushing into melee. However, the tactical disadvantage is that your infantry are now effectively immobile, and a canny commanfer may well use this to good effect.

 

You're wrong about the significance of the stirrup. The rider braces himself with his thighs, both with the roman pronged saddle and with a later stirrup(ed) saddle. Since the spatha was a longsword, there wasn't any need to support the weight on the stirrup. Also, standing in the stirrups renders you more vulnerable to overbalaning attacks.

 

The average height for a roman soldier may have been 5'6"-5'7", the average for romans as a whole was about two inches shorter than that. As for large horses, they simply didn't exist back then. People used animals like donkeys and oxen for pulling weight (camels were used in africa). Horses were expensive to keep, and since they were usually employed as riding animals (or pulling chariots, usually very lightweight ones), there wasn't any need to breed larger horses for what might be considered coarse work.

 

In warfare, the arrival of the larger horse was a direct result of the need for the horse to carry more weight. The armour of a rider and horse are not inconsiderable, and the inability of the roman horse to deal with it was a major factor in the mediocre performance of armoured roman cavalry.

 

I disagree, have you ever wielded a sword from horseback? I have. The height advantage with stirrups enables the rider to bring his sword down on top of the enemy, over his shield. I spent two years on a horse riding across the American Continent (see profile) and have had horses for many years. When I mention the example of siting in a chair or standing, I wasn't implying as to the weight of the sword, but to the effectiveness of the blow from above. Of course my opinion about stirrups is from my own personal experiences. I have also done a lot of bareback riding and as I said Its only my opinion based on my experiences. I didn't get that out of a book. Do you by any chance come from England?

 

German, Gauls and Brits, didn't fight in close formations, but charged in unorganized masses, as I've read. The Romans also beat the Greeks with their phalanx and sixteen or twenty foot spear (I've forgotten the length). In these battles cavalry was also used to harass the unprotected flanks and rear, if possible.

 

The heavy horse was not only to carry more weight, but to run down more people on foot. Once the enemy had spent their spears, they were left with sword and shield. No problem for a horse to penetrate. War horses were trained to not stop. that I believe was the purpose of training with hurtles The Romans found heavier horses in northern Gaul and Belgium, where they were being bred, or so I've read. But then I've been wrong before, how about you?

 

As far as the average height of Romans 5'6' was the most common height in my reading. I gave them the extra inch, for the benefit of the doubt. I have always been impressed by the amount of roman studies and reenactment groups in the UK. There might be as much in France or Germany, but since I either speak or read those languages and American and English are almost similar, joking, I find the English sites very well informed. Thank you for the opportunity of this discussion. I always enjoy different points of view. Please do respond if you would like to carry this discussion further.

 

On another note, could you tell me what goes in the signature space? I am still fumbling my way through this wonderful site.

 

My name is Renato, Renatus in latin, here in the States people simply call me Ron.