Horse Size in the Roman Cavalry

[21th century Roman]

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.

 

I have also read the same. while it might or might not have been standard practice is any one's guess. Commanders had to devise situations according to conditions of the moment. They most likely vary from situation to situation as the commanders saw fit throughout Rome's long history. The one certain thing about history is the amount of uncertainty from bits and pieces that remain. But than again if we had all of the records of the past, there would be no need for groups like this to discuss the little available knowledge and the vast amount of questions that exist.

 

21th cen Roman

[Nephele]

It's too bad Pliny didn't cover the size of horses used for various purposes in his time, along with what he did write about the horse in his Naturalis Historia. Apparently, and according to Pliny, the Romans had breeds of horses of varying sizes, as we have today. Pliny mentions two distinct breeds from Spain: the thieldones, and a smaller breed called the asturcones. It would be interesting to know whether the Romans might have preferred a specific breed of horse for their cavalry.

 

21st Century Roman, I've private messaged you with some information regarding the use of the signature feature on this board, as you were asking about this in one of your previous postings in this topic.

 

-- Nephele

[Melvadius]

Shock value is all about attempted penetration of a body of men. ....SNIP....

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 agree with much of what you have already said on this topic but could you be more precise about what you mean by a "larger horse"? Do you mean the differences between the pre-Roman and Roman period horses found in Britain covered in my previous posting? i.e.:

 

'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.'

 

As you note the differences in size may be due to differences in battle tactics remembering that in Britain at least there appears to have been a preference for the use of lght war chariots in war rather than a significant amount of cavalry before the Roman's arrived.

 

As several people have pointed out the use of horses evolved throughout the Roman period including the introduction of stirrups and even the amount of armour carried by particular troops. I don't think that there is any real evidence that very heavily armoured troops became the primary cavalry type in the Roman Empire at any point although it eventually did in Western Europe in the later middle ages.

[M. Demetrius]

I don't think that there is any real evidence that very heavily armoured troops became the primary cavalry type in the Roman Empire at any point although it eventually did in Western Europe in the later middle ages.

 

Can you elucidate on the Clibanarii and Cataphracti, then?

 

I thought those were armored heavy cavalry. The Clibanarius, in fact, was armored all over with a form of segmented armor, and it is said the horses wore some armor, too. Those were smaller horses than the Western European chargers, of course. But they didn't use them, evidently for a direct assault on massed infantry, probably, as already stated, to prevent their horses from tiring too soon.

[caldrail]

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.

 

1 - You have raised yourself in the saddle and therefore stand out as a missile target.

 

2 - The stirrups are not rigidly mounted and will lift if you fall sideways, thus do not help your balance in the standing position. Further, an enemy soldier might lift your foot as a means to unhorse you.

 

3 - By standing you have raised your sowrd level higher. The cavalry sword is the correct size(ish) for mounted combat when sat in the saddle.

 

4 - By standing you are no longer restrained by the saddle prongs and may be unhorsed easily in any direction.

 

5 - By standing your control over the horse in a stressful situation is lessened, and if the horse turns or bolts suddenly you will lose balance.

 

6 - By swinging the sword whilst standing in the saddle you are moving a weighty object at arms length, with any solid footing. Since being seated is more secure than standing on the stirrups, you are more likely to overbalance yourself in this way.

 

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.

The romans and their enemies rode without stirrups. They managed perfectly well to fight cavalry actions including some extremely skilled horse archers. A blow from above could well hurt, but then, no enemy soldier will forgo the use of a shield or a parry to prevent that happening. However, I will concede that in theory a higher attack has advantages, until you become too high when the use of a sword starts to be impractible.

 

I didn't get that out of a book. Do you by any chance come from England?

I didn't get that out of a book either. Yes, I'm english. We have horses over here too

 

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?

Oh never wrong! Yes, of course I've been put straight before, no-one can know everything and I certainly won't claim to. But the heavy horse arrived later than the roman period, as a result of needing larger horses to carry the increasing weight in combat. If such animals were available, then logically the cataphractii/clibanarii would have used them. They didn't, because they weren't available. As a result (and this is recorded in ancient sources) these heavy troops were unwilling to gallop their horses because they knew they would tire out before the enemies light cavalry. Further, there were no war horses at this time. The romans obtained whatever horses they could, although they did look for certain characteristics. Also, it isn't necessary to use a heavy horse to run people down (I assume you mean pursuance) since a smaller horse is perfectly capable of outrunning a tired frightened man. Beware of penetration. Roman cavalry didn't like this option because of the risk of being unhorsed. When engaged in melee, it was usually the case they would remain fighting on the edges, in order to use mobility whenever they required it. By penetrating, you become bogged down and retreat is all but impossible. The roman cavalry were good horsemen (many were auxillaries from lands well used to riding horses) and fought by using their wits, not by blind agression. They had a complex set of manoevers which they practised regularly, and the roman commanders did not regard cavalry as cowards if they pulled away from melee as long as they regrouped for another attack.

 

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.

No problem Sir, thats what a forum is for

[Melvadius]

I don't think that there is any real evidence that very heavily armoured troops became the primary cavalry type in the Roman Empire at any point although it eventually did in Western Europe in the later middle ages.

 

Can you elucidate on the Clibanarii and Cataphracti, then?

 

I thought those were armored heavy cavalry. The Clibanarius, in fact, was armored all over with a form of segmented armor, and it is said the horses wore some armor, too. Those were smaller horses than the Western European chargers, of course. But they didn't use them, evidently for a direct assault on massed infantry, probably, as already stated, to prevent their horses from tiring too soon.

 

 

Agreed that these cavalry types were used in the later Roman period. While my reading in the Later Roman period is admittedly fairly limited as far as I have read the Romans seem to have used them in a few specialist cases/areas rather than as their only or even primary type of cavalry.

 

It was only in the later Medieval period that 'heavy' cavalry took on a primary role but again this appears only to have been in Western Europe. In comparison in the same period Saladin's (and various other Arab and non-Arab) armies were not generally noted for making use of heavily armoured and equipped troops - in fact just the opposite.

Edited January 14, 2008 by Melvadius

[caldrail]

I have read the Romans seem to have used them in a few specialist cases/areas rather than as their only or even primary type of cavalry.

And some roman heavy cavalry was primarily intended for ceremonial purposes rather than combat.