Legions Major Weakness - Cavalry?

[Pertinax]

The most telling and logical of Roman innovations ,was to always hire the chaps who were really difficult to beat if the opportunity arose.

[Spurius]

The most telling and logical of Roman innovations ,was to always hire the chaps who were really difficult to beat if the opportunity arose.

 

Hence the ever increasing need for gold

 

As to Roman adaptability, I remember reading (Livy books XXI-XXX on the 2nd punic war) that while the Romans were laying siege to Capua (after Capua went to Hannibal), the Campanian cavalry was far superior to the romans. Then, the Romans adapted and every cavalry man took a partner infantry guy with a spear. After much training, the infantry were able to dismount quickly. Then, when the two opposing cavalry forces met, just before impact the spearmen would dismount and the Campanian cavalry would crash into waiting spearpoints. Thus the romans were able to combing cavalry and infantry.

 

That would be a funny once to see. The Campanians were missile poor if I remember correctly, so that would be a sound tactic to keep the enemy cavalry off balance thus ineffective.

[Guest Spartan II]

Spartan cavalry was also very poor, as only the ones that did not want glory or the lame ones would desgrace themselves by serving as cavalry. Eventually, Spartans paired each horseman with another light infantryman, a Skiritan soldier. They were used inconjunction to fend off enemy cavalry, skirmishers, and run down routing men.

 

Also, when exactly did the Roman empire start using cataphracts?

[Pertinax]

Spartan cavalry was also very poor, as only the ones that did not want glory or the lame ones would desgrace themselves by serving as cavalry. Eventually, Spartans paired each horseman with another light infantryman, a Skiritan soldier. They were used inconjunction to fend off enemy cavalry, skirmishers, and run down routing men.

 

Also, when exactly did the Roman empire start using cataphracts?

This type of horseman / light infantry pairing is not uncommon, the Egyptians used "chariot runners" for very similar purposes-the constant theme though is of horseborne units trying to outsmart or negate each other ( as Spurius rightly tells us) in relation to "drawing out" infantry . I understand the cataphractus to be a later dominate "innovation", though the Clibanaphoroii and Cataphractoii would have been met as enemies in Parthia ,Sassanid Persia and versus the Sarmatiae. As I have already suggested, Rome's response to such a possible innovation would be to hire them at once!

[Guest Spartan II]

You got the names a little wrong. The Eastern Roman Empire was more Greek, and they called the Western Latin-speaking Empire's Catafractii and Clibanarii, Katafraktoi and Klibinaphoroi. You're right, it would be the empire's first response to hire these "tanks" as mercenaries immediately, but they actaully trained cataphracts themselves at one point in time. I want to know the date when that happened. I've had conflicting sources; some say they started to be used during Hadrian's reign, others explain that the Battle of Adrianople and the Gothic heavy cavalry that crushed the consular army forced the Romans to change their tactics.

[Quintus]

The whole mounting and dismounting thing seems an awful lot like Caesar's description of British chariots. I like the idea of combining infantry and cavalry.

[Rameses the Great]

Well, it is fair to point out that the cavalry is a weakness against infantry. However, the legion has shown weakness to it. For example, the Battle of Carrhae. However the legions did have formations to counterbalance the cavalry charges by the enemy.

 

The Roman's should have chosen rocky ground to engage enemies with superior cavalry. Vegetius gave ways to repel cavalry Vegetius' plans.

 

Yet, the legions weakness was not the other cavalry yet it's own cavalry. In many battles against the Germans, their superior cavalry would overtake the Roman's thusly out flanking the Roman infantry. Since many of their opponent spent their whole life on horseback, or traveling so they had an advantage.

 

How about the praetorian cavalry?

[Quintus]

Sorry guys, was reading the 4th page

 

And about the praetorian cavalry, I'm not sure it would have been much better than the normal cavalry, even if it did get into a battle. The praetoria were notorious for being softened with fine wine and rich foods and never got what realy makes a soldier a soldier; battle experiance. Mabey I making another mistake , were the praetorian cavalry stationed at Rome?

Edited August 9, 2006 by Quintus

[caldrail]

Sorry guys, was reading the 4th page

 

And about the praetorian cavalry, I'm not sure it would have been much better than the normal cavalry, even if it did get into a battle. The praetorians were notorious for being softened with fine wine and rich foods and never got what realy makes a soldier a soldier; battle experiance. Mabey I making another mistake , were the praetorian cavalry stationed at Rome?

 

Praetorians were often selected from the better soldiers. After all, it was considered a perk and the emperors were keen on being protected, even if their guards were a little temperamental (ahem). It is true they lived better than regular legionaries. As for battle experience, that became quite common in later times until the praetorians were disbanded, but then many of them might have already experienced battle. Having said that, Rome wasn't always at war. Many soldiers never fought a battle throughout their twenty five year service thus neither would the praetorians.

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

were the praetorian cavalry stationed at Rome?

 

All the praetorians, cavalry or infantry, were spread throughout the larger cities within the Italian province.

[Kosmo]

I have a theory!

In the mediterranean area with steep mountains the control of the roads and of the small plains was very important. So, the greeks, and after them, romans etc, used heavy infantry to block this confined spaces as flanking was difficult.

Alexander and Hannibal made use of the fact that they were in contact zones between mediterranean mountainous areas and more open areas and created the best armies of antiquity. Armies capable of using the potential of cavalry, missile and heavy infantry to the full.

Romans conquered the mediterranean with their great legions and auxiliary cavalry, but still had a problem defending the large river valleys that were the new borders of the empire.

Here it was difficult for the infantry to catch up with the fast moving horse archers form Sarmatia or the german tribes raiding thru forests and marshes.

Romans addapted and used, for example, palmyrian horse archers to defend SE Dacia from the fast sarmatians (yazigi) of Pannonia.

This system later failed as political problems and separations made recruiting from different parts of empire difficult.

As I always say Pax Romana was never felt at the northern borders where war was almost constant. This shows the inability to proper defend this areas and to defeat the enemy to gain a lasting peace.

The defence sistem put in place by Augustus was not good for a stagnant and defensive empire and some major changes were needed.

You don't need highly trained soldiers to defend strong walls and an army placed along a border can not concentrate to fight a strong enemy. More cavalry, local autonomous armies in depth and a non proffessional army. This was all in place by 700 AD to defend what was left of the roman world.

[Kosmo]

It's many times stated around here that cavalry was not very effective during roman era, but we know that before Rome became a major power Alexander and Hannibal used cavalry with good effect.

Alexander's cavalry was using sarissa as a lance and was used for impact not missile attacks despite not heaving stirrups.

[Favonius Cornelius]

You don't need highly trained soldiers to defend strong walls and an army placed along a border can not concentrate to fight a strong enemy. More cavalry, local autonomous armies in depth and a non proffessional army. This was all in place by 700 AD to defend what was left of the roman world.

 

You could do that, or you could bypass the need for a continent long border and focus on conquering Germania and Bohemia, to a point where your border is along a north-south river, facing empty steppe of Russia. There you could build a better network of fortification, which could easily communicate along its length, and which would dilute the phenomenon of Rhine and Danube armies/generals to just one. Perhaps fewer rebellions that way.

[Sztripi]

All right. I am a new one. I thought that I will add bits of my own wisdom (or possibly demonstrate the luck of it ) to the discussion.

 

The main strength of any army in any time is discipline and training. That said usually the more disciplined army triumphs in a battle. The roman army was a very disciplined and well trained entity during the early protectorate and late republic era. But during the latter years of the empire it was only a shadow of itself. So the Huns lead by Attila were facing a weak enemy. At the time they were a very effective and disciplined force, with sophisticated culture and even technological superiority in some areas. Far from being a simple barbarian nation. By the way at the same time the cavalry also became dominant force in the eastern and western empire as well... The decline of the infantry was evident long before that. I have read in many sources that the prestige of the infantry plummeted along with their status in the army. Therefore the quality of training and equipment also declined.

 

Why was the roman army so week? Many reasons (but I don't want to hijack the topic).

 

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 personally don

[Favonius Cornelius]

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.