Rome and (lack of) Cavalry

[Drag0nUL]

Hi.
I've been wondering about the follwing thing for quite a while, and I figure this is the place to shed a bit of light of it.

Roman army has had a history of being adaptable, incorprating many new tactics and equpment along it's existance (manipular formation, gladius, armor reinfocements for the legions fighting in dacia to name only a few).

However, despite suffering quite a few defeats due to lack of cavalry (Cannae and Carrhae come to mind) and being put at a disadvantage in numerous other situations (many battles in the war with Carthage, Magnesia etc), the romans(to my knowledge) never made any efforts to develop a significant cavalry arm.

Never quite understood why. I mean, smebody should have noticed the utility of a strong cavalry, right?

[Fragony]

Most likely because in these days soldiers had to buy their own gear, you had to be pretty well off. Horses were even more costly, so only a very select could probably function as cavalry. When soldiering was professionalized cavalry became more common, so I'll throw it on this.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Mmm, I do not have time to answer right now, but the Romans used cavalry well enough, though mainly in their later days. The numerous auxiliaries and then, by the Dominate, the Romans had their household cavalry, such as even the feared cataphracts. Much of the resitance to change was the tradition, as well as the lack of horse-breeding lands (Campania was the only one of distinction in Italia).

@Fragony: no, the professionalisation of the Roman military by Marius as well as subsequent reformers never was the cause of the development of the cavalry arm (yes, one can argue it had an indirect, long-term effect, but the stretch between the professional army and professional cavalry was quite lengthy, and you can correlate anything with an important preceeding event in history). In fact, it did the opposite, as the Roman citizen cavalry was largely disbanded, and the equipment standardised (no horses allowed even if you were wealthy enough and wanted to bring hem along), creating a further reliance on auxiliaries.

[Fragony]

Well to honest I have no idea, never really thought about it, I only know that it became more common later on but I never wondered why. :shame:

[The Wizard]

The Romans did use cavalry, lots of it, but the vast majority was provided by Rome's allies in the form of auxiliaries.

[al Roumi]

The Romans did use cavalry, lots of it, but the vast majority was provided by Rome's allies in the form of auxiliaries.

Yep, afaik the Romans recruited their auxiliaries from "horse people" accross and outside the empire, precisely because these groups had skills the Romans did not specialise in. Also afaik there were eastern european cavalry auxilliaries stationed in England -with some evidence of their presence/garrison on Hadrian's wall (on the border with Scotland).

[A Very Super Market]

The Romans simply did not have a strong cavalry tradition, probably because Latium was not prime horse-breeding ground. They made up for it by recruiting from cultures that did specialise in cavalry, or at least, could produce better horses.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have also suspected that Rome, by recruiting its Cav Auxiliaries from Gaul, Numidia, etc. was also recruiting the very folks who could have served as the "cutting edge" of a rebellion. So, you get your needed cavalry and dull the fangs of a subject province all at once. The Brits were to do pretty much the same thing with their Highland regiments a few centuries later.

[rajpoot]

Also afaik there were eastern european cavalry auxilliaries stationed in England -with some evidence of their presence/garrison on Hadrian's wall (on the border with Scotland).

King Arthur and his Sarmatian knights? :clown:

More seriously though, I think Rome did not have 'Roman' cavalry because when the Roman empire rose, armies were still infantry based. Cavalry gained popularity towards the end of the Roman empire. I'd read a book by W.S Churchill once, don't rightly remember the name.....in which he attributes the rise of cavalry as one of the reasons for the Roman legions getting obsolete, and in turn causing the empire to crumble.

[The Wizard]

Cavalry had always been an important arm of the Macedonian-style military (which dominated the world Rome would conquer from 330 BC to around 200 BC), so I doubt that is the case.

[Aemilius Paulus]

I'd read a book by W.S Churchill once, don't rightly remember the name.....in which he attributes the rise of cavalry as one of the reasons for the Roman legions getting obsolete, and in turn causing the empire to crumble.
Yes, I read it too (I presume you mean A History of the English-Speaking Peoples), but not as a history book - rather I read it simply because of the man who wrote it. What we knew back then about the Romans, what Churchill knew back then, especially about the military, was so comparatively pathetically little that any source that old may as well be thrown out.

But yes, he had a point, the cavalry did shake the Roman arms quite violently. But it was not because cavalry was superior to infantry, but chiefly due to the failure of the Romans to adapt quickly enough. Infantry has suffered setbacks throughout history, but it has always been more useful than cavalry, if not as decisive. Cavalry won battles, but infantry did the actual fighting. Infantry was numerous. Compared to cavalry, it is incredibly cost-effective. Infantry was also a defensive force, which suited the Roman strategy in its later times. Sure, counter-attacks in a field battle are splendid, but against vastly numerically superior opponents, and in garrison duties, the defensive tactics prevailed.

And no, I will not go into the quicksands of the causes of the Empire's decline. All I can say about the role of military was that it was no longer the professional, well-led fighting force. Instead, it was... Well, it was rotten. It was a death-sentence, for all the recruits cared. So rotten that it was a customary practise to cut off one's thumbs simply to avoid military service. Yes, the thumbs, the opposable digits which are the entire reason we have useful hands, instead of merely a second set of feet or such. It was a great problem, which began about in the late fourth to fifth century CE, and continued on for a long time. Numerous emperors tried to deal with it, most in vain. Some of the laws they passed to combat this practise were the institution of the death penalty for thumb-cutters, but the most successful law was the requirement of a landlord to provide two recruits for every thumbless one.

[CountArach]

IIRC Italy isn't a very good area to breed horses. Too mountainous.

[Drag0nUL]

More seriously though, I think Rome did not have 'Roman' cavalry because when the Roman empire rose, armies were still infantry based. Cavalry gained popularity towards the end of the Roman empire.

I disagree with that. Almost every opponent Rome fought after defeating the neighbouring italian peoples (Phyrros, Carthage, Macedonia, Seleucids etc) had a strong cavalry force (storger than the roman cavalry anyway).