Historical sources and suggestions

OK guys, here is an interesting tidbit about the German tribes:

"The average German soldier of the first century AD was not well equipped. He carried a rudimentary shield and was considered well dressed if he went into battle wearing trousers (and in fact, for those who did not own armour, fighting naked was the better option. In an age before antibiotics, many soldiers died of infection from dirty clothing forced into their wounds.) Swords were carried only by the elite, and horsemen were even rarer. THe average warrior fought on foot using a framea, a long spear which sometimes had simply a sharpened wooden tip.

The Roman historian Tactius puts this description of German military prowess into the mouth of the general Germanicus:

"The German has neither cuirass nor helmet. His shield is simply woven branches or a thin, painted board without reinforcement of either leather or steel. The first line may have spears, but the rest have cruder weapons. Though their bodies are frighteningly large, and though they are formidable in their first assault, they can't endure it when they are wounded. If there is a disaster they forget divine or human commands and run from the field without paying the slightest attention to their leaders, and nor do they feel disgraced for having done so.

Tactius Annals 2.14"

Quote from "The Enemies of Rome - From Hannibal to Attila the Hun" Philip Matyszak, Thames & Hudson

Further in this chapter is explained that the Germans were not an agricultural society like the Gauls, nor were they skilled metal workers and masons like them. In fact, they despised agriculture and ate meat, cheese and milk - according to Caesar at least. Also according to him they left vast parts of their lands untamed and felt pride in that.

Emperor Tiberus later discovered that there was nothing to be taken from the Germans as they lacked cities, only having sacred groves and a few pastures. How is the rather high overall defence of the basic Sweboz spearman justified? Overall though the faction is portrayed greatly, especially the starting position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

How is the rather high overall defence of the basic Sweboz spearman justified?

---

Hunting, broken ground, raiding and light clothing for all their life doesn't make them "sitting ducks" so to speak...

I wouldn't trust Matyszak as far as you can throw him. Not an agricultural society? Sure the Germanic areas adopted agriculture at a later date than the areas we associate with the Celtic languages but as early as the Ertebolle period in Jutland we have the basis of a pre-Neolithic. The Germans were certainly agriculturalists, there is not doubt about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

Further in this chapter is explained that the Germans were not an agricultural society like the Gauls, nor were they skilled metal workers and masons like them. In fact, they despised agriculture and ate meat, cheese and milk - according to Caesar at least. Also according to him they left vast parts of their lands untamed and felt pride in that.

---

This most likely a misinterpretation: Germany in Ancient times was heavily wooded, and most of what is now used as agricultural lands, or even inhabitated areas, was land cleared in the Middle Ages (hence the many place names in Germany ending on "rode" or "brand").

Dense woods are rather unsuitable for mass herding, that rather would require vast plains. As such it would have been impossible for the Ancient Germans to live of meat and cheese by ignoring farming. But the places suitable for farming were few and small, unsuited to feed larger populations on a single spot. Corp rotation most likely was unknown in Ancient Germany and introduced north of the Alps by the Romans.

So the people of Germany used shifting cultivation, that is they settled and cultivated a certain spot for some time, and when the fields became exhausted they packed their things and moved to the next spot suitable for agriculture. This too prevented from the establishment of urban centres, in fact from the development of any larger settlements at all. It also gave those people a half-nomadic touch, despite being farmers first of all.

Traces of this system can still be found in the Middle Ages: a Medievale Gau (an administrative divison of the kingdom, usually translated as "county") not was a certain geographical part of the land but a certain group of villages, as if these villages were to be expected to change their location from time to time.

The combination of comparably primitive methods of agriculture with a tendency to move the entire population in regular intervalls might have given the Romans the impression that the Germans were a rather nomadic people, and as such peferably living of meat and cheese instead of wheat. Not to forget that the Roman presence inside Germany only was shortlived and otherwise they encountered the Germans first of all as wandering armies, if not outright migrations (which frequencies no longer come surprising taking the above into account).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

OK guys, here is an interesting tidbit about the German tribes:
[...]

---

Please make sure to apply some source criticism before drawing conclusions. The accounts of Caesar and even those of Roman chroniclers do not in any way accurately reflect the actual situation. Caesar's "Gallic War" was AFAIK primarily a written justification of his unprovoked meddling with foreign peoples, and a defence against inner-Roman criticism. As such, he exaggerates stuff and also affirms the stereotypical image that his contemporaries had of the far north. The intention of chroniclers, meanwhile, usually was to highlight the vices of their own countrymen by confronting them with idealized and/or stereotypical "Barbarians" whose culture supposedly was very rustic but also still "vital and un-spoiled", so to speak (and sometimes they were probably just trolling, like Ktesias).

Also, agriculture has been practiced in Central Europe since the Late Neolithic. So yeah.

Another thing,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

"The German has neither cuirass nor helmet. His shield is simply woven branches or a thin, painted board without reinforcement of either leather or steel. The first line may have spears, but the rest have cruder weapons. Though their bodies are frighteningly large, and though they are formidable in their first assault, they can't endure it when they are wounded. If there is a disaster they forget divine or human commands and run from the field without paying the slightest attention to their leaders, and nor do they feel disgraced for having done so.

---

This most likely is a over-simplification or exaggeration too. It is undoubtly that the average German would not had possesed any metal armor, a sword or any other weapon that would have required lots of iron. But the average German was a farmer not a warrior. He would certainly have had some weapons at home, and would certainly had known how to use them - but with the same certainy we can assume those weapons to have been of a very primitive quality. So, the common German peasant would have had only limited access to iron works. The reason would have been the lacking of urban centres that could have function as centres for craftmanship, as well as the lack of raw iron at all (the Celts were sitting on most of the spots that had iron in northern Europe).

On the other hand we are talking about a people that were military at least on par with the Celts, in their times undoubtly the best smiths in Europe, and that valued smith works high enough to give their swords individual names. So there must have been a group or class in that society that had been able to afford better weapons than simple spears, and that was large enough to do most of the fighting. That would have been the nobles and the retinues, small "private" armies of professional warriors that, from one source or the other, did indeed had access to proper armor and arms.

I would consider the idea of levied peasant armies in Ancient Germany rather an impossibility because that would have required a higher degree of organization than can be attested for those early tribal-"states". Something like that would have come into the sphere of possibility with the Migration Periode, even though I think those kingdoms developed around (now very powerfull) warbands and their leaders too.

That way the armies of the old, such as those commanded by Ariovist or those that had fought under Ariminus at Teuteburg, would rather have been formed as alliances of warbands. As such they would indeed have proper arms and armor, nothing of a seriously poorer quality then the Celts had (whom the Romans protrait as a bunch of half-naked savages too, BTW).

On the other hand, when the Romans made their raids into Germany they hardly did face any form of organized military resitance but rather "local militias", formed on the spot out of whom ever was at hand and equipped in the described extremly poor manner. In those armies indeed we would only find a very small number of men with decent weapons (probably the retinue of a local chief), while the bulk would have been rather pathetical - no match for the Romans with their Celt armor and Spanish swords.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

Another thing,


This most likely is a over-simplification or exaggeration too. It is undoubtly that the average German would not had possesed any metal armor, a sword or any other weapon that would have required lots of iron. But the average German was a farmer not a warrior. He would certainly have had some weapons at home, and would certainly had known how to use them - but with the same certainy we can assume those weapons to have been of a very primitive quality. So, the common German peasant would have had only limited access to iron works. The reason would have been the lacking of urban centres that could have function as centres for craftmanship, as well as the lack of raw iron at all (the Celts were sitting on most of the spots that had iron in northern Europe).

On the other hand we are talking about a people that were military at least on par with the Celts, in their times undoubtly the best smiths in Europe, and that valued smith works high enough to give their swords individual names. So there must have been a group or class in that society that had been able to afford better weapons than simple spears, and that was large enough to do most of the fighting. That would have been the nobles and the retinues, small "private" armies of professional warriors that, from one source or the other, did indeed had access to proper armor and arms.

I would consider the idea of levied peasant armies in Ancient Germany rather an impossibility because that would have required a higher degree of organization than can be attested for those early tribal-"states". Something like that would have come into the sphere of possibility with the Migration Periode, even though I think those kingdoms developed around (now very powerfull) warbands and their leaders too.

That way the armies of the old, such as those commanded by Ariovist or those that had fought under Ariminus at Teuteburg, would rather have been formed as alliances of warbands. As such they would indeed have proper arms and armor, nothing of a seriously poorer quality then the Celts had (whom the Romans protrait as a bunch of half-naked savages too, BTW).

On the other hand, when the Romans made their raids into Germany they hardly did face any form of organized military resitance but rather "local militias", formed on the spot out of whom ever was at hand and equipped in the described extremly poor manner. In those armies indeed we would only find a very small number of men with decent weapons (probably the retinue of a local chief), while the bulk would have been rather pathetical - no match for the Romans with their Celt armor and Spanish swords.

---

Might that have been why the romans weren't able to stop the germans in the 5th century AD? They underestimated the germans?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickinator9

Might that have been why the romans weren't able to stop the germans in the 5th century AD? They underestimated the germans?

---

The germanic tribes were the late roman army XD
As good Romans (lol) they hailed their own generals with imperium basically :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickinator9

Might that have been why the romans weren't able to stop the germans in the 5th century AD? They underestimated the germans?

---

There are many reasons for that. AFAIK a population increase in Germania and other regions bordering the Roman Empire that put more pressure on the borders, internal social issues and strife (both political and religious), increasing decadence in Rome proper, mass migrations that were part of a larger population shift encompassing most of Europe and Northern Asia, and so on. The Romans tried to handle these problems and they succeeded in Romanizing quite a few Germanic tribes, but in the end it was too much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rickinator9

Might that have been why the romans weren't able to stop the germans in the 5th century AD? They underestimated the germans?

---

The Germans of the Migration Periode certainly had improved a lot. That's the result of centuries of intense contact with the Romans, even for those that lived far away from the Rhine. After having given up the idea of conquering Germany the Romans started supporting certain warlords with arms and money. These in return became powerfull enough to subdue other chiefs that way, becoming even more powerful, the Franks would be a good example.

Adding what Arjos said, that the Roman army of the late periode was in large parts composed of German mercenaries itself, we would not have much difference between a Roman army, a Frankish or one of Goths. In fact in many occasion, like Catalaunian Plains, "Roman" battles in the late peropde rather were battles between oposing German groups ("tribes" would have been the wrong term to describe the new kingdoms).

But that of course was four centuries after Ariovist or Arminius. Neverthless I think it is fair to assume that there had been a larger group of professional warriors in Germany, and those certainly would not have been satisfied with primitive shields and simple spears, weapons that would had given them no advantage over the common peasant - and weapons with which they better not had dared to show up in Gaul.

On the other hand, there is absolutly no hint that the Romans underestimated the Germans: the first time they encountered those people some 20,000 Romans went down in Noreia, the second time a good 80,000 Romans were butchered at Arausio. That war the Romans only won by producing a military genius and overthrowing their entire material consitution (what in the long run meant they had to sacrifice the republic to get past the crisis).

Next time they encountered Germans was when Ariovist was mopping up the Gauls and in the process of establishing a German kingdom in France. And then there was Teutoburg, a battle what caused nothing but sheer panic in Rome and resulted in a campaign of not less than 1/3 of the Roman in Germany - without any result...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

German groups ("tribes" would have been the wrong term to describe the new kingdoms).

---

Well, they were more confederacies of tribes, than kingdoms (at least before dynasties gained supremacy): successions were still influenced by prestige and power, rather than birth rights alone...
For example I recall Aetius urging Thorismund to secure his claim, still he did it to remove the latter, but that the Frank would listen, gives some hint...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

there is absolutly no hint that the Romans underestimated the Germans ... the second time a good 80,000 Romans were butchered at Arausio.

---

The two generals did squabble among themselves, imo, there are even too many episodes of Romani underestimating their opponents and Arausio was one...
Even though, so spoke Plutarch and he loved tales :P

Well you could say one reason for the fall of the Roman empire was that they underestimated the Germanics, tho not their soldiers, as they knoew those perfectly well as theirs were identical but their Chieftains. And don't get me wrong I don't think these "kings" were particulary clever and the Romans underestimated that, they rather underestimated The chiefs in that way that they did not expect them to turn against them^^.

Interesting information, thanks guys. I've found some faults of my own with this book. Like the author using the modern terms "broadsword' and "chainmail" which I so detest. But that's probably done so the book is more accessible to your average DnD geek who likes swords. But then again he didn't manage to squeeze in the ultimate sword (the katana if you don't know) so maybe not all the geeks would like it.

Truth be told, in the section on Vercigentorix he does give tremendous credit to the German cavalry. Usually the German cav mercs employed by Caesar would smash the Gaulic cavalry, or so he says. Naturally these horsemen did not fight with sharpened sticks nor did they sit butt-naked on their mounts.

I was mainly surprised at Caesar's report that the Germans "despised agriculture". True, we must be sceptical of his writings as historical facts, hence me asking. I fired up EB just to check the Sweboz starting position and I sat there, drooling at the sound of that awesome horn blowing over the dense woods of northern Europe. Truly a great mod this is!

BTW i have some more questions that have always plagued me and I could never find specific information on these:

- What of Scandinavia during these times? Who inhabited it? Did the Romans even know it was there?

- How do the tribes of Europe turn from Gauls/Germanians/Vandals/Visgoths/Ostrogoths etc. into the Frankish Kingdom, the Lombards and all the other dark age Kingdoms that lead up to Charlemagne's Euorpe and the start of the middle-ages? What prompted the shift from tribe>chieftan to kingdom>king? How did it happen?

- What accounts do we have of where these tribes came from and when? Celts and Germans mostly, I know about Thrace/Illyria and for Rome we have myths intertwined with history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

There are many reasons for that. AFAIK a population increase in Germania and other regions bordering the Roman Empire that put more pressure on the borders, internal social issues and strife (both political and religious), increasing decadence in Rome proper, mass migrations that were part of a larger population shift encompassing most of Europe and Northern Asia, and so on. The Romans tried to handle these problems and they succeeded in Romanizing quite a few Germanic tribes, but in the end it was too much.

---

There is no real evidence for the assumed "population pressure" in Germany across the Rhine. "Decadence" doesn't explain anything; a society's morals have little to do with whether a given state is militarily powerful or not. And the so-called "Migration Period" is a misnomer; the fifth century did not feature a substantially greater amount of movement of peoples than did certain previous centuries, and probably involved less migration in Europe than did the first century AD. While migratory activity happened, it was less relevant to the demise of the Roman Empire in the West than other factors, chiefly the Romans' series of systemic civil wars between the imperial government and Gallic interests that effectively destroyed the Roman military as an effective fighting force and promoted the rise of alternative areas of legitimacy to the Ravenna government.

Arjos had it basically correct. The Roman army was the real genesis of these so-called barbarian tribes, e.g. the Franks, Goths, Sciri that "settled" on Roman soil and established independent states. Not because the Roman army was comprised of "barbarians" who decided to put the woad back on and start speaking Celtic (or Gothic, or whatever) as soon as the Roman Emperors started getting weaker - the number of "barbarians" in the later Roman army has always been hotly contested, is nearly impossible to know, and is furthermore a largely irrelevant question. Ethnicity was not determined based on ancestry. The Franks of Clovis weren't Franks because they were descended from tribes that had lived outside the Empire, they were Franks because they were soldiers in the Roman army on the Loire River and chose to identify as a Frankish constructed ethnicity when the Roman Emperors ceased to be relevant in Gaul as simply the last and most obvious step in the progressive segregation of the Roman army and its identity from Roman civil society. The Goths of Alareiks weren't Goths because they had crossed into the Balkans with the Tervingi and Greuthungi; they can't have been, because it would be numerically impossible. They were Goths because they served in Alareiks' army units and supported his bid for increased authority in the Roman army in general and in Honorius' government in particular. And so on, and so forth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Constantius III

"Decadence" doesn't explain anything;

---

Sure it does. There is perceived "decadence", like when a radical monotheist group looks at a Polytheist or Atheist society and claims that it is decadent, despite that particular group arguably being more so. and then there's real, obvious decadence. Such as in a people (or rather, a relevant percentage thereof) not working hard for its own goals, but expecting a comfortable life nevertheless. Such as establishing oligarchies and/or hereditary systems instead of a meritocracy. And so on.
NB: these are general remarks and don't specifically target Roman history.

Quote:

---

a society's morals have little to do with whether a given state is militarily powerful or not.

---

They don't and that isn't what I was implying. However all military power in the world is useless if you're unwilling, or unable, to wield it. That is the gist of my remark.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by athanaric

However all military power in the world is useless if you're unwilling, or unable, to wield it. That is the gist of my remark.

---

So despite perceived american decadence they are still willing to wield that might. Got a few more years left then.

On a related note, I have to say that I agree with that idea athanaric. Rome had been top dog long enough for its people to expect to remain top dog. If I understand correctly, by decadent, you don't mean the large scale orgies or excessive drinking but more a corruption of the drive and motivation of the people that led to their downfall. This seems fairly evident in regards to the civil wars and politicking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

- What of Scandinavia during these times? Who inhabited it? Did the Romans even know it was there?

---

Romans were aware of Scandia, they thought it was an island iirc...
They knew about Danes and Sami people, and all in between...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

- How do the tribes of Europe turn from Gauls/Germanians/Vandals/Visgoths/Ostrogoths etc. into the Frankish Kingdom, the Lombards and all the other dark age Kingdoms that lead up to Charlemagne's Euorpe and the start of the middle-ages? What prompted the shift from tribe>chieftan to kingdom>king? How did it happen?

---

Starting as Foederati, the Franks eventually conquered the area with the merovingian dynasty centralizing power, becoming monarchs...
The Lombards, who were raiding and migrating in central Europe, pressed by the Avars, descended into Italy, which the Byzantines just recovered and couldn't stop them...

It was a rather natural transition, over the roman institutions...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myth

- What accounts do we have of where these tribes came from and when? Celts and Germans mostly

---

There isn't a real distinction between celtic and germanic tribes, was more of Caesar's political needs...
Central Europe has continuity from the Bronze Age more or less...
The Hallstatt Princedoms grew and developed the eastern celtic groups, while in the Marne and Moselle basins the western groups came to be...
All were due to local centralization and control of mineral resources, plus contacts with mediterranean trading powers...

The iberian peninsula had a similar development, there were pre-celtic and celtic groups that intermingled and were, like their alpine cousins, influenced by trade with Greeks and Phoenicians...

With the formation of the Limes Germanicus, contacts with the roman empire and influx from Scandinavia, germanic ethnicities became distinctive...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blxz

This seems fairly evident in regards to the civil wars and politicking.

---

One could say how civil wars and politicking were the roman apogee...
Imo in the case of the roman empire, wasn't unwillingness, but really inability: germanic and iranic groups, simply took government in their hands, instead of being subordinates and who can blame them, they were doing the killing and the dying :P
Romani in the west, by then had no local army basically and couldn't do anything...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arjos

Well, they were more confederacies of tribes, than kingdoms (at least before dynasties gained supremacy): successions were still influenced by prestige and power, rather than birth rights alone...

---

Election in fact was the only legal way of assuming the crown under German law: Even the German kings of the Mediavel dynasties officially all were elected, and be it in craddle at the father's swordpoint or by just a handfull of their own vassals. I take that as an echo of the Ancient days when "kings" not were rulers over their tribe but elected commanders of an army; that's in particular true for the western Germans.

I would see that as the way the Migration Periode "kingdoms" developed: as confederation of warbands, not tribes, electing the biggest fish as their king-commander. This does by itself lead to hereditary succession after some time as long as the most powerfull family is able to produce at least a half-way competent heir.

Quote:

---

The two generals did squabble among themselves

---

excuses, excuses.... ;)

Of course, the Roman army of that periode still was a militia force commanded by politians and burocracts; not much surprisingly that did often enough got a serious beating by all kinds of opponents. Hannibal's army BTW also had a large barbarian element with its Spanish cavalry and Celtic infantry.

On the other hand the professional Legions didn't fare seriously better when it came to fighting Germans. As long as we don't consider the Ancient Germans as somewhat superhuman, we must assume that an army emerging from the German woods was equipped much better than the popular image of them was (and is). And because we know that the common German was piss-poor and could at best dream of an iron helmet, to me, the most logical explanation would be that there was a considerable warrior class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by konny

we must assume that an army emerging from the German woods was equipped much better than the popular image of them was (and is). And because we know that the common German was piss-poor and could at best dream of an iron helmet, to me, the most logical explanation would be that there was a considerable warrior class.

---

Oh absolutely, far from me to dimish them...
I was just saying that Arausio was such a sounding defeat, because Caepio took the Teutones, Cimbri and Keltoi for ragtag fools, plus Boiorix and Theudobod were experienced warleaders...

Actually I think it's quite clear how esteemed were Iberians, Celts and Germanics warriors, all looked for hire by rich settled civilizations...
I think that Romani, especially emperors, often had a retinue of germanic guards, praising their fanatical loyalty...

One thing has always intrigued me tho, aside from their loyality was there anything else outstanding about the Germanic cavalry, sure if you train them from child on and give them godd equipment there bound to become at least ample warriors which explains why they fared so good later on, but what drove the romans to adopt germanic cavalry in the first place? Afaik pre-roman germanic cavalry was just slightly better than roman equites^^ and by no means superior to Numidian, Cantabrian, Tessalian, Gaulish, Tracian or Sarmatian Equivalents, yet eventho the romans used all of them, the Germanic ones seem to have become their favorite ones. Now I'm asking was it "only" the loyality, something I could hardly imagine as those trained in germania would hardly be so loyal to rome and those trained in rome could just aswell be Skythians or ... Britons, OR were there other qualities of the Germanics as a cavalry force that made them superior to aforementioned, OR was German Cavalry just a term used for cavalry that was recruited from vassals (as the germanic kingdoms could be described) fighting in a special manner/role independant of ethnicity( like German style Infantry in early modern Poland)

btw and I know the thing about Emperors preffering forein BGs as these would not side with the populance(thus the romans) and would not dream of killing the guy who protects their asses from the mob^^ yet this would also be true for sarmatians or any other not so welcome group of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

what drove the romans to adopt germanic cavalry in the first place?

---

As cavalry corps, they were quite below average (in charging and using lances), what they excelled in was close quarters melee...
In that regard they outclassed the noble gallic cavalry, which was armed with slashing swords, that required momentum...

In a way ancient germanic cavalrymen, were mounted skirmishers or mounted infantry...
They didn't have a tradition of horsebreeding or cavalry warfare...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

this would also be true for sarmatians or any other not so welcome group of people.

---

Yes, it isn't related to nationality, but culture...
It is from those tribal traditions, that you have men in total devotion to their chief, these men would find dishonourable/diminishing to outlive their chief...

In mediterranean settled civilizations, you see similarities only in highly militaristic states, training from childhood...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ca Putt

One thing has always intrigued me tho, aside from their loyality was there anything else outstanding about the Germanic cavalry, sure if you train them from child on and give them godd equipment there bound to become at least ample warriors which explains why they fared so good later on, but what drove the romans to adopt germanic cavalry in the first place? Afaik pre-roman germanic cavalry was just slightly better than roman equites^^ and by no means superior to Numidian, Cantabrian, Tessalian, Gaulish, Tracian or Sarmatian Equivalents, yet eventho the romans used all of them, the Germanic ones seem to have become their favorite ones.

---

Caesar considered German cavalry superior to Celtic one. One thing probably was that those guys seemed to have been simply crazy, charging headlong into everything in their way, no matter what odds or proper military judgement dictated, and that way surprising and throwing off balance much more disciplined troops.

Another thing was that at least some of them fought as "double-riders", means they fought intermixed with infantry by having two men sitting on a horse of which one dismounted for combat. Then we shouldn't forget that the Celts most likely already feared German cavalry before Caesar started employing them (what would have required that the German horse had acquired a certain reputation before one way or the other, of course).

Caesar then started a tradition of emplyoing Germans as core of his cavalry. Giving that the Ancients were more less or racists when it came to raise armies, in the way that they assumed that certain people (by birth!) made better soldiers in this or that role, we have the story of the fabolous German cavalry in Antiquity.

On the other hand, the German horsemen in Roman service were absolutly nothing special by themselves and were frequently outclassed by true experts in that trade, such as the Parthians, Samartians etcpp.