Ancient horse sizes

Maybe this issue has been already discussed much earlier, but I haven't found the thread. So, I woud like to point up that western european horses since the origins of cavalry up until the first Century AD were smaller than the horses we are used to see in modern times :charge: . AFAIK during Roman republic and early Empire western european horses were slightly bigger than ponnies, and only few races (cantabrian, numidian) could match eastern scithyan, sarmatian or parthian cavalry. Will the EB mod take this into consideration? Will, for instance, the first Roman Equites of the fourth, third or second Century BC ride smaller horses than a legionary cavalryman of the second Century AD? :bow:

Yes we are aware and considering some variation in the size of horses shown in the game. Not that we are going to have cavalrymen from II AD, though. Also my undestanding is that Numidian horses were actually quite pony-like in size... Similarly, most Scythian horses were typically pony-sized too, though, according to the remains in tombs they seem to have had three breeds which differed in size and one of those was in fact larger (e.g. some horses from the Pazyryk tombs)

The Asturian -not Cantabrian- breed of horses, the Celdones or Asturcones, mostly extinct -although they try hard to resurrect them- were not big, but small agile animals, as Pliny stated.

To know more about it:

http://www.arrakis.es/~el-corru/

http://www.arrakis.es/~el-corru/astur08.jpg

Steppe horses were smaller than normal horses, and some of the western horses were related, or at at least similar (German ponies). However, larger breeds were bred with steppe ponies (Persian breeds, etc.) to take the best traits of the steppe pony while allowing it to carry greater weight, or be faster, or what have you.
Besides, if you want to look at good horse breeding, don't look at Romans. ~;)

I´d like to post some numbers to give a better imagination of ancient horses compared here. based on aerchological findings the average roman (imperial) horse (in europe) was around 1,35 m to 1,45m in height. Celtic horses found in southern germany have had an averahe height of 120-135m.

I don`t see why roman breeds should be generally inferior.

Because Romans frankly didn't know jack about horses. All of their semi decent auxiliry were from Celts at the beggining. They just didn't get horses. I don't know why, but they didn't.

Oh that are only prejudices,like in most pre industrilized societys the horse was very important and an high prestige animal for the romans. Especially for the ordo equester, the second highest class in roman society, whose members were the original roman army. Every July in the transvectio equitum they paraded proudfully through rome with their horses to remember the roman victory in the battle at lake regillus 499Bc. The youth of the roman nobility was organised in the paramilitary iuventus organistions where they early learned riding.
Horse breeding was seen as a kind of systematic science and also of high prestige, espicially the breed of racing horses. Many rich roman landowners, like Caesar breed horses.

The disappaerence of the roman citizen cavalry in the first century BC had little to do with their postulated inferiority. The equites of the republic all had to be members of the ordo equester. As the empire growed their limited number was absorbed by an increasing amount of officer posts.
Forming new citizen cavalry units would mean to take some of their privelleges away from them and bring more disorder to the already chaotic 1st cntury BC in rome. Since celtic, numidian etc. cavalry was avaible their was need for native cavalry.

I'd have to disagree. Steppe horses were far superior, though ugly. And the Celts were far better riders than Romans, at least the nobles. The Romans obviously couldn't ride, otherwise cavalry would hold a more important part. They could rarely knew how to even use good horsmen from Gaul and other places.

I`ve neither said that roman horses were superior to steppe horses nor that celts were poor cavalrymen. Horses in the mediteraenean had been breed with different aims and nomad steppe horses for sure had many advantages, but not all.

During the republic the equites cavalry force was limited in numbers by their social, so cavalry could impossible play an as important part than in some other armys.
Cavalry was a very important part of the imperial army. As soon as a professional cavalry arm was created the percentage of horsemen rised. From 10% under Augustus to ~25% in the late 1st and 2nd centurys Ad to even higher rates in the army of the late empire.
Good generals like Caesar or Germanicus made excellent use of their cavalry, which often was decicively. Even during the republic in battles like Telamon, Zama, Magnesia...
Generally imperial roman commanders had great trust in their cavalry.
In the first jewish war Vespasianus ordered dismounted horsemen to fight as first wave in the assault on Jotappa instead of the legionaires. His son titus always fought a mounted bodyguard even in Temple courts in Jerusalem. During the 69ad civil war vespasianus general Antonius Primus planned to attack Vittelius legions in italy only with his 16 alae and some light auxilia. Etc.

The soldiers of the fully romanized professional auxilia units of the late 1st and 2nd+ centurys Ad had an excellent training for many years. These units were definetly much better than semi decent.

Weren't most of those horsmen non Romans however? And I agree, the class system weakened them, and was foolish. And I assumed that the auxilaries would provide their own horses...

Quote:

---

In the first jewish war Vespasianus ordered dismounted horsemen to fight as first wave in the assault on Jotappa instead of the legionaires

---

What's the point of dismounted horsemen? ~;)

The original auxilia of the 1st century Bc, that fought with Caesar, Crassus etc. consisted of contigents of allied States/tribes or hired warriors. these men brought their own equippment horse with them. Sometimes they fought under their own leader sometimes commanded by roman officers.

During augustus reign the romans begun to make the auxilia a professional part of the roman army. Probably it was recognized that the legions especially needed a high quality cavalry arm on their side to be fully effective, perhaps the now more stable times allowed it to reform the army to be able to defend the now united empire.
The old irregular units were now organized in a roman manner with roman officers and a more uniform equippmemnt, which was supplied by the state like in the legions. Since celts made the bulk of the pre and early imperial cavalry their influence stayed dominant. when Flavius Arrianus desribed the training of the roman cavalry during emperor Hadrains times, he mentioned that many special terms are of celtic and iberian origin.
This transformation lasted at least until the middst of the 1st century Ad, the native auxilia did not dissaper over night. They started with the cavalry units in the last decades BC while professional infantry auxilia appeared during the rule of the later julian claudian emperors.

The question were non romans or not depends on how you define "a roman", since the romans were not closed ethnic group like germans, celts or greeks. Espically during the empire Citizenship was given freely to the provincial upper class if they prooved loyal. Ordinary people could earn it by serving in the military. Arminus who destroyed Varus legions at Teutoburg was also given citizenship earlier, so technicly he was a "roman" as well.
One remarkabel speech of Emperor Claudius has survived where he praises the integration of other people into the roman state. ( Tacitus Annales Book 11 chapteer 24 http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/ta...sAnnals11.html )

This units consited mainly of peregrines. Free inhabitants of the roman empire without full citizenship. After ~25 years of service they received citizehship as reward. Single soldiers or whole units could be rewarded with the citizenship earlier for extraordinary performance, so that they became technically roman. But a roman citizen could also join a cavalry unit if he prefers this service to the legions. Many units were staioned on fixed locations for more than hundred years. The veterans settled around the garrison and their children often also joined their former units, increasing the number of real roman citizens in the auxilia.

The ethnicity of the soldiers of auxilia units changed and that`s why i don`t see the origin of the soldiers as important.
For example the "cohors I Flavia Damascenorum millaria equitata sagittariorum" a mixed foot/horse archer unit. The name shows that it was originally raised in syria under the flavians. Shortly after it`s foundation it was moved to the a newly occupied part of germania where it stayed for 170 years. Here it begun to recruit locals as replacement and after some decades no syrian was left. So if if a free roman provincial of germanic or celtic origins could join a unit to became a archer or horse archer it`s really important what his ethnicity was.


And the point of the dismounted horsemen: I was rether surprised when I read this in Josephus Flavius Jewish War. Vespasianius must has had great confidence in their combat skill to place them in the front rank. Josephus mentioned that they were armoured from the head to the feet but generally scutum equipped legionaires should be better suitted as assault infantry.


Horse were trained by the army in special training centers before they were supplied to combat units.
As example the roman castra at Baginton near coventry (the lunt fort), with it`s many stables, the gyrus and only a few barracks, is seen a training facility for combat horses.

https://img214.imageshack.us/img214/240/lunt0be.jpg

Quote:

---

The ethnicity of the soldiers of auxilia units changed and that`s why i don`t see the origin of the soldiers as important.

---

Well, for example Sarmatians and the later Huns were certaintly the best horsemen of the time, and would be better than any other ethnicity. Especially since they influenced the evauntaul Roman heavy cavalry so much...

Their way of life as nomads in the steppes made them great horsemen, not their genom. It`s all a question of the quality and quantity of training not of birth. Give a roman baby to a sarmatian family and it will most likely become a formidable horsemen as well.

As soon as somebody joined the profesional roman army his life changed completly and beginning with this moment the military with it´s own rules determined over him and his daily routine.
Of course it was an advantage if new recruits already had some of the necessary capabilitys for their new duty but after several years of common training all soldiers should have had approximatly the same quality, despite their original culture.