Historical question regarding Roman use of kataphraktoi and heavy cavalry

Something which puzzles me slightly is the fact that the Romans began to use Kataphraktoi long after they first encountered them. Supposedly, they were first deployed in the time of Hadrian and did not become common until the time of Gallenius. So I was wondering if anyone could offer insight in regard to the following:

Given that hellenistic states like the Seleucids and Bactria began to use Kataphraktoi after encountering them on the field of battle, why is it that the romans took so long to do the same? Did they ever attempt to deploy Hetairoi-style heavy cavalry? Did their allies ever provide either kind of cavalry?

When the rump Seleucid state was annexed by Pompeius, were there any hetairoi-style riders or kataphraktoi left with them?

Were there any abortive attempts to establish these kinds of units before Hadrian?

Well, I would assume that it took so long primarilaly due to the Roman distrust in cavalry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pharnakes

Well, I would assume that it took so long primarilaly due to the Roman distrust in cavalry.

---

no that's not true. the Romans used more cavalry on average in their armies than any successor state ever did. I can only point out once more (like i did so many times already) that people should not get fooled (this is not adressed at you Pharnakes, no offence here) by Roman army organisation.

Just because the legion had only 120 cavalry attached (for scouting and communication, not for combat) doesn't mean that there was no cavalry. Cavalry was provided by Roman subjects or allies but this was all planned and part of a system. it gets much clearer in the imperial period when we have a regular auxiliary force which IS Roman cavalry.


Anyways about the super heavy cavalry:

the Roman auxiliary cavalry was probably the best medium cavalry around at the time and they fulfilled their roles. On the germanic frontier heavy cavalry is rather useless. there were no big battles for a long time and it's better to have a quick cavalry.

Heavy cavalry is always at a loss against medium cavalry because they are slower and become sitting ducks (check Ammianus Marcellinus for example). so you need to protect your cavalry. The advantage of heavy cavalry is against lighter and medium infantry.

in the west there were no real battles or favourable ground to use cathaphracts (you have to kind of transport them to the battlefield with additional horses and stuff, and all that in a germanic forrest just to chase some robbers is not the best thing to do with them).

Only few foreign troops of this type were used like the Sarmatian cavalry used by Vespasian during the Jewish Revolt. They became more prominent during the "crisis" of the empire when there were more bigger battles on Roman ground again.

No offence taken.

I'm no historian.

:bow:

As I understood there weren't any hetairoi-class cavalry at Pompeius' time because he bribed the whole corps before/during he invaded...

I thought that was the Kataphraktoi that got bribed. Or maybe both?

Wasn't it Tigran the II that destroyed the Selceudics and conquered Antioch.

Apparently he did (though a few cities held out), but after Roman forces under Lucullus defeated both Mithridates and Tigranes in 69 BC a Seleucid kingdom under Antiochus XIII was restored. Then in 63 Pompeius made Syria a roman province and permanently ended Seleucid rule.

No, the Seleukid dynasty (the syrian one as there was two by this point) lost all power and the cities of syria looked to another kingdom to lend them aide in return for loyalty. Both Parthia and Pontos were unsuitable (the latter because it was involved in a war with Rome), so they chose the new power in the region, Hayasdan.

Foot

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by L.C.Cinna

no that's not true. the Romans used more cavalry on average in their armies than any successor state ever did. I can only point out once more (like i did so many times already) that people should not get fooled (this is not adressed at you Pharnakes, no offence here) by Roman army organisation.

Just because the legion had only 120 cavalry attached (for scouting and communication, not for combat) doesn't mean that there was no cavalry. Cavalry was provided by Roman subjects or allies but this was all planned and part of a system. it gets much clearer in the imperial period when we have a regular auxiliary force which IS Roman cavalry.


Anyways about the super heavy cavalry:

the Roman auxiliary cavalry was probably the best medium cavalry around at the time and they fulfilled their roles. On the germanic frontier heavy cavalry is rather useless. there were no big battles for a long time and it's better to have a quick cavalry.

Heavy cavalry is always at a loss against medium cavalry because they are slower and become sitting ducks (check Ammianus Marcellinus for example). so you need to protect your cavalry. The advantage of heavy cavalry is against lighter and medium infantry.

in the west there were no real battles or favourable ground to use cathaphracts (you have to kind of transport them to the battlefield with additional horses and stuff, and all that in a germanic forrest just to chase some robbers is not the best thing to do with them).

Only few foreign troops of this type were used like the Sarmatian cavalry used by Vespasian during the Jewish Revolt. They became more prominent during the "crisis" of the empire when there were more bigger battles on Roman ground again.

---

Excellent post. This is an often overlooked area of the imperial Roman army.

I even heard that the Equites in general were good cavalry . The problem was there was never enough of them compared to there enemies .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russia almighty

I even heard that the Equites in general were good cavalry . The problem was there was never enough of them compared to there enemies .

---

Equites were decent medium cavalry, not much different from the kind of Greek medium cavalry that are called Hippeis in EB. Campanian, Tarentine etc riders were used extensively by the Romans, not only because they were good medium or heavy cavalry, but also because, being the sons of the allied aristocracy, the Romans could use them as hostages when they were in Roman armies. During the Second Punic War, one of the conditions the Capuans put to their alliance with Hannibal was that the Carthaginians would give them captured Roman equites and other 'noble' prisoners they could exchange for their horsemen serving with the Roman army (who would otherwise have been arrested and probably executed). Also, Hannibal was able to enter Taras when some Tarentine soldier-hostages attempted to run away, but were caught and precipitated from the Tarpeian rock. After this, their families in Taras helped Hannibal and some of his elite soldiers sneak into the city by night, but the Romans managed to keep control of the citadel, although the Carthaginians and their local allies held the rest of the city for a couple of years.

agreed@CirdanDharix :yes:


another thing:

The reason for the small number of equites was that the members saw themselves as an exclusive aristocratic club. they did not want to have too many common people in their ranks even if they would have had the money to buy a horse.

Of course you need cavalry and so they got it from their allies, this way you get the young aristocrats from other towns to serve and be a kind of hostage, on the other hand you get enough cavalry but don't have to let them enter the club because they have no citizenship and are no danger to your special standing...

as time went on the Romans used more and more professional cavalry from her allies and the equites evolved into a purely social group. The last contingent of Equites appears in the Social Wars when (because of the obvious lack of former allies the Roman aristocrats had to fulfill this role again). After that they have no military role anymore and the allied contingents are changend into the standing auxiliary force under Augustus.

Yup, the Romans used more and more cavalry. The Second Punic War was probably a catalyst for this; when he had an advantage in cavalry, Hannibal was able to defeat armies far superior in numbers. When losses, difficulties in supplies and difficulties finding remounts had crippled his cavalry, then Hannibal found it very hard to face the Roman superiority in numbers. When he tried to move North to join with Hasdrubal in 207BCE, he had to avoid contact with the enemy because he couldn't defeat the Romans any longer (he actually lost two minor field battles, after which he went into "stealth mode"). At Zama, the numbers were roughly equal on either side (the Romans tend to claim they were outnumbered, but they seem to be inflating the size of the Carthaginian army) but Scipio had much more cavalry and, well, there's a reason he became known as Africanus.

The Romans appear to have drawn the obvious conclusion that having more cavalry than your enemy is a good thing.

EDIT: well, between the Social War and the Principate, Roman use of cavalry did decline somewhat. But Carrhae reminded them of just why they needed cavalry, and Augustus corrected this fault.