Printable View
Ok, well maybe the horses were better used for transporting goods instead of fighting. Maybe they were too much of a hassle to have while marching. It's also possible they didn't have enough food for the horses. Maybe not too many knew how to ride horses well. After all, they didn't have saddles and that would have hurt.:embarassed:Quote:
I merely wanted to discuss reasons for the lack of cavalry in Greek/Roman armies.
They had no need to have much in the way of cavalry. The fighting between the Greeks was mostly phalanxes with some cavalry, which wasn't bad itself (how bad can any soldier trained in Sparta be?), but no need for cavalry presented itself. The Greeks fought other Greeks with mainly infantry, and hoplites were superb in defence, and all they had to do when Persia attacked was defend really. Romans were heavily influenced by the Greeks, and they only had to fight the other Italians for a very long time, so cavalry was not required. When it was obvious that they needed cavalry to defeat other cultures' armies, they simply incorporated auxiliary troops (such as the Sarmatian cavalry).
They both lived in largely lowlands as well, which was perfect for infantry battles. The coast had less in the way of pastures, and early Roman/Greek armies were citizen armies. The citizens were mostly farmers, merchants and craftsmen, less of them needing to be hunters, and less of a need for horseback riding, as travelling by sea was so much faster. It was much simpler for the citizens to just be infantrymen, with their tradition of fighting as infantry. An obvious point to bring up is a cost as well. Citizens had to provide their own equipment, and for cavalrymen this included having to provide their own horses, limiting the cavalry to the upper classes.
Greece isn't exactly flat, you know. The geography seems pretty uneven to me, which would actually normally suggest the developement of a more light-infantry based system. The reasons why the Greeks largely went the way of rather clumsy heavy infantry are apparently somewhat complicated, and largely related to the socioeconomic peculiarities of the peninsula (plus the fact the Spartans were the only actually professional soldiers as far as the hoplites went - as the hoplite tactics essentially consisted of a stand-up slugging match between infantry lines they were easy to master for the "sunday soldiers" the main hoplite militias consisted of; light infantry and cavalry techniques, if they were to be really effective, would've required much more time and effort). Solid heavy infantry with spears are also very cavalry-resistant, further diluting the potential of the mounted arm. The same more or less went for the Romans, who initially took to Greek-style hoplite tactics with gusto. Having to deal with the more mobile Samnites in their highlands forced the adoption of more flexible infantry system, but much the same conditions which stunted the cavalry arm persisted (although the Romans seem to have had a rather more developed light-infantry tradition from quite early on). 'Course, having to deal with both the Gauls to the north and the Carthaginians and their very diverse mercenary armies did its part in fostering flexibility.
For comparision the Macedonians were forced to develop both the mounted and the heavy-infantry arm. They needed the heavy footmen to deal with the infantry of the south, and the cavalry to catch the nimble barbarians of the north who often raided their lands (and had some quite decent cavalry themselves, for that matter). I've read that the pike was developed partly out of the necessity of giving their comparatively moribund (given the quasi-feudal system of the kingdom) infantry an edge in dealing with the elan of the hoplites of the southern city-states, but dunno about that.
Oh, also, with their transporting armies back and forth to Sicily, Asia Minor and all, it wouldn't have been easy to carry a horse for every man on board.
True. That would give an excuse for overseas fighting, but it's not a reason for why they didn't have much on their home lands.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Actually the reason I have understood for the Greek 'invention' of dense heavy infantry is rather simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
At the time the hoplite came into being the Greeks were finally returning to proper farming again, after centuries of pasturalism (of which poems mention the warstyle of raiding which fits that). This also coincided with the decline of the landed nobility, and the rise of free farmers.
To the farmer his land was his life... of course it was.
So if this farmer was going to fight he was going to defend his land or try to get more land, or just GET land. Thus there would hardly be any reason to fight in the hills as they were not very fertile (hence no farming). And as such there would not be much reason for light infantry, but very much reason for heavy infantry (heavy infantry dominates open landscapes, light dominates broken landscape).
So the Greeks learned to defend their land and did this most sensible way.
Also farmers are very much inclined to seek protection rather than lethality. They would rather survive than kill an enemy, unlike many more barbarian tribes. This makes for the heavy protection early hoplites had, with not only the aspis, helmet and bellcuirass, but also greaves, armprotectors, footprotectors, thighprotectors, forearmprotectors and so on. It could get rather silly. But if the battle was even halfway ritual such equipment would mean a great deal of protection for the hoplite. Of course when the battles became more cynical and brutal such equipment would be too heavy.
Heavy infantry facing decent light infantry was often pretty screwed, though. The lighties can hurt them with their slings and javelins and arrows and whatnot, and there's damn little they can do in return except to try and get stuck in close. Well, that worked against the Persians - probably because they mainly used rather static missile troops that did not give way - but apparently rather less so against, say, the Thracians or Illyrians who tended to toss javelins and keep distance.
Which is what lead to the development of the combined arms approach. The utilization of the dominant (but not without serious weaknesses) heavy infantry, along with lighter troops, infantry and cavalry.
One would expect the Greeks of Makedonia to come up with it, due to the proximity with the Illyrian and Thracian, but actually Philip was second to Iphikrates - he introduced combined arms tactics way beyond the simplicity of the static phalanx tactics. Of course Philip created a real combined arms system and Alexander perfected it.
It is notable to mention the return to the rather monolithical classical Greece approach (heavy infantry rulez!) by no other than Rome. The republican legion was more or less a very one-sided affair, although the tactical flexibility of the manipular system and the utilizing of ample allied troops in areas they didn't have much of their own (not to mention the political cunning of the Romans) secured them a great deal of victories.
Very nicely put. The Persians won their empire to a good deal by the ability of their infantry and cavalry to perform well in ranged and close combat combined with good dicipline and command. It is deeply ironic that their - in the east rather rare - ability and willigness to hold the ground won them an empire and cost them it ultimatly, as they were outmatched by the far heavier western infantry. Clearly simplistic - see Xenophan - but quite true.Quote:
Well, that worked against the Persians - probably because they mainly used rather static missile troops that did not give way - but apparently rather less so against, say, the Thracians or Illyrians who tended to toss javelins and keep distance.
Xenophon actually provides enough accounts of heavy infantry giving Thracians and similar infantry a bloody nose if they tried to engage them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
He basically only feared the Persian horse archers, and his own light infantry was created for two tasks, special operations and keeping the horse archers at bay. In Paphlagonia and Thrace the 10,000 actually did very well against both mountaintribes and hilltribes using ranged weapons.
There was a limit as to how far light infantry could/would retreat. And if they felt their attacks were going good they would get overconfident and get too close.
Remember one thing. We aren't talking about a few light infantry fighting a few heavy infantry, but thousands. What happens at one end is not know at the other. And the more there are the greater the chance that the light infantry might get in the way of each other when they need to fall back.
Prior to the unfortunate events at Corinth, the Spartan mora actually caught up to some of Iphikrates' peltasts and savaged them pretty soundly (hence their reluctance to engage the Spartans).
At Sphakteria there were simply too few heavies, and far far too many lights (do you think the crews ofthe ships would just have been sitting idly by?).
My point is one that Gealai actually mentions. Only heavy infantry can hold the ground. Light infantry can't take and hold an area like a fertile plain.
And since the wars were over such land there is little option but to use the heavy infantry approach. Sicne the Greek hilltribes were more or less absorbed into the emerging polis, they began to identify themselves with the farmers of one state, rather than the more similar hilltribes of another state. Btw, they gained pretty well on selling meat, wool, fruit, minerals ect to the polis, so there was little need for warfare between the hill people and the farmers. In time they became one... Though the Skiritai of Lakonia and the Acaeans retained their moer rugged lives and of course more obviously thier light infantry traditions. But these were people that didn't get the main benefits of the polis. One because the parent polis was not like the others, and the other because there was no important polis around.
"No need since its just between opposing phalanxes" is not a good excuse for the lack of cavalry. That in fact is a conservative and blockheaded approach and the purpose of my thread is exploring that question. Geography is probably the best reason I've come across in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
Not needing cavalry because a dense phalanx can protect itself is also untrue since phalanxes are susceptible to hammer & anvil manuevers. Cavalry can also harass and pin down a much larger phalanx or just totally tire them out.
Going back to my previous posts, were pre-Philipian cavalry eg. Thessalians shock or missile?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux
It took the Romans a long time before they beefed up their cavalry arm. Caesar had unreliable and untrustworthy Gallic cavalry in his Gaul campaign. And the typical infantry heavy Roman army prefers entrenching and inducing the enemy to attack is tactically limited. It might not have mattered as much to even more tactically limited Gauls who simply charged then tired and got slaughtered.
Why did the Romans not build a strong cavalry arm from the very beginning since they did not lack pasture is strange.
That's because the [Republican] Romans with true Roman citizenship lived almost exclusively in cities, namely Rome and its coloniae throughout Italy. When and if Romans did occupy a larger swath of territory with no interruptions of allied territory (i.e. Latium), it was heavily urbanized.Quote:
Why did the Romans not build a strong cavalry arm from the very beginning since they did not lack pasture is strange.
Since the manipular legion was directly drawn from the Roman citizenry, that explains the conspicuous lack of cavalry. Besides, they had their allies for that (not to mention the fact that their adaptation of the Samnite system left little room for cavalry, seeing as the Samnites were a rough hill people)!
I think it may have been a combination of social and military issues that prevented Greeks from establishing effective cavalry. As pointed out earlier they lacked an equestrian tradition and good horses. For a long time they didn't have any extensive military training either. The resulting cavalry could not do hammer-and-anvil tactics. They were simply too weak and too little trained to perform a shock charge, and a hammer is no use if it does not hit hard. Also, early hoplites were far more mobile than phalangilites, and as such would have found it little trouble to turn and face the cavalry. As such, Greek cavalry mainly were scouts and skirmishers.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
Also, the Greeks idealized the hoplite and his bravery and steadfastness in battle. The fluid hit-and-run tactics of skirmishers were looked down upon as cowardly. Given that Greek cavalry was mainly used for skirmishing as well, I don't think they were held in high regard. This is off course not conductive towards developing more effective cavalry.
It is easy to say that the Greeks and Romans should have developed better cavalry, but in the end of the day it is a hell of a job to get good horsemen and good horses trained, and very expensive to boot. It also requires an institution (e.g. the army) that organizes this. The Romans and Greek simply did not do things this way. They just called their citizens and allies, and these turned up with whatever equipment they had. As such, they couldn't train their citizens to become better horsemen. And, when all is said and done, they seem to have done fairly well without it.
How could the early hoplites being more mobile than phalangilites? Didn't they wear heavier armor and also fight in a phalanx? In any case, a phalanx cannot change fronts rapidly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
The Greeks occasionally had visionary leader who could appreciate a strong complementary cavalry even Spartans like Agesilaus despite the disadvantages of geography. So I doubt it was simply because of a lack of equestrian tradition and pasture.
The Romans under Marius made sweeping changes across the military. He could've built up a cavalry arm but did not. My point is not whether they did well without them, but how such a blind spot could have existed in the first place.
Actually he could not. Marius mainly just abandoned the property requirements for his infantry and supllied them with weapons but changing the requirements for the equites would have changed the whole society. The roman army changed slowly during that time not at once through reforms. Allied troops and cavalry from Italy continued to serve aside the legions until the social war and the velites are last mentioned during Sulla's campaign against Mithridates of Pontus.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
When the equites are mentioned (I think last time) during the Jugurthine war, shortly before Marius fisrts consulate, a numidian ally of the romans requested a bodyguard of them but Metellus harshly refused it since it was beyond the dignity of an roman eques to serve as guard for a foreign king. As long as cavalry service was part of the roman upper classe's identity you could not simply create a huge cititzen cavalry force from scratch.
Besides that as Ludens correctly said you simply can't build a large high quality cavalry force from scratch in a few months/years only for a single war. The bulk of the great armies of the late republic were still raised before new wars and disbanded thereafter. Not until the nearly permanent warfare later in the first century they become a semi permanent force and finally under Augustus reign a regular standing army.
The Greeks did not fight in a Macedonian phalanx. Their spears were far shorter, making it easier to turn. I don't really see how armour has any bearing on this, as it is only a matter of individual soldiers turning round to face incoming cavalry. Also, since every citizen had to bring his own armour there were big differences in how well hoplites were armoured.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
The fact that they did very well without them suggests that it was not such a blind spot as you imply.Quote:
The Greeks occasionally had visionary leader who could appreciate a strong complementary cavalry even Spartans like Agesilaus despite the disadvantages of geography. So I doubt it was simply because of a lack of equestrian tradition and pasture.
The Romans under Marius made sweeping changes across the military. He could've built up a cavalry arm but did not. My point is not whether they did well without them, but how such a blind spot could have existed in the first place.
Also, your point ignores availability. Good horses and good horsemen have to come from somewhere. Marius didn't have them. Neither did the Southern Greeks. As such they couldn't implement them in the army no matter how much they reformed. Off course, if they intended to establish a permant organization for the training of soldiers they could have imported them. However, like cunctator said the Romans did no such thing until the late first century BC.
Did I ever mentioned Macedonian phalanx or just phalanx? And I'm just stating the obvious that a Greek phalanx has trouble changing fronts and is vulnerable in the flanks/rear. And the hoplites heavy armor would be a hindrance if they had to rapidly change their facing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Actually the Romans were fortunate not to have encountered too many enemies like Hannibal with well balanced armies who could exploit their weakness. And its fortunate that Hannibal never got his reinforcements and was saddled with allies.Quote:
The fact that they did very well without them suggests that it was not such a blind spot as you imply.
Also, your point ignores availability. Good horses and good horsemen have to come from somewhere. Marius didn't have them. Neither did the Southern Greeks. As such they couldn't implement them in the army no matter how much they reformed. Off course, if they intended to establish a permant organization for the training of soldiers they could have imported them. However, like cunctator said the Romans did no such thing until the late first century BC.
I think it was more Hannibal's genius and his inexperienced adversaries that caused his victories than the balance of his army. A more inovative roman commnader at Cannae could have made better use of his numerical superiority instead of concentrating all heavy infantry in an extra deep center. Positioning an extra line spearmen behind the equites on the right flank in an extra line, as Casar did a Pharsalus or Casius against the parthians in Syria, could have stopped the iberian/celtic cavalry attack and collapsed his strategy.
Although after the cavalry of rome and her allies decided so many crucial battles in Rome's favour, as Telamon were the roman and italian cavalry first defeated the celtic cav. and then decided the battle with their charge against the infantry or Magnesia (especially here Antochus army can't be called unbalanced) where they routed the seleukid cataphracts and outflanked the phalanx and turned the battle after Antiochus with his elite cav. braught through the roman heavy infantry or Zama, I don't think that their weakness and need for change was too obvious for the republican romans. As said they did very well with their cavalry.
Cuncatator pointed out the most important factor: The Roman Cavalry did their job well enough. Their job was scouting, initial screening, holding the flanks - often supported by infantry in doing that and making a victory more complete.
Given that good heavy horses are a great logistic hassle and cost factor in most parts of Europe and northern Africa compared to sturdy human mules with two legs, the cavalry remained as small as possible for the required job.
You asked why hoplites would be more mobile than phalangites. My answer to that was (sorry if I wasn't clear the first time) that the Greek phalanx, or at least the early one, was very different from the Makedonian one. The spears were far shorter and I also think the formation was less dense. As such it was far less dependend on its tight formation and thus could move more freely.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
To which I replied that I was not talking about changing the facing of the formation, but just individual soldiers turning round to face incoming cavalry. Heavy armour would not hinder this. Also, I think the majority of hoplites would have worn linothorax or no armour at all (varying with time and place off course). After all, bronze armour is expensive, and that huge shield hoplites used already provided a lot of protection.Quote:
And I'm just stating the obvious that a Greek phalanx has trouble changing fronts and is vulnerable in the flanks/rear. And the hoplites heavy armor would be a hindrance if they had to rapidly change their facing.
I really don't think it was better troop balance that made Hannibal victorious. Firstly: he was a military genius in command of an army of crack troops. Secondly: Rome still won the Punic wars. Admitedly this was very much a result of Rome's ability to field legion after legion of troops while Carthago could not or would not do the same, but it does indicate that Rome's troop balance was sufficient to overcome armies led by lesser generals and made up of with less experienced troops. Thirdly, exactly in what way was Hannibal's army balance different? Fourthly, the relative scarsity of well-balanced armies, as you call them, that opposed Rome is also an indication that truly good cavalry is hard to obtain while not necessary for military success.Quote:
Actually the Romans were fortunate not to have encountered too many enemies like Hannibal with well balanced armies who could exploit their weakness.
I resent that. Parthian Cataphracts destroyed the Romans....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
My point was that hoplites are always at a big disadvantage in mobility and vulnerable to flank attacks because they fought in phalanx, wear heavy armor and weild long spears all of which is simply stating the obvious. Whether or not they were Greek phalanx or Macedonian phalanx is beside the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Linen armor was also tied to the innovation of longer spears and smaller shields so you can't have it both ways. The longer spears will be even more cumbersome.
I agree that the Greeks and Romans did not have the capacity to produce a strong cavalry arm on their own because of social and geographical reasons.
But I still think that the Romans especially could've raised larger numbers of Roman cavalry in the early years.
I always imagined that the Greek phalanx would have been more dense. However hoplites would generally be better outside dense formations because of their equipment. Hoplites were simply better combatants individually.
The argive shield, while bulky and unweildy, covers almost all of your body. It can also be used to ram your enemy and knock him off balance. Your spear gives you a good reach while you're safe behind your shield. Should you lose your spear, you still have a short sword. Hoplites were still at their best in a dense phalanx, but could be decent in other situations (wich of course varies with time and place)
The Macedonian shield was small, but also unweildy. It's strapped to your upper arm, limiting the angles and moves you can do with it, and your hand is somewhat exposed. As for your weapons...the sarrissa is of course useless, and all you have is a short sword. Should the phalanx be outflanked or disrupted, phalangites will be cut in ribbons.
Hoplites were reasonable all round infantry, while phalangites were specialised. The Macedonian phalanx wasn't cut out to operate on its own, but to serve as a specialised part of a combined arms strategy. The advantages of the old phalanx formation (very strong front) appy even more so to the Macedonian phalanx, as do the disadvantages.
The Greek phalanx had less ranks than the macedonian phalanx making it less dense.
The shorter spears of the Greek hoplite however is held by only one arm making it unwieldy to use as an individual weapon.
The protection of the hoplite depended upon the overlapping spears and shield of the person on the right in a phalanx.
Not at Carrhae. Or at least not until the Romans had first been softened up by hours of arrow fire.Quote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
Anyway, what is the point? I never said it wasn't useful to have good heavy cavalry, merely that it is possible to be succesful without.
Probably. Still, most of their Italian opponents did not field significant cavalry either by my knowledge, and lateron the Romans would have obtained good (better than their own) cavalry by hiring it.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
Regarding the phalanx, we are going off-topic here, but it is your topic, so if you don't mind, I don't either.
Yes, a phalanx is at a disadvantage at the rear and flanks. However, my point was the early Greek phalanx (before Iphikrates, because I am not sure what came after him) was less so than the later Makedonian one because it relied less on its formation. Individual soldiers could more easily have turned and faced of its cavalry. Their spears were far shorter and were used overhand. I do not agree this makes them less wieldy. On the contrary: you can turn around without knocking over you comrades just by lifting your spear a little. Also, overhand spears cannot be that long, also improving mobility. The better protection of individual soldiers would also have helped. A phalangite is only powerful in formation, a hoplite can fight as an individual as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
I guess I was wrong about this one. Still, most hoplites couldn't have afforded bronze armour, so what did they wear?Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
The point is not whether they were successful but why were the Romans content with being such a slow moving entrenching army.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
That doesn't seem reasonable at all. Shorter spears or not, they were about nine feet in length and wielded by one arm. By 'lifting a little' you mean both ends of the spear must clear the heads of those around them without taking out an eye.Quote:
Yes, a phalanx is at a disadvantage at the rear and flanks. However, my point was the early Greek phalanx (before Iphikrates, because I am not sure what came after him) was less so than the later Makedonian one because it relied less on its formation. Individual soldiers could more easily have turned and faced of its cavalry. Their spears were far shorter and were used overhand. I do not agree this makes them less wieldy. On the contrary: you can turn around without knocking over you comrades just by lifting your spear a little. Also, overhand spears cannot be that long, also improving mobility. The better protection of individual soldiers would also have helped. A phalangite is only powerful in formation, a hoplite can fight as an individual as well.
I guess I was wrong about this one. Still, most hoplites couldn't have afforded bronze armour, so what did they wear?
Perhaps it is because they were succesful that they were content with what they had?Quote:
Originally Posted by orangat
Given that they were able to engage in normal combat without taking each other's eyes out I think this should very well be possible. Anyway, you can just point the thing upright and turn. It is not like hoplites had no freedom of movement.Quote:
That doesn't seem reasonable at all. Shorter spears or not, they were about nine feet in length and wielded by one arm. By 'lifting a little' you mean both ends of the spear must clear the heads of those around them without taking out an eye.
The Macedonian/Hellenic phalanx was a pike formation. Frankly a little primitive one too (the Medieval ones were quite able to fight in multiple directions if necessary), but did its job in the "hammer and anvil" scheme quite well and was an utter pain for most anyone to take on frontally.
The old Greek hoplite phalanx was simply the good old heavy-infantry shieldwall, which was used already in ancient Mesopotamia and highly popular everywhere infantry fought in close "heavy" order. All sources (including the fact heavy-infantry spearmen elsewhere did the same) suggest their long one-handed spears were wholly capable, if somewhat clumsy, weapons also in personal combat outside the ordered formation, which was never the case with the pike.
The hoplite citizen-soldiers who couldn't afford monolith bronze armour would have used lighter "composite" cuirasses - multiple layers of linen glued together, or fabric-covered scale corselets. They may at one point have been going entirely without, but this is apparently controversial.
You seem to be missing my point that extra cavalry would've been advantageous. The fact that they suffered from deficient cavalry but preferred the entrenching model infers a mental block on their part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
The point was never whether hoplites had freedom of movement. The simple fact is that all infantry is vulnerable to flanking attacks even moreso for phalanx formations. Are you trying to say that the phalanx is more or less intrinsically protected from cavalry?
They had no need for cavalry as all their opponents were less advanced than them, or used hoplites. There was some limited cavalry in Greek armies, but they relied on their hoplites because as stated before:
1) They are citizens levied to fight, who probably don't have much in the way of equestrian skill if they've just farmed or studied their whole life.
2) They provide their own equipment, and a horse would be expensive to buy and maintain.
3) The mainland Greeks have generally only fought: other Greeks (I'm including Minoans as Greeks for convenience), Persians, Makedonians, Italian tribes, people who populated Asia Minor. The Persians were the aggressors, so hoplites were perfect for a defensive war. Other Greeks used hoplites. Italian tribes weren't incredibly advanced, and the Greeks didn't take over much of Italy anyway. I don't think the people of Asia Minor had much in the way of cavalry either. Makedonians had cavalry and a specialised phalanx, which explains why the Greeks were subdued by them.