Originally Posted by Rosacrux redux:
Cavalry is not shock troops by definition, where did you heard such an absurd definition? Persian cavalry - the best in the mediteranean world until the Thessalian-Macedonian cavalry came about - was a pure, 100% skirmishing cavalry. Their tactics consisted in fighting against other cavalry and wearing out infantry by using their palta (cavalry javelins) and charge only when the opposing infantry was in dissaray. No "shock" troops here. It is considered common knowledge that the first real shock cavalry, as used in battle, was Philipos' Heteroi-Thessalians.
Chariots were probably the first shock cavalry. Did Thessalian cavalry before Phillip fight as shock cavalry or missile cavalry?
Originally Posted by :
First, you got the wrong idea about cavalry in that era. Cavalry was not used to charge head-on into an infantry formation, that came only in Philipos' era. you should view a cavalry vs cavalry battle as a foot battle on horse, not some medieval charging home. The light armed troops were vulnerable to a horse charge, but horsemene usually didn't charge at all! And Ihpikrates was a very typical Greek general, what's the "typical Greek general"?
That was not my point at all. The point was whether peltasts were JUST AS GOOD as cavalry for the formation of a well-balanced army.
My point about Iphicrates was whether Greeks in general used peltasts as effectively.
Originally Posted by :
This is a rather poor wording. A more correct wording would be: City-states in southern mainland Greece of Classical antiquity generally viewed war as a mostly heavy-infantry issue. Some city states dared to innovate (like Thebes, they also had excellent cavalry although their tactical use left much to be desired) some city states had extraordinarily good cavalry (like Syracusae, and Taras - but those are in southern Italy... aren't they Greeks?) some areas produced the best cavalrymen of classical and post-classical antiquity (Thessaly, Macedonia, but those are in central-northern Greece... aren't they Greeks?) and some later Greek states (in the hellenistic era) produced extraordinary cavalry (Seleukia, Pergamos and at least the Pergamene were 100% Greeks, while the Seles had a multinational army really).
Sweeping generalizations might be an easy way to get out of an argument, but are hardly accurate.
If you read the thread, I was hardly trying to get out of an argument. Not to mention your earlier sweeping generalisations about Roman cavalry.
I merely wanted to discuss reasons for the lack of cavalry in Greek/Roman armies. And rotorgun made a similar point as yours a few posts earlier.