Rome and (lack of) Cavalry

[Drag0nUL]

Hi.
I've been wondering about the follwing thing for quite a while, and I figure this is the place to shed a bit of light of it.

Roman army has had a history of being adaptable, incorprating many new tactics and equpment along it's existance (manipular formation, gladius, armor reinfocements for the legions fighting in dacia to name only a few).

However, despite suffering quite a few defeats due to lack of cavalry (Cannae and Carrhae come to mind) and being put at a disadvantage in numerous other situations (many battles in the war with Carthage, Magnesia etc), the romans(to my knowledge) never made any efforts to develop a significant cavalry arm.

Never quite understood why. I mean, smebody should have noticed the utility of a strong cavalry, right?

[Fragony]

Most likely because in these days soldiers had to buy their own gear, you had to be pretty well off. Horses were even more costly, so only a very select could probably function as cavalry. When soldiering was professionalized cavalry became more common, so I'll throw it on this.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Mmm, I do not have time to answer right now, but the Romans used cavalry well enough, though mainly in their later days. The numerous auxiliaries and then, by the Dominate, the Romans had their household cavalry, such as even the feared cataphracts. Much of the resitance to change was the tradition, as well as the lack of horse-breeding lands (Campania was the only one of distinction in Italia).

@Fragony: no, the professionalisation of the Roman military by Marius as well as subsequent reformers never was the cause of the development of the cavalry arm (yes, one can argue it had an indirect, long-term effect, but the stretch between the professional army and professional cavalry was quite lengthy, and you can correlate anything with an important preceeding event in history). In fact, it did the opposite, as the Roman citizen cavalry was largely disbanded, and the equipment standardised (no horses allowed even if you were wealthy enough and wanted to bring hem along), creating a further reliance on auxiliaries.

[Fragony]

Well to honest I have no idea, never really thought about it, I only know that it became more common later on but I never wondered why.

[The Wizard]

The Romans did use cavalry, lots of it, but the vast majority was provided by Rome's allies in the form of auxiliaries.

[al Roumi]

The Romans did use cavalry, lots of it, but the vast majority was provided by Rome's allies in the form of auxiliaries.

Yep, afaik the Romans recruited their auxiliaries from "horse people" accross and outside the empire, precisely because these groups had skills the Romans did not specialise in. Also afaik there were eastern european cavalry auxilliaries stationed in England -with some evidence of their presence/garrison on Hadrian's wall (on the border with Scotland).

[A Very Super Market]

The Romans simply did not have a strong cavalry tradition, probably because Latium was not prime horse-breeding ground. They made up for it by recruiting from cultures that did specialise in cavalry, or at least, could produce better horses.

[rajpoot]

Also afaik there were eastern european cavalry auxilliaries stationed in England -with some evidence of their presence/garrison on Hadrian's wall (on the border with Scotland).

King Arthur and his Sarmatian knights?

More seriously though, I think Rome did not have 'Roman' cavalry because when the Roman empire rose, armies were still infantry based. Cavalry gained popularity towards the end of the Roman empire. I'd read a book by W.S Churchill once, don't rightly remember the name.....in which he attributes the rise of cavalry as one of the reasons for the Roman legions getting obsolete, and in turn causing the empire to crumble.