That hammer is too small for this anvil.

[Ca Putt]

afaik it was due to lack of noblemen.

[Fluvius Camillus]

After the major sucessors lost the remnants of Alexander's hetairoi, it seemed very hard to replace them. For some time the Seleukids pulled the cash needed to fund the training of the hetairoi from their gigantic empire, but after it weakened it also died out.

It was of course very expensive to:
- Find these upper class men with the strength and determination
- Find the strong horses who are capable of performing these maneuvres.
- Pay for the making of the equipment for both horse and rider.
- Fund the training and upkeep cost for such a unit to remain large enough to be an effective arm on the battlefield.

This uses massive resources, and when the major diadochii were in decline it became harder and harder to outfit these men.

~Fluvius

[Noble Wrath]

Just a thought: could the reason be (at least partly) that as time passed the estates were concentrated in the hands of progressively fewer landowners, who would be the main candidates for heavy cavalry? I cannot back it up with any historical evidence, I'm just making a comparison with what happened in the late Roman Republic and also in Sparta during the hellenistic era. In both examples this social/economic process lead to difficulties in recruiting heavy infantry. Essentially I am repeating what Ca Putt said: lack of noblemen.

[NoHelmet]

I guess that every reason that leads to an erosion of one's infantry, can be applied to one's cavalry force, as it is much more succeptible (is it written that way?) to drastic changes of sircumstances within the state. Not to mention that it requires a strong tradition that takes only one skipped generation to be lost. Take example of Hungarians, who once used horse archer tactics themselves up to 11th century, only to fully convert to feudal tactics in the 13th, when the Mongols came and refreshed their memory.

[Cute Wolf]

I guess that every reason that leads to an erosion of one's infantry, can be applied to one's cavalry force, as it is much more succeptible (is it written that way?) to drastic changes of sircumstances within the state. Not to mention that it requires a strong tradition that takes only one skipped generation to be lost. Take example of Hungarians, who once used horse archer tactics themselves up to 11th century, only to fully convert to feudal tactics in the 13th, when the Mongols came and refreshed their memory.

Yeah, the "TRADITION" is the key...
what is more appealing than just merely stand in the phalanx and let their enemies impale themselves? it was certainly better job for cowards who are too affraid to grip their lance, shake the rein, and charge directly to a formation full of angry Galatians (or Romans)

[NoHelmet]

it was certainly better job for cowards who are too affraid to grip their lance, shake the rein, and charge directly to a formation full of angry Galatians (or Romans)

And that is why majority of almost every sedentary civilization's army were infantrymen, not because they were cowards, but because they were ordinary men. Cavalry required extensive training and resources. Do not judge too harshly on "mere infantrymen", no one knows how we would behave in a pitched battle. Cowardice in battle is one of the more usual human traits (though it can be negated, i guess, by training and experience). Oh, and i think that Vartan pretty much gave the answer. First thing back in high school our history teacher gave us was that every war was about the money, every one, no matter how well concealed behind ideals, popular revolt or just causes.

[Lazy O]

And it takes 13 posts just to confirm the first one :)