Greek/Roman cavalry

[orangat]

Isn't it odd that the Greeks and especially Romans fielded lopsided armies with strong infantry but weak cavalry? The Roman's seemed to have prefered recruiting Gauls and German cavalry instead of maintaining its own cavalry. What possible reason could there be for being so deficient in cavalry while having to dig ditches constantly for flank protection.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Well other elite units could deffinetly cover flanks as well as cavalry for one thing. For an other I don't know that what you are saying is true. The Greeks and Macedonians fielded very strong Thessilian cavalry. They were the first to come up with the "shock troop" cavalry idea, and it worked brilliantly.

As for the Romans, I can see that their cavalry units aren't really anything special, but in my opinion the Greeks/Macedonians did have a pretty strong cavalry.

[Rosacrux redux]

The Romans had decent cavalry, provided by their allies. But they didn't need top notch cavalry, because of their tactical approach (massed heavy infantry worked wonders against anything their enemies could throw at them... they even defeated all horse oponenents like the Parthian).

[Watchman]

It's ecology and the attitude spinning off it really. Neither of the peninsulas is exactly "horse country" - Thessaly being the closest area of the kind in Greece - and thus both raising enough good horses and aquiring suitable equestrian skills and traditions was a bit problematic, so it's really only natural that both came to regard the mounted arm as a very auxiliary one. Especially as both came to rely primarily on solid heavy infantry (primarily spearmen in the case of the Greeks) recruited from the farmers and city-dwellers, and solid heavy infantry is something even cavalry far more potent than either could raise from their "native" regions always had considerable trouble facing.

Nonetheless, the value of mounted men as scouts and in pursuit duties meant both developed passable cavalry arms, albeit generally rather small in number.

The Thessalians and the Macedonians to their north dwelt on geography well suited for both breeding horses and cavalry warfare, and duly developed a strong aristocratic mounted arm with the proto-feudal social structures that so often went hand in hand with it.

While it is true that the strong heavy infantry generally served the Romans well enough, there's no shortage of occasions where they really could have done with both more and better horsemen. Hannibal would be among the more famous ones to repeatedly exploit the Roman weakness in really mobile troops - the equites did what they could, but being both outmatched and outnumbered by the Carthaginian's Gallic and Iberian mercenary cavalry tended to be quickly dealt with usually leaving the infantry badly outflanked and duly annihilated.

Parthian and Armenian cavalry-based armies, with their very nasty combination of light horse-archers and heavy shock cataphracts, also gave the Romans no end of grief. But at least on this eastern front they could draw upon the local repository of troops developed in the same traditions.

[cunctator]

The roman republican cavalry was surely no world beating force but I've never seen anything conviencing that should be extraordinary bad. The average roman upper class member certainly not thought that they were bad horsemen.

Republican citizen cavarly was mostly vastly outnumbered by their enemies. The equites of the republic were members of the leading classes, the sons of the senators and the equestrians, the richest and most influential man in the state. It's core were the 1800 equites equo publico, fighting on a state provided combat horse, the original equites of the early republic. At some time when the number of the cavarly had to be increased the ordo equester had to be enlarged it was only possible by allowing less priviledged members that fullfilled the requirements that had to fight with their own horse, the eques equo privato. Belonging to the ordo equester was quite prestigous thus it couldn't easily expanded by lowering the requirements to enlarge the available cavalry. Also the availability of sufficent numbers of efficent cavalry to fight for the roman cause on nearly all fronts, numidians, thracians, iberians, celts, etc., since the punic war made this not neccessary. From the late 2nd and early 1st century BC onwards the equestrian class become a purely ecomical and social elite with a comparible small group of officers on their top and the allied italian cavarly dissapeared after all almost all italians received citizenship and were recruited into the legions after the social war. The generals of the late republic had to rely only on foreign and allied cav. that was recruited if needed and their armies were still succesful so this system worked quite well for the romans.

After the wars in the second half of the 1st century the things changed and togehter with it's profesional standing army the empire developed it's own strong regular cavarly arm out of the republican celtic, thracian and iberian auxiliaries that had often served for nearly for decades on side of the legions during the civil war era. Besides the horse archers that appeared in regular roman alae since augustaean times after the experiences of the first parthians wars the imperial cavalry of the 1st century was mainly dominated by celtic and iberian traditions and tactics. The roman standard cav. during the principate was a moderatly armoured highly flexible force, armed with javelins, a rather short one handed lance and the new spatha swords. Discipline and training in the auxiliary units was on the same level as in the contemporary legions and especially the alae were among the most prestigous units in the army. Their equippment and tactics were largely standarized by imperial decrees. Originally their first soldiers were recruited from a single ethnicity in their home province but if the units were transfered to another province they mostly immedietaly begun to reccruit locals as replacement. In the late first and second century AD the numbers of citizens in axuilia units steadily increased as the provinces become more and more romanized and the now citizen sons of former auliary soldiers often prefered to join their father's unit.

After the danubian wars in the late 1st early 2nd century AD and the more intesive contacts with steppe nomads and again parthians the imperial army introduced true heavy cavalry and the first pure units of contarii and catphractarii apear, closing one of the last weaknesses in their roster. At this time the percentage of cavalry reached 20-25 % of the hole army, more than doubling the average value of the hellenistic and republican era of around 10%.

[Prince Cobra]

The Romans had decent cavalry, provided by their allies. But they didn't need top notch cavalry, because of their tactical approach (massed heavy infantry worked wonders against anything their enemies could throw at them... they even defeated all horse oponenents like the Parthian).

Well, Parthia is an exception of that rule. They defeated the Romans twice- first the Roman legions led by the Caesar's colleague Kras who was defeated and killed and the second led by Mark Antony was also unsuccessful (although not so disastrous when compared with the first). Yes, eventually the Roman emperor Trajanus won against Parthia.However this victory was not due to the military superiority of the Romans but the constant political crisis and separationism in the Parthian empire at that time.

[cunctator]

Romans also had multiple victories over the parthians even without counting Trajans and Septimus Severus campaigns.

Cassius repulsed their invasion of syria directly after carrhae and Ventidius defeated the parthians multiple times during their large scale invasion of the eastern provinces prior to Marcus Antonius failed campaigns.

After Trajans campaign, early in Marcus Aurelius reign the parthians surprisingly invaded the roman east, when they were appearently not occupied with internal struggles when the roman army was in low state of readiness and were still defeated by Lucius Verus who pursuited them deep into mesopotomia. And also during Corbulos campaign roman army did perfom quite well against them.

[Watchman]

Nonetheless, like the German one the Persian border was an "eternal frontier" where no lasting headway could be made. Armies marched, cities and fortresses were captured and recaptured, and a lot of people died, but overall the balance didn't change.

Partly it was politics and ecology, but also because neither side had a distinct advantage that could not be overcome with superior generalship, stumped by sheer logistical limitations, or nullified by internal developements.

[Kralizec]

In the late 2nd century AD Septimus Severus managed to conquer and annex Mesopotamia from the Parthians. I would call that a pretty important change. After that the Parthians continued to weaken in their position until their empire was usurped by the Sassanids.

[DemonArchangel]

Ok, the Romans had SUPERB cavalry. The Romans themselves simply weren't good horsemen, nor did they have very many horses. Roman tactics and recruitment, and training methods however, were of a superior quality. Many of the best Roman generals knew exactly how to use their cavalry in order to win their battles.

[orangat]

Well other elite units could deffinetly cover flanks as well as cavalry for one thing. For an other I don't know that what you are saying is true. The Greeks and Macedonians fielded very strong Thessilian cavalry. They were the first to come up with the "shock troop" cavalry idea, and it worked brilliantly.
....

No elite infantry can be as mobile as cavalry. Apart from the Thessalian's, the Greek armies were basically hoplites. The major battles of Platea and Marathon (which had Greek soldiers and reinforcements from many cities) had no Greek cavalry worth mentioning! And Macedonians didn't invent the concept of shock, what Philip pioneered in Greece was the concept of combined arms warfare.

The Romans had decent cavalry, provided by their allies. But they didn't need top notch cavalry, because of their tactical approach (massed heavy infantry worked wonders against anything their enemies could throw at them... they even defeated all horse oponenents like the Parthian).

No, an infantry only army(or infantry-heavy) is intrinsically handicapped. The Parthian's were equally disadvantaged by being cavalry-heavy but the Romans were annihilated in the major battles of Carrhae and Mark Anthony clearly failed in his Parthian campaign.

Cuncator, great info. The Roman's weren't infantry-heavy by late 1AD after all. Why were the equites limited primarily to oligarchs? Was horse grazing land a limiting factor?

My point was never whether the Roman model(esp pre-Marian) was 'good enough' but why the typical Greek armies before Philip were so deficient and why the Romans never learnt from Alexander. The Roman's must be fortunate not to have met an enemy similar to Alexander more often, not necessarily as gifted but just a moderately efficient general with a mixed well balanced army.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

No elite infantry can be as mobile as cavalry. Apart from the Thessalian's, the Greek armies were basically hoplites. The major battles of Platea and Marathon (which had Greek soldiers and reinforcements from many cities) had no Greek cavalry worth mentioning! And Macedonians didn't invent the concept of shock, what Philip pioneered in Greece was the concept of combined arms warfare.


No, an infantry only army(or infantry-heavy) is intrinsically handicapped. The Parthian's were equally disadvantaged by being cavalry-heavy but the Romans were annihilated in the major battles of Carrhae and Mark Anthony clearly failed in his Parthian campaign.

Cuncator, great info. The Roman's weren't infantry-heavy by late 1AD after all. Why were the equites limited primarily to oligarchs? Was horse grazing land a limiting factor?

My point was never whether the Roman model(esp pre-Marian) was 'good enough' but why the typical Greek armies before Philip were so deficient and why the Romans never learnt from Alexander. The Roman's must be fortunate not to have met an enemy similar to Alexander more often, not necessarily as gifted but just a moderately efficient general with a mixed well balanced army.

I disagree with most of that.

[orangat]

At least give some points on why you disagree.
Your first post that Greeks had elite infantry units which were as good as cavalry and that the Greeks/Macedonians pioneered the concept of shock is absurd.

[rotorgun]

I disagree with most of that.

Hey there Alexanderofmacedon

just curiuos...but why do you disagree? Most of the points brought up by orangat are quite valid, presumably based upon some study of the historical facts. Are you basing your disagreement on the unit types presented in the RTW ot RTR? While they are reasonably historical in there capabilities, they are not meant as perfect facsimilies.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

The most prestigious of the mounted troops were the hetairoi or companions.

The hetairoi usually carried a variety of heavy thrusting spears to act as heavy shock cavalry, though they were on occasion armed with javelins

In addition to the shock troopers of the hetairoi a small number of light cavalrymen designated prodromoi or scouts were part of the native Macedonian cavalry. These horsemen were usually equipped with javelins when employed on reconnaissance missions, but armed with a cavalry version of the sarissa they served as heavy cavalry sarissophoroi in battle.

http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dor...er.html#maccav

The Athenian mercenary general Iphicrates introduced light armed troops - peltasts - next to the phalanx. Peltasts were much faster than hoplites, more effective in rough terrain and they could harrass the enemy phalanx from the flanks or from the rear.

They were used at the flanks by a great general. They can guard a flank well enough that a great general would use it.

Greek armies had used little or no cavalry. There was not one Greek horse at the battle of Marathon in 490 BC. When present, cavalry was used in dispersed formations for skirmishing or to pursue a routing enemy phalanx, but never as the prime weapon of assault. But the Macedonian kingdom traditionally possessed a strong nobility cavalry. What Philip did was to improve this existing Companion cavalry by drilling it to ride and attack in disciplined, dense formations for a concentrated punch. It was Philip who gave cavalry its prominent role on the battlefield.

The cavalry Companions were heavily armored horsemen armed with a thrusting spear and a sword. There were eight Companion units of 200-300 men each, one of which was the élite unit, the Royal Squadron or agema.

http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?...d=8&title=Army

It wasn't that there wasn't cavalry worth mentioning orangat. It's that there were no cavalry at all at Marathon.
As you can see, there was no shock cavalry at the time. Mounted men would chase down fleeing soldiers, but other than that, it wasn't much use, UNTIL Phillip enployed Thessalians and some of his own troops.


It's almost midnight and I have a soccer game tommorrow, so I have to go to bed, but I'll argue this point more tommorrow if you'd like.

[rotorgun]

http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dor...er.html#maccav



They were used at the flanks by a great general. They can guard a flank well enough that a great general would use it.



http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?...d=8&title=Army

It wasn't that there wasn't cavalry worth mentioning orangat. It's that there were no cavalry at all at Marathon.
As you can see, there was no shock cavalry at the time. Mounted men would chase down fleeing soldiers, but other than that, it wasn't much use, UNTIL Phillip enployed Thessalians and some of his own troops.


It's almost midnight and I have a soccer game tommorrow, so I have to go to bed, but I'll argue this point more tommorrow if you'd like.

Take care Alexanderofmacedon. Have a good game tomorrow, and win one for the Gipper! I hope we didn't chase you off, because this is a great thread and we value everyone's opinions and ideas. I was mainly speaking to orangat's
points about the Romans and their use of cavalry.

Gute Glick!

[rotorgun]

I think geography and tradition had alot to do with why the early Greek and Roman Armies never developed very large contingents of Cavalry. Most of the arable lands on both penninsulas had to be used to feed the large urban populations, leaving little for an equestrian industry. As to tradition, until either cultures faced cavalry heavy armies, most of the fighting was between likewise enemies, or against the light, missle armed, peltast style infantry of the hill folk such as the Samnites or Illyrians, etc. Both sides developed different approaches to this problem as well. The Romans developed the Velite and the Hastatii, both armed with throwing javelins, and realatively lightly armored. They also developed the famous Quinquix, or manipular formation to increase the army's flexability. The Greeks, however, usually hired out these types of troops when needed as they didn't have enough men available to create much more than the Hoplite infantry. They also utilized the famed Thessalian and Thracian horsemen when available - just not in the numbers that Phillip did. Niether did they change thier battle formation, utilizing the Phalanx was their best defense against most any enemy in a frontal assault in any case.

In the case of the peoples of the steppes, or the deserts of the Asia, horse cultures were the norm. One need only witness the way that horse cultures thrive in places with large tracks of grazing land. If it weren't for the horse in my country, I doubt that our European ancestors could have ever conquered such a large continent. The horse was valuable to the Egyptians, Persians, Parthians, Assyrians, Scythians, Babylonians, Armenians, and many other peoples that lived in arid countries with such large distances to cross. It is no wonder why they developed Horse dominated military war machines. What they lacked in heavy infantry, they tried to overcome with large numbers of skirmishers and light armed infantry. The main problem for these peoples was how much training could be given to the hastily raised levies? The main reasons for their victories over western armies were tactical and logistical. Tactical such as when a Greek or Roman army faced them with insufficient numbers of cavalry and skirmishers, logistically when western generals failed to take into account the problems of supplying an army in such an environment. The only time that Alexander failed to plan for such contingencies was upon his return from India through the Gedrosian desert. He almost lost his entire army there.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Hey there Alexanderofmacedon

just curiuos...but why do you disagree? Most of the points brought up by orangat are quite valid, presumably based upon some study of the historical facts. Are you basing your disagreement on the unit types presented in the RTW ot RTR? While they are reasonably historical in there capabilities, they are not meant as perfect facsimilies.

When I stated "I disagree with most of that" in an earlier post, I quoted what Orangat said, but I put what I was talking about in bold. Only the first paragraph.

[Kraxis]

The only time that Alexander failed to plan for such contingencies was upon his return from India through the Gedrosian desert. He almost lost his entire army there.

He lost most of the army he had taken with him, but he had sent about half around the other way, prior to his march to the sea.

Also, it is being speculated that the slightly nuts Alexander actually punished his army for their 'disloyalty' in not following him where he wanted to go. The army he took through Gedrosia were the Macedonians, while the 'spared' part was mainly the eastern troops.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

He lost most of the army he had taken with him, but he had sent about half around the other way, prior to his march to the sea.

Also, it is being specilated that the slightly nuts Alexander actually punished his army for their 'disloyalty' in not following him where he wanted to go. The army he took through Gedrosia were the Macedonians, while the 'spared' part was mainly the eastern troops.

Cruel.

[rotorgun]

He lost most of the army he had taken with him, but he had sent about half around the other way, prior to his march to the sea.

Also, it is being specilated that the slightly nuts Alexander actually punished his army for their 'disloyalty' in not following him where he wanted to go. The army he took through Gedrosia were the Macedonians, while the 'spared' part was mainly the eastern troops.

Indeed. Something like this is alluded to in Paul Doherty's book The Death of Alexander The Great, an interesting read about the various controversies surrounding his death. Whatever actually occurred, it is certain that there was a deep division within his army after the India campaign. All men may "reach and fall", as the Ptolemy character in Alexander the movie says, but Alexander sort of overreached.

Getting a little back on task, would you say that the Greeks probably never developed the large cavalry arm that Phillip of Macedonia did because, unlike him, they never planned to invade Asia? It seems that necessity drove that train to me.

[cunctator]

Cuncator, great info. The Roman's weren't infantry-heavy by late 1AD after all. Why were the equites limited primarily to oligarchs? Was horse grazing land a limiting factor?

The roman class system originated in a time when Roma was just an agricultural city state. Urban population and small farmers couldn't afford to breed and maintain horses and fight as cavalry, other than the rich men and landowners. Italy has quiete a few plains suited for horse breeding that came under roman controll and the italian socii could provide 2-3 times the number of roman cavalry for the roman armies of the middle republic, thus their capacity alone was not limitating the cavalry to historic numbers.

[Kralizec]

Getting a little back on task, would you say that the Greeks probably never developed the large cavalry arm that Phillip of Macedonia did because, unlike him, they never planned to invade Asia? It seems that necessity drove that train to me.

The Thessalians developed heavy cavalry, despite having no plans of invading Asia. The socio-economical conditions in souther Greece made raising a large cavalry force inpractical. Aside from the fact that you need lots of unused land to breed horses (and noblemen would own several), individual horsemen would have to be quite rich. In the Greek poleis, at least in Athens, there lived a real life ideal of a large middle class of citizens, equals who'd arm theirselves for the protection of their community. The nobility capable of keeping horses was comparatively small compared to Thessalia or Macedonia.

[rotorgun]

The Thessalians developed heavy cavalry, despite having no plans of invading Asia. The socio-economical conditions in souther Greece made raising a large cavalry force inpractical. Aside from the fact that you need lots of unused land to breed horses (and noblemen would own several), individual horsemen would have to be quite rich. In the Greek poleis, at least in Athens, there lived a real life ideal of a large middle class of citizens, equals who'd arm theirselves for the protection of their community. The nobility capable of keeping horses was comparatively small compared to Thessalia or Macedonia.

While true that Thessaly developed a Heavy Cavalry arm, the Thessalians were a vassal people of Macedonia about the time this occured. Prior to this, according to historical accounts, Thessaly originally used their cavalry in a lighter skirmisher role. Thessaly was the only "Greek" state that had enough grazing land to produce such cavalry. Perhaps that is why Phillip wanted so badly to subjegate them - for the numbers of Horsemen they could provide. It was he who first incorporated a heavy cavalry as a team with the infantry, at least in Europe. Although no one today can go back and ask him about his plans, I'm sure that as a young man, he must have given a great deal of thought to the advantages such a force would have over the infantry minded Greeks. Lurking in the back of his mind, while purely conjectural, might have been his dream of one day invading Asia. He must have read some account, Xenophons's perhaps, of the cavalry strength of Persia. While scorned as a barbarian by the Greeks, he was truly a visionary in many ways.

I will accept your point about the socio-economic conditions of southern Greece being unable to produce a large number of horsemen. Even if someone in the Greek poleis had considered it, and I'm sure that there was, the political disunity of the city states would have likely prevented such an idea from taking hold...."preposterous" I can almost hear Demthsones say. "What does Athens need horsemen for? Are not our brave Hoplites equal to the task? Shall we become as the Macedonians, fools that dream of war with the Persians?"....or something like that.

[Keba]

I will accept your point about the socio-economic conditions of southern Greece being unable to produce a large number of horsemen. Even if someone in the Greek poleis had considered it, and I'm sure that there was, the political disunity of the city states would have likely prevented such an idea from taking hold...."preposterous" I can almost hear Demthsones say. "What does Athens need horsemen for? Are not our brave Hoplites equal to the task? Shall we become as the Macedonians, fools that dream of war with the Persians?"....or something like that.

Just to point out, the use of horsemen was exceptionally low, but they were used by Greek poleis. I can't go into details right now, since I'm not feeling like delving into my library, but from memory, I seem to remember that Athens had a cavalry force, as well as cavalry commanders.

Despite that, even at the height of Athens' might, immediately before the Peloponnesian war, Athens could definitely field about 100 horsemen, although I suspect pentakosiomedimnes could probably go as horsemen as well, if they so chose.

That is probably mainly due to terrain and fighting style. Having a horse charge a veritable wall of pikes and men is not something easily done, so cavalry had a secondary role there. In Italy, early on, terrain was similar, as was the fighting style, meaning cavalry could mostly be used to hunt down skirmishers and archers, also, Rome was not a very rich city in the beginning, so, horses were not that common. Later on, with the expansion into territories suitable for raising horses, as well as with the conquest of peoples who had a tradition of horsemanship, Roman cavalry saw a rapid improvement in quality.

[orangat]

I've been away for a few days but my response below...

" The hetairoi usually carried a variety of heavy thrusting spears to act as heavy shock cavalry, though they were on occasion armed with javelins"

That doesn't mean Greeks invented shock troops/cavalry like you said in your first post. Cavalry unless they are mounted archers are shock troops by definition.

"The Athenian mercenary general Iphicrates introduced light armed troops - peltasts - next to the phalanx. Peltasts were much faster than hoplites, more effective in rough terrain and they could harrass the enemy phalanx from the flanks or from the rear."
http://members.tripod.com/~S_van_Dor...er.html#maccav
They were used at the flanks by a great general. They can guard a flank well enough that a great general would use it.

And what did those peltasts defend against? Other peltasts/hoplites - not cavalry. Peltasts alone would be insufficient for flank defense against an army which has good cavalry. And Iphicrates was not the typical Greek general anyway.

http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?...d=8&title=Army
It wasn't that there wasn't cavalry worth mentioning orangat. It's that there were no cavalry at all at Marathon.
As you can see, there was no shock cavalry at the time. Mounted men would chase down fleeing soldiers, but other than that, it wasn't much use, UNTIL Phillip enployed Thessalians and some of his own troops.
It's almost midnight and I have a soccer game tommorrow, so I have to go to bed, but I'll argue this point more tommorrow if you'd like.

What is your point? It strengthens my argument that the typical Greek army was almost devoid of cavalry in what must be one of the most important battles in Greece.

Like I said, the Greeks in general have poor cavalry. Phillip/Alexander's Macedonian army and the Thessalian are exceptions to the rule.

Rotogun hit the nail on the head. Phillip's model was an army of conquest. It was well balanced and more well equipped to handle Persia and whatever might lie beyond.

[Rosacrux redux]

That doesn't mean Greeks invented shock troops/cavalry like you said in your first post. Cavalry unless they are mounted archers are shock troops by definition.

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.

And what did those peltasts defend against? Other peltasts/hoplites - not cavalry. Peltasts alone would be insufficient for flank defense against an army which has good cavalry. And Iphicrates was not the typical Greek general anyway.

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"?

What is your point? It strengthens my argument that the typical Greek army was almost devoid of cavalry in what must be one of the most important battles in Greece.

Not quite... Athens kept a large cavalry contigent after 448... usually 1.000 to 1.200 men strong, at one point almost 1.500. Those numbers include the Skythian horse archers the Athenians kept hiring throughout the first Athenian hegemony period.

Like I said, the Greeks in general have poor cavalry. Phillip/Alexander's Macedonian army and the Thessalian are exceptions to the rule.

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.

[Kralizec]

Not quite... Athens kept a large cavalry contigent after 448... usually 1.000 to 1.200 men strong, at one point almost 1.500. Those numbers include the Skythian horse archers the Athenians kept hiring throughout the first Athenian hegemony period.

Large? Didn't Athens field something like 15.000 hoplites (just the hoplites) during her peak in the Peloponesian war?
Other then that, I agree with you. People seem to forget that cavalry can be useful even if you forget charging. Add to that that even the Macedonians used them carefully, instead of mindlessly charging head on into the enemy like medieval knights, wich cavalry couldn't do at that time (no saddle and stirrups)

[Alexanderofmacedon]

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.




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"?



Not quite... Athens kept a large cavalry contigent after 448... usually 1.000 to 1.200 men strong, at one point almost 1.500. Those numbers include the Skythian horse archers the Athenians kept hiring throughout the first Athenian hegemony period.



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.

I'll go with his arguement as I'm a bit lazy.

[orangat]

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?

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.

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.