roman cavalry question

[ZinedineZidane]

in the augustan reforms, u cant build any cavalry in italia, u can only recruit those greek hippeis, did the romans not use cavalry at all in italy or something? =(

[Admetos]

Although I'm no historian, I think all thier cavalry in the Imperial era was auxiliary.

Offtopic: Hippeis

[Zaknafien]

Indeed. Romans were never famed for their cavalry in the first place, and by the Marian reforms the citizen cavalry ceased to exist in all but name.

[NightStar]

That's why we need Kataphract merenaries NOW

[iamroot]

The Roman calvary in the Camilian and Polybian eras are highly unimpressive. During the Marian and Imperial eras, you're better off with regionals. I personally like the Gallic calvary.

[cmacq]

Not sure if the game takes this into account, but this largely has to do with the type and breed of horse the Romans had access to.

[Zaknafien]

Not really, because on the other hand Campanian cavalry were quite well known as excellent horse troopers. The prominence of early Roman cavalry is misleading, because the "cavalry" were actually simply mounted hoplites that dismounted to fight, and use their horses to arrive at battle quickly. This is where the prestige arises around archaic Roman units like the equites celeres.

After this, Roman the Roman cavalry force was never truely intended as a shock arm, as the eques were used primarily for reconnassiance and foraging duties, and when met with combat preformed poorly against more traditional Hellenistic cavalry troopers, leading to the Romans eventual adoption of Hellenic cavalry panoplies by the time of the Punic wars.

[Sakkura]

Not sure if the game takes this into account, but this largely has to do with the type and breed of horse the Romans had access to.

Nah, it's mainly because once they had access to lots of excellent cavalry from provinces, there was no need for the Romans to use their semi-crappy homegrown cavalry; far better to save the manpower and resources for their excellent heavy infantry.

[cmacq]

There are archaeological studies that deal with this problem, if you like? As far as I can tell EB seems to have got the horse thingie very right. But as you'll note the best horses on the map are east and north while as one goes west the horse plays less a role in battle. Until you get to the poor brits who didn't use drawn-carts because they had horses, but only the little Kelt-horse; the (e)pony.

[Zaknafien]

A couple of good pieces you can read on the subject of Roman cavalry are:



The Roman Middle Class in the Republican Period by H. Hill

The Cavalry of the Roman Republic J. McCall

The Roman Nobility by Matthias Gelzer

[cmacq]

The arch. studies I’m thinking of are based on the actual horse bones. Let me find the right books, there here somewhere?

[Sakkura]

I think historical sources would be better suited than archaeology here, since they can provide insights into the reasons for doing things the way they were done.

[cmacq]

The bones of a given horse are the only direct evidence of something, that there will ever be. The horse as we know it today is by far not the same animal it was 3000 yrs ago. The ancient or native horse is small and relatively weak, the horse of today is the result of human breeding. Yet, as I wrote EB seems to be very much spot on about the horse thing. I'm still looking for the refs!

[cmacq]

Somehow I remember somewhere reading a paper about how Phillip II of Macedonia bought a huge herd of steppe horses several years before his death? Also another report about how Romans and western Celts couldn't get enough steppe horses to serve as breeding populations as the cost was prohibitive (middlemen I guess??).

Another study about the Iron-Age amber/ivory trade for large steppe breeds between Denmark-northern Germany and the Ukraine. I also remember several equine osteology studies that deal with late Iron-Age (pre- and early-Roman period [this is northern Europe, right]) horse size.

Still looking for the refs, hard to find with all this southwest US archaeology lit. here! I'll get back.

[cmacq]

Right finally found one,


Bökönyi, S. 1968
Data on Iron Age Horses of Central and Eastern Europe, in Meklenberg Collection, Part 1; American School of Prehistoric Research, Peabody Museum, Harvard University.


I'll get back to you with more refs, but must go for now.

[cmacq]

I found a few more

Benecke, N. 2006
Late Prehistoric Exploitation of Horses in Central Germany and Neighboring Areas - the Archaeozoological Record
BAR INTERNATIONAL SERIES, VOL 1560, pages 195-208.
ISSN 0143-3067

Hendricks, Bonnie L., 1995
International Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds, Univ. of Oklahoma Press.
ISBN 9780806127538

Olsen, Sandra L 2005
Early Horse Domestication on the Eurasian Steppe, in Documenting Domestication: New Genetic and Archarological Paradigms, Edited by Zeder, Melinda A, Daniel G Bradley, Eve Emshwiller, and Bruce D Smith.
ISBN 0520246381


Also please try online, DAD-IS, Domestic Animal Diversity Information System


Plase looking at these breeds:

Astrurian/Roman period-Asturcons/today often called Asturcon
Garrano
Sorraia
Fell Pony
Welsh Mountain Pony
Scottish Highland Pony
Exmoor Pony
Palfreys/Haubini/Hobbye
Kerry Bog Pony
Shetland Pony
Icelandic Pony

I had a Chincoteague years ago, called Dusty. His name due to the fact he loved to roll in the dust whenever someone rode him. It was always bareback, so if you were fast there was no problem. I inherited him from my wife, who was a far better rider than I. Not realy sure where she picked him up. Her farther may have given her the little beast, as he was a cowboy/artist (her father not the pony). Maybe he got him for a painting? That happened alot.


BTW Foot, EB v1.0 is great!

[Zaknafien]

I'll probably kick myself later for asking, but why are you so interested in prehistoric horse breeds?

[cmacq]

I’m an archaeologist? Now living and working in the Southwest US, focused on late prehistoric period abandonments and migrations, although have always been interested in the Late Bronze Age eastern Mediterranean Basin and Iron Age Euro and Roman periods in general. Horses just seem to come with the territory?

[Zaknafien]

thats pretty awesome. I want to get into field work in archaeology after the military career and my Phd of course. However, I dont think your prehistoric data is relevant to Middle and Late Republican Rome--as we know, the cavalry of several Italic contemperaries was reknown as being excellent shock and skirmish cavalry.

[Watchman]

Those were mainly from the southern parts weren't they ? That was a pretty agriculturally fertile region too - wonder if the ancient volcanoes had any connection to that...

Anyway, by what I've read of it by the EB period Roman cavalry was decent enough if nothing to write home about, and for partly financial partly political reasons they mostly preferred to "farm out" cavalry duty to the other Italics at their beck and call. Heavy cavalry in particular cost like the dickies after all, so why not get someone else foot the bill ?

[cmacq]

This is me vacillating…

I think what I wrote was not that the Roman horse units weren’t good, rather that they were inclined to have smaller horses.

When all’s said you in fact maybe right? I think I’m writing about generalities of large breeding populations, while you’ll writing about the specifics of performance, which may represent a population outside the mainstream?. This is just some overview, which you likely know already. It seems the Latins, of whom the Roman by virtue of their language were a group, entered Italy in the Late Bronze Age with the motley crew of Italics bring with them a breed of the Celtic-horse/pony. God, I can’t remember the name of this archaeological complex, but it was associated with cremation burials and was very similar to that found in Holland, Germany, and northern Poland. Right, I think it’s called the Urnfield Culture, which in time spread throughout much of Western Europe. These Celtic-horses were small and were used to pull two-wheeled carts or crude chariots. This Latin migration was the basis for the land-owning/horse-owning class, we know as the Roman equestrians, or knights.

I’ve read somewhere that for the lower ranking equestrians, the republic period roman horse was about 13 hands, which puts it well within the Pony Class. Also the horses of higher ranking equestrians ranged from 14 to 15 hands. The former measurement being the top of the Pony Class and the latter the bottom of the horse Class, respectively. I believe these conclusions were largely based on depictions found on sculpture and what little textual reference there is. I can’t remember if any equine osteology was involved here?

However, with this said, it doesn’t mean that Roman horse units were not effective, especially within Italy itself. Still, by the 1st century, with Roman imperial-light expansion, it seems that Roman Cavalry was completely outclassed by their Gallic counterparts, whom in turn were vastly inferior to those found in Germany. Although, the development of the Celt saddle was one factor, I think the horse-size as well as strength mattered. But again, there maybe some evidence out there that certain Italian states had from-time-to-time access to good Steppe-type horses? Possibly, large enough to set up a series of small short-termed breeding genus’, within a greater, more general Celtic-horse related Italian equine population? Hope this may have made a little sense?


Still, from everything I've seen the EB design team, possibly coming from a different direction, came to a similar conclusion? As far as the game is concerned, it really doesn't matter how big the horse was, rather how well the horse unit preformed in battle, right? In fact, horse size may be assumed within the light, medium, and heavy horse classes. There’s much here I won't go into. Overall, I suggested, archaeologically, why in general Roman horse units may not perform per say, as well as, German, or Steppe-types. Again, I believe EB v1.0 depicts the relationship between Roman, Gallic, German, and Steppe horse types very well.

Hope this may help?

[cmacq]

Those were mainly from the southern parts weren't they ? That was a pretty agriculturally fertile region too - wonder if the ancient volcanoes had any connection to that...

Anyway, by what I've read of it by the EB period Roman cavalry was decent enough if nothing to write home about, and for partly financial partly political reasons they mostly preferred to "farm out" cavalry duty to the other Italics at their beck and call. Heavy cavalry in particular cost like the dickies after all, so why not get someone else foot the bill ?

Watchman, as far as larger horses, that may make some sense, which south Italian states are you thinking of? I'm guessing there's an eastern Greek/Macedonian connection at work?

[Zaknafien]

Other factors contribute as well; without stirrups, high backed saddles, and horseshoes, a cavalryman is always at danger of being thrown off balance. Before the the "greek" reforms the Roman cavalry fought without armor and could maintain better balance but were vulnerable to infantry obviously. The Romans knew the limitations of cavalry and learned how to fight effectively against it--they knew a horseman riding to them was more vulnerable than they were.

[cmacq]

I want to get into field work in archaeology

If you want there's this thing called PIT where you can do field work. In fact, we're doing another Pit next week in the Thumb Area.

[Watchman]

Other factors contribute as well; without stirrups, high backed saddles, and horseshoes, a cavalryman is always at danger of being thrown off balance.

Didn't seem to particularly affect the Hetairoi or much anyone else though... and I fail to see what horseshoes have to do with the rider's seating.

Before the the "greek" reforms the Roman cavalry fought without armor and could maintain better balance but were vulnerable to infantry obviously.

They used shields though, recall. While it's anyone's guess what actual time period Polybius' (?) exposition of the way the Roman horse converted from an essentially skirmish arm into a passable shock force refers to, he does talk of them having carried shields even in the earlier phase and stuck to the practice later, but with designs better suited for close combat.

Greek cavalry conversely were quite late in adopting shields; that seems to have been more of a Celtic and Italic practice, although the steppe nomads were at it even earlier (which makes you wonder if the Celts didn't pick the habit up from the Scythians in the Central European contact zone between the two).

I'm sorta wondering if the Roman cavalry "reforms" weren't rather prompted by contacts with the Cisalpine Gauls, given that the rather "macho" Celtic warrior ideal had little room for dedicated skirmish cavalry (anyone who could afford a horse was nobility pretty much by default, and they in particular had to show their prowess in close combat) and their more aggressive horse would then presumably have soundly trounced the early Italic mounted skirmishers in a straight clash before starting to savage the flanks of the Roman foot...

That the Romans would have mated Greek gear to Celtic practices only stands to reason, as it was the former they were already familiar with and had the infrastructure for; and besides, I doubt if the proud equestrain nobles were too keen on copying much of the war gear of the loatshome savages of the north...

The Romans knew the limitations of cavalry and learned how to fight effectively against it--they knew a horseman riding to them was more vulnerable than they were.

It's actually just that any cavalry has problems with the prospect of charging home against a solid mass of steady close-order infantry, nevermind now one that presents them with a hedge of spears or pours a torrent of heavy javelins at their face. Even cataphracts often found the prospect daunting or at least chancy, and decently confident spear levies could stop Medieval knights cold readily enough.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think the main problem with Roman cavalry was that they basically lacked the land to be really enthusiastic horsemen. The Thessalian and Makedonian nobility were basically horse mad, my name being an example of just how horse mad.

That's why they were so good even without saddle stirrups etc.

Horseshoes btw, allow the horse to carry a greater load, i.e. more armour.

[Watchman]

The parts of Italy the Romans proper inhabited were kinda sucky for horse-raising weren't they ? (Same with most of the Greek peninsula for that matter.)

This would be the first time ever I hear of horseshoes improving the animals' load-bearing ability. All I've read of them thus far indicates they just reduce the wear on hooves when carrying loads for longer time, especially on harder surfaces, and partially protect the ceratine or whatever it now is where ground is damp and wet. (Horse hooves apparently start getting soft eventually when damp, just like fingernails do.)

[Sakkura]

All I've read of them thus far indicates they just reduce the wear on hooves when carrying loads for longer time, especially on harder surfaces, and partially protect the ceratine or whatever it now is where ground is damp and wet.

It's α-keratin