Why is Roman cavalry never discussed? How good was it?
>>761831
Depends on what time period you are refering to.
The Byzantine horse archers were good if not great, allthough still inferior to the their sassanid counterparts.
>>761831
>Roman """"Cavalry""""
>Laughing_Asiatic_Entities.jpg
In terms of earlier eras than the byzantine one (in which cavalry was the central part of the army) infantry was the primary component of the army.
IIRC the roman cavaly in the republic era was competent and tended to do well in battles allthough it was severly limited in size. Once the state started to expand however the role of cavalry was left more and more to the auxillaries as they had a greater experience and tradition of fighting on horseback. I wouldn't be suprised if the increased wealth of the state during its period of vast expansion following the second punic war also lead to a decrease in willingness from the the roman knight-class to go into military service as civilian life was much more pleasant and gave room for enrichment through trade etc.
>>761831
How's he going to wield that standard when they're charging?
Would be kind of awkward
>>761965
They didn't charge
>>761969
Wasn't the point of standards to be seen by men in order to know where they need to regroup in the heat of battle?
>>761831
>Why is Roman cavalry never discussed?
Because by virtue of having class-based enlistment, it was always very small, so small that by the mid-late republic (you know, when we actually start having enough material on the roman armies to have worthwhile discussions) the need for army officers (who were also class locked and from the same class as cavalry) made it so there basically was no manpower base for anything beyond scouting contingents. By the time the legions went pro, they already had conquered populations whose military tradition focused heavily on cavalry (mostly berbers and some gauls), so they chose to go all auxiliaries for mounted troops and focus the italic enlistment for heavy infantry.
>How good was it?
Pretty good. It accounted well of itself against the diadochi's armies, and it shamed itself never.
>>761965
Not more awkward than holding any kind of polearm. the Aquilifer probably didn't actually attack on a charge, rather stayed in the midst of the troop.
>>761971
They accomplish a bunch of things. Theyre for organization, so that when the battle call sounds you can look up and find out where youre supposed to be. They provide a regrouping point in the case of a rout. They boost moral, and conversely if the standard falls then there is a high probability of a rout. Thats why theres always someone (in the movies and real life) who runs for the standard when the bearer dies.
Probably a good bit more then I mentioned too. Theyre pretty important.
>>761952
this desu.
Persian cavalry>Roman cavalry
Equites were elitist fucktards who were shit at fighting. They were mostly used for flanking, pursuing and scouting.
without the stirrup, it's pretty hard to fight from a horse
Roman cavalry would attack the enemies flank and the speed of a horse was very effective
>>762746
So you are saying that they functioned as cavalry?
>>762122
>and it shamed itself never.
It was BTFO by Hannibal's numidian cavalry
>>761831
It really didn't exist desu desu. Past the Marian reforms there weren't enough equestrians to serve in the cavalry, so it was usually always just auxiliary cavs.
>>763013
Yeah well if you mean Cannae, there's no shame in losing a 6k vs 10k engagement, come on.
>>763013
Everyone was BTFO by numidian cavalry. Getting fucked over by the best cavalry in the western mediterranean is hardly shaming onelself. There's a reason the romans recruited vast amounts of numidian cavalry auxillaries when they had the opportunity.
>>761940
>Byzantine horse archers were good if not great
They weren't great. They were barely adequate. Until the 7th century, most of Byzantine's military was still more centric on heavy infantry then cavalry or archers.
>>761831
Let's just say that a big reason for Hannibal's victory at Cannae was the superiority of the Numidian cavalry and a big reason for Scipio's victory at Zama was that the Numidians had switched sides to the Romans.
>>762762
Except that's bullshit you fucking plebeian. Greek and Persian style cavalry were used to great effect for over 800 years before the stirrup was introduced and for at least 400 years after. Couched lance heavy cavalry wasn't introduced until the mid 11th century, and had more to do with the introduction of cantled saddles, rowel spurs, and heavy-weight horse breeds. I guess Alexander, Mithritades, Hannibal, Pyrrhus, Laevinus, Caesar, Artavasdes, Attila, Alaric, and countless other commanders were just retarded for putting emphasis on cavalry and should have waited for stirrups to be developed before fighting.
>>761831
It depends when, and against whom. It was patently inferior to Carthaginian and Numidian cavalry during the Second Punic War, and was generally comparable to other cavalry used in the ancient world (As opposed to the revolutionary nature of the manipular and Polybian legions when compared to the traditional Sarissa phalanx). It was generally quite good though; Roman cavalry under Laevinus was able to fight head-to-head with Epirote heavy cavalry and win, and later Roman Alae Equites and Equites Cataphracti would be able to do the same with the Sassanids and Parthians.
Same reason the Hellenes didn't have cavalry: Italy was ill-suited for cavalry warfare.
>>764104
This. They had bad-ass heavy infantry, which are great for defending cities and enclosed areas, but their non-mercenary auxiliary cavalry was shite and furnished by rich fucks who just wanted the social-status that went along with cavalry and who didn't want to march long distances in heavy armor and be willing to put themselves in combat situations which would force them to put themselves positions where they might have to risk their lives protecting someone else in a line-column.
>>764129
That, and horses got you to the enemy's booty much quicker than running on foot.
>>763083
Good enough to beat avars in open battle.
That's pretty damn good.
>>761831
Hard to say. Generally it wasn't numerous enough to make any real assement of it-even if they were fucking centaurs, the equites were usually too few in number to do more than sit around and hope the center won before they got swamped.
>>763083
I've seen nothing to suggest that byzantine hippo-toxotai, when raised by the state, were not good.
>>764104
The Hellenes loved cavalry, and the campaniles, just south of Rome, were known for their riders.
>>764230
The Makedonians were reknown for their cavalry, as per Phillip and Alexander, but south of Makedon, Hellas is largely mountainous and ill-suited for cavalry. There were small continents of horsemen, but they were primarily scouts, screeners and harassed and pursued fleeing armies.
Outside of Greece, in the colonies, they would have adopted horses since the terrain suited them, but not in Magna Graecia
>>764254
You're forgetting Thessaly.
And most of the Hellenic world ended up being asia minor and egpyt.
The city-states didn't like cavalry, to be sure. No arguments there.
>>762746
>Equites were elitist fucktards who were shit at fighting. They were mostly used for flanking, pursuing and scouting.
Except that's wrong, you fucking retard. The Equites felt scouting was beneath them, so they rarely if ever actually did that.
>>761831
Ranged from mediocre to pretty good.
/thread
Kinda weak, even the Romans accepted it desu
Every movement on the battlefield was based around the Roman infantry, cavalry was merely support on its flanks
>>764104
Until of course, the medieval and renaissance periods, when Italians would be fielding armies that were too cavalry heavy, not the reverse.
Because for the most part Roman cavalry was shit and would get BTFO repeatedly until they simply left it up to auxilia.
>>762762
this, stirrup not adopted by "rome" (frank gaul by this stage) until charlemagne+ 800~, from this, great success ensured.
>>761971
>Wasn't the point of standards to be seen by men in order to know where they need to regroup in the heat of battle?
thankyou
more used for resource-logistics at this stage. conquering barbarians in legion formation the more effective tech tier break strategy.
no point for fielding cavalry legions.
best "roman" cavalry imo were polish hussars, the last winged devils of europe before the modern age of gunpowder (which had been flirting in from the east for 600+ years already but anyway)
hon. mention to tsarz opriniks. peasent slayers.
>>766350
Why the connection between the Romans and Poles?
>>762122
>and it shamed itself never
It was whipped and fled numerous times by Carthage's Numidian cavalry.
>>766367
White Empire, holy hand grenades and shit
why is numidian cavarly depicted as barefoot
>>766746
stupid assumptions that Berbers were like the "Africans were le tribal spearchucking savages" meme
>>766367
They both existed at one point in time.
poo
Byazntine horse archers won the last major war between the empire and the Persian despot who invaded without pretense. They raided and pillaged their enemies' homeland until peace was established
