Roman cavalry (Latin:equites Romani) refers to thehorse-mounted forces of theRoman army throughout theregal,republican, andimperial eras.
In the regal era, the Roman cavalry was a group of 300 soldiers calledceleres, tasked with guarding theKings of Rome. Later their numbers were doubled to 600, then possibly 1,800. All of the cavalrymen werepatricians. In the republican era, the general name for the cavalry wasequites and these united consisted of the equestrian class and the first class, with a group of 300 cavalrymen in every legion. They were divided into 10 groups of 30 men. Each group elected three leaders known asdecuriones. Later the Roman cavalry stopped usingRoman citizens as cavalrymen and relied onAuxilia and foreign recruits.
Roman cavalrymen wore aCorinthian helmet,bronze chestplate, and bronzegreaves. Latermail was adopted into the army. Their arms included alance (lancea), a long sword (spatha), and a short throwingspear.
Historians such as Philip Sidnell argue that the Roman cavalry was a crucial part of the republican army. However, other historians bring up defeats such asCannae andTrebia as evidence against this claim. Cavalry tactics included fighting the enemycavalry first, then attacking the enemy army from multiple directions to distract the commander and break their defensive line. In theLate Empirelight cavalry andmounted archers were used forskirmishing.
Romulus supposedly established a cavalry regiment of 300 men called theCeleres ("the Swift Squadron") to act as his personal escort, with each of the three tribes supplying acenturia (century; company of 100 men). This cavalry regiment was supposedly doubled in size to 600 men by KingTarquinius Priscus (conventional dates 616–578 BC).[1] According to Livy, Servius Tullius also established a further 12centuriae of cavalry,[2] but this is unlikely, as it would have increased the cavalry to 1,800 horse, implausibly large compared to 8,400 infantry (in peninsular Italy, cavalry typically constituted about 8% of a field army).[3] This is confirmed by the fact that in the early Republic the cavalry fielded remained 600-strong (two legions with 300 horse each).[4][full citation needed]
The royal cavalry may have been drawn exclusively from the ranks of thepatricians (patricii), the aristocracy of early Rome, which was purely hereditary,[5][full citation needed] although some consider the supporting evidence tenuous.[6][full citation needed]. Since the cavalry was probably a patrician preserve, it probably played a critical part in theoverthrow of the monarchy. Indeed, Alfoldi suggests that the coup was carried out by theCeleres themselves.[7][full citation needed] However, the patrician monopoly on the cavalry seems to have ended by around 400 BC, when the 12centuriae ofequites additional to the original six of regal origin were probably formed. Most likely patrician numbers were no longer sufficient to supply the ever-growing needs of the cavalry. It is widely agreed that the newcenturiae were open to non-patricians, on the basis of a property rating.[8]
According to the ancient Greek historianPolybius, whoseHistories (written ca. 140s BC) are the earliest substantial extant account of the Republic, Roman cavalry was originally unarmoured, wearing only a tunic and armed with a light spear and ox-hide shield which were of low quality and quickly deteriorated in action.[9] The traditional Roman cavalry rode small pony-sized horses around 14 hands high.[10]
Ashoplite warfare was the standard early in this era, cavalry might have not played a substantial role in battle except for chasing after routed enemies.[11]
As their name implies, theequites were required to serve up to 10 years of service in the cavalry between the ages of 17 and 46.[12] in thePolybian legion.Equites originally provided a legion's entire cavalry contingent,[12] although from an early stage, whenequites numbers had become insufficient, large numbers of young men from the First Class of commoners were regularly volunteering for the service, which was considered more glamorous than the infantry.[13][full citation needed] By the time of theSecond Punic War, it is likely that all members of the First Class served in the cavalry, since Livy states that members of Class I were required to equip themselves with a round shield (clipeus), rather than the oblong shield (scutum) required of the other classes (all images of cavalrymen of this period show round shields).[2] It appears thatequites equo privato (i.e., First Class members) were required to pay for their own equipment and horse, but that the latter would be refunded by the state if it was killed in action.[14][full citation needed] Cavalrymen in service were paid adrachma per day, triple the infantry rate, and were liable to a maximum of ten campaigning seasons' military service, compared to sixteen for the infantry.[15]
Each Polybian legion contained a cavalry contingent of 300 horse, which does not appear to have been officered by an overall commander.[16] The cavalry contingent was divided into 10turmae (squadrons) of 30 men each. The squadron members would elect as their officers threedecuriones ("leaders of ten men"), of whom the first to be chosen would act as the squadron's leader and the other two as his deputies.[17] From the available evidence, the cavalry of a Polybian legion (and presumably confederate cavalry also) was armoured and specialised in the shock charge.[18][full citation needed]
.jpg)
The majority of pictorial evidence for the equipment of Republican cavalry is from stone monuments, such as mausoleums, columns, arches and Roman military tombstones. The earliest extant representations of Roman cavalrymen are found on a few coins dated to the era of theSecond Punic War (218–201 BC). In one, the rider wears a variant of a Corinthian helmet and appears to wear greaves on the legs. His body armour is obscured by his small round shield (parma equestris). It was probably a bronze breastplate, as a coin of 197 BC shows a Roman cavalryman in Hellenistic composite cuirass and helmet. But the Roman cavalry may already have adoptedmail armour (lorica hamata) from theCelts, who are known to have been using it as early as ca. 300 BC. Mail had certainly been adopted by ca. 150 BC, as Polybius states that the First Class were expected to provide themselves with mail cuirasses,[19] and the monument erected atDelphi byL. Aemilius Paullus to commemorate his victory at theBattle of Pydna (168 BC) depicts Roman cavalrymen in mail.[20][full citation needed] However, a coin of 136 BC and the Lacus Curtius bas-relief of the same period show horsemen in composite bronze cuirasses. The Romansaddle was one of the earliest solid-treed saddles in the west was the "four horn" design, first used by the Romans as early as the 1st century BC.[21] Neither design had stirrups.[22]
There is similar uncertainty as to whether cavalrymen carried shields, despite the fact that many Roman military tombstones depictequites with oval shields on the left side of their horses (not generally used by Greek cavalry until after ca. 250 BC) and the related question of whether they carried long lances or shorter spears, thedoru mentioned by Polybius.[17][23] Most representations show cavalrymen with theparma equestris, a flat type of shield, but the Ahenobarbus monument of 122 BC and the coin of 136 BC both show cavalrymen without shields. Sidnell suggests that sinceequites were expected to provide their own equipment they may have chosen their own type and combination of armour and weapons (e.g., long lance with no shield or short spear with shield),[20][full citation needed] but the evidence is too scant to draw any firm conclusions. Before the invention offull plate armour in theHigh Middle Ages, all combatants would carry shields as a vital piece of equipment.
.jpg)
Pictorial evidence, such as thestele of Titus Flavius Bassus (eques of the ala Noricum) or Tomb monument of a cavalryman from 1st century AD (Romano-Germanic Museum, Cologne Germany) supports literary accounts thatequites carried swords, such as thespatha, which was much longer thangladii hispanienses (Spanish swords) used by the infantry[24][full citation needed]. The Ahenobarbus monument also shows a cavalryman with a dagger (pugio). There is no evidence thatequites carried bows and arrows and the Romans probably had no mounted archers before they came into contact withParthian forces after 100 BC.
There is a conception that Roman Republican cavalry was inferior to other cavalry and that they were just to support their far superior infantry. However, Philip Sidnell argues that this view is misguided and that the cavalry was a powerful and crucial asset to the Republican army.[25][full citation needed] Sidnell argues that the record shows that Roman cavalry in Republican times were a strong force in which they bested higher reputed cavalry of the time. Examples include theHeraclea (280 BC), in where the Roman cavalry dismayed the enemy leaderPyrrhus by gaining the advantage in a bitterly contestedmelee against hisThessalian cavalry, then regarded as some of the finest in the Western world, and were only driven back when Pyrrhus deployed his elephants, which panicked the Roman horses.[26]
Other examples include the Equites' victory over the vaunted Gallic horse atTelamon, andSentinum, against the Germanic cavalry of theTeutons andCimbri atVercellae, and even against the technologically more advancedSeleucid cavalry (including fully armoredcataphracts) atMagnesia. Contrary to the popular depiction that the legionary infantry were the primary battle winning force of the Roman army, these encounters were primary decided by the success of the Roman cavalry, who crushed the enemies' mounted forces before falling on the flanks of their infantry. At theClastidium the Roman cavalry were even able to triumph unaided against superior numbers of Gallic foot soldiers and horsemen, showing their ability when properly led.[27]
A key reason for some historians' disparagement of the Roman cavalry were the crushing defeats at theTrebia and atCannae, that it suffered at the hands of the Carthaginian generalHannibal during the latter's invasion of Rome (218-6 BC), which were only rendered possible because of a powerful cavalry force. But Sidnell argues that this is only because of a consistent numerical superiority in cavalry. Another disadvantage for the Romans in the Second Punic War was that their respective cavalry were melee cavalry better suited for combating enemy melee cavalry and engaging the rear and flanks of infantry formations. This, however useful and effective against the Romans' regular opponents, failed against Hannibal's nimbleNumidian light cavalry, whose use of skilful hit and run tactics exasperated the Roman cavalry who were unable to come to grips with them.
Nevertheless, on those occasions during the Second Punic War when they were deployed properly, led competently, and/or had the advantage of numbers or surprise, such as during the skirmish beforeIlipa[28] and at the pitched battles of theGreat Plains andZama, the Roman cavalry were able to best their Carthaginian counterparts, independent of the success of their own allied Numidians. On occasion, such as atDertosa, they were able to hold their own despite being supposedly outnumbered in a skirmish with Carthaginian cavalry.
The Second Punic War placed unprecedented strains on Roman manpower, not least on the over 10,000+drachmae First Class, which provided the cavalry. During Hannibal's march through Italy (218-6 BC), thousands of Roman cavalrymen were killed on the battlefield. The losses were especially serious for the knights properly so-called (equo publico): Livy relates how, after Cannae, the gold rings of dead Roman knights formed a pile onemodius (ca. 9 litres) large.[29] In the succeeding years 214-203 BC, the Romans kept at least 21 legions in the field at all times, in Roman territories (and 25 legions in the peak year).[30][full citation needed] This would have required the knights to provide 220 senior officers (120tribuni militum, 60decuriones and 60praefecti sociorum). It was probably from this time that the 18centuriae of knights became largely an officer class, while the 6,300 Roman cavalrymen required were raised from the rest of the First Class.
The cavalry of Roman armies before the Second Punic War had been exclusively Roman and allies, with each holding one wing of the battleline (the Romans usually holding the right wing). After that war, Roman cavalry was always complemented by allied native cavalry (especiallyNumidian cavalry), and was usually combined on just one wing. Indeed, the allied cavalry often outnumbered the combined Roman force, e.g. at Zama, where the 4,000Numidians held the right, with just 1,500 Romans on the left.[31] One reason was the lessons learnt in the war, namely the need to complement heavy cavalry with plenty of light, faster horse, as well as increasing the cavalry share when engaging with enemies with more powerful mounted forces. It was also inevitable that, as the Roman Republic acquired an overseas empire and the Roman army now campaigned entirely outside Italian peninsula, the best allied cavalry would be enlisted in increasing numbers, including (in addition to Numidians) Gallic, Spanish and Thracian horse.[32][full citation needed] Towards the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire, the Roman cavalry itself was rendered less and less of a powerful force, with Rome meeting its cavalry needs with auxiliary, allied cavalry instead.
Nevertheless, Roman and allied cavalry continued to form an essential part of a Roman army's line-up for over a century. They were again, less successful against elusive tribal cavalry, such as theLusitanians underViriathus in their bitter resistance to Roman rule (151-140 BC) and the Numidians themselves under kingJugurtha during the latter's rebellion (112-105 BC), when they were obliged to rely heavily on their own Numidian allied horse[33][full citation needed] and the Romans were deprived of their strongest cavalry.
By the end of the 1st century BC citizen cavalry disappeared completely from theRoman army and was replaced by foreign auxiliaries.[12] TheJugurthine War is the last war in which Roman confederate cavalry is attested as having played a significant part. After that, references to the citizen cavalry become rare and the Roman army seems to have become largely dependent on non-citizen cavalry, either recruited in the subject provinces or supplied by allied kings. Citizen legionary cavalry was abolished and entirely replaced by native allied cavalry.[34][full citation needed] This process may have happened gradually as a result of the grant of Roman citizenship to all of Rome's allied confederates after theSocial War (91–87 BC),[35] which led to the abolition of the old allied confederatealae and the recruitment of all allies into the legions. For the cavalry, the abolition of thealae had the radical result of reducing the Roman cavalry to just a quarter of its previous size, since legions contained only a third as many horse as confederatealae. Legionary cavalry was thus reduced to a fraction of a Roman army's overall cavalry complement: a consular army of two legions now contained about 20% cavalry (i.e., ca. 4,000 horse) of which, at most, only 600 were Romans. Indeed, the Roman element may now have numbered just 240, as it is possible that around this time, the legionary cavalry contingent was reduced to 120.
It also appears that from this time onwards, Roman knights were no longer levied for cavalry service, which was now recruited from commoners.[36][full citation needed] By the time ofJulius Caesar'sGallic Wars (58–50 BC), it appears that legionary cavalry may have disappeared altogether, and that Caesar was entirely dependent on allied Gallic contingents for his cavalry operations.[37][full citation needed] This is deduced from an incident in 58 BC when Caesar was invited to a parley with the German kingAriovistus and needed a cavalry escort. Since he didn't yet trust the allied Gallic cavalry under his command, he instructed them to lend their horses to some members of the Tenth Legion, which thereafter acquired the nicknameequestris ("mounted legion").[38] (However, this incident leaves open the possibility that Roman cavalry still existed, but was not large enough to satisfy the needs of the moment).
The question arises as to why the Romans allowed their citizen cavalry to lapse in this way, given its record as a highly effective and useful force. The main reason is probably the limited pool of availableequites and First Class members. Theequites had long since become exclusively an officer class (a role they retained throughout the Principate), as the empire had become simply too large and complex for aristocrats to serve as ordinary troopers. At the same time, many of the First Class of commoners had developed major business interests and had little time for military service. Although commoners of the lower classes could, of course, have been recruited and trained as cavalrymen in larger numbers, that must have seemed costly and unnecessary when subject countries such as Gaul, Spain, Thrace and Numidia contained large numbers of excellent native cavalry which could be employed at much lower pay than citizens.[32][full citation needed]
The Romans always relied on their allies to provide cavalry. These were known as thefoederati. A typical consular army of the Second Punic War would have much more auxiliary cavalry. As the commoners gained citizenship by the time ofSocial War and the Legionary cavalry became less, most cavalry were provided by allied nations from Numidia, Greece, Thrace, Iberia, Gaul and Germania. Such as at theBattle of Zama where the majority of cavalry were Numidians. Most of the cavalry in Caesar's campaigns were Gauls and Germans. These units were not part of the regular Roman army and were bound by treaties. These often were armed with their own native equipment and were led by native chiefs.
When the Republic transitioned into the Empire,Augustus restored to each Roman legion a small citizen cavalry force (recruited from the legionaries themselves) of 120 men.[39][40]
Augustus also made a regular Auxilia corps of non-citizen soldiers. These professional Roman soldiers, like the Legions, were subjects recruited from the non-citizens in provinces controlled by Rome that had strong native cavalry traditions. These men, unlike the alliedfoederati cavalry, were a regular part of the Roman army and were paid and trained by the Roman State.Arrian describes them as well-equipped and performing well-executed manoeuvres. A typical cavalrymen of theala would be paid 20 percent more than a typical citizen legionary. Roman Auxilia cavalry were usually heavily armored inmail and armed with a short lance, javelins,spatha long swords and sometimes bows for specialist horse archer units. These men primarily served as medium missile cavalry for flanking, scouting, skirmish, and pursuit. As opposed to more modern cavalry units where the horses were kept in stables separate from the riders; Roman cavalry housed the riders and horses in the same barracks.[41]
By the time of the 3rd century, theConstitutio Antoniniana granted all peoples citizenship rights, and citizen cavalry was in use technically.Gallienus in 260 created a mobile reserve cavalry corps to respond to the empire's threats. Responding to Persian cavalry known as theGrivpanvar, large numbers of heavily armored cavalry units such ascataphractarii,clibinarii, started to appear by the 4th century. These units were armed with a large spear, a sword and a bow.[11] However, the primary strength of the Roman army remained the infantry.
Although Augustus created regular auxiliaries, irregular allied forces were still used. For example,Marcus Aurelius recruited Sarmatian allied cavalry to be stationed in Britain. By the 4th century, Romans relied heavily on irregular allies from the migrating Germanic tribes and the Huns.
Roman cavalry did not have a stirrup. The device was introduced to Europe by invading tribes, though it is not known which in particular, after thecollapse of the Western Roman Empire.[42]
Before attacking the infantry the cavalry would try to destroy the enemy cavalry. Afterwards, the Roman cavalry would charge at the enemy army from multiple directions in an attempt to divert the commander's attention and break the enemy line. This attack was supposed to induce disorder into the enemy ranks and to shatter theirmorale of the enemy.Heavy cavalry would be placed on the wings of the Roman infantry line. Within theLate Roman army, light cavalrymen and mounted archers were placed in skirmishing positions in front of the Roman line. The light cavalry and mounted archers would quickly attack the enemy, before retreating and letting the enemy attack thecomitatenses. Gallic auxiliaries would form border patrol and escort units called thecohortes equitatae and theequites alares would serve in the army, using throwing spears as a major weapon. The weapons of the cavalry were designed to disrupt the formation of the enemy.[43][44][45][46]
The Roman army used citizen cavalry for much of its history. However, by the time of the 1st century BC citizen cavalry disappeared from the Roman army. Citizen cavalry was replaced by foreign auxiliary cavalry. The auxiliary cavalry was made up ofNumidians,Spaniards, andGauls. Numidian, Spanish, and Gallic cavalry were superior to Roman cavalry. During theSecond Punic War the Roman cavalry suffered many defeats, demonstrating the inferiority of native Roman cavalry.[43]
Roman cavalry trained usingjavelins,spears,slingshots,arrows, and small handheldcatapults. The cavalry would learn feint attacks. Cavalry soldiers would train in formations that involved shooting arrows and throwing missiles. The training was designed to make sure the cavalry did not break in battle. Another formation the cavalry used was similar to thetestudo: the cavalrymen would join with lockedshields to increase the unit's protection.[46]
