[gothic-l] Roman Cavalry Weakness

[Tim O'Neill]

On Sunday, March 24, 2002 1:59 AM, Bertil Haggman [SMTP:mvk575b at tninet.se] wrote:

> These figures are of course only relating to
> 380 AD.

Making them directly relevant for any discussion
mentioning Adrianople.

> It would be more interesting to have
> figure per year for the hundred years to 476 AD.

It certainly would.  All the evidence indicates, of
course, that cavalry had been becoming the most
important troop arm of the Roman army since the
time of Gallienus and cavalry units had been increasing
in number, staus and diversity in both the Eastern and
Western armies throughout the third, fourth and into
the fifth centuries.

The Germanic invaders, on the other hand, fielded
substantially infantry armies and even those who
adopted steppe cavalry tactics still had armies which
were substantially infantry.

> Well, we all have our opinions on these things
> and Adrianople is of course only one example.

Yes indeed.  Some of those who have opinions on these
things are military historians like MacDowell and Burns,
so I tend to trust their opinions.  Especially since they
back them up with substantial argument.  That's why
most modern authorities (though perhaps not some
popular or generalist writers) agree on the numbers and
troop type proportions I cited in my last post.

The idea that the Goths had some overwhelming
superiority in the numbers of cavalry at Adrianople is
widely regarded as a myth.  The Romans are most likely
to have actually out-numbered them in cavalry at that\
battle.

> Moving now to another battle to illustrate Roman
> inability to create strong cavalry and losing out
> in the RMA of that age. I am referring to the
> Battle of Argentoratum 357 AD, although I think
> this battle actually is a little early to show
> the lack of ability of the West Romans to organize
> their cavalry forces.

Especially considering they won that battle.

> That they failed is of course
> proven correct by the collapse in 476 AD.

A largely political, economic and administrative collapse
which had virtually nothing to do with cavalry or battles,
which is 'proven correct' by the fact that the Romans
actually *won* the overwhelming majority of the battles
leading up to that collapse.

> The strength of the Roman cavalry at Argentoratum
> 600 can be estimated at clibanarii 600, horse archers
> and light cavalry 900 while the opposing forces had
> 4,000 cavalry.

Where are you getting these numbers?

> This fits well with the ratio of
> Adrianople.

The ratio based on whose estimates?  It doesn't fit well with
the current thinking about what this ratio was at Adrianople
at all.

>The Romans had only half the strength.

According to who?

> The Romans happened to win this one, as they sometimes
> did.

As I've pointed out - they won almost all the battles leading
up to the *political* events of 476.  The fall of the West had
nothing to do with tactics, little to do with strategy, nothing
to do with cavalry and a lot to do with macro-economics.

Less romantic and dashing than images of heavy Gothic
cavalry sweeping away corrupt and demoralised legions
in noble battle, but history is rarely romantic.

Tim O'Neill

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Access Your PC from Anywhere
Full setup in 2 minutes! - Free Download
http://us.click.yahoo.com/MxtVhB/2XkDAA/_ZuFAA/wWMplB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

You are a member of the Gothic-L list.  To unsubscribe, send a blank email to <gothic-l-unsubscribe at egroups.com>.

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/