[gothic-l] Roman Cavalry Weakness

[Bertil Haggman]

This is of course not correct. There are no sources
whatsoever for this. The old legionary infantry routine
continued up to 476 AD. Even if there was substantial
cavalry it failed to do the job, but there wasn't.

History itself is the guide for the failure of the West Roman
army. It would be necessary if someone wanted (and I
cannot understand why) to prove a strong cavalry to
come up with some relative estimates. So far I have seen
none.

If one regards the Gothic, Hunnic and Alan cavalry at
Adrianople one would like to see some support for figure
guesses but it is not a matter of Adrianople. It is the
development from say the 390s to the 470s. These
figures ought to be of importance.

The stuff about the Romans winning almost all the battles
but loosing the empire does not sound very reliable,
does it? For the romantic, I think that such a romantic view
is depicted by those who are attempting to put a softer
light on the corrupt final century of the West Roman empire.
But there are still a few romantics out there, when in reality
the Goths were welcomed. The myth of 'barbarians' has been
perpetuated mainly by the Roman Catholic church although
there is a slight differnce between the views concerning
Ostrogoths and Lombards on the negative-positive
scale.

Gothically

Bertil


> 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.

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

> 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.



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Access Your PC from Anywhere
It's Easy. It's Fast. - Free Download
http://us.click.yahoo.com/AxtVhB/6XkDAA/_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/