[gothic-l] Roman Cavalry Weakness

[Tim O'Neill]

On Sunday, March 24, 2002 6:26 PM, Bertil Haggman [SMTP:mvk575b at tninet.se] wrote:

> This is of course not correct.

"This of course not correct."  That's a nice categorical (and
completely unsupported) statement, but if the 'this' in that
bald assertion is the idea that cavalry increased in number,
status, variety and tactical importance in the late Roman
army, then I can only wonder at how much (or how little)
reading you've done on the subject.

The increasing importance and status of cavalry in the late
Roman army is a fundamental, elementary and commonplace
fact.  Even the most basic and simplistic overview of the
army in this period takes account of this trend and even a
cursory reading of the relevant specialist texts on the Roman
army in this period couldn't fail to notice that this is universally
acknowledged by military historians.

What have you read on this subject?  What evidence and
authors do you have to support your (remarkable) statement
above?

Some suggested reading:

Simon Macdowell, 'The Late Roman Cavalryman: 236-565 AD'
(Osprey: London 1994)
Karen R. Dixon, Pat Southern, 'Roman Cavalry' (Routledge:
London 1997)
Karen R. Dixon, Pat Southern, 'Late Roman Army'
(Routledge: London 2000)
Hugh Elton, 'Warfare in Roman Europe' (OUP: Oxford, 1998)

All of these works are recent titles by specialist academics
who are recognised authorities in the field of late Roman
military studies.  And like all other writers on this topic, they
demonstrate that cavalry increased in importance during
the late Roman period and came to be the predominant
arm of the Roman military in the East as a result of this
fundamental change.

This is basic stuff.

> There are no sources whatsoever for this.

Another bald statement, without any supporting argument
or authority.  Perhaps you feel simply stating these things
makes them true.  I've already given you sources which
support the rise of cavalry in the late Roman army - the
same sources used by the authors listed above and which
make the importance of Roman cavalry in this period a
fundamental and elementary fact.


>The old legionary infantry routine continued up to 476 AD.

Aspects of the old legionary infantry routine survived, but
after the reforms of Gallienus, Diocletian and Constatine
the late Roman army was fundamentally different in its
structure, equipment, tactics and troop combinations.
The increasing importance of cavalry - vital elements of
the new mobile field armies which were developed in
response to the emergencies of the third century - was
a major part of these changes, as even the most superficial
reading of relevant material on this subject would indicate.

Which books on the late Roman army have you read?  Can
you quote or cite from these books to support your position?

>Even if there was substantial
> cavalry it failed to do the job, but there wasn't.

Another bald, unsubstantiated statement.  The Roman army
usually succeded in 'doing the job' when Western generals
were able to muster enough forces to meet the challenges
facing them.  Due to economics, manpower shortages and
political factors, however, they often struggled to achieve this.
This had nothing to do with tactics and ABSOLUTELY
nothing to do with a lack of cavalry, as a basic understanding
of the late Roman army's make-up would clearly indicate.

> History itself is the guide for the failure of the West Roman
> army.

I have no idea what this means.  If you mean that the fact the
Empire fell means the Roman army failed, then this is an
non sequitur.  And your (unsupported) assertion that this
failure was due to a lack of cavalry is a further non sequitur.


> 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.

I've already directed you to Contamine, and Elton covers
much the same material.  You're familiar with
these works surely?

Here are the relative estimates from Contamine:

Western Limitanei:
Cavalry - 29,500
Infantry - 138,000

Western Comitatenses
Cavalry - 23,500
Infantry - 89,500
Scholae - 2,500

Eastern Limitanei:
Cavalry - 112,000
Infantry - 138,000

Eastern Comitatenses
Cavalry - 21,500
Infantry - 78,500
Scholae - 3,500

Total Cavalry - 186,500 (30%)
Total Infantry - 411, 500 (68%)

>From Philippe Contamine, 'War in the Middle Ages'
(Guild: London 1985) p. 10

You can find similar estimates, with an almost identical
proportion of cavalry to infantry, in A.H.M. Jones,
'The Later Roman Empire, 284-602: A Social, Economic
and Administrative Survey'.

Where are your contrary figures Bertil?  I'd be interested to
see them and to learn why people like Contamine and Jones,
leading authorities in this field, are wrong.

> 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.

Certainly.  Go read Thomas Burns, 'The Battle of Adrianople:
A Reconsideration', Historia, 22, (1978) 336-45.  You seem to
be familiar with Ferrill's book, so you'll notice he footnotes
Burns' article in his section on the size and make up of
Fritigern's army.  Burns' article is the generally accepted
research on this point.  For a break-down of the probable
relative numbers involved see Macdowell. 'Adrianople AD 378'
pp. 29-33.

> It is the
> development from say the 390s to the 470s. These
> figures ought to be of importance.

The books listed above should be a good start for you on this
point.

> The stuff about the Romans winning almost all the battles
> but loosing the empire does not sound very reliable,
> does it?

Considering the collapse of the Western Empire was more
a matter of politics, economics and administration, it makes
perfect sense.  Which is why it is the accepted view of
historians of this period.  Why this is news to you is what
puzzles me.

> 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.

I have no interest in putting a 'softer view' on anything, and nor
are the well respected, highly acclaimed and peer reviewed
professional academic historians I've been citing throughout
this discussion ( I notice you've cited no-one at all).  You've
claimed that the Romans didn't have large numbers of effective
cavalry.  This claim is contrary to all the evidence and to
accepted academic consensus and simply repeating that
claim doesn't go very far to defending your position.
The late Roman army had large numbers of highly effective
and versatile cavalry which formed the elite units of the
army after the reforms of the Third Century.  When there was
the economic basis, political will and effective administrative
infrastructure, as there generally was in the East, these units
proved themselves highly effective.  In the West, however,
a declining economy, eroding Imperial authority, poor policy
and a crumbling infrastructure meant that late Western
Roman generals found it increasingly difficult to do the job
their forces, including their cavalry, were capable of doing.

> 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.

This is all very true, but has absolutely nothing to do with
cavalry in the late Roman army.

I'm looking forward to see what sources and researchers
you can cite which contradicts the consensus view outlined
above.  It would be foolish, after all, to make the assertions
you've made in this post without extensive reading and
research on the subject.

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/