[gothic-l] Roman Cavalry Weakness

Mon Mar 25 12:01:46 UTC 2002

Personally I think the sources you are presenting
does not capture the spirit of the constant down
spiral of the late Roman forces. It is quite
possible that you have done some reading on the
subject. To call that a reading list  it commonplace, elementary and
fundamental is not very helpful in the discussion.

As far as I understand you have admitted that there
are no real certain figures of the cavalry component
in the late Roman army. And I fully agree.

Your answer is full of generalisations and I miss facts.
The military weakness was a fundamental part of the
downfall of the empire. It is well known that a few
of the participants on the list want to ignore that the late
Roman empire collapsed, due to failing in the armies, which
were non-Roman anyway.

Here is a small list of recommended reading. I am
excluding Ferrill, which has been mentioned already.

Jones, A.H.M., :The Later Roman Empire, 284-602_
4 vols, Norman: University of Oklahoma.

Nicasie, M.J., _Twilight of Empire_ Amsterdam. Gieben, 1998

Especially Nicasie offers what late Roman military studies
have lacked. He analyses both the theoretical organization
and the practical operations extending right down to
the late 4th century. But he fails concerning the eight last
decades of the 5th century, in my opinion.

What is most important, he confirms that
the small Roman cavalry was tactically mobile, but strategically
inefficient because of the need to protect the horses, which is
part of any cavalry campaign, anyway. Roman cavalry could
therefore not function as a central rapid-response unit, an
observation with profound implications for imperial defense,
which O'Neil does not take into account.

Would also like to recommend to you the work of E. Luttwak
on the strategy of the Roman empire. Although I don't agree
with Luttwak's views expressed in his later works I think L.
presents a good picture.

After the views you have presented I think Quigley's opinions stand
out well: the late Roman empire was a faulting slave-holding society.
North of the Alps where the incentives of free men, who had much
to gain from extending the grain crops, thus providing for the feeding
needed by the increased cavalry.

The cyclical views of civilizations as evidenced in the decline and fall
of the Roman empire was expressed thus by Professor Quigley:
"civilizations come into existence, rise and flourish, and go out
of existence by a slow process which covers decades or even centuries_
(see Quigley's _The Evolution of Civilizations_) Basically the Roman
empire had become a non producing society and did not create the
wealth it once did. A civilization, of the type of the Greco-Roman,
was a producing society that once, but no longer, had an instrument
of expansion. Such a society is mainly organized to carry out three
activities

1. it has an incentive to invent new things or new ways of doing old
things. This was lacking in the Late Roman empire

2. it is able to produce and accumulate an economic surplus, or
wealth that does not need to be consumed immediately. Also this
aspect was clearly noticeable in the late West roman empire

3. and it has to use the surplus to pay for or make use of these
things it invents. West Rome was a stagnant society which probably
lost its will to expand around the battle of Adrianople.

Personally I think the ZDF TV series and the accompanying book
has well covered the details on the fall of the West Roman empire
to be replaced by the four kingdoms I mentioned in an earlier
contribution. I will be happy to return to that.

So my question would finally be if you can provide any more
material that illustrates the adaptation of West Roman cavalry
in the late empire (and expansion). Although I think that Quigley's view is basically
correct there is as far as I know no estimate of the Roman cavalry
for the decades from ca. 400 AD to 476 AD, but it is quite
possible that you can provide those figures and sources,
that I may have overlooked.

We may also differ on the subject of this exchange, which on my
part is more to find the explanation of the rapid disintegration of
Rome in the West.

It is not for one part of such a discussion to formulate what the
discussion is about. Also a discussion may evolve during
the exchange to cover other ground.

Bertil Haggman
author, director

> 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)

> 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.

> 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.
>
>
> 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.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Access Your PC from Anywhere
It's Easy. It's Fun. - Free Download.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/BxtVhB/7XkDAA/_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/