[gothic-l] Roman Cavalry Weakness

[Tim O'Neill]

On Monday, March 25, 2002 11:02 PM, Bertil Haggman [SMTP:mvk575b at tninet.se] wrote:

> Personally I think the sources you are presenting
> does not capture the spirit of the constant down
> spiral of the late Roman forces.

There was no *tactical* 'downward spiral' at all, as the
works I'm citing (and there are plenty more where they
came from) indicate quite clearly.  The *strategic* decline
was due to the more fundamental problems which beset
the Western Empire - largely economic and administrative
factors and some miscalculations in policy.

Your claim was that the late Roman army was weak in
cavalry and this this tactical deficiency was a major
factor in the fall of the West.  Every aspect of this claim
is erroneous - the late Roman army was comparatively
strong in cavalry by any measure, there was no tactical
deficiency (especially since most of the 'barbarian'
forces were infantry anyway) and it was not a factor in
the fall of the Western Empire at all.

> It is quite
> possible that you have done some reading on the
> subject.

Quite a bit, as it happens.  I suspect from your posts
so far that you've either done very little or what you have
done has been either highly selective or misunderstood.


>To call that a reading list  it commonplace, elementary and
> fundamental is not very helpful in the discussion.

I'm not sure what this sentence is meant to mean.  The
works I suggested are recent overviews of the subject and
standard texts in this area.  They all make it quite clear that
cavalry began increasing in numbers, diversity and status in
the Roman army in the Third Century and continued to do
so steadily right into the Byzantine period.  This information
is commonplace, elementary and fundamental.  If you've
done any reading at all on the late Roman army it's hard to
understand how this could not be well known to you.

> 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.

You were expecting the names, addresses and phone
numbers of all the late Roman cavalry troopers between
376 and 476 AD perhaps?  You asked for some figures,
which are of course going to be estimates, and I gave them
to you. Either provide some contrary figures or some
reasons why the figures provided by Contamine and
Jones are incorrect.

> Your answer is full of generalisations and I miss facts.

My answers have been full of citations, evidence and quotes
from leading authorities.  So far all we've seen from you is
bluster and hand-waving like 'This is, of course, incorrect.'

> The military weakness was a fundamental part of the
> downfall of the empire.

Strategic weakness was a factor.  You're alleging a particular
tactical weakness, though without providing any evidence.

> 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.

I have no idea who these participants might be, but I have no
interest in such an agenda.  That the Western Roman Empire
collapsed can't be disputed - that this collapse was due to a
tactical deficiency in cavalry is what is being alleged by you.

And that's nonsense.

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

And who, as my previous quotes indicate clearly, does not
support this fantasy about a tactical weakness in cavalry.

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

Would that be *this* A.H.M. Jones? :

" ... in order to meet the requirements of a situation where
mobility was essential, the imperial government greatly
increased the proportion of cavalry to infantry. This change
added substantially to the expense of maintenance: for the
fodder of a horse cost as much as the rations of a man."
(p. 1035)

Far from supporting this fiction of a weakness in cavalry,
Jones details the increase in numbers of cavalry at the
expense of infantry.  And I've already cited Jones' figures
which shows that cavalry formed a full 30% of the total
Imperial forces at the beginning of the Fifth Century.

So far two of the sources you seem to think support your
position actually support precisely the opposite.  It helps
to actually read this stuff first Bertil.


> 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,

Can you quote directly where Nicasie says the Roman cavalry
forces were 'small'?


>an
> observation with profound implications for imperial defense,
> which O'Neil does not take into account.

Who's this 'O'Neil' person?

> 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.

That the Western Roman Army became increasingly compromised
strategically is not in doubt.  Where does Luttwak attribute the
fall of the Western Empire to a weakness in cavalry?  Quote him
directly please.

> 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.

I bet.  Let's stay with the topic in hand Bertil.

> 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).

So you've read the material I've recommended already then?
In what way is it flawed?  Where is your counter evidence?
As Macdowell summarises the role of cavalry in this period:

"The twilight of the Roman Empire saw a revolution in the way
war was waged.  The drilled infantryman, who had been the
mainstay of Mediterranean armies since the days of the Greek
hoplite, was gradually replaced by the mounted warrior.  This
change did not take place overnight, and in the 3rd and 4th
centuries  the role of the cavalryman was primarily to support
the infantry.  However, by the time of Justinian's reconquest of
the West, in the 6th century, the situation had completely
reversed, and it was the infantryman who found himself in the
supporting role."
(p 3)

Macdowell goes on to detail the rise of cavalry in the late
Roman army saying 'unlike the infantryman, however, he
formed the elite of the army, and as time progressed his
equipment and status improved as that of the infantryman
declined.'

Macdowell is not writing some radical, revisionist reassesment
of the role of the cavalry in the late Roman army - he's writing
an elementary guidebook which aims to distill current research
for a popular audience.  The increasing status, numbers and
diversity of the cavalry units in the late Roman army is an
elementary concept which even a superficial reading of the
available texts on the subject would make clear.

Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable returing to this discussion
when you've done a bit more reading.

Tim O'Neill

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
FIND OLD SCHOOL FRIENDS and OLD FLAMES
Click here to start your search at Reunion.com today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/NFsLKA/Dn2DAA/ySSFAA/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/