History Questions Not Worth Their Own Thread VI

[Domen]

Any idea on the proportions of archers to spears to various cavalry units in ancient armies?

As Flying Pig wrote, number of cavalry in Roman Republican armies was relatively small. But during Imperial times number, quality and importance of cavalry increased. By the later 4th century AD, cavalry was about 1/3 (around 36% - 38%)* of the Roman army, including around 50% of the limitanei and riparienses (border defence troops) and around 20% of the comitatenses and palatini (field troops). In Emperor's personal guard, cavalry was majority (bodyguard divided into scholae palatinae, candidati and domestici - of which scholae palatinae and candidati were entirely cavalry, while domestici were both infantry and cavalry).

*According to another source not 1/3, but "only" around 25%.

In Late Roman army, heavy lancers played an important role. There were 3 types of them (similar in equipment, they had different roles in battles):

- cataphracti (used to fight mostly against enemy infantry)
- clibanarii (used to fight mostly against enemy cavalry)
- cataphractarii (unclear; they could be just another name for cataphracti)

Differences in equipment were relatively minor (cataphracti had more complete armour than clibanarii; clibanarii used shields, while cataphracti usually not). Main offensive weapons were similar - long spear (we can call it lance, though it was not like Medieval long lance), sword. Sometimes other weapons.

When it comes to roles in battles - they weren't strictly observed; in fact often clibanarii were used as cataphracti, or cataphracti as clibanarii.

When attacking cavalry they usually used wedge formation, with clibanarii in front and armoured horse archers behind them. When attacking infantry they usually used line formation, or several lines. Cataphracti in front.

Above mentioned types of heavy lancers were supported by armoured horse archers, usually called sagittarii clibanarii (clibanarii archers).

The role of heavy horse archers was to provide close fire support for lancers and to cooperate with them. They advanced behind lancers.

Light cavalry had various names, depending on where it was recruited from (for example equites dalmatae, equites mauri, etc.).

Light cavalry usually had short mail armour, javelins for throwing, spear and sword for fighting in melee and a shield.

Then there were units of light horse archers (equites sagittarii) - who were not as well armoured as sagittarii clibanarii.

There was also "special formation" of cavalry, called dromedarii - they were using camels instead of horses. The only known unit of dromedarii was ala I Ulpia dromedariorum Palmyrenorum (created by Emperor Trajan), but probably there were also some sub-units of camel riders in other auxiliary units.

Cavalry in Late Roman armies was better paid than infantry, and was considered elite of the army. Cavalry training was more intensive and longer than infantry training. Also requirements to become a cavalry soldier were higher - people who could be recruited to Late Roman cavalry were:

- distinguished, experienced soldiers of infantry
- sons of veterans of cavalry, with their own horses
- people with high social status
- barbarians from tribes famous for skilled horsemen

===================================

Late Roman infantry was even more diversified than cavalry in types and equipment used.

But definitely spear and bow increased their importance compared to Republican times.

Also swords became longer, and more frequently used for cutting than stabbing.

Infantry formations became tighter and more defensive / less offensive in nature compared to Caesar's times.

But there appeared also many "specialist", good quality units of auxiliary light infantry, recruited from various barbarian tribes. Those light infantrymen fought with their own traditional weapons, so you can imagine that diversity.

Importance and number of ballistas, catapults and other artillery also increased.

By the later 4th century AD, cavalry was about 1/3 (around 36% - 38%)* of the Roman army

*According to another source not 1/3, but "only" around 25%.

By comparison proportion of cavalry in several battles of 3rd and 2nd centuries BC (numbers for both opposing sides combined):

Sellasia 222 BC - ca. 1/26 was cavalry
Cannae 216 BC - ca. 1/7 was cavalry (and Carthage had cavalry advantage)
Zama 202 BC - ca. 1/8 was cavalry (and Rome had cavalry advantage)
Cynoscephalae 197 BC - ca. 2/19 was cavalry
Pydna 168 BC - ca. 2/17 was cavalry

 

[Phrossack]

As Flying Pig wrote, number of cavalry in Roman Republican armies was relatively small. But during Imperial times number, quality and importance of cavalry increased. By the later 4th century AD, cavalry was about 1/3 (around 36% - 38%)* of the Roman army, including around 50% of the limitanei and riparienses (border defence troops) and around 20% of the comitatenses and palatini (field troops). In Emperor's personal guard, cavalry was majority (bodyguard divided into scholae palatinae, candidati and domestici - of which scholae palatinae and candidati were entirely cavalry, while domestici were both infantry and cavalry).

*According to another source not 1/3, but "only" around 25%.

In Late Roman army, heavy lancers played an important role. There were 3 types of them (similar in equipment, they had different roles in battles):

- cataphracti (used to fight mostly against enemy infantry)
- clibanarii (used to fight mostly against enemy cavalry)
- cataphractarii (unclear; they could be just another name for cataphracti)

Differences in equipment were relatively minor (cataphracti had more complete armour than clibanarii; clibanarii used shields, while cataphracti usually not). Main offensive weapons were similar - long spear (we can call it lance, though it was not like Medieval long lance), sword. Sometimes other weapons.

When it comes to roles in battles - they weren't strictly observed; in fact often clibanarii were used as cataphracti, or cataphracti as clibanarii.

When attacking cavalry they usually used wedge formation, with clibanarii in front and armoured horse archers behind them. When attacking infantry they usually used line formation, or several lines. Cataphracti in front.

Above mentioned types of heavy lancers were supported by armoured horse archers, usually called sagittarii clibanarii (clibanarii archers).

The role of heavy horse archers was to provide close fire support for lancers and to cooperate with them. They advanced behind lancers.

Light cavalry had various names, depending on where it was recruited from (for example equites dalmatae, equites mauri, etc.).

Light cavalry usually had short mail armour, javelins for throwing, spear and sword for fighting in melee and a shield.

Then there were units of light horse archers (equites sagittarii) - who were not as well armoured as sagittarii clibanarii.

There was also "special formation" of cavalry, called dromedarii - they were using camels instead of horses. The only known unit of dromedarii was ala I Ulpia dromedariorum Palmyrenorum (created by Emperor Trajan), but probably there were also some sub-units of camel riders in other auxiliary units.

Cavalry in Late Roman armies was better paid than infantry, and was considered elite of the army. Cavalry training was more intensive and longer than infantry training. Also requirements to become a cavalry soldier were higher - people who could be recruited to Late Roman cavalry were:

- distinguished, experienced soldiers of infantry
- sons of veterans of cavalry, with their own horses
- people with high social status
- barbarians from tribes famous for skilled horsemen

===================================

Late Roman infantry was even more diversified than cavalry in types and equipment used.

But definitely spear and bow increased their importance compared to Republican times.

Also swords became longer, and more frequently used for cutting than stabbing.

Infantry formations became tighter and more defensive / less offensive in nature compared to Caesar's times.

But there appeared also many "specialist", good quality units of auxiliary light infantry, recruited from various barbarian tribes. Those light infantrymen fought with their own traditional weapons, so you can imagine that diversity.

Importance and number of ballistas, catapults and other artillery also increased.



By comparison proportion of cavalry in several battles of 3rd and 2nd centuries BC (numbers for both opposing sides combined):

Sellasia 222 BC - ca. 1/26 was cavalry
Cannae 216 BC - ca. 1/7 was cavalry (and Carthage had cavalry advantage)
Zama 202 BC - ca. 1/8 was cavalry (and Rome had cavalry advantage)
Cynoscephalae 197 BC - ca. 2/19 was cavalry
Pydna 168 BC - ca. 2/17 was cavalry

I'll address this post in full later, especially on the subject of the distinction between catafracti, catafractarii, and clibanarii (God, Latin is a bother). But I will say that catafractarii/catafracti were probably not really specially meant for fighting infantry. Cavalry in general isn't meant for that. Formed, disciplined infantry formations usually beat cavalry, and they were cheaper. If anything, I'd guess that cataphracts were meant to defeat enemy cavalry. The main roles of cavalry have always been scouting, defeating enemy cavalry, attacking from the flanks or rear, raiding, and pursuing routing forces. Super-heavy cavalry would be wasted on scouting or raiding, and probably lacked the speed and stamina to be effective at pursuit or flanking. However, they're perfect for driving off enemy cavalry (just not for pursuing them).

 

[Domen]

But I will say that catafractarii/catafracti were probably not really specially meant for fighting infantry. Cavalry in general isn't meant for that. Formed, disciplined infantry formations usually beat cavalry, and they were cheaper.

Well, historical evidence from nearly each historical period contradict your claim above. That cataphracti were meant to fight infantry, while clibanarii to fight cavalry, is suggested e.g. by this book:

http://www.archeobooks.com/products...-heavy-armoured-cavalry-of-the-ancient-world#

If anything, I'd guess that cataphracts were meant to defeat enemy cavalry.

Probably too, but e.g. at Tigranocerta Armenian cataphracts lost to lighter Thracian & Gallic cavalry.

Super-heavy cavalry would be wasted on scouting or raiding, and probably lacked the speed and stamina to be effective at pursuit or flanking. However, they're perfect for driving off enemy cavalry (just not for pursuing them).

They were fast enough for flanking infantry and attacking it in the rear, as they did e.g. at Panium in 200 BC. At Panium Seleucid cataphracts smashed through Ptolemaic phalanx from the rear, winning the day.

But at Tigranocerta in 69 BC cataphracts were charged from the flank by lighter cavalry:

"When Lucullus saw that the mail-clad horsemen, on whom the greatest reliance was placed, were stationed at the foot of a considerable hill which was crowned by a broad and level space, and that the approach to this was a matter of only four stadia, and neither rough nor steep, he ordered his Thracian and Gallic horsemen to attack the enemy in the flank, and to parry their long spears with their own shorter swords."

 

[Domen]

and they were cheaper.

Infantry is - usually - cheaper than cavalry (but it also what kind of infantry and what kind of cavalry, etc.). But on the other hand, on a man for man basis cavalry is worth more than infantry:

Let's quote Tai Gong, an Ancient Chinese equivalent of Trevor N. Dupuy:

King Wu asked Tai Gong: "(...) When cavalry and infantry engage in battle, one cavalryman is equivalent to how many infantrymen? How many infantrymen are equivalent to one cavalryman? (...)

Tai Gong replied: "Chariots are the wings of the army, the means to penetrate solid formations, to press strong enemies and to cut off their flight. (...) after the masses of the army have been arrayed in opposition to the enemy, when fighting on easy terrain, the rule is that (...) one cavalryman is equivalent to eight infantrymen; eight infantrymen is equivalent to one cavalryman.
The rule for fighting on difficult terrain is that (...) one cavalryman is equivalent to four infantrymen; four infantrymen are equivalent to one cavalrymen. (...)
Now chariots and cavalry are the army’s strong weapons. (...) Ten cavalrymen can drive off one hundred men, and one hundred cavalrymen can drive off one thousand men. These are the approximate numbers. (...)"

Dupuy (and his institute) are also famous for such things (weapon lethality indexes, etc.).

 

[CaptainLost]

How were the Arabs able to conquer such a huge empire so quickly around 700 AD? They didn't have keshiks, like the Mongols, so what did they have that made them powerful?

 

[Tee Kay]

How were the Arabs able to conquer such a huge empire so quickly around 700 AD? They didn't have keshiks, like the Mongols, so what did they have that made them powerful?

Nobody expected the Arabs. Their chief weapon was surprise. Well, fear and surpise. Their two weapons were fear and surprise and ruthless efficiency. Their three weapons were fear, suprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to Islam... actually, look, I'll come in again.

It was mostly surprise. No one expected the Arabian tribes to suddenly unite behind a brand new religion and become a major military threat. Their main opponents, the Romans and the Persians, were both exhausted from fighting each other, were factionalised to a ridiculous degree, and ruled many large populations that hated them. And so the Arabs were rather half-heartedly resisted where they were resisted at all.

 

[Traitorfish]

Rather like the Mongols, in that regard. It makes you wonder how often these pastoralist peoples got together behind some warlord or prophet of exceptional charisma and skill, only to wash harmlessly against the walls of a stable, well-prepared empire.

 

[Flying Pig]

Infantry is - usually - cheaper than cavalry (but it also what kind of infantry and what kind of cavalry, etc.). But on the other hand, on a man for man basis cavalry is worth more than infantry:

Not really the case, even with grass-powered rather than petrol-powered cavalry. Cavalry are good at what they do best, and that is usually more impressive than what infantry do best. Taking a geometric view of things, cavalry (in all ages) work when their force is concentrated at a point, while infantry work along lines. Hence the role of infantry in the Macedonian setup was to hold the enemy infantry in place and increase the tension in the engagement, whereupon cavalry are able to impact the enemy and create massive trauma at a point, which causes a break which can be exploited. This relies upon it being the sort of engagement in which this is useful - which precludes any conflict with difficult terrain, such as extensive forests, built-up-areas or easy tank-killing grounds - as well as requiring space for the cavalry to move around. When forced to do infantry work, cavalry - again, horses and tanks alike - usually do worse than infantry. They're bigger targets, and can't employ the tactics which infantry can, such as cover or defensive formations.

 

[Ajidica]

Not really the case, even with grass-powered rather than petrol-powered cavalry. Cavalry are good at what they do best, and that is usually more impressive than what infantry do best. Taking a geometric view of things, cavalry (in all ages) work when their force is concentrated at a point, while infantry work along lines. Hence the role of infantry in the Macedonian setup was to hold the enemy infantry in place and increase the tension in the engagement, whereupon cavalry are able to impact the enemy and create massive trauma at a point, which causes a break which can be exploited. This relies upon it being the sort of engagement in which this is useful - which precludes any conflict with difficult terrain, such as extensive forests, built-up-areas or easy tank-killing grounds - as well as requiring space for the cavalry to move around. When forced to do infantry work, cavalry - again, horses and tanks alike - usually do worse than infantry. They're bigger targets, and can't employ the tactics which infantry can, such as cover or defensive formations.

In the late Roman/early Byzantine Army, heavy cavalry was considered to be more valuable than heavy infantry on the assumption that heavy cavalry can be dismounted to serve as heavy infantry should the need arise. There are even a few recorded cases where they were dismounted during a battle to switch roles.
I'm pretty sure that this was the sentiment for most of the 'dark ages'. Records and accounts from Carolingian France and the successor states do indicate that heavy cavalry was preferred.
(That said, the entire exercise of separating troops into groups such as 'heavy cavalry' would have been a very alien concept to early medieval Europe who didn't really have distinctions like that. A retainer fought regardless of the manner.)

 

[Domen]

Their main opponents, the Romans and the Persians, were both exhausted from fighting each other

But still the Romans had vast numerical superiority over the Arabs during the battle of Yarmouk.

Not really the case, even with grass-powered rather than petrol-powered cavalry. Cavalry are good at what they do best, and that is usually more impressive than what infantry do best. Taking a geometric view of things, cavalry (in all ages) work when their force is concentrated at a point, while infantry work along lines. Hence the role of infantry in the Macedonian setup was to hold the enemy infantry in place and increase the tension in the engagement, whereupon cavalry are able to impact the enemy and create massive trauma at a point, which causes a break which can be exploited. This relies upon it being the sort of engagement in which this is useful - which precludes any conflict with difficult terrain, such as extensive forests, built-up-areas or easy tank-killing grounds - as well as requiring space for the cavalry to move around. When forced to do infantry work, cavalry - again, horses and tanks alike - usually do worse than infantry. They're bigger targets, and can't employ the tactics which infantry can, such as cover or defensive formations.

I agree with this, but still - tanks revolutionized warfare. They turned warfare to be mobile again, just like in old good times of cavalry.

WW1 showed that without cavalry (which was already quite obsolete after invention of machine guns) and without tanks, war is a meat grinder.

Tanks filled the gap after cavalry. WW1 was the only war which was fought mostly without cavalry and mostly without tanks.

Very well-prepared, numerous enough infantry in difficult terrain, defending strong positions, wins against tanks (as the battle of Kursk shows).

Yet all armies in the world continue to use tanks. And they can be extremely efficient at delivering shock at a point of the frontline.

Rather like the Mongols, in that regard. It makes you wonder how often these pastoralist peoples got together behind some warlord or prophet of exceptional charisma and skill, only to wash harmlessly against the walls of a stable, well-prepared empire.

Which empire do you mean - China?, Khwarezmia?

 

[Flying Pig]

In the late Roman/early Byzantine Army, heavy cavalry was considered to be more valuable than heavy infantry on the assumption that heavy cavalry can be dismounted to serve as heavy infantry should the need arise. There are even a few recorded cases where they were dismounted during a battle to switch roles.
I'm pretty sure that this was the sentiment for most of the 'dark ages'. Records and accounts from Carolingian France and the successor states do indicate that heavy cavalry was preferred.
(That said, the entire exercise of separating troops into groups such as 'heavy cavalry' would have been a very alien concept to early medieval Europe who didn't really have distinctions like that. A retainer fought regardless of the manner.)

True enough, and it still happens today that armoured or mechanised troops will be re-roled as light infantry as the situation requires. Yet its also pretty self-evident that somebody trained primarily to fight from a horse or a tank will not have the infantry skills of somebody trained to fight on foot. Our own General Farrar-Hockley (of the Parachute Regiment, of course) was running an exercise in Germany in the eighties on which it hadn't rained for weeks and the ground was baked hard. He issued orders to the armoured troops that were doing the exercise that there had been torrential rain and the tanks couldn't grip the ground, so they would have to dismount and march on foot. By the end of the first day the brigade was all but useless - the cavalrymen didn't have hard enough feet to march all day on hard ground without blisters, nor the know-how to take care of themselves to minimise them.

Yet all armies in the world continue to use tanks. And they can be extremely efficient at delivering shock at a point of the frontline.

Indeed, but then the argument is 'cavalry are better at doing cavalry work', rather than the original proposition that 'one cavalryman is always worth more than one infantryman'. Tanks, for one thing, cannot effectively take and hold ground over intervening terrain, which is the bread and butter of the infantry.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

WW1 showed that without cavalry (which was already quite obsolete after invention of machine guns) and without tanks, war is a meat grinder.

Two things.

First, there were great cavalry battles in the Eastern Front during the Great War.
Second, obsolescence is a difficult statement to make. Obsolete for what? Cavalry still proved to be extremely useful into the 1930s, and are still used even today in remote places like Afghanistan where troops require mobility in terrain or isolation which prohibits tanks or extensive use of helicopters.

Tanks filled the gap after cavalry. WW1 was the only war which was fought mostly without cavalry and mostly without tanks.

Again, see almost any battle on the Eastern Front, or the Russian Civil War, the Basmachi, etc.

 

[Domen]

Two things.

First, there were great cavalry battles in the Eastern Front during the Great War.
Second, obsolescence is a difficult statement to make. Obsolete for what? Cavalry still proved to be extremely useful into the 1930s

(...)

Again, see almost any battle on the Eastern Front, or the Russian Civil War, the Basmachi, etc.

I know about this and I agree. After all, some of the largest cavalry actions of the 20th century were during the Polish-Soviet War.

But cavalry was no longer too useful in places with high concentrations of troops and firepower over small areas - such as Western Front of WW1.

On other fronts of WW1 (not only Eastern, also for example Middle Eastern against the Ottoman Empire) cavalry was useful thanks to vast open spaces and smaller density of troops along the frontline (area of combats was much larger, while on the Western Front everything was very much "condensed").

and are still used even today in remote places like Afghanistan where troops require mobility in terrain

But this modern cavalry is essentially just mounted infantry. That was also mostly the case already during World War 2.

The last time "cold steel" charges were frequently used, was World War 1 and conflicts immediately after WW1.

But already during WW1 and shortly later, cavalry was trying to increase its firepower, without becoming just mounted infantry:


Link to video.

Tachankas continued to be used also in WW2, but mostly just for transporting machine guns (no longer as "combat vehicles").

 

[Phrossack]

As for cataphract terminology: I got no clue, it's a confusing mess of catafracti/catafractarii/clibanarii/catafractata. The user Renatus on this site has some ideas with a lot of evidence, though I doubt that the Romans were nearly as strict about terminology as anal modern-day history buffs.

Well, historical evidence from nearly each historical period contradict your claim above. That cataphracti were meant to fight infantry, while clibanarii to fight cavalry, is suggested e.g. by this book:

I don't have that book. Do you have any quotes for the claim that cataphracts were meant to fight infantry, and what are the author's sources?

Cavalry were not usually expected to charge headlong into formed infantry in almost any period. The Parthians at Carrhae only sent in the cataphracts after weakening the Roman infantry with thirst, confusion, and millions of arrows.

Probably too, but e.g. at Tigranocerta Armenian cataphracts lost to lighter Thracian & Gallic cavalry.

That doesn't prove that they weren't meant to face cavalry, only that they weren't invincible. Which is sad. Cataphracts are so cool that they should have been gods.

They were fast enough for flanking infantry and attacking it in the rear, as they did e.g. at Panium in 200 BC. At Panium Seleucid cataphracts smashed through Ptolemaic phalanx from the rear, winning the day.

Cataphracts could take advantage of vulnerabilities, but lighter cavalry can exploit them just as well, and they tire less quickly and are cheaper.

I'd still say that inasmuch as cataphracts were meant for anything, it was defeating other cavalry. They were ideal for it; all things being equal, heavy cavalry will crush lighter cavalry. They could also prey on infantry when they saw an opening, but attacking formed and prepared infantry has never been the purpose of cavalry, so the burden of the proof is on you to show that cataphracts were meant to do it.

 

[Ajidica]

As for cataphract terminology: I got no clue, it's a confusing mess of catafracti/catafractarii/clibanarii/catafractata. The user Renatus on this site has some ideas with a lot of evidence, though I doubt that the Romans were nearly as strict about terminology as anal modern-day history buffs.

The reading I've done from Halsall and Treagold suggests the Romans weren't sticklers for consistent naming practices of units, even supposed 'clear descriptors' such as limitani and comitatenses only indicated where the unit was stationed (see the frequent incorporation of the limitani into the Field Army as pseudocomitanses with no recorded difference in combat capabilities. It was only after the pretty much complete collapse of Roman frontier administration did the names suggest anything regarding combat capabilities.

 

[Tee Kay]

Rather like the Mongols, in that regard. It makes you wonder how often these pastoralist peoples got together behind some warlord or prophet of exceptional charisma and skill, only to wash harmlessly against the walls of a stable, well-prepared empire.

It started happening when agricultural peoples acquired guns, but even then nomads can get guns themselves through trade (eg Dzungars, Plain Indians). In the end agriculturals just outpopulated pastoralists.

 

[AnthonyBoscia]

Our own General Farrar-Hockley (of the Parachute Regiment, of course) was running an exercise in Germany in the eighties on which it hadn't rained for weeks and the ground was baked hard. He issued orders to the armoured troops that were doing the exercise that there had been torrential rain and the tanks couldn't grip the ground, so they would have to dismount and march on foot. By the end of the first day the brigade was all but useless - the cavalrymen didn't have hard enough feet to march all day on hard ground without blisters, nor the know-how to take care of themselves to minimise them.

Their NCOs should have been turning in their stripes if they failed to have their people combat ready to dismount for one miserable day.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

So this book I'm reading pretty much implied that WWI was won in the Balkans. How much truth is there to that statement?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Seems unlikely. I could see an argument that it was won in the North Sea, though.

 

[History_Buff]

So this book I'm reading pretty much implied that WWI was won in the Balkans. How much truth is there to that statement?

Very little, since the side that came out on top in the Balkan theatre lost the war.