What if the Romans had develop Cavalry after Crassus

Romanus696

After Crassus got destroyed against the Parthian, what if someone such as Caesar decide to develop cavalry, both heavy in the form of cataphracts and lighter cavalry such as the ones Numbians deployed. Caesar seemed to have appreciated cavalry's value more than many generals so he would seem like a good candidate. I was thinking in terms of area conqeuored and much later against the more mobile barbarian armies
 

dgharis

Romanus696 said:
After Crassus got destroyed against the Parthian, what if someone such as Caesar decide to develop cavalry, both heavy in the form of cataphracts and lighter cavalry such as the ones Numbians deployed. Caesar seemed to have appreciated cavalry's value more than many generals so he would seem like a good candidate. I was thinking in terms of area conqeuored and much later against the more mobile barbarian armies
Click to expand...

The Romans did have cavalry. Roman cavalry was either the aristocracy (equites) or non-Roman auxiliaries. In either case it was seen as an adjunct to the legions and not the principal arm. For this to change the cavalry has to become more effective.

Two things are needed for this:

First, stirrups. Stirrups allow the rider to "stand" in the saddle, thereby imparting more force to his spear and/or sword without being unhorsed. Effective cavalry shock tactics really require stirrups.

Second, larger horses. Larger horses allows riders to wear heavier armor and use heavier weapons, which makes the cavalry less vulnerable to enemy weapons and increases their shock effect. OR:

Second, composite bows. These pack more punch for their size, increasing both range and penetration. Arming light troops and cavalry with these creates a mobile force capable of harassing opponents from outside the range of their weapons.

Stirrups are easy; a simple modification to the existing saddles will do it once some bright person thinks of it. The other two are more difficult; larger horses require extensive breeding over many generations, and horse archers require years of training and practice for both themselves and their mounts.

Romans who have conquered an empire with their heavy infantry are not going to lightly abandon the concept just because of a few defeats by one enemy; don't fix it if it aint broke. It will require a catastrophe to get them to change, and IOTL that did not occur until the Empire was already collapsing.
 

RGB

They did eventually develop good cavalry (with stirrups and composite bows as you say) which was key in all their subsequent war with the Parthians and Sassanids. But in the Republican/Early Imperial period they relied on cheaper allies and mercenaries for the bulk of it (and they were generally seen as better and more natural horsemen).
 

Herzen's love-child

Stirrups didn't come West until the Avar invasions. The ERE reputably got the idea of stirrups from them ( approx. towards the end of 6th-early 7th Century). So, no Western Imperial Roman cavalry had them. It would be in cavalry employed against the Sassanians, only. The Parthian Wars were too early. Now composite bow use is another thing, and was employed by the Romans much earlier, at first through their allied or mercenary auxiliaries.
 

Romanus696

What I was thinking that Caesar, in preparation for his Parthian campaign (which he was going to undertake before he was killed) summoned some of the survivors from Carrhae, maybe if Publius Crassus survived as he was one of Caesars best cavalry commanders from Gaul, and would be told of the devastating effect of the mixture of a horse archers and heavily armored melee cavalry and that the Gallic and Germanic auxiliaries that had been sufficient in the past would be destroyed with contemptuous ease if they ever meet in melee. Therefore Caesar would have four options.
1. Develop similar heavy horse to the cataphracts and attempt to develop a solution to the much mobile horse archers.
2. Rely on the fact that he is Caesar and attack anyway, only adding more cavalry than originally planned and manage a few victories and try and force a treaty favorable to Rome
3. Blame Carrhae entirely on Crassus and attack as planned and in all likelihood suffer the same fate as Crassus or be forced to retreat with massive loss of prestige
4. Call off the campaign and lose a lot of prestige and most likely hurries his murder
 

Romanus696

that works too. But I was just thinking Caesar because he appriecated the value of cavalry in GauL and was in a position to impplement much a large change
 

Romanus696

100 cataphracts and 50 horse archers against 5000 Gallic cavalry and I am betting on the cataphracts to win easily. The Gauls and Germans were good light melee cavalry, but like all light melee cavalry, gets destroyed against heavy horse
 

dgharis

The Ubbergeek said:
How 'costlier' are they, though? is fielding light cavalry cheaper much?
Click to expand...

Much cheaper. Existing mounts can be used with no breeding required, lighter (and therefore less expensive) weapons and armor are needed, and both mount and rider need less food, water, other supplies, and maintenance of their equipment.

Light cavalry can also travel faster and further than their heavier counterparts, are more suited to traveling in difficult terrain and unfavorable climates, and respond more quickly in emergencies. All of which makes them quite useful.

Their greatest utility is not in combat, but in reconnaisance and screening; keeping track of what the enemy is doing and preventing his forces from finding out what you're up to.
 

carlton_bach

It's all a bit more complicated than that, and not made easier by the myth that Rome had poor cavalry forces (not since the Second Punic War).

First off, Caesar could not simply order the development of cavalry. Republican Rome had no military-industrial complex where you put in procurement money and out came stuff. He would have needed a recruitment pool and a tradition of providing this equipment, neither of which were available. And he had no authority to develop it. What he did (and all good Roman general did) was recruit competent cavalry from areas where you could get it. That included Roman citizens, but since most of Italy was poor horse country, it was mostly Gallic, Hispanic and Numidian horse. Crassus could have done the same had he given the matter sufficient thought. He probably could have even had competent heavy cavalry from allies in the region. But even the best army can only do so much to offset poor commanders.

Secondly, the Roman forces in the Augustan and Principate eras had quite competent and dangerous cavalry. There are no end of surviving misconceptions about them, but we know today that a) they wore armour, b) they were used aggressively and c) they could engage hand-to-hand from horseback. The replacement of the javelin by the composite bow and the introduction of ever heavier and more complete armour was a gradual process, but we have equites sagittarii as regulars in the first and contarii and cataphractarii by the second centuries. As early as the Diocletianic army, it is likely that there was no appreciable difference in the equipment of Roman and Persian heavy horse. The Persians may have maintained a superiority of horse breeding stock, which just goes to show how hard it is to switch even with the authority and funds to do so (imperial Rome had something much like a military-industrial complex by AD 50 at the latest)

By the accounts of most people who have ridden Roman style, stirrups are overrated. Personally I've never met a horse I'd trust to go near, let alone get onto, but I'll trust experienced riders over Lynn White, and I have seen a couched-lance attack unseating a 100-kg sandbag ridden from a horse saddled Roman-style. I doubt that was as central an innovation as it is made out to be.

Still, the conclusion I come to looking at the Parthian Wars is that what Crassus needed to emerge victorious was not more or better horses, it was more and better brain cells. The cavalry he could have had was as good as that which Trajan took to Ctesiphon.
 

Romanus696

I agree that it would take forever for the Romans to develop proper heavy cavalry but what I am saying is this. Caesar cnages the legion to a more balanced army so that when cavalry becomes supreme in the West they are scrambling to catch up but already have cavalry in the same league as the barbarians
 

Elfwine

Romanus696 said:
I agree that it would take forever for the Romans to develop proper heavy cavalry but what I am saying is this. Caesar cnages the legion to a more balanced army so that when cavalry becomes supreme in the West they are scrambling to catch up but already have cavalry in the same league as the barbarians
Click to expand...

How is Caesar going to do that? He doesn't have the authority or the tools or the framework to do so.
 

Herzen's love-child

carlton_bach said:
By the accounts of most people who have ridden Roman style, stirrups are overrated. Personally I've never met a horse I'd trust to go near, let alone get onto, but I'll trust experienced riders over Lynn White, and I have seen a couched-lance attack unseating a 100-kg sandbag ridden from a horse saddled Roman-style. I doubt that was as central an innovation as it is made out to be.
Click to expand...

And yet, stirrups were eventually adopted universally in Eurasia...
Being someone who rides, I definitely see their advantage.
You can use shock tactics riding Roman-style but it requires far more training and you can still do it better riding with stirrups. Swinging a sword, I most surely would rather be riding with stirrups.

I sort of see the Roman-style proponents as akin to black powder enthusiasts and people who ride Western or English or whatever as modern firearms users....
 

carlton_bach

Herzen's love-child said:
And yet, stirrups were eventually adopted universally in Eurasia...
Being someone who rides, I definitely see their advantage.
You can use shock tactics riding Roman-style but it requires far more training and you can still do it better riding with stirrups. Swinging a sword, I most surely would rather be riding with stirrups.

I sort of see the Roman-style proponents as akin to black powder enthusiasts and people who ride Western or English or whatever as modern firearms users....
Click to expand...

I'm not saying stirrups aren't useful, but the commonplace story that until they were invented, all you could do with cavalry was chuck javelins at the enemy while praying you didn't fall off is a terrible exaggeration. Like claiming until the invention of the metal cartridge, there was no such thing as a sniper.
 

Herzen's love-child

carlton_bach said:
I'm not saying stirrups aren't useful, but the commonplace story that until they were invented, all you could do with cavalry was chuck javelins at the enemy while praying you didn't fall off is a terrible exaggeration. Like claiming until the invention of the metal cartridge, there was no such thing as a sniper.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Just say Comanchee. Or Macedonian cavalry...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top