Généalogie and Heritage

Source: Wikiwand: Roman cavalry

Description

Type	Valeur
Titre	Wikiwand: Roman cavalry

Entrées associées à cette source

Personnes
CALPURNIUS ap Heireann Potitus of Ireland

Texte


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Médias

URL

Notes


Roman cavalry (Latin: equites I Romani) refers to the horse-mounted forces of the Roman army throughout the Regal, Republican, and Imperial eras. Early cavalry (to ca. 338 BC) Romulus supposedly established a cavalry regiment of 300 men called the Celeres ("the Swift Squadron") to act as his personal escort, with each of the three tribes supplying a centuria (century; company of 100 men). This cavalry regiment was supposedly doubled in size to 600 men by King Tarquinius Priscus (conventional dates 616–578 BC). According to Livy, Servius Tullius also established a further 12 "centuriae" of cavalry. But this is unlikely, as it would have increased the cavalry to 1,800 horse, implausibly large compared to 8,400 infantry (in peninsular Italy, cavalry typically constituted about 8% of a field army). This is confirmed by the fact that in the early Republic the cavalry fielded remained 600-strong (Two legions with 300 horse each). The royal cavalry may have been drawn exclusively from the ranks of the Patricians ("patricii"), the aristocracy of early Rome, which was purely hereditary, although some consider the supporting evidence tenuous. Since the cavalry was probably a patricianpreserve, it probably played a critical part in the overthrow of the monarchy. Indeed, Alfoldi suggests that the coup was carried out by the "Celeres" themselves. However, the patrician monopoly on the cavalry seems to have ended by around 400 BC, when the 12 "centuriae" of "equites" additional to the original 6 of regal origin were probably formed. Most likely patrician numbers were no longer sufficient to supply the ever-growing needs of the cavalry. It is widely agreed that the new "centuriae" were open to non-patricians, on the basis of a property rating. According to the ancient Greek historian Polybius, whose "Histories" (written ca. 140s BC) are the earliest substantial extant account of the Republic, Roman cavalry was originally unarmored, wearing only a tunic and armed with a light spear and ox-hide shield which were of low quality and quickly deteriorated in action. As hoplite warfare was the standard early in this era, cavalry might have not played a substantial role in battle except for chasing after routed enemies. Republican cavalry (338–88 BC) Further information: Auxilia Recruitment As their name implies, the "equites" were liable to cavalry service in the Polybian legion. "Equites" originally provided a legion's entire cavalry contingent, although from an early stage, when "equites" numbers had become insufficient, large numbers of young men from the First Class of commoners were regularly volunteering for the service, which was considered more glamorous than the infantry. By the time of the Second Punic War, it is likely that all members of the First Class served in the cavalry, since Livy states that members of Class I were required to equip themselves with a round shield ("clipeus"), rather than the oblong shield ("scutum") required of the other classes - and all images of cavalrymen of this period show round shields. It appears that "equites equo privato" (i.e. First Class members) were required to pay for their own equipment and horse, but that the latter would be refunded by the state if it was killed in action. Cavalrymen in service were paid a "drachma" per day, triple the infantry rate, and were liable to a maximum of ten campaigning seasons' military service, compared to 16 for the infantry. Unit size and structure Each Polybian legion contained a cavalry contingent of 300 horse, which does not appear to have been officered by an overall commander. The cavalry contingent was divided into 10 "turmae" (squadrons) of 30 men each. The squadron members would elect as their officers three "decuriones" ("leaders of ten men"), of whom the first to be chosen would act as the squadron's leader and the other two as his deputies. From the available evidence, the cavalry of a Polybian legion (and presumably confederate cavalry also) was armored and specialized in the shock charge. Equipment The majority of pictorial evidence for the equipment of Republican cavalry is from stone monuments, such as mausoleums, columns, archs and Roman military tombstones. The earliest extant representations of Roman cavalrymen are found on a few coins dated tothe era of the Second Punic War (218–201 BC). In one, the rider wears a variant of a Corinthian helmet and appears to wear greaves on the legs. His body armor is obscured by his small round shield ("parma equestris"). It was probably a bronze breastplate, as a coin of 197 BC shows a Roman cavalryman in Hellenistic composite cuirass and helmet. But the Roman cavalry may already have adopted mail armor ("lorica hamata") from the Celts, who are known to have been using it as early as ca. 300 BC. Mail had certainly been adopted by ca. 150 BC, as Polybius states that the First Class were expected to provide themselves with mail cuirasses and the monument erected at Delphi by L. Aemilius Paullus to commemorate his victory at the Battle of Pydna (168 BC) depicts Roman cavalrymen in mail. However, a coin of 136 BC and the Lacus Curtius bas-relief of the same period show horsemen in composite bronze cuirasses. The Roman saddle was one of the earliest solid-treed saddles in the west was the "four horn" design, first used by the Romans as early as the 1st century BC. Neither design had stirrups. There is similar uncertainty as to whether cavalrymen carried shields, despite the fact that many Roman military tombstones depict equites with oval shields on the left side of their horses, (not generally used by Greek cavalry until after ca. 250 BC) andthe related question of whether they carried long lances or shorter spears, the "doru" mentioned by Polybius. Most representations show cavalrymen with the "parma equestris," a flat type of shield, but the Ahenobarbus monument of 122 BC and the coin of 136 BC both show cavalrymen without shields. Sidnell suggests that, since "equites" were expected to provide their own equipment, they may have chosen their own type and combination of armor and weapons e.g. long lance with no shield or short spear with shield. But the evidence is too scant to draw any firm conclusions. Before the invention of full plate armor in the High Middle Ages, all combatants would carry shields as a vital piece of equipment. Pictorial evidence, such as the stele of Titus Flavius Bassus (eques of the ala Noricum) or Tomb monument of a cavalryman from 1st century AD (Romano-Germanic Museum, Cologne Germany) supports literary accounts that "equites" carried swords, such as the spatha which was much longer than "gladii hispanienses" (Spanish swords) used by the infantry. The Ahenobarbus monument also shows a cavalryman with a dagger ("pugio"). There is no evidence that "equites" carried bows and arrows and the Romans probably hadno mounted archers before they came into contact with Parthian forces after 100 BC. Campaign record There is a conception that Roman Republican cavalry was inferior to other cavalry and that they were just to support their far superior infantry. However, Philip Sidnell argues that this view is misguided and that the cavalry was a powerful and crucial asset to the Republican army. Sidnell argues that the record shows that Roman cavalry in Republican times were a strong force in which they bested higher reputed cavalry of the time. Examples include the Heraclea (280 BC), in where the Roman cavalry dismayed the enemy leader Pyrrhus by gaining the advantage in a bitterly contested melee against his Thessalian cavalry, then regarded as some of the finest in the Western world, and were only driven back when Pyrrhus deployed his elephants, which panicked the Roman horses. Other examples include the Equites' victory over the vaunted Gallic horse at Telamon, and Sentinum, against the Germanic cavalry of the Teutons and Cimbri at Vercellae, and even against the technologically more advanced Seleucid cavalry (including fully armored cataphracts) at Magnesia. Contrary to the popular depiction that the legionary infantry were the primary battle winning force of the Roman army, these encounters were primary decided by the success of the Roman cavalry, who crushed the enemies' mounted forces before falling on the flanks of their infantry. At the Clastidium the Roman cavalry were even able to triumph unaided against superior numbers of Gallic foot soldiers and horsemen, showing their ability when properly led. A key reason for some historians' disparagement of the Roman cavalry were the crushing defeats, at the Trebia and at Cannae, that it suffered at the hands of the Carthaginian general Hannibal during the latter's invasion of Rome (218-6 BC) which were onlyrendered possible because of a powerful cavalry force. But Sidnell argues that this is only because of a consistent numerical superiority in cavalry. Another disadvantage for the Romans in the Second Punic War was that their respective cavalry were meleecavalry better suited for combating enemy melee cavalry and engaging the rear and flanks of infantry formations. This, however useful and effective against the Romans' regular opponents, failed against Hannibal's nimble Numidian light cavalry, whose use of skillful hit and run tactics exasperated the Roman cavalry who were unable to come to grips with them. Nevertheless, on those occasions during the Second Punic War when they were deployed properly, led competently, and/or had the advantage of numbers or surprise, such as during the skirmish before Ilipa and at the pitched battles of the Great Plains and Zama, the Roman cavalry were able to best their Carthaginian counterparts, independent of the success of their own allied Numidians. On occasion, such as at Dertosa, they were able to hold their own despite being supposedly outnumbered in a skirmish with Carthaginian cavalry. The Second Punic War placed unprecedented strains on Roman manpower, not least..

Roman cavalry (Latin: equites I Romani) refers to the horse-mounted forces of the Roman army throughout the Regal, Republican, and Imperial eras.

Early cavalry (to ca. 338 BC)
Romulus supposedly established a cavalry regiment of 300 men called the Celeres ("the Swift Squadron") to act as his personal escort, with each of the three tribes supplying a centuria (century; company of 100 men). This cavalry regiment was supposedly doubled in size to 600 men by King Tarquinius Priscus (conventional dates 616–578 BC). According to Livy, Servius Tullius also established a further 12 "centuriae" of cavalry. But this is unlikely, as it would have increased the cavalry to 1,800 horse, implausibly large compared to 8,400 infantry (in peninsular Italy, cavalry typically constituted about 8% of a field army). This is confirmed by the fact that in the early Republic the cavalry fielded remained 600-strong (Two legions with 300 horse each).

The royal cavalry may have been drawn exclusively from the ranks of the Patricians ("patricii"), the aristocracy of early Rome, which was purely hereditary, although some consider the supporting evidence tenuous. Since the cavalry was probably a patricianpreserve, it probably played a critical part in the overthrow of the monarchy. Indeed, Alfoldi suggests that the coup was carried out by the "Celeres" themselves. However, the patrician monopoly on the cavalry seems to have ended by around 400 BC, when the 12 "centuriae" of "equites" additional to the original 6 of regal origin were probably formed. Most likely patrician numbers were no longer sufficient to supply the ever-growing needs of the cavalry. It is widely agreed that the new "centuriae" were open to non-patricians, on the basis of a property rating.

According to the ancient Greek historian Polybius, whose "Histories" (written ca. 140s BC) are the earliest substantial extant account of the Republic, Roman cavalry was originally unarmored, wearing only a tunic and armed with a light spear and ox-hide shield which were of low quality and quickly deteriorated in action.

As hoplite warfare was the standard early in this era, cavalry might have not played a substantial role in battle except for chasing after routed enemies.

Republican cavalry (338–88 BC)
Further information: Auxilia

Recruitment
As their name implies, the "equites" were liable to cavalry service in the Polybian legion. "Equites" originally provided a legion's entire cavalry contingent, although from an early stage, when "equites" numbers had become insufficient, large numbers of young men from the First Class of commoners were regularly volunteering for the service, which was considered more glamorous than the infantry. By the time of the Second Punic War, it is likely that all members of the First Class served in the cavalry, since Livy states that members of Class I were required to equip themselves with a round shield ("clipeus"), rather than the oblong shield ("scutum") required of the other classes - and all images of cavalrymen of this period show round shields. It appears that "equites equo privato" (i.e. First Class members) were required to pay for their own equipment and horse, but that the latter would be refunded by the state if it was killed in action. Cavalrymen in service were paid a "drachma" per day, triple the infantry rate, and were liable to a maximum of ten campaigning seasons' military service, compared to 16 for the infantry.

Unit size and structure
Each Polybian legion contained a cavalry contingent of 300 horse, which does not appear to have been officered by an overall commander. The cavalry contingent was divided into 10 "turmae" (squadrons) of 30 men each. The squadron members would elect as their officers three "decuriones" ("leaders of ten men"), of whom the first to be chosen would act as the squadron's leader and the other two as his deputies. From the available evidence, the cavalry of a Polybian legion (and presumably confederate cavalry also) was armored and specialized in the shock charge.

Equipment
The majority of pictorial evidence for the equipment of Republican cavalry is from stone monuments, such as mausoleums, columns, archs and Roman military tombstones. The earliest extant representations of Roman cavalrymen are found on a few coins dated tothe era of the Second Punic War (218–201 BC). In one, the rider wears a variant of a Corinthian helmet and appears to wear greaves on the legs. His body armor is obscured by his small round shield ("parma equestris"). It was probably a bronze breastplate, as a coin of 197 BC shows a Roman cavalryman in Hellenistic composite cuirass and helmet. But the Roman cavalry may already have adopted mail armor ("lorica hamata") from the Celts, who are known to have been using it as early as ca. 300 BC. Mail had certainly been adopted by ca. 150 BC, as Polybius states that the First Class were expected to provide themselves with mail cuirasses and the monument erected at Delphi by L. Aemilius Paullus to commemorate his victory at the Battle of Pydna (168 BC) depicts Roman cavalrymen in mail. However, a coin of 136 BC and the Lacus Curtius bas-relief of the same period show horsemen in composite bronze cuirasses. The Roman saddle was one of the earliest solid-treed saddles in the west was the "four horn" design, first used by the Romans as early as the 1st century BC. Neither design had stirrups.

There is similar uncertainty as to whether cavalrymen carried shields, despite the fact that many Roman military tombstones depict equites with oval shields on the left side of their horses, (not generally used by Greek cavalry until after ca. 250 BC) andthe related question of whether they carried long lances or shorter spears, the "doru" mentioned by Polybius. Most representations show cavalrymen with the "parma equestris," a flat type of shield, but the Ahenobarbus monument of 122 BC and the coin of 136 BC both show cavalrymen without shields. Sidnell suggests that, since "equites" were expected to provide their own equipment, they may have chosen their own type and combination of armor and weapons e.g. long lance with no shield or short spear with shield. But the evidence is too scant to draw any firm conclusions. Before the invention of full plate armor in the High Middle Ages, all combatants would carry shields as a vital piece of equipment.

Pictorial evidence, such as the stele of Titus Flavius Bassus (eques of the ala Noricum) or Tomb monument of a cavalryman from 1st century AD (Romano-Germanic Museum, Cologne Germany) supports literary accounts that "equites" carried swords, such as the spatha which was much longer than "gladii hispanienses" (Spanish swords) used by the infantry. The Ahenobarbus monument also shows a cavalryman with a dagger ("pugio"). There is no evidence that "equites" carried bows and arrows and the Romans probably hadno mounted archers before they came into contact with Parthian forces after 100 BC.

Campaign record
There is a conception that Roman Republican cavalry was inferior to other cavalry and that they were just to support their far superior infantry. However, Philip Sidnell argues that this view is misguided and that the cavalry was a powerful and crucial asset to the Republican army.

Sidnell argues that the record shows that Roman cavalry in Republican times were a strong force in which they bested higher reputed cavalry of the time. Examples include the Heraclea (280 BC), in where the Roman cavalry dismayed the enemy leader Pyrrhus by gaining the advantage in a bitterly contested melee against his Thessalian cavalry, then regarded as some of the finest in the Western world, and were only driven back when Pyrrhus deployed his elephants, which panicked the Roman horses. Other examples include the Equites' victory over the vaunted Gallic horse at Telamon, and Sentinum, against the Germanic cavalry of the Teutons and Cimbri at Vercellae, and even against the technologically more advanced Seleucid cavalry (including fully armored cataphracts) at Magnesia. Contrary to the popular depiction that the legionary infantry were the primary battle winning force of the Roman army, these encounters were primary decided by the success of the Roman cavalry, who crushed the enemies' mounted forces before falling on the flanks of their infantry. At the Clastidium the Roman cavalry were even able to triumph unaided against superior numbers of Gallic foot soldiers and horsemen, showing their ability when properly led.

A key reason for some historians' disparagement of the Roman cavalry were the crushing defeats, at the Trebia and at Cannae, that it suffered at the hands of the Carthaginian general Hannibal during the latter's invasion of Rome (218-6 BC) which were onlyrendered possible because of a powerful cavalry force. But Sidnell argues that this is only because of a consistent numerical superiority in cavalry. Another disadvantage for the Romans in the Second Punic War was that their respective cavalry were meleecavalry better suited for combating enemy melee cavalry and engaging the rear and flanks of infantry formations. This, however useful and effective against the Romans' regular opponents, failed against Hannibal's nimble Numidian light cavalry, whose use of skillful hit and run tactics exasperated the Roman cavalry who were unable to come to grips with them.

Nevertheless, on those occasions during the Second Punic War when they were deployed properly, led competently, and/or had the advantage of numbers or surprise, such as during the skirmish before Ilipa and at the pitched battles of the Great Plains and Zama, the Roman cavalry were able to best their Carthaginian counterparts, independent of the success of their own allied Numidians. On occasion, such as at Dertosa, they were able to hold their own despite being supposedly outnumbered in a skirmish with Carthaginian cavalry.

The Second Punic War placed unprecedented strains on Roman manpower, not least..