Originally posted by Ikki
Because the romans need fight with the
parthians, they used massivelly oriental archers with composite bow
(that arrive to the west with the parthians...) and horse archers in
their main campaigns. |
Only their main campaigns in the Near East, which was
completely typical - they were hiring natives as auxiliaries. You take
what you can get. This was not an empire-wide reform of the Roman
legions themselves - auxiliaries are a different thing altogether.
|
Althougt not was a deep change was very important, and the horse
cavalry was used too in other fronts, as Dacia and frica. That if we
talk about the Principate, with the Dominate there are horse cavalry in
all fronts.
Well, why do you think that the romans enlisted now, in
their elite armies, horse archers and cataphracts? But not like
auxiliars, now at the same level as the legions or superior, because
now with the elite troops as reserve armies the movility of the cavalry
was crucial. |
The majority of the horse archers were found in auxiliar
palatines - which were indeed elites (as elite as auxiliaries can be,
anyway), but most of the auxiliar palatines were made up of Germanic or
Gaul infantry. The elite cavalry were organized in the vexillations -
in which there were no horse archers.
|
Well, when i say that the HA were enlisted in the elite armies i was
thinking in comitatensis, not foreign allies or secundary role like the
limitanei. As you say the majority of these units appear in the Auxilia
Palatina (and the limitanei) but they were enlisted too in the
Vexillationes of the Comitatensis, according to the Notitia Dignitatum,
an example of Comitates army (only cavalry, see "Equites Sagitarii"):
Sub
dispositione viri illustris magistri militum per Thracias :
Vexillationes palatinae tres :
Comites Arcadiaci.
Comites Honoriaci.
Equites Theodosiaci iuniores.
Vexillationes comitatenses .... :
Equites catafractarii Albigenses.
Equites sagittarii seniores.
Equites sagittarii iuniores.
Equites primi Theodosiani.
But in this military question, i have very clear that the
rise of archers, heavy and horse cavalry must be ascribed to the
eastern influence, to a response of the roman to new enemies i think is
impossible refuse this. |
Heavy cavalry actually originates from Alexander's
Companions, not from the East. It was adopted by the Hellenic armies
such as the Parthians, but also by the Romans after their war with
Pyrrhus. |
If you want think that, right, but the roman army didn't take
superheavy cataphracts until the middle of the II century (sarmathian influence), and under
the influence of the sassanid army the Catafracta become the core unit
of the army.
Archers and horse cavalry never formed a signifigant element
of Roman doctrine, except as native auxiliaries - and in this they
aren't any more notable than any of the other native auxiliaries, and
certainly not as numerous. It wasn't something that the Romans
themselves adopted. Clearly they are an Eastern phenomenon, but they
didn't cause any sort of "RMA" (revolution in military affairs) for the
Romans' own forces. |
That isn't true, if you think about the changes in the later roman
empire you will see that the arrival of Heavy Cavalry, Horse archers
and oriental foot archers provoked a great revolution in the roman way
of war that can be see in the byzantine armies, the pinacle of this
change. Althougt during the early empire this units was mainly in
the eastern front we can say, if we follow the evolution of the roman
army, that they were in the vanguard of the roman warfare.
bye
Edited by Ikki