Roman cavalry

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

Just a quick question - is Roman cavalry going to be rubbish, as it was historically, or is it going to be a Rome-centric mod, in which all Roman units must be uber-amazing?

[Cookiegod]

well, that's a comparative question, and I don't know if other Italicans had good cavalry.

[Automatix]

I think that celtic or Tarentine's cavalry was maybe better than romany early cavalry i don't how it were with cartagians' mercenary calvalry units

regards

[SigniferOne]

Roman cavalry wasn't crap nor uber-amazing. It was decent, there just wasn't very much of it. That's what we'll attempt to represent as well. Several factions will have highly effective cavalry forces though.

[DAVIDE]

Roman cavarly had a different strategic duty than other mediterranean counterparts. While Greeks or Carthaginians for example used the cavarly as a hammer, Romans used their cavalry as support to the infantry

[Cookiegod]

well, their equites still weren't that good.
I have a question: Which factions are going to have the highly effective cavalry you spoke off?

[SigniferOne]

Punics, the Greeks, and a few others (visiting Epirus for example).

[avatarius]

yeah i agree

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

Roman cavalry wasn't crap nor uber-amazing. It was decent, there just wasn't very much of it. That's what we'll attempt to represent as well. Several factions will have highly effective cavalry forces though.

I'm afraid I can't find an example where Roman cavalry defeated non-Roman cavalry, and I think that any single example you might provide will be the exception that proves the rule.

There's a reason that Caesar relied so heavily on Celtic auxilliaries.

[SigniferOne]

I'm afraid I can't find an example where Roman cavalry defeated non-Roman cavalry, and I think that any single example you might provide will be the exception that proves the rule.

If you read Books 5-10 of Livy, you will find the Roman cavalry besting cavalry of other armies as much as being bested by them. From this we see a general parity with Italic cavalry in general.

There was furthermore no pronounced weakness during the 2nd Punic War. I.e. the Roman cavalry wasn't proverbially weak to the extent that Hannibal was able to disregard them from consideration.

Overall they were of average importance for the Roman army. Neither overly important, nor insignificant. Without a cavalry of sufficient strength to protect the Roman flanks, the infantry would fold in practically every battle, and this was far from being the case.

[Sargon_of_Akkad]

If you read Books 5-10 of Livy, you will find the Roman cavalry besting cavalry of other armies as much as being bested by them. From this we see a general parity with Italic cavalry in general.

A fair point, but the non-Italic cavalry should be of higher standard (Gallic, Greek and Punic).

There was furthermore no pronounced weakness during the 2nd Punic War. I.e. the Roman cavalry wasn't proverbially weak to the extent that Hannibal was able to disregard them from consideration.

But weak enough so that they'd lose every engagement with Hannibal's cavalry and not cause significant casualties enough to prevent them from being effective in the rest of the battle.

Overall they were of average importance for the Roman army. Neither overly important, nor insignificant. Without a cavalry of sufficient strength to protect the Roman flanks, the infantry would fold in practically every battle, and this was far from being the case.

I'm not so sure, but I don't have time to have a look for examples right now, but I think the Roman infantry was sturdy enough to be able to hold its own.

[SigniferOne]

A fair point, but the non-Italic cavalry should be of higher standard (Gallic, Greek and Punic).

Elite Gallic cavalry will be, no denying. Average horses, no.

But weak enough so that they'd lose every engagement with Hannibal's cavalry and not cause significant casualties enough to prevent them from being effective in the rest of the battle.

But then again so did the infantry. In the beginning. By the end they were not marked by any serious deficiency.

[emperor77]

I think the reason why roman cavalry lost many battles could be numbers as well, normally each legion only had about 300 equites, that would be deployed on the flanks.

[Hister]

Amongst the Italic cavalry PI will portray Campanian cavalry as standing out amongst them

[nlovertoom]

If you read Books 5-10 of Livy, you will find the Roman cavalry besting cavalry of other armies as much as being bested by them. From this we see a general parity with Italic cavalry in general.

HAHA Dropping some sources and knowledge! (love it) 99.9% of people on this forum have not read Livy 5-10 and 99.8% would refuse to do so even after you pointed it out to them

There was furthermore no pronounced weakness during the 2nd Punic War. I.e. the Roman cavalry wasn't proverbially weak to the extent that Hannibal was able to disregard them from consideration.

However, at Cannae it was the 2000+ Roman cavalry that Hannibal crushed easily on the Roman right (an outcome that Hannibal foresaw and planned upon). Now it fairness, the Roman horsemen were heavily outnumbered soooo I agree with your emphasis on lack of numbers rather than lack of quality. Additionally, the completely different tactical outlook of the Romans toward cavalry plays a large roll. And finally, by the Punic War the Roman army consisted of more Latin cavalry than Roman with few clear changes. Thus we may argue that central Italian cavalry as a whole was rather consistent and mostly of average quality.

Overall they were of average importance for the Roman army. Neither overly important, nor insignificant. Without a cavalry of sufficient strength to protect the Roman flanks, the infantry would fold in practically every battle, and this was far from being the case.

Mostly agree (although fold in practically every battle is a bit harsh)